run b!#^@es, run [Archive] - Off Camber Forums

Ankf00

12-22-05, 10:04 AM

Conventional Take-Off & Lift F/A 22's now been declared "Operational." :cool:

The U.S. Air Force has declared Initial Operational Capability for the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics-built F-22A Raptor. General Ronald E. Keys, commander of Air Combat Command, made the historic announcement at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, from a Raptor hangar near his headquarters. "The F-22A fulfills a long quest to bring 5th-generation capabilities of stealth, supercruise and precision to the Warfighter today and for decades to come," said General Keys in an Air Force news release. "If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us."

The Air Force is now capable of deploying and supporting 12 F-22A Raptor aircraft anywhere in the world to execute air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The Raptor is also qualified to perform homeland defense missions when required.

Stu

12-22-05, 12:31 PM

http://www.3dflags.com/media/icon/classic/u/3dflagsdotcom_usa_2fawl.gif

Gnam

12-22-05, 12:37 PM

I'm still a little unclear on what the F-22 provides that the JSF doesn't. Can't wait to see one at an air show. :thumbup:

FTG

12-22-05, 12:39 PM

"If we go to war tomorrow," :saywhat:

Ankf00

12-22-05, 01:13 PM

translation: the existing squadron is at this point in time, fully capable of executing combat operations in theater. Not "we're going to start a new war tomorrow" :saywhat:

JSF vs F22: JSF actually has a superior radar due to its later development, but an improved version of the JSF unit will be retro-fitted into existing F-22's... I don't think JSF has supercruise capability yet, going mach speed w/o using afterburners, although I think Pratt's CEO said something about providing an upgraded version w/ supercruise for the JSF sometime in the future... Not sure what the payload differences are but the Raptor's a superior airframe dynamically, what difference that makes this day in age with modern avionics and weapons systems who knows, but it is faster and more nimble.

Also I'm not sure if a wing of JSF's have as much inter-operability as a wing of Raptors do, being able to view the other jets' radar scans, etc... Raptors are very "wired" and the electronics/software glitches that have resulted have been the brunt of the problems in development. Software crashing is why that carcass of a melted Raptor airframe ended up on the Nevada desert floor a couple of years back.

JSF's main teething thus far has been solving the weight issue in their STOVL carrier/jump jet variant.

Both jets will be carrying out electronic warfare, both can fry x-band communicators

The big argument on killing F-22 production is that JSF has stealth, enough capabilities, and adequately superior avionics to suffice for the Raptor. Then in turn the argument for killing JSF is that UAV's are the way to go...

Classic Apex

12-22-05, 01:17 PM

I'll be the first to raise my hand...

"uhhh, what's a JSF?" :D

Ankf00

12-22-05, 01:21 PM

some basic info on engines, airframe, avionics: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17347&rsbci=0&fti=100&ti=0&sc=400

JSF: Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35
the JSF page: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11173&rsbci=13151&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

federation of american scientists under the "fighter" category info on Raptor and JSF:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/index.html

Wheel-Nut

12-22-05, 01:54 PM

Sort of looks like the "Blackbird" from this angle.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/6058.jpg

Gnam

12-22-05, 02:25 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the F-22 is the replacement for the Air Force's F-15. It's an air superiority fighter used to knock an enemy's planes out of the sky, but it also has ground attack capability to support troops on the ground.

The JSF is the replacement for every other fighter jet the US currently flies, with the exception of the A-10. Someone thought it would be cheaper if the Navy, Marines, & Air Force all flew the same plane with minor differneces. The Navy version can land on a carrier (F-14, F-18, EA-6); the Marine version can do short take-offs and vertical landings (Harrier); and the Air Force version can do everything the F-16 can do.

Some say the F-22 is redundant and the Air Force doesn't need it. The Air Force says, "Tough tit's matey. We're not scrapping it."

As for UAV's taking over for manned aircraft, didn't they see STEALTH with Jamie 'Gimme the cash' Foxx. :gomer:

FTG

12-22-05, 05:46 PM

translation: the existing squadron is at this point in time, fully capable of executing combat operations in theater. Not "we're going to start a new war tomorrow" :saywhat:.

