dark light

danrh

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 545 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Israeli warship 'badly damaged' by 'explosive drone' #2046841
    danrh
    Participant

    To get the most from a blast, it is delayed, till it pasts inside the ship. A C-802 hits with ~250 m/sec and the with of the INS Hanit is <12 metre at the aft-section.

    Yep and thats all good. Nothing to do with proximity fuses though.

    Daniel

    in reply to: Israeli warship 'badly damaged' by 'explosive drone' #2046870
    danrh
    Participant

    I’m struggling to think of purpose for a proximity fuse on an ASM.

    Daniel

    in reply to: RAAF grounds F-111 Fleet? #2561637
    danrh
    Participant

    Almost any major topic has been discussed at one time or another on the forum. While, you may spend a great amount of time on the web. Others have families, careers, and responsibilities. If, you want to express the fact that this has been discussed at length before. I would respectfully appreciate it. Your sarcasm I do not………….. :p

    FLY NAVY 😎

    Not just at one time or another. Here are two threads that have covered the issue extensively and have been active as recently as two weeks ago.

    RAAF Raptors

    Aussie Air Transport Thread

    As far as the whole time spent on the web issue and responsibilities the fact that I have a wife, three children, a full time job and part time studies did not prevent me utilising this forums very useful search function and locating these threads in about two minutes.

    Daniel

    in reply to: RAAF grounds F-111 Fleet? #2561876
    danrh
    Participant

    The RAAF recently grounded the F-111 Fleet due to a wheel falling off during flight! Should the RAAF lease F-15E’s in the short term until a replacement can be found? :rolleyes:

    Oh is it that time again already. Sorry don’t feel like it this week. Go do a search of the archives if you really feel you need an answer to this.

    Daniel

    in reply to: Landing gear problems force F-111 to dump fuel. #2563657
    danrh
    Participant

    Could well be. The F-111 has a strange reputation in Australia. It is both a “wonder plane” and a “deathtrap.”

    It’s also interesting that the RAAF has lost 8 out of 43 F-111’s in the course of some 30 years of operation, but has only lost 4 out of 75 F/A-18’s in about 20 years of service.

    F-111 is a down in the weeds aircraft.

    Daniel

    in reply to: Israeli warship 'badly damaged' by 'explosive drone' #2047670
    danrh
    Participant

    I believe that given the size of the ship, even a lightweight ASM would have sunk it, rather than start a fire and still allow it to reach port.

    Some of the footage being shown of the Israeli naval vessels (mostly not SAAR V’s but earlier versions such as the SAAR III and IV) bombarding targets in Lebanon have shown them only a kilometer or two offshore, well within range of an anti-tank guided missile.

    Most of them only have a 76mm gun, which has a range of only 8 or so KM at surface targets, if you want to hit targets inland you need to get closer to the beach, and that may be whats happened.

    As pointed out a C802 would have blown it to pieces.

    Unicorn

    Dunno folks. I’ve seen people talking about the Hanit as a patrol boat. Its a 1400ton corvette. Sure a 165kg charge is gonna do a lot of damage but I think “blown to pieces” is just a bit rich. Consider the NK freighter Pong Su. This 3800ton vessel was hit with two 2000lb bombs dropped by RAAF F-111s. Thats almost 1800kg of which just under half is explosive. I don’t recall the Pong Su being blown to bits. According to some on these boards that beating wasn’t enough to put the ship under, further charges being required. Given the fact that we are yet to see any photo’s of the ships damage we cannot say one or the other what hit it.

    Daniel

    in reply to: Raptor can now be sold abroad #2569272
    danrh
    Participant

    And he’s a Lt. THAT’S gotta chap a lot of a$$es :diablo:

    That would be a Flight Lieutenent. About equivalent to a Major.

    Daniel

    in reply to: F-10 compared to EF and Rafale? #2569315
    danrh
    Participant

    Because we need another of these threads. These assesments are all about getting funding for more F-22s.

    Daniel

    in reply to: Raptor can now be sold abroad #2569732
    danrh
    Participant

    I see, but still they wanted 120 F-15E with SLAM-ER…

    Um you remember those crazy folks to their north right. Plus the SKs do have some beef’s with the Japanese. Not that the Ks don’t also present a useful deterent to anything China may seek to do in the future but to suggest that that is the reason for the pruchases is simply pushing your own agenda and ignoring everything else.

    Daniel

    in reply to: New Austral Proposal #2049740
    danrh
    Participant

    Whoever designed the weapons for this must have also done the Armidales. I would like to see a Corvette or OPV in the RAN, but more heavily armed than this.

    Why? Either spent just a little more on a proper frigate that has the endurance to conduct serious independent patrols or get more, cheaper patrol boats to better cover the coast. We don’t need some over armed little boat that can’t venture more than a few hundred miles offshore. A corvette is a very poor compromise for a nation situated as Australia is. Best hope I can see for all the corvette crazies is a few mine hunter configured LCS’s in the future and some of the alternative ASuW modules held in reserve.

    Daniel

    in reply to: RAAF Raptors? #2573080
    danrh
    Participant

    Well gee since we’re entering the realms of fantasy F-22s and B-1Rs. And while we’re at it lest sell the Collins’ to Taiwan sign up for a few Virgina’s and ditch the LHDs in favour of a coupl of CVF’s.

    Daniel

    in reply to: Australia Unhappy with Boeing "Wedgetail" 737 AWACS #2573146
    danrh
    Participant

    What suprises me is that the effect on the Turkish order has been so quiet, I have hardly seen any reference to the Turkish order at all leading me to think that it is our government playing their old game again and trying to cram all the latest wiz-bangs into a frame that can only take a fraction of it, I’ve also seen no mention about how the RAAF are wanting to put UAV controls in these machines to help forward control the Global Hawks when we get those as well. it’s the small facts of the large issues that are being kept in the dark here!

    This international airborne surveillance program, known as Wedgetail in Australia and Peace Eagle in Turkey, consists of the 737-700 aircraft outfitted with highly complex, integrated command and control and advanced radar systems.

    Australia has purchased six AEW&C aircraft and Turkey has purchased four. Delivery of the first two Wedgetail aircraft and that effort’s flight test schedule have been delayed up to 18 months because of development and integration issues with certain hardware and software components. Boeing now plans to deliver all six Wedgetail aircraft by the end of 2008 and is developing the Peace Eagle schedule with its Turkish customer.

    The focus has been on the Australian order because:

    1) Many of the reports have been in the Australian media
    2) The issue has become an issue during a visit by the Australian defence minister
    3) Australia is the lead customer and one would expect the delays to reduced for the follow-on Peace Eagle order as Boeing streamlines its processes.

    Daniel

    in reply to: RAAF Raptors? #2573910
    danrh
    Participant

    The reason why the RAAF is not going for what are effectively legacy aircraft is because whatever we buy now will likely serve for 30+ years. For the moment the Australian economy is strong, bouyed by high demand for our resources. We are also favoured with the luxury of little to no prospect of a realistic conventional threat for at least 10-15 years. Now is our opportunity to buy a platform with the best chances to safeguard our shores and meet our other needs for that 30+ year timeframe. Choosing a -15 or -18 based platform means that in the 10-15 year timeframe those planes will be operating in a region with large numbers of Flankers and thier detrivatives and with proliferating AEW&C assets. Beyond that aircraft like a new Russian 5th gen fighter and the Chinese J-XX will be entering service and potentially proliferating beyond thier developers. The state of the economy by that time is an unknown but the prospect of having to undergo another expensive re-equipment so early could not be attractive to Defence or its political masters. For the time being the JSF seesm to be the best investment for the RAAF. I like the F-22 but the fact remains the RAAF is unlikely to be able to afford sufficient numbers of these to meet its minmum requirements (regardless of how capable the aircraft is we have to have somewhere in the order of at least 80+ airframes to replace the current force). Maybe we could buy have a joint F-22/F-35 force but I doubt it will ever happen. Labour’s ramblings are unlikely to ever become reality even if they could take office at the next election.

    Daniel

    in reply to: Aussie F-35 Order under review #2576839
    danrh
    Participant

    I think if any opponent that the RAAF faced was prepared to allow us to roam at will over thier airspace and only pop up to challenge us every now and then, then the RAAF would be quite pleased with that.

    Daniel

    in reply to: Su-30s for Venezuela official with delivery in 2006 #2576841
    danrh
    Participant

    LOL for all those who think that US-carriers are invincible go to this site, scroll to the bottom and read the statements made by Vice Adm. Mike Bowman, unfortunately it’s in German only.
    http://www.airpower.at/news04/0706_flanker/asien.htm

    Well for one thing no one has been arguing the “invincibility” of USN CVSGs. Rather it has been said that a force composed of 24 Flankers (and indeterminate number of which may actually be available for operations) with no EW or AEW&C support poses little realistic threat to a US CVSG. Yes such a force could probably overwhelm un unsupported USN DDG or CG but to do so would guarantee an overwhelming response. In short fabe, no the Venzeualans feilding these aircraft will not prevent the US from engaging in gunboat diplomacy.

    Secondly that artcile appears to date from 2000. That is prior to the fleet introduction of SeaRAM and ESSM.

    Daniel

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 545 total)