Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5th gen fighters versus Ballistic missiles

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jessmo23
    Senior Member
    • Apr 2015
    • 572

    5th gen fighters versus Ballistic missiles

    Some here believe that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will revolutionize combat.
    What is the consensus here?
    Will long range missiles usher in a new era and make tactical fighters obsolete?
    Are bases and ships indefensible versus these weapons? Discuss.
  • hopsalot
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2012
    • 3166

    #2
    Originally posted by Jessmo23 View Post
    Some here believe that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will revolutionize combat.
    What is the consensus here?
    Will long range missiles usher in a new era and make tactical fighters obsolete?
    Are bases and ships indefensible versus these weapons? Discuss.
    Killer Whale versus a grizzly bear...

    Who wins?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	killerwhale.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	155.9 KB
ID:	3665264

    Click image for larger version

Name:	155289890.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	30.6 KB
ID:	3665265

    Comment

    • Jessmo23
      Senior Member
      • Apr 2015
      • 572

      #3
      The irony is that its not my thread Idea. Im tired of people jamming up the F-35 news thread with this nonsense.
      But ill but $100 on the grizzly.

      Comment

      • hopsalot
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2012
        • 3166

        #4
        Originally posted by Jessmo23 View Post
        The irony is that its not my thread Idea. Im tired of people jamming up the F-35 news thread with this nonsense.
        But ill but $100 on the grizzly.
        What if the fight happened in the ocean though?

        Comment

        • JSR
          JSR
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2011
          • 4982

          #5
          Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
          Ok, if you need me to explain why ship radar is superior than fighter radar then i think you really need to read some book about common sense
          the only difference is ship radar need to handle more targets since ship is more like static target so more threat of saturated attack than fighter. Fighter is more flexible it can move in and out of engagement zone at will. but make no mistake figher radars are getting advanced enough to deal with small rcs and long range strikes.
          what does that even mean? and who tell you ground based fighter are always bigger or carry bigger weapons?
          long runways bigger weopons.

          a ship have more space, do you understand how much bigger a destroyer compare to a bomber?
          that is space for fuel, food, living space. interms of strike power it is very less. R&D budgets of bomber and its missile are always more than a ship.
          you dont even understand that big negatives associated with Ships. modern warships can use few ports to upgrade and sustain. fighters can use austere fields.
          you can just use Google and load of articles come up
          https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=SC...obile&ie=UTF-8
          is there example of saturated attack.
          i already said from the start that destroy ballistic missile arenot the main job of fighter, neither does they tasked to do that
          The fact that Saudi buy PAC-3 doesn't mean they terrified of SCUD, it just mean they want to improve their military capabilities since they already bought load of fighters
          You have no understanding of operation decisive storm. Saudis are short of fighters and bombs. thats why they abondoned coalition against ISIS and asking help from just every other country with airpower. now they are spending money on PAC-3 in huge numbers and will practically run out of money for every thing else they need.

          so suddenly all version of SCUD is exactly the same now?
          there isnt any investment in scud to improve it against newer airdefense missile. its an abandoned product.

          you have no evidence to prove that there wasn't any saturated attack
          so show me example of saturated attack. like minimum 20 to 30 missiles fired at airbase.

          look at the different between platform launch parameters of KH-31 and KH-31PK
          and you will see why one have much longer range than other.
          it give you ballpark of export missile range. domestic missile will be more than that.
          more money doesn't mean you can bend physic.
          claim Brahmos out range similar subsonic cruise missile by 3-4 times is idiotic
          you know physics. how much is range of Kh-58 relative to its weight.
          http://www.janes.com/article/53889/m...iation-missile

          if you only fly at low altitude at final phase then you exposed yourself to enemy's radar from extremely long distance (didn't hide below radar horizon)
          they will shot your missiles down before it can even reach that phase
          first you have to know that missiles are launched. show me single example of Mach 3 missile shot down that has S curve and steep dive capability.
          No they dont, and in fact it likely that the wolfpack formation is a hoax more than anything, not even modern cruise missiles have that capabilities
          whats so hoax about it.

          Comment

          • mig-31bm
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Oct 2013
            • 2110

            #6
            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            the only difference is ship radar need to handle more targets since ship is more like static target so more threat of saturated attack than fighter. Fighter is more flexible it can move in and out of engagement zone at will. but make no mistake figher radars are getting advanced enough to deal with small rcs and long range strikes.
            iam really start to feed up with you now JSR
            feeling like you want to troll rather than discussing in a serious manner
            Does any point you mentioned explain why you think fighter radar is more powerful than ship radar ?
            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            long runways bigger weopons.
            F-18E/F is bigger than F-16 , around the same size with F-15
            Su-33 is bigger than Su-27 , mig-29
            Rafale-M is around the same size as Typhoon and both are bigger than Gripen
            and they use similar weapons
            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            that is space for fuel, food, living space. interms of strike power it is very less.
            here is the size difference between a ship and an aircraft

            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            R&D budgets of bomber and its missile are always more than a ship.
            you dont even understand that big negatives associated with Ships. modern warships can use few ports to upgrade and sustain. fighters can use austere fields.
            nonsense



            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            You have no understanding of operation decisive storm. Saudis are short of fighters and bombs. thats why they abondoned coalition against ISIS and asking help from just every other country with airpower. now they are spending money on PAC-3 in huge numbers and will practically run out of money for every thing else they need.
            No they dont
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force

            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            there isnt any investment in scud to improve it against newer airdefense missile. its an abandoned product.
            an abandon product that used by many country , sure

            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            is there example of saturated attack.
            so show me example of saturated attack. like minimum 20 to 30 missiles fired at airbase.
            how about you show me the evidence that they are only launched one by one ?
            and where do you get 30 supersonic bomber to launch Brahmos ?

            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            it give you ballpark of export missile range.
            OMFG , look at the launch speed to see why it reach higher range
            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            domestic missile will be more than that.
            You have no evidence for that
            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            you know physics. how much is range of Kh-58 relative to its weight.
            http://www.janes.com/article/53889/m...iation-missile
            Firstly : smaller missiles will have less drag than a big one
            Why dont you list the range of AIM-120 , AIM-54 and R-33 as well ?
            Secondly : look at the launch parameter :missiles range affected by launch altitude and launch speed as well
            http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/516/

            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            first you have to know that missiles are launched.
            there is something called Radar , and IRST
            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            show me single example of Mach 3 missile shot down that has S curve and steep dive capability.
            Google AQM-37 Jayhawk , MA-31 , GQM-163A , MQM-8 VANDAL and see for yourself what are their purpose
            Originally posted by JSR View Post
            whats so hoax about it.
            never been demonstrated , and would required very powerful self thinking AI
            Last edited by mig-31bm; 17th November 2015, 04:25.

            Comment

            • Robbiesmurf
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jul 2014
              • 587

              #7
              Originally posted by Jessmo23 View Post
              Some here believe that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will revolutionize combat.
              What is the consensus here?
              Will long range missiles usher in a new era and make tactical fighters obsolete?
              Are bases and ships indefensible versus these weapons? Discuss.
              That is not really new thinking.....
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper
              What is the point of the discussion?

              Comment

              • JSR
                JSR
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2011
                • 4982

                #8
                Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                iam really start to feed up with you now JSR
                feeling like you want to troll rather than discussing in a serious manner
                Does any point you mentioned explain why you think fighter radar is more powerful than ship radar ?
                did is say more powerfull in all parameters. Fighter radar can find ship from further distance than ship can find fighter. there are enough advancements in radar technolgy that now there are AESA radars on naval helicopters.
                F-18E/F is bigger than F-16 , around the same size with F-15
                F-16 payload is not less than F-18E despite USAF not investing in it on same scale as USN in F-18E. F-16 is not front priority for USAF otherwise you will be finding JSF engine inside F-16.
                Su-33 is bigger than Su-27 , mig-29
                It does not mean it can carry more and further. Su-30SM and SU-34 are much more capable.
                Rafale-M is around the same size as Typhoon and both are bigger than Gripen
                and they use similar weapons
                Sea Typhoon will be much bigger. Land Fighters does not to be too big to get same capability.
                here is the size difference between a ship and an aircraft
                where is the radar size.

                it is very small airforce for the tasks ahead. they still dont have all the EF and F-15SA not yet operational. they are critically short of fighters and bombs.

                how about you show me the evidence that they are only launched one by one ?
                there is no evidence to contrary. there is no saturated attack happen.
                and where do you get 30 supersonic bomber to launch Brahmos ?
                Brahmos will become universal missile so that it can be launched from Subs, Su-30, Ships etc. in next 5 to 10 years is era of missiles.the country having greater capabilty to built and deploy missiles will be deliver knock out punch. i just give brahmos example there other missiles that are coming online. the bottom line is for you too understand is that greater investments in missiles, giant AWACS, satellites and big jamming pods have more impact on futuristic wars than small stealth planes.

                OMFG , look at the launch speed to see why it reach higher range

                You have no evidence for that

                Firstly : smaller missiles will have less drag than a big one
                Why dont you list the range of AIM-120 , AIM-54 and R-33 as well ?
                Secondly : look at the launch parameter :missiles range affected by launch altitude and launch speed as well
                http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/516/
                look at it again for updated export version. look at weight and warhead size.
                http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/32...9f19016a6df530
                there is something called Radar , and IRST

                Google AQM-37 Jayhawk , MA-31 , GQM-163A , MQM-8 VANDAL and see for yourself what are their purpose

                never been demonstrated , and would required very powerful self thinking AI
                none of them have shown speed and curves of brahmos. they more comparable to older versions of kh-31. and certainly not saturated attack with wolfpack.

                Comment

                • Al.
                  Al.
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Nov 2008
                  • 1005

                  #9
                  Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                  Killer Whale versus a grizzly bear...

                  Who wins?

                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]241995[/ATTACH]

                  [ATTACH=CONFIG]241996[/ATTACH]
                  There's is non conclusive evidence of orcas preying on polar bears (feel free to find a quote which supports your personal preference from t'internet) and polar bears are kings of the ursids. So I'd back orca vs grizzly

                  If and when ballistic missiles can be given live targeting information and the ability to adapt to changing battle space their insane kinetic energy advantage might make warplanes redundant. I'd have a hard time getting excited about an mirv in the same way I do looking at an F15 though.
                  Last edited by Al.; 17th November 2015, 18:55.
                  Rule zero: don't be on fire

                  Comment

                  • mig-31bm
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Oct 2013
                    • 2110

                    #10
                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    did i say more powerfull in all parameters.
                    No , but you said this BS nonsense :
                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    what ship weight has to do radar. Airplane radar has always the advantage of range. thats why tiny fighter radar has range as large as ground based radars.
                    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...ake-two/page66

                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    Fighter radar can find ship from further distance than ship can find fighter.
                    That depending on fighters's RCS , something like SPY-1 can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 150 km , they will detect your AWACs , supersonic bomber as soon as they pop up from the horizon

                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    there are enough advancements in radar technolgy that now there are AESA radars on naval helicopters.
                    irrelevance

                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    F-16 payload is not less than F-18E
                    yeah sure


                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    F-16 is not front priority for USAF otherwise you will be finding JSF engine inside F-16.
                    You should do research on engine diameter of the F-135 on F-35 vs F-100/F-110 series on F-16
                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    It does not mean it can carry more and further.
                    Most of the time it does
                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    Sea Typhoon will be much bigger.
                    We dont have sea Typhonn
                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    Land Fighters does not to be too big to get same capability.
                    depending on what capability you talking about

                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    where is the radar size.



                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    it is very small airforce for the tasks ahead. they still dont have all the EF and F-15SA not yet operational. they are critically short of fighters and bombs.
                    Saudi airforce is bigger than most countries , especially if you consider number of the modern fighter.

                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    there is no evidence to contrary. there is no saturated attack happen.
                    There is no evidence that the others side ony launch Scud one by one either, so your point is again irrelevance

                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    Brahmos will become universal missile so that it can be launched from Subs, Su-30, Ships etc.
                    Most cruise missiles can be carried across all sort of platform

                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    in next 5 to 10 years is era of missiles.the country having greater capabilty to built and deploy missiles will be deliver knock out punch. i just give brahmos example there other missiles that are coming online.
                    What does this even mean ????
                    Ship , aircraft , SAM , ....etc all need missiles to attack , it is part of their weapon system so obviously it important

                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    the bottom line is for you too understand is that greater investments in missiles, giant AWACS, satellites and big jamming pods have more impact on futuristic wars than small stealth planes.
                    advance on missiles , satellite , jamming pod will benefit stealth aircraft more than they benefit a massive AWACs
                    and as you can see , most countries only have a handful number of AWACs




                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    look at it again for updated export version. look at weight and warhead size.
                    http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/32...9f19016a6df530
                    Maximum flight range with maximum aircraft speed
                    and please stop with the BS about e how exported have haft the range and speed of domestic version






                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    none of them have shown speed and curves of brahmos. they more comparable to older versions of kh-31.
                    Actually they have better speed and agility feat than Brahmos
                    Some of the latest AQM-37Cs have further improved heat insulation, and can also be used to simulate ballistic missile threats, being able to fly ballistic trajectories to an altitude of 100 km (330000 ft) terminal speeds of Mach 5
                    In the terminal approach phase, the GQM-163A will fly at Mach 2.5 at 5 m (16 ft) altitude
                    U.S. Navy GQM-163A "Coyote" Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target missile program. Aerojet developed the world's first variable flow ducted rocket ramjet and is the only company currently flight testing high speed missile propulsion for future U.S. military needs. The successful flight was the third in a series intended to validate the operation of the ramjet engine and target vehicle. Aerojet is responsible for the development and production of the ramjet engine that powers the Coyote missile during the extended high-speed cruise phase. The 108-second flight at Mach 2.5, the equivalent of traveling from Los Angeles to San Diego in under four minutes, included pre-programmed aggressive weaving maneuvers, dives, and climbs that provided valuable engine operating data









                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    certainly not saturated attack
                    Again this is your opinion and you dont have evidence to support it
                    Btw ,SPY-1 can tracks 100 targets at the same times









                    Originally posted by JSR View Post
                    wolfpack.
                    Do you actually understand what wolfpack mean and what is the purpose of it ?
                    Last edited by mig-31bm; 17th November 2015, 13:29.

