Defense Issues

Military and general security

    Advertisements
  • Follow Defense Issues on WordPress.com
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 252 other followers

  • September 2019
    M T W T F S S
    « Aug    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    30  
  • Categories

  • Advertisements

Posts Tagged ‘proposal’

Gripen C upgrade proposal

Posted by picard578 on December 20, 2014

Introduction

Similar to the F-16 upgrade proposal, this proposal will take an existing aircraft – Gripen C – and adress its greatest shortcomings with minimal redesign. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , , , | 17 Comments »

F-16 new build proposal

Posted by picard578 on December 15, 2014

Introduction

While I have proposed design of a fighter aircraft that would be superior to any existing or projected fighter aircraft in the world, USAF is unlikely to ever accept a proposal that uses so much of the non-US technology (that being said, in my NATO air forces proposal a CAS aircraft is mostly based on US technology). Further, it would take at least 3-4 years to put into production – and considering the bureocratic nature of modern design projects and lack of external pressure, more likely timeframe is 15-20 years.

New F-16 would be based on the F-16A, but with major modifications. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals, weapons | Tagged: , , , , , | 30 Comments »

NATO navies proposal revised

Posted by picard578 on September 13, 2014

Introduction

Submarine is the modern capital ship – primary ship for control of the sea against enemy navy. Only submarines can establish control of the sea, clearing it of the enemy ships and opening way for surface transport craft to carry ground troops into an area of operations. Carriers are primarly useful for support of amphibious landings, carrying out tasks including defending invasion fleet from airborne attacks, establishing air superiority over the area and providing close air support for the invasion force. Cruisers, destroyers and frigates can be useful for fire support of landing operations, while missile boats and fast attack craft can be useful in shallow coastal waters. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , | 80 Comments »

Aircraft carrier proposal 3

Posted by picard578 on September 6, 2014

Aircraft used

 

Aircraft used will be an air superiority fighter (FLX), CAS fighter (AX) and observation aircraft (OLX), plus transport aircraft (C-2). This will allow it to be useful for carrier’s primary tasks: defending fleet from an attack by enemy ground-based aircraft, as well as supporting amphibious landings and providing close air support for ground troops. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , | 35 Comments »

NATO air forces proposal 3

Posted by picard578 on August 23, 2014

Current state

Aircraft costs FY2014

COMBAT: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , | 13 Comments »

Forward air controller aircraft proposal revised

Posted by picard578 on August 16, 2014

Historical lessons

Since UAVs are very bad at actual observation (except maybe as an inexpensive help for individual infantry platoons, controlled by those same platoons), this aircraft will also be manned. Aside from this concern, UAVs are also not adaptable.

First airborne FACs appeared during World War I. In that war, aircraft were employed for surveillance due to ground commander’s difficulties in interpreting the unfolding battlespace. First aircraft used had a crew of two, a pilot and an observer who would sketch the situation for the ground commander; information was later used to make battlefield maps, and aircraft also helped in directing artillery barrages. This led directly to development of CAS fighters and interceptors: some observers started dropping small bombs from aircraft on enemy positions or strafe trenches with guns, and both sides tried to prevent the enemy scouting.

Observations made were often inaccurate – strength of enemy formations could be misreported by thousands. However, information was provided far sooner by airborne observers than by other means, though development of CAS (and thus FAC) doctrine was being neglected in favor of failed strategic bombing deep behind enemy lines; only in 1917 did France and Germany realize its true value.

Interwar period led to the separation of FAC and CAS duties, since performing CAS often led to the FACs neglecting their primary duty. Only US Marine Corps, having no separate air service, was able to concentrate aircraft on CAS duties. And while World War II led to many (soon forgotten) improvements in carrying out CAS missions, appearance of airborne forward air controller had to wait until Korean war. While doctrine did permit use of airborne FAC in air-to-ground operations, there was no equipment allocated for such function, nor was any training undertaken specifically for the mission. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , , , | 51 Comments »

Air superiority fighter proposal 6 overview

Posted by picard578 on August 3, 2014

Due to the excessive length of the original article, I have decided to post the overview. For those interested in entire design process and thinking behind the FLX, full article can be found here. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 21 Comments »

Air superiority fighter proposal 6

Posted by picard578 on August 2, 2014

text and drawings by Picard578

3D designs by Riley Amos

Requirements

Introduction

Modern air forces are getting loaded with highly complex, expensive “mutirole” aircraft. Result is decreasing force size for same or increasing cost, while at the same time combat effectiveness of these air forces decreases. Main reasons are lack of understanding of components of fighter aircraft effectiveness, inability to enforce design discipline upon service and industry, and infatuation with new (and old) technologies without understanding wether, and why, certain technologies work or do not work.

Nature of air to air combat

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

—G. Santayana

Fighter aircraft exist to destroy other aircraft, and allow other aircraft to carry out their missions without interference from enemy fighter aircraft. That being said, there exists a colloqial – and incorrect – use of term “fighter aircraft” as being applicable to any tactical aircraft, even those that are primarly or exclusively designed for ground attack, such as the A-10 and the F-35. Task of the aircraft is to enable pilot to bring weapons systems in position for a successful kill.

You never make a big truck and tomorrow make it a race car. And you never can make a big bomber and the next day a . . . fighter. The physical law means that you need another airplane. . . . You should do one job and should do this job good.

—Colonel Erich “Bubi” Hartmann, GAP

Most important factor in aerial warfare is pilots’ skill. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in proposals | Tagged: , , , , , | 190 Comments »

Light CAS fighter proposal revised

Posted by picard578 on May 31, 2014

Background

While I have proposed a CAS fighter aircraft and ideal composition of NATO air forces, neither of these proposals is very realistic. Western air forces, especially US ones (USAF, US Navy and USMC), tend to hate any simple, effective designs – especially if said designs are meant to support the ground troops. To this end, USAF and US Army have signed a Key West agreement, preventing the US Army from having fixed-wing aircraft heavier than 10.000 lbs.

While USAF says that precision munitions allow fast jets to carry out CAS, that is utterly in contradiction to battlefield realities. Infantry combat typically happens at ranges of less then 100 meters, and never at ranges above 500 meters; “danger close” limits (minimum distance one can employ a weapon at) are 500 meters for 500 lb bomb, 350 meters for 250 lb bomb and 50 meters for gun. But fast jets are too fast to use gun effectively, and even precision munitions loose precision with increasing speed and altitude. Helicopters meanwhile are at danger from small-arms fire – during the Gulf War, after 30 Apache helicopters were shot up (out of 33), they never flew in front of the ground troops again. Soviets lost hundreds of heavily-armed and heavily-armored Mi-24 helicopters during the Afghan war. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 56 Comments »

NATO navies proposal

Posted by picard578 on May 24, 2014

Current state

 

Ship costs

 

CARRIERS / AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIPS

Nimitz: 6,93 billion USD

Ford: 9 billion USD

Wasp: 750 million USD Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 24 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: