4 ms·
bullshit. you always need visual confirmation of your target by a human. no matter what foe-friendly system you implement, it's down to visual range ID. you sim
by curiously 12y ago
bullshit. you always need visual confirmation of your target by a human. no matter what foe-friendly system you implement, it's down to visual range ID. you simply can't do this better than strapping someone in a fighter. you can't do this without high power to weight ratio and tight turning radius for dog fighting scenarios.
we are seeing revitalization of McNamara's failed Standardization policy in all fighter. The very fact that completely different plan designs came out for different theaters and purposes show this. A-10 for low flying, heavy, armor shelled plane. Tomcat that withstands naval capatapults and fly long range with good fuel efficiency (variable swept wings), and eventually the Hornet vs. using naval F-16 or F-15
- rwallace 12y ago> bullshit. you always need visual confirmation of your target by a human. That would rule out the Phoenix missile, and yet it was built, and the Iranians of all people used it to considerable effect against Iraqi aircraft in the 1980s.
- curiously 12y agowell I don't know about that since operational history from Iran tends to be shaky in credibility. I mean they have no training and maintenance capabilities after the revolution when the American technician sabatoged the Tomcats as well as critical parts. Even the two times the Phoenix missile was fired they both failed. Not sure how a completely cut off Iranian air force with no spare parts or maintenance knowledge would've been able to fire at Iraqi, an equally incompetent force, my guess is the Iraqi air force actually crashed before the Iranians did.