Hmmm ... if you are referring to Big E I would suggest that his experiance and rank wouel place him in a better positon than many of us.... in particular the likes of me.
Racing P-51s, now that impressess me!On the civilian side I have 300+ hours racing P-51s on the weekends for my team and I also own a Cessna 310Q of which include thousands of hours. I also held an SFTI instructor position for SWATLANT the last two years.
Big E - send me your mailing address in PM and I'll be pleased to send you a copy of my book.
In defence of Occum, he didn't attack me personally, and you'll note I did agree with him that I am far from an authority from an operational or technical viewpoint on the subject compared to the likes of yourself and even Dr Kopp. Occum and I converse regularly in PM and have an understanding about much of what we have discussed in this and similar threads, so I have no issues with the possibility of any possible personal attacks from him in my direction.Big E said:
I'm not sure these need to be moved on from, rather perhaps a deep breath needs to be taken before a post is written, and then perhaps a proof read of one's post before hitting the 'submit' button may be in order.Big E said:Move on from an F-22/F-111 orbat and I'm more than game.
They're quite impressive, as is his level of knowledge on radar systems.Racing P-51s, now that impressess me!
I too would like to know, however, what are Dr Kopp's credentials?
Thanks for the link Magoo.
Comparing a senior naval aviator to a buck private is rather insulting. That is about 16 ranks beneath me. One thing you need to realize about avaitors is we don't just carry out pre-planned missions, we have input into how it is conducted and we are given alot of leeway into how we choose to conduct those missions (within ROE of course). The aviators who served in earlier conflicts like Libya and GWI are the ones who are planning the missions of today. They don't let Engineers do it. It is people like us who are given the reigns... not Carlo Kopp.
The only thing that looks bad is the tanker buy... it is a high priority. The Navy position isn't as bad as that article would have us believe. More F-22s are likely to be procured over USAF JSF buys. I have no problem with this.The New Year brings with it many predictions - see:
http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=15815
In the parlance of good, objective management, the risks are starting to materialise. 2007 is not going to be a good year for the JSF Program.
Really? More so than what you've been saying about Carlo Kopp?
However, Carlo knows a great deal about how the systems onboard work, how they should be utilised and what makes the aircraft fly. He too is, a pilot. So, he has a particular insight into many aspects, far more than merely what a pilot would have, into what makes not just an aircraft but a weapons system and how it can best utilised.
You appear to have forgotten that amataeurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Which is why Carlo is an airpower theorist. While he isn't necessarily in the same league as say, Douhet or Trenchard, he is as far as I can tell, akin to Liddel-Hart IMO.
The Super Hornet is quite good. I think it is by far the safest solution and it does cover all the bases. The Super Hornet can perform all the missions that the hornet has been doing for the last decade. The Super Hornet can also perform all the short ranged missions of the F-111 at less than 500Miles, with inflight refueling it could hit the same targets as an F-111 1000Miles. The F-111 can hit targets up to 2000 Miles away with inflight refueling, however this would mean the tankers would have to be a significant distance away from the coast and would be limited to the range of the escorts.
... and it does make up for it.
The Super Hornet would eat a SU-27 alive. The Super Hornet has a huge radar cross section advantage and a much more powerful radar. This will potentiall allow the Super Hornet to detect the Suhkoi twice as far away.
The JSF isn't just for the US Air Force.
I'd imagine the RAAF would continue to mount only 3x external tanks on the aircraft. With the 2 additional hard points the Rhino would offer a significantly improved level of firepower over the legacy Hornets in this configuration, with the ability to carry a targeting pod, multiple BVR/WVR missiles AND A2G munitions in a single flight.The Super Hornet is quite good. I think it is by far the safest solution and it does cover all the bases. The Super Hornet can perform all the missions that the hornet has been doing for the last decade. The Super Hornet can also perform all the short ranged missions of the F-111 at less than 500Miles, with inflight refueling it could hit the same targets as an F-111 1000Miles. The F-111 can hit targets up to 2000 Miles away with inflight refueling, however this would mean the tankers would have to be a significant distance away from the coast and would be limited to the range of the escorts.
So in a nut shell the Super Hornet can perform 99% of the missions that out current F-111 and Hornet aircraft do. Remember our F-111's have never been used in combat.
... and it does make up for it.
The Super Hornet can carry five 1700 litre fuel tanks!!! So that will mean the Super Hornet has nearly 14 tonnes worth of fuel!!!! It can also carry 4 AMRAAM and 2 sidewinder missiles in addition to the 5 tanks. The Super Hornet has an extra pylon on each wing which can carry boths standoff weapons or a 480 gallon fuel tank. Its endurance and range is impressive with 5 tanks. However its agility is significantly reduced. I would expect the RAAF hornets to always have atleast 2 external tanks fitted on all missions. Remember when Small Diameter bomb is cleared for the Super Hornets it will all 8+ bombs to be carried in addition to 3 tanks and a couple missiles for defence.
