grigolosi

This is exactly what I was talking about....complete inept leadership has led directly to this........this actually makes me weep considering the AF now is nothing but an empty shell of the one I joined 26 yrs ago...i am not a big Fox news fan but this report is the first I have seen on the USAF since the USMC issues came to light.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4892301647001/widespread-problems-plague-the-us-air-force/?#sp=show-clips

I need to correct one thing in my statement. The access panel on the AIM-9 is forward of the guide fins. It is accessed by unlocking the fin from the canard springs on the rail and rotating them up and down. The AIM-X doesn't use any external argon or nitrogen. It has its own built in coolant system. The AIM-9L uses a Argon bottle as well. I believe the much older models used the rail mounted N2 on the USAF aircraft prior to the F-15/F-16. Here is a pic I highlighted of the AIM-9L. I do apologize for the misinformation earlier I haven't seen a captive AIM-9 in quite a while since the UAEAF doesn't fly with them very often.

Little clarification on the seeker heads coolant. AIM-9 carried by USAF fighters use gaseous argon as the coolant. It is stored in small metal pressurised bottle that has its own quantity gauge. The bottle is positioned aft of the guide fins on the AIM-9. The missile is electrically connected to the rail by an umbilical cable. The USN and USMC fighters use gaseous nitrogen bottles stored in the missile rails.

Hahaha! Now I need to go watch the full MST3K again. The "sex talk" during the refueling is classic.

LOL I love that episode of MST3K. having personal experience from 20 yrs in the USAF I rolled on the floor laughing. My favorite part was the poopy suit song. I have actually worn one also....they are not very comfortable needless to say. Now back to our topic...after this...

Like I stated earlier the true heart of this debate in Washinton D.C. is USAF manning. I was never a ground pounder (no offense NZ), my job was fixing the jet and making sure it was ready fly when needed.That being said most of my knowledge comes from conversation with other maintainers. I trust the word of the people fixing them over stat chasing officers and number crunchers employed by the DoD. First hand knowledge is a better glimpse into this stuff. Fact of the matter is that the A-10 currently and in the near future can and does perform the duties assigned to it extremely well. All the aircraft being used serve their purpose and perform their jobs, mostly due to the people on the ground fixing them and loading them to ensure that guys like NZ live to see another day. That is what motivates the aircraft maintainer in theater, and that is what ensures these aircraft are ready to fly or are on station when needed. Again this debate between the US congress and USAF was started simply because the individuals promoted into the positions they are in chose to make some very bad short decisions 6 yrs ago instead of getting their facts while their own personnel were questioning these decisions . They chose to initially cross train hundreds of fighter maintainers to other frames (heavy lift and bombers) and then later on just get rid of them under BS reasons knowing they would need them in the future. This is the inept leadership I was talking about. Now they are covering their collective asses by blaming an air frame that has proven itself over the past 20 yrs and lived up to its manufacturers promise. In the end it is the guys on the ground that will pay the price for their ignorance and short sightedness.

I read they were looking at selling 13 of their order and reducing their fleet to 40. But I imagine they will try to reduce that number also. The 390 sounds like it might fill the gap left by the 400. We will have to wait and see what how well it works for the countries already looking at buying it. In a worse case scenario it will end up like the C-27's owned by the USG. The ones sold to the Afghan AF were never flown and then sold as scrap by them.

Do you realize where the bombers are operating out of......Qatar and Diego Garcia. Do you know how much it costs to logistically move bombers to bases like that. They have the same support requirements as the fighters except on a LARGER scale. Do you know how long it takes to load a B-1 or B-52? You ask any weapons troop if they had the option of loading a B-1/B-52 or an A-10/F-15/F-16 they will tell you any of the latter. It takes easily twice as long to load, oh that is right they aren't fully loading them. They are flying small loads and burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel to drop 2-3 bombs on individual brick huts or tree lines. Wow the same job any one of the other 3 aircraft can do. The flying hour to maintenance hour ratio between the A-10 and the bomber is no contest. The A-10 wins. It beats the other 2 aircraft also. Where are you getting this idea that the A-10 is exceeding its worth in maintenance costs.The happiest maintainers in the AF are A-10 personnel. The aircraft is low costs, easy to maintain and has one of if not the highest FMC rates of the aircraft in service. All the figures that guys like General Welsh and Posts (Posts is a complete douche bag, I knew him as a Captain) quoted were inflated or fabricated to shut down the A-10 and move the manning to the F-35. The guys you said were the "experts" have run the USAF into the ground manning wise because they DID NOT LISTEN TO THEIR OWN PEOPLE. The whole A-10 debate has nothing to do with whether the aircraft was obsolete, it has to do with these "experts" as you called them, being absolutely inept in their decision making. I trust their word as far as I can throw their collective, pampered, a@#.

Here is a little fact lesson: despite everything you see in Macross and movies, missiles are not designed to explode on contact. They explode close to the target and destroy it with shrapnel. Missiles are equipped with proximity sensors, either a laser emitted through small windows on the seeker head or by radar proximity. That is why the A-10's that have been shot at by MANPADS have survived. Now if you were to hit it with an SA-2 or SA-400, yes it will explode it is a HUGE warhead. But those missiles are useless at low altitudes, they are designed to hit aircraft at medium to high altitudes and are the size of a telephone pole.

Vifam that is answered simply by the size of the ammo drum in the aircraft. F-16's carry 510 rds of 20 mm because that is all the drum will hold including 10 rounds in the linkage from the drum to the gun. if you look at the 25mm the Harrier carries they are swayed off the right centerline of the aircraft. The ammo drum is located in the left pod and storage is limited due to its size. As Valkyrie said it all depends on what ordinance was used. There will be times they come back with empty stations and a full gun drum and other times empty stations and an almost empty drum. Either way there is still work for the load toads to do. Even if they do not use all their rounds the gun has to be unloaded into the ALA or "dragon" as they call it. and then reloaded again. That is why if they use the gun they will try to use all their rounds, it is easier and faster for the load crews to load the GAU-8 that way.

The Block 60 was built as private development for the UAE and funded by the UAE. So no is definitely the answer as Hutch stated. Lockheed also used it to develop the AESA that would eventually be put in the F-35 along with several other systems. But the GE 132 has its own issues. Namely the the fuel heating issue. This past summer we were going through CSD's (constant speed drives = generators) like people change their underwear due to thermal disconnects. The primary culprit in this has been suspected to be the fuel being pumped into the aircraft. This engine is hotter than the normal GE F-100 series and during the summer the fuel trucks are left sitting out in the sun heating up. You put hot fuel in a jet with a hydro/oil system dependent on the fuel cells to exchange heat from them and whamo! You have over heating generators and oil systems. Plus you couple in the high heat causing micro fractures on the aeration holes on the turbine blades also.

Thought I would post this. Pretty wicked short landing in a JA-37......

Probably the the biggest inspiration in it was the forward swept wing. Considering the X-29 was probably the most publicly recognized forward swept design of the past 30 yrs.

I am not a big fan of the cost over runs on the F-35, but what we know and what we don't know about it is actually little due to the mixed media reports....The media itself can make or break any defense or private venture project by doing what it has done best the past 30 yrs, reporting only what it thinks will get ratings or sell magazines. One fact that was not reported by the media in the big "dogfight" with the F-16 was that the frame used was one of the original flight test frames. It like most of the F-35's at that time were severely limited by LM engineers from flight maneuvering, they basically handed the pilot a plane he wasn't allowed to use to its fullest possible potential, what that is we don't know yet because of flight restrictions . The USAF in the past year finally came down and "asked" LM to start lifting the flight restrictions on the frame for pilot training. LM has hampered the development of this aircraft more than anything else. Their testing block system moves at a snails crawl. They did the same thing with the F-22, it took almost 20 yrs to get the Raptor to limited production for operational use due to this testing and eval system. With all the media reports going form one extreme to the other the only people who can really say how well the aircraft performs in certain areas are the pilots themselves. I know most folks including my self aren't big fans of the aircraft but one way or the other we are probably stuck with it due to the shear amount of money we have put into it.

David I watched a JASDF F-4 literally roll on its back as soon as its gear was clear of the ground on takeoff and climb inverted like your picture. Even the old F-4 maintainers at the airshow had to pick their jaws up off the ground. My flight chief told me he had never seen any Phantom pilot do that before.

I wonder if it has a pilot light in the exhaust too, just like the F-104......

Definitely a close resemblance between the 2 aircraft. The real big differences is the Sukoi style big nose instead of the pointed missile nose, the area between the intakes on the lower fuselage, and the trailing edges of the wings.

Well, it's got guns, it's probably got a countermeasure dispenser somewhere, and we know it has at least six internal micro-missile launchers... seems like that covers all those.

You are spot on with that Seto. It specifically shows CMD (counter measure dispenser) on the screen along with oxygen, ECM, ICM and few others I am not sure about. I am trying to discern whether the the large gauges are engine RPM's for sure. I enlarged the screen but the wording under left and right is still really blurry. The 3 smaller gauge displays are still blurry also.

It's little tales like this that really ought to crop up in Macross sometime... the trials and travails of the deck crew who have to keep those Valkyries running. A wild child like Hayate Immelman or Isamu Dyson would probably drive the deck crew into paroxysms of fury in prolonged operations...

Oh yeah especially when it comes to over g's on the frame. I know the limits for VF'S are way high but I imagine a pilot like Isamu could do it. Even worse though would be the guy's like Alto who smash up their bird by blindly charging in head first.

I wish, it is some form of self induced torture, but think I lucked out. The stream for the video source didn't work.....

Well against my better judgement I am about to watch Gods of Egypt.........wish me luck.........

I'd hate to be part of the flight crew that has to maintain the fighter of the pilot that had the triple bean burrito for lunch. Fire-in-the-hole indeed.

