dark light

Grim901

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 975 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Why 3 different F-35 ? #2411263
    Grim901
    Participant

    You called the F-35 a ‘jack of all trades, master of none’. So explain what it is that it does not do better than the many aircraft it is replacing. What does it not do well as it should

    Did you not read the last post?

    It does everything the aircraft it replaces can do, but compared to other current aircraft it doesn’t do anything superbly. It isn’t a top notch fighter compared to others like the F22 or T50 for example. It tries to be too many things which leads to compromises having to be made, so I’m sure it’ll do everything well, but I doubt there’s much it’ll do in a better way than other 5th gens.

    Again, not about what it’s replacing, just that it does everything but not as well as 5th gens with a more specific role in mind.

    in reply to: Why 3 different F-35 ? #2411510
    Grim901
    Participant

    The Bravo model is the furthest along in development, and the Marines want this plane – it was designed to their specifications. It is their only fixed wing option for austere basing. If it fails, then they are left with AH-1Z – too light for the spec, and a lot of money wasted on big deck gators. So the F-35B lives.

    Other operators might have different alternatives.

    The B variant will prove useful indeed. The Harriers they’ll replace have shown the use of STOVL aircraft (The USMC, RN, RAF etc. can’t have had it entirely wrong all these years).

    Just a shame they A and C variants had to be based on the same platform. It might have made more sense to design A and C as one plane and B as another (maybe with some similarities and interchangeable parts, but not to the current extent.

    in reply to: Why 3 different F-35 ? #2411680
    Grim901
    Participant

    Grim901,

    Just what does any previous generation aircraft that the F-35 is going to replace do better than the F-35 will do it?

    Didn’t say that, I just said that because it is trying to do so many things at once, it does none of them as well as it should do. Yes it does them all better than the previous generation, but what happens when it comes up against things of the same generation?

    in reply to: Why 3 different F-35 ? #2411897
    Grim901
    Participant

    Well Bluewings, what would you propose then for the Italians or Spanish (also European players) who want to continue to use their current carriers? They have to use the B, their is no alternative.

    However I do agree with the sentiment, the F35 is a jack of all trades, master of none. The Royal Navy should have gone CATOBAR (either with an F35C, a Seaphoon or a Rafale if we really got desperate :P) and would have improved our performance greatly. If only EMALS had matured 10 years ago.

    in reply to: Typhoons grounded #2413181
    Grim901
    Participant

    Just heard that 4 of 11 typhoons that went up yesterday have ash related issues. Presumably this means that there is literally no Typhoons going up now which would include the practice displays for the coming display season.

    They’ve specifically said that the QRA will still fly. I doubt they’ll go unless really needed though, they’ll just have to accept engine damage.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2414501
    Grim901
    Participant

    Ouch, that sounds really painfull.

    If I am not mistaken then two out of your three parties have already shown that they are uncapable.

    Would the third one be a promising choice?

    In a nutshell, no.

    They are the least defence friendly of the parties.

    in reply to: Iranian "stealth fighter" #2414754
    Grim901
    Participant

    That’s funny because although they are definitely not S300 launchers manufactured in Russia, they are dead ringers for HQ-9 launchers that come from China. Good thing they are empty oil drums.

    The same Ares article that was mentioned then says later in the comments that some actual parts may be of Chinese origin, and that efforts have been made to make the whole thing look as such. It does however point out that there is no indication whatsoever of any TEL type set up, so it probably isn’t a real, complete system, at best some real parts cobbled together to look like the finished product.

    in reply to: Iranian Space and Missile discussion thread #1804478
    Grim901
    Participant

    S-300 already delivered ?! :eek::confused:

    Either that or an attempt to drive a wedge between the US and Russia in the hope of messing with the sanctions plan.

    in reply to: RAN Sub force- to nuke or not to nuke #2001493
    Grim901
    Participant

    why doesn’t RAN simply collaborate with the japanese and get a modified soryu ?

    Japanese law prohibits it.

    in reply to: RAN Sub force- to nuke or not to nuke #2001498
    Grim901
    Participant

    You realise you just suggested the RAN shoulod seriously considering using their budget to look into proposing their next class of subs with cold fusion reactors? Was that your intention or a mistake? One of them will make you look a little silly, one less so.

    I’d always got the feeling that the Aussies weren’t a fan of the nuclear power. And you have zero experience with it, so you’d have to get the British or US on side. But would they really want to devote money and time on a class they dont need. Basically if you want as nuclear sub you’ll have to buy Astutes or Virginia’s.

    in reply to: BBC series "Sailor" #2002217
    Grim901
    Participant

    @Village: The new class should go a long way towards reversing a lot of those problems you mentioned, but they’ve already started rectifying one, Harriers have gone back to the flight decks since they’ve come back from Afghanistan. It’s not much but it’s a start, a signal of intent perhaps.

    in reply to: BBC series "Sailor" #2002234
    Grim901
    Participant

    And in 6 years we will do again…hopefully.

    in reply to: Oman in talks to buy Eurofighter Typhoons #2389298
    Grim901
    Participant

    No problem at all with foreign pilots being trained abroad. My point (which people are missing out) was that if Oman was serious about upgrading it capabilities it would invest across the entire spectrum of military infratsructure. No just the shiney new jets BAE are flogging…

    Listen to Swerve, as always he is talking sense. I didn’t suggest that Iran was a direct threat to Oman alone, it is a threat to the Gulf region and several of the states within it. Oman is expected to contribute in a coalition if required and the Typhoons are the most sensible option to go for, they can be used by Oman to act alone and do standard air policing etc, but can also form a useful capability in a coalition, AEW or tankers could only do the latter since it’d be a choice between fighters and those. And Typhoon specifically provides interoperability with major player in the Gulf (SA), as well as another long time ally who frequently operates there (UK).

    And as everyone else has pointed out, they don’t NEED to increase trainer numbers to meet any threat to the region.

    What else can you possibly be saying that none of us are addressing?

    in reply to: Oman in talks to buy Eurofighter Typhoons #2392089
    Grim901
    Participant

    Please, we can do without the sarcasm. I dont claim to be an “expert”.

    Oman is geographically not that close to Iran as other states (barring the small piece of land it occupies on the tip of Hormuz)

    Its Amraam F-16s are just not for strike nor does it face constant air space violations.

    Every nation has a right to defend itself. I just sense this deal if more a case of Oman helping Britain then vice versa.If it was number Oman needed, all it has to do is order 24 more F-16s. A much more cost effective solution c’est na pas?

    If nations like Holland and Belgium each had 200+ f16’s while not near to anything hostile… I think Oman is in a volatile arena. Just a few would not do much but I think it will be a warning to Iran. If Iran gets both sides of the Hormouz then no one can export anything.

    Insig put it nicely. The threat from Iran has expanded, Oman has rightly decided to field a new, top of the range fighter. F16’s would be kore cost effective, but then Typhoon would be the stronger option, in this case they obviously feel the need for the stronger weapon. Oman happens to be one of the closest countries to Iran across the Straits which is incredibly important strategically, plus Oman is a close friend of many of the countries Iran dislikes.

    And you can’t really ignore that “small piece of land”, it’d be like the US ignoring Alaska during the Cold War. It’s still part of their territory and needs defending. And the rest of Oman’s coast isn’t exactly far away from Iran either. Muscat is about 100 miles from Iranian territory.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2392251
    Grim901
    Participant

    Harriers can fly over London, but it would have to be at a height that wouldn’t be acceptable for a flypast display. The Hawk replaced Harriers during 2007 for the Falklands 25th Anniversary. The Harrier has a very poor glide capability.

    From the press release at the time

    ‘Harriers will not take part in the flypast over London because single engine aircraft without the capability to glide in the event of an engine failure are not permitted to fly low over central London. Were they to take part, they would have to fly too high to be part of the display.’

    TJ

    That was the report I was referring to, and what I meant.

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 975 total)