FBWJust the other day a Russian Mig 31 intercepted the P-8 Poseidon buzzing about in the Kamchatka peninsula. The thing is, the US Navy knew full well in what they were doing, and it was a calculated objective to go over there. To better spy on Russian Maritime activity.
And this is wrong or surprising? That is one major function of MPA platforms, observe foreign naval exercises, track assets. There is nothing wrong with Russian aircraft patrols over the Baltic, Bering sea, or North sea as they international airspace. The same is true for US/Nato RC-135, P-8 flights in international airspace near Russia. These flights have been going on for nearly 70 years.
A simple analogy: If your neighbor looks into your house while walking their dog on the street, close your blinds. It’s only a violation when they step on your property to peer in your windows.
The media in the west, and, it appears, in Russia make big hay over these routine patrols. Really, the issue lately is these somewhat unnecessarily provocative maneuvers: the barrel roll, and the buzzing of the US destroyer. It only takes one incident of spatial disorientation and you have dead aircrew on both sides. Not to mention, god forbid if R2D2 was operating in autonomous mode on the USS Donald Cook (the approach maneuvers would have been classified as a threat according to the CIWS engagement software).
FBWEven today, there are journalists writing about how ALIS could be a single point of failure system, or how the ALIS system could be used to ground F-35’s bought by partner nations.
There is only one global ALIS server, called the Autonomic Logistics Operating Unit (ALOU), where spare parts are ordered and reliability trends are analyzed, Scott said. Each partner nation has its own server, called the Central Point of Entry (CPE), which stores sovereign data and transmits that information to the ALOU
Individual squadrons operate locally with a server called the Standard Operating Unit (SOU), which communicates with that nation’s CPE. Squadrons can operate independently and store data for about 30 days without connecting to the partner nation’s CPE, Scott said. Then, when a connection is re-established, the SOU uploads the stored data to the CPE
Those critical of the F-35 in the media have stretched the partial truth:
The GAO report warned that ALIS has no backup system to ensure operations if any of the servers — the ALOU, a nation’s CPE or a squadron’s SOU — were to fail.
Into, “the F-35 could be disabled by cutting connecting with ALIS, or conversely that ALIS could be used to shut down F-35 users freedom of action. Neither is true and it is a positive that GAO and JPO are having this row publicly.
In fact, the overall F-35 fleet should be able to operate without connection for up to 30 days with maintainers tracking the work off-line, the Pentagon told GAO.
Losing connectivity to ALIS would be a pain, but hardly fatal, the JPO contends. If jets are unable to use ALIS — a ground-based system that provides sustainment and support, but not combat capabilities for the jet — the F-35 is still a usable plane. In fact, the worst case scenario would be that operators would have to track maintenance and manage daily squadron operations manually, just as older jets do
FBWGaN AESA & spanky new processing power all but nullify the moderate level of observable F-22 & 35 is built to,
..and which BVR A2A weapon do you think is even remotely as dangerous ?
Helps to get the details right when making dubious overarching statements. The Raven ES-05 is GaA.
FBWAnd yet, not one of your posts so far have anything to do with the topic at hand either. Thus, it is simply a sad, off topic rant too.
Please compose another thread where various personal inadequacies can be vented, as none of this has anything to do with this topic.
True, but then read back, I don’t think it is out of line to call out obvious lies, and I was not the person who went OT. But, you are correct this is not the proper thread, my apologies.
FBWAnger and no logic, sad. That rant had nothing to do with the topic a hand.
Still waiting for documentation of your claims….. But you have none because they are made up nonsense. Cue the next diatribe about the evil west.
Russiadefense.net is missing their court jester. Run along now to peddle your crap to an audience that doesn’t know better
FBWLook, this is easy. Let’s expose the coverup. Since these shoot downs happened over hostile territory post the pictures, or find documents with serial numbers of the downed aircraft. Can’t do it? Then u are discredited and shown to be full of crap. That simple.
No, the number of Abrams tanks destroyed or damaged beyond repair is also available. The media made that claim after D.S., all the US army said that there were no fatalities of Abrams crews till OIF. So that claim is of yours B.S. too.
There are two clowns posting here today- and I’m not one of them.
Btw- I’m not passing judgement on The Hague trials as fair or right. my point is simple: the side that is successful in a conflict does not see it’s leaders on trial for war crimes, the losers do.
FBWPretty sure I read about Apache in Kosovo in Air International or ACM..
I’m away on work, but it should be easy to find it.
Pretty sure there was two Apache involved in crashes over there.
But I do not remember reading of any Downey by enemy fire..
Yeah those two crashes are well documented. Our deluded poster above was claiming that there were seven downed by Serb forces and had wreckage on display in the museum.
FBWyou are full of **** and talking out of your ass.
those kind of losses and shootdowns are kept under wraps for a long time
I dare you clown, tell me how many Ah6/Mh-6 were lost in OIF
Four words for my reply ” prove it, post serials”.
I know for a fact both you and the above poster are FOS. Give me there serial number for ANY of the alleged shoot downs. See, here where you can actually look up this information or petition the government to release records, things that don’t stay hidden for long. I know that concept is foreign to some. As far as how many little birds were lost in OIF: one, what does it have to do with Kosovo? Two, what is the difference, unless there is a discrepancy in claims/losses.
Addition: For all rotary wing OIF losses I l’ve got 70 losses by hostile fire, 157 combat losses (non-hostile) 2002-2009.
FBWThe usual claims by Washington, facts are 7 were destroyed by direct involvement of Serbian SAM and Army also seen with penetrations and pilot equipment and personal gear of apache pilots in todays Belgrade Museum of the 1999 NATO Aggression.
. That is why NATO could not deploy ground forces in Serbia.
There’s always one….. First off, there are no “secret losses” , just like alledged F-15 losses in Iraq, or F-111, or all dubious shoot down claims. They can easily be refuted by tracking serial nos. Go take down the serials of all seven shot down Apaches at the museum then post them. I’m going to guess your not going to find seven losses. Why? B/c all it would take is one journalist, spotter enthusiast, one FOIA request to expose a loss.
It is a sad state of affairs that has been occurring with the rewriting of history on the Internet. Lastly, same as I say to all of the “NATO failed in Serbia, look at all the tanks we still have!” Crowd. First, at a map, then look at the stability in the region today, and lastly ( rightly or wrongly) look at who was on trial at The Hague. It is clear who was successful in Deliberate force/Allied force operations.
FBWProbably T-50-6-2 @ 0:30 – 0:32s:
Was that an Su-35 or the T-50 that was shown in the video with the worker driving in the screw on the access panel at 14:45?
FBWRegarding offsets, assuming each Rafale costs $240 million (including what not), would Dassault be willing to reduce the overall price by a mere 25%, if GoI all of a sudden said they didn’t want those 50% offsets? Theoretically speaking (using the logic in some previous posts) Dassault’s overall profit margin should increase.
Very much doubt that Dassault or Thales would even consider that. 30% of the offsets (according to rumor) are technology and industrial participation in “future R&D projects”. Providing technology and expertise French aerospace companies have already developed is cheap and much more palatable than some “red tag sale” just to add production orders.
FBWWell, looks like horse jockies barred from the F-35 due to weight restrictions will be cleared soon. In all seriousness, considering the ejection injuries experienced with JHMCS, the newer, lighter Gen III helmet will undoubtably be safer for pilots of all weights.
FBWAnd ? What does that change? The TOT has a value, value embedded within the contract.
10 billions for 71 F18 compare to 8.8 for 36 Rafale and 4 billions of offset : it is a good deal, very good deal for Indians.
Once the full structure of the contract will be known you will see by yourself the unit cost in this deal is nothing else than standard.With this price Indian also buy freedom.
Ezco, I’ve no problem with the Rafale contract. I take issue with you making things up. First, with UK paying for part of Indian contract, then with the obviously false comparison with Aussie SH contract, then butchering the understanding of what offsets mean, now this 71 super hornets for 10 billion. No such contract exists and adding up current and proposed contracts for Aussie S-hornets is literally so stupid I will not comment.
Please stop posting this nonsense. In any case I will not answer in hopes that those of us who have a clue can continue dialogue.
FBWEzco, just no. Btw, please look up offsets and understand that tech transfer is reportedly a large part of the offsets proposed.
FBWPlease read the doc you reference in your post.
It never says 2.7 billions includes training support and spares.
It just says that if you correct the acquisition cost with the inflation you get a number within the same range than the Rafale deal with India.
And where the hell the original 6 billions from your first post disappeared?
Google what an FMS contract includes, then look at the follow on proposal for 24 SH/Growlers includes that I posted.
Read the first post for the cost estimates (4.5 to 6 billion), the AU government doc says 4.2 billion Australian dollars.
Snark is a poor substitute for substance. If you don’t get something ask for an explanation. You are beating a dead horse, the obvious is in front of you if you look at the links.
Sign In
