dark light

Aurel

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 939 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Defence's new choppers are duds: report #2430339
    Aurel
    Participant

    Alternatively one could look at the age of this report. :p
    The problems mentioned in this report are afaik corrected by now. Guess reports like that are the reason why the German army tests equipment before ordering it in large numbers. 😉

    in reply to: Rafale News IX #2433047
    Aurel
    Participant

    I think 101M would be thw number for customers. 142M is the number including development costs.

    Aurel
    Participant

    Well, to come back to the original topic:
    I don’t think the PAK-FA we have seen is really that freightening. The pics of thr underbelly show an aircraft that looks like a crossbread between Flanker and SuperHornet.
    Nowhere near the surface quality of an F-22/JSF. And I’m not even sure if I would put it inline with Typhoon/Rafale.
    Big plus is of course internal weapon carriage.
    Let’s wait and see how the production models look like.

    in reply to: Filling the hole – UK Defence Review #2392598
    Aurel
    Participant
    in reply to: Romania may go for "free" F-16? #2427772
    Aurel
    Participant

    On what numbers did you base your calculations ? Thai-Curry-Chicken deal + flygvapnet numbers for C-model upgrade ?

    in reply to: Romania may go for "free" F-16? #2427850
    Aurel
    Participant

    No, to make them NATO compatible would not need a full upgrade to C standard. They’d only need part of the upgrade: comms, IFF, & some instrumentation (IIRC Gripen A uses km & metres only).

    Yes I stand corrected. It is not absolutely necessary to bring them to full -C standard.
    I just want to point out, that Gripen would be more expansive to purchase then used F-16.
    In the long run certainly a better idea, but if Romania does not have the money right now, they don’t have a choice.
    Regarding the pylons: well, a warplane has to carry weapons. I doubt you get a modern weapon package If you don’t change the pylons.
    IIRC the upgrade was for example necessary for later AMRAAM models.

    Aurel
    Participant

    Well, I’m not that familiar with pound, so I will plan with 5 billion euro.

    -New individual equipment for the infantry: comms, body armor, boots and gloves.
    -one more F124
    -2 more fleet replenishment ships
    -2 communication satellites
    -gun and uprated MTR-390 engines for our tigers
    -3 An-124
    -the ~300 mill that are left I would invest in better training

    in reply to: Romania may go for "free" F-16? #2428217
    Aurel
    Participant

    A model Gripen are not fully NATO compatible. They would have to update them to -C standard.
    Plus those Gripen airframes are relativly new. I doubt they will come for “free” as those Vipers.
    If they had a bit more cash to spend Gripens would certainly be a better choice.

    in reply to: Hot Dog Typhoon thread III #2404630
    Aurel
    Participant

    Ah well. Typhoon fanboy reporting in. All I have to say is that there was not one single Typhoon display I found really impressing for years.
    There was one display flown by a British pilot, with one of the DA’s, that looked way more spectacular.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world -IV #2408188
    Aurel
    Participant

    How can the Israelis tell F-16 is cheaper then Gripen ? They get theirs for free…

    in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2409058
    Aurel
    Participant

    Sorry, I can’t understand the British.
    You knew it from the start. Whenever you buy something from the US, it will come with black boxes.
    That was the reason to develop Tornado and Eurofighter. (At least, here in Germany).
    Certainly when the US came up with the JSF, the British had to decide between continued European partnership for Tornado replacement or switching to a partnership with the US.
    Going European would have meant higher investments, and the risk of some partners bugging out. On the plus side, more development work for the local industry and full acces to technology.
    The US option minimized the risk of cancellation, plus having experienced partners to get the job done. Certainly less development work, but more construction work. And the issue with black boxes.
    This was all known from the start. The British Government decided the US option was the better choice to get a 5th gen design in time and on budget.
    In my opinion the correct choice. At least the British industry will survive as a subcontractor, whereas here in Germany it is absolutely unclear what will happen after the Eurofighter programme is done.
    So, stop b!tching about things that exist only in your imagination. (Like US fighters without black boxes.)

    in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2412872
    Aurel
    Participant

    Dunno where the problem is. The UK is JUNIOR partner in JSF. With 5% or something like that contributed to development costs.
    The British industry gets already more then 5% of technology transfered.

    in reply to: F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, and F16's Block 60 #2417955
    Aurel
    Participant

    Even if Collins gets joyrides in all contemporary fighters and writes a totally unbiased comparison we don’t know about the true combat capabilites.

    in reply to: MMRCA News and Discussion IV #2434714
    Aurel
    Participant

    They developed a lighter version of the Taurus for Gripen, the KEPD-150, but with intorduction of the C-model they changed their order back to -350’s.
    Oh, and there is a derivation available, too, called Mjoelnir. (submunition dispenser)

    in reply to: Germany To Cut Eurofighter Order, Seek Exports #2435447
    Aurel
    Participant

    Seahawk, your wish seems to be close to reality. Wittmund and Buechel are rumored to be next in line to bite the bullet.

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 939 total)