F35bI’ve been looking for a picture of an RAF nimrod with a full weapons load. Does anyone have one to share. One with or without wing pylons loaded is fine. Also what was the load out of the aircraft. How many weapons.
Also any V bombers with weapons bay loaded.
F35bCan anyone put aircraft names and weapon names to the last 2 pictures? (The helicopter especially)
F35bI think this discussion has missed a point of the post that it was us the west missing out by not having a flanker sized aircraft.
Now the west (maybe not the best term) is bigger than America. Basically in this discussion it should include European countries including turkey, NATO countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. People have said the f-15e fits the flanker profile. A few problems with this are it is and always has been really expensive to purchase and operate. This has limited most western airforces to get f-16, f-18. While some countries have developed aircraft like typhoon, rafale, mirage 2000, F-1, tornado and some countries have bought these aircraft most countries do not have large fighters. The price difference between west aircraft and flanker is a topic for discussion in its self. It’s hard to actually get an acurate price for all aircraft and to get operating costs.
All the flanker variants I think points to a good airframe. It is agile carries a good amount of fuel and weapons and I believe a good platform. Now a western equivalent would have to be roughly the same capabilities and the same price. The flanker variants offer a good range of capabilities, rough field performance, good power, agile, loiter time and range. Now a western development would obviously have western engines and systems but these would have to be able to provide the same amount of power and systems deliver the same capabilities. I’m not saying they are top of the range but the goal would be to have 50 aircraft rather than 10 aircraft with half grounded.
This is all obviously guess work and a lot of what ifs. Now say Germany, UK and France had 50-100 flanker (ish) aircraft in the 80’s instead of what they got (Germany non bvr phantoms) (UK Tornado F2 then from 88 onwards F3) I think would have made a big difference in what they were able to demonstrate over Europe.
F35bHere is one of the pictures of the 2 carriers together at the fleet review. Would love to see other pictures of the carriers. Perhaps this should have a new thread of carrier pictures such as carriers with other carriers, interesting pictures of insides etc. http://im.rediff.com/news/2016/feb/03ifr3.jpg[ATTACH=CONFIG]246688[/ATTACH]
F35bHow is the old carrier looking after 60 years? Anyone know of pictures of the inside/ up close outside. It take it a lot of refits have kept her in working condition. I would love to see pictures of the aircraft areas and the troop carrying and equipment stores areas. Does she have a rear gate? Any article that has information and pictures of Hermes/Viraat over the long time in service.
F35bLooking at current trends rather than past trends the west seems to be on a route of 1-2 short range multi role types with tanker support. The east seem to be with long range types with a small tanker support (compared to number of aircraft operated). The west east terms are very general.
The USN especially I think could do with an aircraft with long range an su34 or F-15e type.
The best flanker traits seem to be that even though it’s large with long range it is still very agile and easy to use/maintain. The west seems to have missed out on this by making long range complicated aircraft with large Maintence times. I would say the strike eagle is an exception and has not been bought for a number of years by say a NATO force. I hope for a reduced F-35 buy and get updated F-15’s instead. The USN could do with a strike eagle/flanker size aircraft but I’m thinking they kkjkare going to muddle through with hornets and F35c putting there future eggs in a six generation aircraft. Which is fine so long as cost is kept under control and time into service.
Basically what do u do when your target is more than 400 miles away. Call in a flanker. They do fighter, strike, recon, carrier launch etc etc. All in different versions but still it’s a good aircraft. Anyway I don’t want this to turn into a pissing competition.
F35bA good point about the joint UK/France project. Can the French be trusted not to take the tech and put it on there own ucav we will wait and see.
Going by previous joint projects the uk seems to have got the shorter straw. Jaguar, Lynx, gazelle, puma to name a few. I more than happy to be proved wrong as I’m not that knowledgable about these joint projects. I really hope they end up with a world beating UCAV better than anything else on offer. One can dream….
It does seem like we are moving towards a robot war but I never see this taking over completely. The autonomous platforms do make me worry abit that we will see the machines take over lol. Make sure they all have a big off button.
F35bI would say that super cruise dies have it uses for example quick reaction engagements, chasing airliners over the sea etc. How much use it is for primarily a light bomber aircraft is yet to be seen. Does buzzing through a countries air radars at Mach 0.9 or 1.2 really make that much difference? I imagine the F35 has to be subsonic to drop weapons anyway. Also a consideration has to be given to fuel consumption at different speeds. I imagine a lot of planning goes into missions as to what speed they fly etc. You don’t want to run out of fuel on the way home just because you want to push the throttle hard for a few mins.
