|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
AUSA and others feel the F-22 in many respects and especially for stealth is about the best out there. However in many Top 10 lists it's easily in the Top 5. It should be noted that the Russians pretty much round out the rest of the Top 5 in combat maneuverability etc., which I fully can appreciate going back to the MiG-29. However the PAK-FA/T-50 appears from a stealth point of view to not be near as good as earlier reported, even the below is suggesting the same not surprised as the F-35 has fallen a little in this category as well. Bottom-line the F-22 will probably remain the only true 5th Gen fighter for many years to come. Next is one with a different take on the Top 10 list...
http://www.military-today.com/aircra...r_aircraft.htm http://www.military-today.com/aircra...hoi_pak_fa.htm We had a question I believe in the British OOB/or APC Threads on transport capability... http://www.military-today.com/aircra...master_III.htm You can carry one Warrior. The C-17 has a 48.3 ton cargo limit. Therefore from a cost point of view and the obvious risk factors it's unlikely to be used for that purpose. The West has only one cargo plane to carry that out and it's the C-5A. The original C-5 can hold 2 x M1A1 tanks/16 3/4 ton trucks or 10 LAV-25 vehicles. http://www.military-today.com/aircra...c_5_galaxy.htm Now the real reason I'm here...Congratulations to the CORPS...yes they are the first ones to deploy the APKWS II on a fixed wing aircraft the venerable AV-8B Harrier II (And I take this moment to thank our friends "across the pond" for giving us such a GREAT DEAL on their fully updated almost 100 million dollars spent on the GR.7/9 Harriers. :rolleyes:). The USAF won't be far behind as it ran coordinated tests with, can you guess (?), you're right the A-10 WARTHOG. They had some issues with the jets that entailed a modified housing/FIXED. The USAF F-16 and USN F/A-18E/F were also used in testing. I have no data on the status with those jets. http://www.janes.com/article/59175/a...-usmc-harriers Time to "wind down" from work. Have a great day!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Only around 8 months earlier then I had them appearing in the OOB. Rather refreshing to have something deployed early rather then late or not at all.
Also: http://defense-update.com/20160320_apkws-2.html |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well I was reading some of my "newspapers" when I came across the below article. In this case concerning the UK's TYPHOON fighter-bomber. I have openly stated that any aircraft submitted by me will have it's proper "noun name" given vice say F-4/or PHANTOM. Sub typing is important because they represent improved capabilities and progression in technologies and weapons at different times through an aircraft's "lifetime" and makes it easier to apply them to units in the game for instance again using the F-4, there were huge differences from the F-4A > F-4E (The most prolific model of the type.) for instance the "A" wasn't a gun carrier, the "C" didn't have them until they mounted the SUU-16 gun pods which caused serious "drag" issues which wouldn't be addressed until the "E" came along and mounted the internal General Electric Vulcan (M61A) 20 mm, six-barrel, rotary-cannon with 639 rounds. That's just a gun issue and obviously doesn't even touch any other ones that would effect game play such as EW, Vision, Weapons etc. etc.
So back to the article as the above was a "demonstration", if you keep up in the flying world you know the EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON is a highly advanced fighter-bomber it is currently developed up to the TRANCHE 3. The affect to the UK OOB specifically (And I'm afraid to look at the other countries involved.) concerning UNIT 509 EF-2000 is... 1. Name change to TYPHOON TRANCHE 1 or simply TYPHOON T1 as the T# designation is a widely excepted "term" if you will in the literature. 2. A decision will need to be made to " terminate" the TYPHOON T1 with a change to the end date based on this article as the AM/RAF is about to pull the T1 from service as a fighter-bomber to strictly in the role of an air defense only fighter. I believe we should do this when the time comes which seems to be in the not too distant future as I'll have the other types submitted as discussed below. 3. ADD the other two types with the improvements upon each one even if represented by only one game appropriate unit. This will allow me/us to address any advances in technologies and weapons that would improve game play to the type as time moves towards the games calendar end. The UK's TYPHOON T1-T3 will be flying until 2040. http://www.janes.com/article/59243/r...-defence-force http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html A note about AUSA they are one of the most respected aircraft sites on the web/or publication. They are scientific in their approach and were one of the first to publicly "call out" the capabilities or lack there of the F-35. If interested in jets and air defense systems this is a good place to start. The last update for all articles is shown between the tabs at the top of the page. As I've noted in this thread before over the history of this game "typing" of armor has been to some degree been handled better than with aircraft. I'm not saying we have a problem to lose sleep over but, some of my biggest issues in dealing with advances as I've noted above, have come from the aircraft side of the house in trying to match the improvements to the proper aircraft where sometimes my best clue comes from the years that aircraft has been submitted for in the game. This to me is a workload reduction issue I think all can benefit from in the long run. I would guess as far as EW is concerned for fighter-bomber/fighters that the F-22 sets the high water mark in the game? Just trying to define that number so I have a mental "slide rule" to work from. Thanks! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I am confused by this -probably my fault- all I hear from the RAF types is making Typhoon a better Fighter Bomber, since she is already a good air superiority fighter (Indeed the RAF got some flak for getting an aircraft that might win a new battle of Britain, while ditching Royal Navy FAA Sea Harrier 2 and then 'joint' Harriers, all be it the AV8b was crap at air to air)
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
5 Attachment(s)
I'm not sure of the confusion, I'm merely pointing an aircraft's progression is tied into technological advances across the board to include avionics (Non factor in our game.), electronics (EW, Vision) and weapons. The RAF has not let you down many of the TYPHOON T2/T3 improvements dealt specifically with it's fighter-bomber capabilities some were weapons and others sensor driven (Which means software updates etc. etc.). What I really didn't pay attention to is it's SEAD role it appears to be highly capable of that mission as well. Because I won't pay ADOBE for certain services, I can't extract the data I wanted off their (Eurofighter) PDF download of technical data. However I found the same charts on line for the TYPHOON's various weapons configurations. The comparison picture of the side by side weapons configurations of the TYPHOON and RAFALE are from a different source but very useful none the less.
