Peter GUAVs are still pretty much cheap, capable and easy to develop.
Pick any two.
Peter GUnless they have another Walker for the codes and recovered the machines from Vietnam and wanted to give away their source over the internet and a commercial company wanted to continue selling a product and a military wanted to make some noise before a disarmament treaty signing and politicians wanted to spin some publicity for the same reason…. :rolleyes:
Peter GDigital Joint Reconnaissance Pod: http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/reconnaissancepod.cfm
Both now use Paveway IV.
The RAF has retired its cluster bombs.
Peter GRecon pod
Peter GIs that view through the cockpit rear vision mirror/persicope?
Peter GSu-27P Flanker B range figures (Brassey’s 1996/1997):
Ferry Range: 2008 nm (3720 km) clean
Max Range with 10 AAMs: 1512 nm (2800 km)
Divide the 1512 nm by two for radius = 756 nm, and subtract some reserves and combat allowance for:
Radius of action at high altitude: 589 nm (1090 km)
Radius of action at low altitude: 227 nm (420 km)
The two seat Su-30 series has slightly less range.
Max speed for Su-27 Flanker B is 1350 knots (2500 kph)
Two seat Su-27UB (and Su-30) is 1161 knots (2150 kph)
The canards on those Su-30 so equipped (MKI, etc) further reduce speed to Mach 1.9 at high altitude or approximately 1090 knots (2020 kph).
In terms of acceleration the Flanker has it over the Super Hornet, but no aircraft can maintain the sorts of speeds for any length of tactical time in full reheat.
Peter GAFAIK the F-35 has three requirements:
1) Find targets in all weathers.
2) Stealth.
3) Decreased maintenance costs.
Depending on requirement 3), the higher cost (of course early production will cost more!), the decreased maintenance costing should completely or partially offset this.
Was cheap purchase cost ever a requirement?
Peter GRAAF Wedgetail Progress
THE RAAF is now on track to get the first of its long-awaited airborne early warning aircraft in November, but it may take at least another two years to develop a full operational capability for the $4billion project.
Already running more than three years late, Project Wedgetail is now entering its final phase after passing several critical milestones in recent weeks, including US Federal Aviation Administration certification and successful air-to-air refuelling trials.
The Wedgetail is now set to achieve “95 per cent” of its contracted specification, according to the senior Australian Defence official responsible for the procurement of the aircraft. All six Wedgetails are due to be delivered by the end of next year.
“We will end up with a system that will have operational potential and the ability to support training at initial delivery,” Air Vice Marshal Chris Deeble told Australian journalists at a briefing in Seattle.
“But there’s more work that we are going to have to do which may take us a couple of years to (get to) that final stage.”
The performance of the Wedgetail’s sophisticated phased array radar has been a major issue for the Defence Materiel Organisation and the subject of protracted negotiation with prime contractor Boeing and radar builder Northrop Grumman.
The Wedgetail fleet will form the mainstay of Australia’s new generation of air defence systems, with its radar designed to track huge numbers of targets on air, sea and land simultaneously, including cruise missiles, at ranges of more than 400km.
“There are some aspects of the radar that we are going have to further develop,” Air Vice Marshal Deeble said.
“We are going to try to work that with Northrop Grumman and Boeing in a collaborative program.
“But is also true to say that we are going to have to operate this aircraft to really understand the operational utility of the MESA (multi-role electronically scanned antenna) radar.”
He said the RAAF hoped to achieve 95 per cent of the capability originally designated in the contract and in some cases exceed the performance specifications.
Some areas of the radar’s performance involving side-facing waves needed refinement together with other systems to be fitted to the Wedgetail fleet, including the electronic support measures package that provides additional surveillance.
One problem has been the inability of the radar to distinguish genuine targets from clutter during flight trials.
Both Air Vice Marshal Deeble and Boeing’s senior vice-president for the Wedgetail, Maureen Dougherty, confirmed the aircraft’s radar had performed well in tests in the Northern Territory two months ago.
“The system behaved very well. It clearly demonstrated the operational potential,” she said.
“We are definitely in the end game now. There’s a light at the end of a tunnel. We will only achieve it if we can continue to work well with Boeing, Northrop Grumman and BAE,” Air Vice Marshal Deeble said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25778616-31477,00.html
Peter GIt was a case of ‘What now?’ for the RAN and the USN. The USN had just provided assistance with resolving some of the Collins submarines issues. Once this was over (very successfully on both sides), the two sides asked the question of ‘Where next?’ The answer was Aegis.
Before the platform (ship) was selected it had already been decided that the combat system would be based on the Aegis/SPY-1 system. A version of the Sachsen was offered with Aegis, but the F100 bid was considered lower risk.
Anymore on the APAR issues?
Peter GYes, yes they do. Once again I’m wrong:
“Iron Monarch being the world’s first commercial vessel powered by an industrial gas turbine engine….Owing to mechanical breakdowns leading up to 1980, she was docked at Newcastle, New South Wales for major modifications. Primarily, metal fatigue from thermal recycling had reduced performance down to 16 knots from almost 23 knots maximum at initial sea trials. From 25 September 1980 she underwent satisfactory sea trials after conversion to simple cycle operation. she steamed at 17 knots , from 90 tonnes of waxy crude per day whilst horsepower was 17,500. Resumed normal services within the fleet until 9 March 1983 when she was laid up at Newcastle owing to economic downturn coupled with rising costs and reduced speed performance. Placed for sale on the market, she was later given a reprieve when BHP management decided upon re-engining her.”
So much for Iron Monarch (she remains in service in 2009, although as above she now has diesels).
Iron Duke was scrapped 1986 after suffering similar engineering issues as Iron Monarch.
Peter GThere was talk of container ship conversions during the 1980s, but the capability was considered too low (okay they can carry helos, but how far to go down the C&C path, self defence and sensor?) and lacked meaningful damage control capability (single shaft, single engine room, etc) and are single role ASW. Also too noisy – they carry ASW helos but somewhat spoiled by the ship signature.
I’d like to know the source for the gas turbine propulsion – AFAIK no Australian commercial ships have ever been gas turbine powered.
It’d be feasible in Jan’s story timeline – its war and peacetime tradeoffs go out the window.
Peter GWhats the book title – the extracts look interesting.
Peter GProbably wrong but the 6 shot was something like 4 hits, 1 miss and 1 classed as no test (the target drone lost radar augmentation). The drones were spread out over 15 nm, so were ‘fairly close’.
Whilst providing TWS guidance for AIM-54 the AWG-9 scans over 40 degrees (20 either side of nose) in 2 seconds – standard search is 130 degrees in 13 seconds. Once the AIM-54 is inside ~20 km from the target the TARH seeker takes over (there is no need to constantly paint the target in TWS mode).
If launching the pure SARH AIM-7 only one missile can be guided at a time (no a radar, but a missile restriction).
During testing they detected 3-5m2 drones (medium fighter sized tgts) at 85-115 nm in look down mode, switched to TWS mode at 50 nm and launched 6 missiles inside 38 seconds at 31 nm.
The radar detected a BQM-34E drone simulating a Backfire at 132 nm (TWS mode), launched at 110 nm with the missile actually travelling 72.5 nm (the Backfire is heading in, closing the range also).
The AWG-9 was brilliant for its time, but recent radars have exceeded its range and performance (CAPTOR, APG-77, APG-79, etc). Active phased array radars doe not have the limited TWS angles either.
Being a PESA radar, Zaslon could engage 4 tgts with pure SARH guidance – they aren’t limited by arc as the phased array can quickly switch the beam electronically (20 ms updates – it needs the speed).
It can even engage two targets at high and two at low altitude (it can LD/SD and LU/SU!) at the same time. Range isn’t that impressive (70 nm vs 3 m2 – compare with AWG-9 above), but the multi-targeting was impressive for the MiG-31 in service date of 1983.
Peter GPeter GThe only official government word on the last batch of F-35 is that a decision will be made in 2014. The decision is to either retain and upgrade the F/A-18F or purchase a further 28 F-35 (F/A-18F would then retire in 2020).
Planned deliveries are something like:
2013: 4
2014: 8. Decision on deliveries in 2019-2020 (28 a/c).
2015: 15. IOC with one squadron.
2016: 15
2017: 15
2018: 15. FOC with three squadrons.
2019: 15
2020: 13. Fourth squadron.
F-35B and UCAV have been mentioned in local defence magazines.
Outside of the USMC and RAF, the F-35B will be purchased by Italian Navy (22), Italian Air Force (40 F-35B along with 69 F-35A). Israel might purchase some F-35B as part of its options – they are concerned with having airfields closed down by Hamas rockets.
Has Spain ordered the F-35B yet?
As for the UCAV, nothing approaching fast jet performance are officially planned to enter service anywhere yet. Closest is the USN F/A-XX. A decision on whether this will be manned or unmanned will not be taken till 2015 and isn’t planned to enter service till 2025. Part of this is the X-47 demos.
Sign In
