If F-22 cancelled, then what does the US buy?
Raymond Chuang
Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due to
Congressional funding cuts.
What would the USAF buy instead? Will Boeing offer an upgraded F-15 or
Lockheed-Martin offer an upgraded F-16 using the same engines as the F-22
plus electronics from the F-22, or will the USAF seriously consider buying
an outside design such as an "Americanized" version of the Eurofighter
Typhoon?
I think an F-16 with the engines from the F-22 and a new wing would make an
excellent fighter.
--
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Urban Fredriksson
Raymond Chuang <rch...@slip.net> wrote:
>Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due to
>Congressional funding cuts.
>What would the USAF buy instead?
JSF with better air to air capability?
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
If you plan on reading just one book this week -- you read far too few books.
Bill Norcott
>
> Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due
to
> Congressional funding cuts.
>
session of Congress. But I am willing to play "what if".
> What would the USAF buy instead? Will Boeing offer an upgraded F-15 or
> Lockheed-Martin offer an upgraded F-16 using the same engines as the
F-22
> plus electronics from the F-22, or will the USAF seriously consider
buying
> an outside design such as an "Americanized" version of the Eurofighter
> Typhoon?
>
> I think an F-16 with the engines from the F-22 and a new wing would
make an
> excellent fighter.
There are no F-15 upgrades in the works. The two remaining fighter
programs would be Joint Strike Fighter and Super Hornet. Eurofighter
would be an option only if U.S. could not build something better;
however JSF is better than Eurofighter and Super Hornet is at least as
good. So Eurofighter is out of the picture in either case.
A USAF variant of Super Hornet would be possible I guess. Minus the
tailhook and with USAF-style refueling system. The Super Hornet can
carry every airborne weapon in the Navy arsenal. It is not stealth but
neither are Eurofighter, F-15 and F-16.
JSF is the most likely choice for upgrade in the fantasy scenario where
the F-22 is cancelled. What would it take to redesign JSF to also take
on the F-22 role? Maneuverability is not really an issue for JSF which
is quite a bit more agile than the F-16. Thrust vectoring could be
added to JSF. A dual-engine plane derived from JSF would have the
stealth and supercruise capability. This would be doing it on the cheap
like the Russians, who have 4-5 different designations for the same
basic plane plus a few tweaks. There are supposedly 14-17 cubic feet of
unused avionics capacity in the basic JSF airframe, plenty of room for
expansion.
Bill
--
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
- Salvador Dali
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Drewe Manton
>Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due to
>Congressional funding cuts.
>
>What would the USAF buy instead?
As long as they choose whatever they need (or can afford) only *after*
lining congress up against the nearest sturdy wall and slotting the lot of
them.
regards
Drewe
Rama Lama Yip Diddley Aye
Temple of the Green Grass
"The stupidity of the action is directly proportional to the number of people
watching you"
Preserve wild life. . . pickle a Mon-key!
Maxwel...@worldnet.att.net
<rch...@slip.net> wrote:
<snip>
> will the USAF seriously consider buying
>an outside design such as an "Americanized" version of the Eurofighter
>Typhoon?
>
There was a real flap about Harriers because they weren't US made.
IIRC the USMC had to commit to US production of the AV8B to get
permission to buy them.
I doubt seriously the US will buy foreign as long as they see
themselves as the tecnological leaders. Why buy an inferior design
when you can build better yourself? - would be the attitude.
I think you will see a return to the 30's style of purchase - the US
will buy one design in large quantities and make do. The Boeing
F4B/P-12 series is an example of what I think the early 21st century
will be like. Look at the number of B-52s versus the number of B-1s
and B-2s.
It's a money thing unless there is a hot war going on, and even then
it can be a production issue - remember the most produced US fighter
of WWII was the P-40 in all its variants.
It's the purse strings and the misconception we will have a couple of
years to gear up an instantly superior aircraft if needed. That, and
the fact that those deciding to keep the old ships pay no consequence
for their decisions if it hits the fan.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<rch...@slip.net> wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due to
>Congressional funding cuts.
>
>What would the USAF buy instead? Will Boeing offer an upgraded F-15 or
>Lockheed-Martin offer an upgraded F-16 using the same engines as the F-22
>plus electronics from the F-22, or will the USAF seriously consider buying
>an outside design such as an "Americanized" version of the Eurofighter
>Typhoon?
The F-15 upgrade is a possibility; it has a full crew of two, the
power of dual engines, a respectably large weapons-carrying ability,
and most importantly, the internal space which can be used for the new
electronics replacing the old.
The F-16 has NONE of the above.
The typhoon, if it realizes all of its planned capabilities, would be
more suitable than any F-16 kluge.
- John T.
Paul J. Adam
Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> writes
>The typhoon, if it realizes all of its planned capabilities, would be
>more suitable than any F-16 kluge.
With one exception - it's NIH :)
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
at...@my-deja.com
"Raymond Chuang" <rch...@slip.net> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due
to
> Congressional funding cuts.
>
> What would the USAF buy instead? Will Boeing offer an upgraded F-15 or
> Lockheed-Martin offer an upgraded F-16 using the same engines as the
F-22
> plus electronics from the F-22, or will the USAF seriously consider
buying
> an outside design such as an "Americanized" version of the Eurofighter
> Typhoon?
>
make an
> excellent fighter.
What about the F-16XL? For anyone not familiar with the XL, it is a
slightly larger (about 54 ft. long) F-16 with "cranked arrow" style
delta wings. It has a larger engine than F-16 and has vastly increased
capability, with improvements over the F-16 in range, fuel efficiency,
payload etc., and was actually in the running for the Strike Eagle's
job. The XL is also designed to be able to sustain speeds well into the
supersonic range without needing to use its afterburner, a capability
known as "supercruise" which not many planes have.
Bill Norcott
I will correct myself here, as JSF already has thrust vectoring.
Bill
--
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
- Salvador Dali
Glenn Chung
50/52 purchased by Israel (in preference to the F-15I, by the way) show that
the F-16 has a long way to go before it is considered obsolete or even
growth-limited. With the addition of the F110-129EFE, advanced phased array
radar, integrated passive IR sensors (probably based on the Falcon Knight
work done in the mid '90s), advanced cockpit management systems, advanced
DFCS, internal self protection ECM (witness the big spine Block 50s just
purchased by Singapore), and perhaps even a stealtheir inlet (already been
tested) and serpentine inlet duct, the advanced versions of the F-16
available now or becoming available in the early 21st Century certainly put
an unflattering light on next generation designs like EuroFighter and Rafale
and even stack up more than fairly against JSF. In fact, the F-16 has
already beaten both European designs for real orders.
Hell, if you really want to go all out with the F-16 just dust off the
F-16XL (originally designed in '80/81), integrate Block 60 avionics and
AVEN, and you've got a hell-bent-for-leather supercruise (yes, NASA F-16XL
ship #2 "accidentally" hit mach 1.1 in military power on the standard
F110-129) post-stall maneuverable F-22 class strike fighter for much, much
less money. Yes, less stealthy, but in all other respects a very capable
challenger. Certainly this aircraft would eat EuroFighter or Rafale alive in
any knife fight and with conformal carriage of four Slammers and two more on
the wingtips, it is no mean long-distance fighter, either.
Glenn
Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:37e38fd2...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:27:48 -0700, "Raymond Chuang"
> <rch...@slip.net> wrote:
>
> >Folks,
> >
> >Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due to
> >Congressional funding cuts.
> >
> >What would the USAF buy instead? Will Boeing offer an upgraded F-15 or
> >Lockheed-Martin offer an upgraded F-16 using the same engines as the F-22
> >plus electronics from the F-22, or will the USAF seriously consider
buying
> >an outside design such as an "Americanized" version of the Eurofighter
> >Typhoon?
>
> The F-15 upgrade is a possibility; it has a full crew of two, the
> power of dual engines, a respectably large weapons-carrying ability,
> and most importantly, the internal space which can be used for the new
> electronics replacing the old.
>
> The F-16 has NONE of the above.
>
> The typhoon, if it realizes all of its planned capabilities, would be
> more suitable than any F-16 kluge.
>
> - John T.
Philippe Nissaire
money has benn invested here to simply cancel the project... The House of
Approbations Committee's defence panel subcommitee has in fact endorsed a
proposal to remove the 6 F-22A Raptor fighters from the FY2000 Defense
budget. This does not mean the end of the project: $1.2 billion would still
be included for F-22 research and developpment. This would merely delay
(1yr) the program... The committee also aproved overall defence spending
bill of 266.1 billion, 15.5 billion more than FY99. It should also be
understood that only 1 of 3 committees has voted to eliminate the 6
fighters. The Senate has endorsed a full 3 billion for the project (for 6
aircraft and R&D). In the end, you also have to consider this delay would,
in the end, correspond to increased costs down the line. The cost to extend
the life of a Wing of 72 F-15s would put the hole prospect a lot costier.
While republicans claim that the F-22 is a left over of tha cold war, and
that not threat exists to justify the F-22, others counter this by saying
the hole idea is to be so far ahead for the f-22 to dominate the
sky.Technologies aboard the F-22 ar also to be used on the JSF programm,
which is a key element to maintain the JSF programm at its low cost. The
project is still going on, even with opposition, which is a sign the project
will not be canceled. The tests tend to prove the F-22 will be up to its
predicted potential, if not over.
So, to awnser ur question, if the project "was" to be cancelled, then the
JSF would be the obvious alternative, but would tend to increase the costs
of the project, as stated above, which is against the hole idea of the JSF
programm.
Phil
Urban Fredriksson <gri...@canit.se> wrote in message
news:7rvabi$p...@uno.canit.se...
> In article <ru68mu...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Raymond Chuang <rch...@slip.net> wrote:
>
> >Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due to
> >Congressional funding cuts.
>
> >What would the USAF buy instead?
>
Ross -Roscoe- Dillon
<niss...@ramco.net> wrote:
>Wait a minute, nobody ever intended to cancel the F-22 project! Way too much
>money has benn invested here to simply cancel the project... The House of
>Approbations Committee's defence panel subcommitee has in fact endorsed a
>proposal to remove the 6 F-22A Raptor fighters from the FY2000 Defense
>budget. This does not mean the end of the project: $1.2 billion would still
>be included for F-22 research and developpment. This would merely delay
>(1yr) the program...
This is a point every seems to be missing, including you. The
contracts already awarded to LMAS were negotiated with options that
included those additional 6 aircraft. If those options are not
exercised, that contract is in jeopardy of being defaulted. Also, the
production line would stop for a year. What does LMAS do with those
employees in the meantime? We faced this with the F-16 production
lineand the resulting decision was to continue to trickle them off the
line. Continued USAF buys also encouraged more FMS sales so the
problem went away. Bottom line, chopping the FY00 buy is a much more
serious business decision than it would appear. I suspect the
schedule disruption and added cost (contract renegotiation) would in
fact kill the program.
>In the end, you also have to consider this delay would,
>correspond to increased costs down the line. The cost to extend
>the life of a Wing of 72 F-15s would put the hole prospect a lot costier.
True...
>While republicans claim that the F-22 is a left over of tha cold war, and
>that not threat exists to justify the F-22, others counter this by saying
>the hole idea is to be so far ahead for the f-22 to dominate the
>sky.Technologies aboard the F-22 ar also to be used on the JSF programm,
>which is a key element to maintain the JSF programm at its low cost.
Also true, at least in the case of the Lockheed Martin version
(assumption on my part)
>The project is still going on, even with opposition, which is a sign the project
>will not be canceled.
Until the bill is signed directing otherwise, it would be foolish to
react to congressional posturing. If we reacted everytime a
congressman yelled cancel (or buy more for that matter...) we would
never get anything done. (As an aside, as an Air Force acquisition
expert, I feel than many of our problems are the direct result of
congressional funding instabiilty which in turns forces redesign or
renegotiation and drives up cost and schedule...)
>The tests tend to prove the F-22 will be up to its predicted potential, if not over.
>So, to awnser ur question, if the project "was" to be cancelled, then the
>JSF would be the obvious alternative, but would tend to increase the costs
>of the project, as stated above, which is against the hole idea of the JSF
>programm.
The JSF is NOT an air superiority aircraft and CANNOT replace the
F-22, another point people seem to be missing. The F-22 is repalcing
the F-15, the JSF is to replace the F-16. The only quick replacement
is to restart the F-15 line, maybe with some updated avionics, but it
will soon be outclassed and we will be in trouble.
The F-15 faced similar discussions, and thanks to far sighted folks
back then the USAF record of never having lost a ground troop to enemy
aircraft since Korea is secure.
>
>
Roscoe
USAF Flight Tester
(B-1, B-2, T-38, T-37, C-5, QF-106, F-16, F-5...)
------
If replying by email, please remove _no_spam_ from address
David Lentz
Ross -Roscoe- Dillon wrote:
<snip>
> The JSF is NOT an air superiority aircraft and CANNOT replace the
> F-22, another point people seem to be missing. The F-22 is repalcing
> the F-15, the JSF is to replace the F-16. The only quick replacement
> is to restart the F-15 line, maybe with some updated avionics, but it
> will soon be outclassed and we will be in trouble.
>
> The F-15 faced similar discussions, and thanks to far sighted folks
> back then the USAF record of never having lost a ground troop to enemy
> aircraft since Korea is secure.
Best I can reckon, the F-22 is replacing the F-15 and F-17. The
JSF is replacing the F-16, A-10, AV-B and who knows what else.
David
jtarver
Glenn Chung <gl...@visuality.com> wrote in message
news:7s0nem$g1d$1...@news.chorus.net...
Don't forget, those F-22 motors bolt right in.
John
>
> Glenn
>
> Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:37e38fd2...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net...
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 22:27:48 -0700, "Raymond Chuang"
> > <rch...@slip.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Folks,
> > >
> > >Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due
to
> > >Congressional funding cuts.
> > >
Raymond Chuang
news:bxqCqMAB...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >more suitable than any F-16 kluge.
>
There's also another problem too: where are they going to put the recepticle
for the Boeing "Flying Boom" air refuelling system on the Eurofighter
Typhoon? I believe all current USAF front-line aircraft requires that they
can be refuelled from the KC-135 or KC-10 using the Flying Boom.
Raymond Chuang
> What about the F-16XL? For anyone not familiar with the XL, it is a
> slightly larger (about 54 ft. long) F-16 with "cranked arrow" style
> delta wings. It has a larger engine than F-16 and has vastly increased
> capability, with improvements over the F-16 in range, fuel efficiency,
> payload etc., and was actually in the running for the Strike Eagle's
> job. The XL is also designed to be able to sustain speeds well into the
> supersonic range without needing to use its afterburner, a capability
> known as "supercruise" which not many planes have.
If the Congressional budget ax does fall on the F-22, I won't be surprised
if the F-16XL design gets revived again, but this time it will have far
more advanced electronics and will also use the F-22's engine (including
thrust vectoring). It'll certainly be quite fast, and it would be an
excellent long-range fighter.
Drewe Manton
writes:
>Certainly this aircraft would eat EuroFighter or Rafale alive in
>any knife fight
Yeah. . righto!
We in Europe just have *no* idea about making fighters.
Whatever
(BTW this is not to suggest the F-22 isn't *the* premier air dominance
fighter in waiting. . clearly it is, but at a cost)
Andrew Yeung
<dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> wrote:
>Best I can reckon, the F-22 is replacing the F-15 and F-17. The
>JSF is replacing the F-16, A-10, AV-B and who knows what else.
F-17?
Glenn S. Chung
and AVEN combined with that HUGE cranked arrow wing and advanced DFCS could
outfly any aircraft with fixed exhaust nozzles? Aside from the possibility
of G-LOC due to the F-16XL's post stall maneuverability, I'd bet it wouldn't
be a fair contest.
Glenn
----------
In article <19990918214719...@ngol06.aol.com>,
Bill Norcott
"Glenn S. Chung" <gl...@visuality.com> wrote:
> So you wouldn't lay odds that an F-16XL with the 34,000lb thrust F110-
129EFE
> and AVEN combined with that HUGE cranked arrow wing and advanced DFCS
could
> outfly any aircraft with fixed exhaust nozzles? Aside from the
possibility
> of G-LOC due to the F-16XL's post stall maneuverability, I'd bet it
wouldn't
> be a fair contest.
>
> Glenn
>
I consider it a bit of wild-assed claim myself, not to mention coming
across as a wee bit arrogant. But why would the U.S. go back to a 20
year old X-plane in the first place? JSF has an engine 40% more
powerful than the F-22 engine you would jam in the F-16XL, has thrust
vectoring, advanced stealth, etc. Besides we are not building these to
take out Eurofighters; they are our allies, remember? [I hope you were
referring to joint exercises.] Soon enough the British will be flying
a version of JSF right alongside their Typhoons. Then they can decide
for themselves which plane they prefer.
Paul J. Adam
>There are no F-15 upgrades in the works. The two remaining fighter
>programs would be Joint Strike Fighter and Super Hornet. Eurofighter
>would be an option only if U.S. could not build something better;
>however JSF is better than Eurofighter
Seen it flying, have you? :)
>and Super Hornet is at least as
>good.
<Snort> In what way, perhchance? (Unless you need to land it on a
carrier, which advantage I will cede)
> So Eurofighter is out of the picture in either case.
Another Knight who says NIH!
Drewe Manton
>So you wouldn't lay odds that an F-16XL with the 34,000lb thrust F110-129EFE
>and AVEN combined with that HUGE cranked arrow wing and advanced DFCS could
>outfly any aircraft with fixed exhaust nozzles?
But you are talking potential here. . . . . just like the the potential
thrust vectoring nozzles on a 26,000lb EJ-230 which are already being tested by
the Spaniards. (the nozzle that is. . the growth to 26,000lb is a few years and
a new core away yet, but even the existing EJ-200 has a growth potential up to
23Klb) Wonder how much energy that big 'ole wing would bleed in a dogfight?
Certainly no less than a Typhoon. But this is turning into a pissing contest-I
digress.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<gl...@visuality.com> wrote:
>So you wouldn't lay odds that an F-16XL with the 34,000lb thrust F110-129EFE
>and AVEN combined with that HUGE cranked arrow wing and advanced DFCS could
>outfly any aircraft with fixed exhaust nozzles? Aside from the possibility
>of G-LOC due to the F-16XL's post stall maneuverability, I'd bet it wouldn't
>be a fair contest.
I wouldn't lay odds that ANY F-16 variant would have an accurate,
reliable, maintainable weapons delivery system.
The ability to fly up one's own ass is nice to have, but of far less
utility to a fighter aircraft than the ability to do "air superiority
on the way to the target" (tm - Ed Rasimus), accurately deliver
overwhelming ordnance to the target, then get the hell out.
The F-16 is good at the last of those.
- John T.
Urban Fredriksson
Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>JSF is the most likely choice for upgrade in the fantasy scenario where
>the F-22 is cancelled. What would it take to redesign JSF to also take
>on the F-22 role?
Firstmost more internal AAMs. Probably not impossible; The
bomb bay which has space for one bomb and one AMRAAM
should have room for two AAMs more, on sort of a trapeze.
> Maneuverability is not really an issue for JSF which
>is quite a bit more agile than the F-16.
I'll agree it's faster, but I'm quite sure the Boeing JSF
isn't designed for 9G like the F-16.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A boundary between the known and the unknown always exists.
Patrick Hayes
I assume he meant F-117. A F-22 can stealth ingress and attack with
JDAMs. This matches the F-117's capabilities.
Pat
Philippe Nissaire
jeopardize the project that much.
Also, I fully know that the JSF is not an air dominance fighter... that's
why the F-22 is there...
The only thing i meant was that, as the original message said: "JSF with
better a-to-a capabilities", JSF could be used as a support fighter with the
Airplane selected in case the F-22 project went off. It would be the only
fighting capable aircraft to be stealth, the f-117 and B-2 being used as
bombers....
But it is true to say the JSF would never replace the F-22. which is, btw,
my favorite aircraft... so, plz... don't cancel it!!!!
thx again
Phil
Ross -Roscoe- Dillon <roscoe@_no_spam_member.afa.org> wrote in message
news:37e41d07...@news.earthlink.net...
> F-22, another point people seem to be missing. The F-22 is repalcing
> the F-15, the JSF is to replace the F-16. The only quick replacement
> is to restart the F-15 line, maybe with some updated avionics, but it
> will soon be outclassed and we will be in trouble.
>
> The F-15 faced similar discussions, and thanks to far sighted folks
> back then the USAF record of never having lost a ground troop to enemy
> aircraft since Korea is secure.
> >
>
> >
>
>
Philippe Nissaire
prototype of the f-18 (which would make no sense at all!!!)
David Lentz <dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> wrote in message
news:DSWE3.12263$r6.3...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>
> Ross -Roscoe- Dillon wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > F-22, another point people seem to be missing. The F-22 is repalcing
> > the F-15, the JSF is to replace the F-16. The only quick replacement
> > is to restart the F-15 line, maybe with some updated avionics, but it
> > will soon be outclassed and we will be in trouble.
> >
> > The F-15 faced similar discussions, and thanks to far sighted folks
> > back then the USAF record of never having lost a ground troop to enemy
> > aircraft since Korea is secure.
>
> JSF is replacing the F-16, A-10, AV-B and who knows what else.
>
David Lentz
Philippe Nissaire wrote:
>
> F-17???? do you mean the F-18? typoing error? or u meant the YF-17,
> prototype of the f-18 (which would make no sense at all!!!)
> David Lentz <dlen...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> wrote in message
> news:DSWE3.12263$r6.3...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Nope the F-117, stealth attack capacity.
David
Bill Norcott
gri...@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson) wrote:
> In article <7s0sqa$h31$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >JSF is the most likely choice for upgrade in the fantasy scenario
where
> >the F-22 is cancelled. What would it take to redesign JSF to also
take
> >on the F-22 role?
>
> Firstmost more internal AAMs. Probably not impossible; The
> bomb bay which has space for one bomb and one AMRAAM
> should have room for two AAMs more, on sort of a trapeze.
>
there.
> > Maneuverability is not really an issue for JSF which
> >is quite a bit more agile than the F-16.
>
> I'll agree it's faster, but I'm quite sure the Boeing JSF
> isn't designed for 9G like the F-16.
Urban, the Boeing JSF page compares it to existing U.S. strike fighters
without mentioning F-16 by name. But Boeing says their JSF is 35% more
agile, 30% better acceleration, and 15% better high-G turns. Here is
the URL, there is a lot of interesting reading on the JSF. The first
flight of JSF is scheduled for March, 2000 only six months away!
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jsf/jsffight.htm
Also there is an interesting article on the JSF engine testing in the
April issue of Code One magazine. Code One is a great magazine and
very nice to have an online version of it. We have been discussing the
JSF engine, here is a good description including pictures. You can't
go right to the article you have to press the "Covers" button then
scroll down the page to "April, 1999" to get to that issue.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/xframe.html
g_al...@hotmail.com
That must be why the Israelis have bought about 200 of them then,
including 50 F-16Is recently with an option for more, choosing it over
buying more F-15Is. Oddly enough, they seem to think the a/c is
"accurate, reliable, maintainable, and able to do air superiority on the
way to the target," but what do they know about air combat? Just
another bunch of dilettantes who fell for a pretty face, I guess. No
doubt their recent slaughter of USN F-14s and F-18s in a joint exercise,
reported at 220 to 20 in several sources (I've got some other numbers),
by an Israeli squadron flying F-16As, was just a fluke too.
No doubt about it, an a/c that's only useful for airshows. Oh, and
taking out a nuclear reactor using dumb bombs after flying an unrefueled
lo-lo-hi profile that F-4s would have required two air to air refuelings
over enemy territory to accomplish. Oh, and shooting down lots of a/c
(more than the F-15 has, if my tallies are accurate), over Lebanon,
Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Pakistan. Oh, and accurately bombing targets in
Lebanon, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Desert Fox, Serbia/Kosovo, and our
continuing campaign against Iraq. Yup, completely useless as a
warplane, John. Whatever were the Israelis thinking, when they decided
to throw good money after bad and buy yet another version of this pretty
but completely ineffective hangar queen, when it was competing in a
head-to-head competition with the F-15I, and they already operated a
squadron of the latter?
Could it be that the F-16I has almost the same radius of action as the
F-15I while carrying the same load, and that the Israelis felt that the
ability to buy somewhere between 1.5 and 2 F-16Is for the price of 1
F-15I, and to have a higher mission capable rate and lower O&M costs is
important? Naw, I'm sure you're right: they just thought it was
prettier, and are planning to increase their participation at airshows.
Guy
P.S. Sarcasm included at absolutely no extra cost:-)
TIEFAINNE
<rch...@slip.net> wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Let's assume that the Lockheed F-22 Raptor project gets cancelled due to
>Congressional funding cuts.
>
>What would the USAF buy instead? Will Boeing offer an upgraded F-15 or
>Lockheed-Martin offer an upgraded F-16 using the same engines as the F-22
>plus electronics from the F-22, or will the USAF seriously consider buying
>an outside design such as an "Americanized" version of the Eurofighter
>Typhoon?
>
>I think an F-16 with the engines from the F-22 and a new wing would make an
>excellent fighter.
>
>--
>Raymond in Mountain View, CA
>
>
Why doesn't US by French Rafale fighter's ?
Yama
jtarver wrote:
> Paul J. Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > <Snort> In what way, perhchance? (Unless you need to land it on a
> > carrier, which advantage I will cede)
>
> The Super Hornet is COTs derived and a major leap over the D.
E/F will employ same weapons as C/D, and will have 90% same avionics. In
flight performance it will have more range but no other advantages. It looks
like E/F will not be great leap over C/D what comes to A2A performance,
smaller RCS and greater loiter time being biggest improvments. I'd say that
in air superiority missions, Typhoon will be somewhat superior to Super
Hornet. Hornet might be better strike platform, however.
Urban Fredriksson
Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <7s2tob$i...@uno.canit.se>,
> gri...@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson) wrote:
>> Firstmost more internal AAMs. Probably not impossible; The
>> bomb bay which has space for one bomb and one AMRAAM
>> should have room for two AAMs more, on sort of a trapeze.
>This is a good idea. I wonder how many missiles they could squeeze in
>there.
Most likely three to each bay, making it about equal to
F-22 in that regard.
>> I'll agree it's faster, but I'm quite sure the Boeing JSF
>> isn't designed for 9G like the F-16.
>Urban, the Boeing JSF page compares it to existing U.S. strike fighters
>without mentioning F-16 by name.
So it could also refer to F/A-18A, which sustains 6.6G. An
attack loaded F-16 can pull 5.5G. If the JSF can pull more
loaded (which I think it's supposed to), that's good of
course, but my understanding is that it's not a 9G
aircraft when it isn't loaded for air to ground.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Malvolio: ... I say to you, this house is dark.
Clown: Madman, thou errest: I say, there is no darkness but ignorance ...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Bill Norcott
Yama <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
> E/F will employ same weapons as C/D, and will have 90% same avionics.
In
> flight performance it will have more range but no other advantages.
It looks
> like E/F will not be great leap over C/D what comes to A2A
performance,
> smaller RCS and greater loiter time being biggest improvments. I'd
say that
> in air superiority missions, Typhoon will be somewhat superior to
Super
> Hornet. Hornet might be better strike platform, however.
>
>
There are several other features that have not been mentioned.
35% Higher Thrust Engines. Super Hornet also has 4000 pounds more
thrust than Typhoon. 25% larger wing. F/A-18E/F can carry up to
17,750 pounds of external ordnance; two additional wing store stations
have been added. F/A-18C/D can carry up to 13,700 pounds of external
ordnance.
F/A-18E/F can carry EIGHT AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles (Typhoon carries
four) plus 500 rounds cannon. . Or 2 AMRAAMS, 2 Sidewinders, 6 GBU-12
smart bombs & 500 rounds cannon.
Bill
--
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
- Salvador Dali
Urban Fredriksson
Urban Fredriksson <gri...@canit.se> wrote:
>>> I'll agree it's faster, but I'm quite sure the Boeing JSF
>>> isn't designed for 9G like the F-16.
Sort of correcting myself: It's of course not just
Boeing's, it's the requirement as such which apparently
is "only" 8G, because the increase to 9G adds very little
effectiveness, but costs extra weight, but if you go below
7.5G effectiveness suffers.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
"The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none."
-- Thomas Carlyle
Dweezil Dwarftosser
wrote:
>Why doesn't US by French Rafale fighter's ?
We already have F-16s with English-language legends.
- John T.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
I have no doubt that twice the number of F-5-class aircraft makes
economic sense to the Israelis. IIRC, they also have done extensive
modifications to the -16s they possess. (Presumably making it more
reliable and maitainable, though that would require REPLACEMENT of
much electronics.)
I am of the opinion that the true story of the 1980s very long range
strike at the Iraqi reactor has never been told publicly...and that it
does not include flying all that distance without refueling. But that
is minor stuff; those who do know aren't talking (at least not
truthfully in public).
You mistake my position on the F-16, Guy. I think it is a great
little plane that matches its design goals: a cheap(?) fighter with
some limited capability to deliver munitions and protect itself in the
A/A role; IOW, an F-5 replacement. (Great at airshows, too - it's
sexy.)
Unfortunately, politics, budgets, and stupidity conspired in an
attempt to make it a replacement for the F-4E (when only the F-15E
could), a replacement for the F-4G Wild Weasel (a ludicrous idea),
and a junior F-15C replacement. It didn't do these things - though
they retired or never bought aircraft appropriate to the task.
Instead, they raped the strength of USAF fighter wings to produce jobs
in Ft. Worth. ( It is as though they retired the C-5 without buying
C-17s, and instead bought twice as many C-130s. All are good aircraft
for their intended missions - but two C-130s will never replace a
C-5.)
Sorry if that annoys your opinions of the F-16. No sarcasm present.
- John T.
El Nino
performance... so just include western avionics...
D. Scott Ferrin
We do? What planet are you living on?
Keith Willshaw
El Nino wrote in message <7s67nv$584$1...@as102.tel.hr>...
>we all know that russian aircraft have much better design, and manouvering
>performance... so just include western avionics...
>
>
Hmmm
Even if we accept your statement as true , which I don't
If you were a USAF General would you be happy
relying on ANY other country for your main air superiority
fighter ?
I don't think I would be. When that other nation is as potentially
unstable as Russia well ...
Keith
Paul J. Adam
<wnor...@my-deja.com> writes
>F/A-18E/F can carry EIGHT AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles (Typhoon carries
>four)
Four on the conformal fuselage stations as its standard load: it can
stuff the wings too if that sort of load's needed.
> plus 500 rounds cannon.
20mm _vice_ 27mm - big difference in range and hitting power.
>. Or 2 AMRAAMS, 2 Sidewinders, 6 GBU-12
>smart bombs & 500 rounds cannon.
As opposed to - for instance - 18 Brimstone antitank missiles, 4
AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
ly...@cdsnet.net
wrote:
why should the US pay to make the Rafael Nato compatable, and then
have the French make a profit on our investment?
I'd rather by a Grippen before I'd buy a Warplane from France.
IMHO You're best bet would be the F-22 engines in the STOL F-15 with
vectored thrust and canards that flew as a test aircraft.
Bill Norcott
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7s6gls$97p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bill Norcott
> <wnor...@my-deja.com> writes
> >F/A-18E/F can carry EIGHT AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles (Typhoon carries
> >four)
>
> Four on the conformal fuselage stations as its standard load: it can
> stuff the wings too if that sort of load's needed.
>
or anywhere else that the Typhoon is designed to carry more than four
AMRAAM's in any configuration. Or that it carries any on the wing hard
points. Maybe you could point me at the literature, I am always eager
to increase my knowledge. If it does carry eight, of course I stand
corrected.
> > plus 500 rounds cannon.
>
> 20mm _vice_ 27mm - big difference in range and hitting power.
>
True, but we extend the range of Super Hornets greatly by flying them
off boats.
> >. Or 2 AMRAAMS, 2 Sidewinders, 6 GBU-12
> >smart bombs & 500 rounds cannon.
>
> As opposed to - for instance - 18 Brimstone antitank missiles, 4
> AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
>
> Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
> Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
>
Eurofighter web page lists both the Brimstone & Storm Shadow systems
along with eight others as "future weapons" for Typhoon. That puts
them a bit into the "Martian death ray" category, especially
considering that Super Hornet is serving today in Navy squadrons and is
currently qualified with every piece of ordnance used by USN.
ly...@cdsnet.net
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <7s6gls$97p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bill Norcott
><wnor...@my-deja.com> writes
>>F/A-18E/F can carry EIGHT AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles (Typhoon carries
>>four)
>
>Four on the conformal fuselage stations as its standard load: it can
>stuff the wings too if that sort of load's needed.
>
>> plus 500 rounds cannon.
>
>20mm _vice_ 27mm - big difference in range and hitting power.
>
>>. Or 2 AMRAAMS, 2 Sidewinders, 6 GBU-12
>>smart bombs & 500 rounds cannon.
>
>As opposed to - for instance - 18 Brimstone antitank missiles, 4
>AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
>
>Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
>Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
>
>--
>There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
>praiseworthy...
>
>Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Why wouldn't the Hornet also carry the Brimstone?
Plus you have to remember that the Hornet would also be able to carry
the SLAM-ER.
Urban Fredriksson
Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>The F/A-18E/F does have a 40% greater range than the previous model.
>There are several other features that have not been mentioned.
>
>35% Higher Thrust Engines. Super Hornet also has 4000 pounds more
>thrust than Typhoon.
But it's also heavier than Eurofighter Typhoon, empty
weight 13.8 tons compared to 10.9.
>F/A-18E/F can carry EIGHT AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles
I thought it was twelve (plus two Sidewinders), although
I don't expect to see that configuration often.
>(Typhoon carries four) plus 500 rounds cannon.
Typhoon has the capability to carry ten
AMRAAM/FMRAAM/Meteor plus two ASRAAM/IRIS-T, or six + six.
> . Or 2 AMRAAMS, 2 Sidewinders, 6 GBU-12
>smart bombs & 500 rounds cannon.
So the gun magazine capacity is down from 570 for
F/A-18A-D? Sensible.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se Military aviation: weekly news, Swedish
military aviation and aircraft, the rec.aviation.military FAQ
U95 ECM pod photo added http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/
added Sep 17: http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/text/countermeasures.html
Drewe Manton
>F/A-18E/F can carry up to
>17,750 pounds of external ordnance; two additional wing store stations
>have been added. F/A-18C/D can carry up to 13,700 pounds of external
>ordnance.
These are the kinds of quotes from sales brochures that mean less than
nothing. Ever seen an F/A-18C with 13,700 pounds of ordnance on board? (oh, and
fly anywhere with it) You hang nearly 14K of big stuff under an F/A-18 and to
use the quote used for the harrier many years ago "it could'nt carry it across
a football field"
Yama
>
> In article <37E613FF...@paju.oulu.fi>,
> Yama <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
> > E/F will employ same weapons as C/D, and will have 90% same avionics.
> In
> > flight performance it will have more range but no other advantages.
> It looks
> > like E/F will not be great leap over C/D what comes to A2A
> performance,
> > smaller RCS and greater loiter time being biggest improvments. I'd
> say that
> > in air superiority missions, Typhoon will be somewhat superior to
> Super
> > Hornet. Hornet might be better strike platform, however.
> >
> >
> There are several other features that have not been mentioned.
40% better than average makes just above average:)
>
> 35% Higher Thrust Engines. Super Hornet also has 4000 pounds more
> thrust than Typhoon. 25% larger wing.
Also corresponding increase in weight so net result is...?
F/A-18E/F can carry up to
> 17,750 pounds of external ordnance; two additional wing store stations
> have been added. F/A-18C/D can carry up to 13,700 pounds of external
> ordnance.
Meaningless if we talk about A2A performance. For most missions
Typhoon can carry 'enough' of A2G -stuff.
>
> F/A-18E/F can carry EIGHT AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles (Typhoon carries
> four) plus 500 rounds cannon.
Typhoon can carry considerably more than four if necessary. Btw
F-18C/D can carry _ten_ with special pylons, but load bigger than
six is rarely practical: there is hardly any difference between all
modern fighters in this respect.
It also seems that ASRAAM (and IRIS-T) will be superior to new
Sidewinder, and it's also possible that BVRAAM (Meteor/FMRAAM) will
be better than contemporary AMRAAM version.
Radars/avionics...it looks like Typhoon will be slightly better in
this respect, at least it will have IRST.
Some sources say btw 400 rounds for cannon.
Andrew McCruden
> In article <eU1TT$C6zs5...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>,
> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <7s6gls$97p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bill Norcott
> > <wnor...@my-deja.com> writes
> > >F/A-18E/F can carry EIGHT AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles (Typhoon carries
> > >four)
> >
> > Four on the conformal fuselage stations as its standard load: it can
> > stuff the wings too if that sort of load's needed.
> >
> That's interesting, I had not seen reference material from Eurofighter
> or anywhere else that the Typhoon is designed to carry more than four
> AMRAAM's in any configuration. Or that it carries any on the wing hard
> points. Maybe you could point me at the literature, I am always eager
> to increase my knowledge. If it does carry eight, of course I stand
> corrected.
>
IIRC i've nver seen sanything saying that the wing pylons CAN'T carry
AMRAAM's just that the root pylons are dedicated to carring Med range AAM's
with AMRAAM being the baseline. I've repeatedly seen diagrams/Photos of
models and occasionaly actual EF2000's Carring (probably Dummies
admitiedly) AMRAAMS on the center Underwing Pylon, and i seem to recall at
lreast one loaded with the Inboard pylons mounting FMRAAM models (for a
load of 8 FMRAAMS + 2 ASRAAM). soem of the Images I refer to date back to
1990.
what may be confusing you is that the standard brocure performance is bases
on a config of 4 AMRAAMS and 2 'AIM-9 class' Missiles which is apparently
the best practical AA load for performance
THe Typhoon not being able to load AMRAAMS on its wing pyplons would be
rather like the F/A-18A Hornet not being able to load Sparrows on its Wing
points. Given that the Typhoon was origionally developed as a pure Air to
Air Bird with a very secondary Air to Ground capability then it wouldn't
make sence to have the pylons next to the Outborad ones at all
Can't think of any sources off the top of my head appart from the Air
International articles cutaway of a couple of years ago had wing AMRAAM
pylons and the text of the Article made the distinction between the Brocure
config and maximum AA load
One point is that thew Brochure Figures for the F/A-18C from a few years
ago list Vmax while carring 2 AIM-9's and 2 AIM-7's and those of the F-16
listed for 2 AIM-9's - a very similar situation to the 4 AIM-120, 2 AIM-9
load that Eurofighter uses, the reason for the distiction is it allows them
to measure perfomance without the Draggy Underwing Pylons while still
carring a Weapon load
>
> Eurofighter web page lists both the Brimstone & Storm Shadow systems
> along with eight others as "future weapons" for Typhoon. That puts
> them a bit into the "Martian death ray" category, especially
> considering that Super Hornet is serving today in Navy squadrons and is
> currently qualified with every piece of ordnance used by USN.
Well thats not strictly true the Brimstone and Storm Shadoiw WILL be
integrated onto the Typhoon its just a question of when the RAF gets
personel freed up from the Integration onto the Harrier and Tornado First.
AS the Typhoon is being procured as a Primairly Air-air fighter with a
strong AIR-Ground capability its a case of both the Typhoon team wanting to
get A-A working first, and the MNissile project teams not wanting to worry
about fitting Typhoon 'till the primary platforms are sorted out.
BTW is the Super Hornet in squadoron service?, my Impression was that
beyond the test units actaul service was still a ways off......
--
Andrew McCruden
amcc...@aol.com, The_use...@hotmail.com
"Intrested In All, Expert In None, Never likely to Change"
Glenn Chung
Glenn
Drewe Manton <dmant...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990921045009...@ngol03.aol.com...
> In article <7s6gls$97p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bill Norcott
<wnor...@my-deja.com>
Drewe Manton
writes:
>especially
>considering that Super Hornet is serving today in Navy squadrons
Suggest you check references . . . . . there are no F/A-18E/F's serving with
front line squadrons as yet, still a couple years away.
Drewe Manton
Paul J. Adam
> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Four on the conformal fuselage stations as its standard load: it can
>> stuff the wings too if that sort of load's needed.
>>
>That's interesting, I had not seen reference material from Eurofighter
>or anywhere else that the Typhoon is designed to carry more than four
>AMRAAM's in any configuration.
What do you think all those MIL-1553 wired pylons can be used for?
Both aircraft can carry a large number of MRAAMs, neither will do so
on a refular basis.
>> As opposed to - for instance - 18 Brimstone antitank missiles, 4
>> AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
>>
>> Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
>> Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
>>
>Eurofighter web page lists both the Brimstone & Storm Shadow systems
>along with eight others as "future weapons" for Typhoon. That puts
>them a bit into the "Martian death ray" category,
Both are rather thoroughly past the proposal stage and into flight
clearance.
>especially
>considering that Super Hornet is serving today in Navy squadrons
How many and with which squadrons? I think you may find yourself
slightly in error here... the only Super Hornets flying at the moment
are developmental airframes.
>and is
>currently qualified with every piece of ordnance used by USN.
Again, you may be reading too many advertisments here...
Paul J. Adam
writes
>>AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
>>
>>Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
>>Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
>Why wouldn't the Hornet also carry the Brimstone?
Because Brimstone is a non-US system.
Bill Norcott
Andrew McCruden <andrew.mcc...@dai.ltd.uk> wrote:
> BTW is the Super Hornet in squadoron service?, my Impression was that
> beyond the test units actaul service was still a ways off......
The Super Hornet is in service at U.S. Navy squadron VFA-122,
the "Flying Eagles". VFA-122 is a fleet replacement squadron, a strike
fighter training squadron for Super Hornet personnel, including pilots
and maintenance crews. VFA-122 trains pilots for four carrier based
operational squadrons.
D. Scott Ferrin
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37e6f56b...@news.meganews.com>, ly...@cdsnet.net
>writes
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:10:34 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>As opposed to - for instance - 18 Brimstone antitank missiles, 4
>>>AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
>>>
>>>Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
>>>Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
>
>>Why wouldn't the Hornet also carry the Brimstone?
>
>Because Brimstone is a non-US system.
Isn't Brinmstone basically a Hellfire with a MMW seeker and a few
nifty features thrown in?
Bill Norcott
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7s84l6$d32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bill Norcott
> <wnor...@my-deja.com> writes
> >along with eight others as "future weapons" for Typhoon. That puts
> >them a bit into the "Martian death ray" category,
>
> Both are rather thoroughly past the proposal stage and into flight
> clearance.
>
these glad tidings so they may update their web page. I would expect
the manufacturer to keep abreast of the status of their own aircraft.
http://eurofighter-typhoon.com/main/bulweap.htm
> >especially
> >considering that Super Hornet is serving today in Navy squadrons
>
> How many and with which squadrons? I think you may find yourself
> slightly in error here... the only Super Hornets flying at the moment
> are developmental airframes.
>
Squadron VX-9 flying seven Super Hornets, in it final month of a six
month operational evaluation of F/A-18E/F. That deployment has
included a stint aboard the carrier John C. Stennis (CVN 74), in which
the Super Hornets where part of the day and night operations of the
carrier. The Stennis is the same carrier used to pass the sea trials
of the Super Hornet two years ago. VX-9 pilots also flew Super Hornets
in the Red Flag joint exercise last month.
Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-122 "Flying Eagles" based at Lemoore naval
air station. This is a fleet replacement squadron. Not sure how many
planes they are flying with; they have been in operation since January,
1999.
Paul J. Adam
<sfe...@xmission.com> writes
I know that. You know that. But try selling it to Congress.
D. Scott Ferrin
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37ea1d95...@news.xmission.com>, D. Scott Ferrin
><sfe...@xmission.com> writes
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:59:36 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>Why wouldn't the Hornet also carry the Brimstone?
>>>
>>>Because Brimstone is a non-US system.
>>
>>Isn't Brinmstone basically a Hellfire with a MMW seeker and a few
>>nifty features thrown in?
>
>I know that. You know that. But try selling it to Congress.
You'd think we'd put them on Apache Longbows (are you guys?).
While we're talking about Brimstone any idea what happened to WASP?
It was a pod that contained (I think) fifteen mini-missiles for tank
busting. Looked like little Mavericks with MMW guidance. Looking at
the pod from the front it was five missiles in a circle and three
rings deep.
ly...@cdsnet.net
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37e6f56b...@news.meganews.com>, ly...@cdsnet.net
>writes
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:10:34 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>As opposed to - for instance - 18 Brimstone antitank missiles, 4
>>>AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
>>>
>>>Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
>>>Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
>
>>Why wouldn't the Hornet also carry the Brimstone?
>
>Because Brimstone is a non-US system.
>
just because the US dosen't use it at the moment dosen't mean they
won't, and how can it be a non US system when it is a Autonmous MMW
Hellfire missle that is being developed jointly by Boeing(missle
airframe, launcher, system componets) and Alenia Marconi
Systems(missle seeker) . Which means that the British can not purchase
the missle without US approval. And chances are good that it will be
used on USMC Harriers and the future Joint attack fighter.
To Call this a non US system would be an insult. It is a joint venture
between US and Britian.
PS the Brimstone is compatable with all other Hellfire launchers like
the Apache, wouldn't the US be interested in the next generation AT
Missle.
JMHO.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37e6f56b...@news.meganews.com>, ly...@cdsnet.net
>writes
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:10:34 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>As opposed to - for instance - 18 Brimstone antitank missiles, 4
>>>AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
>>>
>>>Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
>>>Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
>
>>Why wouldn't the Hornet also carry the Brimstone?
>
>Because Brimstone is a non-US system.
I admit it surprised the hell out of me at the time, but I recall when
Uncle Sam tested Durandals on F-4s. He later bought a bunch of them
from the French (!!).
- John T.
Paul S. Owen
ly...@cdsnet.net wrote in message <37e83f2b...@news.meganews.com>...
|
|just because the US dosen't use it at the moment dosen't mean they
|won't, and how can it be a non US system when it is a Autonmous MMW
|Hellfire missle
With British guidance software ...
|that is being developed jointly by Boeing(missle
|airframe, launcher, system componets) and Alenia Marconi
|Systems(missle seeker) . Which means that the British can not purchase
|the missle without US approval.
Is this true? It was my understanding that given the parts involved it was
considered a wholly UK venture?
|To Call this a non US system would be an insult. It is a joint venture
|between US and Britian.
er, Britain is funding the program therefore it's British.
____________
Paul S. Owen : Add .uk to address when replying
CPSE, Imperial College, London,UK
Homepage : http://www.ps.ic.ac.uk/~pso/
Paul S. Owen
Paul J. Adam wrote in message ...
|>or anywhere else that the Typhoon is designed to carry more than four
|>AMRAAM's in any configuration.
In reply to original poster ...
pooh pooh, up to eight AMRAAM's can be carried if absolutely required, 4 is
the base configuration, 6 would be a typical AA load.
|What do you think all those MIL-1553 wired pylons can be used for?
-1760 wired pylons ...
|>Eurofighter web page lists both the Brimstone & Storm Shadow systems
|>along with eight others as "future weapons" for Typhoon. That puts
|>them a bit into the "Martian death ray" category,
|
|Both are rather thoroughly past the proposal stage and into flight
|clearance.
And in both cases the UK's Typhoon expenditure includes monies for
integration, AFAIK that's what IPA5 will be doing.
Paul S. Owen
Bill Norcott wrote in message <7sairh$5m3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|
|If that is indeed the case, someone ought to inform Eurofighter of
|these glad tidings so they may update their web page. I would expect
|the manufacturer to keep abreast of the status of their own aircraft.
(1) The Eurofighter 'official' site has _never_ been all that great at
passing on information
(2) Eurofighter has _nothing_ to do with the development of either Storm
Shadow or Brimstone. In both cases development is proceeding _extremely_
well and both are on schedule for deployment in the early years of the next
decade.
(3) Deployment of _both_ weapons aboard RAF Eurofighter's is assured as part
of the ground attack program
|Squadron VX-9 flying seven Super Hornets, in it final month of a six
|month operational evaluation of F/A-18E/F.
OpEval =/= operational aircraft.
Urban Fredriksson
Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I would expect
>the manufacturer to keep abreast of the status of their own aircraft.
>http://eurofighter-typhoon.com/main/bulweap.htm
This domain is owned by a private person.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
There is always a yet unknown alternative.
Paul J. Adam
<sfe...@xmission.com> writes
>On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 01:48:57 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I know that. You know that. But try selling it to Congress.
>
>You'd think we'd put them on Apache Longbows (are you guys?).
The US MMW Hellfire is similar, but not identical, to Brimstone:
Brimstone has a different seeker and is (or will be) cleared for use on
fast jets.
>While we're talking about Brimstone any idea what happened to WASP?
>It was a pod that contained (I think) fifteen mini-missiles for tank
>busting. Looked like little Mavericks with MMW guidance. Looking at
>the pod from the front it was five missiles in a circle and three
>rings deep.
Yeah, I've got books mentioning it for a while. It was cancelled when
costs went out of control and performance didn't live up to
expectations. (A brief footnote in "The Pentagon Wars" is suitably
scathing)
g_al...@hotmail.com
wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 01:33:50 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <37e4ef9a...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
> > wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
<snip>
>
> I have no doubt that twice the number of F-5-class aircraft makes
> economic sense to the Israelis. IIRC, they also have done extensive
> modifications to the -16s they possess. (Presumably making it more
> reliable and maitainable, though that would require REPLACEMENT of
> much electronics.)
John, the F-16 is by no means an F-5 class a/c (in fact, the Israelis
considered and rejected buying F-5s in the '60s, instead buying A-4s
and then, as soon as we'd let them, F-4s). It's got roughly double the
warload radius of an F-5. And, according to all the people I've talked
to, U.S., Israeli and others, the F-16's reliability and maintability is
just fine. The israelis have certainly replaced some avionic items with
those they manufacture locally, either because we won't supply them with
the full-blown stuff, the stuff they make is better suited to their
needs (or in some cases, higher performance or unavailable from us,
like DASH and P-4), or to keep foreign exchange down (after all,
anything they spend in Israel stays in Israel, and is Israeli money to
start with). They would like to replace the APG-68 with their own radar
(Elta EL-M2032, according to most accounts), but that's hardly
surprising; Aside from the foreign exchange issues mentioned above, the
APG-68 is essentially a 1970s radar design, and the Elta sets are newer
and have higher performance. No surprise there.
> I am of the opinion that the true story of the 1980s very long range
> strike at the Iraqi reactor has never been told publicly...and that it
> does not include flying all that distance without refueling. But that
> is minor stuff; those who do know aren't talking (at least not
> truthfully in public).