Attachment 14191 Attachment 14187 Attachment 14188 Attachment 14189 Attachment 14190 The actual picture is of a TYPHOON T1. Again do note the SEAD configuration. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I missed this initially as I looked for it under TYPHOON and not EUROFIGHTER..., so these guys are pretty good and it discusses the "progression" issue I brought in my last 2 posts. The following is taken from ref. 1 below..."The contract for tranche 2 phase 1 enhancement (P1E) was placed in March 2007. This includes the integration of Raytheon Paveway IV 500lb and Enhanced Paveway EGBU-16 1,000lb guided bombs and a new laser designator pod."
So as you can see it covers new weapons and an improved laser targeting system. Except for some work here to get these in, I don't know what more I can offer here concerning this plane. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/ http://www.military-today.com/aircra...er_typhoon.htm http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Mil...-2000-Typhoon/ I'm off to la la land it was a busy week at the "grind". Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I note that not everyone likes F35 on here. Understandably enough given its cost, delays, etc.
I used to be a critic of it myself, especially the STOVL F35B for the Royal Navy, being a supporter of putting cats and traps on the two very large new RN carriers and buying Super Hornet and, perhaps, later F35C. However, sadly, this is not going to happen, although the good news is that the normal, peace time, carrier air group on the carriers will now be 24 -rather than the original rather pathetic 12- F35B... Why did I change my mind about F35? Simple really, having worked hard for years to make sure my boy did not follow family tradition and join the Army -too many dead soldiers in wars we did not win, and never had a plan to win, in Iraq and Afghan for my taste- he decided to try for a Commission after University in the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm. Oh the plans of mice and men... Anyway to bring this back on topic, F35 seems just as easy as any other aircraft for SAMs to destroy in the game, despite its (frontal ark) stealth. Is that the case? |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
EW of 7-10 & size of 4-5 are the norm for the good stuff. So yes its in the same ballpark its not a F22 that's in a different league entirely with its high EW Its main problem is its slow so fairly vulnerable to AAA guns as they get to fire more shots at it. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The Afghans are starting to use the Super Tocano with laser guided Paveway and Hellfire missile among other options. So far it's been a great option against an enemy without much air defense.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Slow aircraft hit ground targets better, fast ones are less vulnerable to AA. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Except on any military board you care to name -let alone any air force board F35 is the greatest thing since sliced bread... Why?
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It's a good ground attack aircraft. It's not, repeat NOT, intended or designed to be a fighter (that's what the F-22 is for).
