Page 21 – Key Publishing

datafuser

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 347 total)

← 1 2 3 … 20 21 22 23 24 →

Author

Posts
April 13, 2006 at 6:22 am in reply to: IMPRESSIVE WEAPON LOADS THREAD #2596441

datafuser
Participant

Yes the MER was tested on the F-16 indeed. Actually I have another picture of the same aircraft flying with 12 Mk82s in two MERs.

Anyway that page has a commment saying “On stations 4 and 6, they tested the F-16 using MER’s (multiple ejector racks which holds 6 500lb bombs) but did not go past testing.”

Cheers,
Sunho

April 13, 2006 at 5:54 am in reply to: IMPRESSIVE WEAPON LOADS THREAD #2596467

datafuser
Participant

Also, what about the hardpoints on the Hornet and Falcon? Seems all four main wing hardpoints on each can carry MER’s, but is that the case? Can an F/A-18 or F-16 carry 24 Mk-82’s? What about the centerline on both those aircraft? It always seems to be used for ECM pods or tanks, yet in a few cases I’ve seen bombs fitted. Is the clearance not enough to allow something like a TER…perhaps only twin racks or single bombs?

Both F/A-18 and F-16 haven’t used Multiple Ejector Racks that hold six Mk82 500-pounders in frontline operations. The MERs were almost exclusively carried by A-6s and F-111s.

The F-16’s realistic max number is 12 Mk82s in four Triple Ejector Racks at best.

As for the F/A-18’s max number, it looks like the Hornet does not use TERs – almost all photos of the Hornet with Mk82s show two bombs per wing hardpoints.

Cheers,
Sunho

April 11, 2006 at 7:52 am in reply to: The quest for a modern low-tech fighter #2598339

datafuser
Participant

Unless the RSAF actually conducts live AMRAAM firing by their F-5S/T, I wouldn’t count the F-5S/T as one of the fighters cleared to fire AMRAAM.

Cheers,
Sunho

April 11, 2006 at 6:54 am in reply to: F-105 and A-4 loss rates over North Vietnam #2598369

datafuser
Participant

I posted the same question on rec.aviation.military and got a very detailed general answer about US losses although lacking the two types’ loss rates.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_frm/thread/1738becc69b774eb/755ade5678417620?hl=en#755ade5678417620

Cheers,
Sunho

April 9, 2006 at 10:45 pm in reply to: The quest for a modern low-tech fighter #2599263

datafuser
Participant

Actually Singapore’s F-5’s do have an AIM-120 capability because it was part of the upgrade.

I’m not sure if the missiles are actually in country right now or not though.

Would you please cite the source of this claim?

Cheers,
Sunho

April 9, 2006 at 7:12 am in reply to: The quest for a modern low-tech fighter #2599629

datafuser
Participant

So why don’t the yanks design and build a low cost/low tech fighter for its smaller allies like the F-5 of old?

There is a new low tech fighter of more or less US design. Problem is that it’s not affordable to smaller countries in South-East Asia, Africa or Latin America.

http://www.koreaaero.com/english/major/fixed01_1.php

Cheers,
Sunho

April 9, 2006 at 2:52 am in reply to: IMPRESSIVE WEAPON LOADS THREAD #2599720

datafuser
Participant

E like Europe…

The last one, MB-339, which country’s?

Cheers,
Sunho

April 1, 2006 at 6:42 am in reply to: Laser Spot Tracker and LGB operation #2603472

datafuser
Participant

Did the USMC A-4M Skyhawks ever carry LGBs?

March 29, 2006 at 3:33 pm in reply to: The most similar aircraft to Sea Harrier FRS1 in terms of weapons capability? #2604147

datafuser
Participant

Jim Winchester’s new book “Douglas A-4 Skyhawk” says the Singaporean Super Skyhawks employed GBU-12. Has anybody seen the A-4SU Super Skyhawk with Paveway laser-guided bombs?

Cheers,
Sunho

March 29, 2006 at 3:30 pm in reply to: The most similar aircraft to Sea Harrier FRS1 in terms of weapons capability? #2604148

datafuser
Participant

Not a bad comparison, but you could equally pick a non-upgraded F-16 or something like an F-5S. The FRS.Mk 1 could also carry Sea Eagle, various dumb bombs, SNEB (IIRC) and WE177!

The key to FA2 is APG-65 with two AIM-120 (practically), two ‘winder, Sea Eagle/dumb/LGB

Well the FA2’s radar is Blue Vixen, not APG-65. The F-5E does come close to the SHAR FRS1 but I don’t think the Tiger II has the latter’s capability to drop dumb bombs within a 100ft CEP using its Blue Fox radar and HUD-WAC.

BTW, is there any known case in which the F-5E dropped LGBs?

Cheers,
Sunho

March 23, 2006 at 4:23 am in reply to: Picture of Sea Harrier armed with Sea Eagle #2562948

datafuser
Participant

Could Sea Harrier FRS1 safely land vertically with two unused Sea Eagles attached in hot weather condition? I bet FA2 couldn’t.

Cheers,
Sunho

March 21, 2006 at 1:47 am in reply to: Picture of Sea Harrier armed with Sea Eagle #2564719

datafuser
Participant

Thanks a lot for the pictures.

Cheers,
Sunho

March 15, 2006 at 4:35 am in reply to: Could the Dutch defend their Caribbean Islands? #2568429

datafuser
Participant

It would be interesting to see if a fleet without organic fighter support would be able to mount an amphibious operation against enemy air opposition.

Currently the Dutch have four LCF-type air defence frigates with 32 SM-2s and 32 ESSMs. The Dutch parliament approved Tomahawk buy only in November 2005. So it might be a few more years aways before we actually see Tomahawks on their ships.

Anyway when they introduce Tomahawks, the LCF’s 40-cell Mk41 VLS loadout would be like this:

Power projection: 24 Tomahawks, 8 SM-2s, 32 ESSMs
Sea control: 16 Tomahawks, 16 SM-2s, 32 ESSMs
Air defence: 8 Tomahawks, 24 SM-2s, 32 ESSMs

If the Dutch manages to deploy all four LCFs in air defence loadout, there will be 32 Tomahawks, 96 SM-2s and 128 ESSMs. Will these numbers be enough to take on the Venezuelan or any similar-sized armed forces?

Cheers,
Sunho

March 1, 2006 at 12:41 am in reply to: Korean F-50 and Swedish Gripen may be considered against JSF in Singapore? #2578878

datafuser
Participant

“Whether or not the Republic of Singapore Air Force will ever consider short-legged lightweight fighters such as the Gripen and the proposed F-50 depends on the force structure the RSAF wants to build – a ‘strategic’ air force with long range fighter bombers, an ‘army’s flying artillery’ dedicated to close air support or an awkward compromise between the two.”

Awkward compromise or sensible spectrum of capabilities? At the moment Singapore has a force mix with long range, heavyweight F-16C/Ds for attack/interdiction/BAI, augmented by F-5s for point defence/recce. The air force practises ops from road strips. Gripen looks like a very good fit for the RSAF F-5 replacement requirement.

Does the RSAF really need a separate fighter type for F-5 replacements? I am wondering if point air defence, the F-5’s role, is still a practical concept of operation for a small city state like Singapore in the 21st century.

Cheers,
Sunho

March 1, 2006 at 12:26 am in reply to: Korean F-50 and Swedish Gripen may be considered against JSF in Singapore? #2578891

datafuser
Participant

And could carry alot more apparently . Is that a realistic warload on a aircraft with a possibly smaller engine than the F-16 ?

At this stage the F-50 is just a paper plane. Nobody knows for sure if it would really be capable of carrying 2 JDAMs, 6 Mavericks, 2 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders and a drop tank when actually built.

Cheers,
Sunho
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 347 total)

← 1 2 3 … 20 21 22 23 24 →