Page 171 – Key Publishing

SpudmanWP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,551 through 2,565 (of 4,849 total)

← 1 2 3 … 170 171 172 … 322 323 324 →

Author

Posts
March 29, 2013 at 7:42 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2296508

SpudmanWP
Participant

F-22 has none of that – it only can work with APG-77 and ALR-94. Yet it is still regarded as Pinnacle of BVR aerial combat.

FIFY

That being said, the comments about HOBS/EODAS/DIRCM are clearly WVR related.

Given that, I would lay odds on the F-35 any day of the week in a F-35 vs F-22 WVR fight.

March 25, 2013 at 10:20 pm in reply to: F-16 and dual missiles pylon #2299184

SpudmanWP
Participant

Google-Fu

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=79167

March 25, 2013 at 9:08 pm in reply to: F-16 and dual missiles pylon #2299264

SpudmanWP
Participant

My only thought is it was some sort of ejector rather than a rail launch setup.

It’s hard to see based on the angle, but it might be dual Shrike (modified Sparrow) instead of dual HARMS.

March 25, 2013 at 7:25 pm in reply to: F-16 and dual missiles pylon #2299325

SpudmanWP
Participant

Yes, HARMs

Here is another shot of the same plane with Shrikes and HARMs.

March 25, 2013 at 3:56 pm in reply to: F-16 and dual missiles pylon #2299427

SpudmanWP
Participant

It was a prequel to the F-16CJ.

The wingtip pods are sensors that serve the same purpose as the current HARM Targeting Pod (HTS).

March 22, 2013 at 5:30 pm in reply to: Danish Air Force fighter competition #2301313

SpudmanWP
Participant

Likely due to the lack of aircraft facilities that would have to be built in Iraq.

March 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm in reply to: NORTH KOREA Airforce and Air defences #2301335

SpudmanWP
Participant

The reason that the GBU 57 is not a standoff weapon is due to the need for a steep dive angle to achieve a high impact velocity.

If you were to use some sort of standoff wing kit, you would need a rocket booster to gain the needed impact velocity when the GBU goes into its final dive.

As far as the IADS in the area, saturate it with EM from Growlers or throw in a bunch of MALDs and MALD-Js.

March 21, 2013 at 5:17 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2301826

SpudmanWP
Participant

Don’t forget that development of missiles in the US is not stagnant either.

— T3 tech demonstrator (part of the NGM/JDRADM program) is due to fly this year
— New Motor from ATK with Dual-pulse, new case, new nozzle, etc is due from development this year
— Follow-on dev for 9X Blk3 is already started
— Follow-on dev for 120D+ is already started

March 21, 2013 at 4:42 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2301845

SpudmanWP
Participant

The results of these tests, which included chaff and IR dispensing, were described as ‘very successful’.
http://news.cision.com/pt/saab/r/successful-flight-test-program-for-bol-countermeasures-dispensing-system-on-raaf-f-a-18,c145961

The tests only comprised integration and use of the BOL system, not live missile shots against target planes.

March 21, 2013 at 3:28 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2301863

SpudmanWP
Participant

Reminds me of a commercial that’s been playing on TV as of late. When a young girl tell a guy that something (forgot what) must be true because she read in on the internet. Then a fat ugly guy walks ups that she introduces as her new French boyfriend. He say “bonjour” in the worse French accent imaginable. (clearly not French)[/I]

State Farm Commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I

Modern flairs, like BOL, are still pretty effective as has been demonstrated in trials vs heat seeking missiles in 2008/2009. IIRC the result was 12 missiles fired and all foiled by the flairs.

What missiles were used? Were they the newer IIR based seekers like ASRAAM and 9X that see an actual image of the target (and therefore can differentiate between a plane and a flare) or older IR seekers that only see a hot spot?

Sources?

March 20, 2013 at 9:44 pm in reply to: YAL-1 vs gen 4.5 , gen 5 fighter #2302601

SpudmanWP
Participant

I kid you not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

The same logic applies to not using hollow point bullets, not aiming at “people” with a 50 cal MG, etc.

March 20, 2013 at 7:05 pm in reply to: YAL-1 vs gen 4.5 , gen 5 fighter #2302722

SpudmanWP
Participant

Blinding weapons are prohibited by the GC.

March 19, 2013 at 8:27 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2303523

SpudmanWP
Participant

4.5 would do better than 4 but not as well as 5. 🙂

Any way you slice it you are sending a lot more assets against the same set of targets. This limits the total number of targets you can prosecute in any one day and drives up the cost to prosecute any one target.

March 19, 2013 at 4:14 pm in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2303627

SpudmanWP
Participant

Here is LM’s range for a Hi-LO-LO-HI profile with various tank configs (all have a centerline tank).

460 nmi with 370 gallon wing tanks.
570 nmi with 600 gallon wing tanks.
630 nmi with 600 gallon wing tanks and conformal fuel tanks.

Loadout is 2x2k bombs and the tanks are dropped when empty.

That can get expensive real fast.

What happens if you get jumped on the way in (no sneaking in thanks to your barndoor RCS) and have to drop the tanks early… so much for the longer range. Package Q suffered from this as a lot of F-16s suffered from a Mission Kill as they had to jettison stores to evade AAA and SAMs.

March 19, 2013 at 4:49 am in reply to: F-35 debate thread. #2304003

SpudmanWP
Participant

F-35 was never ‘VLO’, it is MLO

Wow.. Either the F-35 got much better since the requirements of JAST (as it started out as “Moderate” and is now officially “Very Low”), or terms like VLO/ “Moderate”/etc are purposefully vague.

I’ll go with #2.

Since that doc puts “Moderate” in the same league as the YF-22/23 and the F-35 has reportedly met or exceeded it’s LO requirements, I’ll take that as a good thing.
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 2,551 through 2,565 (of 4,849 total)

← 1 2 3 … 170 171 172 … 322 323 324 →