dark light

F35b

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 331 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Stormshadow where is the evidence? #1807648
    F35b
    Participant

    Article: RAF Fires 11 Storm Shadow Cruise Missiles Against Iraqi Targets.(Royal Air Force)
    Article from:Defense Daily Article date:March 25, 2003 Author:Baumgardner, Neil

    By Neil Baumgardner

    Royal Air Force (RAF) GR4 Tornado strike aircraft have so far fired 11 Storm Shadow cruise missiles, made by the European missile consortium MBDA, against Iraqi targets during Operation Iraqi Freedom in the weapon’s operational debut, a spokeswoman with Britain’s Ministry of Defence yesterday told Defense Daily.

    “The new generation of precision guided weapons has greatly increased the RAF’s ability to attack a wide variety of targets in all weathers,” British army Maj. Gen. Peter Wall, the chief of staff for British forces taking part in Operation Iraqi Freedom, on Sunday told reporters during a briefing by the U.S. Central Command …

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-100569049.html

    There are lots of links to other stories at on the website. I’ve not looked at them tho

    in reply to: Stormshadow where is the evidence? #1807649
    F35b
    Participant

    I’ve not found much but have read something in the past. Here is a link to a PDF where the US are talking about that JASSM is a bit of failure and how impressed they were with storm shadow at china lake and now even more so that they have seen it in action in the gulf. US officals are to have been impressed with the high attack angles and hardened target penetration.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2003/2003%20-%201745.html

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2421460
    F35b
    Participant

    My point was that the navy deploys a lot of it’s assests alot of the time. The Raf just seems to have hundreds of combat aircraft sitting in the UK that have never fired anything in anger for over 50 years. Countries may be put off doing some action becuase of the navy, but the RAF what are they going to do. We don’t have the tanking assests for long range missions and we aren’t going to be fighting in a 500 mile radius of the UK anytime soon.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2422749
    F35b
    Participant

    What i don’t get about the UK defence forces are why we need them and how relevant the equipment that we have is. Take the RAF for example. All they seem to be able to do is to deploy not even 1 squadron of ground attack aircraft to a war zone. So all the RAF needs is a couple of squadrons of Typhoons for Air policing the Uk and Falklands. Even then they only have 2 aircraft ready to go at any one time. The UK is never going to come under attack from another air force trying to invade the UK. So for fast jets the RAF needs maybe 25-40 Typhoons for air defence. These are never going to be deployed outside of the UK. There is no political will or a situation where the UK would need to deploy 5 squadrons abroad to protect our troops when invading a country. The UK just doesn’t have the army to invade a country its self that would have good enough defences that would require squadrons of fighters and ground attack aircraft. As for ground attack if all the RAF can support is 1 squadron why does the UK need to have loads of other squadrons sitting around doing training missions all the time. The UK or Europe is never going to come under attack so what the RAF needs is long range aircraft. Again though the UK is never going to invade a country with decent defences that require expensive bombers/ground attack aircraft as they don’t have the army and other forces to back it up. So we need 2 squadrons of ground attack aircraft to support ongoing missions maybe 24-40 aircraft. I’m leaving out transport and other issues with the RAF just now.

    Then we have the Navy. The RN are meant to be the most important service as 95% of the UK’s trade comes from sea. The RN has been so run down that it couldn’t do a mission on it’s own. Soon it will be 6 Type 45’s Air defence destroyers, 7 Astute SSN’s if they are really lucky and probably 6 Type 23’s or replacements. There are patrol boats like C3 and river class but they can’t do much. This is not enough to protect any sea lanes or do convoy duties if trouble flares up in any part of the world. The navy would really struggle to protect it’s amphib force and carriers (if it gets 2) never mind protect merchant ships and the RFA. The navy needs to expand dramatically if it’s to stand a chance of being able to protect convoy’s. As for the 2 CVF’s as improtant as they are they need to have the fighters on the deck. The F35B order will be cut and the RN will be lucky to have 9 on board. The merlins and wildcat fleet are being bought in far to few numbers. On HMS Ocean’s deployment to the far east she had 4 ASW merlins on board. Alot of the time only 1 was working and for some of the time none were working due to lack of spares etc.

    Then we get the the army. 100,000 troops. But remember this is not front line soilders this is the total. so there is probably 25000-30000 fighting troops at most the rest are cooks, IT people, logistics etc. The Army air arm is shrinking fast and is not able to conduct operations of any size. The first thing that needs to be done if the UK wants to be a world player and keep it’s UN seat is increase the army back up to 250,000 troops and all the equipment to support them. It doesn’t all have to be top of the range equipment. Problem at the MOD is they think they need a Ferrari for everything. I could spend £500,000 of a Ferrari or i could spend £35,000 on a BMW or other sports car. The difference in performance is negligible and the through life costs will be huge difference for each car.
    Whether the RAF should just exist for fighter force and act as air policing and heavy transport is another matter. Personally i think the army should operate it’s own ground attack aircraft and be in charge of all helicopters and light transport. This way the army can take what it wants to the battle field and would work better together.

    The Navy would need to expand with some top end war ships bu mainly with escorts and frigates that aren’t too expensive The main things is numbers. The ability ot fly the flag and protect convoys in trouble spots is a must. The FAA should also be in charge of all the fast jets for carriers and the anti submarine aircraft (nimrod). The Navy is the most improtant service for keeping the UK alive if war breaks out anywhere in the world. Better co-operation with the army and get the FAA and AAC working together well with the majority of the fighting aircraft,

    All bad news for the RAF but it would still have a roles that it could specialize in. A fighter force and maybe long range bombers. All other roles to the army and navy.

    If the UK carries on the way it’s being going the last 10 years we are as well cutting the defence budget and turning into a coast guard navy with a few big ships. The army is a token force and the RAF is air policing and has 1 squadron of ground attack to deploy for 6 months.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world -IV #2428025
    F35b
    Participant

    First Four Lynx Mk9A Helicopters Delivered Just 12 Months After Contract Award

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/base/util/68517_449.jpg

    AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that the first four upgraded Lynx Mk.9A helicopters for the British Army have been delivered, with the fourth aircraft delivered today, just 12 months after contract award.

    Three of these four aircraft will be used by the Army Air Corps for conversion to type and conversion to role training at its Dishforth base in Yorkshire.

    In 2010 the Lynx Mk.9A helicopters will deploy to Afghanistan to support British and coalition forces, where its exceptional hot and high performance will enable the aircraft to operate year round in the demanding environmental conditions experienced there.

    Nick Whitney, Senior VP – UK Government Business Unit, said at the handover of the fourth aircraft “Everybody involved at AgustaWestland, our suppliers and the MoD Project Team are to be congratulated for delivering the first four aircraft in just 12 months against an extremely tight programme schedule. We know the enhanced operational capabilities these aircraft will deliver will be of great benefit to our troops in Afghanistan and we are now working around the clock to ensure we deliver the remaining aircraft not just on time but ahead of schedule.”

    Following the flight of the first aircraft in September 2009 the Lynx Mk.9A completed its qualification test programme successfully demonstrating the airframe was capable of maximising the improved performance provided by the LHTEC CTS800 engines, thus meeting or exceeding the customers’ Key User Requirements.

    In addition to upgrading the aircraft AgustaWestland has successfully completed maintainer and aircrew training programmes at its Yeovil facility, delivered new Integrated Electronic Technical Publications, spares packages and lap-top based training emulations.

    A further three aircraft will be delivered by April 2010, followed by the final batch of five aircraft by September 2010, giving the British Army 12 Lynx Mk.9A helicopters three months ahead of the contracted date.

    AgustaWestland is also working with the MoD on a follow-on-contract to upgrade the remaining 10 Lynx Mk.9s to Mk.9A standard, which would see the final aircraft being upgraded by early 2012.

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/110933/aw-delivers-first-4-re_engined-lynx-mk-9a-helos.html

    I thought the army lynx had some kind of sensor’s on the front? It was either a turret above the passenger seat coming out the roof or sensors like the navies lynx’s. I take it these aircraft will be used in Afghanistan for flying commander duties and observation flying as well as light transport duties. Are these lynx’s fitted with the crash resistant seats or is it still capable of carrying 10 troops? What kind of sensors are these new lynx’s fitted with. Do they have optical sensors or is it a job of looking out the window with a pair of binoculars lol:eek:. I take it these will also be fitted with loads of defensive aids. The commando seakings look like someone has got a box of magnetic defensive counter measures and chucked them at the helicopter. There is about 10 boxes dotted all over the place.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2012844
    F35b
    Participant

    I thought i would add in some interesting pictures of JSF i found on Richard beddall Navy matters site. This site is wonderful for Navy stuff. http://frn.beedall.com/

    What we could of ended up with, BAE and Mcdonnell Douglas Variant. ( not many pictures of this floating around) Personally i like it.
    http://frn.beedall.com/images/jast-md-ng-bae.jpg

    Will we see this one day soon? The F-35 operating from the Invincible class carriers deck. i’m guessing we will see this for trials now the 3 aircraft are on order.
    http://frn.beedall.com/images/f35b-uk-2006.jpg

    It seems like for the harrier upgrade there was 2 seperate projects i think. I haven’t seen much about what these aircraft was going to be like or have on them. Quite an interesting development i think.
    There is the Harrier 3 here from around the 1990’s.
    http://frn.beedall.com/images/harrier3.jpg

    And the Super harrier that seems to have been thought of sometime in the 80’s. Probably as the success the harrier had in Falklands some people thought lets go crazy.
    http://frn.beedall.com/images/superharrier.jpg

    Has anyone got any pic’s of the CVF development. How’s the super block building getting along. I’ve not been down to roysth recently but i’m not sure there is any activity going on there anyway with CVF. Maybe some ships in Refit to look at.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2012847
    F35b
    Participant

    Any idea’s on where the 3 LRIP F-35 STOVL Joint Strike Fighters will be based? Are these aircraft the final production models or are they still development aircraft? Have LM managed to get the weight down in the B model? I imagine improvements will come as production gets going and the things are identified. This is good news i guess for the carriers. Who is going to own these aircraft? Is the RAF or FAA or some other government organisation? I can’t see a delivery date on the above text so hopefully 2010 would be great. I can’t wait to see these aircraft up close or in the sky. Good news for the UK, I think the government knows it can’t pull out of this one as there is so much riding on these. The parts the UK companies are making are going to generate a lot more cash than these aircraft will cost, also the carriers can’t run without them. So the government could look at it as the UK will be getting the aircraft for free and will probably make more money than the aircraft could ever cost. The tax revenue will run into millions more than the cost of the aircraft. All in all a good deal for the UK.

    in reply to: UK Subs, Equipment 6 tubes to 5 tubes to 6 tubes again? #2012853
    F35b
    Participant

    The new Astute class has it torpedo tubes on view in this picture. this has the 6 tubes (3 on each side) in what i presume to be the same layout as the swiftsure Trafalgar class layout but with only 2 on each side. What is interesting is where the location of the 5th tube is on these boats. I’m still trying to find a picture of one of the boats before launch like the Astute picture. This would hopefully show the tubes.
    http://www.hmforces.co.uk/nfs/hmforces/attachment_images/0000/5156/573px-Astute2cropped_crop380w.jpg?1259158554

    This picture of one of the Vanguard class only has 4 tubes i think. They seem to be in the same place as the 6 on Astute. As the Vanguards were a new class i’m not sure how much bearing the previous class of Swiftsure and Trafalgar had on there design.
    http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/images/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/Image/6346.jpg

    Just for fun i guess this is to help the captain get his TV working
    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/slbm/VanguardO101005.jpg

    in reply to: UK Subs, Equipment 6 tubes to 5 tubes to 6 tubes again? #2012858
    F35b
    Participant

    When looking into the torpedo tube issue as to why they are equipped with 5 tubes instead of 6 i think the only explanation is that the location of the Sonar and the fact it is so big forces the tubes to be located down the sides and the RN have manged to squeeze and extra tube at the bottom. When looking at the US Los Angles class they only seem to have 4 torpedo tubes. I wasn’t sure if the RN borrowed that heavily from US technology and building techniques when building these subs that they would of basically taken the design of the front end of the LA class and used this in the Swiftsure design. If this was the case it would look like the RN managed to squeeze an extra tube when compared with the Americans. I don’t think Tomahawk would have bore much significance to the design of Swiftsure class as i don’t think it was available. Whether the RN were looking at sub harpoon or another anti ship missile and this maybe made the RN think that 5 tubes are better than 4 compared to the LA class. I’m not sure of torpedo tube reload speed but i imagine it’s not that fast seen as how the torpedo weighs about 2 tons. Here is a diagram i drew of what i think the layout may have been. Anyone is welcome to correct me or provide a better explanation.
    [ATTACH]179956[/ATTACH]

    I went to see the Spanish submarine Delfin in Torrevieja harbour (a must see for any visitor to Costa Blanca, It’s was decommissioned in 2003 and gifted to the town as a tourist attraction. They provide very good guided tours in English or other languages of the inside apart from the engine and battery room) It has 8 tubes on the front and 2 or 4 in the back but i don’t think these can be reloaded. These took up basically the whole front of the hull but i don’t think these could be reloaded at sea. Going by this i imagine the tubes and reloads on Swiftsure and Trafalgar take up a lot of space. The idea someone said about the 5th centre tube firing downwards bears some sense as when looking at the drawing i did the tube would either be going through the sonar or would have to have it own reload room as it would probably be on a different level from the other tubes. Is there a procedure for RN subs as to which torpedo tube fires first or is it just random. Thinking of this you may only get a RN sub firing a weapon from each tube a few times during testing during in its whole career.

    Here is a picture of the LA class showing it’s VLS tubes. I’m not sure how many missiles fit in each cell but there are numbers on each cell that go up in 2’s so maybe it’s 2 in each cell. These are located further back from the front in what looks like a plug.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/USS_Santa_Fe_%28SSN-763%29_VLS_doors_open.jpg/800px-USS_Santa_Fe_%28SSN-763%29_VLS_doors_open.jpg

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2428705
    F35b
    Participant

    Typical sleight of hand by a politician, the F.3s are going anyway, so it was never going to be a four jet force anyway, I can’t see the navy letting go of the Harrier, it might come about that the navy takes more of the airframes from the RAF (which would be a rare sign of cross force co-operation) and have more on loan pilots from the RAF.

    If the RAF knocks out one harrier squadron, and the navy stands up 801 squadron with the aircraft being handed over, the RAF can justifiably claimed to have cut down 2 Harrier squadrons from it’s strength, and can probably keeps it’s last remaining squadron on the go until F-35… a pilot light capability.

    The RAF would not have aquiensced if it didn’t think it could get something in the long run, and it might be a firmer commitment to block tranche 3.B of the Typhoon in the future. Like the navy in the late 90s with CVF, the RAF is gambling current capabilities to get something it wants badly later.

    I don’t get the bit if the RAF knock down 1 squadron and the the FAA stand up 801 the RAF can say they have lost 2 squadrons. I’m not saying it’s wrong just can someone explain how this works. I hope the navy do get the harriers and has enough budget to run them. Maybe even see a few upgrades here and there. The Harriers are going to be with us for nearly another 10 years. Maybe put a radar on the front use the cheap American one if the Blue vixen is so hard to fit. What did the navy do with there AMRAAMS? are they still around. Maybe a bit of an older model now but it’s better than nothing.

    in reply to: Sepecat Jaguar #2428763
    F35b
    Participant

    How many load stations does the Jaguar have? The main thing i don’t know is fuselage points. Normally in RAF service it would of had 2 drop tanks on the inner wing and sidewinders on the over wing points. What was the normal load for the outer wing points and fuselage points?
    http://www.militaryaircraft.de/pictures/military/aircraft/Jaguar-GR3A/Jaguar-GR3A_RIAT2005_015_800.jpg

    in reply to: Stu (USAF retired) posts about KC-X again #2406763
    F35b
    Participant

    Boeing & NG/EADS offer delivery schedules were essentially the same. The KC-X Source Selection Team ALTERED Boeing’s proposed schedule.

    You mean like an A300 or an A310…

    Sad that you are so uneducated.

    EVERYONE knows what both bidders have to offer. The only ‘question’ is exactly what KC-767 Boeing will offer & if it will include the KC-777 as an ‘option’ or not.

    Yes if the A300 or A310 is what is required then that’s what would be offered. If a Brittan Norman islander tanker is what’s required that’s what should be offered same is if they want an AN-225 that’s what the company would offer. If NG offer an aircraft that is so off it doesn’t stand a chance of winning it wouldn’t win and the company wouldn’t waste there time or money. (this may be what happens this time) Mind you it did get picked last time.

    I’m not uneducated (Got 7 standard grades and learning support modules:rolleyes: also my mum says i’m very bright like a ray of sun shine:o) it’s just that people seem so knowledgeable on hear i thought they would have the figures for the bases that have supported tankers in the last 5 years and what could support x amount of 767 but only x amount of A330. I think the answer is ZERO but I’m prepared to be proved wrong.

