Jets & Planes but no UAV's here. [Archive]

Marcello

January 10th, 2011, 06:04 PM

Next the Russian fighter it was based on as we know the Chinese are great copycats with a high degree of technical sophistication also they might have received some help as well. This did not see service with the Russians.

I would be very careful before stating that a design is derived from an other on the basis of some superficial configuration resemblance.
After all it is not like this...
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/3311/f15draw.jpg
was actually derived from this...
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8472/mig25sh.jpg

It is probably a safe bet that the chinese have sought whatever knowledge could be obtained; I certainly would not be surprised if some MiG 1.42 material was handed over to them or if sensitive F-22 data had ended in the hands of chinese intelligence and it cannot be ruled out that some of that might have been used in the design process. That however should not be mistaken for some kind of genetic inability to design from scratch.
When closing a technological gap it is only sensible to aquire foreign designs for evaluation, license/copy them and only once you have sufficiently mastered the technology move on to original designs. This has played out a number of times in the past: assuming that those copying and catching up would remain stuck there has caused its share of unpleasant surprises...

As for the PAK FA and the Berkut they are both already in the game, as SEAD assets: I suppose that's mostly to placate all the people that would be screaming if the latest whiz bang fighter was not available.In the game aviation primary task is CAS, which is somewhat of a cinderella as far as air forces are concerned and not something you want to throw a rare, expensive fifth generation air superiority fighter at. SEAD is probably the only "economic" employment of such aircraft that is included in the game.
Though I doubt the Berkut would enter production: it would be a wasteful duplication. I could see it happen for political/bureaucratic reasons if the Berkut was, say, a MiG project. Being both Sukhoi there is not even that rationale.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 10th, 2011, 10:51 PM

Well that being said I guess BERKUT will free up a slot for the Russians as it's only an experimental prototype/demonstrator, not to worry it'll join the U.S. and Israeli AH-X on the, yes, dreaded list.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-47.htm
Could be the same for the PAK FA as it's development is limited to the interceptor role thus far, at the very least I'll check for dates and make sure India has it too. I really didn't think they would be in so far out but times were different when they were put in the game I'm sure. Also a lot of developmental equipment got in as well that I know Don has been trying to clear up over the last couple of years, I have a few of those already posted with more to come as well. As to the Chinese the only real problem identified with them is the issues they've had in developing their own successful jet engine technology a problem they share with India and others in that field. That's why India and Russia are currently working together on a fighter now. Check broadsword.com for more on that and the following poor mans article.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-russia-in-negotiations-re-nextgeneration-fighter-03133/
I mean this with sincerity Marcello, thank you I wasn't planning on even checking these to see if they were in the game as stated above.

Regards,
Pat

dmnt

January 11th, 2011, 07:43 AM

Patria to upgrade Finnish Hornets. Unfortunately there is no English press release, but hope machine translation will do:
http://www.patria.fi/patria_www_fi_sisalto/patria_www_fi/uutiset/tiedotteet/patrialle+merkittava+tilaus+ilmavoimien+hornet-havittajien+mlu2-sarja-asennuksista.html

A major order from the Air Force to Patria for Hornet fighter MLU2 series installations

Patria has received a major order from Air Force Hornet fighter MLU2 system upgrade kit installation. The order is worth more than EUR 24 million and its effect on employment is about 150 person-years.

The Air Force has ordered Patria Hornet fighter MLU2 system upgrade kit installations. Order as a whole covers 35 Hornet fighter aircraft modification and related components and network processing. Work will begin in 2012, and installations made between 2013 to 2015 machines during normal maintenance periods and structural upgrades.

Work undertaken by Patria Aviation and Systems business, Jämsä Hall, where the human resources to be added over the coming years thanks to your order. The order is valued at over EUR 24 million and its effect on employment is about 150 person-years.

"Hall's office is already taking place MLU2 upgrade support and preparatory works. Patria We worked in close cooperation with the Air Force and MLU2 systems comparable with the U.S. Navy since 2004, when a system update for the implementation of the planning started, "says Senior Vice President Calvin Matikainen Patria.

The Air Force goal is to upgrade all 62 planes until the end of 2016. Patria has previously taken the Air Force's Hornet fleet of the first system update (MLU1) between 2007 -2010 as well as machinery for the acquisition of 57 single-seat F-18 C-model final assembly and testing.

For more information:

Senior Vice President Calvin Matikainen, Patria Aviation, tel 040 869 3351, lassi.matikainen @ patria.fi

Patria is an international defense and aerospace group, which supplies its own specialist know-how and partnerships, competitive solutions based on its customers. Patria is owned by the Finnish government and European Aeronautica Defence and Space Company EADS NV

Some info over what this upgrade includes: http://www.defence-observer.info/news/europe/427-f18

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 11th, 2011, 01:15 PM

This touches on the Finnish upgrades. Also note the Jan. 6, 2011 entry, F35 slips to 2016 now vice 2015.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f18-hornets-keeping-em-flying-02816/
Got to get ready for work, have a major inspection this week. Have a great day everyone!

Regards,
Pat

Marcello

January 11th, 2011, 05:23 PM

Could be the same for the PAK FA as it's development is limited to the interceptor role thus far, at the very least I'll check for dates and make sure India has it too. I really didn't think they would be in so far out but times were different when they were put in the game I'm sure. Pat

The SU-47 has been around for a long time, IIRC it was talked about as the starting point for the next fighter project. Typically things have played out differently...
The PAK FA was put in last year just before the patch was released.
As far as I understand it is meant to be primarily a tactical fighter, though no doubt it will be used in the interceptor role too. I guess it is likely that at least some basic air to ground capability will be put in as well: there may be targets that would be best engaged by a stealth platform and it is not like Russia or India are going to be able to afford a dedicated stealth bomber very soon (there is some work being done but it will probably be a long time before it comes to fruition). In regards to timeline it is a bit too early make predictions as to when the russians, never mind the indians, are going to put it in service. According to some knowledgeable people it may well be that the chinese will come ahead...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 12th, 2011, 04:32 AM

Great discussion here!!
Go to CBS.com to the CBS Evening News (11 JAN. 2011) link for the story on SECDEF Gates meeting in China over defense issues. China decided to take the J-20 for a ride today while he was there sending a political message of their own. They made a comparison of the F-22 to the J-20, imagine that!?! It's all in the eye of the beholder I guess.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Russias-SU-35-Mystery-Fighter-No-More-04969/#more-4969
Another piece of the puzzle to the lineage of the PAK FA. Also note "The China factor" and March 16/10 section which is only part of the picture in Russian modernization and procurement over the next ten years, T-95 MBT anyone? We'll see.
Pic:
10762
Article I left off from Post #1 on PAK FA.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/sukhoi_pak_fa.htm

Links plane lineage to PAK FA.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm

Supports 2015 - 2017 start of production.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa-program.htm

Very technical read I was thankful for some "signal training" but very through with a little bias.
http://www.warfare.ru/?catid=255&linkid=2280

Sets up the situation and DETAILS the factors involved. This from a very respected aerospace think tank.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300310-1.html

I consider fighters in VERY BASIC terms like radar detectors for cars, as fast they are marketed, the police have counter measures, the new model comes out, the police have... and on it goes. Tanks are easier, (Hey maybe I'm sending a message of my own. Nay...not me!?!) much easier.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 14th, 2011, 03:19 AM

Well this will be my last post for a while I'm making my final push to finish my list between work etc.
I found this very interesting and touched on it yesterday, but the question is who was caught more off guard by the J-20 flight test the Chinese President Hu Jintao or SECDEF Gates, you decide.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21190/

Gates changing course based on other countries advances in equipment and accelerated procurement efforts. I see more RAPTORS which could mean more delays or less F-35s for the U.S. The last is my assessment concerning the F-35, but money is money and we have only so much to spend.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21191/
Gotta love them Navy boys even if those are only "targets", a little inside joke for my surface counterparts!

A little surprise for me with the next concerning the F-4. I had the fine privilege until recently to have worked with a retired USAF Maj. who flew combat missions in Vietnam in them. Being a gentleman and a great Irishman I salute him and all you Vietnam vets! :up::cheers:
He'll be glad to hear the AF is keep'em flying.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21130/

Good Night and have a GREAT weekend everyone!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Marcello

January 14th, 2011, 05:01 AM

Gates changing course based on other countries advances in equipment and accelerated procurement efforts. I see more RAPTORS which could mean more delays or less F-35s for the U.S. The last is my assessment concerning the F-35, but money is money and we have only so much to spend.

Not going to happen. Bloody political battles have been waged on the F-22/F-35 and issues have been settled; I cannot imagine everyone saying: OK, we have screwed up, back to the drawing board. That is not how politics works; you would need an extremely compelling reason to overcome that and a couple of prototypes we know little about isn't enough to do that.
Besides you can only trim the F-35 program so much for a variety of reasons (economies of scale, US allies etc.).

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 26th, 2011, 03:54 AM

Was on my list and then saw it brought up separately before posting my last patch page. Since Don has addressed this for the game, here then is my tribute to the plane , those that flew'em and those that kept'em flying.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/britain-moves-forward-on-harrier-support-agreements-03368/#more-3368
Combined 700 Billion GPD in 2009 contract expenditure on life cycle and engine upgrades for the HARRIER.

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/19983/
Final SEA HARRIER fly by of HMS ARK ROYAL.
Pic:
10796

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/708/
HMS ARK ROYAL pulls into port for the last time.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw101217_1_n.shtml
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20623/
Concerning the final flyover.
Pics:
10797 10798

10799

10800 Proud as they should be and no better way for a send off then with the "Pipes", I know I had the honor of one at my retirement ceremony.

Though he had some "thoughts" about the MOD decision at the final flyover, RNC Nigel "Sharkey" Ward wrote an excellent book on the Falklands War and the role of the HARRIER while serving as a flight leader there. I got to see PELE play for the
Mid-Atlantic Cup while with the NY COSMOS but, he was almost overshadowed by the war as the Argentina team and fans found themselves very unwelcome at the Meadowlands Stadium at the time after some "demonstrations" of their own. Not something to do with a NY crowd!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 26th, 2011, 04:42 AM

Sorry SEA HARRIER retired in March 2006. It should of course be the joint services GR9 HARRIER.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa2/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/harriergr9/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/harrier/
The last covers the Corps (Which have been upgraded since this was published.), SPAINISH and ITALIAN Navy versions. INDIA flies the SEA HARRIER but I believe they may be "grounded" now.
Good Night and Have a Great Day!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 26th, 2011, 10:17 AM

INDIA flies the SEA HARRIER but I believe they may be "grounded" now.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Indias-Sea-Harrier-Shortage-04774/

Oct 31/10: The Financial Times reports that Britain is looking to sell its fleet of advanced Harrier II GR9s, adding that India is seen as a potential customer:

“India and the US are the two most promising markets for more than 50 of the most up-to-date Harriers, which will otherwise be consigned to the scrap-yard or museum. Peter Luff, defence procurement minister, told the Financial Times that some of the kit axed in the defence review… might still find a home abroad.”

and Re : Grounding

Aug 26/09: Sify News reports India’s grounding of its Sea Harrier fleet. Indian navy spokesman P.V.S. Satish:

“The fleet has been grounded for immediate physical checks on all the flying controls…. We’re likely to finish that in 48 to 72 hours and thereafter the fleet will be cleared.”

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 26th, 2011, 12:43 PM

Thanks Don!
I did raise the idea of a possible sale in the APC thread
Post #71 as purely supposition on my part. With the written word on the topic I would guess India has the best shot to buy them. We're cutting back and our Congress is looking for more than SECDEF Gates is offering in cuts now. Spain is not far from needing a bailout from the EU as well if things don't improve. Italy isn't far behind plus it's on going political scandal. Though the both of them are better off then Greece, Ireland, Portugal and they fall in order as I put them above if the "domino's" keep falling. But India is expanding (Economy.) at about 4 to 6% of GDP a year and as I've been posting is modernizing and expanding their military rapidly over the last few years.
Honestly I have to plead complete ignorance to the length of the grounding, I thought it might've been in the order of months similar to Germany's grounding of the Eurocopter AH. Never looked into it with the HARRIER.
Thanks again for the info!!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 29th, 2011, 04:56 AM

As I stated in my last APC post of earlier today the "winds of change" are a coming. No program is safe and the stakes have been increased outside the U.S. by China and Russia as I've posted. These changes are putting the F-35 further at risk here for us and it doesn't help when you announce more delays to the program around the time the SECDEF is announcing his budget cuts and Congress has since said it might not be enough. There's already talk of restarting production of the F-22 again even though it's a more expensive plane. Why? It's a proven jet that has exceeded expectations in all areas including in maintaining it. Also it's stealthier then the F-35. And it's thought to be better then the J-20 and Su-50 PAK FA already as well. Some of this I've posted from AUSA etc. on the analysis of the various aircraft just discussed. It might not totally be dead if the U.S. cancels it (SLAMRAAM is a perfect example, it got killed by SECDEF on 6 JAN. 2011 but, the program as far as I know is still pushing forward for the European countries that have been interested in it.) but if we do, will those same countries be willing to bear the costs involved to get it to production? So as usual we have more questions then answers but I'm confident we'll have a clearer picture of the situation by years end if not sooner.

More problems for the F-35, not a good thing at this time.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21355/
Some insight as to why the F-35B was put on "probation", and will there be "bleed over" for the F-35A and C?
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21365/
The case for the F-22 in case you didn't like my case for it.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21315/

Well again everyone have a great weekend! Time to hit the rack, it's a work day for me later today, take care all!

Regards,
Pat

Marcello

January 29th, 2011, 11:39 AM

The problem with killing the F-35 and restarting the F-22 line is that it leaves the US Navy and several US allies out in the cold. And it does not provide the numbers to flesh out the USAF as the older platforms retire.Then there is politics.
So, no matter what people say over the internet, unless the F-35 fails in such a spectacular manner that not even Baghdad Bob finds a way to spin favorably the F-35 is going forward.

Warwick

January 31st, 2011, 06:37 PM

Doesn't look like Gates decision to cancel the alternative engine for the F-35 (the F136) was such a bright idea!

Regards,
Warwick

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 31st, 2011, 11:23 PM

I've used the following source quite regularly over the last year or more in matters concerning India's military equipment most notably the ARJUN and ARJUN MKII. Since starting this thread it's time to bring some of that insight here on this thread. I've commented on the issues in a general manner elsewhere concerning the relations between India and China. Mr. Skula was a Colonel in the Indian Army and now writes for the well respected Business Standard. I hope you find these to your liking as two of the top five economies and top ten in military procurement and development square off in their own "cold war" of sorts.
For a little background:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/01/er-by-way-tibet.html

On the MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) Program:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/01/buy-mmrca-now-gen-5-fighter-later-us.html

Chinese J-20 and how it affects India and the region:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinas-new-fighter-sends-sonic-boom.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2011, 06:04 PM

Lot's of news here:

1. Was the J-20 "combat" video rigged?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8291729/China-red-faced-after-footage-of-new-fighter-was-from-Top-Gun.html#

2. A sample of how important India is seen in the current fighter procurement process. See this site and others for more.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21665/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21688/

3. USN pilot completes first naval F-35 test flight.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21745/

4. USAF C-17 GLOBEMASTER III first to use bio-fuel mix.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21956/

5. USAF evaluates Brazil's Embraer A-129 light attack aircraft.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21866/

6. A400M starts cold weather trials in Sweden.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21835/

7. Spain completes prototype flight test of it's RESET of their AV8B HARRIERs.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/21815/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 12th, 2011, 07:37 PM

Again "raw" data from the final patch post for 2010/2011.

AC-130U TIME TO...
C1. CHANGE: USMC/AC-130U SPOOKY/UNIT 573/Name AC-130U SPOOKY to AC-130U+4 SPOOKY/End Date to DEC 2010 vice DEC 2020/
In the eyes of the USAF this was a failed attempt to remove the 25mm and 40mm and replace it with the 30mm. This was conversion was only done on 4 of the 17 operational SPOOKYS. Part of the reason the conversion was due to the maintenance and ammo requirements of the 25mm and 40mm. The other, the 30mm was found to be inaccurate and thus "operationally unsuitable" The USMC has other thoughts about this (30mm) but you'll have to wait until my first Patch Post for 2012 to find out why.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u-4.htm
Great overview of the issue at hand and at the bottom is the reason I started the thread in the first place.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-spookier-spooky-30mm-at-a-time-03023/
Detailed background on the project.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71

A1. ADD: USA/AC-130H SPECTRE/JAN 1998 - DEC 2020/Use USA UNIT 564for the base./
These never stopped flying and are in service (8) for the foreseeable future. This "new" unit is at least electronically comparable to the current AC-130U (TI/GSR etc.). However and if time allows before the deadline, the AC-130 will be advanced further electronically and in weaponry (VIPER STRIKE ATGW) as well with information I have.
If not I'll present it for next year.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=71
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130h.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130-specs.htm
Comparison between SPECTRE and SPOOKY. Note weapons and ammo info.
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/ac-130_spectre.pl
As immediately above.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ac130.html
Gets into the electronic issue in greater detail.
http://spectre-association.org/historySpectre.htm
A little history from the guys who flew them.

Jets and Planes but...
A1. ADD: EQUADOR/CHEETAH C/JAN 2011/Use SOUTH AFICAN UNITS 154& 336 for the base./ Retired by the SAAF in 2008, the planes have been maintained in storage for surplus sales purposes. Used JAN 2011 since Ecuador has been involved with these planes in both South Africa and at home for over a year.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20518/
Reports the buy.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Cheetahs-and-Mirage-50s-for-Ecudaor-05832/
Does the same and details it as well. It'll show these to be upgraded versions of the CHEETAH C as well.

A2. ADD: THAILAND/GRIPEN C (TJAS 39C)/OCT 2011/Use SWEDISH UNITS 327- 329 for the base./ These are brand new fighters. The GRIPEN C is the single seat 4th generation interceptor version.
http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/JAS-39C-Gripen_a000532001.aspx A good quick look.

A3. ADD: THAILAND/GRIPEN D (TJAS 39D)/OCT 2011/Use SWEDISH UNITS NONE (?) for the base./ As above except that the GRIPEN D is the two seat 4th generation fighter-bomber version with heavier payload.
http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/JAS-39D-Gripen_a000532002.aspx
As above. The rest below cover the deal plus more for both.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/thailand-buying-jas-39-gripens-awacs-04022/#more-4022
When you can get the full articles they're hard to beat.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20615/
SAAB comes to Thailand in partnership deal.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20612/
Thailand orders more GRIPEN C fighters.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-for-Thailand/
Click on tabs at top for further info.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/
Homepage that'll allow you too find info on all current user nations.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen/Gripen/Technical-specifications/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/jas_39_gripen.htm
Though older, provides good background info note chart to left (Normal feature of site.) weapons section.

D1. DELETE: RUSSIA/Su -47 BERKUT/UNIT 170/
This is strictly a prototype/demonstrator craft.

C1. CHANGE: RUSSIA/Su-50/UNIT963/Name to either Su PAK FA or Su-50 PAK FA vice Su-50./
This might avoid confusion with the T-50 that was the prototype and puts it in line with net searches as normally known simply as PAF FA.
Posts #3; #5 and #9.

Regards,
Pat

Marcello

February 13th, 2011, 04:26 AM

Lot's of news here:
1. Was the J-20 "combat" video rigged?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8291729/China-red-faced-after-footage-of-new-fighter-was-from-Top-Gun.html#
Pat

That would actually be the J-10, which is a rather different beast: a cheap export fighter, though perhaps it could be used to boost numbers as the J-7 retires.
The J-20 is still far away from any kind of "combat test".
As for what happened, I would reckon that the PR department thought that the footage of J-10 shooting at a drone was not sexy enough.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 13th, 2011, 01:36 PM

Thank you Marcello, I stand corrected.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 20th, 2011, 02:51 PM

The news of the week.

How to help kill the troubled F-35 program, recover and then continue the debate anyway.

1. We want the second engine for redundancy and to protect jobs.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22050/

2. Almost made it but, the House kills it in the end.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22121/

3. But could a little "dejueve" still happen? Remember the F-16 had the same problem. Here's that story and as it might apply to the F-35 still.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f136-engine-more-lives-than-disco-03070/#f136-fighter-engine-debate

4. Costs have reached a major tipping point.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22071/
Anyone who assumes any program is safe had better read the updates I've posted concerning MEADS in the Patriot update thread.

Now for the only true 5th Gen fighter out there for now anyway.

1. F-22 gets a whole lot of $love$.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22140/

2. F-22 update of the program and overview.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/

A400M begins air refueling trials.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22087/

APKWS II coming to a HARRIER and A-10 near you!
Well with the success in combat of the USMC laser guided APKWS on the AH-1W and soon AH-1Z it was only a matter of time before the much more accurate and thus more concentrated fire power of the system would make it's way to jets. I only wonder is the USA maybe going to second guess itself down the road and put them on the APACHES?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apkws-ii-hellfire-jr-hydra-rockets-enter-sdd-phase-02193/#more-2193

The surprise of the week the V-22 OSPREY, perception now vs reality.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22095/

The stupidity award goes to the U.K. how in the world can a right minded military do this when so many are so close to finishing their quals?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8322136/Quarter-of-RAF-trainee-pilots-to-be-sacked-in-defence-spending-cull.html#
Got this off the "did".com site as above for APKWS article.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 27th, 2011, 03:04 AM

The news of the past week.

1. A perspective of why the U.S. wants Asia to buy American.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22220/

2. Naval version of EUROFIGHTER (TYPHOON) debuts @ Aero India 2011.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22214/

3. Jordon to convert 2 CN-235 medium transport planes into light gunships (As compared to SPECTRE and SPOOKY gunships.). The USAF & USMC looking at the same as I've already eluded to (For next year.) in this thread and the AC-130 Time to Upgrade? thread. These are roll on roll off suites. The USMC KC-130J will soon be used in that role and will still maintain one refueling pod as well to perform that function as well. See Post #21 above on USAF and USMC efforts.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Jordans-Pocket-Gunships-CN-235s-Converting-06778/#more-6778

4. Israel doing what it does best, upgrading equipment and making it much better.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-kicks-off-program-to-improve-its-f16s-and-f15s-01796/#more-1796

5. SAAB GRIPENS arrive in Thailand.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/thailand-buying-jas-39-gripens-awacs-04022/

6. Japan working towards it's own fighter. How will they get there though?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/02/14/AW_02_14_2011_p32-288738.xml&headline=Japan%27s%20Roadmap%20To%20An%20Indigenou s%20Fighter
Off the "did.com" site.

7. India looking to phase out it's MiG 17 and MiG 27 fighters by 2017. Will they get there it's hard to say given the issues they have procuring systems or "should we or shouldn't we" over the years.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22282/

Note to self, follow up for 2011/2012 campaign.
Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 7th, 2011, 01:53 AM

News of last week.

Well for a thread I was hesitant to start it's been the most active in development of new systems and procurement and I think could have the most inputs for the 2011/2012 campaign.

1. I will slow down on the F-35 but it met a major milestone this week and there arose an issue in procurement with Canada. But the program I feel is all of a sudden out of the woods, it's amazing how cutting a few high profile programs will motivate others to get their poop together. And I'm all about motivation. So I'm going to limit things to major milestones, projected procurement issues and fielding of the F-35.

A. I'm in this group to some small degree (As some might guess.) but it goes to what I mentioned above.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22504/

1. The first production F-35 makes a successful flight.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22389/
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/03/first-production-f-35-takes-to-skies.html
I really like the above site he's not afraid to put his opinions out there with the information to back it up.

2. Canada debating the procurement of the F-35 due to cost delays against budget for it.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22467/

B. India could come to a decision this week in the MMRCA program.
This will represent one of the largest procurement programs ever made if the numbers hold. And that procurement goes beyond just jets to include weapons and support.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/02/european-fighters-lead-mmrca-race.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/02/iaf-chiefs-googly-on-wrapping-mmrca.html

C. Chinese J-20 not all that, at least for now?
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22526/

D. Frances A400M on the cusp to reach production.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw110223_1_n.shtml

E. S. Korea to step up it's FX-111 procurement program by one year in lue of N. Korea military overt actions and force build up and modernization programs.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdi/jdi110202_1_n.shtml

F. As a reminder let's not forget as I've mentioned elsewhere that the PAK-FA Su-50 is not[B] just a Russian program, it's a joint one that India is very happy to be a part of given recent events with China and the J-20 (See above and on earlier posts here.). A second PAK-FA has just successfully taken to the skies this past week.
[B]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-russia-in-negotiations-re-nextgeneration-fighter-03133/
Unfortunately when they update you get the poor mans version.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22582/
Pic:
10877

G. This next makes me feel just :sick: this was not intended to happen but as I mentioned in the MBT thread earlier today the British SDSR plan is cutting deeper than originally planned. The HARRIER was sacrificed (All retired in Dec. 2010.) in the view that the TORNADO was the more viable solution until the F-35 become available to the RAF and RN. This past week it was announced that 13 AND 14 Squadron(s) will be disbanded and stood down on 1 June 2011. And the beat goes on.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22474/
Pic:
10878

H. A little supposition on my part on the destination the first is fact based. Russian had intended that Libya would be the first export country to get the very capable Su-35. But with the current UN sanctions in place the deal has been canceled for now. Like the S-300 meant for Iran don't be surprised if the Su-35 doesn't go to Venezuela :shock: as well.
Pic:
10879

Done for another week, hope you all have a great one!!

Regards,
Pat
Follow up for the FX-111 program AND 2011/2012 campaign.

P.S.
Noticed when "timed out" as happened with this post and an earlier one, when logging back in (Using the middle box, not the log in at upper right.) and hoping
something is there, it now is, the full post where left off at.
Somebody must have fixed something so thank you from this "hunt and peck" (I was tempted.) person.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 8th, 2011, 02:50 AM

Here's the follow up to yesterday (Sunday) concerning the S. Korean XF-111
Program for your info.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4202866
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4709554
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news108813.html
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20110303-266246.html

Refs touch on Japanese stealth program, hope to have more on that for this weekends news roundup.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 13th, 2011, 03:48 PM

News of the past week.

