Iran Says It Accidentally Shot Down Ukrainian Jet, Apologizes

Jabulani22

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,651
Huh? What does infantry have to do with a discussion regarding aircraft? They're two mutually exclusive things. Not even remotely fulfilling the same tactical roles.



You never answered my questions. Can a missile provide convoy escort or loiter in an area where your infantry are operating, waiting for targets of opportunity?

Not all terrorists sit still in their caves and bunkers either waiting for bunker-buster to land on their heads That is the whole thing around counter-insurgency; you are often dealing with small, mobile targets. UAVs and close-air support offer way more tactical flexibility here as well as providing eyes in the sky.
I did answer it , most missiles can loiter and they can escort if you allow ground units to call in strikes like artillery .
Everything a missile can do it does better than other air assets , except troop transport.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,521
I did answer it , most missiles can loiter and they can escort if you allow ground units to call in strikes like artillery .
Everything a missile can do it does better than other air assets , except troop transport.
Updated my post. JDAMs are delivered via aircraft, including the F-16 and F-15.

I am unaware of any missile that can be fired and then spend time in the air over the battlefield before engaging an until then unseen target. Missiles don't have eyes either, which is what COIN (counter-insurgency) requires. You're using a UAV or aircraft for that.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
20,735
All funded by Obama and Kerry, the Americans indirectly paid for these rockets when Obama and his cronies sent that plane full of money.
Trump lied to you mate.
That money belonged to Iran. Someone even posted the facts in one of the threads about Iran-US "conflict". Also,

THE FACTS: There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury or other countries. The U.S. made a separate payment of roughly $1.8 billion to cover a decades-old IOU.

When Iran signed the multinational deal to restrain its nuclear development in return for being freed from sanctions, it regained access to its own assets, which had been frozen abroad. Iran was allowed to get its money back. The deal actually was signed in 2015, after a 2013 preliminary agreement. Trump has taken the U.S. out of it.

As for the $1.8 billion: In the 1970s, Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the Iranian government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured. After the nuclear deal, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the matter, with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $400 million principal along with about $1.3 billion in interest.

The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane, which gave rise to Trump’s previous dramatic accounts of money stuffed in barrels or boxes and delivered in the dead of night. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later, not crammed into containers.
Article
 

Jabulani22

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,651
Updated my post. JDAMs are delivered via aircraft, including the F-16 and F-15.

I am unaware of any missile that can be fired and then spend time in the air over the battlefield before engaging an until then unseen target. Missiles don't have eyes either, which is what COIN (counter-insurgency) requires. You're using a UAV or aircraft for that.
Laser designated targets can spotted , thats why i said that spiel about guys calling them in.
Fact is most air tech was made redundant by advanced missile systems , the US could down all of Russia / Chinas air without launching a plane, probably vice versa too.
 

CommonSense

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
223
I did answer it , most missiles can loiter and they can escort if you allow ground units to call in strikes like artillery .
Everything a missile can do it does better than other air assets , except troop transport.
I don't think you have a bit of a misunderstanding regarding current missile technology?

Most missiles uses solid rocket fuel and once ignited it can't really be stopped.
Their rocket motors burns until all the fuel is out.
Hence air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles have a relatively short range but with very high speed.

Now it you think of ballistic missiles, they can use either solid fuel (think Shuttle solid rocket motors) or liquid fuel (think Shuttle main engines on the vehicle) to get into a balistic trajectory which could end up at the other side of the planet (provided you are not a flat-earther, then this whole argument will well fall flat). But these things are huge and not meant for loitering.
Once their fuel runs out they are on a ballistic trajectory. Only small corrections by reaction thrusters can alter their intended target, but coming down they are. No loitering.

Of course there are cruise missiles which uses a small turbofan engine which burns liquid fuel - think about a motor on a small jet powered model.
These missiles can indeed cover a fairly long distance, but are relatively slow and thus easier to intercept and shoot down if they loiter over an area.

The problem with missiles though are they once you fire them you simply cannot recall them.
Yes, you can self-destruct them if their fuel runs out.
Considering the cost of these weapons, that is a sure one-way ticket to bankruptcy for any country. These things are just too expensive to throw away like that. And you also don't want to have parts of your very sophisticated weapon to fall into the wrong hands who can then reverse-engineer the technology or find ways to use ECM on your weapons.

Also, as far as I know there is no air-air refueling for missiles.

Maybe you are thinking about UCAV?
These RPVs are indeed able to loiter for a very long time over an operational area and they can even refuel air-to-air, thus their operational time over target can be limited to how long the motors can run without maintenance (you simply swop the operator out every couple of hours).

I don't think we want a situation where UCAVs can 'think for themselves' to kill a human. There will most likely always have to be a human in the loop to authorize the firing of the weapons. Or some insane country like say North Korea or Iran might develop such a weapon and then we are all targets. Hello Termina...
 

