Aircraft VS super thread!

[hellohikaru]

The Shitnet's jet intakes may offer better shielding against radar but it is hardly stealthy and then only from certain angles.

Those ugly pylons and bumps will not do good for RCS either. I suppose its good enough to handle the AFs some banana states like North Korea, Syria or Libya.

Iran is an unknown quantity not just because of their upgraded F-14s but also their upgraded MiG-29s, Mirage F1s and other yet to be revealed indegenious improvements.

[ewilen]

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.

I still think you are getting caught up on the idea of destroying planes in the air. Tom Cooper has a similar viewpoint--even though, in the thread cited here (or was in the Japanese stealth thread?), he begins by admitting that Iran really couldn't do anything to defend itself against a coordinated B-2 + cruise missile attack:

Essentially, what concerns the Iranians the most is the USAF's ability to stage a near simultaneous attack with B-2s and dozens (or hundreds) of cruise missiles. This, namely, is a kind of a threat Iran has no serious capability to defend against.

[snip]

Now, a strike with B-2s and cruise missiles would left Iranian air defences with little or nothing to fire back at: even if the IRIAF could eventually do something to B-2s (under very specific circumstances), it is simply not really equipped to tackle with a massive (200+) cruise missile attack. Under most positive circumstances the IRIAF and other air defences might be able to shot down something like 20% of cruise missiles - but this would not be enough to prevent immense damage.

But then Cooper goes on to fret over the fact that Iran could put up a good fight if the US employs other types of aircraft and weapons.(Here's the link.) Well...so what? You fight to your strength and the enemy's weakness. Cooper might as well worry about the lack of well-trained poison-dart blowgunners in the US Army, should we decide to invade the Amazon.

In a war with Iran, the US would of course begin the fight by using cruise missiles and B-2's to destroy the most urgent targets (in the current circumstances, that would be whatever Iranian nuclear facilities we could identify) as well as neutralize Iranian air defense assets. As the latter are degraded, non-stealth aircraft could be brought increasingly into the mix. Iranian Tomcats aren't going to be a threat in the air if their runways are holed, their fuel and weapons stores destroyed, and the aircraft themselves wrecked on the ground. (And that's even assuming we take all of Cooper's claims about Iran's airforce at face value.)

[Skull Leader]

Which you seem reluctant to do.

Say what you will, I just don't think it's going to be that easy.

[David Hingtgen]

Super Hornet's RCS has been reduced to that of an F-16. F-18A has a fairly large RCS, F-18C is smaller, and now F-18F is smaller than that. The Super Hornet isn't so much "stealthy" as "no longer such a blatant beacon".

[ewilen]

Which you seem reluctant to do.

That's right. Cooper's a voice crying in the wilderness. Maybe he's right and all the other experts are wrong (or lying in order to protect secrets). On the other hand, maybe not.

In any case I recall Nied estimating 20-30 F-14s and 60 Mig-29s in the Iranian Air Force, plus sundry other aircrft. The USAF has the Iranian inventory as including 40 F-4D/E Phantom, 45 F-5E/F Tiger, 30 F-14 Tomcat, 24 Shenyang F-7 (Mig 21), 48 Mig-29 Fulcrum.

But the estimate also states that "probably more than 40% of the aircraft are not operational." So the ceiling for operational aircraft is perhaps 24 Phantoms, 27 F-5s, 24 Tomcats, 15 F-7s, 29 Mig-29s.

Globalsecurity.org also has some estimates. Taking the "mission capable" rates into account, the numbers of air-air (fighters, fighter-bombers, and interceptors) come to about 16 Phantoms, 15 F-5s, 30 Tomcats, 20 F-7s (Mig-21 equivalent), 32 Mig-29s, 18 Mirage F-1s, 12 Mig-23s.

Taking the highest number for each type, we get: 24 Phantoms, 27 F-5s, 30 Tomcats, 20 F-7s, 32 Mig-29s, 18 Mirage F-1s, 12 Mig-23s. I have not found support for a higher number of Mig-29s, but if anyone can supply a source or expert opinion that there are more Fulcrums in the IRIAF, I would be grateful. So: 30 Tomcats, 32 Fulcrums, and about 100 sundry 2nd-rate or worse fighters.

