wilhelmJa, what was the reason Denel’s Redhawk wasn’t chosen?
I seem to recall a marinised variant was offered to Australia, with plans to equip the planned SAN LPH’swith it as well. (between Mistral, a Spanish design ironically chosen by Australia, and a German design)
2 Rooivalks were successfully tested and operated off the SAS Drakensburg in 2003 if I recall.
Janes:
The maritime Rooivalk would be equipped with a 360ø search radar in place of the chin cannon turret, a nose-mounted optronic sensor turret, flotation gear on the sponsons and the tail boom, and manual folding rotor blades. The tail wheel would be moved forward by 2m for deck operation. It would also have shorter stub wings able to carry an anti-ship missile as well as air-to-air missiles on the tips. Drop tanks could be carried to extend the range. The concept originated with the United Kingdom’s Air 87 requirement, which included elements of marinisation to enable the attack helicopter to operate from a ship in support of the Royal Marines or other forces engaged in an amphibious operation. Denel realised that the Rooivalk could relatively easily meet the marinisation parts of the requirement. That led to further analysis of the changing role of navies in littoral operations, in which a naval attack helicopter seemed to offer considerable potential – both in shipborne operations in support of a landing force, and in the anti-ship role. In the latter role the Rooivalk would have a mission radius of over 150nm (278km) with two Exocets, while presenting a smaller cross-section. In closer engagements, Rooivalk would have the advantages of armour protection and battle damage tolerance generally not found in shipboard helicopters. The Rooivalk’s digital 1553 and 1776 architecture will allow it to be readily adapted to sensors, communications and EW systems and weapons required in the maritime role, including missiles in the class of the Penguin and the Exocet.
Was it a case of not having enough political clout, such as the case in the British attack helicopter competition?
wilhelmOh, and the the Tupolev Tu-128 of course. It first flew in January 1959.
wilhelmWhat 1950s interceptor design didn’t have ‘short legs’?
The McDonnell F101 Voodoo.
wilhelmA quibble: it took 20 years (1990-2010) for the Irish population to increase by 30%. In the 12 years after 1990 it increased by 12% – and if you go back to 1987 or 1988, the increase is less, since the population fell in 1987-90.
Thanks Swerve, I stand corrected on the exact timeline.
Still, the essence of the point remains as I used it as a valid illustration on how notoriously innaccurate these predictions can be. It is still a massive increase in a short time relatively speaking, and I would venture that it was not accurately predicted.
On topic, we have been hearing of the demise of piloted combat jets for almost 2 decades now, yet have seen the induction of quite a number of new manned programmes just recently. By this I mean the F-22, PAK-FA, J-20, F-35, to put it in chronological order. There are others too.
We obviously see unmanned combat vehicles operating today, but is this going to be a lengthy transition maybe, with the premier, or top echelon air vehicles such as the leading edge fighters remaining manned for the forseeable future?
wilhelmVery interesting, if rather obvious Rii. The short term prediction shows a spread of 3 million between high and low projections. This is about 14 to 15% of the total Australian population as it now stands.:rolleyes:
Obviously statisticians have to base their projections on something, but you’ve missed my point somewhat.
Much of the predictions are based on recent trends by necessity. In Russia, this encompasses a period of massive lifestyle decline and mass emigration, factors that are unlikely to be repeated to that same catastrophic level, short of an epidemic or civil/regional war.
There are other factors to be considered: Who would have expected such an increase in the Irish population as seen the early 2000’s in, say 1987 or 1988?;)
A mere 12 years later it had registered an increase of 35 to 40%, after decades of stagnation in real terms.
My point being that these are projections, and as often as not are not accurate, due to the fact that human beings are not predictable mechanical devices. Remunerating people for having children as a policy has had obvious success in more than one country.
We should get back to the topic though.
wilhelmHere you can see the different claims and time will tell. By the way a short-term rise in birth-rate will not reverse a trend the general age-structure in mind. 😉
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/russiapop.htm
I agree that they have not attained the percentage required to prevent an ageing population yet.
Still, a growth figure is still significant after all the doom and gloom reports.
It will be interesting to see if this can be maintained.
I’m always amused by reports that tell how the population figures will be like in 50 years time. It can only be based on a a shorter period of measurement, which in Russias case includes being the major casualty of a seismic economic, political and systemic collapse accompanied by relative travel, political, and monetary freedom. This was always going to give extreme figures, due to the extreme nature of events there over the last 20 years.
Time will tell, as it always does.;)
wilhelmRussia is no longer a giant…… Just 140 mio people and still shrinking in numbers..
Russia has a little over 143 million people at present.
Last year in 2010, Russia experienced a growth in population for the first time in 15 years.
There are measures, instituted by Putin, to try ensure the population shrinkage does not occur.
Time will tell.
wilhelmIf you look at the specs of the Skyhawk, they are exactly identical to the AMX. The advantage of the AMX is that it has a radome in the nose whereas the Skyhawk is not able to carry anything in its nose but rather on a hump on its back.
The A4 Skyhawk can carry a radar in the nose.
The Skyhawk A4C had the AN/APG-53A radar in the nose from 1960.
Singapore, New Zealand, and Argentina all upgraded their skyhawks with a more modern radar at some time or another.
wilhelmEnjoy my friend:
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
Buy one today 😉 More:
http://www.dair.co.uk/Why a good diesel aero engine would be efficient at slow and low
What big brother has to say on this. Has helped get an SMA aero diesel engine to get FAA certified.
A smart Australian thinking on the same lines: http://www.billzilla.org/ideas4.htm
NASA has made something too
What interests me with diesels is that their drawback of not being able to fly high – due to freezing issues is not an issue for a low flying CAS plane. Also, diesels give very high torque… benefits of which were discussed earlier, but also that at low speed, would give great agility and STOL performance (???)
biggest advantage for me – share the same logistics as the rest of the grunt force.
Thanks for the interesting links.
I remember reading that the majority of piston light aircraft engines are actually old designs, tweaked here and there.
It appears that 200hp is around the most powerful aero diesel around today. I have no doubt this will change soon. Zoche have a 300hp diesel, the ZO 02A.
wilhelmWhat do you think of the Air Tractor AT-802U Coin?
Main disadvantage is the lack of sensors I guess. Although a small sensor turret is under the nose of course.
I feel if you’re going that route, then do it properly with something like the AHRLAC.
wilhelmConcerning forward canard of the Kfir, yes they add a positive impact on medium AoA Drag, but this much less significant tahn on the M2k, because the wing profile of the Kfir (the same as the original M-III) is auto-stable (CL increasing with AoA), so you can re-enerigize the flow, it’s not enough to reverse the CL increase.
Topolo, the Kfir and Cheetah have a dogtooth with outer wing leading edge extensions. The Mirage III does not.
wilhelmYou are joking right? I talk with polish MiG-29 pilot (former MiG-21 pilot) and he described landing MiG-21 as more or less controlled falling down.
Yes. That’s landing.
What about the other 95% of the flight regime?
I state again: the MiG-21 was not a particularly difficult plane to fly for the time.
wilhelmJBoyle, agree on the Skyraider point completely.
How to power a modern Skyraider? Turboprop most likely.
Interesting what PLA said about aero diesels. Germany used to make powerful diesels back prewar. I remember there was a company called Zoche that was attempting to interest the market with a 150hp and a doubled up 300 hp engine.
Are there any other diesel plans out there?
wilhelmThe Mirage IIING of the early 1980’s seems to have incorporated a variety of features from the Mirage F1 and 2000.
Utilising the proven airframe of the Mirage IIIE, Dassault undertook a thorough-going modernisation of equipment and systems to produce the Mirage 3 NG which flew as a prototype on 21 December 1982. Introducing features intended to endow it with much improved air combat performance and survivability in air-ground operations, the Mirage 3 NG (the suffix signifying Nouvelle Generation) had non-retractable swept-back foreplanes, or canards, and highly-swept wing root leading edge extensions. It possessed a fly-by- wire control system derived from that of the Mirage 2000, provision for in-flight refuelling, a SNECMA Atar 9K-50 turbojet affording a full afterburning thrust of 7200kg, an advanced nav/attack system and optional forward-looking sensors, such as a modernised Cyrano IV radar, a laser rangefinder or Agave dual-role radar. Maximum take-off weight was increased by comparison with the Mirage IIIE or 5, four lateral stores stations were introduced on the fuselage, and performance improvements included (by comparison with the IIIE) a 20-25% gain in take-off distance, 40% in time to altitude, a 3050m increase in supersonic ceiling, a three-minute improvement in intercept time and comparably impressive gains in acceleration, instantaneous turn rate and combat air patrol time. No production order was placed for the Mirage 3 NG and only one prototype was tested.
wilhelmCavalier developed the WW2 P-51 Mustang into a turbo-prop COIN aircraft in 1968, then sold the design to Piper, which designated it the Piper PA-48 Enforcer. I imagine it was originally punted as a solution for use in Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Mustang
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer
It was still marketed as late as the 1980’s, and was evaluated at one stage by the USAF.
Of course, it is debatable whether a WW2 would be the same aircraft due to different construction techniques used today, as well as the compulsive urge of engineers to redesign everything over again.
Sign In
