Adrian_44RE: USS Vincennes Iran air 955 shoot down
I also read it was a problem between the participants on the Link 11 system. I read it was another American destroyer that detected the flight #955 and assigned it a tracking number. A very short time later the Vincennes detected flight #955 and it computer also assigned a number along with a “time stamp”. The other ship transmitted data over Link 11 and had an earlier time stamp. Therefore the tracking number of the destroyer was the one that Link 11 used. On the Vincenne’s displays changed to reflect the number but, the crew did not notice the change in number.
IFF challenged the aircraft and due to atmospheric conditions, the signal bounced off the upper atmosphere and reflected to Bandar Abbas where an F-14A’s IFF responded and indicated it was a combat aircraft. Subsequent, challenges with IFF indicated the aircraft indicated it could be both military and or civilian.
I had heard the airliner was at its correct altitude but, was more than an hour behind what its flight plan’s indicated.
The captain of the Vincennes did not want his ship to wind up the same as the USS Stark.
What bothers me the most is the political white-wash job that was done. The crew did not perform well, why was the captain exonerated? Why wasn’t there more communication between the Vincennes and the other ship that also had a radar lock-on to flight #955. The CIC of the other ship did not understand the Vincenne’s concern. This concern should have been voiced.
the Vincennes should not have been where it was, the captain was very aggressive and regarded as looking for a fight and had followed the gun boats into Iranian territorial waters.
The ‘boghammer’ speed boats used by the Iranians were in the area and were in position to attack tanker shipping. The boghammers also fired on the helo from the Vincennes, so engagement with them was in-line with their duty. There is a debate as to whether the Vincennes actually went into Iranian territoral waters unless at some point, Iranian territory waters extends beyond the usual twelve mile limit.
As for whether the captain was to aggressive, you want that sort of aggressiveness in the commanders of aegis ships, helicopters, tanks, etc.
Whether, the Vincennes should have been exonerated is still up for debate -damn politics. I do feel that the US Government should accept some responsibility for the incident. Should the Iranian Air Line accept some responsibility also, yes I feel.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Best Shot of your Favorite Fighter!
…check this out!!!
I gather this F-4 remained airborne? Thanx…. this is absolutely a great shot!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Rafale out of Norwegian contest
I feel sorry for the engineers and technicians who worked on the Rafale program. The lack of sucess in sales of the Rafale falls squarely in the lap of the government officals who cut the funds and dragged out the program because the cold war was over! How myopic, the Rafale should have been operational in the mid-1990’s and with a ten year plus time advantage it would have secured more foreign sales. Now with the Typhoon being a better air to air fighter, the F-35 being stealthy, the Gripen and Sukhois being cheaper in purchase price…. the Rafale is crowded on all sides and has no single distinct advantage.
As for “Super Nimrod’s” statement, Norway being able to afford any it wanted that is not quite true. Norways oil field will reach their maximum production within ten years and the country’s budget is structured so it will maintain a balanced budget without the petrol-dollar. After an oil field reaches its peak, production descreases steadily. Norway does not want to be dependent on a source of income that is decreasing.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Mass brawls
The best you can say is that some days you’ll win, some days you’ll loose.
here’s an extract from a piece in today’s Defense Daily. It’s mostly a booster for the F/A-22 but it’s another indicator of what a bad time the USAF F-15s had out in India.
True some days are good and others bad but, COPE INDIA was a complete sucess. It got the attention of those who controlled the funds for the F-22.
Now, how many people have asked the question, “what if the F-15’s had outnumbered the Su-30Mk’s 3:1, the F-15’s used Slammers while the Su-30MK’s used Alamo’s with a maximum range of 20 miles?”
The number of people who would clamour for the termination of the F-22 and simply modify a few more of the F-15C with “-9X” and (V)2 radars, would be overwhelming.
COPE INDIA did indicate to the USAF that it can not use the same old methods of operation and in a world where other countries have decreased the technology gap the USA used to enjoy. In order to continue to operate the F-15’s, the USAF (and any other country) will continually update the sub-systems.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Best Shot of your Favorite Fighter!
