Terry Jones —What Makes Bush & Blair Tick

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-22 11:46pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Wong, where are you getting the stuff about artillery? I did a search and I can only come up with one article about gunship artillery firing on an insurgent-controlled building in the industrial section.
The British say that the American SOP is to use counterbattery artillery to respond to mortar attacks. And CNN has reported on the use of airstrikes in Fallujah. In any case, all of it is clearly much more reckless of bystander safety than the use of "the wrong kind of tear gas", which Glocksman considers to be outright murder.
They also used Strike Eagles to strafe the streets with their handy-dandy 20mm rotary cannon. Not exactly surgical, but it doesn't risk soldiers and is far quicker.

I don't see any of the other Coalition nations doing that.

Do any of the other Coalition nations even have Strike Eagles? I'm not sure, but I don't think we ever exported the F-15E design, unlike the C and D. (I could be wrong on this, but I don't think we did.)

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-23 12:02am

F-15E has been exported to Saudi Arabia (F-15S), Israel (F-15I) and now South Korea (F-15K).

However, most of the Coalition 'partners' don't have any aircraft in theatre. Why would they, when they're all token forces with little real contribution?

With the exception of the UK, I mean.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-23 12:31am

Vympel wrote:F-15E has been exported to Saudi Arabia (F-15S), Israel (F-15I) and now South Korea (F-15K).

However, most of the Coalition 'partners' don't have any aircraft in theatre. Why would they, when they're all token forces with little real contribution?

With the exception of the UK, I mean.

Ah. I sit corrected. (Why the hell do they feel the need to change the model letter according to the country its going to?)

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-23 12:40am

Rogue 9 wrote: Ah. I sit corrected. (Why the hell do they feel the need to change the model letter according to the country its going to?)

No idea. It's part of the long-standing US commitment to destroying their once logical, well thought out designation system for aircraft (witness crap like "KC-767").

Sukhoi does that with their Su-30MK derivatives, though:

Su-30MKI: India
Su-30MKK: China
Su-30MKM: Malaysia

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-04-23 07:59am

However there is actually a big difference between a MKI and a MKK.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-23 08:28am

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:However there is actually a big difference between a MKI and a MKK.

True, but the S, I and K are pretty different too, avionics wise (even though the MKK doesn't have canards and MKI does).

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-04-23 08:31am

Vympel wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:However there is actually a big difference between a MKI and a MKK.
True, but the S, I and K are pretty different too, avionics wise (even though the MKK doesn't have canards and MKI does).

Which do you prefer? I mean, who would win in a dog fight if 4 equally skilled pilots faced off in all 4 models?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-23 10:47am

That's a subject for a new thread, I think. And the Russians designate fighters with odd numbers. Even numbers are bombers. I'm not sure whether the Su-30 is a heavy bomber, strike aircraft, or some kind of multirole strike fighter, but whatever it is its not air superiority. *Goes to look it up.*

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-23 11:02am

Rogue 9 wrote:That's a subject for a new thread, I think. And the Russians designate fighters with odd numbers. Even numbers are bombers. I'm not sure whether the Su-30 is a heavy bomber, strike aircraft, or some kind of multirole strike fighter, but whatever it is its not air superiority. *Goes to look it up.*

The Su-30 is a pure interceptor. Russian Air Force (VVS) designation is Su-27PU. Su-30MK is a multi-role fighter for export, equally capable of air/ground missions.

Also, as I understand it, the even/odd number thing for aircraft is related to seating rather than role- even for more than two, odd for one. This explains Sukhoi's shenanigans in this regard:

Su-27PU= Su-30 (Sukhoi trying to make it out to be a 'new' fighter- i.e. as if it was originally a two-seat design- with the Su-30MK, this is somewhat justified)

Su-27IB= Su-34 (definitely justified, but the originating design was still the Su-27, so the VVS is adamant that it's Su-27IB)

Su-27K= Su-33 (accepted by the AV-MF)- not an even/odd thing I know, but just shows Sukhoi's penchant for giving their new Su-27 variants new numbers.

As to the F-15 issue, F-15S comes last, since it's actually down-graded (Israeli protests). I'm talking which is the best bomber here, not which would win in a dogfight- they are strike fighters, after all. F-15I Ra'am would probably come first, as I understand it. F-15K and F-15E equal for second place, possibly.