British stealth drone to undergo first test flight

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

Mind boggling waste of cash, considering the MoD cut 5000 jobs last week to address their deficit.

Will it be able to take off from and land on our new aircraft carriers?....I'd wager not.

Makes me sick thinking of the amount of money successive governments have let the MoD piss away on disastrously managed willy-waving tech projects.

 

Seems like our DoD is following a similar trend.

 

The F-22 Raptor fighter jets for example each have a $150M price tag (over 95M quid) on them but have never seen use in combat. Seems like the equivalent of spending loads on protein shakes for body building and flexing one's muscles, but in the end is basically an expensive show of strength.

 

 

how many years was it that the f-15 was operational before USAF used it in operational combat?

 

and aircraft procurement is a highly complex arena; i would not dumb it down to "price tags".

 

Design began in 1967, flew in 72, operational in US in 1976. Still up-to-date and being used now, even sold still to countries like South Korea. The F-22 was designed from 1981, flew in 1991, production model flew in 1997, and it became semi-operational at an inflated price in 2005. It is still running into maintenance issues including choking pilots to death in mid-air because of a faulty oxygen supply system. Huge difference, especially in price and feasibility.

 

The F-22 and F-35 (which is actually become more expensive at $230+ MILLION A PLANE for the carrier/VSTOL versions) are perhaps the biggest white elephants in the history of military technology. They (the F-22 in particular) will likely never be used in combat. This is the halcyon of the military-industrial complex and these over-developed, hopelessly irrelevant platforms that suck the funds from defense budgets all in the name of high-value, multi-national contracts. Compared to planes like the C-130 (tested in 1954, operational on 1957 and still being produced as the premier multi-role transport aircraft in the world) or the B-52, which will stay operational 90 years after the first model flew, current military programs are absolute money-pits. The DoD is actually cancelling and cutting programs infantry need (A-10 strike aircraft, C-27 STOL transports, etc) to keep these air superiority programs afloat. It's absurd that government reforms haven't ended the trend, and god knows if that will even occur.

[soundwave]

First flights?? Bullshit! this thing has been flown and developed in afganistan for years.

 

The US have got something even faster!

[elusive4]

 

 

 

Mind boggling waste of cash, considering the MoD cut 5000 jobs last week to address their deficit.

Will it be able to take off from and land on our new aircraft carriers?....I'd wager not.

Makes me sick thinking of the amount of money successive governments have let the MoD piss away on disastrously managed willy-waving tech projects.

 

Seems like our DoD is following a similar trend.

 

The F-22 Raptor fighter jets for example each have a $150M price tag (over 95M quid) on them but have never seen use in combat. Seems like the equivalent of spending loads on protein shakes for body building and flexing one's muscles, but in the end is basically an expensive show of strength.

 

 

how many years was it that the f-15 was operational before USAF used it in operational combat?

 

and aircraft procurement is a highly complex arena; i would not dumb it down to "price tags".

 

Design began in 1967, flew in 72, operational in US in 1976. Still up-to-date and being used now, even sold still to countries like South Korea. The F-22 was designed from 1981, flew in 1991, production model flew in 1997, and it became semi-operational at an inflated price in 2005. It is still running into maintenance issues including choking pilots to death in mid-air because of a faulty oxygen supply system. Huge difference, especially in price and feasibility.

you im afraid most most certainly did not answer the question posed.

 

flew in 72' and just when did the USAF get their first kill?

 

so there goes your argument-logic against the f22 being "never seen use in combat." ... good thing you weren't saying the same thing about the f-15 back in 1990, ya?

 

and never-mind the alter perspective re: the deterrence role they play.

 

 

oh, and on the f22 issues, it wasn't too long ago a generals let out a little secret - that this is with respect to a platform doing "6Gs at 50,000ft. " - yes, think about that. now we know why other platforms arent' having this issue ... what other platform is able to be doing that -

 

 

The F-22 and F-35 (which is actually become more expensive at $230+ MILLION A PLANE for the carrier/VSTOL versions) are perhaps the biggest white elephants in the history of military technology. They (the F-22 in particular) will likely never be used in combat. This is the halcyon of the military-industrial complex and these over-developed, hopelessly irrelevant platforms that suck the funds from defense budgets all in the name of high-value, multi-national contracts. Compared to planes like the C-130 (tested in 1954, operational on 1957 and still being produced as the premier multi-role transport aircraft in the world) or the B-52, which will stay operational 90 years after the first model flew, current military programs are absolute money-pits. The DoD is actually cancelling and cutting programs infantry need (A-10 strike aircraft, C-27 STOL transports, etc) to keep these air superiority programs afloat. It's absurd that government reforms haven't ended the trend, and god knows if that will even occur.

 

meh. LO/VLO plaforms have already proven themselves in combat. signals mgmt and controlling the EW spectrum is fundamental now. EA, ECCM, etc. it's not just the individual platforms - you can't just compare individual generations as apples to apples. it's about how the new platforms integrate into the system as a whole. sensors and data links - building an ISR and battlespace picture from the many nodes in theater. information sharing. off-board weapons queing. the sensors are key.

 

any platform in development that does not take sig mgmt and sensor fusion into consideration at conception is going to be at a severe disadvantage. surely it is obvious why nations china and russia have started their own excellerated LO platform development programs (with varying degrees of attention to sig mgmt). surely there must be some reason these countries are pumping billions to play "catch-up"?? is there some significane there based on their threat matrices 20yrs out? just what are the defined threats to 2050? etc etc.

 

 

and you're still lostt im afriad when to it comes to aircraft procurement and cost basis/structures. your attempt to put a simplistic "price tag" is ignorant. but then i guess when i bought my last truck i factored in the total cost of ownership throughout 30years ($ to build the garage, $ for annual insurance, fuel, oil changes, brake replacements, misc repairs, major overhauls,, etc projected throughout the lifecycle of the platform - oh, and don't forget to factor in estimated inflation and increases of fuel costs out to those same 30 years. is that how you factored in the cost of your last auto purchase?

 

and name another program that was projected out in total costs for 50years. another real sticker shock is the cost to maintain the legacy fleet out to that same time-frame. the b52 has been in operation for many decades; what has been the total cost of that program, factoring in inflation and increase in fuel costs from past to present? etc. etc..

 

and the f35 isn't an "air superiority" dedicated platform; you don't even have the basic design role understood. what else may you have a misunderstanding of?

 

and yes, you should hope the f22s never see combat. think about that - by not seeing combat they are actually performing their jobs. and i doubt you would want to be on this planet if such a scenario with a peer nation called for their deployment. not something i;d care to think about, to be honest. so yes, let's hope to continue that we do not see skirmishes against peer nations of which we would be required to deploy our most advanced assets. no thank you.

[elusive4]

 

The US have got something even faster!

 

if you're designing a low-observable platform (low RCS, low electronic emissions, etc to be "stealthy"), then why on or in this earth's atmosphere would you want to fly faster to generate more heat due to air friction on the leading edges of the airframe to then glow in the IR spectrum for "all to see".

[elusive4]

Huge difference, especially in price and feasibility.

 

 

yes. and huge difference in capability. especially in capabilities. doesn't matter how many of them you have or for how low-cost you got em - good pilots aren't cheap. and if the platforms don't have the capability then you are going to question the acceptable risk of their use in a modern contested battle-space.

 

 

now factor in the "costs" of forward deploying all of those "escorts" -

[ambermonk]

Design began in 1967, flew in 72, operational in US in 1976. Still up-to-date and being used now, even sold still to countries like South Korea. The F-22 was designed from 1981, flew in 1991, production model flew in 1997, and it became semi-operational at an inflated price in 2005. It is still running into maintenance issues including choking pilots to death in mid-air because of a faulty oxygen supply system. Huge difference, especially in price and feasibility.

 

About two years ago an F-22 pilot crash-landed and died in my region because of this. The base where I work suspended F-22 flights for about five months because of these hypoxia problems and were training using older fighters like the F-15s in the meantime.

[DerWaschbar]

You are in Alaska?

[ambermonk]

You are in Alaska?

 

Yes sir.

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

 

 

 

Mind boggling waste of cash, considering the MoD cut 5000 jobs last week to address their deficit.

Will it be able to take off from and land on our new aircraft carriers?....I'd wager not.

Makes me sick thinking of the amount of money successive governments have let the MoD piss away on disastrously managed willy-waving tech projects.

 

Seems like our DoD is following a similar trend.

 

The F-22 Raptor fighter jets for example each have a $150M price tag (over 95M quid) on them but have never seen use in combat. Seems like the equivalent of spending loads on protein shakes for body building and flexing one's muscles, but in the end is basically an expensive show of strength.

 

 

how many years was it that the f-15 was operational before USAF used it in operational combat?

 

and aircraft procurement is a highly complex arena; i would not dumb it down to "price tags".

 

Design began in 1967, flew in 72, operational in US in 1976. Still up-to-date and being used now, even sold still to countries like South Korea. The F-22 was designed from 1981, flew in 1991, production model flew in 1997, and it became semi-operational at an inflated price in 2005. It is still running into maintenance issues including choking pilots to death in mid-air because of a faulty oxygen supply system. Huge difference, especially in price and feasibility.

 

 

you im afraid most most certainly did not answer the question posed.

 

flew in 72' and just when did the USAF get their first kill?

 

so there goes your argument-logic against the f22 being "never seen use in combat." ... good thing you weren't saying the same thing about the f-15 back in 1990, ya?

 

and never-mind the alter perspective re: the deterrence role they play.

 

 

oh, and on the f22 issues, it wasn't too long ago a generals let out a little secret - that this is with respect to a platform doing "6Gs at 50,000ft. " - yes, think about that. now we know why other platforms arent' having this issue ... what other platform is able to be doing that -

 

 

The F-22 and F-35 (which is actually become more expensive at $230+ MILLION A PLANE for the carrier/VSTOL versions) are perhaps the biggest white elephants in the history of military technology. They (the F-22 in particular) will likely never be used in combat. This is the halcyon of the military-industrial complex and these over-developed, hopelessly irrelevant platforms that suck the funds from defense budgets all in the name of high-value, multi-national contracts. Compared to planes like the C-130 (tested in 1954, operational on 1957 and still being produced as the premier multi-role transport aircraft in the world) or the B-52, which will stay operational 90 years after the first model flew, current military programs are absolute money-pits. The DoD is actually cancelling and cutting programs infantry need (A-10 strike aircraft, C-27 STOL transports, etc) to keep these air superiority programs afloat. It's absurd that government reforms haven't ended the trend, and god knows if that will even occur.

 

meh. LO/VLO plaforms have already proven themselves in combat. signals mgmt and controlling the EW spectrum is fundamental now. EA, ECCM, etc. it's not just the individual platforms - you can't just compare individual generations as apples to apples. it's about how the new platforms integrate into the system as a whole. sensors and data links - building an ISR and battlespace picture from the many nodes in theater. information sharing. off-board weapons queing. the sensors are key.

 

any platform in development that does not take sig mgmt and sensor fusion into consideration at conception is going to be at a severe disadvantage. surely it is obvious why nations china and russia have started their own excellerated LO platform development programs (with varying degrees of attention to sig mgmt). surely there must be some reason these countries are pumping billions to play "catch-up"?? is there some significane there based on their threat matrices 20yrs out? just what are the defined threats to 2050? etc etc.

 

 

and you're still lostt im afriad when to it comes to aircraft procurement and cost basis/structures. your attempt to put a simplistic "price tag" is ignorant. but then i guess when i bought my last truck i factored in the total cost of ownership throughout 30years ($ to build the garage, $ for annual insurance, fuel, oil changes, brake replacements, misc repairs, major overhauls,, etc projected throughout the lifecycle of the platform - oh, and don't forget to factor in estimated inflation and increases of fuel costs out to those same 30 years. is that how you factored in the cost of your last auto purchase?

 

and name another program that was projected out in total costs for 50years. another real sticker shock is the cost to maintain the legacy fleet out to that same time-frame. the b52 has been in operation for many decades; what has been the total cost of that program, factoring in inflation and increase in fuel costs from past to present? etc. etc..

 

and the f35 isn't an "air superiority" dedicated platform; you don't even have the basic design role understood. what else may you have a misunderstanding of?

 

and yes, you should hope the f22s never see combat. think about that - by not seeing combat they are actually performing their jobs. and i doubt you would want to be on this planet if such a scenario with a peer nation called for their deployment. not something i;d care to think about, to be honest. so yes, let's hope to continue that we do not see skirmishes against peer nations of which we would be required to deploy our most advanced assets. no thank you.

 

 

 

The oxygen supply system is still at fault - the high g's at 50,000 ft were occurring with lower than needed oxygen levels being surprised. The faulty oxygen system is still complacent.

 

And yes, the F-15 didn't see combat in the USAF until the Gulf War - I was probably thinking of the successful Israeli use of it in the late 70s and 80s. Personally, I see no reason to simply by the current version of the F-15 in lieu of cancelling the F-35.

 

I do appreciate your clarification about the overall cost of operations - the F-22 in particular is the best fighter in the world suffering from the fact that it was designed at the tail end of the cold war. Needs of the military have changed dramatically. And no, I too don't want to see it or any weapon used in combat, but realistically it will not be utilized in many potential combat operations. There's a good chance close air support operations will be using not only drones but a plane like the Super Tucano, a Brazilian-built prop aircraft. Even though the F-35 is a multi-role aircraft, it's still an advanced manned fighter jet with an uncertain future in terms of full operating ability. If I was a DoD head, I'd say cancel it and order new models of current fighters in operation. Our pilots are better trained than most of the hypothetical Chinese and Russian pilots anyway.

[soundwave]

 

The US have got something even faster!

 

if you're designing a low-observable platform (low RCS, low electronic emissions, etc to be "stealthy"), then why on or in this earth's atmosphere would you want to fly faster to generate more heat due to air friction on the leading edges of the airframe to then glow in the IR spectrum for "all to see".

 

 

because doing Mach 20 and reaching anywhere in the world in under half an hour means you don't have to give a shit

[Alcofribas]

elusive is the troon to my dr. lopez

[cichlisuite]

 

The US have got something even faster!

 

if you're designing a low-observable platform (low RCS, low electronic emissions, etc to be "stealthy"), then why on or in this earth's atmosphere would you want to fly faster to generate more heat due to air friction on the leading edges of the airframe to then glow in the IR spectrum for "all to see".

 

I don't know whether you're still talking about the f22 here or not, and you're right about the 'stealth' aspects, but...

100% stealth is a myth. You can reduce certain emissions by a certain percent, which further reduces the odds of getting picked on the SAM or other airborne radar, but you can never achieve total 'invisibility'.

Also, the f22 was developed with a broader use in mind. It has a supersonic cruise ability (without using afterburners), which is relevant if you want to get to one point faster, chase your opponent longer and with adequate power (dogfights), and stay in air for longer periods (CAP). Here's where you make a compromise between your RCS, other emissions and your engine capability.

But if you want to get there undetected, you design a plane with low RCS, you fly in radio silence, you turn the radar off, and fly really low.

f22 has both of that.

But I still believe that 'stealth' is somewhat of a trend too. The Russians are relying on long-range optics/sensors to pick up targets, for instance (mig29, etc). There goes your billion dollar stealth plane.

[elusive4]

"But if you want to get there undetected, you design a plane with low
RCS, you fly in radio silence, you turn the radar off, and fly really
low."

 

there are considerable disadvantages when flying-low; you may wish to further your research, as they are quite fundamental.

 

 

and yes, low-observables are merely a "trend". a multi-multi-decade trend with no end in sight. thanks for the laugh in analysis.

[mcbpete]

there are considerable disadvantages when flying-low; you may wish to further your research, as they are quite fundamental

I'm guessing the 'crashing into trees, buildings, people and goats' situation might be one of them

[Alcofribas]

on the other hand that's probably the quickest way to mow a lawn

[elusive4]

 

there are considerable disadvantages when flying-low; you may wish to further your research, as they are quite fundamental

I'm guessing the 'crashing into trees, buildings, people and goats' situation might be one of them

 

higher altitude, higher velocity (Vsub0) = longer range of the weapon = can be launched in stand-off ranges.

 

in case you haven't noticed over the past few decades, but this philosophy "works" quite effectively.

 

amnd the user above commenting on "long range optics/sensors" to pick up and negate an LO platform is utterly laughable. talk about being in a vacuum.

[cichlisuite]

 

 

there are considerable disadvantages when flying-low; you may wish to further your research, as they are quite fundamental

I'm guessing the 'crashing into trees, buildings, people and goats' situation might be one of them

 

 

amnd the user above commenting on "long range optics/sensors" to pick up and negate an LO platform is utterly laughable. talk about being in a vacuum.

 

"An IRST system may also have a regular magnified optical sight slaved to it, to help the IRST-equipped aircraft identify the target at long range. As opposed to an ordinary FLIR system, an IRST system will actually scan the space around the aircraft similarly to the way in which mechanically (or even electronically) steered radars work."

[elusive4]

 

 

 

there are considerable disadvantages when flying-low; you may wish to further your research, as they are quite fundamental

I'm guessing the 'crashing into trees, buildings, people and goats' situation might be one of them

 

 

amnd the user above commenting on "long range optics/sensors" to pick up and negate an LO platform is utterly laughable. talk about being in a vacuum.

 

"An IRST system may also have a regular magnified optical sight slaved to it, to help the IRST-equipped aircraft identify the target at long range. As opposed to an ordinary FLIR system, an IRST system will actually scan the space around the aircraft similarly to the way in which mechanically (or even electronically) steered radars work."

 

yeah, missed the point entirely. again.

 

good luck with your volume search of which is tantamount to looking through a straw while attempting to scan the sky.

 

you're ignoring the primary sensor limitations of which is attenuation due to weather/atmosphere.

 

you're ignoring the difference between detection, track, and having fire-control quality data to queue a weapons-system

 

and you're most fundamentally ignoring the fact that a legacy platform is going to be glowing like a barn door in the multitude of radar bands - and as such, the aggressor will be detected far invance of the LO platform. engagement setup can commence and BVR weapons can be queued and launched prior to the legacy platform even being able to detect the LO platform via radar or especially IRST/electro-optical (until the RWR starts buzzing off). the aggressor will be under attack and forced to take evasive manuevers prior to even being able to engage..

 

that is the entire philosophy behind being LO - minimizing detection ranges and being able to launch weapons in stand-off ranges. adding to the fact deception tactics via multiple platforms, off-board queuing, data links/data sharing, Hi/Lo mixes, etc ...

 

but modern air combat isn't simply about platform vs platform; it's a systems-level event. you cannot view this stuff in a vaccum as it simply ignores reality of how modern air combat is fought.

 

but go , on, feel free IRST sensors on legacy platforms are somehow going to negate or deter an LO platform from BVR - especially when said legacy platform is going to be glowing all across the electro-mag spectrum and identified well in advanece.

[mcbpete]

this thread makes me all moist

[elusive4]

LO is the name of the game.

[cichlisuite]

 

 

 

 

there are considerable disadvantages when flying-low; you may wish to further your research, as they are quite fundamental

I'm guessing the 'crashing into trees, buildings, people and goats' situation might be one of them

 

 

amnd the user above commenting on "long range optics/sensors" to pick up and negate an LO platform is utterly laughable. talk about being in a vacuum.

 

"An IRST system may also have a regular magnified optical sight slaved to it, to help the IRST-equipped aircraft identify the target at long range. As opposed to an ordinary FLIR system, an IRST system will actually scan the space around the aircraft similarly to the way in which mechanically (or even electronically) steered radars work."

 

yeah, missed the point entirely. again.

 

good luck with your volume search of which is tantamount to looking through a straw while attempting to scan the sky.

 

you're ignoring the primary sensor limitations of which is attenuation due to weather/atmosphere.

 

you're ignoring the difference between detection, track, and having fire-control quality data to queue a weapons-system

 

and you're most fundamentally ignoring the fact that a legacy platform is going to be glowing like a barn door in the multitude of radar bands - and as such, the aggressor will be detected far invance of the LO platform. engagement setup can commence and BVR weapons can be queued and launched prior to the legacy platform even being able to detect the LO platform via radar or especially IRST/electro-optical (until the RWR starts buzzing off). the aggressor will be under attack and forced to take evasive manuevers prior to even being able to engage..

 

that is the entire philosophy behind being LO - minimizing detection ranges and being able to launch weapons in stand-off ranges. adding to the fact deception tactics via multiple platforms, off-board queuing, data links/data sharing, Hi/Lo mixes, etc ...

 

but modern air combat isn't simply about platform vs platform; it's a systems-level event. you cannot view this stuff in a vaccum as it simply ignores reality of how modern air combat is fought.

 

but go , on, feel free IRST sensors on legacy platforms are somehow going to negate or deter an LO platform from BVR - especially when said legacy platform is going to be glowing all across the electro-mag spectrum and identified well in advanece.

Well ofcourse, but you're really throwing everything in the mix here, more or less to prove what you know about it, as opposed to what is relevant.

Your points are scattered and without concise sense. Don't try to explain to me, what advantages the LO plane has over the legacy planes, because that is obvious; I was trying to tell you, that your reliance on LO is an expensive treat for a minimum advantage. Because, in a air combat scenario, you will probably have to compromise between attacking your enemy (and therefore be exposed to counter-attack), and air combat maneuvering, which will basically render your LO platform equally observable (higher power settings, active sensors and radars emitting, ECM, ...), and of course a choice of skipping the contact and continue enroute undetected (at low alt). Which is going to be now?

 

(btw, low alt has wide advantages in case you want to avoid detection - I've never mentioned low alt is better for engagement! Which again proves your shoot-first-ask-later attitude in this conversation).

 

You're talking about stand-off weaponry, which is what? AIM120 AMRAAM? Its range is about 20km, which is not actually sitting-on-a-couch-watching-tv-safe! Don't you think your opponent will have the same BVR capability from their LO platforms to counter your actions? There are counter measures as well as disadvantanges about firing BVR (fire-and-forget) missiles. And beside the technical advantage of modern LO, there will still be tactical opportunities, where your LO pilot will have to get his hands dirty with a close-range IR seeking missile, or even guns. You're forgetting that a fight between two LO platforms will eventually escalate to a fight between your pilot's skills and a quality of plane in dogfights, which both render the LO qualities rather useless. Because LO qualities are for minimising detection, which doesn't mean avoiding detection, which doesn't mean, your opponent might not anticipate your BVR standoff tactics and counter them accordingly?

 

So your superpotent attitude along with your arguments might work against some old coldwar-era jets, but not against modern fighters, who are all more or less LO planes, with different advatanges.

 

When I mentioned IRST, I meant reminding you of the fact that there are different methods to pick up targets, even on older planes (like mig29). And I never mentioned that you can shoot down you opponent solely with IRST.

But, you don't need a radar lock to shoot down your opponent. There's boresight at gun ranges, there are heatseeking sensors heads on missiles, that can be used as a primary guidance....of course, unfortunately at uncomfortable closer ranges.

[Guest]

mods, merge this thread into the exai thread imo pls?

[mcbpete]

I dunno I was thinking more of merging it with this one

 

 

I joke, chill yer boots humourless drone discussion peoples

 

[elusive4]

 

 

Well ofcourse, but you're really throwing everything in the mix here, more or less to prove what you know about it, as opposed to what is relevant.

Your points are scattered and without concise sense. Don't try to explain to me, what advantages the LO plane has over the legacy planes, because that is obvious; I was trying to tell you, that your reliance on LO is an expensive treat for a minimum advantage. Because, in a air combat scenario, you will probably have to compromise between attacking your enemy (and therefore be exposed to counter-attack), and air combat maneuvering, which will basically render your LO platform equally observable (higher power settings, active sensors and radars emitting, ECM, ...), and of course a choice of skipping the contact and continue enroute undetected (at low alt). Which is going to be now?

 

(btw, low alt has wide advantages in case you want to avoid detection - I've never mentioned low alt is better for engagement! Which again proves your shoot-first-ask-later attitude in this conversation).

 

You're talking about stand-off weaponry, which is what? AIM120 AMRAAM? Its range is about 20km, which is not actually sitting-on-a-couch-watching-tv-safe! Don't you think your opponent will have the same BVR capability from their LO platforms to counter your actions? There are counter measures as well as disadvantanges about firing BVR (fire-and-forget) missiles. And beside the technical advantage of modern LO, there will still be tactical opportunities, where your LO pilot will have to get his hands dirty with a close-range IR seeking missile, or even guns. You're forgetting that a fight between two LO platforms will eventually escalate to a fight between your pilot's skills and a quality of plane in dogfights, which both render the LO qualities rather useless. Because LO qualities are for minimising detection, which doesn't mean avoiding detection, which doesn't mean, your opponent might not anticipate your BVR standoff tactics and counter them accordingly?

 

So your superpotent attitude along with your arguments might work against some old coldwar-era jets, but not against modern fighters, who are all more or less LO planes, with different advatanges.

 

When I mentioned IRST, I meant reminding you of the fact that there are different methods to pick up targets, even on older planes (like mig29). And I never mentioned that you can shoot down you opponent solely with IRST.

But, you don't need a radar lock to shoot down your opponent. There's boresight at gun ranges, there are heatseeking sensors heads on missiles, that can be used as a primary guidance....of course, unfortunately at uncomfortable closer ranges.

 

another swing and a miss.

 

"Don't try to explain to me, what advantages the LO plane has over the legacy planes, because that is obvious", he says - when only two posts prior he was attempting to negate any LO by means of an IRST: "The Russians are relying on long-range optics/sensors to pick up targets, for instance (mig29, etc). There goes your billion dollar stealth plane."

 

clearly it is not so obvious. again, you view everything in vacuum.

 

and you say LO is an expensive treat for minimum advantage? you consider being survivable a "minimum advantage"? or maybe you should be the one that to inform the other nations rushing to develop LO platforms to stop pumping billions of dollars on fast track programs to design and construct such platforms..

 

LO is a philosophy - you seem to view it as a technological add-on.

 

and your aim-120 figures are well off. go check your public sources again.

 

 

 

"Don't you think your opponent will have the same BVR capability from their LO platforms to counter your actions?"

 

US has decades of operating experience with LO platforms, and multi generation in terms of sig mgmt technologies. im curious during what year you consider other nations having the same BVR capability from their LO platforms. you need to focus more than just the platform as you continue to fall trap into.

 

 

"So your superpotent attitude along with your arguments might work

against some old coldwar-era jets, but not against modern fighters, who

are all more or less LO planes, with different advatanges."

 

 

yes - grreat logic. one minute you're implying LO is too expensive and has minimum advantage, the next minute your insisting we're fighting peer nations who possess LO platforms with identical capabilities. which is it the contradiction is to say? and just who is operating these modern fighters, that "are all more or less LO planes, with different advantages". what are the numerous advantages? how are they operated? what is doctrine or CONOPS? step out from your vaccuum,

 

again, you completely lack any coherent thought into modern air combat being a systems-level event. it is not a platform vs platform shootout as if modern air combat was dumbed down to 1v1 dog-fighting or BVR scenarios.

 

regarding the unfortunate scenario such as getting into a merge, you still failed to list any of the positive traits in terms of positional advantage, choice to disengage due to unfavorable conditions (what a choiec to have!), and other sensors currently in dev for said LO platforms. oh, and you may also wish to investigate what EODAS will bring to the table (as you convienently left the following sentence out of your IRST wiki copy/paste a few posts back - funny that).

[pcock]

so do you think it makes you look cool to be completely condenscending and unpleasant every time you open your mouth in a discussion elusive? im not even disputing how correct you are, i just thought id let you know that you genuinely radiate arseholeness so much, if you want to have more interesting debates you might have more luck not being a cunt to even the most innocent of opinions other people have, correct or not.