|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Okay I agree there are cases where a fighter would carry a couple of bombs or rockets but realisticly who would buy them?
Only thing they might get used for is to bleed off AAA as they would be relativly cheaper with the reduced weapon loadout. Scenario designers can adjust the weapon load accordingly if its needed. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
1 Attachment(s)
Well my research is about finished and really didn't take that long, but after taking a look at a sampling of NATO countries I might take the same tack. What I've found in general terms for NATO without giving away the "big picture" that I'm working on...
1. The B-52 should appear six years earlier then it does, I could've missed something, but. the earliest date I saw in the USA/USMC OOB's was 1960. The B-52A became operational in 1954 followed in 1955 by the B-52B. people forget how old this bomber really is, further the life cycle has been extended out to 2044. The last B-52H was delivered to the USAF in the Fall of 1962 as follows... "The B-52A first flew in 1954, and the B model entered service in 1955. A total of 744 B-52s were built with the last, a B-52H, delivered in October 1962." http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...et.asp?fsID=83 2. The F-105 THUNDERCHIEF ("THUD" to those that flew, maintained it and where just glad to see from the ground in NAM.) is sorely under represented in the game. Don't worry not going to go nuts here but I believe there were only two or three units represented. Considering this plane flew over 75% of all ground attack missions in the first half of the Vietnam War, SEAD version not seen either which was also a primary mission and was specialized I believe with the F-105F/G, and was very important to the USAF ground attack capability in Europe in the 60's it's worth a second look to maybe add at least three or four more UNITS. I've seen these planes up close in a couple of air museums but, in the course of my research have found through numerous refs that this plane carried more ordnance then a B-17/24 bomber that also I've seen many times before. If you've seen them you wouldn't believe it. But it'll help to know the "THUD" also had an internal bomb bay. It could/did carry eight 750lb. "Iron Bombs" with auxiliary fuel tanks http://www.burrusspta.org/thud.html! http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircr...ircraft_id=160 http://www.aviationspectator.com/res...rcraft-profile "Meanwhile, the USAF was gradually changing the anticipated F-105 mission from nuclear interdiction to conventional bombing. The Look Alike upgrades increased the aircraft's capacity from four to 16 conventional 750 pound (340 kg) bombs on underwing and fuselage centerline hardpoints and added the equipment to launch AGM-12 Bullpup air-to-ground missiles. In June 1961, an F-105D delivered 7 tons (15,430 lb) of conventional bombs during a USAF test — at the time a record for a single-engine airplane and a payload three times heavier than World War II's four-engined heavy bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-24 Liberator, though aerial refueling would be required for long missions. In fact, one of the F-105Ds was named Memphis Belle II after the famed World War II B-17." 3. Turkey OOB for FYI and will be submitted formally later UNITS 558 shows a flying "Armored Car F-100F" and 569 a USAF F-100D. The following pic is of a Turkish F-100D, Could not find a Turkish "F" on BING or Google. Difference between the two visually not noticeable, recommend pic for both. Attachment 12032 Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Pat.......when we put things like the B-52 in we ask ourselves questions like......." How many would have existed at the first introduction date to participate in ground attack missions? " and the answer is ZERO and if you'd asked yourself that question when you started this quest you would have arrived at the same answer.
Seriously........you want us to make the B-52 available 6 years before the 1960 date that they appear in the game ? Seriously ? 1954 ? The first wing to use them didn't become operational until March 1956 and their task was strategic bombing NOT tactical ground support. I think we are being EXTREMELY GENEROUS with the 1960 start date given the first time they were used in conventional bombing was Arc Light in mid 1965 and I am MORE inclinded to move the date BACK to 1965 as it is in the USMC OOB As for the F-105 ....... are we really under represented in the US OOB for ground attack aircraft with a wide variety of weapons that players have to choose from ?? I'm not quite sure when some players started assuming out purpose was to include every possible combinations of weapons available that any given model of aircraft could carry but we don't. There are 28 units slots let open in the US OOB..... why would we waste them on aircraft when there is already a wide variety of weapon loadouts available to choose from on a variety of aircraft ??? Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Keep in mind the B-52's were designed/intended as strategic bombers. So they would not have been available to anyone but SAC when first deployed.
Even in early Vietnam they weren't used for conventional bombing missions (they used B-25's and 26's). I agree with Don that mid 1965 is a "reasonable" availability date. |
B-52's may have been rolled out for display in 50's the cold war as a almost global bomber with refueling, to intimidate the ruskies but not used until the 60's in Vietnam.
I was on SAC base for years,you never forget the smell of jet exhuast as 20 or so touch and go when on alert. Anyways,i'm sure we can all agree,,level bombers are really not an important aspect at all to the game,right? |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
A March 2012 report in the magazine Air Forces Monthly suggested that some of the 72 ex-British Harrier-IIs might fly again; the USMC planned to equip two squadrons with the latter GR.9/9A models due to the well maintained condition of the airframes at RAF Cottesmore, where the aircraft were stored and maintained following their retirement.
