dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,481 through 3,495 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2407719
    MadRat
    Participant

    Actually I said the F-15C was not a good WVR plane against gen4.5 fighters.

    Internal jammers on stealth planes are extra weight. When lugging external loads you can afford a spot for the jammer.

    in reply to: COIN aircraft carrier #2009030
    MadRat
    Participant

    @ MadRat
    PS: 12-15 aircraft are more realistic for 12/14.000ts.

    The Collossus class were under 14 kT and they operated 40 aircraft on a 700 foot long deck. So maybe the 500 foot deck is more the limit than the weight. The shorter, heavier frame of the ww2-era CVA made them suitable for foul weather operations. The longer ‘light’ carriers pitched too much when the seas moved around.

    Pfcem-

    You might be right, but we don’t want to occupy land space for political reasons. And you aren’t exactly talking WW2-era technology with predators. The warbird concept offers a lot more room for sensors, suites, and shooters. You’d maybe have 16-18 warbirds available at any one time. And as extended deployment works it’s attrition it might drop to 10 after two years out. We’re not talking huge workspaces on something like a CVA.

    in reply to: Typhoon Beating F 15 ? Just PR talk ? #2407883
    MadRat
    Participant

    One problem with any comparison is the RoE that the USAF pilots operate internally from. They cannot use their networking modes of the v3/v4 and they cannot reveal the extent of the eccm suite. Not sure if they can even use their electronic eyes, which neuters their visibility at standoff ranges. The recently upgraded F-15C has a leg up on them in groupwork. In any 1v1 against gen4.5 they truly are at a disadvantage, because they weren’t designed to match them in a turning battle. Put them up against any gen3 aircraft and they look better.

    I bet F-15 pilots feel dirty after these types of games. They are eating humble pie due purely from politics. If it’s a shooting war you’re going to want to be in the F-15C.

    in reply to: COIN aircraft carrier #2009056
    MadRat
    Participant

    The Kaman eggbeaters are cool to see. One way to quiet down helicopters is to add more blades. More blades means more power do you drop the low frequency noise for higher frequency noise of a larger powerplant. Baffles can distribute the noise, too, which dramatically lowers the whine from most directions. Your frame has to be packed with insulation, adding further to your empty weight.

    Over G –

    You don’t always have the luxury of land bases to work from. The thing is that the majority of the WoT precision strike missions being done overseas right now are by predators. The carrier used to operate as a communications hub for the land element, which really lent credibility to the title “flagship”. Basically a floating command post. The amphibious assault ships still carry on with this role.

    I realize this isn’t really COIN per se, but that is about the closest description to the job. Terrorists are just worldwide insurgents when you get down to the nitty gritty details. The COIN aircraft were always optimized for endurance coupled to STOL, with an effective area suppressive fire role. They either directly killed targets from above or pinned them down until cavalry moved in; i.e. helicopter or motorized cavalry. An aircraft carrier centered around these planes would offer effective mission coverage over 70% of the world’s land mass. And since they largely operate with permission from the governments which they operate over, they don’t need the traditional fleet protection that the full size carriers require.

    Two dozen modern 2000hp class warbirds backed by a half dozen V-22’s and another half dozen predators and a couple of C-2’s would offer a lot of flexibility in the WoT. The predators can operate 24/7 to track down the targets, maybe neutralize the stray ones it can. When you need a larger package you move in the warbirds. The V-22’s can sling in troops and mobilize equipment (i.e. the new automated light howitzers for fire support or hummers for motorization) as required for clean up.

    You’re only talking about a 500 foot long deck with overall a 12-14 kT displacement pushed by 20000hp at most. You’d probably cruise between 16-20 knots out to 10k miles on a full stomach. You could operate more freely in ports of call around the world because you aren’t a threat to carry nukes. You don’t need the huge fleet escorts as required by the larger carriers. And all the technology necessary to pull it off is readily available.

    in reply to: Udon Thani airbase open day(Thailand) #2408376
    MadRat
    Participant

    Is that an L-29 or L-39?

    in reply to: Guess the NATO reporting name for PAK-FA ? #2408965
    MadRat
    Participant

    A serious sugestion would be “Flakker”.

    in reply to: Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) #2409564
    MadRat
    Participant

    /rant mode on
    One facet of Red Flag that often gets lost is the logistics battle of keeping airframes in the air. DACT is important on the tactical level. Logistics is what wins the war. Luckily we’re past the days of WW1 and WW2 where you simply threw a bigger team at an opponent to win a tactical battle. To some extent this philosophy still holds true as we saw NATO do in the Balkans. But those little countries that end up being opportunities to police – meaning world opinion is against them – are becoming fewer and almost nonexistent. Eventually police actions will involve opponents of considerable size and wealth. With the economies of the aggressive internationalists producing fewer and fewer war machines each battle will become more important to the big picture. In this way DACT will prove to be worth every penny.

    in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen Info # 2 #2409741
    MadRat
    Participant

    The sum of detachable (air- & seaborne) components of the carriers – regardless if its fixed wing, vtol, floating, or riding on a cushion of air – generally costs more than the ship itself.

    in reply to: the F-35, does it make any sense? #2409984
    MadRat
    Participant

    The sad reality is the loudest voices in this thread carry the least data. Cola is doing his homework which the kids ridiculing him cannot say they’ve done. It’s obvious who is winning and the few that haven’t made any attempt to compete other than spam priceless treasures. Really, a lot of rebuttals have been truly worthless….er… priceless.

    in reply to: 36 rafale for Brazil #2 #2410544
    MadRat
    Participant

    Why do you think we are too ambitious?

    The U.S. doesn’t want strategic competition on this side of the globe. Brazil growing towards peer status is something that bothers the U.S. very deeply.

    in reply to: General Warning #2410547
    MadRat
    Participant

    “Rafale v Typhoon v F22 and the rest…Was there ever a conclusion? “

    22 pages and counting

    MadRat
    Participant

    I like the Viggen much more than the Gripen.

    in reply to: Sea Gripen – MERGED #2411383
    MadRat
    Participant

    With proper shipboard tankers you could takeoff with minimal fuel reserves and load more underwing. The usefulness of any stobar aircraft will be a factor of this kind of support. The safety factor increases linearly when you steer well below the maximum weight allowances.

    in reply to: New Aircraft Cost Overuns #2411999
    MadRat
    Participant

    Most of the lead teams on a design seem to be on the tail end of their careers in the industry. This leads to them retiring and then coming back under the guise of contractors. Basically they are double dipping the labor end of the program. Then you have competition for the new, younger talent coupled to the limited availability of the resources to build the planes. Twenty five years ago 2042 aluminum was an expensive choice of material. Now its relatively cheap in comparison for the day (because as use had escalated so has the supply) whereas today epoxy and composite construction materials are the expensive solution. Your middlemen between the production and consumption are squeezing the supplies. The programs are getting squeezed on other fronts like cost of facilities, travel costs for the engineers and administrators for largely meaningless meetings at distant destinations, safety regulations that elbow into the expense chain that were not there at the beginning of the program. Maybe a bit too artificial of an explanation, but you get the main idea.

    It can be very rewarding to be a defense contractor.

    in reply to: Sea Gripen – MERGED #2412238
    MadRat
    Participant

    S-3’s have specialized tf34’s; they aren’t the same ones used on the A-10. Its a shame they no longer seem to have a role for these jets. They could have been used as more efficient bomb trucks over Afghanistan; 10 hour and 3000-mile endurance at a 400mph cruise speed. They were not difficult (apparently) to convert into bomb range inspectors out on the Pacific range by hanging a LANTIRN pod under a wing.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,481 through 3,495 (of 4,651 total)