RE: Air To Air Combat

RE: Air To Air Combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

Stevechase -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 1:17:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph Oh! Woe... woe and great sorrow! Am I reading some Australian Analyst correctly?... The "other guys" are planning to jump ahead by proposed leaps and promising bounds with projected technologies at some prospective date... while the poor westerners are mired with their soon to be proven failures and technologies of the not so recent past? Woe, I say! Quickly... someone find a towel and toss it in! [:D] Ahem. Sorry, couldn't resist. No offense to dillonkbase or the article author... it's probably just me... but the way it was written it all sounded so ridiculous. Yeah, If you get any information from Australian Airpower, make sure it has nothing to do with airpower. That site and its two authors are notorious for intentionally falsified information.

Stevechase -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 1:28:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dannyp19 The more I keep reading the more I'm convinced that BVR radar guided AA missile capability is a product of DOD/MIC propaganda bull manure. Millions have been spent on a system that can't even produce a PK of 15%. Don't even get me going about stealth. . . That's even more $$$$ down the drain. Easy there. Stealth is the real deal for the foreseeable future. Proven in combat. And easy to prove in testing. No mystery at all to it. It is as solid a technology as the laws of physics that make it possible. The only tech on the horizon that could give stealth a run for its money is hyper velocity weapons tech. Until then stealth is probably the most cost worthy tech available. If you've been reading that Australian Airpower crap and its spin off articles- stop.

IWS -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 3:37:30 AM)
Stealth is very valuable, but even now it isn't invulnerable. We need to accept its limitations and be smart using it. More importantly, we need to look ahead. Given long-wave radar, IRST, and who knows what else in the future, we can't afford to just rest on our laurels. Will stealth tech still be a decisive advantage in 20 years? No-one knows or can know, yet. Have to keep looking and adapting. Stealth tech was a big and unanticipated advance. A disruptive technology. It won't be the last. We have a big advantage now, sure, but the conflict might not occur now. Let's not succumb to victory disease.

Blu3wolf -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 4:02:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IWS Hehe. Yep. "When someone loves an agenda Very Much... ...and that, Little Timmy, is how slanted analyses are born..." But this one is quite a bit better than "Because I say so". There are valid points tucked in there, if you can get past the fear-mongering. yeah, APA have an agenda to push alright. They reckon that the F-35 is gonna be a monumental waste of our already limited budget - a budget that our allies have taken note of in recent years. I'd be the first to note their analyses use a lot of emotive language, and are clearly trying to push that point home. Id also note that they wont achieve much, as the much vaunted alternative they want us to buy is off limits, not to mention not as capable as we need (the F-22). quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph Oh! Woe... woe and great sorrow! Am I reading some Australian Analyst correctly?... The "other guys" are planning to jump ahead by proposed leaps and promising bounds with projected technologies at some prospective date... while the poor westerners are mired with their soon to be proven failures and technologies of the not so recent past? Woe, I say! Quickly... someone find a towel and toss it in! [:D] Yeah, If you get any information from Australian Airpower, make sure it has nothing to do with airpower. That site and its two authors are notorious for intentionally falsified information. [Citation Needed] I'd be very interested to see some intentionally falsified information originating from APA, Stevechase. Could you refer me to your source for that? quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase quote: ORIGINAL: Dannyp19 The more I keep reading the more I'm convinced that BVR radar guided AA missile capability is a product of DOD/MIC propaganda bull manure. Millions have been spent on a system that can't even produce a PK of 15%. Don't even get me going about stealth. . . That's even more $$$$ down the drain. Easy there. Stealth is the real deal for the foreseeable future. Proven in combat. And easy to prove in testing. No mystery at all to it. It is as solid a technology as the laws of physics that make it possible. The only tech on the horizon that could give stealth a run for its money is hyper velocity weapons tech. Until then stealth is probably the most cost worthy tech available. If you've been reading that Australian Airpower crap and its spin off articles- stop. Shall we pause on that laws of physics thing, then? Your statement about the 'only' tech is factually incorrect. You may want to take a look at basic principles of radar detection and effects of radar frequency on RCS, as well as the effects of aspect on RCS. 'for the foreseeable future' - may I take this opportunity to refer you to an optometrist for acute myopia? quote: ORIGINAL: IWS Stealth is very valuable, but even now it isn't invulnerable. We need to accept its limitations and be smart using it. More important, we need to look ahead. Given long-wave radar, IRST, and who knows what else in the future, we can't afford to just rest on our laurels. Will stealth tech still be a decisive advantage in 20 years? No-one knows or can know, yet. Have to keep looking and adapting. Stealth tech was a big and unanticipated advance. A disruptive technology. It won't be the last. We have a big advantage now, sure, but the conflict might not occur now. Let's not succumb to victory disease. 'stealth'... VLO RCS aircraft design will stay with us, I suspect. Its eventual use will be more of an attempt to prevent acquisition rather than an attempt to prevent detection, as is currently the case.

Tomcat84 -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 6:49:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf I have to say I agree fully with them about IFF's reliability - this based not on my own experiences but that of other pilots. In any event, IFF is not a primary ID source - you cannot shoot someone down for having a busted transponder. To clarify: where I wrote IFF, I was not just talking about transponder and interrogator on the one fighter, I was referring to the whole range of tools used to establish IDs, on and off board. And there are lots more options to do this now than the article suggests. And the case you mention, depending on the ROE and the war type, it might still be one of the primary IDs if all else (AWACS etc) fails, but provisions will be made to avoid a busted transponder plane being shot without warning. Just make sure you turn off the Patriots as well heh. quote: RE being targeted, that one is harder to say, I mean 90% of combat kills are gotten before the other side realises they are in a fight - but in the modern day, this has to have dropped somewhat, given all the modern equipment dedicated to missile defence and detection. If you pick up CW paints, its a fairly safe assumption something is targeting you. Yeah it's not going to be as bad as in WW2. But the equipment is not infallible and modern radars are doing their best to be harder to pickup as well. So you might never have a spike even if you are being targeted and even if your RWR works. Which is why the article's notion that it is either incompetence or equipment failure strikes me as a bit too easy. quote: ultimately, BVR today consists of taking very long range shots in order to respect MAR and then being concerned when those shots have only a low Pk. [...] but I also think that the USAF doctrine of not merging with the enemy is flawed. I would venture that there's probably more to their doctrine than you realize, which is as it should be since it's classified lol. quote: Id agree on that energy degradation point, and Id note that the 'flight model' currently appears to have no provisions for such. This would be a much appreciated feature for future revision. indeed! But all in good time. We dont want to overload our devs [&o] [:)] And yeah the ausairpower article has a bit too much doomsday-factor for me. I cant really figure out where the "credited" Alamo and Adder F and A pole ranges are coming from but I suspect from an optimistic sales brochure.

Blu3wolf -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 7:23:14 AM)
I repeat - IFF is NEVER a primary ID system. you do not treat an aircraft as hostile based solely on its IFF ident. There are a lot of ID methods onboard modern jets. Offboard, even more. Lessee, onboard we have visual means like a long range targeting pod, or the venerable Mk. 1 Eyeball, we have radar systems like NCTR and automatic RWR correlation, obviously IFF interrogators, and offboard, we have datalinks from other sources... which will frequently include ELINT airframes and other fighters. Onto LPI radar modes, its true that the RWR is hardly infallible. There is no guarantee of getting search mode radar paints, and there is no guarantee it will have gotten a PACER WARE recently enough. On the other hand, if they send CW your way, you WILL detect it. not much of a guarantee, eh? well, Id agree - not many newer jets will be using SARH missiles without good reason. If someone is bugging you in a newer radar, and your RWR equipment is up to scratch, you still have no 100% guarantee of getting a spike. You will at the least get a spike if they use ARH missiles - again, no guarantee in this modern world of ACM! with ARMs, you could be launched on with no warning - although, there is the drawback that if you turn away, the missile cannot track you. I must also say that I feel there is never a guarantee of a warning of a missile launch... due to medium range IR missiles, which for obvious reasons do not emit. I would venture that there is much more to USAF doctrine than I am aware of. I would also venture that with the advent of wikileaks, the term classified means a LOT less than it used to. RE the doomsday factor, I note that they are after all concerned about the defense of their nation - Id say any person is entitled to a passionate vocal argument over perceived lacks in their nations long term planning - they, after all, will have to live through it.

dillonkbase -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 7:59:24 AM)
I just read the article and thought ut was interesting, I have no basis from which to judge the author or his website. I also know that everyone loves to exaggerate, that some people overestimate and other underestimate. In any case, I thought the article was entertaining, and was reading it as a gamer not as some sort of analyst myself.

Tomcat84 -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 9:38:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf I repeat - IFF is NEVER a primary ID system. you do not treat an aircraft as hostile based solely on its IFF ident. There are a lot of ID methods onboard modern jets. Offboard, even more. Lessee, onboard we have visual means like a long range targeting pod, or the venerable Mk. 1 Eyeball, we have radar systems like NCTR and automatic RWR correlation, obviously IFF interrogators, and offboard, we have datalinks from other sources... which will frequently include ELINT airframes and other fighters. I think we are agreeing with each other here while sounding like we have differing opinions [:D] I was not advocating that at any point IFF would be the sole single one defining thing. Hence the fact that I mentioned "provisions" that will help in the worst case scenario when AWACS, Rivet Joint, Targeting Pod, Datalink, NCTR etc are all not available. quote: Onto LPI radar modes, its true that the RWR is hardly infallible. There is no guarantee of getting search mode radar paints, and there is no guarantee it will have gotten a PACER WARE recently enough. On the other hand, if they send CW your way, you WILL detect it. not much of a guarantee, eh? well, Id agree - not many newer jets will be using SARH missiles without good reason. If someone is bugging you in a newer radar, and your RWR equipment is up to scratch, you still have no 100% guarantee of getting a spike. You will at the least get a spike if they use ARH missiles - again, no guarantee in this modern world of ACM! with ARMs, you could be launched on with no warning - although, there is the drawback that if you turn away, the missile cannot track you. I must also say that I feel there is never a guarantee of a warning of a missile launch... due to medium range IR missiles, which for obvious reasons do not emit. I think we are in agreement again [:)] quote: I would venture that there is much more to USAF doctrine than I am aware of. I would also venture that with the advent of wikileaks, the term classified means a LOT less than it used to. True. Havent found the tactical manuals on the internet though so that's good. quote: RE the doomsday factor, I note that they are after all concerned about the defense of their nation - Id say any person is entitled to a passionate vocal argument over perceived lacks in their nations long term planning - they, after all, will have to live through it. Of course. However I do wonder where some of their numbers are coming from.

Blu3wolf -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/17/2014 12:08:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tomcat84 quote: I would venture that there is much more to USAF doctrine than I am aware of. I would also venture that with the advent of wikileaks, the term classified means a LOT less than it used to. True. Havent found the tactical manuals on the internet though so that's good. yeah for obvious reasons you won't find an AFTTP 3-1 by googling for it. Most T.O.s are pretty safe, I mean I haven't seen a 1M-34 just lying around waiting to be read... quote: ORIGINAL: Tomcat84 quote: RE the doomsday factor, I note that they are after all concerned about the defense of their nation - Id say any person is entitled to a passionate vocal argument over perceived lacks in their nations long term planning - they, after all, will have to live through it. Of course. However I do wonder where some of their numbers are coming from. Hmm. I was under the impression they listed sources for their articles? They can't be that transparent if their sources are not apparent..

