Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

True but advanced technology was around in vietnam and still dogfighting skills and guns were just as important there as they were in Korea.  I believe that no matter how advanced technology gets, fighter pilots should still be prepared to fight in the booth so to speak and have guns even if its 'just in case".  History shows that unexpected threats will come out of nowhere and what we thought was not needed long ago in favor of new stuff, will once again be needed.

387550[/snapback]

Here I go again.

That line about Vietnam and the Phantoms with no guns etc etc keeps popping up everytime someone on a public board mentions the paradigm shift in fighter combat.

Its not the 60s/70s anymore. This is 40 years on. In the 1930s, if you told people to leave defensive guns off the heavy bombers, they would think you are nuts. In the 20s, if you told people to forget about battleships, they would think you are nuts.

IMHO, the 70s was not the time of the BVR missile yet. Why cant it be possible that in 2010, the BVR missile and its associated avionics has finally come of age?

As an analogy

BVR missile in the 70s = Torpedo Bombers in the 1920s

BVR missile in 2006 = Torpedo Bomber in the 1940s

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

True but advanced technology was around in vietnam and still dogfighting skills and guns were just as important there as they were in Korea.  I believe that no matter how advanced technology gets, fighter pilots should still be prepared to fight in the booth so to speak and have guns even if its 'just in case".  History shows that unexpected threats will come out of nowhere and what we thought was not needed long ago in favor of new stuff, will once again be needed.

387550[/snapback]

Here I go again.

That line about Vietnam and the Phantoms with no guns etc etc keeps popping up everytime someone on a public board mentions the paradigm shift in fighter combat.

Its not the 60s/70s anymore. This is 40 years on. In the 1930s, if you told people to leave defensive guns off the heavy bombers, they would think you are nuts. In the 20s, if you told people to forget about battleships, they would think you are nuts.

IMHO, the 70s was not the time of the BVR missile yet. Why cant it be possible that in 2010, the BVR missile and its associated avionics has finally come of age?

As an analogy

BVR missile in the 70s = Torpedo Bombers in the 1920s

BVR missile in 2006 = Torpedo Bomber in the 1940s

387558[/snapback]

I don't doubt that BVR has come a very long way. I'm just saying dogfighting skills and guns will still be needed in the future. Look at the whole Bekaa valley fight, the sparrows actually DID work in that conflict but the Israeli's used all the weapons on their plane. I tend to think a plane with JUST AMRAAM is not the best fighter, I'd give it a gun and some heaters as well. This is the same reason I don't agree with the RAF removing the cannon in their Eurofighter.

[reddsun1]

And I did hear at one point that the Mustang was inferior to the Lightning and that the Lightning did okay in the pacific but horrible in Europe. Thoughts?

387553[/snapback]

The reason usually cited why the Lightning didn't do as well in Europe was twofold:

1. the engines turbo/superchargers didn't perform as well in the [more] figid high altitude air of Europe as they did in the warmer air climes of the Pacific

2. the twin-boom layout was a dead giveaway to German pilots at altitude, especially when high enough for the engines to leave tell-tale twin contrails; the Germans could essentially spot/make out their foes sooner. They called the P-36 "twin tail Devil" or something like that, IIRC.

I suppose the Lightning's biggest advantages would have been: more firepower; had cannon AND MG's in the nose, didn't it? Also, having the guns in the nose/centerline of the airframe made for higher accuracy and focus of firepower? Redundancy of 2 engines; definitely a good insurance policy when flying long missions over vast expanses of the Pacific.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

And I did hear at one point that the Mustang was inferior to the Lightning and that the Lightning did okay in the pacific but horrible in Europe. Thoughts?

387553[/snapback]

The reason usually cited why the Lightning didn't do as well in Europe was twofold:

1. the engines turbo/superchargers didn't perform as well in the [more] figid high altitude air of Europe as they did in the warmer air climes of the Pacific

2. the twin-boom layout was a dead giveaway to German pilots at altitude, especially when high enough for the engines to leave tell-tale twin contrails; the Germans could essentially spot/make out their foes sooner. They called the P-36 "twin tail Devil" or something like that, IIRC.

I suppose the Lightning's biggest advantages would have been: more firepower; had cannon AND MG's in the nose, didn't it? Also, having the guns in the nose/centerline of the airframe made for higher accuracy and focus of firepower? Redundancy of 2 engines; definitely a good insurance policy when flying long missions over vast expanses of the Pacific.

387572[/snapback]

I wonder, if they called it a devil then it must've done some damage right? Good points on the historical info though, I don't know much about the plane.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I think that 'fork tailed devil' thing is a myth. I don't recall any reliable source ever confirming it from the Axis viewpoint.

My bet is that the P-38 was more effective in the Pacific because it went up against mainly A6Ms and Ki43s etc etc. It could use its superior sustained climb and dive and firepower. Against the Bf-109s and Fw190s, it couldn't outclimb or outdive them like it could against the lighter Japanese fighters.

[kalvasflam]

I don't doubt that BVR has come a very long way.  I'm just saying dogfighting skills and guns will still be needed in the future.  Look at the whole Bekaa valley fight, the sparrows actually DID work in that conflict but the Israeli's used all the weapons on their plane. I tend to think a plane with JUST AMRAAM is not the best fighter, I'd give it a gun and some heaters as well. This is the same reason I don't agree with the RAF removing the cannon in their Eurofighter.

387562[/snapback]

There is no doubt that for now, and probably for the foreseeable future, guns are still necessary. However, BVR has come a long way, there was no AWACS tied in with the Phantoms in Vietnam, sure, they had sophisticated controls, but remember, in Vietnam, although cruise missiles existed, B-52s were still dropping conventional dumb bombs. Look at what a mere decade has wrought in terms of advanced weapons. In terms of bombs dropped, the Kuwaiti campaign was 80 to 90 percent dumb munitions, i.e. clusters and iron bombs. Contrast that to the Iraq campagin where a majority of the munitions were guided by laser, GPS, etc.

The force structure was also quite different, consider the forces gathered for Desert Storm versus Iraqi Freedom, by every single measure, the Desert Storm force was significantly greater than that present in the Iraqi Freedom campagin. Yet, the forces operating in Iraqi Freedom proved even more effective in a far more difficult scenario. The point I'm trying to make is that technology is becoming more an enabling factor in the battle field, enabling better effectiveness with lower resources expended.

Will cannons on planes go away? No, it would be unwise, because cannons does have other roles even if it isn't air to air, but it is not the primary air to air weapon any more. BVR engagements in the 70s is nothing like BVR engagements today. It has become far less about individuals than it is about team fighting. In WWII, kill distance were measured in hundreds of yards on average, by Vietnam era, they moved to over several miles, and now the numbers are going to shift again.

No human pilot, however good, will be able to dodge something that he doesn't know for sure is coming. For example, if you put David McCampbell, the navy's greatest WWII ace in the cockpit of a Flanker today, and have him try to dogfight a couple of F-15s guided by AWACS, he'd lose. His dogfighting skill will be largely irrelevant. It would have been largely negated by technology. The point is, that the human factor while still there is not as relevant as it was 20 or even 10 years ago.

On the WWII stuff, Lightning, ah... what a sentimental favorite, even though gradually, I'm starting to like the Hellcats a little more. and who could forget the Corsairs popularized by the Black Sheeps.

[Coota0]

As a Marine Hornet maintainer and after seeing the USAF go for the -22 variants as well as the JSF... is the USN getting a new fighter?  Or is everything banking on the success of the JSF?

From what I've gathered, the USN is getting:

The JSF

Super Hornets (E/F/G-Growler) - I always saw this as an "interim" fix.

387556[/snapback]

Nothing but the JSF... The Navy is either gonna be F/A-18E/F/G or F-35C, while the Corps will be all F-35B, even getting rid of the F/A-18Ds which suprises me a bit.

I want to know what the Corps is going to do about the squadron it's tacking on to the carrier air wings when all the fighters go F-35B, on the other hand at least it should spread the deployments around for the MEU(SOC) cruises.

[Lightning]

I think that 'fork tailed devil' thing is a myth. I don't recall any reliable source ever confirming it from the Axis viewpoint.

387579[/snapback]

I've actually read about it in a few books.

in any case, they could always try to stick that smaller version of the A-10's gun IN a plane instead of in a gunpod, or even better, put TWO of them in there!

It would be nice if the US would make a light fighter again like they did the F-5.

[kalvasflam]

As a Marine Hornet maintainer and after seeing the USAF go for the -22 variants as well as the JSF... is the USN getting a new fighter?  Or is everything banking on the success of the JSF?

From what I've gathered, the USN is getting:

The JSF

Super Hornets (E/F/G-Growler) - I always saw this as an "interim" fix.

387556[/snapback]

Nothing but the JSF... The Navy is either gonna be F/A-18E/F/G or F-35C, while the Corps will be all F-35B, even getting rid of the F/A-18Ds which suprises me a bit.

I want to know what the Corps is going to do about the squadron it's tacking on to the carrier air wings when all the fighters go F-35B, on the other hand at least it should spread the deployments around for the MEU(SOC) cruises.

387585[/snapback]

The emphasis on multirole is just a bit too scary, and a bit too reminescent of the Phantoms. I would think the navy should at least have one dedicated fighter, and one dedicated heavy attack....

[Phalanx]

And I did hear at one point that the Mustang was inferior to the Lightning and that the Lightning did okay in the pacific but horrible in Europe. Thoughts?

387572[/snapback]

Going back to my reference to the Top 10 Fighters program on the Military channel, experts say that the Mustang was greatest fighter of all time including WW2, due to the plane's range, maneuverabilty and some other sh*t, I really don't know much more about the P-38 lightning but it was my favorite american WW2 fighter plane. I just fell in love with it because of it's unique design. My favorite Japanese plane, though never entered service was the Tomiya Kyushu Shinden(quake of lightning)J7. It's unique design gave it the appearance of an airplane flying backwards. As far as American bombers my 2 favorite are the B-36 Peacemaker and the XB-35 Flying Wings. They just look so good.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Phalanx

[Phalanx]

"RUSSIAN FIGHTERS SUPERIOR, SAYS PENTAGON

I'm not surprised at all of the events the article relates.

Russian (former Soviert) fighter planes have been specifically designed for dogfight, particularly the Su-27 Flanker and its variants and derivations (30, 33, 35 and 37). What has always being criticized in Russian fighters (and for good reason) is the lack or scarse presence of top-of-the-line sensors, digital controls and displays. This, however, have little effect in dogfight. And even this might be changing. The Su-47 is a lot closer to American fighter planes in terms of digital controls, sensors and semi-stealth features, and it's even considered the direct Russian counterpart to the Raptor, even if it still in a development phase. Plus it has what is perhaps the best manuverability performance of any existing fighter in the world.

387373[/snapback]

Big deal if the Flankers and Fulcrums are more superior than U.S fighters but this is because of the fact that they are more optimized for dogfighting; one main aspectial role which epitomizes why they have proper dogfighting equipment like maneuvarability and powerful vulcan cannon rounds. However the Flank's and Fulks couldn't compete against American fighters missions because they are more versatile in terms of roles like A2G and Wild Weasel missions. Name a time where the Flankers and Fulks actually did something like this. They may have the weapon capacity for these sort of roles but you rarely hear about them ever doing it. I know that the Wild Weasel is an American tactic but Russia's fighters don't live up to it.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Phalanx

[Noyhauser]

And Noyhauser I saw the stats on the whole US/India engagement...the Indians held the advantage the whole time with engagements and radar and all that really catering to their side. The US was put at a severe disadvantage, but barely any of the press even mentions it. IN other words the fight was NOT FAIR AT ALL.  Just goes to show how far the media will go to make the US look bad. 

I wouldnt at all be surprised if this was to gouge more money for the F-22 though.

I knew that, but I couldn't remember the exact ways it was (no slammers was one I think), and I was too lazy to dig around my computer for the article.

[kalvasflam]

I knew that, but I couldn't remember the exact ways it was (no slammers was one I think), and I was too lazy to dig around my computer for the article.

387618[/snapback]

Did the -15s get AWACS support chopped from them too?

The -15 is a good plane, dated compared to the Flankers, but the force multipliers come from having the AWACS to quarterback them, otherwise, they're just ok. But the slammers might have made a big difference also, especially if the other side has fire and forget AAM and the -15s were stuck with sparrows.

[Skull Leader]

I wonder how well Flankers will stack up against the -22s.  One has to remember that the -15s were conceived and developed in the 70s, and as was pointed out the Fulcrums and Flankers were both designed specifically to fight against these threats.  But how has much the situation changed in the past 20 years.  The question is really, how relevant is it to have the best dogfighter these days.

387543[/snapback]

In a BVR conflict, the russian probably might as well eject and save himself the stress of worrying which direction the attack will come from, because the F-22A is damn near IMPOSSIBLE to see on Radar. A week or so ago I was talking to a Super Hornet pilot from VFA-103. Just before he and his WSO came to the airshow, the squadron had been duking it out with the raptors from Tyndall in a number of different kinds of engagements. In all but two of the BVR encounters, the Super Hornet guys couldn't even FIND the raptor by the time the "Bang, you're dead" call went out.

In a knife fight, however, things change. Don't be mistaken, the Raptor is still very much sierra hotel, but the playing ground is a lot more even. Stealth is no longer a factor. The 103 pilot says just about everyone in the squadron has some excellent guncamera footage of them pulling lead and then making the "kill" on a Raptor (he's supposed to send me some images when he gets free time).

So, in summary, for BVR conflicts, as soon as the "fight's on" call goes out, the Raptor won nearly every time. However, when the conflict started within visual range, the results were almost an even 50/50 (actually closer to 60/40 favoring the Super Hornets, they are excellent maneuverers at low speeds).

Knowing that, the F-22A's ace card is DEFINATELY in the BVR kill. The 22 pilot needs to hope he's not alone and out of AMRAAMS if he's spotted, or else it's all up to his skill vs. the other guy.

(having said that, what are the chances of an encounter like that happening? Unless we enter into some major air war, almost nil)

[Skull Leader]

  It really wasn't until the 60s when BVR engagements became possible.  Even then, people went through dogfights a lot, because the weapon systems were just not that reliable to always achieve BVR kills. 

387543[/snapback]

As often as not, when a Phantom would go to fire a Sparrow missile, it would just fall off the rack and not fire. There was also a definate hard deck below which the phantom could not fire the sparrow because they'd be practiaclly dropping it into the treeline before the missile would ignite!

Things didn't change with the Tomcat and the Phoenix missile. The AIM-54 has an external arming lever that a red-shirt has to switch while the Tomcat is on the catapult. It is, evidently, not a very easy lever to turn and in many cases presented the appearance of being armed when it actually wasn't. New jet and new missile, same results. "Fox three..." and one million dollars goes straight into the drink with no firing.

[David Hingtgen]

The P-38 did poorly in Europe because:

1. NO supercharger. England didn't order them for theirs. Talk about KILLING high-alt performance.

2. Engines not handed. The contra-rotating props on a P-38 are VERY obvious, I've never seen such slow, obvious props on a plane. But England's weren't, and there were severe balance/vibration/torque effects because of it.

3. Bad fuel. No WW2 fighter flown nowadays can come close to its 1940's performance, since the ultra-high octane fuels just aren't around anymore. And England never did have the fuel P-38's were designed for. If the engine was supposed to get 1,000HP, then England only got like 900 because the fuel couldn't deliver any better.

Basically, England ordered a cheap, stripped version of the P-38, and it truly sucked. It'd be like ordering an F-15 without afterburners, and running it off of diesel fuel.

The US's versions in Europe did better, but still had to contend with British fuel. Also, they were earlier versions, all the kinks weren't worked out.

In the Pacific, the US used full-spec late-model P-38's with high-grade fuel, and they kicked ass. No different than P-51A vs P-51D. They're famous for the last, high-power version, not the early version.

PS---AFAIK the "fork-tailed devil" name is pure myth brought about by Greene in the 1960's. (Almost everyone here probably has a book or two that credits Greene and/or Swanborough)

"Whistling Death" is one of the few nicknames I know to be accurate---what the Japanese called the Corsair. (And Corsairs DO shriek, it's the coolest sound ever---if you've never heard, go to an airshow, Corsairs are common)

[kalvasflam]

In a BVR conflict, the russian probably might as well eject and save himself the stress of worrying which direction the attack will come from, because the F-22A is damn near IMPOSSIBLE to see on Radar. A week or so ago I was talking to a Super Hornet pilot from VFA-103. Just before he and his WSO came to the airshow, the squadron had been duking it out with the raptors from Tyndall in a number of different kinds of engagements. In all but two of the BVR encounters, the Super Hornet guys couldn't even FIND the raptor by the time the "Bang, you're dead" call went out.

In a knife fight, however, things change. Don't be mistaken, the Raptor is still very much sierra hotel, but the playing ground is a lot more even. Stealth is no longer a factor. The 103 pilot says just about everyone in the squadron has some excellent guncamera footage of them pulling lead and then making the "kill" on a Raptor (he's supposed to send me some images when he gets free time).

So, in summary, for BVR conflicts, as soon as the "fight's on" call goes out, the Raptor won nearly every time. However, when the conflict started within visual range, the results were almost an even 50/50 (actually closer to 60/40 favoring the Super Hornets, they are excellent maneuverers at low speeds).

Knowing that, the F-22A's ace card is DEFINATELY in the BVR kill. The 22 pilot needs to hope he's not alone and out of AMRAAMS if he's spotted, or else it's all up to his skill vs. the other guy.

(having said that, what are the chances of an encounter like that happening? Unless we enter into some major air war, almost nil)

387638[/snapback]

In reality, all this dogfight BS is just pure fantasy against the USAF/USN right now. But especially the USAF. The aerial coverage is probably too good, and a majority of the kills will occur in BVR engagements, individually, the other side might have a chance, but as you say, the odds of that happening is close to zero.

There were similar comments in WWII, ace Jap pilots such as Sakai were really good, and the general comments from those pilots were, the average American pilot wasn't really that good, but the problem was, the Americans excelled at teamwork, and that just killed the IJN air arm.

It's the same comment about fighting wars, that's a team sport, and in that arena, currently the U.S. tend to be a bit better than most. Yeah, there might be one in fifty chance that a Flanker could smoke a -22 or even a few -15s in an actual war, but the kill ratio aren't gonna favor the guys flying the Flankers.

By the way, loved the interesting comments about Sparrow and Phoenix, didn't know that was the case. What's the drop distance before ignition?

Edited April 4, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Skull Leader]

In a BVR conflict, the russian probably might as well eject and save himself the stress of worrying which direction the attack will come from, because the F-22A is damn near IMPOSSIBLE to see on Radar. A week or so ago I was talking to a Super Hornet pilot from VFA-103. Just before he and his WSO came to the airshow, the squadron had been duking it out with the raptors from Tyndall in a number of different kinds of engagements. In all but two of the BVR encounters, the Super Hornet guys couldn't even FIND the raptor by the time the "Bang, you're dead" call went out.

In a knife fight, however, things change. Don't be mistaken, the Raptor is still very much sierra hotel, but the playing ground is a lot more even. Stealth is no longer a factor. The 103 pilot says just about everyone in the squadron has some excellent guncamera footage of them pulling lead and then making the "kill" on a Raptor (he's supposed to send me some images when he gets free time).

So, in summary, for BVR conflicts, as soon as the "fight's on" call goes out, the Raptor won nearly every time. However, when the conflict started within visual range, the results were almost an even 50/50 (actually closer to 60/40 favoring the Super Hornets, they are excellent maneuverers at low speeds).

Knowing that, the F-22A's ace card is DEFINATELY in the BVR kill. The 22 pilot needs to hope he's not alone and out of AMRAAMS if he's spotted, or else it's all up to his skill vs. the other guy.

(having said that, what are the chances of an encounter like that happening? Unless we enter into some major air war, almost nil)

387638[/snapback]

In reality, all this dogfight BS is just pure fantasy against the USAF/USN right now. But especially the USAF. The aerial coverage is probably too good, and a majority of the kills will occur in BVR engagements, individually, the other side might have a chance, but as you say, the odds of that happening is close to zero.

There were similar comments in WWII, ace Jap pilots such as Sakai were really good, and the general comments from those pilots were, the average American pilot wasn't really that good, but the problem was, the Americans excelled at teamwork, and that just killed the IJN air arm.

It's the same comment about fighting wars, that's a team sport, and in that arena, currently the U.S. tend to be a bit better than most. Yeah, there might be one in fifty chance that a Flanker could smoke a -22 or even a few -15s in an actual war, but the kill ratio aren't gonna favor the guys flying the Flankers.

By the way, loved the interesting comments about Sparrow and Phoenix, didn't know that was the case. What's the drop distance before ignition?

387645[/snapback]

I couldn't give you specifics (I don't know them myself) but with videos of the aircraft at speed and altitude, those missiles can appear to drop as much as 30 feet or more before they ignite. I believe the Sidewinder and the AMRAAM are the only rail-launched air to air missiles in the US inventory(IE, they don't drop and then fire, but fire directly off the rail) I believe this has to do with fin-placement when mounted on the pylon. The Phoenix missile was designed to approach it's target from above, so as soon as the motor fires, the missile pitches itself up.

[JELEINEN]

Someday, sombody ought to make an anime about WWII Pacific campagin..... ha ha ha ha.

387123[/snapback]

It's called Zipang.

[Knight26]

And don't forget COCKPIT which is about pilots right around the time that the bomb was dropped including some kamakaizes, really cool flick.

[JELEINEN]

And don't forget COCKPIT which is about pilots right around the time that the bomb was dropped including some kamakaizes, really cool flick.

387669[/snapback]

Good call. Matsumoto knows his stuff.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

And Noyhauser I saw the stats on the whole US/India engagement...the Indians held the advantage the whole time with engagements and radar and all that really catering to their side. The US was put at a severe disadvantage, but barely any of the press even mentions it. IN other words the fight was NOT FAIR AT ALL.  Just goes to show how far the media will go to make the US look bad. 

I wouldnt at all be surprised if this was to gouge more money for the F-22 though.

I knew that, but I couldn't remember the exact ways it was (no slammers was one I think), and I was too lazy to dig around my computer for the article.

387618[/snapback]

Same here, I don't even remmeber the whole article from ARC but it spurred off a huge debate. I just remember the advantages given to the Indians making it nearly impossible for the US to win and yet the media publicizing the notion that we got slammed.

And thanks for the comments on the Lightning boys. Anyone care to compare the P-51D and late model lightnings? The lightning looks awesome.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[Coota0]

As a Marine Hornet maintainer and after seeing the USAF go for the -22 variants as well as the JSF... is the USN getting a new fighter?  Or is everything banking on the success of the JSF?

From what I've gathered, the USN is getting:

The JSF

Super Hornets (E/F/G-Growler) - I always saw this as an "interim" fix.

387556[/snapback]

Nothing but the JSF... The Navy is either gonna be F/A-18E/F/G or F-35C, while the Corps will be all F-35B, even getting rid of the F/A-18Ds which suprises me a bit.

I want to know what the Corps is going to do about the squadron it's tacking on to the carrier air wings when all the fighters go F-35B, on the other hand at least it should spread the deployments around for the MEU(SOC) cruises.

387585[/snapback]

The emphasis on multirole is just a bit too scary, and a bit too reminescent of the Phantoms. I would think the navy should at least have one dedicated fighter, and one dedicated heavy attack....

387591[/snapback]

That would be ideal to me too.

1)An intereceptor/fighter with the ability to carry and employ air-to ground ordanance if needed, not necessarily a stealth platform but perhaps with stealthy atributes like the Rafale

2)A multi-role aircraft, jack of all trades, strike-fighter, as capble of carrying bombs as knocking down aircraft, capable of carrying a buddy-pod for tanking

3)A real bomb truck, capable of carrying air-to-air in a pinch, but a dedicated attack jet, WITH a gun, and a pair of sidewinders for self defense (the way an A-10 carries them just to be on the safe side, stealthy, able to be used as tanker with a buddy-pod, and could be used to supplement the helicopters in the anti-submarine role

4)Airborne Radar

5)Cargo aircarft

6)Helicopter- multiple variants or a way to switch quikcly between tasks

A)Anti submarine

B)Spec-ops/rescue optimized

C)Transport/Vertrep

7)Electronic warfare aircraft, I like the E/A-18 and that it carries an organic defensive armament

I could see the Navy looking into a couple of V-22 variants-

A)Transport/Vertrep

B)Spec-ops variant (similar if not Identical to what the USAF wants)

9) Hang on to the C-130s, and go with the upgrade

10)Either upgrade or replace the P-3s, but do not get rid of them completely

USMC-

1)Hang on to the CH-53X

2)Go with the V-22, but buy a few of the Spec-ops versions the USAF wants

3)AH-1 and UH-1Z

4)Get rid of the F-35B and go with something designed from the start as a VTOL platfrom possibly in concert with the Army (I'll get to this later) and the Royal Navy and RAF

5)Buy what the Navy is using as it's strike fighter

6)Do as the Navy is doing with it's C-130 fleet (see above) but do it for the KC-130s too

7) Go with the E/A-18

USAF-

hi-hi/hi-lo/lo-hi/lo-lo mix

2)F-22 for air superiority

3)Upgraded F-15 because the F-22 is expensive, and the F-15 (especially with an upgrade) could still be very useful

4)F-35A stealth in a multi-role aircarft could be very useful, as could the ability to hang munitions on the wings when stealth is no longer needed

5)F-16, with an software/avionics upgrade their usefulness could be greatly extended

6)Maintain the current Special-ops airframes, incorporating the MV-22

7)Upgrade the C-130s

8)More KC-10s they're more efficiant (much easier for multi-service use)

9) I like the bone, but it's mission is no longer there, between the B-2 and B-52 all of the B-1s missions could be met

10) F/A-23- I like the regional bomber idea and I think the F/A-23 would make an excellent replacement for the F-15E and would throw a stealth into the mix

*I would send the F-15Es to the National Guard/Reserve or to special squadrons dedicated to close air support, the addition of stealth to the intrusion mission would in my opinion make the F-15Es quickly obsolete

11) A lightweight point defense fighter, gets airborne fast, optimized for air-to-air

USA

1)Hang onto the Apache, but get rid of the Longbow

2)Replace the OH-58 with a small helicopter (Hueys are not small!), put the IR sensor/ Laser Designator on a mast not under the chin, and lightley arm it (gun pod, hellfires, zunnis)

3)Go with the MV-22 to supplement the 160th and a no special-ops version to supplement regular Army aviation

4)New avionics for the CH-47 while looking for a replacement

5)Blackhawks stay

6)I know this is against the Keywest agreement, but I believe the Army deserves it's own fixed wing close air support, a joint program with the USMC would be ideal or until the new aircraft is ready the A-10 could fill the gap, but a forward deployable CAS aircraft under Army control, flown by an Army aviator would in my opinion greatly improve CAS for the Army

Sorry, I got carried away (yet still managed to leave some areas out), but that's my U.S. aviation wetdream

[kalvasflam]

Oh, I just read the article... talk about handicapped, they should've just asked for F-14s driven by Iranian pilots. Ha ha ha ha.

Did the -15Cs even have AWACS support? Didn't seem to be the case.

Meh, the interesting stuff is that the IAF was calling audibles trying to change tactics along the way, easy enough to do when you don't have live missiles coming at you from BVR. It shows adaptability, but a red flag exercise would be interesting. This was not exactly the best test case.

BTW, what's wrong with the Longbows? Also, I do wish they brought back the Comanches. But I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other on what the capabilities were really like for that scout/attack. But a replacement for the Apaches should be somewhere on the drawing board.

Edited April 5, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Oh, I just read the article... talk about handicapped, they should've just asked for F-14s driven by Iranian pilots.  Ha ha ha ha.

Did the -15Cs even have AWACS support?  Didn't seem to be the case.

Meh, the interesting stuff is that the IAF was calling audibles trying to change tactics along the way, easy enough to do when you don't have live missiles coming at you from BVR.  It shows adaptability, but a red flag exercise would be interesting.  This was not exactly the best test case.

BTW, what's wrong with the Longbows?  Also, I do wish they brought back the Comanches.  But I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other on what the capabilities were really like for that scout/attack.  But a replacement for the Apaches should be somewhere on the drawing board.

387721[/snapback]

I agree and I do think the Commanche was due to replace the cobra. The apache kicks ass. I often wonder as well, what will replace it? I always see it as a semi counterpart to the MI-24 HIND. God that thing looks awesome!

[Coota0]

BTW, what's wrong with the Longbows?  Also, I do wish they brought back the Comanches.  But I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other on what the capabilities were really like for that scout/attack.  But a replacement for the Apaches should be somewhere on the drawing board.

387721[/snapback]

My problems with the longbow, 1) They're not desined as scouts

2)They're expensive if you lose them (scouts get

lost)

3)Heavy workload, going from what used to be a 4 man job to a 2 man job without a signifigant technological leap

I agree and I do think the Commanche was due to replace the cobra.  The apache kicks ass.  I often wonder as well, what will replace it?  I always see it as a semi counterpart to the MI-24 HIND.  God that thing looks awesome!

387729[/snapback]

Comanche was never meant to replace the cobra or Apache, it would have suplememnted the Apaches (even replacing some Apache battalions) and to be used as a heavily armed scout much like the Longbow, but the Commanche had the signifigant technologically leap as well as stealth to give the two man crew th ability to do the scout and attack missions as well as giving it more surviability than the Apache. As far as I know it was never even considered as a AH-1 replacement the Corps wanted the Zulu.

[Phalanx]

Comanche was never meant to replace the cobra or Apache, it would have suplememnted the Apaches (even replacing some Apache battalions) and to be used as a heavily armed scout much like the Longbow, but the Commanche had the signifigant technologically leap as well as stealth to give the two man crew th ability to do the scout and attack missions as well as giving it more surviability than the Apache. As far as I know it was never even considered as a AH-1 replacement the Corps wanted the Zulu.

387742[/snapback]

Well is there a grim possibilty that the RAH-66 Comanche will probably serve as a sort of Wild Weasel function to the Apache's since you say that it would probably serve as reinforcements for them? I mean both choppers can be used in conjuction to maximize the effective success in missions but the Comanche has the advantage of stealth opposed to the Longbow not having it. However, chances are that the Comanche maybe produced in small numbers since the U.S Army still has use for the Longbows.

[Coota0]

Well is there a grim possibilty that the RAH-66 Comanche will probably serve as a sort of Wild Weasel function to the Apache's since you say that it would probably serve as reinforcements for them? I mean both choppers can be used in conjuction to maximize the effective success in missions but the Comanche has the advantage of stealth opposed to the Longbow not having it. However, chances are that the Comanche maybe produced in small numbers since the U.S Army still has use for the Longbows.

387751[/snapback]

First, I said supplement not reinforce.

Second there will be no Comanches. DOD canceled the program. Even if there were wild weasel wouldn't be a primary mission in any way, that's typically left up to the fixed wing aircraft, helicopters don't generally operate in that high threat of an enviroment unless inserting SF troops, becuase choppers generally stay very near the foward edge of the battle area. The Comanche's mission would have been gathering information.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Coota0

[Phalanx]

Oh I forgot, the comanche was a reconaissance chopper. had no idea that DOD panned the idea.

[reddsun1]

One of my favorite WWII designs, even though it never got a chance to be proven as a fighter. Would have been interesting to see what kind of performance it would have been capable of. Only major issues I could think of seem to be rearward vision [seems less than ideal in that configuration]. I'm also surprised that resources say the IJN placed orders for the model--seems like it would have been problematic to make that tall, narrow landing gear--esp the nose--suitably rugged for carrier operations?

I thought the Marines intended to replace the Cobra with...well, an upgraded Cobra? More specifically, the "Viper"? Composite 4-blade rotors, improved avionics and targeting, etc, etc. Supposed to be an even more-improved version of the SuperCobra design?

In regards to modern fighter design, I guess the debate could go on forever as to which approach is the best. The differing rationales behind design directions between Western and Russian designs is interesting; I tend to lean towards the idea of designing fighters to be the best at its intended role, i.e. air-to-air combat/air superiority. I think tying to make a given airframe a "jack of all trades" isn't neccessarily the best approach. The resulting fighter might be good at a lot of things, but it won't be truly great as a fighter. The Su's and MiG's are definitely spcialized designs for the up-close-and-dirty scenario; the combatants have est. visual contact and are actively trying to outmaneuver ea. other into a position to get the kill--the proverbial "knife fight" as it were, which some contend is a situation which will never be completely eliminated in combat/warfare. Whereas US doctrine obviously seems to favor BVR combat; "first look, first shot." Interestingly enough though, I heard once that historical evidence shows that in the vast majority of air combat kills, the victim didn't see/know they were about to be shot down. So, seeing the other guy first--as opposed to out-turning him after he's seen you--must obviously count for something, I'll concede that.

Edited April 5, 2006 by reddsun1

[reddsun1]

People tend to talk about the F-15 in the past tense, like it's terribly out-dated and obsolescent. Is it all that bad? I found this info which seems to speak in its favor. Of course, lobbying congressmen and defense contractors might play it down or bully-hoo it, but still...

In December 2000 Boeing Company delivered to the US Air Force the final three of 18 F-15C aircraft it refitted with Raytheon's APG-63(v)2 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, providing the Air Force the world's first operational fighter jets with the advanced-technology radar system. The AESA radar has an exceptionally agile beam, and provides nearly instantaneous track updates throughout the field of vision. Other benefits of the radar include enhanced multi-target tracking capability and elimination of the need for a hydraulic system. Addition of AESA technology substantially increases pilot situational awareness, while enhancing reliability and maintainability. The AESA radar allows the pilot to detect, track and destroy multiple enemy aircraft at significantly longer ranges. The AN/APG-63(V)2 is compatible with current F-15C weapon loads, features upgraded identification-friend-or-foe and environmental control systems, and enables pilots to take full advantage of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Missile capabilities. It can simultaneously guide multiple missiles to several targets widely spaced in azimuth, elevation, or range.

The AN/APG-63(V)2 is a major radar upgrade for the US Air Force F-15C aircraft. Retaining controls and displays nearly identical to those of its predecessor, the AN/APG-63(V)1, the new system adds an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar to proven AN/APG-63(V)1 radar components. In an AESA system, the traditional mechanically scanning radar dish is replaced by a stationary panel covered with an array of hundreds of small transmitter-receiver modules. Unlike a radar dish, these modules have more combined power and can perform different detection, tracking, communication and jamming functions in multiple directions simultaneously. An AESA offers greater precision to detect, track and eliminate multiple threats more quickly and effectively than traditional radar. Because the AESA eliminates the hydraulic and electrical systems associated with mechanically operated radars, its reliability and maintainability are dramatically improved.

In addition to the F-15C AESA, Raytheon is developing AESAs for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Boeing Phantom Works unit led a team that received a $250 million contract to install the AESA radar, upgrade the aircraft's environmental control systems and install an advanced identification friend or foe system. Honeywell Aerospace and BAE Systems, respectively, provided the latter systems. The Air Force F-15 System Program Office's Projects Team at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, managed the program for the U.S. government.

An inertial navigation system enables the Eagle to navigate anywhere in the world. It gives aircraft position at all times as well as pitch, roll, heading, acceleration and speed information.

The F-15's electronic warfare system provides both threat warning and automatic countermeasures against selected threats. The "identification friend or foe" system informs the pilot if an aircraft seen visually or on radar is friendly. It also informs U.S. or allied ground stations and other suitably equipped aircraft that the F-15 is a friendly aircraft.

The Fiber Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD) provides aircraft protection against modern radar-guided missiles to supplement traditional radar jamming equipment. The device is towed at varying distances behind the aircraft while transmitting a signal like that of a threat radar. The missile will detect and lock onto the decoy rather than on the aircraft. This is achieved by making the decoy's radiated signal stronger than that of the aircraft.

A variety of air-to-air weaponry can be carried by the F-15. An automated weapon system enables the pilot to perform aerial combat safely and effectively, using the head-up display and the avionics and weapons controls located on the engine throttles or control stick. When the pilot changes from one weapon system to another, visual guidance for the required weapon automatically appears on the head-up display.

The Eagle can be armed with combinations of four different air-to-air weapons: AIM-7F/M Sparrow missiles or AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles on its lower fuselage corners, AIM-9L/M Sidewinder or AIM-120 missiles on two pylons under the wings, and an internal 20mm Gatling gun (with 940 rounds of ammunition) in the right wing root.

The current AIM-9 missile does not have the capabilities demonstrated by foreign technologies, giving the F-15 a distinct disadvantage during IR dogfight scenarios. AIM-9X integration will once again put the F-15 in the air superiority position in all arenas. The F-15/AIM-9X weapon system is to consist of F-15 carriage of the AIM-9X missile on a LAU-128 Air-to-Air (A/A) launcher from existing AIM-9 certified stations. The AIM-9X will be an upgrade to the AIM-9L/M, incorporating increased missile maneuverability and allowing a high off-boresight targeting capability. "

It still has relatively high thrust+low wing loading working in its favor as well? Seems like upgraded versions shouldn't be all that helpless against marauding Su 30's and MiG 29's should they? Or am I just missing something?

Edited April 5, 2006 by reddsun1

[reddsun1]

The P-38 did poorly in Europe because:

1.  NO supercharger.  England didn't order them for theirs.  Talk about KILLING high-alt performance.

2.  Engines not handed.  The contra-rotating props on a P-38 are VERY obvious, I've never seen such slow, obvious props on a plane.  But England's weren't, and there were severe balance/vibration/torque effects because of it.

I'm surprised they'd produce versions so different from regular production models? Especially #2--why do that? Most unusual, but it makes sense as to the performance sufferings.

[Phalanx]

Well Redssun 1, IMHO, I believe that if you throw the F-15S/MT ACTIVE Eagle + in the mix, I believe that this variant wouldn't be helpless in A2A combat either since it boasts canards and 2-D thrust vectoring nozzles just like the SU-30's. However, the F-15S/MT was just a testbed for thrust vectoring done by NASA but I think they cancelled the production for it. Not sure of the reasons why but if it were to be produced it would logically phase out the original F-15C's or even better, have all existing F-15's converted into these variants.

[Mislovrit]

B-17s were being knocked down in droves for multiple reasons:

1) Daylight bombing- more accurate, but it made the bombers easy to attack

Accurate bombing reduce the need to keep sending bombers to bomb the same target cause the earlier wave miss it. B-17s suffered immensely as the B-24s already alerted the Germans the B-17s coming right after them

2) USAAC generals that believed there was no need to have escorts

State your source on this one. Other than the early model P-38s, there was no Allied fighter in the ETO with the range to ecsort the bombers to their destination until the P-51Ds enter service.

3) The Germans had been flying for years in combat when the first USAAC aircraft came to Europe, their air force was badass.

Badass airforce ended going through the meatgrinder over and over again when attacking the bomber formations and later their ecsorts.

4) Lack of range/ limited ammo for gunners

Huge problem against

sucidial pilots in the PTO had the kamikazes actually bothered to go after bombers. For everyone with a shred of self preservation, a horde of HMGs is usually enough to make the Axis pilots keep their distance until they make their attack run. Hence the the development and deployment of heavier and heavier HMGS, autocannons and AtA rockets to deal with the bombers.

4) B-29 A)Flew higher than enemy aircraft and AAA

B-29s got lucky as the Germans had already surrendered and the Japanese were starting to save up on their planes, pilots, AAA for the invasion of the home islands.

[Mislovrit]

In regards to modern fighter design, I guess the debate could go on forever as to which approach is the best.  The differing rationales behind design directions between Western and Russian designs is interesting; I tend to lean towards the idea of designing fighters to be the best at its intended role, i.e. air-to-air combat/air superiority.  I think tying to make a given airframe a "jack of all trades" isn't neccessarily the best approach.  The resulting fighter might be good at a lot of things, but it won't be truly great as a fighter. 

Cheaper and easier from a beancounter and REMF point of view to have one "jack of all trades" aircraft, AFV and etc. instead of mutiple types of single, dual, or triple role aircrafts, AFVs and etc. to payed for and maintained. Nevermind what the what the people doing the fighting have a say in the matter.