Adrian_44RE: MiG-25PDS vs F-16A
> Viper01’s
> Such diversion and “sneaking around” tactics employed by the F-16As may
> work well, but the MiGs may also act more flexibly than you describe.
Oh so true. Does the MiG.-25 have the support to tell what aircraft it is facing? The does either side have access to GCI/AWACS? Are the two aircraft approach each other headon or at right angles from each other?
> I think many people here, including myself, have something to learn from Jorgo’s
> post in the Why no military pilots on this forum?
The only problem with having pilots on a forum is that they are limited on what they can talk about when it comes to specifics! Most of the pilots when talking about generalities do not write long or elaborate articles.
Before joining a web board look for how authorative the web board is overall.
My #1 board is the ACIG because they have numerous people who know technology as well as tactics in many different fields not just aircraft/fighters.
> seahawk
> Well options for the MiG-25 pilot.
> Hope that your radar picks up the targets in teh ground clutter.
This is largely a function of the altitude of the MiG versus the altitude that the F-16A is flying at.
> For the F-16 it is :
> Look at your RWR, notice the MiG, notice the launch, drop your bombs, get
> low and change course to 90°c off from the MiG
The last thing the F-16 needs is for the MiG.-25 to get close enough to see yet to far to use IR missiles. The MiG. can stay far enough away where the F-16 can not attack yet a relatively short distance for a BVR missile.
> Sens
> In Central Europe of the 80s or some other regions none high-flyer survived
> there, except over home territority
That is true until the IADS are beaten down, just like the PGW#1 in 01/91.
> Saphir-25 offers a detection range of 100 km against high targets with RCS of 16m²
That spec shows it is effective against an F-15C or Su-27 but, leaves the MiG at a disadvantage against a F-16 which has an RCS about half that of an F-15C!
> F-16s are not the typical targets for the FOXBATs
True, the MiG.-25 was not designed to turn and burn at low or medium altitudes. It is designed to be at the higher altitudes running at high speeds and firing against penetrators at higher altitudes.
> wd1
> i notice that in sens’ post the F-16-owning countries all happen to own F-15s
This also tells you that an attack by F-16’s will have a top cover of F-15’s. That either the country that owns the US aircraft or the USAF will provide AEW of some type.
> i suppose if you knew you were facing off MiG-25s on the other side of the border
> you’d want something more capable than Vipers
As long as they have proper support the Vipers can hold their own. Even with a bomb load they can fight quite well, as the F/A-18C showed during the PGW#1
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Folding wings on Naval Aircraft, how do they work?
> Fulcrums
> All that extra weight! They should make more room on carriers so that the jets can
> carry more weapons instead of hauling around these mechanisms.
Nooooo, do you have any idea as to what is involved in supporting a carrier? All the logistics, people, etc. that is required to supply a carrier so it can operate daily and take care of five thousand plus people who live on the carrier. I am not talking about the escorts of all types or the replenishment fleet needed to rendevous with the carrier every couple of days to replenish supplys such as aviation fuel, food, mail, etc..
When bush jr landed aboard the carrier two years ago, some of his critics said that stunt caused the Navy $50,000 per day in basic expense for the carrier.
> BuffPuff
> if you think the folding wings on the A-6E and F/A-18 are bad, what about the SU-33
> with its folding tailplane??
To heck with the Su-33, what about the E-2C? The OV-22 when it becomes operational, these have far more stresses on the hinges.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: its 1986, war in europe. F-20A and Mig 29 face each other…
> flex297
> I don’t think that this makes any difference in a battle
Actually it can in that a full HOTAS versus a partial HOTAS enables the pilot to completely set up the cockpit before combat and when combat starts all that is needed is to pull the trigger.
The MiG.-29 is designed to operate with an effective GCI. Without an effective GCI/AWACS the F-20 will have a much better and complete picture of the threat envirement than the MiG.-29.
In WVR while the MiG.-29 has a good HMDS, the F-20 is far more difficult to see visually. Northrop used to have a commercial in AW&ST showing what an F-20 looked like just 3,000 feet and approaching at three or nine o’clock. It is very hard to see. The MiG.-29 on the otherhand has the problems that plagued the F-4 Phantom II for most of its combat life, smokey engines.
> Iranian F-14A
> the F-20A had BVR,but only the huge AIM-7,which wasn’t the most reliable missile
While the Sparrow was not a great missile, it is better than its Soviet counter-part the AA-10. This would give the F-20 the advantage in BVR.
> when you consider how many Warsaw Pact aircraft would be streaming into western
> Europe,it’d be hard to tell
Remember that in 1986 the VVS, had a “couple” of operational squadrons of MiG.-29’s and none of the Su-27’s.
> SOC
> The AIM-7 of the 1980’s was much more reliable than the AIM-7 of the Vietnam era
Actually, it was for the AIM-7M used by the mid-1980’s was the same as the AIM-7 that was used in the PGW#1. Many of the problems had been taken care of including the vibration from “captive flight,” etc..
> alexz33
> In Dog fights vs the Israeli air force (in the Negev) the Mig had better
> performance then the F-15 and F-16 and a better thrust/weight ratio
Are you talking about the F-15I and or the F-16CJ? If you are talking about the F-15A and F-16C (modified) you have some incorrect information.
The MiG.-29’s T/W is between the F/A-18 and F-16! The F-15’s T/W is just a “tish” below that of the F-16 but, has a lower wing loading.
> The Winner of a F-20 Vs Mig would be the better trainned, more expirienced
> pilot and the one with the better evionic systems.
The Soviets did not spend much on flying time for the pilots. The pilots spent a fair amount of time in simulators. It saved money and the Soviet command structure felt that with the fighters tied to GCI farther training was not needed.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: MiG-25PDS vs F-16A
> nastle
> i want to base this question in a 1980s scenario, the F-16As are on a
> ground attack mission and are intercepted by the “foxbat E” planes.
First of all, is this the F-16A the model that had the P&W engine before the thrust was reduced from 30,000 pounds thrust down to (approximately) twenty-five pounds thrust.
The MiG.-25’s strength is its high altitude, speed and, radar. To try and fight a BVR contest. The MiG.-25PDS can not get into a maneuvering fight with the F-16A and expect to win. The MiG.-25’s radar in its automatic scanning looks down at a -30º but, it can look down at a steeper angle if require by the pilot directing the radar to do so. I think the maximum look down angle is around 60º.
Now how are the aircraft coming in contact with each other? Is this a 1V1, 2V2 or, 4V4? It makes worlds of difference in tactics. Do both sides have access to GCI or are they on their own? This sort of autonomy is not what the F-16 was designed for.
Remember, the F-16C was the first fighter to shoot down another aircraft with a Slammer! The other aircraft was an Iraqi MiG.-25PD.
Both aircraft were approaching each other head at around 24K feet. The F-16C was cleared to fire by AWACS. It fired a Slammer then, rolled over and dove vertically and about ten seconds later his wingman called out, “good kill,” which was confirmed by the AWACS. At this point the F-16 was a little below 16K feet.
Now, why was the MiG.-25 waiting to fire its missile is a mystery to me. Which is very much like the MiG.-29’s shot down by F-15Cs over Bosnia in March of 1999.
For the F-16A against the MiG.-25, without any BVR the F-16 must break radar lock-on get lost to the MiG.-25 and approach it from an angle outside the cone of detection in front of the MiG.-25.
Now for the scenario for the best tactics for each of the two aircraft;
1) The F-16’s if a 2V2 or 4V4 should maneuver to get an “unseen shooter” to the merge before being detected
2) If the MiG.-25 looses radar contact with the F-16, it should hit its afterburners, gain altitude, leave the combat area and return later when it can detect the F-16 and maintain the contact.
FINALLY, the Mig.-25 in the right situation can get aggressive and try to push the fight to his advantage, while being in full view of the F-16A. The F-16 with no BVR can not do this and in the 2V2 or 4V4 exercises team tactics can be used by both sides. The 4V4 scenario allows for “division tactics.”
The MiG.-25 can form a “big wall” where each MiG.-25 is about 10-20 miles from each other. This will go a long ways to take away the beam maneuver from the F-16’s.
In a 4V4,the MiG.-25’s can arrange themselves which ever way they want. The F-16’s can have two of their division with one aircraft at 30,000 feet about 20 miles “abeam” from the other but at a lower altitude, around 20,000 feet.
These two F-16’s will “shadow box” with the MiG.-25’s at speeds of 300 to 400 mph. While the four MiG.s and two F-16s shadow box, the other two F-16’s will speed towards the combat area at high subsonic speeds and a altitude around 200 feet above the ground. (If the MiG.s are at 30,000 feet or more, they will have real difficulty detecting F-16s this close to the ground, if capable at all.) If one of the F-16’s arrive at the “merge” abeam or near it to the MiG’s, when detected the one or both F-16’s will create havoc. The F-16 will have the MiG.-25’s right where they wanted them.
This whole situation changes “IF” either side is protecting a high value airborne asset (HVAA) like an AWACS, tanker, etc.)
(This the same sort of tactics the F-16C’s used against F-15E’s in a 4V4 exercise writened about in the Tom Clancy’s book, “Fighter Wing.”)
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: COMBAT RADIUS/RANGE?
> bring_it_on
> the f/a-22 raptor has a combat radius of 310+100nm ie 310 nm subsonic with a 100 nm
> supercuiuse dash..how does it translate to the range..
The F-22 has a total range of approximately 2,000 statued miles, this is without external wing tanks and that is the ferry range also. Now, for combat range the radius is 750 miles and this includes the total of approximately 300 miles in supercruise.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Why the Rafale?
> sekant
> why is it that the French pulled out of the EF project and proceeded to
> develop their own plane, the Rafale?
1) The French pulled out of the EF Program because they needed a “carrier” variant and none of the other countries wanted to spend money to develope one.
2) The French also felt they had the greatest expertise in aircraft design and their designs should be taken more serious.
3) The final straw was the French wanted 54% of the manufacturing in their country and the other 46% was to be split up among the other members of of the consortium.
The other members said no to these requirements so France quit!
In essence, there was too much “testosterone” and not enough brain cells between the entire group. When you look at what the Americans have done with the F-35, smart money says there are many in the European aviation industries looking back feel they wasted a good opportunity.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Cuban missiles crisis, how close?
> Canpark
> orders to fire if its hull is broken up by American depth charges
At that point the US Navy used homing torpedos, not depth charges.
> jbritchford’s
> 1- Were there any weapons on Cuba, and did you know of any at the time?
Nikita Kruchev’s son was the first one to openly state that there were nuclear weapons in Cuba and the local commanders had the authority to use them!
COMMENTS;
President Kenedy did a good job of focusing on the naval blockade around Cuba and not letting the focus drift to Europe or elsewhere. He disguarded the advice of many of his AF generals and stayed away from an invasion of the Island of Cuba
I am a strong believer that many “high powered” people were angry that Kennedy did not go to war. That at least some of these people participated in his assasination!
I know Gen. Curtis LeMay was extremely angry because he wanted to take this time to attack not only the Soviet Union but also China! He had ordered to nuclear weapons dropped before and he was not afraid to do it again!
The USSR had believed President Eisenhower had always promised that the USA would not be the first to use nuclear weapons again. The USSR knowing President Eisenhower was an honorable man had always planned to make the first strike.
Now President Kennedy threatened to do just that. He had intelligence that the USSR was not ready to fight immediately!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Mig-31 versus F-22
> flex297
> the BEST RCS value of the F/A-22 is -22dBsm, ergo cca. 0.0065 sq m, its
> typical values vary from 0.01 to 1.0 sq m.
Let us start by agreing to disagree! What you are stating is that the F-22 has a higher RCS than the F-117 or B-2 bomber. That is a direct contradiction to what the USAF has stated that, “the F-22 is the stealthies of their aircraft.
Each successive stealth aircraft has been more stealthy than the previous stealth aircraft. The technology moves on.
> F-23 being more agile than Flanker?
YES both the F-22 and F-23 can perform maneuvers of which the Sukhoi family of Su-27’s and modifications can do. The helicopter is just one maneuver of which the Sukhois can not do!
They have maneuvers that are real show stoppers but, unless you want a 1:1 kill ratio…. stay out of the furball! Once you get above 450mph (720kmph) the Su-27 family losses a whole lot of its advantages in maneuvering. These maneuvers are great in the furball but, who wants to put a fighter like Su-27 & familily, F-15C, F-22 or, F-23 in a furball where a MiG.-21BIS can shoot is down with its cannons? That would be as foolish as a F-14 Tomcat attacking a B-52D with cannons from behind. Gee, the Tomcat got shot down… duh.
The Russian are still embracing the furball BUT, they have not produced the aircraft in the volumn (like the MiG.-21) to fully engage in this type of warfare.
The other thing is the Su-27 started in 1969, there is a reason its cockpit looks like it is from the same era as the Phantom II. Its aerodynamics is good but the rest of the electronics is far behind the times. Though good its design is not nearly as advanced as the ATF’s.
The ATF’s can roll at 60º per second, pull 6G’s and simultaneously launch a Slammer Missile.
> Metz has never flown a Flanker, at least not at that time..
No but, he knew all its specs and capabilities.
> there is still the Indian exercise held in 2004…
Did you read the article in AW&ST, where the Maj Snowden explains a few things (like the F-15C’s were outnumbered 3:1)
3rd Wing Explains ‘Cope India’ Exercise Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/04/2004, page 50 David A. Fulghum Elmendorf AFB, Alaska
URL still active: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237790/posts
> JG73 pilots talking about the exercises held here in Europe where the F-16
> pilots could not achieve a single kill in dogfight
This was an evaluation of the MiG.-29/AA-11 Archer versus the F-16C/Sidewinder-9M combination. In thirty-three test, the F-16 only won one engagement. When the F-16’s learned tactics to defeat the HMDS the F-16’s started winning the bulk of the engagements.
The F-16 is the T/W fighter while the MiG.-29 is the maneuver fighter. The F-16 should try and fight in the vertical plane while the MiG.-29 should push for the horizontal plane
> That is nothing you can solve with any money, bigger budget only allows
> the design to be optimized
Money allows you to try many things in an effort to solve a problem. It allows for better support equiptment.
> You can well design a performer better than a Flanker but only if your
> other requirements as stealth do not contradict this task..
Stealth offers no more “trade-offs” than non-stealth aircraft. Stealth is just one piece of the puzzle. Technology is not stagnant and each new aircraft blends the technologies together better.
> SOC
> mid-to-late 1970’s when the HAVE BLUE and TACIT BLUE programs got underway
Tacit Blue did not start until Have Blue was over and the production contract wnet to Lockeed. This is when Northrop discovered Lockeed’s secret, Ufimstev’s paper and how it helped Echo 1. Tacit Blue kept the Northrop team together and that program was to develope stealth vehicles with curves.
> firebar
> Max dry speed of YF-22 was 1,58 Mach
That was a “milestone” not the end point. Top (sustained) supercruise speed is Mach 1.7. The F-22 can get up to Mach 1.8 for short periods.
The new material was developed for the wing panels, the USAF decided to give up Mach 0.2 in top speed and Mach 0.1 in supercruise to use “bismaleimide” (BMI)! This material was more durable, far cheaper to produce and, maunfacture. The liability is that the material is sensative to heat!
> Austin
> so called Stealth A/C are visible to Decameter and meter wave band radar
> they are not precise enough to guide missile to its target
The low frequency radars that can “sometimes” detect a stealth aircraft gets intermittent contacts the course can be developed from that. Some systems boast they can track a stealth aircraft. What they don’t tell you is that they point to the stealth aircraft to an area 50 X 50 miles! When conditions are right it can get down to 30 X 30 miles.
Low frequency detection has real problems with noise which makes it suseptical to noise jamming.
> Sundog
> The ATF was designed to be able to outfly anything in the sky in the
> foreseeable future
> YF-23 didn’t need thrust vectoring to meet the mission requirements
No it did exceed the specs without TVC. The F-22 had better maneuverability at lower speeds than the F-23. This was the biggest difference in their performance.
> The main reason the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23 was political
It was political of sorts. The USAF did not think Northrop could handle the cost overruns. There was real reason is because Northrop did not handle the cost problems of the B-2 bomber.
> GarryB
> I have looked at the night sky with a full moon and I fully disagree
> with you.
So true, especially when the aircraft you are trying to see an aircraft at 25,000 feet!
> So a laser radar (in near optical frequencies) couldn’t detect these
> aircraft either?
Jamming programs are under development to defeat optical detection. This will also hurt I²R detection. Remember the mechanical eye does not work the same way the human eye does.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: US SSN torpedoed Kursk?
