D-Scythe

You're kidding right? You do know that AESA is not some magic stealth detecting radar right? Furthermore, you also know that stealth works on missile radars as well, right? Just FYI, the F-22 compared VERY favorably to Alaskan F-15s during recent exercises, which have much larger and more powerful AESAs than any MiG-29 or F/A-18 ever could. Anyway, let's not turn this into another 'F-22 pwns u' thread. On the subject of MiG-35s: That doesn't look like an AESA with "over 1500 T/R modules."

Datalink and RWR. Since an active radar will always be picked up by passive RWRs at ranges greater than which the radar can detect, a flight of F-16s or Gripens can pick up the radar emissions and triangulate them instantly via datalink. Even the F-22's APG-77 would have to be used sparingly from now on, although being a 1500-2000 T/R array, LPI-standard AESA has its advantages.

Wow, if all it takes to set you off is "12 Raptors can take on NK alone!" I don't even wanna imagine how short your fuze might be in real life. Groove, you forgot to mention the other F-22 pilots. Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris are going to roundhouse kick you if they find out you picked Iceman and Maverick over them :p

Is that AESA? I don't see any T/R modules - in fact, the whole antennae looks rather flat, instead of being "bumpy," like the APG-79: versus "smooth"

Fire your R-27ERs in pairs and BELOW your target. Look down is next to *useless* in LOMAC.

ARH missiles are capable of switching between HOJ and normal tracking, so in LOMAC, it doesn't matter if you have ECM on or off. BTW, it's actually quite easy to dodge radar missiles - just take a look at the training section of LOMAC or the tutorials on Ironhand's website on how to achieve this 100% of the time. This is probably one of the biggest beefs I have with LOMAC. Radar missiles aren't scary.

That website - it says 493rd VFS...what does the V stand for? About the whether the 48th is transitioning to an all F-15E wing or the 366th, I have no clue, but I've heard that the 366th is planned to transition to streamline the logistics of things - guess having multiple aircraft types is a bit too expensive for the upper brass. I haven't heard anything about the 48th FW making any major changes lately, with it being arguably the most powerful fighter unit in Europe, although I can possibly be wrong about that. Not always the most reliable source, but GlobalSecurity reports the same.

Actually, the plan is to transition the 366th AEW into an all F-15E wing in the near future, IIRC. However, AFAIK, the 493rd FS of RAF Lakenheath has not been decommissioned - in fact, according to the Lakenheath website, they were deployed to Denmark and tasked to provide air cover for the U.S. president during the 2006 NATO summit during the Thanksgiving holidays. Seeing as they are the only air supremacy squadron of the USAFE, I don't know how you think they might have been decommissioned...?

Google PAC-3/Configuration 3 ;) Believe me, there are several iterations of the PAC-3 system, the latest of which calls for a completely new missile - i.e. the ERINT. The previous versions of the PAC-3 use upgraded MIM-104 missiles. More accurately, the entire PAC 3 program consists of two inter-related programs - a "growth" program and the ERINT missile program. The "growth" division consists of a series of improvements to the PAC 2 system, and last time I checked is associated with GEM improvements to the MIM-104 missile. The missile program of course uses the the new ERINT interceptor, which still has not recieved an official designation.

Actually, GG is grossly over-estimating and you're under-estimating. If we take the range proportion of the RIM-7 vs. AIM-7 as a rough estimate for the difference in range between a missile launched in the air as opposed to the ground, the range of the air-launched weapon should be about 3-5 times as great as the exact same weapon launched from the ground. Thus, even assuming a 15 km range for a ground-launched PAC-3, the range for an air-launched missile should be around 50 to 75 km (30 to 45 miles). Let it be said, that the 15 km employment range is primarily against ballistic missiles, where the interceptor will expend energy and range to manuever itself such that the intercept geometry is as sweet as possible - i.e. the PAC-3 ERINT will try to avoid a low PK crossing shot, at the expense of range. And based on reports that PAC-3 ERINT provides greater area coverage in the defense of ballistic missiles, it is very likely that its range against other types of targets (like cruise missiles and fighters) is very much greater than 15 km - maybe not as great as the previous MIM-104 Patriot missiles, but fairly significant nonetheless. Of course, this assumes that the PAC 3/Configuration 3 missile is used - i.e. the ERINT, active radar TVC missile. Earlier configurations of PAC 3 use the standard MIM-104 Patriot missile with a 90 km + range, but I don't think that that is the missile to be carried by any proposed F-15 - it's sheer size will pose rather detrimental problems in the logistics of things.

Not exactly. SA and cockpit integration are important factors for sure, but once the fight degenerates into a furball, the aircraft is limited in its ability to supply the pilot with sensory information of multiple manuevering supersonic bandits. The bigger the furball, the worse this problem is - the pilot cannot possibly keep track of all enemy (and friendly) aircraft zipping around his cockpit at Mach 1 in anything larger than a 2 vs. 2 fight. The key is the pilot is the determining factor, not the airframe's sensors. Furthermore, in a furball, you can get brief instants where there are multiple bandits in positions that can "threaten" (i.e. you're inside their MEZ) your aircraft, as your friends/wingmen can not possibly be forcing all the enemies defensive all the time. Of course, this can also be true for your side, as your team may enjoy a brief instant where multiple fighters can engage/destroy the enemy. However, in a furball, it's mostly chaos, so there's no way to control this. Hence the "leveling" effect in a furball. This levelling effect has always existed as a technology equalizer, but has only been compounded with the introduction of high off boresight SRAAMs. It doesn't matter if you're flying an F-22 - if you're caught in between 2 MiG-21s and 4 R-73s, you better be prepared to pull those ejection handles. It also explains the shift of U.S. doctrine to avoid large furballs, though it's still practiced - nobody wants to explain how a $200 million F-22 is lost to the American public.

Um, no. Modern dogfighting doctrine dictates that if you haven't established a definitive advantage in the first one or two turns, then your chances of survival starts to decrease exponentially. Hence the recent emphasis on instantaneous turn rate (i.e. quick snap shots) as opposed to sustained turn rates (prolonged dogfighting). No matter what you're flying, an F-22 or a MiG-21, the point is to kill as many of the enemy as possible at range, then if necessary push the engagement into a *quick* dogfight. With the new generation of SRAAMs like IRIS-T and Python 5, a MiG-21 is *just* as lethal a dogfighter as an F-22 in a furball. It doesn't matter if your jet can beat the enemy's one on one, cause furballs are never one on one. I like you.

And nobody can deny that a weak pilot can have a good chance BVR with the F-15C or MiG-31. That's the whole point of DACM - play the game to your strengths, and deny your enemy the chance to do the same. BTW, the MiG-29 doesn't really out-strip its opponents in maneuverability until the fight starts getting to slow speeds. At that portion of the envelope, the only other comparable fighter is the F/A-18. At higher speeds the Viper does better (as well as the M2000 I think).

That can be said for any fighter - they might suck in some ways, but if you can get the enemy to play you're game then you've won. The trick to winning is finding a dumber pilot to fight against.

Care to explain how you create a solid penetrator magically out of copper? AFAIK, you can create a superplastic metal penetrator out of copper, but I don't think even the U.S.A. can magically create a solid, kinetic penetrator out of nothing...?

That's basically what HEAT is. A HEAT warhead forms a "jet" of superplastic metal that acts as the penetrator (can be considered a projectile I guess). There's no actual explosive/heat involved in the mechanics of the penetration.

Yeah, you're right. My bad.

In tests against set formations of vehicles SFW-type weapons like the CBU-97/WCMD and JSOW regularly get two (or more) kills per pass, including tanks. The hypersonic (? - might not be Mach 5) projectile that the weapon discharges to kill its targets was designed to punch through the top armour of any known tank in existence. BTW, SFW stands for sensor fuzed munitions that use "smart" antiarmor submunitions - for all intents and purposes, these bomblets are guided. BA (burst altitude) doesn't have as much impact as it would for SFW cluster weapons, as bomblet density is not a major factor when you have bomblets that are guided.

Again, in the scenario outlined (revenge Shkval shot), the target is performing evasive manuevers, so the point of loss in detection ability is moot. You already have fishes in the water, who cares how fast you're going once you cut the wires? Furthermore, if the enemy makes the mistake of actively pinging for the revenge shot, you're passive sonar systems are gonna pick him up regardless. The correct way is that you *don't*, or try not to. Active sonar is great for fast moving platforms like helicopters, but it's disadvantages are especially crippling to a submarine that wants to stay as stealthy as possible. If an attack sub ever finds itself in a situation where needs to employ active sonar when under attack, it's screwed. You reveal *everything* by actively pinging, and if the enemy torpedos aren't smart enough to distinguish your decoys from your submarine alone the enemy can just wire-guide them onto the right target (that would be the actively pinging *you*) with ease. On the other hand, for you, pinging doesn't allow you to identify the target, nor does it necessarily allow you to distinguish the real target from the decoys. In summary, you basically showed him where you exactly are, screwed over your decoys, etc. - basically shot all your defensive measures to hell. So, taking this all into account, would you honestly as a submarine captain decide to turn on the active sonar to come up with a firing solution for a Shkval shot that almost certainly won't hit an evading, highly agile enemy attack sub? Even if you lead the target, which increases your PK exponentially according to Trident (he forgot to mention that a PK of 0^X is still ZERO). Fine, that was my last post. I'm out.

And nobody since WWII was clever enough to think "hey, let's find some way to protect the crew from toxic fumes!" until me. I should get a patent or something on that right away. Anyway I'm out - got millions of dollars to make from my new invention. The US Navy will be all over me.

Actual definition of "tactical speed": The tactical speed of a submarine is that speed at which the submarine is quiet enough to remain undetected while tracking enemy submarines effectively, with sources of self-noise reduced to the point that other submarines and ships can be detected using onboard passive sonar sensors. But instead of accepting the actual definition, I'll just accept yours because you're the self-proclaimed victor, despite not really understanding how active sonar is employed in attack submarines. I'm by no means an underwater combat expert, but you seem to be. For that, cheers. BTW, toxic fumes? That might've been in a problem in WWII when some torpedoes started to swim out. But half a century later? That's stretching it man.

Try again - the 688(I) Los Angeles class has a silent/tactical speed of 10-15 kts. If the enemy has not cut the wires to his torps yet, chances are that he will not know the PRECISE location of you (or his firing solution may be susceptible to errors). But please, forfeit that advantage when using your decoys/counter measures and ping around to give the enemy (and his torps) your exact location. Oh, furthermore, if you have any friends around, please, reveal their locations as well. That would be *great*. I'm sure they'll thank you when they die a torpedo salvo later. Wow, you think you're gonna hit the target because you lead it? That's laughable man. I'm sure you're not gonna find many sub captains who are willing NOT to partake in the very basic evasive manuevers while Shkval's are inbound. Better yet, why don't you say your target is going to walk into your Shkval? They are going to pick it up on sonar, and drive their sub right into it. Thus proving the lethality of the Shkval as a weapon. Congratulations, you proved me wrong. What are you talking about? We're talking about a SPECIFIC scenario here - a non-point blank return shot against an attack submarine. I'm saying it's useless unless it's point blank; you guys seem to think that it will make the enemy shat his pants, and if he's lucky enough to survive, to run away scared. What expected and predicted reasons? AFAIK, such measures still reduce the overall noise signature of an attacking submarine. Any reduction in noise is welcome IMO - who cares if it doesn't completely eliminate noise? For example, Rafale has lotsa goodies to lower its RCS anyway, even though it's not a stealth aircraft. Like that's a bad thing?

Again, one more time, you cannot possibly derive a good firing solution in the tiny timeframe of an incoming enemy torpedo for a Shkval revenge shot, but you can with a normal torpedo, cause it can search out its target by itself. In this end, you only need to get it in the general area of your attacker, which data from your search systems provide when you start to pick up enemy fishes in the water. With the Shkval, the general area of the target is not good enough, cause it's basically an unguided rocket. So unless the revenge snapshot is happening at point blank, the weapon is next to *useless*. What source? The idea of putting your torpedoes as silently in the water as possible to minimize the PK of any return revenge shot has been at the forefront of both submarine and torpedo design/development/tactics since the conception of the weapon. If you wanna believe that a Shkval launch makes the attacker just as vulnerable to a return shot from its target (and any other enemy submarines in the area) as a torpedo, then go right ahead. You don't need me to google that for you, a 5 year old can do that.

Firstly, they could flood the tube well before actual launch, for one. And secondly, you don't think the people who make subs and torpedoes have been trying to make the whole launching thing as stealthy as possible? And thirdly, even if they didn't, a torpedo launch at 5000 yards will still be much more difficult to get a fix on than a Shkval launch. So what if it's not completely silent? You're still evading the point that it is MORE silent. *Much* more silent. Most new Western submarines are very silent across a wide speed range. The Seawolf-class attack submarines are reportedly more silent at 25 kts than a 688i at pierside. My problem is people over-hyping the weapon to something that it's not. It definitely won't even make the top 10 weapons to attack an attack submarine with - in fact, it shouldn't even be ranked. Again, the target CANNOT possibly miss a Shkval launch. It has AMPLE time for evasive manuevers - what, you think the target sub cannot change direction? Not many sub captains are going to cooperate with your Shkval firing solution and NOT change direction. Sheesh, why do people still dispute this point? It's ridiculous - probably more ridiculous than american die-hards. What are you talking about? You HAVE to snap back down eventually, even if you don't have to do it right away. There is NO other option for the Flanker at 100o AoA - snap back down now or later. Why you would wanna snap back down later and stay a slow, easy target for a longer period of time is beyond me though. If it just stays up there till it drops, then the manuever is neither controllable or the Cobra.

First of all, although the Su-27 reaches over 100 degrees AOA (or something) while doing the Cobra, it is not really "controllable" at that AOA. It can't do anything else at that point except snap back down. The Raptor is controllable at much higher AoA then any previous generation of fighters, but I don't think I've seen it do a "true" Cobra yet (where it snaps up and then back down). You still have the problem that a supercavitating weapon is as subtle as a freaking train. Even if someone did manage to put a reliable guidance system on it, once you fire it, you're announcing your EXACT position to the whole world - a normal torp has the Shkval beat hands down here, being MUCH stealthier. With Shkval, you are EXTREMELY vulnerable to any return shot from the target or another enemy submarine in the area. Furthermore, while 230 mph is fast, it is not fast fast, especially when you consider that modern Western submarines can cruise silently along at 25 kts. You're basically selling the farm on a shot that almost certainly would NOT work. A silent submarine facing you frontally 7 clicks away is not a very big target for an unguided Shkval to hit, stationary, let alone an evasive one (which it can do silently at up to 25 kts). Even worse, it's range is a fraction of normal torpedoes. That might be fine for third world brown water operations, to put on some cheap ex-Soviet Kilo submarine, but make no mistake - if that Kilo is not dead by the time it shoots a Shkval that probably will miss, it's *going* to be dead shortly after. And finally, even if there is guidance on the thing, there's no way to update the torpedo in long range engagements, because in no way can it be wired. With the current technology, there is just no way to make an effective medium/long-range weapon out of a supercavitating torpedo. It doesn't matter if it slows down for the end-game - you can move a lot in the 30 to 70 seconds it spends supercavitating at 25 kts.