dark light

Al.

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 956 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Soviet SAG vs Japanese navy SAG 80s era combat #2006862
    Al.
    Participant

    If the Kyndas were the closest units then the JMSDF might have been able to split their resources and take out two rather one

    I do not pretend to be an expert on skimmers, but I think that you miss a fundamental difference between 80s era Sea Sparrow and Evolved Sea Sparrow. The latter is a capable system fitted alongside (a variety of) illuminators which can do clever time -sharing tricks. The former was/is little better than useless.

    in reply to: Soviet SAG vs Japanese navy SAG 80s era combat #2007116
    Al.
    Participant

    Soviet-era Surface Action Groups were designed specifically to saturate and overwhelm US CBGs
    (Which obviously led to tail-wagging-dog as US CBGs were then improved to deal with saturation attacks from Soviet-era SAGs and so on and so on)

    No disrespect to 80s era JMSDF but they simply did not have the air defence in depth to deal with this opposition. Neither were they ever designed to have the kind of ASuW systems to engage their foe*

    That JMSDF composition was to prosecute Soviet submarines. And they would have done so very professionally.

    But against that opposition the JMSDF would have disengaged and come up with a Plan B.

    *I forget the number but it’s big (at least two zeros at the end) of Harpoons which planners reckoned would be needed to sink a Kiev or a Kirov. I reckon that JMSDF go em-con use the two dog-leg capability of even early model Harpoons to engage the nearest unit from multiple directions and whilst it is busy they make like John Wayne and the shepherd

    Al.
    Participant

    If its true and it passes all of the hurdles and meddling (that is not a dig at Argentina, that applies to any defence procurement) this all seems VERY sensible

    Pukara, SE and Mirage have all served Argentina very well and are known quantities
    (The most recent Mirage F1s look excellent and would be a very strong addition)

    Incremental improvements in numbers, spares and capability with these airframes would all be welcome. Far more so than the nebulous ideas of buying a handful of exotic, exciting, sexy and expensive aiframes with expensive new supply chains and maintenance requirements.

    Al.
    Participant

    Some components just need to forged (it aligns the grains don’t you know)

    I remember when CNC machined bicycle components were all the rage and my mates went through loads of pretty bright blue or pink anodised aluminium machined components when a single dull old drop-forged steel one would have lasted if not forever then certainly the lifetime of the bike (maybe even the owner)

    I’m willing to guess that the loads (static and dynamic) applied to warplane components will be several orders of magnitude larger

    in reply to: FOAS #2135498
    Al.
    Participant

    I think Taranis is of interest to some people (and that is more uniquely British than Concorde). I do agree though, that without having any context to these models, they are just that. I mean BAE had some real cutting edge designs in the 90s, and now it makes the ar$e of the F35 for a living.

    BAe’s real money comes from asset-stripping small companies it buys up. And buying small US firms to sell to the US government.

    in reply to: Reducing the 4.5 gens to almost stealth planes. #2138175
    Al.
    Participant

    If new planes are going to be produced anyway, why not stealth them up a bit ? I think he’s talking about new models.

    The USN is unusual in that will purchase a significant number of new airframes. So stealthing up the Super Hornet can be a big project (I’d want them to sort out those ridiculously canted pylons and do way with clerical tails but might be in a minority)

    Any next-gen Raf will be a much smaller buy so the mods will perforce be more modest. Especially so since the French have a very sensible policy of wearing airframes out before scrapping them.

    Al.
    Participant

    France and Sweden have both fielded Stealthy surface ships (earlier than most) and both have successful submarine industries. So they have a good knowledge base.

    They also have a track record of using their airframes until they wear out (rather than binning them with plenty of usable hours like we in the UK do) so I cannot see either fielding a VLO version of what they already have. VLO UCAVs (as well as winning in acronym bingo) gives them a new capability so look more likely.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2150488
    Al.
    Participant

    I found this looking for Advanced Tomcat designs (inspired by the thread on this site)

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]251737[/ATTACH]

    Photo from https://warisboring.com/grounding-the-ayatollah-s-tomcats-d02551f1104e#.b3lndiqup

    in reply to: 10 years in…..F14 versus Super Hornet #2151251
    Al.
    Participant

    beautiful aircraft. Cross between a Avro Aero and a su 34

    http://img10.hostingpics.net/pics/567906RA_5C_Vigilante_0008.jpg

    The classic example of an aircraft which looks like it’s breaking the sound barrier when it’s stationary

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -V #2008984
    Al.
    Participant

    Exclusive: Japan to Speed Up Frigate Build to Reinforce East China Sea – Sources (excerpt)

    Looks interesting doesn’t it?

    The only other info I can find is this picture http://www.defenseworld.net/news/13160/Mitsubishi_Unveils_Japan___s_Future_3000_Ton_FFX_Frigate
    It will be interesting to see what comes next

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2164721
    Al.
    Participant

    I still fail to imagine a scenario where both Typhoon and a vlo theatre bomber

    If the VLO asset is a UCAV then politically and operationally it might very well be preferable to have an inhabited aircraft in the same area

    There is also the fact that by emitting the VLO asset becomes less VLO. LPI is not NPI.

    Al.
    Participant

    Assuming that my hindsight genuinely was 20/20

    Common electronics in separate airframes

    Firm price contracts

    Not try to rationalise competing companies down and reduce future competition

    Have prototypes and sort the issues out in them before trying to manufacture in quantity

    Have some kind of conflict of interest laws and regulations (poor decisions do not need to be due to deliberate corruption and neither is inadvertant bias limited to the US procurement process)

    Number the airframes properly (F24, F25, F26)

    Spend money on long and slim munitions rather than on fitting short and fat bays on the new designs

    in reply to: Best 4.5 gen fighter #2165909
    Al.
    Participant

    Well, beautifull undoutebly, but they get all dirty…

    naysayer

    in reply to: Best 4.5 gen fighter #2168159
    Al.
    Participant

    Black

    I’ve aways wanted a black car but buying second hand has always meant that colour is the lowest on my list of criteria

    I’ve got a black car now and it deals with potholes and speed bumps better than any of my previous ones. And it’s easy to get in and out of, has plenty of headroom and carries me, wife, three boys and approximately a ton of youth football kit easily

    Black cars are best

    in reply to: US CAS rethinking going on #2178858
    Al.
    Participant

    In a sensible world the US Army would have control (in all senses) of their own CAS and COIN

    And I don’t say that to be listerine: we go one stage further in the UK by not letting the British Army have control of Utility and Transport helos

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 956 total)