jessmo241. the scenario happens during a Syrian Israeli Flare up.
2. The A French naval intelligence vessel is mistaken for a Syrian Petya class frigate.
3. The French vessel sinks killing many.
4. An air to air engagement ensues.
5. Neither government has a cool head in power.
6. The French say the attack was intentional the Israelis deny it.
7. The Charles De Gaulle steams toward the scene with the Forbin and Surcouf as escorts.
8. French and Israel tensions are already high because of Israeli air strikes in Syria
What are the Israeli navy and air force options?
Do they scramble F-16Is or rely on dolphins?
Could they mission kill the De guall?
The incident is not to far off than what happened in the past and is not inconceivable.
jessmo24Sooo.. nothing matters till the f-22 actually kills someone?
The U.S. should buy mig 29s? is that that your saying?
Do you actually beleive that the Raptor will totally fail in real combat?
Since exercises dont matter, only real combat records, can we throw alot of the aircraft out in this discussion since they have never engaged in A2a? is that the position your taking?
jessmo24While low altitude, high speed laydown deliveries are consistent with tactics used against heavily defended target sets such as the robust Soviet/Warsaw Pact threat envisioned in Central Europe, low altitude tactics were not the preferred option during Desert Storm where the USAF used medium/high altitude weapons employment to provide fighter and bomber aircraft a sanctuary against short range surface to air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery fire. The inexpensive tail kit inertially steers the munition from a known release point to precise target coordinates while compensating for launch transients, winds aloft, surface winds and adverse weather.
The Wind Compensated Munitions Dispenser [WCMD “Wick-Mid”] is intended to remedy this current shortfall in Tactical Munition Dispenser munitions, such as the CBU-87 CEM [Combined Effects Munition], CBU-89 GATOR and CBU-97 SFW [Sensor Fuzed Weapon]. The weapon will use inertial guidance only (no GPS). The WCMD program develops a tail kit for these inventory dispenser weapons. These weapons will be capable of delivery from medium to high altitude delivery when equipped with a WCMD kit. The WCMD weapon will correct for wind effects and errors during the weapon’s ballistic fall. The WCMD kit will turn these “dumb” bombs into accurate “smart” weapons. Currently, the dispenser is achieving an accuracy of within 30 feet. Both fighter and bomber aircraft will be able to employ WCMD from a wide range of altitudes, in adverse weather, using various tactics such as level, dive, and toss bombing, and bombing on coordinates.
CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
The CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon cluster munition combines 10 submunitions with 4 skeet type warheads in a single dispenser, providing 40 weapons total. After release, a fuze causes the dispenser to disperse the 10 submunitions, each stabilized by a parachute. At a preset altitude a rocket fires, propelling the submunition in an upward vector. As the submunition climbs, it is spun to disperse the 4 internal skeet warheads randomly by centrifugal force. An IR sensor in each warhead searches for a target, and upon discovery detonates over it, firing a kinetic fragment. The fragment drives itself through the lightly armored top of the target. If no target is found, the sensor detonates the warhead above ground to spray the battlefield with a myriad of lethal fragments. This weapon is good against armor and soft skinned targets, covering a 4,800 square yard area.
The CBU-97 is a 1,000-pound class weapon containing sensor-fused submunitions for attacking armor. The SFW is the centerpiece of the Air Force concept of operations for engaging an adversary’s main armored force in the “halt” or “hold” phase of a Major Regional Contingency, in which the USAF would disrupt and stop an attack, providing time for other combatant forces to reinforce to the theater.
As of November 2001 the Sensor Fuzed Weapon had not been reported to have been used in combat. As of September 2002 Textron had delivered 2,600 SFW canisters.
The primary components of this 1,000 pound class weapon are the SUU-66/B Tactical Munitions Dispenser (TMD), 10 BLU-108/B submunitions, and 40 “hockey puck” shaped skeet infrared sensing projectiles. The weapon is designed to be employed from US Air Force tactical aircraft from altitudes between 200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) to 20,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) at speeds between 250 to 650 knots. Each CBU-97/B can cover an area of about 500 feet by 1,200 feet. Test results indicate that CBU-97 submunitions have a propensity to cluster and that impact patterns are unevenly distributed. This is contrary to the uniform distribution assumption employed in the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual (JMEM). Because of the clustering effect, it appears that JMEM overestimates damage and more weapons may be required to destroy the target then predicted.
The Sensor Fuzed Weapon [SFW] is an unpowered, top attack, wide area, cluster munition, designed to achieve multiple kills per aircraft pass against enemy armor and support vehicles. After release, the TMD opens and dispenses the ten submunitions which are parachute stabilized. Each of the 10 BLU-108/B submunitions contains four armor-penetrating projectiles with infrared sensors to detect armored targets.
