SOCWhat is wrong to be competive in building cars and LCDs in the USA and earn money from that?! At least there is no shortage of people to built and buy that in and outside the USA.
The best way to do it is through reciprocal trade laws. Just take the Japanese import restrictions and apply the same rules to any Japanese goods entering the United States…sales of US electronics within the USA would skyrocket.
SOCThe F-117 got shot down which means what it was designed for didn’t work PERIOD.
Which is, of course, why they managed to shoot more than one down…oh wait. The F-117s were not varying their routes, making their appearance predictable. The battery involved had been modified to better handle low-RCS targets, and they were able to engage the F-117 at a distance of 13 kilometers as a result. And this tactic worked exactly once. So if the F-117 was still able to fly over Iraq and the FRY and not get shot down, that must mean that either yes, it did work as designed, or that every other Soviet weapon system apart from that modified S-125 battery was completely worthless against a low RCS target. Or both.
It has NOT been know to anybody outside of people like you who bothered to do the research, on the “HistoryChannnel” and other U.S. programs 99% of the time they have/are always saying it shot down 90+% of Iraq’s missiles, which is a LIE not exaggeration.
It’s not a blatant lie, it is a misinterpretation. They’re counting a hit on the airframe as a kill, when in reality only a hit on the warhead is considered to be a kill, something the PAC-2 did not do well at all. But technically, yes, the PAC-2 did manage to shoot down nearly all of the missiles. The problem is that they didn’t effectively intercept the warheads, making those shootdowns pointless. I can barely watch a lot of that stuff anyway, because I am always sitting there picking out the errors.
You can have all the “wishfull-thinking” you want if they had those more advanced systems amd massive valumes the coallistion would have lost, NATO is always fighting weaker nations as far as my research has concluded, but you can keep thinking what ever you’d like.
Prove it.
SOCRiiiiiight. And we were in a war against Shintoism in WWII. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
There is some degree of truth behind what he said…or have we been bombing non-Muslim terrorist groups while I wasn’t looking?
Who was shooting at the space shuttle?? Were they in a dogfight with a flying saucer?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The USSR, on at least one occasion. Remember Terra-3?
SOC@ #1: Not so absurd; and I’m a netcentrist! I think as a nuclear capable platform and part of the deterrent and counter-attack triade it has to take into account the possible absence of orbital systems and other networked C4ISR.
What makes you think the B-2 doesn’t take that into account already? It’s the B-2s capabilities I’m arguing with you about here.
@ Not sure what the workload is when hunting mobile ICBMs in defended airspace. The B-2 can have a 3rd crew member, if I’m correct.
For the ISR/pathfinder mission I see a 4-crew is a clear advantage.
The B-2 has no ISR/pathfinder mission, for one. Secondly, a lot of the threat avoidance stuff is not as hard as it sounds. ESM gear tracks the threats, and one of the displays I’ve seen shows the route overlaid with threat envelopes so that it can be adjusted accordingly. Plus, in “that kind” of environment, mobile ICBM staging areas will be known to a degree, it’s not like the B-2 has to scour the entire expanse of Siberia.
@ And regarding F-35: We shall see. IDFAF wanted a double-seater. Tells me something. F-35 single-seater layout assumes the availability of netcentric assets. Very nice to have if available, but I wouldn’t build a platform dependant on it.
How do you know they don’t want a double seater to use the GIB as a visual hunter of ideal apartment blocks to destroy? 😀
@ @ #2: But for ISR!
That would likely have to be a specialized version. In that case it’d make sense.
SOCA B-2 does it with just two. In my mind that number is too low. A conventional 4 crew layout is better, reduces your dependency on netcentrism.
Two men in the B-2 are just fine. Most of the cruise portion of a long-range sortie can be done by one pilot, allowing the other one to sack out (they have enough room in there for a lawn chair). Both pilots are at the controls during combat operations, and there is a lot of automation as well. As for your “net-centric” comment, that’s absurd. Does the JSF need a two- or four-man crew to fully exploit net-centric warfare?
A B-3 should be designed from the get-go with an unmanned option.
That’ll never fly if it has a nuclear mission.
SOCThat is a B-1B nacelle I posted, you can see straight through to the compressor in a few spots, so the line of sight is not totally blocked.
SOCIIRC Boeing has made such a proposal but I cant remember the details.
You’re thinking of the proposed B-1R, the R being for “regional bomber”:
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol2/num2/story01.html
http://www.afa.org/magazine/nov2004/1104strike.asp
SOCA little out of date, but check this out:
SOCPatriots have proven to be useless on ESPN as well
😀
Why did you waste time typing all that, the point was that the 117 was not “unparreleled” as one poster posted it was brought down by 60’s era SAM, which is in itself a testamony to just how advanced Russia is.
The FRY troops set that trap up to catch an F-117. Yeah, it obviously worked, but how does that imply that Russia is more advanced than anyone else? F-15s shot down MiG-25s and MiG-29s over Iraq, so that must mean the F-15 is clearly superior and that America is more advanced in this area, right? Wrong. That’s just asinine logic.
Russia does make the most advanced SAM systems in the world right now, by a pretty fair margin if you ask me. But your example is faulty. The F-117 is not invisible, and is only claimed to be invisible by ignorant fanboys who do not understand the concept of stealth. Fly one within a certain range of a SAM site, and it will get detected. Stealth does not mean “you can’t see me”, it means “I can get a lot closer before you can see me”. And assuming that Russian weapons can now defeat all stealth aircraft at any range they want just because an F-117 got close enough to an S-125 site to get shot down is just as ignorant.
as a matter of fact there are so many things they haven’t told the public about the Patriot, and Russia’s military might, I really don’t blame a lot of people for believeing, the exaggerations and lies about “U.S. advancement over Russia”, anyways that another thread, here what thought abot the “Patriot”
Actually it has been known for a while that the PAC-2 PATRIOT wasn’t a stellar performer in the Gulf War. The problem was that people were considering a “hit” as a “successful intercept”, which was not the case. The PATRIOT proved able to hit SCUDs just fine, but it didn’t successfully intercept them as it wasn’t smart enough to go after the warhead section. If PAC-2 worked as well as you seem to think Westerners believe, then PAC-3 ERINT would have not been necessary.
p.s. the coallition, should be very greatfull that Russia sold outdated-downgraded Scuds and other weapons to Iraq, because if they didn’t and sold them what Russia actually uses the winners of DesertStorm would not have been the “Coallition”
All that would have meant was that we would’ve spent a lot more time and effort hunting down the SSM launchers. Plus, you’re not considering the competence of the Iraqi military, or their tactics which proved to be flawed.
What drugs are you on?, proove it can’t,
S-400 has never been claimed to be able to engage ICBMs. The intercept geometry required is outside the performance of the system. It has to do with target speed. The S-400 can engage shorter-range ballistic missiles, but not true intercontinental weapons.
SOCAl Quada doesn’t have an airforce to match the USAF but still managed to hit two military and economic targets deep within the continental US…
How were the WTC and Pentagon deep within the CONUS?
something Hitler and Japan never got close to.
Japan had the gigantoid submarines intended to carry aircraft for striking the USA, and managed to firebomb some coastal areas using balloons, didn’t they? As for Germany, they didn’t have enough time to make any of their plans work, that’s all. They had some interesting concepts but were denied the amount of time they would have needed to field them.
we are not shooting at North Korea
Technically we are still at war with North Kroea as the Korean War ended with an armistice, one that South Korea didn’t even sign.
SOCThat’s true enough, and additionally we shouldn’t assume that all S-ducts completely block the engine face.
The B-1B’s intakes were not completely blocked. I dorked with the brightness settings on the image below (one I took at the USAF Museum) and you can make out compressor faces in there.
SOCAnd you are missing my point, if you discount everything on a website because there might be some bias then what source can you rely on?
