Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Odee on July 23, 2007, 12:35:16 PM
-
Well worth the reading, imho.
From: David Pace
Subject: Fw: Fighting against an F-22.
'Sprey said his briefing focused on the time-tested factors that define
an effective fighter plane: (1) See the enemy first; (2) outnumber the enemy;
(3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire, and (4) kill the enemy quickly.
Having spent two weeks fighting two raptors against 6-8 of our latest
technology F-15Cs with datalink, AIM-9X, helmet mounted cueing
system and the latest radar software:
1) We never acquired the raptor with our radars before our eyes.
We occasionally saw it in the cons at 60+K, but by that time we
were already dead.
2) We outnumbered the raptors 3-1 or 4-1, and never even got a
valid shot off on one.
3) The only BFM setup even worth attempting against a raptor is a
6K offensive setup, and you're just trying to keep from going defensive.
If you're at 3K approaching a gun wez, he will stop so fast you can't
help but overshoot. If you're at 9K offensive, he turns around and
shoots you before you get to his turn circle. No need to even talk about
when he starts offensive.
4) Given the above info, killing the raptor quickly wasn't an option, we
couldn't even kill one! I was convinced.We were even fighting some of
the initial lots of airplanes, before their data links were working correctly
and they had older software. I haven't fought the newer lots flown at
Tyndall or Langley, but I can assure you they are even more lethal. Sortie
rates are on the rise, software stability is on the rise. All I can say to the
critics is in 20 years when this airplane goes to war it will still dominate,
just like the Eagle did when w <> e employed it 18 years after fielding!
-
Im sure it is correct, but if they did manage to "shoot" one down, do you think we would ever hear about it how a present (third?) generation managed to get the super expensive f22? ;)
-
I would doubt it is as cosmic as the USAF would like you to believe and I also doubt that it is not a quantum leap forward in fighter technology as its likely opponents are probably hoping.
-
The SU-37 is it's only formidable opponent and it does'nt have stealth.
-
Originally posted by rpm
The SU-37 is it's only formidable opponent and it does'nt have stealth.
The F-22 wouldn't need to dogfight the Su-37, just kill it with BVR tactics.
Even w/o BVR tactics I'd still take an F-22 over an Su-37 because of the videos that were posted in a previous thread not long ago an Eagl's explanation of how the Su-37 was actually stalled during many of those insane maneuvers and the F-22 didn't stall.
I do think the Su-37 looks a lot sexier than the F-22 even though I do like the looks of the F-22 as well. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Im sure it is correct, but if they did manage to "shoot" one down, do you think we would ever hear about it how a present (third?) generation managed to get the super expensive f22? ;)
I'm sure the F-22 has it's weakness's just as I'm sure those weakness's are a very closely guarded secret right now. ;)
-
The F22 is American Propaganda.... pure and simple... :lol
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The F22 is American Propaganda.... pure and simple... :lol
was that remark aimed at me by any chanse?
-
"Even w/o BVR tactics I'd still take an F-22 over an Su-37 because of the videos that were posted in a previous thread not long ago an Eagl's explanation of how the Su-37 was actually stalled during many of those insane maneuvers and the F-22 didn't stall."
Well, I'm quite sure the Su-37 can be flown effectively without stalling it but Russians like to show its aerodynamical qualities, and the use of such maneuvers in dogfight is very questionable but such stability is useful in any plane if it is flown at the limit or outside of its controlled maneuvering envelope. I'm not sure what F22 would do in such uncontrolled state. Would it regain control easily or would it tumble and take time get under control again?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The F-22 wouldn't need to dogfight the Su-37, just kill it with BVR tactics.
Even w/o BVR tactics I'd still take an F-22 over an Su-37 because of the videos that were posted in a previous thread not long ago an Eagl's explanation of how the Su-37 was actually stalled during many of those insane maneuvers and the F-22 didn't stall.
I do think the Su-37 looks a lot sexier than the F-22 even though I do like the looks of the F-22 as well. ;)
I'm sure computers have a LOT to do with not stalling in those maneuvers. One advantage the Su-37 has over the F-22 is the thrust vectoring system. The 37's system can vector more directions than the 22's can.
You are right about BVR. If those two ever tangle it will be because they were already out of ord when they met. But never say never.
-
Has any of these manuvers been done with full weaponload, or have they only been done in a clean configuration at airshows?
-
I'm sure they have tested with a load. You don't want a missle popping loose from it's hardpoint because you forgot to test G loading during those maneuvers.
-
I never cease to be amazed at the ammount of negativity posts like mine engender.
-
:huh
-
Originally posted by rpm
:huh
-
It's only a calm discussion about the Free World's most important fighter for the next two decades. No worries! :noid
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
was that remark aimed at me by any chanse?
No, just the naysayers in general concerning the F-22.
-
I just have concerns for the F-35, which is neither as stealthy as the F-22 nor does it have thrust vectoring. If the F-15 has no chance, even in a Within Visual Range fight, how is an F-35, which has about the same flight performance as an F-16, going to compete against upcoming Chinese and Russian thrust vectoring jets?
-
ok...not seen any good footage of an F22 doing comparable maneuvers to the Su displays , but and given im not an aerodynamicst..but surely any aircraft flown at those speeds and angles of attack are not flying in the pure sense of the word...ie the wing isnt generating the lift to keep the aircraft up......so im not too happy to accept the su is stalled and the f22 isnt....both aircraft are kept in the air during these maneauvers by thrust control alone.I dont think even an f22 is flying in the pure sense of the word when it is stood still on it's tail or going backwards??????By the way before you all dig out yr hunting rifles , this is not an attack on the f22 of the su for that matter ,just my view on things.
cheers all :)
-
if f35 does not have thrust vectoring .....how does it do vtol???
-
F-35 that can do VTOL has a lift fan, and it can rotate its engine nozzle straight down. It can't maneuver the engine nozzle during flight, it can only point it straight down for takeoffs and landings.
-
has it been tried , i only ask as the idea of "viffing " came to harriers after they got in to service ..
-
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/F18FGUNF-2202.jpg)
This is an F-18 with a firing solution on a F-22. Apparently thats impossible if we are to believe the pilots analysis.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
No, just the naysayers in general concerning the F-22.
I think its healthy to be abit sceptic of military personel issuing stories of how great their new toy is compared to the second best stuff they have.
-
horlund
that dont count as it's a cherry pick :)and the f22 pilot was afk
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
This is an F-18 with a firing solution on a F-22. Apparently thats impossible if we are to believe the pilots analysis.
Careful anallysis indicates your firing solution is a snap shot at best... no lock on. Hence, no firing solution.
Expat ...i only ask as the idea of "viffing " came to harriers after they got in to service ..
I could have sworn those two nozzels on either side of the fuselage could be used to VIFF. I know they rotate independtly of the main V/STOL fan, so it's still possible, in theory.
-
Why is the USAAF version of the F-35 the only one with an internal 25mm cannon? The Marine and Navy versions won't have an internal gun, instead will carry a 25mm gun pod.
ack-ack
-
Hort,
That's not exactly even a good snapshot.
Look at the speed, G load, velocity vector of the F-18 (caged low at the bottom of the hud), and the fact that the gun cross and F-18 are not in plane with the F-22. It looks a bit like a no-lock high angle snapshot, with the F-18 pretty much falling out of the sky.
Low PK at best. Yea it's a cool picture and the fact that the F-22 was even threatened at all is a bad thing for the F-22 pilot (heh) but I wouldn't expect the F-22 to be brought down by that shot.
The F-18 can move the nose fairly well, but right there it's over 20 deg nose low (with the velocity vector even lower) so there isn't any way the F-18 can follow the F-22 through that maneuver.
I found a discussion about that pic from back in March... Basically the discussion over there was pretty much the same - it's probably a valid low-PK snapshot. Regarding the comment on how the ranging could be valid even though there is no radar lock... er... I can't talk about radar modes except to say that the displayed range could be correct or incorrect depending on a lot of factors.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/37371-raptors-debut-red-flag-wield-unfair-advantage-3.html
Apparently there are more pics over there too.
As for the "impossibility" of the shot, I don't think anyone ever said that it was impossible, merely unlikely in training and even less likely in a "fair" fight (meaning both sides are allowed unrestricted real-world tactics).
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/F18FGUNF-2202.jpg)
This is an F-18 with a firing solution on a F-22. Apparently thats impossible if we are to believe the pilots analysis.
I don't supposed it occured to you this might have been taken when they weren't dogfighting and the F22 wasn't trying to win the engagement?
No, not if you don't want to accept that it that possibility.
Probably a photoshop anyway.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/F18FGUNF-2202.jpg)
This is an F-18 with a firing solution on a F-22. Apparently thats impossible if we are to believe the pilots analysis.
how come the US Airforce hasn't made you disappear yet, you just showed us the invincible fighter isn't invincible!
Any way, the F35 is cheaper than the F22 so thats why it is being made.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm sure computers have a LOT to do with not stalling in those maneuvers. One advantage the Su-37 has over the F-22 is the thrust vectoring system. The 37's system can vector more directions than the 22's can.
You are right about BVR. If those two ever tangle it will be because they were already out of ord when they met. But never say never.
Apparently...and this is just something I read, so take it for whatever you think it is worth.....the F-22 is supposedly already so good in the Yaw that it didn't need thrust vectoring except in the pitch angle.
Like you said, computers and software can make a huge difference. I don't know anything at all really about the computers the Su-37 uses. I don't think anyone except the pilots and developers know all that much about the F-22's computers/software yet. Would be neat to know that stuff though. :)
-
Originally posted by expat
has it been tried , i only ask as the idea of "viffing " came to harriers after they got in to service ..
viffing was banned though wasn't it?
F-22 weakness... two words... infra red.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Why is the USAAF version of the F-35 the only one with an internal 25mm cannon? The Marine and Navy versions won't have an internal gun, instead will carry a 25mm gun pod.
ack-ack
To save weight i belive.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The F22 is American Propaganda.... pure and simple... :lol
I touched one. its real!
-
Well, there is one more picture...
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/F18FGUNF-2203.jpg)
-
And then, later on, the F22's are going to get pawned by RC aircraft flown by AH'ers :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
And then, later on, the F22's are going to get pawned by RC aircraft flown by AH'ers :D
Sadly, thats probably true :cry
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Sadly, thats probably true :cry
And scary as well.
-
wheres top gun ?
-
Is the F-18 not a 9g aircraft? I keep looking at the max-gs on the HUD, and its reading 7.6. I would have expected it to be maxed out at 9 or 10.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The F-22 wouldn't need to dogfight the Su-37, just kill it with BVR tactics.
Even w/o BVR tactics I'd still take an F-22 over an Su-37 because of the videos that were posted in a previous thread not long ago an Eagl's explanation of how the Su-37 was actually stalled during many of those insane maneuvers and the F-22 didn't stall.
I do think the Su-37 looks a lot sexier than the F-22 even though I do like the looks of the F-22 as well. ;)
F-22 will be shot down by good old Russian SAM before Su-30 will take off.
Useless to talk about "our fighter is better then yours". It's the system, from AWACS planes to simple ground observers watching the sky.
Sukhoi's "cobra" maneuver has one good purpose: to break the enemy SAM auto-tracking.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #4
-
"Talk to me goose."
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Originally posted by Viking
See Rule #4
You called me an alt monkey once. =)
ack-ack
-
Yeah, that's true. I did. However I don't think you so low as to call you a thing, as in "anything American". ;)
In any case I don't think calling you an alt-monkey constitutes "bashing". After all you really are an alt-monkey! :D
-
F-22 will be shot down by good old Russian SAM before Su-30 will take off.
Being shot down by a SAM isn't very likely for the F-22. From all reports it is very, very difficult to get a lock on the F-22.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Being shot down by a SAM isn't very likely for the F-22. From all reports it is very, very difficult to get a lock on the F-22.
OK if so.
:D
I hope we'll never know. I was taught that there is nothing that can't be shot down, broken or blown up ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
OK if so.
:D
I hope we'll never know. I was taught that there is nothing that can't be shot down, broken or blown up ;)
You were taught that before Stealth technology ;)
I agree, lets hope we never have to find out. :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
OK if so.
:D
I hope we'll never know. I was taught that there is nothing that can't be shot down, broken or blown up ;)
How did Mother Russia do shooting down an SR-71?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Dago
How did Mother Russia do shooting down an SR-71?
:rofl
Good point. ;)
-
Serbs did a pretty good job bagging a F-117.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Serbs did a pretty good job bagging a F-117.
ack-ack
Isn't that the only one that has ever been shot down by AA defenses? If so, the F-117 still has a pretty remarkable combat record.
-
the F-117's were flying the same course at the same time every night, the serbs just shot everything into the air when it passed over, it was a lucky ballistic hit. The tactics were changed after that.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
You were taught that before Stealth technology ;)
I agree, lets hope we never have to find out. :)
Show me a thing that can't be broken, crashed, spoiled or destroyed.
Except SR-71, sure :D We have shot a U-2, so probably you didn't send Blackbirds inside SAM range. There were myths about S-200 SAM shooting down a Blackbird, over polar tundra, in an ambush, but I don't believe it. U-2 on May Day 1960 was real :D
-
Came across this on a search about the F-117 shoot down...
The F-117 Shootdown
It did not take long for the problems connected with the air war’s SEAD effort to register their first toll. On the fourth night of air operations, an apparent barrage of SA-3s downed an F-117 at approximately 2045 over hilly terrain near Budanovci, about 28 miles northwest of Belgrade- marking the first combat loss ever of a stealth aircraft. Fortunately, the pilot ejected safely and, against formidable odds, was recovered before dawn the next day by a combat search and rescue team using MH-53 Pave Low and MH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters led by a flight of A-10s.
Afterward, this unexpected event occasioned a flurry of speculation regarding how it might have taken place. Experts at Lockheed Martin Corporation, the aircraft’s manufacturer, reported that- unlike earlier instances of F-117 combat operations- the missions flown over Yugoslavia required the aircraft to operate in ways that may have compromised its stealthy characteristics. By way of example, they noted that even a standard turning maneuver could increase the aircraft’s radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more. Such turns were unavoidable in the constricted airspace within which the F-117s had to fly.15 Another unconfirmed report suggested that the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft monitoring enemy SAM activity may have failed to locate the SA-3 battery thought to have downed the F-117 and may not have relayed timely indications of enemy SAM activity to the appropriate C2 authorities. Lending credence to that interpretation, Gen Richard Hawley, commander of Air Combat Command at the time, commented that “when you have a lot of unlocated threats, you are at risk even in a stealth airplane.”16
Although the Air Force has remained understandably silent about the confluence of events it believes occasioned the F-117’s downing, according to press reports, Air Force assessors concluded, after conducting a formal postmortem, that a lucky combination of low-technology tactics, rapid learning, and astute improvisation had converged in one fleeting instant to enable an SA-3 not operating in its normal, radar-guided mode to down the aircraft. Undoubtedly, enemy spotters in Italy reported the aircraft’s takeoff from Aviano, and IADS operators in Serbia, as well as those in Bosnia and along the Montenegrin coast, could have assembled enough glimpses of its position en route to its target from scattered radars to cue a SAM battery near Belgrade to fire at the appropriate moment. The aircraft had already dropped one laser-guided bomb (LGB) near Belgrade, offering the now-alerted air defenders yet another clue. (The Air Force is said to have ruled out theories hinging on a stuck weapons-bay door, a descent to below 15,000 feet, or a hit by AAA.)17
Allegedly, at least three procedural errors contributed to the downing.18 First, ELINT collectors reportedly could not track the changing location of the three or four offending SAM batteries. Three low-frequency Serb radars that could have detected the F-117’s presence, at least theoretically, were not neutralized because US strike aircraft had earlier bombed the wrong aiming points within the radar complexes. Also, F-16CJs carrying HARMs and operating in adjacent airspace could have deterred the SA-3 battery from emitting, but those aircraft had been recalled before the F-117 shootdown.
The second alleged procedural error entailed an EA-6B support jammer that was operating too far away from the F-117 (80 to 100 miles) to offer much protection. Furthermore, it was out of proper alignment with the offending threat radars, resulting in inefficient jamming.
Last, F-117s operating out of Aviano had previously flown along more or less the same transit routes for four nights in a row (because of SACEUR’s ban on overflight of Bosnia) to avoid jeopardizing the Dayton Accords. That would have made their approach pattern into Yugoslav airspace predictable. Knowing the direction the F-117s would take, Serb air defenders could have employed low-frequency radars for the best chance of getting a snap look at the aircraft. Former F-117 pilots and several industry experts acknowledged that the aircraft is detectable by such radars when viewed from the side or directly below. US officials also suggested that the Serbs may have gotten brief, nightly radar hits while the aircraft’s weapons bay doors opened fleetingly.
In the immediate aftermath of the shootdown, heated arguments arose in Washington and elsewhere over whether US European Command had erred in not acting aggressively to destroy the wreckage of the downed F-117 in order to keep its valuable technology out of unfriendly hands and eliminate its propaganda value, which the Serbs made every effort to exploit.19 Said Gen John M. Loh, USAF, retired, former commander of Tactical Air Command, “I’m surprised we didn’t bomb it, because the standing procedure has always been that when you lose something of real or perceived value- in this case real technology, stealth- you destroy it.”20 Paul Kaminski, the Pentagon’s former acquisition chief and the Air Force’s first F-117 program manager during the 1970s, bolstered the case for at least trying to deny the enemy the wreckage. He noted that, although the F-117 had been operational for 15 years, “there are things in that airplane, while they may not be leading technologies today in the United States, [that] are certainly ahead of what some potential adversaries have.” Kaminski added that the main concern was not that any exploitation of the F-117’s low-observable technology would enable an enemy to put the F-117 at greater risk but that it could help him eventually develop his own stealth technology in due course.21 Reports indicated that military officials had at first considered attempting to destroy the wreckage but opted in the end not to follow through because they could not have located it before civilians and the media surrounded it.22 Those issues aside, whatever the precise explanation for the downing, it meant not only the loss of a key US combat aircraft, but also the dimming of the F-117’s former aura of invincibility, which for years had carried incalculable psychological value.
-
The F35 isn't exactly in the same league as the 22. It's supposed to be a little more simple with some of the same qualities and technologies.
Dare I compare it to the F4 Phantom only in the sense that it's designed to provide similar parts through out the 3 services that are going to use it.
Another comon misconception is that ALL JSF will be VTOL. This is incorrect where as only one version of it will be. (the B model I beleive)
From what I've heard it's not trying to replace F15s but more F16s and Harriers.
With one comment saying what's going to happen when it comes up against superior Chinese and russian air craft.....well that all depends on the tactics being used.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Show me a thing that can't be broken, crashed, spoiled or destroyed.
Except SR-71, sure :D We have shot a U-2, so probably you didn't send Blackbirds inside SAM range. There were myths about S-200 SAM shooting down a Blackbird, over polar tundra, in an ambush, but I don't believe it. U-2 on May Day 1960 was real :D
No one is saying it *cant* be shot down, that would be a rediculous statement to make, just that it's very unlikely to be shot down by a SAM based on reports we have about how hard it is to lock on to.
From reports I have heard, yes the US did send the SR 71 into Soviet airspace. It was to fast and flew to high to be shot down with the SAMs the Soviets had. Heard about one SR 71 that got shot at over North Korea. When they saw the SAM, one of them said, "Oh look, they're shooting at us" then laughed. Supposedly that SAM missed by over 3 miles. Now this doesn't mean that a better SAM couldn't have been built that was actually fast enough to catch the SR 71, just that the Soviets didn't have one at the time.
-
SR-71s flew lots of missions over North Vietnam. The majority of the missles fired at the SR-71 were from sites in North Vietnam.
Unlike other aircraft, the faster the SR-71 flew, the more fuel efficient it was. The only thing really limiting the plane in speed was temperature. Friction caused even the canopy glass to be 300 degrees, while the rest of the plane was usually around 700 degrees. Flying much faster than Mach 3 would have caused the plane to melt. The SR-71s engines (J-58s) were good for at least Mach 3.6 according to many sources.
-
How fast are the SAM's?
-
Originally posted by Angus
How fast are the SAM's?
Well it varies according to each particular SAM, but up to MACH 3 seems to be all I can find. Most of the web sites I found in my short search didn't list the missile speeds.
-
Modern theater defense missiles like the Patriot and S-300/400 have a max speed of around Mach 5. Older missiles like those in use when the U-2 and SR-71 flew had a top speed of around Mach 3. Smaller portable and vehicle mounted SAMS are typically Mach 1.5-3.
-
I read a report from a mig 31 jockey who intercepted an sr71 over soviet airspace ,nothing is impossible stealth technology does not make you totaly invisible just harder to see and according to an RAF pilot friend of mine the older longer wave misile systems dont have too much problem seeing you , the newer shortwave radar setups are the ones that have the problem.
Back in the late 60's Lockheed were well upset when the brits tracked the blackbird for it's first showing in the paris (or was that farnborough forgive me im well tanked up in Prague on me hols :) ) airshow , they were actually tracking the heated air around the blackbird , but traking it none the less.
While were on the subject of shooting down U2'S didnt Gary Powers loose a fair bit of hieght enabling the missiles to get him ??????
Anyway just my tuppence worth..
ta ta pip pip an all that : back to the bar ....dobrey dan:)
-
I doubt it was a MiG-31; it entered service in 1982. Must have been a MiG-25 ... if it really happened. MiG-31 isn't as fast as the MiG-25 either.
-
Oh, and dobro dan to you too.
-
defo mig 31 remeber the write up , it was in one of the better aircraft mags...was no too long ago the write up that is .....
did i spell the dobro thingy correct ????
any way nashledanou
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Has any of these manuvers been done with full weaponload, or have they only been done in a clean configuration at airshows?
all the display manovers can be done with full weapons load. the SU27, Mig29 and SU33 were designed with these manovers in mindfor combat . It alows the pilot to pop off missile shots while pulling high AoA with very little G on the pilons. the thrust vectoring only gives the plane a g rating of 3 to pull the nose up at an angle of 58deg where as a conventional plane has to pull 6-8 G to get the same angle in that time. missiles can not be launched over 5 G loading (something that the Us navy learnt over Vietnam).
-
I'm afraid you spelled it like how an American would pronounce it ... so no. ;)
Na shledanou, to you too. :)
-
I just love it when Russian Leaders catch a Cold....
BTW what Russian Ballad will they play for Putin this Winter?
:D
Mac
-
bloody good beer guide lied to me then :)
mind you will let them off beer has been good so far
-
I read a report from a mig 31 jockey who intercepted an sr71 over soviet airspace
I don't think the MiG 31 is fast enough to catch the SR-71, the MiG 25 might have been though.
-
Well, actually now that I think about it you were writing in Czech while I was reading it in Slavo-Croatian. Your beer guide was almost correct. :)
-
i remember reading a report by the RAF "accidently" locking on to an F117 over iraq. They also Tagged a B-2 . It was reported on in Flight internation in the mid 90's . I would rather have a plane that didn't rely on computers to fly if an EMF weapon is ever used ( and they are in development)
-
Originally posted by B3YT
i remember reading a report by the RAF "accidently" locking on to an F117 over iraq. They also Tagged a B-2 . It was reported on in Flight internation in the mid 90's . I would rather have a plane that didn't rely on computers to fly if an EMF weapon is ever used ( and they are in development)
That's all well and good, except that in every fight where EMP weapons are not used, you will die at the hands of those fly-by-wire modern marvels. Plus, these new A/C are hardened agains EMP. Finally, EMP weapons have not yet been used, and even when they are will likely not be readily available. Remember also that the B-2 was concieved first and foremost as a nuclear strike platform. Hence, it was designed to operate in what we call a "heavily scintillated" environment.
All that being said, no a/c is invincible, and even stealth a/c can be brought down. However, it is so difficult (amounting to a stroke of luck that can't be counted on) that these platforms will continue to dominate warfare.
-
Originally posted by B3YT
missiles can not be launched over 5 G loading (something that the Us navy learnt over Vietnam).
:lol
-
Finally, EMP weapons have not yet been used
its been said that a small EMP device was used in desert storm
Hell there is a episode of Futureweapons where they demonstrate its use
-
Originally posted by B3YT
missiles can not be launched over 5 G loading (something that the Us navy learnt over Vietnam).
umm ya might wanna go check your facts again.
-
many times AIM-7 and AIM-9 were jammed on the rails while in high G manovers over vietnam . maybe they changed the system then.
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
umm ya might wanna go check your facts again.
maybe i should have said " not advised to be lunched" then?
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
its been said that a small EMP device was used in desert storm
That's interesting. I'm not familiar with this event. Would you happen to have a link? I would suspect that the device (if it was in fact deployed) was likely of limited capability and range. This is not to say the USA (and other countries) aren't working to develop them, but there are many operational constraints associated with the use of such a weapon. They are most likely (IMO) to be useful in very specific circumstances, such as against fixed targets like air defenses. Fracticide would be a concern, though our own weapon systems are generally hardened against EMP to varying degrees. They could however be a devestating weapon against soft targets. As a terror weapon, they could cause all kinds of chaos. However, like nuclear weapons they are likely to be very sophisticated and hard to come by.
Originally posted by WilldCrd
Hell there is a episode of Futureweapons where they demonstrate its use
Note the name of the series ("Future"), and that I said "have not yet been used" Nonetheless, I would perhaps alter my statement, in light of your comments, to read, "EMP weapons have not been used more than a couple times operationally, are sophisticated, hard to produce, and difficult to employ." Which leads me back to my point, which is that fly-by-wire combat a/c dominate and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, I'll take the F-22 over a Mig or Su anyday.;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, there is one more picture...
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/F18FGUNF-2203.jpg)
What the heck does all them symbols in the photo mean? can someone who knows what they're talking about please break it down for us grunts?
-
why is the "gun" Xed out?
-
Originally posted by B3YT
many times AIM-7 and AIM-9 were jammed on the rails while in high G manovers over vietnam . maybe they changed the system then.
AIM-7 Sparrows aren't mounted on *rails*. They are mounted on launchers that have ejection pistons that kick the missile free of the aircraft before the rocket motor ignites.
-
Originally posted by B3YT
maybe i should have said " not advised to be lunched" then?
Anyone who is trying to *lunch* a missile better have really strong teeth and an iron stomach. :D
-
the 31 was vectored to an intercept point ....it was in the predicted path of the 71 it didnt have to run it down ...
-
Ah ... that works, but if it was a MiG-31 the intercept must have been in 1982 or later. Did the US fly SR-71s over the Soviet Union in the 1980's?
-
Quick tangent on the 71:
It was the 1980s. The USA would frequently fly over the Baltic Sea with its SR-71 Blackbird at very high altitudes and up to three times the speed of sound. Despite the fantastic performance of the aircraft, Swedish interceptors were able to get a lock-on with its weapon systems during several different occasions.
This was just one of many examples recovered from the now finished Viggen epoch. An epoch which started nearly 40 years ago and has served throughout the Cold War and into the new age of the modernized, flexible, and network-centric warfare based Armed Forces.
Pilot Per-Olof belongs to the exclusive group who have had a first-hand encounter with the Blackbird, high above the Baltic Sea near Swedish airspace.
It was fairly routine during the Cold War that Swedish pilots would have to intercept aircrafts belonging to other nations. Usually the individual fighters that were in incident-readiness would suddenly be given orders to identify unkown aircrafts, and would sometimes have to reject some from entering Swedish airspace.
In the beginning of the 1980s, Per-Olof was one of the first pilots to introduce the JA 37 Viggen to the Swedish Air Force at F 13 in Norrköping. That was also when he became a part of the exclusive group of pilots who, with the JA 37, managed to get a lock-on on the US Air Force's most advanced reconnaissance aircraft - the SR-71 Blackbird.
Higher than anything else
The SR-71 is one of the fastest aircrafts built and was used on reconaissance missions at extremely high altitudes, more than 20 000 meters (~ 65 620 ft). The top speed was also very impressive - Mach 3, three times the speed of sound which is about 3 600 km/h (~ 22 370 mph). Despite the high performance of the aircraft, Swedish interceptors managed to at several occasions 'meet' the Blackbird over the Baltic Sea and get radar-guided missiles to lock-on. It often happened with a very short notice for the pilots involved.
Per-Olof Eldh says the factors that helped them accomplish this feat was that the jet fighters were in maximum readiness and ready-to-go at the time along with the fact that some of the encounters occurred during regularly scheduled training passes. The latter was the case when he himself met the SR-71 for the first time. Per-Olof was participating in an air-defense exercise when the situation suddenly changed.
"The target came flying in south of Åland outside Södertörn when I was led to a direct attack in the forward sector at a target altitude of 21 500 meters."
