EA/18G Growler

A

Aussie Digger

Guest
yeah I get that timing is an issue-
I just have a complete disdain for the bug and super bug-
If the Aussies are willing to think "out of the box"---the Royal Navy has some slightly used Sea Harriers for sale:p:
Sorry mate, but I'd consider the RAAF choosing the Sea Harrier over the Super Hornet, about as likely as the English beating Australia in the cricket at the moment... :eek:nfloorl:

Anyone who thinks the Sea Harrier is a more capable air combat aircraft than a Block II SH needs a bit of time IN a box, IMHO. A rubber one...
 

rstro

New Member
take it easy Digger
my point is the Super Bug is NO F-111--period
the SH may be great for airshows, but let's face it--range/payload/performace is no where close to and 1960's era F-111
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
take it easy Digger
my point is the Super Bug is NO F-111--period
the SH may be great for airshows, but let's face it--range/payload/performace is no where close to and 1960's era F-111
As I said in the Post 298 in the thread 'Aussie JSF to outcost F-22s? in Military Aviation' there is no aircraft available that can perform the same missions as well as the F111.

You are correct when you say the SH is no F111 but neither is the F15E. The ADF wants the F35 and, unless this program falls over the purchase of the FA18F will be to bridge the gap or perhaps to act as a second tier supplement. This being the case the RAAF needs an aircraft that can be easily absorbed into its order of battle. For obvious reasons the SH will do this more easily than a completely new (to the RAAF) aircraft like the F15. Also it is quite possibly that the SHs could replace classic Hornets with the F111 soldiering on for some time to come.

Whilst IMO neither the SH or the F35 will be able to perform the long range strike role as well as the F111 they will be more versatile and capable in other areas.

Cheers
 

rstro

New Member
sorry Tasman--I don't have all the posts read yet-:)

just don't think the F-18F is the best choice--maybe the quickest solution

and listen I'm not crazy--just playing devil's advocate and what if's--plus I def have a complete bias against the bug and super bug....

how about some used RAF Tornadoes!!!--(easy digger):D
 

chrisrobsoar

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
sorry Tasman--I don't have all the posts read yet-:)

just don't think the F-18F is the best choice--maybe the quickest solution

and listen I'm not crazy--just playing devil's advocate and what if's--plus I def have a complete bias against the bug and super bug....

how about some used RAF Tornadoes!!!--(easy digger):D
The eight remaining UK Sea Harriers were considered by India to support their fleet, but were found to be in such poor condition that they will be scrapped and not held in reserve.

None of the present fleet of 138 RAF GR4 Tornado aircraft are available, most of them will be withdrawn from service about the same time as the F-35 is introduced into RAF service. A further update of a few aircraft (30-50) may be authorised for deep strike tasks, extending the capability until UCAVs can be deployed (long after many us are dead and buried). Currently we have 7 operational squadrons of 12 aircraft, a 26 aircraft OCU and 2 Tactical Evaluation aircraft and have consumed all the attrition spares. At all times at least 8 aircraft are deployed in Iraq. In order to carry out deep maintenance aircraft are robbed from the operational units. Some of the duties of the Tornado (CAS) will be under taken by the introduction of Tranche 2 Typhoons, commencing in about a year. Some Tornado squadrons will be disbanded releasing their aircraft as “attrition spares” to support the remaining squadrons, but we are still going to be pushed to release enough aircraft for the final update. We may even have to use the obsolete F3 ADV Tornados (replaced by the Tranche 1 Typoon, starting this year) as a dumb bomb truck, to drop PGMs on targets designated by the GR4s. (F3’s were used in SEAD roles carrying ALARM during the early stages of GW1, because they were not much use for anything else).

Problems with the remaining life of the F-18, the timing of the CBR program, F-111C retirement, possible delays to the F-35 aircraft and the availability of funds make the procurement of the F/A-18E/F (ASAP) a “no brainer”.




Chris
 

rjmaz1

New Member
take it easy Digger
my point is the Super Bug is NO F-111--period
the SH may be great for airshows, but let's face it--range/payload/performace is no where close to and 1960's era F-111
Can you stop blowing the F-111 trumpet please! Its payload/range is no longer that impressive. Have you even seen the mission profiles for Australia's F-111's?

The current F-111 has to fly low and fast to survive which can more than halve its combat radius. Taking this into account the F-111 does not have a considerable range advantage over the Super Hornet. In fact the JSF can hit all the targets the F-111 can as the JSF can just cruise along at 30,000feet with good fuel effeciency and get excellent range.

To hit Jakarta the F-111 will require inflight refueling as the mission profile will have to include a low level penetration and supersonic dash away from the target. Using that same tanker it would also allow a pair of Super Hornets to hit Jakarta. Two Super Hornets to replace a single F-111 may sound alot, however the F-111 and tanker would have required atleast a single Hornet for protection so the same aircraft in total would get used with the Super Hornet.

The F-111 needs to be able to run like a girl when detected using its high speed to get back out of enemy territory. The Super Hornet will instead shoot down the threats.

The F-111 could easily run away 20 years ago from a short ranged Mig-21 but the long range and speed of the new Russian SU-30's will give it a run for its money. Its main advantage is gone as it can no longer run away.

Its other advantage of a low altitude penetration will soon be gone as well. Indonesia will eventually have early warning aircraft which will detect the low altitude F-111's from hundreds of miles away.

If the F-111 gained a powerful AESA radar, AMRAAM and ECM then it could shoot its way into enemy territory and allow it to fly with good fuel efficiency. It would no longer have to worry about being detected so it would enter enemy airspace at high altitude. It wouldn't have to worry about enemy fighters either so it wouldn't have to run away wasting fuel. This would give the F-111 back its long range which does NOT exist with current mission profiles.

This evolved F-111 is exactly what the likes of Carlo Kopp propose. However cost and risk of adding AESA, AMRAAM and ECM to our F-111's is far too great. It will would work well but it will not worth as its not cost effective.

The upgrade will never EVER happen to the F-111. The development alone would cost as much as a small fleet of F-22's and would suck up most of the AIR 6000 budget.

So the F-111 is useless!

The future loadout of the Super Hornet could be. Five 440 gallon fuel tanks. Eight Small diameter bombs, Two AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles. That would give an unrefueled combat radius roughly twice the distance of Australias current hornets.
 

rstro

New Member
no one is blowing the F-111's horn-!!
BUT the SH is a modern piece of crap!!!
FIVE drop tanks!!! --now it's a tanker--it's not going to go fighting anywhere-

SH I'm sure is no match for an SU-30

hell a Horney loaded out like that couldn't out run a freaking Mig17---
other than AESA radar--the Horney has nothing over any modern rivals in production today and don't forget there is aprx 150 SH without this radar in service today--just pray the Chinese and Iranians don't lunch a massive cruise missile attack against a Carrier Group
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I really should know better, but here goes anyway...

Have you even seen the mission profiles for Australia's F-111's?
Have you? I doubt it...

rjmaz1 said:
The current F-111 has to fly low and fast to survive which can more than halve its combat radius. Taking this into account the F-111 does not have a considerable range advantage over the Super Hornet. In fact the JSF can hit all the targets the F-111 can as the JSF can just cruise along at 30,000feet with good fuel effeciency and get excellent range.
So, you're saying the Pig would be low and fast straight after lift off from Tindal, or would it cruise at 30K to all but 150km from the target before dropping into the weeds??? If the former, you're right about the range issue, but WAAAYYY off about the mission profile. If the latter, this shouldn't adversely effect the overall mission. However, with the Pig's new external Elta EW, it is quite capable of infiltrating any airspace without double-digit SAMs and avoiding most threats, and is even quite difficult to counter by fighters.

rjmaz1 said:
The F-111 needs to be able to run like a girl when detected using its high speed to get back out of enemy territory. The Super Hornet will instead shoot down the threats.
"...run like a girl..." :confused: WTF are you on about? That stupid, idiotic... comment alone has just reduced your credibility even further than before, if that were possible!

