wilhelmOk, South Africa used the V4 R-Darter on the Cheetah-C before that aircraft was retired.
3. Is South Africa going to integrate V4 with the Gripen, or are they still planning to pursue a new BVR weapon along with the A-Darter for WVR combat? JDW reported a while back that Denel was working on a new BVR AAM for Gripen which would be based in part on the Umkhonto SAM, but I don’t recall hearing anything else on that project.
Sean
The R-Darter was retired with the Cheetah C and D. There has always been a programme to replace the R-Darter with a new indigenous BVR missile. This missile has been known by a couple of designations, and speculation has been whether it will be “conventional” or ram-jet powered. It is currently known as the T-Darter.
The R-Darter was originally envisaged to equip the Gripen in the interim, but that appears to have been dropped. I read somewhere that integration with the Gripen/R-Darter had been carried out, but I’m unsure of that at this moment.
Certainly there there appears to be 2 simultaneous air-to-air missile projects at Kentron/Denel. The WVR A-Darter is slated to equip the Gripen, although the Iris-T will be used until it is operational. Brazil has been brought into this programme. The BVR missile (T-Darter) appears to be a more exotic, secretive beast, particularly regarding configuration.
Certainly Denel has stated that South Africa is very competitive technologically in the field of AAM’s in global terms, and they do not want to lose that….
Below is the link to the other thread on South African AAM’s a while back here on the subject. A news snippet also to follow on…
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66397
Diehl Continues IRIS-T Export Success
(Source: Diehl BGT Defence; dated May 28, web-posted June 3, 2008)
ÜBERLINGEN, Germany — The IRIS-T short range air-to-air missile (SRAAM) of Diehl BGT Defence, a subsidiary of Diehl Defence, was selected by the South African Air Force (SAAF) to equip their Gripen fighter aircraft.
The IRIS-T was chosen to arm the SAAF Gripen as an interim solution until the local missile development – the A Darter – will be operational.
The South African Acquisition Organization Armscor placed a contract order for the procurement of IRIS-T in the second half of May 2008. In the course of 2009, the IRIS-T missile will be fully operational with the Gripens of the South African Air Force. South Africa is the second export customer for the European missile. Austria selected the IRIS-T missile at the end of 2005 with full deliveries in 2007.
wilhelmIn some missions maybe, but not as versatile and survivable.
The Buccaneer to my Knowledge has had no combat losses. This includes against some pretty stiff Soviet systems manned by East Germans and Russians in Angola, as well as the Gulf War that resulted in Tornado losses.:diablo:
wilhelmwhat would happen today, if:
4. Britain never went ahead and developed the Tornado ADV series
4. I’d imagine either an RAF F-15A, or more likely, a fully upgraded F-4 Phantom similar to the Luftwaffe’s…..
I’d like to add one or two…
5. What if Britain didn’t subscribe to the Tornado concept at all? Radically upgraded Buccaneers or rehashed TSR-2?
6. Apartheid never ended, forcing the development of a strike and fighter jet to replace the Canberra, Buccaneer and Mirages with a mostly indigenous effort?
wilhelmPerhaps the best analogy to the T-4 not completing its test programme is the TSR-2. It too was cancelled. The design bureau/company was also told to halt all work on it, even though a flying prototype was available. The TSR-2 also was not tested to it’s entire flight envelope, and did not explore the maximum flight speeds at low or high altitudes, although admittedly it was explored closer to these end envelopes than the T-4 was.
wilhelm3rd Submarine arrives in Simonstown
South Africa’s third and final submarine ordered under the Strategic Defence Package arrived in Simon’s Town today.
SAS Queen Modjadji I (S103) is a Type 209 (Class 1400MOD (SA)) (SSK) submarine and was formally handed over by the Minister of Defence, Mosiuoa Lekota, to the South African Navy.
Having departed from the Kiel shipyard in Germany on 2 April 2008, SAS Queen Modjadji I sailed to South Africa via Rota, Spain, under the watchful eye of her formal escort, the SAS Protea. The later part of the passage was also completed alone when SAS Protea experienced technical problems and had to make an unscheduled stop in the Canary Islands while SAS Queen Modjadji I sailed ahead and was then escourted by SAS Drakensberg.
Speaking at the welcome ceremony, Minister of Defence Mosiuoa Lekota stated that South Africa had “pledged support to capacitate the SADC Brigade, and we foresee that our ships and submarines will be instrumental in supporting the maritime component of this Brigade”.
