David Hingtgen Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 Well, everything's basically "on hold" at the moment. France still the vanguard though, ready and waiting.
kalvasflam Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) The No-Fly zone is going to be interesting to enforce. Basically, it'll be a US show again. For the Europeans, the problem is having enough tanker elements in place. The other alternative is carrier. The only recourse there for the Europeans is the French carrier, and if the regular air forces gets involved, there'll have to be a whole bunch of tankers staging out of Italy. Right now, the Brits nor the French are really up to it. So then, someone will have to depend on the US again, probably a combination of carriers and shooters backed up by US tankers. Wonder how much stuff they can stage out of Malta and Crete. Anyway, enough of the no-fly zone. Did anyone catch what Udvar-Hazy said? Boeing needs to sell 1500 787 just to break even. I said this a few years back, if Boeing screws it up, they will be in such a hole that they'll just wish they never started the program. Not surprisingly, they've given Airbus a lot of room to catch up. Edited March 19, 2011 by kalvasflam
David Hingtgen Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Malta has said no to staging, only fly-over rights. Italy has opened their bases, but no actual forces committed AFAIK.
VF-19 Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Well, somebody got shot down in Lybia. Judging by the picture on CNN, it looks like a MiG-23 or MiG-27.
Lynx7725 Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 My local id'ed it as a Mig 23. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1117530/1/.html
Shadow Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) My local id'ed it as a Mig 23. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1117530/1/.html Yep, a Flogger. I heard the US is providing more logistical and AWACS support so would that mean the French Rafale would see more time over a No-Fly zone then say, the Super Hornet? Edited March 19, 2011 by Shadow
David Hingtgen Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Rafales are in Libya and striking tanks. Mirage 2000's also there. While there has been no air-to-air combat AFAIK, there is a MiG-23 down and a MiG-21 down. Certainly at least one of them is a rebel plane lost due to friendly fire from the rebels, but too much conflicting info to be sure. Recent surprising pic (given their stated stance) is Italian Tornados being loaded up with live HARMs. Canada's F-18s are in Scotland and getting ready to head to Sicily. RAF Tornados just left Scotland. Haven't heard anything on Spain's F-18s lately. Dutch/Belgian/Norwegian F-16s committed but no movement I've heard of. Heard a report of US F-15's leaving the UK, but nothing for the Navy.
Shadow Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 The best air defenses I've seen on the news that the rebels have are those mobile AA guns and the SA-7. (Unless they have a few SA-6s.) Not sure if the Strela had the range to down the Mig-23 from the footage shown.
David Hingtgen Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Just FYI, but the UK is calling this Operation Ellamy, the US calls it Operation Odyssey Dawn.
David Hingtgen Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Dutch and Danish jets have arrived in Italy.
kalvasflam Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Hmmm, I thought this was a no-fly zone, not a "kill the tank zone" at least according one news report, there is action going on versus non-air defense assets. This is going to be a mess.
Shadow Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Hmmm, I thought this was a no-fly zone, not a "kill the tank zone" at least according one news report, there is action going on versus non-air defense assets. This is going to be a mess. It looks like the operation was expanded to protect Libyan citizens from both Qaddafi's air and ground units which explains the Rafales attacking Libyan armor.
David Hingtgen Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 It was never just a no-fly-zone. It has been 'everything and anything short of ground forces' since the resolution was passed. That means tank-plinking and Wild Weasel missions a-plenty. US has yet to put a combat plane in the air, just cruise missile strikes and support planes.
