crobatoI think if you’re in a desperate situation—desperate as in nothing less than the SURVIVAL OF YOUR OWN SPECIES from alien invasion—you won’t give a damn about refresher courses, prototocol or whatever policy, bureaucracy or crap. You would take every damn pilot out there, give them a short course, then put them in whatever plane you can restore from the Boneyards—old F-4s to F-14s, F-16s and whatever—and task them with no less than suicidal mission. You will be as every bit as desperate as the Germans and the Japanese in the end of WWII, and the idea of “American Kamekaze” won’t be as remote as you think it may.
crobatoIf you want innovation here is a partial list
Fokker Eindecker — first plane that you can ever consider to be a true fighter
Albatros DIII/V — ? first planes to ever use a monoque construction, allowing for better air streamlining.
Junkers D-1 — first all metal monoplane fighter
Junkers 87 — first true CAS plane and the first ever effective dive bomber
Me-109 — first fighter to use adjustable forward wing slats and retractable landing carriage. First to have an all enclosed canopy and first to use cannons. First also to use gyroscopic gun sights and the first to use a radio.
Me-110 night fighter (was it a C series) — first fighter to ever have a radar onboard
P-51 Mustang — first fighter to ever use a bubble canopy; first to use laminar flow principle
Me 262 — first operational jet fighter, first with sweep wing
Me 163 — first and only ever rocket fighter. First combat plane to ever use a tailless configuration.
Ta-163 — not sure if this is the correct number, first plane to feature an open nose inlet and sweep wing, influenced designs like the MiG-9.
MiG-15 — first fighter to abandon the dihedral wing layout; first ever to feature wing fences.
F-86 — first plane to use radar ranging for gunfire and hydraulic controls. First fighter to ever use a guided missile.
MiG-17 — First transonic jet.
F-102/Mirage III — first delta winged fighter? contested between the two. F-102 first plane to use area rule.
F-111 — first variable wing combat aircraft in service. First plane to ever have terrain following flight control. First to use a turbofan.
Saab Draken — first compound delta wing aircraft in service
Saab Viggen — first canard delta fighter in service
F-4 Phantom — first operational widespread fighter to have BVR.
F-14 — first fighter to use a slotted array radar, and peer to peer networking.
MiG-31 — first fighter to use a phase array radar
B-1B — first bomber to use a phase array radar
SR-71 — first operational plane to have stealth like characteristics
Ho-229 — first flying wing
F-16 — first operational plane to use FBW and relaxed stability
F-5A — first plane to ever use a LERX
MiG-21 — first plane to ever use a variable inlet
MiG-19/F-100 Hun — first operational fighter planes to go supersonic in level flight. First planes to ever feature an afterburner. F-100 Hun is the plane John Boyd flew where he developed his EM theories. MiG-19 first to have GCI datalink?
Hawker Harrier — first ever widespread VTOL combat aircraft
F-117 — first combat aircraft with VLO characteristics.
crobatoIf “greatness” is based on prolificity, then shuffled for flight quality, maintainability, and length of service, then the list would go like:
MiG-15
F-86
MiG-17
MiG-19/J-6
MiG-21
F-5A/E
F-4 Phantom
F-16
F-104 Starfighter
Mirage III
crobatoThe composition of the aircraft does tend to reflect doctrine. However, within any organization, there are “mafias” that have different opinions about doctrines.
For example, in the Soviet Union, there were two conflicting approaches to airpower, which co existed side by side. One sees the tactical approach to airpower, which is in effect, used to support the land army, making the air arm an extension of the army. The similarity to this is the Luftwaffe in the Second World War or Soviet Union aiirforce in the same period. The core of this tactical doctrine are the hordes of fighters and attackers that can be positioned close to the battlefront, intended to strike the rear of enemy armies and provide cover for your own.
The second involves a strategic approach, which mainly sees the air arm as an offensive implement of policy that can be used alone to bring another country to its knees. The core of this is a strategic bomber force, and for the defensive side, a network of long ranged interceptors designed to cover the country and intercept likewise enemy bomber force.
The most stunning event happened in the fifties, not in the Korean war, but in the Hungarian uprising, when the SU literally wiped out the Hungarian air force on the ground. After that, the classic air superiority doctrine that prevailed in WWII and the Korean War began to be replaced by a kill the enemy while he’s on the ground approach, something that so prevailed the USAF in the late fifties. Already in the grips of a bomber mafia that made the the strategic nuclear bomber the centerpiece of policy, the USAF extended this to a range of heavy fighter bombers (F-101 Voodoo, F-105 Thunderchief, F-4 Phantom, F-111), each potentially able to carry a nuke.
The revolt came with the so called Light Fighter mafia, led by Boyd, Ricci, etc,. Vietnam validated the return of the classic light fighter, brought the F-16 as the backbone of the USAF, although previously, lighter fighters like the F-5 and the F-104 were mainly export items.
It should be noted that the Six Day War pointed to the opposite conclusion from Vietnam. Striking out and killing the enemy on ground proved to be a good thing. When the Egyptians tried to do the same thing in 1973, the short range and payload of their MiGs proved to be a handicap.
crobatoI dont think it works simply that way. Engines on the F-15 likely use less gas ie rpm for the same speed. The F-4 for example also has more range than an F-104, or the F-18/Eurofighter (which has comparable engines) compared to a JAS-39 or a T-50.
Not quite. Use less RPM? Even if you do, you still cannot overcome having two engines gulping fuel twice as much as one. Just compare 8 cylinder cars to 4 cylinder cars on the average. Plus the fact that turbofans are more efficient at lower speeds, and the F-16’s fixed intake is more efficient in that regime than the F-15’s variable ramp intake.
I don’t think the F-18 has better range than the JAS-39 going on internal fuel only.
crobatoI wonder what kind of translation issue can say something like this.
“All critical radar controls for “Zemchug” are integrated into the aircraft’s throttle grip and stick controller, “
Sounds like the writers and the editors of the article are into some real hashish.
crobatoIts not really hard to get 60 to 70 degrees off boresight from a seeker. Just put the antenna on a pivot. Some of the early missile designs have a fixed focal plane antenna and that only tends to give you about 60 to 90 degrees FOV (30 to 45 offbore). The real danger off high offboresight is the accidental acquisition of friendlies. Israel had been quite wary of this, even with their FOV of the Python 3, they still align their nose to the target to get a positive ID before firing rather than exploit the wide FOV. To sum it up, what is more important is the introduction of better methods of IFF, because without that, no one would be confident in the use of wide offboresight weapons. We have seen better IFF systems come into the later variants of the F-16 lately, starting with the Block 20/MLU. In other words, just designing a better missile isn’t enough.
crobatoThat’s an Indian daily reporting it, must be smoking something really nice.
crobatoDon’t you know no F-22 stands chance against the super duper J-10. Its super duper radar can detect F-22 at 10,000 miles.:diablo:
Yes indeed, you can’t beat those antigravity weapons.
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/14961.asp
Jian-10 -China’s new fourth genaration fighter aircraft injected in Chinese Air Force – equipped with anti-gravity weapon systems
crobatoNot much really. You have to deal with the drag mostly. Also a considerable amount of the engine’s generated energy is invested turning all the components within, as well as compressing the air, and that part isn’t going to change for any aircraft. A large portion of energy is also thrown or wasted away as radiated heat. To put it simply, only a fraction of energy produced by any combusion engine is used as propulsion.
crobatohuh? Thats better than the combat radius of an F-22 or F-35 which is about 600nm. How is the Viper going to achieve that? 2*600 plus 1*300 ext. fuel plus CFTs?
And reg. F-15/F-16 comparison: The F-15 usually carries a lot more external fuel than a standard F-16 so I doubt the Viper can stay in the air longer than an Eagle. That probably works for a clean Eagle vs a Viper with external fuel.
Well duh, the F-15 uses two of the same engine as the F-16 uses one. That means at least in any given time, double the fuel consumption.
crobatoThey already did that the last time in the eighties and not much was accomplished. More damage was done to their economy when the Saudis lowered their oil prices.
If the Iranians have a certified nuke, then it would be best to take it out surgically before they have any plans to use it. They already got a leader who seems both cunningly smart, and also seems loco. There is no need for a war to accomplish this, just level their nuclear facilities to the ground.
crobato..and which many put the blame on the US and its Arab allies for isolating Iran then dumping the prices of oil to the floor. Whether that is true or not, the mullahs can always play the blame game, and there is enough that will believe them. The thing about poverty is that it works for the side of fundmentalists than not.
crobatoIran’s GDP is $195B with a population of about 70M. Doing some quick math, that is a per capita income of about $2800 per year. This is not good as it places the Iran in the same lot with economic powerhouses like Albania and Pakistan. This is far, far worse than when the Shah was forced out in 1979. Iran has to import food and refined oil products to feed its people and power it’s industry. The Iranian government nationalized much of the country’s industry, including private farms and unemployed Iranians flock to the cities. There have been many riots against the Mullahs and other riots that outsiders haven’t heard about. The situation is a powderkeg ready to blow.
Lol. That’s quite a bit more than the capita per income of a Chinese citizen by the way, and four times more than in the Philippines, both of whom are far from a full scale revolt.
Whatever the dissent happening in Iran, bombing Iran won’t help the dissidents. It will only make it worst since it will force the people to the side of the mullahs more. It will also make it easier for the mullahs to blame the woes to the US.
crobatoIsolating then bombing Iran would only radicalize the population with the Mullahs, and not against them.
Why do people think that bombing a country to destroy its economy will cause the people to turn against their government? That’s completely delusional. It will only radicalize people, evaporate domestic opposition, and throw them fiercely and fanatically in the side of the regime. Collateral damage—stories of innocent civilians, like women and children getting killed by bombs—will only enflame the rest of the people and turn them into the radical and the hardline. And that’s exactly what the radicals and the Mullahs want. They;re looking for a new Jihad, and you don’t give it to them.
Not to mention, this wil radicalize more of the Shiites in Iraq, and push that country over the edge. As you deploy troops in Iran, the unfinished business in Afghanistan worsens. Pakistan is thrown in the middle, and this may cause a domino effect (refugees and guerillas going across the border and back), and the domino effect may affect Turkey and the south of Russia, already a powderkeg. Russia won’t like the US having troops near its southern border and a new Cold War starts, with the Russians covertly supplying arms to Shiite insurgents. In the end, you will end up lighting a series of regional fuses.
Sign In