1. As promised some background on the Japanese Stealth Fighter program. It can find it's origins in the F-2 program, and the next with the stop gap measures and plan to get to this fighter.
Japan decided to go on it's own after it was unable to attain the F-22. They are considering the F-35 though no firm decision has been made.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lockheed-mitsubishis-f2-fighter-partnership-03188/#readings
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/02/14/AW_02_14_2011_p32-288738.xml&headline=Japan's%20Roadmap%20To%20An%20Indigenous% 20Fighter&prev=10
Second off the "DID" site as well.
Pic:
10888

2. A mixed week of good news and bad for the F-35 but in keeping with my continued approach to the F-35 as outlined last week.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22660/
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5938613&c=AME&s=AIR

3. Egypt wants to buy 24 new F-16C/D in the latest Block 50/52 configuration.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Egypt-to-Spend-32B-in-Updating-F-16CD-Fleet-05860/

4. BAE signs contract to produce the APKWS fixed wing rockets for USMC and USAF testing over the next 27 monthes. They are planned for use on both the AV-8B HARRIER and
A-10 THUNDERBOLT II.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22638/

5. GUARDIAN AMS has started testing with the KC-135 190th Air Refueling Wing. If successful it will be deployed on other types of planes. If not deployed on SPECTRE or SPOOKEY if the program moves on would suggust they have something better. The GUARDIAN is intended for the "slow movers".
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22671/

Follow up on this.
:capt:

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 27th, 2011, 01:55 AM

News of the last two weeks.

1. First flight for the GRIPEN D of the RTAF they got them and we have them too now in the game.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22922/

2. More on the GUARDIAN System, coming to a "slow mover" near you.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/22856/

3. The Aussies are hanging tough with the F-35 as are the Canadians, however, in Canada it may have near term ramifications for the current government.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23092/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Preparing-to-Replace-its-CF-18-Hornets-05739/#canadian-fighter-jets

4. The F-22 breaks the sound barrier using a bio fuel, the source of which is revealed (Confirmed.) as well.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23002/
Pic:
10929

5. It's been coming for sometime now, and now it's finally made official, big changes are being made to Russian Naval Air units.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110323/163161296.html
Off "DID" again.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 3rd, 2011, 04:46 PM

News of the last week...

1. From a partnership that started with Yakovlev, Italy's Aermacchi has developed one of the most advanced trainers in the world, the M-346 a highly modified version of the YAK-130 Russian trainer. Both can be used as light attack aircraft as well, with the M-346 having nine weapon hard-points on it. The M-346 is so advanced as to allow flight certification for the
F-22. It is now fielded.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23360/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/aermacchi_m346_master.htm
Pics:
10973 10974 10975

2. Danish DIFAT team looking to improve their fighter capabilities beyond its current F-16s.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6109179&c=AIR&s=TOP

3. USAF got the first of its MC-130J COMBAT SHADOW II Spec Op planes with much improved capabilities to penetrate enemy airspace.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23253/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 28th, 2011, 02:39 AM

News from the LW+

1. Always wanted that swimming pool but were concerned about how long it would take just to clear your property and dig the hole?
Well the USAF has the solution for you, called Big BLU by some!!
With Big BLU you'll even be able to go deep diving! Seriously this could be the most effective "perpetrator" bomb ever designed. The primary platforms are the B-52H and B-2. It is in low rate production. Well maybe the GBU-43 MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) might be better to clear your property with.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mopping-up-the-usas-30000-pound-bomb-03172/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

2. MOD: The B-1B is being modified to carry triple it's normal bomb load. Ouch!!
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23620/

3. Do we want to add these weapons to the collection? SLAM ER, SDB II are here.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23620/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23395/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Raytheon-Wins-USAs-GBU-53-Small-Diameter-Bomb-Competition-06510/

4. MOD?: TYPOON gets new weapons in the precision guided air to surface category. The Germany, Spain and Italy will soon use the EGBU-16 while the UK has chosen the PAVEWAY II. Current load to be at 6 of these missile types, see inset photo for layout.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23587/

5. Remember what I said about India watching events in Libya to make a decision about it's MMRCA Program? Well it's in the last post of this thread, but it seems they're not the only ones as, France and the U.S. are expressing serious interest in the BRIMSTONE Multi-Purpose ATGW Air to Ground Missile.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6273718&c=AME&s=AIR

6. China developing the J-18 VSTOL Fighter, probably are CBS News here showed a video of the J-15 which will be a carrier based jet reversed engineered from one purchased by the Ukraine
(Su-33? Also as part of the Carrier deal.) as Russia would not sell the jet themselves to the Chinese.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6301965&c=ASI&s=AIR

7. MOD: F-35 news in order of refs, 1. F-35 by law is critically over budget. 2. U.S. Program Manager indicates the program is still in trouble and delayed again with testing now through 2016 and fielded by 2018. 3. Norwegian political parties calling for a cost review. Canada is doing this now as well as already reported on in this thread. 4. F-35B moving on.
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14411
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6292185&c=AME&s=AIR
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6290641&c=air;%20policy&s=TOP
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23933/

Finally as it's getting late and it was a long hot day today, we say goodbye to another piece of equipment that has served it's country well for over 25 years.

8. The F3 TORNADO shown here 11118 , sorry wrong one and we've seen unfortunately enough of these here over the last few weeks ourselves, anyway it has served as the primary Interceptor for the RAF over the UK for the last 25 years. It will be replaced by the recently upgraded GR.4 TORNADO's which is the FB version of the TORNADO. The F3 was planned to be retired this year for sometime but, was moved along for cost savings. So as with the GR.4 HARRIER, to the air and ground crews of the F3 TORNADO we salute you for a job well done!! Us "Bubbleheads" are such nice people.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tornadof3.cfm
http://www.globalaviationresource.com/reports/2011/f3retirement.php
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/
Pics:
11120 11119

FOLLOW UP HERE!! :capt:
Regards,
Pat

Marcello

April 29th, 2011, 02:14 PM

2. MOD: The B-1B is being modified to carry triple it's normal bomb load. Ouch!!
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23620/

Something similar was done to the B-2 some time ago. A korean driven modification in all likelyhood.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 30th, 2011, 03:09 AM

In my last post #31; Item 1. , is the perfect example of how to spell check your way to "stupidity" :doh:, of course "perpetrator" should've read "penetrative". To our friends across the pond, thank you and congradulations for a wonderful day yesterday! It was good to see something positive for a change in the news, it would've been made only better if the shuttle would've lifted off on schedule with it's back story as well.

Good Night/Morning!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

April 30th, 2011, 08:42 PM

"how to spell check your way to "stupidity" "

Been there........done that. :)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 10th, 2011, 01:32 AM

News of the LW+

1. The first serial Su-35S (PAK-FA) takes flight.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24221/

2. Electronics, improved avionics and expected future areas of operations have brought the light attack aircraft back into favor with many "major" air forces again. Could the AT-6 be the answer for the USAF?
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23995/

3. ADD: Will need to confirm this against the OOB list but this buy could make the list.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23945/

4. MOD: With strong Russian support and delays in other programs the IAF is looking to upgrade it's MIG-29 fighters.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indias-fighter-modernization-add-mig29s-to-the-list-updated-01879/

5. Well some might have scuffed at the notion I presented over the last few weeks about India watching events in Libya to narrow the field of competition in it's MMRCA Program. Well the signs were there you just had to pay attention. The no shows were eliminated (See earlier posts this thread.) and then there were three except one was also a no show at the dance as well.
Though except for a radar issue it might've moved on, I guess Thailand was more patient.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23959/

So India has finally narrowed the field to two and they are performing at the Libyan dance to some degree better then expected as are some of the weapons, BRIMSTONE in particular (See previous post I believe.) is getting attention by others. There's some good reading here!
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/04/sorry-forgot-to-post-yesterdays-article.html
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/805/?SID=af2dd5ace697af7c8fa32eb454a62c92

6. I don't know when these were released but a little bonus from CINCLANTHOME off the Facebook site of my old boat the USS Providence SSN-719. All info is from the site and I was there.

A. June 1987 the score is 2-0 the USN fly-boys are winning the game. Gaddafi told us if you cross the "line of death" in the Gulf of Sudra we would suffer the consequences. Well we didn't listen. This was meant to be a media event covered by something called CNN back then, but the situation was too hot.
MK-48 vs Ex-USN/Decommissioned Italian destroyer that was watertight with instrumentation on-board to measure the affects of flooding etc.
Pics:
11137 11138

B. Off the coast of Port Canaveral FL. in 1988 the Providence was the first VLS boat in the fleet and as told by my old CO at my retirement ceremony we didn't know that as the picture shows the missile was going to go back "over our heads" needless to say it caused some excitement for the chase planes!
Pic:
11139

It was a great way to make a living but, it's good to be home.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 15th, 2011, 02:11 AM

News of LW.

1. USAF looking into Light Attack planes again.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24453/
Pic:
11152

2. First production F-35 delivered to the USAF for further evaluation.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24328/

3. With the START Treaty now in effect the numbers game can now begin. Non Nuclear use seen for B-52H and B-2 bombers from reduced Nuclear force.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/05/air-force-non-nuclear-use-for-bombers-050911w/

4. The BUFF will keep flying until 2040.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Up-to-119B-for-B-52H-Maintenenace-Modernization-06583/
Pics:
11148 11149

5. SU-35S begins flight testing.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Russias-SU-35-Mystery-Fighter-No-More-04969/
Pic:
11150

6. Something a little different here, the FIREBIRD MALE.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/05/06/awx_05_06_2011_p0-318896.xml

7. Pilot-less and very stealthy, the X-45 UCAV.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Ride-on-the-Ray-Boeings-X-45-UCAVs-05421/
Pic:
11151

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 29th, 2011, 01:13 PM

1. Well at least "To big to fail" might have worked for the banks in 2008 (And that might not happen again-the bailout.) but in the area of defence the highway is littered with programs that have such as the EFV, U.S. SLAMRAAM (Development phase completed, to avoid program termination penalties.) and the most expensive yet MEADS (Funded to FY13 to complete developmental phase to avoid 100's of millions of dollars in program termination fees itself.) The F-35 AGAIN finds itself in the spot light for all the wrong reasons this past week due to cost overruns, program delays, per unit costs that have almost more than doubled and as part of the GAO report that cited the maintenance costs are going to be much higher then expected. All this has already been posted here in the last few weeks. It is NOT a good idea to have one of the most powerful Senators and supporter of the military call your program into question especially during these fiscal times. And if your Lockheed Martin I'd be very concerned over the amount of funding has all of a sudden gone into the F-22 and the fact that several of your potential customers for the F-35 have openly stated they would rather buy the F-22 over your plane. It kind of has to make you really think of why we won't sell an export version of the F-22 but we'll do so with the F-35. Makes you wonder which is really the better fighter doesn't it? But then I've already posted that here as well from one of the most respected aviation think tanks in the world with their analysis of the jets in question and a couple of others. You can pull up the full GAO report at the bottom of the first ref. Again with DEFPRO sources are listed in the upper upper right corner.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24686/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24736/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

A. The F-22 picture, though not always a pretty one either, it's advantage it's already here and we're committed to it.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/

B. See Post #9 last item on bottom for PAK-FA, F-22 and F-35 combat analisis both are good reading, again AUSA is a highly respected avaition think tank.

2. India buys some new bombs, and my answer to the question I think will be a deciding factor in the MMRCA competition. Of note this is a standard weapon already carried by the B-52H,
B-1B and B-2 bombers.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/India-Requests-GPS-Guided-Cans-of-Whup-***-05100/

Regards,
Pat

Marcello

May 29th, 2011, 01:51 PM

I believe the reasoning was that the F-22 was to be the tip of the spear, sweeping the skies of enemy fighters. The F-35 was to be the less capable/expensive workhorse. Selling the latter instead of the former made sense as foreign sales increase the chance of it being compromised by foreign intelligence: iranian F-14s anyone? Better risk the F-35 rather than the F-22.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 17th, 2011, 01:21 AM

1. They won't except NO for an answer.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/05/rejected-mmrca-vendors-fight-to-return.html

2. F-35C.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/02/357450/lockheed-f-35c-emerges-as-candidate-for-future-us-navy.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 3rd, 2011, 02:43 AM

Another "resting" piece of equipment awaiting a final delivery date before posting to the PP for game inclusion. The Czech and Iraqi governments are very close to a deal to send about 25 L-159A MP Light Attack aircraft to Iraq. These are very capable and modern aircraft that can handle NATO ordnance. Also will recheck, but it appears this might be an add for Czechoslovakia and Hungry(?) as well though they've been in service since around 2000. Ref A check under Iraqi Air Force section.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Iraqi-Security-Forces-Order-of-Battle-June-2011-06920/#more-6920
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/l159/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/l159/specs.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/czech-l-159s-cheap-to-good-home-03494/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/24770/
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110419/163588129.html

Pics:
11209 11210

Regards,
Pat
UPDATE: for CAF it'll be a mod to add an extra 20mm cannon it has two of them. For Hungry the L-159A will be an ADD.
FOLLOW UP FOR IRAQI DEAL.:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 4th, 2011, 12:07 PM

Still cleaning up the favorites list of the "junk" to just get to my core refs for the PP.

1. F-22 still grounded though they're closer to finding the root cause and also checking into other planes including the F-35 for the same issue.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/16/358103/f-22-grounding-continues-as-oxygen-safety-probe-widens.html

2. The hammer starting to fall with just a tap for now as the U.S. Senate tightens up on the cost overruns of the F-35.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6845494&c=AME&s=TOP

3. The F-35 delays are causing the USAF (F-16), USN (FA-18) and USMC (AV-8B) to put money back into existing platforms to keep them flying and relevant. Another case of unintended consequences of the delays and the Congress has their calculators out tracking this as well as these a + in $ in the cost evaluations as previously reported.
http://defensenews.com/blogs/paris-air-show-2011/2011/06/23/more-upgrades-seen-for-usaf-f-16s/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f18-hornets-keeping-em-flying-02816/
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/15/report-marines-to-harvest-u-k-harriers-for-spares/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/3640323/Top-brass-fury-as-US-buys-Harriers-for-peanuts.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 15th, 2011, 02:29 AM

Just a bit of news.
1. Though $400,000,000 looks to be cut from the Defence Budget in light of our current financial situation, there has been plenty of discussion that this number could possibly be doubled or more. Which makes this next story very interesting.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7099888&c=AME&s=AIR

2. In a related story and one I posted earlier, South Korea has seen the writing on the wall at least with the chronic delays in the F-35 program and has found the partner they needed to go forward with their Stleath Fighter program, it's just now official.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1980:-indonesia-mod-to-participate-in-korean-kf-x-program&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56

3. I think we got this within a month in the last patch.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news124051.html
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/26137/

4. Though I just left a similiar question concerning "light gunships" on the PP thread, this would be a different issue for Italy if the program "gets off the ground".
http://defensenews.com/blogs/paris-air-show-2011/2011/06/22/alenia-plans-c-27j-gunship/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 15th, 2011, 11:37 AM

To the above post, I missed a set of zeros, it should read $400 Billion possibly being raised to $800 Billion over the next five to ten years depending on the actions of the government. Sorry for any confusion.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 23rd, 2011, 01:40 AM

1. You just ever have one of those bad weeks? It seems like myself and the USAF are having many of those lately.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/856/

2. F-22 grounding problem solved?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7149120&c=AME&s=AIR

3. UK dispels HARRIER rumors.
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065930045&channel=defence

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 9th, 2011, 03:16 AM

I'll be on hiatus for a while, as I have 25 excellent reasons why I have to go, however they'd be too long to list them here. Suffice to say a couple of people know why due to the state of my current project. But I wish to leave for you all that are interested in such things the following site info and the opportunity to view the main site for it's reference purposes as well. The link below will list every countries Air Force/Naval current and ordered status of fighters, transports and helos through the end of 2010. The file is in PDF format. You WILL need to fill out the basic request form first. For those like myself that had to sign "documents" for employment purposes, under the company name info I simply put USN Ret. and this was accepted so feel free to use what you want there. This would be an excellent tool for verifying current OOB status etc. and just great general info. Sorry simple "cut and paste" didn't work and I don't want to just post the PDF without knowing for sure if I'd violate any copyright issues at this time. So I hope you'll find this helpful.
http://www.flightglobal.com/page/world-airforces-report-2010/

Enjoy!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
ALWAYS ON WATCH AND LOOKOUT! Well sometimes anyway!?! Good Night!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 16th, 2011, 02:32 PM

For those who doubt decent analysis, I'll start with see
Post #44 above, and ask Don not to dispose of the GR.7 & 9 data as it'll be needed for the CORPS. The U.S. DOD is about to purchase UK's GR.7 & 9 HARRIERS for the USMC. This will keep the HARRIER flying through the mid 2020's as the HORNET D Series gets phased out and the USMC experiences further delays with the F-35B.
See defenceindustrydaily.com RAPID FIRE 11/14/2011 section. This links to a defencenews.com article that as reported already will not link to archival articles for some reason.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2534:us-marines-to-acquire-74-ex-british-harriers&catid=37:north-america&Itemid=59
gotta get ready for work!!

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 17th, 2011, 09:26 AM

Do you speculate the Corp will fit them with 30mm cannon or left without ?

Gurachn

November 17th, 2011, 10:21 AM

I'll be on hiatus for a while, as I have 25 excellent reasons why I have to go, ...ALWAYS ON WATCH AND LOOKOUT! Well sometimes anyway!?! Good Night!

Hope its not too long of a hiatus, Pat.
Always enjoy your interesting and well researched posts.
Godspeed, and best of luck with your project.

-G

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 18th, 2011, 05:00 AM

Well let me start by saying I just lost over an hours worth of work in trying to answer you guys when the screen "fluttered" and my reply was gone and I was returned to the "last page" was I in a maintenance period or something?
Anyway-
Don
Yes, to clarify AV-8B carries the GAU-12 25mm "EQUALIZER" as used on SPECTRE, SPOOKEY and LAV-AD. All use(d) DU rounds for all platforms just named. And does this make them AP rounds since they're from DU origin? Anyway AV-8B uses the same pods that used to carry the twin ADEN 30mm cannons on early UK HARRIERS (GR.3 I believe was last to have them.), AV-8B uses the Port side pod the carry the GAU-12, Starboard pod carries 300 rounds. USMC uses the 30mm on their MC-130 "Light" gunships, same ones the USAF discarded on the SPOOKEY+4 planes we fixed in last years Patch Post/Release. UK would drop ADEN for short ranged AAM. Real issue will UK keep SNIPER (1) Pods and USMC back fit to LITENING (2) II Pods as now carried? We use both (1) A-10, B1B etc. and (2) AV-8B, B-52 etc. I say LITENING for the sake of conformity and all that implies. The worst thing is for us a great deal for the UK not so after spending almost 2 Billion Pounds to improve the GR.9 and bring the remaining GR.7 to the GR.9 standard. Also see Posts #12-#16.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/gau-12.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-alq-164.htm
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=47
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/harriergr9/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/harrier/

Pics:
GR.9 note in first the SNIPER Pod on Port side. Next BRIMSONE that performed so well in Libya and has caused great interest by both the USAF & USMC.
11464 11465

AV-8B in first note GAU-12 25mm "EQUALIZER" on Port side and Ammo Pod w/300 rounds on Starboard side.
11467 11466

G-
Thank You! All is well 25 reasons was for 25th Wedding Ann. with CINCLANTHOME, Daughters wedding the following week and months of work issues surrounding our new contract, new employer, rehire process etc. and the main project trying to make head way on the 2011/2012 Patch Posts. PP #2 is started FINALLY!! Preview for #2 moving ahead w/OPLOT for Thailand, finally have what I needed to close it out, BPM-97 for Russia new info shows assigned to army now see APC THREAD as this was submitted as a "maybe" 2yrs ago, and a couple of other vehicles. Helos fixes for USMC MV-22 OSPREY, UH-1Y, SAF ROOIVALK, UK PUMA HC1, ADD RUSSIA Mi-35 (Mi-24V) + Verify carry 8P even in gunship config it never lost carry ability, Verify/Add CH-47F to USA, UK, Turkey with CH-47G for USA Spec Op config. If within time limits as agreed btwn Don and myself Add India APACHE 64-D. If I can finish this soon hopefully it's #3 Jets after that think B-1B, B-52, A-10, HARRIER, F-15SE, F/A-18D(?), F/A 18E/F combined with SNIPER and LITENING Pods this will have Vision and FC repercussions for the game as it now has had in the battlefield, have video showing a real world target at 25NM (50,000YDS) on a SNIPER Pod cockpit display looking like the plane is on "top of it". Preview for everyone else update for others.
I even got to use some naval terms , what a GREAT way to end the day!!
Gotta get some sleep later is another day at the "office".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

November 18th, 2011, 09:10 AM

........does this make them AP rounds since they're from DU origin?

Pat, Aircraft "AP" ratings come from the weapon "HE" ratings.

The AP slot .........

MOBHACK HELP

Class 11 air cannon can only use HE ammo as the AP round number is used as the number of cannon, so if they have an armour piercing capability then this is reflected in an HE AP rating, not an AP round rating

So the 25mm GAU-12 has a penetration rating of 6

Don

Mobhack

November 18th, 2011, 11:00 AM

Well let me start by saying I just lost over an hours worth of work in trying to answer you guys when the screen "fluttered" and my reply was gone and I was returned to the "last page" was I in a maintenance period or something?

<snippage>

If you are preparing a long post in order to avoid losing it to internet "flutters", then copy all the text in the edit box (right click and use select all from the pop-up menu) and then save it (paste) to an open copy of your favourite text editor.

To be double sure, save the text editor copy as a disk file like "tmp.txt" (in case of a power outage, say).

Then if it barfs, you can re-reply to the original post, and copy and paste the text into the edit box.

Naturally the time you don't follow this procedure is the time it will go off into the ether ... :)

Cheers
Andy

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 18th, 2011, 01:12 PM

Don and Andy,
Thank You! Good information is never a waste of anyones time.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

November 19th, 2011, 09:48 PM

Any time I write up something long for the forums I do so in Outlook express first saving every couple of paragraphs to the drafts folder, then when it's done paste it into the forum post but, as Andy says, it's the time you forget is the time it craps out......... Murphys Law

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 30th, 2011, 03:26 AM

Well as reported on the previous page, the UK has sold it's HARRIER fleet the U.S. for the USMC on the 25th.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/30159/

Regards,
Pat

dmnt

December 3rd, 2011, 04:07 PM

Finnish CASA 295 seems to be missing from the OOB 5.5:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/finland-orders-c295-light-transports-02232/

http://web.archive.org/web/20090626084737/http://www.mil.fi/ilmavoimat/tiedotteet/2884.dsp

First one received March 6th 2007.
Second one received March 30th 2007.

Fokker F-27's will be phased out of service. (12/2014?)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 11th, 2011, 01:12 PM

Just wanted to put this information where it belongs. These videos show why the bomber/fighter bomber issue should see some improvement in the game primarily in the area of vision and to some degree targeting as these systems are tied into the on board weapons systems. I'm not all about air, though I have my favorites such as SPOOKY etc., as much as trying to improve elements of the game as much as my (Others) supporting refs will allow the developers to do so with the game architecture.
The newest version of LITENING is now pretty much on par with SNIPER and you will hear the comparison made in the first video. The key here is the range the video shot from an adjusted 11NM out on what appears to be an air museum as you'll see an SR-1 just above and to the left of the B-52.
1. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Sniper/SniperATPVideo2.html

2. Next is an overview of it's capabilities, platforms to include helos (AH-1Z w/TSS shown.) and targeting video scenes. The portion I described as 25NM is actually 35NM, it's been awhile since I last looked, as indicated in the MBT Post #183 most recently, I've had some of this for awhile now as noted.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Sniper/SniperVideo1.html

3. The last shows it's air to air capabilities, point being nothing on the ground or water will get away. Also at an extended range.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Sniper/SniperVideo3.html

This is my direction with the air issue though there are some EW improvements to be made on a handful of units such as the B-52 also.

I acknowledge the MALD-J answer here as well-thank you!

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

December 11th, 2011, 06:55 PM

Between this and laser guided bombs maybe the Air Force can finally live up to it's claims.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 11th, 2011, 09:13 PM

My point exactly, if memory serves JDAM and other guided aerial weapons are already in the game. These pods just put the Precision back into the Precision weapons already in the game if you catch "my drift" here. But I have armor and helo issues to address first so unfortunately I will have to put this off a third year, besides Don is up to "a..es and elbows" with work as is anyway. There is some good work being done in other areas that we all might benefit from. But Jets... will be pri one for next year starting shortly after the holidays. I really feel this could be a pivot point for air in the game, we'll see.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

December 11th, 2011, 11:28 PM

scJazz

December 11th, 2011, 11:53 PM

Only if Andy is up for some significant work.

While it's, of course, impossible for me to know exactly how game results were generated without seeing the source code ... I do have a BS in Comp Sci, so I have a fair idea what it must look like based on the data the games uses and the observable results in-game.

And it's going to involve significant work to the aircraft target selection, hit probability, anti-aircraft, and blue-on-blue code.

Ya it looks like at some point someone said "hey we want ME-109s strafing". Then they glommed on some code. Then some more. Then even more. Until it was a massively kludged pile of spaghetti.

Don't forget it should also get some kind of CB Air vs Air thing going on.

Suhiir

December 12th, 2011, 12:56 PM

The code, as is. works pretty well for WW II, Korea, or Vietnam. But it was never written with modern air capabilities in mind. For the simple reason they did not exist then the code was written :angel

DRG

December 12th, 2011, 01:10 PM

On the contrary..... the base code for this was SP2 which was the "modern" game............ that is, unless you only count "modern" as being after 1996.

Don

Suhiir

December 12th, 2011, 04:58 PM

On the contrary..... the base code for this was SP2 which was the "modern" game............ that is, unless you only count "modern" as being after 1996.

Don

I stand corrected.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 12th, 2011, 10:34 PM

Then I shall proceed with Patch Post #1 for the 2012/2013 campaign. :cool: Well after the holidays and a game or two, I know those AI Chinese are plotting against my Thai troops! ;)

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 24th, 2011, 03:48 AM

Well as I try to stay on topic as much as possible, it would be embarrassing not to on a thread I started, with that in mind I'll start with the following first before I get to a highly rumored and classified USAF asset that will make the F-22 or F-35 look like well...I just can't make a reasonable comparison it's just that much faster, longer flying (No aerial refueling required.) and carries a much bigger payload. I'm surprised this picture even leaked out! It might be meant to keep the Chinese off balance after the embarrassment suffered by the U.S. earlier in the year over the J-20 unveiling while former SECDEF Gates was in China. Anyway here's the first...

1. This caused some confusion last year as to "who" is NAVAIR and what do they do. The air and weapons sections might be most useful as a "quick-look" tool in modeling these for game purposes.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm

The next came off the Defence Industry Daily site.

2. Now this USAF asset fell under the classified program name of "SLEIGHER" but after some further discussion to include NORAD they dropped the "ER". The new name is Survivable Laser-guided Express Integrated Gift Handling SYSTEM or SLEIGH for short.
Pic:
11592 Amazing isn't it!?! ;)
I hope however you celebrate it...Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!!

Regards,
Pat

scJazz

December 24th, 2011, 02:01 PM

:doh:

LOL

Yup I fell for it

Merry *insert holiday*

Suhiir

December 24th, 2011, 05:29 PM

1. This caused some confusion last year as to "who" is NAVAIR and what do they do.

Many and legendary are the battles between NAVAIR and Marine Corps Aviation.
In many respects USMC aviation is a component of NAVAIR.

Marcello

December 25th, 2011, 05:45 AM

On the contrary..... the base code for this was SP2 which was the "modern" game............ that is, unless you only count "modern" as being after 1996.

Don

To be fair by 1996 the impact and ubiquitousness of JDAMs was yet to be appreciated. PGMs have gone from being a specialized weapon to be the standard attack munition.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 7th, 2012, 03:09 AM

The UK is concerned about the future of the F-35. Originally plans were for the UK to purchase the F-35B, however, with the longer delays in that part of the program to include a 2yr probation on the project imposed by the Pentagon last summer, the UK has now opted for the F-35C version for the new Queen Elisabeth Class carriers now under construction. And to an earlier question asked the current per unit cost stands at ~113 million dollars. Article is taken from the "DID" site.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h5c91-iX5zECIDtxJwTgsgq1PLaA?docId=CNG.7cfc4255d4a69a6a0 af06ac7a078863d.4f1

I don't think it unreasonable for background to post this companion article on the carriers.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future-carrier-updated-01630/

A change of pace or distraction seems to be in order about now!?!
;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 14th, 2012, 11:28 PM

Jan 11, 2012
First production F-35B's delivered to USMC.
Marine Corps student pilots will probably start flying the Lightning II around August 2012.

News Article (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/01/defense-marine-f-35b-stovl-arrive-at-eglin-011112/)

DRG

January 15th, 2012, 03:17 PM

What the average time from training on a new aircraft to deployment ?

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 15th, 2012, 03:57 PM

Saw your post as I was ready to post on something different that surprised me which will follow...based on the info I provided concerning the Thai acquisition of the GRIPEN, about one year. See Page #3 Post #21 Item A3. this thread from last years Patch Post input.
Now for the surprise...we'll need to extend the service life of the German F-4 by 13 years as it stands right now. Current end game time is 2000. Before my time, here's a couple of refs. We cannot just increase end time unless it's done as a stop gap. The F-4 in Germany has undergone several upgrades since that need proper evaluation that the Patch Post provides or someone else's version thereof. Right now I have already plenty to support Dec. 2013 or 2014 as the best end date. Here's what got the ball rolling on this, because I thought they went away myself a handful of years ago from the LUFTWAFFE. The last ref is one of the most famous units in the LUFTWAFFE and the CO said for this article 2014, they are the last SDQ. to have and are a little plane heavy. As a side note 20 F-4 have been offered to CROTIA for free to replace their older MiG-21 fighters.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31107/
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009465
http://www.touchdown-aviation.com/reports/2009/jagdgeschwader-71-richthofen.php
http://www.touchdown-aviation.com/reports/2009/jagdgeschwader-71-richthofen.php
The pictures are great and I like the idea if possible to at least offer country prototypical photos of equipment where practical and without causing undue stress.

Have to get dinner going, I'm just a multi talented guy and CINCLANTHOME can use the break. ;)

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 15th, 2012, 05:42 PM

Sorry forgot to post the German F-4 UNITS are #293 & #294 for possible immediate or other life extension, sorry for the oversight.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 16th, 2012, 04:15 PM

...........The pictures are great and I like the idea if possible to at least offer country prototypical photos of equipment where practical and without causing undue stress.

Regards,
Pat

It just happens that the photo used for those German F-4 units are.........

A/ A German F-4's

and

B/ only used by the German OOB

Don

Warwick

January 19th, 2012, 01:30 AM

What the average time from training on a new aircraft to deployment ?

Don

In the case of the F-35 pick a random number and multiply by ten:- The following extracts are from Air International Feb issue.
"In far bigger trouble is the F-35A or JSF. It was once scheduled to begin training pilots and maintainers at the 33rd Fighter Wing the 'Nomads' at Elgin AFB, Florida in November 2009 but is still not doing so."

"The F-35As belatedly started to arrive at Elgin last July, beginning with aircraft 08-0747. The base had half a dozen F-35As by mid-October, the sixth being aircraft 08-0751. But Michael Gilmore the Pentagon's test and evaluation boss, decreed that no one but a qualified test pilot could safely operate the fighters. Not a single F-35A sortie has been flown at Elgin."

"The Marine Corps F-35B is in greater jeopardy than the Air Force F-35A. General Norton Schwartz USAF chief of staff has hinted strongly that the latter is a proven commodity- despite the paralysis at Elgin - and that he would gladly save the the F-35A, even if the F-35B is offered up on the altar of defence cuts."

Regards, Warwick

Suhiir

January 19th, 2012, 02:46 AM

"The Marine Corps F-35B is in greater jeopardy than the Air Force F-35A. General Norton Schwartz USAF chief of staff has hinted strongly that the latter is a proven commodity- despite the paralysis at Elgin - and that he would gladly save the the F-35A, even if the F-35B is offered up on the altar of defence cuts."

Regards, Warwick

What else is new?
Everyone "knows" the USAF "should" have total control over all aircraft assets in the USA.
Heck, the US Navy may even like the new 5x larger aircraft carriers "essential" for air operations since there is no way USAF pilots could "safely" land on the current ones.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 19th, 2012, 04:13 AM

In my further efforts to provide timely information you'll be glad to know in regards to the F-35 the NAVY is leading the way-no surprise, did we not give you "An Officer and a Gentleman", "Top Gun", "TORA TORA" or "The Bridges at Toko-Rei(?)" anyway the program had a decent year in testing however many major issues were identified as well such as airframe cracks at 2000 hrs. vs. design at 8000 hrs. This document talks of delays from 2-15 yrs. for the programs covered. So I offer some med. to heavy reading. I recommend the Directors Intro, DOD programs for F-35 and others, USAF Programs you might find the
F-22 section most interesting, on the surface of it they seem "to be all in" on the F-22 and other U.S. programs of interest to you under the service headings. I think under the USA section was some mention of the successful TRUCK programs some might find interesting. :smirk:. And this is as official as it gets...
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/

And these next few provide some interesting analysis, of course, if you have been paying attention you'll already realize what the outcome was of the first issue brought up here...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Plan-B-A-VSTOVL-Fighter-for-Taiwan-07106/
If not...
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31242/
Next...
http://defense-update.com/20111213_defending-the-homeland-japan_taiwan_air_defense.html
Bombs Away!...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/USAF-Issues-FY-2011-2016-Order-for-GBU-12-Paveway-II-Bombs-07017/
Ahhh the Maple Leaf...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Preparing-to-Replace-its-CF-18-Hornets-05739/#canadian-fighter-jets

Well that should keep you busy for awhile it did me anyway and CINCLANTHOME says I have a "Big Storage Unit" on my shoulders though that could be interpreted many ways and all so true!?!

Regards,
Pat

Don,
A bonus for you and the rest of you designers this program is moving forward...
http://defense-update.com/20111216_australian_reserve-under-_plan_beersheba.html

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2012, 02:08 PM

This is the addendum to the last post. The ref is the SUN article concerning the shipping out of the UK HARRIERS and as noted earlier the GR.7 was RESET to the GR.9 standard. For as much as I hate to say it as we (The U.S.) benefited from the sale and given the recent UK events surrounding the F-35B (Dropped for the for the F-35C.) and the Billions of Pounds spent to RESET the GR.7 & GR.9 HARRIERS (We paid 110 million Pounds all 72 jets.), you have to wonder if there's not some second guessing going on there over the whole situation. Well you know what they say "Hindsight is 20/20" and again might apply here.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article4049164.ece

For the CORPS they'll keep them flying until 2025+. But airframes are spares as well so by definition so will the UK versions because of the RESET completed in 2010 which is newer to the last such upgrades done to the AV-8 (Though electronic upgrades are on going at this time I believe.) unless my "learnard" friend from the CORPS has other info.

Anyway as Gen. Sherman or his staff referring to him would say
"I'm in high feather." today as Hi Ho Hi Ho it's off to work I go with a ...this is where you whistle...Hi Ho Hi Ho!! I really like those guys!?!

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 21st, 2012, 04:36 PM

Here's more then any sane person would want to know.

All USMC AV-8's upgraded to AV-8B Harrier II+ by 2003.

Vertical takeoff
Operational range 90 nautical miles with 3,062 kg of ordnance

Short takeoff (366 m)
Operational range 163 nautical miles with 14,061 kg of ordnance, 1 hour loiter

APG-65 radar system
Tracor ALE-39 countermeasures dispensers (x4)
7 hardpoints (6 underwing, 1 centerline, 13,200# of ordnance)
AGM-65 Maverick
AGM-84 Harpoon
AIM-9 Sidewinder (max 4)
AIM-120 AMRAAM (max 4)
Conventional bombs (Mk 83, GBU-12, GBU-16, CBU-99/100, napalm)

Boeing Aircraft Data (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/av8b/index.htm)

AN/AAQ-28V LITENING targeting pod (FLIR, CCD camera, laser designator, automatic target tracker)
LITENING II (1999, third generation FLIR)
LITENING ER (2001, extended the target detection range)
LITENING AT (2003, further extends target detection range, improved targeting accuracy)
LITENING G4 (2008, new sensors, advanced target recognition, available in a kit form that allows upgrade of currently fielded pods)

November 2007
Upgrade wiring and software to employ MIL-STD-1760 bus-based smart weapons, such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions.

JDAM Upgrade (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/av8bs-to-receive-new-wiring-as-part-of-upgrade-program-02746//)

Not sure if this can (or should) be incorporated into WinSPMBT.

Intrepid Tiger II is the Corps’ homegrown jammer meant to disrupt IED radio detonators and intercept enemy communications. The Marines hope to put on UH-1 and AH-1 helos and are even testing a smaller version of the device on the RQ-7 Shadow UAV.

Marine Corps Times (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/09/marine-jammer-harrier-pod-091211/)
Defense Tech (http://defensetech.org/2011/09/13/usmc-harriers-hornets-and-hueys-may-do-ew/#ixzz1k7ZvWNmo Defense.org)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2012, 01:51 AM

Suhiir,
This is overdue, great info here especially on the LITENING Pods. The LITENING G4 was the advance needed to fully bring it up to par with SNIPER. Thanks again! If 2011 is any indication I'll starting on the 2012/2013 campaign sooner then planned. Time to "Troop Up" as pops used to say or code for you better get off your "as" before well you know!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 24th, 2012, 02:44 PM

AGM-88E AARGM

Initial Operational Capability: Nov 2010
Weight: 795 pounds (361 kg)
Speed: Mach 2+
Range: 60+ nm
Guidance System: Millimeter Wave (MMW) transceiver, advanced digital Anti-Radiation Homing (ARH), and a tightly coupled GPS/INS, is capable of selectively engaging air defense targets even after radar emissions are shut down.
Warhead: WAU-7/B (150 lb/68 kg)
Platforms: F-16 C/J, F/A-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G, Tornado IDS/ECR, F-35

Defense Industry Daily (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/italoamerican-agm88e-aargm-missile-no-place-to-hide-down-there-01852/)
NavAir (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=AF4153AA-5454-44D2-B01A-AA69417C5B49)
Deagel (http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Radiation-Missiles/AGM-88E-AARGM_a001155005.aspx)

Suhiir

January 24th, 2012, 04:09 PM

GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)

Employed in combat: October 5, 2006
Used by: United States, Israel, Italy
Initial integration: F-15E, follow-on integration may occur with the F/A-22, F-35, UCAV, F-16, F-117, A-10, MQ-9, B-52, B-1, B-2 (the B-2 is set to carry between 64 and 216 SDBs on one mission)

Weight: 285 lbs (129 kg)
Fuse: Cockpit selectable functions, including air burst and delayed options
Warhead: 206 lbs (93 kg) blast fragmentation
The cited blast radius: 26 ft (cf 82 ft with 2,000-lb JDAM)
Standoff range: More than 60 nm/69 miles (111 km)

Most USAF aircraft will be able to carry (using the BRU-61/A rack) a pack of four SDBs in place of a single 2,000 pound (910 kg) bomb.

The SDB has the same penetration capabilities as a 2000lb BLU-109, but with only 50 pounds of explosive. The warhead that has demonstrated penetration of more than 6 feet of reinforced concrete. The INS/GPS guidance in conjunction with differential GPS (using all 12 channel receivers, instead of only 5) and improved Target Location Error (TLE) it can achieve a 5-8m CEP.
The munition, with a smart fuze, has been extensively tested against multi-layered targets by Wright Laboratory under the Hard Target Ordnance Program and Miniature Munitions Technology Program. The length to diameter ratio and nose shape are designed to optimize penetration for a 50lb charge. This weapon is also a potential payload for standoff carrier vehicles such as Tomahawk, JSOW, JASSM, Conventional ICBM, etc.

Most effective in urban close air support, battlefield interdiction, Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (DEAD) lethal suppression and counter-air strike airfield attack roles. Against soft skinned vehicles and structures, armour, point emplacements, runways, aircraft shelters and SAM/SPAAG systems this weapon will be highly lethal.
Less than effective is against deep/hardened bunkers, large infrastructure targets, large buildings, industrial plant, bridges, large trench systems, vehicle parks, infantry on the move and other area or large point targets. These remain the domain of larger specialized bunker busting weapons, or large explosive bombs such as the Mk.83/BLU-110 (1,000 lb), Mk.84/BLU-117/BLU-119 (2,000 lb), BLU-109/116/118 (2,000 lb), BLU-113/122 (5,000 lb).

The USAF is planning to acquire 12,000 fixed-target versions and a like number of the moving-target version. The USN/USMC is likely to wait for SDB II when the F-35 enters service.

Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/sdb/index.html)
Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb.htm)
Australia Air Power (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 26th, 2012, 04:03 AM

Just a couple of interesting stories for some. The first is simply a milestone story. The C-17 GLOBEMASTER like most programs started as being a controversial but ended up working out pretty well as a medium lift, short takeoff transport. Next year will mark the end of production of them. The programs turned out so well they ordered more then planned for which with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was an opportune decision in maintaining lower flight hours across the board.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Last-of-the-Globemasters-The-USAFs-Final-Orders-05283/Pic:

11626

C-17 GLOBEMASTERS heading in from sea and beyond flying past the new Cooper River Bridge connecting Charleston to Mt Pleasant S.C. to Chaleston AFB. Charleston is in the background left side.
I used sail under the old bridge that was in the shadow of the new one to get into Charleston harbor from the NAVBASE with all it's history with Ft. Sumter, CSA HUNLEY (Not found then and still under water.) and the Battery. And the night life...well that was a little before CINCLANTHOME's time...just chalk it up to the mid 80's and in the NAV!?! ;)

Next up a couple of USAF generals think the F-22 and F-35 would make a good team in the tactical and strategic air enviroment of the future. YOU THINK!?!
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31638/

Finally the NAVY has concluded tests on a revamped missile, so coming soon from the sky somewhere to your living room if you've been bad, the 4 for 4 Laser Guided MAVERICK!! :ahh:
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31611/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 28th, 2012, 02:06 PM

Posted in the APC & Green White paper threads. JSF is to be delayed under the new DOD Defence budget click on the PDF links withn the JSF para.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/DoD-fy13-budget-preview-07285/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 1st, 2012, 03:08 AM

Don,
Another answer to your earlier ? in this thread on how long it takes to train pilots until they get fielded in their planes. If you remember I responded by using the RTAF and their GRIPENS at one year. The below from Iraq supports that when you include their prop training as well in Iraq, just a little follow up from a different part of the world. From DID full article immediately below.

Jan 20/12: Training begins. Gannett’s Military Times reports that:

“The first of the Iraqi pilots that will learn how to fly F-16s recently arrived in Tucson with the 162nd Fighter Wing, an Air National Guard unit that specializes in training foreign pilots to fly F-16s, said wing spokesman Maj. Gabe Johnson. The Iraqi pilot is slated to start the academic part of his training on Jan. 23 followed by hands-on flying from February through September, Johnson said"
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Iraq-Seeks-F-16-Fighters-05057/

Early fallout from the US defence budget $500 Billion cutbacks:
1) The immediate effects for the USAF.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/01/airforce-5-a10-squadrons-cut-013012/

2) Australia to review it's F-35 but timetable as the F-35 gets pushed back again here.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/report-calls-for-a-strengthening-of-defence-bases-in-australias-north/story-e6frg8yo-1226257503229

Swiss and the F-5 TIGER II replacement.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/Pics:
11645 11646
Don you might or might not find the Swiss F-18C useful.

Swedens GRIPEN on the move.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-jas39-gripen-swedens-4th-generation-wild-card-02401/
Pics:
11647 11648
Hungrian GRIPEN C/D. SAAF GRIPEN D.
11649
Czech GRIPEN C/D.
Again these might be useful or not. But are easy on the eyes!?!

The GRIPEN D is the advanced two-seat air to ground attack version. See Post # Item . for further details on this fighter (C), fighter bomber (D)it has really come on in the last couple of years as the cheaper, stealthier but highly reliable alternative to the EUROFIGHTER and RAFALE.

All articles from DID.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 1st, 2012, 11:47 AM

:doh: For the last post; Pg. 3, Post #21, and Item A3. Focus on the SAAB Group refs. for GRIPEN.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

February 1st, 2012, 03:08 PM

Pat. this is frigging nonsense

BE CLEAR OR STOP POSTING. if you screwed up the info correct it don't send me on a wild goose chase back to "Pg. 3, Post #21, and Item A3".

AM I CLEAR ?

I AM NOT HAPPY.

What is wrong in the last post. I am NOT interested in playing guessing games.

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 2nd, 2012, 02:48 AM

Don,
Only the first part dealing with the training issue was really meant for you in particular as indicated in the lead to your earlier question on aircraft training. The rest were general articles of interest for anyone interested. In the last para I forgot to enter the information as to where someone who wanted could find more information on the GRIPEN C and D without getting deeply involved with a web search as I had already provided this in dealing with the Thai GRIPEN last year for 5.5.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 2nd, 2012, 03:30 AM

Couldn't get this in with the last Post in time but this is big news...and as this will be one of the largest fighter buys of the last 20 years, Indias M-MRCA competion has chosed a winner-finally-well maybe-given their history thus far-could be-if and when the contract gets formaly signed-then again-yes that's how things can happen; remember 30 years to get the ARJUN program going. Anyway RAFALE beats EUROFIGHTER and all others, so far anyway.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 2nd, 2012, 03:36 AM

This will be one of the largest fighter buys of the last 20 years, India's M-MRCA competition has chosen a winner-finally-well maybe-given their history thus far-could be-when the contract gets formally signed-then again-yes that's how things can happen, remember it took 30 years to get the ARJUN program completed. Anyway RAFALE beats the EUROFIGHTER and all others, so far anyway.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 5th, 2012, 02:43 AM

I've posted some articles concerning the issues with the F-22 over the last year with has cost a pilot his life. Several pilots are now refusing to fly the F-22 over the hypoxia issues amongst others. Some in congress and in the field are openly questioning if the plane is simply too advanced. The ref below covers the pilot issues from the 60 Minutes news program airing this Sunday @ 7pm EST. This is for FYI...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57427532/military-whistleblowers-express-fears-about-f-22-safety/?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaInfo

And a little news on the F-35 front which is indicative of the current overall situation in delaying buys or reducing them to include both which is the case for the U.S. where it's looking more life late 2016 to 2018. Some are already saying the Russian/Indian PAK-FA is looking like it'll be a better fifth gen fighter overall.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120503/DEFREG03/305030001/Australia-Delays-F-35-Order-by-2-Years?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Regards,
Pat

gila

May 5th, 2012, 06:33 PM

We all know there are problems with the F-22,and thats no surprise when the design is so out of the box.

I doubt a few test pilots biting the dust will kill a program thats been in development for so long and billions,dare i trillions,spent thus far.

Remember the P-38 was considered a death trap(seems it tend to be unstable) until Lindberg flew it,then the problem was fixed.

Don't listen to the talking heads who don't know,the F-22 would and will be an excellent state of the art jet when they get the bugs worked out,if the sheer cost of it does not make it not feasable,and congress kills the program,what a shame that would be!

That said doubt we be seeing the F-22 in this game for awhile.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 19th, 2012, 01:36 AM

Well life and two weeks of poison ivy (AND CONTINUEING.:cold: ) has served to push my cut off of 1 Jun to the "line in the sand" starting now with the last of the news posts to ready my inputs for the 2012/2013 Campaign. All newspaper stories are from DID unless noted. So by the first topic I came to we start...

1. UK reverses it's 3020 SDSR decision of which this was the "linchpin" for it, MOD will go back to the F-35B vice F-35C. this will save 2BPds QE carrier modifications and get the fleet air arm operational 5yrs. sooner by 2018-2020 vice 2023. Just follow the "bouncing" ref dates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9253377/About-turn-on-new-variant-of-carriers-fighter-plane.html
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31773/
TRACK.

2. With India's MMRCA program settled (Sort of.) Brazil's F-X2 Program restarts again...slowly.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/
TRACK PROGRAM.

3. PAK-FA could be pushed out of the game, at least for India, Russia is still up in the air.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/05/delays-challenges-for-indo-russian_16.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-russia-in-negotiations-re-nextgeneration-fighter-03133/
TRACK.

4. Afghanistan gets the C222/C-27A. Paras will be the issue game wise.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/C-27As-for-the-Afghan-Air-Force-05094/
VERIFY Paras/ADD.

5. Future of Canada's CF-16s future tied into it's decisions about the F-35. You will note issues like these will have a significant bearing on who gets the F-35 and who doesn't by games end.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Preparing-to-Replace-its-CF-18-Hornets-05739/#canadian-fighter-jets
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34200/
TRACK.

6. Chile looking to replace it's F-5E by 2015. Or will it? See what another country is doing with theirs in the Patch Page in the Fall.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3087:chile-f-5e-replacement-candidates&catid=35:latin-america&Itemid=58
TRACK.

7. Israel has questions about the F-35, this made for interesting reading.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/958/
FYI.

8. Asian U.S. partmers need fighter upgrades to counter growing threats to the region.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/1003/
http://defense-update.com/20111213_defending-the-homeland-japan_taiwan_air_defense.html
FYI.

9. Finnish F-18 to get new weapon in 2016. Let's call this the weapons section as well.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/32980/
9A. U.S. tests JSOW-ER successfully.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/32405/9.B. USN/USMC complete LG MAVERICK testing 4 for 4.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31611/
9.C. India orders PGM from Israel for MIRAGE 2000.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3175:india-iaf-orders-israeli-pgms-to-arm-mirage-2000&catid=3:asia&Itemid=569.D. USAF B1B conducts it's first op using the new LJDAM. What's useful here also is the table showing current aircraft capable/using the JDAM and current country users as well.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jdam-a-gpsins-addon-adds-accuracy-to-airstrikes-03313/
9.E. Korea orders CBU-1050/B Sensor fuzed weapons.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3428:korea--af-orders-cbu-105db-sensor-fuzed-weapons-&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
9.F. To get to Irans Nuc Facilities the USAF has a new MOP for "deeper" cleaning.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mopping-up-the-usas-30000-pound-bomb-03172/#more-3172
9.G. PAVEWAY IV ready for the RAF.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/my-pgm-for-a-fuze-paveway-iv-hits-trouble-in-britiain-03644/
9.H. Philippine OV-10 now armed with LG bombs.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3061:philippines-ov-10-armed-with-laser-guided-bombs&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
FYI/TRACK/ADD? INPUT WOULD HELP HERE FOR THIS STUFF-THANKS!

10. Italy has officially replaced it's last F-16's.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/35789/
MODIFY ALL ACTIVE F-16 END DATES TO JUNE 2012.

11. Czech Republic likely to extend GRIPEN lease...they did recently.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2850:czech-republic-mod-likely-to-extend-gripen-lease&catid=1:europe&Itemid=57
FYI.

12. Japan offered the F/A-18E SH BLOCK II in it's F/X Program.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/889/
TRACK PROGRAM.

13. India's MMRCA Program selection.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/951/
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3085:india-af-mulls-israeli-made-mission-systems-rafale-&catid=3:asia&Itemid=56
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/
TRACK/ADD.

