EA/18G Growler
- Thread starter Malayali
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boeing northrop grumman
Without range information, you wont know if they're detecting the same heat source. You'd want a relatively large number of radars (definately more than 3, surely?) to be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that they're picking up the same heat source.
Some common sense would be interesting too, AAMs are under the same rules than anything solid traveling through air.
NATO COs would desagree with you.
There are reports to be found for those who look, actually that's WHY i allow myself to bring the issue up.
+ WE KNOW from AdA internal sources what the SLAMER record is too.
Try ixarm.com or alternatively the French ministere of defense website.
Performances
· multicible / tirs multiples
· tir au rail et en éjection
· portée : < 500 m à > 80 km
· vitesse : mach 4
· facteur de charge supérieur à 50 G
Architecture industrielle
MBDA est le maître d'oeuvre industriel du R550 MK2 Magic 2.
Ses principaux sous-traitants sont :
Sagem : autodirecteur IR
Protac : système propulsion
SNPE : combustible solide pour propulsion
GIAT Industries : composant tête militaire et charge explosive
TDA : composant tête militaire et charge explosive.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/enje...ssile_d_interception_de_combat_et_d_autodefen se_mica
Again this is totally incompatible with what L-M themself write about it.
You might think whatever you want you still keep ignoring facts as they are, F-35 superiority is requiered vs US Legacy fighters, namely F-16, F-18 Harrier II.
Sorry to say but even the under-developed Typhoon T1, Gripen A and Rafale F-1 make cold meals of them with a ratio far superior to 1/4...
The only level of superiority of F-35 is EM signature, for the rest, performancewise it lacks the edge over even the JAS-39 Gripen.
MACH LIMIT 1.6, NO supercruise, 7.0, 7.5, 9.0 Gs structural limits.
I blame no one for their opinions when they are based on facts.
Really? Look at the aircraft politico-industrial history.
Redesigned to meet 9G requierements as well as better turning performances then limited structurally to 7.0, 7.5, and 9 Gs.
Where exactly will this allow it to out-turn an aircraft capable of going through a hard stop of 9 Gs and reach 11.5 Gs?
If we believe L-M own datas from their PDFs of late 2006, its TWR is inferior, its wingload superior to even that of a F-16 block50.
Commercial staments are to be taken with some distance, i can recal the FIRST stament on how F-35 would be as maneuvrable as F-16 and it was in STRIKE configuration with external store hanging from the legacy fighters.
If you had been mouting amos under aircrafts at some ponit of your life you'd think it as been logical, G as well a speed limitation with A2G amunitions are cause by the pylon-to-weapon attachements. Vibrations and Gloads causes this.
With internal mounting you do away with the speed limitation but not the G-limitation it is still a huge gain....
You should inform yourself about a so called Dutch competition and SEE for yourself how the Dutch expert graded F-35, Rafale and Typhoon i think you're IN for a big surprise there.
A commercial success is not necessarly based on better performances as for the F-35 now known limitation they only are the result of L-M design and weight problems, too late for many future customers i'm afraid...
These are point which are well advertised but ignored repeatedly by many...
Which opponents were actually equiped with a long range IRST and IR BVR AAM?
None. Even the RAF Typhoons weren't equiped with Pirate when they faced up the USAF Raptors in the US.
US deployment
The RAF's 17 Sqn OEU has routinely deployed two aircraft and around 30 personnel to the USA to operate alongside US fighters including the Lockheed MartinF-22A Raptor. "The vast majority of this work is about making sure that the integration of the two platforms is working," says Walker. Asked how the fighters compare, he says: "If you want to say that stealth is a determining factor then Typhoon stands second to the F-22. But I think that as we do more work, the Typhoon will more than hold its own. It's the balance of how you use it, rather than what it is."
BAE Typhoon project test pilot Mark Bowman sees even less of a capability gap. "The F-22 is three times the cost, but you would struggle to see any advantage in the cockpit design - the cost is there to maintain stealth," he says. "Typhoon is most likely equivalent, if not better.
EXTRACT.
DATE:24/04/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Eurofighter Typhoon special: Blue sky thinking
By Craig Hoyle
>>>>>
New capabilties are forcing the aircrews to adapt and devise new tactics and our MN pilots recon their M F1s comopares favourably to Typhoons with an extra 500 kg+ and under-developed avionics....
WE are aware of this fact apparently you ignore this too in fact i regard F-35 as trhe modern equivalent of the A-7 Corsair NOT a F-8 Crusader even if it looks the same it doesnt have the same capabilties than a LWF.
