Category:

Military

Su-57, marketed as a stealth fighter, can be detected by radars from a far greater distance than F-22 and F-35

by Till Daisd December 7, 2023

Sukhoi claims Su-57 has an RCS goal between 0.1 to 1 m^2 (-10 to 1 dBsm). For comparison, the F-117 had an RCS of around -25 dBsm while the F-22 and F-35 have an RCS better than -40 dBsm – which is at least 1,000 to 10,000 times smaller than the Su-57

The Sukhoi Su-57 Felon’s configuration is a development of the Su-27’s design modified for low visibility, supersonic speed, and agility.

According to Piotr Butowski’s explanation in Russia’s Warplanes, Volume 1, internal weapon carriage is the primary way to decrease radar visibility. Installed in the engine air intake ducts, radar blockers lessen reflections from the engine inlet guiding vanes. In order to minimize the number of directions in which electromagnetic waves are reflected and to guarantee that these directions are the safest, the airframe’s shape has been chosen.

The equipment of the fighter is the subject of another group of stealth measures. The radiation from the enemy’s radar is diverted away by the NO36 radar arrays’ surfaces being deflected from the vertical plane. The arrays’ domes are selective; while allowing their own signal to get through, they block other frequencies. Additionally, to absorb “freak waves,” which happen when a wave is amplified after several reflections within an enclosed space, the compartments for these arrays have coatings on their edges that are radar-absorbent.

Multiple systems, such as the radar, ECM, and IFF systems, employ the available arrays simultaneously to lower their total number. Antennas that do not extend beyond the airframe outlines are used within the antenna-feeder system, and the vertical empennage serves as an antenna for the communications suite. When in cruise configuration, the 101KS-V IRST’s turret is turned backward and has a coating on its rear hemisphere to absorb radar waves.

Su-57 stealth fighters to take part in Victory Parade for first time

The US-made F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II are not comparable to the Su-57, despite the latter being touted as a fifth-generation fighter. The Felon, on the other hand, is not a real stealth fighter. Why?

‘Sukhoi claims Su-57 has an RCS goal between 0.1 to 1 m^2 (-10 to 1 dBsm). For comparison, the F-117 had an RCS of around -25 dBsm while the F-22 and F-35 have an RCS better than -40 dBsm – which is at least 1,000 to 10,000 times smaller than the Su-57. All of these are based on unclassified program goals and YF-117’s RCS testing data from Skunk Works,’ says Abhirup Sengupta, an aviation expert, on Quora.

‘To understand the real-world difference, let’s take S-400’s 91N6E search radar as a reference. According to the manufacturer, the 91N6E has a detection range of 390 km against a 4 m^2 target. So it should be detecting a F-15 (13 m^2) from 523 km, a F/A-18E Super Hornet (~1 m^2) from 275 km, the Su-57 (assuming 0.1 m^2) from 155 km, and a F-22/F-35 (-40 dBsm) from 27 km. In short, a radar will have between 6 to 10 times greater detection range against the Su-57 compared to the F-22 & F-35.

‘It’s worth remembering that the failure of Mikoyan Project 1.44 (Russia’s first attempt at Stealth aircraft) is what brought Su-57 to light. One of the lessons from Mig 1.44’s failure was the Russian economy being unable to afford to design a new LO airframe from scratch. You can see that all Russian aircraft designs post-Cold War that saw daylight are mere modifications of an existing airframe (Su-30, Su-35, and Mig-29K, Mig-35 being a derivate of Su-27 and Mig-29).

‘The Su-57 program is not too different. The goal was to modify an existing airframe (Su-27) to maximize RCS reduction without having to design a new airframe from scratch. This is evident from the Sukhoi Design Bureau not adding basic things like Serpentine intakes which are critical for achieving serious LO signature. In essence Su-57 in many ways is similar to the US Navy’s F-18 Super Hornet program. It’s what you do when you’re on a really tight budget.

‘The second problem with the Su-57 is that the Russian Aerospace industry is simply incapable of producing a VLO aircraft. It’s not just about things directly related to Stealth (Tolerance, Material sciences for RAM/surface coatings with desired broadband, multispectral and durable characteristics) but also things indirectly related to Stealth like Engines – the Felon’s izdeliye 30 engine with circular nozzle is supposed to produce 38,600 lbf thrust, which is comparable to Raptor’s 20-year-old F119 with rectangular nozzles (37–39,000 lbf). You can’t have a Fighter design with S-ducts or rectangular exhaust nozzles if you can’t produce engines with sufficient thrust to compensate for the thrust loss from those designs. Likewise, you can’t have faceted glass panels to house the IRST sensor if your industry can’t economically produce one with sufficient integrity and tolerance to handle a Mach-2 flight envelope.

‘Then there’s the whole RF domain dictated by the state of your semiconductor industry. When you’ve the Su-35 having comparable SAR resolution to that of F-15E’s 20-year-old Mechanical radar, it highlights the inherent small bandwidth of Russian radars. You can’t have serious LPI characteristics with such a small bandwidth. The same limitations also prevent you from having highly directional (Line-of-sight) LPI datalinks – forcing you to continue relying on omnidirectional Low-band datalinks that not only ruin your RF signature but are also quite limited in terms of throughput. Stealth isn’t just about your airframe’s shape, today it’s also about your avionics suite. Without the necessary EMCON, you’ll be forced to either fly blind or ruin whatever element of surprise you may theoretically have.’

Sengupta concludes;

‘For the most part real-world design objectives aren’t dictated by your group of engineers but your economic and industrial capability. The last 30 years in addition to the last 6 months unequivocally demonstrate that Russia neither has the industrial capacity nor economy to develop a VLO fleet.’

Photo by U.S. Air Force and Sukhoi

December 7, 2023 0 comment

F-14 Tomcat Military

Tomcats support SOF mission in opening of Iraq war

by Till Daisd September 1, 2023

written by Till Daisd

A first-hand account of F-14 aircrew operations during a critical special ops mission in western Iraq

All three Tomcat units in the NAG (VF-154 having arrived with CVW-5, embarked aboard USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), in late February 2003) participated heavily in a series of precision strikes on known targets in the “Box” in the final days before OIF began. Republican Guard barracks, HQ and command and control structures, mobile missile launchers, and AAA sites in and around Basra were all struck by CVW-5, the authorized CAS air wing.

Assets from CVW (1-2, -5, and -14, as well as USAF and RAF jets, supported a very essential long-range mission to the H2 and H3 airfields in western Iraq on the night of March 19. The mission also included SOF elements on the ground. The following is a description of the sortie provided by one of the VP-2 RI Os participated in this mission:

‘I was in one of two F-14Ds that launched off CV-64 to support a preplanned operation sent against an airfield in the extreme west of Iraq. By the time it was over, my pilot and I had logged 8.6 hours from launch to crap. Assigned to the mission was a SOF ground element, various TACIR assets, including sections of A-10s rotating throughout the evening, F-15Es, F-14/Ds, AWACS, and dedicated tankers.

‘Our task was to show up after the initial ingress into the area and take over TACAIR asset control in support of the ground element as it headed toward its objective. We started to gain situational awareness of which phase the operation was in as soon as we could get radio contact a few hundred miles out. Having Link-16 JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Distribution System) was invaluable, as we were receiving datalink to all the other assets in our package without having to use our radio or radar. It sounded like things were going according to plan, and that the assets were getting into position.

‘As we got closer, we heard a VF-154 F-14A divert for unknown reasons. We weren’t certain if the crew had been engaged by ground fire and been hit, or had some other type of failure, but they had an immediate divert problem and left their wingman on station to wait for our relief. We quickly arrived on-station and relieved the lone Tomcat as the FAC(A)s for the operation. He passed a turnover brief as he departed, and we started getting a check in from the other assets in the area.

‘Our plan was to have at least one Tomcat on station to quarterback the operation, while the other one was headed to or from the ranker – located over the border – to refuel. If required, we would pass control to one of the F-15Es if we had both Tomcats off-station. JTIDS was once again invaluable when it came to deconflicting all the assets in our package that were flowing in and out of our Area of Responsibility (AOR) as required, and holding in the same relative area with their lights out. It also allowed us to release the sections on-station when we saw their relief headed inbound without having to constantly query the AWACS as to the status of our support assets. JTIDS provided deconfliction with attacking assets while prosecuting targets on the ground, and most importantly, it let us accurately find the ranker when gas became critical so that we could drive him to us if required.

‘Initially, things went pretty smooth for what seemed to be the first 20 minutes, so we headed to the ranker to top off and left our wingman on station to run the show. The tanker was its own unique type of pain this evening. It was WARP (wing aerial refueling pod) configured, with a boom in the center. That way it could refuel the USAF assets with the boom or stream the baskets from the wingtips for the Navy jets, which probe refueled. As we got to the ranker, we joined up on the left side after it streamed the basket. We had to stay pretty well topped off on gas because we would need a significant amount to get to a divert field should we be hit, suffer mechanical difficulties, or have a problem refueling.

‘Three things soon became readily apparent as we closed on the tanker: 1) we were stuck with manual (unboosted) throttles, so it was like driving a Mack truck without power steering, and therefore very fatiguing on the pilot who was trying to make the minor throttle correction to get in the basket; 2) our probe light, which illuminates the otherwise pitch black basket and lees the pilot sec where he’s putting the refueling probe in the endgame, was not working; and 3) there was a lot of turbulence at the canker’s altitude which was causing the wing rips to bounce up and down like a big lumbering bird. This caused the basket to move up and clown sporadically about four feet at a shot.

‘I stayed on NVGs in the back seat and tried to help talk the pilot into the basket, which was difficult to see without a probe light. Tanking on NVGs was also difficult, as it can seriously distort your depth perception. My pilot got in on the third try, which made us very happy, as the closest divert field was nowhere as close as we wanted it to be.

‘As we headed back to the AOR and switched back to the working frequency, things had obviously moved along to the next phase of operations. Our wingman was controlling the engagement of a AAA piece that had started opening up, and we had A-10s and F-15Es attacking vehicles that were moving in the general direction of the SOF units on the ground. We quickly arrived on-station and received control from our wingman as he headed toward the tanker. We were able to cake out one of the targets pointed out by the ground element ourselves with an LGB before the dust settled a little bit.

‘Now that the initial exchanges had subsided, we gave ourselves about a ten-minute break. The next target that the ground element wanted us to address was located in a revetment about a kilometer away from their present position but between them and their objective. We had soon located and verified the target with the LTS, and were also able to see the ground unit with our NVGs, but we could not see die target visually with the goggles.

‘The release cues from the LTS showed an aim point after we were past the ground element position. The SOF team wanted us to illuminate the target with an infrared (IR) pointer to confirm its position before we dropped our LGB on it since it was close to their position. We told them that we couldn’t visually put the IR pointer on it because we could not see it through NVGs, but that the LTS indicated that it was clear of their position. After making two passes, and asking for clearance to release, which we did not get because the SOF unit did not acquire us until we were past our release solution, we brought in an F-15E which was fitted with a new Litening II pod. We talked the crew onto the target and verified the ground position with them as well.

‘The Litening II-equipped F- 15E has an internal IR pointer (unlike our handheld version, which required us to see the target with NVGs), and they illuminated the target that they had located with their FUR. We saw that the F-15 had the target about 800 meters away from the friendly position, and we passed terminal weapon release control back to the ground element, which in turn authorized the F-15E crew to drop their LGB on their first pass, scoring a direct hit as verified by our LTS. We now headed back to the tanker for round two, as our wingman was on his way back to station.

‘The next duel with the tanker took additional tries to get in the basket and left my pilot with a good cramp in his throttle (left) arm. ‘As we arrived back at the fight to join our wingman, the ground unit had reached its objective and was ready to egress the area, which involved moving across a major “enemy line of communication” – a road. We were tasked with sanitizing the area where the crossing was to occur, searching out any possible resistance. There were a few vehicles moving along the road, but none were presenting a direct threat to the ground element. We then caught sight of a real fast mover on NVGs doing about 80 mph – easily three times the speed of any other traffic observed and headed directly for the ground unit. We passed the information to the ground controller, who instructed us to rake the vehicle out.

‘We rolled in the same direction that the target was heading and tried to lead it with an LGB, but he was seriously moving. The LGB hit about two vehicle lengths short, but the blast forced the driver off the road. We observed four individuals get out of the vehicle once it had stopped, and they ran into a ditch next to the road. The final person leaving the vehicle had a pretty good heat signature on the PLIR, and he appeared to be severely injured based on the way he rolled into a ditch on the roadside. We watched as the group continued to head away from the damaged vehicle and toward the ground unit. Before we could come back around to see how close the group was getting to the crossing site, an F-15E crew “cleaned up” the scene with their own LGB, and this group was no longer a factor. We covered the rest of the egress by the ground unit, directing other fires as required until we proceeded off-station.

‘There was one more trip to the ranker left, and if we topped off, we could make it all the way back to the boa[ at high altitude on a conservative profile. By the time we got back to the tanker, my pilot was dragging. It was early in the morning hours and still pitch black all around. We had been pumped up during the action, and the flight had been fairly fatiguing. The basket was really bouncing and we were low on gas. We made the decision to take the Tomcat down to the lowest possible Fuel state before heading off to the divert airfield (where we could be stuck for days).

‘After many attempts. and a severe forearm cramp from running the manual throttles all night, my pilot just steadied about ten feet behind the basket for about a minute. I asked, “Hey, you know we’ve only got about 400 lbs of gas to play with here before we gotta go?” He replied, ”Yeah, I know, but I’ve got to give it a little break or I’m not gonna make it in”. ‘With 200 lbs to go (enough for another ten seconds of trying to get in), my pilot made one more attempt and successfully plugged into the basket. The fuel gauge touched the bingo number just as it reversed and started showing good flow from the ranker into our ranks!

‘Now we still had the long ride home to end in a Navy-specific event, the night trap. En route, we consumed two mocha flavor power bars and a bag of spicy teriyaki beef jerky—a meal that would not be repeated during the war! Once we were feet wet, my pilot leveled with me and said that he was pretty tired—something that a RIO never wants to hear, but I appreciated the honesty.

‘I implicitly trusted him with my life, and had a little worry about his ability to get aboard, It just may have taken us a few tries. I passed him two Red Bulls to see if they would help. He had one right away, and saved the other for closer-to-die boat – it really did the trick. I don’t remember if it was an OK 3 wire, but we were aboard safely on the first pass.’

The next time VF-2 would launch jets in anger, they would lead the initial assaults on Baghdad at the opening of “Shock and Awe.”

The book US Navy F-14 Tomcat Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom is available to purchase here.

September 1, 2023 0 comment

Military

How the Warthog’s CCIP Gun/Rockets mode calculates Range and Impact Point without Radar

by Till Daisd August 25, 2023

written by Till Daisd

Without radar, how does the A-10 Warthog’s CCIP gun/rockets mode calculate range and impact point?

A calculation produced by a weapon’s sighting system is known as a Continually Computed Impact Point (CCIP), which is connected to the Continually Computed Release Point (CCRP). It is a predicted point of impact determined by the movement of the launch platform, the movement of the target, gravity, the launch velocity, the drag of the projectile, and other variables that can be entered. The Head Up Display (HUD) typically shows it.

Without a radar, how does the A-10 Warthog’s CCIP gun/rockets mode determine range and impact point?

‘Trigonometry.

‘That’s what’s behind the fancy green magic that helps you put the thing on the thing and push the thing to make stuff go boom,’ explains Lynn Taylor, former A-10 Warthog pilot, on Quora.

‘The pilot enters the target’s elevation into the CCIP system. This is obtained from either looking at the elevation lines on a map (old school) or from tagging the target with a targeting pod (new school) or from a JTAC (phone a friend).

‘The jet then takes aircraft orientation data, specifically altitude (“Opposite” in the above images) and dive angle (“theta” in the above images), and does some math using “sine” to determine the hypotenuse, or slant range to the target. It also does some math using “tangent” to determine the adjacent, or horizontal distance to the target.

‘Note that determining the length of “opposite” doesn’t really care about the elevation below the jet. It only cares about your elevation relative to the target. Your target can be in a valley and the system doesn’t care if you’re flying over a mountain ridge or the ocean when you send your weapon on its merry way.

‘The system also makes some adjustments based on what it knows about the weapon ballistics (rockets, bombs, The Gun, etc.) and how the weapon will be affected by the aircraft’s speed. There are also some adjustments based on the system’s best guess of what the wind is doing between the jet and the ground, extrapolated from whatever wind the jet is experiencing at the moment.

‘That all combines into a handy visual presentation on the heads-up display (HUD) that helps the pilot put the jet in the right place to get the weapons to their intended receiver. The little pipper in the center of the circle indicates where the weapon is expected to impact if you hit the pickle button at that precise moment, assuming the elevation is correct in the system.’

Not an actual A-10 HUD, but a pretty good simulation from the A-10 DCS game. Actual HUD images are usually more grainy.

Taylor concludes;

‘It’s a pretty snazzy system and has proven quite effective over the years.

‘BRRRRRRRTTTTTTTT!!!!’

Photo by: U.S. Air Force, Trig stuff from SkillsYouNeed.com and wiki.hoggitworld.com

August 25, 2023 0 comment

Military

War attrition between Iran and Iraq in 1983

by Till Daisd August 2, 2023

written by Till Daisd

At least 24 of the 80 Iraqi aircraft that were shot down by IRIAF air defenses between 16 January and 18 February 1983, according to several Western publications, were credited to Tomcats. However, a thorough investigation within the small group of Iranian fighter pilots has shown that just a handful of kills were recorded during this time. This stage of the conflict was very quiet, according to official Iranian media.

The IRIAF High Command had accordingly instructed all units to undertake operations with caution after realizing that the fight had turned into a war of attrition. Nevertheless, the Iranians started employing a new strategy in which interceptors and SAM sites were combined to create ‘killing fields’ for Iraqi fighters. The fact that so little is known about this strategy suggests that it is still effective. Nonetheless, it appears to have involved F-4 or F-14 aircraft acting as the “hammer” to drag or force Iraqis onto the SAM “anvil.”

For instance, it is known that three unidentified Iraqi fighters (likely J-6s, which were Chinese MiG-19 duplicates) were shot down on January 16. They were followed on the 21st by a Mirage and a MiG-23, the 27th by a Su-20, and the 29th by another MiG-23.

Despite Iranian caution, fighting persisted throughout the rest of 1983 at a similar pace, with both forces conducting constant airstrikes against different targets. Even with the addition of more than 200 new aircraft from China and the USSR, the IrAF nevertheless suffered losses. Even the improved MiG-25s that were outfitted with the most recent Soviet avionics and ECM equipment continued to show themselves to be vulnerable to IRIAF interceptors.

On August 6, two MiG-25PD aircraft suddenly appeared near Tabriz while flying through Turkish airspace. Nevertheless, their scheme was thwarted by a single TFB 1 F-14A that was on CAP nearby with its AWG-9 in standby mode to conceal its position. Once the MiGs had flown far into the AIM-54 engagement envelope, the Iranian crew turned on their radar and fired a Phoenix. The Iraqi pilots responded swiftly as they had in similar MiG-25 interceptions before once they knew the danger they were in. The AIM-54 cut the range and detonated near one of them, destroying its engines and fins. Both fighters turned around and accelerated. Although fatally injured, the MiG was still in flight.

Although his wingman had successfully eluded capture, the aircraft’s pilot attempted to nurse it out of Iranian airspace without support. Meanwhile, below the action, IRIAF Capt. Kazem Zarif-Khadem was in command of two F-5E Tiger II aircraft equipped with AIM-9 and napalm as they attacked Iraqi positions. Zarif-Khadem was busy navigating his way through the target while flying at a very low altitude as per usual. He was shocked to see a MiG-25 flying low and quickly cross his path. As soon as the MiG was hit, Zarif-Khadem dropped his bombs and drop tank, pushed the throttle to full afterburner, and made a U-turn behind it. He then fired both of his Sidewinders while in a “deep-six” position a few seconds later.

As the Iraqi pilot became aware of the strike and broke, the missiles were halfway to the target. The pilot ejected and was recovered by the Iraqis, but it was too late as both AIM-9s hit their targets and exploded. This was the fifth “Foxbat” that IRIAF interceptors claimed, and as a result of its loss, the IrAF stopped making other ventures into Iranian airspace.

The book Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat is available to purchase here.

August 2, 2023 0 comment

Military

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

by Till Daisd July 6, 2023

written by Till Daisd

The F-18 Hornet was created as the first all-weather fighter and attack aircraft for the US military. It could perform conventional strike tasks like interdiction and close air support without compromising its fighter capabilities. The platform has steadily advanced over time. The US Navy began using the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 1999 to replace the F-14 Tomcat.

From the 1970s through its retirement in 2006, the F-14 Tomcat, a twin-engine, two-seat fighter aircraft, was used by the U.S. Navy. It was mostly employed for fleet defense and air superiority missions. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which was the F/A-18 model’s second modification, was incredibly capable and adaptable for a wide variety of missions. It could execute a variety of tasks, including air superiority, fighter escort, reconnaissance, aerial refueling, suppressing air defenses, and carrying out day-and-night precise strikes.

With its merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, Boeing is now the manufacturer of the Super Hornet, which comes in two different versions: the single-seat F/A-18E and the dual-seat F/A-18F. Two F414-GE-400 turbofan engines that together have a thrust rating of 44,000 lbs. power the aircraft. The air inlets have been expanded to maximize airflow into the engines. The engine’s maximum speed when the afterburner is on is greater than Mach 1.8.

On July 24, 2002, Strike Fighter Squadron 115, also known as the “Eagles,” operating off of the USS Abraham Lincoln, made the F/A-18E/F its first operational use. On November 6 of the same year, the aircraft participated in its first combat mission as the squadron helped impose a “no-fly” zone over Iraq. In March 2003, the F/A-18E/F was also deployed as a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Its effectiveness and dependability as an aircraft are widely known. The Super Hornet is a multi-role attack aircraft that can carry out numerous tasks by employing various pieces of external equipment. When used to tackle the challenges a carrier can face, its sophisticated networking capabilities enable it to do extremely specific missions, making it a valuable “FORCE MULTIPLIER”

Because of its outstanding armament capabilities, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has proven to be a very adaptable aircraft. consisting of two wings of supply stations and a total of eleven weaponry stations. This fighter jet can transport a variety of weaponry to accommodate different mission demands.

Air-to-air missiles:

AIM-9 Sidewinder
AIM-7 Sparrow
AIM-120 AMRAAM

Air-to-ground weapons:

AGM-84 SLAM-ER
Paveway Laser-Guided bombs
AGM-88 HARM
AGM-154 JSOW
AGM-65 Maverick
Harpoon Missile
AGM-158C LRASM
Free-fall Air-to-ground bombs
MK-80 Unguided bombs
JDAMS bombs
MK-62/63/65 Quick Strike Naval Mine

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is equipped with an internal weapon that packs a serious punch in addition to its remarkable array of external armament. The GE M61A2 20mm Gatling-style gun uses electric firing to produce devastating firepower at a selectable rate of either 4,000 or 6,000 RPM. It is a hydraulically operated six-barreled rotary action weapon. In close air support and air-to-air combat situations, the gun’s high rate of fire makes it possible to quickly attack targets at close range.

The Navy’s carrier air wing’s mainstay since its deployment in 2001, the Block II Super Hornet contains a number of technologies that improve its capabilities. With the delivery of the last 322 E and 286 F models in April 2020, Block II aircraft production came to an end. The first pair of F/A-18 Block III test jets were delivered to the Navy for carrier testing a month later. The Navy intended to deploy the Block III Super Hornet to test and investigate novel operational concepts while Boeing created the aircraft to complement present and future air wing capabilities.

In addition to other improvements, the first Block III aircraft has a sophisticated cockpit system with a 10×19-inch touchscreen that works like a Large Tablet. This device took the role of many of the conventional cockpit buttons and knobs, allowing pilots to track and target several distant objects more precisely. Together with the Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) data link, the aircraft also features the open-architecture Distributed Targeting Processor-Networked (DTP-N), which increases the mission computer’s processing and networking capabilities.

Several characteristics of Block III Super Hornets also assist in lowering the jet’s radar signature. In addition to all of that, this program has incorporated two more modifications that were previously planned for upcoming Navy Super Hornets, namely an enhanced satellite communications system (SATCOM) and the incorporation of a podded infrared search and track (IRST) system.

The IRST is a “stealth equalizer” that gives users the capacity to passively detect and counter stealthy aircraft, like the Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang FC-31 of China and the Sukhoi Su-57 of Russia. The Navy’s top objective is extending the Super Hornet’s airframe life. While the F/A-18E/F has a 6,000-hour service life, the Strike Fighter has seen extensive use over the course of combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, which has lasted almost 20 years.

Because of this, a significant number of Super Hornets have been worn out, which has decreased readiness rates and reduced the useful life of some aircraft. The airframe service life of brand-new Block III Super Hornets will be 10,000 hours. Block II Super Hornets undergoing Block III improvements will have a “per-jet” service life extension of “an additional 4,000 hours.”

Additionally, shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks were planned for the Block III Super Hornet. The aircraft could fly longer, go faster, and/or carry more weight if they could carry 3,500 pounds more fuel and lower drag. But, this choice has been abandoned. The hardware improvements are finished.

“Today we are maximizing the open hardware, software and developing the apps to keep Block III ahead of future threats”. Jen Tebo, Boeing’s Vice President of F/A-18 and EA-18G programs, said in the press release regarding the delivery of the first operational upgraded jets.

“We are giving Navy pilots the tools to make the fastest and most informed decisions possible now and in the future”.

USMN has learned that the Navy has quietly started work to produce its first new carrier-based fighter in almost 20 years by setting up a new program office and engaging in preliminary talks with industry. This comes after nearly ten years of fits and starts. Early measures are being taken to quickly create a new manned fighter to expand the capabilities of the carrier air wing and give the Navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers new significance as part of the multibillion-dollar project to replace the Super Hornet starting in the 2030s.

The Navy established a program office for the Next Generation Air Domination plan, according to Navy Acquisition Chief James Geurts, who spoke with reporters last week.

“We’re working to outline that program and the acquisition approach and all that as we speak,” Geurts said. The Pentagon is struggling to react to a new defense policy centered on countering Russian and Chinese threats in the Indo-Pacific theater as the Naval Air Systems Command just established the NGAD program office.

The Navy officially established the Next Generation Air Dominance program office, or PMA-230, in May to launch the NGAD initiative. Capt. Al Mousseau was chosen to lead the program. Captain John Dougherty has since taken Mousseau’s place since he retired. The Super Hornet will still be essential to the Navy in the years to come, despite the move toward a new fighter plane. For the foreseeable future, the F/A-18E/F will continue to be the main strike capability from American carriers, providing a flexible and dependable platform for a variety of missions.

July 6, 2023 0 comment

Military

Black shield

by Till Daisd June 8, 2023

written by Till Daisd

The first of a series of Silverjavelin-coded long-distance, high-speed, high-altitude test flights took place on January 27, 1965. In about one hour and forty minutes, article Number 129 flew the 2580 nautical miles, with one hour and fifteen minutes of that time spent traveling at speeds more than Mach 3.1. Also attained were cruising altitudes of between 75,600 and 80,000 feet.

On March 18, 1965, the heads of the CIA and DoD decided to start making preparations for flying the A-12 over communist China. All of the Agency’s project pilots met the requirements for Mach 3 before the year’s end. Oxcart would never fly sorties over the USSR or China, despite this near-state of preparedness, due to political sensitivities surrounding the overflight conundrum. Then, where was this expensive national security asset to pay for itself? A covert project with the codename Upwind appeared to contain one potential immediate solution.

In 1964, a KH-4 Corona space photo-reconnaissance satellite captured images of Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, which some analysts thought to be an anti-ballistic missile installation. An A-12 would fly from the US into the Baltic Sea and meet up with a U-2, the latter of which was equipped to acquire electronic intelligence (ELINT). This composite mission was described in a highly classified proposal with the codename Project Scope Logic (with the confidential cryptonym Project Upwind). The A-12 would then travel north of Norway before turning around and traveling back south along the border with Soviet-Finnish. Before continuing west to the States, the pilot would travel west-southwest around the Baltic Sea, avoiding the coasts of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and East Germany.

The A-12 would need four aerial refuelings to accomplish the 11,000-mile flight, which would take eight hours and forty minutes. Although the high-speed, high-altitude target did not enter Soviet airspace, it was believed that it would cause Soviet radar operations to trigger the Tallinn system. High-resolution photos of the anti-ballistic missile site would be captured by the A-12’s Type 1 camera, while the more susceptible U-2 would remain out of range of the SA-2 and record the signal characteristics of the radar. Despite the idea’s backing from both Agency and DoD officials, Secretary of State Dean Rusk vehemently disagreed with it, and the powerful and covert “303 Committee” (which controlled covert operations) never forwarded the proposal to President Lyndon Johnson for his approval.

Cuba was another potential area of activity for Oxcart. Early in 1964, Project headquarters started making preparations for potential “contingency overflights” as part of the plan known as Skylark. Article Numbers 125, 127, 128, and 132, four of the thirteen A-12s now stationed at Area 51, were first designated as primary Skylark aircraft. Later, aircraft 129 and 131 were added to the group as a result of the installation of additional modifications. A consensus over the platForm vulnerability over the skies of Cuba, however, could not be reached during a meeting between Agency and government officials on September 15. As a result, it was decided that more research should be done.

Skylark was instructed to become operationally ready for emergencies by 5 November by Gen. Marshall S. Carter, Head of the National Security Agency, on 5 August 1965. Any emergency missions would have to be carried out below the A-12’s maximum capability (nearer to Mach 2.8) if security concerns required it. The aircraft would need to be deployed without its whole electronic countermeasures (ECM) arsenal in order to achieve this short deadline.