[[Gary Parsons (March 2012). "UK Harriers will fly again with USMC". Air Forces Monthly (Key Publishing) (288)]] Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has since stated, however, that the USMC has never had any plans to operate the ex-RAF Harriers. [[Majumdar, Dave (9 June 2012). "USMC hopes new method for tracking fatigue life will help extend Harrier to 2030". Flightglobal.com.]] ########## TAV-8B/AV-8B Day Attack (DA): One Rolls Royce Pegasus F402-RR-406 turbofan engine with approximately 20,280 pounds of thrust. AV-8B Night Attack (NA)/AV-8B Radar: One Rolls Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408A turbofan engine with approximately 22,200 pounds of thrust. The original DA AV-8B was replaced by the NA variant in 1990. The NA configuration includes: night vision goggle-compatible cockpit controls and displays, a wide-field-of-view HUD, NAVFLIR Forward Looking Infrared system, a Digital Map Unit (DMU), and an Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS) with laser spot tracker, which provides first pass day or night target strike capability at low altitude/high speed. In 1993, the Radar AV-8B was fielded with the full night fighting capability and an AN/APG-65 Radar set to improve A/G and A/A tactical effectiveness. In 1994, the U.S.M.C. began a remanufacturing process to convert DA AV-8Bs to the Radar configuration (REMAN); deliveries began in 1996. The Spanish Navy has DA/Radar AV-8Bs. The Italian Navy has Radar AV-8Bs only. Federation of American Scientists |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I was using these as part of a "research" project I was working on. I did not want to waste these resources so I intend to post them on both the Jets and Planes...and MBT Threads. The information has been verified by history and newer documents released from other sources. They serve to both inform and to assist the game designers out there. Posted twice as not everyone has the same shared interests.
The first two is a current listing of all the worlds Air Forces current equipment and other status (See the "Legend" first and on Imagery Equipment. The accuracy of the info is as good as Jane's as they use some of the same sources (And list some of them as I remember.). The rest again are from the CIA, released ten to twenty years later from date of the reports, classified Secret to Top Secret. All are PDF formatted. Flight Global... http://img.en25.com/Web/FlightGlobal...Forces2010.pdf http://img.en25.com/Web/FlightGlobal...2011Report.pdf CIA AIR... http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000...0000261313.pdf http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000...0000278545.pdf CIA LAND/AIR... http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000...0001099668.pdf http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000...0000261340.pdf http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_000...0000261345.pdf Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I guess this means you don't look at the game USMC OOB very closely... |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
When I first reported on this awhile ago, I was asked if the USMC might use the the UK HARRIERS for more then spare parts and my response was along the lines of "it might be possible but..." I think most know what the "but" was as posted in this thread somewhere. Someone out here knows very well what NAVAIR does and what it's responsible for when it comes to both USN and USMC aviation. There is no information to support the USMC is flying or has assigned any UK HARRIERS to any USMC SQD.
From June this year... "The sale of these [aircraft] supplies critically needed AV-8B aircraft parts," NAVAIR says. "Many of these parts are obsolete with no source of manufacture. As a result, the USMC has realized an immediate improvement in readiness." But contrary to media reports, the USMC never had any intention of flying the British jets. Nor did the service ever consider replacing the Boeing F/A-18D fleet with the GR9. "The USMC operation of UK Harriers was not under consideration," NAVAIR says. Here's the full article and there's more. http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/artic...106658423.html With the NAVAIR website... 1. Not listed on under Fixed Wing aircraft. 2. Search result for UK Harriers...No Results Found. 3. Search result for GR 9 Harrier...About 8 hits for the AV-8B II. 4. Search result for Harrier...I think it was 33 all concerned with the AV-8B/II to include SQD. deployments. 5. Searched 36 pages of NAVAIR and associated commands "PAO" press releases back to 5/21/2010. with no results. Did learn that AV-8BII has successfully flown on a bio fuel, PMA-257 that is in charge of maintaining the USMC Harriers got a new CO very recently and that I might've missed the below news along with the fact it illustrates the point of this exercise. Found this along the way USMC retired the CH-53D end date change might be required... http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=4920 With the HARRIER flying until 2030 this was the only viable option to buy well maintained Harriers for spares with the exception of Spain that had theirs updated I believe last year or 2010 in the U.S. There were also many stories around the time of and in the early stages of the sale that many of the UK airframes suffered from structural fatigue issues. Some was reported by UK MOD and supposedly mostly repaired during the last upgrade period that brought the GR.7 to the GR.9 standard ~2007/2008. I feel these later stories were a "cover" to soften the issues of the price the USMC was able to buy them for. If NAVAIR doesn't say they're flying...they're not. I've liked the HARRIER since I was well...a little younger and that was the UK version of course back then. There was an excellent book written on the UK HARRIERS in the Falklands War by a SQD. Leader that I believe got two kills there. Might be posted somewhere in the thread where the HARRIER posts are. The HARRIER remains one of the best Ground Attack aircraft out there in both it's last UK versions and currently as the AV-8BII and I have to say Spains new version as well. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I mentioned it because they ARE in the OOB, and shouldn't be.
