Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
I have provided Jane's as a reference, and you quickly dismissed it out of hand?
Yes, when you cannot provide cross references, and when other references do not point to the same thing. Once, again, what is the combat radius of the Super Hornet on a full strike load.
I just mentioned that that is irrelevant. You took it as a personal affront, tried to argue and ressort to misdirection and have the cheek of accuseingme of trolling? I don't have to be neutral, I'm not a mod so I have no powers to abuse.
No. You acted like it is a personal affront just the fact that your beloved carriers happen to be in strike range of land aircraft.
Laughing won't hide what you don't know. It's not that I can't find it in Soviet Doctrine, it's that Soviet doctrine simply doesn't state specific uses of specific weaponry. So when you tried to say that soviet doctrine specified backfires were used mainly against convoys, you throughly discredited yourself. There is no need for me to 'show' you soviet doctrine says 'backfires are used against carreirs' because I never used 'soviet doctrine' to back myself up. I pointed to the weaponry used by Backfires. That was as good an indicator as any. Only ignorants will try to use 'doctrine' as proof the way you're doing.
Proof? Does a Harpoon has anything written on it to say
Only To Be Used Against Destroyers. Does a Mk 48 torpedo has anything written on it to say
Used Only Against Submarines?
I never dismissed it. I just think that you totally misinterpreted it, and drew wrong conclusions from it to support yourself. In the end, when I called you out, you were clearly cornered.
Called me out? You're claiming victory when your own reply is
senseless?
To cite a weapon as
proof that it is intended to be used against a specific weapons system is fully non sensible argument. It defies common sense.
What makes you think that a Kh-22 is intended mainly for carriers? Does it say, Used Against Carriers only? The Kh-22 also has a land based version too. Can you refute that somewhere in the design of the Kh-22, it cannot be used against troop carriers?
I cited a book which supports the established view that Soviet naval doctrine in the Cold War was first and foremost, is intended to support their Army, and the way to do that is the interception of NATO troop convoys.
You think for some reason that the Soviet doctrines is inflexible, and then went off the wall when I mentioned---truthfully---that Soviet bombers will go after troop carriers.
Sorry, carriers were tasked for offensive nuclear missions against the Soviet homeland. I mentioned it before, you just couldn't read. I don't know why you're trying to bring in 'strategic' and 'theater' to this. They're irrelevant. More misdirection from you. Something which you tried to accuse me of doing. And calling me a troll for it. Perhaps you might want to consider relinquishing your post.
You were announcing it from a priestly pulpit as if it was true.
Repeat after me. The third leg of the nuclear deterrance force is in the SSBNs.
A-6 Intruders lack the range, nor the ability to retarget, nor the ability to go after another target once a target is done. The nuclear bombs are not in some form of rocket but they are dropped like a gravity bomb.
Furthermore, there is a psychological aspect to this that nuclear forces are not just any rank and foil soldier, they have to be specially picked from very specific psychological aspects. Then these people are grouped into units that do not operate with conventional units.
Their range was sufficient to put a considerable number of targets in the USSR at risk. With nuclear weaponry, their loads needn't be as heavy as with conventiona munitions, thus extending their range.
Nonsense. Do you have any idea of the geography of the Soviet Union? The fact that they use the B-52 for this task shows you the extent and size. In addition to just sheer range, the B-52 is capable of doing from one target to another, or is capable of being redirected from one target to another.
That's why it has "B" for its designation. Not "A".
Strategic nuclear forces don't operate on the same level as the rest. B-52's operate under the SAC or Strategic Air Command. The guys bombing from F-4 Phantoms are not.
Carriers on a nuclear deterrence role means putting them some distance from the northern coast of the Soviet Union, which is icy and crawling with submarines. That's not any better than early Polaris submarines with 1500km strike ranges. Worst actually, since Polaris subs can hide under the ice caps, break ice and shoot their missiles. Compare carrier plane strike ranges to that with the 7000 to 11000km stand off ranges of Trident submarines. The Soviet Union also puts more vital emphasis on nuclear ASW, meaning ASW intended to directly target SSBNs.
The far higher cruise speed of the F-22 was primarily to support its air superiority role. Which meant that with supercruise, the objectives were to make the F-22 harder to intercept, while increasing its ability to conduct intercepts timely. It also gave it advantages in initial missile energy state. This is a wholy different rationale from the argument you are putting up for the Super Hornet. In fact, with the Super Hornet, the low speed differential, even if it exists, isn't going to affect their survivability adversely.
Sigh. They don't call it the F-22 now, they call it F/A-22 now. Guess what the A is for.
The Super Hornet is not the A-6 Intruder. It is not made for the strike role only. It is the third development of a fighter, a fighter that in the first place, never had sufficient speed or dash. The lack of speed in the Super Hornet actually affects its initial missile energy state. Furthermore, low speed differential, which does exist, does affect survivability, as it increases the response margin for opponent defensive systems and makes the plane more interceptable.
Excellent. You have once again managed to massively discredit yourself. Yes, THe F-22 was originally envisioned as a dedicated air superiority fighter, unlike the Super Hornet with a heavy emphasis on multi-role effectiveness.
Of course, the F-22 was found to be very capable of ther missions along the way and so upgrades are in place to give it an air to ground role.
Boy, you don't know where the Super Hornet actually originated from, do you? From the F/A-18 which in turn came from the YF-17, which was a dedicated air superiority fighter competing against the F-16, which won. The F/A-18 was something the Air Force felt was never fast enough for their needs. The Super Hornet may have increased power, but it comes with increased weight as well, plus some questions on the wing design.
You are posting an opinion filled with anecdotes without hard figures and parameters. F-15 pilots had opinions about how bad the F-22 was, until they went up against it.
Apples and Oranges. F-14 pilots had opinions about how bad the Super Hornet was,
after they tried it themselves. But of course, they're professionals, they have to accept things.
What is there to add when you bring out an AFA video as evidence? :roll: Its there to bluff congress idiots into giving more money. You are collateral damage.
Which does not explain why the R-77 ends up shorter...
Let me explain to you some logical facts about the potentiality of the PL-12. One, the AMRAAM is 154kg, the PL-12 is about 200kg. That's more extra propellant on that thing. Another thing is that its rear fins have a lower drag configuration than the AMRAAM's, from having both a shorter wing span, more acute sweep, and sawtooth edge that gives more control authority for less deflection, which has less drag. You wonder why the AIM-9X uses a sawtooth on its front canards; the PL-12 is the first to use this configuration on the rear.
The 945 nm figure includes the range of the SLAM. Maybe if you cared to look carefully you'd see that the figures weren't so outrageous after all. As for other discrepancies, its very probably because flight profiles and weapon loads matter significantly. The A-6A's range, for example, differed by almost 500 nm for the same load when using a hi-lo-lo-hi profile compared to a hi-hi-hi profile.
Did it actually say that? If that includes the range of the SLAM, then that is not the true range of the aircraft. A couple of SLAMs barely makes more damage than a single 250kg you can JDAM kit. I'm asking you about full strike configuration, like carrying bombs whose damage really matters. The full strike configuration of the JSF in public disclosure, has a combat radii of roughly 600nm. Are you going to say that the SH is better than that?
You're acting as if you got a choice of mission loads and profiles here.
Not Hi Hi HI is a great way to reveal yourself on AEW screens and a great way to get shot down by SAMs. Even B-52s intend to go low in their strategic nuclear mission tasks, and yet able to cover major parts of Siberia while launched from the North American continent.
Yeah, you can doubt the sun rises from the east. So? That article is clearly advocating for more F-14s. Maybe he's nolstalgic?
Sigh. And so, is the facts presented on the article correct or not?
Again, let me explain some facts to you. The Hornet family as a whole has some very straight wings. When that happens you increase drag, which is why most planes sweep their wings. Including the F-14 Tomcat. Including the F-22. Including the F-15. Just about everyone else, including many strike aircraft such as the strike Tornadoes, Su-24s and the F-111s. Except the Hornets.
If you want to decrease drag with straight wings, two things happen. You either reduce the wing span to make it narrow, and/or, make the wings very thin. This happened with the Starfighter. Which was actually the case of the YF-17. But when the plane went to its carrier conversion, the wings had to be lengthened for more stores and foldabiltiy, and the wings had to be thickened for strengthening. So guess what happened to the drag aspect.
Here is a common sense approach to wave drag.
When an aircraft is at a high speed, it will form a V shaped wake trailing from its nose. When the plane travels at a high enough speed, this wave front would trail sharper and sharper angles until it would fall upon the wings at some speed, and when it does it creates some serious drag. When wings are swept back, the speed threshold becomes higher before the wake or wave front falls upon the forward edge of the wings. The higher the sweep, the higher the threshold.
That article is certainly not incorrect when saying that the Super Hornet has to deal with more drag, which obviously puts a penalty on higher speeds.
