SchorschId love to know how these 3rd world countries can afford to operate such hardware as the Fulcrum and the Flanker?
Are these 3rd world airforces a professional and well trained lot? My impression is that they would be bit of a joke,not being racist but if I was a fighter pilot I wouldnt fly in a plane mantained by some some african bushman!
Any modern fighter is absolutely unsuitable for 3rd world countries. It starts with superfluent requirements like supersonic speed and high agility, which dictate the airframe but are useless to the operator. It continues with engines that are optimized for performance but are bitches in maintenance. In conclusion: Something like a MiG-29 doesn’t bring in any gain except possibly for reconnaisance.
I am always amazed, that in this forum people really take such “air wars” serious. Engagements between Ethopia and Eritrea fall in the category of underdeveloped countries and armies getting overkill equipment. The results are anything but representative for the equipment used.
In the current case the air operation is somewhere close to irrelevant. With a strike force of ~20 aircraft, probably constrained number of spares, the maximum amount of sorties is at 2/day. But that sortie rate cannot be sustained long, so the Ethopian commanders can choose between using their limited airpower at one time (and then probably having no airpower any more), or using it at a low rate without causing any tactical benefit.
The intention of the strike was possibly to:
– cause psychological advantages (show the average Somali that Ethopia is powerful)
– demonstrate the ability to strike the airport, which will make foreign aircraft more cautious (and hence weapon delivery less likely).
The Ethopian air force has neither the numbers nor the skills to deny the airport for prolonged times. On a tactical level the air force is irrelevant (except for reconnaisance and communication). The issue will be decided by poor young guys carrying AK-47, lead by poorly trained (and informed) officers and being wasted by the hundreds without hesitation. Welcome to rural Africa.
SchorschWhy not? The Raptor is more optimised for high alt/speed flights unlike the Flanker. Plus its bypass ratio is lower. Should give the Raptor a nice advantage up high.
I repeat: A normal line*1 F-22 will not break the records of the P-42*2.
*1: means normal engine, typical OEW
*2: stripped of anything except the engine and the wing
SchorschSchorsch wrote:
“The Argentinians didn’t waste a single bomb on British troops on the Falklands but threw them all on ships (and were fairly effective, the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor really hampered the whole operation and demanded the troops to walk to a frontal assault”
The Argentines conducted bombing missions on UK ground forces on the Falklands using Dagger, Skyhawk and Canberra. Those missions have been well documented over the years. MB-339s and Pucaras also conducted airstrikes against UK forces on the Islands. Pucaras conducted napalm attacks on Paras at Goose Green. The Atlantic Conveyor was hit by an Exocet.
I know that the Atlantic Conveyor was hit by an Exocet. For the rest; Thanks for the correction and feel free to add detals.
SchorschFollowing another of Dozer’s stories, flight engineers calculated that on one flight he could have broken pretty much all the time to climb records in the Raptor’s weight class. I don’t know if the P-42 is in the same class but I doubt it would tak much for the F-22 to beat it. 20 years of development has it’s upsides. 😉
Thrust to weight ratio gives a f##k on 20 years development. A normal line F-22 will not break the P-42 records.
SchorschI always appreciate the knowledge based in Reading.
SchorschSea Eagle was retired from British service some years ago. I think India may still operate it.
What kind of AShM does the RAF operate now?
SchorschBut why wait for future Typhoon versions when the GR.4 can do it now? Damn, the basic IDS from 1981 could make any invasion fleet suffer badly.
Hey, you can even use the totally overprized Nimrod.
[ATTACH]149026[/ATTACH]
Here an example that you don’t need this AESA-CAPTOR-EXPENSIVE BAe-System’s cash-generating Wunderwaffen. Use a ordinary bomb and a capable aircraft designed to drop dumb bombs with suffient precision under enemy fire at bad weather (= TORNADO). I guess 6 of those will shatter an invasion fleet. The Toni can carry 8 cluster bombs, too. For the round trip from Falkland to possible invasion fleet it can even go without external tanks.
[ATTACH]149025[/ATTACH]
SchorschYes, I referred to the Raptor story. The P-42 surely used the most efficient climb schedule for their configuration (and they performed the test several times).
Schorsch2- Thats why I mentioned that the RAF should look to get an AShM capability for their Typhoons.
Yes, that would make sense. On the other hand, the Tornado has such capabilities (using the Sea Eages, I don’t know if that is still current). Even with dumb bombs a Tornado can do enormuos damage. The Tornado is clearly better suited for a2g than the Typhoon will be in the next 5 years. Expecially its ability operate low and attack with surprise (remember the pictures of the Argi aircraft flying through the Falkland sund). Of course, such attacks would probably cause the loss of aircraft (due to AAA, MANPADS, etc).
Remember: The British fleet suffered bad losses in 1982 against an enemy that operated with mostly outdated and unsuited aircraft at the edge of operational range. That with very limited intelligence. The British would operate well inside their operational range, use superior aircraft (Tornado vs. A-4 and Etendard 😀 ), have better weapons and probably air superiority. The Tornado can even operate under Argi air cover, they can’t cover their fleet all the time.
