dark light

Billy Bishop

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 8 posts - 211 through 218 (of 218 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Talk about radar technology. #2667253
    Billy Bishop
    Participant

    What kind of processing power is required in a modern radar? Why is it that there was been a huge increase in cpu speed, but only a modest increase in radar performance? For example when comparing the difference between the avionics of the F-15A which entered service in the mid 70’s, and the EF2000 which isn’t even in service yet.

    in reply to: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence modernisation #2667597
    Billy Bishop
    Participant

    I disagree with milduets, the serbian arms industry is fighting for its very survival, and this means they have to sell to absolutely anyone they can. Only when they gain a more secure footing, will they be able to be picky about who they sell to.

    In case anyone is interested, here are the military budgets of the top 50 countries for the latest year:

    http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersfy04.html

    in reply to: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence modernisation #2668390
    Billy Bishop
    Participant

    I know this is out of the question given Serbia’s current economy, but just for fun, how much would it cost to equip a country the size of Serbia with a complete modern integrated air defense system? Assuming that you would have to start from scratch because the current air defense are too obsolete. I assume you would need at least 30 S-300’s, a hundred Tunguskas, etc. Or maybe an American or French solution would be better? I would think the price would be in the $5-10 billion range?

    in reply to: Best bang for your money! #2674600
    Billy Bishop
    Participant

    Exactly! That’s what I’m talking about…

    As for the price of the F-16 and Gripen… You’re wrong, they’re not 53 million. Just because South Africa pays 53 mln/plane doesn’t mean every other country would. A different price is quoted to each customer, depending on the circumstances that the plane is bought under. The fact is that under certain circumstances you will be able to get F-16 Block 50’s for $35 million a piece.

    in reply to: Best bang for your money! #2674623
    Billy Bishop
    Participant

    Before we go any further let’s list the prices of the respective aircrafts:

    FC-1 – 8 million apiece
    F-16 Block 50/52 – 35 million apiece
    Mig-29 SMT – No price set, but I think 23 million a piece was quoted to a potential customer. Of course, if you already have Mig-29A’s, those can be upgraded to SMT and that would be much cheaper.

    Considering that you can buy 40 FC-1’s or 10 F-16 for the same price, the choice is obvious. The fact is that no amount of “combat-proveness” or “adaptability” or whatever else the F-16 has that the FC-1 doesn’t can make up for pure quantity.

    Also, you keep mentioning how the Mig-29 is dependent on GCI. Well, isn’t the F-16 kind of dependent on AWACS? The F-14 was the last American-designed plane which can operate independently, all later US-built planes were meant to operate only as part of an “offensive package”, and smaller/poorer countries, even if they can afford the F-16, won’t be able to afford all the parts of the package (such as AWACS), which means they will only be able to go to war together with someone like NATO/USA, they will be almost useless by themselves. Have we ever seen an F-16 in combat ALONE, without support by AWACS and other force multipliers? Not that I can recall, and I suspect that it is this “package”, not the F-16 itself, which is responsible for the F-16’s superb combat record.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you shouldn’t use force multipliers if you afford them, all I’m saying is that some countries can’t afford them. So is the F-16 still the best option for them in that case?

    Also I think the JAS-39 (at 35 million per plane) is cheap enough to qualify for consideration.

    in reply to: General Discussion #421440
    Billy Bishop
    Participant

    I think people should be allowed to use reasonable force to defend their homes. For example if the burglar has a gun, you should be allowed to shoot him. If he only has a knife, then you should be allowed to stab him. If he is unarmed, you should be allowed to hit him with your fists. I remember reading about a burglar who broke into someone’s house, got electrocuted somehow, and then sued the home owner. I don’t have any weapons in my house since I’m a university student living in a very small apartment with not much worth robbing. I do know Brazilian Ju Jitsu though.

    in reply to: Defending Your Home #1990063
    Billy Bishop
    Participant

    I think people should be allowed to use reasonable force to defend their homes. For example if the burglar has a gun, you should be allowed to shoot him. If he only has a knife, then you should be allowed to stab him. If he is unarmed, you should be allowed to hit him with your fists. I remember reading about a burglar who broke into someone’s house, got electrocuted somehow, and then sued the home owner. I don’t have any weapons in my house since I’m a university student living in a very small apartment with not much worth robbing. I do know Brazilian Ju Jitsu though.

    in reply to: Ur opinion on the World's most useless air force #2676572
    Billy Bishop
    Participant

    Ukraine is a good candidate, as well

    The Ukrainian AF operates over a THOUSAND aircraft. The fact that they can do this on such a low military budget (half a billion USD anually) is amazing. If an AF’s effectiveness is judged based on how much they can do with how little money, then Ukraine should have the best airforce in the world.

    What about Canada, they spend quite a bit on defence but have nothing to defend themselves from (any more).

    You’re right that we have nothing to defend against, but most Canadians (falsely) envision Canada as a big player in world politics, and so they feel that a good airforce for contributions to NATO/UN operations is important.

    Given their recent performances in combat (or blatant lack thereof, no matter what some idiots like Venik may dream up) I vote for either Yugoslavia or Iraq. A kil lratio of 1 to Most Of Your Airforces is not very good.

    That’s dumb. Considering the fact that these countries were up against a vastly superior force, it’s no surprise they didn’t really accomplish much. The fact is that both Iraq and Yugoslavia had respectable airforces for their size, and both (especially Yugoslavia) were regional powers and could kick all their neighbors’ asses.

    What about Saudi Arabia….when sadam came knocking.. well.. i didnt see them respond.

    Didn’t Saudi pilots score several kills against Iraqi aircraft?

Viewing 8 posts - 211 through 218 (of 218 total)