By: lukos
- 2nd May 2015 at 09:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The BROACH has two charges a primary shaped charge that penetrates and then a secondary one that goes off. However a BLU-116 is a delayed action charge inside with a heavy metal penetrator, stated to be capable of penetrating 12ft of reinforced concrete or >100ft of earth.
By: xman
- 2nd May 2015 at 10:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This line of threads is odd.
FAF selected to use scalp to treat an air base ammo and control center 300+ km in land. It did the job. Arguing it could have been processed using different weapons is ludicrous. Military planner are not there to show off but to plan for mission success at lesser risk ,taking into account intelligence, risk assessment and logistic. A GBU 24 would require closing in on an air base ,assumed armed and dangerous at the time. 250 kg AASM were probably considered insufficient to achieve the mission objective or yet required to expose aircraft too far in land and too close to airbases. not to mention the logistic to carry out such raid. All in all the scalp weapon was selected to carry the mission with success. Not sure it would have effectively costed less to select other approach but in time of combat it is not the single factor for planning mission.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 2nd May 2015 at 10:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certain people think the Rafale went in before the cruise missiles just because it had better EW systems.:D
By: xman
- 2nd May 2015 at 13:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certain people think the Rafale went in before the cruise missiles just because it had better EW systems.:D
And it did. And yes, it relied on its electronic and EW to perform CAS and raids before all AD threats were eliminated.
I do not think this is the thread for discussing this topic.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 2nd May 2015 at 14:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how come it still used cruise missiles then? The point is that the choice of weapons had nothing to do with EW capabilities. Don't blame me for bringing up the Rafale in another thread.
Notice:
- The recessed stair system
- The amount of lift at T.O and Landing
- The number of planes at departure (enough for some country to call it an elephant walk ;) )
- The relative fragility of the helmet's lens and the amount of precautions taken in handling it.
- The sleek lines of the bird
By: TomcatViP
- 2nd May 2015 at 22:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237220[/ATTACH]
Attachments
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 3rd May 2015 at 01:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow.. the net cost of the fighters on that field exceeds annual GDP of a small country.. The shape of the bird is kinda weird, though.. Would not describe it as sleek if you ask me..
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 3rd May 2015 at 04:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Notice:
- The sleek lines of the bird
whats the chemical you are using ?
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 3rd May 2015 at 08:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes France used cruise missiles during Harmattan but not much if you look the stat:
-15 SCALP
-950 GBU
-225 A2SM
The point raised was, why use them at all if Spectra allowed missions to be conducted more cheaply with ordinary LGBs? RAF Tornadoes used over 200 Brimstones.
By: LowObservable
- 3rd May 2015 at 13:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oblig - Sleek is not synonymous with slender...
I too noticed the lift at take-off and landing. It was just about equal to the airplane's weight, plus or minus a bit.
Nifty ladder, a bit like the retractable running-board on an upscale SUV. My S2000 doesn't have a retractable running board. There is a reason for that.
That looked like a hell of a lot of aerobraking on the landing roll.
By: snafu352
- 4th May 2015 at 14:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how come it still used cruise missiles then? The point is that the choice of weapons had nothing to do with EW capabilities. Don't blame me for bringing up the Rafale in another thread.
So how come the F-35 is supposed to get storm shadow at some point in the far distance future then?
It is sadly very evident that you are neither a troll nor a very well informed individual you are simply a young fool who has yet to learn how little they actually know and comprehend.
If you are lucky one day you will come to understand how little you know and cease to exhibit your ignorance in public, for your own good I hope this occurs sooner rather than later.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 4th May 2015 at 14:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You've been given the answer to that. Choosing to ignore it to continue with your own agenda does you no favours.
What answer was that? Mission risk and planning I accept, penetration vs GBU-24, uncertain. Either way EW capabilities played no part because the Libyan ADS wasn't particularly useful to put it mildly.
By: snafu352
- 4th May 2015 at 14:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What answer was that? Mission risk and planning I accept, penetration vs GBU-24, uncertain. Either way EW capabilities played no part because the Libyan ADS wasn't particularly useful to put it mildly.
Really? Please stop exposing your lack of knowledge and desperate need to find anything which you think may support your beliefs. It is painful.
Try looking at the information, analysing it and then coming to a conclusion rather than making your mind up and then seeking data to support your belief.
By: mig-31bm
- 4th May 2015 at 14:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how come the F-35 is supposed to get storm shadow at some point in the far distance future then?
.
Cruise missiles like storm shadow will help F-35 strike from much longer distance than it's combat radius
For example , F-35 have combat radius of about 1200 km, so with weapons like Gbu-12, SDB, SDB II, Spear it can only at ttack targets that located maximum of 1300 km from the airbase or aircraft carrier
By contrast weapon like JASSM-ER, Storm shadow allow it to strike target located 1700 - 2200 km from the airbase
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 4th May 2015 at 14:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cruise missiles like storm shadow will help F-35 strike from much longer distance than it's combat radius
For example , F-35 have combat radius of about 1200 km, so with weapons like Gbu-12, SDB, SDB II, Spear it can only at ttack targets that located maximum of 1300 km from the airbase or aircraft carrier
By contrast weapon like JASSM-ER, Storm shadow allow it to strike target located 1700 - 2200 km from the airbase
Another valid reason, agreed. I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with anything you're saying so far.
By: snafu352
- 4th May 2015 at 14:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cruise missiles like storm shadow will help F-35 strike from much longer distance than it's combat radius
For example , F-35 have combat radius of about 1200 km, so with weapons like Gbu-12, SDB, SDB II, Spear it can only at ttack targets that located maximum of 1300 km from the airbase or aircraft carrier
By contrast weapon like JASSM-ER, Storm shadow allow it to strike target located 1700 - 2200 km from the airbase
Yes thanks we all know what cruise missiles do.
The point was a certain childish poster seems to deem it ok to attack the Rafale and attempt to diminish actual achievements for using a cruise missile when it is appropriate but the beloved F-35 gets a pass?
Nope not letting that crap go.
Ps when was the last time a F-35 did anything operationally useful? Oh wait...
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 2nd May 2015 at 09:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The BROACH has two charges a primary shaped charge that penetrates and then a secondary one that goes off. However a BLU-116 is a delayed action charge inside with a heavy metal penetrator, stated to be capable of penetrating 12ft of reinforced concrete or >100ft of earth.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 2nd May 2015 at 10:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
shape charge like in HEAT warhead ?
Posts: 255
By: xman - 2nd May 2015 at 10:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This line of threads is odd.
FAF selected to use scalp to treat an air base ammo and control center 300+ km in land. It did the job. Arguing it could have been processed using different weapons is ludicrous. Military planner are not there to show off but to plan for mission success at lesser risk ,taking into account intelligence, risk assessment and logistic. A GBU 24 would require closing in on an air base ,assumed armed and dangerous at the time. 250 kg AASM were probably considered insufficient to achieve the mission objective or yet required to expose aircraft too far in land and too close to airbases. not to mention the logistic to carry out such raid. All in all the scalp weapon was selected to carry the mission with success. Not sure it would have effectively costed less to select other approach but in time of combat it is not the single factor for planning mission.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 2nd May 2015 at 10:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Certain people think the Rafale went in before the cruise missiles just because it had better EW systems.:D
Posts: 255
By: xman - 2nd May 2015 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And it did. And yes, it relied on its electronic and EW to perform CAS and raids before all AD threats were eliminated.
I do not think this is the thread for discussing this topic.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 2nd May 2015 at 14:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how come it still used cruise missiles then? The point is that the choice of weapons had nothing to do with EW capabilities. Don't blame me for bringing up the Rafale in another thread.
Posts: 248
By: Cream - 2nd May 2015 at 15:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes France used cruise missiles during Harmattan but not much if you look the stat:
-15 SCALP
-950 GBU
-225 A2SM
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 2nd May 2015 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Last Training flight for Australian Pilot:
Notice:
- The recessed stair system
- The amount of lift at T.O and Landing
- The number of planes at departure (enough for some country to call it an elephant walk ;) )
- The relative fragility of the helmet's lens and the amount of precautions taken in handling it.
- The sleek lines of the bird
Posts: 1,003
By: Al. - 2nd May 2015 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The low pressure tyres
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 2nd May 2015 at 22:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237220[/ATTACH]
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 3rd May 2015 at 01:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wow.. the net cost of the fighters on that field exceeds annual GDP of a small country.. The shape of the bird is kinda weird, though.. Would not describe it as sleek if you ask me..
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 3rd May 2015 at 04:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
whats the chemical you are using ?
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 3rd May 2015 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The point raised was, why use them at all if Spectra allowed missions to be conducted more cheaply with ordinary LGBs? RAF Tornadoes used over 200 Brimstones.
Posts: 959
By: LowObservable - 3rd May 2015 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oblig - Sleek is not synonymous with slender...
I too noticed the lift at take-off and landing. It was just about equal to the airplane's weight, plus or minus a bit.
Nifty ladder, a bit like the retractable running-board on an upscale SUV. My S2000 doesn't have a retractable running board. There is a reason for that.
That looked like a hell of a lot of aerobraking on the landing roll.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 4th May 2015 at 14:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So how come the F-35 is supposed to get storm shadow at some point in the far distance future then?
It is sadly very evident that you are neither a troll nor a very well informed individual you are simply a young fool who has yet to learn how little they actually know and comprehend.
If you are lucky one day you will come to understand how little you know and cease to exhibit your ignorance in public, for your own good I hope this occurs sooner rather than later.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 4th May 2015 at 14:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What answer was that? Mission risk and planning I accept, penetration vs GBU-24, uncertain. Either way EW capabilities played no part because the Libyan ADS wasn't particularly useful to put it mildly.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 4th May 2015 at 14:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really? Please stop exposing your lack of knowledge and desperate need to find anything which you think may support your beliefs. It is painful.
Try looking at the information, analysing it and then coming to a conclusion rather than making your mind up and then seeking data to support your belief.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 4th May 2015 at 14:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cruise missiles like storm shadow will help F-35 strike from much longer distance than it's combat radius
For example , F-35 have combat radius of about 1200 km, so with weapons like Gbu-12, SDB, SDB II, Spear it can only at ttack targets that located maximum of 1300 km from the airbase or aircraft carrier
By contrast weapon like JASSM-ER, Storm shadow allow it to strike target located 1700 - 2200 km from the airbase
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 4th May 2015 at 14:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another valid reason, agreed. I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with anything you're saying so far.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 4th May 2015 at 14:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes thanks we all know what cruise missiles do.
The point was a certain childish poster seems to deem it ok to attack the Rafale and attempt to diminish actual achievements for using a cruise missile when it is appropriate but the beloved F-35 gets a pass?
Nope not letting that crap go.
Ps when was the last time a F-35 did anything operationally useful? Oh wait...