BelethorWe could turn our attention back to the threatened response of the Syrian/Iranian partnership.
Will they use any of their airpower to retaliate?
Will Iran move some fighter jets over into Syria to shore up thier defenses and if so could they be of use?
Could a handful of F-14’s moved over into Syria perhaps be capable of striking high value Israeli airborne targets such AWACS?
Keep it on the topic of airpower and it could be an interesting thread…
BelethorI
Pithy, i actually wanted them to shut the mouths of of their detractors. Unfortunately, they ( the authorities and those stupid idiotic ayatollahs) have embarrassed themselves even more. They need to get rid of the ayatollahs asap.
Even worse then this is the recent flight of the Iranian monkey saga – turns out that was all faked too. Photoshopped missile tests, fake S-300’s, fake space flights and now fake fighter jets, quite a list of propaganda failures to say the least.
BelethorWhat about using GPU’s instead of CPU’s to do the hard work? I see SAAB has been looking into as we can see in this link
I’ve no idea what it all means though as i’ve not had the time this morning to study whats been written in the link.
BelethorIrans joining in too now…
Syria ready to launch ‘surprise’ retaliation attack against Israel
Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, warned the “Zionist regime’s attack on the outskirts of Damascus will have grave consequences”.
Could Iran be willing to use conventional means to retaliate? Do their tankers still work and if so could they catch the Yanks off guard and fly through Iraqi airspace, through Syria and on to strike Israel? If tankers are a no go could they pull off a major coup and set up a covert refueling strip in the desert, kinda like in operation Eagle Claw only this time it’s in the Iraqi desert at an old airstrip or level strip of road.
BelethorThere is no right for any pre-emptive action defined in any law system
There are a great many legal types who would disagree with you though. It’s rare that i praise wikipedia but the section titled preemptive war is actually not too bad. On legality it states —
Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be ‘jus cogens’ (literally: “compelling law”, in practice: “higher international law”), and prohibits all U.N. members from exercising “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. But in the modern framework of the UN Charter, it is the phrase “armed attack occurs” in Article 51[37] that draws the line between legitimate and illegitimate military force. [27] From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive ‘self-defense’ has yet been made ‘legal’ under the UN Charter. In order to be justified as an act of self-defense, two conditions must be fulfilled which are widely regarded as necessary for its justification. The first of these is that actor must have believed that the threat is real, as opposed to (merely) perceive. The second condition is that the force used in self-defense must be proportional to the harm which the actor is threatened. When it comes to a situation where an armed attack is considered as a self-defense, it usually narrows realistic options for avoidance by nonviolent means such as negotiation, retreat, or calling upon higher authorities (such as the police or the UN). [38]
I think this is the most telling part —
‘In order to be justified as an act of self-defense, two conditions must be fulfilled which are widely regarded as necessary for its justification. The first of these is that actor must have believed that the threat is real, as opposed to (merely) perceive. The second condition is that the force used in self-defense must be proportional to the harm which the actor is threatened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war‘
BelethorPlease! Go and work out the difference and maybe you’d might just get a clue. :rolleyes:
No, you’ve simply failed to comprehend what was being said and that’s really not my problem but it is quite funny considering what was said was extremely basic and ever so simple to grasp yet somehow it was way beyond you.
BelethorA strange claim to stay polite. The US are infamous for such behavior at first. 😀
So what if the US do it too? What bearing does this have on anything? I’m sure many countries do it but that doesn’t change the fact that the French were playing a cheap trick but as i’ve already said if you can get away with it then fair play to you.
BelethorLet me step in with a definition:
Circular fisheye lens tale in a 180° hemisphere and project this as a circle within the film frame. Circular fisheyes available in orthographic projection models for scientific applications have a 180° vertical angle of view, and the horizontal and diagonal angle of view are also 180°. Most circular fisheye lenses cover a smaller image circle than rectilinear lenses, so the corners of the frame will be completely dark.Two circular fisheye lens placed in opposite direction provide 360° coverage. It’s a rudimentary version of the six lens on the F-35. Their placement on the sides of the aircraft results in a “boundary edge plane” slicing the aircraft in two symmetric halves. An object on that plane will be hard to spot due to placement on the very edges of the images coming from both lens.
We are talking about objects being directly in front, directly below, directly above or directly behind the aircraft. The ones directly in front are handled by the OSF, the other angles are disregarded with marginal threat.
Yes I see what you’re saying there. Still, by the souns of it its not really any sort of equivalent to EODAS as Big Blue claimed it was.
BelethorBull. Complete and utter bull.
Provide sources.
Actually it was fairly well known at the time (by anyone who took an interest in such things) that the French pilots who bought their Rafales to a Red Flag exercise several years back did their level best to avoid doing pretty much anything useful and productive. The reason for this was simple, they were not there to participate in the exercise for training purposes but for ELINT collection purposes. A cheap trick but they got away with it so fair play to them really.
BelethorGiven the recent performance setback regarding acceleration I have serious doubts about that.
I can see where you’re coming from but I woul think that once its up to speed it shouln’t have a problem staying there. Afterall we know it can supercruise like a near-clean F-16 does, that is of course a low speed supercruise but nontheless it can plod along at slightly over the Mach barrier without using burners.
BelethorAnd what about Israel? Does have Iran in this case the right to send couple of nukes on them. You know: self-defense?
If they feel a threat to their nation is imminent then yes it does give them the right to a preemptive strike, for example if they could prove Israeli subs or Jerico missiles units were preparing to fire under the authority of the Isreali government. But nukes aside they (Iran) are already striking at Israel via proxy methods that generally use terrorism as the favoured tactic anyway so it’s a moot point.
BelethorIt is not about the absolute number in top speed but about how fast the aircraft can get to its maximum cruise speed and how long can it sustain. F-35 suffers greatly in the acceleration area.
It’s also about being able to cruise at a respectable speed for shadowing bombers and airliners, airliners being something the asthamtic at altitude Tornado F-3 had real problems with sticking with when in mil power.
How the F-35 will fare in this respect is an unknown at the moment, probably no worse than an F-16 though would be my guess.
BelethorNot upset in the slightest. If there was an interest as you claim there was, it wasn’t significant enough for the RAF/MoD to issue a RFI to Lockheed Martin/DoD. Its not, or wasn’t “very strong” as you imply. Simply put… the RAF weren’t interested.
Good lord, i’d never have imagined someone could find the concept of unofficial interest such a dificult thing to grasp. I could tell you of a couple more aircraft types that sections (for want of a better term) of senior RAF personnel were also showing unofficial interest in but I wouldn’t want to give one an aneurysm in the process.
BelethorDDM-NG provides Spherical field of view with two sensors (fish eye lens)
I’m knida stuck trying to figure out how you give an aircraft a spherical view of its surroundings using only two sensors, be they fish eye lense equiped or not. It could just be where i’m tired and not thinking this through properly but this doesn’t seem right. F-35 needs six to provide spherical coverage.
BelethorThen they didn’t show any interest… :rolleyes:
As i’ve said (for the third time) it wasn’t official but the interest was there, a very strong interest infact. What I am curious about is that this subject seems to upset you, may I ask why?
Sign In
