dark light

BarnesW

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 331 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Military Aviation News-2015 #2165701
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Yemeni Scud attack kills 66, destroys 17 F-15s, 9 Apaches
    If Iranian news is believable…

    That must have been one lucky hit if it did, given their track record for accuracy.

    BarnesW
    Participant

    I know there’s been a few debates about whether the ASQ-239 does active EW, so here is the answer:

    http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system

    Always active, AN/ASQ-239 provides all-aspect, broadband protection, allowing the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars. The system stands alone in its ability to operate in signal-dense environments, providing the aircraft with radio-frequency and infrared countermeasures, and rapid response capabilities.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2015 #2165748
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Hope they bailed in time.

    in reply to: USN F-18 crashes near RAF RAF Lakenheath #2165750
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Yikes. Hopefully they bailed in time.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -V #2019183
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Surely all the instructions and labels would still be in Russian?

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2165753
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Quite frightening effects of thermobaric rockets fired from TOS-1A Buratino 220mm heavy launcher/flame thrower

    Apparently it’s a Smerch:
    http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2526615&postcount=13872

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2165778
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Better refresh your idea what Predators look like: http://www.ga-asi.com/predator-b

    Predator A is what you describe. Predator B went to common tail with Reaper.

    Predator B is a Reaper.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2166006
    BarnesW
    Participant

    And many of the munition used are dumb bombs, which have huge legacy stockpiles. The planes would be flying anyway, so the only real cost is the munitions and logistics. It’s not like an Afghanistan/Iraq NATO deployment and rebuilding exercise.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2166011
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Hermes 900?

    https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M08bed2e2aa5720954485e880a8ba4409o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=255&h=181

    in reply to: Paveway vs JDAM #2166038
    BarnesW
    Participant

    First off all, JDAM can recive new targets inflight from the carrier aircraft. The italians and the isralies have IR homing noses that can be pluged into Mk series bombs, I belive the US is looking into this to add it to JDAM to give it moving target capability.

    The main reason for the inefenctiveness of LGBs during Allied Force was the weather not the LGBs. Cloud cover was havy thruout Yugo and they will break up the lase, making designation dificult at best.

    It was also damn difficult for special forces to lase ground targets from cover though dense woodland.

    BarnesW
    Participant

    Only 10% of the German AF is ever operational, so I can’t see why issues that actually involve flying are even relevant to them.

    in reply to: Is innovation a good thing? #2166122
    BarnesW
    Participant

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan

    A ducted fan is a propulsion arrangement whereby a mechanical fan, which is a type of propeller, is mounted within a cylindrical shroud or duct. The duct reduces losses in thrust from the tips of the props, and varying the cross-section of the duct allows the designer to advantageously affect the velocity and pressure of the airflow according to Bernoulli’s Principle. Ducted fan propulsion is used in aircraft, airships, airboats, hovercraft and fan packs.[1]

    Ducted fans normally have more and shorter blades than propellers and thus can operate at higher rotational speeds.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2015 #2166125
    BarnesW
    Participant

    I think my point was that the source was ridiculous. Russia has only committed a relatively small complement of aircraft in the region purely for taking on Syrian insurgents. The suggestion that they’re somehow going to try exert air superiority over Israel with 4 flankers is bat-**** crazy in itself, even without considering the other possible ramifications.

    in reply to: If you could only choose one Flanker type.. #2166161
    BarnesW
    Participant

    Scenario:

    Lets say an air force, rather than buying specific type of aircraft for dedicated roles, wants to consolidate on one type to be used for multiple roles i.e. air policing, strike, maritime strike, etc (the way things are going). It prefers to use Flankers for whatever reason (think malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, etc), which would you consolidate with?

    Su-34
    Su-35
    Su-30SM/30MKI
    Mig-29M (why the hell not, its becoming a flanker now)

    I would cheat and say Su-50.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2015 #2166165
    BarnesW
    Participant

    It would seem kind of stupid to issue such a threat without committing a lot more aircraft first. I mean that’s a pretty nasty 400+ fighter airforce to be taking on with 4 Su-30s and some ground attack aircraft.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force#Aircraft

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 331 total)