air superiority fighter

5

Photo series #7

This photo series will bring a well known fighter jet, the fifth generation, twin engine, air superiority, stealth fighter, the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor.

Developed from the YF-22, the USAFs ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program winner, the Raptor is one of the most modern fighter jets in the world, although it was primarily designed for air superiority and as a replacement for the F-15, it also has ground attack, eletronic warfare and SIGINT (Signal Intelligence) capabilities.

Because of a series of high costs and lack of missions for it’s intended role, production has ended in 2011 and the last F-22 was delivered in 2012.

The first combat sortie of this fighter jet happened in September 22nd, 2014 when F-22s dropped 1000lb GPS guided bombs on Islamic State targets, in June 2015, it performed the first CAS (Close Air Support) of the aircraft. Although combat sorties are still somewhat slim, the F-22 has had an increase number of missions for ISR ( intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) gathering during it deployment to the Middle East.

Here are some of it’s specifications:

Engines: Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in the pitch axis (up and down)

Weapons:

 1 x 20mm  M61A2 Vulcan

For AA (Air to Air) missions:

6 x AIM-120 AMRAAM

2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder

For AG (Air to Ground) missions:

2 x 1000lb JDAM or 8 x 250lb GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs

2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder

2 x AIM-120 AMRAAM

It also has 4 under-wing pylons for drop tanks or weapons with a capacity of 5000lb.

Now of all of this is controlled by an AN/APG-77 radar with an AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector, AN/ALR-94 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) and a MJU-39/40 flare countermeasures.

And that’s it for this photo series, don’t forget to like, reblog and follow, there is a new photo series every wednesday and sunday.

If you have any suggestions, contributions or want to send a complete photo series, don’t be shy, send them to me and i’ll upload them!

3

A small but deadly fighter jet, the General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin) F-16 Fighting Falcon or Viper, is an all-weather, supersonic, single engine, multirole aircraft but it was originally designed as an air superiority day fighter.

It has an M61 Vulcan cannon and 11 points to mount equipment and weapons, it is such a versatile aircraft that is used by more than 25 nations apart from the US.

Another fact about the Viper is that it is the second most common military aircraft in operation only losing to the UH-60 Blackhawk.

If you have any ideas, requests or even photos you wish to send, don’t be shy, send them up and i’ll upload them!

Two U.S. Marine Corps F-18 Super Hornets depart after receiving fuel from a 908th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron KC-10 Extender during a flight in support of Operation Inherent Resolve May 31, 2017. The Super Hornet is capable across the full mission spectrum: air superiority, fighter escort, reconnaissance, aerial refueling, close air support, air defense suppression and day and night precision strike. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Michael Battles)

anonymous asked:

I want to love the F-16 as the ultimate air superiority fighter the world has seen, but, because of its intake scoop which makes it look like a ridiculously happy dog, I can never take it seriously.

Well fuck me…

4

One of the world’s most sucessful fighter jets (and also one of the most loved ), the Boeing (former McDonnell Douglas)  F-15 Eagle is the next one to be shown in the photo series.

The American, all-weather, twin engine tactical fighter design to gain and hold air superiority of a region, the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle, holds the score of over 100 victories to zero losses in aerial engagements AND is the only aircraft to score a kill on a satellite.

If you have any suggestions or contribution of plane pics (or even photos of your favorite aircraft) to be shown here in the photo series, send it to me and i’ll upload them!

anonymous asked:

JSF

The F-35 is an unmitigated disaster.

It’s a disaster because it’s over budget and behind schedule, which is totally unheard of for a big defense project.

It’s a disaster because it falls into the same fallacious line of thinking as the F-4 early in Vietnam (”we don’t need to dog fight, we have missiles!”), and as we all know there have been literally no improvements in sensor or missile technology since then.

It’s a disaster because as a multi-role strike fighter it can’t go toe-to-toe with a dedicated air superiority fighter.

It’s a disaster because War Is Boring and Foxtrot Alpha said so based on unclassified reports.

It’s a disaster because the program costs literally $1 trillion/year, I know because I read it on HuffPo.

Yep, total fuckin’ disaster. Worthless.

8

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine, all weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF’s Advanced Tactical Fighter program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities including ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor and was responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems, and final assembly of the F-22, while program partner Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems. he high cost of the aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile and lower cost F-35 led to the end of F-22 production. A final procurement tally of 187 operational production aircraft was established in 2009 and the last F-22 was delivered to the USAF in 2012.

settleforsecnav  asked:

But, their advantage is they risk nothing close to what we risk by sending in carriers; they can lose cheap missile boats and cruise missile trucks all day and not give a shit. But that sword cuts both ways Distributed Lethality is a way of keeping the risk to our carriers low enough...|So why still build supercarriers rather than CVLs or WWII-sized fleet carriers, then? Instead of concentrating the vast majority of the aircraft in the CVBG into a central platform, disperse it among many?

This has been suggested by many already - building carriers like the America-class LHAs; omitting the well decks and making them pure aviation-focused ships; much like the small carriers operated by most foreign navies. Just a quick google search brings up a few such suggestions:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-us-navy-should-build-smaller-aircraft-carriers-1600899834
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-carrier-gap-crisis-highlights-a-need-for-sma-1740644946
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/should-america-embrace-smaller-aircraft-carriers-14001

As you might have surmised by the names in those URLs, the idea is fucking retarded.

For starters, economies of scale are still king when it comes to ships - big vessels are just more efficient, pound for pound, at everything they do. This is especially true for nuclear propulsion, which is a lot cheaper to operate on a day-to-day basis (midlife fueling nonwithstanding,) and scales up well, but not down. A big carrier will carry more munitions, aircraft, etc. for less cost than two smaller carriers equaling the same displacement. But there’s also operational efficiency. Carriers are very crowded; they’ve gotten bigger and bigger over the years primarily to accommodate bigger and bigger aircraft. The more space you have on deck and in the hangars, the more efficiently more people can work simultaneously to push aircraft and munitions around. And bigger carriers will have more equipment to support such operations. They’ll always generate sorties faster and more effectively, and that’s the effective measure of a carrier’s firepower. There’s also the matter of defense. Carriers are inherently lopsided weapons systems; incredible offensive standoff power countered by incredible vulnerability to damage. Thus a carrier’s best defense is offense. Since big carriers have superior offense, they also have superior defense.

That latter point is linked directly to the large carriers ability to operate much more effective aircraft than smaller carriers. Consider the F-14 Tomcat, the ultimate in offense-as-defense. A purpose-built high speed, long range fleet defense interceptor with a purpose-built long-range anti-bomber missile, meant to out-standoff anti-carrier standoff weapons. Such a large aircraft - with its heavy missile payload - could never operate from a small ski-ramp carrier with its intended payload, and even if you built a smaller CATOBAR carrier, it couldn’t carry enough big F-14s to defend itself without cutting deeply into the number of strike aircraft on board, forcing a hard tradeoff. Ski-ramps are hard on aircraft; and they’re nowhere near as effective as a catapult, limiting the payload/fuel (and hence the offensive ability) of carriers. VTOL fighters simply aren’t as effective as standard fixed-wing - the weight devoted to VTOL equipment subtracts from performance, payload and range. The Brits had the best go at this possible with the Sea Harrier, an attack jet souped up for the air-to-air role - and as good as it was, it still wasn’t the equal of a supersonic-capable air superiority fighter. The F-35B is certainly far superior, but the F-35C is even better.

In addition there’s the question of how many different kinds of aircraft you can operate. Not everything on a carrier is a hot-shot jet fighter. For instance, the E-2 Hawkeye is a carrier-borne AWACS plane; it’s big and heavy and can really only operate off a big CATOBAR ship. I needn’t remind you how huge a difference AWACS is! Such aircraft are force multipliers; they make a huge difference to the effectiveness of an air wing. (The fact that the F-35 includes so much ECM/OECM/sensor equipment into the airframe itself, as well as the stealth that lets it operate much more freely in threatened airspace without support, is necessary to make the idea of smaller carriers replacing bigger ones feasible at all.)

