dark light

Peter G

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 616 through 630 (of 803 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RAF future tankers #2491577
    Peter G
    Participant

    They don’t have 22 operatioanl due to age – currently 10 VC.10 are operational, along with two Tristars in tanker role.

    A400M is fine in the tactical tanker role.

    in reply to: RAF future tankers #2492089
    Peter G
    Participant

    Good point on the training. At least the A400M will be cleared for tanking and possibly some RAF pilots will serve as exchange pilots with air forces equipped with the tanker versions.

    Also, if need be, perhaps the RAF could borrow tanker kits from friendly nations? Not ideal, but a possibility.

    The Merlin HC.3 was recently trialled as refueling from Italian KC-130J. Seems strange with many other countries getting into air refuelable helos, what are the plans of the RAF?

    in reply to: Future world tanker market #2492150
    Peter G
    Participant

    A400M tankers are confirmed for both Malaysia and South Africa. Israel might go with 767 conversions – although nothing decided yet.

    in reply to: RAF future tankers #2492175
    Peter G
    Participant

    Currently the RAF has:
    4 Tristar KC.1 x 96270 = 385,080 kg
    2 Tristar K.1 x 128000 = 256,000
    Supposedly tasking is 33% tanking and 66% transport

    VC-10
    10 C.1K x 70300 kg = 703,000 kg
    2 K.3 x 80000 kg = 160,000 kg
    4 K.4 x 70300 kg = 281,200 kg

    Of the 16, 10 are operational at any one time. Say:
    6 C.1K x 70300 kg = 421,800 kg
    1 K.3 x 80000 kg = 80,000 kg
    3 K.4 x 70300 kg = 210,900 kg

    With the current 22 tankers they can carry 1,785,280 kg (in theory) or more realistically 1,353,700 kg

    With the 9 full time A330 MRTT x 111,280 = 1,001,520
    With all 14 tankers = 1,557,920 kg

    With the increased availability and capability the 14 A330 MRTT will provide more capability than 22 older types.

    Also more troops and cargo with the A330.

    There are currently no plans to fit the RAF A400M as tankers, but as A400M can be fitted as a tanker inside two hours this isn’t a huge problem.

    in reply to: F-15E/K #2492656
    Peter G
    Participant

    Not a loadout chart, but close to what you are after: http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/navigation/index_loadouts.htm

    Peter G
    Participant

    Not sure on F-15A numbers, but these are only used by ANG from 2001. They can all use AMRAAM. Fairly sure these are due to go from ~2013 (I think the plan is exchange with active duty F-16C/D when these are replaced in active units with F-35A).

    There are around 370 F-15C/D. All are fitted with HMD, AIM-9X by 2007 (They’ve had AMRAAM since 1991). They plan to fit 179 active and 48+ ANG with APG-63(v)2 AESA and retain till 2-25 (USAF) and 2040 (ANG).

    They have at least 224 F-15E and plan to fit these with PG-63(v)4 AESA.

    F-16A were retired from active forces in 1990, and the ANG by 2007. There are none remaining front-line US service.

    They have approximately:
    197 Block 25 (retiring from 2007 on)
    350 Block 30 (Possibly retiring from 2014)
    51 Block 32
    From around 2000 these versions are only flown by ANG and Reserves.

    Around 222 Block 40, 174 Block 42, 198 Block 50 and 52 Block 52 remaining. The upgrades add HMD, new targeting pods, Link 16, new weapons, etc. Block 50 went through the upgrade 2002-2006 with Block 40 to complete by 2010.

    If teh F-35 is delayed, they could order more F-15E and F-16C (still be production by the time the F-35 is due to enter service).

    Despite teh recent F-15 grounding, they aren’t in too bad a shape.

    in reply to: Rafale news II : we go on #2497049
    Peter G
    Participant

    Would be interesting to know if it is possible to store target signatures/images for multiple targets (known SAMs, tanks etc.) to engage moving targets of opportunity.

    No reason why not. The SPICE series can store 100 preprogrammed targets with the user selecting the final target before weapon launch.

    When is the standard Inertial & GPS AASM to enter service? Is the rocket booster standard?

    in reply to: Tornado GR.4 #2499820
    Peter G
    Participant
    in reply to: Thrust Vectoring…..is it all really worth it? #2499935
    Peter G
    Participant

    One of the advantages mentioned with F-22 thrust vectoring is that at higher altitudes with thiner air, the TVC gives superior agility.

    in reply to: Tornado GR.4 #2500004
    Peter G
    Participant

    IIRC…

    ….GR force could get away from the ‘fleet within a fleet’ problems that were affecting the force by the end of the 1990s – a plan that has worked out splendi….. oh, hang on…

    I thought this had worked out okay. What went wrong with the common standard?

    in reply to: Tornado GR.4 #2500007
    Peter G
    Participant

    Any theories on the dual adapaters for Paveway IV?

    I just have proposed upgrades include twin stores rack, datalink and wingkit.

    Also, if the maximum number of Paveway III weapons is two does that mean that any aircraft carrying two can’t carry it’s own laser designator? Is the centerline pylon removed when two Paveway III’s are fitted?

    Correct – its either 2 PWIII/EPWIII or 1 PWIII/EPWIII and targeting pod. Buddy designation is nothing new here and the EPWIII can always use GPS guidance only.

    Oh, and another question that’s a bit off topic. Can the Tornado F.3 (i.e. ADV) carry anything other than four BVR AAM’s under the fuselage? I’m not thinking bombs, but rather the smaller 1500-litre external tanks than the GR.4 (IDS) can carry there.

    Yes. the F.3 can carry 2 1500 L drop tanks under the fuselage.

    Also, on the EF.3 variant with ALARM capability, can three missiles be carried under the fuselage or just two? Can any be carried on the two inboard wing hardpoints like on the GR.4?

    Its not really a variant, it was trials and development – although it wouldn’t take much for this to be an operational loadout. Its 3 ALARM under the fuselage only.

    in reply to: Spanish and other navies Never where ships #2096992
    Peter G
    Participant
    in reply to: Ability of RuAF and Russian Navy to destroy US CBG #2505736
    Peter G
    Participant

    Left hand photo is of Tu-22M2 – note the side by side holes for the two twin 23mm (Tu-22M3 has single twin 23mm in centreline).

    Right hand photo is Tu-22M2 – note the rear top fin antenna.

    Where did find these pictures of retired Tu-22M2 being dismantled on google?

    in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2505842
    Peter G
    Participant

    APG-71 had poor serviceability in the last few years of F-14D service due to lack of spares. It also lacks a SAR mode to target JDAM guided bombs and the like.

    F-111C already has pretty good EW – ALR-62 RWR, ALE-47 decoys, EL-8222 jammer pods.

    If the F-111C was to remain in service till 2020 they would have been fitted with improved RWR, SATCOM, Link 16, ASRAAM, JDAM series bombs and JASSM.

    in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2505846
    Peter G
    Participant

    Well, I guess the RAAF should have never purchased the F-111. As it has always needed fighter escort.

    The F-111C has been in service since 1973. It was tasked with low altitude attack in all weathers. Regional competitors lacked fighters with look-down shoot-down radars/missiles. This worked well for the USAF in Vietnam with single aircraft low altitude penetration missions.

    In recent times regional countries have purchased Fulcrum, Flankers, F-16s, F-18s, etc. Running in at low altitude is no longer the survivability answer it used to be (still useful in some situations). Now it does need a fighter escort.

    To fix this, the RAAF would need to make the F-111 self escorting by replacing the radar with a dual capable air/ground radar set and medium range AAM (similar to the F-15E, F/A-18E/F) – all paid for by the only remaining F-111 operator.

Viewing 15 posts - 616 through 630 (of 803 total)