| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Palindromeria
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 489
Location: Brooklyn NY
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
thanks for the link.
wife was asking about this not 10 minutes ago ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds like Ivan boxed a few Squals up for the Central Asians... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goldorak
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 393
Location: Milano,Italy
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: Re: OT: the Iranian Shkval |
|
|
| timmyg00 wrote: | http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/02/iran.missile.ap/index.html
<sigh>
TG |
I find it very strange that the american army-navy-air force still think in terms of cold war tactics. I mean many countries even if they don't have the sheer force of the american navy have non the less quite devastating conventional weapons such as the squall.
Why aren't americans researching such a technology ?
The same thing happens with the F-22 raptor.
An extremely conventional and pricey fighter that doesn't stand up against the Eurofighter nor the Rafale.
The french are even developping a system that would enable the Rafale to be literally invisible to radar waves without having to design the aircraft around RAM materials nor fancy airframes.
They are designing an active cancellation hardware, which the americans aren't even considering researching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Nichols
Joined: 14 Mar 2001
Posts: 2657
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Did you see my video link on the Subsim front page (under 'news')? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeaQueen
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: Re: OT: the Iranian Shkval |
|
|
| goldorak wrote: |
I find it very strange that the american army-navy-air force still think in terms of cold war tactics.
|
They don't, really. There's been a lot of post-Cold War technologies to emerge and more will come. All of this UAV/USV/UUV stuff is post-Cold War. Things are in the process of changing.
Right now is a complicated time for all militaries globally. It's one thing to say, "you guys need to think differently," but it's another thing to say specifically how. Right now, there's a lot of debate about what ought to be different and nobody really has a single answer.
| Quote: |
I mean many countries even if they don't have the sheer force of the american navy have non the less quite devastating conventional weapons such as the squall.
|
People have known this for a long time. Look at the tanker wars in the 80s. Cruise missiles weren't even as sophisticated then as they are now. Supposedly, one of the "transformative" technologies for the US navy was going to be the Littoral Combat Ship, which is slowly on it's way out. Low observable warships are going to be a big thing in a future where advanced cruise missiles are commonplace. They're also working on developing advanced anti-missile technologies.
| Quote: |
Why aren't americans researching such a technology ?
|
We are.
| Quote: |
The same thing happens with the F-22 raptor.
An extremely conventional and pricey fighter that doesn't stand up against the Eurofighter nor the Rafale.
|
I'm not sure that's entirely clear but that being said, so far, the USAF has been a big loser in terms of it's piece of the defense budget because they have been the slowest to rethink how they fit into the post Cold-War picture. The fastest, actually, has been the Marines and Army. They're relatively inexpensive, though. None the less, the Marines are getting a WHOLE lot of fancy new gear; MV-22s, new AH-1s, new UH-1s, new MH-53s, EFVs, upgraded LCACs, UAVs, JSFs... etc. GATORs in the Navy are also receiving a lot of corresponding attention. Just look at the LPD-17. Additionally, the LHDs are getting all kinds of upgrades. They're moving away from a relatively wimpy ARG to the much more heafty ESG. There's the DD(X) and CG(X). The DD(X) will most likely exist only on paper for some time, but it is a post-Cold War design. There's the MPF(F). There's the whole Seabasing concept, Operational Maneuver from the Sea, and Ship to Objective Maneuver.
In the ASW picture, the Navy has LFA already out, ADS is coming out, they keep trying to figure out how to get the Firescout to do ASW. There's the LCS-ASW package. There's the P-8 coming out. They're also really getting into multistatic sensors.
For the cruise missile threat, there's the RAM, a whole host of new decoys, they're looking into other advanced Star-Wars anti-missile weapons. There's also a lot of attention being paid to anti-ballistic missile defense.
For undersea warfare and special operations, there's the SSGN and TACTOM.
| Quote: |
The french are even developping a system that would enable the Rafale to be literally invisible to radar waves without having to design the aircraft around RAM materials nor fancy airframes.
They are designing an active cancellation hardware, which the americans aren't even considering researching. |
There's lots of low observable technology out there these days. The Chinese, for example, have started building low-observable missile boats. Unfortunately, once those kinds of secret weapons become public, it's only a matter of time before other nations start trying to develop comparable technology.
It will be interesting to see how every nation adjusts to the post-Cold War types of worries. Some will be faster than others, or choose to concentrate in different areas. Time will only tell who has the best ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybird
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 4131
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:50 am Post subject: Re: OT: the Iranian Shkval |
|
|
| goldorak wrote: |
The same thing happens with the F-22 raptor. An extremely conventional and pricey fighter that doesn't stand up against the Eurofighter nor the Rafale. |
Having been a critic of the Eurofighter myself, I must admit that slowly but surely even the Germans are turning theirs into useable and highly capable platforms now (they lagged seriously behind the British in their attempt to clean it of the many bugs it left the factory with). And yes, there is probably no aircraft today that is more maneuverable than the eurofighter. Question is if this really is the decisive criterion, in the age of highly maneuverable AA-missiles like AIM9X, Python-4s and Archers (which additionally has BVR capabilitiy). If close-range fights are such lethal, then, BVR fighting becomes essential, and here long range sensors and awareness of what is moving and hiding on the battlefield takes over the important role. The F22 has one major advantage: it must not be made stealth, it already IS stealth. Embedded in the battlefield network of CCCI, like the Americans typically are fighting in, this plane without doubt will perform very well. I assume it looses some of it's advanatages and tactical potentials once it is on it's own, though. All in all I think that both aircraft need to be deployed in different ways, and then both will deliver superior performances, outclassing that of many other fighters today (maybe excluding the latest Russian models with their state of the art radar and missiles technology).
What I mean is this: a statement like the F22 not standing up against the Eurofighter (or Rafael!?) is, I think, a little bit far-fetched. Even IF material-based stealth technology one day will be outclassed in importance by active electronical counter-radar-technology. And that America says it is not researching such technology, does not necessarily mean that it does not research such technology indeed.
Btw, the Eurofighter is an extremely expensive aircraft, too... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
suttorad
Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Posts: 86
Location: Slovakia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:44 am Post subject: OT : Stealth |
|
|
| Hmmm,and what about stealth technology and czech radar with codename TAMARA ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
One tiny little switch can give a stealth plane away, its called the transponeder, the pilot only has to hit that active switch by accident and it will be shot down easy as any other plane.
As for the iranians skhval was more than likely purchased threw ukrain to save international bother with direct sale from russia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybird
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 4131
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kapitan wrote: | | One tiny little switch can give a stealth plane away, its called the transponeder, the pilot only has to hit that active switch by accident and it will be shot down easy as any other plane. |
Should that be a serious argument against stealthing platforms? That someone maybe, occasionally, by mistake or accident, could push the wrong button? I'm sure that they made sure to minimize the porobablity that something like that could happen, when thinking about the thing that is summarized under the abbreviation EMCON. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well according to BBC FOX CNN and alot and i mean alot of other media and including USAF top brass.
a rapier missile system in england sucsessfuly tracked one of the F117 stealth aircraft while it was on its way to the farnbough airshow, when the americans were told it was orderd home immediatly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kapitan wrote: | | One tiny little switch can give a stealth plane away, its called the transponeder, the pilot only has to hit that active switch by accident and it will be shot down easy as any other plane. |
When a Steath plane is on say a bombing mission why would the pilot be fiddleing with the Radio stack?!? Other than to maybe swap COM freqs their hand wouldn't be anywhere near the the Nav radio and XPDR. :huh:  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who knows trasponder is an easy thing to turn on and off by mistake its also one of the most easiest accsessible button on the plane hence when the plane that flew into the pentagon in 9/11 didnt register itself simply because the transponder was off the hijacker turned it off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goldorak
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 393
Location: Milano,Italy
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kapitan wrote: | | Who knows trasponder is an easy thing to turn on and off by mistake its also one of the most easiest accsessible button on the plane hence when the plane that flew into the pentagon in 9/11 didnt register itself simply because the transponder was off the hijacker turned it off. |
You don't give a lot of credit to fighter pilots do you ? 
Damn, and all those milions of $$ governments spend just to train them.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XabbaRus
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 6949
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kapitan wrote: | | Who knows trasponder is an easy thing to turn on and off by mistake its also one of the most easiest accsessible button on the plane hence when the plane that flew into the pentagon in 9/11 didnt register itself simply because the transponder was off the hijacker turned it off. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
