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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 9, 2:37*pm, hcobb wrote:
On Mar 9, 10:41*am, Typhoon502 wrote: Those fancy weapons would only be useful against targets at know locations. Yeah, just like the BAT...oh, wait, that can be pitched into an attack area then autonomously identify and kill targets based on SONAR and IR imaging. So the technology for post-launch autonomous target location and designation not only exists but has been fielded. And it's not hard to zero in on an emitting radar even if you don't have its exact location fixed before you're airborne. Wild Weasels figured out how to attack pop-up SAM threats 35 years ago. With a stealthy platform, you can tease radars into coming up with even more finess than relying on terrain masking. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 9, 12:34*pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:
Or you get data updates from AWACS or JSTARS or satellite or Predator or ground observer or... But if you are low observable in your Raptor and you are supporting low observable F-35s, you really aren't too concerned about radar or IR based SAMs. Exactly. As long as there are F-35s to escort it, the F-22 can keep to the high and fast overwatch mission. It excels at the role, with ceiling, supercruise, stealth and long range radar. As long as nothing else comes close it'll be fine. The one thing the F-22 will not do is face the PAK-FA in combat. Why? It's because the biggest difference between the F-22 and the PAK-FA is two decades of development. By the time the PAK-FA is finally combat ready the F-22s will be retired from service. -HJC |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
{snip} But define "exposure to enemy response". If the pilot of a 5th generation fighter is blowing 3rd and 4th generation fighters out of the sky at 50 or 100 nm range, with total impunity, exactly what enemy response is he exposed to? AHS Possibly one of the enemy planes separated from the rest and flew around the other side of the mountain. Close range combat is about to commence. Andrew swallow |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
... On Mar 9, 9:55 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote: ... No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to quickly break the RAF resistance. ... What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with their airfield plan? Probably a more favourable kill ratio for the Luftwaffe but no change to the overall result, nor would the battle have lasted much longer. The point is the decision time was close, either it was too late to launch the invasion so time to cut back on the air attacks, which were increasingly hampered by the weather and lack of daylight, or the defences would have a day when most things went right and inflict enough casualties to force the decision. Also the tightly packed shipping in the channel ports was an easy target for RAF bombers, losses were going up. The historical October fighting, as measured by aircraft lost on operations was around 52 to 55% of the September losses for both sides. So it is not like the fighting stopped on September 15, if the RAF had been that close to defeat you would have expected it to show in the second half of September and in October as the Luftwaffe largely turned away from bombing London by day. Compared with July, the October losses around 50% heavier for the RAF and 100% heavier for the Luftwaffe. August was the peak month for both sides for aircraft lost on operations. The battle kept going at a steady pace until November and even after that fighting continued through the winter with the RAF starting offensive fighter sorties in 1941. The evolution of the fighter loss ratio, all cause losses, July 108 Spitfire and Hurricanes to 57 Bf109s, 1.9 to 1 August 350 to 232, about 1.5 to 1 September, 343 to 234, about 1.5 to 1 October, 174 to 136, about 1.3 to 1. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
... "Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message . au... "Ray O'Hara" wrote in message ... The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1. If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is the description for the bomber gunners? Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive at the time than it was. The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719 Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command. Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill. one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other. especially the waist gunners. Since you describe over claiming by 2 to 1 as "vastly exaggerated" could you please indicate what 3 to 1, 5 to 1 and more than 5 to 1 should be described as. When I did a basic check of cause of loss of B-17s in the 8th Air Force something like 3 were listed as lost to other B-17s. How many USAAF were damaged by fellow bomber's gunners is rather hard to determine, given the damage done by the German fighters that caused the bomber gunners to open fire in the first place. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 wrote: I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways to arm it"? Like the F-16? Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it maintains its stealthy profile. eyeroll |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 10, 9:08*am, Typhoon502 wrote:
On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum wrote: On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 wrote: I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways to arm it"? Like the F-16? Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it maintains its stealthy profile. eyeroll The F-16 went from Boyd's "mean clean machine" to the pack mule for any ordinance the Pentagon could find a manufacturer for. It's scheduled for a nearly 50 year life span. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 10, 6:20*am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
The F-22 and -35 are no longer dependent upon self-carried sensors with a forward looking pie-shaped observation field. They now carry the ability to share data with a wide range of platforms, even without the need to employ their own suite of sensors. The data is then integrated, prioritized and presented to the operator with full 4-pi-r-cubed spherical coverage. And thanks to MADL using this doesn't carry a high risk of giving yourself away. The problem is that the F-22 needs to have something else watching its six, while the F-35 has this built in in additional to MADL. Remember that LPI radars are still emitting energy and this can be (theoretically) traced. -HJC |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 10, 7:01*am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote: "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On Mar 9, 9:55 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote: ... No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to quickly break the RAF resistance. ... What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with their airfield plan? Probably a more favourable kill ratio for the Luftwaffe but no change to the overall result, nor would the battle have lasted much longer. The point is the decision time was close, either it was too late to launch the invasion so time to cut back on the air attacks, which were increasingly hampered by the weather and lack of daylight, or the defences would have a day when most things went right and inflict enough casualties to force the decision. *Also the tightly packed shipping in the channel ports was an easy target for RAF bombers, losses were going up. The historical October fighting, as measured by aircraft lost on operations was around 52 to 55% of the September losses for both sides. *So it is not like the fighting stopped on September 15, if the RAF had been that close to defeat you would have expected it to show in the second half of September and in October as the Luftwaffe largely turned away from bombing London by day. Compared with July, the October losses around 50% heavier for the RAF and 100% heavier for the Luftwaffe. August was the peak month for both sides for aircraft lost on operations. The battle kept going at a steady pace until November and even after that fighting continued through the winter with the RAF starting offensive fighter sorties in 1941. The evolution of the fighter loss ratio, all cause losses, July 108 Spitfire and Hurricanes to 57 Bf109s, 1.9 to 1 August 350 to 232, about 1.5 to 1 September, 343 to 234, about 1.5 to 1 October, 174 to 136, about 1.3 to 1. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. Realistically invasion would never have worked. Barges would have been sitting ducks for RN. Manhandling tanks by dozens of cannon fodder onto the beaches would have been insane. Towed barges for troop transports in the Channel? Germans had no naval force to speak of, best would have been air surperiority if they broke the RAF and attempts to sue for peace. Then again, we're talking Der Fuehrer, he might have toddled off to Russia or some such. Invaded Palestine as Himmler was looking for the Holy Grail. Who knows. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 10, 6:18*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote: On Mar 10, 9:08*am, Typhoon502 wrote: On Mar 10, 8:31*am, Jack Linthicum wrote: On Mar 9, 10:35*pm, Typhoon502 wrote: I mean, if you're developing a platform that was such a big jump in capacity, wouldn't someone go, "Hey, can we come up with some new ways to arm it"? Like the F-16? Yes, like weapons to go in the F-16's internal ordnance bay so it maintains its stealthy profile. eyeroll The F-16 went from Boyd's "mean clean machine" to the pack mule for any ordinance the Pentagon could find a manufacturer for. It's scheduled for a nearly 50 year life span. Ahhh yes, Death by bureaucracy! "We'll bury you in so many laws and regulations you'll surrender in the first week!" BB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite | frank | Naval Aviation | 1 | August 30th 08 12:35 PM |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi | Charlie Wolf[_2_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 29th 08 03:19 AM |
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus | WiseGuy | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 9th 08 02:50 PM |