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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... sid wrote: 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." Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming. Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the F/A-22... And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this kind of support). Brooks -HJC |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you I like the F-35. ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the F/A-22... Given that your jammer options are EB-52 or G-18, who you gonna call? -HJC |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
My rather poor translation went something like this
Test Pilot: Gemessen an der Zeitspanne - also wenn man überlegt wann die zuerst geflogen sind (Erstflug 29.09.90), haben wir denen jetzt schon drei bis vier Jahre abgeknöpft. Test Pilot: Given the timeframe - when considering that the first flight was in 1990, have now already lost 3-4 years. Und das was ich sehe und was ich höre... And from what I see and hear... Letzten Sommer war ich in Edwards, wo wir Probeflüge gemacht haben für unser Helmdisplay in einer F-16. last summer I was in Edwards, where I was test flying a helmet displays for the F-16's Und da haben die Amerikaner so in bisschen über Raptor gesprochen. and there the Americans spoke a little about the Raptor. Und die müssen extreme Probleme haben. and they must have extreme problems Die haben halt in das Flugzeug alles integriert über einen einzigen Computer They have halts in the aircrafts fully intergrated main computer - da ist so ein riesen Computer drinnen der ausser Flugsteuerung eigentlich alles macht. There is a large computer inside which controls everything except the flight controls. Und da bin ich eigentlich sehr froh über unsere Avionikarchitektur. In diese "fünf Familien" ist sehr viel Redundanz eingebaut. And there I'm pleased with our (different) avionic architecture,its split into five familiys with lots of redundency built in. Wenn uns etwas ausfällt, dann übernimmt ein anderer Computer die wesentlichen Funktionen des defekten Systems. If ours fails then another computer takes over the major fuctions of that defective system. Die Amerikaner haben halt das Problem, dass wen dieser Computer abstürzt oder Fehler hat, dann geht alles unter - inklusive Kommunikation, Navigation und allem. The Amercans have to stop the problem. that when there computer fails or (software) errors, every thing goes down inclusive of Communications, Navigation, everything. Und die Piloten haben erzählt, sie haben jetzt Vorrichtungen im Cockpit wo sie ein Handy eingebaut haben, damit der Pilot mit unten telefonieren kann wenn nichts mehr geht The pilots have be told they have inserted a device in the cockpit so that the pilot can telephone ( or Communicate) when nothings working. . Da muss ich sagen, was wir bei uns haben ist ein serienreifes Flugzeug und in USA ist das immer noch im Prototypenstadium. There I must say, what we have with us is a series ready airplane and in the USA are still in the prototype stage. Well, my German's about as rust as you can get, and still order Beer, but what I make of the above is that he's commenting on the high level of integration of ancilliary systems, and that it's tough for Third-Party (Not on the System Prime) team to integrate their stuff into the aircraft. I don't read "unten telefonieren" as Cell Phone though. In context, and allowing for what appears to be a bit of circular translation, it's more like a "backup voice radio" than anythig else. Which could be anything from a standard UHF/VHF set in the panel to a handheld in the Pilot's Pubs Bag. (Which is pretty much the norm - when I've been flying things that need a radio, I always bring a handheld, just in case, and whe my brother's off in his 767, he's got a handheld in his Jepp Case. (Along with a Maglite, the appropriate sectionals, etc.) Which would just be prudent. Think about it - in this context, an Aviation Band transceiver makes much more sense than a cell phone. Ah, that said - Cell phones are nice and small:-), I really have trouble with some German colloquial sayings and translating it into English, one classic example of English to German springs to mind "out of sight ,out of mind" got translated to "invisible maniac" Thanks for your help. Cheers John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
John Cook writes:
My rather poor translation went something like this a few small corection to clarify... your translation is good! Und die müssen extreme Probleme haben. and they must be experiencing some serious problems Die haben halt in das Flugzeug alles integriert über einen einzigen Computer They've gone and integrated all systems into a single computer,... - da ist so ein riesen Computer drinnen der ausser Flugsteuerung eigentlich alles macht. ..., so there's this monstrous computer inside which controls bascially everything except the flight control (here he means the really basic direction setting an manoevering that the pilot decides). Wenn uns etwas ausfällt, dann übernimmt ein anderer Computer die wesentlichen Funktionen des defekten Systems. If something in one of our systems fails then another computer takes over the major fuctions of the defective system. Die Amerikaner haben halt das Problem, dass wen dieser Computer abstürzt oder Fehler hat, dann geht alles unter - inklusive Kommunikation, Navigation und allem. The Amercans have this problem now that when there computer fails gives errors, everything goes down including of Communications, Navigation, everything. (`halt' used in the above few situations is a colloquial term, similar in meaning to 'gone and [done]', an indication that the thing that is talked about is kind of wishy-washy or lackadaisical, not so well thought out, or could be better) Und die Piloten haben erzählt, sie haben jetzt Vorrichtungen im Cockpit wo sie ein Handy eingebaut haben, damit der Pilot mit unten telefonieren kann wenn nichts mehr geht The pilots now have an installation for a `handy' (the German word for mobile phone in the cockpit so that the pilot can phone the blokes on the ground when nothing works anymore. [Ooh boy, this sounds fun!] Well, my German's about as rust as you can get, and still order Beer, but what I make of the above is that he's commenting on the high level of integration of ancilliary systems, and that it's tough for Third-Party (Not on the System Prime) team to integrate their stuff into the aircraft. I don't read "unten telefonieren" as Cell Phone though. In context, and allowing for what appears to be a bit of circular translation, it's more like a "backup voice radio" than anythig else. Which could be anything from a standard UHF/VHF set in the panel to a handheld in the Pilot's Pubs Bag. (Which is pretty much the norm - when I've been flying things that need a radio, I always bring a handheld, just in case, and whe my brother's off in his 767, he's got a handheld in his Jepp Case. (Along with a Maglite, the appropriate sectionals, etc.) Which would just be prudent. OK, maybe it isn't in fact a cellphone... who knows. Can you ask? Think about it - in this context, an Aviation Band transceiver makes much more sense than a cell phone. Yeah, but so do backup systems in the computer system :-) Ah, that said - Cell phones are nice and small:-), I really have trouble with some German colloquial sayings and translating it into English, one classic example of English to German springs to mind "out of sight ,out of mind" got translated to "invisible maniac" Great stuff, these translators, huh! -- G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the
bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this kind of support). Brooks Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious "facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this one... 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 assetsin 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." Since the E-10 is nearly stillborn, the MP-RTIP equipped UAV is the way to go. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:52:54 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:
sid wrote: 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." Naw, the F/A-22s will be the bomb droppers with Super Hornets providing targetting and air to air cover and Growlers doing the jamming. -HJC And the F/A-18G will be along shortly. Al Minyard |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: Henry, how on earth can you be a big fan of the Super Bug, with all of its shortcomings? You don't like the F/A-22, you don't like the F-35, you I like the F-35. ridicule the USAF in general...yet you think the Super Bug is the creme de la creme? It'd take three tankers to keep the Bugs within radio range of the F/A-22... Given that your jammer options are EB-52 or G-18, who you gonna call? Reliability - Availability - Revenue |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"s.p.i." wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message And the gent (mercifully plonked a while back) who took exception with the bit about the E-8 being involved has obviously not read the standoff distance that this *test* was conducted at--about 100 km for the E-8, which gives you plenty of leeway to keep the GMTI birds away from the teeth of the threat (and it was mentioned that the Global hawk could also perform this kind of support). Brooks Its a shame you didn't see the links that refute your precious "facts(?)" brooks. In the interests of fair play...Choke on this one... 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 assetsin a situation of undue risk is patently obvious." Whoever you are, you silly little cretin...go back and read the thread. The E-8 was 100 klicks away, and has been credited with a maximum effective GMTI range of some 200 plus klicks in an open source (FAS). Now where does that require the E-8 to journey into a zone of "undue risk"? It can loiter fifty klicks to the rear of the FLOT and still support engagements 150 klicks the other side of the FLOT, you idiotic ninny. Brooks |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: In message , Kevin Brooks writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Some flight and drop tests would help turn the notional "capability" into operational utility... so when were they carried out? Ask the USAF. I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000. Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap. Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and *didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen. Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Scott Ferrin
writes On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:54:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: I've checked their website and searched elsewhe best I could do was a five-year-old plan that had JDAM test drops sometime after 2000. Unfortunately I don't have any personal contacts there to tap. Just my own opinion but I'd be surprised if they dropped them and *didn't* make a big tado about it. There are photos out there of it launching -9s and -120s but none with JDAMS that I've ever seen. Maybe they feel the JDAM thing is a no-brainer and have too many other more difficult problems to solve so it's priority is low? The other issue is that the F-22 is a hardcore air-supremacy machine, with the 'A' designation an afterthought. The USAF is buying the F-22 because it needs a stealthy superfighter to replace the F-15. It is certainly not short of platforms able to drop JDAMs. If the F-22 has problems in its declared intended air-to-air role, is anyone going to be convinced by "okay, but it can carry two whole JDAMs!" when even the A-10 is being bruited as a JDAM-dropper? As I said: it's "capable" because nobody's got proof it can't use them. At some point it'll be cleared to actually fly with the weapons and use them in action - just not yet. Not knocking the F-22's capability in its designed role: it might be expensive, it might have assorted problems, but it's still the best at what it does ('A' designator accepted as a tacked-on afterthought). The concern then is how many can be bought... doesn't matter how good your airframes are, if there aren't enough to intercept the enemy raids. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|