LOMAC/TFCSE and breathing new life into a dead airplane

[NightTrain]

Please more geek stories about Humpback Froggy's freak competition with beauty queen (or is it first runner-up?) Il-102 and the kaspian Sea monsters!

 

Ah, does were the - cold war - days, when we got these blurred black&white photos of bizarre Russian secret planes! Sure beats a good Area 51 story for me.

 

Instead of more stories how about some questions that in an indirect way relates to my idea?

 

Is the B-52 less capable in it's role because of the age of it's design?

 

Is the A-10 less capable in it's role because it's design/shape has been described as ugly?

[355th_Paulie]

Was'nt the "Bounder" nuclear powered?

[tflash]

Instead of more stories how about some questions that in an indirect way relates to my idea?

 

Is the B-52 less capable in it's role because of the age of it's design?

 

Is the A-10 less capable in it's role because it's design/shape has been described as ugly?

 

Hey, don't get me wrong: I really like your idea of using LOMAC/TFCSE for testing alternative designs, and the Il-102 is by all means a valid example.

 

How does it compare to the possibilities in X-Plane, where you can test a flight model? would X-Plane not be a natural candidate for your plans?

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

Was'nt the "Bounder" nuclear powered?

 

rgr.

 

big disaster just waiting to happen if you ask me.

[SUBS17]

Bounder was supposed to be a supersonic bomber, anyone here ever see it fly? I think it flew once over moscow during a parade.

[sixer]

its a boat!

 

Please more geek stories about Humpback Froggy's freak competition with beauty queen (or is it first runner-up?) Il-102 and the kaspian Sea monsters!

 

Ah, does were the - cold war - days, when we got these blurred black&white photos of bizarre Russian secret planes! Sure beats a good Area 51 story for me.

 

 

its not a plane its a boat! it just hydraplanes

[sixer]

Hey, don't get me wrong: I really like your idea of using LOMAC/TFCSE for testing alternative designs, and the Il-102 is by all means a valid example.

 

How does it compare to the possibilities in X-Plane, where you can test a flight model? would X-Plane not be a natural candidate for your plans?

 

 

uerica! X PLANES THATS WHAT I WAS THINKING I JUST COULD NOT REMEMBER THE NAME. yes leve lockon alone and mess whith X planes it dose not look as good but you will get bord 1 hour after you start to get in to the modleing the plane. belive me it is not a thing you want to get in to unless you are geting $$$

i have been on teams that have dun it. and if you are the only one doing it will never be right you need some one els to fly it to and tell you if its right. or you will mess whith it till the end of time. f- the spelling i was typeing fast :)

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

uerica! X PLANES THATS WHAT I WAS THINKING I JUST COULD NOT REMEMBER THE NAME. yes leve lockon alone and mess whith X planes it dose not look as good but you will get bord 1 hour after you start to get in to the modleing the plane. belive me it is not a thing you want to get in to unless you are geting $$$

i have been on teams that have dun it. and if you are the only one doing it will never be right you need some one els to fly it to and tell you if its right. or you will mess whith it till the end of time. f- the spelling i was typeing fast :)

 

 

dude typeing fast doesnt make your spelling as bad as that ^

 

you as bad as me at speelllin :p

[NightTrain]

Why the case for airborne control over ground based systems?

 

A few hundred years ago regular infantry could not withstand a charge of heavy calvary. It wasn't until the way of thinking was changed that infantry in some way were able to negate the effects of calvary with incorporating the idea of something like pike men for defense.

 

With technology aircraft have gained the upper hand in today's battlefield.

Ground based weapons systems border on obsolesce. There was a time ground based weapon systems had the upper hand. During the 1973 Arab- Israeli war Syria and Egypt used their ground based weapon systems to great effect. This was the zenith of ground based weapon systems. The technology to effectively counter these systems was still in a developing stage with a just a few missile types having the technology(Shrike). As time went on the technology was improved and the tables turned.

