|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well since someone has left me doing Post #500 I might as well do it, with all my THANKS for making that possible!!
First is a follow-up too the many posts I've done over the years that guarantees the A-10 will still be flying through and just beyond the "20's". The last jet has been "re-winged" with 173 A-10C jets fully operational. The wings were taking a beating due to the combination of age and OPTEMPO. Besides the obvious flight advantages, it's ability to maneuver with a full payload has been restored w/o restrictions. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...program-03187/ What I LOVE ABOUT "DID", is that they continually update their stories and provide those refs within, end of a section etc. or at the end of the article or both. This next is so long it's everywhere in the article. The "tagline" is in the fact the F-35 will be going to Europe to get some "exercise" in some upcoming NATO Exercises. This all well and good however, what caught my eye was within the following section of the Ref., "The F-35 Family: Controversies and Competitions" all I'll say is I feel vindicated after pointing out many of these issues over the years with the AUSA Think Tank article I posted I can't even remember how many years ago and since. A year or two ago I posted from various sources what capabilities define a 5th GEN Fighter and I stated even before that the F-35 after one of it's last final redesigns, was not one. The F-35 is no better then on par with the F-15SE, except that the last is still with the recent upgrades done system wide in recent years a much better air superiority fighter then the F-35. For prospective the GRIPEN NG meets the requirements more closely to being a 5th GEN Fighter/Bomber (I acknowledge it carries a smaller payload, however, the point is a Fighter/Bomber is designed to fight its way in, drop the ordnance and fight it's way home again, if necessary.) I believe there were five points that determined what made a jet a 5th GEN capable aircraft. And their are only two known aircraft that meet ALL five and they are the F-22 and B-2 Bomber. The F-35 misses the mark with at least two major ones as taken from the Ref. and section noted above. "The F-35’s design is optimized for “low-observable” stealth when viewed from the front, with less stealth to radars looking at it from the sides, and less still when targeted from the rear. It also lacks the Raptor’s supercruise (sustained flight above Mach 1) and super-maneuverability thrust-vectoring options, which work with stealth to help the F-22 engage and disengage from combat at will. Lockheed Martin claims that the F-35 design is optimized for trans-sonic acceleration, but testing results question those claims, and the Raptor can cruise without afterburners at the F-35’s theoretical maximum speed. That’s important, because fuel usage skyrockets with afterburners on, limiting total supersonic time for fighters like the F-35. The GRIPEN NG does have "supercruise" and the "super-maneuverability thrust-vectoring options" but these factors help determine and for aircraft in the game, the all important EW Level. The GRIPEN NG and possibility 1 Russian jet and some say the F-15SE (Though I'm more cautious about that.) are the only 4th GEN++{+} planes in the air. Needless to say I'll be taking a hard look at the F-35 in EW category. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...m-edit-037947/ https://www.ausairpower.net/research.html https://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.html https://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html It's a standard I try to live up as much as possible per Ref. 2. I still make mistakes, I just do the best I can and maintain my standards, so to the rest, "Read'em and Weep". Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well John (Imp) if your looking in it seems our discussion concerning Taiwan is going to come true at least on the air side of things. Apparently the Trump Administration has approved the sale of F-16 Fighters to Taiwan. If approved by Congress and I believe it will, this will the largest weapons acquisition deal in about 30 years with Taiwan.
I've been reporting that I feel the version that'll be offered is the F-16V which is a "Souped Up" F-16 BLOCK 50/52. This is not the latest version there are two newer types the F-16 Block 60 which the UAE owns and the newest platform being the F-16 Block 70 which has been ordered by Bahrain. The last will be the version the USAF is most likely to upgrade their fleet to as well in the near future. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ization-04250/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-first-flight/ https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...ighter-market/ http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news.html We should know sometime in Oct./Nov. about the Jets. The ABRAMS I would think a short time after the New Year. Interesting times are these days we're living in!?! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The F-16V was added to the Taiwan OOB last release.......
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Thank You! That'll make it easy with just a simple date change to the right. My timeline for a decision is simply based on the fact that Congress is in Summer recess until after Labor Day here. Looks like they'll also need the F-16C/D in the OOB, that'll be around until games end. My understanding once (If) they get the new or start getting them, their F-16C/D will be overhauled, again, to what we think will be the F-16V.
This should an interesting story to follow. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I brought this up in Post #502 above, now JANE's is reporting that Taiwan could be the second customer behind Bahrain to fly the most advanced F-16 version in the world, the F-16 BLOCK 70. These will be new airframes designed to fly until 2070. They will have onboard many of the electronic components used on the F-22.
First from JANE's.... https://www.janes.com/article/90631/...caf-operations For perspective... https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-16.html https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...has-f-22-26419 More about the jet and Bahraini deal and mostly for the 5 articles at the very bottom. Also Don I haven't forgotten about you there's a couple of great shots of Bahrain's F-16 jets in the air in their camo! We like doing pictures!! :cool: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...existing-fleet China has indicated these particular fighters would be a "red line" for them. Maybe theirs aren't so good after all. :rolleyes: ;);) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I keep trying to stress the F-35 IS NOT a "fighter" (I know most here understand that, but "Joe Average" can't quite seem to figure it out). It's a replacement for the A-10 and F-15/16 in ground attack roles. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I would say low observability from the front only makes it a very specific plane patrolling etc with it is pointless, perhaps one to direct cheaper planes with its radar. It’s mission is simple point the nose at the enemy and attack this is a SEAD aircraft if ever there was one.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
By way of an update, the U.S./TAIWAN deal for the latest version of the F-16 fighter is still on track and as the lead article indicates the Taiwanese government is clearing the last hurdles to ensure these planes will be fully funded. This plane will be more capable then the current models as part of this deal will include the latest munitions pkg. available.
Also note under the "Contracts Section 2014-2019" that these pods will give those jets "game wise" a TI/GSR value of at least 40 minimum. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ization-04250/ Unfortunately no news on the M1A2. Though Taiwan is prepared to go forward with this deal, we might be taking a more political look at the "big picture" on these deals allowing for my thought process, I can foresee that with these jets Taiwan will close the gap/or reach parody with China, also remember as already posted above, these jets are designed to operate until 2070. With that in mind, I can see the tank deal potentially, being put off a couple of years at least with supplying them with additional JAVELINS to maybe even include "older" BRADLEYS instead. It's again just a possibility or option I can see. Remember we've already sold them a whole "bunch" of JAVELINS already. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I was going to post some stuff before heading out of town later this week but, not sure as some things have come up.
But I just checked my papers and came across this significant article concerning the F/A-18 HORNET specifically the A-D series versions. They are ALL retired as of 2 Oct 2019 from the USN. They will remain operational with the USN Reserves and Blue Angels (Non game issue for both.) but, more importantly for the game the USMC will still be flying them. As normal, DID puts their links within the articles/paras etc. From the "lead" as quoted, note where the links are in the article are shown as highlighted below... "October 8/19: Retirement The US Navy has retired its fleet of Boeing F/A-18A-D Hornet combat aircraft from active service. The USN announced on October 2 that the final flight took place out of Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia. The retirement of the ‘classic’ Hornets brings 35 years of frontline service with the USN to an end and comes just over a year since the service performed its final carrier deployment of the type earlier in 2018. While the Hornet has been retired from the USN’s active unit inventory, it will remain operational with the Navy Reserve, the Blue Angels display team, and the US Marine Corps (USMC)." The F/A-18 E/F and F/A-18G are still operational and will be for at least 10 or more years. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-flying-02816/ NAVAIR has not started reporting any stories for Oct. as of this very moment. However one of the last stories for the month of Sep. concerning the maintenance of the AV-8B indicates the "last" major maintenance cycle should be or is expected to completed by the end of 2021. This simply means it'll be around after games end. I thought I came across an article awhile back that indicated a targeted retirement date of 2028. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The ONLY reason I'm posting this, as I consider the matter closed on the F/A-18E/F HORNETS, is to show in the very first story listed (0ctober14/19:Rudders) what it replaced/what makes it different from the F/A-18A-D series ("Classic") and finally a fine comparison to the A-6 INTRUDER which was the USN's top SEAD/BOMBER for so many years leading up to it's retirement in the 90's. I found it to be somewhat worthwhile for only being a para long.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-flying-02816/ Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
My understanding is the USMC intends to replace it's F/A-18's with F-35C's ... eventually (gotta love budgets). Thus will B's will be their primary ground support aircraft and C's their primary air superiority/SEAD aircraft.
While everyone (competent) knows the F-35 is not even in the same league as an F-22 and not as good as an F-15 or F/A-18 when it comes down to "furballs" the USMC really isn't intended or equipped to face "First Line" opponents in other then short-term engagements, long enough for the US Army/US Air Force to arrive, so top tier air superiority aircraft are something it can do without. If they're doing "beachhead" duty for the US Army the USN and USAF will be heavily supporting them. While nothing currently in the USN/USMC inventory comes close to matching the bomb load of the A-6 these days bombs are a LOT more accurate then they were during Vietnam. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well you'll "love this"...
http://www.navair.navy.mil/product/FA-18EF-Super-Hornet Nice picture but the USAF gives more specific data on their planes such as ordinance payload weights. But note on the lower left corner and this is fairly new, they offer a "slick sheet" on the type. Taken from the next ref., I was close in my 10yrs. or more projected service life but NAVAIR has something different to say about it... "...the aircraft is expected to be in service beyond 2035. Open architecture design principles enhance future development capabilities.", well close enough for "government work" and hand grenades I think!?! ;) http://www.navair.navy.mil/sites/g/f...eet_FA18EF.pdf Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I stand corrected !
The F/A-18E has a significantly higher Max Takeoff Gross then I'd been led to believe (probably "old" A-D data). |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The website Key.Aero is reporting that Indias first two Rafales were officially handed handed over on October 8th. The current start date for the Rafale in the India OB (unit 594) is 3/2018. This site is also reporting that the U.S.A.F. is modifying the A-10 to carry the GBU-39 SDB. The modification program is said to have begun during the summer.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
From BROADSWORD:
It appears that on either Tuesday 1st/or 8th of this month that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh accepted the first RAFALE fighter in Merignac, France. From Para 5 of below ref. From Para 6 of the ref... " Yet, despite Singh’s symbolic “acceptance” of the first Rafale fighter in Merignac, the IAF is still years away from fielding Rafales with the full capability New Delhi has paid for." This refers to the RAFALE ISE (India Specific Enhancements.) From Para 7 of the ref... "On Friday, the IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal Rakesh Bhadauria, revealed that the first IAF Rafales, a batch of four aircraft, would only reach India next May. That means an eight-month delay from the contracted delivery date of September 2019 – or three years after the contract was signed." That should be of no surprise here from anyone who's followed my work here with INDIA over the years. About the first RAFALE's to be delivered from Para 8 of the ref... "Further, these Rafales, and tens more that will follow them, will not have the enhanced capabilities – termed “India Specific Enhancements” (ISEs) – the IAF has demanded and paid Euro 1.7 billion for. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report of February 2019 reveals that, until December 2021, the IAF will receive less potent Rafales, built to the lower capability specifications of the French Air Force." Again this should be of no surprise and I've brought this up many times that in this case, France is not going to sell to anyone military equipment that's at the current or developmental level of what their military is using. And I really hope I don't have to list ALL the reasons why this is so except to say for National Security reasons and everything associated with it. Of the RAFALE ISE from Para 9 of the ref... "According to the CAG report, the IAF will receive its first Rafale with ISEs installed only in December 2021 – 63 months after the contract signature. Then, over the subsequent eight months, i.e. till August 2022, Dassault (and its French avionics partner, Thales) will install and retrofit ISE capabilities on all 36 Rafale fighters contracted by the IAF." Back to the first batch of four to arrive in May 2020 from Para 10 & 11 of the ref. "The IAF chief has downplayed the eight-month delay in delivering the first Rafales by arguing that IAF pilots would get more time to train in France." "On Friday he stated: “The aircraft will come at the end of May next year in Indian skies. The advantage is that our pilots will be substantially trained by then. That group of pilots will be near ‘operational’ to take on any task after landing here.” I don't know how to can become "near operational" to fly as a sophisticated aircraft as the RAFALE. These Paras will be a key in my recommendations in the "Bottom-line" below. BOTTOM-LINE: 1) Concerning the pre ISE versions I'm taking into account the above Paras 10 & 11 for the IAF Chief to admit this is well...not smart. But as you can also see throughout this article there have been significant delays (Remember it only took India 30 years to develop the ARJUN MBT.) and by time the "ISE" versions get fully converted as of right now, that'll put the contract 71/72 months behind schedule upon receiving the last ISE version. A) IAF RAFALE START OCT. 2020. Finding Frances most advanced RAFALE in the OOB at a minimum there will be an EW and MAYBE (Because I believe India either ordered or developed Targeting Pods for each of these Fighters.) reduction in TI/GSR if they don't have TPods. Also I besides any possible delivery delays (And how many times have we seen that happen out here!?!), I think we want those Pilots to have the extra training time so they don't crash those brand new jets!?! 2) The IAF RAFALE ISE I see a START date of MAY 2022 I'm simply splitting the difference here on the dates given in Para 9 of the ref. to reflect my thinking as follows... A) If on track this will give the IAF 18 of the 36 RAFALE ISE conversion aircraft at that time. B) Even with a delay of a handful of months, they should still have enough to justify us having them in the OOB. C) These will at least be on par to the current French RAFALE's and possibly slightly better (Israel always had a knack for this with our jets we sold them.). Also it should be pointed and as posted in this thread, the reason INDIA dropped out of the partnership w/RUSSIA on the PAK/FA (India)/T-50 (Russia) was because of cost cutting India felt the jet had reduced capabilities that would prevent this jet from being a "true" 5TH gen Fighter. India fought hard to improve the jet and Russia refused to "take aboard" their recommendations. The T-50 if ever fielded, is as India predicted, not a 5th GEN Fighter. So India does have the capability to improve the ISE version and the French are very happy to be doing that work!! https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019...ndia-gets.html I had this done yesterday morning before getting ready for work. I copied the ref. but forgot to paste the already copied post I wrote when I realized I ran out of typing time!?! :shock: :doh: Anyway time to copy/repost and you all have a good night/morning etc.!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This is hot due to the perishability of the story from the source, in this case JANE's which is notorious for removing these stories after a month or so, unless you're a paying subscriber.
You don't have to be a clairvoyant to not to be "able to read between the lines" here. The F-35 program has suffered what I see as a major setback in that the decision to go to full rate production has been pushed back until DEC 2020 or JAN 2021. That being said IOC probably won't occur until mid-2021 and FOC to late-2021 or mid-2022 earliest. We can no longer ignore what's happening in the "RL/or RW" and need to reconsider all the START dates for these Jets. The following from JANE's... "Key Points The Pentagon is pushing back its F-35 full-rate production decision by more than a year owing to issues with Joint Simulation Environment progress The facility is required to perform high-end threats that cannot be replicated in an open-air range" It has to fully understood that "full rate production" is the "milestone/or key stone" event that leads to IOC/OPEVAL & FOC, the termology might differ a little by country or service but, if it's in the Air, on Land or on the Surface or Under the Ocean, this is the pathway. To be sure there are other issues DID posts on them continuously every contract event is a continuation of fixing problems and updating systems. These mean delays-period. https://www.janes.com/article/92039/...n-by-13-months https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...m-edit-037947/ So far I can find JANE's is the first to report on this from the Defense Industry side the article is from this past Friday. All we're doing in Syria and Europe is "OPEVALING" these Jets much as I'll be showing the same thing for the SU-57 later this week. I know I've been "very vocal" about the F-35 pretty much from the start. Also I know that everyone who's been involved with these games in a more direct fashion has the players and the games interests in mind So this is where I stand... This is no better then having tanks in OOB's that aren't there yet. But to be clear, this next is representative of who I work for here doing this work. From Post #885 referring to Posts #879 & #884 concerning Indian MBT submissions for this last Patch in the MBT Thread. "RC4 Corporal Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: Portugal Posts: 54 Thanks: 9 Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts Re: MBT's Thank you, there is a lot of work to be done in the ORBAT issues. I dont have much time to help, if I would it would take some 3 months to give information. Its disapointing to play a Pakistan-India scenario and lost to India with weapons they dont have. Thanks" And for the others that have asked me to look into equipment across the world over the years or just play the game. This why I haven't walked away from the game or else it's likely when the "crap hit the fan" awhile back including this year and as it sometimes still does, I would've been long gone. You have to have a purpose for ANYTHING you do in life, if not. you're wasting your time!! I just wanted to be "crystal clear" on this controversial topic for everyone to understand, where I'm coming from. I'm going to spend sometime with the Daughters family before they leave early in the morning. And I have to replace my 70K tires with only 37K on them in the morning. John since you couldn't get me my JANE's yearly subscription, how about paying for my new tires!?! It'd be at least $1500.00 cheaper!!! And they did give me a real good price!! ;) :D "You Mugs" have a Good whatever it is wherever you are! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well I can finally say I feel "vindicated" after all the years of discussing my "perceived" fate of the A-10. This latest "DID" (And The Aviationist as well.) article(s) concerning this new upgrade contract (October25/19 entry.) will now keep them in active service through the early 2030's. This particular contract will not be completed until the end of 2024.
It's nice after reading all this stuff/digesting it and come to a logical solution, that works out in the end. ;) https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...program-03187/ https://theaviationist.com/2019/09/1...end-conflicts/ I was "moseying around" before I head off to the rack, and came across this... https://www.airforce-technology.com/...tack-aircraft/ There is work to be done concerning plane #8 shouldn't be bad. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I see it now-THANKS! On my list. Initially thought we had this already.
Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It looks like they are replacing the F-5's if they haven't already and there appears to be other nations kicking the tires as well.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
"perguntai ao inimigo quem somos " |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
"perguntai ao inimigo quem somos " |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
perguntai ao inimigo quem somos |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Alright! I'm confused :shock:, how come it is that I see RC4 looks like he posted something in this thread yesterday ~5:10pm under the Community Forums/The Camo Workshop/WinSPMBT sections and when I go to TO&Es section and click on the thread, there's no post.
This is new to me, am I missing something!?!:dk: OR... am I going to find out I'm missing something basic out here. :doh: (Just in case the situation warrants that in advance!) THANKS! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
How come do I see RC4 has posted something (Community Forum/The Camo Workshop and WinSPMBT sections.) in this thread but, there's no post shown in TO&Es or when I open the Thread???
Am I having a :doh: moment, as I've NEVER seen this before? Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
We are testing the forums.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It looks like it's working again.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
:birthday:
A nice change of pace and something you might appreciate in this crazy hectic world we live in nowadays. Something I can most certainly respect. The neat thing is this event is only a couple of years older then me, if you can believe that!?! https://theaviationist.com/2019/06/1...denmarks-flag/ :viking: :cheers: Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It's pretty!
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This is the USAF Public Affairs Office Announcement: The person posting this knows not what they are doing with these videos. In the interest of Public Safety, we are sending "Professionals" to assist this individual to minimize the Public Risk.
Everyone knows we don't like the A-10. and the rumors that it'll still be flying up to 2040 are untrue, along with the fact that the B-52 will still be flying that long. After all, who would in their right mind fly aircraft that long anyway!?! Not us after all we are the USAF. So about these videos everything you're seeing is false and made up the person(s) using modern video technics to substitute A-10 aircraft for what were really F-35A aircraft. REALLY would we kid you!?! Again we're the USAF Public Affairs Office and who are you believe us or whoever is presenting these videos!?! But since we couldn't intercept the posting of these videos, again, it's all just make believe. In fact we're not sure the A-10 ever really existed. So enjoy them purely from a fantasy or Sci-Fi entertainment perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzqYvcBbXAU Thank You for your time. The Team at the USAF Public Affairs Office. P.S. We disavow any association with the below emojis and don't know how it got there. :p :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Key.Aero is reporting that India has retired there last Mig-27s as of the end of December. The retirement ceremony was held at Jodhpur Air Force Station on December 27th.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Got to ready for work but, these from my files as well on India MiG-27.
They were retired on DEC 31, 2019. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/ar...-dec-31-855013 http://www.combataircraft.com/en/New...set-on-Dec-31/ (Links to same article of the first ref.) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The March issue of Air Forces Monthly is reporting that Romania has purchased 5 F-16AMs from Portugal. They are to be upgraded to Operational Flight Program M5.2 standard before entering service.
The report also states that Romania has been operating 12 other ex. Portuguese F-16s since some time in 2017. Unfortunately no exact date is given for there entry into service. The F-16 is not currently included in the Romanian OB file. The report states the Romania hopes to obtain a total of 28 F-16s from Portugal, 24 F-16AMs and 4 F-16BMs. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Yes, delivered in 30 Set 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo "" WASHINGTON, Nov 8, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Romania of weapons, equipment, and support for 12 F-16 MLU Block 15 for an estimated cost of $457 million. The Government of Romania has requested a possible sale of weapons, equipment, and support for 12 F-16 MLU Block 15 aircraft that will be procured through a third party transfer from Portugal. Articles and services will include: 13 Embedded Global Positioning Systems/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGPS/INS) with GPS Security Devices, Airborne 3 AN/ALQ-131 Electronic Countermeasure Pods 30 AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) 5 AIM-120C Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs) 60 AIM-9M Sidewinder Missiles 4 AIM-9M CATMs 48 LAU-129 Launchers 10 GBU-12 Enhanced Guided Bomb Units 18 AGM-65H/KB Maverick Missiles 4 AGM-65 CATMs 15 Multifunctional Information Distribution System/Low Volume Terminals 2 Multifunctional Information Distribution System Ground Support Systems Also included are spare and repair parts, support equipment, tanker support, ferry services, repair and return services, software development/integration, test and equipment, supply support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $457 million. The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve security of a NATO ally which continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress. The proposed sale of weapons, equipment, and support for the transferred F-16s will support Romania’s needs for its own self-defense and enhance the interoperability of these aircraft with those of the U.S. and other NATO nations. The proposed sale will support the Romanian Air Force’s (RoAF) efforts to equip and utilize the 12 F-16 aircraft it is procuring from Portugal. These aircraft will provide the RoAF with a fleet of modernized multi-role combat aircraft. This proposed sale of weapons, equipment, and follow-on F-16 support will enable Romania to support both its own air defense needs and coalition operations. The RoAF will have no difficultly absorbing these systems into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this follow-on support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractors will be: Elbit Systems of America Fort Worth, Texas Pratt and Whitney East Hartford, Connecticut BAE Systems Inc. Arlington, Virginia Lockheed Martin Corp. Fort Worth, Texas Northrup Grumman Aerospace Systems Redondo Beach, California ViaSat Inc. Carlsbad, California Data Link Solutions LLC Cedar Rapids, Iowa Snap-On Inc. Kenosha, Wisconsin Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC McLean, Virginia There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Romania. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
There was a post someplace on these forums I cannot find now that detailed a lot of reasons why the VIKhR should be set up differently than it is now with HEAT pen and I recall talk of nose and base fuses etc etc but that's all I remember but I do recall I was in the middle of some tests then it got forgotten about until I ran the first "errors" scan for Scenarios I do before starting to assemble the patches and it gave me a high number of "error" reports and it all lead back to that forgotten experiment that had 222 for AP and Heat pen ratings for a missile loaded on an aicraft
Maybe that will shake someone elses memory but it's not critical I know who posted it but the bottom line is that cannot be done with aircraft mounted weapons ( helos yes...aircraft NO ). The only way to make HEAT pen work is give it AP ammo and AP ammo on an aircraft is CLUSTER MUNITIONS.......so the "experiment" has been reversed and VIKhR's are back to the way they need to be set up. Just FYI............. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well while waiting for the Patch Releases to come out, I offer some comparative and insightful reading. If you are not comfortable in reading technical material, than beyond some of the graphs this isn't for you.
