Page 23 – Key Publishing

StevoJH

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 331 through 345 (of 987 total)

← 1 2 3 … 22 23 24 … 64 65 66 →

Author

Posts
November 28, 2009 at 5:20 pm in reply to: 787 vs A400m #2413950

StevoJH
Participant

And how long do you think that is going to remain firm? The way things keep slipping they’ve pribably revised it three times since that announcement and not told anyone. I notice the statement was carefully worded so they weren’t actually committing themselves to a firm date. “Airbus has said it believes” doesn’t sound very definite to me.

They’ve been waiting for engine certification (someone stuffed up the certification and that whats delayed the program so long). If the engine certification is complete, there is no reason it can’t fly whenever they feel like.

Actually, except for the red tape, the thing has probably been airworthy for quite a while now.

November 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2414065

StevoJH
Participant

Yes, the UK is a special case, and whatever was promised to the UK will be delivered. But have you noticed that no one in the British Ministry of Defense has protested or gone crying to their lawyers? Everyone is jumping to conclusions that the RAF somehow will not receive what had been agreed upon. If that were true, we would all know it – and not from a bunch of fanboys on the internet. This is a whole lot of fuss over nothing.

Let the MOD take care of this. As I said, the UK will receive access to everything that was agreed upon – nothing more, and nothing less.

The person who made the statement that the UK wouldn’t get the source was unidentified right? Until there is an official statement anything could be true.

November 28, 2009 at 4:34 pm in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2414072

StevoJH
Participant

And whilst all this wrangling goes on t tecnology gets that bit closer to obsolescence. By the time we get it, if ever, the “new” carriers which it was ordered for will be obsolete

The thing about Carriers is, they never become obsolete, because their one and only offensive weapon is their air group, and unlike say the Sea Dart on the T42, once your airgroup becomes obsolete, you just buy a new batch of aircraft.

November 28, 2009 at 4:31 pm in reply to: F-35 News and Discussion #2414079

StevoJH
Participant

Never said they couldn’t do it with enough time and money. Simply saying it wouldn’t be anywhere near as easy as many here like to tell themselves. The US has a half century working with radar reduction technology that they’ve flown and put into service and it’s still not as easy as falling off a log.

So have they, they just havent taken it to the extent of the F-117, B2 and F-22.

It would actually be interesting to know what the RCS of the “box” created for project replica actually was.

I don’t think anyone ever said it would be easy. Well, actually, the airframe is the easy bit…….

The avionics fit on the other hand……..

November 28, 2009 at 4:23 pm in reply to: F-35 News and Discussion #2414084

StevoJH
Participant

ROFL! If it was so easy they’d already be doing it.

They could do it, the problem is that to develop a new VLO fighter from scratch would probably take 15-20 years.

Remember the X-35 contract was signed in 1996, it first flew in 2000. After 2000 it then had to be developed into a working fighter aircraft, with an IOC for the first Armed forces to be 2012. That is 16 years from the start of development to IOC.

The problem is not one of money, but one of time (any country that has the technology to design and build a VLO aircraft can afford ~5 billion US/year for 10-15 years).

The last of the RAF’s Tornado GR.4’s is set to retire in 2025, 16 years from now. The UK does not have time to develop a manned VLO fighter and get it into service in that amount of time unless corners were cut such as using already developed avionics such as those in typhoon, but those will be very old by that time…..

November 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2414172

StevoJH
Participant

Yeh the engines were the part I was thinking of, they were built with folding rotors weren’t they? (the British ones I mean). And would that require a source code change? I assumed that folding the rotors was just a manual process done after landing, but thinking about it, it’s more likely to be automated.

Rotor fold is likely manual and I doubt it would require rewriting the software unless the folding mechanism messed up the balance of the rotor’s. I was referring to the engines when saying coding would probably have to be done.

November 28, 2009 at 3:23 pm in reply to: A400m DATE SET ? #2414176

StevoJH
Participant

Oh cheers.

I know why the the figures seemed off before to me. I read somewhere that the weight issues on the A400M were going to take the payload down to about 30-32 tons, which makes it a lot less useful until they sort it out.

Even limited to 30-32t, that is still 50% more then the C130J-30.

From memory:
1) The airframe was heavier then expected but the Payload was still within the contracted requirements.
2) Most of the delay has not been due to anything wrong with the airframe but rather with engine certification.

PS. Have a look at the Belfast Payload.

November 28, 2009 at 3:11 pm in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world -IV #2414188

StevoJH
Participant

Australia puts last Caribou out to pasture

[cut….]

“The new fleet can provide a degree of efficiency and reliability which we have struggled to achieve with our fleet of ageing Caribous,” says chief of air force Air Marshal Mark Binskin. The King Air also can “cruise at more than three times the altitude, twice the speed and twice the range”, he adds.

[cut…]

They also have nothing like the STOL or rough field performance of the caribou. Should have bought the Turbo prop version while it was in production. Maybe they can license it?

I’d like to see a King Air do this!

November 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm in reply to: A400m DATE SET ? #2414196

StevoJH
Participant

Fair enough on the AAR point, I assumed more than I should have.

Can you provide some comparable figures for the A400M and C130 on carrying capacities etc. Last figures I remember seeing didn’t indicate much of a difference compared to the latest stretched C130’s. It was quite some time ago though.

I’m still struggling to see what niche the A400M is filling between the C130J’s we will still be operating and the C17’s (The A400’s are after all only replacing the C130K’s). Are there a lot of items that won’t quite fit into a C130 but are too small to really warrant a C17? It seems silly to be adding another entirely different type of aircraft to the inventory. What am I missing?

A400M:
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Specifications.aspx
Max Payload listed as 37t.

C130J-30
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=92
Max Payload listed as 19.9t

C17A
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=86
Max Payload listed as 77.5t

And Just for Fun…..
Short Belfast
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=355
Max Payload listed as 34t

November 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2414199

StevoJH
Participant

No idea about Apache, it’s a good question. Britain seems to have upgraded them on it’s own before now though hasn’t it?

New Engines and folding rotors that I know about, may have been more then that. I’m assuming that switching the engines would require at least some re-writing of the engine management part of the software code. However remember that Apache is hardly the newest helicopter on the block these days.

November 28, 2009 at 4:51 am in reply to: US To Withhold F-35 Fighter Software Codes #2414722

StevoJH
Participant

I once read something (that I didn’t really believe) that the source codes for the RAAF Hornets were modified to prevent them detecting or locking onto US built aircraft or something along those lines.

A situation supposedly resolved by breaking the source code.

November 27, 2009 at 3:42 pm in reply to: F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, and F16's Block 60 #2415589

StevoJH
Participant

Hmm. That user name is a translation of “Rafales” into English. Let me guess who it may be . . . . :diablo:

Not another one…. :dev2:

November 27, 2009 at 3:41 pm in reply to: 36 Dassault Rafale for Brasil – Official #2415604

StevoJH
Participant

the deal is done since sept, no need of pointless NG lil swedish bird!

There has been no paper signed yet.

November 27, 2009 at 5:33 am in reply to: F-22, Typhoon, Rafale, and F16's Block 60 #2416200

StevoJH
Participant

I wouldn’t want the foreign services getting a sneak peek at the F-22’s strategies and abilities. Save them as the ace in the hole, so to speak. Twenty years from now, when the newness is worn off and something better is available we can squander this ‘hidden quantity’. Until then please keep it safe from prying eyes.

To late, RAAF and RAF Pilots have served in F-22 Squadrons, probably Canadians as well.

November 27, 2009 at 4:32 am in reply to: Navies news from around the world -II #2014721

StevoJH
Participant

I’m surprised they didn’t fit the Harpoons forward in place of the forward sea wolf launcher.

She looks very bare…..
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 331 through 345 (of 987 total)

← 1 2 3 … 22 23 24 … 64 65 66 →