SintraI saw video’s of Belgian troops in Afghanistan under fire.
Sanen saw a video in youtube… Thats conclusive…
Can the Reaper do the QRA and the Baltic Police missions, yes or no?
the Belgian Air component that supposedly asked LMT to stop offering them life extension estimates on the F-16?
What the hell has your question to do with the UTAP22 capability (or lack of it…) to do any of the missions that were described in the RFP?
Sintrathe fact is that for most of the missions that Belgium has been executing in recent decades, a Reaper type UAV would have been a much better and cheaper option than say an F-35, both as a weapon system and as an individual aircraft
and now that something like a UTAP-22 is coming in as a reusable cruise missile for $2 million, you can easily buy dozens of these for the cost of a single F-35, and they’ll do the job better at a fraction of the operational cost
And the sillyness keeps on going…
A Reaper type would have been a much better option for QRA and the Baltic Air Police Operation?
And offcourse that a fleet of UTAP-22 would be able to do the missions that the Belgian Air component have described in their RFP?
SintraFirst of all the US is deploying 400!!!! ABM interceptors in Europe as we speak. If you believe they are deploying 400 ABM interceptors to deal with Iran and N.Korea there is a bridge I would love to sell you. Each ABM interceptor is itself effectively an IRBM and on radar that’s what it looks like when you fire one. So just firing THAAD or SM-6 endangers the whole damn planet. Hence why they do like 1-2 tests a year. They have to phone Russia to alert them of the test just to avoid the end of the planet.
Each cell built in Romania can comfortably be used to house 2 naval Tomahawks in a pinch which means the US is effectively abrogating not just the ABM treaty but the medium range treaty because even digging a hole that may house a land based cruise missile is a violation of the treaty and the US knows this and doesnt care but when Russia builds a new ground based cruise missile in response it’s Russia that’s violating the treaty. Laughable logic.
People worrying about Iskanders accuracy are barking up the wrong tree. Not only has it been used in Georgia to a CEP of +/- 10 meters but its been used in Syria too. An air launched version isnt going to be less accurate because it’s faster. At this point its been tested in two wars and fired over 100 times. It shredded a Georgian Buk battery just fine. It’s CEP should mean it has no problem engaging a gigantic aircraft carrier though a frigate is probably a challenge. Thankfully no one is going to intentionally waste a strategic platform like this intentionally hunting a frigate.
On launch this thing is not going mach 10. From the videos it’s going about Mach 2-3 in that initial cruising stage. Janes did the math on that mach 2 number from the released video. You can google it. At some point it climbs and then has a near-terminal drop stage where it escalates to Mach 10. Iskander has a 4 way guidance package. TERCOM, GLONASS, Inertial and optical DSMAC. In its final-final terminal stage though it should again be a cruise missile. The final maneuver is supposed to be an end stage S-curve to get around point defense batteries. In the Putin video the graphic clearly shows a non-ballistic end maneuver.
I trust the videos because these leaks are intentionally being put out to get the US to negotiate a new treaty. There is no point to lie about something you will submit to inspections under any treaty negotiated.
As for ATACMS getting this capability — not any of the current versions. The current deployed versions have half the speed of Iskander and are not capable of this kind of end stage maneuvering and dont have the same kind of guidance package. The IVA blocks are just GPS and Inertial guided. They dont have TERCOM or DSMAC. A new version is in the works though.
Facepalm
Oh the absolute sillyness of it…
A) The US is not sticking 400 ABM interceptors in Europe, they have 24 in Romania
B) The Romanian silos can hold only one Tomahawk, but NATO fields hundreds of MK41 VLS in Europe, namely in the seas around Europe, so making a fuss about those Romanian silos is entirely idiotic
C) A ballistic missile shot from Russia into the US does not overfly Europe, an SM6 or SM3 has absolutely no chances of intercepting those missiles
D) Russia is deployng S400´s all over the bloody place and i dont see anyone in Russia about it…
SintraI doubt sanitizing German parts from the Typhoon supply chain is fiscally feasible. Germany to date has ordered 143 Typhoons while the sum of Germany, Italy, Spain and UK orders is 472. This suggests the German workshare on the project is around 30%. That is huge. Germany in particular builds the center fuselage, which is kind of important for an aircraft.
Sanitizing German parts from the Typhoon would not be “fiscally feasible” it would also be a technical nightmare. I suspect that the Germans will use a “legalistic” aproach of the type “we are exporting to Great Britain, what they do with it its their concern”, almost every single arm export to Saudi Arabia by any western country will have some “bits” coming from Germany, from Airbus Radars for their new LCS frigates, to parts of engines for their Eagles, etc. Off course that by the time that a contract is actually signed this German embargo might be entirely off.
SintraAny one have an accurate number on the total budgeted by France for the Rafale (R&D, Procurement, MILCON etc) or the UK with the Typhoon?
Uk Typhoon.
The most recent official (and exact) numbers available publicly that i am aware are here (choose the “Appendices and project summary sheets (pdf – 1795KB)” and go to page 170): https://www.nao.org.uk/report/major-projects-report-2015-and-the-equipment-plan-2015-to-2025/
The “Readers Digest” of it his 18189 million pounds to develop, acquire and upgrade (till P3E), 160 airframes (no sustainment, training, etc).
Cheers
SintraWhich one?
Open the page, look to the top right… It has the same nationality that the site himself.
But you knew that… :dev2:
SintraSintraA new, more detailed RFI has been sent to London and Washington for help with the F3:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art…n-designs.html
Is London’s inclusion just a nod towards burgeoning defence ties, or are they actually interested in what BAE etc have to offer?
Hmmmm, that looks suspiciously like “we are going to buy more F-35A´s, lets send a memo to Boeing and BAE just to maintain LM on its toes”.
Cheers
SintraSintra, That article is a painful read.
Yep, that particular site has a long history of that kind of articles for every major aerospace combat aircraft program with the exception of one
SintraDid they actually deliver the full 72 in the first lot, I thought they stopped at 48?
The Saudis received 48 T2 and 24 T3.
Cheers
SintraThe level of “buthurt” in that article is absolutely stunning…
SintraI see that but I have to wonder if the delay is actually more to do with not wanting to commit to the joint programme yet, than not having funds for something.
You mean, like waiting for the industrial strategy paper to be finished before commiting the money? Yes, could be, its entirely plausible.
Sintra48 Typhoons for Saudi Arabia:
If the Saudi sale is confirmed (and i believe that its almost a certain) the Warton line would be open more or less till 2026/27, no?
Looking back at the Saudi acquisions, the kit in those Phoons should be pretty interesting, an update on the Kuwaiti aircrafts and an almost certain upgrade path for the other 72 RSAF jets (and for the RAF).
SintraI don’t see how the UK leaving the EU is going to stop this progressing?
Budget? Lack of it?
The UK is grappling with a spiraling MOD budget and the very, very real prospect of having a big hit in the economy because of… well, brexit?
SintraIn the last 2 decades if not more, most war fighting has been carried out in a ground support capacity, where we get some “fast air” types to roll on in for a “non-kinetic attack” and then let off some ordnance towards the bad guys on the ground.
I’m wondering what the point is in having hugely expensive assets (Tornado/Typhoon) carry out such warfighting, when in the South Americas, they use Super Tucano’s in the Hunter/Killer role.
Yes, sure we need QRF, and there’ll always be a need to have a few aircraft under maintenance, but do we need over 100 Typhoons?
I know I’ll get flamed, but I really think for the recent warfighting we have done needs a cheap, low speed, long loiter type(s), to combat the threat from a man waving an AK47 around.
Anyone with a remote interest in defence would notice that a) Russia is throwing Sukhoi´s out of the factory at an awfull fast pace, b) an armed Super Tucano could not operate in more than two thirds of the operations that the RAF conducted since the nineties, that includes the first and second showdown with Hassan Hussein, the full decade of operations in between, Jugoslavia, Lybia, etc, and in order to use them in Syria today, the Russians and the Bashar Al Assad regime would have to give their blessing c) the fast jet fleet of the RAF has almost been disbanded, any further cuts and we are looking of a force capable of only doing QRA and sticking one sqn in QEII, d) the Certifiable Predator B and the AAC´s Apache pretty much cover that particular capability.
You can make a business case for an armed Super Tucano small force, but not at the expense of the dwindling RAF fast jet fleet.
Sign In