I thought we were already at war. Thus, "If there's a war tomorrow" doesn't make any sense.

FTG

12-22-05, 07:36 PM

Never mind. The quote makes sense now. These planes have nothing to do with the war we're fighting. But if the kind of war that might hypothetical be possible a decade from now breaks out tomorrow, it's nice to know that these babies are ready to go.

http://www.slate.com/id/2133059/?nav=fo,

B3RACER1a

12-23-05, 01:51 AM

The real question is, how good is the F-22 vs the YF-23, and why ws the F-22 picked over the YF23? :thumdown:

Gnam

12-23-05, 03:06 AM

'Cause the YF-23 was butt ugly. How's Maverick supposed to score with all the hot flight instructors if it looks like someone stepped on his plane?

http://www.flyinthesky.it/images/yf23/YF-23-003.jpg

Stu

12-23-05, 08:53 AM

'Cause the YF-23 was butt ugly. How's Maverick supposed to score with all the hot flight instructors if it looks like someone stepped on his plane?

hot flight instructor? Kelly McGillis? Must be an 80s thing.

Ankf00

12-23-05, 09:02 AM

actually, I think the 23 looks good. Some factors supposedly were that it was less nimble, more expensive, and maintainability wasn't at the level USAF wanted either.

Ankf00

12-23-05, 09:08 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Ankf00/2005_12_15_1472166a624c6ec2e29c6173.jpg

emjaya

12-23-05, 09:59 AM

Are all of these weapons so urgently needed that a few couldn't be delayed a few years (note: not killed, just delayed)? The stealth planes in particular—no other country will pose a threat to U.S.combat aircraft for at least a decade. Is there any reason, besides bureaucratic politics, why, say, half the F/A-22s couldn't be deferred and the $1.6 billion in savings sent over to the Army or the Marines? How about Bush's much-cherished, but utterly unworkable, missile-defense program (fully funded by Congress at $8.8 billion): What would be wrong with transferring, say, $5 billion of that sum to buy extra armor for the troops or fund more tangible homeland security efforts?

http://www.slate.com/id/2133059/?nav=fo

Yeah, just what those Army and Marine boys and girls in Iraq need.

:rolleyes:

KLang

12-23-05, 10:36 AM

I'm glad we are a decade ahead of potential military threats and hope we remain that way.

Ankf00

12-23-05, 10:49 AM

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.

-F-22A's been cut time and time again by congress, and is still on the chopping block.
-JSF is on the chopping block with the impending release of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
-$5B for armor? Great, get congress to appropriate it instead of pissing it away on ******** pork projects.
-That article rips the Army's FCS. What the hell is wrong with modernizing the army? The whole point of FCS is to make the Army more flexible, responsive, you know, fighting terrorism and all that good stuff that the article says we should be concentrating on :rolleyes:
-Missile defense isn't entirely unworkable. PAC-3 is combat proven. PAC-3 saved lives in Iraq.

Ankf00

12-24-05, 01:34 PM

one other thing to put this bad-assery in perspective...

During testing an F-22A went up against 4 top of the line F-15's. It shot down all 4 within a minute and was never detected on radar.

FOUR OF THE GREATEST FIGHTER JETS IN THE WORLD taken out w/in one minute by an unknown source.

We don't need a fleet of 700+ as originally plan, but we sure can use a couple of squadrons.

nrc

12-24-05, 09:54 PM

The author of that piece should speak to some of the troops and ask how they would feel about fighting a war without absolute control of the skies over the battlefield.

12-25-05, 03:18 PM

EDwardo

12-25-05, 08:37 PM

Let's not forget the other part of the equation. Insure that we continue to have the best trained pilots.

When are we going to unleash aircraft with all that alien technology we have at area 51? ;)

oddlycalm

12-26-05, 10:13 PM

one other thing to put this bad-assery in perspective...

