SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - How many kills would a Kilo be expected to make?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Dangerous Waters (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=181)

- - How many kills would a Kilo be expected to make? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=91932)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadeye313

And those have to deal with this:

http://www.mis.mit.edu.tw/~mis0238/atoair_F-22_8.jpg

and we've long since reduced anti-sam work to a science, if Afghanistan and Iraq are any indication.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7443/f117nn16md.jpg
Its amazing what you can do with an old SA-3, a stopwatch, a few cell phones and a radio tower. ;)

I bet if we start flying missions over Iran everyone with a rifle is going to be shooting up at the sky. A few hits from AAA can really compromise you RCS and damage all those sensitive computers we Americans love in our jets. :roll:

The reason I came up with the prayer thing on the Kilo is because Iran is an Islamic Republic...so isn't that a requirement that they pray? No secularism in Iran... It would be interesting to see how they handle it though considering your have to get about 60 people to pray at roughly the same time in a confined space. :hmm:

I think the Iranians have F14 A s don't they? And only about 15 are useable considering they had to canabalise a few for parts (they had an original of approx 80 I believe). The As are obselete, late 70s fighters...they wouldn't stand a chance. The Iraqis had a few squadrons of at least valid Mig 29s and they never managed to down a US plane.

You have to put things into perspective...yes the Yugoslavs downed an FA/117, though ultimately they lost the conflict and were kicked back to wear they came from. I think that's cost effective, if you think about it. An F22 for an F14 isn't cost effective, you may think. But chances are they'll never even get close to shooting down an F22 in air-to-air. If you consider a US F15 has never been shot down in aerial combat and has a kill ratio of about 200:1 and now consider the F22 is head and shoulders above the F15 in terms of technology etc.

Iran can only wage an unconventional war against the US...forget the Iranian airforce playing a part in the conflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Be serious.
Lets se for instance tghe iranian air force.
What happens if a fighter pilot is flying during prayer time ? You think he puts the autopilot and starts praying ? :roll:

Quote:

Iran can only wage an unconventional war against the US...forget the Iranian airforce playing a part in the conflict.

Going against us warships can scarcely be considered as unconventional warfare.
And the problem here is not that Iran is going to invade the us, but the contrary.
What kind of reponse can the us implement against an agressive iranian navy ?
In this scenario us is at a disadvantage short of invading Iran in the old fashioned way (which means not as was done in Iraq).
In any case its the us thats stands to loose much more than iraq in a conventional confrontation in the persian gulf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

You know if you really want an answer you could always Ask and Iman. :lol:

(Just make sure to sign the question 'Sincerely, United States Navy' :lol: )

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Be serious.
Lets se for instance tghe iranian air force.
What happens if a fighter pilot is flying during prayer time ? You think he puts the autopilot and starts praying ? :roll:

(Iâ€™m going to need a rimshot on this oneâ€¦)

Why not heâ€™s already on his Flying Carpet!

:-j

Seriously a fighter pilot is different, they can pray before flying (and probity would before a combat mission). They are not stuck in side their jets for weeks at a time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Be serious.
Lets se for instance tghe iranian air force.
What happens if a fighter pilot is flying during prayer time ? You think he puts the autopilot and starts praying ? :roll:

An airforce pilot doesn't live on the plane, a sub crew does. You think they will never pray for the entire time they are deployed on the sub?

Quote:

You really think any branch of the Iranian military has a chance against the US? I'm sorry, then you don't know anything about warfare. I discussed the possible invasion of Iran to death on a military forum some time ago. You fail to understand that the US is like the guy with an ace up his sleave at the poker table. The US military cheats, does not play fair...and why should it. It's war. They have the cards all stacked in their favour. But enough of the cliches...here's why:

The US is the only nation left in the world where it truly has the capability to combines it's forces. What will an Iranian surface vessel do against incoming hostile aircraft? Now, you see, a capable airforce running CAP would be useful here...but, guess again. Iran doesn't have an airforce. So, when the US airforce runs wild-weasels against SAM sights, who is going to stop them? There's your same problem again...

Countries like Iran are like someone playing chess with one of piece at a time against the US who is using all 16 pieces. :up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

You know if you really want an answer you could always Ask and Iman. :lol:

(Just make sure to sign the question 'Sincerely, United States Navy' :lol: )

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

An airforce pilot doesn't live on the plane, a sub crew does. You think they will never pray for the entire time they are deployed on the sub?

Sure but that doesn't mean that the sub will surface.

Quote:

Nobody is talking about an all out confrontation between iranian navy and the us navy.
We were talking about the effectiveness of kilo submarines vis a vis civilian shipping in the persian gulf and also us military ships.
You sure know what happened to the USS Cole ?
And in that case a sub wasn't even needed.
The point is that surface fleets (any military surface fleet) is at a disadvantage when it is stationary or when it has limited manuevrability options against subs or suicide boats.

Quote:

The US is the only nation left in the world where it truly has the capability to combines it's forces. What will an Iranian surface vessel do against incoming hostile aircraft? Now, you see, a capable airforce running CAP would be useful here...but, guess again. Iran doesn't have an airforce. So, when the US airforce runs wild-weasels against SAM sights, who is going to stop them? There's your same problem again...

You're continuosly underestimating air defense networks. :nope:
In any case we are talking about submarines and submarines couldn't care less of airplanes.

Quote:

Countries like Iran are like someone playing chess with one of piece at a time against the US who is using all 16 pieces. :up:

The difference is to use the chess metaphore that the us king is much more valuable than the iranian king.
And this is why us fleet is at a disadvantage.
The iranians have only to score one hit on a us aircarft carrier.
It would sure be a one way mission but you could agree that the loss of an aircraft carrier is much more appealing to the iranians than the sinking of a poor kilo is to the us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

Iran doesn't have an airforce. So, when the US airforce runs wild-weasels against SAM sights, who is going to stop them?

Iran has an airforce, including but not limited to F-14's with Phoenix missiles sold by the US to Iran. You'd better believe they work because the Iranians shot down a crapload of Iraqi airplanes with them. They've got a number of other Russian designs, and you can be sure Iran has a lot more money to spend on military training than most other countries, given its extremely vast quantities of oil.

BTW as far as I know the US does not any longer have wild weasels and now relies solely on UAV's and precision munitions for extremely hazardous duty like SAM hunting.

Some of you guys just don't want to give any credit at all. It'd be a big nasty wakeup call if the US military operated the way you guys are thinking about going about it.

And that prayer boat thing... absolutely rediculous, we're talking about a military here. If they're in danger, they're not going to aggravate the problem by stopping duties to pray. :hmm: Sometimes I wonder about you guys!

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

In any case we are talking about submarines and submarines couldn't care less of airplanes.

I'm sure the German U-Boatmen thought the same at the start of WWII. :roll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat

BTW as far as I know the US does not any longer have wild weasels and now relies solely on UAV's and precision munitions for extremely hazardous duty like SAM hunting.

Uhhh we still have the EA-6B Power for Jamming. The new F/A-18G Growler for SEAD (starting in '08) and the standard Hornets for SEAD in the mean time. The EF-111A Spark Varks have only been out of service for a few years and could theoretically be reactivated if necessary, the same goes for the F-4Gs as well. The F-16 Falcon can carry the HARM missile.

If our UK allies back us up we have the Tornado with its kick ass ALARM missile on our side.

Quote:

And that prayer boat thing... absolutely rediculous, we're talking about a military here. If they're in danger, they're not going to aggravate the problem by stopping duties to pray. :hmm: Sometimes I wonder about you guys!

Its a vaild question IMHO. Remember "Black Hawk Down"; all the militiamen stopped fighting for their evening prayers.

I know how to settle this: do a custom senario! :ping:

put like 5 kilos on that Strait of Hormuz and make 3 or 4 OHPs, some P-3s out of Iraq or Kuwait and a fleet of US warships try to break through. If you want, put in Migs and F-14s and all kinds of junk that would really be there if we went to war.

Then we can see how long the kilos last and how much they take out.

You should add some more little detail to your scenario. To make it more 'challenge'. ;)

Quote:

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf

http://liberty.hypermart.net/images/...kg_missile.jpg

[...]

The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons â€“â€“ probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Husseinâ€™s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called â€œthe most lethal missile in the world today.â€

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navyâ€™s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes â€œviolent end maneuversâ€ to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution â€“â€“ not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder â€œjust in time.â€

The Sunburnâ€™s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

The US Navyâ€™s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemyâ€™s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes â€œseeâ€ everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War â€“â€“ termed â€œthe great Scud huntâ€ â€“â€“ and for similar reasons. Saddam Husseinâ€™s mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy â€“â€“ over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys â€“â€“ that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scudâ€™s inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scudâ€™s ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburnâ€™s amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese â€“â€“ and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bullâ€™s eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large â€œXâ€ mounted on the shipâ€™s bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a clichÃ©, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure.

[...]

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulfâ€™s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as Iâ€™ve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although weâ€™ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Janeâ€™s Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was â€œoptimized for attacks against carrier task forces.â€ Apparently its guidance system is â€œable to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.â€ The numbers were not disclosedâ€¦

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iranâ€™s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israelâ€™s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harmâ€™s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulfâ€™s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American bloodâ€¦

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lakeâ€™s only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besiegedâ€¦

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act...

America will stand alone, completely isolated. Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israelâ€™s defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.

A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their useâ€¦

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle7147.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The new F/A-18G Growler for SEAD

Well ... in fact, TLAM, the growler is an escort close-in jammer, but no more anti radiative, and you can even say less anti radiative, because it's really not his job (he is counter radiative, he doesnt destroy them, he make them blind), than E/F version carrying HARMs.
The goal of the growler is to give a jammer protection to a group of plane but not to engage any SAMs.

US doctrine hasn't changed here => there is a specialised aircraft who give a secured area to the group
French have a different way : each plane have his own sophisticated jamming system, quite complex, and more expensive for each plane.
SystÃ¨me SPECTRA, "supposed" to be the most sophisticated jamming system ever created for a fighter (but not to cover a group)
I didn't say this politic is better than the other, just mentionning.

Quote:

I know how to settle this: do a custom senario!

put like 5 kilos on that Strait of Hormuz and make 3 or 4 OHPs, some P-3s out of Iraq or Kuwait and a fleet of US warships try to break through. If you want, put in Migs and F-14s and all kinds of junk that would really be there if we went to war.

Then we can see how long the kilos last and how much they take out.

gimme a KILO here ! :rock:

more seriously, I could read on that thread, that iranian air force could be a threat to US air force.
I disagree with that :
If i was the Iranian leader, I will know that the best way to lost ALL my aerian force will be to try to fight with americans on this matter.
In half a week, the iranian airforce will be downed.

So i'm absolutly sure, if the iranian leader is not only a stupid fanatic (that is still needed to be proven nevertheless ...) he will, as Hussein did, as Milosevic did, hide or send away (in other arabian countries) his precious (but ridiculous against the US one) air force, to get it back when the conflict will end.

So I don't expect any iranian aircraft to engage US air force if a war occurs.
maybe some kamikaze, but certainly not the whole air force.

Anyway, if a war occurs, there won't be only americans on this one : it's not an oil problem tis time, but a nuke problem.
If oil is vital for US more than for any other countries in the world (near 30% of worldwide use, 60% of US use is now imported, a US citizen need 4 times the oil of a french citizen per year), and justified, only to US gvnt, the 2nd Irak war (we all know there was not any mass destruction weapons there, and all was invented to start the oil war), nuke is dangerous for all democracy safety.
So, all NATO countries will be there, and certainly half UNO ...
No match for iranians.

even if the iranian leader looks fanatic and quite stupid (talking about his public position about israel ... no decent leader could have said that, except a stupid fanatic that doesn't worth to be president at all), he knows he couldn't sacrify his air force in half a week.
And if he is more stupid than that, he will lost it, and war will be shorter than expected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I'm sure the German U-Boatmen thought the same at the start of WWII. :roll:

I was refering to the sub being submerged.
Of course a sub on the surface is vulnerable to aircraft but what modern sub surfaces nowadays to carry an attack ? :roll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

In any case we are talking about submarines and submarines couldn't care less of airplanes.

I'm sure the German U-Boatmen thought the same at the start of WWII. :roll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat

BTW as far as I know the US does not any longer have wild weasels and now relies solely on UAV's and precision munitions for extremely hazardous duty like SAM hunting.

That's an interesting thought but I don't think it would work. At this moment there are no wild weasels and I would bet a year's salary that even if the US went to war you would not see the varks or rhino's brought back into service. Those are basically gone for good. Especially with the F-22 now in service, congress would be asking 'why can't the raptor do it?'.

I agree that allies would play an important part; however; the EU and UN in general has shown itself to be kind of screwed up and I would not count on them being there at the critical time when the Iranian defecate hits the rotary.

FYI the F-18E and F also carry the HARM missile but that missile is dependent on the missile battery radiating in order to attack. If the sam site never radiates, it won't have a target to pick up. Additionally it is an entirely passive device so a smart commander in a mobile battery that shuts down and moves his radar around every once in a while is going to be hard to kill with a HARM. JSOW's are another likely possibility for sam hunting, but again that is very dangerous; there are a number of soviet technology sam batteries with longer range than the JSOW can glide from an F/A-18E or F. UAV's in that case make sense, as do tomahawk launches from inside the gulf (if subs or cruisers can get in there past the choke point).

Realise of course this is 'worst case scenario' thinking, but worst case scenario thinking is a hell of a lot better than best case scenario thinking. The Iranians have a lot of Russian tech that has yet to be seen in action, but we can assume a lot of it is good even if some of it is bad. The kilos are just one example of good Russian tech. Their limitations will be their torpedos not the boats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat

...why can't the raptor do it?'...

some answers could be :
- the raptor have a small loadout compared to a FA/18, 3 or 4 time less bombs carried.
- the raptor cost 5 or 6 times (from memory, should be even more than that) the price of a FA18, and you better lost a FA18 than a raptor, because there is not so many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I agree that allies would play an important part; however; the EU and UN in general has shown itself to be kind of screwed up and I would not count on them being there at the critical time when the Iranian defecate hits the rotary.

well ... don't you remember about afghanistan ?
When it's a real international threat, and not only a threat to US economy and international strategy, you will find people helping, as they did in afghanistan, as they did in balkans.
Of course, with not the same means than US army, but with their means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat

The kilos are just one example of good Russian tech. Their limitations will be their torpedos not the boats.

And certainly also their crew.
But this point is more difficult to know, even if it's one of the most important thing at submarine warfare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurushio

I discussed the possible invasion of Iran to death on a military forum some time ago.

On whitch one ?

Deamon

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I'm sure the German U-Boatmen thought the same at the start of WWII. :roll:

I was refering to the sub being submerged.
Of course a sub on the surface is vulnerable to aircraft but what modern sub surfaces nowadays to carry an attack ? :roll:

The point still stands otherwise the US Navy would not invest in 4 different Anti-Sub aircraft (Although 1 is going away now and 1 is being replaced.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKO

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The new F/A-18G Growler for SEAD

You are incorrect the Growler can carry two AGM-88 HARM missiles in addition to two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, 3 ALQ-99 jamming pods and two drop tanks.

Quote:

US doctrine hasn't changed here => there is a specialised aircraft who give a secured area to the group
French have a different way : each plane have his own sophisticated jamming system, quite complex, and more expensive for each plane.
SystÃ¨me SPECTRA, "supposed" to be the most sophisticated jamming system ever created for a fighter (but not to cover a group)
I didn't say this politic is better than the other, just mentionning.

Well that makes sense for the ArmÃ©e de l'Air and Aviation Navale since they have a much smaller fleet than the USAF, USN and USMC all combined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I've heard that some of the old A-6s have be quietly returned to service to help the US Border Patrol and USCG hunt smugglers (The TRAM FLIR turret and AN/APQ-156 Norden radar are a great pair). There are a bunch of A-6E in long term storage (War Reserve) at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base for such as an occasion as this. There is a reason we never sold the Intruder to anyone. ;)

I don't see why the EF-111A or F-4G wouldn't be returned to temporary service if they were placed in a similar state of reserve like the A-6Es. If not we can call up the RAAF and ask to borrow some of their F-111Bs.

Wars have rules so i immagine theres something like this.

When iran goes to pray then the americans must hold off as a sign of respect, they did in somalia the somalis stopped attacking and the americans didnt attack, even with that window of oppotunity.

But who knows

My brother-in-law is muslim....nice guy. No, the question I posed is valid in my opinion. Muslims have a calender telling them when to pray. Specifically at what time of the day depending where they are in the world. It's all very scientific. If you're a muslim you should pray. If you're a soldier/submariner in the Islamic Republic of Iran...it's a requirement. If you're both and are at war and could die any minute, well....most muslims will pray to cleanse their soul before meeting Allah. No need to surface the sub...they pray anywhere as long as they point towards Mecca (and no...no course change for the sub either...just prayer-mat course change).

Deamon, I'm ashamed to say it, but the military forum was called www.militaryphotos.net. I have limited military experience, nothing major (I once bought an army uniform off Ebay)...so not even worth discussing. Though I am a great military hobbyist and enthusiast and I take in Farnborough Airshow every time it's on. No seriously though...I'm ashamed to say I was a cavalry man and rode a tank to work once...so what the hell am I doing playing navy sims, you may ask. :lol: Good question...seriously though...I like every aspect of the military.