dark light

pigeonracer

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 149 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Height Ceiling of combat aircraft #2438759
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    The Americans can be told everything to stay polite. I will not blame the author for that, maybe he forget that important detail or was not aware about that at all.
    Just the critical network fusion is missing with the F-22A and a lot of money has to be taken again to refit that. At least he does deliver the arguments for that, when he was briefed by the military about the “new” role of the F-22A. 😉
    Here another highlight of detailed information:
    “The Raptor typically flies way higher than everybody else and it handles like a dream at those altitudes.” Tolliver wouldn’t confirm the operating altitude,

    No detail about a “way higher” does mean by a high-band given about that. Of cause no confirmation by Tolliver, when the author tried to ask about that. The author looking for a thrilling read did not hesitate to give us his guesses about that, by mixing data from another context.

    Have you any real idea how idiotic and deeply condecending you come across as in this post and the one I replyed to previously?

    What you are saying and the scary part is that you believe it is that you know more than the F-22 than those who operate the aircraft every single day!

    You are polite I give you that but you sir are misguided at best, a troll at worst and your opinion is utterly wrong on this subject as is proven by the articles. Climb down off your high horse and stop trying to play the expert because you are rubbish at it. Sorry to be so blunt but it’s clear for all to see who read this thread.

    in reply to: Height Ceiling of combat aircraft #2439021
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Nice idea, but it does not work, too fast for the subsonic F-16/F-15. If that is not enough, the present F-22A does not have the related network capability to do so at all.
    To make things worse, it is limited to some minutes only, even with some arial tanker support. 😮

    Nonsense, see about this subject:

    http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/September%202009/0909playbook.aspx

    Perhpas an even more telling link that disproves your claim:
    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw010807p1.xml

    in reply to: EF Typhoon vs. SU-35 #2439027
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    What sort of idiotic comment is that? Bragging about upgraded A2A missiles?

    When was the last time any bragging happened? Any further reply will feature a link, or you will be ignored till further notice.

    There is no proof there is a new version in this sales batch.
    You also just read this message which containined no links.

    in reply to: EF Typhoon vs. SU-35 #2439070
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    I’m not asking what the RVV-SD and MD is. I’m asking you to post concrete proof that those were the missiles ordered. other wise you’re just speculating

    I think it’s a safe bet to assume they are the old type of missile and not the updated varient, they’d be bragging about the order if it were the new type.

    in reply to: EF Typhoon vs. SU-35 #2439375
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Yes, that is correct that the largest missile deal in recent Russian arms history was signed off at Maks 09

    http://www.kyivpost.com/world/47412
    FTA: “The fighter jet contract entailed an agreement between the Defense Ministry and the Tactical Missile Armaments Corporation on the delivery of aircraft missiles. The deal costs only 5 billion rubles, but it is the first purchase of new guided aircraft missiles in the past 15 years,” Chemezov said.”

    But but, it does not say anything about a new type of missile..? So is this order for a new type or existing type?

    in reply to: U.S. warplanes should prevent Israel from attacking Iran…. #2439406
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Then your pretty wrong, Russia became what N.Korea is now in the 1990’s things are way better now than then, anyone who says other wise is a LIAR.

    Unfortunatly for you history has told a different version of the story than yours. Grow up and get over it, son.

    in reply to: US Senate halts F-22 funding #2413515
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    supreme ,multi billion dollars stelt maintanence :rolleyes: broom & co.

    I’m unsure what there is to roll eyes at that photo about. How would you clean the snow, would you get a hair dryer and melt it off?
    In all seriousness though that photo proves just how tough and durable new stealth coatings are in comparison to old stealth coatings by the fact they are sweeping it with everyday brooms. Remember this photo the next time someone claims stealth coats are easy to scratch.

    in reply to: Russia Shot Down Its Own Planes? #2413764
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Don’t forget that Russia has more thanks than NATO combined.

    Are we talking about tank hulls or working operational tanks? :diablo:

    in reply to: Tornado down in Afghanistan #2413887
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    [QUOTE=Fedaykin;1439340]All those bombs dropped by the RAF in later conflicts from medium altitude and the general move away from dropping them at low level is a figment of mine and many others imagination?
    /QUOTE]

    It wasn’t a figment of your imagination, not that you already didn’t already know that as it’s pretty common knowledge that there was a doctrinal change for the reasons set out. Those who would deny it are arguing in the face of logic and known facts and history.

    in reply to: Russia Shot Down Its Own Planes? #2413975
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    The Russian launch at Georgia wasn’t planned in advance like in other earlier conflicts.

    As has been pointed out earlier in this thread the Russian tanks were rollling into Georgia in a very timely manner for such an unplanned operation. You may choose to believe it was unplanned but the way the conflict unfolded takes a big dump on that theory.

    in reply to: Russia Shot Down Its Own Planes? #2413988
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Have they had a shortage of Fencers and Kh-58U in 2008 to deal with the limited Georgian AD?! :diablo:

    Well pointed out, the fact that the Russian Air Force/military could not cope with the absolutely miniscule Georgian air defenses doesn’t offer much hope if they found themselves fighting against a superpower.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2414365
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    What we do know is that at the moment fast jets aren’t under any threat, the taliban don’t have the weapons to hit them.

    Thats is irrelevent though as the pilots, trash fire or not are still at far greater risk than any GMLRS crews. An F-15E went down recently killing both crewmen for example. And if pilots survive a mishap or shootdown then they risk capture and the propaganda disaster that entails, GMLRS crews do not face such pressure.
    Flying will always be risky business, riskier than sat in a FOB or some other such base manning a GMLRS. GMLRS will nearly always be quicker to respond if fighting not to far from he FOB’s.
    Airpower has its uses but the fact we can only seem to commit just one fast jet squadron at a time speaks for itself in terms of costs and headaches in the logistical areas and ultimately how having hundreds of fighters is utterly useless if you cannot and will not deploy them.

    in reply to: I've always wondered if this was possible… #2414367
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    There’s no way in hell that plane’s gonna reach M2 without a canopy.:eek:

    It’s an extremely fishy story isn’t it.
    One of Russia’s top test pilots risking his aircraft, career and ultimatly his life just to see how fast he could go without a canopy would not be reasonable with any AF or pilot in my opinion.
    I do wonder if he was just having a laugh with dumb and gullible journalists.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2414389
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    And who are you to say none have come under threat? Unless you turn around and tell me now that you have crewed one of these in action or have spoke directly to people who have, I can’t accept that.

    By the same token who are you to say they have come under threat.
    I do happen to know a guy who has worked closely with GMLRS crews and as far as he’s told me they’ve never been in any danger. Perhaps phone the MOD and ask if you’re that bothered about it.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2414424
    pigeonracer
    Participant

    Afghanistan is the most heavily mined country on the planet and has no defined front line. A GMLRS crew is in just as much, if not more danger than a tornado crew since the Taliban have no Surface to air weapons.

    Nonsense, no GMLRS have been lost or come under threat yet many jets have been lost and many more will be lost. The safety argument is not in aircrafts favour.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 149 total)