 

Just like infantry was vulnerable to a charge of heavy calvary a few hundred years ago so are ground based weapon systems. On todays battlefield EWR and ground based weapon systems can only emit or broadcast a signal that says: HERE I AM. KILL ME. There may be some improvements with something like the Patriot but that will be eventually countered with technology that is under development.

 

You don't have to look to the 1991 Gulf war for examples. Countries that used Soviet developed air defense systems were easily penetrated/overwhelmed/destroyed. Serbia was brought into submission because they could not mount an effective air defense. Planes were being

shot down shortly after they had taken off. In the middle east Israel bombed supposed terror training camps around Damascus. The Syrian crews who were manning the ground based weapon systems were afraid to even turn their radars on. Soviet designed/modeled ground based weapon systems cannot mount an effective defense against an onslaught of American/NATO air power.

 

Air based control of ground based weapon systems is not without flaws. First of all it has to be airborne to work. The only way it could work is if some country reaches a certain defense condition then the planes would take to the air expecting an attack will be coming at any moment. The crews are going to have to pull some shifts and give up eating spicy foods. Such a system could put up a effective defense that will allow for other assets to get into the air so an even more effective defense can be mounted. Such a system may deter a potential aggressor from attacking.

 

If thinking remains the same on ground based weapon systems the same results can be expected(Iraq,Balkans,Syria) for many years to come.

[GGTharos]

Actually, if you look at /any/ war examples you'll find that 'ground systems' are more numerous, easier to deploy, easier to hide, easier to base, easier to supply, and easier to disperse than airborne anything.

 

More over, they are REQUIRED to take and hold land.

 

Ground based systems going obsolete? I don't think so.

 

The ASAT was scrapped in favor of other systems, too.

 

In addition, your defense won't be doing much when enemy cruise missiles or tank columns, or commandos, eventually break through your no-longer-existing-obsolete-ground-systems, and take out your fuel depos and throw a big party for your return.

 

You've got the logistics of this little operation 100% screwed up.

 

Insofar as Serbia goes, they were outnumbered, plain and simple. Yet their ground assets suffered less damage than thought at first, and they continued relatively effective ground operations.

 

INsofar as russian systems being unable to mount a defense, yeah - when they're the old models, or having untrained crews, or both, then definitely, you could have the most high-tech weapon and you'd still get nailed.

 

If you are severely outnumbered, you'll still get nailed.

 

If you run into a Russian IADS which is numerous, and has trained crews, on the other hand, as WELL as new and 'non export' versions of their weapons which resist jammers much better, not to mention defeat ARM shots (the Serbs did that REALLY well, AND they shot down some planes, too) with proper techniques, you're going to be in a lot of trouble - IN PARTICULAR since they can throw sophisticated assaults right back at you.

 

In the end, to deal with a plane you should use a plane, and to deal with a tank you could ask a plane to help, but that's where the line ends.

 

Recon planes have had, do have, and will have their place. But they are DEDICATED recon planes, as are the C2/C3 assets.

 

Logistically, economically and technologically, you can't do it otherwise.

 

Period.

 

That's all there is to that.

 

 

PS: I haven't heard of an aircraft that has dodged a Patriot yet. Have you?

[wolf8218]

sorry to cut you off tharos, but did they say NUCLEAR POWERED AIRCRAFT? did they put a submarine on wings?

 

seems like it to me:

[NightTrain]

Actually, if you look at /any/ war examples you'll find that 'ground systems' are more numerous, easier to deploy, easier to hide, easier to base, easier to supply, and easier to disperse than airborne anything.

 

All that is true. Does that make them more effective? They still will be vulnerable from the air the second they turn on guidence system no matter what the numbers, the ease of deployment, disperse etc. (Further on down your post you talk about numbers of airplanes)

 

More over, they are REQUIRED to take and hold land.

 

Really? I thought that was the ground forces job(infantry,armor). Ground based weapon systems need land yes, but I think there main assignment would be to protect the air space and provide protection for ground forces.

Taking and holding land would be the ground forces job. Providing portection for those forces would be some mobile or long range system. I have never heard of a SAM being used in a ground role(surface to surface). AAA yes.

 

Ground based systems going obsolete? I don't think so.

 

I admit it's a borderline thing. That's why I used the Patriot as an example

 

The ASAT was scrapped in favor of other systems, too.

 

In addition, your defense won't be doing much when enemy cruise missiles or tank columns, or commandos, eventually break through your no-longer-existing-obsolete-ground-systems, and take out your fuel depos and throw a big party for your return.

 

When it comes to tanks you don't think a defending countries infantry will be armed with some type of anti-tank system? As far as commandos what are going to do devote them to taking out ground based weapon systems when an effective air defense is mounted? You had better train a lot more commandos in addtion to the ones you got given a country could have nummerous ground based weapon systems and then on top of that have those systems being guarded by infantry.(you would also be taking them away from one of their primary missions which is to provide reconnaissance for our ground forces) When talking about cruise missiles there is no effective defense. The defense system I propose is theoretical. But if it was implemented and it worked(the technology does exist to make it work) what do you do then?

 

You've got the logistics of this little operation 100% screwed up.

 

Further down your post you also talk about economics in addition to longistics.

 

Longistics: Let's say a country has 60 IL-102's. During a certain defence condition less than half these planes take off. They can not stay in the air forever. They can loiter in given areas for 12 hours in the air with mid-air refueling.The other planes go up to relieve them so you have continuous surveillance. Are you saying something like this is logistically impossible?

 

Economics:The IL-102 would be cost less because it is as low tech as it gets.

Maybe the weapon systems(high tech) all together on one plane would cost more than the plane itself. These planes would not be up in the air 24/7. Say a country like Serbia had these planes. Serbia is no longer under attack. Serbia would only use these planes(in good numbers) when it's beginning to look like an attack is emanate. How long has it been since Serbia has been under emanate attack?

 

 

Insofar as Serbia goes, they were outnumbered, plain and simple. Yet their ground assets suffered less damage than thought at first, and they continued relatively effective ground operations.

 

There ground assests suffered no damage because they hardly used them because the NATO forces achieved a degree of air superiority. The Serbain ground forces in Kosavo had no sizable NATO ground force to oppose them.

A lot of times these forces(Serbian) were in contact/close proximity to civilians

 

INsofar as russian systems being unable to mount a defense, yeah - when they're the old models, or having untrained crews, or both, then definitely, you could have the most high-tech weapon and you'd still get nailed.

 

If you are severely outnumbered, you'll still get nailed.

 

That's why I use numbers to counter numbers in my concept. When planes integrate with ground based systems they gain numbers.

 

If you run into a Russian IADS which is numerous, and has trained crews, on the other hand, as WELL as new and 'non export' versions of their weapons which resist jammers much better, not to mention defeat ARM shots (the Serbs did that REALLY well, AND they shot down some planes, too) with proper techniques, you're going to be in a lot of trouble - IN PARTICULAR since they can throw sophisticated assaults right back at you.

 

The Serbs did shot some planes down, but sorties flown versus the number of kills for the ground based systems what do think the kill ratio is on that? A sucessful air defense was not achieved, because like you said it was overwhelmed with numbers.

 

In the end, to deal with a plane you should use a plane, and to deal with a tank you could ask a plane to help, but that's where the line ends.

 

In end dealing with a tank maybe it's a good idea to check and see if there is some type of anti-tank weapon that's around before you call on a plane when the tank could of just as eaily been killed by that weapon.

 

Recon planes have had, do have, and will have their place. But they are DEDICATED recon planes, as are the C2/C3 assets.

 

 

Period.

 

That's all there is to that.

 

 

PS: I haven't heard of an aircraft that has dodged a Patriot yet. Have you?

 

Nope. But I have not see a patriot that's been able to distguish between friend or foe once it's fired

[GGTharos]

All that is true. Does that make them more effective? They still will be vulnerable from the air the second they turn on guidence system no matter what the numbers, the ease of deployment, disperse etc. (Further on down your post you talk about numbers of airplanes)

 

Educate yourself a little in counter-ARM tactics and you'll see just how vulnerable those systems are NOT when the defense is properly deployed.