My favorite fighter is the F-14 but, the F-4 -the F-14’s preddecessor provides the coolist shot I have of an aircraft.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Eurofighter Typhoon Question…
bring_it_on
in the case of the f-22A for which supercruise of mach 1.5 ( for 100nm in a 400+ full ROA) was a requirement
This is a worst case requirement for being four hundred miles from the airbase to the “forward edge of the battle area” (FEBA), without tanker support, to fight and, return to base. With tanker support the F-22 can operate in supercruise the entire mission once it crosses the FEBA.
How often does American aircraft go into aircombat without tanker support?
I would love to know what is all the faith behind the Typhoon having parity with the F-22? The Typhoon’s T/W is more than ten percent lower than the F-22’s and its wing load is greater than the Raptor’s. The Typhoon also does not have TVC. Where does all this faith come from other than anti-American bias!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Whether Super Hornet can do cobra maneuver?
a F/A-18E do a maneuver very like to Cobra Maneuver that Su-27 done but I am not sure. Who can show me to prove it?
In the 12/16/74 issue of Aviation Week, page 43 did a pilot report on the YF-17. The Northrop chief test pilot H.E. Chouteau stated the following, “then we started flying to increased angles -35 deg., 40 deg., 60 deg., -and then we did vertical recoveries from 90 deg. to determine what the best recovery procedures would be.”
That was thirty-one and a half years ago. So, if the F/A-18E/F can not do the cobra it is not because America lacks the technology but, rather for one reason or another decided not to include this capability. I rather suspect that it can do it for one of the capabilities the SH was designed to was to be able to bring the aircraft back aboard the carrier a lot easier than its predecessors. This requires very good low speed handling.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Why don’t Chinese or Russians copy YF-23? Attempt II
There are many reasons that they don’t just design any stealth aircraft.
1) Their requirements are so different from what the USAF needed.
2) Stealth is still a sink hole for absorbing money.
3) The manufacturing methods of still aircraft so far reflect America’s capabilities. Other countries will develope their own manufacturing methods, materials and it will be reflected in the final product.
NOTE 1: When the USSR wanted a new lightweight fighter in the mid-1970’s, they wanted an aircraft like the MiG.-21. Around a maximum weight of 20,000 lbs with the requirements found needed after the Viet Namese war. What they would up with is an aircraft in the size category of the F/A-18. What they really wanted is an aircraft like the F-16! A single engine, lightweight, very high in performance. Due to design and manufacturing processes they wound up with an aircraft 20% larger.
The YF-22 was more of what the USAF was looking for in many respects. It got the USAF into the TVC technology, its manufacturer had a better record for controlling cost and, the performance at low speeds (ie WVR -guns) was better.
Now in the areas in which the YF-23 was better than the YF-22 was in areas in which both aircraft greatly exceeded the specs. (SEE NOTE 2) So the fact that the USAF chose the YF-22 equated to the fact that the USAF felt the YF-22 was the best aircraft for the money. The YF-23 was more of a high risk financial project than the YF-22, a fact that is often overlooked.
In hind-sight, had the USAF selected the YF-23 and its price tag was even higher and what a mess that would make.
NOTE 2:
The YF-23 had a high supercruise speed than the YF-22 but, the YF-22 had already demonstrated that it was several tenths of a Mach higher in supercruise speed than the specs. The same sort of thing was true with the RCS of the two aircraft.
In the design of an stealth aircraft many different techniques must be used. Some surfaces need a material that absorbs only some of the RF energy. Other surfaces need not only an absorbant material on the outside but also angled to help defeat the RF energy.
The B-2 and the F-35 have a wire embedded along the edges of panel doors to prevent these slots or joints from causing a high degree of reflectitivty. Some panels on the F-35 also have an embedded wire mesh within the layers of materials. A voltage is applied to the mesh to reduce the RCS of that panel. This technique is used to combat the reflectivity of many different frequencies, by using more than one mesh panel and a different voltage.
These are just a few new improvements being made to reduce the RCS of an aircraft, that lowers the cost of the aircraft, the maintenance and, the RCS simultaneously.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: French S-3 Tankers?
Well, the French Navy already operate the E-2 Hawkeye. Which, is a very heavy aircraft. Does anyone have the loaded weight of a S-3 while operating as a Tanker vs a Fully loaded E-2 Hawkeye?
The French Navy does not want another American aircraft. The amount of life left on the airframe is not great, would most likely need a service life extention program. The S-3 having engines and other spare parts not used by the French Navy, so there would be a logistics problem also.
