Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Lynx7725]

Correct me if I'm wrong here guys, but slow is actually good for CAS missions. Allows the pilot to see more of what's on the ground.

Graham

399748[/snapback]

I would say so, yes -- but that's one way to fight. You eyeball the enemy manually and then plant a 30mm round between his eyes.

There are other ways to fight -- inflitrate infantry to paint enemy units for destruction. UAV to target designate. Real-time satellite targetting. Electronic footprinting. Military GPS.

The question is, whether our targetting technologies getting to the point where we can achieve BVR attacks on ground targets? If so, can we build a weapon platform that utilizes these technologies to whack off the target with high precision (better yet, perfect precision) without exposing the troops to return fire?

Privately, I think it's a mistake to move the human away from the conflict (by hiding behind technology). But from another point of view, I can see why it is desirable.

[Nied]

how many F-35s will you hear of comming hoime with massive amounst of damage?

How many fast Jets do you hear about taking damage in the first place?

Correct me if I'm wrong here guys, but slow is actually good for CAS missions. Allows the pilot to see more of what's on the ground.

Graham

In this day and age when a guy on the ground can point a laser or upload the coordinates of what he wants killed? No.

With those technologies the pilot never needs to see the target. All he has to do is be told when to drop the bomb and the JDAM or SDB will do the rest.

[David Hingtgen]

Fast jet damage? SAM. F-18's took SAM's in the Gulf War and came home. Every Harrier hit with a SAM went down. And there's always AAA. Mach 2 capability didn't help any of the Strike Eagles or Tornados lost since they couldn't use it. Attack aircraft are still forced to fly low and slow a lot of the time. I've yet to hear of somebody dropping a JDAM from Mach 2 and 40,000ft. (And I know you simply can't go very fast with a Paveway due to seeker issues) Damage survivability of any kind, and especially when low and slow is still worth something.

[Graham]

With it's ability to go low and slow, loiter over the battlefield for long periods of time, ability to carry an extremely large amount of munitions, absorb great amounts of damage and still make it safely back home and be repaired quickly the A-10 is still an extremely useful plane to keep in the US inventory IMO.

The A-10 is not just a tank hunter, which some people tend to forget. It's capable of a wide variety of missions such as day and night Close Air Support (CAS), Forward Air Controller (FAC) and certain types of interdiction missions as shown in the Gulf war.

Definitely recommend reading William L. Smallwood's Warthog book. which goes into detail with first hand accounts from A-10 pilots about how the A-10 performed in combat.

I think in a situation with enemy troops in the wire, I'd rather have an A-10 come along to save my bacon than a UAV or fast mover with PGMs.

As for the F-35, in all it's variations, so far I'm not impressed with what I've read. It seems to be overbudget, overweight, underarmed with only internal weapons (or if it does carry extra external weapons, looses stealth). Not particulaly fast, agile or long range. In the STOVL version especially, is likely to be extremely maintenance intensive.

Just wondering how many A-10s could be purchased for the price of one F-35? perhaps it's time to start up a new A-10 production line .

If the US does get into a shooting war with either Iran or North Korea at some point in the future, I can well imagine that as with Iraq, there is likely to be more A2G than A2A combat and the A-10 will be just the right plane for the job (again).

Just my 2 cents.

Graham

[Nied]

Fast jet damage?  SAM.  F-18's took SAM's in the Gulf War and came home.  Every Harrier hit with a SAM went down.    And there's always AAA.  Mach 2 capability didn't help any of the Strike Eagles or Tornados lost since they couldn't use it.  Attack aircraft are still forced to fly low and slow a lot of the time.  I've yet to hear of somebody dropping a JDAM from Mach 2 and 40,000ft.  (And I know you simply can't go very fast with a Paveway due to seeker issues) Damage survivability of any kind, and especially when low and slow is still worth something.

399769[/snapback]

Current US doctrine has land assaults (and the CAS missions they require) preformed only after air superiority is achieved, which means that large and medium SAMs are dead. That leaves small arms AAA, and Manpads which can be avoided by staying over 10,000 ft. From that altitude any aircraft can orbit the area and rain PGMs down with impunity, the only real difference in airframes is payload and how fast they can get to the troops in need. In that area the F-35B beats the A-10, it can launch from the same marginally prepared airfields as the Hog, get to the troops in need faster, rain down the same JDAMs or SDBs that the A-10 would, and then RTB faster than the A-10 so it can turn around and do it again that much sooner. Except for the Avenger (which is surprisingly effective at 10,000 ft) there's not much the A-10 brings to the table that doesn't come better from a fast jet or even a B-52!

[Nied]

With it's ability to go low and slow, loiter over the battlefield for long periods of time, ability to carry an extremely large amount of munitions, absorb great amounts of damage and still make it safely back home and be repaired quickly the A-10 is still an extremely useful plane to keep in the US inventory IMO.

You could hang drop tanks under the wings of an F-35 get plenty of loiter time and still have a devastating warload. You'd lose stealth, but if you're performing CAS you've already achieved air superiority, stealth is superfluous.

The A-10 is not just a tank hunter, which some people tend to forget. It's capable of a wide variety of missions such as day and night Close Air Support (CAS), Forward Air Controller (FAC) and certain types of interdiction missions as shown in the Gulf war.

Doctrine has changed significantly since then. During OIF A-10s stayed up high and dropped PGMS just like the fast jets, only they couldn't get to troops in need as fast as other platforms and weren't as accurate once they were there (that last part will be fixed once the A-10C enters service though).

I think in a situation with enemy troops in the wire, I'd rather have an A-10 come along to save my bacon than a UAV or fast mover with PGMs.

The A-10 will just get there slower and drop the same PGMs.

As for the F-35, in all it's variations, so far I'm not impressed with what I've read. It seems to be overbudget, overweight, underarmed with only internal weapons (or if it does carry extra external weapons, looses stealth). Not particulaly fast, agile or long range. In the STOVL version especially, is likely to be extremely maintenance intensive.

Over budget I'll give you. Overweight is being fixed. Under armed hardly. As I've said before it carries internally the same armament that F-16s and F/A18s take into war externally (two big PGMs three drop tanks and two AMRAAMs, the JSF loses the sidewinders but gains comprehensive sensor stealth, not to mention the 8 SDBs it could carry instead of the PGMs). When stealthy it carries more than enough weaponry to beat down SAMs and put big holes in runways. Once it's done doing that (and once our B-2s and F-22s have cleared out the big SAMs and any air threat still able to operate) you can dirty it up and carry A-10 like loads in support of ground operations, because stealth isn't necessary anymore. It doesn't need to get low to be accurate, some private with a laptop can say "I want an explosion here" and a few seconds later a JDAM or SDB will make that happen.

Edited May 16, 2006 by Nied

[David Hingtgen]

"Overweight being fixed". For every pound they drop off, I hear of another pound needing to be added on. I have yet to see an actual weight decrease. It's more like:

"Plus 1000, minus 800, plus 700, minus 500, plus 50, minus 30..."

Of course, IMHO it's all for naught if it's the next budget target after the F-22 and production is drastically cut. Instead of replacing the Viper/Hornet/Warthog it'll replace Hill, Mountain Home, and Shaw's planes, and that's about it...

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

  What would be detectable is the inside of the Raptor's weapons bay as the doors open for the shot, those doors stay open just long enough to launch a weapon (which depending on the weapon could be as long as two seconds).  Incidentally that's how that F-117 got shot down over Kosovo, the Serbs got wise to the route our Nighthawks were taking into the area (lazy mission planning on our part) set up a SAM site along the the route, and when the F-117 opened it's bay doors to drop a bomb they were able to lock it up and fire off a missile.

399653[/snapback]

Doesnt the missile lose track of the stealth craft once the doors close though? So how did the Serbs track the Nighthawk long enough for the missile to reach the target? I don't suppose the pilot kept the bay doors open that long?

[Phalanx]

  What would be detectable is the inside of the Raptor's weapons bay as the doors open for the shot, those doors stay open just long enough to launch a weapon (which depending on the weapon could be as long as two seconds).  Incidentally that's how that F-117 got shot down over Kosovo, the Serbs got wise to the route our Nighthawks were taking into the area (lazy mission planning on our part) set up a SAM site along the the route, and when the F-117 opened it's bay doors to drop a bomb they were able to lock it up and fire off a missile.

399653[/snapback]

Doesnt the missile lose track of the stealth craft once the doors close though? So how did the Serbs track the Nighthawk long enough for the missile to reach the target? I don't suppose the pilot kept the bay doors open that long?

399807[/snapback]

Funny that you mention that RTHTT, because why is the F-117's missle bays been configured to be opened manually just to launch the missles it has stored in it's bays? Since I play flight sims alot, I just honestly assumed that the missle bays of stealth aircraft immediatley close once a missle or bomb is released. I don't understand why Lockheed would cconfigure stealth aircraft to have a manual missle bay door release when they could have an automatic door closing system or something. For that matter, when firing bombs or missles from stealth aircraft, do the pilots have to remember to close the missle bays manually? If you ask me, I think that epitomizes why that F-117 got blasted out of the sky over Kosovo sevn years ago as Nied stated that the pilot must have forgotten to close his missle bay as it was left open and as a result of that, those troops on the ground that had manned those SAM launchers manage to lock on the Nighthawk and blow it out the sky. Unless there was slight malfunction with the missle bay door?

Also, RTHTT, when you say that the Serbs managed to obtain a missle lock on the F-117, since the missle won't be a to track the stealth fighter once it's doors are closed, I think the pilot closed them at the last minute and as a result of that, it was struck. In addition to that, the Serbs may have been using nightvision to spot the F-117 in the air and that may have also played a key role in the downing of the F-117. So in the end, I think that stealth is effective at preventing missles from homing into stealth aircraft only if the missle is still far away from the aircraft and if the missle bays are still closed. I also think it's on par with ECM jamming pods in which they're only effective at preventing missles as long as they're far awy from you. So stealth is a passive ECM missle defense system and using actual ECM pods are active missle defense systems.

Edited May 16, 2006 by Phalanx

[Apollo Leader]

Whether it be RCS, IR, etc., no stealth aircraft is "invisible". Under the right circumstances (position and distance from the radar, the type of radar used, etc.) an aircraft will stand out more. In the 1993 book "Stealth Fighter Pilot", the opening narrative was from a former Iraqi SA-3 radar operator (Dessert Storm) who was able to pick up and detect the F-117 to a limited degree. One night he thought he got a good enough of a bead and took a shot with an SA-3. (At this point the perspective went to the Nighthawk pilot's perspective). The F-117's alarms went off that it had been fired on by a radar guided SAM. The F-117 stayed the course and the RCS of the F-117 was not good enough for the SA-3 to lock on.

In the case of Serbia, from what I've gathered, the F-117's were operating in the same as airspace as a lot of the other conventional aircraft and were even flying from the same base in Italy, too. Since the radar operators in Serbia knew were all the aircraft were coming from, that made things easier for them to look for the F-117. (The B-2's used were flying from Missouri, so they were operating differently). So ultimately an F-117 was lost because of operational misuse. Not to mention the Russians and possibly others now have the remains of this Nighthawk...

[Phalanx]

Not to mention the Russians and possibly others now have the remains of this Nighthawk...

399828[/snapback]

Thats scary as these countries are probably and secretly working behind the scenes to construct their own stealth aircraft to counter ours. That would suck balls big time if that were to happen but then again we are Americans and we'll always be far ahead of those other countries in terms of technology. Besides, the F-117 isn't all that effective like the Raptor so I'm not too worried about them having a sample of our Stealth technology, but if it weere the other way around with the Raptor or Spirit, then we can start breaking ish at the fact those Eorpoean countries have stealth capabilities and start cowering in fear.

[Coota0]

More Picture from Sunday....

First one is for buddhafabio

More F/A-18A+

After talking to the Marines flying them, it sounds like one helluva hotrod

Super Hornet

C-141 (I'm pretty sure, didn't feel bi enough for the C-5, but I get them mixed up)

C-130

One Last A-10

[Coota0]

Then there was a mock attack in the base...

Mock Refueling, C-130 with F/A-18s

F/A-18 rolling in on the runway (didn't even notice the camo until I got the pictures back yesterday)

C-130s preparing to drop paratroops (ended up not happening due to wind)

CH-47 dropped them Hummer and then went back in to pick up troops

F/A-18s coming into the break over the field after the attack

and Finally one lone picture from the F-16 demo

Edited May 16, 2006 by Coota0

[Coota0]

The wind didn't stop the Golden Knights

[buddhafabio]

More Picture from Sunday....

First one is for buddhafabio

THANKS i remember that tower vividly when my dad took me to the flightline for errands/airshows between ages 5-10 he was in a field maintence squadron when he was station there.

i am courious, how much of the base is still in use. is base housing still there? (i used to live on thunderchief lane about 1/4 mile away from the bx.) which is probably a 1 1/2 mile to 2 from the flight line.

[Nied]

"Overweight being fixed".  For every pound they drop off, I hear of another pound needing to be added on.  I have yet to see an actual weight decrease.  It's more like:

"Plus 1000, minus 800, plus 700, minus 500, plus 50, minus 30..."

Of course, IMHO it's all for naught if it's the next budget target after the F-22 and production is drastically cut.  Instead of replacing the Viper/Hornet/Warthog it'll replace Hill, Mountain Home, and Shaw's planes, and that's about it...

399800[/snapback]

That IMHO would be ideal. Cut the A and B models, sell the C model to everyone (maybe put the gun back in if possible), and use it as sort of a super A-7 with decent air-to-air capabilities.

[Coota0]

More Picture from Sunday....

First one is for buddhafabio

THANKS i remember that tower vividly when my dad took me to the flightline for errands/airshows between ages 5-10 he was in a field maintence squadron when he was station there.

i am courious, how much of the base is still in use. is base housing still there? (i used to live on thunderchief lane about 1/4 mile away from the bx.) which is probably a 1 1/2 mile to 2 from the flight line.

399849[/snapback]

Base housing in use. My wife, sister-in-law, neices and I went to the PX. Golf course was being used. Even a lot of new construction (looked like part of it was EBQ) It was the most active reserve base I've ever seen, even the Burger king is still going strong.

One last picture, a B-17

[Coota0]

Current US doctrine has land assaults (and the CAS missions they require) preformed only after air superiority is achieved, which means that large and medium SAMs are dead.  That leaves small arms AAA, and Manpads which can be avoided by staying over 10,000 ft.  From that altitude any aircraft can orbit the area and rain PGMs down with impunity, the only real difference in airframes is payload and how fast they can get to the troops in need. 

399784[/snapback]

Which is excellent as long as we're not having to defend anything. If the enemy goes offensive against U.S. troops, he can bring Mobile AAA and Mobile SAMs (an SA-6 will fart up your day) if U.S. troops are in close contact you need an aircraft that can get down in the weeds and help our guys out. You can sit up high and lob PGMs no matter how good a PGM is if the enemy gets close you can't use them. The Marines excel in this area, and the USAF tries real hard, but only the A-10 is real surevivable down in the dirt, an F-16 can drop the bombs but with a single engine a hit is much more catostophic.

[Nied]

  What would be detectable is the inside of the Raptor's weapons bay as the doors open for the shot, those doors stay open just long enough to launch a weapon (which depending on the weapon could be as long as two seconds).  Incidentally that's how that F-117 got shot down over Kosovo, the Serbs got wise to the route our Nighthawks were taking into the area (lazy mission planning on our part) set up a SAM site along the the route, and when the F-117 opened it's bay doors to drop a bomb they were able to lock it up and fire off a missile.

399653[/snapback]

Doesnt the missile lose track of the stealth craft once the doors close though? So how did the Serbs track the Nighthawk long enough for the missile to reach the target? I don't suppose the pilot kept the bay doors open that long?

399807[/snapback]

Funny that you mention that RTHTT, because why is the F-117's missle bays been configured to be opened manually just to launch the missles it has stored in it's bays? Since I play flight sims alot, I just honestly assumed that the missle bays of stealth aircraft immediatley close once a missle or bomb is released. I don't understand why Lockheed would cconfigure stealth aircraft to have a manual missle bay door release when they could have an automatic door closing system or something. For that matter, when firing bombs or missles from stealth aircraft, do the pilots have to remember to close the missle bays manually? If you ask me, I think that epitomizes why that F-117 got blasted out of the sky over Kosovo sevn years ago as Nied stated that the pilot must have forgotten to close his missle bay as it was left open and as a result of that, those troops on the ground that had manned those SAM launchers manage to lock on the Nighthawk and blow it out the sky. Unless there was slight malfunction with the missle bay door?

Also, RTHTT, when you say that the Serbs managed to obtain a missle lock on the F-117, since the missle won't be a to track the stealth fighter once it's doors are closed, I think the pilot closed them at the last minute and as a result of that, it was struck. In addition to that, the Serbs may have been using nightvision to spot the F-117 in the air and that may have also played a key role in the downing of the F-117. So in the end, I think that stealth is effective at preventing missles from homing into stealth aircraft only if the missle is still far away from the aircraft and if the missle bays are still closed. I also think it's on par with ECM jamming pods in which they're only effective at preventing missles as long as they're far awy from you. So stealth is a passive ECM missle defense system and using actual ECM pods are active missle defense systems.

399817[/snapback]

The Nighthawk's doors are computer controlled, the pilot doesn't have much say in it. In fact the pilot doesn't even decide when to drop a bomb, he just presses a "commit" button on his control column, and the aircraft's on board computer decides on the ideal time to drop the weapon out of the bay.

What happened to the aircraft over Kosovo was a combination of things. As Apollo Leader and I mentioned it was partly bad mission planning (the Serbs knew where we'd be). Then they caught the F-117 with it's weapons doors open long enough to get a lock on the aircraft. Even after it's doors are closed the F-117 isn't invisible and if you paint it with radar energy you will get a return, the problem is that to get enough of a return you need to get a pretty focused radar beam, and you can only do that if you know where the plane is already. That's not the end of it though, my understanding is that the pilot was able to evade the missile, but in the process he dove under the cloud layer that night and because of his black paint job became quite visible to the Serbian AAA crews.

[Akilae]

US aircraft technology is no the only thing to stagnate, for a very good reason: we no longer have a war to fight. I'm not talking about this war on terror crap, I'm talking about a full blown conflict between two sovereign nations. This isn't warmonger talk, since I'm sure every anthropologist can attest that conflict is what drives innovation.

For the US, there remains only one viable military superpower threat which unfortunately also buys so much of our national debt that going to war is no longer an option. The Cold War scenario of having to face off numerically superior forces is still viable, and this time the opponent will be almost every bit as technologically advanced as the US is. The problem lies in whether or not war is likely, and what kind of war; the kind that involves B-52s, Iowas, and M-1s is viewed as less likely to happen.

To those who believe the US is kick-ass in military might, try to remember that the world's largest standing army is sitting on the other side of the Pacific, rapidly equipping itself for the 21st century, has much more will to fight, and is not spread thing engaging enemies on multiple fronts.

Back to aircraft. Multirole/multiservice aircraft are really just a logistics pipe dream. Every aircraft that was designed from the outset to be multirole and multiservice seems to have failed miserablly. Current designers do not seem to be looking at why successful aircraft are successful. The A-10 was designed to be slow and close to the ground, taking fire and giving close air support. The F-14, along with the Phoenix, was designed to be a long range interceptor. The F-16, the F-15, the U-2, the SR-71, ad nauseaum. All designed to fit in very limited mission parameters. It's almost only by accident that you have all these air superiority fighters and interceptors dropping bombs.

[Nied]

Which is excellent as long as we're not having to defend anything. If the enemy goes offensive against U.S. troops, he can bring Mobile AAA and Mobile SAMs (an SA-6 will fart up your day) if U.S. troops are in close contact you need an aircraft that can get down in the weeds and help our guys out.

An SA-6 would be a sitting duck against an F-35, F-22 or B-2, and AAA wouldn't be able to hit an aircraft loitering at 10,000 ft (that's the point).

You can sit up high and lob PGMs no matter how good a PGM is if the enemy gets close you can't use them. The Marines excel in this area, and the USAF tries real hard, but only the A-10 is real surevivable down in the dirt, an F-16 can drop the bombs but with a single engine a hit is much more catostophic.

The Marines are doing the exact same thing the Air Force and Navy are: Sitting up high and dropping PGMs on the coordinates given to them by troops on the ground. It's just as accurate (if not more so) than dropping dumb weapons from low altitude, it has the same dangers for troops on the ground if the enemy gets too close (why would dropping a 500 lb dumb bomb from a A-10 at 100 ft be safer than dropping a 500 lb JDAM or paveway from 10,000 ft if they're going to land in the same place?) but it's significantly safer for the aircraft doing the dropping. Even with the A-10s ability to withstand damage it's still going to have to withdraw if hit, and it will be unable to fight for a significant amount of time while it's being repaired, which means it's not helping our guys on the ground.

[Akilae]

The Nighthawk's doors are computer controlled, the pilot doesn't have much say in it.  In fact the pilot doesn't even decide when to drop a bomb, he just presses a "commit" button on his control column, and the aircraft's on board computer decides on the ideal time to drop the weapon out of the bay.

What happened to the aircraft over Kosovo was a combination of things.  As Apollo Leader and I mentioned it was partly bad mission planning (the Serbs knew where we'd be).  Then they caught the F-117 with it's weapons doors open long enough to get a lock on the aircraft.  Even after it's doors are closed the F-117 isn't invisible and if you paint it with radar energy you will get a return, the problem is that to get enough of a return you need to get a pretty focused radar beam, and you can only do that if you know where the plane is already.  That's not the end of it though, my understanding is that the pilot was able to evade the missile, but in the process he dove under the cloud layer that night  and because of his black paint job became quite visible to the Serbian AAA crews.

399865[/snapback]

A lot of people seem to equate low radar observability with *OMFGInvisible!!!*. Total invisibility is a BAD thing, since all you need to do is look at there there's a big blank "nothing" on the radar to find what you want to find. The F-117 has a small radar signature, small, but still there. What happened in Kosovo is more likely thus:

Serbs know where to look (non-varying flight plans over the past few missions, heck, I'll even take non-varying flight speed and altitude), locks onto the small radar signature flying at a constant speed, constant altitude, and constant direction, WHILE the bay doors are open, keep the radar pointed at the greatly diminished contact after the doors close, making educated guesses as needed (remember, constant "variables", hah, what an oxymoron), fire missile, evade and start varying altitude/speed/heading (which the F-117 was never supposed to do anyway), make mistake of diving below the clouds, poof. Heck, I'm sure if the Serbs had WWII era 88s they would have shot the F-117 down on the first salvo instead of having it evade (aim the 88 at the approximate heading, set shell to detonate at altitude = F-117 flying straight into a shitload of shrapnel).

Personally, I think the ultimate for all our bombing needs = B-52s flying high and out of reach loaded with PGMs, dropping poo as needed. Massive payload, massive loitering time, what's not to like?

Edited May 16, 2006 by Akilae

[kalvasflam]

US aircraft technology is no the only thing to stagnate, for a very good reason: we no longer have a war to fight.  I'm not talking about this war on terror crap, I'm talking about a full blown conflict between two sovereign nations.  This isn't warmonger talk, since I'm sure every anthropologist can attest that conflict is what drives innovation.

For the US, there remains only one viable military superpower threat which unfortunately also buys so much of our national debt that going to war is no longer an option.  The Cold War scenario of having to face off numerically superior forces is still viable, and this time the opponent will be almost every bit as technologically advanced as the US is.  The problem lies in whether or not war is likely, and what kind of war; the kind that involves B-52s, Iowas, and M-1s is viewed as less likely to happen.

To those who believe the US is kick-ass in military might, try to remember that the world's largest standing army is sitting on the other side of the Pacific, rapidly equipping itself for the 21st century, has much more will to fight, and is not spread thing engaging enemies on multiple fronts.

399869[/snapback]

Moving off point a bit, I think the US right now is equivalent to what the British was like at the turn of the 19th century. It is the biggest power on the block, it has just "won" the struggle against communism, and is the most dominant player in the world. But to the west, there is a new power (or in this case, an old power) rising, (yes, China is more to the west of the US than the east) it'll take the rest of the century, may be more, but China will inevitably rise to the status of dominant player. If the US manages to stage its exit gracefully, think UK ceding power at turn of century to the US, then, things stays nice and calm.

Otherwise...

China though has yet to bloody itself in modern warfare. The opportunity, when it comes will likely be on its western borders.

But we're getting off the topic of aircraft. While the US maintains a nice military lead, there are others who aren't far behind. The Russians with their SU-35 aren't bad at all, technology wise, the US is ahead, but that lead is diminishing. The war fighting capacity of the US really comes in its doctrine, warfare isn't about having the best guns. More about having good guns along with the know how to use them. But it'll be interesting to see development of US military aircraft in the next decade. Obviously, the system is very broken right now. Who knows when the next leap (if there is one) will be.

[F-ZeroOne]

Personally, I think the ultimate for all our bombing needs = B-52s flying high and out of reach loaded with PGMs, dropping poo as needed.  Massive payload, massive loitering time, what's not to like?

399873[/snapback]

You are Dale Brown and I claim my free can of Yoshinol.

[Coota0]

An SA-6 would be a sitting duck against an F-35, F-22 or B-2, and AAA wouldn't be able to hit an aircraft loitering at 10,000 ft (that's the point).

Have you seen the budget cuts? Do you really think the Air Force is going to commit its precious stealth aircraft to killing a few SAMs.

[Nied]

An SA-6 would be a sitting duck against an F-35, F-22 or B-2, and AAA wouldn't be able to hit an aircraft loitering at 10,000 ft (that's the point).

Have you seen the budget cuts? Do you really think the Air Force is going to commit its precious stealth aircraft to killing a few SAMs.

399928[/snapback]

They were built from the start to do expressly that: kill or avoid the newest generation of SAMs. It would be ridiculous if we didn't use them for it.

[ALLAN]

Here is my favorite pic from the airshow.

It was on the F/a-18F from VFA-41. Must be a Team America fan

Edited May 16, 2006 by ALLAN

[Graham]

Moving off point a bit, I think the US right now is equivalent to what the British was like at the turn of the 19th century.  It is the biggest power on the block, it has just "won" the struggle against communism, and is the most dominant player in the world. 

399912[/snapback]

Without meaning to get all political, I'd say it's not so much that the US won the cold war, but rather the Soviets just couldn't afford to play anymore and gave up. Perhaps a good analogy would be the poker player who quits because the stakes have become too high and he can no longer afford to keep up with the big dogs, (or dog in this case).

Perhaps it's more accurate to say the US won by default.

Anyway, back to our scheduled airplane discussion.

Graham

[Graham]

Y'know, I'm getting more and more skeptical about whether the F-35 will ever get into service.

Seems like numbers to be purchased are constantly being cut and the US DoD is majorly pissing off partner counties in the project, especially UK, by refusing to authorise transfer of the necessary information and technology to allow partner countries to perform repair, maintenanince and upgrades. It's getting to the state now where the possibility of some member countries pulling out of the project is extremely high.

Graham

[kalvasflam]

Moving off point a bit, I think the US right now is equivalent to what the British was like at the turn of the 19th century.  It is the biggest power on the block, it has just "won" the struggle against communism, and is the most dominant player in the world. 

399912[/snapback]

Without meaning to get all political, I'd say it's not so much that the US won the cold war, but rather the Soviets just couldn't afford to play anymore and gave up. Perhaps a good analogy would be the poker player who quits because the stakes have become too high and he can no longer afford to keep up with the big dogs, (or dog in this case).

Perhaps it's more accurate to say the US won by default.

Anyway, back to our scheduled airplane discussion.

Graham

399993[/snapback]

Hence won in quotes...

[Nied]

Y'know, I'm getting more and more skeptical about whether the F-35 will ever get into service.

Seems like numbers to be purchased are constantly being cut and the US DoD is majorly pissing off partner counties in the project, especially UK, by refusing to authorise transfer of the necessary information and technology to allow partner countries to perform repair, maintenanince and upgrades. It's getting to the state now where the possibility of some member countries pulling out of the project is extremely high.

Graham

400005[/snapback]

Most likely yeah.

The Brits are eyeing either the Rafale or Sea Typhoon as a Harrier replacement (good options). I've also heard them say they'd rather have the F-35C (also a good option).

If the Australians get a labour government, I'd say it's likely they would drop out of the JSF in favour of the F-22 (yay!).

The Dutch were just bought off by a work share agreement to build the F-35's flaperons in the Netherlands, but I'm not sure how long that will last.

Oddly enough I'd keep an eye on what fighter Japan goes for. What they do it could set up a chain of events that could kill or at the very least drastically scale back the JSF (or if they buy it ensure it's status as the most ubiquitous fighter of the 21st century).

[Graham]

Funnily enough I was recently reading about Japan's need to replace it's fleet of ageing F-4s.

I reckon that the JASDF will eventually end up with a watered-down version of the F-22, that is if the US Government ever approves it for export sales.

Some version of the F-15 is also a possiblity I suppose, as the Japanese have been operating F-15s for many years now.

But I think the F-15 while still a good fighter, is showing it's age and has reached the point where it's capabilities can't be upgraded much more.

To be honest, with their close ties to the US, I can't see Japan buying a European fighter (Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen), despite all being excellent planes. IMO Typhoon is second only behind the F-22, especially if it ever gets built with all of the proposed Tranch 2 improvements and it's a damn sight cheaper than the F-22 to boot.

Graham

[Nied]

All right. Yesterday I promised some of my favorite aviation related links. I hope everyone else will join in (I want to know where some of you get your info).

F-16.net

Everything you wanted to know about the Viper and then some, their forum is a great wealth of info even if they do get downright paranoid about public information falling into the hands of "the enemy."

MATS

Like F-16.net but without the forum and focused entirely on the F-14 Tomcat. Probably the #1 resource on all things F-14. It's probably one of the #1 sources of all the Anti Super Hornet BS you see all over the internet.

Tomcat Alley

The # 2 Tomcat source. Less technical detail but more pictures.

Globalsecurity.org

The most comprehensive resource on all things military, from WMDs to chaff and flare launchers. With such a vast array of subjects not everything has the most up to date info though. Watch out for those pop-up adds!

Aerospaceweb.org

A pretty neat site. Their Aircraft museum isn't as comprehensive as Globalsecurity, but their "ask a rocket scientist" section is a wealth of hard to find information (including a good article on the F-35's armaments).

OK those are my best links, I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Antone else want to contribute? (David, Skull Leader I'm looking in your direction. )

[David Hingtgen]

Mine (and I think Skull Leader's) #1 site is down at the moment, no point posting a link that's dead at the moment. That site will beat any other site for accurate up-to-the-minute F-22 info, trust us.

I will say F-16.net is about the best site period dedicated to a plane. F-15StrikeEagle.net and any F-14 site have nothing on the Viper's page. Strange that there's no Hornet page out there AFAIK.

Edited May 17, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Graham]

The Brits are eyeing either the Rafale or Sea Typhoon as a Harrier replacement (good options).  I've also heard them say they'd rather have the F-35C (also a good option).

400033[/snapback]

AFAIK, the Rafale thing for the Royal Navy is just a rumor that got started and UK MoD is not actually considering them. French planes for Britain......Never! Still, it would be a pretty practical choice of a plane that's already in service and comparitively inexpensive.

I'd love to see a Sea Typhoon, but politically, I don't think it's going to happen. Depite it being an excellent plane, the Typhoon doesn't seem to get much support or funding from the idiots (sorry, politicians) back home in UK.

Also, with the changes that would have to made to the landing gear, wing and FCS for a naval version, it would take at the snails pace of Eurofighter development many years before a Sea Typhoon would be operational. Probably we'd have a situation where the new carriers were ready years before the actual planes to go on them.

While I haven't done any research on the new UK carriers, I would guess that a larger deck would be needed to handle Sea Typhoons as opposed to some version of the F-35.

Despite all the political squabling between the US and UK at the moment over the F-35, the Royal Navy will probably still end up being stuck with the bloody thing.

Graham (not an F-35 fan)