It was by then already outside the opening of BrĂĄviken and P-O Eldh locked his radar onto the target. He was being guided by ground control the whole time and says that the radar was engaging at its maximum range with the semi-active anti-radar Rb 71 Skyflash as his weapon of choice. The event sounds dramatic, but this is how P-O Eldh describes the event afterwards:
"It was routine for me, but I was at a very high altitude. The digital control data that was presented to me confirmed it was either one of two possible aircrafts - a Soviet MiG-25 or a SR-71. I looked at what was happening on the radar to see if there was any attempt at jamming, and then pursued the target."
He then had a look to see if he could get a visual on the Blackbird.
"That was when I saw a graphite-grey aircraft pass me a few thousand meters above."
To this day he still does not want to reveal the exact altitude at which he was at, but it was much higher than he had been earlier. The first thing P-O Eldh noticed was that the sky had suddenly become dark.
"From being blue just a few minutes earlier, it was now black. On my way down again, I could also clearly see the curvature of the earth."
The method Per Olof Eldh used to reach the neccessary altitude was this:
"Let's assume my altitude was 8 000 m so I would be able to accelerate to Mach 1.35. I would then raise the nose about 3-5 degrees and continue accelerating during the ascent."
Fast-paced situations
P-O Eldh remembers how the SR-71 pilots liked to fly near or touching the border. In the beginning, they usually flew at Mach 3 when they came from the east, south from Ă…land heading towards Stockholm. Later on they would slow down to Mach 2.54 to get a better turning radius, and then hit full throttle between Ă–land and Gotland.
He encountered the SR-71 five times during his career. One of those events occured January 9th, 1986. Together with two colleagues, they took off from BrĂĄvalla for a routine exercise. But before they even got the landing gear up they recieved new instructions and the group was assigned a course heading for Ă–land with the intent to carry through a so called "high-energy intercept" against the Blackbird.
"We climbed to 8 000 meters, turned around and accelerated over the Gotska Sea towards the Stockholm area and made contact with the target. Everything happened so fast, you're met with a relative speed of Mach 5. The mission only took 9 minutes."
The whole thing went fine for two of the pilots, but the aircraft of the third pilot suffered a high-temperature stall because of the high altitude and was forced to take emergency measures in order to re-start it.
"To fly the way you had to at an altitude of 16 000 meters involved very high risks."
Professionalism
General Lennart Petterson is the chief of the Tactical Flight Command but also he was a fighter pilot back in the days. He clearly remembers how fast everything went which missions against the SR-71 involved and describes these events as the highlights of his career.
"Each time was just as exciting and interesting. Intercepting the aircraft was tremendously difficult because of the high speeds and altitudes but it was one of the most extreme missions you could be a part of. When we succeeded, which we did most of the time, and afterwards could conclude that we actually would be able to shoot the SR-71 down if it were a live mission, it was quite pleasing since it was at the same time an evaluation of our professionalism."
Full story in the Swedish military official mag here (http://www.mil.se/attachments/iof_nr6_05.pdf).
-
So far I'm not finding anything on the net to support the claim that missiles were jamming on rails during high G maneuvers, or jamming on rails at all.
-
Very interesting post moot.
-
The SR-71 was flying most everywhere up until it was retired. At least until the Berlin Wall fell.
I do not think it was a Mig 31 that was involved. I'm pretty sure it was an earlier model. According to a Russian defector it was a specially rigged Mig that was vectored to where they knew the SR-71 was going to be, and the engines in the Mig needed to be replaced before it could be flown again. Even then, the SR-71 was flying much lower than it normally would have had there been a perceived serious threat to it. And the Mig could only keep up for a very short period of time.
-
Interesting.
-
Well, say if you lock in on them from forward, up high, and with a radar guide, you should be able to get them?
After all the'd outrun a missile from 6'O clock...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, say if you lock in on them from forward, up high, and with a radar guide, you should be able to get them?
After all the'd outrun a missile from 6'O clock...
That would depend on how the missile is designed to intercept. AIM-7 and AIM-9 missiles tend to end up in a tail chase. The AIM-120 is designed to actually fly an intercept course.
-
Getting a radar lock on a SR-71 is not beyond the realm of possibility. Its a huge aircraft with a huge ionizing exhaust trail. The SR-71s claim to fame though is causing missles to run out of fuel way before they reach them.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So far I'm not finding anything on the net to support the claim that missiles were jamming on rails during high G maneuvers, or jamming on rails at all.
I think it's safe to assume from eagl's post, you'll be hard pressed to.
ack-ack
-
Read 2 books on the SR-71. From what I gathered, it's not a special feat to get a radar lock on it. It's not really a stealth aircraft. The shape just happened to have a relatively low RCS and they started playing with radar absorbing materials.
The problem was getting a missile to manuver at extreme altitudes. Their control surfaces were insuffecient to actually track the SR-71 because of the ridiculous altitude & speeds involved. I'd imagine it could be accomplished nowadays with thrust vectoring, but that was far from a standard feature back then.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I think it's safe to assume from eagl's post, you'll be hard pressed to.
ack-ack
I do know of one instance where a missile *jammed* on a rail. It had nothing to do with the maneuvers the plane was making. When an AIM-9L inadvertently fired on a F-15C based at Kadena AB, Japan, the missile didn't leave the rail because a safety pin had not been removed. The missiles rocket motor burned a nice chunk of that F-15C's wing away.
-
Isn't it sad how - in some ways - we seem to be going backwards.
The SR-71 and Concorde were both fantastic technological achievements, but where are the follow ups?
Maybe the US military has something we don't know about, but I'm pretty sure neither Airbus or Boeing have a new supersonic passenger transport up their sleeves.
-
Stealth and BVR don't mean a thing if the Secretary says you have to have absolute visual verification that its an enemy aircraft before shooting. See the history of air combat in Vietnam.
-
McNamara is no longer able to f*** things up.
-
Clarification:
Every aerial weapon ever made by any nation has inherent employment limits based on physical design and the performance limits of the stability and maneuvering systems (if equipped with such systems).
It makes no sense to assume that limits that applied to weapons in one generation apply to weapons in the next generation, or even to subsequent "builds" of the same weapon.
Employment limits may involve parameters such as a min or max speeds, min and max G loads, or min and max angles of attack. Limits for any particular weapon might not be the same when employed from different aircraft.
Further:
The AIM-7 was originally built using very early flight control systems. This basic design has been evolving for somewhere around 50 years now and the AIM-7 of today is very unlike the AIM-7 of 30-40 years ago except in general shape and size.
The AIM-120 was built with fully digital systems, non-trivial computing power, and an autopilot built using lessons learned from previous missiles. In addition, the AIM-120 entered service at a time after fighter aircraft manuverability had surpassed human capabilities and endurance limits. So the launch platforms for the AIM-120 had an inherently wider employment envelope, and the missile was designed with this in mind.
The new AIM-9X has both fins and thrust vectoring, and was designed/built in an era where every modern fighter is capable of pulling or sustaining 9 or more G's and was designed with relaxed aerodynamic stability enabling high angles of attack. It was also designed and fielded at the same time that high off-boresight weapon cueing systems became fully operational. New AIM-120 variants have also been fielded in the last decade since the F-22 design was essentially finalized.
You can draw some conclusions from these basic ideas.
-
Originally posted by wooley
Isn't it sad how - in some ways - we seem to be going backwards.
The SR-71 and Concorde were both fantastic technological achievements, but where are the follow ups?
Maybe the US military has something we don't know about, but I'm pretty sure neither Airbus or Boeing have a new supersonic passenger transport up their sleeves.
