dark light

CayceG

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 158 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Interesting Flanker-Su-27UBM2 #2382167
    CayceG
    Participant

    It’s quite a shame that such beautiful Flankers are stuck landlocked in the middle of Asia. Just think of the fantastic intercept shots we’d have if they were closer to NATO countries.

    in reply to: Interesting Flanker-Su-27UBM2 #2382210
    CayceG
    Participant

    Is this the one you’re talking about?

    http://necronom.35photo.ru/photos_series/67/67166.jpg

    Because I think this is just plain sexy.
    Jammers and Kh-31s on a Su-27UBM just screams “awesome.”

    in reply to: Searching for an elusive picture of "712" #2310320
    CayceG
    Participant

    The information I had on those airframes comes from a modelling website with paint schemes and little blurbs about their origins and usage.

    http://www.mars.slupsk.pl/fort/sukhoi/su-30-ru-m.htm

    How reliable the blurb information is remains to be seen. It says they were converted from Su-27s rather than new builds.

    in reply to: Searching for an elusive picture of "712" #2310338
    CayceG
    Participant

    Now, the N011M was the tail stinger radar, yes? Or was it an upgraded radar for the nose?

    Reason I ask is that 711 doesn’t have the white dielectric tip in the tail stinger, leading me to believe that it was not fitted with the tail radar. Whereas, 712 DOES have the white dielectric tip.

    (I hate that this and my other thread are separated because it seems like they are revolving around the same issue. Could a mod merge the two?)

    in reply to: Searching for an elusive picture of "712" #2310346
    CayceG
    Participant

    Another–possbly impossible to find–picture I’d like…

    Is there any photo documentation of 712 being fitted with the thrust-vectoring AL-31 engines?

    in reply to: Question regarding rear facing radars in Sukhois #2310620
    CayceG
    Participant

    I didn’t notice that at first. I was paying more attention to the bort number.

    You’ve got a good eye.
    This means that not only 711 had a rear facing radar (or at least, was prepared to have one installed), but 712 was also.

    in reply to: Searching for an elusive picture of "712" #2311069
    CayceG
    Participant

    Paralay, you are amazing. Thank you.

    in reply to: Question regarding rear facing radars in Sukhois #2312279
    CayceG
    Participant

    Good wiki’s will have a whole list of open source references at the bottom. It should be fairly straightforward to assess the accuracy of a wiki on that basis. Just as one would to to assess and article in a professional journal. In that sense, it is folly to dismiss wiki outright.

    Your statement pulled from the Wiki page didn’t have a source. I checked.

    Like I said, usually Wiki is a very good source for information. But only when sourced. The statement on rear facing radars was not sourced and was labeled as [citation needed].

    EDIT:
    And haavarla has a good track record from what I’ve seen.

    in reply to: Question regarding rear facing radars in Sukhois #2312783
    CayceG
    Participant

    That’s what I needed to know. Thanks a lot.

    And while we’re on the subject, what are the differences in the Su-34’s B005 and B004 radars?

    in reply to: Question regarding rear facing radars in Sukhois #2312799
    CayceG
    Participant

    I’m usually okay with getting things from Wikipedia, but when it’s unconfirmed things that have a track record of being more ideas than serial components, I’d like some other sources.

    I think the designation I’ve heard for the tail radar in both the Su-34 and 35 is N012.

    Any truth to this? And is it on the serial aircraft?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2315184
    CayceG
    Participant

    Why not have it fly over? Iskander and Tochka used cassette bomblet dispersal in Georgia.

    This may be one for the missiles forum, but do we have any schematics on how the dispersals work?

    in reply to: Russian Aviation News – Part the Fourth #2329261
    CayceG
    Participant

    I think the mention was about internal systems, the centraline pod is something else.

    Okay.

    So how potent are the Su-34/35 internal ECM capabilities?
    And how do the Sapfir pods on the Su-34 improve the capabilities?

    Or do we have that information? Because I think the RuAF is generally pretty tight lipped about ECM and jamming capabilities.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation News – Part the Fourth #2332669
    CayceG
    Participant

    Apparently Su-35 is getting the same/similar ECM system to the Su-34. This is excellent.

    Oooh, sounds good.

    What systems and capabilities will this ECM suite entail? And will it be internal? Or will it be the two wingtip pods + centerline pod?

    in reply to: No-fly zone over Gaza . Volunteers ? #2362564
    CayceG
    Participant

    What would be the point?

    For one, Israel doesn’t even have to enter the Gaza Strip’s airspace to launch attacks. It’s only what, 8 miles wide? Putting up a no-fly zone over Gaza would be useless.

    To make it effective, a NFZ would have to be instituted over the Gaza Strip and a surrounding X mile buffer. Which would include Israeli airspace. Which would never happen, politically or militarily.

    And even if it did, Israel could just launch strikes from the ground.

    Point being, a NFZ over any portion that area of the world would do nothing. To say nothing of the politics, the geography is such that there’s no point.

    in reply to: Libyan Air Force Mirage F.1's in Malta #2338801
    CayceG
    Participant

    From the looks of the picture in the article, the Mirage didn’t have any weapons.

    I have been hearing some unconfirmed reports of fighter jets bombing civilians in Libya. My first thought that these Mirages that landed in Malta were disobeying orders to fire on civilians.

    But if they don’t have weapons, then this must not be the case.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 158 total)