| Author |
Message |
|
stobiewan
|
 Posted: Jul 10, 2012 - 03:08 PM
|
 
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jan 14, 2010 - 12:34 PM
Posts: 172
Location: UK
Status: Offline
|
|
archeman wrote:
The combat loss rate for F-111 against a low/mid tier opponent like Libya was 5.5% per mission during a surprise attack night mission.
That isn't theory, that is history.
Granted the defenses would degrade as your strikes against them continued in a sustained campaign, but you would still end up going home with half your inventory in about 30 missions, and that was back in the 80s.
How odd, the F111 managed about 4,000 sorties in Desert Storm, mounted against what was billed as the densest IADS in the world outside of the Russian heartland - without a single loss.
That's a bit more than 30 missions. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 21, 2013 - 5:40 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conan
|
|
Posted: Jul 10, 2012 - 03:58 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 - 08:23 AM
Posts: 964
Status: Offline
|
|
stobiewan wrote:
archeman wrote:
The combat loss rate for F-111 against a low/mid tier opponent like Libya was 5.5% per mission during a surprise attack night mission.
That isn't theory, that is history.
Granted the defenses would degrade as your strikes against them continued in a sustained campaign, but you would still end up going home with half your inventory in about 30 missions, and that was back in the 80s.
How odd, the F111 managed about 4,000 sorties in Desert Storm, mounted against what was billed as the densest IADS in the world outside of the Russian heartland - without a single loss.
That's a bit more than 30 missions.
Once the F-117's, Tomahawks and Wild Weasels had cleared the way for it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
river_otter
|
|
Posted: Jul 10, 2012 - 05:21 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Aug 18, 2011 - 10:42 AM
Posts: 176
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
|
| [quote="Conan"]
stobiewan wrote:
How odd, the F111 managed about 4,000 sorties in Desert Storm, ....quote]
Once the F-117's, Tomahawks and Wild Weasels had cleared the way for it...
But...but...but....the F-117 was a stealth aircraft with less than impressive airshow performances! It's impossible! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conan
|
|
Posted: Jul 11, 2012 - 02:46 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 - 08:23 AM
Posts: 964
Status: Offline
|
| [quote="river_otter"]
Conan wrote:
stobiewan wrote:
How odd, the F111 managed about 4,000 sorties in Desert Storm, ....quote]
Once the F-117's, Tomahawks and Wild Weasels had cleared the way for it...
But...but...but....the F-117 was a stealth aircraft with less than impressive airshow performances! It's impossible!
I know, it's funny how real world experienced differs so wildly from the opinions of "some"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spazsinbad
|
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2012 - 01:45 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: May 05, 2009 - 10:31 PM
Posts: 7839
Location: OZ
|
Australia to spend AUD153 billion on procurement in next four years By Julian Kerr, July/12/2012
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... 1065969512
"Australia is planning either preliminary or final approval of defence projects worth AUD153 billion (USD156 billion) over the next four years, according to the 2013-2016 Defence Capability Plan (DCP) released by defence minister Stephen Smith on 10 July.
The DCP is regarded as a key document for the defence industry. The latest version provides details of 111 projects but excludes a small number that are subject to national security restrictions.
As anticipated, the DCP delays several projects and drops others altogether. While confirming the acquisition of up to 100 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of up to AUD10 billion, initial operating capability (IOC) of the first squadron is set to 2019 at the earliest and a decision on a final tranche of about 18 aircraft is not anticipated before 2015.
However, the government will make a decision by 2014 at the latest on whether to proceed with the conversion of 12 of Australia's 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighters to the EA-18G Growler electronic attack variant at an estimated cost of up to AUD2 billion."
181 of 448 words Youse have to subscribe to read more. Interested? Go URL. |
_________________
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
|
|
|
|
|
|
redbird87
|
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2012 - 03:15 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Aug 11, 2007 - 09:00 PM
Posts: 159
Status: Offline
|
| [quote="river_otter"]
Conan wrote:
stobiewan wrote:
How odd, the F111 managed about 4,000 sorties in Desert Storm, ....quote]
Once the F-117's, Tomahawks and Wild Weasels had cleared the way for it...
But...but...but....the F-117 was a stealth aircraft with less than impressive airshow performances! It's impossible!
Evidently, the 117 became obsolete pretty quick, hence its sudden retirement. Of course, 15-20 years is the logical operational life that we should plan on for modern strike/fighter aircraft, rather than 40-50. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hb_pencil
|
|
Posted: Jul 13, 2012 - 05:53 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 18, 2011 - 10:50 PM
Posts: 541
Status: Offline
|
|
redbird87 wrote:
Evidently, the 117 became obsolete pretty quick, hence its sudden retirement. Of course, 15-20 years is the logical operational life that we should plan on for modern strike/fighter aircraft, rather than 40-50.
The F-117's limitations had much to do with its overall design and capabilities rather than its stealth, which was a product of its lean R&D. Its in many ways a cautionary tale for what you're suggesting.
Skunk works built a one trick pony that was really a manned cruise missile system; its avionics only allowed it get to and from the target area, identify it, drop its bombs and return. It possessed a rudimentary RWR (if at all), no radar or any other system that would add to its flexibility. Moreover it was notoriously difficult to maintain and upgrade. I don't think its low observable features were "compromised." Apparently it saw continual upgrades. They probably weren't as effective as they once was, but were certainly in excess of aircraft in its generation like the F-15, F-16. ect. By 2006 you had the first F-22s and the prospect of the JSF in the next ten years, so they decided to retire the aircraft.
15 to 20 years is extremely low for recapitalization. Its okay if you've got billions of dollars to burn, like during the cold war. However its not for our current situation. We're looking at F-16s and F-15s that will easily reach 30 years of operation. Sure they are not bleeding edge, but their flexibility allows them to play useful roles in a number of areas... unlike the F-117 which lived and died by its one strength. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
