Stock up your air to air defense

[ozanzac 0]

To put it short, the F-35A could be a worthy replacement for the F-16. But this depends on if it can carry a larger payload than the F-16 at greater speeds and distances. But it cannot fufil the A-10's role fully.

In today's conflicts, payload capacity is not really a priority. Look at the SDB...Lots of small, PGMs, which are ( relatively ) cheap to purchase, and are easily capable of taking out the most common targets ( radar sites, command facilities, airbase facilities, 'terrorist camps', etc...)

I agree that the significance of payload in a fighter isn't as important as it used to be. But todays conflicts haven't really been a fair playing ground have they. Mind you, if you have an aircraft with a larger payload, then more targets could be destroyed in less sorties (Multiple Target Missions). For an airforce, not as large as say the USAF, this larger payload would be vital to make your limited resources more effective.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Payload becomes more and more of a plus when it comes in conjunction with the ability to loiter on station for long periods of time. The idea of killing two birds with one stone is attractive, and cheap, too.

[Consigliere 0]

Hence where the idea of the SDB comes in

One aircraft with a relatively low payload capacity can carry lots of them ( IIRC an SDB weighs 200lbs ), and an aircraft with an average payload capacity can carry a large amount of them, enabling the pilot to strike numerous targets, whether they be TOOs or designated targets, in one sortie

[ozanzac 0]

That is true, but a 200 pound Small Diameter Bomb, no matter how 'smart' it is, isn't gonna take out a bridge as effectively as a 2000 pound JDAM. Sure you could release 10 at the same time, but then you've got the problem of munitions bumping into each other. And if they don't bump into each other, when the first one or pair blows, the shockwave created has the potential to literally blow the 200 pound explosives off course.

It's that or its making multiple flyovers over the same target, exposing the aircraft to unneccessary small arms fire if the enemy (assuming they are guarding the target) hasn't already engaged.

[Consigliere 0]

You don't seem to understand the purpose of this weapon system...

The aim of the SDB isn't to have huge striking power...You don't need a 2000lb JDAM for most targets. You only need a bomb which, thanks to its precision, only needs to weigh the minimum posible. Believe me there's quite a lot you can take out with 200lb of high explosives  

I have an article about the SDB in an old Airforces Monthly...I'll try and find it.

[ozanzac 0]

You don't seem to understand the purpose of this weapon system...

I see the effectiveness of using smaller munitions, but giving an aircraft a payload equil or greater to what an F-16 or A-10 flys with today would allow the F-35 to fly with more of these SDB's, allowing it to destroy more targets whilist on CAP.

Quote[/b] ]Believe me there's quite a lot you can take out with 200lb of high explosives

Mayby I like BIG conventional bangs!

An F-16 (wheather or not it can dispense them safely is another issue) can carry three dumb Mk-82 500-pounders on a single pylon (on the four appropriate pylons). Now the heaviest SDB weighs 250 pounds. Under the right circumstnces, an F-16 could potentially carry 24 of these weapons. But the F/A-22 has only enough to destroy nine targets. Which equals 18 bombs if you use a two bombs per target system, wheras under the same system, an F-16 could carry the munitions to destroy 12 targets. (I use F/A-22 because figures for the F-35 aren't available yet, and remember, the F/A-22 should carry a larger payload than an F-35)

As a theoretical, it would take Three F/A-22's to destroy the same amount of targets that two F-16's using the SDB could destroy. And seeing as one of the biggest limitations for the USAF at the moment is Tanker availability, the USAF had better act quick or it is really just compounding the problem.

There's a whole lot of other Maths involved to determine the economics of a flight, but I'm not prepared for that, as it is determined on the distance to the target area, fuel consumption, (thus tanking requirements) and availability of targets for maximum sortie effectiveness,

But......I suppose we'll have to wait until 2006, when the SDB system becomes operational on front-line aircraft, before any conclusions can be made.

[denoir 0]

The Czech Republic today annunced that they will order the Jas 39 Gripen to serve as the main work horse of their air force. Gripen competed against the Eurofighter and the F-16.

There was a lot of pressure to buy the F-16 but they still chose Jas in the end

[iNeo 0]

The Czech Republic today annunced that they will order the Jas 39 Gripen to serve as the main work horse of their air force. Gripen competed against the Eurofighter and the F-16.

There was a lot of pressure to buy the F-16 but they still chose Jas in the end

Yes, that's probably the main reason so many nations are choosing other planes when Gripen has been offered in much more economic deals - politics. I'm glad the Czech Republic stayed focus on their defence and capacity interests rather than foreign affairs.

[Consigliere 0]

They originally ordered the Gripen in 2001, but because of the catastrophic floods which hit the country, the resources put aside for this purchase were used to help in the rebuilding of the country.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]There was a lot of pressure to buy the F-16

Shame on the US for trying to push obsolete F-16 A's on any country. Did the US offering comprise of Mid-Life Updates or were these aircraft forgotten ANG units? At least the Hungarian offering had the MLU's, but even they were A's as well. The minimum I would have taken would have been Block 25 C or D aircraft. The Gripen was by far, the right choice.

[Consigliere 0]

Meh...You'd think Block 25 would be the minimum acceptable model, but nooooo....Good old Mr. Berlusconi only went and 'got us' a bunch of BLOCK 10s!!!

[ozanzac 0]

Good old Mr. Berlusconi only went and 'got us' a bunch of BLOCK 10s!!!      

Oh well, consider yourself lucky that they are only lease aircraft. Actually, I'd rather have the oldest F-16 than the youngest F-104 protecting our airspace. But why not lease more Tornadoes instead?

Heck, at least your getting Eurofighters!

[EiZei 0]

Think I would go with something swedish, no QA problems (except swedish furniture ) and pretty affordable compared to US made thingies.

[Consigliere 0]

Good old Mr. Berlusconi only went and 'got us' a bunch of BLOCK 10s!!!      

Oh well, consider yourself lucky that they are only lease aircraft. Actually, I'd rather have the oldest F-16 than the youngest F-104 protecting our airspace. But why not lease more Tornadoes instead?

Heck, at least your getting Eurofighters!

Ahhh...The venerable Starfighter. It'll be sad to see them go

Just in case you didn't know, Italy is the last operator of the type, and it will be completely withdrawn from service within the next year.

[toadeater 0]

Oops, delete please. Someone already posted the story I just read.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

The Avro Arrow.

The best fighter/interceptor in the world (Mach 2+), in 1957.

Diefenbaker, what the hell were you thinking? Bye bye national pride.

Tyler

[aj_addons 0]

naw mate that goes to the british prototype TSR-1 mach 2.5

and could outrun a lightening on only one engine but the british goverment only meant and cancelled it

heres a question ive heard of the mach 3 bomber that the americans were developing but got canceled called the valkrie

anyone got any info or pics on it? as i know the mig25 was bulit especially to shoot it down but wasnt canned when the americans canceled the valkrie, good old russians

[Gollum1 0]

Quote[/b] ]There was a lot of pressure to buy the F-16

Shame on the US for trying to push obsolete F-16 A's on any country.

Hahaha  

There's a Finnish saying, kind of hard to translate, but:

"He who charges (money) isn't crazy, but the one who pays!"

Oh, poor little Czechs, apparently you think they can't make decisions on their own.

[ozanzac 0]

naw mate that goes to the british prototype TSR-1 mach 2.5

and could outrun a lightening on only one engine but the british goverment only meant and cancelled it

heres a question ive heard of the mach 3 bomber that the americans were developing but got canceled called the valkrie

anyone got any info or pics on it? as i know the mig25 was bulit especially to shoot it down but wasnt canned when the americans canceled the valkrie, good old russians

The XB-70 Valkyrie:

The Final flight:

See the little fighter up its rear. That's the F-104 that signalled the end of the Valkyrie project. It did a loop during this photo shoot. Slammed into the Valkyrie prototype. And caused this:

The Valkyrie flew straight for around 15 seconds. The crew didn't even know it had been hit, Then went into an uncontrollable spin, killing one test pilot, who didn't eject in time. This killed the project, when it was deemed too expensive to recover from the loss, and caused great stigma on the engine manufacturer General-Electric, who organised the Photo-Shoot. And General-Electric were never given a military jet engine contract until the F-16. The military partly blamed GE for the accident, and as a result, Pratt and Whitney had a monopoly on american military aircraft jet engines up until the F-16. Also as a result, the military never again permitted photo shoots of its aircraft for corporations for decades to come.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Did GE order the plane to do the loop? If not, I think anyone can see where the blame belongs.

[ozanzac 0]

Did GE order the plane to do the loop? If not, I think anyone can see where the blame belongs.  

No, it was an unauthorised loop performed spontaneously by the pilot. It killed that pilot too (of the F-104).

[Consigliere 0]

It doesn't make sense : Why the pickle would the F-104 pilot do a loop?  

He was only about 10m behind the Valkyrie, and attempting such a manoeuver in those circumstances would just be plain stupid  

I don't think this is what happened. What I think happened is that the Starfighter got caught up in the turbulence caused by the XB-70, started to lose control, pitched up, and because of the high speed, the slight up pitch caused by the turbulence made the F-104 start spinning uncontrollably upwards, with the ensueing catastrophic results.

[ozanzac 0]

It doesn't make sense : Why the pickle would the F-104 pilot do a loop?  

He was only about 10m behind the Valkyrie, and attempting such a manoeuver in those circumstances would just be plain stupid  

I don't think this is what happened. What I think happened is that the Starfighter got caught up in the turbulence caused by the XB-70, started to lose control, pitched up, and because of the high speed, the slight up pitch caused by the turbulence made the F-104 start spinning uncontrollably upwards, with the ensueing catastrophic results.

It's always been in my mind that a loss of control by the Starfighter pilot could have been the cause of the accident, but you must remember, that the aircraft were all flying in the same close formation during the photoshoot. All the other pilots in the shoot held station in reasonbly safe areas away from the vortexes produced by the XB-70. I read somewhere 'ages' ago that the F-104 pilot, was an extremely experienced test pilot with thousands of flying hours, and on that day in particular, he was being very reckless by almost touching parts of the Valkyrie, perhaps showing off for the cameras.

Whether or not the pilot intended to do a loop, we will never know. What we do know is that if the cause of the accident was from the vortexs produced by the XB-70, that the pilot shoudn't have been where he was in the first place; especially as being a test pilot, would have known the dangers of being so close to a large aircraft. Hence the accident would still be the fault of the F-104 pilot.

[aj_addons 0]

its still pretty pish if thats what they cancelled thing for guess they only ever built one pity cause it looks like a B1B on steroids(well the nose anyway). on the plus side at least the soviets never cancelled the Mig 25 and becuase they never canceled that theyve got the mig 31

[ozanzac 0]

its still pretty pish if thats what they cancelled thing for guess they only ever built one pity cause it looks like a B1B on steroids(well the nose anyway). on the plus side at least the soviets never cancelled the Mig 25 and becuase they never canceled that theyve got the mig 31

Actually, they built two prototypes. The one that crashed was the one that had all the advanced avionics, scientific equiptment and flight surfaces. 700 million dollars worth of investment. This thing was alot more than just a B-1 on Steroids, I'd call it a Concorde Bomber on Steroids.

That's SIX engines there. (Sorry for crappy pic)

North American were preparing a Mach 3+ interceptor in the form of the F-108 Rapier. Based much on the technology being developed in the Valkyrie.

Imagine the arms race had planes like these had been fully developed and the legacy that they could have had on aviation in general! It leaves you speechless knowing they had technology like this back in the sixties, and to this day, there is nothing quite like it.