Also im fairly sure the 5 fuel tanks are not cleared for carrier operation and is for land base or ferry use only? Maybe Big E can confirm? As Australia will be using long land base runways we could land and takeoff with 5 tanks on a normal mission.
Also conformal tanks are a possible addition to Super Hornet in the future, just like the F-15E and F-16 Block 60. This will give the additional fuel of two external tanks while maintaning full agility, and can carry more weapons.
The Super Hornet would eat a SU-27 alive. The Super Hornet has a huge radar cross section advantage and a much more powerful radar. This will potentiall allow the Super Hornet to detect the Suhkoi twice as far away.
The JSF would be even better in this regard. However its risk is high and the price may be considerably more than the Super Hornet.
I'd imagine the RAAF would continue to mount only 3x external tanks on the aircraft, given it's 35% increase in internal fuel oer "legacy Bugs". With the 2 additional hard points the Rhino would offer a significantly improved level of firepower over the legacy Hornets in this configuration, with the ability to carry a targeting pod, multiple BVR/WVR missiles AND A2G munitions in a single flight.The Super Hornet is quite good. I think it is by far the safest solution and it does cover all the bases. The Super Hornet can perform all the missions that the hornet has been doing for the last decade. The Super Hornet can also perform all the short ranged missions of the F-111 at less than 500Miles, with inflight refueling it could hit the same targets as an F-111 1000Miles. The F-111 can hit targets up to 2000 Miles away with inflight refueling, however this would mean the tankers would have to be a significant distance away from the coast and would be limited to the range of the escorts.
So in a nut shell the Super Hornet can perform 99% of the missions that out current F-111 and Hornet aircraft do. Remember our F-111's have never been used in combat.
... and it does make up for it.
The Super Hornet can carry five 1700 litre fuel tanks!!! So that will mean the Super Hornet has nearly 14 tonnes worth of fuel!!!! It can also carry 4 AMRAAM and 2 sidewinder missiles in addition to the 5 tanks. The Super Hornet has an extra pylon on each wing which can carry boths standoff weapons or a 480 gallon fuel tank. Its endurance and range is impressive with 5 tanks. However its agility is significantly reduced. I would expect the RAAF hornets to always have atleast 2 external tanks fitted on all missions. Remember when Small Diameter bomb is cleared for the Super Hornets it will all 8+ bombs to be carried in addition to 3 tanks and a couple missiles for defence.
Also im fairly sure the 5 fuel tanks are not cleared for carrier operation and is for land base or ferry use only? Maybe Big E can confirm? As Australia will be using long land base runways we could land and takeoff with 5 tanks on a normal mission.
Also conformal tanks are a possible addition to Super Hornet in the future, just like the F-15E and F-16 Block 60. This will give the additional fuel of two external tanks while maintaning full agility, and can carry more weapons.
The Super Hornet would eat a SU-27 alive. The Super Hornet has a huge radar cross section advantage and a much more powerful radar. This will potentiall allow the Super Hornet to detect the Suhkoi twice as far away.
The JSF would be even better in this regard. However its risk is high and the price may be considerably more than the Super Hornet.
The Italians will. They have a nice new aircraft carrier which will turn into an over-specced helicopter carrier when their Harriers wear out, unless they do some very expensive rebuilding.
*sigh* RJM - Surely you must realise that one of the reasons our F-111s have never been used in combat is because of their significant value as a deterrent. If we'd had F-4Es or Canberras instead of F-111s, things may have been very different.
...and not much else, and certainly not on a long range strike mission. I believe the drag from 5 jugs actually gives the jet less range than if it were carrying 3 jugs (pls confirm Big E?), and then you have to carry external stores. It would really only carry 5 jugs for buddy refuelling ops not far from the boat, and certainly NOT for ferry or operational flights.rjmaz1 said:
News to me - source?rjmaz1 said:
Don't start the type vs type debate up again RJM. You and others on the forum have been told time and time again that, on most occasions, it mostly comes down to the guy in the pilot's seat and how he uses his jet and its systems, not the jet and systems alone, that determines who will win a dogfight.rjmaz1 said:
As stated by Magoo the whole purpose of a deterrent is just that - to ensure that the threat will be enough to make certain it will not be needed. As stated elsewhere in this forum the F111 force was forward deployed during the East Timor crisis and its presence, along with the submarine force, helped make sure that the Australian led intervention was able to proceed unimpeded.