Excellent ground attack avionics. Carries an OK bombload internally for full stealth, and has external racks that can carry many tons of bombs/missiles. There are advantages to all three services using basically the same aircraft in terms of maintenance and logistics. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Personally I'll wait for "The Great Shootout" to be conducted early next year between the A-10 and F-35. Funny though that for all the talk about the A-10 and F-35, you're not hearing anything about the F-15E OK I am and they'll be getting an extensive electronics upgrade.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...rcraft-4820474 http://www.janes.com/article/59392/u...x-requirements http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...ike-eagle.aspx http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...g-variant.aspx http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...erbolt-ii.aspx The F-15E is the real winner here based on the fact it can fight it's way into and out of the target area, has a payload of 23klbs, as compared the F-35A at 18klbs and the A-10 at 16klbs. The F-15E during it's career has a shoot down score of 101 kills to 0 losses. The F-35 will lose it's stealth advantage if it has to carry weapons externally-and wasn't that the point of the whole exercise in it's development? Internally it won't be able to carry a much larger payload than the F-22 in "stealth mode" and for all the "hoop la" why is the USAF being required to find a replacement to the A-10 anyway under the A-X Program? http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/...s-a-10-legacy/ The Congress thus far is not necessarily supporting the USAF decision to look at, at least five "off the shelf' candidates. They are to look into a "ground up" option (And are.) as yet another paradigm shift is occurring with the resurgence of Russia and China. If you watched the news today there was a story about a U.S. Destroyer being buzzed by Russian attack aircraft (Unarmed however of course the ship is armed.) This is the kind of stuff we did to each other during the "Cold War". So I see the possibility of something that'll be a "hybrid" between the F-15E and A-10 based on their combined pluses if designed from the "ground up". I hope you'll at least look at the chart of the above last ref. the F-35 has been added to a newer version of the same chart and it doesn't fair that well either. It's posted in this Thread already I think around Oct. 2015 time frame. Also only 7 or 8 A-10's have been shot down in combat. The ratio of loss vs. sorties would fall into the 0.000...range. Operation Desert Storm ------------------------------- OA-10A 76-0543 Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF). The 23 US combat lost aircraft. Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91. OA-10A 77-0197 Crashed on landing. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW. Aircraft had been hit by small arms and was attempting a landing at KKMC FOL while in Manual Reversion after loosing all its hydraulics and in extreme weather conditions. On landing the aircraft cart wheeled wingtip over wingtip flipped over on to its back killing the pilot Lt Patrick Olson. There was nothing left of the aircraft. The remains of the aircraft were buried at the FOL. A-10A 78-0722 Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353rd TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Lt James Sweet ejected and made Prisoner of War. A-10A 79-0130 Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353th TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire approx 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Capt Steven Phyllis killed in action. Capt. Steve Phyllis died while protecting his downed wingman, 1st Lt. Robert James Sweet. A-10A 79-0181 Crashed on landing, wheels up, hard stick landing by pilot Capt Rich Biley on 22 Feb 1991. A-10A 80-0248 Shot down in combat by 'optical AAA' fire 2 Feb 1991 shot down by ground fire or SAM 20 NM SW of Kuwait City, Kuwait. Pilot Capt Richard Dale Storr ejected and captured as POW Released 03/05/91. From 23rd TFW. Operation Iraqi Freedom ------------------------------- A-10A (Serial Number : 78-0691) of 124th Wing/190th FS shot down by enemy fire, probably by an Iraqi Roland SAM; pilot survived and was recovered by friendly forces. I was always behind the F-22 even as controversial as it was at the time and since in the last 3 years or so it's proved it's worth. Maybe the F-35 will prove me wrong but, from what I've been seeing thus far, I'm not ready to support it. Maybe the "shoot out" if done correctly will change my mind. But for now my money is on the A-10 and the more recently possible addition of the F-15E though no final decision on that has been made yet that, that I'm aware of. Anyway I really need some sleep-I hope you all have a great day! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This will be interesting I am no plane buff but if the airspace is hot beating the F-15s multirole capabilities is a tall order, I will be very surprised if the F-35 is as capable.
F-15s bugbear is its probably expensive to run but I bet its still the deep penetration plane of choice. Let the others operate in the "safe zone" |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
1 Attachment(s)
From a discussion from early last Fall, I had said that I didn't feel that we were in "The Cold War" again but more like "The Chilly War" dealing with the airspace violations of some European countries by Russian military aircraft. But after this incident with the USS Cook earlier this week in which the CPA was within 75 feet of the bridge, this represents an escalation not seen since the mid 80's early 90's. It would seem we are heading back into "The 2nd Cold War". These over flights are normal but what's not is how close they "buzzed" the Cook. A sneeze at the wrong time at that altitude and speed could've resulted in the loss of life and who knows what political or other issues would've resulted from that. A good call by the C.O. to keep the crew and ship "weapons tight" to prevent an incident. The ROE after the first pass, would've allowed the C.O. to engage if he felt the ship was in imminent danger of attack, this was confirmed by the Secretary of State Thursday morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylONaw4ODuk http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/europe...ght/index.html Su-24 at CPA... Attachment 14199 It'll be interesting to see what the response from the Russians will be in about four to six weeks, when we have over 13K troops in Poland to conduct our largest exercise in Europe since the Cold War ended. Regards, Pat :capt: |
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:
http://www.queenelizabethcruises.net...comparison.jpg |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Guess I misread something when I looked them over, for some reason I thought they only carried 24 aircraft.
But at 55 there's no reason they can't carry F-35Cs. Yeah It's not an F-15 or F-22, but what that can land on a carrier is? |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
:capt:Well time for the NAVY to step in...
Prior to the Strategic Defense Review (SDR) of 2010 the plan was to scrap both the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. However (Another economics lesson. :p) this didn't prove a viable option to the British Government due to the contract obligations which, and you'll love this, would have made it more expensive to scrap them, then to finish building them at the stage in the construction the ships were in at the time. A fortune was already invested just in infrastructure and coordination of at least five major shipyards to "put the pieces together" not least of which included building the largest shipyard crane in the history of British shipbuilding. These carriers are the largest ships ever built in the long illustrious history of the Royal Navy. All my respect to the RN and the then Soviet Navies as I have a pair of Submarine Dolphins from each in my "Shadow Box" for all the fun and sometimes white knuckle games we played that I've been involved with. This situation is not unprecedented, for instance we saw the same with the MEADS Program which forced both the U.S and Italy to see the program through until it's operational testing and qualification status were completed. Germany was to back out as well, however, due to the contract environment it became favorable to stay in it and would in turn be the only country left standing that is operating the system with the possibility of Poland getting the system in the near future. The breaking of the contract for MEADS would've been in the hundreds of million dollars in penalties each for each country involved for what is considered the most advanced SAM in current use. The Carriers would've cost the UK in the billions of dollars if I remember correctly, to back out of the carriers. The bottom-line is currently both carriers will be activated (When they realized they were stuck with both carriers, the Prince of Wales would've been "mothballed". And given the current world events this has turned out to be a most fortuitous decision. I tried to get as close to a USN Carrier as possible, as us NAVY types like discussing these things in terms of "displacement" regarding a ships size. Also when noting aircraft capacity/or compliment it will do the reader well to realize this will include all types of aircraft such as EW, ASW, RECON, ATTACK etc. including fixed wing and rotor craft. The Queen Elizabeth Class is designed as a multi-mission platform unlike our carriers since the RN doesn't have specialized ships for instance like our Amphibious landing ships (LHA) that'll carrying our F-35B (Which is the only one I see worthwhile to have.). With that in mind they'll carry Royal Marines with the air-wing to compliment that mission to include the APACHE helos. These ships are of the ideal size and configuration for this versatility in the multi-mission environments the modern Navies face in both the Anti-Terrorist and current Deterrence role due to the rise and resurgence of the Russian and now Chinese Navies. Also the UK still has issues in dealing with the Falklands question in particular. A note of the FORRESTAL Class carriers the compliment of aircraft is 85 and the USS FORRESTAL (CVA-59) was the largest in displacement at 59,900 tons ((QE Class is 65,000 tons.) the rest of the class was something in the 56K and "something" range. The FORRESTAL Class is considered the first "Super Carrier" Class as well. So next some articles and graphs/charts etc. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and...for-the-future https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-01630/ https://news.usni.org/2015/09/17/dse...abeth-carriers Prospective... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._chart.svg.png http://www.military-today.com/navy/t...t_carriers.htm Comparison... http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=64 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...scrapyard.html You'll find earlier posts regarding this topic in this thread, though I did delve deeper into it here. Anyway anything on the surface is nothing but a "TARGET" anyway!?! :D My job is done here so I can enjoy the start of my weekend with a little "shut eye" time-enjoy the rest of yours!! Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
True in terms of size, but BAE gave a really crazily high quote to fit them with EMALS cats and traps, so they have a ski-jump and can only really operate F35B as a fixed wing aircraft (at least until they have a major refit and that is not going to happen this side of about 2035 ish). 24 F35B (plus helos) will be the normal peacetime air group. In a major conflict situation this could go up to about 36 F35B -including RAF aircraft- plus helos, including airbourne early warning radar, in a strike role. The idea being they will get tailoured air groups depending on the task. (as FASTBOAT TOUGH notes). The RN does have a number of Amphibious ships available for the Royal Marines, etc, but will lack a dedicated helicopter carrier for the time being. The ships can carry and operate helos up to Chinook size and total aircraft capacity is said to be around 55 or so, although in an emergency Carriers can generally carry a few more aircraft than design compliment. The first ship HMS Queen Elizabeth (named after Queen Elizabeth I) will be operational in 2019 and it is very widely expected that the second ship, Prince of Wales, will be renamed HMS Ark Royal. Teamed with Type 45 air defence destroyers, frigates and perhaps a nuc hunter killer sub they will give the Royal Navy a formidable Carrier task force. But I wish they had a real fighter for CAP missions... |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This for perspective only, but note this was published in 2014 since then the MINSTREL class landing ship deal between Russia and France did fail due to the UKRAINE crisis. France would end up paying a substantial amount of money to break the MINSTREL contract. France would recoup the losses with the recent sale to Egypt of both the MINSTREL ships to them which literally gave Egypt a quantum leap in conducting amphibious operations in their "neighborhood" as these are highly advanced purpose built ships.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mistral/ In my opinion given the failure of the MINSTREL deal to Russia (They were to get four of them.) and the current (But improving.) maintenance of their fleet, serious consideration has to be given to moving up the UK in swapping the two in their rankings. Also Japan is in the process of redefining itself away from a "Self Defense Force" to a as yet undefined new role due to both the actions of N. Korea and China. This next has the right music and is very much in line with MANY other sources online that like to rank this kind've of stuff. Note #1 and #2 have been interchangeable on the many I've seen. Everyone else seems inline with everyone elses assessment. What struck me though was how old some of these Marine Forces where. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKDBk-b-SNw Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Well, most of the worlds Marine forces are so small they just plain can't afford to develop the specialized equipment needed for amphibious assaults so make do with the last generation of USMC equipment.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
To clarify my last, I should've added that at the end of my last post, I mentioned "what struck me was how old some of these Marines Forces where." I should've added to that "historically speaking." I think it was Spain or Portugal that can trace the origin of their Marines back to the 12th Century-to me that's just too cool.
