Mark2What’s with the new missile configuration on the German Tornado??? Can’t do much for maneuverability 🙂
Mark
Mark2Suprised by the Saab commnet wrt no problems at high AOA… normally the common criticism. Hard to get a realtively clean (undisturbed) air flow into engine
The RCS reduction wrt surface threats…. not so sure a surface based radar would get much of a look see down the ‘throat’. The geometry would have to be just right. Now against another fighter head-on, co-altitude; well that’s another story.
Mark
Mark2Thanks for taking the time to post your pictures. Yes.. a little wet, but kind of gives a different ‘look’ which can be nice (not so much for the photographer).
Hope you had someone helping carry your gear 🙂
Mark
Mark2Mariusz..
Thanks for posting your link.
Will have to take a look!!!
Cheers
Mark
always did like MiG-21 🙂
btw here’s link for you.. it’s a forum on military aviation photography. I think they would really enjoy someone with your background contributing
Mark2drools 2… 🙂
Mark
Mark2Probably read this Forum thread from couple weeks back and thought… “What the heck…”
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=27773
Mustn’t forget that when it comes to flying the ‘lowest’, you can only tie…
Mark
Mark2Put another way…
Some is good,
More is not necessarily better
Mark
Mark2Through the end of the Viet Nam war, there were ballistic cards that fit in the knee pocket of your flight suit. You correlated the bomb type, altitude, airspeed and dive angle and aligned the gunsight on target. Any crosswind required holdoff upwind of the target. It took lots of practice and lots of bombs to hit the target, especially if dodging SAMs and AAA.
To add a little more… The different variables mentioned were used to figure out the ‘mils’ setting for the bomb/gun sight. The mil setting (depression from the aircraft longitudinal axis) was needed to get the desired aimpoint.
The steeper the dive angle (and corresponding higher altitude) at release — the more mils (depression) are needed. Shallow dive angles need less depression (assuming all the airspeeds are about the same)
The trick was to reach all the pre-planned parameters (dive angle, airspeed and release altitude) coincident with the pipper on the target. Some of the more ‘exotic’ sights had gyro-stablization, so that the pipper would stay put (more or less) during any aircraft bank angle changes. Made things MUCH easier
Kind of explains why the LGB was such a major technological advance for the time!! 🙂
Mark
Mark2over G
TVC is not used on raptor from mach 0.5 to mach 1.5 so you see…there’s no so much debate here.
Probably, put another way, is that it is not used above corner velocity (btw usually an indicated airspeed; not a Mach No)
Mark
Mark2Over g you mentionned the internal bay question.
Here is a fact: the section of the internal bay is bigger than it would have been on the YF-22 and then this lead to two facts:
-higher drag(but still lower than if stores were external)
-higher RCS in this location(but still less than if the stores were external)
If you don’t mind my modifying your otherwise “spot-on” assessment….
“…then this lead to two facts:
-‘fractionally’ higher drag(but still ‘very much’ lower than if stores were external)
-‘slightly’ higher RCS in this location(but still ‘a great deal less’ than if the stores were external)
The ‘increases’ are there, no doubt, but very very small impact to RCS or drag (IMHO) 🙂
Mark
Mark2At least you admit the posibility of the raptor agility shortcomings….
Agility is relative…. As you say it has “shortcomings”, but to what degree and how does that fall into to OVERALL capability/limitations of the aircraft??
As compared to a HIMAT or X-31 with a point-designs for agility, no doubt the Raptor (and most anything else) would come up short. But something like the HIMAT (a technology demonstrator) would loose alot of its unique capability if it had to be an operational aircraft (with avionics, added fuel, weapons etc etc).
Yes, the F/A-22 might, and probably does, come up ‘short’ against the SU-30 in extreme AOA maneuvers, but the operational utility of such capability can be (and has been… to death) debated.
A ‘blend’ (i.e. design tradeoffs) has to be made to give the end-user a ‘real-world’ capability.
btw RCS, supercruise, maneuverability are really the by-product of the aircraft designers trying to meet the operational requirement established by the “buyer”. The operator specifies the desired mission (to include range, payload) and anticipated threat (both air and surface) and the designer comes up with a platform with certain characteristics (which we have all mentioned)
For the Raptor the overall signature (RCS being just ONE component) and supercruise came out of the anticipated threat (double digit SAMS and advanced fighters operating in a sophisticated Integrated Air Defense System).
As to the ‘look’ of the Raptor, much has been done in terms of RCS materials/techniques to allow greater freedom in laying out the externals of the aircraft. Proper alignment of ‘reflecting’ surfaces is still a major consideration, but not along the same lines as the F-117 faceted design (Tacit Blue kind of shows the progression). The JSF RCS is no doubt in the same class as the other ‘stealths’ and it too has a fairly ‘conventional’ look…
fwiw
Mark
Mark2its in russian isnt it
Greek (hence the HAF in the url)….
Here’s a link to one of their photo galleries…
http://www.e-haf.org/homepage/modules.php?op=modload&name=My_eGallery&file=index&do=showgall&gid=6
Mark
Mark2can a global hawk be modifed as an awacs platform
I would think it could serve as an adjunct to an AWACS platform (such as E-3A). For example it could be placed further forward (assuming threat permitted) and ‘extend’ the radio communications and radar range of the host E-3 in a particular direction.
The radar/radio horizon is (to a degree) the limiting factor on the capability of the AWACS platform. Being higher and further forward could be useful. Having a slightly different geometry wrt a potential airborne target might help with solving terrain masking problems.
Not that I know… but an AWACS could be the active emitter and the Global Hawk a ‘passive’ receiver linked back to the AWACS. Such a non co-located transmit/receive set up might give you some interesting capabilities.
In a blue-water, naval warfare scenario, if there was a particular attack axis and a Global Hawk could be positioned appropriately it could be argued that it might provide an extended over the horizon warning capability to get your fleet defense fighters cued (i.e. detect the launch platform of a anti-ship missile prior to missile release)
Even though the Global Hawk is pretty good sized, not sure an AESA radar would have enough ‘juice’ to really do a decent job in a stand-alone AWACS mission
I think the Global Hawks’ signals intelligence and imagery capabilities are its strong suit. Another could be radio/data relay.
Mark
Mark2Is the 422nd Testing Squadron part of the 53rd FW?
In a word yes…
The confusion lies in the fact that the OT tail code belongs to the 53rd Wing (home-based at Eglin). The 53rd has units throughout US performing operational testing….
http://www.eglin.af.mil/53wg/53d_teg.htm
One of these units is the 422 TES at Nellis (hence the OT tail code). That said, there is also the 85th TES belonging to the 53rd wing, but they are located at Eglin. Both units fly F-15s and 16s. And both with OT tail code. You’d have to ID the unit insignia on the fuselage or the fin flash on the top of the tail (in the F-16 n Raptor formation picture, the F-16 is from the 422; you can make out the unit ‘patch just at the point of the AIM-120).
It is not unusual to find Eglin OT birds at Nellis and Nellis OT birds at Eglin. Depends on the test being conducted and the needed range support.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/events/oct_01/oct01_events10.html
Most all of the other aircraft at Nellis belong to the 57th Wing (Weapons School, Thunderbirds, Red Flag, etc) with the WA tail code… (In order to be ‘complete’ on the subject of Nellis, there was also the NA tail code used by F-111s and F-16s of the 474th Tactical Fighter Wing)
http://www.nellis.af.mil/units.htm
Just to add to the ‘confusion factor’, both the 53rd and 57th belong to the same parent organization — the Air Weapons Center (Headquartered at Nellis).
And one other thing…. Eglin AFB is ‘run’ by the 46th Test Wing (part of the Air Armament Center). The test wing its own unit flying F-15s n F-16s (the 40th Flight Test Squadron; ET tail code). The 46th is a ‘sister’ unit of the Edwards crowd (with their ED tail code).
Eglin is also home to the 33d Fighter Wing (EG tail code) with their operational F-15 squadrons.
Currently (at least to my understanding) only the 422nd has Raptors and I would suspect the 85th TES would be a few years before their turn (if then… the F/A-22 will be in such limited quantities that the USAF may not be able to justify having ‘test’ aircraft spread all over as they have had the luxury in the past; i.e. the Eglin-based ET and OT planes).
Think the next to be seen after the Tyndall Raptors (TY) will be the FF aircraft from Langley, but still a long wait for that too. Somewhere in there the weapons school will start up and some F/A-22s with WA tail code will appear….
Mark
btw Sorry for the .mil addresses as they may not be available to all…
Mark2The F/A-22 and the F-16 both have ‘OT’ tail codes so I am going to guess the picture is taken near Eglin AFB in Florida. The F-16 is an ANG Falcon, and the Raptor would be attached to one of the Test & Evalution groups based there.
I have seen another pic of a Raptor with the same ‘OT’ code. I think this is where the production Raptors have been before they were transferred to Tyndall for OPEVAL training. Can anyone confirm this?
The F/A-22 (with the F-16) pictures are from Nellis. The F-16 and Raptor both belong to the 422 TES (a unit at Nellis that does Operational Testing).
The birds at Tyndall (with the TY tailcode) will be used to train new pilots on the aircraft before they go to Langley AFB VA (the first operational unit).
So you’ve basically got Nellis (OT) doing the operational testing; Tyndall (TY) doing the training; and Langley (FF) doing the ‘mission’. And oops, almost forgot the ‘golden arms’ at Edwards (ED) making sure the plane can fly right side up.
Mark
Sign In
