dark light

TooCool_12f

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,621 through 1,635 (of 3,094 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2251809
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    I remember, the days and nights were so bright for the most of the time that I could clearly see the type of the plane flying above my head, or you could see exhaust plume at night. I think that they also had no problems seeing things on the ground, if they could locate them. We had, for example, bunch of 2K12 Kub`s standing alongside the public road near the trees for few days without any camouflage and F-16 flying above us regularly, yet they were unable to detect SAM`s. And it was nice and sunny 😉

    they probably saw them:

    – hey, SAMs @ 2 o’clock!

    – naah, too visible, they are obviously decoys, forget about them… 😀

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2251821
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    no in Yugoslavia war the weather was so bad that most aircraft have to fly low in order to see target by FLIR , especially F-117
    the jamming can be high intense at one point but you couldn’t keep it at the same level for the whole war period , and no one say stealth is invisible but it help aircraft to detect and attack enemy target before enemy can do the same to it

    you obviously have no clue what it means flying at 1500ft in a war zone… the F-117 had no radar to avoid ground, flew at night (meaning, couldn’t see much ahead of it) so it would most certainly end hitting some mountain and dropping ordnance from 1500ft is pretty much the best way to get shot to pieces regardless of what aircraft you fly… at night and so low, even the crudest IR-guided manpad would be able to track it and hit it

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2251918
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    f-117 actually often fly at altitude just over 500 meters and do like 3000-4000 routes so people know there is something fly over their place , as they didnot detect it on radar , they know that a stealth aircraft and prepare for ambush

    er… 500m?

    should they try to go from italy to serbia at such low level and back, they’d probably run out of fuel long before returning home (not to speak about the mountains it would crash into on its way in or out)

    besides, what would be the point in f-117 shaping if it flew at such low level?

    talking about baghdad, I remember a report for the US congress stating that jamming over baghdad was so intense from the very begginning that a 747 could probably have overflown it without being seen… probably somewhat caricatural, but it illustrated the point that stealth doesn’t mean invisible…

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2252120
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    as far as the Predator goes, if the propeller blades are made of radar transparent material, it won’t be visible to radar unless it looks at it from the rear (the central part of the propeller which is metallic will be a strong reflector, indeed; but could be masked by the fuselage )

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2252132
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    as a sidenote, if an aircraft can’t be tracked, it can go the same route every night as the enemy won’t be able to see it…

    so the argument “they could position themselves” also shows that it could be tracked by those old, outdated and not so much supported systems (after some 10 years of embargo), as for the serbs to know where to position themselves, they had to be able to find that route first…

    in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2255579
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    To be fair, those 3 wars have only required Rafale to be used as a pedestrian bomb truck.

    Modernised A-1 Skyraiders would’ve been just as useful.

    The Rafale (and Eurofighter) are still unproven in a proper warfighting scenario.

    er, as much Afghanistan had no air defense to speak of and the skyraiders could probably pretty much do a good ground support, as far as Libya goes, if you want to take out their air defenses with a skyraider…. er, be my guest… 😀

    not to speak of Mali which was, and still is, if I’m not mistaken, hit by Rafales flying from french mainland, allowing to cover the whole territory under islamist control without having to install whole bases (lots of logistics involved for a too short period of time) in Africa… you wanna try that trick with a Skyraider? again, be my guest…

    anyway, I don’t really see what posts about rafale, skyraider, P-51, P47, sukhoi fighters and so on have to do with F-35 news… :p

    in reply to: French air campaign – Mali #2259470
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    2 GBU’s for long range mission perhaps (save weight)?

    I’m not sure if there’s a lot of viable targets in Mali especially for more strategic long range missions.

    their targets are pretty much small and spread on large distances… there are good chances they’d load their fighters with as many and as small bombs as possible (no need for big ones, usually)

    in reply to: French air campaign – Mali #2260036
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    the linked article is dated of yesterday, yet in today’s news there was nothing about a mirage 2000

    the only flying thing that was hit was a gazelle helicopter and it flew back to base (pilot dying a couple of hours later in hospital)

    in reply to: F35 News only thread for 2013 #2260121
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCK9E0qkx2A

    “any ressemblance with an existing aircraft (or that may exist in the future) is totally fortuitous…”

    😀

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale #14 – News & Discussion #2261834
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    @ Snow Monkey

    thing is, you have, as pretty much everywhere, “very intelligent guys” who did a lot of studies who take decisions that have little to nothing to do with their field of competence… on a political level… then, the military have to do with that and if they complain, it is usually useless, and takes years to e changed (and usually, the ones who took the wrong decisions make sure that it is the military who are to lame because of their lack of efficiency.

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale #14 – News & Discussion #2262246
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    one thing that may play a role in that price difference may be the fact that the naval operators have to carry all their spares with them (you can’t easily order parts when you’re on cruise on the other side of the globe), meaning, they have what they need to maintain properly their aircraft for the duration of the cruise. So, for a good part of their time (except maybe at the very end of the cruise) they have enough parts to do their job efficiently. In the air force, they’re supposed to “order only what they need right at the moment” (to reduce wasting resources by storing unnecessary parts for unneeded periods of time…. ahem :rolleyes: ), which means that they have little spares available at any time. If they need a spare for something that isn’t in store, they have to take it from another aircraft that’s waiting already for another repair, for example, which means maintenance hours to remove from the previous aircraft, then installing the spare on the one that will use it (for the potential that remains before it has to be changed again) while the ordered part that arrives later will go on the cannibalized aircraft…. in the end, you have double installation work that should be needed, for a given part, added with the work to remove it from its first aircraft…

    in reply to: J-20 vs Typhoons #2263525
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    no way, it doesn’t even have a DSI… :D:D:D:D

    in reply to: Dassault Rafale #14 – News & Discussion #2263536
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    if canada doesn’t take the F-35, the Sh is the natural candidate… but a rafale proposed at a low price to force a very low bid from boeing may be a way to hurt a competitor (who already is loosing cash with the KC-30 deal that gets delayed and obviously more complicated than “expected”… )

    in reply to: X-32A vs X-35A again #2266695
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    Everything I’ve read suggests the change in wing planform was due to the attitude for carrier landings; a delta needs a much greater AoA on landing ( even with artificial stability ) than a wing with tailplane.

    you should go and explain that to Dassault guys… strangely, the Rafale (delta wing) lands at quite slow speeds and still manages to make it to the ship with no particular problems (and it’s a rather small ship compared to the big US carriers which means the space to aim at is smaller as well)

    in reply to: X-32A vs X-35A again #2267836
    TooCool_12f
    Participant

    and still, they were fine in the RCS department as TR1 said… besides, making an efficient radar blocker is all but easy, or else everybody would do it

Viewing 15 posts - 1,621 through 1,635 (of 3,094 total)