OK, let's assume that the israelis somehow talked the Saudis into
letting them refuel over Saudi territory, or even land and refuel
(since we're getting into fantasy here, we might as well go all the
way. The fact remains that, when they had the option of using F-4s with
LGBs, they choose to use F-16s. Consider that they had only two,
relatively newly-formed squadrons of F-16s, versus three or four
experienced F-4 squadrons, and yet they still chose the F-16s for the
mission. The Israelis considered the mission essential to their
national survival, so they aren't going to fool around when the make a
choice as to what to send; they'll send the best they've got.
> You mistake my position on the F-16, Guy. I think it is a great
> little plane that matches its design goals: a cheap(?) fighter with
> some limited capability to deliver munitions and protect itself in the
> A/A role; IOW, an F-5 replacement. (Great at airshows, too - it's
> sexy.)
Please define "limited capability to deliver munitions," John. If you
mean, you can't load it down with lots of munitions the way you could an
F-4, well, you can, but since they're facing SAM threats rather
more deadly than just SA-2s, no one does that anymore, on any strike
a/c. For that matter, we didn't load a/c with their max. bombloads
going into RP6 either, because the survival rate would have gone way
down and we would have wound up jettisioning a lot of bombs, wasting
them. About the heaviest load you'll see is 12 Mk. 82s or CBUs on a
Beagle, but PGMs are the weapons of choice nowadays, for political
reasons as much as any other, and two to six of those is about the
limit, due to time constraints.
> Unfortunately, politics, budgets, and stupidity conspired in an
> attempt to make it a replacement for the F-4E (when only the F-15E
> could),
I agree that the F-15E is the closest thing to a direct replacement to
an F-4E, in size if nothing else. However, the Israelis consider the
F-16 an excellent replacement for the F-4E, and that's exactly how they
use it. As previously discussed, it will go further than a comparably
loaded F-4E, has the same a/g accuracy given the same avionics (the
airframes are almost irrelevant these days. The F-16 and F-18 squadrons
regularly trade the bombing trophies back and forth, and the F-4s
competed in a separate category, because they just weren't in the same
league as far as avionics). When given RHM/AHM capability, they have
the same all-weather A/A capability. If you have to ingress at low
altitude the whole way under the weather, then the two-seat version is
certainly preferable, and the Israelis use them just that way (and are
upgrading their F-16Bs now, as well as buying F-16Is).
>a replacement for the F-4G Wild Weasel (a ludicrous idea),
Which assumes that you need a direct replacement for the F-4G. Even if
you consider the F-16CJ incapable of directly replacing the F-4G, the
Israelis apparently consider their two-seat IF-16Ds (with the added
dorsal spine for avionics) perfectly adequate in the role. But that
assumes that we have to do SEAD the same way we did in Vietnam; we are
moving away from that, and the ground defenses are getting smarter.
After all, why's it necessary to send a manned a/c to draw fire, when we
can use an unmanned a/c for the same purpose, and data-link target info
almost anywhere we need it? And as we've seen, the defenses aren't
going to be using a whole lot of radar illumination to make our SEAD job
easier; it seems likely that IR and probably AH SAMS will be the weapons
of choice. The firing sites will need to be targeted by EO/IR or
GPS/INS-guided munitions, because no one is staying on the air very long
these days.
> and a junior F-15C replacement.
And it has, as I mentioned, shot down more a/c than the F-15 has,
despite the fact that the majority of the kills happened at a time when
the F-16 wasn't equipped with RHMs. That's no longer the case, and
since 1993, the kills have mostly been with AIM-120s. Indeed, in at
least one of the shootdowns over Bosnia, the shooters were F-16CJs (from
Shaw?) who'd been flying SEAD with HARMs; on the way out, they were told
of the bogey by AWACS, turned, and blew the a/c away with an AMRAAM. In
either that or the Dutch case (I forget which), the first two-ship of
F-16s data-linked the target info to the second pair, which proceeded to
shoot down the MiG.
It didn't do these things - though
> they retired or never bought aircraft appropriate to the task.
> Instead, they raped the strength of USAF fighter wings to produce jobs
> in Ft. Worth. ( It is as though they retired the C-5 without buying
> C-17s, and instead bought twice as many C-130s. All are good aircraft
> for their intended missions - but two C-130s will never replace a
> C-5.)
Raped the strength of U.S. fighter wings? How so? If the Air Force had
bought all F-15s, how many could we have afforded to replace all the
F-4s? 1/4 as many, or maybe 1/3rd? You're talking about replacing a
$4-6 million dollar a/c with one that never cost less than $20-25
million (in CY dollars), or with one that cost about $8-10 million. And
how about R&M? I don't doubt that your early experiences with the F-16A
are authentic, but they are also _early_ experiences, and I think they
color your judgement (that, and your attitude towards maintenance by
replacement, but every a/c in the inventory now is designed for that).
You've said that the F-16's APG-66 was very unreliable, inaccurate, etc.
OK, when were you working on the a/c, John? How reliable was the
APQ-120 on the first 30 or so F-4Es as they came out of the factory?
Depending on how you figure it, I guess it was either 0% or 100%,
because they had no radars, only ballast, didn't they?
And you've told us of the deficiencies in the ARN-101, a system added to
an a/c that had already been in service for a decade and which,
according to you, _was never fixed_, and yet I don't see you damning the
F-4E as useless because of it. And let's not forget the early problems
with the F-15A/B, which had so many maintenance problems in the first
few years that A/G weapons compatibility tests and the A/G training
syllabus had to be abandoned (never to be replaced until the F-15E came
around) because they couldn't generate the necessary sorties. Or do you
think a 35% MC rate is acceptable for the F-15, but a 70% rate for the
F-16 at the same point in its career is not?
> Sorry if that annoys your opinions of the F-16. No sarcasm present.
Obviously, we disagree on the a/c's capabilities, but I think it's the
constant, undeserved cheap shots that bug me the most. If the a/c were
the useless, unreliable dog you constantly say it is, that would be one
thing; I'd
be happy to take cheap shots at it myself - just bring up the subject of
the F-18E/F and watch me take some, if you doubt it. But the F-16's
record in combat clearly shows it's anything but useless, unreliable or
short-ranged. And, we can afford to buy and operate an adequate number
of F-16s, which we can't do with F-15s. And now, I'll get down off my
soapbox, and end my ranting.
Guy
Paul J. Adam
writes
>You've said that the F-16's APG-66 was very unreliable, inaccurate, etc.
>OK, when were you working on the a/c, John? How reliable was the
>APQ-120 on the first 30 or so F-4Es as they came out of the factory?
>Depending on how you figure it, I guess it was either 0% or 100%,
>because they had no radars, only ballast, didn't they?
The US beat us into service with Blue Circle, then :)
David Nicholls
Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:37e8617f...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net...
> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:59:36 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <37e6f56b...@news.meganews.com>, ly...@cdsnet.net
> >writes
> >><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>As opposed to - for instance - 18 Brimstone antitank missiles, 4
> >>>AMRAAMs/FMRAAM and two ASRAAMs plus full gun ammo?
> >>>
> >>>Or, for strike, four MRAAM and two ASRAAM, two ALARM and two
> >>>Storm Shadows or heavy LGBs?
> >
> >>Why wouldn't the Hornet also carry the Brimstone?
> >
> >Because Brimstone is a non-US system.
>
> I admit it surprised the hell out of me at the time, but I recall when
> Uncle Sam tested Durandals on F-4s. He later bought a bunch of them
> from the French (!!).
>
> - John T.
because it was "not credible" to need to fly directly over the runway to
damage it.
Bill Norcott
"Paul S. Owen" <pa...@sigint.in2home.> wrote:
>
> Bill Norcott wrote in message <7sairh$5m3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> |month operational evaluation of F/A-18E/F.
>
> OpEval =/= operational aircraft.
>
Agreed, and I don't mean to split hairs, but operational readiness is
not exactly a Boolean state either as I'm sure you understand. If they
are flying them day and night off the Stennis and integrated with the
regular Hornet squadrons that says a lot, as does the fact they are in
month 5 of a 6 month OPEVAL. Running them in Red Flag raises the
confidence quite a bit too, it's not like just showing off a
demonstrator at the Paris Air Show. We don't tend to send skunk works
A/C to our premiere invitational wargames. Finally, the fact that they
have set up a fleet replacement squadron, which is used to train the
operational pilots for Super Hornet says something about the readiness
of the aircraft. They are now priming the pump as it were, so they
will have an adequate supply of squadron pilots checked out on the F/A-
18E/F. The job of a replacement squadron in USN is to qualify combat
pilots on the actual aircraft they will be flying off the carriers.
Given these conditions I would look forward to seeing operational VFA
squadrons phasing in the Super Hornet within a couple months, not years.
Bill
--
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
- Salvador Dali
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>In article <37e66169...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
> wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>> You mistake my position on the F-16, Guy. I think it is a great
>> little plane that matches its design goals: a cheap(?) fighter with
>> some limited capability to deliver munitions and protect itself in the
>> A/A role; IOW, an F-5 replacement. (Great at airshows, too - it's
>> sexy.)
>
>Please define "limited capability to deliver munitions," John.
Small numbers, low accuracy without LGBs. When you consider that an
everyday standard "war load" used to be 12 to 14 Mk-82-class weapons,
two to four BVR missiles, internal gun, 600-700 gallons of external
fuel and an occasional ECM or illuminator pod ( sometimes with a bonus
pair of AIM-9s) imagine what a full-sized fighter can do when they are
modern LGBs or inertially/GPS-guided ...
> If you
>mean, you can't load it down with lots of munitions the way you could an
>F-4, well, you can, but since they're facing SAM threats rather
>more deadly than just SA-2s, no one does that anymore, on any strike
>a/c.
Assuming that an F-16 were capable of carrying a full war load,
(instead of "both" bombs) - he'd better be bombing the end of the
runway, because he'll only be able to go around once...
> For that matter, we didn't load a/c with their max. bombloads
>going into RP6 either, because the survival rate would have gone way
>down and we would have wound up jettisioning a lot of bombs, wasting
>them.
The load was decreased slightly on these for two reasons: ECM pods and
distance to the take-me-home tanker. We're talking nine bombs instead
of twelve...
> About the heaviest load you'll see is 12 Mk. 82s or CBUs on a
>Beagle, but PGMs are the weapons of choice nowadays, for political
>reasons as much as any other, and two to six of those is about the
>limit, due to time constraints.
Time, altitude, and political constraints DO change the equation a bit
at the present time - but those Eagles CAN resort to the VN/Laos-style
methods and loads if it becomes necessary - and to me, THAT is the
point. There may come a day again when no shit repeated 15-minute
combat turns are required - and there are no LGB guidance units left
to stick in the nose of that dumb iron. Especially after the sixth
time it was turned today.
Frankly, I'm a little tired of folks being over-impressed with the
whiz-bang technical gizmos we've used exclusively since 1990. Yeah,
it works good and lasts a long time - but no enemy has even tried
jamming this stuff yet, and no one has tossed some EMP our way AFAIK.
Our reliance on techno-wizardry and extremely long replacement
pipelines (in some cases, leading all the way back to factory) is
badly misplaced, IMHO. Planes don't fly without supply - and if the
guys on the ground can't fix it for lack of parts (or don't know how),
the slickest F-whatever will end up destroyed in its parking spot by a
relic Su-23 slinging dumb iron in DIRECT.
We've been lucky, so far.
>After all, why's it necessary to send a manned a/c to draw fire, when we
>can use an unmanned a/c for the same purpose, and data-link target info
>almost anywhere we need it?
I agree. As long as the data link isn't being jammed or spoofed.
Pre-programmed targetting (in the event of failure) is an option - but
it would take a lot of literally bullet-proof software before we could
make the things autonomous. We may not see it in our lifetimes, but
our sons surely will.
> And as we've seen, the defenses aren't
>going to be using a whole lot of radar illumination to make our SEAD job
>easier; it seems likely that IR and probably AH SAMS will be the weapons
>of choice.
Even in VN, they learned quickly to keep the RF turned off. That's why
we switched from ARMS which required a continuously-active SAM radar
(AGM-45) to ARMS which required no more than a single burst of RF,
many miles from the site.(AGM-78) Good thing we're still that smart,
right? (No further comment...)
> The firing sites will need to be targeted by EO/IR or
>GPS/INS-guided munitions,
Or CBUs, like the old days...
>Obviously, we disagree on the a/c's capabilities, but I think it's the
>constant, undeserved cheap shots that bug me the most. If the a/c were
>the useless, unreliable dog you constantly say it is, that would be one
>thing; I'd be happy to take cheap shots at it myself - just bring up the
>subject of the F-18E/F and watch me take some, if you doubt it. But the
>F-16's record in combat clearly shows it's anything but useless, unreliable
>or short-ranged.
You know, I formed a very "nuetral" attitude about F-16s in 1980.
Like most of the people who had worked other fighters, we found it
sexy, but it probably wouldn't amount to much. I was glad to leave it
after a short time - and I held no real "bad feelings" about the jet.
After all, we had small numbers of F-5s flying back then, too - and
this similar jet would eventually get the bugs worked out; they'd have
to, or it wouldn't be around long. The early F-15s had their share of
troubles, too - but it clearly was a much more capable airplane than
the -16. (Designed for a different mission.)
A decade later, and those "new" jets had a chance to earn their
stripes over Iraq. The F-15s did. The F-16s didn't. They ended up
doing a respectable job, though, more in line with their limited
capabilities: very low-level CAS w/CBUs against tanks, and fast
FAC...as long as it didn't require getting shacks, the F-16 actually
could do something useful. By Bosnia, smarter weapons (e.g. - AMRAAM,
HARM, etc.) helped it overcome some of the difficulties.
Why did it fail to meet the overly-grand expectations some had for it?
I don't know; I was long gone from them by then, and all of my info
came from old co-workers now "stuck" working F-16s. For most of them,
it was a terribly frustrating experience. I knew these people well;
they were some of the best technicians the air force possessed - so it
wasn't THEIR failure...yet the planes flew _anyway_. The AF simply
changed the rules, softening the requirements for mission-critical
systems. Tires, fires, and a radio became about all that was
necessary to count an "effective" sortie, thus lowering the bar.
When I heard how many wings of REAL fighter jets had been replaced by
F-16 squadrons, I lost it. The little jet may be all that is required
for the defense needs of Holland, Belgium, or Singapore - but like it
or not, the US' role demands more. (BTW - I hate this "world
policeman" thing even more than the "meals on wheels" UN details we
somehow have gotten suckered into.)
Hopefully, the JSF replacements will work properly, and we can sell
off the old F-16s to some nation with more modest fighter needs.
Thus ends my personal rant on the subject. I'll henceforth refrain
from posting more remarks specifically derisive of the F-16. I get
tired of disappointing folks who think it is THE BEST AIRCRAFT EVER
MADE.(tm)
- John T.
g_al...@hotmail.com
wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:14:42 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <37e66169...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
> > wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
> >> You mistake my position on the F-16, Guy. I think it is a great
> >> little plane that matches its design goals: a cheap(?) fighter with
> >> some limited capability to deliver munitions and protect itself in
the
> >> A/A role; IOW, an F-5 replacement. (Great at airshows, too - it's
> >> sexy.)
> >
> >Please define "limited capability to deliver munitions," John.
>
> Small numbers, low accuracy without LGBs. When you consider that an
> everyday standard "war load" used to be 12 to 14 Mk-82-class weapons,
> two to four BVR missiles, internal gun, 600-700 gallons of external
> fuel and an occasional ECM or illuminator pod ( sometimes with a bonus
> pair of AIM-9s) imagine what a full-sized fighter can do when they are
> modern LGBs or inertially/GPS-guided ...
Small number? 25 Mk. 82s is a small number? Sure, that's a theoretical
capacity, used about as often as the F-4 carried 24 Mk. 82s (only done
rarely by the marines in SVN for CAS). You just wouldn't do it
nowadays, because you're facing tougher threats, and unless you've got
some kind of fairly low-drag carriage, the performance when carrying
large numbers of bombs degrades too much. An F-4 isn't going to carry
12 Mk. 82s nowadays either: 4 or 6 would be about tops, for the above
reasons. An F-15E can carry 12, because it's got reasonably low drag
carriage on the CFTs; an F-16XL would have had also.
Low accuracy without LGBs? Must be why the Israelis decided to use Mk.
84 dumb bombs on F-16s to hit Osirak, instead of Mk 84 LGBs on their
F-4s. As soon as the F-16s entered service with us and others, they
started creaming all the competition in sight. Until the F-18 showed
up, that is, which had an equal capability. The F-4 just couldn't
compete, because it didn't have the necessary avionics. But you can, of
course, put that in, as the Germans, Israelis and others are doing. So,
let's look at an objective assessment of the F-16's bombing capability
at the time of DS, shall we? This is a Marine F-18 pilot, who formerly
flew F-4s. He's talking about the accuracy of the F-18 here, in visual
bombing:
"Deliveries in the daytime are the most accurate. . . Generally all
squadron pilots will have a circular error of probability of less than
50 feet when bombing visually . . . This is a quantum leap of accuracy
over what was usually seen in WW2, and even in Vietnam.
"A bombing derby held by MAG-31 in Beaufort illustrates this point.
Tams of two a/c each are required to fly a tactical low-level navigation
route over two hundred miles long, then strike a target at a given time.
The winning teams usually score two bull's-eyes and hit the target on
the exact second. The top five teams are generally on target with
timing errors of less than ten seconds. The traveling trophy moves
quite a bit between F/A-18 and F-16 units. (The F-16 is as accurate as
the Hornet; however, with the money, maintenance manpower and time they
have [Note, he's comparing to the marines, I believe the Air Force
'tweaks' their jets a little more finely than we are able to do - hats
off!)"
["From Hornets over Kuwait," by Major Jay Stout]
This account is completely consistent with every other written or oral
account, pilots, crew, or higher up that I've found, John [with the
exception of you], on the a/g accuracy of the F-16 using dumb bombs.
I've talked to pilots from several air forces who've flown it, and I've
never found a single one who said that it had poor accuracy in bombing,
compared to say an F-4 (which most of the pilots had flown previously,
and which were still in the respective air forces so they could
compare). As I've said, this has virtually nothing to do with the
airframe, and everything to do with the avionics.
> > If you
> >mean, you can't load it down with lots of munitions the way you could
an
> >F-4, well, you can, but since they're facing SAM threats rather
> >more deadly than just SA-2s, no one does that anymore, on any strike
> >a/c.
>
> Assuming that an F-16 were capable of carrying a full war load,
> (instead of "both" bombs) - he'd better be bombing the end of the
> runway, because he'll only be able to go around once...
Sure, and the same goes for an F-4 or any other fighter carrying its
max. load. How far do you think those Marine F-4s loaded with 24 Mk.
82s could go, unless they got tanked - 50 nm radius? Of course, one of
the reasons they had to carry lots of bombs back then was because most
of them missed, so you needed numbers to make up for inaccuracy. F-16s
and F-18s can both carry four fully loaded MERs, but when was the last
time you saw an MER on any American a/c, including the F-15E? DS, with
F-111s and the A-6/A-7. We don't use them anymore because they're just
too draggy. For that matter, TERs are going out of fashion; twin store
VERS are usual, because they have far lower drag. The F-18E/F is
essentially the same size and weight as the F-4, but they have no plans
to carry MERs or TERs on it; it will be VERs or direct on the pylons.
We can play games based on the specific load carried by each a/c, so let
me give you one:
How far can an F-4 go carrying four Mk. 84 slicks and max. load of other
stores? Answer, it can't go anywhere, because it can't carry four Mk.
84 slicks, owing to carriage limitations (the bombs are too long to fit
on the I/B pylons and clear the landing gear). The F-16 can carry 4 Mk.
84s, two or four AAMs, and a C/L pod, and did so for short range
missions in DS, as other posters who were there, and photo and video
evidence shows.
What's the max. load of slick Mk. 84s an F-4 can carry, then? 3, if it
carries no external fuel. An F-16 can carry four, and if it's got an
internal jammer as it's supposed to (unlike our AF, everyone else isn't
so dumb), can still carry a 300 gal. FT on the C/L.
But, these aren't typical loads, are they? Let's assume that 2 Mk. 84s,
dumb or LGB, are common when carrying _Big_ bombs. That's what the F-4
carried in Vietnam, and the F-16 recently. OK, what else can you carry?
An F-4 would carry three tanks (if carrying PGMs, only one C/L tank if
carrying slicks), total cap. 1340 USG, two AIM-7s, a pod and a strike
camera. Later they were modded to carry up to four AIM-9s along with
the ordnance, but that was essentially post-Vietnam.
An F-16 will carry at least two tanks total capacity 740 USG (Israeli
F-16s can carry 600 gal. wing tanks, and a/c like theirs which have
internal jammers can also carry the 300 gal. C/L, for a total of 1500
gal), plus four AAMs (AIM-120 and/or AIM-9), a pod on the C/L, and one
or two nav/targeting pods as needed. This load was routinely carried
over Serbia, as news video showed. The F-16 will go further than the
F-4 will with those loads.
What's the max. load of PGMs? Well, if you've got a picture of an F-4
carrying more than 4 LGBs (Mk. 82s) in combat, I'd like to see it. And
what PGMs did F-16s carry over Serbia, when they weren't carrying Mk.
84s or HARMs? Why, 4 Mk. 82 LGBs.
> > For that matter, we didn't load a/c with their max. bombloads
> >going into RP6 either, because the survival rate would have gone way
> >down and we would have wound up jettisioning a lot of bombs, wasting
> >them.
>
> The load was decreased slightly on these for two reasons: ECM pods and
> distance to the take-me-home tanker. We're talking nine bombs instead
> of twelve...
No, we're talking 6 or 12 bombs instead of 24, which was the maximum
capacity. During RT, the typical F-4 load going into RP6 was 6 Mk. 82s
or 5 M117s on the C/L, because the I/Bs were the only place to carry
pods at the time. After RT, the forward AIM-7 wells were modded to
allow carriage there.
And what did the F-105s carry? Six bombs on the C/L, even though they
had enough fuel to go into RP6 with their max. load of 16 M117s. But
they didn't, because the a/c's performance was too poor with that load,
range was too marginal, and they needed to carry ECM or AIM-9s on the
O/Bs. And, if any MiGs or SAMs showed up, they'd have to jettison in
order to stay alive. So, 7th AF made the deliberate decision to limit
the bomb loads, because the a/c would be less likely to have to
jettison, and if some were forced to jettison, fewer bombs would be
wasted.
>
> > About the heaviest load you'll see is 12 Mk. 82s or CBUs on a
> >Beagle, but PGMs are the weapons of choice nowadays, for political
> >reasons as much as any other, and two to six of those is about the
> >limit, due to time constraints.
>
> Time, altitude, and political constraints DO change the equation a bit
> at the present time - but those Eagles CAN resort to the VN/Laos-style
> methods and loads if it becomes necessary - and to me, THAT is the
> point. There may come a day again when no shit repeated 15-minute
> combat turns are required - and there are no LGB guidance units left
> to stick in the nose of that dumb iron. Especially after the sixth
> time it was turned today.
Fine. Now, can you do a fifteen minute turnaround while loading 12 Mk.
82s individually on the CFTs? I doubt very much that there's enough
room there to do so - and you can't just stuff a pre-loaded MER on. I
don't know if the F-15E units even have MERs any more; although my
photos of F-15Es aren't extensive, I've never seen a Beagle carrying one
in routine training or in combat. OTOH, if every jet's got an accurate
CCIP bombing mode, you probably don't need as many bombs, because each
pass should be a lot more accurate. So, 6-8 bombs dropped two per pass
may be more than enough to do the job, especially given modern CBUs, and
still allow those 15 minute turnarounds you want. Wing stations are a
lot easier to reload than fuselage ones, I imagine, and that's where the
F-16 carries most of its ordnance. All this assumes of course that
we're going to have to put our airbases in a threat situation similar to
Vietnam's.
> Frankly, I'm a little tired of folks being over-impressed with the
> whiz-bang technical gizmos we've used exclusively since 1990. Yeah,
> it works good and lasts a long time - but no enemy has even tried
> jamming this stuff yet, and no one has tossed some EMP our way AFAIK.
>
> Our reliance on techno-wizardry and extremely long replacement
> pipelines (in some cases, leading all the way back to factory) is
> badly misplaced, IMHO. Planes don't fly without supply - and if the
> guys on the ground can't fix it for lack of parts (or don't know how),
> the slickest F-whatever will end up destroyed in its parking spot by a
> relic Su-23 slinging dumb iron in DIRECT.
Sure, but that applies to all the a/c in the inventory, not just the
F-16. And at least, the F-16 is more likely to be flying than an F-15,
because it's a more reliable a/c requiring fewer MMH/FH and with higher
MTBF. And of course, that assumes that the relic can get through our
air defenses, and what are the odds of that short of a general war?
Who's capable of doing that to us, that there's the remotest chance of
us needing to fight in the next 30 years or so?
>
> We've been lucky, so far.
>
> >After all, why's it necessary to send a manned a/c to draw fire, when
we
> >can use an unmanned a/c for the same purpose, and data-link target
info
> >almost anywhere we need it?
>
> I agree. As long as the data link isn't being jammed or spoofed.
> Pre-programmed targetting (in the event of failure) is an option - but
> it would take a lot of literally bullet-proof software before we could
> make the things autonomous. We may not see it in our lifetimes, but
> our sons surely will.
ALARM is already pretty autonomous, as it hangs on it's chute waiting
for a threat to switch on. A UAV for SEAD is just the next step, and
we're already developing those.
> > And as we've seen, the defenses aren't
> >going to be using a whole lot of radar illumination to make our SEAD
job
> >easier; it seems likely that IR and probably AH SAMS will be the
weapons
> >of choice.
>
> Even in VN, they learned quickly to keep the RF turned off. That's why
> we switched from ARMS which required a continuously-active SAM radar
> (AGM-45) to ARMS which required no more than a single burst of RF,
> many miles from the site.(AGM-78)
The number of confirmed STARM kills in Vietnam was hardly anything to
right home about. Here's the numbers for use of ARMs, April-October
1972.
USAF USN/ USMC
AGM-45 AGM-78 AGM-45 AGM-78
Total Missiles 678 230 1,257 165
Evaluated hit 1 2 19 4
Possible hit 59 37 22 16
Evaluated miss 230 150 700 86
Possible miss 5 0 4 2
Unknown 59 39 250 56
Lost ordnance 4 2 8 1
Preemptive 320 0 254 0
Suppression 118 67 453 58
Suppression being the measure of effectiveness, we get the following
results:
USAF AGM-45, pS .174 (118/678)
USAF AGM-78, pS .291 (67/230)
USN/USMC AGM-45, pS .360 (453/1,257)
USN/USMC AGM-78, pS .352 (58/165)
Good thing we're still that smart,
> right? (No further comment...)
We are putting an INS/GPS unit in HARM, finally. Of course, if you
know where the target is prior to drop because it's radiated, why would
you even need an ARM seeker; hit it with a JDAM or similar stand-off
weapon. A lot cheaper than an ARM.
> > The firing sites will need to be targeted by EO/IR or
> >GPS/INS-guided munitions,
>
> Or CBUs, like the old days...
As an absolute last resort, and assuming that we're willing to risk the
casualties. Suuurrrre, we are. How many SAM sites in Serbia/Kosovo did
you see being attacked by CBUs dropped visually? Probably about the
same total I did, none.
> >Obviously, we disagree on the a/c's capabilities, but I think it's
the
> >constant, undeserved cheap shots that bug me the most. If the a/c
were
> >the useless, unreliable dog you constantly say it is, that would be
one
> >thing; I'd be happy to take cheap shots at it myself - just bring up
the
> >subject of the F-18E/F and watch me take some, if you doubt it. But
the
> >F-16's record in combat clearly shows it's anything but useless,
unreliable
> >or short-ranged.
>
> You know, I formed a very "nuetral" attitude about F-16s in 1980.
> Like most of the people who had worked other fighters, we found it
> sexy, but it probably wouldn't amount to much. I was glad to leave it
> after a short time - and I held no real "bad feelings" about the jet.
> After all, we had small numbers of F-5s flying back then, too - and
> this similar jet would eventually get the bugs worked out; they'd have
> to, or it wouldn't be around long. The early F-15s had their share of
> troubles, too - but it clearly was a much more capable airplane than
> the -16. (Designed for a different mission.)
The F-16 was _designed_ as a day air superiority fighter; the F-15 was
originally designed as a multirole fighter, with strong emphasis on the
A/A role. As it happens, they've swapped roles in U.S. service, because
the AF decided to dedicate the F-15A/C for A/A.
> A decade later, and those "new" jets had a chance to earn their
> stripes over Iraq. The F-15s did. The F-16s didn't. They ended up
> doing a respectable job, though, more in line with their limited
> capabilities: very low-level CAS w/CBUs against tanks, and fast
> FAC...as long as it didn't require getting shacks, the F-16 actually
> could do something useful.
You must have been talking to an entirely different group of pilots and
crews than I have, John. I've talked to large numbers of them, and
we've had some on this newsgroup, and none of them agrees with you.
Did they miss sometimes? Sure they did, especially when being ordered
to pickle at 15kft or higher: the winds played hell with accuracy from
that altitude, and the F-18s got the same poor results; so would any
a/c, because the bombing computers can't deal with radically
different wind speeds as the bombs fall from altitude (there were often
100kt. winds aloft). None of that is the fault of the airframe or the
avionics.
As to the F-15 proving itself in DS, in what way are you referring to?
The F-15Cs never carried or dropped a single bomb, so I assume that
you're referring to the F-15Es. Could they carry more bombs than an
F-16 with less effect on performance? Sure they could. And one got
tagged by an SA-2 while doing so, because its ALQ-135 was unable to jam
the radar (there's a modern SAM system for you, one that entered service
in the mid or late '50s). Doesn't help that the F-15 is god's gift to
RCS, being a mass of corner reflectors. So who knows, if those guys had
been in an F-16, maybe they would have been closer to the edge of the
threat envelope (because of smaller RCS), and might have been able to
get away. Or maybe not.
The F-16 didn't carry RHMs or AHMs then, and more importantly wasn't
tasked with the A/A role, which was reserved for the F-15C (which was
incapable of doing anything else). The F-15C was clearly superior in
all-weather A/A at the time, and of course, it does have a more powerful
radar (which in head-to head cases is balanced off by its much larger
RCS). The F-16 does carry AHMs now, and since DS I believe it's shot
down more a/c than the F-15 has (have to do a tally).
By Bosnia, smarter weapons (e.g. - AMRAAM,
> HARM, etc.) helped it overcome some of the difficulties.
What difficulties? Is it the F-16's fault that the AIM-120 was 6-10
years late into service? Did it need to carry HARM when the F-4G was
around? Does any model of the F-15 carry HARM now? Is it in
difficulties because it doesn't?
> Why did it fail to meet the overly-grand expectations some had for it?
> I don't know; I was long gone from them by then, and all of my info
> came from old co-workers now "stuck" working F-16s. For most of them,
> it was a terribly frustrating experience. I knew these people well;
> they were some of the best technicians the air force possessed - so it
> wasn't THEIR failure...yet the planes flew _anyway_. The AF simply
> changed the rules, softening the requirements for mission-critical
> systems. Tires, fires, and a radio became about all that was
> necessary to count an "effective" sortie, thus lowering the bar.
What overly grand expectations were those? As I've mentioned, the F-16
was designed as a day air superiority fighter. When the Air Force was
forced by Congress to buy it, they saw it would be a threat to the F-15.
So, they changed its role to that of F-4 replacement, giving it an A/G
tasking and making the F-15A/C a dedicated A/A bird, precisely so the
F-16 wouldn't be seen to be directly competing with it. The fact that
the F-16 is quite a decent multirole bird despite its relatively small
size is serendipitous, and was certainly no part of the Lightweight
Fighter Mafia's expectations for it. They protested every step of the
way as the AF loaded it down with A/G avionics and BVR capability.
The Air Force had no expectations for the F-16: they didn't want it,
period.
> When I heard how many wings of REAL fighter jets had been replaced by
> F-16 squadrons, I lost it. The little jet may be all that is required
> for the defense needs of Holland, Belgium, or Singapore - but like it
> or not, the US' role demands more <snip>
More what? More range? The F-16's got more range than the F-4
it replaced, and is longer-ranged in the escort/air sup role than the
F-15A/C (which, to be sure, typically carries double the missiles). The
F-15's got better endurance (nice large wing, so it can sit up high at
fairly slow speeds and loiter), and a better A/G range with CFTs and
tangential carriage. If the F-16XL had been built, it probably would
have won that range contest also.
More room for growth? Have you looked what's been put into the jet
since the YF-16? Just look at the extra capability that's been added to
the MLUs, because of the accelerating pace of development of ICs -
faster computers more memory, GPS, IDM, smart weapons capability,
AIM-120, IFF interrogation, etc. 3 separate computers were replaced by
one, far more powerful one. Every generation gives you more capability
with less space, weight, and cooling requirements, and the generations
are down to about 18 months now. When the F-16 was in development, I
was playing Adventure on a PDP-11/70 which had it's own
climate-controlled room. I have a computer on my desk now that's so
far advanced beyond that I don't even know how to compare them.
At least two countries operate F-16Ds with dorsal spines, presumably
in the Weasel role. The F-16Is are going to have conformal tanks, and
possibly internal FLIRs (I'm not sure of the final config they decided
on). The MTOGW has gone up from 35,000 to 42,300 (47,500 on some
Israeli variants), with possibly more to come. How much growth do you
want, John?
Again, please define "REAL fighter jets." If I understand you
correctly, your definition of a "REAL" fighter jet is this: twin
engine, two place, multirole. Obviously, the F-15A/C in USAF service
doesn't qualify, as it has no A/G role with us (although it certainly
can be so used), and is a single-holer, so each of those was a $25-30
million dollar waste. And the F-18A/C/E isn't a real fighter jet
either, because it doesn't have two seats. The Tornado is either A/A or
A/G, not both. Maybe one of the versions of the Su-27 might meet your
requirements, but there's only a few of those in service. So that
leaves the $50 million F-15E as the only REAL fighter jet in service
anywhere right now, other than the F-4?! Come on, John.
> Hopefully, the JSF replacements will work properly, and we can sell
> off the old F-16s to some nation with more modest fighter needs.
>
> Thus ends my personal rant on the subject. I'll henceforth refrain
> from posting more remarks specifically derisive of the F-16. I get
> tired of disappointing folks who think it is THE BEST AIRCRAFT EVER
> MADE.(tm)
Well, you've never disappointed me for that reason, as I've never
believed that to be the case, anymore than I believe the F-15, F-4, or
for that matter the Cessna 172, Tiger Moth or DC-3 is the best a/c ever
made. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and are more or less
suited to particular roles. I just happen to think that the F-16 is a
REAL fighter jet that has proven to be both effective and versatile in
combat, and reasonably affordable. It's not an F-15, but so what? How
many F-15s can we afford? You complained of F-4 wings being replaced by
F-16 squadrons. If we'd tried to do it with F-15s, it would have been
F-4 wings being replaced by F-15 _flights_, given equal funds.
Tell you what, John, let's see how we do. I'll give you enough money to
buy 100 F-15Es and operate them for one year. I'll take the same total
amount of money and buy either buy 150-175 F-16s, or else buy 100 and
put all the extra money I've got available compared to you into
training. In the latter case, my guys will be able to fly about 2-2.5
times as many hours for the same money as you can. Now, after that
year, let's go to war and see who'd win. I know which side my money's
on; it's on the same side as the Aggessors and TopGun-trained pilots who
flew considerably inferior a/c and consistently beat our regular
squadron guys. And it's on the side of the Israelis, who slaughtered
our F-14s and F-18s (especially our F-14s) with a squadron of F-16As.
Our superior radars and BVR capability didn't compensate for their
better-trained pilots.
Of course, real war would involve lots of other a/c, but the force
structure argument still holds. Otherwise, lets get rid of all our
fighters and just buy B-2s. One B-2 costs about the same as a wing of
F-4s, we can base them here so don't have to worry about sapper or
mortar attacks, and we can carry lots more bombs than any fighter can,
to a much greater distance. Of course, cycle time is a bit long:-)
Guy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Drewe Manton
> Answer, it can't go anywhere, because it can't carry four Mk.
>84 slicks, owing to carriage limitations (the bombs are too long to fit
>on the I/B pylons and clear the landing gear).
Hang on a minute. . I'm sure I've seen pics of F-4's in flight with GBU-10's
on the inboards. Aren't these just MK-84's with the relevant tail/nose kit, and
thus longer than a MK-84 anyway? Also seen 'em with the early GBU-15 with the
trapezoidal wings in the inboards. . tho' granted that was a ground shot so I
couldn't be 100% on whether it flew with them. . . curiouser and curiouser.
ly...@cdsnet.net
wrote:
1.The F-16 has been used in the Wild Weasle role for quite a while,
even when the F-4G was in service. In Europe the Weasles operated in
Hunter Killer groups where the F-4G would hunt the radar site while
the F-16 would launch the harm to kill it. So it made only sense to
put the F-16 into the role of the Hunter, besides if you are going to
be dodgeing missles for a living you at least want to be in the most
manuverable aircraft you can.
2. The role of the CBU/Rockeyes in WW missions is not to destroy the
radars, but to destroy the missles after you destroy the radar sites.
3. When the F-16 entered service it went to a bombing competition in
the UK and competed against the F-111,Jaguar, and all the other
dedicated attack aircraft of Nato and survived. In fact the F-16's
also fought their way to and from the target. And the catch of the
whole thing was that you could only use dumb bombs. It also had the
fastest turn around. And this was only the A version that just entered
service.
Plus the F-16 was used to replace all the obsolete equipment in the
ANG/AFRES when it first came out. And they were the first people
called to battles during DS because they were better then the active
personal at what they did.
g_al...@hotmail.com
dmant...@aol.com (Drewe Manton) wrote:
> In article <7sh1u7$t9t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, g_al...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >84 slicks, owing to carriage limitations (the bombs are too long to
fit
> >on the I/B pylons and clear the landing gear).
>
GBU-10's
> on the inboards. Aren't these just MK-84's with the relevant tail/nose
kit, and
> thus longer than a MK-84 anyway?
Yes, you've seen F-4s with GBU-10s on the I/Bs. The tail kit on the
GBUs is shorter than the tail kit on the slicks. The F-4 will carry
4 GBU-10s or equivalents, one on each wing pylon, but only 3 slick Mk.
84s, one on the C/L and each O/B. I'm not sure what the situation is
with the BSU-50, but the F-4 was heading out of service by the time they
came in. Anyone got length data on them?
Guy
Also seen 'em with the early GBU-15
with the
> trapezoidal wings in the inboards. . tho' granted that was a ground
shot so I
> couldn't be 100% on whether it flew with them. . . curiouser and
curiouser.
> regards
> Drewe
> Rama Lama Yip Diddley Aye
> Temple of the Green Grass
>
> "The stupidity of the action is directly proportional to the number of
people
> watching you"
> Preserve wild life. . . pickle a Mon-key!
>
>
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>In article <37eb10c9...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
> wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:14:42 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Small number? 25 Mk. 82s is a small number? Sure, that's a theoretical
>capacity, used about as often as the F-4 carried 24 Mk. 82s (only done
>rarely by the marines in SVN for CAS). You just wouldn't do it
>nowadays, because you're facing tougher threats, and unless you've got
>some kind of fairly low-drag carriage, the performance when carrying
>large numbers of bombs degrades too much. An F-4 isn't going to carry
>12 Mk. 82s nowadays either: 4 or 6 would be about tops, for the above
>reasons. An F-15E can carry 12, because it's got reasonably low drag
>carriage on the CFTs; an F-16XL would have had also.
I disagree with your logic ( as well as the pipe dream of ANY fighter
carrying 24 Mk-82s much beyond the end of the runway ). BTW - you
could load 30 of them on an F-4 - but they've never flown that way,
either - just like the BEST AIRPLANE EVER MADE (tm) that carrys 25.
>Low accuracy without LGBs? Must be why the Israelis decided to use Mk.
>84 dumb bombs on F-16s to hit Osirak, instead of Mk 84 LGBs on their
>F-4s.
The use of Mk-84s on F-4s was very low. In a year's time at Korat, I
might have seen no more than a dozen sorties with them. Hanging on
the outboard stations, both must be released at the same time. This
left only six Mk-82s on the jet, enough for only for two "mop-up"
passes. IOW, they were selected for use on a mission only when the
target required the additional bang of a 2,000-pounder.
As to Osirak...
I'd have to look at a map, but I don't think Jordan is completely out
of the question as a refueling stop. There were a number of possible
reasons why the Israelis would pick brand new, low flying hour F-16s
for this mission over other jets:
- first, they are small; less observable than a full-size fighter,
particularly one like the F-4, whose smoke trails could be seen long
before you could pick out the airframe.
- second, they were NEW. It is doubtful anyone besides interested
engineers or aircrews in Iran could identify the aircraft. More
importantly, low-time aircraft tend to WORK properly; less time for
malfunctions or errors to accumulate. If you don't believe me, ask
any other maintenance toad about the biggest difference between "new"
jets and those with a few thousand hours. (Electronics - not
mechanical, which is a "given" from the standpoint of wear-and-tear.)
- third, the skill of the Israeli pilots, particularly at low level
against a rather large target, using DIRECT. In that mode, accuracy
is purely a function of the pilot's skill. (Assuming the HUD boresight
is correct.) They had to broach the outer containment wall of a large
building, and if possible, destroy the inner reactor core through the
hole. They did both.
Combine highly skilled drivers, and new, factory-tuned jets, and your
likelyhood of success goes way up.
> As soon as the F-16s entered service with us and others, they
>started creaming all the competition in sight.
Sorry, but the make-or-break difference at a weapons meet is often
determined by whose load crew has the shiniest boots. Unit stats at a
bombing range are even less reliable indicators. Too many "punch it
off three seconds after crossing the third telephone pole beyond the
access road" hints.
> Until the F-18 showed
>up, that is, which had an equal capability. The F-4 just couldn't
>compete, because it didn't have the necessary avionics.
What sort of avionics might those be? If every jet in a wing can
consistently toss dumb iron three miles to within 50 ft. of the bad
guys - what else is required beyond the (available) laser guidance pod
if you want to take down a bridge? Or take out a tank with Mavericks?
We had 'em first - but once again, any credit goes to the missile,
rather than the launching aircraft.
> But you can, of
>course, put that in, as the Germans, Israelis and others are doing. So,
>let's look at an objective assessment of the F-16's bombing capability
>at the time of DS, shall we? This is a Marine F-18 pilot, who formerly
>flew F-4s. He's talking about the accuracy of the F-18 here, in visual
>bombing:
>
>"Deliveries in the daytime are the most accurate. . . Generally all
>squadron pilots will have a circular error of probability of less than
>50 feet when bombing visually . . . This is a quantum leap of accuracy
>over what was usually seen in WW2, and even in Vietnam.
Sounds like Korat. Of course, the ONLY time I've ever seen any Marine
F-18 HUD video, it was Bosnia, and those guys were definitely below
500 feet ( precisely where I would expect Marines to be ), and it sure
looked as though they were using direct - though it may have been
CCIP. See the Israeli/Osirak paragraph above about skilled drivers,
low level, direct, and new jets.
>This account is completely consistent with every other written or oral
>account, pilots, crew, or higher up that I've found, John [with the
>exception of you], on the a/g accuracy of the F-16 using dumb bombs.
All I can draw on is my own experience and that of trusted maintenance
toads who have worked both. ( Very important, because it provides a
reference for comparison.) We didn't come away with medals or
accolades when they took out important targets - but we did catch the
crap for the misses, regardless of actual cause.
I truly hope that I'm wrong, and that the F-16 fan club are right: it
is now a reliable, maintainable, and accurate weapons system.
But make no mistake: if this is true, ALL of it happened within the
past half-dozen years.
>We can play games based on the specific load carried by each a/c, so let
>me give you one:
That's the point, Guy. It isn't a game. The little jets' lack of
accuracy and limited haul capabilities are what determines the
high-altitude, laser-guided role ( along with political considerations
which I hope we can ignore for the moment ) - NOT the other way
around. It isn't that we use "one bomb, one target" gizmos (bullshit
anyway) because they are now available for today's high-tech jets -
the things have been in use for 30 years! If you want to take out a
Serb APC in a string of farm tractors, you do it up close, with a big
gun, or with a Maverick - NOT with 4,000 pounds in two LGBs from
15,000. A well-aimed ripple of three Mk-82s could do it, too - but
only if you're low, slow, and VERY accurate.
>> > For that matter, we didn't load a/c with their max. bombloads
>> >going into RP6 either, because the survival rate would have gone way
>> >down and we would have wound up jettisioning a lot of bombs, wasting
>> >them.
>>
>> The load was decreased slightly on these for two reasons: ECM pods and
>> distance to the take-me-home tanker. We're talking nine bombs instead
>> of twelve...
>
>No, we're talking 6 or 12 bombs instead of 24, which was the maximum
>capacity. During RT, the typical F-4 load going into RP6 was 6 Mk. 82s
>or 5 M117s on the C/L, because the I/Bs were the only place to carry
>pods at the time. After RT, the forward AIM-7 wells were modded to
>allow carriage there.
Perhaps Ed or Walt can clear this up, but I recall a C/L MER and a
single inboard TER, with 370s and an ECM pod on the other inboard.
(That makes nine bombs, or 3 plus 5 CBUs.) While I've certainly seen
that combination, the timing is bad for the operations you quote - so
you may be right about those particular loads on those particular
operations.
Missile-well ECM carriage came long after -556. ( If I had to guess,
I'd say '74 or '75). PACAF E's carried cameras on the R/F at all
times, except when the station was required for a missile.(e.g. - CAP
or fast FAC.)
>
>And what did the F-105s carry?
My experience with F-105s was completely confined to Weasels. I never
saw a Thud carrying a bomb, except in photos.
>
>Fine. Now, can you do a fifteen minute turnaround while loading 12 Mk.
>82s individually on the CFTs? I doubt very much that there's enough
>room there to do so - and you can't just stuff a pre-loaded MER on.
That at least used to be the USAFE standard. (F-4s, no preloads, but
no CFTs, either. However, it did include a simultaneous
refuel/rearm/drag chute install, with the engines running.) The crew
never left the cockpit. Best times were about half the standard.
>> Even in VN, they learned quickly to keep the RF turned off. That's why
>> we switched from ARMS which required a continuously-active SAM radar
>> (AGM-45) to ARMS which required no more than a single burst of RF,
>> many miles from the site.(AGM-78)
>
>The number of confirmed STARM kills in Vietnam was hardly anything to
>right home about. Here's the numbers for use of ARMs, April-October
>1972.
Those aren't encouraging - but here's what I recall of STARM use
between Oct '70 and May '71: one miss out of 8-12 fired. The rest
were confirmed hits - and for almost all of those, the radar was NOT
radiating when the missile closed on them. In hindsight, I guess I
should have recorded the dates/crews, etc., huh ?
>We are putting an INS/GPS unit in HARM, finally. Of course, if you
>know where the target is prior to drop because it's radiated, why would
>you even need an ARM seeker; hit it with a JDAM or similar stand-off
>weapon. A lot cheaper than an ARM.
Agreed, and good news.
>> A decade later, and those "new" jets had a chance to earn their
>> stripes over Iraq. The F-15s did. The F-16s didn't. They ended up
>> doing a respectable job, though, more in line with their limited
>> capabilities: very low-level CAS w/CBUs against tanks, and fast
>> FAC...as long as it didn't require getting shacks, the F-16 actually
>> could do something useful.
>
>You must have been talking to an entirely different group of pilots and
>crews than I have, John.
Certainly. I overwhelmingly prefer the word of the folks who
maintained them; they didn't have a "dog in that fight", though they
did have a reputation to think about, at least among themselves.
> I've talked to large numbers of them, and
>we've had some on this newsgroup, and none of them agrees with you.
That's fine. I stand by my assertions.
- John T.
g_al...@hotmail.com
wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:36:40 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <37eb10c9...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>,
> > wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:14:42 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Small number? 25 Mk. 82s is a small number? Sure, that's a
theoretical
> >capacity, used about as often as the F-4 carried 24 Mk. 82s (only
done
> >rarely by the marines in SVN for CAS). You just wouldn't do it
> >nowadays, because you're facing tougher threats, and unless you've
got
> >some kind of fairly low-drag carriage, the performance when carrying
> >large numbers of bombs degrades too much. An F-4 isn't going to
carry
> >12 Mk. 82s nowadays either: 4 or 6 would be about tops, for the above
> >reasons. An F-15E can carry 12, because it's got reasonably low drag
> >carriage on the CFTs; an F-16XL would have had also.
>
> I disagree with your logic ( as well as the pipe dream of ANY fighter
> carrying 24 Mk-82s much beyond the end of the runway ).
John Trotti in "Phantom over Vietnam" describes using the 24 Mk. 82
load. They called them "superbombers", and they were a/c that had fuel
feed problems on the O/Bs (and if they didn't happen to have an a/c with
naturally occurring feed problems, they'd "assist" things along).
Typically they'd have 2-4 of them of the 12 assigned a/c. These a/c
were only allowed to be flown by more experienced pilots (read
higher-ranking), supposedly because they were a bit unstable, but
actually because they were more fun, and RHIP.
As to disagreeing with my logic, what part? As Ed has mentioned, when
he was flying H/K with Weasels, he only carried 4 CBUs, two on each I/B.
Admittedly, that probably had as much to do with trying to keep up with
the 105s as for maximising performance for SAM evasion, but the fact is
that he wasn't even carrying a max. load on each I/B (you can carry
three on each). I grant you that the CBU has about 4 times the drag of
a Mk. 82 slick, but that's my whole point.
BTW - you
> could load 30 of them on an F-4 - but they've never flown that way,
> either - just like the BEST AIRPLANE EVER MADE (tm) that carrys 25.
You can't load 30, only 24, and they have flown that way (see above).
An F-4 can carry full MERs on the C/L and the O/B's (3 x 6 = 18), but
you can't put MERs on the I/Bs, only TERs (2 x 3 = 6, total of 24)
because of length restrictions (to keep clear of the landing gear
retraction path), as well as weight limits.
>
> >Low accuracy without LGBs? Must be why the Israelis decided to use
Mk.
> >84 dumb bombs on F-16s to hit Osirak, instead of Mk 84 LGBs on their
> >F-4s.
>
> The use of Mk-84s on F-4s was very low. In a year's time at Korat, I
> might have seen no more than a dozen sorties with them. Hanging on
> the outboard stations, both must be released at the same time. This
> left only six Mk-82s on the jet, enough for only for two "mop-up"
> passes. IOW, they were selected for use on a mission only when the
> target required the additional bang of a 2,000-pounder.
Depends on the period, and more especially the target type. Going after
the Doumer and Canal des Rapides bridges in 1967, F-4s apparently
carried a pair of dumb M118s or Mk. 84s, just like the Thuds. This
meant they could only carry the C/L tank. In SVN, carrying a pair of
Mk. 84s with fuse extenders (along with 6 Mk.82s) for LZ prep was quite
common, but those are short range, low threat missions. The F-16 could
certainly haul that load, but then, it typically won't be facing just
light AAA and the odd SA-7; an SA-16/18 is a whole 'nother matter. When
you're facing MANPADS that can tag you up to 13-15k at a pinch, dropping
a pair of Mk. 84s and then trying to climb up for another pass while
loaded down with 6 Mk. 82s loses a lot of its viability, whether you're
in an F-4, F-15E, or F-16. The point is to minimize the time spent in
the threat envelope. And that's assuming there's no SAMS in the SA-8
category around.
>
> As to Osirak...
> I'd have to look at a map, but I don't think Jordan is completely out
> of the question as a refueling stop.
According to the Israelis, they took off from Etzion AB in Sinai
(shortly before they had to give it back to Egypt). Unless King Hussein
was lying, he saw them from his yacht as they flew over the Gulf of
Aqaba just after takeoff, on their way in. IIRR, he then tried to call
either Iraq or Saudi Arabia, to let them know something was up.
>There were a number of possible
> reasons why the Israelis would pick brand new, low flying hour F-16s
> for this mission over other jets:
> - first, they are small; less observable than a full-size fighter,
> particularly one like the F-4, whose smoke trails could be seen long
> before you could pick out the airframe.
Yes, they are small, that's one of their advantages. However, on the
smoke issue, IIRR the Israelis had already retrofitted their J79s
(before we did) with the low-smoke combustors.
> - second, they were NEW. It is doubtful anyone besides interested
> engineers or aircrews in Iran could identify the aircraft.
King Hussein had no trouble ID'ing them. Of course, he is a pilot,
who'd flown all the fighters in his air force, and later flew the F-16.
>More
> importantly, low-time aircraft tend to WORK properly; less time for
> malfunctions or errors to accumulate. If you don't believe me, ask
> any other maintenance toad about the biggest difference between "new"
> jets and those with a few thousand hours. (Electronics - not
> mechanical, which is a "given" from the standpoint of wear-and-tear.)
Sure. OTOH, you've also said that the a/c was unreliable and even when
it worked, it was lacking the necessary avionics, so you can't have
it both ways:-)
> - third, the skill of the Israeli pilots, particularly at low level
> against a rather large target, using DIRECT. In that mode, accuracy
> is purely a function of the pilot's skill. (Assuming the HUD boresight
> is correct.) They had to broach the outer containment wall of a large
> building, and if possible, destroy the inner reactor core through the
> hole. They did both.
If by DIRECT you mean manual, trying to hit altitude-angle-airspeed, no.
CCRP (or CCIP). Pickle altitude, according to one fairly authoritative
account, was 3,500 feet.
> Combine highly skilled drivers, and new, factory-tuned jets, and your
> likelyhood of success goes way up.
Highly experienced, yes, but not handpicked in this case. Both Sq. Ldrs
went, along with the Wing CO, and probably a couple of other field-grade
officers among the 8 pilots. They'd gotten their first F-16 about 11
months previously.
> > As soon as the F-16s entered service with us and others, they
> >started creaming all the competition in sight.
>
> Sorry, but the make-or-break difference at a weapons meet is often
> determined by whose load crew has the shiniest boots. Unit stats at a
> bombing range are even less reliable indicators. Too many "punch it
> off three seconds after crossing the third telephone pole beyond the
> access road" hints.
I'll leave that to the fighter pilots among us to comment on. Besides,
even if that were true, that would apply to everyone equally, so where's
the bias? In any case, how is it that the F-16s won so consistently,
and the F-4s were always in the also-ran category? The cues you refer
to would only apply at the home range, but how then did Hill's (388th) A
models win the RAF bomb comp at Lossiemouth in 1981, against Jaguars,
Buccaneers, and F-111Es? Are you suggesting that it was how well their
shoes were shined?
> > Until the F-18 showed
> >up, that is, which had an equal capability. The F-4 just couldn't
> >compete, because it didn't have the necessary avionics.
>
> What sort of avionics might those be? If every jet in a wing can
> consistently toss dumb iron three miles to within 50 ft. of the bad
> guys - what else is required beyond the (available) laser guidance pod
> if you want to take down a bridge? Or take out a tank with Mavericks?
> We had 'em first - but once again, any credit goes to the missile,
> rather than the launching aircraft.
With PGMs, quite agree. And since all that capability is available on
the F-16 just as it was on the F-4, why isn't the F-16 a REAL fighter?
As to avionics, I assume it's the resolution and reliability of the
radar/WAC that's the key. If the APQ-120 and WAC were up to snuff, why
would the Israelis bother to spend a couple of million apiece upgrading
to the Norden radar in the Phantom 2000? Yeah, it's got SAR, but they
also replaced the weapons computers etc, presumably to improve accuracy
(and reliability, no doubt).
> > But you can, of
> >course, put that in, as the Germans, Israelis and others are doing.
So,
> >let's look at an objective assessment of the F-16's bombing
capability
> >at the time of DS, shall we? This is a Marine F-18 pilot, who
formerly
> >flew F-4s. He's talking about the accuracy of the F-18 here, in
visual
> >bombing:
> >
> >"Deliveries in the daytime are the most accurate. . . Generally all
> >squadron pilots will have a circular error of probability of less
than
> >50 feet when bombing visually . . . This is a quantum leap of
accuracy
> >over what was usually seen in WW2, and even in Vietnam.
>
> Sounds like Korat. Of course, the ONLY time I've ever seen any Marine
> F-18 HUD video, it was Bosnia, and those guys were definitely below
> 500 feet ( precisely where I would expect Marines to be ), and it sure
> looked as though they were using direct - though it may have been
> CCIP. See the Israeli/Osirak paragraph above about skilled drivers,
> low level, direct, and new jets.
According to Jay Stout, the Marines don't even train for pure manual
delivery anymore in the F-18. It takes too much time to stay good at it
(he flew F-4s before this), and the systems are so reliable that it's
just not worth wasting the sorties on, when they have to stay current
with all the other features and modes.
> >This account is completely consistent with every other written or
oral
> >account, pilots, crew, or higher up that I've found, John [with the
> >exception of you], on the a/g accuracy of the F-16 using dumb bombs.
>
> All I can draw on is my own experience and that of trusted maintenance
> toads who have worked both. ( Very important, because it provides a
> reference for comparison.) We didn't come away with medals or
> accolades when they took out important targets - but we did catch the
> crap for the misses, regardless of actual cause.
>
> I truly hope that I'm wrong, and that the F-16 fan club are right: it
> is now a reliable, maintainable, and accurate weapons system.
> But make no mistake: if this is true, ALL of it happened within the
> past half-dozen years.
Again, that disagrees with all the info I have, but we're clearly not
going to convince each other.
> >We can play games based on the specific load carried by each a/c, so
let
> >me give you one:
>
> That's the point, Guy. It isn't a game. The little jets' lack of
> accuracy and limited haul capabilities are what determines the
> high-altitude, laser-guided role ( along with political considerations
> which I hope we can ignore for the moment ) - NOT the other way
> around.
See comments above re Osirak etc. for rebuttal of lack of accuracy.
The high altitude PGM role is dictated by political considerations to
keep down losses and collateral damage, nothing else. Limited haul is
purely relative; I''ll be the first to agree that its performance will
degrade a lot faster as the load goes up than an F-15E will: OTOH, the
F-16XL would have been equal or superior to the F-15E, and I expect the
F-16 will outperform the F-4 until the load gets up to somewhere
between 6-12 bombs, if not more. Without the -1s for both a/c, I can't
be more precise than that, but I've talked to pilots who've flown both,
and that's the gist of their comments.
> It isn't that we use "one bomb, one target" gizmos (bullshit
> anyway) because they are now available for today's high-tech jets -
> the things have been in use for 30 years! If you want to take out a
> Serb APC in a string of farm tractors, you do it up close, with a big
> gun, or with a Maverick - NOT with 4,000 pounds in two LGBs from
> 15,000. A well-aimed ripple of three Mk-82s could do it, too - but
> only if you're low, slow, and VERY accurate.
Actually, you try and do it with a single GBU-12 (Mk. 82 LGB), not 2
GBU-10s/24s. And unless we get a lot more willing to take casualties
than we are now, that's the way we're going to do it from now on.
> >> > For that matter, we didn't load a/c with their max. bombloads
> >> >going into RP6 either, because the survival rate would have gone
way
> >> >down and we would have wound up jettisioning a lot of bombs,
wasting
> >> >them.
> >>
> >> The load was decreased slightly on these for two reasons: ECM pods
and
> >> distance to the take-me-home tanker. We're talking nine bombs
instead
> >> of twelve...
> >
> >No, we're talking 6 or 12 bombs instead of 24, which was the maximum
> >capacity. During RT, the typical F-4 load going into RP6 was 6 Mk.
82s
> >or 5 M117s on the C/L, because the I/Bs were the only place to carry
> >pods at the time. After RT, the forward AIM-7 wells were modded to
> >allow carriage there.
>
> Perhaps Ed or Walt can clear this up, but I recall a C/L MER and a
> single inboard TER, with 370s and an ECM pod on the other inboard.
> (That makes nine bombs, or 3 plus 5 CBUs.) While I've certainly seen
> that combination, the timing is bad for the operations you quote - so
> you may be right about those particular loads on those particular
> operations.
I've seen the load you describe with Mk. 82s, but in the RT era it was
still mostly M117s, and that's way too much drag and weight for an F-4
going downtown (F-111s would carry 12-24, but that's a whole different
mission profile). Most of the loads as you describe were, according to
the info I've seen, headed for Laos, RP5, or the lower packs.
> Missile-well ECM carriage came long after -556. ( If I had to guess,
> I'd say '74 or '75).
Naw, ALQ-87s/101s were routinely being carried in the forward wells in
1972; that's where Ed carried his on those H/K missions. The earliest
dated photo I have showing pods in the Spaarow wells is a 469th bird
with decorated bombs for XMAS 1971.
> PACAF E's carried cameras on the R/F at all
> times, except when the station was required for a missile.(e.g. - CAP
> or fast FAC.)
Or when they were carrying two pods. I've got pictures.
> >Fine. Now, can you do a fifteen minute turnaround while loading 12
Mk.
> >82s individually on the CFTs? I doubt very much that there's enough
> >room there to do so - and you can't just stuff a pre-loaded MER on.
>
> That at least used to be the USAFE standard. (F-4s, no preloads, but
> no CFTs, either. However, it did include a simultaneous
> refuel/rearm/drag chute install, with the engines running.) The crew
> never left the cockpit. Best times were about half the standard.
For six or twelve Mk. 82s? Most sources I've seen use 6 Mk. 82s as the
standard. That seems to apply regardless of a/c type.
> >> Even in VN, they learned quickly to keep the RF turned off. That's
why
> >> we switched from ARMS which required a continuously-active SAM
radar
> >> (AGM-45) to ARMS which required no more than a single burst of RF,
> >> many miles from the site.(AGM-78)
> >
> >The number of confirmed STARM kills in Vietnam was hardly anything to
> >right home about. Here's the numbers for use of ARMs, April-October
> >1972.
>
> Those aren't encouraging - but here's what I recall of STARM use
> between Oct '70 and May '71: one miss out of 8-12 fired. The rest
> were confirmed hits - and for almost all of those, the radar was NOT
> radiating when the missile closed on them. In hindsight, I guess I
> should have recorded the dates/crews, etc., huh ?
Yup, you should have. Checking "Wild Weasel," here's Warren Kerzon's
account of the first USAF STARM firings, on 10 May 1968:
"'The first three of our missiles [Barracuda flight, loaded with two
STARMs each] went Tango Uniform - Tits Up. Barracuda Lead's missile
fell into the jungle without igniting; Barracuda 3, my leader, fired his
and it did a couple of snappy high-G barrel rolls before tearing itself
apart; I fired next and it appeared to start guiding, made it above the
horizon, and then went tits up too. I had to jink real hard to avoid
the debris. Our second missile made a good launch, but with the bad
weather we had no visual confirmation of a hit. Barracuda Lead later
told me that my number two missile did in fact make a direct hit on the
radar van, destroying it and zapping three or four Russian radar
technicians and several NVA'. [If details are accurate, we must have had
some good intel]. In all, Barracuda flight fired eight missiles that
day, with five guiding to targets. One Fan Song was definitely
destroyed, one probable, and a third was possibly destroyed."
So, being generous and calling the probable a kill, that's 25%, with
37.5% failures, 25% definite miss, and 12.5% uncertain.
jtarver
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:36:40 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > I've talked to large numbers of them, and
> >we've had some on this newsgroup, and none of them agrees with you.
>
> That's fine. I stand by my assertions.
We have another F-16 maintainer on theis group that is now a lt and he
claims that only the Block 50 airplanes do not display the charecteristics
John T. describes.
John
Kurt Plummer
Dunno if it exactly 'supports' your claims or not but the following from a
'Combat Aircraft, Issue #1' article by a Viper driver by the name of Dave Mason
might be of some interest. Sorry if it starts a bit under your age/SAT limit
but it builds interest as we go...;)
Pg. 38. "CCIP, as its name implies, constantly figures out where the bomb
selected would hit if released at that moment, and drives the pipper in the HUD
around to display this information. The pilot flies the aircraft so the pipper
drives up to the taget, hits the "pickle" button and watches the target
disappear.
There tends to be accuracy variation from jet to jet, which is tracked and some
aircraft definitely bomb better than others. Properly trained, however, the
average pilot usually can place a bomb inside 10 meters from low altitude.
During /Desert Storm/ the /Viper's/ reputation for nail-biting accuracy (me:
intermission while the Dweeze lafs all he du-Pleeze...;) was seriously tarnished
but for no fault of the aircraft or its pilots. The F-16 was tasked with
operations for which it was not designed; dropping bombs from medium altitude.
As a result, the CEP was doubled by the difference in operating altitude. The
Block 50 aircraft subsequently defeated (me: could this be part of the cause
between WAC/WAR HUDing after the .40?) the problem and my squadron in Germany
dropped some single-meter bombs from medium altitude using this model's improved
capabilities.
He goes on to talk about "Tinker Toy vs. Gorilla" B.## brake effects on landing
and taxi and makes veiled 'comments' about the effectiveness of the
"demi-Weasel" and how the LANTIRN bomber assignment really works better with a
second man. Overall, he is super pleased with the systems "Staggering" A/A
performance but says: "...its performance in some other areas can best be
described as adequate".
It wouldn't be fair to close without his last though, however PC: "Whatever the
mission, however, the F-16 pilot can be confident of accomplishing it with ease,
while dealing with any hostile threat. And that's the best measure of a combat
aircraft there is."
A Feather for your glottis?
For myself, any mission which brings you inside 10nm of the ground target or
more than 10` above or below the horizon at 20K feet is a failure, of the
weapons system or the airframe or the crew.
I don't truly believe in multi-tonnage systems any more than I believe an AH-64
can be 'useful' without it's Hellfire. Indeed, Hellfire costs around 40K and
weighs only 105 lbs plus whatever the rack-count is and has a useful ballistic
compareable to Maverick, /for the sensor acquistion footprint available/.
Since I also believe warfare capabilities (and politics) have moved beyond
static attrition of 'strategic' (economic, transport and fixed-control) assets;
I believe that any airframe which is 'designed for tomorrow' had better have
superior small-target, _onboard_, mission sensor integration over what's under
the hood today.
KP
Rick & Andrea
>claims that only the Block 50 airplanes do not display the charecteristics
>John T. describes.
>
>John
>
>
>
>Certainly. I overwhelmingly prefer the word of the folks who
>maintained them; they didn't have a "dog in that fight", though they
>did have a reputation to think about, at least among themselves.
I'll admit that I am no expert on F-16's, but I love the hell out of that
little aircraft. I worked on block 40's and 50's for over 5 years and can
say nothing bad about the plane, only the ops officers that run the
squadrons.
Now that I am in flight school I have a whole new respect for Viper pilots.
There is an awful lot going on in that little cockpit for one person to
handle, talk about task saturation. I have the same respect for single seat
Eagle (& Hornet) drivers as well, but the A/G mission takes the cake for one
person. In block 40's and 50's with the LANTIRN and WW mission, that is a
lot to take care of and with the success they have had in both missions, it
is obviously a very reliable weapons system.
The next time anyone wants to slam the F-16, take a trip to Shaw AFB, SC
and walk into the 78th Fighter Squadron and look at the monthly status
board. When I was there we were flying over 600 sorties a month (usually an
18 turn 16) and MAYBE had one Code 3 flight per day. That was a big MAYBE
and only 2-3 ground aborts per week. I have been deployed with EF-111's,
F-15C's, F-15E's, F-18's, F-4's and Tornado's and F-16's by far stand out
alone in terms of maintenance. We used to laugh like hell at those poor
Seymour Johnson bastards when we'd be going to the casinos on swing shift
and they'd still be sifting through 781's to assign all the jobs. The Eagle
kicks ass, and that is what I want out of school, but for maintenance it
can't touch the Viper.
But, what the hell do I know, I only fixed them.
Rick
Pete
Rick & Andrea <re...@dotstar.net> wrote in message
news:wTRH3.311$PW4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >We have another F-16 maintainer on theis group that is now a lt and he
> >claims that only the Block 50 airplanes do not display the
charecteristics
> >John T. describes.
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >
> Hey, that's me.
>
> >maintained them; they didn't have a "dog in that fight", though they
> >did have a reputation to think about, at least among themselves.
>
> The next time anyone wants to slam the F-16, take a trip to Shaw AFB, SC
> and walk into the 78th Fighter Squadron and look at the monthly status
> board. When I was there we were flying over 600 sorties a month (usually
an
> 18 turn 16) and MAYBE had one Code 3 flight per day. That was a big MAYBE
> and only 2-3 ground aborts per week. I have been deployed with EF-111's,
> F-15C's, F-15E's, F-18's, F-4's and Tornado's and F-16's by far stand out
> alone in terms of maintenance. We used to laugh like hell at those poor
> Seymour Johnson bastards when we'd be going to the casinos on swing shift
> and they'd still be sifting through 781's to assign all the jobs. The
Eagle
> kicks ass, and that is what I want out of school, but for maintenance it
> can't touch the Viper.
When I was at Ramstein, we ran one summer (1990?) without *any* spares on
the daily schedule. Not due to lack of spare parts...a test to see if we
could do it. 18 turn 18. Very, very rarely did we lose a mission due to a
broken plane. Might have happened once or twice all summer long. Not surge
conditions... day in and day out flying with Block 30's. All the regular
maintenance comittments (phase, load barn, etc) went on schedule.
> But, what the hell do I know, I only fixed them.
Right..me too...:)
Pete
Dweezil Dwarftosser
I've promised not to knock the BEST FIGHTER AIRCRAFT EVER MADE(tm),
but I think a little discussion of methods (used to determine true
operational status of systems) is in order. This discussion applies
equally to ALL present and future fighter/bomber systems - including
the F-22 and proposed joint attack jets. I'm using your comments as
"jumping-off points"; please excuse the Bombing 101 elementary nature
of some descriptions...
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:03:56 -0700, Kurt Plummer
<ch1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Pg. 38. "CCIP, as its name implies, constantly figures out where the bomb
>selected would hit if released at that moment, and drives the pipper in the HUD
>around to display this information. The pilot flies the aircraft so the pipper
>drives up to the taget, hits the "pickle" button and watches the target
>disappear.
>
>There tends to be accuracy variation from jet to jet, which is tracked and some
>aircraft definitely bomb better than others. Properly trained, however, the
>average pilot usually can place a bomb inside 10 meters from low altitude.
Typically, CCIP is computed from inertial data at any given time,
combined with radar slant range to a below-the-horizon point on the
ground. ( Of course, it could be done with a laser instead of radar,
but laser has some pitfalls that radar does not: smoke, condensation,
etc.) This slant range is an absolutely vital part of the equation,
because it is used to determine target altitude - which may be
completely different from the ground beneath the jet. Computing CCIP
for a target halfway up a gentle slope is much more involved than that
of one sitting on a flat desert floor. Without the slant range
component, CCIP is accurate only for flat terrain.
This slant range requires good discrimination of a repeatable point
within the RF illumination; imagine a flashlight pointed downward at
your kitchen floor in a 45 degree angle. The now-oblong beam covers a
lot of possible ranges. Change that downward look-angle to something
like 15 degrees, and the beam now covers a REALLY long area, making it
much harder to determine actual range to the center of that beam.
(Of course, pointing at a hillside gives a smaller, better response,
because the angles of incidence/reflection are lower.) Raise the
lamp high above your kitchen floor, and the error grows.
When CCIP modes were first introduced to fighter/attack jets ('70s),
it was found that accuracy was acceptable ONLY if ranging was "tuned"
so as to provide good results for a particular set of engagements.
(And it doesn't matter if the "adjustment" is done on a per-plane
basis by a troop twisting away at a multi-turn potentiomer, or on a
"fleet" basis via software hard-coded at the contractor.) Engage a
ground target from a different type of terrain, or fighter altitude,
and accuracy went WAY down. Of course, in actual combat, choice of
enemy terrain is non-existent, so the jet has to be made reliable and
accurate across almost EVERY concievable target/attack condition.
>During /Desert Storm/ the /Viper's/ reputation for nail-biting accuracy (me:
>intermission while the Dweeze lafs all he du-Pleeze...;) was seriously tarnished
>but for no fault of the aircraft or its pilots. The F-16 was tasked with
>operations for which it was not designed; dropping bombs from medium altitude.
>As a result, the CEP was doubled by the difference in operating altitude. The
>Block 50 aircraft subsequently defeated (me: could this be part of the cause
>between WAC/WAR HUDing after the .40?) the problem and my squadron in Germany
>dropped some single-meter bombs from medium altitude using this model's improved
>capabilities.
This brings me to the real point: How do you determine whether or not
the thing works properly across the entire spectrum of possible attack
criteria? If you wait until you are attacking a target under
never-before-experienced conditions, it is too late.
Weapons Load crews use external test sets during PE ( and sometimes,
immediately prior to loading ) to ensure that the actual selection and
"fire" signals make it to the launchers properly - and while this is
good enough for simple systems ( e.g. - AIM-9, dumb bomb racks,
rockets, chaff, etc. ), it really is inadequate for the more
sophisticated weapons. Call this "level one" system confidence.
Since the 1960s, most fighter/attack aircraft have possessed some form
of "Built-in-tests" (BITs) that gave a measure of confidence in the
system's operation. ( Early ones required aircrew interpretation for
the checks, and sometimes required 30 pages of checklist items. Later
ones were done automatically, and simplified the crews' job because
they reported only the detected faults.) However, BIT checks have
NEVER been anyway near 100 percent reliable indicators of actual
system performance; they test for "canned" responses to a set of
"canned" conditions. They were rarely dynamic in any way, and while
they could check that a particular weapons signal was generated
properly for a slim range of conditions - there was nothing that
tested if these signals actually made it to the launcher umbilical.
So, more specialized ground test sets were required. Since these had
to generate specific conditions within the aircraft systems before
some of the more-sophisticated weapons control signals were even
generated, they usually involved lengthy test sequences for the
maintainers. The result is that these tests were performed
infrequently on a calendar or flying-hour basis. These "level two"
system confidence tests improved reliability a lot - but still not 100
percent, for they generated a small set of test conditions WITHIN the
aircraft, rather than testing the jet nose-to-tail, as it would be
employed.
Enter the level three ground test sets, which completely changed the
game, pointing out problems that in some cases had existed for years,
undetected and unresolved.
AFAIK, only two US aircraft had the benefit of such testing. The
F-106 used the AN/MPM-54, a huge, trailer-mounted anechoic radar
chamber which slipped over the nose, and long, "spider" cables for
connection to the weapon-attach points. It was a true "flight
simulator" - but for the aircraft, rather than the crew. It generated
"airborne" targets for the radar to pick up, and IR as well. Then, it
tested the weapons-launch signals accuracy at the station. Everything
within the jet had to function properly to pass, exactly as it would
in flight.
An even larger and more sophisticated version of the MPM-54 was used
on the F-4: the AN/APM-307. (It wasn't until the -307 was introduced
that long-standing problems with the AIM-7 system were found and
corrected.) For A/G testing, the INS system was tricked into
generating multiple X/Y/Z velocities. When the F-15A/B was
introduced, USAFE demanded a similar system for Eagle use - but
multiple contractor PR folks were successful in convincing TAC that
internal BITs were "good enough".
( That is, "level zero" of the system confidence test spectrum.)
NONE of the systems in today's crop of wonder-jets are ever tested
much beyond the LEVEL ONE confidence level. This is a terrible
disservice to the aircrews, because NO ONE KNOWS if these aircraft can
actually do the complete job they were designed for, until they
actually try it in combat. If problems are encountered, how do you
fix it under this type of operation? "Kentucky windage" on the
bombsite is the only method - exactly the same method used by their
great-grandfathers in WW One.
Of course, none of our outstanding aircraft contractors would ever
dream of disguising known problems by eliminating error symptoms,
would they ? And I guess that is why they employ psychics to divine
info about hidden "undetectable" faults, as well, right?
>I don't truly believe in multi-tonnage systems any more than I believe an AH-64
>can be 'useful' without it's Hellfire. Indeed, Hellfire costs around 40K and
>weighs only 105 lbs plus whatever the rack-count is and has a useful ballistic
>compareable to Maverick, /for the sensor acquistion footprint available/.
>
>Since I also believe warfare capabilities (and politics) have moved beyond
>static attrition of 'strategic' (economic, transport and fixed-control) assets;
>I believe that any airframe which is 'designed for tomorrow' had better have
>superior small-target, _onboard_, mission sensor integration over what's under
>the hood today.
It also better include a way to test these components as an integrated
system across a wide range of possible employment scenarios. Today,
not a single aircraft in service or in the pipeline adequately
addresses the problem of "unplanned-for" employment or faults that are
"undetectable" by existing BIT checks.
- John T.
Icepik6
thing works properly across the entire spectrum of possible attack criteria?>>
You can't. But you can determine it to a reasonable level of assurance through
DT, OT, and fleet usage (read "training" and all that encompasses) over time.
BIT data tells you how well the system thinks it is working. Weapons hits, HUD
video analysis, and aircraft recorded weapons release data provides
verification one way or the other. That's partially why we fly raked range
sorties. We also periodically "boresight" each jet and subsequently fly a
series of sorties on a raked range to footprint its accuracy (with so-called
dumb bombs). Consistent problems over time result in software trouble reports
to the weapons systems support activities, where the root cause is sorted out
on the bench and instrumented aircraft.
<<This is a terrible disservice to the aircrews, because NO ONE KNOWS if these
aircraft can actually do the complete job they were designed for, until they
actually try it in combat.>>
Hogwash. We appreciate your concern, but that's not quite right. That's why
we have DT, OT and FOT&E; that's why we train everyday -- to achieve a high
degree of confidence that the aircraft, its sytems, the weapons, our
maintainers and our pilots have got it all in one bag on the first day of the
show.
<<If problems are encountered, how do you
fix it under this type of operation?>>
It depends on the nature of the fault and where in the sortie this "fault"
occurs. There are some instances where you'll have time to fault-isolate,
troubleshoot and reset a system to full-mission capability. In other
instances, its a no-go or a mission abort and you boogey back to homeplate to
let the experts fix it.
<<Of course, none of our outstanding aircraft contractors would ever dream of
disguising known problems by eliminating error symptoms, would they ? And I
guess that is why they employ psychics to divine
info about hidden "undetectable" faults, as well, right?>>
You're branding the masses unfairly for the sins of the (very, very) few. In
fact you could come to appreciate great physical pain if you were to suggest
that to some of the engineers I know.
<<It also better include a way to test these components as an integrated system
across a wide range of possible employment scenarios.>>
Yo, Van Winkle -- DT, OT and FOT&E have been around for a LONG time.
<<Today, not a single aircraft in service or in the pipeline adequately
addresses...>>
According to whom?
<<...the problem of "unplanned-for" employment or faults that are
"undetectable" by existing BIT checks.>>
How can you plan for employment that you cannot foresee? :)
Dweezil Dwarftosser
><<This brings me to the real point: How do you determine whether or not the
>thing works properly across the entire spectrum of possible attack criteria?>>
>
>You can't.
Yes, you can. But not with systems that test portions of the
circuitry then assume that they all work together properly.
> But you can determine it to a reasonable level of assurance through
>DT, OT, and fleet usage (read "training" and all that encompasses) over time.
>BIT data tells you how well the system thinks it is working. Weapons hits, HUD
>video analysis, and aircraft recorded weapons release data provides
>verification one way or the other.
Tracking these things and viewing film can go a long way towards
properly identifying not only the "bad actor" jets in your squadron,
but these SYMPTOMS will even occasionally aid in identifying the
underlying CAUSE - as long as the tactics used are ignored.
However, if you think for one second that viewing film of some
deliveries on a calibrated range is meaningful for shaking out an
obscure problem, I have to disagree.
> That's partially why we fly raked range
>sorties. We also periodically "boresight" each jet and subsequently fly a
>series of sorties on a raked range to footprint its accuracy (with so-called
>dumb bombs). Consistent problems over time result in software trouble reports
>to the weapons systems support activities, where the root cause is sorted out
>on the bench and instrumented aircraft.
I wish that these "responsible agencies" were even the least bit
responsive to correcting widespread, repeatable software-induced
errors/malfunctions, but they are not. (Perhaps they do pay some
attention to the SYMPTOMS reported by aircrews - but they not only
ignore maintenance-identified CAUSES, they even deny that they exist.)
BTW - there are many types of "boresight" procedures used on aircraft
- and not one of them is performed by the crew.
Some of the problem comes from the curious status which software
enjoys: it ain't hardware ( so Materiel Deficiency Reports can easily
be rejected by depots and higher ), and it ain't really a "technical
manual", even though most of the aircraft software is identified that
way. Tech order agencies routinely pass the buck to systems programs
offices - who never even try the field-implemented successful fix.
><<This is a terrible disservice to the aircrews, because NO ONE KNOWS if these
>aircraft can actually do the complete job they were designed for, until they
>actually try it in combat.>>
>
>Hogwash. We appreciate your concern, but that's not quite right. That's why
>we have DT, OT and FOT&E; that's why we train everyday -- to achieve a high
>degree of confidence that the aircraft, its sytems, the weapons, our
>maintainers and our pilots have got it all in one bag on the first day of the
>show.
You can save the commander's call rah-rah bullshit for the
easily-impressed (mostly, O-3 and below) or a recruiting commercial.
Training to work around the defects in equipment is a fool's game.
Given a credible enemy - a dead fool's game. Fix it, or trash it!
><<If problems are encountered, how do you
>fix it under this type of operation?>>
>
>It depends on the nature of the fault and where in the sortie this "fault"
>occurs. There are some instances where you'll have time to fault-isolate,
>troubleshoot and reset a system to full-mission capability. In other
>instances, its a no-go or a mission abort and you boogey back to homeplate to
>let the experts fix it.
Having been one of those bona-fide "experts", I'm telling you that the
things I'm talking about CANNOT be fixed without rewriting/recompiling
the defective source code. The SYMPTOMS can sometimes be masked from
the crew via other means, ("Look, SuperGIB - they tweaked it in!") -
but the line troops can't do anything about the CAUSE.
><<Of course, none of our outstanding aircraft contractors would ever dream of
>disguising known problems by eliminating error symptoms, would they ? And I
>guess that is why they employ psychics to divine
>info about hidden "undetectable" faults, as well, right?>>
>
>You're branding the masses unfairly for the sins of the (very, very) few.
Perhaps you are correct on this one point. I hope so, anyway.
><<It also better include a way to test these components as an integrated system
>across a wide range of possible employment scenarios.>>
>
>Yo, Van Winkle -- DT, OT and FOT&E have been around for a LONG time.
Sure. For TYPE testing. A few hundred flying hours later, even that
small sample they tested is no longer the same jet, with the same
capabilites.
><<Today, not a single aircraft in service or in the pipeline adequately
>addresses...>>
>
>According to whom?
>
><<...the problem of "unplanned-for" employment or faults that are
>"undetectable" by existing BIT checks.>>
>
>How can you plan for employment that you cannot foresee? :)
Like throwing accurate munitions from 15,000+ ft altitude? :)
- John T.
fr...@my-deja.com
"Raymond Chuang" <rch...@slip.net> wrote:
> Paul J. Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bxqCqMAB...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <37e38fd2...@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>, Dweezil
> > Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> writes
> > >The typhoon, if it realizes all of its planned capabilities, would
be
> > >more suitable than any F-16 kluge.
> >
> > With one exception - it's NIH :)
>
> There's also another problem too: where are they going to put the
recepticle
> for the Boeing "Flying Boom" air refuelling system on the Eurofighter
> Typhoon? I believe all current USAF front-line aircraft requires that
they
> can be refuelled from the KC-135 or KC-10 using the Flying Boom.
>
> --
I don't see where that is a problem. Boom refueling is unique to the
USAF. Everybody else uses the probe/drogue system. KC-10's are dual-
mode with both a boom and hose reels/drogues. Boom-only 135's can
snap on a shorty-hose/drogue assembly on the boom end if their mission
profile involves refueling probe equiped aircraft.
..........Fred