F35bThe more I look into it I get the feeling that no one has a perfect solution. Lots of ships all run with different mixes and combinations of power sources. The codes are enough to baffle most people. CODAG, COGLOG etc etc
F35bI also doubt the Indian story. Is it worth having loads of avengers on a carrier I’m not sure it is. What role will they do. How much space so they take. are they going to be controlled from ship or land. Etc etc.
I was hoping for a UCAV order from the uk/Europe before the 2025-30 time scale. It again looks like they are going with put the minimum money in to look as if they are on the edge of technology but if you don’t do anything with the tech what’s the point. Even 12 UCAV would make a massive difference to the UK.
Would it be better to put the development money to the USA and jump on there programme, maybe? Europe had a good chance to be technology leaders in the UCAV area but with the latest contract clearly they are looking at long term.
With the U.K./France programme progressing what’s happening to Neuron etc. That is the programme that had a lot of European countries investing in it? I lose track of Europe (the UK especially) starting, ending, renaming, merging, cancelling and changing programs
F35bI was of the opinion that at some point after the Cold War ended Russia decided it was taking out of service single engined fighters. Mind you the most modern aircraft were dual engine and older ones single engine so I doubt it was as simple as saying I like 2 engines it looks nicer.
Is it better to have one big engine versus 2 smaller engines I don’t know I imagine advantages of both types. Russia is a huge country so they probably made the correct decision.
F35bOne day we will find out the reasons the 22 was picked over the 23. They both would of made fantastic aircraft especially bearing in mind how old the designs are. Would a new aircraft developed now look and fly the same I don’t know. My strategy has to be to work on new/better systems just now so that when a new fighter is developed hopefully in the next 10 years the main costs are just the airframes. Also an upgrade to current aircraft should be run to allow them to work together seamlessly.
I wouls love to see proposals for the B-21. A much larger YF-23 compared to the flying wing and any other designs. Also the 23 or 22 could of seen a role as an f15e strike eagle. Perhaps as a enlarged version. Instead the f-35
Is expected to do it all.
Where are the massive costs for the 22/23 from. Is it the airframe/engines or mainly the systems? How could a new production line produce a much cheaper aircraft? Coming out with a 100 million dollars or less aircraft would be very appealing.
F35bI’m not sure where the big problems with ship and wider procurement lie. Is it the navy don’t know what they want or how to ask for it, is it the MOD can’t order what is needed or write a contract, is the shipbuilders can’t actually build a ship for a decent cost and are needing to relearn skills everytime they build something.
I don’t think it should’ve so hard. Engines are available to order, radar is ready, CAAM is very nearly ready. Main gun is ready, secondary guns are ready, towed array is ready, internal fitting of crew areas etc can be ready and use the experience of fitting out cvf to type 26. Ship design has been going on for ages at God knows how much cost. Am I missing something here. I think the MOD/Navy don’t have any money to buy the ships is the main reason for the delay and that they want to know exactly how much will 8 ships cost and where costs can be cut (which normally ends up costing more than is saved). It’s hard to give a price for that level of time procurement length etc. Maybe they are waiting till EU vote is over but I fear that will then be after the summer break. The ship building schedule a few years ago actually looked sensible but I knew that wouldn’t be stuck to.
On a positive note I must say the carriers look very impressive. If they work well I would say order another. Having enough equipment to use them usefully is the next challenge. I think I read the carrier will have 14 merlins in anti submarine role and that only leaves 11 for the type 23/26 never mind training etc. I see the escorts getting cut to 8-11 by the time the type 26 comes into service then we will hear how great the type 26 is that 1 ship can do the job of 3 older ships so we don’t need as many and it’s a huge capability increase for the navy blah blah blah.
F35bI found this is the Indian airforce forum about the hawk development aircraft getting a new wing. Maybe this has something to do T-X?
BAE’s Hawk new development aircraft is to have the new wing installed, but BAE is tight-lipped about its plans regarding flight-testing the enhanced platform. “We want to demonstrate it within the next 12 months, to give confidence in the product,” Timms says of the development. “If we feel we need to fly we’ll fly it,” he adds.
What is the hawk not meeting on the capability front for the competition? Can these be fixed with a newly designed wing? Is it just angle of attack that is not enough?
One last thing about the hawk is it jgoing to realistically be entered in the competition? Are BAE going to work with Northrop on the new build aircraft instead. I really can’t wait to see the 3 new clean sheet designs.
F35bI don’t think the new hawk can be called the same aircraft as the legacy Hawks as all they share is the canopy and airbrake. Now I’m not saying it’s best for the job but most likely will be built to US requirements as much as possible especially in terms of cockpit electronics. A good old fly off between all the aircraft would be good
Sign In
