Question for Army, edweird, devildog, etc. . . .

[Army]

Osprey is an answer to an unasked question. 60's do the same job better.

Russian interceptor/fighter aircraft are thunderously fast, marvelously manueverable....especially the Sukhoi designs....obviously lifted from US designs, have limited avionics, poor fuel management(which limits warfighting payload), and are maintenance nightmares.

Other than that, the Cobra manuever is kewl!

[bleachit]

Osprey is an answer to an unasked question. 60's do the same job better.

Russian interceptor/fighter aircraft are thunderously fast, marvelously manueverable....especially the Sukhoi designs....obviously lifted from US designs, have limited avionics, poor fuel management(which limits warfighting payload), and are maintenance nightmares.

Other than that, the Cobra manuever is kewl!

its like putting big tires on your sedan with some nice spinners.


sure it looks "nice", but not very practical.

[edweird]

yeah the su fighters cobra maneuver is neato... but the f22 wont be dogfighing with them, instead it should be putting missiles in the air from the horizion independantly targeted at the whole su formation.

and yes the F-22 is in operation... I dont know if its seen combat yet tho

[MoeMag]

yeah the su fighters cobra maneuver is neato... but the f22 wont be dogfighing with them, instead it should be putting missiles in the air from the horizion independantly targeted at the whole su formation.

and yes the F-22 is in operation... I dont know if its seen combat yet tho

Hey, just thought i would tell you, I had a blast today sitting out at the end of the runway on my truck for a while. Watched what looked like a bunch of noob pilots in f-16 b or d's doing touch and goes. Looks like fun! could have sat there all day if it wasnt for being 106*f.

-If they phase out the f-16's maybe i can pick one up in a few years. Like those guys that have the 4 f-18's in town.

[txaggie08]

the second the USAF puts in the mothball order for the a-10 the army will pick them up and figure out how to not bomb their own guys

Thanks to the whining by the airforce, the Army is banned from having fixed wing close air support aircraft. Thats why they built the apaches originaly. the airforce will never give up the a-10's, simply because its going to be the last straw in there usefulness except the b-52. WE need an airforce like we need a hole in the head. The NAvy has enough missles floating around the oceans, they dont do anyhting with strat. defense. The army could take over the close air support, and with the range of modern planes, carrier based aircraft are more effective. Most munitions are guided now, and are moving more and more that way, so a carpet bombing campaign, while still somewhat effective, is well within the grasp of he army. The b-2 and f-117 squadron strengths are much to high, we just dont need that many. The b-1 is useless. But no, we have to watch the USEFUL branches lose recruits so the airforce can pretend its important.....


Coincidentaly, I had an American Naval history class at A&M last fall with the son of an engineer on the osprey project(hes some form of supervisor....). He had some interesting comments on why the body coutn was so high.


BTW, the sukhoi is NOT a rip off of the american design. if im not mistaken the latest is a canard wing.....


I would say that the days of CAM are almost dead. We will still see some need, but almost all fighting is done on the edge of the radar now. If you get close enough to see an enemy aircraft, you screwed up.


BTW, im a history major at A&M, planning to go to grad school for mil. History, yall are talking my favorite subject

[bleachit]

the canard design is just an updated su27. actually a lot of the design features on the su27 and later were taken from the X-31 which is an American design.

[pennywise]

Thanks to the whining by the airforce, the Army is banned from having fixed wing close air support aircraft. Thats why they built the apaches originaly. the airforce will never give up the a-10's, simply because its going to be the last straw in there usefulness except the b-52. WE need an airforce like we need a hole in the head. The NAvy has enough missles floating around the oceans, they dont do anyhting with strat. defense. The army could take over the close air support, and with the range of modern planes, carrier based aircraft are more effective. Most munitions are guided now, and are moving more and more that way, so a carpet bombing campaign, while still somewhat effective, is well within the grasp of he army. The b-2 and f-117 squadron strengths are much to high, we just dont need that many. The b-1 is useless. But no, we have to watch the USEFUL branches lose recruits so the airforce can pretend its important.....


Coincidentaly, I had an American Naval history class at A&M last fall with the son of an engineer on the osprey project(hes some form of supervisor....). He had some interesting comments on why the body coutn was so high.


BTW, the sukhoi is NOT a rip off of the american design. if im not mistaken the latest is a canard wing.....


I would say that the days of CAM are almost dead. We will still see some need, but almost all fighting is done on the edge of the radar now. If you get close enough to see an enemy aircraft, you screwed up.


BTW, im a history major at A&M, planning to go to grad school for mil. History, yall are talking my favorite subject

You want to talk about useless, how about having separate services that do the same damn thing--ground pounders. Why not combine the Army and Marines--makes more sense than not having an Air Force. I personally don't see the need for 4 separate services anyway--nevermind the Coast Guard--they're just Navy Lite.
Consolidation would benefit everyone. This is my train of thought after having served 8 years in the Air Force and working with all of the other branches numerous times.

[Mango]

This is the most interesting thread I've seen on AO in a long time!

Fort Dix is right new to the school I teach at, and many of my students are Military brats. I see all kinds of neat stuff flying overhead. The coolest was two Jets (no idea what they were, I guess air superiority fighters) doing maneuvers, the sounds were incredible. Hearing them scream across the sky gave me goosebumps. I was very thankful they didn't aggro on me.

[thecavemankevin]

i agree with mango, i've enjoyed reading this thread very much. I know very little about most of this stuff other than the basics. I've never been in the military nor will be, but i still love military history and Discovery Military channel is by far my current fav. Thanx guys for the great read and while i was doing so i was looking up specs and pics of most of these:

F-14 Tomcat which of course we are familiar with from Top Gun with Tom Cruise (rather ironic, the name Tomcat for both the plane and Tom/Katty)


thought this pic was just too cool to pass

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a United States Navy supersonic, twin-engine, swing-wing, two-seat variable geometry wing aircraft. It also performed tactical reconnaissance and close air support[2]. It was built for the VFAX/VFX Naval Fighter (Attack) Experimental requirement for an agile air superiority fighter and also incorporate the AIM-54 Phoenix missile as a fleet air defense interceptor against bombers and missiles. The F-14 Tomcat was the first and best known of the new highly successful generation of US teen-series air superiority fighters which were designed incorporating the experience of air combat in Vietnam against Migs.

It entered service in 1972 with the USN, replacing the F-4 Phantom II, and the abortive F-111B. It was later exported to the Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) in 1976. The USN is replacing the F-14 with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 2006. The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) will remain the only air arm flying F-14s.
wikipedia urself


F-15 Eagle

The largest operator of the F-15 is the United States Air Force.

The first F-15A flight was made in July 1972, and the first flight of the two-seat F-15B (formerly TF-15A) was made in July 1973. The first Eagle (F-15B) was delivered in November 1974. In January 1976, the first Eagle destined for a combat squadron was delivered. These initial aircraft carried the Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) APG-63 radar.

The single-seat F-15C and two-seat F-15D models entered the Air Force inventory beginning in 1979. These new models have Production Eagle Package (PEP 2000) improvements, including 2,000 lb (900 kg) of additional internal fuel, provision for carrying exterior conformal fuel tanks and increased maximum takeoff weight of up to 68,000 lb (30 700 kg).


Kill record:
As of 2005, the F-15 in all air forces has a combined kill record of 104 (this seemed rather low to me...???)Satellite killer:
From January 1984 to September 1986, an F-15A was used as a launch platform for five ASM-135 ASAT missiles. The F-15A went into a supersonic climb and released the ASAT missile at an altitude of 11.6 km. The F-15A computer was updated to control the zoom-climb and missile release. The third test flight involved a retired communications satellite in a 555 km orbit, which was successfully destroyed by sheer kinetic energy. The pilot, USAF Major Wilbert D. "Doug" Pearson, became the first pilot ever to down a satellite.

The ASAT missile was designed to be a standoff anti-satellite weapon, with an undetected first stage (the F-15A).


F-16 Falcon Of course many of us grew up watching Iron Eagle...then the less than good sequal etc.....



The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a modern multi-role jet fighter aircraft designed in the United States. Designed as a lightweight fighter, it evolved into a successful multi-role aircraft. The F-16 was developed by General Dynamics. In 1993 General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corporation, now Lockheed Martin. The Falcon's versatility is a paramount reason it was a success on the export market, and is serving 24 countries.[1] It is the largest and probably most significant Western fighter program, with over 4000 aircraft built. Though no longer produced for the United States Air Force, it is still produced for export.

The Fighting Falcon is regarded as a superb dogfighter, with innovations such as the bubble canopy, side-mounted control stick, and reclined seat. It was also the first US fighter aircraft to match the English Electric Lightning's ability to execute 9 g turns. Although the F-16's official name is "Fighting Falcon", it is known to its pilots as the "Viper," the General Dynamics codename for the project during its early development.[2] Viper was also the name of the space fighter in Battlestar Galactica, which was very popular with fighter pilots at the time that the F-16 was being deployed


Combat service:
Due to their ubiquity, the F-16s have participated in numerous conflicts, most of them in the Middle East.

In 1981, four Israeli F-16s participated in a raid that destroyed Osiraq, an Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad. During the same year, the Israeli Air Force obtained the first shoot downs for the entire F-16 series, shooting down a Syrian Mi-8 helicopter and a MiG-21 jet. The following year, during Operation Peace for Galilee (Lebanon War) Israeli F-16s engaged on numerous occasions with Syrian aircraft, ending up victorious at all times. F-16s were also used afterwards in their ground-attack role for strikes against targets in Lebanon.

During the Afghan war, Pakistan Air Force F-16's shot down numerous Soviet and Afghan ground attack and transport aircraft (the exact number is classified).[5] The same border clashes also saw the first combat loss of a Fighting Falcon, when an aircraft was shot down by its own wingman, a case of friendly fire later traced back to a faulty AAM.[6]

In Operation Desert Storm of 1991, 249 USAF F-16s flew over 13,000 sorties in strikes against Iraq, the most of any Coalition aircraft, with five lost in combat. F-16s returned to Iraq in force in 1998 as part of the Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign and again in the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom invasion, flying ground support and SEAD missions. F-16s were also employed by NATO during Bosnian peacekeeping operations in 1994-95 (one was lost to a SAM, resulting in the evasion and recovery of Captain Scott O'Grady), in the 1999 Operation Allied Force in Yugoslavia (during which one was lost to ground fire), and by the United States in Afghanistan since 2001. Two air-to-air victories were scored by USAF F-16's in Operation Southern Watch, four in Bosnia, and two in Operation Allied Force (one by a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16).

On June 7, 2006, F-16s carried out two airstrikes which killed Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, using two 500 lb. bombs to destroy the al-Qaeda safehouse he was in.

Wiki-urself

[bleachit]

the kill record is rather low because air to air engagements has declined greatly since WWII. part of the is because production of aircraft isnt what it was since then either. on top of that, the idea of air superiority is acheived much more easily now a days and you arent seeing two "super powers" axis vs allies.

[thecavemankevin]

F-18 Super Hornet


caption said F-18 breaking the sound barrier

The Super Hornet is a variant on the F/A-18C/D Hornet. There are enough differences though sharing the same general layout and some systems that it has been called by many an essentially all-new aircraft. The fighter is colloquially referred to as the "Rhino" (for its prodigious nose), also "Superbug" and "Tankbug" for tanker variants. The Super Hornet was ordered from McDonnell Douglas in 1992, first flew in November 1995, made its first carrier landing in 1997 and entered service in 1999. Current versions include the F/A-18E single-seater and F/A-18F two-seater.

Currently, the Navy's F-14 squadrons have converted to the Super Hornet, which is also taking on the missions of the retired A-6 Intruder, S-3 Viking, and KA-6D. It is now the "high" part of the "hi-lo" mix (with F-18C's in the "low" role), and will continue to do so as legacy Hornets are replaced by the JSF. An electronic warfare variant, the EF-18G, will replace the aging EA-6B Prowler.

wiki-urself




F-22 Raptor



The F-22 Raptor is a stealth fighter aircraft built by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. It was originally envisioned as an air superiority fighter, but is equipped for ground attack, electronic attack, and signals intelligence roles as well. Long in development, the aircraft was also known as the prototype YF-22 and as the F/A-22 for three years before formally entering United States Air Force service in December 2005 as the F-22A.

wiki-urself







F-35 Lightning(FJA)



The F-35 Lightning II, formerly known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), is a military fighter aircraft whose development was funded by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other partner governments; and which was designed and built by an industry team led by Lockheed Martin that includes Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and Smiths Aerospace. The F-35 is expected to enter U.S. service in 2011.

The F-35 is a multi-role strike fighter, a plane that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air-to-air combat. Stealth technology makes the plane hard to detect as it approaches X-band short-range tracking radar, although it is much more easily spotted by X-band to its rear, and is not stealthy to L band long-range radar.

wiki-urself





v-22 Osprey



The V-22 Osprey is a joint service, multi-mission military aircraft with vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capability. It is designed to perform VTOL missions like a conventional helicopter while also having the long-range cruise abilities of a twin turboprop aircraft.

The Osprey is the world's first production tiltrotor aircraft with a 38 ft (12 m) rotor, engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wing tip. It typically operates as a helicopter with its nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal) for takeoff and landing. Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90 degrees in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a high-speed, fuel-efficient turboprop airplane. STOL, rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45 degrees. For compact storage aboard a ship, the wing rotates (about the z-axis), and the proprotors fold in a sequence that takes between 90 and 120 seconds.

wiki-urself

[Steelrat]

Osprey is an answer to an unasked question. 60's do the same job better.

Russian interceptor/fighter aircraft are thunderously fast, marvelously manueverable....especially the Sukhoi designs....obviously lifted from US designs, have limited avionics, poor fuel management(which limits warfighting payload), and are maintenance nightmares.

Other than that, the Cobra manuever is kewl!

I saw a great video of the Raptor doing a bunch of cobras, and more! Everyone seems to go ga-ga over the low-speed manueverability of the 27 and 37, but low speed manuevers are an act of desperation. Air combat is all about energy, and if you are turning at low speed, you have given up all your energy, and are dead meat. Plus, with the HOBS heaters and HMD, any US fighter can take the 27/37 in a dogfight. OUR advantage comes into play in BVR.

[warbeak2099]

You guys make a good point that dog-fighting and air-to-air combat has become quite scarce since WWII. Yes the F-14 can better engage multiple targets than the F-18. But that's not usefull anymore right? I tend to disagree.


The next threat that our Airforce and Navy will have is China. In fact, I consider them a threat right now. They are operating with the newest Russian aircraft right now and are developing new technology nonstop. I'd like to really know without all the arrogant American chanting that our stuff is "the shiz", can our new technology effectively fight what we're going to have to go up against in the near future? Can the F-18 really be useful when it can only engage 2 targets at a time and the F-14 can engage 8? Can the F-22 really be useful when it is so expensive that we only have a handful of them? I think R&D spending has gotten out of control. Pretty soon, we'll have the best technology sure, but the enemy will have such an advantage in numbers, that our tech advantage will be far outweighed. There is a line and I think we've crossed it. I mean, you see how Rumsfeldt and Congress are so incredibly tightfisted with military spending. Sure they'll let us have a 80 million dollar plane, but they'll probably only approve the purchase of maybe 5 of them. Meanwhile, the Chinese are stockpiling whole squadrons full of the latest tech from Russia. I'm a little concerned. Anyone disagree?

[geekwarrior]

You guys make a good point that dog-fighting and air-to-air combat has become quite scarce since WWII. Yes the F-14 can better engage multiple targets than the F-18. But that's not usefull anymore right? I tend to disagree.


The next threat that our Airforce and Navy will have is China. In fact, I consider them a threat right now. They are operating with the newest Russian aircraft right now and are developing new technology nonstop. I'd like to really know without all the arrogant American chanting that our stuff is "the shiz", can our new technology effectively fight what we're going to have to go up against in the near future? Can the F-18 really be useful when it can only engage 2 targets at a time and the F-14 can engage 8? Can the F-22 really be useful when it is so expensive that we only have a handful of them? I think R&D spending has gotten out of control. Pretty soon, we'll have the best technology sure, but the enemy will have such an advantage in numbers, that our tech advantage will be far outweighed. There is a line and I think we've crossed it. I mean, you see how Rumsfeldt and Congress are so incredibly tightfisted with military spending. Sure they'll let us have a 22 billion dollar plane, but they'll probably only approve the purchase of maybe 5 of them. Meanwhile, the Chinese are stockpiling whole squadrons full of the latest tech from Russia. I'm a little concerned. Anyone disagree?

I fear that the US isn't going to be a superpower for much longer. Scary thought, especially if China takes our place. The world thinks the USA is bad as a superpower? They'll change there minds when China takes over.....there morales/culture is much more ruthless than ours. Dont mean to be a doomsday sayer but I think best times are behind us.

[txaggie08]

You want to talk about useless, how about having separate services that do the same damn thing--ground pounders. Why not combine the Army and Marines--makes more sense than not having an Air Force. I personally don't see the need for 4 separate services anyway--nevermind the Coast Guard--they're just Navy Lite.
Consolidation would benefit everyone. This is my train of thought after having served 8 years in the Air Force and working with all of the other branches numerous times.

"navy lite" does more than the navy would be willing to do, thats why there given a seperate service. They limit there recruiting factors.

AS far as the marines......thats debatable.