nuke1true. the final development of the bison was satisftacting, and it’s a sin that it was too late. the pronlem for the bison was the endurance, while the almost fast bear can went where he wanted, expecially in th USA. But the large fuselage of the bison was better to carry teh earlier kind of nukes, and the turbine jet was the choice for the future. Howevr, ths don’t mean that the bear was a crap: the bison needed of less hungry engines, but before these weren’t too reliable, only when the engines were both reliable and low cons. the bison was OK. but it was too late and the palne was considered as the airtanker for the others. If the bears wasn’t developed the bison could been the equivalent of the B 52. It was also simpler,only 4 engines, like the badger was 2 eng insthead of the 6 of the stratojet. Because the bear family was the only real big planes the soviet trusted in then also for the awacs, but there were too vibrations for the reliability of the electronix and the fuselage was too thin (however, this was the time in which Usaf had E 211 while the navy had teh Hawkeye). That’s sure, the bison could performed better also teh awacs role than the Tu-126.
nuke1i think too that the weapon weight is a lot despite the los of the fuel during the flight. The granit has a name that well explains itself. I think that the weight is still 3 tons or more even without fuel at all. In every chase, it’s a lot of kinetic energy, someone knows its speed? In every chase, such beast couldn’t not reliably stopped by a ciws capable to shot down a missile at not more than 1 km. It could function vs a subsonic, but a supersonic missile should be downed by a longer range weapon. The Ram is a good choice, but no defence could function everytime as expected. The Ecms or the long range SAm could be a better answer. Better more, destroing the launch platform.
Frigate and brothers. The navies jokes with definitions, so Seahwk could be right and wrong. If the newer ships are generally more powerful it’s really true that teh frigates of the 70’s were 2000-3000 tons while the so called actual frigate are more than 5000. A small cruiser, in truth. Nothing like a type 21, and the same as the cost, so not undervalue this aspect as well.
About the RN vs teh backfires and so: i have stated that i am interested to see the historical worth of the giant missiles of soviets. It’s for many reasons, differently one could think that actually the SS 18 were a waste of money and teh Scud a success, and think that soviets should built more SS 21 and less SS 25.
Becasue this topic is strongly debated, however, that’s no problem to restart this in another topic (new), even if i don’t see nothing bad to think how vs smaller naval forces the big red missiles could worked.
Finally, the idea of the granit as iranian defence is not so bad. But it’s like the plans to buy hundreds of new aircrafts or so. Perhaps that they could function, but the cost and the complexity could be too high. If the iranians would modernize their missiles, they should start by the AA defence (read: better to have S-300 than the granits. This because the C-801 could work quite well while the Sa-2 and the older Hawks are now totally inadeguate).
And let me say this too.
Someone know something about the SSN 9?
regs.
nuke1excuse me js, but what’s wrong to example as a backfire vs british cariers? We discuss about the russian-and soviet- missiles, how do that without talking about their intended target? why to mean only the US carriers? soviets didn’t feared only the US CBG?
nuke1Quote:
“Originally Posted by nuke1
well i don’t agree at all. the A-10 is indeed to be projected to fly longer in the battle area than any other aircraft.
How is that a disagreement? Are we talking about loiter time or speed? You appear to be saying that a longer endurance is somehow a combat disadvantage.”*************************
NO swink, i mean it’s a real dangerous to attack so many times in a single battle over a enemy quite alerted by the first. Do you have problems to imagine how many holes the A-10 could gain if it flies so many strafing attacks? In this sence is a disavantage, expecially with modern AD defences, no not to talk to the eventually fighters.
“Quote:
What should been the role of the avenger drum belt of 1000+ rounds, if not to make 10-15 strafe on the target? more the ext. weapons.do you think that a eventually fighter in the area was ignoring the A-10 leaving it to make what it wanted? not only in a defended area the A-10 is present for more time than the froogfoot but also it cannot nor be unseen nor escape by a fighter or even a trainer or attack -why not, by a Su-25.
Neither an A-10 nor a Su-25 is going to last very long in the face of radar SAMs or enemy fighters, extra hundred knots or no extra hundred knots. The primary function of speed on a CAS aircraft is to get to the target fast enough so that it’s still there, and then to deny a shot to MANPADs and AAA during egress.
It also seems you are saying that the ability of the A-10 to make “10-15 strafe on the target” is actually an inability to do something else. Interesting way of looking at it.”*************
No, i mean that it’s not so sure that this tecnic of attack, if repeated as to fully deplete the huge drum belt, could be VERY dungerous, expecially if you consider that therse strafings are with the speed les tahn 500 kmh. Have you some problems to imagine what such plane could face if it tries to do so? The speed of the froogfot is atleast good to not to be heasily hitten or reached by AA and fighters, Extra knots are essentialy to do this. Supersonic fighters are not so able to fly slow like teh CAS planes but the A-10 was projected with too much emphasis on these and so it isn’t a equilibrate design, usable mainly if the USAF has the total air dominiance. Perhaèps this is the reason of the lack of export of A-10??
“Quote:
I don’t mean the advanced frogfoot only as multi-role fighter. i mean all the froogfoots.
A one-pass-haul-ass, radarless, HUDless, MFDless, ARMless, ATGMless, VFR-only, garden variety Su-25 is what you call a “multi-role fighter”? What do you call the F/A-18?”***********
your silly comment is only displayng your incapability to understund what i say. It’s clear that a Su 25 isn-t a F-18. But also the su-39 isn’t. The topic is the A-10 vs Frogfoot. you can deny all you want about the frogfoot capabilities, but relatively on the A-10 it can do a lot of things: it’s speed can be good enough to perform quite well in roles that none has ever thinked for the A-10. this is finally a too specialized designs, and the frogfoot doesn’t. If a strike plane must fly faster than a WWII type now it’s clear that the frogfoot can still strike vessels, airfield and give some air defence, just like the Hawks or MB 339s. The frogfoot hasn’t HARM weapons or so? OK, the A-4 skyhawks hadn’t nothing vs the english an even so they performed quite well. the real equal was the pucara’ attack plane, showing a overall failure as combat.
Atleast the su-25 has laser weapons and these can be a danger for a seacat defended vessel, doen’t it? I think that the argentians could have aprreciated these plane if they could have them in that time, perhaps with a IFR capability.
“Quote:
with a A-10 what can you do seriously an: emergency air defence, an strike mission (behind the enemy front), or a anti-ship mission?
So, the A-10 is not merely an inferior close air support (CAS) aircraft, now CAS doesn’t even rank as one of its missions at all. Rather, the first role that comes to mind for it is air defence?!”*************
not that the A-10 is inferior to the Su-25 as CAS, but the price to pay is too high. Also the A-1 skyrider was superior to the phantm as CAS but this was generally its unic advantage, dropped soon as the vietnamise deployed the strela missiles.
“Quote:
the Su-25 can do rougly the same things of a A-4, it’s even available in a naval version, more it’s better as air support plane. the majority of A-4s hadn’t AS missiles at all-see the argentinians against teh british, and they aren’t armoured.
Please, please. Bear with me while I see if I have this straight.
The A-4 is a “multi-role fighter,” I presume, because it can drop bombs and shoot anti-ship missiles.
Except, shooting anti-ship missiles is not a requirement to be multi-role because a majority of A-4s can’t do that.
Therefore, the Su-25 is also a “multi-role fighter”, because, it can drop bombs.
Am I understanding this so far?**********
NO you seems not understund. The F-16 could be still a multi role fighter even if hasn’t harm or harpoon. It’s the project that make the difference.
It also helps that the A-4 can take off of a carrier. Apparently this, too, counts a “role”.
A garden variety Su-25 can’t take off of a carrier, but that’s ok because there is the Su-25UTG that can. Never mind that the UTG is not a garden variety Su-25, or that the UTG is an unarmed trainer lacking the targetting laser and gun and unable to actually deliver any ordnance to a target – irrelevant. What matters is that it is able to fulfill the carrier takeoff “role”, thereby making the garden variety Su-25, which cannot fulfill this “role”, regardless somehow even more “multi-role”. After all, we are not talking about advanced or modified Frogfoots but rather ALL Frogfoots.”********
ATLEAST the froogfot was made also as naval role, the A-10 doesn’t. Not that the Su-25 are navalized, but none A-10 is navalized, so atleast as flexbility of the family versions the froogfot have a point.
First the existence of air as evidence of bomber stealth, then how to make a plasma out of a plasma, now this.
Lively forum…*************
Do you have problem with me or you suffers oshortage of arguments?
“Quote:
More, as the attemps and their dangers. What do says that a single passage at low speed is less dangerous than two at high?
No argument.
-SK”************
because you haven’t clue of what it means. Try if happens, to aim something ( harm, an umbrella,) to a fast jet or a trainer flyng over your head and you will understund better why the speed is a garantee. With “kids” this game could help.
nuke1Js, you know that the list of the countries ignoring the UN resolutions is not made only by Iraq, even considerating only the “i”. And that the politicians are usually play dirty games on the lives of both their soldiers and the civilians, so i cannot conceed the luxury to justifie the men that have projected such catasthope.
And finally not, i don’t think that TB and GWB had a clue of what they were doing and why.
one display is that all their politic calculation are sinking in a sea of s**t with a huge piece of our civilization
nuke1well i don’t agree at all. the A-10 is indeed to be projected to fly longer in the battle area than any other aircraft. What should been the role of the avenger drum belt of 1000+ rounds, if not to make 10-15 strafe on the target? more the ext. weapons.do you think that a eventually fighter in the area was ignoring the A-10 leaving it to make what it wanted? not only in a defended area the A-10 is present for more time than the froogfoot but also it cannot nor be unseen nor escape by a fighter or even a trainer or attack -why not, by a Su-25.
I don’t mean the advanced frogfoot only as multi-role fighter. i mean all the froogfoots.
with a A-10 what can you do seriously an: emergency air defence, an strike mission (behind the enemy front), or a anti-ship mission? Hell, with a contrary wind and teh ship escaping, the A-10 could almost not reach the vessel! With 600 kmh it’s definitively not a really modern fighter, rather the sobstitute of the A-1, while the su-25 hasn’t nothing to do with the sturmovik.
the Su-25 can do rougly the same things of a A-4, it’s even available in a naval version, more it’s better as air support plane. the majority of A-4s hadn’t AS missiles at all-see the argentinians against teh british, and they aren’t armoured.
More, as the attemps and their dangers. What do says that a single passage at low speed is less dangerous than two at high? what says that teh A-10 don’t need a second pass? Perhaps the visibility of the canopy could be helping more than the low flyng capabilities to lock the targets, but if the A-10 slow too much, it’s a perfect target even for HMGs and i don’t think that the yankee pilot could be happy about. In Iraq the things were different but in the original role of flyng at 100 ft all the potentially dangers could be also reals. How is worth to strike a tank with a 30mm gun if after the A-10 is perahps hitten by 30-40*7,62 and-or 20-30 *12,7-23-30mm and-or a strela missile? Even if the jet isn’t downed it’s not so likely that it will made further passages. So the concept of the A-10 is far by a really modern jet. the Su-25 perhaps cannot be able t ofind the target but it’s sure, it isn’t a easy target as well, for the speed but also for the slimmer shape.
nuke1just several considerations.
I cannot see the value of the discussion about the RCS tecnology of sov-russian aircrafts and missiles. The basic principle were know by decads. the Blackjack bomber is cleary designed as reduced RCS, and also the backfire expecially in the latest versions was partially stealth. I don’t know nothing about the RCS but the shape of that bomber seems to look some advantages on RCS reduction: longe nose and fuselage, mainly for high speeds but also useful for resduce the radar cross section, even if not originally meant for. It’s not difficult to think that the blackjack is projected atleast partially for reduce RCS. the results could be not goods as the smaller and stealth B-1 but the main points of radar reflection are not so difficult to find and correct with a slighty different shape, so it’s unuseful compare the blackjack with the B1 or even the B2 and say tath it’s more or less stealth. I think that the results are still valuable for a not so specialized stealth design.
The RAM are not absolute weapons against the radar detection but neverthless they were developed and used. They are not so dificult to make and quite cost-effective, having said so, it’s not to transform a tornado in a F 117.
The Blackjack is a cruise missile vector, something like a super B-52-Tu95M, while the B-1 is something a super-tornado. the problem is the same as the marineflieger some years ago, when there were F104 and tornado: if the F104 was equipped with the kormorans perhaps it was more effective of the ids wiht only bombs, so if it was a shortage of kormorans it could be better equip the older fighters rather the newer. A F104 with only bombs was unuseful.
Perhaps a B52 with alcm was more survible as a B1 with fall nuke bombs. Sure is that a B-1B cannot fly on 20 targets releasing one nuke each while the B52 could launch 8-20 missiles against different targets.
So, talking about the different speed o f the two is a joke: the blackjak is faster even if at low levels the B1b can goes faster or atleast. more stable. The blackjack could however can goes so fast to have a chance simply entering in the danger zone with a very high speed at high levels. More it can fire missiles at thousands kmts awy, while the B1 must goes for two hors at maxiimum speed to the target and hitting only one at time. I don’t think that teh B1 has a smaller RCS than a ALCM ,nor is slower.
again, sayng that the blackjack is th copy as the B1 is ridicolous. It’s like to say taht the fencer is teh copy of the F111. The concept yes , but referring to the B1A. The tecnologies are completely different. The engines of the blackjack, as example, are the evolution of the backfire and are 25000kgs not 13500. they are differnt beasts.
However, i could agre, the atomic bombers as only nuclear role, are much less wortly than a ballistic nuclear missile. Only as conventional role they are better. But the error was done by US as well, with billions dollars planes as the B2s that should hunt the topol missiles, a thing fair but not releasable in a real war, also because the URSS could be reached after like 10-20 hors of flight while the icbms are launched in 30 min..
nuke1Hi,
several considerations about the frogfoot.
i strongly think that in a real war it’s much more dangerous TO FLY SLOW than to fly too fast.The froogfoot isn’t a really slow-plane project but rather a multirole attack aircraft, wiht performances more likely to the A-4 than the A-10. i don’t think it’s a flaw, even if as slow speed controls the A-10 could be better. The principle is the same for every kind of aircraft: the speed is life, even if it’s dangerous. The a-10 could be better as low flyng-slow flyng capabilitites but it cannot escape even from a macchi Mb 339. And it’s huge. Compare two models of these planes if you don’t believe it. It can hold a lot of damages but it’s a shooting target for everyone. If it flies slow and low even a platoon of tanks with HMGs or Ifvs with cannons are a serious danger.
About the weapons of the frogfoot, it’s interesting to see the prices of the weapons. this forced me to leave my projects to build my personal airforcewith these cheap russian hardware. really, the prices are higher than i expected, expecially with the missiles but also the rockets. Of what year these prices are quoted? These prices arent really lower than the US systems even if the frogfoots are itself cheap as price
nuke1quote:
“They are Soldiers, in their own words “this is what we do” it is inevitable that there will be casualties.”
Yes, that’s very true. However, it doesn’t mean that their lives should be wasted in a fight they shouldn’t even be involved.
“whan the uprising at Fallujah is crushed (my guess is that even the Americans will succeed with this one) then there will be more support for the troops from the local populace.”
That’s if there’s anything left of this place. Don’t you find the pictures from Fallujah very reminiscent of the fighting in Hue City in 1968? The U.S. took the Citadel back but still lost the war.
“Even tralking about bringing them home in the British press is giving the Enemy hope. They are there to stay until the job is done.”
The enemy doesn’t care. They want every ‘Infidel’ dead anyway. And if they get killed in the process they achieve Martyrdom.
agree. to be soldiers expecially isn’t like be cows vectored since teh born to he butchery. This isn’t a football game or so, who comand must care of the lives of his mens. these lives losses are others guilths for Tony Blair. A bloody price to help GWB to re-win the elections ( or we should be an coincidence the re-deployement of thesee soldiers on Baghdad?)
nuke1Hi,
quote.
In total, last I heard, 10-12 of these binary sarin filled shells were found.
Also, some mustard gas shells were also found, and I believe one was also used in a similar(incorrect) manner to the sarin filled round. “
well, a very huge reason to start a war, doesn’t it? Really impressing. Who know what can be found in the military depots of Us friends like Egipt, Taiwan, Saudi, Pakistan and obviousely Israel if they are indaved?
Note well, not that “there were no WMD” is ridicoulos, but is more ridicolous If we see how many “WMDs” were found really. Enough to make teerorist attemps?Yes.Enough to have a deterrent force as military values? I think definively NOT.
All this was and is a tragic bufoonade.
“
nuke1well, Jonesy, when you say that you try to do better to explain to the others you are really serious!
But the problems remains. So, i could say several points:
– the norwegian NSSM or whaterever, is coming now in service. For teh cold war it wasn’t available! And we agree that hte Cold war is the golden age for the anti-ship missiles.
-you say that the HARM missiles are good for anti-ship: incidentally, the soviets thinked the same FAR before than teh norwegian, nothing to say bad about these latter, but this was the thing. you could agree, eventually, that the Penguin is a bit shorlegged and despite its passive IR searchehad, the Soviets didn’t so happy to have this insthead of a granit, as example. Even if it is certainly cheaper.
-Another point: let’s say that the battle was between the RN and the AV- MF aviation. Let’s say that the battle was because teh soviets deployed a Backfire sqn. in Argentina to help teh Argentinians ( let’s say that US didn’t nothing about, as deploy carriers or so ). What could happened to the RN expeditionary naval force? what happened to the Invincible or the Hermes despite their Sea dart couver?? I think that nor Sea harrier, nor Sea dart, nor Sea slug could done enough: do you imagine how teh backfires were treatened by that defences? I think not enough.
-the problem is also another. Perhaps that the harpoon or the exocet is a better cost-effective weapon, sure they are better as flexibility, and with many advantages also for tactical deployements. But is better for what kind of Threat? Is better to have a potentially 400 Km supersonic missile inshtead of many of 50-100 km ( i think that the harpoon is better than the exocet, however, except in the sub-launched role ), when the launcher plane is likely to be shot down by Tomcats or Phantoms well before that it can launch it’s missiles ( and what? How many? the super etendard have ususally only one missile). You seems to believe that a short range cruise missile is better, but seriously, do you think that a B-52 with Harpoons or a Bear with harpoonsky can do its job better than a Backfire with Ktichens? I think not, against a carrier US group i mean. The B- 52 could be downed well before. Not against a different naval group, included soviet navy. but it can be not enough. Potentially a B-52 must fly 20 minuts over a Backfire to fire the Harpoons more than a Backfire, Blinder or Badger to fire its As-4 or As-6.
-the growth of the soviet anti-ship missiles in performances is due because the treath to fight and the specifications needed. On the other hand, also te US carriers growthn in size and power. If one don’t remind this, why he can understand the meanings of a such monster like the Granit? Is like to imagine the existance of the T.Rex without thinking to teh brontosaurus type- lizards. So now the huge anti-ship missiles are oversized and costly. But without reminding the US CVG this this seems wrong.
-I’m however agree, the small anti-ship missiles are better to counter to a medioum-small vessel. They are also cheap. If the delhi class has 16 SSN 25 they are still much cheaper than 8 SSN 22. But i don’t think that soviets haevn’t clues of the needings for a anti-ship missile, only they were focused by the main threat of the cold war: the CVGs.
-often i hear about the vulnerability of the supersonic beasts like the Kh-22 against the AEGIS vessels. But is it the trhuth? Also the subsonic SSMs are vulnerable, both for the Ciws and the Aegis as well. Atleast in theory. More, when the US patriots downed iraquis scuds, how comes the things? 140 missiles fired to shoot down not more than 45 missiles. but the kithcen was capable to manouver over to fly high and fast. I don’t think that a Aegis vessel can really manage to shot down so many misiles like a Tu.22 M regiment can fire, even if the system could have teh theoric capability to do that. More, the CVG is a treaht and also a target so interesting that no effort could be seen wasted to reach the goal. It’s more likely that the attackers don’t lock the target or the missiles were jammed bu ECMs, but ECms are also the perfect target for any HARM missile, a thing usually never said ( while it is said the idiotic thing that a Harm missile is a serious danger for a AWACS, but here isn’t the right place to say it: perhaps another topic )
-i’m also for a smaller missiles for antiship roles, after all teh harpoon has teh same range of the Sunburn, but, before the development of the real answer to this, the sthealt tecnology, how to surclass the Aegis defence? or teh fighets of the CAP? The big missiles were a needing of the period, now the AS-17 or the SSN 25 are better answers to the needings. the Klub or the other post-USSR missiles are now questionable, and force the navies to have adeguate answers to counter these limited treats , so the “normal” missiles are outclassed by these, but i think that when a navy has a stuff like the moskit or apha the potential enemy should think twince before attack. The psicologic war isn’t secondary.
-another point is the damaging power: what to sink with a HE warhead a CV wiht a harpoon? how nay missiles are needed to atleast take out the carrier? with a granit is simple: perhaps one.
So we could get away for more time to discuss, but these discussions are merely theoric. expecially in the cold war contest. Luckly. Every solution have disavantages and advantages, perhaps that a Kh 22 could do better than 20 exocets in a certain constest, in other not. Perhaps that in some occasions the aircraft with harpoons are downed before they could launch the missiles while the As-4-Tu-22 are more than enough.
The only real naval war battled was the falkalnds with the argentinians attacking with mainly bomb armed fighters aginst a old navy like the RN. How well in hte San Carlos waters a Aegis ship could done, it’s a guess without a real answer. The only real battles inviìolving aegis ships are the downing of an Airbus, the cruiser alsmost sunk by a mine and a destroyer almost sunk by a explosive craft. Also, the exocet has successully attacked ships US and british while in other occasions it wasn’t enough to hit anithing or it hitten targets not already intended.
So this question about the real efficency of a SSM-ASM vs a warship is and will be a open question. All what it can be said is that is someone comes enough close to fire a missile, there are possibilities that this can hit the target and no defences are enough to surely counter such treath. A vessel is still a valuable target even if it is not so huge.
nuke1One of the weakness of Su-25 is its speed; max speed of 900 km/h was imposed by militaries, and airframe and engines a bit overweighted as a result of high maximum speed. Flying on 900 km/h is dangerous and tiring because of flaws in control system.
this is the greater BS that i have ever heard about the air warfare. All the pilots say teh t the speed is life and i cannot see the big and slow A-10 can survive to a even low level fighter force, while the frogfoot is much smaller and faster, enough to escape quite easily. the A-10 has only the vantage of the better canopy view
nuke1and there are reports about them? they are one of the most unknow kind of SAMs so i am interested to know something by their use by a NATO country.
nuke1Hi, Garry,
listem me, leave Jonesy: he’s too good for everyone remarking it’s poin of wiews as “definively truht”. He could have a huge culrure about, no doubt, but he is always so convincted that his standpoints are the best or the unic that discuss with him is a substantial loss of time, despite it’s fair to see the datas and arguments spoke in that discussions. His article of faiht N.1 is : the supersonic SSM are a loss of money and a failure concept .N.2 russians made Overlooked weapons. He is able to give much interesting datas and ideas about, but he is als oso convincted that the things could been only like he says that is unuseful try to discuss about. He will be concincted only if a Granit cut in two his frigate
regs.
nuke1hi, someone has info about the AS-6 Kingfish or the other huge ASM like the As 4 or 5?
Sign In