During testing an F-22A went up against 4 top of the line F-15's. It shot down all 4 within a minute and was never detected on radar. The best deterent for nation-based threats is always massive strategic and tactical superiority. Kosova was a good example from the recent past of why it's important, and how it could have gone much differently. Whatever the Chinese have today they will be selling tomorrow at a price demented weasels everywhere can afford. :(

oc

RichK

12-27-05, 03:50 PM

I thought the YF-23 was a beautiful plane. I had a job offer contingent on this plane winning the contest. It's just as well I didn't get the job, but I was pretty disappointed at the time.

http://www.flygplan.info/images/YF-23_800x600.jpg

Ankf00

12-27-05, 04:37 PM

did northrop or mcdonnell have stealth experience prior to the ATF contract proposal?

RichK

12-27-05, 05:39 PM

did northrop or mcdonnell have stealth experience prior to the ATF contract proposal?

I think they were working on the B2 stuff for a while, I'm not sure of the timing though.

Ankf00

01-09-07, 08:09 PM

lengthy article, some interesting tidbits, recommend news.googling it

AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY
08 JANUARY 07

Raptor Scores in Alaskan Exercise

By David A. Fulghum and Michael J. Fabey

As the F-22 begins its operational life, interest has turned to assessing just how well suited the stealthy Raptor is to its role as the premier air-to-air fighter, while taking a peek at some of the surprises for pilots and maintenance crews as they explore what the aircraft can do. As part of the research for this series of articles on the F-22, Michael Fabey flew in the back seat of an F-15D while the Eagle and Raptor pilots demonstrated their aircraft's capabilities in the air-to-air ranges at Tyndall AFB, Fla. (For additional details of the Raptor's unique air-to-air capabilities, see AW&ST Sept. 6, 1999, p. 84.)

The F-22 is proving it's a dogfighter after all.

While it wasn't part of a hard-turning furball, an F-22--with its Amraams and Sidewinders expended--slipped into visual range behind an F-16 and undetected made a simulated kill with its cannon during the stealth fighter's first large-scale exercise and deployment outside the continental U.S.

article goes on to mention its ASEA rader is thought to be of 125-150 mi range compared to F-15's 56 mi range.

Gnam

01-09-07, 08:37 PM

^ link (http://www.aviationweek.com/avnow/news/channel_defense_story.jsp?id=news/aw010807p1.xml)

coolhand

01-09-07, 09:19 PM

ASEA is being put in Super Hornets now too. With it they will be able to compete with anything in BVR.

Are late model f-15s getting ASEA?

Ankf00

01-09-07, 10:43 PM

no, only F-35, F-22, and F-18E/F Super Hornet

F-22's AESA AN/APG-77 is the least developed of the 3, Super Hornet carries AN/APG-79 & JSF has AN/APG-81. This is all due to relative position in the development timeline. An enhanced version of JSF's AESA AN/APG-81 should be retrofitted into existing Raptor units in the future.

coolhand

01-10-07, 12:46 AM

I am pretty excited about the Super Hornet now, I think it can out compete any of the v-wing Canard western European planes now in BVR and should do better in the export market. I did not realize (like alot of people) for awhile how much of an improvement the super hornet is over the original.

The Rafael has been in development a lot longer and is still not fully deployed with all its promised capabilities. The F-15 beat the Eurofighter and Rafael in South Korea and Singapore. The Super Hornet got a big order from India. However the Saudi's just bought the Eurofighter.

01-10-07, 01:06 AM

bvr?:confused:

Ankf00

01-10-07, 01:10 AM

Ankf00

01-10-07, 01:10 AM

bvr?:confused:

beyond visual range

coolhand

01-10-07, 01:19 AM

by v-wing canards you mean mirage & gripen? delta wings?

also India has not ordered any Super Hornets yet. Dassault has withdrawn the Mirage 2000v5 as of a couple of months ago, Sukhoi, Saab, Lockheed-Martin & Boeing are all still on the table. I believe Super Hornet will be test flown soon by the IAF.

Yea, the delta wings, EF, Rafael, Gripen.

You are right about India, I read somewhere it looked good for the hornet when Dassault dropped out.

I know the IAF already has SU-30MKIs, it is weird how many different types of aircraft they operate.

Ankf00

01-10-07, 10:41 AM

I know the IAF already has SU-30MKIs, it is weird how many different types of aircraft they operate. yea, it's idiocy at its finest, mirages, sukhois, migs, etc.

this is further demonsted by the DID seeking to split the current 120 plane requisition into 2 different orders. How about you start by consolidating, then worry about expanding roles :rolleyes:

coolhand

01-11-07, 04:21 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG-63_and_APG-70_radars

I know it is wikipedia, but here is says AESA is being installed on some USAF f-15s along with the exports to SK, and Singapore. Are these less developed and not on par with the 77-79-81 series?

emjaya

04-23-07, 09:23 AM

Australia wants 'em and now, so does Japan.

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21602809-31477,00.html?from=public_rss

coolhand

04-23-07, 11:13 AM

and Israel just asked too. none will get them this round. maybe a few years down the road

oddlycalm

04-23-07, 02:49 PM

The Navy version can land on a carrier Ank is certainly in a better position to comment on this but from where I sit you end up compromizing the non-Navy versions in the area of weight by sharing an airframe capable of sea duty. It's a lot more than just heavier landing gear components, the entire airframe has to be up to the job.

Maybe with modern material science and FEA (finite element analysis) etc. the compromises can be minimized but....?

oc

Ankf00

04-23-07, 03:09 PM

yep, beefier frame to sustain the repeated crashes that constitute carrier landings. still has to be a light enough to meet the program's performance requirements. Understandably, USAF would want nothing to do with more mass than necessary, the extra mass doesn't buy them anything. Costs them payload and range.

the maintainabilty and reliability have to meet USN standards, I don't know any specifics, but I would assume depot'ing a craft on the high seas is a bit more difficult than at the local AFB wrt facilities and equipment.

materials wise salt fog (sea fog) is a prominent concern. Salt fog accelerates galvanic corrosion with dissimilar metals. 509.3 of MIL-STD-810 covers salt fog requirements. It's probably the biggest impediment to creating USN hardware, it's the main reason there is no sea based PAC-3 patriot yet. So the materials and various interfaces need to be selected/designed to minimize that, which I'm sure impacts procurement, design, and manufacturing costs, which the other services wouldn't want to share either.

TrueBrit

04-23-07, 03:24 PM

The author of that piece should speak to some of the troops and ask how they would feel about fighting a war without absolute control of the skies over the battlefield.

The insurgents have an Air Force now?

coolhand

04-23-07, 03:25 PM

hardware, it's the main reason there is no sea based PAC-3 patriot yet.

sea based pac-3? what is SM-3 for then? There already are some ABM Arleigh Burke Class DDs with SM-3

coolhand

04-23-07, 03:27 PM

The insurgents have an Air Force now?

doesn't matter, the ability to drop a JDAM anywhere is a huge asset and saves lives

TrueBrit

04-23-07, 03:36 PM

Wow the 82nd Chairborne Division is out in force...

coolhand

04-23-07, 03:58 PM

Wow the 82nd Chairborne Division is out in force...

someone got their feelings hurt?

It does not take Erwin Rommel and George Patton to understand the value of owning the skys

TrueBrit

04-23-07, 04:21 PM

See Britain, Battle of...

Ankf00

04-23-07, 04:31 PM

sea based pac-3? what is SM-3 for then? There already are some ABM Arleigh Burke Class DDs with SM-3

the roles of SM-3 and sea based PAC-3 would be as different as THAAD vs. MEADS. actually, that's the perfect comparison...

Joelski

04-23-07, 04:47 PM

Wow the 82nd Chairborne Division is out in force...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

coolhand

04-23-07, 07:26 PM

See Britain, Battle of...

Doesn't change a thing. London got trashed even though Briton ultimately won.

coolhand

04-23-07, 07:27 PM

the roles of SM-3 and sea based PAC-3 would be as different as THAAD vs. MEADS. actually, that's the perfect comparison...

