Marcellogoyo ! so now you’re going to drop bombs on the assumption that you will actually find the target before the bomb hits the ground ?
…on a 2nd thought this could explain the hospital bombings USAF have gotten into habit of,
and why stop there, why not fling missiles at aircraft on the assumption its an attack aircraft intended to attack,
theres no reason to assume its merely an iranian airliner doing their job just because its peacetime, oh wait :rolleyes:
Excuse me but exactly how all those things connect with what are we discussing here in a quasi reasonable way?
I have enough difficulties in discussing with adversaries to have to defend myself from “friends” also.
MarcellogoThank for the info.
Still, again: how much time it would take for a plane equipped with gliding bombs to engage and destroy a pop up SAM system at, let’s say, 50 km (i.e. Buk-2)?
There is a reason because the Harm missiles are designed for reaching velocity even superior to the same air to air ones, you know…
MarcellogoAhem! You forgot the 70nm JSOW, guy.
Explain me please , what velocity it can reach and can it be aimed on a pop up target or it need to have precise coordinates?
So its about the same efficacy of a SDD or an JDAM bomb with a diamondback kit for what it takes a Wild Weasel mission.
Seriously, do you really read other people’s post or have only Pavlovian reactions?
MarcellogoI would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it’s limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.
Let’s add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple…
This not to trash the F-35 at all, just this damned habits of persons having an humanistic background like me to critically examine any given text and their retorical figures…
MarcellogoSoviet Union fielded in 1981 i.e. two years after the Islamic the MiG -31 with Zaslon PESA radar i.e. a completely different aereodinamic and electronic solution for the same requisite of a long range interceptor able to engage several target at once .
Only thing that is remotely similar between F-14 and Fulcrum and Flankers are podded engines and twin tails but their general configuration is totally different: in one case they are attached to a conventional fuselage and to swept wings while on the other case we have a blended wing with no actual fuselage.
Note that all those fighters were already in advanced development when the revolution occurred so not any relevant influence between one to the others could have come from such a way.
Same can be said at the reverse: how it come no one have ever postulated any influence of the defected MiG-25 on teen fighters?
MarcellogoAgree.
And somehow bombing with “smartbombs” has not done anything for US approval in ME.. Pretty much everyone there hates US guts. And what good does “smartbombs” do when you still end up bombing the wrong willage or building, killing scores on hospital or in a wedding.
… and if we would be a little more precise and call one guided and the other non guided ordnances?
Because, for what I know no one ever called APFSDS round or artillery grenades as “dumb”, so why to give such an advantage into a discussion for free?
MarcellogoOn Nellis AFB site http://www.nellis.af.mil/News/tabid/6431/Article/1071259/f-35a-proving-its-worth-at-red-flag-combat-exercise.aspx
However it is noticeable that agressors were F15C and F16C. Dunno which radar they have.
More important is the difference of their own radar cross section: are the ones of aggressors the same of when they entered service i.e. ages ago or some improvements were applied?
MarcellogoI think what’s more important is the integrated threat i.e. what surface to air threats they are simulating coupled with the red-air threat. Red-Flag isn’t an evaluation of one platform in a vacuum but an integrated fight and fitting a new capability into that integrated joint forces.
You right on this, Red Flag is a good test just for this as it allow all the components to acquire more competence, for the rest time will tell.
And given the numbers and the delivery dates involved, we are talking about a long, long time there.
So, I’ll say that with the 2017 we can begin talking about a real plane operational path, not just about about the development of a project.
MarcellogoSomewhat odd and quite concerning regarding the Russian MiC.
They seem to demonstrate they have the technology and even capabilities to produce such technologies for quite a long time. Yet, they do not purchase them. Instead, MiG-35 gets no AESA radar and is really nothing of an aircraft. PAK FA is going to end up staying experimental for probably indefinite time. Technology behind the Su-35 is simply not modern compared to competition and Russia will end up falling behind entirely since not purchasing these newer systems carrying brand new technology, will not give the companies who develop it, the needed money to continue to R&D.
Some serious lacking of preparing for the future from the Russian MoD it seems.
+/-60°degrees
When they would have a gimballing AESA plate they would install it on their legacy fighter.
Europeans are doing the same.
ATM they thinkstheir hybrid radars i.e. acting like Pesa in emitting like Aesa in receiving, would be enough.
In any case where is the new here?
MiG-23 entered service with MiG-21 radar and MiG-29 with MiG-23 one.
Once they were ready they installed the new ones.
MarcellogoItaly: SF-260T, M-345 (actually Mb-339D), M-346.
Rationale is using a more advanced primary trainer to eat hours to basic training, while using the M-345 for the rest of basic to first half of advanced one instead of MD339 so to spare money and the second half of advanced and a consistent part of operational conversion actually made with two seat versions of service aircrafts using the M-346 lead-in trainer instead.
MarcellogoJust a precisation : with there and here I mean in Italy.
Because you know, we are on this Earth from too much damn time to not have grew cynics on certain matters, so every one (i.e the different defense magazines and discussion forums) here had a quite precise idea not just about the final outcome but also about the possible manner we would be pushed out from competition and guess what? It went almost exactly how many of us had predicted.
MarcellogoLol..Northrop withdrew from T-X !
Northrop BAe withdrawal cuts T-X bidders to 2
this means LM and Boeing-Saab are the only real competitors, the Freedom Trainer is just a side show.
Businnes as usual, plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose, bisogna cambiare tutto perchè non cambi niente…
Now it will end like anyone with a minimal knowledge of military matters there had predicted from the beginning of program: Lockheed would made fighters, Northrop the bombers and Boeing the trainers.
MarcellogoIts all good folks, its all good. TRUMP HAS FIXED IT! Smooth sailing from now on.
Trump says shaves $600 million from cost of 90 Lockheed F-35 aircraft
Sworn into office on 20th Jan. Fixed the program by 30th Jan.
Whadda man! Truly a master of the “art of the deal”.
Thing that worry me most is that he seems to consider military procurement exclusively on its economic aspect.
Certainly cost overruns are a problem in the US procurement but they are more a by-side effect of a wrong i.e. transformational approach to most of the main programs than to corporate greeds, so bargaining for a discount is just a relief measure not a long term solution.
Buying more planes at a early phase of program could mean to have an outdated force between just some years and having to spend way more later in a early MLU.
MarcellogoI started that thread to discuss other USAF aircraft and wanted to keep the arguments about the F-35 clear, that was all. I’m not sure why you are reading any more into that.
Please point out these posts, if they are stating that, they aren’t very knowledgeable. I’ve given you the info, it is accurate. You can ignore it and continue to post based on your ignorance of the topic (or the ignorance of others you deem knowledgeable), or start accepting that facts contradict what you are saying. I mean you no disrespect when saying this, I am simply trying to give you the reality of the F-22 basing and deployments, not some forum member’s opinion.
FYI, there haven’t been just four ship deployments. That is part of the “rapid Raptor” package. A concept that gives lie to the whole idea the F-22 is too fragile to deploy:
https://theaviationist.com/2013/09/29/rapid-raptor-package/The DoD generally declines to say how many aircraft are part of certain deployments. The most recent deployment to Europe was more than a dozen in April.
Well, this last one I didn’t knew, so thank you.
MarcellogoI don’t know why you write such nonsense.
If you had even bothered to check the F-22’s wikipedia page you would have learned that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Deployments
In this same thread and also in the “USAF not F-35 thread” (whose same title is a more devastating critic to USAF procurement politics than all the Russianstronkist on this forum can do in a pair of years) have been pointed out by persons more competent than me that all those deployements involved a maximum of 4 planes instead of a whole squadron as the standard is because the F-22 was deemed too maintenance heavy for a not specifically customized base.
And the same fact that we are talking about temporary deployments confirm what I was saying: they are actually doing something different from what they were originally tough for.
Sign In
