dark light

HAWX ace

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 674 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rafale v Typhoon and the F22… #2418758
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    For me sovereignty means being able to maintain and modify your platform as you want, when you want and where you want.

    Agreed. Anything else hardly differs from colonialism.

    in reply to: Turkey issues RfI for its new "domestic" AAW frigate #2004626
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Here is a recent story in English. The pic provided is of a German F-125 class, so the writer must be assuming that the end product will resemple one? Anyway:

    TF-2000 Frigate Moves Forward

    ANKARA – Turkey has received responses to its January request for information from several foreign and domestic companies seeking to help build six anti-air frigates to a local design.

    Turkey’s defense procurement agency, the Undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM), obtained information on directed infrared countermeasures, electric generation and distribution systems, heating-ventilating-air conditioning, integrated platform management systems, laser directed/kinetic energy weapons, main propulsion systems and the naval gun system.

    Officials declined to identify the companies that responded to the SSM’s request.

    The program is dubbed the TF-2000, or Turkish Frigate for the 21st Century. Officials expect the program to cost Ankara about $3 billion in today’s prices; it will be completed in 10 to 12 years. The first ship is to enter service in 2018, one defense analyst said.

    The program, originally planned in the late 1990s and shelved during the 2001 economic crisis, was resuscitated in 2006 by Turkey’s top procurement body, the Defense Industry Executive Committee. The program was trimmed to six frigates from the proposed eight.

    Officials now say the program has solid financing available.

    The Navy’s Turkish Naval Institute is working on the design, the country’s first homegrown plan for a frigate. The program aims to bolster the Navy’s air defense and operational capabilities using mostly domestic assets.

    Turkey’s Tuzla military shipyard in the country’s northwest will build the six vessels, which will be equipped with state-of-the-art anti-missile and anti-aircraft air defense missile systems as well as other weapons.

    Heavy foreign involvement and a large amount of technology transfer is expected in the program.

    Naval warfare helicopters and UAVs also are planned to be deployed on the TF-2000s, which will displace more than 6,000 tons.

    The Turkish Navy now operates 19 frigates, including U.S. Oliver Hazard Perry- and Knox-class and German Meko-class warships. Some of the older Knox-class frigates will be retired soon.

    Turkey – expected to spend slightly more than $4 billion for defense procurement in 2010 – in recent years has focused on Navy programs, particularly their local design and development wherever possible.

    Other top Navy projects include joint manufacture with Germany of six modern submarines and mostly local development and production of up to 12 corvettes.

    The first ship in the Milgem-type corvette program, the TCG Heybeliada, was put to sea in late 2008 and is planned to be commissioned in 2011. Milgem, as a national naval development program, is seen as a precursor of the TF-2000.

    Source: http://trdefence.com/?p=135

    in reply to: T-129 first prototype crashed #2418794
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Tests for 20mm gun was to be completed this October with P1. I suppose, this accident might increase the workload of P2 & P3, and maybe giving some more time to local Turkish companies to ready their avionics and weapon systems.

    I think it’s understandable that assemply on a second prototype will have to be accelerated, some people will have to work double time on that. While some subsystems can be flight tested on any helicopter, they will have to be tested as a whole too. But they will have to be extra careful with the next prototypes. I think the manufacturer will have to provide some extra credible explanation on the accident, I mean it’s not exactly everyday phenomenon for helicopters to loose tail rotors in flight.

    Here is a story in English, with a pic:

    The first prototype of AgustaWestland’s T129 attack helicopter being developed for Turkey crashed on the afternoon of 19 March during a test flight, leaving its Italian test pilot and its test engineer needing hospital treatment for minor injuries.

    Early indications point to a loss of power to the tail rotor while flying at an elevation of 1,500ft (455m) near Verbania in northern Italy. Investigation of the incident will focus on establishing the exact cause of the power failure.
    ……..

    http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=30994

    More:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/23/339797/picture-turkeys-first-t129-attack-helicopter-crashes.html

    in reply to: T-129 first prototype crashed #2419344
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Thanks for the info niksi, personally I could not watch the video due to some plugin issues and I don’t speak Italian. I was under the impression that both pilots were seriously injured, that’s good news if only one was. I guess this some sort of “credential” (so to speak) for the airframe’s robustness and survivablity, I mean, dropping nearly like stone from 15,000 feet cannot be that peaceful. In the second pic, both of the pilots’ seats appear intact.

    I’m not aware of the results of any similar accidents with other types such as AH-64s, but I understand most AH have reinforced landing gear capable to withstand near crash-landings.

    in reply to: Russian UAC Ilyushin Il-96/Il-98 KC-X Tanker Bid #2419737
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Who is this Kirkland character anyway? Which universe did he pop out from? Any relations with Captain Kirk?

    in reply to: F-35 News and Discussion #2420118
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Truly pathetic reporting.

    For starters note that (even IF you believe the numbers) the PROJECTED cost groth is 57% and 89% yet the headline say “nearly 90%”. FAR too many people don’t even bother to reach the article & simply go by the misleading headline.

    Your not agreeing with it doesn’t make it pathetic reporting. To my mind, 89% increase is near-equal to double the amount. In simple numbers, it’s as if you want to buy a 10,000 $ car, you pay an advance and then the dealer tells you that… well, the price somehow went to 18,900 $.

    There, does it sound better now?

    Of course if you prefer to use the “latest” (aka 13 month extention) schedule instead then the Program is actually now AHEAD of schedule but I have yet to see ANYONE use such…

    Yes, of course. Pigs do fly, the Earth is flat, I’m the Pope Venedict XVI and the F-35 is ahead of schedule. Sure thing. Do keep up.

    No, “cheap” was never the word used. It is/was always “affordable” &/or “cost-effective.

    Talking about misleading headlines… :rolleyes:

    The program IS ~6 months behind the previous schedule. The ‘new’ schedule extends the previous one by 13 months. Do the math…

    So, that must be the reason Denmark’s military recommended on withdrawoing from the procurement, the Dutch keep postponing the decision and Fidgegibbon nearly canceled Australia’s participation?Jeeez, all the stupid customers in the world must have gathered around the F-35, ain’t it awesome?! LM offers them a product ahead of schedule and they complain!!! Stupid, ungrateful people. Shame on them… :rolleyes:

    You know, leaving sarcasm aside, the F-35 having problems and delays is not really that strange. On the contrary, I think it’s perfectly understandable, it’s a brand new design trying to merge the demands of many different clients. Bare in mind that Makienko, when asked about the 3 year delay in PAK-FA’s first flight, he replyed saying that a 5th gen fighter is projected to remain in service for some 40 years. That’s 480 months. In that scale 30-36 months is no big deal.

    The problem, and at the same time what frustrates most people with common sense, is that some people in LM pretend there is nothing wrong and that the F-35 will be soooooo cool.

    PS pfcem, while I disagree with most things you have said, I must congratulate you on replying to everybody in a single post, makes the thread A LOT easier to read. Unlike with other oneliner BS-iter trolls (not implying you are one).

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2420582
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    The DAS has a longer range than 6-8 seconds of notification, and 360 degree coverage.

    I doubt DAS will have that all around coverage in all conditions. For one thing, it certainly cannot see behind objects, such as in mountainous terrain. Furthermore, LM’s wishful thinking describes situations like F-35 vs legacy 4th gen fighters, not vs other fifth gen fighters such as… another group of F-35s, let alone PAK-FAs. The element of surprise will always be there, F-35 is not going to change that.

    And in the context he was referring to was on a strike configured load out.

    No, the context was A2A, that’s why he mentioned the 4 AIM-7s on F-15s and 6 AIM-120s on F-22s. Then he realised what a stupid thing he said and changed the subject. You may go back and see for yourself.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2420738
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    What threat is going to dogfight the F-35, that the F-35’s going to be unaware of? If the threat is close enough to dogfight, then it’s going to be detected by the DAS, and likely have a missile enroute.

    If the threat approaches from a direction not expected, or stays where he isn’t visible, then the F-35 will simply not have 6-8 seconds of early warning.

    Sens isn’t disagreeing with me.

    Yes, he is. He explicitly stated “…there are good reasons the F-35 is armed with only 2 AAMs” and then you come stating “No, it can be armed with more”, spoiling his fantasies.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2420821
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Just a new picture reagarding “compressor blockers” (looks really like one :confused:), “curves in the intakes” …

    Deino

    Pretty disappointing if the pics are real.

    If the F-35 needs to get lighter in a dogfight, it can dump 3,000lbs of fuel in ~6-8 seconds.

    Good point, but the pilot would need to know in time that he is to engage in a dogfight, 6-8 seconds in a dogfight are like centuries.

    The only time the F-35 would carry 2 AAMs, is if it is also carry A2G ordinance internally. It’d never have that load out on a CAP/Escort/Intercept/etc… mission.

    So, what you are saying is that for an A2A mission it would carry more missiles internally, when it is certified for that anyway. Makes sense, but sadly Sens disagrees.

    Nonsense. The F-35 is not in service and the weapons-bay is designed for A2G at first, when that for A2A is less demanding. The F-35 has to fullfill the basic specification with its main role in mind. The 2 AAMs are just demanded to allow a “selfescorted” mission in stealth configuration at first. For the F-22A and the PAK-FA it is the other way around. In the long run the F-35s will replace F-15s and F-18s in the A2A role too and with that the typical internal AAM-load will rise. The MiG-29 does show the basic Russian demand of a mix of 6 AAMs because that do operate not as single ones most of the time. The Su-27s was designed for the demands of the PVO and the bigger size did “allow” to carry more AAMs, which will be done seldom at all, the tear and wear for the AAMs in mind. The shooting opportunities in mind and that the fighters will operate in pairs at least, the general load out of AAMs is no more than 6, when 4 are seen as basic load-out for the A2A role as claimed by Sukhoi. All the Eurocanards were designed the former high intensity threat in Central Europe in mind. For advertisement claims all available was fitted to every pylon to demonstrate some flexibility of the own design, when in practise it could be used that way hardly. Maybe for the ones limited to numbers at first.

    You have already made crystal clear that you had no idea what you were talking about, no need to verify it again and again. Unless if you decide to do some research and discover a thing or two about those infamous “good reasons”.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2421037
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    2 AAMs if it’s also carrying 2 JDAMs. 4-6 AAMS if it isn’t carrying A2G ordinance.

    That’s fine by me, eventhough there is still no solid fact suggesting anything like this, only concepts and speculation. But never mind, let’s assume that it will take 6 AAMs internally some time in the future with some modifications.

    This still doesn’t explain (in fact it even contradicts) the “good reasons” Sens mentioned, only to admit later on that actually he has no idea what he’s talking about.

    So, if F-35 carries only 2 AAMs, it’s because either they’re more than enough or because there are some “unscpecified unknown good reasons”, and it’s super cool as it is. But if it will eventually carry more than 2, it’s because 2 are not enough and with more it becomes even more bad a$$ mathafacka’ and -again- it’s super cool as such.

    F-35.
    It’s soooooo cool. :rolleyes:

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2421317
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    It is about the radar-guided ones for the A2A mission.

    From KNAAPO:
    Su-35 basic specifications
    Take-off weight, kg:
    normal (2 x RVV-AE + 2 x R-73E) [what is similar to the F-35A]
    Up to 12 R-77 are possible, because the stations are at hand and you can find something similar for the Super Hornet for advertisement claims at first or even the F-35A with external stations. 😉

    So, basically you don’t have a clue about those “good reasons”. Glad we got that straight. 🙂

    in reply to: The PAK-FA saga Episode 12.0 #2421390
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Six is more than enough. The F-15s got 4 AIM-7s and the F-22A got 6 AIM-120s for good reasons

    Which are…?

    BTW, latest F-15Cs carry six AIM-120s. Is it for good reasons too? Also, Both F-15 and F-22 carry 8 AAMs in total, surely, for good reasons as well? OTOH, Both Su-27/30 and Su-35BM are certified for 12 AAMs, so these guys are either insane (no “good reasons” that is) or follow different dogma/tactics?

    when F-35A is back to 4 AIM-120s. 😉

    Is it?

    Last time I checked, it only carries two AAMs, both BVR ones with just concepts of carrying more internally some time in the future. It’s not that bad really, I’m not pointing that out as a complain. On the contrary, it’s perfectly understandable. I mean, look at the F-111, or the A-7, they both carry just two AIM-9s.

    in reply to: Russian UAC Ilyushin Il-96/Il-98 KC-X Tanker Bid #2421545
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Just for reference, besides leasing huge cargo planes, have the Russians ever sold the Americans anything military-wise? I know they have sold them Kh-31 antiship missiles. Anything else? I guess Mi-17s for Afghanistan AirCorps et al doesn’t count.

    By the way here you can see some highly interesting comments by a… Boeing employee… :diablo:

    …”Our team worked long and hard to prove to the world that Russian American military-industrial cooperation is a reality in the post-Cold War era. Now we are hoping to build on this foundation.”…

    :D:D:D:D:D

    in reply to: Russian UAC Ilyushin Il-96/Il-98 KC-X Tanker Bid #2421722
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    So, shall we bet on who’s the US partner? Where’s the book keeper? 😀

    in reply to: Russian UAC Ilyushin Il-96/Il-98 KC-X Tanker Bid #2421729
    HAWX ace
    Participant

    Ach, he is just a motor mouth.

    Doesn’t have much of a clue really.

    I’ve seen a lot of pish come from the mouths of “industry analysts” recently.

    I know, I noticed his comments in another story a few posts earlier and I found these I posted some 2 years ago. Such a hysterical guy.

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 674 total)