OK, I did not realize Pac-3 and MEADS are one system. Will PAC-3 Replace SM-2 if they get a sea based version?

edit, Raytheon's website is making SM-6 for sea based air defense replacing SM-2.

nrc

04-23-07, 09:54 PM

The insurgents have an Air Force now?
I think you know better.

See Britain, Battle of...
Britain won the Battle of Britain largely because Germany didn't have a fighter that could establish air superiority.

If you have something to say relevant to this topic feel free to share. If you're just being disruptive then cut it out.

TrueBrit

04-24-07, 10:06 AM

Britain won the Battle of Britain largely because Germany didn't have a fighter that could establish air superiority.

Completely glosses over the events, the massive odds against the RAF and the limited experience of the chaps that defended against those massive odds..but then again the Yanks 'won' WW II all by themselves...

My over-riding point being that air superiority in conventional warfare is absolutely required, but that this particular boondoggle provides no support in the current scenario as is being experienced in the ME...

coolhand

04-24-07, 11:01 AM

nrc

04-24-07, 11:51 AM

Completely glosses over the events, the massive odds against the RAF and the limited experience of the chaps that defended against those massive odds..but then again the Yanks 'won' WW II all by themselves...

My over-riding point being that air superiority in conventional warfare is absolutely required, but that this particular boondoggle provides no support in the current scenario as is being experienced in the ME...

"This particular boondoggle" is not aimed at the current scenario on the ground in Iraq. Air dominance was achieved in Iraq decades ago with aircraft that are now decades old. The F22 an JSF are about meeting the next generation of threats, threats that have watched and learned from the events in Middle East just as we have.

Opposite Lock

08-02-07, 11:47 AM

Coming to the 2007 Chicago Air & Water Show, in about 2 weeks.

incredibly long City of Chicago website hyperlink:

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?blockName=I+Want+To&topChannelName=HomePage&contentOID=536957770&Failed_Reason=Session+not+found&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction .do

08-02-07, 11:59 AM

I really don't like the crowds for the airshow, but damn! Might have to go look-see.

Sort of related:

pork
(http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003629.html)

Pork Goes the Engine . . . JSF Style (Updated)

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but my greatest fears about how the defense industry operates are being realized these days by developments surrounding the Joint Strike Fighter's power plant(s).

When you have an airplane that is already wrestling with a flyaway unit cost that is well above program estimates ($80 million versus $65 million), more than a year behind the developmental test schedule for the Navy variant, and increasingly overweight the notion of an "alternative engine" just reeks of - dare I say it - pork.

Aviation Week reports the following: "The House Appropriations defense subcommittee added $480 million to the Joint Strike Fighter research and development account to fund continued work on the alternate engine for the F-35. The Pentagon argued against funding the alternate engine for fear it would reduce the focus and resources necessary for the program of record. Lawmakers also add $200 million to the development account to address 'unfunded information assurance requirements' driven by Defense Dept. policy updates, the committee's report says."

gpflepsen

08-02-07, 12:21 PM

Opposite Lock

08-17-07, 05:19 PM

she's here:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/567/img1102cropan2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

and she brought family (F-15E and a P-51, iirc):
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3690/img1132cropts0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/8881/img1143cropgd3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

F-15 on the loud button:
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1066/img1084cropvt0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

08-17-07, 05:26 PM

This AM news show they had her doing a loop, but it looked more like it was doing a roundabout on the parallel bars. Run b!#^@es, indeed.

trauma1

08-17-07, 05:49 PM

This AM news show they had her doing a loop, but it looked more like it was doing a roundabout on the parallel bars. Run b!#^@es, indeed.

is AGR racing and Dario there to do touch and goes:rofl:

08-17-07, 06:00 PM

is AGR racing and Dario there to do touch and goes:rofl:kahuna d, you know what to do with the second pic! Get on it, man!

Opposite Lock

08-17-07, 09:47 PM

didn't notice the commercial plane during the Heritage shots:
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/6218/img1133amd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Opposite Lock

08-17-07, 11:05 PM

one more:
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9563/img1137cropafd6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Gnam

08-18-07, 01:47 AM

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/5783/heritageirltc7.jpg

coolhand

08-18-07, 09:30 PM

does anyone run private F-4s or F-86s for airshows? I would image they are really expensive and the F-4 is something governments would not like people to have

emjaya

08-18-07, 10:03 PM

does anyone run private F-4s or F-86s for airshows? I would image they are really expensive and the F-4 is something governments would not like people to have

There are a couple of ex RAAF F86's in private hands in Oz.

Link (http://www.adf-serials.com/)

cameraman

08-18-07, 11:09 PM

There is at least one F-4D

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/hiresaircaft/high-f4phantomquarter.jpg

http://www.collingsfoundation.org

stroker

08-19-07, 11:56 AM

does anyone run private F-4s or F-86s for airshows? I would image they are really expensive and the F-4 is something governments would not like people to have

My understanding is that the Feds clamped down HARD on private jet ownership after an F86 went into an ice cream shop about 20 (30?) years ago. I think the general rule is that civilians may not own supersonic aircraft (with exceptions for those with the cubic $ necessary, obviously) so that pretty well takes Warbirds off the list. Of all the jets in the last fifty years I'd think the A-10 would be the most fun to own....

Ankf00

08-19-07, 01:57 PM

Of all the jets in the last fifty years I'd think the A-10 would be the most fun to own....

goodbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyye pagoda! :D

nrc

08-19-07, 02:43 PM

It's pretty amazing how compact the F22 is considering that it carries it's stores internally. Seeing it along side the F15 really shows the relative size.

There's an excellent piece on the F22 on one of the episodes of Discovery's "Future Weapons" series. Not sure if they re-run that regularly.

EDwardo

08-19-07, 07:18 PM

I found this pic with the weapons bay open.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Edwards2005/F22/F22DisplayingWeaponsBays_1.jpg

stroker

08-20-07, 12:53 PM

goodbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyye pagoda! :D

Yepper--not much rifling left in them barrels by the time I get done with 'em. Don't even need the DU rounds--plain 'ole HE will do just fine.

stroker

08-20-07, 12:54 PM

I found this pic with the weapons bay open.

Damn, how do they route the air from the intakes to the engines with all that crap in there?

Ankf00

08-20-07, 02:05 PM

Damn, how do they route the air from the intakes to the engines with all that crap in there?

it's all ball bearings these days

Indy

08-20-07, 08:23 PM

C'mon guys, maybe you need a refresher course... HHHHEEEEEYYYYYYY!!!

Wheel-Nut

08-21-07, 09:33 AM

It's supposed to do a "fly by" at Wings Over Houston. I might have to go this year, although the headline show seems to be a bit sub-par.

[duck and run] :p

http://www.wingsoverhouston.com/woh_features.htm

Ankf00

08-21-07, 10:44 AM

canadians?

wtf?

are they running out of money? too cheap to spring for american hardware? :irked:

:D

nrc

08-21-07, 11:22 AM

We have a little air show going on in Columbus this year, too.

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/videos/view.php?v=9fbefb47
http://www.gml2007.com/

nrc

08-21-07, 11:54 AM

BTW, came across this story linked from the front page of the airshowbuzz site.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/248014

devilmaster

08-21-07, 03:15 PM

National Defence was urged four years ago to replace the aging Tutors. The study by the department's director of major service delivery procurement warned that the life expectancy of the Canadair jets was 2010.

Assuming we don't replace them with Cadillacs or cancel the team outright, the gov't here will order up replacement planes in 2015 with a delivery date of roughly 2025-30.

first thing's first though... gotta find a plane to use. :irked:

Gnam

09-25-07, 04:12 PM

Iran says, "Oh yeah? Check this out, American pig dogs!"

