AESA Equipped Super Hornets making impression on first deployment, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 4-11-2008 @ 10:02 PM by 1000hanz

Originally posted by Zaphod58
FAS, or American Scientist or whoever you want can disagree all they want. I'm going to take Fulcrumflyer's word over every single one of them because he ACTUALLY FLEW THE AIRPLANE. I'll take the word of someone who has been there and done that any day over some guy sitting in front of a computer running a simulation. Computers sit there and they look at straight performance facts and compare them. That isn't going to tell you the whole truth. The people that have been there and done that KNOW the difference. No armchair general or analyst is going to know that the MiG-29 has horrible vision between the 5-7 position, so they won't factor that in.

As far as I'm concernd this person you talk about hasn't convinced me he even flew it, and the FAS.org site is based on documented facts, so you can believe what ever fiction you want but I'll stick with facts.

reply posted on 4-11-2008 @ 10:06 PM by Zaphod58

And the FACT is that every time a MiG-29 has gone up against an F-15 or F-16 it has lost. You can hold onto your fandom and claim it's fact, but the fact remains that the MiG-29 has YET to demonstrate how superior it is to the Eagle, the Falcon, or the Hornet.

reply posted on 4-11-2008 @ 10:09 PM by dreamsnatcher

Guys one other thing to think about is that you need to get your planes into the air to have a dog fight. During DS because we had tankers f-16, A-10 could just sit in a pattern and wait. On more than one occasion AWAC or JSTAR would pick up heat from engine start and they would destroy the mig or what ever was in the hangar before the doors were even opened. But none of this would be capable without tankers. NKAWTG "Nobody Kicks Ass Without Tanker Gas" the KC-10 was probably the best money ever spent $ for $.

reply posted on 4-11-2008 @ 10:13 PM by Zaphod58

You want the best money $ for $ then it's the -135 by far. The last one was bought in the 1960s, and they're still flying, and still flying reliably. There have been very few losses comparatively, and they're very easy to work on.

reply posted on 4-11-2008 @ 10:19 PM by dreamsnatcher

reply to post by Zaphod58

Zap I won't argue that I left the USAF with 6500 hrs in A,Q,R,E, Saudi Tanker and KC-10. Most of that in the Q and 10. Nothing more scary than MITO takoff with 6 other tankers all using water injected engines. I got to do some really cool stuff and I enjoyed my duty. I am partial to tankers though, we got no respect. The Rodney Dangerfield of planes.

reply posted on 4-11-2008 @ 11:10 PM by C0bzz

reply to post by 1000hanz

Fantasies indeed.

Well, maybe if you actually read what my post said, and what your article says, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Reading is fundamental.

Your source said...:

MiG-29s of the German Luftwaffe have demonstrated their advantage in within-visual-range (WVR) engagements during training missions against Western F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters.[3]

Well, sorry for asking, but, would that be the same German Luftwaffe that retired their Mig-29 aircraft in September 2003?

The success of the MiG-29 during DACT was partly due to its ability to use its helmet-mounted sight (HMS) to achieve high off-boresight targeting solutions for the Archer SRM.

No argument.

In contrast, the U.S. aircraft were only able to lock onto targets in a narrow window directly in front of the aircraft's nose. However, the USAF and US Navy achieved Initial Operational Capability of the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X in late 2003."

That in itself is incorrect, both the F-16 and F-15 have short range auto-acquisition modes which are laterally within HUD limits, and vertically 60 degrees above the nose. With a role rate of more than 180 degrees per second on the F-16, this is something not to take lightly.

Your sources, were at the earliest, 2003, or, infact, earlier. U.S. pursued and fielded there helmet display, JHMCS in conjunction with the Raytheon AIM-9X, in November 2003 with the 12th and 19th Fighter Squadrons at Elmendorf AFB. A full two months after Germany sold there Mig-29s to Poland. Thus then the whole 'advantage' the migs had was negated. AESA also allows a massive amount of airspace to be scanned simoltaneously, and should allow the targets displayed ON the JHMCS visor (AESA shouldn't need to be cued at short range). Schelum & MSA cannot do this. Are you going to keep posting irrelevant data?

Furthermore, it would be nice, if you actually read my posts...:

In reality, Block II & Block III Super Hornets used in an integrated package will have far superior sitautional awareness, countermeasures, and weapons, with only slight, irrelevant, or non-existent, deficiencies in some key areas, compared to potential adversaries.

The USN or even Australia would be operating in conjunction with JORN, AEGIS, and AEW&C. The radar would be the AN/APG-79, AESA. The weapons would be AIM-120C-7, or perhaps AIM-120D, along with AIM-9X, or ASRAAM, cued with JHMCS. The Hornet has reduced RCS. So, let me get this straight, with superiority in nearly every single area, we are supposed to believe the Super Hornet will be inferior, because of some slight, irrelevant deficiencies in maneuverability? Riiiight. Furthermore, training is far superior here, than compared to potential adversaries, Navy and Air Force have Red Flag & TOPGUN. Operators of Migs & Sukhois are often the most under trained in the world - Germany 5 years ago does not count. Yet the admittedly superior Su-30MKI, got its 'brains drilled out' at Red Flag by F-15s with twin bags on the wings.

As far as I'm concernd this person you talk about hasn't convinced me he even flew it,

Well the information regarding the G-limits, Stability Augmentation System, Shchelum & ARCHER are all public knowledge, and true.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read the posts.

Nice Avatar you have there are you a boom?

Wish I was....

I don't like it, it looks messy as my Avatar, but as it is a mini-profile background image, I do not know how to delete it.

My old avatar was a F-18F in a vertical climb, and that's what I intend to change it to.

[edit on 5/11/2008 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 12:34 PM by 1000hanz

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And the FACT is that every time a MiG-29 has gone up against an F-15 or F-16 it has lost. You can hold onto your fandom and claim it's fact, but the fact remains that the MiG-29 has YET to demonstrate how superior it is to the Eagle, the Falcon, or the Hornet.

YES thats true BUT your forgetting the FACT IS ALL MiG-29's that have went up against F-15/16 were MiG-29 A/B's which didn't have the same upgrades as 91/99 era F-15/16's and thats aFACT you CAN'T DISPUTE FELLA.

reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 12:37 PM by 1000hanz

You lost

reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 09:05 PM by Zaphod58

Originally posted by 1000hanz
YES thats true BUT your forgetting the FACT IS ALL MiG-29's that have went up against F-15/16 were MiG-29 A/B's which didn't have the same upgrades as 91/99 era F-15/16's and thats aFACT you CAN'T DISPUTE FELLA.

And they were all BVR kills but one where the Eagle driver got his target to fly into the ground. All of them in Desert Storm were by F-15Cs, almost none of which had been upgraded yet. So your upgrades played NO role in them being able to kill them at any range. The F-15 didn't start getting real upgrades until AFTER Desert Storm, but yet STILL killed at least 5 MiG-29s during combat missions, at BVR.

reply posted on 6-11-2008 @ 04:00 PM by StellarX

For the record is someone interested in posting the details about the few instances where the USAF/NATO encountered Mgi-29's so we can compare the assets on each side as well as the models of aircraft involved? I believe that will best illuminate why waiters get shouted at when they bring apples when oranges were ordered.

Stellar

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^