OAP, I agree with that too. My caution is that procurement should not go so far as it ensure killing a Hilux and losing the capability of killing an armoured battle group.

Whilst the F35 mine clearance analogy may work a counter is more mines!

Yes, true. However, in my opinion, we cannot know all the details of the perceived threats and the real weapon effectiveness of the latest weapons against them. It seems that very little information is given to us about the politically led requirements that our forces are demanded to achieve. That leaves us to contemplate the general concepts of weapon systems and policy. :hmm: Cheers

OAP

Lowering the aircraft nose to lift the wing and remove the engine was nothing to do with stability, it was to do with getting the aircraft in the rigging position, and thus the wing and engine coming out of the aircraft straight. In the RAF we would "EITHER" retract the nose leg and drop the aircraft nose low, or remove just the nose wheel, but still drop the aircraft nose low. It was possible to use the same hoist to remove the ECU & Wing, but this meant moving the hoist point around, so we "RARELY" used the same hoist for both operations. With a well versed crew, we could get an engine change with all the associated work done in two 8 hour shifts, the biggest hassle was the tie down runs with associated hot air leak checks - then it was over to the two wing master race to air test the machine, complete with perf hovers if we could - if we were in the field or somewhere else, we could enter a lim for "no limiting hovers" which basically meant you could hover the machine if there was an escape route available (Runway) but to a field pad or similar, then no!

Just had a peek at the modern threats to aircraft. There is one threat that is the 'Daddy' of them all and it is really bad news. The Russian S-400 Triumf (NATO code SA-21 Growler). It can reach out to 400km, up to about 30km high (185km on Wiki for specific missile), down to about 5m and travelling at 5,000 m/s (MACH 15). It is highly resistant to jamming. It is extremely mobile, can be setup quickly and with only three personnel. It fires four different missiles for various range engagements and can engage 80 targets simultaneously. It can engage all manner of airborne threats, including ballistic and cruise missiles. If that wasn't bad enough, they are selling it all over the place. It will be in more countries than MacDonalds by Christmas.

I don't know about F-35, I would be wanting the Starship Enterprise and Klingon cloaking device before messing with that.

The nearest system we have apparently is the Patriot missile system that has a range of about 100km up to about 25km altitude. That's a whole lot less than the S-400. There is an upgrade in progress (Patriot Advanced Capability - 3) but I don't imagine it will get anywhere near the S-400.

How did that happen? How did Russia get such a jump ahead of the West in SAM capability? Apparently only the F-22 is capable of confidently attacking the S-400, with its better stealth properties. The F-35, with reduced stealth, is said to be at risk to this system, especially as the stealth of the F-35 diminishes significantly when not targeted from the frontal aspect.

Government statements have indicated the Typhoon will be in-service to 2040. 4thGen aircraft wont get near an S-400. If I was a Typhoon pilot I would ask for a F-35 or a pay rise at least. Going against a S-400 in anything other than an F-22 is said to be risky; anything less than a F-35 would be re-enacting the charge of the Light brigade.

The S-400 is a monumental advance in SAM capability; but what leaves me gobsmacked is that we have nothing near it. Any tin-pot dictator could buy one and instantly get a high level of air defence capable of handling nearly anything that could be thrown at it.

It would interesting to know whether unmanned fighters, with their much higher 'G' capability, would be able to out-manoeuvre these SAM missiles, in a similar way to how that was done in Vietnam. I doubt it and in any case ripple firing these SAM's would get the aircraft in the end.

Together with the potential of new stealth defeating systems (such as quantum radar, etc.) and laser weapons downing aircraft, it seems one possible scenario of the not too distant future is a battle space where aircraft have become as vulnerable and outdated as cavalry.

Quick overview of S-400
"Russia's S-400 Is Way More Dangerous Than You Think"
January 18, 2018
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ou-think-24116

Good detailed overview of S-400
"Technical Report APA-TR-2006-1201"
Almaz S-300P/PT/PS/PMU/PMU1/PMU2 / Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumf / SA-10/20/21 Grumble / Gargoyle

Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

Why India Is Buying Russian S 400 Instead Of America’s Patriot Pac 3?

tqmatch,
You've obviously done a lot of ship borne engine changes then...............

Brian, an ECU is a complete engine assembly with all the extra components fitted to the basic engine. Think a car engine and then the water pump, alternator, head box etc. A 'Simple' engine change involves removing the engine, stripping all the ancilliaries off it, refitting them to the new engine and reinstalling it. Changing an ECU, all out all in. The paperwork is probably simpler too as all the components will have been serviced and service intervals reset.

We once needed an engine change overseas. The engine was removed and packaged by an aptly named Sgt Hammer. The replacement was delivered, ours was loaded on the transport and back to UK. When we unpacked the engine we found just an engine and not a complete ECU. So we had another week in the Sun.

WW,
The details in open source always sound scary. However, as I pointed out in my post, you cannot know the real performance and capabilities from reading that sales blurb. The actual effectiveness and vulnerabilities of weapon systems are kept very closely guarded for obvious reasons. However, where the general characteristics of some things are known, we can debate their merits. Cheers

OAP

Brian,
To expand a bit on PN's answer, ECU stands for Engine Change Unit and is a manufacturer's / maintenance term.
That is probably why you never saw it written on the aircrew side.
Nowadays, it is usually called QEC (U) Quick Engine Change (Unit) and is used by Airbus and Boeing in their maintenance manuals plus GE and RR have specific definitions as to what constitutes a QEC.
There is also EBU - Engine Build UP which is a Boeing term.

I don't know anything about the S400 apart from what I read here or wiki, but there is a clue in the quote. The ignorant assume that 400km and 5m are one corner of the flight envelope. The 4 different missiles suggest each missile is optimised for a specific part of the MEZ. So what is new compared with earlier, Nike/Hawk/Rapier layered defence? What is new compared with a 400km range missile retired by the US almost 50 years ago?

What is apparently new is the ability for a launch team to operate 4 different missiles. The ability to engage 80 targets simultaneously is awesome, but you also need 80 plus missiles plus reloads. Now the logistics must be awesome. Unless they are supplied wholesale as in Vietnam they could soon be shot out.

Impressive as the system undoubtedly is it will have wealnesses; I think logistics is one. Analysts will find a weakness somewhere that can be exploited.

orca - I have been out of the combat aircraft 'sphere' for a very long time now. Some of the articles I read were years old, so I probably am the very last person to hear about the S400! I came across another article about phones that can fit in your pocket; I am going to get one when they come out! Such is my Robinson Crusoe existence, without the palm tree's unfortunately.

I came across the S400 a while ago but didn't check out its specs. My comments were a little tongue-in-cheek but I was impressed by how far the goal posts had moved.

I guess principles of SAM systems are fundamentally the same and so the initial means of dealing with them can still be used, along with more modern methods. SAM = radar + fire control + missile + data-link; I suppose this equation is still valid although there is probably a bit more too it now.

One thing that wont change are the laws of physics. A missile is still a pole with short stubby fins on it. A missile that can go 400km is going to be big and heavy. It has a long reach but its not invincible. When a SAM turns its 'headlights' on, its there for all to see.

Radar is still limited by the curvature of the earth, so seeing a jet on the deck beyond a flat 25 miles or so is still problematic unless you have airborne radar.

I read an account of a Gulf War A-10 pilot who was shot at by a SAM at night. He saw the launch and tracked the 'flame' of the SAM and began to 'dance'. Then the flame went out and he had to time his moves based solely on his predictions of what the now invisible SAM was doing. That's one hell of a way to earn a living but it shows the defensive tools and training work.

I suspect that today's high threat environment puts emphasis on team work more than ever. The S400 is a clear marker of how much more lethal the battle space is becoming. No doubt technology will continue its game of 'leapfrog', where one advance is negated by another.

What was interesting in reading some government published documents was that it was pointed out that the 6thGen Tempest does not necessarily refer to a single aircraft; Tempest could actually be the name for a system of several components that deliver the required capability.

OAP - you are right. Rules of Life: No.1 Never eat yellow snow; No.2 Never trust a glossy brochure. I take your points exactly. The theoretical capabilities can be far different to the 'every day' real world capabilities. I 'over egged' it a bit in making the point that the systems of today are highly lethal and getting more so.

Manufacturers can be over enthusiastic with their 'new born babes'. Back in the beginning of the SAM/missile age many thought the missile had killed the dogfight; they thought once the missile was launched it was game over for the poor target. The manufacturers were eager to sell their wonder weapons and they undoubtedly sold them to themselves first and made gross claims that these miniature kamikaze's could not be dodged if launched within their limits. When these wonder weapons went to war in Vietnam, they did not work as advertised.

Like wise the Sea Harrier in the Falklands. I do believe an initial serious assessment by some outside the FAA was that they would all be lost in one or two weeks and were no match for the supersonic jets and missiles. The pilots had other idea's but it took putting the systems and the personnel to war to reveal reality. As you say, no matter what the brochure says it will take putting those systems to the test to know how effective they really are.

The proliferation of highly capable weapon systems like the S400 may give some crazy person the impression they are now more protected than they really are, leading to them starting something somewhere. As well as the battle space impact of these systems they may also have a political space impact. They may destabilise various regions.

Thanks to you both for your sharing the benefits of your experience; this thread has been a great read.