Won’t It reflect back like a christmas tree in a closet ? What’s the point of detecting if you are giving away ?

Nothing so far. But according to Int law the F22 had to close-in for the intercept.

Why towed ? And towed like a Troïka of Me110 during WWII ? Please, can you explain it better ?

What do you think regarding this :

http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/victim2.html

English not being my mother tongue , I need every interpretation possible (be aware it’s an horrible read)

2x F22 Intercept 2xBear, 2xIL76 tankers and 2xMig 31

On Wednesday evening, two Alaskan-based F-22 fighter jets intercepted two Russian IL-78 refueling tankers, two Russian Mig-31 fighter jets and two Russian Bear long-range bombers, according to Capt. Jeff Davis of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

he planes did not enter sovereign territory, […], they did enter the U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone west of Alaska and the Canadian

Latter Two Bear were intercepted by two CF18 in the Beaufort Sea

Events seems to Coincide with the visit of the Ukr President

Source:

CNN.COM

TomcatViP-

The videos you show are low altitude. The Iron Dome is intercepting low trajectory missiles that are coming in nowhere near 33K feet. The sonic boom is a product of speed, size, etc. The Buk’s missile is well big enough to be heard. One of the problems the video shows is when missiles launch the object reaches supersonic speed immediately and you don’t get the same sound, but the rumbling does last some time as it reverbs across the landscape.

You can guess the alt at which the interception took place by counting the time the puff of the missile hit took to hit the ground. Then considering an average sound speed of 1000km/h or 300m/s, a guess estimate makes around 5Km

This is why I linked the video of the IronDome .You can ear the level of sound that such an explosion makes at half the height (33kft=10km = 2x5km). Given the sound is an over pressure, you then have roughly a 1/4th amplitude at 2 time the height. Hence nearly nothing given what we can ear on the video.

Again, making a comparison on such a thin assertion is acrobatic but what can be concluded is that the sound reportedly heard by the witnesses were probably not that of the missile explosion or Mach boom.

Moreover, the US report state a miisle coming from the front of MH17. The Mach cone and trajectory might prevents it to be heard from the ground in the zone around the crash site. A due assertion of this point does not looks like a loss of time to me.

@Maurobaggio: a fighter breaking away is the most valid hypo that would come next. A fighter with as sophisticated ECM suite that can makes him look a like another aircraft and vanish away from an ATC scope. A fighter with a N shaped sonic boom….

But for now, this is pure fiction. First we have to concentrate on discarding the possibility that the double boom was really heard and that it can’t be from the missile 😉

Can & should do more, but don’t. And in the context of what I was replying to, that’s relevant. And I don’t know why you’re fussing about the C-295s, when Mexico has more VIP transports than the UK, Germany, France, Italy or Japan. 🙂

But my main point was that when your budget is limited, buying a handful of big, long-range fighters isn’t the best way to cover a big area. A larger number of aircraft can cover more places at one time. Too few aircraft & you have big gaps, however capable those aircraft are.

Brasil has tankers, & is going to have a pretty good tanker fleet when the KC390s are in service (& yes, I know they’ll mostly operate as transports) alongside the KC-767 MMTTs, which will enable Gripens (or Rafales, or F-18Es, or whatever) to cover pretty big areas when necessary.

Also, we should bear in mind that most of Brasil’s vast area is (1) sparsely populated, & (2) borders countries which aren’t able to invade. It doesn’t need much defending by fast jet fighters. Patrolling to catch smugglers is the main requirement. Nor does the huge EEZ need long-range fast jets to defend it. It needs MPAs & ships, mostly.

I think that any of the shortlisted types would have been satisfactory, & the Gripen will do fine. Brasil faces no current external military threat, & fast jets aren’t needed for keeping the Amazon basin & its EEZ secure from smugglers, illegal fisherman, etc. It needs fighters to protect high-value potential targets from hijacked aircraft turned into bombs, & similar threats, to provide an expeditionary force if Brasil ever feels the need of one, & to maintain capabilities as insurance.

I totally agree with that. And thx for the ViP fleet. Completely forgot the point in my argumentation. Mexico doesn’t need F15s. It needs F20 in large number (if those were available).

Regarding Brazil, I still think that the Grip was a good choice like you do. The good variable in the budget equation. But you are narrowing the Br strategy to what it was ten years ago.

Br must have realized that as an emerging eco power of significant importance, it has to face competition with a mil posture. Projection at sea is adamant. Juts like border ctrl and the capacity to stop any trouble right when they begin to occur, that is has to be inland or in a foreign country in their sphere of influence.

Libyans were operating 25 year-old SAM systems. Tornados, Rafales and Typhoons passed over the same SAM systems a few years back with no problems at much lower speeds.

Hmmm … In 1986, the 25 years old SAM were… 25 years younger 😉

Given that several F111 were hit and one was shot down, those SAM were a pretty valid menace in the eyes of the USAF to fly low right through the AAA threat