dark light

tomcat1974

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 207 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2229459
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    Now we’ve entered a rhetorical arena.

    We entered that area long ago…. Just see the rant Tu-160 had .. 😉

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2231024
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    Sure, because when I think semiconductors I think “Russia”… :rolleyes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year

    Still, this is big progress for Russia.

    Ouch…

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2253935
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    Mercurius … People don’t realize the amount of decoys are used in current battlefields … like ADM-160 MALD or ADM-141 TALD.

    It is not a simple scenario at all…

    Is any Towed decoy planned for F-35?

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2253941
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    You guys realize that is a long battle Rock-paper-scissor?
    Jammer doesn’t help against missile. Most modern Medium-Range missile have a HOJ mode. It will kill the jammer plan based on the jammer emissions .

    in reply to: Mig-31 as the ultimate fighter ? #2270961
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    Higher speed was another design goal for AMRAAM. Published speed figures are never very reliable, since they rarely specify launch conditions. But what we do know is that in proportion to its length, AMRAAM has a longer rocket motor that any AIM-7 variant. That means either a longer burn time or more thrust.

    Also you need to add into account the newer generation of solid propellant.

    US is usually making public a very conservative parameter for their weapons.

    in reply to: SM-6 Production Contract Awarded #1802942
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    will put a practical limit on the range that would be far lower than the kinematic performance on offer.

    I think that was always the difference between Russian missiles and US missiles.
    Russians advertised always the kinematic range even if the missile was a lost bullet at that Range.

    in reply to: Comparison F 15 E- SU 34 Fullback! #2399264
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    This thread went down the drain …

    in reply to: Naval LCA unveiled #2400272
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    watch out A-4Ks!!

    Oh yea, A4 has a huge market there 🙂
    Nice plane 🙂

    in reply to: Romania may go for "free" F-16? #2387007
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    Are you so sure LM bribed someone?

    Don’t they always ?(LM, EADS, SAAB,etc) All military contracts came with a form of bribery…
    All over the world..

    in reply to: PAK-FA Saga Episode 13 #2387501
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    Again, with AESA’s there is still only 1 beam at any given moment in time. The radar is smart enough to remember where each target is and it can prioritize targets but there is only ever 1 beam at a time. There is no constant beam on one target in that situation.

    AESA’s advantages are beam agility, but physics is still physics. The more resolution you want the slower the scan. That video is sale pitch nonsense. That radar is not in an LPI mode for sure. Its some some form of a fast scan mode so that resolution is not going to do against a stealth aircraft.

    Now I know that you don’t know what you are talking. What u described there is TWS mode. That;s 70’s radar tech dude.

    in reply to: Romania may go for "free" F-16? #2387513
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    joke relative to brasilian market.. they managed to have “a brasilian individual” start a prosecution against brasilian government for “non economical choice”, so, I guess they’d be able to find something similar in romania 😉

    In Romania? U dreaming. GVMT get what he wants… Hell the bribery in armed forces of Romania is a long lasting tradition. But then again all companies were ready to pay something. Maybe SAAB and EADS are pissed because they already payed for something 😉

    in reply to: Romania may go for "free" F-16? #2411732
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    @Kramer
    If you wish to talk about cheapest but efficient weapon, that would surely be MiG 35, they already have infrastructure and know-how for MiG29. .

    Not really … we operated the 18 29’s for 10 years . re haul was not done in Romania. and only one base operated them.

    in reply to: Rise of the Sea Gripen #2009094
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    Odd to think the UK is actually heavily involved in 3 competing fighters.

    Nope… just maximization of:diablo: the chances…:diablo:

    in reply to: Romanian bombs #2436766
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    I have very few data (almost nothing) on Romanian made bombs, so I can’t really explain which is for what purpose.
    However
    is pretty much correct, but some of these bombs were more or less modified compared to their Soviet equivalents – at least as far as exterior shape is concerned.
    Here’s how the designations translate:
    acronym – romanian – english
    B = bomba = bomb
    E = exploziva = explosive
    M = mina = mine (in Ro it has exactly the same meaning as land or sea mine)
    A = (de) aviatie = aviation or (for) aircraft
    F = fugasata = don’t know what it means, probably the same as “fugasnaya” in Russian

    so BA is aviation bomb, BE is explosive bomb (aren’t they all? :rolleyes:) BEM is explosive bomb mine – not sure what mine stands for, could be delayed fuze, and so on.

    I’ll be back later with some pictures.

    They also started producing Mk8x license copy.

    in reply to: Romanian bombs #2436769
    tomcat1974
    Participant

    You might wanna look here … http://www.ummija.ro/Ebombe_de_aviatie.htm

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 207 total)