Page 14 – Key Publishing

Please enter a search term.
Sign In
Subscribe now

Maskirovka

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 234 total)

← 1 2 3 … 13 14 15 16 →

Author

Posts
October 20, 2006 at 11:09 am in reply to: Swedish Airforce to acquire 2 C-17s? #2543242

Maskirovka
Participant

Well boys

It’s Friday and I don’t see no C-17s. Would anyone care to bring us up to date – or shall I?

YS

No, it´s to depressing 🙂

(ah, forget the expensive C-17, we should by four An-124 Condors instead)

October 5, 2006 at 11:25 am in reply to: Typhoon – Beauty or Beast? #2553828

Maskirovka
Participant

F-16 Draken? 🙂

September 30, 2006 at 10:28 pm in reply to: ranking of beautiful aircraft by nation and epoch #2556541

Maskirovka
Participant

The most beautiful fighter ever, of all epochs, the SAAB 35 Draken (Dragon)

SAAB has made some fine aircrafts during the years

All SAAB from different epochs….

Edit: Ooops. Sorry, forgot their newest plane, this fine little bird

September 10, 2006 at 9:28 pm in reply to: Show us those interception pictures! #2571141

Maskirovka
Participant

great shot this one of viggen

Yeah, I think it´s the U-137 “Whiskey on the rocks”. I have some books (Marinkalender and Flyg) wich is loaded with swedish interception pictures but I cant scan them and I don´t seem to find them on the internet. I mean, during the cold was there were hundreds of interceptions per year in Sweden and most of the times the pilots brought cameras. More interesting is that the Soviets used the Baltic Sea as a testarea for most of their new navalships and swedish fighters were (offcourse) allways first on scene to intercept and photograph them.

September 10, 2006 at 7:13 pm in reply to: Show us those interception pictures! #2571200

Maskirovka
Participant

🙂

September 10, 2006 at 6:45 pm in reply to: Tawian F-15? #2571210

Maskirovka
Participant

I don´t know the quality of chinese cruisemissiles or other stand-off weapons, but is´nt these kind of weapons a bit overrated? I certainly don´t think they are the ultimate airbase-killers. And how many of those does China have in its inventory?

I mean, to destroy an airbase you need to attack it 24/7 because it could be repaired pretty quickly (if Taiwan has those resources wich I´m guessing they do). I don´t think China has enough cruisemissiles to launch wave after wave of them against Taiwanese airfields for days, this means their fighters must create air-superority over Taiwan so they can physicly fly over the airbases and bomb them into rubble. If just the Taiwanese airforce could survive the first waves of cruisemissiles (wich I believe they would) they would have a big chance of encountering the following waves of chinese fighter/bombers together with its SAM´s…

I surely don´t think China could destroy the Taiwanese airforce only with cruisemissiles and that Taiwan would waste of all its SAMs by trying to shot down these missiles.

September 8, 2006 at 11:54 pm in reply to: Rafale out of Norwegian contest #2572314

Maskirovka
Participant

Yeah, for starters I’m not sure Gripen N can perform such STOL thingies. Secondly, with any decent warloads I doubt it even more. Besides, I don’t see what interests Sweden have out at sea, except maybe the Gotland island when they dress in medieval costumes (I really should visit someday, a friend of mine told me it was awesome).

Robban, turn around time of a Mirage 2000 with 6 AAM + fuel is 15 min (http://www.dassault-aviation.com/defense/gb/avions/m_perf-avion.cfm). Rafale’s isn’t longer. And I doubt Gripen’s is all that much shorter. You need the time to actually fill the fuel tanks and the AAM reload probably depends more on ground crews than anything else.

Nic

Well, Gripen has those “STOL thingies”. Why? It was one of the SwAF primary concerns in a new fighter. The STOL on the original Gripen is actually better than on the STOL-masters of them all, the Viggen, so it should not be a prblem on Gripen-N.

Turnaroundtime with Viggen was 5-10 minutes (done by conscripts) and is the same with Gripen. The M2000 seems pretty fast with its 15 min but other planes takes twice that time. So compared to other ac Gripen has a very quick turnaround-time (wich offcourse is important). Once again, the “turnaroundtimes” was one of the keyfactors when the airforce ordered the ac in the 80´s. 10 Gripenfighters with quick turnaroundtimes can do as much as 40 F-16´s in the same timeperiod.

June 21, 2006 at 1:07 am in reply to: Gripen fires Meteor missile! #2580989

Maskirovka
Participant

Thats what happens when you have access to an overland firing range (i.e.the Swedes have the only one in Western Europe).

Well, every western fighter have access and often train or do trials at Vidsel in Sweden, including the Eurofighter (24/7). Could it have something to do with the fact that Gripen is a mature fighter and Eurofighter only have been in service for a short time? IIRC Gripen was the first fighter to launch the IRIS-T to.

June 20, 2006 at 11:32 pm in reply to: Såtenäs 18 June – from Tummelisa to Gripen #464158

Maskirovka
Participant

A few more images from 2 sunny days at F7 Såtenäs:

My first post, good evening gentlemen! 🙂

I love that pic of the SAAB 35 Draken. It´s such a beautiful fighter! But what´s wrong with the Gripen? What are those yellow and blue spots?

June 15, 2006 at 7:08 pm in reply to: Collins Class and Oyashio size comparison. #2051008

Maskirovka
Participant

You allways read on different forums that fuelcells is best AIP right now. Much more expensive then Stirling, but slightly better. Therefor I was kind of confused that Japan decided to go with stirling AIP (specially since money is´nt really a matter for the japanese navy), and now reading that Australia has chosen stirling. Any thoughts about that (fuelcells vs stirling)?

June 12, 2006 at 11:51 pm in reply to: Whats your favourete military aircraft ever? #2586205

Maskirovka
Participant

Well, the Draken has already been posted so I´ll go with this sweet bird.

June 8, 2006 at 10:30 am in reply to: HMS Härnösand revealed to the public #2051477

Maskirovka
Participant

I saw an article a few years ago on how many tons of depth charges that had been dropped off the Swedish coast during the Cold War, it was a very high number but I cannot recall it.

Yes, I remember reading it was something around around 100 depth charges/ASW-mortars, a dozens mines and at least one torpedo launched in the 80´s/90´s. And at least one russian sub was damaged (swedish a/c photographed it surfaced east of Gotland as it was trying to get home with a long trail of oil after it)

June 7, 2006 at 2:01 am in reply to: HMS Härnösand revealed to the public #2051660

Maskirovka
Participant

Greetings again Ja!
Here she is just after firing a bunch of mortars (or dummies perhaps), they made some satisfying cracks, anyway. I just don’t understand why they use such little “bombs”, surely they can’t harm a submarine. Perhaps they are for scaring away Russian submarines, like the one that was stranded outside Stockholm some years ago!
Yes, I have been “around the block” a few times, among other things been resident in Bahrain (courtesy of Her Majesty, in the RAF), France, Italy and now Sweden (twice, totalling 30+ years). My work as a technical author and translator keeps me up to date with technology, but not much of a military nature these days.

Those antisubmarine mortars (made by Bofors and called ELMA or EMMA) with a shaped charge were designed to only injure the submarine thus forcing it to surface. A result of the intense subwar against the russian intruders in the swedish archipelagos during the 1980´s/90´s, a total destruction of the sub with 70 dead russian sailors would perhaps put some strains on the relations between Sweden and USSR. I know Japan ordered ELMA/EMMA ASW-mortar aswell, maybe it´s the same concerns against north korean or chinese subs.

BTW: That “Whiskey-on the rocks” incident were outside the city and navalbase Karlskrona in 1981.

May 27, 2006 at 2:00 pm in reply to: Croatian stealth(y) patrol boats for Libya #2053074

Maskirovka
Participant

Will the corvette be armed with SAAB RBS-15 SSM´s?

May 24, 2006 at 11:34 pm in reply to: SAAB 2000 #603019

Maskirovka
Participant

There was a lot of competition in the market. There was the ATR, the (then brand new) F50, the dash 8 of various versions and both the ERJ and CRJ entered the market too. Against that competition the margins where small.

Also, while the Saab may have all the advantages of the RJ combined with the economics of the turboprop, it still looked like a prop. From a passengers point of view they where old fashioned. Passengers like jets more, and since a ERJ/CRJ was not much more expensive to buy airlines went for the jet. With hindsight it may have been smarter to get the saab as its economics are superior.

Also remember that the fuel price at the time was much lower then today.

Ok. But as I understand it the ATR-42 and Dash 8 are successes and still in production. What made the SAAB 2000 such a failure compared to those planes? There still seems to be a demand for such an a/c. Just looking at performance (speed, range etc) the SAAB 2000 seems to outclass the ATR/Dash. Was the pricetag also much higher or what was it?

“Also, while the Saab may have all the advantages of the RJ combined with the economics of the turboprop, it still looked like a prop.”

What does “RJ” means? Regional jet?

And why did the production of SAAB 340 end when the EMB-120 (and similar prop-a/c I suppose) are still being produced? There´s alot of costumers out there with the SAAB 340. What happens when they wants to get new similar planes, their only choice is to turn to Embraer or whoever who produces such planes.
Is their a chance that SAAB can reopen its productionlines for the 340/2000 if there´s a great demand on the market?
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 234 total)

← 1 2 3 … 13 14 15 16 →