dark light

Tribes

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 310 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Australian and US military sales #2477950
    Tribes
    Participant

    Back to topic…..

    If expeditionary warfare is one of our future goals, why only 5 KC-30A’s and 4 C-17s?? I’ve been told we are receiving 2 more C-17s, but are there options open for extra KC-30A’s?

    Shouldn’t be that hard to convert any new/used A330 to KC30 spec, so wouldn’t extra C-17s, while the line is still open, be a higher priority?

    in reply to: Australian and US military sales #2478029
    Tribes
    Participant

    It was assembled and launched at ASC in South Australia in 1993.

    Kockums built the components and major sections for the boat and delivered them by sea to Australia.

    The boats following Collins were manufactured, assembled and launched within Australia.

    Correct, and it was those Swedish built major subassemblies that were reported to have been poorly built.

    in reply to: The F16 C/D block 52+/block 60 vs F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet #2478185
    Tribes
    Participant

    Given that the F/A-18E/F did not improve on the kinetics of earlier F/A-18s but the later block F-16s HAVE improved on the kinetics of earlier F-16s which already had a kinetics advantage…

    In terms of systems, slight/moderate advantage to the F/A-18E/F.

    The RCS of later block F-16s is ~1.2 sq m.
    The RCS of the F/A-18E/F is ~0.1 sq m.

    Thus a given radar would detect a later block F-16 at ~twice the range it would detect a F/A-18E/F.

    The RCS of the Typhoon & Rafale are comparable to the F/A-18E/F. Estimates/claims vary from ~0.5 sq m to ~0.1 sq m (even 0.05 sq m).

    OF COARSE THESE RCSs ARE FOR CLEAN AIRFRAMES & ONLY SIGNIFICANT FOR MORE-OR-LESS HEAD ON. Loaded with external stores or facing another direction & the differences between RCS become significantly less.

    EF and Rafael don’t seem to employ as many structural RCS reducing measures as the SH: for example, faceting on major panels such as undercarriage doors, inlet shaping, radar absorbing structures in the engine inlet ducts, external antenna placement/mounting. The Euros also miss out on canted vertical surfaces. Presumably it would use at least as much RAM as the Eurocanards as well.

    Wouldn’t the use of RAM coated pylons and tanks on the SH help it to maintain a pretty stealthy frontal profile in A2A configuration?

    in reply to: Australian and US military sales #2479044
    Tribes
    Participant

    Umm.. I dunno where you got that from, but all the collins class subs WERE Built in Australia.

    1987

    The $5 billion contract between the Australian Government and ASC for the design and manufacture of six Collins Class submarines was signed on 3 June 1987. It was the largest defence contract signed in Australia to that date.

    Sections of the lead ship were built in Sweden, and yes they were reported to have been built to poor standards.

    in reply to: Australian and US military sales #2481539
    Tribes
    Participant

    Nor would any others because the situation is patently ludicrous and entirely fictional with no basis in even theoretical reality for many decades yet, probably not until the Abrams have gone out of service.

    And everybody in the 1930s saw the Japanese reach into PNG during WWII coming….

    If we are involved in any major conflict in our region its likely the US will also be, just as its its equally as likely that the Europeans wont.

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? Part II #2487110
    Tribes
    Participant

    Not that i disagree with you when the final decision is made, But Robert Macnamara in his memoirs, (if thats how its said in french) Fog of War movie concluded that, -perhaps one should take into consideration what allies think about the whole prospect. (About Vietnam)
    .

    But the US did have support from its allies in the region for Vietnam: Australian, New Zealand, Korea etc. The fact that European countries weren’t involved in that conflict is irrelevant. Just as the fact that Vietnam was supported and backed by China and the USSR – war by proxy – was totally relevant.

    in reply to: Is the Typhoon a waste of time? #2490280
    Tribes
    Participant

    It’s silly to compare F-35 and Typhoon as ‘multi role aircraft’ since F-35’s BVR air to air capabilities are more limited, while elements of its air-to-ground capabilities are superior, by dint of stealth. The two aircraft’s capabilities are weighted very differently. As to the Super Hornet, it enjoys an edge in some areas of A-G capability, at the moment, just like Rafale, but is inferior in many others. And to claim that Typhoon will “never be a true multi role aircraft like Super Hornet” is facile.

    How will the EF’s BVR capabilities be better than the F-35’s? The EF’s lack of stealth will give aircraft like the F-35 a pretty large shoot first window. Your reasoning seem to be that if the F-35 is better at strike, it must be worse at BVR.

    in reply to: Is the Typhoon a waste of time? #2491084
    Tribes
    Participant

    That’s a HELL of an assumption methink….:cool:

    CAPTOR-E is still only proposed for tranche 3.

    in reply to: Is the Typhoon a waste of time? #2491230
    Tribes
    Participant

    This is where i always laugh…. Tell me again the advantages of hanging weapons under the wing of the F-35?

    Once you do that you may as well buy a Typhoon… DUH.

    What people always forget is that the internal weapons bay of the F-35 is pityfully small…. 2 Large bombs and 2 small AAMs.
    So again.. hanging weapons under the wings of the F-35 in order to turn it into a bomb truck does what?

    So again is the Typhoon a waste of money? No i dont think so….
    Is it dogged by slow progress? Yes….
    Has the price gone up…. yes….

    When was the last time a fighter was put into service on time and on budget?

    You may only need stealth for A2G during the first few days of a conflict, but it really is useful in those first few days. With EF, you can never have stealth. And EF will still be behind in sensors.

    in reply to: Is the Typhoon a waste of time? #2491288
    Tribes
    Participant

    It is now. 😉

    OK not REALLY…

    It wasn’t when it started, it simply took TOO long to get into service & technology has “passed it by”.

    It is like an uber prop-driven fighter of 1946. While arguably better than any prop-driven fighter before it, there is something else just around the corner that is SO much better…

    In A2A it may offer advances over late block F-18C/D and F-16, but what does it offer they don’t in roles like CAS and maritime strike, particularly a two seat F-18?

    in reply to: JSF Defence Penetration Capabilities #2496840
    Tribes
    Participant

    I’ll skip the politics if you don’t mind.

    I don’t think his statements are “politics” at their core; that much of the criticism of the F-35 comes from Monday morning quarterbacks with little real understanding of the aircraft’s real capabilities, and who are unwilling to accept the limits of their knowledge.

    in reply to: JSF Defence Penetration Capabilities #2497137
    Tribes
    Participant

    Agreed but with F-35 they don’t look like they’re aiming that way…

    I’m not sure how you can say that. Here’s an extract from the detailed Aus DoD’s rely to Kopp and Jensen:

    “Fourth, in terms of its stealth characteristics, the US Government and Lockheed Martin have both acknowledged that the JSF will be a Very Low Observable aircraft. Dr Jensen’s statements in this area are also incorrect. The JSF has the benefit of experience with all previous stealth aircraft programs and the lessons learnt from them have been incorporated into the JSF. Defence has detailed insight into the stealth characteristics of the JSF and its performance has been confirmed by detailed, independent Defence Science & Technology Organisation analysis.

    There have been many advances since the basic radar cross section performance modelling was conducted in the 1970s, particularly in terms of incorporating stealth into highly manoeuvrable combat aircraft. Major developments in computer modelling were required to allow the design of the highly complex F-22 and JSF aircraft, modelling not available for the first stealth aircraft, the F-117, which relied on flat surfaces and
    had very limited manoeuvrability.”

    This seems to be talking about more than stealth performance:

    “First, Dr Jensen falsely claims Defence is hiding behind unnecessary classification of JSF performance information as there are no JSF technologies or capabilities that are
    not already known in the public domain. The JSF incorporates the most advanced combat technologies of the US and they are very closely protected to ensure the US
    and JSF partner countries maintain a capability edge. On current plans the JSF will represent 90% of the combat aircraft of the US Air Force and be the frontline combat
    aircraft for the US Navy—these Services demand the highest level of capability. JSF Partner countries are fortunate to have access to this level of technology and are
    obliged to protect it at the highest level.”

    in reply to: JSF Defence Penetration Capabilities #2497603
    Tribes
    Participant

    I’d say more precisely how long it will work in the A2A role.

    A2G allows for use of the terrain relief to help smooth things out…

    Typical mission profiles gives you a cruising speed of M 0.90 which is only marginal faster than the others.

    The only clear advanyage is that it can fly faster but ONLY withthe sueer of full A-B.

    As for the A2A role it’s still a speed deficit of 0.4 M and no supercruise with the same difference when all uses military power…

    But who “cruises” in combat? If the M0.4 is M2.0 -M1.6, can Rafael and EF reach M2.0 with a full missile load plus 2-3 drop tanks and maintain flying characteristics that enable them to dog-fight?

    in reply to: JSF Defence Penetration Capabilities #2497630
    Tribes
    Participant

    The question is how long Stealth will work. F-22 is an impressvie plane, even if Stealth is taken out of the consideration. F-35 is much less impressive if you take away the low-bobservable point.

    Take out stealth and you still have a strike fighter with significant speed advantages over any apponent that requires external storage of weapons and fuel ie EF, Rafael, Gripen, etc. You also still have a fighter with an entensive sensor suite including a very advanced radar.

    in reply to: JSF Defence Penetration Capabilities #2498029
    Tribes
    Participant

    Gen Davis quote

    See, he’s been conned by the evil LockMart too…… :diablo:

Viewing 15 posts - 256 through 270 (of 310 total)