Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Its wishful thinking but I would love Dragon to make one of them in Iranian colours.
Zentrandude Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 handglider vs ultralight who would win in a mock battle?
David Hingtgen Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 (edited) Mislovrit, your post was 100% unrelated to aircraft. Talking about political policy killed the Chinese stealth fighter thread. And you tend to make 99% of your posts political in every thread you post. At least in all the aviation threads. To everybody: this is the AIRCRAFT versus thread, not the nations/policy/politics/nukes versus thread. Yes of course policy affects the procurement/reason for being for most military aircraft, but if you're going to bring it up, make it RELEVANT. Human-rights violations, religion, being communist etc all have no relevance to the planes. Wanna talk about Iraq? Talk about their MiG-29's, not mustard gas... North Korea? Talk about the Flanker rumors and how the Wolfpack or Kadena would go after them, not Kim Jong Il's policies... Edited February 23, 2005 by David Hingtgen
hellohikaru Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Staying on topic, which is the better European attack helicopter, the A129 Mangusta or the Tiger helicopter? That's not too hard to answer. Which one is the more recent thing ? The Tiger was designed using many things already established in the A129 and other European helicopter designs. The Mangusta is the first european attack helo grown developed from A109. The Mangusta is really small and light compared with Apache and Tiger. But i think no many were procured by the Italians because of changing doctrine rather than the helo's ability. If all goes well for the Tiger then it will be one of the most capable gunships around even if it lacks a radar(the mangusta likewise).
Nied Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 So we should build 100 more raptors because of 25, 30 year old fighters...refurbished with solid state electronics.. in a country that has had anemic economic growth the last two decades, and doesn't look like its going to get any better anytime soon. yeah right.The International Institute of Strategic Studies reports that US AC servicability is at 50 to 60%. Sorry I don't think so. Iraq in 1991 had more of a capability Iran today, and the US airforce is far more advanced than they were in 1991. The assertion boils down to wild speculation, where the USAF and USN would just blunder along waiting for the Iranians to shoot them down. Edited because it was a little too political for these boards. Yes we should be buying newer fighters because right now our airforce is made up of 25-30 year old fighters upgraded with digital electronics, we're looking at facing airforces with similar equipment, where our only advantage is numerical. I'd like you to back up your claim that the IRIAF is weaker today than the IrAF was in '91. In '91 the IrAF had just finished fighting a long war of atrition in which they had had massive amounts of aid from both the West and the Comunist bloc but were still fought to a standstill, they were depleted, they had no real aircraft industry to re-build with, and thier training wasn't up to snuff to begin with (not to mention thier leader thought of them as little more than a toy with no real strategic value). The modern IRIAF on the other hand has had 17 years to recover from that same war (in which it fought a superior force to a standstill with close to no international aid), it has a comparatively advanced aircraft industry (so far it has only one original design though), and it uses a much more advanced warfighting doctrine. Now I do beilieve that we could overwhelm such a force (stealth and numerical superiority still give us an edge) but not without the type of mauling that we haven't seen since Vietnam. Well desinged attack aircraft aren't going to help even if we hang a few AMRAAMs off them.
Skull Leader Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 (edited) wow, Cooper says they still have (at least) 16 Tomcats still in the air! (which given his credentials I tend to believe over most) AIM-54 clones as well? That's impressive to say the least... and the airframes probably still have plenty of time on them, they don't get the day-in-day-out carrier bashing that our service tomcats get... I would imagine them to be still very reliable aircraft... and the electronics in them? There's no telling anymore. As much as I loved their old cammo schemes, I'm liking this new air-cammo scheme they're putting on them! Edited February 23, 2005 by Skull Leader
hellohikaru Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 wow...that a really nice camo scheme. Kinda like those Aggressors schemes. I didn't know that had Phoenix bootlegs though they have used modified Hawk SAMs on their Tomcats. And they are removing the refuleing doors just like USN tomcats.
