Jump to content

F-ZeroOne

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2955

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by F-ZeroOne

  1. F-ZeroOne
    Valkyrie Driver, again thanks for the comments. The Gripen was the plane that just sprang immediately to mind as being almost-available right now, but I'd forgotten that it would probably need to be licenced manufactured in the US. Another, and more "local" candidate, might be the latest versions of the F-16 being procured by foreign air forces (or Patlabors stealth-modded one? ). Regards stealthing 4.5 gen fighters - isn't one problem with pods increased drag? (as well as the weight of the pods themselves, though I accept with internal bays you may have added infrastructure weight). The Typhoon is perhaps my favourite "modern" jet as well, but it has suffered from a couple of things; one being penny-pinching (especially in the UK), and the other that its arguably entered service into a different world, one where for better or worse, stealth is the "fashion"...
  2. F-ZeroOne
    David, I recently read it in a book called "Tornado F3 in Focus". "Stealth mods" might be overstating it bit, "RCS reduction measures" might be more accurate. According to the books author, the mods included special paint on the wing leading edges and little tiles glued onto the inside of the engine intakes (apparently a rather uncomfortable and time-consuming task!). Edit: speiling mishticks.
  3. F-ZeroOne
    Ah, thanks! Also never knew about the portable radar system either.
  4. F-ZeroOne
    The need to carry a supply of coolant wit the missile is another one of those things one rarely thinks about; I had read about it before and I believe at least one early AAM (Falcon?) had to be cooled from the start, which meant if the coolant ran out during the mission, the missile couldn't be used. Again, going back to MANPADs, I'm curious if IR-guided anti-tank missiles have their own coolant supplies - perhaps mounted in the launcher? Another thought about survivability - it sometimes seems to be put across as if an aircraft with that attribute can "fly through fire" and carry on as if nothing has happened, which I rather suspect if hit by a modern AA system is not going to be the case, and that almost any damage is probably going to result in a "mission kill"... (again, not knocking the A-10 - I'm quite fond of the aircraft myself, especially ones flown by Moon Bloodgood... ). I only found about the Tornado F3 "stealth" modifications recently, and apparently it did result in a useful reduction in detection range - according to the account about 15 miles worth, which against the 1970s/early 80s era radars the aircraft would have been facing at the time (late 90s/early 00s) was considered worthwhile though the author of the account also raised questions about the durability of the coatings (balanced, of course, by the fact that they might be most used in the early days of a conflict and its less of an issue once the opponents war-fighting ability is degraded). Those RCS "savings" are with an aircraft that was never designed to be stealthy, and I obviously can't verify the figures, but it does suggest stealth can be a "value added". Valkyrie Driver, I find your comments about the need for conventional aircraft complimenting stealth interesting. In fact, the aircraft that immediately springs to mind as being (sort of) available "off the shelf" for the role would be the latest Gripen variants, though the costs are interesting - the F-35 costs are notoriously variable, though depending on variant it currently seems to be hovering around the $135 million USD mark, the Gripen-E figure also varies, the low end being $85 million and the high $105 million - which isn't that far off the F-35 price. I think at least one of the intentions of the F-35 programme was to replicate the "high/low" mix that went on with the F-15/F-16 but obviously things have gone a bit askew down the road, though the F-16 was never asked to replace the F-18, A-10, F-14 and Harrier at the same time! Sorry if the above is a bit rambling, I'm a little tried and typing a bit stream of consciousness rather than trying to hammer in points.
  5. F-ZeroOne
    Valkyrie Driver, thanks for the kind words. I try and take a balanced view but believe me, I screw up like everyone else! Elaborating on some of the points you responded to - did Harriers regularly take off from "dirt patch helipad" in regular use anyway? I know that when the RAF introduced the original Harriers that was sort of the capability they advertised, but in practice they had serious issues with ground erosion and it was found a pre-existing hard structure (such a car park) was more suitable (though this also caused problems with logistics; the advantage of an airbase in pre-GPS days was that you could usually find it!). And weren't "pure" vertical take-offs on operational missions a bit rare anyway, as it tended to restrict the payload that could be carried? I'll grant that stealth coatings may be harder to maintain in that environment (though a number of aircraft may have been used in similar environments with RCS reduction measures that aren't widely known - the Tornado F3, for example). I take your point about whether or not the A-10 is irrelevant, and it raises an interesting idea of its own, which is if the US government wants it to remain in service, perhaps they should be making it a "Alongside with the F-35" and not a "Vs F-35" thing. Its not the F-35s fault that its being called upon to take over the CAS role; if the A-10 is needed that badly then it should either be funded properly or a replacement developed (I accept that the F-35 programme has been badly managed up until recently and is also hugely expensive - though its not alone in that regard, the F-14 was reportedly only funded fully when monies were made available by Iran, of all places! - but thats not an issue with the aircraft, in a sense). I also accept what you're saying about visual confirmation and problems with smoke etc and something I hadn't previously considered is that many accounts involving attack aircraft moving at speed relate the difficulty of visually identifying small targets, which is one advantage the A10 may have (though putting my "sci-fi" hat on, perhaps a drone swarm or similar could mitigate that to some degree; of course at the risk of the drones being hacked or deciding to chase Sarah Connor instead etc... ); also even visual confirmation isn't foolproof, as the A-10s has been involved in at least one very unfortunate friendly fire incident involving British forces in the past. Have to admit, hadn't considered that IR MANPAD seekers might not be all-aspect, given recent advances I think I'd just been assuming that they were. The early RIM-116 missiles used in the point defence role are said to have a seeker taken from the Stinger missile and it seems strange to me that a missile designed to intercept fast, small targets possibly head-on wouldn't have the capability, but I understand the IR is used only in the terminal phase (later variants may use a different seeker now). One thing that puzzles me about the "stealth isn't needed!" or "isn't worth the cost!" argument is that its unusual to find similar claims about the F-22. Yes, the F-22 has higher performance but its fairly rare to find people arguing that it shouldn't have had stealth features or that a more "conventional" (whatever that means, bearing in mind that the F-16 was fairly radical in its day) aircraft should have been developed instead (a F-15 Super Plus?); granted that there are people who argue that stealth as a whole is a waste of time and money but it never seems to be entirely clear just how "conventional" aircraft would fare against advanced anti-aircraft defences (as always, assuming that they're as completely unstoppable and capable of shooting down aircraft from whole other countries as some forums claim... ).
  6. F-ZeroOne
    Playing devils advocate a bit here. Its worth considering that many famous attack aircraft throughout history have carried ammunition loads that are similar to the F-35s; US types have always been a bit of an outlier because they use gatling guns which usually have a high rate of fire; probably the closest recent equivalent to the F-35 is the AV-8B Harrier, which used a five-barrel 25mm gun with 300 rounds of ammunition. The A-10 is a bit of an outlier in many respects - unlike virtually all attack aircraft since the Second World War, its gun was conceived as its primary weapon and as I understand it, the A-10 was designed to make repeated attacks against Soviet tanks and other forces using that gun, which is why it needed an ammo load which is virtually unique. As far as survival goes, an argument could be made that its perhaps better not to get hit at all. In combat, of course, stuff happens. No aircraft is immune to damage, being hit, or a lucky shot, but if methods can be devised to reduce the chances of that happening in the first place, then maybe you don't need to wait two weeks for the aircraft to be repaired to start with? As usual, I'm an interested amateur, no actual service experience here. Edit: And while I think of it - not all MANPADs use iR systems; there are several laser-guided ones and I seem to recall some variants of the Stinger have a UV/i] alternative guidance method.
  7. F-ZeroOne
    In news that will surprise no-one, it seems the UK has requested a purchase of nine P-8As, probably the last chapter in the sorry saga of the Nimrod MRA4. I always knew it was very unlikely, but I was kind of hoping they'd go for the Kawasaki P-1, just because it would have been something a bit different (and yes, I know "Because its cool!" is not how one should approach military procurement... ).
  8. F-ZeroOne
    Textron Scorpion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Technically, doesn't the US Army operate attack helicopters because the Air Force won't let them have anything else?
  9. F-ZeroOne
    Its an extract of a fuller piece at the EW website.
  10. F-ZeroOne
    Well, the tailcode on some of those planes is only going to confirm some politicians suspicions here in the UK that a certain national broadcaster is full of communists...
  11. F-ZeroOne
    I found "Crystal Skull" disappointing, but I'm one of the few people that could live with the fridge scene (more than those bloody ants!). Its Indy, he once sneaked aboard a German submarine with no-one noticing that he didn't look anything like Karl the ballast maintainer...!
  12. F-ZeroOne
    I hope they're pre-production, because they really do look like they've come from a different figure.
  13. F-ZeroOne
    You can dance if you want to, we have a war to fight... 'elf and Safety has infiltrated the UK over the past couple of decades so if you get any Typhoons visiting they might now need a fully qualified stepladder handler to help get the pilots up... Or, always a possibility with UK defence, the Typhoons will be fitted "For, but not With" ladders.
  14. F-ZeroOne
    The figure in general is lovely but... those hands!
  15. F-ZeroOne
    Tornados often get stick for being a bit weedy, engine-power wise compared to other contemparies but apparently they always were a bit faster than usually thought; part of it I believe is probably due to the ADF version, which was designed with a eye on patrol endurance more than outright performance. And, y'know, money. grigolosi, first I'd heard about F-22 production possibly being restarted. The prospect of hanging...?
  16. F-ZeroOne
    I've heard that military jammers and radar systems can be pretty... powerful. If they're that good, it does make a bit more sense.
  17. F-ZeroOne
    Well, I don't see a stealthy "EB-52" as likely. I can see some issues with the concept as proposed, though. One of the reasons I believe the US Navy didn't go for proposed "Arsenal ships" is that munitions are expensive and its a helluva lot of pricey eggs to have in one basket. I get that with F-35s, drones etc in the area the opposing force might not know that they're being targeted, but your jammers are going to have to be pretty darn good for them not to see the B-52s in the first place...
  18. F-ZeroOne
    Talking of the B-52, apparently Dale Brown was right... http://www.defensetech.org/2016/03/11/pentagon-arsenal-plane-may-take-the-form-of-a-modified-b-52/ grigolosi, having taken several long-distance flights I can sympathize with the fighter pilots needing something to pass the time; its bad enough in an airliner with all its passenger "comforts", what its like in an F-16 I can't imagine...
  19. F-ZeroOne
    But the pilots all listen to Queen when flying combat missions to make up for lost time, right?
  20. F-ZeroOne
    It is fairly famous (especially when internet "discussions" turn to the subject of Close Air Support), I think it even turned up in an episode of "Airwolf" once.
  21. F-ZeroOne
    Too me a second to realise thats a "P" on one of those Spitfires and not a question mark, I thought The Riddler had a previously unknown liking for classic warbirds for a second... Edit: no, wait, it is a question mark! Thats a bit odd...
  22. F-ZeroOne
    Follow-up for the Spitfires birthday: a documentary from 1976 (though recorded later because I recoginise that "BBC2" logo style and, er, not many video recorders in the UK then, I guess!). The host, Raymond Baxter was a presenter of the popular BBC programme "Tomorrows World" but also flew Spitfires in World War II and nearly shot down a V2 rocket (at launch) in one! Also features an interview with Douglas Bader, who hopefully should not need much introduction...
  23. F-ZeroOne
    "Just the sort of bloody silly name they would choose!" - Happy 80th birthday, the Vickers Supermarine Spitfire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35729686
  24. F-ZeroOne
    I don't know the precise reasoning behind why the UK went with non-CATOBAR carriers to start with. Bear in mind we're talking about decisions that were made three UK governments ago (the carriers were started by the Labour Party, very approximately equivalent to the US Democratic Party). There were probably several elements in the decision. Usually with the UK, the overriding one is cost. Steam catapaults (EM ones would only have, at best, been on the drawing board back then) obviously require upkeep that a simple take-off/landing deck doesn't. The RN had been operating STOVL aircraft for a couple of decades, there was an established body of experience with the Harrier whereas CATOBAR would mean establishing a coventional carrier-trained trained force almost from scratch. STOVL aircraft came in handy during the only recent carrier-involved conflict the UK fought; theres an argument that militaries always seem to prepare to fight the last war, not the next one. Other alternatives would have been politically unacceptable, with - as David suggested - the exception of the F-18 but governments get distracted by new gadgets just as much as the rest of us, and the F-35 would have been the hot sexy thing back then...
  25. F-ZeroOne
    David, I'd forgotten about the Super Hornet! Though again, as our new carriers are being built without catapaults now its a bit of a moot point. I don't know if there was ever a proposal for a naval Tornado, I've certainly never seen anything either on-line or in books.Oddly enough, when the RAF was shipping around for a new fighter back before the ADV variant, the F-14 was considered, but presumably for a land-based role only. A naval Typhoon was proposed at one point and theres some debate about how straightforward a conversion that would have been. grigolosi, I believe I've mentioned on here before that the "We don't need any of that new-fangled rubbish!" point-of-view is a very old one; they were saying that back when monoplanes started to replace biplanes... I guess I should perhaps I have said that the issue of what the F-35 can do is arguably slightly less important for the USAF (which has F-22s, F-15s and F-16s) and possibly to a lesser extent for the RAF with its Typhoons than those nations which will be relying on it as their sole major aircraft type.
×
×
  • Create New...