|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2014 10:21:45 GMT -6
The model for US air defense has changed since the 1980's when the Soviet Union died. The threats I lived and worked in, have changed. Our geostrategic position in the world has evolved from protection of the free world to cooperation in the different regions with the locals handling most of the immediate threats. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Europe have all accepted their positions and now worked together for their common protection. The focus of our strategy is now the Middle East and the countries occupying what Mackinder called the Heartland; we are all familiar with these changes. All of these dramatic changes have changed the model for our own self-protection. Aeronautical engineering has given us the ability to develop multi-role fighters that can now serve many purposes including point to point interceptors, which are the types of aircraft required for air defenses. But they still need to take-off at a moments notice quickly, climb to altitude rapidly, move to intercept and detect their targets then using tactical data link, pick and choose the targets that threaten the most. This is the basic paradigm for air defense.
The F-35 and F-22 can both serve this purpose. The F-35 can evolve over time as did the F-4. The first version of the F-4 did not have leading edge flaps, smokeless engines or look-down, shoot-down capability. It could only track one target at a time and fire its missiles one at a time. When we got the F-4J, we got nearly smokeless engines, leading edge flaps and MTI radar with track-while-scan capability. Eventually we even got a gun built integral into the aircraft. It takes time, the military will get the F-35 versions updated and it will evolve. In the F-35 we may be seeing the last manned air defense interceptor, pilotless interceptors maybe coming in the near future and they will have much higher g loads that will make them much more effective interceptors. We will see the improvement of ground based missile defenses and detection systems. We may even see the elimination for any need for such defenses, but that is probably wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by spook053 on Jun 6, 2014 15:29:02 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 Man, how that slide deck takes me back. Thanks for posting.
The noteworthy fuel thermal management plot (Pg 8) has very strong familiarity to me. Problem is, it might well be showing the PREDICTED plot line circa early-2000's versus actual operational test data. Nor was the fuel alone in having thermal pinch points, but obviously, the fuel on the F-35 is worked very aggressively to serve as the heat sink. Hope remains that the "bad actor" heat nodes have since received some mitigation. But I'm five years removed from the last time I had seen numbers, I work with Global Hawk instead.
The other technologies on the other slides, wow......"cooled cooling air," HEETE, ADVENT, INVENT, DE thermal management..... what a memory trip.
Thanks again for posting, Dennis.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2014 18:29:52 GMT -6
You are most welcome, flashbacks are always cool in my book. The slide deck did open my eyes to thermal management and low observability. We never had a worry in the F-4s, E2Cs and F-14s, but I can understand now that low observability is not just low radar observability but low heat signature. This means that thermal management internally is absolutely critical. The page 8 chart comparing mission time and TMS fuel temperature was interesting. The ground idle does seem to show a dramatic increase until you reach climb out and altitude then after a low altitude run it begins to climb. Fascinating stuff. I don't think people realize how much electricity creates heat especially in the wires. Advanced technology has its prices.... heat being one of them. Seems we are returning to the days of tubes, boy could they generate heat. When you wanted to remove a tube such as a 5814, you had to use a thermal glove, or you would get bad burns on the tips of your fingers. Yea, I am dating myself.
|
|
|
Post by spook053 on Jun 7, 2014 7:49:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 7, 2014 10:31:01 GMT -6
I think this decision is a no-brainer for the Canadian sector of NORAD. They have usually always had the same birds as the US sector. Deploying F-35's will maintain good interoperability for both sides. I wonder if the Canadian aviation industry will get to participate in the production and supply of parts? Have to research that.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 29, 2014 11:52:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Nov 29, 2014 14:18:02 GMT -6
I can´t stop chuckling about that one...
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 30, 2014 21:02:52 GMT -6
I can´t stop chuckling about that one... I like this one from the tvtropes.org page on "Cool Plane" ... "According to official US Navy battle doctrine, any pilots caught singing 'Highway to the Danger Zone' by Kenny Loggins while piloting the F-14 were to be shot down on sight, while 'Take My Breath Away' warranted being shot at some more if you eject."
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 30, 2014 18:09:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 31, 2014 13:24:46 GMT -6
Before the last quarter of 1966, the MIG's were not a real threat. They were deployed at five air bases to protect Hanoi. There wasn't much contact with US aircraft. The main threat was always the AAA/AW defense and SAM's. Most encounters were dry runs, more training that hostile. In 1966, with the introduction of the MIG-21 Fishbed D, things got a little more dicey. The MIG-21's were still a little reluctant to engage, they just conducted defensive patrols around the Hanoi area. Our records show that after 4 September 1966, the MIG's flew everyday to conduct an active defense. The MIG-21s were now upgraded with ATOLL IR missiles and manned fighters were now an increasing threat to strike packages. They were deployed now from Phuc Yen, Kep, Gia Lem, Kien-An and Hoa Lac. Political restrictions provided them with immunity. This integration into the NVN defensive system is what generated the need for fighter sweeps and Operation Bolo was the first. MIG tactics were for two fighters, an element, to attack from 10:00 -12:00 'o clock, with the other element staying low, flying underneath the US bombers, then performing a climb and reverse, a half immelmann if you will. At this point, US tail warning radar would detect them, the fighters would reverse to engage, the other element of the attacking fighters would now have the tails of the F-4C's, a very large IR target and fire their missiles. Even if the MIG's were not able to down any US fighter-bombers, if they could get the strike flights to jettison bomb loads and fuel tanks, then they were effective. The MIG tactics were, as you have guessed, hit and run. Operation Bolo was the first offensive fighter sweep and knowledge of the NVNAF behavior patterns and attack frequencies provided the necessary intelligence to be able to conduct the operation. The Bolo force consisted of fourteen flights of F-4Cs, six flights of IRON HAND F-105s, four flights of F-104s and the normal cast of EB-66, RC-121 BIG EYE and KC-135 tankers. The TOT of all the flights was geared around the 50 minutes of flying time and 5 minutes of engagement time of the MIG-21s. Each flight was separated by five minutes. Seven MIG's were downed in 12 minutes but weather conditions and difficulties with communications did not allow for more success.
After this mission, the MIG's were grounded for a reevaluation of their tactics and an assessment of their current air strategy.
The information in the article is interesting but there was much intelligence gathering at the time; iFF codes, call signs, even voices to cause confusion was adopted.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 31, 2014 18:53:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 1, 2015 11:29:40 GMT -6
Here is a question for someone to research and answer:
The MIG's would takeoff and some would stay at low altitude and pass beneath the strike package coming from Thailand over Thud Ridge. Why weren't they detected until the high yo-yo maneuver to arrive on the tail of the package.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Jan 1, 2015 15:20:04 GMT -6
Because stealthy aircraft are up there and flying around we know about them. I have to wonder what capabilities the US or other western countries may have against such aircraft? If a B2 or F-35 aircraft wanted to bomb Pearl Harbor (just to pick a place) - would they detect them coming in with enough time to do something about it? Of course the ability of a radar or other method of detection would be (rightly) classified. Many things in warfare evolve with a series of one- upmanship. Tank, anti tank gun, sloped armor, better ammo, thicker sloped armor, heat rounds, etc. Wonder who's ahead in the stealth world - aircraft or detection? The Russians and Chinese both appear to have stealthy fighter/fighter bomber aircraft. The T-50 PAK FA and the 31 respectively. How long until someone like Syria gets a stealthy aircraft or two to play with? Oh, that's right - the cold war is over. Reading the news I sometimes forget.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 1, 2015 18:28:35 GMT -6
Because stealthy aircraft are up there and flying around we know about them. I have to wonder what capabilities the US or other western countries may have against such aircraft? If a B2 or F-35 aircraft wanted to bomb Pearl Harbor (just to pick a place) - would they detect them coming in with enough time to do something about it? Of course the ability of a radar or other method of detection would be (rightly) classified. Many things in warfare evolve with a series of one- upmanship. Tank, anti tank gun, sloped armor, better ammo, thicker sloped armor, heat rounds, etc. Wonder who's ahead in the stealth world - aircraft or detection? The Russians and Chinese both appear to have stealthy fighter/fighter bomber aircraft. The T-50 PAK FA and the 31 respectively. How long until someone like Syria gets a stealthy aircraft or two to play with? Oh, that's right - the cold war is over. Reading the news I sometimes forget. Geostrategy dictates requirements and that generates specifications. Some nations like Syria really don't have a need for such sophisticated weaponry, so they don't produce it. They don't have much an aircraft manufacturing base anyways. That's how I view it.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 1, 2015 19:11:06 GMT -6
Dennis, on your question regarding the MiGs I assume they weren't detected because our aircraft did not yet have look-down radars.
As far as the stealthy aircraft - you have to remember that these aren't a MiG-21 or J-7 that you can just change the fluids every 100,000 hours and keep going. A lot of these Third World air forces have major issues even keeping 70s-vintage designs like the MiG-29 operational. Something with stealth coatings, AESA, fly-by-wire controls, etc. is going to be a very expensive initial purchase that will end up as a hangar queen unless the ground crews keep up with the chores.
|
|