Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

International Military & Space Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Jul 2009 18:55

In a few years anti-stealth will surely advance to a point where F22 will become pretty much useless in front of modern radars


IF one reads, the US has moved on.

Even the latest AWST states that the US is fully expecting a "fifth gen" AC from BOTH Russia and China in 5-10 years!!!

However, what is a game changer is that the US has funds that not even a few countries put together can match. Now, are they using it wisely? That question remains. Time will tell.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby k prasad » 21 Jul 2009 21:09

Nice post Abhiti....

My feeling is that there is a huge misunderstanding about Stealth among a lot of BRFites....

why don't we have a section on the website or forum for "Tutorials", where BRFites can get the lowdown on these things... I know googling is first god, but having this will prevent a lot of the waffling that goes on... experienced ppl like Arun, RayC-sir, rakall, sum, etc can write these tutorials:

1. Stealth & LO Technology
2. AESAs
3. Small Arms
4. Artillery
5. Infantry and battle tactics (a sort of glossary, with explanations)..
6. FBW systems
7. EW systems
8. Radar systems in general
9. AWACs

and more...

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16202
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 21 Jul 2009 22:55

KP perhaps a FAQ like section could be done. but given the lack of reading habits among most of naya BRFites I doubt even this will be read. :wink:
but, why don't you start ? you are a guru too !

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby darshhan » 21 Jul 2009 23:07

Rahul and K Prasad , No need to create complete tutorials for the above mentioned topics.One can just put the wikipedia links for these topics.It will save lot of effort and countless man hours.This approach is also comparatively more scalable.No need to reinvent the wheel.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16202
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 21 Jul 2009 23:13

that's true but what's the use ? no one reads anything anyway. 1 hr of discovery channel is all you need to make you the leading expert of a field ! :roll:

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 657
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Shameek » 21 Jul 2009 23:59

^^ If any help is needed on writing up on any topic I can help. Of course most of my knowledge is based on books, Google, some DRDO 'insights' and BR. So no practical experience there. But still, let me know.

abrahavt
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 27 May 2003 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abrahavt » 22 Jul 2009 01:20

F-22s dont use towed decoys. Wouldnt be a stealth aircraft anymore. There are accounts of F-15 pilots being able to see the F-22 visually but not seeing it on their radar screens. If an F-15 radar cannot see it there is no way a small radar on the missile would see it.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby k prasad » 22 Jul 2009 02:24

darshhan wrote:Rahul and K Prasad , No need to create complete tutorials for the above mentioned topics.One can just put the wikipedia links for these topics.It will save lot of effort and countless man hours.This approach is also comparatively more scalable.No need to reinvent the wheel.


Darshhan, Wiki is incomplete or incorrect in many cases (I should know - I have been editing and creating pages there for 3 years), and in a BRF context, where information taht will suit us is required, it doesnt help at all. Getting to wiki is the simplest of all, and yet, misconceptions arise (esp since wiki, in many cases, is itself unclear).

Thus, there is a need to tailor the information to suit Indian needs, and BRF needs and discussions. However, wiki is also an excellent source, just that it may not be always great. And it hasn't worked.

Rahul M wrote:KP perhaps a FAQ like section could be done. but given the lack of reading habits among most of naya BRFites I doubt even this will be read. :wink:
but, why don't you start ? you are a guru too !


Hehe... I'm onlee google + wiki + baatcheet types sirjee... no practical knowledge at all, just like Shameek says. However, I can try.

I'm mailing you a bit I wrote about AESA radars... it will need to be peer reviewed and extensively corrected by some radar guru here. Feel free to redistribute sir.

As for stealth, read Bill Sweetman's views on Stealth and LO - there are some in the AI thread, based on his talk and my questions to him; but the net also is teeming with some of his clearest insights.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby k prasad » 22 Jul 2009 02:31

P.S. Rahuji, check mail... I've sent the docs.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17004
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 23 Jul 2009 15:27

Resigns after missile test failures! When will this ever happen in India? Our scientists and babus must similarly be held responsible for failure. Solomonov's resignation over the Bulava failures is an example for India too.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1 ... 379764.htm

Designer Quits After Missile Failure
23 July 2009
By Nabi Abdullaev / The Moscow Times

The country’s top missile designer resigned Wednesday after the failed test-launch of a naval ballistic missile last week weakened Moscow’s negotiating position with Washington over a new arms treaty.
“Yury Solomonov has submitted a letter asking that he be relieved from his duties as the general director and chief designer of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology,” said Alexander Vorobyov, a spokesman for the Federal Space Agency, which oversees the top-secret institute.

Vorobyov said the resignation had been accepted.

Solomonov’s Bulava intercontinental missile has failed in seven out of 11 test launches since 2004, the latest on July 15 when the missile self-destructed 20 seconds after launch from the submerged Dmitry Donskoi submarine in the White Sea.

This was the first test in 2009 and the first since Russia and the United States began negotiations over a new strategic arms reduction treaty to replace the Cold War-era START I agreement, which expires in December.

“If Russia had the Bulava coming soon, this would make its negotiating position stronger,” said Vladimir Yevseyev, a security analyst with the Institute of Global Economy and International Relations. “Now, we don’t have the missile, and a lot of the blame for this rests on Solomonov.”

U.S. and Russian negotiators met in Geneva on Wednesday for their first round of talks since Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev agreed on the framework for the new treaty at a Moscow summit on July 6.

The Bulava, which can carry up to 10 nuclear warheads, is based on the Topol, which was also designed by Solomonov’s institute and carries only a single warhead. Analysts say Russia needs the Bulava to maintain its nuclear parity with the United States as its Soviet-built missiles rapidly age and are decommissioned.

The military had planned to enter the Bulava into service in 2008, but after the first failed tests the deadline was delayed by a year and is now undecided. The military has postponed further tests until an internal investigation is carried out over the latest failure.

Solomonov’s resignation does not mean that work on the Bulava will stop, Interfax reported, quoting an unidentified senior officer with the General Staff.

Solomonov, 64, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Solomonov started working at the design bureau in 1971 and became its chief designer in 1997. He gained significant clout after he developed the land-based Topol and Topol-M in response to a Defense Ministry order for a missile that could be produced with purely Russian-made parts. The older missiles contained components made in Ukraine, where several enterprises involved in maintaining the Soviet nuclear arsenal were left after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Solomonov’s newfound clout helped him to persuade the military to chose the Bulava over another proposed intercontinental ballistic missile, the Bark, said Ruslan Pukhov, an analyst with the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

Solomonov’s design bureau traditionally led in research and design for land-based missiles, while naval missiles were developed at the Miass, Chelyabinsk-based Makeyev State Rocket Center.

“Solomonov made a successful land missile, but he overestimated his ability with the naval one,” said Gennady Yevstafyev, a retired lieutenant general and a nuclear arms researcher with the PIR Center think tank. “It took Solomonov too long to acknowledge this.”

The military has a lot riding on the Bulava. Its three newest Borei-class nuclear submarines are designed especially to carry Bulavas. One of the submarines, the Yury Dolgoruky, cost 23 billion rubles ($800 million) to build, and it completed sea tests earlier this month.

Redesigning the Borei submarines to carry the Sineva, the intercontinental ballistic missile currently deployed on nuclear submarines, would cost roughly as much as building new submarines, said Alexander Khramchikhin, an analyst with the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.

Solomonov’s departure is likely to open the way for new designers who specialize in naval missiles to join the Bulava project, analysts said.

The Federal Space Agency said Wednesday that it had started a search for a replacement for Solomonov and that Solomonov’s first deputy, Alexander Dorofeyev, would serve as acting head for now. The new chief designer will be named in September, it said.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19470
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 23 Jul 2009 17:05

Actually the problem is Mr Yuri Solmonov holds both the position as General Director of MITT and Chief Designer of Bulava .

It always used to be the case that Missile designers had their independent Chief Designer so that they could dedicate their time to Missile Project and had a high degree of autonomy

This time around they will bifurcate the two post.

Yuri Solmonov was a brilliant person and the success of Topol-M and RS-24 made his a Russia National Hero , fundamentally there is nothing wrong with Bulava SLBM , but the internal rivalry between makeyev design bureau and MITT over SLBM project let the whole project delayed and failure.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 23 Jul 2009 17:30

The "Bulava failureS" is a reflection on Russia slowly falling behind in technology - this is not a reflection on their brain power, but, more so on their engineering I think. I would like to wait till the PAK-FA is out this year to valid this theory, but I am fairly confident that it is true.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19470
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 23 Jul 2009 18:26

NRao wrote:The "Bulava failureS" is a reflection on Russia slowly falling behind in technology - this is not a reflection on their brain power, but, more so on their engineering I think. I would like to wait till the PAK-FA is out this year to valid this theory, but I am fairly confident that it is true.


If you care to look at the failure take of SS-N-20 and Sineva SLBM program it had far more failures than Bulava has.

So its not technology or some fundamental flaw in design , the last failure was attributed to faulty ejection cartridges of first stage and was a quality control issue , so quality control is something they could work.

If you would have even cared to look into the technology that goes into Bulava and its fairly light weight SLBM by any standards ( 36.8 T ) and the only one in development with active MIRV ( 6 to 10 MIRV ) , something missile designers even in India are working on , a tribute to the lead that Russian missile designer has kept up and remains unparalleled

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16202
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 23 Jul 2009 20:10

shameekg wrote:^^ If any help is needed on writing up on any topic I can help. Of course most of my knowledge is based on books, Google, some DRDO 'insights' and BR. So no practical experience there. But still, let me know.

shameek, I'll get back to you in a few days.

in the meantime, if you are interested in any particular topic you are welcome to email me.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 23 Jul 2009 20:36

When will this ever happen in India? Our scientists and babus must similarly be held responsible for failure.

ya but lets have 11 test launches of A3SL first :twisted:

Andrew DeCristofaro
BRFite
Posts: 178
Joined: 14 Jun 2009 22:37

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Andrew DeCristofaro » 23 Jul 2009 21:05

NRao wrote:The "Bulava failureS" is a reflection on Russia slowly falling behind in technology - this is not a reflection on their brain power, but, more so on their engineering I think. I would like to wait till the PAK-FA is out this year to valid this theory, but I am fairly confident that it is true.

probably they should consult india about SLBM development.

don't forget this missile is not just another SLBM,russians must be working on how to defeat future US ABM systems and incorporate ABM evading techniques in bulava and this is not easy.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 657
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Shameek » 23 Jul 2009 21:44

Rahul M wrote:shameek, I'll get back to you in a few days.

in the meantime, if you are interested in any particular topic you are welcome to email me.


Sure! Will e-mail you shortly.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jul 2009 06:46


Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gagan » 24 Jul 2009 10:48

What is this equipment? This a US navy warship apprehending somali pirates.
Image
GULF OF ADEN (Feb. 11, 2009) Sailors aboard the guided-missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf (CG 72) conduct bridge operations while suspected pirates are being apprehended by the shipís visit, board, search and seizure team (VBSS). Vella Gulf is the flagship for Combined Task Force 151, a multi-national task force conducting counterpiracy operations to detect and deter piracy in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Red Sea. It was established to create a maritime lawful order and develop security in the maritime environment. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class Jason R. Zalasky/Released)
Last edited by Gagan on 24 Jul 2009 10:51, edited 1 time in total.

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby vavinash » 24 Jul 2009 10:51

I thought it might be this but probably not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gagan » 24 Jul 2009 10:53

That is possible. The forum where I took this pic for had a comment on this pic.
I like my islamist extremist like my roasted chicken... dead and fried to the bones

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gagan » 24 Jul 2009 10:55

Found it. This is the Long Range Acoustic Device
Image

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7345
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby krishnan » 24 Jul 2009 11:02

Yes, lots of non military ships also use these when they are attacked by pirates

Jamal K. Malik
BRFite
Posts: 638
Joined: 27 Mar 2009 23:03

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Jamal K. Malik » 26 Jul 2009 00:01


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7492
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gerard » 26 Jul 2009 00:25

Found it. This is the Long Range Acoustic Device


http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/090208-2.html
Confrontations between the Steve Irwin and the whaling fleet have resulted in numerous close calls and two collisions causing minor damage. The whaling fleet this year deployed Long Range Acoustical Devices (LRAD's) and high powered water cannons against the Sea Shepherd crew. No whalers were injured. Three members of the Steve Irwin's crew were injured with one man requiring five stitches above his left eye after being hit by a blast from the LRAD and knocked over.


http://www.savethefrogs.com/frogblog/?p=27
The small boats were moving between the harpooner and the factory ship when two crewmembers on the Nisshin Maru aimed the LRAD directly at our pilot Chris Aultman.

Chris said that immediately he heard a rattling sound in his helmet and then he felt the vibrations in his legs and chest. He retreated before the device could disorient or confuse him. We were all shocked that they would target the helicopter.
Ashley Dunn from Tasmania, a camerman with Animal Planet filming for the series Whales Wars from the helicopter reported experiencing the same sensations as Chris Aultman.

Suddenly the two inflatable boats were struck by LRAD sonic blasts from the factory ship and one of the harpoon vessels. Steve Roest from Britain became instantly dizzy and fell forward cutting open his head above the left eye.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Jul 2009 14:33

spacewar.com

Russia begins construction on new nuclear sub: reports

by Staff Writers
Moscow (AFP) July 24, 2009
Russia on Friday began construction of a new nuclear submarine designed to include the capacity to launch a series of long-range cruise missiles, Russian news agencies reported.

The sub will be the second in the Yasen class, also known under its NATO classification as Granay.

Construction on the first in the series began in 1993, with it expected to be in service in 2010 or 2011, RIA Novosti and Interfax reported.

They are designed to have the capacity to launch a range of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.

The new sub, called the "Kazan," will be built "exclusively with Russian construction materials," Sevmash shipyard spokeswoman Anastasia Nikitinskaya said, according to RIA Novosti.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Jul 2009 14:35

per Wiki it says this is the 2nd Granay hull and 1st one would be nearing completion for 2010 entry.

says 1/annum for a while to rebuild the fleet.

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Drevin » 29 Jul 2009 09:41



Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Drevin » 30 Jul 2009 09:22

It would be hard to describe a bullet as smart, but what if that bullet was laser-guided, radio-controlled, and carried an onboard targeting CPU? The US Army has announced the creation of the XM25 rifle, which can fire a new type of explosive round that fit that exact description. Imagine the implications: hitting targets inside buildings or hiding around walls.


Though the XM25 rifle is an assault weapon101 it mimics a sniper rifle (except 4 range) in terms of:
- accuracy (guided bullet)
- explosive power (explosive bullet) and
- functionality (hitting targets inside buildings etc..)

light weight medium-range fast rate-of-fire sniper rifle 8)
Last edited by Drevin on 30 Jul 2009 13:06, edited 1 time in total.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1745
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby VikramS » 30 Jul 2009 10:19

abrahavt wrote:F-22s dont use towed decoys. Wouldnt be a stealth aircraft anymore. There are accounts of F-15 pilots being able to see the F-22 visually but not seeing it on their radar screens. If an F-15 radar cannot see it there is no way a small radar on the missile would see it.


The Raptor is a very large aircraft and the color scheme is 'black', not a low-obs scheme. It stands out in the distance so visual ID is possible and feasible. That could be its weakest link in a large air-to-air engagement.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby k prasad » 30 Jul 2009 15:58

Drevin wrote:Though the XM25 rifle is an assault weapon101 it mimics a sniper rifle (except 4 range) in terms of:
- accuracy (guided bullet)
- explosive power (explosive bullet)


Exploding bullets are banned by International Laws in anti-personnel usage.

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Drevin » 30 Jul 2009 16:14

Look I know there are a lot of new conceots in the XM25. It was posted only as a casual read. Many of the technologies are too mind-jarring to accept immediately. prasadji just ignore that post if its too non-conventional.

Just imagine,
- bullet is 25mm calibre :!: :mrgreen: Now thats weird
- Secondly the bulllet is guided !!

Kindly ignore my post if its too jarring.

I posted it because it has the advantages of an assault and sniper rifle without the disadvantages of both. 8) Its a seriously emerging new category of rifles.

Its a bedtime read article, not one to be read in the day :P Hoping you will understand.

The Army will begin field tests with the XM25 system soon, with hopes of deploying it into regular duty by 2012.


jmt

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby k prasad » 30 Jul 2009 16:46

No offense was meant to you Drevin... just gave a small snippet of info to add to ur extremely informative post..

XM25 is a good concept... it'll surely be an excellent platform for the US Army to test the technologies for the future... something that our DRDO and Army gurus should surely look closely at. Even the exploding rounds are ok as long as not meant for anti-personnel use. Plus, why'd one waste a 25mm bullet on a single snakey when the same can send it and its friends to their 72. :twisted:

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Drevin » 30 Jul 2009 17:07

I think the explosive bullet is meant to remove a hidden snakey around the corner (of a building)or in a trench(below ground level) because the bullet can be guided to an hypothetical point and made to explode at an exact moment in its trajectory.

non line-of-sight attacks for the case of snakey hidden behind corner of a building with 100% kill so that snakey cannot survive(exploding sharpnel is deadlier than a single bullet wound to a non-vital organ).

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19470
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 30 Jul 2009 17:27


darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2159
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby darshhan » 30 Jul 2009 18:04

Drevin and K prasad , XM-25 is also intended as a replacement for the 40 mm grenade launcher(UBGL).It actually utilises an airburst round which makes any cover for the enemy useless.It uses a laser rangefinder to calculate the distance to the enemy.This distance is then fed to the round which then bursts precisely over the head of the enemy even if he is behind the wall.

K prasad, it is not just a testing platform for the future but is going to be issued to soldiers and marines soon.Coming to legalities I don't know what bullets are legal or prohibited.Maybe you have a better idea.But surely grenade launchers and RPGs are being used by almost every army or militia group in this world.So my guess is that even if explosive bullets are banned US will not classify these airburst rounds as bullets.It will instead count as something in the category of grenades or some other explosive projectile.Mind you 25 mm is not a small arms caliber anyway.Infact it is an autocannon round.

Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 320
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Bob V » 30 Jul 2009 20:02

VikramS wrote:The Raptor is a very large aircraft and the color scheme is 'black', not a low-obs scheme.


the Raptor is as large as the F-15 only...all raptors don't have black colour scheme...

It stands out in the distance so visual ID is possible and feasible. That could be its weakest link in a large air-to-air engagement.


which comes first ? visual ID or identification by EM waves ?

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby JaiS » 31 Jul 2009 05:38


abrahavt
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 27 May 2003 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abrahavt » 31 Jul 2009 08:43

It stands out in the distance so visual ID is possible and feasible. That could be its weakest link in a large air-to-air engagement.

If it can outrun you and out maneuvere you, visually IDing it isnt going to be of much use.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests