I understand what a firing solution is. How do I increase radar return, fast? At the moment all nations had sufficient time to prepare a strategy vs Stealth fighter. Do you have any idea what could it be?
Other than making a more powerful RADAR, there is none. Once again, there really is none. Avoid conflicts with the nation that has that technology (and at this time there is only 1), increase pilot training in verbal intercepts with guns as opposed to missiles, work on more powerful RADAR systems. Kind of like defense against submarines, not much else you can do really.
Oh come on, its just an airplane Budget 5bill. True 5th gen F22 vs True 4th gen F15. Blue vs Red. All out war, both sides wants to take out enemy airfields in the first day, presume that no one fall asleep, and all weapons are working as advertised. We are the defending/attacking side armed with 4th gen. 1. If we cant see the enemy, lets even the odds. Spam the airspace with drones that imitate f15 in Radar cross section and randomly imitate a working radar. The cost of such a drone will be from 10k (single use), to 100k (multiple use). For a cost of single 5th gen we can have a multiple thousands of these including launch platforms and ground crews. If we are the defending side, lets have more multiple use drones. I say will win. No surrender. Thou shall see their blood on our blades who doubts our peacefulness and kindness! 2. Under belly radar pod, with huge cross section shining at 90 degrees? 3. Radar array out of multiple f15 radars flying in a formation? 4. Single powerful radar in the back on 747 that does the shining instead of command and control, whos reflection is picked by f15s and AIM-120s as they are closer to the targets? Lets not touch underwater subject here . Russians are quite confident that it is the Americans who rely on brute force. And if you google Black hole submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_(disambiguation) the result is : The Black Hole, NATO slang for a Russian Kilo class submarine These submergibles are all the same, from all sides . I have failed to figure out how the hell a towed hydrophone array understands the direction on the signal (port or starboard) if the sub maintains one direction, so I just wish them all a safe and uneventful service
Helos are typically not very large around a 2-3m2 cross section. A F-15 is usually around 15m2 sized. The calculations would depend on the model of the APG-63, and the type of technology involved. Also it would depend on how good the APG-77v1 is, for those numbers are not published for it is a new radar just made in 2012. It could be as high as 400 km vs 1m2 target. Either way at 88 km, the F-22 would have spotted the Eurofighter. He datalinks his buddies the info. The F-22 force is able to get the initiative and kill the enemy. - - - Updated - - - The type of language the "come on" and the smiley faces just shows your lack of knowledge. It's childish.
Mi8 is not a Cobra or, it can transport up to 30 passengers. It is a relatively large transport helicopter and a very large target. Mi24 primary role is not an attack helicopter, it is built following a concept of flying APC and can transport up to 8 troops + 2 crew. Heavy armor, air to air missiles, all bells and whistles, the cost is that it is 2-3 times the size of Cobra in frontal and 90 deg view in RCS. And do not forget that 64km is the optimistic figure, the top result, quite possibly, was acquired not in the true Look down. The v1 comes in place couple of years later, the rest is in the link. Su27 is 5sqm and F15 should be smaller, theoretically. I presume 5sqm frontal, 10 sqm from 90 degrees. Does not matter, the link I provide is for a medium size fighter it does not indicate the RCS in meters. Doubling the detection range is an extremely complicated task, technically. It will require new materials, new approach, new radar, it is technically impossible within APG-77 research program. I would say + 10km would be an excellent result. No. 88km instead of 200km changes the entire scheme of attack. F22 will not lock on 200km, Eurofighter will not have its warning, what comes next is the question. Lack of knowledge absolutely true Childish - and why not, may I ask? . Now, do you really think that a conversation of three armchair warriors and one old Patriot operator can have any significant effect on the universe? Good to see you back by the way . Do you need my answers on your previous post or lets forget about them?
Well, the Mi8 (HIP) is rather outdated now and largely held in reserve by Russia. It is often used as a training machine, and is designated purely as a logistical support helicopter. The Mi24 (HIND) is a different matter however. Commonly called the "Flying Tank", it is still one of their main helicopters, and continues in service and will for decades to come. It is indeed closer to a "flying APC" then any helicopter the US-NATO uses. And it is actually both one of the things most feared by air defense, and one of the easiest to counter. But whenever you are discussing helicopters and air defense, the "RADAR cross-section" largely means nothing. By it's very design and doctine they fly below the RADAR coverage, in that zone where the RADAR is largely ineffective, and the missile can not shoot at it anyways. That is why any "advanced" ADA system like PATRIOT or THAAD will have more conventional systems defending it, like STINGER-AVENGER and M-2 and MK-19s defending them. Because even though they can shoot down a conventional fighter-bomber at long range, they are almost completely vulnerable to helicopters. "Old"? Hey, I may be "old" in reference to my physical age (51), but I only reclassed out of PATRIOT 3 years ago. And trust me, I still keep very active and informed in the ADA community. And in the past 3 years, I can not really think of anything that has changed. PAC-4 is still in development (primarily at the cost of Raytheon, the current administration has put little funding into the upgrade program), and the PAC-3 - GEM series of launcher sand missiles are still the systems that are used today. That has not changed one bit since I moved from ADA to Commo. And just last year I spent 2 weeks with a guy who was in 5-52 until 6 months previous. In talking with him, nothing indeed had changed. Everything was done in 2015 just as it was in 2007 when I first became a PATRIOT operator. In the vast majority of the military, there are no major changes for a decade or more. Other then a new generation of missiles and launchers PATRIOT largely works the same way that it did in 1991. Sure, we now have more advanced radios and GPS on the systems, but we still lay in launchers and sites with 1900's era technology, because it works. After all, GPS may fail. By essentially a "modernized" (1950's) era surveyors sextant and an intertial navigation tool strapped to the hood of a vehicle will work even if every bit of modern technology fails to work.
Definitely disagree. Mi8 is the mainstay of Russian transport-logistical system. Went through a numerous modernizations. Excellent helicopter, numerically the most wide spread twin engine helicopter in the world, 17000+ produced. Very cost effective. Simple, reliable, a lot of engine power. Very very easy to apply any thinkable modernizations including anti-tank. The perfect choice for creation of low/med budget multi-purpose air fleet. And I believe there is no replacement at the moment. And no replacement in near future in terms of cost effectiveness. In production at the moment. Again I should disagree. USSR in Afghanistan war has shown that Flying APC concept has failed. An infantry compartment is not in use and is a dead weight 99% of flight time. A dedicated attack helicopter concept has prevailed (Like Cobra). I believe that Mi24 are going to be phased out slowly and replaced by Mi28 (not sure). Personally I would prefer a pair of Cobras above one Mi24. Though naturally Mi24 has its strong points. Some say that the only reason why helicopters fly is because they are so ugly that earth does not accept them. Looking at Mi24 you can find reason in above statement . Restless souls of dead tanks What do you mean Radar cross section means nothing? We are discussing a probability of detection of a helicopter with an aerial radar in Look down mode. I agree that speed and direction of the target might be more important than Radar Cross section of the target. And a larger target hovering at zero speed will be less detectable (from large distance), than one travelling at 250km/h head on. But RCS is not going anywhere, the bigger the RCS the stronger the signal will be, the larger the distance. Unless we are talking about short range where we can detect the rotor itself. Correct? Ok. Ok. Lets make it Old and Wise Patriot operator
*smacks my head* Did I not clearly say "support helicopter"? Yea, I think I did. Logistics and Transportation are "support" roles, not "combat roles". Please, understand the language before you correct me. They transport troops from one base to another, they transport large amounts of supplies. They are no longer intended for use in transporting troops directly to the ground for combat ops however. Yea, much like the good old CH-46 Sea Knight. Still used by the Marines for logistical purposes, but even in the 1980's we were not expected to use them for combat ops. Even as recently as 2008 I saw them in operations bringing in supplies and equipment, but not transporting troops for combat ops. The CH-53 had supplanted the combat role of the CH-46. This is a different matter altogether. More to do with doctrine and how they were deployed than the capabilities of the helicopter itself. Now let me play a bit, and mesh the doctrines of 2 different nations. Combine the doctrine of the 101st US Airborne Division (Air Assault), with the HIND. A unit