14. Russia linked to the Chinese J-20?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/18/us-russia-china-jet-idUSTRE77H1AZ20110818
FYI.

I have more but the "PI" is bothering me. Will hopefully finish this well...later today.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

June 19th, 2012, 02:59 PM

Pat, don't play in the poison ivy and Canada doesn't have "CF-16s" :)

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 26th, 2012, 04:11 AM

Well I think as much as I really like the "complete package" the game offers (And I wouldn't want it changed.) maybe the modification of culling out the fighters for some countries is looking real good to me right now. It's really hard to get around the "vision" issue that these targeting pods such as Sniper, Litening, Raptor and DB-110 to name a few would have on the game. It's almost like the discussion that was brought up a couple of years ago concerning the Excalibur PGM in the SPA/SPAA Thread when some felt it was too expensive, it wouldn't be used and if it was in a limited capacity. Well now it seems with the realities in the field the only "dumb" round being used is a "broken" Excalibur round. Now these PGM rounds are being used down to the 81mm levels (Though more recently.) as a matter of routine. I won't do it, but if "you" want to it's posted and you where to find it. So we have the same situation with the Pods, Russia already and as far as I can determine is the only one, that has planes with a TI/GSR of greater then 40. I think the number was 5, 4 are what would be considered Fighter-Bombers and 1 or 2 Recon jets whose vision was at 60. These Pods can "see" beyond that as again I've already posted. We've built in very good to excellent AA capabilities so the game is good there, my concern is the number of planes that would conversion to the Pods.
Just taking the USAF and three plane types the F-15/16 and F-15E. I understand the following...many smaller countries would have to keep the F-16 as it's in some cases their most advanced plane and the backbone of their AF, and the USAF does use them for COIN/SEAD roles so in these cases they should stay. But the F-15/16 PRIMARY ROLE is that of a Interceptor Fighter. Let them fly CAP and be removed as an FB. Let the F-15E do what it's designed for and be the Fighter-Bomber. You'd clear at least 50+ slots (And no I haven't counted them, but can.) easy from about the mid to late sixties to the present just in the USA OOB. But otherwise I'm prepared to do the work. But first what's it take to train in the use of these Pods? Well for the DB-110 a little over 6 months for the Greek AF.
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7a3425ae868e51c05c27547639f127c3&tab=core&_cview=0
More on the DB-110...
http://defense-update.com/products/d/db110pod.htm
http://www.paffalcons.com/news/2011/Pakistan-Falcons-to-Fly-Five-New-Recce-Pods_1212011.php
More from the USAF...
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102

The Poison Ivy isn't looking so bad now!?! Just trying to reduce the over crowding, redundancy and the workload to get these issues up to date and in the game like any other piece of equipment we put in. It's gotta be a level playing field all the way around if it's going to be in the game.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 26th, 2012, 04:06 AM

If you've been following along on Don's Mi-8 and Mi-24 Thread what I've done is take out the MiG issue and copied them to here. These are items 1-7. Why? If new please follow the progression, if not new to this discussion go directly to item 8 below.

1. Luftwaffe JG 73 flew the MiG-29G (NATO standard.) until ~2004 when they were sold to Poland. JG 73 flew them as an aggressor squadron but was also assigned an air defence role as well. Many of the former DDR aircraft flew with the Luftwaffe for years especially the transport aircraft that filled a deficiency in the Luftwaffe capabilities at the time. Germany just about RESET the MiG-29s to get them to the NATO "G" Standard, Hinds, Transport to even improve the depot level maintenance of the older MiGs they got. All DDR aircraft were serialized, painted and marked into the Luftwaffe system. MiG 29 and later MiG 29G as upgraded along with the larger Transport aircraft are a definite yes. The MiG 24/or 25 (Can't remember now.), MiG-21 & 17 and other aircraft though maintained were either sold off or scraped with no record that I have found to indicate they were actually ever used by the Luftwaffe.

2. To set the record straight on the DDR fighters that transitioned into the Luftwaffe they would be the MiG-21, 23 & 29 also the export version of the Su- 17UM3/Ex Su-22UM3/UM3K (FITTER-G) primarily used as a trainer and also the final version Su-17M4/Ex Su-22M4 (FITTER K). Don't know if they processed the Recon Su-22M4R.
Sorry for any confusion, I'll blame it on catching up on the OGs after work!?! Now to figure out what to blame it on when I start submitting the Patch Posts, but it'll have to be good though!?! Found none of these jets (Except the MiG-29) in Luftwaffe colors on the net to include museums in country.

3. Alright German reunification is officially marked on Oct. 3 1990 after the DDR signed treaties with W. Germany and a separate one with England, France, Russia and the U.S. as required by treaty after WWII. We know the DDR NVA transport planes and LSK/LV MiG-29
(MiG-29G until Dec. 2003.) were fully operational w/Luftwaffe.
This is worth it just for the DDR in flight pics alone throughout the thread as I couldn't find any good ones on Bing or Google.
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=mig-29&page=4 These guys seem "serious" (Sounds familiar!?!) and might provide some useful info from the Wehrmacht, DDR to present.

4. For those that are interested, earlier this evening I asked the key questions that might have some impact on both the East Germany and Germany OOB's. Link provided below so as not to violate any one's possible Forum rules. By way of info RAMJET/Steve was a MiG-29pilot for both the Luftverteidigung/Luftwaffe after unification. I won't be hard to find, currently on Pg. 7.

5. By way of an update...
As the DDR/German MiGs were the MiG-29A it's becoming clear that they were purely used as interceptors as designed. The MiG-29S had some very limited Air Ground capabilities, but it was the MiG-29SM which was designed to fulfill this role. It was this version that is the only one that could be called an F/B though again it's primary role still was to be an interceptor. Also before the MiG-29S all previous versions had very limited range, think earlier Bf-109s, you didn't want to get in a dogfight with it but it wasn't going to hang around long either.

So here's where I'm at for my list...
1. Germany OOB delete both the MiG-29 and Mil-8T. It is now clear the Luftwaffe MiG-29A/G was only used as an interceptor. Also it was the ONLY aircraft from the DDR to fly in the Luftwaffe beyond the evaluation phase.

2. East Germany OOB the same issue as above with the following possible exception of the SEAD version for which I'm awaiting conformation. This one in my mind is possible though not likely. This is why after all the Russians gave the DDR the very good MiG-23ground attack aircraft, also the DDR flew the most advanced versions of it as well which might be an issue of it's own in the OOB. I of course have other data but the site given in the previous post is confirming all of it thus far and they've been very helpful to my requests.

6. Also several East German units will need to be deleted to include all MiG-29A and MiG-29M (Which as now known they never had.) which like the MiG-29M includes the Mil-24W HIND. Below is the response I recieved concerning the East German use of the MiG-29A as a possible SEAD unit as posted in the previous post as well.
Note: A little tone change which is my fault as I should've indicated "configurations offered" or some such as my wording caused the response.

"Pat,

What you say here about four East German MiG 29s being used for SEAD doesn't sound reasonable. As an air superiority aircraft designed for air defence why would the East Germans use four for SEAD purposes? That role would be better suited to a unit armed with the SU 25 and probably assigned to a Soviet unit rather than divert four MiG 29s from their basic role. Just my thoughts.

Regards,

Gordon"

And another response I just got from "RAMJET"/Steve LSK/LV(DDR)/LUFTWAFFE MiG-29A pilot...
"The LSK/LV as well as the Luftwaffe used the MiG-29 only as a fighter aircraft. There were some trials in the air-to-ground role with unguided rockets in the DDR times if I remember right, but these were just trials."

If you again wish to follow along...
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=354756&page=7
Bottom-line...
GERMANY OOB... DELETE UNITS 307 MiG-29 & 327 Mi-8T
East Germany OOB... DELETE UNITS 580, 910 & 911 MiG-29M & 125/927 Mi-24W HIND (Never had either in service.)
Now to fix the confusion "next door" I caused. One OOB at a time next the MiG-23, if they feel like it.

7. The MiG-29 issue is dead to me at this point as far as the Germany's are concerned. The only useful variant in the F/B version again was the MiG-29SM that for now it seems, only Russia flew. Interceptors are not good fighter bombers normally, as is already posted in this thread by the guys that flew them. The MiG-23 and it's dedicated full time mostly F/B offshoot the MiG-27 filled that role and were contemporaries to the MiG-29. In the first ref you'll notice the MiG-29A in Luftwaffe colors.
http://www.military-today.com/aircra...29_fulcrum.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig27/
So far the MiG-23 issue for East Germany looks good and they've already responded "next door" though I've seen some German info to suggust only the MiG-23BN might have been used as F/B and M versions as dedicated interceptors. Will get clarification. Seems the Soviets didn't trust them much for some roles as already pointed out concerning the SEAD issue. Kind of makes me wonder how many MiG-29 slots could be cut out of the Russian OOB.

8. A couple of times above I mentioned that the first somewhat ground capable MiG-29 was the MiG-29S. So what? Well to get "here" I established "linkage" or a "chain of custody" for those of us who've handled sensitive materials. So for whom do I speak of now is this "linkage"? Poland. Poland was already in possession of about 12 MiG-29A interceptors then Germany leased/sold their 22 MiG-29A (As noted already NATO "G" standard.) giving Poland a total of let's just call it 35 MiG-29A Interceptors. You'll note the banner from where the following ref. is from. Also you'll note that East Germany, Germany and Poland do not get mentioned beyond the MiG-29A sections. You will further note (Again.) that MiG-29S is the first bomb carrying MiG.
http://toad-design.com/migalley/index.php/jet-aircraft/mig29/mig29-variants/A.

A. I don't know the source of these bomb carrying MiGs and don't care, but these three countries didn't have them period!! But two of these countries share a common "bond" they were under the "guidance" of the Soviet Union who maintained a large military presence in both countries and I know for sure ICO East Germany there were at least I believe it to be 2 Regiments (Above ref and a couple of German refs I have as well.) of the MiG-29S. It's my theory that these are Soviet units in these OOBs.

B. Poland did get all glass cockpits and are either looking into or have recently signed a contract to further update the Polish MiG-29 jets to the MiG-29 SNIPER Standard but again this ONLY improves it's interceptor capabilities.

C. Poland DELETE UNITS 148 and 556-558. Look at the bright side, at least the ANDERS is back on track if they ever get that contract signed. Also speaking of Polish contracts, earlier this past week the contract was signed for an additional 200 ROSOMAKS, but that's for another thread.

D. One of my favorite killing time games "Connect the Dots" has turned into my other favorite game here "Going Down the Rabbit Hole Again!" 2020 PLEASE get here!?! Only kidding. ;) Now you know why I've been wanting to "type" this equipment for consistency sake.

E. You designers might find the last ref very useful on all MiG types offered especially on weapons for each type. Further the Weapons Tab seems to have very useful info in it as well.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 31st, 2012, 10:30 PM

As I just got home and we have an early start in the morning for wedding, I'll be brief.

1. It is now known that the DDR wasn't assigned a ground support role until the 1980's. When asked if 1980 was viable it generated no response next door and considering the back and forth, trust me, they would've indicated if there was a problem there. This then by definition means the LSK/LV only ground attack capable aircraft were the MiG-23BN and Su-22M-4. I have an LSK/LV OOB that has been verified as good dating to the early mid eighties. See below...
http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/kraft/nva.htm

2. What's it wash on this info? Basically I see every jet type going back to the MiG-15 being deleted with the above two being the exception for the basically last ten years the DDR was around.

3. Based on the weapons available to both the MiG-23BN and Su-22M-4 we most certainly and increase the ground attack configurations of both types to at least five or six different UNIT types each.

4. The MiG-21M/UM RECON question (Again refer to the above ref.) I'll leave to Don, however based on the game turn cycle etc. I feel these wouldn't be added since they were photo recon birds and I believe that topic was addressed once before anyway.

5. Clearly now it should be apparent to everyone (Nationalistic feelings aside.) that if every country in the Warsaw Pact was submitted to the same treatment the DDR is now getting most would see the same things happen to their Air Forces of the Soviet era to include some NATO countries as well during that time period. Simply the Soviets ran the show to what equipment it got and how it would be used.

All of the above has been discussed next door, I've already posted the sight a couple of times so have at it if you want. I will tie all this up in a neat bundle hopefully early next week and yes of course there are all those "pesky" refs. But this weekend is about old shipmates, families, CINCLANTHOME and certainly not work. For those celebrating it have a great and SAFE Labor Day weekend and don't burn the steaks!! To everyone else HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!!

Regards,
Pat
P.S. I guess I missed on the brief part again!?! :shock:

DRG

September 1st, 2012, 06:04 PM

As I just got home and we have an early start in the morning for wedding, I'll be brief.

1. It is now known that the DDR wasn't assigned a ground support role until the 1980's. When asked if 1980 was viable it generated no response next door and considering the back and forth, trust me, they would've indicated if there was a problem there. This then by definition means the LSK/LV only ground attack capable aircraft were the MiG-23BN and Su-22M-4. I have an LSK/LV OOB that has been verified as good dating to the early mid eighties. See below...
http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/kraft/nva.htm

2. What's it wash on this info? Basically I see every jet type going back to the MiG-15 being deleted with the above two being the exception for the basically last ten years the DDR was around.

OK, I'm going to save Alice from a L O N G trip down the rabbit hole digging up info on all the warsaw pact nations and their ground attack aircraft

NO we are NOT going to deleted every jet before the MiG-23BN and Su-22M-4 in the DDR OOB because in theory the DDR wasn't assigned a ground support role until the 1980's.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

If this game was set up strictly Human vs Human we could, theoretically, tell people that in the case of Warsaw pact nations, if no aircraft are available then they should buy some from the Soviet OOB as they would actually be the ones supplying ground attack support to whatever nation needed it ( if they were lucky.....).

But the AI cannot do that. The AI cannot decide it needs aircraft then buy them from the appropriate OOB so there has to be aircraft available in the OOB for it to buy and if you need to rationaliize that, rationalize it as them being Russian aircraft on loan or on call.

Don

Suhiir

September 2nd, 2012, 01:23 AM

The other problem, as YOU, Mr. Former-Squid, should know, is since about WW II almost every "fighter" aircraft made can carry at least a couple bombs. And the few designs that couldn't (the origional F4U-1 Corsair comes to mind) were soon modified to do so.

Aircraft are to few, to expensive, and too (potentially) useful to just sit on the deck because they have no ground support capability (other then their guns).

That said...
I'd like to see the ordnance loads on "fighter" type aircraft reduced to make them less bang for the buck then dedicated ground support models. But I know that ain't gonna happen because it would be WAY WAY WAY too much work.

Imp

September 2nd, 2012, 02:02 AM

Aeraaa

September 2nd, 2012, 02:54 AM

Suhiir

September 2nd, 2012, 04:53 PM

That said...
I'd like to see the ordnance loads on "fighter" type aircraft reduced to make them less bang for the buck then dedicated ground support models

Would one not assume in most cases if you are using fighters in a ground attack role its because you have won the air war & they no longer have to play escort to the ground attack boys.

What about scenarios were both players have air support?

Often "fighter" types take-off with a mixed load of air-to-air and air-to-ground, if they need to enguage in aerial combat they jettison the air-to-ground stuff and any auxilery fuel tanks.

Aeraaa

September 2nd, 2012, 05:58 PM

Would one not assume in most cases if you are using fighters in a ground attack role its because you have won the air war & they no longer have to play escort to the ground attack boys.

What about scenarios were both players have air support?

Often "fighter" types take-off with a mixed load of air-to-air and air-to-ground, if they need to enguage in aerial combat they jettison the air-to-ground stuff and any auxilery fuel tanks.

Still, if a fighter-bomber does that it's bomber role is over, at least until it returns to base to rearm...

Imp

September 2nd, 2012, 09:56 PM

Okay I agree there are cases where a fighter would carry a couple of bombs or rockets but realisticly who would buy them?
Only thing they might get used for is to bleed off AAA as they would be relativly cheaper with the reduced weapon loadout.
Scenario designers can adjust the weapon load accordingly if its needed.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 16th, 2012, 11:15 PM

Well my research is about finished and really didn't take that long, but after taking a look at a sampling of NATO countries I might take the same tack. What I've found in general terms for NATO without giving away the "big picture" that I'm working on...

1. The B-52 should appear six years earlier then it does, I could've missed something, but. the earliest date I saw in the USA/USMC OOB's was 1960. The B-52A became operational in 1954 followed in 1955 by the B-52B. people forget how old this bomber really is, further the life cycle has been extended out to 2044. The last B-52H was delivered to the USAF in the Fall of 1962 as follows...
"The B-52A first flew in 1954, and the B model entered service in 1955. A total of 744 B-52s were built with the last, a B-52H, delivered in October 1962."
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=83

2. The F-105 THUNDERCHIEF ("THUD" to those that flew, maintained it and where just glad to see from the ground in NAM.) is sorely under represented in the game. Don't worry not going to go nuts here but I believe there were only two or three units represented. Considering this plane flew over 75% of all ground attack missions in the first half of the Vietnam War, SEAD version not seen either which was also a primary mission and was specialized I believe with the F-105F/G, and was very important to the USAF ground attack capability in Europe in the 60's it's worth a second look to maybe add at least three or four more UNITS. I've seen these planes up close in a couple of air museums but, in the course of my research have found through numerous refs that this plane carried more ordnance then a B-17/24 bomber that also I've seen many times before. If you've seen them you wouldn't believe it. But it'll help to know the "THUD" also had an internal bomb bay. It could/did carry eight 750lb. "Iron Bombs" with auxiliary fuel tanks
http://www.burrusspta.org/thud.html!
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=160
http://www.aviationspectator.com/resources/aircraft-profiles/republic-f-105-thunderchief-aircraft-profile
"Meanwhile, the USAF was gradually changing the anticipated F-105 mission from nuclear interdiction to conventional bombing. The Look Alike upgrades increased the aircraft's capacity from four to 16 conventional 750 pound (340 kg) bombs on underwing and fuselage centerline hardpoints and added the equipment to launch AGM-12 Bullpup air-to-ground missiles. In June 1961, an F-105D delivered 7 tons (15,430 lb) of conventional bombs during a USAF test — at the time a record for a single-engine airplane and a payload three times heavier than World War II's four-engined heavy bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-24 Liberator, though aerial refueling would be required for long missions. In fact, one of the F-105Ds was named Memphis Belle II after the famed World War II B-17."

3. Turkey OOB for FYI and will be submitted formally later UNITS 558 shows a flying "Armored Car F-100F" and 569 a USAF F-100D. The following pic is of a Turkish F-100D, Could not find a Turkish "F" on BING or Google. Difference between the two visually not noticeable, recommend pic for both.

12032

Regards,
Pat

DRG

September 17th, 2012, 11:46 AM

Pat.......when we put things like the B-52 in we ask ourselves questions like......." How many would have existed at the first introduction date to participate in ground attack missions? " and the answer is ZERO and if you'd asked yourself that question when you started this quest you would have arrived at the same answer.

Seriously........you want us to make the B-52 available 6 years before the 1960 date that they appear in the game ?

Seriously ? 1954 ?

The first wing to use them didn't become operational until March 1956 and their task was strategic bombing NOT tactical ground support. I think we are being EXTREMELY GENEROUS with the 1960 start date given the first time they were used in conventional bombing was Arc Light in mid 1965 and I am MORE inclinded to move the date BACK to 1965 as it is in the USMC OOB

As for the F-105 ....... are we really under represented in the US OOB for ground attack aircraft with a wide variety of weapons that players have to choose from ?? I'm not quite sure when some players started assuming out purpose was to include every possible combinations of weapons available that any given model of aircraft could carry but we don't. There are 28 units slots let open in the US OOB..... why would we waste them on aircraft when there is already a wide variety of weapon loadouts available to choose from on a variety of aircraft

???

Don

Suhiir

September 18th, 2012, 08:36 PM

Keep in mind the B-52's were designed/intended as strategic bombers. So they would not have been available to anyone but SAC when first deployed.

Even in early Vietnam they weren't used for conventional bombing missions (they used B-25's and 26's). I agree with Don that mid 1965 is a "reasonable" availability date.

gila

September 25th, 2012, 04:47 AM

B-52's may have been rolled out for display in 50's the cold war as a almost global bomber with refueling, to intimidate the ruskies but not used until the 60's in Vietnam.
I was on SAC base for years,you never forget the smell of jet exhuast as 20 or so touch and go when on alert.
Anyways,i'm sure we can all agree,,level bombers are really not an important aspect at all to the game,right?

Suhiir

September 27th, 2012, 10:42 PM

A March 2012 report in the magazine Air Forces Monthly suggested that some of the 72 ex-British Harrier-IIs might fly again; the USMC planned to equip two squadrons with the latter GR.9/9A models due to the well maintained condition of the airframes at RAF Cottesmore, where the aircraft were stored and maintained following their retirement.

[[Gary Parsons (March 2012). "UK Harriers will fly again with USMC". Air Forces Monthly (Key Publishing) (288)]]

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has since stated, however, that the USMC has never had any plans to operate the ex-RAF Harriers.

[[Majumdar, Dave (9 June 2012). "USMC hopes new method for tracking fatigue life will help extend Harrier to 2030". Flightglobal.com.]]

##########

TAV-8B/AV-8B Day Attack (DA): One Rolls Royce Pegasus F402-RR-406 turbofan engine with approximately 20,280 pounds of thrust.

AV-8B Night Attack (NA)/AV-8B Radar: One Rolls Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408A turbofan engine with approximately 22,200 pounds of thrust.

The original DA AV-8B was replaced by the NA variant in 1990.
The NA configuration includes: night vision goggle-compatible cockpit controls and displays, a wide-field-of-view HUD, NAVFLIR Forward Looking Infrared system, a Digital Map Unit (DMU), and an Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS) with laser spot tracker, which provides first pass day or night target strike capability at low altitude/high speed.

In 1993, the Radar AV-8B was fielded with the full night fighting capability and an AN/APG-65 Radar set to improve A/G and A/A tactical effectiveness.

In 1994, the U.S.M.C. began a remanufacturing process to convert DA AV-8Bs to the Radar configuration (REMAN); deliveries began in 1996.

The Spanish Navy has DA/Radar AV-8Bs.
The Italian Navy has Radar AV-8Bs only.

Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/av8b_harrier.html)

FASTBOAT TOUGH

September 30th, 2012, 02:14 PM

I was using these as part of a "research" project I was working on. I did not want to waste these resources so I intend to post them on both the Jets and Planes...and MBT Threads. The information has been verified by history and newer documents released from other sources. They serve to both inform and to assist the game designers out there. Posted twice as not everyone has the same shared interests.
The first two is a current listing of all the worlds Air Forces current equipment and other status (See the "Legend" first and on Imagery Equipment. The accuracy of the info is as good as Jane's as they use some of the same sources (And list some of them as I remember.). The rest again are from the CIA, released ten to twenty years later from date of the reports, classified Secret to Top Secret. All are PDF formatted.
Flight Global...
http://img.en25.com/Web/FlightGlobal/WorldAirForces2010.pdf
http://img.en25.com/Web/FlightGlobal/FGX0032_AirborneImaging2011Report.pdf

CIA AIR...
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261313/DOC_0000261313.pdf
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000278545/DOC_0000278545.pdf
CIA LAND/AIR...
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001099668/DOC_0001099668.pdf
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261340/DOC_0000261340.pdf
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000261345/DOC_0000261345.pdf

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 1st, 2012, 08:39 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 1st, 2012, 10:50 PM

When I first reported on this awhile ago, I was asked if the USMC might use the the UK HARRIERS for more then spare parts and my response was along the lines of "it might be possible but..." I think most know what the "but" was as posted in this thread somewhere. Someone out here knows very well what NAVAIR does and what it's responsible for when it comes to both USN and USMC aviation. There is no information to support the USMC is flying or has assigned any UK HARRIERS to any USMC SQD.

From June this year...
"The sale of these [aircraft] supplies critically needed AV-8B aircraft parts," NAVAIR says. "Many of these parts are obsolete with no source of manufacture. As a result, the USMC has realized an immediate improvement in readiness."

But contrary to media reports, the USMC never had any intention of flying the British jets. Nor did the service ever consider replacing the Boeing F/A-18D fleet with the GR9. "The USMC operation of UK Harriers was not under consideration," NAVAIR says.

Here's the full article and there's more.
http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/article-usmc-hopes-new-method-for-tracking-fatigue-life-will-help-extend-harrier-to-2030-106658423.html

With the NAVAIR website...
1. Not listed on under Fixed Wing aircraft.
2. Search result for UK Harriers...No Results Found.
3. Search result for GR 9 Harrier...About 8 hits for the
AV-8B II.
4. Search result for Harrier...I think it was 33 all concerned with the AV-8B/II to include SQD. deployments.
5. Searched 36 pages of NAVAIR and associated commands "PAO" press releases back to 5/21/2010. with no results. Did learn that AV-8BII has successfully flown on a bio fuel, PMA-257 that is in charge of maintaining the USMC Harriers got a new CO very recently and that I might've missed the below news along with the fact it illustrates the point of this exercise.

Found this along the way USMC retired the CH-53D end date change might be required...
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4920

With the HARRIER flying until 2030 this was the only viable option to buy well maintained Harriers for spares with the exception of Spain that had theirs updated I believe last year or 2010 in the U.S. There were also many stories around the time of and in the early stages of the sale that many of the UK airframes suffered from structural fatigue issues. Some was reported by UK MOD and supposedly mostly repaired during the last upgrade period that brought the GR.7 to the GR.9 standard
~2007/2008. I feel these later stories were a "cover" to soften the issues of the price the USMC was able to buy them for.

If NAVAIR doesn't say they're flying...they're not.

