Poliocretes :

Come on, Bluewings, try harder. Hezbullah is not a Palestinian organization, it’s a Shiite Lebanese faction.

Ok , duely noted , sorry . Nonetheless , you know what I mean .

Cheers .

I bet my hat that when operational , the F-35s will be hangar queens with an astronomical cost per hour of flight .
Note my words .

Cheers .

Poliocretes :

Besides, saying it is not LEGAL, does not make it so. As Israel is at a state of war with both Lebanon and Syria; as the proliferation of weapons systems, let alone chemical weapons, to terrorist organizations such as the Hizbullah is not in any form legal (or intelligent, or smart); and as Israel has every right to protect its citizens from the introduction of such weaponry into the hands of an organization committed to its destruction, Israel is perfectly within in rights to act.

Yeah , yeah , blablabla … :rolleyes:
You have the right to think this way and I will fight for you to keep this Right , but you are wrong .

Cheers .

a somewhat more immediate (both politically and geographically) danger to Israel than Jihadists in Mali pose to either France or the UK.

??:confused: Irrelevant .

Intervention in Mali is LEGAL .

Cheers .

Good find Belethor 🙂

I said :

better the enemy ground to air-defense system is , the lower you fly .

Buster Glosson said :

When you’re trying to get tactical surprise and you have a very significant Sam threat, early on in a conflict you may elect to want to fly at low altitude almost exclusively

You know what I mean ? 😉
And djcross is asking me if I am kidding … :rolleyes:

Cheers .

BW – The qualifier is that you don’t scream in at 500 feet on a target full of 57s and 37s.

True , 500 feet is way too high . :p

djcross :

Are you kidding?

Not at all .

That method did not work out well for RAF Tornados in Desert Storm.

It didn ‘t turn out that bad and they didn ‘t have the weapons we have now (like the French Hammer family for exemple) .

Obligatory :

the higher you fly the harder it gets for any missile to do it,
and it would take at least 2 stage rocket to engage a fighter at high alt.

Yes I agree and you also have more time to react but against some actual systems , it is very risky . In this case , you ‘ll better fly a 5th gen fighter than a 4.5 gen fighter but you have to deal with all the disadvantages to fly real high when you want to strike ground targets . Targeting can get hairy and after launch , it takes time for the weapon to hit (think LGB).
A mountain is still the best screen a fighter can dream of , it beats stealth and ECMs hands down . 🙂
Or flying at Mach 0.8 @50 ft over flat terrain .

Cheers .

MANPADS (read : Man-portable air-defense systems) are grossly overestimated by some posters .

If one look up how many military Jets have been downed by MANPADS since 1990 , the total number is something like 4 , maybe 5 in 23 years (one F-16 in 91 ,one MiG-21 and a MiG-27 in 99 and a Tu-22M in 2008) .
How many MANPADS have been fired during this period ? Hundreds if not thousands … I let you calculate the true probability of kill in wartime , it is close to 0 (zero) .
So , MANPADS are forcing (?) you to stay above 15K ? Really ?? :rolleyes:

Golden rule : better the enemy ground to air-defense system is , the lower you fly .
If all you have to fear is MANPADS , fly as you see fit and just be careful .

And since the vast majority of the MANPADS use IR , laser or TV guidance , EM stealth means jack (read 5th gen aircraft) .

Cheers .