dark light

FBW

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 691 through 705 (of 2,935 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2145246
    FBW
    Participant

    Similar to the block 20 F-22’s used for training. If (and that’s a qualified “if”) the 2B configuration is sufficient for training, then it’s somewhat of a waste to bring them up to 3F and beyond.

    Given the standard split between combat coded airframes and those used for training, weapons squadrons, maintenance trainers, test and eval, roughly 1/3 of the planned fleet will not be used in active duty squadrons.

    Would not be surprised to see some of the early production F-35’s stay in 2B forever. By the early 2020’s they probably will not have enough fatigue life left for economical upgrade. Others will likely be upgraded, just as the block 10 Raptors were.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2145488
    FBW
    Participant

    what is even more curious is that Qatar has a 15 fighter jets strong air force,a nd they just ordered 78 jets overall… talk about boost in power…

    Looks like the AdlA, RAF, and USAF are going to have to up their retention bonuses, seems Qatar is looking to build itself into a powerful regional airforce.

    Would be interesting to research the numbers of foreign contractors and ex-pats in the service of Kuwait, Qatar, UAE.

    in reply to: "Classified" aircraft down, Nevada USA #2146271
    FBW
    Participant

    definitely be something along the lines of an Su-27UB if it was one as I heard of them flying before in US, as they were Ukrainian stock

    -no, first off the Su-27UB purchased from Ukraine were bought by a private contractor firm, Tac Air, they were not operated by the 53rd TEG.

    Whether you want to believe it or not, single seat Su-27’s were acquired by the U.S. nor were they “demilitarized” to be used for OPFOR training like the Ukrainian aircraft.

    in reply to: "Classified" aircraft down, Nevada USA #2146289
    FBW
    Participant

    The UB purchased from Ukraine were bought by a contractor providing OPFOR training. Su-27P’s were acquired from Belarus. Whether the Su-27P that have been spotted flying on many occasions from Groom are those former Belorussian Su-27 is debatable.

    For one, the fact that the USAF refused to release the exact type of “classified” aircraft suggests that if it was an Su-27 or such, they probably don’t want to reveal how they acquired it.

    The full extent of the smuggling operations of Soviet weapons from former republics by both the CIA and third party weapons dealers will never fully come to light. Nor is it likely that these operations have stopped considering that Russia still sells arms to cash poor states that may not be able to maintain or operate complex weapon systems long term. The pipeline of weapons from these states likely means that some Russian weapons still find their way into the US.

    in reply to: "Classified" aircraft down, Nevada USA #2146306
    FBW
    Participant

    So how does some de-militarized Legacy Ukrainian Su-27UB become a 2005 version MKI…?

    How do the Su-27P’s that have been spotted over Groom become de-militarized Su-27UB’s in your mind?

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2146351
    FBW
    Participant

    AvWeek- unless you have a sub, there’s a paywall.

    Shultz had been named head of detachment 3 of 53rd TEG. The former “red hats”.

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2146355
    FBW
    Participant

    Confirmed that the crash outside of Nellis was a “foreign” aircraft. Odds are an Su-27 as they are commonly seen outside Groom.

    in reply to: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread #2146511
    FBW
    Participant

    Why there isn’t any afterburner flow?

    You can’t really see if there is any reheat or not (can’t see directly into tailpipe) . Certainly it’s not full afterburner, but minimal reheat doesn’t create a huge plume or shockwaves as seen below.

    in reply to: USAF not F-35 thread #2146629
    FBW
    Participant

    Confirmed that the classified aircraft that crashed outside Nellis was not an F-35 , as some were speculating, by General Goldfein (and the F-35 isn’t classed anyway). Probably not a B-21 due to no mention of crewman and Schultz was a fighter pilot (Rip), though no way of being sure. Some speculation it could have been a foriegn aircraft as Su-27 are spotted flying near Groom.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2147964
    FBW
    Participant

    Some pretty awesome VKS coverage.
    I have never seen the Hellducks this sluggish upon take-off before. Even after rotation, its continued down field for quite some distance before positive lift occured.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH9rl_NEB7Y

    Exactly how is this action footage from syria, it’s a bunch of Su-34’s taking off with clean wings? Goods not as advertised.

    in reply to: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program #2148673
    FBW
    Participant

    @Marcellogo- the project is 20-25 years from fruition. How much news or debate is possible about a non-existent project?

    There are some interesting conversations happening. Besides I believe Sintra was responding to one of your posts.( no it was Siddar’s)

    in reply to: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program #2148677
    FBW
    Participant

    Gotcha, no the Paveway II kits were roughly 12K in 2001 ( roughly 20k in 1991 according to maxwell AFB Air university study. Interestingly a GBU-15 IIR cost 300K), he’s wrong about that. Yeah no way JSSM-ER will ever be cheaper

    in reply to: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program #2148690
    FBW
    Participant

    Spud, Sintra gave JDAM not JSSM-ER prices.

    @Sintra- agree 100% 25k for a guided weapon is a bargain compared to having to fly multiple sorties to destroy a target. The fundamental issue at the heart of the discussion over PGM effectiveness is the unrealistic claims of accuracy from bombing systems like the SVP-24. While it is easy to believe the improved accuracy of such a system over the “TLAR” method of loosing unguided munitions, the CEP does not (cannot) approach that of a guided weapon, especially at a minimum safe altitude from AAA fire.

    An automatic bombing system cannot adjust for updrafts, or gusts once the weapon is released, nor compensate for buffeting, separation issue, or slight acceleration change that could throw the weapon at release point. In ideal conditions, such systems (like the digital bombing system of the F-111D, which was said to be fantastically accurate) can probably approach the CEP of a JDAM. In adverse conditions, logic does not allow one to make that conclusion.

    in reply to: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program #2149015
    FBW
    Participant

    Ok, last about Tornado.

    Actually, also Tornado has been modernized and can be utilized in the same way all modern so called multirole fighters (F-15E included even if I have never considered it to be such) are but with a way better range and sortie generation rate than any of them + can perform tactical recon and in the ECR version, autonomous SEAD missions at a level USAF actually lack (and sorely miss) from the retirement of the specialized RF-4 and F-4G versions of the multirole Phantom.
    And i’m sure those capabilities are more widely used even now that the supposed A2A capability has been, actually are and will be used in the future.

    Those are some questionable claims:
    1. How exactly is the F-15E not a multirole fighter? S.Korea and Singapore certainly view it as such. Even the USAF (which didn’t have a need to use the F-15E outside of the strike/interdiction role), had been utilizing the F-15E in air to air training more.

    2. Sortie rate? How exactly are you sure the Tornado has a higher sortie rate.

    3. Range? Outside of Wikipedia combat radius, do you have a range for either in a high low low high mission with combat time? I have that for the F-15E.

    3. The USAF has F-16CJ’s that perform SEAD. They replaced the F-4G

    This isn’t about this or that aircraft being better, but if you going to make claims, please back them up. I believe you castigated Levsha on another thread for not looking up the obvious.

    in reply to: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program #2149103
    FBW
    Participant

    Still an effective tactic, especially if your platform isn’t LO and you don’t have dedicated EW aircraft. Really only good for first day of war, after that AAA can be a killer.

    But lonewolf is essentially correct, one criticism of the F-15E is the high number of 1G bumps at low level. It’s a crew fatigue issue.

Viewing 15 posts - 691 through 705 (of 2,935 total)