Guest pfcem Posted December 25, 2005 Posted December 25, 2005 It's wrong because it's an apples and oranges comparison.262324[/snapback]You seem to be missing the point. I agree that the radar/avionics of the Raptor & Typhoon are significantly different given their different roles but so are the F-15 & F-16 (& in a way very similar to the Raptor & Typhoon). You mustn't have read much.262324[/snapback]Actually I have read A LOT. Growing up, I wanted to be a F-16 pilot & read everything I could get my hands on about it. I was a member of my hometowm CAP & everything. Unfortunately, about the time I became a Junior is High School, my eyesight started to go & by the time I graduated, I needed glasses in order to renew my drivers license. At that time you could not be a "fighter" pilot unless you had at least 20/20 eyesight (may have been 20/25). If you want a bomb truck, just get an A-6 instead.262324[/snapback]Too bad we lost them. The F/A-18E/F may have brought the Hornet up to A-6 capabilities but is too expensive for what it can do IMO. BTW, how's the search for the F-15C's ground capability going?262324[/snapback]I haven't been searching. It is there (I see that some other members have commented on this) but people like you just refuse to see it.
FITZ Posted December 25, 2005 Posted December 25, 2005 Actually, if you want to make analogies between the F-22 and Typhoon's avionics the correct one is probably the F-15C/D with AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA to the F/A-18E/F with APG-73. That will change after 2010 when Typhoon starts to recieve its own AESA radar. Someone asked about F-15C/D ground attack capabilties. They do exist, and a select handful of USAF F-15C/D wing had a secondary air-to-ground tasking up until 1992 when the role was officially deleted. This capability was never used operationally. The F-15A-D can carry the full range of Mk 80 series unguided bombs, cluster bombs, AGM-65 and GBU-15 with the AXQ-14 datalink. I have an old Aero series book, #28 published in 1978 which has several pages devoted to various air-to-ground loadouts proposed for the F-15A/B. There is even a photo of a F-15B carrying 3 Mk 57 nukes and another carrying a full loadout of AAM's plus 3 MER's for 18 Mk82's!
Chris Werb Posted December 25, 2005 Posted December 25, 2005 I'm guessing (from the LANTIRN + colour scheme) this is an E or early prototype thereof, but what is the centreline store in this pic?
Chris Werb Posted December 25, 2005 Posted December 25, 2005 Someone asked about F-15C/D ground attack capabilties. They do exist, and a select handful of USAF F-15C/D wing had a secondary air-to-ground tasking up until 1992 when the role was officially deleted. This capability was never used operationally. The F-15A-D can carry the full range of Mk 80 series unguided bombs, cluster bombs, AGM-65 and GBU-15 with the AXQ-14 datalink. If that secondary tasking existed (and I'm not saying it didn't), it must have been trained for - that would mean photos being taken of the aircraft carrying AtG ordnance. I'd love to see such photos. One for Garth (king of obscure USAF loadouts) perhaps?
gewing Posted December 25, 2005 Posted December 25, 2005 I'm guessing (from the LANTIRN + colour scheme) this is an E or early prototype thereof, but what is the centreline store in this pic? 262568[/snapback] Is that an SRAM?
Guest pfcem Posted December 25, 2005 Posted December 25, 2005 Actually, if you want to make analogies between the F-22 and Typhoon's avionics the correct one is probably the F-15C/D with AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA to the F/A-18E/F with APG-73. That will change after 2010 when Typhoon starts to recieve its own AESA radar. 262538[/snapback]I disagree, but I could be mistaken about their comparison. My understanding is that the Raptor radar/avionics are superior to F-15C/D with AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA while the Typhoon does not yet have "full" capabilities & that its radar/avionics are generally equal to F/A-18E/F with APG-73 (at least in the aircraft now entering service). Someone asked about F-15C/D ground attack capabilties. They do exist, and a select handful of USAF F-15C/D wing had a secondary air-to-ground tasking up until 1992 when the role was officially deleted. This capability was never used operationally. The F-15A-D can carry the full range of Mk 80 series unguided bombs, cluster bombs, AGM-65 and GBU-15 with the AXQ-14 datalink. I have an old Aero series book, #28 published in 1978 which has several pages devoted to various air-to-ground loadouts proposed for the F-15A/B. There is even a photo of a F-15B carrying 3 Mk 57 nukes and another carrying a full loadout of AAM's plus 3 MER's for 18 Mk82's!262538[/snapback]Thank you, that is pretty much in line with my understanding. More specificaly I recall reading about how Mk82/83/84, various CBUs, (Rockeye?), TV guided AGM-65 & GBU-15 and Mk 57 nukes were all sucessfully tested & "unofficialy" listed as "weapons capable" on the F-15A/B/C/D. I am unaare of any actually being used operationally by the US but we are all pretty well aware that Israel has.
FITZ Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 I disagree, but I could be mistaken about their comparison. My understanding is that the Raptor radar/avionics are superior to F-15C/D with AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA while the Typhoon does not yet have "full" capabilities & that its radar/avionics are generally equal to F/A-18E/F with APG-73 (at least in the aircraft now entering service). 262604[/snapback] The Typhoon's air-to-air capabilities are all pretty well set now. Like all modern aircraft Typhoon is going to grow additional capabilities over time but air-to-air took priority. Some detail items like the Digital Voice Input are not yet fully realized (about 80 words right now with a goal of about 600) but that does little to detract from the aircraft.
FITZ Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 I think everyone is overlooking a fairly obvious fact. Typhoon resulted from an original British requirement to replace the Jaguar, a dedicated tactical air to mud mover. sure it tookup the air defence role, to begin with largely as a result of wanting to keep British aerospace in contracts, and eventually because Europe didnt want to buy all its equipment from America. 262592[/snapback] Umm, almost but not quite right. From 1977 the RAF was looking for a Jaguar replacement, but they were also looking for an aircraft to replace the Harrier and RAF Germany's air-defence roled F-4 Phantoms. What they wanted was not just a "mud-mover" Jaguar type but something with much greater air-to-air capability - analogous to the then novel "swing-role" F/A-18A/B. Germany at the same time was looking for a all-weather fighter to replace the F-104G (later the F-4) and Italy the same for the F-104G/S. Britain, France and Germany had all, around 1980 individually and privately come up with a canard/delta wing configuration to meet percieved national needs for a next-gernation combat aircraft and so were already - without government assistance - separating themselves from any American alternative. If you look at the requirements there was no way any extant American type was going to meet them: Primary emphasis on air-to-air with considerable secondary air-to-ground capability.Rough field capability.STOL capability.Higher flight performance than existing types.Very low pilot workload.
Manic Moran Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Is that an SRAM?262599[/snapback] Tail fins are wrong. I can't place it. It's nothing I can think of, I thought I had it on B-61, but the fins are wong for that too... NTM
FlyingCanOpener Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 (edited) Actually, if you want to make analogies between the F-22 and Typhoon's avionics the correct one is probably the F-15C/D with AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA to the F/A-18E/F with APG-73. That will change after 2010 when Typhoon starts to recieve its own AESA radar. Someone asked about F-15C/D ground attack capabilties. They do exist, and a select handful of USAF F-15C/D wing had a secondary air-to-ground tasking up until 1992 when the role was officially deleted. This capability was never used operationally. The F-15A-D can carry the full range of Mk 80 series unguided bombs, cluster bombs, AGM-65 and GBU-15 with the AXQ-14 datalink. I have an old Aero series book, #28 published in 1978 which has several pages devoted to various air-to-ground loadouts proposed for the F-15A/B. There is even a photo of a F-15B carrying 3 Mk 57 nukes and another carrying a full loadout of AAM's plus 3 MER's for 18 Mk82's!262538[/snapback] Thanks for reinterating my point. Guess I should have clarified when I asked about the Eagle's capabilities. I knew it could tote air-to-ground weapons, and it was around for a short (though I admit it wasn't as short as I had remembered. Teaching English does things to you ) time, but the point I was driving at is that the Eagle is Air Superiority only, and has been so in the USAF for some time now. However this is all tangental to the continued incorrect comparison of the F-22 to the Typhoon in the same vein as the F-15 to the F-16. So, in order to settle this, here's some quotes about the design parameters of the F-16 and the Typhoon: The air war experience in Vietnam, where the lack of maneuverability of US fighters at transonic speeds provided advantages to nimble enemy fighters, was the stimulus for the Lightweight Fighter program. The Air Force and designers of the Lightweight Fighter therefore placed great emphasis on achieving unprecedented transonic maneuver capability with excellent handling qualities. In January 1972, the Lightweight Fighter Program solicited design specifications from several American manufacturers. Participants were told to tailor their specifications toward the goal of developing a true air superiority lightweight fighter. General Dynamics and Northrop were asked to build prototypes, which could be evaluated with no promise of a follow-on production contract. These were to be strictly technology demonstrators. The two contractors were given creative freedom to build their own vision of a lightweight air superiority fighter, with only a limited number of specified performance goals. Northrop produced the twin-engine YF-17, using breakthrough aerodynamic technologies and two high-thrust engines. General Dynamics countered with the compact YF-16, built around a single F100 engine. ... When the Lightweight Fighter competition was completed early in 1975, both the YF-16 and the YF-17 showed great promise. The two prototypes performed so well, in fact, that both were selected for military service. On 13 January 1975 the Air Force announced that the YF-16's performance had made it the winner of its Air Combat Fighter (ACF) competition. This marked a shift from the original intention to use the two airplanes strictly as technology demonstrators. General Dynamics' YF-16 had generally shown superior performance over its rival from Northrop. At the same time, the shark-like fighter was judged to have production costs lower than expected, both for initial procurement and over the life cycle of the plane. At the same time, the YF-16 had proved the usefulness not only of fly-by-wire flight controls, but also such innovations as reclined seat backs and transparent head-up display (HUD) panels to facilitate high-G maneuvering, and the use of high profile, one-piece canopies to give pilots greater visibility. Thus, the Air Force had its lightweight fighter, the F-16. ... Britain preferred a collaborationist aircraft programme on practical, political, and economic grounds Britain also wanted to produce a cheap, small, and low-mass fighter which would be affordable and exportable-- a Hawker Hunter for the 1990s. ... In 1977, British, West German and French defence ministers expressed some interest in a joint tactical fighter programme. Germany had an urgent requirement to replace the F-104, while Britain and France had a slightly longer-term need to replace their Jaguar fighter-bombers. Britian was deterimined that its Jaguar replacement would have a significant degree of air-to-air capability, envisaging a swing-role fighter in the mold of the F/A-18. Thus, the new fighter became a multi-role vehicle from the start. ... Britain's requirement was primarily for a fighter-bomber and offencive support aircraft to replace the Jaguar and the Harrier. This was envisaged as being a dedicated all-weather low-level strike aircraft much like a single seat STOL or STOVL Tornado. Edited December 26, 2005 by FlyingCanOpener
Guest pfcem Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Guess I should have clarified when I asked about the Eagle's capabilities. I knew it could tote air-to-ground weapons, and it was around for a short (though I admit it wasn't as short as I had remembered. Teaching English does things to you ) time, but the point I was driving at is that the Eagle is Air Superiority only, and has been so in the USAF for some time now.262663[/snapback]If you knew that the F-15 eagle "tote air-to-ground weapons", then why did you disagree when I said it could? However this is all tangental to the continued incorrect comparison of the F-22 to the Typhoon in the same vein as the F-15 to the F-16. So, in order to settle this, here's some quotes about the design parameters of the F-16 and the Typhoon:262663[/snapback]Using your line of thinking it would therefore be incorrect to compare the F-111 ("fleet defense" fighter/interceptor for the USN & fighter-bomber for the USAF) to the Tornado (strike/interdiction aircraft).
Chris Werb Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Is that an SRAM?262599[/snapback] I think it's an AGM-131B 'SRAM-T' (SRAM-Tactical) which was flight tested on the F-15 at some point. The AGM-131 series were only about 2/3 the size of the original SRAM, which seems about right. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-131.html This is the only pic of the T version I've been able to find: http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/us_sram2_01.jpg
Chris Werb Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 In actual fact, it was partly due to that kind of criticism that the US bought Roland and Rapier to defend its airbases in Europe.262712[/snapback] Remember that the units manning those SAMs were part of the host nation's armed forces (Germany with Roland and the UK and Turkey with Rapier). BTW, according to one source I've read, subsequent analysis concluded that only one Argentine aircraft was lost to Rapier in 1982 whilst a tiny number of OErlikon GDFs did far better on the other side. I wonder how we'd have got on if we'd put old fashioned 40mm L/70 LAA in instead?
FlyingCanOpener Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Using your line of thinking it would therefore be incorrect to compare the F-111 ("fleet defense" fighter/interceptor for the USN & fighter-bomber for the USAF) to the Tornado (strike/interdiction aircraft).262691[/snapback] Sorry, the F-111 flunked as a Naval interceptor. However, the Air Force branch of the requirement (low-level interdiction/strike) came into service, making it valid.
FirstOfFoot Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 BTW, according to one source I've read, subsequent analysis concluded that only one Argentine aircraft was lost to Rapier in 1982 whilst a tiny number of OErlikon GDFs did far better on the other side. I wonder how we'd have got on if we'd put old fashioned 40mm L/70 LAA in instead?262724[/snapback] Several things affected that, IIRC. Firstly, the Rapiers were sited to defend the troops on the ground, not the ships out in the sound; I heard that there was a careful computer simulation and analysis of "where to put Rapier to achieve best protection of troops" (as opposed to the BC waving his hand over the map). While it's an area air defence (as opposed to a point air defence) system, it can only do so much. Secondly, allegedly one of the things left "back home/on the boat" in the rush to throw Brigades onto STUFT transport / on-shore to defend the landing site, were the calibration kits for the fire control of Rapier. Cue much "point it at that hill and boresight it", AIUI. Not sure how true that story was... ...meanwhile, I'm still gutted to discover the fabled "HMS Coventry's NAAFI manager with a GPMG gets 1 kill, one probable vs Skyhawks" was just that - a fable. Mind you, a Marine did manage to shoot a Skyhawk down with a GPMG, it's just that there was an argument over whether credit goes to him or an L40/70. Apparently, much later inspection of the wreckage reveals only 7.62 damage...
Chris Werb Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Mind you, a Marine did manage to shoot a Skyhawk down with a GPMG, it's just that there was an argument over whether credit goes to him or an L40/70. Apparently, much later inspection of the wreckage reveals only 7.62 damage...262825[/snapback] The Navy (and some RFAs) only had L40/60s and only with point detonating ammo, whereas the old land-based 40/70s had proximity. The Navy were planning to go 40/70 (along with 3"/70s) in the 50s but went the Seacat route instead.
Manic Moran Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 ...meanwhile, I'm still gutted to discover the fabled "HMS Coventry's NAAFI manager with a GPMG gets 1 kill, one probable vs Skyhawks" was just that - a fable. Really? Pity. How come? It was widely touted at the time. NTM
Guest pfcem Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 Sorry, the F-111 flunked as a Naval interceptor. However, the Air Force branch of the requirement (low-level interdiction/strike) came into service, making it valid.262742[/snapback]Excuse me. You say that comparing the Raptor & Typhoon is invalid because the initial requirements from which they were developed from are differnent. The initial requirement from which the F-111 & Tornado were developed were different yet you say that comparison is valid. What I am trying to get you to realize that the initial requirement from which an aircraft is developed from is irrelevant since aircraft evolve as they are developed & deployed. What matters is what the aircraft are during service. In which case the Raptor is (more or less) intended to fulfill the same role(s) as the F-15 [it is the F-15 replacement after all] (with possibly more air-to-ground but we will have to wait to see if it is ever used, or if, like the F-15, is there but never really used operationally) & the Typhoon is intended to fulfill the same role(s) as the F-16 (given doctrinal differences between the US & Europe they may not have "identical" roles but I doubt anyone would argue that when you get right down to it they are intended to fulfill much of the same roles but with some variation as to priorities - mostly due to the US using a high-low mix while Europe does not). It is true that using a USAF F-15 vs USMC F/A-18 analagy may be more valid in terms of their respective roles but then I believe you would have to be more specific & say F-15C vs F/A-18A as I do not believe the capabilitios of the Raptor & Typhoon are that close (at least in their initial production models). But in reality, besides the ability to operate from a carrier, what can a F/A-18 do that that a F-16 could not do just as well?
Manic Moran Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 I don't think Tornado/F-111 comparisons are really all that far off. Both are single-function aircraft that were designed to come in distinct models for different roles. i.e. ADV/IDS vs USAF Attack/USN Fleet Defense NTM
5150 Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 I think it's somewhat unwise to try to shoehorn aircraft from different periods into conveniently simple analogies. It seems to be a pointless exercise. The roles, conditions, capabilities, requirements, and expectations have all changed markedly.
Guest pfcem Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 I don't think Tornado/F-111 comparisons are really all that far off. Both are single-function aircraft that were designed to come in distinct models for different roles. i.e. ADV/IDS vs USAF Attack/USN Fleet Defense262923[/snapback]I do not recall the original designers of the Tornado to have ever envisioned it to have any air-to-air capability. The ADV came more than a decade later from a totaly different requirement. What you seem to be missing is that the Raptor & F-15 are both primarily air-superiority fighters intended to keep the sky clear of enemy threats and that the Typhoon & F-16 (or F/A-18) are multi-role fighters intended to conduct both air-to-air (although less capable at it than the Raptor or F-15 repectively) & air-to-ground operations (believed to be more capable at it than the Raptor or F-15 repectively). If you want ot insist that it is an apples to oranges kind of thing then you have that right. In which case the Raptor & F-15 are apples & the Typhoon & F-16 (or F/A-18) are oranges. Comparing "apples to oranges" is not an invalid comparison in and of itself but you do have to keep in mind both their similarities & differences when doing so - which is what I have done.
Guest pfcem Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 I think it's somewhat unwise to try to shoehorn aircraft from different periods into conveniently simple analogies. It seems to be a pointless exercise. The roles, conditions, capabilities, requirements, and expectations have all changed markedly.262938[/snapback]What "roles, conditions, capabilities, requirements, and expectations" have all changed so markedly as to invalidate stating that the radar/avionics comparision between the Raptor vs Typhoon is analogeous to that of the F-15 vs F-16 (or F/A-18)? One can argue that the Typhoon (in it current state) is really only a "half generation" ahead of the F-15 & F-16 (it really depends on which version of the F-15 & F-16 you are talking about) while the Raptor is a "full generation" ahead but comparisons/analogies of one generation to the next have been, & will continue to be, made - primarily to show the advantages/increased capabilities of the newer generation. The Raptor is not all that different from the F-15, it is no doubt an improvement in capabilities but it is, after all, intended to replace the F-15 & therefore intended to perform the same role(s) - it is just expected to be better at it. The Typhoon to F-16 (or F/A-18) is quite similar but less clear-cut due to them being designed by different nations (or group of nations in the case of the Typhoon) but note that they are similar enough to each other that they in fact are in direct competition with each other for export contracts around the world.
Guest pfcem Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 I think it's an AGM-131B 'SRAM-T' (SRAM-Tactical) which was flight tested on the F-15 at some point. The AGM-131 series were only about 2/3 the size of the original SRAM, which seems about right. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-131.html This is the only pic of the T version I've been able to find: http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/us_sram2_01.jpg262723[/snapback]That is what I thought but am not sure enough to say. I can not make out what the lettering on the weapon in the picture is but it looks as thought it could say SRAM-T.
5150 Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 If you can't see that today's environment is markedly different than, say, 1980's, my explaining it to you won't help. You don't like it when people explain things to you, anyway.
Chris Werb Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 That is what I thought but am not sure enough to say. I can not make out what the lettering on the weapon in the picture is but it looks as thought it could say SRAM-T.262964[/snapback] It could (the picture is too pixellated to sharpen in PhotoShop) - I actually thought it said 'INERT'.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now