SOCI would disagree with that statement…did you read the points carefully?
There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension as far as I am aware.
The Kursk would have sunk the NATO submarine…not that both would have been sunk…is that factual…under all possible circumstances?
I’d agree that although it goes against probability, are you also saying there are no circumstances in which the Kursk could have come off worst in a collision with a NATO submarine?
While the other statements are basically factual, in the context of the thread there was no need to point them out.
Free speech, go research that.
Nobody was disputing that an explosion on that scale would have destroyed any submarine in existence.
No, he was pointing out that there was no sense in talking about a collision as we know that is not what happened.
In a discussion about hull strength why point out that there are claims that NATO submarines are quieter instead of stating that NATO submarines may be quieter? In fact why make any statement about quietness at all?
Why make the statement? Because those are the statements made about Western submarines. When did you hear someone claim that a Western sub had the strongest operational hull design? Beyond that, you’re just being petty arguing the semantics of “claims that” vs. “may be”.
“Neither Britain or France has ever lost a nuclear submarine while the United States has lost two, USS Thresher in 1963 and USS Scorpion in 1968; even China has a better safety record on that score.”
The statement above is factually correct…do you find this example derogatory?
No, am I supposed to? I find it to be contextually inaccurate, but factually correct.
SOCSo do you think satellites do not have nothing to do? Satellites are part of communications and defence network and provide navigation aids and GPS.
Which has what to do with interfacing with and cueing/locking-on a BVR weapon, exactly?
No modern military can work without their aids and certainly fighters need them
There are also some novelties in the aircraft avionics. For example, the cockpit indication system uses four liquid-crystal color displays provided by France’s Sextant. These are widescope color displays assuring good readability of the information even in bright sun light. The aircraft is fitted with a satellite navigation system and laser attitude and heading reference system.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-35.htm
The Gripen’s superior handling and manoeuvring qualities are obtained through a state of the art digital fly by wire flight control system. The aircraft is equipped with a very modern, ring laser gyro inertial navigation system, augmented by a satellite navigation system (GPS) as well as a radio navigation system.
http://www.info.gov.za/issues/procurement/background/new_equipment.htm
All of this systems for part of a modern net centric defence system
Wow, that’s all well and good, but has absolutely nothing to do with what you said before. You claimed that you cannot conduct a BVR intercept without the use of off-board sensors. You are wrong, and no amount of weblinks is going to change that. Yes, off-board sensors are an advantage and are often used, but they are NOT mandatory, as you asserted previously.
SOCI agree on the C-17 defensive capabilities. The question remains: does everybody need it?
No, but export nations not needing it has no bearing on the aircraft’s peformance when compared to the CANDID.
BTW, I’d appreciated if you quit putting words in my mouth. I have not mentioned the word American, Russian or European in my original message. It is C-17 vs Il-76, that is all that matters here.
BTW, I’d appreciate it if you’d quit overreacting. That last line wasn’t aimed at you, it just happened to be in the same post as a reply to your quote. Just like the Iraq bit I put in there was.
SOCYou are first modifying what i meant, perhaps it is not intentional however any aircraft from the 1940s onwards used off board sensors to locate the enemy, since the battle of England, radar ground stations conveyed information to fighter aircraft to find the intruding enemy aircraft.
And they did not need that information to perform their tasks. It was not mandatory.
Modern aircraft cue the enemy aircraft with information conveyed by even other friendly aircraft`s sensors, even of their own type.
But they don’t have to have that information, which is what you asserted above. Go back and read what you wrote. Fighters can use BVR weapons solely by using their own on-board sensors. What you posted above does not agree with that statement.
Really, why don’t you answer the satellite and MiG-31 questions I posed? If you’re right, then you must have answers to them.
SOCSick/slick, same difference 😀
SOCHere’s food for thought. When I was in Baghdad, I saw a lot of transport aircraft flying in and out of Baghdad International Airport. Other than various airliner types, the only Western aircraft I remember seeing frequently was the C-130 (even flew in and out of there on one myself). Il-76s were in there A LOT. So were An-12s, for that matter. Doesn’t necessarily prove anything regarding the C-17, but that’s an operational example I can provide to stir the pot a bit 😀
No way C-17A has capabilities that would advocate several times higher cost.
Crap made in the USA tends to cost more in the end thanks to a lot of factors unrelated to the competence of the design. For instance, if I were to hire some people to build a car, I bet it’d be a lot cheaper outside the non-unionized USA. But that’s a different issue for another day… Regarding actual capabilities, the C-17 has a pretty sick defensive systems suite useful in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. At any rate, its a much newer design and as such has a lot of different stuff jammed into it that are also likely to drive up the costs.
Just because it’s American made and costs more doesn’t mean that it should be written off as either better or worse from the outset, either.
SOCA double-hulled design has some merits but I was actually commenting on your need to constantly denigrate any non-Soviet design with comments like:
“If the Kursk had been hit by another submarine the single hulled western sub would have been the vessel at the bottom of the ocean, not the massively double hulled Oscar class Kursk.
Such an explosion would destroy any sub in existence.
You will see claims of smaller and quieter for western subs…”
See what I mean?
You might not have noticed, but his statements are factually correct.
1. Had a 688 rammed the Kursk with the force to sink it, the 688 would not have survived either. A double-hulled design is by nature more survivable, and it is correct to assert that a serious collision would sink a single-hull design like the 688 first, all other things (materials, etc) being equal.
2. Any massive explosion on that scale inside any nation’s submarine would have sunk it.
3. Since the acoustic signatures of Western and Russian submarines are classified, all you get in the open press are in fact “claims” of quieter submarines.
How, then, are factual comments derogatory?
SOCA double-hulled design has some merits but I was actually commenting on your need to constantly denigrate any non-Soviet design with comments like:
“If the Kursk had been hit by another submarine the single hulled western sub would have been the vessel at the bottom of the ocean, not the massively double hulled Oscar class Kursk.
Such an explosion would destroy any sub in existence.
You will see claims of smaller and quieter for western subs…”
See what I mean?
You might not have noticed, but his statements are factually correct.
1. Had a 688 rammed the Kursk with the force to sink it, the 688 would not have survived either. A double-hulled design is by nature more survivable, and it is correct to assert that a serious collision would sink a single-hull design like the 688 first, all other things (materials, etc) being equal.
2. Any massive explosion on that scale inside any nation’s submarine would have sunk it.
3. Since the acoustic signatures of Western and Russian submarines are classified, all you get in the open press are in fact “claims” of quieter submarines.
How, then, are factual comments derogatory?
SOCRead what you wrote; yes, BVR systems can employ off-board sensors in certain cases, but that’s not what you said. Your statement was that a BVR engagement won’t work without an off-board sensor. And you’re wrong. Let’s examine:
Any combat aircraft needs outboard information
No, they don’t. It is a force multiplier and will give you an advantage in certain cases, but you do not have to have off-board sensor inputs to perform your mission, which is exactly what you just asserted.
What off-board sensor inputs are sent to the F-117A?
but this is even more necesary if you are going to use BVR air to air missiles, because the cueing and locking on is done by remote sensors such as AWACS, GCI units or satellites.
No, you do not have to have off-board sensor inputs to employ BVR weapons. Some aircraft like the MiG-31 can take advantage of certain aspects of off-board sensor integration, but they can function without it.
The MiG-31’s FCS, if we are to believe what you were directly quoted as having stated regarding BVR AAM operations, must have some sort of off-board sensor that it cannot operate without. That system must interact directly with the R-33 AAMs, cueing them to targets and locking the seeker onto said targets, and as such, the system must be the one providing the terminal SARH illumination, or else it cannot be an off-board system locking the SARH R-33 missile onto the target. What is the name of that system? And if you are to be believed, why bother carrying the added weight of the Zaslon FCS in the first place, since you cannot cue and lock on a BVR AAM without this off-board system anyway? Is the Zaslon simply some massive ROR supplying ranging information for cannon and R-60 shots?
And what satellite is going to cue and lock on a BVR AAM, anyway? What are the designations and types of satellites that can target BVR AAMs fired by other aircraft? FYI, a satellite passing data-linked information from one source to another is most assuredly not performing any actual targeting task, so please do feel free to explain this one.
An F-22 pilot can leave his home base, locate, cue in on and destroy all of his targets, receive the locations of all possible threats, receive landing instructions and come home safely without being seen or heard. This capability is possible through the use of communication links that allow air battle managers to send text messages to the pilot without using the radio.
Putting target track and position data into the FCS using a data-link does not equate to an off-board sensor actually activating the AIM-120’s internal electronics and locking that weapon onto a target, does it?
SOCYes, IFF is important (and many combat aircraft do have IFF interrogators for that reason), but you are missing the point: he said that BVR weapons are both cued and locked-on by remote sensors. That is completely false, they are both cued and locked-on by the onboard radar system in the launching aircraft.
SOCAny combat aircraft needs outboard information, but this is even more necesary if you are going to use BVR air to air missiles, because the cueing and locking on is done by remote sensors such as AWACS, GCI units or satellites.
What “remote sensors” are used to cue AMRAAMs fired by F-16s?
Most BVR weapon systems can search, track, and engage targets without the use of offboard sensors, your statement is flat-out wrong. It does apply to a limited extent if you are considering an aircraft designed to operate in a GCI environment, but as a blanket statement as you have written it, it’s false.
SOCNot really referring to you SOC, refering to those claiming the SR-71 was a radar invisible stealth aircraft that F-15s and F-14s couldn’t intercept but only detected after it had flown past (ie they heard the sonic boom.). If it was so invisible and only its sonic boom was detectible why fly so fast?
High speed was intended to severely hamper the reaction time of SAM systems as well as aid in the defeat of the blip-scan radar systems in use. A legacy system like the S-75 would most likely have had to fire a tail-chase shot, which would have had a hard time making the intercept.
So it was stealthy to obsolete radars that were no longer used… in other words it wasn’t stealthy at all.
Some of those radars were still in use. On more than one overflight of North Korea, the A-12 got absolutely no indication that it was noticed. Given the complexity of the ECM systems on board, they would have gotten an RWR indication if they were being painted, as they did on a number of other overflights. Regardless, while the aircraft was designed with the intention of defeating blip-scan radar systems in mind, the RCS-reducing features of the airframe were consistent with LO design goals in general. High-powered, long-range EW sets like TALL KING could still locate the aircraft, but it did have a reduced RCS. Kelly Johnson claimed that the SR-71A had an RCS of around 1m2 (the 1m2 is a guesstimate, he claimed it was roughly the same as the B-1B, which is claimed to have an RCS of 1m2 in open source publications). 1m2 is detectable, but is on the low side, and is a very good figure for an aircraft designed in the late 50’s/early 60’s. The lack of identification by the North Koreans on some overflights suggests that the combination of low-RCS and high speed was still a viable defensive measure, suggesting that the aircraft was sufficiently “invisible” to pass through the radar network unless the operators knew where to look. MELODY and PALLADIUM demonstrated that well-trained Soviet radar operators could sufficiently track small RCS targets, so perhaps the North Koreans were not as well trained and were not able to deal with a target with the RCS of the A-12. MELODY, interestingly, was the program that discovered that the Soviets were testing the S-200 as an ABM system at Sary Shagan!
During the cold war I doubt the SR-71 pilots knew whether the radar targetting them could also hit them with a missile.
I’d assume that enough technical analysis had been done to create a competent engagement envelope estimate for a given SAM system so that they knew where to fly, and how close to get…
It is funny, the PVO get criticism for shooting down a plane and then criticised for not shooting down a plane that was clearly a civilian plane… I’d say the problem was with the west, not the Soviets. If it had been US personel involved I doubt they would even bother going to court over either case.
I’m not being critical, I was trying to point out that the Blackbird wasn’t necessarily guaranteed safe passage in international airspace.
According to the specs 5 minutes a 2.83, 20 minutes at 2.6 and as long as it liked at 2.4.
So, 250 kilometers at Mach 2.83 then. And “as long as it liked at 2.4” isn’t a viable response, the jet never received an operational IFR system 😀
And, are there any statements from FAA concerning the Tu-144?
Found what I was thinking of. The Tu-144 was actually the first aircraft to receive Soviet type certification for civil operation. Before then, no Soviet airliner had been certified by an organization inside the USSR.
Tu-144 failed becouse Aeroflot couldnt charge such ridiculous prices as Concord
The Tu-144 ultimately failed because it lost a lot of its political support after the Paris crash (the program was started and proceeded due to a great deal of political backing, remember). Then, Aeroflot cancelled services after the crash of a Tu-144D test aircraft. They never gave the aircraft another look after that, despite the continued development of the Tu-144D.
SOCBecause Western certification is what matters.
To the USSR?
The Tu-144 made less than 100 passenger flight before being withdrawn from service. Most of the time it just flew mail, if it flew at all.
That was partly due to a lack of serious Aeroflot backing of the aircraft. Tupolev flight crews piloted the two airframes used for the passenger route from Moscow to Alma-Ata, even. Aeroflot’s chief involvement was to sell the tickets and keep the cash generated. Mail flights were begun in 1975 (making it the first SST to earn revenue) as a form of route-proving and because the airworthiness decree had not been handed down by the Council of Ministers until 1977.
The Tu-144 was ages from maturity.
The first prototype was seriously flawed. The Tu-144 series aircraft rectified most of the issues save the powerplant problems. The Tu-144D was the definitive model, but arrived too late to get Aeroflot reinterested in the program. Test pilots held the D model in very high regard, and it was certainly capable of performing day-to-day operations.
If you claim it gained western certification you better dig out your source.
“Complied with the standards” and “the FAA officially accredited the aircraft” are in fact two different concepts.
Anyways, the only time it flew in the west after 1973 was as NASA testbed in the late 90ies. Most Russian aircraft had no Western type certificate at the end of the 80ies.
It never flew in the west, save at Paris and Hamburg in airshow appearances. The NASA flights were conducted out of Zhukovskii.
SOCDid somebody say Groom Lake? 😀
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-restricted-and-classified-test-sites.html
SOCAfter all, if the British military can’t be trusted then who else would the US trust? 🙂
That’d be a pretty interesting question to ponder 😀
Sign In
