dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,561 through 1,575 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 13 #2228056
    MadRat
    Participant

    Actually, cost-wise it makes huge sense. Major military installations are very costly and the spending on one is inflexible. Better to use temporary basing and move them around than to set roots for too many. Specialize on logistics to make it work.

    in reply to: Saab Gripen & Gripen NG thread #3 #2228208
    MadRat
    Participant

    If France hadn’t killed off all of their own competitors to the Rafale they could have offered a competitor in the low end (Mirage F.1 with M88) or a low-middleweight (Mirage 2000). MBDA swallowed up their proprietary AAM technology allowing MICA on competitors (not that any took it up). They’ve all but tried to burn bridges with UK programs where they’ve made it unfathomable to operate Rafale from QE or PoW. And they might just screw up the export deal with the IAF. I don’t think SAAB has anything to worry about with respect to French competition.

    The real question is will Brazil try to uptake weaponry that is indigenous, European, American, Israeli, or from somewhere else? Brazil’s Gripen will surely carry Derby and MAR-1, but what else? Brimstone? Storm Shadow? Python?

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 13 #2228718
    MadRat
    Participant

    If the tactical air component relied on air refueling then Il-96 makes more sense even with the political deadweight on the decision. But the truth is Russians strategic forces are the only component of the force really tied down by tanker limitations. Russia could use some major culling of their air bases to make aerial refueling more important. But the way it is Russia’s tactical forces can largely ferry without need for the extra fuel. The U.S. doesn’t have this luxury of so many airfields and shuttles aircraft around in much larger clips in comparison. Globally the base structure is very spread out.

    in reply to: Brazil closer to Boeing on jets deal after Biden visit #2228735
    MadRat
    Participant

    In all fairness the Gripen win maintains some American jobs, just not the whole $4.5 billions worth.

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 13 #2229357
    MadRat
    Participant

    In all honesty, the Indians ask for a free lunch when it comes to defense procurement. Why should A330 or anything comparable in the west be offered? I understand why they want them, just not why they should get them. If they are offered to them they may as well be offered to Russia and China.

    Do the Russians have a prototype Il-96 refueler available on the market? I don’t see anything wrong with that option other than the weak indigenous engines it has to offer.

    MadRat
    Participant

    IMHO the JSF program suffers from corporate control more than idealism. If the USN had sway to define a bigger plane with two engines while the USAF and USMC got their wish for a lighter plane, but all three shared the core electronics, communications, sensors, and so on then is it really such a performance unfriendly program? The manufacturers in the contest had no reason to aim high in the performance realm when they were allowed to jointly barter the parameters beforehand. You get what you ask for, and in the end they’ve stepped back yet further in the publicized specs.

    I personally don’t see it lacking performance as much as the true combat capabilities are classified as to never be revealed, but that is another issue altogether.

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2229390
    MadRat
    Participant

    It’s not simple moisture that is destructive, it’s striking an abrasive mist at hundreds of knots that requires fixing.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2013 #2229544
    MadRat
    Participant

    New USAF Training Head: T-X Requirements Under Review

    I hope it means keeping it back to the general scope of a T-38 and they quit chasing gold-plated options.

    MadRat
    Participant

    Wait, now they say it’s more expensive. They said it was cheaper before they justified the JSF. Watch out, the wind might change again….

    in reply to: T50IQ – Iraq's new trainer / light fighter #2229674
    MadRat
    Participant

    C-5 and B pale to C-7. I’m quite sure they would prefer any active missile that is radar guided and BVR. If they could cue ASRAAM with the JHMCD to take long shots it would still be an edge over Iran counterparts. Does South Africa’s Derby counterpart (R Darter) have export potential? It’s a good size for T50IQ.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2230083
    MadRat
    Participant
    in reply to: T50IQ – Iraq's new trainer / light fighter #2230142
    MadRat
    Participant

    It’s a combat capable trainer flying in a hostile environment. It’s 50% heavier than MiG-21U. How cheap do you imagine jets fly?

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2230624
    MadRat
    Participant

    http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs/111781_245996177_mig29_10.jpg

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2230651
    MadRat
    Participant

    http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2/153738_344509735_1239646_329629283840305_1730645220_n.jpghttp://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2/209221_229603242_MiG-29SMT_3_main.jpg

    in reply to: T50IQ – Iraq's new trainer / light fighter #2230839
    MadRat
    Participant

    Korea, due to its natural relationship with the USA post-Korean War (still not resolved) it has not needed to use indigenous missiles and aircraft unlike Taiwan or Japan. In contrast imagine missiles from either of those two stack up rather well against missiles available to Iran.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,561 through 1,575 (of 4,651 total)