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

"Bravo Sierra" check (was "China's Army on Combat Alert")



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 2nd 04, 01:47 PM
The Enlightenment
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop"

is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution

easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they

do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar

return
as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc)


Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of

heading
at the cost of a large energy loss.


Some versions of the Su27/Su37 have thrust vectoring nozzles and can
thus balance on their tail till the fuel runs out.

The Joint German American X-31 which has thrust vectoring has a I
believe a 20:1 kill ratio in dogfights against F16s.

In otherwords in dogfights it is decisive. (In a world of Stealth one
would expect dogfights to occur by accident)

(back in test to acquire data on vectoring for STOL)




This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock.


It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.

It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct

advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.


They can obviously maintain radar silence till they need to illuminate
the target. The AA11 alamo "amraamski" is only in limited service
but has an active homing radar.



They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a

signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.


Cobra

Keith




  #12  
Old April 2nd 04, 03:14 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Baron Huntchausen wrote:
snip


The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter.

It's
even
cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The

F-16
is
still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
productions.

The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena

that
can
compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent

load
and
after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline

fighters.
I
saw
something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything

short
of
a
Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight.

The
Pilot
forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be

completely
stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight

up.
Talk
about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't

know
of
any
other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket

attached
to
it's
butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at

Bitburg
AB,
GE.
The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even

though
the
F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.

Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution

easier.

Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has

a
thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of

the
F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of

weight,
and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide

greater
thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the

F-15's
have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.

And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16

costs
about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in

production.

So is the F-15 (in production, that is); sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia,

and
Korea are keeping the line open, and it is still competing in Singapore

last
I heard. And where are you getting the idea that the F-15 costs four

times
what an F-16 costs today? The cost of the F-15K's going to the ROKAF is
about $100 million per, based upon total contract cost; the price of the
F-16C Block 50's sold to Chile is about $50 million per (total contract
cost), *not including the freakin' engines*!


You are talking about export models. The F-15 doesn't have the same radar
among other things. The F-16C even exported is a complete package. Okay,
leave off the Engines but I doubt if a single engine will run up the bill
another 50 mil per copy.


It does not need to--the comparison sans engine is enough to make your
statement (that it cost is one-fourth that of the F-15) false, by a wide
margin. And it matters not a whit that we are currently producing export
versions of the F-15 instead of domestic ones--the fact is that the jigs are
still available and in place; ordering a different radar, such as the latest
APG-63 which has already been through the integration process, would be no
big deal. The F-15 is still in production. You were wrong (again); deal with
it.


2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant

growth
capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the

export
Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so

much
better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder

why
(a)
the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only

force,
and
(b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen

enough
merit
in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider

the
F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their

also
being
a major F-16 operator).

In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.


Again, why do the USAF and israel still fly the F-15 as their premier
air-to-air fighters? Why did the ROKAF select the F-15K? Note that all

three
of those forces also operate F-16's.


The USAF has a followon Model if the funds EVER become available. Again,
you use the Export model as an example.


Huh? Again, why are we, the Israelis, and now the ROKAF still flying (and in
a couple of cases buying) F-15's, given that all three are also operating
your "superior" F-16?



3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the

cost
(but
was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They

still
are
not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at

a
cost
of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.


Yep, and you add the other contractural services and you get that $50
million per copy cost, NOT INCLUDING ENGINES. So we can assume a total
flyaway cost of probably $60 million, versus $100 million for an

aircraft
that you acknowledge has a better BVR capability. So how is the F-16

such
a
hands-down better choice again?


40 million savings.


You earlier said one-fourth the cost--which is it?

Plus, most countries have to keep their AC inside their
own borders. They have to get up quick, get the kill and return home.

Any
old F-104 Jocks hanging around that would care to explain it to everyone
else? Just wondering, why was the F-104 still being purchased by small
countries (manufactured in Japan) while the more modern fighters were not
purchased in great numbers during that time frame? Could it be cost of
operation, Logistics in support, time to target and a host of other

reasons?

Can you name any nation that purchased F-104's from Japan?


I was talking about the US and not Chile. When you compare a NON Export
F-15, the price goes up since it gets the good stuff. The F-16C stays

about
the same (maybe a little more).


Actually, I do believe you have it a bit backwards; USAF purchase costs for
F-15's, including the latest F-15E's that rolled off the line just a year or
so back, have been significantly *lower* than the cost quoted for that ROKAF
deal, for a number of reasons (existing infrastructure to support them,
purchase under long-term lead contract, etc.).

The question now is, what about this issue have you gotten *right* thus far?
Darned little that I have seen as of yet, "Admin".

Brooks (using his by golly real name)






  #13  
Old April 2nd 04, 03:17 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop"

is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution

easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they

do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar

return
as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc)


Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of

heading
at the cost of a large energy loss.


Some versions of the Su27/Su37 have thrust vectoring nozzles and can
thus balance on their tail till the fuel runs out.

The Joint German American X-31 which has thrust vectoring has a I
believe a 20:1 kill ratio in dogfights against F16s.

In otherwords in dogfights it is decisive. (In a world of Stealth one
would expect dogfights to occur by accident)

(back in test to acquire data on vectoring for STOL)




This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock.


It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.


Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.

Brooks


It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct

advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.


They can obviously maintain radar silence till they need to illuminate
the target. The AA11 alamo "amraamski" is only in limited service
but has an active homing radar.



They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a

signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.


Cobra

Keith






  #14  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:04 PM
Michael Zaharis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Kevin Brooks wrote:
"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock.


It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.



Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.

Brooks


I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
Assuming that you do this within AMRAAMSKI range, you could launch a
missile to defeat the US aircraft without being tracked accurately
enough by the US aircraft to destroy you. From the US point of view,
the SU-27 appears on your screen, then disappears.

The supporters of this theory claimed that it was further indication
that the F-15 was becoming obsolete in the face of new threats, and an
aircraft that provides little warning to provoke an SU-27 to adopt this
strategy (F/A-22) was (and is) required. They had managed to run a
number of (two-dome, I believe) simulations where they could kill F-15s
with regularity in a SU-27-like simulated threat. The detractors claim
that this was an unlikely manuever in any realistic combat situation,
and would be very difficult for people with less training than the US
Air Force to carry out.

To me, it also seems that such a strategy requires better situational
awareness than most SU-27 operators could muster.

  #15  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:07 PM
Michael Zaharis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Michael Zaharis wrote:



Kevin Brooks wrote:

"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock.


It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.




Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.

Brooks



I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
Assuming that you do this within AMRAAMSKI range, you could launch a
missile to defeat the US aircraft without being tracked accurately
enough by the US aircraft to destroy you. From the US point of view,
the SU-27 appears on your screen, then disappears.

The supporters of this theory claimed that it was further indication
that the F-15 was becoming obsolete in the face of new threats, and an
aircraft that provides little warning to provoke an SU-27 to adopt this
strategy (F/A-22) was (and is) required. They had managed to run a
number of (two-dome, I believe) simulations where they could kill F-15s
with regularity in a SU-27-like simulated threat. The detractors claim
that this was an unlikely manuever in any realistic combat situation,
and would be very difficult for people with less training than the US
Air Force to carry out.

To me, it also seems that such a strategy requires better situational
awareness than most SU-27 operators could muster.


BTW, before flaming, I am not claiming that this is a workable strategy
or not. I haven't enough first-hand knowledge of ACM or BVR engagements
(in fact, I have none - everything I know is from reading and talking
with people). Just repeating what was reported regarding this in AW&ST.

  #16  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:46 PM
Pepperoni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...
xxxxxxxxxxx

I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.

xxxxxxxxxxx

The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
and constant altitude.
This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return. The radar,
looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet aircraft.
Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar seek
signal vector)

I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
weakness before we had any idea.

Pepperoni


  #17  
Old April 2nd 04, 07:59 PM
Admin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"text-east.newsfeeds.com" wrote in
message ...

"Admin" wrote in message
s.com...

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.


The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that

dates
back to the 60s or early 70s.


The AA6 was Acrid, AA-8Aphid was a short range IR missile


Thanks. It's been a few years since I had to know what was which.



More Modern missiles such as AA-10 Alamo, AA-12 Adder
have sem-active or active radar seekers

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000

Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption

=---


  #18  
Old April 2nd 04, 08:02 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...
xxxxxxxxxxx

I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.

xxxxxxxxxxx

The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
and constant altitude.


This is not a good position to be in when a combat is taking
place, the phrase sitting duck comes to mind. Talk to any
combat pilot and he'll tell you energy is life. The pilot trying this
trick is a dead man.

This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return.


Horse****, radars have variable settings and they manage
to detect large stationary objetcs like airships very handily.

Additionally they have IR guided missiles which will happily
lock on to any heat source and a cannon who's shells
could care less.

The radar,
looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet

aircraft.
Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar

seek
signal vector)


You aint tracking anything if you are joggling the throttle trying
this trick, its akin to balancing a beer bottle on your nose
and tring to fire a rifle at the same time and your radar
and weapons systems are pointing straight up into a
clear, and empty, blue sky. OOPS

I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
weakness before we had any idea.


Russian built fighters have an exceedingly poor record against US
aircraft in the last 30 years or so. If the tried the trick you propose
the the US pilot ,ight die laughing but I doubt it.

Keith


  #19  
Old April 2nd 04, 09:09 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pepperoni" wrote in message
...

"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...
xxxxxxxxxxx

I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.

xxxxxxxxxxx

The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
and constant altitude.
This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return. The radar,
looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet

aircraft.
Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar

seek
signal vector)

I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
weakness before we had any idea.


I believe you would be wrong. The Sukhoi test pilot who was comenting in the
interview I read indicated it was a purely for show maneuver, and only
recieved later consideration as a tactical maneuver after the USAF expressed
some interest in it. Now you are left with a Russian Air Force that is lucky
to get enough flight hours for its pilots such that they can be relatively
safe in the conduct of takeoffs and landings--I'd eat my hat if you can show
where they are routinely practicing this maneuver for combat. And as has
been pointed out by numerous posters with real expertise in the field of ACM
(and I am not one of them), it leaves you in a real bind in terms of energy
(i.e., sitting duck).

Brooks


Pepperoni




  #20  
Old April 3rd 04, 09:21 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pepperoni" wrote:


"Michael Zaharis" wrote in message
...
xxxxxxxxxxx

I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.

xxxxxxxxxxx

The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
and constant altitude.
This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return. The radar,
looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet aircraft.
Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar seek
signal vector)

I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
weakness before we had any idea.

Pepperoni


Pepperoni you're just too cute for words...I'd like to pinch your
chubby little cheeks for you...and I want these nasty guys here
to leave you alone...
--

-Gord.
 




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
Army ends 20-year helicopter program Garrison Hilliard Military Aviation 12 February 27th 04 08:48 PM
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) Matt Wiser Military Aviation 0 December 7th 03 09:20 PM
French block airlift of British troops to Basra Michael Petukhov Military Aviation 202 October 24th 03 06:48 PM
About French cowards. Michael Smith Military Aviation 45 October 22nd 03 03:15 PM
Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French The Black Monk Military Aviation 62 October 16th 03 08:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.