DAS consists of multiple infrared cameras (supplied by Indigo Systems of Goleta, California) providing 360° coverage using advanced signal conditioning algorithms.
Thales have been working at AESA radars both land/sea and air based for a number of years.
The fact that the US chose to produce 4/5 generation of AESA doesn't mean they are more advanced it only mean that the European have chosen to skip the previous generations to develop the latest further.
As for F-35 avionics they are only contemporary or even OLDER to that of a F2 standard but perhaps you cant have access to a good edition of Jane's World's aircraft and compare...
PROVE IT. Give us an OFFICIAL link stament or anything of the sort, because so far you only provided us with a legend as far as where L-M are concerned, internal payload is 2 X 1 or 2K LGB and 2 X AIM-120s.
What hurts is the incapability to narrow one adversary window of detection and engagement and it is the essence of stealth, which was part integral of F-22 requierements. HIGH CRUISING speed.
AGAIN you're dreaming. There are NUMEROUS indication that F-35 doesn't possese these capabilties in particular in L-M own documentation.
If you refer to Link-16 or passive EM detection cueing, we got this at home right now, with one up to the US = rearward firing thanks to the off-the-rail maneuvrability of MICA.
I guess you're going to have to wait for the next BVR AAM generation to equal this one or procure at MBDA France...
More to the point, you need to use the radar to cue ASRAM when you want to fire it without using its own seeker without the above cueing solutions.
You simply forget that this PASSIVE BVR capabilties requieres the use of a PASSIVE AAM withan IR seeker too, inexistant in the US at the moment.
DAS and EOTS allows ONLY for the cueing of short range AAMs for the moment only ASRAAM as AIM-9X doesnt posseses a datalink capability.
EOTS is derivated from the SNIPER XR technology and stated as VMC limited = Visual Meteorologic Conditions.
In France Thales and SAGEM have been working at reducing Optronic systems sensitivity to weather conditions and fielded the FIRT Western system with 3-5mn bandwith as early as 1999.
They now equip the NH-90 with a long range/all-weather IRST of the first generation check out the OLOSP web page at SAGEM and try to figure that one out.
You chose to believe stealth in unbeatable, these guys DONT believe it and keep at it, i guess it's a different school of thought.
For the time being, EOTS is only a single channel IRST designed for A2G and as a matter of FACT it is positioned in a way which prevent detection of hig-flying aircrafts and as a single channel doesnt allow for A2A and A2G simultaneously.
EOTS is NOT a dedicated A2A Optronic system and have little in the A2A role that a good PDLCT-S have.
Last edited:
Roger Wilco!!! Thanks, i'm not too good with this thing!!!There is a button at the top which looks like a sheet of paper. Klick it and the quote tags appear. Much easier and faster than writing them manually.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
And you have the nerve to demand "facts" from me. Sheesh!
The "facts" that you present are some un-referenced "squadron room noise" about Rafale being "almost as good" as Typhoon and a quote from the chief test pilot of Typhoon who in the space of a sentence rates "how you use" a capability as more important to the capability itself to stating Typhoon is equivalent IF NOT BETTER THAN an F-22!!!
Well is stealth, supercruise a massive LPI AESA radar important in A2A combat or not? John Jumper certaintly thought it was and he had flown both. Rating the Typhoon "below" that of F-22...
I present evidence to Courts on a weekly basis in my role as a criminal investigator. Let me give you one piece of advice about evidence, hearsay is NO such thing...
Have you read up on the SH's performance compared to Rafale in the exercises conducting between USN and the French navy over the last few years?
I'm not challenging you simply interested. I think both fared fairly well from what I recall...
I'm sure we will be. Just as we will be with F-35 when it arrives.
I'd suggest you read up a bit more recently. F-35 needing off hand data from an F-22? The fact that an F-22 doesn't even have a data-link with which it can transmit such data, seems to disagree with this concept don';t you agree?
HA! The F-35 say what you will about it's aerodynamic performance will gather more data than virtually ANY other aircraft EVER has...
Much better I agree.
All your forgetting is the forward slash / in the end [/quote]
Start your sentence with
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
BKNO, if you look back to about page 16 of this thread you'll see i had a lengthy discussion re the ability of IR BVR guided missile shots and its effect on the F35. I didn't have the knowlage reguarding the capabilities of AA missile systems or IRSTs to comprehensively argue the point, so i have a few questions for you since you seem to be a lot more knowlagble than me.
