Page 112 – Key Publishing

Sintra

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,666 through 1,680 (of 3,443 total)

← 1 2 3 … 111 112 113 … 228 229 230 →

Author

Posts
April 2, 2013 at 1:17 pm in reply to: F-22A Raptors to South Korea. #2291314

Sintra
Participant

Wow ! that’ll teach’em !

Highly provocative.

unless of course it was for domestic consumption showing how tax money
was put to good use on F-22.

It might, “Static Display, Osan, South Korea, two aircrafts, good accountability”…
On second thoughts, probably not.

On a related issue, has the flight restrictions been lifted off F-22 now ?

If i remember corretly the only flight restriction still imposed was the 35000 ft altitude limit.

April 2, 2013 at 1:02 pm in reply to: F-22A Raptors to South Korea. #2291328

Sintra
Participant

……And how many F-22 are supposedly stationed at S.Korea now ?

A mighty armada of… two Raptors. Two F-22 are (on static display!) at Osan.

April 2, 2013 at 11:57 am in reply to: F-22A Raptors to South Korea. #2291356

Sintra
Participant

Of course it’s *** provocative, flying a NUCLEAR B-2 stealth bomber at their borders?! They did it because they want to MAINTAIN the tensions, rather than do any kind of efforts to diffuse it. There are all kinds of maniacs over there who are itching for a war just like some folks in this very thread!
Btw me i wouldn’t even trust what they say the north koreans said, we’re bombarded daily with bombastic news stories about the evil NK and evil Kim Jong Un that you can’t help thinking there’s something rotten with all this. I will eat my boot if that twenty something Kim Jong Un guy wants to get into a war and get himself killed rather that go in fun rides and play on his computer and ride his horses! Really !?:mad:

Talk about sticking your head in the sand.
The fatso threatens to blow half the Peninsula (and Washinton DC!) into nuclear flames and the US should do nothing…
Yep, good idea. I have been a ferocious critic of the USA diplomacy for two decades, but hell, in this they are doing the correct thing, they are apeaking softly and are carrying a bloody big stick. Good job.
If there´s one thing that the US and (even more so) the South Koreans have shown is restraint. Its almost unbelivable the kind of provocations that North Korea has made, and this for decades.

April 2, 2013 at 11:24 am in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2291394

Sintra
Participant

I think most, including the EF, need “more info required” when it comes to altitude, fuel state, loadout, and distance in SC. Also, was the speed constant or was it coasting?

Really?

We have the 2009 Swiss evaluation stating that the twin seater, the heavier and draggier version mind you, does a constant mach 1.4 without re-heat, we have Flight Global´s Dave Mujambar and Luftwaffe Lt Coronel Grune stating that it maintains sc armed and with two external tanks, we have severall official Eurofighter (and Saab) presentations stating either “Supercruise” or “mach 1.2” for 250 Nm with 8 aam´s and with 30 m on station, we have RAF Wg Cdr Gav Parker stating that an armed Typhoon has a “robust” supersonic dash capability (in Air International by example) without using reheat, etc, etc…
What do you want more? The exact performance statistics?!

An ATA armed Typhoon at the correct altitude (around 40K´s) does indeed fly at constant speeds over mach 1.0 without post combustion untill the fuel runs off, by now, thats something indisputable, unless we stick our heads in the sand…

The (one) JSF supercruise claim was challenged because, well, there are severall earlier reports originating from the JSF team, LM, test pilots, etc, stating the exact oposite (this can be easily explained by the normal evolution of the flight tests, if so congratulations) and (IMO more to the point) because it was made few weeks before it was revealed that the JSF had failed its transonic accelaration KPP, wich werentt exactly demanding in the first place.
So yes, its normal that this particular claim is disputed, and yes i agree with you, for a final conclusion on the JSF “SC” claim there´s “more info required”.

March 28, 2013 at 12:08 pm in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2297119

Sintra
Participant

Fresh from the FlightGlobal press:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/former-usn-chief-suggests-dod-should-cancel-f-35a-in-favour-of-c-model-383969/

Great idea! Lets slash the least expensive of the three variants…

March 27, 2013 at 11:44 am in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2297773

Sintra
Participant

Special missions for canada?

Sillyness, stealth is indispensable when hunting sasquatch´s…

March 27, 2013 at 11:26 am in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2297784

Sintra
Participant

Haven’t Spaniards shown interest in the F-35B before? :confused:

Yes, they have shown interest, just like every western MOD in the planet, that doesnt mean that they are going to buy it in the medium term (or ever), or that they have actually planned/set the budget aside for doing it.

I certainly can’t see a viable alternative for their Principe de Asturias carrier.

Well, thats not exactly a problem, the “Principe de Asturias” was decomissioned in February this year. 😀
You are thinking of the “Juan Carlos I” an amphibious assault ship with a STVOL component.
When the times come for replacing the Harrier, the F-35B is the strongest and (unless something changes dramaticaly) the only fixed wing contender, that doesnt mean an automatic acquisition of the aircraft, the capability might be slashed, or the Armada might go into rotary “only”, has off now all those alternatives are on the table.

March 27, 2013 at 11:04 am in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2297812

Sintra
Participant

From my point of view, an optimum capability European force for a 50mil nation would consist of 18-24 ship-borne F-35Bs for first day attacks, force projection and special missions and 80-120 Typhoons or Rafales as daily workhorse (air policing, interceptions, general A-G work). Which is not that far off what we can observe in Italy, Spain or UK.

