Page 10 – Key Publishing

RyukyuRhymer

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 211 total)

← 1 2 3 … 9 10 11 … 13 14 15 →

Author

Posts
February 14, 2008 at 4:01 pm in reply to: Indian MRCA competition, who will win? #2500648

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

is the MiG-35 really going to be that cheap? I’ve heard figures for MiG-29A and SMT sales but never for the MiG-35. Its going to incorporate a significant amount of new features, and some of these (such as its AESA radar) will still need further development and funding, which will further additional costs. Even the Rafale and Typhoon are still trying to integrate some of the modes that it is supposed to do.

As far as the F-16.. wouldn’t it work both ways? the Pakistanis are well familiar with the type, but at the same time it will give the IAF familiarity with what the F-16 is capable of and what it isn’t.

my bets on the Rafale and F-16 particularly the former.. As stated by Flex, I think its likel India will try to diversify its fleet. MiG29 and Mirage 2000, Jaguar and Flogger, MKI and …

February 10, 2008 at 4:55 am in reply to: Japan says it was Tu-95 bomber that violated its air space #2502166

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

some of the views here are a bit extreme.

Surely the violation is regrettable, but it did occur quite some distance away from any of the main islands and there quite possibly have been some motives in how the Japanese reacted.

Air space violation happens quite frequently (just look at Greece and Turkey) and in most cases no one shoots anyone down because no one wants to unnecessarily escalate tension between the two countries.

In the case of Japan and Russia, maritime boundary violation is quite common.
In the end, despite such issues, Japan is one of Russia’s major import partners, and Japan wants Russian energy and rights to drill in certain areas and neither are willing to escalate this scenario to a certain point where economic relations will be jeopardized.

February 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm in reply to: Japan says it was Tu-95 bomber that violated its air space #2502315

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

And they still couldn’t catch it? How many awacs does Japan have? They should have been able to intercept such a large plane before it entered their airspace.

Japan has 4 E 767s, all operate from Hamamatsu in Shizuoka Prefecture
they also have 12 E-2Cs that operate in Misawa in Aomori

in addition there are 2 American E-3s in Kadena in Okinawa prefecture

February 9, 2008 at 1:11 pm in reply to: Japan says it was Tu-95 bomber that violated its air space #2502368

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

Not sure on how long they will be nukeless, maybe 20 or so years might be differant.

As far as Nuclear weapons go (Japan has quite a few nuclear energy plants), I really doubt they could go ahead with such a program with out having their neighbors go ape nuts over it, and the US getting headaches over a potential arms race.

February 9, 2008 at 12:14 pm in reply to: Japan says it was Tu-95 bomber that violated its air space #2502382

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

what do you mean by “catch it”? I’m sure that they were waching the bomber for a long time before it enter (according Japan) their airspace.

given the recent controversy over its future fighter procurement plans and desires, I wouldn’t be surprised that they will use this opportunity to push for certain aircraft purchases.

February 8, 2008 at 9:15 am in reply to: Western vs Soviet aircraft in the same air force #2502699

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

Basically you are doubling up on weapons systems and spending money (that your country might not have) on everything in a logistical sence.

definitely quite expensive like you said. But I think in the case for some countries, lessening their dependence from one source is probably worth the costs.

February 6, 2008 at 7:38 am in reply to: If One person could destroy whole Airforces, sort of…. #2503094

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

I’m not into hardcore politics, but aren’t these guys generally considered “Neoconservatives” like Reagan? This ideology appears to be a good fit, and many would indeed argue that Neoconservatives are not true Conservatives.

that is exactly the point. Since the 80s, the Neoconservatives have became the dominant influence in the Republican party. Prior to that they were and for the most part, are still very liberal in their ideaologies. Their earlier influences were from Leo Strauss and even Trotsky. They are generally considered foreign policy hawks, pro big government and spending, and generally indifferent to religious-related issues such as gays, abortion, stem cells etc.

The Neoconservatives pushed for for military intervention in Kosovo, other conservatives went against it, but liberals supported it.

same with the issues over immigration/amnesty among others.

unfortunately the country has became so polarized in its con vs lib issues and exaggerating the differences between them, that many do not realize that the republican party especially, has many different factions and ideas within them and that some of these factions have more similarities than differences in their philosophies when compared to their rival party counterparts.

Bush had a few neoconservatives in his cabinet, Bush II has even more, and even Clinton had a few despite being a Democrat.

February 6, 2008 at 12:54 am in reply to: If One person could destroy whole Airforces, sort of…. #2503171

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

It wasn’t Clinton that destroyed the defense industry in America. That distinction goes to King George I (George HW Bush) who stopped 90% of procurement to pay for $6 Billion Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991, then refused to restart production. Clinton and Bush Junior simply carried on by not restoring funding. That is why Rockwell, Fairchild Republic, Grumman, LTV, Loral, and a few others sold out in lieu of going bankrupt. It is also why US forces face a recapitalization crisis 17 years later – F-15s that break in two, transports and tankers grounded with wing cracks, first line defenders with 1980s avionics, hundreds and hundreds of Abrams and Bradleys sit rusting after return from Iraq because there is no money to refurbish them.

good that you brought it up.. unfortunately partisan politics and thinking has often put too much of the blame on democrat leaders over cuts when sometimes its actually some one in the republican party. I think Clinton being behind the cuts is one of the biggest misconceptions I’ve been hearing..when it was really Bush 1, and Cheney who initiated it due to the end of the cold war, with Clinton just following what they started. on the other hand, wasnt the JSF something the clinton administration kept pushing?

February 1, 2008 at 11:29 am in reply to: Swiss F-5 tiger replacement #2506400

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

There was a reason, why the twin-engine F-18 was choosen over the single-engine Mirage 2000.

why? I would think that most operators of twin engined aircraft are worried over engine failure over the ocean.

January 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm in reply to: multirole vs dedicated, single seat vs dual seat #2507957

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

The FC-1? I’d rather go for the F-20. I think nothing of the FC-1.
And the MiG-21 has too many design limitations. It’s 50s technology.
If you’d need an air policing fighter you could build the GD LWF shape 50 years from now and it would still be good.

“A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” Antoine de Saint-Exupéry on the F-16. 😀

if you don’t mind me asking, why not the FC-1? upon first glance at least, it somewhat resembles the F-20, and supposedly will have a modern radar and missile set to compliment it (whether or not it works as advertised is a different question).

I see the Gripen and older variants of the F-16 being the closest thing, but I’m assuming that you feel that it may be a bit too pricey and may have more capabilities than a cheap LWF needs I guess? There’s also the LCA (if that gets anywhere)

January 28, 2008 at 1:17 pm in reply to: multirole vs dedicated, single seat vs dual seat #2508042

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

Most of all the original GD LWF – the definitive word in design of a land-based non-stealth jetfighter (maybe the engine could have used a little lower bypass ratio).

so what do you think of the FC-1 or upgraded variants of the MiG-21 (like the Bison). Cheap, low cost single engined light weight fighters that may not be world beaters in capability, but can throw a few mid range missiles and aren’t too costly to replace or develop.

January 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm in reply to: multirole vs dedicated, single seat vs dual seat #2508043

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

At the very least I think we will see in the next few decades combat aircraft flying with UCAV’s in company and UCAV’s flying independent missions.

In this case, do you feel that long range two seat combat aircraft may be a more useful platform in command and control of these UCAVs?

January 27, 2008 at 3:53 pm in reply to: multirole vs dedicated, single seat vs dual seat #2508607

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

Yip, more or less what I said. A question of money.
Still I would go for a dedicated fighter airframe if the money is there.

so what could we consider as being dedicated, starting from the 70s. Im assuming the F-22 and Su-34 for starters

January 23, 2008 at 10:18 am in reply to: the PAK-FA saga, continued2…… #2511537

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

My opinion is that the 22 is overexpensive, too specialized and left without any meaningful role, but sure as hell clearly outperforms the vintage Su-xx series in the air superiority role. Give credit where it’s due.

BTW, who is General Kharchevsky and where and when did he fight against a Raptor? 😎

I can see how you feel its over expensive, but what about in the area of too specialized and no meaningful role?

January 22, 2008 at 2:34 pm in reply to: Top 5 fighters as of today. #2512338

RyukyuRhymer
Participant

Mitsu F-2 anyone? I personally would not bet on an F-15 shooting that one down.. Must be the most underrated thing that flies today..

A plane is only as good as its armament and the F-2 doesn’t really have anything that can match what the newer F-15s, Typhoons, etc have. It doesn’t use the AIM-120 or the Type 99 missile and still relies on the AIM-7 series. There’s structural issues, difficulties with its radar, and is no longer being procured. It was first and foremost meant to be a maritime strike fighter anyways, with up to 4 Type 93 AShMs.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 211 total)

← 1 2 3 … 9 10 11 … 13 14 15 →