F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: F-16.net - Why the JSF/F22? :: F-16.net :: The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10151-start-30-sid-053486a5bc7b03543a040db444e0bead.html
Printed on: 07 September 2008

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Why the JSF/F22?



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
snypa777
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2008 - 09:45 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite
Elite


Joined: Jul 26, 2005
Posts: 1444
Location: United kingdom
Status: Offline
dwightlooi wrote:
I think the better question is whether S300PMU and S400 users think that they can effective defend their airspace when each battery can now only protect a 40km area vs a 400km area, and the seekers of each one of the missiles they do get to fire can only acquire the target at say 2.5 km vs say 25km greatly decreasingly their PK. The same goes for AWACs and fighters.


As ELP mentioned, EO/IR systems to fill the gaps may be the only way to go.

At first I found it astonishing that the USAF won`t have a stand off jammer available after the Prowler is put out to grass. Then I see that it is possible that the USAf doesn`t think it needs one with the F-22 and F-35 as its only strike aircraft to be. They must have tremendous confidence in them. Not the same story for the Navy with its semi-Lo F-18s`.

_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Sep 07, 2008 - 10:39 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor






This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
   
 
snypa777
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2008 - 10:17 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite
Elite


Joined: Jul 26, 2005
Posts: 1444
Location: United kingdom
Status: Offline
Su27_pilot wrote:

...these are muslim countries with low education officers,soldiers, population etc...in war 1999 in Serbia,NATO managed to destroy only 13 Serbian tanks for 78days of bombing because Serbian army had a lots of forests for hiding and puting fake tanks made of paper and wood...stealth improves,but doesnt make plane invincible...F117 was shot down in Serbia 1999 with 30yrs old system NEVA,and 2 more were damaged...if you want to survive,you must be smart to hide and deceive your enemy...Serbian engeneers were making fake airstrips and fake MiGs29 of thick paper,dressing dolls from stores in military uniforms etc...


The Serbs were only there to survive, a sensible tactic. Hiding was their only option, to live to fight another day. Preservation of forces. The Serbs never went on the offensive against NATO,
not like fighting unarmed civilians........right?

Kind of reminds me of the Iraqi "Burying my MIGs under the sand" tactics.

A major factor in the sometimes lousy NATO bombing accuracy, except for the USAF, was the absence of PGMs that could be used in poor weather. This was a major deficiency in other NATO airforces and has since been addressed. If the F-22 was available in 1999 along with the F-35, the whole episode would have been over much sooner. The NATO forces still got the job done, with minimal casualties. Getting the leaders around the negotiating table was the objective.

_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel