Page 7 – Key Publishing

mobryan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 224 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 13 14 15 →

Author

Posts
April 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm in reply to: The USN CSA thread #2079704

mobryan
Participant

I don’t like the two fuselage idea, for much the same reason I did not include UAV capabilities. The only way this could go forward is if it’s cheap, reliable and available quickly. Two fuselages means essentially two aircraft must be designed, at substantial cost. UAV capabilities as applies to this situation are expensive and complex. Fitted for, but not with is probably the best short term solution.

Range/endurance are obviously important, but I do not think speed is as critical. Speed induces too many other comprimises, and worsens the existing ones.

I agree with Distiller about needing poeple in the mix, we just aren’t at the stage where the computers can do everything 😉

Re: Chimera. One of the first designs showed forward swept wings… :confused: The extra stall performance would be nice, but :confused:

April 6, 2008 at 2:35 am in reply to: CVF #2079727

mobryan
Participant

I agree and your bring up some excellent points. I was just speaking of the Super Hornet in the Tanker Role.

Yeah, I go off on rant’s sometimes… I’ll stop hijacking now 😉

Matt

April 5, 2008 at 2:52 am in reply to: CVF #2079763

mobryan
Participant

If, the USN was procuring more Super Hornets to replace Vikings on a one for one basis. Then I would consider it to be very worth while. Yet, that is not going to happen…………..just the usual spin!:(

I would not. ASW/AEW/COD/Tanker might not be sexy, but they are still vital. The requirements for those roles are so contrary to F type requirments as to be fundmentally incompatable in the same airframe. What is needed is a spiritual sucessor to the Greyhound/Hawkeye, an relatively low cost airframe with the flexibilty to take on the roles an F type is unsuited for.

A high wing, twin turbofan, subsonic garbage hauler in the 60,000lb MTOW, 15,000lb load capacity range, with a 2000 mile range, should be capable of all those missions. ASW and AEW obviously need seperate airframes, but perhaps a refueling kit, a’ la KC-130, could be developed to allow the COD/Tanker roles to be split among the same ~6 airframes? The KEAF-18’s mission tanking capacity should not be overlooked, but I have to wonder about using up a $60 million dollar airframe’s trap cycles on basic, no threat recovery tanking.

If you can’t tell, I’m a fan of the USN CSA requirement 😉

Matt

April 5, 2008 at 2:17 am in reply to: Sukhoi 30 armament? #1787643

mobryan
Participant

Have any idea how well F-15s missiles work against Su-30s with real RHAWs and jamming equipment instead of, say Mig-29s of the Serbian AF that didn’t even have operational radars and were only armed with R-73s with no AWACS support?

Bitter really doesn’t become you, Garry. I, at least, was hoping for some good (or as good as public source can be) info on this gen. of Russian equipment 😮

Matt

April 4, 2008 at 12:59 am in reply to: CVF #2079833

mobryan
Participant

maybe with a hand full of EA-18G’s and KA-18E/F’s in the Tanker Role!:D

Which is just dumb. Retiring the Vikings is one of the dumber naval air decisions made, and that takes some doing!!!!

What happens when the Greyhouds get tired??? KCAEF-18F-300’s?????? 😡 Commonality in pursuit of low costs is one thing, but there is a certain point where you are shooting yourself in the foot, losing TOO much capability in search of commonality.

Sorry for the rant.

Matt

April 3, 2008 at 12:33 am in reply to: F-22A v F/C-17A #2474172

mobryan
Participant

i guess when this comes in, the nimrod will no longer be the worlds largest dogfighter! if only the c-17 had rough field performance! it could carry reloads on board!

What about a pair of rotary launchers exposed in the cargo bay :dev2: Fire one empty, switch to the other while the crew reloads??? 😉

Matt

April 1, 2008 at 1:42 am in reply to: Unknown Sukhoi strategic bomber revealed! #2475112

mobryan
Participant

Ok, you had me until we got to the spy pictures 😀 😀 😀

I was wondering why it took so long for the Fullback, if the T-12 was available, though 😮 😮

Matt

March 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm in reply to: Pouring On The Coal #2475424

mobryan
Participant

In the Appalachians and PA are some of the largest black coal depots on this globe. They can supply the U.S. armed forces with thousands of years worth of fuel.

Replace Appalachians and PA with Wyoming, and I agree 100%. Our green crowd has managed to shut down eastern coal production to a shadow of it’s former self. Out here in the boonies, though, they are more than content to drink thier lattes and watch the boob tube while we strip mine 1000’s of acres :shrug:

Matt

March 26, 2008 at 10:53 pm in reply to: list of maritime strike aircraft #2476746

mobryan
Participant

What about the Fullback? Any chance of seeing a specialized naval stike version of that?

Matt

March 26, 2008 at 2:18 am in reply to: Update #2477334

mobryan
Participant

from my recent google earthing, i would say flying a B1 OR B-52 would be good, mainly coz u get to be based on atolls in the middle of warm seas!

maybe the weekends cold weather is getting to me

OR, you end up in garden spots like Minot AFB, or Ellsworth AFB…
B-1, you’re bent either way, Dyess is pretty much a rat trap, IMO.

Matt

March 15, 2008 at 1:40 am in reply to: Slovak MiG-29AS digital camo #2484371

mobryan
Participant

Do they have snow in the middle of the year at MinotAFB?? 😀 😀
Picture taken at SliacAFB, may2004
Martinez

If you are defining “Middle of the year” as May, they haven’t pulled the snowplows off the runway trucks by then. 😉

Matt

March 11, 2008 at 1:37 am in reply to: Slovak MiG-29AS digital camo #2486592

mobryan
Participant

Sliac – but in some of the photos it looks almost like Minot AFB, ND 😉

Too many trees for Minot. 😉

:snowman:

Matt

March 4, 2008 at 1:03 pm in reply to: future falklands deployments #2490970

mobryan
Participant

Hello Matt you make some good ponts there and some good questions that I am not qualified to answer but for the target list. This question is quite well answered in some of the preceeding posts with most of the targets being bases in the south of the country.

Thanks Phil, I must admit I started skimming when the thread hung a sharp right to Douhet-ville. :rolleyes:

Time to put on the knee boots and go wading through the $#!* I guess. 😀

Matt

March 4, 2008 at 3:26 am in reply to: future falklands deployments #2491218

mobryan
Participant

What are the current land based SAM/ASM capabilities on the islands? It seems that the Falklands would be a good place for the “earthen battleship” mentality, IE: Maintain a number of well fortified missile sites, with the batteries shifted semi-regularly. You should be able to spot any attack coming, and anything you can spot, you can shoot. I don’t think* Argentina has a great deal of bunker-busting PGM ordinance, so reasonably economical construction should suffice.

If you obtain and maintain the capacity to destroy x% of the attacking force, both sea and air, the garrisons’ life is made that much easier, and it expands the MoD’s timeline. Time that could be well used both in reinforcing the garrison, and in diplomatic nudges: “Do you REALLY want to go though this again, old chap????”

Related note- what types/locations of Argentine military installations could Falkland’s based Tac-Toms threaten???

Matt

* There I go thinking again…. I really should know better 😮

February 24, 2008 at 4:41 pm in reply to: Kosovo Air Force? #2496044

mobryan
Participant

What are the odds they could (and would) maintain a small force of Pilatus or T-6 Texan II’s, to provide a basic intercept and I.D. capability?

Matt
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 224 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 13 14 15 →