sealordlawrenceThe problem with these ideas is they ignore the fact that all Germany’s enemies were also re-arming rapidly, the RN had embarked on a major fleet renewal program and the RAF was modernising fast, and France and the USSR were also investing heavily in response to German re-armament and diplomatic posturing. In many ways you can argue Germany made a sound decision by going to war in 1939 before the relative strenghs of her enemies overhauled German weapons decisively.
Indeed, If you read about the RN’s tentative fleet plan you quickly realise that the Z-plan would not have achieved any great superiority at all.
sealordlawrenceTo each their own, I guess. When you hang a lot of stuff off a two part (upper receiver and railed fore end) upper, you put a lot of stress on the area around the barrel nut and in time the heat from firing and the stress on the region has been known to cause accuracy to shift.
If your hanging that much stuff off it you probably wont be carrying it far.:D
sealordlawrenceSwerve: +1
That’s exactly what she is – helicopter carrier an flagship. Use of F-35 will require serious internal modification.
That is exactly the point, this vessel is clearly not designed with the F-35 in mind and Tinwing s making the mistake of listing all the things that would need to be changed in order to make it capable rather than realising that so many major changes would be needed that it is apparent this is just a helicopter carrier.
sealordlawrenceThey are the same aircraft (airframe) with different features.
Yes but it is the features that make them different. If you order an F-35A, you get a land based CTOL aircraft, of you order an F-35B you get a V/STOL aircraft.
sealordlawrenceIf you want a piston system, wait about six weeks and take a look at what Lewis Machine & Tool will have on the market. It’s designed to work with their carbine length MRP (Monolithic Rail Platform) one piece upper and railed forearm assembly.
While it will be in the same price range as the LWRC product, the upper and rails being all one piece is going to give it strength and robustness than no other upper will possess.
Frankly the uppers are strong enough as it is without being monolithic. I Like the customisation that LWRC offers.
sealordlawrenceYes, but what does that really mean?
The 16DDH would be up for its first refit by the time production slots become available for the F-35B. It would be a simple enough matter to apply a heat resistant coating to the flight deck, or even to reinforce the entire deck if need be.
The deciding factor will be whether Japan has the political will to procure a STOVL fighter in the next decade or two.
True, but had there been any real intent it would not have been too difficult to make a slightly different design better suited all round. Peter G underlined many of the reasons why the class is unsuitable.
sealordlawrenceHyuga is unlikely to use the F-35B in the future as she is too small.
The F-35B requires either 167 m from flat deck or 137 m if the ship has a ski jump.
Hyuga is 195 m long, but tapers forward at the bow – this would need to be extended. She is not fitted with a jet blast deflector, so could only launch one F-35B at a time – followed by a spotting the second and so on. Not very conductive to high intensity takeoff operations.
She would also definitely lack the space to be conduct simultaneous landings and takeoffs.
The F-35B wingspan is 10.64 m (non-folding) and 15.5 m long. At best the Hyuga is 33 m wide – and the deck tapers at the bow. To tight a fit for to use the flight deck as a parking space for the F-35B.
The elevators are optomised for operating helicopters – they are in the middle of the flight deck: http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/imimage/im20070823STXKE04932308200713.jpg
As above, the elevators need to be 10.7 wide x 15.6 m long (at least!). According to:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x-schem.htm
They are 13 m wide and 20 m long – large enough for the F-35B.The hanger is probably too small, especially if the attachment in the first couple of pages is correct (aft elevator is in the wrong place!).
D K Brown (UK naval architect) mentions that, once the helicopters reach 6, the most efficient deck design is the ‘through-deck’.
I remember when the Osumi commissioned the AV-8B rumours started – there is insufficient room between the island and the edge of the flight deck!
It has already been reported in Janes and presented here that the flight deck of the DDH16 is not designed to operate jet aircraft, and is incapable of taking the exhaust of a jet engine.
sealordlawrenceYour kidding right? As both are based on the very same airframe thereby sharing over 80% of the same components. With the main difference being the F-35B carries the lift fan in place of some fuel. Your comparison is like comparing a Sumo Wrestler with a Midget! Very disappointing:(
They are two different variants, they may have 80% commonality but it is the 20% that counts. Essentially they are different aircraft.
sealordlawrenceHow does one export order to the RAAF that already operates the Hornet count as being an advantage? the N-LCA is already committed for the IN, and there’s no going back on that. As for the SHornet, forget it, the IN wont even look at it.
