sealordlawrenceProvided that they plan far enough ahead the new conventional tankers could be used by the RN. The 330MRTT will have a near 8000 mile range which improves the chances significantly of one being able to operate from a friendly base and to fly and assist any F-35 operations from the CVF’s. It wouldn’t be perfect but it would be an option.
The other important thing is that any F35b that runs short on fuel will be able to put down on the back of any nearby RFA vessels (they will all have large helidecks by the time the F35 comes into operation) or maybe even a frigate if desperate.
That makes the assumption that those decks will be able to take the F-35 which is a very long way from certain, if not highly unlikely.
sealordlawrenceI will…i guess…from henceforth.;)
So still nothing to counter the scenario I have put forward then? You really do look ridiculous now.:p :rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceAnd that is all you are going to get from him. Let him live in his fantasyworld.
:rolleyes: As usual you have nothing to post.:rolleyes:
As previously stated, I have provided a highly viable scenario for which neither of you have been able to provide anything to counter.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThanks for the links.
But i asked for evidence, not speculations, suggestions, suspicions based on a few satellite images…i thought we had already seen a lot of them (provided by CIA/Mossad) proving that Iraq had tons of WMD prior to the invasion.
So please some irrefutable evidence.
Sorry sunshine, but unless you can provide a viable alternative you do not have a leg to stand on. The fact of the matter is that I have provided a highly viable scenario which you are completely unable to refute in any way other than making absurd demands for ‘irrefutable’ evidence.
Ball is in your court, post something discrediting or stop posting.
sealordlawrenceI didn’t. I believe the same will hold true in the future.
Ther will always be quality and all kinds of other issues everywhere all the time. We are not living in a perfect world. Doing business (civilian or military) had, has and will always have issues, problems, headaches…
Yes. I said the same thing in my above post.
Here is where we disagree. Will the USA sell F-16s to Syria? would South Korea buy J-10s from China? and a gazillion other examples I can provide. Nothing to do with price, quality or service….pure political…definitly not a buyer’s market.
Yet their sales have been growing steadily (check the article I posted earlier). Which means that either:
a- It is more of a seller’s market.
b- The Russians are not as bad a business partner as some posters here want to portray them.
c- both a and b.Do they? check the country of origin of most of the goods you buy at your Wal-Mart and other local stores. Check the competitiveness of your big 3 automakers. May I remind you the sad story of the Winchester (civilian) guns plant that closed down last year etc.etc.etc. Believe me Sealord, for the sake of your own US arms industry you don’t want a buyer’s market.
Anyways, as I mentioned earlier, we have taken this topic off track. If you wish to continue to debate this subject with me, I suggest we revert to Private Messaging.
Yawn, you can provide extreme examples as much as you like, but if you look at countries like Greece, UAE, Egypt and India it becomes abundantly clear that you are wrong.
sealordlawrenceFunny, the Raptor and Flanker series are larger aircraft than the Lightning! Do you consider them piglets too??? Also, you may want to consider that during most Air to Air Missions the F-35 will fly clean. (i.e. internal weapons & fuel) So, how good does a 4.5 Generation Fighter perform with external tanks, stores, and missiles? Regardless, the F-35 will be a excellent performer within WVR’s Arena. Yet, it will rarely happen…………..First Look, First Shot, and First Kill!:diablo:
We used to hear the same thing about the Raptor until we got all the vieos of it doing the Flankers tricks, now those people have gone mysteriously silent on the subject.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThen show me the evidence that it was a nuclear facility.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21479058/
http://news.satimagingcorp.com/2007/10/satellite_images_show_syria_nuclear_site_attack.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/14/wsyria114.xml
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/26/syria.photos.ap/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302577.html
I do tire of having to do other peoples google searching for them.
The photographic evidence seems pretty clear, a target was successfully hit and since then it has been cleared up. As at least one of the articles points out the fact that it was so throroughly buried suggests that radioactive material may well have been involved.
sealordlawrenceI asked for evidence, not your analysis.
Is there any difference in their relations with Saudis and Turkey??? What did their mission over Syria achieve??? Was it worth Turkey’s anger/protest…one of the very few muslim countries with whom they have friendly relations?
The analysis was based on evidence, if you read the posts you would know that.:rolleyes:
If the Israelis destroyed a Syrian nuclear facility then of course it was worth it. Other than the official protest what else has Turkey done in response……nothing. So yeah it seems to have been worth it.
sealordlawrenceThere are only two points of contention here that actually matter:
1) The fuel tanks issue, as far as I know Syria has never claimed to have forced the dropping of the fuel tanks. Syria claimed to have forced the Iraelis to drop their ordnance, this is around the area identified by the IISS as a potential nuclear facility and is quite seperate from the fuel tanks. Furthermore the jettisoning of empty tanks fits with previous Israeli practice as underlined by the 1981 raid against Iraq. If that was not enough there is the fact that the tanks were dropped over Turkey not over Syria which is what would be expected were the aircraft ‘in trouble’ as some here claim.
2) That leads to the second issue, were the Israeli aircraft ‘forced’ to drop their ordnance or did they hit their targets? The fact that the IISS identified the area that it did and that it now seems to have been thoroughly cleared up, suggests very strongly that a target was successfully hit.
The fact that the aircraft got home safely after this operation and that Syria has made no retalitory response at all shows just how weak Syria is.
sealordlawrenceNo where did I find info that the Israeli aircrft eggressed through Syrian territory (south-West into Israel). Can you please show me a source you have :confused:
Never mind, disregrad my request above. This part of your post shows that you know nothing and your speculations are based on your wishfull thinking. Obviously you insist that the Israelis flew through the entire length of Syria. North-south or south-north does not matter. They must have done that, right?:rolleyes:
This report is all speculative and has as much credibility as your own speculations.;)
And we must believe in these very credible “independents” just because they conform to your wishfull thinkings and fantasies. The Syrian reports are just as believable as these “independent” reports.;)
That is the part no one is denying 😎
That part has no foundation or proof, could be the truth or could be your fantasy…you decide what you want to believe in:dev2:
You are casting a shadow of doubt on your own speculations. Good, that is a move in the correct direction 🙂
Back to you own fantasyworld :rolleyes:
No evidence or facts, what a surprise, I based my conclusions on sensible analysis you have shown no such thing. I suggest you go back to page one of this thread and have a read. Next time you post, shown some evidence or analysis otherwise you will look stupid…………again.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrencewell the sukhois already have datalinks because of which they are a pain in the wazoo to other fighters they tangle with in iaf exercises. they routinely share info for passive intercepts.
aesa has already been talked about by niip to india, you’re right.
even tho’ its hush hush on both sides and will come about probably midway through the mki production.all discussions apart, the mmrca wont be scrapped now, its a done thing. its taken a life of its own now and who knows which aircraft will be selected?!
Thanks for the data-link info Nick.
I was suggesting what should happen in the ideal world, not what will happen unfortunately.:(
sealordlawrenceActually the Chinese ASAT test was not guided. An abandoned weather satellite was chosen, whose path was known after which the ASAT was fired to coincide with the satellite on its path only. No tracking or guidance mechanisms were used.
That is the reason of Mr. Madhavan Nair’s comment that the test can be done by India also given that its rockets can reach the altitude. The International community also was not concerned about any new technological capability acquired by China, but about the debris that was strewn which could damage other satellites.It may be said again that the KALI-5000 is a microwave beam system and Not a Laser system. Its function will be to “‘fry'” the electronics on board satellites or ballistic missiles by collimating a concentrated EMI pulse of the order of a few gigawatts.
Yes it was, the impact was direct and required the position of the Satellite to be known and for the interceptor to hit it. I do not doubt that India could conduct such a test but it is not as easy as you are making out. The debris issue is just pathetic winging, research the Soviet US-A ocean recon satellites.
sealordlawrenceFair enough.
But where is the evidence to back up thios OPINION-not claim;)Ok. But didn’t Turkey lodge an official protest and asked for an official explanation??? Why did they drop their tanks on Trukish land? They could have done so while entering/leaving syria on syrian land…especially if there was no threat. Didn’t Israelis know that they were flying over Turkish Lands? Or did they drop their tanks in Turkish lands on purpose? If yes, what purpose? Or are Turkish playing some sort of game?
I have provided plenty of analysis to back up my opinion, unlike you who has provided none.
There is a precedent for this, during Operation Opera in 1981 the Israeli aircraft dropped their tanks over Saudi Arabia prior to entering Iraqi airspace once the fuel they contained had been exhausted. You have clearly not read my posts properly as I have explained why the Israelis would drop their tanks over Turkey, simply to have their aircraft in optimum shape for operating in hostile airspace, thus it makes sense to get rid of them before entering Syria. There is a very simple reason for not jettisoning over Syria, that is to avoid the kind of properganda that some here are trying to spread and that Syria initially tried to claim, ie that the planes were ‘forced’ to drop their tanks. I have yet to see any claim by the Syrians that the Israelis were forced to drop their tanks, only their ordnance and as already stated this refers the area where the IISS identified possible nuclear facilities and not the area where the tanks were found in Turkey.
sealordlawrencesealordlawrence, the above is accurate. MRCA is unlikely to provide any technology that is unknown or not planned for the Su-30 MKI, except AESA radars and possibly datalink capability.
Most airforces operate only 2 fighters of 2 different types, in sharp contrast to the highly inaccurate claim made by Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee report on Defence that and I quote, “..most airforces like to operate light, medium and heavy class of fighters….”
The USAF operates only 2 fighter types and the USN, only 1 type. The same is the case of UK, France, Russia Australia and even China, which is often sought to be emulated in most respects (it operates Su-30 derivatives and J-10 only other than older MiGs and derivatives).
Thus, IAF can also operate just 2 primary fighter types i.e. Su-30 and Tejas with older Mirages and MiGs, and the Indian Navy may operate the MiG-29 K and Tejas. This is similar to the US model.**Though offtopic, I agree with the above as some Akash batteries can be placed close to the border areas. Thus, Erieyes may not be able to operate at 20-25 kms at many parts along the border. A 20 km reduction in ‘forward-look’ may reduce its scan area by a few thousand square kms.
** Considering fighter planes only. This discounts transport planes, and in case of the US and Russia, it discounts bombers.
Both AESA and datalink technology could easily be aquired through a large scale upgrade program for the Su-30MKI fleet. There are currently 210 on order and I have no doubt that every radar house around would cut its own throat to fulfill an order that big. Indeed Tikhimov have reportedly shown plans for an AESA Irbis to the Indians.
sealordlawrenceNice, I always thought that an IRST was the one thing that the F-15 was always missing. The Tomcat was certainly a hell of a plane.
Sign In
