|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well it's been awhile since I last visited "DID" so I'm catching up slowly. Here are the highlights from the ref below as sourced from the GAO. This can't be good for us either but here's the effect for the following countries due to continued software issues for the F-35. I believe this has game implications as well though I haven't checked yet. In the ref you can click on the highlighted blue "GAO Report" which I suspect might show the impact on the other customers as well. I haven't read it yet either. Excerpts...
1. "The RAAF has already ordered 2 F-35As, which are scheduled to begin arriving in 2018, but a recent GAO report external link indicates that they aren’t likely to be fully combat-ready by then due to software delays. Another 12 F-35As were approved to buy in 2009, but haven’t been placed under contract yet. These 14 aircraft are more likely to be ready by 2021, which is when RAAF No.3 Squadron is supposed to be operational." 2. "They won’t be alone in the region. By 2023, Japan and South Korea are likely to have their own operational F-35A Squadrons. Singapore may have joined them with F-35Bs, depending on when their order is placed." This still can slip due to contract issues as noted in this article as well. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...29/#more-23629 Couldn't wait as I suspected not good for us either if not cleared for full rate production until 2019 ours won't get operational until maybe 2020. But here you go and off to bed for me before someone has a serious talk with me! :rolleyes: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-322 Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Don or Andy,
In the game does the OOB Gulf States refer to the "real" Gulf States under the GCC? The current countries that make up the Gulf States are Saudi Arabia (Separate OOB.), Kuwait, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...on-Council-GCC The issue follows but for now on my list to be fixed under the game Gulf States OOB for Oman. http://www.janes.com/article/44750/oman-retires-jaguars The next concerns the ongoing possibility of further closer political and military ties (Think EU/NATO in nature.) between the Gulf States beyond the GCC which is more an Economic (Think G7.) union. There are some Political agreements involved as well but not as close as what is in the next ref below. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18057836 Unrelated to the above and also on my list (And a surprise when I saw it.) for this Threads work list... http://www.janes.com/article/44758/a...s-from-service Though not sure but suspect and will check, there might be some date adjustments here besides the end date for those Greet Corsairs. Still flying who'd a thouk it! And with everything else going on in the World you would think Asia is quite but you'd be wrong... http://www.janes.com/article/44629/j...ssian-aircraft Nothing like a good day at JANES!?! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Since we have no room for an OOB for the country of "Greet" the last should read, Greek. Though I'm sure they'd gladly Greet you if you visit their country. Sorry for the confusion.
Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Don,
Thanks! I'll have to verify first that none of the other countries are still flying the JAGUAR before submitting any changes when the time comes. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Just something to keep an eye on:
Finland looking for a replacement for F/A-18. http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_defenc..._fleet/7535139 Originally this was supposed to happen in 2020, but for some reason (*cough*) this time schedule was adjusted a bit earlier. Speculated options have been F-35 (if it ever gets completed), F-22 (if it ever gets exported), Swedish JAS Gripen NG, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale. In the current political situation Russian fighters are unlikely to be picked, but Sukhoi PAK FA and SU-35 are possible. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Damn, meant MiG-35, not SU-35.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
To go along with tracking the F-35, I've also been tracking for years now the PAK-FA/FGFA (India) + T-50 (Russia) for many years now as well. If there's a fighter to compete with the F-22 it's this one (Much on this topic and the next in this Thread.) however like the F-35 it's been beset with many of the same issues in technological development compounded also by cooperative issues between India and Russia. It appears the last after at least a year+ has reached a resolution. Again the following will unlock to the general public soon just check back (This also indicates the article has been updated.) in a few days or so. And yes date changes will be required and or deleted further down the road. It's also ironic to think that the USMC whom normally gets the "leftovers" in equipment might possibly be the only OOB to have the F-35(B)operational by this games end. Anyway here's a taste...
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...133/#more-3133 The "Doc" saw fit to have to give me a shot in the eye this evening (Pesky scar tissue.) so I'll leave it at this. Have a good night! Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Other than technical issues, Congresses attempts to keep the A-10 flying could upset the IOC for the USAF F-35A. The GAO as already posted, predicts a later date and the A-10 issue would probably push this back at least a year or more to get the additional maintenance personnel inducted into the service and trained. We should know more by this winter I would think on this ever changing situation with the F-35 series..
http://www.janes.com/article/45198/a...a-ioc-for-usaf Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
You can get by with a slightly outta date tank but given the reliance on air support and lack of significant AA assets you can't afford to have aircraft that can't achieve air superiority (or at least parity). |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Conceptually, what is the need for STEALTH close air support and VTOL when the big boat carrier has assets to provide air superiority and STEALTH (needed to penetrate and strike deep). Especially, at 150 mil a piece, why sacrifice the payload capability of the F-35C to achieve VTOL in the B is beyond me, unless you're living in Fort Lauderdale, an employee of Lockheed Martin, or a congressman from that district. It seems the Navy has an incessant need to put fixed-wing aircraft on assault ships while forgetting the air craft carrier is designed for that species. This talk of the advanced JSF, the F-35 and in particular the F-35B can drive a teetotaler to reach for the George Dickel. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It's NOT "stealth" like the F-117 (or even F-22) it's more like a drastically reduced radar signature.
Aircraft carriers, and their planes, exist primarily to protect the fleet NOT support ground actions. Sure they train for and can do ground support (quite well) but during an amphibious landing their #1 priority is protecting the shipping. Plus the USMC aircraft need to be transported to the landing zone somehow and you sure don't want to have to reduce the complement of the carriers to haul them. The main reason to sacrifice payload with the "B" model has absolutely nothing to do with ships however. It has everything to do with NOT needing to seize an airport immediately to support the landing. VTOL aircraft can make do with any parking lot or dirt road. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I always find it immensely amusing how many so-called "experts" are ignorant of, or flat-out ignore extremely relevant data and/or reasons when they complain about things (specially military hardware).
I guess we should have listened when the experts told us the expense and amount of training needed to use the longbow didn't justify it's adoption over the crossbow. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well I shall gloat just a little here but, I love it when the CORPS (For now anyway.) agrees with my some my projections on a items I've been reporting for a couple of + years now. So here are the highlights for Suhiir a little tighter adjustment is needed to at least get into the 6 month "swag" Don and I normally have worked out on submission dates the last few years. These are taken from the below directly and for whoever has the balls (Baseballs, Basketballs Golf Balls etc. etc. :p ) to take on this project from 2020-2030 or whatever you might want to hold onto this ref as this is the AVPLAN for the CORPS through 2030..
"The F-35B and F-35C will replace F-18, AV-8B and EA-6B. The Marine Corps will procure a total of 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs in the following squadron bed down: • 9 Squadrons x 16 F-35B • 5 Squadrons x 10 F-35B • 4 Squadrons x 10 F-35C • 2 Squadrons x 10 F-35B reserve • 2 Squadrons x 25 F-35B FRS Marine Corps F-35B IOC is July of 2015 (objective) and December 2015 (threshold). IOC requires the first squadron to have 10 aircraft in the Block 2B configuration capable of executing CAS; limited offensive and defensive counter -air; air interdiction; air support escort; armed reconnaissance; and limited suppression of enemy air defenses. Additionally, 6 aircraft need to be capable of executing amphibious carrier operations. The aircraft is currently tracking to reach its full operational capability