|
n0tqu1tesane posted:Article about MiG-31, pictures Su-27. Only 2 of the planes were Mig-31s, the other 4 were Su-27s
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Spaced God posted:F-35 Mach 1.7 vs Mach 2.8 Good luck. Even the F-15C is gonna struggle at "2.5+" (which lets be honest, means "2.51"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Mach 1.7 vs Mach 2.8 I bet an F-15C at very high altitude and a complete disregard for engine life beyond the next 15minutes could get close to mach 3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Mach 1.7 vs Mach 2.8 It's not a race. Interceptors are fast so that they can put themselves between an attacker and its target, not so they can chase it down. With enough warning, a U-2 with AMRAMMs and air-to-air radar duct-taped on could "intercept" a MiG-31. Not coincidentally, the US happens to have a very good early warning radar system. Also, what's a MiG-31 going to do once it gets inside American airspace, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:I see your F-15s and raise you: That type (Shenyang J-6/F-6) is older than he is. I really hope they meant these for internal consumption, because they sure as poo poo aren't scaring anyone outside the North.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Also, what's a MiG-31 going to do once it gets inside American airspace, anyway? Glide. For awhile, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:
Cause Congress to throw another infinite money at Lockmart?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Mig 31 going mach 2.83 away is going to have trouble being intercepted by anything. If it's flying away from you then you've done your job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:And what do we operate that can intercept a MiG-31 that's in a hurry? SM-2 SM-6 would be more of a sure kill but I can't remember if they're in service already
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:If it's flying away from you then you've done your job. Or they're already past the airbase. If you're intercepting something going mach 2.8 with something that can go mach 3 at altitude you have a pretty narrow window of opportunity for an intercept. Of course since we're not talking about recon missions over Israel its kind of a moot point to think of the mig 31 as a mach 2+ aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Won't a PAC-3 happily put a kinetic head through the seat of your choosing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Won't a PAC-3 happily put a kinetic head through the seat of your choosing? If it's close enough. One of the nice things about interceptors over SAMs is that they can cover a lot more territory for a given amount of equipment and manpower. Another nice thing is that they give you options between "sit there and do nothing" and "literally try to kill a dude."
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
The MiGs were probably there to make use of the big radars and chase away any AWACS. That might have the secondary effect of burning off the intercepting F-15s' fuel and wasting their time, allowing the bombers to get closer while the Eagles (maybe) move to intercept the high-fast MiGs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
I found a book that just came out that might be of interest to the thread: N-1: For the Moon and Mars, everything you ever wanted to know about the Soviet's attempt at building a rocket as capable as the Saturn V.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:they sure as poo poo aren't scaring anyone outside the North. That's the state of the entire North Korean military. They have enough rocket artillery to probably get a pretty good first strike in on Seoul, but after that ammo's expended they haven't really got any more cards to play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:SM-2 If only the Sprint missile had ever gone into service  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Harrier: Nebakenezzer posted:I found a book that just came out that might be of interest to the thread: Posted that to the spaceflight thread for you: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3580990
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Harrier: Good good. The publisher seems nicely obsessed with rockets: one of their other titles is literally "Rocket Science"; another is "12 Soviet Missiles of the Cold War."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Harrier: That's a still from a video game. I don't know what one, but it's not a real photo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's a still from a video game. I don't know what one, but it's not a real photo. Photorealistic visuals: we took a photo of the cockpit, cropped some bits you can see out of, and used MS Paint to do the little dials that are small enough for you to hopefully not notice. Max recommended resolution: 600x400.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's a still from a video game. I don't know what one, but it's not a real photo. It's edited but real enoug for the Royal Navy according to the wikimedia upload http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harrier_Pilot_Prepares_for_Takeoff_MOD_45151641.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
It's edited in the sense that the cockpit is at least three different photos, the ship is a different photo, and the three guys on the deck are pasted in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The MiGs were probably there to make use of the big radars and chase away any AWACS. That might have the secondary effect of burning off the intercepting F-15s' fuel and wasting their time, allowing the bombers to get closer while the Eagles (maybe) move to intercept the high-fast MiGs. Ain't no F-15s intercepting anything out of AK these days, it's all Raptors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Ain't no F-15s intercepting anything out of AK these days, it's all Raptors. At least we're getting some use out of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
France is putting out porn again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGWhfQKPjw8 3 Fuel tanks and they had to re-fuel three times on the mission. My wallet just puckered a little thinking about it...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
MonkeyNutZ posted:It's edited in the sense that the cockpit is at least three different photos, the ship is a different photo, and the three guys on the deck are pasted in. I'm glad I'm not completely out of my mind. iyaayas01 posted:Ain't no F-15s intercepting anything out of AK these days, it's all Raptors.  hobbesmaster posted:At least we're getting some use out of them. What else would we use them for? How many F-15Cs do you think made the trip to Afghanistan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:That's the state of the entire North Korean military. They have enough rocket artillery to probably get a pretty good first strike in on Seoul, but after that ammo's expended they haven't really got any more cards to play. As I recall, they have enough conventional artillery within range of Seoul to flatten it before any response. At least that's what I was informed of by an east Asian expert in military intelligence numerous times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
I'm really surprised you guys aren't making more out of the CF-18s that were "scrambled to intercept the Russian planes" given what happened last time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
So they fire off all their artillery, and a bunch of people in Seoul die, but then...what? They don't have an air force that can even keep up with what's currently stationed in South Korea, let alone any other aid the ROK's allies might send, and without air superiority an army isn't going to get very far. It would be almost be a bluff, though, because while shelling Seoul seems like suicide, neither South Korea nor China nor anyone else in the world has any interest in dealing with the 25 million piss-poor brainwashed refugees they'd create if the country were occupied. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into an Israel-Gaza situation where repeated minor attacks get tolerated because "liberating" the country is comparatively a lot less palatable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:So they fire off all their artillery, and a bunch of people in Seoul die, but then...what? They don't have an air force that can even keep up with what's currently stationed in South Korea, let alone any other aid the ROK's allies might send, and without air superiority an army isn't going to get very far. The markets would take a significant short to midterm hit if Seoul were to be sort of 'closed' for a while. You're also leaving out the fact that a lot of people in South Korea simply want nothing to do with those 25+ million piss-poor brainwashed refugees. I've heard some speculation that the only reason there hasn't been a military coup in North Korea is because no one wants to inherit the responsibility of molding the country into a garden-variety totalitarian setup - it's just easier to coddle and 'advise' their autistic god-child. It's saying something when pretty much the only system NK could aspire to at present is 'let's be like Belarus.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:So they fire off all their artillery, and a bunch of people in Seoul die, but then...what? They don't have an air force that can even keep up with what's currently stationed in South Korea, let alone any other aid the ROK's allies might send, and without air superiority an army isn't going to get very far. That's probably true. There's also a generational factor at play: Older generations still remember their family ties and this emotional attachment makes them more willing to bear the high costs of reunification. The younger generation doesn't care anymore, they just look at how much it costs and since it's crazy expensive, they want very little to do with it. Culturally, the countries are also moving apart. Korean in the South is now different enough that people from the North have trouble understanding fairly common phrases. Basically, the longer these two countries wait, the less likely unification becomes. As for the military aspect: Yeah, a longer war isn't something that North Korea can likely stomach. But they can gently caress poo poo up real bad. They are well aware that their artillery would likely be destroyed soon after the first attack, but given that some of that artillery likely has chemical warheads, they can do a lot of damage. And South Korea is insanely centralized, if Seoul is gone, the country is crippled politically and economically. There are also a few other factors you have to take into account: It could very well be that North Korea has a few invasion tunnels the South hasn't discovered yet and that could mean that a couple hundred soldiers just appear behind the front where you don't expect them. They also have a large contingent of special forces that could enter the country via midget subs and semi-subs. Again, this isn't going to stop the North from having their asses handed to them in a protracted engagement, but it means that even further down the coast, people will in the South will feel the effects of the war. It'd be pretty costly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
IIRC only the most long range of their artillery pieces have the range to hit the outskirts of Seoul. The myth of them flattening Seoul with conventional artillery is just that, a myth. This subject gets brought up from time to time in Goons in Platoons and the artillery myth usually gets laughed down nearly immediately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Still, they don't technically have to reach Seoul - just wait for a good wind and load GB (and anthrax) shells.
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Sep 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Still, they don't technically have to reach Seoul - just wait for a good wind and load GB (and anthrax) shells. See, this is where the F-35B will come into its own as a V/STOL mobile wind-machine platform. We'll deploy a few, and using their built in fans, blow the gasses back over the DMZ!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What else would we use them for? Sitting in hangars being welfare for Boeing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Flikken posted:IIRC only the most long range of their artillery pieces have the range to hit the outskirts of Seoul. The myth of them flattening Seoul with conventional artillery is just that, a myth. This subject gets brought up from time to time in Goons in Platoons and the artillery myth usually gets laughed down nearly immediately. Nah, Seoul is pretty close to the DMZ. Like 30 to 40 miles and you're in Seoul proper. A lot of densely populated suburbs are closer. And North Korea has quite a few batteries of artillery that can shoot that far as well as MRLS that have a similar range. But really, it's a nice deterrent, not much more. I bet when push comes to shove, they'd much rather aim at South Korean military installations south of the DMZ than try and see whether they can take out the Armani flagship store in Gangnam. Not that it's even likely to come to this, both sides have too much to lose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Ghost Farts posted:Nah, Seoul is pretty close to the DMZ. Like 30 to 40 miles and you're in Seoul proper. A lot of densely populated suburbs are closer. And North Korea has quite a few batteries of artillery that can shoot that far as well as MRLS that have a similar range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Even if it's "just" some of Seoul's suburbs that are in range, that's still a sizable deterrent considering the total metro area is like 25MM+
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Sitting in hangars being welfare for Boeing? That's an option, but surprisingly the F-22 has been doing its job pretty well. As a weapons system, it actually lives up to the hype. I've worked with them against F-15s, 16s, 18s, and more, and it's just not fair. I'm not a fan of cliches, but I've never seen a matchup that was a better example of clubbing baby seals. It just doesn't make the news because we don't actually shoot anyone down. F-22s have deployed to the Middle East many times, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Even if it's "just" some of Seoul's suburbs that are in range, that's still a sizable deterrent considering the total metro area is like 25MM+ How much of a deterrent though, since we know where they all are? It isn't going to prevent a first strike from South Korea or the US (if, for some reason, they decided to do so) because it'd be the first target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 15:33
|
|
