Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Russia Made A Bomb

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2007 at 3:30am
Quote It's called H6.

I thought it was better to explain what H6 was, and not just throw out another un identified name, which is also the designator for the Chinese jet bomber.....

People were confused as to what the MOAB was. It's old style explosives. TNT is ancient. RDX has been around since WWII, and aluminium. Not a fancy dancy FAE.


Quote
Quote On the "We iz da Gratest!" USA Airforce chant, well, they're not. They don't have the most time in the cockpit. This was reported widely a while ago, th average time for a USAF pilot per year is 200 hours. INDIA give their pilots 250 hours per year....


You're saying we're not the best SIMPLY because they have 50 more hours, but something you have to keep in mind is this:   They have fewer pilots and fewer planes. Our pilots have less of actual cockpit time because we have more pilots to do the flying.

Also, it's NOT simply time behind the stick... a lot of a pilots training is also in simulation, PLUS we have them doing active combat sorties.

I'd much rather have a war veteran of 200 hours then some guy that's never dropped a bomb in combat with 250 hours.


You really should learn to pick your fight better. I was more or less on your side, saying everyone should calm down. However might I direct your attention to your earlier post saying :

Quote Pilot skill is a matter of contention, but pilot experience is NOT, and the US has the most experienced pilots for the exact reasons I stated above... in-cockpit time, simulation, and actual sorties in combat.


That satement is false. The USAF do not have the higherst time pilots in the world. A country like India manages better time.

Not many of the USAF pilots get combat time. Sure a small bunch of them are, but not all of them. Most of them are sitting with their practice 200 hours and that's it.

Add to that that India is pretty much on a war footing thanks to the tensions with Pakistan at the moment and you know...

Besides NONE of the F22's have seen combat.

Quote 1) Not just on paper, in realily.

"In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 5 to 1 at times."

Paper. I haven't seen a single F22 actually kill anything. No one has. Because they haven't ever done it.Notice that other word in there? "Simulating" enemy airplanes. These are the same people who had A-4's pretending to be frontline USSR planes when they were actually fielding Mig-29's.

Quote 2) And where on earth did you get the 2 week downtime idea in your head? It was 48 hours. And hell, we had 60 years to prepare for Y2k, things like that happen and get overlooked, but corrected quickly.

You mean the Y2K thing, where absolutely NOTHING HAPPENED? That thing? Overlooking something as simple as allowing your fighters to fly in half of the world isn't actually something that simple. It's bloody down right important, especially when most of your interests are offshore. Basically they biuld a plane that is only useful over CONUS. What's the point of that?

I'll happily admit that 2 weeks was an exaggeration. I didn't realise that would be an issue. It took 48 hours to reset the aeroplanes, which then did proceed to their destination with no further incidents.

Quote 3) Way more then just 1 squadron... there are about 100 already built.
And how many are being fielded? There is only one operational F22 squadron.

KBK

Edited by Kayback - 17 September 2007 at 5:24am
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2007 at 8:54am
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

Quote It's called H6.

I thought it was better to explain what H6 was, and not just throw out another un identified name, which is also the designator for the Chinese jet bomber.....
And hat was not a point of contention, I was just saying what it was. Though I;m sure somewhere, someone thought "Oh they wrap a stick of TNT in aluminum foil!"


Quote
Quote
Quote On the "We iz da Gratest!" USA Airforce chant, well, they're not. They don't have the most time in the cockpit. This was reported widely a while ago, th average time for a USAF pilot per year is 200 hours. INDIA give their pilots 250 hours per year....


You're saying we're not the best SIMPLY because they have 50 more hours, but something you have to keep in mind is this:   They have fewer pilots and fewer planes. Our pilots have less of actual cockpit time because we have more pilots to do the flying.

Also, it's NOT simply time behind the stick... a lot of a pilots training is also in simulation, PLUS we have them doing active combat sorties.

I'd much rather have a war veteran of 200 hours then some guy that's never dropped a bomb in combat with 250 hours.


You really should learn to pick your fight better. I was more or less on your side, saying everyone should calm down. However might I direct your attention to your earlier post saying :

Quote Pilot skill is a matter of contention, but pilot experience is NOT, and the US has the most experienced pilots for the exact reasons I stated above... in-cockpit time, simulation, and actual sorties in combat.


That satement is false. The USAF do not have the higherst time pilots in the world. A country like India manages better time.

Not many of the USAF pilots get combat time. Sure a small bunch of them are, but not all of them. Most of them are sitting with their practice 200 hours and that's it.

Add to that that India is pretty much on a war footing thanks to the tensions with Pakistan at the moment and you know...


Wow, do I have to say it again?

Time behind the stick, simulation, and actual combat.

Or do I have to spell it out?

Time behind the stick AND simulation AND actual combat, meaning ALL THREE together. I have stated that multiple times now.

Correct, they have more flight time, but the majority of a USAF pilots practice is in the simulator... much easier on the tax payers pocket and much safer.

Quote
Quote 1) Not just on paper, in realily.

"In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 5 to 1 at times."

Paper. I haven't seen a single F22 actually kill anything. No one has. Because they haven't ever done it.Notice that other word in there? "Simulating" enemy airplanes. These are the same people who had A-4's pretending to be frontline USSR planes when they were actually fielding Mig-29's.
Yes, I know that, but the military isn't stupid. When they do simulations of that nature they make, as much as they can, the OpFor act like it's real world counterpart, limiting it's weapons and radar and so on.

Quote
Quote 2) And where on earth did you get the 2 week downtime idea in your head? It was 48 hours. And hell, we had 60 years to prepare for Y2k, things like that happen and get overlooked, but corrected quickly.

You mean the Y2K thing, where absolutely NOTHING HAPPENED? That thing? Overlooking something as simple as allowing your fighters to fly in half of the world isn't actually something that simple. It's bloody down right important, especially when most of your interests are offshore. Basically they biuld a plane that is only useful over CONUS. What's the point of that?

I'll happily admit that 2 weeks was an exaggeration. I didn't realise that would be an issue. It took 48 hours to reset the aeroplanes, which then did proceed to their destination with no further incidents.
Exaggerating your point does NOT help your case.

And my point was that THINGS ARE OVERLOOKED. We had 60 years to prepare for Y2k and see what happened?

A little (Yes little, it wasn't during actual combat, and it cost no loss of life) oversight as with the F-22 is not a point to say it isn't any good. Hell, it was fixed in a couple of days.

Quote
Quote 3) Way more then just 1 squadron... there are about 100 already built.
And how many are being fielded? There is only one operational F22 squadron.
Wrong again. 6 operational squadrons, 3 getting close, and another 3 are planned.



Back to Top
Hysteria View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25

Joined: 02 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4364
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hysteria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2007 at 1:19pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

If I read correctly, their bomb is a fuel-air bomb, while
our MOAB is a conventional bomb.

Also, I didn't see how it was guided... is it a dumb bomb, GPS, laser?


But ours is still bigger.


The article its self stated otherwise.

Originally posted by The Article The Article wrote:


The report said the new bomb was much stronger than the U.S.-built
Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb -- MOAB, also known under its name
"Mother of All Bombs." "So, Russian designers called the new weapon
'Father of All Bombs'," it said.


Wow, are you really THAT ignorant on this matter?

"Air Blast", as I have already stated, does NOT mean "fuel air".

Our bomb, the MOAB, is a CONVENTIONAL bomb that is blown up JUST ABOVE the ground as to make sure the majority of the energy isn't used in making a big hole.

Their bomb is a FAE, or Fuel Air Explosive, where the first charge detonated dispersing the fuel, and the second charge ignited the fuel, making the explosion.


Are you really TOO ignorant to read?

You said ours was bigger.  I quoted something from the article that stated otherwise.  I said nothing about CONVENTIONAL bombs or FAEs.


Edited by Hysteria - 17 September 2007 at 1:19pm
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2007 at 10:12pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:



Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

If I read correctly, their bomb is a fuel-air bomb, while
our MOAB is a conventional bomb.

Also, I didn't see how it was guided... is it a dumb bomb, GPS, laser?


<span style="font-weight: bold;">But ours is still bigger.</span>


The article its self stated otherwise.

Originally posted by The Article The Article wrote:


<span style="font-weight: bold;">The report said the new bomb was much stronger than the U.S.-built
</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb</span> -- MOAB, also known under its name
"Mother of All Bombs." "So, Russian designers called the new weapon
'Father of All Bombs'," it said.


Wow, are you really THAT ignorant on this matter?

"Air Blast", as I have already stated, does NOT mean "fuel air".

Our bomb, the MOAB, is a CONVENTIONAL bomb that is blown up JUST ABOVE the ground as to make sure the majority of the energy isn't used in making a big hole.

Their bomb is a FAE, or Fuel Air Explosive, where the first charge detonated dispersing the fuel, and the second charge ignited the fuel, making the explosion.
Are you really <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;">TOO</span> ignorant to read?You said ours was bigger. I quoted something from the article that stated otherwise. I said nothing about CONVENTIONAL bombs or FAEs.


Wow....

I said bigger in reference to size, and stated that already. Hell, I'll quote it for you even... first page:

Originally posted by me me wrote:

As for size, again you are wrong. Our MOAB weighs more and has more explosives (our more than 8.0 tons as opposed to their 7.8)




You done yet?


Edited by Linus - 17 September 2007 at 10:15pm

Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2007 at 10:41pm
Dare I ask who honestly gives a damn?
Back to Top
Hysteria View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25

Joined: 02 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4364
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hysteria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 September 2007 at 11:56pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Wow....
I said bigger in reference to size, and stated that already. Hell, I'll quote it for you even... first page:

Originally posted by me me wrote:

As for size, again you are wrong. Our MOAB weighs more and has more explosives (our more than 8.0 tons as opposed to their 7.8)




You done yet?


Who cares if ours is bigger if theirs packs a bigger punch?  I had a feeling you were talking about size, but I was hoping you weren't simply because that would have been an irrelevant point.  Size, at least that of the bomb, does not matter.  On the other hand, size of the explosion does.
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 September 2007 at 8:17am
I like the fact that their fits inside a bomber. There is something fundamentally wrong with relying on a C-130 to drop a high explosive weapon.

Especially if you can stuff it into a plane like the Blackjack. Shorter time to target.

Linus, forgive me, I did not know they had made the other 5 squadrons active. I just thought there was the one T&D squadron at Elgin AFB. I appologise for runnin on old info. I haven't nad a need to look into USAF deployment plans in a while :) As I understand it now, the only operational squadrons are the 27th and 94th fighter squadrons of the 1st Fighter Wing? Both based at Langly, is it not? The others are all either still T&D squadrons, training squadrons, or still undergoing conversions.

As for the Stick AND sim AND War time, I'm pretty sure the Indians fly sims as well. Couple to the fact they were just an example of one country getting more stick time. How much war time do the Chenya deployed pilots have?

The military are actually dumb. I don't know where you get the idea they are not. They always underestimate the effectiveness of the enemy weapons, and over estimate the effectiveness of their own weapons. Until the blood actually starts being spilt I wouldn't take anything the F22 is meant to do without a heafty dose of salt.

I mean the brainiacs want to send the F22, a stealth/supercruise capable air superiority fighter with a possible minor future attack capability to do SIGINT in Iraq. SIGINT. That's something you can do with a PC-12.

I agree that the actual error in the F22 was little, and it had a very small operatoinal impact, but it is a very large conceptual error. "Lets make the best fighter in the world! It can sneak up on anyone, detect anyone sooner, fly faster at sustained speeds with reduced fuel burn and engine wear, be nimble, be user friendly and give it nice data transferance. But lets forget to build it so it can GO anywhere?"

This weapon platform was designed since the 80's to counter the USSR. In that time the Arch enemy has changed to the Middle East, possibly China and Korea. However lets forget to make it so the plane can actually fly to these places. All the F22 to could do was defend the west coast of the States from Soviet bombers. Not a bad thing, but as you said, something they should have seen comming.

I don't get your reference to Y2K. Yes it was something that should have also been identified, but 1) it was corected before it made 12 areoplanes get lost in a LARGE expanse of water once it WAS identified, and 2) it didn't have any of the world ending effects people were talking about. Even in systems that weren't modified didn't crash and burn.

KBK



Back to Top
Yeoman View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 September 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Yeoman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 September 2007 at 10:27am

I doubt this is something we need to get worried about.  Who cares if their bomb is bigger than ours?  Like they would really get it all the way to the U.S. undetected anyway.  Don't forget, we have Destroyers and Cruisers in the Pacific that have AEGIS guided missile systems, capable of shooting down ballistic missiles.  Don't see why a bomber would be any different.



Edited by Yeoman - 19 September 2007 at 10:28am
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.