Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Military / Re: Blur between fighters and bombers
« Last post by Avimimus on Today at 09:19:52 am »
If DEWs replace manoeuvrability...

But, a lot might depend ultimately on how the boundary between fighters and surface to air missiles blur...
The Bar / Re: The US Space Force
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 07:54:03 am »


NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.— As the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy have made clear, space is set to become a crucial war fighting domain, as nearly every operation the military conducts relies on space assets.

So when the leaders of the Air Force’s Global Strike Command, Space Command, commander in Europe and Africa and special operations head all shared a stage at the Air Force Associations annual conference to discuss operations, its no surprise they chose to focus on how the service plans to leverage space assets to project power in the 21st century.

One reason space is so important, not just to the Air Force, but all military services, is that space assets enable multidomain operations that are becoming the norm in the modern warfare. Citing the Air Force’s successful strikes against Assad-regime chemical weapons manufacturing sites in Syria in April, Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Africa, explained the mission was successful because “we had well-vetted and thorough multidomain operations.”
Military / Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 07:51:35 am »

AFA: The Air Force is developing smart bombs that detonate differently depending on the target. These “Dialable Effects Munitions” could turn up the blast to devastate an enemy camp or turn it down to kill a single terrorist without hurting nearby civilians.

In the extreme case, said Col. Garry Haase, the director of munitions at the Air Force Research Laboratory, you want to be able to turn the explosive off completely and just slam the now-inert warhead like a bullet into one person at a crowded table, sparing the people sitting on either side. But the next time, you could use the same weapon at full blast to bring down the building.
Aerospace / Re: Hayabusa 2 mission
« Last post by antigravite on Today at 07:22:15 am »
Bravo Bravo
Military / Re: Blur between fighters and bombers
« Last post by Archibald on Today at 04:51:27 am »
Yeah, blurred lines, as they said.

You still a F-16 agile light fighter with cannon and sidewinders. Manoeuverability remain important, and beyond 15 - 20 tons, it takes a major hit. The vaunted F-14 Tomcat got its ass quicked in dogfight against F-5 Tiger II. Of course that supposed the Tiger II survived Phoenix and Sparrows. The F-15 had extremely powerful engines and a large wing area, so low wing loading, yet its large size could be troublesome during dogfights.

Then there are the heavyweights - F-15, F-22.

And then the super heavyweights - Tu-128 and MiG-25 - 31 and YF-12. Air variants of the F-111 and Tornado are close from that. Bar the MiG-31 that category has essentially disapeared with the end of Cold War.

Bombers were never really good for dogfight, either in WWII or today. At some point in the 90's it was hoped that advanced radars and AMRAAM would give A-6 Intruder or A-12 Avenger II some extended self-defense capability. Yet they were no "fighter" by any mean.

Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin’s F-16V Fighting Falcon
« Last post by MihoshiK on Today at 03:54:12 am »
I see that picture of the Block 70, and all I can think of is how much Pierre Sprey must be frothing at the mouth over it.
Military / Re: Blur between fighters and bombers
« Last post by Jemiba on Today at 01:58:59 am »
I've moved this theme, as, to my opinion, it's not just speculation, but a development, that actually started quite early
during WW II.
The type of the "light bomber", as exemplified by the Fairey Battle, Bristol Blenheim or Mitsubishi Ki-51 Sonia often proved to
be too slow and vulnerable in the standard bomber role. So, the task of those types were often taken over by fighter bombers.
Neverthless, the light bomber saw new developments, but with a somewhat different role: Low level bombing, ground attack
and strafing, more emphasizing fixed armament, making those types more suitable for the role as heavy fighter/night fighter,
too. Examples may be the Douglas A-20 Boston, deHavilland Mosquito, or perhaps Messerschmitt Me 210/410. After WW II,
most fighters could be used as fighter bombers from the start, I think, leading to types like the MDD F-4, that completely took
over the task of the former light bombers like Martin B-51/EE Canberra. At least with regards to external appearance, the light
bomber had completey merged with the fighter, think of the Republic F-105 (a bomber with a fighter designation), the Panavia
Tornado, or the F-111, and at least the latter hardly fit into the "light" category anymore, but was subject of being developed
into a fighter (just as the Tornado, though that still has size and shape of a standard fighter).
The list of bombers, which were used as fighters, developed with both tasks in mind, or at least giving the basis, probably is much longer:

- Jakowlew Jak-28
- SNCASO Vautour
- TSR.1
- Tupolev Tu-98/Tu-128

Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin’s F-16V Block 70/72 Fighting Falcon
« Last post by lantinian on Today at 12:46:21 am »
Thanks Jemiba. Could you add Block 70/72 to the title of the Thread?

Seams the triple AMRAAM launcher is a standard feature on all Block 70 configurations.

Block 70 For India PDF

Block 70 for Slovakia PDF
Aerospace / Re: Hayabusa 2 mission
« Last post by yasotay on Yesterday at 07:38:22 pm »
Well Done! 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10