Aircraft VS super thread!

[David Hingtgen]

CAP is CAP, Alert is Alert. CAP is your basic "flying around in circles just in case there's trouble". CAP's are usually set up around AWACS, and at borders etc. Specific time and place. "patrol here to here, N to S then W to E, then circle around the other way, repeat x2"

Alert is "sitting on the ground ready to launch at short notice". No planned mission/goal/routing. "If something comes, shoot it down".

A plane is ready to scramble in however many minutes it's set up to. As in, Alert 5 is ready in 5 minutes, Alert 15 is 15 minutes, etc. "Zulu alert" is basically Alert 0, which is literally sitting in the cockpit with the engines running, near the end of the runway. Rarely done nowadays.

Drawing away a CAP isn't really a tactic, since CAP's are intended to fly around expected trouble spots looking for people to go after. You will draw them regardless. The No-Fly Zones in Iraq were the largest and longest CAPs ever I think. Flew pre-planned routes at certain times and places, just in case something occured.

For "cold" scrambles, basically the bigger the plane the longer it takes. A key selling point of the F-20 was a MUCH shorter scramble time than anything else. Even with the F-15's massive speed and climb advantage, in any condition other than Zulu Alert the F-20 could intercept most anything well before an F-15.

Two main factors for starting a plane up:

1. Engine start. It's not a car, it takes more than 2 secs. And if you have 2 engines it takes twice as long.

2. Avionics, particularly the nav systems. Can easily take 10+ mins to align them.

A possible factor, if you're limited to short-range missiles (a lot of planes/nations are) could be missile cooling, as heat-seekers need their seekers cooled prior to launch. I have no idea how long it takes to cool them.

As for anti-sub---totally independent. The missions are exclusive--fighters can't attack subs, and sub-hunters can't engage in air combat. One mission even a Super Hornet can't perform at all is sub hunting. And you don't want to take an S-3 against a MiG-29.

Edited October 29, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Zentrandude]

Which countries? Like China, Iran or Russia?

And don't worry about it not being a vs post, if anything I post anything that has to do with military aviation here, like toys, Ace combat stuff, flight sims, its like a general military aviation thread.

340388[/snapback]

think they said india since he was from there.

edit: found an article of it after a google search

link

Edited October 29, 2005 by Zentrandude

[Knight26]

DH-

IR seekers in missiles are cooled just prior to launch. IT used to be that the navy had a nitrogen bottle in the launcher that cooled the seeker, and the airforce included the bottle in the missile, that is why the air force and navy bought different model sidewinders. However starting with the AIM-9M I believe they all have the nitrogen bottle in the missile now. The nitrogen bottle is openned when the pilot triggers the launch by the firing of a squib, which is how all of the missiles systems are activated.

[Skull Leader]

as a small reference to those who may not fully grasp how long it takes to get a fighter running from a cold position, the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds (both of which are pre-flighted extensively before the pilots even step into the plane) Take most of a 5-minute song to get their turbines spooled up before it can produce military power. That's minus weapons checks (which the demo teams obviously don't require) and any flight computer alignments (probably part of the pre-flight routine done by the engineers.

I'm guessing things could probably be pushed a little, especially during "no-kidding" combat ops (I'm sure the Blue Angels and the thunderchickens take every kind of precaution they can), but I would still imagine something between 4-8 minutes to get a jet up and running.

Edited October 29, 2005 by Skull Leader

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Oh it does take a while. i remember in 04 I was at the oceana show right at the fence before the flight line up close, it was amazing and I got to see the super bug, tomcat, and eagle startup! Did I mention loud? who cares I love planes!(Me who thinks being paid by the government to go live on a carrier for 3 months and illustrate what goes on to be a heaven sent dream come true...someday!!)

[David Hingtgen]

I believe the AIM-9M is still made in "USAF" and "USN" versions. I know the Navy still has external nitrogen bottles, as it's a key way to tell the various Super Hornet blocks apart. Newer ones have different wingtip launch rails, and the difference is where the nitrogen bottle is.

[David Hingtgen]

Just an FYI. There's some nice new pics of the F-22 at the USAF's site. Non-squished this time.

http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=40

Plenty to make wallpaper from.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Knight and any other 1/18 fans...

http://www.figures.com/databases/action.cg...rticle=185&nl=1

1/18 A-10 ANNOUNCED! For fall 2006, the styrofoam one shown at fall toyfair was just a styrofoam placeholder to give an idea of scale!!

