Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

That said I may have just hit on a solution........more after testing and you can test too

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Oh?
It'd be nice to see gunships actually become useful.

If the initial testing looks promising I'd be more then happy to drop it into my "Walking Dead" scenario as that sort of mass assault would be just the Kind of thing a gunship crew would have wet dreams about.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Oh?
It'd be nice to see gunships actually become useful.

If the initial testing looks promising I'd be more then happy to drop it into my "Walking Dead" scenario as that sort of mass assault would be just the kind of thing a gunship crew would have wet dreams about.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Test failed.......it would not work across all unit types

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

'E' for effort Don!

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I appreciate the effort here my thoughts are, in thinking outside of the box...

1) KISS A. Straight line of attack like normal Planes/Jets even to the extent of the player to pick entry/exit as it exists in the game. This will cause the player "to think" about the gunships orientation in regards to weapons on target. Have it come in the wrong direction with the guns on the wrong side of the target hex the gunship either aborts or we allow it to fire away either way you risk wasting the mission, getting shot down or if we let it shoot, possibly hitting other enemy units or your own (Think of this as receiving bad target coordinates or a breakdown in the chain of command - Afghanistan comes to mind as just recently within the last three weeks that hospital was hit. A few people don't have to worry about any further promotion/or retirement.) and...

B. The target area I think should be 7 hexes/350m long with the center hex being the "target" hex chosen by the player, this would be bordered on each side by one row of 6 hexes/300m. The plane should standoff from the target area grid edge by no less then about 6 hexes/300m this should allow for the newer "birds" to fire the VIPER STRIKE Top Attack ATGW and give if you will a sense of altitude. Understand due to the suggested target area entry and departure of the plane could be limited to straight cardinal headings in regards to the game map.

C. The older gunships might be firing in the "blind" within the target area but if units are hidden they should still obviously suffer suppression and casualties. The newer ones will see the targets on approach within the current parameters of the game (TI/GSR), if armed with "VIPER STRIKE" it should attack armored units as a Plane/Jet can. Machine, Gatling and 105mm guns would fire once the plane is flying parallel to the target area.

2) Keeping the elements of B and C above, have the gunship using only the top and or bottom corners of the map/monitor screen, flying in about a 15-20 arc from corner to corner on the attack run.

All weapons should be able to attack targets within the target area, or, at a minimum the ones in the "center" hex line while suppressing/or causing light damage to the targets on the "border" hex lines. Gunships should be limited to 2-4 turns and or passes with fully loaded weapons. The AC-47 carried 2000lbs or 1 ton of ammo onboard when it flew missions. Results of a well documented attack on an NVA company has been used by many sources and was included in the ref I used in my last post, and is re-posted below. Even the AC-47 in Vietnam was able to stay on station for 8 hours doing "lazy" circles waiting for the call. I believe that's why the KISS concept would work as I believe that I've read the operating attack radius was either 2.5 or 5 miles from the target area.

Yeah it's work and all I can do is provide raw data. I would love to see a solution, however, I would fully understand if one can't be found and we're back to my original question as posted above.

http://www.dc3history.org/aircraftmi...gicdragon.html

Well I'm beat, long night at the "office" so...well Good Morning!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Even giving the current gunship a "beaten zone" would help.

Right now they circle the target hex and hit only the target hex.
If they were to hit the target hex and all adjacent hexes that would help tremendously. Yeah a 150m circle isn't realistically accurate, but it's something that might be able to be done with the game engine.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Changing the weapon class from 11 to 14 does somewhat what you want but it's a kludge that doesn't work with all unit classes ( and leaves annoying mines behind occasionally ...... ) and adding new weapons just for the GS class is not an option. The solution would be a new WC just for multi-barreled weapons that works in Gunships, aircraft and helos with multi hex graphics like cluster munitions but using the auto cannon ,multi hit animation rather than the multi-mini explosion graphic but that's a F%$@ of a lot of work for a niche weapons system ( no matter how much it's loved by some)

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Yeah obviously a new WC is not a solution.
I just thought (of course with zero knowledge of the game code) that since they are already programmed to circle strafe a target hex it might be possible to have them hit multiple hexes simultaneously.
Just brainstorming.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Try a test run with blast circles on, and you will see that it does affect the hexes alongside the target hex.

Also, sometimes it fires into an adjacent hex to the target hex.

So, yes it does affect the surrounding hexes, so it does have a "multiple hex" affect, if there is a horde of VC packed in there to annoy.

But once again, the class was written because a scenario designer way back when wanted to have "spooky" in a scenario. They circle a hex, and beat it up with area fire. That is all they do, and so the things are only of use to a scenario designer, who has rigged the enemy not to have credible AAA (it is night, and the foe is low-tech with no radar AAA).

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Fastboat; a Football Field is 48.5 m wide and 109.1 m long; so....

EDIT: Saw that others had replied to it...let's see...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Why not try using

UnitClass 215=Gunship Aircraft

combined with

Vision
Fire Control
Rangefinder

or some mix of them to alter the unit behavior of UnitClass 215?

E.g. if you have >8 Vision or whatever, do this behavior instead of the default circle strafe target hex?

It would help differentiate between the AC-47s and very early AC-119s which could only do the 'pylon circle and strafe area'; versus the more advanced later AC-119s and AC-130s which had hunter/killer capabilities.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Mark I was allowing for the newer birds to be able to use their full compliment of weapons. This is why I recommended no more then 2-4 passes for the gunships to minimize overkill especially where the older gunships are concerned. Also in the first sentence of the para immediately below item 2) I left myself an out on the target "hex box" as well. Tried "combine" the old with the "new" as different sized target areas for each "era" of gunships wouldn't be feasible, it was a compromise in my mind.

In this thread and the patch one, I spent many hours recommending fixes and additions on the research side of things for the gunships. Unless Don and Andy are willing to spend the next year trying to come up with solution for the them, I say it's time to get rid of them and I don't think there are many more forum members that regularly post that are as passionate about all air assets as I am (Though in truth I'm that way about all "my" thread topics-maybe OK less so about the UAV one. :eek:) but...

I'd need two more slots to allow for the GHOSTRIDER gunship which is flying on the AC-130J platform within 2 years. Need one for the M1A2 SEP V3. REALLY will push again for the best fighter bomber we had in the 60's & early 70's that would be Warsaw Pact weaponized after a couple of online conversations with the pilots that flew them-that's one slot though it's about six hexes of death and destruction mech/armor/personnel. We'll have the new STRYKER to add with the 30mm RWS - there's another slot. Oh by the way we'll need to add a couple of new APACHES because my former military employer has very kindly let the ARMY use their APKWS II laser guided rockets this past year-two slots. They are/have ramped up production to also supply the ARMY.

I'm not here to over stress Don or Andy. Remember my goal for this game is "One World One OOB" my record bears that out to include doing what's right for this game which at times means sacrificing the things you like most in this case the gunships to allow for the items I've listed above and here the ARMY is looking to develop a light tank for the Airborne-could be two slots. What did you think I was totally slackly off? :rolleyes:

So how am I doing? Well my s#*t of real USA equipment has almost used the current existing slots left in the OOB with the eight I'll be asking for, ten if you count in the GHOSTRIDER. So now what's more valuable??

Don and Andy don't need my permission but I'll be good with any decision they make concerning the future of gunships in the game.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

For example I proposed time ago to cancel EFOGM launcher that never have been in service.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Gone..anything else I can rip out ?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I presume you've removed the LW50 from the USMC OOB?

My recommendations are:
Delete units #427, 428, 436, 437, and 986.

Unit#429 Dates 01/106-12/120
Unit#446 Dates 01/106-12/120
Unit#448 Dates 01/103/12-120
Unit#896 Dates 01/103-12/120
Unit#984 Dates 01/103-12/120

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Pat/FASTBOAT TOUGH,

I know on 31 July, 2015 the USMC declared the F-35B operational. But I can't find anything from NavAir about it. Have you seen anything?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

..already forgot we pushed the end dates to 2025 eh ? .......already done

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

http://www.marines.mil/News/NewsDisp...erational.aspx

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...hter/30937689/

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-m...on-operational

"31 July, 2015 the USMC declared the F-35B operational." --About 106,000 results

and then there's this..........:)

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/ai...trike-fighter/

"Air Force, Marines Cancel F-35 Joint Strike Fighter"

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Actually ... yes.
Guess alzheimer's is catching up with me.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

So on 16 June, 2015 they cancel the program and on 31 July, 2105 the F-35B is declared operational.
And some people wonder why most people don't trust the press.
*just sighs*

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

That's why I never use blogs except for the following two Arm Chair General and Tank net AND that's only to track down additional sources I might not already have and again that's very rarely.

Concerning the F-35, I feel there's no need to change anything, especially if you read and fully understand who wrote this report in ref 2, that's why the ICO the F-35B all is quite from NAVAIR. If they had full confidence in the plane then since May when when tests were conducted on the WASP with a completely empty deck and since announcing IOC in July haven't they proved it can do the same onboard a ship that'll normally have 18-20 aircraft/helos on deck almost 8 months later? In ref 4 USMC continuing ahead with work arounds - there'll be no missions, NAVAIR won't allow it and these are ongoing still. I'm not sold. Ten planes don't make a strike force I would caution patience here, it's only a date change, let's get it as right as possible, after all how many have been done already?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politi...ion-readiness/
http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/2...D-FOIA-ocr.pdf
http://www.janes.com/article/52097/p...engine-failure
http://www.janes.com/article/50173/f...are-challenges
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...mbat/72332738/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...program-07501/
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-...alls-foul.html

And if nothing above has convinced you please read this and then note the very extensive list of refs at the bottom. Also as a reminder about DID as you read an article you'll sometimes note a light shaded blue over a couple of words-those are links to a source on the issue being discussed. The charts are highly useful especially in the weapons area, which by the way not even all the weapons these planes are designed to carry will be ready until 2017, barring any delays there as well.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ersies-021922/

Funny how the USMC has been quite about this in the government reports it can't even carry weapons - KAMIKAZE missions most be the plan of attack!?! :rolleyes:

I need some lunch before work, this had made me hungry, have a great day!!

Oh yeah-TRACKING!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Yep, as you say one squadron of anything but EW type aircraft are pretty irrelevant. So I'll stick to my 2017 date. Actually, I've seen things about qualifications with various weapons taking place recently. As with any new system during peacetime it's one small step at a time and eventually you get a functional system.

I'd assumed NavAir had signed off but just couldn't find a solid reference, thanks.

I had a friend who was a mechanic back in 1977 when they were testing the LAV and tho not nearly as big a circus this whole thing brings back memories.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Don all I say is if your extending out to 2025, I strongly feel that you can extend the A-10 to that date. Thank you ISIS and Russia for keeping them around! The news that the A-10 will be around through fiscal 2017 is old news, it's already been decided that 2023 would probably be the time frame however, Congress told the USAF it's not going anyway without an effective replacement. All this is already posted in this thread.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...erbolt-4791828
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politi...sis/index.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-to-combat-i/5
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...plans-stalled/

On the last ref. scroll down after reading the article, you'll see an interesting article on the F-22, as they say "where there's smoke, there's fire" I'll have figure something out with the F-22, they were put on a parallel program to upgrade them with an all new electronics suite very similar to the F-35 one but modified to fit the F-22, also already posted in this thread.

Have a great weekend-2 more to go!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The A-10's are in it for the duration. I won't pull them until they are officially decommissioned which I don't expect anytime soon. I've admired the A-10 for what it can do and how it looks since the very beginning

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

First thank you Don, been on the A-10 for a long time now, it truly is an outstanding platform. Secondly just pulled this from a DID article (ref within the story) which considering that the USAF hierarchy wants to get rid of the A-10, that they would turn around and publish the following article and data REALLY makes their plans counter intuitive. When you take away the transports and UAV's and allow for the fact the limited numbers of gunships they have available compared to the A-10, it makes the A-10 the most mission capable aircraft they fly. Though it might surprise some, but most members of Congress do know how to read in general and are really adept in interpreting charts. Makes you wonder if someone in the USAF got in trouble for disclosing this data!?!
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/m...irds/78860920/

I wonder if I should forward this to my Congressman and Senator to keep them in the "loop"!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Old, old story.
If it ain't a fighter or a strategic bomber the USAF hierarchy really isn't interested in flying it. Tho perhaps given the development of smart weapons they might see a limited use for tacair for interdiction.
You might find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxzpjBnpH4Y
In particular starting at 20:29

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Have I mentioned how much I love India when it comes to making decisions on military equipment? That it took 30yrs (And at times it feels like I've been tracking it for that long myself.) to develop and field the ARJUN Mk 1 and now the almost, we just might've, can't do it, let' make a deal within deal, oops! time for a "timeout", ready to go again, corruption, back on again, "holy cow" (That's irony!?!) we've finally picked a fighter and there'll only be 36 and not the 108 fighters we thought we wanted or needed. Well they at least managed to pick one the RAFALE by some miracle. Over the years I had nothing better to do anyway!?! And the below will bring you up to date om India's MMRCA fighter program-maybe...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...changes-01989/
http://www.janes.com/article/50591/m...ces-rafale-buy
http://www.janes.com/article/57495/i...-at-an-impasse

I've been tracking this for a very long time now this program was an early post to this thread also and when I scrolled down ref 1 and saw 2006/2007 that it started, my first thought was, when did I start out here? I'm not looking, but if someone else does, and I've been on this that long, please do me a favor, make it quick and put me outta my misery PLEASE!?! ;) And here's your OPLAN (Sorry Don.) :gossip: :shake: :hide: :fight: :fire: :deadhorse: :party: it outta work!?!

Some of these defense sites might feel the same as I do. You can click on each article or just look at the 4 or 5 pages of "tag lines" they reported on concerning the MMRCA program. This is why some of us take a wait and see attitude on equipment submissions.
http://defense-update.com/tag/mmrca

Anyway still tracking "until the cows, I mean jets come home!" :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Does anyone know of one source..........online...........that details information on hardpoints and weapons combinations carried for current in service military aircraft ?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Single source? I've never found one. If I can find one at all it's usually by specific aircraft model.
If someone does know of one I'd love to see it too.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I can dream..........

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I've not found one on the net that covers that data except for the Flight Global data I've posted and sent dealing with current/retired and ordered aircraft/helos from the world's airforces. The best I can offer is
1. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ and
2. http://www.military-today.com/aircraft.htm

Notes: Both are about 90%+ at for what your looking for but, will also provide weapon types and how many.
1. For the first ref. use the indexes on the right side of the page broken by "Region" and below that "Type" i.e. Ground Attack, Attack Helicopters etc. these are useful and save time.

2. For the second ref. they have a very extensive listing broken down by aircraft type and country alpha order. They also maintain a decent amount of older aircraft under the "type" section as well.

Though I haven't done much in years with aircraft as posted-these two have been my standbys for a very long time for the reasons stated above. I can most certainly say, there are much worse places to start. And you'll see them again from me as I'm not doing anything else until I "clear the deck" of the many years worth I have. Don't worry not a "huge" list more neglected is all, as you know-priorities in other equipment types. I've tried that search on and off for years now and I haven't found anything close to a JANE'S or similar website.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

P.S. I almost forgot...yes you can dream, but remember even a nightmare is a dream! :p

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

It bugged me after my last post that there was another site I used and had on my old computer but, I couldn't remember what it was because I lost it during one of my computer crashes on my old PC. I wanted to make one last check by doing a "word tech" change to my search criteria and there it was and now here it is...
http://www.combataircraft.com/

Don't be afraid to play with this site it has what you want plus if you click on the country it'll provide a pretty accurate picture of that countries combat aircraft holdings. Also the aircraft description/history is pretty good as well.

A most welcomed re-addition to my refs after losing it for about 4yrs. or so now.

Now I'm more satisfied between these last two posts on my offerings to you. The rest I use are more news orientated, therefore, I'm done on this topic now, though the search did also garner for me a new and verified news site as well so it wasn't a wasted effort at all.

Now for bed!! One more to go.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Yeah I know what you mean. I "lost" the link I was using yesterday that inspired the question !

Then the two brain cells that still work remembered I sent Andy the link

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/weapons.html

scroll down to Weapon Configurations and you find the original version of this....

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1454156987


Nice, yes ?

You can see the hardpoints and it give typical loads ...... MUCH more helpful than something like this for the Phantom II

or others that tell me something can carry say........20,000 pounds but don't say how many of which hardpoints are for heavy ordnance and which for light.

The problem is even this doesn't tell the whole story but it does better than most. Note the close air support configuration show the Typhoon carrying 18 ( ! ) brimstones. Six hardpoints used with three misslies per hardpoint so in game terms ----if I ASSUME they balance the load.... the least amount of Brimstones carried would be 6.....one pod of three per side, then other goodies could be hung. I discovered from a photo that the Tornado can carry 12 brimestones-------- 4 pods of 3 on the center line but finding all this out without multiple sources and a lot of luck is a real treat sometimes and in the end a Typhoon in the game with 18 brimstones is pricey at 624 points ....tempting to buy for all those Brimstones but you really want the air defence suppressed before you send that in:D
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1454157941

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I agree that is more useful, the A-10 is another fine example of this the USAF uses the term "pylon" which is mounted to a "hardpoint" that's designed for the same purpose - to carry multiple weapons. And going back to the Gunship issue, the plane I can't let go of is the "THUD" that not only was capable carrying a diverse variety of weapons but actually did especially in Germany. It would routinely carry a mix of anti-personnel and anti-armor weapons to be used against heavy Soviet mechanized units. Remember this was our top frontline ground attack aircraft for over ten years until the F-4 PHANTOM finally took over that role. But to your point where did I find that data? Like you on a dedicated plane pilot run website (That used USAF weapons configuration data sheets.) that's the only way we can "reasonably" get it "more right" in getting to these details.

Attachment 14093 Attachment 14094

Attachment 14095 Attachment 14096

Attachment 14097

Gotta get ready for 8.5 hrs. of fun!?! Well at least now that I'm retired I get 6 hrs. of sleep instead of the 4 hrs. on a good day on the boat!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I recall reading a comment once that while it was possible for an F-4 to get 24 x 500# bombs off the ground the target needed to be just off the end of the runway due to fuel consumption.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Try this in a normal aircraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j-YsrwRNwY

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Thats why the other 4 missiles are ALARMs :)

(the outer pylons are carrying, I believe a targeting pod and a countermeasures pod)

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The problem now is...............there are no longer any ALARMS in the inventory. They have been decomissioned

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

:eek: Eeek! I wasn't aware of this! We go from having one of the best and the only "loitering" ARM to having nothing???

It seems that there won't be a UK military in a few years :(
RAF has no teeth, RN has no planes, Army has no soldiers, etc.

Perhaps its easier to have the UK OoB ending in 2015...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

the rest HERE

retired at the end of 2013 and the next set of OOB's will reflect that

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

So the RAF must have developed a "cloaking" device for their jets, "good show" I just hope they shared it with us because the F-35 sure can use it! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Re an Alarm 'replacement' these links give some info...

http://http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk...er-late-never/
http://http://ukarmedforcescommentar...n-hostile.html

Presumably something along these lines will be made available for Fleet Air Arm and RAF F35B's.

Remember, when talking about UK Defence cuts, that some of this is/was temporary, due to financial mess ups within UK MOD going back ten years or more. The 2015 Defence review actually was actually fairly good from the armed forces point of view. For example, UK 'gapped' long range maritime patrol aircraft, but have recently annouced the purchase of Boeing P8 Poseidon aircraft

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Links don't work. I think you've put 2 "http"s in each address.

Regards, Warwick

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I know there are plans for an F-35 Ferret to replace the EA-6B that will almost certainly carry the AGM-88 HARM. To date I'm not entirely certain if it will be an F-35B or F-35C variant but probably a 'B'. Given that the Brits will be using the 'B' variant there's no reason they can't buy a few of the electronic warfare variant and some HARMs.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I cannot get them to work: Relevant bit of first one is:

"Its seems that the Euro-fighter partner nations have finally got together and signed a development and integration contract for the AESA radar for the Typhoon.

Details are a little thin on the ground but its seems likely that the RAF will be the first force to take delivery of the Captor E Scan radar.

One of the key features of the Captor E scan radar is supposedly incorporation of the Electronic Attack Capability pioneered in the Bright Adder Radar.

A Typhoon carrying SPEAR 3 missiles with the Praetorian DASS and Captor E Scan should give the aircraft a fairly potent capability against enemy air defences and hopefully go some way to offset the capability gaps left with the retirement of the ALARM missile and Tornado.

With the deployment of Captor E along with the announcement this year of integration of Storm Shadow and Brimstone the Typhoon should be close to reaching its full potential as a strike aircraft. The next milestones in the program are likely to be conformal fuel tanks and thrust vectoring although these are likely to depend on the future export success of the aircraft.

While its good news it should have come five years ago and one has to wonder what damage has been done to the program and its export potential by penny pinching from our EU “partners”."

Think defence.co.uk

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Minor OOB name change request; OBAT 011 Russia.

Unit 131 MiG-15 SD-5

[is equipped with 100 kg bombs]

Yefim Gordon's Aerofax MiG-15 book says on page 32:

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SD-5) development aircraft
In November 1952 another MiG-15bis was converted at plant No 21 in Gor'kiy. The aircraft had D3-40 shackles for carrying two FFAR pods, each with eight ORO-57 launcher tubes for ARS-57 FFARs. Firing was electrically controlled; AKS-2 gun cameras were fitted aft of the pods to record test launches. Designated izdeliye SD-5, the aircraft was tested but did not enter production.

Solution: Simply rename Unit 131 from "MiG-15 SD-5" to "MiG-15bis"

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Russian 011 OBAT Date change request for IL-10/IL-10M:

Units:
126
127
937
938

Currently some of them last until either 12/1959 or 12/1964.

Apparently in 1956, the Soviets abolished attack "Sturmovik" aviation and retired the IL-10 en masse:

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/il10m.html

Google Translate reveals:

As of January 1, 1955 Soviet Army Air Force in its composition were 19 assault regiments, armed with 1700 consisted Il-10 and Il-10M and 130 jet fighter-bombers MiG-15bis.

In April 1956, Defense Minister Marshal Georgy Zhukov presented the leadership of the country prepared by the General Staff and the General Headquarters Air Force report on the state and prospects of development of attack aviation. The report concluded the low efficiency of storm troopers on the battlefield in modern warfare, and actually proposed to eliminate the attack aircraft, providing a solution to combat missions for close air support of ground troops in the offensive and defensive forces of bombers and fighter aircraft. As a result of discussion "at the top" order came from the Minister of Defence 20/04/56, according to which a part of the Air Force ground attack aircraft CA abolished available Il-10 and Il-10M written off "by Defense plan," aircrew partially retrained on MiG 15bis, and partly - transferred to fighter aircraft the Air Force and Air Defence. Along with the acceleration of assault by government decree aviation 04/13/56, it was stopped mass production of reactive armored attack aircraft IL-40 and stopped all development work on advanced aircraft-storming.

Suggestion:

Change Out of Service dates on IL-10/10M aircraft to 12/1956. This would represent some 'holdover' from the official order writing them off in April 1956 -- they're still there on the airfields, but no funding is authorized for them, until they're too far gone to bring back hurriedly.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Just a quick "one and done" from JANE's & DID about my "favorite" jet...
http://www.janes.com/article/59027/s...ll-plague-f-35
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...program-07501/

The semi-news concerns Denmark's decision along with Canada to either cancel or postpone their F-35 involvement. Canada is to restart their fighter competition I believe this summer/or fall, the F-35 will be allowed to compete again for the contract. There is "chatter" from both about the new GRIPEN that's been equipped with an advanced AESA Radar that will maintain this fighter in the 4th GEN+ category of jets which is also still considered an exclusive club of less then a handful of fighters worldwide. Again the "+" being the distinction here.

Also the USAF is already looking for the replacement for both the F-22 and F-35. Lockheed Martin however, is pushing for incremental packaged updates for both. But McDonnell Douglas and Boeing see things differently, they'd love to have a shot again with a fighter of their own. I think some of us will be "real" old by then and therefore not an issue. :p

Regards,
Pat

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I can sorta understand why the USAF isn't thrilled with the F-35 (for that matter CAS aircraft in general) after all everyone is going to use it someone might think we no longer need a separate Air Force!

But the F-22? While I take the hype concerning it with more then a few grains of salt all indications are it really is top notch air superiority aircraft. Besides just what the heck do they think a new airframe is going to provide? As Lockheed Martin said, upgrade the various systems if and as needed, no reason for a new airframe.