vanir

Excellent. A primary source reference. Which type of aircraft? What was the "speed limit" for bomb bay use? What were the projected effects of transgressing this limit (airframe damage, etc.)? What kind of "trim" effects happened when bomb bays were opened? What is the approximate speed with which bomb bays open and close (how long are they open)?

I liked the CGI and interview clips with vets on Dogfights, but was pretty disappointed at least in regards to WW2 episodes it was very much a reflection of commercial editing rather than historical detail. For me, with fairly involved research into some specific fighter types, full length pilot-vet interviews on DVD, etc. the tailored clipping of vet comments and ultimately inaccurate commentaries about aircraft types was glaring and very annoying. Really, I liked it mostly only for the CGI. And if they were so (very) wrong about conclusions and assertions regarding WW2 aircraft, how could I possibly trust them on Vietnam ones? imho the series had very commercial themes bordering on old fashioned propaganda: American tactical superiority, American technical superiority...it's a wank. Only doco I've seen I really, really liked was Clash of Wings (WW2 era). More a comprehensive overview, but at least very few comparative aircraft details which are given are misleading (only regarding the Yak-9 really, which bettered contemporary Messerschmitt performance only up to 4000m until the VK-107 engine was fitted in 1945). And almost unique among American productions/publications regarding the war it gives quite a bit more than a paragraph of lip service to the periods prior to direct American involvement. It also approached the foundations of the war nicely, where most historians are loathe to challenge the popular "bad guys wear black" nature of commercial media. It didn't contradict popular misconceptions about the Nazis and Japanese military leadership (which is to open a real can of worms) but at least brought up other points to consider: the interwar arms race in Europe Japanese military disarray fallacies held between nations and among populations prior to the war, bordering on complete fiction (eg. German air power in the late thirties) Luftwaffe organisational disarray (which appears to be a common theme of the Wehrmacht due to Nazi influence) Definitely worth watching if you like the WW2 era air war.

I was thinking along these lines...your squadron is chasing down a flight of Tu-22 who're doing something like 500kts at 45000. You're probably climbing and going supersonic, maybe 1.1 or 1.2 and eventually they see you coming before you've made range. They go for a supersonic dash, which is something like 1.4 for that model and maybe split up to increase survivability. You've finally made altitude and chase a pair down at something like 1.9M, they're pushed to the limit in a shallow dive at something like 1.5 with engines close to overheating/overspeeding. You make range (circa 3 miles?) and get a little closer because you know the open bay is going to hit you with drag like a sledgehammer. Do I recall correctly: the missile/radar system in the Dart was GCI with the pilot going "hands on" within aircraft radar range? Also the armament options were 2x AIM-4 plus 1x Genie or 4x AIM-4 so do I assume the three cycle pneumatic supply was with the heavier Genie load, where it could cycle four times with the lighter AIM-4? And bay operation was automatic with weapon release wasn't it? (ie. the bay wasn't manually controlled)

I can't help feeling a little concerned. We've decided on the JSF where ranking servicemen mention in the RAAF magazine fewer of the F-35 for just a couple of Raptors or even switching over to a fleet of Flankers would be better, safer, more suited to our needs (and rather expansive territorial interests and isolation). Indonesia, for example, a Muslim government who could manage to put up an interesting argument about our oil operations (and hence general political/ADF involvement) in Timor, a regional territory we lay century old British colonial claims to, have been reportedly snapping up Fulcrums with a view to a fleet of Flankers by the proverbial shipload. A widely publicised simulation was run for a scenario F-35/tankers versus opposing Fulcrums, which had us losing every which way but loose the entire force. We could really use an extended range and good weapons loadout for our relatively small force, yet large territory RAAF operations. Personally I think the Flanker is the best choice all round, given the deployment environment. I'm with those "breakaway" or "controversial" RAAF spokespeople who've cited the JSF as totally inadequate, if nothing else but for its limited range. Personally I don't like the maximum 1.8 Mach dash design in any case, considering the distances which need to be covered quickly in the worst case scenario, which let's face it defence forces get paid to consider, do they not? So being thusly concerned: I appreciate the largely ~restricted~ nature of fairly new defence technologies and I don't want anyone to go compromising the honour or integrity of respected members of the site who're in defence force service. I am nevertheless highly interested in some authoritive appraisal of the capabilities of the F-35 (B I think, the air force version), what kind of strengths are our pilots going to be relying on? Somewhat aside from the high survivability "stealth" (ahem) technology, which I think may be muted by a datalinked Flanker force with mulitple signal receivers for the firing aircraft anyway, at least in your classic BVR approach. Them Russian radars have been getting pretty good from what I've read, to compound that issue. So is it going to be a case of being outdone by Flankers at BVR and then outdone by Fulcrums up close?

Hm, I'm not really evaluating it as a replacement but from a fresh perspective. The Hornet worked because its best competition at the time was downgraded export Floggers (Jaybird 5km ranging radar and IR AAMs), or F-4 Phantoms. The story changed all over the place with the Flanker, due to its fantastic unrefuelled range. One flew from Moscow to Farnborough without refuelling on internal juice, you know. A Hornet replacement won't really work for us and to be perfectly honest I'm not in the slightest convinced the F-35 is in any way a step up. With no parts commonality to draw from I'd say that about removes any advantages it has over the SuperHornet, which whilst far more expensive is pound for pound a better machine in the South Pacific environment and still not what we need in the recent technological environment. The more I think about it the more I see an outlay retrieval program packaged into an export rip off. To be blunt. Different story for the V/STOL variant for the USMC, wow, a supersonic Harrier, great buy. I think that's as far as the design goes, other than that it's an F-16 with a newer sales brochure. Eurofighters would've been much better, but have similar unrefuelled/internal range issues.

Agreed, eraser_tr. I'd like to think the FedGov knows something we don't in the decision, but since it's not universally supported within the RAAF that has to make me wonder. Indeed the purpose of this thread was the big question mark about the JSF, I don't really know what info is reasonably available and without getting anyone into trouble, if people here might know a bit about it. I can put together a basic prospectus on structure, comp avionics, weapons and obvious design features but that's about it. Maybe someone here's flown one? Truth is if I know anything about the FedGov the idea of their being well informed about anything is like contemplating where Ivana Trump got her degree in economics, "at the store baby, at the store." My instinct tells me the JSF got chosen wholly because it looks like a cheap F-22, tell them its great features are things like STOL rough field operation and high turnaround and they'd go, "huh?" I'm just thankful the RAAF has been harping on things like range to keep at least one Oz-relative marketing benefit in present mind. To me it looks custom made for US-Middle Eastern ops and that's just not what we need.

I don't think I have the book any more which describes the incident. iirc I'm pretty sure it was an F-15, I think it was an Israeli pilot talking about it. He was making the point due to Soviet export downgrades on Floggers the Foxbat, even with old tech was probably the most dangerous enemy bird around at the time, but even so it was a somewhat lucky engagement for the MiG pilot. It's been something like ten years since I read about this however, I guess I could try looking it up on the web... My memory has been way off before on occasion :D --------------------- (edit) Indeed, you appear quite right. A Hornet was shot down by the Foxbat. The engagement I'm thinking of was inconclusive. Both the MiG and a flight of Eagles (joined by more Eagles) missed each other with missiles and the Eagles chased the MiG off.

One of the big problems is the need to marry such a force to a tanker service, something only the Flanker and Raptor (or triple-one) doesn't require for extended off shore operations (ie. force interdiction). Hands down the Raptor with strike software is the go. Flanker is a close second overall. Infrastructure is sure an issue, it's an expense and you're right, whilst an AN/APG-65 and AMRAAM package can be slotted into a Fulcrum like the German Phantom's ICE package (Czech Republic does something like this iirc), a Flanker is a slightly different story with its somewhat more specialised and quite powerful avionics suite (current update reportedly has a search range 400km, track 15 targets and can identify a periscope at 200km [source probably Korchagin] though it must be mentioned such claims would be in the American style marketing concept of under very specific test conditions). The main thing here is unrefuelled range and supersonic cruise. This isn't the Middle East and there are tremendous distances over water which need to be covered in short order for effective antagonist response, leaving enough fuel to fight or strike and fight, and even then you might not get a lazy cruise home. It could be another supersonic cruise to support engagement #2 because fellers, we can't afford to have many birds to work with and have to squeeze everything from a handful. Virtually all engagements over water will be BVR and at altitude, whilst naturally all strike conditions will be at low altitude with a transonic emphasis. The problem with tankers is they're an easy target when you don't have a big air force to protect them with. Australia can't put up an escort force and an effective strike force with fighters and attack aircraft. For example, the RAAF typically has around 30 serviceable Hornets and two or three serviceable F-111s period. We fight tomorrow, that's what we've got to work with. Insofar as the suitability of the Hornet for developing style engagement concerns today, it had been among RAAF intentions to use the F-111 as a fighter. The Hornet can't get where we need to go and isn't fast enough and doesn't carry enough fuel to try, plus we don't have enough of anything to lose one. All of the simulations with the JSF versus Fulcrums resulted in complete force loss primarily due to the need of tankers. In one simulation iirc two or three F-35s made it out of the combat zone but crashed into the sea because the MiGs did the smart thing and painted the tanker as a priority target. One thing I do know is technologies, and stealth is a misnomer. Once again Flanker style datalinks mute low observability by spreading points of reception across the squadron. Low radar observability works by spreading the signal around like a kisses from your drunk aunty at christmas time, anything to keep it from heading back to a concentrated source like a seeker head or a (mobile) ground station. It does this so beautifully the damn thing interferes with radios and television sets on a low flyover in a pop centre (in Iraq a civilian tech accidentally tracked the F-117 using mobile phone coverage). One Flanker has no problems seeing it but definitely has issues targeting one. Put three or more in the air and our "stealth" fighter now has serious issues. I do like the SuperHornet, it has a good weapons suite and an okay range. I personally think we still need either the supercruise of the Raptor (but can't afford it) or the circa.4000km and great supersonic figures of the Flanker. My main concern with either US platform would be the transonic design emphasis, great for policing the Middle East but not precisely suited to overwater/long distance response style engagements, which the Flanker is specifically designed for (regarding Russia's massive overland distances and formery imperial nature). I think personally the Australian environment is more like the Russian environment than Americans in the Middle East environment (ie. US "European deployment" doctrine in air superiority requirements, typically using massive locally based support infrastructure we would just not have available). Though the Raptor is close due to that supercruise and penetration ability. So all this again, definitely has me curious about the JSF (the A is the air force version, is it?). Considering the real world use of the F-35A is going to be like an F-16 you can just about toss low radar visibility right off the bat anyway, and anything more than a marginally supersonic dash at the best of times. Air defence would be within the shoreline. Response capability in securing regional interests would be neglible or tentative at best. I think the entire strategy/proposal involved kick backs and renewed (industrial) treaties. I do prefer the SuperHornet to this, being it was at least designed with an air superiority emphasis and the dual strike role without compromising aerial combat effectiveness. If one is going to be stuck with transonic doctrine they could do much worse than a Hornet and the technology is good. Still think about 40 Flankers for the price of 25 Raptors is the go, and worth the extra expense of conversion training and infrastructure. It's a capitalist world, didn't you know, buy today and fund tomorrow. The quality of day to day tech relies upon the size of your market base to fund it. Technology itself is dependent upon nothing else at all, and 40-50 more Flankers sold means more of those godzilla specials in Russian service, which means more of their tech development kicking back in updates... Maybe the Berkut could see the light of day.

The Foxbat is speed restricted to 2.5 Mach. The Tumanski engines have a habit of overspeeding above this speed if you keep the throttle at the gate stops (and three rings lit). Very careful pilot management is required to prevent this but ultimately it was discovered "engine destruction was inevitable" above this speed. The airframe has an engineering limit of 2.83 Mach but this is arguably liberal, considering an 80% basic tempered steel structure outright (its 8% titanium restricted to airfoil leading edges). It is true that an Egyptian Foxbat-B (?) was clocked by Israeli ground stations in 1973 doing speeds of up to 3.2 Mach, however its engines were found to be completely destroyed upon landing and the pilot/aircraft was lucky to survive. This model also uses the improved BD-300 Tumanskis in common with the later Foxbat-E (80's update). Essentially the deployment of Foxbat squadrons involved the speed restriction of 2.5 Mach unless a global scale conflict ensued and the type was required to down cruise missiles, under which circumstances all restrictions would be lifted and the pilots more than prepared to risk self-destruction of their aircraft in defence of the motherland. US Intelligence didn't know these elements about the MiG-25 however prior to the examination of Belyenko's Foxbat-A in Japan 1976. None of these points apply to the Foxhound, but then the Foxbat isn't nearly as expensive. The sense in which the Foxbat, in particular the Foxbat-A would be regarded as tremendously expensive is in terms of specialised training and serviceability. The B-300 Tumanskis have a service life of 150hrs. During the 80's update where Ukranian Foxbat-A were either exchanged for, or updated to Foxbat-E standards (IRST, ECM, Sapfire-25, BD-300 engines w/1000hrs TBO), it was discovered that instructors had to be flown in from Russia also, to retrain the pilots because they'd forgotten how to fly it. The local Foxbat squadrons simply didn't want to go to the trouble or expense of continually having to replace the engines in the Foxbat-A, so flew them as little as possible at first, then not at all. In terms of construction and technology it is not a particularly expensive machine. As far as I know all interceptor versions of the Foxbat seen in action in the Middle East have been the Foxbat-A type (1965 vintage and not so much as a 360RWR, nor lookdown/shootdown...by this I mean poor signal translation). About its only virtue would be climb rate and a radar signal so powerful it can reputedly "burn through" any ECM attempts used against it...assuming you're within its 50km tracking range. Not much of a show but whilst I've very little familiarity with the various Middle Eastern conflicts and technology deployment, I do remember reading around the traps the only (Israeli?) F-15 shot down was by a Foxbat. And that Israeli Air Force doctrine was to seek out Foxbats and destroy them on the ground wherever possible, before any major aerial engagements within range of an airfield, just to cut the risks. I mean the Foxbat is old hat, it's outdated, it's completely outmatched, it's from another era and predates the Eagle by not only conception, but entire construction technologies (the Eagle inherited technologies developed for the Valkyrie project, the Foxbat has the Fishbed as a predecessor). But it's still not the smartest thing in the world to go around ignoring one in your airspace...apparently. Obviously I quite like the Foxbat and Foxhound, I quite like any warplane with specific and unquestionable strengths. I think any warplane with any kind of distinct advantage, no matter how many disadvantages to compensate, can still be used to advantage, given an appropriate circumstance.