Let us now proceed to beg for a 1/18 Tomcat, Phantom and Crusader!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

The MIG-29 Volume from the Warbird Tech series of books is out, I skimmed through it @my local BNN. Any of you read it yet? I found it intriguing, Yefim Gordon worked on it and others. It turns out, Russia actually proposed MIG-29s for the philippines! I am not surprised they did not get them.

Anyways, they did show the OVT prototype from 2001, the one still flying with the swifts team, but back in 2001, get this, it had WINGTIP missle rails!

Anyone else have pics of fulcrums with wingtip rails? This is awesome! Makes it look like a hybrid fulcrum and falcon.....very cool looking.

[hellohikaru]

Shin

The PAF was close to acquiring the Temco Super Pinto light attacker/jet trainer. I heard they have the rights to build them locally. Dunno what happened next but it would have provided them with a useful A-37 type COIN bird with the same engine as the F-5. Might have not made much of a difference given how poorly managed the country is.

[Noyhauser]

Questions for any pilots/plane buffs here,

- Do the number of planes in a Combat Air Patrol for a fleet depend on the size of the fleet or is there usually a fixed number of craft up at any given time no matter what the size of the fleet is? Are antisub planes or AWACs part of a CAP?

340507[/snapback]

It changes, depending on the situation. During the Operation Enduring freedom in Afghanistan, the Kitty Hawk was deployed with none of its fighters, and it was primarily used as a base for special operations forces (there were like 4 carriers in the area at the time). However I think other than for exceptional situations, ship's airwings are basically set with little variation on types of roles available.

[Skull Leader]

your average CAP has traditionally been two aircraft (a flight lead and a wingman), but it's not a hard concrete rule. For example, Tomcats enforcing the "no-fly zone" over Iraq shortly after the first gulf war typically flew in twos. But when the mission called for a photo-op, a TARPS Tomcat typically went up alone (like the VF-103 TARPS bird that was shot down), relying on USAF aircraft (or other USN flights)in the region for air support.

[David Hingtgen]

Draken retirement: http://www.shotbyme.at/byedraken.html

Apparently the Viggen retirement was on the same day! (no pics yet, but incredibly ironic)

Note the insignia on the Draken---Austria's is quite similar to the UN Spacy's.

Edited November 29, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[F-ZeroOne]

Draken retirement: http://www.shotbyme.at/byedraken.html

Apparently the Viggen retirement was on the same day!    (no pics yet, but incredibly ironic)

Note the insignia on the Draken---Austria's is quite similar to the UN Spacy's.

348429[/snapback]

Sigh - last of the 50s - 60s "Gerry Anderson" designs... I've always liked the Draken.

[Skull Leader]

Strange, wasn't the viggen designed to REPLACE the Drakken?

[David Hingtgen]

Thus the irony.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

The gripen must be that good for Sweden not to need the Viggen any longer! At least we can play the draken in ace combat zero. I always thought the draken and viggen were very cool loooking, the viggen being particularly menacing.....as Scorch's plane in ringraiders.

BTW Flyingmule.com has pics of the 50th anniversary VFA-102 Diamondbacks CAG F/A-18F, and VX-9 F-14D black tomcat. (The playboy bunny VX-4 F-14A is a Cyber hobby exclusive).

And Forces of Valor has a presumably redesigned F-14A coming in febuary....looks different but the shot was from far away. Its a VF-154 black knights bird.

[hellohikaru]

The Gripen is very much like the Viggen only smaller and more manueverable. Too bad they are retiring the Viggens prematurely. Politics definitely since they only recently upgraded the Viggens with multirole capability including AMRAAM for the Jaktviggen.

[Lightning]

speaking of planes retiring, is there any countries still flying the F-5? or are private collectors flying them now?

[Skull Leader]

speaking of planes retiring, is there any countries still flying the F-5? or are private collectors flying them now?

348906[/snapback]

I'm pretty sure there are a fair number of nations that use them for various services, but I don't know if any of them are front-line anymore.

[David Hingtgen]

There are a few private F-5's out there for hire for movies, ads, etc. Need a figher jet in a scene? They're available.

USAF F-16's outperformed by Russian aircraft

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Pakistan may like to think twice about acquiring F-16s following reports that in the recently concluded joint US-Indian air force exercises, the much-vaunted aircraft did not come out the winner in its “encounters” with Indian Sukhoi-30 MKIs.

