He could still smack you over the head with the RPG...
Greatest Military Hardware
- Thread starter Booner!
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 6,552
- Location
- Bournemouth
rubbish.
on semi-auto, the AK is capable of 2-foot-groups at 300 yards.
the M16A2 is capable of 7-inch-groups.
then again, 300 yards is extremely far away. a a man at three hundred yards is about the size of a matchhead in your view.
what i'm saying is, the statement that the AK has no accuracy is completeley unfounded and misrepresentative of the fine weapon!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 3,750
- Location
- Manchester
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 913
- Location
- England
agreed, I meant actual weapons and pieces of military equipment (including vehicles) that are impressive.
Not things like "carbon" or "gunpowder" ....
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 2,308
The sexiest has to be the G36C
The F-22 currently only has AIM-120 AMRAAMs, which the Typhoon also has. Seeing as modern air-to-air fighters will almost certainly never engage in within visual range fights, then the advantage will almost certainly lie with who has the best AWACS/AEW assets, best Command and Control, best tactics etc. Stealth can be defeated, so Typhoon vs F-22 would certainly not come down to who has the better airframe, it would be a lot more complex than that.
The Typhoon also completed it's first drop of a Paveway laser guided bomb recently, along with another Typhoon painting the target with a Litening 3 pod. The Typhoon is proving to be an extremely capable and versatile aircraft, and (accidentally) suited to be a multi-role fighter.
Last edited:
Depends on the ROE.
A maneuvering target isn't easy to take out at maximum range. Also, the AIM-120's own radar doesn't kick in until it gets close enough - if the enemy jet moves out of the missile field of vision in that time, it will sail straight to the ground.
In an open shooting war fighter aircraft cannot afford to go head to head. Of course in situations where one cannot afford to escalate foolishly then one would not simply shoot down a foreign military aircraft (think day to day peacetime, or in the Falklands). However if it kicked off against Iran then I can guarantee AMRAAMs would be getting lobbed from 30+ miles towards any Iranian fighters as they climbed from their airfields (for example)
I disagree, I think they have stopped loads of wars. If they weren't invented I think we would have seen many many more wars post WW2. Than we have seen.
Any half-decent pilot would not fly head-on if a missile was fired at them. Iran also has F-14s...
Say 30 miles head to head 600 knots each and each miss with their first missile due to effective ECM or other factors, time for a second ?
Of course modern planes will go head to head. They can only carry so many missiles. the problem is all modern wars. Have been against 3rd rate air forces. So they haven't needed to. a UCAV would **** all over any plane. It can carry the same equipment and sensors as an F22. But it can do manouvers not possible. It has reactions far faster than any human. Unmanned aircraft are the way forward.
By that time, you'd want to switch to a dogfight missile, because the AIM-120 isn't going to keep up with a jet pulling 9G turns in the vertical.
If the target aircraft turns away from the fighter then the fighter can continue to track the aircraft with it's own radar, providing periodic updates of the targets Posit, increasing the PK of the AMRAAM.
By my previous comment of "cannot afford to go head to head", I mean that Air Forces can't reasonably afford to have to frequently chase down enemy to engage with short range ASRAAM-type weaponary. Because no matter the quality of tactics or aircraft, in visual range fights there is an element of luck involved and the stakes are too high. It is much better to play the numbers game and try and achieve kills with long range semi-active missiles.