PhaidThen why is the U-2 favored over the Global Hawk when the Global Hawk has much better endurance? Why dont they just make a manned Global Hawk?
Because endurance is not everything. U-2 has more electrical capacity and flies at a higher altitude. Its operating cost is similar to the Global Hawk’s. So for the configurations and missions where the U-2 and the Global Hawk overlap, the U-2 is a better fit.
On the other hand, there are some missions for which the Global Hawk is a better platform. This is why they are still going ahead with the Global Hawk Block 40, which is basically a super long endurance unmanned JSTARS, using the ZPY-2 MP-RTIP.
Phaidthe USAF is cancelling the Global Hawk block 30, in favour of the U-2
– how do the two aircraft compare in terms of cost, performance, sensor suite?
Sensor wise they perform the same mission. In terms of cost to operate, Global Hawk Block 30 is not significantly cheaper, and less capable. So in the end it made no sense to keep going with the Block 30 project.
But keep in mind, Global Hawk Block 40 is still moving forward. That has a different sensor (GMTI) and really a different mission.
PhaidI don’t have the data, but read somewhere on other forum that the ex USMC Legacy Hornet conditions (for carrier operations), is better than ex USN.
This was true in the past, as the Marines did not operate their Hornets from carriers as frequently. However since the mid 2000s USMC Hornet squadrons have been a regular part of CVWs, so that is probably no longer the case.
The fact is that even the USMC’s Hornets are basically worn out, so much so that the Harriers the US is buying from the UK will be used to replace USMC Hornet squadrons.
In general, the UK could not draw from US Hornet stocks to operate from a CV. Many of the USN and USMC legacy Hornets have plenty of flying hours left in them, but have exceeded their lifetime arrested landings (which is a completely separate metric). This is why you saw a number of Hornet squadrons transition from late-block C-model Hornets, to older F/A-18A+ models that had more landings remaining. The C-models were then used for land-based training or mothballed to be used for parts.
PhaidF-35 is developed using a concurrency model, ie. starting large scale production while not having completed all development. :rolleyes:The F-35 rolled out of factory as of today (and all those rolled out in the next xx years) are barely full-scale development machine that will need to be partially reconstructed later. :diablo:
Concurrency has been vastly overrated and the F-35 is relying on it more heavily than most programs, but it is wrong to think it is the only aircraft that has ever done so. Look at Eurofighter with the Tranches, the F1/F2/F3 Rafale, etc.
Phaid[citation needed]
Have you actually seen the movie? The plot hinges on a competition for fighter sales with the Americans, there is an American female exchange pilot who is a stripper and performs a strip dance in a hangar, etc.
PhaidMy guess is that there is no automatic landing mode, and if it was done that way, a rookie with no real knowledge did his best to land it, with mixed result
Too many tenuous assumptions required for that scenario. Automatic landing systems are not particularly rare or difficult to implement; the USAF does not have autopilot on its MQ-1s but the Army does for example. And UAVs like Global Hawk, whose mission more closely resembles that of RQ-170, have completely autonomous flight from takeoff to landing, with human input only required if the mission changes.
Moreover, it would be far more difficult to “take over” piloting of a UAV, using protocols and encryption that are not public knowledge, compared to spoofing GPS whose format is completely open.
PhaidInteresting Christian Science Monitor article that expands on the Haaretz piece above. Basically the Iranians claim they were able to spoof GPS and fool the drone into landing at one of their bases. The reason for the landing gear and other damage is that the spoofing of the airbase coordinates were slightly off in altitude, so it either landed too fast / early, or stalled.
It’s a pretty bold claim, but vastly more credible than the idea that they actually “hacked into” the thing’s controls. And we’ve known for a long time that GPS is hardly invulnerable. It’s pretty obvious that the U.S. claim of a mere malfunction is nonsense, and this explanation passes Occam’s razor compared to anything else proposed thus far.
ETA: Sorry Erkokite, didn’t see you had already posted this link.
PhaidCarried on hardpoints under the wings ???? I think not —have you seen the size of a Patriot???
That one looks pretty small…
PhaidWhat’s the prevailing opinion on the film ‘Les Chevaliers du ciel’?
