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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 =--- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 =--- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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, |
|
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 |