![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "sid" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... rant snipped Look, we are NOT sending them into contested airspace, OK? Period. There is that strange "OP-2E's" you keep ranting about... And again, we are not going to send these assets in against "undue risk". Some guys whose remains finally made it home to Arlington recently were certainly ordered into contested airspace in their ISR assets...Even in the face of "undue risk". The job had to get done. Thats what war-real war-is about Kevin. Are you talking about the DASH-7 ARL that punched into a freakin' mountainside? Geeze, just what kind of damage tolerance are you demanding? snip I don't know where you get these ideas, but the E-8 JSTARS surveillance range reportedly reaches out to around 250 km--SA-10/12 manage what, maybe 90 km? Since I'm sure you didn't open up the link on the S-400 , here is what it says: http://www.aeronautics.ru/s300site.htm KEY CHARACTERISTICS S-300PMU1 S-300MU2 S-400 Range, km (max) 150 200 400 Altitude, km (max) 25-27 25+ 25+ Altitude, km (min) 10 10 10 Uhmmm...isn't S-400 the ABM derivitive? Which explains it longer range--against targets waaay upstairs in their radar horizon at that range? As to the others....250 km is greater than either of them. Now, how often are you going to see those systems up near the FLOT? That's right--pretty much never. Talk about being an ATACMS magnet... snip My beef is that these airframes represent easy kills and the COTS culture is ignoring the problem. The threat to them while airborne isn't there today, but some guys who mean us ill will are working hard on that problem. Easy kills on the tarmac are another issue as well and certainly possible today. A few bits of shrapnel and its Buh-Bye shiny new 767-400. An airframe that can be expected to take a measured amount of battle damage is a necessity for ALL military aircraft. Oh, gee whiz, what about those C-40's? And those aircraft specified to go into low threat areas? I guess you would discount the future use of CRAF assets as well, right? What with all of those nasty super long range AAM's...oops, that's right, they are just ghostware. snip And, oh yes, I DO know what the "L" in ARL means... I don't think you do, from the angle of your rants. It does NOT mean "low altitude", nor does it mean "low chance of surviving its mission". Brooks sid |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Magneto/comm interference on TKM MX-R Narco 120 replacement | Eugene Wendland | Home Built | 5 | January 13th 04 02:17 PM |
Canada to order replacement for the Sea King | Ed Majden | Military Aviation | 3 | December 18th 03 07:02 PM |
Replacement for C130? | John Penta | Military Aviation | 24 | September 29th 03 07:11 PM |
Narco MK 16 replacement | SoulReaver714 | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | September 23rd 03 04:38 PM |
Hellfire Replacement | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 6 | July 2nd 03 02:22 AM |