Tomcat84 -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/18/2014 2:31:31 PM)
There's one list of sources at the bottom but no notes by the individual mention of the numbers as to what is the source. And I'm too lazy to go through them all (and don't know Russian :) )

Stevechase -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/18/2014 5:25:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf quote: ORIGINAL: IWS Hehe. Yep. "When someone loves an agenda Very Much... ...and that, Little Timmy, is how slanted analyses are born..." But this one is quite a bit better than "Because I say so". There are valid points tucked in there, if you can get past the fear-mongering. yeah, APA have an agenda to push alright. They reckon that the F-35 is gonna be a monumental waste of our already limited budget - a budget that our allies have taken note of in recent years. I'd be the first to note their analyses use a lot of emotive language, and are clearly trying to push that point home. Id also note that they wont achieve much, as the much vaunted alternative they want us to buy is off limits, not to mention not as capable as we need (the F-22). quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph Oh! Woe... woe and great sorrow! Am I reading some Australian Analyst correctly?... The "other guys" are planning to jump ahead by proposed leaps and promising bounds with projected technologies at some prospective date... while the poor westerners are mired with their soon to be proven failures and technologies of the not so recent past? Woe, I say! Quickly... someone find a towel and toss it in! [:D] Yeah, If you get any information from Australian Airpower, make sure it has nothing to do with airpower. That site and its two authors are notorious for intentionally falsified information. [Citation Needed] I'd be very interested to see some intentionally falsified information originating from APA, Stevechase. Could you refer me to your source for that? quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase quote: ORIGINAL: Dannyp19 The more I keep reading the more I'm convinced that BVR radar guided AA missile capability is a product of DOD/MIC propaganda bull manure. Millions have been spent on a system that can't even produce a PK of 15%. Don't even get me going about stealth. . . That's even more $$$$ down the drain. Easy there. Stealth is the real deal for the foreseeable future. Proven in combat. And easy to prove in testing. No mystery at all to it. It is as solid a technology as the laws of physics that make it possible. The only tech on the horizon that could give stealth a run for its money is hyper velocity weapons tech. Until then stealth is probably the most cost worthy tech available. If you've been reading that Australian Airpower crap and its spin off articles- stop. Shall we pause on that laws of physics thing, then? Your statement about the 'only' tech is factually incorrect. You may want to take a look at basic principles of radar detection and effects of radar frequency on RCS, as well as the effects of aspect on RCS. 'for the foreseeable future' - may I take this opportunity to refer you to an optometrist for acute myopia? quote: ORIGINAL: IWS Stealth is very valuable, but even now it isn't invulnerable. We need to accept its limitations and be smart using it. More important, we need to look ahead. Given long-wave radar, IRST, and who knows what else in the future, we can't afford to just rest on our laurels. Will stealth tech still be a decisive advantage in 20 years? No-one knows or can know, yet. Have to keep looking and adapting. Stealth tech was a big and unanticipated advance. A disruptive technology. It won't be the last. We have a big advantage now, sure, but the conflict might not occur now. Let's not succumb to victory disease. 'stealth'... VLO RCS aircraft design will stay with us, I suspect. Its eventual use will be more of an attempt to prevent acquisition rather than an attempt to prevent detection, as is currently the case. Serious academics and analysts have repeatedly identified gross inaccuracies with his reports. Its not a question about his choice of variables, rather his whole approach. And this isn't one or two. Basically he is widely dismissed as a charlatan� particularly by people who actually have real knowledge and experience in air combat maneuvering. You don't see that because frankly, those people have better things to do than argue with some half baked analysis who has no experience on aerodynamics or ACM at all yet purports to know that the F-35 is a bad fighter. Again he is a charlatan, the company he and Goon hold stands to make millions if F35 is canceled by RAAF, because his company is contractor for parts and services for current inventory. This is why he hates F35. Most of what they (Kopp and Goon) purport sounds legit to those outside the industry. But when he debates real analysts you actually feel sorry for him. In fact he was brought before independent inquiry where F35 effectiveness was the issue. In it he could not defend his arguments. Members of the RAAF and aerospace analysts took apart each of his claims and embarrassed him in open court. At one point he appealed to the judge that he was being mistreated by the analysts questioning him. He was so humiliated by the end of the proceeding that he filed a motion afterward claiming the opposing analysts had damaged his reputation.

