|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 1, 2014 14:37:47 GMT -6
Classic case of NIMBY. Speaking of fighter training (going a little off topic), lately I've been checking up on the OCEARCH website (http://www.ocearch.org/). This is a private research group that puts satellite tags on various kinds of sharks in a few areas of the world. Last week one of the great whites they tagged up in Cape Cod - a 14-footer given the name "Katharine" - popped up right off the reef line south of NAS Key West. Wonder if that made the daily preflight briefing ... "Gentlemen, today would be an exceptionally bad day to crash in the water."
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 1, 2014 23:26:26 GMT -6
Classic case of NIMBY. Speaking of fighter training (going a little off topic), lately I've been checking up on the OCEARCH website (http://www.ocearch.org/). This is a private research group that puts satellite tags on various kinds of sharks in a few areas of the world. Last week one of the great whites they tagged up in Cape Cod - a 14-footer given the name "Katharine" - popped up right off the reef line south of NAS Key West. Wonder if that made the daily preflight briefing ... "Gentlemen, today would be an exceptionally bad day to crash in the water." I know that Navy pilots carry something called "Shark Chaser" but I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to test its performance. I would just be absolutely certain that my survival radio is in excellent working order and my gun is loaded..... not that it would stop a great white, but it might get his attention.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 2, 2014 18:28:49 GMT -6
Heh. What's the joke where the survival guide files the front sights off his .44? "That way it won't hurt so much when the grizzly shoves it up my ***." From what I understand, the "Shark Chaser" compound proved to be a dud in testing; it was really more of a security blanket than an actual defense. Currently there is something on the market that does seem to work - www.sharkdefense.com/
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2014 7:47:49 GMT -6
Heh. What's the joke where the survival guide files the front sights off his .44? "That way it won't hurt so much when the grizzly shoves it up my ***." From what I understand, the "Shark Chaser" compound proved to be a dud in testing; it was really more of a security blanket than an actual defense. Currently there is something on the market that does seem to work - www.sharkdefense.com/I am not certain that as a pilot I would trust my life to anything other than a well oiled Colt .45 Cal automatic. I've just gone through a life threatening procedure of ejecting from a jet(which shortened my stature) and now I am floating around on the sea looking like lunch for some great whites.
|
|
|
Post by spook053 on Jun 3, 2014 15:58:58 GMT -6
Heh. What's the joke where the survival guide files the front sights off his .44? "That way it won't hurt so much when the grizzly shoves it up my ***." From what I understand, the "Shark Chaser" compound proved to be a dud in testing; it was really more of a security blanket than an actual defense. Currently there is something on the market that does seem to work - www.sharkdefense.com/I am not certain that as a pilot I would trust my life to anything other than a well oiled Colt .45 Cal automatic. I've just gone through a life threatening procedure of ejecting from a jet(which shortened my stature) and now I am floating around on the sea looking like lunch for some great whites. I'll have to stick with my Glock 22 (.40) in my case. Hard for my carpal hands to control any larger caliber nowadays. (And rest assured, a .40 still has a lot more kick than a 9mm, no matter the minute difference in bullet diameter.) Besides of which, the clips hold 15 rounds, until future legislation that may knock that back down to 10 again.
|
|
|
Post by spook053 on Jun 3, 2014 16:06:54 GMT -6
Now back to the more tangible subject.
Simple-world basis (nothing is simple anymore) would be for the planned Maine F-35's to be stationed elsewhere. I am presently assuming that the value of training in the Maine countryside is that it replicates portions of Northern Europe. But if Canada follows through and buys F-35's later, then send the "sim Europe" training to Canada.
Enforcing a "basement" of 7,000 ft, IMO, is too constraining for tactical training, especially for ground strike missions.
What of the USMC F-35B's flying out from Yuma? Are they under any similar limits?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2014 18:08:36 GMT -6
Now back to the more tangible subject.
Simple-world basis (nothing is simple anymore) would be for the planned Maine F-35's to be stationed elsewhere. I am presently assuming that the value of training in the Maine countryside is that it replicates portions of Northern Europe. But if Canada follows through and buys F-35's later, then send the "sim Europe" training to Canada.
Enforcing a "basement" of 7,000 ft, IMO, is too constraining for tactical training, especially for ground strike missions.
