...because radios can be jammed? If the pilot is seperated from the vehicle, the method of communicaiton is a point source of failure. If you take the pilot out of it and make them computer controlled, then they can only fight as well as your programmer is skilled and knowledgeable. And, after all, we all know that the programs currently released are all bug-free.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Manned aircraft is so 1990ish. Who would spend so much on a plane that is limited to 9Gs because there is a pilot in it?
it was a joke mateSpark wrote:
Don't bag the F/A-18. It's a fairly decent machine.jamiecracker wrote:
hahahaha it would probably be better than the tiger moths that we currently have now
I wouldn't say it doesn't mean much. It's of concern, to be sure, especially given the "Rudd doctrine" outlined yesterday/day before.
club seals, not sandwiches
I'll take on the Russians all by myself in the newly formed English Foreign legion. Assholes got it coming.
Without knowing the parameters of the simulation scenario, that outcome is meaningless.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
well, if you are programming for a jet that can pull 8 more Gs than the enemy and is highly compact and stealthy due to the lack of a cockpit, I think there would be a bit of an advantage. Just don't have it run on windows 98.imortal wrote:
...because radios can be jammed? If the pilot is seperated from the vehicle, the method of communicaiton is a point source of failure. If you take the pilot out of it and make them computer controlled, then they can only fight as well as your programmer is skilled and knowledgeable. And, after all, we all know that the programs currently released are all bug-free.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Manned aircraft is so 1990ish. Who would spend so much on a plane that is limited to 9Gs because there is a pilot in it?
+1FEOS wrote:
Without knowing the parameters of the simulation scenario, that outcome is meaningless.
Often, the US will purposely simulate a situation where our side is at a significant disadvantage (Indian exercises comes to mind). The F-35 is NOT our air superiority fighter. Also, its sensors are not designed for long-range A2A combat (like new Sukhois are). Look up http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html for a very good (but perhaps biased) study on Sukhois versus F-35s (and F/A-18s).
AFAIK Dice don't make military software.imortal wrote:
...because radios can be jammed? If the pilot is seperated from the vehicle, the method of communicaiton is a point source of failure. If you take the pilot out of it and make them computer controlled, then they can only fight as well as your programmer is skilled and knowledgeable. And, after all, we all know that the programs currently released are all bug-free.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Manned aircraft is so 1990ish. Who would spend so much on a plane that is limited to 9Gs because there is a pilot in it?
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
Awesome article on the subject. As some have suggested the F22 will handle the SU, which seems to be true, however from an Australian perspective, we dont have a fighter that can match that. Therefore our Airforce would be at a significant disadvantage. The uptake of Su 30 in our region seems quite significant. Although as Kmarion has said it is unlikely that these planes will face off against each other.Ramius wrote:
Often, the US will purposely simulate a situation where our side is at a significant disadvantage (Indian exercises comes to mind). The F-35 is NOT our air superiority fighter. Also, its sensors are not designed for long-range A2A combat (like new Sukhois are). Look up http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html for a very good (but perhaps biased) study on Sukhois versus F-35s (and F/A-18s).
Actually the person although now in opposition was in government when the decision was made to buy the JSF. It wouldnt pay for him to complain too much.some previous guy wrote:
So.... a political person from the party opposing the fighters anyway says he talked to someone who knows about the results of the test who said that the fighters had been clubbed... yadda yadda yadda.
Don't forget that training and tactics are an even bigger player than aircraft capability. The countries in your region that are outfitting with the Su--and that you are more likely to fight--don't train their aircrew well at all (ie, NOT India or China).Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Awesome article on the subject. As some have suggested the F22 will handle the SU, which seems to be true, however from an Australian perspective, we dont have a fighter that can match that. Therefore our Airforce would be at a significant disadvantage. The uptake of Su 30 in our region seems quite significant. Although as Kmarion has said it is unlikely that these planes will face off against each other.Ramius wrote:
Often, the US will purposely simulate a situation where our side is at a significant disadvantage (Indian exercises comes to mind). The F-35 is NOT our air superiority fighter. Also, its sensors are not designed for long-range A2A combat (like new Sukhois are). Look up http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html for a very good (but perhaps biased) study on Sukhois versus F-35s (and F/A-18s).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Of course you are absolutely right on that one. By most accounts the standard of Australian pilot training is very good. Not to mention ( as has been said before) the Su tend to be pretty ordinary quality, therefore may not perform properly when required.FEOS wrote:
Don't forget that training and tactics are an even bigger player than aircraft capability. The countries in your region that are outfitting with the Su--and that you are more likely to fight--don't train their aircrew well at all (ie, NOT India or China).
I dont want to diminish the achievment that the JSF is, because it is pretty awesome, but it doesnt do everything, which may be what we want it to. I was also pretty keen to start a post that wasnt about the US election, just to break the monotony a bit.
AWACS + BVR Missiles = Success
Now that is a very good question.Spearhead wrote:
Good point.Kmarion wrote:
Scenarios that will never happen.
Why are we spending all this money on this crap again?
The RAF, i don't know about USAF and Russia etc. though, are spending the vast majority of their budget on fixed wing fighters such as the Typhoon and now JSF...
