plawolf…I disagree the US won’t touch them, they can touch anyone – except Russia.
getting urself confused or something?
are u suggesting that the US is somehow unable to strike targets in russia? dont be silly.
the US can ‘touch’ anyone on earth (including russia), but then quite a few of them also have the power to ‘touch’ the yanks right back.
the point is not whether the US CAN attack iran, but rather is it WILLING to suffer the consequences of such an act if iran has the ability to put something onto US soil and also probably nuclear weapons?
what could the US gain that is worth a major US city or two? the US already has iran and SA’s oild fields, (more then enough to keep the US going for a couple of gens), iran might call america the ‘evil satin’, but thats just chest beating and there is no intent on iran’s part to provock the US in any way other the verbal.
plawolfSo your reasoning is that one low orbit satellite makes you completely untouchable in every possible way?
as soon as u can put something in orbit, then that something can pretty much reach anywhere on the planet. should that something be a nuke…think u can get what im saying here.
and i never said untouchable in every possible way, note how i also said “well at least as far as there is no chance of the US trying anything to overthrough the current gov there.” :p
apart from ‘regeme change’, the only targets in iran worth the US risking all out war to attack is their nuclear facilities. and the point in that is to try ensure that no nuclear attack in carried out against CONUS. its a little counterproductive if the ‘per-emptive’ measure actually results in the outcome the US was trying to aviod in the first place dont u think?
plawolfI hate the term ‘network’ a little bit. But here it counts. The F-14 is/was one part of it only. I like the ‘Tomcat’ too, but it does not matter.
AEGIS grew up in the meanwhile and some other capabilitiesas well. So the importance of some elements, when it comes to the fleet- task-force AD-defence has changed. The USN decided, that the AF-18E/F with AIM-120* is enough to fullfill this task too. Over the open Seas IFF is less problematic and BVR works really, as for the Phoenix before. The sole operator of the Tu-22M* weapons-system is Russia, when it comes to the former main airthreat, but this is no longer hostile. Russia will not kick-off a war in attacking a carrier-task-force out of the blue. The USA sees no Nation around, which has the will and capability to do so. Around 7 years from now the F-35C will support/release the SH in that AD duty. Clear enough? 🙂
what on earth are u on about with AEGIS and F35s? :confused:
the original issue was weather the F14 was and still is a better AA fighter compared to the F18. it was and it still is, clear and simple, what else is there to say about it?
plawolfas soon as that happens, then iran is effectively untouchable for the US, well at least as far as there is no chance of the US trying anything to overthrough the current gov there.
plawolfhmm, seemed to have lost the poll (teleportation accident?). 😮
plawolfwell, from the amount of stars (and in extension planets) out there, i think the chances of there not being any other life forms in the whole universe are about on par with one person winning the lottery every week for his whole life.
the odds of there not being intelegent life is about the same as one person winning the lottery every week for ten years.
the odds of there not being intelegent life on par to us in terms of technology is about the same as one person winning the lottery very week for a year.
whether these other life forms are ever going to know of us or make contact with us is another question.
plawolfomg, where to start? all the legal and personal finance ones are totally crap and should be made illegal cos of the amount of disdress they cause, but the one that takes the biscuit is the winsil double glazing ads. that half bold bloke should be shot for inflicting that kind of agony on mankind! 😡
plawolfThe F-14 was a weaponssystem (AWG-9/Phoenix/E-2) to defend carrier groups against russian bombers rgmts with stand-off weapons (with nuclear warhead). The heavy Phoenix was limited to F-14.
Time changed, lighter long-rang AAMs/radars and threat of such attacks diminshing. Special threat gone = special F-14 gone, but after 30+years of good service. Smaller number of threats and more effective lighter systems for different roles at hand. Even the still to come Su-34 seems to special now.
But the old cold war bombers will stay for a while as vertisale high-load/range “bomb-trucks”, just not enough money to replace that with something new.
please, the F14 is widely accepted as being superior to the F18 (and especially the F18E/F 😀 ) in almost all areas related to AA combat and have been the USN’s primary fleet protector since it came into service. cost cutting and age is dooming the F14, not its capabilities.
go ask USN carrier captains how they feel about loosing the tomcats and u’ll get the point. :diablo:
plawolfPlease give an example of a detailed mission you are thought about.
The Su-34 is seen as a replacement of Su-24. Which itself never had a strategic role.
let me see now, nuclear cruise missile strikes on russia’s potential enemies. places like japan, china, SK, western europe, US pacific bases, hostile carrier battlegroups, maybe as far as even pearl (CONUS targets will have to be left for ICBMs). note the emphysis on potential.
in most likely scenarios, the Su34’s strategic potential will never be needed, but it is reasuring to commanders and polititions that they have a little flaxability should the unkinkable happen. its basically a similar phylosophy to strategic detterance.
also its funny to suggest that just because one ac cant do something, then its replacement wont be able to either (cos that’ll pretty much negate a ‘little’ thing called progress). the Su24 might not have been strategic material, but the Su34 definately has potential in that feild.
plawolfBut lets say the Su-34 was armed with a single LACM like for example Kh-101, and there will be quite a few of them in numbers, is there really that big of a need for such a missile carrier? How potent could a Su-34 be as a missile carrier compared to a Tu-22M_ that might carry a few Kh-101s, after all 5000km range is very long.
for one, i somehow doubt that there will be that many Su34s.
anyhow, ur question is a little too vage, what kind of missions are u thinking of?
plawolfreally depends on what u want to use them for.
for strategic missions the Su34 is probably alot better then an MKK or MKI in as its got better range and radar/avionics (well more AG oriented). but even then extensive A-A refueling will probably be needed to get the job done.
the ideal solution would be for the russians to design a new gen of long range LACMs which uses the newest engine tech (maybe also some stealth 😀 ), this should help to improve range and/or reduce the size of the missile.
for tactical missions (ie to take out a very well defended high value target), the advanatage is less obvious. u dont really need that long range for tactical bombing missions since the current LCAMs are sufficent as long range stand off missiles against well defended targets.
plawolfWhen you have a Tu-22M, why to use a Su-34/35 for that?
same reason for having multi-role ac instead of omi-role ones that perform each role better. (F14 v F18 in AA combat for example): to save money.
it costs a hell of alot of $$$ to keep all those cold war era strategic bombers perational, and their value is being seriously questioned, espeically in the cash strapped russian military. well, lets face it, the chances of russian bombers successfully delivering their nuclear payload against any of their possible targets is extremely low today already, and those chances will only drop as time passes. as for conventional bombing, well u dont really have to have strategic bombers, so ppl are asking :” whats the point?”.
IMHO, in 5~10 years time, the russians will probably retire the bulk of what strategic bombers they have left. newer ICBMs will be used to fill their strategic deterance roles, while the likes of the Su34 will help to fulfil the bomber’s tactical roles. in this role, the fullback’s ability to carry some of the heavier missiles and its superior range over the flankers is probably what won it the contract.
plawolfThat’d be cool if the J10 can hang 2 or more AAM on it’s forward or rear center hardpoints. With only 7 hardpoints on it’s wing and center fuselage, that’s only about 4 AAM with 3 fuel tanks. It’s too bad the J10 doesn’t have wing tips. Maybe Chengdu should do an F16 style conformal tanks upgrade on the J10 so it doesn’t need more than 1 fuel tank in the center. With over 12,500KG max thrust, the J10 should be able to handle it.
well, as the FC1 shows, CAC is not unfamilar with wingtip hardpoints, and probably opted out of it for the J10 instead of not being able to put them on.
a much more likely upgrade would be to just add two more hardpoints on the wings designed especially for AAMs (it will not need as much structural reinforcement as if the hardpoint was also design for tanks and heavy bombs). it doesnt really matter much whether its for IRAAMs or BVRAAMs, as the PLAAF’s best heat seekers (PL8/9)weights only slightly less then their BVRAAMs!
anyhow, im sure the J10 wont need three tanks on that many missions, and as A-A refueling is introduced more widely into the PLAAF, the J10 may be able to get by with only the centerline tank for even long range missions.
plawolfThey are cheap, and plentiful but you need a lot of dumb bombs for saturation bombing to work. Imagine flying hundreds of kilometers in a J10 or J11 to drop a few dumb bombs and all of them miss and they go home empty handed. That is pretty stupid I must say. A better idea is to use a large bomber like the H6 Badgers to drop a **** load of dumb bombs for a Chinese version of Shock and Awe. They may miss, but they definitely will strike fear into the enemy ground troops.
if J10s and J11s do carry dumb bombs, then it’ll most like be for CAS missions and not area bombing, even then it will almost certainly not be one bomb per pylon as in the pic, think more in terms of F15E style bomb racks. 😉
plawolfI don’t see how useful it is to attach 4 dumb bombs in the front and rear of the main fuselage. Using a J10 to drop dumb bombs is, well, just dumb.
Is it possible to attach 2 AAM below the air intakes, and/or 2AAM in the rear center of the main fuselage?
well, i think it is almost a certainty that the front two points will eventually be used for laser and nav pods (cos i doubt that even the most hardcore of the PLA hardliners will be that comfortable carpet bombing major cities in the event of a conflict). from the paper diagram, it would appear that the rear two could also be used to hang AAMs (maybe even BVRAAMs), but we need to see an actual pic of the rear points to be sure of that.
Sign In
