Advertisement
by Dostanuot Loj » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:43 pm
by North Arkana » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:55 pm
23 December 2002
USAF RQ-1 Predator vs. IRAF MiG-25
In what was the last aerial victory for the Iraqi Air Force before Operation Iraqi Freedom, an Iraqi MiG-25 destroyed an American UAV RQ-1 Predator after the drone opened fire on the Iraqi aircraft with a Stinger missile.
by The Soodean Imperium » Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:56 pm
Bratislavskaya wrote:Also, I really like them. They have a PLA aesthetic to them.
by Korva » Sat Jan 24, 2015 4:03 pm
The Soodean Imperium wrote:what about the LMG/SAW? Two 200-round boxes, plus two more carried by the assistant?
by Maverica » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:38 pm
by The Corparation » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:41 pm
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Korva » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:45 pm
Maverica wrote:Hello. I have a quick question.
Would anyone have any specifications on the KBA3 Tank gun. Made by Ukraine and armed on the t 84. Would like to know bit more about it.
by The Greater Aryan Race » Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:17 pm
The Kievan People wrote:The B-52 is like an airliner with crappy engines. It has no characteristics of a survivable aircraft and depends entirely on its ECM for protection. If a fighter shows up it is deader than disco.
The B-1B is faster and has a lower signature. But it doesn't have quite enough of either. At altitude it cannot fly fast enough or high enough to avoid most SAMs or interceptors and it is not stealthy enough to avoid detection. At low altitude its still significant RCS and large infared/visual/acoustic signatures make it vulnerable to SHORADS and AWACS detection. Like the B-52 it depends very heavily on its ECM to defeat air defenses and will be extremely vulnerable if the enemy can overcome its electronic defenses.
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:So, uh... Is this another one of those threads where everyone is supposed to feel outraged and circle-jerk in agreement of how injust and terrible the described incident is?
Because if it is, I'm probably going to say something mean and contrary just to contradict the majority.
by Connori Pilgrims » Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:58 pm
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?
by Inyourfaceistan » Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:20 pm
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:The Kievan People wrote:The B-52 is like an airliner with crappy engines. It has no characteristics of a survivable aircraft and depends entirely on its ECM for protection. If a fighter shows up it is deader than disco.
The B-1B is faster and has a lower signature. But it doesn't have quite enough of either. At altitude it cannot fly fast enough or high enough to avoid most SAMs or interceptors and it is not stealthy enough to avoid detection. At low altitude its still significant RCS and large infared/visual/acoustic signatures make it vulnerable to SHORADS and AWACS detection. Like the B-52 it depends very heavily on its ECM to defeat air defenses and will be extremely vulnerable if the enemy can overcome its electronic defenses.
So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?
by The Greater Aryan Race » Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:28 pm
Connori Pilgrims wrote:The Greater Aryan Race wrote:So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?
This really depends on your nation's overall strategy. If you're a Great Power with global commitments and/or needs (like the US which needs to be able to bomb any likely enemy anywhere or Russia who needs to be able to bomb the CONUS) your F-18 and F-22 are insufficient because they don't have the range to go across the globe on their own. Sure you can use aerial refueling but this means all the enemy needs to do is destroy your tankers (which any smart sophisticated one will attempt). Use of Tomahawks are dependent on how fast your ships can get into position to launch, which will be always slower than any bomber.
However, if you have only merely regional or local ambitions (so you just wanna threaten your immediate neighbors) then yeah strategic bombers are not necessary.
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:So, uh... Is this another one of those threads where everyone is supposed to feel outraged and circle-jerk in agreement of how injust and terrible the described incident is?
Because if it is, I'm probably going to say something mean and contrary just to contradict the majority.
by Lyras » Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:39 pm
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:Connori Pilgrims wrote:
This really depends on your nation's overall strategy. If you're a Great Power with global commitments and/or needs (like the US which needs to be able to bomb any likely enemy anywhere or Russia who needs to be able to bomb the CONUS) your F-18 and F-22 are insufficient because they don't have the range to go across the globe on their own. Sure you can use aerial refueling but this means all the enemy needs to do is destroy your tankers (which any smart sophisticated one will attempt). Use of Tomahawks are dependent on how fast your ships can get into position to launch, which will be always slower than any bomber.
However, if you have only merely regional or local ambitions (so you just wanna threaten your immediate neighbors) then yeah strategic bombers are not necessary.
Well honestly I'm merely a humble regional power aspiring to attain Great Power status hence my little dilemma as to whether I should devote considerable monies to building up a bomber fleet, and if so, comprising of what bombers and how many.
And wouldn't Tomahawks still be able to be launched from B-52s? At least the ALCM variants for that matter.
Mokastana: Then Lyras happened.
Allanea: Wanting to avoid fighting Lyras' fuck-huge military is also a reasonable IC consideration
TPF: Who is stupid enough to attack a Lyran convoy?
Sumer: Honestly, I'd rather face Doom's military with Doom having a 3-1 advantage over me, than take a 1-1 fight with a well-supplied Lyran tank unit.
Kinsgard: RL Lyras is like a real life video game character.
Ieperithem: Eighty four. Eighty four percent of their terrifyingly massive GDP goes directly into their military. And they actually know how to manage it. It's safe to say there isn't a single nation that could feasibly stand against them if they wanted it to die.
Yikes. Just... Yikes.
by Connori Pilgrims » Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:24 am
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:Well honestly I'm merely a humble regional power aspiring to attain Great Power status hence my little dilemma as to whether I should devote considerable monies to building up a bomber fleet, and if so, comprising of what bombers and how many.
And wouldn't Tomahawks still be able to be launched from B-52s? At least the ALCM variants for that matter.
by Immoren » Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:45 am
The Soodean Imperium wrote:One last question, though - what about the LMG/SAW? Two 200-round boxes, plus two more carried by the assistant?
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by The Greater Aryan Race » Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:45 am
Lyras wrote:
Tomahawks certainly can be launched from a B-52, or analogs. Air-launched cruise missiles are very much a part of the current force-paradigm. They are a highly effective means of providing very long range strike capability, made more effective still because a bomber today often doesn't have to penetrate into the air defence network at all, but can release its payload from outside the defensive engagement envelope.
Connori Pilgrims wrote:Technically the ALCM is not a Tomahawk; different design. But yes you can launch ALCMs from the B-52. That's part of why the thing has been able to last long; compared to the other bombers of the USAF its rather cost effective for the comparatively simple job of missile/guided-bomb carrier.
However if you're building up a bomber fleet from scratch (and thus never had B-52s or other similar bombers lying around to begin with), well now you have to ask yourself if you just want a missile truck, or do you still want to be able to penetrate enemy airspace to use bombs?
If you just want a missile truck then you might want to consider using airlifters to carry ALCMs (see the British FOAS missile carrier concept which involved launching missiles off the back of A400Ms). But if you still want penetration of enemy air space then there's few options beyond going stealth ala B-2, stealth and supersonic or (gasp) attempt hypersonic flight if you want to be edgy.
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:So, uh... Is this another one of those threads where everyone is supposed to feel outraged and circle-jerk in agreement of how injust and terrible the described incident is?
Because if it is, I'm probably going to say something mean and contrary just to contradict the majority.
by San-Silvacian » Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:12 am
The Soodean Imperium wrote:So in that case I'll give these guys 1 in the rifle and 6 in pouches, while units with the aforementioned body-armor-and-webbing kit get 1 in the rifle and 8 in pouches.
One last question, though - what about the LMG/SAW? Two 200-round boxes, plus two more carried by the assistant?Bratislavskaya wrote:Also, I really like them. They have a PLA aesthetic to them.
Thanks! I've been trying for something a little more original than the :not:USSR style with my latest round of ORBAT and equipment revisions, and (with help and encouragement from Korva) finally got an infantry aesthetic I like here.
If you look closely, you'll also notice the rifles are not AK-103s, but something of my own design - which I may work out in more detail tomorrow.
by The Kievan People » Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:24 am
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:So for all intents and purposes, bombers are practically useless against most enemies with sophisticated radar and SAM capabilities? Would it make any considerable difference if I scrapped my bomber fleet and just bought more F-18s, F-22s and Tomahawks instead?
by The Kievan People » Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:25 am
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:Just how good is the B-2 for long-range penetrations deep inside enemy territory? I mean, the only reason in support of using B-2s I hear is "wahhh stealthiness wahhh" which admittedly sounds tempting but even then, a B-2 bomber could still be shot out from the sky by well-placed SAMs and interceptors right?
by New Vihenia » Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:31 am
by Connori Pilgrims » Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:51 am
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:
Well NS-wise, I do already have a motley fleet of B-52s and B-1s, the question is whether I ought to expand the fleet or scrap the bombers and get something else instead. Just how good is the B-2 for long-range penetrations deep inside enemy territory? I mean, the only reason in support of using B-2s I hear is "wahhh stealthiness wahhh" which admittedly sounds tempting but even then, a B-2 bomber could still be shot out from the sky by well-placed SAMs and interceptors right?
New Vihenia wrote:Any prospects for "MIRV-ed" Cruise missile ?
by The Kievan People » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:05 am
New Vihenia wrote:Any prospects for "MIRV-ed" Cruise missile ?
by New Vihenia » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:13 am
The Kievan People wrote:New Vihenia wrote:Any prospects for "MIRV-ed" Cruise missile ?
Depends on what you mean by MIRV'ed.
The submunition carrying Tomahawk can dispense portions of its payload at different locations. Project Pluto was able to dispense multiple warheads, and the Russian Meteorit was supposedly to have carried two warheads that could strike targets "up to 100km apart". There is no information on how the Meteorit dispensed its warheads though.
And there is thing from MBDAs marketing. Not sure how serious that it.
by Triplebaconation » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:50 am
Connori Pilgrims wrote:The Greater Aryan Race wrote:
Well NS-wise, I do already have a motley fleet of B-52s and B-1s, the question is whether I ought to expand the fleet or scrap the bombers and get something else instead. Just how good is the B-2 for long-range penetrations deep inside enemy territory? I mean, the only reason in support of using B-2s I hear is "wahhh stealthiness wahhh" which admittedly sounds tempting but even then, a B-2 bomber could still be shot out from the sky by well-placed SAMs and interceptors right?
Fleet expansion is dependent again on your overall objectives. The Russians have a relatively small bomber fleet because (among other reasons), they only really have one target: da USA. The US has (and needs) a big bomber fleet because there's a lot of potential targets: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, (insert here Middle East state populated by hostile Muslims).
Realistically you can't expand by buying more B-52s and B-1s anyway because unless you had their factories, workers and tools lying around for decades now doing nothing its virtually impossible anyway. You will need a new design.
by Connori Pilgrims » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:13 am
Triplebaconation wrote:Connori Pilgrims wrote:
Fleet expansion is dependent again on your overall objectives. The Russians have a relatively small bomber fleet because (among other reasons), they only really have one target: da USA. The US has (and needs) a big bomber fleet because there's a lot of potential targets: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, (insert here Middle East state populated by hostile Muslims).
Realistically you can't expand by buying more B-52s and B-1s anyway because unless you had their factories, workers and tools lying around for decades now doing nothing its virtually impossible anyway. You will need a new design.
So Russia built a bunch of bombers that couldn't really reach America to target America and the Americans built a few billion-dollar planes to reenact Operation Rolling Thunder?
The Cold War was nuts!
by Triplebaconation » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:11 am
Connori Pilgrims wrote:Triplebaconation wrote:
So Russia built a bunch of bombers that couldn't really reach America to target America and the Americans built a few billion-dollar planes to reenact Operation Rolling Thunder?
The Cold War was nuts!
Funny I wasn't aware I was talking about the Cold War US and USSR, I could've sworn I was talking about modern day US and Russian bomber forces.
Or is this just the infamous danton's acting up pedantic again?
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Antigue, Netouere, Restresas, Tumbra
Advertisement