                    Comment

                    • BarnesW
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2015
                      • 503

                      #11
                      What about space based weapons vs ballistic and cruise missiles. Project Thor, Project Excalibur, Golden Eye (yep James Bond movie, but it's perfectly feasible as Starfish Prime demonstrated).

                      Comment

                      • stealthflanker
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Sep 2015
                        • 1027

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Jessmo23 View Post
                        Some here believe that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will revolutionize combat.
                        What is the consensus here?
                        Will long range missiles usher in a new era and make tactical fighters obsolete?
                        Are bases and ships indefensible versus these weapons? Discuss.
                        I don't see any consensus...

                        tactical fighter obsolete ? Well missiles been around for ages.. and still fighter plane exist.

                        Indefensible.. well no, modern SAM has been demonstrated capable to engage both type of threat.

                        -----
                        I don't really see the point of "Black and white" type discussion here.. bashing fighter jets or missiles... They're all pointless.

                        The one that can be discussed is perhaps "When to use Ballistic missile" or "When to use fighters" ?

                        and i got one good source :

                        http://www.armscontrol.ru/course/articles/primer.pdf

                        The conclusion from that source :
                        From cost perspective ballistic missile etc will be effective if the aircraft attrition rate is high. Otherwise there would be other factors

                        Nonetheless it doesn't mention cruise missile though.

                        Comment

                        • obligatory
                          Senior Member
                          • Oct 2008
                          • 7043

                          #13
                          spot on, if AD is strong: -BM/CM
                          for cost effectiveness: -bombtruck with un-powered bombs
                          to really drive down cost: -UAV bombtruck, tho it has been proven sensors cant discriminate between an umbrella vs AK-47

                          Comment

                          • Jessmo23
                            Senior Member
                            • Apr 2015
                            • 572

                            #14
                            Originally posted by stealthflanker View Post
                            I don't see any consensus...


                            tactical fighter obsolete ? Well missiles been around for ages.. and still fighter plane exist.

                            Indefensible.. well no, modern SAM has been demonstrated capable to engage both type of threat.

                            -----
                            I don't really see the point of "Black and white" type discussion here.. bashing fighter jets or missiles... They're all pointless.

                            The one that can be discussed is perhaps "When to use Ballistic missile" or "When to use fighters" ?

                            and i got one good source :

                            http://www.armscontrol.ru/course/articles/primer.pdf

                            The conclusion from that source :
                            From cost perspective ballistic missile etc will be effective if the aircraft attrition rate is high. Otherwise there would be other factors

                            Nonetheless it doesn't mention cruise missile though.
                            Exactly the China stronq crowd doesn't realize our ballistic missile concerns are self imposed. A few space based pac-3 sized interceptors + some conventional Tridents would end all of this talk quickly.

                            Comment

                            • JSR
                              JSR
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Aug 2011
                              • 4982

                              #15
                              Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                              No , but you said this BS nonsense :

                              http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...ake-two/page66
                              i only said that outrange in realistic condition is not possilbe for ships as satellites can find ships general locations but they cant locate aircraft once its airborne.

                              That depending on fighters's RCS , something like SPY-1 can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 150 km , they will detect your AWACs , supersonic bomber as soon as they pop up from the horizon
                              AWACS and Fighter only need to barely pop from horizon. they will already know the directions to look for ships from satellites. Modern ships does not stay to far from cargo ships and ports for extended period of time.
                              detect does not mean track and intercept. show me intercept of low rcs cruise missile at distance not close encounter.

                              yeah sure
                              You should do research on engine diameter of the F-135 on F-35 vs F-100/F-110 series on F-16

                              Most of the time it does
                              I already know those charts. there is huge diffference between specifications and operational load.
                              Do you even understand what i am writing. F-16E is far superior product than F-18E for strike. It has wingtip AIM-120 and CFT capability already in built in it along with modern IRST/Falcon edge EW. F-18E is low speed/external fuel tanks depended fighter. if 600 F-16E order is given to LM in 1990s. i am pretty sure this amount of investments will create even more superior product than 600 F-18E orders. It all depend on amount of investment. Land based fighters are always superior. thats why the best investment is Su-34 for strike as its large cockpit allows pilots to stretch legs and bigger internal fuel allow it to be refuelled from further distance from battlefield. it is called multiplier effect of larger plane.



