Page 10 – Key Publishing

flanker30

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 509 total)

← 1 2 3 … 9 10 11 … 32 33 34 →

Author

Posts
May 30, 2011 at 3:56 am in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2329159

flanker30
Participant

“…In 2017, Increment 3.2B will add support for the plane’s AIM-9X short-range and AIM-120D medium-range anti-air missiles, among many other upgrades….”

Does that mean the F-22 cannot at the moment fire those basic AtoA missiles?:confused:

May 28, 2011 at 10:56 am in reply to: Bulgarian Air Force Thread #2 #2331089

flanker30
Participant

Secondhand Gripens are available sooner & cheaper than FA-50s, & can be supported more easily. Operating cost of FA-50 isn’t likely to be very much less than Gripen. They have variants of the same engine, for example.

M-346 doesn’t have enough speed advantage over civil jets for effective air policing.

For the medium term, ex-Swedish Gripen A/B is probably the cheapest option which meets all the needs. They could be upgraded to a semi-NG standard, or replaced by new aircraft, eventually. Sweden is willing to lease them.

Is the Gripen A/B NATO-compatible?

May 27, 2011 at 1:02 pm in reply to: SAAB to build Sea Gripen demonstrator? #2332314

flanker30
Participant

Gripen seems like a much more logical replacement for Jaguar/Harrier than Typhoon, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

May 26, 2011 at 10:02 pm in reply to: SAAB to build Sea Gripen demonstrator? #2333109

flanker30
Participant

it has been given about 1/3 of the CATOBAR 16500kg max takeoff weight or about 3000kg of fuel and goods… give and take due to ship differences.

http://www.stratpost.com/saab-offers-naval-gripen-to-india

The article actually says that “…the payload of fuel and weapons in STOBAR operations will be one-third less than the payload in CATOBAR operations. There will be no differences in ‘bring-back’ capability going from CATOBAR and STOBAR.”

May 26, 2011 at 8:54 am in reply to: SAAB to build Sea Gripen demonstrator? #2333847

flanker30
Participant

Except that a hi-lo mix makes no sense for the UK as the RAF is not organised in such a manner.

Whether or not it makes sense for the defence of the UK should not be determined by how the RAF is currently organised. It can be re-organised if necessary.

May 25, 2011 at 12:43 pm in reply to: Aero L159 Alca for Iraq #2334529

flanker30
Participant

The L-159 has no future. The Czechs just got lucky to find a customer thanks to the lack of cheapish light subsonic fighter-attack models in the West. No more A-4 around, or single-seater Hawks. And the M346 isn’t yet weaponized.

Doubt it was a matter of ‘luck’. Iraqi military purchases are controlled by the US – what are they getting from the Czech Republic in return?

May 25, 2011 at 12:33 pm in reply to: SAAB to build Sea Gripen demonstrator? #2334533

flanker30
Participant

The Gripen is the aircraft the UK should/could buy – including a Sea Gripen version for the FAA – to provide a hi/lo partner for Typhoon, like the F-15/F-16 mix in the USAF. The F-35 is no longer necessary – now that the UK has dropped the STOVL requirement – and the F-35 programme has become ridiculuously expensive: it’s doubtful if even the US can continue paying for it.

May 21, 2011 at 12:43 am in reply to: Navies news from around the world -III #2003721

flanker30
Participant

The RN’s Castle class OPVs had a similar layout, althought the bridge wasn’t quite as tall:

April 28, 2011 at 11:17 am in reply to: Options for MPA #2005134

flanker30
Participant

Agree that C295s operated by the Navy is the way to go. BTW, C295s already have an AAR probe option:

Not clear about the SAR coordination role. In the past, comms relay was a big part of this, but has SATCOM aboard the helicopter not done away with the need for this? Likewise GPS and/or EPIRBs and the like mean that the position of the people or vessels in distress are known, so a search is rarely required. What is topcover for?

April 28, 2011 at 11:05 am in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 7 #2355679

flanker30
Participant

….
Feel sorry for Gripen though.Its a neat little fighter.Maybe the lack of a aesa did it in.

+1, but I think I’d agree with Swerve: Gripen lost out because it was too similar to Tejas.

April 28, 2011 at 10:45 am in reply to: CVF Construction #2005148

flanker30
Participant

Another example of the old adage that “a boat is a hole in the water, into which you pour money”

April 28, 2011 at 10:32 am in reply to: Options for MPA #2005151

flanker30
Participant

If and whenever new MPA aircraft are acquired, should they be operated by the RAF, RN, or the Coastguard?

April 23, 2011 at 11:22 am in reply to: Australia to buy RFA Largs Bay #2005363

flanker30
Participant

I thought China had bought Australia? :diablo:

April 22, 2011 at 10:51 am in reply to: Someone Besides Hot Dogs's F-35 Cyber News Thread #5 #2357825

flanker30
Participant

From which I quote:

“This program has never been quite as troubled as many critics thought. I think it’s probably progressed more smoothly than other fighter development program with the possible exception of the F-16,” said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.”

Wish I had some of what he is smoking!!!

He gets a big cheque from Lockheed, but I’m sure that doesn’t influence his independent analysis. :diablo:

April 21, 2011 at 8:15 pm in reply to: The FREMM thread. #2005526

flanker30
Participant

The problem is that destroyers and frigates have got so big and so expensive that only very few can be afforded. I think there has to be a balance between the size of individual ships and the size of the fleet. As Lenin said, “Quantity has a quality all its own.” 😉
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 509 total)

← 1 2 3 … 9 10 11 … 32 33 34 →