Page 102 – Key Publishing

Jackonicko

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,516 through 1,530 (of 2,006 total)

← 1 2 3 … 101 102 103 … 132 133 134 →

Author

Posts
March 26, 2007 at 3:07 pm in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2550267

Jackonicko
Participant

You have to tip your hat to the French for the neat triple carrier they use for 250 kg bombs.

March 26, 2007 at 12:43 pm in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2550307

Jackonicko
Participant

DJJ,

DA1 did fly with GBU-10 (while on loan to Getafe) as your photo shows (this photo is not DA2!), but only used the centre underwing pylons.

Photos do exist of DA2 with GBU-10 (I saw some on one of the spotter photo sites, perhaps UKAR) during the asymmetric trials referred to earlier. The aircraft (in black, and with the anti spin gantry fitted) flew with a single GBU-10 under one wing, first inboard, then on the central underwing station, and finally outboard.

I would dispute Eagle’s assertion that GBU-10 inboard represents a much more suitable loadout than six 1,000-lb Paveways.

Even a 1,000-lb bomb represents too much ‘bang’ in many of today’s scenarios (remember the RAF Tornados dropping concrete PWIIs as kinetic weapons during telic?) and a 2,000-lb weapon is much more of a problem.

While IPA3 flying with four 1,000-lb PWs and three tanks represented a more relevant warload, the flight by IPA1 with 6 PW LGBs, 4 BVRAAM and 2 IRHAAM [b]was[/b] a major milestone, and represented a viable and useful loadout.

Dassault concentrated early efforts on clearing Rafale with Scalp, because the AdlA already had M2Ks and Mirage F1CRs to deliver LGBs. For the EF partner air forces (three of whom had Tornados in service) priorities were different, with less need for clearing Storm Shadow/Apache and more need to clear the weapons most often used in deployed operations – eg PW and EPW.

March 24, 2007 at 9:39 am in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2550805

Jackonicko
Participant

Our charming Froggy chum requires photo evidence of the GBU-10 (the word of the manufacturer and of the BAE Project Pilot not being enough) and since your link and photo show UK 1,000-lb LGBs he won’t be happy……:D

March 23, 2007 at 11:06 pm in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2550927

Jackonicko
Participant

Opit. Please don’t call me a liar. Don’t let your Rafale fanboyism and desparation to rubbish Typhoon get in the way of simple good manners. You’re not Foofone, after all.

The aircraft has flown with GBU-10 on those stations (Project Pilot Mark Bowman is on record confirming that), while BAE and EF suggest that other space constrained 2,000-lb weapons can be carried on the same pylons.

March 23, 2007 at 6:45 pm in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2550967

Jackonicko
Participant

Eagle,

I don’t really care what pictures you have and haven’t seen.

What matters is reality.

And the reality is that DA2 has flown with a 2,000-lb GBU-10 on the innermost underwing stations, and BAE and EF GmbH both suggest that SIZE CONSTRAINED 2,000-lb weapons can be carried on those stations.

I don’t for one moment think that it will be often used, but it does allow a three tank/two 2,000-lb weapon capability – but NOT a three-tank/two Storm Shadow fit.

March 23, 2007 at 5:16 pm in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2551007

Jackonicko
Participant

To be fully carefree, the presence of the tanks must be ‘transparent’ to the pilot – with no need for pilot observed limitations (as there were before the adoption of ALSR on Typhoon, for example) and without a fixed limit below the structural maximum (eg there must be a limit which varies according to all parameters, including the contents of the tanks).

Typhoon’s tanks are effectively not carefree at this point in time, due to limited service clearances. Rafale’s tanks are not intended to be fully carefree at all.

March 23, 2007 at 12:15 am in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2551194

Jackonicko
Participant

Rafale isn’t fully carefree with external tanks.

Nor is Scalp ‘fully operational’ in any meaningful sense of the word, and won’t be until the Djibouti trials are complete.

Rafale will go MUCH further with two Scalps than Typhoon with two Storm Shadow. (Unless and until CFTs come in!).

Typhoon will be much better ‘self-defended’ – two Storm Shadow, two Paveway II, four BVRAAM, two SRAAM and two ARM.

You pay your money and take your choice.

Typhoon isn’t intended to be a long range strike aircraft, it’s a swing role tactical fighter with heavy and long range strike capabilities.

March 22, 2007 at 11:33 pm in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2551209

Jackonicko
Participant

Quite so.

Advantage Rafale.

However, Rafale’s tanks aren’t carefree, so advantage Typhoon.

Each aircraft has its share of advantages and disadvantages.

March 22, 2007 at 11:15 pm in reply to: First flight Austrian Eurofighter Typhoon #2551218

Jackonicko
Participant

Actually, if you want to nit-pick, the first six Austrian jets will initially fly as Block 5As, and the rest are Block 8s, to which standard the early aircraft will be converted.

March 22, 2007 at 11:09 pm in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2551224

Jackonicko
Participant

“The heavy load trials were all conducted with 500 lb class LGBs and the only trials with 1000 lb class bombs showed them on the centre inner pylons too.”

Nonsense!

Absolute horse manure. 2,000 lb bombs are rarely seen on anything but the centre underwing pylons, though Mark Bowman (the Typhoon project pilot responsible for the last asymmetric trials on DA2) confirmed that a 2,000-lb GBU-10 was flown on the inner, middle and outer pylons to give a progressively more severe asymmetriuc configuration.

The original heavy trials using IPA 3 saw the aircraft carrying six 1,000-lb bombs, and IPA flew air displays with this loadout at Farnborough last year.

I’ve never seen a Typhoon with 500-lb Paveways, though I know that the Spanish and Italians have carried them.

See, for example:

1,000-lb UK Paveway

http://members.aol.com/mouseroony/Typhoon/60.jpg

http://members.aol.com/mouseroony/Typhoon/59.jpg

500-lb GBU?

2 x 660-lb

2,000-b GBU centre, 1,000-lb inboard

Storm Shadow centre, 1,000-lb inboard

The Typhoon isn’t a Rafale when it comes to heavy air-to-ground loadouts. It can’t carry more than two Storm Shadows, true – but when will that ever be necessary? When are we likely to be using 2,000-lb bombs when the net explosive effect of a 1,000-lb bomb is too great for most post-Cold War scenarios.

If you want to bash Typhoon, fine, but don’t attack it on the basis of a lie.

If you want to pick on something Typhoon can’t do, why not highlight its lack of a triple carrier for 500-lb weapons? That really is useful.

March 19, 2007 at 12:13 pm in reply to: Little Bird questions? #2552825

Jackonicko
Participant

The Blackwater aircraft are ‘standard’ MD530s, and as such are not ‘Little Birds’ – lacking the A/MH-6s glass cockpit, FLIR, and defensive aids and lacking provision for the ‘weapons plank’ associated with the AH-6 or the external seating used by the MH-6.

Vector

see:

http://news.soc.mil/releases/News%20Archive/2007/March/070318-03.html

March 18, 2007 at 2:15 am in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2553120

Jackonicko
Participant

That’s just one account too. There are others, some of which underline the F-22’s ‘invincibility’, and others of which seem to suggest some real vulnerabilities.

Make no mistake, it’s the best AD fighter out there at the moment, but it’s not unbeatable, and the right tactics and equipment can beat it already, while the stealth advantage will continue to erode.

March 18, 2007 at 1:05 am in reply to: What makes the Typhoon so special? #2553131

Jackonicko
Participant

Regardless there is no such article either. They haven’t reported [much] on Raptors at Red Flag yet.

BDF

No such article?

Not on Page 30, Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 5, 2007.

“Seeing Red: F-22s, Red Air battle in Nevada as stealth, anti-stealth tactics clash.”

Not written by David A.Fulghum and Amy Butler.

And it doesn’t say:

“But if the Red Air know when you’re going to shoot, they stay away and then at the last moment do an exploding canataloupes or a screaming gerbil with some going cold to the beam [to find the Doppler notch], or down to the deck to hide in the terrain clutter and entice you down to where they can get at you.”

March 17, 2007 at 10:40 pm in reply to: Little Bird questions? #2553153

Jackonicko
Participant

EH-6B: Special Forces radio relay, Sigint (?) and C3I variant of OH-6A with the original V-tail but powered by a military 420-shp (400?) version of the Allison 250-C20 turboshaft engine and with a ‘Black Hole’ infrared suppression system on the engine exhaust. (The basic OH-6A had the maximum power of its T-63A-5A derated from 400 to 282-shp).

MH-6B: Special Forces insertion/extraction variant of OH-6A to a similar airframe/engine state as the EH-6B with an NVG compatible cockpit and provision for an undernose FLIR. Passengers carried externally on platforms fitted to the fuselage sides – up to three soldiers per side, or platforms can be used as a sniper’s platform. 23 (24?) converted from OH-6A, two from EH-6B. About seven converted to MH-6C and AH-6C. Some surviving aircraft were passed to the 1/245 Battalion, Oklahoma ArNG for continued Special Operations use, and finally, stripped of their specialized equipment, to A Co, 1/132nd Aviation Battalion, Oklahoma ArNG.

AH-6C: Special Forces ‘gunship’ variant of OH-6A to a similar airframe/engine state as the MH-6B. An initial batch of 15 converted from OH-6A, EH-6B (one) and MH-6B (three). Weapons included Stinger AAMS, TOW (and later Hellfire?) ATGMs, 2.75-inch (70-mm) Hydra rockets in 7-round M-260 or 19-round M-261 rocket pods and M-134 miniguns, or Mk 19 Grenade launchers. The usual load was an M27 gun pod to port, with a seven-round rocket pod to starboard.

MH-6C: Conversion of MH-6B(?) and disarmed conversion of AH-6C used for training, with AH/MH-6J standard Allison 250-C30 engine.

‘OH-6C’: One aircraft (65-12951) was modified with a 400 shp Allison 250-C20 engine, a five-bladed rotor, a four-bladed cruciform tail rotor and a T-tail, reaching a speed of 322km/h during a test flight from Edwards Air Force Base and pioneering features of the later MD500/520 and of the later special forces H-6 versions.

MH-6E: Special Forces insertion/extraction variant of MD369MD with T-tail and 420 SHP Allison 250 C20R engine, A small ‘coolie hat’ fairing was added above the rotor to smooth airflow over the tail surfaces. Fifteen built, based on 500D/500MD but with four-bladed main rotor?, one more produced by conversion of an EH-6E. Introduced 1981. Shrouded, side-mounted engine exhausts? When JDW published a photo in February 1990, the folded ‘people plank’ was interpreted as being a ‘boxed’ Stinger ATAS!

EH-6E: Special Forces radio relay and C3I variant of MD369D with T-tail and 420 SHP Allison 250 C20R engine. Three built, based on 500D/500MD but with four-bladed main rotor?. Shrouded, side-mounted engine exhausts?

AH-6F: Special Forces ‘gunship’ variant of MD500MD (MG?) with T-tail and 420 SHP Allison 250 C20R engine, equivalent to the MH-6E but with AH-6C armament. Retained (or reverted to?) original rounded nose glazing, rather than the pointed, increased area glazing of the MD500. Nine built for US Army, one for USAF evaluation, based on 500D/500MD but with four-bladed main rotor, one more produced by conversion of an EH-6E. Some reports suggested that a mast-mounted sight was incorporated, others that an M230 Chain gun was added to the weapons options. Introduced 1985. Shrouded, side-mounted engine exhausts?

MH-6F: Spurious designation, or Special Forces insertion/extraction variant of MD500MG with T-tail 650 SHP Allison 250 C30 engine???

AH-6G: Up-engined derivative of the AH-6F, equivalent to the MD-530F. Five newly built, seven more by re-engining AH-6Fs. 650-shp Allison 250 C30 engine. Shrouded, side-mounted engine exhausts???

MH-6H: Up-engined derivative of the MH-6E with 650-shp Allison 250 C30 engine. Twelve re-engined MH-6Es and two converted EH-6Es. Shrouded, side-mounted engine exhausts???

NOTAR Little Bird: The first H-6 NOTAR prototype (65-12917 – NOT a Little Bird) was first flown on 17 December, 1981. Thereafter it was modified several times, gaining an MD 500E forward fuselage and being re-engined with a 420-shp Allison 250-C20B turboshaft in 1985, but retaining the OH-6A type V-tail. A full MD530N NOTAR prototype was flown on 29 December 1989 (though this type was not developed further) and the MD520N followed on 28 June 1991, powered by an Allison 250-C20R-2 engine derated to 375 shp.

Some sources suggest that just one Special Forces ‘Little Bird’ was converted to NOTAR standards, others that a number of aircraft (“at least three” or “at least two trials aircraft”) were taken on charge. The most likely story is that two aircraft were returned to the factory and converted for trials and evaluation, and that 34 more (for a total of 36) were expected to follow.

The first two were expected to be returned to the 160th in August 1991, but manufacturer’s tests revealed stability problems, requiring the installation of a single axis, yaw only stability augmentation system, activating the starboard vertical tail surface, and there was a delay of about six or seven months.

The NOTAR Little Bird had wider tailplane span than the civil MD520N, and bigger endplate fins. The designation AH-6J was originally expected to be applied to the NOTAR aircraft.

NOTAR was abandoned for the Little Bird in 1995. The reduced acoustic signature was outweighed by an unacceptable loss of lift and payload/range capability. The converted aircraft were returned to stock configuration.