Another thought came to me in the "reading room" while actually reading T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and thinking about the ref. that ranked the world's navies, that in discussing China's SSBN program that they used the word "bastion" which I haven't seen used in a longtime. The term "Bastion" was used during the Cold War years describing the areas (Soviet) Russia would use to hide their SSBN's so that they'd be fairly close to the "Motherland" and could more easily be protected by other Russian assets against "unwanted guests" :D like us. As an update the Russians are reactivating 12 Cold War era Arctic bases to have them in place as the NW Passages opens up and to protect their vast energy resources in the region. Geographically speaking I feel now a much more strategic link to the man made islands the Chinese are building beyond just "power projection" in the South China Sea region. They can't realistically have a "bastion" setup to the North because of Russia nor to the East because they'd be sandwiched between Taiwan, Japan and S. Korea. So unless they invade Taiwan they can only go South in the area of those contested "islands" that are all going to have airfields on them and surface combatants that can operate from them along with their attack submarines. You would have all the pieces in place to support and protect a "bastion" for your SSBN subs to operate within. I guess I just shouldn't think on a "multi channel" level in the "reading room" it sometimes drives CINCLANTHOME a little crazy in any room of the house or elsewhere but she still likes me ;) - you gotta love her for that, well I do anyway!! :angel Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I doubt there is much to choose between the British Royal Marines and the USMC (one of my best mates who once saved my bacon in the British Virgin Islands, with his yacht by leaving his extremely cute French girlfriend over Xmas, was a former USMC bloke, he could drink Pussers rum in very large amounts and always said I was the only Limey he knew who was dark enough to be interesting. I, kinda, think it was a compliment, sort of). The USMC have the advantage in numbers and amounts of kit. As an Englishman I think the Royal Marines have a slight advantage in training, but I admit I'm biased. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
China has the money, the man power, and the economic base to be a very serious threat in not a long time. Japan and Australia are both taking that threat fairly seriously already, even as the Australian mining economy depends a great deal on China. Who ever said anything was simple? |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I had the dubious honor of spending a couple years in Scotland (Holy Loch in the 70's) so have somewhat more familiarity with the RM then most. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Opening a can of worms.
I'm looking at the EW ratings of various aircraft in v10b. US Army (OOB#12) Unit#144 F-16C Falcon EW=8 Unit#145 F-16C Falcon EW=9 Unit#146 F-15E Eagle EW=10 Unit#156 F-15E Eagle EW=10 Unit#200 F-15E Eagle EW=10 Unit#201 F-16D Falcon EW=9 Unit#561 F-15E Eagle EW=12 Unit#595 F-22 Raptor EW=16 (currently x3) Unit#920 F-35A JSF EW=12 (SEAD Aircraft) Unit#921 F-35A JSF EW=9 (external ordnance) Unit#927 F-16C Falcon EW=8 Unit#928 F-16D Falcon EW=8 Isn't the whole idea of the F-35 that it's more stealthy then the F-16/F-15? While with an external bomb load I can certainly understand it being rated the same as an F-16/F-15. Admittedly WinSPMBT doesn't deal with "stealth" but it's sort of represented in an aircraft's EW rating, it's vulnerability to MPADs/SAMs/radar guided flack. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Two years and counting they have been the exact same as they are this release......before that they were 8 so you're a LITTLE late in making this an "issue"..... and it has NOTHING to do with v10b
Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Suhiir actually gave me something to think about as I haven't got near as far into that side of the question of EW. I only bring it up because the F-15E Strike Eagle has/is getting a major electronics suite upgrade now. They have had some minor work done to reduce their radar and heat signature, but the advantage here is the fact it's a big plane that is capable of "warehousing" a lot of electronics in this case EW. So I was surprised to see there's already an F-15E UNIT 561 in the game with a EW that high, the only issue I see without having looked at it is might it be appearing to soon is all in the game. The USAF under pressure from Congress has already conceded the need for a new CAS (A-X Program.) platform. I see the F-15E/F-22 being the major players in "deep strike" capability for the USAF. I think the F-15E will be just as good as the F-35 (USAF decision still pending if it'll compete against the A-10 and F-35A in the CAS competition.) in a CAS role as well until the dedicated plane is chosen to replace the A-10 in that role. But in this era of precision stand off weapons the point is almost mute anyway even the newest AC gunship will have somewhat of a standoff capability with it's ability to carry "VIPER STRIKE" and others onto the battlefield.
