PioneerDear All.
I would guess that most people who log in here have read the latest “one billion pounds cut to defence” articles in the press over the last couple of days. What on earth is going on? Does anyone out there think that enough is enough? We are going to get in to real trouble if there are more numerical cuts to any of our armed forces.
If anyone felt humilliated by the lack of ability to respond to the Iran incident and now the Sudan provacation this is just the start, prepare to become Belgium any time soon.
Yours, Ste.
Sorry I guess we are talking the UK here are we????
If so – I think it is strange that with the resurgence of Russia as a want-to-be power ‘again’, that the United Kingdom continue down this line of defence cuts!
I think it long over due that the United Kingdom (like that of Russia) wake up to the fact that they are no longer a world power and can not afford to be acting as one.
For it are both detrimental to its economies and its armed forces.
What with its commitments with NATO, the EU, War on Terror, and Peace Keeping and the ever growing Humanitarian relief/aid commitments, the British military will become a joke of all trades and master of none, when it is really needed!
NATO has become too raped around the axils of its involvement in Afghanistan, which is making the organization look disorganized and un-united and a joke!
(Which makes for a good time for a reemergence of Russia’s military dreams?)
NATO is braking down as an organization, as it is competing directly with self centered European Union dreams
I think that whilst the West (the likes of the US, Canada, UK, and Australia etc…..) are out and about on this crusade / War on Terror, they are ignorantly ignoring the build up of and expansion (militarily and politically) of the likes of China (PRC) and a wishful Russia.
I think its time that the West wake up and smell the roses!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerInternal fuel F-16XL carried still is less than our Mirage4000 as wing area small then Mirage4000
Two M53 engine gives Mirage4000 over 19ton thrust aussi more powerful than F-16XL:p
But was the F-16XL lighter than the Mirage 4000?
If so, does this means that the XL`s Thrust-to-Weight ratio would have been superior than the 19 ton thrust of the Mirage 4000!
Which of the Mirage 4000 and F-16XL had the better range with payload?
The design of the F-16XL`s wing over came some of the traditional shortfalls of the straight delta-wing configuration.
I think the Mirage 4000 if put into production and service would have had greater running costs (i.e. fuel and engine servicing) over its life time, than that of the F-16XL
I think the F-16XL was superior to the Mirage 4000 in many respects.
I think the F-16XL was a missed opportunity
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI like the idea of the second design (lower of the two drawings!!)
Its angled flight deck arrangement and the overhanging aircraft lift – which allows space for aircraft handling and parking on deck without interruption of flight ops (as has been the case with most small V/STOL carrier designs.
With the US Navy thinking of the time a Sea Sparrow SAM launcher may have been desirable?
The biggest disappointment with your design, is not the design itself, but that of the Rockwell ???12 V/STOL fighter design on its deck – May be better of with the General Dynamics or Vought design of the day.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerNice post Hammer,and agree 100%.
I second that sentiment!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerThe F-22 Raptor still carries a 20mm cannon. Wonder why?
Thankfully one of the few important lessons that the USAF (and USN) still remembers from the Vietnam War!
PioneerApart from showing the Viggen’s excellent STOL performance, I think this video/movie emphasizes the excellent Swedish defence system at work!
I am very envious of the Swedish airfield dispersal system!
I only Australia would learn but a snippet of this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards
Pioneer
P.S. is there more of this movie on the net???
PioneerThe weapon itself looks very un-aerodynamic!
With the footage showing it being deployed with a drag chute, I would say that the use of the powerful and supersonic ‘Blackjack’ would be a waist of this resource as well as making the bomber itself very vulnerable – especially with the emphasis placed on stand off weapons and the technology
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerF-15, F-16, F-22, F-111, F-117 all have tailhooks with the strength to stop them in a short distance, but that’s after a nice gentle touchdown unlike the controlled crash that is a carrier landing.
RAAF has a history of mixing and matching of variants to get their own custom model- i.e. F-111C. It has the long wings and heavier capacity undercarriage of the -111B and FB models, and the avionics/pave tack of the later model E’s and F’s.
Why not an RAAF specific F-35D model with the C’s big wing, extra fuel, and probe refueling system with the A model’s lighter undercarriage and internal gun? Best of all worlds.
I both like and agree with the way that you think!
I am sure that this added capability of this ‘F-35D’ variant would be well received by other air forces – say Israel, UK, for starters and hay maybe even the USAF
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneer[QUOTE=Ja Worsley;1155654]
The F-22 for us is like the F-15 back when we chose the Bug- too expencive to buy, too expencive to run, too expencive to arm and too expencive to support. The Rhino deal, after much deliberation on my own behalf, is actually a decent deal and I seriously doubt that we are going to get rid of them as the F-35 comes on line. QUOTE]
The problem that I see with this analogy (‘not being critical’!), is that at the time we (the RAAF) was looking at a Mirage III replacement, the biggest threat to our air superiority was MiG-21 ‘Fishbed’s’ and some country’s were looking at possibly receiving MiG-23 ‘Flogger’s’.
Were as today it’s the more powerful and more capable designs like the MiG-29, Su-27 series and F/A-18D’s (with added range, beyond-visual weapons) that the RAAF has to ’potentially’ face.
Added to this is a massive increase of both skill and professionalism of these country’s pilots and military as a whole, which we had a vast superiority over once!
On top of all this is the like’s of airborne-refueling and AEW/AWACS that has been prioritized by the region’s air forces.
So I think the comparison of the Mirage III replacement requirement, to that of the F/A-18A/B replacement are worlds apart in want and needs.
Topping this is the problem that the RAAF has been facing for the past couple of decades in both recruitment and retention of fast pilots (or pilots in general!!!!)
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerTwo novels come to mind –
Red Storm Rising
&
The Day Before Midnight
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerIts very unlikely that Australia will get the F-22 and the F-35 will be more than capable of dealing with Flankers. As a matter of fact it will be hardly a contest!
And how might this be?
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerPeople, do some of you actually think about what you are posting or do you post first, think later?
The entire damned RAN is approximately 11,000 personnel.
Exactly how, pray tell, are they going to man an aircraft carrier when we have issues currently manning the submarine and surface fleet?
Or don’t small things like reality intrude into your idle daydreams?
Oh, and Pioneer, I am not a fan of Costello, but the governnment of which he is a member have or are funding three new Air Warfare Destroyers, two new amphibs, 14 Armidale patrol boats, an interum tanker, new maritime helicopters, upgrades to the FFG’s and Collins and a number of other major programs.
That’s without the C17’s, Rhinos, F35’s, additional Bushmasters, M1A2’s, MRH, Tigers, C-27s and a host of other defence procurement…
Before you throw too many stones their way on defence matters, I suggest you have a good look at someone like Canada and realise that the current government, while they have much else to answer for, is doing all right by the ADF.
Unicorn
I hear what you are saying mate!
But of cause they have to spend big on all these new projects, for they have over-committed us to the point that the ADF is near braking point, with both retention and new recruitment.
It is good – no arguments here with me about these acquisitions.
But it’s the fact that the ADF has been committed and geared to this so called ‘war on terrorism’, for as little Johnny has publicly stated ‘we are the (self claimed!) sheriff (or was it deputy?) of the region’.
A lot of this equipment is ‘long’ overdue. (How long has the RAAF asked and wanted an AEW/AWACS aircraft? how long has the Army needed a SPG/H? how long has the RAAF needed a Caribou replacement, how long has the RAN needed a Fremantle class patrol-boat replacement? these projects are not new to the ADF’s needs!) It’s just that this Government has committed us balls-and-all to this Regional sheriff thing, for before this they had many years to do what they have done in only the past couple of years.
But what this Government is trying to project to the world – is far beyond the ADF’s size and capability and want. Like Canada, Australia is not and will not be a world power!
So we should stop acting like one!
The ‘Region’ is leaving us behind though in matters of conventional warfare capability, equipment, power-projection and skills.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerFor all practical purposes, assuming the CBG is under attack, I can see no real advantage to putting your AD systems on the carrier. If it’s trying to get all its planes in the air, then it’s not going to be able to fire off salvos of long-ranged air defence missiles. That’s sort of an either/or situation. You can get the planes off, or try to shoot down incoming missiles. The smoke and blast from missiles is likely to restrict flight operations around the immediate vicinity of the carrier or at least make it hazardous to launch and recover aircraft.
Also, many CVN-hunting techniques home in on a carrier’s radar emissions. It’s standard tactics for a CBG that’s under attack to have the CVN go dead, turning off its radar and such to make it a less inviting target. In the case of a carrier that provides its own air defence, turning its radar off isn’t an option. Well, it is, but then your missiles aren’t going to do any good.
That brings up another issue. Carriers are naturally combustible. The USN has been working since WWII to decrease that as much as possible. That’s the reason why the USN pushed for solid-fuel long-range rockets instead of liquid. There was no way liquid rocket fuel was going on their ships, especially carriers. Now, I know that modern air defence missiles are all going to have solid propellant and far less risky explosives than anything in the early days, but it’s that much less that the Navy would like to pack into their hulls.
Something else, on the issue of multiple hulls. Except for press photos, CBG escorts aren’t usually a stone’s throw away from the CVN. Putting the AD systems on multiple hulls allows you to push the AD umbrella further away from the carrier. The radar coverage, the missiles, the CIWS systems, the countermeasures, they all start further from the carrier.
Finally, if missiles and/or torpedoes start getting through, that many more hulls gives them that many additional potential targets. Sure, missiles are programmed to search for the biggest target, for example, but if it loses the biggest target, it doesn’t keep looking for it, it picks the next closest thing it can find. A CBG commander would rather it pick an escort than the CVN.
So, I see no problem with LERX’s potential setup. Heavy on the autonomous PD weapons. PD SAMs and CIWS systems, but I think that Pioneer’s idea of a VLS system is riskier than it is beneficial.
Logan Hartke
I see some of your points my friend!
Thanks
Pioneer
Pioneer[QUOTE=Scooter;1153688]As a matter of fact the Hornet was suppose to be built in a landbased form. It was to be called the F-18L and would be built not by Mc Donnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) but Northrop! With each company building its own version. (i.e. landbased vs carrier based) It was even written up in a contract. So, I have no idea how Me Donnell Douglas was able to sell landbased Naval Hornets??? As for your idea about a larger wing F-35A. It clearly has merit and the USAF has express some interest in the larger wing. Yet, I don’t consider it likely as the JSF is getting pretty far along to make such a change. That said, its really just picking and choosing from the local parts bin. So, in theory it is quite possible except for the wing folding part. QUOTE]
I have to see what I can dig up? I remember there was a big legal battle over McDonnell Douglas selling Naval Hornet to countries that planned on using them in only a landbased role. That said, Northrop (now Northrop-Grumman) still build the center section of the Hornet and I believe a good part of the Super Hornet.
At the end of the day, McDonnell Douglas was far greater, smarter and experianced in marketing military aircraft, for they had been doing it alone and hard for decades around the world with their successful F-4 Phantom II series.
A lot of the potential F/A-18 Hornet customers had already done business with McDonnell Douglas with their Phantom II’s
Were as Northrop had not had to be so market oriantated or wise for it had had the power of the US Government lobbying for its F-5A/B Freedom Fighter and F-5E/F Tiger II series as US Government endorced ‘Military Aid Program’
For if you needed assistance from the US Government you got the F-5A/B/E/F. Especially if you were only a middle or poor nation with want of so-called democracy!
So McDonnell Douglas ran with the F/A-18 Hornet, like a bull at the gate, while Northrop was still thinking of how to introduce itself to a customer, let alone sell them what would have been the excellent and lighter F-18L
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerFFS Pioneer, have you been listening to that worthless turd Kopp again?
THE RAAF WILL NOT GET THE F22. NOT NOW, NOT EVER.
Did I make that clear enough?
The RAAF has selected the F35
No let’s get it right!
The Australian Government made this arrogant decision about our involvement in the JSF program. It then directed the RAAF, that it would be the replacement for both the Hornet and the Pig.
This was nothing more than a political decision by the Howard Government than a well thought out and evaluated process of the RAAF.
The European aerospace companies were furious about this non-competitive decision by the Australian Gov, for they were not given the proper chance to demonstrate their designs
For our Government wanted to be a part of the ‘big future fighter’, that everyone else was in on!
Let’s see just how much Australian aerospace industry gets out of this?
Will the RAAF F-35’s be license built in Australia?
Was the millions of $$$$$$$$ that the Australian Government pledged to the F-35 program going to worth it? (Especially when the US makes it known that we and other countries will have down graded / less capable variants of the F-35)No the RAAF would have liked the F-22 – make no doubt about that!
But like all departments of the Australian Government, the ADF is not prepared to talk-out about the Government.I think it most ironic that even committing millions of $$$$, that the US Government is still not going to permit Australia/RAAF the top of the range capability F-35!
The JSF was designed as a multi-role aircraft from day-one to replace the likes of the F-16 and F/A-18A/C. It has been stated over and over again, that the JSF was not intended to exceed the air-to-air performance of the likes of the F-16 and F/A-18A/C, but it will have greater capability in strike capability (This means its stealth, and its avionics and internal weapons bays), over that of air-to-air capability.
This means that it’s going to have a hell of a time, regardless of its de-rated stealth (Australian and other non-US operators) capability, let alone its poor range (when compared to the F-111’s, these clowns in the Australian Government intend it to replace).
At the end of the day the JSF/F-35 will have to fight its way to its target (it is not a F-117!) past longer-ranged, purpose built powerful air superiority fighter design, with an excellent air-to-air radar and missile equipped Su-27/30/33 ‘Flanker’s’, and god help a F-35 pilot if he thinks it wise to go into a dogfight with the powerful and nibble ‘Flanker’
Look at what Indian Air Force piloted ‘Flanker’s’ were able to achieve against the mighty F-15 Eagle (a purpose-built air superiority fighter, that is and will be far superior to the F-35 in air-to-air combat), with only after a couple of years flying them (US pilots have been flying the ‘Eagle’ for decades and know their fighters capabilities inside-out!)Regards
Pioneer, the US Government has made it clear the F22 is not available for export, not to Australia, Israel, or Japan, not now and probably not ever.
Unicorn
Why would the US Government deny one of its longest and most trustworthy allies such as the British and the Australia have the F-22?
Neither Britain nor Australia have an aerospace industry that is able to or willing to copy and put into production or sell F-22 technology.
No I think that the United States priority is to make the JSF/F-35 work and go into production at all costs!
It needs the likes of Australia, Britain, Japan, Israel etc…….. to order the F-35, ASAP, as its own numbers it once required are being wound further back all the time.
Hence the US Government and aerospace industry ‘needs’, as apposed to ‘want’
International support in the JSF.
This method by the US Government also means that the F-35 will not have to worry so much against other competitive design, from around the world – for what country is going to invest millions of dollars into the JSF / F-35 project, then turn around a purchase a completely different design?
Public out cry of wasted finances would cripple Governments.
The rising R&D costs and the rising delay of in-service delivery and production date, blows the so-called theory that the F-22 is to expensive, when compared to the F-35!!!
Well that what I think
Regards
Pioneer
Sign In
