Page 19 – Key Publishing

Hotshot

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 1,028 total)

← 1 2 3 … 18 19 20 … 67 68 69 →

Author

Posts
October 29, 2016 at 10:42 am in reply to: Very light anti-tank plane #2173524

Hotshot
Participant

First , if the armor formation is very close to allied troops the best way is to gave them scores of ATGM insead, maybe something likeSpike ER or Ghermes could be useful.

A capable light attack helicopter already exist: A-129. Lighter than this, is better going unmanned.

NLOS ATGMs with short/medium range would be a good defense. Even at that your forces might be overrun.

Not necessarily unmanned. Do a Google search for small aircraft you will find many models.

October 29, 2016 at 10:40 am in reply to: Very light anti-tank plane #2173561

Hotshot
Participant

Well, sucks to be EU, then. At least, Apache is worth of its money, while Tiger is overpriced peice of ****. Try to look at Mi-28N or Ka-52 – they cost for our MoD ~$20kk.

As example, this light. Estimated price ~$9 mil.

That is even too big. I’d try a single seater with an armored cockpit, with 4-6 smaller missiles, like a half the weigh of an early AH-1. I kind of doubt that in the european theater weather conditions would allow for hellfires to be used often at max range. There would also be a lot of dust over the battlefield.

Maybe a high low mix of helicopters would make sense: a heavy one with a MMW radar with long range missiles that can take out enemy defenses, and a small and very cheap one with medium range missiles.

October 29, 2016 at 9:40 am in reply to: Very light anti-tank plane #2173738

Hotshot
Participant

1) Not helicopters, but helicopter – AH-64D/E.
2) Its price is just the result of its sophisticated equipment and weapon systems.
3) I was talking about LIGHT attack helicopter.
4) Today, weapon systems and sensors are worth of 60-80% of the overall aircraft price. You can’t have a mass and cheap attack plane with the capabilities of AH-64D/E.

1. The tiger costs almost as much as the apache.

3. Which LIGHT helicopter? I am talking here about something VERY LIGHT, not just LIGHT. Which western army still invest in VERY LIGHT helicopters?

4. Of course it wouldn’t be as good as an apache, that is not the point.

October 29, 2016 at 9:37 am in reply to: Very light anti-tank plane #2173774

Hotshot
Participant

Regarding the titanium bathtub, I checked and the cost of titanium per ton is $7000. I have read also that titanium can be 3D printed now, so maybe it would be cheaper to manufacture. The canope should be single piece to have maximum visibility for better target acquisition. It could have the same protection as the F-16 canope.

I read that an ejection seat costs $100000-$200000, the small EO system would cost maybe $250000, the helmet around $200000. Computer power increases exponentially so I don’t think it would cost that much either.

October 29, 2016 at 8:55 am in reply to: Very light anti-tank plane #2173842

Hotshot
Participant

You can do that for sure, but you need the ability to recognize the type of tank. I am talking about a scenario where the enemy tanks are in contact or very close to the friendly force, not an artillery system or UAV to attack in depth.

I think it might be possible in the coming years to use a staring array sensor and to have sufficient computing power to see the armored vehicles over a wide angle ( say 120 degrees ). A small EO system can be used to ID each one. A radar could do that, but they cost a lot, and are heavy so they require a heavy Platform.

***

You also have to find a way to drop the submunition acurately on each enemy tank to have a high pk, that sounds kind of difficult. I don’t think something like a BLU-108, SADARM, BONUS type of submunition would enable you to do that. Or maybe a sort of cruise missile with the ability to maneuver to drop each one. But is it possible to drop one at a time? I think using individual missiles would be easier, hmm.

October 29, 2016 at 8:35 am in reply to: Very light anti-tank plane #2173869

Hotshot
Participant

It could make sense also to use light helicopters for that, I was wondering about that too. Attack helicopters now cost around 40 million, not sure they are really that cost effective. But an aircraft can quickly climb to have a better view. Helicopters might be forced to approach if they fly very low. I’m not sure which one would be better. Also heavy ATGMs have enough range to attack helicopters, and planes cannot be attacked by ATGMs.

October 25, 2016 at 7:30 am in reply to: What were the potential market for the Mirage 4000? #2180637

Hotshot
Participant

Dassault archives in St Cloud. I’m on writing a booklet about Mirage 4000 story.

Exxcellent! Looking forward to reading your booklet. Keep us updated! 🙂

October 19, 2016 at 12:02 pm in reply to: What were the potential market for the Mirage 4000? #2195477

Hotshot
Participant

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249090[/ATTACH]

Wow where did you find that? It was used for trimming apparently. Do you have more info?

October 19, 2016 at 8:32 am in reply to: What were the potential market for the Mirage 4000? #2195668

Hotshot
Participant

I am puzzled by its ability to reconfigure the canards in flight. What could they do with that? Could these canards have been upgraded later with full control like on the 4.5 gens?

October 18, 2016 at 6:37 am in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2196846

Hotshot
Participant

I don’t think the CAMM does have TVC, you may be confusing the cold launch gas turnover pack for TVC. Also not sure what other upgrades ASRAAM is getting, most of them were obsolescence related.

I think you’re right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi-BsEJQ1t0

Don’t know if it can be used from an aircraft right after ejection. And whether it can be used at any time during the flight, like for the terminal maneuver.

October 17, 2016 at 6:39 am in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2197806

Hotshot
Participant

I wasn’t aware of any TVC upgrade for ASRAAM.

The CAMM is based on the ASRAAM and features TV. The CAMM(A) is intended to be used on aircraft. I don’t know if current ASRAAMs will be upgradable. It will have a datalink, so it will be pretty good for BVR.

Also interesting regarding internal carriage, the Land and Maritime variants will have folded fins. If they could use those folded fins on the Air variant that could save space Inside the F-35. The problem though I guess is that it couldn’t be rail launched on other planes.

October 16, 2016 at 4:56 pm in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2198428

Hotshot
Participant

Or 4 Meteors and 2 ASRAAM.:D

That would be a good loadout, all the more that the ASRAAM is going to get a thrust vectoring upgrade. I think the launchers should still be capable of carrying 6 AMRAAM by default. Most air forces that are going to get the F-35 have stockpiles of AMRAAMs.

October 15, 2016 at 6:29 am in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2199617

Hotshot
Participant

Depends how they’re mounted. You could position it so that the fins go between or to one side of the intakes. The intakes are also narrower towards the end of the missile. I’m also kind of confused as to why the 6 AAM payload isn’t a day 1 capability.

The missiles can be carried staggered vertically too to some extent. The missile on the a2a station is already carried sort of below the weapons carried on the a2g station. Even if 6 meteors are not possible, 2 meteors + 4 AMRAAMs or 4 meteors + 2 AMRAAMs might be possible. I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to carry only meteors. The F-35 can use its meteors for its first frontal attack at long range or for tail chase attacks, when it’s closer it can use the AMRAAMs.

October 14, 2016 at 8:47 am in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2200335

Hotshot
Participant

Non stealth planes can carry as many. For the F-22 it is pointless given that the USAF would never buy it. For the F-35 it is a tough call if it could carry 6 internally. If the control surfaces are shortened it might fit. The intakes are a curved are the rear so the width is not much greater than an AMRAAM for a staggered carriage. It might even be possible to slightly change the intakes to be able to carry 2 side by side on the a2g station. Really hard to say.

October 14, 2016 at 6:57 am in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2200358

Hotshot
Participant

It is worth of notice that a dual pulse motor had been proposed by the european team, but was rejected:

The Meteor team had considered an interim design, also powered by a dual-pulse solid rocket motor,[28] but decided to offer a fully compliant solution, believing that the staged approach was not cost-effective due to concerns that upgrading from one version to the next would be more complicated than Raytheon claimed.

It would probably have been relatively easy to fit a mica with a larger dual pulse motor, compared to the ramjet.

I think it could be an idea for the AMRAAM. AFAIK the C-7 uses the same motor as the D, so those variants could have their motors swapped for a ramjet. I wouldn’t waste the old motor though, so it possibly it could be reused for another missile, maybe to make a fast reaction a2g weapon, or perhaps make a medium range IR missile using 9X seeker and warhead, all sorts of ideas..
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 1,028 total)

← 1 2 3 … 18 19 20 … 67 68 69 →