Thanks Thanks:  214
Likes Likes:  423
Dislikes Dislikes:  7
Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 451 to 472 of 472
  1. #451
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    I would say a bigger worry for NATO is the Russians Parking Submarines in the GIUK gap, hence the UK investment in the P-8 and the Carrier strike group.
    If you want a great place to hide an Russian attack submarine look no further than the waters between Donegal and Islay. This is the main route out of Faslane and the old Holy Loch bases for SSBN's. Why great, well the Brits littered the place with loads of German U-boats after the war, so plenty of big metallic objects on the bottom to mask any sub hiding there.

  2. #452
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting that the Russians were also using Mig31 to escort the Bears during one excursion.
    An old aircraft with an unmatched max altitude amongst similar aircraft. Often used to train cosmonauts at the edge of the earth's atmosphere.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  3. #453
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    Here's todays track of the Russian day trippers.

    Big, big thanks for finding me one of me new fav twitter accounts, Mil Radar, so kool

  4. Thanks CTU thanked for this post
  5. #454
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The Tu-95 & Tu-142 Bears may be old but they have been modernized in the past few years. Also unlike fighters their flight hours/cycle life is not so short especially as the Russian never tried to use them in a low level role. We can easily expect each one to have a life of 30,000 hours (a 737 or A320 would be 3-4 times) and that the Russian never use them for more than 200 hours per year. I let you do the Maths on that one.
    As for the Tu-160 Blackjacks these are a lot newer and just when they entered service the USSR collapsed so for many years they got little use and so should have plenty of hours still on the airframe. In fact they have recently re-started production of the Blackjack with the Tu-160M2. However spares and especially those for the engines remain critical and thus the amount of sorties per year will be severely limited.
    What some might have missed is that the Russians have also been bussing the Yanks and Canukes also last week with aircraft flying from a base in easten Siberia (Ukrainka).
    I'd be fairly confident in saying no Russian Military aircraft will make 30,000hrs life, most need a major overhaul at around the 1000hr mark. The engines are the major maintenance nightmare with most Russian Military jet engines having a life of only a couple of hundred hours.

    And I agree they have severe spares shortages and very limited capacity to manufacture new engines and parts.

    Each sortie must chew up a significant amount of the years availability.

  6. #455
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    If you want a great place to hide an Russian attack submarine look no further than the waters between Donegal and Islay. This is the main route out of Faslane and the old Holy Loch bases for SSBN's. Why great, well the Brits littered the place with loads of German U-boats after the war, so plenty of big metallic objects on the bottom to mask any sub hiding there.
    Interestingly the P-8 doesn't have a MAD boom, they have some other method to detect sub surface combatants.

  7. #456
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Interestingly the P-8 doesn't have a MAD boom, they have some other method to detect sub surface combatants.
    The USN claims they do not need a MAD as their acoustic sensors are now so good!
    However the Indians do not agree and they have added a CAE AN/ASQ-508A MAD as well as an aft radar, the Telephonics APS-143C(V)3 which some may know off the CN235/C295 MPA. Saab also offered the same MAD on the Swordfish and what was noticeable was that it was smaller and closer to the airframe than those we have seen on P3 aircraft or the like.

  8. Likes DeV liked this post
  9. #457
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd be hesitant in assuming that the sensors/processing on the Indian P-8's have the same capability on the US and selected other operators P-8's...

  10. Thanks Anzac thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  11. #458
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, India's primary (potential) enemy is Pakistan and they have form for sinking one Pak sub and shooting down at least two ASW aircraft so they take it very seriously, so I'd imagine their sensor kit is top drawer.

  12. #459
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Charlie 252 is spot on. Even the best Russian fighter engine is usually good for a max of 500 hrs between overhauls, far below Western standards. The Russian mentality about certification is different than Western practise and the West traditionally gives a lot more independence to its mechs and engineers to decide what is serviceable or not. They (russians) will defer an opinion up the chain of command and squadron engineering officers would be making decisions that would be taken by much lower ranks in the Western militaries. In saying that, in wartime, the rulebook goes out the window and they will bypass normal servicing and overhaul routines if they feel they have to.

  13. #460
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    I'd be hesitant in assuming that the sensors/processing on the Indian P-8's have the same capability on the US and selected other operators P-8's...
    The sensors maybe the same but I would wonder if they had been given the same acoustic database as has been supplied to the RAF. I would also think that India has its own sound catalogue which it uses for sub detection.

