View Full Version : run b!#^@es, run
Pages :
1
[
2]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Expensive targets, to be sure.
They probably started the program when Saddam was in power.
They probably finished it because:
you got to keep the engineers employed, because sooner or later you'll need them to design something, like EFPs.
the planes are useful for bombing Kurds, or whatever ethnic group they may want to oppress.
Iran has no shortage of suicide pilots. I have no idea how effective they could be. Probably, if they could hide some in a barn or something, and they were in the air for no more than a minute or two, they could do some damage.
"The test flights ....were completed by brave pilots from Iran's air force," Iran's defense minister....was quoted as saying by IRNA.
Not exactly a glowing report! :laugh:
Opposite Lock
10-01-07, 09:04 PM
True but rust is hydrated iron(III) oxide and you ain't going to get that from corroding aluminum.:p
That's all part of the "stealth". Who is going to notice that the skin is really made from Cor-ten* when they're checking for aluminum corrosion? Brilliant! [/guinesslogic]
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering_steel
How do you say 'ironic' in Hebrew? :irked: story (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/341bvepz.asp?pg=1)
In late October, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group will sell 24 of its new-generation Jian-10 (J-10) fighter aircraft to Iran in a contract valued at $1 billion.... Last week, the Paris-based defense and strategy publication TTU reported that China is planning to supply the J-10 to Syria as well.
In 1987 IAI was forced to cancel a program to build an indigenous fighter, the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a modified version of the Lockheed Martin F-16 already being used by the Israeli Air Force, but cost significantly more than the U.S.-made fighter.
Some time later, the technical details of the Lavi were provided to Chengdu, although no government has ever officially acknowledged this fact. When the J-10 was rolled out in a public ceremony in Beijing late last year, a report in the Singapore Straits Times noted the obvious:
"The Jian-10 aircraft that China unveiled recently bears a striking resemblance to the Lavi. . . . The Jian-10's sophisticated pilot helmet, which allows missiles to be aimed in the direction of the pilot's eyes, is almost certainly of Israeli origin. So are the missiles themselves, which appear to be based on the Python 4 variety manufactured by Israel's Rafael Armaments Development Authority. Neither side will admit it, but the Lavi aircraft died in Israel and has now been reborn in China."
IAI - Lavi
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/8940/lavi07qh1.jpg
Chengdu J-10
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1830/chengdu05fc7.jpg
and thus why the F-22 will never be sold to Austarlia or anyone else.
coolhand
11-16-07, 03:55 AM
I hear that there are people who have Security concerns with the F-35 for Israel, Singapore and Japan. All potential big customers.
there was the issue a couple of years back with Israel being kicked out of the program office in FtW b/c of the DC spy scandal + UAV sales to China, but they're back in now. w/ China vs. Japan, don't see how Japan would be a liability. don't know much about singapore's defense
stroker
11-16-07, 01:23 PM
there was the issue a couple of years back with Israel being kicked out of the program office in FtW b/c of the DC spy scandal + UAV sales to China, but they're back in now. w/ China vs. Japan, don't see how Japan would be a liability. don't know much about singapore's defense
Japan doesn't have a particularly good record keeping US manufacturing secrets.
coolhand
11-17-07, 04:39 AM
there was the issue a couple of years back with Israel being kicked out of the program office in FtW b/c of the DC spy scandal + UAV sales to China, but they're back in now. w/ China vs. Japan, don't see how Japan would be a liability. don't know much about singapore's defense
Toshiba sold USN submarine cork screw tech to the USSR setting USN ASW back 20 years.
Singapore has looked at US and Australian stuff then gone to France with that info and asked them to build it cheaper.
that's Toshiba, not the Japanese MoD.
You can trust us, we're Australians. :D
Linky (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23277274-2,00.html)
coolhand
02-25-08, 09:53 PM
You should still go with the F-35, don't see any reason why you have a hard on for the F-22.
You will have 5 total squadrons when this is all said and done between the SH and F-35.
I don't see any air threats within thousands of miles. Indonesia only has 2 crap Sukhois.
stroker
02-25-08, 10:08 PM
Not to hijack, but does anyone know what happend to those Iraqi Foxbats they dug out of the ground? They need to be in a museum somewhere...
coolhand
02-25-08, 11:10 PM
Not to hijack, but does anyone know what happend to those Iraqi Foxbats they dug out of the ground? They need to be in a museum somewhere...
Junk Yard.
Not to hijack, but does anyone know what happend to those Iraqi Foxbats they dug out of the ground? They need to be in a museum somewhere...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-25
In August 2003, several dozen Iraqi aircraft were discovered buried in the sand. That included two MiG-25s which were excavated and sent to WPAFB's Foreign Technology Division using a C-5B Galaxy. In December 2006, it was announced that one MiG-25 was being donated to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Dayton, Ohio.
-Kevin
All your MiG are belong to US. :p
You should still go with the F-35, don't see any reason why you have a hard on for the F-22.
You will have 5 total squadrons when this is all said and done between the SH and F-35.
I don't see any air threats within thousands of miles. Indonesia only has 2 crap Sukhois.
Don't ask me. I just have to pay for them. The RAAF keeps saying they don't want the F22, but the politicians keep bringing it up. :confused:
RAAF on the JSF (http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4903/topstories/story2.htm)
I think they should just keep the F111's, my kids love the dump and burn they do for the fireworks show once a year. Very pretty. :gomer:
xjeRDuh3lVc&
coolhand
02-26-08, 11:07 PM
F-111 was considered too much of a maintenance hog for the USAF.
What Oz should of done if they were so heart set on a medium bomber is work with one of the American companies that lost out on contracts in the early 90s.
Modify say the A-12 program or a modified "bomb widow" out of the YF-23.
^ bump.
F-22 scores first kill. F-117A Night Hawk stealth fighter retired from service last week. Story (http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8979043?source=most_emailed)
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/112/070328f9126z504zt0.jpg
coolhand
05-01-08, 05:27 PM
F-117 is still a better strike bomber than any other country has.
F-117 is still a better strike bomber than any other country has.
Better not mothball them entirely. We may still need them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/1917167/Chinese-build-secret-nuclear-submarine-base.html
:eek: :(
-Kevin
Per year of service, could this be the most expensive plane ever made?
cameraman
05-01-08, 06:50 PM
I think the B2 probably has it beat. Probably the B1 too if you count all the false starts and rebuilds. What did it take, 20 years to become actually useable?
SurfaceUnits
05-01-08, 06:59 PM
The Israelis already have the electronic warfare capabilities in their F15s to knock out any Russian air defenses:
IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.
At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.
the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.
Apparently the Ruskies are working their butts off trying to figure out what went wrong. Maybe they'll send Iran a big bill for nothing. Maybe they'll figure something out.
The B2 is probably right. Definitely the most expensive per mile. It hardly ever flies.
SurfaceUnits
05-02-08, 11:42 AM
I wonder if it was as easy for the Israeli commando team to get into Syria as it was for the 9/11 bombers to get into the US.
eiregosod
05-02-08, 01:05 PM
Per year of service, could this be the most expensive plane ever made?
some Englishman got $250m for designing the microwave filters.
Запуск суки, запустить!
H55ZvOPcMCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H55ZvOPcMCQ
The comments on this are really entertaining.
coolhand
05-03-08, 01:20 AM
The comments on this are really entertaining.
Those kids are just plain Anti-American homers. They have no clue what advantages stealth has and its limitations. They probably never heard of AESA, Passive Arrays, Heat Management that allows TRUE Super cruise etc.
They have no clue how far behind Russia is (given they have done little development since the 80s.)
You wont see a 30 ton aircraft out turn AMRAAM or Sidewinder
SurfaceUnits
05-03-08, 02:33 PM
Apparently the Ruskies are working their butts off trying to figure out what went wrong. Maybe they'll send Iran a big bill for nothing. Maybe they'll figure something out.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&;plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2710d024-5eda-416c-b117-ae6d649146cd
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/ISRA110207.xml&channel=defense
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/aw112607p2.xml&headline=Israel%20Shows%20Electronic%20Prowess&channel=defense
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/aviation-weeks-david-fulghum-on-syria-north-korea-nuclear-reactor,374085.shtml
"Also, Syrian air defenses are still centralized and dependent on dedicated HF and VHF communications, which made them vulnerable."
Like I said, the Ruskies are apparently working on it.
SurfaceUnits
05-18-08, 04:31 PM
Next Gen Electronic attack aircraft for the Navy:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/ea18g/index.html
The EA-18G, currently under development for the U.S. Navy, will be the cornerstone of the naval airborne electronic attack (AEA) mission. Derived from the combat proven F/A-18F aircraft, the EA-18G incorporates advanced AEA avionics bringing transformational capability for suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and integrated air/ground operations.
The Growler uses a repackaged version of the ICAP III electronic-attack system in the Prowler. But the ALQ-99 jamming pods are proving much more effective on the EA-18G, says Navy F/A-18 program manager Capt Mark Darrah. This is because the Growler’s groundbreaking comm-while-jam datalink capability ensures the jamming is accurately aligned and the aircraft being protected are exactly on a line between the radar and the jammer. Channelized receivers also focus the jamming power more effectively.
http://lh3.google.com/TolipM/RvpE41eNpSI/AAAAAAAAAWY/aatUWfWsHh8/s800/Growler.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/ea18g/images/msf06-1598-36a.jpg
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/3/c97a6b36-063f-42ce-832d-89bf7e1e5bf6.Large.jpg
It was interesting to note that on the "Carrier" program on PBS the Marine pilots still had A or C model F-18s. No Super Hornets for the jarheads. Seems they're saving up for VTOL JSF strike fighters. Some of their bugs were definitely looking weary.
gotta love Aviation Leak, i mean, Week...
Cool. Fighter/Jammer. Coulda picked a better name tho'. :laugh:
SurfaceUnits
05-19-08, 01:45 PM
Cool. Fighter/Jammer. Coulda picked a better name tho'. :laugh:
it's replacing the Prowler and it's the G model of the plane so it was a no brainer
Cool. Fighter/Jammer. Coulda picked a better name tho'. :laugh:
http://princessleia.com/images/beer/john_harvards_growler.jpg
http://princessleia.com/images/beer/john_harvards_growler.jpg
:thumbup:
morgahorse
05-21-08, 06:55 PM
The 1950's: when men were men, women knew their place, and reactors were flying over their heads!
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee279/risdo1/nb36h.jpg
The reactor did not power the engines. It was a test vehicle to see how a reactor would work while airborne. The cockpit was heavily shielded, with heavy leaded glass windows, and a lead bulkhead behind the cockpit.
You can see it's not a standard B-36 cockpit. (google NB-36H, if you're interested)
The ultimate goal was to have the reactor power the aircraft, but they never got that far.
The 1950's are quite fascinating: they would try absolutely anything.
The 1950's: when men were men, women knew their place, and reactors were flying over their heads!
