Harpooner
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Harpooner
-
-
Well thats the last time I post anything on the F-22
-
-
Damn, scary stuff...for once, I agree with Dale.
Boats
That's it...... I'm outta here
-
Take a look at the blurb about the authors at the end of the article:
"Pierre Sprey was one of three designers who conceived and shaped the F-16; he also led the technical side of the US Air Force's A-10 design concept team. James Stevenson is former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal and author of The Pentagon Paradox and The $5 Billion Misunderstanding."
These are both guys whose concept of the fighter is diametrically opposite to that of the F-22, and they have a vested interest in slagging it. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean you should examine anything they say on the topic with great care. As an example, it seems rather unlikely that an F-22 with internal weapons carriage and a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.17 should be unable in general to out-accellerate an F-16 with external weapons carriage and a thrust-to-weight ratio of only 0.898, though there is probably some specific combination of speed, altitude and load where this is true.
Exactly the reason I emphasised the authors
-
This article from Janes should provoke some on topic discussion (I hope).
I don't really know enough to form a opinion as yet (And yes I realise that has nover stopped me before
)OPINION - The F-22: not what we were hoping forThe F-22 fighter aircraft's focus on stealth brings big disadvantages in cost, weight and manoeuvrability, argue Pierre Sprey and James Stevenson
For decades, the US Air Force has pushed the F-22 as its fighter for the 21st century. Advocates tout its technical features: fuel-efficient, high-speed 'super-cruise'; advanced electronics; and reduced profile against enemy sensors, known as 'stealth'.
However, on measures that determine winning or losing in air combat, the F-22 fails to improve the US fighter force. In fact, it degrades our combat capability.
Careful examination of actual air-to-air battles tells us that there are five attributes that make a winning fighter. These attributes shaped the F-15 and the F-16.
They are: (1) pilot training and ability; (2) obtaining the first sighting and surprising the enemy; (3) outnumbering enemy fighters in the air; (4) outmanoeuvring enemy fighters to gain a firing position; and (5) consistently converting split-second firing opportunities into kills.
The F-22 is a mediocrity, at best, on (4) and (5). It is a liability on (1), (2) and (3).
The most important attribute - pilot quality - dwarfs the others. Air combat history from both small and large wars makes that obvious. After the Israel Air Force (IAF) swept Syrian MiGs from the sky in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon with an 82-0 exchange ratio, the IAF Chief of Staff told US congressional staffers that the result would have been the same had the Syrian and Israeli pilots switched aircraft.
Great pilots get that way by constant dogfight training. Between 1975 and 1980, at the Navy Fighter Weapons School ('Topgun'), instructor pilots got 40 to 60 hours of air combat manoeuvring per month. Their students came from squadrons getting only 14 to 20 hours per month. Flying the cheap, simple F-5, the robustly trained instructors consistently whipped the students in their 'more capable' F-4 Phantoms, F-14 Tomcats and F-15 Eagles. Today, partly thanks to the pressure on the air force's training budget from the F-22's excessive purchase and operating costs, an F-22 pilot gets 12 to 14 hours of flight training per month. For winning future air battles, this is a huge step backward.
For half a century, the air force has been attempting to get the jump on enemy fighters through expensive, complex technology.
Billions of dollars were spent trying to perfect long-range radar missiles to achieve 'beyond-visual-range' (BVR) kills. Extraordinary kill rates, as high as 80 to 90 per cent, were promised when projects were being sold. Success rates in actual combat were below 10 per cent. Simple, more agile, shorter-range infra-red missiles and guns were far more successful and effective.
Worse, the 'identification friend or foe' (IFF) systems that must distinguish enemies from friends before launching BVR missiles failed in every war. As recently as Operation 'Iraqi Freedom' in 2003, misidentified allied aircraft were lost to US systems. The air force now tells us the only way to get the jump on enemy fighters supposedly launching BVR missiles is with stealth. But stealth solves neither the problem of less effective, high-cost BVR radar missiles nor the IFF conundrum. Moreover, stealth has failed to make our fighters invisible to radar and it brings crippling disadvantages.
In Operation 'Desert Storm' in 1991, according to the Government Accountability Office, so-called stealthy F-117s were significantly less effective bombers than the air force described publicly - there is anecdotal evidence that ancient Iraqi radars detected them. In the war against Serbia in 1999, non-stealthy F-16s had a lower loss rate per sortie than the F-117s. The F-22 will not be invisible to radar in real combat, where it cannot control detection angles and radar types.
The most obvious disadvantage stealth brings to the F-22 is extraordinary cost; it grossly reduces the numbers we will buy. New Department of Defense data shows the total unit cost of the F-22 has grown from about USD130 million to over USD350 million per aircraft. Result? The original buy of 750 is now down to 185.
Moreover, stealth plus the F-22's complexity result in unprecedented levels of maintenance downtime. That further reduces numbers in the air; 185 F-22s will support about 120 deployed fighters. They will be lucky to generate 60 combat sorties per day: a laughable number in any serious air war. In World War II, the Luftwaffe could field only 70 of its revolutionary jet: the Me-262. It caused alarm among Allied pilots but had negligible effect on the air battle.
Furthermore, the stealth requirement adds significant drag, weight and size. Size is the most crippling. Why? Because real-world combat is visual combat. Because the F-22 is much bigger than most fighters, it will be detected first, reversing the theoretical advantage it derives from stealth. Topgun had a saying: "The biggest target in the sky is always the first to die."
Once seen, the F-22 has trouble outman-oeuvring the enemy. Its weight hurts the key performance measures of turning and accelerating. Put simply, both the F-15A and F-16A out-turn and out-accelerate the F-22.
Finally, stealth harms the F-22's quick-firing ability. To retain stealth, the gun and missiles must be buried behind doors that take too long to open to exploit instantaneous opportunities.
The air force will argue strenuously that we are wrong and the F-22 has excelled in air-to-air exercises against all comers. However, our information is that these are 'canned' engagements in which the F-22 is pitted against opponents in joust-like scenarios set up to exploit the F-22's theoretical advantages and exclude its real-world vulnerabilities.
There is a way to find out who is right. A serious test of F-22 capabilities would pit it against pilots and aircraft the air force does not control using rules of engagement dictated by combat and the ratio of F-22s to enemies that the tiny F-22 inventory should expect in hostile skies.
We both would be delighted to observe any such realistic exercises and to report back to this magazine. Nothing would please us more than to find that we are wrong and US fighter pilots have been given the best fighter in the sky.
Pierre Sprey was one of three designers who conceived and shaped the F-16; he also led the technical side of the US Air Force's A-10 design concept team. James Stevenson is former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School's Topgun Journal and author of The Pentagon Paradox and The $5 Billion Misunderstanding. This article is adapted from a briefing they produced for the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information.
-
Agreed Mike the Hornet is a fine aircraft. Despite all the doomsayers the future of USN avaition looks bright.
Super Hornet, Growler, F-35, MH-60S and R... MMA.
Still the F-14 was a great looking aircraft and I wish I could have seen and heard one fly
-
-
Despite the rollout the EF-18G, which will turnout to be a surperb piece of kit despite all the doomsayers out there the USN is still upgrading the EA-6B.
USN plans acquisition of ICAP III ProwlersMartin Streetly
The US Navy (USN) plans to acquire 21 Improved CAPability (ICAP) III EA-6B Prowler Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft to bridge the gap between its current ICAP II-configured Prowlers and the EA-18G Growler, which is scheduled to come on stream during 2009.
Characterised by programme officials as being a "complete EW receiver sensor update [of the] EA-6B", the ICAP III differs from its predecessor via the introduction of the AN/ALQ-218 receiver system; "significant" reliability improvements; the introduction of a reactive jamming capability; full-colour cockpit displays; an upgraded AN/AYK-14 mission computer; a second Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System unit; and a replacement intercommunication system; and a night-vision compatible cockpit.
In a briefing given at the US Navy League 2006 symposium in April, the team of Northrop Grumman's EA-6B/ICAP III Programme Director Doug Swoish, and USN Captain Bob Papadakis revealed that the Block 1 ICAP III configuration deployed by USN EW Squadron VAQ-139 aboard the USS Reagan in January 2006 is to be followed by Block 2 and 3 aircraft.
Of these, the Block 2 is scheduled to appear in June 2006, is primarily concerned with added connectivity and is expected to be fielded aboard USS Enterprise by the service's second ICAP III squadron, VAQ-137.
The Block 3 configuration is scheduled for late 2008 and is believed to incorporate advanced jammer management, full-capability low-band jamming and the introduction of digital receiver technology into the AN/ALQ-218 package.
In terms of operational use, Swoish revealed that VAQ-139 had taken its aircraft ashore in support of coalition ground forces in Iraq during March 2006. Here the capability was teamed between the USN and US Marine Corps in a "similar manner" to that used at Aviano Air Base in northern Italy during Operation 'Deny Flight' over Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1993-95.
As of April 2006, the USN had received a total of 10 ICAP III aircraft and Northrop Grumman had received a Lot 2 contract for a further four plus one. The Swoish/ Papadakis team claimed that VAQ-139 had experienced a "30 per cent improvement" in jamming effectiveness during the ICAP III's pre-deployment workup.
IIRC the USMC will be keeping the EA-6B for longer than the USN taking over the ex USN airframes once the EF-18 comes on line
As for the USAF, IIRC the EB-52 has been cancelled and they appear now to be looking a unmanned capability.
-
Hi Guys, I'm sure most of you have seen or used Google Earth. But have you checked out the google earth communities?
I had a look tonight and you can download bookmarks of all sorts of interesting things, from SAM sites (all over the world) to US ICBM sites to the far eastern Russian District
As I understand it, if you spot something you can name it and add it this database.
The SAM sites around moscow are interesting along with Flankers in Far Eastern russian airfields. Also you can see Russian Subs at anchor, SAM sites in North Korea.... etc etc
Some of this would be pretty handy for you scen designers.
Anyway heres the link
-
So are people going to be allowed to dive on her? If so I can see it being a great tourist attraction
-
Whats the idea of the boat on the deck??
-
IMHO Better this than been towed to India m dragged up on a beach and butchered like a whale.
Not if this is case but at least divers and fish will still get some use out of her.
-
There is supposed good news up and down the flight line around here in Whidbey. Rumor control coming from the DoD EW sympouism, which is being held near by, is saying that the USAF has decided not to buy the EB-52 ECM bird. They are doing that to save more money to pay for the F-22 and the F-35. So now the program manager for the EA-6B program is trying to rangle some of that money to buy new airframes and complete a total upgrade ECM system upgrade for the whole fleet instead of half like what has been proposed.
Could the USAF end up operating EF-18G's?
-
OK Dale
is therer an estimated release date.
It's been a while simce I've fiddled with H-3. And the little taste of MP during hte beta testing (before I drifted off..sorry bout that
) was goodI'm getting that itch again
-
Congrats to all involved.
Might meet some you for a game of MP
-
OK, here goes...........
4. Low level strike aircraft, last used in Gulf war 1991
7. Olso class frigate.
I'll expand on this, primary mission was anti shipping using sea eagle ASMs and CPU-123 LGB's, particulalry in the GIUK gap and north sea. Retired 1994 from Sqn Service.
-
French navy and also a contender for the RAN's LPH
-
Not to mention, SHAEF censors and a prison waiting for any journalist fool enough to take a chance on doing something stupid
Boats
Thats closer to the mark.
Journalist report what they see as the truth. I'd rather see good and bad that our forces do, rather than just the good (or the good as the politicans see it.) For example to criticise allied forces for excessive use of force or killimg civilans (where not justified) is not Un-patrioitic. It's the right thing to do.
I'm sorry I don't believe in "Our troops are always right", or that in all cases the end justifies the means because sometimes they are not and sometimes it doesn't.
Maybe this thread should be in the Focsl''''
-
Yes, I am interested in stuff like this
But how do you tell that the upper aircraft is IAF?
And some explanation would be nice, in the answer... Like "you can tell this AIM-9L from a AIM-9M due to the different front canards", just as an example
Well the caption in the magazine (janes Defence Weekly) said it was an IAF aircraft. I have no reason not to believe them in this instance. Still you're right in pointing out that there is nothing in the picture that makes the nationallity obvious.
I was after a WAG
-
Haven't been to work for more than a week My missus dropped our third last Monday. So an Indian Su-30 with a ASM. Those sort of pics are hard to come by. Cheers.
Daniel
Didn't the first 2 teach you anything
Congrats anyway
-
Name them
FOr bonus points name the aircraft (easy) extra bonus points the naitonalities.
Oh and several of you can't enter (you know who you are)
Ok seems there isn't much interest in this so I'll give the answers
Top one is Kh-31P on a No 20 Sqn IAF Su-30MKI.
Bottom one is (unless I cocked things up which is highly possible) the new Kh-31PMK on a Russian Flanker (test bed)
From Janes
Russian sources claim the Kh-31PMK outclasses all comparable systems in the suppression of enemy defences role A new improved wideband seeker is believed to be fitted to the Kh-31PMKRussia is testing a new version of the Kh-31P (AS-17 'Krypton') high-speed anti-radiation missile that is larger, longer-ranged and more capable than any existing variant of the weapon.
The Kh-31PMK is an export-dedicated missile that Russian sources describe as "a step beyond previously described upgrades".
The Kh-31PMK is undergoing operational clearance trials at Russia's weapons test centre in Akhtubinsk. When it enters service the missile will outclass all comparable systems in the suppression of enemy defences (SEAD) role, the sources claimed.
The Kh-31 was developed during the 1980s by Zvezda-Strela. The key to its unique performance is a liquid-fuelled ramjet propulsion system, produced by Soyuz TMKB. Both Zvezda-Strela and Soyuz have now been incorporated in Russia's Tactical Missiles Corporation. Two basic Kh-31 versions were built: the active radar-homing Kh-31A anti-ship missile and the passive anti-radiation Kh-31P.
The original Kh-31P was fielded with three interchangeable seeker heads, each covering a different frequency band for use against specific NATO radar/ missile systems. Seeker manufacturer Avtomatika CKBA has been developing an improved wideband seeker (the L-130) that covers all the required frequencies in a single unit. This new seeker is believed to be fitted to the Kh-31PMK.
The Kh-31PMK is longer than the Kh-31P, with an extended main body. Russian sources note that the improved missile has an increased range of approximately 200 km. While there are several methods of improving ramjet performance the longer missile points to the straightforward incorporation of additional fuel. The missile software has also been improved, to use more efficient trajectories that further extend the weapon's reach.
Zvezda-Strela officials have referred to an upgraded Kh-31PM (M, modernizirovannaya - modernised) for several years. The emergence of the Kh-31PMK programme is a new twist, and a significant one. Jane's sources say that the PMK missile is not the same as the PM, leaving open the question as to whether a separate Russian Kh-31PM programme also exists.
The K designation stands for Kommercheskaya (commercial), ie for export. In practice, the K also stands for Kitai (China). Only China and India are known to have acquired the Kh-31 and Russian sources note that China has a sizeable requirement for longer-range SEAD weapons. The Kh-31PMK is on test at Akhtubinsk as part of (but not exclusive to) the Su-27SM/SKM multirole upgrade programme for the single-seat 'Flanker' - another Chinese link to the weapon.
In a separate development Jane's has confirmed that the baseline Kh-31P weapon is in service with the Indian Air Force (IAF). India was previously believed to be a Kh-31 user, with the missile equipping its Su-30MKI strike fighters. Now Jane's can confirm that the Poona-based Su-30MKI force has acquired the Kh-31, with one pictured here on an aircraft of the recently established No 20 Sqn (the IAF's second Su-30MKI unit).
The IAF already possessed an defence suppression capability using MBDA Anti-Radiation MATra (ARMAT) missiles with its Mirage 2000 and Jaguars. However, the Kh-31P is a generational shift in SEAD for the IAF, due to its high speed and long range.
-
Indian Su-27 Flanker
Alamo
Well you got the top aircraft correct,
but not the missiles
-
Dan and Mike, you two obviousily aren't reading your mail..............
-
Name them
FOr bonus points name the aircraft (easy) extra bonus points the naitonalities.
Oh and several of you can't enter (you know who you are)
) was good
I want!
in Wardroom
Posted
Nice spot. Quite interesting form an engineering perspective as well