dark light

Tempest414

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 930 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2214235
    Tempest414
    Participant

    The problem I have at the moment is that Argentina has failed to launch any new projects Z-11 helicopter they get a license from China and do nothing with it the Fassmer OPV 80 they get a license from Germany and do nothing with it both of these projects are much needed and cost peanuts along side any Gripen deal so the question is even if all the talks end in them being allowed Gripen will they get this project off the ground and if they do their pilots have years of training ahead of them to come up to speed

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2214703
    Tempest414
    Participant

    Now we say the US wont be a problem but Argentina was held in contempt by a US court in September 2014 those US companies owed money may put pressure on the US government to not allow use of the F414 to Argentina until it pays off its debt

    and I can not find anywhere that Argentina has signed a deal for Kfir Blk-60 has this happened or is it still in talks

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2214818
    Tempest414
    Participant

    Python V and Derby. The same weapons suite of the IAI Kfir C.10 Blk-60 that will be the interim aircraft.

    Is there a signed deal for the Kfir blk-60 and if so for how many air-frames. And as I understand it the Blk-60’s will come with 20 yaers of service life which is more than interim

    after I hit the submit button I sore the last post

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2214924
    Tempest414
    Participant

    So reading from post 1757 Argentina would like to start talks about Gripen NG and Brazil need to start talks with SAAB to see if Argentina can join any group that might be set up. Saab will then need to start talk with the US and UK to see if Argentina can have Gripen so there are lots of talks ahead

    also Argentina has for some time now been part of the SA OPV group and has not built one a ship yet with each ship costing less than one Gripen their record is not great that is not to say it wont happen but I would be shocked if Argentina end up with Gripen until there is change over the Falklands

    Now if Argentina were to get 24 Gripens what dose this mean for the Falklands defence apart from more Typhoons stationed on the inland which would be a good thing for the RAF

    in reply to: Red Arrows – are Danish F-16s the replacement? #2217355
    Tempest414
    Participant

    there is a lot of talk that 736 NAS could get F-16’s when their Hawks life out

    in reply to: 78 squadron #860020
    Tempest414
    Participant

    With the new HC6’s the RAF will have 60 Chinooks in service and that this time there are only 3 Squadrons operating the Chinook 7-18-27 so in real terms the RAF could Keep both 28 & 78 number plates operating 20 air-frame between them at Benson or at this time 18 Squadron under takes the OCU role as well as operation’s so 78 could have taken the OCU role for Chinook it is important that the RAF keep as many units as possible as there is a lot of people stuck waiting for a post for promotion

    in reply to: Helicopter Formation #2220609
    Tempest414
    Participant

    Yep 78 Sqn stands down today so there will be a fly past

    in reply to: 78 squadron #860815
    Tempest414
    Participant

    It is a sad day 78 Sqn flew 70 of my cadets this summer

    in reply to: Helicopter Formation #2220712
    Tempest414
    Participant

    something is building for Oct as I had 2 Helquests turned down for Oct on the grounds of high JHC tasking. that was a first this year

    in reply to: Which is the best anti ship aircraft #2221908
    Tempest414
    Participant

    I think the Mirage F-1 MF2000 with up dated Exocet would be a handful for anyone

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2230797
    Tempest414
    Participant

    I think you have what you are looking for in the B-1B with 6000+ nm range or F-15E fitted with CFT’s and 3 drop tanks which has a 3000+ nm range both would and could be at Edwards and both can do the trip without refueling and have a seat for the hero

    in reply to: Sustained high speed flight #2231005
    Tempest414
    Participant

    Hi all,

    I’m currently researching for a potential novel, a pivotal part of which requires the main character to be flown from California to Alaska (Edwards to Elmendorf most likely) absolutely as fast as possible. As I’m striving for factual accuracy and a sense of realism I was wondering if anybody here could assist me with this.

    Any aircraft involved needs to be essentially ‘off the shelf’, so aircraft that are hypothetical, proposed or indeed no longer in service (the two-seat SR-71 would probably have been ideal otherwise) aren’t going to work, but any current military or commerical aircraft that would reasonably be available in the area might.

    In context, the severity and importance of the crisis means time is critical and as such the US government may well be willing to push an aircraft well beyond its normal limits if it means the main character can be safely and swiftly delivered to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, so limitations such as how long an aircraft can stay supersonic (if indeed any supersonic aircraft are suitable) or trying to reduce engine wear can be stretched.

    Would I be able to have my character put into the rear seat of, say, an F-15E or F-16D (which would nicely underscore the urgency and desperation of the situation) or would technical limitations make a more conventional civilian aircraft capable of high subsonic flight, maybe a Cessna Citation X, more suitable?

    Any and all answers appreciated.

    Firstly it would depend on the characters back ground leading up to the flight but F-15E has a 3,450 mi (3,000 nmi, 5,550 km) range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks if this helps

    in reply to: US led coalition against IS #2231372
    Tempest414
    Participant

    if anything was to be fitted to light and main armor in the event of the crew needing to abandoning them then it should be a locator beacon so air power can find it and deal with it fast

    in reply to: TSR-2, Where Would it be Now?… #2231951
    Tempest414
    Participant

    TSR.2 was too ambitious, too many new technologies at once, & above all, too expensive. If we’d got it into service, it’d have gobbled up too much of our budget. There was almost no prospect of exports. Maybe Australia.

    If we’d spent the development money on improvements to Buccaneer (e.g. a less ambitious version of the TSR.2 avionics), & development of a new fighter-bomber, something with more range & payload than Lightning, we could have achieved what we wanted to with the F-111, & had something the RAF could have used instead of the Phantom. Both an upgraded Buccaneer & a new FB would have been exportable.

    In some ways Tornado did just this it first flew just 9 years after TSR2 was binned and entered service 14 years after TSR2 was binned

    in reply to: TSR-2, Where Would it be Now?… #2232454
    Tempest414
    Participant

    Tried to achieve too many goals and didn’t achieve any.

    again it was not given the time from first flight to being binned was only 6 months and 24 flights in which time it went supersonic and achieved sustained low level flight at 200 feet over the Pennines so in my book it was well on task and if it had been left with EE at Warton it would have made good step fast

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 930 total)