Page 34 – Key Publishing

19kilo10

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 496 through 510 (of 782 total)

← 1 2 3 … 33 34 35 … 51 52 53 →

Author

Posts
July 21, 2011 at 12:25 am in reply to: CVF Construction #1997921

19kilo10
Participant

Wow!!!! Add three cats, lose that front island and it would be a real carrier!:D

July 18, 2011 at 11:53 pm in reply to: Compare/Contrast: JAS-39 and JF-17 #2375286

19kilo10
Participant

Actually the aircraft that would make the most interesting comparison is the Northrop F-20 Tigershark. Both aircraft share a similar size and performance profile. The development is similar in that both can trace their design back to older cold war jets (albeit the F-20 is far closer to an F-5 then a JF-17 to a J-7). They are both meant to be affordable multirole fighters with a BVR capability. Avionics wise they also make an interesting comparison as well with Western style MILSTD avionics in the JF-17. I would certainly be interested how the KLJ-7 compares to the AN/APG-67.

Certainly the JF-17 benefits from more recent developments in avionics, materials and aerodynamic thinking but nevertheless they make an interesting comparison.

Very interesting comparison. Allways liked the F-5G/F-20A. How bout the Taiwanese fighter, the ADIC “Cing Chuo”? Did I get that right?

July 16, 2011 at 2:13 pm in reply to: Rebuilding UK Carrier Strike after a decade's gap #1998312

19kilo10
Participant

http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2011/07/rebuilding-carrier-strike

THought-provoking analysis here following the NAO report the other week that raised hackles at MoD by suggesting that the SDSR switch from F-35B to C might be more complex than suggested….

I’v tried saying everything that article states on this forum and have been torn to pieces………..but the article nails it spot on.

July 16, 2011 at 2:08 pm in reply to: Rebuilding UK Carrier Strike after a decade's gap #1998314

19kilo10
Participant

Not buying any aircraft now (Super Bug, Rafale, or whatever….) makes it much easier to can the whole thing in 2015.

July 16, 2011 at 1:05 am in reply to: CVF Construction #1998389

19kilo10
Participant

:(:(

are you sure? even after Obama’s administration is done with it? 😉

Sorry. I WAS kinda vague. What I mean to say is that the US Navy is just fine at designing its own CVNs. The compromise that is CVF just wouldnt make it in the USN. We seperate the classesand use CVNs as aircraft carriers and LPH/LHA as gators. NOT putting down the RN, I understand they are having “funding” issues. And I will be VERY VERY happy for them if they get these ships, but the US has allways (for how much longer?) had the luxery of being able to afford seperate platforms. What 8 years of Obamamania will do to the USN, I shudder to contemplate.

July 14, 2011 at 11:49 pm in reply to: CVF Construction #1998482

19kilo10
Participant

ooh verry naaaisu.

I bet the PLAN wish they got that instead of a warmed over Soviet era ship. Heck maybe even the USN! 😮

No. The USN is doing just fine for CVs, thanks.

July 12, 2011 at 9:44 am in reply to: RN cvarriers on Yankee station #1998681

19kilo10
Participant

Fantastic shots! Oh to see it happen again………….

July 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm in reply to: CVF Construction #1998844

19kilo10
Participant

It does seem that most European navies (except the Italians) pretty much settled on 28-30knots as their max speed for their DD/FF in the 80s…….unless I was reading Janes wrong all those years. But getting back to the definitions “fleet” and “strike”………I dont know of any navy that uses those definitions any more………

July 10, 2011 at 2:11 am in reply to: CVF Construction #1998939

19kilo10
Participant

While I agree with you I must point out that in the Falklands war the 25 de Mayo somehow mannaged to avoid two SSNs despite a speed of roughly 20-24 knts.

July 9, 2011 at 10:40 pm in reply to: CVF Construction #1998943

19kilo10
Participant

This thread seems to be suggesting just what a “Fleet” carrier and “Strike” carrier is………it seems to me that these terms are, in this day and age, subjective. Or, now that I think about it, they are meaningless. The USN has CVNs…….they are what they are. In the 70s the Navy dropped the “A” designation kinda making them all (for want of a better term) “general purpose” carriers. What the RN will end up with (if anything) will be what will be. “Strike”, Fleet”…..those are just buzzwords.

July 8, 2011 at 12:11 am in reply to: CVF Construction #1999160

19kilo10
Participant

Because it’s an aeroplane.

Unless the air force has some ships stowed away some were it makes sense. I think some people forget that each service isn’t an individual organisation but a branch of the armed forces. They work together to reach the best outcome. What difference does it make if the air force have planes which are dedicated to carrier ops rather than a FAA. None! Fact is the most efficient system we can afford is to keep sailors dealing with ships and aviators with planes.

In fact if the navy gets such a number of fast air we may as well give them the typhoon and the rest of the infantry and just have one massive military branch. Suggestions that the navy has some how been hard done by because they don’t have aircraft anymore are in my opinion ridiculous. Fact is nobody does aircraft better than the RAF in the British military but it doesn’t matter because they all work together under orders anyway! They will do what they are told to do.

What a loaded statement. I cant begin to describe how utterly……wrong you are. Its just breathtaking. All I can advise is that you might study some history.:(

July 3, 2011 at 2:09 am in reply to: 10 Squadron Reforming #2379792

19kilo10
Participant

That is good news!

July 3, 2011 at 2:07 am in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2379794

19kilo10
Participant

Not a single detail to stay polite. By the way I see no F-35 over Libya in 2011 to compare real front-line capabilities.

The F-35 isnt in operation over Libya? Probably for the same reason the Typhoon or Rafale werent in operation over Bosnia.

June 29, 2011 at 12:25 am in reply to: CVF Construction #2000336

19kilo10
Participant

I was trying to come from the direction of IF the F35C is indeed too expensive for the UK to a) purchase and b) operate, it does not seem to be turning out to be the low cost of purchase, low cost of ownership plane that it was meant to be, there is a possibility that the UK could do a deal with France to put into service a not 100% top of the line aircraft when compared to what an F35 is meant to do but +/- a Typhoon with air to ground capability and carrier capability for a much lower up front and I think continuing cost.
The argument about BAE getting money from each F35 is spurious as they still will.
Personally I am amazed that LM managed to make an overweight F35B and not realise it at the time, with the cost base if one believes what one reads slightly out of control, see comments from the US Congress and slipping on the timescale, where is their Prince 2 project management? I hate to say it but is the F35 the USA’s MRA4?
Does the UK need a first day of war (5th generation) fighter bomber or should I say omni role aircraft? When is the UK likely to want to invade China or possibly Russia, not any time soon as I see it.

IMHO if that happened the UK would go for the Super (groan) Whorenet.

June 29, 2011 at 12:22 am in reply to: British Harriers sold to US Marines #2381651

19kilo10
Participant

I thought they only used her as a yacht?:D
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 496 through 510 (of 782 total)

← 1 2 3 … 33 34 35 … 51 52 53 →