dark light

sealordlawrence

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,776 through 2,790 (of 5,730 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-15, F/A-18 #2505389
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Might want to do your fact checking a bit better. In the E and E war, one side had experienced Ukrainian maintainers and the other experienced Russian maintainers. If they can’t do it no one can.

    Today’s RuTech BVR is probably a very very serious threat. However looking back at the old days just doesn’t seem to hold up. For them other tech was very good, i.e. the helmet heater R-73 etc.

    The Ethiopia Eritrea War is wirth the square root of ******* all when it comes to analysing anything. The informations is at best sketchy and unreliable and the conflict was on only a very small scale, each side having just a handful of aircraft.

    in reply to: Post War RAF:What could (should?)have been #1326940
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    The Government did not have the funds to allow industry to make the RAF what it could have been. There is no doubt that there were some incredibly advanced designs that were not only designed but made it to prototype stage- there names stalk the internet today. the problem was money exascerbated by ridiculous requirements,

    P.1154: Mach 2 V/STOL fighter
    AW.681: V/STOL capable (usually only STOL) tactical transport
    TSR-2: Mach-2 STOL theater bomber
    Avro-730: Mach-3 Strategic bomber
    F.155T: Mach-3 heavy interceptor

    Amongst this lunacy two very promising designs did emerge that could potentially have largely filled most of the combat missions required by both the RAF and the RN with a single very exportable type. (yes thats right no strategic bombers).

    Hawker P.1121: If you use the search function there is at least one thread here about it.

    Vickers Type 581: A swing wing Mach 2 fighter that could be either a strike aircraft or a fighter (conversion in a short period of time was stipulated in the requirement) that was intended to operate from carriers from the outset.

    Despite the fact that the prototype P.1121 reached the construction phase (its fuselage still exists somewhere today IIRC) neither type ever flew and the RAF is where it is today.

    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Thats pathetic, if you want to troll at least try and make an effort.:rolleyes:

    in reply to: PLAAF News, Photos and Speculation #11 #2505400
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    2nd that.. Sooner or later, one company would have accepted Chinese proposal for cooperation anyway. Denel, Eurocopter or Agusta, no difference here.

    The best way to make business for AW would be to help design Z-10 and subsequently sell sh!tloads of A-129s to Taiwan to counter the new-born threat! 😉

    Of course the great irony is (and these are not my words) that the result thus far has been that China has developed one of the most effective industrial espionage infrastructures the world has ever known producing an endless supply of usable knowhow and technology that far exceeds what could ever have been obtained taking even the most open of legal roots, and the Chinese can do what they like with it once they have it.

    in reply to: PLAAF News, Photos and Speculation #11 #2505417
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    China illegally uses Canadian engine for combat helicopter

    What utter ********. 😡 And for those who still doubt that Agusta provided the most Western assistance on the project, the final couple of paras may prove enlightening.

    Your what? Shocked, surprised, horrified? If you take a country as economically powerful as China, with such a burning desire to become a great power and deny it open access to western technology to help it get to that stage it will get it this way. Live with it. China is just doing exactly what India is doing accept they are doing it legally.

    in reply to: F-16 for Morocco ? #2505418
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    You don’t care of industrial reality and LOGIC ?

    The low price of the F-16 comes with high series. Of course, as soon as you’ve got a short one (block 60), look at the result.
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICK/is_3_14/ai_68507685
    http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article22.html

    8 billions for 80 planes, without weapons.

    Lol, thats becouse the UAE payed for the development of a whole bunch of new systems (engine, radar EW suite, etc) not to mention brand new strengthened airframes!:rolleyes:

    I was talking about taking second hand airframes and giving them already developed or cheap to develop systems.:rolleyes:

    in reply to: F110s for RSAF's F-15S #2505419
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    another thing: is F-15SG …not F-15S(audi) :rolleyes:

    Lol:D Read the article, its actually about the Saudi air force F-15’s, lol.:D Looks like you owe an apology, I think I will use a sarcastic smiley too………:rolleyes: :p

    in reply to: Is 'unmanned' making a comeback..? #2505427
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Seems to me that this is just a matter of technology.

    It could be argued that most of what a manned aircraft does is already long distance/remotely handled… guided missiles, smart weapons etc.

    What I’m considering, in removal of human in-situ control of events, is surely simply a further step away in terms of remoteness, is it not? Given the fact that you’re saving your own side’s lives, together with other considerable pluses like saving on training/equipment/personnel, there has to be mileage in this.

    Well what is now being worked on are basically strike platforms, literally just stealthy bomb trucks, relatively simple compared to a Fighter although I have no doubt that they will appear in the coming decades. Also remember that the level of autonomy will increase aswell. It is not inconceivable that unmanned air vehicles will start making their own decisions in the coming decades.

    Just remember “The attack began at 6:18 PM, just as he said it would.”:D

    in reply to: AESA For ANG #2505431
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    IIRC the V(4) was being developed for the F-15E replacement and not to go on the F-15C’s and other single seaters

    Thanks, the reason I asked was becouse I keep seeing vague references to it, but every actual offer and procurement seems to be for the V3 (such as the F-15SG)

    in reply to: F110s for RSAF's F-15S #2505433
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    IIRC the F-15K got F-110’s as well, its all quite intriguing, there must be something giving it the sales edge for the new gen eagles?

    in reply to: AESA For ANG #2505444
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    So whats happened to the V4?:confused:

    in reply to: F-16 for Morocco ? #2505445
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    A tailored F-16 with such technologies wouldn’t be “a lot cheaper” than a Rafale I fear.
    About these “some areas”, could you named few of them ?

    I stated block 52
    For the price, I can’t think of block 60 or an equivalent, unless a huge discount from the US administration.

    Can you provide figures to back it up? I dont care what you stated, you are not the one making the deal.

    in reply to: Pr.20120 Nuclear Submarine? #2046463
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    There have been reports that the Russians are intending on procuring a smaller class of SSN’s to supplement the SSBN’s and the larger SSN’s, could this be it?:confused:

    in reply to: Typhoons in Luxembourg #2505472
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    ZJ809 BH 29 sdn is parked out on the ramp at Luxembourg this afternoon and I understand that this and another one came out here on Friday.

    Why and what are they doing here?

    Pillaging mostly.:D

    in reply to: F-16 for Morocco ? #2505480
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    YEs, but for a price pretty close to the Rafale just like the Block 60.
    In MArocco, the main point of the F-16 offer is the price.

    About the actual deal, it’s more 24 Rafale with state of the art technology vs 36 F-16 block 52, state of the art of the 90’s.
    I prefer the first offer.

    Do you have figures? Becouse my suspicion is that if you took a second hand C/ D and put RANGR and the Sufa avionics package in it it would come out allot cheaper than the Rafale, and tech wise would be on the same level (with the exception of the airframe) if not ahead in some areas.

    As stated in this thread time and time again (you should have seen it by now) we have no idea what F-16 is being offered, so to call it ‘state of the 90s’ without such details is stupid.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,776 through 2,790 (of 5,730 total)