Page 242 – Key Publishing

Fedaykin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,616 through 3,630 (of 5,046 total)

← 1 2 3 … 241 242 243 … 335 336 337 →

Author

Posts
June 4, 2009 at 8:16 pm in reply to: Future AEW platform #2032961

Fedaykin
Participant

To expensive, no real advantage since they are not pressurised.

Its faster and can carry more!

The Sea King AEW has always had the problem that it takes a long time to get on station and when it gets there it has to turn back for home due to fuel considerations.

A recent interview with an RN Admiral (Charier I think) in Aircraft had an interesting line. Basically he stated that he was interested in a palletised solution to the carrier AEW problem, he also stated that this would enable them to use the chosen type as a COD aircraft. This was very interesting considering the US Marines are paying for a study into fitting a palletised version of Cerberus onto the V22, for that matter they are also looking at a palletised version of a hose drum refueling unit as well. This would be a very attractive solution for the RN they get in effect a useful COD type, tanker (solving any range issues with the F35) and an AEW type all at once with the Americans picking up the development costs. If you consider that the cost of the V22 becomes less of an issue for the value added to RN fleet capability. Also push come to shove if they can’t get V22 the palletised AEW system could be fitted to the RAF type Merlin which has a cargo ramp.

May 28, 2009 at 7:56 pm in reply to: Comparing ACES and Falcon Edge?? #2484285

Fedaykin
Participant

Do we have any idea on how the SPS3000 compares to the ACES or Falcon Edge??? As a matter of fact as long as we on the subject. I thought the F-16IN was suppose to have a fair share of Israeli Components???

By all measures the SPS 3000 is an excellent system, the F16I has a very high local content. I think local radar was a big no no for the Americans but after that Israel has been allowed to fit what it wants.

May 28, 2009 at 6:28 pm in reply to: Comparing ACES and Falcon Edge?? #2484581

Fedaykin
Participant

What system is Israel using in there F-16I’s???

The F16I doesn’t use ACES or Falcon edge, Israel specified local avionic systems, the EW package is from Elisra in the form of the SPS3000.

May 27, 2009 at 11:26 pm in reply to: RAF RC-135? #2486649

Fedaykin
Participant

But if forced to make the RC-135/Nimrod choice you have a proven solution with a 28-man crew (including ten Elint and 13 Comint positions) versus an unproven (for the RAF) type with just three Elint positions, an unfamiliar and inferior automated Elint system, and 16 Comint operators.

And that I suppose is the nubb of it!

May 27, 2009 at 9:28 pm in reply to: RAF RC-135? #2486981

Fedaykin
Participant

Anything that allows 51 to continue to do the job it does now (Elint and Comint) is better than a stock (Comint-biased) Rivet Joint – and especially than an RJ based on any of the KC-135Rs now sitting in the boneyard, which are knackered.

But the Nimrod R1 is too small today, and the R5 will not improve that situation.

But it does seem as though a Nimrod based solution is gathering impetus.

I have been pondering the size issue Jack, my thoughts are that the HELIX upgrade was aimed at the Nimrod airframe so it should have involved a degree of miniturisation.

May 27, 2009 at 9:17 pm in reply to: Indian Air Force to Select A330 Tanker? #2487021

Fedaykin
Participant

This press release describes it receiving fuel. Not sure of it delivering.

Picture of it receiving from KC-135FR

Not absolutely clear . . . http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Eads-North-America-988158.html

Thats an amusingly ironic photo there Swerve!

As for all this guff in the Indian press about the snubbing of the Russians it totally ignores the fact that the a330 is a far superior tanker platform then the IL78. Also it should be logistically cheaper to maintain then the IL78, whilst India already operates the Russian type there are far more civil a330 in the world flying giving far better through life costs.

May 27, 2009 at 9:13 pm in reply to: UK Puma refit being held up for political reasons #2487041

Fedaykin
Participant

Good luck finding a fleet of 33 AW149 at £ 8 to 13 million a pop (contract is between £ 250 and 400 million for 33 choppers).

Nic

Good point Nic, but it is interesting that AW intend to place final production of the AW149 in the UK. I think they did that with any future Puma replacement in mind.

May 21, 2009 at 6:30 pm in reply to: CVA-01 Opinions? #2034724

Fedaykin
Participant

Would it be feasable with late 1980s avionics and radars to produce a new version that combined both GR and F variants. It could be the FRS5. Also what would have to be done to navalise a Tornado, whats the shopping list of things?

I think the most major barrier to Tornado navalisation is its rather fragille airframe, early in its career RAF F3 used up their FI points at a frightening rate. Also the RB199 probably wouldn’t give adequate performance in go round situations.

