Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 70 FirstFirst 1234567891555 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 2098

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,521
    Smaller munitions (SDB's) and an ARM are in the pipeline and we will know more on the timelines this April/May when the Block 4 is expected to get JROC approval. All F-35 customers, including Italy (that is an AGM-88E customer) and Australia could probably procure the AARGM-ER once it is ready. The USAF could also move a new missile program into its PB18 budget request (should know more by the summer to early fall). It's been 2 years since the T3 trials concluded , and a few months ago the ACC boss publicly said that they will aim to fit in a requirement shortly.

    Personally, I would wan't them to take the SDB HOG-J ( targeted towards GPS jammers) being pursued for broader anti-RF applications. That has more potential alongside the option to carry 2 ARM's. That to me offers better flexibility against broader threats..With a 2x range increase over the AARGM, you could network the ARM in from Growlers or other aircraft behind but the ability to toss several SDB's towards radiating emitters is going to be highly important to both the F-35 and F-22.

    http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...eapons-ew.html
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th February 2017 at 01:41.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Seriously, the more you try to demonstrate me the feasibility of the concept, the more I'm happy about the decision of my own air force to keep the Tornado ECR...

    If, it launch you say? By in the time the first bomb has made two kilometers a SAM would have just emptied all its canisters...
    Your scenario assumes the SAM can launch all its missiles while undergoing a coordinated electronic attack from four F-35s. Good luck with that.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    I would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
    F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it's limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
    It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
    Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
    It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.

    Let's add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple
    SDB II , JSM , SPEAR all have 2 way data link. Which mean they can be re route in flight. Even when not emitting the location of SAM can be updated by SAR/GMTI mode of APG-81 and EOTS. This is particularly easy if their initial location has been discovered once they transmit. The sensors on those missiles/bomb such as IIR , MMW radar , SAL are all useful against moving target too
    The released speed from F-35 can be expected to be around Mach 0.8 or 980 km/h, the crusing speed of those bombs/missiles can be expected to be higher than that due to gravity, but for the moment let take the 980 km/h value. If those bombs/missiles are released from 80 km. It would take them approximately 80/980*60 = 4.89 minutes to reach destination
    AFAIK, it take around 15-30 minutes for those long range double digit SAMto be set up, take off, so bombs will reach target before they have time to go
    How about mobile SAM like 9K330 Tor ?.Let say the SAM truck can move at speed of 50 km/h, in 4.89 minutes they still only move about 4km from initial location , simply not enough to out run the bombs
    Last edited by garryA; 6th February 2017 at 02:51.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    as for a pantsir plinking down glide bombs, yes, if they can nail a mach 4 harm or a maneuvering fighter,
    or grenade shells, they better be able to plink down glide bombs
    Yes , but how many at a time ?
    Modern cruise missiles can be programmed to approach target from multiple direction, due to their very smal size their RCS isn't so big either


    Then there are development for something like this


    Short range but very small and can be carried by big amount, very suitable for stealth aircraft
    Last edited by garryA; 6th February 2017 at 03:01.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    How about mobile SAM like 9K330 Tor ?.Let say the SAM truck can move at speed of 50 km/h, in 4.89 minutes they still only move about 4km from initial location , simply not enough to out run the bombs
    Probably less reaction time than that given the Tor is unlikely to know it is being directly targeted until the weapon is a lot closer.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    Probably less reaction time than that given the Tor is unlikely to know it is being directly targeted until the weapon is a lot closer.
    Yes i know, but i was trying to make a point so i simplified it to ease calculation. It very unlikely that the SAM truck will be able to move at 50 km/h constantly

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    SDB II , JSM , SPEAR all have 2 way data link. Which mean they can be re route in flight. Even when not emitting the location of SAM can be updated by SAR/GMTI mode of APG-81 and EOTS. This is particularly easy if their initial location has been discovered once they transmit. The sensors on those missiles/bomb such as IIR , MMW radar , SAL are all useful against moving target too
    The released speed from F-35 can be expected to be around Mach 0.8 or 980 km/h, the crusing speed of those bombs/missiles can be expected to be higher than that due to gravity, but for the moment let take the 980 km/h value.
    nah...a glide bomb like SDB goes around half the speed of a powered subsonic speed missile,
    or can be higher depending on descending rate,
    i think you should focus on powered missiles for any kind of SAM suppression,
    unless you switch to cheap UAV swarming attacks,
    but even then, having them carry a supersonic/hypersonic missile vastly improve penetration probability,
    and the number can be reduced accordingly