If i remember correctly, the Typhoon has been scrambled once... we seriously don't need these planes...
The Para's/Navy need Chinooks and other choppers for Afghanistan. Fair enough, the Harriers are used, but why blow all your money on something your never going to use, ever?
The simple fact that you have a capablility is of great deterrence to potential enemies.
Also, modern air forces are incredibly complex. You cannot simply up the production line and expect your AF to perform within a few weeks. During WWII, we could adaquately produce aircraft and train pilots within a few months. Due to changes in aerial warfare, that is no longer the case (if you want quality pilots and aircraft).
Also, modern air forces are incredibly complex. You cannot simply up the production line and expect your AF to perform within a few weeks. During WWII, we could adaquately produce aircraft and train pilots within a few months. Due to changes in aerial warfare, that is no longer the case (if you want quality pilots and aircraft).
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-09-12 09:33:03)
I know that. Everyone does. Nowadays planes cost millions of pounds. Back in the day the Brits were using planes made out of balsa wood and glueRAIMIUS wrote:
The simple fact that you have a capablility is of great deterrence to potential enemies.
Also, modern air forces are incredibly complex. You cannot simply up the production line and expect your AF to perform within a few weeks. During WWII, we could adaquately produce aircraft and train pilots within a few months. Due to changes in aerial warfare, that is no longer the case (if you want quality pilots and aircraft).
I don't think the RAAF thinks the JSF will do everything. I'm pretty sure they know just what its capabilities are and feel that it meets requirements that are either unmet now or are expected to be unmet in the future (due to retiring aircraft, increased regional capabilities, etc). Otherwise, they wouldn't be looking to buy it.Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Of course you are absolutely right on that one. By most accounts the standard of Australian pilot training is very good. Not to mention ( as has been said before) the Su tend to be pretty ordinary quality, therefore may not perform properly when required.FEOS wrote:
Don't forget that training and tactics are an even bigger player than aircraft capability. The countries in your region that are outfitting with the Su--and that you are more likely to fight--don't train their aircrew well at all (ie, NOT India or China).
I dont want to diminish the achievment that the JSF is, because it is pretty awesome, but it doesnt do everything, which may be what we want it to. I was also pretty keen to start a post that wasnt about the US election, just to break the monotony a bit.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Soviets make crap. I remember how hyped up the T-72 tank was, then when I got on one in real life it became obvious that what looks good on paper is not always the case in reality. Absolute junk, the M60 was a better cat.
I assume that their jets are just about as worthless unless they have started putting technology from other countries in them and are building them in Japan.
I assume that their jets are just about as worthless unless they have started putting technology from other countries in them and are building them in Japan.
The USSR doesn't exist anymore, come forward to the 21st century.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Soviets make crap. I remember how hyped up the T-72 tank was, then when I got on one in real life it became obvious that what looks good on paper is not always the case in reality. Absolute junk, the M60 was a better cat.
I assume that their jets are just about as worthless unless they have started putting technology from other countries in them and are building them in Japan.
Who made most of Russia's current military hardware? Yeah, I thought so. Welcome to reality, and thanks for making an ass of yourself.MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
The USSR doesn't exist anymore, come forward to the 21st century.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Soviets make crap. I remember how hyped up the T-72 tank was, then when I got on one in real life it became obvious that what looks good on paper is not always the case in reality. Absolute junk, the M60 was a better cat.
I assume that their jets are just about as worthless unless they have started putting technology from other countries in them and are building them in Japan.
Thanks for being a tool, since I did not say Russia's military equipment was not done by the USSR.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Who made most of Russia's current military hardware? Yeah, I thought so. Welcome to reality, and thanks for making an ass of yourself.MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
The USSR doesn't exist anymore, come forward to the 21st century.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Soviets make crap. I remember how hyped up the T-72 tank was, then when I got on one in real life it became obvious that what looks good on paper is not always the case in reality. Absolute junk, the M60 was a better cat.
I assume that their jets are just about as worthless unless they have started putting technology from other countries in them and are building them in Japan.
Learn to read. Oh, and just to sting it a little bit, that "crap" equipment the Soviets made raped and then teabagged the brand new F-35 "Death Coffin Waste of Money" mufti-role aircraft. The US (and any other countries that will use the F-35) should stick with the F-16 and just upgrade it more and more and more and more.
Well if the Russian's aircraft is better than the F-35, at least we have the F-22.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
There's something sexy and ominous about Russian fighters. The forward swept wings makes it look like something Batman would fly. THAT'S RIGHT! Batman is a commie.
But the F22 looks strictly American. Big, bad and ready to kick some alien ass....something Will Smith will fly...or Abraham Lincoln.
But the F22 looks strictly American. Big, bad and ready to kick some alien ass....something Will Smith will fly...or Abraham Lincoln.
Maybe thats because its a bomber and not an air superiority fighter?m3thod wrote:
The su 34 is a flying barnyard.
Oh yeah I almost forgot, the U.S. navy have pilot helmets that make you simply look at a target and you are locked on the aircraft(no need to get behind the enemy aircraft to lock on anymore).
Edit: corrected my grammar
Edit: corrected my grammar
Last edited by War Man (2008-09-12 17:23:58)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.