PioneerI read in a book somewhere, sometime ago, that U.S Army that one of the reasons they preferred the air-launched Stinger over the Sidewinder, on their Apache helicopters, was because of the Sidewinder’s dramatic launch signature.
Just thought I would add this
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneer1. The F-15 ASAT program some number of years ago demonstrated an impressive capability.
This is exactly proof of the Patriot/F-15 concept being possible, with what like almost 20-years of new technology growth since the ASAT program was started!
After all I do not think the U.S should have cancelled the ASAT program in the first place!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerAnd the cycle starts again – its the late 1970’s and early 1980’s all over again
Do the British Government not learn?
But I suppose this is what happens, when politicians no longer serve in their country’s military, but instead become life-time / professional politicians! – They forget reality, and that their bad and rash decisions, send their men who serve their country into harms way, while also having to compromise, improvise and adapt to politicians defence cuts, usually at the cost of their lives (is this not how WWII started of for British troops – France, Norway,Malaysia and Singapore – Under equipped, inadequate financial support and political blindness and arrogance??????)
Is this not what gave Argentina the green light to attack the Falklands in the 80’s?
Well let’s see how they plan to deal with the crisis that is looming in the Pacific in the near future (what with India’s & China’s expansion and imperialist ambitions)
I suppose the British Government of the day and the future think that countries that are hostile to them will let the Royal Navy just build the ships that will be needed on their beaches?
Britain really needs to make up its mind if it wants to be a credible world player, on the world stage, and set some real long-term military & political planning into motionning.
For I regret to say it, but few country’s will take her seriously in the future.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerHi GaryB
You have made some good points
But I think what you are proposing will not take long for a ‘smart’ enemy to work out, that the easiest way to counter your use of CAS drones will be via Electronic Warfare (EW) / Electronic Intelligence (Elint), by first detecting the frequencies that are being used to control and command the CAS drones. Then the highest of priority would be placed on the jamming of these freqs or the locating and destruction of the origins of these command signals (through SEAD) or a combination of both!
I am also a strong believer that the pilot in the seat of an aircraft over the battlefield, has much more situation awareness with his two Mk I eyeball (360 degree) than a video relayed image from a CAS drone to its controller sitting in an air-conditioned truck, some distance from the battlefield (especially when it is a close-in battle.
Do not get me wrong, I strongly believe in the use of RPV/drones over the battlefield, for missions like strikes against highly defended fixed targets (airfields, fuel & ammo depots, C3 sites etc…), Reconnaissance, and SEAD missions.
But again from an infantryman’s point of view, talking to a pilot, whilst in contact with the enemy, that is directly over my AO, who is in the same line of fire as I am, and who can see the battle unfolding before his eyes below him will always be a must until the day when a foot-mounted infantry robot replaces skin and flesh of a human (Note this is not just being old fashioned on my behalf, for it is a fact.)
Just as our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, weather they would like a swarm of armed Predator RPV or a pair of A-10 Thunderbolt II,s or a circling AC-130 Specter?
I am confident what their answer will be!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerFrom an Infantryman’s perspective, the ideal CAS aircraft design would need to have plenty on endurance, so as to loiter over or close to the troop that are either in contact with the enemy or contact is expected.
A good weapons capability, including the number of rounds for the onboard and built in cannon, to mach the aircrafts endurance.
It would also need to be able to take plenty of punishment from small arms fire (basic enemy infantry!).
Have good rough-field performance, so as it can be armed and refueled from forward airstrips.
A good passive and active decoy arrangement, to counter man-portable SAM’s
And the all important – ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI’m sure Taiwan could use them… but could they afford it? And more importantly, would UK/Germany be willing to sell them to Taiwan?
Nic
I do not think it is a case if Taiwan, being able to afford the likes of the Tornado IDS, for I think they would buy F-15E Strike Eagles tomorrow, if the U.S had the ‘brains and balls’!
No it’s all political, and the way Europe (and the world as a whole) is becoming so economically involved in China’s (PRC) for its cheap labor and good, I do not think, they (Britain & Germany) would put their greed over regional stability.
But in the not to distant future, when the PRC goes hostile, and tries to take Taiwan by force, there will be one less reliable country gone!
Regards
Pioneer
P.S. I do not mean to go political, but this neglect by the West, of Taiwan’s defence has gone on to long, while the PRC continues to bleed over the Taiwan issue.
PioneerI would agree that Ski-Jumps have there advantages…………….yet American LHA/LHD’s don’t carry them? My only thought it the USN doen’t want to take up Helocopter Deck Space????
I think it may also political control by the US Navy too!
As the US Navy controls the $ strings for the USMC budget, I think it’s a case that if the US Navy was to fit ski jumps to its fleet of very capable LHA/LHD’s, they (the US Navy) fear that the improvement in the Harrier II’s performance and capability, would possibly take them and Congress back to the ‘Sea Control Ship’ (SCS) again. This would be seen as a clear threat by the US Navy to its ‘Super Carrier’ want!
