Adrian_44RE: Future of USAF F-15s
> google
> The retained Eagles will be upgraded with systems such as the
> the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System.
As the F-15 approaches the sunset of its life, there is only so much that can be done to keep the lights on!
So, you give the F-15 -AESA, HMDS, new engines and, do other service life extention programs (SLEP), in the end you don’t have an equal to the F-22 or even down to the JAS-39C! At best you have an aircraft that maintain 1:1 kill ratio against the Su-30.
> USAF is pondering whether to install AESA on the F-15Cs; Congress
> in pondering whether to buy/upgrade more F-15s.
They should look at this option because they are not going to buy enough F-22’s. It is a real “band-aid” solution. It is like the USAF was not going to buy (back in 1973) enough F-15’s so the USAF decided to purchase more F-4 Phantom 2’s (actually Phantom 3) with the leading edge extentions and F/A-18’s radar. Now, you could use the F-4 that way but, it would not be as combat effective as a F-15, right? The same is true about the F-15 filling the numbers game with the F-22, the very same scenario. If the F-4 was built as a filler, what would the USAF do now to replace the F-15 which is facing sunset and the F-4 facing its second sunset!
> Entropy
> when did the production line close in St Louis? Those airframes
> are going to be pushing 40 years!
The production line for the F-15 never closed! It has always remained in operation, producing more than 1,700 F-15’s!! Right now the production rate is the lowest it has ever been, “only” five aircraft per month. (The Tomcat never had its production rate this high.) The F-15’s production is scheduled to stay open until 2008, that is when the last of Korea’s F-15K’s will be completed.
> Shadow1
> that USAF F-15s had been challenged by Russian Flankers and
> had been badly outflown
The USAF knows exactly how well the Su-27 performs. Back in 1994, some “private party” purchased two Su-27’s from Russia! The two Su-27’s were delievered to some place in the USA where there was a lot of sand by An-124 transports!
I wonder who the private party was, the CIA or a front company? I wonder where the aircraft were delievered, where the is a lot of sand, Nellis AFB or some of facility in the Nevada Desert?
The USAF knows how well Russian pilots perform because during the mid-1990’s USAF had an exercise similar to Cope India in Korea between the South Korean Air Force, the Russian Air Force and, the USAF!
> I believe a couple of Strike Eagles from the 48th FW were
> jumped by RAF Typhoons and were quickly outdueled after a
> mock engagement.
Yes the Typhoons beat the F-15E’s but, one must remember the Typhoon is the newest “bully” on the block. How good would the Typhoon be if a F-15E was competitive?? That would be saying the Typhoon has little chance against the Su-27, what chance would it have against the Su-30 or Su-35? -How is ZIP!
> an exchange with Russian jets and pilots which took place
> in Alaska about three or four years ago I believe
Go to a search engine like Google or Dogpile and look up “Cope India” the name of the operation which took place in (I think Jan/Feb) and the results did not hit the media until March. OR these URLs;
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/CopeIndia/
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007001
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/cope-india.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/23/airforce.supremacy.reut/
> F-18 Hamburger
> it’d be a good idea for the USAF to adopt the F-18E as
> the replacement for the Eagle until the F-22 can be
> bought in numbers
Why the F/A-18??? It has the shortest range of any US fighter in operation. It is not an “energy fighter” that Col. John Boyd taught the USAF to love. The F/A-18 is a maneuver fighter like the Tomcat. The F/A-18 does not have the long range and powerful radar the F-15 needs.
The F-16 would be a much better solutuion. It uses the same engines the F-15 has and several other parts also which are the same. Just part of the reason the USAF chose the F-16 over the YF-17.
An internal boeing study comparing the F/A-18E/F versus the F-15E. Performance wise, in every category the F-15E out performed the E/F. The “E” carrys a heavier weapons load at a range more than 50% greater than the E/F! The only thing the E/F did better than the E was to land on a carrier! What made the situation worst is the E cost a lot less than the E/F!!
> ohadbx
> The E has pretty much the same performance in A2A as the C
NO!!!!! Even with identical loads the T/W ratio is still in favor of the F-15C along with the a few changes to the “E” to make it more compatible for the mission of deep penetration.
> Sens
> No pound for air to ground when it comes to an air superiority
> fighter
That is what the USAF was saying but the designers at McDD saw the potential very early in the F-15 project of a air to ground machine somewhat like the F-111B. The USAF personnel were bigoted and only saw the F-15 as a air to air machine. It took several years before some people saw the potential the aircraft had.
> Empty equipped an E model is 1+tons heavier not counting in
> the WSO
It is about 3,300 pounds heavier, add the WSO and the total is around 1¾ tons.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-22 high altitude maneuverability
> Distiller
> I had to perform a missile [AIM-120] shot at 40.000ft, M1.6 and
> 7g” and later “entering a split-S with full a/b at 53.000ft
> and M1.98
Hey folks, what did you think that $100M price tag bought…. a souped up F-4 Phantom?
Some of these specs have been printed elsewhere like Aviation Week! The F-22 can also “cruise” at 40,000 feet, speed of Mach 1.2, with the nose heading twenty degrees off the course of travel. There is a reason one of the more important specs is the ability to travel at 50,000 feet, the nose pitched up at twenty-five degrees and, at a speed of Mach 1.4! In this configuration, all the hot spots are covered by parts of the fuselage! Remember, the hot spot on the wing is not the leading edge it is about twenty percent of the way back on the chord -on top of the wing.
As far as the speed of Mach 1.98, well it can cruise at speeds up to Mach 1.7! So the speed of Mach 1.98 is something it might need the afterburner or just increased throttle.
