tiddlesHi Phantom 11-Probably old info here.Australia operated Mirage 111s from 1965 until about 1988, I think some of them then may have gone to Pakistan. In Aus. service the Mirage 111 had 4 underwing & 1 underfuselage hardpoint. In the interception mode they carried either 1 Matra R.530 or R.550 under the fuselage and/or 2 AIM 9B under the wings on the outer pylons the inner pylons could carry fuel tanks. Cyrano 2 radar was installed for fire control.
tiddlesHi PNM1-I obviously missed it , but I found your info interesting. Thanks for that.
tiddlesS Class Aircraft Carrier
According to the Australian Warship Mag in 2004 Maersk announced a proposal for a power projection ship based on its S Class ships. The article said [briefly] that the almost full length flight deck and hanger deck would be made with 40 125 ton modules.Accomodation modules below deck consist of converted ISO 12m shipping containers with accomodation for 1000 with rec. laundry medical etc. space provided Hanger deck would accomodate typically 6-Chinooks,14-uh-60 Blackhawk,8-Kiowa. The ship would also be able to accomodate ,Harrier, F35B or MV22 Osprey. A mill. galls of jp-5 could be carried.The ship could carry 200 ISO 20 ft containers in the 34000 squ. ft. cargo deck. All up 95700 tons ,length 347 metres, sustained speed of 24 knots,range 15000nm .Maersk stated that the US could aquire 5 of the converted ships for $1 billion. This enormouse ship is not really an aircraft carrier but a forward staging base however the possibilities are staggering There are enough landing spots to allow simultaneous operation of 15 Chinooks.I suspect that most of the embarked helos & possibly aircraft would be parked on deck.The article states that the ship could accomade all up 72 CH-46 Sea Knights
I have not the slightest idea what happened to this proposal but what might be able to be achieved The ship did not carry any landing craft but has all the cranes etc. for efficient offloading.
tiddlesAlways look on the bright side
Hi harryRIEDL -I like your Monty quote,you will be glad to know that the Monty way of dealing with problems is still practised enthusiastically by many Aust. Govt. Departments.I have another quote for you.
John 20:29-“Blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed.”
This applies perfectly to the multitudes who believe that the CVF will be built. Let me say from the outset that I have no argument against the CVF or the need for it, no argument with the RN or the UK either. I have no inside info or vast amount technical or political argument either to back up my feelings. However life experience teaches us all a few things and one of them is that large Government building programs,be they Civilian or Military that drag on & on ,milking votes from the effected electorates [hopefully anyhow] for election after election develop a sickening inevitability of cancelation about them. The CVF is in this category & despite the need for it its situation is in worse shape than many want to believe. Oversea adventures are getting on the nose .Blair is in trouble etc.etc. It will never get off the drawing boards although I imagine another umpteen Committee reports & cost eveluations will allow the agony to be dragged for many years yet.
Now for the really bad news for England viewers Australia is now only 100 runs behind Englands first innings total of 6/551 & still have 4 wickets in hand Time here is 1505 Eastern.
tiddlesHi Foofone -What sort of party are you planning to have when you greet the first astronaughts to arrive on Mars.
tiddlesThis helo does have some Naval uses,three A109E have been leased by the RAN to provide an interim training capability while waiting for the Seasprite to become operational If this ever happens [Seasprite] it will surprise many people. The A109 will allow 805 Sqd. crews to maintain currency on a fully IFR capable twin engined helo. I have good info that the blades can be manually folded but I do not know if the helos will actually go to sea.I agree with signatory, it is a good small helo replacement.
tiddlesThink Big.
Hi D,Clacy
Joint ventures with Japan &/or South Korea make sense & would provide some real political & economic capital for us, more so than dealing with European builders. However the LPDs that you suggest are not much smaller than the Mistral at 21000 tons full load which aside from its amphibious role is designed mainly to carry helos. not operate in the SCS role. The rear lift was specifically made large so that Army helos could be taken below without removing the blades if neccessary. Ability to carry the F35B is only an afterthought as France already has an AC.
Getting 2 pure Helo [Attack] Carriers would probably cause too many problems with some of our much beloved!!! neighbours.
Your idea of having 3 LPDs & 2 Helo Carriers has some merit but I reckon it is thinking a bit big for Godzone….At least there is a good chance that these ships will actually be built and not join the CVA01 & CVF in the dustbin of history.However if a real partner could be found it is still possible that the CVF could be saved. It seems to be getting larger every time I get on the net ,another increase in size and maybe they could go into partnership with the US with a Supercarrier.
tiddlesHi Broncho-Australia currently is evaluating between Navantia [Spain] & DCN [France]to buy 2 LPDs, these ships both have a thru flight deck same as the US Wasp class & will be capapable of operating the F35B if required although there are no plans at present to purchase any F35Bs.There no plans to buy a pure AC at any time in the future & even if this happened it would be a smaller ship. Canada is spending up big on the JSS project are unlikely to venture into ACs in the foreseeable future.
tiddlesAustralia was the only other user of the F111, The Australian F111C combined the powerplant [18k] and avionics of the F111A with the long span wings and strengthened landing gear of the FB111A .Max takeoff weight was 110000lbs.Typical weight with ,max int. fuel & 4 2000lb bombs is quoted as 89400lbs.Ordered in1963 & delivered in1973 they are still on the RAAF roster having changed a bit over the years.This may be old info on this forum I dont know.
tiddlesHi Scooter-I get your point re Japan & South Korea but I just cant see them getting into bed with BAE as a partner in a CVF type of AC. Maybe Britain could try Argentina as a partner ,then again maybe not. I am sure Iran would be interested,they can forget about Saudi Arabia.
tiddlesSaving the CVF project
Hi Scooter, I guess that I had my 10 cents worth re the future of the fantasy ships- CVFs HMS Drawing Board & HMS Wishfull Thinking on the 8000t……. thread. With no axe to grind with anyone & viewed dispassionately from afar I will say again that they have all the earmarks of shall we say again, delayed until etc. etc.[forever] I have lost track of wether they are headed in or out the Side Gate, East Gate ,Front Gate or Watergate believe me these toys are headed straight out the back door.
BUT if a partner/s could be found then the project could lumber on to finality, I imagine that this proposition has been raised behind the scenes although that is only speculation on my part. I cant really see a European partner getting involved, Spain [Navantia] has the LPD project going & that has a ski jump suitable for launching the F35B.This ship is in competion with the Mistral to build 2 LPDs for OZ & comes in at over 27000tons, however it is not a real Aircraft Carrier.I would be surprised if France actually gets a second AC built let alone a third, I am not as confident with this prediction as I am with the CVF.
I think if India was coming aboard it would have happened by now ,China is politically impossible & South Korea & Japan will go it alone or with US help.
As for Brasil it is hard to imagine them affording to operate the Foch properly let alone get a CVF. I must admit i know nothing about the Brasilian military ,when I think of Brasil it is always images of Ron Biggs or Carmen Miranda[gives you some idea of how old I am]
tiddlesHi Storsch-I agree wholeheartedly with your criticism of BAE Systems statements,it is surprising how clever some people are at making statements give a completely wrong impression without actually telling any lies. Do you know if they have any ex politicians working for them to prepare their statements
tiddlesA kind word at last
The Rafale does have some useful stealth features built into its design. Not all combat is going to take place at hi altitude with adverseries flying towards one another.The Rafale is designed to carry an array of A2G ordinance & fitted out in that mode it will probably be theoretically at its most vulnerable. The posisioning of the air inlets [prime target for radars] have been carefully concealed by the forward fuselage when viewed from most angles from above.
This would “help “in avoiding hi flying AEW aircraft & fighters with look-down radars. I guess altitude the Rafale is at plays a part in this ,however its performance at low level [flying under ground radars] is one of its strengths according to its main publicists[ Fox 3 etc. ]
tiddlesRCS [Definitely a Big Deal]
I am glad that the effect on RCS by the use of external ordinance has finally been mentioned ,ordinance is handy stuff to carry on military planes, external fuel tanks are also handy on twin engined aircraft carrying less than 10,000 lbs of internal fuel.However every little bit of RCS reduction helps in making a plane harder to lock onto. With regard to frontal RCS , planes coming head first toward one & another are unlikely to be at the same height which is going to effect what their respective radars see.[I havent got a clue which one has the advantage.]
With regard to RCS reduction features,a report on an inspection of the FA/18 Super Hornet in 20001 noted.{abbreviated] The edge alignment of the inlet leading edges are designed to scatter radiation to the sides,a “fanlike” structure in the inlet tunnel performs a similar function. This all helps to keep microwave illumination off the rotating fan blades.Considerable effort had been made to filling or removal of unneccessary surface join gaps and resonant cavities.. Considerable use of panel join serration & edge alignment was practised .Various accesory exhaust & inlet ducts were covered by centimetric band opaque perforated panels.Careful attention had been paid to the alignment of many panel boundries & edges to scatter travelling waves away from the aircraft boresight.The author said none of these features were present on the Rafale,EF or Gripen & said it raised questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction of these types. This was in 2001 so have any of these measures been implemented since.
tiddlesHi Arthuro-I guess we will just have to have opposite opinions on the worth of the RBE2 Radar. I am glad that funding is available to upgrade the avionics system, it is about time . With regard to AESA, I imagine all the latest!! designs will end up with it eventually, however most of the older US designs of recent blocks already have it, they can afford the technology when it becomes available , smaller countries cant even afford to develop it,well, very slowly anyhow.Why do they bother .
Sign In