Shadow Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 B-2s have been confirmed to have attacked a Libyan airfield aswell. Not sure how reliable this report is. http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com/2011/03/b-2-stealth-bombers-pound-libyan.html WASHINGTON — Three US B-2 stealth bombers have dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield.There was no immediate official confirmation of the attack. On Saturday, the United States unleashed a barrage of Tomahawk missiles against the Libyan regime's air defenses, but ruled out using ground troops in what President Barack Obama called a "limited military action". Nineteen U.S. warplanes, including stealth bombers and fighter jets, conducted strike operations in Libya on Sunday morning, officials said. Tomahawk cruise missiles are unmanned and fly close to the ground, steering around natural and man-made obstacles to hit a target programmed into them before launch. A senior U.S. military official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the cruise missiles landed near the city of Misrata and the capital, Tripoli. Scores of missiles were fired in the pre-dawn darkness, and the exact results of the mission were not immediately clear. The United States is expected to conduct a damage assessment of the sites. The salvo, in an operation dubbed "Odyssey Dawn," was meant "to deny the Libyan regime from using force against its own people," Gortney said. British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said the Royal Air Force deployed Tornado GR4 fast jets, which flew 3,000 miles from the United Kingdom and back -- making the venture the longest-range bombing mission conducted by the force since the Falklands conflict in 1982. British Prime Minister David Cameron said the international mission "is necessary, it is legal, and it is right." "I believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people," Cameron said late Saturday night. But Gadhafi remained defiant, saying Libya will fight back against undeserved "naked aggression."
David Hingtgen Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Boom. Finally found a pic of a Rafale that was actually armed for ground attack:
Beltane70 Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 That is one weird-looking plane! At least from the front it is!
raptormesh Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 That is one weird-looking plane! At least from the front it is! Eh I think she's got nice curves.
David Hingtgen Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Seconded--I've always liked the very unique cross-section of the Rafale. It's not a simple tube or box like so many planes---it's a complicated yet geometric shape, like the YF-23. YF-23 is all hexagons, the Rafale is like a concave diamond.
Noyhauser Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 As my French aerospace engineer friend says: At least it doesn't look like its got a vacuum stuck on the bottom of it (a dig at the Eurofighter).
David Hingtgen Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Sweden says they have Gripens on standby, but the nation itself hasn't committed yet. It'd be neat to see the Gripen's combat debut. (of course, Hungary or Czech Republic could send theirs...)
hutch Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 F-15E crash lands after mechanical failure UK Telegraph Link
Shadow Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Well it's good to hear both crew members were recovered safely and by friendly forces.
David Hingtgen Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Seems there was an air-to-air shootdown just recently, no word on which type it was on either side. The Pro-Gadhaffi plane lost. Nice photos of actual planes/loads being used--Rafales, Typhoons, Falcons, Tornados: http://noticias.uol.....jhtm#fotoNav=1 The F-15 that crashed was 91-304: http://www.planes.cz/cs/photo/1010611/f-15e-51-mc-91-0304-usaf-ostrava-osr-lkmt/
Shadow Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) A few of Ghadafi's airfields have been struck so I wonder just how many aircraft would be left at his disposal. The largest number of types I last read they had were Mig-23s and Su-22s. Edited March 22, 2011 by Shadow
David Hingtgen Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 He certainly has a decent number of Su-24's as well. I'd heard that he'd moved his planes to the south, so they're out of range of the no-fly-zone so they can't be bombed on the ground.
Ghost Train Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Meh, I like the flying vacuum cleaner better than the curvy Rafale.
F-ZeroOne Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 You know its a tiltrotor, I know its a tiltrotor, the media on the other hand is having trouble with a thing that can be two things at once [1]. At least one British newspaper referred to the CV-22 Osprey that rescued one of the downed F-15 pilots as a "helicopter" today... Also: its not a vacuum cleaner, its a Dyson. Perfectly engineered for its designated function. [1] I suppose I should be thankful they didn't try to claim that it cures cancer...
David Hingtgen Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Extreme wingflex is nothing new, but the 787 even has inverse tailplane flex, check it out: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5025/5545405303_4ae0c4c488_o.jpg
Graham Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 Nice photos of actual planes/loads being used--Rafales, Typhoons, Falcons, Tornados: http://noticias.uol.....jhtm#fotoNav=1 Just looking at those pics. Typhoons are the sexiest planes flying IMO. The F-16 is now starting to look really old fashioned IMO. Graham
David Hingtgen Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 Libya plane news: Canada and Denmark have now engaged in actual combat (as opposed to just patrol/escort). Italy's Harriers on the Garibaldi in the area, but not deployed. Naval Rafales now operating from the De Gaulle but I don't know if they've actually bombed yet. Sweden's Gripens on standby and are "requested" by Nato, but Sweden won't deploy until it's confirmed who will be leading the coalition and the order of battle after the US stands down from the lead next week. Turkey has committed Naval forces but still adamantly opposed to air operations. Also, Libya has SA-24 SAMs guarding Tripoli. This is more advanced than most anything else out there and Libya's not supposed to have them. Basically a bad-ass version of the Stinger with a 20,000ft envelope.
