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

Baron Huntchausen wrote:

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article m,
on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:45:11 GMT,
Admin attempted to say .....


Actually, a little of both. The F-16 is cheap, does just about anything
short of Cargo duty and is still in production. But, the F-15 is long
on
the tooth and needs replacing. While the F-16 is second to none in a
knife
fight, it lacks the standoff capability of the F-15. The F-15 has lost
it's
superiority in the standoff. And, like most fighters will be relegated
to
the Attack role sooner or later.

They are both from approximatly the same vintage...

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.

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

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?

your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,
(PS to the Baron: it's "ratio" not "ration" %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

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

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

"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. This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock. It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

I stated it appeared to come to a stop. It really didn't. The AC actually
never stopped. It just appears that way at the range it was noted. It did
come to stall speed but if you dump enough power to anything you can get
around that. But I can say this, that was either a balsy pilot or one
damned stupid one.


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.

The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that dates
back to the 60s or early 70s.



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

"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

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 =---

"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
=---

"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

"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

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.

"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.


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).


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.

Brooks


your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,