  14. Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #461
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Well, India's primary (potential) enemy is Pakistan and they have form for sinking one Pak sub and shooting down at least two ASW aircraft so they take it very seriously, so I'd imagine their sensor kit is top drawer.
    Don't confuse what India will want with what the US will offer.

    Turkey, a NATO country, was refused access to the top drawer PATRIOT system - what attitude do you think the US takes to its holiest of holy ASW systems in a country who's defence establishment has close ties to the Russians?

  16. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  17. #462
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Charlie 252 is spot on. Even the best Russian fighter engine is usually good for a max of 500 hrs between overhauls, far below Western standards. The Russian mentality about certification is different than Western practise and the West traditionally gives a lot more independence to its mechs and engineers to decide what is serviceable or not. They (russians) will defer an opinion up the chain of command and squadron engineering officers would be making decisions that would be taken by much lower ranks in the Western militaries. In saying that, in wartime, the rulebook goes out the window and they will bypass normal servicing and overhaul routines if they feel they have to.
    There is a major difference between service intervals and service life. The airframe of most Russian aircraft are built like brick sh**houses. And I know enough Russian aircraft designers to know that they design the airframe to be tough. The area that they fall down on are the systems, hence why they are pushing through a moderistaion of their long range assets. But following the collapse of the USSR a problem the Russian face is that the integrated supply chain is no longer there. Many component where made in other countries some of which are not on the Russian friends list like Ukraine and Georgia. Also many of the more specialist company no longer exist. A case in hand are the engines for the Tu160, there is a manufacturer but they cannot supply the numbers needed for the current fleet. Neither in spares or in terms of new engines.

    What we can be certain is that these flights and the others in the Pacific are important for Putin and will continue. They may not have the same frequency of the past week but we will see them from time to time.

  18. #463
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Interestingly the P-8 doesn't have a MAD boom, they have some other method to detect sub surface combatants.
    Will our new expensive toys the C-295's be able to track Russian Akula class subs wandering their way through the Irish Sea?

  19. Likes Charlie252 liked this post
  20. #464
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Will our new expensive toys the C-295's be able to track Russian Akula class subs wandering their way through the Irish Sea?
    Only if they travel on the surface. So, err....

  21. Likes The real Jack, Flamingo, DeV, Charlie252 liked this post
  22. #465
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Don't confuse what India will want with what the US will offer.

    Turkey, a NATO country, was refused access to the top drawer PATRIOT system - what attitude do you think the US takes to its holiest of holy ASW systems in a country who's defence establishment has close ties to the Russians?
    At this stage, I dont think America would trust Turkey with the keys to a Ford Ranger. I'd imagine the US and India would negotiate for exactly what level of ASW detection quality their money should buy them,knowing that the fallback position for India is to buy Russian.

  23. #466
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=EUFighter;473692]There is a major difference between service intervals and service life. The airframe of most Russian aircraft are built like brick sh**houses. And I know enough Russian aircraft designers to know that they design the airframe to be tough. The area that they fall down on are the systems, hence why they are pushing through a moderistaion of their long range assets. But following the collapse of the USSR a problem the Russian face is that the integrated supply chain is no longer there. Many component where made in other countries some of which are not on the Russian friends list like Ukraine and Georgia. Also many of the more specialist company no longer exist. A case in hand are the engines for the Tu160, there is a manufacturer but they cannot supply the numbers needed for the current fleet. Neither in spares or in terms of new engines.

    Russian manufacturers fall down on their supply of spare parts. They had the luxury of mass orders in the Cold war and they would simply strip aircraft a to keep aircraft b flying,ad nauseam, until the supply chain caught up. It is still the same to this day. They do not, as a rule, build up a spares stock like Western manufacturers have done since WW 2.

    In the West, the likes of Boeing will calculate the consumption of parts from field reports so that it knows how much stock to build up, yet avoid having it's warehouse full of unmoving stock. Third parties will supply the consumables like tyres and oil filters but exclusive Boeing parts such as wing fairings and control surfaces will be manufacturered to the order of at least 10% above the number of airframes and up to as much as 30% if an item is in high demand. The Russian system was more of a " buy one airframe, get one support kit with it". Friends who have dealt with the Russian system as it exists now regard it as sheer hard work to get spares made and then delivered, compared to dealing with Western companies. Western companies don't always get it right (Agusta, Im looking at you) but they are beacons of virtue compared to Russians. Just because their aircraft tend to be rugged, doesnt mean they can't be grounded from lack of spares.

  24. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  25. #467
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like
    We can have come off topic, but, the Russian Aircraft are indeed built tough, but mainly because they are so far behind in metallurgy terms, hence the engines life which is only a few hundred hours, 500hrs would be very high for them.

    The point I am making is that the Russians burn hours from aircraft on each of these flights and must therefore sacrifice actual front line availability, just to cause a bit of consternation in the North Atlantic. They seam to have a policy of this kind of behavior at the expense of actual military readiness.

    The idea of spending a huge amount of money to enable us to window dress along side the Russians is a total folly.

    I would hope if funding was to become available it would be focused on supporting our service members incomes.

    Then enhancing our conventional land forces military capability(maybe along the lines of.. more armored vehicles, heavier mobile weapons, modern point air defense system etc) I'm sure there are many areas needing investment and upgrade
    also enhancing our Naval fleets military capability(radar, comms, guided weapons some sub surface detection capability etc) again many areas that need investment and upgrade.

    On the Aviation side a military radar network, more helicopters with some guided weapons, a credible air lift capability, surface and sub surface tracking capability, just as a starting point.
    Last edited by Charlie252; 15th March 2020 at 06:04.

  26. Likes Tempest liked this post
  27. #468
    2/Lt EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    If we look at the issue of defence as a defence issue rather than a source of jobs and something for photo ops in foreign lands then things need to be a lot different.
    Firstly we are an island and the chance of a land based threat is low, in any case a balanced distribution of the defence budget would be equally split between all three services. Not only that but the split manpower/operations/capital would be widely different than today.

    It is a joke, even with the 120 new trucks ordered this week there is not enough lift capacity for the number of troops we have let alone some form of armored lift. But then in terms of defence we are a joke in the rest of Europe. And that when the rest also admit they are well behind what they need to invest. Air defence is just one area that needs to be improved but the realization that our force split is not fit for purpose also need to happen. I would prefer a much lower establishment but that they are paid better and given the proper equipment to do the job. And given the pitiful spending today that would not even cover half of today's establishment let alone pay for some low cost point defence fighters like the KAI FA-50.

  28. #469
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    The fundamental, big, scary choice to make is whether the DF should be configured as a stand-alone force (in whatever form), or as a contributing ingredient into a wider EU defence capability (and I'm quite deliberately not saying single EU force).

    All else flows from that...

    Any answers to that are compromises with real problems attached - but that's the thing about being a grown-up, all the options come with shit attached...

  29. Likes DeV, EUFighter, Flamingo, sofa, Turkey liked this post
  30. #470
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would seem that the Defence Forces are nothing but a supply of manpower to be used by the State during a crisis or a Papal visit as needed and then put back on the shelf till the next crisis . Lots of praise from politicians etc and taxpayers briefly left satisfied that the Defence Forces are worth having . Maybe they should be renamed The Civil Defence Forces .
    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

  31. Likes apod, EUFighter, Flamingo liked this post
  32. #471
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    287
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The sensors maybe the same but I would wonder if they had been given the same acoustic database as has been supplied to the RAF. I would also think that India has its own sound catalogue which it uses for sub detection.
    There are some differences and the Indian Neptunes use some local content. The USN Poseidons have all been spiral upgraded to at least Increment 2 Block 2 level and Increment 3 upgrades on-stream with AN/APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor by 2022. All inservice Poseidons will either spiral upgrade further or be built for a handful of qualifying non US customers to Increment 3 Block 2 with AN/SSQ-125-E and further EW within 5 years. However, the way the Indians are moving ever closer to the US and its partners such as Australia in strategic alignment in the Indo-Pacific region thus I don't discount the opportunity for them to start having access to the full Poseidon upgrade pathway and inclusion into the BAMS/WGS project. That said the Neptunes in their current trim are a very capable maritime warfare platform including their ISR capabilities.

    Ropebag makes an excellent point with respect to Ireland and whether the DF should in the future be configured as a stand-alone force or as a contributing ingredient into a wider EU defence umbrella that provides that European Defence capability with greater strategic weight in areas which Ireland it could shine as a key component contributor and also meet its own emerging defence needs.

    Ireland is an North Atlantic rim nation that has one of the largest EEZ's within the EU and thus possesses a considerable strategic western flank to Europe. If it was going to develop a further tier 1 military capability alongside the ARW as a cornerstone contribution to a broader European defence capability building upon the CASA experience and capability that is where I would focus.

  33. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  34. #472
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Given that the Navy seems to be deflating rather than even standing still, NS recruitment and retention needs to be addressed as a priority.

  35. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, CTU, EUFighter, sofa liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •