A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AC-130 Replacement Contemplated



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 10th 04, 06:07 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.