1. How can an IRST pick up a target without being cued from Radar? I have read reports of advanced ESM being able to cue IRST, is this possible and if so is it usefull?
2. Can a platform make a usefull IR BVR guided missile shot from its IRST data alone, or does it need accurate range information? (i am under the impression that a single IRST even advansed models can not give range information, and therefore multiple sensors are needed in order to triangulate range)
RE the Typhoon vs Raptor. I have a hard time believing claims that without stealth things are allmost equal between these two platforms, especialy sinse they come from a Typhoon pilot. Correct me if i'm wrong but even without stealth, Raptor holds the kinematic advantage by a mile, is more manuverable in all flight regimes, has a far superior LPI radar system, has heaps more internal fuel and enjoys drag free weapons bays. So i'm struggleing to see how the Typhoon is even close. And thats without LO.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
- Of course.
- Determining the coordinates plus roll/pitch/yaw can be done very accurately. And it is also a parameter that is equal when compared to radar, i.e. it cancels itself out.
- You transfer the basic information plus metadata. Imagery should not be necessary.
- This is absolutely not a problem. A P4 processor can do this calculation including image correlation 700-800 times a second. The processing power required for the radar is orders of magnitude greater.
The weakness of the IRST BVR targeting solution is the quality of the sensor at range. Accuracy, discrimination and temporal quality will [in principle] always be worse than that of the radar. But much is dependent on the BVR missile also.
Lastly, but most important, is the tactical impact. The IRST (of the Flankers) are looking through a straw. When it is cued by the ESM it only get a bearing (or a triangulated track) on the emitter. What about all the 'passive' fighters out there being being fed tracks on the Flankers - every Flanker - while the Flankers only have a poor track on the emitter?
The Flankers die. Because they're busy tracking a single fighter, while they're blind to every other enemy fighter. It is they who will shoot the Flankers down.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Agreed.
Besides F-35 will have an IRST system as part of it's EOTS system as well. Only arrogance will indicate that the F-35 IRST will be any less capable than any other...
It's outlined in the most recent program brief I have found (September 06), as is the requirement for 6 internal AAM's on DCA missions...
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA Conf - JSF Program Brief - 26 Sept 06.pdf
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Heard of General Miles Davis? Go to page 23 of this magazine and see what he is quoted as saying about the matter...
http://www.adbr.com.au/download/2510.pdf
For those who can't be bothered, basically in late 2006 during a briefing on JSF program in Australia, he confirmed there is room within F-35's bays for "more than 4 AAM's" and studies are underway to find ways increase that missile loadout.
Fact is it's simply not a priority at present as LM have MORE than enough to work on to try and get the aircraft in-service on time.
That doesn't mean it's not possible however...
There you are BKNO, I have now provided 2 "official" sources of data. Would you be so kind as to support your arguments?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Forgot to add. When triangulating, the accuracy of the measurement is at its best when the length of the baseline between the sensors is equal to the distance to the target. As the baseline/distance ratio increase or decrease the accuracy deterioates, as the sensors are increasingly doing the same measurement. The baseline also has to be orthogonal (right angled) to the distance to the object.
This means that if the distance to the target is 50km, the optimal distance between sensors is 50km. A baseline of, say 500m, is 1/100th of the optimal. They will practically be doing the same measurement. and no track can be generated.
This puts limitations to when a succesful track can be generated. Perhaps only in a head on merge.
The tactical inferiority of the IRST to radar is quite big.
This means that if the distance to the target is 50km, the optimal distance between sensors is 50km. A baseline of, say 500m, is 1/100th of the optimal. They will practically be doing the same measurement. and no track can be generated.
This puts limitations to when a succesful track can be generated. Perhaps only in a head on merge.
The tactical inferiority of the IRST to radar is quite big.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I agree, the only thing that would need to be trasmitted from the second platform to the shooter would be the exact position of the platform, and the bearing to the target, alot less than targeting information for a missile from a wedgetail. Then its pretty simple for the computer. It knows the position of its two sensors and the bearing from those two sensors at a single point in time, and therefore it knows were the target is in 3 dimentions at that one time. Now it does the very same thing half a second later, taking the two flankers changed positions into acount, and it knows the targets heading, speed, altitude and position in 3 dimentions. It doesent need to constantly calculate it's position, just in smal intervals. I dont see how this is very hard at all.
Its no substituite for a search and track radar like the APG 81 i agree. However its only two for one, not all the flankers in the air need to be tracking a single target. And unless the F35's are flying individually, the straw would probably see both of them (in a simple pair vs pair scenario and not taking tactics into account). Although the ESM would be picking up more targets on more bearings (depending on its capabilities), if there were any. And in the Advanced Flanker is probably a fair bit more surivable when contending with a terminal missile shot than an F35, especially when considering the AIM 120's kinematic performance, and the kinematic performance of the platform its shooting at. So being able to take missile shots first does not automaticaly mean getting kills in BVR. The AIM 120D may have a ~100NM range but its the same old motor, therefore the only extra energy its getting to reach out to that distance is from gravity. I dont like its chances of a kill at any where near that range. It's only good chance would be within the NEZ, and given the speed and acceleration of AL41F equpied Flankers, it would probably be around the 30-40NM mark. And the F35 NEEDS to get first desent shots, and long range BVR kills becaus it is such a poor performer in allmorst every other aspect of A2A apart from radar performance and LO. And i would imagine that the closer the range the less accurate the track information genrated by the IRST would need to be, due to the less distance needed to be travelled by the missile before its seeker aquires the target, which is stated by russian sources at about ~11NM, which is consistent with the R74. So things would get pretty dicey for the F35 in the 20-30NM range considering its shorfalls in performance and payload, it doesent have heaps of missiles to play with. The F35 sits right in the middle of the performance range the original flanker was designed to kill, and advanced variants are a whole lot more capable, so it needs LONG range BVR kills. I dont think it's anywere near as clean cut as "flankers die".
Now if we get some really accurate IRST's (ok probably heaps more accurate than anything the russians have on the books) and you get multiple sensors on a single platform then things get better. However the IRST's would have to be accurate enough to determine the difference in bearing from a 1-3m separation not 10-30m or 50-100m. If this could be done then a single Flanker could track a single F35 and engage it while its ESM pots other bearings of emmisions, however this is undeveloped technology, and you would assume that the IR signature of the F35 would have been reduced by the time such technology was implemented.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Hang on. The optimal distance between the semsors may be equal tothe range to target, however as long as a difference in bearing can be detemined between the sensors accurate range can be determined. The calculations are no different. As long as the accuracy of the bearings is sufficient, and sufficient difference can be determined between them, 10m separation should easily be able to determine an accurate range of up to 30km.
It's the exact same principle as an optical range finder. With a difference of a few meters in ships an evel less on tanks, they were able to detemine range well into the 10's of k's that were accurate enough for gunnery over the same range. However in this system the optical sensor is not a mirror and is much much more sensitive to differences in bearing, and the separation between them is also much larger. However by your above post your implying that because the distance between the mirrors on the optical range finder was not 10km, it could not accuratly determine range at 10km. Interesting.... Seems they must not have used indirect fire in naval battles at all before radio range finding. Oh and these shells guide themselvs to the target for the last 1/4 of their flight, so theres a nice little margin of error there too.
Also theres something i forgot before, since this nice little dicussion is alive again, and considering how nicely it ended last time.
Would triangulation even be sessesary??? BVR missile shots may travell on a somewhat balistic trajectory, but if you knew the round about best range performance for your IRST, would it not be feasable to just guestimate that range and launch on the barining. The range shouldnt be any longer than that number, so chances are the target will be somewhere below the missile on its flight path. Its seeker would have a wide field of view you would think considering the IR seekers out there at the moment, and stated aquisition range is somewhere in the ~10-11NM range. It would see the target below it, due to its somewhat shorter range than antisipated, and could just make a steeper terminal dive than anticipated. 10Nm isn't exactly sudden, even 6NM isnt. How high would a 30-40NM BVR missile shot have to climb to reach that range??? What would the angle of its desent be at about the 20-30NM range??? Why isnt this feasible/usefull???
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
AD you keep missing the point on this argument. The F35 will have an IRST. But why would it need one with a desent datalink and the APG 81?????????
The crutial point of all of these discussions, SH v Flanker and F35 v Flanker, is whether the sensor/SA lead on the SH/F35 will counter their large difficiencies in performance compared to the Flanker..... THAT is the question my dear Watson.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
You keep stating that the Flanker however has some sort of sensor advantage over the SH and F-35. Hence my outlining of the sensor capabilites. Whatihis sensor advantage may be exactly you don't explain...
Vague statements about ESM cued passive IR BVR missile shots is all we seem to be getting yet you fail to mention the superiority of the USA in these very areas...
As to it's supposed performance deficiency compared to the Flanker variants, I simply don't see that either...
The charts of available TWR show the F-35 AND the F/A-18E/F as rather superior.
Theoretical future enhancements show the Flanker improving I agree, but ignorie similar thrust enhancements for the SH and the increased thrust that F-135 is ACTUALLY producing for the F-35...
The arguments are then that these US designed improvements are riskier than the Russian ones... :roll2
Seeing as though we seem to need a platform v platform argument for our air power "debate" rather than what a FORCE can achieve, here are some stats which have some bearing on the issue...
Weight: ~12.7 tons (F-35A) vs ~17.7 tons (SU-30)
Internal Fuel: ~8.4 tons (F-35A; configuration 240-4.7) vs ~9.4 tons (SU-30; max. overload w/modifications)
Fuel Fraction: ~0.40 (F-35A) vs ~0.35 (SU-30MK)
Wing Area: 42.7 sq-m (F-35A) vs 62 sq-m (SU-30)
Engine type: 1 x P&W F135-PW-100 (F-35A) vs 2 x Saturn AL-31FL (SU-30MK)
Engine bypass: 0.57:1 (F-35A) vs 0.59:1 (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (A/B): 19.5 tons (F-35A) vs 24.9 tons (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (Dry): 12.7 tons (F-35A) vs 15.3 tons (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (A/B w/50% fuel): 1.15:1 (F-35A) vs 1.11:1 (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (Dry w/50% fuel): 0.75:1 (F-35A) vs 0.68:1 (SU-30MK)
Radar: 700mm class AESA (F-35A) vs 1000mm class MSA or PESA (SU-30MK)
RCS: ~0.0014 sq-m (F-35A) vs ~10 sq-m (SU-30MK)
You keep repeating the same things.. You clearly show you have no idea what you are talking about. Even the gripen has better performance? Do you even know how fast the F-35 will fly? The goal with the F-35 is to exceed mach 1 without afterburners.
The only information i can provide on the Gripen is that it can cruise at Mach 1.05 with only a pair of missiles. It wont even be able to reach half the distance of the F-35 so again no one will buy the Gripen unless as a short ranged interceptor. Put its maximum external fuel onto the Gripens wings and it will struggle to reach even Mach 0.8. This speed has already been proven in the F-35.
For either Rafale and Eurofighter both of these aircraft need to carry their maximum external fuel to reach the range of the F-35 on internal fuel only. With maximum external fuel neither the Eurofighter or Rafale can only cruise at subsonic speeds. The F-35 then has the performance edge over the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen.
WOW The F-35 has a Mach 1.6 speed limit!!!! When is the last time an F-15 or F-14 has reached Mach 1.6 in combat?? Top speed it irrelevant cruising speed is what is important.
The F-35 is not limited to Mach 1.6 because its un-aerodynamic or it lacks thrust. The F-35 is limited to that speed because of its fixed inlets, fixed inlets are required for stealth purposes. BKNO, your lack of knowledge amazes me, you should stop reading facts off goggle. A fixed inlet can only be designed for a certain speed range say between Mach 0.8-1.2, this then gives the optimum amount of air at the correct speed into the engine. The inlet is designed to suit the speed at which the aircraft will operate in most of the time. There is no point putting a fixed inlet designed for Mach 2 when the aircraft will never be used at this speed. Such an inlet would actually reduce engine performance and increase drag at subsonic speed.
In F-14 and F-15's they used variable inlets they allow optimum amount of air at subsonic and high supersonic speeds. These inlets weigh alot and increase the radar cross section of the aircraft. The amount of research done has shown that these aircraft never hit Mach 2, and in real life they usually travel at subsonic speeds with the occasional low supersonic sprint. The US has decided that having a fixed inlet can suit 99% of the mission requirements.
Of course for people like BKNO who look on goggle and compare max speed and thrust to weight ratios will think the F-35 definitely has low performance :lol2
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Show me one single time that i stated that the Flanker enjoyed a sensor lead over the F35 or SH that wasn't a typo. The fact that you sujested i did means you havent grasped any of points i have been makeing over my last 20 posts in this thread. I dont know if i could outline it any clearer than i did in my last post.
You are again missing the point. The fact that the US has a superior IRST is not relevent to the crutial point of the argument. F35 allready HAS a sensor lead. The F35 doesent need to use its superior IRST because it can use its radar, so its superiority is IRRELEVENT. Thats why i didnt mention it. The point is that the F35 will be compleatly relying on LO and its sensor lead to overcome its rather large deficiencies when facing ADVANCED flanker variants i.e. not ones in squadron service. The IRST/R77P/R27P gives the Flanker the ability to engage the F35 in BVR combat. THAT is the point!!!!
What about top speed, payload, subsonic, trans-sonic and supersonic manuever? or wing loading, wing sweep, thrust vectoring, alpha manuver capability? And thats an SU30 right, like the ones flying right now.
What fuftre thrust developments for the SH? 8000lb increase in total thrust? It needed it, its a worse kinetic performer that A/B/C/D variants which isn't saying much. It was allways underpowered. And your little statistics are omiting actual performance. Top speed on the F35 is M1.5., 1.6 on the SH, compared to true Mach 2+ performance on the SU30. And T/W doesent take drag into account. And before you start talking about external fuel, the F35 pay a PERMINANT drag penalty. AL41F IS being intergrated to the SUXX, its not just an idea. Work IS being conducted on it. It IS in LRIP. Just like much of the F35 programe.
I find it curious that you will freely compare current variants of the flanker to an aircraft under development in the F35, but any mention of future (and IMO just as likely to see squadron service in a similar timeframe) variants of the flanker you label irrelevant because they are still under development.
AL41F IS in LRIP, whether you like to achnowlage that or not.
Umm..... Where did this come from?????
I'll repeat myself:
What about top speed, payload, subsonic, trans-sonic and supersonic manuever? or wing loading, wing sweep, thrust vectoring, alpha manuver capability?
All i can see from your statistics is that the F35 has a higher T/W ratio, a higher internal fuel fraction, and (heres a suprise) a sensor and RCS lead.
Public top speed for the SU 30K is Mach 2.35, compared to M1.5 on the F35. Public internal payload is 4 AAM's on the F35 (you could argue 6 but it would still probably mean 4 AMRAAM's and 2 ASRAAMS/X's) compared to 10 on the flanker. The wing loading is much better on the flanker, it enjoys lots of body lift. Its ability to generate angles of attack is better due to canards and thrust vectoring. 2D TV also grants the Flanker much higher roll rates in subsonic manuver, it also gives the flanker more efficient supersonic manuver. In short, CURRENT falnker i.e. SU 30 holds the kinetic and airodynamic advantage. This is going to be singnificantly exaserbated by the flankers the F35 is actually likely to face in the 2015-2020 timeframe.
Last edited:
Seems to be a lot of rather ridiculous discussion here on air combat. The idea that you can judge comparative air combat capability by a one on one boxing ring type scenario is childish. Would fighter pilots even takeoff if they didn’t have ELINT, INT, JORN, HALE, JOC, AEW&C, ACO, C4ISR, EA, CSAR, IFR, etc all in the game as well? This is like playing chess with only one rook versus one bishop: fun for about five seconds then pointless.
Sure the F-35 and F/A-18E/F don’t have the kinematic performance of a low fuel Su-27 or F-22A. But do they need it? Victory in the face of apparent performance shortfalls is what lead Col. Boyd to develop the OODA loop, the only decent contribution to the theory of war made by an air power theorist.
Warfare is all about decision making. Weapons and the F-35 is a weapon that just happens to use the air to get from X to Y to Z are all about helping the warrior striking first and strike hard. You do that and you win. Ask all those dead Me 262 and MiG 15 pilots if you don’t believe me.
Fire Mission AGRA!
AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm
Sure the F-35 and F/A-18E/F don’t have the kinematic performance of a low fuel Su-27 or F-22A. But do they need it? Victory in the face of apparent performance shortfalls is what lead Col. Boyd to develop the OODA loop, the only decent contribution to the theory of war made by an air power theorist.
Warfare is all about decision making. Weapons and the F-35 is a weapon that just happens to use the air to get from X to Y to Z are all about helping the warrior striking first and strike hard. You do that and you win. Ask all those dead Me 262 and MiG 15 pilots if you don’t believe me.
Fire Mission AGRA!
AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm
Heah Ozzy Blizzard do you permission to use this graphic? It’s quite clearly the work of Dr Carlo Kopp and I'm sure he would appreciate people asking before they use his graphics if not paying for it or even better just linking through to his webpage.
I know I'm only new to the DT forum – long time listener, first time caller – but there are people who say what they say and do what they do to draw a paycheque and piracy is theft, except of higher paid rockstars, they deserve it.
Fire Mission AGRA!
AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm