Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
...& now comes stealthy F-18
+71
diabetus
billybatts91
Big_Gazza
nomadski
thegopnik
The-thing-next-door
Rodion_Romanovic
walle83
Belisarius
TMA1
Arkanghelsk
Podlodka77
AZ-5
lyle6
RTN
zepia
ALAMO
GreyHog
Finty
lancelot
Backman
miketheterrible
mnztr
Arrow
kvs
jhelb
LMFS
Hole
Isos
d_taddei2
PapaDragon
Odin of Ossetia
airstrike
OminousSpudd
Walther von Oldenburg
Solncepek
JohninMK
Werewolf
Kyo
AlfaT8
AirCargo
sepheronx
max steel
nemrod
victor1985
magnumcromagnon
andalusia
Airbornewolf
ATošić
higurashihougi
Hannibal Barca
Mike E
TR1
Sujoy
Mindstorm
Russian Patriot
medo
IronsightSniper
SOC
GarryB
KamovHelicopter
Viktor
nightcrawler
ahmedfire
NationalRus
solo.13mmfmj
milky_candy_sugar
Jelena
Vladislav
Turk1
Admin
75 posters
US Air Force: Discussion and News
nightcrawler- Posts : 522
Points : 634
Join date : 2010-08-20
Age : 34
Location : Pakistan
KamovHelicopter- Posts : 6
Points : 10
Join date : 2011-10-15
Location : Bosnia and Herzegovina
Turk1 wrote:With F-22 cancelled, F-35s in Turkey will have to beat Russians back.
F-35 is greatest mistake in USAF. Every new fighter is better than F-35: Su-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Raptor - - - and Sukhoi PAK FA!!!
F-35 vs Eurofighter
and than see
PAK FA vs Eurofighter
GarryB- Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The F-35 has a lot of detractors, but the concept is pretty sound.
It really depends on how much the export models cost and how stealthy they are.
With external stores they are not stealthy at all, so the future weapons they carry had better be all they are cracked up to be because they wont be carrying many.
BTW quite surprised at that comparison between the PAK FA and the Typhoon.
It didn't actually mention the fact that the PAK FA is a fully stealthy aircraft while the Typhoon is merely Low Observable.
Also the long range missile of the PAK FA will likely be the R-37M which is a mach 6 280km ranged missile that weighs about 600kgs.
The other factor of course is that the PAK FA can super cruise with a full internal weapon load, while external stores increase RCS and reduce flight performance for the Typhoon.
Also I rather doubt the PAK FA has two GSh-301 cannon.
All talk of two guns might perhaps suggest they have replaced the single barrel 1,800rpm GSh-301 with the GSh-30K with twin barrels and a rate of fire of 2,500rpm-3,500rpm depending on the model.
It really depends on how much the export models cost and how stealthy they are.
With external stores they are not stealthy at all, so the future weapons they carry had better be all they are cracked up to be because they wont be carrying many.
BTW quite surprised at that comparison between the PAK FA and the Typhoon.
It didn't actually mention the fact that the PAK FA is a fully stealthy aircraft while the Typhoon is merely Low Observable.
Also the long range missile of the PAK FA will likely be the R-37M which is a mach 6 280km ranged missile that weighs about 600kgs.
The other factor of course is that the PAK FA can super cruise with a full internal weapon load, while external stores increase RCS and reduce flight performance for the Typhoon.
Also I rather doubt the PAK FA has two GSh-301 cannon.
All talk of two guns might perhaps suggest they have replaced the single barrel 1,800rpm GSh-301 with the GSh-30K with twin barrels and a rate of fire of 2,500rpm-3,500rpm depending on the model.
SOC- Posts : 565
Points : 608
Join date : 2011-09-13
Age : 46
Location : Indianapolis
GarryB wrote:With external stores they are not stealthy at all, so the future weapons they carry had better be all they are cracked up to be because they wont be carrying many.
The whole point of "first-day stealth" is to use the F-35 to knock holes in certain iterations of hostile IADS networks. F-22s go find fighters to hunt, F-35s go find EW radars and SAM TERs/TELARs to hunt. Once that's taken care of, you've opened the skies for legacy aircraft like the F-15E and externally-loaded F-35s to go about their business. This would work very well against someone with an outdated, limited, or sparsely deployed IADS. Like an Iran or a Syria, for example. If you want to go and fight someone like the PRC, who actually has modern and credible SAM systems (Iran and Syria do not), a crapload of modern radars (Iran and Syria have few), and solid 4th generation fighters (with the J-20 in the pipeline, of course, and Iran and Syria also have few), then things become far more complicated.
GarryB- Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Like an Iran or a Syria, for example. If you want to go and fight someone like the PRC, who actually has modern and credible SAM systems (Iran and Syria do not), a crapload of modern radars (Iran and Syria have few), and solid 4th generation fighters (with the J-20 in the pipeline, of course, and Iran and Syria also have few), then things become far more complicated.
Serbia proved that even with relatively obsolete equipment that an AD can remain dangerous long after the first day... even after the 70th day... tactics and communication... with the right tools they could have chased NATO out of their airspace.
IronsightSniper- Posts : 414
Points : 418
Join date : 2010-09-25
Location : California, USA
The main reason people don't like the F-35 is really because it's an attempt to create in a way, a M4 for the Air Force. That is, it combines the roles of different planes and makes it a common platform (while being pretty mediocre for all the roles listed). It's a great idea, but there are far, far too many Cold War fossils out there to support making the F-35 the front line Air Dominance fighter (over the F-22).
GarryB- Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Yes.
They have it trying to do so many things at once, yet they actually expect it to be cheap... it is trying to be an F-16, an F-15, an F-22, an A-10, plus an F-18, and an AV-8, plus all the European aircraft it is supposed to replace.
The F-22 pretty much only had to be a stealthy replacement for an F-15C.
Of course that is tradition too, most military people like what they used and mistrust the new stuff as being untested... when the 303 Lee Enfield was replaced by the FN FAL the latter was criticised because it was so heavy and that it would burn through the units ammo too quickly... when the Steyr AUG replaced it it was criticised as being a plastic childs toy that lacked range and lethality.
Lets face it war is not a game you want to lose, and the west always has options, including sanctions or cruise missile or drone attacks. Carlos Kopp can talk about F-35s being defeated by Su-35s, but it is far more likely that the Su-35 base will receive a drone attack or cruise missiles will level their hangars while they are on the ground or the F-35s will not be sent in.
They have it trying to do so many things at once, yet they actually expect it to be cheap... it is trying to be an F-16, an F-15, an F-22, an A-10, plus an F-18, and an AV-8, plus all the European aircraft it is supposed to replace.
The F-22 pretty much only had to be a stealthy replacement for an F-15C.
Of course that is tradition too, most military people like what they used and mistrust the new stuff as being untested... when the 303 Lee Enfield was replaced by the FN FAL the latter was criticised because it was so heavy and that it would burn through the units ammo too quickly... when the Steyr AUG replaced it it was criticised as being a plastic childs toy that lacked range and lethality.
Lets face it war is not a game you want to lose, and the west always has options, including sanctions or cruise missile or drone attacks. Carlos Kopp can talk about F-35s being defeated by Su-35s, but it is far more likely that the Su-35 base will receive a drone attack or cruise missiles will level their hangars while they are on the ground or the F-35s will not be sent in.
medo- Posts : 4342
Points : 4422
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
Lets face it war is not a game you want to lose, and the west always has options, including sanctions or cruise missile or drone attacks. Carlos Kopp can talk about F-35s being defeated by Su-35s, but it is far more likely that the Su-35 base will receive a drone attack or cruise missiles will level their hangars while they are on the ground or the F-35s will not be sent in.
This work against inferior Arab states, but not against Russia or China. Their air defense and early warning capabilities are far more capable, so it will be very hard for drones and cruise missiles to reach airfields. Also their airfields are far more hardened than western, which have planes actually on the open. For example, NATO intensively bomb Priština airfield in Kosovo, but after war all Migs fly into Serbia, because they were safe deep inside mountain and they could also take off from grass. NATO could destroy only planes, which were outside, but not those underground.
The eastern doctrine is to have armed and ready fighter planes deep underground or inside mountain, which come out only to take off and fight. Hangars are only for peace time storage.
GarryB- Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Sorry I wasn't clear.
My point is that the west doesn't fight "fair".
They evaluate the strengths of their enemy and their own strengths and base their tactics around maximising their own strengths and minimising their enemies' strengths, while attacking their weaknesses.
An attack directly on Russia by NATO or the US is so unlikely I don't really consider it a possibility.
Russia has in many areas comparable resources to the west... even in their degraded state of 20 odd years of neglect their SAMs are pretty potent, and more importantly the conflict in Kosovo showed their tactics would have been pretty spot on in terms of dealing with attacking forces.
My point is that the west doesn't fight "fair".
They evaluate the strengths of their enemy and their own strengths and base their tactics around maximising their own strengths and minimising their enemies' strengths, while attacking their weaknesses.
An attack directly on Russia by NATO or the US is so unlikely I don't really consider it a possibility.
Russia has in many areas comparable resources to the west... even in their degraded state of 20 odd years of neglect their SAMs are pretty potent, and more importantly the conflict in Kosovo showed their tactics would have been pretty spot on in terms of dealing with attacking forces.
Russian Patriot- Posts : 1155
Points : 2039
Join date : 2009-07-21
Age : 33
Location : USA- although I am Russian
Is it just me or does seem related your argument:
Pentagon is stepping up efforts to make a bomb capable of destroying Iran's most heavily fortified underground facilities, the Wall Street Journal said on Saturday referring to U.S. officials briefed on the plan.
“The 30,000-pound [13,600 kilograms] "bunker-buster" bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), was specifically designed to take out the hardened fortifications built by Iran and North Korea to cloak their nuclear programs,” the daily said.
But initial tests indicated that the bomb, as currently configured, would not be capable of destroying some of Iran's facilities, either because of their depth or because Tehran has added new fortifications to protect them, the paper noted.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, said more development work would be done and that he expected the bomb to be ready to take on the deepest bunkers soon. "We're still trying to develop them," Mr. Panetta said.
U.S. Officials say new money was meant to ensure the weapon would be more effective against the deepest bunkers, including Iran's Fordow enrichment plant facility.
Fordow is buried in a mountain complex in Iran surrounded by antiaircraft batteries, which makes it a very difficult target for air strikes.
In early January, Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) Fereidoon Abbasi said Frodow is safe from any kinds of threat by the enemies.
Tehran said it began the project in 2007, but the IAEA believes design work started in 2006.
The existence of the facility only came to light after it was identified by Western intelligence agencies in September 2009.
http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120128/171001822.html
Pentagon is stepping up efforts to make a bomb capable of destroying Iran's most heavily fortified underground facilities, the Wall Street Journal said on Saturday referring to U.S. officials briefed on the plan.
“The 30,000-pound [13,600 kilograms] "bunker-buster" bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), was specifically designed to take out the hardened fortifications built by Iran and North Korea to cloak their nuclear programs,” the daily said.
But initial tests indicated that the bomb, as currently configured, would not be capable of destroying some of Iran's facilities, either because of their depth or because Tehran has added new fortifications to protect them, the paper noted.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, said more development work would be done and that he expected the bomb to be ready to take on the deepest bunkers soon. "We're still trying to develop them," Mr. Panetta said.
U.S. Officials say new money was meant to ensure the weapon would be more effective against the deepest bunkers, including Iran's Fordow enrichment plant facility.
Fordow is buried in a mountain complex in Iran surrounded by antiaircraft batteries, which makes it a very difficult target for air strikes.
In early January, Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) Fereidoon Abbasi said Frodow is safe from any kinds of threat by the enemies.
Tehran said it began the project in 2007, but the IAEA believes design work started in 2006.
The existence of the facility only came to light after it was identified by Western intelligence agencies in September 2009.
http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120128/171001822.html
GarryB- Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The additional issue of course is that if there are TOR systems near the target they might not detect or be able to intercept the very high flying bomber dropping this penetrator bomb from high altitude and high speed, but the bomb itself will certainly be a target it could engage.
Even if the explosions from the SAMs don't set off the main HE charge of the bomb they can smash guidance systems and shear off control and stabilisation surfaces... penetration bombs are never as efficient when they hit the ground sideways.
Even if the explosions from the SAMs don't set off the main HE charge of the bomb they can smash guidance systems and shear off control and stabilisation surfaces... penetration bombs are never as efficient when they hit the ground sideways.
Mindstorm- Posts : 1133
Points : 1298
Join date : 2011-07-20
Russian Patriot wrote:Is it just me or does seem related your argument:
Pentagon is stepping up efforts to make a bomb capable of destroying Iran's most heavily fortified underground facilities, the Wall Street Journal said on Saturday referring to U.S. officials briefed on the plan.
“The 30,000-pound [13,600 kilograms] "bunker-buster" bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), was specifically designed to take out the hardened fortifications built by Iran and North Korea to cloak their nuclear programs,” the daily said.
But initial tests indicated that the bomb, as currently configured, would not be capable of destroying some of Iran's facilities, either because of their depth or because Tehran has added new fortifications to protect them, the paper noted.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, said more development work would be done and that he expected the bomb to be ready to take on the deepest bunkers soon. "We're still trying to develop them," Mr. Panetta said.
U.S. Officials say new money was meant to ensure the weapon would be more effective against the deepest bunkers, including Iran's Fordow enrichment plant facility.
Fordow is buried in a mountain complex in Iran surrounded by antiaircraft batteries, which makes it a very difficult target for air strikes.
In early January, Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) Fereidoon Abbasi said Frodow is safe from any kinds of threat by the enemies.
Tehran said it began the project in 2007, but the IAEA believes design work started in 2006.
The existence of the facility only came to light after it was identified by Western intelligence agencies in September 2009.
http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120128/171001822.html
Paradoxically this news provide to us much more informations about the type of hypothetical intervention planned by part of USA than the technical improvement wanted.
The employment of a similar weapon would ,in facts, forcedly include the involvement of carrying platforms or way too vulnerable (as C-130) or way too crucial and precious (like B-2) to risk them in a single mission aimed merely at destroy some of the Iranian supposed hardened military nuclear structures, moreover for an eventual not saturated Tor-M1E battery at defence of the site a MOB would be super easy target ,one against which the PK would be practically 100% .
From those data appear clear that USA plan a full scale air intervention against Iran, with several preliminary SEAD and DEAD missions before a similar weapons could be effectively employed .
For USAF,obviously the problems linked to a similar operation against iranian facilities would be immensely inferior to those linked to an insulated Israeli intervention.
Naturally even for USA the most important factor for an efficent intervention would be TIMELINESS , in facts the implementation in Iranian hardened facilities of some of theirs monstrous new type of reinforced concrete (which someone at US DoD think to have been extensively "aided" by Russian startegic silos experts...) that theirs scientists had showed some years ago could prevent anything, except an high yield concentrated nuclear attack ,to cause any damage to theirs most crucial hardened nuclear facilities; even the improved MOB would become at this point totally worthless.
