The Airplane Thread

[vreihen16]

Some of the results from the Congress-ordered 2018-19 flyoff between A10C and F35A were finally released.....

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...inally-emerges



.

[asianF22]

more attendees and performers in the local air show…

[Llarry]

The Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime reconnaissance/anti-submarine (ASW) aircraft has many advantages over previous aircraft performing the same mission. However, jet aircraft operate most effectively at higher altitudes than their turboprop predecessors. This presents a bit of a problem when it comes to attacking submerged submarines -- the most effective ASW weapon is the air-dropped torpedo and dropping a torpedo from high altitude is problematic due to time of flight and varying winds at altitude. The U.S. Navy has recently deployed a guided glide torpedo kit to address this issue.

The awkwardly designated High-altitude ASW Weapon Capability with Air Launch Accessory (HAAWC ALA) became operational in late 2022 and attaches a GPS-guided glide bomb kit with wings and tail to a Mark 54 12.75-inch (324 mm) lightweight ASW torpedo. The P-8 drops the weapon which then glides to the target location and releases the torpedo with parachute over the target.

I've searched in vain for a decent photo of the weapon; the attached image will have to do. While the P-8 and the Mk 54 torpedo are used by a number of nations, I've not heard of any export of the HAAWC ALA outside the U.S.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime reconnaissance/anti-submarine (ASW) aircraft has many advantages over previous aircraft performing the same mission. However, jet aircraft operate most effectively at higher altitudes than their turboprop predecessors. This presents a bit of a problem when it comes to attacking submerged submarines -- the most effective ASW weapon is the air-dropped torpedo and dropping a torpedo from high altitude is problematic due to time of flight and varying winds at altitude. The U.S. Navy has recently deployed a guided glide torpedo kit to address this issue.

The awkwardly designated High-altitude ASW Weapon Capability with Air Launch Accessory (HAAWC ALA) became operational in late 2022 and attaches a GPS-guided glide bomb kit with wings and tail to a Mark 54 12.75-inch (324 mm) lightweight ASW torpedo. The P-8 drops the weapon which then glides to the target location and releases the torpedo with parachute over the target.

I've searched in vain for a decent photo of the weapon; the attached image will have to do. While the P-8 and the Mk 54 torpedo are used by a number of nations, I've not heard of any export of the HAAWC ALA outside the U.S.

That's called "attempting to fix a problem entirely of your own creation".

[flybigjet]

This is a VERY interesting read regarding the "replacement" of the A-10 with the F-35. If you read between the lines (not hard-- it's written about as large as a billboard), you can see where the AF is willfully trying to sabotage the A-10 and justify the dog of an F-35.

And? Then lie about it. I'm retired AF/AFRES and this? This just *pisses* me off.

Basically, the F-35 comes across as "first in the swimsuit competition, last in the talent show" against a much older, yet much, MUCH more capable aircraft.

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/f-35-a...-flyoff-report

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...inally-emerges

Two areas especially stand out:

"A-10C can carry 16 GBU-39 small diameter bombs; the F-35 can only carry eight. The A-10’s iconic 30mm GAU-8 cannon system has an ammunition capacity of 1,350 rounds; the F-35A’s smaller 25mm cannon system can carry only 181 rounds. But the F-35A’s gun doesn’t shoot straight, so it hardly matters how much ammunition it carries."

"Pilots flying in both the F-35 and A-10 in the tests repeatedly said A-10s performing the attack role with F-35s providing cover would be a powerful combination. “This would combine the strengths of both platforms while mitigating their limitations to improve the likelihood of mission success,” the report states."

And finally, there's this one: If this doesn't make your blood absolutely *boil*, you aren't paying attention:

https://jalopnik.com/at-what-point-d...com-1685239179

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...a-10-look-bad/

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

Some of the results from the Congress-ordered 2018-19 flyoff between A10C and F35A were finally released.....

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...inally-emerges

Heavily Redacted report that had to be dragged out by an FOIA. Remember it's all about high tech and wizardry, that is what gets funding and keeps the major war machine in business. Just look at the Pegasus. It has to have a computer screen to air to air refuel. Not having a back analog system is foolish for aircraft not equipped with drogue refueling. But that what the Brass requested and got!

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

That's called "attempting to fix a problem entirely of your own creation".

If you mean the use of a jet aircraft to do antisubmarine warfare (ASW) -- with the attendant higher altitudes -- it is important to get the aircraft over the last known position of the submarine as soon as possible. Submarines can move fast and the distances can be great. Jet aircraft have a great advantage in that regard. It's the next step -- localization of the target in order to put a warhead on a forehead -- that is a bit trickier with a jet.

Strategic-level sources, such as fixed low-frequency sonar arrays or signals intelligence, can get the airplane to the approximate location but not close enough to use a weapon. So the ASW airplane has to use sonobuoys or whatever to localize the contact before they can drop a depth bomb or torpedo.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

This is a VERY interesting read regarding the "replacement" of the A-10 with the F-35. If you read between the lines (not hard-- it's written about as large as a billboard), you can see where the AF is willfully trying to sabotage the A-10 and justify the dog of an F-35.

Shades of 1941 Pearl Harbor, where the battleships that the Navy didn't want to keep investing in sat in the port while the aircraft carriers were out at sea?

IMHO, we need to look at what Ukraine is managing using kid's toys as disposable cheap attack aircraft against the Russians, instead of investing gazillions of dollars into attack aircraft with higher operating costs.....

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

Shades of 1941 Pearl Harbor, where the battleships that the Navy didn't want to keep investing in sat in the port while the aircraft carriers were out at sea?

IMHO, we need to look at what Ukraine is managing using kid's toys as disposable cheap attack aircraft against the Russians, instead of investing gazillions of dollars into attack aircraft with higher operating costs.....

That sadly will not happen as most members in congress have their hands interlaced with Defense Companies.

[vreihen16]

^^^^^ Same as 1941! ^^^^^

It took an attack by Japanese carriers to get congress' head out of the sand about the superiority of carriers over battleships.....

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

This is a VERY interesting read regarding the "replacement" of the A-10 with the F-35. If you read between the lines (not hard-- it's written about as large as a billboard), you can see where the AF is willfully trying to sabotage the A-10 and justify the dog of an F-35.

If the B-52 can be effective in the bomber role for 80-plus years, why can't the A-10 be effective in the close air support role for many more years? I think there is a case to be made for the F-35A -- more stealth in the Air Combat Command is great -- but not in CAS. So, reduce the F-35A buy by a couple of hundred aircraft and retain the A-10. Update the A-10 as required for the long haul.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

If the B-52 can be effective in the bomber role for 80-plus years, why can't the A-10 be effective in the close air support role for many more years? I think there is a case to be made for the F-35A -- more stealth in the Air Combat Command is great -- but not in CAS. So, reduce the F-35A buy by a couple of hundred aircraft and retain the A-10. Update the A-10 as required for the long haul.

The A-10 **CAN** be very effective on the lower-level battlefield.

But, for a lot of reasons, the A-10's been in the crosshairs from the AF pretty much since the day it became operational.

They want their shiny new (expensive) toys-- and that keeps the military/industrial complex humming.

So, the A-10 will be replaced with something that isn't as effective, has a higher work load, carries a FAR smaller load out, FAR less ammunition for the (smaller) gun, is much less survivable, has a lower in-commission rate and is overall a poor choice for ground attack/CAS/CSAR missions.

Good plan there, guys.

Even the F-35 pilots admitted that a "strike package" was the way to go-- the F-35 goes in to suppress enemy air defenses and then the A-10 comes in to take out the target.

R.

[Llarry]

Not many aircraft have worn the wide variety of paint schemes worn by the Northrop T-38 Talon. While the largest user of the T-38 is the USAF, it also used by the Navy, NASA and several foreign air forces.

What caught my eye was a new and attractive scheme on a Turkish Air Force T-38M -- a nicely updated version of the T-38. And then I started investigating all the T-38 paint schemes in the U.S. By no means did I find all of them.

Starting with that Turkish T-38M, here's a sampling of some T-38s.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

If you mean the use of a jet aircraft to do antisubmarine warfare (ASW) -- with the attendant higher altitudes -- it is important to get the aircraft over the last known position of the submarine as soon as possible. Submarines can move fast and the distances can be great. Jet aircraft have a great advantage in that regard. It's the next step -- localization of the target in order to put a warhead on a forehead -- that is a bit trickier with a jet.

Strategic-level sources, such as fixed low-frequency sonar arrays or signals intelligence, can get the airplane to the approximate location but not close enough to use a weapon. So the ASW airplane has to use sonobuoys or whatever to localize the contact before they can drop a depth bomb or torpedo.

I mean replacing a four-engine turboprop created the high-altitude torpedo launch problem.

I've got a LOT of time driving Guppy's and I wouldn't pick them for the ASW role-- higher means less "eyes" on the surface for telltale signs of submarines. It's a twinjet, so you can't shut one down for fuel economy. Yes, it can get there faster, but with significantly less loiter time and fuel economy overall. Faster isn't always better when setting up attack runs, doing MAD runs, or attempting to maneuver helicopters for VecTac's. I would posit that slower is better in this type of warfare-- gives you time to control the engagement. Limited visibility for the pilots, much less the guys in back. Less lift capability for the aircraft overall (weapons, comm, digital, MAD gear, etc) And mostly, because military adaptation of "off the shelf" tech *always* works-- figure out your requirements and build the plane around that.

This is just another example of Boeing sucking up to the trough.

R.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Not many aircraft have worn the wide variety of paint schemes worn by the Northrop T-38 Talon. While the largest user of the T-38 is the USAF, it also used by the Navy, NASA and several foreign air forces.

What caught my eye was a new and attractive scheme on a Turkish Air Force T-38M -- a nicely updated version of the T-38. And then I started investigating all the T-38 paint schemes in the U.S. By no means did I find all of them.

Starting with that Turkish T-38M, here's a sampling of some T-38s.

Don't forget the LAPD!

[Lady Jane]

Thorton Aircraft acquired the airframe from the military, and completed an extensive restoration and certification of the aircraft as a civil aircraft, after which it was registered N638TC. Thorton aircraft leased the aircraft for various projects, including films. One the more interesting appearances is with the Actor Dan Aykroyd, (a Canadian) in the move Dragnet (1987) where towards the end of the movie N638TC was painted to replicate LAPD Police force marking and was used to chase down a Lear Jet with the escaping bad guy.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Attachment 3314655


Thorton Aircraft acquired the airframe from the military, and completed an extensive restoration and certification of the aircraft as a civil aircraft, after which it was registered N638TC. Thorton aircraft leased the aircraft for various projects, including films. One the more interesting appearances is with the Actor Dan Aykroyd, (a Canadian) in the move Dragnet (1987) where towards the end of the movie N638TC was painted to replicate LAPD Police force marking and was used to chase down a Lear Jet with the escaping bad guy.

The AF was supposed to shred the airframe, as is policy after the pilot landed prior to the runway threshold and "destroyed" the aircraft, but Thorton bought it (totally gutted) before the AF got around to it. My understanding is the airframe wasn't significantly damaged.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

...here's a sampling of some T-38s.

Of course if you want your two-seat Northrop to have a bit more bite, you'd want an F-5F, which is the two-seat version of the F-5E Tiger. A couple of 20mm cannon, wingtip Sidewinder rails, etc. Very widely used by many nations. The only F-5Fs in service with the U.S. military are several operated by Navy and Marine Corps adversary squadrons alongside their F-5N (modified F-5E) single-seat brethren.

Here's one in service with Taiwan's Republic of China Air Force.

[Llarry]

The ultimate development of the T-38/F-5 family was the Northrop F-5G, which first flew in 1982. The twin GE afterburning J85s were replaced by an F404 engine (as used by the F-18) which provided a healthy increase in power and made the little fighter a Mach 2 speedster. The F-5G suffered the stigma of being "that cheap little fighter for Third World countries" despite performance that rivaled the F-16. Northrop requested and was granted a new designation of F-20A and named the aircraft the Tigershark. Despite vigorous marketing efforts, there were no takers and only three F-20As were built. Had the sale effort succeeded, there no doubt would have been an F-20B two-seat variant.

Through no fault of the F-20A, two of the three prototypes crashed during flight demonstrations; this could not have helped the marketing effort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

[3.0L]

I spotted two KC-130's yesterday, each with two F-35's refueling, while having lunch at Ragged Point (on CA highway 1).

Later, 3 F-35's made some low-lever passed up the coast while occasionally lighting off the afterburners. There was a lot of neck swiveling on the restaurant patio.

I stole this photo from the internet.

[chassis]

Uzbek A320neo

[Llarry]

Can't have too many F8F Bearcat photos! This twofer is the Planes of Fame F8F-2 last year.