Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 12:55:53 GMT -6
Maintenance wise the hornet is the clear winner compared to the notorious F-14 i'm sure. combat wise hornets are indeed good bomb trucks for its size. For example, imbalanced loadout, it can handle 1 bomb - 1 fuel tank on station 3 - 7. The equivalent setup on the viper is a bomb and a 370gal fuel tank each on station 4 - 6, which is an outrageous idea since the F-16 physical fuel system won't take it. So if one wants 2 bags and 1 bomb on 3 stations imbalanced load is the only way to go since the centerline doesn't take bombs. Roll trim. basically the F-16 dislikes any imbalanced load, most will do is a -120 on sta 2 and a -9 on sta 8. Even that requires 1 click of roll trim, inflight if one bomb is dropped or a missile is shot, more manual roll trim, and you'd be trimming constantly due to speed changes. the hornet's FCS has automatic roll trim so bomb drops or gradual fuel consumption from that wing fuel tank, nothing the pilot needs to worry about. Flight control limiter. the F-16 has only 2 settings, CAT I/III which is a blend of AoA/G and the limits are fixed. It is entirely possible to overspeed/overG ordnances and pylons. The F-18's store management system communicates with the FCS and the FCS limits max AoA/G based on aircraft fuel load and ordnance load real time. pretty good stuff for its time. ECM. hornet is internal. viper is external which takes 1 more station for fuel tanks.
problem for hornet is the requirement for navy planes to be stable at slow speeds to be carrier capable. the turkey pays the price of resorting to variable sweep wing and the hornet pays with far end flight envelope. It ofc makes them both good AoA fighters but one retires early due to complexity (oldpop & co. throws up their hands:o) and the other remains a slow poke gas guzzler.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 15:37:07 GMT -6
One question that I have is how are they going to handle the excess stress on the wing roots and center barrel with the conformal's on the upper portion of the wing root. Pilots normally like to drop all weapons and external tanks when they are engaged in air to air combat, now they won't be able to. I also wonder if they are still going to drain those tanks first in the first and second internal fuel tanks as always. well CFT empty weight is like marginal and since they're zero drag it's usually good stuff - one can never have too much fuel unless one's on fire... the normal bags takes up weapon stations and are very draggy. The fuel they contain is valuable, for example the F-15/-16 on a clean full a2a loadout and full int fuel when engaged is quite likely to run outta fuel first than outta missiles first! I'm more of an F-16 guy and for all those block52CFT export versions they go into the wing tanks sequence being ext - cft - int for obvious reasons. Which is the engine feed sequence and you're prolly talking 'bout maintenance, doh.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 24, 2018 15:56:54 GMT -6
One question that I have is how are they going to handle the excess stress on the wing roots and center barrel with the conformal's on the upper portion of the wing root. Pilots normally like to drop all weapons and external tanks when they are engaged in air to air combat, now they won't be able to. I also wonder if they are still going to drain those tanks first in the first and second internal fuel tanks as always. well CFT empty weight is like marginal and since they're zero drag it's usually good stuff - one can never have too much fuel unless one's on fire... the normal bags takes up weapon stations and are very draggy. The fuel they contain is valuable, for example the F-15/-16 on a clean full a2a loadout and full int fuel when engaged is quite likely to run outta fuel first than outta missiles first! I'm more of an F-16 guy and for all those block52CFT export versions they go into the wing tanks sequence being ext - cft - int for obvious reasons. Which is the engine feed sequence and you're prolly talking 'bout maintenance, doh. On the F-18, There are four internal tanks, 1 & 4 are fuel transfer tanks while 2 & 3 are engine feed tanks. The left wing tank feeds tank 2 and the right wing tank feeds tank 3 on the C/D. The fuel grade is JP-5 at 6.8 LB/GAL. There are two fuselage vent tanks and two vertical vent tanks. The wing tanks are transfer tanks to tanks 2 & 3. Hope that helps to understand the fuel feed system. The C/D fuel system and the E/F Fuel system are a little different, but not by much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 16:22:35 GMT -6
and couple months back I was making a korean war mod for a flight sim and was looking at the F-86 fuel system. Apparently the F-86F with the 6-3 wing extension shifted lift center forward and this caused some instability. So the solution was changing the fuel feed sequence - wings feed as normal, then the fus aft tank feeds the fus fwd tank, while both fus tanks feed the engine. This way the aft tank runs dry first and shifts the CG forward somewhat, ..that is during certain fuel levels. I think those NAA engineers are just pulling another trick based on the P-51 aft fuselage "long range" fuel tank. If I'm making a hornet mod someday, I'll hit you up on manuals. beats searching for long hours. (longest record 72 hours straight searching for some ww2 armor analysis book! hya..)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 24, 2018 16:37:10 GMT -6