This is an article on the subject
www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/04/irans_superconc/
Russian Patriot- Posts : 1155
Points : 2039
Join date : 2009-07-21
Age : 33
Location : USA- although I am Russian
The first MC-130J Commando II that will be converted to become an AC-130J Gunship is being built at the Lockheed Martin Marietta, Ga., C-130 production facility. The AC-130J will be equipped with a Precision Strike Package creating the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command’s newest gunship. Sixteen AC-130Js are planned with an Initial Operating Capability scheduled for 2015.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/7630157104/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/7630157104/
Russian Patriot- Posts : 1155
Points : 2039
Join date : 2009-07-21
Age : 33
Location : USA- although I am Russian
- Post n°39
Basing of first U.S. Space Fence facility announced
Russian Patriot Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:33 pm
Basing of first U.S. Space Fence facility announced
9/25/2012 - PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. (AFNS) -- The Air Force will base a Space Fence radar site on Kwajalein Island in the Republic of the Marshall Islands with initial operations capability planned for fiscal 2017.
The Fence will provide a critical Space Surveillance Network capability needed to give warfighters the ability to maintain a full and accurate orbital catalog, ensure orbital safety and perform conjunction assessments.
Air Force Space Command will award a contract to build the radar, which will be capable of detecting, tracking, identifying and characterizing space objects in low and medium earth orbits. Construction is expected to begin September 2013 and is planned to take 48 months to complete construction and testing.
Until the final design is determined, it is unknown exactly how many personnel will be required to construct the radar site. After construction is complete and the radar is operational, approximately 10 to 15 contractor personnel are projected for the long-term work force at Kwajalein to maintain the Space Fence radar. A support agreement will be established between Air Force Space Command and the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site for site support and facilities maintenance. Contractor operations and maintenance support for the radar site will fall under the responsibility of the 21st Space Wing here.
The Space Fence is a radar system operating in the S-Band frequency range to perform uncued detection, tracking, and accurate measurement of orbiting objects in low earth - primary -- and medium earth - secondary -- orbital regimes.
The Space Fence will provide precise positional data on orbiting objects and will be the most accurate radar in the Space Surveillance Network. Space Fence data will be fed to the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Data from the Space Fence radar will be integrated with other Space Surveillance Network data to provide a comprehensive space situational awareness and integrated space picture.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2012/space-120925-afns01.htm?_m=3n.002a.615.dd0ao031i6.k3s
9/25/2012 - PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. (AFNS) -- The Air Force will base a Space Fence radar site on Kwajalein Island in the Republic of the Marshall Islands with initial operations capability planned for fiscal 2017.
The Fence will provide a critical Space Surveillance Network capability needed to give warfighters the ability to maintain a full and accurate orbital catalog, ensure orbital safety and perform conjunction assessments.
Air Force Space Command will award a contract to build the radar, which will be capable of detecting, tracking, identifying and characterizing space objects in low and medium earth orbits. Construction is expected to begin September 2013 and is planned to take 48 months to complete construction and testing.
Until the final design is determined, it is unknown exactly how many personnel will be required to construct the radar site. After construction is complete and the radar is operational, approximately 10 to 15 contractor personnel are projected for the long-term work force at Kwajalein to maintain the Space Fence radar. A support agreement will be established between Air Force Space Command and the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site for site support and facilities maintenance. Contractor operations and maintenance support for the radar site will fall under the responsibility of the 21st Space Wing here.
The Space Fence is a radar system operating in the S-Band frequency range to perform uncued detection, tracking, and accurate measurement of orbiting objects in low earth - primary -- and medium earth - secondary -- orbital regimes.
The Space Fence will provide precise positional data on orbiting objects and will be the most accurate radar in the Space Surveillance Network. Space Fence data will be fed to the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Data from the Space Fence radar will be integrated with other Space Surveillance Network data to provide a comprehensive space situational awareness and integrated space picture.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2012/space-120925-afns01.htm?_m=3n.002a.615.dd0ao031i6.k3s
Sujoy- Posts : 2310
Points : 2470
Join date : 2012-04-02
Location : India || भारत
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_26_2012_p40-518983.xml
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-11
Age : 59
A decade ago, an air exercise that I ignored, took place in India, and provide interresstings results.
First of all indian Mig 21 bison was engaged successfully against F-15C -event though, in the seventies syrian mig 21bis successfully downed israelis F-15A -.
This exercise where India engaged Mig-21 bison and Su-27 familly were tested against US state of the arts aircrafts, leads us to several observations. No use to tell more about Su-27 familly, they are still the best aircrafts in the world, in the condition that a good pilots run them.
- At first even an old upgraded Mig-21 could successfully won against US state of the arts aircrafts.
- US pilots were confronting to high trained indian pilots, and once US hardware was in front of the same quality human and materials, the results is far to be shinning.
- Even though I staid amazed about the results, in fact, if we back to the history, Korea air war, and Vietnam air war, the result was not a surprise. And could not be a surprise, and could not be another result.
- The true nightmare of US air force, is to meet a third world countries with high quality aircrafts, and chieftly high trained pilots.
- Russia's hardware honnours the Soviets legacy regarding its aircrafts quality, its training technicals, even though Russia passed a hard economic, social crisis. Russia's hardware is still very efficient.
http://defensetech.org/2004/06/24/india-1-usaf-0/
My conclusion :
As I said since the beginning, without Russia's help, USA are unable to win a war, because Russia's military hardwares, matches perfectly with any US hardwares, in every areas.
If you have any other examples of exercices between US hardwares and russian's hardwares please post.
First of all indian Mig 21 bison was engaged successfully against F-15C -event though, in the seventies syrian mig 21bis successfully downed israelis F-15A -.
This exercise where India engaged Mig-21 bison and Su-27 familly were tested against US state of the arts aircrafts, leads us to several observations. No use to tell more about Su-27 familly, they are still the best aircrafts in the world, in the condition that a good pilots run them.
- At first even an old upgraded Mig-21 could successfully won against US state of the arts aircrafts.
- US pilots were confronting to high trained indian pilots, and once US hardware was in front of the same quality human and materials, the results is far to be shinning.
- Even though I staid amazed about the results, in fact, if we back to the history, Korea air war, and Vietnam air war, the result was not a surprise. And could not be a surprise, and could not be another result.
- The true nightmare of US air force, is to meet a third world countries with high quality aircrafts, and chieftly high trained pilots.
- Russia's hardware honnours the Soviets legacy regarding its aircrafts quality, its training technicals, even though Russia passed a hard economic, social crisis. Russia's hardware is still very efficient.
http://defensetech.org/2004/06/24/india-1-usaf-0/
My conclusion :
As I said since the beginning, without Russia's help, USA are unable to win a war, because Russia's military hardwares, matches perfectly with any US hardwares, in every areas.
If you have any other examples of exercices between US hardwares and russian's hardwares please post.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
It really isn't that shocking.
F-5s have "shot down" much more advanced USAF birds in training. So what?
I bet you could find examples of Soviet "agressor" MiG-21s blasting MiG-23s out of the air. Now the generational gap isn't as great, but nontheless...
F-5s have "shot down" much more advanced USAF birds in training. So what?
I bet you could find examples of Soviet "agressor" MiG-21s blasting MiG-23s out of the air. Now the generational gap isn't as great, but nontheless...
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-11
Age : 59
TR1 wrote:It really isn't that shocking.
F-5s have "shot down" much more advanced USAF birds in training. So what?
I bet you could find examples of Soviet "agressor" MiG-21s blasting MiG-23s out of the air. Now the generational gap isn't as great, but nontheless...
Exercises between soviet/russian mig-21/23 in Russia and exercises F-5/F-4/F-16/F-15/F-18/F-22 in USA, France, UK, Germany, Australia are not the same between indian/US, in other words, between developped countries and third world countries.
The shade is important.
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-11
Age : 59
82 F-16Ds removed from flight status due to longeron cracks
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/82-f-16ds-removed-from-flight-status-due-to-longeron-cracks-60364/#ixzz3AxmQenMw
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/82-f-16ds-removed-from-flight-status-due-to-longeron-cracks-60364/#ixzz3AxmQenMw
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Uh oh! Another F-15 crash!
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-american-f-15-just-crashed-in-england-1643832385/1643912958/+travis
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-american-f-15-just-crashed-in-england-1643832385/1643912958/+travis
Hannibal Barca- Posts : 1443
Points : 1451
Join date : 2013-12-13
I start to suspect that this is bad servicing due to lack of funds.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
The irony!Hannibal Barca wrote:I start to suspect that this is bad servicing due to lack of funds.
Anyway, that could be it, that or just some bad piloting...
higurashihougi- Posts : 3102
Points : 3189
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
Mike E wrote:The irony!Hannibal Barca wrote:I start to suspect that this is bad servicing due to lack of funds.
Anyway, that could be it, that or just some bad piloting...
It is said that a number of recent accidents in the U.S. was caused due to the mistakes of the pilots. And as far as I know, some opinions claimed that the training and number of flying for U.S. pilots was not sufficient or was decreasing.
Therefore I stills supects it have something to do with budget cutting.
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-11
Age : 59
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-is-deploying-its-fastest-interceptors-to-the-arc-1647183496/+pgeorge
America is relying much on its supposed -it does not mean it is the reality- superiority regarding air to air missiles, and especially AMRAAM. It is usefull to mention tha during air war above the Iraq's sky, it is interresting to notice -between 1992 and 2002, the no fly zone- that several F-15, F-14, F-16 and F-18 were engaged against the old Iraqis Mig-25 PD. Several air to air shot with amraam reached a Mig 25 in 1992 causing its destruction, this was swaggered by US Media as huge victory.
However, they forgot to mention :
1-US used to engage at least 5 fighters -if not 7 or 8, reaching often 10- against 1.
2-After several missiles amraam launched, it would be infortunate to miss all the target. If so, the AMRAAM is useless. But the next will give you more interrestings stories.
In other incidents, occured between 1998-2002, few Iraqi Mig-25 penetrated deeply inside Jordan, and inside Saudi Arabia terroritory. US launched several fighters F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and launched several dozens of AMRAAM but all missed the iraqi Mig-25 -See Acig.org for more informations-.
This events prove several things.
1- First fo all, the US doctrin about the air battle relying on BVR does not work -as it was the case in the past-, if US are not in situation of outnumbering their ennemies. It does not work against old iraqi Mig-25, what about against the more modern Mig-31 ?
2- As we've seen before, the stealth technology concept, did not work in the past, and does not work nowadays, and won't work in the future.
3- With the new russian-chinese hardwares now, and in the near future, the west will loose definitly its supposed suprematy.
4- The future air combats will still last in dogfight, regarding this feature, Russia with its Mig-31, Mig-35, and SU--35 does not have to be afraid by any western fighters, whatever F-22, Typhoon -maybe the best western fighters-, Rafale, F-15, F-18, F-16 etc.. No use to tell more about the JSF, aka F-35.
America is relying much on its supposed -it does not mean it is the reality- superiority regarding air to air missiles, and especially AMRAAM. It is usefull to mention tha during air war above the Iraq's sky, it is interresting to notice -between 1992 and 2002, the no fly zone- that several F-15, F-14, F-16 and F-18 were engaged against the old Iraqis Mig-25 PD. Several air to air shot with amraam reached a Mig 25 in 1992 causing its destruction, this was swaggered by US Media as huge victory.
However, they forgot to mention :
1-US used to engage at least 5 fighters -if not 7 or 8, reaching often 10- against 1.
2-After several missiles amraam launched, it would be infortunate to miss all the target. If so, the AMRAAM is useless. But the next will give you more interrestings stories.
In other incidents, occured between 1998-2002, few Iraqi Mig-25 penetrated deeply inside Jordan, and inside Saudi Arabia terroritory. US launched several fighters F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and launched several dozens of AMRAAM but all missed the iraqi Mig-25 -See Acig.org for more informations-.
This events prove several things.
1- First fo all, the US doctrin about the air battle relying on BVR does not work -as it was the case in the past-, if US are not in situation of outnumbering their ennemies. It does not work against old iraqi Mig-25, what about against the more modern Mig-31 ?
2- As we've seen before, the stealth technology concept, did not work in the past, and does not work nowadays, and won't work in the future.
3- With the new russian-chinese hardwares now, and in the near future, the west will loose definitly its supposed suprematy.
4- The future air combats will still last in dogfight, regarding this feature, Russia with its Mig-31, Mig-35, and SU--35 does not have to be afraid by any western fighters, whatever F-22, Typhoon -maybe the best western fighters-, Rafale, F-15, F-18, F-16 etc.. No use to tell more about the JSF, aka F-35.
GarryB- Posts : 38984
Points : 39480
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The two key features of the F-22 are stealth and supercruising.
Stealth means that it can fly high without the risk of detection at long range, and supercruising means maximum distance covering at minimal fuel consumption. It also adds speed to any weapon it launches and means any weapon fired at it has to literally climb a hill to get there... which reduces the weapons energy level for the terminal attack phase.
Over the Arctic however the F-22 will be facing a lot of problems... for example though it flys high and fast routinely, it doesn't fly as fast as a MiG-31 on interception duty which can fly at mach 2.4 all the way out and all the way back and at similar or greater heights than the F-22 so it no longer has the high ground advantage.
A few years ago the arctic was empty so it would have been MiG vs F-22, but now that troops are being stationed north and the radar gaps are being steadily... indeed rapidly filled, the chances for the F-22 are degrading rapidly.
One of the MiG-31s little tricks is to link radars and fly in a huge formation with each aircraft 150-200km apart. With the old setup the could link 4 aircraft and scan a front of 1,000km of air space... I would expect that capability has been enhanced and improved... with 4 or more radars linked the design of the F-22 which redirects radar beams striking its surface away from the original source in other directions might lead to one aircraft painting the target with its radar, but the energy is redirected and picked up by another aircraft that is linked and just listening... which should also work for other stealthy objects including the B-2 and any stealthy weapons or UCAVs.
With the support of ground radar and each other I think the MiG-31s shouldn't have too much to worry about the F-22s... they would need external tanks to operate over the arctic anyway, and operating from Canadian bases just makes those bases targets for the first SLBMs.
Stealth means that it can fly high without the risk of detection at long range, and supercruising means maximum distance covering at minimal fuel consumption. It also adds speed to any weapon it launches and means any weapon fired at it has to literally climb a hill to get there... which reduces the weapons energy level for the terminal attack phase.
Over the Arctic however the F-22 will be facing a lot of problems... for example though it flys high and fast routinely, it doesn't fly as fast as a MiG-31 on interception duty which can fly at mach 2.4 all the way out and all the way back and at similar or greater heights than the F-22 so it no longer has the high ground advantage.
A few years ago the arctic was empty so it would have been MiG vs F-22, but now that troops are being stationed north and the radar gaps are being steadily... indeed rapidly filled, the chances for the F-22 are degrading rapidly.
One of the MiG-31s little tricks is to link radars and fly in a huge formation with each aircraft 150-200km apart. With the old setup the could link 4 aircraft and scan a front of 1,000km of air space... I would expect that capability has been enhanced and improved... with 4 or more radars linked the design of the F-22 which redirects radar beams striking its surface away from the original source in other directions might lead to one aircraft painting the target with its radar, but the energy is redirected and picked up by another aircraft that is linked and just listening... which should also work for other stealthy objects including the B-2 and any stealthy weapons or UCAVs.
With the support of ground radar and each other I think the MiG-31s shouldn't have too much to worry about the F-22s... they would need external tanks to operate over the arctic anyway, and operating from Canadian bases just makes those bases targets for the first SLBMs.
|
|
|