I've liked the HARRIER since I was well...a little younger and that was the UK version of course back then. There was an excellent book written on the UK HARRIERS in the Falklands War by a SQD. Leader that I believe got two kills there. Might be posted somewhere in the thread where the HARRIER posts are.
The HARRIER remains one of the best Ground Attack aircraft out there in both it's last UK versions and currently as the AV-8BII and I have to say Spains new version as well.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

October 2nd, 2012, 05:33 AM

I mentioned it because they ARE in the OOB, and shouldn't be.

I know the patch was released in March when the possibility of equiping some squadrons with them was being considered.

Since then NAVAIR has spoken, and as Pat said, they have the final say on what flies and what doesn't in the USN/USMC.

##########

First time I saw a Harrier was about '77-'78 when I watched a truck pull out of the tree line into a small clearing and lay a few sheets of runway matting out.
Then a Harrier passed overhead, came to a hover, and landed.
A fuel truck came out of the tree line and refueled it.
After another truck rolled out and loaded it with ordenance.
Then it took off, straight up.
Finally truck #1 picked up the runway matting.

Whole process start to finish was maybe 15 minutes.

It's REALLY hard to bomb or shell an airfield that only exists for 15 minutes at a time.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 7th, 2012, 02:46 AM

See Post #96 for background...one of the guys that helped me as mentioned was a MiG-29 pilot with the LSV/LK of the DDR. Steve currently serves as a Lt Col. in the Luftwaffe Reserve flying something called a EUROFIGHTER ;). He was also very helpful in my "Warsaw Pact Project" and had recently sent me these pictures that I have his permission to post here and for you Don, to use if you wish for the East German OOB. Steve took these himself and you can get the details off the website from the above mentioned post for you photo hounds. Search the web all you want and I promise you won't find better pictures of DDR aircraft out there at least from my searches. First up is the MiG-23BN which was the only LSK/LV aircraft flown as a Fighter-Bomber which is what the MiG-23BN was designed for. I (We) hope you'll enjoy them and as I requested these, thank you Steve for sending them on.

12071 12073

12072 12075

12074

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 7th, 2012, 11:43 PM

Again Post #96 is the reference point, especially for the next set of pictures of the LSV/LK DDR MiG-29A which was unsuccessfully tested for use as a Fighter Bomber by the DDR.
Though a potent Interceptor especially in a close in dog fight, it's main issue was it's lack of range and that it was a maintenance hog. But when "all was right with he world" it ranked among the best in the world. Most of these would fly with the Luftwaffe after reunification and continue to fly currently in two Fighter SQDs. of the Polish Air Force. The Luftwaffe would upgrade these to the MiG-28G variant that improved its abilities as an Interceptor and made it NATO compliant. What's important here are these, again taken by Steve. First up the DDR years enjoy...

12076 12077

12080 12078

12079

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 8th, 2012, 10:47 PM

I accidentally a couple of years ago figured out how to
"trick" this program to allow me to download more pictures, it's one of those "I wish I would've written it down." moments. Tonight a "tail end charlie" and the Luftwaffe MiG-29G. Again Post #96 and from Steve.

12082 12083

12084 12085

12086

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 11th, 2012, 03:25 AM

This is it for the picture gallery, we hope you enjoyed them as they are a rare find and the MiG-29A/G is a good looking bird in the air and sitting on the ground. Don feel free to use the DDR MiG-21 picture if you want. Generally a little difficult to find in of itself, you'll see two pictures of the MiG-29UB two seat trainer from the DDR in the last two pics. Again go to Post #96 for further info and to see other pictures not shown here click on the Wehrmacht website link. And Don, Steve has some great shots of the DDR
Hind-24D and P helos over there. If interested let me know. First another "Tail End Charlie" DDR MiG-29A aerial shot, then the DDR MiG-21, LUFTWAFFE MiG-29G Camo etc. Again Enjoy and have a great day! And since my "project" he might "seek a peek" thanks Steve for the use of these pictures!!

12091 12092

12093

12094 12095

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 27th, 2013, 03:40 AM

Well in preparing some notes for the A-10, I rechecked my ref here and right now don't feel like logging there now to unlock the article. However in our continued efforts to disengage, cut back, retire and just depart in general the trend in Europe continues. I already in the MBT post noted a couple of months back that the last ABRAMS left Europe from Germany. Now the USAF has pulled out the last A-10 SQD. from Germany and by default Europe. I have to agree with the DID folks, the last thing Europe in general needs is fighters, those you have plenty of. A capable all around ground attack aircraft would've served a better purpose left there but Para 1. covers that. Within 15 years we'll leave you in Europe with military admin types and tourists! God help you all then!?! ;) Maybe some will be MARINES at least they will know how to use their weapons!! https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-highertech-hog-the-a10c-pe-program-03187/

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

June 28th, 2013, 01:33 AM

I always thought it was a shame they never developed a carrier-capable version of the A-10. Stick one of the many insane Navy/Marine ground support pilots in one and they'd probably terrify the bad guys almost as much as they do their non-ground-support brethren.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 2nd, 2013, 02:49 AM

Well Saturday 6/29/2013 marked another end of an era, the Luftwaffe has formally retired their F-4F PHANTOM. I have posted in the translated version below, however, in deference to our German speaking friends (And others.) I have posted the ref as is in German.

Open Day in Wittmundhafen

Witt mouth, 29.06.2013.
According 279,000 flight hours in four decades lifted today, Saturday the 29th June, the F-4F Phantom for the last time from the airport of Jagdgeschwader 71 "Richthofen" from. Almost 130,000 guests from around the world braved the bad weather and had traveled to the open day to Wittmund to pay tribute to a legend among the fighters. The Phantom was originally planned as a transitional solution.
"In the next five to ten years, the Phantom will serve us well! It was said, than in the early years Neunzehnhundersiebziger the decision to procure the McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom II was like. Later there was talk of a transitional solution of twelve to 15 years " , explains Colonel retired Gerhard Ballhausen, Chairman of the Community Richthofen tradition. What 31 August 1973 began with the landing of the first two Phantom jets, today ended with the open day at the NATO - Airport Wittmundhafen. However, about three years later than initially planned.

From near and far

The adoption of the "forever young" fighter jets attracted nearly 130,000 visitors to Witt mouth. Many of them took long journeys to be able to attend the recent launch of the phantom can. The partially even traveled from Asia, Australia and the Americas fans of aviation, had been the day before to shoot the opportunity within a spotter Days, their personal souvenir photo with one of the ten remaining in Wittmundhafen F-4F Phantom jets. On this Saturday, the airfield opened then for everyone.

Without a rope and double bottom

"In over 2,500 flight hours, I was able to gather, I did not even have a serious problem" , Lieutenant General Charles Muellner showed highly satisfied with the "air defense Diesel" as the phantom was jokingly called. As a former Phantom pilot and Chief of Air Force, the honor due to him to deliver the opening speech of the open day. In it he described his personal experiences from the cockpit. "Mutual trust was especially important. Trust between humans and machines. Confidence in the technology as well as for air traffic control on the ground. Especially within the crew. No rope or double bottom but working as a team have created safety. The phantom was at any time a reliable member of this team. Of the Air Force team. "

Phantom Farewell - F-4F Phantom met Euro Fighter

A special highlight was the crowd in the afternoon. When flying program "Phantom Farewell" met past and future of Wittmunder flight operations in direct comparison to one another. In the morning already flying program under the motto "50 Years of Aviation" for good entertainment had caused among the spectators. However, as the F-4F Phantom Anniversary machine rolled to the runway, everyone knew that a historic moment was imminent. "Many of these people have spent decades in the cockpit of this aircraft or have screwed around countless hours on it. For them, this is now more than just a departure from an airplane " , said Colonel Gerhard Roubal, wing commander of JG 71 "R", the many media representatives during a press conference the day before. He was right. Among the spectators could see, among many cameras flashing some tears on the faces of many of the former squadron.
The last phantom off on schedule by 14 clock. Withdraw the honor as the last phantom crew of Wittmundhafen deserved the pilot Lieutenant Colonel Alex Berk and of course himself the wing commander. They started in the special anniversary Phantom painted with the tactical number 37 +01. This was the first Phantom, on 31 August was landed in 1973 in Witt mouth and is obtained by the anniversary flight, a place as a monument to 40 years F-4F Phantom Witt mouth.
On the half hour flight program was attended by a total of four phantom jets, two Euro Fighter. Since April this year, the new multi-role showcase the Air Force has already landed in Witt mouth. By the year 2018 a total of 18 of these new high-tech jets here find their new home and step into the big shoes of the legendary McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom II.

Indoor Party and Serenade for completion

At the end of the day of the open door rises today evening the large hall party on the grounds of the airport. For this purpose, up to 10,000 guests are expected. Tomorrow, Sunday is a serenade on the square in Wittmundhafen the conclusion of the "Phantom Farewell" weekend.

http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP3I5EyrpHK9nHL9cJBsSqpecn 5eagmILEnNK8kEkulFiSX5RXoF-UUlOSCZ0qIioIxeZop-pIGhi5OBmQEMGNZYWpp6h3gYmJq5eDoF6Rfk5joCAIqJiRs!/

Will need to definetly now based on new information, make the following changes to the German OOB...
CHANGE/GERMANY/MBB F-4F/UNITS 291 & 294/START DATE to SEP 1973 vice JAN 1972.// also
CHANGE/GERMANY/MBB F-4F/UNITS 292 & 293/END DATE to JUL 2013 vice DEC 2014.//

We discussed this about two years ago or less and some of the info then even supported a date out to 2015 for the retirement of these jets. We decided to leave those end dates alone pending a final resolution and now we have it. That's why it's so necessary to keep checking back "on the news of the day", it's on my list.
http://www.touchdown-aviation.com/types/german-air-force/f-4-phantom-ii.php

I used the Luftwaffe start date (31 AUG 1973.) +1 from the article vice the immediate above civilian ref. date of JAN 1974.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

July 2nd, 2013, 09:17 AM

German OOB now adjusted but they last flew 29th June so 6/2013 in game includes all of June so the end date is 6/13

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

July 2nd, 2013, 12:31 PM

Don,
Understand (Better now.) your end date. Appreciate the early action, it'll save a little work at my end. I think this is a good time to go "dark" and get to work (:clap:, Hey I heard that!!) on this stuff. Thanks again!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 23rd, 2013, 02:20 AM

I'll be quick here as I have an early start and will be on the road in the morning. As noted in the previous posts above the Luftwaffe
F-4F issue (Dates) have been resolved. Steve in an unrelated manner sent me the below pics as a coincidence to the topic above. However I was asked to hold them until after they were published in Germany for one of the avaition publications he's an editor for when not acting as a LtCol. in the Luftwaffe active Reserve (What a rough life! ;)) flying the EUROFIGHTER.
For background a portion of the email he sent on 7/7/13 then enjoy the pics...
"Last week the Luftwaffe put their last F-4F Phantoms out of service, and I had the opportunity in the end of May to make a photo flight to catch the specially painted bird (pic attached). Then I was on my annual reserve exercise in the last two weeks of June, this time in the far south with JG 74 at Neuburg at the Danube. And because our flight test facility at Manching was in the neighbourhood, I had the opportunity to make a photo flight to get pics of their last bird also (pic attached, too). Flight test will operate its remaining two F-4Fs three weeks longer. All the Phantom pics had to be sorted out fast so that the aviation publications I also work for has them in time."

Pics in order of the email portion...
12603 12604

Again enjoy I'm off for some much needed R&R.

Regards,
Pat

sabresandy

December 12th, 2013, 02:21 AM

Oh, I've been meaning to ask for a while now, but keep forgetting to do so. Are we going to integrate the US Small Diameter Bomb series? The GBU-39 has been in service for a while now. It'd mean a terrifying number of standoff shots per aircraft.

DRG

December 12th, 2013, 11:01 AM

Depending on the source it's either been used, just tested or only next year ready for full production. I know the F-22 can carry 8 plus two AMRAAMs but that's all so if anyone ( Pat ?:) ) wants to dig into this further maybe we can get it in this next release....maybe

From a game perspective we need to know how that weapon would be any different than a Maverick or a Paveway although it would allow more carried per aircraft. The F-22 in the game that carries 2 1000lb JDAM's could carry 8 GBU-39's.

What I need to know is how it would compare to a maverick or paveway type weapon for the various fields that need to be entered to create a weapon

Also....... Boeing says the weapon has been in use on the F-15E since 2006. We allow the F-15E to carry eight 500 pound paveways so what I need to know is......... is that correct ( according to the website below...... no way ) and if yes then how many GBU-39's will it carry ? It may be that in game terms there is no need to add this as, you may have noticed, the number of slots available for new things is not infinite

Don

DRG

December 12th, 2013, 01:00 PM

Here's a little project for someone ( anyone...... not just Pat )

This

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/weapons/loadout-configurations/126-allied-force#0-5-loadout-5-asymmetric-standoff

offers me clear, concise information on various bomb load configurations for an F-15. Does anyone ( anyone... not just Pat:) ) know of a website that would give equally detailed information about..... oh IDK...... as a dream every other combat aircraft used in the world ?

Don

Suhiir

December 13th, 2013, 02:53 AM

I wish.
best I could come up with was stuff like :

The F-4 could get off the ground carrying 24 x 500 lb bombs, but the fuel required ment that if the target wasn't at the end of the runway it couldn't reach it and return to base.

sabresandy

December 13th, 2013, 03:44 AM

Yeah, I've been looking for exact information on loadouts and payloads vs range and practicality for all manners of aircraft for forever now, but hard information is extermely rare. I've found that Greg V. Goebel's invaluable Air Vectors (http://www.airvectors.net/idx_wmil.html) website is pretty good about disambiguating between what could theoretically be carried versus what could actually be carried, up to an extent, so that might be a starting point.

As for the GBU-39, it's been in active service since 2006. (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/129522/usafe-unit-debuts-small-diameter-bomb-in-combat.aspx) The spec sheet says it is as effective versus concrete as a 2000lb Paveway, which I find difficult to believe, but that sounds like it'd be able to knock out just about any tank.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 13th, 2013, 04:47 AM

Well I just finished wrapping CINCLANTHOME's Christmas presents that I've gotten thus-an excellent exercise in moral building, patience and precision!?! ;) So my mood is wonderful right now. First Don excellent site, I have a MiG site that offers the same type weapons config drawing for some of the MiG varients. It makes it easier "to see it" for perspective.
So to the GBU-39 or the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). In regards to the F-22 RAPTOR I have started with my normal search pattern (For both really.) which if I'm lucky will give me my answers right away or confirm some information, provide me with some good pictures should they be needed and hopefully enough data to make it worth my time and others to use as a ref that could (And have.) opened up others unrelated issues. Again there is progression below in the refs.
Two planes were mentioned concerning the SDB, so I'll start with the...
F-15E STRIKE EAGLE...
The answer is up to 12. It will still carry an Air to Air load.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f15_eagle.htm
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104499/f-15e-strike-eagle.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/
See the weapons section for all above.

F-22 RAPTOR...
The answer is 8 plus 2 AMRAAM.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f22_raptor.htm
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104506/f-22-raptor.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/
See the weapons section for all above.

That's what normaly happens "tail end Charlie" gets it in the end more ways then one. Might go beyond the last ref. but for as many years as I've used it now I normally won't. But I always have more along the same lines as ref. 3 (Also note the "Related News" section to the right.) for each of the above.

Many times the answer will require you to find what will hopefully will be a reliable ref. to a particular plane/jet. This much more the case with older planes, contrary to many peoples beliefs, the web data dumps old information just like a library gets rid of old books.
A perfect example is below...
http://burrusspta.org/thud.html
http://www.burrusspta.org/105ordnance.html

This was are our primier Fighter Bomber for over ten years. That being said, someone might be wondering why I kept this site...
hmmm one just never knows does one!?! :rolleyes:

It's late and I have to work later today so-good night!!

Regards,
Pat

Imp

December 13th, 2013, 08:24 AM

From my quick look on SDBs seems to me
Stuff in service is for use against installations or stationary targets like say SAM sites.

The penetration is gained because the bomb aligns its body perfectly with the approach vector just before impact meaning it uses ALL the kinetic energy it is carrying.

The one for use against moving targets like armour is a different more complex beast & either isn't in service yet or has not been for that long.

In game terms its harder to distract/jam than its predecessors

DRG

December 13th, 2013, 10:00 AM

Thanks everyone. Because of space limitations in the OB I have added that as a new weapon to one F-22

This site has some good info

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html

The SDB I will be most effective (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html#SDB_Trial_Drops) in the urban and broader close air support, battlefield interdiction, Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (DEAD) lethal suppression and counter-air strike airfield attack roles. Against soft skinned vehicles and structures, armour, point emplacements, runways, aircraft shelters and SAM/SPAAG systems this weapon will be highly lethal.

Where the SDB I will be less than effective is against deep / hardened bunkers, large infrastructure targets, large buildings, industrial plant, bridges, large trench systems, vehicle parks, infantry on the move and other area or large point targets. These remain the domain of larger specialised bunker busting weapons, or large explosive bombs such as the Mk.83/BLU-110 (1,000 lb), Mk.84/BLU-117/BLU-119 (2,000 lb), BLU-109/116/118 (2,000 lb), BLU-113/122 (5,000 lb).
So this is not designed as a tank buster. ......... but the Raytheon GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II *IS* but it won't be ready until at least 2017

The design objectives for the GBU-53/B are quite different from those for the GBU-39/B. The GBU-39/B is a weapon optimised for fixed targets, especially hardened infrastructure and basing, whereas the GBU-53/B is intended for attacks on moving battlefield targets, especially vehicles and heavy armour. In the simplest of terms the GBU-53/B is a glidebomb equivalent to the AGM-65 Maverick missile, but with a more flexible and countermeasures resistant seeker.
So in game terms don't expect the -39 to be an uber tank killer. That's not what it's for but it will give increased stand off ability

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 13th, 2013, 01:12 PM

Don glad you found this site! Yes the AUSA site is excellent!! I hope you aerial "jocks" would give it a look. I used the site for the S-400 TRUMF (In a sepreate thread.) submission years ago before I had the SPA/SPAA Thread going and am tracking the S-500 on it as well now. I see technical data not seen elsewhere along with system pictures before there there are system pictures if you catch my meaning. They also have a very respectable weapons database. This is a highly respected think tank that focuses only on air and air defence systems.
I leave you with an abstact based on their technical analysis of the jets involved. Note: As I've posted in the "news" portion in of this thread elsewhere, technically speaking the F-22 is much improved since this abstract was written. It has seen minor (Because that's all that was needed.) inprovements in avionics and major updates electronically (F-35 suite has been/is being installed as posted here as well.).
Enjoy the abstract and have a great weekend!!
PAK-FA vs the F-22 and F-35...
http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

Regards,
Pat

Imp

December 14th, 2013, 02:37 AM

Nice site Pat & they confirm what I have read elsewhere that the F-35 has some huge issues. Cant take on Russia or China

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 19th, 2013, 04:14 AM

Well here's some more food for thought taking all emotion out of it between the F-22 and F-35. Why is it we're devoting all this time and effort into the F-35, and then turning around and selling it to about ten other countries. Granted we will not give up all the "Bells and Whistles" to the export market but if this fighter is so good in the first place, why are we selling it at all? When nobody will be buying the F-22 or even getting the opportunity to even get close to one to evaluate it. Hmmm, makes one wonder doesn't it? I can produce articles that reflect the true desire of Japan and Korea (Both should one happen land there in whole or pieces in N. Korea.) that they would prefer the F-22 especially facing the growing Chinese percived (Being politically correct here. :rolleyes:) threat to the region. And before someone says something I did post in this thread that the F-22 did deploy to Okinawa, UAE and S. Korea awhile back. Back to F-35; the USMC needs it since the HARRIERS will need a replacement in about 15yrs. and maybe the USN whose fighter fleet is also "getting long in the teeth" but, I'm not so sure about the USAF who afterall are getting RESET F-22 fighters now anyway as posted already.
The deployment issue has always been there for a variety of reasons, but it (F-22) did finally happen as shown below.
http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=196&newst=8
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-stealth-22-raptor-fighters-now-irans-back/story?id=16227614
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/31/world/asia/us-korea-f-22s/index.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 22nd, 2013, 04:31 AM

Since this is going to be a factor in this area I would think by next year and that this weapon and program caused some rework over the last couple of years I'm posting the ref for FYI purposes only. Basically the USA (And other countries now.) has rethought the role of the APKWS II for use with the APACHE AH-64D helo based on the mission successes experienced by the USMC in combat in Afghanistan. Also the USAF/USMC had stepped up it's testing program (2013) as well with fixed wing aircraft. The live fire exercises are complete. The rocket due to modifications made on it to resist high altitude and speed operations is designated as the APKWS FW it was mounted on the aircraft in a 7 rocket pod. Aircraft used were the A-10C THUNDERBOLT II, F-16 and AT-6 turboprop for the USAF. Of course for the CORPS the A/V 8B HARRIER II was used. Again this is only for FYI but important as it is coming very soon.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apkws-ii-hellfire-jr-hydra-rockets-enter-sdd-phase-02193/

Why the DID site? Note info/status blocks (New this year.) to the right of info provided in each article segment-for me it makes the verification issues easier to check. At bottom are other sources (Which was why DEFPRO was so good.) used to support the current article. Combined with the source articles the reference base grows exponentially-and that's what I'm all about here.

Patch Update
MBT fixes from last year corrected now. Will have a couple of new MBTs, date changes and deletions also. Don also you did such a beautiful job on the Aussie M1A1 camo could use one from their M113AS4 APCs in for the same time period. This is not your standard M113A3. I have a detailed write up in one of the Australian Threads already which I'll use for submission. Quick ref here as well.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113as4.htm
Note: Cover pic shows "older/original" camo scheme.

See pics below for paint and game use as well if bored. Yeah that was a stupid comment!!!! :rolleyes:
12770 12771
12772 12773
12774
Under the right conditions they might just (Thread word ALERT!!) fly-who knows!?! Anyway have others if you don't see one you like. Presented ones with tanks because that is their SOP for their units.

Hate to "cross threads" but am very tired and had a long day at the "office" and I get to do it again in <9hrs-sorry.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

December 22nd, 2013, 12:38 PM

could use one from their M113AS4 APCs in for the same time period.

already done 6 months ago........

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 23rd, 2013, 02:16 AM

Should've known you would've gotten ahead on that Icon as well. To the AUSCAMO M1A1 Icon go the the MBT Thread Pg. 27 Post 264. Proceeding posts back to page 26 provide the background.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 24th, 2013, 03:17 PM

Back on topic...
Steve has just sent me his Christmas and New Year wishes for me and the family in a way only he can. Yeah he was flying with his SQD. again and as CINCLANTHOME noted "how depressing that must've been for him!!" As he's let me post his pictures here before (And in the game also. Thanks Don.) and given the season I'm taking the liberty to post his Holiday card here as well. So since he knows I'm active in this area-I'll simply say from Steve and us to you and yours, however you celebrate the season, Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!

Enjoy the card!! I couldn't think of a better Wingman!?!
12777

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 16th, 2014, 04:57 AM

I wouldn't normally post something like this, however, due to the nature of the topic and it's ramifications to several OOB's in the game the CBS Network "60 Minutes" will be doing a segment on the status and issues surrounding the F-35 Project. It will be on later today at 7pm EST. For non TV viewing options you can go to CBS.com or 60minutes.com and it should be availible Monday morning EST.
I still think by the games current calendar only the U.S. will have it. Another European country this past week is having to reduce it's current order by at least a third to a half of projected due to economic reasons. Other countries have already reduced their orders for the same reason. For every potential plane lost to reduced orders will increase the cost of the rest of the planes to be built. Sequestration is still alive and well in the U.S. DOD however some minor relief was granted in the budget vote taken just before or just after the holidays on the two year budget deal approved in the U.S.
Concerning the joint Russian/Indian PAK FA/T-50, Russian sources are indicating it should be operational by late 2016. However I've come across several reports to indicate not all is well with this project ethier. Pulling all the information together I have seen mid to late 2018 probaly is more realistic at present.
Many are still holding to the idea that both the F-22 and PAK-FA/T-50 are comparable and nullify each other. But most agree they are both better then the F-35. Chinas plane has already been found to be a "paper tiger" however they are working hard to catch up but are still several years behind everyone else. Of interest to watch will be Malaysia, S. Korea and Japan which will probaly develop a 5th Gen fighter jointly, the ground work has already been laid for this.
Have been tracking these for years now with posts in this thread. That's the update I figured I better do this with the info advert above.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

February 16th, 2014, 08:42 AM

From what I've seen the major issue with the F-35 is apparently the airframe is developing cracks. And that's a BIG problem.
You may want to check if the Royal Navy is cutting back their order. I know they were counting on the F-35B (jump jet variant) to replace their Harriers.

Mobhack

February 16th, 2014, 12:21 PM

(rant follows)

We should simply have gone for the CTOL version of the carriers, with leased F-18s (or rafaeles!) with a view to replacing those with bought F-35s as and when (if?) they ever materialised, IMHO. Those conventional plane types are perfectly serviceable for the immediate future.

And of course the catapult equipped version would have operated hawkeyes. Probably the most important plane type to have at sea!. Stuff the fighter mafia - the AEW capability is priceless.

We should never have bought into the F-35 programme early-on, especially with the reluctance of the USA to release key code so we can integrate our own weapons etc. Let the US contractors fix the bugs first and carry the development costs.

As for the jump-jet version, and the Tories scrapping the harriers and the Invincibles well before there was a replacement to hand - the less said the better!

Too many politicians poking their fingers into the carrier and plane projects... :doh:

MOD - likely stands for "Made Of Dumbness":rolleyes:

cheers
Andy

Suhiir

February 16th, 2014, 11:55 PM

What?
Politicians doing stupid stuff to get an extra couple votes?
You mean that happens in the UK too?

Yeah, I've never understood why the UK doesn't operate "real" carriers anymore.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 24th, 2014, 03:17 AM

This past Friday the SECNAV visited our base and talked about the issues that the USN was dealing with in benefits and pay, the Littoral Combat Ship program and what will be our newest SSBN building program that is estimated would run as high as a 1/3 of the USN budget. The concern is what happens after the FY 2016 Budget does sequestration come back? No one knows yet. Our three bases here seem safe with infrastructure projects to come but, how to pay for some of this? Well briefly look at Post #139 and I can say after having recorded tonight's program and watched it when I got home, they had an update of last months story on the F-35 and it's not good for the USN; they announced at the end of the week they will be cutting their order for the F-35C in half. I would think the USAF and USMC might in the coming weeks also see further reductions also. Well for the CORPS the AV-8B HARRIER was already slated to be around until 2025 and lord knows we have more than enough spare parts thanks to the UK. For the USAF well they made the F-22 better fleet wide in upgrading to the electronics suite carried on the F-35 as posted in this thread months ago. So there are some trade offs and there are the issues the Russians and Chinese are having with their advanced fighters as well. How it'll affect the game? Best case we open up some slots and that's never a bad thing now is it? Anyway I'll be watching it as I have from the start.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

March 24th, 2014, 10:02 AM

Kinda reminds me of the Carter years.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 16th, 2014, 01:15 AM

Been busy rebuilding my databases but to Suhiir, at the rate we're going now we'll look upon the Carter years fondly as "...the good ole days..." pre-WWII levels in manning and equipment doesn't bode well for the future. For the USA the GVC Program is dead again I see a BRADLEY A4 and A5 within 6-8 years maybe ten for both unless things turn around.
Anyway India not very happy with Russia at the moment and according to the respected Russian source quoted for the below article the PAK-FA/T-50 will not be operational until 2017/2018 time frame and if Russia pursues for their jet the more advanced radar India plans to have installed for their version (The FGFA) and other upgrades India is seeking; we might not have to worry about these jets being in the game at all. And since it's a fighter it won't break my heart at all if that happens in the Russian OOB. Anyway here's the read...
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2014/01/russia-cant-deliver-on-fifth-generation.html

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

May 19th, 2014, 09:07 PM

As always they come home. To TDR and GUD thank you (And others over the last couple of years.) but this type of work really brings me great pleasure when equipment requests are made in the manner these have been-they break up my work nicely and at times help me refocus. These are in the game.

PM5. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1946 – JUN 1955/HORNET F.Mk.1/C1/SPD 472mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets// The HORNET F.Mk.1 was a further improvement upon the famed MOSQUITO. These planes actually flew before the end of WWII but not in numbers to be assigned in combat squadrons. Shared by all versions they had a bullet proof laminated canopy, armored cockpit, nose section and gun panel section underneath. Aerodynamically the HORNET was superior to the MOSQUITO which along with the improved RR Merlin engines made this the fastest prop fighter. It to in combat in Malay; would prove to be as accurate or more so in getting weapons on the target for which the MOSQUITO was legendary in doing so during WWII. The HORNET F1.MK.1 would have “shorter legs” than it’s successors but was still superior as compared to the SPITFIRE, P-51 and early jets with or without drop tanks. Interestedly the F.Mk.1 would only end up operating out of the UK.

PM6. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1946 – JUN 1956/HORNET F.Mk.3/C1/SPD 472mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The HORNET F.Mk.3 would represent the pinnacle in design and performance of the type upon which all further types would be based. The range would be increased to 3000 mi. and maneuverability further improved upon with the introduction of a dorsal fin to the tail section. These planes would validate the type in combat (May 1951-May 1955) during the Malay Crisis of 1950 - 1960. These planes replaced the latest and last versions of the SPITFIRE and TEMPEST Squadrons already stationed there at the start of the conflict.

PM7. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1947 – FEB 1957/SEA HORNET F.Mk.20/C1/SPD 468mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The SEA HORNET F.Mk.20 actually was derived from the F.1 but would be improved to the F.3 modifications as that plane was coming to fruitarian. As the name would indicate this plane was built for the RN. The big differences from the RAF types was that it had folding wings, arresting equipment and wing modifications to slow the plane down for carrier landings. The speed decrease is due to the fact that the RN required the type to carry 3 cameras; in the case of the F.20 and NF.21 below, located 1 centerline and 2 angled side looking in the tail this added about 500lbs to the overall weight of the aircraft. However it’s interesting to note that except for the loss of some speed, these modifications had apparently little to no effect on the SEA HORNET overall performance. The first ref below has comments made by the military test pilot Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown that flew the SEA HORNET during the evaluation process. Captain Brown apparently still holds the record for flying the greatest number of different aircraft types.

PM8. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/JAN 1949 – FEB 1957/SEA HORNET NF.Mk.21/C2/SPD 457mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The SEA HORNET NF.Mk.21 was modified to carry the ASH radar system. This version was considered an “all weather” fighter due to its status as a night fighter. Even though it had an elongated nose to house the radar and carried a radar operator; it seems from the refs and blogs I visited online, again the only issue this brought about was a further reduction in speed only as noted above for the SEA HORNET F.Mk.20. The radar operator faced aft with a small canopy “bubble” that could be ejected to allow the operator to parachute out of his “cockpit”. His was located about midway in the fuselage.
http://www.livingwarbirds.com/de-havilland-hornet.php
http://dhhornet50.net/
http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/post-wa...et/hornet.html
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/...and_hornet.php
http://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/bri...and-hornet.php
http://www.airpowerworld.info/other-...and-hornet.htm
http://britains-smallwars.com/malaya/reg.html#raf
Refer to the British OOB Thread by IMP for further info if desired in Posts 6 - 12 as brought to light by Gud. The last ref might be VERY useful for you designer types.

Just a part of my tidying up. Thank you again GUD and TDR and of course Don for getting ahead on this until I could get the data to him. Gotta go after all Jack is back and on now!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 17th, 2014, 09:04 PM

Well now for something different...an update on my favorite :rolleyes: fighter...the vaunted F-35. These from DID...
1. The "Black Hole" becomes more infinite...
"It’s always commendable to act on front-line advice, and it can be very useful to reduce costs. The Pentagon is doing so for the F-35, and hoping to reach 10-20% savings, but most costs are set in the design stage. The F-35 is estimated to be 40-60% more expensive to operate and maintain than the aircraft it’s replacing."
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122477

2. Leaking oil at this stage of development...
"The temporary grounding of the US’ entire F-35 fleet because of an oil leak is a minor glitch, in the larger scheme of things, but it is also a warning regarding the consequences of a tri-service, single-engine future fighter fleet. Most planes have already been cleared external link to resume flight operations."
http://www.brecorder.com/world/north-america/178954-pentagon-temporarily-grounds-f-35-fighter-jets.html

3. Those golden memories from about three to four years ago; ah those were the days my friend (Sounds like a song!?! ;))...
Remember what I told you about and posted from AUSA concerning the T-50/PAK-FA, F-35 and F-22? Well that well respected think tank on aviation, missile and space issues ranked the F-35 as the worst of the three. For you F-35 supports you might not want to read this next and further ask yourselves why the DOD has/is upgrading the whole fleet of F-22 fighters with a new advanced electronics suite based on the F-35 one.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/04/f-35-needs-f-22-acc-says/
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140202/NEWS04/302020005/Air-Combat-Command-s-challenge-Buy-new-modernize-older-aircraft
The good general should go back a few years and reread those selling points that this was going to be the main frontline fighter. Just saying.

Regards,
Pat

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

June 18th, 2014, 03:29 AM

Ahh the joys of adopting a new aircraft.
Maybe we should send the naysayers a historical list of the F-4's teething problems. Nawww, why upset their "how things should be" view of the world with trivial things like reality.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

June 24th, 2014, 10:02 PM

The Congress has been putting on the heat on certain weapons systems over the last couple of years. Notably telling the Army you will like your ABRAMS and will make it better and you'll keep the tank plant open as well. Now there's been blowback from Congress (Also over the last couple of years.) on the Air Forces attempt to retire the A-10 THUNDERBOLT II. It might be retired down the road, however, not by the timeline the Air Force thinks. This started with strong support of the combat veterans and groups, parental groups supporting their sons and daughters and the troops and Congress themselves protecting jobs in their districts and the troops serving in combat. Even the Army and Marines have expressed reservations concerning the A-10s' retirement as was projected. So from DID and as brought to you by the DOD I offer the following a week after General Hostages comments from last week as posted above by me then as well.

Who Posted This?
Has the House of Representatives taken over the Pentagon’s official Youtube channel? You might think so looking at the description of the video below: “After much debate, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is not yet going to be retired.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdPtzm7w1w

Also...
http://azstarnet.com/business/local/a--backers-win-house-vote-to-save-plane/article_04a2fb17-f31e-5a2b-8063-1c7a15f71fa2.html

Fly on old mighty WARBIRD!! It is after all the biggest election cycle for Congressional and Senate seats this Fall!!

I have an upgrade in the can that Don and I discussed in here about three years ago. I just had to support it now, I (And shortly after...) can.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

June 25th, 2014, 01:01 AM

Yeah the Air Force didn't really want the A-10 to start with and has been trying to get rind of it forever.

I recall after Gulf I they pointed out how many A-10s were damaged/shot down as "proof" the aircraft was useless and obsolete, while of course neglecting to mention the number of sorties flown or the amount of confirmed damage done.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 13th, 2014, 03:02 AM

Well it's been awhile since I last visited "DID" so I'm catching up slowly. Here are the highlights from the ref below as sourced from the GAO. This can't be good for us either but here's the effect for the following countries due to continued software issues for the F-35. I believe this has game implications as well though I haven't checked yet. In the ref you can click on the highlighted blue "GAO Report" which I suspect might show the impact on the other customers as well. I haven't read it yet either. Excerpts...
1. "The RAAF has already ordered 2 F-35As, which are scheduled to begin arriving in 2018, but a recent GAO report external link indicates that they aren’t likely to be fully combat-ready by then due to software delays. Another 12 F-35As were approved to buy in 2009, but haven’t been placed under contract yet. These 14 aircraft are more likely to be ready by 2021, which is when RAAF No.3 Squadron is supposed to be operational."

2. "They won’t be alone in the region. By 2023, Japan and South Korea are likely to have their own operational F-35A Squadrons. Singapore may have joined them with F-35Bs, depending on when their order is placed."

This still can slip due to contract issues as noted in this article as well.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-raises-their-f-35-commitment-023629/#more-23629

Couldn't wait as I suspected not good for us either if not cleared for full rate production until 2019 ours won't get operational until maybe 2020. But here you go and off to bed for me before someone has a serious talk with me! :rolleyes:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-322

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 20th, 2014, 08:30 PM

Don or Andy,
In the game does the OOB Gulf States refer to the "real" Gulf States under the GCC? The current countries that make up the Gulf States are Saudi Arabia (Separate OOB.), Kuwait, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/249154/Gulf-Cooperation-Council-GCC

The issue follows but for now on my list to be fixed under the game Gulf States OOB for Oman.
http://www.janes.com/article/44750/oman-retires-jaguars

The next concerns the ongoing possibility of further closer political and military ties (Think EU/NATO in nature.) between the Gulf States beyond the GCC which is more an Economic (Think G7.) union. There are some Political agreements involved as well but not as close as what is in the next ref below.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18057836

Unrelated to the above and also on my list (And a surprise when I saw it.) for this Threads work list...
http://www.janes.com/article/44758/a-7-corsair-ii-finally-retires-from-service

Though not sure but suspect and will check, there might be some date adjustments here besides the end date for those Greet Corsairs. Still flying who'd a thouk it!

And with everything else going on in the World you would think Asia is quite but you'd be wrong...
http://www.janes.com/article/44629/japan-reports-record-number-of-interceptions-of-chinese-russian-aircraft

Nothing like a good day at JANES!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 20th, 2014, 09:29 PM

Since we have no room for an OOB for the country of "Greet" the last should read, Greek. Though I'm sure they'd gladly Greet you if you visit their country. Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

October 21st, 2014, 11:23 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 21st, 2014, 12:41 PM

Don,
Thanks! I'll have to verify first that none of the other countries are still flying the JAGUAR before submitting any changes when the time comes.

Regards,
Pat

dmnt

October 23rd, 2014, 05:04 AM

Just something to keep an eye on:

Finland looking for a replacement for F/A-18.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_defence_forces_to_replace_aging_hornet_fig hter_fleet/7535139

Originally this was supposed to happen in 2020, but for some reason (*cough*) this time schedule was adjusted a bit earlier.

Speculated options have been F-35 (if it ever gets completed), F-22 (if it ever gets exported), Swedish JAS Gripen NG, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale. In the current political situation Russian fighters are unlikely to be picked, but Sukhoi PAK FA and SU-35 are possible.

dmnt

October 23rd, 2014, 06:18 AM

Damn, meant MiG-35, not SU-35.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 29th, 2014, 01:29 AM

To go along with tracking the F-35, I've also been tracking for years now the PAK-FA/FGFA (India) + T-50 (Russia) for many years now as well. If there's a fighter to compete with the F-22 it's this one (Much on this topic and the next in this Thread.) however like the F-35 it's been beset with many of the same issues in technological development compounded also by cooperative issues between India and Russia. It appears the last after at least a year+ has reached a resolution. Again the following will unlock to the general public soon just check back (This also indicates the article has been updated.) in a few days or so. And yes date changes will be required and or deleted further down the road. It's also ironic to think that the USMC whom normally gets the "leftovers" in equipment might possibly be the only OOB to have the F-35(B)operational by this games end. Anyway here's a taste...
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-russia-in-negotiations-re-nextgeneration-fighter-03133/#more-3133

The "Doc" saw fit to have to give me a shot in the eye this evening (Pesky scar tissue.) so I'll leave it at this. Have a good night!

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 2nd, 2014, 01:56 AM

Other than technical issues, Congresses attempts to keep the A-10 flying could upset the IOC for the USAF F-35A. The GAO as already posted, predicts a later date and the A-10 issue would probably push this back at least a year or more to get the additional maintenance personnel inducted into the service and trained. We should know more by this winter I would think on this ever changing situation with the F-35 series..
http://www.janes.com/article/45198/a-10-retirement-restrictions-imperil-f-35a-ioc-for-usaf

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

November 2nd, 2014, 05:11 AM

It's also ironic to think that the USMC whom normally gets the "leftovers" in equipment might possibly be the only OOB to have the F-35(B)operational by this games end.

Actually the USMC generally keeps it's aircraft and helos pretty much up-to-date, it's the grunts, tanks, and artillery that make do with old equipment.
You can get by with a slightly outta date tank but given the reliance on air support and lack of significant AA assets you can't afford to have aircraft that can't achieve air superiority (or at least parity).

shahadi

November 2nd, 2014, 11:26 AM

You can get by with a slightly outta date tank but given the reliance on air support and lack of significant AA assets you can't afford to have aircraft that can't achieve air superiority (or at least parity).

My reading on the F-35B is that it has decreased the capability of the A and C variants due mainly to the concept of shared or common design principles. The engineering to lift what 20 tons near vertical and then expect STEALTH and supersonic speeds is daunting. The Navy and the Corps do not need a STEALTH supersonic close aircraft.

Conceptually, what is the need for STEALTH close air support and VTOL when the big boat carrier has assets to provide air superiority and STEALTH (needed to penetrate and strike deep). Especially, at 150 mil a piece, why sacrifice the payload capability of the F-35C to achieve VTOL in the B is beyond me, unless you're living in Fort Lauderdale, an employee of Lockheed Martin, or a congressman from that district.

It seems the Navy has an incessant need to put fixed-wing aircraft on assault ships while forgetting the air craft carrier is designed for that species.

This talk of the advanced JSF, the F-35 and in particular the F-35B can drive a teetotaler to reach for the George Dickel.

Suhiir

November 2nd, 2014, 02:30 PM

It's NOT "stealth" like the F-117 (or even F-22) it's more like a drastically reduced radar signature.

Aircraft carriers, and their planes, exist primarily to protect the fleet NOT support ground actions. Sure they train for and can do ground support (quite well) but during an amphibious landing their #1 priority is protecting the shipping. Plus the USMC aircraft need to be transported to the landing zone somehow and you sure don't want to have to reduce the complement of the carriers to haul them.

The main reason to sacrifice payload with the "B" model has absolutely nothing to do with ships however. It has everything to do with NOT needing to seize an airport immediately to support the landing. VTOL aircraft can make do with any parking lot or dirt road.

Suhiir

November 2nd, 2014, 02:37 PM

I always find it immensely amusing how many so-called "experts" are ignorant of, or flat-out ignore extremely relevant data and/or reasons when they complain about things (specially military hardware).
I guess we should have listened when the experts told us the expense and amount of training needed to use the longbow didn't justify it's adoption over the crossbow.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 4th, 2014, 10:03 PM

Well I shall gloat just a little here but, I love it when the CORPS (For now anyway.) agrees with my some my projections on a items I've been reporting for a couple of + years now. So here are the highlights for Suhiir a little tighter adjustment is needed to at least get into the 6 month "swag" Don and I normally have worked out on submission dates the last few years. These are taken from the below directly and for whoever has the balls (Baseballs, Basketballs Golf Balls etc. etc. :p ) to take on this project from 2020-2030 or whatever you might want to hold onto this ref as this is the AVPLAN for the CORPS through 2030..

"The F-35B and F-35C will replace F-18, AV-8B and EA-6B. The Marine Corps will procure a total of 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs in the following squadron bed down:
• 9 Squadrons x 16 F-35B
• 5 Squadrons x 10 F-35B
• 4 Squadrons x 10 F-35C
• 2 Squadrons x 10 F-35B reserve
• 2 Squadrons x 25 F-35B FRS Marine Corps F-35B IOC is July of 2015 (objective) and December 2015 (threshold). IOC requires the first squadron to have 10 aircraft in the Block 2B configuration capable of executing CAS; limited offensive and defensive counter
-air; air interdiction; air support escort; armed reconnaissance;
and limited suppression of enemy air defenses. Additionally, 6 aircraft need to be capable of executing amphibious carrier operations. The aircraft is currently tracking to reach its full operational capability in Q4 of CY 2017. The full transition from legacy to F-35 will complete with the transition of the second reserve squadron in 2032."

"The TACAIR 2030 Roadmap is a departure from the previous AVPLAN’s TACAIR transition order. The F-35 transition continues per the program of record, while the AV-8B and F/A-18 order of transition has changed.
Transition Plan:

* AV-8B will transition to the F-35B first, with a planned sunset of 2025.

* F/A-18A-D will transition in the out years with a planned sunset of 2029 for the active component and 2030 for the
reserve component.

"The AVPLAN now prioritizes F-35B sourcing to MAGTF (MEUs) in the
PACOM AOR with the first VMA transition (VMA-211) planned to begin FY16. The pace of the AV-8B conversion has been accelerated and F-35B will source 31st MEU requirement beginning 3QFY17."

https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/sites/default/files/files/2015%20Marine%20Aviation%20Plan.pdf

This means the F-35B will be the first operational series and the CORPS is planning for that to happen (Barring any further delays.) in JUL-SEP which is the 4th QTR of FY 2017. Suhiir based on earlier discussions and yes I understand you just changed it, August 2017 based on this document is the best date we've had on any of the F-35 types to date.

All USMC aviation assets, operability and to some degree tactical use is discussed here. Some might find some answers here; for me it's more about validation of my work in this area. Sometimes that's needed especially how the last couple of years have gone.

Happy Hunting!!

I have elections to follow this evening, I hope for whom this applies to, that no matter your affiliation that you voted today.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 4th, 2014, 10:47 PM

As someone knows a tough day at the OPHTHALMOLOGIST today. Just caught the fact the ref/document quoted CY=Calendar Year
vs. what I thought was FY=Fiscal Year (Why'd they do that?) anyway that would move things back further to OCT-DEC 2017 or I would submit now NOV 2017 as the operational/in service date for the F-35B. The rest of the para I stand by. This means with the CORPS getting theirs first the next will definitely fall in no sooner then mid 2018 at best holding to the CORPS timeline in development.

Sorry for the confusion :doh: on my part.

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

November 5th, 2014, 12:34 PM

Nice document bubblehead!
Good find.

Suhiir

December 10th, 2014, 10:35 PM

Nov 2014

The F-35C, naval variant of the F-35 JSF, completed it's initial carrier qualification tests.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35c-completes-initial-sea-trials-aboard-aircraft-carrier

shahadi

December 18th, 2014, 08:30 PM

The issue of the F-35B or really any of the variants performing CAS missions is not definitive. Truly, the issue is one of speed, fast or slow, and altitude. Given danger close of say 250m, can a fast moving F-35 deliver the goods on target, including guns, if necessary, close enough without friendly fire casualties is a question that even the "experts" are divided upon.

So, enter the Air Force, pinned to deliver F-35's in CAS missions, now beginning to develop CAS tactics with the F-35 platform. They can't certainly use the A-10 tactics for obvious reasons, it's just "slow and low," while not "fast and high."

Obviously, then, if the Air Force will use CAS, and the Navy too, they will develop the tactics necessary, but if they rely on external stores and not guns, this is similar to the Phantom in Viet Nam: missiles but no guns. Then, where does one find advantage in the F-35B?

Admittedly, I am not an expert, nor do i suppose to be one, and I suspect most of us in this forum are not experts on the F-35 either. However, we are literate, participate in democratic processes while remaining civil even when disagreeing.

Although, the F-35 is brand spanking new technologies, and as such requires maturation, I'm not so certain an amphibious assault ship is the place for it, while the nearby big boat has them, and maybe could have had better versions if not for the principle of shared design.

And the debate goes on: http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/12/a-look-at-f-35-close-air-support-tactics-development/?sf6244571=1.

I'm confident they will get it done, after all that is what we do, just not sold on "fast and high" CAS platforms like the F-35.

Now, where's my drink!

Suhiir

December 19th, 2014, 09:56 PM

The US Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years. As an institution they REALLY don't like CAS, that's not to say the actual CAS squadrons and pilots don't see the need/value.
Ever since its' official founding in 1948 the USAF top brass has been convinced the only thing they need is fighters and bombers, "fast and high". And with the development of smart munitions the bomber can finally hit a target smaller then an airfield/small town.

Ground support missions have two major requirements.

1 - Fast response - The tactical situation is extremely fluid, targets come and go rapidly. Using high speed aircraft that require full out airbases to take off/land cannot be as responsive as an A-10 (long loiter times) or AV-8/F-35B (forward basing).

2 - Target Identification - From 15,000 ft you might be able to spot a tank, but who's? Again this is where the A-10 (flying low and slow) can identify it's target and make sure (most of the time) its shooting at the bad guys. USMC and USN aircraft performing CAS missions typically fly at around 500 ft (and frequently lower). They also typically make two passes over the target, the first to identify it and insure their approach/exit doesn't pass over friendly units (in case they hit short/long) and the second pass to actually fire/drop their weapons. The USAF hates to make multiple passes because the first pass alerts the opposition and the second allows them to fire AA weapons. But the USAF very rarely flies below 5000 feet so can't take advantage of terrain to limit opposition AA.

Low, slow, long loiter time, and a large ordnance load is optimal for CAS. But this inevitably means your aircraft ARE going to take damage. The A-10 is a flying tank, and the better CAS aircraft of any type can handle a certain amount of damage and stay airworthy. High speed, high altitude aircraft just cannot be as rugged (usually) because it needs low weight and streamlining.

shahadi

December 20th, 2014, 10:58 PM

At times it is worthy to recall the thoughts of those before us. In this vain, my son offered this quote:

"Aviation is fine as a sport. But as an instrument of war, it is worthless." General Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superiure de Guere, 1911.

Or,

"No aircraft ever took and held ground." US Marine Corps Manual, maybe the Handbook for Marine NCOs, I'm not sure which manual this quote is taken from.

troopie

December 21st, 2014, 02:48 AM

As platoon sergeant TerHorst said in basic training forty years ago. You can bomb it. You can sterilise it. You can shell it. But you can't call it YOURS until you can send a rifleman to sit on it.

troopie

(just a rifleman who was sent to sit on it by the okes in Pretoria)

DRG

December 21st, 2014, 09:35 AM

Which is why, in the game, aircraft don't flip V-Hexes and neither does arty ( but if you try to take them without the support there will be far fewer riflemen to sit on them )

FASTBOAT TOUGH

December 25th, 2014, 03:34 AM

Well my Luftwaffe friend Steve had just sent me this on his latest flight operation I'm assuming over the Baltic region as Germany is in the rotation for flying interdiction ops in that area. He's the one who let me post the East German pictures he took as a MiG-29 pilot in this thread. Also posted is a picture of what he's flying these days...yeah it's a rough living I guess.
13366 13367

And something for the future and a project I've put off for years as a taste, probably the most advanced F-5 variant flying today...
13368

Santa has cleared my area now, so too all a good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 21st, 2015, 01:30 PM

Have to answer a ? on the quick-back to work-anyway this deals with Albania apparently based on some information I came across it looks like they grounded their jets around 2005. This second/third source is of the "gun-slinger" category however they do support the first source.
http://airheadsfly.com/2015/01/01/albanian-air-force-at-full-strength-in-2015/
http://www.xairforces.net/airforces.asp?id=34#.VL_hQizSMng

Airheads one is not to bad a source/second though I've seen it is less familiar to me. The very first source given is solid.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 21st, 2015, 03:44 PM

Further confirmation......"The Albanian Air Force is a sole rotary air arm since 2006".........http://airheadsfly.com/2015/01/01/overview-albanian-air-force/

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 22nd, 2015, 03:29 AM

As I think about hitting the rack I do so with a smile on my face. It would seem I beat JANE'S in analyzing the F-35 situation and Suhiir has already made the changes in her OOB to reflect it. Victory is ours!!! :re: And to JANE'S I simply say...:p with lots of droll!!! :eek: Before I get further behind the "8 Ball" let me just enjoy this one and share it with Suhiir for hanging with me on this one. Even right down to the date...OK...OK I'll stop now!?!
http://www.janes.com/article/48184/f-35a-testing-took-back-seat-to-f-35b-ioc-preparation-in-2014

Well that felt good, in reality we just committed first around the time or just before the below article on the USMC commitment to reach the IOC date. Generally IOC means if all goes well the first operational SQD. will be mission ready. However full operational status could still take up to 2 years after IOC is reached. We just felt we could "pull the trigger first" based on the information we had up to Nov. this past year so I guess that still means we...well never mind I'll sleep good tonight thinking about the "decision tree" anyway.
http://www.janes.com/article/45266/usmc-sticks-to-its-guns-on-f-35b-ioc

See pages 16 & 17 this Thread.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 22nd, 2015, 11:06 PM

Also makes sense to get the F-35B version fully tested first because it the primary variant they have non-domestic orders for.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 25th, 2015, 04:46 AM

India was to have pulled off one of the largest single purchases of fighters in history with the MMRCA Program which I believe I started posting on about 3-4 years ago in this thread. It had initially involved the following candidates EUROFIGHTER, FA-18E/F SUPER HORNET, F-35, RAFALE and JAS GRIPEN. The winner was the RAFALE well sort of maybe and probably not. Remember the Indian MOD also had the wonderful 30+ year ARJUN tank program and gave me and by default Don about a good two or three year headache as well (And I still have not finished with them yet.). So who are likely the real winners here? The Indian Sukhoi SU-30MKI the joint T-50/PAK-FA and yeah I did emboldened the GRIPEN well, that's because Brazil has signed the contract[B] for the latest JAS GRIPEN as one of the largest export fighter deals now and it fits the niche of being considered the only [B]true 4th Generation + fighter in the world. What that means in theory is only the F-22 (Which it is.) F-35, T-50/PAK-FA are better. The new JAS GRIPEN is easily on par with the EUROFIGHTER and RAFALE as it is a larger fighter with increased payload as well. so in order I hope of the above...
http://www.janes.com/article/47850/indian-defence-minister-hints-at-mmrca-cancellation
http://www.janes.com/article/48232/india-russia-agree-to-fast-track-fgfa-programme
http://www.janes.com/article/47115/russia-plans-to-receive-55-pak-fas-by-2020
http://www.janes.com/article/47805/hal-hands-back-first-overhauled-su-30mki-to-indian-air-force
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/

And with all the talk we've had of the F-35 this is the latest from NAVAIR and as Suhiir and I have cleared up hopefully in this Forum when it comes to everything that fly's for the USN/USMC if they don't say it's so well it just isn't so then. With that in mind this is the latest from them on the F-35 and note the date.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5766

It least for what we "think" is happening we still have JANE'S and DID (And a couple of others.) to let us know what's going on, they kinda reminds me of those "silly" French soldiers in a certain Scottish Castle mocking King Arthur (NAVAIR) in that knowing way of "we have it and know what's going on" and if you know what I'm talking about here then you remember what those "silly" French soldiers did to King Arthur!?! But Andy how did they ever get into Scotland to take the castle in the first place!?! :p

Anyway off to the rack to get some sleep to finish the work week off. Take Care and enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 26th, 2015, 02:33 AM

Basically testing is proceeding more-or-less as planned.
Bugs and teething issues are being found and worked out.
It took about 4 years (1970-1974) between the time the F-14 Tomcat first flew and it's initial deployment with a US Navy squadron. And it was designed by and for the US Navy, and only the US Navy. Far fewer hoops to jump thru and people to please.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 9th, 2015, 03:25 AM

SOFTBALL #3...CANADA/F-35A/NONE/ADD/In doubt currently accessioning airspace requirements and budget concerns./
Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Ahem................... type CF-35 into mobhack search when in the CDN OOB and you'll find 4 units

ARGHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!------SORRY PAT.. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A REPLY NOT AN EDIT. I tried going back to save your work but it was gone by the time I realized what I'd done:doh:

DRG

February 9th, 2015, 07:56 AM

SOFTBALL #3...CANADA/F-35A/NONE/ADD/In doubt currently accessioning airspace requirements and budget concerns./
Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Ahem................... type CF-35 into mobhack search when in the CDN OOB and you'll find 4 units. One of the issues here is it's a single engine aircraft and that is a legitimate concern given where it will be flown most of the time but there is a LOT of hot air being blown around about the aircraft but ultimately I wouldn't want to guess how it will go one way or the other at this time...... ask me again after the election in the fall but even then...IDK. Right now the OOB's have a 6/2018 start date and that's fine by me until we know more but if anything is really going to kill this deal it's the current currency exchange rate

Don

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 9th, 2015, 05:33 PM

That sounds fine to me concerning 6/2018 for those OOB's and UNITS. We have plenty of time. Suhiir should have pretty reliable dates for the F-35B and F-35C we worked those pretty hard. USMC IOC is still on track for I believe it was 07/2015 for the F-35B. Sorry about the CAF jets as I didn't start there. The other countries I searched under "JSF" and they came up that way.

These were a couple of the posts I used to support my last post. On the second ref. just click on the "FLAGS" to see the type F-35 each country ordered and information associated with that order.
http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/global-partnerships.html

Now about that OOPS! Here's I how work I have to first :fight: with my :pc:
which causes me to sometimes just to :banghead: and at other times just :yield: but if I hang in there it's just :cheers: all around!!
I wish to thank you for the opportunity to tell a smilie story!! :p

Don likes those you know!?! Kinda like he enjoys putting trucks into OOB's!! Alright I'll stop!?!
Have a good day!!

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

February 9th, 2015, 06:03 PM

Actually the dates I have at the moment are:
F-35B 01/2017
F-35C 01/2018
EF-35 Ferret 01/117 - and this should probably use the the F-25C icon/LBM, be changed to 01/2018, and perhaps given a pair of 500# JDAMs (since it has the larger internal weapon bay the F-35B). Chances are they'll use the 'C' variant for a "wild weasel".

There is TONS of rumor, speculation etc. concerning the F-35 but until someone actually deploys them in an active squadron all we can do is take a best guess.

Suhiir

February 9th, 2015, 06:06 PM

ACK !
F-35C icon/LBM for the Ferret
((damn "no edit" for Firefox))

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 13th, 2015, 04:22 AM

By way of sending a message to someone, and also note related articles at the bottom of this "featured" one. As a side we will be sending more armor to Europe as well. If I remember, it was around Oct. 2013 when I posted the last tanks were leaving. Served during the official "Cold War" now it looks like the "Cool War" scratch that, with the "Chilly War" has started.
http://www.janes.com/article/48878/usaf-returns-a-10s-to-europe

Regards,
Pat

dmnt

February 13th, 2015, 06:09 AM

Finnish F-18 mid-life upgrade 2:

FDF news (in Finnish) (http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/portal/puolustusvoimat.fi/!ut/p/c5/vdDNdrIwEAbga-kFtAkhEFjyEwMiASSCsPHAp1UooPWnIFdfv9NVF3XlcWb5nuSZ GZCDW3fFV7UtztW-KxqwBLm6YkjVnCmUdCZxDbqBCBGbTyBbqCAFS4hXcX09uOPHOK 9hDwXFiNdR79t05CR3eb0OOYVXMbryeTRnce0jn8x9eNKlZBJR w1WuE7t_uf2V_9ICzzdv2gwmZBZKFoP3cyj95KpMPcoZllhoYe jG9kIXCyL_n_be-2BOfnL4RxkQZCAnf11DgyoQD7zGfUt5vGVGiWBUDqBmuwo0NMt Z2CRGfvDMvcjzLIafZ2noiZb0UGsK8qps3_p_7Rt8UzWIVIyxL isYQayDtMwQsU5Tg9JklSfcbwdk8y5Lt11hWX5-EZNizHfaLlBCR76ePhGv1hukDGuvm-2OTWn0XoCVuvzUXo-qQTsCXYuEh8zQSzo4vDO8U4YMkTbj2j_6r8ag-GrsxHHK3egYvwflUPadfiJC0aYXp4kKFtq5GQpC3NYzGbq-m8tyl14mH6lZqctiEDhL9s2esqxqYoH0c7JX5Cyokqg-H4KtLORZt70E27X7Arizbzfg0H4d6NwZl796Y3wDfPyKTA!!/dl3/d3/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?pcid=a1cc310046738c77a5b7b7786bf3619b)

"Uusilla kyvyillä varustettuja koneita on saatu Ilmavoimiin palveluskäyttöön keväästä 2013 alkaen. Vuoden 2014 loppuun mennessä MLU 2-koneita oli käytössä noin 30."
"The planes with new capabilities have been received to Air Force service from spring 2013 onwards. By the end of 2014 there were about 30 pieces of MLU 2 fighters."

Improvements list at the end of article (selected ones):

Sensori- ja omasuojajärjestelmän päivityksiä
Sensor and self protection (=EW) upgrades
Ilmasta maahan -täsmäaseistuksen käytöönotto (lyhyen kantaman ohjautuva JDAM-pommi, keskipitkän kantaman JSOW-liitopommi sekä pitkän kantaman JASSM-rynnäkköohjus)
Air-to-ground precision munitions (short range JDAM bomb, medium range JSOW glide bomb and long range JASSM missile)
LITENING-maalinetsintäsäiliö
LITENING targeting pod

Suhiir

February 13th, 2015, 07:54 PM

"Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR) units are well shaped to fill a gap in rapid response when an Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) is not available, but are not capable of replacing the ARG/MEU's capabilities ..."

Interesting.
Seems someone has decided to augment the Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) concept with one specifically tailored to probably independent company vice battalion size operations.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 4th, 2015, 02:19 AM

All right a little news and as always if I'm posting it that normally means I'm tracking it where it might apply to the game.

1. A favorite of mine the USAF A-10 how about that CAS by the F-35A vs the A-10...
http://www.janes.com/article/48957/afa-2015-usaf-contemplates-a-10-follow-on
http://www.janes.com/article/48878/usaf-returns-a-10s-to-europe

2. Covered this with the USMC ref. I provided earlier dealing with the F-35B/C jets this probably was taken from the same with further conformation(s) that confirms the AV-8 HARRIER and HORNET retirement dates...
http://www.janes.com/article/45885/usmc-to-hurry-harrier-phase-out-stretch-hornets-to-save-usd1-billion

3. UGANDA (The Su-30 might be an add.) sending air assets to SUDAN...
http://www.janes.com/article/46364/south-sudan-opposition-says-uganda-has-deployed-su-30s-to-juba

4. Been tracking this from the beginning the MMRCA Program from INDIA we'll know something next month (And end my misery hopefully! ;).)it appears but Daussault can't be feeling very hopeful about closing the deal for the RAFALE...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/
http://www.janes.com/article/49098/aero-india-2015-decision-on-rafale-to-be-taken-by-early-next-month

5. The reason Daussault is concerned for their RAFALE is the cost, so here's INDIA's solution and let's not forget their project with Russia and if I have to tell what that is well, you haven't been paying attention for the last four years or so. Anyway...
http://www.janes.com/article/47805/hal-hands-back-first-overhauled-su-30mki-to-indian-air-force
http://www.janes.com/article/49142/aero-india-2015-new-uac-chief-bullish-on-fifth-gen-fighter-progress

6. ARGENTINA shopping around and there's "news within the news" of the second ref if you read it carefully also the UK is not going to like the following concerning ARGENTINA and CHINA coming together on a very likely deal for advanced fighters...
http://www.janes.com/article/48726/argentina-and-china-agree-fighter-aircraft-working-group
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/two-to-tango-argentina-looking-for-new-warplanes-022821/

7. IRAN puts an old/new fighter into the mass production the SAEGHE...
http://www.janes.com/article/47766/iran-begins-mass-production-of-saeghe-fighter

8. UK reconstitutes 3rd TORNADO SQD...
http://www.janes.com/article/47823/uk-reforms-12-b-squadron-as-third-tornado-unit

9. UK about to equipment it's TYPHOONS with the PAVEWAY IV as already equipped on the TORNADO the TYPHOON will carry six and can launch these simultaneously imagine seeing that in the game!?!
http://www.janes.com/article/46434/raf-completes-first-paveway-iv-in-service-releases-from-typhoon

10. IRAQ getting help from the UAE in the form of the SUPER TUCANO and the MIRAGE 2000-9...
http://www.janes.com/article/48114/uae-to-donate-super-tucanos-to-iraq
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsuae-likely-to-supply-mirage-2000-9-fighters-to-iraqi-air-force-4493293

11. Will EGYPT beat INDIA to became the first export customer for the RAFALE!?! As I've said before this INDIA we're talking about, congratulations EGYPT!!!
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/160813/egypt-close-to-order-for-24-rafales.html
http://www.janes.com/article/48964/egypt-orders-rafale-fighter-aircraft
http://www.janes.com/article/49025/egypt-officially-signs-for-24-rafales-fremm-frigate-and-missiles

12. An update on KOREA's KF-X fighter program...
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/160869/kai%2C-kal-square-off-for-korea%E2%80%99s-kf_x-future-fighter-project.html

13. FRANCE offers MIRAGE-5F fighters to COLUMBIA...
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=160660&cat=3

14. You lucky Europeans how's it feel to have Russian Bombers flying over and near your airspace again? I'd be a little concerned myself given the current situation in the Russian border zone and within the last rew days Russia itself...
http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2015/02/russian-bomber-intercepted-norwegian-f-16s-carried-nuclear-warhead-01-02
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555454/Intercepted-Russian-bomber-was-carrying-a-nuclear-missile-over-the-Channel
http://www.janes.com/article/49064/russia-conducting-major-air-exercises-close-to-europe
The first two above as reported by DID.

15. F-35 news...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-raises-their-f-35-commitment-023629/
http://www.janes.com/article/49141/lockheed-martin-demonstrates-f-35-productivity-improvements

16. CHINA introduces next H-6 series bomber the H-6K not much out there on these planes but with what we have should be enough to verify there isn't more of these in the OOB than there should be based on the data we have. Besides what was used to get them in the OOB in the first place? But then I don't know if they're in there in the first place!! :rolleyes:
So I'll just have to CHECK, VERIFY and make recommendations.
http://www.janes.com/article/49127/xi-jinping-visit-reveals-h-6-bomber-details
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6.htm
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/h6k.htm
M-T always seems to be the first to get equipment data out there most of the time.

Well the taxman has come and gone. It's nice to know he'll be making deposits vice withdrawals, now I can put 2014 behind us-TG!?!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

March 4th, 2015, 08:33 PM

I'll be curious to see if the USMC manages their intended July 2015 date for an operation F-35B squadron.
BUT ... until one is actually operational I'll stick to my current January 2017 date. Don's been bit in the butt too many times in the past buy "intended" vice "actual".
Besides, there's always 2016's WinSPMBT patch.

PvtJoker

March 4th, 2015, 10:01 PM

13. FRANCE offers MIRAGE-5F fighters to COLUMBIA...
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=160660&cat=3

Mirage 2000-5F, not Mirage 5F... The former is roughly the French equivalent of the F-16C, the latter an obsolescent 1960s attack aircraft based on the Mirage IIIE.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

March 5th, 2015, 01:16 AM

This is why Don loves my late night forays as well but, since I just got home a short time ago unfortunately this will happen at times. Thanks for the catch! Does make a world difference though, also they are saying those MIRAGES did perform better then their F-16C/D fighters.

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

April 1st, 2015, 12:19 AM

Well this next article is the most update and comprehensive one out there on the F-35 on all types, timelines, issues, capabilities, weapons by types/loads etc. etc. and even comparisons to existing craft and they were eye opening in a couple of instances not from what I already knew but how big the gap truly is and admitted too. We're in such a hurry now with this plane that even with the current software issues widely reported in the main stream media here, that the CORPS is going to push on to IOC with limited and restricted operational capabilities. Makes AUSA look real good from the articles posted in here about three or more years ago on the F-35. If you really read this carefully it's just a sad situation.
Again DID is a multi-sourced publication.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lightning-rod-f-35-fighter-family-capabilities-and-controversies-021922/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

April 1st, 2015, 06:16 AM

I always love the folks that say the F-35 is a "Fighter", and not a very good one. It's a "Ground Attack" aircraft, and should be a significant improvement over most currently in use.

I'll stick to my current 01/2017 deployment time, but I did suggest a few weapon loadout changes based on your find.
Thanks again Fastboat!

I also love the A-10 as a ground attack aircraft, if only they could figure out how to put tail hooks on them and get them off a runway less then 1,200m ...

FASTBOAT TOUGH

August 2nd, 2015, 12:54 AM

I've been waiting for the "GHOSTRIDER" for ~3yrs. now. The only minor surprise for me is that AFSOC decided to stay with the 105mm, but it proved it's value again in Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan so I'm glad it's there. And with VIPER STRIKE anti armor and other precision strike weapons, new electronics offensive and defensive suite onboard it'll be someones nightmare on the ground. The SPECTRE is already on my list as well. If all goes well operational testing should be complete by Spring of 2016 so that puts it out two patches anyway.
http://www.janes.com/article/53354/afsoc-receives-first-ghostrider-gunship
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/467756/ac-130j-ghostrider.aspx
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/611738/af-special-operations-command-receives-first-ac-130j.aspx

TRACKING

Regards,
Pat

FASTBOAT TOUGH

October 27th, 2015, 01:54 AM

As I'm sure Don is well aware of, there have been many stories on what the Liberal Party in Canada under now Prime Minister Trudeau promised it would do if elected. One that had possible ramifications to our defense industry and beyond was, the promise to end Canada's participation in the F-35 program. No formal decision has been made thus far from the Trudeau government but, the French are feeling confident enough to offer the RAFALE to the Canadian government now.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/frances-rafale-fighters-au-courant-in-time-05991/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/dassault_rafale.htm

The consequences of a decision by Canada to drop the F-35 will be huge for some countries as the per unit cost before maintenance/support considerations are taken into account, will mean a million dollar increase regardless of who's buying them.
Hit the highlighted portions of the top/first para for those details.

This article will also have me take a look at the RAFALE in the French OOB, since this a multi-sourced document, it's enough to do a quick check, the issue here is the first version(s) weren't a ground attack capable platform. I'll see.

Also this is as good a place as any for the next article as it pertains to Canada and Russia. The Northwest Passage opening up is causing a "can of worms" between those two countries and others. Russia is wasting no time in establishing bases/or reopening in some cases Cold War era bases long shut down in the Arctic. At stake besides territorial issues are the vast resources and who'll control them in that region (Is someone thinking about a scenario/or campaign here!?!) both Navies are there and we've visited as well.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2015_global_defense_security_news_uk/canada_to_spend_billions_on_arctic_military_equipm ent.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/17/united-states-not-winning-race-control-arctic-349973.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

FASTBOAT TOUGH

November 12th, 2015, 04:26 AM

Before our two year budget gets approved the DOD will have to cut a further 5 Billion dollars from the defense budget. So for the USAF a further delay for the F-35 was already mentioned. The USA is supposed to draw down another 40,000 troops and around 19,000 civilian personnel. And we'll the effects of that here after Thanksgiving. With all this "doom and gloom" it appears you can't keep and "old bird" down face it, it's still our best CAS asset we have. Here's the latest.
http://www.janes.com/article/49836/pentagon-study-validates-usaf-a-10-retirement-plan-but-no-cas-specific-replacement
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/31/air-force-plans-head-head-tests-f-35-10/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
http://www.janes.com/article/54629/usaf-issues-rfi-for-a-oa-10a-re-winging
http://www.janes.com/article/55459/usaf-deploys-a-10s-to-incirlik-for-syria-strikes
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-highertech-hog-the-a10c-pe-program-03187/
http://www.janes.com/article/55895/usaf-considers-a-10-retirement-delay

What's this all mean?
1) Improved birds (2 I think.) will need to be added.
2) Current plans take the A-10 out to at least 2021. Though ongoing life cycle issues will keep the A-10 flying/viable through 2028.

And since Don can reasonably understand "Conklinese" something I've very recently touched on, has left me with a "loss of appetite" and you might be "serving dinner without me" but I'll let you know via PM as the situation has been developing for sometime and is ongoing into the foreseeable near term future.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

November 20th, 2015, 02:37 AM

Not directly game relevant but never-the-less interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U&list=PLsSJ_6W1M9RjxNIAp7N-2phAgDA6m1GAg&index=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY&list=PLsSJ_6W1M9RjxNIAp7N-2phAgDA6m1GAg&index=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkrRMO8b-X0&list=PLsSJ_6W1M9RjxNIAp7N-2phAgDA6m1GAg&index=3

Suhiir

December 24th, 2015, 05:37 AM

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 14th, 2016, 01:40 PM

I truly do this with a "heavy heart", full respect of the history and not to save slots, this is more about not being able to meet the capabilities of these assets in the game due to coding issues etc. Even as I have new data and new units to be added to the game even from other countries, what I'm about to ask has been on my mind on and off for years now since I asked a "similar" question dealing with the game engines ability to improve upon how it treats the attack capabilities of gunships. Going back to "PUFF THE MAGIC DRAGON" AC-47 gunships from the below ref...

"They tried the idea with ten, 30 caliber machine guns mounted in a C-47. The idea worked and the Air Force replaced the machine guns with three General Electric, six barrel, rotating mini-guns, reminiscent of the Civil War Gatling guns. These 7.62 mm guns were capable of covering every square foot of a football field with one round, in one minute."
http://www.dc3history.org/aircraftmilitary/puffthemagicdragon.html

We at best can only do a 50 meter attack hex. The newer models are now carrying ATGW which could be set up for stand off attacks, however we have plenty of those already for about the same cost in planes and jets. And there's the issue cost vs. benefit and at one hex and as much as I REALLY like these units I don't see the benefit to the player even as the capabilities have increased over the years to include the latest version just coming online. Cost doesn't normally bother me as Suhiir knows and I've put a fair amount of work into these units across the board in both recommending fixes and otherwise submitting new units over a couple of years not that long ago.

Again I don't like this, but, at the same time I think this matter bears some thought and reflection on what's best for the game and players if nothing can be done to improve it's capabilities. I have a couple of thoughts on the matter for modeling within the "hex world", otherwise I again would ask serious consideration be given to what I'm asking.

Regards,
Pat

DRG

January 14th, 2016, 03:30 PM

Pat, for the most part they were added as scenario window dressing not a serious in game unit because, as you noted, they simply cannot do what their RL counterparts do. The fact they even circle a target and fire while doing so was an accomplishment only dreamed of in the days of SP2 But of the Triumvirate of off map air assets we HAVE added, gliders, paras and gunships...gunships was the one that never quite worked but they did gradually grow from one or two curiosity units into a bit of a crowd that eats up increasingly scarce slots

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14065&stc=1&d=1452800124

DRG

January 14th, 2016, 03:54 PM

That said I may have just hit on a solution........more after testing and you can test too

Suhiir

January 14th, 2016, 04:00 PM

That said I may have just hit on a solution........more after testing and you can test too

Oh?
It'd be nice to see gunships actually become useful.

If the initial testing looks promising I'd be more then happy to drop it into my "Walking Dead" scenario as that sort of mass assault would be just the Kind of thing a gunship crew would have wet dreams about.

Suhiir

January 14th, 2016, 04:01 PM

That said I may have just hit on a solution........more after testing and you can test too

Oh?
It'd be nice to see gunships actually become useful.

If the initial testing looks promising I'd be more then happy to drop it into my "Walking Dead" scenario as that sort of mass assault would be just the kind of thing a gunship crew would have wet dreams about.

DRG

January 14th, 2016, 06:31 PM

Test failed.......it would not work across all unit types

Suhiir

January 14th, 2016, 09:54 PM

'E' for effort Don!

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 15th, 2016, 02:50 AM

I appreciate the effort here my thoughts are, in thinking outside of the box...

1) KISS A. Straight line of attack like normal Planes/Jets even to the extent of the player to pick entry/exit as it exists in the game. This will cause the player "to think" about the gunships orientation in regards to weapons on target. Have it come in the wrong direction with the guns on the wrong side of the target hex the gunship either aborts or we allow it to fire away either way you risk wasting the mission, getting shot down or if we let it shoot, possibly hitting other enemy units or your own (Think of this as receiving bad target coordinates or a breakdown in the chain of command - Afghanistan comes to mind as just recently within the last three weeks that hospital was hit. A few people don't have to worry about any further promotion/or retirement.) and...

B. The target area I think should be 7 hexes/350m long with the center hex being the "target" hex chosen by the player, this would be bordered on each side by one row of 6 hexes/300m. The plane should standoff from the target area grid edge by no less then about 6 hexes/300m this should allow for the newer "birds" to fire the VIPER STRIKE Top Attack ATGW and give if you will a sense of altitude. Understand due to the suggested target area entry and departure of the plane could be limited to straight cardinal headings in regards to the game map.

C. The older gunships might be firing in the "blind" within the target area but if units are hidden they should still obviously suffer suppression and casualties. The newer ones will see the targets on approach within the current parameters of the game (TI/GSR), if armed with "VIPER STRIKE" it should attack armored units as a Plane/Jet can. Machine, Gatling and 105mm guns would fire once the plane is flying parallel to the target area.

2) Keeping the elements of B and C above, have the gunship using only the top and or bottom corners of the map/monitor screen, flying in about a 15-20 arc from corner to corner on the attack run.

All weapons should be able to attack targets within the target area, or, at a minimum the ones in the "center" hex line while suppressing/or causing light damage to the targets on the "border" hex lines. Gunships should be limited to 2-4 turns and or passes with fully loaded weapons. The AC-47 carried 2000lbs or 1 ton of ammo onboard when it flew missions. Results of a well documented attack on an NVA company has been used by many sources and was included in the ref I used in my last post, and is re-posted below. Even the AC-47 in Vietnam was able to stay on station for 8 hours doing "lazy" circles waiting for the call. I believe that's why the KISS concept would work as I believe that I've read the operating attack radius was either 2.5 or 5 miles from the target area.

Yeah it's work and all I can do is provide raw data. I would love to see a solution, however, I would fully understand if one can't be found and we're back to my original question as posted above.

http://www.dc3history.org/aircraftmilitary/puffthemagicdragon.html

Well I'm beat, long night at the "office" so...well Good Morning!!

Regards,
Pat

Suhiir

January 15th, 2016, 03:20 AM

Even giving the current gunship a "beaten zone" would help.

Right now they circle the target hex and hit only the target hex.
If they were to hit the target hex and all adjacent hexes that would help tremendously. Yeah a 150m circle isn't realistically accurate, but it's something that might be able to be done with the game engine.

DRG

January 15th, 2016, 09:22 AM

Changing the weapon class from 11 to 14 does somewhat what you want but it's a kludge that doesn't work with all unit classes ( and leaves annoying mines behind occasionally ...... ) and adding new weapons just for the GS class is not an option. The solution would be a new WC just for multi-barreled weapons that works in Gunships, aircraft and helos with multi hex graphics like cluster munitions but using the auto cannon ,multi hit animation rather than the multi-mini explosion graphic but that's a F%$@ of a lot of work for a niche weapons system ( no matter how much it's loved by some)

Suhiir

January 15th, 2016, 06:06 PM

Mobhack

January 15th, 2016, 08:53 PM

Yeah obviously a new WC is not a solution.
I just thought (of course with zero knowledge of the game code) that since they are already programmed to circle strafe a target hex it might be possible to have them hit multiple hexes simultaneously.
Just brainstorming.

Try a test run with blast circles on, and you will see that it does affect the hexes alongside the target hex.

Also, sometimes it fires into an adjacent hex to the target hex.

So, yes it does affect the surrounding hexes, so it does have a "multiple hex" affect, if there is a horde of VC packed in there to annoy.

But once again, the class was written because a scenario designer way back when wanted to have "spooky" in a scenario. They circle a hex, and beat it up with area fire. That is all they do, and so the things are only of use to a scenario designer, who has rigged the enemy not to have credible AAA (it is night, and the foe is low-tech with no radar AAA).

MarkSheppard

January 15th, 2016, 09:41 PM

These 7.62 mm guns were capable of covering every square foot of a football field with one round, in one minute."
http://www.dc3history.org/aircraftmilitary/puffthemagicdragon.html

We at best can only do a 50 meter attack hex.

Fastboat; a Football Field is 48.5 m wide and 109.1 m long; so....

EDIT: Saw that others had replied to it...let's see...

MarkSheppard

January 15th, 2016, 09:51 PM

Why not try using

UnitClass 215=Gunship Aircraft

combined with

Vision
Fire Control
Rangefinder

or some mix of them to alter the unit behavior of UnitClass 215?

E.g. if you have >8 Vision or whatever, do this behavior instead of the default circle strafe target hex?

It would help differentiate between the AC-47s and very early AC-119s which could only do the 'pylon circle and strafe area'; versus the more advanced later AC-119s and AC-130s which had hunter/killer capabilities.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 16th, 2016, 01:38 AM

Mark I was allowing for the newer birds to be able to use their full compliment of weapons. This is why I recommended no more then 2-4 passes for the gunships to minimize overkill especially where the older gunships are concerned. Also in the first sentence of the para immediately below item 2) I left myself an out on the target "hex box" as well. Tried "combine" the old with the "new" as different sized target areas for each "era" of gunships wouldn't be feasible, it was a compromise in my mind.

In this thread and the patch one, I spent many hours recommending fixes and additions on the research side of things for the gunships. Unless Don and Andy are willing to spend the next year trying to come up with solution for the them, I say it's time to get rid of them and I don't think there are many more forum members that regularly post that are as passionate about all air assets as I am (Though in truth I'm that way about all "my" thread topics-maybe OK less so about the UAV one. :eek:) but...

I'd need two more slots to allow for the GHOSTRIDER gunship which is flying on the AC-130J platform within 2 years. Need one for the M1A2 SEP V3. REALLY will push again for the best fighter bomber we had in the 60's & early 70's that would be Warsaw Pact weaponized after a couple of online conversations with the pilots that flew them-that's one slot though it's about six hexes of death and destruction mech/armor/personnel. We'll have the new STRYKER to add with the 30mm RWS - there's another slot. Oh by the way we'll need to add a couple of new APACHES because my former military employer has very kindly let the ARMY use their APKWS II laser guided rockets this past year-two slots. They are/have ramped up production to also supply the ARMY.

I'm not here to over stress Don or Andy. Remember my goal for this game is "One World One OOB" my record bears that out to include doing what's right for this game which at times means sacrificing the things you like most in this case the gunships to allow for the items I've listed above and here the ARMY is looking to develop a light tank for the Airborne-could be two slots. What did you think I was totally slackly off? :rolleyes:

So how am I doing? Well my s#*t of real USA equipment has almost used the current existing slots left in the OOB with the eight I'll be asking for, ten if you count in the GHOSTRIDER. So now what's more valuable??

Don and Andy don't need my permission but I'll be good with any decision they make concerning the future of gunships in the game.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

luigim

January 16th, 2016, 03:09 AM

For example I proposed time ago to cancel EFOGM launcher that never have been in service.

DRG

January 16th, 2016, 10:26 AM

Gone..anything else I can rip out ?

Suhiir

January 20th, 2016, 04:20 AM

Gone..anything else I can rip out ?

I presume you've removed the LW50 from the USMC OOB?

My recommendations are:
Delete units #427, 428, 436, 437, and 986.

Unit#429 Dates 01/106-12/120
Unit#446 Dates 01/106-12/120
Unit#448 Dates 01/103/12-120
Unit#896 Dates 01/103-12/120
Unit#984 Dates 01/103-12/120

Suhiir

January 20th, 2016, 04:29 AM

Pat/FASTBOAT TOUGH,

I know on 31 July, 2015 the USMC declared the F-35B operational. But I can't find anything from NavAir about it. Have you seen anything?

DRG

January 20th, 2016, 08:29 AM

DRG

January 20th, 2016, 08:33 AM

Pat/FASTBOAT TOUGH,

I know on 31 July, 2015 the USMC declared the F-35B operational. But I can't find anything from NavAir about it. Have you seen anything?

http://www.marines.mil/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/3258/Article/611657/us-marines-corps-declares-the-f-35b-operational.aspx

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/07/31/f35-operational-marine-corps-joint-strike-fighter/30937689/

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-marines-declare-first-f-35b-squadron-operational

"31 July, 2015 the USMC declared the F-35B operational." --About 106,000 results

and then there's this..........:)

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/air-force-marines-cancel-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/

"Air Force, Marines Cancel F-35 Joint Strike Fighter"

Suhiir

January 20th, 2016, 09:53 AM

..already forgot we pushed the end dates to 2025 eh ? .......already done

Actually ... yes.
Guess alzheimer's is catching up with me.

Suhiir

January 20th, 2016, 09:58 AM

and then there's this..........:)

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/air-force-marines-cancel-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/

"Air Force, Marines Cancel F-35 Joint Strike Fighter"

So on 16 June, 2015 they cancel the program and on 31 July, 2105 the F-35B is declared operational.
And some people wonder why most people don't trust the press.
*just sighs*

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 20th, 2016, 01:45 PM

That's why I never use blogs except for the following two Arm Chair General and Tank net AND that's only to track down additional sources I might not already have and again that's very rarely.

Concerning the F-35, I feel there's no need to change anything, especially if you read and fully understand who wrote this report in ref 2, that's why the ICO the F-35B all is quite from NAVAIR. If they had full confidence in the plane then since May when when tests were conducted on the WASP with a completely empty deck and since announcing IOC in July haven't they proved it can do the same onboard a ship that'll normally have 18-20 aircraft/helos on deck almost 8 months later? In ref 4 USMC continuing ahead with work arounds - there'll be no missions, NAVAIR won't allow it and these are ongoing still. I'm not sold. Ten planes don't make a strike force I would caution patience here, it's only a date change, let's get it as right as possible, after all how many have been done already?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politics/f-35-report-question-readiness/
http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/2015-9-1-DoD-FOIA-ocr.pdf
http://www.janes.com/article/52097/pentagon-releases-official-accident-report-on-2014-f-35-engine-failure
http://www.janes.com/article/50173/f-35b-on-track-for-operational-readiness-despite-software-challenges
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/15/dod-report-claims-marine-f-35b-not-ready-combat/72332738/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-lightning-the-joint-strike-fighter-program-07501/
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/pentagon-testing-office-calls-foul.html

And if nothing above has convinced you please read this and then note the very extensive list of refs at the bottom. Also as a reminder about DID as you read an article you'll sometimes note a light shaded blue over a couple of words-those are links to a source on the issue being discussed. The charts are highly useful especially in the weapons area, which by the way not even all the weapons these planes are designed to carry will be ready until 2017, barring any delays there as well.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lightning-rod-f-35-fighter-family-capabilities-and-controversies-021922/

Funny how the USMC has been quite about this in the government reports it can't even carry weapons - KAMIKAZE missions most be the plan of attack!?! :rolleyes:

I need some lunch before work, this had made me hungry, have a great day!!

Oh yeah-TRACKING!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 20th, 2016, 07:24 PM

Yep, as you say one squadron of anything but EW type aircraft are pretty irrelevant. So I'll stick to my 2017 date. Actually, I've seen things about qualifications with various weapons taking place recently. As with any new system during peacetime it's one small step at a time and eventually you get a functional system.

I'd assumed NavAir had signed off but just couldn't find a solid reference, thanks.

I had a friend who was a mechanic back in 1977 when they were testing the LAV and tho not nearly as big a circus this whole thing brings back memories.

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 22nd, 2016, 01:08 PM

Don all I say is if your extending out to 2025, I strongly feel that you can extend the A-10 to that date. Thank you ISIS and Russia for keeping them around! The news that the A-10 will be around through fiscal 2017 is old news, it's already been decided that 2023 would probably be the time frame however, Congress told the USAF it's not going anyway without an effective replacement. All this is already posted in this thread.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusaf-stalls-plans-to-retire-a-10-thunderbolt-4791828
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/air-force-a-10-isis/index.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/13/air-force-delays-retiring-a-10-warthog-to-combat-i/5
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18985/a-10-warthog-retirement-plans-stalled/

On the last ref. scroll down after reading the article, you'll see an interesting article on the F-22, as they say "where there's smoke, there's fire" I'll have figure something out with the F-22, they were put on a parallel program to upgrade them with an all new electronics suite very similar to the F-35 one but modified to fit the F-22, also already posted in this thread.

Have a great weekend-2 more to go!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 22nd, 2016, 02:22 PM

The A-10's are in it for the duration. I won't pull them until they are officially decommissioned which I don't expect anytime soon. I've admired the A-10 for what it can do and how it looks since the very beginning

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 23rd, 2016, 03:46 AM

First thank you Don, been on the A-10 for a long time now, it truly is an outstanding platform. Secondly just pulled this from a DID article (ref within the story) which considering that the USAF hierarchy wants to get rid of the A-10, that they would turn around and publish the following article and data REALLY makes their plans counter intuitive. When you take away the transports and UAV's and allow for the fact the limited numbers of gunships they have available compared to the A-10, it makes the A-10 the most mission capable aircraft they fly. Though it might surprise some, but most members of Congress do know how to read in general and are really adept in interpreting charts. Makes you wonder if someone in the USAF got in trouble for disclosing this data!?!
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/01/19/worn-war-birds/78860920/

I wonder if I should forward this to my Congressman and Senator to keep them in the "loop"!?! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 23rd, 2016, 09:00 PM

Old, old story.
If it ain't a fighter or a strategic bomber the USAF hierarchy really isn't interested in flying it. Tho perhaps given the development of smart weapons they might see a limited use for tacair for interdiction.
You might find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxzpjBnpH4Y
In particular starting at 20:29

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 28th, 2016, 04:16 AM

Have I mentioned how much I love India when it comes to making decisions on military equipment? That it took 30yrs (And at times it feels like I've been tracking it for that long myself.) to develop and field the ARJUN Mk 1 and now the almost, we just might've, can't do it, let' make a deal within deal, oops! time for a "timeout", ready to go again, corruption, back on again, "holy cow" (That's irony!?!) we've finally picked a fighter and there'll only be 36 and not the 108 fighters we thought we wanted or needed. Well they at least managed to pick one the RAFALE by some miracle. Over the years I had nothing better to do anyway!?! And the below will bring you up to date om India's MMRCA fighter program-maybe...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/
http://www.janes.com/article/50591/modi-announces-rafale-buy
http://www.janes.com/article/57495/india-s-rafale-deal-remains-at-an-impasse

I've been tracking this for a very long time now this program was an early post to this thread also and when I scrolled down ref 1 and saw 2006/2007 that it started, my first thought was, when did I start out here? I'm not looking, but if someone else does, and I've been on this that long, please do me a favor, make it quick and put me outta my misery PLEASE!?! ;) And here's your OPLAN (Sorry Don.) :gossip: :shake: :hide: :fight: :fire: :deadhorse: :party: it outta work!?!

Some of these defense sites might feel the same as I do. You can click on each article or just look at the 4 or 5 pages of "tag lines" they reported on concerning the MMRCA program. This is why some of us take a wait and see attitude on equipment submissions.
http://defense-update.com/tag/mmrca

Anyway still tracking "until the cows, I mean jets come home!" :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 29th, 2016, 12:06 PM

Does anyone know of one source..........online...........that details information on hardpoints and weapons combinations carried for current in service military aircraft ?

Suhiir

January 29th, 2016, 01:13 PM

Single source? I've never found one. If I can find one at all it's usually by specific aircraft model.
If someone does know of one I'd love to see it too.

DRG

January 29th, 2016, 02:46 PM

Single source? \

I can dream..........

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 30th, 2016, 12:54 AM

I've not found one on the net that covers that data except for the Flight Global data I've posted and sent dealing with current/retired and ordered aircraft/helos from the world's airforces. The best I can offer is
1. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ and
2. http://www.military-today.com/aircraft.htm

Notes: Both are about 90%+ at for what your looking for but, will also provide weapon types and how many.
1. For the first ref. use the indexes on the right side of the page broken by "Region" and below that "Type" i.e. Ground Attack, Attack Helicopters etc. these are useful and save time.

2. For the second ref. they have a very extensive listing broken down by aircraft type and country alpha order. They also maintain a decent amount of older aircraft under the "type" section as well.

Though I haven't done much in years with aircraft as posted-these two have been my standbys for a very long time for the reasons stated above. I can most certainly say, there are much worse places to start. And you'll see them again from me as I'm not doing anything else until I "clear the deck" of the many years worth I have. Don't worry not a "huge" list more neglected is all, as you know-priorities in other equipment types. I've tried that search on and off for years now and I haven't found anything close to a JANE'S or similar website.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

P.S. I almost forgot...yes you can dream, but remember even a nightmare is a dream! :p

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 30th, 2016, 04:28 AM

It bugged me after my last post that there was another site I used and had on my old computer but, I couldn't remember what it was because I lost it during one of my computer crashes on my old PC. I wanted to make one last check by doing a "word tech" change to my search criteria and there it was and now here it is...
http://www.combataircraft.com/

Don't be afraid to play with this site it has what you want plus if you click on the country it'll provide a pretty accurate picture of that countries combat aircraft holdings. Also the aircraft description/history is pretty good as well.

A most welcomed re-addition to my refs after losing it for about 4yrs. or so now.

Now I'm more satisfied between these last two posts on my offerings to you. The rest I use are more news orientated, therefore, I'm done on this topic now, though the search did also garner for me a new and verified news site as well so it wasn't a wasted effort at all.

Now for bed!! One more to go.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

DRG

January 30th, 2016, 08:50 AM

It bugged me after my last post that there was another site I used and had on my old computer but, I couldn't remember what it was because I lost it during one of my computer crashes on my old PC.

Yeah I know what you mean. I "lost" the link I was using yesterday that inspired the question !

Then the two brain cells that still work remembered I sent Andy the link

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/weapons.html

scroll down to Weapon Configurations and you find the original version of this....

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14089&stc=1&d=1454156987

Nice, yes ?

You can see the hardpoints and it give typical loads ...... MUCH more helpful than something like this for the Phantom II

provision to mount two AIM-7 Sparrow self-defence AAMs in rear fuselage recesses; radar suppression weapons include mix of AGM-45 Shrike, AGM-65 Maverick and AGM-88 HARM missiles in conjunction with APR-38 RHAWS integral equipment and podded ALQ-119 ECM
or others that tell me something can carry say........20,000 pounds but don't say how many of which hardpoints are for heavy ordnance and which for light.

The problem is even this doesn't tell the whole story but it does better than most. Note the close air support configuration show the Typhoon carrying 18 ( ! ) brimstones. Six hardpoints used with three misslies per hardpoint so in game terms ----if I ASSUME they balance the load.... the least amount of Brimstones carried would be 6.....one pod of three per side, then other goodies could be hung. I discovered from a photo that the Tornado can carry 12 brimestones-------- 4 pods of 3 on the center line but finding all this out without multiple sources and a lot of luck is a real treat sometimes and in the end a Typhoon in the game with 18 brimstones is pricey at 624 points ....tempting to buy for all those Brimstones but you really want the air defence suppressed before you send that in:D
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14090&stc=1&d=1454157941

FASTBOAT TOUGH

January 30th, 2016, 01:31 PM

I agree that is more useful, the A-10 is another fine example of this the USAF uses the term "pylon" which is mounted to a "hardpoint" that's designed for the same purpose - to carry multiple weapons. And going back to the Gunship issue, the plane I can't let go of is the "THUD" that not only was capable carrying a diverse variety of weapons but actually did especially in Germany. It would routinely carry a mix of anti-personnel and anti-armor weapons to be used against heavy Soviet mechanized units. Remember this was our top frontline ground attack aircraft for over ten years until the F-4 PHANTOM finally took over that role. But to your point where did I find that data? Like you on a dedicated plane pilot run website (That used USAF weapons configuration data sheets.) that's the only way we can "reasonably" get it "more right" in getting to these details.

14093 14094

14095 14096

14097

Gotta get ready for 8.5 hrs. of fun!?! Well at least now that I'm retired I get 6 hrs. of sleep instead of the 4 hrs. on a good day on the boat!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Suhiir

January 30th, 2016, 02:34 PM

I recall reading a comment once that while it was possible for an F-4 to get 24 x 500# bombs off the ground the target needed to be just off the end of the runway due to fuel consumption.

Suhiir

February 13th, 2016, 04:20 PM

Try this in a normal aircraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j-YsrwRNwY

scorpio_rocks

February 13th, 2016, 07:52 PM

I discovered from a photo that the Tornado can carry 12 brimestones-------- 4 pods of 3 on the center line but finding all this out without multiple sources and a lot of luck is a real treat sometimes and in the end a Typhoon in the game with 18 brimstones is pricey at 624 points ....tempting to buy for all those Brimstones but you really want the air defence suppressed before you send that in:D
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14090&stc=1&d=1454157941

Thats why the other 4 missiles are ALARMs :)

(the outer pylons are carrying, I believe a targeting pod and a countermeasures pod)

DRG

February 13th, 2016, 08:22 PM

The problem now is...............there are no longer any ALARMS in the inventory. They have been decomissioned

scorpio_rocks

February 13th, 2016, 09:29 PM

The problem now is...............there are no longer any ALARMS in the inventory. They have been decomissioned

:eek: Eeek! I wasn't aware of this! We go from having one of the best and the only "loitering" ARM to having nothing???

It seems that there won't be a UK military in a few years :(
RAF has no teeth, RN has no planes, Army has no soldiers, etc.

Perhaps its easier to have the UK OoB ending in 2015...

DRG

February 14th, 2016, 08:38 AM

The British military just keeps dwindling.

IHS Jane’s (http://www.janes.com/article/32800/uk-retires-alarm-missile) reports that the Royal Air Force has retired its only dedicated anti-radiation missile used to destroy enemy radars.

The news might seem relatively minor. But the ability to suppress and destroy enemy radars is crucial, particularly with Russia and China developing increasingly advanced air defense systems (http://www.rferl.org/content/explainer-russia-syria-s-300-missile-system-/25003647.html).
During the opening hours of a conflict—such as the 2011 air war over Libya—one of the first priorities for a modern air force is to make it as hard as possible for the enemy to see, track and shoot down your planes.
For the RAF, the ALARM missile was the weapon of choice. Capable of being fired from a Tornado attack jet 58 miles away from a target, the missile traveled up to 1,525 miles per hour, using its sensors to home in on faint—but perceptible—radar signatures.
The ALARM had some other tricks. If an enemy radar powered down to avoid being targeted, the missile could fly up to an altitude of 40,000 feet and deploy a parachute. The munition would then slowly descend, and if the enemy radar powered back up, it would release its parachute, re-acquire the target and … boom.

the rest HERE (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/heres-another-thing-the-british-military-cant-do-anymore-28090db4882e#.j70cq2xuk)

retired at the end of 2013 and the next set of OOB's will reflect that

FASTBOAT TOUGH

February 14th, 2016, 09:52 PM

So the RAF must have developed a "cloaking" device for their jets, "good show" I just hope they shared it with us because the F-35 sure can use it! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Pat

IronDuke99

February 18th, 2016, 10:28 PM

Re an Alarm 'replacement' these links give some info...

http://http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/11/better-late-never/
http://http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/replacing-alarm-fighting-in-hostile.html

Presumably something along these lines will be made available for Fleet Air Arm and RAF F35B's.

Remember, when talking about UK Defence cuts, that some of this is/was temporary, due to financial mess ups within UK MOD going back ten years or more. The 2015 Defence review actually was actually fairly good from the armed forces point of view. For example, UK 'gapped' long range maritime patrol aircraft, but have recently annouced the purchase of Boeing P8 Poseidon aircraft

Warwick

February 20th, 2016, 09:36 PM

Links don't work. I think you've put 2 "http"s in each address.

Regards, Warwick

Suhiir

February 21st, 2016, 04:50 AM

I know there are plans for an F-35 Ferret to replace the EA-6B that will almost certainly carry the AGM-88 HARM. To date I'm not entirely certain if it will be an F-35B or F-35C variant but probably a 'B'. Given that the Brits will be using the 'B' variant there's no reason they can't buy a few of the electronic warfare variant and some HARMs.

IronDuke99

February 21st, 2016, 10:32 PM

Links don't work. I think you've put 2 "http"s in each address.

Regards, Warwick

I cannot get them to work: Relevant bit of first one is:

"Its seems that the Euro-fighter partner nations have finally got together and signed a development and integration contract for the AESA radar for the Typhoon.

Details are a little thin on the ground but its seems likely that the RAF will be the first force to take delivery of the Captor E Scan radar.

One of the key features of the Captor E scan radar is supposedly incorporation of the Electronic Attack Capability pioneered in the Bright Adder Radar.

A Typhoon carrying SPEAR 3 missiles with the Praetorian DASS and Captor E Scan should give the aircraft a fairly potent capability against enemy air defences and hopefully go some way to offset the capability gaps left with the retirement of the ALARM missile and Tornado.

With the deployment of Captor E along with the announcement this year of integration of Storm Shadow and Brimstone the Typhoon should be close to reaching its full potential as a strike aircraft. The next milestones in the program are likely to be conformal fuel tanks and thrust vectoring although these are likely to depend on the future export success of the aircraft.

While its good news it should have come five years ago and one has to wonder what damage has been done to the program and its export potential by penny pinching from our EU “partners”."

Think defence.co.uk

MarkSheppard

March 15th, 2016, 08:47 PM

Minor OOB name change request; OBAT 011 Russia.

Unit 131 MiG-15 SD-5

[is equipped with 100 kg bombs]

Yefim Gordon's Aerofax MiG-15 book says on page 32:

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SD-5) development aircraft
In November 1952 another MiG-15bis was converted at plant No 21 in Gor'kiy. The aircraft had D3-40 shackles for carrying two FFAR pods, each with eight ORO-57 launcher tubes for ARS-57 FFARs. Firing was electrically controlled; AKS-2 gun cameras were fitted aft of the pods to record test launches. Designated izdeliye SD-5, the aircraft was tested but did not enter production.

Solution: Simply rename Unit 131 from "MiG-15 SD-5" to "MiG-15bis"

MarkSheppard

March 16th, 2016, 02:15 PM

Russian 011 OBAT Date change request for IL-10/IL-10M:

Units:
126
127
937
938

Currently some of them last until either 12/1959 or 12/1964.

Apparently in 1956, the Soviets abolished attack "Sturmovik" aviation and retired the IL-10 en masse:

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aww2/il10m.html

Google Translate reveals:

As of January 1, 1955 Soviet Army Air Force in its composition were 19 assault regiments, armed with 1700 consisted Il-10 and Il-10M and 130 jet fighter-bombers MiG-15bis.

In April 1956, Defense Minister Marshal Georgy Zhukov presented the leadership of the country prepared by the General Staff and the General Headquarters Air Force report on the state and prospects of development of attack aviation. The report concluded the low efficiency of storm troopers on the battlefield in modern warfare, and actually proposed to eliminate the attack aircraft, providing a solution to combat missions for close air support of ground troops in the offensive and defensive forces of bombers and fighter aircraft. As a result of discussion "at the top" order came from the Minister of Defence 20/04/56, according to which a part of the Air Force ground attack aircraft CA abolished available Il-10 and Il-10M written off "by Defense plan," aircrew partially retrained on MiG 15bis, and partly - transferred to fighter aircraft the Air Force and Air Defence. Along with the acceleration of assault by government decree aviation 04/13/56, it was stopped mass production of reactive armored attack aircraft IL-40 and stopped all development work on advanced aircraft-storming.

Suggestion:

Change Out of Service dates on IL-10/10M aircraft to 12/1956. This would represent some 'holdover' from the official order writing them off in April 1956 -- they're still there on the airfields, but no funding is authorized for them, until they're too far gone to bring back hurriedly.