wilhelmPaul said:
…this aircraft is fast. I mean it’s REALLY fast. The top speed is classified but it’ll do sixteen hundred miles per hour.
By his wording, atleast 1600. Beyond that it can be 1601 or 1800 for all we know. Either way, that is the minimum, maximum top speed. 😛 Yes, there are people saying fixed intakes limit speed a whole lot, and hence 2.42+ is not realistic. I don’t know enough about it to comment on it.
Assuming that quote is accurately posted, he’s not saying that at all.
He’s saying that the top speed is classified. Then he says it will do 1600mph.
English is a loose language like that.
You can call a car that goes 198mph a “200mph car”.
Not that I care either way, but English can be extremely descriptive, and extremely loose when compared to other languages.
I’d be careful not to over analyse every syllable.
wilhelmOriginally Posted by Loke
If some of the testing was done in secrecy how do you know it is only 300 hours?
It says above “maximum speed exceeding 2,500 km/h”; but it does not say by how much.
Because i know.
To date, the T-50-3 has flown more than 50 test sorties,
Since early this year, the T-50-2 which logged more than 80 sorties by that time has been undergoing modification for trials within the expanded g-load and flight limit bracket and is to resume its flying in June.
In all, it [T-50-1] fulfilled more than 100 sorties by this summer.
And most importantly:
The 100th test flight under the PAK FA test programme was performed in November 2011, with the 200th flight took place in January 2013.
If you think that T-50-1, -3 and -4 has done more than 300 flights since then, you are free to believe so…
As to the speed, it is well known F-22 is a beast at top speed judging by Paul Metz’s comments. If you think PAK FA is about as fast as MiG-31, again you are free to believe that. 🙂
I’m confused here.
Loke is talking about hours, and Berkut is talking about flights?
wilhelmInteresting discussions.
I must say I’m also at a loss at why there has been so little restructuring or streamlining, as can be seen on the post about the hotch-potch inventory.
For example, there are/were between 10 to 12 different helicopters, either makes or models, that were operated until recently across Airforce, Army, and Naval aviation.
These come from Europe, USA, Russia, and China.
Some have been put into reserve now admittedly, but nevertheless it’s that kind of silliness that should be dealt with.
wilhelmWhat other options are there? You expect these folks will actually look at the real causes and assign responsibility for the problem to those people? Of course not as its far easier to blame the US. Lets just ignore the fact the folks from that region are a blood thirsty bunch driven by a blood thirsty set of values governed by a mythical pedophile warlord. I say let them kill each other.
Assad runs a secular ship.
The Baath regime combined Arab Socialism with secular ideology and an authoritarian political system. The constitution guarantees religious freedom for every recognized religious communities, including many Christian denominations. All schools are government-run and non-sectarian…
Not the nicest guy, but let’s stick to the facts.
wilhelmBesides I get the feeling Assad is a far better option for Middle East stability than Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda based Al Nusra Front.
This X 1000.
Assad may not be the nicest guy around, but in 2010 he actually passed funding for the refurbishment of synagogues in Syria.
Under him, there was freedom of worship, whether you were Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
There are 2,5 million christians in Syria.
Anybody under any illusions should watch a wide sample of videos coming out of Syria from both sides.
One side has no religious chanting in their videos, the other has multiple shrieking to a particular deity in almost every single one.
No prizes for which one is which.
If the opposition win, millions of Syrians will feel the first chill of cold fear for the future…
You sometimes wonder what goes through the heads of politicians…..and then you realise that collectively, they simply cannot all be this stupid.
That leaves an agenda of some description….
Stay the hell out of it, and under no circumstances arm the opposition.
It will be paid for in blood later.
wilhelmLooking at the overall Argentine aircraft fleet until recently.
Airforce
Fixed Wing
Mirage III and Mirage 5.
