dark light

Chaffers

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 87 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Could/Would GE/RR self-fund the F136? #2470750
    Chaffers
    Participant

    We’re looking to buy B models which are more expensive than the average however those figures are roughly what I’ve seen from other sources, though lets not forget that they are only going to rise as the program will almost certainly face problems or delays..

    The Carriers keep on getting pushed back however the last estimate I saw was Lizzy being in the water by 2015. The RAF want B models to replace the Harrier which was to be OOS by 2015 however the entire fleet has racked up far more airframe hours over Afghan than was planned for.

    Even at the ‘average’ cost quoted above I would doubt we’d be ordering many, if any at all. If you made it out of solid gold it would come in at $500 million, the price is simply breathtaking for performance which is questionable.

    Which, is why early production models are so expensive.

    I don’t see this as a valid argument, LRIP is still over 100 airframes per year. Many militiary aircraft projects produce fewer airframes than this in their entire production run.

    in reply to: Navalized Typhoon no longer a 'mere project' #2471361
    Chaffers
    Participant

    I was using historical prices for the Tranche 2 Eurofighter price. The recent exchange rates have skewed it due to the weakness of the Euro.

    While I think that Lockheed Martin has been downright dishonest about the cost of the F-35, production examples will not cost anywhere near $215 million.

    The first production examples will, the first B models come in at around $200 million.

    Even in 2014 or later you won’t get an F35B for less than $120 million.

    Considering the published performance figures I’m sure BAEs could design something more capable for less cash, which is quite a bold statement considering BAEs’ reputation!

    in reply to: RN FSC – C1/C2 hull & armament proposals #2033303
    Chaffers
    Participant

    A variation on the Arsenal ship would be the modern equivalent of a gunboat, and cheap as chips to run as well.

    I’d much rather see the bulk of the funding spent on capable C1 vessels.

    in reply to: Could/Would GE/RR self-fund the F136? #2471581
    Chaffers
    Participant

    Well, the RAF/RN will get F-35’s either way………..and the US doesn’t want to continue to pay for the development of the GE/RR F136……….

    Whether we see F35s will depend upon the price, information about which is only due to be available next year. If, as looks likely, LM will be quoting $200 million per airframe for the initial examples then the response will be short and filled with profanities.

    There was some controversy over the Typhoon tranche 3 at less than $60 million per copy and our defence budget is set to be rather stretched for the foreseeable future.

    Whilst the RAF will need a replacement for the Harrier in about 2015 there are lots of airframes that could do the job. A few years after that the Navy will require carrier capable aircraft though the F35 looks to be a poor choice in many respects. I’m quite sure that BAEs could design something more capable for a much smaller outlay. I also very much doubt that F35 will be used as a FOAS.

    Whatever happens BAEs has a 20% workshare over the life of the project however this isn’t linked to orders from the UK armed forces.

    You are incorrect to say that the US doesn’t want to fund the F136, whilst the DoD hasn’t requested funding Congress has continued to assign funding.

    in reply to: BVR vs WVR kills #2471600
    Chaffers
    Participant

    The info I’ve seen on Iranian F14 operations is only sketchy at best but I was under the impression that all Pheonix kills claimed were also WVR. There were a few instances of multiple kills claimed from a single missile due to the large warhead and close packed Iraqi formations though.

    in reply to: Could/Would GE/RR self-fund the F136? #2472271
    Chaffers
    Participant

    I wouldn’t bet on any RAF orders without RR getting some work on the engines. If, as we are told, over 2000 F35s will be built then having price competition between the engine suppliers will save more than the development costs.

    Congress doesn’t seem to be quite as short sighted as PW would like to think.

    in reply to: RN FSC – C1/C2 hull & armament proposals #2033374
    Chaffers
    Participant

    Personally I’d like to see the C2s as cheap gun trucks for use in the littorals. No point adding TLAMs etc, it isn’t a warfighting tool and adding the C2 for targetting would up the price dramatically.

    Something somewhat along the lines of the Arsenal ship only using Fireshadow VLS tubes and a (hopefully) VL 155mm. Add in a few Aster 15 silos for self defence and a millenium gun but nothing too fancy. Minehunting is going to be an important secondary role so being able to carry a couple of role specific containers would be useful.

    You’d be looking at a big flat ship with a large flight deck (possibly to operate future UAVs) which would probably need escorting in a seriously hostile environment. A couple of Merlins should suffice for ASW and I’d leave ASuMs to the helicopters to prevent mission creep in the design.