in Q4 of CY 2017. The full transition from legacy to F-35 will complete with the transition of the second reserve squadron in 2032." "The TACAIR 2030 Roadmap is a departure from the previous AVPLAN’s TACAIR transition order. The F-35 transition continues per the program of record, while the AV-8B and F/A-18 order of transition has changed. Transition Plan: * AV-8B will transition to the F-35B first, with a planned sunset of 2025. * F/A-18A-D will transition in the out years with a planned sunset of 2029 for the active component and 2030 for the reserve component. "The AVPLAN now prioritizes F-35B sourcing to MAGTF (MEUs) in the PACOM AOR with the first VMA transition (VMA-211) planned to begin FY16. The pace of the AV-8B conversion has been accelerated and F-35B will source 31st MEU requirement beginning 3QFY17." https://marinecorpsconceptsandprogra...ion%20Plan.pdf This means the F-35B will be the first operational series and the CORPS is planning for that to happen (Barring any further delays.) in JUL-SEP which is the 4th QTR of FY 2017. Suhiir based on earlier discussions and yes I understand you just changed it, August 2017 based on this document is the best date we've had on any of the F-35 types to date. All USMC aviation assets, operability and to some degree tactical use is discussed here. Some might find some answers here; for me it's more about validation of my work in this area. Sometimes that's needed especially how the last couple of years have gone. Happy Hunting!! I have elections to follow this evening, I hope for whom this applies to, that no matter your affiliation that you voted today. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
As someone knows a tough day at the OPHTHALMOLOGIST today. Just caught the fact the ref/document quoted CY=Calendar Year
vs. what I thought was FY=Fiscal Year (Why'd they do that?) anyway that would move things back further to OCT-DEC 2017 or I would submit now NOV 2017 as the operational/in service date for the F-35B. The rest of the para I stand by. This means with the CORPS getting theirs first the next will definitely fall in no sooner then mid 2018 at best holding to the CORPS timeline in development. Sorry for the confusion :doh: on my part. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Nice document bubblehead!
Good find. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Nov 2014
The F-35C, naval variant of the F-35 JSF, completed it's initial carrier qualification tests. https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35...rcraft-carrier |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The issue of the F-35B or really any of the variants performing CAS missions is not definitive. Truly, the issue is one of speed, fast or slow, and altitude. Given danger close of say 250m, can a fast moving F-35 deliver the goods on target, including guns, if necessary, close enough without friendly fire casualties is a question that even the "experts" are divided upon.
So, enter the Air Force, pinned to deliver F-35's in CAS missions, now beginning to develop CAS tactics with the F-35 platform. They can't certainly use the A-10 tactics for obvious reasons, it's just "slow and low," while not "fast and high." Obviously, then, if the Air Force will use CAS, and the Navy too, they will develop the tactics necessary, but if they rely on external stores and not guns, this is similar to the Phantom in Viet Nam: missiles but no guns. Then, where does one find advantage in the F-35B? Admittedly, I am not an expert, nor do i suppose to be one, and I suspect most of us in this forum are not experts on the F-35 either. However, we are literate, participate in democratic processes while remaining civil even when disagreeing. Although, the F-35 is brand spanking new technologies, and as such requires maturation, I'm not so certain an amphibious assault ship is the place for it, while the nearby big boat has them, and maybe could have had better versions if not for the principle of shared design. And the debate goes on: http://intercepts.defensenews.com/20...t/?sf6244571=1. I'm confident they will get it done, after all that is what we do, just not sold on "fast and high" CAS platforms like the F-35. Now, where's my drink! |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The US Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years. As an institution they REALLY don't like CAS, that's not to say the actual CAS squadrons and pilots don't see the need/value.
Ever since its' official founding in 1948 the USAF top brass has been convinced the only thing they need is fighters and bombers, "fast and high". And with the development of smart munitions the bomber can finally hit a target smaller then an airfield/small town. Ground support missions have two major requirements. 1 - Fast response - The tactical situation is extremely fluid, targets come and go rapidly. Using high speed aircraft that require full out airbases to take off/land cannot be as responsive as an A-10 (long loiter times) or AV-8/F-35B (forward basing). 2 - Target Identification - From 15,000 ft you might be able to spot a tank, but who's? Again this is where the A-10 (flying low and slow) can identify it's target and make sure (most of the time) its shooting at the bad guys. USMC and USN aircraft performing CAS missions typically fly at around 500 ft (and frequently lower). They also typically make two passes over the target, the first to identify it and insure their approach/exit doesn't pass over friendly units (in case they hit short/long) and the second pass to actually fire/drop their weapons. The USAF hates to make multiple passes because the first pass alerts the opposition and the second allows them to fire AA weapons. But the USAF very rarely flies below 5000 feet so can't take advantage of terrain to limit opposition AA. Low, slow, long loiter time, and a large ordnance load is optimal for CAS. But this inevitably means your aircraft ARE going to take damage. The A-10 is a flying tank, and the better CAS aircraft of any type can handle a certain amount of damage and stay airworthy. High speed, high altitude aircraft just cannot be as rugged (usually) because it needs low weight and streamlining. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
At times it is worthy to recall the thoughts of those before us. In this vain, my son offered this quote:
"Aviation is fine as a sport. But as an instrument of war, it is worthless." General Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superiure de Guere, 1911. Or, "No aircraft ever took and held ground." US Marine Corps Manual, maybe the Handbook for Marine NCOs, I'm not sure which manual this quote is taken from. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
As platoon sergeant TerHorst said in basic training forty years ago. You can bomb it. You can sterilise it. You can shell it. But you can't call it YOURS until you can send a rifleman to sit on it.
troopie (just a rifleman who was sent to sit on it by the okes in Pretoria) |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Which is why, in the game, aircraft don't flip V-Hexes and neither does arty ( but if you try to take them without the support there will be far fewer riflemen to sit on them )
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
3 Attachment(s)
Well my Luftwaffe friend Steve had just sent me this on his latest flight operation I'm assuming over the Baltic region as Germany is in the rotation for flying interdiction ops in that area. He's the one who let me post the East German pictures he took as a MiG-29 pilot in this thread. Also posted is a picture of what he's flying these days...yeah it's a rough living I guess.
Attachment 13366 Attachment 13367 And something for the future and a project I've put off for years as a taste, probably the most advanced F-5 variant flying today... Attachment 13368 Santa has cleared my area now, so too all a good night! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Have to answer a ? on the quick-back to work-anyway this deals with Albania apparently based on some information I came across it looks like they grounded their jets around 2005. This second/third source is of the "gun-slinger" category however they do support the first source.
http://airheadsfly.com/2015/01/01/al...ength-in-2015/ http://www.xairforces.net/airforces....4#.VL_hQizSMng Airheads one is not to bad a source/second though I've seen it is less familiar to me. The very first source given is solid. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Further confirmation......"The Albanian Air Force is a sole rotary air arm since 2006".........http://airheadsfly.com/2015/01/01/ov...ian-air-force/
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
As I think about hitting the rack I do so with a smile on my face. It would seem I beat JANE'S in analyzing the F-35 situation and Suhiir has already made the changes in her OOB to reflect it. Victory is ours!!! :re: And to JANE'S I simply say...:p with lots of droll!!! :eek: Before I get further behind the "8 Ball" let me just enjoy this one and share it with Suhiir for hanging with me on this one. Even right down to the date...OK...OK I'll stop now!?!
http://www.janes.com/article/48184/f...ration-in-2014 Well that felt good, in reality we just committed first around the time or just before the below article on the USMC commitment to reach the IOC date. Generally IOC means if all goes well the first operational SQD. will be mission ready. However full operational status could still take up to 2 years after IOC is reached. We just felt we could "pull the trigger first" based on the information we had up to Nov. this past year so I guess that still means we...well never mind I'll sleep good tonight thinking about the "decision tree" anyway. http://www.janes.com/article/45266/u...s-on-f-35b-ioc See pages 16 & 17 this Thread. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Also makes sense to get the F-35B version fully tested first because it the primary variant they have non-domestic orders for.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
India was to have pulled off one of the largest single purchases of fighters in history with the MMRCA Program which I believe I started posting on about 3-4 years ago in this thread. It had initially involved the following candidates EUROFIGHTER, FA-18E/F SUPER HORNET, F-35, RAFALE and JAS GRIPEN. The winner was the RAFALE well sort of maybe and probably not. Remember the Indian MOD also had the wonderful 30+ year ARJUN tank program and gave me and by default Don about a good two or three year headache as well (And I still have not finished with them yet.). So who are likely the real winners here? The Indian Sukhoi SU-30MKI the joint T-50/PAK-FA and yeah I did emboldened the GRIPEN well, that's because Brazil has [b]signed the contract[b] for the latest JAS GRIPEN as one of the largest export fighter deals now and it fits the niche of being considered the only true 4th Generation + fighter in the world. What that means in theory is only the F-22 (Which it is.) F-35, T-50/PAK-FA are better. The new JAS GRIPEN is easily on par with the EUROFIGHTER and RAFALE as it is a larger fighter with increased payload as well. so in order I hope of the above...
http://www.janes.com/article/47850/i...a-cancellation http://www.janes.com/article/48232/i...fgfa-programme http://www.janes.com/article/47115/r...ak-fas-by-2020 http://www.janes.com/article/47805/h...dian-air-force http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...program-04179/ And with all the talk we've had of the F-35 this is the latest from NAVAIR and as Suhiir and I have cleared up hopefully in this Forum when it comes to everything that fly's for the USN/USMC if they don't say it's so well it just isn't so then. With that in mind this is the latest from them on the F-35 and note the date. http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...sStory&id=5766 It least for what we "think" is happening we still have JANE'S and DID (And a couple of others.) to let us know what's going on, they kinda reminds me of those "silly" French soldiers in a certain Scottish Castle mocking King Arthur (NAVAIR) in that knowing way of "we have it and know what's going on" and if you know what I'm talking about here then you remember what those "silly" French soldiers did to King Arthur!?! But Andy how did they ever get into Scotland to take the castle in the first place!?! :p Anyway off to the rack to get some sleep to finish the work week off. Take Care and enjoy the rest of your weekend! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Basically testing is proceeding more-or-less as planned.
Bugs and teething issues are being found and worked out. It took about 4 years (1970-1974) between the time the F-14 Tomcat first flew and it's initial deployment with a US Navy squadron. And it was designed by and for the US Navy, and only the US Navy. Far fewer hoops to jump thru and people to please. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
SOFTBALL #3...CANADA/F-35A/NONE/ADD/In doubt currently accessioning airspace requirements and budget concerns./
Regards, Pat :capt: Ahem................... type CF-35 into mobhack search when in the CDN OOB and you'll find 4 units ARGHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!------SORRY PAT.. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A REPLY NOT AN EDIT. I tried going back to save your work but it was gone by the time I realized what I'd done:doh: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
That sounds fine to me concerning 6/2018 for those OOB's and UNITS. We have plenty of time. Suhiir should have pretty reliable dates for the F-35B and F-35C we worked those pretty hard. USMC IOC is still on track for I believe it was 07/2015 for the F-35B. Sorry about the CAF jets as I didn't start there. The other countries I searched under "JSF" and they came up that way.
These were a couple of the posts I used to support my last post. On the second ref. just click on the "FLAGS" to see the type F-35 each country ordered and information associated with that order. http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/pro...tnerships.html Now about that OOPS! Here's I how work I have to first :fight: with my :pc: which causes me to sometimes just to :banghead: and at other times just :yield: but if I hang in there it's just :cheers: all around!! I wish to thank you for the opportunity to tell a smilie story!! :p Don likes those you know!?! Kinda like he enjoys putting trucks into OOB's!! Alright I'll stop!?! Have a good day!! Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Actually the dates I have at the moment are:
F-35B 01/2017 F-35C 01/2018 EF-35 Ferret 01/117 - and this should probably use the the F-25C icon/LBM, be changed to 01/2018, and perhaps given a pair of 500# JDAMs (since it has the larger internal weapon bay the F-35B). Chances are they'll use the 'C' variant for a "wild weasel". There is TONS of rumor, speculation etc. concerning the F-35 but until someone actually deploys them in an active squadron all we can do is take a best guess. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
ACK !
