F22 unstealthy about noise?

[dumbstruck]

I've heard a bunch of low F-22 flyovers and they seem exceptionally
noisy. Isn't this unexpected for a stealth aircraft? I realize that
probably the last thing they would try to optimize, but shouldn't it
partly follow along with low IR emissions, even if just by accident?

They do seem to have a weird omnipresent quality of noise where it is
hard to pinpoint even roughly where they are. In fact I have never
seen them! But they have made scheduled formation flyovers, etc and
sound quite distinct from F15's or Mirages etc. Maybe it is the
supercruise nozzle, but the incredible noise would make them easy to
detect in a nap of the ground intrusion.

[Dean A. Markley]

By the time you heard it, you'd be dead.

[Dave Kearton]

"Dean A. Markley" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JWhxq.5508$ov2....@newsfe10.iad...

I guess there's also the penalties of weight and drag that a muffler for an
F-22 would add.


Not to mention in a few years when you'll also need the catalytic converter.



--



Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Bob Cratchet]

Uhhhhhhhh. I ain't wearing one.

[150flivver]

On Nov 17, 6:55 pm, "Dave Kearton" <dkearton------...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> "Dean A. Markley" <damark...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:JWhxq.5508$ov2....@newsfe10.iad...

The nice thing about supercruise is you're gone before the noise
arrives.

[Daryl]

You aren't worried about safe nozzling?



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[kirk....@gmail.com]

Serious answer:

The whole point of Stealth is that it makes it hard for Radar to see
you. The only reason for flying low (other than it's a lot of fun) is
to avoid radar detection. So there is really no good reason (other
than an airshow flyby) for an F-22 to be down low enough to be heard.
And trust me, if he is up where he belongs, you won't hear him!

Kirk

[dumbstruck]

Whew, I thought I didn't have to connect the dots in order to avoid
the usual scorn here. When I said noise reduction should go down with
IR emission, that is how it works with the previous stealth aircraft.
You don't want a sidewinder or other detector to see your hot exhaust
so easily.

Muffler sounds funny to you - why don't you look at the low IR exhaust
baffle of F117 (it also has sort of an intake muffler, but for radar
rather than IR reasons). Both the F117 and B2 have exhaust nozzles
shielded by the wing which limits IR detectors ability to see from
below. I didn't expect F22 to have this kind of thing, but in
consequence it must have bad IR signature, and the noise appears to
prove it.

I have never heard an aircraft this loud since the 1970's Mirages. It
lights up car alarms. Just wheeling around the airstrip (doing touch
and gos?) there is that weird hard to locate roar. I can't recall if
the nozzle can pivot, but don't suppose that plays a part. It's just
strange that it has such an obvious presence, when the general trend
for jets is quietness.

Don't be too sure about how fast and high normal operations will be.
The Me262 was decimated by slower aircraft when doing landing / take
off. Maybe f22 bases will have an intruder near the airstrip with rpg
who just snoozes til he hears the distinctive sound. Remember the B1A
vs B1B or whatever, which had to switch from high to low altitude
ground following changes in Russian radar capability...

[Dean Markley]

Why do you think noise has anything to do with IR?

[Alan Dicey]

On 18/11/2011 19:15, dumbstruck wrote:

> Muffler sounds funny to you - why don't you look at the low IR exhaust
> baffle of F117 (it also has sort of an intake muffler, but for radar
> rather than IR reasons). Both the F117 and B2 have exhaust nozzles
> shielded by the wing

The F-117's exhaust is screened from below by an extension of the
underbody. The wing starts outboard of the exhaust.

> which limits IR detectors ability to see from
> below. I didn't expect F22 to have this kind of thing, but in
> consequence it must have bad IR signature, and the noise appears to
> prove it.

F-117 and B-2 are subsonic, non-afterburning designs. The F-22 is
supersonic and uses afterburners to get its peak performance. There is
no effective way to baffle an afterburning jet exhaust.

The F-22's role is air superiority, where you need to see and kill the
enemy aircraft before he sees you. Noise plays no part in that mission.
Indeed, the aircraft must emit radar signals, which is a much bigger
issue. The radar is designed to be "Low Probability of Intercept",
meaning it's a compromise between seeing the enemy and being seen by them.

I haven't looked into it closely but I suspect that the noise and IR
signatures are managed and confined to the rear aspect. That's what I'd
do. Stealth and supersonic speed are largely incompatible, and the F-22
design is a compromise between the two.

[vaughn]

"Dean Markley" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7366171f-e79e-4f4f...@d17g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

>Why do you think noise has anything to do with IR?

Because any exhaust baffling included to reduce IR, likely also reduces exhaust
noise.

Vaughn

[WaltBJ]

I've flown jet fighters for 22 years and 5,000 hours and this is the
first time I ever heard of anyone using noise against them - except
for the fussbudgets. Note that at normal attack speeds the weapons are
on the way by the time the target hears anything.

I suppose you could call in the sighting to a filter center but by the
time you're talking to someone the 'noise' is fifteen or so miles
away. Forex, the SR 71 went over about 4 yeasr ago and hearing the
unmistakable double bang and rumble I ran out side to look - ugh, no
cons, and I'm thinking -' hey, he's forty miles down range by now!'
Walt BJ

[Bob Cratchet]

I meant no disrespect to OP. Just having a little fun at the obvious
statement rather than the intended.

[David E. Powell]

Knew a guy who had been to VN and had a SR71 pic. The only way was to
stake out the routes (This was before the planes were officially
announced, IIRC) and click away like mad when one appeared on the
horizon. Had to click ahead of them, couldn't get them where they
were, and th noise didn't come until way after the fact. Tiny, little
thing in that picture, but recognizable as a blackbird.

It took them numerous passes to figure that out, and the route was
coming right over them for some reason. They were out in the middle of
someplace "out there."

[Daryl]

All fighter jets and bombers will be louder than their civilian
counterparts. You can't get that kind of performance with those
kind of loads by dialing your engine back. since you can't dial
it back, it's going to be loud. Just the fact of life.

[Airyx]

For a jet designed for Air to Air, noise really doesn't seem to be an
issue. The guy in the other jet isn't going to hear you from 40nm away
no matter how loud you are.

I wonder of someone could produce a noise following weapon. It would
have to include logic to predict-forward to the target, since the
sound waves the weapon is tracking could very well be moving slower
than the target itself.

Generally speaking, any ground target would never hear an inbound F-22
before the JDAM arrived, and probably never. The general profile is
for an F-22 to drop its JDAMs from well over 10nm way (often 20+nm),
and then turn away without ever flying over the target.

OTOH - I've seen A-10s doing their thing at very low level, and even
though I could see them in the distance, they were totally
silent...AND...when they passed in front of wooded hills, they were
invisible too.

[Daryl]

The A-10 survives, for one thing, by being quiet. It's not on
steroids.

[Dan]

Different mission, different construction.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[tutall]

Ah bullshit, they're plenty loud, just not until it passes do you hear
it.
From an infantryman's standpoint this is true for all fixed wing
aircraft, you never hear them inbound.
Participated in an excersize in Grafenwoehr where A-10's were very
active.

[Airyx]

Sure, they are loud, but not nearly as loud as fast movers. I did use
the phrase "from a distance".

[Airyx]

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's what I'm pointing out. There is no reason to make an F-22
quiet, but an A-10 has some degree of quietness built into the design.

[Daryl]

The A-10 has a reputation, nothing else. When called on to do a
job, it uses terror more than anything else. The problem is, if
you can see the bad guy, he can see you. Being quiet helps it to
get closer to the job. But after that, it's quite vulnerable.
Without the F-15/18/16 in the neighborhood, the A-10 would be
dead meat for all sorts of nasty ground to air weapons.

[Daryl]

\
The A-10 is no more noisy than any commercial airliner. They fly
in and out of here as well as Tankers, Hornets, etc.. You can't
really notice the A-10 after takeoff because he's just another
jet in noise. Same goes for the Tanker (KC-135). Now, the F-18
is another animal. You can't help but here him from miles away.

[Ron]

Or just maybe it uses quite a bit of ordnance too. Ground troops sure like an A-10 arriving in scene to help out, and not just because of some psychological perception.

and the A-10 pilot I know, who have probably killed quite a few Taliban, did not do so by scaring them to death.

[Daryl]

On 11/22/2011 10:07 PM, Ron wrote:
> Or just maybe it uses quite a bit of ordnance too. Ground troops sure like an A-10 arriving in scene to help out, and not just because of some psychological perception.
>
> and the A-10 pilot I know, who have probably killed quite a few Taliban, did not do so by scaring them to death.

They like the A-10 because it's visible. Being visible also
means it has a terror affect on your enemies. An F-16 can do the
same job and more but you can't see it or hear it. It delivers
it's packages with little or no fear of appraisal. Of course,
it's big brother is in the sky making damned sure there isn't
anything in the skies to contest it.

That same big brother pretty well makes sure that the A-10 has
nothing in the air to contest it.

Remember, if you can see the enemy, they can see you.

[Paul F Austin]

On 11/23/2011 12:55 AM, Daryl wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 10:07 PM, Ron wrote:
>> Or just maybe it uses quite a bit of ordnance too. Ground troops sure
>> like an A-10 arriving in scene to help out, and not just because of
>> some psychological perception.
>>
>> and the A-10 pilot I know, who have probably killed quite a few
>> Taliban, did not do so by scaring them to death.
>
> They like the A-10 because it's visible. Being visible also means it has
> a terror affect on your enemies. An F-16 can do the same job and more
> but you can't see it or hear it. It delivers it's packages with little
> or no fear of appraisal. Of course, it's big brother is in the sky
> making damned sure there isn't anything in the skies to contest it.
>
> That same big brother pretty well makes sure that the A-10 has nothing
> in the air to contest it.
>
> Remember, if you can see the enemy, they can see you.
>
>

Daryl, the reason for the A-10s existence isn't psychological (any more
than any other mud mover) but are the eleven hard points for hanging
ordnance from and to a lesser extent, that big damn gun. An F-16 only
has five hard points for hanging ordnance (neglecting the wing tip AAM
weapons stations), one or two of which are usually occupied by tanks.

The A-10 was designed around those hardpoints, inspired by the A-1D.
Modern smart munitions have reduced the importance of large numbers of
weapons but on the other hand, placed a _higher_ premium on platforms
that can loiter with a large number of stowed kills aboard, hence the
renaissance in heavy bombers.

From a green suiter's point of view, the single-purpose nature of the
A-10 is a major virtue, preventing some Air Force type from tasking it
with more important (to the Air Force) missions than CAS.

Paul

[150flivver]

On Nov 22, 11:55 pm, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 10:07 PM, Ron wrote:
>
> > Or just maybe it uses quite a bit of ordnance too.  Ground troops sure like an A-10 arriving in scene to help out, and not just because of some psychological perception.
>
> > and the A-10 pilot I know, who have probably killed quite a few Taliban, did not do so by scaring them to death.
>
> They like the A-10 because it's visible.  Being visible also
> means it has a terror affect on your enemies.  An F-16 can do the
> same job and more but you can't see it or hear it.  It delivers
> it's packages with little or no fear of appraisal.  Of course,
> it's big brother is in the sky making damned sure there isn't
> anything in the skies to contest it.
>
> That same big brother pretty well makes sure that the A-10 has
> nothing in the air to contest it.
>
> Remember, if you can see the enemy, they can see you.
>

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and
> programs.

Grunts like the A-10 because it has persistence (loiter time),
ordnance (iron), and accuracy.

[Daryl]

One 2000lb bomb usually does the trick. While not as cheap it is
more effective. And you can hang gun pods on the F-16 as well
along with a good bomb load. Plus, you don't have to keep it too
close to the front. It does it's job from way behind the lines
and goes home.

>
> The A-10 was designed around those hardpoints, inspired by the
> A-1D. Modern smart munitions have reduced the importance of large
> numbers of weapons but on the other hand, placed a _higher_
> premium on platforms that can loiter with a large number of
> stowed kills aboard, hence the renaissance in heavy bombers.

The A1D was in trouble when even the lowly Mig15 was in the area
without air cover. And if the A-10 took the damage that the A1E
could take, it wouldn't make it home. The A-10 is a fantastic
tank buster. Find me enemy tanks in Afg.

>
> From a green suiter's point of view, the single-purpose nature
> of the A-10 is a major virtue, preventing some Air Force type
> from tasking it with more important (to the Air Force) missions
> than CAS.

CAS can be handled by the F-18, F-15E and the F-16 without
getting too close to the ground. Their ordinance will be yards
from the center of the target. Close counts in this case when
you are dropping a 2000 lber. Oh, and the Buff turns out to be
one hell of a CAS package as well as does the B-2.

I see the Army trying real hard to keep the A-10 in the AF
inventory while the AF would rather have it out and more fast
movers to replace it. It's old and damned expensive to keep in
the inventory.


>
> Paul

[Jim Yanik]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:KLidncNPSvxqU1HT...@supernews.com:

I had heard the A-10 was designed around the big 30mm gun.
It certainly was not added as an afterthought.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Paul F Austin]

Almost no 2000lb bombs are used these days, with a strong preference for
much smaller bombs like the SDB in order to reduce collateral damage.
That being the case, many weapons stations _do_ have a payoff

>
>
>>
>> The A-10 was designed around those hardpoints, inspired by the
>> A-1D. Modern smart munitions have reduced the importance of large
>> numbers of weapons but on the other hand, placed a _higher_
>> premium on platforms that can loiter with a large number of
>> stowed kills aboard, hence the renaissance in heavy bombers.
>
> The A1D was in trouble when even the lowly Mig15 was in the area without
> air cover. And if the A-10 took the damage that the A1E could take, it
> wouldn't make it home. The A-10 is a fantastic tank buster. Find me
> enemy tanks in Afg.
>
>>
>> From a green suiter's point of view, the single-purpose nature
>> of the A-10 is a major virtue, preventing some Air Force type
>> from tasking it with more important (to the Air Force) missions
>> than CAS.
>
> CAS can be handled by the F-18, F-15E and the F-16 without getting too
> close to the ground. Their ordinance will be yards from the center of
> the target. Close counts in this case when you are dropping a 2000 lber.
> Oh, and the Buff turns out to be one hell of a CAS package as well as
> does the B-2.

See above about 2000lb bombs. B2s will probably never fly CAS missions
but BUFFs and B-1s do extraordinarily well in that role because they can
stow so many JDAMs or SDB. The Air Force has a lot of history to
overcome with the Army, given the many, many instances where air was
diverted to more Air Force-ish missions just when the fewmets hit the
windmill.

If heavies are consistently available to the green-suiters, that will go
a long way toward making the Army easy about eliminating A-10s. They
_are_ very old airplanes. On the other hand, those small boys you
mentioned compare very, very badly indeed with heavies in the amount of
resources needed to deliver a bomb on call, once you include the number
of airframes needed to keep one available and the tanking assets needed
to keep them on station.

The Army will pay particular attention to the Air Force's plans for the
heavy force. If BUFFs and B-1s go on the block in order to make room in
the budget for the next generation bomber, which like the B2 will never,
never, never fly a CAS mission, then the Army will _not_ be on board to
eliminate the A-10 force. Maybe the Army should take them over and paint
them green.

Paul

[Paul F Austin]

It wasn't an afterthought but the original procurement requirements put
emphasis on the number of individual bombs that could be loaded (rather
than tonnage), hence the hard points. The A1D _was_ the model that the
Army had in mind. Modest flight performance, minimal avionics (the
original A10 fit didn't even include an autopilot), lots of ordnance and
a tough airframe.

Paul

[Daryl]

You left off Loiter time which the A-10 is sorely lacking. It was
never intended for the CAS role which if fills now. The reasons
it fills that role is that there aren't any others and it's paid
for. But the cost of operation keeps going up and up and that
has killed some really good Aircraft. Like the F-18 really
replaced the F-14.

For the role that the A-10 does the best (never realized) it's
become obsolete. For CAS, there just isn't anything else that
can get up close and personal. And that is what the AF and the
Navy are trying to get away from. If you can shoot your enemy,
your enemy can shoot back. Or, if you can see your enemy, your
enemy can see you.

>
> If heavies are consistently available to the green-suiters, that
> will go a long way toward making the Army easy about eliminating
> A-10s. They _are_ very old airplanes. On the other hand, those
> small boys you mentioned compare very, very badly indeed with
> heavies in the amount of resources needed to deliver a bomb on
> call, once you include the number of airframes needed to keep one
> available and the tanking assets needed to keep them on station.

Flying out of Diego Garcia, the loiter time on a Buff is in many,
many hours. Even without a tanker for the return trip, it could
easily turn into a 12 hour loiter time.

>
> The Army will pay particular attention to the Air Force's plans
> for the heavy force. If BUFFs and B-1s go on the block in order
> to make room in the budget for the next generation bomber, which
> like the B2 will never, never, never fly a CAS mission, then the
> Army will _not_ be on board to eliminate the A-10 force. Maybe
> the Army should take them over and paint them green.

The B-1B ends it life in 2020. 2 years after the projected Next
Gen bomber goes into production. If things go like it usually
does, extend that another 5 to 7 years. It's on the chopping
block now.

Even with the Next Gen coming online replacing the Bone, the Buff
is progged to go to 2045.

[Ron]

2000 lb bombs are not the usual bomb for CAS.

F-16 does have a gun, I have never seen an F-16 with gun pods, except when they tried out a 30mm pod, and quickly discarded that idea, about 20 years ago.

If you think that modern fighters do not get close to the ground when doing CAS, you should go talk to the widow of Maj Troy Gilbert.

[Daryl]

On 11/25/2011 4:55 PM, Ron wrote:
> 2000 lb bombs are not the usual bomb for CAS.
>
> F-16 does have a gun, I have never seen an F-16 with gun pods, except when they tried out a 30mm pod, and quickly discarded that idea, about 20 years ago.

The 20mm gun pods are in the inventory and can be mounted if need
be.

As for the 30mm gun pods, they were working on a 30mm caseless
that did have the accuracy. It was tested on the A-7E and was
supposed to be used in the flyoff between the A-7E and the A-10.
The rules got changed and only internal guns were allowed. Of
course, the A-10 won that flyoff.

The A-10 was supposed to be phased out and replaced by the F-16
but Saddam changed that in 91 when all available Aircraft in the
USAF for ground attack.

>
> If you think that modern fighters do not get close to the ground when doing CAS, you should go talk to the widow of Maj Troy Gilbert.

I know they do. Seen them doing those runs.

[Ron]

Flyoff between the A-7E and the A-10? Are you making that up?
A-7E was a Navy Aircraft

The A-10 competed against the A-9

[Daryl]

You got so many things wrong with your statements.

1. The A-7E was an AF version. The A-7D was the Navy variant.
There were some minor changes between the D and the E like the
ability to inflight refuel on the E.

2. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3201
The test program was conducted at Fort Riley, Kan., in the spring
of 1974. Fort Riley was selected because of the similarity to
European terrain and weather patterns. The pilots received
initial training in the A-7D between Jan. 3 and March 15. A-10
familiarization training was done between Feb. 20 and April 10.
The pilots flew local area familiarization flights in the Fort
Riley area on April 12 and 13 and actual testing began on April 15.

Try using less drugs or more if that would help

[bbrought]

On Nov 26, 6:06 pm, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 6:24 AM, Ron wrote:
>
> > Flyoff between the A-7E and the A-10?   Are you making that up?
> > A-7E was a Navy Aircraft
>
> > The A-10 competed against the A-9
>
> You got so many things wrong with your statements.
>
> 1.      The A-7E was an AF version.  The A-7D was the Navy variant.
> There were some minor changes between the D and the E like the
> ability to inflight refuel on the E.
>

Are you sure about this? I always had it the other way around: A-7D
for USAF and A-7E for USN.

[Daryl]

If I said it was, you would argue the other way. But, here goes.
The A-7s we had (20 year AF) were E models. Therefore, logic
says (not to mention a short course in using google) the Navy had
the D model.

[bbrought]

On Nov 26, 10:06 pm, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 9:55 AM, bbrought wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 6:06 pm, Daryl<dh...@nospami70west3.com>  wrote:
> >> On 11/26/2011 6:24 AM, Ron wrote:
>
> >>> Flyoff between the A-7E and the A-10?   Are you making that up?
> >>> A-7E was a Navy Aircraft
>
> >>> The A-10 competed against the A-9
>
> >> You got so many things wrong with your statements.
>
> >> 1.      The A-7E was an AF version.  The A-7D was the Navy variant.
> >> There were some minor changes between the D and the E like the
> >> ability to inflight refuel on the E.
>
> > Are you sure about this? I always had it the other way around: A-7D
> > for USAF and A-7E for USN.
>
> If I said it was, you would argue the other way.  But, here goes.
>   The A-7s we had (20 year AF) were E models.  Therefore, logic
> says (not to mention a short course in using google) the Navy had
> the D model.
>

I asked the question because I always believed the same as the
original poster: A-7D for USAF, A-7E for USN. Here is my dilemma: I
did what you suggested and googled it, and every site I could find
confirmed my original view. Just some extracts as examples:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=298
The A-7D is a single-seat, tactical close air support aircraft derived
from the U.S. Navy's A-7. The first A-7D made its initial flight in
April 1968, and deliveries of production models began in December
1968. When A-7D production ended in 1976, LTV had delivered 459 to the
U.S. Air Force

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/gulf-war-20th-desert-storm-was-an-heroic-moment-for-a-7e-corsair-ii/
Veterans of the A-7E community said that by war’s end they had proven
they could reach targets that were out of range of the F/A-18 Hornet.
According to a Navy history, A-7Es flew 722 missions and logged 3,000
hours. They fired 152 HARMs against missile-related radar sites and
dropped 1,033 tons of iron bombs on bridges, airfields and industrial
targets. They delivered 20 percent of all Rockeyes dropped by
coalition aircraft.
The Navy retired its last A-7E Corsair II in May 1991.

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-7_corsair_ii.pl
A-7 Corsair II Background
The A-7 Corsair II was one of a few US Navy aircraft to be operated by
the US Air Force. It was created in response to the US Navy's 1963
light attack aircraft specification, which required light attack
aircraft to replace the A-4 Skyhawk and with about twice the payload.
35 production A-7A's were ordered on March 19, 1964, powered by a non
afterburning 12,200lb Pratt & Whitney TF-30-P-8 turbofan engine. It
first flight occurred on September 27, 1965, and in 1966, the USAF
ordered the A-7D (airforce version) with the Allison TF41 turbofan
engine. The US Navy later developed the A-7E with TF41 engines also.
The A-7 was used widely during the Vietnam War and the US Navy used
them during the Gulf War as well. The A-7 was later replaced by the F/
A-18 Hornet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II
A-7D
Version built for the USAF, with one Allison TF41-A-1 turbofan, and a
single 20 mm M61 Vulcan gatling cannon; AN/APN-153 navigational radar
in earlier models is replaced by AN/APN-185 navigational radar, AN/
APQ-116 terrain following radar in earlier A-7B/C is replaced by AN/
APQ-126 terrain following radar; 459 built.

A-7E
Naval carrier-capable equivalent of the A-7D; AN/APN-185 navigational
radar in earlier A-7D is replaced by AN/APN-190 navigational radar, AN/
APQ-126 terrain following radar in earlier A-7D is replaced by AN/
APQ-128 terrain following radar; 529 built.

[Daryl]

> afterburning 12,200lb Pratt& Whitney TF-30-P-8 turbofan engine. It

> first flight occurred on September 27, 1965, and in 1966, the USAF
> ordered the A-7D (airforce version) with the Allison TF41 turbofan
> engine. The US Navy later developed the A-7E with TF41 engines also.
> The A-7 was used widely during the Vietnam War and the US Navy used
> them during the Gulf War as well. The A-7 was later replaced by the F/
> A-18 Hornet.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II
> A-7D
> Version built for the USAF, with one Allison TF41-A-1 turbofan, and a
> single 20 mm M61 Vulcan gatling cannon; AN/APN-153 navigational radar
> in earlier models is replaced by AN/APN-185 navigational radar, AN/
> APQ-116 terrain following radar in earlier A-7B/C is replaced by AN/
> APQ-126 terrain following radar; 459 built.
>
> A-7E
> Naval carrier-capable equivalent of the A-7D; AN/APN-185 navigational
> radar in earlier A-7D is replaced by AN/APN-190 navigational radar, AN/
> APQ-126 terrain following radar in earlier A-7D is replaced by AN/
> APQ-128 terrain following radar; 529 built.

Well, I can't fault you this time for not searching. But I
believe the designation is backwards. The E was inflight
refuelable and the D was not. One site says the E had the
refueler while another says the D had it. But the ones we
operated were E models and had the receptacles. It appears that
the navy operated both the D and the E depending.

One note, the Navy did operate the D model since it was a navy
bird that the AF used to evaluate if they were going to buy them
or not.

[Paul F Austin]

I also think you have it backwards. Bill Gunston's "Attack Aircraft of
the West" has a good description of the development and evolution of the
A-7. The A-7D and -7E differed in avionics fit but both were
air-refuelable. The -7D Air Force version included a short stack
afterburner version of the TF-41 and the socket for flying boom
refueling. All the other (Navy) variants had a probe for probe and
drogue refueling. The TF-41 version in the -7E didn't have the afterburner.

Paul

[bbrought]

> >http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/gulf-war-20th-desert-storm...

I guess it is possible that the USAF had a few A-7E's or that the USN
a few A-7D's, but it is rather clear that the principal operator of
the D model was the USAF and the E model the USN. The A-7D was
developed specifically for the USAF, with the prototypes designated
the YA-7D:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3190
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3191
***********
In the mid-1960s, the USAF decided to buy the LTV A-7 for use as a
close air support aircraft. The A-7 was currently being tested by the
Navy, and the USAF directed several changes be incorporated into the
design. One major change was the upgrade of the Pratt & Whitney TF30
turbofan engine (11,350 pounds thrust) with an Allison TF-41 (license-
built Rolls Royce Spey) turbofan of 14,250 pounds thrust. The USAF
also directed the two Mk 12 cannons of the Navy A-7A be changed to a
single M61A1 20mm cannon for the USAF A-7D. The probe and drogue in-
flight refueling system was also scheduled to be upgraded to the
receptacle and boom system favored by the Air Force.

The first five A-7Ds built were delivered to the USAF for service
testing and given the temporary designation YA-7D. The first two
aircraft delivered (67-14582 and 67-14583) retained the Navy TF30
engine for initial flight testing. Both aircraft were later
retrofitted with the TF41. The first flight of the A-7D was on April
6, 1968. The first production delivery aircraft was received in
December 1968 and the first delivery to the Tactical Air Command was
in August 1969. All YA-7Ds retained the Navy-style probe for in-flight
refueling. The first YA-7D built (shown above) was transferred to the
USAF Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and remained
in service until retired in August 1992.
***********

Some more info:

USAF A-7 losses and ejections:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/CORSAIR_II/A_7_USAF.htm
All D-models, some K-models and a TA-7C. For some reason, a <<USN>>
A-7E appears on that page in 1991.

Similarly, on the Navy page:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/CORSAIR_II/A_7_USN.htm
No D-model losses, but many E's.

[Shanghai]

> I also think you have it backwards. Bill Gunston's "Attack Aircraft of
> the West" has a good description of the development and evolution of the
> A-7. The A-7D and -7E differed in avionics fit but both were
> air-refuelable. The -7D Air Force version included a short stack
> afterburner version of the TF-41 and the socket for flying boom
> refueling. All the other (Navy) variants had a probe for probe and
> drogue refueling. The TF-41 version in the -7E didn't have the afterburner.
>
> Paul

I went from sea duty at VS-30 to shore duty at VA-174 in '87, and
decommissioned the squadron in '88. VA-174 flew A-7Es and TA-7Cs.

[Ron]

Care you re-evaluate your posting?

[Daryl]

On 11/27/2011 8:37 PM, Ron wrote:
> Care you re-evaluate your posting?

Already have. There might have been E and Ds in both services
according to the cites and personal experience. Now, care to
re-eval your post?

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...

>

> The A-7s we had (20 year AF) were E models. Therefore, logic
> says (not to mention a short course in using google) the Navy had
> the D model.

A "senior moment", Darryl?
The USAF bought A-7Ds, exclusively; they needed 'low
and slow' replacement bombers for the old B-57s.

Initially, (early 1969) they modified Canberras with
a real Weapons Control radar (the APQ-125) and all of
the very latest low-light video tracker and laser
illuminators, creating the B-57G 13th Tac Bomb Sqn
at MacDill. (For training prior to VN deployment.)

But there just weren't enough lifetime-suitable B-57s
for more than a squadron to be modified. The
combination worked great - so the USAF took "off-the-
shelf" (and proven workhorse) A-7s into production,
miniaturizing the APQ-125 a bit into the APQ-126.
Those A-7Ds were kick-ass bombers, too - with accuracy
that was even better than the unrivalled F-4E dive-toss
figures from Korat. (A 50-foot Mk-82 grounded the jet
until it was fixed.)
So good was bombing accuracy, that built-in laser
illuminators weren't required in the A-7D.

The Navy bought into it, too - as the A-7E, with the
APQ-128 radar. (Doppler instead of pulse radar? I dunno.)

DD - Weapons Control toad, and former member of the
1st, 4th, 15th, 36th, 50th, 56th, 86th, and 388th TFW.

[Daryl]

On 11/28/2011 7:58 AM, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...
>>
>
>> The A-7s we had (20 year AF) were E models. Therefore, logic
>> says (not to mention a short course in using google) the Navy had
>> the D model.
>
> A "senior moment", Darryl?
> The USAF bought A-7Ds, exclusively; they needed 'low
> and slow' replacement bombers for the old B-57s.
>
> Initially, (early 1969) they modified Canberras with
> a real Weapons Control radar (the APQ-125) and all of
> the very latest low-light video tracker and laser
> illuminators, creating the B-57G 13th Tac Bomb Sqn
> at MacDill. (For training prior to VN deployment.)

I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB and we supported the B-57G in 1971.
The B-57G was found to be the most stable bombing platform.
Even today, they haven't equaled it's bombing. Over 3/4ths of
it's bombs were within 15 feet of dead center on the targets. It
was pulled in 1972 due to high cost of operation, not how well it
bombed.

>
> But there just weren't enough lifetime-suitable B-57s
> for more than a squadron to be modified. The
> combination worked great

The problem was, the B-57 was a high time airframe going into
Vietnam. I can speak for the engines, they were old, really old
and shelled out at a higher rate than the others. The J-47
barely missed out being produced during WWII and went on to power
many different bombers that were taken out of service in the
early 50s and late 40s. All except the B-57 which carried on
until 1972. It came from a time when there were still WWII
doctrines in place. It was a single mission Aircraft that did
it's mission better than any other, even today. But time caught
up with it.

The A-7 didn't replace the B-57. It's accuracy wasn't up to par.
The A-7 (in the 70s) lacked the electronics to replace it. I
think the real replacement was probably the A-6 which soldiered
on past the A-7 in the inventory as a bomb truck. The JDAM was
introduced which pretty well meant the single mission birds like
the B-57 would never be used again. Meaning, anything could have
the accuracy that could carry the weapon.

- so the USAF took "off-the-
> shelf" (and proven workhorse) A-7s into production,
> miniaturizing the APQ-125 a bit into the APQ-126.
> Those A-7Ds were kick-ass bombers, too - with accuracy
> that was even better than the unrivalled F-4E dive-toss
> figures from Korat. (A 50-foot Mk-82 grounded the jet
> until it was fixed.)
> So good was bombing accuracy, that built-in laser
> illuminators weren't required in the A-7D.
>
> The Navy bought into it, too - as the A-7E, with the
> APQ-128 radar. (Doppler instead of pulse radar? I dunno.)
>
> DD - Weapons Control toad, and former member of the
> 1st, 4th, 15th, 36th, 50th, 56th, 86th, and 388th TFW.

[tutall]

On Nov 23, 11:30 am, Juergen Nieveler
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:

> BTW, does anybody know if there are maps of the low-level routes of the
> 1970s/80s declassified by now? The routes themself don't exist anymore,
> shut down in the 1990s) - it often seemed to me the pilots aimed right
> at our house, as it was a large house with tall trees right next to it,
> a large highway a bit off, and apart from that half a mile of space all
> around...
>

Expect you are asking about the routes the NATO (Mostly British IIRC )
jets used when busting DDR airspace enroute to Berlin to take photos
of interest?

They wouldn't have had routine routes now would they? So am not sure
what you might be referring to?

I bi 'n Ami Bayer, luja sogi!

[kirk....@gmail.com]

Darryl, the B-57 had Wright J65s (licence built AW Sapphires), not
J47s.

Dude, you are just digging deeper and deeper.

Fundamentally wrong about A-10s and CAS, completely wrong about A-7D
vs Es, now even wrong about something as simple as the engines on the
US-built Canberras.

You've been around long enough to realize that our memories can play
tricks - so do us a favor and fact check a bit, OK?

Cheers,

Kirk

[kirk....@gmail.com]

When I was running around West Germany in the late 80s in the back
seat of an F-4E, we just grabbed a chart and planned a route anywhere
we wanted in the Low Fly Areas. We (USAF) had to try to minimize our
noise so avoided using church steeples, your house, etc for
turnpoints. If we were doing a low altitude CAP, orbiting down low
looking for someone to bounce, and a village appeared on the nose, we
would pull power back to idle and coast over the village, popping up
to 500' or so. At 540 knots you can coast a long way! The RAF, on
the other hand, figured that since THEY had won the war they could go
as low and fast anywhere they pleased. And they did, using those nice
villages for easy to spot turnpoints! We typically flew around
between 300 and 500 ft (comfortable at 480 -540 knots), and could
count on Brit Harriers, Jaguars, and Tornados passing underneath us -
along with A-10s. Tornados were easy to see, though - that huge
vertical tail stuck up like a shark fin...

Jumping an A-10 at low altitude was not an easy thing to do, contrary
to what Darryl thinks - as soon as they saw you they could turn and
point that huge gun at you, along with a couple of AIM-9Ls. So unless
you took a long range radar shot (not possible with the F-4E & AIM-7s
at low altitude), you had to be really careful and work on an
unobserved heater or a slashing gun shot. Both are exciting against a
target at 100' or lower, dodging trees and power lines!

The strike (nuke-tasked) units may have had regular practice routes,
but they would probably not have been classified - in the US they are
shown on our civilian VFR aviation charts (Sectionals), the idea being
it's useful for other pilots to know where to look for low flying
jets. You can even call up Flight Service and find out when the
routes are being used, and by who.

Cheers,

Kirk

[Daryl]

On 11/29/2011 8:22 AM, kirk....@gmail.com wrote:
> Darryl, the B-57 had Wright J65s (licence built AW Sapphires), not
> J47s.

So I got the Engine wrong. So what.

>
> Dude, you are just digging deeper and deeper.
>
> Fundamentally wrong about A-10s and CAS, completely wrong about A-7D
> vs Es, now even wrong about something as simple as the engines on the
> US-built Canberras.
>
> You've been around long enough to realize that our memories can play
> tricks - so do us a favor and fact check a bit, OK?

Don't need to. Been around long enough to know the last letter
of something I have supported. And I have fact checked it.
There are cites where the AF is shown to have purchased the E
model AND the D model. I suspect the Navy did the same.

1. Just because someone claims it never existed doesn't mean it
never existed.

2. The Internet has inconsistencies in it.

3. No matter how crazy it sounds, the Internet will have at least
one cite supporting no matter how crazy the idea sounds.

4. A person need only give the cite once. Yelling for it over
and over again AFTER you think everyone has forgotten it just
shows criminal debating skills.




>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...

>
> On 11/28/2011 7:58 AM, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> > dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...
> >>
> >
> >> The A-7s we had (20 year AF) were E models. Therefore, logic
> >> says (not to mention a short course in using google) the Navy had
> >> the D model.
> >
> > A "senior moment", Darryl?
> > The USAF bought A-7Ds, exclusively; they needed 'low
> > and slow' replacement bombers for the old B-57s.
> >
> > Initially, (early 1969) they modified Canberras with
> > a real Weapons Control radar (the APQ-125) and all of
> > the very latest low-light video tracker and laser
> > illuminators, creating the B-57G 13th Tac Bomb Sqn
> > at MacDill. (For training prior to VN deployment.)
>
> I was stationed at Ubon, RTAB and we supported the B-57G in 1971.

> The B-57G was found to be the most stable bombing platform.
> Even today, they haven't equaled it's bombing.

No. But it's tracking sensor/laser combination made it
very accurate with Laser-Guided Bombs. (It had minor
improvements in dumb-bomb accuracy over earlier B-57
series; undoubtedly due to the laser ranger.)

> Over 3/4ths of it's bombs were within 15 feet of dead
> center on the targets.

I have no doubt - using LGBs. Otherwise, that was not
the case.

> It was pulled in 1972 due to high cost of operation,
> not how well it bombed.

Where did you get the idea that _anyone_ ever claimed
anything but good bomb scores from B-57Gs? Please don't
try to place words into the mouths of others . . .

> >
> > But there just weren't enough lifetime-suitable B-57s
> > for more than a squadron to be modified. The
> > combination worked great
>
> The problem was, the B-57 was a high time airframe going into
> Vietnam.

Yes, that's why I said that.

> The A-7 didn't replace the B-57. It's accuracy wasn't up to par.

Horseshit. The A-7Ds were the first dumb-bomb droppers
to improve upon the previously-'untouchable' accuracy of
Korat's Dive Toss (mode) dumb bombs. The A-7Ds were perfect
for the job, and almost amazingly accurate.

> The A-7 (in the 70s) lacked the electronics to replace it.

Uh, no. It could carry LGBs, too - but was almost as
accurate with dumb bombs. This made the A-7D far more
economical to use, and far more efficient, due to its
larger bomb load than any B-57.

> I think the real replacement was probably the A-6 which
> soldiered on past the A-7 in the inventory as a bomb truck.

The USAF never owned any A-6s, even though it was
also a great bomber. (With that Ku-band radar, the
crew could even see the leaves on the trees.)

> The JDAM was introduced

... twenty years later, when GPS was available.

But all of the above was tangential to your (mistaken)
claim that the USAF used A-7Es, instead of the A-7Ds
they actually owned.

[Daryl]

On 11/29/2011 12:13 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> "kirk....@gmail.com"<kirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When I was running around West Germany in the late 80s in the back
>> seat of an F-4E, we just grabbed a chart and planned a route anywhere
>> we wanted in the Low Fly Areas. We (USAF) had to try to minimize our
>> noise so avoided using church steeples, your house, etc for
>> turnpoints.
>

> To me it often seemed as if the pilots were using a large lignite mine
> to the south as a playing ground - those mines are a few hundred meters
> deep, miles long, and nobody lives inside, so dropping low inside those
> artificial valleys would probably be a lot of low-risk fun - but on
> climbing out they'd need a reference point again (as the landscape in
> that mine changed a LOT inside a couple of weeks)

>
>> Jumping an A-10 at low altitude was not an easy thing to do, contrary
>> to what Darryl thinks - as soon as they saw you they could turn and
>> point that huge gun at you, along with a couple of AIM-9Ls.
>

> The one dogfight I saw was EXTREMELY impressive, both Harrier and
> Warthog turning extremely tight corners, an F-4 wouldn't have stood a
> chance.
>

We did a simulation where an A-7 was pitted against an A-10. The
A-10 could never get a track on the A-7 which kept his speed up.
The A-7 made many passes before the A-10 pilot was forced to
eject. The fast mover picked the angle and the attack. By the
time the A-10 brought his gun to bear, the fast mover is out of
range.

[Dean Markley]

On Nov 29, 4:01 pm, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 12:13 PM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "kirk.st...@gmail.com"<kirk.st...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >> When I was running around West Germany in the late 80s in the back
> >> seat of an F-4E, we just grabbed a chart and planned a route anywhere
> >> we wanted in the Low Fly Areas. We (USAF) had to try to minimize our
> >> noise so avoided using church steeples, your house, etc for
> >> turnpoints.
>
> > To me it often seemed as if the pilots were using a large lignite mine
> > to the south as a playing ground - those mines are a few hundred meters
> > deep, miles long, and nobody lives inside, so dropping low inside those
> > artificial valleys would probably be a lot of low-risk fun - but on
> > climbing out they'd need a reference point again (as the landscape in
> > that mine changed a LOT inside a couple of weeks)
>
> >> Jumping an A-10 at low altitude was not an easy thing to do, contrary
> >> to what Darryl thinks - as soon as they saw you they could turn and
> >> point that huge gun at you, along with a couple of AIM-9Ls.
>
> > The one dogfight I saw was EXTREMELY impressive, both Harrier and
> > Warthog turning extremely tight corners, an F-4 wouldn't have stood a
> > chance.
>
> We did a simulation where an A-7 was pitted against an A-10.  The
> A-10 could never get a track on the A-7 which kept his speed up.
>   The A-7 made many passes before the A-10 pilot was forced to
> eject.  The fast mover picked the angle and the attack.  By the
> time the A-10 brought his gun to bear, the fast mover is out of
> range.
>

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and
> programs.

Why was the A-10 pilot forced to eject?

[Ron]

Nope, I stand behind everything i posted.

The USAF used A-7D, the Navy used the A-7E.

There was no flyoff between the Navy A-7E and the A-10.

The A-7D was certainly not lacking in the electronics, and was an extremely accurate bomb dropped, as was the Navy A-7E version too.

And others here pointed out nonsense that you posted, and suggested that you do a better job with your fact checking.

[Daryl]

On 11/29/2011 10:40 PM, Ron wrote:
> Nope, I stand behind everything i posted.
>
> The USAF used A-7D, the Navy used the A-7E.
>
> There was no flyoff between the Navy A-7E and the A-10.

Guess you want everyone to forget the cite I already gave on the
flyoff. You should have waited a few days to try this. Too many
already read the cite.

>
> The A-7D was certainly not lacking in the electronics, and was an extremely accurate bomb dropped, as was the Navy A-7E version too.
>
> And others here pointed out nonsense that you posted, and suggested that you do a better job with your fact checking.

Considering you are saying there was no flyoff between the A-7
and the A-10, sounds like you need to take your own advice.

[H. Wilker]

In article
<0f847a1a-ec46-4eda...@k26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

"kirk....@gmail.com" <kirk....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 28, 2:22�pm, tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 11:30�am, Juergen Nieveler
> >
> > <juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > BTW, does anybody know if there are maps of the low-level routes of the
> > > 1970s/80s declassified by now? The routes themself don't exist anymore,
> > > shut down in the 1990s) - it often seemed to me the pilots aimed right
> > > at our house, as it was a large house with tall trees right next to it,
> > > a large highway a bit off, and apart from that half a mile of space all
> > > around...
> >

... snip...

> >
> > They wouldn't have had routine routes now would they? So am not sure
> > what you might be referring to?
> >
> > I bi 'n Ami Bayer, luja sogi!
>
> When I was running around West Germany in the late 80s in the back
> seat of an F-4E, we just grabbed a chart and planned a route anywhere
> we wanted in the Low Fly Areas.

... snip...

> The strike (nuke-tasked) units may have had regular practice routes,
> but they would probably not have been classified - in the US they are
> shown on our civilian VFR aviation charts (Sectionals), the idea being
> it's useful for other pilots to know where to look for low flying
> jets. You can even call up Flight Service and find out when the
> routes are being used, and by who.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk

I had some military low-level charts from the late eighties, and I think
they had low-level routes marked. Could it be that they were a) for
transiting between the Low Fly Areas and b) for low-level flying at
night? I remember something about 1.500 ft limits, that must have been
for night flight. Otherwise, the limits I remember being given to the
public in discussions and protests about "Tieffliegerl�rm" (low-level
flying noise) were 200 ft (officialy...) in Low Fly Areas and 500 ft
everywhere else. And the Low Fly Areas were pretty big.

Cheers

Helge

[bbrought]

On Nov 30, 12:06 pm, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 10:40 PM, Ron wrote:
>
> > Nope, I stand behind everything i posted.
>
> > The USAF used A-7D, the Navy used the A-7E.
>
> > There was no flyoff between the Navy A-7E and the A-10.
>
> Guess you want everyone to forget the cite I already gave on the
> flyoff.  You should have waited a few days to try this.  Too many
> already read the cite.
>

Are you talking about this cite which you gave earlier in the thread?
It says it was the A-7D and makes no mention of the A-7E:

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...

>
> We did a simulation where an A-7 was pitted against an A-10. The
> A-10 could never get a track on the A-7 which kept his speed up.

A simulation like that of the Climate Globaloney scam?
(Wherein the data is hand-massaged until the desired
outcome is realized?)

Please define what you mean by "track". The A-10 had
no radar with which to track anything - though 15
years later (during Desert Storm) some of them had
picked up a rudimentary Pave Penny IR (Air-to-ground)
display. Most of the hog drivers found the video
from an IR Maverick missile to be far more useful.

> The A-7 made many passes before the A-10 pilot was forced to
> eject. The fast mover picked the angle and the attack.

WHAT 'fast mover'? Both the A-10 and the A-7D were
quite slow subsonic aircraft. ("low and slow" makes
for good CAS bombers; it is one of the main reasons
that the A-7D was chosen to complete the chain of
A-26K and B-57B/C/D/G COIN/CAS bombers during the
VN war.)

> By the time the A-10 brought his gun to bear, the
> fast mover is out of range.

Why wouldn't BOTH of these flying ass-draggers just
employ their longer-ranged AIM-9 missiles against
their mock enemy? Neither aircraft is capable of
being an inteceptor - but an A-10 easily will out-
turn an A-7D near the max end of his throttle.
I would think that filling the sky ahead of the A-7D
with 30mm API/HEI would change your desired result.

Of course, there's always thwe chance that the sim's
ROE were designed to deny the A-10 all of its many
advantages - while maximizing the A-7D's chances.

[Paul F Austin]

On 11/30/2011 8:16 AM, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:

>
> Please define what you mean by "track". The A-10 had
> no radar with which to track anything - though 15
> years later (during Desert Storm) some of them had
> picked up a rudimentary Pave Penny IR (Air-to-ground)
> display. Most of the hog drivers found the video
> from an IR Maverick missile to be far more useful.

A quibble: PAVE PENNY was a laser spot tracker, not an IR imaging pod.
I'm not sure when A-10s got cockpit displays suitable for an imaging
sensor but it did happen, as they currently use a couple of different
imaging pods.

Paul

[Daryl]

Thank you for the cite I already did. You don't have a point
here except to reinforce what I already stated.

[Daryl]

On 11/30/2011 6:16 AM, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...
>
>>
>> We did a simulation where an A-7 was pitted against an A-10. The
>> A-10 could never get a track on the A-7 which kept his speed up.
>
> A simulation like that of the Climate Globaloney scam?
> (Wherein the data is hand-massaged until the desired
> outcome is realized?)

We used a game that the Air Force called the most realistic of
all games. It's called Airwars. No manipulation of data, no
goverment coverup. Just a bunch of really serious gamers doing a
what-if.

>
> Please define what you mean by "track". The A-10 had
> no radar with which to track anything - though 15
> years later (during Desert Storm) some of them had
> picked up a rudimentary Pave Penny IR (Air-to-ground)
> display. Most of the hog drivers found the video
> from an IR Maverick missile to be far more useful.
>
>> The A-7 made many passes before the A-10 pilot was forced to
>> eject. The fast mover picked the angle and the attack.
>
> WHAT 'fast mover'? Both the A-10 and the A-7D were
> quite slow subsonic aircraft. ("low and slow" makes
> for good CAS bombers; it is one of the main reasons
> that the A-7D was chosen to complete the chain of
> A-26K and B-57B/C/D/G COIN/CAS bombers during the
> VN war.)

A-26K: WWII Attack. Wore out, high time, cost of operation,
through the roof.

B-57G, converted B models. Just barely missed WWII as the British
Electric. The replacement for the Mossie. High cost of operation
condemned it like many other older Post WWII Aircraft

>
>> By the time the A-10 brought his gun to bear, the
>> fast mover is out of range.
>
> Why wouldn't BOTH of these flying ass-draggers just
> employ their longer-ranged AIM-9 missiles against
> their mock enemy? Neither aircraft is capable of
> being an inteceptor - but an A-10 easily will out-
> turn an A-7D near the max end of his throttle.
> I would think that filling the sky ahead of the A-7D
> with 30mm API/HEI would change your desired result.

Let's take a good look at the performance of both.

A-7D/E: Max speed of 699 mph. Cruise speed of 530. Not slow by
any stretch of the imagination. We didn't use the 30mm caseless
gun pod for the same reason that the 30mm gun pod was
discontinued. It had an accuracy problem. Instead, we carried 2
20mm gun pods plus the internal 20mm. In the real flyoff, only
internal guns were allowed definately putting the A-7 at a huge
disadvantage. Range 2280 . 8 external hard points. Payload
15,000 lbs

A-10: Cruise speed of 340 mph. Max speed 420 kts or 340 mph. CAS
range of 250 mph with a 10 min window of combat.
Max external stores of 16,000 lbs. 11 hardpoints.

>
> Of course, there's always thwe chance that the sim's
> ROE were designed to deny the A-10 all of its many
> advantages - while maximizing the A-7D's chances.

ON the deck, the Aim-9 was worthless. Neither side even put it
on. It ended up gun to gun. What went down was the A-7 picked
the fight being faster and longer ranged. It would come in at
the A-10 at a crescent flight, hit the A-10 and then turn hard
away in the same direction the A-10 was turning to bring it's big
gun to bear leaving the A-10 precious little time at a long range
(well within the guns capabilities but beyond the A-10s
capability) to hit the A-7. You are assuming the A-7 actually
cooperated with the A-10. Stupid pilots are dead pilots and
being hit by the 30mm GAU is right up there with the highest
stupidity one can come up with.

The end result was the A-10 lost both engines while the A-7 pilot
probably would have to change his shorts 8 times after returning.

[bbrought]

Cite says A-7D, you continue to claim A-7E.

[Jeff Crowell]

Daryl wrote:
> ON the deck, the Aim-9 was worthless. Neither side even put it on.

Hard to imagine that. It weighs so little, it'd be worth the
chance that you might get a bit of lookup at some point.
Especially for the 'Hog.... if he could get his nose up to
point at the Corsair after turning so hard.

> It
> ended up gun to gun. What went down was the A-7 picked the fight being
> faster and longer ranged. It would come in at the A-10 at a crescent
> flight,

"Crescent flight"??

> hit the A-10 and then turn hard away in the same direction the
> A-10 was turning to bring it's big gun to bear leaving the A-10 precious
> little time at a long range (well within the guns capabilities but
> beyond the A-10s capability) to hit the A-7.

You seem to be describing a horizontal fight, but the smart
A-7 guy would use the vertical IMO. Keep the pressure on
the A-10 so that he can't sustain enough speed to point at
you as you pitch up.

The A-10 has to stay as low as he can to force the vertical A-7
to pitch off early rather than become a smoking hole. This
also makes him harder to see.

> You are assuming the A-7
> actually cooperated with the A-10. Stupid pilots are dead pilots and
> being hit by the 30mm GAU is right up there with the highest stupidity
> one can come up with.

Scoring gun hits is not easy, even close up, unless you have a
tracking solution, which ain't a-gonna happen--you're talking
nothing but high crossing rate snapshots, and neither plane
carries all that many seconds of fire. For my money, both guys
go Winchester bullets and go home all sweaty and tired, unless
someone gets a good missile shot off--or flies into the ground.



Jeff
--
If you don't want to deal with shit, don't hit the bull in the ass
with a shovel.

[Paul F Austin]

On 12/1/2011 11:21 AM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> Paul F Austin<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure when A-10s got cockpit displays suitable for an imaging
>> sensor but it did happen, as they currently use a couple of different
>> imaging pods.
>

> They had one to use their Mavericks...
>

Thanks for the reminder

Paul

[Moramarth]

On Dec 1, 4:25 pm, Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 12/1/2011 11:21 AM, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>

> > Paul F Austin<pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure when A-10s got cockpit displays suitable for an imaging
> >> sensor but it did happen, as they currently use a couple of different
> >> imaging pods.
>
> > They had one to use their Mavericks...
>
> Thanks for the reminder

I thought it was the other way round - in the early days, lacking an
optical sensor they used that on a manually guided Maverick as a
substitute (the missile had to be "flown" onto the target using it's
on-board camera and a small screen in the cockpit, the pilots found
the missiles optics could be used while it was on the pylon to
supplement their eyeballs).
>
Cheers,
> Paul
Moramarth

[Paul F Austin]

I do remember that, the pilots likened using the Mav camera to looking
through a soda straw. The initial fit for A-10s was very spartan. As I
mentioned earlier, it lacked even an autopilot which made flying across
the pond a real chore.

Paul

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...

>
> On 11/30/2011 6:16 AM, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> > dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...
> >
> >>
> >> We did a simulation where an A-7 was pitted against an A-10. The
> >> A-10 could never get a track on the A-7 which kept his speed up.
> >
> > A simulation like that of the Climate Globaloney scam?
> > (Wherein the data is hand-massaged until the desired
> > outcome is realized?)
>
> We used a game that the Air Force called the most realistic of
> all games. It's called Airwars. No manipulation of data, no
> goverment coverup. Just a bunch of really serious gamers doing a
> what-if.

You're talking about a friggin' VIDEO GAME ???

Now, don't get me wrong; they look very pretty - and
probably could be lots of fun,too. (I've never tried
one.)

But even if these games had perfect cyber-simulations
of all of the physical forces acting on fired or
launched munitions (and on the aircraft), their
parameters for most munitions are WAY OFF. (Mostly
since much of it - and the important response
characteristics of the aircraft's weapons systems
are classified.) Min and Max firing ranges; and
performance characteristics are all imaginary - and
considerably changed for two reasons: in order to make
gameplay more exciting - and to avoid interesting the
governments concerned, if the game is 'too close' to
the real thing. (Assuming the game producers even
know the real values, which is highly unlikely. What
is likely, is a quick 'consulatation' of Wikipedia,
Av Leak, or if they are really inquisitive, Janes.)

[ snip ]

> > WHAT 'fast mover'? Both the A-10 and the A-7D were
> > quite slow subsonic aircraft. ("low and slow" makes
> > for good CAS bombers; it is one of the main reasons
> > that the A-7D was chosen to complete the chain of
> > A-26K and B-57B/C/D/G COIN/CAS bombers during the
> > VN war.)
>
> A-26K: WWII Attack. Wore out, high time, cost of operation,
> through the roof.

The A-26s didn't leave NKP until '69 or '70; with eight
.50 cals in the nose, a small bombay, and a great
assortment of munitions to choose from on the wings,
it was just about the best night-flying COIN aircraft
of the period. The A-26 came into its own during the
Korean War and in Laos/Vietnam. BTW - the CIA was
flying them from inside Laos for about five years
before the A-26s arrived in Thailand.

> B-57G, converted B models. Just barely missed WWII as the British
> Electric. The replacement for the Mossie. High cost of operation
> condemned it like many other older Post WWII Aircraft

Funny, but all of the tail numbers I saw (4424th CCTS
and 13th TBS) started with 53- or 54-. IIRC, Martin
didn't get licensed to build American versions of the
Canberra until 1950 or so. Ours were a LOT different
from those the Brits or Aussies used.

[ snipped the video-game descriptions ]

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

bbro...@uiuc.edu wrote...

>

> > > Are you talking about this cite which you gave earlier in the thread?
> > > It says it was the A-7D and makes no mention of the A-7E:
> >
> > >>> 2.      http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3201
> > >>> The test program was conducted at Fort Riley, Kan., in the spring
> > >>> of 1974. Fort Riley was selected because of the similarity to
> > >>> European terrain and weather patterns. The pilots received
> > >>> initial training in the A-7D between Jan. 3 and March 15. A-10
> > >>> familiarization training was done between Feb. 20 and April 10.
> > >>> The pilots flew local area familiarization flights in the Fort
> > >>> Riley area on April 12 and 13 and actual testing began on April 15.
> >
> > Thank you for the cite I already did.  You don't have a point
> > here except to reinforce what I already stated.
> >
>
> Cite says A-7D, you continue to claim A-7E.

He's apparently incapable of admitting the error,
yet keeps digging the hole even deeper.

I'm done with his claims on both B-57s and A-7s.

[Daryl]

I am talking about the most comprehensive board game for air
battles that has ever been introduced. It was so good that the
Military used in it in two of it's European War Games.

Newsflash: In 1980, there wasn't much of a level of video games
out there past Pacman. You are still going at it with NO
knowledge of the subject.

Besides, you said you were done with it. Now get done with it
already because anything past this point from you is just rank
Trolling.

[150flivver]

> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com

> for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and
> programs.

I'm not quite sure I understand the relevance of A-7s and A-10s duking
it out air-to-air since this is not their mission. If an A-10 gets
engaged by a fighter, than our CAP hasn't done it's job. A
discussion of which is the better CAS aircraft is worth pursuing. I
ran an air-to-ground gunnery/bombing range and the best CAS aircraft
by far is the A-10 based on my observation although A-7s were out of
the inventory by then. I got a chance to see F-16s, FA-18s, F-15Es,
F-4s, and others on a daily basis. Sure other aircraft can fly CAS
but if I were on the ground and had a choice, put me down for an A-10
please and if they're not available, I'll take some Marine F/A-18
support. History channel had a show on an Iraqi incident where our
guys were isolated behind enemy lines and the only help available were
F-16s carrying CBU-87. Things worked out okay but you could see that
fast movers carrying non-precision weapons trying to get the picture
from above 10K feet of where friendly troops were dug in vs. enemy
troops and hit the bad guys, is a flip of the coin. The TIC were
grateful for the F-16s' help but anyone could easily see they could
just as easily been wiped out by an errant pass. Luckily this flight
of F-16s were reluctant to drop for several passes until they could
get a reference from the ground that they could semi-positively
discern by which time the Iraqis had almost overrun them anyway. A
couple A-10s would have made short work of them on the first pass.

[Paul F Austin]

On 12/1/2011 7:19 PM, 150flivver wrote:
> On Dec 1, 5:31 pm, Daryl<dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:

>>
>>>>> WHAT 'fast mover'? Both the A-10 and the A-7D were
>>>>> quite slow subsonic aircraft. ("low and slow" makes
>>>>> for good CAS bombers; it is one of the main reasons
>>>>> that the A-7D was chosen to complete the chain of
>>>>> A-26K and B-57B/C/D/G COIN/CAS bombers during the
>>>>> VN war.)
>>
>
>

> I'm not quite sure I understand the relevance of A-7s and A-10s duking
> it out air-to-air since this is not their mission. If an A-10 gets
> engaged by a fighter, than our CAP hasn't done it's job. A
> discussion of which is the better CAS aircraft is worth pursuing. I
> ran an air-to-ground gunnery/bombing range and the best CAS aircraft
> by far is the A-10 based on my observation although A-7s were out of
> the inventory by then.

Congress required a flyoff between A-7s and A-10s early in the A-10
development in order for the Air Force to justify the development at
all. Some congressional staffers apparently thought or hoped that
existing A7s could fly the mission and save the procurement of new
aircraft. The flyoff vindicated the AX requirements that led to the A-10.

Paul

[Daryl]

The A-10 was never a replacement for the A-7. Some thought it
was but it wasn't. The A-1 needed to be replaced and that was
the mission requirements.

The Navy replaced the A-1 with the A-6. Their assets were
transferred to the South Vietnamese as the replacements happened.
The Air Force found a new mission for Sandy in accompanying
Rescue Choppers so it continued on. But the AF didn't have the A-6.

If the AF could make the A-7 do the job then it would have been a
huge cost savings to spend on the really fast movers that they
needed to get the F-4 out of the inventory. The A-7, in normal
combat mode, lacked the gun platform.

The A-1 didn't have nearly the range of the A-7 but it could
operate on unimproved runways and had been known to, more than
once, to drop in and make the Pilot Pickup because it was too hot
for the choppers. Something no other Attack Bird with it's
capability in ground attack could do then and now.

What the A-1 had was the ability to operate close to the front
line and have a tremendous loiter time with a balls to the walls
15 hardpoints for various mixed weapons. As one person said, it
was 6 ground attacks at one time. The A-10 was designed to
emulate that with it's 11 hardpoints and with twice the weight
loadout.

The A-10 has the ability to operate from unimproved runways so it
can have a high loiter rate. And, like the A-1, is seen, heard
and highly respected by the Boots on the Ground. This sounds
silly to us airdales but to the boots on the ground, it made them
feel much more secure which helped with their moral.

There is still a huge gap or loss of capability that the A-1 had
and they are still trying to fulfill that. And can't quite seem
to find the AC to fill that role.

I still don't quite understand the love of the A-10 by the boots
on the ground but I do realize it's there. The A-10 mission can
be more safely done by a higher flying fast mover these days
including heavy bombers with todays weapons but the boots on the
ground only sees the destruction and not the bird that launches
it. While the actual damage is what counts, the psychological
impact on the ground pounders and armor can't be denied.

--

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
>
> The A-10 was never a replacement for the A-7. Some thought it
> was but it wasn't. The A-1 needed to be replaced and that was
> the mission requirements.
>

Correct the A-X program was intended to provide a CAS support
aircraft to replace the A-1

> The Navy replaced the A-1 with the A-6. Their assets were
> transferred to the South Vietnamese as the replacements happened.

As I recall the USN replaced the A-1 with more than one type.
The A-4, A-6 and A-7 all entered service to replace A-1's
in naval aviation squadrons.

In Vietnam both the USAF and USN used the A-7 to escort
CSAR missions. The Mayaguez mission involved both
USAF A-7D's and USN A-7E's for example.

Keith

[Paul F Austin]

On 12/1/2011 9:18 PM, Daryl wrote:

>
> I still don't quite understand the love of the A-10 by the boots on the
> ground but I do realize it's there. The A-10 mission can be more safely
> done by a higher flying fast mover these days including heavy bombers
> with todays weapons but the boots on the ground only sees the
> destruction and not the bird that launches it. While the actual damage
> is what counts, the psychological impact on the ground pounders and
> armor can't be denied.
>

Don't put too much emphasis on psychology. It's fairly simple: A-10s are
unsuitable for deep strike, counter-air or CAP, so they are unlikely to
be tasked away to some higher Air Force priority. The history of
tactical air being last priority and not being there when needed by the
Army goes back to the origins of air power in 1942. A-10s are
specialized aircraft with specialized crews that maintain proficiency in
a mission that the Army considers central but that the Air Force does
not. Heavies loaded with smart munitions _do_ provide gobs of firepower
in support of the soldiers and their loooong time on station and
availability gives the Air Force an opportunity to build credibility in
the direct support mission.

Paul

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message
news:jb9chn$hcv$1...@dont-email.me...
> ...

> The A-10 has the ability to operate from unimproved runways so it can have
> a high loiter rate. And, like the A-1, is seen, heard and highly
> respected by the Boots on the Ground. This sounds silly to us airdales
> but to the boots on the ground, it made them feel much more secure which
> helped with their moral.
>

What do you suppose the sight or sound of aircraft overhead does to the
morale and aggressiveness of the enemy?

jsw

[kirk....@gmail.com]

Do you make this shit up?

The A-10 was designed against a requirement to stop the Soviets tanks
in the Fulda Gap. The fact that it can also do the same mission as
the A-1 is due to the nature of the mission. When the USAF A-1s wore
out, their mission was taken over by A-7s. Navy had gotten rid of
it's A-1s long before - given to the South Vietnamese AF and the USAF.

The AF didnt have the A-6 because it already had the F-111 that could
do (theoretically, at first!) the same job, better. A-6 vs F-111 is
another subject!

A-1 unrefuelled has better range than any tactical jet, including
A-7. Add tankers, that changes.

A-1 became totally vulnerable when the SA-7 was introduced. Low and
slow became impossible - as the Marines found out again during DS with
their OV-10s. The A-10 was designed to be less vulnerable to the SA-7
threat, and even then stays high unless no threat is present.

The A-7 always had guns. Navy originally with 2 20mm cannons, A-7D
with an M-61 cannon, Navy Es also have the M-61. Gun pods have been
tried, are a lot of fun but accuracy is never great (F-4 could carry
five (5!!!) and did on special occasions, mainly just to prove you
could do it. That's why some of the SUU gun pods have short tails,
so they will fit on the F-4s inboard stations...).

A-1 only picked up one pilot - Bernie Fisher's MOH mission - during
Vietnam. Not sure about Korea, it's possible. But irrelevant,
anyway. P-51s and P-38s did too. So what?

The recent evaluation of the AT-6 and Super Tucano shows that some
people still think there is a need for a combat aircraft with A-1
level of performance. Would be fun to fly, but a modernized, tricked
out A-10 would be a better solution, IMO, and a lot more survivable.
But if your threat is only druggies or jihadis with no advanced
MANPADS, then yeah, no need for high performance. But you still need
high tech (sensors, comms, smart weapons) so it still wont be cheap!

Oh - a board game, really?

Kirk

[Jeff Crowell]

150flivver wrote:
> History channel had a show on an Iraqi incident where our
> guys were isolated behind enemy lines and the only help available were
> F-16s carrying CBU-87. Things worked out okay but you could see that
> fast movers carrying non-precision weapons trying to get the picture
> from above 10K feet of where friendly troops were dug in vs. enemy
> troops and hit the bad guys, is a flip of the coin.

I submit that the level of training of the jet drivers may have
also been an issue. CAS is like nothing else, and takes very
specific training--on both sides, since the view from the air
ain't the same as that from the ground.

I further submit it would'a been interesting (and mayhap
somewhat less dramatic) if some Marine F-18s had been in
the vicinity.


Jeff

[Jeff Crowell]

Daryl wrote:
> The Navy replaced the A-1 with the A-6.

Hogwash, bullshit, and baloney. The Navy replaced the
Spad with the A-4 and A-7. The mission was light
attack. The Intruder is medium attack, all weather
at that.


Jeff

[Jeff Crowell]

kirk....@gmail.com wrote:

(lots of (as usual) well thought out stuff snipped)

> The recent evaluation of the AT-6 and Super Tucano shows that some
> people still think there is a need for a combat aircraft with A-1
> level of performance. Would be fun to fly

Lot of fun to fly, for sure, but a cast-iron bastard to fly
the mission with, if the enemy is armed with anything bigger
than a flyswatter--as I know you know, Kirk.


Jeff

[Daryl]

At the kickoff of the Iraqi dustup, the Buffs carpet bombing
Armor caused entire armor groups to throw the hatches open and
try and surrender to anyone including newsmen.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Mora...@moramarth.demon.co.uk wrote...

While it is widely known that pilots DID make use
of the video from IR mavericks for that purpose
in Desert Storm, all mavericks were fire-and-forget
weapons. Once launched, the cockpit video
presentaton ceased.

Larger Walleyes and EOGBs could be fitted with a
video transmitter (mated to an aircraft-mounted
receiver pod) - but the USAF rarely used such
things (while the USN did), but such sophistication
was well beyond the A-10s minimal weapons systems.

The later AGM-130 (an EOGB with a strap-on rocket
assist for long range) employed a two-way video and
remote-control loop. Once again, this was beyond
the A-10s capabilities.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

dh...@nospami70west3.com wrote...
>
[snipped lots of good, valid commentary about A-7s...]

> If the AF could make the A-7 do the job then it would have
> been a huge cost savings to spend on the really fast movers
> that they needed to get the F-4 out of the inventory.

What were these imaginary 'really' fast movers of yours?
And what makes you think that anyone 'needed' to get the
F-4s out of the inventory - except to buy mostly-useless
sexy little F-16s (far slower than any F-4)?
Oh, everyone expected that the F-15s would eventually
replace the F-4Es; it was made by the same people that
made the F-4. (A little faster and more maneuverable,
with more powerful engines and a presumably-better
radar/Weapons Control System. It even used much the
same weapons suite, and had many improvements: an APU
for starting the engines; no drag chutes, start carts,
or -60s needed.)

What no one was expecting, though, is that it would be
1988 before the first squadron of F-15Es came online -
the first F-15s that could replace the F-4E in all of its
many roles. A decade was wasted on 'not a pound for
air-to-ground' foolishness.

It is why, almost ten years after the first pair of F-15s
rolled into Bitburg, F-4Es were still standing Zulu and
Victor alert at numerous bases in Europe, and F-4E units
from the states were dual-based for Crested Cap.

The POS F-16s at Hahn were years late in coming up on
Victor; the F-15s had a rough time keeping Zulu full at
Bitburg. F-4Es soldiered on, holding down the fort while
the newer jets gained some experience.
The F-15s succeeded, eventually; the F-16s didn't come
close - until weapons that didn't depend upon the aircraft
for guidance/release were developed in the mid-1990s.
Only THEN, were the F-4s retired to QF-4 target duty.

DD - Bitburg, 1975-78; Hahn, 1978-80; Ramshaft, 1981-85

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

juergen.nie...@arcor.de wrote...
>
> The question was wether they had a CRT in the cockpit to see the data
> from any external optical sensors - they had the one for the Mavericks,
> and IIRC used the Mavericks as an optical sensor since one model had an
> IR-imaging seeker.

I haven't bothered to look in the cockpit of an A-10
since perhaps 1975 or '76 - but a video display is
essential for Maverick aiming.

SO, they did one of three things:

1 - presented the video on the HUD (most sensible), or
2 - installed a separate vid display into the Instrument
panel, or
3 - hung a Sony TV from a bracket, like we did at
Bitburg in the (early-model) F-4Es. TV looked like
washed-out crap on the green, very persistent radar
scopes using the old DVST displays. Truly - it looked
like the 1969 views of man stepping onto the moon for
the first time.

The commercial Sony's - about a dozen of them - were
modified just a little bit (mostly to prevent arcing
at altitude). Since the little TV set hung upside-
down over the WSO's right knee, the deflection yoke
was also rotated 180 degrees, to properly-orient the
scene. The funny part: sometimes, the crew would
actually try to get an over-the-air TV show on it, by
changing the channel. (The tuner had been
disconnected.)

[dumbstruck]

On Nov 21 2011, 11:53 am, Airyx <ewein...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For a jet designed for Air to Air, noise really doesn't seem to be an
> issue. The guy in the other jet isn't going to hear you from 40nm away
> no matter how loud you are.
>
> I wonder of someone could produce a noise following weapon. It would
> have to include logic to predict-forward to the target, since the
> sound waves the weapon is tracking could very well be moving slower
> than the target itself.
>
> Generally speaking, any ground target would never hear an inbound F-22
> before the JDAM arrived, and probably never. The general profile is
> for an F-22 to drop its JDAMs from well over 10nm way (often 20+nm),
> and then turn away without ever flying over the target.

I finally saw the f22's making the noise - wow, they can be hard to
see even in sunlight because the light doesn't want to reflect back.
Anyway, that is the noisiest aircraft I have alongside since f4
phantoms. I bet you might detect on it's sound waves at the speed of
light via doppler radar sensing it's wake (jiggling air debris).
Probably not a practical detector, but remember how a f117 was downed
using a yugo amateur altered radar.

[dumbstruck]

On Jan 12, 12:33 pm, dumbstruck <dumbst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, that is the noisiest aircraft I have alongside since f4
> phantoms. I bet you might detect on it's sound waves at the speed of
> light via doppler radar sensing it's wake (jiggling air debris).

Is there any military reason I see them flying touch and go patterns
in tandem, especially side by side? That is the source of the worst
noise, and I suspect it is needless. There seems a pressure wave about
45 degrees off the rear that is absolutely deafening.

Isn't the tight formation stuff a thing of the past? It just leads to
needless crashes, and these aircraft will never be replaced. Gosh,
they are joyriding them so hard here they may wear out the airframes
faster than the F15's, and all we will soon have nothing to defend us
other than drones (probably with Chinese hackers at the actual
controls).

[Daryl]

When you cross the pond, even the F-22 must fly formation.

[150flivver]

There are a number of valid reasons to fly formation and there are a
number of types of formation flight appropriate for different
situations. What you call tight formation is actually called
fingertip. You would fly fingertip to penetrate weather together and
to get close enough to use hand signals vs. radio calls. You can't
baby the aircraft during training and expect to be able to max perform
it in combat. You train the way you plan to fight. Formation
landings get more aircraft on the ground faster than if you split the
formation and have to shoot individual approaches. Since the primary
mission of the F-22 is air-to-air, formation tactics are essential.
You don't employ F-22s single ship if you can avoid it. With their
datalinks, one aircraft can use its sensors and datalink the target
dope to the silent shooter. The target gets attacked from an
unexpected direction and never gets a chance to react.

[kirk....@gmail.com]

On Feb 8, 1:19 pm, dumbstruck <dumbst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there any military reason I see them flying touch and go patterns
> in tandem, especially side by side? That is the source of the worst
> noise, and I suspect it is needless. There seems a pressure wave about
> 45 degrees off the rear that is absolutely deafening.
>
> Isn't the tight formation stuff a thing of the past? It just leads to
> needless crashes, and these aircraft will never be replaced. Gosh,
> they are joyriding them so hard here they may wear out the airframes
> faster than the F15's, and all we will soon have nothing to defend us
> other than drones (probably with Chinese hackers at the actual
> controls).

Yes, there is a damn good military reason for what you were seeing.
It's called "IP Chase", meaning an instructor pilot is following and
watching a new pilot getting checked out in the other jet. This is
common for all single seat jets, since there isn't a two-seat trainer
version that would allow the IP to ride along and correct mistakes.
Watch A-10s and you will see the same thing.

Ditto a simulated (or real) emergency - a good jet will follow
("chase") and watch the jet with the problem to check for leaks, fire,
gear problems, etc, and fly alongside until the problem jet lands
safely; the chase jet then goes around and lands.

Military pilots are not "joyriding" their jets. They are training
hard to protect you. Yes it is a lot of fun - most of the time. But
it's also hard work. You don't just grab the keys and go burn holes in
the sky - a typical mission will involve several hours of preflight
planning, followed by flying a mission that is one continuous exercise
with specific objectives to be practiced, then followed by a long
debrief where every aspect of the flight is discussed and often
graded.

And would you please cite any recent "needless crashes" caused by
routine (not airshow) military formation flying?

With respect to your original question - sound tracking was used
during WW1, and tried during WW2, but pretty much fizzled out. Just
not worth the effort. And once you are moving at supersonic speeds,
it's obviously worthless - see definition of "supersonic". As far as
tracking the noise by radar - might work in theory, but i bet there
would be so much ambient "noise" in the atmosphere that a jet's
signature would probably be swamped and impossible to detect. IR
tracking would be a better approach, IMO.

Kirk

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 9, 5:43 am, "kirk.st...@gmail.com" <kirk.st...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...

> With respect to your original question - sound tracking was used
> during WW1, and tried during WW2, but pretty much fizzled out. Just
> not worth the effort. And once you are moving at supersonic speeds,
> it's obviously worthless - see definition of "supersonic". As far as
> tracking the noise by radar - might work in theory, but i bet there
> would be so much ambient "noise" in the atmosphere that a jet's
> signature would probably be swamped and impossible to detect. IR
> tracking would be a better approach, IMO.
> Kirk

There was an interesting article in Pravda sometime ago about
autonomous microphones deployed in the northern region of the
SU, designed to listen for a/c noise signatures, including super-
sonic booms.
Characteristic of the SU the units used RTG (radioactive) power.
Following the fall of the SU, locals began salvaging them, but
the problem was the exposure of the vandals to radioactivity,
unbeknownst to them from the RTG's they disassembled.
Ken