I don’t know if Litening 3 or Sniper are better than Damocles. Sniper should, but Litening ? I’ve read contradictory data on that point.

Cheers
Az

The latest Litening model, the Litening AT (Advanced Targeting) or Litening III is better than Damocles. The basic Litening (Litening I) is not.

SEAD
Detecting enemy SAMs better than the F-16CJ is not necessarily all that impressive, nor does it necessarily infer a better SEAD capability. Detecting enemy emitters is just one link in the chain, after all.

Bear in mind that the F-16CJ was designed to give the USAF a low-cost replacement for the F-4G Wild Weasel Phantom in the SEAD role. It’s generally accepted that the USAF accepted a less capable aircraft to perform the SEAD mission, in order to save money.

The F-16CJ was not built as a dedicated Wild Weasel aircraft, and was less effective than its predecessor in tracking, locating, and prioritizing SAM threats, especially in dense-threat environments. Crucially it lacked the F-4G’s 360-degree capability, could process fewer threats at once, and HTS lacked the effective range of the F-4G’s sensors, and it operated with less precision in accurately identifying the location of an enemy emitter.

That’s why the original concept called for teaming F-16s the carrying AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting Systems (HTS) Pod with Precision Direction Finding (PDF) system-equipped F-15s.

This meant that typically two F-16CJ aircraft had to cooperate in order to pinpoint the exact position of the enemy emitter, and where F-4Gs would typically operate in pairs, the F-16CJ would predominantly operate as a four-ship because of the limited azimuth of the Harm Targeting System (HTS), and the relatively light loadout of the F-16CJ.

The HTS did offer greater automation, however, allowing it to be used in a single seat cockpit.

Even with the R7 upgrade to the Harm Targeting System (which increased frequency coverage, search speed, number of targets tracked and identification capabilities, and which added precision targeting capabilities) the F-16CJ remained a less capable SEAD aircraft than the F-4G, and there has long been an aspiration to replace the HTS with an improved emitter targeting and passive identification system in order to provide expanded frequency coverage, more precise emitter/target location and less ambiguous emitter identification capability.

It may be that SPECTRA gives Rafale a better emitter detection capability than HTS, though with the relatively small number of RWR antennas and their position it is unlikely to give a dramatically better ability to accurately locate them in azimuth, or to give a full 360° location (as opposed to detection) capability.

And once an emitter is located, you then have to deal with it. F-16 has HARM, which, for all its shortcomings, is a better anti-radar weapon than a weapon which relies on IN/GPS guidance – like AASM.

Agreed. Also consider latest HARMs have also IN/GPS guidance that 1) allow the HARM to be launched on the best trajectory, improving the range, and 2) killing the SAM site, even if the radar is turned off.

BTW, nothing was said about the ability of F 16 Blk. 60 of the UAE to locate emitters. AvWeek said the the EW suite of the Blk. 60 is best of all except for the F 22

Greece didn’t meet EU standards when it was admitted, but was let in on political grounds, & Romania is not the only exception since then. As you say, Bulgaria did not meet the standards. Why has Romania been singled out, forced to make concessions not demanded from others?

Please supply some evidence for your claims. So far, you have made statements unsupported by any evidence, & despite repeated requests, have failed to make good this deficiency. Facts, please.

If you compare Greece and Romania, you clearly don’t know the subject.

Regarding Bulgaria, be sure thay have to buy from EU in many fields.

As for evidence, you are naive…
________
Black Cocks

But that isn’t what you originally claimed, & is contradictory to the idea that buying from the EU was forced on Romania. If so, it would have been imposed before the decision on the application, & probably even before the formal application was submitted. Formal applications are not submitted out of the blue. There are always discussions on the conditions that have to be met before the application will even be considered.

You have no evidence whatsoever for your assertion. Other countries have made major purchases of non-EU weapons during membership negotiations with no adverse results, as I have already pointed out. Your response was that the Lancer deal was before application. You now accept that was incorrect, but have shifted your argument to one which you previously rejected.

I didn’t bring the Lancer contract into discution. You did, as a way to prove that EU companies didn’t force Romania to buy from them as a sort of paying or bribing EU countries in exchange for the admission. But the timing proves that the Lancer deal was before the negotiations started. The contract with Elbit was signed in 1993. See: http://www.frontnews.ro/social-si-economic/eveniment/mig-21-modernizarea-modernizarii-avionului-de-lupta-al-armatei-romane-29803
It’s in Romanian, but the date of the contract (23 mai 1993) is easy to undersatnd. The first prototype MiG-21 LanceR-A (9809) was flown on August 22, 1995, followed by the LanceR-B (327) on May 6, 1996. The LanceR-C prototype (6607) first flew on November 6, 1996. So, way before EU arms manufacturers can pressure (“convince” if you prefer :D) Romania to buy from them.

So, leave it.
________
CHEVROLET MALIBU SPECIFICATIONS

The only thing i said about Europeans, is that usually their 2nd hand equipment that they sell at low price, is less worn out. The rest is your interpretation of who is good and evil.

So, using your reasoning, i should say, that you mean that Europeans are evil and Americans are good and that this is anti-european rhetoric.

Based on the text written though, one less aggressive, could think that it is a description of past experience and that’s it. It doesn’t have to be a comparison.

Not fullfilling offsets, is common practice in defence deals, when local goverments don’t seem determined to pursue them legally. It has happened to us for decades, due to our amateurish approach towards defence our politicians have. I don’t blame the companies, as much as i blame our own goverment for that. Offsets are part of a contract. If you leave them get away with not fullfiling their obbligation, you are as much responsible as they are.

Another FACT, is that the most often and on regular basis “giveaways” come from USA. Usually European countries sell 2nd hand material at low price, but don’t give them completely for “free”. So i thought to write what’s behind the “free” price tag.

Well, you mentioned warships, that’s why I bring the second hand frigates. Those were given for for free by UK, but Romania had to pay for modernisation. The whole modernisation will go over 500 mil. Euros. So you see that not only US that give “poisoned” gifts.

And, even if offsets are not always fulfilled by exporters, you must agree that < 10 % is insignificant
________
Couples Webcams

This “free giveaway” is a common US policy for arms sales. It’s an awesome way of getting money for something useless and preparing for future contracts. Such “giveaways” are very common, when a country makes a requirement for new material:

It’s “free”, but:

1) You pay for overhaul expenses.
2) You pay for ammunition (missiles) and spare parts.
3) The rate of using spare parts will be likely increased compared to new aircraft, so more money.
4) You prevent the Romanian airforce from getting european aircraft. This means, that you increase the chances that when they do want to buy new, they will choose US aircraft (you set a foothold in their airforce, support line, armament and this can influence future purchases). For example, if you get the “free” F16s now, wouldn’t it make sense , later, when you will want to buy new, to buy F16 again? Of course it would!

With time our Romanian friends will learn more about these tactics. 😀 For aircrafts it may be worth it. When they will offer “free” ships, be very careful. They can cost a lot in the long run and tie your Navy to US designs/weapons systems.

As thet say “There’s no such thing as a free meal”.

Yeah, the US are evils and the Europeans are good… let’s get serious, please. You pick the wrong exemple by mentioning the navy: Romania was forced to buy 2 EDITED fregates from the world champions of bribes i.e. BAE Systems. That was the price to be paid for intergation in NATO and EU. The cost was 116 mil. UKP but for the 1st stage of the refurbishment. BAE Systems fulfilled less than 10 % of the offset obigations… But the frigates themselves were for free :diablo:…Also, EADS was given a fat contract of 650 mil Euro for securing the borders. It was also part of the price to be payed for integration in NATO in UE. So, spear us from anti-american rethoric, please. Our experience with Europenas defence was miserable.
________
COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY

So now you’re going ot explain how a design optimised for lower Machs and altitudes, and for a totaly different role is going to meet meet requierements made for the LWF, comparing F-35 to what you don’t know is not making your point at all.

You seems to lack a lot of information on the F-35 engine/inlets design optimisation as well as F/A-18 aerodynamic layout (and the origins of it), looking at their respective sweep angles without knowing a lot more than this is way insuffiscient.

I’m aware of the YF 17 performances vs the navalised F 18, but the thing is that those Hornets & SuperHornets, with their flying qualities compromised, can reach 1.8 M !

For your info, Typhoon like Rafale are designed to carry their full load of AAMs 0.2 Mach faster than the Maximum designed Mach of F-35, and have DASH Mach (with at least 2 AAMs) still 0.4 M higher. Sorry, i dare to correct you there, Typhoon have a significant kinetic advantage over F-35 in A2A configuration (exept external tanks perhaps) at ALL altitudes, and the number of AAM is not a “few” but actually 4 more than the F-35 block 3 would carry.

The same applies in the case of Rafale although the standard AdlA/MN A2A configuration includes only 6 AAMs

And 0.2 M with only AAMs is a huge difference to you? Not to mention that with EFTs this advantage will be zero? And 2M is a pure theoretical speed. EF is now operational for a few years. Did any operational EF ever reach 1.8M, not to mention 2M?

BTW, in QRA configuration EF has also 4 AAMs
________
Stream Xxx

Mach 1.5 SC range? Not much range, IF any, IF the aircraft was completely clean, with the internal tanks half empty, the lightest pilot that they could found and after clicking a certain buton that overrides the EJ200 normal thrust settings. Its not an operational speed, far from it, probably the fastest speed that was atained in tests, IF it was atained (what i?ve heard and i have no official confirmation of any sort was something like “Warton, September 2006, IPA5, Mark Bowman”, it could be true or it could be complete bullsh…). A lot of “IF?s”, i admit.
Mach 1.2 SC? Between mach 1.1 and mach 1.2 i would go with those Norwegian pdf numbers, or in alternative with whatever JWCook says. Our Australian forumer colegue has been in those “for private eyes only” tupperware meetings/military briefings full of brass and industry officials in wich the Eurofighter Typhoons capabilities were described by RAF personell. Between him, Scorpion, a certain “two times award winner” defense journo and AW?s Douglas Barrie, those are the four best “public open sources” that i know for this program.

Cheers

Look, no one denies the advantage (not so big the EF fans would like) the EF has over the F 35 at high speed/high altitudes, when EF is with a few AAMs, no EFT. After all, that’s why in the charts regarding speed and acceleration, the F 35 was compared to Rafale, Gripen, J 10 and Su 30 MK, in order to look good, but not to EF.

But look at the comment of gen. Davis, ex-F 35 progam manager and former F 15 program manager said about F 15: in 30 years of operations, on average, an F 15 cumulated 10-15 min in supersonic and the highet operational speed recorded was 1.3M !
________
WATCH HER CLITORIS SPASM WITH ORGASM