|
|
Balas #616 BotakChinPeng\ catat
several years tu sound macam tak lama dah...jsf pon tak tau bila mau keluaq...so far tu jer stealth yg dijangkakan boleh dijual ngan herga mampu milik, tapi still, bukan semua negara di donia akan dapatkannya.
lagipon hang jangan lupa, kalu aewc dah tak relevant utk detect stealth a/c, depa akan come up pulok ngan aewc yg pakai teknologi passive radar mcm vera-e n kochulga tuh....last2 aewc tu pon stealth jugok, no radar emmision, no anti radar missile can lock on, and so forth....there will always be the revolution in military affair.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laaaahhhh, ada lak forummer melayan si DEb .. uhh dubuk tuh lg. Bukan kah blanket order memboikot dia sudah dikeluarkan kpd semua warga MPSA.
Asal keluar citer bab pulau selatan, dubuk tuh klua. Jgn dilayan, biar dia meroyan. Bod MPSA ni dah aman hampir dua bulan tanpa dubuk meroyan.
BTW, nak lawan China, kita tarak ability. China ada kuantiti & kualiti dr segi manpower & warmachines. Sure kita ada kualiti, tp kuantiti tarak lah .... cam dogma militer Commie - Quantity has a beauty of its own.
Silap2, kita kena bergantung ngan FPDA. At most, konflik ASEAN vs China adalah berkaitan China vs Taiwan atau China vs Taiwan & ASEAN berkaitan Spratleys. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by tin at 17-2-2009 10:22 PM 
If so, don't you wonder why US fighter speed never exceed Mach 2.5 or even 2.3?
...
No I don抰 because I figured that fighter designers have long ago struck a perfect balance between speed and agility at around mach 2.5
Above this speed I think a fighter has to be designed in a different way that takes into account extra requirements to the airframe and these extra design considerations would be implemented at the expense of the fighter抯 agility. Military aviation is not the only sector that has run into a huge long term technological barrier like this.
The airliner industry has also failed to make major technological breakthrough for a long time. That抯 why we have been flying at the same speed for the past forty years.
It抯 a whole lot easier to develop ever longer range BVRAAMs such as the AIM-120D and R-77M1. Policymakers in Russia and USA are all fully aware that a greater no escape zone will be the single decisive factor in any conventional war
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Canaletto at 18-2-2009 10:17 AM
Bro, the F-18 is not for dog fight ie F16, MIG29 or sekelas dengannya which has more speed & agility but more to maritime and night strike my friend. So get your fact right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by tin at 17-2-2009 10:22 PM
take the case of F-18 has "has neither speed nor agility". let see its combat record shall we...
QUOTE:
The Hornets shot down two MiGs and resumed their bombing run, each carrying four 2,000 lb bombs, before returning to USS Saratoga. -wikipedia
|
|
These are only Mig-21s
and I bet those kills were made by amraams or sparrows at long distance giving those migs no chance to get close enough for a dogfight.
If the more advanced mig-29s somehow got into a dogfight with F-18s, the outcome would be completely different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by windof at 18-2-2009 12:50 PM
....last2 aewc tu pon stealth jugok, no radar emmision, no anti radar missile can lock on, and so forth....there will always be the revolution in military affair..
Stealth AEW&C will be detected by passive detection systems on the ground who will then inform friendly fighters which direction to send their long range TV guided missiles.
In the forthcoming stealth era, a defending country will hold a huge advantage over their attackers. Defending stealth fighters would turn their radars off to avoid detection and depend on passive ground based sensors to pinpoint enemy stealth fighter positions. Then they can sneak up from behind the intruders and quickly launch short range heat seeking missiles at the hot engine outlet.
[ Last edited by BotakChinPeng at 19-2-2009 12:27 AM ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #622 robotech's post
|
PLAAF attacking RMAF would be like swarms of zombies rushing towards a group of lethal zombie killerz with guns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #622 robotech's post
sapa yg gatai tgn g layan dubuk tu? kasi court marshal!!:@ :@  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #618 tin's post
|
jet2 tu bergantung pada chaff je untuk selamat bai... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #623 BotakChinPeng\ catat
so are you telling me even though the F-22 which is the newest fighter in the USAF and cost 339 million to make, with stealth and all, despite its technological advances, they forgot to made it a Mach 2.5 fighter?
samo goes with USN. don't you think its quite odd that they have chosen manuverability over speed when they select F/A-18E/F to replace the F-14?
same goes with the Russian when they decided to retrofit TVC on their latest design rather than making it faster?
what a huge long term technological barrier? it is harder to make a fighter nimble and manuverable rather than making it to move Mach 2.5 and above. in dogfights, manuverability is the key, not speed.
you said It is a whole lot easier to develop ever longer range BVRAAMs such as the AIM-120D and R-77M1. if it is easier and it works effectively, why bother making a fighter that move fast? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #626 BotakChinPeng\ catat
hey, Mig-21 have a maximum speed of Mach 2.1 so it must have a bigger no-escape-zone compared to the F/A-18. furthermore in that particular event, both F/A-18s are carrying four 2,000 lb bombs which made them a lot slower an a lot less manuverable aka a sitting duck
but still the Mig-21 loses eh? I wonder why oh why?
I see... so you are telling me that those kills were made by AMRAAMs or sparrows at long distance giving those MiG-21s no chance to get close enough for a dogfight. do you think that MiG-29 would fare any better? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balas #630 razhar\ catat
betul ker nih????
ke lu pon main tembak jer bhai??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #633 tin's post
|
wa snapshot tu... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #617 BotakChinPeng's post
|
Bila hang dok sibuk ATM vs SAF instead of vs PLA!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #628 BotakChinPeng's post
You're right!!
The problem is....there are 100 zombies while the zombie killers only have 30 rounds of ammo..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply #623 BotakChinPeng's post
|
sorry if an old goat remembers that speed was important before only for interceptors, a class of fighters(if you can call it that) whose main role is to rapidly gain airspace to shoot down spy planes and flocks of highflying bombers without being caught by escort fighters before setting down, a role pioneered by german roket Me's at the end of WW2...so you could be right that a speed of mach 2.5 has been settled as an optimal dog-fighting speed..but then the f-22/f-35 still needs super cruise before they can dog-fight eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who told you F-22 maximum speed is not in the vicinity of mach 2.5 ?
Originally posted by tin at 19-2-2009 07:11 AM 
so are you telling me even though the F-22 which is the newest fighter in the USAF and cost 339 million to make, with stealth and all, despite its technological advances, they forgot to made it a Mach 2.5 fighter?
samo goes with USN. don't you think its quite odd that they have chosen manuverability over speed when they select F/A-18E/F to replace the F-14?
...
The USN chose neither maneuvrability nor speed. Their F-18s were inferior to tomcats in both speed and agility. It was only an interim replacement for tomcats pending the arrival of F-35s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I抦 not sure if dogfights can be performed at mach 2.5
but the point I am making is : In the non-stealth era, priority number one must always be to possess a greater no escape zone by having a combination of high speed fighters and long range missiles.
Even though agility is only priority number two, it is still important enough for decision makers in the US and Russia to give up the advantage of having speed above mach 2.5
Feedback from numerous wars has taught both the US and Russia that there will always be situations where fighters find themselves having to fight at close range.
This explains the efforts to make fighters nimbler such as fitting TVC or other agility-centric adaptations which sacrifice some speed.
Originally posted by tin at 19-2-2009 07:11 AM
same goes with the Russian when they decided to retrofit TVC on their latest design rather than making it faster?
what a huge long term technological barrier? it is harder to make a fighter nimble and manuverable rather than making it to move Mach 2.5 and above. in dogfights, manuverability is the key, not speed.
you said It is a whole lot easier to develop ever longer range BVRAAMs such as the AIM-120D and R-77M1. if it is easier and it works effectively, why bother making a fighter that move fast?
Why shouldn抰 they bother ? The size of any no-escape-zone also depends on the speed of the fighter. Not just the maximum range of their missiles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily.
First of all, the no escape envelope is determined by
1) the speed of the fighter and
2) how far their missiles can go.
Secondly, a greater no escape zone will still be useless if your fighters are armed only with radar guided missiles while at the same time your radar is easily jammed by the enemy.
Originally posted by tin at 19-2-2009 07:20 AM
hey, Mig-21 have a maximum speed of Mach 2.1 so it must have a bigger no-escape-zone compared to the F/A-18.
.....
I see... so you are telling me that those kills were made by AMRAAMs or sparrows at long distance giving those MiG-21s no chance to get close enough for a dogfight. do you think that MiG-29 would fare any better?
Yes. Definitely |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 18-2-2009 12:50 PM
Author
