Comments on: Oh, Great

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:14:21 +0000

The design has served 25 years honorably, but now the early modes are experiencing metal fatique…no shocker there. These planes are under far more stress than the B-52 which has lasted >50 years.

As to the notion that dogfighting is out of date in these days of missiles; that argument was made back in the days when the F4 was being designed and it fame out without guns because “misslies can do it all”. WRONG. So many F4’s were lost in the early days of Viet Nam that gun pods were rapidly added to its wings and later the nose was modified to house them. As soon as these ‘hit the street’ the kill ratio for the F4’s improved dramatically and stayed there.

So much for the “death” of dogfighting 😛

Today the same argument is being made by the same kind of morons at Time.

As to the path from here….obviously the older planes need replacing, but with what?

The first information we need to know is will existing designs be able to win dogfights with the planes Russia and China are coming out with because sooner or later they’ll be for sale and we’ll have to face them.

First is the upcoming Sukhoi Su-34. It has rear-facing radar, meaning it can shoot R-73 or R-77 anti-aircraft missiles at planes behind it. This gives it a major advantage over line fighters like the F-15, F-16 and others because of their lack of stealth….which is at its heart radar avoidance.

Next are fighters with a feature called ‘thrust vectoring’. Thrust vectoring means the jet’s exhaust nozzle can be moved so as to steer the plane in ways wing and tail surfaces can never do. Such aircraft can perform extreme maneuvers that leave conventional aircraft at a severe disadvantage.

F-15’s and F-16’s are in big trouble if they have to dogfight a thrust vectored plane.

What potential adversaries are making thrust vectored fighters? Russia and China. Examples:

Sukhoi Su-30MKI
Sukhoi Su-30MKM

with more coming from China in the form of expected upgrades of their Super-10 and JF-17.

Eventually Russia and China will do as they always does and sell these to whoever wants them. At that point our current fighters will be at a severe disadvantage.

Has the US tested thrust vectored versions of the F-15 and F-16? Yes, but none have been approved, and even if they were these planes would still lack stealth because of their materials and lack of internal weapons stowage.

So….what aircraft could we field to mitigate these advances?

The F-22 and the F-35 Lightning II. Both are stealth fighters, and with the retirement of the F-117 stealth fighter (which was never a fighter, it’s a light bomber) they will be our main stealth forces that aren’t a bomber. As such both would stand a far better chance against the SU-34’s rear-firing missiles than anything else in the inventory.

In terms of thrust vectoring the F-22 has it but not as advanced a version as the Sukhoi’s which are 3D (pitch and yaw) while the F-22, Super10 and JF-17 are 2D (pitch only).

2D is better than nothing until the budget morons come to their senses or update the F22 to 3D vectoring.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:08:48 +0000

Tires break like glass and metal gets very brittle at those temperatures, Jill. We did our best not to do anything that would cause them to have to send out a patrol in the winter, as it would be risky, indeed, just trying to get airborne.

By: Cookie Jill

Cookie Jill — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:09:53 +0000

-100???!!!! Holy C**p.

Human icicles.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:12:03 +0000

Steve, they have been waiting on and wasting money on the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, when they could have, at a minimum been building F-15s, F-16s, and FA-18s to replace those that are aging out. These aircraft are all capable of pulling enough G’s in maneuvers to kill a pilot, so there are limits on the controls to prevent it, but, as has been demonstrated, you flex them in flying often enough and they will snap.

If you schedule modest delivery schedules every year, you don’t have to make huge increases. It’s the all or nothing budgeting that has been occurring that causes these problems, Jill. They buy nothing for a period and then want to take delivery of dozens of aircraft at one time – it’s stupid.

We had it better than our counterparts at Mys Shmita in Siberia who regularly saw -100° in the winter. A snow cave is 32° inside and a candle will raise it to 40° – that’s the purpose of survival school, to learn this stuff. It is annoying that your hair freezes and breaks.

By: Cookie Jill

Cookie Jill — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:53:34 +0000

Can’t raise taxes, you know. Everyone doesn’t want to pay taxes. The money to “fix” these things or to buy new ones just “magically” appear.

I’m sure that the weather at some of these bases also contribute to metal fatigue and general breakdown of planes.

(still can’t get over you survived -42 at the base in Alaska!)

By: Steve Bates

Steve Bates — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:29:28 +0000

Now there’s an instance of Josh White singing the blues!

The ravages of time reach everything eventually, and military aircraft undergo more stresses than most things. As one who drives a 13-year-old car… a friend long ago referred to such cars as “automobiles of character” … I hope the powers-that-be recognize the futility of repairing and continuing to use aircraft that are so old… how old are they? … old enough that if they were cars, they would be acknowledged as antiques.

Our pilots did not create the godawful situation in which they fight today: the Bushists have that dishonor. Our pilots should not have to pay needlessly with their lives for bad decisions higher up the command chain, i.e., at its top.