Aircraft VS super thread!

[kalvasflam]

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.

353034[/snapback]

Never saw that page before, so don't know... link? All I know was that they did not participate in the actual raid. But I understand they were deployed in numbers along with an aircraft carrier after the event.

[Mislovrit]

Never saw that page before, so don't know...  link?  All I know was that they did not participate in the actual raid.  But I understand they were deployed in numbers along with an aircraft carrier after the event.

353043[/snapback]

Iirc the AC-130s along with artillary and tanks were not authorized to be used in any mission in Somalia.

[Skull Leader]

Never saw that page before, so don't know...  link?  All I know was that they did not participate in the actual raid.  But I understand they were deployed in numbers along with an aircraft carrier after the event.

353043[/snapback]

here

third paragraph down.

[kalvasflam]

here

third paragraph down.

353087[/snapback]

Ah, thanks, I see, ok, it says after initial support. The October incident happened toward the end of the U.S. involvement. Most of the heavier firepower were pulled out after the first few months there, I think that started in late 1992. No AC-130 were in Somolia at the time when the "incident" occurred, if they were there, general Garrison would've been grossly negligent in not using one to cut a swath through those pathetic militia.

[David Hingtgen]

I'd just like to point out that the F-22 has an INSANE amount of power. An F-22 fully loaded, in mil thrust, will out-accelerate an empty F-15 in afterburner. (IIRC). Or something along those lines. It's not even close. The engines have some 2/3 more power than the F-15C's, and the plane isn't much heavier but much sleeker. That makes it very fast.

Of course, the YF-23 has even more power and is even sleeker...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

The YF-23 had more power?" Interesting....well I do remember reading that it was faster and stealthier.

I am still trying to figure out what northrop grumman did with one of the prototypes earlier last year, was it just cleaned up for a museum or was it configured into the RFB proposal?

[Mislovrit]

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.

AC-130 do have the FCS to precision snipe at any target unfortunate enough to draw it's ire, since Vietnam. Mog like ODS and OIF, the AC crews would've needed precise coordinates on where the friendlies are and the targets are.

[David Hingtgen]

Ack, I always think of the GE-powered YF-23. Technically both the YF-22 and YF-23 carried both types of engines, but the F-22A has the weaker F119, and I think everyone assumed a production F-23A would have gotten the F120, as it was superior. (The F120 has insane growth potential---I wouldn't doubt it being developed to 45,000lbs by now if it had been selected)

Remember, the F-22 is the least impressive possible outcome from the ATF competition---the inferior (IMHO) airframe with the inferior engine. Still impressive, but we always think of what might have been. 2006 could have seen F-23A's with like 85,000lbs of total thrust.

[Warrior_Medic]

I'd just like to point out that the F-22 has an INSANE amount of power.  An F-22 fully loaded, in mil thrust, will out-accelerate an empty F-15 in afterburner.  (IIRC).  Or something along those lines.  It's not even close.  The engines have some 2/3 more power than the F-15C's, and the plane isn't much heavier but much sleeker.  That makes it very fast. 

Of course, the YF-23 has even more power and is even sleeker...

353124[/snapback]

Man, I remember that competition around 1990 (read about it way back in 88') and how I wanted the YF-23 Black Widow to win so bad. The YF-23 looked kick-ass and still does.

Too bad the NAVY never got interested in it toreplace the Tomcat.

[buddhafabio]

I'd just like to point out that the F-22 has an INSANE amount of power.  An F-22 fully loaded, in mil thrust, will out-accelerate an empty F-15 in afterburner.   (IIRC).   Or something along those lines.  It's not even close.   The engines have some 2/3 more power than the F-15C's, and the plane isn't much heavier but much sleeker.   That makes it very fast.  

Of course, the YF-23 has even more power and is even sleeker...

353124[/snapback]

Man, I remember that competition around 1990 (read about it way back in 88') and how I wanted the YF-23 Black Widow to win so bad. The YF-23 looked kick-ass and still does.

Too bad the NAVY never got interested in it toreplace the Tomcat.

353237[/snapback]

i think the people responsible for selecting new aircraft dont take stuff like superior or easier to manufacture in account when selecting a new airframe to replace the old. they tend to disreguard anything that does not look like a conventional craft. or some thing that does not serve their intrests.

the yf-23 is an example of a nonconventional looking air craft and the boeing jsf is another good example.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I think hd the YF23 won the competition the navy may have wanted it, they did want a NATF after all and I believe that was only after the competition was won. A navalized YF-23 would have been cool.

[kalvasflam]

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.