    You can be such a knobhead sometimes, I don’t care what tanker wins all i’ve done is try to have a decent discussion and raise points about it.

    in reply to: Stu (USAF retired) posts about KC-X again #2407077
    F35b
    Participant

    While i do value someones opinion it is just that, His opinion. He may be correct on a number of issues, I’m not sure about the Boeing aircraft always having a softer foot print though.
    The best thing for this would be for the USAF to allow new build aircraft to be built to an pretty exact specification of what they want. Now i know people will say that the 767 matches it perfectly but i would be interesting to see what they required if they could request an aircraft from scratch.
    Maybe Northrop Grumman and Boeing could offer the frankenstein tanker designs of combining aircraft to make the best one to fit the specification? Boeing have done already but whether they offer it again is another matter. I seem to remember for the KC-X competition that NG/Airbus won that NG was offering to have more tankers in service quicker than Boeing did. Maybe this was laziness on Boeing’s part as they thought it was in the bag or maybe it was part of needing to develop the 767 combination aircraft? NG/Airbus are guilty of not offering any modification of aircraft put forward. They could offer an A330 shorter fuselage with cut down wings (maybe from another aircraft but probably not) but still with large capacity. Again the problem with this is the development and testing time etc.

    I don’t see the size as such a big issues and would like to see any location tankers have operated from in the past 5 years that could only handle 767 and not A330. Also if they could have operated from these bases that they were so small that the A330 could not have been deployed in the numbers required but the 767 could of.

    I’m not favouring either aircraft to win as the chance of predicting the decision is pointless. Once we see which companies and which aircraft are submitted into the competition we may have a better idea of what will win. NG/Airbus or Boeing could offer any combination of aircraft mixed together. Franken tanker maybe the ultimate solution or maybe NG could say we will deliver 25 standard A330 during the first X amount of years and during that time modify the aircraft to what ever specification the USAF want.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -II #2014198
    F35b
    Participant

    EADS Defence & Security protects new Australian Amphibious Ships

    http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Canberra-class-amphibious-ship-600x341.gif

    .Sophisticated identification systems support safe helicopter landings and provide situation awareness

    .Reducing the risk of accidental attacks on allied forces

    EADS Defence & Security (DS) provides the new “Canberra” class amphibious ships of the Royal Australian Navy with the latest technology identification systems in order to enhance flight safety and situation awareness. Defence Electronics (DE), an integrated activity of DS, has been awarded a contract by BAE Systems to deliver two MSSR 2000 I IFF (= Identification Friend or Foe) systems for the installation onboard LHD1 and LHD2 (LHD = Landing Helicopter Dock) by 2015. Their integration into the Combat Management System is done by SAAB.

    IFF systems, so-called secondary surveillance radars (SSR), precisely collect data such as origin, course, speed etc. of individual aircraft by automatically sending interrogation signals which are answered by so-called transponders on-board the incoming aircraft. Thus, the IFF systems ensure reliable identification of incoming aircraft substantially reducing the risk of accidentally attacks on friendly forces. This data exchange in the military field is based upon encrypted signals which cannot be analyzed or jammed by hostile forces.

    “Providing latest technology IFF systems like MSSR 2000 I increases situational awareness for allied forces” explained Bernd Wenzler, CEO of Defence Electronics “and therefore increases mission success and security for airborne and ground forces.”

    Defence Electronics has delivered many IFF systems to several NATO nations for ground and naval applications. For example, the MSSR 2000 I interrogator is operated by the naval forces of Germany, France, Norway and Finland for the military friend-or-foe identification (IFF). Furthermore, DS is also active in the field of civil Air Traffic Control. DE’s identification systems are used for air traffic control in such countries as Portugal and the Philippines.

    Defence Electronics is an integrated activity of EADS Defence & Security (DS). DS is a systems solutions provider for armed forces and civil security worldwide. Its portfolio ranges from sensors and secure networks through missiles to aircraft and UAVs as well as global security, service and support solutions. In 2008, DS – with around 23,000 employees – achieved revenues of € 5.7 billion. EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2008, EADS generated revenues of € 43.3 billion and employed a workforce of about 118,000.

    http://www.aviationnews.eu/2009/12/03/eads-defence-security-protects-new-australian-amphibious-ships/

    I love seeing a break down picture of ships. Maybe we can sart a thread of anyone has more of different ships. Perhaps CVF, Ocean, the bays, Albion, Invicible compared to ocean would be a good one even older ships like HMS fearless,

    in reply to: Sepecat Jaguar #2409402
    F35b
    Participant

    One has to think why did they use the Adour engine in the first place. If it was giving that bad performance right fromt he very start you would have thought they might of said lets use the spey or something more powerful? Surely there was a better more powerful engine available at the time. It could of been joint development. OR why di the RAF never replace the engine much sooner. They could of upgraded Adour with loads of extra pwoer or used tornado engines or used anything!

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 331 total)