|
Russian Su-27 "Chases" Off NATO Fighter Jet
Hmmm.........not too sure what to make of this one ?? ;)
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=acShY_1548932459 |
“Go away!” More interesting to my eye is the way the SU-27 disappears against the background, unlike the dark blob of the F-15. |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10378406)
“Go away!” More interesting to my eye is the way the SU-27 disappears against the background, unlike the dark blob of the F-15. |
Looks more to me that the Eagle driver was avoiding being clobbered while retaining safe separation and respecting their ROI. Lets be honest an interception is designed to show presence and a response, a little negative G and top rudder would have made the Flanker driver look silly and unprofessional. |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10378406)
“Go away!” More interesting to my eye is the way the SU-27 disappears against the background, unlike the dark blob of the F-15. |
I've often wondered why grey has prevailed for medium/high altitude ops, particularly in the west. PRU blue was the standard finish during WW2 and it certainly seemed to work well.
|
Originally Posted by Martin the Martian
(Post 10378972)
I've often wondered why grey has prevailed for medium/high altitude ops, particularly in the west. PRU blue was the standard finish during WW2 and it certainly seemed to work well.
|
BV, two observations:
Why did the RAF embrace tone-down in UK when the threat was ARM and radar equipped bombers using very high quality mapping? If your opponent closes to the merge the one with the lower visual signature should have the edge. |
Cam/tone-down was in my office during my last MoD tour, and even had the pleasure of discussing aircraft cam with Mr [Grey] Barley. You can’t hide, but you can confuse, CF-18 cockpit painted on the underside, for example, although the airframe favours that. We discussed large contrasting areas of colour, a bit like the WW2 black/white undersides, and how extending that idea could actually confuse in a close visual engagement. You can rarely optimise cam for every environment/background, so confuse instead. As for airfield cam ... loads of radar reflectors, including ‘false positive’ IPs, is a fairly cheap option. And fill the ‘black hole’ of the airfield’s radar/IR signature ... again cheap and easy. At high speed, low level, it doesn’t take a lot to confuse or throw off aim in a SAM-intense environment (if we had one). |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10379210)
As for airfield cam ... loads of radar reflectors, including ‘false positive’ IPs, is a fairly cheap option. And fill the ‘black hole’ of the airfield’s radar/IR signature ... again cheap and easy. At high speed, low level, it doesn’t take a lot to confuse or throw off aim in a SAM-intense environment (if we had one). In our case we could use an aiming point up to 28 miles from a target. Using conventional weapons we would have needed aiming points much closer to the target. Neither paint nor radar reflectors could not hide our aiming points. |
Quick spell check or translation please!
|
It should be noted that the US Mil has only just recently got their #### together re uniform camouflage.
Just saying. |
Quick spell check or translation please! |
We discussed large contrasting areas of colour, a bit like the WW2 black/white undersides, and how extending that idea could actually confuse in a close visual engagement. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7174610f1.jpeg |
Never seen that B-24 image before ... interesting! I wonder if that was an 'Assembly Ship', although it doesn't feature in my tome on "The Mighty Eighth". The dazzle on the ship is certainly impressive.
As to PN's typos [;)] I agree tossing nukes is a different topic. We were obviously considering passive defence against conventional attack aircraft. Our work never made the 6th Floor, as we were disbanded in the post-USSR euphoria! |
|
|
ORAC ... your #16, marking not found. But your #14 is Assembly Ship for 392nd BG, 8th AF.
These are the ones illustrated in "The Mighty Eighth" ... what fun!! https://i.imgur.com/N6Am82q.jpg |
MPN, in the CW any aircraft capable of attacking the UK would not have needed to see its target - conventional or nuclear.
When Fencer aircraft could reach East Anglia their mapping and navigation kit would have got them on target even without radar or visual acquisition. |
It should be noted that the US Mil has only just recently got their #### together re uniform camouflage. On the subject of aircraft camo, I think it was mentioned on a different thread that the Nimrod was given the finish it was so it would blend into the parking apron rather than the ocean - so not always about operating environment. I'd wager the Eagle is a little less conspicuous sat at the end of a runway than the Flanker. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.