LightndatticIf the advantage of the KC-30 over the KC-767 is the fact that it’s bigger and can carry more fuel and cargo pallets, Why doesn’t Boeing offer a tanker built on the 767-300 cargo variant? With UPS placing an additional order for these aircraft that keeps the line open through 2009, why can’t boeing offer an additional entry between it’s KC-767 dumptruck model and KC-777?
LightndatticBut at least they could have put the fuel inside, er?
Have you ever seen a Tornado without external fuel tank?
For the German IDS/ECR Tornados (pretty similar for the British), the wing pylons are basically lost to ECM and fuel, something other attack aircraft carry inside. The outer wing pylons are not really useful for anything else maybe, but a Tornado ends up with 2 useful pylons and (the same as the F-16). Not very much for a “bomber”. The F-16 carries external loads for other reasons (to keep maximum performance when clean in air-to-air combat), the Tornado carries everything external, because _____________(please insert reason here)______.
Is that plus the under belly weapons stations? I’ve seen it carry 3 2000lb LGB and 3 kormoran missiles under there which is more than an F-16 or F-18 usually carries.
LightndatticI didn’t think delta wings had that much pitch authority.
LightndatticThat’s the only reason I don’t put this all on them.
The only reason I DO blame them at all is because they recognized the orange markings on the vehicles and either dismissed it or reasoned it away as rockets.
After they called Bingo and were RTB, I kept thinking to myself, shut the hell up. You’re only making it worse with comments like “We’re going to jail” and “We’re *******ed”. It made them sound like they were more concerned about getting in trouble than the friendlies they had injured and killed. For those who think they didn’t care, it was also obvious from the recording they were concerned about the casualties.
LightndatticI felt sorry for the lance corporal 3 years ago and still do. But I never thought I’d feel sorry for the pilots. Watched the whole video online and have heard discussions about it on both cnn and bbc world service news. What is clear to me is that it is the bloody jarhead facs who should be held responsible. The hog drivers repeatedly asked for confirmation of friendlies and every time they got a negative from the marine FACs. Hearing the wingman cry on the video well it just was sad.:(
That’s what I was thinking as well. The chain of responsibility for this is long, but it does end with whomever pulled the trigger. Whoever didn’t coordinate to movement of friendly forces in the area with the ground facs who repeatedly said no friendlies were in the area, the facs themselves, and the pilots involved are all equally responsible.
It doesn’t bring anyone back from this unfortunate incident, though.
LightndatticA couple of things stood out in my mind from that report:
Mr Peake said Mr Hughes confirmed rumours the next generation JSF, “with all its features”, won’t be ready until 2018.
This is the case for all but the final or “add on” customers at the end of the reserved production run. The plan from the start was to get the aircraft built and upgrade as more and more systems come online. The basic version the USAF, RAF/RN and RAAF would get at the beginning has basic A-G weapon capability with follow on updates increasing the capabilities. So what Mr Hughes said was correct- the full capabilities won’t be available for the RAAF (or any other JSF user) until the 2018 timeframe. Same thing with the F-16. You didn’t get a robust A-G PGM capability until the block 30s, some 10 years after the first models became operational.
When Mr Peake put it to him that crucial electro-optical features (ability to find targets and evade enemy) only worked in clear skies he replied, “Yes that’s true”.
This is true of the majority of passive IR based targeting and defensive systems. They can’t see through clouds as well if at all. The same is true for an enemy’s passive targeting systems against an F-35.
The Government has ruled that out on the basis of cost – more than three times the JSF – and the Raptor’s perceived lack of “multi-role” capabilities.
Again- half truths and old information. The only thing the pre-EOTS F-35 can do that the F-22 can’t is carry a 2000lb class weapon internally. The price of the latest Raptors coming off the lines now is almost that of the anticipated cost of the F-35 when the RAAF has to pay for theirs, but you get a far more capable F-22 5-10 years earlier.
“The US Generals are pushing barrows to get funding and are playing politics,” Mr Hughes said.
As is Boeing to get them to buy the Superbug, as is Kopp and crew who want the F-111 to be kept and/or upgraded, as are those people in the government who originally went for the F-35, etc.
LightndatticThe irony is the RAAF had loaned an F-111G to the Americans so they could conduct in flight testing on the internal bomb bay. Until the Raptor became operational the F-111 was the only aircraft that could deliver munitions from an internal bomb bay at supersonic speeds.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
LightndatticTo use a Sukhoi analogy, if the Mig-23 fighter is the Su-27, then the Mig-23BN is the Su-30 two seat aircraft with some ground attack capability, but is basically a two seat Su-27, whereas the Mig-27 would be the Su-34, a dedicated strike aircraft fully modified for the role.
The Mig-23BN has the engine and gun of the Mig-23 and is missing the air intercept radar of the latter, so it is actually less of a plane than the Su-30 which retains all the air to air capability of its predecessor.
The Mig-23BN has a better view downward than the Mig-23, but has the normal twin 23mm cannon and same engine as the Mig-23.
Thanks Garry. That’s what I was thinking.
LightndatticWhat’s the difference between the Mig-23BN and Mig-27? Is it just eastern vs. western designations? I’ve always known the slope nosed ground attack evolution of the Mig-23 airframe as the 27.
LightndatticI know B-58’s (and possibly B-1’s) used to have to light 1 engine into AB to keep up with the tanker as it filled up. Kinda dicey if there was a boom malfunction.
LightndatticI was in 8th grade and was watching cartoons on TNT with my little sister when the banner crawled across the bottom of the screen saying “There have been significant developments in the Persian Gulf, please turn to CNN for details”.
My dad had shipped out a month before, so we were quite nervous. My mom was talking with the neighbors on the front porch when I yelled to her it had started. We spent the next 6 hours or so watching CNN. I remember being mesmerized by the night vision camera shots of the tracers over Baghdad.
The next day I spent part of class writing to my US Army pen-pal (BTW… i still have the Christmas card he sent me that year), telling him how everything was over here and how everyone was feeling. It was very surreal.
Lightndatticwould you happen to have the stories behind the first and third photos – was it a combat damage or accidents/midair collision etc.
It is always interesting to see how sometimes planes with extensive damage still able to be controlled and safely landed.
thanks
The story with the B-52 was it was being used to test the stresses of low level flight with a full external load (note the Hound Dog missiles) to see what needed to be re-enforced for the low altitude penetrator mission. It turned out the main spar of the rudder and fuselage bulkhead it joins to needed to be re-enforced.
LightndatticWell, yes that was a trully amaizing! but this would be an amazing lucky exception rather than a “feature”. A lot of experts out there admitted it would have seem theoreticaly impossible to land the plane in that condition – I guess lucky that the plane and the pilot didn’t know all the theories out there so they just landed the plane:D
I mean the f-15 is probably one of the best and awesome and most successfull machines out there – no doubt, but speaking of aerodynamics efficiency etc, where you have planes specifically designed with body lifting etc, the SU-27/30 and the MIG-29 would get the most benefit of that “channel” between the engines that contribute to the lift with optimized lift/drag ratio.
Well on the western part you have the F-14 with similar feature to the SU-27 or the MIG-29, the Tomcat has the “channel” between the engines too:)
The F-15 has plenty of “flat body” lifting area, but it is not up to same aerodynamics efficiency as the above ones – it is more like the MIG-25 situation – same plenty of flat area but not a “channel” – which is sort off like a middle wing so to speak….
It’s not necessarily the center tunnel that creates the lift. It’s anything on the upper fuselage that makes the air go faster than the air underneath the aircraft. On the F-14 and 15, the cockpit shaping (and it’s blending into the rear fuselage) and engine bulges play a part.
LightndatticBurnouts and drifts….I sure would love to see that… 😀
The Eagle would have the advantage for it has two engines…differential thrust could be used for the drifting part.
The superhornet is the king drifter of modern fighters:
LightndatticYou’re forgetting one thing…. range with full fuel delivered in flight is a lot greater that range on full fuel taking off. The overall range on full tanks may be 400NM taking off, climbing out, performing the mission, and returning. If you start from the same point overhead with full tanks, then you save the fuel needed for takeoff and climbout.
That’s one thing that always bothered me when arguing over various aircrafts’ useful range. Very few fighters take off and perform their mission without some sort of A-A refueling these days.
Sign In
