Pakun, et kujutletud lennuki pihta tulistamiseks ühtegi radarit ei kasutatud, mina näen seal päris palju käsirelvade kuulide aukeHiljuti oli just uudis, et F35-tega on väga raske harjutada õhutõrje allasurumise missioone, sest pole maa peal midagi, mis seda suudaks sihikulegi lukustada. Ehk siis pole vahet mitu mootorit on lennukil, millele keegi pihta ei saa.
Red Flag ei le ainult A2A, seal on ka Strike missionid, tõsi mitte CASi seal tõesti ei tehta. Antud F-35B võtsid osa Green Flag'ist mitte Red Flag'ist, mis on spetsiaalselt CAS harjutus koos US Army'ga.Kapten Trumm kirjutas:Võiks ikka niipalju teada, et Red Flag on A2A tegevuse harjutus, mitte blue air vs red mud.
Miks siis F-16 kasutamine CAS rollis A-10 asendajana läbi kukkus?
Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?
A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.
Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.
Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.
Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10's champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.
Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.
Q: This conflict has shown that?
A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.
The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line [sic] if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.
Q: At what point did you do that?
A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this." ....
Venelased vist panustasid seal üleüldse rohkem Krokodillide ja Mi-8 peale...Samasuguseid asju kogesid ka venelased Afganistanis ja jõudsid lõpuks järeldusele, et ründelennuk on selleks kõige etem.
Eks alati ole neid kes usuvad moodsamasse tehnikasse ja neid kes mitte. Loomulikult saab mõlema uskumisega liiale minna (nagu ehk ka ksf Eric teeb). Kahjuks piisavat infot "kellel õigus on" ei ole meil kellelgi, vähemalt mitte ennem kui mõni suurem sõda lahti läheb.Kapten Trumm kirjutas: Analoogne probleem oli ka Vietnami sõjas, kus sõtta sisenedes arvati, et ülehelikiirusega hävituspommitajad võidavad kiiresti sõja. Tegelikult tuli kohe tegemist väikeste, hästi maskeeritud (visuaalselt, kuid maskeerida saab ka muudes dimensioonides) ja hädasunnil võeti kasutusele kergeid reaktiivne ja propellerlennukeid, sest F-4ga kuskil metsalagendikul asuvat kuulipildujapesa rünnata, ilma et paar hektarit metsa koos oma üksusega napalmiga üle kallata - polnud praktikas võimalik. Selle kogemuse järel A-10 üldse loodigi. Lisaks kasutasid pilusilmsed vastased rikkalikult igasugu odavat õhutõrjerelvastust alates 12,7 DshK-dest kuni vene 57 mm veetavate kahuriteni (mis peale esimest ülelendu kohe üürgama pandi).
Kõvad loosungid koos lausvaledega stiilis "meie tankid põlesid ju kui küünlad! (1941)", sisu vähe. Nende tegelik eesmärk on erinevate trikkidega sõjalisi kulutusi vähendada. Nende üldine taktika ja soovitused relvaprojektide elutsükli korral (mis on B-2 ja F-22 puhul osutunud üliedukaks):
Tuleb ehk siin vaidlustes kuidagi tuttav ette?There is enough truth in the assertions of the Reformers in some cases and enough doubt in other cases to make these views well worth considering. My objections to the Reformers over the years have not been so much to their ideas but to their slipshod research, chicanery, hermetic pompousness, deceptiveness, emotionalism, and general ignorance. Not all of them exhibit all of these characteristics, but most show most of them. To demonstrate the degree of the problem, permit me to give a few examples.
...
But the chief reason, I believe, is that they are not aware that they are dealing in nonsense. The Reformers are zealots of the classic variety, with the usual self-righteousness and the usual hermetically sealed minds. Having become frantically partisan over years of polemical trench warfare, having partitioned the world into Themselves and The Enemy, they are perfectly unconscious of the rolling non sequiturs and athletic leaps of logic that constitute their conversation. If the cause is good, the details aren't important. It doesn't matter whether or not the armor burns so long as your heart is in the right place, and if the tank isn't really too small for humankind, well, it would be just like the Army if it were, and that's close enough.
Üldiselt nõustun, aga mainiks et tuleb vahet teha best case ja shit hits the fan olukordadel. Selge ilmaga startiv ballistiline rakett on parim võimalik tuvastusobjekt sellise, esmalt just missile-warning süsteemi jaoks, nagu DAS. Kahjuks ei suuda seda kohe leida, aga umbes aasta tagasi ringles üks video sellest, kuidas kaks F-35e trianguleerisid DAS'iga ühte Floridast õhku tõusvat kanderaketti (oli vist Falcon 9) ja saatsid infot tagasi reaalajas juhtimiskeskusesse.erick kirjutas:Miks ma pean lugema argumente, mis panevad F35 CASi ajal 12,7mm või isegi 57mm õhutõrjerelvade laskeraadiusesse? See näitab, et austatud ksf Trummil ei ole ikkagi mingitki aimu sellest, mis distantsidelt F35 oma CASi teostab. Samamoodi jutud MANPADSist. Kui USA õhutõrjerelvastuse hulgas ei ole kerge leida süsteeme, mis suudaksid F35 trackida, mis valemiga see MANPADSi-mees seda teeb?
F35 elektro-optilised sensorid, mis põhinevad puhtalt optikal, IR-il ja FLIRil (mitte radaril!) on võimelised trackima 1300km kauguselt ballistilist raketti (viide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAQ-37)
Ei saa aru, miks ma pean lugema väiteid, et F35 ei suuda leida kümne või suisa mõnekümne kilomeetri kauguselt kuulipildujapesa, punkrit, tanki, telklat, snaiprit jne. mille asukoht on laias laastus teada?
Kui me raha ei arvesta, siis ärme arvestame juba poliitikat kah Pealegi saab daalasid ju kohe lindina printerist uued lasta ja F-35´te kari tuleb A-10´te asemel nigu Vändrast saelauad No Problem Mina aru ei saa, mida need totakad A-10´d üldse siin Eestis veel loperdasid, ürgaeg ju: kus F-35´d jäid ?? Kasutajad foorumit lugemas: Registreeritud kasutajaid pole ja 26 külalist
