Swerve :

Correct and it is the reason why DIRCM systems are in the pipeline .
DIRCM will work nice enough against short range missiles because they are easily detected by MAWS or even by the naked eyes .

The problem is to deal with long range IR missiles . Will the defender get warned that one is coming ? Then , since the end game is totally passive , will the DIRCM kicks in ? Probably not .
Imagine a IR Meteor …:eek::)

Cheers .

Thats where the Tiffy does have an advantage, having an active MAWS it can detect an inbound irrespective of temperature.

IR Missile launch detectors (in my experience- but i admit to not being as current as i was) look for a heat pulse (ie launch/ignition). so ts possible a long range launch would not be detected*

Clarity (to explain myself) no MLS warning generated by a nearby aircrafts heat signature, if it launches MLS detects the heat pulse, sam launch detected in same way.
A coasting missile may appear to the system as an aircraft/other non threat
This i believe was why Typhoon has an active MAWS (or is that one of those stories)

*however if the maws cant detect the missile launch can the missile see the target.

Swerve
Re flares I fully expected a modern seeker to be able to discriminate against a typical flare -but i didnt know if any magic had been going on with them so they appear more realistic. It appears not from youre post so thanks for that

regards

Im Ignoring the target aquasition side /cueing of IR missile as a seperate issue.

IR missiles can be decoyed using flares/ laser systems. so i see no real advantage to firing an IR missile instead. or where you suggesting a mixed salvo an idea which may have more merit.

Open question to all is there currently a fast jet out there utilising a DIRCM system. Im pretty sure its a no, but it can only be a matter of time.

regards

Quite right somebody was mixing his Forts up.

An amusing read but so skewed its not worth the paper its written on

The marines are equipped to relive Iwo Jima – and thats a bad thing – their whole raison detre is opposed landings – im glad to hear they can lob everything up to the kitchen sink if required.

A submarine carrier – not an vessel id like to be on – thats a big open area to start flooding –
never mind the operational problems Ie it would have to spend most if not all its time on the surface – in order to operate aircraft.

The single aircraft striker concept – I ask myself why – very much a 1 shot weapon (and in all probability one way)

Harrier a dangerous failure – whilst not a stellar performer I hardly think the moniker failure is apt – Dangerous possibly but significantly more than any other combat aircraft?

M113- Amphigavin – I suppose its only a merci that it is rocketed 25000 ft into the air than air landed 15 miles inland giving the marines the Air Mech Strike capability they so desperatly require.

I bailed out at the word Gavin – is it a Mr Sparks fan club article?.

Perhaps the cause of the accident lay in both in the stray piece of metal and the fact that Concorde should prove so vulnerable to stray pieces of metal?:confused:
Generally speaking, most other airliner types hardly ever catch fire or explode upon contact with a piece of metal lying on the runway (except for a tyre or two)? After all, Concorde has had a history of difficulties when taking off and landing.

Maybe the families of the passengers should sue the makers of Concorde and Air france of the Concorde for producing such a “possibly flawed” aircraft. Other companies have been sued for a lot less – ask Audi, Toyota or McDonalds.

Or perhaps the accident lay in the fact that the aircraft wheel assembly was missassembled, the aircraft was grossly over weight and taking off with the wind behind it, – Nope that would be air frances responsibility

Or that in having to do a greatly extended take of run began its roll on a very poor surface – Nope that would be the airfields responsibility (possibly).

Or how about the generally poor standard of air frances maintenance (alleged) again not a factor.

How about the fact that air france failed to reinforce their wings, despite BA having a similar incident years ago and instigating just that precaution, and the continued to use remoulds something BA did not do on Concorde.

How about crew error ie shutting down of engines (+ afformentioned overloading).

Nope its all down to that bit of metal, flying in the face of all eyewitness statements and evidence that the aircraft was in trouble (and on fire according to some witnesses) well before it ever hit that piece of debris.

Excuse the rant I am livid with the (not unexpected) result – i am not normally one for conspiracy theories but in this instance i see nothing but a cover up / whitewash to protect air france.

thank god for that piece of debris eh, what would they have done without it.

As an aside, why so leniant a sentence, bcause they darent actually try to jail him methinks.
Good luck to his appeal I say.

Playing fantasy fleet

I would like to see T45 7&8 built sans Sampson for now if needs be to get hulls in water

8-10 C1 5-6000T – Im thinking along lines of a stretched/enlarged Type 23 (capability wise not actual ship) with TAS with provision for 24 VLS tubes (+8 used by CAAM if not a dedicated launcher) +Mk 8, CODAG IEP propulsion

8-10 C2 hull same as above, with manning and savings on equiptment fit
ie No TAS, space for but possibly no VLS fitted beyond CAAM, on the propulsion side same diesels and IEP as C1 possibly without the gas turbine installed (again just as a cost saving)

If the wiring harnesses are FFBNW on the C2 the ships could conceivably swap roles if required (ie a C1 is in extensive re fit)

C3 I would licence build the sweedish BAM I have seen a lot of proposals for larger vessels but i believe that in many cases the proposals are just to big (6000T colonial sloop being one) to big to my mind for the mcm role + running costs

14MCM
2 Hydro
8 Patrol – possibly a BAM 2 here with a 10 M stretch 3 river replacement 1 Cllyde replacement 4 used as pirate chasers and general light presence work

Give them the usual cannon, provision for a point defence system and a hanger.
I would also give them a bow mounted sonar and ASW tubes – my rational is that (particuarly after the nimrod withdrawal) whist carrying out there OPV role they can also conduct basic ASW surveilance, I admit they wont be a significant threat but 1 more thing a hostile skipper has to keep tabs on. Also in a shooting war they could be pushed into the littorals as escorts for amphibs/ logistic vessels

I know the last addition will push up costs but with an ever shrinking fleet double hatting the OPVs seems sensible.

regards

Twas not my intent to level any criticism at the crew or pilots in general,

both barrells are aimed levelly at the media, whos amplification of every minor thing does nothing for aviation in the eyes of the general public – this i feel leads to scared and over reacting passengers.

Incedently how about praise for the FBW system (particuarly after the 320 in the Hudson) these systems are much maligned.

much kudos to the 777 captain at heathrow? the other year – almost made it

The engines go through such rigorous and extensive testing for certification processes that rushed into production is not an issue

The fault is more a production error than an engine fault as such,
In theory it could have happened to any engine of any type at any time.

Sadly media hype and exageration of the incident will do more damage than the engine ever could.