Peter GIssue with French Mirage 2000D is the GBU-12 cannot be carried on the fuselage HP as the when they are dropped there is a chance of injesting ‘something’ that is released when the GBU-12 is dropped.
Carrying Mk 82 isn’t a problem, although one of the fuselage HP needs to carry the laser designation pod.
Bottom pair of photos are Peru Mirage 2000P with Israeli Opher guided bombs.
Anyone have photos of the Mirage F1CT with 4 GBU-12?
Peter GA400M has also been ordered by Malaysia and South Africa. Chile cancelled its order early on.
The A400M is planned to carry 37000 kg into prepared strips or 29500 kg into unprepared strips. Most loads will bulk out before hitting the loads mentioned.
Loads planned include 120 paratroops or 9 pallets or 2 20 foot ISO containers or 1 Warrior/Puma IFV or 2 LAV-III APC or 1 Cougar/NH90 helo or 2 Apache/Tiger/Bell 212 helo or 1 Patriot/Roland launcher.
Baseline C-130J can carry 92 troops or 64 paratroops or 6 pallets or 1 AH-1S or 2 MH-6. I’m not sure on the rest, but Patriot will not fit.
C-130J-30 increases to ~128 troops or ~90 paratroops.
A400M can be fitted as 3 point or 2 point tanker. At least Germany, France, Malaysia and South Africa plan to use as tankers including with helicopters. I’m not sure of the breakdown but 8 Malaysian/South African will be fitted as 2 point tankers.
C-130 series can also be fitted as tankers, but lack the speeds of the A400M. C-17 cannot be fitted as tanker. C-17 uses the USAF style air refuelling system, which few Euro tankers are fitted with.
France is planned to receive 50 – 5 two point and 5 three point tanker. Current transport fleet is 61 C.160, 5 C-130H, 9 C-130H-30.
Belgium is going with 7 A400M, and will operate the one for Luxembourg (jointly?). At the moment they have 10 C-130H.
Germany is getting 60 to replace 53 C.160 (further 30 in reserve). 36 are planned as logistics transports (6 as 3 point tankers) and 24 as tactical transports (4 as 2 point tankers for NH90 CSAR) – the tactical transports will be fitted with a terrain reference system for all weather terrain following down to 150 m. Granted the missions need to preplanned before mission start, but this is a capability almost on par with MC-130 special forces transports….
Malaysia has ordered 4 with options on 8 to completely replace the 1 C-130H, 2 KC-130H & 2 C-130T tankers, 1 C-130H-MP, 8 C-130H-30.
South Africa has ordered 8 with options on 6. The tankers will replace the recently retired Boeing 707 and the 8 C-130B.
Spain is going with 27 – 9 as 2 point tankers. Currently they have 6 C-130H, 1 C-130H-30 and 4 KC-130H.
Turkey is going with 10 – no idea on fit.
UK is planning on 25.
The Japanese C-X is a similar size and class as the A400M – between the C-130 and the C-17. In this case they wanted longer range (Japan to Hawaii in one hop).
The A400M sits between the C-130J and C-17 and has some capabilities neither has, including improved rough airfield over C-17 and larger load over C-130.
Peter GMirage F1CT was interim attack conversions for F1C-200 (with inflight refuelling probes). Entered service in 1992 and is due to go 2013-15(?).
Same EW suite as Mirage F1CR – the Aigle suite with Barax NG pod, improved decoys is said to be the next best thing to Rafale/Spectra and better than the Mirage 2000D suite 9itself said to be pretty impressive).
Could carry laser guided bombs, but required another aircraft to designate. They initially carried 2 GBU-12 Paveway II – ISTR they were later fitted with dual side by side carriers for 4 GBU-12 total (anyone have photos). ISTR they were also tested with a centreline GBU-24, but not sure whether this entered service on the Mirage F1CR/CT (anyone know?)
Can still carry Super 530D, and has a QRA role.
If it can carry 4 GBU-12, this is the most any French aircraft could carry before the Rafale.
It was also the first French AF single seat aircraft fitted with NVG, although it lacks any other night vision (forget to mention the Mirage F1CR has provision for the Rubis nav FLIR pod).
Peter GThe Mirage F1CR is not bad as recon aircraft go:
Entered service in 1983 and expected to retire 2015/16.