F-35C icon/LBM for the Ferret ((damn "no edit" for Firefox)) |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
By way of sending a message to someone, and also note related articles at the bottom of this "featured" one. As a side we will be sending more armor to Europe as well. If I remember, it was around Oct. 2013 when I posted the last tanks were leaving. Served during the official "Cold War" now it looks like the "Cool War" scratch that, with the "Chilly War" has started.
http://www.janes.com/article/48878/u...-10s-to-europe Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Finnish F-18 mid-life upgrade 2:
FDF news (in Finnish) "Uusilla kyvyillä varustettuja koneita on saatu Ilmavoimiin palveluskäyttöön keväästä 2013 alkaen. Vuoden 2014 loppuun mennessä MLU 2-koneita oli käytössä noin 30." "The planes with new capabilities have been received to Air Force service from spring 2013 onwards. By the end of 2014 there were about 30 pieces of MLU 2 fighters." Improvements list at the end of article (selected ones):
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
"Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR) units are well shaped to fill a gap in rapid response when an Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) is not available, but are not capable of replacing the ARG/MEU's capabilities ..."
Interesting. Seems someone has decided to augment the Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) concept with one specifically tailored to probably independent company vice battalion size operations. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
All right a little news and as always if I'm posting it that normally means I'm tracking it where it might apply to the game.
1. A favorite of mine the USAF A-10 how about that CAS by the F-35A vs the A-10... http://www.janes.com/article/48957/a...a-10-follow-on http://www.janes.com/article/48878/u...-10s-to-europe 2. Covered this with the USMC ref. I provided earlier dealing with the F-35B/C jets this probably was taken from the same with further conformation(s) that confirms the AV-8 HARRIER and HORNET retirement dates... http://www.janes.com/article/45885/u...e-usd1-billion 3. UGANDA (The Su-30 might be an add.) sending air assets to SUDAN... http://www.janes.com/article/46364/s...su-30s-to-juba 4. Been tracking this from the beginning the MMRCA Program from INDIA we'll know something next month (And end my misery hopefully! ;).)it appears but Daussault can't be feeling very hopeful about closing the deal for the RAFALE... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...changes-01989/ http://www.janes.com/article/49098/a...rly-next-month 5. The reason Daussault is concerned for their RAFALE is the cost, so here's INDIA's solution and let's not forget their project with Russia and if I have to tell what that is well, you haven't been paying attention for the last four years or so. Anyway... http://www.janes.com/article/47805/h...dian-air-force http://www.janes.com/article/49142/a...ghter-progress 6. ARGENTINA shopping around and there's "news within the news" of the second ref if you read it carefully also the UK is not going to like the following concerning ARGENTINA and CHINA coming together on a very likely deal for advanced fighters... http://www.janes.com/article/48726/a...-working-group http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...planes-022821/ 7. IRAN puts an old/new fighter into the mass production the SAEGHE... http://www.janes.com/article/47766/i...saeghe-fighter 8. UK reconstitutes 3rd TORNADO SQD... http://www.janes.com/article/47823/u...d-tornado-unit 9. UK about to equipment it's TYPHOONS with the PAVEWAY IV as already equipped on the TORNADO the TYPHOON will carry six and can launch these simultaneously imagine seeing that in the game!?! http://www.janes.com/article/46434/r...s-from-typhoon 10. IRAQ getting help from the UAE in the form of the SUPER TUCANO and the MIRAGE 2000-9... http://www.janes.com/article/48114/u...ucanos-to-iraq http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...-force-4493293 11. Will EGYPT beat INDIA to became the first export customer for the RAFALE!?! As I've said before this INDIA we're talking about, congratulations EGYPT!!! http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...4-rafales.html http://www.janes.com/article/48964/e...ghter-aircraft http://www.janes.com/article/49025/e...e-and-missiles 12. An update on KOREA's KF-X fighter program... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...r-project.html 13. FRANCE offers MIRAGE-5F fighters to COLUMBIA... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...d=160660&cat=3 14. You lucky Europeans how's it feel to have Russian Bombers flying over and near your airspace again? I'd be a little concerned myself given the current situation in the Russian border zone and within the last rew days Russia itself... http://barentsobserver.com/en/securi...-warhead-01-02 http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555...er-the-Channel http://www.janes.com/article/49064/r...lose-to-europe The first two above as reported by DID. 15. F-35 news... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...itment-023629/ http://www.janes.com/article/49141/l...y-improvements 16. CHINA introduces next H-6 series bomber the H-6K not much out there on these planes but with what we have should be enough to verify there isn't more of these in the OOB than there should be based on the data we have. Besides what was used to get them in the OOB in the first place? But then I don't know if they're in there in the first place!! :rolleyes: So I'll just have to CHECK, VERIFY and make recommendations. http://www.janes.com/article/49127/x...bomber-details http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6.htm http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6k.htm M-T always seems to be the first to get equipment data out there most of the time. Well the taxman has come and gone. It's nice to know he'll be making deposits vice withdrawals, now I can put 2014 behind us-TG!?! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I'll be curious to see if the USMC manages their intended July 2015 date for an operation F-35B squadron.