Against which the USAF alone (including reserves but not including the North American Air Defense Force) has over 200 Eages, about 100 F-15Es, about 600 F-16s. (Source) The IRIAF would be worn down and pinned down by continuous American operations combined with satellite and AWACS intelligence. Add in the advantages of stealth and cruise missiles (and the Navy and Marines), and it's hard to see how an intelligently run American air offensive would run into any serious trouble.

Edited March 1, 2005 by ewilen

[twich]

I am curious about the current condition on the F-35 JSF program, last I read in this forum, there had been some issues with it about being too big, or too heavy for its role. I think the idea of the JSF is nice and the marine version having V/STOL is rather impressive for the fighter...I like the look of it, being similar to the F/A-22.

Twich

[Noyhauser]

According to the military balance Iran has

4 Sqd. of 65 F-4D/E

4 Sqd with 60 F-5E

1 Sqd of 30 Su-24MK (including former Iraqi Aircraft)

7 Su-25 (inc iraqi)

24 F-1E (inc iraqi)

2 Sqd of 25 F-14

1 sqd of 24 F-7M

2 sqd of Mig 29UB (inc. Iraqi)

AEW- 1 IL-76 (iraqi)

Serviceability 60% for american aircraft, 80% for Russian and Chinese.

If you think they have any chance against a US AEF operating out of Qatar, with Aegis and Awacs support, you have got to be kidding. To emphasize Ewilien's numbers from global security, they can't put all those planes in the air at one time, except for a very quick burst operation (think Israel's Pre-emptive attack against Egypt and syria in the 67 war), because of maitenence down time, and the like. Really you are looking at 1/3 to 1/2 being available for a mission. The US however can easily outmatch them in the air. The Iranian airforce would be looking at a repeat of what happened to iraq in 1991. Maybe they may down one or two planes, but thats it.

[ewilen]

I am curious about the current condition on the F-35 JSF program, last I read in this forum, there had been some issues with it about being too big, or too heavy for its role. I think the idea of the JSF is nice and the marine version having V/STOL is rather impressive for the fighter...I like the look of it, being similar to the F/A-22.

Twich

Too heavy. But that's been dealt with through a combination of weight reduction, increased engine thrust, and creative redefinition of how it will operate some missions. I'm pretty sure I posted about it in this thread but I can't find my post. Here's one quick link via a Google search: http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/199.html

[Skull Leader]

You're thinking too much on a one to one basis in terms of aircraft though. Any Tomcat or Phantom carry a LOT of missiles (admittedly, certainly not the TEN AMRAAMS demo Super Hornets have been seen carrying), just like American aircraft do.

I would like to point out that I've never said that the US couldn't knock Iran's airforce over, just that I don't think it's going to be as easy as some of you seem to think it will be. Just because Iran doesn't get the opportunity to run red-flag excersises with other nations airforces or benefit from some of the other things our naval/air forces do, that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. American pilots haven't stepped in to an ACM environment any more recently than they have (while in fact they've had all of the 70s and 80s to use Iraq's airforce as target practice... and that's pretty much how it's lined out. All jokes aside, that's certainly more dangerous than hunting down and sinking a QF that won't do anything but run from you.)

I have no doubt that in the end our forces would win out, but it's gonna be costly and I don't think it will happen without us losing a few planes in the process (and possibly even lives)

Edited March 1, 2005 by Skull Leader

[twich]

Thanks Ewilen, I appreciate the response. Although I have to wonder, why we would sell the design to so many foreign countries? It utilizes stealth technology, and advances avionics. Now I can see allies like England and canada getting the plane, Germany, Japan....but who else? Can we really trust those countries? Somthing about that doesnt sit well with me......

twich

[Zentrandude]

Thanks Ewilen, I appreciate the response. Although I have to wonder, why we would sell the design to so many foreign countries? It utilizes stealth technology, and advances avionics. Now I can see allies like England and canada getting the plane, Germany, Japan....but who else? Can we really trust those countries? Somthing about that doesnt sit well with me......

twich

im guessing the foreign versions will not be as stealthy as the us ver. and have a hidden beacon that gives us missiles insta locked on any enemy f-35s. Thats would i do if i was going to sell something top of the line.

[ewilen]

The group of countries that are "in" the JSF program are: Netherlands Turkey Australia United Kingdom Italy Denmark Canada Norway Singapore Israel. (The latter two are involved at a lower level than the others.)

I suspect that Japan might sign up at some point, or at least end up purchasing the aircraft. South Korea is also being marketed to. I haven't read anything about German interest. It appears that Germany will go with the EF2000; the UK will buy EF2000 alongside the JSF with the latter intended for the Royal Navy. (There's no naval EF2000.)

I don't know if there are reports that any of the export versions will be dumbed down at all.

I see the several reasons/benefits of seeking foreign partners; among them:

(1) Spread development costs over as many units as possible, and achieve manufacturing economies of scale.

(2) Maintain linkages and dependencies between those countries' defense establishments and ours.

(3) As far as possible, kill off sales of EF2000, Rafale, Gripen, and Russian designs, thus driving up their costs--see (1) above. This makes the latter more expensive for those countries which we'd rather not see owning any advanced fighters at all.

(4) Obviously--get the good stuff to those countries which are viewed as strategic allies/assets. Note that there is a strong overlap between the JSF partners and the "Coalition of the Willing". Whatever one may think of the war in Iraq, the fact that a given country has provided diplomatic and military contributions to the US-led effort is a good indication of how well its worldview coincides with that of the US and how greatly that nation values its relationship with America. In the overlap, I count: Netherlands, UK, Australia, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Singapore. Korea and Japan are also "Coalition" members. The outlyers are Turkey, Canada, and Israel. Israel of course is very close to the US but can't participate directly in Iraq because of regional political sensibilities. Canada has taken principled stands at odds with some of Bush's diplomatic/military initiatives (not only Iraq but also missiles defense); however, it is hard to imagine a closer ally otherwise. Turkey is a bit troubling. It's a secular democracy and has good relations with Israel as well as a strong defense relationship with the US. Entry to the EU is looking good. At the same time, I get the impression that not everything is nailed down--there have been incidents of jihadist terrorism, the Cyprus question is basically just being papered over, EU membership isn't assured, and the economy has historically been subject to crisis. But I think the ultimate guarantee is the Turkish military, which has demonstrated in the past that it will not allow Turkey to be radicalized or destabilized.

[Nied]

I still think you are getting caught up on the idea of destroying planes in the air. Tom Cooper has a similar viewpoint--even though, in the thread cited here (or was in the Japanese stealth thread?), he begins by admitting that Iran really couldn't do anything to defend itself against a coordinated B-2 + cruise missile attack:

Essentially, what concerns the Iranians the most is the USAF's ability to stage a near simultaneous attack with B-2s and dozens (or hundreds) of cruise missiles. This, namely, is a kind of a threat Iran has no serious capability to defend against.

[snip]

Now, a strike with B-2s and cruise missiles would left Iranian air defences with little or nothing to fire back at: even if the IRIAF could eventually do something to B-2s (under very specific circumstances), it is simply not really equipped to tackle with a massive (200+) cruise missile attack. Under most positive circumstances the IRIAF and other air defences might be able to shot down something like 20% of cruise missiles - but this would not be enough to prevent immense damage.

But then Cooper goes on to fret over the fact that Iran could put up a good fight if the US employs other types of aircraft and weapons.(Here's the link.) Well...so what? You fight to your strength and the enemy's weakness. Cooper might as well worry about the lack of well-trained poison-dart blowgunners in the US Army, should we decide to invade the Amazon.

In a war with Iran, the US would of course begin the fight by using cruise missiles and B-2's to destroy the most urgent targets (in the current circumstances, that would be whatever Iranian nuclear facilities we could identify) as well as neutralize Iranian air defense assets. As the latter are degraded, non-stealth aircraft could be brought increasingly into the mix. Iranian Tomcats aren't going to be a threat in the air if their runways are holed, their fuel and weapons stores destroyed, and the aircraft themselves wrecked on the ground. (And that's even assuming we take all of Cooper's claims about Iran's airforce at face value.)

I have no doubt Iran would not have the capability to defend itself form a "shock and awe" 200+ cruise missile strike. The problem is we can't mount such a strike at the moment, our stocks are still depleted from the last time we did that. It may be our strength when we can do it but we can't do it right now. I would guess we could sustain something like it for maybe one night, after which we'd be forced to rely on our conventional forces (B-2s could still be used though).

[Nied]

That's right. Cooper's a voice crying in the wilderness. Maybe he's right and all the other experts are wrong (or lying in order to protect secrets). On the other hand, maybe not.

In any case I recall Nied estimating 20-30 F-14s and 60 Mig-29s in the Iranian Air Force, plus sundry other aircrft. The USAF has the Iranian inventory as including 40 F-4D/E Phantom, 45 F-5E/F Tiger, 30 F-14 Tomcat, 24 Shenyang F-7 (Mig 21), 48 Mig-29 Fulcrum.

But the estimate also states that "probably more than 40% of the aircraft are not operational." So the ceiling for operational aircraft is perhaps 24 Phantoms, 27 F-5s, 24 Tomcats, 15 F-7s, 29 Mig-29s.

Globalsecurity.org also has some estimates. Taking the "mission capable" rates into account, the numbers of air-air (fighters, fighter-bombers, and interceptors) come to about 16 Phantoms, 15 F-5s, 30 Tomcats, 20 F-7s (Mig-21 equivalent), 32 Mig-29s, 18 Mirage F-1s, 12 Mig-23s.

Taking the highest number for each type, we get: 24 Phantoms, 27 F-5s, 30 Tomcats, 20 F-7s, 32 Mig-29s, 18 Mirage F-1s, 12 Mig-23s. I have not found support for a higher number of Mig-29s, but if anyone can supply a source or expert opinion that there are more Fulcrums in the IRIAF, I would be grateful. So: 30 Tomcats, 32 Fulcrums, and about 100 sundry 2nd-rate or worse fighters.

Against which the USAF alone (including reserves but not including the North American Air Defense Force) has over 200 Eages, about 100 F-15Es, about 600 F-16s. (Source) The IRIAF would be worn down and pinned down by continuous American operations combined with satellite and AWACS intelligence. Add in the advantages of stealth and cruise missiles (and the Navy and Marines), and it's hard to see how an intelligently run American air offensive would run into any serious trouble.

Well part of the problem with some of the estimates out there is that they make no sense. They assume that Iran has very little ability to support it's own aircraft, when in fact it has an entire aerospace industry manufacturing new aircraft.

You also seem to think we would attack with our entire Air Force. I'd like to know the last time we've been able to send our entire complement of combat aircraft into battle. That's not to say I don't think that we couldn't marshall a force capable of overwhelming the IRIAF, however our numbers would be our only clear advantage, making any potential conflict with them much costlier than previous ones.

[Nied]

According to the military balance Iran has

4 Sqd. of 65 F-4D/E

4 Sqd with 60 F-5E

1 Sqd of 30 Su-24MK (including former Iraqi Aircraft)

7 Su-25 (inc iraqi)

24 F-1E (inc iraqi)

2 Sqd of 25 F-14

1 sqd of 24 F-7M

2 sqd of Mig 29UB (inc. Iraqi)

AEW- 1 IL-76 (iraqi)

Serviceability 60% for american aircraft, 80% for Russian and Chinese.

If you think they have any chance against a US AEF operating out of Qatar, with Aegis and Awacs support, you have got to be kidding. To emphasize Ewilien's numbers from global security, they can't put all those planes in the air at one time, except for a very quick burst operation (think Israel's Pre-emptive attack against Egypt and syria in the 67 war), because of maitenence down time, and the like. Really you are looking at 1/3 to 1/2 being available for a mission. The US however can easily outmatch them in the air. The Iranian airforce would be looking at a repeat of what happened to iraq in 1991. Maybe they may down one or two planes, but thats it.

Actually the USAF tracked 14 Tomcats at the Iraqi border during Iraqi Freedom far more than half of thier fleet (if they have only 25). I still haven't seen you produce any evidence for your assumption that the Iranians would chose not to contest US air superiority like IrAF did. Or if you disagree with teh premise of my argument, that the IrAF put up anything more than a token resistance during the Gulf War.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

(3) As far as possible, kill off sales of EF2000, Rafale, Gripen, and Russian designs, thus driving up their costs--see (1) above. This makes the latter more expensive for those countries which we'd rather not see owning any advanced fighters at all.

Come to think of it. Soon there isn't anything left for the US to sell if not the JSF.

I can't imagine nations still wanting to buy the 15/16 (not too sure about the 18)

in 10 years time. Not selling the JSF might just mean EF2000 and the Sukhois enjoy great sales. That point alone is good reason for the US never to can the JSF.

[Noyhauser]

Oh I don't doubt that the Iranian Airforce won't try to contest. I just think you are overestimating the combat effectiveness of their forces. The AWG-9 is a good piece of equipment, maybe from the 1970, and even the 1980s. How do you think it would go up against the Raytheon AESA AN/APG 79 arrays on F-15s and F/A-18E/Fs... Do you think this radar which is 30 years its junior is actually worse than the AWG-9? How do you think the AWG will operate with heavy ECM from Prowlers, or with an E-3 circling behind them. Sure you point out that the Iranians used F-14s as cheap Awacs, but the fact is that its a poor substitute for a real E-2/3. And if they did go into Iran, they would likely use F-22s... which would be overkill in its own right.

I don't deny that the US will lose a plane, two or even five. Against those numbers it would be foolish to say that no losses will be incurred. We lost fighters to the iraqis too. But to be honest, if they tried to take on the US air forces, they would be quickly removed from the sky. I think the USAF would be happy if they did contest air superiority. It would make their lives a lot easier. Its easy to say from your vantage point "oh yeah I think they will have an effective defence"... a lot of people said this about operation enduring freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom...people thought Afghanistan would be as bad as it was for the Soviets but in truth the US quickly won both of those operations (well the actual combat side of it). I don't have blind faith in the US air capabilities, but I do realize where they are exceptional. And this is one area where I think they would shine in.

Your right that the IRaqi airforce didn't contest in 1991, But the US was waiting for them nonetheless . Thousands of CAP sorties occurred uneventfully, and if the Iraqis did show up it would have been a bloodbath then too, as pilots were itching for combat. The same would go for iran.

Also you say that Iranians have real combat experience. How many real veterans do you think are left 17 years after their last possible combat mission? Given that the Iranian airforce is not a prestigeous posting, I doubt many are left. I think American pilots have a far greater liklihood of being in combat than their iranian counterparts, and they do have red flag and innumerous other training missions to keep their skills on edge.

[hellohikaru]

DH and the rest

Have you guys ever seen photos of F-8 Crusaders with 300 gal drop tanks or Bullpup missiles ?

I think these are very very seldom carried.

[Skull Leader]

I believe the 30 year old AWG-9 radar could hold it's own quite nicely against it's more modern counterparts. The fact that the tomcat never recieved any heavy-duty radar upgrades is proof of this (if it isn't broke, don't fix it). If the navy went through all of the trouble to update their F-14Bs with the new sparrowhawk HUD system starting around 99-00, they surely would've made a new call about the radar if they decided it was obsolete. (David, any idea if they received new block numbers after that upgrade? M.A.T.S. doesn't even mention the upgrade, but I know they did it)

When I mentioned that there were combat experienced people there, I was more or less referring to those who might be serving in a training or command function. Any of the standard line pilots today that MIGHT have been active then (highly unlikely) would've been total rookies and nearing the end of their service tenures now. Their instructors have been in combat though, and THEY learned to fly the tomcat from the US Navy. Effective as our red-flag excersises? Not even close, but it's pretty much the best they can do under the circumstances, I think.

[Skull Leader]

DH and the rest

Have you guys ever seen photos of F-8 Crusaders with 300 gal drop tanks or Bullpup missiles ?

I think these are very very seldom carried.

I've read somewhere about pylon mounted droptanks (I know they COULD carry them), but i've never heard mention of bullpups.

[David Hingtgen]

I've never seen droptanks on an F-8, and only once on a test plane have I seen Bullpups. I own nearly every F-8 book that's been published or re-issued in the last decade.

F-14: Block numbers are never changed, no matter what happens to it. Same for all plane, it's part of the serial number. The final F-14 mods were the HUD's for the B's, and GPS/JDAM. LANTIRN was slightly before JDAM AFAIK. Acronyms galore!

[hellohikaru]

The new A88 show spark my interest in Crusader drop tanks even though they only appeared briefly as animation error(?).

Jbaugher also mentions the availbility of 300 gal drop tanks for the F-8J and RF-8G

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f8_12.html

DH,

The common cutaway drawing of an F-8E found in certain publications also suggest the use of AGM-12.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

WInders on the wings? Meh is that even possible for the sader?

Another thing about the IRIAF tomcat crews is that, a TON of the IRIAF's best pilots were executed after the ayatollah took over. So we know the IRIAF that fought Iraq, and could face the US today is nowhere near what it was back when the Shah was still in power. Though I do think IRIAF could be a much tougher threat than Iraq, i still don't think its going to be up to Northvietnam era or North korea DPRK air force level threat ya know?

Also anyone got pictures of the 2sader? 2 seaters rule. I remember seeing this before. It is nice though only one was built and crashed in my homeland.

[hellohikaru]

Shin

In the remake the F-8 had F-15 style twin launchers that Kazama used for AIM-9L. McCoy provides all kinds of modifications provided you have the money and why not, it is hardly difficult...though as a F-8 fan i would have preferred Shintani sticking to the fuselage pylons.

Too bad the TF-8A is a one off. The British were apparently interested and would have order F-8K(?) instead of F-4K.

[ewilen]

I have no doubt Iran would not have the capability to defend itself form a "shock and awe" 200+ cruise missile strike. The problem is we can't mount such a strike at the moment, our stocks are still depleted from the last time we did that. It may be our strength when we can do it but we can't do it right now. I would guess we could sustain something like it for maybe one night, after which we'd be forced to rely on our conventional forces (B-2s could still be used though).

Well, here we get into a problem with defining the scenario. If you're talking about a strike against Iran right now, probably as part of the current crisis over nuclear enrichment, then we have to work with what's available. But my original goal in asking for a scenario was to evaluate the need for the F/A-22 and/or the need for additional F/A-22's beyond the minimal buy currently proposed by the Pentagon. At the moment, the F/A-22 isn't expected to be combat-ready until the end of 2005 at the earliest, so we're really comparing a nonexistent F/A-22 capability to a depleted--but readily replenishable--cruise missile capability.

If we look to the future--perhaps a scenario where Iran, with or without nukes, tries to use military force to attack American allies and interests in the region, we have to consider the cost of building more F/A-22's vs other options. Among these: additional cruise missiles, UCAVs (attack versions, if not air superiority), F-35. I'm putting the F-35 on the list since the Air Force has suggested cutting it instead of the F/A-22. Let's leave UCAVs out of the picture at least for the moment, since they're speculative in the near term. Both the Navy's Tomahawk and the Air Force's AGM-86C cost less than $1 million each and have ranges in excess of 600 nm (700 nm for Tomahawk D, 900 nm for Tomahawk C/E). Without tanker support, the F-14 would need to be operating well outside friendly airspace, and close to its maximum mission radius in order to intercept/attack B-52s before the latter launched their cruise missiles, and would be useless against Tomahawks.

So for the cost of one F/A-22 (no bombs, no fuel), you can have at least 115, probably more like 150-250 cruise missiles with which we'd be able to strike virtually with impunity. Furthermore, the ongoing maintenance and training costs of 100+ cruise missiles are undoubtedly far lower than an F/A-22 and its pilots. Or if you prefer a manned aircraft, there's the F-35. If it comes off as planned, it's stealthy, you can buy 2-4 of them for the cost of one F/A-22, it has better sensors, better targeting, and it can carry bigger bombs.

[ewilen]

Well part of the problem with some of the estimates out there is that they make no sense. They assume that Iran has very little ability to support it's own aircraft, when in fact it has an entire aerospace industry manufacturing new aircraft.

I'd like to hear more about this. How many fighters have the Iranians built to the point of combat-readiness? What is their annual capacity for new construction of the various types that they can build?

You also seem to think we would attack with our entire Air Force.  I'd like to know the last time we've been able to send our entire complement of combat aircraft into battle.  That's not to say I don't think that we couldn't marshall a force capable of overwhelming the IRIAF, however our numbers would be our only clear advantage, making any potential conflict with them much costlier than previous ones.

I think I've listed a number of clear advantages aside from numbers. But you're correct of course that the USAF wouldn't send its entire complement. I just couldn't find numbers for how many were committed to other recent contingencies such as Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II. However, I didn't count up the USN.

[David Hingtgen]

F-15K first flight today:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q1/nr_050303n.html

Sucky photo, can barely even tell it has GE F110's. Interesting that the nozzles are in totally different positions.

[David Hingtgen]

hellohikaru---while the F-8E's certainly could carry the Bullpup, I can't find any evidence it was actually USED. The hump on the F-8E's back is purely for the Bullpup avionics, but in later ones it's used for ECM instead of Bullpup stuff. If it was used at all, they wouldn't have deleted the equipment in the F-8H/J/K etc.

[Skull Leader]

LOL, there were all kinds of fumbles in Area 88....

Mickey's Tomcat contained a single center-line droptank (ala the G.I. Joe Skystriker), and on the massive ground attack mission about halfway through the series, you see him carrying massive amounts of Mk.82s on MERS mounted on stations 1 and 8 (it "can" mount TERs on said stations, but I've only ever seen one aircraft that had those, and it was just for Zuni Rocket pods)

Hellohikaru, we see pleny of pictures of Shin's Crusader cockpit, was it pretty accurate for the F-8E? I didn't know if that radar screen really existed or not

Edited March 4, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Nied]

Oh I don't doubt that the Iranian Airforce won't try to contest. I just think you are overestimating the combat effectiveness of their forces. The AWG-9 is a good piece of equipment, maybe from the 1970, and even the 1980s. How do you think it would go up against the Raytheon AESA AN/APG 79 arrays on F-15s and F/A-18E/Fs... Do you think this radar which is 30 years its junior is actually worse than the AWG-9?

THe APG-79 is a good pice of equipment and will most likely hold the title for the best fighter radar in US service for the next 9 months. But it doesn't have the sheer brute power of the AWG-9, it makes up for that with it's AESA antena but in my opinion it does not make it clearly superior (at least in terms of tracking and detecting targets). The APG-63(V)2 is only mounted on one squadron of F-15s and while it does teach the Eagle's old radar some new tricks it doesn't do anything to increase it's range.

How do you think the AWG will operate with heavy ECM from Prowlers, or with an E-3 circling behind them. Sure you point out that the Iranians used F-14s as cheap Awacs, but the fact is that its a poor substitute for a real E-2/3. And if they did go into Iran, they would likely use F-22s... which would be overkill in its own right.

THe AWG-9 isn't exactly an easy radar to jam, the Russians, the French and the Iraqis all had little to no success jamming IRanian F-14s. A Prowler probably could overwhelm an F-14 one on one, but it would still have to deal with A-50s, An-140s and whatever surface radars the Chinese have sold them. F/A-22s would be able to pull it off but then that's been my point all along hasn't it?

Your right that the IRaqi airforce didn't contest in 1991, But the US was waiting for them nonetheless . Thousands of CAP sorties occurred uneventfully, and if the Iraqis did show up it would have been a bloodbath then too, as pilots were itching for combat. The same would go for iran.

Despite our best efforts, and despite our air superiority the IrAF was able to get quite a few aircraft airborne and intact, fortunetly for us their mission wasn't to strike coalition aircraft but instead to send them to Iran. Now those planes have inflated the size of a much better trained air force (remember the IRIAF gave the IrAF a good drubbing in the Iran Iraq war) that doesn't seem willing to just give up it's airspace to a foreign strike.

don't deny that the US will lose a plane, two or even five. Against those numbers it would be foolish to say that no losses will be incurred. We lost fighters to the iraqis too. But to be honest, if they tried to take on the US air forces, they would be quickly removed from the sky. I think the USAF would be happy if they did contest air superiority. It would make their lives a lot easier. Its easy to say from your vantage point "oh yeah I think they will have an effective defence"... a lot of people said this about operation enduring freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom...people thought Afghanistan would be as bad as it was for the Soviets but in truth the US quickly won both of those operations (well the actual combat side of it). I don't have blind faith in the US air capabilities, but I do realize where they are exceptional. And this is one area where I think they would shine in.

In both of those operations the US had un-contested controll of the sky (seriously a pair of barely operational Mig-17s and a few ancient SAMs were going to give NATO and US forces trouble?) I can't say for sure how much damage the Iranians or North Koreans could do to our air forces but saying we'll always have air dominance becasue our past few foes couldn't or wouldn't put up a fighte is folly. We haven't faced an effectively planned or equiped air defence since Vietnam, and frankly that's a big unknown. I'd rather not plan for the best case scenario (that after all is what has made Iraq so hard).

[Nied]

Well, here we get into a problem with defining the scenario. If you're talking about a strike against Iran right now, probably as part of the current crisis over nuclear enrichment, then we have to work with what's available. But my original goal in asking for a scenario was to evaluate the need for the F/A-22 and/or the need for additional F/A-22's beyond the minimal buy currently proposed by the Pentagon. At the moment, the F/A-22 isn't expected to be combat-ready until the end of 2005 at the earliest, so we're really comparing a nonexistent F/A-22 capability to a depleted--but readily replenishable--cruise missile capability.

If we look to the future--perhaps a scenario where Iran, with or without nukes, tries to use military force to attack American allies and interests in the region, we have to consider the cost of building more F/A-22's vs other options. Among these: additional cruise missiles, UCAVs (attack versions, if not air superiority), F-35. I'm putting the F-35 on the list since the Air Force has suggested cutting it instead of the F/A-22. Let's leave UCAVs out of the picture at least for the moment, since they're speculative in the near term. Both the Navy's Tomahawk and the Air Force's AGM-86C cost less than $1 million each and have ranges in excess of 600 nm (700 nm for Tomahawk D, 900 nm for Tomahawk C/E). Without tanker support, the F-14 would need to be operating well outside friendly airspace, and close to its maximum mission radius in order to intercept/attack B-52s before the latter launched their cruise missiles, and would be useless against Tomahawks.

So for the cost of one F/A-22 (no bombs, no fuel), you can have at least 115, probably more like 150-250 cruise missiles with which we'd be able to strike virtually with impunity. Furthermore, the ongoing maintenance and training costs of 100+ cruise missiles are undoubtedly far lower than an F/A-22 and its pilots. Or if you prefer a manned aircraft, there's the F-35. If it comes off as planned, it's stealthy, you can buy 2-4 of them for the cost of one F/A-22, it has better sensors, better targeting, and it can carry bigger bombs.

You're forgetting one thing though, once you fire a cruise missile it's gone, an aircraft (either manned or un manned) can be used over and over again. I think one of the lessons of Iraq is that "Shock and Awe" will do just that but it leaves you without options for an uncomfortably long period of time (we're still replenishing our stocks two years later). When you consider that you can send a strike plane in day after day after day, the costs of lobbing cruise missiles from afar get higher. The F-35 is agreat way for hitting the types of targets we want to hit, but it is only one component in a package. It is still a strike plane, one with impressive self defence capabilities, but not something that can be used to establish air superiority. If you wan't to protect theose F-35s from the IRIAF's F-14s (or the NKAF's Mig-29s or the PLAAF's Su-30s, or the RSAF's F-15s) you're still going to need the F-22. I think that's the falacy that you (and RUmsfled) are making, that one aircraft is interchangealbe for the other. THe F-35 is an extremely effective strike plane, the F-22 is an extremely effective fighter, just because one is extremely effective at it's job doesn't necesarily mean it can do the other's job.

[Nied]

I'd like to hear more about this. How many fighters have the Iranians built to the point of combat-readiness? What is their annual capacity for new construction of the various types that they can build?

This is the Azarakhsh as near as I can tell it's a replacement for the IRIAF's older F-4s. It looks like nothing more than a giant two seat F-5 with F-4 intakes. It aparently has a indeginous radar with a few odd Russian components in the rest of the avionics fit. According to Globalsecurity the IRIAF should have 30 of these in service by now.

The Seaqeh-80 is the much famed F-5 sith twin tails that we saw on these boards a while back. It's unclear wether it's still in the prototype stage or has gone into production or even what it's exact capabilities are. I would imagine it would have performance at least on par with the F-5 and may be designed to fill a similar role.

Finnally the Shafaq is a lightwieght strike fighter/trainer that apears to be designed along the same lines as the Mig-AT and Yak-130 (it suposedly was developed with Russian assitance). Given it's design I'd say it the Iranians have done quite a bit of work on RCS reduction.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

THe giant F-5 clone seems a bit dumb. They should just focus on that new proto you posted last.

Hey guys that reminds me. Can anyone post some good pics of MIck's F-14 from area 88 here?Screen grabs or vidcaps. I have been unfortunate enought o not even catch a glimpse of my fav plane in that anime.

[hellohikaru]

I don't currently have the much better OAV in my hands now..so here are the hideous TV series version.

[hellohikaru]

..