MBot Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Add to this that the low-level attack profile was conceived against the air defense setup of that past era: badly guided AAA, but lethal medium-to-high level SAM's, AND interceptors that did not have look down capability. In the current situation, there are much less opportunities for a low-level approach: Schilka's, Tunguska's, Strela's and Ilga's will be happy to make your low-level flight very eventfull, and fighter radars will be able to track you from above. That is only true because the the west has been pounding 3rd world countries for the last 20 years. Of course you stay high if you don't meet a comparable fighter force or a powerful IADS. Heh...want to know why the F-111 had such a high rate of armor destruction in GW1? Because it struck from high altitude with PGMs. It was quite an adaptable platform, and never in any danger from low-altitude air defenses during that conflict. Tactics and weapons/EW systems evolved, the aircraft didn't really have to. One thing that nobody can change though, is how far the aircraft can fly on a single load of fuel. I still think the Boeing B-767 Bombliner would have served the west very well in the last two decades. A payload of 80 GBU-12 in two weapon bays, 4 ATFLIRS with independent WSO's for mutiple-target engagement, 5 hours loiter time over the battlefield at 30'000ft. That thing could have killed a lot of tanks per sortie... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger42 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 The indonesians are not THE australians threat. Indo AF has never been able to compete with ausie AF anyway, all of their F-16 and Su-27's variants barely fly and are of sub par standards. Australias aims are regional, not country per se. Sorry but although your analysis of the two air forces might be correct, the statement that Indonesia is not the Australian's threat is completely incorrect. . . . Lockon Advanced Realism with Touch-Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Airforces Monthly has a 32 page supplement on the Super Hornet, with a super proud editorial by some Navy High Brass. But fact is, this bird has a lot to offer! For us computerfreaks, the Hornet always has a special place since it was the first real computer jet, with these nice three MS-DOS like green screens. You know kinda: C:\>fly Aircraft starting up ... The Super Hornet really takes this to a new level, having an onboard Fiber optic network, with a Fiber Channel Switch added to the databus. I'ld say just plugin your Wii console and go! This makes the Superbug a totally networked aircraft, constantly transmitting and receiving info to and from other assets in the digital battlespace. The article also highlights the APG-79, with the interesting remark that the ALQ-214 jammer can use the APG-79's TR modules to interleave ECM signals with A-A and A-G scanning modes. Wow! It also features auto target recognition and auto target tracking, and full Amraam data-link support. The F-111 was a strong bomber, but I really do not think there is any comparison between the crisp digital avionics onboard the superbug and the nostaligic, almost Lockon-like avionics of the F-111. There is no pressing need for Australia to maintain an airborne aviation heritage fleet if you can info-dominate your neighbours with the unprecedented networked SA in SuperBug, if you ask me. ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britgliderpilot Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 This makes the Superbug a totally networked aircraft, constantly transmitting and receiving info to and from other assets in the digital battlespace. The article also highlights the APG-79, with the interesting remark that the ALQ-214 jammer can use the APG-79's TR modules to interleave ECM signals with A-A and A-G scanning modes. Wow! It also features auto target recognition and auto target tracking, and full Amraam data-link support. The F-111 was a strong bomber, but I really do not think there is any comparison between the crisp digital avionics onboard the superbug and the nostaligic, almost Lockon-like avionics of the F-111. There is no pressing need for Australia to maintain an airborne aviation heritage fleet if you can info-dominate your neighbours with the unprecedented networked SA in SuperBug, if you ask me. ;) Can it do DoS attacks on enemy aircraft? :D Your point is noted on crisp digital avionics - they're brilliant - but there's still a point at which you have to fly somewhere in order to drop a bomb on a target or shoot a missile at somewhere. The Aardvark's excellence was in the strike role - the Super Airbrake apparently isn't so good at carrying heavy payloads long distances. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 You're right that with that wing surface, just pulling your nose up must give almost instantly a tremendous deceleration, as if you fly against a cushion. But on range, I would say that the whole idea is that Jassm, Harpoon or Jsow take on part of the distance. AND you need much less munitions for the same strike than in F-111 ages. OK the F-111C has Pave Tack, but this cumbersome system is extremely crude ans short-sighted when compared with ATFLIR. (I guess Lockon's AGM-65D imitation is of extreme clarity when compared with what the venerable Pave Tack has to offer). You could say we put ATFLIR or SNIPER XR on F-111, but then you also need new databus, new wiring, a digital computer and you still do not have MIDS or ROOVER. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anytime Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 The F-111 already has a 1553 bus and a 1760 bus for the weapons. It's come a long way since the US retired them. You're right that with that wing surface, just pulling your nose up must give almost instantly a tremendous deceleration, as if you fly against a cushion. But on range, I would say that the whole idea is that Jassm, Harpoon or Jsow take on part of the distance. AND you need much less munitions for the same strike than in F-111 ages. OK the F-111C has Pave Tack, but this cumbersome system is extremely crude ans short-sighted when compared with ATFLIR. (I guess Lockon's AGM-65D imitation is of extreme clarity when compared with what the venerable Pave Tack has to offer). You could say we put ATFLIR or SNIPER XR on F-111, but then you also need new databus, new wiring, a digital computer and you still do not have MIDS or ROOVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper702 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 The RAF just had some F-111s here at Nellis..and there are some F/A-18s here the last few days ..did not notice their markings..will pace closer attention tommorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anytime Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 More on the SuperSlug :) http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/larger-heavier-slower-there-is-nothing-super-about-this-hornet/2007/03/14/1173722557984.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper702 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Well, Saw two today landing at Nellis and could not see any markings They are prob USMC 18s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts