mattPhill your on the runway mate well done. Who needs a parachute.. looks like a great game
mattFor my dream Airforce id have
1) Gripen
2) Mig29 with modern avionics and HOTAS suite
3) X-29 with TVC.
4) and AWACs
5) last but not least UCAVS controlled by ground or awacs (i dont think autonomous tech is that good at moment) as the mud movers..
mattOki fair comment, but i took it for granted that since i was debating with u, you would understand it was you who i was speaking to and not “China”….
but anyways
point taken
mattOriginally posted by plawolf
“erm no special treatment honestly, i was just listing everything i could think of, and it was you i was having the lil debate with no the CCP”:confused: refresh my memory well u, when did i have a debate with u on the CCP?
my bad on that one, typos. i meant “lil debate with NOT the chinese comunist party” and u can add to that China.
“werent trying to be patronising, you think putting in toilets is a joke? its prob one of the more important things.”
i thought i made it clear with this part of one of my posts (quoted below) that i only wanted to discuss the important differences between the hull of a warship and the hull of a civilian ship.
(“and what exactly is the difference between the HULL of a warship and the HULL of a civilain ship? (and please dont bore everyone by listing all the trivial differences, what fundamental difference is there between how the HULL of a mordern warship differs for the HULL of a civilian ship? “)
so u must have some pretty major reaons to bring up toilets, what was it? did u think chinese built ships didnt have them or that the chinese designers working on a future carrier would forget them? :rolleyes:
Yes there was, just trying to show you.. NOT CHINA lol.. that its not as simple as knocking up a hull, yeah ott with the list i put but i wanted to show you! i say again You (unless you represent china) that its not soo simple.
matterm no special treatment honestly, i was just listing everything i could think of, and it was you i was having the lil debate with no the CCP, werent trying to be patronising, you think putting in toilets is a joke? its prob one of the more important things.
mattOriginally posted by plawolf
so u were patronising me by ‘reminding’ us that we need to put toilets on ships?:rolleyes:
us? you talk about your self in the third person now? Hmm oki!
huh???? for your last part.
mattOriginally posted by plawolf
Matt:” wasnt being patronising, i was pointing out some things on the ship :P”
1) :rolleyes: oh, did i think too highly of u then?
“and its not adequate to only rely on Anti missile missile armaments when building a ship thats just plain silly to say the least you have to sort out the materials and ballistics.”
2) :rolleyes: as i already pointed out, u cant make a hull ‘missile proof’ without going to outragouse extremes. have u ever seen a warship up close? have u seen how thick their hulls are?
just compair that to the front end of most MBTs, and their hulls cant withstand a 50lb missile warhead, how thick do u think the hull of a ship would need to be to withstand a 1 ton warhead at flying at it at march 5?:rolleyes:
the days when warships were built like battle tanks are long gone. today ships rely on shooting the enemy first to prevent a missile flying at them. failing that, they try to stop the missile hitting the ship through either EW or physically interception it (SAMs, CIWS), failing that, the ships are built to minimise the chances of the ship being sunk by having lost of watertight compartments that can be sealed to minimise the parts of the ship exposed to fire and the sea.
3) no ship is unsinkable, the best ppl can do is make it as difficult to sink as possible, provided its economically viable.
“And when did PLAWOLF become the country of China? AFAIK he is in the UK studying in the UK.”
4) :rolleyes: and whats that have to do with anything? running out of excuses are we?
]
Wow a love letter, my first one.. 😮 thank you thank you.
1) I am here to share opinion and keep my self updated on Mil avi news and things, i have learnt lots from people like Arthur, SOC and Harry etc.. i am not here to gain respect, i dont really care what u think.
2) So i guess the Navy are stupid to build ships using pre defined balistic limits, i have them if u want me to post it i can, well for the RN i can anyways. just a Diag of what is acceptable to them 😛
3) where have i ever said that a ship can be unsinkable? i am just saying it has to be survivable for the crew, and nothing thinking of materials and impact and relying only on things like phalanx and PAAMs is nuts.
4) no that was to a comment saying i was patronising China, i was just pointing out to him that you are not the country, only one member on this forum who is being educated in the UK.
@SOC.
What happened to the USS Cole was sad, but put in enough explosive behind a shapped coper or metalic plate and you can blow a hole in almost anything, thats the beauty of shaped charges Check out the Tank busting ROBOTS that DARPA is working on in the same vein, Missiles or phalanx is not going to help u against those nutters.
And had that material not matched up to MIL std (prob same as the ASTM and the ISO’s (replacing both ASTM and BS??)) ,
That ship would have sustained worse damage then it did..
I am not saying that bulk heads are designed to take direct hits by a 500Kg warhead, i dont know, i wasnt told that, but i was told that bulk heads and doors are tested with explosives and enemy missiles in mind.
p.s. i skipped the para about the MBT’s sorry feeling lazy and tired.
mattPentagon Contract Announcement
(Source: US Department of Defense; issued Jan. 5, 2004)
–Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $302,100,000 firm-fixed-price/cost-plus fixed-fee contract modification.
This undefinitized contractual action is in support of F/A-22 long lead activities including diminishing manufacturing sources; performance based agile logistics support, producibility improvement program efforts from January 1, 2004 through Feb. 29, 2004.
At this time, $124,400,000 of the funds has been obligated. The locations of performance are Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Marietta Ga. (33%), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas (35%), and The Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash. (32%). This work will be completed by February 2004.
The Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is the contracting activity.
–Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $65,200,000 firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide for F/A-22 program support and annual sustaining for Period G, Jan. 1, 2004 through Feb. 29, 2004.
At this time, the total amount of funds has been obligated. The locations of performance are Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Marietta Ga. (33%), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas (35%), and The Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash. (32%). This work will be completed by February 2004.
The Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is the contracting activity
-ends-
~~~~
No wonder its not replacing the F-15’s just yet.
So i guess that replacement role will be upto the JSF’s? with the JSF’s being (please excuse this very sorry) the new mud movers, and the F-22’s being the knights of the square circle..
mattwater would bulk up some polymers, even epoxy resins take up water, and GRPs can do also
It doesnt oxidise the polymers iirc, just bulks it, makes the chains weak IIRC. cant rem exact chemistry.
mattFav aircraft
DH.88 Comet
but for modern its got to be the SAAB Gripen
matthttp://www.bharat-rakshak.com will have all the info you need about the IAF they guys do a pretty good job and its detailed to say the least but I am not sure on the validity of the data presented.
and this is also pretty handy to have i guess.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/index.html
It doesnt mention the F-15C having AESA, and i doubt the USA will want to use it in India either, it would be too tempting for India to add the radar to its library.
matthave you heard if phill?
mattdid i just miss some thing?
I wasnt being patronising, i was pointing out some things on the ship 😛 .. and its not adequate to only rely on Anti missile missile armaments when building a ship thats just plain silly to say the least you have to sort out the materials and ballistics.
And when did PLAWOLF become the country of China? AFAIK he is in the UK studying in the UK.
mattVictor i have some questions.
if it was a no alternative situation in regards to replacing the older prowlers and F-14’s, why go for a brand new aircraft that is less combat capable then the one its replacing?
would it not have been possible to start up an assembly line for the F-14’s? or even use the F-16E airframe and use it in different forms? I know its not a perfect solution but its got to be a cheap one compared to the super hornet ( an i do just mean the F-16 airframe not talking about the expensive gear, well not in all cases but i guess for the ECM work and some other duties it would need to be kitted well).
or is the cost of the F/A-18 Superhornet, still low enough that it can be used as a stop gap for 10 years? I only ask because i worry that congress or boeing 10 years from now will say its a great aircraft and its still flying lets make more and cut the JSF production.
mattSo it is the streangth of breadsticks? so u guys make boats and destroyers with breadsticks ?:confused:
SO how many days till we see a sqaudron of J-10’s
Sign In
