"Bravo Sierra" check (was Re: "China's Army on Combat Alert")

[redc1c4]

Baron Huntchausen wrote:
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:45:11 GMT,
> > Admin attempted to say .....
> >
> > >
> > > Actually, a little of both. The F-16 is cheap, does just about anything
> > > short of Cargo duty and is still in production. But, the F-15 is long
> on
> > > the tooth and needs replacing. While the F-16 is second to none in a
> knife
> > > fight, it lacks the standoff capability of the F-15. The F-15 has lost
> it's
> > > superiority in the standoff. And, like most fighters will be relegated
> to
> > > the Attack role sooner or later.
> >
> > They are both from approximatly the same vintage...
>
> The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's even
> cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The F-16 is
> still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put development
> money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
> productions.
>
> The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena that can
> compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been modified
> for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent load and
> after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters. I saw
> something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short of a
> Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The Pilot
> forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be completely
> stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up. Talk
> about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know of any
> other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached to it's
> butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg AB, GE.
> The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even though the
> F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.
>
> Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers Oldsmobile.
> The F-15 is.

coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
lines were both open?

your thoughts, please. TIA!

redc1c4,
(PS to the Baron: it's "ratio" not "ration" %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Pepperoni]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
>
> coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
>
> 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do that
move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar return as
a ground feature. (mountain, etc) Since the Russians do not use radar
(having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.
They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
because their infrared gear is passive.
I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.

[Admin]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Baron Huntchausen wrote:
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > on Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:45:11 GMT,
> > > Admin attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, a little of both. The F-16 is cheap, does just about
anything
> > > > short of Cargo duty and is still in production. But, the F-15 is
long
> > on
> > > > the tooth and needs replacing. While the F-16 is second to none in
a
> > knife
> > > > fight, it lacks the standoff capability of the F-15. The F-15 has
lost
> > it's
> > > > superiority in the standoff. And, like most fighters will be
relegated
> > to
> > > > the Attack role sooner or later.
> > >
> > > They are both from approximatly the same vintage...
> >
> > The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's
even
> > cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The F-16 is
> > still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
> > money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
> > productions.
> >
> > The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena that
can
> > compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
> > for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent load
and
> > after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters. I
saw
> > something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short of a
> > Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The
Pilot
> > forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be completely
> > stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up.
Talk
> > about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know of
any
> > other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached to
it's
> > butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg AB,
GE.
> > The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even though
the
> > F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.
> >
> > Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
> > The F-15 is.
>
> coupla things here for the RAM folxs:

Yes, put your troll in RAM while you are at it.

>
> 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

And when did I say it was done while Ack Ack was shooting at it? Your
statement is a troll statement.


>
> 2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

More troll statements.



>
> 3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
> current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
> lines were both open?

Considering the A-10 is no longer in production, what would be the cost to
retool it again? That is only a minor Troll Statement from someone that
needs to stay on the ground.


>
> your thoughts, please. TIA!
>
> redc1c4,
> (PS to the Baron: it's "ratio" not "ration" %-)

More trolling? Or are you now the official spealink cheker?

[Kevin Brooks]

"redc1c4" > wrote in message
...
> Baron Huntchausen wrote:
<snip>

> >
> > The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's
even
> > cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The F-16 is
> > still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
development
> > money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
> > productions.
> >
> > The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena that
can
> > compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
modified
> > for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent load
and
> > after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters. I
saw
> > something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short of a
> > Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The
Pilot
> > forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be completely
> > stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up.
Talk
> > about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know of
any
> > other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached to
it's
> > butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg AB,
GE.
> > The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even though
the
> > F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.
> >
> > Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
Oldsmobile.
> > The F-15 is.
>
> coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
>
> 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.

Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of weight,
and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide greater
thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the F-15's
have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.

>
> 2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?

It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the export
Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so much
better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder why (a)
the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force, and
(b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough merit
in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider the
F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also being
a major F-16 operator).

>
> 3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
> current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
> lines were both open?

No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost (but
was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still are
not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a cost
of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.

Brooks

>
> your thoughts, please. TIA!
>
> redc1c4,

[Admin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Baron Huntchausen wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's
> even
> > > cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The F-16
is
> > > still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
> development
> > > money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
> > > productions.
> > >
> > > The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena that
> can
> > > compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
> modified
> > > for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent load
> and
> > > after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters. I
> saw
> > > something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short of
a
> > > Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The
> Pilot
> > > forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be completely
> > > stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up.
> Talk
> > > about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know of
> any
> > > other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached
to
> it's
> > > butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg AB,
> GE.
> > > The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even though
> the
> > > F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.
> > >
> > > Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
> Oldsmobile.
> > > The F-15 is.
> >
> > coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
> >
> > 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> > suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.
>
> Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
> thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
> F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of weight,
> and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide greater
> thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the F-15's
> have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.

And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16 costs
about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in production.

>
> >
> > 2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?
>
> It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
> capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
> capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the export
> Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so much
> better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder why
(a)
> the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force, and
> (b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough
merit
> in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider the
> F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also
being
> a major F-16 operator).

In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.


>
> >
> > 3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
> > current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
> > lines were both open?
>
> No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost
(but
> was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
> heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still are
> not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a
cost
> of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
> contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
> engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > your thoughts, please. TIA!
> >
> > redc1c4,
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Admin" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Baron Huntchausen wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter. It's
> > even
> > > > cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The
F-16
> is
> > > > still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
> > development
> > > > money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
> > > > productions.
> > > >
> > > > The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena
that
> > can
> > > > compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
> > modified
> > > > for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent
load
> > and
> > > > after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters.
I
> > saw
> > > > something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything short
of
> a
> > > > Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight. The
> > Pilot
> > > > forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be
completely
> > > > stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight up.
> > Talk
> > > > about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't know
of
> > any
> > > > other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket attached
> to
> > it's
> > > > butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg
AB,
> > GE.
> > > > The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even
though
> > the
> > > > F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.
> > > >
> > > > Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
> > Oldsmobile.
> > > > The F-15 is.
> > >
> > > coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
> > >
> > > 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> > > suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.
> >
> > Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
> > thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
> > F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of
weight,
> > and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide greater
> > thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the F-15's
> > have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.
>
> And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16
costs
> about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in production.

So is the F-15 (in production, that is); sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and
Korea are keeping the line open, and it is still competing in Singapore last
I heard. And where are you getting the idea that the F-15 costs four times
what an F-16 costs today? The cost of the F-15K's going to the ROKAF is
about $100 million per, based upon total contract cost; the price of the
F-16C Block 50's sold to Chile is about $50 million per (total contract
cost), *not including the freakin' engines*!

>
> >
> > >
> > > 2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?
> >
> > It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
> > capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
> > capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the export
> > Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so much
> > better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder why
> (a)
> > the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force,
and
> > (b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough
> merit
> > in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider the
> > F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also
> being
> > a major F-16 operator).
>
> In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
> pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.

Again, why do the USAF and israel still fly the F-15 as their premier
air-to-air fighters? Why did the ROKAF select the F-15K? Note that all three
of those forces also operate F-16's.

> > >
> > > 3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
> > > current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
> > > lines were both open?
> >
> > No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost
> (but
> > was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
> > heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still
are
> > not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a
> cost
> > of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
> > contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
> > engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.

Yep, and you add the other contractural services and you get that $50
million per copy cost, NOT INCLUDING ENGINES. So we can assume a total
flyaway cost of probably $60 million, versus $100 million for an aircraft
that you acknowledge has a better BVR capability. So how is the F-16 such a
hands-down better choice again?

Brooks

> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > your thoughts, please. TIA!
> > >
> > > redc1c4,
> >
> >
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Pepperoni" > wrote in message
...
>
> "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
> >
> > 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> > suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.
>
> The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do that
> move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar return
as
> a ground feature. (mountain, etc)

Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of heading
at the cost of a large energy loss. This seems extremely unlikley
to cause a break in radar lock. It is in any case a close combat move
when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

> Since the Russians do not use radar
> (having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.

More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
are radar guided.

> They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
> because their infrared gear is passive.
> I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.
>

Cobra

Keith

[Admin]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pepperoni" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
> > >
> > > 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> > > suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.
> >
> > The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they do
that
> > move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar
return
> as
> > a ground feature. (mountain, etc)
>
> Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
> makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of
heading
> at the cost of a large energy loss. This seems extremely unlikley
> to cause a break in radar lock. It is in any case a close combat move
> when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers

I stated it appeared to come to a stop. It really didn't. The AC actually
never stopped. It just appears that way at the range it was noted. It did
come to stall speed but if you dump enough power to anything you can get
around that. But I can say this, that was either a balsy pilot or one
damned stupid one.

>
> > Since the Russians do not use radar
> > (having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct advantage.
>
> More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
> are radar guided.

The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that dates
back to the 60s or early 70s.


>
> > They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a signature,
> > because their infrared gear is passive.
> > I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.
> >
>
> Cobra
>
> Keith
>
>

[Admin]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Admin" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Baron Huntchausen wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter.
It's
> > > even
> > > > > cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The
> F-16
> > is
> > > > > still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
> > > development
> > > > > money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
> > > > > productions.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena
> that
> > > can
> > > > > compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
> > > modified
> > > > > for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent
> load
> > > and
> > > > > after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline fighters.
> I
> > > saw
> > > > > something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything
short
> of
> > a
> > > > > Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight.
The
> > > Pilot
> > > > > forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be
> completely
> > > > > stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight
up.
> > > Talk
> > > > > about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't
know
> of
> > > any
> > > > > other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket
attached
> > to
> > > it's
> > > > > butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at Bitburg
> AB,
> > > GE.
> > > > > The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even
> though
> > > the
> > > > > F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
> > > Oldsmobile.
> > > > > The F-15 is.
> > > >
> > > > coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
> > > >
> > > > 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> > > > suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution easier.
> > >
> > > Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has a
> > > thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of the
> > > F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of
> weight,
> > > and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide
greater
> > > thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the
F-15's
> > > have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.
> >
> > And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16
> costs
> > about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in production.
>
> So is the F-15 (in production, that is); sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia,
and
> Korea are keeping the line open, and it is still competing in Singapore
last
> I heard. And where are you getting the idea that the F-15 costs four times
> what an F-16 costs today? The cost of the F-15K's going to the ROKAF is
> about $100 million per, based upon total contract cost; the price of the
> F-16C Block 50's sold to Chile is about $50 million per (total contract
> cost), *not including the freakin' engines*!

You are talking about export models. The F-15 doesn't have the same radar
among other things. The F-16C even exported is a complete package. Okay,
leave off the Engines but I doubt if a single engine will run up the bill
another 50 mil per copy.


>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?
> > >
> > > It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant growth
> > > capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
> > > capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the
export
> > > Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so
much
> > > better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder
why
> > (a)
> > > the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only force,
> and
> > > (b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen enough
> > merit
> > > in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider
the
> > > F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their also
> > being
> > > a major F-16 operator).
> >
> > In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
> > pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.
>
> Again, why do the USAF and israel still fly the F-15 as their premier
> air-to-air fighters? Why did the ROKAF select the F-15K? Note that all
three
> of those forces also operate F-16's.

The USAF has a followon Model if the funds EVER become available. Again,
you use the Export model as an example.


>
> > > >
> > > > 3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
> > > > current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
> > > > lines were both open?
> > >
> > > No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the cost
> > (but
> > > was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
> > > heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They still
> are
> > > not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at a
> > cost
> > > of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
> > > contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
> > > engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.
>
> Yep, and you add the other contractural services and you get that $50
> million per copy cost, NOT INCLUDING ENGINES. So we can assume a total
> flyaway cost of probably $60 million, versus $100 million for an aircraft
> that you acknowledge has a better BVR capability. So how is the F-16 such
a
> hands-down better choice again?

40 million savings. Plus, most countries have to keep their AC inside their
own borders. They have to get up quick, get the kill and return home. Any
old F-104 Jocks hanging around that would care to explain it to everyone
else? Just wondering, why was the F-104 still being purchased by small
countries (manufactured in Japan) while the more modern fighters were not
purchased in great numbers during that time frame? Could it be cost of
operation, Logistics in support, time to target and a host of other reasons?

I was talking about the US and not Chile. When you compare a NON Export
F-15, the price goes up since it gets the good stuff. The F-16C stays about
the same (maybe a little more).

[text-east.newsfeeds.com]

"Admin" > wrote in message
s.com...

> > More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
> > are radar guided.
>
> The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that
dates
> back to the 60s or early 70s.
>

The AA6 was Acrid, AA-8Aphid was a short range IR missile

More Modern missiles such as AA-10 Alamo, AA-12 Adder
have sem-active or active radar seekers

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[The Enlightenment]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pepperoni" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
> > >
> > > 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop"
is
> > > suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution
easier.
> >
> > The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they
do that
> > move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar
return
> as
> > a ground feature. (mountain, etc)
>
> Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
> makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of
heading
> at the cost of a large energy loss.

Some versions of the Su27/Su37 have thrust vectoring nozzles and can
thus balance on their tail till the fuel runs out.

The Joint German American X-31 which has thrust vectoring has a I
believe a 20:1 kill ratio in dogfights against F16s.

In otherwords in dogfights it is decisive. (In a world of Stealth one
would expect dogfights to occur by accident)

(back in test to acquire data on vectoring for STOL)




> This seems extremely unlikley
> to cause a break in radar lock.

It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
clutter.

> It is in any case a close combat move
> when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers
>
> > Since the Russians do not use radar
> > (having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct
advantage.
>
> More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
> are radar guided.

They can obviously maintain radar silence till they need to illuminate
the target. The AA11 alamo "amraamski" is only in limited service
but has an active homing radar.


>
> > They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a
signature,
> > because their infrared gear is passive.
> > I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.
> >
>
> Cobra
>
> Keith
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Admin" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Admin" > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Baron Huntchausen wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The F-16 is just a fraction of the cost of a frontline fighter.
> It's
> > > > even
> > > > > > cheaper than an A-10 if the A-10 were to be produced today. The
> > F-16
> > > is
> > > > > > still under development while the F-15 is not. They won't put
> > > > development
> > > > > > money into something that already has the follow-on AC ready for
> > > > > > productions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact remains, there is hardly anything in a gun to gun arena
> > that
> > > > can
> > > > > > compete with an F-16 dollar for dollar. Plus, the F-16 has been
> > > > modified
> > > > > > for the ground attack role. It's small, light, carries a decent
> > load
> > > > and
> > > > > > after pickling it's load, it can out turn most frontline
fighters.
> > I
> > > > saw
> > > > > > something I just didn't believe it was possible with anything
> short
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > > Rocket. A Danish F-16 floated to just overhead in level flight.
> The
> > > > Pilot
> > > > > > forced the nose to a 90 degree angle. The AC seemed to be
> > completely
> > > > > > stopped. He poured the coals to it (full AB) and went straight
> up.
> > > > Talk
> > > > > > about a better than a 1 to one power to weight ratio. I don't
> know
> > of
> > > > any
> > > > > > other AC that could do that short of having an Atlas Rocket
> attached
> > > to
> > > > it's
> > > > > > butt. The Dane was showing off to the US F-15C models at
Bitburg
> > AB,
> > > > GE.
> > > > > > The F-15 would have smacked the ground doing that manuever even
> > though
> > > > the
> > > > > > F-15 has a better than a 1 to 1 power to weight ration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even though the F-16 is from the same era, it's not your fathers
> > > > Oldsmobile.
> > > > > > The F-15 is.
> > > > >
> > > > > coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop" is
> > > > > suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution
easier.
> > > >
> > > > Don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be surprised if the F-16 has
a
> > > > thrust-to-weight ration that is significantly bettter than that of
the
> > > > F-15C. IIRC, over its lifetime the F-16 has gained quite a lot of
> > weight,
> > > > and while newer engines in the later models undoubtedly provide
> greater
> > > > thrust and response than the early generation F-16's enjoyed, the
> F-15's
> > > > have also taken advantage of newer engine fits over their lifetime.
> > >
> > > And the F-15 has gained weight as well. It's the cost factor. The 16
> > costs
> > > about a fourth of what a 15 costs. Plus, the 16 is still in
production.
> >
> > So is the F-15 (in production, that is); sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia,
> and
> > Korea are keeping the line open, and it is still competing in Singapore
> last
> > I heard. And where are you getting the idea that the F-15 costs four
times
> > what an F-16 costs today? The cost of the F-15K's going to the ROKAF is
> > about $100 million per, based upon total contract cost; the price of the
> > F-16C Block 50's sold to Chile is about $50 million per (total contract
> > cost), *not including the freakin' engines*!
>
> You are talking about export models. The F-15 doesn't have the same radar
> among other things. The F-16C even exported is a complete package. Okay,
> leave off the Engines but I doubt if a single engine will run up the bill
> another 50 mil per copy.

It does not need to--the comparison sans engine is enough to make your
statement (that it cost is one-fourth that of the F-15) false, by a wide
margin. And it matters not a whit that we are currently producing export
versions of the F-15 instead of domestic ones--the fact is that the jigs are
still available and in place; ordering a different radar, such as the latest
APG-63 which has already been through the integration process, would be no
big deal. The F-15 is still in production. You were wrong (again); deal with
it.

> > > > >
> > > > > 2. are the F-16 claims valid, or just more of the usual DM schise?
> > > >
> > > > It apparently is quite good, and has demonstrated a significant
growth
> > > > capability over the program's lifetime (witness the differences in
> > > > capabilities of the F-16A versus the latest Block 52 C's, or the
> export
> > > > Block 60's). But if it was, as the poster seems to be claiming, so
> much
> > > > better than the F-15C in the air-to-air role, then one would wonder
> why
> > > (a)
> > > > the USAF has not tossed its F-15's out and gone to a F-16-only
force,
> > and
> > > > (b) why folks like the Israelis, South Koreans, etc., have seen
enough
> > > merit
> > > > in the F-15 to keep buying them (and why the Israelis still consider
> the
> > > > F-15 to be their preeminent air-to-air fighter, in spite of their
also
> > > being
> > > > a major F-16 operator).
> > >
> > > In a Radar environment, the 15 is better. In a knife fight, the 16 is
> > > pretty much king. He cut the rest of it to present his trolling.
> >
> > Again, why do the USAF and israel still fly the F-15 as their premier
> > air-to-air fighters? Why did the ROKAF select the F-15K? Note that all
> three
> > of those forces also operate F-16's.
>
> The USAF has a followon Model if the funds EVER become available. Again,
> you use the Export model as an example.

Huh? Again, why are we, the Israelis, and now the ROKAF still flying (and in
a couple of cases buying) F-15's, given that all three are also operating
your "superior" F-16?


> > > > >
> > > > > 3. A-10 vs. F-16 acquisition cost: does anyone really think the
> > > > > current Falcon is cheaper than a Hog, assuming the production
> > > > > lines were both open?
> > > >
> > > > No. The originally conceived F-16 might have been approaching the
cost
> > > (but
> > > > was still above it, IIRC) of the A-10, but it quickly morphed into a
> > > > heavier, multi-role platform, with attendant cost increase. They
still
> > are
> > > > not "cheap"; the Chileans bought 10 late model (Block 50) F-16C's at
a
> > > cost
> > > > of about $40 million each for the aircraft (not including the other
> > > > contractural services), but apparently that cost did NOT include the
> > > > engines, which were being procured under a separate contract.
> >
> > Yep, and you add the other contractural services and you get that $50
> > million per copy cost, NOT INCLUDING ENGINES. So we can assume a total
> > flyaway cost of probably $60 million, versus $100 million for an
aircraft
> > that you acknowledge has a better BVR capability. So how is the F-16
such
> a
> > hands-down better choice again?
>
> 40 million savings.

You earlier said one-fourth the cost--which is it?

Plus, most countries have to keep their AC inside their
> own borders. They have to get up quick, get the kill and return home.
Any
> old F-104 Jocks hanging around that would care to explain it to everyone
> else? Just wondering, why was the F-104 still being purchased by small
> countries (manufactured in Japan) while the more modern fighters were not
> purchased in great numbers during that time frame? Could it be cost of
> operation, Logistics in support, time to target and a host of other
reasons?

Can you name any nation that purchased F-104's from Japan?

>
> I was talking about the US and not Chile. When you compare a NON Export
> F-15, the price goes up since it gets the good stuff. The F-16C stays
about
> the same (maybe a little more).

Actually, I do believe you have it a bit backwards; USAF purchase costs for
F-15's, including the latest F-15E's that rolled off the line just a year or
so back, have been significantly *lower* than the cost quoted for that ROKAF
deal, for a number of reasons (existing infrastructure to support them,
purchase under long-term lead contract, etc.).

The question now is, what about this issue have you gotten *right* thus far?
Darned little that I have seen as of yet, "Admin".

Brooks (using his by golly real name)

>
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Pepperoni" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "redc1c4" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > coupla things here for the RAM folxs:
> > > >
> > > > 1. it seems to me that coming to a more or less "complete stop"
> is
> > > > suicidal in ACM. it sure as hell would make the AAA solution
> easier.
> > >
> > > The Russians came up with that maneuver. It seems that when they
> do that
> > > move, our targeting radar, not seeing movement, mistakes the radar
> return
> > as
> > > a ground feature. (mountain, etc)
> >
> > Horsefeathers, they dont come to a complete stop, such a manoeveur
> > makes aircraft fall out of the air, they make a momentary change of
> heading
> > at the cost of a large energy loss.
>
> Some versions of the Su27/Su37 have thrust vectoring nozzles and can
> thus balance on their tail till the fuel runs out.
>
> The Joint German American X-31 which has thrust vectoring has a I
> believe a 20:1 kill ratio in dogfights against F16s.
>
> In otherwords in dogfights it is decisive. (In a world of Stealth one
> would expect dogfights to occur by accident)
>
> (back in test to acquire data on vectoring for STOL)
>
>
>
>
> > This seems extremely unlikley
> > to cause a break in radar lock.
>
> It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
> enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
> clutter.

Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.

Brooks

>
> > It is in any case a close combat move
> > when any bandit would be looking to use heat seekers
> >
> > > Since the Russians do not use radar
> > > (having cryogenic heat viewers, instead) they have a distinct
> advantage.
> >
> > More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
> > are radar guided.
>
> They can obviously maintain radar silence till they need to illuminate
> the target. The AA11 alamo "amraamski" is only in limited service
> but has an active homing radar.
>
>
> >
> > > They can see our targeting radar sweeps, but do not output a
> signature,
> > > because their infrared gear is passive.
> > > I believe it is called the "Snakehead" maneuver.
> > >
> >
> > Cobra
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael Zaharis]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Pepperoni" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>This seems extremely unlikley
>>>to cause a break in radar lock.
>>
>>It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
>>enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
>>clutter.
>
>
> Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
> combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.
>
> Brooks

I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
Assuming that you do this within AMRAAMSKI range, you could launch a
missile to defeat the US aircraft without being tracked accurately
enough by the US aircraft to destroy you. From the US point of view,
the SU-27 appears on your screen, then disappears.

The supporters of this theory claimed that it was further indication
that the F-15 was becoming obsolete in the face of new threats, and an
aircraft that provides little warning to provoke an SU-27 to adopt this
strategy (F/A-22) was (and is) required. They had managed to run a
number of (two-dome, I believe) simulations where they could kill F-15s
with regularity in a SU-27-like simulated threat. The detractors claim
that this was an unlikely manuever in any realistic combat situation,
and would be very difficult for people with less training than the US
Air Force to carry out.

To me, it also seems that such a strategy requires better situational
awareness than most SU-27 operators could muster.

[Michael Zaharis]

Michael Zaharis wrote:

>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> "Pepperoni" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> This seems extremely unlikley
>>>> to cause a break in radar lock.
>>>
>>>
>>> It would not show up on MTI or give a doppler return. If done close
>>> enough to ground it might prevent an acquisition due to ground
>>> clutter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oddly enough, even the Russian test pilots said that they really saw no
>> combat utility for the Cobra maneuver.
>>
>> Brooks
>
>
> I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
> interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
> who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
> a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
> drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
> radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
> would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
> maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
> decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
> Assuming that you do this within AMRAAMSKI range, you could launch a
> missile to defeat the US aircraft without being tracked accurately
> enough by the US aircraft to destroy you. From the US point of view,
> the SU-27 appears on your screen, then disappears.
>
> The supporters of this theory claimed that it was further indication
> that the F-15 was becoming obsolete in the face of new threats, and an
> aircraft that provides little warning to provoke an SU-27 to adopt this
> strategy (F/A-22) was (and is) required. They had managed to run a
> number of (two-dome, I believe) simulations where they could kill F-15s
> with regularity in a SU-27-like simulated threat. The detractors claim
> that this was an unlikely manuever in any realistic combat situation,
> and would be very difficult for people with less training than the US
> Air Force to carry out.
>
> To me, it also seems that such a strategy requires better situational
> awareness than most SU-27 operators could muster.
>

BTW, before flaming, I am not claiming that this is a workable strategy
or not. I haven't enough first-hand knowledge of ACM or BVR engagements
(in fact, I have none - everything I know is from reading and talking
with people). Just repeating what was reported regarding this in AW&ST.

[Pepperoni]

"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
> interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
> who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
> a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
> drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
> radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
> would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
> maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
> decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
xxxxxxxxxxx

The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
and constant altitude.
This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return. The radar,
looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet aircraft.
Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar seek
signal vector)

I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
weakness before we had any idea.

Pepperoni

[Admin]

"text-east.newsfeeds.com" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "Admin" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
> > > More horse****, the Russians assuredly DO use radar, theit BVRAAM's
> > > are radar guided.
> >
> > The last time I checked, the old Aphid AA-6 was a Radar Homer and that
> dates
> > back to the 60s or early 70s.
> >
>
> The AA6 was Acrid, AA-8Aphid was a short range IR missile

Thanks. It's been a few years since I had to know what was which.


>
> More Modern missiles such as AA-10 Alamo, AA-12 Adder
> have sem-active or active radar seekers
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Keith Willshaw]

"Pepperoni" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
> xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
> > interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
> > who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
> > a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
> > drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
> > radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
> > would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
> > maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
> > decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
> xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
> constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
> and constant altitude.

This is not a good position to be in when a combat is taking
place, the phrase sitting duck comes to mind. Talk to any
combat pilot and he'll tell you energy is life. The pilot trying this
trick is a dead man.

> This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return.

Horse****, radars have variable settings and they manage
to detect large stationary objetcs like airships very handily.

Additionally they have IR guided missiles which will happily
lock on to any heat source and a cannon who's shells
could care less.

> The radar,
> looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet
aircraft.
> Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
> target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar
seek
> signal vector)
>

You aint tracking anything if you are joggling the throttle trying
this trick, its akin to balancing a beer bottle on your nose
and tring to fire a rifle at the same time and your radar
and weapons systems are pointing straight up into a
clear, and empty, blue sky. OOPS

> I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
> weakness before we had any idea.
>

Russian built fighters have an exceedingly poor record against US
aircraft in the last 30 years or so. If the tried the trick you propose
the the US pilot ,ight die laughing but I doubt it.

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Pepperoni" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
> ...
> xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
> > interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
> > who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
> > a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
> > drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
> > radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
> > would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
> > maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
> > decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
> xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
> constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
> and constant altitude.
> This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return. The radar,
> looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet
aircraft.
> Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
> target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar
seek
> signal vector)
>
> I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
> weakness before we had any idea.

I believe you would be wrong. The Sukhoi test pilot who was comenting in the
interview I read indicated it was a purely for show maneuver, and only
recieved later consideration as a tactical maneuver after the USAF expressed
some interest in it. Now you are left with a Russian Air Force that is lucky
to get enough flight hours for its pilots such that they can be relatively
safe in the conduct of takeoffs and landings--I'd eat my hat if you can show
where they are routinely practicing this maneuver for combat. And as has
been pointed out by numerous posters with real expertise in the field of ACM
(and I am not one of them), it leaves you in a real bind in terms of energy
(i.e., sitting duck).

Brooks

>
> Pepperoni
>
>

[[email protected]]

"Pepperoni" > wrote:

>
>"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> I remember reading about this one in AW&ST about this. This was,
>> interestingly enough, a strategy developed by some US Air Force people
>> who were researching potential threats. They came up with some sort of
>> a strategy where a SU-27 or derivative uses some Cobra-like maneuver to
>> drop the aircraft's velocity below the threshold set for the Doppler
>> radar to discriminate between ground and moving aerial targets. How you
>> would maintain that is fuzzy to me, but it seems that you'd have to
>> maintain some flight path that keeps you at a constant, or slightly
>> decreasing, radial distance from the aircraft trying to detect you.
>xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>The maneuver is to pitch the aircraft into vertical flight and maintain a
>constant altitude with the throttle. The aircraft has near zero airspeed,
>and constant altitude.
>This causes the targeting radar to disregard the return. The radar,
>looking for a moving aircraft does not identify the echo as a jet aircraft.
>Meanwhile, the attacker is emitting radar seek signals, closing on the
>target and being tracked by passive infrared. (and also giving a radar seek
>signal vector)
>
>I'm quite sure the Russians developed the maneuver to exploit our radar
>weakness before we had any idea.
>
>Pepperoni
>

Pepperoni you're just too cute for words...I'd like to pinch your
chubby little cheeks for you...and I want these nasty guys here
to leave you alone...
--

-Gord.