Speed is also of importance. Dropping a ballistic weapon at 300 kt, 600 kt or 900 kt from same altitude makes a big difference.
Small diameter doesn’t for the showoff. It makes for a better aerodynamics and thanks to the improved explosive composition, similar effect at half the weight (roughly).
And like you say, kinetic at launch plays a role not to mention the superior range reachable or the doubled number if target that can be engaged at equal loads. All this is theory but it is a testimony of the actual trend.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-urged-to-approve-gulf-fighter-deal-1462580935
I am trying to imagine another country on earth paralyzed by indecision with three different orders in hand needing only a stamp of approval.
There are probably many underestimated details that prevent an agreement. Notice the total prices, also.
Why so aggressive?
?!! Not really my intention…
I fail to understand the logic in this. To alleviate the cost of a tactical fighter fleet, Finland is going to invest in space based assets to implement said so cheaper to operate UCAS that haven’t yet been fielded operationally? And this, in order to counter one of the top space developed power bordering the country?
Hummm, Let me guess, this was drafted after or before an afterwork?
Seems me that you are making things just a Littletoo easy there.
Nothing you say is per se uncorrect, so I’ll will not made a point by point reply (also because it is 6 AM there, I’m not been able to sleep much this night:sleeping:…because yesterday evening I’ve got the first date with former female officier of my dreams :):):):):)).
Let just say that IMHO, in the eternal struggle between shield and sword, you are giving to your own side sword a too optimistic credit.
Hehe, Congrats.
You are absolute right, this was a simplification from me. However I wonder if your last sentence was meant for me or if you inadvertently spoke to your self (I hope she didn’t shield too much 😉 ).
~s!
My guess is that it’s for bomber intercepts, or possibly hijacked airliners. MiG-31 intercepts unidentified aircraft, aircraft identified as hostile, too close for huge missiles with gigantic blast radius, so R-60.
And you’re working for the Ru minister of tourism, right? Not really a rejoicing perspective we have here…
R-60 is carried for
1. when a visual is needed like in peacetime
2. for self defense.
thank you!
(a lot of nation seems to partner on this one ?!)
Some pictures:
severed Rotor head
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245698[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245699[/ATTACH]
Mounting frame (Titanium)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245700[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245703[/ATTACH]
Rotor Head, MGB an suspensions assembly
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245701[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245704[/ATTACH]
Recovered rotor head
[ATTACH=CONFIG]245702[/ATTACH]
the
Flight testing the Australia’s Airbus KC30
“Airbus is working hard on building an autonomous boom where the boom will actually work out where the receptacle is and fly itself into contact.
This will ease the workload for the tanker crew, and provide significant capabilities to fuel new assets coming to the tanker, such as UAVs. It would be an important step forward.
If you have a good reliable autonomous system, then the boom operator is not tiring as quickly and so you can stay on station longer and enhance your persistence in the battle space.”
The LII preparing to test an experimental hypersonic vehicle
Thank you. Do we have any more picture of this baby? (notice the sharp edges).
Every fighter including the F-35 will be detected today. The question is just at what distance it will happen. But much more important is the distance something can be tracked by a weapons-sensor. To find something is much less demanding than to generate a final killing solution. Every active jammer will reveal your presence, at the moment it starts and it kicks back to you. Whatever is claimed the passive stealth of the F-35 is an advantage. The gains will shrink in the future but it still forces every opponent to field several expensive items to get the desired effect.
This is not true Sens. In Peacetime however, it is true that most system leave a footprint. The vocabulary specifies them as LO in comparison of those qualified as VLO. But you know obviously all this better than me.
In a war scenario, most systems that are able to guess at long range that a LO aircraft is flying in the vincinity will be rendered ineffective thanks to their inherent low power wave firms and physical vulnerability. Other counter weapons will deal with distributed radar sensing.
There is nothing today that says that Stealth will be countered on a significant manner by radar in a tactical war scenario. Just like old GW1, stealth assets will still pass through. It won’t be as much spectacularly “easy” and will certainly requires cooperative packages (hence the 35) in contrary to the single mission bird flown so successfully by the 117, but the end result will be the same.
And that day, you’d better fly one of those LO plane than anything else. But it’s up to you to make your policy insurance even richer… 😉
Maybe I should invest? Let’s call it Senseless, the life insurer for all stubborn pilots… A company endorsed by Sweetman and alike.
If what you say is correct it points toward a material defect. The spheriflex elastomer or the suspended titanium frame for the transmission box?
The Puma is generally deemed reliable in hot and desert climates.
The Su-24s were fitted with external fuel tanks. See images at following link.
ooops, my bad. An extra useless set of words. Thanks for the correction.
Tandem seating were introduced to lower front section and diminish exposure to return fire (uh1 to ah1). At the ages of standoff engagement, it doesn’t make it an absolute necessity.
The future platform will rely on speed with an increased engagement geometry (away from the straight dive). Hence, side by side introduces some benefits like increased crew awareness or coordination and better flapping margins for a better dynamic (no raised rear cockpit).
If Russia wanted to destroy the DDG they would have done it from stand-off range isn’t it ? No point in committing logical fallacies. No offense.
Yes let’s not let the technical aspect run over the intends. The Su24 were unarmed without fuel tank. A clear sign that there was no offensive intends for any Operators. There should be a man in the loop with that system. Nobody wants to wage a war because a software said so… (see that 80’s movie?).
On the video, the crew were expecting for the planes for what seems a comfortable amount of time (positioning, camera on and set etc…).
I don’t think this was really a good thing to do, but part of Ru political stand is to be the Uber counter US in the town. I hope that this type of incidents won’t lead to a silly competition with wanna be peers.