pjhydrohttp://englishrussia.com/?p=3524
Let’s see Americans do that!
Why would they even want to?
pjhydrohttp://www.ausairpower.net/API-ASRAAM-Analysis.html
As the article says, once the Germans pulled out the UK pretty much went back to the drawing board.
pjhydroJust goes to prove that without differentiation of new seeker ASRAAM frame is not the perfectly fine WVR Missile. Now that every WVR Missile has new-gen seeker, ASRAAM seems more obselete than it ever was.It is no surprise that Australians also concluded(like US before) that with new seeker, AIM-9X is better than newly developed ASRAAM.
The only reason the croc wrestlers have gone for 9X with F18F is the cost of installation on what is essentially a temporary airframe that may only be in service for a few years. The RAAF plan to have ASRAAM on their F35s as the UK will have paid for installation in the development process.
The RAF and MBDA do not consider ASRAAM to be obsolete otherwise the UKs next gen SAM system would not be being based on it. You have to remember that missiles are the one area where true national competition can still take place as so many companies/nations make them compared to the aircraft that carry them. This means that national interest takes precedent over other considerations. The Germans, yes tested R73 etc BUT they pulled out to protect their own missile development and production ability as they felt they were a junior partner in ASRAAM and didn’t want to be.
pjhydroSo why not just cycle the frames through the upgrade process as they come out of theatre, no need to do them all at once.
As for the Puma upgrade, it’s has to be done, mostly because they keep delaying it’s replacement, and the airframes will now time out before we can get anything else up and running
I believe they are going to cycle them?? I may be wrong. Its a long term programme, will take years.
As for the Puma, I really feel there is no point throwing millions after an upgrade to a 40 year old aircraft that will at best extend its life another decade and probably will still not be deployable to Afghan. Put that money into Sea King upgrade and the procurement pot, scrap Puma now and deploy personnel to the Seaking/Merlin/Chinook sqns and put the money saved from not operating puma into budgets of the other fleets and the procurement pot. It just has to come with a promise that 230 and 33 sqn will stand up in due course with Merlin.
pjhydroAnyone know more about this Apache upgrade someone was talking about? They said they will all need to come out of theatre. (crazy if you ask me) As far as i was concerned the Apache was performing its mission brilliantly. Why upgrade something that is needed and working. Surely they could wait or do it when aircraft are on rotation. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.
Its to combat obsolesence. The British Apaches are “Block 1” airframes and many of the spare parts are no longer made or about to stop being made. They have to be upgraded otherwise they will run out of spares and end up grounded permantly. The US is moving to “Block 3”.
pjhydroThere isn’t half some ******** talked on this board sometimes.
“It did cause a doctrinal change in the RAF with a move to medium altitude precision strike….”
No, it didn’t.
Who said that then? Because it is indeed tosh. Though the RAF did embrace the medium role, they have still stuck firmly to low level. Unlike the USN which shared much of the RAFs doctrine but has moved away from low level.
JP233 was far from being a weapon of questionable effect against European airfields, railway marshalling yards, or other hard/semi-hard area targets (tank parks, etc.). The problem in Iraq was the sheer size of some of the airfields and the sheer number of alternative runways and taxyways. Cutting a swathe of destruction with JP233 was never likely to close such airfields down, though in fact, it did largely achieve that end, and was the most effective runway denial weapon used during Desert Storm.
The later withdrawal of JP233 had little to do with military effectiveness, and everything to do with woolly headed opposition to landmines.
Oh I agree it would probably have done the business in Europe if the Tonkas had got off the ground post the tactical nuke strike the Soviets had planned for minute one of a war- though having been to several east euro airfields it would have needed a lot of Tonkas to do the job. In Iraq though, save mass carpet bombing, there isn’t much that would have shut those airfields down, they were (and still are) massive. Its all relative, yes the JP233 was the best runway denial system used, but GW1 proved that such a weapon was actually not all that neccessary.
Having been a PBI I am all for the Ottawa treaty frankly, the mine ban is a good thing. Besides, a ‘short’ JP233 was offered with just the demolition charges onboard….why wasn’t it taken up if JP was such a winner?
pjhydroThough why I’m wasting time and energy arguing with someone who can’t spell ‘detrimental’, and who argues against international aid, I don’t know. I must be mad.
Erm, that wasn’t me… there is more than one of us on here.
Ok the detrimental spelling was me, but then I wasn’t aware this was a spelling competition? You are aware the dislexia aflicts at least 20% of a population in some form and that special needs is rising 1% a year in the UK. Comments like that could make you look a bit a Cnut…. :p
Anyway my quote was….
WOH!!! Calm down everyone, avaiton forum remember….
This is a hugely complex debate and one that is not as simple as give lots of money / withdraw all payments. Having worked in Africa I have seen the detrimental effect that aid can have in creating a society of beggars who are uninspired to help themselves, BUT I have also seen the extremely positive effect that aid can have if it is targeted right. Corruption is rife, but then our own shop (RE: bankers etc) is not exactly in order. I am happy to talk over a beer with anyone who wants to find out what I think should be done…..
As for Gaza/Palestine/Israel- That is our problem, we, the UK created the mess that is the modern holy land. We played Arab against Jew, promised both the earth then ******** off and left them to it.
Having worked in Africa I can give you some very good reasons against international aid, but I can also give you some good reasons for it.
pjhydroBrown says we have enough helicopters….? Same Brown who said the UK will lead world in economic recovery? Same Brown who said the UK was well placed to weather the financial storm? Same Brown whose cabinet collegue said we could go to Helmand and not fire a shot? Same Brown who said the NHS and the UK is the best placed nation to deal with swine flu? The same Brown who said he wanted a new more honest and open politics?
The man’s mouth moves but nothing comes out.
pjhydroWe buy kit with a view to a 30 year life, when Chinook was purchased most helicopter types had done no more than 20 years. There was no reason to expect Chinook to go beyond 2010 when it was first purchased. I’m not saying it can’t and shouldn’t but at the time I doubt many people involved in the procurement would have predicted 40 years of service- remember if an aircraft had done 40 years of service in 1980 it would have served in the Battle of Britain. SO the idea that in 1982 someone piped up and said “hey maybe this airframe might be used in 27 years time” is nonsense.
My point is that, agreed the surface detail of this story is a non-story, but the story behind it – the underfunding of the UK armed forces which forces them to constantly resort to bodge jobs is what is being missed by people just dismissing it.
No one has replied to my points about Clansman and FRES etc….does this sense or rightious indignation only apply to aircraft? It is ok to do it with a Chinook, but you all agree that keeping CVRT etc going is not on? Surely we should just keep CVRT going with all those old stored Scorpions and Sabres, I mean it makes better financial sense after all.
pjhydroAm not belittling the ASRAAM, it may suits RAF criteria for intercept at long range, but not “perfectly fine” WVR highly maneuverable dogfight Missile as SOC portrays it.
It is an order of magnitude more manouverable than the old AIM 9s and has been shooting over shoulder. So is perfectly fine dog fight missile, it is descended from HSA Taildog which was a bit of a benchmark system in western circles during the 1970s.
The RAF originally went for the philosophy of putting the manouvre in the missile and not the plane, in the 1970s the RAF was pursuing a Phantom/Taildog combination. Post Falklands, as what was to become Typhoon was developed and following the USAF lead with f15/16 the RAF began to see manouvre in the platform as more important and sacrificed SOME missile manouvre for more range. Which by default also helps less manouvreable aircraft as you keep the fight at a greater range and help avoid a close in knife fight. Combined with IRTS you have yourself a stealth intercept ability.
The British and Israelis are the two airforces with dogfight experience in the period these missiles were developed….I know where I would put my money….ASRAAM if you need to arm an interceptor and want a decent dogfight ability if needed. Python V if you are arming an uncompromised short range dogfighter.
The Saudis would never buy Python and given the long range nature of Iranian intercepts over the gulf it has to be ASRAAM.
pjhydroA lot of tosh is written about the JP233 during GW1, no Tornado was shot down dropping this weapon. One did crash 16km after it had deployed the system but that was put down as a controlled flight into terrain incident.
After the war it was an easy scape goat for general tactical failings by the RAF. True the pilots didn’t like it as you were lit up like Christmas tree as you flew over the target, the violent trim changes when you dumped the pods and the HB-876 munitions were being banned under the anti mine treaty.
I didn’t say that it caused any shoot downs, but Tornados came back with damage and some pretty shaken up crews to deliver a weapon of questionable effect. It feeds into, as you rightly say, the lessons of the RAFs tactical failings of GW1. Low level was not bad per se, it was the weapons and how you deliver them. Low Level penetration is still a very valid tactic, as used in GW2 and now that aircraft are having to barrel in at head height to deliver show of force and straffing runs in the middle of mountin valleys the the RAFs faith in low level training is paying off.
pjhydroSavion, the main reason others didn’t go for ASRAAM is the lack of their own national content and requirements, it was a British led project that was being built to RAF requirements under a NATO (AIM 132) programme. There is nothing wrong with ASRAAM, is just fits a different set of criteria. The RAF wanted more range than AIM 9 based on their experience of the Falklands and the role of north sea interception. The Germans wanted an agile missile for fighting in close over their own territory when intercept ranges were likely to be small and many of the targets would helicopters etc.
It fits RAAF requirements as intercept ranges in Oz will be longer, so range was an important factor.
pjhydroTime and place gentleman….. can we drop it please?
pjhydroIf the pilots are ok, chances are this crash had nothing to do with the terrain as you simply won’t get a chance to even think about ejecting if something went horribly wrong during nap of the earth flight in complex terrain.
This in turn means the crash had nothing to do with pilots being unfamiliar with the new terrain, and the problem most likely happened quite high up.
Besides, didn’t the RAF learn their lesson about low level penetration attacks during Desert Storm?
Difficult to do proper CAS from medium altitude, darn 27mm cannon just won’t hit the target from 10,000 feet….:p
Nothing wrong with low level penetration, still the way to go, its how you deliever ordinance over the target that matters, thats what the RAF learned. In other words don’t pass through flack to deliver a JP233. In GW2 the RAF still used low level penetration but fired off Storm Shadows 150 miles from the target….
pjhydroI’m equally sure that they thought that they’d keep the Argentine Chinook airframe until it was needed, or until the Chinook left service.
I bet they never thought the Chinook would last this long!
Sign In
