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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Army ends 20-year helicopter program | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 12 | February 27th 04 07:48 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 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 |