    i think you should read up on GAO summery of desert storm,
    the cruise missiles had so rotten accuracy so the entire text was censored out
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...f-Desert-Storm
    Last edited by obligatory; 6th February 2017 at 04:32.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,190
    Desert Storm was 25 years ago. Many of the lessons have resulted in new technologies being incorporated to fix the shortfall of TERCOM aided dead reckoning navigation employed by ALCMs of that era. Today's missiles use an IR terminal seeker and GPS-aided navigation to improve accuracy. To use a 25 year old report to prove new tech will not work is an act of desperation.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    609
    I didn't get it. Why should the system, which main purpose is to engage and shoot down PGM's - just run from them?!

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    nah...a glide bomb like SDB goes around half the speed of a powered subsonic speed missile,
    or can be higher depending on descending rate
    JSM , SPEAR both have engine
    Anyways , even if SDB II move at Mach 0.6 only, it doesnot change my point that much.
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    i think you should read up on GAO summery of desert storm,
    the cruise missiles had so rotten accuracy so the entire text was censored out
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...f-Desert-Storm
    AFAIK, SAM and AA cannon have rotten accuracy too, Ex: in Vietnam war , SAM accuracy was something like 3%

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    A dual role CUDA could be a good idea too to saturate radar defenses. 8 missiles onboard. Wishfull thinking at this point for sure.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    JSM , SPEAR both have engine
    Anyways , even if SDB II move at Mach 0.6 only, it doesnot change my point that much.

    AFAIK, SAM and AA cannon have rotten accuracy too, Ex: in Vietnam war , SAM accuracy was something like 3%
    You are keeping to put into equation systems that are actually still in development and compare it against system like Sa-2...

    Comparison were between system actually existing and in operational use.
    In any case the system that you cites are also them missiles , at this point it would take much less time and effort to integrate existing ARM missiles on the F-35.

    Neither my point is changed, we are discussing there about F-35 used like an escort for 4gen strike pack, so before the two bombs from the first F-35 (because they would be in different places in the case given, not in a single pack launching them all together) came halfway, half the escorted ones have received their own present.

    I would stick to the post of Bring on it this time, it seems me the most equilibrate of all...

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    Your scenario assumes the SAM can launch all its missiles while undergoing a coordinated electronic attack from four F-35s. Good luck with that.
    And have you an idea of the jammers, concealment measures (chaffs, flares and IR resistant smoke generators) and the Shorad/Ciws systems that any russian battery of modern medium to long range SAM carry with them just by default?

    You would need much more than luck to engage them with weapons that would take between five and ten minutes to reach them.

    Now, I declare here myself to completely agree with the above mentioned, realistic and unbiased, post of Bring_on_it and let the rest to the one that are just interested in a zero sum male reproductive organ measurement contest and so expect all of you, respected and serious debaters as all of you are, to do the same.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    You are keeping to put into equation systems that are actually still in development and compare it against system like Sa-2...

    Comparison were between system actually existing and in operational use.
    Desert storm is over 27 years ago, various systems that were used in desert storm either been heavily upgraded or will not be used in future. If you want to judge the capabilities of future cruise missiles from Desert storm statistics, then it would only be fair to judge capabilities of SAM through previous conflicts.



    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Neither my point is changed, we are discussing there about F-35 used like an escort for 4gen strike pack, so before the two bombs from the first F-35 (because they would be in different places in the case given, not in a single pack launching them all together) came halfway, half the escorted ones have received their own present.
    If F-35 working as escort for 4th gen, it would either work as a stand in support jamming assets or a SEAD/DEAD assets that fly much closer to the threat compared to the strike formation.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    Desert storm is over 27 years ago, various systems that were used in desert storm either been heavily upgraded or will not be used in future. If you want to judge the capabilities of future cruise missiles from Desert storm statistics, then it would only be fair to judge capabilities of SAM through previous conflicts.




