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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
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. Sorry to disturb your cozy little world of "facts(?)" brooks...Well, on second thought, no I'm not. Ever hear of the S-300PMU brooks? S-400? What are their ranges brooks? No wait, let me answer that for you brooks since I don't want reality clouded by your "facts(?): 200km for the S-300 PMU and the S-400 400km. Thats f-o-u-r h-u-n-d-r-e-d kilometers brooks. How about the FT-2000 brooks? Your head is too locked up in the Cold War set-piece scenarios of the last century brooks. Your Korean Glory Days are H-I-S-T-O-R-Y brooks. A more plausible-and troubling scenario is outlined below...Learn something new brooks: http://www.uscc.gov/researchreports/...leandspace.htm If your artery-hardened peabrain absorbed that material. Try this one: http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicati...the_Anti-A.pdf [T]he more worrisome challenge lies in so-called double-digit SAMs such as the Russian S-300PMU-2 Favorit (the export version of the SAM NATO codenamed the SA-10) and S-400 Triumph (codenamed the SA-20).12 To give a sense of the area-denial potential of these systems, the S-300PMU-2 (or SA-10D) is credited with a maximum range of some 109 nautical miles (nm) (200 kilometers) using the 48N6E2 missile, and the Russians have advertised that, with a new missile, the S-400 will have a reach approaching 400 kilometers. A related operational risk is that double-digit SAMs such as the SA-20 are designed for rapid relocation. In 1999 the Serbs, drawing on Iraqi experiences in 1991, had considerable success using periodic relocation of their SAMs over short distance to deny precision-targeting information to NATO aircraft. In a full-blown AD contingency involving advanced SAMs, one would expect that the use of such tactics could result in F/A-22 pilots suddenly finding themselves inside the burn-through distances of individual sites that had moved while they were en route to their target areas. Without precise, real-time surveillance of all existing SAM sites, which may well be difficult to achieve, pop-up SA-10s or SA-20s could lead to unexpected attrition, even of F/A-22s. This prospect raises the broader issue of achieving persistent, wide-area surveillance—especially against deep targets beyond the range of the E-8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack System (JSTARS). Because JSTARS is hosted on a Boeing 707 airframe, it cannot risk operating inside hostile or denied airspace. Using a standard racetrack pattern located some 90 kilometers inside friendly airspace, JSTARS can track moving targets to maximum depth of less than 100 nm inside enemy territory.57 There is no reason, however, why mobile launchers for ballistic missiles designed for AD against US power-projection capabilities cannot be located deeper in enemy territory. Further, combat experience in Iraq as well as analytic simulations since 1991 have argued that near-continuous surveillance over large areas is essential to have much chance of targeting mobile-missile launchers after they have fired a missile, much less of destroying them before they have fired at least once. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
veil Dank!
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 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
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 Your "fact(?)" based assumption that the E-8 (and other "support" aircraft) will *always* remain safely ensconsed in airborne sanctuaries is not borne out by recent history brooks: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...7&archive=true To fly that many combat missions, pilots relied on Air Force tanker aircraft to keep their planes juiced. Air Force strike planner Col. Mace Carpenter said one of the war's "real heroes" were the air tankers that kept fighters and bombers fueled to penetrate deep into Iraq and drop ordnance. Army units moved so fast that fighters were having problems going from Saudi Arabia, where the tankers were, to south of Baghdad to destroy the Iraqi forces. So commanders made the bold decision to move tankers over Iraq to make sure the fighters could fuel up. Many of the lumbering tanker aircraft were fired at by both artillery and surface-to-air missiles. Carpenter said that commanders were willing to risk a tanker and its crew to get the fighters to Baghdad and protect the fast-moving ground forces. Pilots flew vulnerable tanker aircraft with no radar-warning equipment, chaff or flairs to evade missiles. "These guys were gutsy," Carpenter said. Commanders expected to lose at least one tanker, but none of them was hit. ....Given the limited numbers of C4ISR aircraft that will be bought, and the even fewer that will be available to be deployed in any given AOR, their vulnerability may well make them a real albatross for a commander instead of a real asset. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message ... And the F/A-18G will be along shortly. Shortly? Last I saw the first deliveries will be around 2009. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:35:42 -0400, "Brian" wrote:
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message .. . And the F/A-18G will be along shortly. Shortly? Last I saw the first deliveries will be around 2009. Hey, for us retired folks that *is* shortly :-)) Al Minyard |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:31:44 +1000, John Cook
wrote: Call me an old cynic But it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a news release (in the next week or so) about F/A-22 and JDAMs testing from the USAF.... Now would't that be completly froody!!. Ah Haa.... Froody ALERT!!! not bad it was 3 weeks... http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007616 On the 30 april 2004 "Edwards officials will continue to develop the Raptor design, focusing more on developing air-to-ground attack capabilities, General Pearson said. "With the recent successful drop of the first bomb from the Raptor's weapons bay, Edwards will continue to expand this line of testing until we have successfully developed the required ground-attack features," General Pearson said. Operational testers have already started planning for the follow-on test and evaluation phase of the Raptor, which includes JDAM release testing, Colonel Freeman said." Which means they might have dropped a JDAM by now!, but I have not found any reference to it yet. Can anyone 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 |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:23:27 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: "John Cook" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:16:28 -0700, Scott Ferrin wrote: Gotta question about the following: ""USAF officials also rejected the forecast that the service will need to spend $11.7 billion to introduce air-to-ground capabilities in the F/A-22. Roche says planned upgrades, including a new radar and small-diameter bomb, are budgeted and would cost less than $3.5 billion. . . "" So when they say "new radar" are the talking about replacing the APG-77 with an APG-XX or are they just talking about new software or a mod of the -77? I'd ask what the hell they need a new radar for as the F-22 itself is not even in service yet and it's *current* radar should be considered "new" but seeing how it's been over a decade since the YF-22 flew it's no wonder. OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'. I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.) The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC). See http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/p....mhtml?d=59037 "Northrop Grumman Begins Flight-Testing New Radar for F/A-22 Raptor BALTIMORE, June 11, 2004 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has successfully conducted the first flight test of a new, fourth-generation variant of the AN/APG-77 active electronically scanned array radar for the U.S. Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor air dominance fighter aircraft. The new design is intended to reduce the production and maintenance costs of the Raptor's third-generation radar by adapting the design that was implemented successfully in the AN/APG-81 radar for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the AN/APG-80 for the Block 60 F-16 fighter. This newest variant requires significantly fewer parts than the third-generation, and the production line relies on a greater degree of automation. In addition, Northrop Grumman's Electronic Systems sector is developing software for the new radar that will enable it to perform high-resolution mapping of ground targets. This will permit true all-weather, precision strike capability that will transform the air dominance fighter into a multi-mission asset. "We are proud to have developed this new capability for the F/A-22," said Jerry Dunnigan, director of F/A-22 Radar Programs at Northrop Grumman. "We believe that the transformational capabilities of high-resolution ground-mapping and automatic target cueing will ensure that Raptor pilots have all the information they need when they go in harm's way." Based on current Department of Defense plans, Northrop Grumman will deliver approximately 203 of the new radars. These include retrofits for some of the third-generation radars already in service on operational aircraft. Northrop Grumman is conducting the flight-test program aboard one of its BAC 1-11 flying testbed aircraft. The company produces the radar under contract to The Boeing Company's (NYSE:BA) Integrated Defense Systems unit, which has responsibility for integrating the avionic systems for the F/A-22 program, which is led by Lockheed Martin's (NYSE:LMT) Aeronautics Company. Raytheon Systems of McKinney, Tex., is a joint-venture partner on the radar. " 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 |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"John Cook" wrote in message news On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 02:23:27 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "John Cook" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:16:28 -0700, Scott Ferrin wrote: Gotta question about the following: ""USAF officials also rejected the forecast that the service will need to spend $11.7 billion to introduce air-to-ground capabilities in the F/A-22. Roche says planned upgrades, including a new radar and small-diameter bomb, are budgeted and would cost less than $3.5 billion. . . "" So when they say "new radar" are the talking about replacing the APG-77 with an APG-XX or are they just talking about new software or a mod of the -77? I'd ask what the hell they need a new radar for as the F-22 itself is not even in service yet and it's *current* radar should be considered "new" but seeing how it's been over a decade since the YF-22 flew it's no wonder. OK this is from memory... and the sources are not strictly 'official'. I had heard some rumours that the F-35 and F-22 AESA antennae will be merged because the MMIC's from the F-35 will be retrofitted to the F-22's ( they are very expensive and larger.) The number of MMIC's may also be the same in both aircraft to make a common 'cheap' AESA antennae (1200 IIRC). None of the above was from me, so why did you leave me in the poster list? Brooks See http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/p....mhtml?d=59037 "Northrop Grumman Begins Flight-Testing New Radar for F/A-22 Raptor BALTIMORE, June 11, 2004 -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has successfully conducted the first flight test of a new, fourth-generation variant of the AN/APG-77 active electronically scanned array radar for the U.S. Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor air dominance fighter aircraft. The new design is intended to reduce the production and maintenance costs of the Raptor's third-generation radar by adapting the design that was implemented successfully in the AN/APG-81 radar for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the AN/APG-80 for the Block 60 F-16 fighter. This newest variant requires significantly fewer parts than the third-generation, and the production line relies on a greater degree of automation. In addition, Northrop Grumman's Electronic Systems sector is developing software for the new radar that will enable it to perform high-resolution mapping of ground targets. This will permit true all-weather, precision strike capability that will transform the air dominance fighter into a multi-mission asset. "We are proud to have developed this new capability for the F/A-22," said Jerry Dunnigan, director of F/A-22 Radar Programs at Northrop Grumman. "We believe that the transformational capabilities of high-resolution ground-mapping and automatic target cueing will ensure that Raptor pilots have all the information they need when they go in harm's way." Based on current Department of Defense plans, Northrop Grumman will deliver approximately 203 of the new radars. These include retrofits for some of the third-generation radars already in service on operational aircraft. Northrop Grumman is conducting the flight-test program aboard one of its BAC 1-11 flying testbed aircraft. The company produces the radar under contract to The Boeing Company's (NYSE:BA) Integrated Defense Systems unit, which has responsibility for integrating the avionic systems for the F/A-22 program, which is led by Lockheed Martin's (NYSE:LMT) Aeronautics Company. Raytheon Systems of McKinney, Tex., is a joint-venture partner on the radar. " 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 |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
None of the above was from me, so why did you leave me in the poster list? Brooks My deepest apologies, its a lesson we all can learn from in this NG 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|