mikmykWS -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/18/2014 6:47:57 PM)
[Shrugs] When I hear that so many went so far to discredit Dr. Kopp alarm bells go off in my head that maybe he was saying at least one thing right. Nobody would spend the time and money discrediting him on it if it were otherwise and I think as I've gotten older I've got a good barometer of when people are just taking cheap shots. His website has some good information that is presented well. Its gets the dialogue going with folks beyond analysts which I think is of far greater value than any of his critics have done. Oh and keeping the F-111 was a very dumb idea IMHO. Never thought less of him for it. Mike

Stevechase -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/18/2014 9:15:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf quote: ORIGINAL: IWS Hehe. Yep. "When someone loves an agenda Very Much... ...and that, Little Timmy, is how slanted analyses are born..." But this one is quite a bit better than "Because I say so". There are valid points tucked in there, if you can get past the fear-mongering. yeah, APA have an agenda to push alright. They reckon that the F-35 is gonna be a monumental waste of our already limited budget - a budget that our allies have taken note of in recent years. I'd be the first to note their analyses use a lot of emotive language, and are clearly trying to push that point home. Id also note that they wont achieve much, as the much vaunted alternative they want us to buy is off limits, not to mention not as capable as we need (the F-22). quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph Oh! Woe... woe and great sorrow! Am I reading some Australian Analyst correctly?... The "other guys" are planning to jump ahead by proposed leaps and promising bounds with projected technologies at some prospective date... while the poor westerners are mired with their soon to be proven failures and technologies of the not so recent past? Woe, I say! Quickly... someone find a towel and toss it in! [:D] Yeah, If you get any information from Australian Airpower, make sure it has nothing to do with airpower. That site and its two authors are notorious for intentionally falsified information. [Citation Needed] I'd be very interested to see some intentionally falsified information originating from APA, Stevechase. Could you refer me to your source for that? quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase quote: ORIGINAL: Dannyp19 The more I keep reading the more I'm convinced that BVR radar guided AA missile capability is a product of DOD/MIC propaganda bull manure. Millions have been spent on a system that can't even produce a PK of 15%. Don't even get me going about stealth. . . That's even more $$$$ down the drain. Easy there. Stealth is the real deal for the foreseeable future. Proven in combat. And easy to prove in testing. No mystery at all to it. It is as solid a technology as the laws of physics that make it possible. The only tech on the horizon that could give stealth a run for its money is hyper velocity weapons tech. Until then stealth is probably the most cost worthy tech available. If you've been reading that Australian Airpower crap and its spin off articles- stop. Shall we pause on that laws of physics thing, then? Your statement about the 'only' tech is factually incorrect. You may want to take a look at basic principles of radar detection and effects of radar frequency on RCS, as well as the effects of aspect on RCS. 'for the foreseeable future' - may I take this opportunity to refer you to an optometrist for acute myopia? quote: ORIGINAL: IWS Stealth is very valuable, but even now it isn't invulnerable. We need to accept its limitations and be smart using it. More important, we need to look ahead. Given long-wave radar, IRST, and who knows what else in the future, we can't afford to just rest on our laurels. Will stealth tech still be a decisive advantage in 20 years? No-one knows or can know, yet. Have to keep looking and adapting. Stealth tech was a big and unanticipated advance. A disruptive technology. It won't be the last. We have a big advantage now, sure, but the conflict might not occur now. Let's not succumb to victory disease. 'stealth'... VLO RCS aircraft design will stay with us, I suspect. Its eventual use will be more of an attempt to prevent acquisition rather than an attempt to prevent detection, as is currently the case. Bluewolf you said,"Shall we pause on that laws of physics thing, then?" Okay I will stop with the laws of physics......... ok now all those arguments make total sense. Infact that is the only way they can make sense. You do have to disregard physics for most of those arguments to be plausible. Now back to physics and the real world. Seriously, what are you trying to say. If you are going to have this discussion how can you vacate science and fact. In that case anything goes. Physics is the real world. You are merely taking a trend that has come to exist through the internet with "claims" for or against stealth with no real data to support the positions. Just because a person can say x band or low freq dose not mean their conclusions regarding the subject are accurate. I have seen many of these all over the internet and people who don't know better see such posts become swayed with nothing more than hyperbole, guessing, assumption, fear-mongering based on loose and partial albeit convincing to the masses data. I get a little hot under the collar when such claims are made. I am an engineer and work in aerospace my company makes parts for JSF, made parts for B-2 and F-22. That dose not make me an expert on the subject at all to be sure. And none of the parts we make are even RCS critical parts. I only mention that because it is the reason it is so close to me. And why I try to stay informed. I have no access to any info which is not available to anyone else, but I do have some understanding of physics and know who the legit sources for information are. And APA is not one of them. APA is a joke in the aerospace industry. None of this to say the F35 does not have true issues as everyone is aware it does as does every new teething design tech. Regarding stealth in general; Though difficult to implement, the principles of stealth are simple and basic. Physics are such that a ball is tossed at a wall: it bounces back toward the source, now the wall is sufficiently angled so as to ricochet the ball or the wall is of such material as to absorb or diffract. Now in response you can mitigate the ricochet/absorb effect by changing size, speed, and or the composition of the ball, or better quickly get into position to catch the ball because you know how and where it will ricochet(tactics). And that is all you can do. The laws of physics dictate that you can only mitigate the effect. The same principles that govern that illustration govern radar and stealth. And all else being equal the physics will always favor stealth tech wining in stealth vs radar. And stealth is the dominant tech of today and the foreseeable future. Most all nations are including it in there next generation arsenals. Which means next generation aka "foreseeable future" conflicts will involve these. How is that myopic.

