[QUOTE=Webby2020;36023895]Secondly, all this talk of fancy-dancy "beyond visual range" combat is bullshit. Just because something has the ability fire BVR does not mean that they do fire BVR. SAMs have ranges up in the hundreds of kms but never fire that far. [/QUOTE]
In the Gulf War, several pure BVR air-to-air engagements occurred, you can look up the relevant material yourself. It is now 23 years since, and guidance and acquisition technology have improved significantly, as well as long-range IFF.
The technology to kill a plane from very long BVR distance has existed for some time- after all, it was the focus of Cold War defensive scenarios involving large waves of Soviet bombers. Historically it has been strict ROE rather than an inability to acquire solid lock that has forced WVR combat. In any kind of open war situation that is less of a problem.
[QUOTE=smace;36024819]I'm sorry but who the fuck cares? there is never going to be a WW3 so who fucking cares?[/QUOTE]
You have a very high opinion of humanity, and unfortunately I would have to be inclined to disagree, there probably won't ever be a nuclear war but I can definitely see large scale conventional conflicts in the future.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36024854]You have a very high opinion of humanity, and unfortunately I would have to be inclined to disagree, there probably won't ever be a nuclear war but I can definitely see large scale conventional conflicts in the future.[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt this.
[QUOTE=smace;36024863]I seriously doubt this.[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't there be a large scale war in the future? Really what has changed between world war two and now? The Balkans have recently been in a state of war, theres all the dick waving on the Korean Peninsula and in the Middle East.
Really all it takes is a shit situation to snowball and you have a large scale conflict dude.
[QUOTE=smace;36024819]I'm sorry but who the fuck cares? there is never going to be a WW3 so who fucking cares?[/QUOTE]
Because there's a little island south of China called Taiwan that China wants to capture, and historically we Americans have been the guys watching Taiwan's back. If China develops to the point where they can threaten US carriers in open water, then we may not be able to risk intervening on Taiwan's behalf, which would seriously weaken our geopolitical position. It's a real issue.
[QUOTE=Webby2020;36023895]
In addition to that, there is no way to tell between a civilian aircraft or a hostile aircraft at those ranges.
[/QUOTE]
There is something called radar crosssection that wants a word with you. Specific shapes of aircrafts have specific radar crosssections. You get that data and can find out what plane you locked on to. I have only heard of cases of friendly fire against ground troops, but that is a totally different story.
And beyond visual range combat does work. I want to ask you what kind of SAMs you are talking about and what purpose each of those serve. There are SAMs used for shooting down bombers in long range, and it works because bombers are not a agile as a fighter. For jetfighters, SAMs are more like speed bumps because the fighters fly fast and high, thusly, have a much larger energy for the use of evasion. The SAM has to launch at zero speed at first and then fight against gravitational forces to catch a fighter flying at 10000 feet. The radar warning receiver tells the pilot where the missile was launched from, he looks and finds the trail and evades it easily. SAMs are used against attack aircraft, helicopters, etc.
That is why you use fighters against fighters. Flying at 30000 feet, locking up to a target which may fly low gives you the shield of distance. You can launch your missiles at a much larger range, as it will glide down to its target using the gravitational force for its advantage. And then it comes down to training.
SAMs and A2A missiles are apples and oranges.
[QUOTE=catbarf;36024848]In the Gulf War, several pure BVR air-to-air engagements occurred, you can look up the relevant material yourself. It is now 23 years since, and guidance and acquisition technology have improved significantly, as well as long-range IFF.
The technology to kill a plane from very long BVR distance has existed for some time- after all, it was the focus of Cold War defensive scenarios involving large waves of Soviet bombers. Historically it has been strict ROE rather than an inability to acquire solid lock that has forced WVR combat. In any kind of open war situation that is less of a problem.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Won't the Chinese economy have crashed by then?
[QUOTE=JamesRaynor;36025232]Won't the Chinese economy have crashed by then?[/QUOTE]
China's economy can't crash, they literally just build entire cities for the shits and giggles of it and to keep people in work.
[QUOTE=Webby2020;36023895]Firstly, if the J-20 is based off the F-35 then the J-20 will be a piece of shit because the F-35 is a piece of shit.
Secondly, all this talk of fancy-dancy "beyond visual range" combat is bullshit. Just because something has the ability fire BVR does not mean that they do fire BVR. SAMs have ranges up in the hundreds of kms but never fire that far.
Same goes for aircraft. At the longer ranges, its incredibly easy for the plane being locked to lose the lock of the incoming missile. In addition to that, there is no way to tell between a civilian aircraft or a hostile aircraft at those ranges.
You get lots of friendly fire too. Even with IFF stuff, its not uncommon for unintended FF to occur.
[B]A bit unrelated but an AGM-88 HARM (which seeks radio frequencies) actually shot down a B-52 bomber. How does a air to surface missile shoot down a plane? Well the B-52s had a turret in the back which was to be used as Point Defense, but the radio frequency that the turret gave out attracted the HARM and shot it down.[/B]
This is what happens with beyond visual range stuff. You shoot down shit that you don't want to, and its easy for pilots to just avoid them all together.[/QUOTE]
The "In HARM's Way" incident is such a horrible example.
[quote]During the Gulf War, the HARM was involved in a friendly fire incident when the pilot of an F-4G Wild Weasel escorting a B-52 mistook the latter's tail gun radar for an Iraqi AAA site. (This was after the tail gunner of the B-52 had targeted the F-4G, mistaking it for an Iraqi MiG). The pilot launched the missile and then [B]saw that the target was the B-52[/B], which was hit. It survived with shrapnel damage to the tail and no casualties. The B-52 was subsequently renamed In HARM's Way.[7][/quote]
It was twenty years ago during the Gulf War, it featured an outdated aircraft and a non-BVR missile which wasn't even a air to air, and [I]it didn't happen beyond visual range[/I].
[editline]20th May 2012[/editline]
The tail gunner targets the F4G, and the F4G's systems mistake the B-52's gun laying radar as an Iraqi AAA site. The pilot fired his HARM not because he couldn't figure out that the B-52 wasn't a friendly. He fired because he thought an AAA site was tracking him. In other words, this has nothing to do with having difficulty determining a target's identity at a long range.
What I don't understand is why top secret military data is stored on servers accessible from the internet.
It's like the contrary of making a completely impenetrable server (in case that's even possible) on the internet and leaving an unmanned file cabinet with copies of the exact same documents in the middle of London.
Except that in this last case it would be more secure than what they've done because there would exist a possibility that the documents would either be damaged or lost forever.
Honestly what I don't get is why don't they just load the data onto a bunch of hard drives, and have a system where only specific people can actually access the files, if you need to move a file you transport it on a secure USB drive or hard drive, and each file movement is logged and only the required data is moved.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36025541]Honestly what I don't get is why don't they just load the data onto a bunch of hard drives, and have a system where only specific people can actually access the files, if you need to move a file you transport it on a secure USB drive or hard drive, and each file movement is logged and only the required data is moved.[/QUOTE]
Because very large teams of engineers work on these things together. Security exists, but to have to go from your desk to the security checkpoint, to find out someone else is using that hard drive, would be an extreme hassle.
With luck, the F-22 and F-35 will be working by then too.
[QUOTE=Groat;36030557]With luck, the F-22 and F-35 will be working by then too.[/QUOTE]
The F-22 is already in service with some limitations due to a defect, and the F-35 is already in service among some training squadrons.
Anyways almost every Chinese built fighter is a clone of a Russian fighter. Excluding the shitty plane China+Pakistan built together. I doubt the Chinese can build anything even comparable to the F-22 or furthermore the F-35.
As much as we complain about the F-35, its an extraordinary plane. I mean even Russia's even admitted that the F-35 could defeat their SAMs. Even the S-300.
Except for S-400, I don't think Putin would let Russia's military trade go to waste.
Somehow I seriously doubt China's plane could beat a T-50.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
