nocutstoRAFI’ve also been following that thread (some very interesting points raised within it), but it seems to me they are for the most part agreeing that the basic airframe is wet built, and that the components to change the parts that aren’t (particularly wrt to the folding main rotors) are readily available, and it’s a relatively simple job of changing them over.
Of far more concern to me is the reliability and load-carrying capabilities of the aircraft, which the majority of ‘thought-applied’ posters seem to share.
As I am a natural born pessimist I have been taking Tallsar at his word rather than Dangermouse who while knowledgeable does not answer with the same depth as Tallsar. Personally the reason I suspect Tallsar is right is that material specifications for wet build would add a good chunk of extra cost to an already expensive platform, but I hope that I am wrong.
With regard to performance, so far no one has claimed the Merlin performs worse than Sea King and I am not sure what alternatives there are outside of the Seahawk or the CH-53?
RE: Liger
I only mentioned the Sea King as I have seen several mentions on the internet to Sea King with Carson blades being an excellent helicopter.
nocutstoRAFHi Liger,
I have thought for a while on what I was going to post in response as I do not want a fight with you.
The posters in the PPRUNE Military thread both positive and negative seem from their level of knowledge to have either worked at Westland or be Merlin support engineers, and I cannot find a way to poke holes in the core arguments.
Though no one is saying that the Merlin is worse in performance than the Sea King they are all pretty much agreeing that the Merlin HC3’s are not SH versions of the HM1 but actually derived from a commercial utility version of the Merlin and are not wet built and therefore will require lots of costly work to covert to RN use to replace the Sea Kings – while some of the posters on PPRUNE Military may be advocating this as it is good for the RAF others are suggesting that it actually might be cheaper in the long run to build new Merlin’s to replace the Sea King’s (I would also argue we should build more Merlin’s to replace the Puma’s as well).
EDIT: Is there any reason why the Sea King’s could not be stripped back, re-wired, given a cockpit update, new engines and Carson blades? If so would it cost more or less than converting the Merlin’s?
nocutstoRAFOn the first editiion of the Estrategia Nacional de Defesa (END) there was reference of a hypotetical “FX-BR” program that would be a nationally developed light supersonic fighter that would replace F-5M and AMX after the conclusion of the F-X2 main fighter requirement was concluded.
That must be most interesting that they included replacement for F-5M and AMX. Along with a major expansion of the fleet, this IMHO puts the JF-17 right on the money. I can’t think of a fighter that could better fit that bill.
The underlining is my emphasis, I am not quite sure how JF-17 or any other foreign designed fighter would meet the objectives of the FX-BR contest which is for Brazil to design and build it’s own light supersonic fighter. While I did not know about the FX-BR until today it is clear this was always Brazil intent – buy a high end fighter with good tech transfer and then use the well established aviation industry in Brazil to build their own domestic light fighter. Personally I hope they do not delay the FX-2 contest to long, and the sooner they get to the FX-BR contest the better it will be for us aviation fan’s 😀
nocutstoRAFThanks Swerve,
I was trying to illustrate IMO that even with the AMX option, something like the JF-17 is not likely, when Brazil can easily take technology it gains from buying the Rafale (or what ever it chooses) and come out with a single engine design of it’s own which is likely going to be higher spec than the JF-17 would be.
nocutstoRAFI think the Brazilian view of JF-17 is that –
(2) If they wanted something like that, they could build it themselves. Put an afterburner & a proper radar (easily obtainable, with ToT, via their existing industrial relationships
Presumably Brazil is not interested in fielding evolved older designs (given their aviation industry and connections they could also do an Iran and field an evolved F-5 or get hold of the full design schematics of a Tigershark) – I presume that the idea is get ToT from the FX-2 competition and then design their own light weight single-engine fighter incorporating the latest technology
nocutstoRAFDoes sound about right, however I suspect it had more to do with the RAF wanting as part of the manned FOAS requirement (or whatever replaced FOAS requirements in 2005) something with more legs than the F-35B
nocutstoRAFThanks a lot … they were written by me ! 😀
Deino
Thanks Deino, I will look forward to reading it!
I am guessing you did not agree with my analysis? I realise that when I proposed the J-20 as a tactical bomber I meant fighter-bomber as I was envisaging the J-20 would fill a similar role as the Su-34 does for Russia.
Still I agree with your thinking that the J-16, assuming that it is not disinformation programme or a desk study that has fallen by the wayside, will be built in much higher numbers than the J-20. The question is will China be planning to export the J-16 if and when it comes into service?
nocutstoRAFIt could well be that the J-16 was/is a fall-back-option from SAC if the CAC would fail, but IMO it is simply another Flanker-update since the J-20 will surely have even for Chinese standards a high prize-tag. As such only limited numbers might be purchased as a “Silver Bullet” for a few elite units and the J-16 could be purchased in larger numbers for regular heavy fighter regiments.
Apologies if I seem a little dim on everything related to Chinese Military Aviation – most of what I read of the subject comes from the excellent articles published in the summer in Combat Aircraft Monthly.
Anyway is it possible that the J-20 is stealthy tactical bomber (which would fit into China’s anti-access policy, as a stealthy tactical bomber would have a much greater success rate against an American carrier group), and that the J-16 will be the main heavy multi-role fighter to replace the J-11?
This sort of makes sense to me as VLO seems less useful in a defensive role, as passive sensors become better at detecting LPI radars and IMO it is more important to have sensor fusion and excellent data linking for a heavy fighter providing air defence.
Furthermore if the F-16 is the main F-11 replacement would that mean that they will skip over the J-15 and go for naval version of the J-16? Also what are the chances that there is another programme running to produce a stealthy J-10 replacement (I mean beyond the J-10B)?
nocutstoRAFInteresting thread on the Merlin on PPRUNE Military:http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/439224-junglie-merlins.html
One of the posters really sounds like he knows what he is talking about and the Mk3 sounds like a poor choice to replace the Junglie Sea Kings
nocutstoRAFYou could do it podded, but not in a fighter.
Thanks (and thanks 19kilo10), I was naively thinking if you took the harrier, stretched it with a second engine and larger wings, with each engine linked to half the nozzles you could build a STOL fighter with significantly better pay load and bring back and with relatively low risk with regards to development. Still if it was that easy someone would have done it by now.
nocutstoRAFDoes anyone think that it would be possible to build a twin engined STOL aircraft using two Pegasus engines and ducted thrust or would they end up needing a different lift system if they went for a heavier twin engined platform inspired by the harrier?
nocutstoRAFThanks Maus92, I wonder if given the alternatives, if the USMC would still accept into service the F-35B even if it ends up a lot heavier and its payload, range and bring back suffers as a consequence.
nocutstoRAFWas it me or did anyone read the transcript of Def Sec Gates speech and feel like he would have cancelled the F-35B if he could, but instead he is letting the programme run until the point where it is going to be obvious that F-35B is going to be unable to meet the USMC requirements for bring back weight and payload?
PS just in case anyone wondering on my personal bias, which may have influenced my read of the speech, I felt the whole F-35 programme was too high risk, but at the same time I thought the F-35B was the best choice for the JCA and the move the F-35C is going to result in the CVF’s being operated bare of fighters and the FAA out of the fast jet game.
nocutstoRAFHere is the target that must be hit:
(URL Cut)
Support which they have. None of the Arab countries want Iran to have a nuclear programme and will happily go along with Israeli border hopping en route to Iranian reactors.
What makes you think China will sell? They are hardly pro-Iran.
There are at least 7 other major sites to hit according to the IAEA, and lots of suspected secondary sites, including some university laboratories, so it is not straight forward.
None of the Arab countries want Iran to have nukes but their population for the most part have at best a low opinion of the US and Israel and some elements could be described as rabid, as Swerve says any active support of Israel would like lead to an uprising in the country who supported them and possibly the overthrow of the government.
China may not particularly like Iran, but considering that there is plenty of evidence that Iran is receiving assistance from North Korea, I can see a situation that if Iran is attacked it would benefit China to support Iran, if only so the west continues to worry about Iran nuclear ambitions instead of switching the focus to North Korea.
nocutstoRAFHi Imisbtn and Swerve,
I may have not emphasised the point I was trying to make, sure Israel could bomb Iran, and Iran could cause further trouble but the likely outcome is that Israel would fail to destroy all of Iran nuclear facilities and they would get new weapons from Russia and China as part of the political fall out.
Realistically Israel would be hard pushed to attack Iran without support from another Middle Eastern country and I appreciate this point was thrashed out and pretty much agreed on during the last debate on the subject, that the only viable party who could attack Iran is USA and it would be a political gamble, which would definitely back fire if Israel joined in the attacks.
Sign In
