Page 7 – Key Publishing

seahawk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 3,269 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 216 217 218 →

Author

Posts
July 28, 2013 at 8:56 am in reply to: Future RAF – Mixed Fighter Force re born #2270090

seahawk
Participant

If you want to reduce operational costs for adventures like Afghanistan or Mali, people need to start thinking outside the box. Imagine you would use a Citation CJ3, equipped with a targeting pod, radar, operator console and hard points for Brimstone and Bombs. The airframe comes for roughly 8. Mill. $, say avionics go for another 10. Mill – so you could get 4-5 of those for one F-35, or a squadron in exchange for 3 F-35 or EF. Operating costs are 1800$ an hour, say 3500$ for the mil. spec version and based on mil. style calculations, this is less than 20% of a Tornado flight hour, or just over 10% of a Typhoon flight hour. In peace time it works as a VIP jet, for martime patrol, can lead SAR missions, pose as a target for interception training, can be used for arial photography, collecting air samples or whatever else.

July 27, 2013 at 6:05 pm in reply to: Lightning vs MiG-23 #2270244

seahawk
Participant

Lightning first flight was in 1954. Compare it to MiG-19, F-100 or Dassault Super Mystère.

July 27, 2013 at 11:31 am in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News and Updates #2270373

seahawk
Participant

Software and processing power are the keys. The 2008 Captor was way less capable than todays Captor, simply because the software was still not mature. If it of any interest, German F-4F ICE hat constant software up-dates to their APG-65s and the detection range against typical targets increased from the mid 1990ies to 2013 by 10-30% depending on circumstances.

July 26, 2013 at 2:32 pm in reply to: Future RAF – Mixed Fighter Force re born #2270776

seahawk
Participant

A Hawk is able to intercept an airliners heading towards its base and detected reasonably far away. In all other scenarios the Hawk being limited to Mach 0.84 will not catch an airliner at cruising height.

Let look at the data:

climb to 27.000 fr : 7:30min for the HawK – estimated 10:00 min to 35.000ft
max speed at 30.000 feet: 920 km/h (255,5 m/s) – climb speed estimated 700 km/h (195 m/s)
range ~ 600km

Airliners cruising at 35.000 ft
speed ~ 900 km/h. (250 m/s)

frontal aspect intercept (airliners heading directly towards the Hawk)

combined closing speed: 450 m/s
time for the Hawk to reach the altitude of the airliner : 10min (600 s)
Distance traveled by the Hawk during the climb: 117 km
Distance traveled by the airliner in that time: 153km

This means the airliner needs to be 270km out for the Hawk to catch it

rear chase intercept:

time for the Hawk to reach the altitude of the airliner : 10min (600 s)
Distance traveled by the Hawk during the climb: 117 km
Distance traveled by the airliner in that time: 153km

Hawk ends up 36km behind the airliner and needs to catch up in level flight: 36000m / 5m/s = 7200s = 120min -> Hawk would travel 1836km in the process -> as this is way more than the range, it won´t catch the airliner

90° of intercept.

time for the Hawk to reach the altitude of the airliner : 10min (600 s)
Distance traveled by the Hawk during the climb: 117 km
Distance traveled by the airliner in that time: 153km

So say we have an airliner passing 90° off the airfield at 200km distance.

Hawk needs 10 min to reach 35.000 feet and travels 117 km, he needs another and then it needs another 325 s to cover the distance to the intercept point. The airliner travels 231 km in that time. Hawk needs to start the intercept when the airliner is 305km out.

Now for a 45° course passing at 200km distance. Time to reach the interception point is the same. Distance travelled by the airliner is too. Distance at when the interception needs to be started though is different. The intercept needs to start when the airliner is 398km out.

July 26, 2013 at 9:22 am in reply to: Almost new Gripens for sale!! <3 #2270864

seahawk
Participant

It does not matter which plane they would try to operate, as they do not have (or want to spent) the budget needed to operate any fighter.

July 26, 2013 at 9:17 am in reply to: EADS name change and reorganization #2270866

seahawk
Participant

Just als Eurocopters are not sold as EADS today, they won´t be sold as Airbus then. The Holding will just change the name to the same as their most prestigious part.

July 24, 2013 at 5:15 pm in reply to: More UK MPA ideas frome EADS #2271391

seahawk
Participant

There’s no reason for an MPA to be down at sonobuoy dropping altitudes, i.e a hundred metres or so, and a few thousand metres of altitude will keep a light MPA clear of most of the rougher air. Thats the primary profile USCG HU-25’s flew for years at any rate.

In clear air zoom optics will catch nets, ship name/registration and people moving around on deck just as much as flying low will….in a low cloudbase you cue with the radar/IIR…drop down to get your images then get the hell back up on top of the murk. Either way the necessity to flow low and slow for large periods of the mission window just arent there any more.

Then it was just a misunderstanding. But C-295 or ATR-72MPA also do not need to stay down with the waves. I still think that the real mission profile for a UK MPA will be closer to the US Coat Guard than to the USN´s P8s. the USCG is quite happy with their CASAs.

July 24, 2013 at 4:07 pm in reply to: More UK MPA ideas frome EADS #2271407

seahawk
Participant

Wrong. Most peace time roles require the MPA to go down and dirty. Want to prove a trawler was fishing in your economic zone, get a photo to show he has the nets down. Want to identify an unkown ship, get down at take a photo. Want to organize a SAR mission, go down to find the vessel and go down to guide the helo in or drop the supplies. Most daily work has to be done at low altitudes, only if you have a separate coast guard MPA fleet, that will take on the every day duties, you can have an MPA that will stay high for most of the time.

July 24, 2013 at 3:55 pm in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News and Updates #2271411

seahawk
Participant

A claim is not a proof, and such claims are often affiliated to Coué’s method.

Would be sas if not true, as it is one of the last mechanical radars developed. It is like the best b/w TV ever built, when colour became common.

July 23, 2013 at 3:54 pm in reply to: Largest Russian military exercises since 1930s? #2271826

seahawk
Participant

Good to see the Russian Bear showing his strength again. It is abvout time to wake up and end the US influence in Europe and Asia (together with China).

July 22, 2013 at 3:34 pm in reply to: Two Aircraft Design Ideas for CAS in Contested Airspace #2272426

seahawk
Participant

CAS in congested airspace – precision guide arty shells, mortar shells and missiles.

July 20, 2013 at 9:07 am in reply to: Romania's fighter indecesion 2013!! #2273154

seahawk
Participant

JF-17 would be prefect for them.

July 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm in reply to: Future RAF – Mixed Fighter Force re born #2274374

seahawk
Participant

In what scenario would a Hawk 200 be useful? Add some to keep more pilots current and reduce expensive flight hours spent on the frontline fighters, might work.

July 10, 2013 at 8:53 pm in reply to: Taiwan retiring Mirage 2000 fleet?? #2276372

seahawk
Participant

No, nobody will given them engines, radar or weapons. Fact is Taiwan should re-unite with the mainland, it is their only option, as the Chinese Dragon is controlling Asia again.

July 9, 2013 at 3:57 pm in reply to: Hunters running out of fuel #2276775

seahawk
Participant

What has the plane to do with bad mission planning?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 3,269 total)

← 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 216 217 218 →