TEEJCould you please elaborate? Like source? When this was taken? Distance between Typhoon and B-2? At what altitude?
Claimed to be from EADS presentation to the Norwegian government.
‘see the graphic below of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber at relatively close range, lifted from EADS Eurofighter’s presentation to the Norwegian government as they touted their own aircraft’s advanced IRST cueing sensor with 70 km range.’
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ncade-an-abm-amraam-03305/
TJ
TEEJWasn’t an F3 one of the hapless victims of a Patriot?
No. It was a Tornado GR4.
TJ
TEEJI’m certain there was one single A2A victory credited to a Tornado F3 during Desert Storm.
No. None. The last RAF pilot to obtain an air-to-air kill was during the Falklands conflict. Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier FRS.1 was the aircraft used.
TJ
TEEJWrong. High performance fighters are used for their speed. Frankly their hot and high performance is terrible in most cases, you would be suprised on the load limits, and even time limits, which some of your favourite aircraft operate under.
As for tactical climbouts, when was the last time we lost an aircraft on takeoff?
Particularly in mountanous areas fast jets are going to have problems keeping eyes on to the target, unless they are exceptionally manouvreably.
If your comments had an relevance then AC gunships wouldn’t be used at all.
Well take it onto PPRuNe and debate it there. Talk to the pilots, aircrew and forward air controllers and armourers who are operating, arming and controlling the current high performance jets out there.
The link to the current thread on CAS I have posted above. As for tactical climb outs why make it easy for the Taliban? If a Hawk T.1, as suggested by Sens was to deploy, such wallowing and shallow climb out would simply be exploited and a potential risk to the crew. Why make it easy for the Taliban to
bag an aircraft on a shallow climbout under load?
Gunships are used under strict conditions as per usage in Iraq. They are vulnerable in daylight conditions.
http://www.d-n-i.net/grossman/troops_in_fallujah.htm
Remember that the theory is to deploy armed Hawk T.1s. No in-flight refuelling capability, limited load capability and no recce package. If the Jaguar could only assist Harrier ops due to its limited performance, then what use would a Hawk T.1 have?
Ramp space is limited. What if you required tactical recce and at short notice and to provide that capability 24/7? That is why nobody is deploying limited performance airframes to Afghanistan and especially not Hawk T.1s.
Again, you guys are full of all the theories. I’ve provided you with the links. Take it over and debate it with those who are and have been involved with CAS in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes you’ll get grief and a bit of forces humour and banter, but you will get your answers.
TJ
TEEJShadow R1 now sporting a full military serial. RAF Waddington 1st Jun 09.
Serial ZZ416
TJ
TEEJThat is an empty claim, because all that named fighters are unable to target someome like the Talibans without support by ground forces. Even than desaster does happen, because some infos were wrong. In Afghanistan are still much more cilivians were wounded or killed by air-strikes than Talibans were. Aware of that result, the coaltion forces do commit war-crimes by doing so, because they do not the utmost to prevent such errors promised by the signatory states. I am aware, that some UN demands can not be kept in Afghanistan always, but despite that the coalition do weaken their limited support by the Afghanians further. Still too much deadly errors with weapons, which were designed to work on a battle ground filled with regular soldiers.
Your technical claims about the Hawk are related to such kind of battle-field.
To attack some Taliban a few small diameter JDMs will do, when the IFF work and GPS-data were given by the ground forces in touch with that Talibans. The Hawk is not more demanding in ground-services than a AH-64, but more than 3-times as fast to react. There is no unkown movement of coaltion ground forces and by that no problem to have Hawk in stand-by alert or even loitering. For the Taliban it does not make any difference, if they were engaged by a Hawk or Typoon, when the smart small diameter bomb is the same from both. Both have a digital terrain map to navigate in 24/7 conditions , when the autopilot will overcome the looming vertigo in zero sight conditions. A Hawk is at MTOW during start-up, when in a hot day the take-off run does last longer and the climb out is more shallow. But that does better into the mission and the Hawk is not in need to overcome the ground-defences or interceptors of the Taliban. By preplanned missions a Hawk may not be even in need to come close to MTOW. 😎
The British ground troops do demand transport helicopters at first, when the high-tech fighter do eat-up the money for that. Smart military will figure out their real demands, when dumb ones will ask for more money at first.
Sens,
Honestly you really are talking non-sense.
The Hawk has poor lift capability when loaded in hot and high conditions. Straight away you are putting the aircrew at risk with the shallow climb out. The aircraft on CAS duties perform tactical departures. Your wallowing Hawk would struggle to gain height putting it and its aircrew at extreme risk. That is why high performance fighters are used with the ability to carry the loads and the ability to operate hot and high. The Taliban would have a field day with your acceptance of shallow climb outs from Kandahar. Your Hawk T.1 theory is flawed.
As with my last request on the other forum. Go onto PPRuNe and talk to the pilots, aircrew and forward air controllers actually doing the job. Put your Hawk T.1 proposal forward and see what reaction you get? A limited performance airframe, no air-to-air refuelling capability and no ability to perform tactical take-offs. Seriously Sens, it is a good job that you aren’t in charge. Have you sent your proposal off to the MoD yet?
Here in the following thread is your perfect opportunity to ask the pilots, aircrew and forward air controllers what they think. You’ll even find Harrier test pilot John Farley in that thread. Ask him his opinion on your Hawk theory?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/375814-top-gun-takes-taliban-upside-down-3.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew-57/
TJ
TEEJI did mention the Hawk, because it is available in short notice with the personal and spares for that at hand already. Something new does take time and money, when the situation in Afghanistan is draining that resources every day.
Sens,
You were even claiming on the other thread that the A-10 was oversize for Afghanistan! You are still failing to see the advantages of a true multi role load carrying platform able to fulfill all the missions day and night and provide 24/7 coverage.
Your Hawk T.1 proposition is really laughable. All you would be introducing is an inferior and limited load carrying platform. You are looking at a 24/7 capability. All contributors to the mission take their turn in providing that coverage. Ramp space is limited.
If the Jaguar was limited by engine performance then think of how limited a Hawk T.1 airframe would be? Commanders would have to juggle assets in order to provide 24/7 coverage due to the introduction of inferior platforms. It would be a complete waste of manpower and resources.
TJ
TEEJI agree with Sens here, Tornado was one of few a/c capable of deep strike, it would have been a miss-use of the first magnitude (treason) not to use them vs airfields, bridges and command centers.
Afgan thugs have neither of these so it is perfectly acceptable to use them for other missions, like in this case, CAS.
Sens doesn’t agree with you. According to Sens British Aerospace Hawks will suffice! Sens doesn’t believe that high performance fighters are needed in Afghanistan.
See post #73
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88270&page=3
TJ
TEEJOf cause it can do in an assumed full scale war in the 80s in Central Europe. That was a time force race from the start and no item has to survive more than 30 days really, when the outcome of that was decided already. When I do insist, that the Tornado is not the first choise for such secondary missions.
Nearly all fighters can do some kind of CAS, but which are unable to do the important interdiction mission most of the time. The “peace-time” training is a bit misleading about that, when Tornado crews do the training in all possible missions to be prepared for all possibilities. But that does not mean that they will be tasked with all trained ones really.
Sens,
Have you sent off your Afghanistan CAS proposal to the UK MoD yet?
According to yourself and your ‘Hawk’ theory all these crews must be wasting their time.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=4AD20F27-1143-EC82-2ED6286DA4CE4AED
TJ
TEEJSens wrote
CAS is not the normal task of the Tornado and a misuse of that.
LOL. There you go again Sens with your version of CAS!
See foldingwings post #105.
‘I don’t hold with the argument that Tornado can’t do CAS – it can, we proved it when I flew them in Germany in the 80s and we learned the skills having also prepared for it with 3 different pre-planned options on the IGB whilst I was on Buccs in the 70s. It doesn’t have to be a mini-jet to do CAS and again, based on my OR experience in weapons procurement, in these frugal days each of our air assets has to be capable of all roles – Harrier cannot carry/deliver the full weapon inventory so it would seem logical for it to be the sacrificial lamb.’
TJ
TEEJI agree, there have been very few Typhoon displays where you could really believe that the plane was being pushed, and the early displays flown by Keith Hartley or Craig Penrice seem to show off more of the planes high alpha performance than any of the displays seen since, but out of the RAF displays some of those flown by Jim Walls in 2007, including the display at Southport you mentioned, have been the most impressive IMO, he seemed to really know how to chuck the plane about. 😀
I seem to remember reading before somewhere that the limit was 8g before the phase 5 FCS, although I’ve also heard in one RAF display the transit pilot/commentator mention that the Typhoon flying the display was limited to ‘90% flight capability’, only to point out that plane was pulling 9G later in the same display. 😉
Anyway, I did a bit detective work, and it seems that none of the aircraft used for the RAF displays so far have even been Block 5 standard, and that includes the two displays flown so far this year at Southend and Duxford. I’m almost 100% on that, but maybe somebody here can confirm whether that’s actually the case ?
This is definitely a Block 5 Typhoon though –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMiWPj4DzP0
The aircraft is 30+41 GS027/134, one of the Block 5 Luftwaffe aircraft that ended up with Austria. It’s not a display unfortunately, the plane is fresh from the factory (still in primer) just being taken for a quick spin around the block. 😀 Starts off a bit slow, but gets interesting after the 2.15 mark.
Correct. The display aircraft are from 29 Squadron. One of the recent practice displays at RAF Coningsby was flown in a borrowed 11 Sqn Typhoon T.1 .
Duxford Spring Airshow 09 & Southend 09 were flown in Typhoon T.1A serial ZJ813 Tail Code BL.
TJ
TEEJSee info posted on the following.
http://visitnormandy.wordpress.com/d-day-65th-anniversary-events-2009/
‘Donald Fraser-Clark
BBMF
I believe the following are correct for fly pasts in June
Colleville Montgomery
Lancs Spitfire & Hurricane Fly past 12.00 on 5th
Arromanches
Lancs Spitfire and Hurricane Fly past 16.00 on 6th
Times may well vary a little on the day. I hope this helps.
‘DFC
Also:
Ranville
Dakota Para drop 08.45 on 5th
Dakota pass over Stadium 12.00 on 6th
Dakota pass over Cemetery 15.30 on 6th
Pegasus Bridge
Dakota pass 15.40 on 6th
Breville
Dakota Para drop 17.20 on 5th’
on May 26, 2009 at 5:39 pm | Replyohcassis
Thanks, Donald – the BBMF events tie in with what I gathered from their website, but I had no record of times, so I’ve added those to the event details in the list.
I’m not sure about the Dakota events you mention – the Liberty Jump Team have given me details of their jumps and these are listed as:
June 4th Angoville au Plain 11h00-16h00
June 5th Amfreville DZ ‘D’ 22h30
June 7th La Fiere -preceding the Military jumps – 12h00
Their jumps on the 6th June were cancelled early on.
Is there another Dakota being used by another jump team?’
‘ohcassis
The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight have the following flights scheduled:
26 May Spitfire flypast Gold Beach and Pegasus Bridge
5 June Lancaster Spitfire Hurricane flypast Colleville Montgomery landing beaches 12h00 noon
6 June Lancaster Spitfire Hurricane flypast Arromanches landing beaches 16h00
I don’t have more details, but here is the phone number for the BBMF enquiries 01400 266328. Perhaps if you find out more you could let us know?
TJ
TEEJTEEJAre those AS.30’s on one of those F-5’s?
Also….is that F-5 with a nuke a Freedom Fighter or later Tiger II variant? I’m guessing F-5A, but I can’t tell.
Tbzz….you got any solid Mirage 2000 photos?
Serial 59-4987 is a YF-5A
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/Northrop-YF-5A-Freedom/1209844/L/
TJ
TEEJDidn’t know that the F-5 could carry LGBs. Is this common knowledge?
Why not? Here is the certification for Paveway II.
TJ
Sign In