Lekota stated further: “It is our intention to participate with the Navies of the Littoral States of the Indian Ocean in the promotion of Maritime Security in the greater Indian Ocean region”.
SAS Queen Modjadji I takes her name from the first Queen of the Balobedu Ba Ga-Modjadji. The ascent of Queen Modjadji to the throne in the 19th Century marked the commencement of an era of peace and prosperity for the Balobedu.
The German Consortium, consisting of HDW, TNSW and Kockums, built all three submarines. SAS Queen Modjadji I was launched on 31 October 2006 in Kiel, Germany. The crew deployed to Kiel in early January 2008 and the submarine was commissioned on 31 January 2008.
Captain of S103, Commander Andrew Souma, was appointed as Executive Officer on SAS Manthatisi and completed the delivery voyage in 2006. After a spell as Officer in Charge Submarine Training Centre, he was given command of SAS Queen Modjadji I in October 2007.
was privileged to be invited by the Navy to attend the arrival of SAS SAS Queen Modjadji I and boarded the Harbour Tug Umalusi. We proceeded out of the naval dockyard to meet with SAS Queen Modjadji I. We met up with S103 off the coast in False Bay. As befitting her arrival, she headed up a convoy of SAN, Argentinean, Brazilian and Uruguayan navy vessals that were partaking in Exercise Atlasur: eleven vessels in total, including two submarines (S102 and S103).
Having photographed the fleet and new submarine, we then proceeded back to port whereafter SAS Queen Modjadji I was welcomed into the harbour by jets of water from three tugs, as is the custom when a vessel visits her home port for the first time. At the same time, a SAAF maritime formation of a SAAF C-47TP and a Super Lynx flew over.
Of interest is that S102 (SAS Charlotte Maxeke) was recently conducting a patrol of the South African Exclusive Economic Zone.
http://www.saairforce.co.za/news-and-events/677/arrival-of-third-sa-navy-submarine
wilhelm15 Squadron South African Air Force (SAAF) flew the Baltimore IIIA, IV and V and were active in the Italian Theatre with the Baltimore. The Mark III was the most numerous of the Baltimore variants operated by the SAAF.
The Maryland’s operated by the SAAF carried the serials 1601 to 1682. They were taken out of service in 1944.
Some basic info can be found at
wilhelmhttp://en.rian.ru/russia/20070522/65892313.html
sighs/ i already posted this link for you, but here it is again, key part is: MOSCOW, May 22 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s fifth generation fighter will take to the skies by the end of 2008, a first deputy prime minister said Tuesday at a session of a government military commission.“We are nearing the end of research and development work, and Mikhail [Pogosyan, the head of Sukhoi aircraft maker] confirmed that the first plane will make its maiden flight in late 2008,” Sergei Ivanov said. – it really dosnt get much clearer then that does it… Keep humming the Russian national anthem and waving the flag whilst deniying any delays though if it makes you feel good. 🙂
It has been explained to you the difference between MFI and PAK-FA. Twice. In two different threads.
RSM55, thank you for some very informative posts, although you are wasting your time responding to the above poster. He simply does not possess the intellect. He also trolls anything Russian, and particularly the PAK-FA programme. He has stated before that the PAK-FA programme doesn’t even exist.
Although I have just broken this rule myself, please do not respond to or feed the little troll. He seeks to derail an interesting thread. A brief perusal of his history will demonstrate the nature and quality of his posts.
wilhelmThe waterfront has picked up quite a bit, especially with the local population. There are some good bars and clubs in the area. The top of whiteladies is basically a student highway down to the university. But the most vibey stretch is between the clifton downs sainsburys and the bottom of park street. My old home town is about 10 000 km from bristol too. 10 minutes walk from a place called kentron. Denel aviation etc.
Aha…. Strange where we end up sometimes, isn’t it.
wilhelmBristol is really wonderful, its great fun as a university town. The weather has been suprisingly good over the past few days, not helping in terms of revision for my fluids and thermodynamics exam on thursday next week though. From some of your other posts I assume you live pretty close to my old hometown.
Bristol is a wonderful place. Is the top of Whiteladies Road still so vibey, or has the waterfront picked up a little? I’m not sure where your old home town is, but I’m currently about 10 000km away from Bristol at the moment.
