The F14 vs what we are doing now

In article .com,
wrote:

neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver. And your point about
energy is absolutely
true- It's fairly easy to bleed down to zero knots pointing the nose
and most of
our guys try to stay away from that - the hornet is still a decent
vertical fighter -
I haven't been all that impressed with the Eagles vertical capability,
can't speak
for the tomcat as I'm sure I'll never get a chance to fight one. Your
comments about
hornet bleed rate and energy addition are also true, one of the hugest
shortcomings.
As for the anchoring comment, I agree - I'd rather have the extra mach
and altitude
to put on an AMRAAM shot than unlimited alpha anyday - that's where the
eagle shines
and I imagine the tomcat as well. I'd have to say that the jet I have
been most impressed
with are the newer block bigmouth Vipers for manoeuverablity- truly eye
watering t/w.

Do everything in your power to get AESA radars on your F/A-18's.
They are a true force multiplier.

And yes, I know it's only currently offered on the E/F aircraft, but that
will change soon.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article .com,
wrote:
:
: neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver.
:
o everything in your power to get AESA radars on your F/A-18's.
:They are a true force multiplier.
:
:And yes, I know it's only currently offered on the E/F aircraft, but that
:will change soon.

Canada tends to be funding limited (their government won't give them
enough money). They're just now (slowly) getting A+ upgrades, I
think.

AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:

AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.




assuming you are fighting on his ground.

observed:

AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.

If what I read in Av Leak is to be credited, AESA is capable of
"non-kinetic attacks."

Depending on the susceptibility of the ground targets to directed energy
weapons, it seems to me that AESA *might* be able to accomplish some
missions now undertaken by standoff precision kinetic attack ordnance.
And it's not inconceivable that AESA might be used against airborne
targets as well -- as a *weapon* rather than as a *sensor.* Indeed, AWST
has speculated regarding the capabilities of a large ground-based AESA
hooked into the power grid. And there has been coverage of proposals to
install AESA on transport-sized aircraft, like whatever replaces the EP-3
and/or RC-135 family.

But all I know is what McGraw Hill tells me.

Paul Michael Brown wrote:
observed:


AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.


If what I read in Av Leak is to be credited, AESA is capable of
"non-kinetic attacks."

Depending on the susceptibility of the ground targets to directed energy
weapons, it seems to me that AESA *might* be able to accomplish some
missions now undertaken by standoff precision kinetic attack ordnance.
And it's not inconceivable that AESA might be used against airborne
targets as well -- as a *weapon* rather than as a *sensor.* Indeed, AWST
has speculated regarding the capabilities of a large ground-based AESA
hooked into the power grid. And there has been coverage of proposals to
install AESA on transport-sized aircraft, like whatever replaces the EP-3
and/or RC-135 family.

But all I know is what McGraw Hill tells me.

"Non-kinetic attack" is another name for Electronic Attack (EA). This
typically means jamming (e.g. radar jamming, referred to in the ancient
days of history as ECM), but there are other things you can do with it-
it does not involve shooting down a plane with a beam of microwaves, or
a laser, or anything like that. It usually involves disrupting the
gathering or passing of information (jamming your radar or your radio,
for example), but generally does not do any physical damage in and
of itself- hence non-kinetic. Non-kinetic attacks attempt to defeat
a target, as opposed to destroying it.

See

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...e_Rethinks.htm

for a short discussion on electronic warfare as a non-kinetic capability.

Mike Williamson
EC-130H Compass Call

Mike said:
"Non-kinetic attack" is another name for Electronic Attack (EA). This
typically means jamming (e.g. radar jamming, referred to in the ancient

days of history as ECM), but there are other things you can do with it-

it does not involve shooting down a plane with a beam of microwaves, or

a laser, or anything like that.

Directed energy, particle beam weapons, destructive lasers, etc. all
fall under EA as does electronic disruptive techniques such as jamming.
Whether or not any capabilities of an EA destructive nature are
operational has not been publicly acknowledged.