countto10

Don't do Lester's stock missions until you are near the end and have a lot of cash.

The 2018 Bomber: THE CASE FORACCELERATING THE NEXT GENERATION LONG-RANGE STRIKE SYSTEM http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/AnalysisCenter/Documents/pdfs/The_2018_Bomber_the_case_for_a.pdf

Iskander Taken from here: ????????? ??? - ????????? ?? ????? Some absolutely amazing virtual panoramas (look round views - click on the eye symbols and then use arrows to look round inside the vehicles): BTR-82A ??????????? ???????? ???-82? "Tigr" light armoured vehicle ??????????? ???????? ???????????????? ????????? ????????? «??????» "Scorpion" light armoured vehicle ??????????? ???????? ??????????????? «????????-???» Kamaz "Typhoon" - 63968 ??????????? ???????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ????? - «??????» VPK-3927 Volk ??????????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????????? ???????????? «????» More here: ???????? ??????

I was led to believe that the F-22's radar was like a 'mini-AWACS', or at least 'very good'. And again, it's all about response time. The only way it's cheap is if the F-22 stays on the ground until needed. That still leaves the AWACS up there anyway and restricts how far away the UAV can be. Clumsy flying circus to support an UNmanned Air Vehicle. May have to change the name to OAP (Overmanned AirPlane). Besides the above, everything about the story seems hugely fabricated. Iran is probably telling its people that the Qaher-313 was inverted over the F-22 taking pictures.

It still strikes me as a lack of synergy and whilst there's obviously no one-shot fix to the deficit, needlessly adding to it seems counter-productive. You could AMRAAM hostile air assets and maintain surveillance at the same time if you're in an F-22 (theoretically). And since they supposedly can't see you in the first place, the need would disappear altogether.

Looking at little men on the ground from 30,000ft isn't important when intercepting enemy jets. Looking at the enemy jets, that's pretty important though. Although if you're looking at the enemy on radar, the surveillance equipment could still look at the ground anyway. Well if someone can afford to fly more planes than necessary that's all well and good. It's not like there's a budget deficit or anything. EDIT: What likely happened here is that an Iranian jet strayed 0.5km out of Iranian airspace, a fighter was dispatched but the Iranian jet turned round. What's described clearly didn't happen because GOOSE would have posted photos by now if it did and no Arab control towers have complained of low-level supersonic fly-pasts.

TOW never gets old. B-611M tactical G-to-G Missile System Turkey announced purchase of FD-2000 (export version of HQ-9) air-defense system which worth $3 billion. [/size] More details about FD-2000 (HQ-9) missile:

What is the ejection seat for?

Why would they give a monkey's? It didn't cost them anymore than a flight to find out and I'd wager that F-4 operating costs are less than F-22 operating costs. But of course none of this actually happened anyway.

When it's time to fight, surveillance is no longer important. You obviously didn't read what I wrote, or what the person I responded to wrote, so nevermind. If you read them, you'll realise what you've said doesn't apply because the AWACS was necessitated anyway if the F-22 stays on the ground in wait, and if the F-22 is up escorting, then it's up anyway. Whatever way you cut it, you have a load of manned plane support for what's supposed to be a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle). It all boils down to the fact that UAVs don't work against countries with any semblance of air power.

HiRes HiRes HiRes

Err no.... what you're saying makes nil sense. If the fighters are up there anyway to provide cover then it makes sense for them to do both jobs. Yes the MQ-1 has better endurance but you're putting the fighters up there for cover anyway, so that nullifies the endurance argument. The only way it works is if the F-22s wait on the ground until a threat materialises but that kind of limits surveillance range and you've also brought an AWACS into the equation to provide sufficient notice. Hell! If you have the AWACS up there you may as well fit it with the surveillance equipment and let if call fighters to protect itself. So now the maid is watching the washing machine while the butler is on standby doing the cross-word, in case the maid spots something wrong, and a tea-boy is on-hold with washing powder.

Or you could fit the fighters with surveillance equipment if they're going to be up there anyway.:lol:

Using a fighter to protect a drone is like employing a maid to watch your washing machine.

RIAT 2013 - Eurofighter http://vimeo.com/74655479

Wasn't really much point in having a tender process.

Hmmm.... when I zoomed in it's longer than is looked from far out. Su-33?

1

Near the 3 small yellow planes in the lower right quarter there is a delta-winged aircraft in front of the Berkut (looks a little like a Rafale next to a Sukhoi or something). What is that?

I liken it to having a policeman stand next to every speed camera so that people won't set them on fire or blow them up (the speed camera that is).

Swamp gas!