Jump to content

Rysi

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rysi

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. Impossible unless the F/A-22 was equipped with fully 3D TVC (which it's not). Not that it really matters, IMO 2D is sufficient for most combat situations at this time. Undoubtedly the design will differ from the diagram shown, but all information points to a fighter that will be at least between MiG-29 and Su-27 size, and I'm betting more towards the latter especially now that MiG has stated that they are working on a fifth-generation MiG-29 sized fighter. They can afford the current upgrades to the Flanker fleet, as well the new Su-32s, Mi-28s, etc. so I see no reason for why
  2. Note that I did not say anything on the system's operational status. The TacOps officer clearly had no idea that the system "was not working properly" (which was the claim by the Bahrain tech guys). How the system was "not working properly" and yet appeared to function normally for the crew is a curiosity. As always with these things, you can believe whatever you want (either that there really was a problem with the system or that this was just used as an excuse for the failure of the system in intercepting the missiles). As for Brindel's demotion (or whatever it was, I can't remember), the US
  3. Irrelevant. It was facing a pair of dated subsonic ASMs fired by an obvious threat that was tracked and identified by both the OHP and an AWACs --- a situation well within the alleged capabilities of the OHP’s defensive systems. Furthermore, statements made by the TacOps officer clearly indicated that the Phalanx system was readied against the potent threat. Anyway, the point is that the claim that a Tico could deal with 50 supersonic sea-skimmers simultaneously is not rational. Even discounting the previous failures against small numbers of massively inferior ASMs, as well as the extreme d
  4. Just like an OHP should have no problem intercepting (not to mention detecting) a pair of incoming Exocets :biggrin:
  5. Yeah, now that I look at it again I can see that the Mirage could actually be a good option as well. And while it might be more expensive right now, its operating costs will certainly be far lower than that of the Su-27 so that could balance things out in the long term. Still, like a lot of other fighter deals I think the final choice will probably depend most on politics over anything else. Thanks for the AMRAAM export info
  6. Nice flame. Brahmos is real and is entering service with the Indian Airforce. This is a fact. The S-400 is also real and has already entered service. Maybe you should stop spending all your time drooling over AEGIS and check the news. This is where our discussion ends. I'm not going to argue with someone who believes 100% of what the USAF says and believes that anything the Serbs said was propaganda.
  7. Your point is wrong. Both were hit by Exocets. And the Stark was armed with modern US Antiship missile defenses. Then you haven't seen anything. Modern ASMs are not Harpoons. And you're still not adding this to the difficulty of hitting a Mach 2+ sea-skimming, low-rcs target. My point is completely relevant. NMD is a high-speed vs. high-speed missile defense system. Please state where I made the point that the AIM-120 will be going Mach 4 at sea level… Provided you hit. And if you miss by even a fraction of a second the missile is already several hundred meters
  8. It is slightly poorer than the F/A-18C… and I really don't see why you think the F/A-18C is not a "stela" performer? Sure it's no MiG-29, but for a maritime fighter it is sufficient. And the "poor" (underpowered) performance of the F-14 is also legendary… so what's your point? All the data shows that while it might be a touch slower (questionable vs. an F-14 with a max AIM-54 load) it is more agile. It is important, but far less important than having superior maneuverability. Remember we're talking about target speeds of 600+ meters per second here; the margin for a 'miss distance' is
  9. Interception of subsonic anti-ship missiles has proven to be a serious problem in the past. The Sheffield and Stark incidents are good examples of this. Interception of modern, sea-skimming, supersonic, 200+km ranged ASMs is a monumental task. Modern ASMs (at least the Russian ones) perform evasive maneuvers… so no, they don't go straight. Much easier said than done. If this was true then the NMD would be fully operational and have a 100% success rate against test targets. Keep in mind that we are discussing capabilities against both fighters and missiles here…
  10. 20m is great but for stationary / slow moving targets. A fighter jet or missile will be moving at several hundred meters per second, and in that situation maneuverability is far more important than a few more meters worth of blast radius. This really all depends on how early the bandits are detected. Notching was just one method as I said, but in this case it is still fairly useful. Remember at the ranges (60 NM) we are looking at reacquiring will probably be useless if you don't catch him again with a few seconds (provided he isn't notching very early on). And by the time you
  11. But not to South America (at least as of the last time I checked). I know Chile was interested in F-16's but only if equipped with AMRAAM, and I'm not sure if this deal went through or not. Anyone know? If it didn't, then I doubt they will sell AMRAAM to that region, at least until Venezuela gets their MiG-29's (which will probably be RVV-AE equipped). (and yes, I realize that Peru's MiG-29's also have RVV-AE but the US seems to have ignored that for whatever reason)
  12. I have serious doubts… Even modern RIM-7s and Phalanx have had difficulties in downing super-sonic ASMs in controlled tests. I'm not saying it can't, I'm saying it's just not likely to happen with any reasonable certainty. And I'm saying that the AIM-120, AESA-equipped F/A-18E stands a far better chance of pulling this off --- it'll detect the missile earlier and engage with the far more maneuverable and more modern AIM-120. There's a lot of controversy surrounding what really happened with the Iranian F-14's and their effectiveness in the Iran-Iraq war. Suffice it to say, none of tho
  13. IMO, Brazil needs CAS aircraft & helicopters more than they do fighters, I just don't see any potential air threats around it at this time (unless they're just looking for something to use against airborne smugglers…). I feel that going for more AMX's and getting some Mi-24's on the side would be the best idea. Having said that, if they are seriously looking at one of those three fighters then the Su-27 is the best choice. Brazil is a huge country and needs a long-range fighter with powerful radar to effectively police its airspace. Also, while it lacks precision A/G weapons it has the bes
  14. The capability of the AIM-54 / AWG-9 combo against fighter aircraft has always been in serious question, even by people in the USN, (some have even said they believe that the "successful" AIM-54 tests vs. drones were staged) and the abandonment of the AIM-54 (as well as replacement programs for it) several years before the F-14s end their service lends some credibility to the claim that it wasn't all it was made out to be. Anyway, the F-14 is being replaced by the F/A-18E/F for a variety of reasons. The F/A-18E possesses far more modern avionics, superior radar, more hardpoints, LO characte
  15. The Ironhand anti-Amraam tactic (I guess that’s what it’s called now) should work 100% of the time - I can’t remember the last time I was downed by a 54. Keep the F-14 locked, fly low and fast, perform high-G turn into AIM-54 when it’s close (see your RWR). AIM-7s can however be a slight problem if you are fighting two F-14s alone. IMO, for a more interesting and difficult fight, try going up against two spread-out MiG-31s – definitely fun. Would be even better if the MiG-31s radar was modeled properly… Heheh, if you think Lockon’s AIM-54 is overmodelled, you haven’t played Falcon 4
×
×
  • Create New...