 

Really? I thought that was the ground forces job(infantry,armor). Ground based weapon systems need land yes, but I think there main assignment would be to protect the air space and provide protection for ground forces.

Taking and holding land would be the ground forces job. Providing portection for those forces would be some mobile or long range system. I have never heard of a SAM being used in a ground role(surface to surface). AAA yes.

 

Ah, so you want to separate 'ground systems' from 'infantry' and so on and so forth. Ok, sure.

 

By the way, the Nike SAM had an AG capability, as does the Navy's Standard SAM.

 

When it comes to tanks you don't think a defending countries infantry will be armed with some type of anti-tank system? As far as commandos what are going to do devote them to taking out ground based weapon systems when an effective air defense is mounted? You had better train a lot more commandos in addtion to the ones you got given a country could have nummerous ground based weapon systems and then on top of that have those systems being guarded by infantry.(you would also be taking them away from one of their primary missions which is to provide reconnaissance for our ground forces) When talking about cruise missiles there is no effective defense. The defense system I propose is theoretical. But if it was implemented and it worked(the technology does exist to make it work) what do you do then?

 

Yes, I think the 'defender' will be armed with some type of anti-tank system. Just like in WW2, the effect of these weapons will be marginal - one of the best anti-tank weapons is still a mine. Infantry should do well to stay out of the way: Tanks mean DEATH to infantry. Their sole reason for existance is to blow people up.

 

Once the commandos take out your 'air defense's ground systems' your air defense is no longer effective - nor can it really stop a bunch of commandos to begin with, anyway. Without fuel those jets won't go anywhere. Without spares, they'll sit there, too. Without the C3 center they're screwed again.

 

And no, the technology you propose does not exist. More specifically, while datalinks and so forth are available, they're nowhere near what you propose, and won't likely be given the cost and vulnerability associated with them.

 

Further down your post you also talk about economics in addition to longistics.

 

Longistics: Let's say a country has 60 IL-102's. During a certain defence condition less than half these planes take off. They can not stay in the air forever. They can loiter in given areas for 12 hours in the air with mid-air refueling.The other planes go up to relieve them so you have continuous surveillance. Are you saying something like this is logistically impossible?

 

No, it's been done before for FAC/CAS missions.

On the other hand, if you're smart and you want to save on cost, fuel, and airframes, you'll use a real AWACS/JSTARs aircraft which has the computer and manpower to do what needs to be done, as well as a far longer ranged sensor package to do it with and better comm gear.

 

Economics:The IL-102 would be cost less because it is as low tech as it gets.

Maybe the weapon systems(high tech) all together on one plane would cost more than the plane itself. These planes would not be up in the air 24/7. Say a country like Serbia had these planes. Serbia is no longer under attack. Serbia would only use these planes(in good numbers) when it's beginning to look like an attack is emanate. How long has it been since Serbia has been under emanate attack?

 

BEEEEEEEEEEP! Wrong. Anything using remote control of anything is by definition 'high tech' since it requires specialized tranceivers and other radio equipment as well as ECCM gear and who-knows-what-else. The airframe doesn't make fighters expensive, the onboard equipment does. So much for economics.

 

As for Serbia, they barely put up a few MiG-29's, they could ill-afford to own a bunch of expensive recon/AEW planes just to launch'em into the air so they could be shot down by superior numbers. The same goes for just about anyone else.

 

 

There ground assests suffered no damage because they hardly used them because the NATO forces achieved a degree of air superiority. The Serbain ground forces in Kosavo had no sizable NATO ground force to oppose them.

A lot of times these forces(Serbian) were in contact/close proximity to civilians

 

BS. You obviously don't know anything about that war. The ground forces in that conflict carried out operations almost as normal - the only difference was that they had to complete their movements at night to avoid detection.

In addition, they fired a number of missiles/shells at enemy aircraft without taking retialliatory fire.

 

That's why I use numbers to counter numbers in my concept. When planes integrate with ground based systems they gain numbers.