IWS -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/18/2014 10:09:53 PM)
[/quote] 'stealth'... VLO RCS aircraft design will stay with us, I suspect. Its eventual use will be more of an attempt to prevent acquisition rather than an attempt to prevent detection, as is currently the case. [/quote] Agreed, on both. Stealth is unlikely to go away (quite the opposite). As folks learn to work around it, stealth will probably become relatively less effective than it is today. That doesn't mean ineffective. Stealthy will continue to be preferable to non-stealthy, costs will continue to come down, and the know-how will become more widespread. I do think it will go from being a special category ("stealth") to "of course we're doing RCS reduction, doesn't everyone?". That's the usual evolution of new tech: from "best thing ever" to "an essential technique to have in the toolbox". That's part of why it's unlikely to be a decisive advantage for the US in a couple of decades. A technology isn't as decisive if your adversaries have it too. Yeah, it's looking like the workarounds so far will be better for detection than acquisition. (Low frequency, bistatic, etc). OTOH, "We detected it but couldn't get a lock" is still very useful to have. Non-radar-homing efforts should be interesting to watch. Dunno how well they'll work out, but they will certainly be tried. One area of development that should be very interesting is the push towards RCS reduction for guided weapons, as opposed to aircraft. With all the recent improvements in cruise missile defenses, that might even the odds a bit. Low altitude already makes it hard. Low RCS will make it harder. RCS-reduced long-range cruise missiles might become viable alternative, for countries that can't afford stealth aircraft. -------- Phooey. The quotes were supposed to work, and it was supposed to be a reply to Blu3wolf. Sorry, still learning the ropes...

Stevechase -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/19/2014 7:46:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dillonkbase I just read the article and thought ut was interesting, I have no basis from which to judge the author or his website. I also know that everyone loves to exaggerate, that some people overestimate and other underestimate. In any case, I thought the article was entertaining, and was reading it as a gamer not as some sort of analyst myself. Well Im no analyst either. And I'm not saying everything there is crap, or that you can't trust any of it but certainly be wary. Really I wouldn't take any of his own analysis at all as fact unless I can verify by another source.

Blu3wolf -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/20/2014 12:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase Serious academics and analysts [Who?] have repeatedly identified gross inaccuracies with his reports.[Citation Needed] Its not a question about his choice of variables, rather his whole approach. And this isn't one or two. Basically he is widely dismissed as a charlatan� particularly by people who actually have real knowledge and experience in air combat maneuvering.[Weasel Words][Citation Needed] You don't see that because frankly, those people have better things to do than argue with some half baked analysis[Needs Copyediting] who has no experience on aerodynamics or ACM at all yet purports to know that the F-35 is a bad fighter.[BLP] Again he is a charlatan, the company he and Goon hold stands to make millions if F35 is canceled by RAAF, because his company is contractor for parts and services for current inventory.[Citation Needed] This is why he hates F35. Most of what they (Kopp and Goon) purport sounds legit to those outside the industry. But when he debates real analysts you actually feel sorry for him. In fact he was brought before independent inquiry where F35 effectiveness was the issue. In it he could not defend his arguments. Members of the RAAF and aerospace analysts took apart each of his claims and embarrassed him in open court. At one point he appealed to the judge that he was being mistreated by the analysts questioning him. He was so humiliated by the end of the proceeding that he filed a motion afterward claiming the opposing analysts had damaged his reputation.[Citation Needed] Bluewolf you said,"Shall we pause on that laws of physics thing, then?" Okay I will stop with the laws of physics......... ok now all those arguments make total sense. Infact that is the only way they can make sense. You do have to disregard physics for most of those arguments to be plausible. Now back to physics and the real world. Seriously, what are you trying to say. If you are going to have this discussion how can you vacate science and fact. In that case anything goes. Physics is the real world. You are merely taking a trend that has come to exist through the internet with "claims" for or against stealth with no real data to support the positions. Just because a person can say x band or low freq dose not mean their conclusions regarding the subject are accurate. I have seen many of these all over the internet and people who don't know better see such posts become swayed with nothing more than hyperbole, guessing, assumption, fear-mongering based on loose and partial albeit convincing to the masses data. I get a little hot under the collar when such claims are made. I am an engineer and work in aerospace my company makes parts for JSF, made parts for B-2 and F-22. That dose not make me an expert on the subject at all to be sure. And none of the parts we make are even RCS critical parts. I only mention that because it is the reason it is so close to me. And why I try to stay informed. I have no access to any info which is not available to anyone else, but I do have some understanding of physics and know who the legit sources for information are. And APA is not one of them. APA is a joke in the aerospace industry. None of this to say the F35 does not have true issues as everyone is aware it does as does every new teething design tech. Regarding stealth in general; Though difficult to implement, the principles of stealth are simple and basic. Physics are such that a ball is tossed at a wall: it bounces back toward the source, now the wall is sufficiently angled so as to ricochet the ball or the wall is of such material as to absorb or diffract. Now in response you can mitigate the ricochet/absorb effect by changing size, speed, and or the composition of the ball, or better quickly get into position to catch the ball because you know how and where it will ricochet(tactics). And that is all you can do. The laws of physics dictate that you can only mitigate the effect. The same principles that govern that illustration govern radar and stealth. And all else being equal the physics will always favor stealth tech wining in stealth vs radar. And stealth is the dominant tech of today and the foreseeable future. Most all nations are including it in there next generation arsenals. Which means next generation aka "foreseeable future" conflicts will involve these. How is that myopic. Steve, I have to call BS. No engineer gets employed in this country without being able to spell. I'd have to assume the same is correct of the united states? regarding the laws of physics, may I refer you back to your own words? quote: ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase quote: ORIGINAL: Dannyp19 The more I keep reading the more I'm convinced that BVR radar guided AA missile capability is a product of DOD/MIC propaganda bull manure. Millions have been spent on a system that can't even produce a PK of 15%. Don't even get me going about stealth. . . That's even more $$$$ down the drain. Easy there. Stealth is the real deal for the foreseeable future.[Citation Needed] Proven in combat. And easy to prove in testing. No mystery at all to it. It is as solid a technology as the laws of physics that make it possible. The only tech on the horizon that could give stealth a run for its money is hyper velocity weapons tech.[Citation Needed] Until then stealth is probably the most cost worthy tech available.[Weasel Words] If you've been reading that Australian Airpower crap and its spin off articles- stop. Shall we pause on that laws of physics thing, then? Your statement about the 'only' tech is factually incorrect. You may want to take a look at basic principles of radar detection and effects of radar frequency on RCS, as well as the effects of aspect on RCS. So far as I can tell, your argument seems to be that changing radar frequency makes no difference on radar returns for a detection or acquisition radar. Is this correct? other than that, I see a hastily typed response, sorry two hastily typed responses to the same post. You claim I 'vacate science and fact'. Hardly grammatically correct but I understand your drift. I might take more notice of it, if you actually had anything to back up your claims.. EDIT: removed superfluous quotes.

mikmykWS -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/20/2014 12:42:54 PM)
Jeez nice post and for the record we're not sending you to the spelling B either [:)] This version is much better than the first post I saw. Guys you will learn more, further debates and go farther in this group by being nicer. Oh .....and we won't spike your posts or worse too [;)] Thanks! Mike

Stevechase -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/21/2014 12:19:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikmyk Jeez nice post and for the record we're not sending you to the spelling B either [:)] This version is much better than the first post I saw. Guys you will learn more, further debates and go farther in this group by being nicer. Oh .....and we won't spike your posts or worse too [;)] Thanks! Mike Thanks. As you can see in my posts I have not been unkind or attacked Bluefox in any personal way, simply stuck to the subject of his questions to my posts. Bluewolf, you have the right to believe what ever you choose and have obviously decided what you wish to believe-no biggie. I have clearly stated mine, so there is no further need for me to reply. I am sure you have knowledge and expertise on this subject as well as others, you just happen to be wrong -and maybe a tad insecure? (no citation needed)[:D]--hey if we can't laugh at you then whats the point[:D]. Its ok I have plenty faults too. In all seriousness though, at least we agree on the fun factor of Command and that we got a really great sim here. No hard feelings. In fact I'd like to buy you a beer if I could (Fosters no doubt) and we could have one of those Obama style beersummits. Any way happy gaming and good luck to ya[;)].

Blu3wolf -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/21/2014 3:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikmyk Jeez nice post and for the record we're not sending you to the spelling B either [:)] This version is much better than the first post I saw. Guys you will learn more, further debates and go farther in this group by being nicer. Oh .....and we won't spike your posts or worse too [;)] Thanks! Mike Indeed, my apologies for mixing american and English spellings around - too much time spent online trying to spell HTML tags 'correctly'. If you can point out any spelling errors I have made, Ill be happy to correct them. quote: ORIGINAL: Stevechase Thanks. As you can see in my posts I have not been unkind or attacked Bluefox in any personal way, simply stuck to the subject of his questions to my posts. Bluewolf, you have the right to believe what ever you choose and have obviously decided what you wish to believe-no biggie. I have clearly stated mine, so there is no further need for me to reply. I am sure you have knowledge and expertise on this subject as well as others, you just happen to be wrong -and maybe a tad insecure? (no citation needed)[:D]--hey if we can't laugh at you then whats the point[:D]. Its ok I have plenty faults too. In all seriousness though, at least we agree on the fun factor of Command and that we got a really great sim here. No hard feelings. In fact I'd like to buy you a beer if I could (Fosters no doubt) and we could have one of those Obama style beersummits. Any way happy gaming and good luck to ya[;)]. Steve, I feel I should apologise to you for calling you out on your spelling. Likely you were just in a hurry. As for insecurity, you have hit the nail on the head - this is precisely the problem I have with the F-35, it simply does not engender feelings of security. No hard feelings? I'll take you up on that.

mikmykWS -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/21/2014 3:52:23 PM)
Good one BW. Enjoy the back of the db request line. Muhahahaha! Mike

Blu3wolf -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/21/2014 5:08:41 PM)
Duly noted. Not really sure what prompted that, but I guess that's your perogative. [image]http://blu3wolf.com/Images/pics/wolfies/lupe_annoyed.png[/image]

Dimitris -> RE: Air To Air Combat (1/29/2014 2:11:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Baloogan Missiles miss. [:D] Missiles And to underscore this: http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/29/f15-vs-mig-23/ Four AIM-7Ms fired, three misses and one hit, against a [probably] non-maneuvering, [certainly] no-ECM MiG-23. In a battle environment as close to a training range as possible (DS).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640625