Bager1968Most modern fighter and ground-attack aircraft have only one gun, so there is nothing to provide convergent aim for.
However, even with a “simple” ranging radar gunsight (which have been around since the early 1950s), the weapon computer does apply a range-based offset to account for both bullet drop and the distance between the radar and the gun barrel as well as (in the US fighters, at least) the off-axis angle the gun was aimed for (to prevent the aircraft from hitting its own bullets, as happened in early supersonic fighters).
Bager1968Most modern fighter and ground-attack aircraft have only one gun, so there is nothing to provide convergent aim for.
However, even with a “simple” ranging radar gunsight (which have been around since the early 1950s), the weapon computer does apply a range-based offset to account for both bullet drop and the distance between the radar and the gun barrel as well as (in the US fighters, at least) the off-axis angle the gun was aimed for (to prevent the aircraft from hitting its own bullets, as happened in early supersonic fighters).
Bager1968I have several reasons to doubt of the “converting QE at build” thing, mainly:
The UK needs solid EMALS info and data, and a definitive choice of which catapult to use before conversion planning can really start.
EMALS likely won’t be available for a few years. I doubt a UK set could be delivered earlier than 2015, and 2015 might be too late.
1. The contract for the conversion engineering and design studies* was just signed, so it appears they DO have solid info.
2. They have solid info because:
a. the USN has a functioning production-representative catapult in use at its land-based test facility, where it has been launching every catapult-equipped aircraft type in the USN inventory (except the F-35C, which is scheduled to start EMALS launches as soon as it finishes clearing launch trials with the C-13 catapult.
b. Production sets of EMALS modules are currently being delivered to the shipyard for installation in CVN-78.**
3. As only 4 sets of EMALS modules are needed for USS Ford, and no more are needed for at least 4 more years, the RN can start getting them within a couple more years.
*
UK launches carrier conversion studies
The UK’s Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) – comprising BAE Systems, Babcock, Thales and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) – has commenced an incremental 18-month Conversion Development Phase (CDP) to explore options for the adaptation of at least one of its Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to a ‘cats and traps’ configuration to enable the operation of the F-35C Carrier Variant (CV) of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Seed funding of about GBP5 million (USD8 million) is covering activity through to the end of October, with further contracts to be let in the near future to the ACA and the MoD-led Naval Design Partnering (NDP) team
first posted to http://idr.janes.com – 18 August 2011
**
Navy delivers first EMALS components to CVN 78
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, Patuxent River, Md. – Naval Air Systems Command’s Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment program (PMA-251) delivered the first set of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) components to the future Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) aircraft carrier May 9.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PrintNewsStory&id=4585
Bager1968Reading this topic I tried to make a complete list of all attack helicopters including some recent prototypes:
AH-1 family
The difference between the three groups of the Cobra “family” are rather more than in most of the “families” you mention.
Single-engine group:
AH-1G/Q one 1,400 shp (1,000 kW) T53-13 turboshaft.
AH-1S/P/E/F one 1,800 shp (1,300 kW) T53-L-703 turboshaft.
Twin-engine groups:
SeaCobra group:
AH-1J one 1,800 shp (1,300 kW) T400-CP-400 twin-turboshaft (transmission rated for 1,400 shp).
AH-1T one 1,800 shp (1,300 kW) T400-CP-400 twin-turboshaft (transmission rated for 1,800 shp).
SuperCobra group:
AH-1W two 1,622 shp (1,207.5 kW) T700-GE-700 turboshaft {3,244 shp (1,995 kW) total}
AH-1Z two 1,800 shp (1,340 kW) T700-GE-401C turboshaft {3,600 shp (2,680 kW) total}
Note the doubling of engine power of the SuperCobra group over the single-engine Cobra and SeaCobra groups.
I would break the Cobra into two families, the Cobra/SeaCobra family (rated as “light” attack helicopters) and the SuperCobra family (rated as “heavy” attack helicopters).
Bager1968Yep… (three things, actually).
1. identifiable pilot error. Not that likely, unless they have instrument recordings showing a COMMANDED flight into terrain.
2. identified pilot medical event. The autopsy could have shown evidence of stroke, heart failure, or similar problem, but we don’t know as it has not yet been publicly released.
3. identified engine failure due to external cause (fod/bird ingestion). Also unlikely at this point unless footage showing the ingestion has been provided to investigators.
Bager1968Probably the most directly comparable would be the Mig-23 – similar generation, roles etc and a diferent approach to the same problems.
As a Western equivalent, the Mirage F1 is an interesting comparator.
