I'm kind of dubious about the upcoming (2010) retirement of the last of the RAAF's F-111s. Yes, they're old, but they're versatile and proven in combat, which is more than I can say for the JSFs we're buying. I can understand replacing aircraft when something which is definitely better comes along, but for every F-35 we could afford numerous examples of other aircraft which work just as well but may not be quite so stealthy. Defence's purchasing decisions of late haven't made sense to me at the best of times, but the fact they're banking everything on their new planes being just right is a bit worrying - it reminds me of when the US figured they'd replace the A-10, then realised that absolutely nothing would ever take its place and rushed them back into service. I think it might be a better idea to keep the F-111s in service a bit longer, at the very least until we've made sure that the replacements are suitable not just for our air force, but also for our country itself. Curious how the RAAFies feel on this one, actually.
On a fairly unrelated note, I find it immensely amusing reading through comments on videos of the Su-35 on Youtube. It's like the die-hard nationalistic American users think that the US pioneered thrust-vectoring in fighters or something, when in reality the Russians have had it for quite some time and the US is only just bringing fighters into active service which can pull the Cobra - something the Russians have been doing for decades. Ironically the only aspect of aviation I'd say the US has any advantage at all in is stealth, which the Russians don't seem overly concerned with. In most other regards, they're still playing catch-up. Plus Russian jets have fucking awesome lines, they genuinely look aggressive. Like flying sharks or something, I guess.
I mean, fuck, look at this thing:
October 3rd, 2009, 03:38 AM
n00b1n8R
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
/me has recently taken an interest in jet fighters, how they work, why they have what they do and their history, please suggest sites to read
October 3rd, 2009, 06:50 AM
rossmum
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
I wouldn't know, outside of flight sim communities anyway. There are tons floating around the internet.
October 3rd, 2009, 08:08 AM
mR_r0b0to
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
flanker is best~
October 3rd, 2009, 09:20 AM
musicman888
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
I must agree with your starting post in this thread rossum. The F-111 is a proven combat jet aircraft and should be kept in service for the RAAF until they see if they even like the F35.
Also yes, the russian Sukoi jet fighters are intimidating and amazing in the sense of what a jet can do. Su-35 Terminators are met, in versatility and such, only by our F22s and yet the US is planning to cut back or decommission the F22s.
The difference with replacing the F-111 and the A-10 is that the A-10 was a specialty fighter; it's sole job is close air support and specifically, tank-busting; we have no other plane that is well-suited for this job and none were in the pipeline. Now, the F-111 is a general purpose fighter and, as you said yourself, there are a number of cheaper, well-proven designs out there that could replace it. The F-35 is just the newest in general purpose fighters, so why not buy new so you can not have to worry about it for another 20-30 years...if you were to buy one of those cheaper and proven plane, you're out another several billion only a decade later.
As for US playing catch-up, I think you have your priorities wrong. What is the Cobra manoeuvre (and it's derivatives) honestly good for? You pull that shit and the guy behind you is going to tear your ass to pieces with his cannon before he goes into a dive to avoid what's coming or, more likely, shove a missile up your rear. Yeah, you might get your enemy to overshoot, but with today's air-to-air tactics, that is a highly improbably outcome. Stealth has more uses than Thrust Vectoring does at the moment because you can't hit a target that you can't lock onto unless you do it manually, and that's hard at modern speeds (as if it wasn't hard at WWII speeds).
[/counter anti-US rhetoric]
Related to the F-35:
Now there are posters all over DC calling for voters to vote against spending money on an alternate, more powerful engine for the F-35. We're already cutting down/mothballing our F-22s, so I have to say "WAT!?" The hell are these hippies gonna do when they seem 'dem Chinese flying over their homes?
October 4th, 2009, 02:15 AM
NuggetWarmer
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
I had really hoped to become a pilot, as my grandfather used to fly small planes, but unfortunately my vision is bad. :(
October 4th, 2009, 02:41 AM
rossmum
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
The difference with replacing the F-111 and the A-10 is that the A-10 was a specialty fighter; it's sole job is close air support and specifically, tank-busting; we have no other plane that is well-suited for this job and none were in the pipeline. Now, the F-111 is a general purpose fighter and, as you said yourself, there are a number of cheaper, well-proven designs out there that could replace it. The F-35 is just the newest in general purpose fighters, so why not buy new so you can not have to worry about it for another 20-30 years...if you were to buy one of those cheaper and proven plane, you're out another several billion only a decade later.
