Page 6 – Key Publishing

d'clacy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 180 total)

← 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 10 11 12 →

Author

Posts
January 15, 2008 at 9:31 pm in reply to: Aussie News, Broad spectrum #2039227

d’clacy
Participant

That is what I am suggesting – supplementing them.

There will be many occasion I would imagine that it would make more sense to send a smaller ship that the LHDs, such as to the Solomons etc. Unless we are going to invade them, then the LHD would be more appropriate. But for the policing type tasks in our region the LHD’s would be overkill.

January 14, 2008 at 11:32 pm in reply to: Aussie News, Broad spectrum #2039260

d’clacy
Participant

I would like to see Australia do something radical with their warships. We have Incat and Austal that the Americans have been looking at their products, and apart from Jervis Bay during the East Timor thing 9 – 10 years ago, Australia has totally ignored.
A few fast ships from Incat of about 15 – 17’000 tonne size would have more use than the two Spanish amphibs.
We could have produced a great looking AWD based on the Austal trimarine that the yanks are looking at. If one was built to about 4’000 tonnes it could carry everything the AWD can, plus more missiles. And it would be a lot faster also.
Years ago Incat had a design for a 112m mini- aircraft carrier. Maybe we could also build some bigger versions of this, since Incat have enlarged their ship building site to 150m.
Oh well, we can all dream.

January 1, 2008 at 3:45 am in reply to: Super Hornet buy to be reconsidered. #2527116

d’clacy
Participant

I still believe that the best replacement for the F111 available today is the Su-34. Although I realize that there is no hope in hell that we will buy Russian. If we have to go American, I would say the latest version of the Strike Eagle, enough for 2 squadrons, and something we can build or assemble in Australia. The last fixed wing aircraft we did that with was the Mirage lllO. With that in mind Rafale might be the way to go after all.

December 22, 2007 at 4:41 am in reply to: what defines a 4.5 generation aircraft? #2531109

d’clacy
Participant

Can a F35 be called a 5 generation aircraft when it is so slow?

December 7, 2007 at 2:48 am in reply to: Soviet F111 equivalent #2539747

d’clacy
Participant

The Su-34 is the aircraft I would select to replace the RAAF’s F111’s. It appears to be the closest fit to it.

September 7, 2007 at 8:44 am in reply to: A modern CTOL carrier under 30,000 tons? #2048348

d’clacy
Participant

Is there any chance that the British might build a new model Harrier? and if so, what improvements would you like to see?

August 30, 2007 at 8:30 am in reply to: Question about the Hobart Class! #2049336

d’clacy
Participant

Duplication. Sorry.

August 30, 2007 at 8:28 am in reply to: Question about the Hobart Class! #2049338

d’clacy
Participant

Ja, I did’nt realize that the Hobarts were being built in Spain. I thought it was only the Canberra Class. Why are the destroyers being built there, do you know? I dont know why we are creating so much emplyment for the Spanish shipbuilding industry. It is not as though ours is overworked with orders.

August 23, 2007 at 12:10 am in reply to: RAAF and F-35C? #2050298

d’clacy
Participant

Oh for the days when the RAN operated 2 Carriers. HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Sydney. Ex British ships, so we had British aircraft Sea Fury, Sea Venom, Gannets. Also in them days the British still built planes.
Anybody know how big a ship would be needed to fly off Rhinos, or Rafales, or F-35C’s?
Incat had an interesting design for a 112m carrier that could handle Harriers, F-35B’s, Ospry, and helicopters. They have since increased their boat building facility to handle 150m ships.

August 19, 2007 at 8:08 am in reply to: your country armed forces your way #2518511

d’clacy
Participant

Pioneer, what are you going to do with the 24 Super Hornets ordered for the RAAF?
Me, I would cancel them and get F22’s, and if they are not available, Su34’s to actually replace the F111.

August 5, 2007 at 9:02 am in reply to: Question about the Hobart Class! #2053093

d’clacy
Participant

In the drawing of the Australianised F-100, there are five types of missiles shown. Presuming one to be the Harpoon, another the S-2, and 1 3rd the ESSM, what are the other two supposed to be?

May 19, 2007 at 4:56 am in reply to: SUPERHORNET IN TROUBLE! #2061151

d’clacy
Participant

$50 million aircraft’s
What the blazes????? Why are Australia paying $6.6Bill for 24 of these things plus extra then???

April 26, 2007 at 12:25 am in reply to: Japan and the F-22 #2538578

d’clacy
Participant

So far there are three countries interested in the F22.
1, Japan.
2. Israel.
3, Australia. (Australia has been told they are not available, although this may have been a purely political play to suit the Australian government).

If the US gives one the Okay, it has to the three. My betting would be on Israel getting them first though.

February 10, 2007 at 12:56 am in reply to: Armidales in trouble? #2066775

d’clacy
Participant

AeroVironment, Inc. (AV) (NASDAQ:AVAV), a leader in unmanned aircraft systems and efficient electric energy systems, today announced that it has successfully completed sea trials of its Aqua Puma unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for the Royal Australian Navy to explore adding a UAS capability to the Navy’s new Armidale class patrol boats.

February 10, 2007 at 12:45 am in reply to: Japan to consider F/A-22 to replace its F-4s #2517734

d’clacy
Participant

In the Australian purchase of the F-18/F’s, it is showing the 48 engines plus 6 spares among the support items. Is this a means of hiding costs or what, or are engineless planes the go now.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 180 total)

← 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 10 11 12 →