Aircraft VS super thread!

[Apollo Leader]

Nope, ACTIVE nozzles are cheap and easy to install.  The real reason is because it would eat into F-22 sales.  If you could cheaply make F-15's, F-14B/D's, and F-16's super-manueverable, why buy F-22's?  Or any advanced fighter?

352206[/snapback]

Let me see here, it's a little something spelled s-t-e-a-l-t-h. What's the point of being able to do a tail slide, a Cobra, or any of these exotic aerobatic maneauvers if you are swatted out of the air by an unseen enemy. Also, the F/A-22 uses much more modern avionics and cockpit displays. Though I haven't seen the stats recently, I beleive the F/A-22 outranges the F-15 and F-16 when carrying a similar combat load. Going by what has been going on in recent years, long range is going to become very important.

Also, and this applies to the B-52, as an aircraft gets older (just like any piece of equipment), it will become increasingly expensive trying to maintain and upgrade these aircraft.

But hey, as long as a viable fleet of Raptors is fielded, I am all for giving extra manueverability to the existing fleet of fighter aircraft.

[Apollo Leader]

F/A-22A to become just plain old F-22A again.

While I'm glad for the time saved by not having to type the/A in the name of my favorite fighter they could have at least been a little less blatant about this being a sales pitch.

352056[/snapback]

Guess I should have read back one page before typing my above comments. At least my Raptor shirt I was given last Christmas by my sister and her family when they were still at Langley is still valid because it just says F-22 and not F/A-22!

[Mislovrit]

Also, the F/A-22 uses much more modern avionics and cockpit displays.

Latest Boeing F-15E+ proposal to the USAF is to address those issues.

Going by what has been going on in recent years, long range is going to become very important.

Someone didn't send that memo to the USN. Edited December 14, 2005 by Mislovrit

[kalvasflam]

Let me see here, it's a little something spelled s-t-e-a-l-t-h.   What's the point of being able to do a tail slide, a Cobra, or any of these exotic aerobatic maneauvers if you are swatted out of the air by an unseen enemy.   Also, the F/A-22 uses much more modern avionics and cockpit displays.  Though I haven't seen the stats recently, I beleive the F/A-22 outranges the F-15 and F-16 when carrying a similar combat load.  Going by what has been going on in recent years, long range is going to become very important.

Also, and this applies to the B-52, as an aircraft gets older (just like any piece of equipment), it will become increasingly expensive trying to maintain and upgrade these aircraft.

But hey, as long as a viable fleet of Raptors is fielded, I am all for giving extra manueverability to the existing fleet of fighter aircraft.

352335[/snapback]

There is a lot of value in stealth and precision munitions, but I would not so easily dismiss the B-52. I honestly think there should be a true replacement for that type of strategic bomber. The B-2 is not quite capable of carrying that bomb load, the B-1 is better, but let's face it, if you want someone carpet bombed, you go with B-52s.

Although this is the age of precision munitions, you can never forget that raw firepower will always have its place. Remember how they brought the Iowas back in the 80s. Sure, those were 40 year old ships at that point, but who could forget the effect of 16 inch gunfire support off shore.

[Skull Leader]

Going by what has been going on in recent years, long range is going to become very important.

Someone didn't send that memo to the USN.

352371[/snapback]

Amen to THAT. How can you call it a "more capable" airwing when half of said-airwing is busy hauling fuel for the rest of the squad?

Average sortie over Iraq:

Tomcats hit the tanker twice, THREE times tops (being in the air for 8-9 hours at a time you eat a LOT of fuel up)

Super Hornets hit the tanker as many as 5-6 times... that much less time on station

(there IS a silver-lining, I suppose... SH pilots could tank up in the air blindfolded, they do it so much)

[David Hingtgen]

The question regarding "why buy F-22's instead of ACTIVE was somewhat rhetorical". Congress sees "cheaper plane with most of an F-22's abilities" and there's the problem. We're not the ones making the purchase decisions, they are.

[kalvasflam]

The question regarding "why buy F-22's instead of ACTIVE was somewhat rhetorical".  Congress sees "cheaper plane with most of an F-22's abilities" and there's the problem.  We're not the ones making the purchase decisions, they are.

352389[/snapback]

You can pretty much equate having Congress making buy decisions on military hardware to have a bunch of drunk self absorbed jerks trying to show how big they can be by pushing for every little scrap they can get.

On the same side, the cost of weapon systems have gone dramatically up, you can equate the capabilities as greater or equaling to those of a decade ago due to the leaps in technology. But the U.S. military seem to be slowly putting more and more eggs in the same tiny small basket.

Quick examples, at the height of the cold war, there were more than 1000 F-15s, I think the exact number were 1300 or so, more than 1800 F-16s in the U.S. inventory alone. To replace this, they are going to end up with something like 200+ F-22s, and I don't recall how many JSFs. Sure, those are more capable, but they will be like an overstretched work force in the long run.

[Mislovrit]

  To replace this, they are going to end up with something like 200+ F-22s, and I don't recall how many JSFs.

600 to 1000 JSF is what they're expecting. The F-22s won't remain combat effective for long with such low numbers as attrition (accidents, cannibalization for parts, combat losses, acts of God and etc.) will catch up to them a lot sooner than a larger air fleet.

Skull Leader what really bites is the Super Bugs is more expensive then the F-15Es.

[kalvasflam]

600 to 1000 JSF is what they're expecting. The F-22s won't remain combat effective for long with such low numbers as attrition (accidents, cannibalization for parts, combat losses, acts of God and etc.) will catch up to them a lot sooner than a larger air fleet.

Skull Leader what really bites is the Super Bugs is more expensive then the F-15Es.

352404[/snapback]

Did that include units for both Navy and the USAF? If so, then it's absolutely sad. Because at some point, the USN had on average, 2 squadron of 12 each F-14, and 2 more of 12 each F-18 on station per carrier. At a minimum with 6 carriers cruising around every day, that was essentially 144 Tomcats and 144 Hornets at sea on a daily basis.

[Skull Leader]

It's been many moons since the "average" carrier air wing had two Tomcat squadrons in them. Rather, they became the exception to the rule. CVW-7 and 8 have continued that tradition (7 has since switched to Super Hornets, while 8 is carrying the final two Tomcat squadrons as we speak), but with the arms downgrade of the 1990s it eventually became more common to see ONE Tomcat squadron on carrier decks instead:

-Airwing 17 (AA Tailcode) lost VF-74 BeDevilers to disestablishment, but VF-103 Jolly Rogers remained

-Airwing 5 (NF Tailcode) lost the VF-21 Freelancers, but kept the VF-154 Black knights

-Airwing 2 (NE Tailcode) lost the VF-1 Wolfpack but kept the VF-2 Bounty Hunters

-Airwing 11 (NH Tailcode) lost the VF-114 Fighting Aardvarks, but kept the VF-213 Black Lions (and eventually lost them to Airwing

This isn't all of the airwings, just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. Other airwings were disestablished all together ( some with the retirement of the last of the Forrestal-class carriers, and later some of the Kitty Hawk class carriers) What's more, the average number of planes per-squadron has dropped to 10. When VF-103, 143, and 11 all came back, they were sporting 10 planes each. When VF-31 and 213 left Oceana for the deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for their final cruise, they took 10 planes each. VF-213 left two airframes in Oceana (gave them to VF-101 according to a Northrop-Grumman tech I spoke to at the Airshow). I got pictures of one of them, and I don't think it was a flyable airplane any more.

I don't know why they dropped to 10 aircraft per-squadron, but I'll wager it was a maintenance issue. On their final Tomcat cruise, VF-103 had one plane that was a perpetual hangar queen (AA113 I think) and had another one that had an engine blow up while it was in tension on the catapult (no deaths, fortunately, but the plane was a writeoff I think). They were really having to rob Peter to pay Paul to keep those things in the air.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hey guys, what does the F-15E proposal with new avionics exactly capable of? Does it have AESA and HMS? I am interested in hearing this especially after hearing about how good Korea's F-15K Slam Eagle can be in the a2a arena

[Mislovrit]

Hey guys, what does the F-15E proposal with new avionics exactly capable of? Does it have AESA and HMS? I am interested in hearing this especially after hearing about how good Korea's F-15K Slam Eagle can be in the a2a arena

352498[/snapback]

Check this thread for info on the F-15E+

Boeing tries to peddle more F-15E's

JSF news

TROUBLE FOR JOINT FIGHTER

Following White House Meeting, Pentagon Eyes Major Weapons Cuts and Kills

Pentagon said bent on killing F-35 fighter model

[Nied]

Hey guys, what does the F-15E proposal with new avionics exactly capable of? Does it have AESA and HMS? I am interested in hearing this especially after hearing about how good Korea's F-15K Slam Eagle can be in the a2a arena

352498[/snapback]

Check this thread for info on the F-15E+

Boeing tries to peddle more F-15E's

JSF news

TROUBLE FOR JOINT FIGHTER

Following White House Meeting, Pentagon Eyes Major Weapons Cuts and Kills

Pentagon said bent on killing F-35 fighter model

352517[/snapback]

Old news, super-ceded by this:

DOD Rejects Canceling Air Force Variant Of JSF, Expert Says

As I said a couple pages back canceling the F-35A makes a lot of sense, given that the F-35 program in general is essentially SLUFF: The Next Generation, why not have the Carrier and land variants be essentially the same. It worked fine for the A-7, and I bet it'd work fine for the F-35. That and it ought to discourage the idea of using a super SLUFF for air superiority work.

This is new though:

Britain in battle with US over fighter plane

Apparently some of the more xenophobic elements of our govt have problems sharing technology with one of (if not the) closest allies of the US. While I think the VSTOL version of the SLUFF II (this is fun ) would be great replacement for the SHAR, a Sea Typhoon would give the RN the type of punch not seen since the days of the Phantom.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Nied

[Skull Leader]

die JSF... DIE.

a Naval Eurofighter would be awesome to see. Given the performance capabilities of the EF right now, I could easily see a NEF in action.

If the British had carriers the size of the ones we (the US) field, I guarantee they wouldn't have given the JSF a second thought. Since they didn't hold the "diversity in the airwing" philosophy that the US until-so-recently held, they really need a "all in one" multirole fighter for a carrier jet.

Naval Jaguars and Tornado ADFs... THAT'S what they need!

In all seriousness, I can imagine that Northrop-Grumman is probably developing some kind of project to pick up the slack once the JSF fails. Perhaps a successor to the A-6?

Edited December 16, 2005 by Skull Leader

[kalvasflam]

It's been many moons since the "average" carrier air wing had two Tomcat squadrons in them. Rather, they became the exception to the rule. CVW-7 and 8 have continued that tradition (7 has since switched to Super Hornets, while 8 is carrying the final two Tomcat squadrons as we speak), but with the arms downgrade of the 1990s it eventually became more common to see ONE Tomcat squadron on carrier decks instead:

352450[/snapback]

I know it's been a while, approaching 20 years now. But that was definitely true in the late 80s. It's sad to see that happening, I believe carrier air wings are mostly F-18s now. And it bugs me a little because the -18s had a light designation on them when they were first put up. As in light attack aircraft. They couldn't haul the same load as an A-6, didn't have the range either. But that has changed a little over time.

As for the JSF, it's just an example of how screwy things have become. I remember when the original proposal to replace the A-6 was the A-12 Avenger (that was in the early 90s), then it was the F-18 E/F which ended up replacing the F-14s, and now it's the JSF. Now that may be cancelled. Whoever is in charge of these projects should be led out into the woods and just shot.

One would think that the logic is replacement of classes, and with number.

For the airforce:

An air superiority fighter: F-22 (replacing F-15)

A long range strategic bomber: B-2

A theater attack aircraft: F-117 or replacement (may be something to replace the F-111F)

A close range support aircraft: (in the mold of an A-10)

A tactical attack aircraft: JSF type (replacing F-16) capable of tactical ground strikes and SEAD missions.

A tanker type project: Think that's the Boeing 767 variant

An AEW aircraft: AWACS replacement/upgrade

I think a replacement for B-52 is a great idea too, nothing like a weapon that can loiter for hours dropping massive tons of bombs on targets. Also, somebody need to buy more AC-130Us.

[Mislovrit]

die JSF... DIE.

a Naval Eurofighter would be awesome to see. Given the performance capabilities of the EF right now, I could easily see a NEF in action.

Could end with a Euro version of the Super Bug if something goes wrong during the conversion.

[Skull Leader]

Also, somebody need to buy more AC-130Us.

352730[/snapback]

PREACH IT ON, BROTHER!! All hail the Pave Spectre! My only dislike about the U models is that they did away with the Black Crow radar (the bump that used to be on the port side of the nose)... this was a defining characteristic of a Gunship C-130.... now the remaining H models (and there are plenty left) are doing away with them too.

(AC-130U 90-0166 "Hell Raiser" over the gulf coast in Florida)

Edited December 16, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Skull Leader]

die JSF... DIE.

a Naval Eurofighter would be awesome to see. Given the performance capabilities of the EF right now, I could easily see a NEF in action.

Could end with a Euro version of the Super Bug if something goes wrong during the conversion.

352764[/snapback]

Hmm, will the new brit carriers be able to handle an aircraft that large? Aren't their new carrier designs still requiring a STOL aircraft? The Super Hornet isn't STOL capable...

[twich]

Iam curious as to why people dont seem to like the F-35? I agree that the F-22 is a poor replacement for the F-15, but I guess that is not something we can change right now, but would it not be better to have 1 jet that has multiple roles with similar parts to another jet in the inventory? While I dont like the concept of a single engine jet, the "jump jet" role seems really neat for the Marine Version of the F-35.

Twich

[David Hingtgen]

??? Agree with whom that the F-22 is a poor replacement for the -15? The F-22 is superior in every way except (presumably) "maximum dash speed on a cold day while in airshow configuration with non-standard engine trim."

The JSF is hated because it's inferior in many ways to the F-16, it's VERY compromised in most roles, loses its stealth if carrying more than 1/4 of an F-16's payload, and is ugly. And it has similar parts to nothing in the inventory. MAYBE it can share like the #2 bearing on the turbine shaft with the F-22 since they both have F119 engines, but that's about it. Plus the money used to develop and buy it could have bought more F-22's instead. (Which is what the USAF wanted to do by trying to kill the F-35A)

Edited December 16, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[twich]

I see that I was mis/un-informed on the subject, sorry to interrupt the discussion.

I thought that the trend of the thread was that people didnt like the F-22 because it wasnt as good as the F-15, but I guess I misread the "gist" of the thread.

Twich

[Skull Leader]

You're not interrupting anything, bud... feel free to join in the discussion!

Our gripe with the F-22A is that much of the aircraft's avionics system is already obsolete (in fact, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a processor or two that is out of production that is currently being USED in the F-22). It's still head and shoulders above what the rest of the world is flying, but it's not without it's issues.

Our gripe with the JSF/F-35 is that Lockheed/Martin is trying to sell us one fourth the aircraft at two thirds the price of an F-22. The F-16 outperforms it in virtually every respect (save stealth, but as David said, it doesn't take much to ruin that). Better to let the USAF cancel the F-35 and buy more Raptors and let the USN develop their own indiginous light strike fighter to replace the Legacy Hornet.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Skull Leader

[David Hingtgen]

Our thread is pretty much un-interruptible---that's actually how we maintain it--someone jumps in with a new topic or opinion and we discuss it. Otherwise we'd run out of stuff to say.

Anyways---if you really want a JSF--just buy an F-22! It has every feature the JSF has, but is superior in almost every way. About the only thing the JSF has on the F-22 is the ability to carry 2,000lb bombs internally, the F-22 could only do it externally. Since both are expected to "give up stealth" after the first few days and carry their loads externally, the F-22 will carry bigger loads farther and faster. The F-22's a BIG plane with the payload/range to match.

The JSF is a good Harrier replacement, but certainly isn't worth getting for F-16C/F-18C replacements. IMHO JSF should all be VTOL versions and go to the USMC and RN only.

Think about it---should a plane that's best at being a HARRIER replacement replace front-line fighters? (or strike-fighters if you want to call them that)

[Skull Leader]

Think about it---should a plane that's best at being a HARRIER replacement replace front-line fighters?  (or strike-fighters if you want to call them that)

352820[/snapback]

I would think not. Harriers are total hell on wheels when it comes to supporting troops on the ground and for coastal defense, but really I can think of a handful of fighters that can do every other job much better.

[kalvasflam]

Think about it---should a plane that's best at being a HARRIER replacement replace front-line fighters?  (or strike-fighters if you want to call them that)

352820[/snapback]

I would think not. Harriers are total hell on wheels when it comes to supporting troops on the ground and for coastal defense, but really I can think of a handful of fighters that can do every other job much better.

352846[/snapback]

Harriers had a rocky start in the U.S. marines, used to be known as the widowmaker due to the number of test pilot deaths.

It's usefulness to the Brits and others were because of the ability to deploy from their baby carriers. Marines liked it because it gave them the ability to have very front line air support.

But it seems to sacrifice a bit too much in terms of bomb loads, and range. I'd take a loaded A-6 any day. The real question is also logistics. Supporting Harriers or any jump jets in such close proximity to the battle field risks the loggies who are there to support the planes, i.e. load it with bombs, put fuel in it, etc.

The best thing about VTOL is the ability to disperse, and not be caught on a conventional field. But as luck would have it, the weakness of any warplane is the ability of their loggies to support them. Kill them, and survivability of airplanes don't mean jack.

BTW, AC-130s rock. I'd love to have one of those overhead in a low threat environment, i.e. Mogadishu. But unfortunately, in real battlefields with lots of SAMs and anti-air guns (thinking a potential Europe battle field in the 80s), AC-130s could get in trouble in an awful hurry. But it would destroy any unguarded target.

Edited December 16, 2005 by kalvasflam

[Skull Leader]

BTW, AC-130s rock.  I'd love to have one of those overhead in a low threat environment, i.e. Mogadishu.  But unfortunately, in real battlefields with lots of SAMs and anti-air guns (thinking a potential Europe battle field in the 80s), AC-130s could get in trouble in an awful hurry.  But it would destroy any unguarded target.

352854[/snapback]

AC-130s have eaten SAMS and AA sites for breakfast in almost ever major conflict they've been involved in. In vietnam they accounted for destruction of over half of the targets hit on the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the entire conflict. They actively hunted SAM and AA sites in Desert Storm and in OIF/OEF. They're VERY effective and VERY lethal. They're also not without countermeasure protection from SAMs. They have a chaff and flare dispenser mounted to the back cargo ramp that they just open and light off whenever SAMs cut loose.

A good friend of mine that just got back from spending 2 years in Iraq was in a convoy that got saved by an AC-130 once. They were on their way to Fallujah when they got pinned down by rebels. The Iraqis were positioned in such a way that if the American forces wanted to get at them, they'd have to expose themselves...

... so they called in the Gunship.

About 2 orbits later, "Heavy Metal 4" (the Gunships have been operating with the callsign "Heavy Metal" and a number designation in Iraq apparently) had racked up a 30 man bodycount.

[kalvasflam]

AC-130s have eaten SAMS and AA sites for breakfast in almost ever major conflict they've been involved in. In vietnam they accounted for destruction of over half of the targets hit on the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the entire conflict. They actively hunted SAM and AA sites in Desert Storm and in OIF/OEF. They're VERY effective and VERY lethal. They're also not without countermeasure protection from SAMs. They have a chaff and flare dispenser mounted to the back cargo ramp that they just open and light off whenever SAMs cut loose.

352874[/snapback]

Think European theater where you have literally a dozen mobile AA guns, 10s of SAM sites... it makes survivability difficult. Too much mass. But otherwise, I agree, if they put in Mogadishu a couple of AC-130U, it would've carved a clear path.

[Nied]

Just to add to what everyone else is saying.

F-22: probably the greatest fighter ever built, which honestly has become a target because of its cost (though programs like NMD are sacrosanct for some reason). The current processors may have gone out of production but processor fabrication (unlike other aircraft parts) is a relatively easy process. That and the planned avionics bus for the JSF is being designed with installation into the F-22 in mind. Hell I don't understand why they don't try putting the bulged doors they talk about installing on the F/B-22 so the standard F-22 could carry larger 2,000 lbs bombs.

F-35: I'm one of the few F-35 defenders around here. I think the mistake that most people make is they think of all the really flashy capabilities that the F-16 or the F/A-18 have in the A-A arena (where the F-35 isn't really an improvement), but don't think of the work they spend most of their time doing (boring mud moving). That's why I keep making all those A-7 jokes, because the JSF is more of a really good A-7 replacement, it's just we've been using hot-rod light weight fighters for that purpose for the last 20 years. Hell with it's fat fuselage and stubby wings it even looks a good deal like the good ol SLUF (the A-7's nickname Short Little Ugly F*cker). That's why I'm trying to think of good F-35 nicknames that reference the good ol' SLUF, so far I've got SLUF: TNG (The Next Generation) SLUF II, and JSLUF (that one's the hardest).

Edited December 16, 2005 by Nied

[Skull Leader]

Think European theater where you have literally a dozen mobile AA guns, 10s of SAM sites... it makes survivability difficult.  Too much mass.  But otherwise, I agree, if they put in Mogadishu a couple of AC-130U, it would've carved a clear path.

352876[/snapback]

I would argue that hovering over the city during the opening nights of the invasion of Baghdad would be something fierce to behold. You're talking about AA Guns on almost every building top (and plenty in the streets also) with the entire city ringed by SAM sites. Now, having said that, YES it would be suicide to send them in there completely alone, however they were anything but. There were Tomcats, Hornets, Vipers, and Eagles all over the skies of Iraq those nights, in many cases chasing after SAM sites the moment they plugged them in. ACs still had plenty to deal with though.

On to Mogadishu though, I'm pretty sure that 16SOS had a Spectre or two on station, the problem is, they didn't have hard confirmed data on where the targets were (they moved from building to building pretty regularly, and there were innocent civilians EVERYWHERE). I would not at all be surprised if the rebels surrounded themselves by innocents for just such a reason. Under night vision, one person very much looks like another, so unless you have a forward observer calling in the strike on a specific target (or that target is CLEARLY enemy in nature), blowing sh!t up at random can have pretty serious ramifications.

[edit: I did a little checking, 16 Special Operations Squadron DID have a contingent of Spectres on hand for Somalia, but I can't find any records of any combat with the AC-130Hs they sent.]

Edited December 16, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I think the JSF is only a good replacement for the F-117, its supersonic, it can carry a bit more internally, and it can defend itself better if it gets jumped by fighters.

The thing is, a lot of countries are buying the JSF with the assumption that it CAN do everything the falcon and hornet did. The thing is it can to some extent and is better in some areas, but certainly not better in most. I tend to think the JSF is a stealthy interdiction striker with MINIMAL a2a capabilities.

I also agree that it should be canned in favor of more F-22s. Its known throughout history that you need a big fighter to tack on multirole missions and capabilties and the armnaments needed. The F-4 and F-15 are great examples of this.

[twich]

Okay, let me ask this.....Does the F-22 have the same sort of thrust:weight ratio that the F-15 has? Meaning can it accelerate while climbing straight up like the f-15 is supposed to be able to do? I know that the f-22 can supercruise, but can the F-35 do the same since it is smaller, but has the same engine as the f-22.

Also, what is the weapon load of the F-35? does it have the same internal bays that the F-22 has? Why does the F-35 have a 27mm Mauser cannon internally mounted? Is that some sort of concession to Germany to try to get them to buy into the JSF? For the marine role as a replacement for the Harrier, do they intend to mount gunpods on the undercarriage like they did to the Harrier to give it better ground support capability?

Twich

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

F-22 has a greater thrust to weight ratio than the F-15. People complain about the YF-23 being canned in favor of the F-22, but most of us don't see any problem with the F-22 replacing the F-15, it is a BETTER fighter in just about every category, much like the F-15 was to the F-4.

F-35 cannot supercruise. It can carry 2 bombs and 2 missles internally. So far only the F-35A has an internal gun, a gun is needed in ANY fighter that may find itself in a dogfight no matter what the pencil pushers tell you. (F-4 pilots found themselves in a disadvantage in vietnam since they had no gun until later on). I don't think mounting the mauser cannon has anything to do with germany, rather I think it is for a more adequate ground attack gun.

F-35B and C don't have an internal gun but can mount gun pods.

[F-ZeroOne]

[

This is new though:

Britain in battle with US over fighter plane

Apparently some of the more xenophobic elements of our govt have problems sharing technology with one of (if not the) closest allies of the US.  While I think the VSTOL version of the SLUFF II (this is fun ) would be great replacement for the SHAR, a Sea Typhoon would give the RN the type of punch not seen since the days of the Phantom.

352717[/snapback]

Right, just see if we give you the jet engine again now!

Bring back Buccaneers!

(the tragedy is that there were plans for a "super"-Harrier, supersonic VTOL back in the 60s; although its unknown whether it could have been made to work...

Edited December 16, 2005 by F-ZeroOne

[kalvasflam]

On to Mogadishu though, I'm pretty sure that 16SOS had a Spectre or two on station, the problem is, they didn't have hard confirmed data on where the targets were (they moved from building to building pretty regularly, and there were innocent civilians EVERYWHERE). I would not at all be surprised if the rebels surrounded themselves by innocents for just such a reason. Under night vision, one person very much looks like another, so unless you have a forward observer calling in the strike on a specific target (or that target is CLEARLY enemy in nature), blowing sh!t up at random can have pretty serious ramifications.

[edit: I did a little checking, 16 Special Operations Squadron DID have a contingent of Spectres on hand for Somalia, but I can't find any records of any combat with the AC-130Hs they sent.]

352896[/snapback]

Agreed with the other points above on using AC-130Us alone. But even with other assets, the AC-130 is a bit too slow, and in that kind of AA intensive environment, it would get in trouble.

Now, my recollection is that they did not have a Spectre gunship on hand. This is mostly out of the book Blackhawk Down, which was as comprehensive a study as anyone did. But they also made a point that the little birds were already effective.

By the way, I disagree with the part about randomly blowing up people. In a combat zone, you have three types, friends, enemies, neutrals. You'd like to avoid hitting the neutrals, but under no circumstances do they ever take priority over friendlies. Having combat data in that situation was impossible. The priority was not positive target ID, that didn't happen much with neutrals anyway, the priority would've been to extract the troops.

In that situation, I'd have order the Spectre to literally mow down the entire crowd around Durant's chopper. Idiot Hollywood movie not withstanding, the entire crew was alive when that chopper went down, and they were subsequently all killed with exception of Durant. You know what, as a CO, at that point, I wouldn't have cared about what CNN thought, I would've saved my men, if it meant mowing down a bunch of people, so be it. After all, if they were running in the direction of that chopper, I'm pretty sure they weren't bringing roses. And war is a Darwainian process, the stupid generally died.

And you can't do a precision sniping job against a single target anyway in the air. People seem to always misunderstand the value of terror in war. That's something a gunship like that would bring. In Mogadishu, it would've been like Zeus sitting up in the clouds dropping thunderbolts.

The thing is, a lot of countries are buying the JSF with the assumption that it CAN do everything the falcon and hornet did. The thing is it can to some extent and is better in some areas, but certainly not better in most. I tend to think the JSF is a stealthy interdiction striker with MINIMAL a2a capabilities.

I dislike the fact that the armed forces decided to put everything in one basket, the marines, the air force, the navy all wanted JSF. Different variants. I remember once upon a time there was this program called FX, it was slated to be the tactical fighter for both the Navy and the Air Force, and it ended badly, although it did give the USAF the F-111. The only successful interservice fighters were the A-4 and the F-4 in my opinion. The requirements are just too different. And those requirements continue to diverge in many cases. Now, if they had a VF-1, then things would be different. :-)

[Skull Leader]

Now, my recollection is that they did not have a Spectre gunship on hand.  .

353025[/snapback]

The Gunship history page specifically mentions that some of them were deployed to Somalia.