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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
And, if you had not noticed, the SU is about as stealthy as a 747.
If you had still not noticed, f22 and B2 are about as stealthy to multistatics as a B52 to backscatterers. Heck,in year 2004 we have still difficulty to explain some things that the Germans and Brits knew in 40s to some people. You can reduce backscaterers by hard body shaping very significantly,but unfortunately you CANNOT do the same for the forward scatterers.That was the lesson that Germans and Brits learned in 40s. Thats also the reason why multistatic RCS of B2 is even greater than frontal backscatterer RCS of B52. Even Yale graduates should be able to understand that. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:53:25 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote:
Pete, No, they should be fighting for their own territory. Unless you think the USAF and USN should be able to go it alone, everywhere around the globe at the same time. Well, from the way the USAF runs specific operations in the last 15 years, it appears that there is no chance of anything else happening. What an utter fool. PLONK Al Minyard |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, you are "not the least" qualified.
Al Minyard Of course I'm not, Al: as you expertly explained, I'm "anti-US" and that disqualifies me in all possible areas. But, I'm relieved that you're "qualified". Tom Cooper Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian Vienna, Austria ************************************************* Author: Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988: http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875 Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585 African MiGs http://www.acig.org/afmig/ Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM ************************************************* |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets in the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown" back in the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have there... Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you read any of my previous posts indicating this before? You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS" will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still awaiting delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed the Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago). Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units, it is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic. So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic? I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty of them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you anything else? Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to ask. Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in the same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry you can't seem to grasp that little fact. Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you seen this coming? Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources: Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm anti-US and not qualified. There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown earlier (perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless), then it was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first time only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year). Provide proof. See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US - like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal? And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts.... It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste from them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting electrons. Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe. Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more. Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8 Cheers, Tom Cooper Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog, anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on demand) Vienna, Austria ************************************************* Author: Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988: http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875 Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585 African MiGs http://www.acig.org/afmig/ Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM ************************************************* |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message . .. Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say: neither service has ever encountered anything like IRIAF F-14s, armed with AIM-54s in combat Just how many of the 79 Tomcats and 284 Pheonixs supplied to the Iranians are still servicable though? Of course: none. You know, ignoring potential threats, talking and - foremost - guessing and wishing them away functions at best: the US history confirms this beyond any doubt - and in quite some lenght. Most people seemed pretty sure it was down to single figures (and possibly even low single figures), however there was that fly by of 25 Tomcats over Teheran on 11/02/85. (Of course, how many of them where fully operational[1] is something I doubt we know!) How should I know? You were so kind to explain that I'm twisting electrons, so I obviously can't answer your question without doing the same again. I suggest you to ask Al instead: he'll confirm you that I'm not qualified to answer any questions at all - not to talk about such stuff - and then he'll explain you how many F-14s are there in Iran. There also seems to be conflicting reports around as to whether the Pheonix capability was sabotaged around about the time of the revolution (either by departing Grumman technicians, pro-Western Iranian technicans or even by Iranian revolutionaries who felt the Air Force was "too western") ... Of course: you know, while being confinned to their living spaces in the days while waiting some plane to fly them out of Iran for something as laughable as threats for their life, in the winter and spring of 1979, the US contract personnel (of course, especially "Grumman technicians"!), CIA agents etc. - you know: everybody who wanted - could walk around the IIAF airbases at free, and sabotage whatever they wanted to sabotage. And so they had all the time of the world and plenty of opportunities to sabotage no less but 77 F-14s and something like 260 remaining AIM-54s distributed on three different airfields and (in the case of the AIM-54s) even in underground facilities. Of course, it's a little bit funny (if not outright silly) they sabotaged them only so that they could not use AIM-54s, even if the AWG-9s remained intact and functional so that all the "experts" could later report that Iranians use their F-14s as "mini-AWACS"....But, heh, who cares about this being logical or not? Oh, and the wolf ate Little Red Riddinghood. True story! (I've seen it on TV) [1] Mainly meaning, with a working AWG-9 as opposed to something with the capability of the "Blue Circle" of the early Tornado ADV days ... Clear stuff: how can one expect the Mullahs to know what to do with that large chunk of titanium and other metals that the Kafirs in the West call "F-14" (spelling?) - or something like that? Tom Cooper Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian Vienna, Austria ************************************************* Author: Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988: http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875 Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585 African MiGs http://www.acig.org/afmig/ Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM ************************************************* |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say:
"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message . .. Tom Cooper twisted the electrons to say: neither service has ever encountered anything like IRIAF F-14s, armed with AIM-54s in combat Just how many of the 79 Tomcats and 284 Pheonixs supplied to the Iranians are still servicable though? Of course: none. That was actually a serious question ... However I see it was a question that seems to be beyond your ability to answer ... Most people seemed pretty sure it was down to single figures (and possibly even low single figures), however there was that fly by of 25 Tomcats over Teheran on 11/02/85. (Of course, how many of them where fully operational[1] is something I doubt we know!) How should I know? In your earlier post (MsgID: ) you claimed "in 2007 or 2008, the IRIAF is going to stand alone with the longest-ranged air-to-air missile world-wide" ... Clearly assuming that you had some facts (such as current, approximate, numbers of servicable Tomcats) to back up this statement was an error of mine ... You were so kind to explain that I'm twisting electrons, so I obviously can't answer your question without doing the same again. So you object when I attribute things you said to you? shrugs Each to their own I guess ... but if you wheren't prepared to have your words attributed to you, why did you say them in the first place? grins I suggest you to ask Al instead: he'll confirm you that I'm not qualified to answer any questions at all - not to talk about such stuff - and then he'll explain you how many F-14s are there in Iran. Well, clearly the number of servicable Tomcats is going to be somewhere between 79 and 0, and given they've been in service (or not, as the case may be), including combat time, for over 20 years with only minimal spares support at best it would seem reasonable to assume they've been subject to at least *some* attrition. Now given that Tom has now confessed that he has no idea how many, if any, are still servicable does anyone else want to take a stab? There also seems to be conflicting reports around as to whether the Pheonix capability was sabotaged around about the time of the revolution (either by departing Grumman technicians, pro-Western Iranian technicans or even by Iranian revolutionaries who felt the Air Force was "too western") ... Oh, and the wolf ate Little Red Riddinghood. True story! (I've seen it on TV) Conflicting - To be in opposition; to be contradictory. Hence, "there also seems to be conflicting reports about $THING" means some say $THING happened others don't, or say it didn't happen ... [1] Mainly meaning, with a working AWG-9 as opposed to something with the capability of the "Blue Circle" of the early Tornado ADV days ... Clear stuff: how can one expect the Mullahs to know what to do with that large chunk of titanium and other metals that the Kafirs in the West call "F-14" (spelling?) - or something like that? Ah, so to your mind all 25 of those Tomcats where fully servicable in all respects? I'd be interested as to what leads you to that conclusion, indeed such interest was largely the reason for my original posting. Personally I'd say that the fly-past proves they had at least 25 that could fly (on that particular day), but it says nothing about their capabilities wrt the AWG-9, Pheonix capability, functioning afterburners, wing-sweep capability ... etc -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... Eh? You think there is some kind of rule that says, "OK, if the PRC gets in the first blow, the USAF is NOT allowed to take the fight "downtown" back in the PRC--no B-2 strikes against C4I targets, no cruise missile strikes against airfields and IADS..."? Strange idea of modern combat you have there... Of course: I said so at least 400 times so far on this NG. Haven't you read any of my previous posts indicating this before? Strange as it may seem, many of us do not hang upon your every word--I can only go off what you say *now*, and that was, to quote: "...the first blow in such a scenario would obviously be delivered by the Chinese; and in that case the USAF would not be in offensive, but on defensive right from the start..." You have yet to conclusively show where "hundreds of Flankers and AWACS" will be a problem in the forseeable future--heck, the PRC is still awaiting delivery of their first fully functional AWACS (the US having quashed the Israeli plans to sell them Phalcon a few years ago). Kevin, after posting the current OrBat of the PLAAF/PLANAF Flanker-units, it is definitely obvious that I'm completely clueless about this topic. Considering that your numbers, not to mention your conclusions, contradict what many other sources indicate, including the latest DoD report, which indicates that the PLAAF *might* be capable of taking on a joint USAF/ROCAF force sometime after 2010: "The PLAAF's primary strength remains its size--approximately 3,000 combat-capable aircraft. Also, the PLAAF and PLANAF are undergoing significant upgrades, whichinclude acquiring fourth-generation aircraft, air defense systems, advanced munitions, and C4ISR equipment. These upgrades eventually will improve the PLAAF's capability to conduct both offensive and defensive operations. In addition, air combat tactics continue to evolve, and training is becoming more advanced, though both remain behind Western standards. By 2010-15, the PLAAF will have made additional progress toward becoming a modern air force and will be equipped with modern weapons that most likelywill enable the PLA to execute the regional combat operations its current military doctrine envisions." That is a far cry from what you have been braying about, and it would be hard to point to the DoD's accessment as being overly optimistic--this is after all one of the foundation documents trotted out when budgeting comes to the table. So, I must wonder: how do you actually come to the idea to ask me for any kind of "conclusive" evidence to this topic? Because you have a habit of tossing out unspupported "facts" that do not jive with other available sources. I mean, seriously: you have posted all the possible sources - and plenty of them - indicating something completely different. So, who am I to tell you anything else? An idiot, perhaps? But then again, you remain firmly convinced your version of reality is quite different from that portrayed by folks like the DoD, right? Al has brilliantly explained it: I'm not qualified. So, don't bother to ask. Apparently he hit the nail on the head in this case--anyone claiming that the PLAAF would field 300 J-10/FC-1 aircraft over the next 12 to 18 months, as you have, is obviously a bit lacking in qualifications, namely common sense. Yeah, go simplistic...*that's* gonna really make your point! The fact is that the ROCAF is going to be fighting the PLAAF at the same time and in the same area that this postulated US response would be occuring in--sorry you can't seem to grasp that little fact. Agreed: I'm a stupid. Must be the reason I still wonder how haven't you seen this coming? I am guessing english is not your first language-- that last question makes no sense whatsoever. Your numbers vary quite widely from those reported in other sources: Yes. The reason is simple: they are right and I am wrong - because I'm anti-US and not qualified. From what I have seen thus far, only the latter really applies here. There is a similar problem here like in the case of the F-22: what is reported is long since not current. The plane has obviously flown earlier (perhaps only "few months" earlier than reported, but nevertheless), then it was not only flown by Pakistani pilots already in 2003 (reports in the specialized press indicate it was flown by the Pakistanis for the first time only in April this year), but also by Iranians (in October last year). Provide proof. See above: wouldn't you agree it's pretty silly to ask somebody anti-US - like me - even for the way to the next shopping mal? So, another unsupported "fact" you have trotted out--figures. Your dedication to the practice of snipping all of that stuff you don't like from the conversation, even though it is still the subject of debate, is another little trait of your's that gets a bit tiresome, though since you have a demonstrable tendency of denying your own previous statements it is probably understandable--why make it easy for your opponent to zing those direct quotes back at you, eh? And you ask me for proofs for what I'm talking about? Ts, ts, ts.... It's namely impossible that there could be anybody who is not dependent on Jane's and similar institutions: all the people that do not copy-paste from them but research on their own are simply lying and phantasising - and anti-US (that's most important here), not qualified, and twisting electrons. Ask Alistair and Al: they can confirm it if you still don't believe. Consequently, you can't ask me any such questions any more. Actually, you seem to fit quite well into the mold of "New Journalism"--the facts be damned, your personal views and "hidden sources" are paramount. You might want to drop a resume off at the New York Times--they have demonstrated a recent propensity to like journalists with that kind of philosophy. Brooks Heh, but I'll proudly add these nick-names as attributes to the existing list (excerpt see bellow), some even on the first place. :8 Cheers, Tom Cooper Freelance Aviation Journalist & Historian Unqualified Imperialist Text-writter, Communist Dog, anti-US/Israel/Moslems/Arabs..., Russo-fob, (etc., etc.: list available on demand) Vienna, Austria ************************************************* Author: Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988: http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875 Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585 African MiGs http://www.acig.org/afmig/ Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S6550~ser=COM ************************************************* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what is good sound proofing for interior?!?! | Rick | Home Built | 12 | May 13th 04 02:29 AM |
How Aircraft Stay In The Air | Sarah Hotdesking | Military Aviation | 145 | March 25th 04 05:13 PM |
Pulse jet active sound attentuation | Jay | Home Built | 32 | March 19th 04 05:57 AM |
The sound of survival: Huey's distinctive 'whop-whop' will be heard again locally, By Ian Thompson/McNaughton Newspapers | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 19th 04 12:01 AM |
F-86 and sound barrier | VH | Military Aviation | 43 | September 26th 03 02:53 AM |