• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The Raptors have landed...at Oceana

Mefesto said:
Good points, and a great read in the PM you sent me... but have we ever had to engage a foreign power, flying jets that we built, and know every avenue on how to exploit it?
Click to expand...

Not that I can recall and it certainly gives us an edge, but who knows what they have done with airframe and avionics since then...we do know they played around with mounting HAWK missiles in lieu of Phoenix.

The point is you can never go into an encounter thinking you have it won before it starts. It's as true in aerial arena as it is in sports...ask the Red Sox after their recent surprise.
 
I really hate to be the one to introduce this, but you guys are neglecting to mention (here, anyway) our angry workaholic friends that drive the gray boats. I'm sure there's little that can get airborne w/out AEGIS at least seeing it, and then probably helping in destroying it, dpending on how close it is to the coast. This would, of course, be on top of whatever assets were airborne at the time (stealth bird or thirsty insect, included).
 
gatordev said:
I really hate to be the one to introduce this, but you guys are neglecting to mention (here, anyway) our angry workaholic friends that drive the gray boats. I'm sure there's little that can get airborne w/out AEGIS at least seeing it, and then probably helping in destroying it, dpending on how close it is to the coast. This would, of course, be on top of whatever assets were airborne at the time (stealth bird or thirsty insect, included).
Click to expand...

AEGIS is a tremendous asset for defense of the CSG and ESG, but is typically too far away and limited by radar horizon to be a factor in power projection.
 
heyjoe said:
I have a slightly different perspective. Despite being a Tomcat legacy guy, I see the opportunity for the Raptor pilots to use the Tomcat as an Adversary* asset in light of fact that Iran still operates them. It would be even more ideal if they could set up against A models to get virtually the same radar and engine perfromance comparisons, but there is still valid training to be had against the more capable D model. The Rhino gave them some surprises at Tyndall, who knows what the Tomcat might provide and the Tomcat is far more likely to be a potential adversary (in Iranian service) than a Rhino might be.

*I have done that (back in the day) with VF-32 at Nellis (USAF paid the tab, too) in order to provide F-15C pilots with realistic adversary "presentations". It's all part helping the joint team hone its edge and and great time for the troops to let off steam courtesy the Air Force.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the majority of their Tomcat fleet was unflyable due to maintenance/training issues. Is this not the case? (I understand if this is an OPSEC thing)
 
heyjoe said:
AEGIS is a tremendous asset for defense of the CSG and ESG, but is typically too far away and limited by radar horizon to be a factor in power projection.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And I'm certainly not saying it's the panacea. But let's just go hypothetical for a sec. Let's pick a random region...how about the Korean penninsula. Hypothetically, one could position AEGIS on either side and would help detect, to a certain extent, classify, and smack down something flying from the landmass. Of course, this is all hypothetical, and certainly isn't meant to be the sole means of defense/offense. So, if you applied this make believe scenario to the GOO area or to the North in the Gulf, it seems to me to be a possibility. Besides, we know AEGIS can shoot something down from the sky, especially around Iran, and that's no hypothetical. ;)
 
MIDNJAC said:
I was under the impression that the majority of their Tomcat fleet was unflyable due to maintenance/training issues. Is this not the case? (I understand if this is an OPSEC thing)
Click to expand...

There was just an article in Combat Aircraft showing plenty of their Tomcats airborne and Air&Space is running an article on them in August so they're not gathering dust as some might believe. Iran had 79 delivered out of 80 Tomcats purchased so even after losing some in training and combat (like us), they have plenty of aircraft to rob for parts and claim to have developed capability to modify and produce some parts on their own. With the continued interest by Iran to obtain F-14 parts on the Black Market, they obviously are trying to maintain their Tomcat fleet longer than the US Navy intends to.

f14arabic.JPG


gatordev said:
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And I'm certainly not saying it's the panacea. But let's just go hypothetical for a sec. Let's pick a random region...how about the Korean penninsula. Hypothetically, one could position AEGIS on either side and would help detect, to a certain extent, classify, and smack down something flying from the landmass. Of course, this is all hypothetical, and certainly isn't meant to be the sole means of defense/offense. So, if you applied this make believe scenario to the GOO area or to the North in the Gulf, it seems to me to be a possibility. Besides, we know AEGIS can shoot something down from the sky, especially around Iran, and that's no hypothetical. ;)
Click to expand...

That's their job and they do it well, but that is only in that type scenario. Most aviators aren't too keen about AEGIS engaging targets anywhere near them. The same can be said about the sometimes computer trigger-happy Patriot folks. (See TB55's post)
 
heyjoe said:
That's their job and they do it well, but that is only in that type scenario. Most aviators aren't too keen about AEGIS engaging targets anywhere near them. The same can be said about the sometimes computer trigger-happy Patriot folks. (See TB55's post)
Click to expand...

Yeah, pray your mode IV is working 110% when the "Robo-Cruiser" is on the loose.

Brett
 
Brett327 said:
Yeah, pray your mode IV is working 110% when the "Robo-Cruiser" is on the loose.

Brett
Click to expand...

Yep, that would be them all right and that would be the crux of many blue-on-blues.

And just because Mode IV checks good on deck and with "the" ship doesn't mean they'll see you as a friend or their "robo" mode won't swap your ID with something they thinks needs shooting. I've even been talking to someone at one console (during workups) while someone else is engaging us at another console. USAF AWACS did same thing with 2 Blackhawks in ONW and 2 Eagle drivers that need remedial ID training (one was the CO) took them out believing their vector to be against Hinds.
 
heyjoe said:
The same can be said about the sometimes computer trigger-happy Patriot folks. (See TB55's post)
Click to expand...

Yeah... wasn't there a CAG-5 Hornet shot down in OIF?

And war with Iran... last thing we need is a repeat of the Vincennes...
 
TurnandBurn55 said:
Yeah... wasn't there a CAG-5 Hornet shot down in OIF?

And war with Iran... last thing we need is a repeat of the Vincennes...
Click to expand...

Patriot was responsible for two blue-on-blue fratricides in Iraq during OIF and received friendly fire itself. The Patriot launches against blue forces resulted in 3 fatalities, two in a British RAF Tornado GR4A, the other in a F/A-18 Hornet.

March 24, 2003 - A Tornado was engaged by the Patriot battery when the system automatically mistakenly classified it as an anti-radiation missile (ARM), which is a threat typically engaged automatically by the system. The flight path of the Tornado took it directly over the Patriot battery and battery had had left the "ARM classification" protocol activated, despite the fact that Iraq had no ARMs. It was determined that the Tornado did not have its IFF transponder on, which could have prevented the tragic engagement.

March 26, 2003 - The next blue-on-blue was a reverse situation when the Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) of a USAF F-16 Falcon carrying HARM incorrectly identified the emissions of a Patriot battery (trying to lock onto the F-16) as an Iraqi SA-2 battery. The Patriot battery was in position to protect the 101st Airborne Division's Headquarters near the Forward Line of Troops (FLOT). The F-16 fired an AGM-88 HARM missile, which struck directly in front of the Patriot Radar Set, putting it out of action. The affected Patriot unit was forced to replace its radar set with another unit in the immediate area. The replacement radar set had not fully undergone a testing period after receiving its PAC-3 upgrade/enhancements, and later the same battery was responsible for the fratricide of the F/A-18 mentioned below.

April 2, 2003 - A F/A-18 Hornet was engaged when it was misclassified as a TBM. The Patriot battery engaged the Hornet in an automatic fire mode after the software, in conjunction with the Patriot radar, incorrectly classified the aircraft as a TBM inbound for the Karbala Gap region, where US Army ground forces were currently operating. The Tactical Control Officer and Tactical Director failed to check that the speed and altitude of the track were consistent with that of a ballistic missile because they left the control van to take cover leaving the missile in an automatic fire mode and the aircraft was engaged with a PAC-3. A second battery almost engaged another aircraft but checked their fire.

I agree with an Army sponsored after-action report statement that said: "Every effort must be made to avoid autonomous fire units" and "Past exercises and tests run in SWA [Southwest Asia] indicate the percentage of aircraft that [are positively identified] remains too low. There are too many points of failure"

@Gatordev - maybe you guys have a secret handshake with these guys, but the fast movers and high, fast flyers are very skeptical of operating anywhere near them
 
@Gatordev - maybe you guys have a secret handshake with these guys, but the fast movers and high, fast flyers are very skeptical of operating anywhere near them
Click to expand...

I think we're all on the same page. No secret handshake. I hate dealing w/ SPY ships too. Some of the reasons are different from what you guys are talking about, but others are the same. In the end, they're still shoes, and therefore can't be trusted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top