Top 5 Airforces Of Asia - Page 3

berkut · 05-27-2004, 22:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxus

Hey Smart ass, if it is beyond the horizon chances are it doesn't matter how much radiation it's giving off or how much sound it's making.

Hey, not so smart ass, u never knew that radio waves follow the curvature of the earth as well as bounc off the atmosphere (depending on wavelength)? Get an education. U underestimate sigint way too much.

By the way who says the listening station will be land based?

And who said that by the time the observers get an image off the satelite the battle group will be 100 nautical miles away? THat means even if you are very optimistic about its speed it will take THREE hours for a signal off the satelite to reach ground? Uhuh. riiiiiiiiight

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-27-2004, 22:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berkut

Hey, not so smart ass, u never knew that radio waves follow the curvature of the earth? Get an education.

By the way who says the listening station will be land based?

Hey, if we knew where your fishing trawlers during REFORGER, don't you think we can track Chinese trawlers out of their depths much more easier?

berkut · 05-27-2004, 22:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Hey, if we knew where your fishing trawlers during REFORGER, don't you think we can track Chinese trawlers out of their depths much more easier?

Please rephrase that. In any case I think this is going off topic about detecting a battlegroup, not fishing boats.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-27-2004, 22:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berkut

Please rephrase that. In any case I think this is going off topic about detecting a battlegroup, not fishing boats.

What don't you understand? Soviet "fishing trawlers" were the spy ships against CVBGs. REFORGER was NATO's plan to re-enforce NATO from North America. If we could sink Russian spy ships, what chances does the Chinese "science vessels" have?

Anon · 06-01-2004, 10:59 AM

"And who said that by the time the observers get an image off the satelite the battle group will be 100 nautical miles away? THat means even if you are very optimistic about its speed it will take THREE hours for a signal off the satelite to reach ground? Uhuh. riiiiiiiiight"

Well Admiral, the images are first zapped to the people that control the Sats, then off to the interpreters, then up the chain of command to the naval CINC, then back down the chain of command to the shooters.

That process takes hours.

berkut · 06-01-2004, 14:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"And who said that by the time the observers get an image off the satelite the battle group will be 100 nautical miles away? THat means even if you are very optimistic about its speed it will take THREE hours for a signal off the satelite to reach ground? Uhuh. riiiiiiiiight"

Well Admiral, the images are first zapped to the people that control the Sats, then off to the interpreters, then up the chain of command to the naval CINC, then back down the chain of command to the shooters.

That process takes hours.

Dont you think that a battlegroup is simply tracked continuesly as soon as it leaves the port? You dont have to search for, you dont have to identify it, you dont need to analyze the pictures, just track its relatively slow progress thus surface warfare department alway knows where each and every US carrier is and where it is headed. Its not a bird, its not a plane (not even a sub), its a slow moving thing the size of a city block surrounded by 6+ other monsters.

Anon · 06-01-2004, 14:19 PM

"Dont you think that a battlegroup is simply tracked continuesly as soon as it leaves the port?"

Nope.

Only the Russians ever made an attempt to track all our BGs, but even they were unable to. It's awful hard for a 10 knot trawler to keep up with a modern naval battlegroup, lol.

In a wartime environment all such trawlers would be sunk by coastal patrol aircraft before the BG ever left port, or simply have their comms jammed.

"You dont have to search for, you dont have to identify it, you dont need to analyze the pictures, just track its relatively slow progress thus surface warfare department alway knows where each and every US carrier is and where it is headed. Its not a bird, its not a plane (not even a sub), its a slow moving thing the size of a city block surrounded by 6+ other monsters."

If you say so.

berkut · 06-01-2004, 14:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"Dont you think that a battlegroup is simply tracked continuesly as soon as it leaves the port?"

Nope.

Only the Russians ever made an attempt to track all our BGs, but even they were unable to. It's awful hard for a 10 knot trawler to keep up with a modern naval battlegroup, lol.

In a wartime environment all such trawlers would be sunk by coastal patrol aircraft before the BG ever left port, or simply have their comms jammed.

"You dont have to search for, you dont have to identify it, you dont need to analyze the pictures, just track its relatively slow progress thus surface warfare department alway knows where each and every US carrier is and where it is headed. Its not a bird, its not a plane (not even a sub), its a slow moving thing the size of a city block surrounded by 6+ other monsters."

If you say so.

trawler? I am talking about satelites. Are you doing it on purpose?

Anon · 06-01-2004, 14:51 PM

Satellites don't just follow the BG where ever it goes, they make passes a couple times a day. They can be manuevered, but they have a very limited amount of fuel onboard. Using all their fuel makes them no more useful than orbital paperweights.

The Russians used to primarily use trawlers to track the US fleet(they still do as a matter of fact).

Satellite images are what i was talking about when i said it takes hours to get the photos to the shooters, because it does.

They are not realtime, let alone real time to the shooter.

Furthermore, the US and Russians know when enemy satellites are due to pass overhead(because we track them in orbit), so it's an easy matter to change course several minutes before they pass overhead and then resume the original course once they're over the horizon.

berkut · 06-01-2004, 15:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Satellites don't just follow the BG where ever it goes, they make passes a couple times a day. They can be manuevered, but they have a very limited amount of fuel onboard. Using all their fuel makes them no more useful than orbital paperweights.

The Russians used to primarily use trawlers to track the US fleet(they still do as a matter of fact).

Satellite images are what i was talking about when i said it takes hours to get the photos to the shooters, because it does.

They are not realtime, let alone real time to the shooter.

Furthermore, the US and Russians know when enemy satellites are due to pass overhead(because we track them in orbit), so it's an easy matter to change course several minutes before they pass overhead and then resume the original course once they're over the horizon.

I suppose this issue cannot be resolved unless we have someone here from the strategic offcie and who was responsible for this type of thing. Of course they will not be able to disclose any of that information since it is highly classified and smells like courtmartial.

Anon · 06-01-2004, 15:41 PM

One of the posters at the board i run, www.a-10.org, works for the NSA- i know the fellow personally.

There is also a former E-2C mission coordinator that posts at another board that i frequent that is very up to speed on this stuff.

While the exact capabilities are very closely guarded, the general operating principles are not.

Just ask the Colonel how long it takes to get a photo recon plane or satellite image of the battlefield. It is a much more drawn out process than you realize, believe me.

Mr_Hitler · 09-07-2004, 10:02 AM

You are all fools, the sequence is like this :

1) Russian Air Force
2) Kazak Air Force ( MiG-31s)
3) Chinese Air Force
4) Indian Air Force
5) Iranian Air Force ( F-14s, MiGs )
6) Bangladesh ( They got MiG-29s)
7) Pakistan ( Got planes inferior to MiG-29s)

-{SpoonmaN}- · 09-11-2004, 05:57 AM

I'd say:

1. Russia (Partially in Asia)
2. China (Huge, who knows how many Flankers)
3. India (Big, lots of good stuff in there, fair bit of experience)
4. Japan (Fairly large, good quality)
5. ROK

I'd say that Australia would be close after because we've got good airplanes and very good training. I don't think Isreal is in Asia really, so they don't count, and it goes without saying that the USA is way ahead of all of them.

AussieSoldier · 09-11-2004, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I'd say:

1. Russia (Partially in Asia)
2. China (Huge, who knows how many Flankers)
3. India (Big, lots of good stuff in there, fair bit of experience)
4. Japan (Fairly large, good quality)
5. ROK

I'd say that Australia would be close after because we've got good airplanes and very good training. I don't think Isreal is in Asia really, so they don't count, and it goes without saying that the USA is way ahead of all of them.

i'd put Australia higher then that, don;t underestimate lessons learnt recently in Iraq.

Jay · 09-11-2004, 10:39 AM

Actually we do know the count (estimates) of Flankers in PLAAF.

