Another UK classic mistake

Originally posted by RAB
my point is STILL the UK has crap project management, main dur to the lack of project fixing (Finding a point and saying that's it that'll do) BUT no we add stuff and requirements to things and then KILL the project

Hey Man, don't knock the UK so much! I have several co-workers from the UK and they are the most dedicated, professional, scientists I know

Anyway, EVERY military has buearacracy, and red-tape, and politics. It just goes with the territory. The US is not any better. I do not mean to sound un-patriotic, but pound for pound, man for man, the UK is probably the best armed forces out there

Yeah, very well trained, the SAS truely rocks, their airforce is extremely well trained, they wont let a pilot fly a plane until he has done 2-3 years (can't remember exactly) of flight-sim training, and maybe then he can fly a Tornado.

Their armed forces is very dedicated too...

I am quite proud of my own country's army since they did very well in excercized with the US green berrets, they actually kicked major ass in some training excercizes...

Originally posted by KyleChemist

Originally posted by RAB
my point is STILL the UK has crap project management, main dur to the lack of project fixing (Finding a point and saying that's it that'll do) BUT no we add stuff and requirements to things and then KILL the project

Hey Man, don't knock the UK so much! I have several co-workers from the UK and they are the most dedicated, professional, scientists I know

Anyway, EVERY military has buearacracy, and red-tape, and politics. It just goes with the territory. The US is not any better. I do not mean to sound un-patriotic, but pound for pound, man for man, the UK is probably the best armed forces out there

For gods sake, I@M not knocking the UK military AT all I'm not even having a go at the contractors I'm not even taking a shot at the people that want a missile or plane to fly that little bit longer.

BUT I'm having a SMALL go at the UK thing of OK lets build a plane it'll for example do air to air and a bit of light ground attack. fine good sorted

two years later o lets add supercruise, RAM and a anti-surface vessel role,

another two years of it needs a longer range, or fine

a little bit later or it's getter a bit dear, I know got get some friends to help out,

the friends do not really agree on anything much one wishes it were crep and asks for a single engine and crap off the shelf avonics and wep control.

One pisses off and build the thing buy them selves and we what 14years for a product that was almost ready anyway.

Projectmanagement for dummies (Good title any takers?) work out what is needed and how soon the find the BEST to to meet that deadline are that line FIX the project and get it done. If you keep added stuff the more likely it will not work or be very late.

I have togo to bed long day tommorrow :-) but last time i looked the Nimrod MR4A were google to run 2 billion lines of code, add requirements and make the code more complex excellent idea

RAB

I dont see whats the problem...its here.......it works...

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Prop driven aircraft have a subtone harmonic produced by the props which are very easy to detect underwater, whereas jet powered aircraft are higher in frequency which doesnt penetrate the water boundry which makes jet aircraft much harder to detect underwater.

Interesting, I did not know that. It is mitigated by altitude? Beyond using the MAD detector, why not fly the planes a bit higher? And would the props planes range and loiter time out-weight gained benefits?

Originally posted by FredT

Interesting, I did not know that. It is mitigated by altitude? Beyond using the MAD detector, why not fly the planes a bit higher? And would the props planes range and loiter time out-weight gained benefits?

From what ive been told, yes the higher you go the less the harmonic, but you have to be VERY high (15,000ft or more) for it to be mitigated to the same level as a jet aircraft at low level (1000ft or less). The higher you are, the less resolution you get on sonar as well, especially between tempreture boundries.

I dont think that having props really gives you extra loiter time over an area these days, especially against the Nimrod as it gets out to its patrol area and then cruises on only one engine (yup, turns off the other 3) so its loiter time is pretty amazing.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Prop driven aircraft have a subtone harmonic produced by the props which are very easy to detect underwater, whereas jet powered aircraft are higher in frequency which doesnt penetrate the water boundry which makes jet aircraft much harder to detect underwater.

When you talk about the water boundry, are you reffering to the actual surface of the water, or the density change that is found between shallow and deep water which disrupts accustics?

my particular favourite is the astute subs. They designed the boats, started to build and then decided to change the software it was designed upon, meaning more delays and more money while the literally started again with the design in the new software. Why?????

[edit on 24-3-2005 by paperplane_uk]

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Yeah, very well trained, the SAS truely rocks, their airforce is extremely well trained, they wont let a pilot fly a plane until he has done 2-3 years (can't remember exactly) of flight-sim training, and maybe then he can fly a Tornado.

Their armed forces is very dedicated too...

I am quite proud of my own country's army since they did very well in excercized with the US green berrets, they actually kicked major ass in some training excercizes...

Just to say something here, about the training, pilots in the Royal Air Force are officers, and pilots and most officer positions have to have 5 GCSE's grades A-C and 2 A-Levels, minimum, as some like what I will be going for Engineer Officer, need degrees, etc and medical officers and cateres need degress etc, and then they have to apply, then after this they are invited to RAF College Cranwell to go through a selection process at the OASC (Officer & Aircrew Selection Centre) if they pass that, out of the hundred or more applicants that apply, they then do some more activities and then an interview, before put forward to IOT (Initial Officer Training) once they are sure at OASC that the applicant is suitible, then they do 30 weeks IOT before actually becoming an Officer, then they have to spend time with OCU sqaudrons, (Operational Conversion Units) on the aircraft they are selected to fly, they do many hours training on the ground, learn everything about the aircraft, every lever, button, procedue, then they do duel filghts for so many hours, more practical assesments before flying solo, after all this they then, after about are year or so, they are then assigned to a squadron, long but worth it, and that happens for each aircraft type they fly, you may go through that for the Torndao F3, then 2 tours later you are posted to fly the GR4 were you will go to an OCU, and if posted to a Typhoon, to the OCU, just because you can fly one type of aircraft, it isnt enough, you still have to train on the one you are flying. Dedication or what..

Engineers Officers, need to do that but instead of going to the OCUs, obviously being an engineer, you do 30 weeks EST (Engineer Specalist Training), and the ground trades are kind of the same, you get nowhere in the RAF without learning anything, either before joining, or after or during or even before and during service, if that makes sense.

Thanks for that about our Armed Forces, we may have a crap procuerment program, and evil defence reviews, but we still do our job to the full.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Just curious, why do you think that a jet powered versus prop is better for the ASW role? Sure they may be able to get on station faster but beyond that?????

Is speed an issue when attacking a submarine from the air? I would guess low speed stability and range would be more useful.

Originally posted by finder71
Is speed an issue when attacking a submarine from the air?

- The time taken to get to ones' patrol station would be.

I would guess low speed stability and range would be more useful.

- One of Nimrods great tricks is to shut down 2 of it's 4 jet engines for greater economy.
Nimrod has excellent range characteristics.

Also, (partly because of it being the very first large civillian jet, the original Comet was designed and needed to be very easily handled by non-jet experienced pilots, and it was) you'll find all reports are that Nimrod is an especially good stable low speed 'platform'.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]