Wasn’t 332nd OVP also equipped with Mi-24PN from 2008?
World Naval Weapon Systems, pg 604 on AIM-120C-5 (Lot 12 of production):
“A software change (in Lot 14 AIM-120C-5 missiles, in 2002, under a program begun in 2000) offers high off-boresight (HOBS) capability, allowing the missile to lock on after launch; it is launched while the target is outside the gimbal limits of the its seeker.The new mode is not for close-in combat, but rather to exploit third-party (net-centric) targeting, most likely through Link 16. Initially, the goal was merely to match the field of view of the F-15 radar (70° to either side, compared with the missiles 25° off-boresight capability).”
The HOBS upgrade was a software upgrade delivered from 2002, it probably doesn’t include the much vaunted 360° capability, but would greatly increase closer in off the rail active firings.
AIM-120D adds 180° two way datalink to the rear of the missile and frontal 180° one way datalink to the missile front. This would be required for 360° targeting.
Bill Sweetman on Ares(? reported the earlier 240-3 configuration had a maximum speed of Mach 1.67 and could accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 in 61 seconds (30000 feet), at 15000 feet turn with max 9G turn at 370 kts and sustained 4.95G turn at Mach 0.8.
Recent news gives ‘Mach 1.6 or 750 knots (whatever is lower)’
It supposedly lacks high speed, high altitude and sustained turn ability.
F-35A: Rated at 9G. Combines high speed agility as F-16 and low speed of F/A-18 (55° AOA). Less agile than F-22 and closer to F/A-18 than F-16 due to high AOA and slow speed capabilities. Similar fuel as F-14 with only engine using this fuel….
F-35B: Rated at 7.5 G. Would be less agile of all versions.
F-35C: Rated at 7.5-G sustained agility due to heavier weights, with limited 9-G (This is going to cause me some grief!). Slower acceleration and lower roll rate compared with F-35A. F-35C has higher sustained turning ability due to larger wings.
G-ability is one component of aircraft agility. Acceleration is at least as important as maximum speed.
Su-35S acceleration with 50% fuel 600 – 1100 kph (324-594 kts) in 13.8 seconds then 8 seconds to 1300 kph (702 kts). Freaking fast in other words.
F/A-18A had ‘slower than required acceleration between Mach 1.2 and Mach 1.6 (Important for giving AAM best kinetics); although faster than other fighters to Mach 1.2’.
F/A-18E standard loadout is single centerline tank (its projected typical carrier configuration), the E/F’s acceleration performance will be a substantial improvement over a cruise-configured (two fuel tanks on wing stations) C/D everywhere in the flight envelope. Also as same as F/A-18C subsonic, slower to accelerate to supersoneic and slowed climb above 9150 m. Given as 70 seconds from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 (see above, same profile as F-35A) at 35000 feet. Less agile than F/A-18C in transonic and supersonic regions (who cares, dogfights are subsonic), more agile in slow speed range.
Eurofighter: Acceleration from 200 kts to Mach 0.9+ in <20 seconds – also as 200 kts to Mach 1.0 at Low altitude in 30 seconds. Also as 30 kts/second
The data dump above doesn’t give all altitudes, aircraft configurations or what the pilot had for breakfast, so are probably not comparable.
Theres a price to be paid for aircraft agility, with EODAS, HMD, AIM-9X Block II and recent AIM-120 versions with high off boresight capability should make sustained agility less important (my crystal ball is at the shop for repairs).
No sources for most of the above, just notes from various comments made.
Back to MH-60R or NFH?
The Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky MH-60R and NH Industries NH90 remain as potential replacements for the Royal Australian Navy’s Sikorsky S-70B-2 Seahawks and cancelled Kaman Aerospace SH-2G(A) Super Seasprites, the nation’s Department of Defence says.
The DoD’s confirmation counters recent local media reports that suggested Australian Defence Force (ADF) chiefs have already recommended the MH-60R as the best candidate for the Project Air 9000 Phase 8 deal.
Canberra intends to order at least 24 new naval combat helicopters, enabling the navy to provide eight or more aircraft concurrently embarked on ships at sea.
The selected type will be fitted with anti-submarine warfare capabilities and air-to-surface missiles for anti-ship tasks. It will replace the navy’s 16 Seahawks, and its cancelled Super Seasprite project, which was ditched early last year after falling seven years behind schedule and almost 50% over budget.
The DoD says a decision on a new helicopter will take into account “all relevant considerations, including capability, cost, interoperability with other ADF capabilities, risk and value for money”.
So-called first pass approval for the acquisition is scheduled during the financial year 2009-10 to 2010-11, with a decision to follow in 2010-11 to 2011-12. Initial operational capability is sought between 2014 and 2016.
While the more mature MH-60R would offer commonality with the US Navy and cost less than its competitor, the naval version of the NH90 offers more capacity in some roles. The latter would also feature 80% commonality in airframe and avionics with the MRH90 transport entering service with the Australian army and navy.
Lockheed and Sikorsky are proposing a A$1 billion ($892 million) package for Australian industry if Canberra orders the MH-60R, and are offering deliveries from late 2011. NH90 majority partner Eurocopter already has a substantial presence in Australia through its Brisbane-based subsidiary Australian Aerospace.
Whats the name, ISBN and (more importantly for me) what language is the book written in? What were the modifications to the radar. Does he give the range the F-117 was detected at?
WAPJ admits to the F-117, F-16CG shot down. A couple of A-10 and possibly an F-15C damaged.
MiG-23MS was in production 1973-78 and deliveried to Algeria (40 from 1978), Egypt (8 1974-75), Iraq (18-40 1974-76), Libya (40-54 1974-76) and Syria (60 delivered 14 Oct 73-76).
Source for Syrian dates and numbers was a MiG-23 article by Tom Cooper.
If I was writing a work report or university assignment I’d have to provide sources for every statement – if I wanted to avoid a charge of plagrarism and form a well rounded argument. Same story for the Internet, theres a lot of useful information out there, but much is repeated verbatim from other websites – its a little hard to gauge the truthfulness without knowing the source. The web or an article is a secondary source – they are written from other sources. The actual source (media or press briefing) is the primary source.
For example Jon Lake writes article (without referencing the RAF retiring the Jaguar!) for Air Forces Monthly on the Eurofighter. He gives the new weight of the Tranche 2 fighter. He is journalist and knows he cannot make stuff up. AFM, like many magazines, doesn’t have room for listing every source. The magazine editor has to trust the journalists. Jon Lake was good enough to reply on the source of the Tranche 2 weight – a Eurofighter briefing (primary source).
The ‘Australian report’ (what do us Australians know about air warfare? Carlo Kopp has ruined us!) lists no sources.
The Airpower article: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/lambeth.html
lists the source as “David A. Fulghum, “Kosovo Report to Boost New JSF Jamming Role,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 30 August 1999, 22 (PG: page 22?)”
I lack access to the AWS&T, so thats as far as I can go with validating, but I did search through World Air Power Journal Volume 38 Autumn/Fall 1999, page 22, ‘Operation Allied Force. The First 30 days’ by Robert Hewson: “Friday 2 April: Croatian and Yugoslavian sources allege that a damaged F-117 had to make an emergency landing in Zagreb, Croatia after operations on the night of 9/10 April.”
Make what you will of the statement.
1) Am I telling the truth?
2) Is the article telling the truth?
3) Are the article sources truthful?
Its a well written article as he gives sources for most of his statements, he even points out where Western sources, with hindsight, were incorrect.
The plan is for 7 frontline squadrons each with 20 aircraft (18 available for operations) and 26 pilots
1st FW (Langley): 27th, 94th FS – both fully operational Jan 2007
3rd FW (Elmendorf, Alaska): 90th, 525th FS – both fully equipped Dec 2009
199th FS (Hickam, Hawaii). Equipped June 2010-2011.
49th FW (Holloman): 7th, 8th FS equipped Jan 2009-Jan 2011. 7th is due to be operational this month (Nov 2009).
Next month the USAF will have 5 squadrons operational.
7 x 20 = 140 of which 7 x 18 = 126 operational. There are only 146 Block 30 aircraft available…..
Another 32 Block 20 are at Tyndall for training, trials, etc – these are the early aircraft that will not be upgraded.
The F-117 damage – what are the US sources for that?
ELP started it….
Norway might purchase as many as 56 F-35A.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/NORWAY061009.xml
First UK test example in production:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/30/334254/picture-uks-first-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-enters.html
Supposely Tranche 2 has increased MTOW compared with Tranche 1.
November 2009 Air Forces Monthly (pg 63) mentions this, but completely stuffs up the weights:
‘…increased from 20,000 lbs to 24.500 lbs (9072 kg -11,113 kg)’.
Anyone have the correct weights?
AND? We weren’t talking about Rafale, but why one would choose to maintain the multiple Paveway variants in the same inventory….
It is my understanding that only Paveway II weapons are integrated onto the Rafale however, not the more recent Paveway III/IV or Enhanced Paveway II and the French aircraft STILL require the assistance of another lasing source…
Unless its recently changed Rafale is/was:
2006: SCALP EG cruise missile
Feb 07: GBU-12 Paveway II
mid 07: GBU-22 Paveway III
Apr 08: AASM (GPS only version).
late 09: AASM (adds IIRH)
early 10: GBU-24 Paveway III, Damocles targeting pod, ASMP-A. Posibly Enhanced Paveway series
2015-20: AASM (SALH version), PDL NG targeting pods
I’m more interested in what the Mirage 2000D upgrade will be….
AFAIK Egyptian MiG-21MF:
1979 – fitted with AIM-9P (AIM-9J1?)
1981 – Combined Soviet/Western IFF, ALE-40 decoys, RWR. However, planned upgrade with APQ-159 radar cancelled.
1984 – AIM-9P3. Some fitted with ALQ-234 jammer pod
1989 – AIM-9L
2008 – Possibly fitted with HMS
RAN MH-60R?
Fair enough – the MH-60R is in service, the NFH is still having weight and software problems:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26248125-31477,00.html
Oh well, I can dream.