I know the patch was released in March when the possibility of equiping some squadrons with them was being considered. Since then NAVAIR has spoken, and as Pat said, they have the final say on what flies and what doesn't in the USN/USMC. ########## First time I saw a Harrier was about '77-'78 when I watched a truck pull out of the tree line into a small clearing and lay a few sheets of runway matting out. Then a Harrier passed overhead, came to a hover, and landed. A fuel truck came out of the tree line and refueled it. After another truck rolled out and loaded it with ordenance. Then it took off, straight up. Finally truck #1 picked up the runway matting. Whole process start to finish was maybe 15 minutes. It's REALLY hard to bomb or shell an airfield that only exists for 15 minutes at a time. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
5 Attachment(s)
See Post #96 for background...one of the guys that helped me as mentioned was a MiG-29 pilot with the LSV/LK of the DDR. Steve currently serves as a Lt Col. in the Luftwaffe Reserve flying something called a EUROFIGHTER ;). He was also very helpful in my "Warsaw Pact Project" and had recently sent me these pictures that I have his permission to post here and for you Don, to use if you wish for the East German OOB. Steve took these himself and you can get the details off the website from the above mentioned post for you photo hounds. Search the web all you want and I promise you won't find better pictures of DDR aircraft out there at least from my searches. First up is the MiG-23BN which was the only LSK/LV aircraft flown as a Fighter-Bomber which is what the MiG-23BN was designed for. I (We) hope you'll enjoy them and as I requested these, thank you Steve for sending them on.
Attachment 12071 Attachment 12073 Attachment 12072 Attachment 12075 Attachment 12074 Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
5 Attachment(s)
Again Post #96 is the reference point, especially for the next set of pictures of the LSV/LK DDR MiG-29A which was unsuccessfully tested for use as a Fighter Bomber by the DDR.
Though a potent Interceptor especially in a close in dog fight, it's main issue was it's lack of range and that it was a maintenance hog. But when "all was right with he world" it ranked among the best in the world. Most of these would fly with the Luftwaffe after reunification and continue to fly currently in two Fighter SQDs. of the Polish Air Force. The Luftwaffe would upgrade these to the MiG-28G variant that improved its abilities as an Interceptor and made it NATO compliant. What's important here are these, again taken by Steve. First up the DDR years enjoy... Attachment 12076 Attachment 12077 Attachment 12080 Attachment 12078 Attachment 12079 Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
5 Attachment(s)
I accidentally a couple of years ago figured out how to
"trick" this program to allow me to download more pictures, it's one of those "I wish I would've written it down." moments. Tonight a "tail end charlie" and the Luftwaffe MiG-29G. Again Post #96 and from Steve. Attachment 12082 Attachment 12083 Attachment 12084 Attachment 12085 Attachment 12086 Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
5 Attachment(s)
This is it for the picture gallery, we hope you enjoyed them as they are a rare find and the MiG-29A/G is a good looking bird in the air and sitting on the ground. Don feel free to use the DDR MiG-21 picture if you want. Generally a little difficult to find in of itself, you'll see two pictures of the MiG-29UB two seat trainer from the DDR in the last two pics. Again go to Post #96 for further info and to see other pictures not shown here click on the Wehrmacht website link. And Don, Steve has some great shots of the DDR
Hind-24D and P helos over there. If interested let me know. First another "Tail End Charlie" DDR MiG-29A aerial shot, then the DDR MiG-21, LUFTWAFFE MiG-29G Camo etc. Again Enjoy and have a great day! And since my "project" he might "seek a peek" thanks Steve for the use of these pictures!! Attachment 12091 Attachment 12092 Attachment 12093 Attachment 12094 Attachment 12095 Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well in preparing some notes for the A-10, I rechecked my ref here and right now don't feel like logging there now to unlock the article. However in our continued efforts to disengage, cut back, retire and just depart in general the trend in Europe continues. I already in the MBT post noted a couple of months back that the last ABRAMS left Europe from Germany. Now the USAF has pulled out the last A-10 SQD. from Germany and by default Europe. I have to agree with the DID folks, the last thing Europe in general needs is fighters, those you have plenty of. A capable all around ground attack aircraft would've served a better purpose left there but Para 1. covers that. Within 15 years we'll leave you in Europe with military admin types and tourists! God help you all then!?! ;) Maybe some will be MARINES at least they will know how to use their weapons!! https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...program-03187/
Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I always thought it was a shame they never developed a carrier-capable version of the A-10. Stick one of the many insane Navy/Marine ground support pilots in one and they'd probably terrify the bad guys almost as much as they do their non-ground-support brethren.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well Saturday 6/29/2013 marked another end of an era, the Luftwaffe has formally retired their F-4F PHANTOM. I have posted in the translated version below, however, in deference to our German speaking friends (And others.) I have posted the ref as is in German.
Open Day in Wittmundhafen Witt mouth, 29.06.2013. According 279,000 flight hours in four decades lifted today, Saturday the 29th June, the F-4F Phantom for the last time from the airport of Jagdgeschwader 71 "Richthofen" from. Almost 130,000 guests from around the world braved the bad weather and had traveled to the open day to Wittmund to pay tribute to a legend among the fighters. The Phantom was originally planned as a transitional solution. "In the next five to ten years, the Phantom will serve us well! It was said, than in the early years Neunzehnhundersiebziger the decision to procure the McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom II was like. Later there was talk of a transitional solution of twelve to 15 years " , explains Colonel retired Gerhard Ballhausen, Chairman of the Community Richthofen tradition. What 31 August 1973 began with the landing of the first two Phantom jets, today ended with the open day at the NATO - Airport Wittmundhafen. However, about three years later than initially planned. From near and far The adoption of the "forever young" fighter jets attracted nearly 130,000 visitors to Witt mouth. Many of them took long journeys to be able to attend the recent launch of the phantom can. The partially even traveled from Asia, Australia and the Americas fans of aviation, had been the day before to shoot the opportunity within a spotter Days, their personal souvenir photo with one of the ten remaining in Wittmundhafen F-4F Phantom jets. On this Saturday, the airfield opened then for everyone. Without a rope and double bottom "In over 2,500 flight hours, I was able to gather, I did not even have a serious problem" , Lieutenant General Charles Muellner showed highly satisfied with the "air defense Diesel" as the phantom was jokingly called. As a former Phantom pilot and Chief of Air Force, the honor due to him to deliver the opening speech of the open day. In it he described his personal experiences from the cockpit. "Mutual trust was especially important. Trust between humans and machines. Confidence in the technology as well as for air traffic control on the ground. Especially within the crew. No rope or double bottom but working as a team have created safety. The phantom was at any time a reliable member of this team. Of the Air Force team. " Phantom Farewell - F-4F Phantom met Euro Fighter A special highlight was the crowd in the afternoon. When flying program "Phantom Farewell" met past and future of Wittmunder flight operations in direct comparison to one another. In the morning already flying program under the motto "50 Years of Aviation" for good entertainment had caused among the spectators. However, as the F-4F Phantom Anniversary machine rolled to the runway, everyone knew that a historic moment was imminent. "Many of these people have spent decades in the cockpit of this aircraft or have screwed around countless hours on it. For them, this is now more than just a departure from an airplane " , said Colonel Gerhard Roubal, wing commander of JG 71 "R", the many media representatives during a press conference the day before. He was right. Among the spectators could see, among many cameras flashing some tears on the faces of many of the former squadron. The last phantom off on schedule by 14 clock. Withdraw the honor as the last phantom crew of Wittmundhafen deserved the pilot Lieutenant Colonel Alex Berk and of course himself the wing commander. They started in the special anniversary Phantom painted with the tactical number 37 +01. This was the first Phantom, on 31 August was landed in 1973 in Witt mouth and is obtained by the anniversary flight, a place as a monument to 40 years F-4F Phantom Witt mouth. On the half hour flight program was attended by a total of four phantom jets, two Euro Fighter. Since April this year, the new multi-role showcase the Air Force has already landed in Witt mouth. By the year 2018 a total of 18 of these new high-tech jets here find their new home and step into the big shoes of the legendary McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom II. Indoor Party and Serenade for completion At the end of the day of the open door rises today evening the large hall party on the grounds of the airport. For this purpose, up to 10,000 guests are expected. Tomorrow, Sunday is a serenade on the square in Wittmundhafen the conclusion of the "Phantom Farewell" weekend. http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luf...k5joCAIqJiRs!/ Will need to definetly now based on new information, make the following changes to the German OOB... CHANGE/GERMANY/MBB F-4F/UNITS 291 & 294/START DATE to SEP 1973 vice JAN 1972.// also CHANGE/GERMANY/MBB F-4F/UNITS 292 & 293/END DATE to JUL 2013 vice DEC 2014.// We discussed this about two years ago or less and some of the info then even supported a date out to 2015 for the retirement of these jets. We decided to leave those end dates alone pending a final resolution and now we have it. That's why it's so necessary to keep checking back "on the news of the day", it's on my list. http://www.touchdown-aviation.com/ty...phantom-ii.php I used the Luftwaffe start date (31 AUG 1973.) +1 from the article vice the immediate above civilian ref. date of JAN 1974. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
German OOB now adjusted but they last flew 29th June so 6/2013 in game includes all of June so the end date is 6/13
Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Don,
Understand (Better now.) your end date. Appreciate the early action, it'll save a little work at my end. I think this is a good time to go "dark" and get to work (:clap:, Hey I heard that!!) on this stuff. Thanks again! Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
2 Attachment(s)
I'll be quick here as I have an early start and will be on the road in the morning. As noted in the previous posts above the Luftwaffe
F-4F issue (Dates) have been resolved. Steve in an unrelated manner sent me the below pics as a coincidence to the topic above. However I was asked to hold them until after they were published in Germany for one of the avaition publications he's an editor for when not acting as a LtCol. in the Luftwaffe active Reserve (What a rough life! ;)) flying the EUROFIGHTER. For background a portion of the email he sent on 7/7/13 then enjoy the pics... "Last week the Luftwaffe put their last F-4F Phantoms out of service, and I had the opportunity in the end of May to make a photo flight to catch the specially painted bird (pic attached). Then I was on my annual reserve exercise in the last two weeks of June, this time in the far south with JG 74 at Neuburg at the Danube. And because our flight test facility at Manching was in the neighbourhood, I had the opportunity to make a photo flight to get pics of their last bird also (pic attached, too). Flight test will operate its remaining two F-4Fs three weeks longer. All the Phantom pics had to be sorted out fast so that the aviation publications I also work for has them in time." Pics in order of the email portion... Attachment 12603 Attachment 12604 Again enjoy I'm off for some much needed R&R. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Oh, I've been meaning to ask for a while now, but keep forgetting to do so. Are we going to integrate the US Small Diameter Bomb series? The GBU-39 has been in service for a while now. It'd mean a terrifying number of standoff shots per aircraft.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Depending on the source it's either been used, just tested or only next year ready for full production. I know the F-22 can carry 8 plus two AMRAAMs but that's all so if anyone ( Pat ?:) ) wants to dig into this further maybe we can get it in this next release....maybe
From a game perspective we need to know how that weapon would be any different than a Maverick or a Paveway although it would allow more carried per aircraft. The F-22 in the game that carries 2 1000lb JDAM's could carry 8 GBU-39's. What I need to know is how it would compare to a maverick or paveway type weapon for the various fields that need to be entered to create a weapon Also....... Boeing says the weapon has been in use on the F-15E since 2006. We allow the F-15E to carry eight 500 pound paveways so what I need to know is......... is that correct ( according to the website below...... no way ) and if yes then how many GBU-39's will it carry ? It may be that in game terms there is no need to add this as, you may have noticed, the number of slots available for new things is not infinite Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Here's a little project for someone ( anyone...... not just Pat )
This http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/weapons...etric-standoff offers me clear, concise information on various bomb load configurations for an F-15. Does anyone ( anyone... not just Pat:) ) know of a website that would give equally detailed information about..... oh IDK...... as a dream every other combat aircraft used in the world ? Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I wish.