68-17140 MH-6B
68-17155 MH-6B to MH-6C*
68-17167 MH-6B to US Border Patrol as N51844
68-17168 MH-6B to AH-6C*
68-17175 MH-6B
68-17191 AH-6C
68-17193 MH-6B to N5185H later 45th Infantry Museum Oklahoma City
68-17225 MH-6B
68-17228 AH-6C
68-17242 AH-6C

68-17249 AH-6C (MH-6C) still in use for Special Services training?
68-17256 MH-6B
68-17258 AH-6C
68-17276 AH-6C
68-17290 MH-6B to MH-6C
68-17298 AH-6C
68-17301 EH-6B
68-17307 AH-6C
68-17316 MH-6B
68-17320 MH-6B to US Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine as N5185C

68-17332 MH-6B to MH-6C
68-17334 MH-6B (c/n 1294) N5185L cancelled Apr 2002 at owner’s request
68-17341 MH-6B to US Border Patrol as N5185N
68-17346 MH-6B to US Border Patrol as N5185S
68-17348 MH-6B
68-17358 EH-6B later converted to MH-6B.
69-15973 AH-6C
69-15977 EH-6B later converted to MH-6B.
69-16015 MH-6B to US Border Patrol as N51841
69-16018 EH-6B to AH-6C

69-16031 AH-6C
69-16052 MH-6B to AH-6C
69-16053 MH-6B to AH-6C
69-16054 MH-6B to AH-6C
69-16057 MH-6B
69-16058 AH-6C
69-16062 MH-6B at a veterans park in Tampa, FL
69-16072 MH-6B to AH-6C*

81-23629 MH-6E to MH-6H?? w/o Sep 9, 1999
81-23630 MH-6E to MH-6H
81-23631 MH-6E to MH-6H, to MH-6J
81-23632 MH-6E to MH-6H
81-23633 MH-6E to MH-6H
81-23634 MH-6E to MH-6H
81-23635 MH-6E to MH-6H?, to MH-6J
81-23636 MH-6E to MH-6H?, to MH-6J
81-23637 MH-6E w/o 12/30/1989 not converted to H?
81-23648 MH-6E to MH-6H

81-23649 MH-6E to MH-6H
81-23650 MH-6E to MH-6H, to MH-6J, w/o 13 July 99
81-23651 MH-6E to MH-6H
81-23652 MH-6E to MH-6H
81-23653 MH-6E to MH-6H
81-23654 EH-6E to MH-6H
81-23655 EH-6E to MH-6E
81-23656 EH-6E to MH-6H
84-24319 AH-6F to AH-6G
84-24677 AH-6F to AH-6G

84-24678 AH-6G
84-24679 AH-6G
84-24680 AH-6G
84-24681 AH-6F to AH-6G
84-24682 AH-6G
84-24683 AH-6F to AH-6G
84-24684 AH-6F to AH-6G
85-25346 AH-6G
85-25346 AH-6F to AH-6G
85-25347 AH-6F to AH-6G

85-25348 AH-6F to AH-6G
86-0141 AH-6F USAF evaluation
88-25349 MH-6H
88-25350 MH-6H
88-25351 AH-6J
88-25352 AH-6J
88-25353 AH-6J
88-25354 AH-6J
88-25355 AH-6J
88-25356 AH-6J

88-25357 AH-6J
89-25351 AH-6J
89-25352 AH-6J
89-25353 AH-6J
89-25354 AH-6J
89-25355 AH-6J
89-25356 AH-6J
90-25357 AH-6J
90-25358 AH-6J
90-25359 AH-6J

90-25360 AH-6J
90-25361 MH-6H
90-25362 AH-6J
90-25363 AH-6J
90-25364 AH-6J
91-25364 AH-6J
91-25365 AH-6J w/o 14/8/93
91-25366 MH-6J
95-25367 AH-6J
95-25368 AH-6J

95-25369 AH-6J
95-25370 AH-6J
95-25371 AH-6J
95-25372 AH-6J

N7032C MD530F ‘Unmanned Little Bird’ demonstrator

N106HX/001 Unmanned Little Bird prototype (MELB configuration)

N206HX/002 Unmanned Little Bird second prototype (MELB configuration)

March 15, 2007 at 10:35 pm in reply to: Rafale news #2553814

Jackonicko
Participant

Arthuro,

I’m not a liar, thanks, but you are looking more and more like a fool. Let me restate the case: Like the MiG-29 and the F-15, Rafale was evaluated by the Austrians, but no RFI was issued.

Dassault didn’t respond to the M2K RFI because they were peeved that Rafale had been ruled out.

Nic

“That would require there being as many positives about the Typhoon as there are about the Rafale.”

And you call me biased? I admire the enthusiasm of you Rafale fan-boys, but it’s pretty brainless stuff if you can claim that Typhoon has no advantages over Rafale.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,516 through 1,530 (of 2,006 total)

← 1 2 3 … 101 102 103 … 132 133 134 →