David Hingtgen Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 IRIAF had F-14 refueling doors removed from the start. Only recently have USN Tomcats had them removed. From what I've read, using HAWK's was only an experiment, never made it much past a few flights, maybe 1 or 2 firings. Certainly don't expect to see it carried on F-14's nowadays. PS-- AIM-54 clone? Russia calls it the AA-9.
ewilen Posted February 23, 2005 Posted February 23, 2005 Yes we should be buying newer fighters because right now our airforce is made up of 25-30 year old fighters upgraded with digital electronics, we're looking at facing airforces with similar equipment, where our only advantage is numerical. I think you may be leaving out some other advantages including but not necessarily limited to: Training (flight hours/year) AWACS Cruise missiles and other standoff weapons GPS-guided munitions Satellite reconnaissance Quality of SAMs (Aegis/Patriot) Long-range strike capability (B-2, perhaps other platforms) The last four aren't directly relevant to air-air capability but they are highly relevant to winning an air war through suppression of enemy air defenses, and preventing/avoiding enemy suppression of own air capabilities. (I realize this isn't a complete answer to the overall Iran scenario which was proposed on the Japanese stealth fighter thread, but I just want to get this comment in.)
Nied Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 The IRIAF has two AWACs planes (based on the AN-140 regional airliner) with ten more on the way, that and they've gotten quite good at using thier Tomcats as mini-AWACs planes. Training wise they do maintain a farily high training tempo compared to most nations (especially the IrAF or the YuAF) so we only have a slight edge. I do think our defensive systems woudl be devastating to the IRIAF if they decided to go on the offensive (which wouldn't be advisable). I doubt that's going to happen though, so while it's an advantage for us I don't think it would come into play. Our long range strike capabilities are obivously better, but that only allows us to strike them while they can't strike us (at least conventionally), again I don't see how much of an advantage that is. As Tom Cooper pointed out in the thread I posted, the YuAF was able to keep us from finding their Mig-29s pretty easily during Allied Force, I think he's forggeting how much local weather conditions obscured their activites, but it is food for thought. Fortunetly for us the YuAF was decimated by their civil war long before we had to face them, the IRIAF isn't in the same condition. Our GPS based munitions are good, but they have to be hauled to their target first, considering how hard it might be to establish air superiority over Iran that's an iffy prospect. Our cruise missiles would be an advantage, but we're still re-plenishing our stocks from the shock and awe campaign in Iraq. We'd have to rely more on our convetnional assets than we did there. I think our biggest advantage is stealth. We have assets that can attack with near impunity. Considering the integration of the Iranian air defense network that's a good thing. Of course even that advantage would be compromised if a IRIAF F-14 or Mig-29 were to come across one of our B-2s
Nied Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Oh yeah what do you guys think of pinning thes topic?
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2005 Author Posted February 24, 2005 I for one say HECK yes!!! I actually did want this thing pinned from the start. Since so many topics emerge. I bet when the tomcat retires next year people will start 10 threads+ about it. Why not all of it here? All aircraft talk?
hellohikaru Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 DH Please tell us more about the Persian Cats. How are the R-33 missiles intergrated ? Did they need to modify the pylons for them ? (Better yet any pics of them carrying all six at the same time) I didn't know that the Iranians had the doors removed from the start since they were very few pictures taken from the right, but i am sure USN F-14 had the doors removed around the mid 80s. I seen a Black Knight without the doors.
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 AFAIK removing the refueling probe doors throughout the USN is a fairly recent thing. If you saw one years ago without them, it's probably the reason they got removed: As in, they tend to come off rather easily on their own, creating one heck of a FOD hazard. Nowadays they just remove them to make sure they don't fall off in flight or on deck. As for HAWK missiles: seems that only 2 F-14's were ever modified to carry them, and it really couldn't use the AWG-9's signals at all well so the program was cancelled after the Iran/Iraq war. Rumors of 2 successfull kills though.
ewilen Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 I agree that pinning this thread would be a good idea, but I also wonder if it might be a good idea to lock it and unpin it from time to time, so that it doesn't get too big. A new thread could then be created and pinned, with a first post containing a link to the previous thread. That might make it easier on the server and/or on the people reading the thread. But I don't know how the mods would feel about it. I appreciate how we've been able to engage in some pretty spirited debates while for the most part remaining civil and keeping within the rules of the board. Case in point... Nied, thanks for the correction about AWACS and other info. But I wonder if you may be mixing up two different aircraft. From what I've gleaned, Iran has two AEW planes that they got from Iraq; the AN-140 AEW model is planned, but while Iran has built at least one AN-140, I'm not sure the AEW variant has been produced yet.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2005 Author Posted February 24, 2005 Ya know guys, I actually think the new IRIAF camo is bland. I like the old one better. The old one is the YK camo for the F-14A in AC5 now that I think about it. Old one was reminscent of the phantoms and tigers of the IRIAF. Liked the commanility. This looks more like a USN aggressor squad. I hope Dragon makes a 1/72 F-14A VF-154"Blackknight" FLIR cat.
