dark light

SteveO

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,366 through 1,380 (of 1,444 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: EFV (formerly AAAV) #2074208
    SteveO
    Participant

    EFV is a very nice piece of equipment, but its pretty expensive, so I doubt if many will be exported in worthwhile numbers (USMC wants 1000+).
    It would be nice if the Europeans made a joint purchase, the UK, Netherlands and Spain for example. I would like to see the Royal Marines get a few with cannon, missiles and mortars. It would be an improvement over a rigid raider!

    in reply to: MULTI-ROLE METEOR #2059348
    SteveO
    Participant

    Take a look at the Future US AAMs thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30316

    For the longer term, the USAF and USN are already looking at an all-new missile that could eventually replace the AMRAAM. The Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) would be a single design suitable for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Intended for use on the F/A-22 Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike fighter, legacy fighters, and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV), it is expected to offer enhanced propulsion, agility, and lethality, allowing engagements at longer stand-off ranges. The project is still at a very early stage. Studies of potential capabilities and platform integration have already begun, and work is underway on the development analysis process.

    sounds familiar!

    in reply to: Future US AAMs #2059351
    SteveO
    Participant

    For the longer term, the USAF and USN are already looking at an all-new missile that could eventually replace the AMRAAM. The Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) would be a single design suitable for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Intended for use on the F/A-22 Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike fighter, legacy fighters, and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV), it is expected to offer enhanced propulsion, agility, and lethality, allowing engagements at longer stand-off ranges. The project is still at a very early stage. Studies of potential capabilities and platform integration have already begun, and work is underway on the development analysis process.

    This sounds like what I was talking about in the MULTI-ROLE METEOR thread.http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=29303

    in reply to: US hard-kill anti-torpedo measures #2074455
    SteveO
    Participant
    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074467
    SteveO
    Participant

    Jonesy

    I have to agree with what you are saying about BAE systems, it seems to have concentrated on buying itself up the defence league table, rather than delivering on targets.

    As you know a bit about shipbuilding, do you have any info on the Type 43 and 44 destroyer designs?

    in reply to: US hard-kill anti-torpedo measures #2074469
    SteveO
    Participant

    wd1

    I’ve read about “supercavitating” rounds too. As well as a anti-torpedo role, they are considering it for mine warfare.
    A helicopter would detect mines with a laser system (called Magic Lantern?) and then destroy them with “supercavitating” rounds.

    in reply to: MULTI-ROLE METEOR #2059419
    SteveO
    Participant

    Indian1973

    I think the original Meteor design only had a single ramjet intake just below the nose cone and the dual intake improved performance and still allowed for conformal carriage.

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074510
    SteveO
    Participant

    Jonesy

    I’m in total agreement with what your saying about HM Treasury and UK defence policy in general.
    UK governments seem to think they can starve the defence industry of orders, bringing hardship to workers, and factories and shipyards to the brink of closure, then expect a good deal when they do get around to buying something.

    When governments become reliable customers they will have every right to demand the best possible service.

    This is why I think it would be better to build more smaller carriers rather than 2 big carriers.

    Building 2 big carriers would provide alot of work for a decade or so, then the work dries up and its another 20 years before new carriers are considered.

    Building 4+ smaller carriers could keep a shipyard in business all the way up to the need to replace the first of class, this way more savings and improvements can be made during construction than a 2 ship class.

    Bigger may be better, but I think smaller is more practical.

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074522
    SteveO
    Participant

    OK, lets compromise.

    Build two 20-30,000 ton carriers which operate 20-30 STOVL aircraft each. These will replace 2 Invincibles and leave 1 Invincible and HMS Ocean to do the LPH job. UK shipyards are capable of this now.

    Then, on completion of this class, the necessary skills and shipyard improvements can be put into place to build two 50-60,000 ton carriers at a affordable price. Then Ocean and the Invincible can be paid off and the 2 smaller carriers can take over the LPH role.

    We will then have 4 carriers and a lot more capability. The 2 big carriers can concentrate on air strikes and the 2 small carriers can provide air defence and ASW.

    I also think that airships should provide AEW for the fleet and that RAF tankers and AWACS can support air strikes like they did over Afghanistan and Iraq.

    in reply to: MULTI-ROLE METEOR #2059533
    SteveO
    Participant

    JonS

    If the ship can only do 30 knots and the missile is doing mach 3 it won’t get that far out of the targeted area. Also, I would launch proper anti-ship missiles at the same time, so switching off radar to counter a Armiger would leave it vulnerable to sea skimmers.

    in reply to: The Arrow… #2645484
    SteveO
    Participant

    Pretty good film, read about it at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118641/

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074531
    SteveO
    Participant

    The CVF’s of the Royal Navy will work closely with her Allies in any major conflict. Either with the CVN’s of the USN and/or other NATO member countries. (i.e. France, Italy, Spain, etc) 🙂

    Scooter

    There is no guarantee of this happening, look at Iraq, and co-operation with other allies should not be taken for granted in any defence matter.

    in reply to: Surface warfare #2074535
    SteveO
    Participant

    SSN’s are deadly in deep water where they can attack and then go deep and escape at high speed virtually undetected. But when in shallow water they run into trouble.
    Shallow water restricts movement, allows for mine fields, reduces sonar performance and brings the danger of visual detection from the air. Active sonar and convoy tactics would be used to reduce SSN’s chances too.

    in reply to: RAF Eurofighter cannon news #2645922
    SteveO
    Participant

    Tony Williams

    Why is the gun ‘Class 1 Safety Critical’ ?
    Nice website, very interesting.

    in reply to: F-111 replacement? #2646666
    SteveO
    Participant

    JSF equipped with stand off missiles.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,366 through 1,380 (of 1,444 total)