dark light

sealordlawrence

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,056 through 2,070 (of 5,730 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2527340
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    yeah now, just because you have no figures or facts to back up your statements, its going to be wisecracks..quite typical of you. :rolleyes:

    So you have none too?:rolleyes:

    I will just live with the fact that the Snornet has lost every open competition it has entered, the Strike Eagle has won plenty.;)

    in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2527369
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Took the words right out of my mouth.;)

    in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2527437
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    with the AMRAAM’s latest variant, and the AIM-9X, JHMCS and APG-79(V)2, the SHornet is just as capable..the APG-79(V)2 is as capable, if not more capable than the APG-63(V)3 on the F-15SG. Also, the RAAF purchased its SHornets directly from the USN, not from Boeing, so the prices are the same as those that the USN would’ve paid for them..also F-15s are also sold by Boeing..what makes you think that they would’ve sold F-15s cheaper than SHornets ? :diablo:

    link

    Dude, Strike Eagle gives Snornet a beat down every time.:cool:

    in reply to: The Indian MMRCA Saga #2527484
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Regardless of Gripen-NG’s flight schedule, as we have discussed earlier, no fighter plane undertakes any mission with its max. external load of 7000-8000 kgs. For example F-18, F-16 and hence also the Gripen-NG do not have such mission profiles described at all in the reliable webpages dedicated to their information.
    Most weapon loads for all types of missions is upto 2000-3000 kgs only. Thus, the Tejas which can also carry loads of 2000-3000 kgs (and a max. of 4,5000 kga) without significant reduction in performance like range and maneuverability, can also compete as an MRCA.

    As per the Standing committee of Report on Defence, I quote, “…Air Forces like to have light, medium and heavy planes….LCA is a light plane….” There presumption is ill-founded as most airforces do not have such a combination, as we have already discussed earlier.
    The Su-30 MKI can be complemented fully by the Tejas, and an intermediate so-called MRCA would be needless.

    As per news reports, each example of the fighters shall be subject to exhaustive user-trials in Himalayas, the western deserts and coastal regions. This process shall take a few months.

    Reference :-

    http://in.news.yahoo.com/070925/43/6l5re.html

    What?

    The MMRCA is a waste of time and resources that will likely further diversify the already insane IAF logistics. MMRCA should be canned and the order split between the MKI and the LCA.

    in reply to: Air War Over Iran – Possible Scenarios #2527486
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    The objective would be to ‘de-fang’ Iran. Simply a conflict of attrition which Iran couldn’t hope to win. Their navy would disappear and their airfields would be rendered unusable. Target their defence production facilities and the Iranians would gradually be crippled. All that time and effort spent in a military build-up only to have it plinked. No amount of propaganda and taking to the streets in religious fervour will replace those lost military assets.

    The term ‘military’ covers alot of ground, Iran could say good bye to electricity, bridges, railway facilities, any duel use factories such as automotive plants, any facilities that can make any form of military component, transport it or hide it. In effect the Iranian economy would be returned to the dark ages.

    in reply to: The Indian MMRCA Saga #2527496
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Handing someone a set of blueprints and telling them to “Build this.” does not provide them with the engineering knowledge of the content of the blueprints.

    Very true.

    in reply to: Mig 25 thread #2527520
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Wrong the first plane shot down during the Gulf War was a U.S. F-18 to a Iraqi MiG-25.

    I think you have misunderstood him, he says that the Mig-25 shot down a Mig-25 so how is he wrong?:confused:

    in reply to: Air War Over Iran – Possible Scenarios #2527523
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    How do you explain that they have a 550,000+ Army with 300,000+ reservists:confused: even the U.S. admitts that Iran is much more capable than Iraq, haven’t you learned from Korea/Vietnam:D

    To the best of my knowledge there are no seriously considered war plans involving ground intervention in Iran. The only ones being considered involve a massive air campaign aimed at smashing Iran’s military and economy.

    in reply to: The Indian MMRCA Saga #2527556
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    It may not be obvious but if production of the wings spars etc were to be taken done by hal and knowledged gained then in terms of manufacturing production and production development india would be at par with US or atleast at par with the UK or Europe (notice i dont mention japan, as from my ignorant view they are farher than the US in some areas).

    That is apart from the Eurofighter or Rafale..Choke cough .. 🙂

    But i see what you are saying also..and agree in terms of electronics etc etc.. i am blinder and more ignorant as its not my field…

    It might put India on par with Europe but not the US, to achieve that you need F-35 of F-22.

    in reply to: JSF strike tactics? #2527557
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    And near the bottom, that article says – “Another option being studied would marry the Aargm seeker with the ramjet-powered Meteor missile.”.

    Now if they did make an ARM Meteor it would be an awesome development for the Typhoon.:diablo:

    in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2527593
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Australia: 2.36 bn USD for 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft
    Singapore: 741 mln USD for 12 F-15SG
    South Korea: 3.6 bn USD for 40 F-15K, 2.3 bn USD for additional 20 F-15K

    Holy c**p Boeing screwed Australia.

    The Raptor is not available and is unlikely to be so for quite some time. The Japanese are currently playing the waiting game for it but in my opinion they will be very unlikely to ever see it.

    The F-15SG is an exceptionally capable aicraft. It is outstanding in the A2G arena and with that large powerful AESA radar, 9X and the latest AMRAAM highly effective in the A2A theater too. Add to that the fact that Strike Eagles are now in service with five countries (US included) means that upgrades will keep coming for it. It is highly unlikely that anything will appear in the region in the next decade to match it.

    I really think that the Aussies need to get over this F-35/F-22/stop-gap obsession. The F-22 is not available and the F-35 wont be on the scene for some time yet. Why not operate two different types and get some plenty capable enough Strike Eagles now.

    in reply to: Navy news from around the world, news & discussion #2040363
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    The real question for the RN is how C1 and C2 will shape up, C1 has to be a first class combatant warship if the RN is to maintain a genuine war capability whilst C2 has to be a credible warship capable of second line duties and a limited first line role.

    That is exactly it. I would have thought that it would be beyond the budget but it may be worth just continuing T45 production just with them reconfigured as general purpose land attack ship. Alternatively a version of the BAe UXV (minus the ridiculous looking sponson ski-jumps) might be a good upper tier option. I am actually very supportive of the two tier concept, lets face it a T23 is just overkill for hunting drug smugglers or pirates. On the other hand the RN still needs dedicated war fighting ships.

    in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2527754
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Perhaps just a little problem.

    The SH purchase has been seen as an expensive one, the Eagle is even more expensive.

    The SH purchase is expensive becouse it is just a stop gap. I doubt that the Eagle would be that much more expensive than the Super Hornet anyway. Maybe you could give the figures for the Aussie SH purchase and the Singapore Strike Eagle Purchase?

    in reply to: World War One Strategic Bombing Doctrine? #1323003
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    A quote from an old Boss.

    ” A 5% aircraft loss rate on a strategic bombing mission may not initially appear that excessive:

    until you realise that, if sustained, you will have had to to replace your
    entire force including almost all of the crews, every 20 missions. “

    That is a very important point. The amount of R&D that goes into strategic bombers and their weapons, the amount they cost to build and construct both in terms of money and strategic materials and the fact that they are crewed by the brightest and best of a population makes this a very expensive prospect.

    in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2527798
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Why USAF? The production line is still open thanks to F-15K and F-15T orders.

    +1 on that. Get over the whole stop gap idea and just operate two types. Buy some new build Strike Eagles to F-15SG standard or better now and then get F-35’s when they finally become available.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,056 through 2,070 (of 5,730 total)