Loaded for Bear

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 03/08/2019 at 13:22 • Filed to: wingspan, Planelopnik

3

50

(US Department of Defense)

(US Department of Defense)

An F/A-18 Hornet with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 323, MAG-11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW), carrying ten AIM-120 and two AIM-9X Air-to-Air missiles, completes refueling prior to a training mission over the W-291 training area in southern California, March 6. (U.S Marine Corps photos by Sgt. Dominic Romero)

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 13:25

0

The only good bug is the Hornet

ttyymmnn > For Sweden 03/08/2019 at 13:26

0

Would the Super Hornet be a super bug? Cuz those things will kill you. 

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 13:27

0

The Growler is a brain bug

facw > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 13:31

3

Obviously needs th ose quad racks Boeing is putting on their F-15X renders:

ttyymmnn > facw 03/08/2019 at 13:33

4

That thing is going to be an insane missile truck. I think it’s awesome that my favorite plane from the 1970s is getting a new lease on life. I’m also glad to see that the USAF has finally figured out that not everything needs to be stealthy.

OPPOsaurus WRX > facw 03/08/2019 at 13:34

4

thats a whole lotta freedom to deliver 

ttyymmnn > For Sweden 03/08/2019 at 13:37

3

We’ve got a Growler back seater on Oppo. If I ever get around to it, I’m going to do an interview with him. 

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 13:37

1

Loaded for what? 

ttyymmnn > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 03/08/2019 at 13:38

1

I thought about writing Loaded For Bear(s). 

benn454 > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 13:38

1

 Well, when your plane is so good, it takes everyone else 20 years to catch up...

facw > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 13:42

1

I’m still not sure that we need new F-15s, or even any F-15s, but I definitely agree that we don’t need (yet, at least) for every fighter to be a 5th gen air craft. We can certainly make use of 4th gen fighters while using the F-22 and F-35 to hide their weaknesses in the most dangerous areas.

ttyymmnn > facw 03/08/2019 at 13:42

1

I also dig that the X will come in a single-seater version. I’m a big fan of the F-15C, arguably the last pure air superiority fighter .

ttyymmnn > facw 03/08/2019 at 13:47

3

I read a fascinating interview with a USAF general a couple of years ago about how he needed the F-22 to make the F-35 viable. I’m no strategist, but I can imagine a scenario where F-22s and F-35s clear the air , to be followed by big-ass missile trucks like the F-15X, along with waves of drone fighters. The new Loyal Wingman Boeing recently rolled out, along with the XQ-58A , look an awful lot like Skynet, though.

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 13:50

0

i dont suppose they have that in wallpaper size do they? lol

facw > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 13:53

1

There’s an article I’ve been meaning to read (I think in the latest issue of C ommunications of the ACM?) on AI warfare. I think it’s inevitable, since if you don’t use it, someone else will use it to beat you, but even short of the Skynet scenario, it’s easy to imagine a lot of bad consequences.

ttyymmnn > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 03/08/2019 at 13:56

0

Well, as a matter of fact, they do (5184×3456). Go here:

https://www.dvidshub.net

C reate a free user account, validate via email, and then search for F/A-18. Since it’s a DoD site, all photos are fair use and copyright free.

ttyymmnn > facw 03/08/2019 at 13:58

0

How easy will it be to hack a drone to turn around and attack the sender? Obviously, people are thinking about this. But they will be cheap enough to be loaded with a mission profile, unhooked from the network, then used as a fire-and-forget weapon. Not much use for moving targets, but still....

user314 > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 14:03

0

In what I’m convinced was blatant cribbing from Dale Brown, Boeing pitched the idea of refitting B-1Bs with a V-tail and new engines, and arming them with a super-long range variant of the AAMRAM to act as multipliers for the F-22.

The idea was that the F-22 would use its radar to find and designate targets for the B-1R, which would be operating out of detection range.

Looks like the idea’s come back up again, this time with t he F-15X.

ttyymmnn > user314 03/08/2019 at 14:07

1

Why reinvent the wheel ?

facw > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 14:21

1

I’d hope that would be hard, but it’s another reason I think AI drones are inevitable. If you are relying on remote pilots, at some point that is going to be hacked, or more likely jammed. If you want to be able to use these things against a peer state, they’ll need to be able to do some or all of their mission without remote piloting.

user314 > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 14:23

0

Boeing’s supposed to be delivering the first two test ships of t he Super Hornet Block III this yea r , which will have the CFTs  but not (or at least not yet )   the enclosed weapons bay:

facw > user314 03/08/2019 at 14:26

0

I think the big weakness with these missile truck ideas is that the AMRAAM isn’t really long range, so there’s basically no way to strike without being detected. If we had a version of the Phoenix missile that actually worked, that might make the scheme more interesting.

Note that the reverse is not necessarily true. You can use an F-15 with a powerful modern radar to spot from long distance for F-22 s/F-35s flying closer in with their radars off for maximum stealth. The enemy will know the F-15s are there and be worried about them , but would know nothing about the stealth fighters until the missiles are already in the air.

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 14:29

0

Isn’t the F-22 a pure air superiority fighter?

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 14:30

1

Better call in Neil Patrick Harris for backup.

Darkbrador > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 14:42

0

I’m not strategist either, but if the F-22s clear the air, what do you do with the missile trucks then, there is nothing else to be missiling at ?

beautimouse > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 14:45

0

I have it on impeccable authority that they (at one time) kept a rattlesnake in their hanger.  Well, it works from my phone. 

user314 > facw 03/08/2019 at 14:53

1

The AIM-120D is supposed to have a range equivalent to the Phoenix, and supposedly a two-stage AIM is under development by a program dubbed Long Range Engagement Weapon, or LREW .  

I wonder if they’re reusing tech developed for the aborted AIM-152 project from the late Eighties.

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 14:56

1

Danke

facw > user314 03/08/2019 at 14:57

1

Hmm, I knew the AMRAAM had had it’s range upgraded but I’m surprised they were able to get it that high. Presumably though most improvements to the AMRAAM could have been made to the Phoenix as well though, so we might be able to go higher still with that. The two stage missiles are definitely interesting though.

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 15:01

0

oh man this websites cool

ttyymmnn > For Sweden 03/08/2019 at 15:16

0

I chose the word “pure” carefully. The F-15 was built purely as a fighter, and USAF brass famously said, “Not a pound for air to ground.” It wasn’t until the Strike Eagle that the platform became a multi-role fighter and, even then, it was more of a ground attacker than fighter. While also designed as an AS fighter, the F-22 from its inception, was  designed to be a multi-role tactical fighter. In the Air Force’s own words:

The Raptor performs both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions allowing full realization of operational concepts vital to the 21st century Air Force.

So yes, while the Raptor is indeed an AS fighter, that is only part of its mission. That’s why I went with “pure.”

ttyymmnn > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero 03/08/2019 at 15:17

0

I generally find what I need on Wikimedia, but this is a great go-to site when I can’t find what I’m looking for. It’s a little friendlier for searching than the individual branch websites.

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 15:18

0

Buncha squishes in the Air Force Chief of Staff office, making fighter jocks become part-time ground pounders.

ttyymmnn > beautimouse 03/08/2019 at 15:19

1

I like how they kept the F4U on their  patch. Then again, I’m a historian at heart.

ttyymmnn > Darkbrador 03/08/2019 at 15:20

1

I think it’s actually more a situation where the trucks would hang out just out of range and shoot from afar, with target acquisition provided by the F-35.

ttyymmnn > user314 03/08/2019 at 15:24

1

So, a hot-swappable internal weapons bay. Dang.

Darkbrador > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 15:40

2

Target acquisition ... you mean the F-35 has the SHIPT app installed ?

( I know, long week, I’ll see myself out ...)

user314 > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 16:40

0

was designed to be a multi-role tactical fighter. 

Eh, they say that, but the Raptor’s air-to-mud capacity is limited to 1,000lb GBU-32s or GBU-39 SDBs. 

ttyymmnn > user314 03/08/2019 at 16:42

0

Can the F-15C do that?

user314 > facw 03/08/2019 at 16:51

1

Probably improvements in the rocket motors or nozzles.

The problem with trying to upgrade the AIM-54 is: why bother? The got similar performance out of the AAMRAM which is a much smaller missile, and they can be fired from a broad range of aircraft. Phoenixes were limited to the F-14, which quite honestly, was really showing it’s age. Had the Cold War not ended in the early 90's, the AIM-152 would have replaced the Phoenix and the F-14 by the F-22N.

user314 > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 17:12

1

The USAF’s cannot, no, though the JASDF’s F-15J s, which are based on the C, can. Dumb bombs like the MK -82 on up to guided munitions :

It’s a personal thing, but I just can’t shake the feeling that calling the F-22 multi-role (recall at one point they tried to have it called the F/A-22) was a sop to the penny-pinchers .

Yes the Raptor can carry a few bombs, but strike missions are still better left to planes like the F-15E, B-1, or F-35 while the F-22 clubs baby seals .

ttyymmnn > user314 03/08/2019 at 17:14

1

I know, and I am quibbling here. The original F-15 was built with zero ground capability, while the F-22 at least had some. There is no doubt that the Raptor is first and foremost a bad ass AS fighter, that oh, by the way, can drop bombs if it has to.

user314 > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 17:23

1

What are the Intertubes for if not to quibble over minutia? 

facw > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 17:35

0

Tyler says:

The F-15A-D was actually built with a very austere ground attack capability based around gravity bombing with basic Mk82, 83 and 84 general purpose bombs. This largely dormant capability has never been exercised by any other operator but the IAF 

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

the six F-15Ds used in the strike were equipped with the ability to launch and guide a pair of 2,000lb GBU-15 optically guided glide bombs, with the backseaters controlling the massive weapons via a man-in-the-loop, two way data-link pod mounted on the Eagle’s centerline station. 

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The other two aircraft used on the raid were F-15Cs, which would be the last aircraft on target. They carried six 500lb Mk82s general purpose bombs each on a multiple ejector bomb racks attached to the Baz’s centerline station. 

From:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

ttyymmnn > facw 03/08/2019 at 17:59

1

Tyler knows all.

facw > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 20:42

1

Loaded for Bear?

ttyymmnn > facw 03/08/2019 at 21:14

0

That false canopy screams RCAF.

facw > ttyymmnn 03/08/2019 at 21:21

1

Indeed, though I have seen a few US fighters so equipped. Like this one:

ttyymmnn > facw 03/08/2019 at 21:40

1

Yeah, the Marines like those too.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > For Sweden 03/08/2019 at 22:21

0

There were proposals due to its low radar cross section, and high performance to make a bomber version with an even lower radar cross section. In adddition to bringing airframe costs down (haha) it would me an the air force wouldn’t have to wait for valuable, slow B1 B2 units to enter/exit the area