Ludicrous script but what magnificent cinematography.
The story isn’t even as believable as Iron Eagle, much less Top Gun. And the insane amount of anti-Americanism and raw sexism in the movie made me embarrassed to watch it with my wife — I have the French DVD with no English subtitles, so I was translating it on the fly.
The aerial footage is the only good thing about it, but I think Tony Scott did a better job with the technology he had at the time, than this movie did twenty years later.
PhaidRotodomes provide true 360 degree coverage with uniform performance. Balance beam and slab side + bulbs do not; the Wedgetail for example has less accuracy fore and aft due to lower density of T/R modules. For some situations, e.g. a land war with a front, where you orbit in a racetrack, that is not much of a disadvantage; for blue water ops or control of very large areas of airspace, it is more significant.
PhaidAnd? At what altitudes, speeds…What?
As much as I hate to contribute to this truffle fight, it might be instructive if Bluewings were to have pasted the full quote:
“RAF Tornado pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30MKI’s superior manoeuvring in the air, just as they had anticipated, but the IAF pilots were also impressed by the Typhoon’s agility in the air.”
Phaid2002 SH was in service. may not be in Afghanistan by that time. but F-14D was certainly was.
Well, no. The first operational cruise the Super Hornet, was with VFA-115 flying F/A-18Es onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), starting July 24, 2002.
yeah I know Gilchrist and Kress may have motives to be biased. but they made their point and even you concede that F-14D outranges the F/A-18E/F
Made their point, how? By using made-up numbers that clearly were not based in reality since the aircraft under discussion weren’t even in service at the time?
Yes, the F-14D probably outranges the F/A-18E/F for strike mission profiles, but that single factor does not make it the “better” choice of aircraft. And quoting people who are being paid to market the F-14 and passing it off as a reliable source doesn’t help your case any.
PhaidThis is the difference in Real war time Operations.
…
Flight Journal Magazine, February 2002 Issue.
Bob Kress and Paul Gilchrist, Rear Admiral USN ret. “F-14D Tomcat vs. F/18 E/F Super Hornet.”
Hate to point this out, but when that article was written there were no F/A-18E/Fs in service. Further, the authors of the piece are well known proponents of the F-14 who were not personally involved in any of those operations (Kress was the engineering manager for Grumman on the F-14, Gilchrist was an admiral who retired in 1985 and was a paid spokesman and lobbyist for Grumman).
I have no doubt that the F-14D can outrange the F/A-18E/F on strike missions, but the numbers quoted in that piece are pure invention.
PhaidAs already stated – although seemingly similar, the F-15 and F-14 were very different. The F-15 was designed from the outset to be an air superiority fighter, while the F-14 was designed as an interceptor. The F-14’s VG wing arrangement equated to a heavier design.
It goes without saying that the F-14 (the F-14B) equipped with the more powerful and more reliable F401-PW-400 would have made a big difference to the Tomcats all-round performance – especially its PWR and dogfighting capability!!
The F-14A+, later redesignated F-14B, was equipped with the GE F110 engine and had basically the same performance the F401 and/or F101DFE version would have. A total of 86 F-14Bs (remanufactured A’s and new build A+’s) were procured
I think it was a great pity the USN turned its nose up at the proposed F-14D 🙁
Well, the Navy didn’t. They planned to order over 100, plus upgrade most of the existing fleet to D configuration. In the end they procured a total of 57, including rebuilds and new builds.
The Tomcat’s real problem was that it was extremely expensive to operate, and Grumman was very inept at playing politics (they thought they had a permanent monopoly on naval aviation). The end of the cold war and declining budgets combined to kill it in favor of the F/A-18.
PhaidNot sure if it’s been dismissed for various reasons, but why not maintain a RN deck handling capability by cross-decking USMC Harriers? The exercise in the link had a dozen AV-8Bs operating on Ark Royal for two weeks, no reason it couldn’t be extended. Obviously cost sharing would have to be worked out, but it would benefit both parties: maintaining proficiency in RN carrier crews, and more at-sea time for the Marines without having to give up all their deck space to rotary wings.
Obviously it’s not the same thing as CATOBAR, but it’s much better than nothing.
Sign In
