sealordlawrenceThe only thing I disagree about is the level of investment. I don’t think it is simply a matter of underfunding Peter to adequately fund Paul, the level of under investment is across the board. I think we need the shiny new ships I think we need the shiny new fast jets but I also think we need to ensure that a requirement for however many T45 destroyers (as an example only) is not watered down to a little over half over a longer procurement period in order to direct the available cash at a more ‘needy’ branch of the armed services.
I hope you are right about Russia (as an example) and I hope you are right that we will never need to go it alone in a major military operation ever again. I just don’t think that these are realistic assumptions, certainly not in the long term.
Maybe I am being a little simplistic about what I feel is the level of funding required but I’m sure we all agree that a higher level of funding is required. We may disagree however about how much and how it should be directed.
Never said the UK would not go it alone again- dont put words in peoples mouths. I am right about Russia, at they things are going it will have a population just a quarter the size of Europe in the coming decades, it has nothing with which to pose a serious threat.
sealordlawrenceA fixed probe is the only way to have the probe (thus the drogue) well in front of the wind shield in case **** happens. It’s lighter than a retractable probe, safer (no actuators, no moving parts, no leaks, no switches) and cheaper to produce and maintain. Its simplicity also makes it more resistant to battle damages (lower footprint, higher strength).
These benefits far outweight drag and RCS penalty, both being in the same league as a single SRAAM. That’s almost irrelevant when compared to the overall values.
As previously stated, a pathetic excuse on a plane as complex as the Rafale.
sealordlawrenceHello!
looking around in the web – for korean designs I found this page:
http://www.powercorea.comHere you can see a picture of Varyag equipped with radars named shirang in the yard in Dalian. The picture seems very interesting as it is the first I have ever seen with radars. Do you think it is real or a fake?
It seems to be a possible look. She still rides high in the water.Any thoughts?
looks fake, the entire superstructure seems to be at the wrong angle?:confused:
sealordlawrenceAnd nobody has cited any complaints either.
This is what I thought, so far there have not been any complaints from customers concerning the fixed refueling probe.
So far, you are the only one complaining because you don’t like the look of it and you don’t appreciate its simplicity.Fortunately, keyboard fighter pilots have no impact on Dassault’s decisions. Costs and customers requirements do.
Thats why they dont listen toy you either.:D Simplicity on an aircraft of such complexity is a pathetic excuse. The only viable one present refers to internal space.
sealordlawrenceThere is already another thread here on a similar theme, entitled ‘you must be kidding’. The long and the short of it is that the UK armed forces are being sent to perform tasks that they are not funded to perform. The UK government is finding out the hard way that one can not punch above ones weight in terms of military affairs.
sealordlawrenceBTW, others should think twice before designing aircrafts until they get a low failure rate for the undercarriage… :diablo:
Figures?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceFor years jet VTOL light transports have been featured in science fiction films: Aliens, Contact, X-Men, others(?). With the advent of the F-35B, could it be that the technology to build a useful jet STOVL light transport is at hand? Imagine an aircraft powered by two Pratt & Whitney F135 engines with a cargo compartment between them, packaged in a stealthy airframe. This aircraft could take off conventionally from an airbase or road, which would allow it to lift a heavy load. It could then penetrate undetected deep into enemy airspace, perhaps at supersonic speeds, and then land vertically after half its fuel has been burned, making it much lighter. It could deposit a squad of soldiers, or maybe even a HMMWV, (or an Aston Martin, lol), and fly home again. It would allow commando raids into heavily defended airspace, or a general Air Cav assault, where a pokey V-22 would fear to go.
A civilian version could be a buisness jet to remote locations, or a fast way to avoid city and airport congestion.
Would it be too expensive to develop and produce? Or would it be worthwhile? Or would it be just so cool that it needs to be done?
The British cancelled a V/STOL jet tactical transport in the 1960s in the form of the Armstrong Whitworth AW.681. It was to have been powered by 4 vectored thrust Rolls Royce Medways. Apparently to achieve the desired effect pods of lift engines would needed under the wings to make any sort of really useful V/STOL take off so the type would have spent most of its time as a STOL aircraft.
sealordlawrencePerhaps people may have read the series print of a what if scenario that was fleshed out in a modellers magazine covering some 6 issues shortly after the release of Airfix’s TSR2. The detail covered in this series was impressive, including the proposed and ‘what if’ payload of TSR2. I believe this ranged from something like (please bear in mind my memory is hazy) 6 WE.177 freefall nuclear weapons on wing pylons and fuselage hardpoints to a conventional load of 24 iron bombs on wing pylons and fuselage hardpoints. Many other payloads were envisaged including the possibility of a blue danube under one wing with an expendible stores pod on the other. I am sure some were artistic license but none the less impressive
Thanks for the reply. I just want to add a bit that came to me in another thread. The thread was about the V-Bombers and I asked a couple of questions about the intended strategy for their use in a Nuclear war. (I would like to once again thank all the people who answered those questions). Essentially the plan was that the Strike Canberras based in Germany would hit the Soviet air defences at a paticular, it would be at that point that the V-Bombers would penetrate, effectively the TSR aircraft were V-Bomber facilitators. In this context the TSR-2 makes a lot of sense, by the early sixties the capacity of the Canberra fleet to carry out this task would have been highly dubious due to its lack of survivability on such missions thus a new aircraft was required. However the problem was that this was a strategy that the UK could no longer afford and the survivability of the V-Bombers following their penetration is also doubtful. In effect the TSR-2 was a theatre bomber and the RAF had failed to learn the lessons of 1957.
sealordlawrenceMaybe this will concentrate attention a little bit, from today’s telegraph
BHP buys into Falklands drilling licences
By Russell Hotten, Industry EditorLast Updated: 1:29am BST 03/10/2007
The world’s largest mining company, BHP Billiton, has struck a deal to begin exploration for oil and gas off the Falkland Islands.
Shares in Falkland Islands Oil and Gas (FIOG) hit a record yesterday after the company announced that BHP will help fund a drilling programme by buying at least 40pc in two licences.
It is estimated that there is about 60bn barrels of oil in the North Falkland Basin, but exploration has been limited by geography and a shortage of drilling rigs.
BHP has two rigs on long-term hire that could be used in the area.
“This finally cracks the rig problem,” said Tim Bushell, chief executive of FIOG.
“It’s a huge game-changer for us and possibly the other guys as well. We were just not big enough to attract a rig and BHP has the scale and size to bring them in.”
He said the “top ten” prospects in the region all have at least 500m barrels of reserves with the largest estimated at 3bn barrels.
It costs about $35m to drill a well off the Falklands, plus as much again in transportation costs.FIOG shares closed up 8½ at 173p.
Additional info
That is one of the factors that has been focussing minds for quite some time on this issue.;)
sealordlawrenceyou on the other hand, do you know if there has been any complaints from customers concerning the fixed probe ? or if this design has prevented Dassault to make a sale ?
So you dont have the figures then.:rolleyes: For all we know it could have been a contributing factor for Dassault having yet to make an export deal for the type.
sealordlawrenceIt is not a lame or a pathetic excuse, it is a pragmatic and cheap solution.
Who said Dassault lacked the competence to design a retractable refueling probe ?
They certainly lack the desire to design one as there is no necessity.
Definately lame and pathetic, and if you want to proceed with it I suggest that you go and find figures for the faliure rate of retractable probes on other types. As rayrubik said it is a ridiculous excuse.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrence“The Ministry of Defence said they weighed the same as real ammunition and were carried on planes during training exercises to give pilots practice at flying with the necessary load.”
Since when did the RAF have 14kg bombs??:rolleyes:
Its a savings measure, a clever little bean counter had the thought that if the RAF used the same bombs for combat as they do for training they could save money!:D
sealordlawrenceMaybe they want to avoid the situation where an expensive jet, on an important mission and low on fuel, has to :
– cancel his mission and go back to base
– or worse, divert urgently in order to save the plane
because his refueling probe didn’t come out when he met the tanker.Anyway, as I said previously, I am not sure of this particular reason and if the AdlA actually requested a F probe. But the cheap cost of a F probe and the little benefit of a R probe are probably the 2 important reasons.
Dassault will put a R probe (or another refueling system) on its aircraft the day :
– it will design a stealth plane with internal weapons bay,
– a customer regards the F probe as a disadvantage and requires a R probe.Mirage Series, Rafale, have a F probe. It is cheap, it works and customers don’t complain, so there is no reason to change it.
Sorry but that is a lame and pathetic excuse that you are peddling, as previously stated if Dassault lack the competence to develop a retractable refueling probe they should not be building planes.
sealordlawrenceThat doesn’t mean anything
I am not sure but I think that the Armée de l’Air is the one who wants a fixed refueling probe because they don’t want to have the slightest risk of a canceled mission because of a malfunction. If the AdlA or a customer requires a retractable refueling probe Dassault could design one but it would increase the cost for a minimal benefit. And I have never heard any complaints concerning Mirage or Rafale fixed refueling probes from any country or Air Force.
Anyway you should call Dassault and tell them your input. I am sure they will be very interested to hear what you have to say.
In that case they should remove the engines, the undercarriage, all the cockpit displays, all the weapons, all the targeting systems etc etc etc…..
sealordlawrenceThe Rafale has spent a lot of time in test chambers in order to be a ‘low profile’ aircraft. If Dassault says that the refueling probe has a minimal impact on the RCS of the plane then I believe them. And don’t forget that the plane is loaded with fuel tanks and bomb racks when it goes into combat mission. The RCS of this probe is certainly inferior to the RCS of several bombs.
If the refueling probe has a minimal impact on RCS, why would they design a retractable probe which will increase the cost, the weight, the maintenance and the design complexity of the system ?
You wrote that aircraft are insanely complicated today, so what is the point of adding another possibility of failure if the benefit is minimal ? It is a complete knick-knack.
The fixed refueling probe is one less thing to worry about whether you will admit it or not.
and it is cheap./
If dassault cant design a retractable fuel probe that has such a low faliure rate as to be all but irrelevant it should not be designing aircraft.
Sign In