best I could come up with was stuff like : The F-4 could get off the ground carrying 24 x 500 lb bombs, but the fuel required ment that if the target wasn't at the end of the runway it couldn't reach it and return to base. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Yeah, I've been looking for exact information on loadouts and payloads vs range and practicality for all manners of aircraft for forever now, but hard information is extermely rare. I've found that Greg V. Goebel's invaluable Air Vectors website is pretty good about disambiguating between what could theoretically be carried versus what could actually be carried, up to an extent, so that might be a starting point.
As for the GBU-39, it's been in active service since 2006. The spec sheet says it is as effective versus concrete as a 2000lb Paveway, which I find difficult to believe, but that sounds like it'd be able to knock out just about any tank. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well I just finished wrapping CINCLANTHOME's Christmas presents that I've gotten thus-an excellent exercise in moral building, patience and precision!?! ;) So my mood is wonderful right now. First Don excellent site, I have a MiG site that offers the same type weapons config drawing for some of the MiG varients. It makes it easier "to see it" for perspective.
So to the GBU-39 or the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). In regards to the F-22 RAPTOR I have started with my normal search pattern (For both really.) which if I'm lucky will give me my answers right away or confirm some information, provide me with some good pictures should they be needed and hopefully enough data to make it worth my time and others to use as a ref that could (And have.) opened up others unrelated issues. Again there is progression below in the refs. Two planes were mentioned concerning the SDB, so I'll start with the... F-15E STRIKE EAGLE... The answer is up to 12. It will still carry an Air to Air load. http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f15_eagle.htm http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...ike-eagle.aspx http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/ See the weapons section for all above. F-22 RAPTOR... The answer is 8 plus 2 AMRAAM. http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f22_raptor.htm http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...22-raptor.aspx http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/ See the weapons section for all above. That's what normaly happens "tail end Charlie" gets it in the end more ways then one. Might go beyond the last ref. but for as many years as I've used it now I normally won't. But I always have more along the same lines as ref. 3 (Also note the "Related News" section to the right.) for each of the above. Many times the answer will require you to find what will hopefully will be a reliable ref. to a particular plane/jet. This much more the case with older planes, contrary to many peoples beliefs, the web data dumps old information just like a library gets rid of old books. A perfect example is below... http://burrusspta.org/thud.html http://www.burrusspta.org/105ordnance.html This was are our primier Fighter Bomber for over ten years. That being said, someone might be wondering why I kept this site... hmmm one just never knows does one!?! :rolleyes: It's late and I have to work later today so-good night!! Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
From my quick look on SDBs seems to me
Stuff in service is for use against installations or stationary targets like say SAM sites. The penetration is gained because the bomb aligns its body perfectly with the approach vector just before impact meaning it uses ALL the kinetic energy it is carrying. The one for use against moving targets like armour is a different more complex beast & either isn't in service yet or has not been for that long. In game terms its harder to distract/jam than its predecessors |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Thanks everyone. Because of space limitations in the OB I have added that as a new weapon to one F-22
This site has some good info http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Don glad you found this site! Yes the AUSA site is excellent!! I hope you aerial "jocks" would give it a look. I used the site for the S-400 TRUMF (In a sepreate thread.) submission years ago before I had the SPA/SPAA Thread going and am tracking the S-500 on it as well now. I see technical data not seen elsewhere along with system pictures before there there are system pictures if you catch my meaning. They also have a very respectable weapons database. This is a highly respected think tank that focuses only on air and air defence systems.
