TooCool_12fFinland should get together with Switzerland and order 100 UTAP-22s at just $2 million each. They can launch and recover from pretty much any location, meaning they’d be next to impossible to take out in a surprise attack.
After fighting starts they can be launched from forward operating bases, be it a small bunker, a truck or a small ship, and then land at a different location for recovery. This forward location also makes them great for launching surprise attacks of their own against enemy forces, be it in the air (a UTAP could carry 2 Sidewinder plus 6 Stinger missiles), ground or sea, as well as being great for ISR, ECM and SEAD missions.
same question as for switzerland’s thread: how do you do your main job, which consists of air policing and assistance with it?
TooCool_12fSwitzerland should include the UTAP-22 in the competition, it would be way more fitting for their needs, being cheap and compact enough to launch from pretty much any base without the need for a landing strip. Give it a pair of Sidewinders (or if you can get something in R-60 class you can hang one on each wingtip) and a gunpod, and a handful of these could intercept any intruder in a matter of minutes 24/7, like reusable SAMs. It can also do ISR and ground attack to great effect, like reusable cruise missiles. At $2 million each Switzerland could field a hundred for the price of a few manned jets.
Edit: I forgot Switzerland has the Stinger, they can hang a few of those off the UTAP-22, being small and light yet giving it enough punch to be taken seriously.
okay but.. how do you intercept a liner or a light aircraft that has communications problem, or something along the lines of “I need help!”, hummm? ^^
air policing and assistance is 99% of operational job of every european nations air force…
TooCool_12fGandhi is a politician with far more on hands than the Dassault’s Rafale from France. Dassaults on the other hand are industry captains with a large media ownership. If something was not copied 5 on 5, the blame would certainly not be on a politician passionated for his country. *
*Feel free to copy pas for official statement!
or simply passionate for power?
TooCool_12fNot. And not by a long shot, the final ratings of the 2008/2009 Swiss Eval were related to the (then) Gripen MS21, Eurofighter P1E and Rafale F3, all these configurations were years in the future.
not exactly.. they were related to what’s been demonstrated and then they made an evaluation of credibility of different makers with their projects for the timeframe when the swiss order would have to be delivered
TooCool_12f[QUOTE=Scooter;n3858885]
EF is much cheaper for Spain than the F-35 for a very simple reason (besides the training and support infrastructures to put into place): It is built in Spain.. meaning, most of the money spent will remain in Spain and get back into spanish budget through taxes and so on… Buying the F-35 means sending it away, which is pretty much the same for their budget as shredding right there…[/QUOTE
Please, provide us a source to support that??? I didn’t realize Spain share was that large in the EuroFighter Program.
a major reason for the Typhoon not benefiting of economy of scale while being ordered in quite significant numbers (for a european aircraft, that is) was the fact that every partner nation wanted (and got) its own assembly chain… So if spaniards order more Typhoons, they’ll build them locally, just like the british would for and RAF order, germans for Luftwaffe order or italians for Aeronautica Militare order…
a rapid source (not always the most acurate, but in this case seems to be quite correct is wikipedia..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Procurement,_production_and_costs
and precisely::
“The Eurofighter Typhoon is unique in modern combat aircraft in that there are four separate assembly lines. Each partner company assembles its own national aircraft, but builds the same parts for all aircraft (including exports); Premium AEROTEC (main centre fuselage[41]), EADS CASA (right wing, leading edge slats), BAE Systems (front fuselage (including foreplanes), canopy, dorsal spine, tail fin, inboard flaperons, rear fuselage section) and Leonardo (left wing, outboard flaperons, rear fuselage sections).”
TooCool_12fAnd other thing…EF is expensive than F-35A. So, When you tell, that Spain can not buy F-35A because is expensive it does not have any sense to buy more expensive EF tranche 3. This is not logical and this is a political decition anyway.
EF is much cheaper for Spain than the F-35 for a very simple reason (besides the training and support infrastructures to put into place): It is built in Spain.. meaning, most of the money spent will remain in Spain and get back into spanish budget through taxes and so on… Buying the F-35 means sending it away, which is pretty much the same for their budget as shredding right there…
TooCool_12fYou are making a lot of confusion.B61 is a bomb so i guess all what is taking is to the interface which i doubt is smth different from other bombs.If the plane has the systems and wires protected against emp as per mil standarts i dont know what is the matter!France hasnt offered you at all anything nuclear,and as a delivery platform is a one way only…If your country is trying to bypass getting the Rafaele than it is ok but are you sure you are getting the manuals,radar and flight profiles for it?
neither did the Rafale have the Aesa which you kinda ordered apart at a cost of an eye.You could have picked a custom version and still have a lower price since economy of scale is always on Eurofighters side.
And instead of putting money on Modis pal at Reliance you could have had the line rolling planes at Hal,and no further Sukhoi orders
er, you should tell that to germans, brits, italians anbd spaniards.. they all pay more than the french… there’s no such thing as economy of scale when you have four building chains for a single fighter.. India would’ve just been the fifth… what’s more, UK and Italy go for the F-35 for ground attack role… they won’t develop anything in that area for the Typhoon anymore (wasting the scarce money they get for their military), spain is broke, so no development there either, as for germany, they have trouble just keeping their air force airborne as the invest so little in the military.. good luck with having them develop anything for your support in the future…
what’s more, Blackarcher explained to you that a nuclear bomb is NOT a bomb “like any other”… there are specific circuits that have to be installed, tested, configured and so on…
TooCool_12fman… been away for a couple of weeks and… 😮
but there a couple of nuggets, like:
because Hammerhead in my time was not qualified as Aerobatics.
…
And yes I have done it hundred of times, not only because I liked it (it’s actually quiet fun), but also because it was part of my training, with and instructor or solo on different type of A-Cs, I just fail to understand how it was not part of yours.
hammerhead was invented as an aerobatic manoeuver.. so if it wasn’t aerobatics, it wasn’t “in your time”, but “in your imagination”… as for you doing it a “hundred of times”.. had you ever approached a cockpit with an instructor, you’d never post some of the nonsense you did… you are a liar, pure and simple
as for DR400 going low speed without stalling manoeuver I talked to you about, it was a “lazy eight” .. which is a succession of high yoyos, basically… one left, one right, one left, and so on.. which, looking from above (or from below) draws an eight. On top of the manoeuver, you don’t need to be fast, you can let the aircraft go around nicely, pulling 0.5G and your AoA will stay below the stall limit, and you’ll fly it through even if you have a speed way below the “stall speed”, given for a 1G level flight, without ever stalling the aircraft or doing anything like “post stall manoeuvering”.. obviously, since you never stalled it in the first place.
The same rule applies to any aircraft: DR400, Rafale, Mirage 2000, F-22, Boeing 747 or the Concorde… (of course, you won’t try to do lazy eights in the latter ones… a bit clumsy for such manoeuvering 😀 ): you have an AoA value for each aircraft in a particular configuration (flaps down or not, gear down or not, and so on) at which it stalls.. Only the excessive AoA is what makes your aircraft stall.. speed has nothing to do with it… With the combination of AoA and speed you generate lift, which generates acceleration. If you ask more acceleration (Gs), you need to increase lift, by modifying AoA/speed combo, if you as for less acceleration, you decrease lift.. any aircraft can reach as low as 15kts without ever stalling when pulled across the top of a high yoyo, turning at something like 0.2 G maybe, or less.. and if you had been a pilot, especially one with any aerobatic training, you would have known it…
so, in a couple of words: you’re a liar, and a bad one, not even able to get some information as to, at least, sound plausible
TooCool_12fSo your aerodynamic expertise doesn’t extend to PSM or renversement then? Damned what do they teach newbies at flying schools those days, I did it hundred of times, flew MS-880-100 cv backward in high AoA attitude with just enough speed to let the wind push us back in relation to a point on the ground to demonstrate this, done some limited acro too in the 100 sport etc etc.
blah blah blah.. your mom never taught you that it’s not nice to lie? had your done it “hundreds of times” you’d know that speed as such is irrelevant as far as stall is concerned… and I still wait for that manoeuver that I routinely can do with my DR400.. as a pilot, you should have no trouble knowing what I speak about… so?
TooCool_12frenversement (hammerhead) is an aerobatic manoeuver (so it’s not the one I do), and once more you come at “30°/15kts -> departed… wrong…
come on, keep displaying your nonsense
TooCool_12fso you have zero clue actually.. you remind me of a fellow we had with us in high school.. he “loooooved” mathematics and used all sorts for formulae you don’t learn before college… his only problem, he had no clue how to use them properly and his results were consistently very poor… we used to joke about him saying that he loved mathematics but unfortunately the mathematics didn’t love him… same for you and aerodynamics, obviously
now a little question for you:
I take my kid for a flight here and there, and he always asks me to do some “rollercoasters” (his name for that manoeuver), my plane is a DR400-120, so no aerobatics, heavy G, inverted flight and so on.. stall speed level is about 50kts. During the manoeuver, we get at moments down to 40, the ground somewhere way to one side and yet, the aircraft isn’t stalled.. it isn’t even close (and no stall warning horn, no buffet, nothing…)
what type of manoeuver allows it? if you find, you may understand why the Rafale was never stalled @15kts and didn’t need to be
TooCool_12fYes it does, for one thing I certainly don’t ignore is the relationship between airflow speed and lift, no speed, no lift, simple enough, read the definition of a stall.
so you don’t know what you pretend to speak about… bye
TooCool_12fPSM were achieved the moment they flew the A-C at 15kt unless you take Rafale for a Cihense Kite, it is pretty obvious that practising mock combat maneuvers and getting it at speeds as low as 15kt is out of the A-C flight envelop.
which is a nice demonstration of your ignorance.. now you can go back to school and learn a bit… or not…
TooCool_12fHOW can a Rafale pilot practise (that the word used, not “reached”) speeds as low as 15kt in mock combat vs a Mirange 2000 before high AoA testing and go away with it, was it NOT PSM?
.
won’t go through all your stuff (way too boring and pointless), but just for your information: 15kt doesn’t imply that it was stalled at any point, besides the fact that the FCS wouldn’t allow it to stall anyway.. which means it had no need for PSM… stall is a matter on AoA and airflow not following the upper surface of the wings, not speed
TooCool_12f[USER=”71228″]garryA[/USER]
Rafale, except maybe during some test flights obviously doesn’t do such manoeuvers.. . As for spin testing, it was soon after the end of WWI that it became “standard”..
You can read about “spin history” in UK here:
https://www.aerosociety.com/media/48…-uk-part-1.pdf
and page 7 you can read:
“The Air Ministry also had overall responsibility for theAeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), which was located at Martlesham Heath in Suffolk in 1924. Its antecedents had been the former Aircraft Testing Flight of the Central Flying School at Upavon, which had moved to Martlesham in 1917, and the Armament Flight that had moved to nearby Orfordness. Its function was to evaluate aircraft that were being considered for potential entry into service with the RAF. (A similar function was performed for naval aircraft at the neighbouring Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment (MAEE), which moved to Felixstowe in 1924.) From about 1918, spinning and spin recovery were among the characteristics to be investigated as a matter of routine.“
thanks for raising the point, got me an interesting read now 🙂
so, you can take for granted that all post 1920 designs had to pass spin tests prior to entering service 😉
Sign In
