CE_Mikemonster

Good stuff Tharos, cheers. That straightens out what I was reading about. (Really wish you hadn't mentioned That Which Should Not Be Named though, it has a tendency to whip up a s**tstorm lol)

Truly is the Wild West, big respect to the lads out there. From the last pic I can see why the Russians liked the Shilkas for convoy protection though, that looks like a nightmare.

That's what interests me about this.. Will we see AA missiles with 'loiter' capability, or possibly a flight of four UAV's running BARCAP as gunbus for a single fighter with a high-power radar? As far as datalink with LO aircraft goes (i'm trying not to mention the obvious one), I read recently online [no source] that the problem isn't 'not being able to receive datalink' (for Situational Awareness), but is actually 'transmitting data back to the original sender.' Just some food for thought :)

Don't know what ECM these planes used, but what about HOJ or ECM black spots? I've always thought basic ECM is for more favourable positioning prior to MRM launch (in terms of a pure A2A engagement). I can't help thinking that E-E engagements wouldn't have the structure to use ECM in a complex manner, more simply just in an on/off manner at long range to jam an aggressors radar. Inside two miles with any ECM you'll get burnthrough, surely? Especially in the vertical plane?

I think that means business... eek

Lmfao

Lol, forgot to check the handbrake was on? This made me make that 'NNNNNNAAAARGGGGGHHH' sound that you do every time the gf kerbs the alloys lol.. (I hope it ended ok for all involved)

Wow, that fireman was SOOOOOOOOO lucky!

Oh dear lol I'm sure physical tank decoys are nothing new. I'm certain that we used rubber tanks in North Africa in WW2 to confuse Rommel. Never considered their application on the modern battlefield, but i'd be grateful for people to stick some more info on here to read. I'm loving the mentions of microwave's for HARMS :) For an IR camera, would the decoys look different? And would the reflection from a laser beam be any different, i.e. noticable? As for the partially veiled nationalism shown by a few characters on here (on both 'sides'), for the rest of us it's a bit embarassing to listen to, to be completely honest. If all of us acted like that it would be a pretty stupid forum, so what makes you so special?

Great reading fellas! [bin doing RL stuff, hello again :)]

Is it me, or is that a BFG?

Well I did say this to get some semblance of a straightforward discussion where I could actually learn something, but obviously the priority here for everyone is not to prove any original argument (using statistics or proven sources), but simply to bring up 1,000,000 different examples of varying credibility to support/disclaim a transient, unrelated point. Hajduk I respect your knowledge, and apparently you want to prove stealth is not effective, but stick to a point and prove it, then move on. In this topic that means argue against the need of stealth on the F-15 'Silent Eagle.' If the F-117 is to be mentioned, it must be in relation to the topic. If Tharos or anyone says something interesting but not directly related (such as a 100+/1 kill ratio), simply open up a new thread about it and we'll all discuss it there. I hope i'm not the only one that just wants a straightforward thread. This one is ducking and weaving and nobody's going to stick with a subject for more than two posts!

ouchies :)

Regardless, to produce a high-tech front line combat aircraft without at least some aspect of reduced RCS is to start at an immediate disadvantage (EDIT: in this day and age) 'How much smaller is the "Silent Eagle's" RCS compared to the F-15E?' That is really what matters. If it's not substantial then I think you're right Hajduk, there's not much point in implementing it. EDIT: PS i'm saying these statements in 'marks' so we can debate that (seems to be your original point), rather than get into a bizarre journey through time and space as the debate continues along a million different subjects with no conclusion at all in the end.

It wouldn't be the BOMB saying that if it was live. Edit: Present! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3IbDO1rR08

Sorry mate, what I said was ambiguous. When I said 'random' I meant (in my case) things i'd forgotten about. As for 'bank charges' I meant with some accounts you are charged for going ino the red/using an overdraft facility. What I meant was you've given permission to take the money but can still use it, meaning if you've got £20 in your account and £30 suddenly gets taken when they ship your order you might go into the red. Although in some cases they will put a 'shadow' on the money meaning you cannot use it, in which case it's fine :) Sorry for more OT

Hey Ram, don't mean to go OT but you might want to cancel the Pre-Order if there's any chance of bank charges for being in the Red lol, it's stung me a couple of times when 'random' funds seem to go from an account =S

Got ya, see what you mean bud.

or ALARM :) (I have to reap some reward for the 'BAe or nothing' policy over here!)

We are talking about a reduced RCS F-15, not stealth aircraft. Please stop using the word 'stealth' mate, or we'll end up in a debate about F-117's and Iraqi defences in Desert Storm which is not to do with your original question: I understand your point though which seems to be; 'Why have a reduced-RCS aircraft when no radars are operating?' [Not saying I agree though]

Nice posts! out of interest, what is the probability of the parachute/ballute failing to open on one of those bombs?

Good quote Vault, you beat me to it :)

What about; 'If you make something foolproof, they will simply create a better fool' Maybe not so relevant, i've just been contemplating it all day and it's good to be able to use it. :)

Hahaha

AFAIK when you get right down to the base reason it's the same as the resumption of the long range patrols in the Arctic. Militarily there is almost absolutely no point. Politically [internationally] Russia can be seen to be once again a competitor to the US (if only on the front page of a National newspaper or two). More importantly, Putin is garnering himself as the figurehead of a Russia recovering from the 90's. So when it comes to domestic politics it is more important to use resources on the image of an apparently mighty army than it is to spend the money on an actual mighty army. It happens in every country in the world, especially Western ones. I'm not saying a huge amount of resources were used or anything, but there is a distinction between a marketing campaign and the restructuring of the actual business. Just look at our NHS in the UK! :)