Quote:

The PLAAF's Flanker program highlighted these problems. It has almost been a decade since the first SU-27s arrived. In the ten years, the PLAAF only gained about one hundred fifty (my estimates) Flankers of all types---SU-27SK, SU-27UBK and SU-30MKK---both Russian and Chinese made. These numbers basically include about 48 SU-27SK and 12 SU-27UBK that were delivered earlier, 38-40 SU-30MKK, 28 SU-27UBK ordered since 1999, and presumably about 30 J-11s built (est. 15-20 planes a year). There is still another 40 SU-30MKK in order, and at least 150 SU-27s yet to be built from the 200 licensed. The difficulty of producing this complex aircraft is not just a problem for the Chinese; the Indians could only produce their version of the SU30MK at a rate of ten per year.

http://www.china-defense.com/aviatio...pforward01.htm

06-01-2004, 14:19 PM	#37 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	"Dont you think that a battlegroup is simply tracked continuesly as soon as it leaves the port?" Nope. Only the Russians ever made an attempt to track all our BGs, but even they were unable to. It's awful hard for a 10 knot trawler to keep up with a modern naval battlegroup, lol. In a wartime environment all such trawlers would be sunk by coastal patrol aircraft before the BG ever left port, or simply have their comms jammed. "You dont have to search for, you dont have to identify it, you dont need to analyze the pictures, just track its relatively slow progress thus surface warfare department alway knows where each and every US carrier is and where it is headed. Its not a bird, its not a plane (not even a sub), its a slow moving thing the size of a city block surrounded by 6+ other monsters." If you say so. Last edited by Anon : 06-01-2004 at 14:25 PM.

06-01-2004, 14:51 PM	#39 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	Satellites don't just follow the BG where ever it goes, they make passes a couple times a day. They can be manuevered, but they have a very limited amount of fuel onboard. Using all their fuel makes them no more useful than orbital paperweights. The Russians used to primarily use trawlers to track the US fleet(they still do as a matter of fact). Satellite images are what i was talking about when i said it takes hours to get the photos to the shooters, because it does. They are not realtime, let alone real time to the shooter. Furthermore, the US and Russians know when enemy satellites are due to pass overhead(because we track them in orbit), so it's an easy matter to change course several minutes before they pass overhead and then resume the original course once they're over the horizon. Last edited by Anon : 06-01-2004 at 14:54 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists	Leader	Science & Tech	386	04-28-2008 09:32 AM
Who are the top 5 superpowers in the Asia??	aussie	South Asian Defense Topics	116	04-28-2008 02:42 AM
Pakistan Economy	Neo	Political Discussions	3653	11-06-2007 10:30 AM
British India	Grundy	Political Discussions	187	07-01-2006 07:39 AM
20 Companies Named Asia Pacific's Best at the Frost & Sullivan Asia Pacific Technolog	oneman28	Political Discussions	0	06-16-2005 08:49 AM

06-01-2004, 10:59 AM	#35 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	"And who said that by the time the observers get an image off the satelite the battle group will be 100 nautical miles away? THat means even if you are very optimistic about its speed it will take THREE hours for a signal off the satelite to reach ground? Uhuh. riiiiiiiiight" Well Admiral, the images are first zapped to the people that control the Sats, then off to the interpreters, then up the chain of command to the naval CINC, then back down the chain of command to the shooters. That process takes hours.

06-01-2004, 15:41 PM	#41 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	One of the posters at the board i run, www.a-10.org, works for the NSA- i know the fellow personally. There is also a former E-2C mission coordinator that posts at another board that i frequent that is very up to speed on this stuff. While the exact capabilities are very closely guarded, the general operating principles are not. Just ask the Colonel how long it takes to get a photo recon plane or satellite image of the battlefield. It is a much more drawn out process than you realize, believe me.

09-07-2004, 10:02 AM	#42 (permalink)
Mr_Hitler Banished Join Date: 09-07-04 Posts: 8	You are all fools, the sequence is like this : 1) Russian Air Force 2) Kazak Air Force ( MiG-31s) 3) Chinese Air Force 4) Indian Air Force 5) Iranian Air Force ( F-14s, MiGs ) 6) Bangladesh ( They got MiG-29s) 7) Pakistan ( Got planes inferior to MiG-29s)

09-11-2004, 05:57 AM	#43 (permalink)
-{SpoonmaN}- Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-08-04 Location: The badlands of West London. Posts: 1,455 Country:	I'd say: 1. Russia (Partially in Asia) 2. China (Huge, who knows how many Flankers) 3. India (Big, lots of good stuff in there, fair bit of experience) 4. Japan (Fairly large, good quality) 5. ROK I'd say that Australia would be close after because we've got good airplanes and very good training. I don't think Isreal is in Asia really, so they don't count, and it goes without saying that the USA is way ahead of all of them.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)