EdLawPull propellers will blow air over the wing way better than a push propeller will pull it over a wing. There are also things like CGs and wing strength to keep in mind. In UAVs you have the engine competing for realestate with sensors and since the whole reason for the UAV is for sensors they usually win out.
Sferrin is right, especially with regards to UAVs. There have, of course, been oddities in each category, such as the B-36 Peacemaker, which used pusher props. In UAV terms, the Hunter UAV is an oddity, in that it uses both pusher and puller props, though this is somewhat unusual. Some smaller UAVs (mini and especially micro UAVs use puller props, for efficiency and design reasons).
EdLawRSM, you seem to be being needlessly rude, Sferrin made very valid points, but you seem to take offence at his questioning your points. The fact is that the X-51 is a representative design for a future missile system, and could almost certainly be put into service if the need arose. This is in much the same way as the RATTLRS could be – it is a test article until it is procured.
As for VLS installation, I would not be so sure – the ATACMS booster would fit, and it would appear that the main body is of no greater diameter. This would mean that it should fit in a standard Mk41 VLS (since the ATACMS itself was looked at as a potential naval missile).
I agree with Sferrin’s comments regarding the comparison of the X-51 with the X-43. The former is planned to have several minutes powered flight at hypersonic speeds, compared to the latter having a matter of seconds powered flight. This makes any comparison very dubious – the X-51 range would naturally be significantly longer, since it is not gliding, i.e. not losing speed and altitude to gain distance.
EdLawPerhaps add some Bell 412s, even marinised ones – they could do most of the Lynx roles, but be a lot cheaper! They could handle vertrep, and lighter recon, and generally supplement the existing fleet. In a lot of the missions in Iraq at the moment, a Bell 412 would be as good as a Lynx, but would cost a lot less, both to purchase and to run. They could even perform the light gunship role, when the Apaches are not available. It would, of course, be a cheap way for the UK to sort out its major helo shortage – buy another dozen Chinooks, a couple of dozen Merlins, and a hundred or so Hueys.
If you want to modernise things of course, you can simply buy AW-139 or -149s instead of the Hueys!
EdLawFor UK purposes, it would be better to stick with the EH-101 as a ‘universal’ helo, buying it in very large numbers for all the forces! It would make a much better option than the NH-90, which is much smaller. Particularly for the UK, buying the EH-101 makes a lot more sense, since it is a partly British product, rather than the NH-90, which is not. Particularly in the case of the British Army, if given EH-101s in decent numbers, they would be very happy! I would argue in favour of the RN getting more (in place of the future Lynx), perhaps 80. The RAF should get perhaps 40, to support special operations and CSAR, and the Army and Royal Marines should get 120+. This would mean a total of 240 helicopters, which would make for an excellent force, and keep the entire helo fleet to just three main types – Merlins, Apaches and Chinooks! Perhaps add in some cheap Bell 412s, to be used on less major operations, and you have an excellent boost to UK helo forces!
EdLawActually Fed, I was talking of using a proper Meteor missile, and simply quad-packing it, not the ESSM body option. As I stated, it’s entirely possible that this could be packed into the Sylver launcher. If this is the case, it could represent an attractive alternative to the Aster 15 missile, but by the same people, so it is win-win. I am not trying to suggest that the French are going to go out and buy Mk41, what I am saying is that the Mk41 could be better for the UK. The Sylver is far from flexible, and the UK should not buy it simply for political reasons.
EdLawI would say that four capable ships should be enough to properly defend a battlegroup – it is, as mentioned before, pretty much the same as the US does.
As for missiles, I disagree with the suggestion that the RAM is in the same class as the Aster 15 – the RAM is really a short range defence system. They do overlap, but that is never a bad thing! I would certainly hope to replace the Phalanx units with SeaRAM, and give the new carriers some. In addition, I would aim to replace the existing light cannon (the Oerlikon types) with the 35mm Millenium gun or similar.
Eight full T-45s, and eight more cheaper T-45s (perhaps lacking the more expensive AAW systems, in favour of ASW equipment), plus sixteen enlarged Austal LCS, would make a good mix. The LCS vessels would use a modular approach, like the Standard Flex and Meko types. This would allow sixteen identical hulls to be bought, but only eight full weapons and sensor fitouts.
One thing worth noting is that the Meteor missile is of a smaller diameter than the ESSM, so it may be possible to quad-pack them. I am not sure if this would work with the Sylver launchers, but it should work with the Mk41. It may well work with the Sylver though, which could make it an attractive option for France, the UK, and potentially a variety of other countries.
EdLawOne thing worth noting is that the Meteor missile is of a smaller diameter than the ESSM, so it may be possible to quad-pack them. I am not sure if this would work with the Sylver launchers, but it should work with the Mk41. It may well work with the Sylver though, which could make it an attractive option for France, the UK, and potentially a variety of other countries.
EdLawThanks, unfortunately I’d found this one, but sadly, little detail other than speed! 🙁
It may of course be too early or too classified, hence not publicised, or it may of course not be intended to be used operationally, merely as a technology demonstrator.
Hopefully they’ll release some range figures into the public domain sometime soon!
EdLawIn terms of the Mig-31, that is an odd face-off! The Mig-31 is basically a long range interceptor, and wouldn’t stand much chance other than for a long range BVR engagement. It is doubtful that the Mig would get such a shot against the Typhoon, given the excellent defensive ECM on the Typhoon.
EdLawAnd of course converted trainers like the Cessna A-37 and the BAC Strikemaster!
EdLawI would hope that the UK would switch to the Mk41 VLS, and move from the Aster 15 to the ESSM, but with the active seeker from the Meteor. The ESSM could be quad-packed, and with the seeker from the Meteor, it would have an excellent capability. The Type 45 would have ability to carry 40 Aster 30 missiles, and a further 32 active-ESSM, and that is assuming it sticks to 48 cells. I have no problem with the Aster 30, only a problem with the Aster 15, since it takes up the same space. If the UK were to adopt the ESSM with a Meteor seeker, and hopefully the RIM-116 RAM, then the UK ships would be very well protected.
In terms of the LCS, an eight cell VLS, combined with the RAM, would give an excellent defence for the ships. For land attack though, I would choose a derivative of the GMLRS (or Lockheeds smaller P44), since the ship is big enough to house an MLRS launcher in the hangar, and hundreds of rockets internally.
EdLawThe RN still has a requirement for 8, and plans for C1 (large combat ship, possibly cheaper T-45), C2 (medium capability patrol, and C3 (cheap patrol ship). The aim is, apparently, to have eight of each, which would obviously be a major step forward. The UK also needs to replace its mine warfare vessels, and arguably this could be combined with C2 and C3, by buying a UK LCS equivalent.
EdLawThe only problem is the RN is not likely to get 16 Type-45’s? As a matter of fact at this point she will be lucky to get half that many. (i.e. eight)
This is not actually entirely certain – the UK plan is to field eight high end ships (the ‘C1’ ships), in addition to the eight T-45s. It is entirely probable that these could simply be T-45s, though possibly without the extensive AAW fitout. The problem is really one of funding – once the carriers are being built, then the RN can push for more ships, ideally simply continuing to buy the ships. The UK could buy one T-45 every year, and one Astute class sub every two years…
EdLawThe Typhoon, if updated with newer engines (the proposed EJ-230s if memory serves) and thrust vectoring, it will outperform Flankers comfortably. One thing to remember though is that nowadays, with high off-boresight missiles, it is more important to see the target than to try and point the aircraft right at them. It is arguably better to turn your head to look at the Flanker, than to try to turn the aircraft…
As for the UK buying Eagles or Tomcats, before the fighter version of the Tornado, the UK actually looked at both. The Eagle was only a single seater at the time, and the UK wasn’t so sure about its ECM/ESM capabilities, and generally judged two crew to be needed. The Tomcat was actually felt to be close to ideal, and apparently the only thing that put the UK off was the cost of the Phoenix missiles. Personally, I cannot see the Phoenix having been too much of a problem, especially since it could use Sparrows instead of Phoenix missiles anyway. It would have been great for the UK to negotiate a major Tomcat order, and get second hand Phantoms as part of the deal. As the USN replaced their Phantoms, the UK could have bought the F-4Js cheaply. It might actually have been a good Tornado alternative (if that project had fallen through), buying perhaps 200 Tomcats, and getting 400 Phantoms as part of the deal.
EdLawI’ve seen a few G-2s on the market, but not seen any G-4s yet, though they may be good choices. Personally, I would probably lean more towards the L-39, because they are cheap and plentiful still. If you actually had real money, you could probably buy a new one (or L-159 civilian derivative)! The other attraction of the L-39 is that you could buy an airworthy one, and a non-airworthy one, so that you can practice repairing things, without expensive first time errors….. :diablo:
Sign In