I leave you with an abstact based on their technical analysis of the jets involved. Note: As I've posted in the "news" portion in of this thread elsewhere, technically speaking the F-22 is much improved since this abstract was written. It has seen minor (Because that's all that was needed.) inprovements in avionics and major updates electronically (F-35 suite has been/is being installed as posted here as well.). Enjoy the abstract and have a great weekend!! PAK-FA vs the F-22 and F-35... http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Nice site Pat & they confirm what I have read elsewhere that the F-35 has some huge issues. Cant take on Russia or China
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well here's some more food for thought taking all emotion out of it between the F-22 and F-35. Why is it we're devoting all this time and effort into the F-35, and then turning around and selling it to about ten other countries. Granted we will not give up all the "Bells and Whistles" to the export market but if this fighter is so good in the first place, why are we selling it at all? When nobody will be buying the F-22 or even getting the opportunity to even get close to one to evaluate it. Hmmm, makes one wonder doesn't it? I can produce articles that reflect the true desire of Japan and Korea (Both should one happen land there in whole or pieces in N. Korea.) that they would prefer the F-22 especially facing the growing Chinese percived (Being politically correct here. :rolleyes:) threat to the region. And before someone says something I did post in this thread that the F-22 did deploy to Okinawa, UAE and S. Korea awhile back. Back to F-35; the USMC needs it since the HARRIERS will need a replacement in about 15yrs. and maybe the USN whose fighter fleet is also "getting long in the teeth" but, I'm not so sure about the USAF who afterall are getting RESET F-22 fighters now anyway as posted already.
The deployment issue has always been there for a variety of reasons, but it (F-22) did finally happen as shown below. http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=196&newst=8 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-ste...ry?id=16227614 http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/31/world/...22s/index.html Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
5 Attachment(s)
Since this is going to be a factor in this area I would think by next year and that this weapon and program caused some rework over the last couple of years I'm posting the ref for FYI purposes only. Basically the USA (And other countries now.) has rethought the role of the APKWS II for use with the APACHE AH-64D helo based on the mission successes experienced by the USMC in combat in Afghanistan. Also the USAF/USMC had stepped up it's testing program (2013) as well with fixed wing aircraft. The live fire exercises are complete. The rocket due to modifications made on it to resist high altitude and speed operations is designated as the APKWS FW it was mounted on the aircraft in a 7 rocket pod. Aircraft used were the A-10C THUNDERBOLT II, F-16 and AT-6 turboprop for the USAF. Of course for the CORPS the A/V 8B HARRIER II was used. Again this is only for FYI but important as it is coming very soon.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...d-phase-02193/ Why the DID site? Note info/status blocks (New this year.) to the right of info provided in each article segment-for me it makes the verification issues easier to check. At bottom are other sources (Which was why DEFPRO was so good.) used to support the current article. Combined with the source articles the reference base grows exponentially-and that's what I'm all about here. Patch Update MBT fixes from last year corrected now. Will have a couple of new MBTs, date changes and deletions also. Don also you did such a beautiful job on the Aussie M1A1 camo could use one from their M113AS4 APCs in for the same time period. This is not your standard M113A3. I have a detailed write up in one of the Australian Threads already which I'll use for submission. Quick ref here as well. http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113as4.htm Note: Cover pic shows "older/original" camo scheme. See pics below for paint and game use as well if bored. Yeah that was a stupid comment!!!! :rolleyes: Attachment 12770 Attachment 12771 Attachment 12772 Attachment 12773 Attachment 12774 Under the right conditions they might just (Thread word ALERT!!) fly-who knows!?! Anyway have others if you don't see one you like. Presented ones with tanks because that is their SOP for their units. Hate to "cross threads" but am very tired and had a long day at the "office" and I get to do it again in <9hrs-sorry. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Should've known you would've gotten ahead on that Icon as well. To the AUSCAMO M1A1 Icon go the the MBT Thread Pg. 27 Post 264. Proceeding posts back to page 26 provide the background.
Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
1 Attachment(s)
Back on topic...
Steve has just sent me his Christmas and New Year wishes for me and the family in a way only he can. Yeah he was flying with his SQD. again and as CINCLANTHOME noted "how depressing that must've been for him!!" As he's let me post his pictures here before (And in the game also. Thanks Don.) and given the season I'm taking the liberty to post his Holiday card here as well. So since he knows I'm active in this area-I'll simply say from Steve and us to you and yours, however you celebrate the season, Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!! Enjoy the card!! I couldn't think of a better Wingman!?! Attachment 12777 Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I wouldn't normally post something like this, however, due to the nature of the topic and it's ramifications to several OOB's in the game the CBS Network "60 Minutes" will be doing a segment on the status and issues surrounding the F-35 Project. It will be on later today at 7pm EST. For non TV viewing options you can go to CBS.com or 60minutes.com and it should be availible Monday morning EST.
I still think by the games current calendar only the U.S. will have it. Another European country this past week is having to reduce it's current order by at least a third to a half of projected due to economic reasons. Other countries have already reduced their orders for the same reason. For every potential plane lost to reduced orders will increase the cost of the rest of the planes to be built. Sequestration is still alive and well in the U.S. DOD however some minor relief was granted in the budget vote taken just before or just after the holidays on the two year budget deal approved in the U.S. Concerning the joint Russian/Indian PAK FA/T-50, Russian sources are indicating it should be operational by late 2016. However I've come across several reports to indicate not all is well with this project ethier. Pulling all the information together I have seen mid to late 2018 probaly is more realistic at present. Many are still holding to the idea that both the F-22 and PAK-FA/T-50 are comparable and nullify each other. But most agree they are both better then the F-35. Chinas plane has already been found to be a "paper tiger" however they are working hard to catch up but are still several years behind everyone else. Of interest to watch will be Malaysia, S. Korea and Japan which will probaly develop a 5th Gen fighter jointly, the ground work has already been laid for this. Have been tracking these for years now with posts in this thread. That's the update I figured I better do this with the info advert above. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
From what I've seen the major issue with the F-35 is apparently the airframe is developing cracks. And that's a BIG problem.
You may want to check if the Royal Navy is cutting back their order. I know they were counting on the F-35B (jump jet variant) to replace their Harriers. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
(rant follows)
We should simply have gone for the CTOL version of the carriers, with leased F-18s (or rafaeles!) with a view to replacing those with bought F-35s as and when (if?) they ever materialised, IMHO. Those conventional plane types are perfectly serviceable for the immediate future. And of course the catapult equipped version would have operated hawkeyes. Probably the most important plane type to have at sea!. Stuff the fighter mafia - the AEW capability is priceless. We should never have bought into the F-35 programme early-on, especially with the reluctance of the USA to release key code so we can integrate our own weapons etc. Let the US contractors fix the bugs first and carry the development costs. As for the jump-jet version, and the Tories scrapping the harriers and the Invincibles well before there was a replacement to hand - the less said the better! Too many politicians poking their fingers into the carrier and plane projects... :doh: MOD - likely stands for "Made Of Dumbness":rolleyes: cheers Andy |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
What?
Politicians doing stupid stuff to get an extra couple votes? You mean that happens in the UK too? Yeah, I've never understood why the UK doesn't operate "real" carriers anymore. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This past Friday the SECNAV visited our base and talked about the issues that the USN was dealing with in benefits and pay, the Littoral Combat Ship program and what will be our newest SSBN building program that is estimated would run as high as a 1/3 of the USN budget. The concern is what happens after the FY 2016 Budget does sequestration come back? No one knows yet. Our three bases here seem safe with infrastructure projects to come but, how to pay for some of this? Well briefly look at Post #139 and I can say after having recorded tonight's program and watched it when I got home, they had an update of last months story on the F-35 and it's not good for the USN; they announced at the end of the week they will be cutting their order for the F-35C in half. I would think the USAF and USMC might in the coming weeks also see further reductions also. Well for the CORPS the AV-8B HARRIER was already slated to be around until 2025 and lord knows we have more than enough spare parts thanks to the UK. For the USAF well they made the F-22 better fleet wide in upgrading to the electronics suite carried on the F-35 as posted in this thread months ago. So there are some trade offs and there are the issues the Russians and Chinese are having with their advanced fighters as well. How it'll affect the game? Best case we open up some slots and that's never a bad thing now is it? Anyway I'll be watching it as I have from the start.
Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Kinda reminds me of the Carter years.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Been busy rebuilding my databases but to Suhiir, at the rate we're going now we'll look upon the Carter years fondly as "...the good ole days..." pre-WWII levels in manning and equipment doesn't bode well for the future. For the USA the GVC Program is dead again I see a BRADLEY A4 and A5 within 6-8 years maybe ten for both unless things turn around.
Anyway India not very happy with Russia at the moment and according to the respected Russian source quoted for the below article the PAK-FA/T-50 will not be operational until 2017/2018 time frame and if Russia pursues for their jet the more advanced radar India plans to have installed for their version (The FGFA) and other upgrades India is seeking; we might not have to worry about these jets being in the game at all. And since it's a fighter it won't break my heart at all if that happens in the Russian OOB. Anyway here's the read... http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2014/...eneration.html Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
As always they come home. To TDR and GUD thank you (And others over the last couple of years.) but this type of work really brings me great pleasure when equipment requests are made in the manner these have been-they break up my work nicely and at times help me refocus. These are in the game.
PM5. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1946 – JUN 1955/HORNET F.Mk.1/C1/SPD 472mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets// The HORNET F.Mk.1 was a further improvement upon the famed MOSQUITO. These planes actually flew before the end of WWII but not in numbers to be assigned in combat squadrons. Shared by all versions they had a bullet proof laminated canopy, armored cockpit, nose section and gun panel section underneath. Aerodynamically the HORNET was superior to the MOSQUITO which along with the improved RR Merlin engines made this the fastest prop fighter. It to in combat in Malay; would prove to be as accurate or more so in getting weapons on the target for which the MOSQUITO was legendary in doing so during WWII. The HORNET F1.MK.1 would have “shorter legs” than it’s successors but was still superior as compared to the SPITFIRE, P-51 and early jets with or without drop tanks. Interestedly the F.Mk.1 would only end up operating out of the UK. PM6. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1946 – JUN 1956/HORNET F.Mk.3/C1/SPD 472mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets// The HORNET F.Mk.3 would represent the pinnacle in design and performance of the type upon which all further types would be based. The range would be increased to 3000 mi. and maneuverability further improved upon with the introduction of a dorsal fin to the tail section. These planes would validate the type in combat (May 1951-May 1955) during the Malay Crisis of 1950 - 1960. These planes replaced the latest and last versions of the SPITFIRE and TEMPEST Squadrons already stationed there at the start of the conflict. PM7. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1947 – FEB 1957/SEA HORNET F.Mk.20/C1/SPD 468mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets// The SEA HORNET F.Mk.20 actually was derived from the F.1 but would be improved to the F.3 modifications as that plane was coming to fruitarian. As the name would indicate this plane was built for the RN. The big differences from the RAF types was that it had folding wings, arresting equipment and wing modifications to slow the plane down for carrier landings. The speed decrease is due to the fact that the RN required the type to carry 3 cameras; in the case of the F.20 and NF.21 below, located 1 centerline and 2 angled side looking in the tail this added about 500lbs to the overall weight of the aircraft. However it’s interesting to note that except for the loss of some speed, these modifications had apparently little to no effect on the SEA HORNET overall performance. The first ref below has comments made by the military test pilot Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown that flew the SEA HORNET during the evaluation process. Captain Brown apparently still holds the record for flying the greatest number of different aircraft types. PM8. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/JAN 1949 – FEB 1957/SEA HORNET NF.Mk.21/C2/SPD 457mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets// The SEA HORNET NF.Mk.21 was modified to carry the ASH radar system. This version was considered an “all weather” fighter due to its status as a night fighter. Even though it had an elongated nose to house the radar and carried a radar operator; it seems from the refs and blogs I visited online, again the only issue this brought about was a further reduction in speed only as noted above for the SEA HORNET F.Mk.20. The radar operator faced aft with a small canopy “bubble” that could be ejected to allow the operator to parachute out of his “cockpit”. His was located about midway in the fuselage. http://www.livingwarbirds.com/de-havilland-hornet.php http://dhhornet50.net/ http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/post-wa...et/hornet.html http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/...and_hornet.php http://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/bri...and-hornet.php http://www.airpowerworld.info/other-...and-hornet.htm http://britains-smallwars.com/malaya/reg.html#raf Refer to the British OOB Thread by IMP for further info if desired in Posts 6 - 12 as brought to light by Gud. The last ref might be VERY useful for you designer types. Just a part of my tidying up. Thank you again GUD and TDR and of course Don for getting ahead on this until I could get the data to him. Gotta go after all Jack is back and on now! Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well now for something different...an update on my favorite :rolleyes: fighter...the vaunted F-35. These from DID...
1. The "Black Hole" becomes more infinite... "It’s always commendable to act on front-line advice, and it can be very useful to reduce costs. The Pentagon is doing so for the F-35, and hoping to reach 10-20% savings, but most costs are set in the design stage. The F-35 is estimated to be 40-60% more expensive to operate and maintain than the aircraft it’s replacing." http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122477 2. Leaking oil at this stage of development... "The temporary grounding of the US’ entire F-35 fleet because of an oil leak is a minor glitch, in the larger scheme of things, but it is also a warning regarding the consequences of a tri-service, single-engine future fighter fleet. Most planes have already been cleared external link to resume flight operations." http://www.brecorder.com/world/north...hter-jets.html 3. Those golden memories from about three to four years ago; ah those were the days my friend (Sounds like a song!?! ;))... Remember what I told you about and posted from AUSA concerning the T-50/PAK-FA, F-35 and F-22? Well that well respected think tank on aviation, missile and space issues ranked the F-35 as the worst of the three. For you F-35 supports you might not want to read this next and further ask yourselves why the DOD has/is upgrading the whole fleet of F-22 fighters with a new advanced electronics suite based on the F-35 one. http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/04...f-22-acc-says/ http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...older-aircraft The good general should go back a few years and reread those selling points that this was going to be the main frontline fighter. Just saying. Regards, Pat Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Ahh the joys of adopting a new aircraft.
Maybe we should send the naysayers a historical list of the F-4's teething problems. Nawww, why upset their "how things should be" view of the world with trivial things like reality. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The Congress has been putting on the heat on certain weapons systems over the last couple of years. Notably telling the Army you will like your ABRAMS and will make it better and you'll keep the tank plant open as well. Now there's been blowback from Congress (Also over the last couple of years.) on the Air Forces attempt to retire the A-10 THUNDERBOLT II. It might be retired down the road, however, not by the timeline the Air Force thinks. This started with strong support of the combat veterans and groups, parental groups supporting their sons and daughters and the troops and Congress themselves protecting jobs in their districts and the troops serving in combat. Even the Army and Marines have expressed reservations concerning the A-10s' retirement as was projected. So from DID and as brought to you by the DOD I offer the following a week after General Hostages comments from last week as posted above by me then as well.
Who Posted This? Has the House of Representatives taken over the Pentagon’s official Youtube channel? You might think so looking at the description of the video below: “After much debate, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is not yet going to be retired.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdPtzm7w1w Also... http://azstarnet.com/business/local/...a15f71fa2.html Fly on old mighty WARBIRD!! It is after all the biggest election cycle for Congressional and Senate seats this Fall!! I have an upgrade in the can that Don and I discussed in here about three years ago. I just had to support it now, I (And shortly after...) can. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Yeah the Air Force didn't really want the A-10 to start with and has been trying to get rind of it forever.
I recall after Gulf I they pointed out how many A-10s were damaged/shot down as "proof" the aircraft was useless and obsolete, while of course neglecting to mention the number of sorties flown or the amount of confirmed damage done. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.