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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Denyav" wrote in message ... Exactly,so its my money too. Fair enough? You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen.
You are dangerously underestimating US citizens. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Denyav" wrote You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen. You are dangerously underestimating US citizens. So you're saying you're one of the dumb ones? Pete |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:19:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of the F-105s. Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled. The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about. And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or pizzas (which were removed in '65). When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between. No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by wheel brakes in AB. I remember reading somewhere that an F-111 could do it. (Not the Fs though) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
...and while that might have been so, there were about a hundred times
as many sorties where the Iraqis didn't know they were in trouble until the bombs started to hit. I think you will have to revise your claim significantly downward after reading Air Forces own intelligence reports. Jammers are what you use *after* they get a lock on you. Firing up active countermeasures when there's no radar pointed at you is like lighting a match in a dark room. Stealth planes use jammers as a last resort, when they've been actively painted by a radar. Not neccesarly,you can try to blind hostile radars or try to inject false data even before an attack starts,if your artillery or special forces could destroy them before attack even better.(I think that was the defining moment of DS I,but we love to forget it) Well, *you* claim they can, but so far, nobody has actually demonstrated this. It ranks right up with some of the silliest claims by Soviet techs back in the Cold War. For a demonstration you need the support of Air Force,only official operator of airborne stealth platforms and they are of course not very supportive. To make things even more complicated,the corporate entity that devoloped US counter LO system is also producer of major US stealth platforms. So such a competition is harmful for corporate profits,if multistatic wins the corporation will probably lose stealth business,if stealth wins company will lose a next generation product and its projected sales. So,smart corporate strategy seems to be "keep a low profile in multi statics till all projected stealth sales realized,then start high profile multistatics campaign". This a result of defense industry consolidations in 90s. ..and also pretty much theoretical, like those multistatics you keep hoping someone will build. Unlike multistatics,they are still experimental. In multistatics issue there is nothing experimantal they are here.Only to the point where you can look at a plane and see where it's biggest returns will be, it doesn't give you a magical key to let you detect it. Radars have had fifteen years to develop to the point where they could reliably track stealth planes, and they still *can't*, at anything other than point-blank Either you mean only backscatterer type radars when you use the term "radar" or you call 600 miles "point blank" distance. Yeah, the new multistatics and ultra wideband radars can't see them in very different ways than the old radars couldn't see them. Actually even old radars could see many things that they usually dont see only if air defense community and radar developers stopped considering them as a binary detection method,but its hard to change almost a hundred years old customs overnight. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
If multistatic radar was deployed and operational, then how come the
US, NATO, France, UK, Japan, and Saudi Arabia invest so much money in maintaining a "monostatic" AWACS fleet? Why does the US, Europe, Asia, and especially India and Pakistan, invest so much money in "monostatic" mobile radars? That information alone should tell you how significant multistatic radar has been integrated into defense systems. I can appreciate one transmitter, multiple receivers, but using it to shoot down aircraft and track them through the national airspace has not been so successful that very expensive weapon systems have been rotating into the boneyard. I think your either dreaming, or incorrectly extrapolating what you read in Aviation Week, or Time magazine. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
So you're saying you're one of the dumb ones?
The opposite of the recipient of my messages,so I must be one of them. Cheers, |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In DS the initial F-117 and cruise missiles went in cold. After the F-117 were
RTB, the Navy and USAF began massive decoy flights which included ECM drones. The drones themselves were firing-off chaff and flares, and the Iraqi air defense units were getting a number of kills on the drones. While they were killing the drones the first two strike packages came up through the corridors left open and performed the first toss-bomb strikes. I believe one F-16 got hit during egress. Each of these packages had an EF-111 in it for ecm support against SAM, LRR, and AI assets. ECM and decoys are a part of every modern air battle. It doesn't have anything to do with stealth. I know for a fact the B-2 and AWACS were the only two assets up, on the night we took down the big bridge in Serbia. The NATO guys first knew of the operation when their status boards lit-up. It was a weather down day, and NATO was taking a nap. No multistatics detected the B-2 and engaged it. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stealth homebuilt | C J Campbell | Home Built | 1 | September 15th 04 08:43 AM |
SURVEY on manuals - most important for builders, but never good?? | T-Online | Home Built | 0 | January 23rd 04 04:37 PM |
F-32 vs F-35 | The Raven | Military Aviation | 60 | January 17th 04 08:36 PM |
How long until current 'stealth' techniques are compromised? | muskau | Military Aviation | 38 | January 5th 04 04:27 AM |
Israeli Stealth??? | Kenneth Williams | Military Aviation | 92 | October 22nd 03 04:28 PM |