The aerial warfare thread.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2016, 06:43 AM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
Just a note. The Su 25 was begun in 1969.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 11:33 AM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
(02-05-2016 08:25 PM)yakherder Wrote:  It has the potential to be a neat competition for sure, but I don't doubt there is an agenda. The A-10 is so loved by the ground pounders that it can't be retired without first being discredited, so to speak. Announcement of its impending retirement has pissed off a lot of loyal fans.

It's just not a "sexy, speedy, high-tech jet" like the USAF brass have wanted since the beginning, and continue to push (I suspect because of influences from the Cold War's technological competition, helped by pressure from MIC lobbyists), so they've been trying like hell to replace the A-10, practically from the day of its first test flight.

I've heard the same stuff since I was at USAFA, back in 94-95. At the time, they were reporting on the fact that the F-16 could iron-bomb as accurately as the A-10 (the only aircraft that could)... unfortunately, the data from Desert Storm was starting to be released in full, and the numbers simply didn't lie. We all had anecdotes about the effectiveness of the 'Hog, from pretty much every pilot and grunt who'd seen them in action, as well as the tales of guys taking direct hits from large SAMs and making it home... but the actual stats exceeded all expectations. It is the only aircraft whose ground crews, while operating planes that were under constant fire, maintained a better operational readiness rate than in peacetime. That's not even counting the percent of total damage inflicted on the Iraqi army, which equaled the work of every other aircraft in the theater combined, despite only having a bit over 200 planes in the region.

I cannot say enough good things about the A-10. In high school, for a science/engineering fair project (1993), I designed a replacement aircraft to do the job of the A-10 by applying some of the lessons we learned from the Gulf and from newer technology. The 917th TFW at Barksdale AFB was only an hour's drive away, so I got permission from the commanders to go interview the squadron pilots about what they wanted to see in a new a/c, and the answer EVERY TIME was, "More fuel. More bullets for the gun. Oh, and better electronic countermeasures systems." (Electronics in general.) They liked my design, but saw it as totally unnecessary. These are the guys who had JUST fought a war in that plane.

All that said, I think the original P-38 interceptor prototype is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built. That said, I'd have to agree about the PAK FA... that thing is absolutely gorgeous. The Russians have outdone themselves!

Its predecessor was also lovely, in a different way, though sadly the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut (Golden Eagle) never made it past the experimental prototype phase. Here's an artist's rendering of a production version:

[Image: su_47_berkut_mass_production_type_stealt...9behxx.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
25-06-2016, 11:45 AM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
(25-06-2016 06:08 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  How easy is it to "check six" in that bird? Consider

Like all aircraft based on the Su-27, the Russians rely on a rear-mounted shortrange radar in the tail that can track and designate targets for the R-73 missile, though frankly the days of aircraft having to visually "check six" are nearly gone, due to the advances in sensor technology. Basically, if you're in a strike aircraft and an enemy plane is in visual range behind you, you've already lost.

Yes, in Vietnam they thought that the gun-and-eyeball would be totally replaced by technology, but the tech simply wasn't ready, and gunless plane (like the F-4 Phantom II) pilots paid for that mistake.

The seats are side by side because of a massive increase in crew efficiency (something like 40%, if I recall correctly) the Russians discovered in strike aircraft, when the crew were able to communicate directly and look at the same screens at the same time, side-by-side. Since its primary role is high-speed, low-altitude strikes, "checking six" was deemed unimportant. The American A-6E Intruder had a similar philosophy, and one of the complaints among Navy crews about replacing it with Super Hornets or modified Tomcats was the loss of this seating arrangement.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-06-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
(25-06-2016 06:14 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I also like the A 10. Awesome aircraft. I'd rather build an Su 25 though. I like its look better.

Then why not build a model of an American Northrop YA-9, the plane that lost the prototype competition to the A-10?

[Image: YA-9A_71-1368(2).JPG]

Interestingly, the A-X program that resulted in the YA-10 and YA-9 experimental aircraft was also started in 1969. It raises the question (to me) of whether or not the Sovs had spies who copied major elements of our design, either having access only to the Northrop plane's blueprints or else thinking it would win, or if it is simply an example of convergent evolution, so to speak.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
At work.

About the question of SU-25 copy of YA-9?

I think you'll find it's more a case of covergent evolution/development. Some of the other Russian contenders for the job detailed at the time look similar.

At work so I can't post images of the Yak prototype but... well, had it gone into production the A-10 would have competition in the 'Fugly looks' side of things.

Given the engine selection thete's kind of only so many ways to bolt them in and keep everything protected etc.

The A-10 is kind of unique in using what are, really, commercial airline dust blowers to push it through the air. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
25-06-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
I request an F14. That thing was so awesome!

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 12:27 PM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
(25-06-2016 11:45 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Yes, in Vietnam they thought that the gun-and-eyeball would be totally replaced by technology, but the tech simply wasn't ready, and gunless plane (like the F-4 Phantom II) pilots paid for that mistake.

The failure rate of the missiles had a lot to do with that. If only one in ten works you're not going to be effective. If they had all worked the enemy wouldn't have gotten into gun range very often.

I helped transcribe a few hundred hours of tape recordings done with pilots from Korea and Vietnam while I was in University. Robin Olds, etc. Very interesting reading.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
25-06-2016, 05:30 PM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
(25-06-2016 12:27 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 11:45 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Yes, in Vietnam they thought that the gun-and-eyeball would be totally replaced by technology, but the tech simply wasn't ready, and gunless plane (like the F-4 Phantom II) pilots paid for that mistake.

The failure rate of the missiles had a lot to do with that. If only one in ten works you're not going to be effective. If they had all worked the enemy wouldn't have gotten into gun range very often.

I helped transcribe a few hundred hours of tape recordings done with pilots from Korea and Vietnam while I was in University. Robin Olds, etc. Very interesting reading.

Yeah, if I recall correctly, the Vietnam-era Sparrows only had about a 33% success rate even under optimum firing conditions, at best. The Sidewinders were much better, but only worked if you could get behind your target, which was difficult for guys flying planes literally twice the size and weight of the smaller MiG-17/19s. Worst of all, both types of missile didn't do well at extremely close range, and it didn't take the Russian Vietnamese pilots long to figure out they should close to knife-fighting range.

This was exacerbated by RoE which prevented our pilots from firing BVR; they had to wait until the enemy was clearly identified as a hostile target and not a US plane returning from a strike with a malfunctioning IFF system. Improved C3I near the end of the conflict allowed us to engage more often in the way the F-4 was designed to do. It was, after all, built as an interceptor to protect the fleet against Soviet missiles and bombers. The F-8 Crusader, and to a lesser degree the A-4 Skyhawk, were the "fighters" of the day (you can see the latter as the Aggressor Squadron planes in Top Gun), while the F-4 was to fill the role the F-14 played in the US fleet throughout the 80s and 90s. The film was about the very problem we faced in Vietnam: how to deal with small, nimble fighters while driving a plane built to patrol the fleet perimeter looking for bombers.

The funny part about the F-14 is that it also went the way of the F-4, being converted from a two-seat interceptor into a multi-role "bomb truck".

Finally, I think the Vought F-8 Crusader is one of those "so ugly it's pretty" planes that, like the A-10 Warthog, deserves an honorable mention:

[Image: f8crusader-1.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-06-2016, 09:48 PM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
(25-06-2016 11:53 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Then why not build a model of an American Northrop YA-9, the plane that lost the prototype competition to the A-10?

First reason, this model exists.

[Image: tru_2277_title.jpg]

[Image: fsm-wb0411_13.jpg?h=365&la=en&am...;amp;w=600]

Better paint schemes and markings, and it has an illustrious history. The Russians had similar experiences to what you describe above with the A-10.

As for the P38, I have one and may do it in RAAF markings.

[Image: F-4_Lightning_1_PRU_RAAF_in_flight_1943.jpg]

I actually don't know exactly what I have. I must go through my containers. I don't mind the P38 but it is not my top US fighter of the war. I like the F4U Corsair best. The RNZAF flew them. Australia never bought any.

Tom Blackburn's book, The Jolly Rogers, is a terrific read. It was likely the top as far as piston engine fighters until the advent of the F8F Bearcat.

[Image: bearcat1.jpg]

I recall reading about an air display where the USAAF had a P51 take off with a USN Bearcat and as they left the ground the Bearcat barrel rolled around the P 51. Big Grin

By that stage it was time for the jet age anyway. The Bearcat was sadly too late.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
26-06-2016, 02:03 AM
RE: The aerial warfare thread.
The CAF had a Bearcat in Camarillo when I lived in Ventura County, I'd see it five or six times a year flying around, once a year at the airshow, other times (I imagine) simple keeping the pistons popping. Amazing airplane.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: