Who said anything about shallow dive angles? Do you understand what “shot right through the top” means?

Was that in reference to the GAU-8?

Can you explain the purpose of using DU projectiles against soft targets?

That’s right..because they were diving from 700m over the target at a 45º dive…:rolleyes:

If they killed tanks that was with the ‘maverick’ missile, not with the gun.

And actually there is no evidence for such claim, while there is a wide evidence for the AGM-65 used to kill tanks (static ones)

using DU projectiles

Who cares? all that matters is the penetration range, i mean..really who cares if were made with DU or W?

Hint: The round does not have enough penetration against a tank (yes the top armor)

Ok, gentlemen..

First AWACS don’t have look down capability as, for example some radars on fighters

AWACS don’t ‘screen’ the ocean to search for targets, they use the earth’s curvature for low level detection, avoiding the problematic screening which is ‘solved’ with higher frequencies..and i say ‘solved’), now, the problem is that there are limitations for such operation.

3th, yes L-band, again such band is not used for targeting and tracking on such environment, is simply not possible to use L band for such task, at least not in the successful way most people think.

Not significant

AWACS are forward looking systems with a degree of elevation of around 3º (if i recall well..) how they are supposed to detect and coordinate operations against very low level targets with such specifications?, the location of the radar was a ‘hint’ from me…but the elevation performance for such antennas is actually very low

. False.

Wrong, AWACS are/were meant to coordinate/or/give information for the so called ‘air superiority’ doctrine , AWACS are offensive tools , not defensive

Of course the patrolling and air control is important and all that, but the deal of the AWACS was to ‘look’ what’s going on behind the enemies frontiers, and coordinate operations of penetration, for a carrier, an AWACS is more important/efficient coordinating bombers than for hunting cruiser missiles.

Wrong. Even if the carrier is under Emcon, the Hawkeye will be up there

AWACS are effective controlling and coordinating squads and all that, but you are overrating their low level target detection and tracking capability, the AWACS beam only cover a small thin ring for low level detection, even the frequencies in which it operate does not work very good for ground/aircraft discrimination.

A tornado will most likely pass undetected

AWACS are meant to be a response against the masses of Tu-16s or other type of planes, but for low level penetrators they are very limited

UAV’s are being used for special operations, not for CAS, for CAS you need a good real time information feedback, something a pilot seated on the plane can do much better than a immense GB/sec info link..without real time feed-backing could do.

That’s why the US is considering (is not selected yet?) small manned airplanes over remote systems.

Is because UAV’s will miss their targets, not because ‘lawfare’ tales.

Even for special operations UAVs have a doubtful efficiency, killing the same target 2 or 3 times…after it was ‘killed’ already..although this is more related with intelligence, the problem is that most (if not all) UAVs ‘kills’ are hard to confirm, and are most likely leaving many ‘killed’ people that are not dead…

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/al-qaeda-big-wig-killed-again/

Even the Su-25 and the AMX are an overkill, when they are useless for air-policing duties and training duties in peace-time.
The AERMACCHI M-346/Yak-130 or the Hongdu L-15 and Korean Aerospace T-50

So i guess for the georgian conflict the russian had done it better with yaks-130..that would demanded more sorties for missions, more pilots and even more logistics than the couple of 25’s the had..

Sure for air policing is ok…but just for that.

You guys are going from one extreme (low tech is only for air shows) to other extreme (air policing is everything what is needed)

If the primary role of your air force is to fly nifty airshow routines on sunny Saturdays, then a shiny lo-lo fighter is all you need. :dev2:

I really love your crappy phrases, how is that? ‘please stop buying weapons/technology that was used in the last wars’..’nobody wants to fight the Craptor, because they know is a unfair fight’…and now this garbage…is a long list, basically nothing substantial from your posts..

************

About the topic

Is not only about money, but logistics and time, at the end i think this discussion falls into the multirole debate..and the doctrine..

Do you want to lose a plane to save 1000 army’s grunts or do you want a perfect mission with 0 loses but with out any achievement?

The usefulness of the multirole airforce is quite limited IMO, but everything depends a lot on different aspects, a small airforce would find interesting a Typhoon with capability to drop bombs, but then, why would you want to use a typhoon with an air combat oriented electronics and performance for such task?, fighters are demanding machines, and a key feature for an attack plane is service readiness, the Su-25 did great in Georgia because of this, the russians had never stopped the georgian advance in time with Su-27’s or Pakfas, the war probably would lasted longer..while su-27/pakfa’s had do great in a war that was planned months ago, and with a isolated and overpowered target (iraq-serbia)

Service readiness and numbers are important

Low tech is tech by principle, is not inferior, is just different, superior is some aspects.

The key for the ‘low tech’ is service readiness, is not ‘low tech’ when you consider the differences, sure a Typhoon is great and all that, but how much cost to put into service?, how much time takes to? how deployable it is?

By light fighters I would be talking about small single engined fighters with weights I guess under 5,000 kg empty

This depends on a lot of factors, defining the weight of the ‘low-tech’ plane depends on the required payload, number of sorties they want, the type of target, and a lot more of yadada. (for attack planes)

Depends a lot of how much area is wanted to cover, heavy fighters are not heavy because are heavy 🙂

There are requirements, 1 heavy fighter can do the task that 3 light fighters can’t, i’m not talking about kill rate, but, again, number of sorties, range desired, number of pilots you need to train, etc..this does not turn it superior BTW.

For the S duct babbling, this is a concept from Boein for a 6th generation aircraft, surprise no s-duct!

Look at that document (the posted by obligatory), other aircraft does have s-duct , but fall into ‘moderated obvervables’ category, and this design is in the ‘low observables’ category…no surprising Boeing just used a bloker for th X-32..and nobody was crying by the s-duct then…

Oh and the russians with the 144/s-37 had s-duct? how weird?

Or is because the S-duct has nothing to do with the stealth thingie?, because the S-duct has more to do with the airframe design and engine’s requirement for flow and inlet velocity?…but hey, a stupid crappy book told me the s-duct is for stealth!..i bought that book, must be true, for sure….

who’s to say that another three weren’t part of the same salvo that missed!.

And no torpedo was detected…no submarine was detected, only a torpedo wreckage after the incident, no firing was reported from the crew…hmm

The more i think about it, the more i believe is a fabrication

The sonar-Skk issues could be discussed later.

I’m now interested on the incident itself

What else do you think was in the area that was LINK’d in sharing the subsurface plot?.

Because ASW ships actually work alone? they just go to a random place and see if they can pick a signal?…specially a random place in the borders??

Planes, intelligence, and even other ships can share information, but i guess that corvette was the only one ship of the SK navy operating that day?…