dark light

Srbin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,531 through 1,545 (of 1,678 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Underground Airfields #2656659
    Srbin
    Participant

    I think that could work, but that would require HEAVY training, just better to use something with short take off distances, kind of like the Gripen. It doesnt matter if the Pilots like to do it, as long as it it works well really.

    in reply to: The Royal Saudi Air Force #2656713
    Srbin
    Participant

    I am sorry but their pilots are poorly trained actually, most of their forces are not well trained, they need US and Brits to maintain pretty much all of their AF, take out those technicians and RSAF is doomed. Saudi Arabia does what ever the US wants it to do, hell they even needed permission to put their F-15s at one of their bases in North Western Saudi Arabia close to Israel, it’s pathetic.

    in reply to: Underground Airfields #2656722
    Srbin
    Participant

    Yes I too like the Swedish way of using small airfields or roads to take off with mobile support crews, however I think this could work in a small country too but you need a good fighter able to take off at short distances.

    I also dont think VTOL is a solution, maybe if Yak-141 came into service but otherwise nothing better out there than the F-35C.

    For underground airfields I dont think the ventilations are a problem, hell you can even hide SAMs around there but the problem would be the cost of contructing a large underground runaway that partially opens up and planes take off. It would have to be partially diagonal but the problem would be for planes to land back on a diagonal angled runaway. Another way you could do it is have it built into a mountain or something so that when the plane is taking off and landing it lands on a flat runaway that comes out of a mountain.

    in reply to: Build your own Airforce, Airdefense, Training, Tactics #2657102
    Srbin
    Participant

    well the hardware wont cost over 5 billion, 1.5 billion for the MiGs, max of 2 billion for transports, NH90s, Super Tucanos and Yak-130s. Max of 800 million for the Airdefense systems, and the rest for airfields.

    in reply to: Underground Airfields #2657106
    Srbin
    Participant

    Ask the Americans if they’ve found them so far. Cant it be structured in a position where the airfield is completely underground, then once the Aircraft is brought to surface it takes off from a normal runaway. I mean can’t you camouflage it? Camouflage proved to be very good in Kosovo, and it worked because many times NATO hit camouflaged tanks etc.

    As for AWACS detecting the Aircraft, why not have the airfield in between mountains or something where they cannot detect it easily.

    And how about to hide some sort of SAMs nearby such as Tor M1 and camouflage them too to destroy cruise missiles and such!(they are small and not hard to hide!)

    As for the ventilation, well sure there will be a lot of heat but can’t it be guided through large ventilation tunnels far away?

    I know this would be expensive but I think it would be good and very useful to do, when you can operate your aircraft without having to worry about your Airfields.

    in reply to: Build your own Airforce, Airdefense, Training, Tactics #2657113
    Srbin
    Participant

    Well not guerillas or rebels or any of that sort. Just something any country would want. This is a good AF to defend your country from anything.

    in reply to: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence modernisation #2657432
    Srbin
    Participant

    Originally posted by Viper01
    Are you sure about this?

    Yahh are you? I wasn’t aware that Croatia even had any G-4s.

    Srbin
    Participant

    Originally posted by Indian1973
    in the next few years indian army will first add about 50-100 armed Dhruv helicopters – 4 nag ATGMs (with infra red imaging seeker – fire n forget), 3-barrel gun under nose, night vision. in
    the light anti armour role. Nag has a range of 4km and is top-attack once beyond 1km. it has already cleared user trials.

    in 5 years the LCH which HAL is presently working on will appear.
    it is a tandem-two seat derivative of Dhruv and was shown in
    crude form last year in bangalore defexpo03. looks like a rooivalk / tigre style dedicated attack chopper. the armanent will likely be the same but will be more armoured, nimble and survivable, having some israeli avionics . again around 200+ are likely to be ordered because army has 20 divisions and each
    needs some, strike divisions need more.

    the Mi35s will be retired within the next decade. Alouette-IIIs
    are long in tooth and will all be gone. Mi17V armed with the
    Vikhr atgms(iirc) are coming in quantity now.

    thats the comparison going fwd. Mi17V in medium logistics and
    hi-altitude attack, Dhruv and LCH-Dhruv for light logistics and
    gunship. a new LOH(light observation heli) tender is out to
    vendors for license making a light helicopter for scouting duties
    (kinda like kiowa warrior?).

    old UH-1s, AH-1s and unarmed MI17s do not look impressive
    in comparison today and certainly not in future.

    Pak needs to get modern helicopters to have any hope of matching indian quality and quantity. I suggest something like
    Rooivalk + AH1Z in attack role with latest hellfire ATGMS and
    loads and loads of Mi17 to improve their weak logistics.

    but they dont have the budget for it from internal resources
    and USA doesnt seem interested in lavish aid packages lately,
    just loan bailouts and reschedules.

    who gives a **** moron? This is a thread about “PAF Geting 4 helicopters frm Russia” not about Indian hardware, seriously dont bring it up

    in reply to: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence modernisation #2659564
    Srbin
    Participant

    WOW only 13? I thought it was going to be something like from anywhere from 50-300 not 13!

    in reply to: anyone have pics of the original Japanese FS-X? #2660077
    Srbin
    Participant

    wow looks like an F-15 with canards

    in reply to: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence modernisation #2660093
    Srbin
    Participant

    Yes during the war NATO too spread tons of propaganda, claimed they destroyed thousands of tanks, but in reality very few.

    in reply to: Serbian Air Force and Air Defence modernisation #2660209
    Srbin
    Participant

    Originally posted by Srbin
    I agree with Garry just making them think that we have them will make them thinktwice. But I still wouldn’t trust NATO, I’d rather have something to back up the thole chemical/biological weapons theory, I’d have a strong mobile SAM defenses and at least 2-3 squadrons of advanced aircraft, and invest money into training pilots very well.

    Advanced Aircraft and SAMs YES but bad pilots and bad tactics. We’ve done a lot better than any Arab country has since WWII, meaning Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt or whoever, I mean 80% of targets NATO hit were decoys!

    in reply to: Russia's 5th- generation fighters! #2660211
    Srbin
    Participant

    France to develop PAK-FA or anything with Russia? No way, unless the French president or someone else states they will need something for their replacement of the Rafale and that they will work with Russia then I’ll believe it, but right now NO.

    in reply to: SU-24 vs Tornado vs F-111 #2660272
    Srbin
    Participant

    F-111

    in reply to: SU-24 vs Tornado vs F-111 #2660280
    Srbin
    Participant

    Su-24

Viewing 15 posts - 1,531 through 1,545 (of 1,678 total)