Look, the main argument against Wikipedia’s serious credibility is the open editing nature of the site. I could go in there and dork up all the stats for the S-300V if I wanted to, there is no quality control system in place other than for someone else to fix it.
Thumbing through the last few years worth of issues of AFM and AirInt apart from a few articles about Soviet and Russian AAMs coverage of air to ground or air to air weapons from Russia is pathetic.
That’s part of the reason I stopped being a subscriber and pick and choose what issues to pick up. Stuff that amuses me is just not given the coverage it deserves.
And you can’t fault Western magazines for covering Western equipment back in the 70s and 80s, there just wasn’t enough on Soviet bloc equipment that was really reliable. Look at some of the asinine Western artist’s impressions.
Ahhh, but Russian magazines neglect western equipment…
Who said they did?
SOCVeniks and Carlos’ bias is easier to spot, but there is always bias present no matter what the source… or are you saying that JANES is unbiased? Remember reading reports in JANES as well as several respected British magazines that declared Putin guilty of polonium poisoning in the UK… no trial, no consideration of any other potential explainations… how biased is that?
You’re missing the point. I’m not saying that Jane’s is free of bias at all, just that their business isn’t an outlet for or driven solely by their bias.
And how many of those professional researchers are from non western countries?
I haven’t the slightest idea, they do have foreign correspondents reporting on news items worldwide. But if the research and reporting is accurate, the reporter’s nationality is irrelevant.
Probably why the world court is in Brussels because the west is not biased…
Never said there was no bias in the west (isn’t Kopp technically “western” anyway?). You’re grandstanding here to make some sort of point that is excaping me.
Am sick of Janes just repeating the old myths of the cold war… The Stechkin machine pistol is big and heavy and not popular… a complete failure, while being lighter than a 45 colt with a 20 round magazine, the people I have spoken too say it was very popular and the grunts bent over backwards to get issued with one. There are at least two machine pistols vying for the role of replacing the Stechkin.
Ok, you’re talking about small arms. That falls right into the category of “things I know nothing about”, so I can’t comment there.
The BTR-60 wouldn’t exist if Russia had a congress. So I guess congress will get rid of Strikers from US service?
Huh?
These opinions are based on western experience rejecting ideas the Soviets/Russians did not reject. The fact that the Soviets/Russians might have made a particular technology work is dismissed… even in 1982 after the Falklands war Janes was saying it was OK because the Soviets didn’t have real sea skimming missiles. I guess the Sunburn that climbs to a height of 300m to detect the target and then drops to less than 7m for the rest of the flight till it hits the target is not really sea skimming… not.
In the west’s defense, back in 1982 open source information wasn’t nearly as overloaded with accurate and detailed information on Russian weapon systems as it is today. Do consider that. Hell, any Western publication for the longest time in the 80’s would’ve had you convinced that the Soviet AGM inventory was AS-7 KERRYs and not much else. That wasn’t bias, it was a lack of information.
SOCYeah, right. Any sane person would know that Argentina would never take on a nuclear power. :rolleyes: China could try to take Taiwan, thinking that the US wouldn’t want to go to war with China, especially if we seemed to be busy somewhere else. And who knows what trouble some nut in North Korea might stir up. Wars are very often the result of miscalculation. Don’t assume the other side won’t do something stupid.
Were both Argentina and England damn near co-dependant on each other economically?
SOCNorthrop’s XST design did use faceting, so they understood the concept, they just didn’t execute it as well as LockMart in the XST design competition. DARPA saw enough promise that they asked Northrop to continue researching LO technology, and that led to TACIT BLUE. Then they were approached by Lt. Gen Stafford, the head of USAF R/D, in 1979 about applying their non-faceted design concepts towards the new bomber concept. It ended up as a competition between LockMart and Northrop, and Northrop’s design was superior.
At any rate Northrop found that faceting wasn’t going to work for a true all-around LO design like TACIT BLUE was meant to be, so they went with the curved airframe with flattened, chined edges.
As for deleting posts, I can see where a lot of users have edited their own posts, but nothing has been deleted from this thread :confused:
Sign In
