Page 5 – Key Publishing

Ja Worsley

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 3,659 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 242 243 244 →

Author

Posts
December 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm in reply to: Patrolling Cuba waters during the buildup to the Cuban Missle Crisis #2017816

Ja Worsley
Participant

Just read the story about the Russian Tug and the Cuban Patrol Boat, I agree, how did they miss you? The Stoof is a grand plane and I am happy that 4 of our old fleet will see a new life in Brazilian service.

I’d love to own a COD version for a private venture- forget the PT-6 engines, leave the old Wrights in I say. For me, you aren’t flying until you fly in a prop with a decent engine!

December 1, 2010 at 9:33 am in reply to: Gayduck, Ukraine corvette Prject 58250 #2019080

Ja Worsley
Participant

Does the Ukraine need these vessels, or are they option for export to rival say the Gowinds?

Does the Ukraine have the money to build and maintain a fleet of these vessels?

Finally, are the foreign companies willing to sell their products in order to get this vessel the advertised capability?

2500 Tons does seem a little on the light side, especially if you have an organic air component including a NH aircraft.

December 1, 2010 at 9:24 am in reply to: Oh dear god! Invincible for scap! #2019083

Ja Worsley
Participant

The attraction of having such a ship open for tourism is very high, though England isn’t interested, take the case of the recent Steam Carrier- Formerly Vengence/ Minas Gerias. This vessel was the last of it’s kind in the world and there was a call for it to be preserved- but no one lifted a finger in England- I fear this will happen to Vince as well.

People there may have patriotism, but no one has money, the government is looking at cut backs across the board and as such Vince is to be scrapped- they want more money for themselves hence sell everything off, cancel projects and reduce expenditure across board.

December 1, 2010 at 6:27 am in reply to: Sweden: does it need frigates? #2019090

Ja Worsley
Participant

Sweden definately has had a shift towards “Joint Operations”- look at the latest version of the Gripen: Nato Compatible (has worked wonders for it’s sales mind you).

A couple of Absolons would be a welcomed addition to the Swedish fleet in terms of expanded out of area operations but growth of this would mean a growth of fleet capacity to include support vessels and facilities- refueling tankers, stores depots, personnel and a spares resource. So while it is ok to say “Yeah we’ll have a couple of those to help our standing in the world”, the reality is that it’s not that simple.

Second hand vessels present a similar problem only compounded more so due to the age of the equipment used- Example would be the Perry’s and the Type 22’s offered today. While these are great vessels and do their duties well, the parts just aren’t made any more so in buying one vessel you need to buy a second just for it’s parts. Australia did this towards the end of our Perth class destroyer years, we bought USS Goldsbrough (DDG-20) in order to provide parts for our fleet of three vessels to continue on (Parts of Goldsbrough are still found around the fleet today- a mock hatchway is in use at HMAS Cerberus for OH&S and ship work skills training.

So the basic point of this question is, does Sweden and Finland feel they need to expand their fleet and Mission Directive enough to encompass an expansion to include such vessels, if so, what is the budget, what are the basing options, does the current naval capacity allow for an increase in service personnel and finally, what vessels are to be looked at- is secondhand an option?

October 13, 2010 at 1:11 pm in reply to: Russian submarine Losharik #2024762

Ja Worsley
Participant

Diving depth 6000 meters?????? 6 kilometers, 3.7 miles, 19.500 feet! mariners trench here we come 😉

Passing the Twins now Captain, shall I order reduced speed?

Got to love Hunt For Red October!!!

September 28, 2010 at 3:28 pm in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #2026274

Ja Worsley
Participant

I have been saying it for five long years now- She’s going to Sea in PLAN colours!

Yes it is smoke coming from the stack, this would mean that something is working inside- now I wonder, considering the amount of cooling units on the above pics arranged across the decks, I wonder if they haven’t tapped these into the stack below in some kind of ad-hoc ventilation with respraying the hanger area, to help dry it out quicker! We did something similar when I was in the navy with STS Young Endeavour.

September 6, 2010 at 4:43 pm in reply to: More from English Russia, Ekranoplan internals #2411156

Ja Worsley
Participant

Very interesting- thanks for sharing mate

September 5, 2010 at 2:34 pm in reply to: Military Cessnas (High-Wing Prop Types) #2411840

Ja Worsley
Participant

Found this rare bird for you PII

Italian Bird Dog

September 2, 2010 at 12:29 am in reply to: Single Engine, Twin Props? #2414526

Ja Worsley
Participant

Ok I got it wrong, this is why I stay mainly with Navy stuff these days- I served there and know it far far better- still, any excuse to show a pic of the Gannet and wave the Aussie flag! 😀

OK going in the other direction but along the same lines- what about that concept plane that FedEX were going to buy that had two engines but one prop? I remember it being offered as a Tactical Airlifter at one stage and was even considered as a replacement for our Caribou’s (I can’t remember it atm but I can see it in my minds eye- darn old age)!