Although there was little time to prepare the aircraft, they were ready on the day specified by Gen. Carter with a restricted capacity. The Cuban contingencies were never used because, on September 15, 1966, the “303 Committee” decided not to send Oxcart on any reconnaissance missions to Cuba since they may be regarded as provocative and disturb the political calm that was already in place. Southeast Asia was now facing a more serious crisis, therefore it was given precedence.

On March 22, 1965, Brigadier General Jack Ledford briefed Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance on Project Black Shield, which involved the deployment of Oxcart to the Japanese island of Okinawa in response to the growing SA-2 threat that U-2 and Firebee drone reconnaissance assets were now facing as they were making overflights over communist China. Although the President would need to personally approve such missions, Secretary Vance was willing to make $3.7 million available to build support facilities at Kadena Air Base. These facilities were to be completed by the fall of 1965.

On June 3, 1965, Secretary McNamara met with the Under Secretary of the Air Force to discuss the buildup of SA-2 missile sites near Hanoi and the potential for switching out the vulnerable U-2s that were conducting reconnaissance flights over the North Vietnamese capital for A-12s. He was told that if sufficient aircraft performance was confirmed, Black Shield may fly over Vietnam.

After a maximum endurance flight of six hours and twenty minutes was accomplished on November 20, 1965, the Silverjavelin validation procedure was finished. During this period, the A-12 showed sustained speeds beyond Mach 3.2 at altitudes close to 90,000 feet. Kelly Johnson accepted personal responsibility for making sure that the four A-12s chosen for Black Shield operations were entirely “squawk-Free.”

On December 2nd, 1965, a formal request to deploy Oxcart operations to the Far East was made to the “303 Committee.” However, the committee decided that all efforts should be made to create a quick-reaction capability for deploying the A-12 system within a 21-day window at any time after January 1, 1966. The idea was swiftly rejected.

The committee received multiple requests to put the Black Shield Operations Order into effect in 1966, but they were all denied. Nonetheless, crew training and testing went on, and the time needed to deploy the A-12s was further shortened from 21 to 11 days. Bill Park flew non-stop 10,200 miles in just over six hours on December 21, 1966, to further demonstrate the aircraft’s ability to perform long-range reconnaissance operations.

Nevertheless, only 15 days after Park’s proof-of-range flight, another plane crashed, this time killing pilot Walt Ray, bringing tragedy to the program. On January 5, 1967, at 11:50 a.m. (local time), Walt took off from Area 51 using his personal call sign, “Dutch 45.” He had just finished the final 30 minutes of a routine training and test sortie when he reported that his fuel consumption was unusually high. He radioed that he was down to 7500 pounds at 15:22 and said, “I don’t know where it’s gone.”

He reported that he was running low on fuel 30 minutes later while near Hanksville, Utah, and one minute later declared an emergency. At 1556 hours, he radioed that he was 130 miles from his destination, had only 4000 lbs. of fuel left, and was using it too quickly. Within 30 seconds, he said that the engines were blazing out. Five minutes later, he reported that the fuel low-pressure lights had turned on.

Walt made his last radio communication at 16:03, informing that both engines had burned out and that he was ejecting. Just 70 miles from Area 51, Article Number 125 (60-6928) had run out of fuel. Walt was killed when he hit the ground after “gliding” to a lower altitude and doing a controlled bale out because he was unable to detach his parachute from the ejection seat. Both the loss of an excellent pilot and a highly regarded cast member was sad.

The book Lockheed SR-71 Operations in the Far East is available to purchase here.

June 8, 2023 0 comment

History Military

5 of the worst designed planes of WWII

by Till Daisd May 17, 2023

written by Till Daisd

It’s simple to forget that airplanes had only been there for around 30 years before the beginning of the Second World War. Since the science of airplane design was still in its infancy, no one was certain how future aircraft would look. There were countless failures for every Supermarine Spitfire, B-29 Superfortress, and Messerschmidt 262 victory. These are the worst aircraft of the Second World War—completely unmanageable, incredibly slow, and prone to explosion.

Blackburn Botha

The British government issued a request for proposals in 1935 for a three-man, twin-engined aircraft that would serve as both a recon and torpedo bomber. The Bristol Beaufort and the Blackburn Botha were the two designs that were approved. Nevertheless, the government changed the specifications before everything could be put into place. They now desired a four-man airplane. This required stronger engines, but they weren’t readily accessible. The designers attempted to cancel the project but were rejected.

The Blackburn Botha had to be content with its resources. Its two 930-horsepower Perseus engines and incredibly massive airframe were all it had. It had no rear windows, little side visibility, and lumbered around the sky at slightly over 180 knots. The Botha was as far away from a swift recon plane as it was possibly possible to be. However, in 1936, 442 were ordered. The Botha had earned a reputation as a deathtrap by the time the air war over Britain had started in 1940.

Even seasoned pilots had trouble controlling it, and a string of catastrophic crashes solidified its bad reputation. Despite being returned to training squadrons, Bothas caused much more harm there. 145 of the 478 dispatched to training squadrons crashed on land, and 24 were lost at sea due to engine failure. Many novice pilots and crew members perished while attempting to land the lumbering beast. The design was abandoned by 1944.

Messerschmitt Me-210

The Luftwaffe was facing its own design issues across the Channel. They were developing a new aircraft to take the place of the obsolete Messerschmitt Bf-110. The Me-210, the pinnacle of German engineering, was the outcome. On paper, it had all the right components: two powerful engines, a bomb bay to lessen drag, and cutting-edge remote-control weaponry. Yet as soon as the Me-210 took flight, the issues started. The experimental plane trembled violently in the air. It had a bad propensity of stalling out in turns and then entering a fatal spin. It was completely unsteady. This is how the second prototype was lost; the test pilot bailed off after concluding that the spin couldn’t be recovered.

Pilots eventually despised flying the Me-210 as more prototypes and design changes made no difference. Fritz Wendel, the chief test pilot at Messerschmitt, went so far as to say that it possessed all the least desirable characteristics an airplane could have. The project was hurriedly completed, and by April 1942, brand-new Me-210s were being delivered to Luftwaffe troops. The airmen detested the aircraft and usually thought that boarding one was about as safe as using a Panzerfaust to play Russian roulette. Production was stopped and a redesign was in motion within a month. In an effort to deceive the Luftwaffe crews, the Me-410 designation was given to the rebuilt aircraft.

Blackburn Roc

It appears that the Royal Air Force’s problems with the aircraft maker Blackburn during World War Two were endless. One of their fighters on the carriers, the Roc, proved to be so ineffective that it only brought down one enemy aircraft. In 1936, while British interest in so-called “turret fighters” was surging, the Blackburn Roc was created. These were fighter aircraft with a fixed mobile turret facing the rear that was located behind the pilot’s seat. Squadrons of turret fighters intercepting bombers and shooting them down with interlocking machinegun fire were how the air marshals pictured it happening.

For soldiers who had learned to fight in the static trenches of World War One, it made sense, but by the 1930s, the theory had become antiquated. Roc’s development nevertheless continued. It made its first flight in 1938, but it soon became too heavy, slow, and sluggish in maneuvers.

Alexander Ramsay, the Chief of Naval Air Services, attempted to halt the project right away, but he was overridden. As work went on, the Blackburn Roc was completed and prepared for battle in time for the Allied Campaign in Norway. German bombers were being intercepted by Rocs, which was flying out of the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. But it was here that a fatal design defect was found. The Blackburn Roc was substantially slower than German aircraft and lacked forward-facing guns, allowing it to only fire sideways or backward.

Combined, both factors made it impossible to engage in combat effectively. It was useless. A Roc was never successful in shooting down an enemy aircraft on its own. By the end of 1940, the Roc had been taken out of active use and dedicated to target towing and training. Some had their turrets removed, and when they were secured into the ground, they were very effective at defending against aircraft.

Breda 88

Yet, not every aircraft that performed poorly during the conflict had a poor design from the outset. In fact, the Italian Breda 88 held the world record for speed. What went wrong, then? In order to meet what many at the time saw to be completely irrational expectations from Fascist Italy’s Regia Aeronautica, the Breda 88 Lince was created in 1936. The men working for Mussolini desired a fighter bomber with a 530 kph top speed and a 2,000-kilometer range. This was quicker than any existing aircraft. The Italians were successful, and their prototype, which averaged 554 kilometers per hour over a 100-kilometer stage, broke the world speed record in 1937.

Later on in the same year, it set a new record by traveling over a 1000-kilometer stage at an average speed of 530 kilometers per hour. The Breda 88 was slated to be the next development in aerial warfare, according to fascist propaganda, which praised the accomplishments of Italian designers and engineers. And then it horribly failed. The plane needed to be laden with more than a ton of auxiliary gear in order to meet military specifications. The weight of the aircraft was significantly boosted with radios, weaponry, and ammo. This weight gain was catastrophic for a fast racing machine.

To make matters worse, when the aircraft landed in North Africa, Italian technicians added sand filters to the air intakes. This reduced the planes’ power by more than half, and some of them were so heavy that they were unable to take off. Italian ground crews disassembled their aircraft since they were practically unable to fly, then dispersed the parts throughout decoy airfields. An unfortunate finish for the engineering brilliance of fascism.

Me-163 Komet

The Germans were having trouble landing, especially with the Messerschmidt Me-163, also known as the Komet, while the Italians were having trouble getting their wonder plane airborne. It’s interesting to note that Hermann Goring’s 1944 Emergency Fighter Program, a desperate attempt to reclaim their skies from the menace of Allied bombers, did not produce this pocket rocket. Actually under development since 1937, the Komet made its first flight in 1941. It accomplished 1,004 kilometers per hour in October of that year, setting a record that wouldn’t be broken until long after the war.

A liquid-fueled rocket engine and the Komet’s lightweight design were responsible for its amazing speed. The “T-stoff” rocket fuel, invented by engineer Hellmuth Walter, was so reactive that it exploded when it came into touch with organic material. The Komet’s fuel alone caused numerous pilots and ground crew members to suffer severe injuries or lose their lives. Yet, Goring was prepared to pay this price in the closing stages of the conflict. Due to the Komet’s speed, Allied fighters were unable to stop it, making bombers vulnerable.

The Komet had just approximately seven seconds of fuel left before it turned into a glider. The pilot had only this amount of time to shoot down an enemy. As the fuel was used up, the Komet became a much simpler target. For the whole conflict, Komet pilots only claimed nine victories. Walter designed the Komet to glide exceptionally well. Maybe even too well, as a slight breeze might easily carry it out of its landing approach and into trees, a hill, or a structure. Around 80% of Komet pilots died while attempting to land their snub-nosed rocket aircraft.

May 17, 2023 0 comment

Military

First aviation delivered ground refueling by the F-35 conducted by VMFA-121

by Till Daisd May 16, 2023

written by Till Daisd

When alternative resources aren’t available, the ADGR gives VMFA-121 F-35s the option to refuel by C-130 aircraft in remote areas

At Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni, on April 11, 2017, American Marines from Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron (VMGR) 152 and Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 performed aircraft delivered ground refueling (ADGR).

The ADGR marks the first evolution of this type of refueling for the F-35B Lightning II stealth jets operated by VMFA-121, as detailed by Lance Cpl. Joseph Abrego in his article VMGR-152, VMFA-121 fuel capabilities.

The purpose of the training was to determine the fuel flow rates in gallons per minute from the KC-130J Hercules to the F-35B Lightning II aircraft in order to gauge how quickly the procedure would go in a practical setting.

“It felt great to be a part of today’s refueling, it was surreal,” said U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Lance Cpl. Keon Willingham, a powerline mechanic with VMFA-121. “Being able to participate in the first ADGR with the F-35 is something I can look back on and be eager to tell stories about.”

The accomplishment of the ADGR boosts the unit’s capabilities by enabling C-130 aircraft to refuel in remote regions when other resources are not available.

“I’m going to take away how multi-face this operation was,” explained USMC Cpl. Matthew Schoon, ordnance technician with VMFA-121. “We had to deal with different components from the pilot in a running F-35, to a running KC-130 and Marines from VMGR 152. There was a lot of communication, and I had to keep my head on a swivel the whole time. That’s something I’ll be able to apply in any situation.”

