Moderator: MOD_Command
Thanks for posting those. The contract expires at the end of this year but the Royal Navy will likely extend it. They're also testing the SW-4 Solo helicopter to fulfil the rotary-wing unmanned aerial system (RWUAS), although there's nothing concrete to add to CMANO.ORIGINAL: ojms
-links-
ORIGINAL: emsoy
ORIGINAL: seaman
Hi, again I.
Is it possible to model the Defense Systems KRTZ-125 - 2 M Anti-Radiation Missile Decoy System?
***ausairpower dot net/APA-SAM-DefAids dot html***
Also to assign it to the data base of Venezuela.
***i dot imgur dot com/AK1r8e6 dot jpg***
***i dot imgur dot com/PYZA0Ko dot jpg***
Thanks!
The sensor model doesn't include ARM decoys yet, I'm very sorry for that. The feature is on our to-do list though [8D]
ORIGINAL: emsoy
Added / updated these. Whacked the SSC-6 and SA-15d. Thanks! [8D]
ORIGINAL: seaman
Hello mates, I'm working on a few scenarios Colombia vs. Venezuela and suggest the following modifications and inclusions in the data base of these countries based on acquisitions of armaments and equipment
COLOMBIA
-It is necessary to model helicopter attack AH - 60 L "ARPÍA" in its three versions. It is a version artillada of the UH - 60 L of transport, as amended by the Colombian air force Sikorsky and ELBIT System collaborative. Your current version and that the fleet is being upgraded, the ARPIA 4.
-The frigates "Padilla" class this year, have been equipped with missile SSM C-Star Korean which replaces the Exocet system. The Assembly is of four missiles per boat in two assemblies duplex.
-Also, I would be remiss by modeling the tactical submarines COSMOS SX-506, intrepid ARC S-21 and ARC Indomable S-22 employees between 1973 and 2013.
-Peer is the oceanic surveillance vessels 80-OPV "20 de Julio" class
- Citation SR506 Tracker AEW For anti-narcotics operations. Use APG-66 combat radar
VENEZUELA
-Modeling advanced training aircraft / light attack Hongdu L-15 Falcon
-Modify BD 2227 SAM SA-23. The Venezuelan system use 9M82M/SA-23A and 9M83M/SA-23B missile. Similar to BD 1860 entry
-Modify BD 2253 SAM SA-3C. The Venezuelan system use P-18 radar no P-19
-Modify BD 2230 K-8W. The Venezuelan system use PL-5E no PL-5B missile
-Alligator Landing ship Alligator-3 version; Venezuelan designation "Capana" class
-Stan Patrol-4207 Patrol craft
-Stan Patrol-5009 Patrol craft
-Stan Patrol-2606 Patrol craft
-Mohajer UAV Probably Mohajer-3 version; Venezuelan designation "Arpia"
-Modify to hypothetical the BD #2161 entry (SA-15D) and DB#2281 entry (SSC-6) these purchases have not been specified to date.
“The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained.
But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. “When I’m downrange in Badguyland that’s the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that’s where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16,” Kloos says.
"What the F-35 has is more manoeuvrability than I ever had in the CF-18 as an air show pilot," Billie Flynn told QMI Agency.
Flynn said he has flown dozens of different planes, including taking the CF-18 into combat in Kosovo and testing the Eurofighter Typhoon.
He said nothing compares to the F-35s he tests weekly in Texas.
"I'm dramatically more lethal than I ever was in those fourth-generation airplanes," Flynn said.
...the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him.
The defeated flier’s five-page report is a damning litany of aerodynamic complaints targeting the cumbersome JSF.
ORIGINAL: Tomcat84
I agree with the above.
The war is boring post is not a credible source in my opinion without posting the actual document. Also seems that that site is hell bent on crucifying the F-35 and as such again I would take whatever it posts with a grain of salt.
ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Any idea on in service dates and technical specs?ORIGINAL: orca
Here is more info on the updates to AN/SLQ-32. I hope this is enough info to add in the next DB update. Thanks for considering.
To summarize:
SLQ-32(V)1 – A simple threat warning receiver, it was capable of receiving high-band radar signals of the type commonly carried on missiles and aircraft. The (V)1 was installed on auxiliary ships and small combatants such as frigates. This variant of the system is being phased out as current ships equipped become decommissioned.
SLQ-32(V)2 – Initially the most common variant, the (V)2 added the ability to receive surveillance and targeting radars. This provided a passive targeting capability for Harpoon missile-equipped ships. The (V)2 was installed on frigates, destroyers, and 270-foot (82 m) Coast Guard Cutters.
SLQ-32(V)3 – Expanding on the (V)2’s capabilities, the (V)3 added active radar-jamming capability. The (V)3 was installed on various combatants such as cruisers, battleships, large amphibious ships and high-value replenishment vessels.
SLQ-32(V)4 – Designed for installation on aircraft carriers, the (V)4 consisted of two (V)3 systems, one for each side of the ship, tied to a common computer and display console. Additional line replaceable units and software were added to support the wide separation of the two antenna/electronics enclosures.
SLQ-32(V)5 – The (V)5 was built as a response to the Stark incident in 1987. The (V)5 incorporated a compact version of the (V)3 system intended to give active jamming capability to the Perry class FFG’s, which were too small to carry a full (V)3.
These will be replaced with Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP). May be called AN/SLQ-32(6)?
Block 2 is upgraded EW detection and has already been installed on a Burke. rate production to start in 2015.
Block 3 is upgraded electronic attack and is planned for 2017. Contract signed. Will be installed on all ships who currently have AN/SLQ-32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SLQ-32_ ... fare_Suite
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/navy ... ional-test
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=1
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 4sewip.pdf
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/12/navy-aw ... op-grumman
Thanks!
Mike
ORIGINAL: Tomcat84
I agree with the above.
The war is boring post is not a credible source in my opinion without posting the actual document. Also seems that that site is hell bent on crucifying the F-35 and as such again I would take whatever it posts with a grain of salt.
The pilot is unnamed because he released FOUO documentation to the public. The government takes that stuff seriously.The unnamed pilot's statements also still stand in mysterious contrast to that of the other test pilots.
Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.
The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations.
ORIGINAL: SuaveWatermelon
It still doesn't explain why David Axe would not name his source. A nameless source is for the most part a useless one, especially when the motives of the writer are well known and distinctly biased against the project in question.
The unnamed pilot's statements also still stand in mysterious contrast to that of the other test pilots.
Finally, the context of the BFM wasn't fully given and ,since neither we nor Axe have this information, no relevant conclusions can be drawn.
Just my two cents.
)