Skull Leader Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 I like the scheme, it's decidedly "russian" You can bet aviation enthusiasts world wide will be watching to see what happens. All of our remaining tomcat squadrons are now under CINTLANT, and I'm sure mediterranian cruises will be in order
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 I really can't imagine the US having much problems decimating the IrAF. The advantage of B-2/F117s making strikes with impunity is a big advantage. The USA does not need to do anything else until it wants too since the IrAF cannot strike back in any way. Sun Tzu would agree. The chance of an IrAF bird blundering within range of a B-2 at night is lower then that of the B-2 crashing due to pilot/mechanical faults IMHO.
Nied Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Th IrAF is the Iraqi Air Force, the IRIAF is the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. the fact of the matter is that our stealth aircraft are not invisible. Their flight plans are carefully plotted so that they avoid radar sites and detection, however if one of those radar sites is mounted in the nose of a plane it's alot harder to route your flight plan around it. So while stealth is a decided advantage becasue it opens up gaps in your enemy's detection network, it does not mean your enemy can't find you.
ewilen Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Yes, people often seem to forget that stealth reduces the range at which you can be detected/tracked by radar; it doesn't make you completely invisible. That said, it's a matter of degree, and I'd be somewhat surprised if any of us can say how vulnerable the B-2 would be to airborne detection. Considering that it was made to penetrate the Soviet air defense network, I'd guess that it is very, very good at avoiding detection.
Mislovrit Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Isn't worrying about bumping into IRIAF aircraft largely irrelevant as they would have be detected by American AWACS?
ewilen Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 I guess that depends on the range of the AWACS' radar. In theory, could US AWACS fly outside of any danger and provide a complete view of Iran?
Mislovrit Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 I guess that depends on the range of the AWACS' radar.Also depends on access to airspace around Iran, in which they can operate. In theory, could US AWACS fly outside of any danger US AWACS staying out of Iranian airspace do have the benefit of the IRIAF having to fight on USAF and USN terms. and provide a complete view of Iran?With AWACS operating to the West, East, and South of Iran, coverage would be extensive. If access is granted by Iran's northern neighbors to allow the AWACS to fly in their airspace or at least over the Caspian, coverage is almost certainly to be complete.
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 The B-2 is decidedly stealthier than the F-117. It has like no visible panel lines, rivets, joints, etc. and actually uses differential thrust for control when in "stealth mode". Ever noticed how you ALWAYS see a B-2 with its ailerons partially split? That's because they are utterly ineffective when 'closed'. In normal ops, it always keeps them partly open like 5 degrees, as that is the true "neutral" position---only past that do they start to function. When it closes them (for stealth) it switches to pure engine thrust changes for control.
ewilen Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 In theory, could US AWACS fly outside of any danger US AWACS staying out of Iranian airspace do have the benefit of the IRIAF having to fight on USAF and USN terms. Indeed. The point is, if the Iranians operate completely defensively, they get targeted from a distance and they lose as their airfields, support systems, SAM sites, and radar are decimated. If they try to take the battle outside their territory by attacking US AWACS, air bases, and carriers, they lose even faster. A quick web search turns up a range of 200 miles (320 km) for the radar on the E-3 AWACS. There are probably small portions of central Iran which are more than 200 miles from the country's borders, but most of the airbases are located near the border. http://www.scramble.nl/ir.htm If necessary, those could be neutralized before attacking the deeper bases such as Esfahan.
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Dragon's page is updated: http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/welcome.asp F4U, F-18F x2, F-14B. Sigh, look at the VF-103 plane's back end... Yes it's only a drawing, but it doesn't bode well IMHO.
