Great find thank you. 27 years ago... how time flies. At this point then I think we can confirm that the suggestion was never taken up.Suggestions, but never part of the program of record.
Great find thank you. 27 years ago... how time flies. At this point then I think we can confirm that the suggestion was never taken up.Suggestions, but never part of the program of record.
Rrrgh..napalm BAD!Sticking F119s into F-111Cs, basically completely rebuilding and frankensteining from USAF bits
Surtout en ce qui concerne l’équipement en particulier, les investissements vont s’accélérer et augmenter dans les années à venir, même si l’accord de gouvernement reste assez vague à ce sujet. Il est question “d’avions de combat supplémentaires”. Le nouveau gouvernement va donc acquérir des F-35 supplémentaires, en plus des 34 déjà commandés sous la Suédoise. Combien? On l’ignore pour l’instant. Les autres promesses (petits avions de transport, extension et armement de la flotte de drones, intégration des systèmes sans équipage et armés, capacités de guerre électronique) restent également peu concrètes.
-----//*---------//*---------
More F-35s, but no tanks?
Especially in terms of equipment in particular, investments will accelerate and increase in the coming years, even if the government agreement remains rather vague on this subject. It is a question of “additional combat aircraft”. The new government will therefore acquire additional F-35s, in addition to the 34 already ordered under the [previous] governments. How many? We do not know for the moment. The other promises (small transport aircraft, expansion and arming of the drone fleet, integration of unmanned and armed systems, electronic warfare capabilities) also remain rather vague.
Tanks don't really make a lot of sense for Belgium. At least not in large numbers.Belgian Gov looking to increase the number of F-35 with fresh orders ( qty still unspecified) :
![]()
Plus de F-35, une défense aérienne et une troisième frégate: l’accord de gouvernement prévoit beaucoup plus de moyens pour l’armée belge
Pour la première fois depuis longtemps, le nouveau gouvernement fédéral s’engage d’investir massivement dans la Défense. D’ici 2029, notre pays, plus mauvais élève de la classe au sein de l’OTAN, devra tenir sa promesse. Une deuxième brigade de combat, davantage de chasseurs F-35, une défense...www.7sur7.be
Fleet size and maturity of platform maintenance knowledge would be the big factor there. The A being where it is points to the B and C being able to improve although they are more complex by definition.I find it interesting that the -B model is basically right at the required 9 hours maintenance per flight hour, while the -A is at 5.3. As we all probably expected, the -C needs the most, but even 12 maintenance hours per flight hour isn't bad at all...
I'm not expecting the -C to need more than double the maintenance of the -A, however.
Right, I'm expecting a ~20% drop in maintenance-per-flight-hour over time.Fleet size and maturity of platform maintenance knowledge would be the big factor there. The A being where it is points to the B and C being able to improve although they are more complex by definition.
It's enough to light up a lightbulb or two.
The one at Pax River was two mated 3MV generators (so 6MV). Field strength can be dialed these days, and they can vary the output to match different pulse forms. Peak field strength was about 75 kV/m from 25 m away. There are probably newer ones out there.
Yes, no, sometimes, always.One thing I always curious about is that given modern military aircraft are often somewhat protected against HEMP, is it multiple use protection or only single use?. Like if there is two nuclear warhead exploded that cause EMP, but there is slight delay between them, will the protection be useless?
Yes, no, sometimes, always.
It really depends on the type of shielding you are talking about and the amount of particles zipping around. The three phases of the actual pulse are all over extremely quickly, but E3 could potentially linger a bit.
There will be more than one type of shielding involved in an aircraft, and they work in different ways.
In the most general sense, if the shielding installed was effective for one pulse, then it should be effective for the next pulse if it has enough time between pulses.
And of course if something was damaged by the first pulse but still works, it will not necessarily survive a second identical pulse no matter the time between them.
I'm just thinking, let say a submarine just launch all of its ballistic missile and detonate it at altitude, how many it would it take for these aircraft to fall down from the sky due to HEMP? can modern fighter jet still fly and land after affected by EMP?
Of course, but I’m just curious on whether military aircraft can still fly in even of HEMP.I think if that happens you will have other more far reaching concerns.
Anything still running a mechanical fuel control system won't even notice. Once started, a turbine engine doesn't need any electrical systems to keep working. No ignitors, nothing. There's a continuously burning fire in the engines, not an intermittent spark or bang like a piston engine.I'm just thinking, let say a submarine just launch all of its ballistic missile and detonate it at altitude, how many it would it take for these aircraft to fall down from the sky due to HEMP? can modern fighter jet still fly and land after affected by EMP?
I would assume that anything with FBW like F-16 and F-15EX just fall down from sky right?. And it even worse for aircraft with electronic actuator?Anything still running a mechanical fuel control system won't even notice. Once started, a turbine engine doesn't need any electrical systems to keep working. No ignitors, nothing. There's a continuously burning fire in the engines, not an intermittent spark or bang like a piston engine.
For example, those old KC-135s? Won't care. Mechanical fuel controls on the engines, mechanical flight controls. C-5s? same deal.