May 21, 2009 at 6:26 pm in reply to: which generation of combat aircraft was the best looking? #2501461

Fedaykin
Participant

true, in which case, the F-35 may verly well be the only “5th gen”, but in this context we’re talking about looks and design 😉

seems like from replies here, most people are into 3-4th gen aircraft. i’m surprised that most aren’t into 5th gen aircraft designs or 1st gen 🙁

The F-35 is a fighter regardless of anything else:D I don’t believe it is 5th generation as I don’t believe in the concept of generations be it 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or any silly .5 that people throw into a thread.

Fighter generations are marketing BS which no country,manufacturer or airforce can agree on.

Case in point I have seen different airforces and manufacturers list late variant Mig29 as 3rd, 4th, 4.5 and 5th generation respectively. Who is right?…nobody as nobody can agree:confused:

May 20, 2009 at 10:18 pm in reply to: D.H.106 Comet 4C s/n SA-R-7 c/n 6461 ??? #2502129

Fedaykin
Participant

This is the modern millitary aviation secton of the forum, you should of posted this question in the historic section.

May 20, 2009 at 10:16 pm in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world – II #2502134

Fedaykin
Participant

Retiring F16’s will be transferred to AMARG for storage pending parts recovery for the active fleet (much like the early F/A18 and F15 which have been extensively parted out now) or reserved for QF-16 target drone conversion. The last QF-4 are going through conversion and the F-16 is the type slated to replace it.

May 20, 2009 at 8:12 pm in reply to: Boneing 5th or 6th generation fighter concept #2502267

Fedaykin
Participant

My point exactly.

Just one example. Tornado has being designed for deep penetrations into Soviet airspace at low level, WITHOUT support and possible delivery of nuclear weapons on high priority targets…
I’ve been “out of a loop” in terms of modern aircraft for some time now, but I’m pretty sure no one built a plane more capable in its class, for the same role.
So, Tornado, despite being 3rd (or I don’t know which) generation, is still the most capable deep strike aircraft in the world, whether, it’s the current “name of the game”, or not.

Just take 2003 and air assaults on Iraqi airfield. Who did it? Tornado, while all those “x generation”, super, mega, ultra, twin-turbo fighter, sit on the ground waiting for an “old bucket” to clear the way…

Cheers, Cola

The Tornado IDS was most certainly not designed for deep penetration strike into Soviet airspace it didn’t have the range apart from anything else.

MRCA or Tornado as it came to be known was designed to be a multi role strike aircraft operating at low level within the FEBA. It did have a limited nuclear capability but not for use against priority targets deep within Soviet airspace. The nukes would of been used against forward airfields and tank formations breking through NATO defences in Germany (God Forbid!).

May 17, 2009 at 9:35 pm in reply to: which generation of combat aircraft was the best looking? #2503702

Fedaykin
Participant

Well as you all know I don’t believe in the concept of fighter generations…(I have said it enough times on this forum that avionics are the key not the time the airframe was made and all the generation stuff is marketing BS!:D)

But I must admit I do like the look of the Swiss Mirage 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpKqDVRjCA

May 1, 2009 at 12:12 pm in reply to: If a Chinese Aircraft Carrier Moves 2 Miles, Is it News? #2036195

Fedaykin
Participant

a tug each on the port and starboard frontflanks for steering and a couple of tugs in the rear for moving. What would those latter tugs be pushing up against? Rudders?

What are the tides and streams doing overthere (could you just float her, using the natural flows and current, with tugs just for steering and braking?)

Don’t know about the tides in the area but the Varyag isn’t something you want to let drift around on a wim. She represents a fairly big shipping hazard so the tugs would need to keep her in close check. Actually if you look at the recent pics of the INS Vikramaditya being towed out they are doing pretty much what is being done with the Varyag:

April 30, 2009 at 11:38 pm in reply to: If a Chinese Aircraft Carrier Moves 2 Miles, Is it News? #2036214

Fedaykin
Participant

Incidentally, that may just be ‘it has no functioning engines’…

In the pics I’ve seen, there are no tugs towing. However, there are also no wake and no exhaust from the stack. So, it is anybody’s gues if she moved under her own power.

But you don’t put a ship in drydock unless you plan to do something to it….
and you don’t need the ship in drydock to fit is out…

She had several tugs in close attendance, if it was a short move they might not want to set up a full tow line but rather nudge her in the direction they want.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 3,616 through 3,630 (of 5,046 total)

← 1 2 3 … 241 242 243 … 335 336 337 →