BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thats a complex cost-benefit question and I doubt anyone here could answer it.

I'll stick my neck out and say stealth/anti-radar technology will be defeated by a technological fix, as historically it always has been.
So really I wouldn't recommend spending a lot of cash on something which always has a shorter lifespan than the salesman tells you.

Dilbert_X wrote:

30 Years is a long time to expect a piece of technology to be invincible.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-04-22 06:09:58)

FEOS wrote:

To answer your earlier question, the RCS numbers vary based on the type/band of radar that's going against the particular aircraft. Most fighter A/A radars operate in the X band, most ground radars operate in the L or S bands. Shapes are generally frequency agnostic, but RAM is very frequency sensitive.

You're comparing upgrading a 4th gen fighter to a pseudo 4.5 gen fighter to go up against true 4.5 gen and 5th gen fighters, possibly 6th gen fighters over the next three decades. While the upgraded F-16s are pretty capable jets, I wouldn't want to take one up against a Rafale or F-35. Maybe a Gripen, but not one of the other two. A Gripen and an upgraded F-16 are roughly the same.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-04-22 06:33:28)

FEOS wrote:

Obviously I can't go into the level of detail you're looking for here.

FEOS wrote:

Suffice it to say that the capability of the RAM is linked to the primary mission of the aircraft. It's not like you can just paint the F-35 with F-22 RAM, or vice-versa.

FEOS wrote:

How one fighter performs against another, particularly when talking BVR/WVR, relies as much on the armament as on the aircraft itself. If your missiles don't work well, your BVR capability will degrade. If your IR missile capability is poor, your WVR capability will be poor, as well. Most of the fighter pilots I've spoken with are screaming for multi-spectral passive detection capability (IR/TV sensor), like the Rafale has. That helps quite a bit in getting the edge in a WVR engagement, and RF stealth doesn't matter.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-04-22 06:54:40)

This month, one year since the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, the Noble Clyde Boudreaux—an ultra-deepwater semi-submersible drilling rig—will start operations off the coast of Brazil. Until a few weeks ago it was stationed in the Gulf.

The two events are not unrelated. Moving the Noble out of U.S. waters is one of the adverse consequences of the Obama administration's overreaction to last year's Gulf spill.

Despite the president's repeated claims that he's been "encouraging" domestic oil production, administration policies have been driving drilling rigs out of the Gulf (six deepwater rigs in addition to the Noble have left the Gulf, with two more possibly on the way out). The overall result has been lower domestic oil production, slower economic growth, job losses and higher energy prices.

In the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill, President Obama announced a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling. According to the administration's estimates, this cost nearly 19,000 jobs in the Gulf states alone—even though federal researchers then cut the figure by an ad hoc factor of 40%-60% to make the results more palatable.

In the months after lifting the ban, the administration slowed drilling permits to a crawl, effectively creating what some have called a "permatorium." Dismayed by the delays, in February U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman tried to force the administration to act on seven pending permits, calling the inaction on permits "increasingly inexcusable." Permitting has picked up recently, thanks in part to increasing political pressure, but remains far below pre-spill levels.

In December, the White House reversed course on its own five-year plan to open portions of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Mid-Atlantic and the South Atlantic to offshore exploration. This effectively locks up an estimated 7.6 billion barrels of oil and 36.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

In March, as part of the release of its energy blueprint, the White House touted figures from the Energy Information Administration showing that domestic production had climbed in 2009 and 2010, with production last year at a level not seen since 2003. "So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality," the president said.

But an uptick in production—such as the one the White House is currently touting in its press materials—cannot be attributed to permits granted yesterday, last week, or even five years ago. Companies spend years developing a well—the process from initial permit to production can take up to eight years. The increased production we're seeing now is mostly due to permits granted before Mr. Obama took office.

This year, the Energy Information Administration forecasts a 240,000 barrels-per-day drop (13%) in the Gulf, and another 200,000 drop next year. The administration blames oil companies for sitting on existing permits. "These are resources that belong to the American people," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recently complained, "and they expect those supplies to be developed in a timely and responsible manner and with a fair return to taxpayers."

But Mr. Salazar's definition of "inactive" leases includes areas in the Gulf and onshore where significant activity and investment are occurring. By Interior's dubious parameters, the administration considers any company working on critical preproduction activities—such as geological surveys, seismic data collection and environmental analysis—to be "sitting" on its lease.

As the Noble Clyde Boudreaux starts drilling for Brazilian oil—and gasoline prices rise past $4 a gallon—the unfortunate effects the White House could have foreseen from its war on oil are becoming clear to everyone.

Last edited by Jay (2011-04-24 21:14:53)

"Reputation and reserve currency status can be lost, and failure to move US fiscal policy off its currently unsustainable path would certainly increase the risk."

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Im pretty sure German radar can pickup F117s and caught them again when they tried to shadow commercial jets.

As is said below though, I dont think any country in Europe is realistically planning on being in a large scale war with an equal power. Look at the mess in Libya for example, this is all our collective armed forces are specified for and we're struggling with that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

African isn't a race, its a fake right there.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

not if he's african.  The father that is.