Don't forget the XB-70! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/North_American_XB-70_in_Flight_EC68-2131.jpg/757px-North_American_XB-70_in_Flight_EC68-2131.jpg) :D
In the next 20 years, be prepared to be amazed. (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0104/19x43a/x43a.jpg)
Meanwhile,
Speed = Fuel.
Until engine technology catches up (fuel efficiency at high speed and quiet engines at low speed) we'll remain under the speed of sound.
-
I recall a little party over Bakaa Valley (sp?) awhile ago.
Mig's were gonna 'get some' ..the F-15's first fight, flown by Israel.
I often wonder just how many Aces were made that day.
Everyone knew the F-15 was a good airplane,
.. well ..
...except the Mig Pilots.
They learned the hard way that it wasn't just 'western propaganda.'
-shrug-
If it ever comes down to it .. I have no doubt the Raptor will teach the same lessons.
-GE ( I cannot imagine what it's like to see all your planes takeoff ...and few if any return)
-
Originally posted by Grayeagle
I recall a little party over Bakaa Valley (sp?) awhile ago.
Mig's were gonna 'get some' ..the F-15's first fight, flown by Israel.
I often wonder just how many Aces were made that day.
Everyone knew the F-15 was a good airplane,
.. well ..
...except the Mig Pilots.
They learned the hard way that it wasn't just 'western propaganda.'
-shrug-
If it ever comes down to it .. I have no doubt the Raptor will teach the same lessons.
-GE ( I cannot imagine what it's like to see all your planes takeoff ...and few if any return)
Funny, but here we have heard absolutely different stories from Syria 1982. F-15 got severe problems facing MiG-23ML, not even the latest model, MLD.
IIRC this fights are in some modern tactics textbooks. Red side used old MiG-21s and 23s in an ambush, in worst conditions trading 1-2 balalaikas for 1-2 F-15s.
I find it amazing how blue side sometimes denies obvious facts, failing to admit losses.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I find it amazing how blue side sometimes denies obvious facts, failing to admit losses.
I find it amazing how the former-red side sometimes denies obvioius facts, failing to admit their best aircraft were easily defeated.
I wonder how much business MiG lost after that episode against the Syrians and how many inquiries McDonnell Douglas got asking for how much an F-15 is.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I find it amazing how the former-red side sometimes denies obvioius facts, failing to admit their best aircraft were easily defeated.
On July 6-12 1982 Syrian pilots shot down at least 5 F-15s and 6 F-16s, totally 42 Israely planes. They lost 10 23s of two modifications, but it's hard to compete when opposite side has all possible support including AWACS. Total score was 42:54. And we don't count planes shot down by Syrian SAMs, there were at least one SAM brigade and several regiments there, manned by Soviet crews.
About denying obvious: you still deny that there were two American planes shot down over Syrt gulf in 1986. LOL "it never happened". :D
Correction: Syrians had MiG-23MF and 23MS frontline fighters, hardly the best aircraft at that time, plus good old 21s and some other discontinued types.
-
Originally posted by GFShill
Stealth and BVR don't mean a thing if the Secretary says you have to have absolute visual verification that its an enemy aircraft before shooting. See the history of air combat in Vietnam.
Yup. I bet the majority of air to air combat in the future will not be BVR. The pilots need to ID the aircraft before shooting at them, or showing them out of the area. Does that mean that stealth is useless? No ofcourse not, but if i managed an airforce with a sensible budget i would not focus on stealth.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
On July 6-12 1982 Syrian pilots shot down at least 5 F-15s and 6 F-16s, totally 42 Israely planes. They lost 10 23s of two modifications, but it's hard to compete when opposite side has all possible support including AWACS. Total score was 42:54. And we don't count planes shot down by Syrian SAMs, there were at least one SAM brigade and several regiments there, manned by Soviet crews.
About denying obvious: you still deny that there were two American planes shot down over Syrt gulf in 1986. LOL "it never happened". :D
Correction: Syrians had MiG-23MF and 23MS frontline fighters, hardly the best aircraft at that time, plus good old 21s and some other discontinued types.
Comrade, you got your numbers wrong, it was 500 F-15's and 600 F-16's, and they were using superior russian technology AN-2's!
-
Originally posted by Furball
Comrade, you got your numbers wrong, it was 500 F-15's and 600 F-16's, and they were using superior russian technology AN-2's!
Eh, British humor?...
A brief description of MiG-23 combat encounters in Middle East: http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig23/mig23.html - just in case you can read Russian.
There is usually more then one source of information on every conflict.
An interesting article, I didn't know that Soviet S-200 brigade in Syria managed to shoot down an American Hawkeye in 1983...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
A brief description of MiG-23 combat encounters in Middle East: http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig23/mig23.html - just in case you can read Russian.
I can barely read English, let alone Russian ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
On July 6-12 1982 Syrian pilots shot down at least 5 F-15s and 6 F-16s, totally 42 Israely planes. They lost 10 23s of two modifications, but it's hard to compete when opposite side has all possible support including AWACS. Total score was 42:54. And we don't count planes shot down by Syrian SAMs, there were at least one SAM brigade and several regiments there, manned by Soviet crews.
About denying obvious: you still deny that there were two American planes shot down over Syrt gulf in 1986. LOL "it never happened". :D
Correction: Syrians had MiG-23MF and 23MS frontline fighters, hardly the best aircraft at that time, plus good old 21s and some other discontinued types.
The Israeli airforce did not suffer a single loss and downed 85 Syrian aircraft.
Let me repeat this because you tend to be a bit slow on the uptake.
The Israeli airforce did not suffer a single loss and downed 85 Syrian aircraft.
RAND Report on Mosco's sessons from the 1982 Lebanon Air War (http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA148310)
This Report reviews Soviet impressions of Israeli air operations during the 1982 Lebanon war. It evaluates a 1983 article published in the Soviet Air Force monthly (whose audience includes Soviet aircrews) that assesses the implications of the Israeli-Syrian air battles. For Western audiences, the article provides insights into how the soviets have interpreted the Beka'a Valley experience. It appears that the Soviets have either deliberately misrepresented Israel's air combat results to their own pilots or else failed to comprehend the tactical lessons suggested by Israel combat performance.
(http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2002/0602bekaa4.jpg)
1982: Operation Peace for the Galilee.
Google it.
Find me ANYTHING that show's that the Syrians shot down a single Israeli fighter.
I find it harder and harder to believe you live in the same world as the rest of us.
-
You cant really blame the communist leadership for misleading its population. If they had told the truth all the time their deck of cards would have collapsed way before it did. What is really scary is that so many russians still belive what they were fed was the truth.
Im not saying that there was not ALOT of false and misleading propaganda in the west and israel too, but the truth is abit harder to hide when you have a population that are in a postition to ask questions about what is going on in the world.
In the case of the syria/israel conflict it is not _impossible_ to imagine that for propaganda purposes losses could be replaced "under the table" to make Israel look stronger than it was. Im not claiming this to be the case, but it could make sense for such a small nation to do so given its sorrounding neighbours. Im quite sure that if such a scenario was a reality the west would have been more than happy to replace the losses in equipment to maintain an illusion of technical superiority. Israel would also be a very good place for arms suppliers to test our stuff vs their stuff.
-
In the case of the syria/israel conflict it is not _impossible_ to imagine that for propaganda purposes losses could be replaced "under the table" to make Israel look stronger than it was. Im not claiming this to be the case, but it could make sense for such a small nation to do so given its sorrounding neighbours. Im quite sure that if such a scenario was a reality the west would have been more than happy to replace the losses in equipment to maintain an illusion of technical superiority. Israel would also be a very good place for arms suppliers to test our stuff vs their stuff
I understand what you are saying and I agree that it is possible for something like this to happen. I don't think that in this case it did happen though.
When you consider the level of training the IAF gets, (they are regarded as one of the best, if not the best Air Force in the world), and the level of training of their Arab neighbors, the outcome of the air battle over the Bekaa Valley is much more likely to be as Israel claims.
Here's a pretty good article about Israel's lessons with SAM's and air defenses in general. Note that Israel doesn't hide losses from the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War. Nor do they deny that an F-4 Phantom was shot down by a SAM over the Bekaa Valley.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-14826.html
-
Indeed.. the pilots in the IAF are probably the best pilots in the world, and their tactics were brilliant. Im just saying that it would be possible, and that the old commies are not the only ones that used false propaganda :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Indeed.. the pilots in the IAF are probably the best pilots in the world, and their tactics were brilliant. Im just saying that it would be possible, and that the old commies are not the only ones that used false propaganda :)
I'm not disagreeing with this. :D
Did you get to read that article I linked? I found it very interesting.
*edit* The link and last paragraph were actually for *someone* else. :D Still a good read though.
-
Hehe, this might catch fire, but the fact remains that wherever the USSR hardware on wings met western hardware on wings, the USSR hardware was the underdog, - statistically. I am talking of any significant conflicts, like Finland vs USSR, LW vs USSR, Korea, Nam, Syria. All I left is smaller stuff.
Now, lot of it was tactics, I know. Especially WW2 and Korea, where you basically had very well matched aircraft with a difference in performance/maneuverability that would even be with the USSR. But, anyway, I could not resist to bring up the point. USSR aircraft in combat have in most conflicts been shot down in more numbers than any....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, this might catch fire, but the fact remains that wherever the USSR hardware on wings met western hardware on wings, the USSR hardware was the underdog, - statistically.
Yeah. "UN" fighters shot down more MiGs that were deployed by USSR, DPRK and PLA.
Keeep on preaching.
When I read 64th IAK combat logs - it\s like superhumen flying superplanes shooting down B-29s, sabres or F-80s.
My Uncle got 4 kills in Vietnam. S-75 targeting officer.
Keep believing that Soviet hardware is obsolete. Just until you'll hear a sonic boom from Tu-22M3 over Iceland.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
The Israeli airforce did not suffer a single loss and downed 85 Syrian aircraft.
Lalalalala :D
Fairy tales :D
I have deep respect towards IAF, but you guys have to get real.
-
:lol
-
Originally posted by Angus
USSR aircraft in combat have in most conflicts been shot down in more numbers than any....
LOL. B-52s burning over Hanoi. F-14s burning over Death Line in 1986. Hawkeye burning over Lebanon coast in 1983. Jewish F-15s and F-16s burning over Bekaa in 1982.
It's not our fault. We just help people who don't like being bombed into democracy.
Think about it please.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Lalalalala :D
Fairy tales :D
I have deep respect towards IAF, but you guys have to get real.
Did you even READ the report I posted? It was a turkey shoot. The Syrians were slaughtered.
What I find most hillarious is that you think the WHOLE WORLD is wrong, and you are right. Sad mostly, but quite hillarious.
I can post sources.
I can post MANY sources from multiple refrences.
I can post many sources from multiple refrences that are not affiliated with Israel or the United States.
You can post what?
Lalalalala?
Personal (and quite uninformed) opinions?
I once volunteered at the Emaus Home for Autistic Children.
I once was in a debate w/ one of the children there.
They held up their end of the debate far better than you seem to be able to.
At least make an effort.
All your posts seem to do is concede to us just how misinformed you are.
(true story. the argument was about the A-Team)
-
LOL. Jupiter, You are angry. :D
Soviet S-200 brigade shot down a Hawkeye, that played on Your side. Shot it down on maximum distance, 250km.
Think whatever You want - but Syrians traded 1x1. With Soviet SAMs it was more then enough :D
LOL they have let a SAM to shoot an AWACS plane...!!!! Sour loosers!....
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Did you even READ the report I posted? It was a turkey shoot. The Syrians were slaughtered.
It were YOU guys slaughtered. And later - Tomcats and Intruders easily shot down.
It's inappropriate. That guys flying were fighting for Your country, you have to pay them some respect.
-
:huh
:lol
:noid
-
The Syrians did so well that the IAF had free reign over the valley and went to work taking out the tanks of a Syrian armored division.
Let Boroda believe his Fractured Fairy tales.
The truth is easily seen. Not all the Arab nations combined have the sand to take on the IAF. They've learned their lessons the hard way.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The Syrians did so well that the IAF had free reign over the valley and went to work taking out the tanks of a Syrian armored division.
Let Boroda believe his Fractured Fairy tales.
The truth is easily seen. Not all the Arab nations combined have the sand to take on the IAF. They've learned their lessons the hard way.
LOL.
Mr. Ingress Routes, as usual You are badly misinformed. I pity Israely pilots buried in American flying coffins. Fighting obsolete MiG-23s, being shot down BVR...
At least 2 F-15s were shot down by 21s. State-of-the-art fighters knocked off by 1958 technology :D
-
Yep and if you believe that, the soviet union is alive and well and in charge of the entire world.
-
Let Boroda rant... it makes me laugh!
Fortunately, if he get his head up his bellybutton any farther, he won't need to have a colonoscopy.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Yep and if you believe that, the soviet union is alive and well and in charge of the entire world.
I only provide You with information that You'll probably never get from your Ministry of Truth.
Soviet Union is alive - as long as I am alive. I was born in a country that doesn't exist any more, in a city that isn't there, so it goes....
-
Next on Boroda's Fractured Fairy Tales:
How the Soviet-armed Arab nations won
Israeli War of Independence (1948-1949)
1956 Sinai Campaign
1967 Six-Day War
1973 Yom Kippur War
Stay tuned! It's Comedy Gold!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
LOL.
Mr. Ingress Routes, as usual You are badly misinformed. I pity Israely pilots buried in American flying coffins. Fighting obsolete MiG-23s, being shot down BVR...
At least 2 F-15s were shot down by 21s. State-of-the-art fighters knocked off by 1958 technology :D
Odd. So you are saying the IAF did NOT have free reign in the skies? Funny... EVERYTHING that can be found about that conflict says otherwise.
It took Israel 10 min. to destroy 17 of the 19 SA-6 sites as well as several SA-2 and SA-3 sites. The two remaning SA-6 sites, as well as a couple other batteries that were resupplied that night were destoyed the following day.
The IAF took NO losses during that engagment. (they did report several planes suffered battle damage).
So all of the Soviet made SAM sites were destroyed (basically in 10min time) and the Syrian Air Force was wiped out.
This is fact.
This isn't opinion.
It can be verified.
The RAND document I posted previously is a translation of a Soviet Air Force article.
I guess you are tying to argue with what the Soviet Air Force said happened at the Bekka Valley.
I guess somehow you are trying to say that the IAF didn't have total and complete air superiority in the Bekka Valley.
Please provide a source.
History tells us otherwise.
