It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Germany's preferred replacement for the Tornado

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Most two seat fighters serve as trainers. The F-15E, E/A-18G, and the Tornado are two seaters with the back seat serving as WSO and controlling the attack process. The Mud Hen and Tornado were built as tactical bombers, and the Growler as an EW/SEAD platform. Those missions tend to put a lot of load on a single pilot, so they put the extra seat in. A two seat trainer doesn't have weapons controls in the back seat, but duplicates the front cockpit, minus the HUD.
edit on 11/8/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting.. thank you.




posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Zaphod58


Maybe it's only one variant of the Tornado that has the back seat for the ordinance officer. Did you see that?

It was a great flight sim way back around 1990. I got close to mastering It. It was great at terrain following/masking.

You could even hide from radar using the terrain, then raise the nose relative to your target and launch a dumb bomb, on a gravity driven arc, then turn and dive back down.

I have to get back into simming with a fighter craft of some kind. It was a fun hobby.

Anyone have any recommendations for a highly realistic sim?



DCS are just about to release the AV8B N/A, plus they have A-10C, Mirage 2000, Viggen and a heap of others, these are study sims, flown by pilots to confirm the aerodynamics.

You would not believe the detail and graphics.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I actually got to sit in the cockpit of one. It was pretty impressive. They were going to Australia, and turned it into an around the world trip. We asked if we could pull a stand up and look at the cockpit, and the plane captain was like, "hop up and have a seat". Didn't have to tell me twice.


Managed to sit in the cockpit of an F-15C Eagle for a while, man that thing is a monster couldn't believe how high off the ground it was.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

If you want to get into some flight sims DCS World is good, they do an A-10C sim for the USAF I believe. I have DCS I like the Mig-29S, Su-33, F-15C.

Get Falcon BMS 4.33 it is amazing. Very good flight models and you can fly the main plane the F-16C, block50 is a monster, and a very good F/A-18 sim aswell with carrier landings at night in bad weather...
Steep learning curve if you don't play many flight sim but BMS forums will help you out if you need it.

And in the OP France doesn't fly the Tornado. UK, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia.
edit on 9-11-2017 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

I own most aircraft for DCS but surprisingly my favourite is the Mi-8MTV-2.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

My two favorite Eagle memories were sitting in the back seat of a D model doing an engine run, and getting to listen to Betty freak the hell out because we only had one running.

Another time, not long after Alaska got E models they came through for an exercise. We went out just after dark, and they fired up a Dash 60 power unit, and gave us an eye watering cockpit tour. You could see all the tire tracks on the ramp in the FLIR. That was pretty cool.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You're lucky getting to sit in a Tornado I've never even seen one lol.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

I was surprised as hell when we got word they were coming. I didn't think I'd ever even get to see one, let alone get to hop in the cockpit.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ManFromEurope

That list is three years old. A lot has changed since then. They've resolved a number of those issues and the aircraft has improved significantly since FY14.


Like what?
The minimal amount of weaponry?
The problems with "high attack" while playing the role of the A10?
The low survivability in dogfight?
How?

I give the F35 the point for very low radar profile, but that is a thing for the radar guys to update their systems. What if that happened already?



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

They're two or three different software versions beyond the software that was cited in that report. They're installing 3F, which adds even more weapons to the aircraft capabilities, and opens the full flight envelope. In FY14 they were on the early Block 2 software, and were still opening the envelope for weapons and flight capabilities. Three years of development changes a lot of things.

That "low survivability in a dogfight" report that is frequently cited (F-35 vs F-16) has its own problems. The aircraft has proven repeatedly that it's quite capable in the air to air role. They're also proving quite capable in both CAS and SEAD.

You apparently are under the impression that once built a stealth aircraft stands still. The F-35, like all stealth aircraft, will get continuous upgrades to the RAM and other systems to counter radar upgrades. Barring something that completely changes the way radar works, stealth as it exists now will continue to work to at least some degree, until it can be upgraded.
edit on 11/9/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ManFromEurope

They're two or three different software versions beyond the software that was cited in that report. They're installing 3F, which adds even more weapons to the aircraft capabilities, and opens the full flight envelope. In FY14 they were on the early Block 2 software, and were still opening the envelope for weapons and flight capabilities. Three years of development changes a lot of things.

But isn't the low amount of weaponry a result of having the VTO-ability, replacing lifting abilities with having to carry that large vertical turbine? How would a softwareupdate help? Thats like Volkswagen updating their Diesel-engines to reduce CO2. Okay, not exactly, but close.. ;-)



That "low survivability in a dogfight" report that is frequently cited (F-35 vs F-16) has its own problems. The aircraft has proven repeatedly that it's quite capable in the air to air role. They're also proving quite capable in both CAS and SEAD.

SEAD ain't dogfighting, right? It is more like "fire a rocket at the next largest radarsystem of the enemy", correct?
F-16CJ.
CAS is against groundtargets, too, if I understand the lingo correct. This seems like you inject different targets into the topic of fighter vs. fighter.

Dogfighting in my understanding needs speed, maneuverability, weapons.
Speed = okay.
Maneuverability = ?
Weapons = not so good.



You apparently are under the impression that once built a stealth aircraft stands still. The F-35, like all stealth aircraft, will get continuous upgrades to the RAM and other systems to counter radar upgrades. Barring something that completely changes the way radar works, stealth as it exists now will continue to work to at least some degree, until it can be upgraded.

Sure. Both sides are upgrading as fast as possible. But if this feature is the single shining star on the F35, I honestly hope that the management in the Luftwaffe's procurement dep is looking at all alternatives with an open mind, too.
Although I heard that Luftwaffeninspekteur Generalleutnant Karl Müllner is a fan of the F35.

I read about intentions to buy Silent Eagle or Advanced Super Hornet, too. South-koreas' KFX or Japans' F-3?

Maybe it has to do with the F35's ability to carry nuclear weaponry like the B61 Mod12.. Yeah /s


Links to related news about this: AiN online, Janes, Reuters
And finally: a comic about the F35 problems The Guardian, 2016



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

But isn't the low amount of weaponry a result of having the VTO-ability, replacing lifting abilities with having to carry that large vertical turbine? How would a softwareupdate help? Thats like Volkswagen updating their Diesel-engines to reduce CO2. Okay, not exactly, but close.. ;-)


No. Only the B model has the lift fan, and even then it doesn't play a huge role in weapons carriage, except with the SDB. The low weapons load has almost everything to do with the software installed on the aircraft.

The early versions of the software, such as the one in FY14 only interfaced with specific weapons. The first version did little more than the flight control system and radar. Then they added the AIM-120, and the first air to ground weapons. But that still didn't give them access to many of the weapons that they can carry. It wasn't until 3F that they are able to carry all the weapons that have been cleared, and even now they can't use all of them to their full capability yet, because they haven't been certified.

The F-35 coding is the largest and most complex ever put on an aircraft. So the decision was made to roll it out in blocks, with each block adding capabilities. So you didn't get the first F-35 rolling off the assembly line capable of doing what the latest F-35 to come off the line can.



SEAD ain't dogfighting, right? It is more like "fire a rocket at the next largest radarsystem of the enemy", correct?
F-16CJ.
CAS is against groundtargets, too, if I understand the lingo correct. This seems like you inject different targets into the topic of fighter vs. fighter.

Dogfighting in my understanding needs speed, maneuverability, weapons.
Speed = okay.
Maneuverability = ?
Weapons = not so good.


You brought up air to air and CAS, so I answered both.

Again, as the software opened up the flight envelope the air to air capability improved drastically. They received an extremely high AoA capability, the ability to point the nose that is better than just about anything else flying, and in the straight air to air mission, they have the ability to carry up to 6 air to air missiles internally. The F-15 and F-22 can carry a maximum of 8, so they're not that far off from an air superiority fighter load out.

The pilots have been in 2v1 situations where the fight was over in less than a minute, and in their first Red Flag they went something like 20:0 in air to air, including against F-15s with AESA. In the most recent Atlantic Trident, with Typhoons and Rafales, they lost one aircraft in air to air, to an AESA equipped F-15E.



Sure. Both sides are upgrading as fast as possible. But if this feature is the single shining star on the F35, I honestly hope that the management in the Luftwaffe's procurement dep is looking at all alternatives with an open mind, too.
Although I heard that Luftwaffeninspekteur Generalleutnant Karl Müllner is a fan of the F35.

I read about intentions to buy Silent Eagle or Advanced Super Hornet, too. South-koreas' KFX or Japans' F-3?


Except they're proving repeatedly that stealth isn't the only "shining star" on the F-35.

Going with any other aircraft mentioned puts them in the same boat as developing their own aircraft. They're not tested or certified, and would potentially require several years before they could even potentially start being built. The only exception is the Advanced Hornet.


Maybe it has to do with the F35's ability to carry nuclear weaponry like the B61 Mod12.. Yeah /s


You mean the B-61 that they won't certify on it for another 5-10 years?
edit on 11/9/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/9/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

I've always looked at DCS but never taken the plunge is a HOTAS setup recommended I currently only have a logitech 3d pro?



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

That's a pretty crappy joystick but will do for casual gaming. You can get a HOTAS setup if you want, can be pricey, but don't need one to play. Check out DCS forums.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

We used to use the Thrustmaster programmable stick and throttle. God it made flight sims so much easier to have everything programed for a simple button push without having to hit the keyboard.



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: JimTSpock

Yeah it's probably the weakest part of my whole setup tbh but I only really use it for CAS on arma a few times a week. Also have you seen Flight sim World it's on steam atm as an early access programme looks promising.
edit on 9-11-2017 by Woody510 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
The US Air Force is having a serious shortage of pilots..

pjmedia.com...

Therefore, if you're young, are a US citizen, and if you don't get "sun sneeze", you could begin by mastering the Falcon BMS on your PC, while engaging in simulated in theater war games, and then ultimately enroll to fly the real thing..!?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

What do you mean by "low amount of weaponry"?

Block 2B and 3i aircraft were limited to internal carriage only of 2x AIM-120 AMRAAM (C-5 and C-7 only) and 2x JDAM (1000 or 2000 lb) or LGB (500 lb). This is the maximum fully stealth payload.

Block 3F adds AIM-154C JSOW, GBU-39 SDB-1, AIM-120D and the ability to carry these externally. Indeed there's a picture of the F-35C flying supersonic with a total of 6 x 1000lb bombs, 2x aim-9x, 2x AMRAAM, with the equivalent of an external targeting pod, with the equivalent of an external ECM pod, and with almost as much internal fuel as a F-14 Tomcat with two external fuel tanks.



The lifting capacity of the F-35 is enormous, about as much as a Su-34 if external stores are used. These weapons were actually integrated onto the F-35 significantly faster than the DOT&E office has predicted and iirc (although this might be planned for Block 4) the F-35 now has a simpler avionics architecture such that new weapons can be more easily integrated with the jet.

A maximum of 4 A2A missiles can be carried internally. I would like to see this increase in the future, but let's not let feature creep get to us - finish SDD first. Internal A2G carriage is okay, but remember it's the equivalent of a F-117 with two A2A missiles. Six missiles have been hinted at since that would technically fit, although there is no actual plan for this yet. An alternative would be more advanced missiles that take up less space.

The problem with internal carriage is that adding big weapons bays takes up a lot of volume and needs supporting structure around it. Maybe if the F-35 wasn't tri-service the bays could be a little bigger or in a different configuration, but it's also likely that bigger internal weapons bays would require other parts of the aircraft to be cut or the aircraft to be made bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

Also the leaked test report of the F-35 flying against a F-16 was a developmental test report, conducted to find issues with the aircraft itself. While you cannot simply improve the rear-visibility without a massive redesign, one of the things they found was that FLCS was too restrictive, so opening up the control laws was suggested. It was also not an operational test, meaning they aren't trying to fight using the aircraft how the US Air Force is actually going to fight the jet. One would think it's not, given the F-35A constantly gets accolades about its performance in large force exercises. Anyway, it's not known if they actually changed the FLCS based on this test-report to enable better high-alpha maneuvering. Block 3F did expand the flight envelope though, from 7 G to 9 G for the F-35A and increase the maximum altitude from 40k feet to 50k feet.
edit on 10/11/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/11/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope


The minimal amount of weaponry?

Covered this in the previous post.


The problems with "high attack" while playing the role of the A10?

What is "high attack"? I searched that phrase and couldn't find anything in the DOT&E report.


The low survivability in dogfight?

The intent with most 5th generation aircraft, is even if they are amazing at dogfighting like the F-22, in an air-to-air engagement they will attempt to use NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) to ID the adversary and then destroy them at beyond-visual-ranges with missiles - or avoid them and fly right past them on the way to the target. Most "dogfighting", which usually refers to fighting "in a phone booth" or within visual ranges is not very survivable, I would actually call it a losers game, the only winning move is to not play.


a reply to: ManFromEurope


This seems like you inject different targets into the topic of fighter vs. fighter.


It seems like you are trying to redefine the conversation as if the only thing that is important is not just "fighter vs fighter" but "dog-fighting" and then close-air support. The F-35 is a result of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Here is the Wikipedia of what a strike fighter is.


In current military parlance, a strike fighter is a multirole combat aircraft designed to operate primarily as an attack aircraft, while also incorporating certain performance characteristics of a fighter. As a category, it is distinct from fighter-bombers.[citation needed] It is closely related to the concept of interdictor aircraft,[citation needed] but it puts more emphasis on air-to-air combat capabilities as a multirole combat aircraft. Examples of contemporary American strike fighters are the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

en.wikipedia.org...


The main aircraft the F-35 is replacing is the F-16, F-18 A/B/C/D, and AV-8B. The first two aircraft more often than not, are operated as strike fighters. The F-35 is an excellent replacement for these aircraft in these roles. In certain edge cases less so (A-10 for example). The variant of the Tornado that Germany operates is an attack/strike aircraft, not a air superiority fighter or a "dog fighter". SEAD is very relevant for this, as it's one of the most demanding situations a strike fighter can find itself doing.


I read about intentions to buy Silent Eagle or Advanced Super Hornet, too. South-koreas' KFX or Japans' F-3?

You just claimed that F-35 was compromised, but then suggested a modified version of a 1970's air superiority fighter then the most multirole aircraft, jack-of-all-trades aircraft of them all - the Super Hornet. The F-35 is actually turning out to be a super-specialized aircraft, since the avionics and communications are so advanced and can dramatically affect the rest of the force.


And finally: a comic about the F35 problems The Guardian, 2016

There's so many things wrong with this.

- The budget of "$18 billion" actually includes $3.5 billion in contingency, the amount actually expected to be spent is $14.5 billion.
- I don't know the contract details but about $1 billion has actually been spent by Australia on the F-35, it's pretty unlikely we are going to spend the "$18 billion" and then receive aircraft that "may not" work.
- Yes they did change the schedule, however the RAAF is planned to declare IOC on the F-35A in 2020. This is several years after the USAF declared IOC in 2016, will be several years after the USAF declared FOC. RAAF has been introducing a whole wide array new platforms of late, which make most Air Forces look positively dated. It will be the first 5th generation force in the world, and this doesn't refer to flying 5th generation aircraft, it refers to the supporting aircraft as well. There's a limited amounted of manpower to introduce new platforms, but if there was an large need for RAAF to receive its aircraft earlier, it could have done so.
- Yes the engine did explode once, they fixed the root cause ages ago.
- Who cares if the fuel trucks have to be painted white? Besides which, it was done as a precautionary measure.
- Problems were revealed in a developmental test with an F-16 in the WVR arena, which were hopefully acted upon. In operational exercises, the F-35 kicks ass. Operational Testing has not begun.
- Ejection seat design is fixed already, not all aircraft are fixed. F-35 probably has the safest ejection seat of any aircraft with the widest pilot size and weight range of any aircraft.
- Gun isn't the primary weapon, will be functional before RAAF IOC.
- It does not need to open the weapons bays every 10 minutes over a certain temperature. I think a similar problem was a precautionary measure that has been removed.
- Yeah, like the F-117 which was extremely effective.
- The F-35 aircraft itself is unmatched in terms of cyber, the concerns are for the support network.

Here's a picture of Australia's 3rd F-35A. A35-003. Block 3F. It's hard to find an issue that hasn't been resolved on this jet. The two other RAAF F-35's will be upgraded to Block 3F prior to flying to Australia in 2018. Then 69 or even ~100 Block 3F (or later) jets to follow.


edit on 10/11/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/11/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

I forgot to mention that the Australian dollar is also stronger now relative to 2002. So even though the cost of the jet has escalated in US dollars, it hasn't actually escalated by that proportion in AUD.


a reply to: Woody510

Keep in mind that DCS World (Su-25T) is free. You can always just download it then have a go at it. That joystick should be enough, I don't like the way the stick feels though. I use a Thrustmaster T.16000M which is what people on the forums will probably recommend if you're on a budget.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join