UnicornInteresting shots, but real balls comes from sneaking close enough to take photos of the hull, screw, rudder and sonar gear.
Unicorn
UnicornThank you for the information guys.
Unicorn
UnicornIs it possible to have a retractable ski jump?
Probably, it’s just an engineering issue.
Unicorn
UnicornI would be surprise if a Hawkeye could only take off with just 1 hour of fuel? Yet, on the otherhand I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t have a sizable impact nonetheless………Which, is why Ski Jumps aren’t really worth the compromise in large Aircraft Carriers. Find with small platform but just a waste on large ships…….:(
The Russians seem to think they work OK with their aircraft.
Do you have a source for the limitations Broncho?
Unicorn
UnicornI seem to recall vaguely that the Hawkeye could operate over a ramp with a decent run up, however the arrestor wires requirement would rule out Viraat.
If so Vikramaditya may be able to accomodate the Hawkeye.
Does anyone have any data one way or the other re Hawkeye and ski-jumps?
Unicorn
UnicornObviously not enough…
Unicorn
UnicornThere is a real link between Taranto and Pearl Harbor in that the Japanese plied the Italians for technical information on the outcome, but the Japanese did not need anyone to give them the idea. The first mention of attacking the US at Pearl dates from 1936 which, I believe, predates the original Taranto planning by a year. It should be remembered that the British were planning a torpedo-plane attack on a German base in 1918. I think this was examined in a recent Warship annual.
I would also point out that the US Navy’s carrier force under Rear Admiral Harry Yarnell approached Oahu from the Northeast and launched a predawn strike of 152 aircraft from the Saratoga and Lexington against Pearl Harbour that caught the defenders completely unprepared.
The date was 7 February 1932.
Unicorn
UnicornJa, I did’nt realize that the Hobarts were being built in Spain. I thought it was only the Canberra Class. Why are the destroyers being built there, do you know? I dont know why we are creating so much emplyment for the Spanish shipbuilding industry. It is not as though ours is overworked with orders.
The AWD are not being built in Spain, they will be built adjacent to the current ASC site at Osborne in SA.
Only the Canberra class will be partially completed in Spain by Navantia.
Unicorn
UnicornPeople keep forgetting that the entire population of Australia is similar to that of New York, spread out over an area as large as the continental United States.
The manpower contraints will be the reason that the ADF is not capable of growing much larger than its current size.
Anything that requires significant manpower increases is a non-starter. That is one of the reasons the RAN declined the offer of first the Kidds, then later the Flight 1 Ticonderoga’s.
Unicorn
UnicornNo, you silly man (since you obviously cant read worth a damn and your reading comprehension sucks beyond reason), I made a basic point, that despite whatever brochure claims anyone believes in, what matters is operational capability. Operational capability as in the ability to take independent decisions as to be able to wage war without the logistics cut off.
Available evidence, he says! Prior sanctions on India, the crippling of the seaking fleet, the grounding of the SHars, the delays in the ALH & LCA- gee, which planet do you live on exactly, Unicorn?
You made a blanket statement that the F-16s and Hornets would be hangar queens, based on a potential issue sometime in a potential future that could potentially have led to supply difficulties. In other words you were speculating wildly, but stated as fact that they would be hangar queens, of no use in actual warfighting, you should learn the difference between hard facts and rampant speculation.
So who doesnt have a clue, eh?
You don’t, I called you on a statement of supposed fact that you made, which is in fact nothing but supposition, and you fail to demonstrate a single fact to back up your assertion.
Now, now, what got you so red faced and spraying spittle all around? The fact that your dinky little toys are abso-bloody-lutely useless without spares and weaponry? Gee, I think that counts for a lot, but what do I know. :rolleyes:
Dont be so damn naive- that “political bullsh#t” is what decides the entire issue, not whether your Hornet has a big wee-wee as compared to the bad bad EF.
If you cant stand to read posts that run contrary to your blinkered POV, buzz off and ignore them. Nobodys forcing you to read them or reply to them either.
I think its rather more that you indulge in wild speculation, and don’t like being called on items of fact,. Perhaps you who have a blinkered world view.
Good- so understand that and look at the entire picture, not just yack about whose planes afterburner is the longest or whatever.
I could suggest that based on nothing more than my own personal prejudice that the Indian Air Force is crap, that the Dhruv is a waste of time and money, or that anything else is a fact, when it is nothing more than speculation, and you would be agreived, and demand proof of the claims I was making. If I could not back them up with proof then it is just me guilty of biased speculation. The same applies here to you.
Nobody bashed the US, you pompous “fly off the handle and rant for the heck of it” wallflower! I just pointed out the simple fact that purchases from the US come with political baggage attached, which a nation like India cannot afford, given that its foreign policy interests are not always aligned with those of the US.
Oh, and military supplies from any other country don’t? Try buying from Sweden and see the strings that come attached, Or Russia, or France, or any other country. They all come with strings attached, it is not soley the US that is responsible for supply difficulties, but you would never know that from your statements. No countries interests are permanently alligned with another country. Ten years ago who would have believed that the Indian Navy would be purchasing a US Navy vessel, now they have, in ten years they could be replacing older Russian built aircraft with US aircraft, or perhaps not, but this is proof that a nation’s interests can change.
If something so basic is beyond your understanding its best you dont post on any forum at all but let others talk about the reality of life- which is that the US uses weapons sales to influence politics, as do most nations- and that unlike Russia or France, the US’s foreign policy decisions run counter to Indias on occasion. The US is currently supporting Pakistan to the bloody hilt on account of its requirements. India and Pakistan are arch-rivals.
Every weapons supplier delivers equipment with strings attached, even your precious Russians or French, you just cannot see it. You would rather denigrate the US than admit that all supplier nations are guilty of the same actions. Yes the US is supporting the Pakistani’s, because they need the Pakistani’s help to try and find the Al-Quaida leadership, but the support is a matter of political convenience between an islamic-leaning military dictatorship and a representative democracy, one that the democracy finds distateful. I think you will find the US’s enthusiasm for working with another democracy (India) is significantly higher than for a miltary dictatorship, and that the moment that the US can disentangle themselves from Pakistan the happier they will be
And supporting the purchase of the EF and Rafale is apparently bashing western countries according to this chap!
:rolleyes:
I asked you to back up your blanket statement about the F16 and F-18 with facts, you could not and did not, thus you are guilty of rampant speculation to support a personal political viewpoint. That is the issue.
Unicorn
Unicorn[QUOTE=Nick_76;1154530]Kindly read the entire text before taking umbrage! QUOTE]
Ah, so you don’t have a frakking clue, you are making a blanket statement without a single shred of available evidence, based solely on your personal political prejudices.
Please preface such comments with the statement ‘Political bullsh#t baggage attached’ please, it would make it much easier to find the few reliable facts in your future posts.
This is a forum for naval aviation and associated military equipment and activities.
If you only post to bash the US and other western countries rather than contribute meaningfully to the content, I am sure you can find forums far more amenable to your worldview elsewhere.
Unicorn
UnicornExcellent post. You should actually write articles on Oz,mate.
What do you make of Kopp painting the F-22 as necessary to keep up with the evolved Flanker threat?
I do, I have been writing for defence publications for almost two decades.
Kopp is an alarmist with his own agendas. He was pushing the F111 partly because he has a pecunary interest in its continued service.
He has been briefed by the RAAF on the background to the F35 buy, why it is the right aircraft for Australia, how it can overcome the Flanker threat (much of which is in his own mind) and that there is little to no chance of the US making the F22 available for export, either now or in the future.
Despite that, he then turns around, decries the RAAF as idiots for buying the F35 and states that the only aircraft for the RAAF is the F22, despite it not being on the market.
The man is a tool, he is now not welcome in the halls of Russell Offices because of it.
Unicorn
Unicornthe F/A-18 and F-16 are going to be hangar queens. More for show than for actual warfighting.
That will come as a major surprise to the dozens of nations around the globe using one or other of those two aircraft, both of which seem to have demonstrated extreme reliability.
On what personal and/or practical experience do you make that assertion?
Having been closely involved with one of those aircraft, and had a lot of experience with the other, I would like to hear how you intend to back up that statement.
Unicorn
UnicornI don’t write it, I just post it.
I will agree with Turbinia however that for two formerly ‘fraternal Socialist brothers’, Russia and China sure have a strange relationship, up to and including shootihng at each other during the Cold War.
I have no doubt that the basis of the assertions, that China has ruthlessly copied systems well outside the scope of licence manufacturing, does take place.
The Chinese commercial system barely understands the concept of intellectual property, trademarks and copywrite, I doubt the countries military manufacturing sector is any better, and probably a great deal worse.
Unicorn
UnicornIn the first place, forget everything you may have heard from Kopp and the Goon platoon at Air Power Australia (almost everything they say is tainted by their own commercial interests. For example one reason they are so hard on for the F111 to remain in service is that several of the APA people have a financial interest in companies supporting the F111. When the F111 goes, so does their income).
The F35 is late 90s, early 2000’s technology, incorporating a level of computing power and thus situational awareness that is in fact beyond what the F22 has now, the F22 will eventually get some of the F35 cockpit wizardry in major refits to the fleet.
The AESA radar it is fitted with is currently only rivalled by the F22 and the Rhino, it operates in a wide variety of modes simultaneously and can incorporate tricks involving signature management which makes it hard for an opponent to be exactly sure where the AESA radar is and how far away.
The Flanker is basically warmed over early-1980s tech, very agile but akin to claiming that an agile F8 Crusader is better than an early F15. In one very simplistic scenario it is, but if you don’t play that game in a shooting situation then the agile aircraft dies before getting anywhere close enough to do its tricks.
As one RAAF squadron commander commented to me while we were looking at footage of a Flanker doing its patented Pugachev’s Cobra “looks real good at flight demo’s, in wartime anyone who slowed down that much is dead. He has just given me a massive planform target to pop a missile at while I egress the situation, and while a Flanker is manouverable, a decent IR seeker missile has it beat flat”.
Combined with a decent AAR fleet to support barrier patrols, a superb AWACS capability in the Wedgetail, the likes of which no one else in the region will have for some years, plus datalinked situational awareness and the F35 will be killing the Flankers with BVR missiles while the Flankers are still getting their sheet together.
Finally, the RAAF is getting some 100 F35s, compared to local Flanker numbers of perhaps 12-24 per nation south of China or India.
And the training across the full spectrum of operations of the RAAF’s Air Combat Command is on the whole a generation plus in advance of that being practiced by most of South East Asia.
Why do you think we send forces to Red Flag and Cope Thunder? We train against the best to be the best.
I am not discounting the capability of the Flanker in certain circumstances, for the same reasons that an insurgent with a shotgun can take down a soldier armed with the very latest kit, everyone can get lucky.
Luck however is not the basis to make rational defence policy.
And for the final frakking time, the RAAF will not be getting F22, despite what Kopp and his fellow fruit loops might suggest.
If you don’t believe me, try doing a net search on statements by the US government on the matter. If you won’t believe me, perhaps you will believe them when they say No F22s for Australia.
Unicorn
Sign In