September 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm in reply to: Single Engine, Twin Props? #2415004

Ja Worsley
Participant

What about this…

The Fairey Gannet

Twin prop, one Griffon Engine, doesn’t that count?

August 19, 2010 at 1:31 am in reply to: Kuwait interested in F-15Silent Eagle? #2421919

Ja Worsley
Participant

The concept of the Silent Eagle is very interesting and worthy of any country looking at it. According to Wiki, the target markets were current F-15 users such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea.

The Kuwaiti interest would mean that they would be looking at this to replace their F/A-18C/D force with a plane in the 4th Gen Mod class with 5th Gen tech. The FAST packs have been replaced with the new Conformal Stores bays allowing one AMRAAM to be carried internally on the side with another dropping out from below, these make the original FAST packs look rather bulky and I question the Radar Cross Section presented (see below).

How ever, the outward slant of the tail fins does seem to be agreeable to modern thinking on Stealth tech added with the RAM this does seem to make a cheaper and more attractive alternative to countries wishing for either the F-35 or the F-22 and the more important thing about the SE is that export licensing is already granted unlike the other two planes!

Would be interesting to see what alternative Russia comes up with to counter this.

August 18, 2010 at 3:30 pm in reply to: Military Cessnas (High-Wing Prop Types) #2422204

Ja Worsley
Participant

Slightly off topic, here is a Cessna I have flown:- VH-IVT.

At the time it was Red and flew with Bankstown Flying School out of Hoxton Park Aerodrome. I was never a fan of Cessna but this little beasty did make a mark on me. She is a rugged thing that at the time did do a few G Manouvers as the Chief Trainer was ex RAAF- he pushed this plane to it’s limits and got it to +6-4 G’s one day as a test (these being the maximum loading limits specified- but not recommended, glad I wasn’t in it at the time)!

Lets hope the new owner in Mornington treats it a little better!

August 17, 2010 at 1:10 pm in reply to: Military Cessnas (High-Wing Prop Types) #2422794

Ja Worsley
Participant

Ja & Gerard…….thanks for your inputs.

Lovely pictures you posted there Ja. Sure would be fun to own a classic plane like a Cessna 180 type.

You have any idea what weight the four underwing hardpoints on the O-1 series were rated for by chance?

Been trying to find out for you mate, it’s like trying to find a pic of Katy Perry wearing nothing! Though in all logic it wouldn’t have been much, two pods either side with five rounds in each pod.

I wonder what all is required to be done to the wing to allow carriage of rocket pods. I wonder if there is a substantial weight increase by just having the pylons fitted even without the pods…

There is a fair bit of work that goes into arming a wing that isn’t normally armed. Firstly the Struts need to be replaced with stronger ones to take the weight, add to this the strengthening of the attachment point on the frame to take the weight as well. once this is done you then need to look at wiring to fire the weapons and then you have to find a safe place on the dash to have the switches to arm the weapons for firing- not to mention the circuit breakers. Finally you need to add some sort of aiming device and then aim the weapons to a given point requiring time in an Armoury.

Hope that helps a little, I could go further in depth but it’s getting on and I have a heap of other work to do

August 17, 2010 at 12:36 pm in reply to: Confused- help please #2422816

Ja Worsley
Participant

Legacy Hornets received AMRAAM from December 2001 (3 Sqn was first). ASRAAM followed in August 2004 (all squadrons equipped by Sep 04).

I’m fairly sure these were AIM-120C. AIM-120C5 might have been ordered/delivered from 2005.

AIM-120C5 are used on the F/A-18F.

I was disappointed in that comp, I would have love the Israeli weapons to gain a hold down here, the Python is the better weapon as the Indian Navy proved by adding it and the Derby to the SHar

Supposedly the local assembly added 20% to the cost.

Yeah it did, but that was because we didn’t have the tooling the cost went to building and shipping them here.

Note sure on this – the initial 72 is said to be for three squadrons by 2021. Currently the Hornets are under 3 OCU, 3, 77 at Williamtown and 75 at Tindal. Each squadron might have 17 aircraft (12 available, 4 maintenance, 1 depot) = 51. Even with 2 at ARDU, leaves 19 attrition reserve.

3OCU??? I can find no reference to this squadron mate, can you provide some- I even checked here:Royal Australian Air Force

2 OCU going makes sense – RAAF has been standing up numerous non-flying squadron number plates lately.

Shameful I know, considering the proud histories of these squadrons- but if they aren’t active, why keep them?

