Page 34 – Key Publishing

wilhelm

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 496 through 510 (of 1,634 total)

← 1 2 3 … 33 34 35 … 107 108 109 →

Author

Posts
May 14, 2013 at 11:23 pm in reply to: The F-CK-1 IDF #2272861

wilhelm
Participant

The way forward I think for US/Taiwan defence relations is further transfer of technology to allow local industry to build what they need for defence. For example the new Diesel submarines desperately needed could be built in Taiwan with US assistance.

The last US built diesel sub design was laid down almost 60 years ago, in the same decade as the Korean War.

Taiwan would be far better served outsourcing the design to German, Dutch, or other countries companies, for local construction.

Not even Israel went to the US for diesel subs.

May 1, 2013 at 10:49 pm in reply to: J-8F/H Finback #2278526

wilhelm
Participant

What in the world have I done? I just thought a discussion on the Finback might be nice.

😀

Nothing you’ve done Phantom.

It’s just that a certain poster, not just on this forum, has a, shall we say, bizarre outlook or analysis on certain neighbouring countries in Asia, but one in particular.

It has gone down some extremely bizarre routes on other forums, when dogma replaces plain photographic and video evidence.

I guess some just tired of it.

His one goodpoint is that the crackpottery is generally delivered politely.:)

Anyway, back to the topic.

It has been intimated that the J-8 is still in production…

Is this definite?

Also, as said earlier, there are still various flight regimes or profiles where the J-8 will outperform the JF-17 handily.

May 1, 2013 at 8:33 pm in reply to: J-8F/H Finback #2278576

wilhelm
Participant

Slowman.

This stop this errant nonsense about regional fiefdoms.

You are now intimating that a region would order a jet fighter not operated by the PLAAF…….because it can.

Claptrap.

BTW, lots of airforces are organised regionally, under a central umbrella. There is absloutely nothing unique in that.
South Africa in the 1980’s for example had Southern Air Command, as well as other areas.

You have a bizarre history with such stuff, like the Y-20 not having short field devices, thrust reversers, having to use ultra long runways……..

No doubt a retort trying to reinforce this quite frankly bizarre viewpoint will now be forthcoming…..

🙁

April 30, 2013 at 12:04 am in reply to: Snap shot of European fighter fleets #2279266

wilhelm
Participant

It is interesting to see how massively reduced combat fleets of airforces have become over the last 20 years.

April 29, 2013 at 10:49 am in reply to: The Atlas Cava #2279483

wilhelm
Participant

I’v read that “Cava” was simply the code name for the program. Has there ever been anything about what the aircraft would have been called in service?

The Project was actually “Carver”.
The “Cava” apparently came from an interview/leak, and was due to differing accents between the 2 people having the conversation.

Project Carver was a randomly generated code-name, as is done in many instances around the globe.

The User Requirement Specification produced by the project team consisting of Armscor, Atlas Aviation, the South African Air Force, and various other industry players referred to it as the Next Generation Fighter Aircraft.

No idea what it’s in service designation would have been, although on the 3 view in the book “Cheetahs: Guardians of the Nations” it is labelled as the Atlas FCA-1, which obviously stands for Atlas Fighter/Combat Aircraft-1, which makes sense.

The various indigineous/locally manufactured weapons projects followed a logical designation pattern. The infantry rifles, tank main guns, and artillery systems being a case in point.

April 28, 2013 at 9:56 pm in reply to: The Atlas Cava #2279666

wilhelm
Participant

It had a delta wing with LERX.

An interesting tidbit I’ve gleaned is that it would apparently have had a wing sweep angle of 55 degrees.

For comparitive purposes, the Mirage III has a sweep angle of 60 degrees, and the Mirage 2000 has 58 degrees.

I’ve seen a wingspan given as 9,2 meters and length of 16,06 meters, but I’m not sure how accurate those figures are.

If the span figure given above is accurate, then that figure, together with it’s sweep angle and LERX, means it would have had a bigger wing area than the Mirage 2000.

April 28, 2013 at 9:49 pm in reply to: The Atlas Cava #2279667

wilhelm
Participant

About how many was the SAAF thinking about producing?

It is obviously conjecture and guesswork.

The programme was designed to replace a lot of combat types, some sooner, some later.

Buccaneers, Canberras, Mirage F-1, and Cheetah E’s and eventually Cheetah C’s and D’s.

Adding those up, and looking at the squadrons, you’re probably looking at around the 120 to 150 total.

April 28, 2013 at 9:23 pm in reply to: J-8F/H Finback #2279670

wilhelm
Participant

PhantomII …I was just this afternoon considering making a thread about the J-8!!

You’ve saved me the trouble.
Top man!

i’ve always thought of it as the Chinese equivalent to the Sukhoi Su-15.

As a straight up interceptor, suitably upgraded, it still has an effective part to play in defence.

April 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm in reply to: Grumman Trackers and Traders #2280145

wilhelm
Participant

KC 130 has a cruise speed of 300 knots+, which is a much more comfortable speed for fast jets when refuelling than the 130 knot cruise speed of a Trader

You are using the original piston engined Trackers 130 knot operational patrol speed as it’s cruise speed.

It’s actual cruising speed was 180 knots.

This is where the Turbo Tracker shows a great leap over the original piston engined Tracker.

It’s cruise speed is listed as 255 knots.

April 26, 2013 at 3:56 pm in reply to: Grumman Trackers and Traders #2280147

wilhelm
Participant

USMC (and Argentine) A-4s refuel(ed) just fine from C-130s.

C-1 Trader Cruise speed 150 mph (240 km/h) [130 knots]; Maximum speed 287 mph (462 km/h) [250 knots] with 2 × Wright R-1820-82WA Cyclone 9-cylinder radial piston engine, 1,525 hp (1,137 kW) each and 3-bladed props.

Likely the same with turboprops, as the Turbo Trackers (S-2T) saw no increase in maximum speed (nor a decrease either).

The Turbo Tracker shows a speed increase of 6 percent over the piston tracker. I suspect it may be airframe related.

April 25, 2013 at 10:10 am in reply to: Grumman Trackers and Traders #2280572

wilhelm
Participant

1.Sorry, such cases have hardly had an impact of Arm Exports from the US.

2.Really, 80-120 airframes??? Which, country or countries are you referring too?? As France has only one carrier and would require just a handful of aircraft. The UK on the other hand couldn’t use such aircraft as its carriers don’t have arresting gear. Plus, countries like India equip there carriers will Ski Jumps. Which, limit the Gross Weight said aircraft can launch at.

3.So, I don’t see a large demand and even with 80-120 the price would be extremely high……..

No, it would be a waste of money. Sure the A400 is a perfect example for Europe to jointly develop and produce. Yet, the AEW Hawkeye for Aircraft Carriers is not. Of course the same could be said for Naval Tankers and/or COD Aircraft.

Scooter, I know you have an extremely US-centric view of things over the years.

1.I wasn’t referring to the US side of things, but rather the recipient.
It’s hardly news that various countries have had weapons purchases or spares procurements stalled due to US politics.
No need to apologise personally either for this.

2. Please re-read my quote carefully.
I said in the future, over the next 20 to 30 years.
You may find in that time period that Europe/the EU doesn’t just operate the 2 British and 1 French carrier.
You have Italy operating a more limited carrier already, at 244 meters and 30 000t.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that by 20 or 30 years time, the EU operate 4 or 5 or so carriers capable of operating a platform such as this.
Add India and Brazil into the mix, and you have possibly 8 carriers. (Oops! I’ve gone and mentioned India, your other big hobby horse wrt US weapons only. Keep banging the drum!:dev2:)
So yes, “really!!!”. 80 to 120 is entirely feasible, given the scenario. And it may also win additional orders for land based use, just like the S-2 Tracker and E-2 Hawkeye did.
And there are other nations that have at least considered the carrier again, such as Argentina, Australia….
And nobody said it needed arresting gear or a catapult, except you. I’m talking about a platform (non chopper) that may or may not need these things.

3. Of course you would say it is a waste of money. It’s not from the US.

130 Ching Kuos were built
115 Dassault Rafales so far built
99 Super Frelons were built
90 Dassault Etendard IVs were built
89 Breguet Alizes were built
85 Super Etendards were built
76 Supermarine Scimitars were built
58 C-2 Greyhounds were built

On the plus side, you’ve made a post without mentioning or referring to the F-35, even obliquely, which is progress of sorts for you, I suppose….;)

April 25, 2013 at 12:11 am in reply to: MiG-25 vs F-4 in Iran-Iraq war #2280725

wilhelm
Participant

Are you serious or just taking the micky?:) That picture is a well known ( and horrible ) PS.

I should have put a 🙂 in.

Sorry.

That’s a 60 ton vehicle, stainless steel construction (on some parts) or not…

April 24, 2013 at 10:54 pm in reply to: MiG-25 vs F-4 in Iran-Iraq war #2280764

wilhelm
Participant

On the subject of Iraq and the Mig 25, this shows how strongly built the Mig 25 was…..

April 24, 2013 at 12:47 pm in reply to: PAK-FA possible Exports??? #2280883

wilhelm
Participant

I think China would be wise to purchase of the PAK-FA in addition to developing it’s own 5th Generation Designs like the J-20 and J-31. It wouldn’t be cheap but the West clearly wouldn’t want to face such array of Stealthy 5th Generation Types. Especially, in numbers from one country.

Is this a serious thread?

– – – Updated – – –

Algeria is another potential buyer.

Thing’s too expensive to sell to usual suspects ala Yemen, Sudan, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Angola.

I wouldn’t write off Angola, particularly in the medium term.

It operates the Sukhoi Su-27, produces more oil than Texas, and it’s average economic growth from 2001 to 2010 was 11,1%.

It has seen a rapid growth in immigration from Europe and China, of all places.

A long way to go, sure, but it has quite a healthy economic outlook.

April 24, 2013 at 11:06 am in reply to: Sweden saved by Danish F-16 because no Gripen was able to take off #2280908

wilhelm
Participant

Not being able to maintain minimum QRA is shocking,

I think you will find that due to the ongoing grinding recession, Sweden would not be unique here.

Militaries all over the globe have been tightening their belts….

To use just a small example, many NATO countries are not flying anywhere near the flying hours they did 5 – 10 years ago.

– – – Updated – – –
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 496 through 510 (of 1,634 total)

← 1 2 3 … 33 34 35 … 107 108 109 →