Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Vitaphone Racing]

What's more moronic is assuming that being cost-effective is a simple as comparing the prices of two pieces of equipment and trying hard not to think about the other factors at play.

K...

The guy who asked specifically mentioned he didn't have enough missiles (ergo scarcity and raising the effective cost using them), and implied he had the airpower to do said task. Sure one could then ask if the said tiny boats were protected by air cover (raising the potential cost of an airstrike vis a vis just using missiles), or whether its actually worth his while to destroy said small boats in the first place, though I figure that the asker thought that far ahead.

No, no no. If you're going to stand on your moral soap box and preach the gospel about the idiocy on the forum then you'd better make sure that what you're saying is 100%, unambiguously correct otherwise you're no better than the people you're calling out and likely to be called out yourself. And in this case, you're not 100% correct. It's not always cost effective nor practical to use unguided bombs on unimportant targets if it means ordering, storing and deploying those munitions purely on the off chance that they may be used in this sort of scenario. Alternatively, if you didn't add the dig at the forum at the end of your post with it's faulty logic, I wouldn't have had to correct you for the benefit of everybody else and we wouldn't have had to make additional posts.

[Gallia-]

Unguided bombs are one of an aircraft's primary anti-shipping weapons, if not the primary...

[The Akasha Colony]

No, no no. If you're going to stand on your moral soap box and preach the gospel about the idiocy on the forum then you'd better make sure that what you're saying is 100%, unambiguously correct otherwise you're no better than the people you're calling out and likely to be called out yourself. And in this case, you're not 100% correct. It's not always cost effective nor practical to use unguided bombs on unimportant targets if it means ordering, storing and deploying those munitions purely on the off chance that they may be used in this sort of scenario. Alternatively, if you didn't add the dig at the forum at the end of your post with it's faulty logic, I wouldn't have had to correct you for the benefit of everybody else and we wouldn't have had to make additional posts.

What kind of air force doesn't have iron bombs sitting around in stockpiles, yet can afford AShMs and maritime patrol aircraft? The whole point of an iron bomb is that it's the cheapest and probably most flexible weapon in inventory. It's literally just a bundle of explosives in a metal tube with a fuze.

The last statement might be extreme, but the point is not wrong. Iron bombs are very useful in anti-ship operations, both with and without guidance kits. The NS assumption that everything must be engaged by an anti-ship missile and that these are the *only* thing capable of taking out ships is by no means correct. While there may be contention over the wording at the end, this isn't really an excuse to look for examples where even more *NS* practices might lead to an air force having access to anti-ship missiles and yet not having any iron bombs.

[Vitaphone Racing]

And yet, there's many a time aircraft on patrol or maritime strike will carry anti-shipping missiles and not conventional bombs for flexibility. Are they doing it wrong?

My statement was not a "bombs are worthless" or "nobody uses bombs". If you read it like that then you read it wrong.

The point being made is ironically independent of the military and of missiles or bombs. We could be talking about cake tins or screw driver sets. I was addressing a statement which implied a certain hierarchy in targets, that some were only deserving of unguided bombs and that only a select few were deserving of AShMs, any deviation from this being a waste of resources. Regardless of whether we are talking about this in a military or a civilian environment, it should come as no surprise that the most cost-effective way of using equipment is quite often to use what you have immediately available to you and not what's the cheapest. This should be common knowledge to most people who have ever been in charge of a budget, household or otherwise. To denigrate people for taking this approach is wrong, even if the people being denigrated have no idea of what they're doing.

[Triplebaconation]

And yet, there's many a time aircraft on patrol or maritime strike will carry anti-shipping missiles and not conventional bombs for flexibility. Are they doing it wrong?

My statement was not a "bombs are worthless" or "nobody uses bombs". If you read it like that then you read it wrong.

Remind us what anti-shipping missiles the An-26 can carry again, please?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Regardless of whether we are talking about this in a military or a civilian environment, it should come as no surprise that the most cost-effective way of using equipment is quite often to use what you have immediately available to you and not what's the cheapest. This should be common knowledge to most people who have ever been in charge of a budget, household or otherwise. To denigrate people for taking this approach is wrong, even if the people being denigrated have no idea of what they're doing.

And yet for the majority of countries - in this context, war-torn Ukraine - what's immediately available to you is usually the same as what's cheapest.

Assad isn't dropping barrel bombs instead of Hellfires so that he can trim the Syrian budget deficit or whatever.

[The Kievan People]

And yet for the majority of countries - in this context, war-torn Ukraine - what's immediately available to you is usually the same as what's cheapest.

Assad isn't dropping barrel bombs instead of Hellfires so that he can trim the Syrian budget deficit or whatever.

Most weapons being used in Ukraine and Syria are conventional.

You seem to be confusing "what the internet likes to see pictures of" with "what is actually being used". If an artillery attack in Syria involved a thousand shells and five "barrel bombs" it will be the latter that gets the coverage, generally.

[The Soodean Imperium]

And yet for the majority of countries - in this context, war-torn Ukraine - what's immediately available to you is usually the same as what's cheapest.

Assad isn't dropping barrel bombs instead of Hellfires so that he can trim the Syrian budget deficit or whatever.

Most weapons being used in Ukraine and Syria are conventional.

You seem to be confusing "what the internet likes to see pictures of" with "what is actually being used". If an artillery attack in Syria involved a thousand shells and five "barrel bombs" it will be the latter that gets the coverage, generally.

I'm not referring to conventional munitions vs. what some guy can throw together in his garage, I'm referring to last-generation unguided bombs vs. state-of-the-art guided munitions. Assad's large-scale use of artillery shells and rockets rather than precision drone strikes, or his use of T-72s and BMPs rather than Merkavas and Namers, is the same principle I'm referring to.

This is in reference to the question of whether a country representing war-torn Ukraine should supplement its anti-ship missiles with iron bombs.

[Radicchio]

Please Identify the both of the helicopters in this picture.



Thanks.

EDIT:

Also, I googled "barrel bomb" because i was unsure what you guys were talking about and I cane up with something epic...

[Husseinarti]

Please Identify the both of the helicopters in this picture.

(Image)

Thanks.

EDIT:

Also, I googled "barrel bomb" because i was unsure what you guys were talking about and I cane up with something epic...

(Image)

CH-53E and a Ch-46.

[The Akasha Colony]

Please Identify the both of the helicopters in this picture.

(Image)

Thanks.

The filename identifies the one in the rear, it's a CH-53E Super Stallion. The one in the front I believe is a CH-46 Sea Knight.

[Radicchio]

Please Identify the both of the helicopters in this picture.

(Image)

Thanks.

The filename identifies the one in the rear, it's a CH-53E Super Stallion. The one in the front I believe is a CH-46 Sea Knight.

Thanks. I saw the filename but i wasnt sure which it was. I am not super familiar with helicopters.

[Celibrae]

Does anyone have the dimensions of the T-50/PAK FA/FGFA?

[Velkanika]

Does anyone have the dimensions of the T-50/PAK FA/FGFA?

Wikipedia is good for that kind of thing.

[Celibrae]

Does anyone have the dimensions of the T-50/PAK FA/FGFA?

Wikipedia is good for that kind of thing.

Oh sorry, I meant the internal weapons bay.

[Gallia-]

And yet, there's many a time aircraft on patrol or maritime strike will carry anti-shipping missiles and not conventional bombs for flexibility.

Not really, but if you say so it must be true.

[Gallia-]

Most weapons being used in Ukraine and Syria are conventional.

You seem to be confusing "what the internet likes to see pictures of" with "what is actually being used". If an artillery attack in Syria involved a thousand shells and five "barrel bombs" it will be the latter that gets the coverage, generally.

I'm not referring to conventional munitions vs. what some guy can throw together in his garage, I'm referring to last-generation unguided bombs vs. state-of-the-art guided munitions. Assad's large-scale use of artillery shells and rockets rather than precision drone strikes, or his use of T-72s and BMPs rather than Merkavas and Namers, is the same principle I'm referring to.

This is in reference to the question of whether a country representing war-torn Ukraine should supplement its anti-ship missiles with iron bombs.

The vast bulk of air dropped ordnance of even the great United States and European armies consists of iron bombs and unguided rockets.

Precision guided weapons aren't worth their weight in gold like they were in the 1980s, but they're not ubiquitous either.

[Velkanika]

Wikipedia is good for that kind of thing.

Oh sorry, I meant the internal weapons bay.

The answer has not changed.

[Iltica]

Speaking of Wikipedia, when it lists a fighter's loaded weight what does that include?
Is it just the necessities to take off (e.g. fuel) like on a civilian plane or is it including a load of ordinance?

[New Vihenia]

[

Oh sorry, I meant the internal weapons bay.

there's still speculations about that. One i'd heard is that each centerline weapon bay have length of 4.6 m and width of around 1-1.1 m.

[Celibrae]

[

Oh sorry, I meant the internal weapons bay.

there's still speculations about that. One i'd heard is that each centerline weapon bay have length of 4.6 m and width of around 1-1.1 m.

Would it be possible to merge the two bays so a BrahMos could fit inside?

[New Vihenia]

Would it be possible to merge the two bays so a BrahMos could fit inside?

No. The Brahmos need to be smaller.

[Celibrae]

Would it be possible to merge the two bays so a BrahMos could fit inside?

No. The Brahmos need to be smaller.

If I was to build an aircraft similar to the PAK FA, but with a larger singular bay, would it be possible or plausible, why or why not? I'm curious.

[New Vihenia]

If I was to build an aircraft similar to the PAK FA, but with a larger singular bay, would it be possible or plausible, why or why not? I'm curious.

It won't be similar as PAKFA. Given that Brahmos have diameter of 0.7 m. Internal storage will make you end up with very large aircraft. Perhaps it would be the same size as Tu-28.

[Celibrae]

If I was to build an aircraft similar to the PAK FA, but with a larger singular bay, would it be possible or plausible, why or why not? I'm curious.

It won't be similar as PAKFA. Given that Brahmos have diameter of 0.7 m. Internal storage will make you end up with very large aircraft. Perhaps it would be the same size as Tu-28.

The internal weapons bay has a width of 1.1 metres, so it may fit, depending on the height. I know the BrahMos is meant to be installed on the FGFA, I'm wondering if it could be carried alone internally.