Iran set to show off new jet, home made !

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Yes, I agree. My reference to Bird of Prey was in concept. No requirement at this stage for high subsonic speed and purely for technology development.




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 



That was funny maybe it will disguised in a Burka and have a bumper sticker of the the U.S. flag getting the middle finger, then hopefully it flies over N. Korea and when they see the American flag on the bumper sticker they'll shoot it down and Iran and N. Korea can do each other in.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


First of all...the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford is the first U.S. Aircraft Carrier to use specific Carrier Structure Geometry as well as Radar Absorbing Paint and Composite Skin to make it seem to an enemy that this carrier is a smaller ship...thus the "Stealth Designation"...although it is not filly stealthy.

U.S. Navy and Airforce Fighters have in the past been using older "IN INVENTORY" air to air missiles in an effort to use them up before such aircraft using the AAMRAM Hypersonic Air to Air Missile as well as the JUST IN and NEW as well as being rushed into service SCRAMRAM STEALTH/LOW IR HYPERSONIC Air to Air Missile made in a joint project by Lockheed and Raytheon.

This is known as the SCRAMRAM SLIRH or pronouned SLUR Missile. It uses the same High Output/Long Burn Solid Fuel that is also used in the New SM-3 as the old SM-3...which YOU are talking about when your referenced the Aegis Cruisers and Ticonderoga Class....originally used the first version of the SM-3 which WAS NOT capable of destroying high speed Missiles never mind a Satellite.

If you google the New SM-3 which is now standard issue aboard all Navy Cruisers....you will see that the newest SM-3 is a vst improvement upon the previous version as it is much faster and has EXTREME RANGE. The Brealthrough in High Power Long Burn solid rocket fuels is the main reason why the U.S. abandoned the plan to place a AMB Site in Poland as well as build a new Radar system for it in the Czech Republic.

The U.S. announced it would not do this thus the issue the Russians had became mute as the new SM-3 was so accurate...so fast and had such range....that placing these in Navy Ships off coast was more than addequate enough. This newer SM-3 is the same missile that destroyed the failing U.S. Satellite in Orbit as well as scoring a Direct Hit not just on the Satellite but on a specific targetted area of the Satellite.

The U.S. also is using Modified B-52's and B-1B's as Air to Air Missile Platforms to augment F/A-22 Capabilities as the F/A-22 is followed into battle by the Super Sonic B-1B's which are fitted with over 75 AAMRAM or SLUR Air to Air Missiles that an F/A-22 can target upon any aircraft in enguages as such Bomber Carried Missiles are launched by an F/A-22 Pilot from the B-1B once the Bomber crew OK's position.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The U.S. also is using Modified B-52's and B-1B's as Air to Air Missile Platforms to augment F/A-22 Capabilities as the F/A-22 is followed into battle by the Super Sonic B-1B's which are fitted with over 75 AAMRAM or SLUR Air to Air Missiles that an F/A-22 can target upon any aircraft in enguages as such Bomber Carried Missiles are launched by an F/A-22 Pilot from the B-1B once the Bomber crew OK's position.

Split Infinity


Been reading Dale Brown again have you? The B-52 is not capable of carrying any kind of air to air weapons system, and isn't going to be modified to carry anything of the sort. The B-1 is just now getting a radar upgrade that would potentially allow it to carry the AMRAAM, but it won't be carrying 75 of them.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You are a bit behind the times on the B-52. At first it was thought that a B-52 could not handle lots of attached AAM under it's drooping wings...and they were right! This of course was why they chose the B-1B...but that role has been a hot topic of dispute so recently...someone came up with the idea that Braces of AARRAM's containing 12 to 24 Missiles would be air dropped from High Altitudes from B-52's during mass air combat.

The AAMRAM's brace would have attached to it sloped wings which along with Robotic Control would allow such braces to circle above Combat areas miles out. These winged delivery systems would only be dropped when it was certain such missile use would be required and having wings could allow such missiles to be on station for long periods of time.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HamsterWarrior
 


The only dogfighting capability of man or plane would require the tactic of ramming.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I'm actually quite up to date on the B-52. That's one aircraft that I follow closely because of the history of it with my father. I like to keep him up on the current changes and the plans for it. But sure, whatever you say. I'm so tired of this whole idiotic argument I give up. Sure, the B-52 will be a missile truck, along with the B-1R that they chose not to upgrade to. Whatever you say.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You can look this up and there is no need to get offended.

The close to 90 B-52H's that are still being used have been selected for use as a platform that is part of the USAF's Robotic Remote Use Program as these aircraft are slated to be of continued use for the next 20 to 30 years.

Since the USAF is under a directive to have a large percentage of it's aircraft part of the Robotic systems program...such uses as using the B-52 as a drop vehicle for large remote robotic aircraft as well as a robotic weapons systems program delivery system is under great study and testing.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The U.S. announced it would not do this thus the issue the Russians had became mute as the new SM-3 was so accurate...so fast and had such range....that placing these in Navy Ships off coast was more than addequate enough. This newer SM-3 is the same missile that destroyed the failing U.S. Satellite in Orbit as well as scoring a Direct Hit not just on the Satellite but on a specific targetted area of the Satellite.


Interesting.

The Polish, Czech, and US governments all disagree with you.

They all seem to be painfully aware of the corridor that is exposed.

Ops, I forgot you have more knowledge then they do about their own countries.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


The main reason for the dismay of the Polish and Czech Governments is that by allowing the U.S. to construct such Radar and ABM Ground Launch bases on their territory would be a thorn in the paw of the Hated Russian Bear as well as bringing their countries to having a close Military relationship with the U.S.

Polish officials were EXTREMELY disapointed when told the U.S. would scrap plans to build the ABM site on Polish soil and the U.S. State Dept. as well as various U.S. Military Officials had to spend quite a bit of time smoothing over this issue with both Poland and the Czech Republic.

The Russians...even though they were offered Joint Participation and even that the U.S. would wish to use Russian Radar as well as in the future PAY Russia to construct a better Radar suited for use for such ABM Systems...STILL complained about the Totally Unrealistic concept that a few Poland Based ABM's would cause a threat to the massive Russian ICBM force.

Given this issue as well as the newly existing Breakthrough in development of Long Burn High Output Solid Rocket Fuel....which allows U.S. ABM's to be based on USN. Ships and although at a greater distance away...range no longer became an issue due to the New Version SM-3's longer range and Hypersonic Speed due to this new Solid Rocket Fuel.

When the Polish and Czech's were told of this capability as well as were given certain guarentees that the U.S. Navy would place these countries under a Missile Shield that would directly destroy any Middle East...and in particular...Iranian based launches...they seemed to be satisfied but still dissapointed that they would not be irking the Russians.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
That plane doesn't really look stealthy, I don't know where they got there design but it just doesn't look professional.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I am curious how you can state with such certainty that this is a "great plane."

By what metrics do you have to to analyze this plane by? Surely such concrete judgements cannot be gathered by a few glances at a scale plywood mockup?

Do you have access to the CFD data? Anechoic chamber data? Anything??? Really the only conclusion that can be drawn from this model is that the Iranian's and North Korean's still do not comprehend the fundamentals of low observability - planform alignment, etc etc.

Until it flies and produces quantifiable evidence of its capabilities I'm not going to make such impulsive claims regarding the aircraft's performance, and you guys shouldn't either.

It might sell well as a children's toy though.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
So... they go from barely being able to fly and stay current on the F-14/F-5 to building from scratch a brand new fighter with, supposedly, it's own radar and engines that rival 5th Gen fighters? I don't buy it.

They're also still used to employing their Tomcats with the AWG-9 and their most capable missile (technologically and because of training) is the AIM-7E. That's a huge jump to what I assume is an AESA and a missile along the lines of the PL-12. I'm fairly certain that the only countries that truly train to launch and leave are the US, Russia, and China. Even if this plane became operational, it'll be a while before those pilots become proficient.

With Iran, one would be more worried about their SAM rings than their aircraft.





top topics
 
7
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join