Page 4 – Key Publishing

Balu the Bear

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 75 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →

Author

Posts
June 19, 2010 at 11:57 pm in reply to: Comparison F 15 E- SU 34 Fullback! #2411599

Balu the Bear
Participant

Sounds pretty nifty…I always wanted a seat that would turn into a bed. Does the jet come with a flight attendant who can serve the crew meals? That would be a nice thing to have on those global missions.

Only one little question, though. What country did you have in mind that needs a global mission capability?

I have to correct my post from above….
The seats aren´t reclinable, the crew is able to lie down between the seats on the cockpit floor to take a nap…..
Well there are a few countries, which could have an interest…Russia, China

Or just think of these out of area missions of the NATO( UNO)…
Long range strike missions in support of ground operations without a suitable air base in theater…

June 19, 2010 at 10:13 pm in reply to: Comparison F 15 E- SU 34 Fullback! #2411662

Balu the Bear
Participant

Regarding the cannons…
If you put both aircraft in a scenario like Desert Storm ,where the Strike Eagles were sometimes tasked with tank plinking, the 30 mm would be better suited, than the 20 mm Gatling…..
The upgrades for the Strike Eagle are top notch! No question about it.
But we don´t know, what the Russians come up with in the next 10 years……
And the Deep Throat are produced quickly, you just need a special sort of steel, which is hard enough to do the job. The guidance units are attached in a matter of hours.
During the destruction of Taji #2, only two of the originally 33 produced bombs were used.
The bodies of these bombs were sawn off barrels of the M110 howitzer…..
There are huge numbers of new AG weapons in development, like the HOPE/HOSBO für the German Air force.KLICK ME!

June 19, 2010 at 9:34 pm in reply to: Comparison F 15 E- SU 34 Fullback! #2411723

Balu the Bear
Participant

All of the E models are going to be upgraded with new avionics, so how exactly do you think that they’ve reached the top? You still haven’t addressed the variety of weapons, or how the cockpit layout of the Su-34 is awful if you have to tangle with another fighter.

just because of the available space inside the airframe…..
The variety of weapons might be the same in the AGM or AAM regime….
The have a recoil operated 30 mm gun, compared to the good, old, electrical driven M 61 build into the F 15, which needs a power source, thus taking away electric power, which could be used better for other systems.
The laser designator is incorporated into the airframe, whereas the Eagle need to carry an external pod, which is blocking a hardpoint, thereby increasing drag.
The AS 17 Krypton is a formidable AGM,and the Ch 41 is unmatched in its capabilities in the anti- ship arena…..
And the F 15 is basically a 60 ies design.
A F4 Pilot once said to me: The new APG 65 and the AMRAAMS are fantastic, but the good ol Phantom is analog, and the upgrade is digital. And there, within the linkage is the place, where we loose potential. I can imagine, that with future upgrades, a similar problem could be encountered with the F 15 ……

June 19, 2010 at 9:14 pm in reply to: Comparison F 15 E- SU 34 Fullback! #2411726

Balu the Bear
Participant

Considering both of them are designed to be used primarily for the air to ground role, I don’t think the original question makes much sense. The question is which one offers the greatest variety of weapons/flexibility.

When we take the multi role aspect into consideration, I think both planes have even chances…….with a slight advantage for the Eagle…..
But at low level, in 100 fts, the Su might be more suitable, hence it´s higher wing loading, which makes it more stable in turbulent conditions……speaking in terms of crew fatigue…….

June 19, 2010 at 9:06 pm in reply to: Comparison F 15 E- SU 34 Fullback! #2411730

Balu the Bear
Participant

How does one qualify “more suitable”?

Regarding the F 15 E,the room for upcoming upgrades ( avionic-wise, weapons) has reached the top. With the SU, the loadout may be more versatile, more flexible…..
I have no knowledge about range numbers in accordance to certain weapon loadouts, but it might be possible, that the SU flys farther than the F 15 ( without air refueling…….) with a hi-lo-hi profile…..
Don´t forget, the airframe and the engines are younger, regarding their time of development….

Is that even necessary? Over the years there have been THOUSANDs (probably hundreds of thousands) of overseas deployments going all the way back to the Vietnam War by US fighters that did just fine without all that.

The more support aircraft you need….

Doubt it.

Why??

June 14, 2010 at 9:07 pm in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2036179

Balu the Bear
Participant

Even a single Komoran would probably mean a “mission kill” of the carrier, as it would probablby sustain substantial damage. Sinking the carrier is not necessary, removing it from the battle space is the mission.

Absolut richtig!Danke Schorsch!
Absolutely right! Thx Schorsch!

June 14, 2010 at 6:02 pm in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2036205

Balu the Bear
Participant

You are right…..We Germans would never attack an US carrier group……

Let´s try a different scenario…….
Let´s say, the Americans are committed with a carrier group in the Persian Gulf, in order to enforce UN sanctions against Iran……
The Persian Gulf is relatively small! This fact narrows down the playfield……
No open conflict yet, so the situation aboard the US Carrier is realtively relaxed.

Iran got the Kolchuga, the Growler and the formidable SS-N- 22 Sunburn( which is deployable by truck, aircraft or any given naval craft suitable in size……..)
And in our scenario, they were able to obtain a couple of SU 33 copies produced in China……..

The Kolchuga and the Growlers are cleaning the skies, and SS-N 22s are causing havoc within the battle group…….
With the given performance data of the weapon systems mentioned above, and with a nation, which is willing to escalate, a dangerous playground for the US Navy…….

June 14, 2010 at 5:16 pm in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2036213

Balu the Bear
Participant

How many Kormorans would it take to “Disable a US Carrier? Answer a lot!..

Maybe 2 maximum 6 Kormorans are enough.
KLICK ME
Most of the destruction would be caused by secondaries…….
Forrestal was devastated by a Zuni……
The AS 34 has a 220 kgs semi- piercing warhead, quite more impressive, than the warhead of a zuni….
Once launched, the AS 34 is relying on inertial inputs for guidance, and its radar is only used for the final phase for the flight…..
A missile with an approx weight of 300kgs in the final phase, soaring along the waterline with 500 KIAS hits an open hangar deck, or is cooking of a huge fire, and there might be 5 or more Kormorans on the way……
I am not an expert regarding warship construction, but I am sure, if there´s an unexpected attack ( some sort of ambush…), in which the impact is only 2 minutes or less away, they wouldn´t stand the chance to seal all the watertight doors between the carriers main compartments, thus enabling the shockwaves going through the ship and cause further damage.
And don´t forget the aircraft parked on the flight and hangar deck, mostly fueled, and in many cases mission ready aka fully armed…….

KLICK me for the Enterprise incident

June 8, 2010 at 12:22 pm in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2036591

Balu the Bear
Participant

Maybe, but in high sea states it might be difficult to get a fix on the Tornado´s position…..
As I mentioned earlier, these kind of tactics were demonstrated by the Argentinians…..
And if you keep the pressure up, the Battle group is forced to divide their forces…….
Indeed highly specualative…….

June 8, 2010 at 11:44 am in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2036601

Balu the Bear
Participant

The ‘outer ring’ for US carrier groups is E-2 Hawkeye & F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. Your Tornados won’t get won’t get within 200nm of the carrier.

When the battle group is operating under Emcom in order to reduce their ESM signature, it would be tough to detect the Tornados…..
The HARM integrated in the German Navy Tornados had more operating modes than the HARMS in US service, because it was integrated into the Tornado in different way, other than the US HARMS , which aren´t normally able to use the missile as an external sensor……..
I haven´t said, that the attack would be without losses for the attacking aircraft, but 3 or 4 downed Tornados are a good trade off for a disabled carrier…or??

June 7, 2010 at 11:01 pm in reply to: US Aircraft Carrier Vulnerable #2036618

Balu the Bear
Participant

Let´s say there is a carrier you don´t like……
If you need to attack a Battle Group, you only need to know where they are……roughly……

Let´s pretend the available assets for a mission like that, are Tornados like the ones, the German Navy had…….which were the last german Tornados produced ( besides the ECR…..)……that means Kormoran, HARM.

Let´s say the ATO says they are in an area 100 to 100 mls……according to satellite data
Send the Tornados in that area under EMCOM 5 and let them do a visual search at low level in bad weather , or heavy rain…..based on that satellite data mentioned before.
Let´s say they try different search patterns, and let us think they actually find the Battle Group….
From the time they pass the outer ring, they have plenty of time to call bruiser away.Imagine an eight- ship, that means 16 Kormoran, or Harms.
All the Radars, every piece of equipment able to detect somthing like a plane would be on in a split of a second. Find a more attractive target for the HARMs…….
The Argentinians demonstrated it in the Falkland War, that this kind of mission is possible, and their equipment was less capable than the Tornados mentioned above…..
And there is not only one Tornado Pilot, who would say, that this kind of attack is possible……..

May 13, 2010 at 6:04 pm in reply to: AA pilot argues with Tower #554118

Balu the Bear
Participant

If the crew listen to ATIS in KJFk prior landing ( 128.725), the should have realised, that the crosswinds were close to the max CWC of the B767….
And that time , it was well known, that the closure of RWY 13R/31L caused many delays in the past.
So in this case, the situation wasn´t asessed properly.

They should have realized earlier, that there was a good chance to become fuel critical.
A diversion to a nearby airport ( Newark, La Guardia etc…..) would have been the better option, better than declaring an emergency, forcing all other traffic to move aside.

May 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm in reply to: AA pilot argues with Tower #554387

Balu the Bear
Participant

Well the atc recording sounds to me like:

I want to land on this airfield, and if you say no, I declare an emergency……...
And around 95% of all cases, in which the fuel supply was down to a critical minimum, are crew related, if there weren´t any mechanical failures…….

May 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm in reply to: AA pilot argues with Tower #554396
Balu the Bear
Participant
I would absolutely love to hear a detailed explanation as to exactly how anyone arrives at such a conclusion based on that article. :confused:

Well, my questions, which are leading me to this conclusion
1. Why were they fuel critical??
2. Why they didn´t divert to another airport, which aren´t rare around NYC??
3. Had´nt they heard about the crosswinds in KJFK??
May 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm in reply to: AA pilot argues with Tower #554408

Balu the Bear
Participant

My guess is, in this case it´s some sort of bad airmanship….
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 75 total)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →