marage1Boeings big argument for 767 over A330 is that since it’s smaller & (presumably) cheaper, the USAF could get more booms in the sky with 767. Would not apply to 777. Note that for the USAF, this is a big problem, as it uses booms for its fighters, so can only refuel one fighter at a time per tanker, & therefore refuels at half the rate (the extra flow rate of a boom is of no use for fighters, as they can’t accept fuel that fast) of twin hose equipped tankers.
then this leaves out the KC-30. USAF eill need to replace the KC-10 in the near future.also think Usaf want the 767 line open to keep cost of airframes down on E10 (MC2a)’s.which is based on the 767-400
marage1don’t care for either anzac or adelaide. we’ve lost 3 DDG’s & 2FFG’s(how many more will go by the time they enter service?) onlyto get 3 so called airwarfare destroyers.they are more like a cross between the anzac and adelaide ships.
The US Navy rams are used for both anti missile and against small boats.
fitting their DDX-1000 with 57mm guns is for both but look at the amount of spare electrical power it will have left over. Maybe enough four a laser defence system?
The Anzac’s were surposed to be fitted for be not with was a waste of money. look at where the harpoons are has to other mako’s.
😡
marage1How much work would it be to re-equip the entire fleet with actual Hose and Drogue system on centreline boom?
better to leave boom there can pump more fuel to larger aircraft faster.
it does not have cargo door to allow loads other then passengers about 270on main deck.
still think that a fleet of 10 A-310 MRTTs would have made more sense! (Price would probably have been a little lower too)
I don,t understand why boeing didn,t offer a KC777 this would have larger loads ,more fuel and cargo on main deck.it would allow both boom and hose units(or even 2 hose units)like the KC10’s.
Very nice. How will these differ from the UK ones ?
More refuelling tankage perhaps, coz I know the UK ones are just using the standard fuel capacity ?
So are the A330-200 or KC30B
the RAAF needs about 20
As for the Aussie Herks, we don’t have any inflight refuelling capability with them oddly enough
wouldn’t be hard to fit both types of refuelling systems to them.
marage1back when the F18 was first choosen for the RAAF(in 1985) it came down to 4 aircraft the F18,F16,F15 & the mirage 2000. i not sure why the mirage was dropped but i think the F15 was dropped because the RAAF thought that it would be out of production by the end of the decade.
i would like to see how the F111 faired at red flag. where it managed to down a F16
the rudd goverment is to pressure US goverment on the F22. and has reopened the debateto include other aircraft.including russian.
is the F35 surposed to be more advanced then the F22 in avionics.
the F117 is being retired from the USAF.no good for the RAAF, plus lots of tankers required too.
reports say we may need more then a 100 aircraft and that 130 is more along the lines of what we need.
Give us ucavs beats all others
marage1The Tiger’s M781 gun is a much newer and more capable design than the Apache’s M230 chaingun. Muzzle velocity is 29% higher (1025 m/s vs. 792 m/s), leading to greater destructive power and higher accuracy. Rate of fire is 20% higher (750 rpm vs. 625 rpm), also improving the accuracy of each salvo.
so it should. with 20 years between designs.plus the fact it started out without a gun for both germany & france as tank bustersto replace the MB105.
Not likely my friend with our (the ADF’s) Budget
now if you were talking eski’s for beer……………
that’s true.VB or fourX
– The Tiger is the only Western gunship built from the ground-up for the air-to-air role. The maneuverability is great for air-to-air, as is the gun’s unique (as far as I know) air-to-air mode. Stingers/Mistrals are also a common loadout (IIRC only Japanese Apaches are equipped with Stingers).
The apache was also designed with air to air in mind.look at the range of weapons it has been cleared to fire. longbow apaches have an air to air mode in the radar too.
Have not seen air to air missiles on aussie tigers and none have been selected yet. ADF is still having trouble with fitting hellfires to the tiger
marage1the navy sould have been flying their own version of the B-2 in the cancelled A-12.
Or even better pack them into a pair of CFTs for the E. Originally they (the CFTs) were knows a as FAST packs (fuel and sensor, tactical) but all they ever did with them was make them into fuel tanks.
don’t forget the outer under wing pylons that don’t seem to be used(though i did read the Israel’s have done so.).
marage1The Tiger’s ammunition load is 450 x 30mm rounds
.
thanks esp 49129
By comparison, the Apache typically operates with 300 x 30mm rounds plus a 100 gallon internal auxiliary fuel tank, though it has a maximum capacity of 1200 rounds if you delete the fuel tank. Based on experiences in Afghanistan, it appears that 300 rounds often aren’t enough and there’s talk of future modifications to increase the ammunition load at the expense of some of the auxiliary fuel.
how much fuel was removed to place the gun on the tiger.
you will soon see the ARH-70/Bell 417 perform the role as armed scout or armed Recce helicopter as the designation reads
the ARH-70/Bell 417 is no better than the OH-58( which had a mast mount sights.). the tiger is better for the ARH role leaving apaches/cobra’s to do cas/escort & attack roles.
marage1The Tigers will operate alongside 5 Dutch AH-64D Apaches already deployed. Several Australian pilots have had to be trained in France instead of the regular training in Australia in order to ensure enough pilots are available to support this accelerated deployment.
Not with only 9 out of 22( would like to see this number brought up to 30+. how many could we send 3? and they are not fully tested yet. Last i heard the goverment has held payment over till promblems have been worked out.
Can some tell me how many rounds of 30mm does it carry?
marage1Air Warfare Destroyers, as they are officially called by the Aussie government.
This is so they can fool the aussie public into thinking they are getting more for their dollar. the MRH-90 is a far better aircraft then the S-70A-9’s.The MRH-90 ARE to replace the UH-1H’s which have just been retired.Then follows the seakings then the blackhawks.
1. whats the deal with them replacing the Blackhawk? The Blackhawk isn’t THAT old,and as a troop/utility transport,is above average in my book.Is it just a local preferance? I do know they picked the European designed Tigre over the Apache,so the NH90 replacing the Blackhawk would make sense if they were just going to go with Europe as their defense supplier.
just weeks before the Tigre was selected the the howard (now voted out)told us that our defence force didn’t need to have the best but could go with second best equipment.though the tiger is a very good aircraft our needs would have been better suited with the longbow equipt apache’s similar to the British version.
marage1Half of which would have been based in Australia, like the Skyhawks, except unlike the skyhawks Australia does not have facilities or logistics to support F-16s like they had for Skyhawks (which they operated).
we wouldn’t need your aircraft. we got a good aircraft in the hawk 100.
Or the aussies could send a single Collins class sub and sink your fictional carrier group.
again you want the us aussie’s to come to your aid if some one did put some ships off your coast.
Yeah. We decided we didn’t need 10 million dollar Skyhawks because we had no use for them… so we are going to buy 100 million dollar fighters for what? …with what?
AH that’s why some many Kiwi are leaving NZ four australia. you have nothing but sheep there.:D
If we did get F-16s then we wouldn’t have LAVs and we wouldn’t be buying new helos or upgrading our Orions… which are more use?
if you don’t need fighters then you don’t need lav’s or helo’s or Orions now.
Of course there are positives… the US might actually take our A-4Ks as part payment on the new planes (sorry… new old planes), whereas at the moment they are blocking the sale of our A-4Ks to a US company that wants to operate them as a dogfighting school or something. It seems that we upgraded the radars too much and now they are just too secret to let anyone have.
no they use UAV’s now for that.
marage1the lastest “the navy”mag has article called fat ship’s. it say no long wheel based mistral.
let’s see the BPE ship it’s 231meters long. mistral only 199 meters long both have a beam of 32 meters.:cool:
marage1If Nz had of taken the offer on the F16’s they would have gotten 28of them.
this would more then likely have been upgraded to say block 20.equipped with amraam,Aim-9m, harpoon, mavericks,Jammers etc.
Argentina gave the Brits a had time back in 1982, with there mirage& stock standard skyhawks. plus these aircraft had flown long distants aswell.
who would invade Nz. just put small carrier croup iff it’s coast to launch some air strikes on Nz which will then tie up a large protion of the RAAF. which will make it easier to to Australia from the west.:cool:
If NZ does go back to having figters let it be f35’s some as australia’s they could buy them on the back of ours. this would save money alround.
marage1I would be surprised to see a larger winged F-35A at some point! If, not some may just operate a landbased F-35C…………..minus some naval equipment of course
.
we did that with f18’s in australia. took launch bar off. is the f35c going to get an internal gun?.
like to see RAAF’s f35’s with asraam,amraam,JDAM, Kongsberg NSM, brimstone, SBD’s( won’t need paveways when these arrive), drop tanks,jassm,jsow.
marage1what have two aircraft that do the same job. no thanks 😮
marage1give me the f35a with larger wing,f135 engine, 25mm bushmaster cannon( same gun that is used on our aslav 25 vehicles.both types of refuelling( never know what tankers are around to use).also have f35b with internal gun. add to that some f22’s as well. if australia had a carrier then some f35c too.:cool:
Sign In
