Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: senna on January 29, 2004, 07:39:32 PM
-
I've heard that the Mig-25 could not do mach3+ but in numerous books I've encountered I read the max speed of the mig-25 was mach3+. Does anybody have any information or factual proof that it could do mach3+. Can a mig-25 catch an SR-71, I mean actually intercept one. I dont mean being able to shoot at one but be able to take off, vectored to catch an sr-71 and fly wing to wing with one? I remember reading that mig-25 pilots would sometimes try to go mach3+ and basically over spin their turbines etc... and ruin their engines. Anyone know anything about that?
-
Although I don't have the reference handy, I do seem to rememberthat the Foxbat was indeed capable of mach 3 flight.
However, seeing as how the performance of the blackbird is for the most part still classified AFAIK, and given that the blackbird is capable of flying at 80K + i sincerely doubt that the Mig25 would ever have had even the remotest chance of flying wing to wing with it.
cheers,
RTR
-
It can sprint to Mach 3 but the engines need to be replaced after that flight. No it cannot cannot catch an SR71, which is capable of cruising at Mach 3 plus.
-
Dont think a mig-25 could catch an sr-71 either but dam, what a beautiful bird.
:)
(http://www.spaceadventures.com/user/testimonials/clash.jpg)
(http://www.firstafricaninspace.com/images/gallery/4439.jpg)
-
Mig25? F-15E pwns migs.
;)
(http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/wallpaper/f-15e_iraqifree_small.jpg)
-
http://www.flymig.com/aircraft/MiG-25/ (http://www.flymig.com/aircraft/MiG-25/)
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig25-01.htm (http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig25-01.htm)
they were a hair shy of mach 3 with a 68k max alt .
I seem to remember that the Soyuz/ Tu R-15BD-300manskii turbojets couldnt stay together for much time over mach 2.68 or so .( material related failures )
-
The Mig-25 was designed as a counter to the Rockwell B-70. When that bomber was cancelled the Mig had no reason to exist. Many fine aircraft came out of the Mig Design Bureau but the '25' was not one of them.
-
Wonder what a mig-25 costs these days? Still think it makes a good interceptor for a third world country.
:D
-
Well Roscoroo, your links show mach 3.2 at altitude for the Foxbat A.
Although different info from the 2 links, but numbers are close.
Thanks for the links :)
RTR
-
You can poke fun at the Mig-25, but the fact of the matter is that the only air to air kill of a US fighter in the past 20 years was from a Mig-25. It shot down an F-18 in the Gulf War, then sprinted to safety.
-
Great, a modern day La7.
Did they ever find out what happened to M. Spiecher? (not sure if I spelled his name correctly.
Originally posted by Chairboy
It shot down an F-18 in the Gulf War, then sprinted to safety.
-
i just tossed up the links ... what i stated was what they taught us about the mig 25 back in my AF days .
"the mig 25 could knock at the door of mach 3 but couldnt substain it"
I dont beleive it could go to 3.2 as for alot more forces come in to play at its alt sooner then they would at an alt of 80k .
they next question here should be ....
How many of them cracked up trying to go that fast ???
-
the MiG25 was going to be used to intercept and shoot down US missles i think. MiG 25 is the worlds fastest pure fighter if i remeber correctly, but i think it eat fuel like i dink water after running a mile.
only mig i really dont understand is the wierd looking 31. 29 is much more appealing to the eye than that ugly beast that the mig 31 is.
-
It didnt destroy the Migs engines to run at Mach3, but they did need to be overhauled/maintenanced once the aircraft landed.
-
Victor Belenko, the Foxbat pilot who defected in 1976, stated that the top speed of the MiG-25 was Mach 2.8, but flight above Mach 2.6 was difficult because of a tendency of the engines to overspeed. Victor related that MiG-25 pilots were in fact restricted to flying below Mach 2.5 except with special permission.
-
SR 71 is listed as Mach 3.5+ (unclassified). I've heard through the grapevine from guys who've flown them that it's a pretty conservative number compared to the no-kidding top speed. A truely beautiful aircraft if ever there was one.
On a side note, I think the SR-71 pilots flew high enough to technically be qualified to wear astronaut wings, although I don't think they ever did.
-
Roscoroo, I seem to remember that as well, from my old airforce days, come to think of it.
Seems to me I recall something about a Foxbat (pilotless) entering western airspace in the 70's (or early 80's?), in Europe.
Was escorted and seen to crash in the North Sea. Not 100% sure, but the story had something to do with overspeeding engines. If its true, I can't figure out why the pilot would bail, but ..eh? who knows.
Skull, you really shouldn't do that with the water. Sometimes people want to drink that stuff, or use it to cut poor scotch.
Cheers,
RTR
-
I think some of the guys are thinking about the YE- 155 / 266 (whatever it was called) which was like a Mig-25 and it did set alot of alt and speed records in its time.
now it did go faster then mach 3- 3.5 and 120k -128k something like that .(im not shure on the actual facts here so dont get all quotie on me )
Some of the russian facts are kinda vague ..
-
I remember reading from somewhere that the Recon version could go that 3.5 Mach. Althought it would need a whole western Europe to turn 180 while wanting to go back...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Skull12, the Mig-31 is basically a land based F-14, desiged to protect Russia in much the same way as the Tomcat protect a CVBG, carrying a powerful radar, lots of fuel and long-range missiles capable of engaging low level bombers and cruise missiles. It is a purely defensive weapon and only issued to the defence regiments of the Russian air force.
In fact MiG-31 were built not for the airforce (VVS), but for aircraft defence corps (PVO).
MiG-31 was an outstanding plane for 1977. First phased-array radar, capable of fireing missiles at 4 targets at a time.A wing of four 31s formed a "network" with data link providing a 700km-wide shield, using targeting information from each other. All this things were highly integrated into PVO structure, a complex shield, covering all ranges, altitudes and target types.
-
Ya but it probably fell apart in mid-air because of quality control "issues." All commie iron looks good on paper ..but when it comes to the real deal- they lawn darts.
-
Ugh, where's my bookmarks...I read the Foxbat could come close, but had severe engine woes, as some of you pointed out. I also read it didnt handle terribly well
Further, if it was going to "intercept" something that fast, it would suffer some severe drag penalties with external ordinance (missiles), wouldnt it?
-
Yeah, probably Honky. And American-built planes probably shoot down MiGs before they even retract their red-white-and-blue landing gear.
That scientist's description of the MiG-25 is great. To be able to design something that reliable with manufacturing that questionable shows true genius.
-
Russians have a rep for designing things that actually work and work well. Instead of using hightech computer driven stuff that are very fragile they rely on simple solutions that work in real life and are practical. You saw it in WW2 with their war designs and later during the cold war when they had funding. (and of course...sputnik and mir)
Take their jets.... designed with sturdy landing gear and intakes positioned high vs f-16's /eurofighter with their low intakes. This means that the russian planes like Su-25 etc...etc.. can take of from rough makeshift runways while the f16 and eurofighter needs alot of people "sweeping" the long paved runway so stuff wont get sucked in or tires getting flat.
However russian military equipent where usually not designed for long life.
The A-10 on the other hand is a very good example of outstanding american combination of rugged design and hightech. Hopefully tha Joint Strikefighter will be as ruggid as it is high-tech.
I belive Lockheed Martin and Mig/Sukoi could come up with a solid plane with excellent avionics and sensors.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So a clean Mig-25 would indeed be able to wing with an SR-71 ... albeit for a short time.
I can tell you they TRIED to intercept the SR several times during one month I spent flying RC's in the Sea of Okhotsk in the late '70's.
They failed. Given the speed of the SR, the reaction time, the Mig's ability and the range of the A2A missiles, they never got it done. Despite missile shots taken when at their max altitude, the SR never had a problem with the MiG-25.
Wing with the SR at altitude and at speed? Possible probably in theory but never in an antagonistic setting in RL.
-
I used to think that the La-7 "was all that and a bag of chips." Then I bought a book about La-7's and was surprised to find out that "many examples arrived in the field-fresh from the factory- completely unusable because of quality defects...further more- they were prone–even low time examples- to complete structural failures.” In addition, “Poisonous gas often escaped into the cockpit- creating a very hazardous situation.”
All of these things can never be modeled in a Sim or show up in data tables- but they make all the difference.
-
Have to agree here to say that that the mig could never INTERCEPT an SR71. By they time he got to altitude to catch him he'd be out of fuel and the SR71 would be long gone.
and from somone who works on jets I'd have to say it would be way too expensive to even try if you have to overhaul the engines after flight.
It's a good thing the russians make one of the best ejection seats cause the quality of their airframes is crap!
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
The A-10 on the other hand is a very good example of outstanding american combination of rugged design and hightech. Hopefully tha Joint Strikefighter will be as ruggid as it is high-tech.
Soviets and Americans had different concepts of shturmoviks (close ground support ACs). Americans made a dumb plane with smart weapons, while Russians made smart plane with dumb weapons. Now guess why Su-25s in Chechnya fly with non-guided rockets and FABs (dumb bombs).
A-10 will be limited to cannon when it will run out of expensive guided weapons. Su-25 will be always able to hit a sewer (cloaca) hatch with a 250kg (as they did in 1995 blowing up Chechen bunkers in Grozniy).
-
Toad is correct. most likely the Russians would scramble a flight to engage the SR, But considering the speed at which the SR flys I think the only solution they could have a possibility to score a hit would be from the forward 45 deg of the SR.
This is a problem, considering the SR pilot most likely could detect radar emissions of a another plane trying to intercept it, the SR would just change its vector away from whatever was using its radar for a lock..
Once the vector change happened then the missles would be out of range due to a 90 deg to rear quarter shot...
Im shure this threw the russians into fits..
But just my opinion..
DoctorYO
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Soviets and Americans had different concepts of shturmoviks (close ground support ACs). Americans made a dumb plane with smart weapons, while Russians made smart plane with dumb weapons. Now guess why Su-25s in Chechnya fly with non-guided rockets and FABs (dumb bombs).
A-10 will be limited to cannon when it will run out of expensive guided weapons. Su-25 will be always able to hit a sewer (cloaca) hatch with a 250kg (as they did in 1995 blowing up Chechen bunkers in Grozniy).
Key word here "when it will run out of expensive guided weapons"
I'm not sure of the ord. capacity of the the SU25 but I know the A10 can carry a watermelon load of ord.
BUT, Its primary reason for being was to destroy commie tanks in europe during WWIII. Not for blowing up sewers (allthough it is mighty capable)
Also there is nothing stopping the A10 from carrying "dumb" weapons at all. I think it has proven itself more than enough on the battle field. Ask any A10 driver that's ever taken damage how much they love their airplane
cool damage pics of A10s (http://community.webshots.com/album/68307890cAlTrT)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I can tell you they TRIED to intercept the SR several times during one month I spent flying RC's in the Sea of Okhotsk in the late '70's.
They failed. Given the speed of the SR, the reaction time, the Mig's ability and the range of the A2A missiles, they never got it done. Despite missile shots taken when at their max altitude, the SR never had a problem with the MiG-25.
Wing with the SR at altitude and at speed? Possible probably in theory but never in an antagonistic setting in RL.
True.
Legends say that MiG-25 pilots in the North knew SR pilots by names and even chatted like friends. Other legends (that I don't believe) say that some guy refused to shoot at SR because he knew the pilot.
Other legends are that there were one or two SRs shot down in the Arctic, 25s were used as hounds and led SRs to a range of an undiscovered S-200 SAM. S-200 crew is supposed to deploy to a working condition from wheels in 14 hours - but I don't know anyone who will even try it. Anyway it's an adventure not worth shooting one enemy scout plane over tundra, and not even mentioning it in propaganda purposes like Powers U-2.
Please notice that SRs were used mostly in the areas not filled with aircraft defence. If it could dare to fly over Leningrad or Murmansk - it could last for no more then five minutes.
-
Review the use of Soviet designed aircraft vs US designed aircraft in the various Middle East conflicts.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Other legends are that there were one or two SRs shot down in the Arctic, 25s were used as hounds and led SRs to
I'd seriously doubt this one and probabl say "Not true".
I have a pretty good working knowledge of how Recon flight planning is done.
Suffice it to say that 25's didn't lead or chase the SR's anywhere. The route was planned beforehand and followed. If for some reason the route could not be followed (like an intercept), the contingency routings were already planned out and would take an SR away from potential threat areas, IE: overwater in International Airspace.
Bad form, even back in the "bad old days", to shoot down the other guy's airplane in International Airspace.
-
Kill / Loss Ratio:
Service
(From 1965 to March 31,1968 )
U.S. Navy 3.7 to 1
Air Force 3 to 1
1972 on
U.S. Navy 12.5 to 1
Air Force ~4 to 1
So? That one looks pretty clear to me.
Have any links for India V Pakistan? I haven't researched that one.
-
Found this:
After almost a year's of research, we at SAPRA INDIA believe that the losses of combat aircraft on both sides were as follows:
Combat Aircraft Losses
Description Pakistan India
Air to Air 19 19
Looks like a tie in 1971.
-
okay Toad: Israel and US air forces against everyone else in the Middle East -- win for US hardware.
Soviet and French Iraqi Airforce against US-built Iranian Airforce: win for Soviet and French hardware.
Soviet and French Iraqi Airforce against US-built Kuwaiti Airforce,
win for the Soviet and French hardware.
Sure, you can argue the Iranians had imprisoned many of their pilots, and the US cut them off so they didn't have the spare parts they needed, and that the Kuwaitis had a dinky collection of Skyhawks.
But you could also argue that the "US victories" were top-of-the-line US-built aircraft and trained air crews against export-grade Soviet iron and undertrained pilots.
US hardware is impressive, and I believe most of it is the best in the world; but the Russian-built stuff is pretty damn good and a lot cheaper. Plus there's no worry about getting spare parts in the future.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'd seriously doubt this one and probabl say "Not true".
So do I. I said it's a legend and said why it's a legend from a "red" point of view.
Originally posted by Toad
I have a pretty good working knowledge of how Recon flight planning is done.
Suffice it to say that 25's didn't lead or chase the SR's anywhere. The route was planned beforehand and followed. If for some reason the route could not be followed (like an intercept), the contingency routings were already planned out and would take an SR away from potential threat areas, IE: overwater in International Airspace.
Bad form, even back in the "bad old days", to shoot down the other guy's airplane in International Airspace.
Thanks, intersting info. So - the only way to shoot it down was a SAM ambush, and it wasn't possible because S-200 (the only long-range SAM at that times) was too big and heavy, and could be easily spotted by sat recon.
-
Hehe here we go again.
Israely losses data are doubtfull, but not as ridiculous as their kill numbers.
Also please add SAM kills. The result will be not in favour of American hardware.
Who'll be the first to tell me again that USAF lost only 79 Sabres in Korea? You are welcome :D
-
Gscholz, I'm pretty sure that the NVPAF didn't use the Su-7. MiG-17's, MiG-21's several varients, later on they had J-6's (MiG-19's), a couple of AN-2's, around 10 IL-28's, and some trainers. Never heard of any Su-7's.
Which kill numbers are you using? Toper.... (ah crap can't spell it from memory) the author from Bulgaria/Czechoslovakia who's written the books from the North Vietnamese perspective?
Even he admitts that those kill claims are somewhat inflated. If you compare the claims to the published American losses, you can pretty much cut them in half. Admittedly, you can almost do the same with the American claims. But just pointing it out.
In regards to this debate. While I agree the Soviet hardware was quite competitive up thru the mid 70's, their ability degraded greatly as the high tech hardware became more advanced and more prevalent.
-
Originally posted by GScholz (http://www.geocities.com/~propilot/pictures/MiG-25.jpg)
Here we see a shining example of the cause for the fall of the Soviet empire - they retired their MiG-25s for ultralights.
-
I was a F-4 pilot in Vietnam. I flew out of Na Trang Air Base in the
Lo Mein valley in 1971. My squad achieved a 15:1 k/d ratio no problem. If we had to fly Commie iron we would been introuble. USA all the way.
-
No, I find it amazing the mighty USAF and USN achieved those kill ratios given the heavily restricted ROE imposed upon them.
Would've been interesting to see what the KR was had there been no restrictions.
Believe what you want to believe. If you want to see a minimal 3/1 KR as a victory for the NV forces, I surely don't care.
I kind of figured you'd handicap it somehow to show it in a different light.
How'd you like that 12/1 after the Navy's Top Gun program? Still a clear NV victory, eh? ;)
-
Anyways, I found some interesting information on the subject. Basically says what some of you experts above have stated that the mig-25 was not quite up to par with the SR-71.
SR-71 vs Mig-25. (http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/mig25.html)
-
Can a mig-25 catch an SR-71, I mean actually intercept one
nope russia tried many times,,the blackbird could fly 90,000 i bet<~~they wont tell ya the record,,most still classifide,,but on tv i seen the alt on the pilots controlls going over 80,000 feet and still climing,,so im sure it can go higher than what they showed us on tv,,,,,and i seen a deal about the blackbird with a russian pilot talking about tring to catch one with full afterburner on in mig 25,,and got visual on the blackbird,,and the blackbird just turned its nose up and took off,,,said there was no way they could catch it,,, even the missles fired at the blackbird would be out run,,that was one mean high alt plane
-
On November 20, 1965 an A-12 Blackbird exceeded Mach 3.2 and a sustained altitude of 90,000 feet. A stripped down, highly modified Soviet Mig-25 did break some of the Blackbirds records, however the SR-71 regained those records in July, 1976
West Coast to East Coast of USA (National Record-Speed Over a Recognized Course): Coast to Coast Distance: 2,404.05 statute miles...Time: 1 hr 07 min 53.69 secs...Average Speed: 2,124.51 mph
Los Angeles To Washington D.C. (World Record): Distance: 2,299.67 statute miles...Time: 1 hr 04 min 19.89 secs...Average Speed: 2,144.83 mph
St Louis To Cincinnati (World Record): Distance: 311.44 statute miles...Time: 8 mins 31.97 secs...Average Speed: 2,189.94 mph
Kansas City To Washington D.C. (World Record): Distance: 942.08 statute miles...Time: 25 mins 58.53 secs...Average Speed: 2176.08 mph
Mig Pilots were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. There was a total of three engine instruments and the airspeed indicator was redlined at 2.8 Mach.
Above Mach 2.8 the engines would overheat and burn up. The Americans had clocked a Mig-25 over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973. Upon landing in Egypt, the engines were totally destroyed. We did not understand that the engine destruction was inevitable.
The combat radius is 186 miles.
Without using afterburner; staying at optimum altitude and not maneuvering, the Mig can fly in a straight line for 744 miles.
The plane was so heavy, at 64,200 pounds, that Soviet designers had to eliminate a pilot ejection system.
1. A Mig-25 or Mig-31 has never fired a missile at an SR-71.
2. SR-71 Pilots state that the Mig-25/31 never posed a serious threat to their aircraft.
3. The Mig-25 can only sustain Mach 2.8 for a short duration due to engine overheat.
4. The Mig-25 can only sustain an altitude of 78,740 feet for two minutes maximum.
5. In 1973, Kelly Johnson, designer of the SR-71 Blackbird, stated that the Mig-25 Foxbat has the inherent capability to outperform the SR only in maneuverability. However, he stated, it would be the missile and not the aircraft that would require the maneuverability to intercept a Blackbird.
6. The SR-71 routinely cruised at Mach 3.2 in continuous afterburner at 80-85,000 feet. The speed and altitude of an SR-71 coupled with superior Defensive electronics has prevented any intended intercept of the Blackbird either by land based missiles or airborne Interceptor threats.
7. Almost all SR-71 Blackbird Reconnaissance Aircraft are now in Museums throughout the United States, having flown for 32 years with the distinction of being the "The highest flying and fastest air breathing aircraft in the world".
-
Originally posted by hyena426
1. A Mig-25 or Mig-31 has never fired a missile at an SR-71.
Don't know about the MiG-31, but I am reasonably certain that this is incorrect in the case of the MiG-25.
-
im sure we will learn more in the years to come...i guess alot of the info about events during the cold war is still classified.
I do know that radar observations made by the norwegian airforce is still classified for the most part. But there are however confirmed reports that radar operators have tracked some very fast stuff over northern russia. mach3+ and to big to be missiles or the _"stealthy"_ Sr71
-
Ignoring the ROE item, I see. I don't blame you.
There were a lot of "safe havens" for NV aircraft where they couldn't be pursued and destroyed.
Two ways to look at it I guess.
In the early years of the Vietnam war, the US was not achieving the level of superiority in air- to-air warfare that it had enjoyed in previous conflicts. By 1968, concerned about the relatively low kill rations achieved in Southeast Asia, Captain Frank Ault, serving withe the Naval Air Systems Command, recommended the formation of a graduate level school to train a nucleus of fighter crews who would be higly trained in Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) and weapons systems employment.
Note, the USN aircraft did not change. Rather, it became obvious the previous USN training was deficient in training aircrews how to "use the tools" in the ACM environment. The result was about a 3X higher kill ratio with the same aircraft.
-
The US also figured out that arming their planes with missiles only was a bad move..they started fitting the F4's with gunpods. Missiles where not reliable in those days. I saw on a documentary that something like one in four air to air missiles on both sides failed to fire or work properly.
Has nothing to do with the topic but but...but.....nevermind...
Now where is that wineopener..?
-
My knowledge in this field is very limited, but from what I know the difficulty of fast flying is caused (among other things of course) by the fact that depending on your speed a different type of engine is required.
For slow take-off and landing speed a turbo jet is appropriate. You need to compress the air and suck in a lot of it to make it fly. With higher speeds a jet performs better. With further speed increase the air flow is such that you need RAM-jet then SCRAM-jet and what ever comes next.
One of the very important aspects of SR-71 was a n engine desined that acted as a jet at low speeds, but with its retractable intake cones (and whatever else) it started to acts as RAM jet at high speeds. That was what allowed it to sustain a Mach 3+ for hours, not just a couple of seconds/minutes.
Any of the experts can shed more light on it. Good AH exchange beats google any day:)
-
What kind of engine did Mig-25 have? Was it some kind of beefed up run of the mill engine, or was it something designed specifically for this very purpose?
-
Well the ROE tie in with the missile problem. There was a standing ROE required an aircraft to be identified visually before it could be fired upon. Sort of negated the intended advantages of the missile-armed fighters with Beyond Visual Range (Radar) capability.
The Navy’s F-4B and the Air Force’s F-4C and -D fighters were not configured with internally mounted guns but "gun pods" were added after the realization that missiles alone weren't getting it done, especially with the ROE. The gun pods were not as accurate as an internal gun and "boresighting" didn't always "hold" very long under G loads and hard landings. Additionally, seriously degraded overall
performance and in addition made the aircraft somewhat unstable and
difficult to recover from a spin.
The E, with its internal gun started showing up "in theater" in late '67 or early '68, IIRC. It's pretty much universally acknowledged as a major improvement over the previous gun pods.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well the ROE tie in with the missile problem. There was a standing ROE required an aircraft to be identified visually before it could be fired upon. Sort of negated the intended advantages of the missile-armed fighters with Beyond Visual Range (Radar) capability.
Read this part again, please. That negated the advantages of the AIM-7 Sparrow. Note also that one of the changes to the E was the addition of a target-identification system for long-range visual identification of airborn targets. The ROE stood, they modified the airplane to meet it.
