Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strike Aircraft Comparisons

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JMH View Post
    The F-117 Nighthawk when used at night would be the best ground attack aircraft, for stealth and accuracy. In regards to firpower and survivability the A-10 Warthog would be the best all-round ground attack aircraft when used in daytime operations.
    In 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.
    Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by glyn View Post
      In 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.
      glyn :) what about Tornado?? isnt it good enough?
      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 Post
        glyn :) 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 Post
          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.
          ok. :) thanks for info. than i'll take Sepecat Jaguar please with his upper wing pylons?
          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


          • The upper-wing pylons are for Sidewinders - not a2g weapons. It would be rather weird to flip over and drop bombs... and keeping bulky a2g weapons on those pylons would surely destroy maneuverability.

            Comment


            • "The upper-wing pylons are for Sidewinders" - I wonder if any other aircraft has come up with this idea. Anyone? very curious

              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 curious
                Consider the fact that there have been fighters with overwing fuel tanks! The EE/BAC Lightning had them. Needs must when the Devil drives!
                Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperFlanker View Post
                  So, which aircraft do you guys feel is the best ground attack/strike aircraft?
                  gotta be the F-15E, but from your list it would have to be Tornado (carries stuff like the JP233 runway denial pod).

                  Comment


                  • Well, 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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                      Well, 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.
                      Always 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!!
                      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 Post
                          There are different types of Strike, and what they do.
                          While I agree with this, my interpretation of the different types may be somewhat different. I would consider strategic bombing the targeting of civilian, industrial, and military complexes within a municipal setting. Tactical bombing is the targeting of individual military targets on the battlefield itself. Tactical bombing can be divided into air interdiction tasks (bombing well away from friendly ground forces) and close air support (bombing in proximity to and usually directed by friendly ground forces). Interdiction tasks can further be split up into attack and strike roles, where strike missions have a predetermined target and attack missions are search/seek and destroy type missions. Various branches and air forces have used different designations/nomenclature for these roles over the years; this is just my general understanding.

                          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 Post
                          When you looks at it, the F-111's days were numbered when the F-117 entered service
                          Don'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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JA Boomer View Post
                            Don'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.
                            That may be true, but the nature of warfare and the way in which it could be undertaken have changed dramatically. For the F-111 it was TFR, and quite a few bombs or one big one. For the F-117 it was pure stealth and precision, so 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.

                            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 Post
                              That may be true
                              Thanks :)

                              Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                              so 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.
                              Again, dissagree...if you look at the roles performed by operational F-111 squadrons since the 70's, I wouldn't call it a first day of war aircraft. It may have performed that role at times, but it was not focused on that mission like the F-117A was.

                              Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                              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.
                              ???No idea who your replying to, or if you just threw that out there.

                              Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                              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.
                              Huh?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by obrescia View Post
                                Always 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!!
                                You should read an article in the semi-latest issue of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine; one of the lines spoken by one of the interviewees was: 'Sensing my anxiety, the 24-year-old lieutenant adds, “A-10s are rippin’ up here right now for CAS work, Rashman’s already got ’em cleared. Hope you get to see some gun runs. You haven’t lived till you’ve seen an A-10 hit a position with that 30-mm rotary gun. And tighten your helmet. Looks loose.”'

                                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

                                Working...
                                X