I like AUSA as these guys are mostly aviation specialists and scientists. They use open and other sources and have the capability to wind tunnel aircraft designs to come up with data concerning radar cross sections etc. that are gleamed from such testing. The focus here is on F-35 versus many others. What is interesting in some cases, is how viable in todays world some older aircraft still are in certain categories shown in the tables. It is further interesting to see how what was written then still holds true to what's been posted up to now on F-35. It is absolutely important to note that the T-50/PAF-FA is and has been DOA since India dropped out of the program about 3/4 years ago. This is significant in that the tables were using the design capabilities for that program at that time. India specifically dropped out because Russia was trying to cut costs, which felt would (And would end up doing so.) significantly compromise it's "standing" as a 5th GEN fighter. As I've already posted numerous times, most experts now consider the T-50 as a 4th GEN ++ aircraft. Concerning the J-20 from China, the jury is still out on it as well, however more recent data is showing that it's also closer to an advanced 4th GEN or might end up also in the 4th GEN++ category. It's important to maintain that information in "the back of your mind" when reading this. The "bottom-line" is from the aviation "purists" is, and I'll just use our games timeline (Though it goes beyond that.), there is only one true 5TH GEN fighter in the world and that's of course the F-22 RAPTOR. All that being said this is a very good read and still relevant today. http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html And they do an excellent job with Anti-Air Missiles as well. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
GREAT! I'm reading a review of the 1950's "War of the Worlds" re-release by Criterion on Blu-Ray dot com and followed the link contained within the review. How I missed this I don't know!?! :doh:
Now I'm left with trying to figure out how to model this craft and to what "country" to assign them to. The best I can figure is "RED" or "GREEN" and the videos are released from the USN and DOD. Though I did see the "Hey Dude" video on national news awhile back. I'll need to figure out if they're more Air to Air, Air to Ground or Multi-Purpose craft!?! Just not sure at this time, in the meantime here's the ref. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/pent...vy-pilots.html Back to my review and walk there after. ;) :p :D Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
From the August issue of AirForces magazine. The U.S. Air Force has retired their last four AC-130U gunships (unit 786). A farewell fly past took place at Hurlburt AFB in Florida on June 3rd and the last AC-130U left Hurlburt for the storage facility at Davis-Monthan AFB on June 26. Nothing in the article about a replacement aircraft.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
The aliens show up in late 1942 and pretty much clean clock on all the combatants currently engaged in WWII but over the winter (and it's a tough one with everyone's infrastructure got hammered) various forces unite (more-or-less) to oppose the aliens and U.S., Soviet, German, etc. production is getting to 1943 levels. The aliens while FAR superior 1-for-1 have a problem ... no manufacturing base (the didn't bring anything along because conquering primitives doesn't require it). Thus losses, even if they kill 20-to-1 cannot be made up, nor can high-tech ammunition (laser guided bombs, sabot rounds, night vision equipment, etc.) be replaced. My idea was a fixed core modern U.S. force (the aliens) vs the (essentially) endless waves of early 1943 earth forces. VERY limited replacement points for the aliens, they're allowed to repair damaged units but not replace destroyed ones. Helos, air, and off-map artillery/rockets would be AUXILIARY units the designer can gradually reduce scenario-by-scenario to represent the lack of high-tech ammo. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I know somewhere in here I covered some of this ground already to include the retirement of the AC-130H SPECTRE.
Some of the refs below I know are "recalled" from the past/or from my files that I just never acted on for various reasons to be covered at the end, many are not. So lets begin by ref date order... First the overview. http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/ac_130.htm AC-130U SPOOKY... First "GUNSHIP" retires... https://www.afsoc.af.mil/News/Articl...pooky-retires/ USAF Factsheet... https://www.hurlburt.af.mil/About-Us...pooky-gunship/ Final Combat Deployment... https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...at-deployment/ Last ARMED GUNSHIP retired on 19 August 2019... https://www.dm.af.mil/Media/News/Art...to-retirement/ How they served (This crew is not an exception, but represent the whole.) and part of the reason operationally for my comments below... https://www.mildenhall.af.mil/News/A...istan-mission/ Major USAF (Those that served in the USAF will understand better probably.) milestone achieved... https://www.hurlburt.af.mil/News/Art...-with-ac-130u/ CINCLANTHOME has informed me that my time is limited (Lunch/Shower/work/TGIF. Interim AC 130 Gunship that I believe might still be in service and also to be replaced by the AC-130J GHOSTRIDER (Which might have to wait until EARLY tomorrow morning.) AC-130W STINGER... https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...0w-stinger-ii/ http://www.americanspecialops.com/us...-dragon-spear/ The above are the EARLY models the 30mm GAU would be kept, the 25mm would replaced by the 105mm due to technical issues to include gun targeting issues. Below are for current version... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...perately-needs https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...owitzer-video/ https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/th...omb-1584518199 https://www.airforce-technology.com/...er-ii-gunship/ Just got informed of the time-GOTTA RUN!! :eek: Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The problem is two fold
1/ there are few slots left in the US OOB 2/ the "new" generation of gunships deploy weapons that are not compatable with that unitclass in the game and making that happen for what amounts to a very minor niche weapon system is just not likely to happen so you might get one with added GAU and higher EW and FC but that's all |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I thought I made a comment that I was going to end this process with some final thoughts concerning the "GUNSHIPS" in general in my last post but, my brain got ahead of my :typing: which isn't unusual as some know from past posts. But to get a sense of where I might be going with this, you might want to ask yourself (If you keep up on these things.), Why hasn't he ever summitted the ORBITAL AC-235/AC-295 Light (Pocket) Gunships that we and several foreign countries are using now?
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...verting-06778/ But first I'm not finished addressing the full line of the AC-130 gunships and I pickup with the newest most current version and deadliest by far the AC-130J GHOSTRIDER... https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...0j-ghostrider/ (Along with the AC-130W, they can carry in 2 wing mounted launchers 6 to 8 HELLFIRE II missiles.) Another OVERVIEW... https://www.afsoc.af.mil/News/Articl...fleet-growing/ The BLK 20 Gunships have been in operation for about 2-3 years now as flown by the 73rd Spec Op SDRN, this next addresses the BLK 30 as the 4th Spec Op SDRN receives it's first one. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...0j-ghostrider/ And I end this part with a "niche" article, the first all reserve crew to fly a Gunship since 1995. https://www.919sow.afrc.af.mil/News/...-reserve-crew/ There you have for for the AC-130 Gunships in the last 2 posts of mine-done. So where does this leave us? At this point we're 2 aircraft behind the AC-130W and AC-130J BLK 30, I do not include the AC-130J BLK 20 because it's an interim aircraft only until the technologies had "matured" to improve the avionics and electronics onboard the aircraft intended for the BLK 30 models which all will be made into. My "Deep Process" over these handful of years and I mean from all aspects to include my "emotional" if you will feelings on the subject by the numbers. 1. I truly love these planes from a technical aspect right down to the crews that serve on them to put all the aspects of these complicated machine together in a very unique and deadly weapon. Most importantly the bravery of these crews to ensure the protection of the ground forces they support. Please look up the "Sprit '03". https://www.wearethemighty.com/histo...2#rebelltitem2 https://www.afsoc.af.mil/News/Articl...03-remembered/ https://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threa...31-1991.19898/ Alright so I helped! 2. They were amongst the first items I looked into for my first "modern" submission format in my Patch/Submission Thread on Pg.5 and more being discussed in the same on Pg. 7 back 2011. And of course prior to and since in the Jets/Plane Thread. 3. What I know and more encapsulated in this one indisputable fact going back to "Puff The Magic Dragon" which at first was just armed with (3) 7.62mm GAU guns. I have verified this information I don't know how many times over the years to include the newer gunships as well. "The armament chosen for the gunships was the General Electric rotary-barreled M-134 machine gun, known as the “minigun,” which could fire either fifty or a hundred rounds of 7.62-mm ammunition per second. Initially three miniguns per ship would be fixed-mounted in a side-firing configuration. Positioning the aircraft at the proper altitude and angle was the only means of aiming the weapons. Using this armament, a C-47 flying at three thousand feet in a tight circle could place a bullet in every square yard of a football-field-sized area (five thousand square yards) in approximately 17 seconds. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/20...e-vietnam-war/ That's over 50 years ago!!! 4.And while considering the above information, consider this also, to save me time in discussing attack capabilities of these aircraft. An AC-130U SPOOKY in 2011 as posted in my first submission noted above could at that time, track and simultaneously attack 3 targets stationary or moving. That would increase over time. The AC-130W/J can do the same with at least 10-12 targets. 5. We cannot match the up to 10hr+/- loiter time on station or the exponential increase in ground target combat coverage since "Puff" 6. I have asked over the years about adjusting the flight path to a straight-line or semi-circle (Thinking map, North on top entering from the SE corner to middle of the map and exiting off the SW corner.) to allow it to engage targets of opportunity on it's flight path. I was just trying to think outside the box. 7. LUCKY 7 and Reality; Both Don and Andy were patient enough to inform me of the game realities of the code. If it could be done it would be a massive undertaking, of which I'd never ask them to do. 8. Not long after this I came to the conclusion this platform is probably the most "niche" of ANY piece of equipment in the game. we have, even more so then the MP's I submitted for deletion from the USA OOB. And yes they were deleted. 9. We have always had and will only have 1 50 meter attack hex, "Puff" 50 years ago had a "kill zone" equal a box of 4 50 meter hexes any of the "newer" AC-130 (With possible exception of the AC-130A) Gunships could hit any targets on our maps. 10. We will never benefit as players with the current situation, if there's no benefit why keep it? So from above, I asked you to consider why I never asked for the AC-235/295 to be submitted though I posted on them numerous times. The better question now, knowing how I love these aircraft and crews is with the information I provided you over the last two of my posts is...Why hasn't he submitted the AC-130W and AC-130J? I think you have my answer now. When I first started equipment submissions using the Threads I started for that purpose and news, Don patiently and sometimes more strongly (M-60 RISE submission) stressed the importance of added value to the game and player. I would recognize this more on my own, but the more so recently (Last 8yrs or so.) due to the ever decreasing OOB SLOT situation for many countries. It's time, I put a lot of work into these over the years from many different angles, however, I would ask to be allowed to submit every Gunship in the USA OOB for deletion. I have a jet in mind of which there is only one, that was the most prolific fighter bomber in the USAF for at least 12 years and we have only 1 version. To have even 1 or better 2 more would serve the game and players better. And we'd still have plenty of room to get into the game what we need for the last submission to close out 2025 in the game in 2026. But the Gunships have to go to make that happen. I'm convinced of that now. AC-130 Gunships "Blue Skies and Following Winds" EDIT: Just finished my walk does wonders after a great dinner and clears your head. So...Word teched throughout for a better flow of info./#10 moderately reworked./And I present an OPTION so at my very basic level of understanding, I know equipment sometimes get embedded into scenarios and campaigns from the players thus making some equipment removal a PITA. Understand I ask this from the perspective of any piece of equipment being removed. Will X weapon system stay "active" once removed from any OOB if put into the "RED" or "GREEN" OOB's for the purpose of maintaining them in game submitted scenarios and campaigns? I understand in the game I believe for generated games the player could always use them by selecting the Allies button and "RED" or "GREEN" OOB. I'm just curious is all. I'd still like to see them removed from the USA OOB IF POSSIBLE. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Due to restrictions in the game code gunships are for flavour only they cannot operate as they should do so are not at all dangerous.
Its basically a spotter plane that attacks the hex its plotted to circle on rather than searching for a target near the plot. Therefore if there is nothing in the hex it becomes a very expensive spotter plane. As its the only unit that operates that way its not worth fixing because you can buy a spotter & cheap ground attack plane for less than the gunship. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Would the gunship aircraft not work better if they were changed to ground attack class? especially now they are missile armed (Griffins and Hellfires, I believe)
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Yes, I understand that - but the gunship currently can only fire at the one hex not even when it sees a juicy target a couple of hexes away. Whilst converting the AC-130 to a ground attack class loses the "circle the target hex" it does mean it can strafe and/or fire missiles at stuff it "sees" nearby the assigned hex. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Circling gunships were brought in for scenario designers to do a Vietnam "spooky" mission for added flavour.
That is all they were meant to do, and nothing is going to change with them. They are a sub-niche scenario designer item. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Yep, that's why they were added and they could be moved to the green OOB and open up a dozen slots in the USA OOB...
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Thank You Don, you answered my question as I poised In the "EDIT" of my last post.
I guess I can within the parameters you set aside and I fully agree with, recheck my data for the improved FC, EW and right now I forgot the third item you had in that post. Another issue came up while investigating these platforms with the "newer" source data and that's the fact these planes were armored to some degree. It bears investigation but my thinking is something similar to the A-10 comes to mind due to the close nature of their operations. GREEN will be a fine color for them and the AC-130W and AC-130J BLK30 additions. After all "It's the Luck of the Irish" that comes to mind as in 55 years of operations only 17 aircraft have been lost to combat operations. Of those, 15 in Vietnam and 2 since the last being Sprit '03. The planes get saved and we get 12 USA slots, sounds REAL GOOD to me as well!! That's a real good deal all-around. Regards, Pat :capt: |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.