F35bI have to disagree with the black hawks purchase. Much better off purchasing merlin and looking into what can fill a cheap role for moving 10-20 soliders as a replacement for the Puma’s. Merlin seems to be so expensive i’m not sure why. Maybe we could get a deal on buy 60 at once so a decent price can be obtained.
F35bWith the role of the Jaguar meant to be replaced by typhoon why is typhoon not ready to take on that role. Normally you would think you don’t retire one until the other is ready. I guessing the typhoon probably won’t be ready for that role (if ever) for another few years. It’s a shame the typhoon could be so capable if they would hurry up and get the weapons on it. Instead we are getting an aircraft that should of been ready 10-15 years ago now. Have the Typhoons only got Paveway 4 integrated so far or are there any other air to ground weapons ready?
I don’t think we will ever see typhoon deployed to Afghanistan which is a real shame. If it had of been and had the necessary upgrades we could of seen alot more foreign purchases. It will probably loose in India for this reason.
F35bI get you with the Kool Aid now very good, the jones town is something else eh a bit nutty i think. I guess none of them had ever been to a communist country to see how rubbish they were in the 60’s and 70’s.
When we see the average fuel offload amounts, you have to wonder is the USAF using its tankers to maximum efficiency and does it need so many? These are fuel offload amounts but what they don’t say is how much gas the tanker has taken out. Not every mission is going to use all the fuel.
Could we be going to see the amounts increase as probe aircraft can use the new tankers as well.
Do you really think we could be looking at 3 separate tankers coming into service? I thought they wanted to cut it down to 1 and have to find the best compromise between large and small.
Anybody got any of the revised dates for the new competition?
on a note about smaller tankers one would think it would be worth starting up a 737/757 or A310 production line again with 179 tankers on order. Also for the cost you could probably buy more than the 179.
can i have some valium in my Kool Aid please Pcfem
F35bSo my last posts did achieve what I had hopped for, the reactions show that this is a political program. Both planes are good enough, with the Airbus being better in some parameters which were not highly valued in the original tender.
It makes one thing crystal clear though. The US has been talking about a two way street in purchasing military equipment in NATO since the early 70ies and even nearly 40 years later it is still a one way street.
For the US taxpayer and the USAF I hope that people see the stupidity of purchasing an Airbus through Northop. If it is politically unacceptable to buy directly from EADS, then the best advice can only be to buy the Boeing.
You are completely correct! This has become one of the most strange procurement items i have ever seen. I am not old enough to remember what selecting the original Kc-135 was like or the KC-10. Did they have as much trouble as this or was there no other competition? Both aircraft are good enough for the tanker role and have good points and bad points. It is a really had comparison make as both aircraft are quite different. When i have looked at information and found that the average use of a KC-135 has only been around 300 odd hours a year. Does the USAF really need as many tankers as it has?
As to whether the tanker would be cheaper to buy direct from airbus i don’t know. The arguments Boeing brought up for the protest have really revealed all the advantages that they had over airbus and if airbus have paid attention and done as much as they can to shrink or get rid of these
advantages then the tanker competition will be even harder to decide.
Anyone have a date for the new process. Have the companies been asked to submit proposals?
F35bThe first missile, flying a ballistic path, hit its designated target at the Kura testing grounds on the Kamchatka Peninsula, while the second, fired with a flat trajectory, destroyed a target at the Chizha testing site on the White Sea.
The RSM-54 Sineva (NATO designation SS-N-23 Skiff) is a third-generation liquid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile that entered service with the Russian Navy in July 2007. It can carry four or 10 nuclear warheads, depending on the modification.
What are the main differences between the Sineva and the normal SS-N-23 Skiff? They both seem to have the same range (8300Km) and warheads (4-10) so i presume it must be counter measures or launch condition, trajectory, rocket motors needed updated, lighter empty weight, easier to store/handle and that kind of thing?
When it says the second fired with a flat trajectory what does that mean? For someone who doesn’t know much about missiles i thought they flew up to the edge of space and then came back down over the target? Will this flat trajectory limit the range aswell? Is this how a ICBM could be used as an carrier destroyer. Are we talking about 100 feet of the ground or does a flat trajectory mean just not as high as a normal ICBM?
F35bWhen the draken was is service with Austria was this ever wired for nuclear weapons? Was Austria part of the US/NATO Nuclear weapons sharing agreement?
Also i take it Sweden would not have them wired for Nuclear weapons as they didn’t have any as far as i know. Did the drakens ever get used for ground attack i’ve often thought of it as just an Air to Air fighter and a damn good one at that. Sweden consistently pull good items out the bag for being a small country.
F35bThe future may not be bright for the next generation of the Russian fighter. Many Western defense experts believe Russia’s fourth-generation fighter jets cannot withstand the U.S. stealth-enabled tandem of F-35 and F-22, which offer high maneuverability and near invisibility to surface radars because of advanced radar suppression equipment. Moreover, U.S.-based simulations and tests suggest that the stealth-enabled fifth-generation F-22 and F-35 can defeat any current aircraft, including the Raptorsky.
In this it says that F-22 and F35 offer hig maneuverability and near invisibility to sureface radar’s. Wonder if that is just a typing error or if they really are sure they are alot more invisible to surface radar’s than aircraft and AWACS radar’s?
F35bI must say the forum does seem to have picked up in the week. More intersting topics and actual discussion and questions being asked and descent answers being given.
I think a land systems section could be interesting and i do remember the old one. the old 1 did seem to get a bit full of junk and arguements tho.
Well done to all the contributors for making this forum more interesting again. It’s a great place to come and here opinions.
Slow news weeks do limit what there is to talk about though. I’m missing Tango’s news updates recently perhaps he’s on holidays. It’s one of the best topics on here and does help generate other posts. You know when you’ve been tango’d!
F35bHaving air support is not all that much use unless you have situation awareness and know where your targets are and where your own troops are. unless you give the Airforce a free run to attack anything that moves or beeps and are willing to accept friendly fire incidents there is not much you can use it for. The west has spend huge amounts of money improving there situational awareness and their airforces just for these kind of situations where you don’t have a defined enemy and are not to sure where the targets are or what they are.
The Russians know this and that is most likely why they are spending a lot of money on UAV’s and other equipment to improve this situation. This not like the Cold war where you knew thousands of the enemy in uniform and tanks would be coming from a set direction.
F35bRecce pod. JRP. The ‘other’ thing on the starbord side is a strake in place of a gun pod. The CVF7 rockets are used in the ‘gun’ role.
Does anyone know what the pod is called. I had a look on the RAF website but they only list the TIALD pod 400 or the newer 500. It does look like the TIALD pod but this is a high-resolution FLIR (forward-looking infrared), a laser designator and a tracking system.
I read it doesn’t give as good resolution as the Sniper and that this part of the reason for providing the Sniper pod. The RAF website doesn’t have Sniper as a listed bit of equipment.
What kind of Pods are the Tornado GR4’s using out in Afghanistan? Are they equipped with Sniper as well? i’ve had a quick look but could only find that they use the TIALD pod.
The GR4 should be a good asset to have seeing as it has the Mauser 27mm cannon and the RAPTOR pod. I don’t think the GR4 can use weapons at the same time as the RAPTOR pod as it is quite large and takes up one of the under fuselage pylons.
I don’t think the GR4 uses the CRV-7 rockets? Will this provide any less capability? I think they could use brimstone and the cannon instead but would this provide such good results as the rockets?
This a list of weapons from the RAF website but this website in not known for being up to date or completely accurate.
Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway, General Purpose Bombs, Mauser 27mm, Cluster Bombs
F35bI found a picture of sniper and this is the Pod that is on the Gun pod. Which makes me ask what is the Pod on the centre line then? here is a picture of sniper on a GR9 
F35bWell well i’ve never seen the CRV-7 pods with covers on. that’s why i didn’t recogise them. I think they are Paveway IV on the out pylons as well. Does anyone else think there is some pod hanging of the Gun pod? Maybe just they was the photo is but looks like there is something next to the targeting pod.
F35bNow that you say that 120 chinooks does sound like to many. You are probably correct with 120 total Helicopters. Hopefully the government are feeling the pressure with all the deaths recently and will do something to help. remember the nimrod accident after that i was announced they would all be fixed asap. hopefully the UK annonces a defence budget increase or a helicopter deployment, upgrade or purchase. I will wait and see. I think we could see troop numbers going up permanently soon. The UK is putting a lot of pressure on the Afgan government to supply troops to hold ground the UK captures but i think this is asking to much and they would need help with supplies and a range of other issues.
F35bNice rewrite of history. But ignoring that why is the USAF tanker fleet not all KC-10’s then? 😉
LOL
The A330 is absolutely the wrong aircraft for the US.
Something smaller (footprint) & lighter (ACN) and less costly to operate & maintain is a much better ‘medium’ KC-135 replacement tanker for operating in significant numbers from smaller airfields close to the refueling points/tracks refueling large numbers of receivers with comparatievly small amounts of fuel (50,000-75,000 lbs total per sortie on average) for maximum effectieveness & efficiency.
Something with greater fuel capacity (the KC-30 maximum fuel capacity is only 44,000 lbs/21.8% greater than the KC-135R and/but is 110,000 lbs/30.9% less than the KC-10 despite being larger & heavier than the KC-10) is a much better ‘large’ KC-10 replacement tanker for for airbridge & airlift.
***
How nice it is for EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers to ignor why 767 orders slowed. It was not because of the A330.
And the need is for tankers not airliners…
A document that people who have actually done some research are well acquainted with.
Doesn’t say that…read it again.
You have to do a lot more research than that.
I take it from your response that you haven’t read the information out there. If you had you would have read this Despite its modernity, the
KC-767 only carries 1 percent more fuel (2,000 lbs) than the KC-135. The KC-767’s cargo and aeromedical capabilities, for example, are second order issues for consideration, lease opponents say. These aircraft are being acquired to provide fuel, It then goes on to talk about the merits of cargo and aeromedical loads.
If am i rewriting history someone better tell the USAF why they bought the KC-10. Because they have that the original reason for buying the KC-10 was that it could get from the US to Europe refuel aircraft and get home again without landing. That was the requirement. also part of it was the cargo carrying capacity was a big advantage. I suggest you contact the USAF if you want confirmation of this. The USAF did look at buying up surplus DC-10’s instead of the boeing lease deal put found the commercial fleet to be so varied in quality and airframe hours that it wasn’t worth it.
You would know this if you did any research or had been part of any tanker purchase deal.
Since you have done some much research can you provide what the weight of each aircraft is and how this is distributed through the landing gear/wheels. Also you will be able to tell us all how much of an impact this has on runways and provide how many more runways the 767 can use because of the excess weight of the KC-30.
The US is only wanting to buy 1 tanker so is needing to get a compromise to get the best from a large and medium tanker. I admit if they did purchase a large and medium it would make things simpler.
Orders for the 767 slowed partly because it is old technology and there are better aircraft out there for the COMMERCIAL MARKET. If Boeing hadn’t of introduced the 787 it would have lost out on the market completely airlines wouldn”t have bought the 767 instead.
One last thing What the F is Kool Aid i’ve never even heard of it. Most of the British drink tea, coffee or Irn-Bru, coke, robinsons diluting juice, fresh fruit juice or water.
F35bhere is a link to an interesting report about the original lease deal and the merits of the 767 that was offered for that deal. It appears from reading this that the 767 line will run out of orders by 2009 and that this is a good reason for ordering the 767. This is a good example of why i wouldn’t order the 767. Nobody in the comercial market wants it and this is normally a good indication of what is a good aircraft and what isn’t.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32056.pdf it is a long document but does have some interesting points. it’s not a comparision between 767 and A330 tho.
Also it says the 767 for the lease deal only offers a 1% fuel offload increase over the KC-135!
Here is another link that provides more information about the KC-X deal. I think it’s important to get the information out on here as some posters seem to come out with made up information.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-x.htm
Sign In