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/408/17229703wp6.jpg

Iran Reports Test of New Fighter Jet (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iXs09vStrWBcdPak0lSaICj_QOEQ) :gomer: :laugh:

This is not a worth adversary, dude.[/walter]

Andrew Longman

09-25-07, 04:26 PM

The jet was first tested in 2006 and is derived from re-engineered components of U.S. combat aircraft. Iran exhibited the plane last year during large-scale military exercises, claiming the Saegheh is similar to the American F-18 fighter but more powerful.

That explains why I thought it was a picture of a Blue Angel.

But how did they reverse engineer an F18? We once sold them F15s in the 70s, but the F18 wasn't even out when we began our embargo of them.

They getting help? I'm impressed they were able to build any fighter.

Wheel-Nut

09-25-07, 04:29 PM

They must read OC and know where to get the parts.

http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13384

Ankf00

09-25-07, 04:29 PM

That explains why I thought it was a picture of a Blue Angel.

But how did they reverse engineer an F18? We once sold them F15s in the 70s, but the F18 wasn't even out when we began our embargo of them.

They getting help? I'm impressed they were able to build any fighter.

F-14's i believe

Gnam

09-25-07, 05:04 PM

The Sa'eqeh is based almost entirely on the old Northrop F-5 fighter aircraft, the chief U.S. export fighter of the 1960s and 70s, 166 of which were sold to Iran before the revolution. After the embargo was initiated the Iranian armed forces were able to purchase spares through illegal channels and on the arms black market since the F-5 had been widely exported to numerous nations friendly to the United States and there were any number of parts depots around the world.

In one case Iran was able to purchase F-5s and a large stock of spare parts from Ethiopia. The African nation had initially purchased the aircraft from Vietnam. The communist government in Hanoi had captured these aircraft from the South Vietnamese air force when they took Saigon, but had no use for them since the new, re-united Vietnam's arsenal was almost all of Soviet make and design.

Andrew Longman

09-25-07, 05:26 PM

And IIRC the F18 was based in large part of the F5 to save costs

Ankf00

09-25-07, 05:35 PM

If Northrop originally designed the F-5, then there's probably something to that since they did the original YF-17. Not sure at which point YF-17 became a McDonnell program, but anyway...

stroker

09-25-07, 05:58 PM

An F-20 would probably run rings 'round that thing. Basically they're now in the business of making clay pigeons for Raptors and Lightnings.

coolhand

09-25-07, 07:01 PM

Those are 1960s airframes with a V-tail grafted on. Iran also put another F-5 mod out that has a higher wing. Azarakhsh
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Azarakhsh_fighter.jpg

They also copied GBU-15 TV guided bomb

eiregosod

09-25-07, 07:48 PM

their planes are the least to worry about. :cry: :cry:

nrc

09-25-07, 10:44 PM

No sign of a weapons load on those babies. You figure they strap a bomb belt on it?

Don Quixote

09-25-07, 11:02 PM

No sign of a weapons load on those babies. You figure they strap a bomb belt on it?
Maybe the pilot has a dynamite vest.

Wheel-Nut

09-26-07, 07:51 AM

their planes are the least to worry about. :cry: :cry:

No kidding, with the F-22 those things are dead before they reach the end of the runway.

Andrew Longman

09-26-07, 09:40 AM

No kidding, with the F-22 those things are dead before they reach the end of the runway.

If they follow Saddam's route, they'll never leave the hanger. Useful only to show off to the Iranian masses at military parades.

09-26-07, 10:13 AM

An F-20 would probably run rings 'round that thing. Basically they're now in the business of making clay pigeons for Raptors and Lightnings.
Expensive targets, to be sure.

cameraman

10-01-07, 03:29 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Ankf00/2005_12_15_1472166a624c6ec2e29c6173.jpg

Ah the joys of new systems. They said on the news today that a good place to find F-22s is the maintenance hangers at Hill Air Force base:rolleyes: Seems that all of them are having severe corrosion problems on some of the aluminum bits and they are changing them out for more corrosion resistant titanium bits. The reporter, being brilliant, claimed the planes were rusting.