The SFW can be deployed from operational U.S. or NATO tactical aircraft. It is presently certified on various USAF fighter and bomber aircraft. Any fighter or attack aircraft, whose weapon pylons can accommodate a 1,000-pound class weapon and has 14-inch lug suspension mounts, can carry SFW.
jessmo24isn’t it smarter now in the era of “why break the base when we might need it”
To used a wind corrected munitions dispenser? or to break every piece of equipment? Rather than totally destroying the base? You can repair/replace sections of AF. Planes, fuel, repair vehicles are harder to replace.
jessmo24The F-35B shouldn’t be bringing too much back(it’s not going out on CAP- if it’s launched, it’s for CAS/interdiction), and after a mission it’s fuel weight should be low enough, to where there aren’t any issues.
Well that would only be an issue with the countries who will use it primarily as a A2A fighter.
jessmo24Wasn’t jamming demonstrated in the AESA video a few pages back? Does he even look at or watch the things other people post?
F-35A
CTOL F-35B
VSTOL F-35C
Carrier version
Length 51.4 ft (15.7 m) 51.3 ft (15.6 m) 51.5 ft (15.7 m)
Wingspan 35 ft (10.7 m) 35 ft (10.7 m) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Wing Area 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 668 ft² (62.1 m²)
Empty weight 29,300 lb (13,300 kg) 32,000 lb (14,500 kg) 34,800 lb (15,800 kg)
Max takeoff weight 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)
Range 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) 900 nmi (1,670 km) 1,400 nmi (2,520 km)
Combat radius 610 nmi (1,100 km) 500 nmi (910 km); 640 nmi (1,150 km)
Thrust/weight
full fuel
50% fuel 0.84
1.04 0.86
1.02 0.77
0.95
The U.S. Navy’s first-ever stealth aircraft operates from the service’s large carriers via catapult launch and arrested recovery. Larger wings and control surfaces and the addition of wingtip ailerons allow the F-35C pilot to control the airplane with precision during carrier approaches. The aircraft incorporates larger landing gear and a stronger internal structure to withstand the forces of carrier launches and recoveries. Ruggedized exterior materials mean low maintenance requirements for preserving the aircraft’s Very Low Observable radar signature, even in harsh shipboard conditions. F-35C internal fuel capacity is nearly 10 tons, providing an unrefueled range of well over 1,200 miles without external tanks. The standard internal weapons load is two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM guided bombs. Optional internal loads include eight GBU-38 small-diameter bombs, as well as a wide variety of air-to-ground missiles, dispensers and guided weapons. The internal weapons bay is reconfigurable for all air-to-ground ordnance, all air-to-air ordnance or a blend of both. A missionized version of the 25 mm GAU-22A cannon is installed or removed as needed. When stealth is not required to execute a mission, the F-35C external pylons are loaded with ordnance, giving the aircraft a weapons payload of more than 18,000 pounds.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35-variants/f-35c-cv-variant.html
jessmo24The F-35C will do this fine it has more fuel than the A version.
The F-35B can partially mitigate this by landing in a soccer field
The F-35B is he only version that will have take off at full weight and bring back issues. When you want to land vertically on a ship you must give up somthing.
jessmo24nice!
the wingprofile and canard overlap is quite different. but still, somewhere in the neighbourhood.
Is that planform alignment between the wings and the canard!:eek:? if so this aircraft is starting out on the right path. Also its difficult to tell if the canards are on the same plane as the wings.
jessmo24Blue the stovl F-35 is a dog compared to what? the Harrier? The F-35B is a generation or maybe even more over the Harrier And I think it will handle itself well in BVR combat. There isnt another aircraft on earth that can launch from a small Helo carrier, Fly a few hundred miles in stealth Mode, strike an advanced IADS system while flying at mach 1.6 self escort back home, and land. If your going to get rid of the F-35B you would have several allied navies totally reorganizing there carrier forces to find a solution. The F-35c is nothing short of a flying gas tank and is designed to go far on the 1st day of the war, hit targets and come home in 1 piece.
I dont see dumping the F-35C and B and having 3 differnt test programs for 3 differnt aircraft as the answer.
jessmo24Try not to judge other people by your own low standards.
As a Brit your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the RAF low level ops in Desert Storm is painfully clear.
Thus i take exception to your attempted use of these as an example to back up your flawed (and borrowed) populist conclusion.Some people are here to try and learn and share as much information as possible about aircraft. You and a number of other fanboys seem intent on “proving” that you are “right.”
Your point as you wrote it was “low level is bad” the example you gave was the RAF in Desert Storm.
Unfortunately for you, as others particularly swerve have shown, the RAF low level ops in Desert Storm in no way prove your point.In fact they rather, to use your parlance “destroy” it.
You’ve then subtly shifted your comments to try and claim that you didn’t start with a position of “low level is bad.”
I can “win” and “destroy” any argument i like if i’m changing my position in order to do so.
You are sounding as deluded as pfcem.Nothing you have contributed to this forum so far has increased anybodys knowledge or understanding.
Posting a few “i really love this plane” pieces that simply suck up certain companies marketing, whilst jumping down the throat of anybody who postulates a opinion differing from yours is childish at best.
You are either of such tender years that youthful enthusiasm gets the better of you, thus the playground type nature of your post above, or you are simply a troll out to rile as many people as possible.
Hugs
1. I was simply pointing out that the tactic is more dangerous that using stand off weapons. My research tells me that the durandal isnt even in the U.S. inventory any more.
2. So lets say Im a childish troll what makes you any better than me? did I attack you? did I call you names? So now a competitive spirit is childish? I wonder what you teach your children, or if you even teach them to win in life.
3. Your post now has Anti- American undertones. We all know by now that you have a problem with the ( so called) American attitude of winning. is it more childish to parse your words in a cleverly written manner hoping no one will come on to you? or to just come out and say what you mean and mean what you say? You criticize me for being childish, and yet your the person taking things to a personnal level. IMP yoir offense is more childish and shows less character than anything I have posted.
4. Was there even talk about the F-35 doing 55 degrees of aoa Until I looked it up? was there discussion of turn rate? posting news of testing of the most talked about program in years isnt adding anything? Ohh I know you were content to let blue wings blather and soap box about the virtues of the Rafale but the second I say the F-35 and turns better and shoots farther im a child.
5. Since child is your favorite word Im going to offer you a truce, a parlay in old english parlance. lets agree to disagree since you feel like I am a child lets not stoop to name callling and make this thread personnal.
6. On the subject of the British and low level stirkes Im very sorry if I offended any British service members or made them feel like there service wasnt warrented. Maybe this is why you took things personnal? I wasnt saying the british performance was bad. But Like I mentioned before
If i have a choice to load a B-2 with Durandal and send it in at 200 feet, or send it at 30k feet 40+ miles away with 200 SDB or JDAMS which path do I take. The fact that the durandal is absent from the U.S. inventory is telling.
The British had less options than today. I wil agree to disagree if it helps the board flow better on IF Low level strikes them selves are obsolete
I offer you a truce and hope that further posts like this wont show up in this thread If you can prove me wrong on a point then by all means I am up for open debate. The unsettling fact that people disagree or even dont enjoy each other isnt what makes them a child or not. The way people resolve it does.
jessmo24Tactics depend on weapons at hand.
In 1991, you had to use Durandal or fixed dispersers to take out the runway.
Today dispersers are selfpropelled, so there’s no need for a plane to go in, although the accuracy can still be an issue.
However, even launched dispersers have the best chance of piercing IADS, when flying NOE and that’s why you won’t see a Tomahawk flying at 15k ft.As for your remark about exposing F22/35, well the thing is no one wants to be exposed when the bullets are whistling around, but then you can’t win a battle, can you?
Even so an F22 at 200ft, has much better chances of surviving IADS than at 15k ft, at least during the first pass.
However, if a plane can’t withstand trash-fire, it has no business in such type of tasks, anyway.Really? Like what, for example?
Even so an F22 at 200ft, has much better chances of surviving IADS than at 15k ft, at least during the first pass.
However, if a plane can’t withstand trash-fire, it has no business in such type of tasks, anyway.
Any commanding officer that would task his F-22 crews to fly in at 200 feet is a moron why go down to 200 feet when you can travel at 50K+ feet and fire weapons from 100 or so miles away? why purposely get in detection range? And this
“In 1991, you had to use Durandal or fixed dispersers to take out the runway.
Today dispersers are selfpropelled, so there’s no need for a plane to go in although the accuracy can still be an issue” 1st you claim I don’t know what I’m talking about by saying the tactic is near obsolete now your agreeing with me. which is it? Do Currently deployed U.S. forces use Durandal today?
My research tells me we don’t even have them in inventory anymore.
If you can show me 5th generation types that will use Durandal and low level penetration tactics I will shut up. BUT UNTIL then I stand by my point.
jessmo24With all due respect you have proven conclusively that you have absolutely no idea of what you speak.
The RAF were performing the low level airfield denial ops because the US didn’t have the weapon system (JP233) that could effectively do the job.
To come to the conclusion you have merely illustrates how little you know and understand.
Ok then I want to see mission profiles with F-22s, F-35s, and B-2s going low level. Just because you claim I don’t under stand something doesn’t make it true I stand by my point. Is Low level bad for an A-10? NO! is low level bad for a OV bronco? NO that’s where they fly! Was low level bad for the RAF in that situation? and by bad I mean did it cause casualties? Yes The ERA of low level is coming to a close as 4 generation types are phased out.
I do not see an F-22 or F-35 trying to penetrate an IADS down in the dirt
You understood my point from the beginning you just thought you’d catch me in a slip up and score gotcha points. And for someone who doesn’t know anything I destroy you in debates every time LOL.
jessmo24Actually you claimed low level attack is a Cold War relic and it isn’t.
Moreover, such tactics is the only one available, in runway busting type tasks, since no one can fire Durandal or bomblets from 15k ft and expect to hit anything.
One can only speculate how’d F15E or other models fare, but obviously so good that Torandos were tasked with that particular airfield attack.As for modern IADS, if given small enough time to react, it’s harmless like any other system.
This is what are low level attack meant to do.
OK so Ill bite:
Since its a valid tactic for all aircraft types, then you would have no problem if you had command of F-22, B-2, or F-35 right?
Lets send an F-22 2 hundred feet off the deck and have them surprise the IADS! who cares if your exposing a 150 million plus aircraft to small arms fire. its a valid tactic. Do I have a point or not?
jessmo24Jessmo24 & Cola1973,
The UK wasn’t the only nation flying low level missions during 1991. The initial phase of the campaign was at low level for many of the players. F-111s, F-15Es and even B-52s were in those initial days flown at low level to strike targets. A number of B-52Gs suffered combat damage at low level. One F-15Es was lost during a low-level mission near Basra. Again during this low level phase other Coalition aircraft suffered damage. One French Jaguar returned with its tail shredded.
After the initial part of the low level phase CENTAF ordered the switch to medium level operatations. 12,000ft was the minimum level that weapons could be employed. Details of the low level phase were highlighted in Operation Desert Storm – Evaluation of the Air Campaign – General Accounting Office – House of Representatives.
B-52 low level info.
Colonel Ramsay bio
‘In January 1991 he was the flight leader for the first night, low-level combat mission ever flown by a B-52G, leading 14 aircraft to strike five Iraqi airfields in the opening minutes of Operation Desert Storm.’
http://www.151arw.ang.af.mil/resources/biographies/bio.asp?id=10878
‘On 17 January 1991, seven B-52Gs, known as the “Doom Flight”, took off from Barksdale AFB in Louisiana to help kick off the air campaign. They performed a flight that lasted 35 hours and took them almost halfway around the world to launch 35 CALCMs and then go back home. The routes of the missiles were planned so that they would impact almost simultaneously, and 33 of them hit their assigned targets. That same day, the B-52G followed up this strike with the first low-level attacks conducted by the type after decades of training. Buffs swept into Iraqi airspace at an altitude of 90 meters (300 feet) to pound four airbases and a highway.
With Iraqi air defenses disabled, the B-52Gs then returned to high-altitude bombing, with three-ship formations pounding Iraqi troops concentrations in Iraq with 340 kilogram (750 pound) bombs and cluster bombs. The B-52 performed 1,600 sorties in the Gulf War and dropped 22,725 tonnes (25,000 tons) of munitions.’
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avb52_2.html
Major James Riggens, USAF also highlights the initial low-level phase in the following.
‘Brilliant Attack: The Need For Autonomous Standoff Weapons in Airfield Attack Missions’
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA293645&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
See also accounts online of low level operations – B-52 Stratofortress Units in Operation Desert Storm by Jon Lake
http://www.fighterpilots.net/Iraq.htm
Account by EF-111 pilot on 17th January 1991 providing the jamming for strike packages. He highlights the following ’10 F-111Fs and 2 Mud-Eagles (F-15Es) were coming in on the deck against two different targets.’
See online pages of ‘F-15E Strike Eagle in Combat 1991-2005 by Steve Davies’
F-15E
‘On the first night of the war there were 21 F-15Es that went into Iraq. The original plan was for 18, but three more were added near the start time…… Once the refuelling was completed , we headed north and descended to low level…. We were all on the Terrain Following Radar at 200ft in radio silence – the pilots were hand-flying the TFR steering while concentrating on the FLIR picture in the HUD …..
Operations at low-level has never gone away from either the USAF nor RAF tactics. Low level is still a valid tactic and deployed on numerous training exercises such as Red Flag, etc.
TJ
TEJJ agreed and your information is factual. like I said before the tactic is valid but more risky. However I don’t see the tactic used much for F-35,F-22
B-2, T-50 ect. And Like I mentioned before I’m not even sure if id try this with out escort jammers. Modern IADS are just so lethal. If Im worng then I will stand down and stand corrected. But surely you see my point right?
jessmo24Why risk getting a fighter Jock Killed when you have stealth aircraft!?
Its like someone trying to justify The British red coats man on the line tactics In the revolutionary war. yes it get things done at times, yes you get killed doing it but ultimately its a old tactic. The point was that the British went to Medium altitude I don’t care about the parameters the strategy was dangerous.
Sign In
