|
|
|
|
| Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
 |

December 13th, 2013, 10:00 AM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 12,721
Thanks: 4,170
Thanked 5,970 Times in 2,929 Posts
|
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Thanks everyone. Because of space limitations in the OB I have added that as a new weapon to one F-22
This site has some good info
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html
Quote:
The SDB I will be most effective in the urban and broader close air support, battlefield interdiction, Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (DEAD) lethal suppression and counter-air strike airfield attack roles. Against soft skinned vehicles and structures, armour, point emplacements, runways, aircraft shelters and SAM/SPAAG systems this weapon will be highly lethal.
Where the SDB I will be less than effective is against deep / hardened bunkers, large infrastructure targets, large buildings, industrial plant, bridges, large trench systems, vehicle parks, infantry on the move and other area or large point targets. These remain the domain of larger specialised bunker busting weapons, or large explosive bombs such as the Mk.83/BLU-110 (1,000 lb), Mk.84/BLU-117/BLU-119 (2,000 lb), BLU-109/116/118 (2,000 lb), BLU-113/122 (5,000 lb).
|
So this is not designed as a tank buster. ......... but the Raytheon GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II *IS* but it won't be ready until at least 2017
Quote:
The design objectives for the GBU-53/B are quite different from those for the GBU-39/B. The GBU-39/B is a weapon optimised for fixed targets, especially hardened infrastructure and basing, whereas the GBU-53/B is intended for attacks on moving battlefield targets, especially vehicles and heavy armour. In the simplest of terms the GBU-53/B is a glidebomb equivalent to the AGM-65 Maverick missile, but with a more flexible and countermeasures resistant seeker.
|
So in game terms don't expect the -39 to be an uber tank killer. That's not what it's for but it will give increased stand off ability
Last edited by DRG; December 13th, 2013 at 11:02 AM..
|

December 13th, 2013, 01:12 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kingsland, GA.
Posts: 2,881
Thanks: 814
Thanked 1,377 Times in 1,031 Posts
|
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Don glad you found this site! Yes the AUSA site is excellent!! I hope you aerial "jocks" would give it a look. I used the site for the S-400 TRUMF (In a sepreate thread.) submission years ago before I had the SPA/SPAA Thread going and am tracking the S-500 on it as well now. I see technical data not seen elsewhere along with system pictures before there there are system pictures if you catch my meaning. They also have a very respectable weapons database. This is a highly respected think tank that focuses only on air and air defence systems.
I leave you with an abstact based on their technical analysis of the jets involved. Note: As I've posted in the "news" portion in of this thread elsewhere, technically speaking the F-22 is much improved since this abstract was written. It has seen minor (Because that's all that was needed.) inprovements in avionics and major updates electronically (F-35 suite has been/is being installed as posted here as well.).
Enjoy the abstract and have a great weekend!!
PAK-FA vs the F-22 and F-35...
http://ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html
Regards,
Pat
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|