The JA-37 version is comparable to the MiG-23, while the AJ/SH/SK-37 versions are more comparable to the MiG-27 and SU-17/20/22. The SF-37 reconnaissance variant is comparable to the MiG-21R and SU-17R.
Yes, the Mirage F1 is also a good comparison.
In many respects, so is the F-4 Phantom, actually, with the proviso of the differences between the heavier-payload 2-seat F-4 and the lighter-payload single-seat Viggen.
Bager1968Keep the throttles down a bit on the Victor, eh?
😀
Bager1968Bager1968If the short was in the launch circuits, and resulted in damage that was difficult to access/repair with the personnel, materials, and tools at hand, a return to port would be very understandable.
Bager1968The AH-1W Cobra has the same engines as the AH-64A Apache, which brings its payload to ~3/4 of the Apache, with equal or better speed/climb/range performance.
The AH-1Z Viper now (thanks to the 4-blade main rotor) has the same payload capacity as the AH-64D/AH-64D Longbow, while maintaining equal or better speed/climb/range performance.
Bager1968Does it have a new rear wheel set? Thought they came with skids or roational rear wheels (to turn the aircraft on deck), not these struts
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=41507
The upgraded Lynx being discussed in this thread are Lynx AH.9A, which are AH.9 with uprated LHTEC CTS800-4N 1,015 kW (1,362 shp) engines.
The AH.9 is itself an upgraded AH.7 with wheeled undercarriage (different from the Naval wheeled undercarriage) and further upgraded gearbox.
The AH.7 were an upgrade of the AH.1 with 835 kW (1,120 shp) Gem 41-1 engines and uprated gearbox, and new, larger, composite tail rotor. Later refitted with BERP type rotor blades. Both had/have landing skids.
As of late last year the British Army had 77 AH.7 and 23 AH.9 (22 to be upgraded to AH.9A), and the Royal Navy had 6 AH.7 for the Royal Marines.
Bager1968Hmm, didn’t have a flash back by any chance did you? :p. How very odd though, they have disappeared from the skies around here. Although according to the crew chief in RIAT, there are about 240 airframes still in service :S. I do suppose shes had a new lease of life since CAS is very much needed. Would be nice to find out what was going on… do we have any UK USAF personnel here on the forum?
Griff
The A-10 fleet is undergoing upgrade to A-10C configuration…
In 2005, the entire A-10 fleet also began receiving the Precision Engagement upgrades that include an improved fire control system (FCS), electronic countermeasures (ECM), and the ability to aim smart bombs. The aircraft that receive this upgrade are redesignated A-10C. The A-10 will receive a service life extension program (SLEP) upgrade with many receiving new wings.[23] A contract to build 242 new A-10 wing sets was awarded to Boeing in June 2007.[24] In July 2010, the USAF issued Raytheon a contract to integrate a Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting (HMIT) system into A-10Cs.[25]
The Government Accounting Office in 2007 estimated the cost of upgrading, refurbishing, and service life extension plans for the A-10 force to total $2.25 billion through 2013.[8] Modifications to provide precision weapons capability are well underway.[25] The Air Force Material Command’s Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, Utah completed work on its 100th A-10 precision engagement upgrade in January 2008.[26] The C model upgrades are to be completed in 2011.
This is to enable the A-10s to do their work from higher altitudes, to reduce the threat from manpads and light AA guns.
Bager1968Is the stress of catapult launch so strong that the reinforcement of the aircraft for carrier landings can not take it? Or I presume the reinforcement for landings and catapult launch are in completely different areas of the aircraft and do not complement each other?
Landing gear reinforcement for landing normally involves the vertical force of landing at a higher descent angle and speed, and secondarily the increased rearward force generated by the friction of the tires on the deck… with the main impact being on the main gear and secondarily on the nose gear.
The stresses of a nose-gear catapult system (like the US & French use) involves pulling forward on the nose gear from near the wheel itself.
Thus, the forces are in basically opposite directions, and the primary forces are on different gear assemblies.
A bridle catapult harness attaches to the fuselage at more than one point instead of the nose gear, and requires that the fuselage be strengthened around the attachment points, but places the primary forces on the body of the aircraft. This is easier to do with an existing airframe than is the nose-gear method.
Bager1968Lots of vibration to mess up both the OE picture and cause higher component failure rate.
Not good.
Bager1968On a funnier note how long before somebody launches a thread discussing who should sell the new government fighter aircraft and what they should buy…
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1790930&postcount=1
Libyan Air Force – Resurrection started by orko_8 on 22nd August 2011, 01:11 MDT (US)
Sign In