BUT ... until one is actually operational I'll stick to my current January 2017 date. Don's been bit in the butt too many times in the past buy "intended" vice "actual". Besides, there's always 2016's WinSPMBT patch. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This is why Don loves my late night forays as well but, since I just got home a short time ago unfortunately this will happen at times. Thanks for the catch! Does make a world difference though, also they are saying those MIRAGES did perform better then their F-16C/D fighters.
Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well this next article is the most update and comprehensive one out there on the F-35 on all types, timelines, issues, capabilities, weapons by types/loads etc. etc. and even comparisons to existing craft and they were eye opening in a couple of instances not from what I already knew but how big the gap truly is and admitted too. We're in such a hurry now with this plane that even with the current software issues widely reported in the main stream media here, that the CORPS is going to push on to IOC with limited and restricted operational capabilities. Makes AUSA look real good from the articles posted in here about three or more years ago on the F-35. If you really read this carefully it's just a sad situation.
Again DID is a multi-sourced publication. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ersies-021922/ Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I always love the folks that say the F-35 is a "Fighter", and not a very good one. It's a "Ground Attack" aircraft, and should be a significant improvement over most currently in use.
I'll stick to my current 01/2017 deployment time, but I did suggest a few weapon loadout changes based on your find. Thanks again Fastboat! I also love the A-10 as a ground attack aircraft, if only they could figure out how to put tail hooks on them and get them off a runway less then 1,200m ... |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I've been waiting for the "GHOSTRIDER" for ~3yrs. now. The only minor surprise for me is that AFSOC decided to stay with the 105mm, but it proved it's value again in Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan so I'm glad it's there. And with VIPER STRIKE anti armor and other precision strike weapons, new electronics offensive and defensive suite onboard it'll be someones nightmare on the ground. The SPECTRE is already on my list as well. If all goes well operational testing should be complete by Spring of 2016 so that puts it out two patches anyway.
http://www.janes.com/article/53354/a...trider-gunship http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...hostrider.aspx http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispla...t-ac-130j.aspx TRACKING Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
As I'm sure Don is well aware of, there have been many stories on what the Liberal Party in Canada under now Prime Minister Trudeau promised it would do if elected. One that had possible ramifications to our defense industry and beyond was, the promise to end Canada's participation in the F-35 program. No formal decision has been made thus far from the Trudeau government but, the French are feeling confident enough to offer the RAFALE to the Canadian government now.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...in-time-05991/ http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/ http://www.military-today.com/aircra...ult_rafale.htm The consequences of a decision by Canada to drop the F-35 will be huge for some countries as the per unit cost before maintenance/support considerations are taken into account, will mean a million dollar increase regardless of who's buying them. Hit the highlighted portions of the top/first para for those details. This article will also have me take a look at the RAFALE in the French OOB, since this a multi-sourced document, it's enough to do a quick check, the issue here is the first version(s) weren't a ground attack capable platform. I'll see. Also this is as good a place as any for the next article as it pertains to Canada and Russia. The Northwest Passage opening up is causing a "can of worms" between those two countries and others. Russia is wasting no time in establishing bases/or reopening in some cases Cold War era bases long shut down in the Arctic. At stake besides territorial issues are the vast resources and who'll control them in that region (Is someone thinking about a scenario/or campaign here!?!) both Navies are there and we've visited as well. http://www.armyrecognition.com/march...equipment.html http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/17/u...ic-349973.html Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Before our two year budget gets approved the DOD will have to cut a further 5 Billion dollars from the defense budget. So for the USAF a further delay for the F-35 was already mentioned. The USA is supposed to draw down another 40,000 troops and around 19,000 civilian personnel. And we'll the effects of that here after Thanksgiving. With all this "doom and gloom" it appears you can't keep and "old bird" down face it, it's still our best CAS asset we have. Here's the latest.
http://www.janes.com/article/49836/p...ic-replacement http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS http://www.janes.com/article/54629/u...10a-re-winging http://www.janes.com/article/55459/u...-syria-strikes https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...program-03187/ http://www.janes.com/article/55895/u...tirement-delay What's this all mean? 1) Improved birds (2 I think.) will need to be added. 2) Current plans take the A-10 out to at least 2021. Though ongoing life cycle issues will keep the A-10 flying/viable through 2028. And since Don can reasonably understand "Conklinese" something I've very recently touched on, has left me with a "loss of appetite" and you might be "serving dinner without me" but I'll let you know via PM as the situation has been developing for sometime and is ongoing into the foreseeable near term future. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Not directly game relevant but never-the-less interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZN...6m1GAg&index=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHl...6m1GAg&index=2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkrR...6m1GAg&index=3 |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
[urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY[/url] |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I truly do this with a "heavy heart", full respect of the history and not to save slots, this is more about not being able to meet the capabilities of these assets in the game due to coding issues etc. Even as I have new data and new units to be added to the game even from other countries, what I'm about to ask has been on my mind on and off for years now since I asked a "similar" question dealing with the game engines ability to improve upon how it treats the attack capabilities of gunships. Going back to "PUFF THE MAGIC DRAGON" AC-47 gunships from the below ref...
"They tried the idea with ten, 30 caliber machine guns mounted in a C-47. The idea worked and the Air Force replaced the machine guns with three General Electric, six barrel, rotating mini-guns, reminiscent of the Civil War Gatling guns. These 7.62 mm guns were capable of covering every square foot of a football field with one round, in one minute." http://www.dc3history.org/aircraftmi...gicdragon.html We at best can only do a 50 meter attack hex. The newer models are now carrying ATGW which could be set up for stand off attacks, however we have plenty of those already for about the same cost in planes and jets. And there's the issue cost vs. benefit and at one hex and as much as I REALLY like these units I don't see the benefit to the player even as the capabilities have increased over the years to include the latest version just coming online. Cost doesn't normally bother me as Suhiir knows and I've put a fair amount of work into these units across the board in both recommending fixes and otherwise submitting new units over a couple of years not that long ago. Again I don't like this, but, at the same time I think this matter bears some thought and reflection on what's best for the game and players if nothing can be done to improve it's capabilities. I have a couple of thoughts on the matter for modeling within the "hex world", otherwise I again would ask serious consideration be given to what I'm asking. Regards, Pat |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
1 Attachment(s)
Pat, for the most part they were added as scenario window dressing not a serious in game unit because, as you noted, they simply cannot do what their RL counterparts do. The fact they even circle a target and fire while doing so was an accomplishment only dreamed of in the days of SP2 But of the Triumvirate of off map air assets we HAVE added, gliders, paras and gunships...gunships was the one that never quite worked but they did gradually grow from one or two curiosity units into a bit of a crowd that eats up increasingly scarce slots
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1452800124 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.