and couple months back I was making a korean war mod for a flight sim and was looking at the F-86 fuel system. Apparently the F-86F with the 6-3 wing extension shifted lift center forward and this caused some instability. So the solution was changing the fuel feed sequence - wings feed as normal, then the fus aft tank feeds the fus fwd tank, while both fus tanks feed the engine. This way the aft tank runs dry first and shifts the CG forward somewhat, ..that is during certain fuel levels. I think those NAA engineers are just pulling another trick based on the P-51 aft fuselage "long range" fuel tank. If I'm making a hornet mod someday, I'll hit you up on manuals. beats searching for long hours. (longest record 72 hours straight searching for some ww2 armor analysis book! hya..) Maybe this link will help you - publicintelligence.net/u-s-navy-f-18-natops-flight-manuals/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 9:25:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 23, 2018 12:15:26 GMT -6
I wouldn't lose any sleep over these license-built Russian Tu-16 Badger bombers. They have a large radar paint, a bright IR paint, and they are not maneuverable. We used to watch them with our long range radar sets on the coast of California coming down through the Alaskan Air Defense Command. While they are improved with better airframes, sensors and propulsion, they have not changed the overall design. They are still sub-sonic. No worries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 13:20:19 GMT -6
Aircraft performance is a no brainer but obviously it'll be strength in numbers and their escort fighters.
I'd guess the carrier group to be most vulnerable at the start of the war where the US hasn't finished forward deploying land based forces thru the Pacific which takes... a month or so. The PLAAF could first disable the few US airbases in theater and then launch a concentrated assault, whether it's traditional air assault or some anti-carrier ballistic missile attack. I predict cyber-warfare would be extremely intense as the Chinese government has ample experience in the area and some US generals have stated being at a disadvantage compared to the PLA. It wouldn't be surprising if the PLA uses cyber attacks to disable the carrier group first. Most importantly a sudden attack like this might come without warning. China is not known to play by the rules. And think pearl harbor.
US certainly has the military strength to do it, but it'll be disastrous if some key decision makers doesn't fully prepare for a war, or underestimate the enemy.
Anyway... something like this is still a ways off yet, but by the day it's become more realistic. China's economy is drastically slowing down and there already has been a few "seismic" social-economic events in recent days. I've seen many Chinese overseas scholars - they're overseas so they can speak freely - predict a dark time ahead politically and economically. The communist party/Xi is not above directing civil unrest toward the US and its allies.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 24, 2018 18:56:57 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 6:18:03 GMT -6
Oiii.... why does the RAAF needs the F-22? The 35 is perfect for it. The ROCAF needs a fleet of F-35Bs, stat. I'd even say it needs the -35C variant for carrier ops. If the initial US CVW is too degraded and Taiwanese AFB destroyed, the ROCAF could operate from a carrier deck for a couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 25, 2018 10:47:45 GMT -6
Oiii.... why does the RAAF needs the F-22? The 35 is perfect for it. The ROCAF needs a fleet of F-35Bs, stat. I'd even say it needs the -35C variant for carrier ops. If the initial US CVW is too degraded and Taiwanese AFB destroyed, the ROCAF could operate from a carrier deck for a couple of weeks. It is my belief that the RAAF needs F-35 multi-role fighters, not air superiority fighters. The days of a single purpose air superiority fighter are over, with advanced surface to air technology, and air to air capability, a multi-purpose aircraft is more than adequate to perform the strike mission and defend itself and the fleet. The F-14A was an air superiority fighter and it was cashiered for that reason, the F-18 aircraft was a better, easier to maintain and a multi-role aircraft. I worked on both, F-14 and the F-18A, trust the later was better in the long run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 11:45:00 GMT -6
It is my belief that the RAAF needs F-35 multi-role fighters, not air superiority fighters. The days of a single purpose air superiority fighter are over, with advanced surface to air technology, and air to air capability, a multi-purpose aircraft is more than adequate to perform the strike mission and defend itself and the fleet. The F-14A was an air superiority fighter and it was cashiered for that reason, the F-18 aircraft was a better, easier to maintain and a multi-role aircraft. I worked on both, F-14 and the F-18A, trust the later was better in the long run. Uhm, the tomcat vs hornet issue doesn't apply to Australia. The hornet/frog is good enough for its defense purpose. Raptor is great but expensive and lack AG. That is unless Australia wants to invest in certain global expansion ambition. Japan however does appear to need a dedicated air dominance aircraft. The F-15J flew for many years and no longer enjoys the edge. 10 years ago it asked for the F-22 and was declined. Today it might be time to re-evaluate it. www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-lockheed-exclusive/exclusive-lockheed-martin-to-propose-stealthy-hybrid-of-f-22-and-f-35-for-japan-sources-idUSKBN1HR0MMThe real reason behind the current US-China clash is ideological, which is democracy vs a totalitarian regime with the 2nd largest economy. Unless major changes happen within the Chinese communist party leadership, or the CCP steps down from power, the common consensus many logical analysis points the world towards cold war version 1.5.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 25, 2018 12:59:36 GMT -6
It is my belief that the RAAF needs F-35 multi-role fighters, not air superiority fighters. The days of a single purpose air superiority fighter are over, with advanced surface to air technology, and air to air capability, a multi-purpose aircraft is more than adequate to perform the strike mission and defend itself and the fleet. The F-14A was an air superiority fighter and it was cashiered for that reason, the F-18 aircraft was a better, easier to maintain and a multi-role aircraft. I worked on both, F-14 and the F-18A, trust the later was better in the long run. Uhm, the tomcat vs hornet issue doesn't apply to Australia. The hornet/frog is good enough for its defense purpose. Raptor is great but expensive and lack AG. That is unless Australia wants to invest in certain global expansion ambition. Japan however does appear to need a dedicated air dominance aircraft. The F-15J flew for many years and no longer enjoys the edge. 10 years ago it asked for the F-22 and was declined. Today it might be time to re-evaluate it. www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-lockheed-exclusive/exclusive-lockheed-martin-to-propose-stealthy-hybrid-of-f-22-and-f-35-for-japan-sources-idUSKBN1HR0MMThe real reason behind the current US-China clash is ideological, which is democracy vs a totalitarian regime with the 2nd largest economy. Unless major changes happen within the Chinese communist party leadership, or the CCP steps down from power, the common consensus many logical analysis points the world towards cold war version 1.5. I think the Japanese could buy F-35's and satisfy their requirements very well, so could Australia. As to China, economic dependency for both the US and China will stop any military conflict. This was the reason that the European nations developed the European Union and European Central Bank to prevent wars between nations because of common economic dependency. China is not stupid and will not bite the hand that feeds them. If NK causes problems, they will deal with it themselves to keep peace.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 14:03:49 GMT -6
China is not stupid and will not bite the hand that feeds them. Well, in recent months or rather years, China has indeed become stupid, or nationalist imperialist, and has been going for a global expansion which threatens US strategic security. I emphasize security, instead of interest. On Mar. 11th this year, Chinese president Xi Jinping terminated president term limits. Since then US China relation is on a steep slope downwards. Some kind of agreement on trade can settle things on the short term, but in the long run that's not the focus. Two weeks ago the 2019 defense authorization act was passed by the US congress, both the house and senate's vote are overwhelmingly "yay", and yes even the democrats. The bill highlights: "Congress declares that long-term strategic competition with China is a principal priority for the United States that requires the integration of multiple elements of national power, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, law enforcement, and military elements, to protect and strengthen national security." Again, security. More than two decades of US China honeymoon period has ended. The US needs to strengthen its strategic allies in East Asia. Especially Taiwan and Japan.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 25, 2018 15:48:36 GMT -6
The Chinese have some major problems. Corruption in government, pollution, censorship, human rights, and a slowing economy are all putting pressure on the Chinese government. US companies are also investing less in China because of their market problems and slowing economic growth. These kinds of problems generally show themselves as excessive nationalism to deflect their people away from these issues. This is an old story for Communist governments. I’ve seen this happen in the Cold War and the result was an upheaval internally. An imposition of one-person rule is not going to solve this problem and in fact will make it worse. It’s better to stand aside, keep the nations around it healthy and strong, and watch the erosion of the Chinese government. It just takes time.
As to the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act I like that increase in funding for the families and the troops. I think increasing training is vital. You fight like you train. I am especially happy about the A-10 wing replacement because that is great ground attack weapon and should be retained and upgraded. There is a lot more to the bill, but that is enough.
|
|