Greatest Military Hardware

Stringy · 13 Dec 2007 at 22:01

sr4470 said:
Right, but if your opponent fired a missile, shouldn't you be trying to dodge it?

Not necessarily, firing your own BVR missile with the intention of getting the other aircraft to turn is one tactic. You can then try and continue to provide positional updates to your missile (either directly from your radar feed, or using someone elses through data links), while trying to defeat the one fired at you by the aircraft that turned away. Of course this is a crazy tactic, and why it helps to get your ordnance away first

Indy500 · 13 Dec 2007 at 22:05

Stringy said:
Not necessarily, firing your own BVR missile with the intention of getting the other aircraft to turn is one tactic. You can then try and continue to provide positional updates to your missile, while trying to defeat the one fired at you by the aircraft that turned away.

Depending on the distance, you'd have to break sooner or later. Having a missile directly in front of or behind you isn't a good idea (shorter intercept path, missile approaches with more energy).

James J · 13 Dec 2007 at 22:06

Raymond Lin said:
1 F-22 can take out half a dozen F-16 before they could see who's shooting at them. 10 F-22 can take out 60 of those X-47, any swarm will now be a few odd planes

yeah but f22's have american pilots, they'd have shot each other down first whilst the other planes are still on the ground -.-

Stringy · 13 Dec 2007 at 22:08

See my edit. If you have superior kit, such as a data link providing a radar picture from a E-3 Sentry, then you can provide updates to your missile on the targets position after turning away. The enemy however is damned unlikely to have this capability, so when he turns away after you fire your missile in reply, his missile is flying blind until the terminal phase, so it's easier to defeat. That's why turning and running isn't the only tactic if fired upon.

Gonzo0 · 13 Dec 2007 at 22:12

I agree with the other post about the F 22.

It would slaughter any other plane including the not so mighty Eurofighter. With thrust vectoring the F 22 is very agile and is also very hard to spot by radar plus it has supercruise ability.

Im glad britain has purchased the F 23 (Joint Strike Fighter), we need cutting edge fighter hardware

Indy500 · 13 Dec 2007 at 22:15

Stringy said:
See my edit. If you have superior kit, such as a data link providing a radar picture from a E-3 Sentry, then you can provide updates to your missile on the targets position after turning away. The enemy however is damned unlikely to have this capability, so when he turns away after you fire your missile in reply, his missile is flying blind until the terminal phase, so it's easier to defeat. That's why turning and running isn't the only tactic if fired upon.

If you're flying against someone with BVR missiles, they're just as likely to have buddies and AWACS helping them too

but you're right in saying nobody would want to get into a turning fight with an opponent if they can help it (for a start, you cannot turn against two opponents at once).

^^Gord^^ · 13 Dec 2007 at 23:51

You can't list either the F-22 or the Eurofighter as the "Greatest Military Hardware" as neither have even proved themselves in combat yet. They may develop into being regarded as the "Greatest Military Hardware" in time.

The Apache is the greatest helo to date and is fantastic anti-armour weapon but haven't had the same success against insurgents.

The SR-71 was / is a great technical achievement but I feel the greatest military hardware should be an offensive weapon.

The A-10 and B-52 have (and continue to) contribue massively to campaigns and could well take the title of the greatest bomber aircraft.

The B-2 is well placed to take over from the B-52 but little is know about how successful it really is. At a cost of around $3 billion a plane the USAF is going to say they are great regardless!

The answer to the question, must be the machine gun. It changed the playing field of war like no other weapon (i'm ignoring the atom bomb as now many countries have one they are more of a deterrent that a weapon).

But, that answer isn't in the spirit of the question so i'm going to say the Spitfire!

Tefal · 14 Dec 2007 at 00:44

AcidHell2 said:
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.

There is no ucav though, and it would take decades of development to get AI to a point to be anywhere capable of taking on a skilled pilot. Or if their remote controlled, then they would always have lag time, and could never perform at their peak and be very suceptable to jamming.

Then again, if we ever develop an EMP missile things will get very interesting.

Jonnycoupe · 14 Dec 2007 at 00:45

Gonzo0 said:
Im glad britain has purchased the F 23 (Joint Strike Fighter), we need cutting edge fighter hardware

The F35? Shame theres a variety of specifications on them and the upcoming CVF with a Eurofighter squadron would be more than capable enough without having to link up with more expensive US hardware. The one the Royal Navy is having is likely to not feature the liftfan on the F136 engine, i think its a F35B varient as that would be too heavy to take off on the CVF deck when fully loaded under certain conditions and thats before its carrying things like the Stormshadow.

dbmzk1 · 14 Dec 2007 at 01:04

For vehicles I'd say the SR-71 as it is just a stunning machine. I mean the official standard procedure when fired at by a missile was simply to accelerate and outrun it, which they did on several occasions! It doesn't get much cooler than that!

Indy500 · 14 Dec 2007 at 01:08

dbmzk1 said:
For vehicles I'd say the SR-71 as it is just a stunning machine. I mean the official standard procedure when fired at by a missile was simply to accelerate and outrun it, which they did on several occasions! It doesn't get much cooler than that!

So it can outrun SA-4\5 missiles travelling at 3000mph? I don't think so, given that the SR-71's quoted max speed is Mach 3, not Mach 4. Of course, if it hasn't faced them, we won't know for certain.

Mana · 14 Dec 2007 at 01:13

i win!

Indy500 · 14 Dec 2007 at 01:16

Mana said:
i win!

M-60 LMG? Interesting choice.

Mana · 14 Dec 2007 at 01:50

sr4470 said:
M-60 LMG? Interesting choice.

lol

Indy500 · 14 Dec 2007 at 01:57

Mana said:
lol

It was nicknamed "The Pig" by soldiers in Vietnam apparently...

Stelly · 14 Dec 2007 at 02:18

sr4470 said:
It was nicknamed "The Pig" by soldiers in Vietnam apparently...

my sister was in Nam??

Stelly

Gackt · 14 Dec 2007 at 02:28

SiriusB · 14 Dec 2007 at 02:56

Enterprise J :/

What happened to the rest?

Gobbledegeek · 14 Dec 2007 at 07:45

Watched a proggy on satellite recently about ultimate weapons and the AK-47, Nimitz carrier, Stratofortress and Tomahawk missile were up there in the top ten but not sure of the order.

Stolly · 14 Dec 2007 at 08:11

sr4470 said:
So it can outrun SA-4\5 missiles travelling at 3000mph? I don't think so, given that the SR-71's quoted max speed is Mach 3, not Mach 4. Of course, if it hasn't faced them, we won't know for certain.

The missiles in question can do that speed for a very short space of time and have to reach 80,000 feet first.