dark light

ink

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 421 through 435 (of 1,597 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Threats to AWACS #2454422
    ink
    Participant

    To ease the temper a bit, with a rising threat to an AWACS it has to keep more distance and is reduced by that. So most attempts were made to force it to distance up to a mission-kill for the AWACS. The first Iraq War did show, that AWACS coverage of Iraq was not satisfactory always, when from Hungary to Serbia it was not so.

    That’s more or less what I was trying to say. Just by posing a significant threat during a given conflict* the operators of missiles like the KS-172 will have something to be pleased about if they manage force the AWACS out to a range where their coverage is less than satisfactory. The degree to which this can/will happen is a game of ‘what-ifs’ and, apparently, we can play that all day.

    * I’m sure we can all agree that a minor, conventional scuffle between AWACS operators and KS-172 operators is more likely than a full-blown ICBM fun-fest.

    in reply to: Threats to AWACS #2454443
    ink
    Participant

    A mission kill for 20 or 30 seconds is better than a hard kill isn’t it? Besides, if you’ve just shot a 200 mile AAM in the direction of an AWACS it’s probably seen the launch and and you’re going to be having problems of your own shortly. Most likely you’d be in range of it’s escorts radars by the time the AWACS has to shut down so I’m not sure what you gained. It’s not as though the thing is going to be down for a useful amount of time.

    Hmm… Interesting how the attacker is alone and only able to fire one missile while the AWACS has a whole air force at its disposal.

    What would happen if the attack was carried out with a group of well coordinated aircraft?

    What if the mere threat of attacks like this keeps the mission planners from deploying AWACS in the first place or keeps them at a longer range than is optimal?

    Is the idea of attacking an AWACS still as pointless as you seem so determined to make it seem?

    in reply to: New airborne weapons? #2459133
    ink
    Participant

    Hmm… Not exactly what I had in mind (being that this is an airborne weapons thread).

    in reply to: New airborne weapons? #2459504
    ink
    Participant

    A laser-based anti-missile defence system would be an excellent idea if you could make it good enough to track and lethal enough to kill an incoming SAM or AAM.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode IV #2461567
    ink
    Participant

    …And don’t forget Iran… :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Russia flogging MiG-27s to Serbia? #2466141
    ink
    Participant

    So a journalist makes one mistake, and suddenly the whole profession is called into question? I suppose you never make any mistakes in your job? Are you perfect?

    Slobo,

    Had this been just one mistake, standing isolated and alone against the hordes of accurate reporting on military matters then I’d leave it alone. The fact is that this is just one in a multitude of inaccurate reports that indicates sloppy research and low quality standards rather than the odd typo. Note that the original article contains a double mistake: the typo (MiG-27 instead of ’29) and then the designation of the fighters in question as “ground attack” aircraft.

    Sorry, but you won’t catch me apologising for criticising journalism as a profession (for a number of reasons it would be inappropriate to go into in this thread).

    As for your personal remark; no, I am not perfect and I do make mistakes in my job. Thanks for asking. Though what that has to do with anything escapes me.

    in reply to: Full-Frontal Pics #2476997
    ink
    Participant

    Still the coolest

    Totally agree!

    PS Can anyone ID the chase plane in sferrin’s pic?

    in reply to: worst looking new two-seat European aircraft? #2479571
    ink
    Participant

    They all look terrible except the Rafale.

    in reply to: A few recent Russian photos … #2486137
    ink
    Participant

    Is that an upgraded FENCER or just one with a new paint job?

    in reply to: That doesn't look right… #2486402
    ink
    Participant

    ….. or the Antonov An-71 AWACS……

    Frankly, I think it looks pretty neat!

    But there are a whole bunch of Soviet/Russian aircraft that just look weird (esp. of WWII vintage).

    in reply to: Israel planning to bomb Iran? #2486831
    ink
    Participant

    Even the most accurate ballistic missiles still have an CEP of 100m I think, but 250 seems more likely. Even a 2000lbs warhead falling 100m next to a building will not seriously harm it. Windows are out, but it is not totally destroyed. Machinery (like a reactor) normally needs direct hits to become inoperable.

    The SCUDs the Iraqis used were purely meant as terror weapon, you cannot hit a military or industrial target with that missiles.

    Yea, I know, it was just an idea 😎

    in reply to: That doesn't look right… #2487184
    ink
    Participant

    I’ve gotta come clean; I’ve always been irritated by the FLANKER’s nose-down, droopy look when on the ground. I mean, why the hell does the radome have to point down anyway? I just can’t get over it. But, for some strange reason, it doesn’t bother me on the Su-30s… Go figure.

    in reply to: Israel planning to bomb Iran? #2487361
    ink
    Participant

    What about an ultra precise ballistic missile strike? Of course, I know nothing of Israeli ballistic missile programmes but it would be a neat and quick way to resolve all of swerve’s misgivings.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode IV #2487656
    ink
    Participant

    Seems to me that the problem, for the US and Russia, with a stealthifed Eurocanard is that its legs are bound to remain short… Both the USAF and the RuAF need a long-legged fighter (for slightly different reasons of course).

    ink
    Participant

    It seems that a lot of people have trouble debating in a polite and controlled manner. Snide comments, personal attacks (or worse, perceived personal attacks) and trolling have all but ruined what was once a very decent forum. Something drastic has to be done (although I am at a loss as to what might this might be) regarding the general level of behaviour, otherwise people will genuinely stop coming here – many valuable contributors have already ceased posting already.

Viewing 15 posts - 421 through 435 (of 1,597 total)