you do realize that most air to air engagements will happen at like 80 miles apart?War Man wrote:
Oh yeah I almost forgot, the U.S. navy have pilot helmets that make you simply look at a target and you are locked on the aircraft(no need to be behind the enemy aircraft anymore).
uh, yeah. I don't speak stupidity, do you know english?MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
Thanks for being a tool, since I did not say Russia's military equipment was not done by the USSR.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Who made most of Russia's current military hardware? Yeah, I thought so. Welcome to reality, and thanks for making an ass of yourself.MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
The USSR doesn't exist anymore, come forward to the 21st century.
Learn to read. Oh, and just to sting it a little bit, that "crap" equipment the Soviets made raped and then teabagged the brand new F-35 "Death Coffin Waste of Money" mufti-role aircraft. The US (and any other countries that will use the F-35) should stick with the F-16 and just upgrade it more and more and more and more.
The only plane in the Russian Air Force (and it isn't a plane used for combat still) with forward swept wings is the SU-47.TrueMusou wrote:
There's something sexy and ominous about Russian fighters. The forward swept wings makes it look like something Batman would fly. THAT'S RIGHT! Batman is a commie.
But the F22 looks strictly American. Big, bad and ready to kick some alien ass....something Will Smith will fly...or Abraham Lincoln.
And just how do you come to that astute conclusion? Is it based on knowing the scenario the simulation used? Was it a BVR engagement? Were the F-35s loaded for strike or A2A? What was the blue-to-red ratio?MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
Thanks for being a tool, since I did not say Russia's military equipment was not done by the USSR.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Who made most of Russia's current military hardware? Yeah, I thought so. Welcome to reality, and thanks for making an ass of yourself.MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
The USSR doesn't exist anymore, come forward to the 21st century.
Learn to read. Oh, and just to sting it a little bit, that "crap" equipment the Soviets made raped and then teabagged the brand new F-35 "Death Coffin Waste of Money" mufti-role aircraft. The US (and any other countries that will use the F-35) should stick with the F-16 and just upgrade it more and more and more and more.
This is a completely different system than the Cobra and Apache.Parker wrote:
you do realize that most air to air engagements will happen at like 80 miles apart?War Man wrote:
Oh yeah I almost forgot, the U.S. navy have pilot helmets that make you simply look at a target and you are locked on the aircraft(no need to be behind the enemy aircraft anymore).
ssoooooo, they wont be able to see shit to lock onto....oh, and i almost forgot...the apache and cobra have been using that technology for like a fuckin decade.
AWACS FTW!
It's called JHMCS, and the AF has it as well. But Parker is right, it's useless in a BVR engagement.War Man wrote:
This is a completely different system than the Cobra and Apache.Parker wrote:
you do realize that most air to air engagements will happen at like 80 miles apart?War Man wrote:
Oh yeah I almost forgot, the U.S. navy have pilot helmets that make you simply look at a target and you are locked on the aircraft(no need to be behind the enemy aircraft anymore).
ssoooooo, they wont be able to see shit to lock onto....oh, and i almost forgot...the apache and cobra have been using that technology for like a fuckin decade.
AWACS FTW!
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-09-13 00:54:08)
You haven't needed to lock on from behind for a long time now. The only reason you've needed to lock on from behind before was that if you're using one of those short range infra-red missiles, you need to get a lock from behind because that's the heat source. That's old school these days. Nowadays infra-red missiles are all-aspect (well, the modern ones) and non-infra-red missiles (radar ones, they're the BVR/long range ones) have never needed to lock on from behind.War Man wrote:
Oh yeah I almost forgot, the U.S. navy have pilot helmets that make you simply look at a target and you are locked on the aircraft(no need to get behind the enemy aircraft to lock on anymore).
Edit: corrected my grammar
By definition, the Python 5 is considered to be a short range air-to-air missile, yet its range exceeds regular air-to-air missiles, and is more close to what is technically called BVR (beyond visual range) missiles. Those missiles can be shot upon targets which are not visually seen at the moment of launch, and are acquired by the missile itself during its flight path. New technologies implemented in the Python 5 give it maneuvering and launching skills unimaginable just few years ago. Instead of talking about certain “killing hemisphere” we are talking about an ability to shoot any target at any angle, including backwards launch (!). This ability is possible by applying LOAL (lock on after launch) technology. In oppose to LOBL (lock on before launch), that is used in all short range air-to-air missiles (excluding the Python 5 of course) in LOAL mode the pilot can launch a missile without being locked on the target, by getting the aircraft's estimated location from an array of sensors which are deployed on the launching aircraft. From the moment the Python 5 is launched, its head seeker scans the designated area constantly while it flies in a direct path to the estimated location of the target. Once the missile “sees” the target, it employs its unique, first of its kind, electro-optical head-seeker and locks on the target. Then the missile switches to a close hunt combat which holds no future to the target aircraft.
Conventional air-to-air missiles see targets as dots - a fact which makes it hard for the missile to tell between true or false targets .The Python 5's head seeker literally sees a clear image of the target and background, giving it an incredible advantage over other missiles by authenticating the target, thus reducing the chance of being mislead by counter measures. Using this technology allows the luxury of locking on a target after the launch. The transition to this unique technology required a development by RAFAEL, which exists in only several countries in the world. Using an electro-optical head seeker also makes it easier to locate and lock on low-heat signature aircrafts such as UAVs, helicopters or even cruise missiles. These aircrafts can fly very close to the ground and can be very hard to detect using regular head seekers. The Python 5 with the electro-optical head can easily accomplish that, by creating a sharp target image and locking on it. In order to achieve perfect performance and tracking ability, the engineers at RAFAEL tested the Python 5 against all advanced counter measures. Usually this is a tough challenge, as the missile would have to handle counter measures in the future. But that was not an impossible challenge to RAFAEL, which also develops the future counter measures. The unique head-seeker also extends the lethality of the missile by aiming it to the target's most vulnerable areas. Most heat seeking missiles tend to home on the hottest spot of the aircraft which is normally the rear exhaust system. In modern combat history, some aircrafts that were hit by a missile in that area, managed to survive the flight until the landing. The Python 5, which acquires a sharp image of the target can home on the most critical areas of the aircraft, such as the cockpit or the central area, and significantly improve the chances for a shot down.
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-09-13 06:38:41)
I thought the Aussies didn't want Air to Air fighters because they're strong allies with the US. They can just buy Air to ground bombers and bomb insurgents, and if a real war kicks of they have the US Air to Air fighters on their side.Dilbert_X wrote:
For whatever reason it seems the RAAF are convinced they don't want the FA18 or the F35.
Hence they leaks, and the briefings by retired RAAF guys.
They want the F22, which the US won't sell to Aus.
Personally I'd pick 2-3 Russian jets over 1 F35 for ~ the same price.
Or 6-8 Russian jets per F22.
F22 ~$200m
F35 ~$75m
SU35 ~$65m
SU27 ~$35m
Mig 29 ~$25m
But whatever, the chinese will swamp us with numbers so maybe we should just infect the Roos with rabies and set sail for New Zealand.
Historically strong allies. Public opinion has changed over the last few years though.jord wrote:
I thought the Aussies didn't want Air to Air fighters because they're strong allies with the US. They can just buy Air to ground bombers and bomb insurgents, and if a real war kicks of they have the US Air to Air fighters on their side.Dilbert_X wrote:
For whatever reason it seems the RAAF are convinced they don't want the FA18 or the F35.
Hence they leaks, and the briefings by retired RAAF guys.
They want the F22, which the US won't sell to Aus.
Personally I'd pick 2-3 Russian jets over 1 F35 for ~ the same price.
Or 6-8 Russian jets per F22.
F22 ~$200m
F35 ~$75m
SU35 ~$65m
SU27 ~$35m
Mig 29 ~$25m
But whatever, the chinese will swamp us with numbers so maybe we should just infect the Roos with rabies and set sail for New Zealand.
So they're actually trying to kill the pilots now. I thought there was some sort of rule against that, or was that only after parachuting?Mek-Stizzle wrote:
The Python 5, which acquires a sharp image of the target can home on the most critical areas of the aircraft, such as the cockpit or the central area, and significantly improve the chances for a shot down.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2008-09-13 06:53:52)
Then you have the cost of Maintenance and operation of 3 aircraft vs just 1. I think people tend to overlook the fact that for the most part the jet is just a weapons platform. As such the stealth, radar, weapons package, range, cruise speed, and electronics have a lot more to do with success than the ability to perform stunt show manuvers.Dilbert_X wrote:
For whatever reason it seems the RAAF are convinced they don't want the FA18 or the F35.
Hence they leaks, and the briefings by retired RAAF guys.
They want the F22, which the US won't sell to Aus.
Personally I'd pick 2-3 Russian jets over 1 F35 for ~ the same price.
Or 6-8 Russian jets per F22.
F22 ~$200m
F35 ~$75m
SU35 ~$65m
SU27 ~$35m
Mig 29 ~$25m
But whatever, the chinese will swamp us with numbers so maybe we should just infect the Roos with rabies and set sail for New Zealand.
I think you are thinking of it being against geneva to target soldiers with bullets .50 cal or larger. Anyway, they are targeting a vehicle and not the pilot.jord wrote:
There's isn't a rule against killing a pilot. That is what war is about. And killing a pilot means denying the enemy something which they invested money in training and a good asset.
Dunno (I doubt it). I can't see anything wrong with it though, it would be a war situation. Do what it takes no matter what springs to mind. All it's doing is increasing lethality to make sure the plane is down, if that means you have to take out the cockpit and the pilot, so be it. Because it really does matter where you hit a plane, remember that A-10 that was shot to hell but still managed to land.some_random_panda wrote:
So they're actually trying to kill the pilots now. I thought there was some sort of rule against that, or was that only after parachuting?Mek-Stizzle wrote:
The Python 5, which acquires a sharp image of the target can home on the most critical areas of the aircraft, such as the cockpit or the central area, and significantly improve the chances for a shot down.
I never got that one. I mean, if you got hit by a .80 you wouldn't care. You'd be spread over a mile radius.Lotta_Drool wrote:
I think you are thinking of it being against geneva to target soldiers with bullets .50 cal or larger. Anyway, they are targeting a vehicle and not the pilot.jord wrote:
There's isn't a rule against killing a pilot. That is what war is about. And killing a pilot means denying the enemy something which they invested money in training and a good asset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kim_ … ge_a10.jpgMek-Stizzle wrote:
Dunno (I doubt it). I can't see anything wrong with it though, it would be a war situation. Do what it takes no matter what springs to mind. All it's doing is increasing lethality to make sure the plane is down, if that means you have to take out the cockpit and the pilot, so be it. Because it really does matter where you hit a plane, remember that A-10 that was shot to hell but still managed to land.some_random_panda wrote:
So they're actually trying to kill the pilots now. I thought there was some sort of rule against that, or was that only after parachuting?Mek-Stizzle wrote:
The Python 5, which acquires a sharp image of the target can home on the most critical areas of the aircraft, such as the cockpit or the central area, and significantly improve the chances for a shot down.
It wouldn't be pretty for your Russian hardware...Dilbert_X wrote:
The only source is the various leaks, briefings etc that the F18 and F35 are not what they want, like the one in the OP.
I'd still like to see an F22 take on 3 SU35s, or 6 Su27s.
Better still, a refuelling and rearming F22 take on 8 Mig 29s
As for sourcing, the only way to know what the RAAF really wants is to look at their RFPs and other contractual documents. If they didn't want something new, they wouldn't be looking at new planes.wiki wrote:
During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses in simulated combat exercises.[3] In two weeks of exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, and neither Blue Force loss was an F-22.
This was followed with the Raptor's first participation in a Red Flag exercise. 14 F-22s of the 94th FS supported attacking Blue Force strike packages as well as engaging in close air support sorties themselves in Red Flag 07-1 between 3 February and 16 February 2007. Against designed superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, it established air dominance using eight aircraft during day missions and six at night, reportedly defeating the Aggressors quickly and efficiently, even though the exercise rules of engagement allowed for four to five Red Force regenerations of losses but none to Blue Force. Further, no sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures, and only one Raptor was adjudged lost against the virtual annihilation of the defending force.[62] When their ordnance was expended, the F-22s remained in the exercise area providing electronic surveillance to the Blue Forces.[63]
Last edited by FEOS (2008-09-13 10:24:11)
Believe me, 6-8 old and outdated aircraft is no problem for an F-22.Dilbert_X wrote:
The only source is the various leaks, briefings etc that the F18 and F35 are not what they want, like the one in the OP.
I'd still like to see an F22 take on 3 SU35s, or 6 Su27s.
Better still, a refuelling and rearming F22 take on 8 Mig 29s
The F-117 is actually a bomber, the U.S. didn't want the Russians to know that they have a new bomber in town that radar can't detect clearly.Lotta_Drool wrote:
The F117 stealth fighter flys like shit but to my knowledge has never been seen by the enemy even though it has gotten kills in combat. Actually, many time it has been in the area of friendlies without their knowledge even. This is what makes a fighter/bomber deadly today.Dilbert_X wrote:
For whatever reason it seems the RAAF are convinced they don't want the FA18 or the F35.
Hence they leaks, and the briefings by retired RAAF guys.
They want the F22, which the US won't sell to Aus.
Personally I'd pick 2-3 Russian jets over 1 F35 for ~ the same price.
Or 6-8 Russian jets per F22.
F22 ~$200m
F35 ~$75m
SU35 ~$65m
SU27 ~$35m
Mig 29 ~$25m
But whatever, the chinese will swamp us with numbers so maybe we should just infect the Roos with rabies and set sail for New Zealand.
Yeah, I realized I called it a fighter after I posted and figured someone would correct me. But that does futher illistrate that they are mostly weapons platforms anymore. They just quickly take the fight to the enemy.War Man wrote:
Believe me, 6-8 old and outdated aircraft is no problem for an F-22.Dilbert_X wrote:
The only source is the various leaks, briefings etc that the F18 and F35 are not what they want, like the one in the OP.
I'd still like to see an F22 take on 3 SU35s, or 6 Su27s.
Better still, a refuelling and rearming F22 take on 8 Mig 29sThe F-117 is actually a bomber, the U.S. didn't want the Russians to know that they have a new bomber in town that radar can't detect clearly.Lotta_Drool wrote:
The F117 stealth fighter flys like shit but to my knowledge has never been seen by the enemy even though it has gotten kills in combat. Actually, many time it has been in the area of friendlies without their knowledge even. This is what makes a fighter/bomber deadly today.Dilbert_X wrote:
For whatever reason it seems the RAAF are convinced they don't want the FA18 or the F35.
Hence they leaks, and the briefings by retired RAAF guys.
They want the F22, which the US won't sell to Aus.
Personally I'd pick 2-3 Russian jets over 1 F35 for ~ the same price.
Or 6-8 Russian jets per F22.
F22 ~$200m
F35 ~$75m
SU35 ~$65m
SU27 ~$35m
Mig 29 ~$25m
But whatever, the chinese will swamp us with numbers so maybe we should just infect the Roos with rabies and set sail for New Zealand.
Now the F-22 is seriously the most maneuvarable aircraft ever built, and it is stealth like the F-117(maybe less stealth not sure).
F-117 also is expected to retire sometime in 2008(we still will have B2s which are nuclear capable).Lotta_Drool wrote:
Yeah, I realized I called it a fighter after I posted and figured someone would correct me. But that does futher illistrate that they are mostly weapons platforms anymore. They just quickly take the fight to the enemy.War Man wrote:
Believe me, 6-8 old and outdated aircraft is no problem for an F-22.Dilbert_X wrote:
The only source is the various leaks, briefings etc that the F18 and F35 are not what they want, like the one in the OP.
I'd still like to see an F22 take on 3 SU35s, or 6 Su27s.
Better still, a refuelling and rearming F22 take on 8 Mig 29sThe F-117 is actually a bomber, the U.S. didn't want the Russians to know that they have a new bomber in town that radar can't detect clearly.Lotta_Drool wrote:
The F117 stealth fighter flys like shit but to my knowledge has never been seen by the enemy even though it has gotten kills in combat. Actually, many time it has been in the area of friendlies without their knowledge even. This is what makes a fighter/bomber deadly today.
Now the F-22 is seriously the most maneuvarable aircraft ever built, and it is stealth like the F-117(maybe less stealth not sure).
As far as optical dogfighting, they already have cloaking for aircraft. Probably not disclosed to the public yet.
