Vampyre
-
Posts
1149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Vampyre
-
-
It doesn't matter because both platforms are needed.
There is a lot of back and forth about the Air Force retiring the A-10 in favor of the F-35. The A-10 has capabilities that the F-35 cannot match and the F-35 has capabilities the A-10 cannot match. Trying to make one aircraft do the others job is not the best decision. The F-35 will be a great F-117 and F-16 replacement for the Air Force. To replace the A-10 something else is needed, something with loiter, combat persistence, overpowering punch, physical survivability, slow speed maneuvering capability and fiscal sustainability. Those are the A-10's strengths and are weaknesses of the F-35. Even with it's lack of stealth and other advanced technologies in the face of an integrated IADS the A-10 can still be effective where it was originally intended to operate on a modern battlefield, the FEBA. If we are fighting a near peer war correctly the first thing to go will be the enemy IADS. A weakened or non existent IADS (think Persian Gulf War 1991, 2003 or Afghanistan) allows the A-10 to be highly effective at all ground attack missions (CAS, BAI, Strike, COIN, CSAR Escort) for a lot less cost than an F-35 will provide. Right now Russia and China are the focus but we will still be fighting religious zealots for the foreseeable future as well and to continue running our expensive top end fighters airframe lives out to fight a man in a cave with an AK-47, as we have been doing for the past 15 years, is a losing proposition. This will be exacerbated if the A-10 is retired with no comparable replacement and the F-35 is forced to perform the roles of the A-10.
-
Perhaps we could solve the re-fueling debacle with a KC-130 or other Multicrew module where we could have a human boom operator.
only problem is I doubt there are enough customers that would want such a module to make it viable.
But this is a wish list thread... :pilotfly:
KC-130 doesn't have a boom. You are probably thinking of the KC-135. I'd throw down for a KC-10A Extender with that feature. It was originally purchased to take some of the workload off of the KC-135 by supporting Tactical aircraft operations so the KC-135's could concentrate on their SIOP support mission.
-
The UH-60 has numerous military versions AND civilian variants. There is nothing "classified" about LA County's fire choppers but we still can't have them in DCS. The OH-58 is nothing but a new version of the Hughes 500D...thousands of them in civilian service...so I'm not sure why nobody has or is allowed to bring them into DCS.
... and we sold S-70's to the Chinese in the 80's so I doubt there is really anything secret about the civilian versions of the Blackhawk. The OH-58A-C are basically the militarized versions of the Bell 206. What everyone here is talking about, I assume because it is the one I want, is the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior which is a more advanced version with a four bladed main rotor, rockets, machine guns, AGM-114's, FIM-92's and the MMS for scouting and target designation purposes. The Army versions of the Hughes 500 (or MD-500) are the OH-6 Cayuse and A/MH-6 Little Birds which would be fun as well.
-
The F-22 is already lagging in systems such as HMCS and the ability to use its Sidewinders off bore. So you're not just dusting things off, you're implementing an upgrade program too. And researching it. And certifying it. Congress won't foot the bill. The more cost effective route is to try to expedite the Bloc 5 F-35s, as it will give them the same BVR punch while also expanding the tactcal attack fleet.
According to the article, it is Congress that is asking for the information on restarting the line so they might be semi-serious about it. They recognize that we need more F-22's to, at least, replace the aged F-15's and want to go the cheaper route by restarting production in lieu of procuring a new design and in the process using existing technology from the programs already in testing to improve the F-22's combat capability. If they start next year I would expect to see a new F-22B FSD airframe in about 2020-2022 timeframe. They should have just bought the 749 airframes as originally planned and upgraded from there but hindsight being what it is...
-
Don't wait until after May. After that, daytime temps climb in to triple digits.
^This, with it being hot and dry the environment will kill you very quickly if you are not fully prepared. There are lots of hiking trails around Lake Mead and the views are pretty spectacular as well.
As far as getting to Nellis, they do offer tours of the base. Currently they are booked until June for the tours and the Thunderbirds Museum is closed till the end of this month for renovation.
http://www.nellis.af.mil/Contact/CommunityEngagement/Tours.aspx
-
I think the point is (what ever the actual type is) that jamming a ship doesn`t get you splashed across every news outlet around the globe. The point of this mission (political) is made by any aircraft coming that close to the warship and being photographed.
Indeed, and it is more effective if the planes involved in the flyby's are actual Su-24M fighter-bombers instead of Su-24MP ELINT/Jammer platforms (of which the Russians only have about 10 to 15 examples of at most) which further supports my suspicion that both airframes were Su-24M's and not Su-24MP's which is my point.
-
It's not good video, but if you keep hitting pause on that youtube clip in the OP looks to me like it's go the nose of an Su-24MP, rather than an M
Quigon's post #13 in this thread has some good quality photos of the jets involved in this incident. One is definitely a Su-24M. The video is too poor to draw a conclusion as to the exact type of Fencers involved. Additionally, I would doubt the Russians would allow one of their handful of Fencer F's out to harass a ship when that can be accomplished with a much less valuable Fencer D's. A dedicated EW aircraft like the Su-24MP does not need to operate in this manner to harass a warship. It has standoff jammers for that.
-
Interesting that they do keep overflying those Arleigh Burke class destroyers with Su-24MP's for some reason.
(Not with the Su-34 that officially has the Khibiny system)
Judging by this photo at least one of them is a Su-24M. There is a lack of evidence of the other one being a Su-24MP EW aircraft.
I was on the Kitty Hawk back in 2001 when we had a Su-24MR and a Su-27 come out and do a number of low passes over the carrier. The Su-24MR was low enough for me to see the rivets on the belly of the jet.
-
I would much rather have a A-6E if they have to choose which it sounds like they likely will from a practicality standpoint. But I would love to see the KA-6D AI aircraft:D
If they are able to make a D-704 pod that works with the A-6E then a KA-6D would be superfluous. That being said, in real life, Navy Intruder squadrons usually deployed with at least four KA-6D tankers in addition to the standard attack birds. The KA-6D's had reduced attack capability with the removal of DIANE until the capability was deleted completely in the early 80's. Most of the displays on the B/N side were removed and tanker specific instruments were added. I would like to see both if possible.
-
Glad you had a great time on our server.:thumbup: Tracerfacer is the author of that particular map but we have many other missions for 2.0 as well that are equally good.
-
The A-10 has an AOA vane on the port forward fuselage. AOA sensors, be they vanes or probes, require forward movement of the airframe through the air to get a reading from them. You should not get a true AOA reading until you have the aircraft moving forward at a speed significant enough to effect movement the AOA vane.
-
Yes.. I knew that... same logo... but different culture in 103 than in 84.
Well to be fair, it has been my experience that the squadrons culture is massively affected by it's triad of leadership (CO, XO, CMC) so it was probably not the same culture for more than two to three years in a row. I was hoping for LNS to do a F4U-1/F4U-1A Corsair (with both canopy types) so we could have the original VF-17 Jolly Rogers as they were in the Solomons campaign.
VF-142... because Ghostriders! They had an outstanding squadron reputation when they were decommissioned as well.:thumbup:
-
Wow, really amazing camo. Well lets hope LNS will make this camo :)
It is just a modified version of the Asia Minor scheme originally applied to the Iranian Tomcats. All they did was change the tan to the dark grey and the brown and dark green to light grey. The pattern is still the same.
-
1
-
-
Great update Cobra! The wing, spoiler and flaps animation are true works of art! Looks just like the real thing. Outstanding!
-
-
The choice not to fly sidewinders in the A6 seems more doctrinal than capability. I guess thinking is that a lot of people in planning, BARCAP, AWACS, and many other supporting roles in the intruder's mission will have completely screwed up if a flight of intruders have to make fox-2 calls...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the above photo is indeed from just prior to El Dorado Canyon then the AIM-9 was definitely used as a self defense weapon for certain missions, anti-shipping strike in this case. This looks like a good loadout for attacking small surface combatants like missile boats, corvettes or frigates that would be operating together closer to shore. Being closer to shore means being closer to enemy interceptors so I can see the usefulness of bringing along a self defense weapon like the AIM-9.
-
Thanks for the info Vampyre, that would certainly make sense.
It's interesting how the MK-7 has a yellow AND blue stripe on it. A conflict of sorts considering yellow indicates live ord and blue means inert training round.
The yellow is for the explosive bursting munition and the blue is for what the canister contains... training materials... if you will.:smilewink:
The blue X is a dead giveaway for the PDU-5/B. We dropped a number of them on Iraq and Afghanistan on deployment.
-
Well I'll be damned, is that what I think it is on this F/A-18?
A United States Navy F-18 Hornet aircraft flies over Iraq, March 3, 2016. The United States stands with a coalition of more than 60 international partners to assist and support the Iraqi Security Forces to degrade and defeat ISIL. Coalition forces fly daily missions in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.(U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Corey Hook)
Looks like a PDU-5/B Leaflet dispenser to me...:music_whistling:
The casing is a Mk7 though, which is the same as used by the CBU-99 and CBU-100's
-
1
-
-
Interesting. For the A-4 to be capable of mounting the D-704, they only changed a single panel in the cockpit.
The KA-6D had an internal hose drogue unit installed in the aft fuselage where the birdcage is located on the A-6E and EA-6B. It was missionized for the tanker role and DIANE was removed so it could not do night time radar bombing. It could also use the D-704 pod as well.
-
Looks like a nice little helo. As for a storm... its clear and a million here.
I'm thinking two weeks for sure!:music_whistling:
-
I would like to come back to the topic (A-6 Intruder):
Does anyone know whether the KA-6 tanker Intruders had a different cockpit?
So basically the question is: Was that a normal A-6 that could still be used for bombing, or was it modified?
EDIT: Found it myself. They were modified. So probably we won't get that so easily from Razbam. (not that I would be too interested in flying a tanker, but for some it would be fun I guess)
Or if someone found a way to implement a D-704 store that could transfer fuel....
A-6E with a D-704 store refueling SuE's
-
A-1: Single Engine
A-4: Single Engine
A-5: Twin Engine
A-6: Twin Engine
A-7: Single Engine
F-8: Single Engine
F-4: Twin Engine
F-14: Twin Engine
F-18: Twin Engine
F-35 Single Engine
A list of navy attack and fighter aircraft since the Vietnam War. As you can see, the Navy hops back and forth between twin and single engines constantly. If we extend this list back to WWII, the number of single engine aircraft vastly outweighs multi engine.
Even when engine reliability was suspect, the Navy had no problem trusting single engine aircraft, the operative requirement was power. Modern engines are vastly more reliable, and with the advanced monitoring and management systems on the F-35, engine reliability post testing phase is projected to be very good.
That list might mean something if there were additional information that included strikes due to engine failure and aircraft single engine recoveries for the aircraft with two powerplants. The older jets were a lot cheaper than the F-35 is even with inflation factored in so the loss of those airframes was deemed to be acceptable attrition. I have not been on a single cruise without having an aircraft do a single engine recovery due to engine problems. Additionally, the Navy has not purchased any single engine attack or fighter aircraft for over 30 years and stopped using the Corsair, the last single engine attack type, in 1991. The majority of the single engine designs on the list predate the end of the Vietnam war and upgraded versions of those designs continued to be produced until the F/A-18 took their place. That said, the acquisitions bean counters seem to believe that single engine is the way to go so we will see. Key word "projected".
-
July 18 2006
The Third World War, August 1985: a Future History by Hackett, John
John Hackett
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0722141858?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00
-
Then again f18 isn't limited to smart munitions. just like the a10c you can still be able to arm unguided types if you wish and still cpnduct bombing the good old fashion risky way
The F/A-18 is limited by range though, and its lo-lo-lo profile is abysmal. Its hi-hi-hi profile isn't anything to write home about either. The A-6 and A-7 were far better strike assets than the Hornet in this regard. The Navy took a huge risk going with the Hornet. Short range means its base, id est the aircraft carrier, has to operate closer to enemy offensive assets for its aircraft to be able to hit important targets within the battle space. This means the modern carrier is more vulnerable than a carrier was in the mid 80's when conducting strike operations. The tradeoff for cost savings is higher risk to the aircraft carrier itself. As many different missions as the Hornet can do, it cannot do anything from Davy Jonses locker. That is what the Navy actually did when they divested the A-6, A-7 and F-14 from the fleet.
The Gazelle SA-342M is a Go!
in SA-342M Gazelle
Posted
Got my copy too. :thumbup: