PDA

View Full Version : MiG-29 “FALCON HUNTER” Exclusive : THE WINNER



Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 10:51
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig.jpg


This thread was made solely for discussion on future developments of the MiG-29 upgrades that push the Fulcrum way past the limitly capable F-16 and Mirages to be in the league with F-14s, F-15s and the Su-27 as documented here.

For discussions on MiG-29 Sniper vs. F-16 Viper, please go to link :

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=4474 (http://)

The Falcons seem to have suffered the same fate of the Sabre Jets of the Korean war, having fallen victims to IAF Gnats nicknamed the “Sabre Killers” during the Indo-Pak wars, it was with the same solemnity of the IAF Gnat “Sabre Killers” that the IAF christened their famed Fulcrums the “FALCON HUNTERS” after the Kargil War where a lone MiG-29 poised like a sniper atop the Himalayas held PAF F-16s at gunpoint.

http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/Collection/2901a.jpg


With its maiden flight in July 1998, Russian plans to have more than 200 MiG-29SMT. Upgrade comprises: increased range and payload, new glass cockpit, digital fly-by-wire control system, new avionics, improved radar, KOLS infrared search and track (IRST) and an in-flight refuelling probe.


Mig-29M2 : Range on internal fuel is 1,079 nm (2,000km; 1,242 miles), or, with three external tanks 1,726nm (3,200km; 1,988 miles).
Unrefueled range of the MiG-29SMT is cited as 2,200 kilometers (1,370 miles) without external tanks, almost half again as great as that of 9-12 MiG-29.



THE SNIPER’S SIGHTS

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/pic05_001.jpg

The KOLS infrared search and track (IRST), superior to F-16 IRSTs. The KOLS (OLIS) laser range finder / IR search and track system tied with a pilot HMS (helmet mounted sighting) system completes the weapon system.

http://www.sweb.cz/fpage/foto/detail/nvu.jpg


MiG-29SMT-in-flight-refuelling, limitless range :

http://www.gymjev.cz/~sivera/mig29se_.jpg


Re- engined with Klimov RD-43 (or VKS10) engines, Fulcrums now have 22,040lb (98. 1 kN) thrust with afterburner, compared with 18,293lb (81.4kN) of the RD-33 engine.



MISSILES


http://www.sci.fi/~fta/archer-adder.gif


In DACT over the skies of Gwalior, Cope India 2004 reports showed that IAF Sukhoi-30MKs and USAF F-15 pilots were detecting each other at the same time with their radars, but IAF pilots were scoring simulated first shots with their R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) every time in BVR engagements.


http://www.volny.cz/recon/svv/aa10.jpg


With the AA-10 ALAMO (Max. range upto 170 km) and Zhuk series radars working in tandem, no F-15, F-16, F-18 or Mirage has a chance for survival.


http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/Tails/Tail_USA.jpg


Unlike the limitly capable F-16 the Russians couldn’t even care to look at, the MiG-29 designated 'Ram-L' by the West sent coronary scares throughout US Intel. So good was the MiG that America was quick to buy off 21 nuclear capable Moldovian MiG-29s before they could be auctioned off to Iran or North Korea.

Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 10:55
Advantage of the Su-30, MiG-29 Zhuk series over F-15, F-16 and F-18 AN/APG series


http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/pic11_002.jpg


The antenna of Zhuk M


Zhuk-M (N010M)
Maximum air-to-air range of the N010M(Zhuk M) was boosted to 140 km superceding the American APG-66 (v) 2 -130km and APG-68 (v) -140km.

Zhuk-ME (N-101M)
The Phazotron Zhuk-ME capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 245km is currently being developed for Indian Navy MiG-29Ks.

N-011 “Bars"
N011M has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range. The radar can track and engage 20 air targets and engage the 8 most threatening targets simultaneously. Currently being developed for Indian Navy MiG-29Ks superceding the F-14A’s AWG-9 radar- 330km.

Zhuk-PH
The Zhuk-PH is stated to have a slightly longer range and wider scan angle than the N-011, the capability to track 24 targets at once, and engage eight of them simultaneously.

MiG-29 NO-19 Slot Back 70-100 km 100-150 km
Tracks 10 targets, guides against 1.

BEATS

F-16 APG-66 ~55 km ~105 km

F-16 APG-66(v)2/3 70 km 130 km

F-16 APG-68 80 km 140 km

Mirage 2000C-S1 to –S3 RDM 85 km 110 km

================================================== =======

MiG-29 NO-10 88 km 186 km

BEATS

All of the above and ;

F-18 APG-65 ~72 km ~ 150 km
TWS of 10 targets at 74 km. HUD acquistion auto lock at ~9 km.

================================================== =======


MiG-29 SMT-II NO-19ME Topaz 130 km 275 km

BEATS

All of the above and ;

F-15 APG-63/70 110-160 km 240 km

F-18 APG-73 (APG-65 x 1.2) 85 km ~180 km

Mirage 2000C-S4/5 RDI 110 km 190 km

Mirage 2000-5 RDY 130-140 km 275 km

Rafale RBE vs 130 km 275 km

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/aircraft/mig-29k-avi.jpg

Bottom line is, armed with PESA-type BARS radars, much superior to those that made IAF Su-30s score kills on AESA equipped F-15s in DACT, no F-16 or F-15 with AESA radars could escape the first and fatal shot from a MiG-29.

Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 10:59
Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER

Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) modernized Luftwaffe MiG-29 to the best Fulcrum standards. The work for the Luftwaffe led to the establishment of a new unified service organization, the "MiG Aircraft Product Support (MAPS) Group", which is now promoting similar upgrades for MiG-29 operators in Eastern Europe.

Romania is now modernizing their MiG-29s under the "Sniper" program, being conducted by DASA.


http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/images1/BK9.jpg



Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER



Conclusion

Russia manufactures more Flankers and Fulcrums for foreign countries than its own Air Force with current trends being to upgrade versions of the same, like the 12 Yemeni Air Force MiG-29s being upgraded to SMT standards, the first being delivered in October 2004.
The F-15 WAS considered superior to the earlier versions of MiG-29s, enjoying an advantage in radar detection and range, if at par in maneuverability and radar cross section. The SMT upgrade will close that gap and make the improved Fulcrum the match of the F-15, the Air Force said. The MiG-29 SMT features a more powerful radar and a deepened "spine" to carry more internal fuel. Fire control is also updated, as are the avionics and displays with later MiG-29 SMT/SMT2s slated for Plasma Stealth capability.


http://www.xp-office.de/mig-29/Bilder/MiG-29K_jpg.jpg


Outnumbered like the Luftwaffe of WW II against Allied Fighters the MiG-29 fought evasively against Allied Fighters in the Gulf and Serbian theatres being credited with kills on USAF F-117 Stealths, with no comfirmed kills on itself thus proving the higher “kill ratios” it has just like the Me-109s of yore.

Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 12:02
Would anyone have info on Plasma Stealth technology being developed for MiG-29 SMT?

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 12:14
Plasma: What is it?

Plasma is the most common state of matter in the universe, it can carry electric currents, neutral particles and magnetic fields that exhibit collective effects.
Various examples of plasma around us are flames, lightning, neon lights, the Aurora Borealis, the corona around the sun, etc.
Plasma has been described as a being more closely related to fluids by some physicists and related to gases by others. What it actually resembles depends mostly on the density/temperature and energy of the matter.

Plasma technology has been a part of aerospace research for decades. Ever since it was discovered that there were communications black outs when space capsules were re-entering the atmosphere it has been known that plasma negatively affected RF signals.

The Basics: Plasma Stealth theory

There are 3 ways that plasma stealth functions.

1. Plasma aids in the absorption of the radar signals. This occurs when electromagnetic waves (radar) encounter charged particles causing the wave's energy to be transferred to the charged particles, thus no reflection back to the radar source.

2. Electromagnetic waves have a tendency to bend around the plasma field thus passing around the aircraft. Most aerospace radar specialists will tell you that this effect is at best minimal in decreasing Radar Cross Section (RCS).

3. Plasma can disturb electromagnetic waves to the point of transforming them to differing frequencies scattered all across the RF spectrum, rendering the electromagnetic waves that encounter the plasma virtually useless.

Background: The 1999 ITAR-TASS Claim

In January of 1999 Nicolai Novichkov of ITAR-TASS conducted an interview with Anatoliy Korteev, the director of the Russian Scientific Academy. In this interview it was revealed that Russian scientists had made significant strides in stealth techniques involving plasma. The Russian scientist outlined his perspective on the differences between the American and Russian approach to stealth. These differences being that American stealth is based on Radar Absorbent Material (RAM) and Radar Absorbent Structure (RAS)... This process as scientist Anatoliy Korteev stated is expensive to develop as well as to deploy and takes away from the overall manueverability of the airframe.

The article went on to discuss the method in which the plasma would protect the airframe from being observed by radar;
"If an object is surrounded by a cloud of plasma, several phenomenas are observed when the cloud interacts with electromagnetic waves radiated by enemy radar..."

For clarification, this article stated that the entire airframe of the plane would have to be engulfed in the plasma cloud in order for this stealth technique to be effective.

And finally the article states that the technology was already in it's 3rd generation, the device supposedly weighed approximately 100 kilograms, required only a "few tens of kilowatts" of power, and the development of the 3rd generation system had allowed clearance of the 1st and 2nd generation versions for export.
Article: http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=19

Russian Plasma Stealth: How would it work?

Exactly how the Russian plasma stealth generator touted by TASS in 1999 would work is still undisclosed.
There are a variety of possibilities of how it could have operated, including the following:

1. An electromagnetic field is generated - the downside however, is that such a field would be detectable by electronic sensors.
2. A corona source that continuous breaks down or a pulsing tesla coil - again however, this would produce an EM field and thus be detectable.

3. A plasma laser firing out in front of the aircraft.

A common problem with each of these possibilities is that they require a lot of space, are heavy and consume a large amount of power.
Ok, enough of the 1999 claim - Let's move forward to 2003...

Russian Plasma Stealth: Questions from experts...

Investigating the subject of Russian plasma stealth as stated in the 1999 TASS article elicited many skeptical responses from the physicists, aerospace engineers and military specialists whom I interviewed.

As stated in the introduction of this article, it is not out of nationalistic American pride that these experts in the field question the validity of the Russian claim, nor is it closed mindedness of the technology itself (which is very viable)... it's the methodologies by which the Russian researchers claim to accomplish this.

* One specialist in the area of military arms sales for a US intelligence agency pointed out that it was 5 1/2 years ago in January 1999 that the Tass News Agency's article announced this technology was to be exported and as of yet there is no such product for sale on the world's arms markets.

* An aerospace engineer for a leading US fighter manufacturer questioned how this ionized gas envelope would interact with the airflow over the control surfaces at flight speed. Also he wondered if sharp, angled manuevering would shear off the ionization thus exposing the aircraft to enemy radar.

* A physicist from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had questions about how the aircraft's onboard systems would interact with a surrounding plasma field. For instance in order for the plasma field to be effective it would have to to be so powerful that the aircraft itself would have to be shielded from it's own stealth system. Would this mean that they would have to employ something similar to a Faraday cage? If so, then how much would this additional weight negatively affect the performance and manueverability of a fighter aircraft?

* A plasma physicist working on a DoD project pondered how the Russian researchers handled the issue of photon emissions - visual glowing from plasma sources can be tracked using CCD sensors. Additional she stated that an ion field is detectable and it would seem that plasma stealth would likewise be detectable... she was also quick to point out that anything that is detectable can be shot down

The State of Russian Plasma Stealth today: There is no Russian Plasma Cloud Stealth

In 2003 the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetics (ITAE) at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow flight tested a "plasma-controlled screen" for the Su-35's remarkably large 0.889 meter radar dish... (which shows up like sore thumb on an air defense radar).
This "plasma screen" is mounted in front of the radar dish and behind the nose-cone of the fighter jet. It is supposedly similar to a plasma TV screen made up of cells or rastars filled with neon, xenon or some other inert gas which is excited by an electrical current, and when there is no current going to the unit it is completely transparent to the Su-35's radar.

In demonstration videos this Plasma Controlled Screen is seen as a luminous panel in front of the dish. It is said to absorb some of the opponent's radar signal, scattering much of the remainder in all different directions while at the same time transforming the scattered signals to frequencies all over the RF spectrum.

Word from the ITAE is that they have not developed a system for a whole airframe like the 1999 claim in Tass, which would use plasma-generating antennas to ionize the air flowing over the aircraft � in fact, ITAE researchers expressed the view that application of the 1999 stealth method would be nearly impossible unless applied to a high-altitude, relatively slow aircraft, this is because the airstream would dissipate the plasma faster than it could be generated. (Janes Defense Weekly, 2003 - {Original not available online} -

For futher reading I suggest Theoretical Principles of Plasma Physics and Atomic Physics

β(Ew)= Ew2/(Ew2 +Δ{E}p2) ,

τ(s)= σIon(0) .0∫sds' N(s').β(Ew(s')) .

I(s)= I0.e-τ(s) ,

Source: http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/

jgetti
01 Feb 05,, 16:02
Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER

Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) modernized Luftwaffe MiG-29 to the best Fulcrum standards. The work for the Luftwaffe led to the establishment of a new unified service organization, the "MiG Aircraft Product Support (MAPS) Group", which is now promoting similar upgrades for MiG-29 operators in Eastern Europe.

Romania is now modernizing their MiG-29s under the "Sniper" program, being conducted by DASA.


http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/images1/BK9.jpg



Daimler-Benz Aerospace (DASA) developed MiG -29 SNIPER



Conclusion

Russia manufactures more Flankers and Fulcrums for foreign countries than its own Air Force with current trends being to upgrade versions of the same, like the 12 Yemeni Air Force MiG-29s being upgraded to SMT standards, the first being delivered in October 2004.
The F-15 WAS considered superior to the earlier versions of MiG-29s, enjoying an advantage in radar detection and range, if at par in maneuverability and radar cross section. The SMT upgrade will close that gap and make the improved Fulcrum the match of the F-15, the Air Force said. The MiG-29 SMT features a more powerful radar and a deepened "spine" to carry more internal fuel. Fire control is also updated, as are the avionics and displays with later MiG-29 SMT/SMT2s slated for Plasma Stealth capability.


http://www.xp-office.de/mig-29/Bilder/MiG-29K_jpg.jpg


Outnumbered like the Luftwaffe of WW II against Allied Fighters the MiG-29 fought evasively against Allied Fighters in the Gulf and Serbian theatres being credited with kills on USAF F-117 Stealths, with no comfirmed kills on itself thus proving the higher “kill ratios” it has just like the Me-109s of yore.

HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!
Don't even begin to compare the MiG-29 to an F-15. I don't know what rectal extraction gave you your figures on the APG-63v2 radar either, but you don't know what you're talking about.

ajaybhutani
01 Feb 05,, 16:52
Well F15 vs mig29 is nowhere a fare comparison
A good one is F15 vs Su27 and Mig29 vs F16.

jgetti
01 Feb 05,, 17:16
Well F15 vs mig29 is nowhere a fare comparison
A good one is F15 vs Su27 and Mig29 vs F16.

I agree 100%

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 20:03
Well F15 vs mig29 is nowhere a fare comparison
A good one is F15 vs Su27 and Mig29 vs F16.


not entirely, because the MiG 29 wasn't really created to challenge the F-16, it was created to be a smaller version of the F-15 yet having the same capabilites but at a smaller size, while the F-16 was created to do the same role of the F-5, albiet at a larger size, therefore, you can theoretically compare the MiG 29 and the F-15 togther because they were meant to compete against each other

Russia hates single-engined platforms, you notice how they turned down the I-2000 and the Yak LFI because, they had single engined versions

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 20:23
may i ask something Vastu and Severnaya, why does everyone treat the MiG 29SMT to being superior to the MiG 29M, i just don't understand

Performance data:
Crew requirements MiG-29M/MiG-29M2 1/2
Takeoff weight MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, kg
- normal 17 500/17 800
- maximum 22 400/22 700
Maximum operational g-load 9
Maximum airspeed MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, km/h
- at altitude 2 400/2 400
- at S/L 1 500/1 400
Service ceiling, m 17 500/17 500
Operational range MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, km
- on internal fuel 2 000/1 800
- with three fuel drop tanks 3 200/3 000
- with three fuel drop tanks and in-flight refueling 6 000
Engine type RD-33 ser.3М
Maximum weapon load MiG-29M/MiG-29M2, kg 4 500/4 500



Performance data:
Takeoff weight, kg
- normal 17 000
- maximum 22 000
Engine type/thrust with A/B ON RD-33 ser.3/2х8300
Maximum operational g-load 9
Maximum airspeed, km/h
- at altitude 2 400
- at S/L 1 500
Service ceiling, m 17 500
Operational range, km
- on internal fuel/with 3 fuel drop tanks 2 100/>3 000
- with 3 fuel drop tanks and in-flight refueling >6 000
Maximum weapon load, kg 4 500

there are only a few tiny differences, the MiG 29M weighs 500 kg heavier than the MiG 29SMT, which gives the MiG 29SMT slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio, and thus better maneuverability, plus the increased thrust of the engines, but sadly, on this website(and it is the official wesbite of the MiG coporation, it metions that the MiG 29 SMT still uses the RD-33, but it also mentions series 3, so could that mean the RD-43? the MiG 29M also has a heavier maximum weight, 400 kg's heavier than the MiG 29SMT

they both have a g-load of 9 g's

they both have a maximum speed of 2,400 km(Mach 2.26) at alltitude, and both of them have a maximum speed of 1,500 km(Mach 1.22) at sea level, and both of them have a service ceiling of 17,500 meters

MiG 29SMT has a slightly longer range on internal fuel, only 100 km longer than the MiG 29M, and with three fuel tanks, they both have roughly the same range, with the MiG 29SMT's being over 3,000 km and the MiG 29M being 3,200

and finally both of them have a 4,500 kg weapons load

so, very minute differences, yet, why does Russia go with the MiG 29SMT upgrade over the SNIPER, or 29M etc.

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/production/?tid=1&id=3
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/production/?tid=1&id=5

look at these links, read them, very interesting and i'd just want to know once and for all why the MiG 29SMT is better than all the other upgrades for the MiG 29 aircraft

thanks greatly, really appreciate it

yo, Vastu, one more thing, you seem to kow a lot about the MiG 29, are you also knowledgeable in other Russian aircraft? if you are, you mind giving me your email, i wish to talk with you

ajaybhutani
01 Feb 05,, 21:10
not entirely, because the MiG 29 wasn't really created to challenge the F-16, it was created to be a smaller version of the F-15 yet having the same capabilites but at a smaller size, while the F-16 was created to do the same role of the F-5, albiet at a larger size, therefore, you can theoretically compare the MiG 29 and the F-15 togther because they were meant to compete against each other

Russia hates single-engined platforms, you notice how they turned down the I-2000 and the Yak LFI because, they had single engined versionsi
i was under an impression that mig29 were made to counter F16 and su27 to counter F15.The similarities need not signify that they were meant to compete with eath other. Russians made su27 to compete with F15.
Well we all know that russian engines has very high maintenance costs and break down rate. So obviously a two engine aircraft is safer than one. While the americans engines were more sophisticated and much better in terms of break down and maintenance for americans could and did spend much more money than russians.

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 21:21
yes, but, the AL-31 that powers the Su-27, is very fuel efficient, the RD-33 isn't that good of an engine, but the AL-31, AL-35, AL-37, and Al-41 are incredible engines with good fuel economy

Garry
02 Feb 05,, 16:53
HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!
Don't even begin to compare the MiG-29 to an F-15. I don't know what rectal extraction gave you your figures on the APG-63v2 radar either, but you don't know what you're talking about.

OK. Mr arrogance. Did you made any effort trying to know/understand what your are not believing at?

I really doubt that you have much data to claim that.....

In general MiG-29 was a good frame.... it just lacked good modernization like F-15 does now.....

However MiG-29 SMT is quite a potent version and has nothing to do with MiG-29 in ex-german inventory....

Garry
02 Feb 05,, 17:01
not entirely, because the MiG 29 wasn't really created to challenge the F-16, it was created to be a smaller version of the F-15 yet having the same capabilites but at a smaller size, while the F-16 was created to do the same role of the F-5, albiet at a larger size, therefore, you can theoretically compare the MiG 29 and the F-15 togther because they were meant to compete against each other

Russia hates single-engined platforms, you notice how they turned down the I-2000 and the Yak LFI because, they had single engined versions

Sorry Dima, I still think that MiG-29 was designed as a light and shorter range fighter than F-15C.

I remember I was asking a Russian pilot (who engaged F-15C in a training) about this issue. He pointed that the speed + amount of internal fuel does mean a lot in cat & mouse game.... MiG-29 or F-16 can not fly as long as Su-27/F-15C on afterburner at supersonic speed and hence longer range fighters may avoid encountering them...

jgetti
02 Feb 05,, 17:19
OK. Mr arrogance. Did you made any effort trying to know/understand what your are not believing at?

I really doubt that you have much data to claim that.....

In general MiG-29 was a good frame.... it just lacked good modernization like F-15 does now.....

However MiG-29 SMT is quite a potent version and has nothing to do with MiG-29 in ex-german inventory....

I'm not being arrogant,, I've dealt with this shmuck before. Read some of the other articles concerning the F-15/Su27 and it's derivitives that I've posted on, you'll find the evidence there. I'm an engineer on the F-15 program in St. Louis,, I know way more data than I'm allowed to post publicly. It doesn't matter what evidence is brought up against this guy, he's heavily bias in his beliefs, and no amout of proof is going to change his mind. That's why I laugh at his comment.

SwingKid
02 Feb 05,, 21:02
HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!
Don't even begin to compare the MiG-29 to an F-15. I don't know what rectal extraction gave you your figures on the APG-63v2 radar either, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Is it necessary to bring the APG-63(v)2 into this? Did it even have any close combat modes programmed before 2004? What's wrong with APG-63(v)1?

Of course the Zhuk-M is even farther from being operational. MiG-29SMT in 1998... Yeah right - the words "paper airplane" come to mind. Mikoyan and the Russian Air Force can't even agree what a MiG-29SMT is. Give me a working 9.13 that actually exists any day, thank you.

"Plasma stealth" is all hysteria over nothing. If you look behind the radiotransparent nosecones of Russian aircraft, you'll discover a lot of right angles that make great radar reflectors and contribute greatly to Russian aircraft RCS. Some theoreticians demonstrated that if you fill that nosecone with plasma, all those corners become "hidden" and the aircraft's gigantic RCS goes down to a more reasonable value. Of course, that also happens if you fill the nosecone with solid lead. Filling the nosecone with plasma prevents the radar from doing its job, making the practicality of this arrangement somewhat questionable to say the least.

A combination of "emphasize the good, don't mention the bad" on the part of Russian researchers who were looking to attach themselves to the latest stealth "craze" to attract western institutions to fund their work, western enthusiasts and mil-ind-complex "scaremongers" then took this pedestrian concept and rode with it, inventing all these stories about plasma "clouds" that magically float around Russian fighters in flight, making them into an invisible army overnight. The plasma "cloud" is a myth. The plasma was only ever intended to fill an enclosed, air-tight, almost evacuated dielectric antenna housing. All these stories about shrouding airplane surfaces in lightning are pure flights of fancy.

Now, after years of effort, they can finally reduce the RCS of a flat plate, which already has the lowest RCS known to man from any angle but broadside, with a plasma-containing "screen," instead of filling the entire nosecone. So, while this radar is painting a locked target with radar energy thousands of times a second and tripping the RWR alarms off like a Christmas tree, it's "stealthy." What will they do now about turbine blades, another great contributor to RCS?

Just shape the planes and their radar antennas for stealth from the original design in the first place, like B-1B, F-117 and F/A-22, it'll work much better and cost a lot less.

-SK

jgetti
02 Feb 05,, 21:33
Is it necessary to bring the APG-63(v)2 into this? Did it even have any close combat modes programmed before 2004? What's wrong with APG-63(v)1?

He quoted tracking ranges for the APG-63 equipped F-15's and continued to suggest that the PESA-type BARS radars of the MiG-29 could defeat any AESA equipped F-15. Nothing is wrong with the APG-63v1, it just not does not have an AESA array,,, therefore "any AESA equipped F-15" would be one equipped with an APG-63v2. That's why I brought it up,,, and the fact that I doubt the credibility of publicly released figures on any AESA radar.

Bill
02 Feb 05,, 22:10
The Mig-29 is a piece of junk that has performed horribly in real combat with numerous nations.

I get so sick of reading about all these 'great' Russian weapons systems that pretty much all become instant death traps to their users when they face off against 'inferior' Western systems.

Give me a break...

SwingKid
02 Feb 05,, 23:05
He quoted tracking ranges for the APG-63 equipped F-15's and continued to suggest that the PESA-type BARS radars of the MiG-29 could defeat any AESA equipped F-15.

My bad, I didn't notice that part of his commentary. I was more thinking of a comment from another discussion,


USAF intentionally sent less than apt F-15's in there without the APG-63 AESA radar...

While I'd agree all indications point to Cope India being a politically staged event, I don't think "lack of AESA" counts as an explanation for anything - yet it seems to keep coming up as an issue, as if one should expect to suddenly start losing engagements without it. :confused:

M21Sniper, I don't mind when people discuss MiG-29s vs Western equipment... The Fulcrum did scare the USAF Aardvark fleet into early retirement after all... ;) My specific peeve is any analysis based on what Russia has "under development" - not one such hyped object I can think of since 1991 has ever amounted to anything but a desperate plea for cash. It's like anything else - if the manufacturer needs to advertise its capabilities on the internet, instead of having satisfied customers do it for them...

-SK

jgetti
02 Feb 05,, 23:18
While I'd agree all indications point to Cope India being a politically staged event, I don't think "lack of AESA" counts as an explanation for anything - yet it seems to keep coming up as an issue, as if one should expect to suddenly start losing engagements without it. -SK

It makes a huge difference in a simulation that considers the first BVR missile fired on a locked target as a kill shot. Most of the 'kills' made by IAF in COPE India were BVR shots which assumes that any missile fired on a locked target is a hit. Therefore, in said 'simulation', whoever gets off the first shot is the winner, regardless of evasive maneuvering or countermeasures. They were able to see us at the same time we were able to see them. Since we agreed not to use our AMRAAM missiles, however, we didn't have a 'simulated' missile that could reach as far as them, and so we had to close in further to get off a shot.

Many things played into the losses of that simulation that were unrealistic,,, you're right, AESA was just one of them.

troung
02 Feb 05,, 23:50
"My specific peeve is any analysis based on what Russia has "under development" - not one such hyped object I can think of since 1991 has ever amounted to anything but a desperate plea for cash. It's like anything else - if the manufacturer needs to advertise its capabilities on the internet, instead of having satisfied customers do it for them..."

;)

"I get so sick of reading about all these 'great' Russian weapons systems that pretty much all become instant death traps to their users when they face off against 'inferior' Western systems."

You have never been one to mince words...

But yeah I'm sick of hearing abou the latest Russian internet super fighter and how it is so much more lethal then Western planes...

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 00:06
Since we agreed not to use our AMRAAM missiles, however,

I've heard directly contradicting claims about this (not from you) and am not sure I believe it... The more detailed and believeable-sounding one said that AMRAAMs were indeed used. Are you sure about this part?

Even if true, the USAF didn't have AMRAAMs in Desert Storm either... Neither AESA, nor AMRAAM, nor JHMCS, nor any other development since 1991 should make any difference to the outcome of Eagle combat today IMHO... How to improve on 100%? fUSSR and its clients have been struggling to play catch-up, not "get-ahead." Sparrow-armed F-15Cs from 1991 should have won Cope India hands down... The R-77 rumoredly doesn't even loft like a Sparrow. What did the Su-30MKI introduce to win, the slotted-array antenna? That the F-14A carried in 1972?

The "numerical superiority" of the opposing team was also reported to include "escorted" strikers that posed no threat to the Eagles...

I don't put much credence in any of the excuses. The Eagles lost because they wanted to.

-SK

troung
03 Feb 05,, 00:16
Yeah the F/A-22A is in trouble and of course if the F-15C was reported to be more then capable to stand up to the potenial enemies there would be no point to the F/A-22A. If the F-15C had shown itself to bemore then capable that would have possibly become a nail in the F/A-22A's coffin.

Hell from what I read we should no expect anymore F-15s to get AESA until the F/A-22A starts really entering service in big numbers.

Nothing can be done to threaten the F/A-22A it seems.

Dima
03 Feb 05,, 01:53
you know what makes me sick, going to all these forums that state how superior western technology is to Russian, you guys are just too overly biased towards America, do you even admit that Russia has some good military hardware, if not, boy your living a sad life, there are a few russian pieces of equipment without any analogues in the west such as the Iskander and the Brahmos missile

take it easy on the insults M21 Sniper, i can just as easily say that about the "crappy" F-16, if they are so crappy, then why did they shoot down a total of 6 aircraft including a stealthy bomber

F-117 downed by MiG 29 on March 24
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on March 24
F-16C downed by MiG 29 on March 26
F-15E downed by a MiG 29 on March 26
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on May 21
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on May 31

other NATO/USAF aircraft downed by enemy fighter pilots were:

F-15E downed by MiG 21 on March 26
F-15 downed by MiG 21 on April 6(after dogfight)

and NATO/USAF aircraft shot down by unknown aircraft and unknown missiles(which implies that a Yugoslavian aircraft shot it down, with an unknown missile)

NATO aircraft downed by AAM on March 24
F-16 downed by AAM on March 28
(4 F-16's) downed by AAM missiles on March 28
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 5
(3 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(5 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(5 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
(13 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20

therefore, Yugoslavian pilots who were outnumbered 5+:1, shot down a total of 46 NATO/USAF aircraft with with the possibility of anymore between 6-46 aircraft being shot down by Yugoslav MiG 29's that were outnumbered 5(minimum)+:1

(since, it is unlikely that a MiG 21 could destroy aircraft from ranges close to the MiG 29)

in total, another 165 downed aircraft by unknown causes

also, many MiG 29's were shot down, but no where near the number of NATO/USAF aircraft downed because Yugoslavia had a much smaller airforce, these following Yugoslav aircraft were downed

MiG 21FK downed by F/A-18 on March 26
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on May 12
MiG 21 downed by F-15E on May 11
MiG 21 downed by F-15E on May 11
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 24
MiG 29 downed by F-16 on March 26
MiG 29 downed by F-15E on March 26
J-22 Orao downed by unknown causes on April 18
G-4 Super Galeb downed by unknown causes on April 22

there was also one MiG 21 damaged by a SAM on April 18, but it was not destroyed

MiG 21-8 destroyed
MiG 23-3 destroyed
MiG 29-6 destroyed
J-22 Orao-1 destroyed
G-4 Super Galeb-1 destroyed

the MiG 29 downed 6 confirmed aircraft, and 6 MiG 29 aircraft were downed(1:1) ratio(MiG 21 downed 2 aircraft, and a total of 8 MiG 21 were downed, giving it a 4:1 ratio) (on March 28, NATO or the USAF launched a bombing raid on an air field or somethiing like that, almost all of those aircraft downed on March 28 were downed on the ground, it was not aeriel combat

if you take into account the other 38 aircraft that were downed by AAM missiles, since the MiG 29 was Yugoslavia's most advanced fighter, you can therfore acredit those kills, or most of those kills to the MiG 29, therefore, the MiG 29 kill ratio can be any where between 1:1-7.3:1

and this is by inferior pilots outnumbered and outgunned majorly in as M21 Sniper stated "a piece of junk that has performed horribly in real combat"

now, if you take into account all the NATO/USAF aircraft downed by unknown causes which totals 165 aircraft, the kill ratio of the MiG 29 significantly rasies, but the thing is that, these aircraft downed by unknown causes could have been and most likely were downed by SAM's and AAA guns, so, this would provide a slight increase in the kill ratio of the MiG 29

oh, for all those that are against plasma stealth technology, they ahve already tested it on an aircraft, i nkow that most of you biased people will disregard this as bs, and you've all heard of Russia having a third generation of plasma generators requiring only 100kW of energy and weighs less than 100 kg

but they have tested a plasma screen on an Su-33( sorry, i read the article about a year ago, and thus don't remember off the bat, it was either a Su-30, Su-32, Su-33, Su-35) yea one of those, anyways, they used a plasma screen to cover up the RW emissions that the radome which houses the radar would emmit(the radar accounts for a significant amount of the RCS of an aircraft) i forgot how much the RCS decreased, i think it was 60%, which is relatively moderate gains

um, dealing with the radar issue with plasma, many pilots when flying, don't have their radar turned on, its just too much of a liable asset, since it would increase your RCS significantly when you turn your radar on, the enmy might detect you, anyways, you can still use the IRST, which i've heard future models will have a 50 km range, in addition

wouldn't it be a reasonable trade to turn off your radar(which makes you almost unable to detect any enemy aircraft) to lower your RCS significantly, thus making YOU very hard to detect, you can get into short range(50km or lower) and fire your IR missiles in WVR which russian aircraft excel in

anyways, just some calculations, my source for the downings of NATO/USAF aircraft during the Yugoslav air war, the site doesn't wokr right now, its aeronautics.ru if any of you are familiar with it, i have an entire database on downed aircraft on Excel if anyone wishes to observe it, in addition, i found three interesting happenings

a B-2A Spirit of of Missouri was downed on May 2 by a SAM and was detected by long wave early warning radars, the seriel number of the aircraft was AV-8 88-0329, the aircraft was hit by a SAM and continued to fly, but crashed into the mountain because it was decreasing in alltitude, it crashed between Simanovci and Kupinovo in the Pecinci district

another B-2A Spirit of Washington was downed on June 1 by unknown casues, its seriel number was AV-11 88-0332

another B-2A was shot down on May 8 by unkown causes, since i haven't foudn its seriel number, i deem this an unconfirmed downing

let me try to find the lnik with the aircraft utilizing the plasma screen, i tried a month ago and couldn't find it.........................yes, found one link

http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/stealth2.htm

so, effectively, putting one of these devices onboard an aircraft would make it seem stealthier than if you used ferr-magnetic radar absorbant materiel, and painted its surfaces with radar dissipating paint, doing this can reduce the RCS of an aircraft by 10-15dB, while using a plasma screen can effectively reduce the RCS of an aircraft by 20dB, which is 75%-100% more effective, plus wouldn't put any excessive airflow and weight restrictions on the aircraft

http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats15684_sweetman.txt

also, another advantage to a better decreased RCS is that it is far easier to maintain than RAM and paint coatings, reducing the costs for maintenance, which playa a huge part in a tender Russia is also developing ceramic panels that would coat the engine ducts, but wouldn't impede the airflow, like the tiles used on the F-22

well, thats all i can find right now, bye

Officer of Engineers
03 Feb 05,, 02:05
Dima,

Sorry, there were no NATO aircrafts downed as stated in your post.

It's very, very simple. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten airplanes take off. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten airplanes landed.

Never mind what the Serbs said, the Russians had more than enough eyes watching Aviano to confirm the Serb claims were bogus.

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 02:28
Dima,

I don't know your age or background, but the very same page that you cite says:


ITAE has studied at least three techniques for reducing the RCS contribution of the radar antenna, in addition to the simplest method of deflecting the antenna upwards

also:


"A problem of huge size" is how the researchers describe the Su-35 inlet, with a straight duct that provides direct visibility to the entire face of the engine compressor. The basic solution has been to apply ferro-magnetic radar absorbent material (RAM) to the compressor face and to the inlet duct walls, but this involves challenges.

and:


The antennas are modelled separately and then are added to the entire RCS picture.

I don't find anything here to contradict what I have written. The plasma stealth has nothing to do with the "problem of huge size" of the inlets. Instead, they ignore that problem, and hype up the problem they can do something about with plasmas - reducing the antenna RCS. A problem which they practically admit doesn't even need plasmas at all, since if you're willing to disable your radar during ingress, you can just "tilt it upwards."

In order to let their results look like anything at all, they have to separate the antenna from the rest of the RCS of the aircraft! Otherwise it would be too painfully obvious that plasma stealth does NOT solve the "entire RCS picture." Reducing the RCS of one part and ignoring the rest, and then advertising those results as if it is some kind of solution is simply "cheating."

These people are not liars. They are plasma scientists who have learned you don't get grants by advertising what you can't do, but you do get grants by hyping the latest trend and looking like you're a part of it, even if it's a ridiculously small and far-fetched part. It's like the radar people nowadays who are inventing radar that can "see through walls" to "spot terrorists". It's a ridiculous concept, but radar is all these people know how to do, and anything "anti-terrorist" is easier to sell - whether it's actually practical or not is the buyer's problem. And maybe, there's someone out there with money who doesn't know it's a ridiculous concept. That's why Windows beats Linux. That's how free markets work.

If you want a more honest assessment, talk to the customers, the people in the armed forces, not the people designing and selling the hardware. They're mostly all hucksters, both in Russia and the West. The Yugoslav MiG-29 pilots themselves have gone on the record to say they didn't succeed to fire any missiles at anything, and don't appreciate the lies being spread about them. Russia does have interesting weapons, but I think there are better sources to learn about them than the sources you're using.

Respect,

-SK

Dima
03 Feb 05,, 02:30
I've heard directly contradicting claims about this (not from you) and am not sure I believe it... The more detailed and believeable-sounding one said that AMRAAMs were indeed used. Are you sure about this part?

Even if true, the USAF didn't have AMRAAMs in Desert Storm either... Neither AESA, nor AMRAAM, nor JHMCS, nor any other development since 1991 should make any difference to the outcome of Eagle combat today IMHO... How to improve on 100%? fUSSR and its clients have been struggling to play catch-up, not "get-ahead." Sparrow-armed F-15Cs from 1991 should have won Cope India hands down... The R-77 rumoredly doesn't even loft like a Sparrow. What did the Su-30MKI introduce to win, the slotted-array antenna? That the F-14A carried in 1972?

The "numerical superiority" of the opposing team was also reported to include "escorted" strikers that posed no threat to the Eagles...

I don't put much credence in any of the excuses. The Eagles lost because they wanted to.

-SK

just to reply to this statement, the Indians outnumbered the F-15's usually 10-12 to 4, the Indians operated the MiG 27, MiG 21BIS, MiG 29, Mirage 2000 and Su-30K(NOT MKI) , the MiG 27 was a strike aircraft, and was being escorted by the MiG 21BIS and the other aircraft engaged the F-15, so in most instances, it wasn't really 10:4, it was usually 6-8:4, also, and they did not have any AESA radrs, but there was this competition with ELmendorf pilots at Elmendorf AFB, in which the aircraft were equipped with AESA radrs, and the longest range AAM's in USAF service, yet still lost tho the Flankers, let me see if i can find the link

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-article02.html

in this article, in the last part of the second paragraph up from the last picture, it mentions that all missiles were limited, this is dealing with the DACT excercise know as COPE India at Gwailor

you know what, i can't find it now, thats all, later

why are you guys so anti-russian, its really pathetic

http://www.cdi.org/russia/313-9.cfm

well, here is another article that mentions a few excercises between Russian aircraft and Canadian and South African Aircraft, in which, the MiG 29 went up against the Mirage 2000 in South Africe, the MiG 29 came out on top, wait, i'm still looking...........

Officer of Engineers
03 Feb 05,, 02:43
why are you guys so anti-russian, its really pathetic

You will find that many old dinosaurs here have a healthy respects for the Russians but they are no longer the monster juggernaut that they used to be (and neither are we).

There is a stong sense of misunderstanding in the internet crowd these days, namely very few have an actual idea on how we and the Russians were supposed to fight. Those who criticized the Russians expect them to fight like us. Those East Bloc crowd who criticized us expect us to fight like them. Hence, both are dead wrong in these issues and both are dead right.

We are a manouver centric force. The Russians are a fire centric force. And that's where all the misunderstanding starts to take place. We rely on fire just as much as the Russians and they rely on manouver just as much as we do. However, wheras they manouver to bring their fire online, we fire to protect our manouver.

Clear as mud.

Dima
03 Feb 05,, 02:45
Dima,

I don't know your age or background, but the very same page that you cite says:



also:



and:



I don't find anything here to contradict what I have written. The plasma stealth has nothing to do with the "problem of huge size" of the inlets. Instead, they ignore that problem, and hype up the problem they can do something about with plasmas - reducing the antenna RCS. A problem which they practically admit doesn't even need plasmas at all, since if you're willing to disable your radar during ingress, you can just "tilt it upwards."

In order to let their results look like anything at all, they have to separate the antenna from the rest of the RCS of the aircraft! Otherwise it would be too painfully obvious that plasma stealth does NOT solve the "entire RCS picture." Reducing the RCS of one part and ignoring the rest, and then advertising those results as if it is some kind of solution is simply "cheating."

These people are not liars. They are plasma scientists who have learned you don't get grants by advertising what you can't do, but you do get grants by hyping the latest trend and looking like you're a part of it, even if it's a ridiculously small and far-fetched part. It's like the radar people nowadays who are inventing radar that can "see through walls" to "spot terrorists". It's a ridiculous concept, but radar is all these people know how to do, and anything "anti-terrorist" is easier to sell - whether it's actually practical or not is the buyer's problem. And maybe, there's someone out there with money who doesn't know it's a ridiculous concept. That's why Windows beats Linux. That's how free markets work.

If you want a more honest assessment, talk to the customers, the people in the armed forces, not the people designing and selling the hardware. They're mostly all hucksters, both in Russia and the West. The Yugoslav MiG-29 pilots themselves have gone on the record to say they didn't succeed to fire any missiles at anything, and don't appreciate the lies being spread about them. Russia does have interesting weapons, but I think there are better sources to learn about them than the sources you're using.

Respect,

-SK

yo Swing Kid, much respect for you, really, a lot of respect, you mind giving me your email? just want to talk, because i'm neither a pro-russian or pro-american, or i try not to be, but, i always go into the defense of an aircraft, always, even if i know i'm going to lose, anyways

Officer of Engineers, when that site gets back up, i'll give you many links regarding the downing of NATO aircraft

and you are wrong as well, badly wrong, sorry man, but America did admit to losing an F-117 to an SA-3/SA-6 on March 27

and they also admitted the loss of an F-16CG-40-CF by an SA-3 on May 2, so even NATO and the USAF addmitted losses, i'm afraid that your source is incorrect, i'm waiting for that site to get up again, without it, i don't have much support for these arguments


um, with due respect SwingKid, what do your first three quotes, what are they responding to?

you said that the Yugoslav pilots didn't succeed to fire any misiles at all? where did you hear this from?

oh yes, i am aware that the plasma screen cannot solve the entire RCS problem, but neither can the RAM, RAS, and radar dissipating paint technique either

i was just merely stating that they've developed pieces of the technology required to make it fully capable and that the screen effectively reduced the RCS of the aircraft considerably, thats all my point was, and that it was more efficient than putting on RAM etc.

well thats all, have a nice day

SwingKid, how old are you by the way, and whats your background?

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 03:28
My formal training is in antennas and electrical engineering.

The quotes I selected were to indicate that by reading carefully, anyone not already blinded by enthusiasm can see the limitations of plasma stealth alluded to in some detail by the very same people who invented it.

One thing to consider between Yugoslav vs. NATO claims is that to a SAM operator, manned fighters, UAVs, cruise missiles, decoys and maybe even drop tanks that appear on radar as they fall may all technically be counted as "downed aircraft" without lying, whereas NATO forces are really only interested in lost pilots. How often have the Yugoslavs claimed shooting down a UAV? How many pilots did they parade in front of TV cameras?

Thanks for the invitation, but I need my e-mail for a lot of work and would not have time for a private conversation. Sharing information in a public forum prevents having to repeat the same information later.

If you feel I'm anti-Russian, well, that's your call...

-SK

P.S. Conventional stealth is about 95% reflective shaping and 5% absorbing materials.

jgetti
03 Feb 05,, 03:40
you know what makes me sick, going to all these forums that state how superior western technology is to Russian, you guys are just too overly biased towards America, do you even admit that Russia has some good military hardware, if not, boy your living a sad life, there are a few russian pieces of equipment without any analogues in the west such as the Iskander and the Brahmos missile

take it easy on the insults M21 Sniper, i can just as easily say that about the "crappy" F-16, if they are so crappy, then why did they shoot down a total of 6 aircraft including a stealthy bomber

F-117 downed by MiG 29 on March 24
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on March 24
F-16C downed by MiG 29 on March 26
F-15E downed by a MiG 29 on March 26
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on May 21
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on May 31

other NATO/USAF aircraft downed by enemy fighter pilots were:

F-15E downed by MiG 21 on March 26
F-15 downed by MiG 21 on April 6(after dogfight)

and NATO/USAF aircraft shot down by unknown aircraft and unknown missiles(which implies that a Yugoslavian aircraft shot it down, with an unknown missile)

NATO aircraft downed by AAM on March 24
F-16 downed by AAM on March 28
(4 F-16's) downed by AAM missiles on March 28
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 5
(3 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(5 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(5 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
(13 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20

therefore, Yugoslavian pilots who were outnumbered 5+:1, shot down a total of 46 NATO/USAF aircraft with with the possibility of anymore between 6-46 aircraft being shot down by Yugoslav MiG 29's that were outnumbered 5(minimum)+:1

(since, it is unlikely that a MiG 21 could destroy aircraft from ranges close to the MiG 29)

in total, another 165 downed aircraft by unknown causes

also, many MiG 29's were shot down, but no where near the number of NATO/USAF aircraft downed because Yugoslavia had a much smaller airforce, these following Yugoslav aircraft were downed

MiG 21FK downed by F/A-18 on March 26
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on May 12
MiG 21 downed by F-15E on May 11
MiG 21 downed by F-15E on May 11
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 24
MiG 29 downed by F-16 on March 26
MiG 29 downed by F-15E on March 26
J-22 Orao downed by unknown causes on April 18
G-4 Super Galeb downed by unknown causes on April 22

there was also one MiG 21 damaged by a SAM on April 18, but it was not destroyed

MiG 21-8 destroyed
MiG 23-3 destroyed
MiG 29-6 destroyed
J-22 Orao-1 destroyed
G-4 Super Galeb-1 destroyed

the MiG 29 downed 6 confirmed aircraft, and 6 MiG 29 aircraft were downed(1:1) ratio(MiG 21 downed 2 aircraft, and a total of 8 MiG 21 were downed, giving it a 4:1 ratio) (on March 28, NATO or the USAF launched a bombing raid on an air field or somethiing like that, almost all of those aircraft downed on March 28 were downed on the ground, it was not aeriel combat

if you take into account the other 38 aircraft that were downed by AAM missiles, since the MiG 29 was Yugoslavia's most advanced fighter, you can therfore acredit those kills, or most of those kills to the MiG 29, therefore, the MiG 29 kill ratio can be any where between 1:1-7.3:1

and this is by inferior pilots outnumbered and outgunned majorly in as M21 Sniper stated "a piece of junk that has performed horribly in real combat"

now, if you take into account all the NATO/USAF aircraft downed by unknown causes which totals 165 aircraft, the kill ratio of the MiG 29 significantly rasies, but the thing is that, these aircraft downed by unknown causes could have been and most likely were downed by SAM's and AAA guns, so, this would provide a slight increase in the kill ratio of the MiG 29

oh, for all those that are against plasma stealth technology, they ahve already tested it on an aircraft, i nkow that most of you biased people will disregard this as bs, and you've all heard of Russia having a third generation of plasma generators requiring only 100kW of energy and weighs less than 100 kg

but they have tested a plasma screen on an Su-33( sorry, i read the article about a year ago, and thus don't remember off the bat, it was either a Su-30, Su-32, Su-33, Su-35) yea one of those, anyways, they used a plasma screen to cover up the RW emissions that the radome which houses the radar would emmit(the radar accounts for a significant amount of the RCS of an aircraft) i forgot how much the RCS decreased, i think it was 60%, which is relatively moderate gains

um, dealing with the radar issue with plasma, many pilots when flying, don't have their radar turned on, its just too much of a liable asset, since it would increase your RCS significantly when you turn your radar on, the enmy might detect you, anyways, you can still use the IRST, which i've heard future models will have a 50 km range, in addition

wouldn't it be a reasonable trade to turn off your radar(which makes you almost unable to detect any enemy aircraft) to lower your RCS significantly, thus making YOU very hard to detect, you can get into short range(50km or lower) and fire your IR missiles in WVR which russian aircraft excel in

anyways, just some calculations, my source for the downings of NATO/USAF aircraft during the Yugoslav air war, the site doesn't wokr right now, its aeronautics.ru if any of you are familiar with it, i have an entire database on downed aircraft on Excel if anyone wishes to observe it, in addition, i found three interesting happenings

a B-2A Spirit of of Missouri was downed on May 2 by a SAM and was detected by long wave early warning radars, the seriel number of the aircraft was AV-8 88-0329, the aircraft was hit by a SAM and continued to fly, but crashed into the mountain because it was decreasing in alltitude, it crashed between Simanovci and Kupinovo in the Pecinci district

another B-2A Spirit of Washington was downed on June 1 by unknown casues, its seriel number was AV-11 88-0332

another B-2A was shot down on May 8 by unkown causes, since i haven't foudn its seriel number, i deem this an unconfirmed downing

let me try to find the lnik with the aircraft utilizing the plasma screen, i tried a month ago and couldn't find it.........................yes, found one link

http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/stealth2.htm

so, effectively, putting one of these devices onboard an aircraft would make it seem stealthier than if you used ferr-magnetic radar absorbant materiel, and painted its surfaces with radar dissipating paint, doing this can reduce the RCS of an aircraft by 10-15dB, while using a plasma screen can effectively reduce the RCS of an aircraft by 20dB, which is 75%-100% more effective, plus wouldn't put any excessive airflow and weight restrictions on the aircraft

http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats15684_sweetman.txt

also, another advantage to a better decreased RCS is that it is far easier to maintain than RAM and paint coatings, reducing the costs for maintenance, which playa a huge part in a tender Russia is also developing ceramic panels that would coat the engine ducts, but wouldn't impede the airflow, like the tiles used on the F-22

well, thats all i can find right now, bye

You can rattle off all you want about other jets, but one thing I know for certain,,, there has NEVER been an F-15 downed by any other aircraft EVER.

troung
03 Feb 05,, 03:54
"the site doesn't wokr right now, its aeronautics.ru if any of you are familiar with it, i have an entire database on downed aircraft on Excel if anyone wishes to observe it, in addition, i found three interesting happenings"

Lock the topic...

"you know what makes me sick, going to all these forums that state how superior western technology is to Russian, you guys are just too overly biased towards America"

I guess it makes you sad but American weapons have normally done better during the shooting parts of wars...

"do you even admit that Russia has some good military hardware, if not, boy your living a sad life, there are a few russian pieces of equipment without any analogues in the west such as the Iskander and the Brahmos missile"

Yeah the M-46, D-30, AKM/AK-47/AKMS, SVD, AT-3, BM-21, ZIS-3, RPG-7, SA-7, ZSU-23-4, ZU-23-2, S-60, BM-22, DShK-38/46, Mi-8, Mi-17MD, IL-76, PPSh-41, IL-2, Pe-2, Yak-9, La-5FN, MiG-27, Mi-24, Su-25, T-34-85, IS-3, PKM, were all good pieces of equipment during their periods of use (the older ones) and some still now.

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 04:00
You can rattle off all you want about other jets, but one thing I know for certain,,, there has NEVER been an F-15 downed by any other aircraft EVER.

Can you shed any light on this story?

"Suddenly the lone F-15 was attacked by two fighter MiG-25 Foxbats of AQAJAS from different directions. Before the Eagle pilot could destroy the MiG in front of him, he was shot down by the MiG-25 Foxbat beside him with two R-40 Acrid(one radar- homing and the second one heat-seeking) missiles. Israel recognized the victory and denied the loss."

http://www.geocities.com/siafdu/foxbat2.html

-SK

P.S. Please learn to trim quoted text. yeesh...

jgetti
03 Feb 05,, 04:22
just to reply to this statement, the Indians outnumbered the F-15's usually 10-12 to 4, the Indians operated the MiG 27, MiG 21BIS, MiG 29, Mirage 2000 and Su-30K(NOT MKI) , the MiG 27 was a strike aircraft, and was being escorted by the MiG 21BIS and the other aircraft engaged the F-15, so in most instances, it wasn't really 10:4, it was usually 6-8:4, also, and they did not have any AESA radrs, but there was this competition with ELmendorf pilots at Elmendorf AFB, in which the aircraft were equipped with AESA radrs, and the longest range AAM's in USAF service, yet still lost tho the Flankers, let me see if i can find the link

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-article02.html

in this article, in the last part of the second paragraph up from the last picture, it mentions that all missiles were limited, this is dealing with the DACT excercise know as COPE India at Gwailor

you know what, i can't find it now, thats all, later

why are you guys so anti-russian, its really pathetic

http://www.cdi.org/russia/313-9.cfm

well, here is another article that mentions a few excercises between Russian aircraft and Canadian and South African Aircraft, in which, the MiG 29 went up against the Mirage 2000 in South Africe, the MiG 29 came out on top, wait, i'm still looking...........

Not anti-russian,, I have a lot of respect for Russian aircraft. But I also know the capabilities of my aircraft. First of all, you need to keep in mind that the cooperative fly-off's such as COPE India and COPE Thunder are cooperative flyoffs to learn more about eachother's tactics. They are NOT intended to determine a winner or loser. If you are taking it that way then you are missing the point all together. Clearly that's how everybody likes to interpret them. There are also a lot of politics involved in these cooperative flyoffs whether you want to believe it or not and it has everything to do with saving the F/A-22 program. Bottom line is, in an actual combat scenerio, the F-15 can maintain air superiority over ANY active service aircraft threat out there. That's it.

jgetti
03 Feb 05,, 04:33
Can you shed any light on this story?

Sure can,,, find a source of information with a little credability next time.


P.S. Please learn to trim quoted text. yeesh...

":Originally Posted by Dima
you know what makes me sick, going to all these forums that state how superior western technology is to Russian, you guys are just too overly biased towards America, do you even admit that Russia has some good military hardware, if not, boy your living a sad life, there are a few russian pieces of equipment without any analogues in the west such as the Iskander and the Brahmos missile

take it easy on the insults M21 Sniper, i can just as easily say that about the "crappy" F-16, if they are so crappy, then why did they shoot down a total of 6 aircraft including a stealthy bomber

F-117 downed by MiG 29 on March 24
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on March 24
F-16C downed by MiG 29 on March 26
F-15E downed by a MiG 29 on March 26
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on May 21
NATO aircraft downed by MiG 29 on May 31

other NATO/USAF aircraft downed by enemy fighter pilots were:

F-15E downed by MiG 21 on March 26
F-15 downed by MiG 21 on April 6(after dogfight)

and NATO/USAF aircraft shot down by unknown aircraft and unknown missiles(which implies that a Yugoslavian aircraft shot it down, with an unknown missile)

NATO aircraft downed by AAM on March 24
F-16 downed by AAM on March 28
(4 F-16's) downed by AAM missiles on March 28
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 5
(3 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(5 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 12
(5 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
(13 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20
(2 NATO aircraft) downed by AAM missiles on May 20

therefore, Yugoslavian pilots who were outnumbered 5+:1, shot down a total of 46 NATO/USAF aircraft with with the possibility of anymore between 6-46 aircraft being shot down by Yugoslav MiG 29's that were outnumbered 5(minimum)+:1

(since, it is unlikely that a MiG 21 could destroy aircraft from ranges close to the MiG 29)

in total, another 165 downed aircraft by unknown causes

also, many MiG 29's were shot down, but no where near the number of NATO/USAF aircraft downed because Yugoslavia had a much smaller airforce, these following Yugoslav aircraft were downed

MiG 21FK downed by F/A-18 on March 26
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 23 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 28
MiG 21 downed by unknown causes on May 12
MiG 21 downed by F-15E on May 11
MiG 21 downed by F-15E on May 11
MiG 29 downed by unknown causes on March 24
MiG 29 downed by F-16 on March 26
MiG 29 downed by F-15E on March 26
J-22 Orao downed by unknown causes on April 18
G-4 Super Galeb downed by unknown causes on April 22

there was also one MiG 21 damaged by a SAM on April 18, but it was not destroyed

MiG 21-8 destroyed
MiG 23-3 destroyed
MiG 29-6 destroyed
J-22 Orao-1 destroyed
G-4 Super Galeb-1 destroyed

the MiG 29 downed 6 confirmed aircraft, and 6 MiG 29 aircraft were downed(1:1) ratio(MiG 21 downed 2 aircraft, and a total of 8 MiG 21 were downed, giving it a 4:1 ratio) (on March 28, NATO or the USAF launched a bombing raid on an air field or somethiing like that, almost all of those aircraft downed on March 28 were downed on the ground, it was not aeriel combat

if you take into account the other 38 aircraft that were downed by AAM missiles, since the MiG 29 was Yugoslavia's most advanced fighter, you can therfore acredit those kills, or most of those kills to the MiG 29, therefore, the MiG 29 kill ratio can be any where between 1:1-7.3:1

and this is by inferior pilots outnumbered and outgunned majorly in as M21 Sniper stated "a piece of junk that has performed horribly in real combat"

now, if you take into account all the NATO/USAF aircraft downed by unknown causes which totals 165 aircraft, the kill ratio of the MiG 29 significantly rasies, but the thing is that, these aircraft downed by unknown causes could have been and most likely were downed by SAM's and AAA guns, so, this would provide a slight increase in the kill ratio of the MiG 29

oh, for all those that are against plasma stealth technology, they ahve already tested it on an aircraft, i nkow that most of you biased people will disregard this as bs, and you've all heard of Russia having a third generation of plasma generators requiring only 100kW of energy and weighs less than 100 kg

but they have tested a plasma screen on an Su-33( sorry, i read the article about a year ago, and thus don't remember off the bat, it was either a Su-30, Su-32, Su-33, Su-35) yea one of those, anyways, they used a plasma screen to cover up the RW emissions that the radome which houses the radar would emmit(the radar accounts for a significant amount of the RCS of an aircraft) i forgot how much the RCS decreased, i think it was 60%, which is relatively moderate gains

um, dealing with the radar issue with plasma, many pilots when flying, don't have their radar turned on, its just too much of a liable asset, since it would increase your RCS significantly when you turn your radar on, the enmy might detect you, anyways, you can still use the IRST, which i've heard future models will have a 50 km range, in addition

wouldn't it be a reasonable trade to turn off your radar(which makes you almost unable to detect any enemy aircraft) to lower your RCS significantly, thus making YOU very hard to detect, you can get into short range(50km or lower) and fire your IR missiles in WVR which russian aircraft excel in

anyways, just some calculations, my source for the downings of NATO/USAF aircraft during the Yugoslav air war, the site doesn't wokr right now, its aeronautics.ru if any of you are familiar with it, i have an entire database on downed aircraft on Excel if anyone wishes to observe it, in addition, i found three interesting happenings

a B-2A Spirit of of Missouri was downed on May 2 by a SAM and was detected by long wave early warning radars, the seriel number of the aircraft was AV-8 88-0329, the aircraft was hit by a SAM and continued to fly, but crashed into the mountain because it was decreasing in alltitude, it crashed between Simanovci and Kupinovo in the Pecinci district

another B-2A Spirit of Washington was downed on June 1 by unknown casues, its seriel number was AV-11 88-0332

another B-2A was shot down on May 8 by unkown causes, since i haven't foudn its seriel number, i deem this an unconfirmed downing

let me try to find the lnik with the aircraft utilizing the plasma screen, i tried a month ago and couldn't find it.........................yes, found one link

http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/stealth2.htm

so, effectively, putting one of these devices onboard an aircraft would make it seem stealthier than if you used ferr-magnetic radar absorbant materiel, and painted its surfaces with radar dissipating paint, doing this can reduce the RCS of an aircraft by 10-15dB, while using a plasma screen can effectively reduce the RCS of an aircraft by 20dB, which is 75%-100% more effective, plus wouldn't put any excessive airflow and weight restrictions on the aircraft

http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats15684_sweetman.txt

also, another advantage to a better decreased RCS is that it is far easier to maintain than RAM and paint coatings, reducing the costs for maintenance, which playa a huge part in a tender Russia is also developing ceramic panels that would coat the engine ducts, but wouldn't impede the airflow, like the tiles used on the F-22

well, thats all i can find right now, bye"




How's that for a trimmed quote?

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 05:02
Sure can,,, find a source of information with a little credability next time.

What do you call "a little"? Can you identify a single other statement on that page that should be doubted?


How's that for a trimmed quote?

Do you like to talk about fighter jets, or do you just come here to feel superior to children?

-SK

Officer of Engineers
03 Feb 05,, 05:10
Officer of Engineers, when that site gets back up, i'll give you many links regarding the downing of NATO aircraft

and you are wrong as well, badly wrong, sorry man, but America did admit to losing an F-117 to an SA-3/SA-6 on March 27

No, I am not wrong at all. I know of the F-117 downing. I was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Canadian Forces even though I've retired before the Kosovo War. I've spoken to Russian and East Bloc General Staff officers since the war and none of us can believe the crap the internet has provided. There is no site that you can provide that can contradict the list of personal and serial numbers that I have access to.

Again, it is very simple. Can you count? 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 airplanes took off. 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 airplanes landed. It is that simple.

Bluesman
03 Feb 05,, 08:10
No combat losses of B-2s ever, either.

You're talking through your hat, junior.

MIKEMUN
03 Feb 05,, 12:23
And why do people use mock combat as a base for saying that American Aircraft are bad??America has developed most of its planes from war experiences...America has taken part in a lot of conflicts since the end of the second world war,and believe me they have enough experience to develop tactics..Military aircraft are for war,no fancy stuff.You kill the other guy or be killed.Period..Unfortunately every country that has fielded Russian aircraft against America has ended on the bad end of the stick.Militarily,I mean..Those are facts and no Amount of wishful thinking will change the fact that at this moment America has the best Air Force in the world,whether we like it or not..They got the money to train their pilots and to maintain their planes..And I do not see any Air Force on the horizon that can outclass it...My humble opinion..

jgetti
03 Feb 05,, 12:34
What do you call "a little"? Can you identify a single other statement on that page that should be doubted?



Do you like to talk about fighter jets, or do you just come here to feel superior to children?

-SK

Look, I can go out on the internet and find an article that contests man ever walked on the moon too. That doesn't mean it has any credability. If you want to make a case about 'fighter aircraft' all I'm saying is make sure your referenced articles have a little damned credability. The one you presented is wrong,, plain and simple. I like to talk about fighter jets, especially to contribute what I know. THE F-15 HAS NEVER BEEN SHOT DOWN IN A TO A COMBAT.

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 16:25
Look, I can go out on the internet and find an article that contests man ever walked on the moon too. That doesn't mean it has any credability. If you want to make a case about 'fighter aircraft' all I'm saying is make sure your referenced articles have a little damned credability.

Where I come from, web pages that talk about mass NATO aircraft losses over Yugoslavia are considered to have very low credibility.

The story about F-15s in Israel, however, is about as clear as mud. Israel doesn't have a very good reputation of being a credible source of information itself. Thee are photos of an F-15 that landed with an entire wing missing, and no explanation. Could this be the story? The F-15 was hit and damaged, but returned safely and was reparied? Or they were two different events, the wing loss was to a "bird strike" as the Israelis claimed? Or the F-15 vs MiG-25 combat was a total hoax? I'd rather discuss what actually happened than who is and isn't "credible."

Even otherwise credible sources can be wrong here and there, that doesn't make them any less credible. The fact that one Israeli F-15 was rumored to be lost to a MiG-25 is not at all incorrect and reported in many detailed articles and books that have nothing to do with the web page I've cited. If the rumor is wrong, what difference does the general credibility of the source make? I've talked to people who worked on F-15s who were provably wrong on some things.

The rumor may be true or completely false, the web page may be right or wrong. You might be in a very good position to know with certainty. But there's little sense attacking the messenger. If the best argument you can make is that the source is something an ordinary observer should immediately have the powers to recognize as "not credible," and are unable to identify the clues that give this away, well that's "begging the question," and your own statements start to lose a little credibility themselves. Just because the truth seems very obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone else. Imagine not knowing what you know, and reading what you've written.


The one you presented is wrong,, plain and simple. I like to talk about fighter jets, especially to contribute what I know. THE F-15 HAS NEVER BEEN SHOT DOWN IN A TO A COMBAT.

I have no obstacle to believing you, but how can we be sure you really know? I don't know everything that ever happened to every antenna I ever designed. The USAF lost some of its own credibility in some peoples' eyes by making dramatic increases to their claimed air-to-air Sabre losses in the years after Korea...

-SK

Bill
03 Feb 05,, 17:25
"The Fulcrum did scare the USAF Aardvark fleet into early retirement after all..."

The end of the Cold War had more to do with the mass retirement of various US aircraft and systems than any other cause.

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 18:02
"The Fulcrum did scare the USAF Aardvark fleet into early retirement after all..."

The end of the Cold War had more to do with the mass retirement of various US aircraft and systems than any other cause.

There's truth to that, but there's also more to the story. The low-altitude penetration role was really wide open to NATO strikers until the MiG-29 introduced a Soviet look-down shoot-down radar. Sidewinder-armed F-111s and Tornados, the tip of the spear of the NATO strike force, would have made far tastier pickings for Fulcrum pilots than winning 1-vs-1s against (then) Sidewinder-armed F-16s. That's what Western stealth and multirole are all about: departing from the now-obsolete low-altitude penetration doctrine. So in a strategic sense, the MiG-29 accomplished something comparable to the F-15.

-SK

jgetti
03 Feb 05,, 18:05
The story about F-15s in Israel, however, is about as clear as mud. Israel doesn't have a very good reputation of being a credible source of information itself. Thee are photos of an F-15 that landed with an entire wing missing, and no explanation. Could this be the story? The F-15 was hit and damaged, but returned safely and was reparied? Or they were two different events, the wing loss was to a "bird strike" as the Israelis claimed? Or the F-15 vs MiG-25 combat was a total hoax? I'd rather discuss what actually happened than who is and isn't "credible." -SK

The F-15 that lost the wind really did happen, and it was due to collision with an A-4 during a combat exercise. It's documented here at McDonnell Douglas. We keep track of every single jet that goes out the door as does USAF. We know what happened. Just like we know that there hasn't been a combat loss of an F-15 in A to A ever. I'm not allowed to give you the PROOF you're looking for. You can take my word for it, or you can leave it. I don't care either way.

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 18:22
It's documented here at McDonnell Douglas. We keep track of every single jet that goes out the door as does USAF. We know what happened.

Good enough for me.

Did you ever find out what really happened with Speicher's F/A-18 in 1991? I hear rumors that was "friendly fire," and not a MiG-25PD as once claimed.

-SK

jgetti
03 Feb 05,, 18:31
Good enough for me.

Did you ever find out what really happened with Speicher's F/A-18 in 1991? I hear rumors that was "friendly fire," and not a MiG-25PD as once claimed.

-SK

Haven't heard anything about that.

Bill
03 Feb 05,, 18:49
"Did you ever find out what really happened with Speicher's F/A-18 in 1991? I hear rumors that was "friendly fire," and not a MiG-25PD as once claimed."

I've seen pretty compelling arguments that it was a SAM. And compelling arguments that it was indeed a Mig-25, and compelling arguments that it was actually an F-14.