where Infantry is "married" to their helicopters, using them to go in and out of combat. And I am sure we have all seen the Mel Gibson movie with the experiences in Vietnam. Now imagine instead of the UH-1 and early gunship versions of the UH-1 with the HIND. Each bringing in a squad then being able to linger around with the firepower of the HIND. Complete and utter route of the NVA forces. But US doctrine never went in the way of huge armored helicopters (they saw them as cheap disposable transportation). And the Warsaw Pact never went in the way of permanently matching infantry with aircraft units (in that area it behaves much more like the Marine Corps with it's infantry-transportation assets). You may prefer a UH-1. Myself, if I was in the position of such a blending as I mentioned would prefer the HIND. Because the pilots would actually be part of my unit. I would know them, they would know me. They are not just cab drivers giving me a ride, I have spent a long time training and working and getting to know them. And they would feel much more personal about me and my brothers being under attack. And at roughly 1.5 squads for one helicopter, they would be able to linger and give support as another went back for more ammo and fuel. The HIND is an amazing helicopter. I have actually faced them in operations, and they are terrifying. View the following video, and let me narrate a bit: [video=youtube;trOlpA6UhnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trOlpA6UhnY[/video] Now this was taken in 2008 (I know it says 2007, I actually edited this almost 2 years later and made a mistake on the year), and what you see is an Mi-24 HIND conducting an attack on a PATRIOT missile battery during a large Joint Forces operation (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) in Yuma, Arizona. He was doing an attack run on one of our Batteries (I want to say Delta 1-43) and flew damned near right over our position. We lit him up with STINGER missiles (simulated) as he made the run, then a second time after he looped around and made a second run (never seeing our position). If you notice, the radio operator is calling out the time. At the end of the day briefs they compare the times called in for units killed, and then decide who actually killed who. And in this case, the time the HIND killed the PATRIOT unit was after we had "killed" him, so the Battery was saved and the HIND was dead. He had actually believed he had destroyed the unit, not realizing that on paper, he was already dead. Helicopters operate in the world of "low and slow". Often at an altitude under 100 meters. And ground based Air Defense RADAR simply can not see most aircraft that low. And they certainly can not shoot at anything that low. I will not say to much here for obvious reasons, but generally an aircraft has to be somewhere around 1km above the ground for something like PATRIOT or THAAD to shoot at it at all. And somewhere around 500 meters above the ground to see it in the first place. Now to go back to the video I showed, that HIND was maybe 80 meters off the ground for most of it's run. And guess what? The PATRIOT crew never saw it! It never appeared on their RADAR, they were completely unable to do anything against it. Now you go and try to confuse things, throwing in "look down", which puzzles me because that has not a damned thing to do with RADAR cross-section. And the RADAR cross-section of an object flying that low means absolutely nothing. It can have the cross-section of a mosquito, or the cross-section of the Goodyear Blimp. The RADAR will still never see it, because it is below the horizon of the RADAR itself, and lost in the backscatter of the surrounding terrain. Well, ignoring the sarcasm I will accept this as a compliment. Because, the thing here is that I see these things as a professional. I actually know what I am talking about, And I am not trying to put you down, I am trying to inform you. For decades, I have been dealing with "Armchair Generals", and instead of trying to insult them try to inform them of things they are not aware of. You seem to have a laymans grasp of many concepts, but it is largely missing a great many things, or emphacizing some areas over others. For example, look at the RCS of the B-1. Yea, the thing is as big as a house. But in the days before "Stealth", it was considered the best penetration bomber in the world. Why? Well, not because of RADAR, but because of how it was intended to operate. Some first rate RADAR detection equipment, and the capability to operate "low and slow" (notice the variable swept wings) that enabled it to use natural features as a way to evade RADAR. "Stealth" is not all about RCS, but also includes doctrine and training. And an experienced operator will know how to use things like that to their advantage. Things like knowing the minimum elevation that a RADAR can see (and yes there is a minimum, it is not "the ground"), knowing how terrain features like hills and canyons can effect that a RADAR can see. Look up "Wild Weasel" tactics from Vietnam, the intent of the attack was for the airraft to be as low as possible, to prevent the RADAR from seeing it. And plus the fact that there are a great many ways to see aircraft, not just through RADAR. Are you even aware that one of the earliest ways to detect enemy aircraft was a bowl made of concrete?