I have learned the clock speed of each of the two computers is 10.5 gigahertz (10,500 MegaHtz)! It supposedly has a word length of 128 bytes. Only seventy percent of the printed circuit boards are being used. The additional space can used as the computer capability is increased!
There is a reason the USAF refers to the F-22 as an “air dominance” fighter, instead of air superiority fighter. The technical gap between the F-22 and its closest competitor will be greater than the F-15 over any aircraft flying into the mid 1980’s. The F-15 has a kill ratio of 100+:0. For those who don’t want the USAF to be number one, your greatest allies are the US Congress and the GAO!
The F-22 that is flying today is NOT as advance as the original specs called for. Originally the F-22 was to be able to cruise at Mach 2.0 and the top speed is higher (but I do not know by how much).
This was all based upon the Soviet Union remaining a first class world power. The USAF, DARPA and, the “intell” people did a great job in determining the capability of the USSR to make aircraft in the 1990’s, in a study done back in the late 1970’s.
Even with the AESA radar the F-15 in best cases would have to get within six miles before I could detect the F-22 from its three or nine o’clock position.
> doing a split-S at FL530 and M1.98 also sounds spectecular
It is, the thought of doing anything more than flying straight at that speed and altitude is amazing.
> Transall
> I don’t doubt it can do impressive things up there
BELIEVE IT! The US Taxpayer has the finest aircraft money can buy by quantum leap! I am part owner as a taxpayer!
Back in 1974, Grumman produced an “owner’s manual” for the US taxpayer and I got a copy. Well illustrated and good diagrams of how the AWG-9 scans, etc..
> We’ve all got used to expressions like “a 9G turn”, but they
> are not reliable
Actually they are, you just need to be good at second year “The Calculus” to translate these figures of feet per second and “G-forces” to calculate the degrees per second being turned! I had a similar problem in my second year of college and taking my first physics course (what an ambush!). Now this does not include the angle of deflexion, that take aerodynamics knowledge.
It would also be difficult to comprehend some of these figures because I do not know of anyone who knows what is good and what is great in the way of maneuvering at 40,000 or 50,000 feet. I have seen diagrams of the F-14’s and F-15’s performance at 20,000 feet.
> Shep
> to be quite frank as nice as they are i cant see any new Russian,
> Chinese or for that matter European stuff being able to compete
> on remotely equal level.
That was the whole point of the study done by the USAF, DARPA and, air intell as to what the developement capability of the Soviet Union be in the 1990’s, provided the Cold War continued.
The F-22 has the latest in everything, where some aircraft have advance pilot/avionics interface, aerodynamics, etc., only the F-22 have the latest in all these fields.
The pilots know their aircraft but, the F-22 is the first aircraft to know about the pilot! The F-22 Raptor is the first fighter to have a machine/human interface! In the past aircraft presented information however it may occur. It didn’t matter if the pilot faced overload or not. Now the computer system of the F-22 constantly monitors the pilot’s “mental work load!” The computer monitors about twenty-four different parameters to determine when and how to present information.
Sensors are built into the flight suit and helmet. These sensors measure the…. Rate of eye blinking, Duration of eye blinks, Heart rate -duration of beats as well as frequency, Blood pressure, Resporatory Rate, Resporatory Amplitutde, EEG Alpha Power
EKG Delta Power, Humidity at the skin surface &, Along with about fifth-teen other parameters of the body.
If the pilot is at his peak in mental work load then, the computer calculates when to present the information. If the information is urgent and the pilot is at his peak work load, the computer takes the appropriate action and inform the pilot at the earliest possible time!
This is all part of the Synthisized Emersion Research Envirement (SIERE) cockpit system. A system that will further integrate the aircraft to interface better with the pilot.
All the information the pilot needs to fight his aircraft is presented on three multi-function screens.
The one on the left displays information on the defensive situation. Radars, SAMs, and, enemy aircraft -their location relative to the F-22 and the effective range of each system and portraid them with a symbol and red circles around each system. So the pilot can steer his plane around potential threats.
The screen on the right is the offensive screen and it displays all the other detected targets -friendly and opponents. Friendlies are shown in green and opponents in red. There is a red cone attached to the front of each enemy aircraft showing its detection capability against the F-22.
The center screen is displaying the combat situation display showing the weapons load/disposition/availability and other information important for combat.
“Maximum-Q” (maximum dynamic pressure) has been reached at Mach 1.1 and 17,000 feet. This bird is made for high altitude. Even though the EF2000, JAS-39C and, Rafale have infra red sensors, when you hear a spokesman speaking for an European aircraft none of them talk about anything other than the F-22 is the fighter to measure all other fighters by.
> Arthur
> isn’t the F/A-22 limited to M 1.8?
No, Mach 1.8 was supposed to be a little above the cruise speed not the top speed. The top speed has not been stated to my knowledge.
> The missile shot while doing 7g impresses me a lot more, actually
Yes, and it can also launch a missile while rotating around the roll axis up to speeds of 60° per/sec.
> …and what happens when you go into high AoA when you’re banking?
The F-22 has an unlimited AOA on any axis which allows it to do things no other aircraft has ever done. It can do the “post stall loops” cobra, hook and, those airshow maneuvers.
> FL530 is awfully high and the air is awfully thin up there
Yes, and think of the tactical advantage it will have up there maneuvering at high speeds. Unlike the MiG.-25 which can not maneuver, the F-22 can maneuver at speeds of Mach 1.5+ at 50,000 feet. This will give the F-22 a tactical advantage when facing a MiG.-25 to 31 at Mach 2.8+ at 60,000 or more.
> over G
> theres no doubth about the raptors capacibilities, but that
> is exagerated…
In 1976, if someone had told you in twenty years the F-15’s superiority will enable it to shoot down over 100 bad guys while never being shot down itself, you would have said that is impossible…. it will never happen!
> the engine efficiency is not sooo good (at such heigh), you
> must need an strong horizontal compound to mantain the speed
That is where this animal is different, the airflow problems have been solved, just like the F-16MATV, Su-27 or MiG.-29. These aircraft also do post stall loops, tailslides, etc. without the engine flaming out or any disruption in power.
> Mark 2
> The Mach No altitude combination gives about 520 KCAS
Investigate the coffin corner of the U-2 recon aircraft before making a statement like that. At 70,000 the U-2 has a 20mph window, if it goes slower it will stall and if it goes faster it will go supersonic. Those wings are not made for supersonic travel.
> they would both be capable of pulling 7Gs, but very rapidly the
> F-15 would be losing a great deal of airspeed
> would be what would the F/A-22 be doing in terms of airspeed
> loss (if any)?
If the F-22 pilot wants to keep his speed up, he has the power. If the F-22 pilot wants to slow down, is has far more breaking ability than the F-15 has. The F-22 can slow down faster than the F/A-18!
> bring it on
Thank you kindly for the “pilot reports.”
> Sens
> the F22 is limited at Mach 1.8 at 40000ft and supercruise at
> 1.5 max almost empty!
That is an “advisory” not an absolute! The F-22 can go faster but, it should not sustain the speed for long periods of time. How long is long??
> Weight has nothing to do with speed in this case !!!
It does from the stand point of wing loading.
> entering a split-S with full a/b at 53.000ft and M1.98″.
> This was no fiction!!!!!
This might be a scenario taken from the F-22’s capability also. In the F-22’s example it entered the Split-S at 40k feet and finished at 53K feet. (In the diagram, the aircraft starts at the higher altitude and finishes at the lower altitude.) A split-S going up is an Emmelmamn!
> AirPower
> The F-22 APU has a design requirement of being able to turn on
> at altitudes of 75-80K+ feet! Is this true, can the F-22 go
> that high?!!
I don’t think so currently but, the F-22 has more room to grow than any other US fighter ever built! That might be a way the USAF intends to “grow the performance” of the F-22.
The F-22 will bring into aerial combat what the F-117 did for precision attack aircraft, a revolution! A revolution in capability and tactics.
> ogami musashi
> Some planes can pull 9G(F-16,F-15) they loose their energy really
> fast(The F-15 can’t pull 9G past mach 1.5), but for example the SU-27
> can’t pull more than 7,5g past mach 1.25.
The Su-27’s structure can handle 12G’s but only under 450mph.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Rear launched missile could change the DOGFIGHT
> over G
> the new missiles research put in the trash the tipical dogfight tactics???
The only thing it really threatens is the gun tracking! All aspect missiles can come at an aircraft from any angle.
If someone “bounces you” and they are firing their guns at you and shells are mighty close, I don’t think you are going to do anything except maneuver so you can live a few more seconds. Hopefully at the end of a few more seconds you will have a better idea that will insure you life for more than a few seconds. If not you take it second by second until you get some time/space to take effective counter actions.
Now, if you first detect the enemy on your tail several miles back and he has gottened a radar lock-on and the rear facing missile is all set up to fire. If you have been warned by GCI, why not turn around and face the enemy? If for some reason it is easier to fire to the rear, I would think this would be the time to do it.
It might look cool in the movies but when someone is shooting at you, it is no time to be fancy.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: The next FB-111? Or the next Tu-160?
> SOC
> If in 20 years we are using the F-22, FB-23, and F-35 as the fighter force, we
> are better off than we are now with the F-15, F-16, F-22, A-10, and F-117
That is only if the USA is able to purchase sufficient numbers but, if the liberals have their way, the USAF will have only about 100 F-22’s, a reduced number of F-35’s, a smaller number of A-10’s, etc.. It is nice in limited conflicts like the Arab/Israeli conflicts or many other conflicts around the world but, in major conflicts the unknown tends to bite each side where they can least afford it. In the world of precision weapons the acchilles heel is the lack of numbers for attrition warfare. That plus the reality that it takes more than four years from the time the USAF places an order for a new engine until the time it is delievered, a continuous combat can not be maintained.
Let us just say for the sake of arguement, the USA gets into a conflict with the PRC over Taiwan. Even if America is able to maintain an honest 20:1 kill ratio….. if you don’t have enough numbers of aircraft for attrition warfare, you will loose.
If the citizens were of the mind (like during the Cold War) they would be willing to pay the taxes required for these programs. They are now of that mindset and I don’t feel America could afford all the programs simultaneously or, at least not without a very strong/large “middle class” to pay the taxes.
I know in the comparision of aircraft prices inflation must be factored in but, even if the F-22’s production cost is held to $70M per aircraft that is still enough money to buy a squadron of F-15A’s or F-16A’s!! It is a lot of money.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: The next FB-111? Or the next Tu-160?
> SOC
> As we all know the USAF is looking into a next-generation supersonic bomber. The
> question is, will we go with the quick fix and get an FB-111 style aircraft in the
> vein of the FB-22, a Tu-160 style heavy aircraft.
Why did you compare the potential aircraft with the Tu-160?? The Soviets were twenty years behind the USAF in the first flight of an intercontinental supersonic bomber. The B-1A that President Carter killed and then President Regan re-instituted four years later. Reduced some of the specs to make it more affordable and designate it B-1B!
No, currently the USAF does not really see much of a roll for the deep interdiction mission as flown by the F-111.
> Since the YF-23A proved to be stealthier than the F-22 design in flight testing, as well as faster, it would seem to be the more capable option
Flawed logic, by purchasing the YF-23 variant the USAF should state it is a “make work” project, so the great innovative team does not get lost. The logistic problems for the USAF to field both the F-22 and FB-23 would be emmense.
Something that would make more sense is to give the team that produced the YF-23 the contract to build this new variant of the FB-22! Give them a fixed price contract plus incentives and limit what they can and can not change.
There is precedent for this many times in WW2 as well as the F/A-18 program. The carrier version was built by McDD and the land version (F/A-18L) was built by Northrup-Grumman.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: active torpedo defences
> plawolf
> are there any current or planned active torpedo defences for modern surface warships?
Yes, in addition to the Russian system, there are mortars that can be fired up to 4,000 yards that creates an interuption in sound path that “can” protect a ship.
The US Navy has several programs to protect its important ships. The first was the usage of the Mk.-46 and now Mk.-50 lightweight torpedoes. The task is to intercept headon the incomming torpedo. If the Mk.-46/50 explode before they get to the torpedo the explosion will damage the sonar. If the explosion occurs after it passes the enemy torpedo it can damage the propellers and break the control wire.
A little over a year ago the University of Pennisula designed an “anti-torpedo torpedo.” It is six inches in diameter and about eight feet long. It can be launched from the tubes for the noise makers or the tube for the MOSS submarine active decoy used by SSBN’s.
> if a torpedo has been fired at a surface warship, what are its options of
> actively evading it?
There are active noise makers that simulate the propellers noises of ships called “AN/SLQ-25 nixie.” The nixie is towed behind the ship by a couple thousand yards or more. The sooner the target being attacked can force the sub launching the torpedo to break the control wires the better the chance of the target evading the torpedo.
> GarryB
> The Shkval torpedo is the current model in a rather long line of rocket powered torpedoes
> They travel at about 200 Knts
Yes but, they have a short range, only about 7,500 yards! Most heavy weight torpedoes have ranges in access of 30,000 yards.
> Ja Worsley
> There is the US Perry/Masker System
The “Prairie Masker” system is a system that blows pressured air (approx. 28-75 psi) into the water through thousands of small holes on the bottom of the hull. By blowing bubbles, the air bubble against the hull absorbs the sound emmitted by the hull. Being flexible, the bubble would absorb the noise but not transfer any energy to the water on the other side. Thus reducing the total amount of noise introduced into the water.
While a nominal pressure is between 75 down to 28 psi, the volumn of air is massive. The air is supplied through a system of small tubes welded to the exterior of the hull. These small holes bored in these tubes emitted an envelope of bubbles around the hull’s exterior greatly lowering hull noise emissions. This system reduces the noise by at least 10%. The decoy system has a 35% chance of fooling military type sonars.
On a frigate like the USS Perry Class the Masker air system discharges through each connection at a rate of 425 squared cubic feet per minute (SCFM) at approximately 12 psig. Perforations in the emitters allow discharge of Masker air from the keel to the water line.
The prairie air tubing to the propeller. At the propeller hub after end, the air enters drilled passages in the hub body. The passages direct the air to the base of each propeller blade. Air reaches each blade through a bushing connection between the blade base and the hub body. Air then flows through an air channel in the blade leading edge and discharges through 302 orifices.
Prairie and Masker come into play only for passive sonar searches. They make the ship sound like a rain storm to the submarine. The sub knows something is making noise but can not identify the noise as any type of a ship. Prairie and Masker systems are effective against active sonar.
Prairie Masker is very effective. Even our submarines have a difficult time locating our CG’s, DDG’s DD’s, and FFG’s when they are operating in condition 2AS (ASW stations) with prairie masker active during exercises. A carrier operating with an effective acoustic deception plan can still be detected at long ranges, but can be mistaken for a different target… i.e. a merchant ship or a smaller combatant. Acoustic deception plans have been used it in exercises very effectively.
A directive came out of NAVSHIPS limiting operation of Prairie Masker system ONLY
at speeds above 15 knots.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: If Cold War turned hot in the 1980s
> Arthur
> Adrian and Phantom, you are vastly overestimating the number of BVR shooters in the German theatre
I don’t think so, in the build up of tension, more squadrons would transfer from the USA to Europe.
> Tornados would’ve proved to be bad like they did in Iraq, the low level attack would’ve not
> worked very well.
Gen. Horner felt the Tornado IDV did an excellent job, it is just the reality that attacking runways is one of the most hassardous mission an attack aircraft can perform! Most all the Tornados where shot down by AAA.
After the runways were attacked and cratered, bomb proof hangers destroyed, and the taxi-ways also destroyed….. the next thing the attack aircraft could do was to attack from higher altitudes.
> Yes but wasn’t the AIM-7 used extensively
I had done a survey before when I checked the Israeli air combat record between 06/27/79 and 09/14/01. I found the following;
IAD/AF TYPES OF MISSILE USED IN KILLS
AIM-7 _____ 12
AIM-9 _____ 9
Python ____ 7
Other** ___ 35
NOTE:
** -OTHER Indicates a means of causing the enemy to crash without firing a weapon (such as maneuvering and causing the enemy to go out of control) or, the type of weapon is not stated.
> How many F-117’s did NATO have?
About four dozen by 1984!
> GarryB
> Tests showed after the cold war that the Mig-29 with R-27s was very comparable to F-15s with Sparrows.
There are similiarities BUT, is you are getting technicle, there are many differences between the two. At least according to the Luftwaffe who flies the MiG.-29!
> With HMS and R-73s the F-16 was not able to defeat German Mig-29s in WVR combat and the
> flares used by Mig-29s
HEY GUYS…… in the time frame of the early to mid-80’s the MiG.-29 was not in full operational service! So no HMDS either.
> BTW any advantage the F-117 offered would be matched by the disadvantage that it could only be used at night… and it has yet to be sent in against a fighter with a non downgraded IRST. (the export model IRSTs fitted to Serbian and Iraqi Migs was downgraded to slightly less capable than the one fitted to the last model Mig-23s.)
I wish people would stop crying about what weapons the system is exported with or without. The reality is that you fight with the system you have. The pilot, or fans may not like it but, they don’t have to! Israel does NOT get all the equiptment the USAF offers on the F-15, F-16 or, E-2C but, there is no excuses made. How many Americans still cry about what the kill ratio could have been over North Viet Nam “IF”….. the person who wrote the ROE had common sense or if the problems the MiG.-21 had in developement that caused its designers to place a gun in the aircraft (the aircraft was designed without the gun!). Yes, America’s kill ratio could have been better.
FIGHTERS EXIST IN A WORLD WHERE YOU DO OR DON’T DO BUT, YOU DON’T TRY. IF YOU DO YOU GET THE GREDIT AND IF YOU DON’T DO THEN YOU GET THE DIS-CREDIT! JUST THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!!
Adrian
Adrian_44Re: F-15
> edisonone
> Because that means that the Eagle is on its way out.
Don’t be sad, the Eagle has had a good/spectacular life. In dogfights it has been in it has done all the killing! “Eagle drivers” can remember their days in combat without thinking about their friends who did not return.
> Why not simply go after the Americans for the Raptor???
Money! Place new avionics and radar (like the one in the F-35) in the F-15 plus keep the engines up to date and you will have a competitve fighter for many years to come. It won’t be first rate but it can do a decent job.
> A-29
> Fortunately, we will see it in service for many more years…..in ANG squadrons
That is good for the number of Raptors will not be great enough to remain in combat and deal with attritian warfare, which is a reality of life. Sure, the Eagle did not deal with attrition warfare but, to my knowledge it is the first and only combat aircraft that has seen combat and has faced a loss.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: If Cold War turned hot in the 1980s
> Arthur
> I think the timeframe of the discussion is way off here. This whole F-16 vs. MiG-29
> debate is worthless
If you check the records you will see in this time span the USAF had several hundred F-15s, many squadrons (in Europe) of F-16s and, the US Navy had all its F-14s! The MiG.-23 was the frontline fighter for the WP. The MiG.-29 did not become operational until 1986.
The WP had the numerical edge in aircraft (3:1) but the quality was NATOs and the WP knew the numerical edge was not enough.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: CFT For F/A-18s
> wd1
> given the super hornet’s serious range/payload/speed deficiencies, i’ve been wondering
> about the possibility of mounting CFTs on the F/A-18E/F
Any additional weight would subtract from the weapons load! As it is the maximum range is only accomplished with three external fuel tanks. Now, if you are talking about CFT’s instead of auxillary wing tanks, to me that sounds like a good idea provided it doesn’t interferre with the balance of the aircraft.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed
> flex297
> The USAF used their APG-63(V)2 AESA equipped F-15C and IAF used the basic Su-30K
There has been all sorts of information releast about which version of the SU-30 was used in the exercise. I have read the SU-30K, SU-30M, SU-30MK, etc.. The only thing there seems to be a consensious on is that it was an SU-30 and not an SU-30MKI!
The missiles used were the AIM-7 Sparrow and AA-10 Alamo Missiles. I have not heard if the IAF was allowed to use its HMDS or not. What some of the F-15s in Alaska have the AIM-9X/HMDS, that model was not sent to India.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: FBW Question….
> phrozenflame
> FBW Question…
This is a legitimate question. One of the assets of FBW is that the software designers can make an aircraft do whatever they want. NASA uses FBW to make “buisness jet” respond during its decent like the space shuttle, to train the shuttle pilots!
In combat if a pilot has trouble of over compensating when pulling out of rolling scissors, the program can be altered so that the flight controls do not overcompensate! The computer recognizes the maneuvers and when the pilot pulls out, the computer will correct the maneuver and the pilot will live longer. So a good maneuver to allow a pilot to go from the defensive to the offensive can be accomplished, instead of the overcompensation which leave the pilot in the offense but in control problems.
So in complete answer to your question, a flight control system that is driven by computer software can be made to do what ever the designers/test engineers want it to do.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: If Cold War turned hot in the 1980s
> Srbin
> I have read a rather interesting thread on ACIG written by many intelligent people,
> as it seems according to most people the NATO would definitely go on the defensive
> against Warsaw Pact.
NATO would be on the defensive! The only weapon system NATO had that was more numerous than the Warsaw Pact (WP) was helicopters! the WP lead in aircraft 3:1, in armor 4:1, artillery 11:1, approximately 2:1 manpower advantage.
NATO has an entirely different outlook on the defense of Central Europe than the Soviets. The Soviet Union wanted to make sure that no attack from the West would reach the Soviet border. So Poland and Austria are basically a series of defensive belts (much like Kursk) from the Inter-German border to the Soviet Border. If it devastated Eastern Europe, well that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
NATO did not want to do in combat to West Germany what the Soviet Union planned to do to Eastern Europe. So, NATO placed all its forces in a series of defense belts close together so that all the belts were within twenty-five miles of the Inter-German border! The Soviet Union looking across the border seeing all the NATO forces so close to the border felt that NATO was was looking for a pretext to attack eastward because if you are serious about defense you don’t arrange it like NATO did. The Soviets could not understand how the West could seriously be unwilling to use all of West Germany to stop a WP attack.
The Soviets best chance to do something successful was very early in 1980 and as time went on the quality gap got larger. The MiG.-21, MiG.-23 &, MiG.-27 were the most modern fighters the WP had. These would face the F-4 Wild Weasels, F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Tornadoes, Jaguar, F-111s, etc.. As you can see, there is a big quality edge between NATO and WP aircraft. At that (1988/89) there was only a couple hundred MiG.-29s and far less SU-27s.
> the Soviets indeed possesed the technological superiority
As the world found out when selling the MiG.-29s, the gap between the performance of the MiG.-29 and its spec sheet is far greater than any Western fighters. The Soviets had numerous missiles but, reliability and accuracy is far below what we have come to expect in the West.
NATO plans called for the F-15s to have a kill ratio of 6:1 and the F-16 a kill ratio of 3:1 (this is ground and air attack exchange).
> even if the R-23s and R-27s are of doubious quality, to say at least, in the BVR antenna
> the War Pact had such an advantage
There was a reason the Soviets placed a gun in the MiG.-21 after it was designed “without” one, they had such a poor rate of sucess the answer was clear very early. One area in which the West consistently held a lead was air to air missiles.
While NATO had Red Flag type programs with ACMI ranges, the Soviet Union nor China spent this sort of money for realistic training. They also stayed away from air to air combat laboratories (in conjunction with Red Flag) to test new theories in air to air combat.
The Soviet Union if it attacked NATO would send large air forces of several hundred aircraft in a consentrated area. NATO would attack with many aircraft dispersed over a broad area.
To counter the WP’s large group the NATO fighters would pick along the perifiery and force the WP fighters to break off and fight the NATO fighters. Once the WP fighters did they would be hit from several directions by small groups of NATO fighters.
> East German AF (LSK) haven’t flown each day
The number one reason East German pilots failed to be able to remain with the MiG.-29s of the 73rd Fighter Squadron, was that their flying skills were not good enough to be a part of the West German Air Force! Others could not adjust to speaking english while flying and still others could not adjust to the change in culture within the squadrons.
> I too don’t think there was much Air Superiority from NATO in the 1980s at all, there
> were too few F-15s equipped with AIM-7
That is incorrect plus look what the Israeli AF has done with the Sidwinder and Python missiles. They require their pilots to obtain a visual ID before firing.
The US Navy had all of its F-14s by the end of 1978! That is with a production run of just five aircraft per month! The F-15 was produced at a faster rate because it didn’t have the swing wings. The F-15 is down to its lowest production, five aircraft per month and it will remain that way until the middle of 2008!
> If NATO could disperse all fighter and surivive the initial ballistic missile strike
The only way NATO could win would be a pre-emptive strike against the WP targets. A pre-emptive strike plus the surprise of the F-117 would have been a real blow.
If the WP struct first then they would have air superiority or at worst parity in the air which would allow Soviet aiborne forces to conduct their operations. The number of NATO aircraft caught on the ground would be losses NATO would never recover. Runways cratered, radar sites put out of operations due to AR missiles. NATO’s counter attack would not be complete enough to take away the offensive advantage for the WP ground forces and the air parity lasting a lot longer makes it far more likely that NATO would have to use nuclear weapons first!!
> djnik
> I suggest you guys read “Red Storm Rising” by Tom Clancy and see the author’s view of
> how a Soviet attack on Europe would take place
Clancy was on top of things back then. The book was released in 1986 and during a 1986 Soviet Naval Exercise “Okean 86” the Soviet Navy simulated an attack on Iceland!
> Arthur
> John Hackett’s books (The Third World War and a sequel to that) are a lot better than Clancy’s
That is subjective, you do have to give Clancy credit in perfecting the “techno-drama” type books.
The one thing I find most interesting is in 1984 an insurance salesman turned writer describes in the book “Red Storm Rising” (RSR) a new USAF aircraft that was difficult to detect on radar called the Frisbee would lead the pre-emptive attack! Now if Clancy knew something about stealth, guess what the KGB knew???
Thank God it worked out where the worst (WW3) that happened is a debate and maybe someone will get their bubble popped because their favorite weapon system turned out not to be as good as advertised.
Along those lines, the first combat between the US carrier force against the Soviet Naval Aviation, I thought was shocking! A lot of people (technicle professionals) took a second look at the aegis cruisers and their lack of “co-operative combat,” a problem that since has been corrected but, it was a shock how this was exploited.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: If Cold War turned hot in the 1980s
> Srbin
> I have read a rather interesting thread on ACIG written by many intelligent people,
> as it seems according to most people the NATO would definitely go on the defensive
> against Warsaw Pact.
NATO would be on the defensive! The only weapon system NATO had that was more numerous than the Warsaw Pact (WP) was helicopters! The WP lead in aircraft 3:1, in armor 4.4:1, artillery 11:1, approximately 2:1 manpower advantage.
NATO has an entirely different outlook on the defense of Central Europe than the Soviets. The Soviet Union wanted to make sure that no attack from the West would reach the Soviet border. So Poland and Austria are basically a series of defensive belts (much like Kursk) from the Inter-German border to the Soviet Border. If it devastated Eastern Europe, well that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
NATO did not want to do in combat to West Germany what the Soviet Union planned to do to Eastern Europe. So, NATO placed all its forces in a series of defense belts close together so that all the belts were within twenty-five miles of the Inter-German border! The Soviet Union looking across the border seeing all the NATO forces so close to the border felt that NATO was was looking for a pretext to attack eastward because if you are serious about defense you don’t arrange it like NATO did (true, except when politicians interferre). The Soviets could not understand how the West could seriously be unwilling to use all of West Germany to stop a WP attack. Especially, after fighting Germany for the second time the century.
The Soviets best chance to do something successful was very early in the 1970s and early-1980s and as time went on the quality gap got larger. The MiG.-21, MiG.-23 &, MiG.-27 were the most modern fighters the WP had. These would face the F-4 Wild Weasels, F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Tornadoes, Jaguar, F-111s, etc.. Next to the MiG.-21, the F-16 was the most numerous aircraft in the European Theater! As you can see, there is a big quality edge between NATO and WP aircraft. At that (1988/89) there was only a couple hundred MiG.-29s and far less SU-27s.
> the Soviets indeed possesed the technological superiority
As the world found out when selling the MiG.-29s, the gap between the performance of the MiG.-29 and its spec sheet is far greater than any Western fighters. The Soviets had numerous missiles but, reliability and accuracy is far below what we have come to expect in the West.
NATO plans called for the F-15s to have a kill ratio of 6:1 and the F-16 a kill ratio of 3:1 (this is ground and air attack exchange), that the F-14s could take care of naval combat without any assistance and the Tornado be able to control the North Sea, Southern portion of the Norweigian Sea, a large part of the GIUK GAP and, the Western part of the Baltic Sea! This is a large area to have to patrol and obtain/maintain air superiority!
> even if the R-23s and R-27s are of doubious quality, to say at least, in the BVR antenna
> the War Pact had such an advantage
There was a reason the Soviets placed a gun in the MiG.-21 after it was designed “without” one, they had such a poor rate of sucess the answer was clear very early. One area in which the West consistently held a lead was air to air missiles.
While NATO had Red Flag type programs with ACMI ranges, the Soviet Union nor China spent this sort of money for realistic training. They also stayed away from air to air combat laboratories (in conjunction with Red Flag) to test new theories in air to air combat. The KGB did do a good job of gaining information on reports such as the Ault Report, AIMVAL/ACEVAL summations, etc..
The Soviet Union if it attacked NATO would send large air forces of several hundred aircraft in a consentrated area. NATO would attack with many aircraft dispersed over a very broad area.
To counter the WP’s large group the NATO fighters would pick along the perifiery and force the WP fighters to break off and fight the NATO fighters. Once the WP fighters did they would be hit from several directions by small groups of NATO fighters. WP attack aircraft that strayed or got out of position in relationship to their escorts (fighters, jamming, etc.).
> East German AF (LSK) haven’t flown each day
The number one reason East German pilots failed to be able to remain with the MiG.-29s of the 73rd Fighter Squadron when it joined the Luftwaffe, was that their flying skills were not good enough to be a part of the West German Air Force! Others could not adjust to speaking english while flying and still others could not adjust to the change in culture within the squadrons.
> I too don’t think there was much Air Superiority from NATO in the 1980s at all, there
> were too few F-15s equipped with AIM-7
That is incorrect plus look what the Israeli AF has done with the Sidwinder and Python missiles. They require their pilots to obtain a visual ID before firing.
The US Navy had all of its F-14s by the end of 1978! That is with a production run of just five aircraft per month! The F-15 was produced at a faster rate because it didn’t have the swing wings. The F-15 is down to its lowest production now, five aircraft per month and it will remain that way until the middle of 2008!
> If NATO could disperse all fighter and surivive the initial ballistic missile strike
The only way NATO could win would be a pre-emptive strike against the WP targets. A pre-emptive strike plus the surprise of the F-117 would have been a real blow. The early air superiority would also hamper Soviet Airborne operations!
If the WP struct first then they would have air superiority or at worst parity in the air which would allow Soviet aiborne forces to conduct their operations. The number of NATO aircraft caught on the ground would be losses NATO would never recover. Runways cratered, radar sites put out of operations due to AR missiles. NATO would also have to depend on its AWACS aircraft also. NATO’s counter attack would not be complete enough to take away the offensive advantage for the WP ground forces and the air parity lasting a lot longer makes it far more likely that NATO would have to use nuclear weapons first!!
> djnik
> I suggest you guys read “Red Storm Rising” by Tom Clancy and see the author’s view of
> how a Soviet attack on Europe would take place
Clancy was on top of things back then. The book was released in 1986 and during a 1986 Soviet Naval Exercise “Okean 86” the Soviet Navy simulated an attack on Iceland!
> Arthur
> John Hackett’s books (The Third World War and a sequel to that) are a lot better than Clancy’s
That is subjective, you do have to give Clancy credit in perfecting the “techno-drama” type books.
The one thing I find most interesting is in 1984 an insurance salesman turned writer describes in the book “Red Storm Rising” (RSR) a new USAF aircraft that was difficult to detect on radar called the Frisbee would lead the pre-emptive attack! Now if Clancy knew something about stealth, guess what the KGB knew???
Thank God it worked out where the worst (WW3) that happened is a debate and maybe someone will get their bubble popped because their favorite weapon system turned out not to be as good as advertised.
Along those lines, my bubble was popped when the first combat between the US carrier force against the Soviet Naval Aviation, I thought it was shocking! A lot of people (technicle professionals) took a second look at the aegis cruisers and their lack of “co-operative combat,” a problem that since has been corrected but, it was a shock how this was exploited.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Syrian Mig-23
RESPONSES FROM PAGE ONE, sorry I am late.
> Phantom II
> 13 IDF/AF planes were lost in air-to-air combat?
Before the F-15’s and F-16’s Israel admits having lost aircraft in AIR TO AIR combat. What is being contested, is whether or not any F-15’s or F-16’s were killed. Israel says no and Syria says yes. My question is, after air combat in an area, if any IAF aircraft have been shot down WERE IS THE WRECKAGE?? CNN, Fox News, Al Jezzera, etc. would love to photograph the wreckage of an F-15 or F-16. Just like over Kosovo when the F-117 was shot down. The wreckage showed parts of the aircraft that were distinctly and recognizable as an American aircraft.
The F-4 that was shot down in the Bekaa Valley was killed by a SAM, not an air to air missile AND….. that is what the USAF and IDF/AF is boasting about.
> 1973 (Yom Kippur War) -1.5 to 1
Well, this too is debated and let me tell you why. Some people consider the air war against Israel won when the Israelis were at their lowest point and had not recieved their re-supplies from America. If this is what you are doing then yes your kill ratio will be higher than someone who judges the air war as the period from the first shots to the last shots.
Remember, that if you count the period after the re-supply arrived then, that explains how the Israeli armor was able to cross the Suez Canal. Such a move would require air support or the Egyptian Air Force would have killed the Israeli armor west of the Suez Canal.
Either way it was the first time the Arab Air Forces were still in the air contesting the air space on the last day of the war since Israel had a formal air force!
Also remember the F-4 Phantom II’s Israel recieved during the conflict were the USAF’s Phantoms not the US Navy’s Phantoms. The USAF’s Phantoms were about six thousand pounds lighter than the Navy’s model due to the reality that there would be no carrier landings. This translated into even greater performance especially in the verticle plane.
If you want more valid information I would suggest that you go to the ACIG => Journal then choose the data base you want. It took them four years to compile all that information.
> kfadrat
> which BTW proves my thiory about Russian equipment being responsible for the loss of the
> 1982 battle in the air.
You are incorrect, I do have my facts correct! The F-4 I was referring to the RF-4 shot down shortly after the big battle over the Bekaa Valley. The F-15C in question took place on 12/04/83 was fired on by a MiG.-23 and the F-15C damaged but made it back to base according to the Israeli and the Syrians claim the F-15C shot down but, list it as “UNCONFIRMED!” Look at the legend, the green is confirmed, white is unconfirmed and, the purple is close calls/battle damaged aircraft. There are no green entrys for F-15s and F-16s.
Another aspect for those who choose to do the work, there are websites and I have seen the list in Janes Book Of Aircraft (also) of the serial numbers of each F-15 and F-16 sent to Israel! Now you can look at the serial numbers from many years back and look at the serial numbers of the aircraft that still exist and see which aircraft no longer exist? The exercise takes time but is not difficult…. if the will is there?
The ACIG data base took four years to compile and is “fairly” accurate! Like any combat situation there is the “fog of war,” so there will almost almost always be an element of unknown. There are researchers who have specialized in finding out the most probable results.
One of these researchers has found many kill disputes between the Luftwaffe and the Allies. Several cases he has found the crash site of the aircraft in questioned, located the pilot and the pilot who shot him down and united them! It took the latest in science in the 1990s to determine the Red Baron was most likely shot down by a gun on the ground!
> adrian is talking about the RF-4E or F-4E(S) that was shot down by an SA-8
The Israelis listed the aircraft shot down as a “recon” aircraft but, after it was shot down the Israelis found it necessary to bomb the crash site to make sure propriatary information/technology did not fall into foreign hands. Was this an ELINT fighter?
> PLA
> the US happy about the fact that they had lost F117 in Bosnia or Apaches in Irac.
Trying not to stray from the subject but, have you notice the US Army is losing Apaches but, the US Marines are not losing cobra helos? Could it be the way they operate?
The Appaches in Bosnia were not shot down because they never went into operation! They had several crashes in the initial arrival and never reached operational status! This was a real “black eye” for Army Aviation!
> sharmaji
> the newsd of israeli jets flying around Damascus last year
Anyone not into denial has to admit, the Israeli Air Force goes where it wants and does what it wants also. The challenge of opposition air forces is not a problem they can not handle. This was best demonstrated in the raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Isirak.
> then the fall Scott Speicher (F/A-18C vs MiG-25PD) suddenly appeared..
Noooooo, the credit for Lt Speicher was only changed. The US Navy admitted it lost an F/A-18. Initially, it was stated the Coalition had lost no aircraft on the first night of cambat, that all aircraft returned to their bases. That is true, “land bases” but, Lt Speicher came from the carried USS Saratoga! Later Lt Cmd Mark Fox and Lt Mongillo, members of Lt Speicher’s flight shot down two MiG.-21’s while enroute to bomb an Iraqi airfield.
It came a couple of weeks after the start of the PGW#1, I know Av Leak had an article about this during the conflict.
It was after the war (a couple years later) when the USAF checked its tapes or analyize them, from the AWACS and someone detected from their ESM equiptment the lock-up signal of a fighter from the direction from near the flight of the F/A-18s. The only aircraft in that direction was the MiG.-25PD, plus the signature of the signal was different than Coalition aircraft. They check several times and there was NO SAM activity from that direction.
> At what point the kill is considered as credible?
When either both sides agree or the victim side admits the final results or, when there is more than one source of information.
>> Originally Posted by Srbin
>> anyways to my original question, Kfadrat were these claimed F-16s sopposidely
>> destroyed by R-23?
> sharmaji
> two of them were, the third an R-60, but knowing that ONLY one kill is confirmed so far
> I really can’t answer your question in a desirable way.
Syria does not have a “confirmed” kill of an Israeli F-15 or F-16. Now, F-16s have been shot down in clashes between Greece and Turkey! There were engagements where all the aircraft involved were F-16s!!!! Pakistan has lost at least a couple of F-16s to India.
Adrian
Sign In
