i wonder what if they can make the mig-31 stealth :eek::eek: , it probably become invulnerable

What kind of ram-coatings did you have in mind? 😉

There are some minor changes that can be done with the shaping but most of the RCS-reduction will have to come from composits and coatings. If there are composits that can be used in a new MiG 31 then it is a project we might see.

btw what is fuel fraction :confused:

Depends what the fuel is a fraction of… in this case I think they mean fuel per ac weight.

In the case of Gripen C it should be 2400kg/6800kg = 0,353, Gripen E 3360kg/7000kg = 0,48.

You could also count fuel fraction as how much weight (as in fuselage weight) can be transported how long with X amount of fuel.

In the WVR furball, everybody sees everybody else. And the air will be full of M73s, AIM-9Xs, IRIS-Ts, Python 5s, and AIM-132s. Everybody dies by mutual kills. Why risk your expensive jet in a furball knowing it won’t survive?

I agree to 90%, but kinematic performance does change some things along with the fact that few jets carry over 6 missiles.

Look down/shoot down radar made low level tactics obsolete. The best example is the Zaslon-equipped MiG-31 forcing the USAF to withdraw B-1B from the nuclear strike role. USAF later sent 30+ of their B-1s to the boneyard or museums.

In low level tactics against jets yes, not against SAMs that we currently are talking about.

The radar horizon is pretty short for ground based systems and actually pretty similar to the detection/tracking distance if you sit in a stealth jet at high altitude. So the only difference stealth makes here is that you can enter at higher altitude.

Drones are still superior since they are colder, smaller, better shaped and have more freedom when it comes to infiltration routes (longer endurance and zero risk for the pilot). Also cost plays a role as the drones are a lot cheaper (roughly 10-15 stealth drones per jet).

The nose might get the Emerson fitted APG-67 ( F-5G ). It is tiny.

You would call that useful? When it comes to Qaher it might fit if the pilot amputates his legs.

“only veterans will fly this…”

What were the circumstances under which Germany and Vietnam were reunited and how do they apply to Korea?

The vietnam style is invasion, the german style is “love conquers all”. I think it will be more like Vietnam.

The point is NK are not yet holding the machine gun, they are threatening but haven’t picked up a weapon yet.

I would say the difference is if the perpetrator is holding his finger on the trigger or not.

NK have the missiles, they detonated a nuke less than two months ago and they have cut all official diplomatic ties while threatening the rest of the world.

Ahmedinejad feels like a laid back and peace loving person in comparison.

No, I am merely comparing the scale of the destruction. There was nothing special about Hiroshima in that respect — only the means by which it was accomplished and (implicitly) could be repeated.

The Koreans suffered under American bombs as much as the Japanese did, and for much more dubious reasons. In this context, American concern for the lives of civilians is laughable. And as ground-zero for the demonstration of America’s concern for civilian lives, it is unsurprising that the North Koreans find the joke most poignant and least funny.

Look, Im not a fan of US foreign policy. But you are argueing about a division of a country that occured after WWII? Other countries, like Germany and Vietnam have joined since then. After all they have “only” had some 70 years to resolve the differences. The war you are referring to is one (out of several) clashes between the the eastern communist block and the westen allies.

All of those wars where dirty but they where rarely started by the west. Vietnam wasnt, the first Indo-China war wasn’t, the Korean war got real when North Korea invaded the south and so on.

Its only during the last decades that the US have lost the grip and started with pre emptive wars.

So the presence of US stealth aircrafts, like the B2 and F22, is a good reminder that the US are willing to commit to the same side as last time while China and Russia try to stay out of it. The best thing that actually could happen is that Kim Jong Un tries to attack and loses. That way Korea can be joined into one country and prosper like the south.

North Korea can’t even put up enough crappy equipment to match the amount of modern equipment in the south without US interference.

For instance we can look at the airforce.

If we look at supersonic fighters that are somewhat modern we have 40 in North Korea (MiG 29UB model from the 80s) and 229 in South Korea (60 F15K, 134 F16C blk 52, 35 F16C blk 32).

When it comes to legacy systems NK have 260-280 systems (MiG 21/J7, Su-7 (strike ac similar to MiG 21), MiG 23) while RoKAF have 238 (170 F5, 68 F4E).

And then both sides has a couple of short range subsonic trainers.

The tanks they have up north are pretty crappy as well.

To be honest I think the South should take action and free the cannibals up north.

Perhaps you should read up on the history of American bombing of Korea. Mass civilian slaughter was de rigeur for Americans in Korea as it was in Hiroshima, Tokyo, Dresden…

Are you comparing Hiroshima in the midst of the largest war in history with threatening to use nukes in relative peace time?

Just a quick history recap:
The nukes over Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the options that ended a fight that would have taken forever otherwise killing even more people. As much as I dislike the use of nukes I must admit that it was the best option for everyone (including the Japanese) in WWII.

The Japanese deaths in the pacific war (3 years) totaled at around 3’000’000 (roughly 1/3rd civilians), the nuclear bombings only accounted for ~200’000 (150′-246’000+). The “business as usual” would have prolonged the war a couple of years which should equate to another million or more deaths on the Japanese side and roughly 1-1,5 million allies + Japanese civilians. What would you choose? A total of 2-3 million deaths over 2 years or ~200’000 tomorrow?

Oh.. and they never threatened to use nukes. They just did.

Regarding NK:
How many lives have each side lost the last 5 years to motivate anyone to use nukes in the NK vs the rest of the world conflict? <20 people?

Kim Jong Un and his retarded policies made sure that over 10’000 people starved to death last year alone in North Korea. That is the blood he has on his hands. And now he has the stomach to threaten South Korea, Japan and USA with nukes? He is just like the Talibans minus Islam. If anyone should eat nukes its the North Korean regime, preferrably their own.

Hollow threats? Are we talking about the same chaps that have recently shelled Yeonpyeong and have been carrying nuclear tests?

Yes it’s the same folks. They have had some minor clashes but they have always avoided all out war since they know they will lose s bad.

Kim Jong wont launch missiles against Seoul or american bases as that would be the end of NK. Hence empty threats.

But at this stage I can’t blame anyone if they attack NK. Seriously, threatening civilians with nukes? I’ve only seen similar things from Al Qaeda.

(yes, many civilians will die if you have an inaccurate missile with a nucear warhead launched at hdensly populated areas)