A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Taiwan air defense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 1st 10, 06:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
David McMillan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Taiwan air defense

On 3/1/2010 1:58 AM, Daryl Hunt wrote:


"hcobb" wrote in message


I was answering your question about a fighter with a software
limitation on where on the map it could fly to.

The F-22 Raptor and the International Date Line was the only example I
could come up with.

Thank Goddess the tankers were there to escort the F-22s!

-HJC


And the F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, etc. over a long ocean overflight. This
also includes anything out of the old Soviet Union, China, Germany,
France, England and all other countries. Fighters burn brightly but with
a short duration. Tankers make lousy fighters.


He wasn't talking about range, he was talking about the fact that the
F-22s in question had serious computer failures (do to a programming
oversight) when they crossed the IDL, and could not navigate on their
own by other than dead-reckoning, and hence had to be guided back to
Pearl (IIRC) by their accompanying tankers.
The discussion is in regards to software affects on fighter aircraft
capabilities, not whether or not fighters can operate over long
distances without tankers.

As to the Taiwanese F-16s that sparked this sub-thread, my guess is
that they were probably delivered with the ground-attack portions of
their fire-control computers disabled (no HUD pipper for where the bombs
are going to go, for one thing), and without the gear required to
independently target PGMs, in order to mollify the PRC. With practice,
those planes could probably still drop iron bombs with some Vietnam-era
degree of accuracy, and of course LGBs only need to be dropped "into the
basket". But the big thing would have been to make the gesture of
mostly de-fanging them for any potential offensive use against the PRC.
Ads
  #2  
Old March 1st 10, 11:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
David McMillan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Taiwan air defense

On 3/1/2010 12:11 PM, David McMillan wrote:
On 3/1/2010 1:58 AM, Daryl Hunt wrote:


"hcobb" wrote in message


I was answering your question about a fighter with a software
limitation on where on the map it could fly to.

The F-22 Raptor and the International Date Line was the only example I
could come up with.

Thank Goddess the tankers were there to escort the F-22s!

-HJC


And the F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, etc. over a long ocean overflight. This
also includes anything out of the old Soviet Union, China, Germany,
France, England and all other countries. Fighters burn brightly but with
a short duration. Tankers make lousy fighters.


He wasn't talking about range, he was talking about the fact that the
F-22s in question had serious computer failures (do to a programming
oversight) when they crossed the IDL, and could not navigate on their
own by other than dead-reckoning, and hence had to be guided back to
Pearl (IIRC) by their accompanying tankers.
The discussion is in regards to software affects on fighter aircraft
capabilities, not whether or not fighters can operate over long
distances without tankers.


Aaaand, now I have to dope-slap myself for the following bit, since
what sparked this sub-thread were *Malaysian* F-16s. Dunno *where* my
head was at, sorry....

As to the Taiwanese F-16s that sparked this sub-thread, my guess is that
they were probably delivered with the ground-attack portions of their
fire-control computers disabled (no HUD pipper for where the bombs are
going to go, for one thing), and without the gear required to
independently target PGMs, in order to mollify the PRC. With practice,
those planes could probably still drop iron bombs with some Vietnam-era
degree of accuracy, and of course LGBs only need to be dropped "into the
basket". But the big thing would have been to make the gesture of mostly
de-fanging them for any potential offensive use against the PRC.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Taiwan surface-to-air - File 3 of 3 - sky-bow1 1.jpg (1/1) Smaug Ichorfang Aviation Photos 0 October 24th 07 06:04 PM
Taiwan air-to-air - File 2 of 2 - sky-sword1 0.jpg (1/1) Smaug Ichorfang Aviation Photos 0 October 24th 07 06:03 PM
Taiwan air-to-air - File 1 of 2 - sky-sword2 0.jpg (1/1) Smaug Ichorfang Aviation Photos 0 October 24th 07 06:03 PM
Taiwan to buy U.S. P-3 Mike Naval Aviation 0 March 10th 06 08:36 PM
How exactly will Taiwan torpedo the dam? Henry J Cobb Military Aviation 49 June 24th 04 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.