All weighs are lose approximations;
CH-46 MTOW -24,300 lbs
CH-53 MTOW -69,750 lbs
E-2C MTOW -57,000 lbs
F-35 MTOW -50,000 lbs
S-3 MTOW -52,500 lbs
OV-22 MTOW -60,500 lbs
Any carrier which can handle an E-2, will most likely be able to handle an OV-22 “AEW” variant also! This would give the small carriers airborne early warning. While the C.DeGaulle carrier could handle these aircraft I am not sure about the Prince DeAuturas or Garribaldi. The USN’s LHD’s can handle all of these aircraft except the S-3.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Is the F-22 Worth it?
The problem is not the US Military and what they want but, rather they know the political realities of congress! Admit it, until the Su-27 displayed its abilities in the late 1990’s, there was NO serious money to upgrade the air to air capabilities of the F-15! Unlike the Soviet Army which every few years during the Cold War had a constant new design in tanks constantly in developement, the USAF knew it would be a long time before a replacement for the F-15. The sucess the F-15 had after it went into production and the serious delay the MiG.-29 and Su-27 had, there was little mood in the US congress to fund a new more capable fighter in another ten to fifthteen years. So, the USAF knew that the way the Cold War was going and the Soviet AF’s response to the USA’s fourth generation aircraft, it would be in access of twenty years before a replacement for the F-15 would be fielded. DARPA, the CIA, USAF did a study to determine what the Soviet technical capabilities would be in the 1990 to 2010 time frame, the USAF wanted a fighter that would be better than what the Soviet AF could produce had the Cold War continued. After the financial break-down of the USSR, the US “intell” people found their study had been very accurate.
I can’t think of an arguement was used against the F-14A and F-15A that is not being used against the F-22! All the arguements against these two aircraft concerning their cost was pretty accurate. The technical advantage the F-22 has over its competitors is greater than the F-14 and F-15 over their competitors in 1975 upon the onset of operational status!! So, to expect the F-22 to have a similar record of the F-15 is ‘not’ unreasonable!
It was through “personal” contacts at MD that, in part, led to the design of the F-15, heavily influenced by Boyd
Boyd personally felt the F-15 was entirely to large and to complicated. While the USAF did look again at another swingwing aircraft from other competitors of McDD, Boyd was a personal friend of Harry Hillaker and they were among those who pushed so hard for the F-16. The final F-16 while being smaller and simpler than the F-15, for Boyd’s taste it still was to complex. He wanted something more like the a jazzed up performance of an F-5 or Kfir. The problem is neither of these aircraft could fill USAF’s needs. Neither of these two aircraft would have worked well in the PGW#1.
One aspect those who champion the cheaper more numerous fighters, the greater the numbers the greater the maintenance organization that must exist -ie the F-14, etc. This a great part of the total cost is the manpower element.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: TOP GUN and Agressor aircraft schools around the world
Israel, Taiwan, Singapore also have ACMI ranges and aggressor squadrons. The RAF and the French AF share an ACMI range over the North Sea. Canada has a huge ACMI range at Cold Lake, where Maple Flag. Most of these countries have an ACMI system by EHUD of Israel. Evidently, most countries do not need the extensive system like the ACMI system by Cubic Corp. To my knowledge America has only three remaining.
Neither Russia AF nor PLAAF have any ACMI ranges!!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Radar: does stealth spell the end?
Had the Cold War continued the F-22 would have entered service in Clinton’s first term. The Cold War ended and a two year restructuring of the entire program took place.
I believe that if F-22 was earlier ready it would have been produced in greater numbers.
Think of the way the F-22 was being developed as an old man (this hits close to home) running 100 meters. He runs strong for the first fifty to sixty meters. Then slows significantly for the next thirty plus meters and, virtually walk across the one hundred meter finish line. That was the developement story in a nutshell of the F-22. This policy saved money each year but add billions to the total cost of the program.
As a US taxpayer, I am horrified by many things my government does, not just the mis-management of the F-22 but, the military in general plus the conduct of the war in Iraq.
The F-22 was progressing well, then the politicians slowed the program down, told all the manufacturers and submanufacturers to restructure the program. To figure a way to proceed on one of several different levels of funding and adjust some of the specs to accomodate these economic realities. This process of evaluation took almost two years! Many of these specs that were changed will be increased back to their original amounts in the upcomming upgrades.
On the other hand the F-22 embraces many new high risk technologies;
1) Engines that perform extremely well, economically at high speed and high altitude.
2) An ability to avoid to detection in many different ways.
3) Avionics and pilot interface that provide the pilot with a level of control never seen before in an aircraft. The pilot does not have to worry about flying the aircraft, just how he is going to employ it -the tactics.
4) Maneuverability envelope that is a larger than that of any aircraft in developement or operation.
5) Maintenance required is less than any previous fighter.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Super Hornet “kills” Raptor
What were the rules of engagement (ROE’s)???
I see by the HUD, it is an F-22. That the F/A-18E/F is at 15,090 feet altitude, diving down on the F-22 -30° nose low, “closure rate” on the F-22 of 210mph, the gun is firing (the black rectangle in the upper left), pulling 1.9 G’s, Mach is 0.36, the AoA is 20.3°, just 900 feet distance between the F/A-18 and, the air speed of 182mph. Now tell me what the ROE’s are that have the F-22 is involved in a fight under these circumstances???
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: What if : Linebacker III circa 1980
imagine if in Indo-china another crisis developed in 1980 and US got involved only as far a aerial bombartment is concerned with B-52s F-111 flying strikes escorted by F-15s and F-4s against an soviet developed Vietnamese airdefence system with the latest SAMs , Su-15s MiG-25s as interceptors and MiG-21s and MiG-23s as fighters
Would the US forces have the aid of S-3 AWACS? By 1983 the USAF had the S-3 Sentry. The F-15 had a significant performance over any Soviet aircraft. SEAD and ECM had also improved greatly. The improvement as well domonstrated by the Israeli AF over the Bekaa Valley.
When the US Military left Viet Nam, the command structure vowelled that they would never fight like that again.
if you are the viet commander what kind of tactics will you use considering the assests avaliable to you to inflict the max. attrition on the US airfleet?
First like the two other Linebacker Operations, overwhelming power was used and not squandered. It is the same sort of application of airpower that was applied in the PGW#1.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: does stealth spell the end?
more and more nations building or proposing to build stealth aircraft, be this with low observable materials or plasma coatings, is there a future for radar?
Think of stealth as a passive form of radar jamming! It is just part of the pendulum between offense and defense. As radars increases its ability to detect stealth shortly later the stealth aircraft will make some improvement and become more difficult to detect again.
Low frequency radars offer the best promise for detection but, they are the most suseptible to noise jamming. Stealth aircraft can still use “terrain masking” or flying to low to be detected by radar reguardless of the RCS.
Low frequency radars can narrow down the area of which the stealth aircraft is in but, currently that area is about thirty to fifty miles on a side!
While the USA has stealth, it also is working on detection of stealth. The last thing the USA wants is for another nation to use stealth against them!
A bistatic radar consists of a separately located (by a considerable distance) transmitting and receiving site.
The bi-static radar that offers promise of detecting stealth aircraft is one that broadcast over a couple thousand frequencies simultaneanously. Far beyond today’s technology.
release this technology with F-35 will be of no practical use.
Yes it will be. Stealth is not a stagnant technology, it is constantly evolving.
Designing a stealth vehicle, is something that many countries can currently do, it is the chemicle engineering, material processing, manufacturing are the keys to the whole thing.
no-one should have any doubt that US giant companies prefer “technology demostration” or “prototype” programs
Actually, the technology demonstrators is NOT the favorite way of doing things for US industry. It is what the US Military prefers to prevent more projects like the Navy’s A-12 stealth bomber. These brand new weapons systems that are high risk and lots of money can be lost unless either the risk is reduced or demonstrators are used. Industry would prefer a lower risk and greater and longer production run, that is where the real money is. Programs like that are typified by the F-16 lightweight fighter. Orders for over four thousand four hundred aircraft have been ordered while over four thousand have been delievered!
The time between development and production is untolerable especially when we speak about products that almost the only advantage is one specific technology
That is controlled by those who control the budget, Congress. The F-16 had less of a problem because General Dynamics in Texas had the “Texas lobby” push for the F-16. The F-22 has been fought by the liberals every step of the way. Had the Cold War continued the F-22 would have entered service in Clinton’s first term. The Cold War ended and a two year restructuring of the entire program took place. Specs changed, program stretched out to “save money!” So, less money was spent each year but the program was stretched out by a dozen years and the total amount of money far greater.
Adrian
Sign In