Sollie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
5,863
They only have the B52's because of MIC needing constant cash feeds , with the invention of missiles all other air tech was rendered obsolete except for intelligence gathering .
What can a plane do that a missile cant ? a drone ? nothing .
In fact you could put a camera in a missile and have it do recon.
Not quite true. Simply go to WIkipedia and see what a marvlous plane the B52 actually is, how it's been adapted over the years. How many planes have an expected life span of 90 years?
 

marine1

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
48,189
Trump lied to you mate.
That money belonged to Iran. Someone even posted the facts in one of the threads about Iran-US "conflict". Also,


Article
No mate, he didnt, but then thats typical of Obama and his minions, delivering pallets of money in cash in the dead of night on a plane.
So not suspect at all.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
20,735
No mate, he didnt, but then thats typical of Obama and his minions, delivering pallets of money in cash in the dead of night on a plane.
So not suspect at all.
Rehashing lies told by Trump. Link I provided addressed the lies in a bit more detail.
 

ponder

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
78,495
No mate, he didnt, but then thats typical of Obama and his minions, delivering pallets of money in cash in the dead of night on a plane.
So not suspect at all.
Nope, that money goes back to the Carter era when Irans asset were frozen. Sales from oil for example were held in escrow etc.
 

Jabulani22

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,651
Updated my post. JDAMs are delivered via aircraft, including the F-16 and F-15.

I am unaware of any missile that can be fired and then spend time in the air over the battlefield before engaging an until then unseen target. Missiles don't have eyes either, which is what COIN (counter-insurgency) requires. You're using a UAV or aircraft for that.
Or satellites and laser designation on the ground.
Point is , what does every flying thing fear ? missiles because they are very good at killing up high or down low.
 

Jabulani22

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,651
Not quite true. Simply go to WIkipedia and see what a marvlous plane the B52 actually is, how it's been adapted over the years. How many planes have an expected life span of 90 years?
Its only kept alive to continue pulling cash out of the US tax base .
No real need for it .
 

Jabulani22

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,651
I don't think you have a bit of a misunderstanding regarding current missile technology?

Most missiles uses solid rocket fuel and once ignited it can't really be stopped.
Their rocket motors burns until all the fuel is out.
Hence air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles have a relatively short range but with very high speed.

Now it you think of ballistic missiles, they can use either solid fuel (think Shuttle solid rocket motors) or liquid fuel (think Shuttle main engines on the vehicle) to get into a balistic trajectory which could end up at the other side of the planet (provided you are not a flat-earther, then this whole argument will well fall flat). But these things are huge and not meant for loitering.
Once their fuel runs out they are on a ballistic trajectory. Only small corrections by reaction thrusters can alter their intended target, but coming down they are. No loitering.

Of course there are cruise missiles which uses a small turbofan engine which burns liquid fuel - think about a motor on a small jet powered model.
These missiles can indeed cover a fairly long distance, but are relatively slow and thus easier to intercept and shoot down if they loiter over an area.

The problem with missiles though are they once you fire them you simply cannot recall them.
Yes, you can self-destruct them if their fuel runs out.
Considering the cost of these weapons, that is a sure one-way ticket to bankruptcy for any country. These things are just too expensive to throw away like that. And you also don't want to have parts of your very sophisticated weapon to fall into the wrong hands who can then reverse-engineer the technology or find ways to use ECM on your weapons.

Also, as far as I know there is no air-air refueling for missiles.

Maybe you are thinking about UCAV?
These RPVs are indeed able to loiter for a very long time over an operational area and they can even refuel air-to-air, thus their operational time over target can be limited to how long the motors can run without maintenance (you simply swop the operator out every couple of hours).

I don't think we want a situation where UCAVs can 'think for themselves' to kill a human. There will most likely always have to be a human in the loop to authorize the firing of the weapons. Or some insane country like say North Korea or Iran might develop such a weapon and then we are all targets. Hello Termina...
Yup loitering is possible , and this is just what is public.
And cost effective whilst doing many jobs ? its almost like this has been thought out really well by some top brains.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,977
All opinions are subjective.
No double standard but it is a standard , one standard for all.
If people want change in the country they will begin changing it regardless of type of gov. history has shown this and this is closer to democracy.
Taunting is fine and is meaningless otherwise best Korea would have had enforced freedom , how does Iran or Iraq interfere with the US ?
Point is the US should be for the US , not getting their people killed for a sand farm that they will never live in , oh thats right its done for dollars and those are more important than some lives.
Yeah double standards abound. Thanks
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,977
Yup loitering is possible , and this is just what is public.
And cost effective whilst doing many jobs ? its almost like this has been thought out really well by some top brains.
So how exactly does that work in practice? It circles an unknown target like a shark? Doesn't sound practical.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
22,196
I did answer it , most missiles can loiter and they can escort if you allow ground units to call in strikes like artillery .
Everything a missile can do it does better than other air assets , except troop transport.
You may be confusing missiles with drone craft that carry missiles?
 
Top