![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
Eh? The E-8 is operating at that range--you think that the range error of the E-8's ISAR itself increases significantly through the depth of its coverage? The platform doing the weapons release would have to be about on top of the target. This configuration, using AMSTE, was credited with a successful strike in its first test drop, from what I have read. Of interest would be how much the E-8 "sees"--can it also pick up the aircraft dropping the munition (regular JDAM in this case)(as I believe the follow-on E-10 will be able to do)? If so, then it would appear to offer the dropping aircraft the same accuracy enhancement that its own SAR would afford--the E-8 would have the target and the delivery platform in the same frame of reference, so any ranging error would be largely negated? Brooks You are contradicting your fatuous "facts(?)" brooks. Now you are saying the the E-8 and E-10 will participate directly in putting ordnance on target. In a previous post you spouted this "fact(?)": "The fact that the USAF,USN, USA, etc., are not going to place those assets in a situation of undue risk is patently obvious." Meanwhile, suppliers to potential adversaries are realizing a market to counter tactics you are postulating... http://www.ainonline.com/Publication...1agatpg85.html "If used on a long-range missile airframe, the ARGS-PD could give an opposing air force the ability to take out strategic targets at distances outside of the normal interception envelopes of U.S. or other NATO fighters. Boeing E-3 AWACS or E-8 JSTARS aircraft–platforms that U.S. forces depend heavily upon in time of conflict–would be vulnerable as never before." The long range missle airframes are in development as well, despite your "facts(?)"... "Russian guided-weapons builder Novator is continuing to work, albeit slowly, on an ultralong-range air-to-air missile, with a version on offer for export to a select customer set. Designated article 172, the weapon was included on a model of the Su-35 derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, on display during the Dubai air show. Ground based threats also exist and are proliferating as well. Imagine a cagey foe with some of these puppies who take real umbrage to emitting aircraft wishing to do them harm... http://in.news.yahoo.com/031020/43/28nkk.html "Islamabad, Oct 20 (IANS) A Chinese missile termed an 'AWACS killer' is to play a key role in Pakistan's strategy to counter the airborne Phalcon radars that India is acquiring, media reports said Monday." So which is it brooks? Either C4ISR assets are *never* put in harms way? Or will we use them in hot tactical scenarios to target ordanance? Your "facts(?)" are mutually exclusive here. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|