Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Military Thread V15, Gong Xi Fa Cai; Huat ah

views
     
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 12:50 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(MrUbikeledek @ Feb 19 2015, 11:19 AM)
Mind you. T-90 was equipped with kontakt 5 ERA tiles
There's claim that during a tank battle in Iraq, many of the US tank shots was glanced away by the armor of the Iraqi T-72/Ababil. And Iraqi T-72 doesn't even have ERA tiles. The allies is lucky that Iraqi KE round are so inferior, that it shattered on impact with Allies tank armor, even when fired at point blank range.
*
All claimed only. If assad babylonia t72 could deflect DU rounds, they would have scored some kills against Abrams. T72 didn't fare well in chechnya neither.

Kontakt5 era so what? If it managed to stop 1 shot, then 2nd round the tank gets cook off or blown off turret? Abram, challengers are known to be able to withstand few hits before being destroyed. Can the tungsten round defeat du rounds?

T80bv with lots of era tiles. Chechen fighters aim their RPG at engine compartment where armour to crew compartment is thinnest. When rpg punched into crew compartment, there's the ammo storage and whole tank destroyed. It's the t72/80/90 design is poor with no separate crew compartment, ammo storage and armour between storage and engine bay makes the tank lousy.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 02:19 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(KYPMbangi @ Feb 19 2015, 12:10 PM)
You need to understand military doctrine is different in each and every country, that's why russian is sticking to their design and western sticking to theirs, and israel made their own tanks from their own experience

Autoloader exist and will stay on russian tank cuz it is actually faster to load the 2-part russian tank ammunition (propellant & projectile) automatically using machines than using an actual crew, by comparison to western tank the difference is almost negligible to compare machine vs crew in loading their 1-part western tank ammunition

Russian dun have to design a western style tanks to be on the same level, sure arguments like active protection vs passive protection would continue till kingdom come but there's a an actual reason why certain things is the way they are rather than trying to copy others which in the end might be incompatible with their doctrine
*
Autoloader is good if there's isolation from crew like in leclerc & merkava, tank crew don't get to touch nor see the autoloader. Russia got into serious financial crisis that they cancelled the t95 project with proper autoloader separated from crew compartment and separate ammo storage.

T72/80/90 are nothing more than 70's era tech doctrine. The design fails big time under present day. Since t95 was scrapped and russians lost the t80 factory to ukraine after soviet union dissolved, they have only t72 left and give it modificaton then renamed it t90.

@DDG_Ross
Western tanks with crew loader, they don't touch the firing mechanism. Only load the rounds into a hatch tube and close it, then gunner fire after receiving order from tank commander. Load sabot, sabot up, fire, on the way then press trigger. Not sure what injury risk you're referring in abram, challenger 2 and leopard 2.

This post has been edited by kungfugymnast: Feb 19 2015, 02:24 PM
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 03:51 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(azriel @ Feb 19 2015, 02:35 PM)
Anyway here is a scale model of the Indonesian Army Leopard 2RI (Rheinmetall MBT Revolution).

user posted image
(credit to azravadila)

Note that the Indonesian Army's version of the Rheinmetall MBT Revolution is without the ROSY system.
*
The added armor is so thick making the leopard 2 looks like big box with cannon.

Can PT91 defeat this well protected boxy leo2? Leo2 has better engine, speed, mobility, visual, firepower, fire control system and armor. Pt91 would have to fire few rounds to destroy leo2.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 04:44 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(BorneoAlliance @ Feb 19 2015, 03:21 PM)
North Korea Flight Tests New Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile
Pentagon: KN-11 missile test fired from floating platform

North Korea conducted the first flight test of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile last month, defense officials said this week.

The flight test of what the Pentagon is calling the KN-11 missile took place Jan. 23 off the coast of North Korea from a sea-based platform—not a submarine—located off the coast of the communist state, said officials familiar with reports of the flight test.

U.S. intelligence ships and aircraft monitored the test and tracked the successful missile firing.

Additional details of the flight test could not be learned. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the test, citing the sensitivity of information about North Korea’s SLBM program.

The flight test followed a land-based ejection test of the KN-11 in November from a static launcher located at the North’s Sinpo South Shipyard in November. Sinpo is a port city on North Korea’s southeastern coast about 100 miles from the Demilitarized Zone separating North Korea from rival South Korea.

The flight test is being viewed by U.S. intelligence analysts as a significant step forward for Pyongyang’s submarine-launched ballistic missile program. The new program was first disclosed by the Washington Free Beacon Aug. 26.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the House Armed Services Committee Feb. 3 that North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs “pose a serious threat to the U.S. and regional allies.”

“Pyongyang maintains that nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities are essential to ensure its sovereignty,” Stewart said in a prepared statement.

“Because of its conventional military deficiencies, the DPRK [North Korea] also has concentrated on improving its deterrence capabilities, especially its nuclear technology and ballistic missile forces.”

Stewart added that DIA is concerned North Korea will conduct a fourth underground nuclear test in the future.

The DIA director’s testimony made no mention of the SLBM program. But he said: “Pyongyang also is making efforts to expand and modernize its deployed missile forces consisting of close-, short-, medium-, and intermediate-range systems.”

“It seeks to develop longer-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the United States and continues efforts to bring its KN-08 road-mobile ICBM to operational capacity.

Other analysts assess the SLBM missile will be developed as a nuclear delivery system for Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. A submarine-launched nuclear missile would add a more-difficult target to U.S. regional deterrence and missile defenses.

Since the SLBM program was disclosed last year, South Korea’s government has confirmed the program.

Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the use of a floating launch platform indicates the KN-11 could be launched from a military or commercial ship as well as from a submarine.

Platform test launches also indicate that the weapon is in an early stage of development and is not ready to be launched from a submerged submarine.

“For Pyongyang, using the KN-11 from ships as well as submarines rapidly increases the number of potential launch platforms, as it also complicates U.S. and allied efforts to monitor a new North Korean missile threat,” Fisher said.

“Firing the KN-11 from a floating platform is still useful, as it
North Korea obtained from Russia SS-N-6 submarine-launched ballistic missiles several years ago. The missile was adapted to North Korea’s Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile.

North Korea also has six KN-08 road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles that were developed with launchers supplied by China.

The submarine North Korea plans to deploy the KN-11 on is not known.

North Korea obtained several decommissioned Soviet-era Golf II ballistic-missile submarines in the early 1990s.

Pyongyang may seek to copy or adapt the design of the Golf II for an indigenous missile submarine.

In another development, North Korea’s state-run news media reported Feb. 7 that the country’s military conducted a test firing of a precision-guided anti-ship cruise missile.

In addition, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un recently toured several military units and urged troops to be fully prepared for combat.

Some 20 U.S. Marines and 200 South Korean Marines conducted joint maritime infiltration exercises near the South’s border islands with North Korea on Feb. 10.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/no...listic-missile/
*
You typed way too long. North korea would have been defeated and seized by south korea in 1953 if it wasn't china crying foul and threatened to use nuke.

Same thing today, if south korean attack north korean army without US involvement, china will still cry foul. Without north korea in between china has phobia of american troops able to land their massive forces in north korea and easily cross into china.

North korean forces only have lousy outdated 1950's weapons that can be easily destroyed by korean k2, f15k, ships, etc.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 07:39 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(thpace @ Feb 19 2015, 07:09 PM)
Iran reverse engineer those planes. Then attached their own armament 

Who going to protests them doing that? US? They already sanction them iranians

Russia? So far russia have been keeping their promise not to supply them advance system. If u watch north korea documentary, u will know that is north  korea selling it to them. North buy act as proxy for iran and export to them

We on other hand cant that..
Uhhh.. it not autoloader but rather the ejector that is risky. The autolaoder mechanism have been the same but now the ejector have been redesigned to be safer for the crew

T72 supplied to middle east are of inferior quality  because  of russian fear of it falling to murica hands. Reduce armor protection, inferior fire control system and some even without fire control system. Lack of era and some even have used gun barrels

But even with this there  are some cases whre abrams fail to penetrate those tanks head on. Most of Iraq t72 are destroyed by missiles rather than tank on tank battle.
Semua mordern pun boleh
Just fast it reach operation readyness once surface from the water.. some take a few minutes  until all the water  exit the engine compartment or ect
*
No, iran did not reverse engineer. During the fall of Shah's, the air force mostly secular fled with the pro government. It left the rebel formed government lack of maintenance expertise for aircrafts that most of the fighters non-flyable. They hired engineers from russia personally to do the mods for them like how we get outside hp workshop to root software.

North korea cooperation with iran for nuclear program is true. But it was china who gave north korea and also pakistan the recipe to build nukes. China got it from Soviet Union.

Older m-1abram is using rifled m105 gun, the same as in m60a1/3. Hesh rounds have weaker penetrative force compared to sabot rounds from smoothbore. Nothing to be proud of if older abrams have to fire more than 1 round. Fyi, the great tank battle over iraq was between abram vs t72, t62 & t55. The Bradley's are slower than abrams that they were trailing behing while abrams spearhead enemy defenses. At least abram could destroy t72. At the other hand, t72's 125mm failed to punch through abram's armour, only capable of damaging tracks, turrets and engines at most.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 07:44 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(pziv2 @ Feb 19 2015, 12:46 PM)
where did you get this information from? or are you just extrapolating data from iraqi T-72s and thinking that it applies to the T-90? as for the insurgent weapons, it doesn't mean much given the fact that even the Challenger 2 was penetrated by a RPG29.
*
Chechnya battle, russian mbts performed badly be it t72b or t80bv both with fully covered ERA tiles. The Chechen separatists didn't bother to waste time shooting at harderned parts instead just aim for tracks and engine bay. Just 1 direct hit to engine would punch throught ammo storage destroying the tank with its own stowed ammo.

Check war in afghanistan, the soviets lost heavily than americans. It showed american tanks superior.

The challenger 2 under worst attack being hit by multiple RPG only had the driver's feet injured by shrapnel. Compared to leopard 2a6 in afghanistan that was hit by ied had the driver killed.

This post has been edited by kungfugymnast: Feb 19 2015, 07:52 PM
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 08:01 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(pziv2 @ Feb 19 2015, 07:47 PM)
failure in chechnya was not due to the tank design, but to the tactics employed by the russians. they sent tanks without any infantry support right into urban environments and got their arses handed back to them. any tank caught in this situation no matter the model will be utterly destroyed.
*
American, brits, israelis had been into such ambush, the abrams, challenger 2, merkava survived with damages. Only if there's hizbollah 500lb anti-tank mine that is strong enough to blow up any tank where few merkava mk3 were destroyed with turret blown off.

Russian t72 and t80 in chechnya is similar to iraq and in comparison, russian tank survival rate is much poorer.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 09:34 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(KYPMbangi @ Feb 19 2015, 08:20 PM)
The t95 is now replaced by the armata project which is a multiple weapons platform that will features unmanned turret, turret bustle ammo compartment, improved armor, active protection system and front engine. The design emphasizes more of the crew protection priority while still maintaining the medium weight tank class for mobility like their predecessor

please dun hate russian tank, every tank is built differently for different purpose, you can love one but dun hate the other..
same goes for shitty tanks like arjun and sheridan
*
What hate are you referring? I only speak the truth. The Russians already knew the their tanks have been inferior in 80's compared to western heavy tanks. Because of lack of budget in their financial crisis, they had no choice but to drop the heavy tank project & came up with toned down T80 instead to replace aging t64. Then in 90's after seeing the superiority of abrams & challengers, they came up with t95 project. Because of financial situation their plan for proper t95 was again being cancelled and substituted with remake t72 renamed t90.

Today, russia is earning a lot by buying cheap oil from IS and they expect American might intervene with ukraine conflict, the Russians finally gave greenlight for their heavy tank project weighing >50tons.

Regarding the bradley scouts you mentioned, they operate in small numbers recon only and will engage only if being spotted and attacked. Usually, these scouts would wait for abrams platoon to move in for the kill. Range of TOW2 missiles are about 3~4 miles. They only provide support fire behind abrams. Abrams guns max range about 3 miles.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 09:42 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(keown83 @ Feb 19 2015, 08:42 PM)
only stupid arrogant general will go on tanks vs tanks, especially within this archipelagos  doh.gif  doh.gif  doh.gif

war is not a video game, kiddo..war is not about whos penis is bigger & thicker & whos toys is better
*
You ignore tanks capabilities means you're ignorant & putting your troops in danger. If 2 warring states generals have similar level skills and strategies, the better tank would win. If general A commands Abrams tank platoon vs general B who commands t72 tank platoon. The abram has better armour, long range accuracy and warhead penetration. If you're general B, you think your platoon will survive?
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 10:02 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(lulz @ Feb 19 2015, 09:26 PM)
can add one more topic, m16 vs ak47. Go!
*
Yes you can. Vietnam era M-16 vs ak47, the m16 is prone to jam. Both lack accuracy and more for short range straffing. The 5.56x45mm round flies faster & further would sunk into vietcong soldier's body inflicting serious injury. Ak47 is reliable, tough and packs better firepower with its 7.62x39mm big diameter but shorter round causing it to fly slower..

M-16a2 vs ak74 during 90's, the M16a2 has better range but reliability still goes to ak. AK74 feeds on 5.45mm rounds to improve bullet speed. Both equal, nobody wins.

Newest ak107 uses 5.45mm round while ak108 uses nato 5.56mm rounds. M16a4 been modernised many times now, waiting for replacement. Had improved its reliability with more lightweight materials. The line of replacement rifles are all superior than ak but price wise not so attractive. Lightweight, less prone to heat and no worry using in hot desert. Notable possible replacement are SCAR, bushmaster ACR, Barrett's 5.8, etc. Suddenly many new rifles.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 10:32 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(keown83 @ Feb 19 2015, 10:15 PM)
if me, i'll be more happy like this (& this is if the battle were in our soil);
General A have Abram platoons, lots of it

General B have a several companies of trooper comprises of gunner & rocketeer (let say RPG29), 1 small team of commandoes that gets behind enemy line who will not just have sniper & spotter but also bringing along laser target designator (hornet waiting for them), several Kornet-E/Bhaktar Shikan mounted G-wagons, a few astross standing by far from battlefield, & Adnans with troops inside as the last sweeper

PT-91M? sorry, they're not interested in this abram-suicidal fiesta..there's other battlefield thats suits them more

like i said befur..only stupid general will fight tanks vs tanks head on
*
What makes you think general A doesn't have IFV, troops and air support behind his abrams? Check some of the war, the mbts are usually on front line be it open field battle or urban warfare. In Iraq, abrams leading the assault before making way for troops, hummers, ifv through. Same goes to Chechnya war.

Whatever you said, you think your enemy won't do the same? They won't be stupid enough to advance blindly with all their vehicles moving in straight line waiting for you to destroy first and last vehicle trapping the rest for you to finish off.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 10:55 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(KYPMbangi @ Feb 19 2015, 10:42 PM)
Meh.. ima just gonna give hint that russian sticks to the things that won them the world war 2

Bradley is ahead of the abrams cuz the mbt needs to stop and refuel every 3-5 hours and their filter cleaned of sands before moving again, so the bradleys dun wanna wait for the slowpoke tanks move ahead to take the most kill possible. lol habis cerita. true story believe meh~
*
Abrams out of fuel, the apache & cobra took over protecting the platoons & brigade. A-10s will be called to attack iraqi tank column when spotted large enemy forces. Sometimes with hornets, falcons, harriers too taking out high threat targets in simultaneous attacks.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 19 2015, 11:28 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(keown83 @ Feb 19 2015, 10:59 PM)
why we must think situation & environment in our soil will be as same as situation & environment in Iraq..??? for me, we cant take every details in Iraq to compare with what we have here, on our own ground..Iraq is a land vast with plain flat desert, which is a very good advantage to send tanks as a the main assault team..& this is also why Iraq have 5000+ tanks (sadly most of them cant be used plus its a monkey assad babil model of basic T72 tank btw) standing by

while in Afghanistan, abrams are not the main assault team..afghanistan are not like Iraq..too many hills & mountains, too many hidden places, not a good advantage for tanks..same goes to vietnam, also not a good place to let tanks lead any assult

btw, for chenchen war;
Chenchen war sos

u see..its not a battle of tanks vs tanks..yes of cos its about the weakness of T-72, but the most important thing is u must not rely too much on tanks vs tanks..yes PT-92M is inferior to abrams, leopard & other western tanks, but the most important thing is how the tanks suits ur doctrine & ur strategy..

for me, it would be better to choose a tank that is not too heavy, high-mobility & maneuverability, fast, easy maintenance & logistic support, have lower height than other modern mbt (actually T-90 would be better, but T-91M also ok la), & most important thing, can fire any modern shell (DU, KE whatever shit) effectively & accurately, while on static or while moving..other than that, wont mind to compromise here & there la
*
When comes to breaching enemy held cities or strongholds, even though enemy forces don't have tanks, Americans, Russians or Israelis would use MBTs to lead the assault because it has toughest frontal armour and firepower while infantry and weaker IFV covering behind providing fire support. This has always been the norm after shelling enemy positions with artillery and air strikes.

If your topic is about malaysia, it is more suitable to get advanced IFV wheeled or tracked. The PT91 was less suitable as proven in sulu invasion, the hilly terrain leaves the twardy with limited range. Attack helicopter like hokum & havoc are more suitable, these choppers could kill more insurgents entering our country by boats effectively before they reach our sabah shore.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 20 2015, 01:02 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(BorneoAlliance @ Feb 19 2015, 11:46 PM)
U.K.: Russia’s advanced anti-aircraft artillery system in Ukraine

The United Kingdom released images Wednesday of Russian SA-22 surface-to-air missile systems that have been spotted in Ukraine.

The U.K. Joint Delegation to NATOtweeted the photos Wednesday, adding that the artillery systems were “more proof of direct Russian military involvement in the conflict.”

Adam Thomson, British ambassador to NATO, implored Russia to live up to its truce agreements.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/f.../#ixzz3SCqxH4w9
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
*
Ukrainian forces already lost their airspace to Russian troops wearing rebel badges. Any aircrafts they flew near rebel controlled territory will be shot down. Even rebels assault rifles are more advanced than ukrainian forces. Ukraine would need proper attack helicopters with complete training from US to defeat these pantsir SAMs together with F-16d block 52 carrying harm and hailstorm would be suitable for SEAD taking out medium range SAMs.

For ground forces, they'll need new IFVs and several small arms. Otherwise, would be hard to win. Bmp is too weak and fragile when rebel has rpg
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 20 2015, 01:22 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(MilitaryMadness @ Feb 20 2015, 09:23 AM)
WTF happened? I was away for just 1-2 days, now forum has degenerated into Abrams vs T-90 cockfight.  laugh.gif
*
This is military thread and it didn't specify air, ground or sea only. Nothing is wrong if discussion touches army & navy.

Abram vs T90 is not cockfight but brainstorm. When comes to military competition and comparison, all of them is about killing each other in what if scenario.

If you had the chance to go to high end military expo in egypt, russia, US, france, UK, you'll hear lots of killing talks. Yinchet, if he meant removing my comments, he probably doesn't understand this part and he should go to such expo where he can see how Russians talk about defeating typhoons, raptor, abrams, seawolf, Ticonderoga, etc while americans talk on defeating flankers, s400, slava, t90, Oscar, etc.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 20 2015, 02:47 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(yinchet @ Feb 19 2015, 11:56 PM)
Based on what you conclude that f16 were far ahead gripen.
gripen avianic system is quite advance compare to the most advance f16.
Mainly the have build around ncw and sensor fusion.

I would avoid buying any mikoyan jets due to its maintenance services and availability of spare. In short their after sale service is suck.
On armaments you still need object code of the missile to install on the aircrafts.
there were also need to mode their source code in order to use US/western missile.
*
What do you base on to say gripen better than f16? The Gripen is only capable of home defense more like migs in the old days. Gripen only carries limited 6 air to air missiles having medium range radar. When comes to ground attack, you could fit agm, bombs, rockets on the 4 pylons in small numbers. Its RWR capability is question mark, not sure how well can it tell you the shooter's position and probably no indicator on incoming missiles. You know what is RWR and how do you check incoming missile?

F-16s been into many combat and held the record of scoring most air to air kills today. After 1 was shot down by Serbians in the real behind enemy lines that the movie was based on, they came up with new sensors for better capability in detecting trackers and tell position of radar guided missiles better. Block 50 was introduced having 4 slices of blades right in front of cockpit bubble canopy & behind radome. It gives the pilot better indicator allowing the pilot to know where the missile coming from and take evasive maneuver. F-16 is what you can count on for air & ground sorties, anytime baby.

Migs used to be worlds biggest fighters supplier, you think they are stupid putting their customers at risk of no spare parts? The mig29's reputation ruined over problematic avionics that they failed to use bvr on mig-29a/b. Also it was the engines short lifespan lasting only 10years become not flyable. Not because of no spare parts but because it needed overhaul in such short period which is costly. The newer rd33 klimov engine claimed to have solved the issue but can only confirm with real result.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 20 2015, 03:01 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(thpace @ Feb 20 2015, 02:33 PM)
Not really, when i visit, russia ones, they like to highlight  their cost effectiveness on handling those threat with the given price tag. They dont like to claim my product can beat this beat that instead their marketing motto is more of cheaper price tag do the job good enough.

Only western like to compare especially us. Europe also seldom do that and is more like russian. Cheaper price tag to do the intended job.

Again.. russia have their own doctorine while us have their own. Comparing those two is foolish.
*
That's because they don't know which side you belong to and they see you as civilian.

If you are syrian military defense minister, they'll show you detailed analysis of cgi vids on the pantsir team up with sa17 and sa15 in effective defenses against possible war with turkey & nato. Most russian SAMs now come up with vertical launch allowing you to park mobile launchers into specially dug up trench where they'll remain underground while the radar on surface located elsewhere far away. Apaches and f16s, even f35s can't see you missile/aaa batteries and they'll fly past your batteries allowing you to shoot them from behind. Russian researchers came up with this clever tactic from serbian war. The radars are mobile and several, 1 gets destroyed, you could use another and launch nearest missile. They have new PESA that could track stealth within certain range and angle with help of human visual & sound spotters.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 20 2015, 05:17 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(sanadi @ Feb 20 2015, 03:01 PM)
Those are IFF Interrogator, not RWR or MAWS
*
IFF is to identify the target you're tracking is friend or foe. Each aircraft has transponder code eg. you fly f18 and me in su30mkm with rmaf, we set code 122. You're dogfighting rsaf f16c. I'm at 20nm away to save you track 1 of the 2 targets on my tws mfd and press IFF button, if it returns 122, that means it's you so i track the other target which is that f16 then hit IFF, it returns unknown so most likely that f16, i switch to r77 lock on and fox1.

RWR indicates the radar lock positon air/ground and radar guided missile. When i lock on that f-16 block 50 with good RWr, his rwr screen tells him that i'm locking at him 20nm from his 4 o' clocke and when my r77 flies towards him, he would start taking evasive maneuver when it got into less than 10nm and closing position his back facing my missile then take sudden sharp bank left or right spoofing chaff turning inside the missile to break loose when the missile is near less than 2nm away.

Bad RWR shows only directional indicator but no exact position of tracker & missile. That's why many iraqi fighters were easily shot down without able to perform proper turning inside missile maneuver spoofing chaff/flare blindly. Poor viewing angle in 3rd generation fighters bad canopy design has poor visibility to further side and rear blocked view.

IR missile won't appear on RWR and he'll rely on eyesight, mirror and tracker position to evade & spoof flare. Off boresight missiles will be deadlier giving little time to react.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 20 2015, 08:40 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(nikita zuleica @ Feb 20 2015, 07:02 PM)
We are Soviet!!
*
That list stats is incorrect. Since when serbia buying from americans? Also, for local, apart from su30mkm and mig29, the rest were from US, nato, korea. PT91 from poland unless it is considered russian made because of t72. By right should fall under blue red group.
SUSkungfugymnast
post Feb 20 2015, 08:49 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
217 posts

Joined: Feb 2013
QUOTE(KYPMbangi @ Feb 20 2015, 08:14 PM)
Update: Pilot killed.. RIP, it's single-seat version

Thai fighter jet crashes during drill; pilot killed

BANGKOK: A Thai air force F-16A fighter jet crashed during a drill in central Thailand, killing the pilot, an air force spokesman said.

The single-seat jet crashed at the air force's training ground in Lopburi province during a weapon-training flight, Air Vice Marshal Montol Suchookorn said.

He said the body of the 30-year-old pilot was found in the wreckage and air force officers were investigating the cause of the crash.

Thailand's air force has about 50 active F-16s in three fleets. The crashed jet was first used in 1988 and has undergone regular maintenance, Montol told The Associated Press.

In 2010, another F-16A crashed near the Thai-Myanmar border during a training flight, killing the pilot. A year later, two F-16 planes taking part in a joint military exercise with the US crashed in northeastern Thailand but the pilots safely ejected.

Earlier, it was reported that the fate of the pilot was unknown.

[NST]
*
First of all, did Thai buy that f16a brand new or second hand? In 1988, f16c already been around replacing f16a. If that f16a was bought 2nd hand from Americans, that means the aircraft is probably already way over 30 years old. Fighters structural frame lifespan is about 30 years old.

It's about time for Thailand to replace the old fighters to prevent such disaster from occuring. Time to ground all older F16a.

3 Pages < 1 2 3 >
Bump Topic Topic ClosedOptions New Topic
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0623sec    0.41    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 11th December 2025 - 11:53 AM