Then its either keep the F/A-18F with 1 Sqn (operational) an 6 Sqn (training). The break down here is supposed to be 18 operational with 1 Sqn and 6 training/maintenance with 6 Sqn. If the remaining 28 F-35A are purchased, I’d expect 6 Sqn to go.

So it looks like 1, 3, 75, 77 Sqns?

I really don’t think 6Sqdn will go, don’t forget, the last 12 F’s will be of the Growler Lite program (wired for EW missions). 6Sqdn will probably convert to a full Growler profile once the Lightnings come on line.

BTW, 76 Sqn flies the Hawk LIFT.
Edit: 2 Squadron is Wedgetail. 3 Sqn is Hornet OCU.

I should have remembered that- stupid old age!

Thailand ordered 8 F/A-18D – these were cancelled as part of the ‘Asian flu’ in 1998.

Thanks for clearing that up mate, I did find a reference to this cancellation in a 1999 article which also mentioned that Pakistan were putting together a legal case against the US for failing to deliver or refund the price of the 28 F-16’s (old news)

Obviously the US is no longer playing the AMRAAM Diplomacy game.

Obviously not when other South American countries go to the Russians

Peter, as to the first RAAF F-35s, they (the US-based trainers) might likely have the C7. I was speaking of the first RAAF IOC unit likely having the 120D.

That could be a case, it would depend on if the RAAF want that particular weapon- things may change and we might finally go for the Israeli missiles or even strengthen our ties with South Africa who are starting to produce some incredible missiles!

I’m going off an interview with a RAAF spokesman a couple of months ago. It mentions a couple of interesting points:

RAAF is sticking with AIM-9X Block I for F/A-18F (at least for now) – see below.
AIM-120C7 is current planned AMRAAM for F-35A. AIM-120D hasn’t been cleared for export yet.

2014: Initial training in US – these would be Block 3.
2017-19: Phase 5 for air to air weapons (AIM-120C7)
2018: IOC with one squadron.
2018-20: Phase 3 of RAF program purchases 25mm ammo, air to ground weapons and EW expendables.
2021: FOC with three squadrons.
Possibly RAAF will use ASRAAM (via UK integration), although its noted that AIM-9X is an option. RAAF has a larger number of ASRAAM in any case.

AFAIK USAF
2014: Block 3 operational.
Apr 2016: IOC declared with 12-24 Block 3 aircraft.
2016: Block 4 operational – adds AIM-9X Block II, etc.
2018: Block 5
2021: Block 6

Which Block adds AIM-120D?

RAAF has stated it plans to purchase Block upgrades as they are released – I’m unsure how much they will lack the USAF, as it will be cheaper to maintain a common standard as the USAF. No more expensive MLU or orphan aircraft…..

Legacy RAAF Hornets go 2012-18. With them goes the RAAF Harpoon antishipping missile (at least from fighters). Super Hornets will use AGM-154C-1 for antishipping.

RAAF F-35 will not receive air to ground weapons till Phase 3 (2018-2020) – this would include the AGM-154C-1. Problem here is the AGM-154C-1 is not planned to cleared for internal carriage with the F-35A (software is). RAAF either pays for integration costs for internal carriage release trials or sticks with underwing carriage (will already be cleared).

RAAF would like JASSM under Block 4 and a new antishipping missile under either Block 4 or Block 5. Block 4 would possibly be the GBU-53 SDB II. Block 5 might be JSM.

In any case they want a maritime strike weapon from 2019 on.

I know the RAAF is watching the development of the NSM with great interest! This weapon can be carried internally on the F-35 so this may present a better option to the Naval Strike Missile requirement that will surely follow the retirement of the Harpoon along with the Classic bugs.

August 17, 2010 at 3:10 am in reply to: Confused- help please #2422951

Ja Worsley
Participant

If the F-35 can be sold to a customer, then you can be sure they will be cleared for the 120D.

Not always mate- look at South America, the US wanted to sell the F-16’s but refused to sell advanced weapons like AMRAAM and ASRAAM, something about not introducing advanced weapons in lesser developed countries- so those countries went to the Russians and bought up big.

Ja couldnt find anything about “extra” Super Hornets….

The reference to 2SQN is er… um… also incorrect.

Id say its a mix up as was stated that “another 19” are to be delivered, though we have 8 here already? Four in the first batch flown over and 4 in the 2nd?

Thanks for looking Sam, as I said, I couldn’t find anything either, weird.
As for 2OCU, can you elaborate mate as all the people I have spoken to have said this is going to be the case.
Finally, read above mate, we have 11 here, 5 came over to start with: A44-202 to A44-206 and now six more have joined in A44-207 to A44-212
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 3,659 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 242 243 244 →