IAI Dagger
A4 Skyhawk
IA 63 Pampa
Pucara
Tucano
C-130 Hercules
SAAB 340
Fokker F27
Fokker F28
Learjet 35
Learjet 60
DHC Twin Otter
Sukhoi Su-29
Helicopters
SA-315 Lama
Bell 212 Twin Huey
MD-500
Mil Mi-17
—————————————————————————-
Army Aviation
Fixed Wing
Alenia G222
CASA 212
Beechcraft Queen Air
Cessna 207
Cessna T-41
Cessna 550 Citation
DHC Twin Otter
Fairchild Merlin
Grumman OV-1 Mohawk
Rockwell Sabreliner
Helicopters
SA-315 Lama
Changhe Z-11
Agusta A109
Bell 205
Bell 206
UH-1 Iroquis
AS332 Super Puma
——————————————————————————-
Naval Aviation
Fixed Wing
Super Etendard
S2 Tracker
P3 Orion
Beechcraft Super King
Fokker F28
Pilatus PC-6
Beechcraft T-34 Mentor
Helicopters
Sikorski S-61
AS555 Fenec
I got all that info off Wiki for reasons of convenience, so it may not be absolutely, perfectly accurate, but serves nicely to illustrate things.
Some of those planes are in reserve, or in the process of being phased out, or have been phased out withing the last year or so.
Still, it illustrates what I was saying earlier in the thread about streamlining aviation assets.
It must be a nightmare maintaining, servicing, or holding a spares inventory for such a wide disparate fleet.
And terribly innefficient.
The very first thing to do in my opinion would pertain to Naval Aviation.
Decide right away if you are in carriers or not. If yes, buy one.
If no, disband Naval Aviation.
In fact, disband Naval Aviation and Army Aviation.
Operate just the airforce, with any naval helicopters operated by a dedicated Airforce squadron that deploys with the navy.
Plenty of airforces do that.
Sell or scrap the vast majority of those airframes, and so something similar to what I described in my post on page 1.
Something along these lines, although obviously the combat jets could differ according to opinion.
12 – 24 Su 30xxx (1 or 2 squadrons)
30 – 40 J-31 (2 or 3 squadrons)
Embraer KC-390 as the Common Role Platform. Transport, Airborne Refuelling, AEW/ECM, Maritime Patrol etc
Pampa for LIFT/secondary ground attack.
Tucano for basic training/light border patrol/light aircraft intercept.
Super Puma for medium/transport helicopter
Z-11 for light helicopter, and naval helicopter.
You could have as few as 3, or as many as 5 squadrons operating combat jets.
Until recently, there were 7 squadrons flying combat types such as the Dagger, Mirage III, Mirage 5, and A4 Skyhawk. And that’s not including the Naval Aviation squadron flying yet another type, the Super Etendard.
Get rid of the fiefdoms, and get rid of the polyglot airframes holdings.
wilhelmThe question is whether they still need those capabilities and what new capabilities are required?
Just cause one operated a carrier in 1982 doesn’t mean one is required in 2013 (and remember a number countries have scrapped carrier capability due to changing requirements – Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Japan (something to do with WWII :p)).
Just stating 40 JF-17 or 50 Mirage F1 is irrelevant. Numbers of aircraft or specific function squadrons should be based on some sort of needs analysis.
So of course if you want to tangle with Britain, you need tons of combat and support aircraft and ships.
But if your main objectives are defence from conventional threats, humanitarian/disaster relief, and protection of economic interests than different fleet mix is required.
Agreed. The largest conflict in history (WW2) saw extremely cheap surplus weaponry available.
Many navies cut their teeth on the British Colussus and Majestic light carriers for example. (At one stage, operators were Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Netherlands)
Some of these served for almost 60 years.
That situation no longer exists obviously.
wilhelmI think the issue here is Argentina has not reduced its expectations to meet its financial or even political reality.
I actually don’t know what to make of it.
From what I can gather, the current administration have no love for the military.
This has resulted in their capability withering away to the point of actually not being able to adequately defend the country, let alone power project modestly.
BHut this seems to be more a government policy from the Argentine government, as you allude to (political), rather than a financial one. Their extremely low defence budget as a % of GDP reflects that.
yet, there is some movement.
The Pampa modernisation and additional airframes, as well as this recent mooted Mirage F1 purchase.
Still, it looks rather like treading water as opposed to rebuilding.
It would really need to take the original premise of this thread, ie an increase in spending as a GDP %, to really start rebuilding capabilities they once had.
wilhelmI think if Argentina actually increased its def budget as suggested and was realistic about modernizing it s air forces then one of the first things that would have to go would be the Navy’s SuEs and Trackers. They are a very expensive thing to have and, again realisticaly, Argentina is not going to get another aircraft carrier. They should also accept the premis that they will probably only be able to afford two “fighter” sqdrns. (my pref would be Grippen) The fact that they are apparently going to get KC390 is very good news indeed, and I would hope that they would have at least four of them equiped with the tanker package. For everything else IMHO it would seem wisest to see what sort of deal Embraer could give them for transports and MPAs.
I would agree.
They really need to streamline their inventory, which is what I was alluding to very early in the thread.
I too can’t realistically see a carrier in service again, unless they go joint development with Brazil in a decade or longer, or whenever the Sao Paulo finally goes.
Even then, that would be quite a stretch methinks.
wilhelmNegative coverage?
What is that exactly?
The premise of this thread is that Argentina gets a defence budget in line with the global average.
In that scenario, the strategic planners of the airforce would put a shopping list together.
They would, as stated in that post, base this on likely conflict points, which would obviously incorporate the Falklands, and the lessons learned from that campaign, whether you think this would lead to “negative coverage” or not.
It’s their job.
It’s what they get a salary for.
Based on the premise in the original thread, ie an increased budget, a larger longer ranged fighter would be perfectly suited to their needs for this, and the larger platform would be equally effective in a country approaching the size of the Western Europe.
wilhelmWho’s threatening Argentina to a point where they’d have to counter it with 24 MKIs?
Read reply number 15 on the first page on this thread for a couple of reasons why a longer range platform might be beneficial.
wilhelmEverything Iv heard and read has said the PAF intends to phase out their Mirage III/Vs by 2015. Has this changed?
Same here.
Perhaps the JF-17 is proving too expensive for the current Pakistani budget as a one-for-one Mirage replacement?
wilhelmYes, we “only” lost 1,337,000 of our people in helping to keep the world free, during two World Wars, and spent 60 years in debt to American bankers, totally inconsequential, really.
What a strange reply.
What has this got to do with the thread topic, and the injustices that happened during the British Empire?
And to respond to your deflective defensive post:
Good grief! Britain didn’t do it to keep the world free any more than the Empire was run for benevolent reasons.
Britain fought for national survival, and to retain the Empire, something Churchill desperately fought for before the US disabused him and successors very firmly of that idea.
I’m beginning to suspect you’re one of “those” mentioned earlier, so let me ask you:
Did Britain commit grave injustices during the Empire era?
wilhelmYes, we “only” lost 1,337,000 of our people in helping to keep the world free, during two World Wars, and spent 60 years in debt to American bankers, totally inconsequential, really.
What a strange reply.
What has this got to do with the thread topic, and the injustices that happened during the British Empire?
And to respond to your deflective defensive post:
Good grief! Britain didn’t do it to keep the world free any more than the Empire was run for benevolent reasons.
Britain fought for national survival, and to retain the Empire, something Churchill desperately fought for before the US disabused him and successors very firmly of that idea.
I’m beginning to suspect you’re one of “those” mentioned earlier, so let me ask you:
Did Britain commit grave injustices during the Empire era?
wilhelmDoes anyone have any info on the designed airframe life of the JF-17?
I do know that decades ago, Chinese aircraft such as the F-6 and Q-5 had extremely short TBO figures.
I’ve no doubt that it is very different today, as China has made steady strides.
I recall that one of the main reasons why the SAAF didn’t go for the SMR-95 re-engining was that the engine, an RD-33 derivitive, had a terrible TBO when compared to the ATAR 9K50. This would have entailed a vastly different maintenance setup and schedules, not the least of which was having to send the engines back to the OEM instead of doing all the overhaul, including turbine blade manufacture, themselves.
Is this still the case with the JF-17s RD-93?
Anybody have any info on the above questions?
Sign In