 

No, you've got it all backwards. Aircraft already integrate with other airborne or ground-borne aircraft, typically TO BE DIRECTED by them, and it works well.

Ground-based assets will do much better staying quiet and being directed BY THEIR EXPERIENCED COMMANDERS. A well camouflaged flak site with disciplined gunners is death to aircraft.

 

The Serbs did shot some planes down, but sorties flown versus the number of kills for the ground based systems what do think the kill ratio is on that? A sucessful air defense was not achieved, because like you said it was overwhelmed with numbers.

 

The ratio is pretty good given how badly the Serbs were outnumbered in the air. HARMs had a hit ratio of something like 100:1 in that conflict.

All in all, as far as ground assets are concerned, NATO probably barely came out even monetarily in destruction of ground assets vs. destruction or damage to its own aircraft.

 

In end dealing with a tank maybe it's a good idea to check and see if there is some type of anti-tank weapon that's around before you call on a plane when the tank could of just as eaily been killed by that weapon.

 

But tanks are really, really tough. Why risk it if you -can- call in an aircraft?

 

Nope. But I have not see a patriot that's been able to distguish between friend or foe once it's fired

 

So what? I don't know of any missile that does that.

 

Besides, for every aircraft the Patriot misidentified, it identified another 200 correctly. Not too bad for a machine.

[tflash]

Here is another capability of my ugly Frankenstein monster. It has to do with control over AAA systems. The plane is equipped with some type of radar or tv/optics system

that is designed to scan for and target/lock on to a cruise missile. Once a lock is made on the cruise missile local AAA units that are along path are searched for. It would be hard for a AAA system to fire at something that's 50-150 ft. off the ground doing between 300-500 mph. The plane links with the AAA system though the wireless network or directly with something like a laser beam. A computer on the plane calculates a solution for a firing point plus other solutions in case the cruise missile changes it's path for the AAA system. Once the cruise missile reaches a certain point the AAA systems fire. The cruise missile is basically ambushed.

 

Seems to me a solution that is in between Airborne early warning (mostly high-flying) and Ground based radar: For ground based radar defenses, it is difficult to see low-flying intruders like cruise missiles early enough. That's the reason why these defenses are - in optimal conditions - complemented by AEW. The whole idea of netcentric warfare is to link up AEW to ground assets.

 

Here, its seems we have some intermediate solution: a LOW flying small aicraft tracking the cruise missiles to guide ground-based AAA. I think this solution still supposes AEW by other, high-flying aircraft on the one hand, on the other, I fail to see why a design like IL-102 would be appropriate for this. Doesn't seem to me to be an airplane that has the right aerodynamics to follow cruise missiles?

 

I can understand these kind of plans were considered at that time, but nowadays I guess nothing beats the netcentric Patriot solution.

[NightTrain]

Educate yourself a little in counter-ARM tactics and you'll see just how vulnerable those systems are NOT when the defense is properly deployed.

 

I don't think it just a case of them not being properly deployed. It's a case of them being overwhelmed.

 

Ah, so you want to separate 'ground systems' from 'infantry' and so on and so forth. Ok, sure.

 

Does ground based weapons systems like a SAM have an infantry support role like shooting a missile at enemy occupied hill so the friendly troops can take it? If it did something like that it would'nt be a dedicated SAM would it? It's job is to protect the infantry not support it, that's why they have artillery and different rocket/missile systems for ground use

 

By the way, the Nike SAM had an AG capability, as does the Navy's Standard SAM.

 

If does have that capability sounds like a waste of money to me, when the navy could have bought more cruise missiles that would have probably done a better job.

 

Yes, I think the 'defender' will be armed with some type of anti-tank system. Just like in WW2, the effect of these weapons will be marginal - one of the best anti-tank weapons is still a mine. Infantry should do well to stay out of the way: Tanks mean DEATH to infantry. Their sole reason for existance is to blow people up.

 

Anti-tank weapons especially guided ones are very effective. In Iraq we are seeing new methods in anti-tank warefare involving IED's. The IED's are becoming more effect because more of them are becoming improvised shape charges. If a tank has no infantry supporting it, it as good as dead.