Love the radioactive symbol on the tail. :)
That is hilarious. As if, seeing that thing screaming down on you from above, you would see the symbol and duck & cover.
stroker
05-22-08, 09:06 AM
there's certainly plenty of incentive to bail out!
I'm no aviation engineer, but wouldn't it make more sense to put the jamming systems on a stealth fighter, just in case, oh I don't know, the jamming systems fail?
F-18E/F possesses partial low-observability capabilities
F-18E/F possesses partial low-observability capabilities
I can see it pretty clearly. Wait. With all that stuff hanging off it? :\
SurfaceUnits
05-27-08, 05:24 PM
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/14/5c42ba26-25c5-4093-9ec0-7fbf934758e1.Large.jpg
DTI reports this month that Northrop Grumman has won a classified Air Force contract to develop a secret bomber prototype. Naturally, nobody's confirming this on the record, but we present strong evidence that such a project is under way.
Aerospace Daily and Defense Report
Lockheed, Boeing Team Against Northrop For Next-Gen Bomber
Amy Butler/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Lockheed Martin and Boeing, two rivals in the manned fighter market, have established a partnership to go after the next big U.S. Air Force contract -- the building of a manned, next-generation bomber.
Requirements are far from definite, but the service hopes to have an advanced stealthy bomber on the ramp and ready for use by 2018. Analysts contend this is an ambitious timeline. The initial operational capability date is driven by concern that the B-2 fleet of 21 aircraft cannot attack enough high-value targets - such as nuclear and sophisticated air defense sites - to satisfy current war plans.
The new bomber must have an aircrew, be stealthy enough to evade air defense systems now in development, and possibly have the capability to deliver nuclear payloads.
Lockheed Martin and Boeing are teamed to share data and handle study work for the new bomber. This pits them squarely against Northrop Grumman, manufacturer of the Air Force's stealthy B-2 bomber and the recent winner of the Navy's Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS-N) contract, which will develop some critical technologies that are related to the Air Force requirements.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/LMNG012808.xml&headline=Lockheed,%20Boeing%20Team%20Against%20Nor throp%20For%20Next-Gen%20Bomber
Wait. With all that stuff hanging off it? :\
mostly with the structure and level of tolerance maintained during mfg. still a smaller radar signature than it would possess otherwise.
either way, F-35 has no shortage of EW capabilities, but C-Variant for USN is a ways off
but C-Variant for USN is a ways off
Nothing 50 or 60 billion won't fix.
I firmly believe that air superiority is the single most important thing for a military to possess, and I even believe in advancing our technical capabilities so far that no one even tries to catch up, but when the F-117 failed, the B-1 failed, the B-2 failed, the B 52 works fine and the cruise missile has proven to be completely reliable what to you do: build a few new B52s and a million cruise missiles or spend twice as much for a handful of next-generation bombers that probably won't work either? The correct answer is B, because contractors make more money charging for research, credit for cruise missiles attacks need to be shared with the Navy and if you give the money saved to the Army they'll just waste it on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
but when the F-117 failed, the B-1 failed, the B-2 failed
By what measure did those planes fail? :confused:
cameraman
05-28-08, 12:58 PM
but when the F-117 failed, the B-1 failed, the B-2 failed, the B 52 works fineThe B-52s are parked. The current support flights over Afghanistan are all B1s. It took forever but the B1 is now fully functioning as it should.
Nothing 50 or 60 billion won't fix.
I firmly believe that air superiority is the single most important thing for a military to possess, and I even believe in advancing our technical capabilities so far that no one even tries to catch up, but when the F-117 failed, the B-1 failed, the B-2 failed, the B 52 works fine and the cruise missile has proven to be completely reliable what to you do: build a few new B52s and a million cruise missiles or spend twice as much for a handful of next-generation bombers that probably won't work either? The correct answer is B, because contractors make more money charging for research, credit for cruise missiles attacks need to be shared with the Navy and if you give the money saved to the Army they'll just waste it on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The F-117 performed just fine in its given mission. The one shot down was due to complacency in flight plans from Aviano to Kosovo, not b/c of a failure of its technologies. B-1 and B-2s have been in constant service the past 5+ years.
coolhand
05-28-08, 03:53 PM
F-117 failed?
It has been retired, but not because it was obsolete, it is a far better strike aircraft than anything ANY other nation has built. It could fly over Baghdad in 1991 which was supposed to be the second most heavily defended air space at the time.
B-2?
Still most capable bomber ever built, expensive though
B-1, B-52 are good bomb trucks.
coolhand
05-28-08, 03:55 PM
I am excited about this 2018 bomber, it looks like a realistic technology target so hopefully it will be done on time.
stroker
05-28-08, 06:09 PM
See, what they need is to take a typical cruise missile, then ask the question--if we wanted this thing to return to base yet drop it's payload within 3 meters of the target, what would we need to do?
1. "Stealthify" it
2. Use the X-45 programming for landing
3. Upgrade the warhead to a JDAM or two, perhaps with different guidance systems (laser, or TV to complement the GPS for contingencies)
4. Increase the size for round-trip fuel capacity
Once you've done that you've got virtually everything you need for a bomber except enormous payload--and you've already got that with the three manned bombers currently in the inventory. You tell the Russians, the Chinese or anybody else that we've got a $20 million stealthy cruise missile-sized "bomber" (only a few THOUSAND of them, launchable from virtually anywhere) with JDAM capability and they're going to realize that their entire Air Defense program is virtually obsolete.
SurfaceUnits
05-28-08, 11:23 PM
Phifty Phantastic Years
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 5/28/2008 7:39 AM CDT
Start off trying to build an attack airplane. Change the mission to air defense. Change the engines. Demand a bigger radar. Hit all kinds of stability nasties in the wind tunnel and drastically change the shape to fix them. Pick the airplane for production, rather than another aircraft that's less expensive and has a greater range.
It doesn't sound like a recipe for a classic, but it worked in the case of the McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom II, which made its first flight 50 years ago yesterday (May 27, 1958).
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/6/56647999-a637-4e2f-86dd-83efffe173b9.Large.jpg
The jet did start off as a grown-up, twin-engine development of the F3H Demon, an ill-starred and mediocre aircraft of the 1950s, and was originally designated AH-1 (A for attack) when it was ordered in 1954. In the following year the mission was changed to air defense and the aircraft was redesigned around the new General Electric J79 engine. The bigger radar was adopted in August 1957 - it gave the fighter its characteristic droop-nosed profile, although the first few aircraft had the original smaller nose and a flat-topped cockpit.
Stability problems were solved by drooping the horizontal stabilizers by 23 degrees, bending the wingtips up by 12 degrees and installing an aileron-rudder interconnect system. The air inlets incorporated shovel-like variable ramps and the jetpipes were cut off under the tail, which was protected from the heat of the exhaust by metal shingles. The great Bill Gunston recalls the staff of Flight magazine in London chuckling over the first pictures: "They must have got everything wrong and tried to fix it", was the general conclusion.
More here: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a35483725-75f3-4ca6-b9fd-8c789c067218
SurfaceUnits
05-29-08, 12:51 PM
http://www.northropgrumman.com/images/review/ro_issue_005.jpg
http://www.northropgrumman.com/review/article_005.html
The basis for the NextGen Air Force bomber
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8bf1ca39-1e33-4d93-a76a-a01def0cb680
Greatness in aircraft nicknames: :thumbup:
The Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron-263 calls their V-22 Ospreys "Thunder Chicken". :D
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4682/thunderchickenshe4.jpg http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6204/200pxvmm263gn9.jpg
The name honors the famed Thunder Chicken helicopter squadron during the Vietnam War.
The squadron was well known by the enemy in Vietnam. However there is no word for 'eagle'
in Vietnamese so the enemy refered to them as 'thunder chicken'.
stroker
05-31-08, 07:50 PM
Greatness in aircraft nicknames: :thumbup:
The Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron-263 calls their V-22 Ospreys "Thunder Chicken". :D
Only the Marines could pull that off...
:thumbup:
Andrew Longman
05-31-08, 08:00 PM
The Longmans are going to McGuire AFB tomorrow for the Air Expo
http://www.mcguireairexpo.info/Performers.html
Thunderbird's!!!:D
I haven't done this in 25+ years when the T birds first adopted the F16. Cripes has it been that long?
Amazing that the ejection seats worked at such low altitude.
video of Feb.23 incident at Andersen AFB, Guam
bn9gfJ3Fzxo
Wow. That's why the talk about "zero-zero" capable ejection seats - they work all the way down to zero altitude, zero airspeed.
I thought when I saw that video that it must have been a flight control issue. The plane just pitched up way to steeply on takeoff.
"The airplane ... was in a normal takeoff attitude but the computer thought otherwise," he said. "To correct it from what the computer thought was going back toward the ground, it commanded flight control to put the nose up -- an excessive nose-up attitude."
http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080607/NEWS01/806070322&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
coolhand
06-09-08, 11:53 PM
Moister in the pitot tube
Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Air Force Chief of Staff General "Buzz" Moseley after repeatedly accusing the service of being unable to focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a fascinating interview with Air Force Times, conducted right after his removal, Moseley said the critiques were dead-on. (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/moseley-gates-w.html)
Too bad Sec Def Gates doesn't hang out here. He would've learned a lot.
too bad Sec Gates didn't just hire a canuck like you.
too bad you failed to mention this part
A. I don’t have a critique of Dr. Gates, because I believe the services have to be able to do everything — across the entire spectrum of conflict. We have got to be able to fight a counterinsurgency, an irregular war scenario, all the way up to the high-end theater.
...
I do not predict nor believe that we will have a nation-state versus nation-state conflict sometime in the near future. If we do the deterrence and dissuasion piece right, we will avoid conflict...
While I believe there is an almost zero chance we will fight a nation-state, I believe there is a near 100 percent chance we are going to fight very sophisticated systems on the land, at sea and in the air.
I believe the best way to deter and dissuade is to be able to wholly dominate the land, sea, air, space and cyber domains.
Yes, the original (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/06/080609af_moseley_interview/) interview reads a bit differently then cut and paste blog linked.
SurfaceUnits
06-13-08, 06:26 PM
F-35B JSF First Flight Video
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a17d8b068-f193-411b-a5d9-6ab0348c7f57
SurfaceUnits
06-23-08, 11:30 PM
F-35 Offers Multirole Surprises
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will “redefine the concept of multirole strike” aircraft, Lockheed Martin officials say, but they offer few details to flesh out that claim.
Still, while the future concept of operations, electronic attack (EA) capability and derivative options remain undefined, at least publicly, some capabilities can be picked out of their purposely vague descriptions.
Starting from the notion that new hardware is the least likely addition to the aircraft and that it has an open architecture for avionics, look for the big multirole capability additions to involve electronic attack.
Because of the ability to penetrate while using low-probability-of-intercept radar and passive sensors, the JSF will not operate in proximity to current, so-called fourth-generation aircraft. It will instead roam well-defended enemy airspace while feeding precision targeting data to nonstealthy aircraft with standoff-range weapons.
Tailored for EA
The F-35 aircraft is being designed to deliver electronic attack (jamming, spoofing and pulses of energy) with the same ease that it can deliver explosive weapons. Moreover, Lockheed officials say the F-35 – first of all a combat aircraft – will have full 360-degree awareness of what is going on around it.
That presents an interesting dilemma for EA versus kinetic weaponry. The new AIM-9X air-to-air missile can perform high off-boresight shots without turning the aircraft’s nose toward the target. However, delivering electronic effects require specialized antennae pointed toward the target. As far as is known, JSF has only its advanced active, electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar antenna in the nose to pump out its electronic firepower. It would then have the weakness of any AESA array in that it is flat with a field of view of less than 180 degrees, perhaps an effective field of regard for effective attack of 60-90 degrees.
Some radar specialists and Air Force planners already say they anticipate flying the F-35s in line, with the first aircraft being passive and the second emitting and passing target information to the first so that it can remain undetected. Therefore, it appears that without an add-on antenna, the JSF’s EA capability will be limited to the forward quarter.
However, within that field the electronic effects generator can be routed through the AESA radar, which allows the F-35 to invade, blind or fool enemy sensors and radars at ranges of up to hundreds of miles.
Sensors
Lockheed officials do admit that the F-35’s sensor capabilities include advanced electronic surveillance allowing development of an instantaneous electronic order of battle – what’s emitting and from where.
Along with EA, the JSF will take on the mission of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. So instead of depending on a few specialized high-demand aircraft like Rivet Joint (for signals intelligence), Cobra Ball (measurement and signature intelligence) or Compass Call (EA) that can’t venture into enemy airspace, a fleet of F-35s will be able to conduct those missions deep into enemy territory to take advantage of physics (by being nearer the targets) while deepening the areas of surveillance.
They won’t say if information warfare is part of the package. Info warfare is generally the bailiwick of Commando Solo and Compass Call (including network penetration and attack), but with software upgrades radar specialists expect the capability to appear soon.
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/defense_images/Fighters/lockheedmartinF-35testA.jpg
Photo: Lockheed Martin
Here's what's actually happening in a real war, not the press releases you guys think people read before deciding whether or not they're going to become terrorists.
Corsi is hampered in what he can do - with only 18 soldiers, he cannot allow his men to patrol the vicinity. There are several reconstruction projects ongoing, but the Americans are largely unable to protect them. All Corsi can do is radio headquarters and ask for air support if he hears of an attack. But in such mountainous terrain reports of incidents can take hours to filter through, by which time the Taliban are long gone.
And with military helicopters and jets stretched to the limit on other operations, support is not guaranteed. Margha is resupplied by private contractors using civilian aircraft. Supplies are parachuted into the base by light aircraft or dropped off by a Ukrainian crew using an old Russian helicopter, flying at high altitude to avoid enemy fire."
(http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/08/outpost-margha.html)
Obviously it's not a problem that Afghans who risk their life to help the US are being resupplied by Ukrainians in rented Russian copters, becausthe the Air force has far more important missions. Like figuring out how to make sure B2 don't get wet:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/stealth-lede-630-0708.jpg
But the fact that terrorists are roaming around and even after being being detected the Air Force can't be depended upon bomb them should be a problem for anyone who doesn't have his head up a fighter pilot's ass.
No F117s in Afghanistan, they're out of service because of the they're ridiculously difficult to maintain and have a small payload.
The B-2, which was supposed to have a usable payload, is so ridiculously difficult to maintain that it can't even be deployed in the Middle East. Its stuck in Missouri, and yet you guys still can't figure out that's it's only useful if Kansas is ever attacked by terrorists with radar guided antiaircraft missiles on a sunny day.
The B-1 was designed to fly faster than a Russian anti-aircraft missile, which was a stupid idea to begin with, and wasn't designed to maintain a presence over the Afghan/Pakistan border, so it can't.
Your beloved Raptor has such a ridiculously small payload the Air Force doesn't even bother sending it anywhere useful. It's also never been deployed anywhere where their sand, which might be a coincidence, but does anyone want to give me a hundred bucks if they're aren't some Raptors permanently deployed in the Middle East sometime in the next decade.
The B-52 is perfectly capable of bombing terrorists, but contractors can't make 50 billion in R&D building new ones, and the Air Force is full of people like you guys who are more interested in how cool the model looks sitting on their desk than how many people die in Afghanistan waiting for CAS.
is that link going to be as much of an abortion as your last link in this thread which it turned out didn't support your post at all?
if you think B-2's remain in missouri, you're clueless. if you think B-2's haven't fulfilled their role, you're clueless. if you think B-1 is unsuccessful in its modern role, you're clueless. and if you think COIN ops are all the US military needs to concern itself with, you are clueless. If you think the fact that Raptor isn't performing a strike role, something which it wasn't designed for, means it's a failure, you're clueless. If you think issues in Afghanistan are due to USAF appropriations, you're really bloody clueless.
I'll do you a favor and quote your last link again
A. I don’t have a critique of Dr. Gates, because I believe the services have to be able to do everything — across the entire spectrum of conflict. We have got to be able to fight a counterinsurgency, an irregular war scenario, all the way up to the high-end theater.
...
I do not predict nor believe that we will have a nation-state versus nation-state conflict sometime in the near future. If we do the deterrence and dissuasion piece right, we will avoid conflict...
While I believe there is an almost zero chance we will fight a nation-state, I believe there is a near 100 percent chance we are going to fight very sophisticated systems on the land, at sea and in the air.
