You are joking, aren’t you? Compare the length of each leg of Tamouré, & remember that they were one way, & unarmed. You’re envisaging flying a round trip, each leg of which is about 50% longer (without taking into account the extra distance to avoid overflying Brazil for half the route) than any leg of Tamouré (i.e. flying three times as far non-stop), & doing it armed – & you think that’s (1) possible with two tankers, & (2) would win a war. And you even propose burning even more fuel by going supersonic!

As I said, LOOK AT A MAP!

Swerve… look at the specs. The CF135 is a strategic tanker in the eyes of all… The Victor is a tanker only in the eyes of some.
The Vulcan forces was derelict in 1982.

This is why Britain needed that much of Tanker for a mission with nearly no kinematics constraints (no low alt ingress) or threat on the way in.

Look at the C130H missions. Did it needed that amount of support?

On the contrary to the V-Bomber, and with some sort of similarity with the more modern 130, the Mirage IV inventory was actively sustained at the time and the FAS (Strategic aerial forces) were actively looking for a modernized version in the form of the IVP.

So, I am not telling here that the IV and the CF135 force could hve sustained that type of mission days long. It might be that only a couple to half a dozen attempt would hve been doable in a what if scenario. But look at the effect of the Vulcan bombing. Imagine what would hve been the reaction of the population or high ranking military with the overflight of Buenos-Aires or Mar del Plata by such a vector.

But anyway, I don’t try to convince you. What is more interesting here is the disperency of effect with an old assets versus a Modern potent one. Just like the FraF are actually experiencing with the introduction of Rafale vs the 2K D&N and what other air forces might expect with the 35 vs 16.

In one scenario you makes ends meets. In the other the credibility of your assets might refrain an adversary. If the UK assets had not that much been slashed (carrier), the big What IF question is would hve the Argentinian Junte acted ? Perhaps the over-zealed reaction of UK at the time give an answer? And Perhaps, there is here some lessons to learn?

Here’s something quite interesting, in the first pic is Phazotron-NIIR’s naval AESA destined for warships such as the Pr.22350 class. The large grey box @ the top is an X-band AESA radar, the smaller, rectangular installation beneath is an L-band AESA radar (probably analogous to a naval ‘Nebo-M’), but the narrow ‘strips’ of antennae framing both AESA’s are described as ‘phased array radar channels for passive radar [signal] detection (i.e. EW):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]220554[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]220555[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]220556[/ATTACH]

Similar passive radar signal detection arrays are installed in a later incarnation of the ZhukAE (pic 2, in blue) and clearly visible on the example shown @ MAKS 2013 (pic3, thin yellow rectangular blocks). Obviously, these arrays are too narrow to be an effective transmitting radar in the conventional sense, hence this is the sort of set-up that could be synonymous with passive receiver based, multi-channel digital phase-frequency evaluation for EW.

Jõ, thx again for your informations
.
I hve thought a lot abt your recent posts and being out of the internet for some days has helped me to gather the puzzle in the right order.

I don’t claim the following is the truth but it is how I do see it.

I think as you that the L band passive radar on the PakFa works as receiver to detect and track the signal emmitted by other radar. Interferometry works by detecting the inter-action btw an object (material or flows) and and emitted signal. By “coding” the signal emitted you can detect on the passive sensor the information needed (X,Y,Z,t) (phasing).

This is IMOHO why you hve identified recently the “3D” terminology added to new radars. Basically those are radar able to emits signal formatted to get a spacial information to the receiver.

The great question that remained to me at the time was to know if those formatting operations done on the software or in the hardware. Going for the software adds a lot of signal processing hence add complexity and reduce overall performances, especially via range (the heat barrier effect (cooling) inducing that you hve to reduce the overall power to be able to compute and generate all the info). But the benefits of this solution is its flexibility, notably being able to reprogrammed the encoding signal to decipher any ECM solution.

Going hardware, digitally, allow you to reduce the power necessary to format the signal, generating it faster (hence flooding more airspace) and hve a stronger signal (hence more range). Given the vast airspace they hve to defend and the strategy of the Russian AF, I made my mind that the Russian industry had chosen this solution. The big question was how do they cope with the ECM threat?

And now comes your last picture…

So here comes my last speculation as-well. Those blue array that you hve identified are the hardware encoding devices placed both in X and Y and surface mounted to be readily interchangeable to ease the modification of the code. They are probably plug and play like devices, probably identical (a way of knowing if I am right here) and cheap to be expendable.

Thank you very much again for the quality of the info you have provided to us all.

OK, I’ll bite on a few:
-Argentine Lightning- worthless if based on Argentine mainland. Too short legged for Falklands coverage.
-Argentine Harrier. Would have been usefull if pushed to operate ashore at captured stanley, goose green or other forward airstrip. Aboard the 25 de Mayo, a useful land/ship attack platform, limited air defense. Roughly comparable to the A-4’s but with a wider sea state/wind operating limits. If GR1 model had limited air defense capabilty and hampered without radar. Would need vectoring from ship or land based radars for air intercept. French advantage in air to air.
– SeaVixen, as someone else stated, to big and heavy for the 25 de mayo, but in a what if world if the ship had been midified to take them, they could not have operated many off the ship and I would give the edge to the French Crusaders and Entendards. Missile/Avionics fit would have been key. If using old 1960’s UK radar and missiles, French advantage further increases.
-Argentine Buccaneer. Very usefull for ship and land attack. Good range. Good payload. This would have been a real concern for your French planners.

On the French side, a good force would have been available centered on FOCH and/or CLEMENCEU battle group. Crusader, Entendard/Super, and Alize would have decent all round capabilty. Good sub fleet, fair amphibious and support force. Much like UK, French Air Force would be a small player.

SeaVixen would hve been no match for the Cruzader. Even the SE could hve nailed them.

French had a two fleet carrier force. No doubt both would hve been tasked for the job.

Last but not least, at the time the FaF flew the Mach2 MirageIV with strategic capacity (CF135). No doubt that long legged mission from Senegal or French possessions in the Caribean sea would hve been launched as Recce to convince Argentinia junte to go back to the negociation table. I seriously doubt that France would hve charged into a conflict ala wild boar like the famous Brit’s PM did at the time.

My 2 cents only

I see nothing accurate about the above.

F35 is by no mean mediocre when total program is considered. Its actually a quite spectacular all things considered. Most people doubt there will ever be a program like F35 ever again.
F35 is currently underweight from what I’ve heard.
F35 is untested, this is just laughable there is a massive F35 testing program underway.
F35 is a PoS again nothing to support this not a single country has left F35 program and all information suggests the F35 is the plane that turns almost all non 5th generation aircraft into PoS.
F35 costs 180 million again is completely inaccurate cost most likely using selective intial production costs and willfully ignoring the decline in production costs on later built F35.
F35 current operating costs are stated as 20% higher then F16 that number is likely lower then Typhoon, Rafale, F15, and also any Russian 4th generation fighter.

The above errors are not just a few minor issues. its the ranting of a lunatic completely divorced from reality in regards to the F35.

A lot a ppl hve made their reputation by bashing at the 35 program. Things are going to be a lot more tense as much as the ugly bird reach IOP.

Tomcat, in case you didn’t notice, US-UK 1998 bombing of Iraq saw lots of attacks on Iraqi Air Defence system as well as HQs and even Presidential palaces, even though none of these were connected to WMD.

IADS: Yes
Presidential palace: Yes
HQ: some (related to the gassing op)

They might add power plant/runway/bridge that ran to the Elite quarters supporting the regime. This to bring them back to stone age and have a sense of the reality of what is happening elsewhere in the country + Presidential fleet/helos/Limousines/expensive toys

The real purpose of the attacks was regime destabilization.

Precisely not the case here. Nobody want it. Nor the Russians, Israel or the US. France hve expressed that it is her intention. But I doubt there is a real political backup of this intention. The Opposition and the Rebels are not ready.

In the ideal case, the regime elite (minus the perpetrator of the Sarin attack), kneels down toward the opposition (the rebels) and form a coalition government. Never forget that this mess started as a peaceful protest for social expectations.

( http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-civil-war-fast-facts/index.html?iref=allsearch )

[..]
Syrian action will probably be the same – they will pound the crud out of anything that they can, except the chemical weapons themselves due to environmental concerns.

I think we will be surprised.

The fallacy of such statements have been explained before… what is the logic of testing it at a lower weight , and then REDO the testing when all the systems will be installed. Some are only able to see YF-22/F-22 analogies though, which is completely flawed. Besides, you can bet the prototypes are heavily instrumented.

On another note, crickey they used 054 for the flying display ( the one with most of the avionics fitted, radar, OEIS etc -for those who don’t know) ! Any idea why there were only 2 flying today ?

Simply to go where it hurts progressively. Step by step. But IMO there is not much to debate here. We are talking abt peanuts for a Titan

Don’t forget that airframe weights probably less than an operational one (not all the systems are integrated)

Thanks Teer. Really interesting post.