danrhI’m building right now MiG-29 model for my girlfriend birthday.Hope she never see this one……
You have a girlfriend you can give models to? Did she accquire this interest at a special school, and can I enrol my wife?
Daniel
danrhAs for the others, yeah right. We’ve got as much chance of those entering service as the Su-34 does of replacing the F-111’s. Sure they are very capable planes and all that, but with the current government we don’t have a hope in hell.
Come on Ja, a little balance please. No Australian government, Coalition or Labour is going to buy Russian etc. Not now and probably not anytime in the next 10-15 years.
Daniel
danrhIn regards to the Caribou, why not just increase the fleet of CH-47D’s in service from the current 6 to say 12 or even 18 aircraft. True this isn’t a direct replacement but it would increase the Army’s mobility considerably.
Well it would mean more funds and personnel transferring from the RAAF to the Army :). Doesn’t generally go down too well.
Daniel
danrhInteresting. I think this might be the first proposal for tanker equipped aircraft to be used in RPT service. Certainly there have been plenty of proposals which involved use as freight aircraft.
Daniel
danrhThe problem for Canada is that it needs to replace a surprisingly large number of Hercs, and replacing them with only a handful of C-17s and J-model Hercs could prove difficult. I would not mind seeing a mixed approach – ~5 C-17s, ~15-20 C-130Js and a few more reconditioned CC-150s converted to MRTT configuration. There are plenty of A-310s available, and they might allow for a spreading of the transport taskings – they would probably compare favourably with buying extra C-130Js!
Maybe some Juliett Herks early for the most urgent replacements. Then bargin for good terms on A-3XXMRTTs and A-400Ms in the longer term.
Daniel
danrhI agree. Seeing Canadas ageing Hercs draws a wince when I realize that the highest hour C-130 in the world is flown out of Trenton. However, I think the newer J variant will be the best suited aircraft for Canada. It is cheaper than the An-124 and C-17 and is currently in production just south of the border.
On the other, how many C-17s has Australia commited to buying for its needs?
Just the four C-17s, we already have 12 C-130J-30s and currently 12 C-130H
Daniel
danrhGee’s, is this still going! I refer to my first post. This is not and will never be a realistic proposal. No one nation or even group of nations has the couple of thousand personnel around to crew a US carrier, especially one as reportedly maintenance intensive as the JFK. On top of that they don’t have the other couple of thousand of troops to fill the airgroup. Its a stupid, wholly political idea, floated perhaps a way of excusing the fact the ship will be retired “gee we tried to get the Euro’s to take it so don’t blame us”
Daniel
danrhMost of the time the first strike by cruise missiles relies on surprise… awkward timings and unexpected directions. It will also be fully supported by ELINT so any radars that do turn on will have their positions marked for immediate (prefered) or later targetting.
Of course the problems of the tactics of using cruise missiles while simultaneous targeting of active radars has meant a huge increase in optically guided and aimed weapons and mobile systems that are much harder to engage. Even a shoulder fired MANPADs can be integrated into the air defence network with plenty of warning and a direction for the operator look in with a night scope to aid use at night. More modern systems might even use weapons like ground launched R-77s with an off site targetting system for lock on after launch attacks. MANPADs are particularly threatening because they are relatively cheap enough to deploy in numbers large enough to actually be effective in the anti cruise missile/anti UAV role.
I have real doubts about the real world veracity of such an AD system. While the MANPADs themselves are individually cheap I suspect the overall system would not be and would also be considerably less flexible than a more conventional arrangement. You have to field many more MANPADs teams to the same level of coverage as from heavier longer ranged systems. The troops need to be trained. Probably more than the standard training that your army MANPADs team get since these troops are now part of your AD, typically some of the best trained and treated troops in many forces. Consider the performance of the Serbian SAM commander and his troops who brought down the F-117A. Sure there were stuff-ups on the NATO side but it was still a skillfully set trap. That level of dedication and initiative is expensive to mass produce. You might not want your MANPADS team to all be like that but chances are you’ll be after something a little better than the standard grunt.
After you have your quality troops equipped and trained then you have to deploy them, establish their communications and keep them motivated. To effectively cover targets your teams will needs to be widely deployed in small teams. This means placing a large ammount of trust in these troops, not something that comes easy to your average despot (for example 🙂 ). You have to be able to communicate with them all so that they can be cued to thier fleeting targets. Radio is probably not much good since jamming is probably going to be a given but other comms methods generally also vulnerable. If you lose comms to your teams then all they are really good for then is to sit back and wait for the Marines to appear overhead in thier Osprey’s. Now we come to keeping this force motivated and in the field. What if Saddam had deployed a system like this back in ’91 to protect Iraqi targets. After the months long build up how many of these troops would actually have been at their posts by the time the air attacks started?
