Adrian_44RE: Russian Carrier Flight Operations
Funnily enough, the Russian Navy never actually ceased carrier ops – they just had some lengthy interruptions due to their sole carrier being in (ill-funded) refit.
Not trying to argue over a couple of words but, reguardless of the reason, the Russian Navy discontinued flight operations.
I have a video showing Su-33 night launches and recoveries (as well as adverse weather operations with a thoroughly wet deck).
The pilots were not listed as being qualified for operating in night operational status. That is according to the Russian pilot who was attending a aviation symposium and was interviewed by US Naval Proceeds!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: for those who still believe that the f 35 will be a slow, non-maneuvrable plane.
The F-35’s target performance was to be better than the A-10, F-16C, F/A-18C and, Harrier family as a bomb truck plus outperform any of these four as a fighter. The F-35 has exceeded all its performance parameters.
As to the F-22’s ability to maneuver, the Discovery Channel several years ago did a program on the F-22. In the program there was around a twenty second video clip showing the F-22 keeping its gun piper on the center of the fuselage of an Su-27! The Su-27 can be seen maneuvering wildly but, the F-22 has no trouble keeping the piper on the Flanker. Now, there is also an animation showing something similar (the F-22 on the Su-27’s ‘six’) but, does not have the impact of the gun camera.
The Flanker does have outstanding low speed and altitude maneuvering but, the F-22’s best maneuver against an opponent is high speed and altitude. Maneuvering above 50,000 ft. (15,242m), speeds above 800mph (1,280Km/Hr) and, pulling five G’s or more, etc. is the way a female F-22 pilot put it is the real strength of the F-22!
Adrian
Adrian_44Russian Carrier Flight Operations
Does anyone have any information on Russian night carrier operations. Do they use a mirror and light system
As of the time the Russian Navy ceased carrier flight operations, they had a dozen pilots qualified for flight operations. Not one was qualified for night flight operations.
There was a debate within the “Tailhook Club” as to whether Russian pilots should be allowed to join, I was against such a move! (I had a letter to the editor of US Naval Proceedings Magazine which was published, expressing my opposition.)
There were still organizational issues concerning flight operations to be settled, such as how far up the chain of command should the decision to fly not land on the carrier (for some reason) and ‘divert’ to a land base be made?
I can not see why they would not have a optical landing system (OLS). Considering the problems of landing jets like MiG29K or Su-33 on a carrier, I don’t see any advantage in not having such a system.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: AWACS vs E2C – Hawkeye
The calculator is in using line of sight only, there are other RF techniques for detecting relatively low flying aircraft at a greater distance. Detection is one thing, establishing a track is more difficult.
A shipboard high frequency surface wave radar (HFSWR), operating between 15MHz and 25MHz, can detect low-flying anti-ship missiles by virtue of diffraction beyond the horizon in a surface-attached wave. The high-fidelity signals produced by a low pulse repetition frequency shipborne pulsed Doppler radar when detecting a sea-skimming anti-ship missile moving through sea spray above the sea.
An airborn EC-2 at 25000 feet had spottet that naval fliers at ~200 nm
THERE WAS NO CARRIER BORN AIRCRAFT IN THE AIR. If there had been an E-2C in the air, it would have been hassled also at some point! The first aircraft launched was an A-6 Intruder of which the Russian fighters had a field day with. The carrier deck was not ‘spotted’ to launch aircraft and the A-6 was the first aircraft to be able to connect to the catapult.
The Russian aircraft say they were not detected before they came over the horizon, simply a case of their RWR not detecting the radar signal. (Something Luftwaffe MiGs discovered when competing against some NATO fighters!)
Evidently the Russian aircraft had flown around along the Russian coast before making their run towards the carrier.
There was no intelligence to support an attempted sneak attack on a CVBG. In such a case, follow up attack measures would have to be taken, for if the carrier was still able to conduct flight operations after the attack, it could have exacted a good amount of damage.
Aircraft RCS is another aspect that makes it more detectable than any sea skimmer missile. Although the Russian aircraft were not flying a sea skimmer profile.
I find it interesting the Russian pilots had the E-mail address of the commander of the carrier!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: AWACS vs E2C – Hawkeye
the E-2 has a higher altitude than E-3 ( 37000 pied for E-2 and 29000 for E-3 )
Actually, it is just the opposit. The E-3 Sentry flies higher but the USAF only acknowledges 29,000 feet plus. (Much like the LA class SSN are listed as having a maximum diving depth of 800 feet.) The S-3 operates closer to 37,000 feet while the E-2 Hawkeye opeerates below 30,000 feet.
The E-2 has a techical staff of three while the Sentry has a technical staff of seventeen! The Sentry has more broadcast power, computing power as well as software capability than the E-2 Hawkeye. I know the E-2D is an AESA radar but, I don’t think the latest upgrade of the E-3 Sentry has an AESA radar?
Remember back in 2000 there was an incident involving a pair of Russian Fencer and Flanker overflying USS Kitty Hawk unintercepted? Well according to what I read on this forum, there was a 45 minute warning before the flyby.
In that incident, nothing was airborne at the time. Remember they had short before left Japanese territorial waters.
The deck was not ‘spotted’ to launch aircraft and the first aircraft able to be launch was an A-6 Intruder!
Also, Japanese Self Defense radars watched the entire incident, which is why the incident hit the mass media so quickly. While, the admiral/captain was replaced months, but the ‘SAM boss’ was not. Translation, the aegis radars detected the threat far enough out to have reacted properly if necessary.
There is a radar calculator at;
Radar Horizon Calculator
http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: RAF Eurofighter Typhoons and IAF Su-30 MKIs Match-Up to Their Potentials In Thei
I can hardly see how a Typhoon would ‘eat’ an MKI without taking a mauling itself.
If you are talking about WVR, you see the problems of having a good kill ratio.
In a recent test a single F-22 went head to head with three F-16C’s. The F-16’s simulated having a HMDS with a “high off boresight” (HOB) missile. The F-22 killed two F-16’s and the last F-16 fired a missile simultaneously as the F-22 did. A mutual kill. Great kill ratios come if you are able to use BVR.
In one of the first test of the F-22’s combat ability, four F-16C went against one F-22. The F-16’s died and never saw the F-22. Days later, five F-15C’s went against one F-22. All five died and they never saw the F-22, either. The F-22 stood off at a distance and killed the opponents.
for WVR wouldnt the Su-30MKI’s IRST give it an advantage over the Eurofighter?
I came across the following URL on stealth;
http://www.f22totalairwar.de/F-22_Total_Air_War_Stealth_Radar_Cross_Section_RCS.htm
These are fighter jocks were talking about!
do you think if either side had creamed the other side we would not hear about some time in the future? how many of us have head Red Flag stories of the USAF being defeated by tornados etc etc etc etc blah blah blah bye RAF guys?
I first heard of the Tornado killing a F-15 during a Red Flag type exercise (the one the RAF uses over the North Sea) in AW&ST. I had an old friend “Art”, a former F-14A pilot and he told things he had seen concerning the Tornado. He said the Tornado’s greatest strength was it had a great set of tacticians to deal with all sorts of aircraft. So, information does get out and not just from the USA.
As for the the capabilities of the Su-35, back at the beginning of the ATF(F-22) program, the CIA, DARPA, USAF Air Intelligence worked together to calculate what the technical capabilities of manufacturing the USSR would be in the 1990 to 2010 time period. With that knowledge the specs on the F-22 were set. (This was based upon the Cold War continuing.) It was designed to be better than anything the Soviets could build in this time period. What are the chances the USA did not share some of this information. After the Cold War ended the USA purchased first line equipment and were able to determine how accurate that study back in 1970 was and update it. In fact, it would be the height of irresponsibility to not keep this technical information edge. So, knowing the capabilities of the next MiG’s or Su-X could be determined. Then the west set their sights on being better.
for WVR wouldnt the Su-30MKI’s IRST give it an advantage over the Eurofighter?
This where the European state of the art avionics comes into play, its IRST ‘should’ have greater range than the Indian system.
One other problem the MKI’s have is the lack of EW equipment! -URL:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=8660
I think that if the RAF does (did) well, we’ll read a lot less about it than if the IAF did well…:diablo:
Yeah, I noticed that. The exercise the Indian AF Su-30’s exercised with the Israeli F-15C’s. It is almost like a non-event! I guess the Israelis did a lot better than the USAF, no rediculous ROEs. Israel is real good in WVR aerial combat.
On websites which favor Russian aircraft, no sign of gloating (as what happen after Cope India), and you know the results of any of these exercises are known by air intelligence.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: RAF Eurofighter Typhoons and IAF Su-30 MKIs Match-Up to Their Potentials In Thei
Even in the 1V1 exercises smart money says neither aircraft came close to the extents of their envelope. Things like pulling a maximum of “7G”, etc during ACM.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: What will be a classic in the future?
Of the 27 MiG-23 admitted killed by Russian sources in 1982, around 20 were killed by F-16s and AAA, the MiG-23MF fell prey to F-15s and F-16s, the MiG-23BN to F-16s and AAA and the MiG-23MS to F-4s
Western sources credit a total of eighty Syrian aircraft were shot down in aerial combat between June seventh to the eleventh. A number higher than what Russian sources admit although the Russians admit it was a very one-sided victory for the IAF.
In addition 18 MiG-21s were killed by F-15s, 17 MiG-21s were killed by F-16s plus other aircraft and helos.
All of Syria’s fighter losses came by way of air to air combat.
It got old to the local news media visiting all the different crash sights! Along with interviewing people who saw the aircraft falling in flames and crashing.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-22 tech vs F-35 tech
I just didn`t understand this. It can fly horisontaly at M1,4 with the nose pitched up at 25 degrees? Erhm, how exactly?
Either I`m not understanding English…either the plane is flying in horisontal flight at Mach 1.4 with the nose up at 25 degrees AoA….which is…kinda star trekish, if you ask me.
It is a statement about the brute force of which the F-22 can fly at. Yes, the F-22 is flying level with the nose pitched up at twenty-five degrees or, twenty-five degrees lateral difference between the heading and course of travel.
The hotspots caused by air friction are located in places that are difficult to detect. On the wings the hotspots are twenty-five percent of the way back on the chord of the upper wing. On the inlets they are designed so the hotspots are located inside the inlet not along the leading edge! This translates into the F-22 having a low IR signature and the only place the F-22’s signature approaches normal aircraft is from below and behind the F-22.
The Su-27 (and family) have two axis thrust vectoring, the F-22 has it only on one axis but, the movement of the nozzles is (plus or minus) five degrees greater on the vertical axis. Plus the nozzles can respond in a differential mode to aid in roll movements.
The TVC’s on the F-22 are geared more as an infrared suppressor than vc. Round nozzles don’t suppress as well as a shape with sharp corners.
I don’t know if a blanket statement can be made about the shape of the nozzle contributing to the IR signature. I doubt if there was any serious consideration of IR problems in the design Sukhoi’s nozzels. IR signatures were second only to RCS.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: What will be a classic in the future?
According to http://www.airwar.ru
the F-16s attacked first the MiG-23s formations and the F-15 were farther back into the israeli defences to intercept any fleeing MiG-23 from the F-16s.
Typical air combat tactics, the F-15’s were top cover they insured no enemy aircraft bounced the F-16’s. Or, that no attacks were beyond the capability of the F-16 to deal with. F-16’s made more contact because the Syrian aircraft approached at the lower to mid altitudes. The deepest penetrations into Lebonese or Syrian airspace was by F-15’s.
Typical Soviet doctrine calls for the less capable to engage the enemy, tie them up in a furball. Then the latest or best performing aircraft then enter the aircombat scene at a higher speed, altitude therefore more energy and prevail.
In fact the vast majority of MiG-23 kills were achieved by F-16s, a few were achieved F-15s
True, F-16’s killed 49 and F-15’s killed 31 Syrian aircraft. That is around a three to two ratio, an edge by not ‘vastly’.
Exactly, it depends on tactics being used. If the Israeli only used F-15s, the result would have been the same, with the F-15 getting all the kills. That doesnt say much about aircraft capability.
It does make a statement about how effectively one air force used their aircraft. Plus the efforts that air force would go through to support their fighters ie, E-2 Hawkeyes and B-707 jamming aircraft, etc.
you said F-16 escorted AF1 and I replied thats because F-16s are at Andrews and Langley so its a logical choice.
The thrust of my statement was when things were hectic and disorganized the F-16’s were the most handy. Later when the F-15’s relieved the F-16’s things were more organized, tanker support, AWACS and, all air traffic grounded.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-22 tech vs F-35 tech
For the moment, Lightning II’s advantage would be that very advanced IRST, HMD, AIM-9X. Raptor Vs Lightning II dogfight there should a few dead Raptors
They could close to WVR undetected and position themselves to best advantage. But in a WVR combat w/o the advantage of surprise, I’d expect that HMS/HOBS would be a great equalizer to the Raptors agility.
Even in a WVR combat situation, why would an F-22 come down and level the capabilities between the two aircraft. Even when able to spot an F-22, it does not mean you can place the F-22 within your weapon’s envelope!
Here is an article from Air Combat Command News. I have read similar comments from other pilots who have faced the F-22. -URL;
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831
“I can’t see the [expletive deleted] thing,” said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. “It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me.”
many 22 drivers can oreint themselves with respect to Ground based radars so as to present there best aspect if the mission is to supress the defence system , isolate it or avoid it
Yes, they can also do that with aerial targets. The F-22 can fly with the heading being twenty-five degrees different than the course it is flying at Mach 1.4! It can fly with the nose pitched up twenty-five degrees at Mach 1.4 also. At this attitude all the hot spots caused by friction are hidden from attackers below
Many others dont think so provided that the enemy knows the tactics etc .
The USAF is still developing tactics to take more advantage of the abilities the F-22 has of which no other fighter can match or, have extreme difficulty in countering. The tactics will continue to evolve.
The F-22 is banned for export supposedly because it contains sensitive technology. Yet the F-35 is going to be sold to just about any friendly country that can afford to buy it.
What’s so sensitive about the F-22 that it can’t be sold abroad when we know that in so many ways the F35 technology is more advanced than the Raptor’s.
Actually, the F-35’s technology is NOT more advanced than the F-22’s, it is more affordable! The F-35’s technology will provide performance in some respects similar to the F-22’s but, at a much lower cost to manufacture and maintain. Maintenance for the RAM of the F-35 is one-tenth that of the F-22. Many avionics of the F-35 are designed to last the life time of the aircraft without any failures.
the radar I’m thinking that in terms of radar performance, the T/R modules are identical and there are simply more of them in the -77
No, the T/R modules are not the same nor do they use a similar number of modules. The F-22 uses about 45% more modules.
I did read something a long time ago that the F-35 far outstrips the Raptor in CPU performance because it uses more powerful CPU tech not available when the F-22 was designed but that’s only something I read.
That was compared to the capability of the CPU when the F-22 became operational. The APG-77 radar has had upgrades in both harware and software, that will keep it ahead of the rest of upcomming aircraft.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Israel ship
One thing about the damage done to the INS Hanit, the ship was back in service three weeks later!
Janes Naval News Brief (01/06/06)
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: What will be a classic in the future?
Commonality is probably one reason why the F-16 was selected over the F-17, but that wasnt really a requirement. The F-15 and F-16 dont have much in common except engines. F-17 would have only shared the same gun.
Reply With Quote
In addition to the F100 engine, the F-15A and F-16A shared the air data computer and generator drive.
If we take GW1, the F-16 must be crap because the ratio was 35 or so to nil.
The F-16C like the F-14A was never afforded a real opportunity for aerial combat in PGW#1. The two MiG-21’s shot down by F/A-18C’s were being chased by F-14A’s, when they ran head-on into the F/A-18’s. The USAF (AWACS) worked real hard to insure the F-15’s got first chance at any opportunity for aerial combat. I have read of other top cover pilots (Italian Tornados, French Mirages, etc.) who complained about how AWACS directed F-15’s to targets of which they were in a better position to intercept.
Is the F-117 really Sidewinder capable? I think in a Tom Clancy story it uses its Sidewinder to down AWACS or something like that, but I didnt give it much credibility.
No, the USAF never wanted to commit the F-117 to an air to air role.
In the book “Red Storm Rising” Clancy wrote about an aircraft that was virtually invisible to radar designated F-19 Frisbee, built by Lockeed. We now know the GRU & KGB had supplied the Soviet AF commanders the specs for the F-117 but, they didn’t believe the information! Clancy evidently knew about the F-117, so the only folks who didn’t know were the folks who paid for the F-117….. the taxpayers.
On 9/11: remember that F-16s are based at Andrews AFB plus on alert at Langley.
So what? Many air bases have ANG F-16’s for their alert duty. The first aircraft scramble was F-15’s from the AFB near Boston. Having no precise data on where to go, the F-15 pilots headed out over the Atlantic Ocean!
In 1982 the F-16 were vectored to intercept the Syrian aircraft at short range and the F-15s as killers of any syrian fighter that would had slipped through the F-16 barrier
Actually, it was the F-15’s that performed the mission of ‘top cover’ for the F-16’s who were to cover the lower altitudes.
The F-15’s having better look-down radars performed better in this role while the F-16’s radars looking more ‘in plane’ operated best in this manor. The F-15’s attacked first and broke up mass atacks into smaller groups for which the F-16’s attacked. It was the F-15’s which had to concern themselves the most about not going to deep into Syrian airspace.
Even with two layers of aerial protection, Syrian Air Force (SyAAF) SA.342 Gazelle helicopters and Su-22’s did a fair amount of damage to the Israeli ground forces in the Bekaa Valley with low level attacks flying nap of the earth penetrations, without being challenged.
URL;
Syrian Tank-Hunters in Lebanon, 1982 By Tom Cooper & Yaser al-Abed
Sep 26, 2003
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Side by side seating
Originally the side by side seatings was because aircraft were so large it was practical. Later, as aircraft got smaller and faster, the need for smaller frontal cross-section increased. When the A-6 Intruder came along its side by side seating was determined by a study that indicated that there was greater crew cooperation and confidence in this arrangement.
The Navy’s participation in the TFX is what forced the side by side seating for the eventual F-111. The USAF wanted tandem seating on this aircraft then, after the aircraft was designed and test aircraft built, the USN withdrew from the program. This left the USAF with an aircraft of which they did not want. The contracts were written in such a manor that the USN was not forced to purchase the F-111 while the USAF was.
Politics entered the scene and Congress appropriated money for the first couple years of production of the F-111. So the USAF was an owner of an aircraft, like it or not!
I find it interesting the the first prototype of the XB-52 had a tandem seating just like the B-47. Gen LeMay hated tandem seating so the production B-52 had a side by side arrangement. It was made clear to Boeing, LeMay would not go along with a bomber in SAC that had tandem seating again.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Flanker parents…
Sens, thank you for the most detailed information I have read on the origins of the MiG-29 and Su-27 programs.
Adrian
Sign In