> Wanshan
> I found online indicate anything other than a HE (bulk) warhead on the Mk48
A little over a dozen years ago I obtained a picture of a Mk.-48 warhead in the process of exploding. The picture is taken a few micro seconds after the explosion started. The original caption wrote of the fact that the warhead a shaped charge. The shaped charge can be focused upward to insure maximum destruction of the keel.
NOTES:
■- For years the US have been working on a “shaped charge” nuclear warhead! This is to increase the productivity of the cruise missiles.
■- I tried to attach a picture to this posting but, it failed. If you want a copy of the photograph of the Mk.-48’s explosion, then E-mail me at;
[email]avon1944@hotmail.com[/email]
>> Adrian
>> The engine of the Mk.-48 is an “external combustion” engine!
> Wanshan
> Thanks, that was informative.
Glad to help…. I am here to learn also.
> GarryB
> If the kursk heard a torpedo coming they’d have fired decoys. Also why would
> the torpedo hit it in the nose? There is no noise making gear in the nose.
> If an active sonar was used for guidance by the torpedo then a more central
> hit would be much more likely, while a passive torpedo would more likely
> have hit the rear of the vessel.
Thanx Garry, I had not thought of that perspective. You are correct, the Mk.-48 torpedo would have hit under the Kurst not on the side.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: US SSN torpedoed Kursk?
> Vortex
> a piston does not mean “internal” or “external”…it merely acts as a momentum exchange surface. But, yes, the Mk48 uses a Stirlin type engine.
No the term internal versus external simply refers to whether or not the combustion chamber is or “is not” in the chamber which houses the piston.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Aircraft Carriers
> Vijay.N.V
> the procurement of ships like the British CVF would make a lot of sense.
> Using the rough order of costing mentioned earlier, six CVF hulls could
> be purchased for the cost of two Nimitz
Yes the conventional carrier cost less than a CVN but, the CV cost more to operate. The support system is greater since it needs resupply far more frequently.
The CV can not withstand the punishment the large CVN can. So while the percentage of armor might remain similar, the total amount is greater than it is for CV’s. A 50,000 ton CV is not significantly shorter than a CVN! The CVN can better isolate ammunition magazineS and fuel bunkerS. The USS Nimitz Class carriers have a total of forty amumition magazines!
So while attractive initially, in the long term it cost more to operate the CV.
Know the government support will osscilate, the conservatives will support the program and the liberals will it is peace time, we don’t need these things. The conservatives will try and keep the program on schedule and the liberals to save money will try and make minimum payments to the program. The results are that when all is said and done, the more ships involved the more difficult it will take to complete all these individual ships.
Such a increase in carriers must reflect an increase in aircraft production! I don’t see that happening, either. Currently, the US Navy plans to purchase only one squadron of F-35’s for the eleven CVN’s it expects to have when the F-35’s become operational.
The EA-6B will be replaced by the F/A-18G, things are that bad!!
> the potential to embark 300 rather than 20 battle groups in the war against
> terrorism.
The problem is manpower! Currently, the US Navy is about 10,000 people short of what is needed. The was the problem the Navy had back in the 1980’s when President Regan started building the 600 warship Navy.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: US SSN torpedoed Kursk?
> Terran
> A former British military official, as the article puts it, seems to
> think so.
When was the last time this guy was told “he is full of $hyt!”
> Ja Worsley’s
> then again one has to think of possible reasons why the Russians
> took so long in allowing foreginers to help in a rescue
The reason it took so long is because the Russian initially refused help for several days!
NATO knew about the accident long before the press releast the story.
> the Russians took so long in allowing foreginers to help in a rescue.
> remember it took 8 days to allow them to say yes
US Navy’s DSRV was ready to be transported within 24 hours of the incident.
> Wanshan
> the Toledo accidentally collided with the Kursk, at which point the
> Russian submarine opened its torpedo tubes, leading to an attack from
> the Memphis
How would a US sub with damage and severe flow noises along with pumps working overtime and through all this the Russian Navy could not find it! I know the Russian ASW is not great since the end of the Cold War but, give them some credit.
In any collision, the LA Class would sustain real damage against a much larger ship such as Kurst.
> the trademark evidence of an American MK-48 torpedo, which is made to
> melt cleanly through steel sheet due to a mechanism at its tip that
> combusts copper. “
Yes the Mk.-48 Torpedo uses a “shaped charge” to destroy a ship. A torpedo can be quiet when a sub lauches it from a long distance(17 miles plus) then dive deep, below 1,500 feet towards the target. The water in the area where the Kurst sunk is less than 500 feet deep.
> It is propelled by a piston engine with twin, contra-rotating propellers
> in a pump jet or shrouded configuration.
The engine of the Mk.-48 is an “external combustion” engine! This is an engine when the combustion occurs in one chamber and the exaust is then fed into another chamber where the piston is. The advantage of this type of engine is that it is that it is less affected by the back pressure against the exaust.
The capability to conduct multiple re-attack procedures if the target is missed.
The US Navy had three subs viewing the exersize! I know of two of them, the USS Toledo (or USS Memphis) and USS New Orleans. I suspect the third sub was the Seawolf or possibly the Carter.
> Vortex
> Is there some stories out there where the US/USSR sub games end up in using
> a torpedo?
The US/USSR never fired on each other, that is flagrant act of war!
Adrian
Adrian_44F/A-22 Videos
> Marcelosg
> Does anybody know where to download some cool and current Raptor’s videos?
This is a pretty video at the bottom of the page, enjoy.
http://www.f-22raptor.com
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Mig-31 versus F-22
> pesho
> tell my what is the RCS of F-22 head on?
> In book that i have is said that MiG-31 can detect a 0,3m2 target at 65 km
The RCS of the F-22A is -40.0db =0.0001m² compared to the F-15C or Su-27 +06.0db =6.0m². Now at what range these figures were takened at I don’t know. I do know that the F-22 is more stealthy than the design indicated it would be!
> firebar
> Before shooting of F-117 by modified SAM-3 missile, there are many serious
> publications claiming that it can not be brought down, simply because it
> can not be seen by radar
It can be seen on any radar scope, it is just a matter of range and angle. This is the real expensive stuff in developing a stealth weapon system. Every type/class of radar most be checked to find out what range and other parameters the stealth vehicle can be detected at
> it has to have special radar transponders in peace time in order to be
> seen on radar scopes !!
Yes, corner reflectors (technical name is “luneberg”)
> Mig-31 radar has one trick against stealth type targets, like Mig-25.
> It works in 2 separate frequencies.
Unfortunately this is not effective against the F-22, where it would take thousands of frequencies across several RF bands. This is what Skunk works releast about the F-117, way back in the late 1980’s.
> over G
> the raptor ISNT AN STEALTH DESIGN
Then there is no such thing as stealth! The F-22 is far more stealthy than F-117 and more stealthy than the B-2.
> the reports put an stealth machine with RCS of 0.000XXX, is just like the
> b1b case…
The B-1 case was also accurate as I explained in another post! Its RCS is 0.0001m² or, microns squared in reflectivity!
> the plane have an reduction of the radar signature (mainly by RAM), but
> is not sooo big
You are very incorrect there also. The structure is built so a certain amount of the energy is reflected by the skin and other energy passes through the skin and is absorb by the structure, just like with the F-117 and B-2
> f117 “idiots planners” shootdown cause is just an excuse, to hide the
> real problems
The F-117 was shot down because the USAF got arrogant and flew the F-117 into the same target area three nights in a row. On the four night movement of a mobile radar site was moved into the most likely spot between two fixed based radars. At the same time as the other three nights, the F-117 proceeded except this time the mobile site illuminated the F-117. The rest is history.
> there are some guys that have 30 f22s books, 50 posters and 4-3 ATF PC
> games……what can i do
You can find accurate information, not just information!
Even Veniks has more accurate data than what you tried pushing on us here! This all sounds like Russian tax dollars being wish upon!
> seahawk
> F-22 is totally overhyped and has only been tested against US system
In correct! The F-117 was tested again all the Soviet radar the USA has as well as French and British systems. Over Bagdad, the F-117 faced the most dense radar system in the world. There were Soviet-built Tall King early-warning radar sites along the border. This is the primary used today for Russian Air Defense! After that the USA’s I-HAWK, French radars as well as dozens of Russian radars for SAM sites. None of them detected the F-117.
Today’s F-117 is as advanced beyond what was flown in the PGW#1 as the F-15A is from the F-15C!
The help of the Israelis in securing radars as well as the US buying Russian equiptment on the open market. Just like in 1994 when a “private firm” (a CIA front company?) purchased two Su-27’s and they were delievered by An-124’s, to an area that was sandy (like Nellis AFB?)!
I am quite sure the Russians have had many opportunties to examine first hand American weapon systems. When North Viet Nam unified the country, lots of American equiptment was left there.
> The real test will come if it faces russian, french or chinese planes.
An F-117 was in between two groups of two aircraft each, one pair F-15C’s and the other pair MiG.-29’s. The F-15 knew the F-117 was supposed to be near which is why it was urgent for them.
The F-15’s fired Slammer missiles at the MiG.’s when they were ten miles apart. In between the two groups and just 2,000 feet lower was the F-117. He was also 3 miles from the F-15’s which made him around 7 miles from the MiG.’s. The F-117 pilot watched the engagement and nobody detected the F-117!
> US hardware is generally totally hyped. They are not that good.
Fans of Soviet/Russian equiptment cry the blues about how less competent other operators of their equiptment are and that “they” would do a
better job. It seem that way when the Israelis shot down five Soviet “INSTRUCTOR PILOTS” in one afternoon!
We don’t need to discuss in depth, where MiG.’s and Su-27’s have met in combat with several aircraft on both sides and they retreat with no kills. This the war where the Su-27’s have six kills against MiG.-29’s.
America does not need to worry as long as we have aircraft like the F-15’s or F-16’s. The only American aircraft the MiG.-29 has killed was a Cessna by the Cuban AF!
> If the IrAF would have come up to fight in the first night, they would
> have scored kills. Many kills.
One advantage of American aircraft is that all that “gold plating” makes easy for US pilots to remain totally aware of their surroundings or, situational awareness.
> crobato
> you can do that visually?
Think about how difficult it is to see any aircraft at 25,000 feet? Now could you duplicate that same feat at night?
The F-117 was detected by a mobile radar site as the F-117 flew nearly overhead.
> Phantom II
> the time frames they knew NATO jets would be overhead they began to
> ballistically fire their SAM’s
The pilot stated as well as the AWACS confirmed that the F-117 was lock-up!
> ink
> Yugoslav PVO (Anti-Air Defense) radars tracked and locked-up NATO combat
> aircraft right up to the 78th day of the air campaign… Anyone have any
> figures on how many HARMs missed their targets?
Yes, the air defense had all sorts of spoofs to fool the Allies. Yes many radars were killed but many of the radars were mobile plus there were transmitters that broadcasted like a radar but, wasn’t.
Adrian
Adrian_44Re: Anti Sub Mortars
> Austin
> I thinks this system could also act as a Hard Kill system for Incoming
> Torpedoes
All major navies are searching for hard kill weapons to stop torpedos. Which ever country comes up with an effective system first will have an edge very much like the USAF having stealth.
About three years ago the University of Pennsylvania designed an anti- torpedo torpedo! While around six feet long it is small enough in diameter that it fits in the noise maker tubes.
The US Navy has used the Mk-46 in this way. Even if it doesn’t doesn’t make contact, if the explosion is anywhere close it will break the control wires and most likely damage the sensor or propulsion system of the torpedo.
> Austin
> the RBU-6000 is very effective from shallow to deep waters
Yes it creates both a noise screen as well as bubble screen. Both are effective in one situation or another. A wide spread of mortars will allow the target to maneuver without the sub having a solid track on what the new course of the target is.
If the target waits until the mortars are allowed to go off first the “captital ship” can turn on it Prairie Masker system. This reduces and alters the sound signature of the ship. It can make a carrier sound like a destroyer and make a destroyer sound like patrol boat.
> JonS
> ASW mortars could be quite useful against them some also have secondary
> anti torpedo capability.
Do you mean like the US Navy’s “hedge hog?” Modern subs run to deep to realistically use this weapon. Its explosion can cause the sound to bounce off the SSK to some sound detction device.
Defense is also based upon timely knowledge of the torpedo is approaching.
> Garry B
> fired in an inner layer is a barrage of mine rockets
This is provided the sub does not keep the torpedo deep,under the iso-thermal layer until it is needed to come up to attack the target.
Adrian
Sign In