I guess no Typhoon can strike a merchant ship with cluster bombs on first approach in fog and darkness at tree top level.
SchorschWhy close air support? A landing is extremely unrealistic. Even if, the easiest thing is to bomb the support ships and effectively starve all troops. The Argentinians didn’t waste a single bomb on British troops on the Falklands but threw them all on ships (and were fairly effective, the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor really hampered the whole operation and demanded the troops to walk to a frontal assault; I am still impressed by the infantry men that fought in the Falklands).
One of those yes and no things really, whilst the Typhoon/AMRAAM/ASRAAM combination won’t offer much over the F.3 Tornado/AMRAAM/ASRAAM comination but we must remember that the F.3 is due to go out of service soon. In time the Typhoon will offer significant advantages over the F.3, it has better sensors a swing role capability and eventually METEOR.
How does the swing-role capability detere Argentinian air assaults? Sensor capability is nice, but the Argis neither have any stealthy aircraft (the Su-30 is far away from that), nor is there any land to use low level flying. The Tornado was especially designed to deal with threats over open water (however, that radar is apparently a troubled design). Most important is the tactical situation: All targets of interest are on the eastern island (which adds another 300km for the round trip), so that any defending fighter has the advantage of attacking incoming fighters at most favorable terms. Even the Sea Harriers were succesful under those conditions, which under equal terms would have been a costly battle for them.
Even Phantoms would suffice.
Incidently I think the above pictures provide yet another good reason for the RAF to go all out for the C-17, get a fleet of 25 or 30 and put of the A-400, maybe consider it or a later variant to replace the C-130J’s in the very long term.
I guess many people in British air force and industry think substantially different.
SchorschSo you think you are more competent than Victor Pugachev?No offence,but i’m sure that they were knowing what they were doing.
Oh, I like that. “Schorsch dared to question the wisedom of a test pilot. How can you? 😡 “
The guy (didn’t know his name actually) said clearly that he just made a free climb without any specific schedule. He also said that his aircraft was hanging at M0.99, a clearly undesirable Mach number.
With some basic understanding in flight performance and aerodynamics I feel qualified to do such comments. I guess the pilot will agree that he could squeeze more out of the aircraft when he uses total energy control (which basically would require him to calculate an altitude where he breaks the barrier, depending on weight, temperature and power setting).
SchorschFact is that the Islands belongs to Argentina…… it’s unbelievable that there are still imperial powers in the year 2006! Don’t forget that Latin American polotical situation is making a turn to the left……. and Argentina is this time NOT alone in the idea’s to have the islands back:dev2:
Fact is that the Falklands are a useless piece of dirt on the open sea. They earn money with sheep farming, fishing and tourism. Scratch the last from the list after it belongs to Argentinia and the cost over use becomes not very favorable. Only if oil is located around the Falklands the issue might change.
See for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
SchorschThe story is nice. If he had used a climb profile he could have been even faster. At 10-15kft (or even lower) he should have lowered the nose and break through the sound barrier. After breaking it he brings the nose up, always lowering the angle when speed falls below M1.2. Behind M1 the drag drops somewhat, so that the drag (and in consequence the available specific excess thrust) would be higher at M1.2 than at M0.99 (don’t know about the engine). With higher airspeed comes better climb rate (higher specific excess power (SEP)).
A fully managed total energy climb schedule would unleash the full potential of the jet.
SchorschComing back to the origin of this thread: I don’t think the Typhoon would add substantial capability as the F.3 is exactly the right aircraft for the job. The next Argentinian base is 530km from most western point of the Falklands and about 700km from the airbase itself.
If the Argentinians decide to do a surprise attack the do not have the capability to knock the airbase out at first attempt. The Brits still have Stanley for limited operations (the Tornado is after all capable of using secondary airports).
No dogfight would happen over the Falklands. It didn’t happen in 1982, and even with a bunch of Su-30 it is very difficult to establish air supremacy over the Falklands. The F.3 is perfectly able to defend the airspace and does not have to fight against agile fighters. The Su-30 is sure agile, but it still has to return to its base, reducing the available fuel for engagements. The Su-30 has no speed advantage, under the perfect BVR-conditions it would not have any advantage.
If UK adds some SAM sites the issue gets even more difficult. The Tornados could fly under ground control guidance, use favorable conditions and attack any intruders at will. The Argis neither have the equipment to isolate the Falklands from British sea support.
A group of GR.4 would practically deny the waters around the Falklands for the Argis.
For a re-capture: Giving the level of “alliance” between USA and UK, the US Navy maybe sends an carrier battle group. That would practically settle the issue. (it is amazing that one US CVBG can project more power than the entire Royal Navy or any other European navy).
But after all: Argetinia has strong economical problems and is keen to solve them. They have strong trade connections to USA and Europe and no sane leader would risk that. Even a dictator knows that an attack against the Falklands is a bold gamble likely to fail. And the last dictatorship in Argentinia ended after such a military disaster.
One question remains: how do the Brits transfer aircraft to the Falklands? From Ascension with air refuelling or from South Africa?
SchorschYeah, great thing. But it doesn’t matter for real aircraft performance. Give me thrust/weight and I may be impressed.
Sign In
