Page 120 – Key Publishing

seahawk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,786 through 1,800 (of 3,269 total)

← 1 2 3 … 119 120 121 … 216 217 218 →

Author

Posts
January 3, 2005 at 5:08 pm in reply to: Predictions for the 2005 #2620132

seahawk
Participant

Antique? Now there is a change in your attitude…

Nope, the 20FS has disbanded. The last Phantoms have arrived.

Learning about other aircraft, taking other aircraft seriously… actually, that might improve your contributionary value to this board a lot 😉

Yep, the last F-4 has bee ntransfered to AMRAC. Those remaining will not go there.

January 3, 2005 at 4:53 pm in reply to: Attack Helicopters vs low level CAS Aircraft vs Medium Interdictors #2620140

seahawk
Participant

Srbin,

waht if your airforce/army is not controllung the engagement like the allies did in the Iraq wars. What if you have to fight enemy troops and support your troops while yoir airfroces is till pressed fighting the airwar. While the airforce is still bussy to win air dominance or worse tight up defending your nations strategic targets. Do you believe that a number of planes will sit at their bases waiting for a CAs mission, while these bases need to be defend against enemy attacks ?? I don´t think so.

You are always talking about tanks. Tanks are a rare enemy on the battlefield. How good will you fighter do, if he is asked to spport a special forces troops that is in close contact with enemy irregulars ?? I wonder how good a SDVB will do then. Or if well placed FFARs an gun fire from a helicopter will perhaps be the better option.

January 3, 2005 at 4:22 pm in reply to: Polish parts for F-14 up[grades? What the f!@k? #2620176

seahawk
Participant

Maybe the USN is finally realizing that they shouldn’t retire the Tomcat so soon? Or something? My question is, this is for $275,000 USD. That about covers the cockpit canopy and landing gear. On one jet. So what’s the “big deal”, so to speak?

Exactly. This might be 3 special length screws or something for every F-14 left in service.

January 2, 2005 at 8:01 pm in reply to: Attack Helicopters vs low level CAS Aircraft vs Medium Interdictors #2620884

seahawk
Participant

Well let us see the advantages of the attack helicopter

The first and most obvious point that led to the attack helicopter is the need to escort transport helicopters with a machine that as a minimal reaction time and that is able to escort the trnasport helicopters at their speeed and height. Which means an instant surpressive fire when engaged. Circling fighters would have problems to keep their eyes on target during the whole flight.
The next was the idea of ARA (aerial rocket artillery) which gave the army an organic highly mobile fire support capability, that is able to support friendly troops well beyond the range of ground based rocket or tube artillery.
This capbility is organic to the army units. They are available even if the airforce is still bussy fighting the strategic air battle and the battle for air dominance.
The next was the idea to use them as highly mobile anti tank plattforms. Whichs still viable today, as a flight of four helicopters is enough to engage between 16-64 AFV and MBTs with a high percentage of success. Again this capability is organoc to the army unit and can be more quickly called into action then a CAS mission. And the radius of danergously close fire is much smaller using the lighter helicopter weapons.

If you learn to understand that the attack helicopter is not an alternative to an airplane, but the fastest and least terrain affected vehicle of the army, then you must understand its worth imho.

January 2, 2005 at 7:45 pm in reply to: Ren's model feast thread ! #236450

seahawk
Participant

I also got 2 new Herpas.

January 2, 2005 at 6:43 pm in reply to: Your best shots of the F16 #2620897

seahawk
Participant

http://www.seahawkgfx.de/Aircraft/F16/F16pics/inverted_1024.jpg

http://www.seahawkgfx.de/Aircraft/F16/F16pics/white_1024.jpg

http://www.seahawkgfx.de/Aircraft/F16/F16pics/KleineBrogel2002/turn.jpg

http://www.seahawkgfx.de/Aircraft/F16/F16pics/Twenthe2003/F16_AoA_1024.jpg

http://www.seahawkgfx.de/Aircraft/F16/F16pics/Volkel2004/Dutchproto.jpg

January 1, 2005 at 2:08 pm in reply to: Predictions for the 2005 #2621349

seahawk
Participant

1. US will drop the F-22 altogether, as the unrest in Iraq intensivies and the war becomes more expensive

2. Singapore will buy the Rafale

3. China will make a public display of the J-10

4. Indian LCA will see further delays

5. JSF will be over budget again

6. The UK will cut it EF order to less then 180 airframes

7. French will retire the Mirage VP, the Jaguar and decide to retire the Mirage F1 until 2008

8. Russia will display first studies of Pak-FA

9. Brazil finally goes ahead and buys the SU-35

10. Greece opens a new fighter competition and shortlists Rafale and SU-35

December 30, 2004 at 8:33 pm in reply to: Attack Helicopters vs low level CAS Aircraft vs Medium Interdictors #2621996

seahawk
Participant

Of course, the Super Tucano has 5 hardpoints and a payload of 1500kg. I could fit it with Brimstones, JDAMs, Hermes, Nimrod, SDB, CBUs such as WCMD or SPBE-D and whatever, and they can pack quite a punch. They can find and destroy targets via FLIR, other Airborne Recoinassance platforms such as for ex JSTARS(unlikely) or UAVs, other fighters, pods such as SAPSAN or LITENING and such. I would not send it low altitude.

And how much would a ALX cost that is given an avionics fit comarable to an AH-64D. MW radar, FLIR, laser targeting system, IR jammer, radar jammer, hardpoints to carry 16 hellfires, ….

December 30, 2004 at 2:45 pm in reply to: Stupid Decisions & Pointless Aircraft #2622220

seahawk
Participant

There is nothing like a good deal on F-16s, IMHO. Both financially and politically.

Do you call it a win-win situation if Indiana ANG on the contrary to all rules ordered Gripens or other Euro-made aircraft?

If the Eu pays for the aircraft and the US still pays for the state of Indiana, then it is a win-win for Indiana.

December 30, 2004 at 1:54 pm in reply to: Stupid Decisions & Pointless Aircraft #2622319

seahawk
Participant

The most stupid decision I can think of nowadays was Polish ordering F-16C/D Block 50+ for a real fortune and at the same time joining EU. Really knocks me to see US trash in the EU zone in the future.

Well I think it was an excelletn idea. They got a good deal on the F-16s and joined the EU. So they got a win-win.

December 29, 2004 at 8:18 pm in reply to: Attack Helicopters vs low level CAS Aircraft vs Medium Interdictors #2623038

seahawk
Participant

The problem with ALX like planes is that you still have the very hot exhaust from the turbine and you can´t fit a large cooling system like on a hleicopter. The heat signature is comparable to a single C-130 engine. And even worse the exhaust is up front near the cockpit.

December 29, 2004 at 4:47 pm in reply to: Attack Helicopters vs low level CAS Aircraft vs Medium Interdictors #2623097

seahawk
Participant

The attack helicopter originally was an organic airborne fire support tool for the ground forces. It could reach were ground based artillery could not and it could deliver its ordonance with more precision and more safety to friendly forces.

And it is a much needed excort for tranport helicopters, as well as a higjly mobile and modern recon asset.

In that role it is here to stay for decades.

It is not a BFI tool or a deep penetration striker. Nor is it a replacement of CAS delivered by conventional airplanes.

December 28, 2004 at 7:43 pm in reply to: Attack Helicopters vs low level CAS Aircraft vs Medium Interdictors #2623965

seahawk
Participant

And again Afghanistan was not the perfect place for the attack helicopter. High alltitudes and no cover. Add the new threat of Stingers and you will get the results they got. Add that to the fact the the Mil-24 is a very different design then the AH-64 and use a very different doctrine.

In OIF the helicopters failed, when they were not properly used. You don´t fly helicopters into a huge formation of enemy troops. And you don´t fly lazy circles over built up areas. Sometimes you have to do this, when your ground troops need your support, but we have also seen F-15s using their 20mm in a ground attack role in OIF.
Futhermore the desert it not the optimal place for the attack helo. Add to the fact that the US army has a tendency to play BI with their AH-64s (just to show that they can do it without the airforce) and you have a failure waiting to happen.

The attack helicopter is not suited to fly missions deep behind enemy lines – period.

However it is still an excellen tool to help your troops. It is the fastest, most mobile and deadliest anti tank platform available to a modern ammo. It is also your fastest, most precise and mobile fire support platform. No other plattform can give precision guided fire in support of the ground troops with that acuracy and reaction time.

A attack helicopter operating over friendly troops in wooded or built up terrain is nearly impossible to hit. I have seen a 4 plane section of PAH-1 training. And even those obsolete helicopters where nearly impossible to spot from well within their engagement range.

December 28, 2004 at 5:36 pm in reply to: Stupid Decisions & Pointless Aircraft #2624047

seahawk
Participant

Well because Europe is not a single entitiy with identical defence, political, industrial and general national interests!

Admittedly on the continent the ideology is that the are becoming closer in such areas, but this is somewhat idealistic and certainly not a strong arguement when these programs were intiated.

Its like saying why does Asia need more than one fighter!

Oh and btw, don’t forget about the Gripen.

Well they were building 2 fighters to fullfill two very similiar needs. Apart from the carrier capablity EF Rafale are nearly twins. Well when the programms started there was the idea of a european solution, but national interests forced two sperate programms on the tax payers of europe. And that is between nations which are firendly to each other and not like Asia were you have potential unfriendly neighbours.

Grippen made sense. It was a specific Swedish requirement and Sweden was still storngly neutral at the time the programms started.

December 28, 2004 at 4:44 pm in reply to: Stupid Decisions & Pointless Aircraft #2624065

seahawk
Participant

And the Russian Air Force required three separate aircraft: MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27. Once again, it’s not the aircraft that are at fault here, it’s the doctrine.

Exactly aircraft are rarely a bad idea. The bad idea is always the doctrine to which the aircraft are built. But given the situation of the Soviet Union`I am not sure if the doctrine was bad.

With those 3 planes the Soviet Union / Russia had the best planes in the world since the late 1980ies. And blaming to collapse of the Soviet Union on those fighters is laughable. Money was wasted on other useless projects and in the end it were certain individuals that betrayed the Soviet Union and sold it to the West.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,786 through 1,800 (of 3,269 total)

← 1 2 3 … 119 120 121 … 216 217 218 →