Originally posted by JMH
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Strike Aircraft Comparisons
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
-
Originally posted by glyn View PostIn spite of the designation it has carried since being introduced to an astonished world, the soon - to - be - retired F-117 is not a fighter. It is a miniature bomber optimised for special nocturnal tasks. It is not a ground attack aircraft. I have a lot of time for the proven abilities of the Franco-British Jaguar.Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Big K View Postglyn :) what about Tornado?? isnt it good enough?
Well, it does the job, but it should be remembered that the original design was for a machine that could do two jobs, namely ground attack and as a fighter. The Jaguar on the other hand was optimised for the single job of ground attack, and generally you find that a specialist tool does its job more effectively than a multi-purpose tool. There is plenty of airframe life remaining on the Jaguar. The decision to retire it is purely a political one.Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by glyn View PostWell, it does the job, but it should be remembered that the original design was for a machine that could do two jobs, namely ground attack and as a fighter. The Jaguar on the other hand was optimised for the single job of ground attack, and generally you find that a specialist tool does its job more effectively than a multi-purpose tool. There is plenty of airframe life remaining on the Jaguar. The decision to retire it is purely a political one.Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.
Comment
-
Originally posted by texasjohn View Post"The upper-wing pylons are for Sidewinders" - I wonder if any other aircraft has come up with this idea. Anyone? very curiousSemper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Skywatcher View PostWell, I personally prefer the A-10 since the thing is so darn survivable (and you gotta love the 30mm Avenger gatling cannon).
Granted, I'm thinking of strike as being closer to interdiction and CAS style missions right now.Last edited by obrescia; 24 Jun 08,, 08:23.
Comment
-
There are different types of Strike, and what they do.
There's Tactical Strike (mostly deep strike) in the true meaning of the word.
These are C&C, Strategic weapons Caches some airfields, and other areas that are of high defensive interest. Places that are now preferable to use cruise missiles and B-2's on. But they arn't on the list.
And to the fanboy that so early asserted the F-111 is no longer in operation, what have you been smoking?
So in Strategic strike, excluding the B2, You have:
The Eagle, The Aardvaark, The Tornado, The Su-24 (& 34) pushing it, Mirage IV and Mirage 2000, the F-117, when people are going to learn that it's not a fighter is beyond me, despite there being COPIOUS amounts of educational material available to that effect is beyond me.
OF course any ground attack aircraft is can perform strike, it's however the ones INTENDED to perform that function.
When you looks at it, the F-111's days were numbered when the F-117 entered service, and then totally dead when the Strike eagle came out... And actually - the F-22 with JDAM's can do tactical strike, and the F-35 will also be suited to the role.Ego Numquam
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chunder View PostThere are different types of Strike, and what they do.
As for the best, I would consider the A-10C Thunderbolt II by far the best close air support tactical bomber in the world. The best strike aircraft is a split for me between the F-15E Strike Eagle and the F-111 Aardvark. The Aardvark gets the nod do to its speed, payload, range, and mission capabilities (high speed dash / low level penetration). While the F-15E carries a lesser payload and cannot fly as far, it does have a formidable air-to-air capability, making it a truly multi-role tactical fighter. The Su-34 may have a case here, but as so few have been produced and not seen much 'real world' action, they take a back seat. In the attack profile, I think it is a virtual dead heat between many current fighter types included but not limited to the F-16, F-15E, F/A-18E/F, Rafale, Gripen, and maybe a Mirage type.
Originally posted by Chunder View PostWhen you looks at it, the F-111's days were numbered when the F-117 entered service
The strike/interdiction mission of the F-111 called for a low-level high speed airplane carrying a significant payload a large distance. This is in contrast to the two 2000lb bombs carried by the F-117A on its first day of war, high value target tactical bomber mission.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JA Boomer View PostDon't agree with this at all. The F-117A entered service in the early 80's and the F-111 didn't begin retirement until after the Cold War ended as I recall, and at the wishes of Russian arms treaties at that.
The strike/interdiction mission of the F-111 called for a low-level high speed airplane carrying a significant payload a large distance. This is in contrast to the two 2000lb bombs carried by the F-117A on its first day of war, high value target tactical bomber mission.
This is completely different to the era & politics on which the Tornado was built for instance, or the Su-24 was built, and priorities and concepts and capabilities of technology.
Both obviously were designed as penetrators of hotly contested airspace and air defence networks, both were tasked with targets of high military interest. The A-10 was not, it was built to blow up tanks in the 70's... what it's capable of now is completely irrevelant to it's designed role (I read the whole 'team' argument before). If you start talking about the A-10 being a capable killer, then one must include things like the apache, the Cobra etc. it may be something considered in little old Iraq, but wasn't in Afghanistan, or during the cold war, where anything involving significant transit times, credible defence network and opposing air armadas were a very real reality. It was to stop hordes of attackung tanks period. Not to penetrate soviet airspace and knock out C&C. To insinuate it is, completely ignores the way air wars are planned, and envelopes of capability are exploited to acheive overall desireable effect. Where these overlap is essentially what everyone was bored reading about between smitty and another poster I forget now, and neither were both incorrect or correct.
Tactical strike aircraft of the nature of the F-15E, F-111, F-117, Tornado (Tornado unfortunately for it was usually accompaneid by a buccaneer) SU-24 & 34 (bit of a question mark there) are. The fallacy that the Russians with espionaged radar technology couldn't detect a bloody fat arse straight wing with huge turbofans and a great big metal gun flying at falcon speed with look down shoot down radars developed in an attempt to stop all the low level interdiction stuff doesn't really cut it.
It was only a question of how long after the F-117 was introduced that different approaches to strike were looked at.
There's no doubt that nothing beats the firepower of an A-10 foward of the approaching contested lines, That type of area is the domain of it, the skyraider, and the tempest/typhoon.
Personally, for the era and technological acheivement some are very potent machines indeed.
In it's time the f-111 went from a jack of all trades to a specialist, and it carried a **** load of bombs, very very fast and very very low... It was undoubtably the king of speed in the weeds.
The F-117 Prooved the USAF had the capability to keep something under complete raps, then use it with absolute impunity in it's earlier days just meters above the heads of AAA, and SAM crews... Now, that was a credit... however credit can also go to the serbs who figured a way around that due to complacency in setting egress routes.
The F-15E for it's technology and integration and commonality and comparitive cheapness compared to the F-111, also get's high marks, It's the USAF's F-18 but much more potent.
The A-10 has a niche all of it's own. But your not going to fly it into the zone of fire of any surface fleet for example, or the Moscow defence network to bomb some C&C.Last edited by Chunder; 02 Sep 08,, 12:30.Ego Numquam
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chunder View PostThat may be true
Originally posted by Chunder View Postso to me, they are exactly the same roles existing in a different era. Both are very much a First day of war aircraft without question. SAC had the F-111 tasked with just such missions.
Originally posted by Chunder View PostThe A-10 was not, it was built to blow up tanks in the 70's... what it's capable of now is completely irrevelant to it's designed role (I read the whole 'team' argument before). If you start talking about the A-10 being a capable killer, then one must include things like the apache, the Cobra etc. it may be something considered in little old Iraq, but wasn't in Afghanistan, or during the cold war, where anything involving significant transit times, credible defence network and opposing air armadas were a very real reality. It was to stop hordes of attackung tanks period. Not to penetrate soviet airspace and knock out C&C. To insinuate it is, completely ignores the way air wars are planned, and envelopes of capability are exploited to acheive overall desireable effect. Where these overlap is essentially what everyone was bored reading about between smitty and another poster I forget now, and neither were both incorrect or correct.
Originally posted by Chunder View PostTactical strike aircraft of the nature of the F-15E, F-111, F-117, Tornado (Tornado unfortunately for it was usually accompaneid by a buccaneer) SU-24 & 34 (bit of a question mark there) are. The fallacy that the Russians with espionaged radar technology couldn't detect a bloody fat arse straight wing with huge turbofans and a great big metal gun flying at falcon speed with look down shoot down radars developed in an attempt to stop all the low level interdiction stuff doesn't really cut it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by obrescia View PostAlways loved the A-10! Nothing better in the weeds!! An amazing airplane! Brilliant straight wing, twin tail, quiet spaced-engines, crazy gun, semi-recessed wheels (for belly landings) on & on & on. Brilliant!!
Go here for the complete article."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
Comment