I believe those EW numbers are about right were they need to be the F-22 should be and is rightfully so the EW standard bearer for that type of plane/or class. Only a bomber should be higher and I believe the B2 is already. The B1B and B-52H are and have had significant improvements made to their electronic suites and EW also. I will not forget the Russians as they can't be out of this discussion with the Tu-160 BLACKJACK which many sites feel is on par with a per-current model B1B. I specified the last only because I haven't yet seen or given a "DEEP LOOK" into whether or not they've received any recent electronic upgrades. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/ But like the F-22 above, the B2 is the standard bearer in EW for bombers without a doubt. Is there not an F-35 with internal bomb load in the game? I thought there was but not listed above unless I missed it. As a reminder I've posted several articles in here on the new updated electronics suite the F-22 is already flying with. As this is ongoing I would bet the ones with that suite already installed are the ones that've hit targets in Syria who never knew they were there using some of Russia's newest SAM systems. A little something I've been talking about for years now is going to finally get it's day in court, after the USAF released their numbers a short time ago the Congress isn't buying the conclusions reached (After all they have full access to that and their own data sources.) anyway there'll be another look... http://www.janes.com/article/59675/p...uction-restart Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Then when loaded with internal and external stores, around 18,000 total for the A & C and 15,000 for the B (but of course most aircraft only actually about half their max bomb load as they need to also carry enough fuel to get someplace) their EW rating is (or should be) about the same as an F-16 (or perhaps 1 better since they are a semi-stealth aircraft whereas the F-16 is not). |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Japan’s first F-35A will make its maiden flight in September 2016
http://defence-blog.com/news/japans-...mber-2016.html We'll see how this develops............ |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This couldn't wait. The person involved was described as an amateur, but many spies start that way. What worries me from that industry source comment and that I'd like to ask them is, what are there feelings about a professional spy? Well you'll just have to read the article to see what I'm talking about. I promise you the "journey" will be worth it for what this spy plan involved.
Sourced from DID... http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ions/85695920/ Have a great "what ever" today. ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
What else is new?
Half the time during the Cold War the Kremlin knew what was in the pipes for new equipment before US field commanders did. But being the rabid [insert the proper term for a female canine here] that I am ... I still think spies should be shot as tradition dictates. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
From another board; possible initial IOC of CHINESE Y-20 HEAVY TRANSPORT
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
You can learn a lot from the UNCLASS versions the GPO makes available. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I've posted on this situation with both sources and "my humble opinion" as not necessarily towards the USMC and USAF directly but, the measures required by these branches of the military to maintain they're respective air fleets due to the various delays and cost overruns of the F-35. These issues are exasperated due to not being able to retire platforms, having to maintain those same platforms, training costs for pilots, maintenance crews and beyond maintenance issues the modernization of some of these same platforms. And maybe lives.
For instance, there would be no F/A-18 E/F "SUPER HORNET" series if not for the delay of the F-35C. In fact the USN is forced into buying more "SUPER HORNETS" as noted below. The UK might've rethought their position on at least selling their GR.7/9 HARRIERS to the USMC for their use as spares for the AV-8B II PLUS HARRIERS had they known 1) These delays would be ongoing and 2) They were stuck in having to proceed in completing both QUEEN ELIZABETH Class carriers which was not known at the time they retired their HARRIERS. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-flying-02816/ The planes that have truly benefited from this come from the USAF. In the shorter term that would be the A-10 with (They also brought some out of the boneyard as well due to OP TEMPO.) refurbished airframes and upgraded electronics suite to enhance both offensive and defensive capabilities. http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...grades-4928602 In the medium term the F-16 later current versions have seen extensive and ongoing life extension programs to cover all noted for the A-10 and beyond. The long term winner I think some of you have figured out, of course, is the F-22 it has everything done as already mentioned and so much more especially related to the "complete package" directly related to the development of the F-35 program. It'll be flying to at least ~2040. So back to the CORPS problem, of keeping flying and maintaining OP TEMPO and spending money that could have an impact on either their land programs or long term F-35B buys depending on how long these delays keep going on. Here's your story... http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/m...how-bad-is-it/ http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...ower/81974498/ https://news.usni.org/2016/05/26/nav...surge-air-wing http://www.janes.com/article/61166/u...capability-gap http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...s-marine-corps http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mar...id=mailsignout Economics will always drive military decisions whether in terms of money or, in our world slots. Some of these planes will yet to be presented for inclusion here. Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
A stealthy fighter/bomber only as long as the ammo stores are internal. Once those bomb doors open it is no longer stealthy. If it flies in CAS with external stores, and as I understand, with a reduced load as compared to the A-10, at least in the F-35B it is far from what the money bought.
The many variants of the F-16 are doing fighter/bomber and CAS roles just fine for the many Armed services around the globe. I just hope they did not take away money from Navy medical to help fund this budget whale. ==== Sourced: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not...-wa-1730583428 |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I not-so-fondly remember taking up collections among the unmarried folks so the married ones could pay their rent/eat during the Carter years budget shenanigans. Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I warn you in advance the below is a very in depth analysis, the topic covers the broad range of issues concerning the RN/RAF use of the F-35, HARRIERS and the F/A-18A/G SUPER HORNETS. Also it covers Carrier Ops, coordinated Air Ops, Carriers (QE Class.) and weapons. These are a series of memorandums from Commander "Sharkey" Ward, DSC, AFC, RN, considered by many as "Father of HARRIER Ops" as sent to MOD and MP's. There are date tabs on the upper Left corner to guide you. To read this you must go to the bottom document and read down again and so on to the top of the ref. The time period covers March - June 2013. I'm only 3 or 4 in myself and find it very enlightening that parallels some of the issues we face here as well.
He has an excellent book out I read back around '95 while on patrol and just received a new hard bound ed. for my birthday just recently on HARRIER Ops during the Falklands War, its development and RN/RAF lack of understanding of it's operational capabilities along with inter services rivalries. Some might find it a interesting read though a little technical in the beginning. Anyway here you go "Good Luck and Good Hunting"... http://sharkeysworld2.blogspot.com/?view=classic Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Frankly I have to wonder about several of his comments and conclusions.
"The Air Marshal does not appear to understand that the decks of U.S. Navy and US Marine Corps carriers are up to 4 inches thick - whereas our new carrier decks are less than 1 inch thick - and even with its superior deck thickness, the USS Wasp F35B STOVL embarkation demonstrated a need for deck reinforcement." Since when does the USMC operate any ships at all? The US Army has ships, I thing even the USAF has a few. And 4 inch thick flight decks? Not on anything built post WW II. "May I draw your attention to the statements given by your witnesses concerning air defence of the carriers without the Crow’s Nest or any other AEW capability. Contrary to your witnesses statements our Daring class destroyers cannot provide long range early warning of threats approaching at very low level such as sea skimming missiles and their launch platforms. The destroyers have a horizon-limited detection range against low level incoming threats of approximately 23 nautical miles which is insufficient to provide adequate reaction time against a missile attack." Since when do picket ships operate directly on top of what they are protecting? The picket is likely to be 15-20 NM from the carrier giveing the carrier apx. twice as much reaction time. Amidst much obfuscation, your witnesses endeavoured to persuade your Committee that the choice of the F35B STOVL aircraft for our new carriers is driven by the need to attain an early ‘initial operating capability’ at reasonable cost. It is quite extraordinary therefore that neither Members of your Committee nor any of the witnesses raised the issue of the far more cost and operationally effective options for our carrier air groups – the F18 Super Hornet, Super Growler and Hawkeye aircraft: I don't believe the flight deck on the Queen Elizabeth is large enough to handle any of the above aircraft. So perhaps you'll excuse me if I take everything in there with a large dose of salt. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
You have to be careful of the time frame these documents were produced, in 2013 the decision on what plane and how the flight deck would be designed was very much up in the air. The plane issue is buried in here somewhere. The QE Class carriers have three runways two at 160m/or 525ft. the larger one is at 260m/or 853ft.. As a flattop she would've been equipped with the electromagnetic catapults which will be on our newest class carriers. That decision was made before the RN's commitment to the F-38B Program. I'm not sure that a final decision for the flight deck of the Prince of Wales has been made yet. Last I read they were holding off on this decision pending program delays and increased cost issues of the F-35B that still might affect their final buy of the number of units. They will probably go the the F/A-18E/F or possibly the navalized Rafael that the French I believe are using on their much smaller carrier compared to the QE Class now.