What of the USMC F-35B's flying out from Yuma? Are they under any similar limits?
The F-35's flying out of Yuma have no restrictions, they use the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range and Yuma test range for flight training. 7000 feet is too constraining, especially for nap-of-the-earth missions.
|
|
|
Post by spook053 on Jun 3, 2014 19:44:03 GMT -6
Then again, by logic, the F-35's planned for Maine should go elsewhere. Not that I'm dismissive of what noise levels an F-35 could generate. I once listened to an F-16, F-15, and F-22 each doing solo flights within an hour at an airshow, and the F-22 was the loudest of the pack.
Just that if the Maine locality of the planned F-35 base considers the F-35's to have unacceptable noise levels, then one shouldn't bother to station them there. But my argument probably withers away in a nanosecond against the those pulling strings in Congress.
|
|
|
Post by spook053 on Jun 3, 2014 20:01:42 GMT -6
On another note.....
aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35b-vertical-landings-doubt-uk
Take note of the article's author.....Bill Sweetman. Over the years, Bill seems to pride himself in being a gadfly to the F-35 program, so one does need to be alert to some going-in biases. Winslow Wheeler is of a similar vein.
Nonetheless, the central point intrigues: does the F-35B face some constraints in forward-basing due to added requirements to runway surfaces? Would timely provision of runway matting similar to AM-2 be as much a logistical challenge (or bottleneck) as the article suggests?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2014 20:06:00 GMT -6
Then again, by logic, the F-35's planned for Maine should go elsewhere. Not that I'm dismissive of what noise levels an F-35 could generate. I once listened to an F-16, F-15, and F-22 each doing solo flights within an hour at an airshow, and the F-22 was the loudest of the pack. Just that if the Maine locality of the planned F-35 base considers the F-35's to have unacceptable noise levels, then one shouldn't bother to station them there. But my argument probably withers away in a nanosecond against the those pulling strings in Congress. The F-35's of the Vermont Air National Guard and Maine Air National Guard are actually home air defense fighters. Their job is to defend the NE United States and Washington D.C. There are not enough F-22's available and those are at Elmendorf AFB for the Alaskan Air Defense. There are some at Tyndall AFB, Holloman AFB, Pearl Harbor, Langley AFB and a few at Nellis and Edwards for testing. There are few choices as to where to station air defense fighters, most of our bases were in the northern tier of states except for some in California. The Russian's are still the most probable threat, over the pole so, stationing air defense fighters on the northern tier makes sense. The airborne radar systems are stationed along that same tier.
|
|
|
Post by spook053 on Jun 4, 2014 16:11:25 GMT -6
Then again, by logic, the F-35's planned for Maine should go elsewhere. Not that I'm dismissive of what noise levels an F-35 could generate. I once listened to an F-16, F-15, and F-22 each doing solo flights within an hour at an airshow, and the F-22 was the loudest of the pack. Just that if the Maine locality of the planned F-35 base considers the F-35's to have unacceptable noise levels, then one shouldn't bother to station them there. But my argument probably withers away in a nanosecond against the those pulling strings in Congress. The F-35's of the Vermont Air National Guard and Maine Air National Guard are actually home air defense fighters. Their job is to defend the NE United States and Washington D.C. There are not enough F-22's available and those are at Elmendorf AFB for the Alaskan Air Defense. There are some at Tyndall AFB, Holloman AFB, Pearl Harbor, Langley AFB and a few at Nellis and Edwards for testing. There are few choices as to where to station air defense fighters, most of our bases were in the northern tier of states except for some in California. The Russian's are still the most probable threat, over the pole so, stationing air defense fighters on the northern tier makes sense. The airborne radar systems are stationed along that same tier. At present, I'm a bit hesitant to consider the F-35 as a good match in an air defense role.
Why so? Is not the F-35 supposed to be capable enough as a multi-role fighter to perform air defense, not dissimilar to some ANG F-16's? In strictest terms, yes, the F-35 could perform as well or perhaps better than F-16's in air defense. But what one wants to see in the most effective air defense interceptors would be the following:
- minimum scramble time - minimum time to climb, or similarly maximum accel rate - maximum peak speed
(Disclaimer: all following comments are drawn from public domain.)
It's actually the first item that's of most concern to me and F-35's as ADF's. As was learned from the experience of 9/11, the F-16 group closest to Wash DC keeps a couple of F-16's "hot" in live weapons load and in ground idle. An F-35 could be kept "hot" in the same way, but unfortunately is at risk of getting more "hot" in another way --- thermal management. Ground-idling an F-35 for extended times probably doesn't do favors for its thermal management system that has to handle LOTS more waste heat than any F-16. That could be surmounted by rotating multiple F-35's through "hot" status per day to keep down the ground idle time per jet, but the question then becomes how many jets within the squadron have to avail to keep the rotation smooth.
My druthers would be for F-15C's or F-22's to serve the ADF role in New England. (The F-22 has some thermal challenges too, but not quite the same level as for the "thermos bottle" F-35.) Not many F-15C models remain in active status that can be swapped over to ANG service, but there's still a few here & there, like Kadena or Lakenheath UK (one squadron). As to F-22's, I think I've read somewhere that the Holloman F-22's will eventually transfer to Tyndall, but maybe NE is a better fit.
Or maybe contract with Eurofighter and add some Typhoons to the mix?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 4, 2014 19:53:20 GMT -6
The F-35's of the Vermont Air National Guard and Maine Air National Guard are actually home air defense fighters. Their job is to defend the NE United States and Washington D.C. There are not enough F-22's available and those are at Elmendorf AFB for the Alaskan Air Defense. There are some at Tyndall AFB, Holloman AFB, Pearl Harbor, Langley AFB and a few at Nellis and Edwards for testing. There are few choices as to where to station air defense fighters, most of our bases were in the northern tier of states except for some in California. The Russian's are still the most probable threat, over the pole so, stationing air defense fighters on the northern tier makes sense. The airborne radar systems are stationed along that same tier. At present, I'm a bit hesitant to consider the F-35 as a good match in an air defense role.
Why so? Is not the F-35 supposed to be capable enough as a multi-role fighter to perform air defense, not dissimilar to some ANG F-16's? In strictest terms, yes, the F-35 could perform as well or perhaps better than F-16's in air defense. But what one wants to see in the most effective air defense interceptors would be the following:
- minimum scramble time - minimum time to climb, or similarly maximum accel rate - maximum peak speed
(Disclaimer: all following comments are drawn from public domain.)
It's actually the first item that's of most concern to me and F-35's as ADF's. As was learned from the experience of 9/11, the F-16 group closest to Wash DC keeps a couple of F-16's "hot" in live weapons load and in ground idle. An F-35 could be kept "hot" in the same way, but unfortunately is at risk of getting more "hot" in another way --- thermal management. Ground-idling an F-35 for extended times probably doesn't do favors for its thermal management system that has to handle LOTS more waste heat than any F-16. That could be surmounted by rotating multiple F-35's through "hot" status per day to keep down the ground idle time per jet, but the question then becomes how many jets within the squadron have to avail to keep the rotation smooth.
My druthers would be for F-15C's or F-22's to serve the ADF role in New England. (The F-22 has some thermal challenges too, but not quite the same level as for the "thermos bottle" F-35.) Not many F-15C models remain in active status that can be swapped over to ANG service, but there's still a few here & there, like Kadena or Lakenheath UK (one squadron). As to F-22's, I think I've read somewhere that the Holloman F-22's will eventually transfer to Tyndall, but maybe NE is a better fit.
Or maybe contract with Eurofighter and add some Typhoons to the mix?
First, let's dispense with the 9/11 scenario. Could it happen again, possibly but less likely. So what's next. The Chinese and the Russians. The Chinese, flying from northern Chinese bases, using the polar route have to fly over Kamchatka, the Aleutians and down the western coast of Canada. That's 5822.69 miles, so unless they have tanker support, I doubt they would have the capability plus that' s why the F-22s are at Elmendorf and Pearl Harbor, just for that scenario.
As to the Russian's, they will use the traditional polar route plus the Kamchatka route over the Aleutians and down the Canadian coast. This is a route the Alaskan Air Command knows well and has been covering since the early fifties. I've watched Bear bombers coming down the Canadian coast down the US coast and get intercepted by F-106s and F-102s. Any attempt to fly over the poles is covered by AWACs systems and the fighters at Spokane, Hill AFB, Langley, Vermont, Maine and a host of other fighter bases. Normal scramble time is five minutes. From startup to lift off, you have five minutes. You normally will have a twenty minute warning time or more, so you will have fifteen minutes to intercept. The Alaskan Air command has less and that's why the F-22's are there.
As to need to have aircraft sitting "hot" that's pure rubbish. We could get aircraft in the air in less than 10 minutes and they had no self starters, they needed ground starters to blow air into the turbines and ground electrical power. The modern fighter have self-starters and can get moving much faster. This fact eliminates the scramble time problem. For an intercept role you only need time to climb and maximum military power, not full AB or you will drain your fuel tanks in a heart beat. You will use AB to get off the ground then pull back on the throttles to full military power and head up to the intercept altitude ordered by the controllers. It's that simple.
Would I prefer more F-22's in the AD role? Yes, supercruise and stealth make them a better fit. But, you "won with what you brung". The F-35 is a good replacement for the F-15C's and F-16's. We need to focus on improved detection and more ground to air missile capability to augment the F-35's and the few F-22's. Air defense is not just the capability of one bird, its a total system. Improve the detection time and accuracy of data for intercepts, improve ground to air missiles and you can compensate for reduced capability in the manned aircraft. With shrinking budgets, etc. we must use a multi-role aircraft and that happens to be the F-35. It is not the optimal air defense fighter, nor air superiority fighter, but it does and will perform all the mission well. We can improve it with time.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Personal thought: There is a lot of discussion about the fact that the F-16's and F-15's could have intercepted the 9/11 hijackers. Yes, probably they could have, if everyone had understood what was happening. However, I would not have wanted to be the Colonel in the war room at Cheyenne Mountain who would have had to give that order. I would have had to hear that order from the President himself, and I probably would be haunted by that order for the rest of my life. I witnessed intercepts of wayward airliners and believe me there was tension because no one wanted to have to shoot the plane down. 'nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by spook053 on Jun 4, 2014 22:54:07 GMT -6
I wasn't talking about matching to an exact repeat of the 9/11 flight events. I was speaking earlier that the F-16 group closest to DC (Andrews) was reported to afterwards keep two jets in "hot idle" status. But I read of this years ago. Is this still the case? Perhaps not. But if so, and if F-35's were tasked with a similar "hot idle" condition, the waste heat generation (upwards to 100's of kW) would not lend to remain so for long.
I know full well the concept of onboard starting, that was my first projects with AFRL. On one occasion, I even watched an F/A-18A ground start and taxi away while a nearby F-4 (which was started earlier) was still being prepped. My point wasn't of time taken to start the engine, but rather of the waste heat generated by the F-35 subsystems AFTER engine start and engine ground idle. I had seen something of those numbers in my AFRL days, while we worked thermal management. They're not pretty.
Again, it's a moot point if the "hot idle" isn't practiced anymore near DC. Although if things moved up the DEFCON scale, maybe more than a few bases would apply it in the CONUS? Dunno.
If what all you were talking about was earlier was of intercepting polar hops (I thought you implied North Atlantic intercepts instead), then I certainly concur, the F-35's and F-22's are just parts of a larger air defense system which must integrate these and other systems. Again, I don't think the F-35 lends optimally to the ADF role, but it should be functional enough for that mission. Besides of which, it's likely now that Canada will be buying some too, and it's a safe bet that ADF missions will be on their plates too.
As to the 9/11 premise for intercept. It's public knowledge now (since 2011) that the two F-16's sent to intercept Flight 93 were not loaded with weapons. If Flt 93 continued on to DC instead of piling in at western PA, the F-16's could've intercepted along the way if ground radar gave a good vector. The flight leader told the wingman (rather, wing-woman) that if the airliner was sighted and wouldn't respond to hails, then they'd have to "ram" at the tail or flight controls to bring it down. The wingman dreaded the potential suicidal premise (successful ejection after ramming wasn't a certainty), but she seemed to indicate she'd have followed through if no other options availed.
First, let's dispense with the 9/11 scenario. Could it happen again, possibly but less likely. So what's next. The Chinese and the Russians. The Chinese, flying from northern Chinese bases, using the polar route have to fly over Kamchatka, the Aleutians and down the western coast of Canada. That's 5822.69 miles, so unless they have tanker support, I doubt they would have the capability plus that' s why the F-22s are at Elmendorf and Pearl Harbor, just for that scenario.
As to the Russian's, they will use the traditional polar route plus the Kamchatka route over the Aleutians and down the Canadian coast. This is a route the Alaskan Air Command knows well and has been covering since the early fifties. I've watched Bear bombers coming down the Canadian coast down the US coast and get intercepted by F-106s and F-102s. Any attempt to fly over the poles is covered by AWACs systems and the fighters at Spokane, Hill AFB, Langley, Vermont, Maine and a host of other fighter bases. Normal scramble time is five minutes. From startup to lift off, you have five minutes. You normally will have a twenty minute warning time or more, so you will have fifteen minutes to intercept. The Alaskan Air command has less and that's why the F-22's are there.
As to need to have aircraft sitting "hot" that's pure rubbish. We could get aircraft in the air in less than 10 minutes and they had no self starters, they needed ground starters to blow air into the turbines and ground electrical power. The modern fighter have self-starters and can get moving much faster. This fact eliminates the scramble time problem. For an intercept role you only need time to climb and maximum military power, not full AB or you will drain your fuel tanks in a heart beat. You will use AB to get off the ground then pull back on the throttles to full military power and head up to the intercept altitude ordered by the controllers. It's that simple.
Would I prefer more F-22's in the AD role? Yes, supercruise and stealth make them a better fit. But, you "won with what you brung". The F-35 is a good replacement for the F-15C's and F-16's. We need to focus on improved detection and more ground to air missile capability to augment the F-35's and the few F-22's. Air defense is not just the capability of one bird, its a total system. Improve the detection time and accuracy of data for intercepts, improve ground to air missiles and you can compensate for reduced capability in the manned aircraft. With shrinking budgets, etc. we must use a multi-role aircraft and that happens to be the F-35. It is not the optimal air defense fighter, nor air superiority fighter, but it does and will perform all the mission well. We can improve it with time.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Personal thought: There is a lot of discussion about the fact that the F-16's and F-15's could have intercepted the 9/11 hijackers. Yes, probably they could have, if everyone had understood what was happening. However, I would not have wanted to be the Colonel in the war room at Cheyenne Mountain who would have had to give that order. I would have had to hear that order from the President himself, and I probably would be haunted by that order for the rest of my life. I witnessed intercepts of wayward airliners and believe me there was tension because no one wanted to have to shoot the plane down. 'nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 4, 2014 23:15:42 GMT -6
I don't think they still keep fighters at hot idles status, its much to hard on the systems, engines and the pilots. It was, I suspect, an over reaction by the powers in Washington. Interesting item to research though. As to the comparison of aircraft that use auxiliary starting systems and aircraft that have on-board starters, the change is, as you saw, dramatic. As to the Canadians, they were always in the air defense plan with their CF-101 Voodoos. Canada had its own Canadian NORAD sector, in fact, at Fallon we had Canadian programmers working the BUIC computer system for the Backup Interceptor Control Sites such as Fallon and Mount Laguna. They now fly CF-18 Hornets.
I am not too concerned about the 9/11 scenario, the others are far more important and damaging.
Update: It appears that the thermal management issue is not a problem until taxiing at 105 degrees. Just brochure knowledge, you probably have much better data. Without hot idle, they should be fine except during engine tests etc. Here is an interesting piece on that very subject, maybe you could examine and explain. I understand heating in avionics but the actual thermal management is new for me.
sdsi.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Dahm-Dayton-Thermal.pdf
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 5, 2014 17:34:19 GMT -6
As much as the concept of a pure interceptor for those jobs sounds nice - no stealth, no strike capability, just a fast jet with a good radar and BVR capability - we've moved away from the idea of having single-use aircraft, especially ones that would pretty much be restricted to NORAD duty. Remember that the other job of those ANG units is to back up the active-duty component overseas.
One idea that did get my interest a while back was if the T-X program to replace the T-38 trainer turns up a suitably zippy platform that could have a secondary role as a homeland air defense interceptor. I heard the idea was nixed, but a while back there was a rumor that Saab and a US manufacturer (maybe Boeing, I forget) would team up to offer a twin-seat version of the Gripen NG as an advanced trainer. That would have been a nice replacement for the ANG F-16s, although to make that work you would then have to move the training units to those northern bases and keep a number of them armed and ready to go.
|
|