I believe the best way to deter and dissuade is to be able to wholly dominate the land, sea, air, space and cyber domains.
coolhand
08-15-08, 08:29 PM
Obviously it's not a problem that Afghans who risk their life to help the US are being resupplied by Ukrainians in rented Russian copters, because the the Air force has far more important missions. Like figuring out how to make sure B2 don't get wet:
Afghanistan is an underdeveloped backwater. With high mountain ridges and few roads helicopters are having to work overtime. USMIL seems to be handling it better than most of the other NATO nations. Also the evil contractors are making proposals to help these solve logistic issues in the near future. Also, supplying US Army Combat Outposts IS NOT THE USAFs JOB. The US army has a huge fleet of Helicopters for that purpose. USAF is there for STRATEGIC logistics. C-17s are not going to support a platoon on a mountain top.
The UK specifically has a huge helo shortage and cost calculations have shown that using warsaw pact contractors are 4 times cheaper than using UKMIL ones. Not only that the Brits are operating in the flat Helmand province. It does not compare to the difficulties of Nuristan on Kunar province. Same is true with the Canadians in Khandahar.
Anyway this is an irrelevant conversation, it is not the USAF's job to support the ground forces logistically at this level.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/stealth-lede-630-0708.jpg
Funny you joke about B-2 not being deployable. That B-2 crashed in Guam. B-2s give enemy military planners a lot of head aches and make them spend a lot of cash just thinking about how to stop them.
The B-2 is there because no other bomber in the world can operate in the Straits of Taiwan where the PLA 2nd Artillery Corps has a huge IAD apparatus covering the whole area. Same is true with Baghdad 1991/2003.
Not every conflict will be against 3rd world terrorists in central Asia or Militias in Iraq.
But the fact that terrorists are roaming around and even after being being detected the Air Force can't be depended upon bomb them should be a problem for anyone who doesn't have his head up a fighter pilot's ass.
Yes they can, but it is not simple task to have 24/7 CAS supporting every single soldier. The USAF is doing its job well in that no US soldier has never had to worry about heavy artillery or aircraft since WWII
No F117s in Afghanistan, they're out of service because of the they're ridiculously difficult to maintain and have a small payload.
They are out of service because new aircraft have rendered it obsolescent. It still can fly through heavily defended airspace and no other nation has yet matched its capabilities. It was successful.
Also on the "Small Payload". IF Iraq has taught us anything PGMs have proven that payload is not that important. 2 PGMs are much more effective than 6 dumb bombs. That is why you never see USAF aircraft sortie with 6 bombs anymore. Most missions don't require more than that.
The B-2, which was supposed to have a usable payload, is so ridiculously difficult to maintain that it can't even be deployed in the Middle East. Its stuck in Missouri, and yet you guys still can't figure out that's it's only useful if Kansas is ever attacked by terrorists with radar guided antiaircraft missiles on a sunny day.
The B-2 has and can still fly missions anywhere in the Globe from its bases in the US. Nothing is out of its reach.
You are misdiagnosing the problem, time on target is what you are talking about for CAS in Afghanistan. For that mission the B-2 is inefficient and unnecessary. NOTHING there requires dropping 180 bombs and a target.
IF the USAF wanted the B-2 in the ME IT WOULD BE THERE AND THEY WOULD MAKE IT WORK. However they don't want it there because it is not the aircraft's mission.
B-1Bs are stations in Bahrain and Diego Garcia.
The B-1 was designed to fly faster than a Russian anti-aircraft missile, which was a stupid idea to begin with, and wasn't designed to maintain a presence over the Afghan/Pakistan border, so it can't.
INCORRECT, the B-1A was designed for that, same with the XB-70 Valkyrie. However that concept was proven inferior to other solutions (I.E. the B-2). So the B-1B was developed as a more conventional backup to the B-2 that could infiltrate enemy airspace at low levels.
The B-1B can do everything the B-52 can. It can loiter over target for hours and it can do things the B-52 cannot. These include "SHOW OF FORCE" tactics. These tactics use the aircraft to make a low level fly over alerting Taliban it is presence. This makes them back off every time and end their attacks. This is needed when they are too close to civilians. A B-1B last year made and ear splitting pass down and mountain valley that even terrified US forces.
FTG, you are also not accounting for the Air Forces reluctance to harm civilians and friendly forces. This also has an effect on them doing CAS.
Your beloved Raptor has such a ridiculously small payload the Air Force doesn't even bother sending it anywhere useful. It's also never been deployed anywhere where their sand, which might be a coincidence, but does anyone want to give me a hundred bucks if they're aren't some Raptors permanently deployed in the Middle East sometime in the next decade.
Small Payload? In a no threat environment it can haul as much as any Fighter. However you are referring to its internal storage. As I mentioned Earlier PGMs have negated the need for fighter bombers to carry more than 2-4 bombs. JDAMs are cheap for the USAF and few missions will require more than 2 bombs.
Also the F-22s advantages are pointless in the current threat environment in the ME. Why wear down the airframes on our newest aircraft when they are just bomb trucks? There are other roles and future threats that the F-22 should be focusing on.
The B-52 is perfectly capable of bombing terrorists, but contractors can't make 50 billion in R&D building new ones, and the Air Force is full of people like you guys who are more interested in how cool the model looks sitting on their desk than how many people die in Afghanistan waiting for CAS.
The reason there are not any more B-52s and B-1s is due to Strategic Arms treaties like START. We signed these in the 1980s with the USSR and that required many B-1s and B-52s to be disassembled and stored out in the open at AMARC in Arizona. The treaty also prohibits the B-1 from using external stores.
However the USAF is working on the "2018" bomber.
I agree though that B-52s should probably have new engines put on (for more efficiency and less maintenance), but I don't know much about why that would be so costly not my area.
Looking back I should not of bothered addressing your post, I am not even sure what your argument is now.
if you think B-2's remain in missouri, you're clueless. if you think B-2's haven't fulfilled their role, you're clueless.
Then so is the General Accounting Office.
(9) however, the Air Force
decided it was unrealistic to plan on deploying the interim aircraft to
forward operating locations because of difficulties being experienced in
maintaining low-observable characteristics at the B-2's main operating
base; (http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm)
I know you don't give a **** that these men died dead waiting for close air support that never arrived but you should:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/4802.jpg
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/4801.jpg
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/4799.jpg
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/4803.jpg
And four more that shouldn't be forgotten, even though they already have been by everyone here.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/4805.jpg
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/4804.jpg
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/4795.jpg
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/fallen/mugs/4798.jpg
Also, supplying US Army Combat Outposts IS NOT THE USAFs JOB.
No but dropping bombs on terrorists before they kill US soldiers should be: talk about clueless.
You guys are making the same mistake as Adolf. "If we have the best jet fighter we can't lose." If you are going to miss the mark by that much, the least you can do is follow a better role model down the path to defeat.
Clueless is thinking that a bomber that can actually fly less than 50% of the time is successful.
Introduced from 1993-2000, America’s B-2 fleet has historically had availability rates below 50% for a number of reasons. In practice, what this meant was that even with moderate usage, an average of only 6-10 stealth bombers were actually available for missions at any given time. (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usas-b2-bombers-leading-the-way-in-contracting-for-availability-02950/)
Clueless is thinking that the enemy will wait until your planes actually work before starting a war. Clueless is being too lazy to check Wikipedia to see what the Pentagon says about it's own fricken plane.
"The Pentagon's Operational Test and Evaluation 2003 Annual Report noted that the B-2's serviceability for FY03 was still inadequate, mainly due to maintenance on the B-2's Low Observable materials. The evaluation also noted that the Defensive Avionics suite also had shortcomings with pop-up threats."
it is not simple task to have 24/7 CAS supporting every single soldier.
No it's not, which is why the Air Force should actually put some effort into the mission, instead of sending flowers to the widows of GIs and trying to repair planes that don't do anything a cruise missile can't do, and that the cruise missile can do in the rain, simply because the Navy is in charge of cruise missiles.
2 PGMs are much more effective than 6 dumb bombs. That is why you never see USAF aircraft sortie with 6 bombs anymore. Most missions don't require more than that.
It's very nice of you to agree that we don't need the B2s excessive payload. I accept your apology.
I know you don't give a **** that these men died dead waiting for close air support that never arrived but you should:
:shakehead
Then so is the General Accounting Office.
(9) however, the Air Force
decided it was unrealistic to plan on deploying the interim aircraft to
forward operating locations because of difficulties being experienced in
maintaining low-observable characteristics at the B-2's main operating
base; (http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm)
a report from eleven years ago, how quaint.
Clueless is thinking that a bomber that can actually fly less than 50% of the time is successful.
Introduced from 1993-2000, America’s B-2 fleet has historically had availability rates below 50% for a number of reasons. In practice, what this meant was that even with moderate usage, an average of only 6-10 stealth bombers were actually available for missions at any given time. (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usas-b2-bombers-leading-the-way-in-contracting-for-availability-02950/)
a report that's 8 years old, how quaint
You two had better cool your jets.
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
You two had better cool your jets.
the plaque for the alternates is down by the ladies room
the plaque for the alternates is down by the ladies room
Good job.
Alright. I'm going to leave this thread closed for a day or two to let everyone cool off. When I reopen it I expect everyone to behave like choirboys for a while or I'll just close it again. No more calling people clueless or claiming people don't care about dead soldiers.
Alright. Clean out of the break and no low blows. If I read another "you don't like puppies" or "you can't do long division" I will be most unhappy. If you can't address the person's argument instead of their personality then you lose.
Headlines:
F-22 Raptor order to be cut to 250 planes, down from 381.
Less is more, right? Aviation Week story (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/F22-111208.xml&headline=USAF%20Expected%20To%20Push%20F-22%20Compromise)
F-35 breaks sound barrier fully loaded.
Next week, buzzing the tower. :p Aviation Week blurb (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac502088d-6745-4a4e-8d8c-42995d0e86b8)
coolhand
11-22-08, 07:06 AM
Much to Swedish teenagers misery Norway selected the F-35 to replace their F-16s.
This probably means the Danes and Dutch will follow suit thus shutting out the Gripen NG.
I hope they are crying in Sweden. :laugh: seriously, what new did the Gripen offer over their F-16s.
China has phased-array radar. JSF, F-22, B-2, and F-117 are the only craft we have that could easily and successfully penetrate their defenses. I'm not sorry that we have any of these craft to maintain air superiority. Especially craft with the combination of stealth, speed, mobility, and power as the F-22A. Means next time there's a Kosovo we won't have downed pilots due to enemy missile defense, and their radar systems will be toast to boot.
Is having the ability to evade phased radar going to do any good when we can't build the damn jet because all the set screws are no longer made here?
Is having the ability to evade phased radar going to do any good when we can't build the damn jet because all the set screws are no longer made here?
Even worse, we can't afford to build weapons to use against China unless China loans us the money.
Headlines:
F-22 Raptor order to be cut to 250 planes, down from 381.
Less is more, right? Aviation Week story (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/F22-111208.xml&headline=USAF%20Expected%20To%20Push%20F-22%20Compromise)
so that's why my lockheed 401 only started tanking recently :gomer:
Some flyboys aren't going to be happy.
(http://www.slate.com/id/2206041/)
Cancel or sharply cut the F-22 and F-35 stealth fighter planes. A year ago, Gates caused a ruckus by halting the F-22 program at its current level of 187 planes, half as many as the Air Force wanted. He should stick to that decision. He may get the support of his new Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, whose background isn't in fighter planes but in airlift: i.e., in planes that transport ground troops and their weapons to the battlefield.
SurfaceUnits
12-05-08, 03:11 PM
didn't the Romans also hire mercenaries to do all their fighting towards the end of their empire days
Some flyboys aren't going to be happy.
(http://www.slate.com/id/2206041/)
Cancel or sharply cut the F-22 and F-35 stealth fighter planes. A year ago, Gates caused a ruckus by halting the F-22 program at its current level of 187 planes, half as many as the Air Force wanted. He should stick to that decision. He may get the support of his new Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, whose background isn't in fighter planes but in airlift: i.e., in planes that transport ground troops and their weapons to the battlefield.
"Bring back the A10 attack plane?" What's that supposed to mean? It never went away and there's already a program underway to extend its service life out to 2025.
Cutting down on air to air capability is ok to a point. The air force has always loved sexy fighters too much. But you need the fast jets and stealth to achieve the air dominance that is underpinning of every conflict we've fought since Korea. Otherwise those cargo planes will be transporting a lot of troops in boxes.
didn't the Romans also hire mercenaries to do all their fighting towards the end of their empire days
^ Yes which led to the end of their empire.
As for the Slate article:
1. Relying on your neighbor to protect your home is dangerous. A smaller American Navy + Allied navies makes everyone less safe. Pirates anyone?
The idea should be to pool the resources of two independent forces, not cobble one together from the remains of many.
2. Everyone's always trying to streamline the army. :shakehead
You know what you call a small, cost effective army? Surrounded. ;)
3. Whatever happened to "hope for the best prepare for the worst?" No sooner does the Pentagon drop the Two War readiness reqirement, then we find ourselves fighting in 2 theaters. If Gates wants to just fight small wars, then he better prepare for the big one.
I, for one, welcome our new alien robot overlords.
SurfaceUnits
01-13-09, 02:30 AM
BMW completes initial test of engine for supersonic cruise missile programme
Indianapolis: Rolls-Royce has announced it has successfully completed an initial test of its advanced, high-specific thrust YJ102R engine at the Indianapolis, Indiana facility. This test is the first of a series to be performed by LibertyWorks, the company's research unit, and is designed to validate critical performance criteria under its High Speed Turbine Engine Demonstration (HiSTED) contract with the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
HiSTED is a joint DARPA/Air Force initiative to design, fabricate and ground test a high Mach expendable turbine engine. The engine is also expected to power Lockheed Martin's Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike (RATTLRS) vehicle. The RATTLRS program is a supersonic, science and technology missile flight demonstrator effort sponsored by the Office of Naval Research.
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/miss_muni/images%5Cdomain-b_rattlrs2.jpg
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/miss_muni/20090112_supersonic_cruise_missile.html
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=33362
BMW completes initial test of engine for supersonic cruise missile programme
I thought that thing looked vaguely familiar:
D-21 Drone (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/d-21.php)
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/d-21small.jpg
BMW completes initial test of engine for supersonic cruise missile programme
Indianapolis: Rolls-Royce has announced it has successfully completed an initial test of its advanced, high-specific thrust YJ102R engine at the Indianapolis, Indiana facility. This test is the first of a series to be performed by LibertyWorks, the company's research unit, and is designed to validate critical performance criteria under its High Speed Turbine Engine Demonstration (HiSTED) contract with the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
HiSTED is a joint DARPA/Air Force initiative to design, fabricate and ground test a high Mach expendable turbine engine. The engine is also expected to power Lockheed Martin's Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike (RATTLRS) vehicle. The RATTLRS program is a supersonic, science and technology missile flight demonstrator effort sponsored by the Office of Naval Research.
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/miss_muni/images%5Cdomain-b_rattlrs2.jpg
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/miss_muni/20090112_supersonic_cruise_missile.html
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=33362
funny how aesthetics go out the window when supersonic flow is concerned :gomer:
Wheel-Nut
01-13-09, 03:27 PM
Looks like an engine off an SR-71.
F-22 Crashes in SoCal Desert
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/AP-F-22-Crashes-Near-Edwards-Air-Force-Base.html
Wonder if the Air Force will get a replacement or have to make due with one less?
Sadly, the pilot didn't make it out.
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, California: An F-22A Raptor, the Air Force's top-of-the line fighter jet, crashed Wednesday in a remote area of the Mojave Desert, killing a test pilot for prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp.
The jet crashed at 10 a.m. about 35 miles (56 kilometers) northeast of Edwards, a vast unpopulated area of flat desert.
The pilot was David Cooley, 49, a 21-year Air Force veteran who joined Lockheed Martin in 2003, the company said in a statement. The company did not release any details of the accident or say whether or not Cooley attempted to eject.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/26/america/NA-F-22-Crash.php
coolhand
03-26-09, 12:12 AM
It was flying for that testing group up there. So I am not sure if we will get any details. I heard that up there they wont even let you take pictures of those specific F-22s while they are on the ground.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.