(and yes Delirium, I find Boroda's post's hillarious. I find it hard to believe he lives in THIS world)
-
(and yes Delirium, I find Boroda's post's hillarious. I find it hard to believe he lives in THIS world)
And the next one will be comedy gold, I'm sure.
-
This is getting good
(http://www.iastate.edu/~class.12003.engl.313/cps/mrchimps/popcorn.gif)
-
F-14s burning over Death Line in 1986.
Not so fast, video shows the second MiG-23 kill from the Tomcat's HUD. Kinda hard to argue with that.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Guest/95/
My Uncle got 4 kills in Vietnam. S-75 targeting officer.
Anyone else ever notice that Boroda always seems to have a relative that was fighting the Capitalist Pigs no matter what conflict is being discussed? :D
-
I am pretty sure that Boroda is the biggest troll ever and that he enjoys every second of it :D
We have all heard of Russian Vodka Math, but this is so far off the scales that its pure entertainment. Mr Boroda has a future in the fishery industry for sure and his tales will liven up many a fishermans pub after a hard days work. :)
-
<---- Supporter of the Boroda Historical Society :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I only provide You with information that You'll probably never get from your Ministry of Truth.
Soviet Union is alive - as long as I am alive. I was born in a country that doesn't exist any more, in a city that isn't there, so it goes....
Huh?
USSR Split up. You live in Russia.
-
You are what you are born as.
That would make me a Yugoslavian.Long live Tito!
-
Well, in some people's minds, the USSR is still around. And as long as people are alive that beleive the commie lies that were shoved down their throats, it will be. I remember watching a special on the 6 days war, it told of how the IAF took out almost all the enemy air bases in the first hours, they had been training for years on how to do it. They flew under radar, came in at various angles, and destroyed runways, planes, and hangers, and then left the dust and smoke behind. The fact that Egypt had its radar didn't really matter. They flew under the radar levels.
-
Where there was truly an airwar of equals, with long lessons from WW2 was definately Korea though. If anything, both performance/maneuverability as well as strategical position would have favoured N-Korea supported by the USSR.
Still, in the airwar, the US taught them a hard lesson. (Actually the RAF was in the show etc).
The difference was perhaps....brains and tactics?
Anyway, USSR supported N-Korea who's regime can't feed their folks today, USA supported S-Korea, who are still flying high on an eco-broom, the line was drawn somewhere, but farther north than expected - from the north side. A part of that was airpower. WTG Boroda and pals. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Did you even READ the report I posted? It was a turkey shoot. The Syrians were slaughtered.
What I find most hillarious is that you think the WHOLE WORLD is wrong, and you are right. Sad mostly, but quite hillarious.
I can post sources.
I can post MANY sources from multiple refrences.
I can post many sources from multiple refrences that are not affiliated with Israel or the United States.
I posted a link in Russian, with tactical setups and pilots names. Including Syrian pilots shot down by IAF.
Denying Israely F-15s shot down by obsolete Soviet fighters is silly.
Blue side pressure on so-called "free media" must be really hard. Red side doesn't boast, we just do our jobs. Looks like we are right helping people who don't want to be bombed into "democracy".
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Anyone else ever notice that Boroda always seems to have a relative that was fighting the Capitalist Pigs no matter what conflict is being discussed? :D
So it goes. It's a quite small country. I have 2 handshakes between me and JVS, 3 handshakes to Hitler.
Capitalist pigs - not my lexicon. Every country has it's interests that it protects. Uncle saved thousands of lives, got wounded and evacuated back into the Union. Hit by one of the first SHRIKE missiles. He said "it's not a missile particle, just a tree that was flying around".
My family story deserves a good book. Beginning in 1818, when my Great-Great-GrandFather brought a wife from France into his Cossack village. Unfortunately I don't know anything earlier... :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I posted a link in Russian, with tactical setups and pilots names. Including Syrian pilots shot down by IAF.
Denying Israely F-15s shot down by obsolete Soviet fighters is silly.
Blue side pressure on so-called "free media" must be really hard. Red side doesn't boast, we just do our jobs. Looks like we are right helping people who don't want to be bombed into "democracy".
I went to your link, and tried my best translating it.
he USA knew how to attain the salient victory in “psychological war”, having successfully conducted the large-scale propagandistic campaign, directed, in the first place, against the Soviet Union. The data about the losses in the June war, published in Israel, where it was asserted (however, not officially, but with the references to [neproimenovannye] “well informed Israeli officials”) about the destruction in the air battles of 102 Syrian aircraft and about the loss only of one their machine, biased by fire from the earth), they bore the clearly expressed propagandistic nature. However, the sums of the war in Lebanon “world community” became known almost exclusively according to the communications of American and West European information agencies, completely repeated information Israeli sources. H[et] nothing is amazing that Israelis - the well-known masters of propagandistic and psychological war - putting it mildly, " underestimated” their losses and they overstated the loss, [nanesenyy] to the enemy: in end- ends, the war is war and each historian knows that communication “[Sovinformibyuro]” or American armed forces communiques about combat with Japan - the unsuitable source for studying the motion of war 1941-45 yr. however the USA used their most powerful in the world propagandistic machine for the discredit of the USSR before his allies, and also advances for the world market for their [avitsionnoy] technology, in particular, the destroyers F -16, by which was created the advertisement “of the killers of MiGs”. In similar conditions the Israeli victorious reports, skillfully beaten in the USA, proved to be outstanding gift to American aircraft construction firms, and “that which is good for General Dynamics, it is good for America!” However, it must be noted, that the serious western specialists subjected Israeli data to doubts; thus, [dr].[Dzh].[Chorba], the President of the Washington center of international safety, after visiting Israel on the commission of American government immediately after the end of war shooting, stated that they refused to grant to it any expanded information about specific application in the war shooting of the new systems of American arms. The attempts of the Soviet regime through the agency of TASS to refute the Israeli version of combat in Lebanon and “to save face” of the domestic aircraft industry proved to be late and unskillful: the statement of TASS dated August 15,1982. on that which in the course of the war shooting above the valley Of [bekaa] by the Syrian armed forces was destroyed about 70 Israeli aircraft, including of the machine of the newest types, it remained practically unnoticed neither abroad nor in the USSR, where the commentator- internationalists continued usually to use western
I read your article.
It made outragous claims that it could not substansiate, and blamed the Western Propeganda Machine for it.
Much like everything you post, it was a fairy tale.
Your article, and it's claims, was covered in my RAND link that I posted.
-
Boroda it would be easyer to believe your claims if you'd post a trophy picture of one of the Israeli F-15 the Syrians shot down. I'm sure the pictures would be posted all over Syria/Russia the next day it happened.
-
You better believe that if any F-15s were shot down that the pieces of it would be in a museum. The North Vietnamese displayed lots of wreckage of U.S. planes merely for the publicity.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
You better believe that if any F-15s were shot down that the pieces of it would be in a museum. The North Vietnamese displayed lots of wreckage of U.S. planes merely for the publicity.
Dont think any F15s flew in vietnam
-
LOL, Vietnam is prior to the F15.
And Boroda:
"So it goes. It's a quite small country. I have 2 handshakes between me and JVS, 3 handshakes to Hitler."
I have only one between me and Hitler, and one as well between me and King George. Your point?
-
Of course Vietnam is prior to the F-15. My point was to illustrate how backwards inferior nations display American aircraft as trophies when they manage to down them.