F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Aussie Digger]

Hi, just a quick question. I know that stealth planes like the F-35 and the F-22 turn off radars to avoid detection. However, don't they still need active communication with GPS satellites to ascertain their own locations? Could that signal be detected or even targeted by anti-radiation missiles?

GPS satellites are the ones doing the transmitting. The F-35 is receiving that signal. That signal can indeed be intercepted (otherwise GPS wouldn't work) but firing an anti-radiation missile wouldn't do much good towards the F-35 unless IT is transmitting.

F-35 and F-22 also operate what is know as LPI (low probability of intercept) radars. They are not impossible to intercept, it's just very unlikely and by the time you probably do, you will more than likely have a weapon from them going terminal on you...

That is the main point of the low observability features of these aircraft and other platforms that are considered "stealth". It gives them a large advantage in detecting, tracking and engaging you, before you can do the same to them.

At least that is the idea. Still the score of weapons (air launched) successfully engaging when launched by stealth to weapons successfully engaging stealth is about 10,000 successful engagements FROM stealth against 1 AGAINST stealth.

Pretty good odds, huh?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

GPS satellites are the ones doing the transmitting. The F-35 is receiving that signal. That signal can indeed be intercepted (otherwise GPS wouldn't work) but firing an anti-radiation missile wouldn't do much good towards the F-35 unless IT is transmitting.

F-35 and F-22 also operate what is know as LPI (low probability of intercept) radars. They are not impossible to intercept, it's just very unlikely and by the time you probably do, you will more than likely have a weapon from them going terminal on you...

That is the main point of the low observability features of these aircraft and other platforms that are considered "stealth". It gives them a large advantage in detecting, tracking and engaging you, before you can do the same to them.

At least that is the idea. Still the score of weapons (air launched) successfully engaging when launched by stealth to weapons successfully engaging stealth is about 10,000 successful engagements FROM stealth against 1 AGAINST stealth.

Pretty good odds, huh?

The odds are just guess-timates. There have not been any A2A combat involving stealth aircraft and A2G strikes are ~ same odds of target hit.

Also, the pk rate is equally dependent on the missile which is similar whether for stealth or non-stealth aircraft.

If the aggressor can effectively jam all variants of AMRAAM and divert AIM-9X, then strike rate would equally be zero whether stealth or not. Its not that easy jamming AMRAAM or AIM-9X.

The point about active transmission eg voice, IFF, LPI etc is that it has to be continuous for anti-radiation missiles to work and not just transmitting. Considering the speed at which a fighter moves which is ~ 330 m/s at military speed (650 kts), the fighter would be miles away from the transmission location of a once off transmission rendering ARM generally unable to target using radiation sources.

What it (meaning the lack of EMCON) can do is reveal an aircraft position so that search radars can focus on finding it. A few miles of search area is not a lot from a radar pov.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The odds are just guess-timates. There have not been any A2A combat involving stealth aircraft and A2G strikes are ~ same odds of target hit.

There has been plenty of high level testing and exercising of stealth in air to air combat by USAF. The results are pretty horrendous for the non stealth aircraft. Being able to see and not be seen enables the unseen to establish the geometry of engagement. So they invariably chose a highly advantageous engagement resulting in victory.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

There has been plenty of high level testing and exercising of stealth in air to air combat by USAF. The results are pretty horrendous for the non stealth aircraft. Being able to see and not be seen enables the unseen to establish the geometry of engagement. So they invariably chose a highly advantageous engagement resulting in victory.

They did all kinds of testing that justified why a gun wasn't needed and yet ultimately, a gun still is. A 10,000 to 1 odds might be justified in a test environment with assumptions yet unknown. But in a real combat scenario, its not just stealth that will count in ensuring pk.

If I have an inventory of suks that is 10 times the number of stealth a/c deployed and I fly all of them to whack/suppress the airfields, its not going to be 10000 to 1 but more like 2-4 to 1 as there will be a/c that gets destroyed on the ground etc.

Otherwise US only needs 1 stealth a/c rather than 2,443 which can kill 2,443 x 10,000 aggressors which we know is not a realistic assumption to make as no one has that many fighters in the first place. Such odds are practically meaningless.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

They did all kinds of testing that justified why a gun wasn't needed and yet ultimately, a gun still is.

OK… So what does this have to do with stealth? Nothing. Please save baffle bullshit for some other audience.

A 10,000 to 1 odds might be justified in a test environment with assumptions yet unknown. But in a real combat scenario, its not just stealth that will count in ensuring pk.

What assumptions? I’m talking about actual in air simulation with everything replicated except the flaming ball of fire when a plane is shot down. There aren’t any assumptions. It’s the real deal short of crash and burn and the hosue visit from the Chaplin.

If I have an inventory of suks that is 10 times the number of stealth a/c deployed and I fly all of them to whack/suppress the airfields, its not going to be 10000 to 1 but more like 2-4 to 1 as there will be a/c that gets destroyed on the ground etc.

Even at high 10 on 1 ratios LO fighters are going to be able to dominate air to air combat. All sorts of loaded assumptions about scenarios aren’t helpful or very accurate. The effort to put together a 100 strong strike package means it will NEVER surprise any airfield for starters…

Otherwise US only needs 1 stealth a/c rather than 2,443 which can kill 2,443 x 10,000 aggressors which we know is not a realistic assumption to make as no one has that many fighters in the first place. Such odds are practically meaningless.

I don’t think anyone was suggesting that 10,000 to 1 was a ratio you could apply universally to the entire planet for all time. But wouldn’t an F-16 have a 10,000 to 1 Destroy/Loss ratio against a Spitfire? Maybe in the 10,001st engagement the Spitfire would get lucky and hose the F-16 with its Brownings. But in the other 10,000 the F-16 would shoot down the Spitfire.

Unfounded scepticism is really just ignorance masquerading as caution.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

No point arguing already set views.

If you can't understand the gun analogy, too bad.

You have absolutely no idea how air simulations are done and have assumed that there will never be any assumptions. Well, I beg to differ.

An F-16 doesn't claim to have a 10,000 to 1 air advantage over a spit. Ironically, if you'd understand air combat, you'd realise that the spit actually has an advantage over an F-16 in some flight profiles. And again, its a question of the assumptions made to achieve that result which can be something as simple as the F-16 having an unreliable radar etc.

You may erroneously think that the odds are actually 10,000 to 1 in favour of a stealth a/c and in your consistent "everyone else must be dumb" egoistic assumptions assume that these views are borne out of mere ignorance. I can only say I disagree and merely point out that continuous veiled insults doesn't exactly contribute to the forum.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If you can't understand the gun analogy, too bad.

Of course I understand it, I’m just pointing out that analogies are meaningless. Also you cut out some very vital points in your analogy. Such as the deletion of guns was because said fighters were primarily (or soley) concerned with interception of nuclear armed bombers.

You have absolutely no idea how air simulations are done and have assumed that there will never be any assumptions. Well, I beg to differ.

Well what assumptions? Come on list them? The assumption that an IR seeker Mk X has a 80% chance of scoring a kill in a certain flight angle based on testing to date? That’s more than an acceptable assumption to me. Rejecting the entire history of operational testing and evaluation to date and demanding combat results when they don’t exist is not going to generate any rational answers.

You seem to be implying that these assumptions are of an entirely different degree involving some kind of strategic scenario in which the LO fighter will always fight under a cloud of Su-27s. No problem as the testing includes disparate force ratios like 8 on 2 and so on.

An F-16 doesn't claim to have a 10,000 to 1 air advantage over a spit. Ironically, if you'd understand air combat, you'd realise that the spit actually has an advantage over an F-16 in some flight profiles. And again, its a question of the assumptions made to achieve that result which can be something as simple as the F-16 having an unreliable radar etc.

Well duah. I was using it as an illustrative example to try and explain the concept of odds and ratios which you were applying willy nilly. As to what ‘flight profile’ the Spitfire has over the F-16 please enlighten us? Ohh 500 feet and 150 knots. Well since the F-16 is only in this flight profile when landing or taking off it is hardly a realistic engagement geometry. Ohh that’s an evil assumption. Sorry but fleets of Spitfires circling over F-16 airfields is not a reasonable scenario to base one’s air power analysis on… And for anyone drawing analogies to 1945 Germany first ask yourself if zie Germans had F-16s would the Alies have ever gotten close enough to their air bases to close them down?

You may erroneously think that the odds are actually 10,000 to 1 in favour of a stealth a/c and in your consistent "everyone else must be dumb" egoistic assumptions assume that these views are borne out of mere ignorance. I can only say I disagree and merely point out that continuous veiled insults doesn't exactly contribute to the forum.

Well I never stated 10,000 to 1 but I’ve tried to counter a lot of the bold and simplistic statements you have made. I’m still waiting for one single argument that illustrates how stealth is not a near absolute advantage in air to air combat. Just one argument.

 

[Bonza]

Guys, can we please get away from the bickering?

Both of you, cut down on the accusations of ignorance, people don't respond well to it and never will. I don't care who started it, I'm stopping it. It's an interesting discussion and I'd like to see it continue but please, moderate your tone, you're both adults.

 

[Hoffy]

Otherwise US only needs 1 stealth a/c rather than 2,443 which can kill 2,443 x 10,000 aggressors which we know is not a realistic assumption to make as no one has that many fighters in the first place. Such odds are practically meaningless.

I think probably the sheer number of aircraft is also to do with the USAF being able to deal with various contingencies across the globe , at a local level should the need arise.
Rather than 1 stealth aircraft being availalable to service the entire world.
Sounds a bit silly I know.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The odds are just guess-timates. There have not been any A2A combat involving stealth aircraft and A2G strikes are ~ same odds of target hit.

Also, the pk rate is equally dependent on the missile which is similar whether for stealth or non-stealth aircraft.

If the aggressor can effectively jam all variants of AMRAAM and divert AIM-9X, then strike rate would equally be zero whether stealth or not. Its not that easy jamming AMRAAM or AIM-9X.

The point about active transmission eg voice, IFF, LPI etc is that it has to be continuous for anti-radiation missiles to work and not just transmitting. Considering the speed at which a fighter moves which is ~ 330 m/s at military speed (650 kts), the fighter would be miles away from the transmission location of a once off transmission rendering ARM generally unable to target using radiation sources.

What it (meaning the lack of EMCON) can do is reveal an aircraft position so that search radars can focus on finding it. A few miles of search area is not a lot from a radar pov.

Where in my last post, did I mention a SINGLE thing about air to air combat performance by stealth aircraft?

My point was obviously not clear enough. So here it is, stealth aircraft have conducted thousands of operational missions and launched tens of thousands of weapons successfully, the majority of which have been precision guided weapons, with a high success rate of striking their intended targets.

Only one weapon (maybe) has ever managed to successfully engage a stealth aircraft and that under extremely dubious circumstances.

If you want to compare ratios then the above mentioned success rate of missions BY the stealth aircraft as opposed to missions to defend AGAINST stealth aircraft is inarguable. The effectiveness of "stealth" has been proven repeatedly in REAL operational combat. It has proven far more successful than ANY defensive system ever employed against it.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Where in my last post, did I mention a SINGLE thing about air to air combat performance by stealth aircraft?

My point was obviously not clear enough. So here it is, stealth aircraft have conducted thousands of operational missions and launched tens of thousands of weapons successfully, the majority of which have been precision guided weapons, with a high success rate of striking their intended targets.

Only one weapon (maybe) has ever managed to successfully engage a stealth aircraft and that under extremely dubious circumstances.

If you want to compare ratios then the above mentioned success rate of missions BY the stealth aircraft as opposed to missions to defend AGAINST stealth aircraft is inarguable. The effectiveness of "stealth" has been proven repeatedly in REAL operational combat. It has proven far more successful than ANY defensive system ever employed against it.

It was the word "air launched" which it was not clear whether that referred to the other party. If it did, then it would be air combat.

If you're looking at purely a2g, then you're incorrectly attributing success entirely to stealth.

If an enemy has only SAMs/AAA capable of only reaching low altitudes and one uses mid-altitude bombing eg JDAMs, the engagements would similarly result in a high odds scenario regardless of whether the aircraft is stealth or not.

Stealth may broaden the safe flight envelop but it certainly doesn't make it high odds if one doesn't couple it with the correct tactics. Similarly, if the opposing party has better tactics and weapons, the corresponding balance reduces the odds.

 

[Aussie Digger]

It was the word "air launched" which it was not clear whether that referred to the other party. If it did, then it would be air combat.

Air launched is the term used for any weapon employed by an aircraft. Given we were discussing the F-117 I thought you might have been able to infer I was talking about air to ground weapons, given it never USED any other type operationally...

If you're looking at purely a2g, then you're incorrectly attributing success entirely to stealth.

If an enemy has only SAMs/AAA capable of only reaching low altitudes and one uses mid-altitude bombing eg JDAMs, the engagements would similarly result in a high odds scenario regardless of whether the aircraft is stealth or not.

Stealth may broaden the safe flight envelop but it certainly doesn't make it high odds if one doesn't couple it with the correct tactics. Similarly, if the opposing party has better tactics and weapons, the corresponding balance reduces the odds.

F-1117 never had JDAM nor any other guided weapon beyond laser guided weapons...

Everything you've said here is completely meaningless to what we were talking about and that is the operational history of LO aircraft versus defence systems.

LO aircraft have been overwhelmingly dominant and no amount of "what ifs" changes this.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Air launched is the term used for any weapon employed by an aircraft. Given we were discussing the F-117 I thought you might have been able to infer I was talking about air to ground weapons, given it never USED any other type operationally...

F-1117 never had JDAM nor any other guided weapon beyond laser guided weapons...

Everything you've said here is completely meaningless to what we were talking about and that is the operational history of LO aircraft versus defence systems.

LO aircraft have been overwhelmingly dominant and no amount of "what ifs" changes this.

There is no F-1117 but the F-117A did have JDAMS. It didn't fire JDAMs in desert storm because there weren't any JDAMs in 1991. JDAMs were developed as a result of desert storm and was integrated only in 1997. The JDAM was integrated on board the F-117A in 2004 and used in Iraqi freedom.

A JDAM fired from mid-altitude isn't going to put an aircraft in low altitide SAM harm's way regardless of stealth or not.

A LGB fired at low altitude got a stealth F-117A shot down.

The operational success of the F-117A in terms of operational A2G experience is not just credited to LO but tactical use.

What you fail to understand is that in desert storm, the F-117A only contributed to a very small % of actual A2G missions. In desert storm, the F111F, and B-52s didn't have a single aircraft shot down and averaged not only more sorties but tonnage dropped. Did they have stealth?

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf

One of the stated advantages of stealth technology is that it enhances survivability, and in Desert Storm, the stealthy F-117 was the only aircraft type to incur neither losses nor damage. However, these aircraft recorded fewer sorties than any other air-to-ground platform and flew exclusively at night and at medium altitudes—an operating environment in which the fewest casualties occurred among all types of aircraft.13 Moreover, given
the overall casualty rate of 1.7 per 1,000 strikes, the most probable number of losses for any aircraft, stealthy or conventional, flying the same number of missions as the F-117 would have been zero.

In fact, if one considered sortie rate of the F-16 to loss rates, it would be very close the the F-117A in both campaigns.

If I take your standard as a comparison, the F-15E is better than stealth because it did not lose a single one during kosovo ops as well. That would indeed be meaningless to accept.

Stealth provides a greater margin of safety but it does not make a fighter invulnerable esp with bad tactics, weapons etc. If you use a F-35 with unguided bombs at low level, stealth won't give it that much safety. If you use a F-15E with a JASSM-ER, it will have a safer flight profile than a F-117A penetrating hostile airspace.

If you think that is meaningless, then too bad.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is no F-1117 but the F-117A did have JDAMS.

Making an issue out of an obvious typo is not a worthwhile contribution…

It didn't fire JDAMs in desert storm because there weren't any JDAMs in 1991. JDAMs were developed as a result of desert storm and was integrated only in 1997. The JDAM was integrated on board the F-117A in 2004 and used in Iraqi freedom.

The concept of a GPS guided bomb was actually developed as part of the B-2 weapon system well before ODS.

The operational success of the F-117A in terms of operational A2G experience is not just credited to LO but tactical use.

What you fail to understand is that in desert storm, the F-117A only contributed to a very small % of actual A2G missions. In desert storm, the F111F, and B-52s didn't have a single aircraft shot down and averaged not only more sorties but tonnage dropped. Did they have stealth?

How do you know what he understands or not? Were you talking about this very issue? Nope. You’ve just made this discussion a personal attack.

Plus you are failing to take into account the nature of the missions. How many F-111F and B-52 missions were against highly defended targets? The threat level of a B-52 or F-111F dropping bombs on dispersed tanks in the Kuwaiti desert with only low level air defences is a lot lower than making attacks on national command facilieis in Baghdad against an un-degraded air defence system.

Any scientific analysis takes into account issues that make comparison meaningless. Like the comparative threat level. You are just focusing on gross numbers and ignoring the details.

I find it hard to see what you are trying to argue? On one hand you are saying stealth is good and on the other not needed? Of course stealth does not give one carte blanche to ignore combat tactics and the like. Who has ever argued otherwise? But stealth provides a considerable, undeniably benefit to any combat force. The shooting down of a single F-117A in controversial circumstances does not invalidate this.

 

[Grand Danois]

Check out this very good read on which includes F-117 vs F-16 missions during Desert Storm: Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume 2

Most of it covers this issue but pg. 240-369 highlights this particular one through the story of strike package Q. It begins like this:

>>The imponderable was whether the air attacks of the first two days had wrecked the Baghdad defensive system sufficiently to allow such packages of F-16s to fly within the capital's vicinity without suffer¬ing significant losses themselves or without placing the civilian popula-tion of the capital at needless hazard. Those two basic questions would not have answers until the first large package of F-16s actually flew against the capital. If the operational approach of using F-16s against large high-value targets in the capital did not work, then the planners faced the challenge of attempting to deconstruct these significant military and political targets that harbored the control apparatus of the regime with individual F-117 sorties. <<


and it ends with

>>The difficulties, however, into which Package Q ran, as well as the potential of inadvertent bomb release by aircraft under SAM attack, caused Horner and his planners to decide against sending any more F-16 packages against downtown Baghdad.<<

Btw, several B-52 got hit, they just didn't go down.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Making an issue out of an obvious typo is not a worthwhile contribution…

The concept of a GPS guided bomb was actually developed as part of the B-2 weapon system well before ODS.

How do you know what he understands or not? Were you talking about this very issue? Nope. You’ve just made this discussion a personal attack.

Plus you are failing to take into account the nature of the missions. How many F-111F and B-52 missions were against highly defended targets? The threat level of a B-52 or F-111F dropping bombs on dispersed tanks in the Kuwaiti desert with only low level air defences is a lot lower than making attacks on national command facilieis in Baghdad against an un-degraded air defence system.

Any scientific analysis takes into account issues that make comparison meaningless. Like the comparative threat level. You are just focusing on gross numbers and ignoring the details.

I find it hard to see what you are trying to argue? On one hand you are saying stealth is good and on the other not needed? Of course stealth does not give one carte blanche to ignore combat tactics and the like. Who has ever argued otherwise? But stealth provides a considerable, undeniably benefit to any combat force. The shooting down of a single F-117A in controversial circumstances does not invalidate this.

lol. The only person making this into a personal attack is you and as usual it degenerates into a "everything you say is dumb" sort of post.

For example, was there JDAM in desert storm? What relevance does it contribute that it was developed for the B-2 before desert storm?

The facts, which you will intentionally "don't understand" are, it was not operational in 1991. The F-117A thus could not fire it in 1991. And the point was to address AD's assertion that the F-117A never fired the JDAM, which you obviously can't read.

lol. I won't even bother to point out the obvious intentional misreadings on your part. All I am going to say is "pot kettle black".

As to what I've stated, if you can't understand it, too bad. The funny thing is you claimed it was simple just a few posts back. lol.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

lol. The only person making this into a personal attack is you and as usual it degenerates into a "everything you say is dumb" sort of post.

Nice to see you’re staying true to form and responding to any criticism with a mouth frothing personal attack.

For example, was there JDAM in desert storm? What relevance does it contribute that it was developed for the B-2 before desert storm?

The facts, which you will intentionally "don't understand" are, it was not operational in 1991. The F-117A thus could not fire it in 1991. And the point was to address AD's assertion that the F-117A never fired the JDAM, which you obviously can't read.

Sure it’s not so relevant when the concept was developed. But it does show you are wrong in your assertions. USAF knew before ODS that GPS would allow for bombs to be dropped accurately from higher altitude. The only thing ODS brought to the table was a desire to make this GPS guided bomb an add on kit to convert the Mk 80 dump rather than a purpose built weapon.

The key point here but is not to make baseless comparisons. The F-117, F-111 and B-52 did not suffer any hull losses in ODS. But that is not enough to draw the conclusion that anyone of those aircraft’s survivability measures is adequate or inadequate.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Nice to see you’re staying true to form and responding to any criticism with a mouth frothing personal attack.

Sure it’s not so relevant when the concept was developed. But it does show you are wrong in your assertions. USAF knew before ODS that GPS would allow for bombs to be dropped accurately from higher altitude. The only thing ODS brought to the table was a desire to make this GPS guided bomb an add on kit to convert the Mk 80 dump rather than a purpose built weapon.

The key point here but is not to make baseless comparisons. The F-117, F-111 and B-52 did not suffer any hull losses in ODS. But that is not enough to draw the conclusion that anyone of those aircraft’s survivability measures is adequate or inadequate.

Like I said, the above is totally irrelevant when talking about why the F-117 didn't fire the JDAM at desert storm. The JDAM wasn't operational and it is totally irrelevant whether they were developing it for the B-2 or that it was capable. There weren't any in 1991.

The F-117 couldn't fire it in 1991 cos it wasn't operational but it could in 2004 when they integrated it.

As to baseless comparisons, you missed the point. AD was making the point that the zero loss rate in ODS & 1 in Kosovo means stealth is fantastic for A2G. That is irrelevant as you have pointed out as so did the F-111F and B-52 which is the point I'm making as well as GAO in dismissing manufacturer's claims. It is inaccurate to utilise loss rates when even the GAO states so.

As to mouth frothing personal attack, I could never compare to your last private message. lol. I don't suffer from teenage rants. Have a nice day!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Like I said, the above is totally irrelevant when talking about why the F-117 didn't fire the JDAM at desert storm. The JDAM wasn't operational and it is totally irrelevant whether they were developing it for the B-2 or that it was capable. There weren't any in 1991.

Ahh no you were talking about why the F-117 shoot down in the Kosovo campaign wasn’t flying higher re the need to designate for LGBs requiring lower altitude flight.

As to baseless comparisons, you missed the point. AD was making the point that the zero loss rate in ODS & 1 in Kosovo means stealth is fantastic for A2G. That is irrelevant as you have pointed out as so did the F-111F and B-52 which is the point I'm making as well as GAO in dismissing manufacturer's claims. It is dumb to utilise loss rates when even the GAO states so.

LOL. I would imagine the zero loss rate of the F-117 in ODS, etc is a very good argument for the fantasticness of stealth in air to ground. Because it was in the face of some of the highest intensity air defences.

As to mouth frothing personal attack, I could never compare to your last private message. lol. I don't suffer from teenage rants. Have a nice day!

Ahh the only PM I ever sent to you was something like “You’re crazy, please don’t send me PMs” after you’d sent me a multi thousand word rant about whatever was frothing you up.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Ahh no you were talking about why the F-117 shoot down in the Kosovo campaign wasn’t flying higher re the need to designate for LGBs requiring lower altitude flight.

Wrong. Re-read the post.

LOL. I would imagine the zero loss rate of the F-117 in ODS, etc is a very good argument for the fantasticness of stealth in air to ground. Because it was in the face of some of the highest intensity air defences.

Wrong. Re-read the GAO report quote.

Ahh the only PM I ever sent to you was something like “You’re crazy, please don’t send me PMs” after you’d sent me a multi thousand word rant about whatever was frothing you up.

You and I obviously have a differing definition of rant. This is what I wrote.

Tot I address this privately with AD and GF as witnesses.

I think the process of putting false words into people's mouths should stop. This is not the first thread that you have done this.

No where in my post did I mention Tarin whatever, Uruzgan or even that 155mm should be replaced by the Himars.

I've only made 3 posts at #2070, #2077 and #2082 on the issue and no where did I mention the above. The mods can check.

I've been in the air force for 17 years. My brother was an artillery officer including commanding a SP mortar bn for almost as long. For you to claim your arty knowledge etc holds very little water to me. If you have not actually served in a Himars unit, can you claim to know everything about the Himars? lol. If you had actually served in a himars unit, you of all people would have known that a himars is never situated 70 km from FLOT. Again another cheeky misrepresentation.

I don't need to throw my service record at people just to gain pseudo credibility esp when the facts fail nor lie about what others wrote.

To address the issues you raised in the latest post, the MLRS may not be able to do ILLUM, SMK, WP or sustain HE fires but 120mm mortars can. And in some cases, SP mortars can do it more effectively than 155mms eg sustaining more accurate fire on contacts due to higher accuracy of non-guided rounds.

That is one of the reasons why the rusi.org article suggests a mortar/MLRS combo and what I have been consistently emphasising. If you can't get that through your thick skull, too bad. That's not my problem. But the incorrect assumptions you have been making regarding this specific point and attributing it to my posts have clouded your responses and misrepresented mine.

As to the CEP, that's to highlight your contention that 1 round is enough which I would say is only 50% correct. Its again to address the contention that the GMLRS has a higher pk than a 155mm excalibur round.

The DSCA link is primarily to highlight that the Excalibur isn't that cheap either compared to the GMLRS. I do not make any other representation beyond that but you appear to read more than what I've stated.

As to your post on GMLRS history, that is again an incorrect portrayal of its history. The round was first developed as a sub-munition. It was only later that the round was developed as a unitary warhead and LM provided with a contract to convert existing sub-munition rounds to GMLRS.

As to Himars being in Afghanistan, that is already a fact.

As to max speeds, you have again demonstrated inconsistency. Although Himars have different speeds along its flight path, so do 155mm rounds. By applying one without the other is not exactly consistent.

Whether the Mods choose to allow me to address the issues, I'd leave it to them. Its not my loss.

I've said what I've needed to state and I can live with your misrepresentations cos those are not my opinions.

As much as the feelings are mutual wrt stomaching dumb posts or even lies, I'll end this with Have a nice day!

As to your post, why not actually state what you stated...