Well that what I think
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerUSN Amphibious don’t use Ski-Jumps as there decks are plenty long enough……..how long is the project Spanish Designed LHD suppose to be? Also, I thought you told me once that the RAN would never operate tactical aircraft from ships………………that role would be left for the RAAF? Please, correct me if I am wrong!:rolleyes:
Hay Scooter – The problem with the USN AV-8B’s and the way that they operate from their amphibious ships, is that they still suffer from what the Brits alleviated over two decades ago. The USMC AV-8B’s either have to operate with a limited weapons load (against what the AV-8B Harrier II is capable of!) or is forced to sacrifice fuel-load
(= range limitation) to carry a heavier warload.
You only need to see pictures of USMC AV-8B and what loads they are carrying, when operating from ships, when compared to that of the RAF GR.7’s when operating from their ski jump equipped carriers
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerDid Italy make a offer for Australia’s LHD Ships? As she has extensive experience in Naval Construction. Especially, with small Carriers and Amphibious Ships……………….:rolleyes: Clearly, much more than either Spain or France! Her absence seems somehow strange…………….:(
FLY NAVY:cool:
Sorry Fly Navy – I do not think any politician in Australia has the brains, courage, or the will to reintroduce an aircraft carrier type ship back into Australian service. Added to this is also the fact that ‘very few’ politicians in Australia have ever served in the ADF, so they would not really know the importance of such a ship.
So no, I do not think the Italian carrier design would have been considered – through political fear!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerIts great to see that the Italian navy has chose a deck-edge lift arrangement in its new Cavour STOL carrier design
Pioneer
Pioneer73%! I think somebody got the numbers reversed! Its more like 27%……….While the Hornet looks like the Super Hornet that were it ends! The engines are totally different and will not interchange between the two (i.e. F404 vs F414), the larger radar of the Super Hornet (AESA APG-79) won’t fit in the smaller Hornet (APG-73), and the airframe and landing gear share no major components! So, except for a few sub-systems and things like ejection seats the two have little in common! I would also add what little it does could also be said for most other American types including the F-15E Strike Eagle…………Sorry mate but the facts are the facts!
My Friend
You are the second person on the money today!
I think you are closer to the mark with 27%.
Have you read Pentagon Paradox – The Development of the F-18 Hornet (by James P. Stevenson)?
Wow this book gives a very good insight into how far military industry is prepared to go to get a project like the Super Hornet through the U.S Senate.
But then again the U.S Navy was right behind this also.
Do not get me wrong, the basic Northrop YF-17 Cobra and to some degree the F/A-18A to C was a good sound principle. But the F/A-18 Hornet failed to meet its basic range and weapons load requirements stipulated by the US Navy, as its basic requirement to replace the Vought (LTV) A-7 Corsair II.
I have always wondered how the Australian & Canadian F/A-18A/B Hornets would go in a mid-life upgrade, which removed the aircrafts heavy and unnecessary carrier gear i.e. carrier landing gear, folding wings etc (replaced by solid one-piece wings). Add to this the more powerful GE 404 engines of the later F/A-18C/D model. Would this not suffice to give the F/A-18A/B Hornet’s a significant improvement in flight performance, power-to-weight ratio & maneuverability to see it through till the F-35 is (unfortunately) put into service?
Well that just my thought!
Regards
Pioneer
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerThe way I see it, the RAAF wants a stop gap strike plane that is not going to cost much, is extremly modern, and most importantly enough, is available now!
As has been pointed out already, the Super Hornet has lost every comp it has been put in; Poland bought F-16’s, Eastern Europe is buying Gripens (smart people them) Malaysia bought Flankers and the rest of the world just don’t see any use for this plane.
This actually sounds like a government to government deal that is being done where we buy something American to make Johnny look like a good friend and keep Georgie happy. Remember to sell a modern combat jet these days, MOST people look at who else has them in service, Since the Super Bug doesn’t have anyone in it’s listing it’s been a hard sell.
Scoot: don’t forget mate the Super Hornet has a 73% comonality with the standard Hornet, at least that is what Boeing claims.
My friend I like the way you think, and unfortunatly I think you are on the money.
My question is – How much input did the RAAF actual have in the selection of the JSF ?????
But I suppose with Johnny Howard’s new ‘anti-terrorism laws’ = ‘loss of freedom of speech’, we the Australian public will never know.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerWell I don’t think that the Iranians would have had to have given the Soviet’s an F-14 Tomcat here-say.
But there would have been little problem in giving the Soviet’s access to the Tomcat’s in Iranian service- to study all they wanted.
For this could also have help in the Soviet’s wiliness to supply the ‘friendless Iranian’s with desperately needed armaments that they so desperately needed.
But that’s just my thoughts
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerReally, I believe the USN needs a economical and stealthy replacement for the Perry Class FFG’s……… Scooter
Yes I agree Scooter about the Perry Class FFG’s!
I think that again, the US Navy has forgotten the hard-learned lessons of naval combat, and the importance of cheaper and smaller merchant ship escorts. For again as is fashionable with the US Navy, they have gone down the path of bigger and more costly ships that will do everything (but can not be everywhere!)
Hopefully if they come up with an Oliver Hazard Perry Class replacement, it will have two drive-shafts!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerGood points made Obi Wan Russell
Regards
Pioneer
Sign In
