Marcellogoxman last question hit probably the mark.
Has actually Germany the necessity/desire to keep on the same level of A2G capability that the specialized Tornado granted them during the Cold war era?
IMHO I found it quite difficult to believe as they are not war mongerers, good puppies or grandeur obsessed , quite the contrary actually.
So it instead quite probable that they would just made a limited 2nd MLU on a small part of their fleet, maybe just the SEAD ones (like also Italy, that has acquired the F-35 would), made their own Typhoon multirole and kept with them until the next decade investing in the UAV 2025 and thenex Eurofighter instead.
MarcellogoI have one time said that I consider more probable and realistic than we found trace of extraterrestrial civilization prior than seeing the Russian to work into a single engine fighter.
They hae juust hit the jackpot with the blended wing podded engine configuration, that they have spent thirty years to further develop and that has still enough development potential to get into 6th generation, and you think that they would get back to a plane configuration that they have chose to completely get rid off?
The idea of a single engine for all the different fighting planes of a major air force could seem appealing at a first sight but no one is doing that: so be my guest, let’s wait USAF to do it first, instead of putting two alternative engines on a same frame like it happened with F-16 (also the f-35 would have had it, i remind you).
Marcellogo@sepheronx
It’s mainly a question about how the procurement is made, Russsians usually order a batch at time, instead of pulling out total production figures for a program that could last 20+ years.
During the periodical defense procurement program, covering usually 10 years but overlapping one with the other every five the MOD declare what are the needs for each category of military item before than specify with what specific item they would cover it, so it can happen that at the beginning they produce a modernized legacy plane like the Su-27SM3, after some time they start producing a totally new version of it like the Su-35 and in the end of the same ten years period they complete the PAK-FA program and begin to mass produce Su-57 instead.
Or it happen, like it was, that the new gen program get a little late and they decide to modernize a batch of (not so) oldSu-27P into the SM3 standard to fill the gap.
MarcellogoLittle unclear there, for they you mean Russian or West ones?
Certainly, the main issue there is knowing if a certain guided weapon is malfunctioning or not: usually a guided weapon fail because it lost the track of the target, get jammed or activate themselves out of the maximum sensor range i.e. all things that you cannot just determine before launch.
Certainly the more precise the initial drop is the less possibilities that one of such event would happen , hence the utility of having such systems even when using those types of weaponry.
Several of such weapon have however an inertial back up system so they can almost reach near the point they were heading to before their own guidance system failed (also there obviously it can be that they just doesn’t get it and keep on pursuing a false track until the end).
Marcellogo@Scar
Your first statement is simply false: the fact that the legacy guidance system were unable to operate in severely adverse weather situations was the main reason because the western air forces went full gear into the wide scale adoption of the JDAM kits until the extreme of convert all their stockpiles with them.
How I have said earlier installation of an automated calculation device and satellite guides kits are two different way to address the shortcomings of existing weaponry, only implemented by different actors in different times.
Repeat also the one about the SVP-24 and the moving targets: it act like the analogous devices installed on ALL modern Battle tanks and MICV: automatically measure the speed and the direction of the moving target, determine the future impact point, correct the course of the plane and automatically release the bomb (or shoot rockets) when the hitting probabilities are higher.
It guarantee a 100% probability of success? Obviously not but surely increase the possibility of success of several orders of magnitude in comparison to previous aiming devices exactly like the ones mounted of fighting vehicles have done when introduced.
Most important thing is that it was not acquired to completely get rid of ANY guided weaponry, that Russia are at the contrary using to a great extent in actual Syrian engagement beginning from Kalibr cruise missiles downward, WHEN the tactical situation allow them to be used with a clear advantage in respect to the SVP-24 or similar devices, but instead to enhance the performances of existing conventional ones.
Fact is that SVP-24 has clearly greatly reduced the number of situations.in which a guided weapon NEED to be used is a success in itself.
Marcellogo@Scar
I don’t understand what exactly is making you lose your temper in that way.
The head of Gefest is promoting his own product so he would highlight its strongpoints and not talking about its eventual limitations.
And in the case in question is just making some quite obvious considerations.
Using a automated computing system (i.e. what the SVD-24 is) that allow you to reduce the midcourse deviation of your bombs is definitively a great advantage in the case of SALH weapon who needs to fall into a well defined “basket” in order to receive the return signal from the target.
Needless to say such guidance system like also IIR and optical ones are quite sensitive to weather conditions while unguided bombs directed through the SVD-24 are not
as long as the sensor on the plane are instead able to spot the target (here is the sugarcoating i talked earlier).
Certainly also satellite guidance bombs are insensible to weather but it doesn’t make his affirmation false, just add another (costly) alternative at the use of the SVD-24.
What a satellite guidance system cannot absolutely do instead is hitting a moving target, or better said such system doesn’t hit target at all but just pre-determined spatial positions.