Now, if you don't think that made a difference in favor of the NV, that's your problem.
Still bottom line, the BEST the NV did was 1 USA /3 NV. The worst was 1 USN /12 VN KR by the USN after Top Gun.
It'd have been worse without the ROE on "visual ID".
If that's "winning" to you, I'm just :rofl
Yeah, we lost a LOT of airplanes. Considering the environment (Hanoi supposedly had more ground to air defences than any other place in the history of air war), the mission tasking, the ROE... that's not too surprising.
Most of those losses by far were to ground to air weapons, which is outside your original argument.
But when it comes to the measure of an air force, air to air engagements, the NV's got their tulips kicked in Air to Air engagements. Not as bad as the NK's did, but kicked nonetheless. This despite the fact the our ROE's severely favored them and allowed them to pick the time and place of engagment.
-
Now you are just being silly.
You are just talking nonsense. There is a reason that we spend millions or even billions per plane, and the reason is to kick ass.
I'd rather waste 20 million than lose a pilot.
What are you trying to prove? That getting your bellybutton kicked 12:1 is not bad because you could've had his bellybutton kicked 15:1? What's your point?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The NV managed to field 200 Migs at most, had they used F-4s instead they would only have had an air force of 13 planes.
BTW, did NV have to pay Ruskies for the MIGS? Not making any statements, just wondering.
-
Gscholz and Toad, get a book called Clashes by Marshall Michel. Then come back and have an informed discussion. :)
-
Gentleman, this thread is not about the air war over north vietnam. I started this thread to talk about one of my favorite birds the mig-25 (cas its fast and fast is always good). Why are you people hijacking my thread.
:mad:
On the subject of the air campaign over N vietnam, why dont you guys start another thread so I can keep this one going. After all this BBS is primarly for aircraft and air war enthusiasts. I suggest you guys talk about that from two perspectives though. At the strategic/political level then at the tactical level of planning, flight path, altitude, average speed, fuel load, aircraft payload etc... It would be very interesting to get the viewpoints of AHers on the subject.
But this thread is about mig-25s and SR-71s.
:rolleyes:
-
I saw a special that said the super advanced F-15 was funded and built as a response to the Mig-25 because it appeared to be some sort of 'Super plane'.
Mig-25 is neat. It's a good example of how solid engineering and raw power can be competitive to high tech.
-
the mig engine uses a single air bypass tube for its "Ramjet mode" the engine still compresses to much air to reach the high mach speeds without overspeeding or coming apart .
the SR-71 engine uses the "cone" and a full outer case to bypass the air for its ramjet mode . the cone has a better contolling factor for air managment . (it shuts off most of the air going into the compressor part of the engine)
Basically the 71's internal jet engine parts just sort of idle at high alt and mach.
(they are not really producing thrust as in compared to what the bypassed air is producing)
<--- USAF Jet Eng mech 82-86 .
-
Originally posted by senna
Dont think a mig-25 could catch an sr-71 either but dam, what a beautiful bird.
Those stovepipes seem to beg for a Sidewinder...
-
OK, sorry for the hijack.
Call it an NV "win" if you like. I doubt their squadrons saw it that way. 3/1 suxxors if you're on the "1" side. 12/1 is unimaginably worse.
But, I understand your desperation.
:lol
Out.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You seem to have read it. Inform us Oh Funked one! ;)
I read it. It's too complicated to explain here. I will just say that the individual attributes of the aircraft often had little to do with the outcome of engagements. It's written from a mostly US perspective (the author had amazing access to US military records and personnel) but it doesn't come off very "pro-US" at all. It's very critical of US tactics, equipment, command and control, and planning. It's also critical of the other side because they had many of the same problems. It even covers Have Donut and other programs which allowed US pilots to train against the same equipment the NVAF was using. I think you guys would really enjoy the book.
PS A good WW2 analogy for the air battles over North Vietnam would be the Battle of Britain and the RAF incursions over the Continent in 1941 and 1942.
-
Just read the clips on Amazon. It does sound interesting, I'll probably find a copy.
-
what's the ISBN Funky?
-
Now come on GScholz, you must admit that the US answered with a single purpose plane that has so far never failed: the F-15C. Over 100 air to air kills and not a single air to air loss. Sure, it might need a paved runway instead of a dirt strip, but that's a small price to pay for a plane as well designed and lethal as an Eagle.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Lol Toad, you know they did actually win the war. I'm sure you'll tell me otherwise though. :rofl
I'll just say they beat our politicians. Because that, my friend, is the truth of it.
You probably think they "won" Tet, right? Politically, they did. Militarily, the VC was essentially wiped out in the South. They got slaughtered.
Oh, btw, we understood their design philosophy and their doctrine and their tactics. We didn't agree with it. As to which was best... well, thank goodness the world never had to find out on a massive scale. On the small scales that were tested, however, it sure looks like we did very, very well with our choice. Not sure they can say the same. In fact, they doctrine and tactics changed more over the years than ours did.
The F-15 A's were pure air superiority fighters, which includes "interception, dog fighting, long range patrolling, bomber escort" in our doctrine. They were made to do all those things, in the course of engaging whatever enemy they found in the air and shooting him down. Simple Air Superiority. In fact, the "multirole" aspect of air-to-mud came with the E.
The idea that there should be an "air superiority dogfighter" and another "air superiority bomber escort" and an "air superiority long range patrol plane" just isn't our doctrine. Not when you can make a basic airframe that does all of that.
-
Originally posted by pugg666
what's the ISBN Funky?
1557505853
-
8675309
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Now come on? I haven't even mentioned the Eagle! And btw. the F-15 isn't a single purpose aircraft (see, some westerners still don't understand the fundamental differences). The F-15 is a highly versatile aircraft capable of interception, dog fighting, long range patrolling, bomber escort, and more. It is abhorrently expensive and very complicated. The Mig-25 is a simple and cheap short-range bomber interceptor. The F-15 and Mig-25 are so completely different in concept that I really don't see any grounds for comparison!
I disagree, the F-15 was created because of the threat of the mig-25. though the F-15 was a much better and more versatile fighter than the mig-25. In comparison, the F-15 is a superior and not only towards the mig-25 but just about anything that flies today.
-
By the way, as someone mentioned SR-71 intakes , Finnish pilots which flew Mig-21Bis managed to measure SR-71 intake system while on trip visiting some airshow.
Measures are comparable easily with mig-21 intake system, almost exactly same measures scaled up.. Who copied...????
-
You mean they were both circular?
-
the F15 was developed as an airsuperiority plane, like the 14 for the navy
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The F-15 was developed to counter the perceived threat of the Mig-25.
Horse exhaust. It was developed to give the USAF a pure air superiority fighter that could beat anything it came up against. It was not focused or in response to any single "perceived threat".
We needed a new air superiority fighter. That's all.
F-15 Eagle
F-15 Eagle
History
pb[The Eagle’s history is long and distinguished. It began as a Air Force fighter study in the early 1960s and was known as the Fighter Experimental (FX).[/b] By 1967 the Air Force began development of a new high performance fighter aircraft that would be extremely agile and would be capable of gaining and maintaining air superiority through air-to-air combat. The new design had to be optimized for combat with the power and agility to overcome any current or projected Soviet threat. The F-15 was the first air-to-air fighter requested by the Air Force since the F-86 Sabre. The resulting F-15 Eagle had an unequaled combination of performance, firepower, and avionics. It was the benchmark--the plane to beat.
Experience in the Vietnam conflict showed the F-4 Phantom II to have maneuvering performance inferior to that of the Soviet-built MiG21. In response to this finding, the USAF developed a set of requirements for a dedicated air-superiority fighter with a maneuvering capability greater than any existing or foreseeable-future fighter aircraft.
Using lessons learned in Vietnam, the USAF sought to develop and procure a new, dedicated air superiority fighter. Such an aircraft was desperately needed, as no USAF aircraft design solely conceived as an air superiority fighter had become reality since the F-86 Sabre. The intervening twenty years saw a number of aircraft performing the air-to-air role as a small part of their overall mission, such as the primarily air-to-ground F-4 Phantom and the F-102, F-104 and F-106 interceptor designs. The result of the FX study was a requirement for a fighter design combining unparalleled maneuverability with state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-history.htm
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Soviets made cheap capable airplanes, but put their best weapons on them. Reliability is another thing the Russians were obsessed with (and still are), all Russian fighters can be operated from primitive air fields and are very robust and easily maintained.
Since the topic of who won what war has been broached, you do realize that the US won the war (not always so cold) with the Soviets, right? The Soviets did win a battle or two, Vietnam included, but they lost the war.
-
Twist it any way you want. They were interested in designing a pure air superiority capable of meeting and defeating all threats.
The MiG-25 was just another threat. To say "the F-15 was an expensive overreaction to the perceived, but unfounded threat of the Mig-25." is, at best, horse exhaust. Clearly, development of the F-15 started long before they even knew of the MiG-25 and it was ALWAYS intended to be a pure air superiority platform in the tradition of the F-86.
The F-15 was developed to be the world's best air superiority fighter. Period. That would include beating the MiG-25, along with every other airplane that anyone else had or would have for the near term future. As new threats appeared, they were countered, that's all. Either in the design phase or in the evolutionary design phase.
And "expensive overreaction"? :lol Now THAT'S funny.
From the Boeing site:
The F-15 Eagle has a perfect combat record of 101 victories and zero defeats.
Looks like an excellent product, worth every cent we spent on it. Oh... wait... we should have built something cheaper and less capable but 5 times as many of them and accepted the loss of 25% of the pilots in combat, right? Let's check with the pilots and their families and see if they agree. :rofl
This November will mark 30 years since the first Eagle delivery. Three decades of Total Air Dominance, and it's nowhere near done yet.
It was a bargain.
Oh, BTW... you're using an unattributed Geocities page as documentation and support of your argument? :rofl
Should I get Rude's kid to run up a webpage real quick and put it on Geocities supporting my argument?
YGBSM! Geocities! No author, no sources. :lol
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The only success the US can claim is in the Middle East where the Israelis successfully fought off the Arab attacks in numerous wars.
using French Mirages !
Tango romeo oscar lima lima ;)
-
The F-15 Eagle has a perfect combat record of 101 victories and zero defeats.
What else is there to say?
-
Originally posted by Toad
What else is there to say?
actually the number is higher now..... more like 108 I think.
Toad you are correct. From my understanding, the F-15 was conceived after the F-4 was left wanting in Vietnam.
The idea was to build an air superiority fighter. It was not built to counter any perceived threat by the Mig-25.
By the way, the Mig-25 was the plane that was a waste of money. There was no US high-speed bomber that ever materialized for the Mig-25 to intercept. By the time the XB-70 and it's mach 3+ escort fighter were being tested, the US realised that ICBM's were the way to deliver nukes, not high speed bombers. That is why we didn't build these planes.
So the Soviets actually wasted their money biulding Mig-25's well after the threat they were supposed to counter was even a possibiltiy. The Mig-25 would not have been fast enough to intercept the B-70 anyway, so it was a failure at it's mission from the begining.
The F-15 paid off big time as Toad says.....30 years of dominance.
What has the Mig-25 proven? That it can burn it's engines trying to go Mach 2.8 in a straight line? That tank could only pull about 4 g's. Sorry, I'll take an Sr-71 over that bucket of bolts.
So please tell us who wasted their money.
-
If it were possible to receive head in any modern fighter, I'd fully expect that event to take place in an SU-37 before any other plane--and not just from the skanks.
-
The F-15 enjoyed 10 years of superiority. When the Su-27 became operational in 1984 the F-15 could only claim parity, if even that.
Horse exhaust! Name one conflict since 1984 where the U.S. or another country using the F-15 did not have air superiority.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Horse exhaust! Name one conflict since 1984 where the U.S. or another country using the F-15 did not have air superiority.
I love it when people take these things personally.
-
I did not take that personally.
-
Hehe, spot on.
I was once talking to a US squadron leader (colonel) and F-15 pilot. He stated the F15 was the finest dogfighter in the world. Ok, I asked if he could stay with a Harrier. He said, well, uhh, no, but I would be able to disengage. He was asked by another person if he could do 1 vs 1 with a Flanker. He said, errrr....if the pilot had our training it would be very hard, however the Flanker pilots do less training than the US.......:p
-
I see this as a ploy for you to 'disengage' from the conversation after being asked to show some evidence that the F-15 was unable to maintain air superiority after 1984.
Thats cool though, you are able to save some dignity this way.
-
Hehe, spot on again Scholzie :aok
-
Only way to measure a fighters against each others is to have a decent mock-fights between well equipped, motivated and trained pilots and so far I haven't found any such thing done between Su-27 and F-15.
Here's one with German MiG-29s and U.S F-16s (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1995/articles/jul_95/jul2_95_p.html)
-
As I've said before, the proof is in the pudding, and in this case the only measure of superiority that means anything is the end result. That being the actual kill statistics and the final victory of the US over the Soviet Union in every respect, not soley economic. No angst here.
-
Yes I've noticed that there are some that just can't stand that people discuss American planes or anything American in a favourable light. There is always a non-American who has to flame the thread by stating how inferior US planes are and how everything non-American sucks. It's almost like if they take personal offence if someone says anything good about American hardware, particularly if they ignore Russian and French hardware. Personally I find it quite amusing ... if perhaps a bit pathetic.
-
or anything American
I think you got the point but maybe not.
Anyway, as Iron pointed out, if you take the long view, it's pretty clear who's system, doctrine, hardware, whatever, won.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The F-15 enjoyed 10 years of superiority. When the Su-27 became operational in 1984 the F-15 could only claim parity, if even that.
At Moscow Aero-Space Show in 2003 I had a chance to compare F-15 on demonstration flights to Sukhoi and Mikoyan fighters. To say I was not impressed is not true. I was disappointed. I still wonder why did they decide to fly there - it was a pale imitation of what I saw from MiG-29 regular pilots 12 years ago.
F-15s were compared with Su-27s in test fights 10 years ago when one American regiment flew to Lipetsk and then a regiment from Lipetsk flew to the US. The results were absolutely disappointing for Americans. Su-27 having an F-15 on dead six reversed the situation in 30sec., while F-15 was unable to shake a Su from it's tail at all.
Hehe, Americans refused to take off from Russian airfield, saying it's too dirty for them! They were afraid of dust, dry grass and cigarette stubû :) so that a Su-27 had to take off before them to sweep the runway with exaust for them :)
MiG-25 was a revolutionary aircraft. The design concept was almost exactly copied by Americans in F-15. /*I mean only concept, composition - not the design, such things are usually impossible*/ It still remains the fastest mass-production plane.
I don't believe that there were no F-15s ever lost in combat. Must be a standard American way of counting losses. At least 2 F-15s were shot down in air-to-air combat in 1982 by Syrian MiG-23MLs. I don't even want to speak about losses from SAMs - it's usually impossible to guess the correct AC model when it's shot by a SAM.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Lol Toad, you know they did actually win the war. I'm sure you'll tell me otherwise though. :rofl
Your dislike for our country shines thru again.
Still, we never fought the war...politicians put our forces in a police action instead. Had we chose to fight, we would have won decisively.
If our country had a scorched earth war policy, then you might have a real reason to hate us. Fortunetly for many who publicly state their intention to destroy us, we practice some self control....a mistake in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes I'm sure you read my "dislike for your country" in practically everything I write. That you consider stating facts a slight against your country is a clear indication to me how insecure you feel about it.
It's your choice of "facts" stated that reveal your animositiy.
-
LOL, let it go guys.
As Iron said, "the proof is in the pudding". That's what galls him so.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes I'm sure you read my "dislike for your country" in practically everything I write. That you consider stating facts a slight against your country is a clear indication to me how insecure you feel about it.
So now I'm insecure?:)
-
Maybe someone can correct me, but I believe U.S. doctrine does not involve World War 1 style dog-fighting.
An AWACs plane identifies enemy aircraft, relays info to F-15, which then fires BVR missle.
But during the Gulf War a F-15 did kill two Mig-29s in a single sortie which were within visual range.
-
SunTracker you are absolutly correct. Its the training and doctrine that make american planes what they are today. Without it they are just airframes w/ engines.
Its no use talking about American success on this board. You'll probably just get a response like "those 29s were trying to defect to iran so they dont count" They cant stand to be wrong
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Maybe someone can correct me, but I believe U.S. doctrine does not involve World War 1 style dog-fighting.
An AWACs plane identifies enemy aircraft, relays info to F-15, which then fires BVR missle.
That's true.
The Soviet concept was even wider. As a supposed-to-be reserve SAM officer I can speak of defensive doctrine (there must have been an "offensive" doctrine, but I doubt it was as seriously prepared as defensive one).
Massive SAM usage was the main concept. Speaking in your terms - F-15s get shot down by a SAM ambush before they come to a position to fire BVR missiles, and then AWACS gets shot down by MiG-31s or Su-27s.
When agressor's force relies on moblie stuff like AWACS we have a whole network of radiotechnical corps, enforced by aerial stations like A-50s and MiG-31s.
US "victorious" wars were waged against third-world countries who couldn't afford a full scale air defence. In fact noone else except USSR ever had such a system. American concept is purely agressive, unlike Soviet.
Air Defence (PVO) was one of the five combat arms:
Air Force, Strategic Missile Corps, Ground Forces, Air Defense and Navy.
(http://www.sovmusic.ru/jpg/posters/ussr0496.jpg)
-
When someone starts a thread that has nothing to do with the US and is in no way critical or negative toward the US why then does some Americans feel the need to turn it into a dick measuring contest? If you don't have anything nice to say about the subject being discussed, why say anything at all?
Maybe it's cause we know you have a tiny little johnson?
-
Been away from the thread since Friday :) It grew a bit.
Gscholz, that website you posted the link too is a direct rip off of the information written in Istvan Toperczer's books, of which I own all 4. He is the original author of that information. Best books written from the NVPAF perspective.
As Funked said, if you want incredible information on how the airwar was fought over North Vietnam, get "Clashes". Incredible book, with a detail investigation into how and why the war was fought the way it was. Best out there.
A couple of points I saw mentioned in the thread.
The only internal gunned F-4 was the USAF F-4E. Gunpods were available to all the services flying them, but they were extremely unpopular. They added something like 20% to the drag of the aircraft, and weighed in the neighborhood of 2,000 lbs. They also had a propensity to jam after the first couple of rounds, leaving you with a perfectly good brick attached to your plane. The Navy almost never used them. The Marines used them for ground attack missions. And the Air Force used them sparingly, depending on the squadron and the wing, the planes were assigned too.
A myth about the gunpods, is that they were that they were horribley inaccurate. Not totally true. The nose gun mount on a F-4 (and I believe the F-105 is similar) has a dispersion of approximately 5 mils. The gun pods had a dispersion of 6-8 mils. True, thats more. But with a weapon like the GE M61 Vulcan cannon (20mm) dispersion is NOT a bad thing. The weapon has a rate of fire of around 6,000 rpm, and a average amount of dispersion means its easier to hit, and means lots of bits and pieces of the enemy is getting hit simultaneously. Its like hitting a rioter with a firehose.
I've seen guncamera footage of a F-105D (same gun) shooting down a MiG-17 with its gun. As soon as the pilot pressed the trigger, the entire MiG airframe looked like a Christmas tree that was flicker on and off. It was in slow motion, but it couldn't have been more than a 1 to 1.5 second burst, and within that time, not one single portion of that airframe did not get seriously hit. The MiG simply disintegrated.
The problem with getting gun kills during Vietnam for the US was in my opinon due to training and poor air to air gunsights. The pilots had mostly been trained in the belief that missiles made guns obsolete. And in the early F-4 (the B and C's) and F-105's, the gunsights were simple fixed sights. It wasn't until later models that they added air to air lead computing gunsights to the aircraft. Something that had been added to P-51 during the last months of WWII.
-
I was speaking of the actual, not theoretical.
But Soviet Air Defense is illustrated in this article by the AirForce http://www.afa.org/magazine/April1995/0495f22.asp
Yes, the F-15 would have a challenging time if all-out-war began, and if it had sorties over heavily guarded Soviet Airspace.
But again, I don't think that was U.S. doctrine to fly World War II style to Moscow, F-15s escorting B-52s.
Migs and Sukois appear to be bound by ground based radar. U.S. has mobile radar (awacs), which has paid off since at least 1973.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Toad chimes in with his "Soviet designed aircraft vs US designed aircraft in the various Middle East conflicts" argument
Let's review here. My first comments in this thread were in direct response to the SR/MiG-25 discussion.
The YOU posted this paean to Soviet engineering and doctrine:
GScholz:
The thing about Russian airplanes and Russian hardware in general is over-engineering. Everything is designed and built stronger than it has to be. Everything is designed with simplicity and functionality in mind. Russian engineers will spend hundreds of hours just on simplification for every part. The result is a bulletproof design that requires the absolute minimum of complexity, expensive materials and skilled labour to manufacture, while at the same time being stronger and less prone to breakdown. A good example is engine design. While the usual Russian jet engines require more frequent overhauls because they're made of cheaper materials and are of a simpler design, those overhauls are much less expensive because the parts are so cheap. The simplicity of the engines also ensures a great degree of reliability and requires less skilled labour to maintain. Russian engines can also be run with fuels of varying quality without reliability problems.
My reply was pretty simple:"Review the use of Soviet designed aircraft vs US designed aircraft in the various Middle East conflicts."
I don't think you did. If you had, you'd have noticed that all the rugged equipment that was so reliable gave the Arab Air Forces a miserable in-service rate.
Instead, you launched into your campaigne to show the US didn't know what it was doing designing overengineered and overexpensive aircraft. But of course, the overwhelming success record of that equipment ends your argument.
You'll just have to try again in some other thread.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Boroda
American concept is purely agressive, unlike Soviet.
Interesting view from the other side.
I had an fairly good view of our SIOP's for various contingencies during the Cold War. Interestingly enough, our planning was mostly based on repelling Soviet aggression in Europe. I don't think I ever saw a plan for invading the Soviet Union.
I know where the AWACS and RC deployments and orbits were supposed to be. Along with the predicted FEBA and air interdiction areas. Let's just say your SAM units would have had to move a long way West to get a shot. ;)
While you guys were busily planning to defend against an American aggressor, we were busily planning to defend against a Russian aggressor.
Well, at least its over.
-
And while the west was, and still is, obsessed with making expensive and meticulously manufactured high-tech airplanes, the Russians realized (correctly) that it is the weapon systems that shoot down airplanes or destroy ground targets, not the plane itself
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Migs and Sukois appear to be bound by ground based radar. U.S. has mobile radar (awacs), which has paid off since at least 1973.
JFYI: first Soviet airborn long-range radar planes were shipped to the units in early 60s. Americans didn't have anything like that in that times.
Tu-126:
(http://www.tupolev.ru/images/Pictures/History_Planes/S/078_001.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Interesting view from the other side.
I had an fairly good view of our SIOP's for various contingencies during the Cold War. Interestingly enough, our planning was mostly based on repelling Soviet aggression in Europe. I don't think I ever saw a plan for invading the Soviet Union.
"Charioter", "Fleetwood", can't remember other code names.
You had Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Gor'kiy inside your strategic bombers range, and you had B-52s with H-bombs on patrol over Europe 24/7. You didn't have (and still don't have) any serious air-defense forces. That's what I mean by "agressive".
