Jump to content

Olof Larsson

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

614 profile views

Olof Larsson's Achievements


Crew (2/3)



  1. They should let SAAB take the lead on designing a single engine aircraft, using the same engine, a "light" version of the avionics and ECM suite, identical MMI, share as much software as possible, use the same stealth tech and so on. And obviously figure out how to share the development cost, how to share the production and market both aircrafts jointly. With allmost all future 5th gen aircraft being twin engined and all 6th gen (so far) being twin engined, there is a slot in the market for a single engined 6th gen, that would compete against...well nothing really, unless we include the effectively subsonic 5th gen F-35. Because few nations that doesn't develop their own 5th or 6th generation fighters right now, can ill afford twin engined stealth fighters, but might go for a single engined to replace their current 4th gen.
  2. Seems like a job better suited to a C-27 or a C-295 or perhaps something even smaller, because I would asume it's pretty hard to be covert with 44'000hp and the radar signature of a small overseas territory.
  3. The B-36 entered service, when the B-54 was only a mock-up. The B-54 would likely have entered service, sometime between the B-47 and B-52. But it was certainly a more refined aircraft then the B-36, and would have been easier to produce, maintain and operate.
  4. Well, the last time the US developed a Phoenix replacement, they had two contenders. On was a rocket/ramjet missile, while one was a two stage solid fuel rocket propelled missile. Both missiles had similar range, but the two stage rocket, did it at a far lower weight, making the two stage solid fuel rocket propelled missile far more weight efficient. The AIM-260 will have several advantages over the Meteor. One advantage is less dead space in the missile (no empty air ducts), another one is that it can follow a more energy efficient trajectory (the Meteor will have to stay somewhat lower, to get air to generate thrust) with less drag, a third advantage is that the AIM-260 will have less drag at all altitudes and at all speeds, and thirdly, the AIM-260 will be far lighter once the booster has separated. In the end, which missile has the longest range, will probably depend on launch parameters, the target and the target behavior. For the Meteor a high launch speed and high launch altitude will probably help more, then in the AIM-260, while the AIM-260 will do better, if the launching aircraft is forces to take a shot from low altitude and at subsonic speed. The Meteor will probably have an advantage against a enemy that tries to run away, while the AIM-260 will probably have a advantage against a enemy that tries to outmaneuver the missile.
  5. And most of the front-line, was not defended by the Mannerheim line. At Suomussalmi the first line of defence, against an entire Russian division, was a few trees felled across the road, with at platoon of light infantry with no AT-weapons, that blocked the soviet advance. The soviets attacking in almost roadless terrain, and refusing the leave the few roads that existed and enter the woods, while the finns could ski around as they pleased, didn't exactly help.
  6. No, the purpose of the AIM-260 is to replace the AMRAAM as a general use BVR-missile, with a new and improved missile, that can keep up with (or better) the performance or R-77M, PL-15 and Meteor. The AIM-174 (and R-37M, PL17/21) are specialiced weapons to mainly counter threats like tankers, AEW, bombers and so on, while at least the AIM-174, will also have a secondary use as a high speed AShM, and possibly also to counter hypersonics.
  7. And the purpose of AIM-174 is hardly to counter chinese fighters with similar missiles, but to carry out a similar mission, that the chinese missiles are intended for. So what is needed, is a missile, that has a clear superiority to the PL-15 (and R-77M), not similar to or greater range then the PL-17/21 (and R-37M).
  8. Cheap to purchase and small logistical footprint. Most users where former french colonies and in the developed world, only the relatively poor irish, spanish and portugese bought them. Of those three, the irish didn't take defence seriously, while Spain and Portugal was focusing on defending their colonies. That said, Western European nations tended to get surplus armoured cars (the M8 was used by all NATO-nations except for Denmark and Luxemburg, and the dames used Humbers) and then switch to tracked vehicles for reece.
  9. Republic F-84F Thunderstreak. The MiG-15 has the nose gear further back and with a trailing link, different canopy opening (it slides to the rear like the P-51, F-86 and so on), wing fences, a fatter fuselage, a higher stabilizer and different shape and proportions on the tail fin..
  10. And twelve Bofors 57mm L/60. The french really likes those and the Swedish 375mm ASuW rockets. For those that likes medium caliber guns, here we have the Jean Bart with (beyond the 8x381mm guns and 9x155mm guns) 24x100mm guns and 28x57mm guns.
  11. Unless counterbattery is done by sending drones (or something like a Brimstone), to look for enemy artillery in the area, where the shells came from. And unlike rocket artillery (SA Valkiri and Yugo/Serbian M-63/77/87/LRSVM) it's hard to make a SPG's on the move to look like any other logistics vehicle.
  12. Plenty of nations have different machineguns for infantry and tanks. There are quite a few nations where the infantry uses M60, FN MAG, FN Minimi, MG4, MG5 and so on, while the tanks uses MG3. In Sweden we used to have FN MAG, FN Minimi, PKT, MG3 and our domestic version of the M1919 at the same time, and the only real issue, seems to have been the different calibers and different belts. The infantry and infantry using different machine guns is likely only to become more common, if lightweight 7,62mm machineguns like the FN EVOLYS, Negev NG7, MG5 and the SIG XM250 gets more traction.
  13. A dedicated rifle caliber MG for vehicle use, would't be a bad idea. Ideally with a substantial barrel, selective rate of fire (with a very high rate of fire being potentially useful for self defence vs. drones and ATGM's), a short reciever that can be folded och swinged away to the side, and a barrel, that can be pulled backwards out of the trunnion for easy barrel change.
  14. Yes, that came up, when it was discussed to send Visby class corvettes to the Red sea. It was noted that they would not only be useless there (no SAM's to protect merchant ships) but also that radar and IR-stealth, doesn't work vs. drones and rocket artillery, so not only would they be useless, but they would also need a escort, making them a liability.
  15. But can it hit anything while firing on the move? And the Archer does also have direct fire and hunter-killer capacity.
  • Create New...