Whilst I agree with Scorsch that our fighter should perhaps reach service before about 1965/66 to be an effective fighter within the timeframe discussed, it is fascinating to see some of the types that first flew around the mid 1960’s but only achieved service later …. sometimes in the 1970’s only. The Mirage F1 springs to mind, which would otherwise be my favourite candidate for this topic. It seems to have the correct blend of weight/performance/armament/sophistication. Dassault did a fine job there.
The jet I’m really impressed with is the Viggen. Whilst I know it came in 3 different versions, it did fly in 1966 first and had advanced avionics and a reliable turbofan!!:diablo:
It did only go into service in the early 1970’s though..
wilhelmComparing the Tornado to a modernised Bucc, in the high speed low-level strike mission (the Bucc’s specialist mission), is hardly what I call fair. One is a jack of all trades and one has its main niche. The Tornado being a jack of all trades is from an engineering point of view, a compromise. It could never incorporate the internal weapons bay that gave the Bucc its “practical” low-level speed advantage or its huge internal fuel capacity and still be effective in its other roles. But being the jack of all trades the Tornado is; means it can do things the Bucc could never do. At the same time as offering a respectable capability in each of its roles.
I see you’re studying in my old home town …… how is Bristol these days? Has it stopped raining yet?
Not too sure which other roles the Tornado was designed for apart from low level attack/maritime strike?:confused:
I’m aware of the SEAD and recce versions, but those came later, and you could argue that the Bucc could fulfill these roles just as well apart from top end speed utilised briefly or not at all.
I know that during the gulf war, when required to fulfill medium level missions, the Tornado was distinctly underpowered. Note that I’m excluding the Tornado fighter operated by the RAF as this was a later requirment that had a redesigned forward fuselage and slightly different model engines.
wilhelmSome do forget, that Tornado did field a true all-weather capability in an automated mode. For quick responses it was in need of a fast burner. Against early generation manpads or AD systems, every knot of speed above 450 kt did rise surviability. The bottle-neck of AD-systems from that time-scale were the electronics and the related reaction time, the ground clutter and EW wizards aside.
When in a full scale warfare the safety considerations from an automated system were secondary, it was not so during peace-time or low scale
The bucc did go up against MANPAD and late 1970’s Soviet AD systems in Southern Angola in the mid to late 1980’s. These AD assets were crewed by East German and Soviet advisors. Billions of dollars worth of weapons were supplied, and the battlefields during the late 1980’s were amongst the highest threat environments in the world. Only one lock-on was ever achieved, and this was swiftly broken. How much this success was EW driven, or airframe derived is debatable, but both played their part.
Certainly, the Bucc with an internal load of 4000lbs was faster at low level than just about anything else out there carrying any sort of load.
wilhelmOne thing I’ve noticed (looking at the Saturn drawings and its further versions) is the rudder seam runs along the whole base of the vertical fin. That leads me to believe that the control surface is the whole vertical fin.
Wouldn’t a smaller fin be needed if they intend it to be a rudder in itself?
Well spotted!
wilhelmThe Buccaneer was a bomber.
Equipped with 1970ies electronics (instead of late 1950ies) it would have made a Tornado look bad most of the time, especially considering payload range and (now, that’s a surprise) speed at low level with payload.
Absolutely agree with this. Both services that used the Buccaneer, The RAF and SAAF, really appreciated its capabilities. Although the aircraft was used relatively extensively in the Gulf and Angola, none were ever brought down.
The wing skins were machined out of solid billets, and all round the Bucc was an exceptionally strong aircraft. If you read about the Buccaneers deploying to Cyprus(?) with Tornado’s, you’ll see that performance wise it was better than the Tornado, particulary in range and low-level speed characteristics. It would have been wonderful to see an updated Buccaneer with modern avionics and perhaps some modern tweaks to the engines.
Definitely wouldn’t have been my choice for a fighter though…..
wilhelmI read “Vlamgat” (Flameing A*se!!) and thoroughly enjoyed it. A cracking read that’s heartily recommended.
The acig site has some info on SAAF attrition, as well as:
Is that the site you meant Old Git?
EDIT: Impi, do you know where I can get a copy of “From Tailhooker to Mudmover”?
wilhelmAre there any pictures/diagrams of the Carver design? I have seen nothing on this.
Madrat, this project was apparently originally mis-identified as the CAVA, due to a mispronunciation the programmes real code name, Carver.
Do a search on “Cava” and plenty of info should crop up on these forums, including a model released at an arms expo…
Sign In