OTOH USSR never had strategic bombers in decent quantities. Unlike you we invested billions of full-weight Soviet rubles in creating ABM shield. Also, we never had big aircraft carriers in our Navy, concentrating on submarine and air defense.
Originally posted by Toad
While you guys were busily planning to defend against an American aggressor, we were busily planning to defend against a Russian aggressor.
Well, at least its over.
I am glad it's over too. But I am happy we still have nukes. We have seen what happens to countries who can't protect themselves. :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I am glad it's over too. But I am happy we still have nukes. We have seen what happens to countries who can't protect themselves. :(
Oh my, rarely see such a target of opportunity as what you've just presented. To avoid tiresome escallation I'll just say, you mean like Kuwait?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"You had Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Gor'kiy inside your strategic bombers range, and you had B-52s with H-bombs on patrol over Europe 24/7. You didn't have (and still don't have) any serious air-defense forces. That's what I mean by "agressive".
Yeah, I can see it being viewed like that.
However, I think on our side it was viewed in the "MAD doctrine" way as defensive. Funny how we both felt we were in defensive postures against a potential aggressor.
We had all that stuff (Although the B-52's patrolling over Europe were only during the "early days" of the CW. When I was in, they didn't maintain a 24/7 cap. They rarely flew at all.) and the intent in our planning was to dissuade you guys from "aggressing" into Europe.
You're right, we still don't and never did have any real ground to air capabilities. A vast oversight in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The west IS obsessed with making hardware too expensive!
This is just your opinion.
Please accept the fact that others may think diffently. I personally feel, considering the success of the F-15 and F-16 series, they have been bargains.
"Almost as good" is just that. What it comes down to is widows/widowers and mothers with dead sons and daughters. What price do you want to put on that?
Build cheap stuff, buy cheap stuff; go for it. I'm pretty happy with what we build for our Air Force. The record speaks for itself.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I must say I find Rude's interest in my noodle somewhat disconcerting, and what it has to do with the Mig-25 is anyone's guess.
Well, I might well develope a Lorena Bobbit interest in your noodle, if I could find it in the first place.
As to the relevance of your noodle and a Mig 25....both are disfunctional.
That was too easy.
-
LOL Rude. Didn't your mother ever teach you to not play with your food before you eat it? :rofl
:aok
-
Look....Americans are proud of everything American...well, almost everything:)
Let's all hope that none of this great hardware get's turned loose in force....the world is not as big as it used to be and the end result of such an action would hurt us all.
I'm for gettin along, except when folks say their hellbent on killing us....those folks, along with anyone who stands with them by voice or action or the lack of action, is my enemy.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Oh my, rarely see such a target of opportunity as what you've just presented. To avoid tiresome escallation I'll just say, you mean like Kuwait?
If we didn't have nukes - you could use absolutely the same propaganda brainwashing crap and plain lies to justify an agression against Russia as you did against Yugoslavia and Iraq.
I have to admit that any country in your place could probably try the same thing. Power corrupts.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Power corrupts.
Yeah, no kidding. Like you get a real big army or something, the next thing you know, half of Europe has your boot on their neck, enjoying the fruits of Communism or something.
Oh... wait.... I know... they ALL WANTED TO BE COMMUNIST! Sorry, I forgot.
:D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If we didn't have nukes - you could use absolutely the same propaganda brainwashing crap and plain lies to justify an agression against Russia as you did against Yugoslavia and Iraq.
I have to admit that any country in your place could probably try the same thing. Power corrupts.
Talk about suckin up propaganda:)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
JFYI: first Soviet airborn long-range radar planes were shipped to the units in early 60s. Americans didn't have anything like that in that times.
Tu-126:
(http://www.tupolev.ru/images/Pictures/History_Planes/S/078_001.jpg)
Try again Boroda, I'm sorry you don't even win the home version of our game j/k :D Here is a photo of a RC-121 AWACS type aircraft ( no where near the capabilities of the E-3 ).
(http://www.dean-boys.com/551aew/times-1.jpg)
and here is the link to the New York Times article (dated APRIL 19, 1958) about the RC-121. HERE (http://www.dean-boys.com/551aew/NY%20TIMES%20ARTICLE%20ON%20OTIS%20-%201958.htm)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If we didn't have nukes - you could use absolutely the same propaganda brainwashing crap and plain lies to justify an agression against Russia as you did against Yugoslavia and Iraq.
I have to admit that any country in your place could probably try the same thing. Power corrupts.
Unlike the USSR? Which didn't invade numerous countries? Power certainly corrupted the communists, won't argue that.
I wasn't aware the US was occupying Yugoslavia. Amazing what our leaders are keeping from us.
-
The F-15 is still in production for South Korea but I think the US has stopped procurement.
We're building F-22's now. We'll see, but that may turn out to be just as dominant as the F-15 was.:p
You can have three of this or that, or six of another for each of what we put in service. Go for it. I'm pretty confident we'll still have what we need to win against anyone, if it ever comes to that. Certainly for the foreseeable future.
BTW, did you see what the Israelis have done with the F-15? IMO, we should be doing this too and probably will. Check out the F-15I. Of course, the IAF are just a bunch of bozos too and don't know what they're doing. Right? I mean, they have no experience fighting Soviet equipment do they? No wonder they buy the wrong stuff!
-
Originally posted by CavPuke
and here is the link to the New York Times article (dated APRIL 19, 1958) about the RC-121. HERE (http://www.dean-boys.com/551aew/NY%20TIMES%20ARTICLE%20ON%20OTIS%20-%201958.htm)
This is nothing compared to Tu-126. You simply copied a rotating antenna in an aerodynamic cowl later.
"No where near the capabilities of the E-3" - well said.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
This is nothing compared to Tu-126. You simply copied a rotating antenna in an aerodynamic cowl later.
"No where near the capabilities of the E-3" - well said.
LOL Boroda, the TU-126 Wac wasn't much to write home about either ;)
"A large rotating radar dish is carried on a pylon on top of the fuselage. Its (lack of) capability has been the subject of many contradictory assesments. Eight built between 1965 and 1967. Carries two complete 12-man crews. The TU-126 has been assessed by Western sources as being of only limited capability, being unable to detect cruise missiles or small aircraft at low level. "
I know I know, simply slanted western propoganda. :D
-
You guys have convinced me. Everything the Soviets built was superior. Makes me wonder how they lost the war with so few shots fired.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Unlike the USSR? Which didn't invade numerous countries? Power certainly corrupted the communists, won't argue that.
I wasn't aware the US was occupying Yugoslavia. Amazing what our leaders are keeping from us.
Did we invade "numerous countries"?! Please tell me the list!
Should I provide a list of souverign countries invaded by the US in last 100 years? I am sure it will beat Toad's longest floods.
And please don't put your words in my mouth. Where did you hear me saying US occupied Yugoclavia? You just took away a historical part of Serbia and installed a genocidic gangster regime of drug-dealing and kidnapping fundamental Moslim terrorists there.
I am not happy about our current leaders. But I'll support them if they'll decide to stop the agressors. You guys need an opposing force. I sincerely hope that we'll not carry this burden, there are some new powers that emerged in last 25 years.
Toad, sorry for going all the same route again :( I have told you before that I prefer to see all this confrontation just as "blue vs. red" sides, regardless to political and propaganda issues.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Did we invade "numerous countries"?! Please tell me the list!
Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan come immediately to mind. Of course there were many invaded during WWII and occupied until the USSR collapsed in '91.
Like I said, tiresome.
Forgot Hungary.
-
Don't forget Soviet puppet states in North Korea and North Vietnam which invaded their neighbors.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Where did you hear me saying US occupied Yugoclavia? You just took away a historical part of Serbia and installed a genocidic gangster regime of drug-dealing and kidnapping fundamental Moslim terrorists there.
Not "you", "we". Russian troops were part of that operation too.
-
Warsaw pact countries that were dominated by the USSR, er, I mean "chose not to be included in the Mashall plan on their own "free will" (Snicker).
-
Originally posted by Boroda
JFYI: first Soviet airborn long-range radar planes were shipped to the units in early 60s. Americans didn't have anything like that in that times.
Tu-126:
(http://www.tupolev.ru/images/Pictures/History_Planes/S/078_001.jpg)
Wrong again, see E-1 Tracer.
-
Ahh, good find Funked, but I'm sure its all been altered Western Propoganda ;)
(http://www.state.sc.us/patpt/E1b.gif)
Built by Grumman, the E-1B Tracer was essentially a slightly wider Tracker (S-2) with a modified tail configuration. The powerful airborne radar located in the radome assured surveillance for both air and surface contacts to distances of over 200 miles. The E-1B radar system could be used to direct friendly aircraft to a hostile target regardless of weather conditions and darkness.
Originally the E-1B was designated WF-2, which led crewmembers to assign the nickname of "Willy Fudd" to the aircraft. Although newer AEW aircraft have made the Tracer obsolete, the availiability of the E-1B in 1958 was a major advancement not only in airborne early warning technology, but also caused a revolution in aerial and surface strategy and tactics.
-
I musta walked in on the wrong thread again..... wasnt this the mig-25 vs sr-71 thread ???
-
Yeah but all the original questions were answered early on and now it's just another fun thread.
-
aka american buffoons on parade.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
aka american buffoons on parade.
Everytime you post.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
aka american buffoons on parade.
Yah, the very first one JUST showed up!
-
The Israelis have improved our electronics significantly and they find it hard to share with us. However, they are being a bit more forthcoming; I doubt we'll see it all, but there has been improvement.
I want to see us buy their Python V missle with the DASH. USAF needs to quit fooling with developing one and just use theirs.
I'm sure the Israelis do better than the Arabs with captured equipment. After all, the Israelis actually have the people and equimpment to maintain all that "simple, rugged" equipment that the Arabs couldn't manage to keep in the air. Not to mention far better pilot training and a REASON to stay sharp.
And I'll take the F-22, no problem. You keep the 3 JSF's.
It still won't matter if push comes to shove.
-
All the really good stuff stays secret for long as possible. Takes a war to see it in action. GScholtz, you talkin' to me? :mad:
;)
-
Let's make sure we're talking the same thing.
JSF = Joint Strike Fighter? The one designed by Lockheed Martin, same guys that designed the F-22?
We on the same page here?
-
Hehehe Soviets just defending. LOL
Anybody ever see figures on numbers of tanks fielded by WP vs NATO?
-
Everyone knows tanks are peace-loving defensive beings. Sheesh.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
aka american buffoons on parade.
Hey lookie!!! It's the Head Buffoon himself!!!
All bow to the great and powerful...oh wait...that's been done before.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I love it when people take these things personally.
Once again, I love it when people take these things personally.
The cold hard fact is, until the USA and a fully-functioning, well funded, fully maintained Russian Airforce face off(this concept went out the window in the 80s), with both nations fighting the kind of war they were designed to fight, none of these arguments mean a thing. Seeing as that economic and ideological factors have made this sort of conflict impossible(and thankfully so), there's just no point in shouting 'my dad can lick your's over and over again, with each side supporting the way their government chooses to develop aircraft and weapons systems.
Russian aerospace industry has produced brilliant machines, and continue to do so. As have the Americans. At the same time, US big business managed to stick a Mcdonalds in the middle of Moscow--one of the biggest in the world.
I'm not seeing any Borsht Kitchen chains springing up in DC, with lines forming around the block.
My suggestion: Have a shot of Stoli and chase it with budweiser.
-
OK.
JSF = Joint STRIKE Fighter.
This aircraft, by design, is meant to excel in the air to mud role. It's air to air capability is said to be "second only to the F-22", but they don't say if it's a "close second" or a "distant second".
Flyaway cost on it is ~ $30 million per copy.
The F-22 is designed primarily as a stealthy air superiority fighter, excelling in the air to air role. There are ongoing attempts to add air to mud capability and particularly SEAD capability. These have not really been pursued as yet. Current flyaway cost is ~$83 million but this cost rose from $67 million when the buy was reduced to 339 from the intial 750. There is discussion about raising the buy back to the mid 500's or even the full 750.
If the full buy were made, you'd be looking at something closer to 2 to 1.
Still bottom line, I'll take the F-22 over the F-35 when it comes to air superiority. And once you establish that....... the rest falls into line.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
aka american buffoons on parade.
Your hatred for America is amazing....
-
Trying to follow these arguments is like wrestling snakes.
In the end, how would an F15 fair against an SU 1on1?
No AWACS involved.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Trying to follow these arguments is like wrestling snakes.
In the end, how would an F15 fair against an SU 1on1?
No AWACS involved.
I'm guessing that they both have the same capability to track and fire, so lets assume it comes down to the pilot, within missile evasion tactics. Once they're both out of missiles, and assuming they both live..again, I'd say "The pilot". And, we all know who'd win that fight. ;) Arrogant statement? You bet. But our pilots will/have/can walk the talk.
-
Thanx Rip.
For the rest of you, Is this about Airframes? Or Tactics?
-
Yes, I think I would, given the Command and Control functions we have and the doctrine we use.
In other words, there's already a plan for how we would do this. I'm not saying it'd be a cakewalk.
I'm saying I think we know why we want a mixed force of F-22's and F-35's and not just F-35's alone. The F-22 has capabilites the the F-35 does not and vice versa. The F-22's role is air superiority; I'm thinking it's better at that to the point that we feel we need 339 (750?) F-22's and are willing to pay for them.
Check out this analysis from Australian Aviation:
ANALYSIS: Lockheed-Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-6b.htm)
Some notable quotes:
As an air combat fighter the Joint Strike Fighter is more difficult to compare, since the differences against the teen series and Eurocanards are less distinct.
With a nominal payload of 2,000 lb of AAMs the USAF F-35 yields a combat thrust/weight ratio around 1.1:1 which is competitive against a modestly loaded F-16, F/A-18A/C or Eurocanard, but with a typically better combat radius or combat gas allowance - however it is not in the class of an F-15C let alone F-22A.
Where the F-35 is apt to be less than a stellar performer is in the supersonic Beyond Visual Range combat regime, which is the sharp end of air superiority performance.
In the absence of published hard numbers for supersonic acceleration, energy bleed and persistence performance, the only reasonable conclusion is that the F-35 is likely to be competitive against the teen series and Eurocanards in combat configuration but decisively inferior to the F-22A.
Another factor in the BVR game is radar performance, limited by the power/aperture of the radar design. While hard numbers on the F-35's radar are yet to be published, what is available suggests an 800-900 element phased array which is in the class of the F-16C/B60, F/A-18E/F and Eurocanards but well behind the massive 2200 element APG-77 in the F-22A.
Attempting to make an all encompassing comparison of the F-35 against current fighters is fraught with some risks, insofar as the design will further evolve before production starts and many design parameters, especially in avionics, may shift. In terms of basic sizing and performance optimisations probably the best yardstick is that the F-35 is much like a `stealthy but incrementally improved F/A-18A/C' which closely reflects the similarity in the basic roles of the two types - strike optimised growth derivatives of lightweight fighters.
The F-35 is clearly out of its league against the F-22A in all cardinal performance parameters, with the exception of its bomb bay size which is built to handle larger weapons than the F-22A.
The reality of it is that any US adversary is going to have to deal with both in all probability. I'd hate to be in their flight boots.
Let's all just hope this remains an academic discussion. ;)
But I'll still take the F-22. Air superiority is the wellspring from which victory flows.
-
Another interesting quote from the summation of that article discussing Australia's upcoming decision on force structure:
The alternatives of single type total force replacements with the F-22 or F-35 also raise interesting issues.
While the F-35 at this time carries larger bombs than the F-22, it is a decidely inferior performer in the air combat game and the deep penetration strike game. With supercruise capability in a baseline bombing role using `small bomb' payloads the supercruising F-22's higher sortie rate at longer ranges suggests that one F-22 can perform a similar workload to a pair of F-35s, with the caveat that two or more F-35s will be needed to perform the air defence coverage of a single F-22.
In terms of deterrent credibility and potency in combat, the F-22 is unbeatable, in terms of political whining from air power detractors of every ilk, it is a guaranteed magnet (deja vu - F-111 1967?).
Conversely, a pure F-35 force structure is apt to leave important capability gaps in air superiority, cruise missile defence and deep penetration strike, while pushing up total numbers and thus aircrew demands - the latter likely to be a major long term issue with ongoing demographic shifts.
-
GS your argument over price is wacky here....You would never catch an F22 operating alone there would be a few of them operating in the area. In that case the 35s would have a missle warning tone befor they even know they're there. SO the argument of price doesnt come into play here.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
This is nothing compared to Tu-126. You simply copied a rotating antenna in an aerodynamic cowl later.
"No where near the capabilities of the E-3" - well said.
LOL well Boroda put your money where your mouth is bud :p Pony up some facts and figures and let us read and weep , otherwise sit down and let some one else speak :aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If there are 10 F-22s then they would face 20 or 30 F-35, understand?
Nah. Nobody else that's a real threat will be able to afford any appreciable number.
;)
Doesn't seem like that Aussie magazine is too impressed.
"probably the best yardstick is that the F-35 is much like a `stealthy but incrementally improved F/A-18A/C' "
That's not much to hang your entire air force on if you're thinking of/preparing for major wars.
-
From Boroda:
"American concept is purely agressive, unlike Soviet. "
Now that's funny. It so happens that a friend of mine was a border patroller on the eastern German side. Their concept was mainly keeping people from going west. He said that if the US had decided to march in, they could not have stopped them, but at least kept them from going back:D
The western border was all about defence, and the Warsaw pact's doctrine was in many ways all about agression. The Russia of the communists invaded, occupied and assimilated (;) ) many many countries.
Beginning from the North: Finland, the 3 Baltic states, Poland, Czechoslovakia,Hungary, and then you have covered most of the area between the Arctic circle and the Black sea. Hell that's 7 out of the 9 countries on that route, leaving just Norway and communist Romania out! Not agressive my arse!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Toad, I actually though the F-35 would be better than that. I'm a bit disappointed really. Seems like the F-35 won't be worth the price compared to both the F-22 and other modern/near future aircraft.
Gunslinger, the one vs two or three is a force ratio. If there are 10 F-22s then they would face 20 or 30 F-35, understand?
no I dont commanders wouldnt send their precious air frames into battle outnumered or out gunned. They just dont do that. (SEE: TACTICS)
secondly I do think outnumberd 3 to 1 the 22 would probably prevaile or hold its own. Its just that good. The 35 is an awsome fighter....its mission inst to take on the 22 but to provide a broad range of missions to 3 different sevices reducing costs.
-
That JFS contender called the 'Monica' was the most butt ugly airplane I ever saw. I could see why it never made the cut.
-
Originally posted by Otto
That JFS contender called the 'Monica' was the most butt ugly airplane I ever saw. I could see why it never made the cut.
I allways thaught the YF-23 was a much better looking A/C than the 22. Alot of people say it was a better performer as well.
-
Originally posted by Angus
From Boroda:
"American concept is purely agressive, unlike Soviet. "
Now that's funny. It so happens that a friend of mine was a border patroller on the eastern German side. Their concept was mainly keeping people from going west. He said that if the US had decided to march in, they could not have stopped them, but at least kept them from going back:D
I have explained my point of view as a supposed-to-be reserve SAM officer. I was trained an S-200 technical division officer.
WE didn't have strategic bombers, 25 megaton load each, on CAP ready to burn millions of people to ashes 24/7 as you did in 60s. Understand it and please STFU.
Originally posted by Angus
The western border was all about defence, and the Warsaw pact's doctrine was in many ways all about agression. The Russia of the communists invaded, occupied and assimilated (;) ) many many countries.
Beginning from the North: Finland, the 3 Baltic states, Poland, Czechoslovakia,Hungary, and then you have covered most of the area between the Arctic circle and the Black sea. Hell that's 7 out of the 9 countries on that route, leaving just Norway and communist Romania out! Not agressive my arse!
Go read some books. If you can write - I can assume you are literate.
Beautiful when any lamer without a basic knowledge of history starts to teach me.
I have a hangover, felt two times slipping on ice in the street, and i come here and read such crap... Still expecting some idiot to tell me about "human rights" in Chechnya in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Trying to follow these arguments is like wrestling snakes.
In the end, how would an F15 fair against an SU 1on1?
No AWACS involved.
F-15 will be unable to do anything. It will have no more then 90 seconds after a merge on standard dueling rules.
-
hate america lol, i hate bull**** patriotism and liars.
they all seem to know who they are.
and that is not superduper secret or classified.
-
The parade of one continues!
Neat little drum major outfit you got there.
Nah, my .05 cent guide to Freudian analysis says you probably just hate yourself. All that vitriol seems to flow from an inner, inexhaustable spring. You are just one unhappy person, judging from your rants here.
Too bad all you got out of the Navy was you.
-
no i dislike you because you lie alot in devious ways and you throw crap in the name of patriotism.
decide if what you lied about last time is classified or not?
liar
-
Originally posted by Toad
Too bad all you got out of the Navy was you.
LMAO!!!!
-
mr credibility speaks.
holler out liar and they line up nicely.
-
You are a piece of work, I'll give you that.
Anything YOU don't personally believe is a lie. Anything you do personally believe is unassailable truth, regardless of the the actuality of the situation. After all, if LDV closes his eyes and wishes hard enough....... ANYTHING he says is true!
Great system. No wonder why you're in a constant state of vitriol. Just can't wish that bad old world into your personal utopia, can you?
:lol
-
lord dolf vader,
Why do you even insert yourself in a thread like this. You have nothing to contribute.
Stick with political threads (where you still have nothing to contribute, but at least it is expected that in political threads people spit and urinate).
-
ohh im sorry i got the thread off topic starting with post what 190?
it had degenerated to a pissin match long ago, the long winded liars were out in force wavin the flag. makin all americans look like hollow pissbags of patriotism some of us arent that way.
they are a bunch of buffoons and i call them on it.
superduper secret my ass
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
no i dislike you because you lie alot in devious ways and you throw crap in the name of patriotism.
decide if what you lied about last time is classified or not?
liar
Ok...what's your beef with me, oh pissed one?
-
How's the counseling going? Or did you quit after you changed BBS names?
-
(http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/mig33/mig33-3.jpg)
(http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/mig33/mig33-2.jpg)
There is also a mig-35 Super Fulcrum in development.
Title: MiG-29? No, MiG-33!
Authors: Anatoly Belosvet, Mikoyan design bureau, deputy
general designer,
Yuri Polushkin, Mikoyan design bureau, branch manager
[Abridged translation]
Demonstrated for the first time at Farnborough-94, the MiG-33,
a new Russian fighter, is a deep modernisation of the MiG-29.
The main goals of the modernisation were:
- multifunctionality with further growth of air-to-air and air-to-
ground capability widely using high-precision weapons;
- considerable growth of combat range owing to an increase
in the internal fuel capacity;
- better pilot-to-aircraft interface in the cockpit;
- introduction of new-generation equipment.
The external changes between the MiG-33 and the MiG-29 are
negligable and confined chiefly to the following:
- Changes in the intakes' geometry including the removal of
the upper intake louvres, enlarging inlet dimensions for higher
airflow, installation of movable nets protecting the engines from
the ingestion of foreign objects during take-off and landing.
- The number of hard points has been increased up to nine and
this enables either suspension of a 4,5 tonne bomb load or
eight [Vympel] RVV-AE air-to-air missiles [Russian counterpart
to the AMRAAM]. The MiG-33 can carry same types of
missiles as the MiG-29 does, and many more. For instance, four
air-to-surface missiles such as laser-guided Kh-25ML and Kh-29L,
or TV-guided Kh-29T missiles or four KAB-500KR guided bombs
can be carried .
The number of changes invisible for the eyes of a spectator is
greater. The MiG-33 features more powerful, upgraded engines
and the quadraple-redundant fly-by-wire flight control system.
A new onboard radar with a reprogrammable signal processor
provides not only a greater aerial target detection range, but is
also capable of detection of sea and small-sized ground targets,
ground mapping, terrain following and alerting to avoid ground
obstacles.
A new electro-optical sighting system (EOSS) provides a growth in the
target acquisition range, all-aspect target acquisition and the
capability of illuminating a ground target with the laser laser beam.
It also can detect a "laser spot" being created by an external designator,
identify targets and track automatically ground targets with the help of
the TV-channel. Modern interior of the cockpit features EFIS [electronic
flight-instrumental system] (two multi-function displays, a head-up
display, a track-and-alert system indicator). Besides, the MiG-
33 has more effective computers, running new software along
with [modern] communication, friend-or-foe identification and electronic
warfare systems.
In an effort to reduce the weight and the number of
manufacturing hours as well as to achieve a higher level of
quality, the forward fuselage (including the cockpit section)
is made of aluminium-lithium alloy by means of welding. A
variety of systems and devices have been modernised, including
the landing gear.
The flight performance and the handling qualities either remain
the same [as those of the MiG-29] or boast an improvement, this
is due to the new engine and the fly-by-wire system. The combat
range saw a considerable increase owing to the enlarged fuel
capacity. For an aerial close-in engagement (five 360-degree turns,
load of two medium, two short range missiles, three drop fuel tanks)
the combat radius is 1,250 km. The subsonic interception mission
range (M=0.85, armament of four medium range missiles, three drop
fuel tanks) is 1,440 km, and for a ground target attack mission with
air-to-surface missiles (load of two air-to-surface, two short
range air-to-air missiles, three drop fuel tanks) the comabt radius is
1,190 km.
The overall combat potential was increased by a factor of 1.5 in
air-to-air missions and by a fcator of 3.4 in ground attack missions.
The aircraft has successfully undergone the manufacturer's flight
tests. Moscow Aircraft Production Organisation MAPO has produced the
initial batch of aircraft and is now preparing for mass
production. The Russian-built equipment can be replaced by or
added to western avionics if a customer wishes this. Containers
housing TV-aiming systems can also be fitted. The MiG-33 has good growth
potential to increase its combat efficiency.
The MiG-29/MiG-33/F-16C/F-18C Comparison
>From the authors' viewpoint, those articles and
brochures that sometimes appear in the West comparing the
modernised F-16C and F-18C with the first series MiG-29s,
which date back to 1982-1984, are incorrect. It would be more correct to
compare these [F-16C and F-18C] aircraft with the MiG-29s built
in the last [few] years and the MiG-33. We did this in the attached
tables.
Among others, there are the following advantages of the MiG-29
and the MiG-33 over the F-16C and the F-18C:
- The MiGs feature more complex aiming systems, incorporating
the radar, the OESS and the helmet-mounted sight meanwhile the
American fighters have [only] radars and visual aiming at
targets.
- The MiGs have radars with wider scan and track angles in
azimuth: +/-60 degress for the F-16C, +/-70 for the
MiG-29 and the F-18C, +/-90 for the MiG-33.
- The MiGs have wider zones of target had-off designation for short
air-to-air missiles suspended under pylons: +/-28 degrees for
the AIM-9 [Sidewinder] and +/-45 degrees for the R-73 [NATO code name
Archer] as well as wider target-tracking angles after launch 45 deg for
the AIM-9 and 75 deg for the R-73.
- The Russian aircraft's assigned calendar lifetime is longer (25
years). This has been proved by the operational experience
of the previous models (the MiG-21, the MiG-23 and the MiG-29).
- The MiGs have more effective, in terms of accuracy, methods
of gun firing which are coupled with the larger calibre of the
cannon (30-mm against 20-mm).
- The twin-engine MiG-29 has better flight safety compared with
the single-engine F-16.
Economical factors are of great significance when it comes to
choosing what type of aircraft to buy. Their influence is the key to
understanding why the majority of nations (about 80 countries)
prefer to buy only light-weight fighters like the MiG-29, the
F-16, the F-18, and the Mirage 2000. Heavy-weight fighters, the
F-15 and the Su-27, can be found in service only in the CIS,
the USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Israel and China. Furthermore, in
these countries their share is less than that of light-weight
fighters. Economical characteristics, i.e. the acquisition cost
and the maintenance cost, are also favourable to the MiG-29 and
the MiG-33. After 20 year service life, the economical benifit,
generated by a MiG-29 in comparison with an F-18C would have
generated an equivalent sum equal to the acquisition cost charged
for a new MiG-29.
According to authors' opinion - we are employees of
ANPK Mikoyan Mikoyan design bureau - data shown here
is in favour of the MiG-29 and the MiG-29M (MiG-33). The advantage
of the MiG-29 and the MiG-33 over the Mirage 2000-5 can also be
demonstrated in the same way. New designs, the Rafale and the EFA,
will merely be able to get nearer to the MiG-33 or its further
modifications in terms of tactical characteristics, albeit both
will be much more expensive.
Basic Performance
MiG-33 MiG-29 F-16C F-18C
Take-off weight (full fuel, AAMs), kg 15,300 15,700 12,004 16,800
Thrust with afterburners, kgf 2*8,300 2*8,800 1*12,518 2*7,620
Max. speed at sea level, km/h 1,500 1,500 1,470 1,300
Max. speed at high altitude, km/h 2,450 2,500 1,890 1,900
Range w/out drop tanks at low level, km 710 900 800 950
Range w/out drop tanks at altitude, km 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,200
Thrust-to-weight ratio 1.09:1 1.15:1 1.04:1 0.86:1
Max. g load 9 9 9 9
Rate of climb, m/s 252 234 194 210
Turn rate, degree/s 23.5 22.8 21.5 20
High-speed interception range, km 345 410 389 370
Low-level penetration mission range, km 340 385 400 372
Radar aerial target detection range
(RCS=3sqm), km 60-70 80 50-60 60-65
Maximum AAM launch range, head-on 60 50 45 48
tail-on 27 20 18 18
Number of weapons hardpoints 6 9 9 8
Bomb load, tonne 4 4.5 ... 4.3
Combat readiness coefficient 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.85
Maintenance man-hours per flight hour 11.3 11.0 1 8 16-18
Mean time between failures
in the air and on the ground, hour 13.6 7.3 2.9 3.7
Airframe lifetime, hours 7,000 7,000 8,000 8,000
Relative cost 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0
-
(http://www.defencejournal.com/jun99/images/mig35.jpg)
(http://www.ginklai.net/images/galerija/1403_mig35_02.jpg)
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/mig35/mig35_01.jpg)
DESCRIPTION:
Referred to in different places as the MiG 1.42, 1.44, I-42, I-44, MiG-35, MiG-39, or the Multifunctional Fighter (MFI), the most recent offering from Mikoyan Gurevich is a prototype for an advanced next-generation air superiority fighter. The aircraft bears a slight resemblance to the Eurofighter Typhoon, and its designers claim it is nearly as stealthy as and more capable that the American F-22. The prototype made its first flight in early 2000, but otherwise little is known about this new aircraft. Though the Russian military has announced that it has no plans to acquire the MiG 1.42, Mikoyan Gurevich is continuing development hoping to attract a buyer for the advanced design. Unfortunately, the project has not fared well, losing much potential funding and interest to the rival Sukhoi Su-47. It is likely that the MiG 1.42 will instead serve as a technology demonstrator to showcase advanced fighter concepts for less ambitious future projects.
More information on the MiG-35 will be presented as it becomes available
Last modified 28 December 2000
HISTORY:
First Flight February 2000
Service Entry
unknown
CREW: 1 pilot
ESTIMATED COST:
unknown
AIRFOIL SECTIONS:
Wing Root unknown
Wing Tip
unknown
DIMENSIONS:
Length 65.58 ft (20.01 m)
Wingspan 42.67 ft (13.02 m)
Height 17.08 ft (5.21 m)
Wing Area unknown
Canard Area
unknown
WEIGHTS:
Empty unknown
Typical Load unknown
Max Takeoff 70,000 lb (31,750 kg)
Fuel Capacity internal: unknown
external: unknown
Max Payload
16,390 lb (5,000 kg)
PROPULSION:
Powerplant two Lyulka AL-41F afterburning turbofans
Thrust approx. 45,000 lb (200 kN)
PERFORMANCE:
Max Level Speed at altitude: 1,720 mph (2,750 km/h) , Mach 2.6
at sea level: 950 mph (1,520 km/h), Mach 1.25
Initial Climb Rate unknown
Service Ceiling 55,720 ft (17,000 m)
Range typical: 2,160 nm (4,000 km)
ferry: unknown
g-Limits unknown
ARMAMENT:
Gun one 30-mm cannon
Stations one (?) internal weapons bay and four (?) external hardpoints
Air-to-Air Missile unknown
Air-to-Surface Missile unknown
Bomb unknown
Other unknown
KNOWN VARIANTS:
(?) One-seat fighter
(?) Two-seat trainer (presumably)
KNOWN COMBAT RECORD:
none
KNOWN OPERATORS:
none as of 7/2000
3-VIEW SCHEMATIC:
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/mig35/mig35_schem_01.gif)
-
Good posts Senna, Russia's latest production fighter compares well to USA's 1975 fighters, and their 2000 prototype compares nicely to the USA's 1990 prototype. So they are catching up, only 10 years behind instead of 25. :)
-
LOL, I had no idea there was a mig-35 till 15 minutes ago.
-
More on the Mig-25/31 as viable interceptor, even by todays standards (http://www.espacetickets.com/foxbat.htm)
-
Yes GScholz, the russians do seem to make good fighters. At least capable ones. Too bad for them the Iraqi pilots sucked.
:)
-
Hmmm, Boroda is on his crappy-go, so finally I can have some fun.:D
First:
"WE didn't have strategic bombers, 25 megaton load each, on CAP ready to burn millions of people to ashes 24/7 as you did in 60s."
Boroda, My country does not even have an army. (You must have thought I was American or something). And strategic bombers from the USSR or not, your guys have been flying around our little "Iceland" for decades. We have no knowledge of what they were carrying aboard, but however after the iron curtain dropped, it was indeed discovered that our capital (Reykjavik) was targeted for nuking by the USSR. (3 aiming points for aerial combustion over central city)
So, from my point of view, WE do not have an army, but YOU had us on your target list.
Secondly Boroda, I gave you a statement. This: "Beginning from the North: Finland, the 3 Baltic states, Poland, Czechoslovakia,Hungary, and then you have covered most of the area between the Arctic circle and the Black sea. Hell that's 7 out of the 9 countries on that route, leaving just Norway and communist Romania out! "
You can call this crap, but these are the facts. Please explain how you define this as crap. The countries mentioned were entered, overtaken or invaded, - i.e. taken over by military force, by the USSR in the period of 29 years, from 1939 to 1968. As far as I can read, and most, but can you??? (BTW, look for recent printed stuff, preferably outside USSR origin if older than 1990 or so):D
Thirdly Boroda, from your brain (the only cell?) came this :
"Beautiful when any lamer without a basic knowledge of history starts to teach me. "
Well, mr. "ME", I just intend to do that. Please be a good student and read the statement above again.
Fourthly, about your creative statement: "I have a hangover, felt two times slipping on ice in the street, and i come here and read such crap"
Hehe, I just walked my Icy lane to the house without slipping, grabbed a beer from the fridge (it won't freeze there) and as I am sipping it, I feel fully certain that I won't be having hangovers when I wake up tomorrow.
Nope. I will read your History essay with a completely clear head.
So good luck on your studies Boroda, and I will always assist you in the search for outside-USSR-cencored material about history
;)
-
Nanananana Scholzie!
The Baltic states were captured practically overnight. Finland was invaded while completely neutral, - their alliance with Germany came later on in the spirit of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Poland was marched into as soon as the wind was right, according to the contract USSR had with the Nazi Germany. The Czech and Hungarians got marched over when their politics became too liberal.
Just leaves you Norse out together with Ceausescu, from the Arctic to the Black sea :D
Oh, btw, its about this "entered, overtaken or invaded"
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Actually the Iraqi pilots were very good. Most of them were trained in the US. What made the Iraqi air force impotent during GW1 was the vastly superior coalition command and control coupled with the total destruction of Iraqi command and control.
You might want to tell that to the Saudi pilot that splashed two (or was it three?) Iraqi pilots on the 2nd day of the war, all within 2 min. of each other.. ;)
And, do you have a link that shows Iraqi pilots that fought in GW1 were trained in the US?
-
I heard on "Wings" that the migs the Saudi pilot shot down were on a training mission.
I am a little shocked at how those Mig25s were able to F up Allied operations, and escape harm. Oh well.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
I heard on "Wings" that the migs the Saudi pilot shot down were on a training mission.
The Saudi shot down two French-built Mirage F-1's, believed to be armed with Exocet missiles. Assessment is they were headed down the coast towards HMS Gloucester and HMS Cardiff.
Be pretty unusual to train in an active war zone.
-
Ahh, all that French stuff. And Exocet is a frigging flying torpedo.
-
Food for thoght
Quote
--------------------------
This is the kind of question that gets discussed all the time, but doesn't really have an answer.
First, best for what? Every fighter is designed with a particular set of requirements in mind. "Fighter" is a fairly general term that covers a multitude of missions. A Tornado F.3 or a MiG-31 is an excellent long-range interceptor, but you wouldn't want to send one of them up against an F-16 or an Su-27 in a dogfight.
Second, the aircraft itself isn't the only factor involved, or even the most important one. Put two aircraft of similar (or even somewhat different) capabilities up against each other, and by far the most important factor is the relative skills of the two pilots. It's widely believed that superior pilot training was the main reason why American F-86 Sabres consistently gained air superiority over technically superior Russian MiG-15s in the Korean War.
Third, even apparently identical fighters can differ enormously in their electronics fit; and in modern fighters, the electronics is at least as important (not to mention expensive) as the airframe. Export versions of fighters are normally much less capable in the electronic sphere than the equivalent models for the home air force, even when the aircraft have the same designation; does anyone expect the F-16Cs exported to, say, Egypt to be anywhere near the capability of the F-16Cs in USAF service? Older aircraft can be upgraded to modern electronic standards at a fraction of the cost of new fighters, an option increasingly popular in these days of tightened defence budgets (for example, the RNZAF recently upgraded its Skyhawk fleet with a radar and avionics suite equivalent to that of the F-16A).
-
Food for thought
---------------------
"When is a thread actually dead?"
There are two main camps in this discussion. Some will argue that a thread that hasn't been responded to in a certain amount of time (be it a day or month) is dead. Variations on this include threads that leave the first page of the summary view or threads that don't have enough participants to keep it afloat among other, more active threads.
The other camp says that a thread never actually dies, but instead enters a state of suspended animation. "There's no technological reason", they argue, "why a 10 year old message can't be responded to if there is new information." In fact, this group will argue that a thread can continue until the very heat death of the universe precludes further conversation.
I submit evidence that ATA is a member of group #2.
-
Beginning from the North: Finland, the 3 Baltic states, Poland, Czechoslovakia,Hungary, and then you have covered most of the area between the Arctic circle and the Black sea. Hell that's 7 out of the 9 countries on that route, leaving just Norway and communist Romania out! Not agressive my arse!
With the exception that Finland was never 'assimilated' or invaded. It lost land but was able to stop the invasion.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Soviets and Americans had different concepts of shturmoviks (close ground support ACs). Americans made a dumb plane with smart weapons, while Russians made smart plane with dumb weapons. Now guess why Su-25s in Chechnya fly with non-guided rockets and FABs (dumb bombs).
A-10 will be limited to cannon when it will run out of expensive guided weapons. Su-25 will be always able to hit a sewer (cloaca) hatch with a 250kg (as they did in 1995 blowing up Chechen bunkers in Grozniy).
A-10 limited to cannon after the US runs out of guided weapons? Not hardly. The A-10 can carry just about any munition in the USAF inventory, including guided and UNguided munitions.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Key word here "when it will run out of expensive guided weapons"
I'm not sure of the ord. capacity of the the SU25 but I know the A10 can carry a watermelon load of ord.
BUT, Its primary reason for being was to destroy commie tanks in europe during WWIII. Not for blowing up sewers (allthough it is mighty capable)
Also there is nothing stopping the A10 from carrying "dumb" weapons at all. I think it has proven itself more than enough on the battle field. Ask any A10 driver that's ever taken damage how much they love their airplane
cool damage pics of A10s (http://community.webshots.com/album/68307890cAlTrT)
Iirc the A-10 has 13 weapons pylons. The A-10 can indeed carry a crap load of ordinance. The A-10 was designed to kill tanks but that doesnt mean thats all it can do.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
True.
Legends say that MiG-25 pilots in the North knew SR pilots by names and even chatted like friends. Other legends (that I don't believe) say that some guy refused to shoot at SR because he knew the pilot.
Other legends are that there were one or two SRs shot down in the Arctic, 25s were used as hounds and led SRs to a range of an undiscovered S-200 SAM. S-200 crew is supposed to deploy to a working condition from wheels in 14 hours - but I don't know anyone who will even try it. Anyway it's an adventure not worth shooting one enemy scout plane over tundra, and not even mentioning it in propaganda purposes like Powers U-2.
Please notice that SRs were used mostly in the areas not filled with aircraft defence. If it could dare to fly over Leningrad or Murmansk - it could last for no more then five minutes.
Heh the Sr-71 could, and did, outrun SAMs fired at it. I could tell you how I know that, but since it is still classified I'd have to kill all of you if I told.....and I am to lazy to do that ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yeah, when you pit the world's largest (or second largest) air force up against a tiny one you get those results. Ho Chi Minh was right when he said "You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it".
A 3 to 1 kill ratio against the NV Migs IS a loss, a 12 to 1 kill ratio is perhaps breaking even under the circumstances. F-4 Phantom II - $18.4 million, Mig-21/Chinese F-7 - $1.2 million. The NV managed to field 200 Migs at most, had they used F-4s instead they would only have had an air force of 13 planes.
Assuming every bird we lost was a Phantom is kinda stupid as
well. There were an awful lot of F-105s flying over NVN as well.
In fact, Operation Bolo was used to
sucker Migs up to engage F4s flying in F-105 formations and using
F-105 callsigns.
Having GCA radar vector your fighters to a prime position while
flying over your own territory seems a good way to counter
numbers, especially as Toad has pointed out, the enemy nerfs it's
own capabilities by rediculous ROE.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The US also figured out that arming their planes with missiles only was a bad move..they started fitting the F4's with gunpods. Missiles where not reliable in those days. I saw on a documentary that something like one in four air to air missiles on both sides failed to fire or work properly.
Has nothing to do with the topic but but...but.....nevermind...
Now where is that wineopener..?
Thats true Nilsen, the F-D's were outfitted with 20mm gunpods until McDonnel Douglas could manufacture the F-4E with an internal, nose mounted 20mm gun.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes they could not pursue the Migs to their home fields, neither could the Migs pursue the US due to being completely outnumbered. What other ROE limitations were imposed on the US pilots? Surly when combat was initiated they were free to engage at will. Your ROE excuse is just that ... an excuse.
The VPAF never had a strength of more than 200 planes, compare that with the more than 8500 aircraft the US lost during the Vietnam War. You did lose the war Toad. ;)
Your figure of 8500 US aircraft lost in Vietnam is rather misleading. That includes jets lost due to ground fire and includes helicopter losses.
-
WE didn't have strategic bombers, 25 megaton load each, on CAP ready to burn millions of people to ashes 24/7 as you did in 60s. Understand it and please STFU.
That was part of our policy of deterrent. It worked quite well. Maybe YOU should understand it? ;)
-
Scholz, read "A Better War" by Lewis Sorley, then get back to me on the war.
We lost politically, not militarily.
As for the MiG's it was plenty bad for them and would have been MUCH worse if they'd been subjected to unrestricted air warfare.
If you don't realize that, no point in discussing it.
-
The Mig 25 was a pile of crap compaired to the SR-71. The SR-71 FAR outperfomed it.....and the SR-71 was 1950's US technology.....first flew in 1964.
-
I know this much.
The Mig-25 set an absolute world altitude record of 123,524 ft. The Mig-25 WAS NOT a fighter, it was an Interceptor (just like the Tomcat). The Mig-25 had two Tumansky 11,000kg/24,250lb afterburning thrust R-31 turbojet engines (i.e. NOT a Ramjet, like previously emplored by someone in the thread). The range of the Mig-25 was around 700miles.
Originally posted by Roscoroo
" I think some of the guys are thinking about the YE- 155 / 266 (whatever it was called) which was like a Mig-25 and it did set alot of alt and speed records in its time. "
I think the following wil clear this up for all:
On July 25, 1973, a Ye-266, using the same airframe as the MiG-25 but equipped with more powerful engines, set the world's absolute altitude record for a ground-launched air-breathing aircraft, reaching 118,867 ft. (36,230 m). On August 31, 1977, the record was broken by a modified MiG-25 (E-266M) and taken to 123,524 ft. (37,650 m).
As for the F-15. Everyone has skipped over the F-15A "Streak Eagle" which broke eight time-to-climb world records between Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1975. In setting the last of the eight records, it reached an altitude of 98,425 ft. just 3 minutes 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and "coasted to nearly 103,000 ft. before descending".
The Mig-25 is surely an incredible aircraft in terms of performance and it's ability to outclimb all takers, but every other category is sorely lacking, when looking at an "overall type picture".
When I think of sweet Soviet Aircraft I think of the Sukhoi-Su-37. It is without a doubt the most manueverable aircraft in the World, save it is still not in production.
On 10 March 1987 and 23 March 1988, an Su-27 (designated P-42), flown by Sukhoi test pilots Viktor Pugachev, Nikolai Sadovnikov, Evgeny Frolov (who brought the Su-37 to Farnborough) and Oleg Tsoi. Together they established 27 new world time-to-height/climb records which were formally held by the McAir "Streak Eagle" F-15 on 16 January 1975 flown by Majors Roger Smith and Willard MacFarlane. The new records included:
ˆ 25.373 seconds to 3,000 meters (9,842 feet)
ˆ 36.050 seconds to 6,000 meters (19,685 feet)
ˆ 44.176 seconds to 9,000 meters (29,527 feet)
ˆ 55.542 seconds to 12,000 meters (39,370 feet)
ˆ 70.329 seconds to 15,000 meters (49,213 feet)
AS for an F-15 vs Mig-25 meeting:
In one incident, an Iraqi Foxbat-E eluded eight American F-15's, firing three missiles at EF-111 electronic warfare aircraft and forcing them to abort their mission. In another incident, two MiG-25's approached a pair of F-15 Eagles, fired missiles (which were evaded by the F-15's), and then outran the American fighters. Two more F-15's joined the pursuit, and a total of ten air-to-air missiles were fired at the Foxbats, none could reach them.
Well, I am tired, and probably offended someone with these facts. I really don't care either, Good night.
Karaya
PS - The A-10 is STILL my fav. current ride in the air.