Spain?!
Since when Spain is comited to the JSF?
Last time i´ve checked the Spanish plan to flogg the Harriers and classical Hornets to their limits and then look at whatever is on the market versus their military needs and, more importantly, their budget. They almost certainly wont acquire anything for the next decade and a half, and when the times arrive to actually buy something bets are off on what will be.

March 26, 2013 at 10:48 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2298481

Sintra
Participant

It might be me… but his this sale to Singapore confirmed?
Is there any Letter of Notification to the Congress?
The specialized press (Flight, Key Aero, AW, Janes, etc) have broke the news?

:confused:

Again it might be me, but before discussing the deal it might be better to wait a bit and get confirmed details?

Cheers

ps – These last days the “almost confirmed” sales of “35´s”, be they American or Russian into the Asian market are on a rage!

March 25, 2013 at 6:25 pm in reply to: Dassault Rafale #14 – News & Discussion #2299362

Sintra
Participant

Pretty sure i’ve read the old ugly Viggen could do it already

The “old Viggen” could guide a Sky Flash shot from another Viggen, but never heard of an entirely BVR silent kill capability (detect, track, lock, shoot, destroy, entirely based on passive sensors).

March 24, 2013 at 11:35 am in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2300257

Sintra
Participant

Lockheed Announces New Aeronautics, F-35 Execs
Lawson is out.
Carvalho and Martin move up.

Orlando P. Carvalho

Curious, that name is entirely Portuguese.

Either is parents were Brasilian or Portuguese (Açores, probably).

March 19, 2013 at 11:55 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2303341

Sintra
Participant

If the “High Value Target” was immobile (e.g. a building), you would use a cruise missile. But if the HVT is a mobile TBM launcher, you have to locate it with a sensor and guide a PGM. This probably means your AASM or standoff missile is useless.

On benign enviroments, grids of UAV´s backed up by the likes of ASTOR and E-8 are doing that job now, with sucess, on “non permissive enviroments” (AKA “China”) might has well try with some completely new kit, because the JSF wont be doing recon behind “the enemy lines”, doesnt have the range for that.

March 19, 2013 at 11:42 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2303355

Sintra
Participant

4.5 would do better than 4 but not as well as 5. 🙂

Any way you slice it you are sending a lot more assets against the same set of targets. This limits the total number of targets you can prosecute in any one day and drives up the cost to prosecute any one target.

In oposition to slashing the numbers of your fast jet fleet, because that fleet is excedingly expensive to acquire and operate?
How many targets can the ~120 combat coded Raptor fleet can pursue by oposition to the US Navy SH and Growler fleet?

March 19, 2013 at 11:38 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2303366

Sintra
Participant

The logic behind Package Q, and the solution to not let it happen again, is exactly what lead to the F-35.

http://www.lucky-devils.net/baghdad.html

btw is a wiki misquote as you can see from the direct quote above.

If it were that simple then they would have planned & coordinated better and tried it again.

But they have. Package Q happened ONCE, since then Allied air power (or generaly speaking western air forces) have been doing identical missions (actually some much harder missions, think “Operation Orchad”) without losses, hundreds of them.
Not too long ago the IDF/AF was overflying (literaly) Basshar All Assad house with Vipers.

They did not so that was not the “real” lesson learned.

The “real” lesson is that if you have a tool to get the job done at a lower cost of life, money, time, manpower, and collateral damage, then you would be a fool not to use it.

EXACTLY, Predator, Storm Shadow, data links, Litening, EPWIV, GPS, JDAM, Hammer, etc… Those have been the tools, NOT the F-35, and NOT LO platforms.

You want to talk about expensive, there were almost 100 planes involved in Package Q. Two were lost, two pilots were POW, and a great deal of the Strikers were mission killed when they were forced to drop tanks & bombs to evade SAMs and AAA.

Because a badly planed mission wouldnt meant the loss of a LO platform, and a lost LO platform is a cheap thing, right?
27 march 1999, ring a bell?

The F-117 was retired, it was “replaced” by the Raptor, who never had to shot anything in anger because “everyone and their dog” started to use stand off PGM`s to do the Job…
The exact same job that required an F-117 in 91 was being done by the RAF Tornados in 2003, the diference was called Storm Shadow.

March 19, 2013 at 6:05 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2303568

Sintra
Participant

Here is LM’s range for a Hi-LO-LO-HI profile with various tank configs (all have a centerline tank).

460 nmi with 370 gallon wing tanks.
570 nmi with 600 gallon wing tanks.
630 nmi with 600 gallon wing tanks and conformal fuel tanks.

Loadout is 2x2k bombs and the tanks are dropped when empty.

That can get expensive real fast.

What happens if you get jumped on the way in (no sneaking in thanks to your barndoor RCS) and have to drop the tanks early… so much for the longer range. Package Q suffered from this as a lot of F-16s suffered from a Mission Kill as they had to jettison stores to evade AAA and SAMs.

The Q Package tried to go after a gigantic fixed target in the midle of downtown Baghdad with MK82´s.
Package Q was a badly planned, poorly executed mission, end of story.
Trying to portray Q Package has the template of alied operations for the past two decades (and for the next two) and by that concluding that an all FJet VLO fleet (AKA “everyone must buy the JSF”) is an imperative its insane!
If you go after fixed targets in heavily defended scenarios, CASOM the targets…

And trying to portray the loss of external fuel tanks has “expensive” is… i dont have the words for it!
You are trying to defend the most expensive defense program (and one of the most complex) in the entire history of planet earth by stating that droping external fuel tanks is expensive?!
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,666 through 1,680 (of 3,443 total)

← 1 2 3 … 111 112 113 … 228 229 230 →