If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:37:30 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote: Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon? Something else? That depends on the mission, for Australia today an F-15 variant would probably be the best alternative, Typhoon is a little short on range though that could be an option with a decent tanker force. According to _The Illustrated Directory of Fighters_ by Mike Spick, Typhoon has a range of 1852 km and F-15 1191 km. As I said it depends on the mission The figures for Typhoon I have are a.. ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km a.. ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km a.. air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km a.. air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km Boieng claim the F-15K has an unrefuelled combat radius in excess of 1800 km on a deep strike mission In the air defence with 3 hr CAP they claim a range of 500 km Keith |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Brash wrote:
Not you JD, the Taswegian. Its alright. You'd be pretty much correct anyway. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Krenske" wrote in message
If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated now and the avionics package has been much improved. In fact I believe they are technically capable of AMRAAM carriage now although none have been tested yet. The RAAF has even investigated the potential for using them as heavy missile support for the F-18's. (12 AMRAAM's and 4 sidewinders are certainly heavy but are almost a clean load for a pig.) It must be remembered that they were originally to be Multirole fighter/bombers with heavy missile loads in the fighter role. F111B was to carry Phoenix etc. F-111B had a totally different radar suite than the A, C, etc. (in fact, the B had much the same systems as the F-14.) I'm highly skeptical about AMRAAM carriage on the F-111C; the radars are not even close to right, unless they gutted it entirely in the AUP, which I don't believe they did. I certainly can find no indication that this armament is possible. (If even Carlo Kopp isn't claiming AMRAAM capability for the existing F-111s, I'm guessing it doesn't exist) -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Brash" wrote in message u... F16's legs are too short. And they've only got one (semi-reliable) donk. (F16 Bumper Stickers) Lean, Mean, Flameout Machine. I SHALL RETURN...Well, I might. Mach Nix. The F-16. Takes a licking, and takes a licking. Have you hugged your chute today? This Vehicle Makes Frequent Stops. I came. I saw. I bingo'd. No deposit, no return. We've spent so much money on this thing that we can't afford to admit we were wrong. A triumph of style over substance. The best damn second place fighter in the world. Instead of a CAS mod, we're going to install a roll bar. And now with this LANTIRN thing and our new Block 40's, we can hit the ground at NIGHT! We cover the target like a thong bikini. And BINGO is my Name-O. We crash more airplanes before 9-o'clock than most people crash all day. Last in the talent show, but first in the swimsuit competition. Lose a few, lose a few. Feet and knees together, eyes on the horizon... Designated no-hitter. Everything you wanted in a fighter and less. Optimist: F-16 pilot who's worried about dying from cancer. Only Michael Jackson is more manly. Hey, today we didn't lose a single jet. This is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you. User friendly... if you've got three hands. If we have a war with BDUs, we've got 'em beat. Careful badguys...I'm carrying BOTH bombs today. I'm talkin' wall-to-wall MK-82's Pal. If I carried more weapons, and if I had enough gas, and if I could actually hit the target, and if I had some more REALLY expensive electrons so I could find you, and if my motor didn't quit, and if My wings didn't crack, Boy, I'd really teach you a lesson! The CO |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Graham wrote:
Would the new super hornet Suit? Maybe as a replacement for the F/A-18A/B, but as a bomb truck it's not the best. The F-15K would appear to be the best replacement for the F-111. Cheers David |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:23:47 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote: "Paul Krenske" wrote in message If you are referring to replacing the engines and upgrading the avionics then we have actually done that. They engines are all uprated now and the avionics package has been much improved. In fact I believe they are technically capable of AMRAAM carriage now although none have been tested yet. The RAAF has even investigated the potential for using them as heavy missile support for the F-18's. (12 AMRAAM's and 4 sidewinders are certainly heavy but are almost a clean load for a pig.) It must be remembered that they were originally to be Multirole fighter/bombers with heavy missile loads in the fighter role. F111B was to carry Phoenix etc. F-111B had a totally different radar suite than the A, C, etc. (in fact, the B had much the same systems as the F-14.) I'm highly skeptical about AMRAAM carriage on the F-111C; the radars are not even close to right, unless they gutted it entirely in the AUP, which I don't believe they did. I certainly can find no indication that this armament is possible. (If even Carlo Kopp isn't claiming AMRAAM capability for the existing F-111s, I'm guessing it doesn't exist) The F111's would be unable to self target apparently but would act as a "Arsenal Aircraft" for F18's. The F18's pass over the information through some sort of datalink to the missiles and the F111 drops em. Apparently quite similar to Malaysias idea to use 2 seat f-18s as controll birds for 4 ship flights of flankers. The new digital fire control and data systems theoretically allow it to happen, I do not personally believe it should be a starter though. Instead the F111's should be smashing the Airbases not running air superiority patrols. Note the arsenal plane concept with RPV's is alive and well though. DARPA is seriously proposing some low performance patrol RPV's (mach 9 semi stealthy) with 4-8 AMRAAMs (or the ER follow on) running the patrol loops taking targeting information from manned fighters and possibly directly from AWAC's. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. True. But if you don't intercept the invasion fleet (and if it's a surprise attack, it would be hard to), then you can at least intercept the following supply fleets. (Although the invaders might be able to supply from the air). Supply a force (that can invade Australia) from the air? Not an option. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"Brash" wrote in message news:3f335ba4$0$15134 Because its still better at what it does than anything else for its cost. Maybe that's so... but the task itself is obsolete. For now. I hate to disagree, but it is my understanding that F-111s were tasked to strike Indonesian C3I targets if the E.Timor op had been seriously opposed by the Indon Military. Hardly an obsolete task. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Marcus Andersson" wrote in message Look at a map, the Pacific rim is literally heaving with potential threats. But Indonesia is still #1 I'd imagine. Please give me one single reason why Indonesia would want to attack Australia in any way? Religious differences have been known to cause the odd spot of bother in the past. Leaders trying to divert attention from domestic problems, Natural resources, Lebensraum, A wish to get a real grip on the maritime choke points, to name just a few. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR Flight Plan question | Snowbird | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 13th 04 12:55 AM |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
Canadian IFR/VFR Flight Plan | gwengler | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | August 11th 04 03:55 AM |
IFR flight plan filing question | Tune2828 | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:33 AM |
USA Defence Budget Realities | Stop SPAM! | Military Aviation | 17 | July 9th 03 02:11 AM |