AC-130 do have the FCS to precision snipe at any target unfortunate enough to draw it's ire, since Vietnam. Mog like ODS and OIF, the AC crews would've needed precise coordinates on where the friendlies are and the targets are.

353174[/snapback]

Sniping is not that easy, granted, the AC-130 is better at it than a plane dropping PGMs, I still would not want to be in the vicinity when a shell from an 130 hit. It'll cause collateral.

In Mog, the AC crew would've have exact coordinates I think. Because the little birds that provided airsupport had pretty good comms to the ground troops who gave them targeting information. But in case of Durant's chopper, no info would've been needed, just plaster the entire area around the chopper. I mean, literally, if it moved, it died. And don't send in the two Deltas until that part was done.

Speaking of YF-23, didn't they move the one out of Wright Patterson? Hope they're turning it into something.

Edited December 17, 2005 by kalvasflam

[Mislovrit]

Sniping is not that easy, granted, the AC-130 is better at it

It is still easy enough for the AC-130 gunner to put a couple of 25mm shells through a targeted individual or vehicle.

than a plane dropping PGMs, I still would not want to be in the vicinity when a shell from an 130 hit.  It'll cause collateral damage.

AC-130s would be using the 25mm and the 40mm cannons on targets close to friendlies, the 105mm would not be use unless it is ask for by the ground forces.

[Skull Leader]

Sniping is not that easy, granted, the AC-130 is better at it

It is still easy enough for the AC-130 gunner to put a couple of 25mm shells through a targeted individual or vehicle.

than a plane dropping PGMs, I still would not want to be in the vicinity when a shell from an 130 hit.  It'll cause collateral damage.

AC-130s would be using the 25mm and the 40mm cannons on targets close to friendlies, the 105mm would not be use unless it is ask for by the ground forces.

353302[/snapback]

ACs do more shooting with the 40mm than anything else. The dual 20s on the A/H models (and recent pictures seem to indicate that the H models are no longer carrying the 20mms at all) and the single 20 on the U model is really only used to soften up light targets (vehicles) or for area saturation. The 105 "big mother" is usually used for things like bringing buildings down or heavily fortified bunkers.

I have a gun camera video from an AC-130 in afghanistan... they take out this entire encampment around a mosque (and eventually they were authorized to bring that down also). I can only imagine what those people on the ground must've thought. They had no A/A defenses, and being in the middle of the night, they probably had little to no idea what was attacking them. It's grisly enough that you do eventually see a body or two go flying. I believe most everything fired in the video was from the 105 (or so the rate of fire would indicate)... you don't see any tracers, so I don't think the 20 was used, and you don't hear the steady rhythmic thump of the 40mm. It's a pretty wicked video, and easy enough to see why they got the name "spectre".

[Warrior_Medic]

No longer the "F/A-22" Raptor, it's "F-22A" Raptor.

Dear Raptor Team,

We did it! Initial Operational Capability (IOC) of the F-22A Raptor was declared this afternoon by General Ronald E. Keys, Air Combat Commander at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

In doing so, the General said the Raptor is now available for use in combat around the globe and for use in homeland defense missions. The current 27th Fighter Squadron combat deployment capability with the F-22A is a 12-ship deployable package designed to execute air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.

In the words of General Keys, “The F-22A fulfills a long quest to bring fifth generation capabilities of stealth, supercruise and precision to the warfighter today and 30 years from today. If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us. The Raptor’s cutting edge technology brings us continued joint air dominance despite advancing enemy threats.â€

While declaring IOC, General Keys also publicly announced that the name of the Raptor has been changed from F/A-22 to F-22A, as indicated earlier this week when Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Michael Moseley, said the Air Force decided to remove the letter "A" from the first part of the fighter's designation to better align the Raptor with previous Air Force fighters. The “A†in the back of F-22 is also in line with the way the Air Force denotes updated or spiral versions that are produced after the initial baseline model weapons system.

From our perspective, we’ll keep on making the best fighter ever designed, tested, manufactured and delivered to a grateful nation.

Congratulations again and well done on making history!

Larry Lawson,

Executive Vice President & F-22 General Manager

[Mislovrit]

and the single 20 on the U model is really only used to soften up light targets (vehicles) or for area saturation.

AC-130U had the 20mms replace with a single 25mm rotary cannon.

[Skull Leader]

and the single 20 on the U model is really only used to soften up light targets (vehicles) or for area saturation.

AC-130U had the 20mms replace with a single 25mm rotary cannon.

353344[/snapback]

... I knew that... really I did... I swear. (I really need to get that Gunship history book by squadron... sheesh)

[Nied]

Ack, I always think of the GE-powered YF-23.  Technically both the YF-22 and YF-23 carried both types of engines, but the F-22A has the weaker F119, and I think everyone assumed a production F-23A would have gotten the F120, as it was superior.  (The F120 has insane growth potential---I wouldn't doubt it being developed to 45,000lbs by now if it had been selected)   

Remember, the F-22 is the least impressive possible outcome from the ATF competition---the inferior (IMHO) airframe with the inferior engine.    Still impressive, but we always think of what might have been.    2006 could have seen F-23A's with like 85,000lbs of total thrust.

353207[/snapback]

That's a huge assumption assumption to be making. It's just as possible that the F120 could have been picked for the F-22 and it would have all that extra thrust to play with (probably would have made it more maneuverable too since teh F-22 has thrust vectoring). But it doesn't matter, the F120 isn't dead, it lives on as the 45,000 lb thrust F136 for the JSF.

[kalvasflam]

and the single 20 on the U model is really only used to soften up light targets (vehicles) or for area saturation.

AC-130U had the 20mms replace with a single 25mm rotary cannon.

353344[/snapback]

Well, it's not as if they had less ammo all of a sudden. I believe the gunship was originally developed to take on the Ho Chi Minh trail, but it obviously has other uses, one thing I can think of is to use it against unarmored infantry that does not have the necessary anti-air capabilities. Places like Mogadishu would've been perfect, and I believe AC-130s have been quite instrumental over both Afghanistan and Iraq once SEAD had been completed.

[Mislovrit]

Well, it's not as if they had less ammo all of a sudden. 

The miniguns and then the vuclans were replace to increase firepower and more importantly range as the threat of MANPADS became increasing prevalent.

I believe the gunship was originally developed to take on the Ho Chi Minh trail,

More important task was to task is to support ground forces who're under attack.

but it obviously has other uses, one thing I can think of is to use it against unarmored infantry

Gunships were created to attack everything land based the enemy have from infantry to MBTs to bunkers and etc.

[Nied]

but it obviously has other uses, one thing I can think of is to use it against unarmored infantry

Gunships were created to attack everything land based the enemy have from infantry to MBTs to bunkers and etc.

353777[/snapback]

I still remember attending the Andrews Air Force Base Open house one year, and taking a look inside the Spectre they had set up there. There was a guy near me who took up a conversation with one of the crewmembers that was simply priceless. My favorite was when they got to the 105mm cannon:

Guy: "Now what's this?"

Crewmember: "That's a 105mm Howitzer."

Guy: "what kind of holes?"

Crewmember: "BIG holes."

Guy: "Like into buildings and stuff?"

Crewmember: "I'll tell you the answer but then I'm going to have to kill you."

[Skull Leader]

I believe the gunship was originally developed to take on the Ho Chi Minh trail,

More important task was to task is to support ground forces who're under attack.

353777[/snapback]

Actually, it depends on the gunship type as for what it's intended role was. The original AC-47 "Spooky" was designed almost solely for infantry supression (they only carried 3 7.62mm miniguns... and in one airframe's case 5 .30cal machineguns). This was the same role that was delegated to the AC-119G "Shadow" (4 miniguns I believe... maybe 3, I can't remember). The AC-119K "Stinger", with it's added 20mm vulcan cannons were tasked with troop support AND vehicle hunting up and down the trail.

The AC-130 program was a *little* more diverse than that. When the original AC-130As were sent to SEA, they were packing FOUR 7.62 miniguns and FOUR 20mm vulcan cannons, like the Stinger, they were originally tasked with troop support but eventually got released to their truck-hunting duties on the trail (with deadly efficiency it turned out). When project "surprise package" was commenced and the AC-130As had the dual 40mm Bofors cannons added (at the loss of two minis and two 20mms), minor artillery strikes on lightly fortified positions were added to the tasking order. the "pave pronto" upgrade (the addition of the black crow ignition-finding radar on the side of the nose) simply made the AC-130A a more deadly night-fighter. That was about the extent of the AC-130As duties. With project "Pave Spectre" (the arming of the AC-130Es with the 105mm howitzer, the AC-130As never received this), the AC-130Es got duties tank hunting (used very efficiently during the easter offensive in the early 1970s), as the 105 allowed the Spectre to hit targets harder and from ranges further out. Unfortunately at these ranges, the 20mms were rendered ineffective, although the 40mm was still useful.

As a side note/bit of trivia, at least two AC-130As were known to fly missions as recently as the first gulf war. There is some debate as to whether or not those flew in the war with their original 3-bladed allison props, or the 4-bladed hamilton standard props. Most of my late-life photos of AC-130As doesn't show the props (or shows the props in motion), so it's difficult to tell. I know at least one AC-130A DID get 4-bladed props, and logic would lead me to believe the others did too, but I can't prove it.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Knight26]

Check this got it at work: http://www.micom.net/oops/F14aExplosion.wmv

[VF-19]

Check this got it at work: http://www.micom.net/oops/F14aExplosion.wmv

355604[/snapback]

Looks like a compressor stall...

[Nied]

Check this got it at work: http://www.micom.net/oops/F14aExplosion.wmv

355604[/snapback]

Looks like a compressor stall...

355694[/snapback]

Agreed. The Tomcat in that video was from VF-213 which only recently traded it's F-14As in for Ds. Looks like the TF-30 struck again.

[Fortress_Maximus]

I need to spend more time reading this thread from the beginning.

Anyone discuss how some fighters that can launch from subs underwater yet? I have a video somewhere, let me dig it up, will post later.

[Zentrandude]

Check this got it at work: http://www.micom.net/oops/F14aExplosion.wmv

355604[/snapback]

I remember seeing that awhile ago can't remember who posted that. I bet the pilot was thinking yah I made my self look coo........ Ohhhh shiiiiiiiiizzzzzzz

I like the b17 bomb run pic. the pilot has good aim to be able to drop a bomb on a plane.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Zentrandude

[David Hingtgen]

Japan launched planes from subs in WW2. They had to surface to do so, but it happened.

[Zentrandude]

Think there was a russian one too.

[Phyrox]

I need to spend more time reading this thread from the beginning.

Anyone discuss how some fighters that can launch from subs underwater yet? I have a video somewhere, let me dig it up, will post later.

356275[/snapback]

I don't think it has been discussed much. My only working knowledge of submarine-launched aircraft comes from World War Two and earlier, so maybe there were experiments since then that I am unaware of.

I don't recall any fighters launching from subs. Most of the big interwar powers toyed with the idea of aircraft launching submarines, all of which carried observation aircraft, not fighters. The only classes I can recall off the top of my head are the modified British M-class and the French Surcouf...but I know there are more. During World War Two of course the Japanese I-400 class is the best known of the aircraft carrying submarines, and it did have a dedicated attack aircraft designed for it (not a fighter though).

As for as how they launched, they were all (to my knowledge) seaplanes. Most were not really "launched" by the submarine as much as carried on board and "released" onto the open water with the help of a crane. The later Japanese craft however had catapults similar to what was seen on aircraft carriers to actually launch the aircraft.

It is entirely conceivable that some post-war experiments with small rocket/jet fighters would have taken place, very similar to the early submarine-missle experiments. In fact...now that I think about it, this sounds familiar. Maybe the sub used to test the "loon" or whatever the US V-1 was called was used to test fire a small manned aircraft?

Hope someone else has more on your "sub launched fighters"

[David Hingtgen]

Somewhat related: USAF experimented with zero-length-launch planes, notably the F-100 IIRC. Basically it's a JATO setup on a rail, but with a much more powerful rocket. Achieved flying speed in 5 inches I think. It's akin to launching a model rocket, with the launch rail angled about 45 degrees.

[David Hingtgen]

Time to talk JSF again!

UK's next carrier design seems finalized, and the French plan to license the design and build one of their own to complement the Charles De Gaulle, so this will be a very important class. Anyways---it seems the UK is becoming less and less enthralled with the STOVL F-35, and Australia is getting the impression that their version will NOT be the same as the USA's (less stealthy, etc) and cost more than expected. So basically the two most important buyers are decreasing orders and are unhappy.

Point: What will the new carriers carry? UK seems especially interested in early warning craft, and is considering everything from helicopters to V-22's to E-2's. The French already operate E-2's from the De Gaulle, so the new carrier could certainly support them.

Second point: Since nobody's liking the STOVL JSF now, why not a full-fleged multi-role Naval plane? The new carrier's quite large, and it absolutely could support a wing full of Rafales---perhaps Super Hornets. Why compromise with a heavily-restriced JSF (and the UK isn't happy in that many of the weapons they want to use won't fit internally period--they don't plan to use soley JDAM and AMRAAM) when you've got a carrier big enough to accept conventional planes? Either buy the F-35C like the US Navy will, or see if you can get Super Hornets. (While I think the Rafale would be an excellent choice, I think politics would prevent France's best plane from being the Royal Naval's main force)

Check out the new carrier---65,000 tons, that's like a Midway class, which could take F-4's and F-18's (though not F-14's). A big issue is fitting catapults--either a full assortment, or maybe just one for heavily-loaded E-2's. The final fitting will be determined by what planes they use.

Edited January 6, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[RFT]

Time to talk JSF again!

UK's next carrier design seems finalized, and the French plan to license the design and build one of their own to complement the Charles De Gaulle, so this will be a very important class.   Anyways---it seems the UK is becoming less and less enthralled with the STOVL F-35, and Australia is getting the impression that their version will NOT be the same as the USA's (less stealthy, etc) and cost more than expected.  So basically the two most important buyers are decreasing orders and are unhappy.

From the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if the stovl version was dropped altogether. if we (the UK) are goign to be feilding a "proper" sized carrier we might as well save money and get the carrier variant. Post cold-war, the dispersal advantages of stovl don't seem worth the cost and complextity. I'm a huge fan of the harrier, and I'm sad to see it go, but as an air force plane its party trick is now largely irrelevant, and as a naval plane it would never even have existed if we'd kept full-size carriers. It's a classic British job of making a triumph from a bad situation, but the bad situation was of our own doing to start with.

Point:  What will the new carriers carry?  UK seems especially interested in early warning craft, and is considering everything from helicopters to V-22's to E-2's.  The French already operate E-2's from the De Gaulle, so the new carrier could certainly support them.

Nah, I'm sure we'll carry on in the grand british tradition of slinging an ugly radar onto a plane or helicopter not really suitable for it. maybe we'll dust off some of the Fairey Gannet AEW.3s in museums.

Second point:  Since nobody's liking the STOVL JSF now, why not a full-fleged multi-role Naval plane?  The new carrier's quite large, and it absolutely could support a wing full of Rafales---perhaps Super Hornets.

I think most likely would be the F-35C as it's already a UK-involved project. If the whole JSF things falls through (which it might), then it'll be Rafales or maybe a navalised version of the Typhoon. I can't see the UK buying an off-the-peg US aircraft over a european one these days (though we did with the Apache, thinking of it). If poltics (and french/british pride) allows the french navy to be operating a UK-designed carrier, then I'm sure it would allow the fleet air arm to fly french planes. Just have to hope we dont; get shafted on the deal like we did on the Jaguar- another plane now on the way out of the RAF which I'll be sad to see go.

of course the other thing is what are we going to do for all the other piddly things you need with proper carriers - trainers (goshawks, presumably) COD (I guess we're using helicopters for this at the moment but a fixed-wing aircraft would be a lot more efficient)

Edited January 6, 2006 by RFT

[F-ZeroOne]

Time to talk JSF again!

UK's next carrier design seems finalized, and the French plan to license the design and build one of their own to complement the Charles De Gaulle, so this will be a very important class.  Anyways---it seems the UK is becoming less and less enthralled with the STOVL F-35, and Australia is getting the impression that their version will NOT be the same as the USA's (less stealthy, etc) and cost more than expected.  So basically the two most important buyers are decreasing orders and are unhappy. 

Point:  What will the new carriers carry?  UK seems especially interested in early warning craft, and is considering everything from helicopters to V-22's to E-2's.  The French already operate E-2's from the De Gaulle, so the new carrier could certainly support them.

Second point:  Since nobody's liking the STOVL JSF now, why not a full-fleged multi-role Naval plane? 

AWACs = MRCA (Must Refurbish Canberras Again!)

The Merlin is a fairly big copter - perhaps a variant?

Fighters: theres a guy in South Africa who is still operating some Buccaneers, perhaps we could buy them back...

I find it unlikely that the government would be able to seriously consider buying Rafales, especially as far as the general press is concerned they're the same as Typhoons (canard deltas, must be the same right?), and worse, French (no disrespect intended to any French MWers, I'm just looking it the way the UK tabloids would - they tend to treat international affairs like a playground fight at times!). I'm sure BaE would love the chance to offer a Naval variant, and the carrier is way bigger than I was expecting (would be nice if the lead ship could be called Ark Royal, but we already have one of those and I doubt the politically correct lobby would go for Warspite these days... ), but its been a long time since the UK built any carrier aircraft for itself - although there is the Goshawk...

Which pretty much leaves American. F/A-18s would be a suitable compromise, I guess, but again, would probably get the government crucified in the press.

Calling the Spirit of Sydney Camm, your country needs you! Calling the Spirit of Sydney Camm...

Edited January 6, 2006 by F-ZeroOne

[RFT]

one or other of the new carriers'll be Ark Royal. when the new boats go into service we won't have the old one any more.