Page 49 – Key Publishing

Tempest414

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 721 through 735 (of 930 total)

← 1 2 3 … 48 49 50 … 60 61 62 →

Author

Posts
February 22, 2013 at 2:31 pm in reply to: An RAF C-27J? #2326525

Tempest414
Participant

We should think first about what our armed forces need for the independent interests of this country, not how to be better auxiliaries to the USA.

I agree that the 146 has drawbacks as a tactical airlifter* – and I expect that’s one reason why we’re not buying it as one. We’ve bought a couple rather cheaply for a niche role, albeit a useful one. Considering the price, & the availability of commercial support (probably cheaper than for most military aircraft), it may be worth keeping them on – or maybe not.

*The proposed rear door version would be a different kettle of fish, but that never got off the ground, & I can’t see it being revived.

I would agree that 146 is not a true tactical transport and would class it more as a semi tactical multi-mission transport. However as demonstrated over the past 10 years the UK has worn out its expensive highly useful C-130J asset doing in the most part a job that the much cheaper equally useful 146-300QC could have done.

You are also you right about looking at what the UK needs first and for most

Between 2015 and 2025 the UK is going to loos Tornado GR4- C-130- TriStar at the same time we will be bring in A400m -F-35 and will still be working up A330MRTT so for me a type like 146 highly capable semi-tactical cheap well supported world wide could take the pressure off the RAF and extend the service life of the new transport type and save the UK money in the long run because if you buy 2 146-300QC you will still have a million pounds to operate them

February 21, 2013 at 4:15 pm in reply to: An RAF C-27J? #2327728

Tempest414
Participant

the only thing is that the US are not going to operate C-27J the ones they have are going to be made in to fire bombers and if we need true tactical we can send a A400m the rest of the time send the cheaper 146

February 21, 2013 at 10:24 am in reply to: US in the Pacific #2328113

Tempest414
Participant

for many year RNZAF pilots have been flying fast jet in Aus -UK – US – Canada with a good number flying F-18’s I think that the US and Aus would like NZ to have this capability. now moving on what other countries might be up for this program and what aircraft types might be offered as I only used f-18 with NZ as they could get logistic/Maintenance/ Training support from Aus

February 21, 2013 at 1:39 am in reply to: US in the Pacific #2328497

Tempest414
Participant

I have never said that NZ dose not do a great job with what it has or that it should spend money on fast air what I am trying to get at is is it in the US’s interest to try and get other countries that have no or limited strike capability to have the capability

February 21, 2013 at 1:23 am in reply to: Room for a new type #2328502

Tempest414
Participant

As said it’s the speed at which fast air gets to a new CAS call is why it is still needed also as said by Commander Orchard fast air react to the call and gives cover until other assets are on the seen like helicopters or UAV’s sometimes speed is life

As for Typhoon’s gun it was fitted for A2A however if its out of other weapons it still has one unlike the F-35B which will need one taped on to it at sometime as history has proven i.e F-4 and others

February 21, 2013 at 12:56 am in reply to: US in the Pacific #2328519

Tempest414
Participant

28 jets would not be able to defended New Zealand its more about the RNZAFand others having a strike capability to add to any Pacific coalition at anytime it maybe needed

February 21, 2013 at 12:37 am in reply to: An RAF C-27J? #2328571

Tempest414
Participant

146 is capable of operating from semi-prepared and rough strips its in the sales buff the only problem is it has a side door and not a ramp however as said 12 air frames fitted out to the Afghan spec for 75 million pounds that could give 15+ years service is going to be hard to beat when the cost of 1 A400m is 136 million Euros. also as said it is in RAF service its UK made and supported there are a number of sim centres in the UK for training and the 146 has a number of upgrades already signed off like glass cockpit range extension kits and air to air refueling probe para door and OE turret

February 20, 2013 at 11:57 am in reply to: An RAF C-27J? #2329353

Tempest414
Participant

C-130 J goes out of service in 2019 along with Tornado GR4 as a stop gap up to 2030 and in a move to extend the life on the new A400s I would buy 8 146-300QC at to days price of £7.5 million each so £60million with the same spec as the two 200QC’s just about to go into service put them in storage until 2019 or when C-130 goes out of service.

146 is already in service with the RAF. 146-300 can carry a 12 tons payload – 100+ troop can be fitted with a para door and has palliated medi-vac system plus 146QC can be role changed in 30 min so as a cost affective stop gap I think it could work

February 19, 2013 at 1:30 pm in reply to: Room for a new type #2330505

Tempest414
Participant

At this time there are a lot of big expensive jet burning a lot of fuel doing air to ground work and yes Tucano and UAV’s have come on a long way but for love of flying and aviation there has to be something new in the middle

February 17, 2013 at 12:48 pm in reply to: General UCAV/UAV discussion – A New Hope #2368946

Tempest414
Participant

they never have, and for good reason I think

for example if you were to install Predator type UAVs with AMRAAM missiles and use an external radar (anything with an AESA for example) flying behind them for target guidance, they would be murder in long range engagements, combining cheap and expendable numbers with advanced killing power. for example they’d outnumber an F-22 by 15 to 1 in cost, at the very least

not to mention what happens if they were to develop a UAV specifically for air combat, it would be stealthy, fast, extremely manouverable, like an X-31 on crack. although I think they’d best adopt F-22 style tactics, sneaking up on enemies unnoticed and running after they fire their missiles

as for ground morale, UAVs usually give 24/7 overwatch on ground units, checking for ambushes and IEDs, they probably know squad mates by name… contrary to manned pilots who usually only stay for half an hour before they have to go and refuel. I’d personally prefer the UAV, kind of like a personal guardian angel with missiles. but that’s my preference, I’m sure some people would love to wait 15 to 60 minutes for air support when they’re getting shot at

I didn’t know that; does it help and advise the pilot or does it do all the work while the pilot simply keep his hand on the abort switch? what are the succes and accident rates? does it use GPS or optical systems?

Sorry I was not looking at using UAV’s in the A2A role just in the role it has at this time I.E recon and CAS in an area without air superiority can they still give 24/7 cover in such high threat combat zone

February 17, 2013 at 12:31 pm in reply to: Room for a new type #2368949

Tempest414
Participant

What I love is if it’s not unmanned it not worth having no one on the UAV side of the debate will entertain that anyone using them will not have air superiority and what will happen if the signal is jammed. We all know that in resent years UAV’s have given good cheap recon and limited strike but to say a new GR type can only ripple off half a dozen brimstone is a cheap slot again we all know that any new GR type would or could carry guided weapons / rockets / free fall weapons / anti-ship missiles / IR A2A missiles / targeting pods / storm shadow all of which would make this type of platform hardy limited. When I first opened the thread I said I would look to integrate the targeting pod into the airframe and not fit a radar to keep costs down however some people liked the idea of fitting Vixen 500E and if fitted would give the type a BVR A2A capability and yet more capable this of course would also take it from GR to Multi-role

February 17, 2013 at 11:14 am in reply to: General UCAV/UAV discussion – A New Hope #2368971

Tempest414
Participant

Two thing I would like to know are how many time have UAV’s been put into red flag in an exercise where they do not have total air superiority and what was the out come

And when the operator is looking though his TV set transfixed on the ground what is he missing from the bigger picture and all the time there is a little thing called morale on the ground and if the troops on the ground feel that someone is there for them and not 100/1000 miles behind them its good for morale

February 16, 2013 at 10:37 am in reply to: Room for a new type #2369374

Tempest414
Participant

Yes the OP asks for the centre line hard point that can carry storm shadow however it also asks for a 8000+ lb payload when a air frame is sold its spec is as the customer would like/needs

The OP also asked if you were to lay out a spec what would it be. I was using UK parts but anyone can use what they like also I said subsonic if you like you can make it supersonic as long as it is cheap

As said I am not a fan of UAV’s as I feel they suck the life out flying and dreams however I do see the need for recce platforms that can stay air bourn for hours on end and so the need for UAV’s but this thread asks is there a need for a new cheap attack jet

February 14, 2013 at 9:16 pm in reply to: Memphis Belle Filming 1989 #996744

Tempest414
Participant

give me a few days and I will get my photos out some good air to air

February 14, 2013 at 9:04 pm in reply to: Memphis Belle Filming 1989 #996792

Tempest414
Participant

both where static’s and came from North Weald and where used for back drops and came from Aces High with the C 47 B 25
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 721 through 735 (of 930 total)

← 1 2 3 … 48 49 50 … 60 61 62 →