2 hours ago, TEW said:

Eh, do you really want under trained pilots handling a $50-$100 million airframe?

US fighters are expensive to produce, expensive to operate, and take a long time to produce. And a big reason we do so well in air combat has a LOT to do with how many more hours our pilots spend in the air when we’re not at war compared to other nations.

You’re probably right about ground equipment, but air superiority is a really different animal and the stakes are a lot higher from a resource perspective.

The pilots are already trained pilots, they just need to learn the airframe.

F-16s and A-10s aren't exactly expensive airframes either, comparative to others.

One of the big problems that Ukraine has right now is they have way more pilots than they do airframes.

Plus them having western planes makes it easier for them to get western munitions.

21 hours ago, vikas83 said:

I'd think the Poles might be a bit cautious about ticking off the Germans. Just saying...

I get the joke but they absolutely love pissing of the Germans. 

Just for reference a USAF TX course (experienced fighter pilot transitioning to a new fighter) takes 2 to 3 months.  Then once they get to their unit it's around another month to go through MQT, which basically gets them spun up on that unit's particular missions and AOR.  Keep in mind they are going to a unit with established pilots and tactics, starting a whole new type with all of the pilots being inexperienced in the aircraft and its new weapons, then thrown right into combat would be challenging to say the least.  None of that addresses the maintainers who would take much longer to train.

26 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

Just for reference a USAF TX course (experienced fighter pilot transitioning to a new fighter) takes 2 to 3 months.  Then once they get to their unit it's around another month to go through MQT, which basically gets them spun up on that unit's particular missions and AOR.  Keep in mind they are going to a unit with established pilots and tactics, starting a whole new type with all of the pilots being inexperienced in the aircraft and its new weapons, then thrown right into combat would be challenging to say the least.  None of that addresses the maintainers who would take much longer to train.

Obviously I know that things that fly are on a level more difficult than my ground based brain can comprehend. (To me planes are a combination of Newton's Third Law, the Bernoulli Principle, and magic.)

What we have been doing on the ground is paring the ish out of stuff on our end and giving them what we think they will see the most of and then telling them to figure it out if they come up on something we didn't train for.

Is there a way to pare the transition course down to a point where, while they would not be as competent as a USAF pilot in the same airframe, that they would be more lethal in their airframe than the other side?

If not, since you have more knowledge than this on my end, what do you think is the best COA in terms of the UA air forces?

The TX course is pretty busy, but they could shave a couple or three weeks off it.  The MQT would be thrown out the window; the pilots already know their mission.  As I've said before what the Ukrainians are interested in are not the planes per se (leaving aside attrition issues) but the weapons they carry and the capabilities that come with that.  It would make the most sense to give them one type which can perform multiple roles.  That would obviously mean the F-16, which has the advantage of still being in production along with all those jets sitting in mothballs at DM.

To me the difficult part would be the tactics, specifically air to air.  Air to ground, particularly with GPS guided weapons, is relatively easy; get into the LAR, get a release cue, and hit the pickle button; although, there's a huge amount of mission planning leading to that.  Air to air with a launch and leave capability (the AMRAAM) is a wildly complex game though, which takes a long time to master and the Ukrainians would literally be learning it on the fly.  The other thing to weigh here is that the USAF has spent yuuuge amounts of money (LO, SEAD, etc...) to take back the medium altitude block for employment, while the Ukrainians and Russians are still rooting around in the weeds as if it was the Fulda Gap in the 1980s, because they have each been unable to suppress the SAM threat to a sufficient degree.  That complicates everything.

1 minute ago, Mlodj said:

The TX course is pretty busy, but they could shave a couple or three weeks off it.  The MQT would be thrown out the window; the pilots already know their mission.  As I've said before what the Ukrainians are interested in are not the planes per se (leaving aside attrition issues) but the weapons they carry and the capabilities that come with that.  It would make the most sense to give them one type which can perform multiple roles.  That would obviously mean the F-16, which has the advantage of still being in production along with all those jets sitting in mothballs at DM.

To me the difficult part would be the tactics, specifically air to air.  Air to ground, particularly with GPS guided weapons, is relatively easy; get into the LAR, get a release cue, and hit the pickle button; although, there's a huge amount of mission planning leading to that.  Air to air with a launch and leave capability (the AMRAAM) is a wildly complex game though, which takes a long time to master and the Ukrainians would literally be learning it on the fly.  The other thing to weigh here is that the USAF has spent yuuuge amounts of money (LO, SEAD, etc...) to take back the medium altitude block for employment, while the Ukrainians and Russians are still rooting around in the weeds as if it was the Fulda Gap in the 1980s, because they have each been unable to suppress the SAM threat to a sufficient degree.  That complicates everything.

I work with two ex-Hughes dudes, and they'd always say "fire and forget". Is it more common among pilots to say launch and leave?

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

I work with two ex-Hughes dudes, and they'd always say "fire and forget". Is it more common among pilots to say launch and leave?

Fire and forget tends to be a more generic term that can apply to both air to ground and air to air weapons and tactics.  Launch and leave is specific to air to air.

3 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

Fire and forget tends to be a more generic term that can apply to both air to ground and air to air weapons and tactics.  Launch and leave is specific to air to air.

One of them worked on the sidewinder specifically, I think, but yeah could be that the engineers just always used the more generic catch all term regardless of project.

1 hour ago, Mlodj said:

The TX course is pretty busy, but they could shave a couple or three weeks off it.  The MQT would be thrown out the window; the pilots already know their mission.  As I've said before what the Ukrainians are interested in are not the planes per se (leaving aside attrition issues) but the weapons they carry and the capabilities that come with that.  It would make the most sense to give them one type which can perform multiple roles.  That would obviously mean the F-16, which has the advantage of still being in production along with all those jets sitting in mothballs at DM.

To me the difficult part would be the tactics, specifically air to air.  Air to ground, particularly with GPS guided weapons, is relatively easy; get into the LAR, get a release cue, and hit the pickle button; although, there's a huge amount of mission planning leading to that.  Air to air with a launch and leave capability (the AMRAAM) is a wildly complex game though, which takes a long time to master and the Ukrainians would literally be learning it on the fly.  The other thing to weigh here is that the USAF has spent yuuuge amounts of money (LO, SEAD, etc...) to take back the medium altitude block for employment, while the Ukrainians and Russians are still rooting around in the weeds as if it was the Fulda Gap in the 1980s, because they have each been unable to suppress the SAM threat to a sufficient degree.  That complicates everything.

Can an F-16 TWS or no?

Based on what they have, do you think it would be feasible for them to say get F-16s to HARM the larger SAM sites and using A-10s with mavericks to target the smaller range stuff?

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

One of them worked on the sidewinder specifically, I think, but yeah could be that the engineers just always used the more generic catch all term regardless of project.

AIM-9 Sidewinder is an IR (heat) seeking missile. So you don't need to hold a lock with it like you would lock/TWS with an AIM-120. I mean you could break the lock, but the missile is going to go pitbull and the target aircraft is going to know it and start driving for denser air. Ideally you're in an F-15 with a TWS radar so you can sort of lock them up without them knowing you're locking them (most aircraft IIRC when you lock them it's a different radar setting so the other aircraft knows they're getting locked, while a TWS radar the computer can track the target without having to focus on on them, so the enemy just knows they're being watched but not targeted). So anyway yeah you lob an AIM-120 at them, your aircraft uploads corrections to the missile, and when the missile wants to it goes pitbull and starts pinging away with its own radar, and if that happens it's probably too late. There's of course other variables in it, too, but generally in a long range engagement you want to be flying high and fast (thinner air means less resistance for the missile, and higher launch speed means better range i think). Also if they're close enough to you, you're close enough to them, so you either need to launch and notch or launch and go defensive.

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Can an F-16 TWS or no?

Based on what they have, do you think it would be feasible for them to say get F-16s to HARM the larger SAM sites and using A-10s with mavericks to target the smaller range stuff?

AIM-9 Sidewinder is an IR (heat) seeking missile. So you don't need to hold a lock with it like you would lock/TWS with an AIM-120. I mean you could break the lock, but the missile is going to go pitbull and the target aircraft is going to know it and start driving for denser air. Ideally you're in an F-15 with a TWS radar so you can sort of lock them up without them knowing you're locking them (most aircraft IIRC when you lock them it's a different radar setting so the other aircraft knows they're getting locked, while a TWS radar the computer can track the target without having to focus on on them, so the enemy just knows they're being watched but not targeted). So anyway yeah you lob an AIM-120 at them, your aircraft uploads corrections to the missile, and when the missile wants to it goes pitbull and starts pinging away with its own radar, and if that happens it's probably too late. There's of course other variables in it, too, but generally in a long range engagement you want to be flying high and fast (thinner air means less resistance for the missile, and higher launch speed means better range i think). Also if they're close enough to you, you're close enough to them, so you either need to launch and notch or launch and go defensive.

Yeah, I know bud, I was just relaying that one of the guys who used to work for Hughes Missile Systems would still use the term Fire and Forget rather than Launch and Leave, even though his primary assignment was on the 9x. To point out that at least on the engineering side of things, they still called it fire and forget even for air to air missiles.

13 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah, I know bud, I was just relaying that one of the guys who used to work for Hughes Missile Systems would still use the term Fire and Forget rather than Launch and Leave, even though his primary assignment was on the 9x. To point out that at least on the engineering side of things, they still called it fire and forget even for air to air missiles.

Abra is writing all this down.  Russian intelligence isn’t what it used to be. 😝

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Can an F-16 TWS or no?

Based on what they have, do you think it would be feasible for them to say get F-16s to HARM the larger SAM sites and using A-10s with mavericks to target the smaller range stuff?

The F-16 had TWS starting with the C model back in the mid-80s. LINK  In any event, TWS is so twentieth century; AESA is the new hotness.  The Ukrainians are already carrying HARMs on their Flankers and Fulcrums, and unless they give them Block 50 Vipers with the HTS (very unlikely in my opinion) a "vanilla" F-16 wouldn't necessarily give them a better HARM shooter.  The F-16 can also employ the Maverick, so I would stick with a single type to reduce the logistics load. 

I know everybody loves the A-10 for the gun, but the whole rationale for the upgrade to the C model was to allow the Hog to do CAS the same way everybody else does it: hang out at 20k and drop LGBs and CSWs cued by your targeting pod. Using the gun is generally the exception.

 

8 hours ago, Mlodj said:

Just for reference a USAF TX course (experienced fighter pilot transitioning to a new fighter) takes 2 to 3 months.  Then once they get to their unit it's around another month to go through MQT, which basically gets them spun up on that unit's particular missions and AOR.  Keep in mind they are going to a unit with established pilots and tactics, starting a whole new type with all of the pilots being inexperienced in the aircraft and its new weapons, then thrown right into combat would be challenging to say the least.  None of that addresses the maintainers who would take much longer to train.

Yeah, I probably should have emphasized the logistical tail and maintenance more. Isn’t it something like 15 man hours of work on the ground for every flight hour?

45 minutes ago, TEW said:

Yeah, I probably should have emphasized the logistical tail and maintenance more. Isn’t it something like 15 man hours of work on the ground for every flight hour?

It varies by airframe, and generally follows a predictable pattern.  When new, an aircraft type is maintenance intensive as everybody learns how to maintain it and spare parts inventories build up, then they hit a sweet spot where parts are plentiful and everybody has a clue about how to work on it, but then as they age maintenance required goes up due to fatigue issues and the parts suppliers either move on or go out of business.   This is especially dramatic in small fleets (think F-117), where the parts suppliers typically drop like flies, because there's not enough business to sustain them unless you apply Munson's economy of chicken scale.  As a rule of thumb you can also assume an LO platform is going to require more man hours.

Buying spare parts isn't glamorous, but it's essential.  When the F-15 entered service during the Carter Administration, around a third of the brand new jets were sitting in hangars minus their engines.  The USAF was faced with a decision under the budgets of the time to either buy fewer jets and sufficient spares or buy the number of jets they needed, go short on the spares, and present Congress with a fait accompli.  Taking a cue from the Navy, they went the latter route.

 

a) The value of most airframes is either as a high level interceptor or a deep strike aircraft (given the capability of HIMARS).

b) Most 4th generation aircraft require large airfields that are easily identified by Russian surveillance and can be targeted by cruise missiles, if not adequately defended by Patriots, etc.

c) In the short-term it is easier to provided additional artillery and SAM assets as they are both more survivable than a fixed wing alternative. 

In terms of Air Force/Navy capability - until the F-35 can be produced in considerable numbers enhanced F-15EX/F-18 Superhornets should be produced to fill out force structure requirements.  Each has the capably to work in tandem with the 5th gen aircraft, typically as long range eyes/ data link for the stealth aircraft.

 

Now they're just grabbing men off the streets and forcing them to the front. Guess you have to have someone drive those Bradleys. 

Dead man walking.

 

Lololololol this **** is still keeping up the shtick? Lmao what a lonely life that loser must tead.

So much for NATO expansion. 

17 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

So much for NATO expansion. 

I see you still haven't shut your borscht hole like I asked 

 

Test

Arestovych has either found a soul or is larping the latest CIA plot.