aurcovNever said you said that. It was intended for GarryB.
aurcovSo, US is responsible or not for the situation in NK? :diablo:
aurcovWell, in this case a contradiction just appeard between you and your buddy GarryB :p . On one hand he (and others) claim that the miserable life of NKoreans is due to US sanctions. After him, US is so powerfull and mean that the entire world is s**t in their pants and refuse to trade with NK for fear of sanctions.
OTOH, to quote you:
You got no power to ban France, Germany or Russia and you know it..
I am :confused:
aurcovCurrent US policy of Regime change as alternative to diplomatic solutions.
US policy towards NK become more offensive only after they start to use nuclear blackmail. By the way, when did US officials mentioned a regime change in NK?
Which means they were fighting as mercenaries rather than as Americans. The New Zealanders fighting in the RAF were fighting as part of the Commonwealth.
You can twist it as you wish. Nevertheless, your statement that Americans did nothing while RAF/Commonwealth fought the nazis singlehanded is, as usually, pure, 100%, BS.
Can’t possibly be true. How could both New Zealand and the poles contribute to the fall of Germany if the US won by themselves and saved us all?
Cheap remark. But it doesn’t change the fact that NZ wasn’t the most important foreign pilots contingent.
No, top scorer over the Germans was a Soviet pilot.
The dispute was US pilots vs. NZ pilots, remember?
So how could his contribution be seen as saving the world from hitler when he didn’t even fight hitlers forces?
It seems that you have concentration problems, or you are not capable to follow the logic of a disscution. I put that quota describing the Americans pilots in RAF because you said that US did nothing in a period that US was not at war with Germany. In my vew, it was not so important that they had some 73 kills, but that 77 of them died. Than, you said that the NZ pilot you mentioned has 14 kills alone compare with the cumulated 77 of Amerrican pilots. Stupid remark, because that NZ pilot did this durring the entire war, not only between 1940-1941 when the “Eagle” pilots were in RAF, and 14 kills is not much, compared with Bong and Gabreski, not to mention german pilots
How can america have saved the world from hitler when the only ones fighting hitler were Britain and her allies and then the Soviets… and eventually the US got involved by declaring war on Germanys ally in the pacific…
America did saved the world because I can’t see how Russia and England could have won by themselves.
Forced them to retreat to the Yalu river till the Chinese came and helped them push them back to the 38th parallel. …don’t rightly remember NK interfering in the US’s civil war mind you.
I can’t see your point, if there is any. NK invaded a US ally, US backed by UN reacted. After the war, when US forced NK to do something?
aurcovSo not a single US nuke could be fired at NK? Have they withdrawn all aircraft launched, sub launched, and silo launched nuclear weapons? Freefall tactical nukes from F-117s and B-2s, SLBMs, air launched or ground launched cruise missiles, and ICBMs no long er exist in the US’s arsenal?
The point is that now NK is less threaten than a few years ago. US troops in SK are somewhere 30,000. Can they mount a full scale invasion in order to overthrow kim? Hardly. So, can you tell me what imminent danger is NK that it need nukes?
Naah, the US would never punnish another country for dealing with countries it doesn’t like… NOT.
US does this, but in NK case that’s not the reason for the miserable life there.
New Zealand declared war at exactly the same time as the UK, which mean due to the time difference we were at war 12 hours before the UK. When did the US declare war on Germany… Oops… they didn’t. Germany declared war on the US when the US declared war on Japan after PH.
As usually, you missed the point. The very fact that US volonteers fought the Germans before Pearl Harbor, while US was not at war, is enough to wipe your BS.
And how many NZ pilots flew for the RAF
The RAF recognises 127 aircraft pilots from New Zealand. Several New Zealanders became high scorers, including P/O Colin Grey (No 54 Sqn) with 14 claims, F/O Brian Carbury (603 Sqn) 14 claims, and P/O ‘Al’ Deere (54 Sqn) 9 claims.
By the way, the most important foreign contingent were the Poles.
Dick Bong got 40 kills flying for the RAF?
No, he did it in the Pacific. The top scorer against the Germans was Frank Gabreski with 28 kills, still over the pilot you mentioned.
No, it is not the US’s fault. I mean when was the last time the US used its political, military, or economic power to make other countries do what it wants… probably 5 minute ago.
OK, when did US to force NK to do something?
Yeah. An embargo by the US makes no difference… then why do they bother?
NK has the rest of the worls to trade with.
So why is your government approaching the Russians to ask them not to sell Su-30s?
I am from Romania, so probably my govt. doesn’t give a **** if Venezuela will have or not these planes.
aurcovI would agree with you, but the article speaks about the plane -SuperHornet- not about the radar type:
For the F-15E, the antenna size is increased to 0.9 m (36 in.) diam, and improved tile T/R modules with a greater mean time between overhaul are used, rather than the Super Hornet’s brick T/R modules.
aurcovQuote:
Originally Posted by sferrin
What in the world makes you think that? If it were based on the APG-79 it would be called the APG-79. It’s possible it’s designed to use the same T/R modules as the APG-79 but that’s not the same thing at all.Here:
Aerospace America Feb 2006 page 19:Quote:
However, in 2004 the Air Force changed its plans to upgrade 400 F-15s with the APG-63(V)1, deciding instead to install the APG-63(V)3 AESA antenna upgrade on the entire 224-aircraft F-15E fleet, beginning this year. The (V)3 is essentially an updated APG-79 front-end (antenna and power supply) and APG- 63(V)1 hardware back-end. For the F-15E, the antenna size is increased to 0.9 m (36 in.) diam, and improved tile T/R modules with a greater mean time between overhaul are used, rather than the Super Hornet’s brick T/R modules.
The APG-63(V)3 is 400 kg (900 lb) lighter than the (V)1, and will also improve reliability by 500% (AESA T/R modules seem to be living up to their billing as rarely needing maintenance or repair). This would leave only about 180 F-5Cs with the (V)1 (and 18 with the earlier (V)2 AESA), and (V)1 production line shutdown was begun in 2004, to be completed this month. The F-15E is slated to remain in service until 2035, with the F-15C continuing until 2025, to serve alongside the F-22A.But by late 2005, the Air Force was reportedly seeking an even newer radar for the F-15E. Boeing claimed a competition was likely, with a version of Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-77 from the F-22A competing with an upgraded
Raytheon APG-63(V)4. The (V)4 would have the (V)3 AESA antenna but more back-end components from the Super Hornet, including its processor and other upgrades.Which ties in with:
Quote:
Raytheon has built one prototype APG-63(V)3, but the radar had until recently appeared unlikely to secure production approval. The USAF plans to upgrade its F-15E Strike Eagles with the newer APG-63(V)4 variant from 2008, which will reuse transmit/receive modules from the (V)3 and introduce updated processors from Raytheon’s APG-79 AESA radar installed on Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Block 2 Super Hornet. The radar upgrade would enable the aircraft to track an expanded group of threats, including cruise missiles.
Hmmm, i wouldn’t give 100 % credit to the article, no matter where it appeared. One obvious mistake: the APG 79 has the latest tyle-type not the older brick-type.
Would be interesting to know what the F-15s killration where on that exersice. Maybe 120:1 Can those who know the F-15s killration please answare
I can tell you (but someone already did it) the “killration” of the Eagle in real combat-104:0
aurcovI missunderstand it because the way you formulated. I thought that you said that some system/subsystem/technolgy from Su 27 was copied into the F 22, not that the threat represented by the Su 27 led to the introduction of the F 22.
aurcovWhen was that, the first AESA eagles?
operational in 1999
aurcovIt is true that new threats forced US to do better and better.
aurcovHMD/HMS is merely a designation distinction on the F-22 [eventually]. And the pilot turning his head will be slower than the pilot turning his head with the aircraft turning too. [assuming both have same scan to aquire times].
Really? A HMS is rather primitive compared to a HMD. It was introduced by the US Navy in 1972 on F 4N. A long time ago, don’t you think?
A HMD show the same info shown on a HUD, including data about the target. The target could be tracked from 15-20 Nmiles by the radar (in auto-aquisition mode) and it appers (as on HUD) as a square (TDB-target detection box). So you “got” the target long time before you can see it. Also, near this TDB there are some numbers, indicating the distance, the closure speed (your own speed+the target speed) and the aspect. Also IFF confirmation that this is indeed an ennemy not friendly. So, you know earlier where the enemmy is, if it is an ennemy (fratricide is excluded), if you can hit him (if the distance is let’s say 10 miles, but he is runing from you, you won’t hit him; if he is at this distance but is comming to you, you could hit him). That’s a little bit different in an HMS where you shoud aquire the target visually.
Besides the whole idea behind HMS/HMD is to fire without agressive maneuver that will result in bleeding speed.
I think you’ve far too much faith in IR missiles to perform miracles to be honest – I don’t see any 180 deg engagements being successful unless the enemy f__ks up… badly.
May be because the most aircraft shot down by missiles were shot down by IR ones? And speaking about P V and Sidewinder 9X, they had indded 180 deg capability (actually P V has 200 deg!). Another detail; the 9X seeker can scan at 800 deg./s and rotate at 1600 deg./s! These missiles, as well as IrisT, ASRAAM and Darter, can sustain ~ 80 G.
LOAL is different for a radar based missile as the radar field is wider than an IR field. As I said earlier, too wide an IR sensor field and you risk hitting friendlies.
Well, I am losing my patience, so see for yourself:
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/0/460.pdf
aurcovI’m NOT saying that russian planes are superior to USA counterparts.I’m aware that most of the time they lagged behind in many areas,but they were still very capable in the right hands.It’s like USA and Russian planes can’t live without each other ,every new design influenced the counterpart.So F-22 is “part” of Su-27,which is part of F-15,which is….you get the point.
That’s a good one! Can you tell us what part of F 22 was influenced by the Su 27? Or, what in the F 22 could be consider a “part” of Su 27 ?????? The over-all design? The FCS? The radar? The rest of the avionics? Engines? The VLO features?
Wake-up!
aurcovSo does that mean that those AESA Eagles have some half baked radar? What’s the point in putting state of the art bits if some parts of the system, like the computer computing and interpreting data won’t be up to the task of fully using what the new array offers? Developing software and making that array is most expensive bit of the whole deal anyway, pure cpu power should be peanuts compared to that. I’m just guessing here but i would assume all those AESA radars are not much behind raptors’, if at all. Given the same size and output power, of course. Smaller, weaker AESAs will always be somewhat inferior.
There are 18 F 15C at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska with the APG 63 (V)2. It is the first generation AESA, and of course that has all the drawbacks that could be found in first of its kind. The AESA array is heavy, the cooling system (a real problem in this kind of radar) is bulky. The weight of the array and ancillaries is over 700 lb. But APG 63 (V)2 is already history. It used “brick”-type T/R modules (like the earlier APG 77 for that matter). However, the newer APG 80, APG 79 as well as all the operational APG 77 use “tyle”-type T/R modules. They are cheaper and lighter. for exemple, the APG 79 array weights just 95 lb! (http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/sas/documents/legacy_site/cms01_050831.pdf)
On a side note, what’s with all the LPI being revolutionary talk? LPI is just a term signifying modes of operation for a radar that were, at a certain periof in time, harder to detect. I’ve seen the term LPI used with radars decades old. They were LPI then, they’re not LPI anymore. Just like today’s raptor’s radars won’t have the same LPI in 10 years time as they do today. Tech always advances
An AESA is revolutionary not only because it can detect&track targets ranges 2 times bigger than a conventional radarwith the same output, not only because it can scan the field in less than a second, not only because it can perform in the same time A-A and A-G, but because of this:
The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar defeats conventional RWR/ESM systems. The AN/APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR/ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. Unlike conventional radars which emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band, the AN/APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar’s signal processor combines the signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm
aurcovSo the USAF have just got $ 250 million dollar apiece AWACs?
Swweeeeet
1. An AWACS is much more expensive than 250 million! So, even if the USAF would get a plane that can only do EW, at $250 million is a bargain :p However, the main differene is that the raptor can sit confortably above the ennemy teritory and get the same info that an AWACS could gather, but at 200-300 km away of the ennemy airspace.
aurcovWhat do you define as “high-speed” and “low-speed”?
Most of the description of the Cobra said that is not possible to perform at high speeds (i.e. speeds at the dogfight usually take place, between 300-500 knots). As I told, at these speeds if you pull the stick abruptly (an action that would result a Cobra at speeds < 200 knots), you won’t get a Cobra, but you start to climb, at the highest pich rate the FCS allows you.
Aquire first, by what? 0.5 seconds? Maybe… While HMS man is looking over his shoulder past the vertical fins TVC man is turning and looking through the full cockpit glass.
A HMD (not HMS, if you undestand the difference) allow the pilot to aquire much ealrier his target. if you don’t know the difference, it would take me too much to explain.
10 seconds vertical to reaquire speed? Thats from 0 to near 700 km/hr if the aircraft has a T/W of 1 [be 706 neglecting drag].
OK, than 6-7 seconds, since it starts from 90 knots (the exit speed from a Cobra)! That plenty of time to receive a heater in the tail.
If the seeker cannot see – it cannot track. It it cued to an area by the HMS, but its not actually tracking anything. At some stage directional control must pass from the cue to the seeker -> its obvious that a missile launched off the rail with seeker lock has a much reduced chance of loosing that lock, while the cued missile may not even make seeker lock [it might not find anything].
That’s way this mode is called LOAL (lock on after launch). This mode is the normal one in missiles like AMRAAM (you don’t need the seeker to track the targets; the fighter’s radar do this and send midcourse guidance to the missile). In the Pithon V (the only WVR, at least in this moment, that offer this) the missile receive the position of the bad guy from datalink (if this one is behind). The position is communicated to the missile INS before firing.
Sign In
