dark light

Rii

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 931 through 945 (of 3,311 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 13 #2220724
    Rii
    Participant

    Some great pics there; my favs:

    http://i.imgur.com/WrJLxWY.jpg

    http://i.imgur.com/JKHERXh.jpg

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2220726
    Rii
    Participant

    Would be a great shot if it was higher resolution. China makes great recruitment ads (like this one) but seems to have trouble with high quality photography.

    in reply to: Guizhou JL-9G #2220727
    Rii
    Participant

    WS-9 is the reverse engineered Spey engine used on JH-7?

    in reply to: Future of Rooivalk #2220800
    Rii
    Participant

    Perhaps this is Rafale’s problem also. 😉

    in reply to: Future of Rooivalk #2220816
    Rii
    Participant

    Chinese WZ16 currently in development?

    in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread 20 #2220981
    Rii
    Participant

    Is there really much that much call for small AEW aircraft when you can operate larger ones? I always thought the main point of the program was for DRDO to gain the relevant expertise on a small scale before moving on to a larger platform (which by all accounts they are now doing) rather than delivering an operational capability. A limited production would be justified to fill certain niches and improve surveillance capabilities in the interim, but not twenty I think!

    in reply to: Indian Navy : News & Discussion – V #2027395
    Rii
    Participant

    Total displacement of Indian surface combatants displacing >1k tonnes in 2014, excluding OPVs: 135k tonnes. Projected 200k tonnes in 2025.

    Assumptions:

    Inductions to 2025
    2x Project 15A Destroyer
    4x Project 15B Destroyer
    3x Kamorta Corvette
    4x Kamorta follow-on
    7x Project 17A Frigate

    Could be more Kamorta follow-ons, but on the other hand not all Project 17As may be in service by 2025.

    Retirements to 2025
    5x Rajput Destroyers
    3x Project 16 Frigates
    4x Khukri Corvettes

    By way of comparison, using the same criteria Chinese Navy >1k tonne surface combatants today total 300k tonnes, projected 490-600k by 2025.

    in reply to: PLAN News Thread #4 #2027400
    Rii
    Participant

    http://i.imgur.com/UWpbN5R.jpg

    Added the Type 056 Corvettes, they’re too significant a component going forward not to.

    By 2025 displacement of PLAN surface combatants should reach 490-600k tons, representing a 65-100% increase over 2014 levels. Underlying assumptions as follows:

    Inductions to 2025
    1x Type 052C
    11x Type 052D
    6x Type 054A
    8-16x Type 054B
    4-8x Type 055
    45-60x Type 056

    Retirements to 2025
    6x Type 053H1
    6x Type 053H1G
    1x Type 053H2
    4x Type 053H2G
    4x Type 051D
    2x Type 051DT
    1x Type 051G1
    1x Type 051G2
    2x Type 052

    Such an evolution leaves oldest frigates in service as 10 x Type 053H3s, oldest commissioned in 1998; and oldest destroyers in service 1x 051B commissioned 1999, and 2x Sovremenney commissioned 1999/2000.

    By way of comparison, using the same criteria Indian Navy >1k tonne surface combatants today total 132k, projected ~200k by 2025.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2014 #2221591
    Rii
    Participant

    Saab offers “100%” technology transfer in bid to secure Indonesian Gripen deal

    Obviously that 100% line is rubbish, but the idea of technology transfer being part of SAAB’s proposal at all is a surprise, and obviously predicated on the notion that Indonesia would invest in the platform beyond the initial 16 airframes.

    If that were to occur — and it seems quite reasonable — then I expect future opportunities for PAK FA in Indonesia would take a nose dive, at least out to mid-2030s. After all, can you really imagine Indonesia investing in Gripen E/F, KF-X and PAK FA going forward?

    in reply to: Which is the best anti ship aircraft #2221603
    Rii
    Participant

    Modern warships are tough nuts to crack because of passive and active anti-missile defenses.

    And with so much empirical and historical data to back it up, who could imagine otherwise?

    The real question is what happens when magical American fighters try to sink magical American warships. I imagine the two must annihilate each other in the manner of a matter-antimatter reaction.

    in reply to: Indian Navy : News & Discussion – V #2027488
    Rii
    Participant

    As I understand it the proposed new contract would entail an indigenously manufactured and indigenised form of an existing platform, similar to Su-30MKI. Given that India undoubtedly has a large eventual requirement for helicopters in this class, that strikes me as a more sensible path forward than direct import.

    in reply to: Future of Rooivalk #2221650
    Rii
    Participant

    Brazil has ordered Mi-35.

    They can buy more than one type if there is a good enough case to do so from an industrial development perspective. Lower operating costs for the smaller platform too. I doubt they’d have any difficulty shopping the Hinds around if it came to that

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2221657
    Rii
    Participant

    Export customer does not have that kind of assets until now because they couldn’t afford them. it does not means that the need was not there.

    Previously there was much less need for such capabilities because the doctrine was an eminently defensive one.

    Now that the threat is much reduced, and expenditure (and aircraft inventories) have been correspondingly much reduced, along comes the F-35 to reduce numbers by a further 50-75% across the board, narrowing national defence capabilities to dangerously low levels (in the case of some nations, to a single air base!) whilst vastly increasing the capacity of those nations to provide purely symbolic support to US adventures around the world, and all whilst providing nice support facilities for US F-35s to use in the unlikely event that they’re ever needed. A conspiracy minded person might suspect that was the plan all along, but — as is the chief flaw with 9/11 conspiracy theories — such a conspiracy would require a much greater level of foresight than evidence would suggest the United States actually has.

    Do we see any other export nation buying Growler in par with F35? No.

    No other nation was stupid enough to first predicate the F-35 buy-in on the premise that it would reduce RAAF from two combat types to one, and then persist with it even after it became clear that this would not be the case. That requires ongoing politico-military failure of the kind that only a nation that has committed itself to capabilities costing 100% in excess of anticipated funding levels, all whilst investing in strategically irrelevant capabilities like C-17 in support of strategically irrelevant conflicts like Afghanistan can muster.

    It’s the same story all throughout the west, really. The greatest threat to US national security is the US national security establishment. The greatest threat facing NATO nations is NATO. The greatest threat to Australian national security is a recklessly irresponsible ADF granted carte blanche by successive governments that never saw a shiny American platform or a shiny American war that it didn’t like, and is only now beginning to panic as the chickens start coming home to roost.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2221665
    Rii
    Participant

    Yes and it does not include the gosht fleet of supporting asset that won’t be needed.

    Which isn’t true of export customers who never had those supporting assets in the first place. In Australia, the F-35s will actually have support assets (Growlers) that we never had before.

    Lowy Institute — Fixing Australia’s Incredible Defence Policy

    Force 2030 has been estimated to cost up to $275 billion to build over the next two decades – requiring more than $146 billion in additional funding beyond anticipated annual defence budgets.

    There is a reality gap — or should that be ‘chasm’ — and the F-35 is smack bang in the middle of it.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (3) #2221765
    Rii
    Participant

    that picture would look much much worse for air forces that today only operate F-16

    The fall-out in Australia over the next 15 years is going to be hilarious. The procurement budget is backed up further than at any point in history, and even *if* the current government realises its stated objective of increasing defence spending to 2% of GDP (up from 1.6% today) over the next decade (which is a pretty hilarious pledge in the first place given the nation’s three-year electoral cycle) they still won’t be able to afford all the cookies in the jar. Basically, current defence planning in Australia rests on turning the clock back to the Cold War — only with twice as many elderly people to support as we had back then. The reckoning will be fun to watch, but alas it won’t involve nearly as many ADF brass and politicians being put up against the wall and shot as a considered evaluation of responsibility would suggest.

Viewing 15 posts - 931 through 945 (of 3,311 total)