Jump to content

Aircraft Vs Super Thread VI


Nied
 Share

Recommended Posts

The No-Fly zone is going to be interesting to enforce. Basically, it'll be a US show again.

For the Europeans, the problem is having enough tanker elements in place. The other alternative is carrier. The only recourse there for the Europeans is the French carrier, and if the regular air forces gets involved, there'll have to be a whole bunch of tankers staging out of Italy. Right now, the Brits nor the French are really up to it. So then, someone will have to depend on the US again, probably a combination of carriers and shooters backed up by US tankers. Wonder how much stuff they can stage out of Malta and Crete.

Anyway, enough of the no-fly zone. Did anyone catch what Udvar-Hazy said? Boeing needs to sell 1500 787 just to break even. I said this a few years back, if Boeing screws it up, they will be in such a hole that they'll just wish they never started the program. Not surprisingly, they've given Airbus a lot of room to catch up.

Edited by kalvasflam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rafales are in Libya and striking tanks. Mirage 2000's also there. While there has been no air-to-air combat AFAIK, there is a MiG-23 down and a MiG-21 down. Certainly at least one of them is a rebel plane lost due to friendly fire from the rebels, but too much conflicting info to be sure.

Recent surprising pic (given their stated stance) is Italian Tornados being loaded up with live HARMs.

Canada's F-18s are in Scotland and getting ready to head to Sicily. RAF Tornados just left Scotland. Haven't heard anything on Spain's F-18s lately. Dutch/Belgian/Norwegian F-16s committed but no movement I've heard of.

Heard a report of US F-15's leaving the UK, but nothing for the Navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I thought this was a no-fly zone, not a "kill the tank zone" at least according one news report, there is action going on versus non-air defense assets. This is going to be a mess.

It looks like the operation was expanded to protect Libyan citizens from both Qaddafi's air and ground units which explains the Rafales attacking Libyan armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was never just a no-fly-zone. It has been 'everything and anything short of ground forces' since the resolution was passed. That means tank-plinking and Wild Weasel missions a-plenty. US has yet to put a combat plane in the air, just cruise missile strikes and support planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B-2s have been confirmed to have attacked a Libyan airfield aswell. Not sure how reliable this report is.

http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com/2011/03/b-2-stealth-bombers-pound-libyan.html

WASHINGTON — Three US B-2 stealth bombers have dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield.

There was no immediate official confirmation of the attack.

On Saturday, the United States unleashed a barrage of Tomahawk missiles against the Libyan regime's air defenses, but ruled out using ground troops in what President Barack Obama called a "limited military action".

Nineteen U.S. warplanes, including stealth bombers and fighter jets, conducted strike operations in Libya on Sunday morning, officials said.

Tomahawk cruise missiles are unmanned and fly close to the ground, steering around natural and man-made obstacles to hit a target programmed into them before launch.

A senior U.S. military official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the cruise missiles landed near the city of Misrata and the capital, Tripoli.

Scores of missiles were fired in the pre-dawn darkness, and the exact results of the mission were not immediately clear. The United States is expected to conduct a damage assessment of the sites.

The salvo, in an operation dubbed "Odyssey Dawn," was meant "to deny the Libyan regime from using force against its own people," Gortney said.

British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said the Royal Air Force deployed Tornado GR4 fast jets, which flew 3,000 miles from the United Kingdom and back -- making the venture the longest-range bombing mission conducted by the force since the Falklands conflict in 1982.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said the international mission "is necessary, it is legal, and it is right."

"I believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people," Cameron said late Saturday night.

But Gadhafi remained defiant, saying Libya will fight back against undeserved "naked aggression."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seconded--I've always liked the very unique cross-section of the Rafale. It's not a simple tube or box like so many planes---it's a complicated yet geometric shape, like the YF-23. YF-23 is all hexagons, the Rafale is like a concave diamond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems there was an air-to-air shootdown just recently, no word on which type it was on either side. The Pro-Gadhaffi plane lost.

Nice photos of actual planes/loads being used--Rafales, Typhoons, Falcons, Tornados: http://noticias.uol.....jhtm#fotoNav=1

The F-15 that crashed was 91-304: http://www.planes.cz/cs/photo/1010611/f-15e-51-mc-91-0304-usaf-ostrava-osr-lkmt/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few of Ghadafi's airfields have been struck so I wonder just how many aircraft would be left at his disposal. The largest number of types I last read they had were Mig-23s and Su-22s.

Edited by Shadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know its a tiltrotor, I know its a tiltrotor, the media on the other hand is having trouble with a thing that can be two things at once [1]. At least one British newspaper referred to the CV-22 Osprey that rescued one of the downed F-15 pilots as a "helicopter" today... :)

Also: its not a vacuum cleaner, its a Dyson. Perfectly engineered for its designated function. ;)

[1] I suppose I should be thankful they didn't try to claim that it cures cancer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libya plane news:

Canada and Denmark have now engaged in actual combat (as opposed to just patrol/escort).

Italy's Harriers on the Garibaldi in the area, but not deployed. Naval Rafales now operating from the De Gaulle but I don't know if they've actually bombed yet.

Sweden's Gripens on standby and are "requested" by Nato, but Sweden won't deploy until it's confirmed who will be leading the coalition and the order of battle after the US stands down from the lead next week.

Turkey has committed Naval forces but still adamantly opposed to air operations.

Also, Libya has SA-24 SAMs guarding Tripoli. This is more advanced than most anything else out there and Libya's not supposed to have them. Basically a bad-ass version of the Stinger with a 20,000ft envelope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good evening,

This is totally off topic from the previous post, however, I need assistance and I believe this has to do something with aircraft --I hope--.

I am trying to come with a research paper for a class at my university, and it's going to be based on the retired f-14. My proposal for the paper is to insist the f-14 be brought back in service by making it lighter (don't have a conclusion for that yet)cheaper, and more efficient. Since the f-14 turn rate is pretty slow compare to the f-18, I was thinking of making the f-14 famous variable-sweep wing into a variable forward-sweep wing; this should decrease the lateral stability and more blah blah blah to get to the 20th page. I have more ideas; however I don't want to bore you guys.

But the point of this post was to ask if anyone is willing to share some sites that contain TONS and TONS of aircraft information from general aviation to military.

Don't get me wrong, I did some leg work myself; however, the Florida Tech resource facility suck @#$%^&*, and the sites that I've looked at are pretty sketchy(fan-boys everywhere I guess). Wikipedia is a great source but I can't use only one source; I also question its accuracy.

Thank you for your time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making something lighter and cheaper are opposite ends of the spectrum. Same with making massive modifications (wings). The F-14's spin characteristics are so bad that if it was proposed to the Navy now, it'd be refused as aerodynamically unsafe. Also, FSW is pointless on the Tomcat's design. It is mainly only of benefit at high-alpha and low speeds, and a Tomcat can't even achieve Hornet levels of alpha to make use of FSW and the design is optimized for high-speeds, much like an F-15. It is an interceptor, not a dog fighter. A FSW Hornet would actually be interesting/useful.

The Tomcat's main expense is maintenance. Everything is complicated and hard to fix by modern standards. That is the #1 reason for retiring it above all else. It was an EXCELLENT striker and CAS plane, the Super Hornet still cannot match it in that area for range/payload (though it can carry a wider range of weapons).

If you want to make the Tomcat cheaper, you need to totally re-skin it with easier/quicker access panels, and make the hydraulics and electrical systems a lot more reliable and easy to fix.

PS---no one has made a forward-swept wing plane yet for actual mass production. That's because it's little more than an interesting experiment, not a useful improvement. Sure it looks cool, but nobody's done anything more than test it. It improves control at very high alpha, little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah sounds like a fun challenge. I guess I'll try a different approach and do more research once I get my greedy hands on information links.

It seems that you are very knowledgeable in this area, may I have your email address and spam it with burning questions :rolleyes: ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good evening,

This is totally off topic from the previous post, however, I need assistance and I believe this has to do something with aircraft --I hope--.

I am trying to come with a research paper for a class at my university, and it's going to be based on the retired f-14. My proposal for the paper is to insist the f-14 be brought back in service by making it lighter (don't have a conclusion for that yet)cheaper, and more efficient. Since the f-14 turn rate is pretty slow compare to the f-18, I was thinking of making the f-14 famous variable-sweep wing into a variable forward-sweep wing; this should decrease the lateral stability and more blah blah blah to get to the 20th page. I have more ideas; however I don't want to bore you guys.

But the point of this post was to ask if anyone is willing to share some sites that contain TONS and TONS of aircraft information from general aviation to military.

Don't get me wrong, I did some leg work myself; however, the Florida Tech resource facility suck @#$%^&*, and the sites that I've looked at are pretty sketchy(fan-boys everywhere I guess). Wikipedia is a great source but I can't use only one source; I also question its accuracy.

Thank you for your time!

What's the paper for may I ask? like what's the class focus? I think you'll find a wide range of perspectives on here if you ask.

Edited by Noyhauser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...