dark light

sealordlawrence

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,911 through 2,925 (of 5,730 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: UK F-35 question #2509618
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Yes, as US Congress has recently approved continuing with the F136 engine for the B, but until the thing starts flying next year, I don’t think that can be seen as a guarantee that it will go into production.

    As for the A, why would they want to cancel that? The USAF might look to reduce or slow deliveries once it enters service, but this is the main variant that is wanted by the partners and will be the biggest part of the all the orders. And I doubt that it would be cancelled if budgetary reasons called for it in favour of continuing the development of an alternatively-powered aircraft (B) and a larger aircraft (CV) that isn’t even due to fly until 2009. If there is any cost-cutting exercises involving the aircraft, focus will remain on the F-35B and overall numbers ordered.

    Becouse by playing with figures and making everyone except the Marines take the C money can be saved. The rest of the world will buy whatever they are given be it A or C. The B is safe, it is needed increasingly urgently to replace the USMC harriers, without there will be nothing to fly of the flat top amphibs and that will look very very bad.

    in reply to: UK F-35 question #2509629
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    yep were getting 2 2009 i personally feel that the F35B are best suited to Uk needs and from my last conversation the Rn are going to get the lions share of the F35B [well thats what they believe] as they feel that the RAF has the typhoon so they should have most of the F35B buy.

    I hope they carry on thinking that. Fact remains that the UK is accepting a massive loss in capability (especially for the CVF’s) in order to get the V/STOL capability.

    in reply to: GWS-31 Sea Dart Mark-2 #1793422
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Sealord,

    I’d consider it extremely unlikely that any public source will be able to shed much light on the Active Sea Dart project. As stated I only heard about the concept from one disgruntled petty officer!. I would guess that an enquiry put to BAE may be the only route for trying to find out what, if any, serious progress was made on the weapon.

    From what little I know it was a carryover from the work done on GWS27 ‘super-SeaWolf’. It was quite the fashion, at the time, to try and stick active seekers onto anything and trying to get a VLS setup knocked together was the logical next step.

    As to timeline I heard about it in the middle of 1992 and it had obviously been knocking around, as a concept, some time before that. The BAE MESAR radar research, that later developed into the SAMPSON MFR, was under development from the mid 80’s and I always assumed that there was an intent to mate MESAR to Active Dart. Pure speculation on my part though. Anyway what is certain is that the Aster/PAAMS project was embarked upon in December ’92 and that put paid to any further development of the GWS30 system beyond that needed to maintain viability.

    Range is, of course, dependent on the target being engaged. Kinematically the missile is good for a LONG way past the 40km’s originally advertised and the limitation was always with the 909 directors. The 909(I)’s now deployed, along with the upgrade rounds themselves, make the system hugely more capable than it was in either the Falklands or Desert Storm, somewhat obviously, and I wouldnt be so fast to write it off as totally obsolescent – apart, of course, from facing concentrated saturation fire which, to be fair, would also present problems for SM-1 or SA-N-7 equipped vessels!.

    Thanks very much Jonesey, I wonder how cooperative BAe might be.:diablo:

    Everyone I have spoken to about Sea Dart has held it in quite high regard for its time, the overall reputation seems to have been very good, I have been told that it even impressed a number of UN officers!

    in reply to: UK F-35 question #2509698
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    I don’t think the project is that advanced to discuss split in numbers, etc, other than total requirement (about 138 aircraft). No order has been placed by any of the nations involved in the project, just money committed to its development and production prototypes. There is still no guarantee that the F-35B Lightning II that the UK wants (the STOVL version) will get into production anyway, although the prototype is due to fly early next year. Should that get cancelled, the UK could look at the CV version (or other alternative aircraft), but that would probably push the delivery date back. When a contract is signed, I think the amount eventually ordered will be less, especially given that it is expected that the two new CVFs would each carry up to 36 F-35s at a time.

    The likelyhood of the B getting cancelled now is miniscule. If the JSF program was hit by a massive cost saving exercise it would probably be in the form of the A getting canned and the air force being ordered to take C’s but even that looks very unlikely now. The F-35 is too important for Marine corp and has a good export potential, its not going anywhere for now.

    As for the UK’s choice, the consensus seems to be they got it wrong. There is absolutly no reason why the UK should not be getting the C variant, but that topic has been done to death here.

    in reply to: UK F-35 question #2509703
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Wow, thanks guys,

    But does anyone know what the ratio numbers will be and the current delivery schedule is?

    The numbers wont be officially split, all the aircraft will effectively form the same type of combined force as Joint Force Harrier does with exact ratios being defined by operational need. At least that was what was going t happen last time I heard if there is an update I would love to hear it?

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-2 #1793427
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    This is the latest shown version of the SHTIL naval SAM. Very different from the old missile.

    http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2169/attachmentia5.th.jpg

    http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/1152/attachmentse0.th.jpg

    Interesting 36 cell launcher, any idea whether this layout in intended for ani ship design in particular or is it just a general mockup of a possible layout?:confused:

    in reply to: UK F-35 question #2509757
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Unfortunately RN and RAF aircraft will be the same aircraft so they will be delivered simultaneously.:(

    in reply to: Syria 'fires on Israel warplanes' #2509789
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    The F5 is a sensible start point for reverse engineering.

    The problem is that they started over 20 years ago, and the F-5 was obsolete then.;)

    in reply to: Navy news from around the world, news & discussion #2047150
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Warships IFR is a joke IMO, OK you get a magazine on warships when there aren’t many alternatives, but it offers nothing anybody with Internet access can’t get on line in greater detail and without the delay of waiting for a published magazine, and it’s editorial slant is absurd verging on carpet gnawing mad, I find their “Odin’s Eye” section cringe inducingly childish. But that’s just me. If you’re serious about warship design then the RINA periodical “Warship Technology” is still the best magazine out there on actual vessel developments by a long way, 5 times a year if you take the main RINA periodicals, whilst for general naval affairs the US Naval Institute magazine “Proceedings” is still the best their is, both of these magazines make Warships IFR look very mediocre by comparison, although admittedly they’re in much narrower circulation.

    That pretty much sums up my view. Warships IFR is kind of like the daily sport of Military interest publications in my opinion.

    in reply to: Last Arrest Gear for HMS ARK ROYAL #2047151
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    I agree, it sounds good! The one thing to note is that, in effect, if does now what the British system could have been going 40+ years ago! It’s just a real shame Britain dropped out of proper carrier ops, in favour of Hairdryers (Harriers). 🙁

    And then when they finally gave themselves the opportunity to get back in the game they ignored it!:(

    in reply to: GWS-31 Sea Dart Mark-2 #1793461
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Thanks Mercurious. By the way, it is a great book, one of those lovely little gems you luckily stumble upon every now and then.;)

    Any details about the active radar homing VLS launched version?:confused:

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news #2509806
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Perhaps interesting

    EADS know LO
    http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares/2007/05/eads_knows_lo.html

    Even if this paticular mod is not associated with RCS reduction measures the above article does go to underline the vast amount of technical expertise that sits behind the Typhoon program and that could further improve the aircraft.

    in reply to: GWS-31 Sea Dart Mark-2 #1793476
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead, but I have a few more questions. I was kind of hoping that British secret porjects (the latest missile version) would provide alot more information on this but to be honest it was a bit dissapointing. Anyway back to the questions.

    What is the actual range of Sea Dart, according to the RN website it is 80km, but I have seen figures varying massively from 30km upwards?

    Furthermore is there anymore information on the active homing variant jonsey mantioned?:confused:

    Thanks in advance sealordlawrence.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon news #2510101
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    And its wing profile + close coupled canard enables it to be a better ride in the low alt penetration mode, it has a better range, its radar is capable of doing automated terrain following as well as scanning for enemy fighters at the same time, it can also launch a Mica IR cued by awacs or whatever for self protection, and the Spectra can cue an AASM towards a target of opportunity for off boresight self-SEAD…

    It’s comes with a carrier capable version (I bet the RN would quite like if the typhoon came in a carrier version too)…

    Oh and if all fails we can nuke them :diablo:

    Try reading my post, I said the type of warfare being described ie, CAS in Afghansitan not which is the best deep penetration strike aircraft. Unless of course you think the Taliban has a sophisticated missile based air defence system.:rolleyes:

    in reply to: How good is the AK-47? #1793510
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    While accuracy gets mentioned a lot I think a lot of the problems with accuracy for the AK have been the quality of ammo made. For a very long time the AK was seen as a sort of SMG by Soviet Authorities where close range high rate of fire AKs would suppress the enemy while the harder hitting rifles (SVD) and MGs (RPK and PKM) would do the actual killing… along of course with artillery and direct armour support.
    It seems quality control for standard ammo has improved and accuracy is improving. The Gun expert of Soldier of Fortune magazine in the 80s and early 90s was some guy named peter k Kolikas or something and when he tested the AK-100 series in 5.56mm using Belgian ammo stated it was as accurate as any M16 variant he had tested out of the box. Accuracy on the range is also not the same as accuracy in the field. When those paper targets start shooting back and you have to run a few miles with full kit training really tells.

    Having an assault rifle that can hit heads at 600m is nothing… in real combat with camouflage, with noncombatants around the place, and with targets that move from cover to cover you are not likely to get shots off at targets more than 200m away unless you are fighting in the desert… or arctic tundra… or open prairie grassland in which case an M14 or SVD makes rather more sense. Make it barren mountain and you are looking at 338 Laupa magnum or 50 cal rifles, 23mm cannon and recoilless rifles of various types and brands.

    Even with both using very high quality ammo, an AK will never come close to an AR in accuracy terms. The AK is inherently inaccurate.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,911 through 2,925 (of 5,730 total)