Jump to content

grigolosi

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    478

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by grigolosi

  1. grigolosi
    Yeah the real MANPADS threat to the F-16's in Korea was while they were taxiing or actually taking off. During excercises though someone screwed up somewhere along the way there. When I was there in 2000-2001 we could use tail numbers on the radios during the exercises. Then all of a sudden they decided to use HAS locations and tail numbers were not allowed. Now to me and the guys who worked and lived in the HAS's for 12 hr shifts, we were like, ok so now the North Korean infiltration teams listening know an armed and fueled aircraft is in HAS 28, 29, and 30. They also know the locations due to years of intel on Kunsan. So now they wait until a pilot steps, there are 2 or more maintainers in the HAS and then they launch a MANPAD or even RPG at the HAS once we open the huge front door to start the engine. That is where the MANPAD threat really comes into play especially at EOR where the pilots are waiting for clearance to take off. In any war zone the air traffic around the base is going to be busy and there will planes waiting to take off while others land.
  2. grigolosi
    Yeah, the MANPADS have become far more common than they were 25 yrs ago. But they are are not as destructive as a SA-2 or SA-3 to an aircraft like an A-10. They are deemed a greater threat also on the Korean peninsula to the aircraft in the South should hostilities ever start since they can be carried in by infiltration units. So much so that we had identification charts in the maintenance block houses there.
  3. grigolosi
    Here is some info taken from the 2951st CLSS website. These are the folks that perform heavy ABDR on AF aircraft around the world. ABOUT THE A-10s OF THE GULF WAR The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" is the only aircraft in United States Air Force (USAF) history designed specifically for the close air support mission. It was designed to survive in an intense anti-aircraft environment including anti-aircraft guns, radar-guided and infrared missiles and absorb battle damage and keep flying. In fact, the A-10 is probably the most difficult plane ever built to shoot down due to its extreme maneuverability, self-sealing fuel tanks, wide separated jet engines on top of the fuselage, twin vertical tails, multiple independent hydraulic systems, manual backup flight control system and redundant wing spars. A total of 165 of these most recognizable and feared aircraft from 5 different units participated in Operation Desert Storm. All units were formalized under the 354th Provisional Wing with 144 aircraft at a time. The remaining aircraft above those 144 were replacements standing by at an off-site location to replace aircraft damaged beyond continued combat status or aircraft destroyed. Together, these A-10 and OA-10 aircraft conducted 8,624 sorties maintaining a 95.7% mission capable rate, 5% above A-10 peace-time rates, had the highest sortie rate of any USAF aircraft. They achieved:967 tanks destroyed 1026 pieces of artillery destroyed 1306 trucks destroyed 281 military structures destroyed 53 Scud missiles destroyed 10 aircraft on the ground destroyed 2 air-to-air aircraft (helicopter) kills with the GAU-8A 30mm Avenger cannon: 6 February 1991 by Capt. Bob Swain in 77-0205 of the 706th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 926th Tactical Fighter Group "Cajuns" from New Orleans Louisiana and the second by Capt Todd "Shanghai" Sheehy in 81-0964 with the 511th TFS "Vultures" out of RAF Alcombury United Kingdom. Pilots often flew up to three missions per day with A-10's accounted for destroying 1/4 of Iraq's entire arsenal.[Read more on statistics....] Often exposed to withering anti-aircraft fire and surface-to-air missile threats the slow, highly maneuverable A-10's incurred extensive combat battle damage during Desert Storm. A total of sixA-10s were lost: five in combat action, another destroyed attempting to land at KKMC Forward Operating Location #1 after being badly battle damaged durng combat. Nearly twenty more sustained significant battle damage and many others incurred minor damage. Roughly half the total A-10 force, about 70, supporting Desert Storm suffered some type of damage. Now 3 of the ones lost were written off due to damage sustained in combat as Renegadeleader1 said. The remaining number were hit by SAM's.
  4. grigolosi
    While I worked for Red Flag Alaska, the Swedish AF was invited to participate. This was in 2007, they brought a squadron of brand new (they had 40 hrs on them respectively) Gripens. The plane is tiny even compared to an F-16. We were impressed by them both in maintenance and flight capabilities. Here where I am working I see the Rafales everyday taking off. The French AF have actually put on demos here over the base. The plane can definitley maneuver, but I didn't see it do anything different from what the F-16 could. As for the A-10 what Renegadeleader1 said is absolutely true. If you are going to break down aircraft losses then you need to break them down into combat and non combat losses. The A-10 is designed to take damage. It has redundant mechanical lockouts in the wings, in layman terms if the flap in either wing becomes jammed or or so damaged it wont move than the flight control system locks it out and mechanically disconnects it from the system so the pilot can continue to use the other wing and tail to control the aircraft. Also all of its essential systems are spread out in the frame to prevent damage to too many systems at once. One other thing also. The plane can loose about 1/4 to half a wing and fly. This is due to the design. Its horizontal tail can generate enough lift to help keep the aircraft airborne. Its ease of maintenance gave it the highest FMC (Fully mission capable) rate of any US aircraft used in Desert Storm. Now ironically the US aircraft with the lowest combat loss or losses in general during DS was the F-4G. They lost 1 to a SAM. Here is a video link of one of the A-10's that landed with severe battle damage during DS: https://youtu.be/1BecNTYPYbU
  5. grigolosi

    VF-25 Gerwalk

    grigolosi posted a gallery image in Macross Fan Art

    VF-25 Gerwalk

    From the album: Untitled Album

  6. grigolosi
    Phyrox is right on correct. BF or Bayerische Flugzuegwerke (Bavarian Aircraft Works) was taken over by Willy in 1938 officially and any designs after that were officially referred to as ME. But since the design was Willy Messerschmitts, whose name was so well known to the allies as well they just referred to anything built by the company as ME. One thing I have noticed working here in the Middle East is the factor that didn't help the F-20. Basically in this area of the world where money is rampant, its who has the newest and fastest toy syndrome. They do this with cars and they do it with aircraft. The Block 60 F-16 was completely funded by the UAE to initially replace their Mirage 2000's (which they are still flying). They basically wanted the most advance and expensive F-16 to showoff to all the other Arab countries here. It is an advance aircraft but whoever the salesman for LM was made a hell of a deal. He got them to buy systems they didn't really need (600 gal wing tanks) and they left off an important feature. With all the advance systems in it they didn't include the digital brake control in it. So when they have flown the the jet with the loadout including the conformals and 600 gal tanks they burned up the brakes on landing. It didn't help the F-20 also that the government didn't advertise it like they were supposed to as part of the FX fighter export program since it was in direct competition with the F-16. Basically the more F-16's built pushed the price per frame down. So it helped the USAF and US government to not sell the F-20 even to small countries. It was a sad outcome for such a successful design.
  7. grigolosi
    The Scorpion was self funded by Textron, Bell and Cessna. They built it without any procurement contract or requirements. Yes the USG has always given the manufacturers the design requirements and money to develop a prototype. Usually certain number of prototypes were funded for evaluation by the USAF or USN but never have we paid for not only the prototypes but also the full production run until all the kinks have been worked out. You think no internal gun, weapons load and added weight due to the engine rotation gear is the best thing that could have happened to the F-35B. I have been around the F-35's and talked with the maintainers. it has a laundry list of issues, to save weight they use plastic cannon plugs (really have you ever had to disconnect one that was extremely tight) they told me they break very easily with cannon plug pliers . The panel to pull an oil sample (JOAP) has 30 small bolts all the around it since no one at LM bothered to think the way the USAF does when it comes to engine maintenance. The idea by LM was that one sample a day was all that would be needed on the F-135 engine. Well the USAF like it always has demanded a sample be taken every flight to watch engine wear on a new engine series (which I din't blame them) the F-16 has only gone from pulling sample every flight to one every 10 hrs in the past 5 yrs after 30 yrs of service. By the way all the aircraft you listed on that chart were not "precursor" aircraft. They are the definitive models or highest produced model of those series. Their development was part of the continued life of the frames. Of course the government paid for the modifications. The USG always pays for modifications to extend or advance a frame. The F-4E was reaction to the lack of an internal gun mounted in the F-4, yes they did upgrade the other systems but these were seen as the continued development of a frame that was already in service and in full production. The 290 F-16A's and B's were not ordered into production until changes were made to the YF-16 after its test flying were done (addition of a larger radar, a change in the nose gear door, changing the positioning of the EPU ground safety pin to save money on wiring). Also if the current F-35's are combat capable why hasn't the USAF declared the F-35A operationally ready? Because they are still clearing the frame to drop and use the munitions in the inventory. Yeah it has lots of great systems in it but it is still far away from being a "great" aircraft.
  8. grigolosi
    In regards to Hikaru's VF-1S. I know it is still the same aircraft but like Seto asked, how much of it is still part of the original frame. I have seen 2 different F-16's spliced together to make a flyable bird. The Depot at Hill AFB had an Egyptian F-16 they were putting back togetherafter it had been wrecked. They took the forward fuselage of a USN F-16C and sliced it to the aft frame of the Egyptian bird. I wouldn't doubt they did this in the case of Hikaru's bird to replace the areas of the frame that needed it. But the BuNo does stay the same. The numbers stays with the frame even if is written off completely and it is removed from service.
  9. grigolosi
    I wouldn't doubt that Driver. Hell they more than likely don't even use impulse carts for weapons jettison. I know on Macross Plus I did see a jammer being used in one of the scenes where the YF-22 was in the hangar.
  10. grigolosi
    The AIM-9 head looks like a cross between the old AIM-9A/B/C seeker heads with L forward fins. The old A models had a larger head that didn't taper towards the seeker window. It also lacks an arming handle also. But I just noticed the lack of rollerons also Micky. Now the 120's also have mis-matched fins. The aft fins are AIM-120C fins and the forward fins are from an AIM-120B. The 120C has clipped fins to fit in missile bays on 5th gen fighters. All new AIM 120's come with clipped fins especially the C and D model's. No you can't just throw 2 different fins on either. The fins come with the missile in its casket from Raytheon. I figured the same thing Seto when I saw it back in 2009 when I first saw Zero. That the original model they used for the CG had been a training 120. I was just wondering if anyone else had noticed it. After being around these missiles for so long the first thing I noticed when I watched it (to me glaring) were the CATM-120 markings. This is the AIM-9X followed by the AIM-9B,D,C and the current CATM-9L.
  11. grigolosi
    Here is another one but I don't know if this has ever been brought up. Did anyone notice on Macross Zero that Shin fired 2 inert training missiles at the MIG? Both the AIM-9 and 120 had blue training stripes on them. Live missiles are marked with a yellow stripe around the warhead section and a brown stripe around the rocket motor section.
  12. grigolosi
    I would be surprised if the actual original frame had survived. Considering the amount of stress a typical fighter goes through in day to day operations, flying hours accumulate very quickly. After a year of near constant combat in both space and an atmosphere I would have hated to be the Phase/Isochronal inspection team to have to look at that one. I know the frames are made of a super strong alloy (space metal or some form of titanium) but G forces can tweak the hell out of a frame after so long. I wouldn't be surprised if it had gone in afterwards for a major depot level overhaul once the part production lines started up again on the Apollo Base. It probably would have come out essentially as a new VF.
  13. grigolosi
    Driver you will see publicity pics of the F-16's loaded with 3 per TER but for actual combat they are restricted to 2 per TER due to the air turbulence in that area when the bomb is pickled, it causes the bomb to push out toward the tank. CBU's are definitely limited to 2 since they spin upon jettisoning. Also is that in zero G the RMS and MDE's jettison and then the motor fires. A rail would make more sense for both of them but due to their size when loading, sliding them onto one would be difficult. I only included the F-16 info as an example of why some munitions would be limited in numbers on the pylons. But like you said since ext tanks are not used on VF's unless you count the Super Packs, which sit out of the way anyway, the biggest danger would be the munitions possibly striking other mounted ordinance upon pickling. I noticed in MF when both RMS's and MDE's were used they would push downward due to the ejector feet. If they did this while being mounted side by side on the pylon with loaded pylons on either side things could get ugly really quick.
  14. grigolosi

    F-14 Tomcat

    grigolosi replied to Falconkpd's topic in Fan Works

    Swweeeeettttt. I like it!
  15. grigolosi
    The Mk-84's actual weight is roughly 1900-2000lb (this weight is located on the bomb itself in yellow print). The weights of the bomb varies depending on the weight of the fuse, fins, and guidance system and adding the 945 lbs of of Tritanol explosive. 1000/2000 lb is the general weight description given for their classifications. So the 2 are fairly close weight wise. Munition size and ejection spread area do determine how of any type can be loaded. The TER rack used on the F-16 is limited to 2 bombs, one loaded on the bottom and the other on the outboard postion. Any bomb loaded on the inboard position can strike the external fuel tank when punched off so that position is not used unless it is a maverick loadout.
  16. grigolosi
    That is true what Driver said. The use of MER pylons would allow the aircraft to carry multiple weapons on one hardpoint but in the SMS (stores management system) it would only register as one hardpoint but would show multiple weapons loaded on it. I can imagine the RMS and MDE missiles though large are actually lighter or equal in weight too the modern 1-2000 lb bomb.
  17. grigolosi
    Yeah i have been watching that in the news feeds. COIN birds are starting to become very popular now due to the shrinking of a lot of military budgets. Over here in the UAE they are using militarized crop dusters for border patrol aircraft. It is called the Archangel. They are being produced by Iomax. That Scorpion looks very promising though. I don't know a whole lot about it though.
  18. grigolosi
    A lot of the aircraft we have used have had issues of some type. Some worse than other's. The F-100 had major CG problems that killed several test pilots including our leading Korean War ace Joseph McConnell. It also had issues with its exhaust nozzle which weren't remedied until it was almost retired (they fitted the exhaust nozzle from an F-102 to the engine). The F-105 was discovered to have major frame issues when it first went into service. An F-105B being used by the Thunderbirds literally broke in half during a loop during an airshow. The problem was fixed in the the F-105D by strengthening the frame. The F-16 had major wire chafing issues when it was put into service, so much so that even to this day all F-16 maintainers do yearly block training that includes wire chafing awareness. What doesn't help the F-35 though is the heavy landing gear installed for naval use. it is one of the prices the design has paid for in its multi service use design. If it had normal sized gear for AF use a large amount of weight could be saved. The weight issue is a major factor in its payload capability. It will take some time to clear the problems it has as F-ZeroOne said. One big mistake made by the government was the fact they bought it before the plane was even thoroughly tested. In the past the manufacturer was always responsible for testing the bird and making necessary changes for performance before the government even purchased one production model.
  19. grigolosi
    never mind...........
  20. grigolosi
    LOL he loves the bird so much he wanted one of his own...LOL. Sounds like that Johnny Cash song where the guy sneaks a part home one day at a time to build his own Cadillac.... Ironically enough Driver I have been told by Eagle pilots and their crew chiefs (the few i could tolerate, they have horrible ego's) that the F-15 was a mechanically upgraded F-4.
  21. grigolosi
    The F-4 was the further development of the of the McDonnell line of fighters. If you look at the the family line. You can see the evolution of the F-4. The F-4 traces its lineage from the F3H Demon and the F-101 Voodoo. The F-4 was designed as a Fleet defense fighter equipped with missiles only armament since the USN had the A-4 Skyhawk for ground attack and the F-8 Crusader which mounted 4 20 mm cannons for dogfighting. Yes it was originally being designed to carry bombs also but that was scratched when the USN decided to make it a fleet defense fighter. It wasn't until Vietnam that the bomb capability was used. Any Marine Squadron is also a ground attack squadron. The primary function of USMC aviation is to support the Marines on the ground. They didn't receive their Phantoms until 2 yrs after the USN had deployed it.
  22. grigolosi
    Excellent news Frothy. I am looking forward to reading the next chapter!
  23. grigolosi
    Driver and Grey you are correct. Nothing beats a dedicated ground attack aircraft but a lot of fighters that have excelled in the multirole arena were never intended as multirole. The F-4 was designed as a fleet defense fighter but as always with the continuing development engineers and the military would ask the question "hey would it be plausible to drop a MK-82's for use against ground targets". Where the real failure in design falls is when they try to design a bird for use by all branches of the military. The F-111 was designed under that idea and it turned out to be too heavy for Naval use. The F-4 on the other hand was designed for the Navy like I said. The AF saw it and started doing flight test with it and decided to adopt it. It only took a few small modifications and a change to a bigger main tire for the USAF to use it. Forced design in either area has rarely ever brought forth good designs. Also what Seto said is also the prevailing influence on both design and upgrading of aircraft. Current threat assessment is always massive influence on the industry and military even if the threat is very localized. The idea is that the emigrant fleet or colony would have to make due and hold out until bigger and better reinforcements can reach them. Budgets have a big influence on the current designing of aircraft. The more bang for your buck is the prevailing ideal right now just like it is in the world of Macross. That is probably one reason you see more multirole capable VF's than dedicated mission versions like the VA-3. Unfortunately dedicated heavy hitters have never been the apple of most military leaders eyes. Yeah Driver for the F-16, the current CCIP (Common Configuration Implementation Program) mod has allowed the Blk 50 to be able to interchange between the SEAD and mud moving mission with the pod changes. Think about it, it took an entire frame 35 yrs ago to house all the components for the SEAD mission when the F-4G was flying it. They were able to take all the required systems for the Wild Weasel mission and put it in a pod 4 ft long.
  24. grigolosi
    The F-16 CJ Blk 50 isn't necessarily optimized for the SEAD mission soley. All it takes is mounting an HTS pod to station 5L or 5R to for that mission. It can be fitted for the air to mud mission just as easily by fitting a Sniper pod or even LATIRN pod and it performs extremely well at low altitude. I have seen F-16's with large ordinance loads i.e. Harpoon missiles, GBU12's and 15's . The big issue you run into with any fighter when loading heavy weapons loads is your wing loading and landing gear loading. Remember the landing gear also have to be able to bear the weight load especially when it comes to getting off the ground. Fighter aircraft are and have been evolving since WWII. Even during WWII the best fighter s we had were also used quite often in the ground attack role. In the past 70 yrs there have been very few built specifically as as a fighter. Most have been built with the multirole versatility in mind. It is good though to have a dedicated attack frame but that single mission mentality is what has led to disappearance of that frame from a lot of military's. The original purpose of the VF design dictates that the aircraft be multirole.
  25. grigolosi
    I quit........its been a crappy day and week................VF's all work off of magically fusion fairy dust....................................................
×
×
  • Create New...