                              [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ueRgv7bZnDY/T_VfhLoFVII/AAAAAAAAO8I/yjnRcGQRaRY/s1600/Lockheed_Martin_Prepares_Australia's_First_Aegis_W eapon_System_For_Post
                              I will put gigantic radar on mountain top with 1500MW nuclear reactor power supply. i am sure it will be superior by your logic. you dont even understand that Naval power projection is very labor intensive from building/maintianing/training crew on Ships. It needs 10X personal required than Airpower or large missile force. Now with longer life span the health and pension costs ballons. on top of that if 1000 fighters instead of 100 fighters are ordered the price per fighter aircraft will go down alot compared to ordering 10 ships instead of 1. as ship building is much slower process. ordering more does not mean price will drop instead it can increase. Fighter/missile factory you can build anywhere in a country but ship building have few choices.


                              Saudi airforce is bigger than most countries , especially if you consider number of the modern fighter.
                              Saudi airforce is not big enough for the task assigned to it. infact by overspending on airdefence there army, navy and airforce are operationally the smallest relative to area to defend. they cant even trust USN presence in Persian gulf as missiles can right pass the small number of Ageis ships there. Every country is now overspending on air defence in Persian gulf. this limit there ability to carry out offensive operations. as those sophisticated air defence systems will need alot of train crew, maintaince people, electric supply.

                              There is no evidence that the others side ony launch Scud one by one either, so your point is again irrelevance
                              they are all launched one or two at most. certainly no evidence of 10 to 20 on single target.
                              Most cruise missiles can be carried across all sort of platform
                              show me the most example. like land attack version for army on trucks. you will always forget that real battle is on the ground.



                              advance on missiles , satellite , jamming pod will benefit stealth aircraft more than they benefit a massive AWACs
                              and as you can see , most countries only have a handful number of AWACs
                              stealth aircraft are small in size and have less weopon flexibility. they are practically unupgradable. see F-22 example.
                              Most countries does not have realistic idea of modern warfare. see how many different types of AWACS China introduced. IL-476 based AWACS top priority for Ruaf.


                              and please stop with the BS about e how exported have haft the range and speed of domestic version
                              domestic versions are not inhibbited by MTCR.




                              Again this is your opinion and you dont have evidence to support it
                              Btw ,SPY-1 can tracks 100 targets at the same times
                              can it engage small antiship/anti radiation missiles at distance greater than 5 or 10 km. if you cant engage those missiles at long distance it means the rest of ships in fleet are vulnerable to sinking unless you built too many airdefence ships.
                              Ships are very depended on re suppply. and ports.

                              Do you actually understand what wolfpack mean and what is the purpose of it ?
                              yes

                              Comment

                              • mig-31bm
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Oct 2013
                                • 2110

                                #16
                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                i only said that outrange in realistic condition is not possilbe for ships as satellites can find ships general locations but they cant locate aircraft once its airborne.AWACS and Fighter only need to barely pop from horizon. they will already know the directions to look for ships from satellites
                                most delicated destroyer have their radar cover 360 degree around them
                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                . Modern ships does not stay to far from cargo ships and ports for extended period of time.
                                ship can stay at sea for couple of month , most aircraft cannot leave airbase for more than few hours
                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                detect does not mean track and intercept.
                                same for all radar
                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                show me intercept of low rcs cruise missile at distance not close encounter.
                                neither Brahmos , supersonic bomber or AWACs have low RCS like a stealth cruise missiles or aircraft

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                I already know those charts. there is huge diffference between specifications and operational load.
                                Do you even understand what i am writing. F-16E is far superior product than F-18E for strike. It has wingtip AIM-120 and CFT capability already in built in it
                                along with modern IRST/Falcon edge EW. F-18E is low speed/external fuel tanks depended fighter.
                                You can claim that F-16E superior acceleration , speed compared to F-18E , but to say it have super strike capability is complete nonsense
                                You should do research on the size difference between the 2
                                btw , F-18E also have jammer and now it have IRST as well

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                if 600 F-16E order is given to LM in 1990s. i am pretty sure this amount of investments will create even more superior product than 600 F-18E orders. It all depend on amount of investment.
                                Nonsense speculation
                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                Land based fighters are always superior
                                No, if it the same kind of fighter then the naval version will have to suffer in performance parameter such as speed , acceleration compare to the airforce version
                                however , difference countries use various kind of fighters .
                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                . thats why the best investment is Su-34 for strike as its large cockpit allows pilots to stretch legs and bigger internal fuel allow it to be refuelled from further distance from battlefield. it is called multiplier effect of larger plane.
                                and why wouldnt F-111 or F-15E be better than Su-34 ?


                                Originally posted by JSR View Post

                                I will put gigantic radar on mountain top with 1500MW nuclear reactor power supply. i am sure it will be superior by your logic.
                                yes it will
                                something like this for example superior to all fighters , ship and AWACs radar

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                you dont even understand that Naval power projection is very labor intensive from building/maintianing/training crew on Ships. It needs 10X personal required than Airpower or large missile force. Now with longer life span the health and pension costs ballons. on top of that if 1000 fighters instead of 100 fighters are ordered the price per fighter aircraft will go down alot compared to ordering 10 ships instead of 1. as ship building is much slower process. ordering more does not mean price will drop instead it can increase. Fighter/missile factory you can build anywhere in a country but ship building have few choices.
                                This isnt relevance to the fact that the sheer size of a ship mean it much easier to put a massive jammer or radar on it


                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                Saudi airforce is not big enough for the task assigned to it. infact by overspending on airdefence there army, navy and airforce are operationally the smallest relative to area to defend. they cant even trust USN presence in Persian gulf as missiles can right pass the small number of Ageis ships there. Every country is now overspending on air defence in Persian gulf. this limit there ability to carry out offensive operations. as those sophisticated air defence systems will need alot of train crew, maintaince people, electric supply.
                                These are all your opinion that really isnt backed up by any statistic at all.

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                they are all launched one or two at most. certainly no evidence of 10 to 20 on single target.
                                So provide evidence for that claim then ?
                                if you are 100% sure they only launched 1-2 missiles at a times then it would be easy for you to provide evidence for your claim

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                show me the most example. like land attack version for army on trucks.
                                Tomahawk

                                NSM , JSM

                                RBS-15

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                you will always forget that real battle is on the ground
                                depending on what kind of battle you talking about


                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                stealth aircraft are small in size and have less weopon flexibility.
                                their low RCS make jamming alot more effective , and they can get relative close to target to launch missiles thus they dont required long range weapon and carry high number of short range missiles instead , they are less vulnerable to counter attack compared to an AWACs
                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                they are practically unupgradable. see F-22 example.
                                who tell you F-22 isnot upgradeable ?

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                Most countries does not have realistic idea of modern warfare.
                                And you do ?
                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                see how many different types of AWACS China introduced. IL-476 based AWACS top priority for Ruaf.
                                You should google and see for how many AWACS Russia actually have

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                domestic versions are not inhibbited by MTCR.
                                And ? does that mean Brahmos can suddenly break the law of physic to reach 1000 km range ? ( or 3000-4000 km if you actually believe that it can out range subsonic cruise missiles by 3 -4 times )
                                the answer is no

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                can it engage small antiship/anti radiation missiles at distance greater than 5 or 10 km. if you cant engage those missiles at long distance it means the rest of ships in fleet are vulnerable to sinking unless you built too many airdefence ships.
                                yes it can , since SPY-1 can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 150 km , and your supersonic missiles , bomber have RCS far larger than that

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                Ships are very depended on re suppply. and ports.
                                same for everything else from tank to AWACs to fighter , even submarine need re supply of foods

                                Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                yes
                                explain why you think it make it harder for SAM to shot down antiship missiles in terminal phase then

                                Comment

                                • JSR
                                  JSR
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2011
                                  • 4982

                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                                  most delicated destroyer have their radar cover 360 degree around them
                                  Range is limited to 300 to 400km max.
                                  ship can stay at sea for couple of month , most aircraft cannot leave airbase for more than few hours
                                  only stay if resupplied or port visits.

                                  neither Brahmos , supersonic bomber or AWACs have low RCS like a stealth cruise missiles or aircraft
                                  stealth dont matter. radar powerfull enough to detect it. see MIG-31 hitting cruise missile. its only matter off distance intercept. its very difficult to intercept cruise and billistic missile at distance.
                                  http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-mig-31...rcises-1941748
                                  The cruise missile was destroyed at an altitude of 300 meters above the ground from a distance of 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) from the target,”
                                  You can claim that F-16E superior acceleration , speed compared to F-18E , but to say it have super strike capability is complete nonsense
                                  You should do research on the size difference between the 2
                                  btw , F-18E also have jammer and now it have IRST as well
                                  it seem you have no understanding of operational fighters. unless F-18E is able to be fitted with CFT and wing tip self defense capability. it will be lessor of fighter.

                                  Nonsense speculation

                                  No, if it the same kind of fighter then the naval version will have to suffer in performance parameter such as speed , acceleration compare to the airforce version
                                  however , difference countries use various kind of fighters .
                                  Its range, load carrying capacity, airframe life etc.
                                  and why wouldnt F-111 or F-15E be better than Su-34 ?
                                  F-111 to obsolete. Su-34 has that wide cockpit, big hump and long tail. no need for external tanks.


                                  yes it will
                                  something like this for example superior to all fighters , ship and AWACs radar
                                  [/IMG]
                                  it is not at top of the mountain. read this why it is located at such height for joint system.
                                  http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia...capacity-2695/

                                  This isnt relevance to the fact that the sheer size of a ship mean it much easier to put a massive jammer or radar on it
                                  you can use group action by sending 10 fighters and bombers with jamming pods fully updated. Ship simply cant be updated fast.


                                  So provide evidence for that claim then ?
                                  if you are 100% sure they only launched 1-2 missiles at a times then it would be easy for you to provide evidence for your claim
                                  there is no evidence of saturated attacks anywhere.



                                  depending on what kind of battle you talking about
                                  Is tomhawk has antiship role as Bation System based on Onyx. can tomhawk be integrated with fighter aircraft.


                                  their low RCS make jamming alot more effective , and they can get relative close to target to launch missiles thus they dont required long range weapon and carry high number of short range missiles instead , they are less vulnerable to counter attack compared to an AWACs
                                  it is not low RCS but high power supply of engines and ability to carry heavier external jammers that make it more effective. there is not place for single engine fighter in 21st century battles. See Saudi airforce all twin engine fighters.
                                  who tell you F-22 isnot upgradeable ?
                                  why it hasnt been upgraded. i doubt there is new engine upgrade in development.


                                  You should google and see for how many AWACS Russia actually have
                                  its sufficient for single theatre war. show me any country that can afford two theatre war simulataneously.


                                  And ? does that mean Brahmos can suddenly break the law of physic to reach 1000 km range ? ( or 3000-4000 km if you actually believe that it can out range subsonic cruise missiles by 3 -4 times )
                                  the answer is no
                                  your physics knowledge maybe much less than those who built Brahmos. and they restrict they the range of Brahmos to 300km due to MTCR.

                                  yes it can , since SPY-1 can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 150 km , and your supersonic missiles , bomber have RCS far larger than that
                                  it does not matter. it can only intercept at few kms. it cannot intercept cruise missiles that will right pass through it at distance.
                                  you need AWACS to see overhorizon. See the AESA upgrades to helicopter and E-2D.
                                  same for everything else from tank to AWACs to fighter , even submarine need re supply of foods
                                  They are supplied on land bases where food grow and energy and water is available. not standing in middle of ocean and receiving blows and blows of missiles.

                                  explain why you think it make it harder for SAM to shot down antiship missiles in terminal phase then
                                  They may intercept few at very short distance. You simply not understanding the meaning of word distance. the purpose of cruise missile is not the ship but hitting the ports which supply the ship to make it ineffective. thats the reason that all Persian gulf countries are over investing in airdefence due to short range of intercept. ships cannot protect there vast airports, weopon depots, water filtration/thermal plants in vast deserts. every installation needs airdefence missile coverage nearby.
                                  when you invest so much in airdefense there is much less money left for any thing else.

                                  Comment

                                  • Vnomad
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2011
                                    • 2859

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                                    iam really start to feed up with you now JSR
                                    feeling like you want to troll rather than discussing in a serious manner


                                    In other news, Lionel Messi enjoys a bit of football and Joe Satriani's pretty nifty with a guitar.

                                    Comment

                                    • obligatory
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Oct 2008
                                      • 7043

                                      #19
                                      it may well be that nations that doesnt wage war on a regular basis is better off financially by using a combo of missiles for offense,
                                      and a fighter force just big enough for air policing, and perhaps the recreational muslim bombing

                                      Comment

                                      • mig-31bm
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Oct 2013
                                        • 2110

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        Range is limited to 300 to 400km max.
                                        BS nonsense ,range depending on target altitude




                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        only stay if resupplied or port visits.
                                        and how long can fighters , bombers , AWACs can stay on air exactly ?
                                        you think submarine dont need to resuppy with food ?





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        stealth dont matter. radar powerfull enough to detect it.
                                        the problem is the distance that your radar can detect a stealth target , especially with jamming and clutter
                                        if stealth doesnt matter then USA , Korea , Japan ,Canada , Australia , Netheland , Russia , China , ..etc wouldnt try to make stealth fighter , UAV , missiles





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        see MIG-31 hitting cruise missile..
                                        what so special about it ?