Concerning the F/A-18E/F they are about 25ft. longer than the C/D version and heavier by I believe 2-3Klbs. if not mistaken. With catapult assistance the E/F needs at least 300ft (~1500 feet unassisted.) minimum take off distance and again a minimum of 329ft (~+1350ft non-arrested.) landing distance with a arresting system. So the QE Class can handle them. By way of another example the Russian KIEV is ONLY 14m longer in total length then the length of the longest flight deck on the QE Class carriers and it carries 18 M-29K jets plus 8 Helicopters using a "ski jump"! The basics have always come down to high ships speed into the wind to provide maximum lift for the aircraft, supplemented by aircraft engine power/thrust and catapults if equipped. The QE Class is a very multi-functional carrier though the QE will be commissioned with a "ski jump" deck, these decks can easily be converted to a flattop in a normal refit period and vice versa. These are well designed and functional ships. From the Ref... "No catapult or arresters will be fitted in the initial build but the carrier will be built to accommodate a future back-fit. The carrier will be fitted with a steam catapult or electromagnetic launch system and arrester gear, if the option to convert the carrier to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant proceeds. The deck has three runways: two shorter runways of approximately 160m for the STOVL joint strike fighter and a long runway, approximately 260m over the full length of the carrier, for launching heavily loaded aircraft – an area of nearly 13,000m². The deck will have one or two vertical landing pads for the F-35 aircraft towards the stern of the ship." http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html https://www.quora.com/Military-Why-d...have-ski-jumps Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
In the game, I use jets although they are more eye candy than game "impactors." I can do more with attack helicopters than jets. Well a USV is handy too. It was the former president of the United States Eisenhower that warned of a military-industrial complex in 1961. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Aircraft with JDAMs/Mavericks or other "smart" munitions are fairly useful, but yeah, those with "dumb" munitions are really more eye candy then anything else. Once in a blue moon something amazing will happen (like the time three B-52s actually hit the target area) but for the most part given the unit cost they are a waste of a significant number of points.
SEAD aircraft however work fairly well. I recall someone once saying they bought only SEAD types and I can't say I blame them, because they'll at least prioritize AA which can be quite handy if you also have helos. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
2 Attachment(s)
attachmentid=14358&stc=1&d=1468450406
Quote:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1468449403 was a simple test scenario I set up with 39 visability and 155's had whacked the area first so there was a bit of smoke about.. This shows the second banshee after it knocked out the second tank....the first Banshee knocked out the first tank.....39 visibility attacking in hilly terrain and the NKs have 37mm AA firing at the Banshees on the way in and out... I know that **some people* don't seem to have any luck with airstrikes and I don't know why.....they are NOT a "sure thing" but I don't think of them as a uselsss waste of points The second time I tried the scenario I got one kill, the third time was one kill and 1 ** damage....all with "dumb" munitions The test scenario is attached...just press quit orders EDIT....... and that Banshee photo was SUPPOSED to have been changed last time to 828. and a new pic for the FH-1 Phantom ..oops ( in now.........) Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Rockets seem to work fairly well, I was referring to bombs/napalm, I should have been more clear.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I need details. I have discovered a few things but I want to hear it from you and anyone else who wants to jump in Don |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It seems "guided" weapons (LGBs, rockets, etc.) lock onto a specific target and thus hit or miss. Even with the frequent (50%?) chance of a reduced penetration hit they're still 50% probable to kill what they hit.
Whereas dumb bombs/napalm seem to attack a target hex, and anything within the blast radius may be effected. But since they rarely have have much, if any, any AP Pen armored vehicles are essentially immune. While soft vehicles are frequently effected infantry type units rarely suffer more then suppression. If you're trying to take out something like say a mortar merely suppressing the crew really doesn't have much effect ... a reduction in ROF for a turn or two. Napalm is GREAT at suppression but almost never causes casualties, and again after a turn or so that's worn off. You don't dare try to drop bombs anywhere near your own units and suppressing something half way across the map for a couple turns hardly makes a 150-300+ point aircraft worth the cost. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
You don't dare drop bombs anywhere near your own units in reality either..... can't say I agree with "Napalm .... almost never causes casualties" the tests I've run do not support that.
Napalm in SPWW2-SPMBT has 150% higher HE kill than the stock SP2 OOB's did but it holds over the small WH values and that's one thing I'm looking at but as for...Napalm .....never causes casualties....not in my tests and what survivors there may be are running for the map edge not just " surpressed" What I did find was way back when we lowered the HE pen of aerial bombs in comparison to SP2's values and investigating that is one of my fall projects....SO NICE of Microsoft to "improve" the OS so now I have to fire up the XP machine when I want to check the original OOB's with the original MOBHack....it kinda lowers my enthusiasm Don |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.