FedaykinThe sad thing is some people will use this accident as an excuse to bash the Typhoon when really its not a big deal.
If you look at the attritions section of a Magazine like AFM you will find many incidences of the same type of accident every month involving airforces and aircraft types from all over the world. It was something which was more then likely going to happen sometime and not a cause for much consternation.
Whilst people have jumped onto this subject I haven’t seem much conversation about the new F16 Block 60 of the UAE which crashed the other day.
FedaykinYeah the blue guy is an ATM-54 training round. I had a letter to the editor published in AFM a few years back correcting them when they labeled one of those (may have been the same picture even since it was an IRIAF photo feature) as an AGM-65 or something equally ridiculous. As for IRIAF Tomcats being used in the A/G role, there’s a photo in the Iranian F-14 in Combat book showing one of ’em carrying bombs on the Phoenix pallets.
That brings back memories!, I remember that very letter.
Looking back at the original question I dont think that F16 / F15 with 27 years plus of updates would be threatened by the Iranian F14s. There are serious question marks over the viability of her air to air munitions.
As far as I am aware the IRIAF regard the Mig29 as the most potent air to air platform in their inventory.
On the other hand the quality of their pilots are apparently good especially since they instigated an improved training program using a Top Gun style school.
In the future aside from dubious indigenous programs the most likely source of next generation types are from China and Russia. Its worth noting that obtaining fighter types from Russia has been problematic for Iran with Russian on occasion bowing to American pressure and barring them from certain sales.
FedaykinSki Jump compatability is not a US requirement, the European purchase of JSF will be tiny in comparison to the US one so as far as Lockheed Martin are concerned “if you want it – you pay for it!”.
FedaykinThe simple fact is the Royal Navy are desperate for a new AAW ship, they have a list of basic features they need and a further list of desirable features.
What they have got is a ship which meets the basic requirement but unusually for UK built warships a large margin of capacity for future growth.
Over the life of the Daring class we will see a lot of change in her fit.
FedaykinDo you have more info on this claim? I can’t see any reason why the F-35B would need modifications for a ski jump launch, in fact a ski jump launch should be easier than a flat deck STO.
Sorry I don’t have the article any more, this info was in either Flight International or AFM.
The front undercarrage can go through different compressive forces when it hits the skijump. Lockheed Martin don’t want to pay to check if this is a problem or not.
FedaykinTrident: it is entirely possible to make a split purchase, it is really just that a split purchase would probably have to be a little bigger than the current plan of 150. It does, arguably, make the most sense, perhaps allowing the RN to have a small fleet of F-35Cs of their own, the RAF to have their own batch of F-35Cs, and then a joint fleet of F-35Bs. The problem is really also that if you buy any F-35Bs, then the CVF will probably be completed as STOVL, unfortunately.
Curious: yes, the £3-4bn figure is for both ships – which makes it a very good deal, at either price.
Most people within the defence press and industry regard the governments figure of 3 billion to be unrealistic especially with the extensive slip in progress the program has suffered.
Some circles within the RAF have muted the idea of a split purchase of F35 with the Tornado GR4 being retired early to make up for the cost of introducing more F35. This will allow the UK to have a three type fast jet fleet consisting of Hawk, Typhoon and F35. The F35 purchase split between STOVL and CTOL variants.
Considering the US Marines will operate the F35B off their assault ships lack of ski jump isn’t doesn’t bar use of the STOVL variant. Actually it looks like the British MOD will have to pay extra to configure the F35B to operate off a Ski jump equiped ship. Apparently changes have to be made to parts of the airframe and the nose wheel as well as changes being needed to the flight control software. This will increase weight and cost and create a fleet within a fleet problem for the aircraft.
FedaykinBoth STOVL and CTOL have their merrits, I just happen to prefer CTOL too. Basically, STOVL allows for a cheaper carrier while the aircraft to complement it will be more expensive if they are to approximate the capability of a CTOL airgroup (especially in terms of AEW, refueling, UCAVs).
My criticism of the STOVL desicion is that the UK doesn’t seem to have given this latter point much consideration (it is very much a valid point, as the long service life planned for CVF will potentially see it operate several generations of aircraft). They have opted for a large carrier that negates many of the cost benefits of a STOVL solution, seemingly careless about the limitations this imposes on MASC. And now they are on the verge of re-evaluating everything AGAIN. IMHO the whole thing just doesn’t sound fully thought through.
A good explanation of the situation trident.
There is a great deal of debate going on at the moment within the RN about the final configuration of the carrier. Since 2002 there have been elements within the RN actively pushing for the CTOL variant.
The RN are very impressed with the Hawkeye and whilst going for a STOVL configured carrier would be cheaper and have a higher sortie rates, studies have shown that a CTOL option over the life of the program would be a cheaper way to put bombs on target.
The RN and RAF are dissapointed with the projected range and load capabilities of the STOVL F35.
Aside from cost and training issues the higher UK content in the STOVL variant of F35 and resistance from the RAF have been big reasons for the reluctance of selecting a CTOL configured carrier. The reason for the RAF’s reluctance was there concern that this would reduce their chance of recieving the full allocation of Typhoon and threaten the FOAS program.
Now that the FOAS program has been cancelled the RAF now seems to be more open to selection of the F35c to meet an offensive capability short gap once the GR4 has been retired. Apparently they are concerned that they will end up with a fleet of aircraft which have a limited range without tankers.
FedaykinCan somebody give an Idea as what is the estimated cost of CVF now?
Depends who you ask.
The government says £3 billion and the defence industry says £4 billion.
FedaykinStill seems weird seeing the Tornado equipped with such a short-range Hellfire-derived weapon. It’s a natural fit for Harrier and Apache, but it brings back the ‘staring down the barrel’ memories of Tornado/JP233. (For the GR4, does it come with additional cockpit flak curtains and a change of underwear ?!)
Ah, the Wasp. For a couple of years in the early ’80s, I remember 12 (?) round Wasp pods appearing on every NATO aircraft schematic before the program folded. The days of the Fulda gap…
Ahhhh cancelled cold war weapons programs.
My fave one is the AGM 136 Tacit Rainbow!
It sounded so cool on paper!
And what about the US armys DIVAD gun (the Sergeant york).
FedaykinAside from her slower then satisfactory speed HMS Ocean has proven to be a very useful vessel to the navy so I expect she will be retained in service for a long time. Its well known that the navy would like another LPH to complement her in service but with the current state of the defence budget thats a distant hope at the moment. For that matter considering the deep refit that the Ark Royal went through during the 90’s plus the further refit she is receiving now I can easily see her being retained in the LPH role minus her ski jump after her sisters have been retired.
With HMS Oceans under performance it will be interesting to see if this is adressed in a future refit. Maybe fitting her with the type of diesels in the new generation of fast container ships would help?
I think the Royal navys Frigate replacement plans have been put on hold for the moment with the type 23s being put through a life extension plan instead. The navy is keen to have a replacement for the batch 3 type 22s possibly based on a stretched type 45 variant. The global corvette is being examined as a way too bring an affordable type into service to complement a small buy of stretched type 45 and allow the older type 23s to be retired. Funnily the concept muted by the MOD for the global corvette is remarkably similar to the concept for the unsuccesful type 21 Amazon class. It will be interesting to see if new technology will allow a small vessel with a small crew be able to carry enough of a punch for the Royal navy.
FedaykinThere have been various rumours that the RN will extend the current study into a new LPH to replace the Ark Royal when it retires in 2012-14 with a ship capable of flying the F-35’s if required. The RN are past masters at getting this sort of thing by the politico’s and the bean counters without them noticing so it wouldn’t surprise me if it were capable of operating the F35 (no doubt with some cheap modifications) when they select their next platform.
That would be a realistic solution especially considering that HMS Ocean which was built to commercial standards cost less to build than one type 23 frigate.
FedaykinWell…. Nothing more boring than pictures of a boiler, no? here’s a view inside the boiler showing how it looks when it’s wasted. Tube 1 breaks off, put in a skegg, tube 2 breaks, put in another skeg, and so on, untill tube 10 breaks and it doesn’t seem to work well anymore :rolleyes:
The light landing system is indeed there, it’s called the Luna system if I remember correctly. There are better pictures of it though.
Your picture comes from the site of the Kinloss RAF base. They took the pictures back when kuznetsov was going from the Med to the North, her first deployment and real ocean trip, the system was not yet finished by that time. You can see the centre “bow”, but the light bars are not yet attached.
Spot on with the source of the photo I was wondering if anyone would know that 😀
I presume that there light system is similar in operation to the American one, whats the point of reinventing the wheel. I was aware that they also had quite a sophisticated blind landing system as well using some form of data link, I could be wrong on this so any clarrification from someone would be good.
FedaykinAny photos of ship being modified will be helpful !!!
Im afraid I have already asked this question in the other Gorshkov thread on this site.
At the moment the best you will find is a picture of her new boilers!
Were just going to have to be patient for the moment.
FedaykinOh well guys it looks like boilers are the only part of the Gorshkov we are going to see for the moment.
On another note, which Russian company makes the deck landing systems like the arrester gear engine and the landing guidence system. I would be interested to know how they compare to American systems. For that matter does the Kuznetsov even have a Frenel lens type optical landing system or do they have a different solution to the problem?
The picture below is only one I can find with what could be a frenel lens. The object on the platform on the portside close to the end of the angled flight deck.
FedaykinStill leads me back to my earlier question, there are just no pictures of her in refit for the Indian navy yet.
I know Severodvinsk is secretive but I am surprised that no yard worker hasn’t taken a sneeky pic!
Sign In