Sure the traditional model of higher level AD assets manned by relatively small numbers numbers of highly trained and somewhat pampered troops hasn’t succeeded in stopping a US attack but honestly the only method of realistically acheiving that is to invest in an AD system on a par with that of the former USSR/Warpac. Anything less is hardly even going to slow them down.
Daniel
Ps apologies for continuing what appears to be a rather a OT discussion in this thread 🙂
danrhThe point being that if they’re not cheaper than leasing An-124s (which the US military has done in the past if I remember rightly) then why operate them at all for the next 25 years? I’m not interested in a pissing contest of any kind – I was merely curious.
Because there are not 111 An-124s. Because the US cannot be beholden to another nation or commercial interest to move the level of stores they require.
Daniel
ps my apologies, guess the agro was the result of seeing too many threads here go off track before they even get out of the station.
danrhIs it going to be cheap enough to operate to compete with the An-124? If not then whats the point? If so, then this really could be significant news.
#$%%#@#, why the insistence on trying to turn this into a pissing contest. The whole of point of the program is
extending the fleet’s life by more than 25 years.
there is no plan to reopen the line for sales and the US isn’t going to be leasing their aircraft out in a way we see with the An-124s.
Daniel
danrhfrom defence-aerospace
Kaman Issues Statement Regarding Its Australian SH-2G (A) Helicopter Program
(Source: Kaman Corp.; issued May 16, 2006)
BLOOMFIELD, Connecticut — Kaman Corp. today issued a statement regarding its Australian SH-2G(A) helicopter program.
Over the past several years, the company has reported extensively on its SH-2G(A) helicopter program for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), a USD 611 million fixed-price contract for 11 aircraft featuring a new technology-advancing Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS). While the basic aircraft have been completed for several years and nine have been provisionally accepted by the Commonwealth, they have lacked the full ITAS system. The company has reported on the substantial charges it has taken to provide the funding to complete the program, and has reported its progress toward the ITAS completion in its quarterly releases and public filings.
Kaman has been working closely with the RAN and believes the program is close to completion. In May 2006, the company finished the last of approximately 400 pre-qualification software tests of the ITAS software, and is in preparation for the final qualification testing to be witnessed by the Commonwealth. This process is expected to be followed by acceptance of the fully capable helicopters.
In its press release of May 2, 2006, the company reported that the Royal Australian Navy had encountered an anomalous flight condition on one of its training aircraft that was attributed to the aircraft’s airspeed sensor. This anomaly, involving a small component from a supplier, is not impacting the development process for the ITAS. The company also reported that the Australian Navy’s Operations Airworthiness Authority had suspended flying operations pending resolution and that final acceptance of the aircraft would not occur until the issue had been resolved. The company believes that it has determined the cause of the anomaly and has a plan for resolution of the issue.
Paul Kuhn, Chairman, President and CEO said, “Early this week, articles appeared in the Australian media that are critical of the program. At least one article questioned the safety of the aircraft. In fact, there is a significant history of safe operations for this aircraft type with the U.S. Navy and currently with several other naval services including the Royal New Zealand Navy.
“We are confident that the same will be the case for the Australian aircraft, and believe that working through the remaining technical issues is the most timely and cost-effective route to fulfilling the RAN’s mission requirements. We look forward to the introduction of the fully-capable SH-2G(A) helicopters into service with the Royal Australian Navy.”
Kaman Corp. conducts business in the aerospace, industrial distribution and music markets.
-ends-
danrhIs this a practical idea handing over the JFK to NATO? It sounds interesting on paper but I have no clue if it would be a good idea.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/JFK05156.xml
Perhaps the airgroup could be some of these
Daniel
danrhfrom JDW 3 May 06
Ankara clears missile defence purchase
LALE SARIIBRAHIMOGLU JDW Correspondent
Ankara
The Almaz S-300 low- to high-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) system and the Lockheed Martin Patriot Advanced Capability-3 low- to high-altitude SAM are likely to be the main competitors for the Turkish programme USD1 billion has been earmarked for the acquisistion
The Turkish Treasury has cleared the way for the Turkish Air Force to acquire four batteries of long-range air-defence systems when it agreed in late April to guarantee some USD1 billion in foreign company/state loans through which the acquisition is to be financed.
The Executive Committee of the Turkish Defence Industries Undersecretariat (SSM), the senior decision-making echelon on arms purchases, should now meet, probably in June, to approve the acquisition, paving the way for the SSM to release a request for proposals.
Russia’s Almaz with its S-300 low- to high-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) system and the US’ Lockheed Martin with its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) low- to high-altitude SAM are likely to be the main competitors for the programme. The Chinese HQ-9 system and French MBDA 30 SAMP/T medium-range air-defence system may also compete for the tender.
The Israel Aircraft Industries Arrow weapon system could also be a contender, but this would only counter high-altitude threats.
Despite plans for an international tender, a senior Turkish Air Force (TAF) general told Jane’s that the TAF favoured the Russian S-300 system because it would meet the Turkish requirement for addressing a range of missile threats. “Unlike PAC-3, the S-300 has a wider range in deterring conventional threats,” the general said. However, he noted “there are several parameters in the S-300 system that need to be evaluated before a decision can be made”.
While the general declined to disclose or elaborate on the nature of the parameters, Turkish Chief of General Staff General Hilmi Ozkök has reportedly been against the acquisition of Russian systems.
Further, Lockheed Martin, contesting the TAF general’s evaluation of the PAC-3, has briefed the Turkish Air Force Command on the capabilities of the PAC-3 to address the TAF’s requirements.
The impetus for the accelerated acquisition of longer-range air-defence systems has been prompted by Iran’s implicit attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, a defence source in Ankara told Jane’s.
” *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml“
danrhfrom JNI May 06
Chile contracts for Seawolf Block 2
Richard Scott
Seawolf Block 2 will equip a single Chilean Type 22 frigate and three Type 23 frigates acquired from the UK The Block 2 missile is designed to overcome component obsolescence while maintaining compatibility with existing ship systems
Chile has become the first overseas customer for the Seawolf Block 2 point defence missile after concluding a contract with MBDA UK in February 2006.
The contract covers the supply of both conventional-launch and vertical-launch missile variants, plus training and handling equipment, to equip Almirante Williams, an ex-UK Royal Navy (RN) Type 22 Batch 2 frigate currently in service with the Armada de Chile, plus three ex-RN Type 23 frigates to be delivered between 2006 and 2008.
Almirante Williams, equipped with the GWS 25 Mod 3 system, was transferred in 2003 with a very limited stock of older conventional launch Block 1 Seawolf missiles. The new Block 2 buy is intended to establish a larger inventory of missiles to meet the Chilean Navy’s long-term needs as it progressively introduces the Type 23s into service. The latter ships are fitted with the GWS 26 Mod 1 Vertical Launch Seawolf system.
The Seawolf Block 2 missile entered RN service in July 2005, following substantial re-engineering to overcome a number of component obsolescence issues while maintaining form, fit and function compatibility with existing GWS 25 Mod 3 and GWS 26 Mod 1 ship systems. The Block 2 manufacture concept also allows for the supply of both Conventional Launch Seawolf and Vertical Launch Seawolf rounds using a common missile ‘dart’ and rocket booster.
While the Block 2 missile’s external dimensions mirror those of the earlier Block 1, the new missile has been designed to overcome obsolescence in many of the components present in the legacy missiles. Improvements include a new electronic actuation system to replace the former gas actuation system (resulting in improved missile rate control and agility) and a solid-state silicon gyro in the Inertial Measurement Unit.
Also, drawing on experience from MBDA’s AIM-132 Advanced Short Range air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) programme, Seawolf Block 2 also incorporates an ASRAAM multi-chip module (implemented in Ada on PowerPC hardware) to provide more in-flight computing power in a much smaller package. Additionally, Block 2 incorporates the new Mk 4 Seawolf Enhanced Low Level dual-mode infrared/radio frequency, developed under a separate contract to improve Seawolf’s performance against very low sea skimming, low signature targets.
danrhfrom JNI May 06
Lockheed Martin completes Block 04 BMD assessment
Nick Brown
Lockheed Martin has completed the land-based engineering assessment phase of development for the latest ballistic missile defence (BMD) Aegis upgrade, Block 04, which will see the return of several core warfighting capabilities to the US Navy’s (USN’s) emergency deployment BMD ships.
The system actually passed its qualifications in February, but the company only cleared the announcement for release in time for the Navy League’s Sea Air Space symposium in Washington DC.
When the USN decided to push a BMD long-range search-and-track capability as an emergency deployment on its Aegis destroyers and cruisers, it was agreed that several traditionally core Aegis combat-management capabilities would be pulled down from the system to minimise potential software conflicts.
Block 04 includes workarounds to ensure the smooth integration of the BMD aspects with the surface and anti-air capabilities, and the land-based engineering assessment effectively proved this out for fleet upgrade on the service’s 15 dedicated BMD destroyers and three cruisers.
Installations are already under way and all three Ticonderoga-class engagement cruisers and 12 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have undergone the upgrade. The remaining ships will receive the fit as part of their standard maintenance cycles.
Sign In