Who knows...

Bill
03 Feb 05,, 18:54
"There's truth to that, but there's also more to the story. The low-altitude penetration role was really wide open to NATO strikers until the MiG-29 introduced a Soviet look-down shoot-down radar. Sidewinder-armed F-111s and Tornados, the tip of the spear of the NATO strike force, would have made far tastier pickings for Fulcrum pilots than winning 1-vs-1s against (then) Sidewinder-armed F-16s. That's what Western stealth and multirole are all about: departing from the now-obsolete low-altitude penetration doctrine. So in a strategic sense, the MiG-29 accomplished something comparable to the F-15."

Actually, the Mig-25 and 31 have look down shoot down, but they were never employed in Europe, as they all belonged to PVO and had a defensive interceptor role.

Really though, it's not as if we'd have sent our jets in on low altitude runs alone. We do escort our fighters, and at the time we still had the EF-111, which could probably turn the Mig-29s radar scope into a dichotomy of white noise. ;)

And really, even with look down shoot down, you still have to be pretty close to get a detection on a low alt. bird.

For the Sovs to have 'stopped' our low level penetrations, they'd have needed to keep their Mainstay AEW&C birds aloft, and well......the F-117 does carry AIM-9s(or rather did, the capability has since been deleted), and that was a mission the Wobbly Goblin once had, killing enemy AWACs(yes, i'm sure, lol).

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 20:07
Actually, the Mig-25 and 31 have look down shoot down, but they were never employed in Europe, as they all belonged to PVO and had a defensive interceptor role.

MiG-31 yes, MiG-25 not really. The most advanced Foxbat radar used some kind of harmonic envelope-detection against "slightly" look-down targets - it wasn't pulse-Doppler and didn't work nearly as well. The MiG-31 and its weapons were optimized to shoot down non-maneuvering subsonic cruise missiles. Being based farther from the front lines, they could not be scrambled nor maneuvered in reaction to enemy heading changes as well as a MiG-29, and the AA-9 was not as appropriate as the AA-10 against piloted aircraft.


Really though, it's not as if we'd have sent our jets in on low altitude runs alone. We do escort our fighters, and at the time we still had the EF-111, which could probably turn the Mig-29s radar scope into a dichotomy of white noise. ;)

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that was exactly the plan - NATO doesn't have any fighters even today that could excort B-1s, Tornados and F-111s over the extreme long ranges, high speeds and terrain-hugging altitudes involved. You can't perform aerial refuelling at 50 m AGL. The MiG-29 also had angle-on-jam tracking and Home-On-Jam missiles - EW was one of the biggest reasons the B-1 programme finally amounted to very little during the Cold War.


And really, even with look down shoot down, you still have to be pretty close to get a detection on a low alt. bird.

According to the flight manual, against a closing target, detection and tracking range is identical head-down or head-up. The only thing you have to worry about is a perpendicular-flying target.


For the Sovs to have 'stopped' our low level penetrations, they'd have needed to keep their Mainstay AEW&C birds aloft

True enough...


and well......the F-117 does carry AIM-9s(or rather did, the capability has since been deleted), and that was a mission the Wobbly Goblin once had, killing enemy AWACs(yes, i'm sure, lol).

:biggrin:

-SK

Bluesman
03 Feb 05,, 20:51
Speicher was bagged by a MiG-25. (Don't ask me to prove it, because I won't.) What happened to him after his aircraft was hit is unknown to this day.

But we know what happened to his adversary, though. I read his debrief, and as far as I know, he's still alive.

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 21:14
What in the... "read his debrief?"

What is this place?! Half of you eat classified data for breakfast, the others believe in the tooth fairy?

:confused:

-SK

Bluesman
03 Feb 05,, 21:20
What in the... "read his debrief?"

What is this place?! Half of you eat classified data for breakfast, the others believe in the tooth fairy?

:confused:

-SK

Wait just a dam' minnit, there pardner...you implying there's no Tooth Fairy?

;)

jgetti
03 Feb 05,, 21:40
What in the... "read his debrief?"

What is this place?! Half of you eat classified data for breakfast, the others believe in the tooth fairy?

:confused:

-SK

I'm on the ATKINS diet now,, I quit eating classified data alltogether last year,,,,, too many carbs.

Bill
03 Feb 05,, 22:24
"What is this place?! Half of you eat classified data for breakfast, the others believe in the tooth fairy?"

Bluesman works at SOCOM, Jgetti works for LockMart.

They're pretty plugged in.

I get my info from the pilots, crewdogs, loadtoads and engineers at www.a-10.org , among 'other' places. :)

And i can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the Tooth Fairy, or any of his/her agents, and or business affiliates. :biggrin:

jgetti
03 Feb 05,, 23:05
"What is this place?! Half of you eat classified data for breakfast, the others believe in the tooth fairy?"

Bluesman works at SOCOM, Jgetti works for LockMart.

They're pretty plugged in.

I get my info from the pilots, crewdogs, loadtoads and engineers at www.a-10.org , among 'other' places. :)

And i can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the Tooth Fairy, or any of his/her agents, and or business affiliates. :biggrin:


LockMart!!????? AAAAH! Blasphemy!!!! hehe. Actually I work for McDonnell Douglas (Boeing).

ASG
03 Feb 05,, 23:08
LockMart!!????? AAAAH! Blasphemy!!!! hehe. Actually I work for McDonnell Douglas (Boeing).
So you're prolly more associated with the JSF than the F/A-22. Hm.

Bill
03 Feb 05,, 23:11
Boeing builds a lot of components for both the F-22 and the JSF, but Lockmart technically 'builds' both aircraft.

Sorry bout the slip there Jgetti....hehehe.

The 'other' engineer works for LockMart. ;)

ASG
03 Feb 05,, 23:14
I think when Boeing got the contract for JSF project, Lockheed was also competing. Its true that some components in F-22 come from Boeing, but I am really not sure that Lockheed Martin is building JSF.

Bill
03 Feb 05,, 23:16
LockMart won the JSF competition.

The F-35 is a Lockheed design.

troung
03 Feb 05,, 23:20
"Speicher was bagged by a MiG-25. (Don't ask me to prove it, because I won't.) What happened to him after his aircraft was hit is unknown to this day. But we know what happened to his adversary, though. I read his debrief, and as far as I know, he's still alive."

I would put money that he is dead. We are in Iraq and have been there for awhile. If there was anything we would have turned it up.

His wife did marry his best friend so that shows they were confident he was dead.

SwingKid
03 Feb 05,, 23:40
His wife did marry his best friend so that shows they were confident he was dead.

Son, how much do you think you know about women?

-SK

ASG
03 Feb 05,, 23:40
LockMart won the JSF competition.

The F-35 is a Lockheed design.
No kidding??!! I saw on the Discovery Channel. The Boeing team celebrating the JSF contract. With Boeing written in huge bold letters. I remember it was JSF because the aircraft could take off vertically.

ASG
03 Feb 05,, 23:49
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm

The JSF has 2 variants. Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) and Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) .

CTOL variant, as the link suggests, is being developed by LM.

STOVL variant is being developed by Boeing.

If you have any better information, please post.

Bluesman
04 Feb 05,, 01:41
"Speicher was bagged by a MiG-25. (Don't ask me to prove it, because I won't.) What happened to him after his aircraft was hit is unknown to this day. But we know what happened to his adversary, though. I read his debrief, and as far as I know, he's still alive."

I would put money that he is dead. We are in Iraq and have been there for awhile. If there was anything we would have turned it up.

His wife did marry his best friend so that shows they were confident he was dead.

No, you misunderstand me. SPEICHER is probably dead, true enough, although when that may have happened is unknown to US officials.

But the guy that shot him down was very much alive at the end of the latest war. He was debriefed, and I got to read a copy before I left NSA.

Terran empire
04 Feb 05,, 02:28
I think when Boeing got the contract for JSF project, Lockheed was also competing. Its true that some components in F-22 come from Boeing, but I am really not sure that Lockheed Martin is building JSF.
Snipe is right Boeing lost the JSF but they are the guys with the UCAV X45 project
The F 35 comes in 3 versions
the F35 A is for the Air force and the Basic version
The F35 B is the USMC version with a Vertical lift fan developed by Lockheed Martin not Boeing
and the F35 C this version has longer wings and is reenforced for carrier landings it it the version still under development.

Bill
04 Feb 05,, 07:07
All three variants are actually all still under development.

So far the A and C model are looking very good, the B model has more problems than Michael Jackson's defense team. ;)

Garry
04 Feb 05,, 08:20
I'm not being arrogant,, I've dealt with this shmuck before. Read some of the other articles concerning the F-15/Su27 and it's derivitives that I've posted on, you'll find the evidence there. I'm an engineer on the F-15 program in St. Louis,, I know way more data than I'm allowed to post publicly. It doesn't matter what evidence is brought up against this guy, he's heavily bias in his beliefs, and no amout of proof is going to change his mind. That's why I laugh at his comment.

So you have data on SMT version as well? Most of you still consider MiG-29 a version which GDR has handled to Germany.... This was old time version same as considering F-14 by samples left at Iran....

Would you as an engineer state that MiG-29 is a bad platform?

In 2000-2004 Mikoyan have really made a lot of work on modernizing this old bird. They increased its range significantly having changed engines (more economic + lighter weight) and increased internal fuel. They changed wings and engine hondolas with a newer and lighter materials making. This added a lot to its payload... In addition to that more powerfull engines have increased its max take off load. For MiG-29K naval version is now being equipped with open architecture avionics that with newer software assumes using both NATO, Soviet and Israely weaponry....

Guess you as an engineer you must have infomation about last modification.... (your Russian counterparts really track latest western products specs)

dave angel
04 Feb 05,, 09:19
i remain bemused as to why so many russians believe that the USAF/NATO lost vast numbers of fast-jets to yugoslav air defences.

where are the downed airframes?

where are the downed pilots or distraught family members?

if america is unable to keep the 'secret' of the prisoner abuses in iraq, i think its unlikely that they could somehow lose 30 odd aircrew and aircraft while fighting an airwar thats main characteristic was the number of journalists crawling over everything. the journalists on board the carriers and at the NATO airbases would have seen the rescue helicopters, they would have seen the hole-riddled aircraft and they would see the gaps in the squadrons.

moreover, when NATO aircraft were shot down, it was reported quickly - often before the aircrew were rescued, so how did these mythical shootdowns not get reported? or do we have a 'secret' airforce that only employs orphans with no families who won't be missed who fly in invisible aircraft that magicly vapourise whenever a TV camera comes to film the wreakage?

odd also that the aircraft claimed to have been shotdown are almost all air-superiority fighters, no tornados, jaguars, mirages, harriers, german phantoms - all aircraft whose ability to defend themselves from fighters while loaded with several two-thousand pound bombs is akin to my ability to defend myself from a great white shark while swimming in 100ft of water and armed only with a pair of speedos.

the whole MiG25/29/31 or SU27/31 vs F-15/16/22 arugument is utterly irrelevant, name one conflict in which a force armed with soviet or russian aircraft and doctrine has prevailed against a force armed with western aircraft and doctrine. no? thought not.

jgetti
04 Feb 05,, 16:50
[QUOTE=Garry]So you have data on SMT version as well? Most of you still consider MiG-29 a version which GDR has handled to Germany.... This was old time version same as considering F-14 by samples left at Iran....

Would you as an engineer state that MiG-29 is a bad platform? [QUOTE]

No, I don't consider the MiG-29 as a bad platform, I said it's not on the performance level of an F-15. I think there are some very good variants of the Mig-29. I also consider the F/A-18 E/F an excellent airplane which is in essence a highly upgraded variant of an old F/A-18 A/B/C/D. That doesn't mean it has the capabilities of an F-15 either. F-15 is our top of the line air superiority fighter and has been upgraded as such. It's payload, range, low wing loading, high thrust to weight ratio, survivability, reliability, avionics, and available radar variants allow it to be that way.

Compare apples to apples, that's what I'm saying.

jgetti
04 Feb 05,, 17:08
No kidding??!! I saw on the Discovery Channel. The Boeing team celebrating the JSF contract. With Boeing written in huge bold letters. I remember it was JSF because the aircraft could take off vertically.

Yep, Lockheed Martin's X-35 demonstrators beat out Boeing's X-32 demonstrators. X-32 was McDonnell Douglas's inherited stepchild that came with mother Boeing in the buyout. We called it the 'Monica' or the 'Lewinski' cause all it did was suck and blow,, hehe.

McDonnell Douglas's JSF demonstrator was finished after the Pentagon selected the Pratt & Whitney F-119 over the variable cycle F-120 engine that GE developed for the ATF/JSF programs.

Bill
04 Feb 05,, 17:18
"variable cycle F-120 engine that GE developed for the ATF/JSF programs."

That engine was a seriously ambitious design.

jgetti
04 Feb 05,, 17:35
"variable cycle F-120 engine that GE developed for the ATF/JSF programs."

That engine was a seriously ambitious design.


Sure was, but that was the centerpiece of McDonnell's diverted airflow vertical fan concept for the STOVL variant. When GE didn't make the downselect, the idea wouldn't work, and our only other option at that point for vertical lift was to put in a second engine. A single engine was explicitly stated in the contract requirements,, and the rest is history. :mad:

Bill
04 Feb 05,, 17:47
The X-32 was also among the UGLIEST aircraft ever designed, which i'm sure was of no help whatsoever in trying to win the contract, lol... ;)

jgetti
04 Feb 05,, 17:51
The X-32 was also among the UGLIEST aircraft ever designed, which i'm sure was of no help whatsoever in trying to win the contract, lol... ;)


Maybe it would have worked great for scare tactics,, hehe. Ground troops would have thought obese flying sharks were attacking,, hehe.

troung
04 Feb 05,, 18:44
"moreover, when NATO aircraft were shot down, it was reported quickly - often before the aircrew were rescued, so how did these mythical shootdowns not get reported? or do we have a 'secret' airforce that only employs orphans with no families who won't be missed who fly in invisible aircraft that magicly vapourise whenever a TV camera comes to film the wreakage?"

Don't you know we killed thier families so we would not have to admit to losing any more planes... ;)

"the whole MiG25/29/31 or SU27/31 vs F-15/16/22 arugument is utterly irrelevant, name one conflict in which a force armed with soviet or russian aircraft and doctrine has prevailed against a force armed with western aircraft and doctrine. no? thought not."''

Here is some food for thought. Iraq entered the Iran Iraq war with a more or less totally Russian trained airforce which was considered rather lousy. They ended the war after getting French and British training and were able to under take long range missions, show intuitive up in the air, relied less on GCI, were able to adapt to changing events, anf flew far more aggresivly, and were able to carry the war more and more into Iran. Go figure....

A funny fact about the MiG-29 is that for all the talk about it being such a good dogfighter... the plane was not supposed to do that in service with the WP. It was supposed to take off and shoot the R-27s and then the R-60s and go home no turning none of that.

Hell the MiG-21 was not supposed to dogfight in WP service either, just take off slash and run home.

I can go on and on with this...

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 00:13
"A funny fact about the MiG-29 is that for all the talk about it being such a good dogfighter... the plane was not supposed to do that in service with the WP. It was supposed to take off and shoot the R-27s and then the R-60s and go home no turning none of that.

I can go on and on with this...

What was the helmet mounted sight for? playing peek-a-boo?

-SK

troung
05 Feb 05,, 01:20
:cool:

The funny thing is that when America would train againist MiG-29s in Germany we fought them in a way that NATO pliots would fight rather then having the MiG-29 act like it would in VVS service.

In VVS service it was supposded to shoot slash and then go home not turn or play in turning. Same way the MiG-23 and MiG-21 were to be used.

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 01:31
The funny thing is that when America would train againist MiG-29s in Germany we fought them in a way that NATO pliots would fight rather then having the MiG-29 act like it would in VVS service.

No, America fought them the way NATO pilots would train. NATO doesn't actually fight like that.

-SK

troung
05 Feb 05,, 01:47
My mistake I should have worded things better.

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 02:10
Aw don't give in so soon... Now what am I supposed to do with all these snarky comments I had lined up? :mad:

-SK

troung
05 Feb 05,, 02:21
Swinger;

Well you can either save them for another time or just shoot your wad here :rolleyes:

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 02:43
:mad: :mad: :mad:

and there's more where that came from!

...

It's just not the same.

-SK

Dima
05 Feb 05,, 08:17
well, there's obviously some "suposed" intelligent people here(aka jgetti, Bluesmen,Troung, M21 Sniper, Swingkid)

awesome, this is so much better than ATS

um, SwingKid, i'm not entirely sure, but i think that those SAM radar operators are intelligent/bright enough to notice the difference in RCS of an UVA and tomahawk missile compared to the RCS of the F-15, your comment does have some truth in it though, it would reduce my number by, a moderate amount, but ask yourself this, if in 1991, America attacked Iraq, and Iraq had extremely inferior training of all its forces, and its aircraft were in utterly abominable performance and maintenance conditions(performance wise because they're export versions) (in addition, the aircraft is not properly maintained thus reducing its performance to a greater extent)and their air defenses were in even worse conditions, than how did the US lose a supposed 30 something aircraft, and against Yugoslavia they only lost 2 against significantly better trained troops, and better equipment, it just doesn't make sense, anyways, wanted to point that out, the site is still not up

Swingkid, i don't think that your anti-russian, but most people here are, extremely

at last count, the largest number of UAV's i've heard that were downed was 32-36 UAV's, don't know for sure

Jgetti, you might work for McDonnel Douglas, but are you sure you can trust what your company says, i mean really, the best comments(someone said this to me here) and often the most reliable come from the air forces that the aircraft has been operated by, exp. go to the Lockheed site, they claim that the F-16, is so absolutely incredibly amazing by far better than any other aircraft in the world, and has low maintenance costs and high reliability, well, with all due respect, go to the MiG site and they don't even mention the Fulcrum's capability to safely launch from and land to dirt airfields, the best comments and often most reliabel come from the people in the air forces of other countries(can't be the manufactureing country, because they're not going to admit that the enemy is better than they are. anyways, i wouldn't trust anything from Americans news if someone paid me to, really, and information froma company that you work at isn't much better

Jgetti, i am aware that you work on the F-15, and you're aware of its capabilities, but i'm telling you this, why do you have to be so blinded and ignorant as to saying that the F-15 is the best aircraft by far over ALL others, this is the dumbest and most absurd quote someone has said to me in the past week, i have to argue that the Su-30MKI would destroy the F-15, but i'm not going to get into that, really tired, except maybe not the K

Engineer, wow, lol, thats funny that 1-2-3 fly out ********, wow, really, ahaha, and then 1-2-3 come back, talked to Russian and Eastern Block officials, well, if you can prove somehow that you actually did this, otherwise, easily regarded as b/s, so you talk to Russian officials, even thogh ALL russian newspapers publish reports of F-15's and F-16's downed, even in Britain, there was a report in the BBC about an F-15 gettting shot down, or being damaged(i need that fucking link, i can't proove any of these downings without it) and Chinese, Japaneses, even friggin Australian newspaper talk about American planes downed, only America newspapers didnt't, well not to the extent of the other countries

B-2's not lost, you believe what you want, but my mom has a friend back in Yugoslavia, her so and husband were outsidetaking a smoke and drinking, he was like 16, BOOM, huge mofo 140-180 ft. wide, he's a carpenter, so he's good at measuring, crashed into a mountain, they talked to my mom on the phone, and she told me after, so i have an eye-witness, i don't care abot these fake reports of them not getting shot down, i believe what my friend saw, he said he never knew a plane shaped like that existed, so big, shaped like a trianle, it was just one massive wing

concerning that, will if so many NATO/USAF aircraft were getting downed, why didn't they show anymore pictures or videos, simple, after the war, who's going to pay for their reconstruction and air, the Eu and US would be by far the major contributors, thus if Yugoslavia were to show anymore pictures, thats less and less funds for Yugoslavia to rebuild with, and if they get cheated out, who are they going to complain to, the largest judicial body in the world, Supreme Court, the EU controls that, so there is no case

Dave Angel, your post about Western aircraft and Eastern aircraft has no significance because think about which countries each side sold their aircraft and weapons to

West-sold it to mainly Western countries, and countries in the world that were really rich, very well developed, had extremely high levels of training, and provided their military with huge funds, in general, these countries were almost 100% of all developed nations, a large majority of industrializing nations(70%), and extremely low levels of developing nations(5%)

East-sold it to mainly poor countries who couldn't afford, weren't allowed to buy Western hardware, or just found that the Eastern hardware was superior, in general, these countries were mostly developing countries(95%), or s small portion of industrializing nations(30%), and pretty much no developed nations, thus, the armed forces that they sold this equipment to had greatly inferior training, extremely poor, or no funding at all, and inadequate maintenance of their hardware, no wonder 2 American pilots flying in F-15E's would destroy two MiG-29 fighters from Algeria, because the American pilots get 250 hours a year flying and the Algerian pilots get 80 hours a year flying, plus, the American aircraft are 100% maintained while the Fulcrums are only maybe 60-70% maintained

in addition, if you haven't noticed, in all the major wars after the 80's that America was involved in, they outnumbered the enemy by 6+ at the very least, also, had way more support, AWACS, Satellite, and tons more money than other countries

you guys would probably argue that, well, if the pilot was downed, what about the family, does it have to be informaed, what about all those families that weren't informaed after the Vietnam war and the Korean war

oh and Troung, the last point, how the Iranian's and Iraqi's started to do better after they became supported by America, well that considering that America siphoned in tens of billions of dollars into each country, they better damn make sure that it buys top-notch training, if Russia invested that much money in Vietnam, America would have been obliterated faster than you can asy obliterated in the Vietnam war, they probably would have enough funds to put a massive offensive against Americans forces

anyways, again, i have been forced into the defensive for Russia, i hope that this again does not transmit the message that i'm biased, i try not to be, i like the F-16, but not really the F-15(its okay) the f-14 is mediocre, i love the F/A-18 though, and the F-22 is amazing, the F-20 was okay, provided some really good advancements

anyways, thats all, really late, goodnight

Bill
05 Feb 05,, 11:17
No F-15 has ever been shot down in A2A combat.

Get over it.

Mr-Vaastu
05 Feb 05,, 14:08
MiG -29’s superiority

During Agile Archer 2002 that pitted Navy F/A- 18 Hornets, F-14 Tomcats and F-5 Tiger IIs against German Air Force (GAF) MiG-29 Fulcrums and U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagles it was noticed that the MiG-29's AA-11 Archer heat-seeking missiles and helmet-mounted-sight (HMS) dileing system gives the fighter a high off-boresight, within-visual-range (WVR) weapon capability that currently has no fielded equal in the West. But the Luftwaffe Fulcrums were the older version MiG-29s.

When the Indian Navy MiG-29Ks currently under development get fitted with extended-range AA-10 Alamo missiles and either the Phazotron Zhuk-ME, capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 245km or the N011M having a 350 km search range tracking 20 air targets and engaging the 8 most threatening targets simultaneously no F-14, F-15 or F-16 would get past the MiG-29.

Officer of Engineers
05 Feb 05,, 14:20
Engineer, wow, lol, thats funny that 1-2-3 fly out ********, wow, really, ahaha, and then 1-2-3 come back, talked to Russian and Eastern Block officials, well, if you can prove somehow that you actually did this, otherwise, easily regarded as b/s, so you talk to Russian officials, even thogh ALL russian newspapers publish reports of F-15's and F-16's downed, even in Britain, there was a report in the BBC about an F-15 gettting shot down, or being damaged(i need that fucking link, i can't proove any of these downings without it) and Chinese, Japaneses, even friggin Australian newspaper talk about American planes downed, only America newspapers didnt't, well not to the extent of the other countries

B-2's not lost, you believe what you want, but my mom has a friend back in Yugoslavia, her so and husband were outsidetaking a smoke and drinking, he was like 16, BOOM, huge mofo 140-180 ft. wide, he's a carpenter, so he's good at measuring, crashed into a mountain, they talked to my mom on the phone, and she told me after, so i have an eye-witness, i don't care abot these fake reports of them not getting shot down, i believe what my friend saw, he said he never knew a plane shaped like that existed, so big, shaped like a trianle, it was just one massive wing

What's really funny is that you took the word of unreliable reporters over those of line offircers. Get over it. It didn't happen. Yes, I can count. All planes and pilots have been visually accounted for.

As for proving this? Son, I'm a CF Lieutenant-Colonel. Bluesman used to work for Gen Wesley Clark. M21Sniper is a former USArmy Sniper and runs the biggest USAF forum with active military membership. We have way more access to info than you will ever dream of upto and including mess talks. Like I said, you're taking rumours over those with access.

Incidently, I am a Canadian Forces member, not an American military personnel. I have nothing to prove in trying to hide things about the Americans. In fact, my people directly contradicts then CINCEUR Gen Wesley Clark on his claims.

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 20:34
Speicher was bagged by a MiG-25. (Don't ask me to prove it, because I won't.) What happened to him after his aircraft was hit is unknown to this day.

Are there any other details you can share?

e.g. - did the MiG-25PD use the IRST with heat-seekers to avoid detection by RWR?

Were there any other such incidents, i.e. Iraqi pilots scoring passive-sensor kills that the West credited to SAMs or AAA? I read rumors years ago there were thought to be two such cases.

-SK

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 20:37
Incidently, I am a Canadian Forces member, not an American military personnel. I have nothing to prove in trying to hide things about the Americans. In fact, my people directly contradicts then CINCEUR Gen Wesley Clark on his claims.

Hey, I just finished reading his book last night - interesting as much for what it omits as for what it describes, but nevertheless pretty insightful IMHO. What were the contradictions?

-SK

Blademaster
05 Feb 05,, 22:11
What's really funny is that you took the word of unreliable reporters over those of line offircers. Get over it. It didn't happen. Yes, I can count. All planes and pilots have been visually accounted for.

As for proving this? Son, I'm a CF Lieutenant-Colonel. Bluesman used to work for Gen Wesley Clark. M21Sniper is a former USArmy Sniper and runs the biggest USAF forum with active military membership. We have way more access to info than you will ever dream of upto and including mess talks. Like I said, you're taking rumours over those with access.

Incidently, I am a Canadian Forces member, not an American military personnel. I have nothing to prove in trying to hide things about the Americans. In fact, my people directly contradicts then CINCEUR Gen Wesley Clark on his claims.

I didn't know that Bluesman used to work for Clark. Bluesman, what can you tell me about Wesley Clark that we don't know from reading media reports.

Sniper, where is the forum that you maintain? I am interested in lurking that forum.

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 22:34
I didn't know that Bluesman used to work for Clark. Bluesman, what can you tell me about Wesley Clark that we don't know from reading media reports.

I heard there was some swearing at people over the radio involved with that Pristina Airport thing... Is that normal in the armed forces, or a quick way for a four-star general to lose popularity?


Sniper, where is the forum that you maintain? I am interested in lurking that forum.

http://www.a-10.org

-SK

jgetti
05 Feb 05,, 23:19
Jgetti, you might work for McDonnel Douglas, but are you sure you can trust what your company says, i mean really, the best comments(someone said this to me here) and often the most reliable come from the air forces that the aircraft has been operated by, exp. go to the Lockheed site, they claim that the F-16, is so absolutely incredibly amazing by far better than any other aircraft in the world, and has low maintenance costs and high reliability, well, with all due respect, go to the MiG site and they don't even mention the Fulcrum's capability to safely launch from and land to dirt airfields, the best comments and often most reliabel come from the people in the air forces of other countries(can't be the manufactureing country, because they're not going to admit that the enemy is better than they are. anyways, i wouldn't trust anything from Americans news if someone paid me to, really, and information froma company that you work at isn't much better

Jgetti, i am aware that you work on the F-15, and you're aware of its capabilities, but i'm telling you this, why do you have to be so blinded and ignorant as to saying that the F-15 is the best aircraft by far over ALL others, this is the dumbest and most absurd quote someone has said to me in the past week, i have to argue that the Su-30MKI would destroy the F-15, but i'm not going to get into that, really tired, except maybe not the K


You're absolutely right that it's easy to get biased towards the aircraft that your company works for,, I'll give you that. However, not only do I work for MCAIR, I am engineering support for USAF, IAF (Israeli Air Force), RSAF, JASDF, and soon ROKAF F-15's, so I know what our customers think of the jet. NOONE has a bad thing to say about it,, it's performed fantastically for everyone. The only thing keeping any of our current customers from buying more is whether or not the line will still be open when they go looking for more aircraft.

Also, I haven't used the term 'by far' once when talking about the F-15's superiority. I only said that it can MAINTAIN air superiority over any other fielded aircraft. I know the SU-27 family of aircraft are superb in their operating capability, but we've got the technological means and the money to keep our aircraft one step ahead of everyone elses, and have done so with our air superiority fighter.

What I don't understand is why anyone who is partial to Russian aircraft can't accept that just perhaps there is something better than what they've got fielded out there. I'm not saying that American aircraft companies are superior to Russian companies either. We've got the money to spend and have done so to keep our defense technology at the cutting edge. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Perhaps you're the one who is blinded and ignorant.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 00:07
Officer of Engineers, you believe what you want to believe, i don't care, my friend is no reporter, he's still a carpenter, and he still remembers that day,i'll believe him and his dad over a report by the US CNN or ABC any day

oh, so your part of the Canadian Air Force, you flew the CF-18? you liked it

remarkable plane, one of my most favourite aircraft created by America, i like the F-5 for some reason, it just seems cool, i hate the F-4, the F-14 is mediocre, the F-15, i'm not really a fan, but it has some impressive capabilities, the F-16 is a above average aircraft, the F-18 is a monster, the F-20 is real nice and the F-22 is a God right now

SwingKid, i've never heard of that rumour before, the Iraqi's could have shot down American aircraft wityh passive-radar missiles, resemlbing SAM's, it makes sense, do you have a link that i can read about it?

jgetti, i would complain if i was buying an aircraft for $100 million(F-15K), when i can get roughly the same quality in a $40 million(F-15E) aircraft, the F-15K is better(which doesn't make sense because it's an export version, can you elaborate jgetti, or am i mistaken?) other than that, there's not much wrong with the F-15, except its gas-guzzling engines, but thats it, and its massive RCS, now thats it, lol

well, i hope you guys haven't gotten the wrong opinion, i'm not an overly biased guy, i like some American aircraft, not really the missiles though, except the AIM-54C Pheonix, the only American missile that i like, i know that some Russian military hardware is inferior to American military hardware, such as the MiG-23/MiG-27 being inferior to the F-111, why is it so hard for who to accept, ME?

hey, hey, you have to admit that the Su-30MKI is better than the F-15E, if not, than thats blindness, arrogancy, and stupidity i mean those Su-30K's whooped the F-15E's ass pretty good at Gwailor, no offense, i think that only the Su-27 and variants are equal, or surpass the F-15, and the MiG-29 isn't that far off(except in range of course), but the new MiG-29 upgrade that is set to come out in 2007

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/news/?page=1&tid=1&id=12

last part of the paragraph, will probably be superior to the F-15E, with all new stealth features, TVC nozzles, and new avionics systems

Officer of Engineers
06 Feb 05,, 01:59
Officer of Engineers, you believe what you want to believe, i don't care, my friend is no reporter, he's still a carpenter, and he still remembers that day,i'll believe him and his dad over a report by the US CNN or ABC any day

I don't doubt your friend and his father saw something but it ain't what they believe it to be. I don't go with CNN or ABC nor any news media outlet. I'm telling you my reports come directly from the Department of National Defence itself. I've known people who served during that war. All airplanes and aircrews have been visually accounted for.

Not only me but Bluesman and M21Sniper have the same kind of access - from the people who actually fought in that war.


oh, so your part of the Canadian Air Force, you flew the CF-18? you liked it

BITE YOUR TONGUE! I do real work for a living. I've humped dirt under fire. I don't play with my stick.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 02:05
what else can be mistaken for a 140-180 foot triangular shaped object, a U-2, lol

Department of Defense, i want to say something, but then again, you guys will just dismisss it as bs or something, you know your truth, i know mine, i'm fine with that

"BITE YOUR TONGUE! I do real work for a living. I've humped dirt under fire. I don't play with my stick."

um, whats up with this, i don't understand, di....you humped dirt, what? play with your stick??????????Bite your toung, but that hurts, why?????

i saked you if you liked the CF-18, did you? its awesome, sad to see it go to the ugly-assed F-35(excuse me)

Officer of Engineers
06 Feb 05,, 02:17
I work for the army, not the air force.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 02:43
oh, sorry, my bad, so in that case, you you like the Lepard tanks, i live in Canada, so i'm just wondering, heard we're replacing those with some crappy-half-assed APC with a 105mm turret, i mean, what the hell is going on?

Officer of Engineers
06 Feb 05,, 03:41
Two threads for you

WAB - Canada Serious about replacing Tanks? (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1908)

WAB - Canada going tankless (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=714)

Officer of Engineers
06 Feb 05,, 03:55
Hey, I just finished reading his book last night - interesting as much for what it omits as for what it describes, but nevertheless pretty insightful IMHO. What were the contradictions?

-SK

Clark's report claims an 80% success rate on the Kosovo air campaign. The Canadians, flying 10% of the mission with the 4% of the force, claims a 10% success rate.

Reason: Clark's eval is weapons release. The CF is targets hit.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 05:48
thanks Officer, let me look through those links

but, i got another link that takes it directly from the article, it doens't say anything about the replacement, probably got updated, anyways, my friend showed me a picture of the vehicle thats supposed to replace the LEO's, it looks like an APC with a 105mm cannon on it, i mesan how pathetic is that? i'm not even going to waste my RPG-7 on that, i'll just shoot it with my 7.62mm rounds, probably disable it the same lol

Officer of Engineers
06 Feb 05,, 06:04
The name of the vehicle is the LAV-105 MGS (Mobile Gun System). Currently, they're slated for "B" and "C" Squadrons, Lord Strathcona Horse (Royal Canadians). They're not to meant to replace tanks. They're to assume a role as force protection for a mech inf battle group which is currently lacking.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 06:10
so, then, what will replace our venerable Leopards?

i used to live on a street in Winnipeg, Manitboa, and it was called Strathcona, thats so cool, then i moved to Toronto, Winnipeg is beautiful

which part of Canada do you live in?, which province?

