POSSIBLE TO CONVERT SKYHAWK TO UNMANNED BOMBER
-
Anyone knows.. we should have at 70++ of them ... wouldnt it be a waste to retire them.. after upgrading the engine , airframe etc ...convert them to unmanned bomber la.. send 35 to the north and rest to the south during a war!!!
-
Have you forgotten your medication today?
-
HitlerOriginally posted by seancannot:Anyone knows.. we should have at 70++ of them ... wouldnt it be a waste to retire them.. after upgrading the engine , airframe etc ...convert them to unmanned bomber la.. send 35 to the north and rest to the south during a war!!! -
The problem is, unlike dedicated cruise missiles where it's designed to be encapsulated and fired "out of the canister" after putting it in underground storage for 10+ years, you can't do the same for a combat plane like skyhawk. It's really not worth it. JASSM can do the job much better and without so much tactical constraints.Originally posted by seancannot:Anyone knows.. we should have at 70++ of them ... wouldnt it be a waste to retire them.. after upgrading the engine , airframe etc ...convert them to unmanned bomber la.. send 35 to the north and rest to the south during a war!!! -
there will always be buyers who like these planes on the runway to show air power.
the skyhawks still in good condition.
anyway the transistion will take at least ten years or more. -
Wasn't this written somewhere in an article?
-
Actually, we should take the Taiwanese way of mothballing their Mirage 2000-5. The Zhong Shan Insititute has successfully test out a vacuum encapsulation method using a polymer barrier films on the entire fighter film. Taiwanese claimed that it is as easy as using a giant Ziglock bag to store their Mirage 2000-5.
The reason for Taiwanese to mothball the Mirage 2000-5 is the high maintenance cost for the french planes. In addition, Taiwanese are trying to standardise their planes all using F16s. In the Taiwanese media, there is a report from their MOD claimed that the Mirage fighters are at least 5x more expensive to maintain as compare to a F16. -
Wow! 5X more is really no joke! Does this mean that French planes are more expensive to maintain as compared to US ones? If so then maybe we shoudn't be getting the Rafales for pur NGF.
Ok, i agree that converting the old A-4SU Super Skyhawks into cruise missiles is a bit impractical. This is mainly due to the large airframe which will result in a large RCS. Can hardly catch the enemy unaware this way.
However, what if we use these old airframes to be experimental unmanned armed fighters for research? A bit like in the movie ' Stealth', but not as advanced. Once we have mastered the technology then maybe in the future we won't need any airborne RSAF pilots! They will become land-based fighter jocks instead. Fruit for thought?
-
]Originally posted by archon1234:Actually, we should take the Taiwanese way of mothballing their Mirage 2000-5. The Zhong Shan Insititute has successfully test out a vacuum encapsulation method using a polymer barrier films on the entire fighter film. Taiwanese claimed that it is as easy as using a giant Ziglock bag to store their Mirage 2000-5.
The reason for Taiwanese to mothball the Mirage 2000-5 is the high maintenance cost for the french planes. In addition, Taiwanese are trying to standardise their planes all using F16s. In the Taiwanese media, there is a report from their MOD claimed that the Mirage fighters are at least 5x more expensive to maintain as compare to a F16.
I thot their 2000-5 SQNs is the "elite" units! I am shocked! one moment talking about huge arms purchase package and the next is mothballing their best figther.
U can't just mothballed a figther.. how is the technicans andpilot going to keep current..... and if there is a coflict.. will there be enoguht pilots to fly the 2000-5? -
I am not advocating to convert A4S to cruise missle rather to become something like the US UAV global hawk I understand can be armed with hellfire missle
-
Actually, if any AF were to do so, it would be more for target practice, two birds in one stone!
-
Ok. But then, skyhawk is not the most efficient way of doing it. Time-on-station is probably the most important metric of such strike UAVs. Having a longer time-on-station allows much better tactical flexibility in when to drop your payload (e.g. when the enemy leaves his trench to take a piss). A C-130 does better in this respect, not to mention that it can carry a much heavier payload. (turboprops are much more efficient that turbofans/ turbojets on long endurance flights).Originally posted by seancannot:I am not advocating to convert A4S to cruise missle rather to become something like the US UAV global hawk I understand can be armed with hellfire missle
The global hawk has an endurance of > 40 hours and time-on-station of 24 hours! I don't think the skyhawk can match those kind of numbers (aerodynamically). One of the reason why this can be acheived, not to mention the 40+ years of improvement in aerodynamic design, but also because a lot of "man-rated" stuff has been removed. If you're dealing with a skyhawk chassis, it's not going to be cost effective ripping/modding those parts off.
When it's time to let go, let go... -
nvm lar..full load with fuel plus those unguided 1000kg bombs do suicide mission can liao..
-
sept 11 on petronas towers?Originally posted by y33bas:nvm lar..full load with fuel plus those unguided 1000kg bombs do suicide mission can liao..
crazy..
-
1 kilo $2.20 -
We might as well conver those planes from the Youth Flying Club to kamikaze bombers
-
More useful to convert the A4 into cruise missiles for land attack. Jusat load it with bombs, plus the GPS and other guidence system, you will have a sub-sonic cruise missile at 1000+km range.
-
Converting an existing airframe to have Cruise missle like capabilities (guidance and NOE) is most probably going to cost as much as a cruise missle.
All that for a platform that does not have the advantages of a cruise missle in small size and low observability/RCS.
It is unlikely that such a platform will be able to penetrate a fully operational (assume capable) air defence network. If the air defence network has already been suppressed, why bother with a half-assed cruise missle? Just send in the ground pounders again - better target ID and BDA