FedaykinWhen the draken was is service with Austria was this ever wired for nuclear weapons? Was Austria part of the US/NATO Nuclear weapons sharing agreement?
Also i take it Sweden would not have them wired for Nuclear weapons as they didn’t have any as far as i know. Did the drakens ever get used for ground attack i’ve often thought of it as just an Air to Air fighter and a damn good one at that. Sweden consistently pull good items out the bag for being a small country.
The Draken was built by Sweden a neutral non nuclear power.
Austria is a neutral non nuclear power.
So no there would of been no nuclear capability on the Austrian Draken, for that matter they had a guns only capabilty only gaining surplus Swedish aim9 Sidewinder in 1993. They also received RWR and chaff/flare dispensers fairly late from retired Danish Draken with Valmet of Finland doing the work.
When Austria purchased the Draken they had been offered surplus English Electric Lightning which more life on them, interesting what if but I feel they got the better deal in the Draken.
FedaykinOne thing I have noted in recent pictures and now this video of the new carriers is I don’t see any jet blast deflectors anymore.
Considering the power of the engines fitted to the F35 I would of thought they would be a rather essential feature if they didn’t want to melt the nose off the fighter waiting behind to take off plus the general hazard for the crewman operating on deck. Maybe a holdback system like that fitted to the Admiral Kuznetsov would be a good idea as well.
Fedaykin9. US equipment is superior, that is why it is bought
Not going to bother going over the other points as it has been done to death now but I think point 9 is worth looking at as it made me laugh!:rolleyes:
So really your saying that in the world of defence equipment if there is a system or weapon that is made in America with an equivalent from another country the US version must be better! Hmmm …really everything?!
I think you will find many systems and weapons made outside the US that is superior to anything made in America, often proven in competative testing in America…to pick up some:
Would you say the Paladin Artillary system in its latest incarnation is better then the PZH2000 from Germany.
Or the M60 is better then FN MAG from Belgium (ah well considering the MAG is in US service now…)
Or what about the British Spearfish in comparison to the MK48 ADCAP…no comparison!
Is the Vulcan 20mm M113 tracked air defence system better then the Russian Tunguska GBADS…
Really its a childish argument…
FedaykinI think you need to find out a little more about the CVF design, & what ships the UK already has.
The CVFs are designed to carry troops, & carry out airborne amphibious assault. The only thing an LHD can do that a CVF can’t is offload heavy vehicles over a beach, by using landing craft operating from its dock. But the UK already has 6 dock-equipped ships that can do that (Albion, Bulwark & the Bay-class). The UK also has 6 ro-ro cargo ships (Point-class) that can carry vehicles, including tanks, & Mexeflote lighters which can carry heavy gear from those ships to shore, in the right conditions.
Fitting docks to CVFs to turn them into LHDs would reduce their speed, increase their fuel consumption, & reduce their aircraft carrying capacity. Since we already have plenty of ships with docks, & plenty of other ships which can carry vehicles but not aircraft, we don’t need LHDs. We need replacements for the aircraft-carrying capacity of the Invincible class ships.
Thanks Swerve, I forgot the Point class! Add to that the RFA Argus a vessel which has given us a lot of bang for our buck!
With Albion, Bulwark, Ocean, four Bay class, six point class and RFA Argus the UK has an Amphibious assault capability second only to America.
Actually the Auxillary Bay class are better then what many navies around the world field. Amazing considering the Nott defence review of 81 was going to get rid of our amphibious capabilty all together!
On another note I will never forget the time I got to stand on RFA Argus deck, she was huge!!!!!:D Well considering she is the largest vessel in UK service until the Queen Elizabeth enters service what can you say;)
Actually Argus and Ark Royal are two names the RN saves for future vessels, well for that matter I would like to see an Eagle and Hermes again…
FedaykinRe hi gyus
(sorry for my bad english:p)The Royal Navy has suffered from years of very dramatic budget cuts (and this cuts probably “continus” in the 2010’s).
It is known that the royal navy would:
– 2 large aircraft carrier
– 12 destroyers
– Around 16/22 frigates
– 10/11 SSN
but the reality is the budget constraint!being given that the number of F-35 order will probably be revised downwards (150…>…75/80?….even minus ???:() and that the RAF is doing everything to weaken the Royal navy…
Does it not better to have large ships more modular & flexible, because large aircraft carrier….. take only aircraft & helicopters (& eventually troops) …
The LHD is more flexible, they take Aircraft, helicopters, troops……&…..tanks, others military vehicles & amphibious craft:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
For that, I think 2 large LHD would be more effective than 2 aircraft carriers for the royal navy…:rolleyes:
Pure aircraft carrier are flexible platforms as has been proven many times over the years.
You forget the RN already has Albion, Bulwark, Ocean and four Bay class vessels for amphibious operations…you saying seven vessels built for amphibious assault are not enough?
Fedaykini found some interesting news on the PLAN’s new aircraft carriers.
according to this news source, it appears that the indigenuos carrier will be more of a xerox copy of the varyag/kuznetsov :confused:http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/chongqing_timesjuly_6_2009_in.php
That model has been around for a while now, the new carriers probably will be heavily influenced by Russian carrier design concepts but I do see them incorporating ideas learned from the west as well. They did pull HMAS Melbourne apart first and there is rumers that they have been testing a catapult with various types for years.
FedaykinWe have the discretion to exempt military tankers from the law. It was stated at one time that we would not exercise that discretion, but never trust a politician.
I think this is what is going to happen for the moment, it will be embarrasing flouting the rules with a technicality but I can’t see the RN wanting to loose the capability.
FedaykinWith how important the Persian Gulf is to the world I would think upgrading the Iraqi navy would be a top priority. I know it wwould take some years to get the personel properly trained but I do not think it will take a decade. The new Nakhoda Ragam Class ships would be a great asset in protecting Iraq’s oil and shipping lanes. They could be purchased and based outside the country and cadets could start training on them immediately.
the Iraqi navy is barely a coastguard force at the moment, they do not have the capacity yet to operate a Corvette like the Nakhoda Ragam.
Anyway if Iraq did decide that it wanted to step up to a Corvette capability there are two Assad class sitting in Le Spezia Italy which they technically own. There was some noise in 2005 about releasing them to Iraq but they don’t want them, on the other hand they don’t appear to be keen on allowing Italy to release them for sale which tells me they are hedging their bets at the moment.
FedaykinA rather bemusing day to say the least, at the same time as first steel was being cut for the Queen Elizabeth the anti carrier brigade were out in full force with the anouncement of the Defence review.
What irritates me is the term “Cold War Relic”, which the supporters of the three different services use to attack the other services major equipment programs. In reality for each service the major equipment programs be it Typhoon, CVF or FRES are all about retaining the ability to fight a hot war against a medium to high tech foe.
What bothers me is we are now out of Iraq and now are only in Afghanistan, if we go on a massive rethink and buy lots of counter insurgency kit what happens when we leave Afghanistan? We are left with lots of kit which is little use against a decent opponent. Also canceling programs we have spent millions (or even billions on) up to this point seems rather foolish. For example CVF has had millions spent on it including long leed items and even Steel.
FedaykinNo no… SLAF never had PL-9C. That was just me saying they should buy it..
When the SLAF acquired the J-7G variant they also got PL-5 missiles (No official comment about the variant but several sources stated PL-5E).
When the SLAF managed to shoot-down one of the LTTE planes, the LTTE said to have done some heavy modification around the engine. Heavily armor plating, some kinda IR counter measures etc. When the LTTE resumed their air-strikes sometime later they flew much lower and the trip to Colombo took twice as long. Their 1st mission after the modification was to target a thermal power plant. The story goes (OFF THE RECORD), the SLAF got adequate early warning via the ground based RADARs but the signal was much weaker than previous occasion since they were flying even lower than what they used do. But SLAF had enough time to get F-7 in the air and at one point one of the F-7 managed acquire an LTTE plane via its RADAR (KLJ-6E) from 1000m above, but when the pilot tried to get a lock with the PL-5….it was unable to do so…:eek: 😮 😮 pilot had tried several times but to no effect. At one time it was rumored that Ministry Of Power & Energy official were afraid that the missile might Lock-on to heat source of the thermal power station 😮 That mission was aborted and LTTE managed to put the power plant out of commission for 6-months. Fortunately the LTTE bomb did not hit the bulls-eye otherwise the damage could have been much worse.
This incident really baffled/spooked the SLAF (understandably). The missile again failed to lock-on on the LTTE’s last mission to Colombo (the kamikaze mission). But fortunately the gunners on the ground managed to shoot one down and the other due to heavy fire just couldn’t maneuver and smashed into the Inland Revenue Building (the tax department/IRS….of all buildings…:D:D:D)…..
But anyway…the lock-on failure was no laughing matter…
Officially the SLAF said “We could not shoot down the planes due to technical reasons/difficulties”….
I stand happily corrected QuantumFX, I should really remember to check Chinese missile designations on the Sinodefence website.
Thankyou for some interesting insights into the intercept of LTTE aircraft with the F7.
As for the future I would think the Mig27’s days are numbered as it was purchased purely to give some extra punch to the Ground attack capability of the air force. The Kfir will be around for a while and in the recent AFM article the air force said they were very happy with the capability of the F7. I don’t really see the Mig29 in Sri Lankan service but I can see the JF17.
Fedaykinehem…… 😀
anyway…
what I was trying to say is that Israeli weapons are out of sight for Sri Lanka… so no Kfir upgrades… even if it was affordable.
MiG-29 is still long way off for SL.
Probably, more F-7SG and importantly get some PL-9C missiles. The LTTE air-threat is over for the foreseeable future, but the SLAF learnt a good lesson when their PL-5(E?) failed to lock on :eek:….. I wonder whether they found out what the LTTE had done specially from the plane shot down near Katunayake AFB.
I doubt the LTTE did anything actually, the PL-9C is not the most advanced of missiles your probably asking a lot of it to track the exhaust of a small light aircraft.
FedaykinOr simply buy from a proven supplier that has been giving them air-refuelling tankers for over 50 years – Boeing.
The KC-767AT meets or exceeds all operational needs. It is a proven design and ready for series production right now. And it is more suitable for the USAF needs.But due to liberal fascists in the government the tender had been made to fit the French plane.
What a load of uneducated racist bunkum!
How can you possibly have a “Liberal Facist”!
Liberalism and Facism are two totally different politcal view points at completely different ends of the political spectrum!
I have reported your post and I hope the MODS see fit to remove your account for saying such a thing, you are not welcome!
FedaykinFinally, with chinese or russian engine???
1Saludo
Without a doubt Russian albeit supplied from China.
FedaykinRead the GAO ruling.
If that is not enough to convince you, read the (KC-X Source Selection Team) Agency report [but when doing so remember what you read in the GAO ruling].
I have read the GAO report several times and in their conclusion they are at pains to point out that it should not reflect on the merits of either aircraft.
Also the majority of Boeing complaints are thrown out in the report, the major issue I can see is the dive and breakaway performance of the KC30 which didn’t meet KPP, on the other hand Northrop Grumman had proposed a solution for the development phase and the test team accepted it. The GAO’s issue with that is the solution would possibly (only possibly) require FAA certification which would bring in risk into the program and the airforce should of accounted for that. The GAO didn’t say that the Airforce sholuldn’t of selected the KC30 on this basis.
FedaykinThat’s balony! If only because then any jet fighter with a vulcan 20mm gun would be equally well armed (gun wise) as an A-10 (which also fires that subcaliber round)
These are the two different munitions:
20×102 (as used in US M39 and M61 Vulcan, GIAT 20M621)
30×173 (as used in GAU-8/A: an alloy-cased KCA, also used in Bushmaster II, Mauser MK 30F)See pics below from Tony William’s website, showing the difference in size both of the rounds and the projectiles they contain.
Clearly the 30×173 (2nd from the right) round is far larger than the 20×102 (leftmost)
Clearly, the subcaliber projectile (“dart”) from the 30×173 is larger than that of the 20×102 (which, though shown only in saboted form, is obviously smaller than the 25mm in saboted form, the penetrator of which is obviously smaller than the 30mm penetrator). Therefore, it is likely heavier (unless the dart of the 20×102 is DU and that of the 30×173 is made from a less dense and heavy material, in which case weight may be closer together)Projectile velocities, measured in metres per second at or close to the muzzle:
20 x 102 : 1,030
30 x 173 : 1,080
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ammotables.htmSo, 30×173 is much bigger round (> better range, faster projectile) with a bigger, heavier and slightly faster subcaliber projectile (> greater Kinetic Energy > greater penetration/destruction).
Well thankyou for the polite and reasoned answer Wanshan:rolleyes:
But don’t shoot the messenger, I’m not talking about the full size aircraft rounds but rather the subcaliber munitions. Also as I said I was quoting a USN study which stated the sub caliber dart from either system would mess up a missile in much the same way.
So indeed if you want go to America and tell them that their thinking is balony but don’t say it to me.
Sign In
