us war aircraft

[Don Quixote]

this is an area where i still have quite a bit of knowledge

the most modern version of the F/A-15 has never been beat in combat and has no real competition

'joint' strike aircraft are nice to talk about but not viable because naval (including marines) aircraft that land on flight decks (which are slowed by arresting gear) have different structural requirements than aircraft that land on runways

now an aircraft that could takeoff and land on flight decks and runways can be made, but there would be a weight penalty (see the F-111 that was mcnamara's bright idea - and how well it did not work out)

the stealth aircraft are a novelty palmed off on the public - certain modifications to radar software (not hardware) counter them

however, as night attack aircraft they do have some uses

during the afghan war bombing by us aircraft, the 'old' B-1B delivered more bombs and weight of bombs that all of the other aircraft involved

something the pentagon did not like being know, so it suppressed information with regard as to which aircraft were most effective and talked up the stealth aircraft


stealth aircraft like the b-2 were designed for a nuclear warfare, not conventional warfare

also, the marines need a close support aircraft to support ground troops - like the harrier (av-8b)

fyi

the 'f' designation is for fighters and generally require good air to air capability

the 'a' designation is for attack aircraft that drop bombs or use air to ground missiles

there are aircraft with 'f/a' designations that can be configured for either air to air or air to ground warfare like the f/a-15

more information may be obtained from the 'Jane's' series of web sites and books - it is usually up to date and may contain classified information (and no i will not tell you which is which)

 

[Good Luck]

Only thing I disagree with is the idea that the special needs of naval aircraft makes them "not viable". There is a reason for multiple configurations of aircraft - because there are multiple missions for aircraft. For instance, the F15E Strike Eagle is a dual role aircraft. But load it down for a ground attack mission, you send fighter cover with it (ie: Eagles loaded out with missiles instead of bombs). Got a mission too far away for the land based F15, then roll in the strategic bomber to cover the range, or bring the F/A-18D close enough with its mobile air base. If the mission is strictly defensive (keeping enemy surface-strike aircraft away), haul out the Tomcat with its integrated long range target recognition, targeting and AIM-54 missile system (they can find, idenitfy and shoot the 15E before the 15E knows their in trouble). Need to take out some enemy air defense systems, send in the A4s and A6s. Need to slip it over the plate high and tight, then the F117 is your boy. Need to saturate bomb an area, then believe it or not, a couple squadrons of B52s would be the best bet (as long as you go in and eliminate their air defense and fighter capability first.)

The thing is, while recent developments have resulted in dual role aircraft (F/A 15E for the wing wipers and F/A 18F for the squids) no one aircraft will ever be able to do much more than two roles. FA/15E does a fine job as a light ground attack craft, and also does fine as an offensive fighter craft. The F15C is a better defensive fighter, as is the F14. In combat aircraft, role is the most important factor. To go to the extreme for illustration, you don't send a B-1 heavy bomber to shoot MiGs.

Also, if you want to be fair, the F/A 15E Strike Eagle has never been defeated because it has never been up against a modern opponent. The MiG-31D could probably give the Eagle some grief. I have seen the Foxhound at an airshow in Europe. I've also heard some pros in the know say the foxhound, in its air intercept mode, is a factor to worry about. But they've never been up against each other, even in simulation. Hopefully we'll never find out for sure.

 

[Don Quixote]

Only thing I disagree with is the idea that the special needs of naval aircraft makes them "not viable". There is a reason for multiple configurations of aircraft - because there are multiple missions for aircraft. For instance, the F15E Strike Eagle is a dual role aircraft. But load it down for a ground attack mission, you send fighter cover with it (ie: Eagles loaded out with missiles instead of bombs). Got a mission too far away for the land based F15, then roll in the strategic bomber to cover the range, or bring the F/A-18D close enough with its mobile air base. If the mission is strictly defensive (keeping enemy surface-strike aircraft away), haul out the Tomcat with its integrated long range target recognition, targeting and AIM-54 missile system (they can find, idenitfy and shoot the 15E before the 15E knows their in trouble). Need to take out some enemy air defense systems, send in the A4s and A6s. Need to slip it over the plate high and tight, then the F117 is your boy. Need to saturate bomb an area, then believe it or not, a couple squadrons of B52s would be the best bet (as long as you go in and eliminate their air defense and fighter capability first.)

The thing is, while recent developments have resulted in dual role aircraft (F/A 15E for the wing wipers and F/A 18F for the squids) no one aircraft will ever be able to do much more than two roles. FA/15E does a fine job as a light ground attack craft, and also does fine as an offensive fighter craft. The F15C is a better defensive fighter, as is the F14. In combat aircraft, role is the most important factor. To go to the extreme for illustration, you don't send a B-1 heavy bomber to shoot MiGs.

Also, if you want to be fair, the F/A 15E Strike Eagle has never been defeated because it has never been up against a modern opponent. The MiG-31D could probably give the Eagle some grief. I have seen the Foxhound at an airshow in Europe. I've also heard some pros in the know say the foxhound, in its air intercept mode, is a factor to worry about. But they've never been up against each other, even in simulation. Hopefully we'll never find out for sure.

a few things - the b-1 has 150% of the capacity of the b-52

the f-14 is being discontinued

no bomber is designed to take on fighters, that is what their escorts are for

the advantage that our fighters have is the training of their pilots although standoff air-to-air missiles can wreck havoc depending on external radar support

i did not say that navy aircraft are 'not viable', but that they have different missions and takeoff/landing requirements


as for us/russian aircraft fighting each other, that is usually via a satellite or customer nation using russian equipment vs us equipment with us trained and/or us pilots


my argument is against 'stealth' aircraft and one aircraft meets both air force and navy requirements

granted the 'f/a' aircraft can be configured as either fighter or attack aircraft and so the fighter configured can support the attack configured

the army is usually supported by either or both air force and naval air as do the marines, but the marines usually work their own close support aircraft (it is not that they do not trust wing wipers or squids, but prefer marine trained pilots...)

while last i heard, the navy still uses the a-6, but i think that they replaced the a-4 with the a-7

of course all of this postulates a non-nuclear war

while i do not approve of conventional war, i prefer it to nuclear war (unless the nuclear war is with someone other than china or russia...)

 

[uscitizen]

Stealth aircraft are a waste. They keep forgetting where they park them and run into them with another one.

Wonder woman had the only invisible plane.

 

[Cancel3]

I seem to recall the US had only been beaten in air to air battles when they had mock dogfights with Israeli pilots. But I could be mistaken.

I'll look for the article.

 

[Good Luck]

a few things - the b-1 has 150% of the capacity of the b-52

the f-14 is being discontinued

no bomber is designed to take on fighters, that is what their escorts are for

the advantage that our fighters have is the training of their pilots although standoff air-to-air missiles can wreck havoc depending on external radar support

i did not say that navy aircraft are 'not viable', but that they have different missions and takeoff/landing requirements


as for us/russian aircraft fighting each other, that is usually via a satellite or customer nation using russian equipment vs us equipment with us trained and/or us pilots


my argument is against 'stealth' aircraft and one aircraft meets both air force and navy requirements

granted the 'f/a' aircraft can be configured as either fighter or attack aircraft and so the fighter configured can support the attack configured

the army is usually supported by either or both air force and naval air as do the marines, but the marines usually work their own close support aircraft (it is not that they do not trust wing wipers or squids, but prefer marine trained pilots...)

while last i heard, the navy still uses the a-6, but i think that they replaced the a-4 with the a-7

of course all of this postulates a non-nuclear war

while i do not approve of conventional war, i prefer it to nuclear war (unless the nuclear war is with someone other than china or russia...)

Ummmm, yes you DID say naval aircraft are "not viable".

'joint' strike aircraft are nice to talk about but not viable because naval (including marines) aircraft that land on flight decks (which are slowed by arresting gear) have different structural requirements than aircraft that land on runways

Maybe that's not quite what you MEANT to say, but it is what you said, which prompted my reply focussing on the point that the role of the aircraft is paramount, and no aircraft can take on all roles.

IMO even two is stretching it. Nothing wrong with using the same FRAME for multiple roles, but a combat aircraft is a weapons platform, not just an airplane with weapons attached. The weapons systems are integral to the aircraft. It would be better to make TWO F-15 platforms (or even three) each of which has a specific role in the area of air support, rather than try to cram everything needed for a ground attack aircraft AND everything needed for an air combat fighter into a single model.

F-14 is being discontinued, but has not yet been replaced. It is still an active platform. For defensive air intercept missions, it is still the best platform on the planet, despite its age. It HAS gone against the F15E in ACM simulations and won. The AIM-54 can be launched via targeting with telephoto video cameras on the F-14 before the F15s even know they've been spotted. No external or remote sight radar assistance is needed (which tends to trigger the red-force threat sensors), though they do train to coordinate with Hawkeyes.)

Your argument against stealth is moot, because the role of stealth is far different from close air support of ground troops. Role is everything. You determine the role of the aircraft, THEN you design a combat aircraft capable of taking on that role in a way superior to the enemy.

 

[Good Luck]

Oh, and the B1B has 150% WEIGHT capacity of the B-52. But the B-52 has the edge on volume of payload. Saturation bombing involves lots and lots of smaller bombs, which weight less, but need more volume to carry.

 

[Good Luck]

And yes, Marines prefer Marines to provide close air support. We desire that close air munitions fall on the enemy.

 

[Damocles]

a few things - the b-1 has 150% of the capacity of the b-52

the f-14 is being discontinued

no bomber is designed to take on fighters, that is what their escorts are for

the advantage that our fighters have is the training of their pilots although standoff air-to-air missiles can wreck havoc depending on external radar support

i did not say that navy aircraft are 'not viable', but that they have different missions and takeoff/landing requirements


as for us/russian aircraft fighting each other, that is usually via a satellite or customer nation using russian equipment vs us equipment with us trained and/or us pilots


my argument is against 'stealth' aircraft and one aircraft meets both air force and navy requirements

granted the 'f/a' aircraft can be configured as either fighter or attack aircraft and so the fighter configured can support the attack configured

the army is usually supported by either or both air force and naval air as do the marines, but the marines usually work their own close support aircraft (it is not that they do not trust wing wipers or squids, but prefer marine trained pilots...)

while last i heard, the navy still uses the a-6, but i think that they replaced the a-4 with the a-7

of course all of this postulates a non-nuclear war

while i do not approve of conventional war, i prefer it to nuclear war (unless the nuclear war is with someone other than china or russia...)

The F-14 was discontinued not long ago. The only Air Force on the planet that still has any (unverified if they are capable of flight) is the Iranian Air Force.

Iran is having difficulty finding parts:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003602.html

 

[Good Luck]

The F-14 was discontinued not long ago. The only Air Force on the planet that still has any (unverified if they are capable of flight) is the Iranian Air Force.

Iran is having difficulty finding parts:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003602.html

It was a sad day when they decided to retire, rather than upgrade the F14/AIM-54 air intercept platform.

And the fact that Iran having them is considered a serious threat to U.S. air combat capabilities tells you what they REALLY think of the system, in spite of retiring it.

The F/A 18 is admittedly a superior aircraft to the F14, but it is an inferior defense platform, as it is dependent on the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The missile has both less range and smaller payload, plus is dependent on active detection systems (usually Hawkeyes) for initial target identification. As I keep saying, role is everything in combat aircraft. The role of defensive air intercept fighter was in the sole possession of the F14/AIM-54 defense system. It wass a step backward to retire it without a FULLY capable replacement platform specific to that role.

 

[Damocles]

It was a sad day when they decided to retire, rather than upgrade the F14/AIM-54 air intercept platform.

And the fact that Iran having them is considered a serious threat to U.S. air combat capabilities tells you what they REALLY think of the system, in spite of retiring it.

The F/A 18 is admittedly a superior aircraft to the F14, but it is an inferior defense platform, as it is dependent on the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The missile has both less range and smaller payload, plus is dependent on active detection systems (usually Hawkeyes) for initial target identification. As I keep saying, role is everything in combat aircraft. The role of defensive air intercept fighter was in the sole possession of the F14/AIM-54 defense system. It wass a step backward to retire it without a FULLY capable replacement platform specific to that role.

It was sad, definitely.

 

[Socrtease]

I agree with GL. The F14 is a great platform for defense. It has multiple fire and forget capablity that makes it a scary deadly weapon

 

[Don Quixote]

Ummmm, yes you DID say naval aircraft are "not viable".

Maybe that's not quite what you MEANT to say, but it is what you said, which prompted my reply focussing on the point that the role of the aircraft is paramount, and no aircraft can take on all roles.

IMO even two is stretching it. Nothing wrong with using the same FRAME for multiple roles, but a combat aircraft is a weapons platform, not just an airplane with weapons attached. The weapons systems are integral to the aircraft. It would be better to make TWO F-15 platforms (or even three) each of which has a specific role in the area of air support, rather than try to cram everything needed for a ground attack aircraft AND everything needed for an air combat fighter into a single model.

F-14 is being discontinued, but has not yet been replaced. It is still an active platform. For defensive air intercept missions, it is still the best platform on the planet, despite its age. It HAS gone against the F15E in ACM simulations and won. The AIM-54 can be launched via targeting with telephoto video cameras on the F-14 before the F15s even know they've been spotted. No external or remote sight radar assistance is needed (which tends to trigger the red-force threat sensors), though they do train to coordinate with Hawkeyes.)

Your argument against stealth is moot, because the role of stealth is far different from close air support of ground troops. Role is everything. You determine the role of the aircraft, THEN you design a combat aircraft capable of taking on that role in a way superior to the enemy.

my intent was to say joint strike aircraft are not viable

i guess that i did not make my point that different airframes are needed for different type missions, excluding the ata/attack f/a airframes - this is why i oppose the joint strike aircraft

ps the standoff capability of the f-14 can be adapted to the f-15 - missiles with rf/ir/video capability can be retrofitted to different 'f' class aircraft

rather than dedicated displays, flexible 'video' displays are used with modifications to software for the on board computers (which are becoming faster, smaller and more flexible) for new weaponry (also, standard launch hardware)

as smaller and more capable avionics are used, more space and weight are made available for fuel, weapons and engines

war is still the major driving force for technological advances with space and microbiology a close second

maybe someday refrigerators will have insulation similar to the space shuttle tiles and ir technology will be allowed back in car along with head up displays

 

[Good Luck]

my intent was to say joint strike aircraft are not viable

i guess that i did not make my point that different airframes are needed for different type missions, excluding the ata/attack f/a airframes - this is why i oppose the joint strike aircraft

ps the standoff capability of the f-14 can be adapted to the f-15 - missiles with rf/ir/video capability can be retrofitted to different 'f' class aircraft

rather than dedicated displays, flexible 'video' displays are used with modifications to software for the on board computers (which are becoming faster, smaller and more flexible) for new weaponry (also, standard launch hardware)

as smaller and more capable avionics are used, more space and weight are made available for fuel, weapons and engines

war is still the major driving force for technological advances with space and microbiology a close second

maybe someday refrigerators will have insulation similar to the space shuttle tiles and ir technology will be allowed back in car along with head up displays

Yes, I did misunderstand what you were trying to say.

But it depends on how they go about designing a JCA. As I said, while role is paramount, it is not impossible to gain much (maintenance, manufacturing, etc.) by using the same FRAME, but configured differently for each role. Of course, you'll never make a heavy bomber using a fighter frame. But with the advances we've made the past decade in materials science, it is not unreasonable to believe an F/A15E Strike Eagle replacement and an F/A18E/F Super Hornet replacement can be derived from the same frame.

I object to multi-role aircraft. The F/A idea pretty much pushes that envelope to its limits. But I do not object to using the same air frame, but specifically configured to a particular role, as long and the role demands can be met by the basic frame without compromising either one. Of course, if it cost more to develop, produce and maintain that single frame than it would to develop two or more specialized frames, then it probably is not worth the efforts even given the logistical advantages.

As for the AIM-54, it COULD be put to use on the F15 (say an F15F/G/H configuration?) But it was purpose designed as a long range defensive air intercept system to protect carrier groups where there is a greater need for that type of platform. Land based craft have longer ranges and longer on-station capabilities than Naval craft so the aircraft itself can run out farther to intercept. Can't run a -15 off a carrier as you well know. And the -18 can't take the payload. So they went with the smaller, lighter - and shorter range - AIM120. Problem is there are air to surface anti ship missiles like the exocet-C 1989 made by Russia (and China has their version) with a longer range than the AIM120. That is no fucking good if they can launch and run away before we can shoot back.

 

[Good Luck]

Another idea being floated around in the "SF" department of weapons design is the idea of component avionics. By using ordinary LCD displays instead of special purpose displays, a combat air frame could be quickly reconfigured from an air intercept role to a counter battery role by just unplugging its AIM missile control avionics package and plugging in an ASM/counter radar avionics package. Slip a software DVD in the control panel to link the new package to the display(s) and you have a completely different combat platform.

Not sure it would work, though. Some avionics are limited to a specific shape to work properly, and the shell around them are made from differing materials depending on their function.

 

[Don Quixote]

Oh, and the B1B has 150% WEIGHT capacity of the B-52. But the B-52 has the edge on volume of payload. Saturation bombing involves lots and lots of smaller bombs, which weight less, but need more volume to carry.

while volume vs payload may be in favor of the b-52, for strategic bombing, the bigger the better - also, the b-1 has 3 weapons bays that can be configured differently - it can launch missiles as well as drop bombs, including cluster bombs...


also, the b-52 is an antique, they have to sweep the runway whenever one takes off for pieces (usually fasteners) that fall off to prevent foreign object damage to the next aircraft that takes off

oth, the b-1's fuel system had to be redone (it tended to leak)

 

[Don Quixote]

And yes, Marines prefer Marines to provide close air support. We desire that close air munitions fall on the enemy.

damn right

marine pilots have to train on the ground so they understand the ground pounders needs - GPS and smoke can only do so much

forward air/artillery observers love GPS

i know that the marines love the harrier

 

[Don Quixote]

Another idea being floated around in the "SF" department of weapons design is the idea of component avionics. By using ordinary LCD displays instead of special purpose displays, a combat air frame could be quickly reconfigured from an air intercept role to a counter battery role by just unplugging its AIM missile control avionics package and plugging in an ASM/counter radar avionics package. Slip a software DVD in the control panel to link the new package to the display(s) and you have a completely different combat platform.

Not sure it would work, though. Some avionics are limited to a specific shape to work properly, and the shell around them are made from differing materials depending on their function.

i will comment on the how, just the what - new air weapons systems are designed with the ability to be used with multiple airframes and standardized launchers - as for avionics, one of the bugaboos was the inability to reconfigure rapidly...was - they had part of the problem solved in the early 70-'s...

fly by wire and terrain following 'radar' along with flexible head-up, video and switches not just in the air, but on the land and ground and under the sea

but if you really want to help our military - spend more on spare parts and sufficient ordinance - i.e., logistics - but generals and admirals want more men to command...

 

[Don Quixote]

I agree with GL. The F14 is a great platform for defense. It has multiple fire and forget capablity that makes it a scary deadly weapon

i know, i worked on f-14 at pt. mugu pacific missile test center - it is a lovely aircraft - ever hear its chain gun cut loose - sounds a bit like a fire hose at a distance and really loud up close and personal - they used to fly between 50 and 100 ft above our office...i would say crazy pilots but that would be a redundancy

another navy weapons system is being retired, the ciws - seems that they have more effective systems to replace them

sometimes i miss working on those systems, but not the paranoia that goes along with the security

when someone asked what i did, my first response 'was why do you want to know'

 

[Good Luck]

i will comment on the how, just the what - new air weapons systems are designed with the ability to be used with multiple airframes and standardized launchers - as for avionics, one of the bugaboos was the inability to reconfigure rapidly...was - they had part of the problem solved in the early 70-'s...

fly by wire and terrain following 'radar' along with flexible head-up, video and switches not just in the air, but on the land and ground and under the sea

but if you really want to help our military - spend more on spare parts and sufficient ordinance - i.e., logistics - but generals and admirals want more men to command...

The spare parts aspect is what makes JCA aircraft attractive. With a single air frame a lot of maintenance parts would be interchangeable between aircraft of different roles, significantly easing logistical problems of assuring enough maintenance part are available to front line units.

But I have to say I'm glad I'm out. It's getting to be you have to be a cyborg to handle all the fancy electronics they want carried into battle. And most of it is to keep tabs on what their own people are doing rather than assisting their people in applying their trade of warfare.

Screw all the fancy gadgets on the ground. Give me a well trained Rifle Platoon of Marines carrying M-14s and I'll take on a battalion of the cyborg types they have running around out there. We'll be picking them off from 500 meters out while they're trying to read a vernier off their fancy cyborg equipment.