posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:21 PM
ABT forum can get exhausting. I feel forced to repeat the same things over, and over again.
intelgurl, thank you, all I can say, yet considering the post by M6D it seems to have no impact what so ever.
Can everybody see ALL the posts at the same time?
Because it gets quite only when I’m forced to single out a particular misconception and take it apart. Can we all play along?
M6D, NO! -> “'nonsense' as you put it, these incidences are down to incompetance on the part of so and so and so and so, nothing to do with the
TECHNOLOGY itself, you seem to be trying to say that a MIG can kill a hornet”
As CLEARLY stated in EVERY publication on MiG-25; “The MiG-25 high altitude, high speed interceptor was initially developed to counter the Mach 3
XB-70 Valkyrie bomber under development in the US in the late 1950s and early 1960s”, and NOT agile fighters. Are you with me?
The fact is that MiG-25 weapons platform, which was designed to track a large, high speed target in conditions of heavy ECM and other interference,
proved to be capable of successfully engaging a small agile target with modern ECM and other countermeasures. What the targeting system lacked in
accuracy, was compensated by the sheer size of the warhead, which again was initially designed to counter a large, supersonic target.
The very fact that MiG should NOT have been allowed to get anywhere close to the Hornet, is a secondary factor of OUR failure in the environment of
complete superiority, both in assets and resources.
“however, the context you first used it as seemed to be to backup a point that a MIG has the capability to do so out of its technology, which is
clearly incorrect, as it was incompetance or blind luck”
Have you ever fired a gun? I don’t know about you, but with me, when I aim, squeeze the trigger and consistently put them where it counts, it’s
not luck, its practice.
When the radar locates and tracks the target, calculates a firing solution and allows deployment of the weapon, when the IR sensor of the weapon
successfully guides the missile close enough to the target for the proximity fuse to detonate the warhead, the blast of which forces the target to go
down, it’s NOT LUCK, it’s SUCSESS of TECHNOLOGY which in this case was designed to engage a completely different type of target.
Let me try this. There is an F-15 modification designed specifically to deliver an anti-satellite missile. If out of dyer need that F-15 had to
deliver its weapon on a SU-33 which is on an anti-ship run, and has done so successfully, it would immediately be considered as display of flexible
weapon design and adaptive professionalism of the pilot.
The multi-functionality capabilities of Russian weapon platforms are simply unsurpassed. The Zvezda Kh-31 for example, which we have purchased for
reverse engineering, is an ATS ATA multi-purpose weapon. Both active and passive configuration allow for unprecedented deployment flexibility. A
single SU-33 is capable of launching an attack on ships active defenses, attack the ship itself, and simultaneously attack any present AWACS in the
radius of 200km with the same weapon type all while in fire-and-forget mode. An additional SU-33 might be carrying a single ASM-MMS (Kh-4) which
unfortunately is fully capable of sinking an aircraft carrier.
I certainly hope this is clear enough, because I got nothing else.