dark light

Fedaykin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 4,681 through 4,695 (of 5,046 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2593203
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Talking about the A400 and air to air refueling:

    http://www.flight-refuelling.com/news/jul06/21jul_a400m.htm

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2593220
    Fedaykin
    Participant
    in reply to: F4 Phantom Video #1261142
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Cyprus APC I think youll find…great video still watch it!! Also some great Falklands footage

    Stand corrected! At least 10 years since I last watched it.

    As for flying the Phantom in private hands lovely idea but those nasty boys in the CAA say no.

    Of course these are the same people who say we can’t fly the Lightning in the UK because civilians aren’t up to it (ignoring the fact that the people who flew and service it are here and the examples that are taxiable are kept flight worthy) when its alright in South Africa a country which never operated the type.

    in reply to: Iran to buy Su-25T #2593260
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Its certainly an important development for Sukhoi as the Iranians tend to be against foreign aircraft purchases at the moment on the grounds of lack of technology transfer.

    in reply to: The 8000t "harrier carrier" concept? #2045391
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    The thing is when the Harrier first went to Sea everyone said it was going to lead to a renaissance of carrier aviation. It never really happened even with VSTOL operations its still an expensive game and most nations don’t need a deep water carrier capability, most nations use their navies for coastal defence and their ships can be easily protected by aircraft from the airforce.

    Considering the cost of the aircraft, ship, equipment and training it just isn’t reasonable for most navies to play that kind of game.

    Whilst its true there are a number of Harriers coming onto the market in a few years time they also going to be time expired or close to time expired. Thailand has had a great deal of problems keeping the ex Spanish AV8A’s in the air and would really benefit from a purchase of AV8B but in the end there aren’t any airframes to spare and I doubt they could afford it. Of the ex RN Sea Harriers the only useful ones are the new build examples from the nineties which are probably going to India anyway, the airframes that were converted from FRS1 are worn out and not a wise purchase.

    The only countries who might add a carrier capability if money is available when the F-35 comes online are Australia and Japan who have both expressed an interest in the capability.

    in reply to: Pakistan Navy #2045396
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Or simply remove the Mk-13 launcher and replace it with a small (8-12 space) Mk-41 VLS system in the space vacated, then fill it with quad-packed VL Sea Sparrow.

    VLSS gives away very little against SM-1 in capability and has the advantage that it has a defined development path, whereas SM-1 is at a dead end.

    Unicorn

    Thanks for the heads up on the type of rail launcher, I considered replacing the MK-13 with MK-41 VLS much like the Australians did with there OHP’ and it certainly is a good solution.

    The main reason I suggested some form of box launcher is because it might be more affordable.

    As the SM-1 is still quite a good system and I’m sure the Americans would give them a reasonable reserve sock I would thought an upgrade would be several years down the line if they were given OHP. Then of course Pakistan would be more free to do whatever upgrades they wanted much like the Tariq class (Type 21). In those circumstances I could see the LY-60N being more desirable to Pakistan especially if they decide to retire the Tariq class and strip their launchers.

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2593695
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    A bored sounding NASA F/A18 Pilot tanking from a KC10

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UpJf9gnBhk&mode=related&search=

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2593705
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    As this is now turning into an Air to Air refueling thread heres a video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0YOJlTM0j4&NR

    I find it fascinating that up to this day the USAF fighter community would be happy to sink the money needed to go over to probe type refueling on their fighter types.

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2593719
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I found this fascinating official American report on the pros and cons of the different refueling methods employed by America.

    I find it particularly interesting that the USAF fighter community would prefer hose and drogue.

    I also like the bit where it says the USN pilots found the RAF tankers a godsend and the Silent heroes of the 2003 Afghan campaign.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2593727
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I can understand why the RAF didn’t go for the Boom system initially, aside from a healthy not invented here syndrome when it comes to this matter the RAF initially only considered air to air refueling suitable for fighter types where the drogue offload rate is acceptable and the RAF would probably had to buy the system off the shelf from Boeing for a price.

    The Probe and Drogue system was home brewed and easily adaptable to types already in service. I have a hunch that it would of been a pain fitting the Boom systems to the Valiant or Victor and Boeing would probably prefered selling us a UK KC-135 variant then the kit. Of course when the RAF was doing CORPORATE the big old KC-135 would of been a godsend with its larger offload rate.

    Now that we are buying/leasing a tanker type which has the option of a boom it seems logical to take up the option of some boom equipped examples. It could still have a centre line HDU like the KC-10 and we would have greater tactical flexability when it comes to operating our E-3D and C-17. We would also be able to interoperate with allies better a number of whom who do use the boom.

    Whilst it would be illogical to fit large types already in service with the RAF like the Tristar with a receptical it would allow us the option with our future large type purchases like the A400 which would benefit from the higher fuel offload rate. I’m sure the A400 could be designed with a removeable probe to allow tactical flexibility.

    in reply to: Pakistan Navy #2045468
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I doubt they could afford the running cost. They wanted OHP frigates instead.

    The OHP would be perfect for the PN, flexible and affordable to run!

    The only problem is the rail launcher and dwindling stocks of SM1 to fire off it. Of course its not beyond the realms of imagination to remove the rail launcher and below deck kit and replace it with a suitable box launcher for NATO Sea Sparrow, ESSM or at a push the LY-60N (I have a hunch the latter choice would not go down well with the Americans).

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2594032
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Personally I think some of the a330 mrtt that are going to be used by the RAF should be fitted with the EADS Boom as well as a centerline HDU and wingtip pods.

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2594282
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Yup more than likely!

    Considering that the plumbing for the boom receptical is there maybe a probe could be plummed onto that.

    Of course during the and after the Falklands just think of all the types that had probes fitted on very short notice often using those from retired types.

    Who knows maybe they C17 could use probes from VC10’s as they retire. 😀

    Talking about refitting refueling probes Im reading Rowland Whites book Vulcan 607.

    They had a merry old time fitting the probes back on the Vulcans for operation CORPORATE.

    in reply to: 5th C-17 At Last!! #2594297
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Am I correct in assuming the following: the A400M is a paper aeroplane, while the C-17 and C-130J actually exist.

    I’d say given the protracted procurement of any modern Europeans program and the extremely protracted nature of the A400M, the Brits should bail out on the A400M and simply purchase more C-17’s and C-130J’s. This would also simplify maintenance requirements as you have 2 aircraft instead of 3.

    The A400M isn’t a paper aeroplane anymore, the consortium is building parts and structures for the prototypes now.

    in reply to: A possible replacement for the A10? #2595009
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Actually getting back to the subject of this forum I wonder how long we all start arguing that the vans from our respective nations will make the best ground attack vehicle. 😀 Im sure the French will state that the Renault Master beats all etc….

    Of course Im backing the home product the LDV.

Viewing 15 posts - 4,681 through 4,695 (of 5,046 total)