Yeah, but at least you know you're buying something that will work, and you know exactly how it'll react to your environment. At the very least I think they should hold some F-111s over until they're sure the F-35 is the best replacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
As for US playing catch-up, I think you have your priorities wrong. What is the Cobra manoeuvre (and it's derivatives) honestly good for? You pull that shit and the guy behind you is going to tear your ass to pieces with his cannon before he goes into a dive to avoid what's coming or, more likely, shove a missile up your rear. Yeah, you might get your enemy to overshoot, but with today's air-to-air tactics, that is a highly improbably outcome. Stealth has more uses than Thrust Vectoring does at the moment because you can't hit a target that you can't lock onto unless you do it manually, and that's hard at modern speeds (as if it wasn't hard at WWII speeds).
Are you serious? Show me an air-to-air missile which can keep up with a Cobra. They can't; they'd overshoot completely, and so would the enemy fighter which fired it, putting the Russian fighter on its tail. It's not a regular turn, dude. Due to the high AoA the initial stages of the Cobra would look like the aircraft is about to begin a steep climb, which would throw off a pursuing pilot on a guns pass as they will try and lead for it climbing. With the closing speed you get in modern fighters, by the time he realised otherwise it would be too late.
Don't be fooled into thinking that because of missiles, manoeuvrability is irrelevant - if anything, it's more important than ever. Thrust vectoring and the ability to turn almost literally on a dime are tremendous advantages in aerial combat, which is why the US now uses it on their aircraft, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
[/counter anti-US rhetoric]
Come off it. If anything, my post was a counter to all the anti-Russian, excessively arrogant and nationalistic comments the more ignorant Americans plaster Russian aircraft videos with on Youtube. Thankfully, not all of them are so full of themselves that they assume the US is always the best. Look up the Avro Canada Arrow, bro. Actually, look up the English Electric Lightning while you're at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Related to the F-35:
Now there are posters all over DC calling for voters to vote against spending money on an alternate, more powerful engine for the F-35. We're already cutting down/mothballing our F-22s, so I have to say "WAT!?" The hell are these hippies gonna do when they seem 'dem Chinese flying over their homes?
If anything, they should cut the F35 and feed that money back into the F-22.
October 4th, 2009, 03:38 AM
Cortexian
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
I like the potential that the F-35 has to offer NATO countries... Plus, Canada is getting some iirc.
e/ I stand corrected; the RAAF is replacing the F-111 with the F/A-18F. No idea what they're going to do with the F-35s. My point stands though - replacing a dedicated fighter-bomber capable of Mach 2.5 with an overgrown fighter capable of Mach 1.8 strikes me as a really odd decision. We already use the C variant anyway.
e/ Snaf, this is for your benefit especially -
Quote:
Originally Posted by The RAAF's website
Highly controversial during its development, the F-111 is even better today than when it was introduced to our Air Force in June 1973. With numerous airframe, engine, weapons and avionics upgrades, the F-111 remains the fastest and longest ranging combat aircraft in the Asia-Pacific.
F-111 range - ferry in excess of 5,500km
F/A-18F range - ferry 2,700km; interdiction 1,000km; combat 740km
The F-111 also has TFR, which I doubt the Hornet would (being a fighter first and foremost). Sounds like the idea is to replace the F-111 with the Super Hornet, then replace that with the F-35; the Super Hornets seem to be the RAAF's insurance policy in case the F-35s don't show on time. The F-35 is a decent weapons platform and stealthy, no doubts there; it's also cheaper than the Raptor. However with a range of 1,100km and limited payload, I still would not call that a replacement for the F-111. I'd call it a replacement for the F/A-18 as a fighter.
October 4th, 2009, 12:59 PM
Warsaw
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossmum
Yeah, but at least you know you're buying something that will work, and you know exactly how it'll react to your environment. At the very least I think they should hold some F-111s over until they're sure the F-35 is the best replacement.