Audentia Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 Good evening, This is totally off topic from the previous post, however, I need assistance and I believe this has to do something with aircraft --I hope--. I am trying to come with a research paper for a class at my university, and it's going to be based on the retired f-14. My proposal for the paper is to insist the f-14 be brought back in service by making it lighter (don't have a conclusion for that yet)cheaper, and more efficient. Since the f-14 turn rate is pretty slow compare to the f-18, I was thinking of making the f-14 famous variable-sweep wing into a variable forward-sweep wing; this should decrease the lateral stability and more blah blah blah to get to the 20th page. I have more ideas; however I don't want to bore you guys. But the point of this post was to ask if anyone is willing to share some sites that contain TONS and TONS of aircraft information from general aviation to military. Don't get me wrong, I did some leg work myself; however, the Florida Tech resource facility suck @#$%^&*, and the sites that I've looked at are pretty sketchy(fan-boys everywhere I guess). Wikipedia is a great source but I can't use only one source; I also question its accuracy. Thank you for your time!
David Hingtgen Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 Making something lighter and cheaper are opposite ends of the spectrum. Same with making massive modifications (wings). The F-14's spin characteristics are so bad that if it was proposed to the Navy now, it'd be refused as aerodynamically unsafe. Also, FSW is pointless on the Tomcat's design. It is mainly only of benefit at high-alpha and low speeds, and a Tomcat can't even achieve Hornet levels of alpha to make use of FSW and the design is optimized for high-speeds, much like an F-15. It is an interceptor, not a dog fighter. A FSW Hornet would actually be interesting/useful. The Tomcat's main expense is maintenance. Everything is complicated and hard to fix by modern standards. That is the #1 reason for retiring it above all else. It was an EXCELLENT striker and CAS plane, the Super Hornet still cannot match it in that area for range/payload (though it can carry a wider range of weapons). If you want to make the Tomcat cheaper, you need to totally re-skin it with easier/quicker access panels, and make the hydraulics and electrical systems a lot more reliable and easy to fix. PS---no one has made a forward-swept wing plane yet for actual mass production. That's because it's little more than an interesting experiment, not a useful improvement. Sure it looks cool, but nobody's done anything more than test it. It improves control at very high alpha, little more.
Audentia Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 Ah sounds like a fun challenge. I guess I'll try a different approach and do more research once I get my greedy hands on information links. It seems that you are very knowledgeable in this area, may I have your email address and spam it with burning questions ?
Noyhauser Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) Good evening, This is totally off topic from the previous post, however, I need assistance and I believe this has to do something with aircraft --I hope--. I am trying to come with a research paper for a class at my university, and it's going to be based on the retired f-14. My proposal for the paper is to insist the f-14 be brought back in service by making it lighter (don't have a conclusion for that yet)cheaper, and more efficient. Since the f-14 turn rate is pretty slow compare to the f-18, I was thinking of making the f-14 famous variable-sweep wing into a variable forward-sweep wing; this should decrease the lateral stability and more blah blah blah to get to the 20th page. I have more ideas; however I don't want to bore you guys. But the point of this post was to ask if anyone is willing to share some sites that contain TONS and TONS of aircraft information from general aviation to military. Don't get me wrong, I did some leg work myself; however, the Florida Tech resource facility suck @#$%^&*, and the sites that I've looked at are pretty sketchy(fan-boys everywhere I guess). Wikipedia is a great source but I can't use only one source; I also question its accuracy. Thank you for your time! What's the paper for may I ask? like what's the class focus? I think you'll find a wide range of perspectives on here if you ask. Edited March 24, 2011 by Noyhauser
Recommended Posts