A Super on an attack profile will also try to run before fighting, unless its primary mission was as an OCA escort to the strikers and it had plenty of gas. If you're over enemy territory, the enemy has a huge advantage in persistance and can engage and disengage when it wants. If you start a fight, you had better finish it REAL quick and get the hell out of dodge, as the tankers are going to be a LLOOONNGG way away.

rjmaz1 said:
The F-111 could easily run away 20 years ago from a short ranged Mig-21 but the long range and speed of the new Russian SU-30's will give it a run for its money. Its main advantage is gone as it can no longer run away.
Nothing...I repeat, NOTHING, can catch a clean F-111 at 250'. Not an Su-30, F-15, F-16...NOTHING! I doubt even a well-flown Su-30 could get a lock on a Pig flying at Mach 1.3, 250' and with its EW singing, for more than a few seconds, after which it would be GONNNE!

rjmaz1 said:
Indonesia will eventually have early warning aircraft which will detect the low altitude F-111's from hundreds of miles away.
I know I'm wasting my time, but what are your sources for this bit of news??? Hundreds of miles away??? Wow, can we have a couple of those too?

rjmaz1 said:
If the F-111 gained a powerful AESA radar, AMRAAM and ECM then it could shoot its way into enemy territory and allow it to fly with good fuel efficiency. It would no longer have to worry about being detected so it would enter enemy airspace at high altitude. It wouldn't have to worry about enemy fighters either so it wouldn't have to run away wasting fuel. This would give the F-111 back its long range which does NOT exist with current mission profiles.

This evolved F-111 is exactly what the likes of Carlo Kopp propose. However cost and risk of adding AESA, AMRAAM and ECM to our F-111's is far too great. It will would work well but it will not worth as its not cost effective.
The risk is not in adding these items, although they are not risk free. I believe the risk lies in keeping a few dozen 40-year old airframes flying as a sole operator with spares coming out of the desert that are of questionnable quality.

rjmaz1 said:
The development alone would cost as much as a small fleet of F-22's and would suck up most of the AIR 6000 budget.
Care to put some numbers on this? I'm sure Occum and Dr Kopp would be interested in your answer as well.

rjmaz1 said:
The future loadout of the Super Hornet could be. Five 440 gallon fuel tanks. Eight Small diameter bombs, Two AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles. That would give an unrefueled combat radius roughly twice the distance of Australias current hornets.
If the Super has five external tanks, where are the SDBs going to be carried??? I'm sure they can't go on station 1, 2, 5, 7, 10 or 11, and the jugs would be on 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9 (Big-E confirm please?). The RAAF no longer uses Sidewinders.

Geesh...:unknown

Magoo
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
BUT the SH is a modern piece of crap!!!
That's a bit harsh isn't it? In Block 2 form, I doubt there's a better swing/multi role fighter flying anywhere at the moment. Perhaps the F-15SG and Tranche 2 Typhoon will be its closest rivals.

rstro said:
FIVE drop tanks!!! --now it's a tanker--it's not going to go fighting anywhere
Very true.

rstro said:
SH I'm sure is no match for an SU-30
Not wanting to get into a Jet A vs Jet B debate, but I believe 80% of that depends on the guy with the stick in his hand. However, the availability rate of the jet, and the SA provided to the pilot through the Super's systems give him a much better head start than any potential opposition of Russian origin.

rstro said:
...other than AESA radar...
...a 90%+ availability rate, networking systems including the radar and Link-16 MIDS, full colour cockpit displays, ATFLIR/LITENING AT, ALR-67(v)2, JHMCS, plus almost a cubic metre of space in which to grow into...

rstro said:
...the Horney has nothing over any modern rivals in production today
rjmaz1 said:
...and don't forget there is aprx 150 SH without this radar in service today--just pray the Chinese and Iranians don't lunch a massive cruise missile attack against a Carrier Group
The Block 1 jets will be seen on carriers less and less as the Block 2s enter service in sufficient numbers. It's my understanding that, in the future, most of the carrier air groups will comprise Block 2s and EA-18Gs, with Block 1s mostly fulfilling the ship-borne tanking and training roles.

Cheers

Magoo
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks Magoo.

I found your responses re both the 'Pig' and the 'Super Bug' informative and enlightening. Reinforces my belief that the SH would be a good selection as a stop gap or second tier supplement to the F35.


Cheers
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
sorry Tasman--I don't have all the posts read yet-:)

just don't think the F-18F is the best choice--maybe the quickest solution

and listen I'm not crazy--just playing devil's advocate and what if's--plus I def have a complete bias against the bug and super bug....

how about some used RAF Tornadoes!!!--(easy digger):D
Just what we need ANOTHER old warplane... :rolleyes:

Sorry if I came off a bit strong there before...

As to the SH argument. From my readings on the subject (which is all I have to go on, I'm no expert in this field) the SH should stack up well against the SU series of fighters.

If the SU series is challenging RAAF's technical advantage, as many seem to think, than the SH is just about right in my opinion. It's basic performance statistics stack up well against the SU-27/30 and will get better over the next few years with the improved (by 15%) GE F-414 engine to be available shortly.

The agility of the SH is apparently outstanding and I'm not so sure the SU-30 has as big an advantage here as most people think. TVC was considered during the SH's "gestation" and rejected. Now that might have been on cost grounds alone, maybe not. Maybe the cost wasn't worth it, because the aircraft was maneuverable enough without it? The improved thrust GE F414 (EDE) engines should improve the margin between the 2 in any case.

The SH has an undoubted advantage in it's Avionics over that operated by the SU-30 series and I'm not so sure the SU series has greater "radar" performance, than the SH either, despite it's radar probably being BIGGER. As all men know, "it's not the size that counts"... :D

The weapon systems available to Australia from the USA, I would argue outweigh those operated by SU series operators in SE Asia. Yes, the Russian equipment has the better "brochure specs", but why the was Malaysia so keen on the SH/AMRAAM combination for so long and only turned to SU-30's when the US refused to supply AMRAAM?

Oh and for those who think the JSF seems to be on it's "last legs" (RJM) just read this little article a few moments ago:


Cutback on F-35 in 2008 rejected

Services can buy fewer fighters between 2009-13.
By Tony Capaccio
BLOOMBERG NEWS

The Defense Department vetoed Navy and Air Force plans to cut the number of Lockheed Martin-made F-35 joint strike fighters they would buy next year.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered the services to add $1.8 billion to their fiscal 2008 budgets. He told the Air Force to buy six fighters instead of four and the Navy, which proposed to buy no fighters in 2008, to buy six. At the same time, he agreed to let both services buy fewer aircraft than planned between 2009 and 2013.

England's orders, relayed to the service secretaries in a 60-page memo last month, reflect a desire to support the F-35, an international project and the Pentagon's largest weapons program, while still paying extraordinary costs associated with the Iraq and Afghan conflicts and meeting the Navy's commitment to increase the fleet, analysts said.

"England's decision amounts to putting his finger in the F- 35 dike," because both the Navy and Air Force are indicating "waning" support in the face of these other demands, said Thomas Ehrhard, a military-aircraft analyst for the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington.

Both services also may be asked to help fund the cost of increasing the size of the Army, an initiative Bush ordered last month, Ehrhard said.

The F-35's estimated $276 billion price tag "represents a huge chunk" of future spending, "but so far, nobody at the top is willing to pull the plug," Ehrhard said.

Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for England, declined to comment on the decision except to say that the Pentagon's leaders and "our allies are committed to this important program."

England's "Program Decision Memorandum," signed Dec. 13, is one of four directives sent to the military service secretaries, chiefs of staff and Pentagon acquisition officials that spell out spending priorities through fiscal 2013 for space, aircraft, special operations, healthcare and defense intelligence programs.

John Kent, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, said the F-35 program continues to head in the right direction.