 

Once the commandos take out your 'air defense's ground systems' your air defense is no longer effective - nor can it really stop a bunch of commandos to begin with, anyway. Without fuel those jets won't go anywhere. Without spares, they'll sit there, too. Without the C3 center they're screwed again.

 

You don't think infantry or some other security force will be guarding that ground based defence system or air force base? Commandos are not the magic bullet in disrupting longistical support of a system.You don't think they would have fuel in other places would you?So you would have your commandos running around blowing up fuel tanks everywhere? I think your commando force would be spread kind of thin between blowing up fuel tanks

within a given radius of a few air bases and trying to take out ground based defense systems. In 1989 Panama invasion a few Navy Seals got killed just assualting a regular airport.

 

And no, the technology you propose does not exist. More specifically, while datalinks and so forth are available, they're nowhere near what you propose, and won't likely be given the cost and vulnerability associated with them.

 

You mean you can't do something like aim a laser and at a certain point to something like a reciever and transmit data from a distance? I guess all these wireless networks that incorporate lasers in the civilian market place must not be working. The ground based system does not have be wirless either. It can be fiber optic with only part being wireless being the connection between the plane and the reciever. The ground based systems can be equiped with a certain length of cable and can simply plug into the network.

 

 

 

No, it's been done before for FAC/CAS missions.

On the other hand, if you're smart and you want to save on cost, fuel, and airframes, you'll use a real AWACS/JSTARs aircraft which has the computer and manpower to do what needs to be done, as well as a far longer ranged sensor package to do it with and better comm gear.

 

In my concept I have each plane performing one or two mission/tasks? How much equipment will I need? Will I need to have a mainframe computer in each one of these? AWACS/JSTARS serve in a surveillence capacity where they identify, track, vehicles and aircraft. My concept is not about surveillence. It's air defense. AWACS/JSTARS do not have an offense capacity.And my reponse to you about the longistics of the system is logical.

 

 

BEEEEEEEEEEP! Wrong. Anything using remote control of anything is by definition 'high tech' since it requires specialized tranceivers and other radio equipment as well as ECCM gear and who-knows-what-else. The airframe doesn't make fighters expensive, the onboard equipment does. So much for economics.

 

It's low tech plane utilizing high tech equipment. Did I say anything different?

As far as cost what about using existing weapon systems?(save money on RD) Of course any high tech gear is expensive that excludes many countries from buying it but does it stop everyone from buying a certain plane?

 

As for Serbia, they barely put up a few MiG-29's, they could ill-afford to own a bunch of expensive recon/AEW planes just to launch'em into the air so they could be shot down by superior numbers. The same goes for just about anyone else.

 

Who says they are just going to launched into the air and be destroyed? These are planes equiped with an offense capacity and they won't be going up into the air as the first wave is comming in. They will already be airborne.

The enemy starts to engauge the system. You don't think that will give some time for other aircraft to get into the air?

 

So what? I don't know of any missile that does that.

 

Right with ya. So what if a few allied pilots get blown ta bits. Who cares if the god dam thing dosen't do what's supposed to do.

(You think that maybe the Patroit has the abilitity to lock on to the correct target and shoot at with other friendlies in the area? Maybe they where not operating this system the correct way? Maybe when they turn it on friendly aircraft should not be in 100 km radius of system or remain on the ground?If it dosen't have the previous capabilities we have wasted our money.

 

Besides, for every aircraft the Patriot misidentified, it identified another 200 correctly. Not too bad for a machine.

 

It's identified X number of planes correctly, but when used has fired on an F-16?/F-15(can't remember) and blown a Tornado out off the sky.

[tflash]

 

It's identified X number of planes correctly, but when used has fired on an F-16?/F-15(can't remember) and blown a Tornado out off the sky.

 

-An F-16 SEAD aircraft was locked by a patriot system; it quickly responded and knocked it out with a HARM missile. see: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article787.html

 

-The Tornado had malfunctioning IFF transponder.

 

Altough the second is a very tragic and sad event with the loss of two crewmembers, it doesn't say anything about the performance of the Patriot.

 

The first incident of course poses some concern: the HTS-equipped viper is good, but THAT good was unexpected. The Patriot PACS3 is one of the best systems around. It show that ground-based air defenses are no longer as efficient as once tought.

[GGTharos]

Now you're grasping for straws, NigthTrain. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know how the machine part of this equation works, nor the monetary part.

You keep talking about things being overwhelmed, but that's a completely useless argument if you want to prove that your system would work in any way.

Laser systems have issues, too; for one you need to communicate with a fixed point in space, and you're quite limited in terms of range, which gets shorter if weather gets in the way. The equipment is pretty delicate, too.

The wireless link WILL be vulnerable to jamming and you WILL have to use it.

 

tflash, the F-16's RWR apparently had identified the Patriot as a hostile system, and it may even not have been locked onto at all - there's some fuzzyness surrounding that given certain info on RWRs.

Second, that HARM was fired a couple days after that same Patriot had misindentified the mentioned TOrnado as an ARM - and knowing that it's rather unlikely than an ARM would be fired at them, I think the crew may have thought it was a spurious mis-ident. There's a lot of fuzzyness surrounding this one, too - the Patriot is definitely capable of engaging inbound ARMs, there's a black-and-white statement concerning that in official testimony related to the TOrnado shoot-down.

The Patriot shot down a NAVY F/A-18 as well, at around the same time as the Tornado (I think no more than a couple weeks awart, I can't recall)

Neither reported getting a lock tone to their wingmen, in fact they thought they were being engaged by IR missiles in some cases (they spotted the missiles visually)

[sixer]

dude typeing fast doesnt make your spelling as bad as that ^

 

you as bad as me at speelllin :p

 

yes it is but by the time i get to the forms i have had some beer lol ;) yaya

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

yes it is but by the time i get to the forms i have had some beer lol ;) yaya

 

 

ets oka ikantt speell ithir :icon_jook :icon_wink :D beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer

[NightTrain]

Now you're grasping for straws, NigthTrain. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know how the machine part of this equation works, nor the monetary part.

 

I will give you this: when it comes to aviation you know a hell of a lot more than I do, but you don't know everthing(no one does), When it comes to your previous posts you have not put together an effective argument(with things like commandos running amuck) against mine.

 

 

You keep talking about things being overwhelmed, but that's a completely useless argument if you want to prove that your system would work in any way.

 

How is something overwhelmed? Usually it's with numbers is it not? You want to back to your previous post and tell me how Serbia was not able put an effective defense because they were 'outnumbered' like you said they were.

If it's completely useless argument then why did use it? Like I said how is something overwhelmed? Part of the NATO strategy was to use numbers to overwhelm the air defenses of Serbia was it not ?

 

Laser systems have issues, too; for one you need to communicate with a fixed point in space, and you're quite limited in terms of range, which gets shorter if weather gets in the way. The equipment is pretty delicate, too.

 

In the case of weather then different form of signal would be utilized.(a plane can be equipped with different types)Weather may interfere with communcations but can not stop it all together. A reciver/transponder can

be equipped with two methods of cummunication(laser, radio) Instead of the plane connecting to the transponder(s)/reciever(s), the transponder(s)/reciever(s) connects to the plane and tracks it. With this method a stronger signal(or more powerful laser) can be used being there would be a continuous more powerful supply(for the signal) than would be on the plane.

 

The wireless link WILL be vulnerable to jamming and you WILL have to use it.

 

Yes it would be vulnerable. But lets say you have a network of 12 airplanes

spread out into 3 groups. A group of four fighters goes up against the network. It's going to be difficult to engage in countermeasures(or jamming) when you don't know which plane(s) are controling the ground based weapon systems and when each group is equiped with a plane devoted to ECM, plus havimg these planes shoting missiles at them(as well as ground based weapon systems) Just use more planes? Networks can support other networks with planes equiped with long range missiles or use their control over ground based weapons for support.