Opus Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Have you guys seen the F-104 from 21st C. It's supposed to have working surfaces and the whole works. I'm not even really into toy or model planes and I'm seriously considering getting this one. If you join thier little fanclub you can get a bunch of nice pics of the production model and enter a contest to win one. http://www.21stcenturytoys.com./
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 26, 2005 Author Posted February 26, 2005 Opus do you need to pay to join the fanclub? I saw the pic through figures.com before, and it is awesome. Other future releases include the MIG-15, F-86 and TBM avenger. I think they might have canned the phantom since they were worried about box size(if they did make that it would be the BIGGEST 1/18 scale fighter toy out there!). I seriously wouldn't care since I am sure a phantom done in that scale would certainly be worth the money they would charge for it. Lil under or over 100$. David, that also pisses me off how the plane will be mislabled just like the FOV tomcat. THe FOV tomcat on box is an F-14B in VF-84 markings, which never operated the B model. THe dragon model seems to be a repaint of the F-14A with VF-103 markings, and VF-103 never operated the A model when they became the jolly rogers. Lets hope the actual product has the right stuff. THe super hornets look cool, glad they have the 2 seater coming out. I hope we get a bombload for the F-14B. It would make sense being that VF-103 is a known "bombcat" squadron. And I do hope we get some phoenixes and sparrows to mount as well.
Skull Leader Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Dragon's page is updated:http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/welcome.asp F4U, F-18F x2, F-14B. Sigh, look at the VF-103 plane's back end... Yes it's only a drawing, but it doesn't bode well IMHO. well, it DOES include the disclaimer that the final product may differ... here's to hoping they don't have their heads so far up their asses to miss a key thing like that.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 26, 2005 Author Posted February 26, 2005 And they have made horribly inaccurate stuff. Their supposed F-15E is really a D. And it can't mount ANY bombs. Bombs are what seperate the strike and air eagles. Bombs and bomb palettes on CFT's only found on the F-15E. their F-15C is good but can't mount fuselage sparrows. Pretty retarded if ya ask me. Their hornet and falcons can hold most of the weapons in the accessory kits.
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2005 Posted February 26, 2005 Their PW-powered F-16's have the big intakes, and none have AMRAAM-capable wingtip launchers. The F-18 is half A, half C. I could go on for days, but that's a nice sampling. In addition to the F-15E that can't carry bombs...
Nied Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Indeed. The point is, if the Iranians operate completely defensively, they get targeted from a distance and they lose as their airfields, support systems, SAM sites, and radar are decimated. If they try to take the battle outside their territory by attacking US AWACS, air bases, and carriers, they lose even faster.A quick web search turns up a range of 200 miles (320 km) for the radar on the E-3 AWACS. There are probably small portions of central Iran which are more than 200 miles from the country's borders, but most of the airbases are located near the border. http://www.scramble.nl/ir.htm If necessary, those could be neutralized before attacking the deeper bases such as Esfahan. THat's all well and good except. A) the Iranians have thier own AWACs birds to catch us before we enter thier airspace and B) They have longer ranged weapons and thus can hit our planes before we hit them. Ironicaly I think the best counter for Iranian F-14s might be the Super Hornet, it's stealthy enough that it might be able to cut down the range at which a Tomcat could get a lock on it to within range of an AMRAAM.
Skull Leader Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 (edited) I feel otherwise... I'm willing to bet the family farm that IRIAF tomcats SPANK any hornets (Rhinos OR legacy) that come within firing range (or at the very least give them a run for their money)... and here's why: Iraninan Tomcats: -unknown capability... russian software (could be better or worse) -Russian-made AIM-54 knockoffs (AAM-3s? I can't remember) equivilent in capablility to an AIM-54A Phoenix missile... and they have lots of 'em -Variable-Wing Geometry... to maximize efficiency of turning energy used (in the off event that it becomes a WVR battle) -Still in good shape after 30 years (they don't have the wear and tear on the airframes that our tomcats get) -AWG-9. Still one of the greatest radar/Target aquisition systems developed by man. US Super Hornets: -AMRAAM missile... long reach, but not quite up to specs with a phoenix (or derivative) -Eats energy in turns like I eat bacon for breakfast -Needs more fuel to stay in the fight -Couldn't keep up with a Tomcat in the event that the 'cat decided to extend and escape. -stealth? (I wasn't aware that the RCS of a Super Hornet was anything remotely close to approaching stealth-like, but I've never looked in to it before. I'll take your word on this one!) speculation on my part, I know... but I'm just calling it as I see it Edited February 28, 2005 by Skull Leader
Recommended Posts