nuke1Phantom,
if you can’t understand me ,well, that’s the reason that i have quoted Arthur, or do you think that aslo him hasn’t good english?
Like before-above said, don’t tell to me that viggen isn’t a multirole fighter, tell this to swedish.Or, try to say this (that their planes are multi role like the viggens) tell this to Tornados crews. Ask to them if they ever done both AIR-to Air and AS roles, if you can find, i am corious.
sens, one image worths more than 1000 words, but the real-world is worthing even more. So, see the above mentioned told to Phantom.
Insthead to discuss about the “more” multi role capability of the IDS i would suggest to compare the real capabilities of the two and evalue them in the right light of their effective tasks.
nuke1What should I do, in your opinion, if I dont share the populist view?. Simply agree so as not to offend the sensibilities of the masses?. Never going to happen my friend. My opinion will change when someone can provide solid information as to why my viewpoints are wrong. Until that happens I will defend my views as strongly as possible.*****
Like i always said, only if a frigate is cutted in two by a granit and you are there you can appreciate the reasons of many has repeatly said to you about the qualities of this kind of weapons. perhpas that you need to experienced also in the first hand how it means to be handled by rude militars.
What do you think JS about the recent wars in chechenia, Yugoslavia etc.? Do you find that Grozny, Mi Lai, Sarajevo are mass beliefs?
do you have REALLY need to have proof about the brutality of the war AS RULE and not as exception? Do you also need to have proof about the heart isn’t flat?
You are surement not caring about the “mass belief” so tell me, if you want to find how the things really happens in the Iraqui land, why not to start by the basis of the War? Why not to start from the definititon itself of the word: war? Come on, it’s not so difficult. Sure, you don’t care to hurt the mass sensibilitites. Perhaps that if someone hurts your body directly yuo can develope other theories about the war and its meanings.
Do you want really say to me that is difficult for you learn how frequent is a war crimes? So for every of the 2000 deads of falluja, included womes, childs etc. you need a video tape? Sorry it’s too much. If you want to know really about the atrocities of the war there is a full collection of human rights violated and like shown by Abu Graib and Guantanamo these are simply rules not exceptions. Do you want other? See about all the claims of turture and killing and raping told to the press by Iraqui population in these 20 months. try to show that there were all BS if you can, continte to hold the head under the sand and then define “dishonest” who scream its indignation about all these vicitms of the so called War on the terror.
Do you really need proof? I though you need eyes to see and hears to hear!
“”””I agree that this issue is far more significant than some academic debate on Russian weapons systems, but, the principle is identical. Flood, Damien, Grey and the others have made eloquent and considered posts supporting their point of view. They haven’t convinced me that they’re correct though for all the reasons I’ve listed. I don’t see why I should stop posting my personal views just because they are different from that of the majority?.”””””
Try to learn why the majority is against the war and the bombing of a city, then you could understund why your statements needs corrections.
But the principle is the same you are right. yuo are still deaf to the facts that compromixes your world vision.
Quote:
“””Its a poor debating technique to expand a discussion to introduce new points when you cant debate the singular issue that the discussion started on. This thread was started to discuss the shooting of a terrorist in Falluja. It was quickly expanded to criticise the whole US Iraq policy using this shooting incident as justification. That is the main point I was questioning and no-one has yet been able to prove to me that it was anything but fair comment.”””””
What’s the point JS? I am not in Falluja, you too, so what can we do if not to extrapolate what happens if not as fragmentary info that trepassed by the US censures? i am pretty sure that this isn’t a point for you, but if the old lessons are always valid, so i only have fear to see a new catastrophe. this is –exactly what the humanitary organizations-certainly not GWB— says, speak and screams about the US operations od Iraq. The discussion about the lack of proofs about the US crimes are just a insult to the intelligence. Obviousely you hadn’t problems to believe that Iraq was a treath for the mankind and had WMDsm, on the other hand.
“”””One marine acting in a manner which could, very easily, be explained by his experience in that environment does not relate, in any way, to the US actions in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.””””
Do you don’t seem able even to reconnisse that the Everest is a mountain, isn’t?
“”””Personally I think the whole Guantanamo Bay thing was disgraceful and, from an intelligence standpoint, fantastically stupid. That has no reflection on the events in that mosque in Falluja though except for in the minds of those wishing to reinforce an anti-Washington agenda with one more ‘attrocity’. I find that populist and intellectually dishonest and I dont see the point of debating something when your emotional response is going to blind you to the merits of any contrary position?.””””””
Why you don’t tell this to GWB or TB insthead? why yuo don’t ask to them to stopping to make a industrial quantity of reasons to be “anti-Washington”?
And then Pluto.
Quote:
“THIS is why he was right to kill that wounded insurgent.”
oohh, Pluto, this EXPLAIN ALL. Why not to use Nukes next time insthead to waste time to kill one after the other? Maybe for Ramadi.
Please, let us know why you are actually in Irak to shoot at Iraquis to see if they are really Dead or not. What kind of iraqui freedom. Greetings.
nuke1😮
what kind of answers do you exactly expect from me? I have stated some general observations about the design of the two planes. I have also said that the Frogfoot is the best selled of the both, Do you don’t agree? Tell me exactly why, come on. give me exact questions and then read the answers
nuke1And now a new episode of the litle kidly war with Sens:
Quote;
“”Wrong. (Not the British view) The GAF Pa-200/MRCA, which latter adopted the British name of Tornado. Was seen and used first as a replacement of the F-104G and all it roles in the GAF and Navy. Developed in the 60s like Viggen, F-1, MiG-23 it took much longer than estimated to bring it into service really. Forcing the GAF by that into stop-gap buys of Phantoms and more F-104G.””
BS. The project could been Pa-200/MRCA but the results wasn’t nowhere as a real multirole fighter, even to consider the succession of hte F 104G
“””The GAF AD was limeted to VRW and engagement rules. (AAM AIM-9L)
In the 80s the GAF Tornados/Phantoms were dual role like Viggen AJ/JA/…. and trained!!!!”””
Double BS. What do you let think that the Phantom is of hte same league of the IDS? The Phantom was real-multi role fighter but do you can say the name of the Sqdns. IDS that had dueal role mission???
“””When in the late 80s MiG-29/Su-27 came into use and the GAF looked for the Jäger 90 / Fighter 90 (we know it much later now as EF-2000 till the British name Typhoon (2) was adopted). BVR capability for Tornado was dropped and limited to the conversion of 2 Wings of Phantoms only. To force the need of Jäger 90 by that. The collapse of SU/WP released any pressure for better AD for a while. In the NATO was a share of capabilities, when the Swedish could not. The delays in development of the Gripen forced them to keep their Viggen much longer than intended and upgrade the Viggen for the 90s. (STRIL-system upgrade).[ “Independence struggle of Baltic states” and fear of Russian reversal intentions.]
The “mulitrole” Viggen is taylor-made for the unique Swedish defence-system.
The flying capabilities are similar to Tornado/Phantom/F-1/MiG-23 and by that a generation behind F-15/F-16/F-18/Mirage-2000/MiG-29/Su-27. So no country shows interest to buy those surplus Viggens, when the Tornado in the IDS-role with the special low-level mode have a better chance.
Otherwise a Chinese MiG-21 clone/MiG-21BISON/MiG-21Lancer will be a better buy for a decade to come.””””
And you should be an experten of aviation, Sens? What marvellous kind of knowledge you have to put in the same level Phantoms, Mig-23 and Tornados?
You should look more closely to your birds, my friend. The fact that the viggen is a gen. behind the F 18 is a nonsense. Perhaps as tecnology, not as age. You don’t say anything new if tell this. But the fact reamins, that for some misterious reasons you couldn’t catch, that the Tornado was meant as multi role only on the paper, when the further development were meant to make or a bomber or a interceptor. Not both, and never happened in a real combat sqdn. The viggen was meant as multi role and made also as multi role, despite with several compromixes to make more a attack or a air defense fighter, but always with the operational locked on the multi role tasks. look atthe time deemed by a ADV to perform a scramble and then speak about the real opeartionals problem with the planes
nuke1Ha, PhantomII…..
quote by Arthur:
“The Jaktviggen (JA-37) is foremost an interceptor, with a secondary attack role. As such, it is more of a multirole-aircraft than the Tornado ADV – including the one-trick ALARM shooters. The original AJ-37 attack variant of the Viggen was always considered to have a secondary (WVR only) fighter role, so it’s definately more of a multirole aircraft than the Tornado IDS.
Sens, there is no such thing as an ‘MRCA Tornado’ since MRCA was one of the project designations and had nothing to do with an actual multi-role capability within one single airframe. You either had fighter Tornados, or bomber Tornados. Not both. You can argue that the recce-Tornadoes were more multirole aircraft than either the SF- or SH-37 recon Viggens, but that definately no longer holds true when the AJ’s and recce-Viggens were updated to AJS-37 (and to a lesser extent the ASH-37 and ASF-37s).
__________________
Regards,
Arthur”
and still,
“That’s theoretical blabla with little relation to reality. Swedish AJ-37 pilots did practice air defense missions regularly, and they were integrated into the STRIL air defense system. Air-to-air was never seriously considered let alone practiced by any of the IDS Tornado operators. And they were certainly NOT integrated into any air defense network. “””
-study very carefully these words, perhaps there is still hope for you to understund better the real situation of the two palnes that you consider.
And:
“””Wait a minute…….I’m tired of getting words put in my mouth.
I never said the F.3 (or EF.3 or whatever it’s called) is a multirole jet, but how can you not say that having the SEAD capability is much more useful than just some rocket pods?
I might as well take up a MiG-21 and load it up with some rocket pods. At least it will be much cheaper to replace than the JA-37D would be when it gets shot down making a rocket attack in heavily defended territory.”””
So, who is the master of the war, you? If Swedish consider cost-effective the employ of the Viggen with rockets what’s the point? Why you don’t go to swedish air force chiefs and Saab eng. and say :”what you have done and thinked about the viggen in the lasts 30 years is all wrong “. Perhaps after that they delete the double-triple letters on their viggens and they became J-37, S-37, A-37. They wait only your word to do it!
“And I’m not buying the “Saab and Sweden” bit. Can you honestly say the AJS-37 is a multi-role fighter??”
Yes. Remenber: A-J-S. After that, to check if you have understood, a question:
What was the colour of the white horse of Napoleon?
Or also, how many angles has a circle?
Or even, : where Caesar battled the conquest of France?
“”I don’t think any variant of the Tornado is, but by the same token NO version of the Viggen is a multi-role fighter.
“I don’t just “think” this to be true, but I’ve provided many reasons as to why the AJS is NOT a multi-role jet.”””
-A-J-S, repeat *12 times bitte!
“””Name another airplane that’s considered a multi-role fighter yet lacks both a gun and BVR AAM’s.”
Mig 21PF?
“””We’re talking something at least in the class of medium-fighters like the F-16, MiG-29M, and Mirage 2000 if not the heavy jets like the F-15E, Su-30, F-4E, etc. You think the AJS-37 belongs in either category?”””
Ok, and where you would put the Sea Harrier? Remember, FRS mk 1. It’s weapons for AA role are barely the same of the self defence of Tornado, the photographic mission is related to only a photo-camera and the AG role was originally only made by 2-3 bombs or rocket pods,, but it’s enough to make it for multi role porpuses. Sure, it’s a kind of different plane, but the missions are always multi.role.
And finally, what do you htink of the Viggen or others is irrelevant, period. Even if a Tomcat is able to perform AG roles and a IDS AA roles, this isn’t sufficent if these planes are used in a different role. For the Tomcat, there were 20 years of service before to start to use it as bomber. For the IDS the times to use it as interceptor will never come. For hte Viggen, the integration with the Stril air defence network, and i say, since the Aj 37, is speaking volumes. If after you don’t find as useful a interceptor with only WvR, well, i can say to you: and by that? What’s the point? What’s important more, your opinion or the costumers? Do you can believe that if hte Swedish were deemed the AJ-JA viggen as multi role fighter there was a reason?
The problem of the illness of the high-tecnology is that after nobody is able to see what otehr thinks about to several aspects. Perhaps that some cannot understund that the Halifax was a bomber “because it lacked PGM, Harms, JDams etc.”
I don’t know if i have well expressed
nuke1taht’s sure that the naval employ for a helicopter is much more demanding as agility than the combat on the ground. the Ka 25-27 have rotors more spaced one each other.
It’s also sure that the development of the two helicopters, Mi 28-Ka50 is a auto goal, in a time in which there aren’t money enough even for a one. Ideally, i think that a light version of the Ka 50 project, in a role of A-A and recon could be a fellow for the heavier Mi-28. Also the ejection seat of the Ka 50 is only for one person, there isn’t possibility for two seat, and the visibilty is too poor.
If weighted the half than this, the Ka 50 could be, for me, thinked as Anti -heli and reconissance, or so i think
nuke1“You have a special opinion about those two aircraft, why not. When you give arguments, you have to stay to the facts. When did the last new built Su-25+ leave the assembly line?!”
it’s really funny what a guy like yuo isn’able to understand very simple facts and then says to me to must be on the facts. Over to say “to give sources” you what kind of contribute do you give? What’s strange to recoinnise these simpler facts like i had say?
Do you ask proof if someone says that the Heart isn’t flat?
About the design of the two aircraft I had done several considerations that aren’t properly based on nothing. Also for the marketing success.
Next time that you post in this topic, why you do not try to analize these aircrafts and gives a list of the costumers of the A-10 and the Su 25?
Come on, show me what can you do other to say “gimme source gimme source”
If you don’t want to waste your time with deeper evaluations, you can also not waste time to post at all
nuke1“How is the JA-37 a multi-role fighter? The ONLY air-to-ground weapons it can carry are unguided rockets if I’m not mistaken. That’s not exactly what I’d call a serious A/G capability.”
Arthur has already answered to you, or not? And as the internal gun, your nickname should say that you know something about the fighters without internal gun, like were almost all the models of F-4s, or?
As the 135mm. rockets, don’t tell to me that they weren’t enough to AG mode, tell to the swedish. Four rocket pads weights more than 1000 kg. The warhead is He, HEAT, Semi-armour and has 4-7 Kg of high explosive. I don’t think that could been problem to carry also bombs, but even with these weapons, plus the useful, pretty gun (that has more energy at 1,5 km range than a Defa at the mozzle) i cannot see how the AG role isn’t notable. HOw many fighter bomber in practice carries more than this? Do you rememnber, as example, the missions of the Harrier in the falklands? 2 rocket pods, or 2-3 bombs, plus gun and without AAM. And this also for the fishbed, the F-5, the Mig 23, F-8 etc.
The fact remains, that both AJ and JA viggens are multirole and most important they are so used by swedish, while the IDS or ADV are well expecialized machines for Ag or AA role. Check to the operational sqdns, both british and swedish, and then see if i say “nonsense” thinghies.
I am pretty sure that if i could activate the smilies i could result more effective in my posts
nuke1“That’s theoretical blabla with little relation to reality. Swedish AJ-37 pilots did practice air defense missions regularly, and they were integrated into the STRIL air defense system. Air-to-air was never seriously considered let alone practiced by any of the IDS Tornado operators. And they were certainly NOT integrated into any air defense network. “
Matchball. whetever Swedish trained as AA role, the IDS squadrons were never thinked as fighter interceptor units, nor the crew, well over busy with the bombing role, were never trained and used as interceptors in a air efence network. The theorical possibility to use the IDs as interceptor and the ADV as fighter bomber were, really, only theory, while the AJ and JA were meant as multi role aircrafts, more as AS for the first, more as AA for the second, but, neverless, theorically and pratical, multirole, while there wasn’t any IDS or ADV sq. so used, until the recent mod for ALARM. Sayng that the air to air self defense possibilitites of the IDS are alone good to consider this plane (with, let’s rememnber something like 1000 Kg/sqm. as wingload)
a fighter-bomber is like to say that the defense MGs of the Lancaster made him good as fighter bomber because, after all, it have the same weapons as the spitfire Mk 1
nuke1hey hey JS,
When you debate the worth of russian missiles you seems already unable to share other point of view, but here we talk not of a sort of wargames, but also a slaughter of so many lives..
So not only you don’t accept the worth of the russian missiles until they cut in two your frigate, but also you cannot accept that teh US commits atrocitites only because they bomb a city and kill their habitants.
Only a single case is too few to show the atrocities? Ok, why you try to burn your shoes in a airliner, so you will send yourself in Guantanamo? Perhaps it could be enough to understand that such brutalities and lack of the human right is not a single case..Or also, why you go in Falluja to check the “results” of the US operation? How many massacred by bombs and bullets? How fair is this kind of work made by US forces?
nuke1I cannot understand why, but the debate on the SU-25 is going to be annoyng.
Quote;
“Will you start argueing really? Before asking someone about his sources, you have to show yours too. I never red from you, here is SK right and there I am wrong.
“
I have not source special but the analisis of the overall design and the overall history is another point. No cares if a guy comes with a source when what he conside is cleary contradictory with the experiences of dozens years of airwar, and as well, the tecnical analisis of the aircraft design.
What’s the difficult to understund about the A-10 and Su-25?
-Is there an aircraft engeneer that seriously claims that the Su-25 is specialized at the degree of the A-10? Nobody has ever thinked this, ecxept SK perhaps. Even the soviets needed an not specialized anti tank fighter but a general porpuse attack plane and this is cleary showed by the overall design and by hte specications.
-the ultra-specialized A-10 was a real success? for the US yes but essentially this was due by the success after DS. Before, there were a lot of critics in the US Air Forces about the slowness and the lack of all weather avionic of hte warthog, that also lacked for many year even of a fire control computer and AIM 9s.
But for hte others air forces this wasn’t a success aircraft. Perhaps feared by ground forces but not a very successful aircraft. Hundreds were built but none were exported even as second hand occasion. The result: who needed really such kind of plane?
-on the other hand, the Su-25 was buyed by atleast a dozen of countries. Even the iranians were retained the fews flown by Irak. The developement of the frogfoot generated a lot of versions, two seater, all weatehrs, navalized, specialized anti-tank (but with missiles), while the A-10 was mono-version only a demostrator was two seater and with Lantirn pods. Why blame the Su-25 because it was developed in many versions? Why the several FCS developed are witness of the weakness of hte Sukhoy? What kind of avionic the A-10 has to be compared with the Su-25-39?
All this is meaning that the frogfoot was indeed as a better plane, more versatile, cheap, easy to maintein and hold.
So, INk, perhaps that insisting with our arguments is annoyng and not convincting but by that? I can say that i try to say what i think as wrong or right about the frogfoot or the A-10. SK has his own opinion about but, i try to say that his arguments are simply not matching even the war lessons known.
The fact reamins, the t essentially the A-10 was not exported not developed, not longer produced while the Su-25-39 was continously produced, developed, exported, and this means overhall a design more liked by the costumers and, as well, a aircraft better projected to be improved than the A-10. i think that every designers or engeneer can subscrive this. Sk has no answer to this, nor the lack of the deveopement of hte A-10 ( for him the developement seems as a weakness ) nor hte lack of export, while the frogfoot is on the contrary. This should speak something but only to who has hears to understund.
nuke1So Sens, what kind of definition do you like for a multi role fighter? To perform air to air and air to surface missions isn’t enough for you?
There is not Tornado variant multirole like that plane or a Mirage F.1-2000. The spectrum of weapons carriable by the Viggen is probably atleast broad like the early F-4s or the F-16s. Or do you think that also hte F-4 is a mono-role fighter?
nuke1all for all, there was atleast strange that teh russians developed a VLS for a short and a long range missile while the medioum range was still with a conventional system. It was finally the time that the VLS for the sthil comes
nuke1it’s so. the best system to fight a Harm shooter is to contrast him with a passive system. Imagine as example a SA 10 site with a belt of Sa-13 all around (the SA-13 has teh magick box with passive ESMs to lock a target emitting radar but also, i mean, ECM, plus an advanced passive IR seeker and a rangefinder radar: te best you can do , except if you put a laser rangefinder insthead of the radar).
I though also that the ALQ 184 of the Taiwaneses fighters are target for the FT 2000, it’s not believable that this was meant only for AWACs.
Rougly, an passive-ESm is like a an eye vs a light spot, it’s possible and likely to track at longer range than the range of the radar or ECm the “source”, like it’s possible to see from the space the lights of a city. So it’s not difficult in theory lock before the launch even if the radar wave are more elusive than the light or the sound wavelengths. It’s more easy to spot a light or sound source than a radar, but even so, the best way to counter attack a Sead with passive missiles is to use another passive system: a airplane must emit some kind of energy while the SAM position at the ground can stay totally silent, with active radars and engines shut off.
nuke1Seeens,
this means what?
Do you say seriously that the JA 37 isn’t a multi role fighter? J is for fighter A for attacak. Think what you want but the last version of the viggen IS a multirole fighter. Not all these planes should have the versatility of the Hornet, but the name, JA is meaning that is a multirole fighter. If for you the capability to carry 5 tons of bombs or rocket isn’t enough to call a fighter also fighter bomber…
As for the other version, AJ SH etc, etc, well, why not? These were first gen versions. The “definitive” was the JA and this was capble to perform almost any kind of mission requested by Swedish air force
Sign In
