dark light

flanker30

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 509 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: CVF Construction #1998782
    flanker30
    Participant

    …. Most postwar carriers only required 24-25 knots for normal launching operations (into wind, adding on average another 20-30 knots of wind speed on top of ship speed), I ‘ve noticed many posters over the years seem to be under the impression WOD (Wind Over Deck) is purely about ship speed (in the tropics and equator it can be), when it is a combination of ship and local wind speeds, making the mid 20s knots more than adequate for flight ops.

    BTW, I’m sure I read somewhere that the MiG-29K can take off 90% of the time under tropical conditions when the carrier speed is just 10 knots.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1999339
    flanker30
    Participant
    in reply to: CVF Construction #1999556
    flanker30
    Participant

    Why would a carrier need to stand 600nm or 700 nm off the Libyan coastline? Would you not be in Italy or Greece at that stage?

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2000222
    flanker30
    Participant

    ……
    They are going with F35C, not Rafale. You can tell them not to, and that they should go Rafale, but I don’t think they will be interested.

    Many things have changed since the original commitment to the F-35 project was made. The financial crisis, for example, which means that affordability has become a much higher priority; the STOVL requirement is gone now; the F-35 has become a troubled development programme, with many unresolved technical issues and costs that are seemingly out of control. And last, but not least, a few months they signed the UK-France Defence Co-operation Treaty, which specifically mentioned “building primarily on maritime task group co-operation around the French carrier Charles de Gaulle – the UK and France will aim to have, by the early 2020s, the ability to deploy a UK-French integrated carrier strike group incorporating assets owned by both countries…”

    If you look at it in light of those factors, the idea of Rafales for the Royal Navy makes a lot more sense now than it might have a few years back.

    in reply to: British Harriers sold to US Marines #2381311
    flanker30
    Participant

    …… The Royal Navy have already shifted as many of their Harrier pilots over to the France or US as they can to allow them to operate Rafale and Super Hornet. Actually the deal to send thirty FAA pilots to train and operate off the CdG is a major coup for the RN and certainly for the partisan among you very much a win over the RAF. I have a hunch the RAF were rather keen to have FAA fixed wing pilot numbers rapidly dwindle after SDSR, I’m not sure how many pilots are operating with the USN but certainly with those in France we are talking about the FAA retaining about forty to fifty fixed wing pilots. With the navy retaining a significant cadre of pilots qualified for CATOBAR ops it certainly puts them in the driving seat when it comes to F35C allocation.

    ….Or sets up the FAA nicely for a Rafale-M buy. The RAF can then switch to the cheaper F-35A.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2000348
    flanker30
    Participant

    No UK workshare in Rafales, next to no weapons integrated either. The UK will get 10-15% per F35 sold, it makes every sense to continue with JSF/JCA even if just commerically……

    Maybe the French would be happy to do a similar offset deal on the Rafales.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2000376
    flanker30
    Participant

    Why? We don’t want a Mistral and we don’t want Rafales either.

    The Mistral would provide an LHD replacement for HMS Ocean, and the Rafales would be a much more affordable option than the F-35C, especially if it was part of a barter deal for the second carrier.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2000416
    flanker30
    Participant

    This carrier saga is turning into a right farce. Put an end to the silliness: bite the bullet and give one of the new carriers to the French, in return for a Mistral-class LHD and ~30 Rafales.

    in reply to: Maritime C130 patrol aircraft for UK? #2387403
    flanker30
    Participant

    Wonder how much Marshalls would charge for that? Probably be cheaper to buy a new CASA C-295 MPA, with the same or better capabilities. It would certainly be a lot cheaper to operate.

    in reply to: Close Air Support – debate in US #2312263
    flanker30
    Participant

    Well its just a matter of time in my opinion, the RAF are forming a second squadren for reapers in 2012 and are increasing there fleet from 3 to 10. also Reapers arnt very expensive compaired to say a tornado or a F-16. i wouldnt be suprised if this trend continues. in ten years time i’d expect the RAF to operate about 40 Reaper type craft.

    Replacing what?

    in reply to: Close Air Support – debate in US #2313431
    flanker30
    Participant

    Indonesia signs contract for delivery of Tucanos to replace OV-10 Broncos in roles such as light attack, surveillance, air-to-air interception and counter-insurgency.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/13/357888/indonesia-embraer-sign-super-tucano-contract.html

    in reply to: Close Air Support – debate in US #2313467
    flanker30
    Participant

    How many OV-10/AT-6 airframes, with how much ground support/logistics, and how many trained pilots will you need to replicate the coverage for 1 UAV on station for 24hrs?.

    The only serious cost element to the UAV will be satellite bandwidth and even that could be mitigated if pre-existing high endurance aerial platforms such as AWACS are in theatre….or with the simple expedient of tasking a second UAV as a commo relay platform.

    Sounds great, but just wondering why everyone doesn’t have them already, seeing as the technology is well-established by now, and why there are still so many manned aircraft – fixed wing and rotary – doing CAS in Afghanistan?

    in reply to: Close Air Support – debate in US #2313731
    flanker30
    Participant

    Agree completely. 20 years ago I could have seen the rationale for an AT-6/OV-10 type manned COIN aircraft, but what exactly do they offer *today* that a MQ-9/Eitan/Mantis could not do much better (in combination with existing manned assets, anyway)?

    Affordability for one thing….. 🙂

    in reply to: Close Air Support – debate in US #2313953
    flanker30
    Participant
    in reply to: Military Aviation News From Around The World – VII #2316748
    flanker30
    Participant

    It looks a bit larger than an E-2… and those operate just fine from carriers with the apparently same sized rotodome… this should have no problems at all…..

    Look at the tail and compare with the Hawkeye: the C-295 is 3 metres taller – would it fit in the hangar? Folding tail?

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 509 total)