                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        its very difficult to intercept cruise and billistic missile at distance.
                                        SM-3 intercept a satellite at 160 miles aways ( FYI , since satellite can stay in orbit , they move much faster than your Brahmos and Scud )





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        it seem you have no understanding of operational fighters. unless F-18E is able to be fitted with CFT and wing tip self defense capability. it will be lessor of fighter.
                                        nonsense
                                        you should look up the range of F-18E vs F-16
                                        in term of air to air missiles load , here is what a F-18C can carry

                                        F-18E is even better






                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        Its range, load carrying capacity, airframe life etc.
                                        it depending on exact kind of fighter in question
                                        for example : F-18E have far better weapon load , range than the one like F-16 , Gripen , Mig-29




                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        F-111 to obsolete. Su-34 has that wide cockpit, big hump and long tail. no need for external tanks.
                                        well F-111 have big cockpit too , it even have a weapon bay
                                        and it can fly further than Su-34 , so obviously it is superior if we follow your logic



                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        it is not at top of the mountain. read this why it is located at such height for joint system.
                                        http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia...capacity-2695/
                                        so now you compare a radar system to a optical system ?
                                        and what make the Russian system superior again ?





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        you can use group action by sending 10 fighters and bombers with jamming pods fully updated. Ship simply cant be updated fast.
                                        bomber , fighter cannot really be upgraded fast either , and their have size and power constrain much more than a ship





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        there is no evidence of saturated attacks anywhere.
                                        But you have no evidence that the only launch 1 missiles at a time either , so what your point ?





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        Is tomhawk has antiship role as Bation System based on Onyx. can tomhawk be integrated with fighter aircraft.
                                        actually there was a version of tomahawk that can be used by aircraft , and there was anti ship version too , however they was canceled
                                        NSM , JSM , RBS-15 , AGM-84 , Exocet , LRASM ..etc all can attack ship and can be carried by aircraft
                                        anyway Onyx cant be carry by fighter either







                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        it is not low RCS but high power supply of engines and ability to carry heavier external jammers that make it more effective.

                                        jamming power required will decrease in the same rate as RCS reduction
                                        take example of 4 aircraft :
                                        1) B-52 : RCS = 100 m2
                                        2) Mig-31 : RCS = 10 m2
                                        3) Mig-35 : RCS = 1 m2
                                        4) F-35 : RCS = 0.001 m2
                                        now compared them :
                                        from B-52 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.999% =>99.999% less power require
                                        from Mig-31 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.99%=>99.99% less power require
                                        from Mig-35 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.9% =>99.9% less power require
                                        so again a very powerful enemy radar : if F-35 need 5 kW jammer to shield it's radar reflection with noise signals then Mig-35 will need a 5 MW jammer , Mig-31 will need 50 MW jammer , B-52 will required 500 MW jammer , you can argue that bigger aircraft can carry more powerful jammer but remember even the SPY-1 only have power of 5 MW





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        there is not place for single engine fighter in 21st century battles. See Saudi airforce all twin engine fighters.
                                        many country have single engine fighter , such as F-16E , Gripen , F-35 ..etc





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        why it hasnt been upgraded.
                                        Unnecessary , budget spend on aircraft that need upgrade more than F-22





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        i doubt there is new engine upgrade in development.
                                        look at upgrade program for F-35






                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        its sufficient for single theatre war.
                                        BS nonsense again
                                        so if any other countries have low number of aircraft then it is not sufficient
                                        but when it come to Russia it always enough ?





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        your physics knowledge maybe much less than those who built Brahmos.
                                        True but Iam sure i have more knowledge about physic than you





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        and they restrict they the range of Brahmos to 300km due to MTCR.
                                        nonsense assessment without any offical source or physical evidence to back up





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        it does not matter. it can only intercept at few kms. it cannot intercept cruise missiles that will right pass through it at distance.
                                        THAAD , SM-2 , SM-6 , PAC-2 ..etc intercept missiles from long distance all the time , learn to use google






                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        you need AWACS to see overhorizon. See the AESA upgrades to helicopter and E-2D.
                                        AWACs does not see over radar horizon
                                        i really doubt that you understand what is radar horizon or what caused it
                                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon






                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        They are supplied on land bases where food grow and energy and water is available. not standing in middle of ocean and receiving blows and blows of missiles.
                                        As if ground base never been attacked





                                        Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                        They may intercept few at very short distance. You simply not understanding the meaning of word distance.
                                        you have provide no evidence to show that they can only intercept missiles at really short distance
                                        in fact THAAD , SM-2 , SM-3 intercept missiles at extreme distance all the time
                                        Last edited by mig-31bm; 18th November 2015, 17:15.

                                        Comment

                                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                        Collapse

                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X