Initially equipment was IRLS and cameras vice one cannon.
From 1984 the SARA ground stations were delivered, which meant the F1CR could download the IRLS images out to 300 km LOS.
Typically loadout is 2 Magic 2, Phimat decoy pod, Barax jammer pod (Barax NG added from 2002), 2 1200 L drop tanks and CL recon pod
The recon pod was
RAPHAEL (1989) SLAR/GMTI with 100 km range and 20 km swath – initially recorded take onboard then datalink as IRLS
ASTAC (Dec 94): ELINT pod or
RP-35P (Apr 95): wet cameras or
PRESTO (1999): wet camera with CCD camera and datalink to be added shortly?
Can also fly attack missions. Acted as formation leader for Jaguar in 1991
Peter GI have:
Sapfir-23D-III (MiG-23M):
55 km vs MiG-21, although also mentioned as:
55 km vs bomber (probably Il-28) and 45 km vs ‘fighter’ (probably MiG-21, see below)
Look-down aspect only 6°, so very limited lookdown capability.
Sapfir-23E (MiG-23MF and basically exportSapfir-23D-III)
50 km vs Tu-16
45 km vs MiG-21.
N-003 Sapfir-23ML [High Lark II] on MiG-23ML
Max 85 km
72 km vs Tu-16
65 km vs ‘bomber’
50 km vs MiG-21
25 km look-down range against ????
N-006 Sapfir-23P (MiG-23P)
Had improved LD/SD capability against cruise missiles, low level strike aircraft
N-008 Sapfir-23MLAE-II (MiG-23MLD)
75 km vs bomber, although also have 90 km (which is more likely)
50 km vs fighter. also have 55 km+ vs fighter (again more likely)
Said to be superior to APQ-120, equal to APG-66, inferior to APG-63 with LD/SD performance (AFM from a few years back)
Peter GPeace Icarus 2000
APG-65Y radar has a SAR mode.
10 Litening II pods to use with GBU-16 and GBU-24
Other weapons include AFDS, AGM-65B/D/G
Future plans call for IRIS-T (might already be in service?) and JDAM.
Unsure on the EW system fitted. Any ideas in what radar jammer they carry?
Peter GAFAIK:
Terminator name was only ever used for conversion unit within 111 Filo. It was never the name for the F-4E 2020
They currently use AVQ-23 Pave Spike laser designators with either Litening III or AselPod planned.
Rumours mention Python 4 and Derby AAM in the future.
They went with a further 30 F-16 rather upgrade further F-4E.
Peter GThere was mention in the late 1980s of the US working on stealth artillery rounds. Pretty useful to avoid counterbattery radars…..
Peter GOrdered mine last night.
Whats scheduled for Volume 23? 😀
Peter GDoesn’t the ESSM have or is supposed to be getting an ability to target surface threats? Attack incoming missile boats and such?
Logan Hartke
Didn’t originally have this mode, but tested back in May 2007 – so I guess its operational in this role.
Peter GI know there’s the Mk 41, the Mk 48 (Mod 0, Mod 1, Mod 2, Mod 3), and the Mk 56, but there’s some significant differences between the different mods. Can anyone give me any specifics on the different versions of the VLS systems (including the mods)?
Mk 41 comes in 3 lengths
Self defence is 530 cm deep (ESSM)
Tactical is 675 cm deep (SM2)
Strike is 770 cm deep (Tomahawk)
The lengths probably include the exhaust system, etc
ESSM is 366 cm and can be quad packed in Mk 41 or dual packed in Mk 56
SM2MR is 472 cm long. They attempted a slimmer msl round for diagonal dual packed SM2MR-followon but I guess the missile lost performance and never went ahead.
Tomahawk is 625 cm long.
Unfortunately the original Mk 41 design was for the tactical version. The reloading crane was sized for SM2MR (708 kg) and couldn’t handle the Tomahawk (1470 kg) or SM3 msls – hence it was recently removed.
Basically, I’m trying to understand the differences between them in dimensions, number of missiles in a canister, use, etc. I know the Mk 41 is quad-pack for ESSM, the Mk 56 is dual-pack, and the Mk 48 is single-pack (normally). For example, what VLS system would you use on a 2000 ton ship, 4000 ton, 8000 ton? Can the Mk 48 or Mk 56 fire ASROC?
VL ASROC requires a Mk 15 cannister in a Mk 41 launcher, length is 490 cm (longer than the SM2MR)
The Mk 48 launcher is for the ESSM only, height is 478 cm – VL ASROC would not fit.
Mod 0 is 2 cells and has the exhaust between the msls for in deck.
Mod 1 is also 2 cells and has exhaust on outside for msls attached to bulkheads.
Mod 2 is 16 cells, with exhaust as Mod 0
Mod 3 has 6 cells, exhaust as Mod 0
No idea on Mk 56, although it said to be half size (wide at least) of the Mk 48, and lighter. Wouldn’t be VL ASROC capable.
The deck edge Mk 57 for the DDG-1000 is 762 cm deep, ISTR also wider – so can handle anything.
Peter GDoes the book have much on the MiG-25R series, especially sensors. I have the earlier Aerofax book, but am still thinking of picking this one up.
Peter GIt should be noted that small decks need aids to help fast jets get off the deck and all but the USN use the ramp which works very well as we all know. The USMC wants ramps on their flat tops but the USN comes up with lots of silly NO’s to that even though they would greatly increase the capability of their AV8B’s as they recently saw onboard HMS Illustrious.
The Wasp class usually carries 6 AV-8B, along with 14 CH-46E, 6 CH-53E, 6 AH-1W and 4 UH-1N. They don’t want to lose the space and helo pad that adding a ski jump would require and they they are long enough to operate the AV-8B from a ordinary deck. The future air group is planned as 12 MV-22, 4 CH-53E, 4 AH-1Z, 3 UH-1Y, 2 MH-60S, 6 AV-8B/F-35B.
Having said that they have operated with 24 AV-8B in 2003 (USS Bataan and USS Bonhomme Richard).
The LHA(R) standard air group is given as 10 F-35B, 12 MV-22B, 8 UH-1Y/AH-1Z, 4 CH-53E, 4 MH-60S (as Wasp class, except additional F-35B). In the light attack role they can carry 23 F-35B and 2 MH-60S. They also increasing aviation fuel from 600 000 USG to 1 300 000 USG as a result of the MV-22 and F-35.
Peter GTry reading your own reference.
Which part?
The jet blast deflectors date from the long superceded CVF Alpha configuration of early 2003. It seems that the current CVF Delta does not have jet blast deflectors, and the there has never been any indication that the USN would retrofit jet blast deflectors to the LHA/LHD amphibious ships.
The truth is that you only need jet blast deflector if you are going to park F-35Bs directly behind the launch position, which would seem to be very unlikely in a ship as small as the 16DDH.
The Delta designed CVF does have a jet blast deflector:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfimagesbig/cvf-thales-aug05.jpg
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server?show=nav.6500&imageIndex=7
AV-8B operations from USN amphibious require the entire length of the flight deck in any case, let alone with the F-35B.
You also should read a bit more about the exhaust nozzle of the X-35B/F-35B, which directs thrust downward, not directly aft, for STOVL capability.
STOVL = Short take off and vertical landing. It points downwards for vertical recovery. You need to point the engine aft to move the aircraft forward for launching.
Are you a Japanese maritime engineer who has worked on the 16DDH, or are you just making this stuff up?
You have shares in the company who is fitting the Hyuga with the F-35B? 🙂
So the aft portion of the hangar is indeed high enough to engine removal?
I guess so. One of the excellent plans views on this thread show the MCH-101 in the aft position for the same reason – maintenance.
You are basically admitting that the hangar is high enough (6 meter minimum plus higher aft) to both house and support the F-35B, which is 4.6 meters tall?
The forward section of the hanger is 6 m high. I came up with closer to 5 m. In can case they need to suspend lighting, etc below the 6 m. Maintenance personnel also need space to clamber over the aircraft in hanger. They are going to be working in a tight space.
How high is the aircraft with the canopy raised?
Anyone have an idea on the aviation fuel the 16DDH will carry?
Could the 16DDH take the F-35B. I’d go with possibly with modifications mentioned earlier and it wouldn’t be the best solution. Much better to came up with a follow on improved version.
Peter GRedoing the math, the forward elevator is 10.34 m wide. This is not wide enough for the 10.67 m of the F-35B.
Sign In