    Funds are pretty tight but with a small crew (the arsenal ship was planned with about 50 which was ridiculously small) and limited sensors you could easily make such a vessel stealthy without it costing the earth. Park it anywhere near a hostile coast and it would be a serious threat.

    It would basically be a cheap DDH which could be upgraded as the potential threats evolve. The key would be lots of VLS cells and a large capacity for 155mm NGFS. Lets be honest we’re unlikely to risk a Daring or C1 anywhere close to an enemy coast so something that would support our amphibious forces and show the flag around the world with the ability to bring some pressure to bear would be ideal.

    Deck space would be paramount in order to get as many cells on deck as possible (Freshadow is only 3m long) so a catamaran design might work well, and would provide some measure of survivability seeing as though it’s likely to be in harm’s way. Should also help with stability in the NGFS role. Spare berthing for mission specific crew and sneaky beaky types. Speed not essential, 20+ knots so diesels should suffice.

    in reply to: BVR vs WVR kills #2472401
    Chaffers
    Participant

    otherwise the few dozens of BVR kill

    Is the figure even that high?

    Even setting the modest goal posts of engagements utilizing a BVR capable missile where launch occured at greater than 7nm range I cant think of several dozen kills which qualify.

    None of the five Mig29s shot down in the Horn of Africa were BVR, indeed two appear to be 30mm cannon kills.

    in reply to: BVR vs WVR kills #2481403
    Chaffers
    Participant

    5 confirmed kills where made for sure in BVR ( 4 with AAM’s and 1 with gun).

    I assume this should be WVR, it’d have to be a BF gun otherwise!

    in reply to: BVR vs WVR kills #2481456
    Chaffers
    Participant

    It contradicts your graph.

    Evidently it shows the percentages of each type of kill, showing all to be BVR.

    Simply not the case. Where did you get it from?

    in reply to: BVR vs WVR kills #2481535
    Chaffers
    Participant

    You know wrong.

    Not according to my sources I’m not. One of the Mig29 kills was by a Viper, missing with his first two AMRAAMS (almost taking out a 117 in the process) and splashing it with his third at 6nm. He fired a fourth at another contact and missed. Hardly 100% or BVR..

    Found something else about two Eagles splashing two 29s, they supposedly fired at 18nm and closed to with 5nm when they saw the Migs explode. Seems very wrong. The pilot quoted was trying to get winders off his rails but couldn’t get tone. I suspect someone else did, surely an AMRAAM would hit before an Eagle could over 13nm…

    in reply to: BVR vs WVR kills #2482468
    Chaffers
    Participant

    I know for a fact that the kills in Allied Force required more than 1 BVR missile fired each too so I’d take the 100% with a very large pinch of salt.

    Possibly some vinegar and tabasco too…

    in reply to: Legitimacy of DPRK nuclear threat #2482673
    Chaffers
    Participant

    Countering the air threat isn’t as easy as it sounds. There are 11 major air bases in South Korea (numerous other airfields which could be used but probably without a significant presence and support) of which 7 are within 100 miles of the border….

    Don’t forget that North Korea has huge stocks of ballistic missiles (Scud C and D capability) which could make any airfield in theatre a dangerous place to operate from. Whilst the CEP of these weapons is open to debate it is probable that they could make operations difficult at the very least.

    in reply to: BVR vs WVR kills #2482799
    Chaffers
    Participant

    The gun and WVR data for that graph is based upon hundreds of engagements, the BVR one very few. Also as it is listed in percentages it isn’t clear that the BVR portion of the graph reflects anything other than use of BVR capable missiles, the history of which tends to suggest are actually used WVR in the vast majority of circumstances.

    It hits 100% in the year 2000, the only engagements which I know of around this period were the Allied Force kills which I think accounted for 7 airframes.

    How many BVR engagements have there been since 1990?

    in reply to: The latest Mig 31 Variants should be feared. #2484812
    Chaffers
    Participant

    The MiG-25 was a sitting duck in most parts of its flight envelope and only excelled above Mach 2.

    Hardly!! One Mig25 from the gulf war evaded 2x AIM54, 3xAMRAAM and several AIM7s in the same engagement. Admittedly it didn’t shoot anything down itself but the missiles left in its wake were almost certainly worth more than the airframe.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 87 total)