Well, first of all I have not corrected you, I said that I definitely disagree. And I continue to disagree. No sarcasm. Precisely what they do. In Afganistan a USSR search and rescue team would comprise of 2xMi24 and 2xMi8. Mi24 provide fire support and covering fire, Mi8 deploy a squad for search and rescue and provide fire support. Remember a Russian Su bomber recently shot down by Turks in Syria? One Mi8 was lost in rescue operation due to TOW missile, while on the ground. (1 paratrooper from search and rescue team killed). Mi8 was used extensively in Chechen war, 28 units lost. Minority is lost due to enemy fire, but still. Nothing has changed from Afganistan times. Mi8 is the old horse that carries troops into/out of battle and provides fire support when needed. Mi24s can be added when necessary or available. There is no replacement for Mi8 role as of now. Mi8 AMTSH version Army acceptance date 2009 (meaning it have passed all certification procedures and is officially designated as a weapon) 26 troops New version of Metal Ceramics armor Avionics upgrade. Weather Radar. Night vision suite. Flir. Satellite navigation. 13000kg max lift off weight 4000kg payload 250km/h Range 610km 2x7.62 in the nose and tail Mountable weapons: Guided weapons Shtorm or Attack, 8x(supersonic anti tank laser guided missiles) 2xIgla Anti Air missiles 80mm non guided missiles C-8 2x23mm gun containers Bombs, e.t.c. This is the aircraft that can deploy/retrieve troops and provide long range, short range fire support. The problem Mil faces now is that AMTSH version is cheaper than Mi24 and they are afraid that AMTSH will cannibalize the sales. This version has the fire power of Mi24, less speed and armor, but carries 26troops, agility cant be measured directly, Mi24 has different approach to battle survival. The USSR has gone all the way. Say again, they have already done this in Afganistan and confirmed in Chechnya. Their verdict is absolutely clear. Mi8 as transport excellent. Mi24 as transport poor. Mi24 as an attack to be replaced with Mi28. You are dreaming of combining best examples of weaponry from all sides? . You are overlooking two problems. 1. Price. Mi24 US edition will be 4-5 times more expensive that Huey. This means less units in the field, less people on the ground, less fire density Now 2 Mi24s will have a battle effectiveness of 10 Hueys homemade gunships, but the amount of infantry they can deploy is much smaller. 2. Mi24 tactical technical limitations. Mi24 is not a sort of flying APC, it is a flying APC. It is heavy it has huge inertia. You cant land it in a swamp to pick up wounded. You cant land on a tiny spot in the jungle cutting the green with your blades like you can do in Huey. Mi24 is not designed for this. 3. The ancestor of this craft is not Mi8, it is the ww2 era Il2 ground attack plane. At that time Russians remembered the density of fire above German trenches. Only a fast and heavily armored unit can survive such conditions. Mi24 is not intended to hover or hover jump, its primary method of attack is pass-attack. Newer go low speed, newer hover, movement is life. Loose speed, loose agility, loose life. Such an aircraft is ill suited for troop deployment and landing in poor conditions. It is a fast, low level attack unit. Adding a troop compartment was a mistake because the requirements for Attack helicopter and troop deployment helicopter are mutually unfitting. As a result, Mi24 carries a troop compartment of 1000kg or so. Can you imagine same thing without troop compartment but with additional 1000kg of armor? We are discussing a distance and probability of detection of Mi24 with a F15 APG-63 radar in Look Down Shoot Down mode, when the target is below the radar. In this case RCS is important. You brought into discussion the issue of minimum detection altitude of a Patriot. We wear not discussing this issue! We are talking about an airborne radar detection limits, where RCS - matters. (as far as I understand) Though, it is interesting to discuss a Patriot radar. I am a bit surprised on its poor performance at low alt 500m of minimum alt - is a bit too much. Is it possible that it was the training limitation? Like no one dispatches single Mi24 to attack a Patriot... They have not seen the Mi24 at all or they failed to lock or achieve enough Radar. Can this be explained by terrain limitations?
It has to do with the missile itself. Just like any explosive system, there are "minimum distances" built into all of these systems. A PATRIOT missile recognizes that it would still be in the danger radius at such a small distance from it's launcher and will not even launch, let alone explode when it hits the target. For example, are you aware that a 40mm grenade will not detonate if it hits it target less then 40 meters from where it was launched? Same concept, it needs 40 meters to arm itself as a failsafe to protect the person who launches it.
Regarding the film… According to Wiki. During Afghanistan war there wear a total of 563 recorded Stinger launches against Mi24 with only 18 Helicopters shot down… Single Stinger does not make sense at all. How a launch site defense would be organized? I mean, on what assets you, as a commander can count on? It is situation dependant or a standard routine exists? If it depends on the situation, where do you get the additional forces from? A Patriot commander can request additional AA or ground defense if deems necessary or he operates with what is given. I understand that everything depends and presume this is open information… Would you advice by any chance a link or something to read about Patriot operations in the field? The Ant-2 (biplane) it was representing something? What was it doing there?
Well, MANPAD STINGER crews are generally 3 men, with 4-8 missiles. It takes about 10 seconds to ready a launcher for operation so firing multiples is not a problem, especially at a slower moving target like a helicopter. Now for STINGER's organic to a unit, that depends if it is an ADA or AMD Battalion. The only real difference between the two is that AMD has an AVENGER (HMMWV mounted STINGERs) organic to the Battalion. Otherwise, they would have to be requested, MANPADs are generally a Division level asset and not directly available to a PATRIOT Battalion. In other words, ADA is a Battalion with 3 PATRIOT Batteries of 6 launchers. AMD is 3 PATRIOT Batteries, and an AVENGER Battery. Each truck has 8 STINGER missiles ready to fire, reload time is about 5 minutes. Many also carry conventional MANPAD STINGER missiles as well. And yes, a commander can request more defensive units, if they are available. But in a normal Battalion, all they have for close in defense is the M2 machine gun and Mk19 grenade launcher. As for the AN-2 Colt, it was there as an AN-2 Colt. Many nations still use it for COIN insertions, recon, and atrillery fire support. And several nations like North Korea, Iraq, and others have sprayer attachments on them for dispursing chemical agents. In that exercise it was administratively "spraying" chemical agents on the main service road to try and prevent access along it. If I remember correctly, it was "believed" to have been VX gas. And there are open source Field Manuals about PATRIOT operations, but as a layman they would probably be almost meaningless to be honest. https://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-AirMissileDefense.pdf
Ch46 has retired now from operational roles, replaced with the MV22. The mix with other platforms remains the same, with 53's lifting the heavy stuff and HMLA's providing light and attack roles... albeit adjusted to suit the advantages of the MV22 which now probably gets its escort from F35B's instead of AH1's!!!
Too 'Pedo-Friendly' for my tastes, as are many of the 'mods'. Low rent neighborhood, too many homeless deviants wandering the streets, so the kids can't play outside. lol sounds about right. Some of the mods like to think they're great 'debaters' but they suck, and when you hand them their asses they stalk you and ban you. lol A friend who posts there tells me the new gimmick is permabans for 'multiple accounts', whether you had multiple ones or not. A nest of loons and crazies operating the joint there.
Sadly, most who "debate" do not do so at all, they simply "argue". Myself, I can debate all day long. I do not take it personally, and rarely have a real personal stake in what is involved. I see it simply as an intellectual exchange, where hopefully at the end both sides walk away better informed. But sadly, most use it as a way to push some kind of agenda. And this is obvious by most of the words they use. I have lost track of the number of things I have been called. Fascist, Islamophobe, Racist, Alt-Right, and those are some of the kinder things used against me. When in reality most "Real Conservatives" would classify my as a RINO, and wish I would leave "their" party. Which shows exactly haw far to the extreme left those individuals are who scream against me. I am a moderate-conservative, and proud of it.
I'm a 'paleo-liberal', Sam Rayburn as an example is more my style of politics, with a healthy dash of Patrick Moynihan's thrown in, his more practical stands, so I get that and more from all sides.
I was tempted to go with the F-22 Raptor..... but decided on the F-35... in spite of its bugs....... http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...orrect-abt-f-35-being-best-our-air-force.html Could P. M. Stephen Harper be correct abt the F-35 being the best for our air force?
Let just say I'm glad with these Super Hornets we've got the time we reconsider our (maybe hasty) decision.
Sir.... you kind of remind me of AboveAlpha...... I get the impression that it would be very difficult to defeat you in a debate on certain subjects like this...... I quoted you here: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=401457&page=3&p=1067158043#post1067158043 Thread: Could P. M. Stephen Harper be correct abt the F-35 being the best for our air force?
This is somewhat off topic but I have a way in mind to attempt to finance the purchase of several F-35's and/ or F-22 Raptors in such a way that could potentially cost Canadian and American taxpayers...... essentially nothing......... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=496787&page=2&p=1067157618#post1067157618
yes the raptor supercruise aim radar bla bla bla easily the best right now........but how about the thrust vectoring on the PAK 50??? If they get an engine that works......terrifying
PAK 50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA Engine problems https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/07/t-50-pak-fa-new-problems/ (to me it sounds like they simply don't have a working engine developed yet) VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDMhvVArC1g
Steady on, I'm a mod myself at the Mission4Today military website (as 'PoorOldSpike')! I saw this advert a while back, and as I seemed to fit the bill I decided to give it a go..-
I doubt you resemble the mods I'm talking about at the site we're talking about. lol almost as bad as those at Democratic Underground, where supporting Ralph Nader got you IP banned.
Yes, many potentially good forums are ruined by krap moderators who aren't up to the job, I've got a list as long as my arm of forums I've walked out of (or been banned from) over the years. For the record the mods here at PF seem to know their stuff and I've had no serious bust-ups with them yet.. PS- as this is the Warfare thread I might as well mention a few photo-threads I've got going over at M4T if anybody's interested. I'm adding photos to them all the time, especially the WW2 Ground/Naval thread which I only started recently- WW2 AIRCRAFT http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewforum&f=92 1920's-30's AIRCRAFT- http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=16352 WW1 AIRCRAFT- http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=16323 WW2 GROUND/NAVAL UNITS- http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewforum&f=134 PS- Has anybody noticed Patton (below) is a Trump lookalike?..