The exercises had mixed teams of Indian and American pilots on both sides, according to a report on Monday in the Christian Science Monitor, and observers say that in a surprising number of encounters - particularly between the American F-16s and the Indian Sukhoi-30 MKIs - the Indian pilots came out the winners. “Since the cold war, there has been the general assumption that India is a third-world country with Soviet technology, and wherever the Soviet-supported equipment went, it didn’t perform well,” says Jasjit Singh, director of the Centre for Air Power Studies in New Delhi. “That myth has been blown out by the results” of these air exercises.

The Monitor report filed from New Delhi says, “But there are some signs that America’s premier fighter jet, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, is losing ground to the growing sophistication of Russian-made fighter planes, and that the US should be more wary about presuming global air superiority - the linchpin of its military might. ‘The Sukhoi is a ... better plane than the F-16,’ says Vinod Patney, a retired Indian Air Force marshal, and former vice chief of air staff. ‘But we’re not talking about a single aircraft. We’re talking about the overall infrastructure, the command and control systems, the radar on the ground and in the air, the technical crew on the ground, and how do you maximise that infrastructure. This is where the learning curve takes place.’”

While Indian bloggers are generally ecstatic about the performance of the Indian pilots against the American aircraft, an American pilot who participated in the exercise expressed disgust over triumphant Indian comments, pointing out that the point of the exercise was to learn and “for two weeks of training, both sides got more out of their training than they probably would in two months”.

The Monitor report quotes military experts who say that the joint exercises occurred at a time when America’s fighter jet prowess is slipping. Since the US victories in the first Gulf War, a war dependent largely on air power, the Russians and French have improved the aviation electronics or avionics and weapons capabilities of their Sukhoi and Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft. These improvements have given countries like India, which use the Sukhois and Mirages, a rough parity with US fighter planes like the F-16 and F-15C. China, too, now has 400 late-model Sukhois.

The report notes that “while the Indian Air Force designed the exercises to India’s advantage - forcing pilots to fight ‘within visual range’ rather than using America’s highly advanced ‘beyond visual range’ sensing equipment - both observers and participants admit that Indian aircraft and personnel performed much better than expected”. The Su-30 MKI “is an amazing jet that has a lot of manoeuvrability,” Capt Martin Mentch told an Air Force publication, AFPN. Manoeuvrability is key for missions of visual air combat. If it turns out the US Air Force did, in fact, “get their clocks cleaned,” it will have been the second time. In Cope India 2004, an air combat exercise that took place near the Indian city of Gwalior, US F-15s were eliminated in multiple exercises against Indian late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers. In the 2005 exercises in Kalaikundi air base near Calcutta, Americans were “most impressed” by the MiG-21 Bisons and the Su-30 MKIs.

Maj Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing’s chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India 2004, admitted that the US Air Force underestimated the Indians. “The outcome of the (2004) exercise boils down to (the fact that) they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected,” he told Aviation Week last year. “They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly.”

One USAF controller working aboard an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) plane told reporters at Kalaikundi Air Base that he was impressed by the speed in which Indian pilots responded to target assignments given to them by AWACS. The AWACS, while operated by Americans, was acting as a neutral party, feeding target assignments to both Indian and American pilots during the exercise. In most cases, the Indians responded to target assignments faster than the American pilots did – “a surprising fact, given that this was the first time Indian pilots had used the American AWACS capability”.

[buddhafabio]

its mostly a matter of morale.

Edited December 2, 2005 by buddhafabio

[Coota0]

Is there a functional reason for this? ( i.e. ID wreckage, etc) or is it some kind of tradition,etc. (i.e. I 've never seen tanks get stenciled, then again I've never seen modern tanks up close)

Thanks

348975[/snapback]

Tanks usually have the name of the tank on it and a lot of times for the names of the crew.

[David Hingtgen]

Pilot's names have been stenciled on since the beginning, but callsigns tended to fade away in the jet era--however, many say Top Gun made them popular again, and it is obvious that they did start becoming much more common around that time.

Every pilot has an "assigned" plane with his name on it, but he will fly every plane in the squadron equally. For important things (first mission of a war, last flight coming home from deployment, etc) the crew chiefs will try to make it so that as many pilots as possible get to fly "their" plane, but usually it's random chance.

[Skull Leader]

About the article David posted:

No sane pilot in an F-16 would try to take on a Su-30MkI. The F-16 is a great jet for a wide variety of roles, but I'd have a hard time seeing it come out on top over a dedicated air-superiority fighter. The situation becomes even MORE stratified when you take into account that the F-16s we are selling Pakistan are outdated and outequipped. They'll do more for the nations morale than anything else. Given the level of training the typical Pakistani pilot probably receives, they'll likely turn and run the moment a Flanker is sighted (and the only thing that maneuver will change is where the Indian missile impacts the viper, lol). They can't hope to compare the F-16 and the Su-30MkI in that fashion, The F-16s Pakistan is buying are better used as ground-pounders and LIGHT fighters. The Su-30 was designed to eat aircraft like that for lunch.

About Callsigns:

Like David said... for trips to and from the boat, TDY, and ceremonial flights... that's the only times a pilot is guaranteed to get *their* ride. Any other time, it's a fair bet they will be riding someone elses plane. It's just a matter of which jets the sh!tshirts get ready to fly.

[Knight26]

ah I am back and loving Edwards, once I get my new digicam I will take pictures around the base of the various aircraft on display. I would have some now but my truck got broken into and my camera was one of the items that was stolen. I will go out and buy a new one around X-mas, but it was cool today on my lunch break I rode my bike up the NASA gate, and it has three gate guards. One of the lifting body test birds, the X-29, the F-8SCW, and F-8FBW it was quite cool.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

New Ace Combat Zero trailer

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20051202/acz.htm

There is a link near the bottom so you can watch on ur comp instead of streaming!

Movement looks a lot more fluid, the F-14 FINALLY gets a nice ace scheme, and the trailer is awesome.

I should upload some shots from the oceana air show this weekend....wow its been a while!

Knight what are you flight testing@ Edwards? Will you get to see the YF-23?

[Skull Leader]

Err, the Tomcats had great paintschemes in AC5? About the only one that wasn't any good was the ace paintscheme for the F-14D (which kinda had a JASDF 50th anniversary feel to it)

[Mislovrit]

No sane pilot in an F-16 would try to take on a Su-30MkI.

Severely underestimating what a western pilot can do with a non-obsolete F-16. And F-16 pilot may not always get a choice in which battles they could avoid if the other side presses the issue.

Though better matchup would be between the F-16s and the Mirage2000-5 which India brought a tone of.

[myk]

No sane pilot in an F-16 would try to take on a Su-30MkI.

Severely underestimating what a western pilot can do with a non-obsolete F-16. And F-16 pilot may not always get a choice in which battles they could avoid if the other side presses the issue.

Though better matchup would be between the F-16s and the Mirage2000-5 which India brought a tone of.

349184[/snapback]

What's the deal with the F-16? Is it that far behind in capability? And, I always thought questions like this one were decided by the pilot, not the plane...

[Mislovrit]

What's the deal with the F-16?

Nothing just Pakistan is getting some older iirc A or b models.

Is it that far behind in capability?

Current new F-16 models with a decent pilot should give a SU30MKI plenty of grieve.

And, I always thought questions like this one were decided by the pilot, not the plane...

Correct

[ghostryder]

Anybody have offical performance stats for the F-16A vs. the Su-30MKI? I always thought that the F-16 was unmatched in instantaneous turn rate (or was this the hornet?), and that the newer generation fighters like the Su-30MKI generally had better high-AOA capability.

Also, weren't the Indian pilots using helmet-mounted targetting systems? I'm not discrediting the account, but it would be nice to know exact details of the exercise. It just seems strange for the F-16 to get spanked so badly, even given differences in pilot skill.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

The article did say that some of the advantage was to the IAF. They US was not able to use its BVR capability for the most part. I think the F-16 had a better turn rate than the MKI but the thing is the MKI is assisted by thrust vectoring, which no doubt increases turn rate. But yes you are right the AOA capability of the MKI is higher.

It is really an unfair comparison, the F-16C made in the 80s and the MKI showing up in the late 90s.

Even the last excercise, where the Su-30s supposedly nailed the US F-15s, that was also fought on unfair/unbalanced terms.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Err, the Tomcats had great paintschemes in AC5? About the only one that wasn't any good was the ace paintscheme for the F-14D (which kinda had a JASDF 50th anniversary feel to it)

349171[/snapback]

I was mainly referring to the ace scheme, that looked too girlish for me. I did not like that or the F-4G ace scheme at all. The ace scheme in ace combat zero looked awesome in the trailer

[David Hingtgen]

The "real" purpose between these exercises is to make current USAF fighters look bad---thus, we get more F-22 funding. I'm all for it. Still, from what I know the F-15 exercise was with Elmendorf's planes---and those are the TOP F-15's we have. The newest version of the radar, JHMCS, and AIM-9X's. They are even better than Langley's planes.

PS--I really didn't like AC5's default F-14D scheme. I do NOT like that scheme on the Tomcat.

Edited December 3, 2005 by David Hingtgen