![]() |
|
|||||||
|
Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board! The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today? |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#137 (permalink) |
|
Contributor
|
If you would have read about the on-going spat between the CRPF DIG and the commie MP,you'd know that winning over the support base is immaterial.It doesn't matter who the voters want elected,they will have to vote for the commies,they simply DO NOT have the choice to vote for anyone else,the Red will certainly win the elections,by hook or by crook
__________________
:-?? |
|
|
|
|
|
#138 (permalink) | |
|
Navajo Code Talker
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam -Touch The Sky With Glory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#139 (permalink) |
|
Contributor
|
The Super hornet is a carrier based plane made to withstand the harsh conditions at sea and of taking off with a controlled explosion and landing with a controlled crash.
Does it have too much weight that is really not required for a land based platform, or does all of this provide a Air Force with a solid platform that will last longer while based on land? How much is super agility and planes that take sharp turns at high speeds a factor with AFs in a age of missile that state their ranges in 60-100 kms and have equally agile missile that use helmet mounter displays?
__________________
cheers |
|
|
|
|
|
#140 (permalink) | |
|
Contributor
|
Quote:
__________________
" THe SiLEnt KNighT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#143 (permalink) |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Carrier as it stands is not carrier capable, but it is strengthened for use on unprepared airstrips. A carrier capable version would be easier to produce than most land based aircraft. That being said, the only real potential customers would be spain, Brazil, and Argentina and none of them are in any position to fund such an aircraft. As for Rafale, only the Rafale-M is carrier capable.
__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters. |
|
|
|
|
|
#145 (permalink) | |
|
Regular
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#146 (permalink) |
|
Senior Contributor
|
The Gripen is already strengthened to operate from unprepared runways. It also has larger flaps to help it operate from runways under 800m. These techniques are similar to those used by carrier aircraft. The airframe and landing gear would require additional strengthening, but it wouldn't be near as extensive or add as much weight as normal land based aircraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#147 (permalink) |
|
Lost in Translation
Senior Contributor
|
Interestingly, pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, though no doubt some Gripen pilots would give it a shot if they got the chance.
The SAAB JAS 39 Gripen wow..
__________________
.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#148 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
|
Not that its really relevant for anything but U-2's have taken off and landed on carriers in testing and practice. Just because its thoretically possible in a tight near emergancy situation doesn't mean its really a good idea. With some aircraft the issue of landing is less of a problem than getting it back off the deck again. The f-15 and f-16 as well as some other older USAF fighters also have tailhooks, they aren't really carrier capable though since the landing gear and plane airframe can't really stand up to the sudden stop as well as the navalized planes can (Its used for engine testing and emergancy landing on land you could probably get a carrier landing or two out of them without really damaging the plane but its strongly not recommended sorta like turning on your car and taking it immedately to redline or overclocking your computer significantly).
You are looking at about 15% extra structural bulk frame wise over a non-carrier capable airplane with everything else being equal. The land version of the hornet was actually almost 30% lighter but that was also a fairly extensive redesign including changing the fuel system signifcantly. It makes for an interesting question about how much weight could be easily saved by making a land only version for export, and how that would effect cost/handeling. I think it would have to be something of a half measure because it simply wouldn't be worth retooling the entire airframe but lightening the landing gear and chaning the tailhook to the lighter AF version might be worth it and be doable cheaply. Last edited by Maxor : 05-17-2008 at 10:23 AM. Reason: minor spelling and reability its still a huge block of pointless text. |
|
|
|
|
|
#149 (permalink) | |
|
Contributor
|
Quote:
Thank you for the information sir. Does that mean that India is getting the non-navalized version of the super hornet ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#150 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
|
No they will not be getting non navalized superhornet. There is no non-navalized version of the superhornet just the base hornet (really two different planes with a superficial structural resemblence and some electronics in common) and the non-navalized version never really entered production just had prototypes built by one the junior partner in the design of the hornet program. If India asks and would be putting in a large order they could probably get a varrient with signficant lightening of the really heavy navalized parts (wing folding and landing gear tailhook) though the airframe would be the same. Thats probably fairly unlikely.
KuKu What controlled explosion on take-off? A jet engine isn't really a controlled explosion and you have that in all modern fighters weather land or carrier based. A steam pistion catapault is not in anyway an explosion. I want to find out where this explsion is? Most carrier landings aren't really that damaging/ hard on aircraft either, there is just alot of force being suddenly allipied in unusual directions for an airplane so that the airframe needs to be stronger to do it repeatedly without problems. Personal feeling is that the indians should probably get the Grippen. The only reason I can see for prefering the S-Hornet would be if the russians ever manage to actually deliver on that carrier that is on order (I wish you all well on that). On the politics side of things I had no idea you guys were that divisive on your politics wow I might actually have to look at indian politics sometime. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Indian Military - Daily Update | Endangered | South Asian Defense Topics | 1436 | 06-15-2008 00:52 AM |
| Bloodiest Battles in History | sparten | General History | 40 | 06-07-2008 00:29 AM |
| U.S.-India Maritime Cooperation: A Track-Two Dialogue | Adux | Naval Forces | 0 | 02-20-2008 21:11 PM |
| F-14 vs. F/A-18E/F | troung | Military Aviation | 504 | 12-29-2007 21:31 PM |
| Indo-Pakistan Talks – Myths, Delusions and Fantasies!! | Ray | South Asian Defense Topics | 11 | 05-06-2007 21:25 PM |