I never proposed the Hornet for the IN.:rolleyes: So how many export orders does the LCA have?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThe most popular 7.62mm ammo for the AK seems to be 157 grain ammo, which is rather heavy, while ammo for the AK-74 series weapons went from 52 grain to 60 grain and may get even heavier. From memory the special subsonic 5.45mm rounds for the AK-74 are 80 grain projectiles with less powder propellent to reduce velocity to subsonic. In comparison I can get 60 grain subsonic ammo for my .22lr rifle, which when used with a silencer is very effective. 🙂
For the ideal western sneaky quiet gun I have been looking at a gunsmith in Christchurch who converts old 303s into an improved DeLisle. Improved in the sense that it is still 45 calibre but uses the larger 45/70 cartridge with a heavier bullet at the same subsonic speed to maximise performance.
At the moment however I would probably rather have a bolt action 7.62 x 39mm that I can load 193 projectiles into and make some quiet ammo with.
Frankly I would go to Russia for some of their specially made silent weapons. There are a couple of US rounds designed for subsonic silent operations as well called the whisper.
sealordlawrenceWould you like to back that up?:confused:
F-35A and F-35B are two very different birds. It is like saying that becouse Japan bought phantoms it would also buy Harriers.
sealordlawrenceSo you prefer the AR-18?
It wouldn’t nearly be so controversial if it actually did get the job done all the time. The reality is there is no such thing as a bullet that gets the job done every single time.
You’d think accuracy would be the most important thing, but when all the guns are accurate enough it often comes down to things like how compact it is or how heavy it is. Look at the Israelis… started using SLRs, then used Aks cause they were smaller and lighter, then got issued with Galils, which were basically heavy AKs in western calibres and many of them choose to use M16s because of their weight.
There are now four companys offering gas piston AR’s LWRC, POF, ARES defence and HK. They are not true AR-180’s as they just replace the gas tube with a gas piston.
sealordlawrenceWhen not used in its primary role of strategic cruise missile carrier if they want a conventional role for the aircraft then its jamming and EW equipment one would assume it would be equipped for in its primary role would make it a very capable wild weasel aircraft… very able to maintain pace with the aircraft it is protecting and able to loiter for long periods with large numbers of ARMs to cover multiple attacks. The modified Blackjacks will have the lifting capacity to carry 45 tons of weapons but limiting them to internal only weapons they would be limited more by size than weight.
Still very unlikely… with perhaps up to 8 large anti ship weapons like MOSKIT or ONYX on external pylons with a weapons bay for 6 weapons internally the Tu-22M3 might be a more likely candidate for such weapons… the larger weapons fired first with the remaining anti radiation weapons trying to hit anything defending the fleet…
That was exactly my thought Garry.
sealordlawrenceI have a feeling that you could probably carry up to four four-bomb carriages for the SDB, but can definately carry up to twelve Brimstone. The real key is to keep the aircraft in the air, which I believe is actually better done with a UAV. The RAF really should be buying Reaper UAVs as quickly as possible, given their excellent performance, and excellent weapons capability. A single Reaper squadron could cover British forces in Iraq, and I would probably aim for two squadrons to cover British forces in Afghanistan. A typical loadout could consist of a pair of laser guided 500lb bombs, and, say, six Brimstone (or at least four).
The advantage of the Reaper is of course that the crews (except the ground crew) sit in a comfortable base, either in Nevada, or possibly in the UK in time. This eases a lot of the problems of manning, since such an assignment could be pretty prized among ‘aircrew’, and allow enlisted personnel to be pilots too!
Thats why I suggested SDB, its light weight and should give a bit more range. I definately agree with the Reaper point though. I have heard nothing but rave reviews about the work of predators both in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sensor package and payload are allowing for some impressive search, stalk and kill operations!:diablo:
sealordlawrenceHere’s a question,
with the A-10 getting a little old, what will its replacement be? Given the demonstrated need for a dedicated cas platform, will the USAF get one or simply replace it with multi role F-35s?
Read the article posted in the other A-10 thread, it is not going anywhere for a long time.:cool:
Sign In