Australia has actually been testing the F-35 for a long time now, so I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing (though judging from your description of Australian' government, I wouldn't be surprised if they screwed up somewhere down the line). They'll probably keep some F-111s over as trainers and second-line fighters (read: home defence).
Are you serious? Show me an air-to-air missile which can keep up with a Cobra. They can't; they'd overshoot completely, and so would the enemy fighter which fired it, putting the Russian fighter on its tail. It's not a regular turn, dude. Due to the high AoA the initial stages of the Cobra would look like the aircraft is about to begin a steep climb, which would throw off a pursuing pilot on a guns pass as they will try and lead for it climbing. With the closing speed you get in modern fighters, by the time he realised otherwise it would be too late.
Don't be fooled into thinking that because of missiles, manoeuvrability is irrelevant - if anything, it's more important than ever. Thrust vectoring and the ability to turn almost literally on a dime are tremendous advantages in aerial combat, which is why the US now uses it on their aircraft, too.
Wait to fire the missile, or like I said, use your cannon. You stay sufficiently far away such that when you see him begin to pull the turn, you fire, which will put the missile or stream right on target. The while initiating the Cobra, there's not a whole lot you can do to get out of the way. This is why it's being debated whether or not the Cobra or related are viable combat manoeuvres; simple training and conditioning (plus experience) can pretty much nix any advantage gained by using it. And if you dive after overshooting, then you have a chance to end up behind him again anyways, because the enemy not only has to level out, he then has to angle downwards, and that is putting a helluva lot of stress on both pilot and plane.
Come off it. If anything, my post was a counter to all the anti-Russian, excessively arrogant and nationalistic comments the more ignorant Americans plaster Russian aircraft videos with on Youtube. Thankfully, not all of them are so full of themselves that they assume the US is always the best. Look up the Avro Canada Arrow, bro. Actually, look up the English Electric Lightning while you're at it.
I am not saying that Russian jets are inferior, they've actually had an edge over US models since the early stages of the Cold War, but usually lost because their pilots were generally not of the same caliber. However, I don't think the US is playing catch-up, it just has different priorities. The infrastructure for the F-22 is there to be reinstated if it comes to it, but I honestly don't think that we'll be fighting the advanced Sukhoi's or the Eurofighter any time soon, so we focus on something that enables us to perform Desert Storm-type operations with near impunity. A SAM is more easily evaded by being invisible than it is by pulling a high-g manoeuvre.
Also, the amount of America bashing in this forum grates after awhile, so excuse me if I came off a bit harsh with that tag.
If anything, they should cut the F35 and feed that money back into the F-22.
I think they should cut all the F-35 models except the B, because we need a VTOL aircraft after retiring the Harrier. We operate off of improvised airfields almost as much as carriers, and both are situations where having STOL and VTOL are advantageous. The F-35 is also stealthier than the F-15, which makes it more ideal to the situation outlined above. Granted, the F-22 is perfect for that too, but it's too expensive to keep flying in the same numbers as our current planes.
In separate news, piston engines are cooler than jets anyways. :realsmug:
Australia has actually been testing the F-35 for a long time now, so I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing (though judging from your description of Australian' government, I wouldn't be surprised if they screwed up somewhere down the line). They'll probably keep some F-111s over as trainers and second-line fighters (read: home defence).
Far as I know, every Pig is being retired, without exception. Bang, there goes our long-range strike power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Wait to fire the missile, or like I said, use your cannon. You stay sufficiently far away such that when you see him begin to pull the turn, you fire, which will put the missile or stream right on target. The while initiating the Cobra, there's not a whole lot you can do to get out of the way. This is why it's being debated whether or not the Cobra or related are viable combat manoeuvres; simple training and conditioning (plus experience) can pretty much nix any advantage gained by using it. And if you dive after overshooting, then you have a chance to end up behind him again anyways, because the enemy not only has to level out, he then has to angle downwards, and that is putting a helluva lot of stress on both pilot and plane.
You can either be far enough away to spot the ruse, or you can be close enough to score accurate hits. I seriously doubt you can be both. The advent of radar and fire control systems has done absolutely nothing at all for the guns-only dogfight, because when push comes to shove you're aiming through a glorified gyro gunsight at a target which is trying to evade and get on your tail. Once your missiles are gone, it's like the 1940s on speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I am not saying that Russian jets are inferior, they've actually had an edge over US models since the early stages of the Cold War, but usually lost because their pilots were generally not of the same caliber. However, I don't think the US is playing catch-up, it just has different priorities. The infrastructure for the F-22 is there to be reinstated if it comes to it, but I honestly don't think that we'll be fighting the advanced Sukhoi's or the Eurofighter any time soon, so we focus on something that enables us to perform Desert Storm-type operations with near impunity. A SAM is more easily evaded by being invisible than it is by pulling a high-g manoeuvre.
Forgive me for the assumption. You're exactly right; Russia has the technical edge, but the US is going elsewhere. What I'm waiting for is the PAK-FA's introduction, so we can see how a Russian fifth-gen shapes up against an American fifth-gen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Also, the amount of America bashing in this forum grates after awhile, so excuse me if I came off a bit harsh with that tag.
Likewise with the amount of America-championing on the internet in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I think they should cut all the F-35 models except the B, because we need a VTOL aircraft after retiring the Harrier. We operate off of improvised airfields almost as much as carriers, and both are situations where having STOL and VTOL are advantageous. The F-35 is also stealthier than the F-15, which makes it more ideal to the situation outlined above. Granted, the F-22 is perfect for that too, but it's too expensive to keep flying in the same numbers as our current planes.
Fair point, although the F-22 is the fighter as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure the F-35 can hold its own, but it's the former I'll be using as the yardstick for fifth-gen fighter aircraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
In separate news, piston engines are cooler than jets anyways. :realsmug:
@Ross: you do realise that the US has had the ability to pull Cobras for a long time now ? The US had the thrust vectoring tech for doing that since the late 80s (yes, Soviet's had it first, but the US isn't a stranger to it either), but the US chose not to pursue it because the applications were too limited. As for combating the Cobra, the general training rule would be to stay far enough away from a Cobra-capable plane such that if it begins to make the move, you can fire the missile and be done. Alternatively, they'd have developed a two-shot system where you fire a dud missile, which the enemy evades with a Cobra, only to be hit by the follow-up because the Cobra was expected by the attacker. It's a point, counter-point game; missiles aren't perfect, but they still travel faster than most planes can. In the end, it's not up to the plane with technology this far advanced, it's up to the pilot (or soon, remote operator).
Personally, I want to see a mock dogfight between two comparable planes that can pull a Cobra, and two comparable planes in which only one can make the manoeuvre.
And while you've had the capability, it's been restricted to experimentals and highly-modified aircraft, pretty much - not frontline fighters. Bit of a difference between having something on a few planes and having something in general production. But yeah, that would be an interesting dogfight to see.
October 4th, 2009, 10:32 PM
Warsaw
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
The point was, the US could've put it onto front line fighters a long time ago but decided it wasn't worth the expense, and whether it's worth the expense now is still debatable.
Also, D9 bests the Spit Mk. XIV in roll, dive, climb, and firepower. Spit only won in turn radius, and since B&Z is what Germans do best...really, the two planes are pretty well matched. A good chunk of those WWII kills for the Spit can probably be attributed to pilot inexperience at this stage of the war. It's a 3-way tie between the D-9, P-51, and Mk. XIV, if we're sticking to inline engined fighters (otherwise you have to throw the Jug in there too).
October 4th, 2009, 11:47 PM
rossmum
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
Ironically my Fuck-Off Huge Book of Spitfires has a copy of the RAF's comparative flight trials between an XIV, a Mustang, and an Anton (as well as projected results for the Dora, which wasn't captured until after the report was written) in it :iamafag:
December 6th, 2009, 05:37 PM
English Mobster
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
[/bump]
Was going to make a new thread to ask this, but decided to save forum clutter and instead ask it in here:
What are your guys' favorite military planes?
Mine's a tie between the F-14 (Seen here in Ace Combat 6):
And the F-117A Nighthawk (also seen here in Ace Combat 6):
December 7th, 2009, 01:23 AM
Rorschach
Re: MODACITY AVIATION CENTRAL
How about this thing in vehicle size?
Or to keep things simpler and just look at something that's already out there, this?