LOL.......I have had pilots leave full piddle packs in the cockpit after flight. The expediter called debrief and had them return to the jet and remove them after they asked if I would remove them for them......my expediter made it clear in each case that under no circumstances do his crew chiefs touch or handle human waste of any kind. The same goes for bowel movements or puking in the cockpit. The pilot will clean up his or her own S!@#/puke stained or soaked seat cushions and clean all the consoles themselves. Had a friend whose pilot (a Major and vice squadron commander) pissed all over the seat cushion in his jet....that Major was not happy with his post debrief activities.

That is one heck of a biological weapon Seto............

I think you could say the big difference in the plumes in Zero can be attributed to the fact they were using conventional over trimmed (the use of the term "tuned" drives me nuts when I watch Zero) turbine engines in the both the VF-0 and SV-51. Conventional augmentors put out long burner plumes. So long and bright that at night you can see them after takeoff for almost a mile or more. Like Dex said alot of it would have to do with the type of fuel being burned.

Dex you are correct, I am an F-16 Crew Chief currently working on the Block 60 version here in the UAE.

I tend to lean in the direction of what JB0 said. Looking at a cutaway of a VF-25 I have noticed what looks like a heat exchanger of some type on top of the engine. But again since there are no actual external nomenclatures attached it is hard to say. The cutaway doesn't show the location of the thrustmounts either nor where the propellant lines route from so the information is limited. There are aircraft designs that use the fuel cells to help absorb excess heat from the engine but they tend to be located directly above the "hot" areas of the engine. They also use the fuel to cool the engine lubrication and hydraulic system by routing lines through the fuel tank. But with the design of a lot of the VF's in Macross the engine nacelles tend to be separated from the frame so neither approach would be easy or practical due to the variable requirements of the frame.

In space I am pretty sure some of the engine heat is used to warm or at least maintain certain temps within areas of the frame since the extreme cold of space can also damage components on the VF. I suggested the pre-heating of the hydrogen slush to a gaseous state as a use for the excess heat produced in a previous thread. The LOX systems on modern fighters (prior to OBOGS) used heating elements to warm the breathing oxygen into a gaseous state for the pilot. I imagine they would use some form of heating in the VF's fuel system for the same purpose. I have studied the VFMF's I have. Unfortunately I can't read to much of it. The stuff I have been able to translate has still left me with questions. I can tell you from studying teh engine cutaways, they make use of bypass air for cooling when operating in an atmosphere.

In an atmosphere you do not want hot, pre-warmed air entering the turbine. You want cold air, the denser the air the more efficient the turbine works. As stated before the heat dissipation in space for a VF is one of the mysteries that has been brought up before on here and at this point all we can do is come up with theories. But in an atmosphere turbine engines use bypass air around the combuster, turbine and augmentor sections to draw heat away. The augmentor liners are usually made of highly heat resistant metal (Titanium presently) that is coated in ceramics and perforated to enhance cooling. Presently the newest engines produce around 2900 degrees F in the turbine inlet temp (the GE 132) we have run into issues here where I am at during the summer with the inlet temps being so high they are causing micro fractures around the aeration holes on the turbines so what ever materials they are using for the VF engines are seriously heat resistant. Also there is space within the aircraft between the engine and airframe that allows for heat dissipation. You also have to add in heat generated by the avionics, radar and ECS. In an atmosphere it is easy to dump heat but like stated before the mystery of heat disspation in the vacuum of space still remains with the VF designs.

The Rafale doesn't doesn't need any bigger engines.....they are loud enough already....LOL. They fly a lot here where I work and the current engine's push that bird like its nothing. Between them, Strike Eagles, MIrages, Fighting Falcons and Raptors it is a a constant airshow here right now.

If remember right alot of its ttech had an influence in the design of the Rafale. So in a way the 4000 lived on which is a very positive way to think about it.

On helmets...

It's not like a pilot really NEEDS one, given the inertial dampening qualities of most Valkyries (Hikaru did it in a couple instances of Macross, and Basara went bascially his whole series without one). It follows that in a modern VF-31, if anything hit him with enough force to overpower whatever the inertial dampeners can handle, he'd end up as chunky salsa on the inside of the cockpit no matter what. The Knights seem to do without them as well, unless they're just holographed out as what seems to be the case Walkure's outfits.

Still, they make a big deal of modifying Hayate's plane so he can fly without one. In practice, he doesn't need one for HUD properties either since they seem perfectly okay with free-floating displays anywhere they're actually needed, plus the ones one the actual screens in front of him. But what happens when he wants to do the Zero/Frontier googly-eye missile lock-on? Deploy the Ex-Gear?

If you have ever been in the cockpit of a running fighter, it is noisy regardless of all the advances you make when operating in the atmosphere.....the biggest issue I would see with no helmet is not being able to hear anyone on your com frequency or communicate with them or hear any threat warnings the systems may detect.

Just something to watch...they may be Mirage's but they are as graceful as they look....

https://www.facebook.com/borntoflypage/videos/1701609606722779/