Even though the weather caused problems for the Marines in both squadrons, it didn’t prevent them from completing their responsibilities.

“The weather played a big factor in the training today with safety, visibility and communication,” pointed out Schoon. “Training with the engines on the aircraft still running made it very hard to hear so we had to use hand signals. The rain made visibility with eye protection difficult, so we had to ensure we were being thorough and making safety a priority.”

Willingham claims that the ADGR has been essential to enhancing the VMFA-121’s deployment capability: “Completing this training is a huge confidence boost for us. Being the first to successfully complete this training and being able to do so safely, gives everyone involved the state of mind that they can accomplish anything. We will continue to train, and we will improve anywhere we can.”

As previously said, the first U.S. Lightning II to be transferred to Japan was VMFA-121 F-35Bs on January 18, 2017. At the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni, the unit has now deployed 10 F-35Bs, and six more are expected to arrive this year.

Photo by Lance Cpl. Joseph Abrego / U.S. Marine Corps

May 16, 2023 0 comment

Military

After 20 years of war, the withdrawal from Afghanistan is now officially over.

by Till Daisd May 16, 2023

written by Till Daisd

The last US service member to leave Afghanistan was Major General Chris Donahue, who is also the commander of the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division

The photograph in this article was taken on August 30, 2021, at the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, and depicts Major General Chris Donahue, commander of the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, XVIII Airborne Corps, boarding a C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft. The US mission to evacuate American citizens, Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applicants, and vulnerable Afghans came to an end with Maj. Gen. Donahue’s departure from Afghanistan. Ross L. Wilson, the US’s acting ambassador to Afghanistan, was present in addition to Donahue.

According to US Central Command boss Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the final US Air Force (USAF) C-17, with the call sign Moose 85, actually cleared Afghan airspace on August 30. This effectively ended the American military’s presence in Afghanistan and put an end to the nearly 20-year conflict.

The last American military flight out of Afghanistan reportedly departed at 3:29 p.m. Eastern time, or 11:59 p.m. locally, according to Air Force Magazine, McKenzie said.

“I’m here to announce the completion of our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the military mission to evacuate American citizens, third-country nationals, and vulnerable Afghans,” he said in a press briefing.

The massive evacuation effort, which began following the shockingly quick collapse of the Afghan government, evacuated 123,000 people out of the country in the previous two months, including around 6,000 Americans, according to The New York Times. An early Monday morning statement from a White House official revealed that in the previous 24 hours, about 1,200 individuals had been flown from Kabul.

With last American Soldier boarding a C-17 Afghanistan Withdrawal is Officially Complete after 20 Years of War

According to McKenzie, there were no more evacuees in the airport when US troops boarded the final flight out of Kabul. Less than 200 Americans were still in Afghanistan as of Monday night, and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken stated that the US would assist those who wished to depart. He claimed that it was challenging to provide an accurate estimate because some dual citizens are torn between staying in Afghanistan, where they have family and lived there for years, and leaving.

“If an American in Afghanistan tells us they want to stay for now, and in a week or month or year they reach out and say, ‘I’ve changed my mind,’ we will help them leave,” Mr. Blinken said.

The State Department has at various points advised Americans not to enter particular gates near the airport because of security threats (not from the Taliban but from the Islamic State-Khorasan branch).

ISIS-K, as the group is often referred to, carried out a horrific attack on August 26 that left 13 US service members and a large number of Afghans dead outside an airport gate. In response, the US conducted an airstrike that hit a truck carrying explosives in Kabul and killed two ISIS-K planners.

Equipment had to be destroyed as American troops left in order to prevent it from falling into Taliban hands. 73 aircraft were also destroyed in addition to several armored vehicles and Humvees by the military—“most of them were non-mission-capable, to begin with, but certainly they’ll never be able to be flown again,” McKenzie said.

Photo by Jack Hol US Central Command

May 16, 2023 0 comment

Military

The 2017 CF-18 “Demonstration” Hornet by Royal Canadian Air Force

by Till Daisd May 13, 2023

written by Till Daisd

The Canada 150 logo is painted in red and white on the entire surface of the 2017 Canadian Forces CF-18 Demo Team

The CF-18 Demo Team of the Canadian Armed Forces debuted the impressive 2017 demo jet on April 4, 2017, after great anticipation.

The unveiling event took place at 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alberta, where the aircraft has been housed for the past few weeks, according to a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) news release. Along with local officials and military personnel, Captain Matthew Kutryk, the 2017 Demonstration Pilot, attended. Also present were the technicians and support staff for the 2017 Demonstration Team.

Everyone there got the chance to witness the 2017 paint scheme for the first time at the reveal has the aircraft completely painted with a red and white pattern that incorporates the Canada 150 logo.

A collection of diamonds, or “celebratory gems,” grouped in the form of the recognizable maple leaf make up the logo. Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are the four original provinces that made up Confederation in 1867, and they are represented by the four diamonds at the base of the flag. From the base, more diamonds protrude to add nine additional points. They stand in for Canada’s 13 provinces and territories together. The years of Confederation are depicted on the left wing, with 1867 serving as the founding year and 2017 serving as the 150th anniversary year. The official name of the event, “Canada 150,” is carried by the right wing. The design as a whole creates a genuine one-of-a-kind and appropriate tribute to this significant year in Canada’s history.

Thanks to a collaborative effort between 3 Wing and 4 Wing, which provided hangar space and support during the painting, the 2017 Demonstration jet was painted. 3 Wing donated the jet and technicians to realize the design concept.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces supported the Government of Canada in commemorating Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation by taking part in several events across the nation during the air show season.

The 3 Wing Bagotville paint crew (left to right) Corporal(Cpl) Jérome St-Jacques, Cpl Matthew Chiasson, Master Corporal (MCpl) Claude Houde (paint crew commander), Cpl Luc Chiquette, and Cpl Étienne Jean, pose for a group shot during in front of the 2017 Demo Jet CF188734 from 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron, at 4 Wing, Cold Lake, Alberta.

Photo by Royal Canadian Air Force

May 13, 2023 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts