I was just wondering, the hawks and alpha jets are fairly manoeuvrable, if you strip them of everything inside (like radar etc) and then use them with just a helmet cueing system and datalinks for situational awareness from GCI/AWACS (to substitute for radar), wouldn’t they then make excellent point defence fighters?
Wouldn’t they be more agile and be able to beat any modern and moderately loaded fighter in a dogfight? (example: a full spec F16C Block 50/52 with 2 JDAMs, 2 AMRAAMS and 2 Sidewinders)
Slobo,
Think of it this way, If the missile suddenly ran out of fuel at 50,000 feet and the target was 10,000 feet. The “empty” missile still has to fall, and no matter how thick the air gets, it will keep falling till it hits the ground. But in reality it’s still tracking, and if the target is a hot air balloon or a blimp (slow lumbering target) then the missile will probably still hit (having travelled as much as 40,000 feet in the vertical dimension and perhaps upto 15 kms in the horizontal one WITHOUT fuel).
Now if you put the target up at 50,000 feet, when it runs out of fuel and kinetic energy ,it will dip below that 50,000 feet mark and from then on, it can never climb back up and never hit the target.
I can understand asking Pakistan for night vision goggles and stuff but satellite images?
Am I wrong in thinking that only the P5 of the UNSC and Israel, Japan and India had satellites of sufficient resolution to be of significant use in CI operations?
I don’t want to be rude, but have you looked at either a map, or the strengths of the Indian & Sri Lankan armed forces? Sri Lanka can’t reach Bangladesh (with which it has no quarrels, & never has had any)
I agree, In fact Sri Lanka has never had any quarrels with any country whatsoever, these weapons will be used against the rebels and not for some fantasy invasion.
Well that certainly gets rid of an age old excuse……
Countries in part one were easy to guess.
I thought I had the ones in part 2 figured out as well but then got confused after reading the last part.
Drop me a PM and tell me who is A,B,C in part 2 if you have excess spare time……
Hilarious posts though 😀
What variant/version of the Hawk will the IAF operate?
On an unrelated note, is there any history behind the blue flightsuits of the IAF? Are there any other countries with flighsuits of colours other than desert tan and green?
And basically it’s a good idea. The men coming out of Annapolis (or any other) still think they are better, just because they had three years of theory and a white uniform. It really is more of a social thing than a military thing.
I would never promote a guy to the rank of officer from the green, only if he served with the troops before. Like in Napoleon’s army. In the military people should have to earn a rank, not get it awarded (which is basically the result of long peace times). If he qualifies for higher leadership in the lower ranks, *then* he should attend the academy, etc. Exceptions are technical ranks, which should really have their own scheme.
But it is like that isn’t it?
People who excel as enlisted personnel and non coms can become officers by going through OCS.
As for the academy officers, they have proven themselves by achieving a required standard. They got till college and got through the rigorous academic obstacles of the academy and so they deserve it.
They may not have the relevant experience upon graduation but they are expected to have a lot more potential.
The Su33 would be a new aircraft, distinct from the Mig29Ks, I doubt the IN would want 2 sets of fighter airframes on the carriers.
Also I was wondering whether it’s actually feasible to have a fighter aircraft as an AEW platform. The big Airliner and Embraer based AWACS tend to provide 360 degrees (or close) coverage, which means you can be in a set AO in a holding pattern without worry. The Helo based AEW systems may not provide 360 degrees converage (or can they?), but they can hover, so they can scan a particular area of the sky constantly.
But now a fighter based AEW system can neither hover nor provide 360 coverage, so when you are in a holding pattern, you’ll only spend maybe a 1/4th or 1/2 the time actually scanning the required area since you will keep turning away.
iojhrfwio
EWHFDUOEQWHFDQUIOEWH
Well said WHITE CLOUD, I completely agree with you :rolleyes:
On a more serious note,
Any sub collision theory has to be thrown out the window more or less due to the sheer size and tonnage of the Kursk.
It’s the biggest sub around, no LA class (or any other British/French sub) would survive a collision with the Kursk in which the Kursk itself was so badly damaged.
However it is still plausible that the collision was a minor one n then it set off secondary explosions (of torpedos or whatever) in the Kursk but not in the “Western” sub.
As for Manpads, well *shrug* I mean if they were really that effective, the whole world would dedicate those as anti-cruise missile weapons.. ‘technically’ speaking MANPADs could shoot down Su-30MKI. Things are more complicated than simply technical.
Cruise missiles are slow lumbering targets which do not take evasive action, do not deploy chaff/flare and do not employ ECM and other EW counter measures. If you see one, and you have a MANPAD on you, it wouldn’t be that hard to bring it down.
IIRC, The Serbs shot down ~27 cruise missiles (Tomahawks I believe) by flying adjacent to them in choppers while the door gunner blasted them with a 50 cal or whatever.
Developing a cruise missile is one thing, configuring them to be able to launch from submarines is another. It’s taken even developed nations decades to be able to do so effectively.
Of course, first you have to find a submarine with the necessary space and endurance.
Also you can’t just begin firing Land Attack Cruise Missiles at Ships and expect great results.
Ships MOVE. With Baburs current specifications, a ship can move close to 50 kms from it’s original position by the time the missile reaches the original position. I’m not too sure but I think this was one of the reasons why the Anti-Ship version of the Tomahawk is no longer used.
Remember the Indians designed the Brahmos as a AsHM and are working on a LACM version whereas the Babur has been designed in the LACM role as far as we know.
Moreover, din’t the Indian Navy induct some new point defence missile system(Barak?) which they tested successfully against every sort of subsonic anti ship missile in the inventory? IIRC,Chile and Singapore use the same system too.
A longer range radar is *generally* also more powerful, it will offer you more engagement modes, operational modes and is far more flexible, the range is one thing in the package. Of course this isn’t always true.
Also I don’t think anyone has mentioned this yet but the F-15 pilot can launch the Amraam anyway (even if he knows it’s not going to hit). The F16 pilot has no way of knowing that the opposing aircraft is an F-15 or that the incoming missile is an Amraam which won’t hit.
His equipment will only tell him he’s been locked onto and there is a missile on it’s way. His radar will not have detected the F-15 yet.
This will force the F-16 to go into evasive manouvering and bleed of precious energy instead of setting up for a BVR kill (going supersonic with your choice of altitude and angle).
All this while the F-15 will be setting up it’s own BVR kill for the next missile which will infact be in range.
Which two seater aircraft have the WSOs in front and the pilot in the back?
Any current ones?
Thanks
Isn’t that a Rafale then?
Seems like a description of the Rafale.
I assume it would be cheaper to just buy the Rafale off the shelf in such a case.
The UFCP is for inputting crucial items such as ILS frequencies, TFR height clearance, datalink frequencies etc so that the aircraft can communicate with other systems.
Thanks for that.
So where does the Rafale pilot put in all this information? The other 3 displays seem to be common for all.
The Rafale simply does away with the buttons by using touchscreens (the Eurofighter consortium considered them be prone to failure when used with a gloved hand).
Why is that? AFAIK the Rafale pilots use special skin tight gloves rather than the usual loose ones, and touch screens are used in the seat tv screens of most top airlines aren’t they? (like Qantas,Emirates,Singapore Airlines etc..)They seem to be reliable there.
Does the F22 have a center stick or side stick?
Whats that display in the EF and M2K-5 just below the HUD? (the HLD) , what does that show? If i’m right that’s the one the Rafale does not have and probably integrates it with the HDD for a larger HLD.
Thanks.