Hitting instead a moving target with non guided ordnances was always possible, let’s just think about what the Hawker Typhoon with rockets or the SM-79 with torpedoes have achieved during the II WW on that regard.
In this case a system like the SVD-24 operates like the computerized system of modern tanks that allow them to score direct hits of moving targets even while moving at full speed on rough terrain, let’s figure how it is much easier to achieve some results dropping a 250/500kg bomb from a plane moving in a straight line in the air.
MarcellogoOh, dear
I could just imagine the distress of all this, stay strong Spud!
MarcellogoI would be very surprised by such a buy, Germany is just the one pushing the most for a new european fighter and by political stance is not so interested in a specialized A2G plane.
Keeping some Tornado for a decade and acquiring the UCAV would do the trick for them i.e. covering those nich missions that even a Aesa ecquipped Typhoon couldn’t do (and for the main one of them i.e. SEAD, neither the F-35 afn).
That’s is also my main contrariety about an involvement of Leonardo in the project: each country has different perspectives and doctrine there putting them all together would mean o repeat the situation that led to the Eurofighter/Rafale split.
MarcellogoIpse dixit.
Seriously all, they arein a very preliminar fase, just making an agreement to begin a project.
We have neither a basic idea about what they are trying to get, if it will have one or two engines, if it will be manned or unmanned, if it would be somewhat for A2A or A2G, what its own weight will be, also the real numbers of partecipants is uncertain as long as also Leonardo has expressed an interest in it: trying now to make a comparison with just little less nebulous American or UK/TR projects is just some sort of chauvinistic daydreaming.
MarcellogoI am (begrundigly) with Bayar on this one:the fact that the Bae has denied that its not interested in the Airbus project has certainly a great relevance there.
Still Bae i.e. is just a firm, the most important but not the only British one working in the defence sector.
So it can speak for itself only not for the rest of them or even more in British government’s behalf.
MarcellogoIMO if they mount different type of engines they would be in the later model.
And while the -117S performances are well know the objekt 30 would surely need more time on dynamic testing from the beginning.
Even if they both have the new engine it could be that one is actually been checked for ascertain the sthealtiness of the new design while the other is charged with the flying part.
Let’s wait for more official news.
At this point we would decide also if open a new thread about T-50/Su-57 or transfer directly all new info about it there.
MarcellogoI make here a purely abstact logic reasoning:
10 and 11 being prototypes should have different ecquipments one from the other.
Problem is that, differently from the case of -8 and -9, this time we didn’t just know what this new items will be.:confused:
Maybe it can be that the ones scheduled to be installed on the -10 are (a little) late while the ones on the -11 are just ready. :apologetic:
Another possibility is that the-10 is actually undergoing installation of both stealth than external painting, a process that we know being quite long.:sleeping:
In the same moment the -11 i.e. the final item get out of the assembly phase and, although unpainted, is already in flight condition.:eagerness:
So they could have decided to just paint the yellow base on and send it to try the new objekt 30, in the meantime that the -10 (that could still could have the old ones for what we know) would be ready.:applause:
MarcellogoEven more in this case, as we are talking about projects in which the industry, more than governments, have a leading role.
Leonardo is practically the IT-UK part of European integrated defense industry and she would remain so also after Brexit will be completed.
In several sectors, UAV being just one of that, they have a technical edge and in particular when it compares to Airbus she has two very important advantages i.e. being almost exclusively in the military business and having a clear internal-lead governance able to take its own decisions with a quite large autonomy from the Italian government itself, let’s imagine waiting three different ones to find an accord before making any move.
Marcellogo@mrmalaya
To close the ring I post here what will be probably the final product in which all those lines would converge: the MALE RPAS 2025.
Officialy presented at this year’s Paris Air Show.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]255176[/ATTACH]
Obviously, in Leonardo’s stand.:eagerness:
Because you know:
while others with stealth they play,
Poor Italians real drones make fly.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]255182[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]255183[/ATTACH]
Marcellogo@MiG-31BM
I was at first tempted to replay point to point on what you said, that I’m instead completely sure that only America has instead got so desperate to jump on the IRST bandwagon to get into the idea of putting it on a fuel tank.
After it I have reached instead the motivate convinction that I could also talk there about trascendental meditation or gardening for what concern the adherence of your reply with the real argument of my previous post.
As often seem to happen, you were making petty technical remark to a post about the rethorical tricks used by such publications like the one you posted, with the intent to make people eat the bait.
See, in my country we use to call such kind of sponsored documents “marchette” i.e. the way that was used to pay for the girls’ services in old times’ brothels.
So the remarks I have made about the figure you reported were intended just as practical examples of how some data can easily be twisted and sugarcoated in order to fit the sponsor’s agenda. Rest assured that if instead of the Northrop-Grumman there have been some IRST producer to pay the bill there would have been completely diferen considerations.
The fact you replied in the way you have done just confirm me that, sadly, you have eat not just the bait but also the hook, the angle and the whole fishing pole.
Sign In