Officer of Engineers
06 Feb 05,, 06:43
Son,

You're talking to a lifer. My regiment was the 1st Combat Engineers Regiment. I went where they went. Long since retired, living near Ottawa right now.

To answer your question, nothing is going to replace the Leo C2s because we don't have a role for the Leo C2s anymore. Tanks still have a place in modern warfare but not in what we want to do which is a mechanized infantry battle group operation, forming combat teams on an adhoc basis.

We cannot send tanks with the infantry battle groups because

1) expensive
2) deplete the brigade's tank maintenance pool and thus deplete the brigade.

The LAV-105 we can send piecemeal since it's an infantry support system.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 07:09
till death due you part, from the military, you married?

Mr Vastu
14 Feb 05,, 10:17
The least western aviation experts can do is belittle the Mig-29 and bring it down to F-16 standards, claiming that at low speeds and altitudes, the Falcon is better. This is just a myth it is not true. In reality any F-16 pilot who actually flies the plane will state clearly that the Migs far superior.

The Fulcrum can do the cobra maneuver upto 150 degrees or more while the MiG-29 TVC has even higher Angle-of-Attack capability. The high AoAs of the Fulcrum is what gave the Luftwaffe Fulcrum pilots another pulse point who already had a faster, superior weaponed plane. In fact the F-18 HARV (High Angle-of-Attack Research Vehicke), and Lockheed Martin (General Dynamics) F-16 VISTA with MATV (Multi-Axis-Thrust-Vectoring) programs might have been initiated to make the inferior F-16s and F-18s actually keep pace with the Flankerish Fulcrums.

Unlike the Mig-29 with proper HOTAS facility, that ‘sidey’ side-stick controller located on the right horizontal console more than gives an F-16 pilot a hard time being a more rigid assembly moving only around one-eighth of an inch. The amount of movement is quite debate especially since the pitch & roll commands are recognized as "rates" not amounts of deflection, that is degress/second and G's of pitch. Most pilots agree that inducing the measure of control stick deflection only complicates the factors involved with the flight control computers.

With the same speed, missiles and radar systems and having cobra dynamics the newer version MiG-29s would be as good as the Su-30 Flankers that got the F-15s in Indo-American air exercises :)

Mr Vastu
14 Feb 05,, 10:23
Hey Dima, I congradulate you on doing a good job locking onto these F-16 'Fighting Chickens' at this forum haha :)

I am biased when it comes to the Migs and Falcons. I like Russian jets only, those US jets with their big Goldfish bowl bubble cockpits look more like flying saucers rather than fighter planes :biggrin:

Unfortunately I keep getting banned :mad: :frown:

ajaybhutani
14 Feb 05,, 13:43
well Mr_Vastu,
wether u like it or not. The US planes have performed better in combat and today are about to induct stuff like F22 which has a superputer inside it. Well facts are facts " the americans are very advanced in aviation." apart from some edges that russians enjoy in certain things the americans are a class apart when it comes to making a plane.

Dima
15 Feb 05,, 04:54
ajaybhutani, you are mistaken, the F-22 doesn't have a supercomputer in it, it has the equivalent computing power of two Crey supercomputers

thanks Vastu, that means a lot coming fromma guy who has such extensive knowledge, can you give me your email?

ajaybhutani
15 Feb 05,, 11:37
ajaybhutani, you are mistaken, the F-22 doesn't have a supercomputer in it, it has the equivalent computing power of two Crey supercomputers


Well good morning,
how do u classify a platform as a supercomputer?? . Lemme tell u its "COMPUTING POWER"

Dima
16 Feb 05,, 04:51
go to the F-22 website, it says right there, look for it

SwingKid
16 Feb 05,, 05:21
thanks Vastu, that means a lot coming fromma guy who has such extensive knowledge,

"sigh" I had such hopes for you... :biggrin:

-SK

Dima
16 Feb 05,, 06:24
lol, are you sarcastic?

i don't undestand, he seems to know a lot about aircraft, what's wrong with him?

just curious, don't want to hang out with the wrong crowd :biggrin:

SwingKid
16 Feb 05,, 17:18
Well, for example he says that the MiG-29 controls are a "proper HOTAS" and that the F-16 side-stick controller is not. Meanwhile Russia is adopting side-stick HOTAS for its newer fighters because the MiG-29-style controls are not HOTAS and are obsolescent. All his other assertions that I've read make a similar amount of sense.

I don't want to discuss Mr. Vastu too personally though because he's banned and I don't think it's "fair" that he can't reply to defend himself - it's kind of a wasted effort. Maybe one day when he's not banned I'll write what I really think of him, then he can reply and get banned again, that way I get the most bang for my buck. ;)

But in a broader sense I think I have a different way of separating aviation enthusiasts. I think most of you separate yourselves into "pro-Russian" or "pro-Western" enthusiasts or along similar lines. As an engineer I am interested in design compromises to solve actual problems. The difference I see is between "cheerleaders" and people who are interested in problems. For example, the F/A-22, amazing as it is, doesn't IMHO solve any US air combat problem at all and thus is almost powerless to interest me. The MiG-29 though is a response to an actual need for low-altitude interception capability, and thus fascinates me despite being a far less capable aircraft. Whether you are "pro-Russian" or "pro-Western" to me is irrelevant, as long as you are interested in discussing the "edge of the envelope" of engineering, where it meets technological limitations. This eliminates most people "in the know" because talking about any sort of limitations often feels like it's a betrayal of classified information (even when those same limitations are openly published in engineering textbooks). It's quite rare to meet enthusiasts who are truly interested to talk about the limitations of their favorite aircraft, but of the ones I've met, the majority are in the "pro-Russian" crowd, for the simple reason that Russian aircraft generally have more limitations. Although I was unwilling to be your personal e-mail encyclopedia myself, I had hoped that one day you might learn enough on your own enthusiasm to join this group that I like.

For me, Mr. Vastu represents the "dark side" of enthusiasm... Selective quotations, reliance on advertising, denial of the obvious with no justification other than blind non-conformity, ridiculous claims just to troll a response and lash out at a world that isn't the way he wants it to be. This is distasteful to an engineer. We don't live in imagination or a world of ads, wishes and lies, but rather actually build the real world the way we want it, and we accept the truth no matter how unpleasant it may be to hear.

People only fear what they don't understand, and once you start down Vastu's path, you will fear a great deal... ;)

-SK

Dima
17 Feb 05,, 04:59
limitations, so that's what you're all about, cool, limitations, like pulling G's? lol, jus joking

cool, limitations of an aircraft, well have fun really, i am a pro-Russian, i kind of regret and not because i wish i could be more open, when you're more open to an idea, you tend to grasp the pro's and con's of each aircraft better than allowing your nationalism blind you, there are some American aircraft that i have much respect for, such as the F/A-18, my favourite American aircraft, also the F-14 is second, than F-22

sometimes, you can start a discussion on how this aircraft is better than another, and in almost every scenario, even though i know i'm going to lose, i will pick the Russian side, unless it's something obvious like MiG-15 vs. F-15, my teacher calls it stubborn integrity, lol, that's the best way to describe me

ajaybhutani
17 Feb 05,, 06:32
limitations, so that's what you're all about, cool, limitations, like pulling G's? lol, jus joking

cool, limitations of an aircraft, well have fun really, i am a pro-Russian, i kind of regret and not because i wish i could be more open, when you're more open to an idea, you tend to grasp the pro's and con's of each aircraft better than allowing your nationalism blind you, there are some American aircraft that i have much respect for, such as the F/A-18, my favourite American aircraft, also the F-14 is second, than F-22

sometimes, you can start a discussion on how this aircraft is better than another, and in almost every scenario, even though i know i'm going to lose, i will pick the Russian side, unless it's something obvious like MiG-15 vs. F-15, my teacher calls it stubborn integrity, lol, that's the best way to describe me
i think almost all of us have left ur absolute optimism about everything russian. Theres only one things wrong with it as it hampers judgement in a fair manner. Though i'll appreciate the fact that u firstly realized taht u are doing it and again had the guts to accept it . Now thats a dare.

Sir-Vastu
03 Mar 05,, 11:45
Like I said earlier.......F-16 is just a Chevy, MiG-29 is........a Mercedes Benz! :biggrin: :biggrin:

Terran empire
03 Mar 05,, 18:54
Like I said earlier.......F-16 is just a Chevy, MiG-29 is........a Mercedes Benz! :biggrin: :biggrin:
Nothing made for the Russian military should ever be compared too a Mercedes heck not even a BMW

ajaybhutani
03 Mar 05,, 23:50
Nothing made for the Russian military should ever be compared too a Mercedes heck not even a BMW
russian military was what was needed for the russians at that time . It surely isnt a merc but if you dont have nough money a lancer would do rather than a merc

Dima
04 Mar 05,, 03:29
well, now i admit that the MiG-29 isn't as capable a fighter as i once thought it was, i also, have more respect towards American naval power, and the F-22, i'm still relatively negative on the F-15, and people stating that it is superior to the Flanker, which i think is the best aircraft in the world(in terms of cost-efficiency etc.)

and i still have my belief that Russian missiles are the best, but now i know that AESA radars are considerably better than Russian ones, it's just so hard to go anti-russian, because i like being the minority, the guy fighting against an entire crowd, it makes me feel good, and everyone here is against Russian arms, so i really have no choice

Bill
04 Mar 05,, 06:04
Russian rocket motors are the best, i'll give you that much.

But a missile also consists of a seeker....and the West is far ahead in most fields of electronics, which a seekeer is obviously full of.

jgetti
04 Mar 05,, 14:48
well, now i admit that the MiG-29 isn't as capable a fighter as i once thought it was, i also, have more respect towards American naval power, and the F-22, i'm still relatively negative on the F-15, and people stating that it is superior to the Flanker, which i think is the best aircraft in the world(in terms of cost-efficiency etc.)

and i still have my belief that Russian missiles are the best, but now i know that AESA radars are considerably better than Russian ones, it's just so hard to go anti-russian, because i like being the minority, the guy fighting against an entire crowd, it makes me feel good, and everyone here is against Russian arms, so i really have no choice

There are so many things that a fighter aircraft SYSTEM is comprised of, and many people get hung up in one attribute such as agility, and if it has that one superior attribute people immediately want to call it the best.

I've never stated that I thought anything Russian was crap or that everything American is superior,,, only that our air superiority fighter SYSTEMS are superior. I never said that the F-15 could just stomp a Su-27 derivitives a$$ either. (Leaving the F/A-22 out of this particular arguement)

Trying to compare a Su-27 derivitive to an F-15 derivitive is meaningless unless you are willing to compare the entire system, meaning physical configuration, weight, armament range, effectiveness of armament seeker, armament speed and agility, armament selection an aircraft can carry, effectiveness of armament cueing systems such as JHMCS, fuel capacity/range, agility, defensive/offensive avionics systems, radar range, radar tracking capability, ability of radar to avoid being detected, radar resolution, reliability, engine thrust, engine response sensitivity, ability to shut down and restart an engine in a combat situation, effectiveness of aircraft flying with only one engine, resistance to inducing a spin and aircrafts ability to get out of a spin, wing loading, survivability, air to air and air to ground payload, PILOT TRAINING, pilot workload, RCS, heat signature, G-rating, flight envelope limitations, visibility from the cockpit, effectiveness of the flight control closed-loop feedback system, effectiveness of countermeasures, ability of an aircraft to effectively send/recieve/use data from another source, ability to switch between air to air and air to ground roles in flight, sortie turn-around time, etc, etc, etc,, I think you get the point.

Many people try to argue that the F-15 airframe is obsolete. I have two responses to that: First, take a look at the list above and tell me how many pieces of the overall figher aircraft SYSTEM that effects. Second, the F-15 airframe was WAY ahead of it's time, and is still a very potent, versatile, and capable platform. It has VERY low wing loading, and outstanding thrust to weight ratio, therefore allowing it to be extremely agile. Furthermore, it's flight control system has been continuously updated allowing it to fully exploit all performance capabilities that the original airframe will allow.

I think it's fair to say that America has the upper hand in electronic systems/avionics. It's also fair to say that America has more money to burn on defense than most other countries. Now if we've got better radar technology, better avionics, plenty of money to keep our air superiority fighters constantly updated with the best avionics, AND plenty of money and resources to keep our pilots up to par with the best in the world,, then it shouldn't be too hard for anyone to see why the F-15 SYSTEM can still maintain air superiority over any threat out there,, including the more agile variants of the Su-27 aircraft family.

Dima
04 Mar 05,, 22:29
i know that ameica spends way more than any other nation on defense, but the reason why some Russian aircraft(Su-27 for example) i think they're so effective is because they were funded by the USSR, which spent considerably more than Russia today, and upgrades don't cost as much in developing as a new aircraft, also, to manufacture products in Russia is 3 times cheaper than in America, resourcefullness

jgetti
05 Mar 05,, 01:45
i know that ameica spends way more than any other nation on defense, but the reason why some Russian aircraft(Su-27 for example) i think they're so effective is because they were funded by the USSR, which spent considerably more than Russia today, and upgrades don't cost as much in developing as a new aircraft, also, to manufacture products in Russia is 3 times cheaper than in America, resourcefullness

That's not much of an arguement,, the F-15 was funded by cold war era USA which also spent much more than they do today on defence. Your right that upgrades don't cost as much as a new aircraft,, case and point,, the F/A-22 vs. F-15C-E.
Believe what you want about the cost of manufacture in Russia, but there's something to be said about getting what you pay for. Part of the manufacture expense in the US has to do with quality and process control. American aircraft components are more expensive largely because of the quality of materials, quality of manufacture, and quality of corrosion prevention. Russia also depends more upon steel alloys than american aircraft. It's cheaper and in some cases stronger, but also much much heavier and corrosion prone. We spend much more time on strength analysis such that steels aren't necessary to achieve the strength and reliability that we want. Like I said,, you get what you pay for and I don't care if you believe that.

Dima
06 Mar 05,, 02:22
are you sure they spent more on their military in the 80's then now, they spend $370.7 billion on their defense, and since America's economy during the late 80's was around $6-7 trillion, it would require for them to spend a total of 6.3% at minimum, but, actually, that doesn't seem unreasonable

"That's not much of an arguement"
what do you mean, it makes perfect sense, since they spent more on its development

and, and talking about it's cheaper to manufacture something in Russia than in America, look at the GDP PPP economy for Russia, and then look at their GDP, three times lower

"quality of materials, quality of manufacture, and quality of corrosion prevention"

that only makes a part of it, also, your workers get paid considerably more than Russian ones, i remember reading that per russian person, they make 3.21(?) products per person/salary, somewhow they calculated this, while American workers only create about 1.4(?) if i remember correctly

steel, lol, where do you get that from, really, i'm curious, i thought that all Russian aircraft are made out of a aluminum alloy, steel is crazy heavy

highsea
06 Mar 05,, 03:10
...steel, lol, where do you get that from, really, i'm curious, i thought that all Russian aircraft are made out of a aluminum alloy, steel is crazy heavyThe MiG-25 was 80% tempered steel, 8% Titanium, and 11% Aluminum. Look at the normal takeoff weight, 81,000 lbs. for a Foxbat-E.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig251.html

Dima
06 Mar 05,, 03:44
the Foxbat, one aircraft, any proof of others

and doesn't titanium make up a large portion of the F-22's surface?

titanium is relatively heavy

can you give me the difference between tempered steel and normal steel?

Terran empire
06 Mar 05,, 04:02
the Foxbat, one aircraft, any proof of others

and doesn't titanium make up a large portion of the F-22's surface?

titanium is relatively heavy

can you give me the difference between tempered steel and normal steel?
Actually Titanium is relatively light but more expensive

highsea
06 Mar 05,, 04:33
the Foxbat, one aircraft, any proof of others DO your own research. If you wish to debate information presented to you, bring some facts to the discussion. The only Russian AC that have significant percentages of lightweight alloys are the SU-27 variants and the MiG-29.

and doesn't titanium make up a large portion of the F-22's surface?No.

titanium is relatively heavyNo.

can you give me the difference between tempered steel and normal steel?Tempered steel is heat treated.

Bill
06 Mar 05,, 04:39
Titanium is extremely lightweight for it's strength.

Over 85% of the SR-71s skin was made of titanium.

The F-22s skin is comprised almost entirely of composites.

Sir_Vastu
17 Mar 05,, 06:29
Nothing made for the Russian military should ever be compared too a Mercedes heck not even a BMW

Wrong.......a Luftwaffe MiG-29 "Steinhoff" is most certainly........a Mercedes E Class :) while a smaller, slower, inferior F-16 is...........a Ford Escort :biggrin:

Terran empire
18 Mar 05,, 00:35
Wrong.......a Luftwaffe MiG-29 "Steinhoff" is most certainly........a Mercedes E Class :) while a smaller, slower, inferior F-16 is...........a Ford Escort :biggrin: first those were pre Reunification and The Germans went and sold them off so they could get Eurofighters. I stand By my statement.

Dima
19 Mar 05,, 03:24
no, they agev the MiG-29's to Poland, didn't they

well, highsea, couldn't the possibility that i have other things to do come to mind?

"of lightweight alloys are the SU-27 variants and the MiG-29"

exactly, which makes your statement obsolete, because these are the aircraft that the Russian air force is based on, modern aircraft, if you're going to give me an aircraft such as the MiG-25 which was developed in the 60's, duhhhhh, of oucrse they're going to use titanium, it must have seemed like a good idea to them, or they just didn't know any better, jeeze, i thought you'd give me something more modern like Su-35/Su-37 etc. not something form the 60's, please

also, hello
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-mp.htm
36% of the aircraft is created from Titanium 64, and then another 3% from Titanium 62222

Bill
19 Mar 05,, 15:18
There is a reason the Mig-25 is made of titanium. It's the same reason the SR-71 is as well. It wasn't just a good idea, it was the ONLY idea to make both work.

Do you know why?

Titanium is far superior to aluminum alloys in all respects that don't involve economy and ease of construction.

Dima
20 Mar 05,, 04:11
"also, hello
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...aft/f-22-mp.htm
36% of the aircraft is created from Titanium 64, and then another 3% from Titanium 62222"

oh, just to make this clear, these are statistics for the F-22

highsea
20 Mar 05,, 05:10
Dima, you said all Russian aircraft were made out of aluminum. I was showing you that they weren't. Don't cry the blues to me about it. US aircraft of the same era were made of lightweight alloys, mostly aluminum and titanium. Russian AC were made out of steel. It was cheaper and easier to do, and the materials were more readily available to Russia to build in quantity. IIRC, in the 70's, something like 97% of the worlds titanium came from Colorado.

Modern Russian AC like the MiG-29 and SU-30 variants are made mostly out of aluminum-lithium alloys, because Russia has the capability to do that today and it's better than building them out of steel. Russia is one of the largest producers of aluminum in the world. Modern US AC like the F-22 and JSF are mostly made of composites, and titanium is used where high strength is needed. In the wings, only the intermediate spars on the Raptor are Ti, the rest are composite. High stress parts like landing gear struts and drag links are still Ti, and some parts of the airframe are Ti, like engine mounts, etc. That's why you see a relatively low (by US standards) percentage of Ti- it's mostly high-tech composites.

In general terms, titanium is as strong as steel and as light as aluminum. But it is much more expensive and lots more difficult to machine. Consider- you can mill aluminum at very high surface footages- 20,000 sfpm is typical for aluminum on high-speed machining centers. In contrast, you mill titanium at around 45 sfpm. Try to go much faster, and you work harden the part and melt down the cutter. Now you just scrapped a $15,000 forging. Ti machines much like precipitation hardening stainlesses- it's tougher than hell and eats cutters. This is a big reason Russian AC are cheaper to buy than US AC. Manufacturing and material costs factor significantly in the cost of the finished product.

Dima
20 Mar 05,, 20:02
what?cry the blues, lol

did i really say all Russian aircraft were made out of aluminum? nono, i said that i thought all Russian aircraft made out of an aluminum alloy, i didn't say they were as i was unsure about it myself

you forget to mention that composites are used a lot on the Su-47 aircraft and will be used a lot on the T-50

also, Russian workers get paid 1/8 the amount that aeronautical engineers and factory workers in America do

highsea
20 Mar 05,, 20:07
Dima, all aluminums are alloys. The SU-47 and T-50 are not production AC.

ajaybhutani
20 Mar 05,, 20:33
what?cry the blues, lol

did i really say all Russian aircraft were made out of aluminum? nono, i said that i thought all Russian aircraft made out of an aluminum alloy, i didn't say they were as i was unsure about it myself

you forget to mention that composites are used a lot on the Su-47 aircraft and will be used a lot on the T-50

also, Russian workers get paid 1/8 the amount that aeronautical engineers and factory workers in America do

salaries are even worse in china and india.
Russia did a very good job with all the resources it had but a fact remains that it never had nough resources to compete with US ever. And so differences are bound to be there.

Dima
20 Mar 05,, 21:09
Russia was easily a match for America in the 70's and early 80's, but lost their influence and power in the mid 80's, stupid gorbachev

Bill
21 Mar 05,, 05:06
"IIRC, in the 70's, something like 97% of the worlds titanium came from Colorado."

We had to buy almost all of our titanium from the Russians during the Cold war. Most known titanium deposits are in the former Soviet Union.

Dima
22 Mar 05,, 03:41
wow, lol, are you serious, had to buy it from Russia, they really ahd titanium reserves THAT large?i knew that their ferrous and non-ferrous metal reserves were large, but THAT large, wow

they also have a large reserve of Platinum

Bill
22 Mar 05,, 08:03
Yep. We bought probably 75% of our titanium from Russia.

highsea
22 Mar 05,, 08:11
"IIRC, in the 70's, something like 97% of the worlds titanium came from Colorado."

We had to buy almost all of our titanium from the Russians during the Cold war. Most known titanium deposits are in the former Soviet Union.Where in the world did you hear that, snipe? TIMET (Denver, CO) has been the 800 lb. gorilla in titanium production since the 50's. Obtaining data about Russia’s and Kazakhstan’s industries is difficult and unreliable, but TIMET is certainly the largest supplier of high quality titanium metal products in the world, and TIMET is also the worlds largest integrated titanium manufacturer.

The biggest supplier (by far) of rutile ores in the world is Australia. We're talking 5 times what Ukraine has.

http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/titanium/titanium_table15.html

It was the US Defense Department that put in place the incentives after WW2 that gave birth to the titanium aerospace industry, and the DOD has always required that all titanium for military use must be produced in the US.

The USSR's titanium manufacturing was done by the State owned company, VMSPO. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia was granted preferences for developing countries that allowed importation to the US of wrought titanium products with no tariffs. This gave VMSPO about 20% of the US overall market, and about 60% of the wrought market. Russia has been in desperate need of hard currency, and they are not really building any new AC to speak of today, at least not in large numbers.

I also have a very difficult time believing that the USSR would have exported in any quantity such a strategic metal to the US during the cold war. Not that we wouldn't buy it, to keep it out of their hands, but it is simply not logical from their perspective.

In all my years working in aerospace, I never once saw a metallurgical cert for titanium that wasn't produced in the US. That includes civilian AC as well as military.

Bill
22 Mar 05,, 10:26
http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=205772

Washington, D.C. – Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) announced today that workers at a manufacturing plant in Henderson will have a more secure future, now that they have convinced the Bush Administration not to drop an import tariff on titanium sponge. The Titanium Metals Corporation, better known as TIMET, would have faced extreme financial difficulty if the tariff was eliminated, and may have been forced to layoff employees. Working to save Nevada jobs, Reid and Ensign wrote letters to the U.S. Trade Representatives. Reid also held personal meetings with the President’s trade advisors.

“TIMET employs more than 400 people in Southern Nevada, and it creates a product that’s vital to our national security,” said Reid. “We can’t afford to lose either these jobs or our self-sufficiency in this critical market. Now, TIMET employees won’t have to worry about their jobs, and the U.S. will always have an available supply of titanium sponge. This is good for Nevada’s economy and good for America’s safety.”

“If we are to remain competitive in the global market, tariffs such as this one need to be implemented to maintain our homegrown advantage,” said Ensign. “I am pleased that the Bush Administration recognizes that jobs for 400 Nevadans are an advantage for all Americans in the national marketplace.”

Titanium sponge is a raw material that’s used to make titanium – a strong, lightweight metal used for airplanes, and for other military and commercial purposes. TIMET is the only U.S. company that produces titanium sponge. The U.S. also imports titanium sponge from Kazakhstan and Russia, but imposes a 15-percent import tariff.

The Bush Administration was considering waiving that tariff and changing trade rules to make it easier for Kazakhstan to export titanium sponge to the U.S. That would have allowed Kazakhstan, which is not required to meet U.S. wage or environmental laws, to underbid TIMET. That unfair business advantage would have caused financial hardship for TIMET, and could have even forced the Henderson plant to shut down. If TIMET ever closes, the U.S. will be completely dependent on Russia and Kazakhstan for titanium sponge supplies in the future. Timet’s closure would also mean hundreds of layoffs for hardworking Nevada citizens.

-------------------------------------

http://www.evergreenmagazine.com/news/ForestFacts/EnviroQuiz2003-answers.html

Material


% Imported


Principal Foreign Sources (1997-2000)


Titanium concentrates


72% China, Russia, Germany, Portugal

Titanium (sponge)


58% Russia, Japan, Kazakhstan



http://www.uswa.org/uswa/program/content/642.php

I found this to be pretty interesting:

Cold War supplier

Companies like Boeing Aircraft have been working with the Russian producer to keep titanium prices down. VSMPO is the world’s largest titanium producer. It has 14,000 employees and has been a Boeing supplier since 1995. The Russian company was established to supply military aircraft and submarines to the Soviet armed forces during the Cold War. The U.S. government has been highly supportive of Russian industry since the fall of communism.

Boeing was recently awarded a contract to lease 100 military aircraft to the U.S. Air Force. Since the planes are leased and not purchased, the procurement process has nullified the requirement for U.S. made titanium. The Bush Administration and Congress have put the U.S. titanium industry in jeopardy. If this action is allowed to stand, the domestic titanium industry’s survival is threatened, leaving us highly dependent on a single Russian company for this strategic material.

BTW, the SR-71, which is almost entirely of titanium construction, was built almost exclusively using Russian titanuim.

"Constructed with imported Russian titanium and painted midnight black"

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srnews.htm

"Like anything else, regardless of location, the quality of the metal is based upon the reputation of the manufacturer. Those who seem concerned about Russian Ti should note that the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird spy plane had many of its larger titanium parts made from Russian Ti due to the lack of US manufacturing capacity and capability at the time."

http://archive.roadbikereview.com/04/0EE8AB06.php

"Winner of the Bernardo Malfitano award for Coolest Plane Ever is the Lockheed Blackbird. THIS plane I could go on about for HOURS. It was designed and built in 1959, when the titanium industries were just about starting, and techniques for refining and welding titanium were being first developed, but it was built almost entirely of titanium. So much titanium that Lockheed had to import some, from Russia of all places"

http://www.airshowfan.com/blackbirdsindex.html

highsea
22 Mar 05,, 18:15
That's interesting, and I can concede that the SR-71 could have had some Russian sourced titanium, that was a little before my time in the industry (1980-1995). But that doesn't mean that 75% of US titanium was sourced in Russia during the cold war- this is what I am questioning.

The first link you gave showing the imports- 72% of raw materials are imported. True- Titanium concentrates; 72 %; South Africa, Australia, Canada, Ukraine. These are the rutile ores used to make the metal products, not the metal itself. As I already noted, Australia is the main source- SA has grown in the past few years, but in the cold war era, Canada and Australia were our main providers.

The sponge is processed, but is not a finished alloy. It is no surprise that the US is a net importer, we have a large demand and a large aerospace industry.

The 15% tariff is a relatively new thing- it was put in place last November. As I understand it, prior to that, Russia was exempt.


Titanium Producers
Poised for a Boom Period

By PAUL GLADER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 7, 2004; Page C1

(excerpt)
Domestic titanium producers benefit from U.S. government rules requiring military contracts to go to domestic titanium makers. In addition, the industry prevailed in its lobbying effort to have the government reinstate a 15% tariff, effective in November, on wrought titanium products such as tubes, rods and plates from Russia.

The tariff had been suspended for Russia, which had been supplying 60% of wrought titanium products in the U.S., under a system of preferences for certain industries in developing economies. Russia's former state-owned titanium maker, Verkhnaya Salda Metallurgical Production Organization, or VSMPO, had 20% of the U.S. overall market and was larger than all three domestic companies combined.

http://stephenvita.typepad.com/alchemy/2004/week41/
Here is a chart showing the last 15 years of global production compared to domestic production. I will try to find some data from earlier than 1990.

http://stephenvita.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/tie.gif

Bill
23 Mar 05,, 02:01
I look forward to seeing your data. This is an interesting subject.

highsea
23 Mar 05,, 03:51
I have contacted some industry sources to try to get some historical data.

I did notice a blurb on the CIA website that mentioned that the Ti for the A-12 was covertly acquired (due to it's scarcity at the time), which leads one to believe that there was no large scale importing taking place.

Starting in the 50's the US had several manufacturers of titanium. TIMET is all that's left today, partly due to Russian imports, and partly due to the downturn in aerospace after the cold war. The tariff was designed to protect them from dumping by Russia, and to maintain a domestic manufacturing capacity because of strategic concerns.

Boeing entered into the agreement with VMSPO in 1995, which explains why I never saw any certs from non-US sources. TIMET sued Boeing successfully in 1997 and got a $65 Million settlement over the deal. But as I understand it, the imported Ti is restricted to commercial AC only. In exchange, Boeing got a partnering deal on the Russian Regional Jet (RRJ).

Also, in the mid to late 80's, the Soviets were dumping aluminum on the world market to get hard currency- this was the cause of the demise of the aluminum industry in the US. Intalco (Ferndale, WA) has the largest smelter in the US with a 72 pot line. They rode out the storm by continuing production despite the fact that they had no sales. They are located just north of me- I toured the plant in the early 90's, and they still had several miles of billet stacked up on each side of the road going into the facility.

It was a gutsy decision- it was too expensive to shut down and restart, so they sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into inventory, on the bet that the downturn wouldn't be permanent. They are still alive today because of that decision. The second largest player in the US is Kaiser, and their biggest smelter is an 18 pot line in St. Louis.

Anyway, I will post up any Ti data I can get when I hear back on my inquiries, but I am confident that there was no large scale imports of Ti from the USSR. That's something I would have known about.

Bill
23 Mar 05,, 04:13
Look forward to your findings.

Thanx man.

highsea
23 Mar 05,, 19:14
Snipe,

Sent you a PM.

Bill
24 Mar 05,, 01:07
Got it, interesting info, thanx for taking the time to find out the real scoop bro.

coolieno99
16 Apr 05,, 07:03
I am just curious. Is Mr. Vaastu banned from this forum? If so, what's the reasoning behind it? (status on first posting on this thread) :cool:

avon1944
10 May 05,, 03:02
> highsea
> I can concede that the SR-71 could have had some Russian sourced titanium
Not just the SR-71. Almost 90% of the world's "antimony" is within the borders of the USSR. Now Cold War, War in Viet Nam doesn't stop buisness!!
Antimony is a chemical that contracts in heat and expands in cold! It was a very important element in the process of making "bi-polar" integrated circuits!
Canada has about 3% of the world's antimony. The USA always purchased its antimony from Canada. Never mind the amount of antimony purchased each year was far greater than what Canada mined!

TRIVA -During the Viet Namese War SAMs lock-on and fired at all aircraft that was not of their Air Force. Pan American Air Lines on it's daily flight from Tokyo to New Delhi flew along the PRC/VietNamese border (with permission) and no B-707 was ever lock-up! The short cut save almost 2,000 miles on the trip. - AW&ST

Adrian

highsea
10 May 05,, 03:27
...Almost 90% of the world's "antimony" is within the borders of the USSR...Canada has about 3% of the world's antimony. The USA always purchased its antimony from Canada. Never mind the amount of antimony purchased each year was far greater than what Canada mined!
For such a rare element, you wouldn't think it was the #1 alloying element in lead acid car batteries... :rolleyes:

suggest you read this:

http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/antimony/antimony_table09.html

Additional historical data here:

Estimates of the abundance of antimony in the Earth's crust range from 0.2 to 0.5 parts per million. Antimony is chalcophile, occurring with sulfur and the heavy metals, lead, copper, and silver. Over a hundred minerals of antimony are found in nature. Stibnite (Sb2S3) is the predominant ore mineral of antimony.

The most important use of antimony metal is as a hardener in lead for storage batteries. The metal also finds applications in solders and other alloys. Antimony trioxide is the most important of the antimony compounds and is primarily used in flame-retardant formulations. These flame-retardant applications include such markets as children's clothing, toys, aircraft and automobile seat covers.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/antimony/index.html#mcs

Over 3/4 of the world's antimony comes from China, other important sources are South Africa, Russia, and Bolivia. Even the US produces a significant amount as a by-product of gold and silver mining. Only a very small percentage of the antimony we use goes into semiconductors. It certainly doesn't have the strategic significance that titanium has/had, especially in the 60's and 70's.

Lord Vastu
20 May 05,, 05:36
Hey Dima, good job on the MiG posts lol. Saw your posts on that other
website you were banned from. they were pretty informative.