Big carriers are hands-down a superior offensive weapon. The big trade-off is, of course, that they can’t be in two places at the same time. Some people have suggested this is a major advantage for the kind of wars we’ve been fighting in the last few decades; where we park off the coast and bomb a bunch of terrorist fucks with nothing but their limp dick and non-functional Stinger missiles to oppose our strikes with. They might have a point, but not when they suggest we should swap fleet carriers for LHAs - we already operate a sizeable fleet of amphibious assault carriers. The sensible thing to do would be to replace the aging LHAs with aviation-focused ones (such as the LHA America class, which is doing precisely this.) The America is LHA-6; LHA-7 is being built, and the Navy plans to revert to normal amphib assault ships with a well deck with LHA-8. Changing that decision and building more aviation-focused ships is definitely worth discussing. The Americas can carry 20 fighters apiece right now, which means you need three to equal a carrier air wing, but F-35s can do a lot of things requiring twice their number in older aircraft, and some things older airframes can’t do at all (which is why they’re so damn expensive.) America already has her cake and eats it too, with these two separate fleets - changing the equipment focus of one can significantly lessen costs and burdens on the other.

Of course people were arguing that back in the 90s too, when the amphib carriers only had Harriers and people were sneering at the F-22 as A Waste Of Money because The Cold War Is Over and We Will Never Have A Symmetric War Again. The F-35B is a game-changer, however; it can make amphibs a potent threat in symmetric wars and we’ve got the possibilities of such on the horizon. Some people argue that this makes aviation-focused LHAs a double threat; cost-efficient in the constant asymmetric wars, and a nasty asset that punches above its weight in a full-out scrap. These people have a point. Others suggest that they can actually replace fleet carriers, and that they’d be more effective at that role.

These people do not have a point. They are fucking stupid.

The trade-off with distributing your lethality is that you also distribute your defenses. That’s precisely why Fanta said “we ran the simulations, and we lost a lot of small boats, but we killed the enemy.” That’s precisely why you distribute the small boats - the ones most cost-effective to lose. That’s why China has eighty or so of those itty bitty missile boats - they’re cheap as hell. “Cheap” is not a term you apply to an aircraft carrier, even a “small” carrier. Small ships are simply less capable of defending themselves - they have less space and tonnage for their own defensive weapon systems, have far less aircraft for offense-as-defense, and if they are hit they’re more vulnerable to damage; they have less manpower for damage control and less reserve buoyancy (it takes less damage to sink them.) Worse, you have to distribute your escort ships - which means any one task force will be much, much easier to overwhelm with missiles. There’s a god-damned reason that “concentration of force” has been a key tenet of military strategy, on land, air or sea, since the first two Neanderthals teamed up on the asshole two caves over.

It only makes sense to distribute lethality - and accept the losses inherent in it - if you know for a fact you cannot beat the enemy in a toe to toe scrap. The Chinese are in this situation with America. You’ll note in that prior post that every time I mentioned an inherent weakness or problem for a carrier task force, I also noted that America had overcome it. That’s because we have the vast technological/industrial base - and wealth - to win that kind of big conflict decisively. If you have the qualitative edge, concentrating your forces multiplies that advantage, to the point where you’re much more likely to take no serious losses in a scrap.

There’s also the issue of co-ordination. The Japanese at Midway operated all four of their carriers together - so they could launch their strikes together, in a co-ordinated fashion. The Americans operated their carriers in two task forces, in part to avoid having them all found at once (i.e. distributed lethality.) As a result their outgoing strikes were poorly co-ordinated and straggled in piecemeal. The idea behind modern distributed lethality is that with modern cruise missiles, you can spread out your forces, but still concentrate force by firing all the missiles at the same target from many scattered locations. You can apply the same to aircraft, benefiting from modern satellite-based command, control and communications…

… unless you can’t. Electronic warfare is something the Chinese and Russians have not been ignorant of, and attacks on satellite infrastructure are not out of the question - especially given how disproportionately US forces rely on them for a force-multiplier advantage. You don’t even have to shoot them down - soft-kill techniques like upload jamming work well too, and let’s not get started on the potential of a high-altitude EMP burst! You cannot take these command and control assets for granted. The US certainly doesn’t; our GPS-guided munitions that don’t already have backup inertial guidance are slated to receive it with future upgrades. This makes concentrating your scattered firepower quite difficult.

Additionally, the US has a massive inventory of equipment and weapon systems designed for an entirely different doctrine. People think that the retirement of the F-14 and the rise of the F-35B means we’ve shorn ourselves of that equipment, so we can shed the doctrines that go with it. They forget our vast fleet of missile destroyers and cruisers, which were built and optimized for the job of air defense, specifically of a carrier task force. Our potential enemies, the Chinese, certainly don’t think that role is obsolete - despite investing heavily in an attritional distributed lethality model, they’re still building modern air-defense destroyers as fast as they can and doing their best to catch up to us in those capabilities. The Aegis system is designed to co-ordinate the weapons and sensors of an entire fleet to function as more than the simple sum of its parts - scattering those ships about plays to their weaknesses, not their strengths.

That doesn’t mean distributed lethality doesn’t have its place. The thing that makes carriers such lopsided weapons isn’t that they’re easy to kill - between their gigantic bulk and modern damage control/construction techniques they’re damn hard to kill. But they’re very easy to mission-kill. One good whack and the ships too big a mess to even think about doing flight operations. They’re easily neutered. In such a situation having an LHA or two with 20 F-35Bs apiece hiding in the wings could make a big difference in the fight; dropping a nasty surprise on an overconfident enemy. Distributed vs. Concentrated force in shipbuilding is a trade off between “lose some of your firepower permanently, or lose all your firepower temporarily.” Distributed lethality in naval aviation assets helps you hedge your bets quite a bit. And for the cheaper, lower-value assets we do have (and are currently building,) it makes great sense to use those to draw heat off the “big stick” of the CBG; they’re liable to be sunk, but in terms of how beneficial their efforts are to the survival of the Big Stick, which is an all-or-nothing prospect, its well worth the cost.

The Navy is implementing Distributed Lethality in a way which makes small, cheap ships achieve results well above their cost by supporting the efforts of the expensive primary assets. This greatly increases the survivability of those assets without having to give up their many advantages.

America is fucking rich. We can have our cake, and eat it too - and we should. But if we absolutely had to choose, we should go with the fleet carrier. Fleet carriers are Hard - in sheer industrial might and monetary cost, and also in operational use. But we are the absolute, hands-down best in the fucking world at it, and if it came right down to it, I believe the carrier battle group would prevail in a straight-up slugfest between the Chinese “defense saturation missile spam” attack, no new strategies or weapons required.

SUPER HORNET REPLACEMENT?

The US Navy has the F/A-XX program in search of a sixth-generation air superiority fighter to replace the United States Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet beginning in 2025

Swift as a hurricane wind and agile beyond belief, the aircraft of the Eldar are elegant killing machines possessing grace and speed impossible for the younger races. In battle, they embody the predatory hawks of the Eldar hunter god Kurnous, sleek and deadly birds of prey from whom escape is an impossibility.

For the craftworld Eldar, victory bought at too great a cost in lives is no victory at all. In order to minimise their own casualties while inflicting maximum damage upon their foe, their warhosts are assembled from specialised units and war engines that combine into a devastatingly efficient whole. This is as true with flights of craftworld aircraft as with any other element of the Eldar military; while Crimson Hunters are superlative air superiority fighters, and Hemlock Wraithfighters excel in ground attack operations, the Hawks of Kurnous are at their best when flying in support of one another, and of the craftworld warhosts on the battlefield below.

Though nearly always outnumbered, the highly ritualised air forces of the craftworld Eldar can dissect far larger enemy forces with apparent ease. Deployed according to the prescience of their Farseers and the martial mastery of their Autarchs, the Hawks of Kurnous tear through enemy defences with terrifying speed. Opposing aircraft squadrons are struck from the sky in seconds. Hostile infantry and war machines are torn apart by devastating attack runs. All the while, the Eldar aircraft seem little more than blurs, streaks of mystic fire soaring to victory upon the wings of war.

During the Vietnam War, the F-4 was used extensively; it served as the principal air superiority fighter for both the Navy and Air Force, and became important in the ground-attack and aerial reconnaissance roles late in the war.

Majestic generation.

A U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft returns to the fight after refueling during a mission over Afghanistan. The first Eagle flew in 1972, and the air superiority fighter entered active service in 1976. Since then, it has been exported to numerous US-allied air forces.

(Photo by Master Sergeant Andy Dunaway, 28 MAY 2008.)