FedaykinVery curious comment about 38 minutes in by Admiral Hussain in respect of sharing with the Americans and commonality. He said they want to have the same solution for Air to Air refueling. Considering the Americans use Super Hornet for that I found it an interesting statement, does that mean they intend to clear the Cobham refueling pod on the F35C (a good idea to my mind) and are the Royal Navy looking at the small print of the A330MRTT PFI contract to get around it?
Oh and the whole two rail four rail thing made me want to scream at my laptop screen! Admiral Hussain clearly said its “The same” and we are just fitting less on our carriers and you still had the stupid MP’s going on as if there was a major technical difference! I just don’t understand why Admiral Hussain didn’t just say:
1 rail = 1 catapult
2 rail = 2 catapult
4 rail = 4 catapult
Each rail or catapult is exactly the same!
Then again I get a vibe that just as they changed subject he realised that they didn’t understand that very simple concept!
FedaykinOdd to watch really, starts off with Margaret Hodge (who clearly hasn’t got a clue what she is talking about) saying lets all be friendly and then she picks a fight!
FedaykinFedaykinI doubt we will get any pictures of her on those initial trials just in case she has any embarrassing break downs, they won’t want pictures floating about of her being towed back by Ocean tugs. You might get some pics of her docking once she is back from all those people camped out at Dailan Ikea.
This will be a very quick jaunt to find issues with the propulsion and navigation system set up. They need to see if her propellers are balanced properly and that things like the rudders are giving no trouble. There are so many sub systems from ballast pumps through to the water mains that need checking that I bet she will have a huge defects list when she gets back.
FedaykinI would think they will do the same as the Indians have with INS Vikramaditya, install steam turbines powered by MDO fired boilers. The Chinese have plenty of experience with that kind of propulsion. I would also presume they have installed a few diesels to provide back up electrical power, again Chinese industry makes a number of different modern types for example the Shaanxi 16 PA6V-280 which is installed in the Type 54a frigate.
FedaykinFrankly I am in two minds about this aircraft, whilst I am pleased to see her saved I would rather she was back here in Britain. On the other hand it will probably be easier with the American authorities allowing her to fly.
FedaykinWell things are moving quickly now, she has a crew and it looks like she is going out for a quick trial in the next few days to check propulsion systems.
The last part of that report is slightly stupid in respect of arresting gear, recent pictures clearly showed work with cranes over the area where the arresting gear engines would be located. There is no need to run the cables across the deck when they are probably still a fair way off starting fixed wing landing trials. It they were not going to operate fixed wing off it they wouldn’t of bothered with the JBD or FLOLS sight.
FedaykinTeer and CAT1 for the sanity of the rest of the forum members can you please stop having tit for tat quote battles. Its really difficult to follow and just clutters up the forum.
Can you gather your thoughts together into a couple of paragraphs of writing rather then quote every other line.
Thanks
FedaykinOf course another issue is the reluctance of the civil operators of types like the L100 and AN-12 to actually retire them. They might be old but operating in Africa they are cheap. The AN-12 is actually banned now from many places but in Africa you still seeing them slog on! Heck the AN-8 had its air worthiness certificate removed and they are still flying in some parts of the world. As for civilian C-130/L100 operators there are a number of fairly cheap overhaul programs offered for the type, the engines are bullet proof and required avionics can be spliced in easily. For example TIMCO aerospace offer an overhaul program that will in effect zero time the centre wing box of a C130/L100 for between 5 and 6 million US. So we are talking about a VERY small niche civilian market for the C-390.
A company like Lynden Air Cargo would be the kind of target for Embraer’s sales people but I think it would be a tough sale going on what I have just said above. Does the C-390 have the kind of rough field capability that this type of operator requires? This is from Lyndens website:
The ability to land on short, packed-earth, gravel or ice runways of only 5,000 feet in length and 75 feet in width.
Looking aside from the small operators in Africa and the middle east who might operate one or two An-12 the major players in this market like Lynden are mainly servicing the Oil and Gas industry who want to move unusual equipment quickly to austere locations. The big cargo airlines like DHL and Fedex are operating a regular global scheduled service to major airports, they are only interested in regular airline types as they fit into a scheduled service, quicker and easy to maintain in those locations. Oil and Gas industry transport isn’t like that, BP for example might want to move a special piece of drill equipment from Germany to Africa quickly. Ship and truck will take too long and increase costs as the site is waiting for the piece of equipment, a regular cargo airline doesn’t do charter work of that kind and can’t fly a 757 into an austere location (As a side note some of these charter operators are obtaining civil types like the 757 and flying them into fairly austere locations like Antarctica). On the other hand Lynden or similar can have a C130 flown into Germany, loaded up and flying to Africa quickly. The cost of hiring the Hercules vs the cost of holding up the facility is perfectly reasonable for the Oil and Gas industry.
FedaykinI wouldn’t call Kopp a troll, he is still published in respect publications like Air Forces Monthly among others and I would say his reports on radars are required reading for the layman. The problem is his paranoia over the rest of Asia and his obsession with the F22. Add to that his fantasy plans for the Australian Air Force like KC747, Super F-111 and F22 along with his doing down of anything chosen by the Australian armed forces that isn’t the F-22! He liked the Super Hornet right up to the moment that the Australians decided to replace the F-111 with it whereupon he hated itl! Its that kind of stuff that can be tiresome but he isn’t crazy like Mike Sparks.
FedaykinConsidering what’s happening in Libya, & the much greater strength of the Syrian forces compared to those of Libya, this is totally loopy. Mr Rogozin can’t believe what he’s saying. He’s grandstanding, talking nonsense for effect.
Totally agree Swerve, clearly grandstanding! If NATO was going to intercede in the Syrian situation it would already of happened. As for Iran, blowback would just be too big.
FedaykinThat one can be translated as Solo Mission, the land-based cruise missile launch sequence was shot in Crimea, Balaklava base.
At least they’ve got the uniforms more or less right, when watching some of th Bond movies or Red Dawn or whatever, the only suitable description for Soviet uniforms was – OMFG! 😀 Arnie was great as a Russian cop as well 😀
Thanks for the info, I think I’m going to carry on finding these films as they are fantastic. Can’t help but compare them to 80’s movies like Rambo 2 and 3, actually it makes me wonder if they were in some form a response to those Western movies. All we need is a Soviet version of Top Gun and my week would be complete:D
FedaykinIt has been suggested before but the BBMF costs peanuts in respect of the defence budget.
FedaykinProblem with that is it requires Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and Boeing to continue work supporting the Harrier and I doubt they want to much beyond the US Marine Corp retirement of the type.
Other option is for the Spanish and Italians to dust of some CATOBAR carrier concepts.
FedaykinAs others have said I’m not prepared to write this film off purely on a thirty second advert. Also the if aint 100% accurate don’t make it it brigade comments have been bordering on snobbery. The quality of CGI has been argued to death over the years but the fact is its the only way a film like this is ever going to be made these days consider:
Films like Battle of Britain were made during the circumstances of the time, they were able to get away with far more due to the fact most of the aircraft used at the time were due for the scrapyard and smelter. There just wasn’t the preservation interest at the time meaning the film company could treat the aircraft like cr@p. Now they are rare and valuable far reducing the kind of flight scenes you can do with them.
Insurance and health and safety! Over the years there have been some terrible deaths of stunt pilots during the filming of movies. That doesn’t wash these days in our litigation happy world. CGI removes that risk!
Going back to the if aint 100% accurate don’t make it snobbery all I can say is “get real”! Some of our greatest and most rightly acclaimed war movies are not accurate…some massively so. For example ZULU, a total masterpiece of a movie and story telling but horribly inaccurate when it comes to events, tactics and equipment! Or how about Dambusters or The Battle of Britain…riddled with inaccuracies but rightly acclaimed.
There was a time when war movies were made which were just fun and with no relation to actual events, films like Kelly’s Heroes would never of been made under the criteria espoused by some here.
If it really offends your sensibilities then don’t watch it but don’t suggest that people who enjoy it are somehow simpletons! If it does suck then fine but give it a chance…
Sign In