"We're not going to conclude anything yet, but certainly this is good news on the surface," Kent said in an interview with the Star-Telegram. The F-35 had its first test flight last month.

"We're very excited to see the program move to the next level with all these new developments," he said.

The Pentagon estimates that it will spend about $231 billion over the next 20 years buying aircraft. Congress through last year has approved about $31 billion for the F-35, mostly for development.

The F-35 Lightning II is designed to be a short-range fighter that's almost invisible to radar and is capable of supporting ground troops. The program, as conceived in late 1996, envisioned the U.S. military buying 2,978 planes, including 10 for development testing. The number was reduced to 2,852 aircraft in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review and today stands at 2,458, including 15 for development testing.

The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 planes, a number that's held since 1997. The Navy and Marines would buy 680; they originally planned to buy 1,089, but the Navy cut this number in 2002 when the Navy and Marine Corps fighter squadrons were consolidated.

Additionally, the United Kingdom is buying 138 planes, and Italy may buy as many as 131. Turkey and Austra- lia plan to buy 100 each, the Netherlands 85, Canada 60, and Norway and Denmark 48 each.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based research institute, said the Navy is convinced that it can't afford all the aircraft it now plans to buy and still meet its commitment to increase the fleet by almost 30 ships by 2020.

Navy and Marine Corps officials "do not see eye-to-eye on the program," Thompson said. "Senior admirals oppose buying the Marine variant" that can take off on short fields and the smaller decks of amphibious warfare vessels, while Marine leaders question the value of the Navy version that requires the large deck of a traditional aircraft carrier, Thompson said.

Richard Aboulafia, a military-aircraft market analyst with the Teal Group in Alexandria, Va., was more sanguine about the program's prospects. The purchasing delays that England approved could be restored, and the original Navy and Air Force production schedules were too ambitious anyway, he said.

"The real budget danger was short term, so restoring the 2008 funding is good news," Aboulafia said. The production schedule "was always aggressive, but the new schedule looks realistic," he said.

England, former president of Lockheed's aircraft operations in Fort Worth, where the company is making the F-35, seemed to acknowledge in his memo the need to slow the program, directing the armed forces to adjust their budgets to "fund the development program properly."

Although the F-35 is more stealthy than the Boeing Co. F/A-18E/F that's now the centerpiece of naval aviation, "the Navy seems content" with this plane and may not be in a rush to buy the new one, Ehrhard said.

About 4,000 people work on the F-35 program at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant.

Staff writer David Wethe contributed to this report.

 

Seaforth

New Member
Super Hornet is an excellent interim choice

When weighing up the RAAF with other airforces' capabilities, it's not just the sales specs of the fighters that should count.

Russian fighters are notorious for requiring significantly higher levels of maintenance than US fighters, and would have much lower availability. E.g. as I understand it, and as but one example only, Russian fighter gas turbines have very short lives compared to US/European fighter gas turbines.

Plus there's the pilot training, especially the number of hours that pilots spend in the air each year, and what they do while they're airborne (weapons training missions? joint training with other assets e.g. warships / ground forces? or simply flying to keep their hours up).

Super Hornet will be just fine... especially when (eventually) the RAAF gets its Wedgetails operational.
 

PETER671BT

New Member
FELLOWS ,LOOKING at has been said,I think that the super ht has got some advantages in a dog fight,but it doesn't vector thrust which allows pin pitch roles in a dog fight.This is the problem,F-18 sh or typhoon,rafale,are closest variants to su-30-27. But as for speed the f-22 and f-111 are the fastest fighters today.

LIST OF WHAT SPEED EACH FIGHTER CAN DO,

HORNET MACH 1.8
SUPER HORENT MACH 1.92
JSF MACH 1.6
F-22 MACH 3.01
F-111C MACH 2.5
SU-27 MACH 2.35
SU-30 MACH 2.35
F-15 MACH 2.5
RAFALE MACH 2.3
TYPHOON MACH 2.01

As for payloads f-111 max payloads at 48,895kgs,
f-15 at 30,845kgs,JSF 30,000kgs,f-18sh 29,937kgs,
su-30 at 34,000kgs,su-27 at 33,000kgs,su-27kub at 45,000kgs and max speed of 1.85 mach.f-22 at 27,215kgs,typhoon at 23,000kgs,rafale at 24,500kgs these are all specified in international military aircraft directory, some of spec will change due to new models.
 

rjmaz1

New Member
Oh and for those who think the JSF seems to be on it's "last legs" (RJM) just read this little article a few moments ago:
The JSF is on the the edge of a cliff, everyone knows that. If they did cut the short term spending the JSF would go over the edge. Keeping the funds flowing in the short term was the only option if they wanted the JSF to enter production. The cost spiral can still occur if the orders are cut. This seems likely as the US cant keep pulling money out of thin air.

The JSF will no doubt be a good aircraft its just that the US cannot afford it and as a result have severely crippled other procurement programs. The JSF program is like the Iraq war.Financially it would be best if they pulled out, but as it will be messy they just have to keep going down the path and hope they are defeated/bankrupt in the end.

FELLOWS ,LOOKING at has been said,I think that the super ht has got some advantages in a dog fight,but it doesn't vector thrust which allows pin pitch roles in a dog fight.This is the problem,F-18 sh or typhoon,rafale,are closest variants to su-30-27. But as for speed the f-22 and f-111 are the fastest fighters today.

LIST OF WHAT SPEED EACH FIGHTER CAN DO,

HORNET MACH 1.8
SUPER HORENT MACH 1.92
JSF MACH 1.6
F-22 MACH 3.01
F-111C MACH 2.5
SU-27 MACH 2.35
SU-30 MACH 2.35
F-15 MACH 2.5
RAFALE MACH 2.3
TYPHOON MACH 2.01

As for payloads f-111 max payloads at 48,895kgs,
f-15 at 30,845kgs,JSF 30,000kgs,f-18sh 29,937kgs,
su-30 at 34,000kgs,su-27 at 33,000kgs,su-27kub at 45,000kgs and max speed of 1.85 mach.f-22 at 27,215kgs,typhoon at 23,000kgs,rafale at 24,500kgs these are all specified in international military aircraft directory, some of spec will change due to new models.
All those specs are completely irrelevent.

The speeds are not realistic. I can assure you now, none of those speeds have ever been acheived during operation. All those speeds listed require the use of afterburners for extended periods of time, 99.9% of conmbat missions do not require this.

Thrust vectoring is also not important, will a 747 with thrust vectoring out perform an F-16?
 

Occum

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Reminiscences of an IOT&E Pilot

:)

". . . . . . . OK - my first chance to let the F-22 loose on takeoff.

I was the last IOT&E pilot at Edwards and it was only a few months before I was to move to Langley. The test folks were nice enough to still let me fly there occasionally, and they had a perfect mission for me. It was a single ship, no test support (control room) required, and I had my own tanker. All I had to do was takeoff and fly around for 2 hours collecting data from the MLD’s (missile launch detectors). In other words it was a free sortie with a lot of gas available and I had the airspace to myself since it didn’t matter what I did during the sortie, in fact more maneuvering was better to get data.

Having never had a chance to really see what the jet would be like on takeoff, and since I had a tanker to keep me full of gas, I decided to do a max performance takeoff and let it go straight up to see what it would do.

Edwards has that 15,000 foot runway, and an unlimited ceiling since it sits in a restricted airspace. So on taxi I asked for a max climb out to 25,000 feet, the controller said, 29,000? I said, sure that’ll work. I really had no idea what I’d end up with and with my Eagle time I figured I’d be lucky to get to 29,000. So I let it go to about 570 or so which was prior to the end of the runway and started a pull, not too much g, maybe 4 or 5, and went to 90 degrees nose high. I wasn’t really paying attention to the airspeed or altitude because I was really enjoying the view and the ride, it was amazing. I started to feel a little buffet and looked inside to see what the deal was, expecting that I was starting to slow down to the point where I was getting the same kind of buffet you feel as the jet slows down and a little alpha starts to build on the wings, that’s how it goes in a Eagle too.

Well, there’s also a little buffet in the Raptor when your about to go supersonic, and to my surprise, and I started laughing, the jet was at .99 mach and trying it’s best to punch through to supersonic flight, straight up, passing about 18 or 19 thousand feet or so, it began a slow deceleration as I stared in awe at the HUD mach indication and at 94 mach I realized I was at 25,000 and was going to blast way through my altitude, so I rolled and started a 4 to 5 g pull to level out, which of course didn’t work and I leveled at about 31,500 feet at about 330knots (don’t know why those numbers stick in my head but they do). Now for you pilots out there, you know when you pull g, especially at higher altitudes and heavy weight, it’s a fairly energy depleting event.

So go figure, I’m FULLY loaded with fuel at takeoff, ALL of the weapons bays were loaded, so I am in my combat configuration, in a regular line jet, no tweaks, no special modifications, no weight taken out (as in the Streak Eagle or Mig 25 flights, etc.), nothing, just a line jet any old pilot could step to and fly. So I talked to the engineers and with some quick math they guessed I could have topped out in the low 60 thousand numbers. That wasn’t flying a special profile like other jets have either (Rutowski profile - misspelled?), it was just a pull to the nose straight up. This.jet.is.a.monster!!”

Transonic in a vertical departure? At 18,000 feet?
Damn.
Some times I feel like I was born twenty years too early."

;)
 

Seaforth

New Member
All those specs are completely irrelevent. The speeds are not realistic. I can assure you now, none of those speeds have ever been acheived during operation. All those speeds listed require the use of afterburners for extended periods of time, 99.9% of conmbat missions do not require this. Thrust vectoring is also not important, will a 747 with thrust vectoring out perform an F-16?
Darn right. The Falkland Islands conflict shows the importance of training and availability

The Harriers were inferior on paper to the Mirages, other than their ability to vector in forward flight - which never occured in battle. The Harriers were hugely out-numbered by the Argentine Air Force and Navy fighters. The Harriers didn't have AEW, and the AIM-9L sidewinder was never even used in head on aspect - always fired from the rear so earlier versions would have been just as successful.

In short, the Harriers kept the Argentine Air Force and Navy fighters at bay, and shot down a lot, based on training and system availability, not based on better equipment.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
:)

". . . . . . . OK - my first chance to let the F-22 loose on takeoff.
thats dozerf22, he also says:

dozerf22 said:
The plane is in its infancy and under severe criticism, standard, so I'm a bit skeptical of anything anyone says who has anything to lose by saying anything other than positive feedback on the F-35. Can't say that isn't true of the F-22 either. But I KNOW what the F-22 can do, we've proven that over the last 9 years. I think we should take it all with a grain of salt and lets see what the operational pilots say in the next few years, then we'll know what it can really do. An F-22 its not going to be - but it still has great potential as the Raptors little brother, I'd sure like to go to war with a 4 ship of F-22's with 8 or 12 F-35's not far behind us - probably with a few B-2's thrown in - I like that package - can't imagine anything on the books that could stand up to that mix. We won't see any F-15/16/18's in that package if the threat is high. And the F-22 & 35 are not only bringing the stealth so we have survivability, but also, just plain being brand new airframes matters, our other jets are getting very old, not only are they far less capable but its getting really hard (and expensive) to keep them flying. Bottom line is the F-35 has a niche' to fill and its needed and there's nothing else out there. We can't produce a replacement out of thin air - it takes far too long to develop and field a modern a/c. What we've got is what we'll have for the next 20+ years. I'm fairly convinced these two will be the last truly manned a/c we build, if we stay on the course we seem to be on.
 

rstro

New Member
Magoo-Tasman-
Both thanks-
am I harsh on the "super bug" ---YEP-damn right skippy- as Taz said the SH is "stop gap" "second tier"-- the Aussies can spend their money better
just because the US Navy is f-ed up-doesn't mean the Aussies have to be
 
Top