    If F-35 working as escort for 4th gen, it would either work as a stand in support jamming assets or a SEAD/DEAD assets that fly much closer to the threat compared to the strike formation.
    Desert storm statistic? I? What? Who?Where? When? Why?

    About the second leg of your post, again: we were talking about highly mobile pop up systems, not SA-2 like system you know the position days in advance.
    If you put the SEAD/DEAD escort forward they would strike in the rear, if you put them all around they would concentrate them on just a side to overload it.

    In any case, for those missions, Growlers/Tornado ECR all the time!

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,737
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Wouldn't the jet attacking ground targets use a sniper pod to verify or at least ID the target.
    Cause as you say, just flipping HARM's away, what happens if the targets go dark again.. what can guide the Harm then and where?
    That might have worked against the AGM-45 Shrike.. Current ARMs have a built-in GPS module and inertial navigation unit with laser gyro that allows it to accurately pinpoint the location of the radar emitter and hit it even if the radar has been turned off in the meantime.. Allegedly the systems are accurate enough to achieve a purely kinetic kill against a non-emitting target..

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,521
    The AARGM has a built in GPS/INS, terminal millimeter wave seeker in addition to anti radiation homing. This for both strike against no emmitters and to counter shutdown tactics. The ER version will retain this. The USAF has upgraded some of its HARM inventory to include the HARM Control Section Modifications that add GPS/INS as well.

    At the moment, the USN has the AARGM at rate production. That procurement (modification) program will finish in 2023 when the last of the 2475 missile POR is delivered. AARGM-ER is scheduled to complete development in 2021 upon which time the contractor is to deliver LRIP missiles for developmental testing. It is assumed that they'll enter into rate production for the ER variant in 2023 when the AARGM contract delivers on its missile modifications.

    The USN has AARGM-ER integration with the F-35C as a threshold capability for that weapon system, so by default, the USAF will get access to an integrated ARM if they wish to acquire it. They have their own wish list and there was some talk about looking at an ARM in the recently concluded AS2030 study. Whatever the case may be there will be an option available and there will be missiles in the inventory. Same goes for most partners and FMS customers. The only roadblock is going to be the long list of US and international weapons that need to be integrated. While that may impact integration timeline but it is still a good problem to have as it gives options going forward. Orbital ATK describes the AARGM-ER as a strike weapon and will likely market it as such even for those that do not necessarily wan;t an ARM. It could be the only F-35 compatible supersonic strike missile for a long time until the Hypersonic weapons are delivered years down the road. Even the standard AARGM is currently slated for F-35 C External integration although the Navy could well skip it in favor of the ER.

    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th February 2017 at 13:18.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    933
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Desert storm statistic? I? What? Who?Where? When? Why?
    it was obligatory but alright

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    About the second leg of your post, again: we were talking about highly mobile pop up systems, not SA-2 like system you know the position days in advance.
    If you put the SEAD/DEAD escort forward they would strike in the rear, if you put them all around they would concentrate them on just a side to overload it.

    In any case, for those missions, Growlers/Tornado ECR all the time!
    Even the most mobile pop up SAM are still ground assets. Their speed/mobility is no where comparable to an airplane. In other words, they have to get in their location before the strike platforms come. Once the strike mission starts, let say if stealth aircraft are in the front, non stealth in the back. Your mobile SAM cannot move behind the aircraft formation to flank them.Moreover, once discovered the SAM battery have to fight back, they can't out run a missile or bomb.
    In terms of tactical flexibility, aircraft really take the cake here
    Last edited by garryA; 6th February 2017 at 10:24.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    US will have reverse engineered the S-400? Are you sure you are ok, Mercurius?
    Given that US engineers successfully reverse-engineered the S-75 (SA-2) during the 1960s, is it reasonable to think that for some reason the US DoD would have decided not to repeat this process on subsequent Soviet/Russian SAMs?

    When I say 'reverse engineered'. I am not implying that the resulting hardware was a 'Fan Song' look-alike - the US system was installed in a building, the antennas were located under a radome, and the entire system was heavily instrumented in order to provide data for analysis during trials in which it was pitted against US jammers. So I would not expect an S-400 'copy' to look anything like the hardware it is mimicking. Much of the simulation would probably be done digitally rather than in hardware. And that is all that I feel comfortable saying in an open forum.

    While the US built its SA-2 equivalent based on the limited information available from intelligence reports and elint, it would be in a much better position when mimicking the S-400. Despite what JSR says, the S-400 is heavily based on the S-300. For example, despite claims in the Russian press that the 'Grave Stone' radar of the S-400 is an AESA, in practice it retains the PESA configuration of the older hardware from the S-300, but probably using more modern phase-shifter technology (and that information comes from someone who has seen the S-400 radar).
    Last edited by Mercurius; 6th February 2017 at 13:02.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    You write as if it is as easy to reverse-engineer a modern system as one from the 1960s.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,337
    I made no suggestion that the task of emulating or a modern SAM system is an easy one, but given that all modern missile programmes include within their overall cost the task of creating computer modelling of the weapon that is accurate enough to be used as a substitute for a major portion of traditional flight testing, creating such a model is obviously a task that can be done that can be done for a fraction of the cost of creating the hardware.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    Given that US engineers successfully reverse-engineered the S-75 (SA-2) during the 1960s, is it reasonable to think that for some reason the US DoD would have decided not to repeat this process on subsequent Soviet/Russian SAMs?
    As long as they have also managed to reverse engineer the SA-3, SA-6, SA-10, SA-12, SA-15 or SA-20 in the meantime, then sure, they are already working on the S-350E and SA-21.. oh wait.. have they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    When I say 'reverse engineered'. I am not implying that the resulting hardware was a 'Fan Song' look-alike - the US system was installed in a building, the antennas were located under a radome, and the entire system was heavily instrumented in order to provide data for analysis during trials in which it was pitted against US jammers. So I would not expect an S-400 'copy' to look anything like the hardware it is mimicking. Much of the simulation would probably be done digitally rather than in hardware. And that is all that I feel comfortable saying in an open forum.
    That is not reverse-engineering, that is simply emulation..

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,337
    NATO has hardware able to reproduce the transmitted signals and operational behaviour of most of these systems, but in most cases I have no specific information on our ability to reproduce the relevant receive behaviour. I am aware of several projects involving detailed reproduction of threat systems, but none of this information has been released into the public domain.

    To my mind, the terms one uses for the all-software or combined hardware/software mimicking of an threat system is largely a matter of semantics. I would use 'emulation' or 'simulation' in the case of a threat system whose hardware details are known (for example via purloined system documentation), but 'reverse engineering' in cases where information from elint and other intel is being used to deduce how the system was engineered by its Russian creators.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by garryA View Post
    it was obligatory but alright


    Even the most mobile pop up SAM are still ground assets. Their speed/mobility is no where comparable to an airplane. In other words, they have to get in their location before the strike platforms come. Once the strike mission starts, let say if stealth aircraft are in the front, non stealth in the back. Your mobile SAM cannot move behind the aircraft formation to flank them.Moreover, once discovered the SAM battery have to fight back, they can't out run a missile or bomb.
    In terms of tactical flexibility, aircraft really take the cake here
    Post like this make me seriously worry about the sort of mental images that people have about the how war is conducted.

    It seems me that you have still this decades old idea of SAM system like something that have to be in the open before the attack so to allow the attacking aircraft to organize themselves in order to attack them in a timely, ordinate and fashionably manners.
    Do you have an idea about what "pop up" mean?
    It's almost from the end of the first gulf war but for what SU/Russia is concerned almost from the eighties, that the AD system are organized to stay mostly covered and deploy only after the enemy attack is begun so to be able to engage them at the moment they seem best to inflict damages.

    Attack formation would not so know from what direction and in what moment the SAM systems would enter battle, the only system that would operate continuosly would be some very long range AEW radar systems like the NEBO, situated hundreds of kilometers inside enemy territory (P.S.and a lot of passive systems also) while also very long range system like S-400 and S-300 V would start hidden and pop up during the attack.
    Now, we have had the proof of how a similar tactics work with even updates versions of of missiles from the sixties, let's imagine with actual systems developed ab initio with this tactics in mind

    So, excuse me, don't just get angry with me but reading back what you, in all intellectual honesty i'm sure, have written is for certain verses even funny.
    That idea of a SAM system that not only sit happily in the open waiting for the enemy to organize itself into the best manner to bomb it but that once the attack starts try to manoeuvre to outflank the enemy aircraft is just soo absurd...
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 6th February 2017 at 18:12.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,438
    While there are pop-up type SAMS, the oft touted "anti-stealth" type systems are very large, not very mobile, etc.

    If the target is thought to be protected by these kinds of systems, there will be an active campaign to track their locations for target prioritization.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Post like this make me seriously worry about the sort of mental images that people have about the how war is conducted.

    It seems me that you have still this decades old idea of SAM system like something that have to be in the open before the attack so to allow the attacking aircraft to organize themselves in order to attack them in a timely, ordinate and fashionably manners.
    Do you have an idea about what "pop up" mean?
    It's almost from the end of the first gulf war but for what SU/Russia is concerned almost from the eighties, that the AD system are organized to stay mostly covered and deploy only after the enemy attack is begun so to be able to engage them at the moment they seem best to inflict damages.

    Attack formation would not so know from what direction and in what moment the SAM systems would enter battle, the only system that would operate continuosly would be some very long range AEW radar systems like the NEBO, situated hundreds of kilometers inside enemy territory (P.S.and a lot of passive systems also) while also very long range system like S-400 and S-300 V would start hidden and pop up during the attack.
    Now, we have had the proof of how a similar tactics work with even updates versions of of missiles from the sixties, let's imagine with actual systems developed ab initio with this tactics in mind

    So, excuse me, don't just get angry with me but reading back what you, in all intellectual honesty i'm sure, have written is for certain verses even funny.
    That idea of a SAM system that not only sit happily in the open waiting for the enemy to organize itself into the best manner to bomb it but that once the attack starts try to manoeuvre to outflank the enemy aircraft is just soo absurd...
    Wouldn't a Tor M2 or Pantsir system be able to counter a gliding bomb if they were say, embeded in a BUK or S-350 polk?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmzQZ2GrDjw
    Thanks

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    While there are pop-up type SAMS, the oft touted "anti-stealth" type systems are very large, not very mobile, etc.

    If the target is thought to be protected by these kinds of systems, there will be an active campaign to track their locations for target prioritization.
    They are those long Range AEW Radars I was talking about and yes, they are probably the most vulnerable part of all the actual system. On the other hands there are hundreds of them, legacy ones that was recently renovated, and a lot of new ones were developed just to forego those limitations.
    So, it's a work on progress from both parts and it would be IMHO difficult both for the attackers and the defenders, so everyone involved have to do a lot of homework and not sit on their respective achievements, no matter how remarkable they seems at first.

    Now, let allow me to call myself out of this whole discussion as I fear that keeping it on would end up to make me and all other persons involved much more chauvinistic and biased that they actually are, just for polemical spirit.
    Discussion and actually the whole thread seems me until now quite equilibrate and serious so better not overdue some argument to exhaustion and reduce ourself into a trollfest as the precedent thread sometimes ended up.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Wouldn't a Tor M2 or Pantsir system be able to counter a gliding bomb if they were say, embeded in a BUK or S-350 polk?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmzQZ2GrDjw
    Not just on AD polks but on every level of russian ground units you would found a quantity of embedded AD system without any counterpart in Western Armies.
    I'm actually reading something about the battle formations of actual russian army and I'm actually appalled of how much different is the relative proportion between their relatively meagre basic arm formations and their own absolutely oversized embedded fire&support (both artillery than AA). systems.

    As for now, the weapon you cited are the ground equivalents if not the same of the Shorad/Ciws system you would found on VMF ships and like them are specifically designed to engage incoming weapons more than to try to nail planes at 35000 yards (assault helos are instead a target of choice).
    On this, they have also great advantage about their naval counterparts, as the units they are defending can scatter and anyway absorbing a level of damage before losing their own operational capacity much superior that any ship can.

    Now, IMHO such systems for how they are conceived couldn't hope on an easier target of a gliding or even toss up bomb coming from tens on kilometer distance and high quote like the ones described above.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 6th February 2017 at 20:15.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,438
    Gee.. I wonder if this is why they came up with MALD-J
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,521
    Love it how these scenarios almost always tend to have the US/NATO et al trying to penetrate Russian air-space and bomb targets deep within it.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th February 2017 at 20:23.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 5 guests)

  1. moon_light,
  2. SolarWarden

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES