PDA

View Full Version : MiG 1.42 MFI “RAPTOR KILLER” : THE F-22 SLAYER



Mr-Vaastu
05 Feb 05,, 13:57
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig.jpg

Hold your breath people, here it comes the ultimate thread ;) .......


http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_6_25_2004_14_44_31/Mig142.jpg36fbaf2c-c577-4ccb-8c9a-6dbc28d0464fLarge.jpg





F-22 RAPTOR…..….


http://home.earthlink.net/~stealth_aircraft_photos/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/f22tail.jpg



VS



MiG 1.42 “RAPTOR KILLER”


http://combatavia.com1.ru/Mig142_3.jpg



“The Russians never got out of the fighter-building business. They are delivering aircraft to nations around the world that outperform anything else we have - except the Raptor,” said General Jumper after he piloted the F-22 at Mach 1.7. But the truth is he could be terribly wrong……. http://www.f-22raptor.com/


With Indo-Russian Aviation Limited (IRAL) planning joint co-production on new stealthy Russian aircraft which has been HAL’s longstanding expertise in erstwhile Soviet fighter plane designs, the MiG MFI project is definitely what India is eyeing.


Who knows 20 years from now, an IAF MiG 1.42 “Raptor Killer” may once more score kills over a USAF F-22 in DACT :eek: :rolleyes:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/aigledefer/Images/Avions/Mig1.44/mig1.44_2.jpg




All-in-all it just boils down to this. Whatever the Americans have, the Russians have better. The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of the F-5. The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over N. Vietnam saw the development of the F-16 and the high speed MiG-25 lead to the F-15s development. Yet an integrated BVR attack capable IAF MiG 21 Bison armed with a Phazotron Kopyo-M radar and R-77 BVRAAMs can still “schlemm” any F-16. And while the ATF program began in the early 1980s with the YF-22 making its maiden flight in September 1990 the F-22 probably won’t be fully operational with the USAF by 2008-2010. So with the F-22 being technologically three decades old one can only fathom how much superior the MiG MFI is.



Specifications



http://oranleed.hp.infoseek.co.jp/mig144/mig144s1.jpg


Having greater agility and range than the F-22 the aerodynamically superior MFI will have a top speed of Mach 2.6 versus Mach 1.7 for the F-22 Raptor, and the MFI will be able to cruise supersonically for a longer period. To reduce RCS it sports a heavy coating of RAM, S-shaped compressor channels, internal weapon storage, LO airframe geometry, and maybe an active radar cancellation system (RCS) or a plasma cloud stealth (PCS) system making it stealthier than the F-22 as MiG MAPO claims. Two three-dimensional thrust-vectoring Saturn/Lyulka AL-41F turbofans, capable of 44,100 lb of thrust in afterburner power the MiG 1.42. The key to the MiG-1.42 is its new Phazotron N-014 phased array fire control radar and rear-facing N-012 radar system operating in in air and ground modes simultaneously with ground mapping, search-and-track of moving targets, synthetic aperature radar and terrain avoidance it is capable of detecting any stealth aircraft without a special radar.


A Mach 2.8 MiG-31 Foxhound refitted with the newer R-77 (AA-12 'Adder') with its deadly SBI-16 Zaslon fixed phased array antenna radar, codenamed 'Flash Dance' by NATO, which is said to be the world's most powerful fighter radar would be able to target an F-22 200 km away.

Unlike the way the West thinks, the Russians know its speed and weapons delivery that make you the hunter killer. Combine that with the "ATFski" low-observable (LO) stealthly MiG 1.42 and you have a “Raptor Killer”.


Armaments

Everything in VVS fighter weapons inventory, including R-77 missiles.
MFI would also have some special weapons, like ultra-long-range AA missiles (Novator).


Radar Equipment

Forward and rearward facing radars; forward-facing radar N-014 phased array with electronically-scanned antenna - simultaneous tracking of 40 and engagement of up to 20 targets; effective range against a fighter-sized target: 420km, extended AS capability, ground mapping capability; rearward-facing radar N-012.


Stealth Features

Composite RAM, S-shaped compressor channels, internal weapons storage, LO airframe geometry, perhaps an active radar cancellation system or a plasma cloud stealth system.

Mr-Vaastu
05 Feb 05,, 13:58
Any Comrades here who'd like to share new info on the MiG MFI? :rolleyes:

ajaybhutani
05 Feb 05,, 16:19
my frnd migM MFI is over . The contract has gone into the hands of Sukhoi with Mig contributing in parts of development. MFI is nothing more than a tech demonstrator. Well Lets see whats the speed radar RCs etc of PAK-FA as that would be facing F22 and not mig MFI.

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 17:10
A Russian jet with an RCS to match the F-16. Finally!

Too bad the N-014 radar doesn't actually exist...

:rolleyes:

-SK

Bill
05 Feb 05,, 18:22
Too bad Mig1.42 will never exist either... ;)

Terran empire
05 Feb 05,, 20:10
Too bad Mig1.42 will never exist either... ;)
M21 is right the russian don't have the cash too field any thing New. Heck they don't have the Cash too Field Most of there old.
as for this plane it was technical demonstrator and is in pretty bad shape. the project began in 1983 and has been on again off again, My money say this project will not yield any thing unless another country jumps in looking for a new plane.
Now F22 vs Mig1,42, IMO The Mig driver should pray the new Ejection seat Works.

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 20:28
M21 is right the russian don't have the cash too field any thing New.

Russia has plenty of cash. Trouble is after so many years of gutting, the Russian aerospace complex has very little on offer anymore worth buying. Notwithstanding all the hype, an Iraqi MiG-29 would beat the MiG 1.42 in its present state.

-SK

jgetti
05 Feb 05,, 22:24
[QUOTE=Mr-Vaastu]
Having greater agility and range than the F-22 the aerodynamically superior MFI will have a top speed of Mach 2.6 versus Mach 1.7 for the F-22 Raptor, and the MFI will be able to cruise supersonically for a longer period. To reduce RCS it sports a heavy coating of RAM, S-shaped compressor channels, internal weapon storage, LO airframe geometry, and maybe an active radar cancellation system (RCS) or a plasma cloud stealth (PCS) system making it stealthier than the F-22 as MiG MAPO claims. Two three-dimensional thrust-vectoring Saturn/Lyulka AL-41F turbofans, capable of 44,100 lb of thrust in afterburner power the MiG 1.42. [QUOTE]


You have perfected the art of talking out of your A$$. Russia has never even developed a first generation stealth aircraft, much less anything on par with an F/A-22. Furthermore dipshit, the F/A-22 supercruises at higher than mach 1.7, WITHOUT afterburner.

SwingKid
05 Feb 05,, 22:52
Ooh, Mr. tough guy. C'mon man, he lives in a multipolar fantasyland but he's not hurting or insulting anybody personally. Is all that really necessary? One of these days he'll pick up an actual book instead of a glossy Mikoyan airshow flyer or Yugoslav web page, and discover something real like the SA-20, then what will you do? Ask him to be nice?

:rolleyes:

-SK

jgetti
05 Feb 05,, 22:57
Ooh, Mr. tough guy. C'mon man, he lives in a multipolar fantasyland but he's not hurting or insulting anybody personally. Is all that really necessary? One of these days he'll pick up an actual book instead of a glossy Mikoyan airshow flyer or Yugoslav web page, and discover something real like the SA-20, then what will you do? Ask him to be nice?

:rolleyes:

-SK

Yea, probably not necessary.

Dima
05 Feb 05,, 23:38
acutally, the MiG coporation has restarted the MiG 1.42 project becauase they believe that they might receive some export orders, its the exact same situation as the Su-47

and Mr. Vastu, just to correct you on something, the F-22 has a maximum speed of Mach 2, people claim that it can go Mach 2.5, but by then, the RAM coating and radar disspiating paint are totally useless(non-repairable) because of heat damage

yes, the Russians have plenty of cash, tons of it, all of it is saved up($128 billion of it specifically) they are in fact a net creditor, with a debt of only $120 billion, they're trade balance is set to soar, and their budget surplus, well, if it remains, thats just another positive for the Russian economy

jgetti, you're supposed to be an engineer, then why did you make the dumbest comment otday so far," Furthermore dipshit, the F/A-22 supercruises at higher than mach 1.7, WITHOUT afterburner."

oh, just to add, the MiG 1.42 is different from the 1.44 that eevryone has seen photos of, its a lot stealtheir, and has a few different design features, also, since the R-27(the God of missiles....err, Gods of missiles) and the R-73 are growing old, Vympel is to introduce brand new missiles at the same time that the T-50 is coming out, between 2010-2012, they will also officially integrate the K-172 Novator missile with a range of 300km+, i've heard reports of 400km+, and the AA-13(short range missile, successor to the R-73) will be so superior to other IR missiles, i can't wait, and if they can duplicate the R-27's incredible success into the AA-14, it will definitely be a force to be reckoned with, anyways, basic point, these missiles will be Gods
haha, what the hell do you think supercruise is, supercruise is sustained speeds of over Mach 1.45 without afterburner, so the last part WITHOUT afterburner." is just stupid, saying that it can supercuirse is sufficient enough

oh and the T-50 will be able to supercruise even faster, and havea longer range than the F-22, it will really be a remarkable aircraft, Mr. Vastu, where do you get this information from, what sites, seriously, i want to read some of that stuff

jgetti
06 Feb 05,, 02:14
and Mr. Vastu, just to correct you on something, the F-22 has a maximum speed of Mach 2, people claim that it can go Mach 2.5, but by then, the RAM coating and radar disspiating paint are totally useless(non-repairable) because of heat damage

jgetti, you're supposed to be an engineer, then why did you make the dumbest comment otday so far," Furthermore dipshit, the F/A-22 supercruises at higher than mach 1.7, WITHOUT afterburner."

haha, what the hell do you think supercruise is, supercruise is sustained speeds of over Mach 1.45 without afterburner, so the last part WITHOUT afterburner." is just stupid, saying that it can supercuirse is sufficient enough



The F/A-22 has a max speed that hasn't been published,, but lets think about something: The F-15 which has a larger drag coefficient than the F/A-22 is a Mach 2.5 plus aircraft with engines that have combined thrust of approx. 10000 lbs less than that of the F/A-22,, so just how do you come up with mach 2??? Also, what the hell do you know about radar dissipating paint?? I'm pretty confident that the answer is nothing.

Secondly, where the hell did you come up with mach 1.45??? Another rectal extraction I suppose. I was pointing out that the aircraft isn't limited to mach 1.7 as he alluded to, but rather that was the published speed it could attain without afterburner. But since you're a grammar expert/professional editor, I'll let you have that.

The dumbest comment today huh? I'm inviting you to go have sex with yourself.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 02:41
haha, you have to use pathetic disses to resolve this

and actually, no, supercruise isn't sustained speeds beyond Mach speeds, specifically, its sustained speeds beyond Mach 1.5(sorry, i heard from a USAF pilot that it was Mach 1.45)

the official speed is Mach 1.9/2, and there are reports that it is capable of going Mach 3, which might be likely, but the time it passes Mach 2.3, its stealth capabilities are useless, lol

Mach 2.5+, where did you get that from? link

anyways, you didn't have to say, without afterburner after you said that it is capable of supercruise, because its the same thing, when you say supercruise, its self explanatory that the aircraft has the capability of going past Mach 1.5 without afterburner

"I'm inviting you to go have sex with yourself." righttttttttttttttttt???

also, the F-22 weighs a lot more than the F-15, let me find the stats

the F119-PW-100 engine has a maximum thrust of 35,000 lbs., and has a normal weight of 62,000 lbs.

home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html

so, it has a total thrust of 70,000 lbs.

now the F-15C, its F100-PW-220 has s thrust of 23,840 lbs., and it has a normal weight of 44,630 kbs.

so it has a total thrust of 47,680 lbs.

therefore, the thrust-to-weight ratio's are

F-22/1.13:1
F-15C/1.07:1

therfore, the F-22 would have only slightly a higher maximum speed than the F-15C, maybe Mach 2.7 maximum, but by Mach 2.3, the RAM wouldn't be effective and neither would the paint

ajaybhutani
06 Feb 05,, 03:06
where is mig getting the money from for i remember that they are too much in debt and dsnt even have finances to pay for the raw materials due to which a lot of tension come on in india for the possible delays in mig29K's supplies.

jgetti
06 Feb 05,, 03:07
haha, you have to use pathetic disses to resolve this

and actually, no, supercruise isn't sustained speeds beyond Mach speeds, specifically, its sustained speeds beyond Mach 1.5(sorry, i heard from a USAF pilot that it was Mach 1.45)

the official speed is Mach 1.9/2, and there are reports that it is capable of going Mach 3, which might be likely, but the time it passes Mach 2.3, its stealth capabilities are useless, lol

Mach 2.5+, where did you get that from? link

anyways, you didn't have to say, without afterburner after you said that it is capable of supercruise, because its the same thing, when you say supercruise, its self explanatory that the aircraft has the capability of going past Mach 1.5 without afterburner

"I'm inviting you to go have sex with yourself." righttttttttttttttttt???

also, the F-22 weighs a lot more than the F-15, let me find the stats

the F119-PW-100 engine has a maximum thrust of 35,000 lbs., and has a normal weight of 62,000 lbs.

home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f22_1.html

so, it has a total thrust of 70,000 lbs.

now the F-15C, its F100-PW-220 has s thrust of 23,840 lbs., and it has a normal weight of 44,630 kbs.

so it has a total thrust of 47,680 lbs.

therefore, the thrust-to-weight ratio's are

F-22/1.13:1
F-15C/1.07:1

therfore, the F-22 would have only slightly a higher maximum speed than the F-15C, maybe Mach 2.7 maximum, but by Mach 2.3, the RAM wouldn't be effective and neither would the paint

"The official speed" You fucking idiot. It's still in development,, there is no officially released speed. Man you must bang the oak tree in your back yard. Furthermore, the F-15E uses PW F100-P229 engines with 29000 lbs of thrust each,, therefore, 58000 lbs combined. If you subtract 58000 from 70000 you get 12000 which is pretty close to 10000 that I said. The F-15E has a max takeoff weight of 81000 lbs.

Again,, what the hell do you know about stealth paint. I guess your some kind of fuckin wizard and know what the meaning of life is too.

Link to the mach 2.5+??? Go punch USAF F-15 in Google and you'll find it pretty quick.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 03:19
you didn't mention F-15E, you squarely mentioned F-15, so, i just went to research for the easiest informationm(originally i tried the F-15E but couldn't find its normal thrust-to-weight ratio) the F-15C, there is a significant difference in thrust between these two, but what you failed to mention is that the F-22 weighs so much more

i don't have an oak tree in my back yard

and, you mean go punch in USAF F-22, not F-15, anyways, i checked and its not there

we'll see the official speed when it comes out

jgetti
06 Feb 05,, 05:28
you didn't mention F-15E, you squarely mentioned F-15, so, i just went to research for the easiest informationm(originally i tried the F-15E but couldn't find its normal thrust-to-weight ratio) the F-15C, there is a significant difference in thrust between these two, but what you failed to mention is that the F-22 weighs so much more

i don't have an oak tree in my back yard

and, you mean go punch in USAF F-22, not F-15, anyways, i checked and its not there

we'll see the official speed when it comes out


Link to the speed of the F-15E beavis
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 05:42
oh, the F-15E, oh, yea, everyone knows that its Mach 2.5+, its easily the fastest fighter aircraft that America has, i thought you wanted me to search for a link that showed that the F-22 can go Mach 2.5+, although i've heard reports, i don't really credit tham as being reliable

Bill
06 Feb 05,, 06:54
The F-22 doesn't have 70,000 lbs of thrust.

That was what the original specification called for, not what the PW F-119 engines that power it actually produce.

Supercruise is sustained mach speed in level flight without A/B. That means mach 1 and higher. The first aircraft to enter service that was capable of supercruise was the British English Electric Lightning.

The F-22 is not heavier than the F-15E. In fact, the opposite is true...and they're not even close in weight.

Jgetti, this kid aint worth getting upset over, he doesn't know what he's talking about anyway.

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 07:16
buddy, neither do you, supercruise is sustained speeds over Mach 1, are you retarded?, thats just normal economic cruise speed, supercruise is sustained speeds beyond Mach 1.5, hence the name "super"cruise

and where did you get that load of b/s from? the F-22 is lighter than the F-15E

okay, i'll try and be nice, can you provide me with a link? thanks

Bill
06 Feb 05,, 07:20
Sorry, no links for idiots.

Terran empire
06 Feb 05,, 20:49
buddy, neither do you, supercruise is sustained speeds over Mach 1, are you retarded?, thats just normal economic cruise speed, supercruise is sustained speeds beyond Mach 1.5, hence the name "super"cruise

and where did you get that load of b/s from? the F-22 is lighter than the F-15E

okay, i'll try and be nice, can you provide me with a link? thanks
http://www.f-22raptor.com/af_airframe.php
there link supplied

Dima
07 Feb 05,, 02:12
idiot, huh, lol, look who's talking


here, let me provide some links, for the "idiot" on this forum

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=de00020001
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_mil_f119.asp

thats the official site

anyways, supercruise, its explained in your link Terran, sustained speeds of Mach 1.5 or greater, see, jeeze, exactly what i said

ajaybhutani
07 Feb 05,, 10:13
idiot, huh, lol, look who's talking


here, let me provide some links, for the "idiot" on this forum

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=de00020001
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_mil_f119.asp

thats the official site

anyways, supercruise, its explained in your link Terran, sustained speeds of Mach 1.5 or greater, see, jeeze, exactly what i said
well,
from ur own links


Two F119-PW-100 engines power the F/A-22 Raptor Air Dominance Fighter. The F119 thrust vectoring nozzle provides the Raptor with enhanced maneuverability while its 35,000 pounds of thrust provide supercruise speed (supersonic speed without afterburner).

=> speeds above mach one and not above mach 1.5 .

And the link u are talking about mentions supercruise specifications for raptor not what is supercruise. Secondly they were only specs as as to how the raptor whould preform and not what the aicraft turned out to be which is clearly highly dependent on the enginnering possiblities used and limitations faced.

Bill
07 Feb 05,, 20:40
Just for the record, the F-22 can actually supercruise at Mach 1.8, and is not limited to the Mach 1.5 originally specified by the USAF.

This is primarily because the F-119 engines actually produce far more than 35,000lbs thrust each.

No one is really certain what the F-22s top speed at altitude is, but the USAF publicly admits to Raptor being a Mach2+ aircraft. That's an amazing feat for an aircraft with fixed inlets.

jgetti
07 Feb 05,, 21:33
Just for the record, the F-22 can actually supercruise at Mach 1.8, and is not limited to the Mach 1.5 originally specified by the USAF.

This is primarily because the F-119 engines actually produce far more than 35,000lbs thrust each.

No one is really certain what the F-22s top speed at altitude is, but the USAF publicly admits to Raptor being a Mach2+ aircraft. That's an amazing feat for an aircraft with fixed inlets.


I didn't realize the inlets were fixed. I just assumed there were variable geometry ramps in the nacelles. If they really are fixed, then that is a hell of a feat.

sniperdude411
07 Feb 05,, 22:00
buddy, neither do you, supercruise is sustained speeds over Mach 1, are you retarded?, thats just normal economic cruise speed, supercruise is sustained speeds beyond Mach 1.5, hence the name "super"cruise

Now where'd you get your "b/s"? Your links state that the f22 can supercruise at mach 1.58. It doesn't say that supercruise is mach 1.5 and-up. Supersonic-cruise. Hence the name "supercruise."

Terran empire
07 Feb 05,, 23:45
Now where'd you get your "b/s"? Your links state that the f22 can supercruise at mach 1.58. It doesn't say that supercruise is mach 1.5 and-up. Supersonic-cruise. Hence the name "supercruise."
For higher speeds (like mach2+) the F 22 kicks in the afterburners. super cruise gives the plane the ability too so super sonic with a hell of a lot better fuel economy.

sniperdude411
08 Feb 05,, 01:01
Yes. And the F119-PW-100 engines at 95% thrust gives the f-22 50% better fuel eceonomy than normal 100% thrust. It was on the history channel.

Bill
08 Feb 05,, 01:37
The F-22s transit speeds really promise to effectively double the size of the fleet.

If an F-15E and an F-22 left the same base at the same time to hit the same target, the F-22 would hit the target and be wheels down back at the base at about roughly the same time as the F-15E was releasing it's weapons on the target the F-22 already hit long ago.

The farther the target, the larger the F-22s supercruise transit advantadge becomes.

It is really quite a remarkable aircraft.

sniperdude411
08 Feb 05,, 02:15
If you fly an f-15 on afterburner the whole time, you'll run out of fuel in 45 seconds... The mig 1.42 is simply a prototype... they can't put all of the statistics on that small of a package.
Also, numbers don't always tell the truth...
2.5ghz g5 is WAY faster than a 3.4 ghz p4 or even xeon.

tu160mblackjack
08 Feb 05,, 03:16
The F-22 doesn't have 70,000 lbs of thrust.

That was what the original specification called for, not what the PW F-119 engines that power it actually produce.

Supercruise is sustained mach speed in level flight without A/B. That means mach 1 and higher. The first aircraft to enter service that was capable of supercruise was the British English Electric Lightning.

The F-22 is not heavier than the F-15E. In fact, the opposite is true...and they're not even close in weight.

Jgetti, this kid aint worth getting upset over, he doesn't know what he's talking about anyway.
above mach 1????
wtf, even airliners come very close to achieving that. I dont think YOU know what youre talking about. If Lightning achieved supercruise, why isnt it in service still, since its so capable?
Im not sure about the exact speed above which cruising is considered supercruise, but above mach 1 is NOT the answer, its way too achievable.

tu160mblackjack
08 Feb 05,, 03:20
If you fly an f-15 on afterburner the whole time, you'll run out of fuel in 45 seconds... The mig 1.42 is simply a prototype... they can't put all of the statistics on that small of a package.
Also, numbers don't always tell the truth...
2.5ghz g5 is WAY faster than a 3.4 ghz p4 or even xeon.
Explain the last sentence so i can tell if ure bs-ing or not. Im a hardware specialist, i can tell.

ZFBoxcar
08 Feb 05,, 03:27
Hes a damn Apple Computers fan...I was raised on them and learned to hate them.

Terran empire
08 Feb 05,, 03:30
above mach 1????
wtf, even airliners come very close to achieving that. I dont think YOU know what youre talking about. If Lightning achieved supercruise, why isnt it in service still, since its so capable?
Im not sure about the exact speed above which cruising is considered supercruise, but above mach 1 is NOT the answer, its way too achievable.

Above Mach one only a few Airlines can hit mach for the record ABOVE Mack 1 means Faster than than Mach 1. the F22 is not the "lightning 2" any more It's "Raptor", and why is it not in service well It is still under testing and it's budget keeps getting cut yet i Hear It is now being phased in too service with at least one fighter training squadron. now stop being an idiot

SwingKid
08 Feb 05,, 03:30
The F-22s transit speeds really promise to effectively double the size of the fleet.

Serious question - is there anything you would call "hype"? :rolleyes:

-SK

Officer of Engineers
08 Feb 05,, 03:32
Serious question - is there anything you would call "hype"? :rolleyes:

-SK
It will definetely cost under $100mil per copy.

Terran empire
08 Feb 05,, 03:34
It will definetely cost under $100mil per copy.
if it were ordered in numbers remember the fewer they order the less they can divide up the R&D price tag

The Chap
08 Feb 05,, 03:53
It will definetely cost under $100mil per copy.
Definitive! There goes my gin again ... :biggrin:
On an earlier note I don't have an oak tree in my garden, but I do have a pear tree which I suppose I could try and weigh. Be a shame to dig it up though. It's quite nice you see. If it helps stop this wretched *****ing I'll consider it. :rolleyes:

Dima
08 Feb 05,, 04:56
variable(? whats the wor di'm looking for here?) inlets are very hard to keep stealthy, so they opted for the fixed inlets

SwingKid
08 Feb 05,, 05:18
It will definetely cost under $100mil per copy.

:)

I think the F/A-22 is a great airplane, but watching the spectacle of people trying to justify it as being a "need" or "revolutionary" just resembles all the ever-shifting nonsense about the "need" to invade Iraq. I understand there are decision-making people out there whose opinions actually matter, at whom such enthusiastic hype is directed - I just dislike being constantly reminded that I'm not one of them. :rolleyes:

-SK

Bill
08 Feb 05,, 09:31
The F-22 is revolutionary in many ways, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

"Serious question - is there anything you would call "hype"?"

If you don't think that having a cruise/transit speed roughly double that of any other tactical military aircraft is revolutionary, that's on you.

ajaybhutani
08 Feb 05,, 16:58
It will definetely cost under $100mil per copy.
well i think they ahve spent much over 10B$ on the project. So if removing the cost of develpment it costs 50mn a peice. ( i gues si m making a valid assumption or will it be even cheaper) . Then it will need some 200 planes to bring the cost down to 100m$ a peice . Though is the development cost really capped by 10B$. BTW does anyone think americans will exportn this plane??

sniperdude411
08 Feb 05,, 17:49
Explain the last sentence so i can tell if ure bs-ing or not. Im a hardware specialist, i can tell.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

SwingKid
08 Feb 05,, 17:59
If you don't think that having a cruise/transit speed roughly double that of any other tactical military aircraft is revolutionary, that's on you.

Do you think the MiG-25RB is "revolutionary?" By the time the Raptor reaches the target, the MiG-25RB is... well, sipping pina coladas by the beach, enjoying its retirement. :cool:

I thought the history of the B-52 and Tu-95 vs. everything else unveiled all the cruise/transit speed "revolutions" since the 50s to be irrelevant fads - successful bomb trucks are cheap, heavy-lifting and efficient, not fast and glamorous.

-SK

Dima
09 Feb 05,, 04:45
actually, the F-22 will no way in hell cost that cheap, under $100 million, or under $200 million for that matter, the F-22 will cost(or currently costs $370 million per copy) and if they keep decreasing the number of aircraft ordered, that will only go higher

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htairfo

the the cheapest variant of the JSF is no longer $30 million(which was approximately what it was intended to be) it is now $37 million, and if the same aircraft cuts continue for this project as it ahs plagued the F-22 project, the JSF might cost over $40 million, possibly close to $48 million, my estimate is $43-45 million

oh, yes the MiG-25RB, wow, incredible aircraft, but, no doubt that it will get away from the F-22 using its superior speed, but it can only attain and maintain speeds of over Mach 3 for seconds, not even minutes, and when it decelerates, the engines are fried, literally fried, there was a report of an Iraqi MiG-25 flying over Israeli airspace, once it found out it was being tracked, the Foxbat flew back to its airbase and was clocked at Mach 3.2 with full weapons load, anyways, when it arrived at its base, the engines were completely unsalvageable, but nonetheless, the fastest fighter in the world is a pretty nice record, it can outrun both the Sidewinder and Arrow missiles

also, one more thing, when the MiG-25 reches over Mach 2.5, the aircraft is incredibly hard to control, and can only perform turns of about 2.5G's to 4G's i think, or a maximum of 3G's, the same occurs with the SR-71

Terran empire
09 Feb 05,, 05:59
actually, the F-22 will no way in hell cost that cheap, under $100 million, or under $200 million for that matter, the F-22 will cost(or currently costs $370 million per copy) and if they keep decreasing the number of aircraft ordered, that will only go higher

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htairfo

the the cheapest variant of the JSF is no longer $30 million(which was approximately what it was intended to be) it is now $37 million, and if the same aircraft cuts continue for this project as it ahs plagued the F-22 project, the JSF might cost over $40 million, possibly close to $48 million, my estimate is $43-45 million
That may not happen too the F 35. First off the F35 would be used by more than just one service and Countries the last i checked the nations of ( in random order ) UK, Australians, Canadians, The Netherlands, Denmark, Turkey and Italy were also putting in orders. this means that the Cost of the R&D will be spread pretty widely but $37million was the price projected for the base line unit and $45 million sounds about right for a top of the line unit.

tu160mblackjack
09 Feb 05,, 13:38
Above Mach one only a few Airlines can hit mach for the record ABOVE Mack 1 means Faster than than Mach 1. the F22 is not the "lightning 2" any more It's "Raptor", and why is it not in service well It is still under testing and it's budget keeps getting cut yet i Hear It is now being phased in too service with at least one fighter training squadron. now stop being an idiot
Idiot, I know the difference between the f-22 and the lightening, I was saying that if the British 1950s litghening had such excellent performance features, why isnt it still in service. (I was being sarcastic). whtf do you mean by mach one means more than mach one?????????? that makes no sense whatsoever!!

tu160mblackjack
09 Feb 05,, 13:46
Do you think the MiG-25RB is "revolutionary?" By the time the Raptor reaches the target, the MiG-25RB is... well, sipping pina coladas by the beach, enjoying its retirement. :cool:

I thought the history of the B-52 and Tu-95 vs. everything else unveiled all the cruise/transit speed "revolutions" since the 50s to be irrelevant fads - successful bomb trucks are cheap, heavy-lifting and efficient, not fast and glamorous.

-SK
The f-22 IS heavy-lifting, efficient, maybe not cheap, but also fast and glamorous. Id say thats better. ;)

SwingKid
09 Feb 05,, 15:49
The f-22 IS heavy-lifting, efficient, maybe not cheap, but also fast and glamorous. Id say thats better. ;)

How ironic... :rolleyes:

-SK

Injecteer
09 Feb 05,, 16:21
who wanna get back to the primary topic of this thread? :)

I want to get info on MFI, 'cos I can read F22vsB52-related discussions in other topics :)

Bill
09 Feb 05,, 21:19
"Do you think the MiG-25RB is "revolutionary?" By the time the Raptor reaches the target, the MiG-25RB is... well, sipping pina coladas by the beach, enjoying its retirement."

In it's day, it most certainly was. And that beach better be pretty freaking far, cause while the Mig-25 can outsprint the F-22, it can't outrun it.

"I thought the history of the B-52 and Tu-95 vs. everything else unveiled all the cruise/transit speed "revolutions" since the 50s to be irrelevant fads - successful bomb trucks are cheap, heavy-lifting and efficient, not fast and glamorous."

Slow and non-glamorous, eh?

Except for the B-1, Tornado IDF, F-15E, F-111, FB-111, F-14D, F-18E, F-16C, and blah, blah, blah, sure.

All of those have ground attack roles(and for most of them it's the primary role), and all of them have been very succesful in their own right. They are all also VERY fast aircraft, especially on the deck.

SwingKid
09 Feb 05,, 22:37
In it's day, it most certainly was.
...
Except for the B-1 ... very succesful...

If the MiG-25RB is what you call "revolutionary" and the B-1 "successful," then you really need to talk to my boss about me right away.

:biggrin:

-SK

Dima
10 Feb 05,, 05:25
LOL :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: SwingKid, you're killing me, lol

what about all those preliminary problems with the B-1 in development, came out years after it was originally planned to come out, because of some problems, and to this day, is known for it's computer crashes, or something, but it is nice, and pretty fast

B-1B:Mach 1.2
Tu-160:Mach 1.9

Tornado IDF:Mach 2.2
MiG-27:Mach 1.6

F-15E:Mach 2.5+
Su-27:Mach 2.35

F-111:Mach 2.0
MiG-27: Mach 1.6

F-14:Mach 2.1
MiG-31:Mach 2.83

F-18:Mach 1.8
MiG-29:Mach 2.35

F-16:Mach 2
MiG-29:Mach 2.35

yes, those aircraft are all very fast, except the B-1B bomber, but the most important of all, is that they're all proven and effective aircraft

thom
10 Feb 05,, 15:52
above mach 1????
wtf, even airliners come very close to achieving that. I dont think YOU know what youre talking about. If Lightning achieved supercruise, why isnt it in service still, since its so capable?
Im not sure about the exact speed above which cruising is considered supercruise, but above mach 1 is NOT the answer, its way too achievable.

Supercruise is the ability to sustain speeds at or above supersonic speed normally with natural aspiration. Sustain indicates the crafts ability to continue operation without natural strain to the powerplant or craft body. It would be logical to say a craft could/should not operate at 100% power for extended periods of time. The F/A-18 can go supersonic mach1.5 but can only cruise at 485knts under NA. To conclude, Mach 1 is supersonic, hence supercruize is >=mach1.

SwingKid
10 Feb 05,, 17:25
LOL :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: SwingKid, you're killing me, lol

Well, to be fair, he did exhibit discretion by criticizing the Harrier II - I forgot.

The MiG-25RB dropped dumb bombs lacking GPS correction from high altitude, making it almost impossible to hit even the largest targets (e.g. the intended country).

The B-1's own project leader said it was over-hyped, but then, that's just his biased opinion. ;)

-SK

Bill
10 Feb 05,, 19:43
"If the MiG-25RB is what you call "revolutionary" and the B-1 "successful," then you really need to talk to my boss about me right away."

The Mig-25s interception capability was indeed revolutionary when it was introducted.
So revolutionary that the XB-70 was axed almost directly as a result, and the F-15 was designed and fielded directly as a result(never mind that the Mig-25 was WAY overhyped, lol).

The B-1B has performed well in actual combat operations, but yes....it is a hanger queen of the 1st order.

Bill
10 Feb 05,, 19:45
Dima:

The TU-160 is anything BUT proven, it's never dropped bomb one in combat.

Same can be said for the Mig-31. Looks good on paper, but who knows how well it actually works in real combat? No one.

The Mig-29 i would state has proven to be anything but effective in actual combat.

BTW, on the deck, the B-1B is the fastest aircraft in the US inventory.

SwingKid
10 Feb 05,, 20:49
"If the MiG-25RB is what you call "revolutionary" and the B-1 "successful," then you really need to talk to my boss about me right away."

The Mig-25s interception capability was indeed revolutionary when it was introducted.

Just to clarify, the MiG-25RB variant that I was referring to has no interception capability at all. It is developed from the recon version as a high-speed, high-altitude bomber, and was AFAIK a total flop, except as a "morale" (i.e. "hype") weapon.

-SK

Dima
11 Feb 05,, 04:29
ACTUALLY, THE mIg-25 HAD A SLIGHT CHANCE AT DESTROYING, A xb-70 vALKYRIE, THEY CANCELLED THE PROJECT BECAUSE THE COSTS WERE ESCALATING FASTER THAN THE f-22'S

shoot, sorry, caps lock

also, another major nail that was inserted into the heart of the program was that an F-104(Joe Walker's) to be exact was sucked into the wing tip of the XB-70 because of the massive tip vortices that the massive delta wings created, and thus, both aircraft were destroyed

also, SA missiles eventually made the project obsolete

Tu-160, that is not true, the Blackjack has had several instances in training, and has performed well in those occurences, also the MiG-31, well, i can't give much on that aircraft, i've heard of times in which they were scrambled(because of an SR-71) but were unable to catch it, but, no downings by these aircraft(although, there was a repored downing by a MiG-25 of an F-18 Horntet, first A2A downing of the Gulf War) supposedly

and the MiG-29, downed 6 NATO aircraft, other than that, i'm not aware of any A2A kills, but its overall record sucks, if you were to compare it to how badly it was outgunned, and outnumbered, then it's pretty impressive, but i'm not going to get to this, off topic

The Chap
11 Feb 05,, 05:42
[QUOTE=Dima]ACTUALLY, THE mIg-25 HAD A SLIGHT CHANCE AT DESTROYING, A xb-70 vALKYRIE, THEY CANCELLED THE PROJECT BECAUSE THE COSTS WERE ESCALATING FASTER THAN THE f-22'S

If we are talking the Valkyrie from way back when ... then yes the flying rig was hit by a chase starfighter on, I believe, the port side as the wing ends were in transition thus adding time to the project as well as etc etc. Much more of a problem - although illustrated by the accident - were legit concerns; to wit the highly volatile nature of the boron based additive to the "zip" fuel used. Before anyone corrects me, no, not the same stuff used by the SR-71. :)

lemontree
11 Feb 05,, 06:45
The Mig-29 i would state has proven to be anything but effective in actual combat.

If you are referring to the Iraqi MIG-29s, its futile. They did'nt do justice with any of their weapon systems against coalition forces.

highsea
11 Feb 05,, 08:52
...and the MiG-29, downed 6 NATO aircraft, other than that, i'm not aware of any A2A kills...
In your dreams.

Serbia: 5 MiG-29's downed by US planes (4 F-15C and 1 F-16CJ) plus one MiG-29 downed by a Dutch F-16. All kills were by AIM-120.

Gulf War: 5 MiG-29's shot down, 1 additional MiG-29 forced to crash evading a pursuing F-15.

No NATO AC has ever been shot down by a MiG-29. The MiG-29 does have A2A kills, there was the Iraqi MiG-23 that was shot down by his wingman in the MiG-29, there was the unarmed Cessna that the Cuban MiG-29 shot down, and there have been MiG-29's shot down by other MiG-29's. IIRC there was a civilian airliner also. MiG-29 does not have an impressive combat record.

And don't bother posting the trash from Venik. It's all B.S. and everyone knows it. You are better off quoting Baghdad Bob.

Bluesman
11 Feb 05,, 15:08
In your dreams.

Serbia: 5 MiG-29's downed by US planes (4 F-15C and 1 F-16CJ) plus one MiG-29 downed by a Dutch F-16. All kills were by AIM-120.

Gulf War: 5 MiG-29's shot down, 1 additional MiG-29 forced to crash evading a pursuing F-15.

No NATO AC has ever been shot down by a MiG-29. The MiG-29 does have A2A kills, there was the Iraqi MiG-23 that was shot down by his wingman in the MiG-29, there was the unarmed Cessna that the Cuban MiG-29 shot down, and there have been MiG-29's shot down by other MiG-29's. IIRC there was a civilian airliner also. MiG-29 does not have an impressive combat record.

And don't bother posting the trash from Venik. It's all B.S. and everyone knows it. You are better off quoting Baghdad Bob.

GREAT post, man. :biggrin:

Game, set and match. :biggrin:

highsea
11 Feb 05,, 18:08
...Game, set and match. :biggrin:
Lol, maybe I'll start a thread: MiG-29 vs. Cessna- which is better in A2A combat?

Then Dima can be right for once.

Dima
12 Feb 05,, 22:52
lol, that's funny highsea, personally, you guys believe what your media and government wants you to believe, i'll believe what
s really happening

and veniks is still a better database than any other on Yugoslavian air losses

because the site has been down for quite a long while, i have not been able to provide you guys with news reports from the BBC and other's around the world

no A2A kills huh, lol, there are at least 2 confirmed kills during the Yugsolav air war by MiG-29's, and an additional 3 unconfirmed kills, with anotehr 1 thta's still under question

A2A combat, if you guys want to use that as a way to measure an aircraft's efficiency, then i hope that it would please you to know that in every engagement(Gulf War Yugoslavia etc.) the MiG-29's were outnumbered by at least 5+:1, also, they were export models, and they were MiG-29A's going against upgraded F-16's and F-15's, also, were flown by inferior pilots, and were minimally supported in combat(unlike the F-16's who had a AWACS with them every time)

yea, the XB-70 was supposed to use Ethyl borane fuel, but it was way too expensive, and it's RCS and heat signatures were absolutely MASSIVE

Bluesman
13 Feb 05,, 15:58
no A2A kills huh, lol, there are at least 2 confirmed kills during the Yugsolav air war by MiG-29's, and an additional 3 unconfirmed kills, with anotehr 1 thta's still under question

NO, there were NOT. NO NATO aircraft were shot down in air-to-air combat in that conflict, PERIOD. Don't be an ass.

Or maybe I should say, "Don't continue to be an ass."

Oh, and 'lol' is l33tsp34k for 'laugh out loud', not 'loser on-line', which is how YOU seem to make it come out.

SwingKid
13 Feb 05,, 17:55
NO NATO aircraft were shot down in air-to-air combat in that conflict,

To repeat an earlier question - did the MiG-29 shoot down any coalition aircraft in 1991?

-SK

FlyingCaddy
13 Feb 05,, 21:47
"All-in-all it just boils down to this. Whatever the Americans have, the Russians have better. The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of the F-5. The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over N. Vietnam saw the development of the F-16 and the high speed MiG-25 lead to the F-15s development. Yet an integrated BVR attack capable IAF MiG 21 Bison armed with a Phazotron Kopyo-M radar and R-77 BVRAAMs can still “schlemm” any F-16. And while the ATF program began in the early 1980s with the YF-22 making its maiden flight in September 1990 the F-22 probably won’t be fully operational with the USAF by 2008-2010. So with the F-22 being technologically three decades old one can only fathom how much superior the MiG MFI is. "

I know this might be a tad stale but I cant let such a sophomoric comment stand without some contest. This guy has minimal understading of the F-86 and the F-4's development. First, during Korea the Sabre kicked some mig ass and took names, the sabre had a 12:1 kill ratio over MiG 15. AS one military analysist put it, the Mig 15 was a flying tractor and the F-86 was a plane. The F-4 did not develop from the f-86. The F-4 was a combination of the multiple 1950s interceptor models (F-100, 101, 102, 103, and 104) and the need for a offensive fighter (something that could engage enemy fighters not just attack bombers). The F-4 certainly was a disappointment in its orginal models, ie the lack of any guns, difficulties with the Sidewinder. However, by the end of Nam American pilots flying a later model F-4 with a 20mm gattling gun, and improved Missle systems DOMINATED the NVA's Mig 17s and 21s. Nonetheless, it is an anemic argument to state the NVA air force forced the development of the F-16, only 5 american pilots become aces, becasue the NVa Airforce rarely engaged in the South where most American sorties took place, and the American pilot's biggest worry was the AAA not the MiG.

troung
13 Feb 05,, 22:49
"All-in-all it just boils down to this. Whatever the Americans have, the Russians have better."

Other way around comrade...

"The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of the F-5."

First off the F-86s more or less took control from the MiG-15 in Korea. The F-86s had a massive ratio in their favor. In fact ROCAF F-86s were killing PLAAF MiG-17s in the late 1950s. The F-86 stayed deadly up to the early 1970s.

And the F-86 replacment was the F-100 not the F-5 in American service. The F-5 was made to be an export plane for allies. It has preformed in combat very well seeing service from Latin America the Middle East to SE Asia.

"The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over N. Vietnam saw the development of the F-16 and the high speed MiG-25 lead to the F-15s development."

The closest a F-5 came to fighting a MiG-21 took place over Laos and no shots were fired. And in fact the F-4s broke in thier favor versus the MiGs. The VPAF made many kills on strike planes such as the F-105 as strike planes were their targets. The VPAF did not even want to play with fighters in the first place...

But then again F-4Es tore up Arab MiG-21s in IDF/AF service and IrAF MiG-21s in IRIAF service.

"Yet an integrated BVR attack capable IAF MiG 21 Bison armed with a Phazotron Kopyo-M radar and R-77 BVRAAMs can still “schlemm” any F-16."

Huh?

"So with the F-22 being technologically three decades old one can only fathom how much superior the MiG MFI is. "

Huh? The MiG MFI might never enter service....

----

"The F-4 certainly was a disappointment in its orginal models, ie the lack of any guns, difficulties with the Sidewinder."

To give you something from the other side many VPAF pilots felt robbed by their MiG-21s many of which were MiG-21PF/PFMs which lacked any sort of gun and were limited to the R-13 which had a low PK ratio even within its small NE zone. And lets no mention the problem with the radars overheating when leaving them on to long while flying...

lulldapull
14 Feb 05,, 03:39
Troung the problem is that the large IAF Fulcrum force ...well maintained, and reasonably well led poses a serious problem for the currently beleagured PAF.

in all honesty in any Hindoo/ mouzlum show down, atleast, the IAF's Fulcrums will play havoc with PAF's Mirage III's and V's! I wont mention what the Fulcrum can do to our hapless A-5's :biggrin: ...i mean that one is like handin the dude the vaseline tub, and assumin the 'pozishunn' without even god-damn been asked to do so! :rolleyes:

Even the F-7PG's or the F-16Block-15's will be cautious trying to take on the Fulcrum.

Iwill also give this Moldovan Dima the benefit of the Iraqi AF being totally outclassed and throughly outnumbered from the get go in 91. A massive comm's and AEW failure caused by the paralysing USAF attack literally caught them with their pants down. :)

I am certain though that under more favourable conditions the Fulcrum would have performed better.

Dima
14 Feb 05,, 04:48
NO, there were NOT. NO NATO aircraft were shot down in air-to-air combat in that conflict, PERIOD. Don't be an ass.

Or maybe I should say, "Don't continue to be an ass."

Oh, and 'lol' is l33tsp34k for 'laugh out loud', not 'loser on-line', which is how YOU seem to make it come out.

Bluesman, wow, that's pretty pathetic "loser-on-line" really, if you have to lower yourself to a level where you have to use verbally abusive words just to prove your point, really, shows the immaturity and stupidity of your actions, i'm not trying to start something, i'm just trying to "debate"

and if you feel like acting like a child, then i don't think you're fit for this forum

no NATO aircraft were shot down in A2A combat, well, shows you how bad it's gotten in America, you keep believing what your government feeds you, eventually, you will learn the truth

thank you for mentioning that luldapull, at least someone's not totally blinded and too arrogant to understand

MIKEMUN
14 Feb 05,, 05:20
no NATO aircraft were shot down in A2A combat, well, shows you how bad it's gotten in America, you keep believing what your government feeds you, eventually, you will learn the truth

He is the government,son.. :biggrin: :biggrin:

On a serious note,where is the info that NATO aircraft were shot down in Serbia??I have yet to see it from you Dima... Kstati,gde seichas zhivesh'?

lemontree
14 Feb 05,, 05:24
NO, there were NOT. NO NATO aircraft were shot down in air-to-air combat in that conflict, PERIOD. Don't be an ass.

Or maybe I should say, "Don't continue to be an ass."

Oh, and 'lol' is l33tsp34k for 'laugh out loud', not 'loser on-line', which is how YOU seem to make it come out.
What about the reports that an F-117 "Stealth fighter" was lost over Yugoslavia?
What was the reason for that, SAMs or A2A?

lemontree
14 Feb 05,, 05:27
"Yet an integrated BVR attack capable IAF MiG 21 Bison armed with a Phazotron Kopyo-M radar and R-77 BVRAAMs can still “schlemm” any F-16."

Huh?

Don't "Huh", been tried and tested in exercises at least.

troung
14 Feb 05,, 06:36
Lemon;

"What was the reason for that, SAMs or A2A?"

SA-6...

"Don't "Huh", been tried and tested in exercises at least."

Umm the best I guess we would come to terms with and agree to after pages of discussion and banter would be that the MiG-21UPG equipped with the R-77E and R-73E in Indian service outclasses the Pakistani F-16A/B B-15 equipped the AIM-9P-4/L and R-550 Mk.2 in aircombat.

That's the only thing we would likely agree on ;) . And as far as Indian MiG-21UPGs are concerned that is all that really matters... wouldn't you say?

Other F-16s (not the fleets in nations we don't like) would outclass the MiG-21UPG. And I will "huh" all I want :tongue:

Lull;

"Troung the problem is that the large IAF Fulcrum force ...well maintained, and reasonably well led poses a serious problem for the currently beleagured PAF. in all honesty in any Hindoo/ mouzlum show down, atleast, the IAF's Fulcrums will play havoc with PAF's Mirage III's and V's! I wont mention what the Fulcrum can do to our hapless A-5's ...i mean that one is like handin the dude the vaseline tub, and assumin the 'pozishunn' without even god-damn been asked to do so! Even the F-7PG's or the F-16Block-15's will be cautious trying to take on the Fulcrum."

Well provided the PAF totally avoided Indian airspace and the battle lines they would have no problem with the MiG-29s :rolleyes: of course they would be more or less giving up but.... :rolleyes:

After a couple years of research I have come to a conclusion... people in South Asia walk on their hands and eat with their feet... everything is so backwards.... kiding... :biggrin: :tongue: :biggrin:


Dim;

"no NATO aircraft were shot down in A2A combat, well, shows you how bad it's gotten in America, you keep believing what your government feeds you, eventually, you will learn the truth"

Comrade keep believing what wildly anti American Ukrainan art students like Venik feed you...

From your friend Venik

http://ban.junis.ni.ac.yu/avijacija/natodown.htm

Information you will find on this page may be somewhat speculative and a lot of it was not confirmed by NATO or Yugoslavia. But all aircraft losses mentioned here were reported by Serb, US, British or Russian press and confirmed by sources in the Russian Ministry of Defense. Some of the sources include BBC, ABC, Russian National News Service, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Pravda, Yugoslav official television and press, etc. I do not feel that I have to prove anything stated on this page. If you disagree, it's your decision and you are always free to wait a couple of decades, as in case with the Vietnam War, for all the losses to be officially acknowledged. In any case, the number of aircraft lost indicated on this page coincides almost exactly with the number of losses predicted by Pentagon. So, to say that only one NATO plane was lost just because its burning remains were shown on Yugoslav TV and Pentagon had no choice but to acknowledge the loss, would be, to put it mildly, overly optimistic. Some people ask why would NATO command want to conceal its actual losses. It has very good reason to do so: the political situation in the North-Atlantic alliance is very shaky, to say the least, and reports of actual losses would only destabilize the situation further. Also, admitting every loss would most definitely boost the morale in Yugoslavia. I think everyone can understand that this would not be in NATO's interests. I am sure there are more reasons for NATO to conceal its actual losses, at least for the time being.

I understand that some of the information below may be difficult for many people to deal with, after all, every downed plane can and often does mean a dead pilot. Nevertheless, it is important for everyone to know what is happening in Yugoslavia and who is paying for that. I apologize for not being able to conceal by delight at NATO's losses, but NATO is the aggressor in this war and I am a Russian - Russians know what war means, Russia was nearly destroyed by foreign aggressors on numerous occasions, several years after Yugoslavia was last invaded in 1941 tens of millions of Russians were killed, and as a Russian I find it impossible not to express my sincere satisfaction at NATO's failures and losses in this unjust conflict. It is remarkable that in a democratic society an impeached president, accused draft-dodger, rapist and tax-evader, can send soldiers to die in an illegal war only to temporarily cover for his own diplomatic impotence. If we are to have an impotent politician guiding our country and much of the world into the next century, why does it have to be political impotence why can't it be a more conventional form of impotence - we sure would have had fewer problems in our country's political life. As a final remark, it is interesting to observe the reaction of some Americans to the considerable losses sustained but not confirmed by NATO: complete and total denial. One would think that it would be reasonable to say that if a "stealth" aircraft was tracked by a Serb radar and shot down by Serb SAMs (shortly after NATO officials announced that "they feel comfortable" with how Yugoslav air defenses were "effectively suppressed."), then any NATO plane was in considerable danger. One would also think that after failing to complete the first phase of the war - suppression of Yugoslav air defenses - and announcing the second phase - low-level attacks on armored vehicles and artillery - NATO pilots would be in far greater danger than any NATO commander could have imagined only a week ago. After all, now NATO pilots need to chase around Serb tanks while Serb air defenses are still very active and quite effective. However, ability to think rationally comes to most Americans only after the first coffins with US soldiers return home. This was true in the Korean War, the Vietnam war, the Gulf War and this war, unfortunately, is not an exception

ajaybhutani
14 Feb 05,, 06:49
Troung ,
i think there are people in this world who are even worst than the south asians. Whats good for us is that the future is moving towards us with our increasing growth rates and standrds of living. Though there are miles to go but surely we are trying to learn to use the right things i.e. walking on feet and eating with hands.

troung
14 Feb 05,, 06:53
It was a joke about things being backwards with air force tech. And I did not mean behind just switched....

You know Russian planes in that area being better then American ones... :cool:

And the InAF being stronger then the PAF

It was not an ethinic thing or trying to call you guys backwards in terms of culture or growth or somehow bad people but its funny that south asia is an exception when we compare Russian and American tech. Of course the reasons are sanctions, money and such...

I am very sorry if you took it as an ethinic insult...

ajaybhutani
14 Feb 05,, 07:12
It was a joke about things being backwards with air force tech. And I did not mean behind just switched....

You know Russian planes in that area being better then American ones... :cool:

And the InAF being stronger then the PAF

It was not an ethinic thing or trying to call you guys backwards in terms of culture or growth or somehow bad people but its funny that south asia is an exception when we compare Russian and American tech. Of course the reasons are sanctions, money and such...

I am very sorry if you took it as an ethinic insult...
dont worry i didnt take it as an insult.

lemontree
14 Feb 05,, 07:17
SA-6...
Thanks

Umm the best I guess we would come to terms with and agree to after pages of discussion and banter would be that the MiG-21UPG equipped with the R-77E and R-73E in Indian service outclasses the Pakistani F-16A/B B-15 equipped the AIM-9P-4/L and R-550 Mk.2 in aircombat.

That's the only thing we would likely agree on ;) . And as far as Indian MiG-21UPGs are concerned that is all that really matters... wouldn't you say?
:biggrin: Yeah.

Other F-16s (not the fleets in nations we don't like) would outclass the MiG-21UPG. And I will "huh" all I want :tongue:
Training and only training gives the F-16 pilots that edge (since they belong to advanced nations mainly). Excluding the edge that airborne EW capabilities provide it.
The "huh" is still invalid. In that case the whole of PLAAF is a big "Huh", since their ac are nothing by MIG-21s and different bastardised versions of it.

Mr Vastu
14 Feb 05,, 10:26
Defence analysts think Russia has more MiG 1.42s than the USAF have speculated with the "Star Trek"-styled plasma cloaking device to hide from enemy radar and missiles more real and effective than ever. The stealth device weighs under 100kg and can be fitted to any aircraft. It surrounds the plane with a cloud of plasma or electrically charged gas, rendering it invisible to enemy radar, say its makers.

The plasma stealth system on the MiG 1.42 is most likely real; Russian scientists have long been experts in high-energy physics.

According to Jane's Defence Weekly, this device promises passive reductions in both radar cross-section and drag. The Russians are so convinced of the value of the new cloaking shield, they want to sell it to raise hard currency. Jane's Defence Weekly revealed sometime back how the makers are now offering to fit the system to any fighter. This raises the unhappy prospect of Iran and North Korea probably using it.

jgetti
14 Feb 05,, 16:44
Defence analysts think Russia has more MiG 1.42s than the USAF have speculated with the "Star Trek"-styled plasma cloaking device to hide from enemy radar and missiles more real and effective than ever. The stealth device weighs under 100kg and can be fitted to any aircraft. It surrounds the plane with a cloud of plasma or electrically charged gas, rendering it invisible to enemy radar, say its makers.

Let me ask you something. How do you maintain a 'cloud of plasma or electrically charged gas' about a fast moving aircraft? It's impossible. Quit living in a pipe dream. The 'plasma cloud' farce is no more than a folk tale extrapolation of a method used INSIDE the radome to shield the face of a radar,, nothing more.

lulldapull
14 Feb 05,, 18:32
Let me ask you something. How do you maintain a 'cloud of plasma or electrically charged gas' about a fast moving aircraft? It's impossible. Quit living in a pipe dream. The 'plasma cloud' farce is no more than a folk tale extrapolation of a method used INSIDE the radome to shield the face of a radar,, nothing more.

Well for the ionized Plasma cloud to persist outside the aircraft at mach-9 at which our very 'chikna' Indian buddy (Mr Vaastu) would be haulin asss at, could only be possible due to the blessing of the Elephant God! :) Although lord Shiva in his ultimate perturbation of a giant black dick might also have a hand in it! :)

Just thought that that might be a very important FYI you might be overlooking there Jgetti! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

P.S. Hey dude my buddy in the modeling chapter has his nephew workin in the F-18E program! According to him the entire intake trunking would have to be redesigned because of AOA and In-flow related problems during certain very general manouvers! So they are doing it now. It will cost billions more to fix! You hear any such thing from your sources?...I jus find it hard to believe that this late in the program you got a basic aerodynamic issue like this??? :rolleyes:

jgetti
14 Feb 05,, 19:16
Well for the ionized Plasma cloud to persist outside the aircraft at mach-9 at which our very 'chikna' Indian buddy (Mr Vaastu) would be haulin asss at, could only be possible due to the blessing of the Elephant God! :) Although lord Shiva in his ultimate perturbation of a giant black dick might also have a hand in it! :)

Just thought that that might be a very important FYI you might be overlooking there Jgetti! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :

Hmm,, yes, I certainly did overlook any such possibility of this nature.



P.S. Hey dude my buddy in the modeling chapter has his nephew workin in the F-18E program! According to him the entire intake trunking would have to be redesigned because of AOA and In-flow related problems during certain very general manouvers! So they are doing it now. It will cost billions more to fix! You hear any such thing from your sources?...I jus find it hard to believe that this late in the program you got a basic aerodynamic issue like this??? :rolleyes:

I'm not involved with the aero/propulsion design aspects explicitly on the F/A-18 program, but no, I haven't heard anything like that. The only limitation I'm aware of on the engine nacelle is that the fixed geometry of the inlet impairs the aircrafts top speed capability. If any other issues exist with it, I'm not aware of them.

ajaybhutani
14 Feb 05,, 21:16
Lullthepull
it would be better if maintain the dignity of the board by not speaking rubbish about hindu gods.

lulldapull
15 Feb 05,, 03:49
Lullthepull
it would be better if maintain the dignity of the board by not speaking rubbish about hindu gods.

yeah I know how you guys plan on ionizin that smelly Gas god-damnit! :biggrin: Its called Bio-gas! And you and your buddy are pretty good at creating it!

:biggrin: :biggrin:

plasma stealth is nothing but a Vaaadka induced rant!

Dima
15 Feb 05,, 05:34
Troung, that entire thing just strenghtened my argument, is veniks up yet, that's why i haven't been able to supply you with any links

actually, the F-117 was shot down by either a SA-3 or SA-6, and then was finished off with AAA fire on March 27

jgetti, jsut to respond to your statement, they can create a plasma cloud inside the radome to cover the radar, well, the radar is a MAJOR contributor to the RCS of an aircraft, and, they have already tested an Su-35 with a plasma screen in front of the radome, i already provided links, look for them

good night

ajaybhutani
15 Feb 05,, 12:20
yeah I know how you guys plan on ionizin that smelly Gas god-damnit! :biggrin: Its called Bio-gas! And you and your buddy are pretty good at creating it!

:biggrin: :biggrin:

plasma stealth is nothing but a Vaaadka induced rant!
well i guess it would be much more beneficial to ionize a load on earth like u.

tu160mblackjack
15 Feb 05,, 13:41
Lullthepull
it would be better if maintain the dignity of the board by not speaking rubbish about hindu gods.
true

jgetti
15 Feb 05,, 14:29
Troung, that entire thing just strenghtened my argument, is veniks up yet, that's why i haven't been able to supply you with any links

actually, the F-117 was shot down by either a SA-3 or SA-6, and then was finished off with AAA fire on March 27

jgetti, jsut to respond to your statement, they can create a plasma cloud inside the radome to cover the radar, well, the radar is a MAJOR contributor to the RCS of an aircraft, and, they have already tested an Su-35 with a plasma screen in front of the radome, i already provided links, look for them

good night

Read my post again,, that's exactly what I said. What I said was a total farce was the hoax he was bringing up about a 'plasma stealth' cloud that surrounds the AIRCRAFT, which is an extrapolation of the plasma cloud INSIDE the radome which actually exists. Read a little more closely next time.

Lunatock
15 Feb 05,, 16:15
Well for the ionized Plasma cloud to persist outside the aircraft at mach-9 at which our very 'chikna' Indian buddy (Mr Vaastu) would be haulin asss at, could only be possible due to the blessing of the Elephant God! :) Although lord Shiva in his ultimate perturbation of a giant black dick might also have a hand in it! :)

That was uncalled for.


Just thought that that might be a very important FYI you might be overlooking there Jgetti! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

As easy for him to overlook as the board rules are for you?

troung
15 Feb 05,, 18:59
"Troung, that entire thing just strenghtened my argument, is veniks up yet, that's why i haven't been able to supply you with any links"

Actually the point was to show people how stupid and biased your source is.

No facts just dreaming and hoping...

-------
-------
"I do not feel that I have to prove anything stated on this page. If you disagree, it's your decision and you are always free to wait a couple of decades, as in case with the Vietnam War, for all the losses to be officially acknowledged."

"I apologize for not being able to conceal by delight at NATO's losses, but NATO is the aggressor in this war and I am a Russian - Russians know what war means, Russia was nearly destroyed by foreign aggressors on numerous occasions, several years after Yugoslavia was last invaded in 1941 tens of millions of Russians were killed, and as a Russian I find it impossible not to express my sincere satisfaction at NATO's failures and losses in this unjust conflict. It is remarkable that in a democratic society an impeached president, accused draft-dodger, rapist and tax-evader, can send soldiers to die in an illegal war only to temporarily cover for his own diplomatic impotence. If we are to have an impotent politician guiding our country and much of the world into the next century, why does it have to be political impotence why can't it be a more conventional form of impotence - we sure would have had fewer problems in our country's political life. As a final remark, it is interesting to observe the reaction of some Americans to the considerable losses sustained but not confirmed by NATO: complete and total denial."

-----
-----

Dima
16 Feb 05,, 06:22
jgetti, i know, i was saynig that i am aware they can put a plasma cloud inside the radm, ebut i also mentioned that they can put a plasma screen outside the radome tp absorb any RW's, i also mentioned that the radar is a ajor contributor to the RCS of an aircraft

Troung, well, i wouldn't call a source that get's it's information from people who have actually seen this happen, read his Faq page, where did you get that information from bytheway, his site is down right now, that's why i can't back up any of my stuff

Terran empire
16 Feb 05,, 06:54
jgetti, i know, i was saynig that i am aware they can put a plasma cloud inside the radm, ebut i also mentioned that they can put a plasma screen outside the radome tp absorb any RW's, i also mentioned that the radar is a ajor contributor to the RCS of an aircraft
Radar is a major factor in Radar cross sections OMG!! News too me!!

You know this "Plasma stealth" stuff sounds Like some thing i hear about, Supposedly as part of the A 12 (SR 71's Direct predecessor) project Lockheed Looked in too A Ion Cannon. The idea was that the cannon would charge the air in front of it and that would throw the Radar in too chaos. But i don't think it went any where.
As for this Cold plasma stuff I am not too sure about that i mean if this stuff is supposed too emanate from the air plane what happens when the tanks run dry? or does it convert the air around it in too plasma in which case it is the same thing as an ion Cannon. Either way if it jams incoming radar what about outgoing or electronics i mean American fighters Use complex computers from what i have seen so do most top of the line Foreign aircraft this Ion Or charged particle Cloud Would be throwing around electrons like crazy and no doubt interfering with the Avionics and other Electronics, what about storms is this thing is going too leave Auroras and attract lightning?

Dima
17 Feb 05,, 03:13
Radar is a major factor in Radar cross sections OMG!! News too me!!


sorry, it seemed like jgetti didn't understand that because he kept saying that they were able to create a plasma cloud inside the Radome, but he acted as if it was nothing if it surrounded the radar

my apologies

jgetti
17 Feb 05,, 14:38
Radar is a major factor in Radar cross sections OMG!! News too me!!


sorry, it seemed like jgetti didn't understand that because he kept saying that they were able to create a plasma cloud inside the Radome, but he acted as if it was nothing if it surrounded the radar

my apologies

There's a LOT more to stealthing an aircraft than cloaking the radar. And for the last time, I was responding to Vastu's comment about cloaking the entire aircraft with a cloud of plasma.

Dima
18 Feb 05,, 00:48
yes, yes, okay, w/e

well, obviously, don't treat us like we're stupid, we know that there is a lot more in making an aircraft stealthy than just covering up the radar, there's the entire structure of the aircraft, RAS(Radar Absorbing structure), then there is RAM coatings(Radar-absorbing materiel) and then there's paint, to make an aircraft incredibly stealthy, you must apply this to the entire body of the aircraft

The Chap
25 Feb 05,, 04:50
At high mach numbers an ionised field is a consequencial bonus of an air-spike. Should it be stealthy, one has a plus for cash. AS probable at~ 3cm for secondary effect.

PS Bad Lullapul. How dare one ridicule an entirely unproven belief system. Go home and think about what you have said. Or don't. It's that whole thinking/questioning/freespeech stuff that got you a slap on the wrist to begin with :eek: :rolleyes: :biggrin:

sw55
26 Feb 05,, 14:57
[All-in-all it just boils down to this. Whatever the Americans have, the Russians have better.[/B]

Man what plannet are you from?
Take the totallity of every air to air engagement, and who made the aircraft. How many Russian/Soviet aircraft -vs- US made aircraft shot down?
You lose bucko.
US airpower is dominant, and you are kidding yourself.

sw55
26 Feb 05,, 17:29
yes, yes, okay, w/e

well, obviously, don't treat us like we're stupid,


The fact you keep having to remind us, and warn us not to upset you makes me suspect...
How old are you?
I bet not more than 15, and you are an expert huh?

Dima
26 Feb 05,, 20:31
actually, i am 15

and no, i'm not an expert, it's just common knowledge what he was talking about

"There's a LOT more to stealthing an aircraft than cloaking the radar.There's a LOT more to stealthing an aircraft than cloaking the radar.There's a LOT more to stealthing an aircraft than cloaking the radar."

well, duhh, lol, right?

sw55
26 Feb 05,, 22:12
actually, i am 15

and no, i'm not an expert, it's just common knowledge what he was talking about

"There's a LOT more to stealthing an aircraft than cloaking the radar.There's a LOT more to stealthing an aircraft than cloaking the radar.There's a LOT more to stealthing an aircraft than cloaking the radar."

well, duhh, lol, right?

15 huh? Wow!
Good for you, and I feel old. I was 30 and married when you were born, so you were not even alive when the Cold War was raging, huh? As a professional pilot with about 18,000 hours, 15,000 as captain of an airliner I am impressed with your knowlege, but not your maturity, but you are young so you have an excuse.
There are engineers, experienced naval officers and aviators who have much experience and knowlege you can learn from this website, Dima. Don't discount it what they say out of blind patriotism on your part. The former Communist world lied and propagandized more than you can understand unless you saw it, and MUCH more than the West did. I don't doubt your patriotism, to the former communist world country I suspect, but you are just a little out of your league, or as we say, "above your payscale" here...

Dima
26 Feb 05,, 22:23
"I am impressed with your knowlege"

oh, thank you

yes, that was the primary reason for me coming to this forum, to learn things, so far, i have learned quite a bit, and i thank everyone here for that

30 and married by the time i was born, wow, so you're 45, approximately

18,000 flight hours, that's qiote a lot

"Don't discount it what they say out of blind patriotism on your part."

discount, i only discount if i've heard otherwise on another site, in other cases, i'll just leave it as is
i just don't understand, where does that second paragraph, and the message that you are trying to communicate, i'm not going against what he said, just that it's pretty common knowledge that there is more to stealthing an aircraft than lowering the signature given off by covering the radar

Bill
27 Feb 05,, 00:45
"As a professional pilot with about 18,000 hours"

God damn...

LOL. ;)

Dima
27 Feb 05,, 00:57
yea i know, that's an insane amount of flight hours, but he's a commerical pilot if i'm not mistaken, to get that, it's not that hard, getting 4,000+ hours on a combat aircraft is though

what aircraft model to you fly 55?

sw55
02 Mar 05,, 22:40
yea i know, that's an insane amount of flight hours, but he's a commerical pilot if i'm not mistaken, to get that, it's not that hard, getting 4,000+ hours on a combat aircraft is though

what aircraft model to you fly 55?

Yes, it is true, and you will see my last post was about four days ago, and I just returned from a four day trip. About 18,000 hours about, and I don't even keep it in a logbook anymore since the company keeps all flight time on their records/computers, although I suppose I should. I was hired by Simmons Airlines in 1987, and had about 1900 hours then, not military, and upgraded to left seat of a SD3-60 two years later. I fly between 450-900 hours a year. You can add up the average, having worked there now pushing 18 years. Captain ever since, mostly in ATR-42/72 as a codeshare for a well known major. My seniority is about 250 out of about 2900 pilots at my company. Now in the EMB-145, and about to upgrade again into the CRJ-700 within a year or so. (My seniority would hold it a couple years ago, but I just don't want to work holidays) I don't mean to brag, but after that claim I should add some credibility to something I can't prove to anyone reading this alone. But if you chose not to believe me, well who cares. It is a living for me, although to make it into the majors would have been nice, but that won't happen any time soon given the condition of the industry. A lot of people I know senior to me have well over 20,000 hours.

Sir-Vastu
03 Mar 05,, 10:58
Right now, perhaps the most informative source on the MiG 1.42 is perhaps Indo-Russian Aviation Limited (IRAL), IIT Bombay, HAL, the ADA and some various other Indian Govt., agencies who along with Russia know the best kept secrets of the plane.

ajaybhutani
03 Mar 05,, 11:48
Right now, perhaps the most informative source on the MiG 1.42 is perhaps Indo-Russian Aviation Limited (IRAL), IIT Bombay, HAL, the ADA and some various other Indian Govt., agencies who along with Russia know the best kept secrets of the plane.
though i m not too convinced but surely russians would have told indians a lot of what 1.44 and Su47 can do to get them in the PAK-FA project.BTW where does IIT Bombay come from in the list. ??

ps. did i miss ur introduction thread ??

Sir_Vastu
17 Mar 05,, 06:14
.....BTW where does IIT Bombay come from in the list. ??

ps. did i miss ur introduction thread ??




Believe it or not, IIT Bombay is associated with almost every facet of India's Aerospace Industry, from stealth to hypersonic propulsion. With the ADA working in tandem with IIT Bombay and Tata Consulting they do a hell of alot of research, like their ongoing research on Air-breathing Propulsion for hypersonic flight with structural and trajectorial performance on the same. I remember back in the early 1990s their models of the LCA, with forward swept canards looking more like the Eurofighter or the X-31. Had a friend, an old classmate of mine who was a young Fulcrum pilot, used to fly in low over the IIT campus in his MiG-29 and do hammerhead stalls in a way of saying "Hi" to some of our school buddies there before finally landing in at Santacruz Airport.

PS. Oh by the way, I'm the same old cyber rat of this forum haha....Mr Adolf, Mr Hitler, Mr Aryan and Mr Vastus lol.....unfortunitely made the mistake of coming here as 'Hitler' and being banned from day one :frown:

jgetti
17 Mar 05,, 14:25
Believe it or not, IIT Bombay is associated with almost every facet of India's Aerospace Industry, from stealth to hypersonic propulsion. With the ADA working in tandem with IIT Bombay and Tata Consulting they do a hell of alot of research, like their ongoing research on Air-breathing Propulsion for hypersonic flight with structural and trajectorial performance on the same. I remember back in the early 1990s their models of the LCA, with forward swept canards looking more like the Eurofighter or the X-31. Had a friend, an old classmate of mine who was a young Fulcrum pilot, used to fly in low over the IIT campus in his MiG-29 and do hammerhead stalls in a way of saying "Hi" to some of our school buddies there before finally landing in at Santacruz Airport.

PS. Oh by the way, I'm the same old cyber rat of this forum haha....Mr Adolf, Mr Hitler, Mr Aryan and Mr Vastus lol.....unfortunitely made the mistake of coming here as 'Hitler' and being banned from day one :frown:

Hammerhead stalls huh? Go get banned again or something.

Dima
19 Mar 05,, 03:17
why are you guys so negative towards vastu?leave him alone

Bill
19 Mar 05,, 15:20
Because Vatsu has been banned about 40x from WAB.

The Chap
20 Mar 05,, 02:48
Well, sometimes the white spy wins and and sometimes the black spy wins. In either case the strip is entertaining as opposed to irritating. Why on earth bother? Personally I see no joy in a wretched addiction to spoiling anothers party.

y'probably a bit cross due to the fact that given your attitude no-one invites you to any: Vatsu. Or, possibly, given the change of name, lost in the post.

Sir Vastu
30 Mar 05,, 10:43
Hammerhead stalls huh? Go get banned again or something.



MiG-29s perform the most beautiful hammerhead stalls, moving extemely slow like Sea Harriers and that too at low altitudes, points its nose up, then bends down doing a somewhat half flat spin and regains its original position. I've seen it myself...

Good Heavens!!! I've been banned 40x times!!! Thanks for the info Snipes, guess I should be out of here.....

wipeout
28 Apr 05,, 06:02
"Had a friend, an old classmate of mine who was a young Fulcrum pilot, used to fly in low over the IIT campus in his MiG-29 and do hammerhead stalls in a way of saying "Hi" to some of our school buddies there before finally landing in at Santacruz Airport"

I am sure this is a pack of lies, if he has done so, the pilot is a very reckless dude, putting at risk a very expensive plane over india's most populated city by doing hammerheads with an armed plane or was he joyriding.

BTW, off-topic, How can one watch fighter planes takeoff and land in India, Is there a hangout outside the Pune AFB. Also, anybody here did some spotting during the 1999 Kargil war when there was a danger of Bombay being attacked by pakistan, I know some planes were observed then at Sahar, which ones?

sniperdude411
01 May 05,, 15:25
"yes, that was the primary reason for me coming to this forum, to learn things, so far, i have learned quite a bit, and i thank everyone here for that"

Same exact reason I came here; that and to be unbored all day, since my computer is REALLY old, so I can't play shooter games all day.
I'm more of a gun person, bt I'm also trying to learn new things about old interests. I used to be completely OBSESSED over warplanes.

Dima
02 May 05,, 03:54
i'm joining a Military University once i graduate, but i may move out of North America, possibly into Europe, but they will run out of money, their economies are doing only a little bit better overall than America(even though they have slower growth, they are more capable of solving a financial crisis than America right now sadly) but definitely not staying in Canada unless situation improves for North America in general

maybe move to Eastern Europe, maybe even Russia

Franco Lolan
03 May 05,, 04:52
Vie for a service academy.

The Chap
05 May 05,, 03:32
And some anti-biotics. :biggrin:

avon1944
08 May 05,, 05:34
> Mr Vastu
> Russia has more MiG 1.42s than the USAF have speculated with the "Star
> Trek"-styled plasma cloaking device to hide from enemy rada
The B-2 bomber also has this form of ECM! The leading edge of the wings have a high voltage wire in the leading edge of the wings to interferre with RF signals.
The leading edge of the B-2 is not straight! I did the calculations and the arc has a radius of 2,450 feet (approximately)!


> Dima
> actually, i am 15
You are one year older than my oldest grand daughter! "Smile"

> the F-117 was shot down by either a SA-3 or SA-6, and then was finished
> off with AAA fire on March 27
The F-117 was shot down because the USAF got arrogant! They flew the F-117 into the same target area, at the same time, same altitude for three days in a row. On the fourth day the Serbian AD moved a mobile radar into a gap between two fixed radar sites. Right on schedule the F-117 came along just as the mobile site went active! The F-117 flew almost directly over the radar site. The data was passed along to the SAM site and it was an easy kill.
The USAF denied the kill (even though CNN was showing the wreckage) until the pilot had been picked up by CSAR.

> A2A combat, if you guys want to use that as a way to measure an aircraft's
> efficiency, then i hope that it would please you to know that in every
> engagement(Gulf War Yugoslavia etc.) the MiG-29's were outnumbered by at
> least 5+:1
They were outnumbered in total but, not per engagement! The US does not like furballs so they prefer fights of 4V4 or less to take advantage of the technical superiority.

> they were export models, and they were MiG-29A's going against upgraded
> F-16's and F-15's
Does this mean if Israel loses an F-15 or F-16, the USA should not fully count this because the USA sold Israel aircraft that did not have all the bells, buttons or, whistles the USA "loves?" NO.... you use the equiptment you have and don't cry, air combat is a "no escuse" world! You do or you don't do but you don't try!!!

> minimally supported in combat(unlike the F-16's who had a AWACS
Iraqi aircraft had GCI which is a ground borne AWACS.

> there is a lot more in making an aircraft stealthy than just covering up
> the radar
Yes in many applications RAM can not be used

----------------------------------------------------
The MiG.-29 Kill Record
1988 V-PVO four -MiG.-29A's killed for four Su-22M-3K's of the DRAAF with R-60 Missiles.

Mid-04/88 IrAF MiG.-29 killed a MiG.-29 with a R-60M Missile (fratricide)

02/25/92 Erethian MiG.-29B killed a Su-27S Ethiopian with R-27 Missile (Unconfired)

06/23/92 RuAF four MiG.-29C's killed four MiG.-29C' Moldova AF

03/04/96 RuAF MiG.-29C killed a Yak-40 ? AF with a R-73 Missile

07/22/01 V-VS MiG.-29 Forced Down a B-747 PI AL

xx/yy/zz Cuban MiG.-29 killed a Cessna
----------------------------------------------------

> ???
> did the MiG-29 shoot down any coalition aircraft in 1991?
No, a MiG-25PH killed a F/A-18C with a R-40 Missile -Now the US Navy acknowledges the kill BUT, the IRAF does "NOT" claim the kill!

> The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of
> the F-5.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF INCORRECT INFORMATION!!
Russian pilots who fought in Korea acknowledge a 7:1 kill ratio F-86's favor! There is a book that has been writened by Soviet pilots who fought in Korea! It was advertised on the ACIG website.

> The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over
> N. Vietnam
The USA "always" had a positive kill ratio! It was far lower than what the US is used to. When US pilots learned to fight the MiG.'s in the verticle plane not the horizontal plane the scores went up.
The US Navy started Top Gun. Before the bombing halt the kill ratio was 2.29:1 and after the bombing halt with Top Gun the kill ratio went up to 13:1 and stayed that way.

> The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over
> N. Vietnam saw the development of the F-16 and the high speed MiG-25 lead
> to the F-15s development.
Number one, the USAF does not use the F-5 as a combat aircraft. The F-5 is used as a trainer, aggressor and, export fighter for friendly nations.
Number two, the problems the Phantom faced was the usage of wrong tactics against the Mig.'s. Once the tactics problem was solved the Phantoms ruled the skies.
Capt. Steve Richie the USAF's only pilot ace went through two tours in Viet Nam and returned home where he finally recieved DACT, from Red Flag (which was started after the US involvement in the war)!

> the YF-22 making its maiden flight in September 1990 the F-22 probably
> won’t be fully operational with the USAF by 2008-2010. So with the F-22
> being technologically three decades old one can only fathom how much
> superior the MiG MFI is. "
The F-22's stationed at Langley AFB, Virginia, USA are now operational. In 2008, the F-22's will recieve its first of many planned improvement programs.
The ATF program started in the late 1970's. The USAF and other intelligence agencies work together and figured out what technology would be available to Soviet designers in the time period of 1990 to 2010. The report was very accurate, the F-22's parameters were based upon the report. The F-22 was to become operational in Clinton's first term. The end of the Cold War caused those in Washington to stretch out the schedule. The process is as foolish as paying on a credit card three times the minimum amount. Then to save money you decide to make minimum payments only, the results are the whole programs winds up costing far more money.
When it comes to a program taking a while Number One would have to be the Su-27! It started the same year the F-14 and F-15 started -1969. The Su-27 did not become operational until 1988! The F-14's initial operation in late 1974 and the F-15 in 1976.

> The F-4 did not develop from the f-86
NO! The F-86 was developed from the US Navy's FJ Fury program! The FJ Fury was designed by North American Aircraft Co. The F-4H was design by McDonnelDouglas Aircraft Co.

> The F-4 was a combination of the multiple 1950s interceptor models (F-100,
> 101, 102, 103, and 104)
The F-4H Phantom was designed to fill the Navy's need for an interceptor to deal with Soviet bombers.

> the need for a offensive fighter (something that could engage enemy
> fighters not just attack bombers
The Phantom was designed to go a long way at high speed to intercept bombers. Now when killing bombers they are known to be bad guys. It was thought that missiles would be all it needed.
(The MiG.-21 was also designed without a gun but the lack of confidence in the Atoll Missiles quickly changed minds and a gun was installed before production!)

> The F-4 certainly was a disappointment in its orginal models, ie the lack
> of any guns, difficulties with the Sidewinder.
I would suggest you read the Ault Report by Cmd. Frank Ault. The report showed the problem was not the plane but the lack of realistic training. That 65% of the missiles that missed were fired when eith the launch aircraft or the target were outside launch parameters.
Top Gun was started during the 1968 bombing halt over VN. Some of Cmd. Ault's Report indicated preliminary results showed a new training program was needed.
While the pilots saw a need for a gun, the F-4H Phantom was given praise for its all around performance. It was a jack of all trades and master of none.
It could be a good light bomber, Wild Weasel, fighter, interceptor, etc.

> it is an anemic argument to state the NVA air force forced the development
> of the F-16
NO, the YF-16 and YF-17 were borne of a need to find a cheaper solution for the number of fighters needed. The F-14A and F-15A were considered too expensive.

> only 5 american pilots become aces
Only two of them were pilots! Lt Cunningham and Capt. Richie the other were RIO's or WSO's! Actually this was pretty good when you consider that a US pilot only flew 100 missions and was sent home. Let us not forget the horrible/ridiculous ROE's impossed by Washington.
"The Russian or North Viet Namese are not our enemies; they are our adversaries. Our enemies are the politicians in Washington, D.C.!" -Lt. Col. Lloyd "Boots" Boothby USAF (Ret.)

> So with the F-22 being technologically three decades old one can only
> fathom how much superior the MiG MFI is. "
The F-22's were so advance to start with. It computer running at a clock speed of 10.5 GigaHertz!!!
( As one who worked as an IC Layout Engineer -Intel does not offer the latest in technolgy! They offer the latest in technology at an affordable "price." There are companies here in Silicon Valley who do custom IC work. If like NSA, CIA and, other government agencies which must have the latest in technology plus willing to spend say... $50,000 per chip (or more) you are able to get all sorts of great stuff.
I used the figure of $50,000 per chip because the highest price "that I know of" a circuit I worked on, was that price. It was a special product in the mid-1970's and NASA was the customer!
While many professors were submitting papers stated MOS circuits could never work above 10 MHtz back in 1968. The company I worked at alread had P-channel circuits working at that speed. Shortly after this this speed was greatly exceeded.

> "The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of
> the F-5."
The F-5 was borne of the need to supply US Allies with a fighter plane that is equal in performance to the MiG.-21 but, the F-5 like the MiG.-21 does not have the ability to export a fight.

Bill
08 May 05,, 16:07
The 'failure' of F-86s vs Mig-15s.....LOL.

Lord Vastu
20 May 05,, 05:40
"Had a friend, an old classmate of mine who was a young Fulcrum pilot, used to fly in low over the IIT campus in his MiG-29 and do hammerhead stalls in a way of saying "Hi" to some of our school buddies there before finally landing in at Santacruz Airport"

I am sure this is a pack of lies, if he has done so, the pilot is a very reckless dude, putting at risk a very expensive plane over india's most populated city by doing hammerheads with an armed plane or was he joyriding.

BTW, off-topic, How can one watch fighter planes takeoff and land in India, Is there a hangout outside the Pune AFB. Also, anybody here did some spotting during the 1999 Kargil war when there was a danger of Bombay being attacked by pakistan, I know some planes were observed then at Sahar, which ones?

This is not lies, I know that pilot and I've seen him do it myself. His MiG-29 was
really graceful and it flies real slow when it dose a hammerhead stall, it looks more like a VTOL Sea Harrier rather than a MiG. Also the area around Powai where the IIT campus is located is off the city limits, in a forested area near Powai Lake from where many crocodiles and leopards stray into the campus grounds forcing IITians to stay indoors in their hostel rooms after sunset. Now thats again no jokes if you want to believe or not.......but its absolutely true....thats India :biggrin: :biggrin:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/Sukhois/SB007a.jpg


Lohegaon AFS at Pune, home to the Flankers like this one, "007" flown by Bond lol.... is the best place to see fighters in India. The base got modern fighters, but architectural style dates back to pre WW II England.... barbed wire fences, corrugated sheet barracks and English bonded brick masonry warehouses, looks more like it houses Spitfires and Hawker Hurricanes rather than Flankers and Fulcrums :tongue: :tongue:

Cowboykiller
27 May 05,, 17:01
I'm about to ETS with the U.S. Army and I would love to enlist in the Air Force just to be around this fine ass fighter. Maybe I could help maintain this bird if they can train me for that role.

Too bad Travis AFB won't be getting them. That's just an 1.5 hours away from where I live (SF).

Cowboykiller
27 May 05,, 17:21
"All-in-all it just boils down to this. Whatever the Americans have, the Russians have better. The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of the F-5. The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over N. Vietnam saw the development of the F-16 and the high speed MiG-25 lead to the F-15s development. Yet an integrated BVR attack capable IAF MiG 21 Bison armed with a Phazotron Kopyo-M radar and R-77 BVRAAMs can still “schlemm” any F-16. And while the ATF program began in the early 1980s with the YF-22 making its maiden flight in September 1990 the F-22 probably won’t be fully operational with the USAF by 2008-2010. So with the F-22 being technologically three decades old one can only fathom how much superior the MiG MFI is. "

I know this might be a tad stale but I cant let such a sophomoric comment stand without some contest. This guy has minimal understading of the F-86 and the F-4's development. First, during Korea the Sabre kicked some mig ass and took names, the sabre had a 12:1 kill ratio over MiG 15. AS one military analysist put it, the Mig 15 was a flying tractor and the F-86 was a plane. The F-4 did not develop from the f-86. The F-4 was a combination of the multiple 1950s interceptor models (F-100, 101, 102, 103, and 104) and the need for a offensive fighter (something that could engage enemy fighters not just attack bombers). The F-4 certainly was a disappointment in its orginal models, ie the lack of any guns, difficulties with the Sidewinder. However, by the end of Nam American pilots flying a later model F-4 with a 20mm gattling gun, and improved Missle systems DOMINATED the NVA's Mig 17s and 21s. Nonetheless, it is an anemic argument to state the NVA air force forced the development of the F-16, only 5 american pilots become aces, becasue the NVa Airforce rarely engaged in the South where most American sorties took place, and the American pilot's biggest worry was the AAA not the MiG.


Dude, that's an arrogant statement when you consider that the AMERICAN/Israeli F-15A/C has a perfect combat record MOSTLY ON CHEAP RUSSIAN aircrafts (including the cheap Mig-29s). No Russian fighter can match the combat records of our teen fighter series (F-14 to the F/A-18)which prayed primarily on RUSSIAN aircrafts. And oh, had we installed guns on the F-4 (F-8's were better gunfighters) on the earlier versions (as you said) along with the usual AAMs, nobody would even mention the Fishbed during the Vietnam War.

A P-51D Mustang armed with an AIM-120C (and the proper radar to go with it) can knock out an SU-37.

If countries could afford any fighters in the world (no political restrictions), the Russians would be out of business.

Bill
27 May 05,, 18:21
I know a lot of USAF officers and SNCOs if you're serious about that CK.

Let me know, i'm sure i could get you a recco from a few field grades, and get the skids greased for you.

barrowaj
28 May 05,, 17:22
If countries could afford any fighters in the world (no political restrictions), the Russians would be out of business.True. But I'm also convinced that if you gave the US pilots all of the Iraqi aircraft, and the Iraqis American aircraft during the Gulf War, we would have still kicked their asses.

I beleive the only Iraqi A-A victory was a Mig-25 shooting down an F-18. I remember reading stories about how us soldiers are still looking for the F-18 pilot. Supposedly he was spotted by someone a couple of years ago after the invasion. I don't know why he wouldn't reveal himself and try to go home though... brainwashing?

The Mig-29 isn't as good as an F-16. But in my opinion, engagements against US aircraft have been one sided mostly due to intelligence (AWACS), training, and radar coverage.

Cowboykiller
29 May 05,, 10:05
I know a lot of USAF officers and SNCOs if you're serious about that CK.

Let me know, i'm sure i could get you a recco from a few field grades, and get the skids greased for you.

Thanks dude! I might just e-mail you on that one of these days.

Cowboykiller
29 May 05,, 10:08
True. But I'm also convinced that if you gave the US pilots all of the Iraqi aircraft, and the Iraqis American aircraft during the Gulf War, we would have still kicked their asses.

I beleive the only Iraqi A-A victory was a Mig-25 shooting down an F-18. I remember reading stories about how us soldiers are still looking for the F-18 pilot. Supposedly he was spotted by someone a couple of years ago after the invasion. I don't know why he wouldn't reveal himself and try to go home though... brainwashing?

The Mig-29 isn't as good as an F-16. But in my opinion, engagements against US aircraft have been one sided mostly due to intelligence (AWACS), training, and radar coverage.

No self-respecting American pilot would ever hop on an Iraqi maintained aircraft., but yeah...American pilots are just plain superior.

bus on the sky
21 Jun 06,, 22:50
SORRY I DON'T SPEAK AND WRITE
ENGLISH
in the american airbase GRANFORD there was an air-game-fight
su-27 vs. f-15, 1995-96? ,i don't know exact time-date, two su-27 came to that base,
the fights ware BVR with help of AWAKS two vs. two, and dog-fight one vs.one
doggfight was samothing like this= first would take off one plane, and the second-enemy would take off about 600m behind first plane and the mission of the second was to stay in the tailzone of the first plane,first plane would try to eskape the second-attacer plane.the result whas that when the su27 was firstplane,after 1 or 2 minutes and small number "maneovrus" (sorry-bad english) he eskape the atacker and become attacker-he entered in the tail of F15
when the su27 was attacker, f15 coldn't eskape from su27, russsian pilots stay in tailzone of f15 from takeoff to landing
the second game was BVR, two vs. two whith help of AWAKS, tactic of russan pilots was that thy didn't go into BVR fight,they hide from the americans.... and try to come closer to f15 and kill-engage them with short range weapons-rockets

then russians go to south africa republic and again the defeat the pilots of south africa republic airforce
the result was 42:0 for russsians
there was another game in the INDIA organise by the US, the examine in fight Mig21-93 (onboard-R77), and mig21-93 was wery god against f15,maybe no like su27 bat dangerous to f15
conclusion:
in the war-fight with same conditions to both side, suhoi27 is better then any world aircraft
in the WAR-conditions DAVID vs. GOLIAT ( kosovo war=1 mig-29 in the sky vs. 50 nato planes , golf war=similaR SITUATION LIKE KOSOVO etc.....) americans are THE BEST.....(i am ironic to those who don't understand "THE BEST")

QUOTE:
No Russian fighter can match the combat records of our teen fighter series (F-14 to the F/A-18)
combat records????
TRUE! BUT THE REASON IS:
WAR-conditions "DAVID vs. GOLIAT" ( kosovo war= ONE! mig-29 in the sky vs. 50 nato planes, 4+awacs vs. 1mig(radar turn-off) in the fight

bus on the sky
21 Jun 06,, 23:31
> Mr Vastu
> Russia has more MiG 1.42s than the USAF have speculated with the "Star
> Trek"-styled plasma cloaking device to hide from enemy rada
The B-2 bomber also has this form of ECM! The leading edge of the wings have a high voltage wire in the leading edge of the wings to interferre with RF signals.
The leading edge of the B-2 is not straight! I did the calculations and the arc has a radius of 2,450 feet (approximately)!


> Dima
> actually, i am 15
You are one year older than my oldest grand daughter! "Smile"

> the F-117 was shot down by either a SA-3 or SA-6, and then was finished
> off with AAA fire on March 27
The F-117 was shot down because the USAF got arrogant! They flew the F-117 into the same target area, at the same time, same altitude for three days in a row. On the fourth day the Serbian AD moved a mobile radar into a gap between two fixed radar sites. Right on schedule the F-117 came along just as the mobile site went active! The F-117 flew almost directly over the radar site. The data was passed along to the SAM site and it was an easy kill.
The USAF denied the kill (even though CNN was showing the wreckage) until the pilot had been picked up by CSAR.

> A2A combat, if you guys want to use that as a way to measure an aircraft's
> efficiency, then i hope that it would please you to know that in every
> engagement(Gulf War Yugoslavia etc.) the MiG-29's were outnumbered by at
> least 5+:1
They were outnumbered in total but, not per engagement! The US does not like furballs so they prefer fights of 4V4 or less to take advantage of the technical superiority.

> they were export models, and they were MiG-29A's going against upgraded
> F-16's and F-15's
Does this mean if Israel loses an F-15 or F-16, the USA should not fully count this because the USA sold Israel aircraft that did not have all the bells, buttons or, whistles the USA "loves?" NO.... you use the equiptment you have and don't cry, air combat is a "no escuse" world! You do or you don't do but you don't try!!!

> minimally supported in combat(unlike the F-16's who had a AWACS
Iraqi aircraft had GCI which is a ground borne AWACS.

> there is a lot more in making an aircraft stealthy than just covering up
> the radar
Yes in many applications RAM can not be used

----------------------------------------------------
The MiG.-29 Kill Record
1988 V-PVO four -MiG.-29A's killed for four Su-22M-3K's of the DRAAF with R-60 Missiles.

Mid-04/88 IrAF MiG.-29 killed a MiG.-29 with a R-60M Missile (fratricide)

02/25/92 Erethian MiG.-29B killed a Su-27S Ethiopian with R-27 Missile (Unconfired)

06/23/92 RuAF four MiG.-29C's killed four MiG.-29C' Moldova AF

03/04/96 RuAF MiG.-29C killed a Yak-40 ? AF with a R-73 Missile

07/22/01 V-VS MiG.-29 Forced Down a B-747 PI AL

xx/yy/zz Cuban MiG.-29 killed a Cessna
----------------------------------------------------

> ???
> did the MiG-29 shoot down any coalition aircraft in 1991?
No, a MiG-25PH killed a F/A-18C with a R-40 Missile -Now the US Navy acknowledges the kill BUT, the IRAF does "NOT" claim the kill!

> The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of
> the F-5.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF INCORRECT INFORMATION!!
Russian pilots who fought in Korea acknowledge a 7:1 kill ratio F-86's favor! There is a book that has been writened by Soviet pilots who fought in Korea! It was advertised on the ACIG website.

> The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over
> N. Vietnam
The USA "always" had a positive kill ratio! It was far lower than what the US is used to. When US pilots learned to fight the MiG.'s in the verticle plane not the horizontal plane the scores went up.
The US Navy started Top Gun. Before the bombing halt the kill ratio was 2.29:1 and after the bombing halt with Top Gun the kill ratio went up to 13:1 and stayed that way.

> The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over
> N. Vietnam saw the development of the F-16 and the high speed MiG-25 lead
> to the F-15s development.
Number one, the USAF does not use the F-5 as a combat aircraft. The F-5 is used as a trainer, aggressor and, export fighter for friendly nations.
Number two, the problems the Phantom faced was the usage of wrong tactics against the Mig.'s. Once the tactics problem was solved the Phantoms ruled the skies.
Capt. Steve Richie the USAF's only pilot ace went through two tours in Viet Nam and returned home where he finally recieved DACT, from Red Flag (which was started after the US involvement in the war)!

> the YF-22 making its maiden flight in September 1990 the F-22 probably
> won’t be fully operational with the USAF by 2008-2010. So with the F-22
> being technologically three decades old one can only fathom how much
> superior the MiG MFI is. "
The F-22's stationed at Langley AFB, Virginia, USA are now operational. In 2008, the F-22's will recieve its first of many planned improvement programs.
The ATF program started in the late 1970's. The USAF and other intelligence agencies work together and figured out what technology would be available to Soviet designers in the time period of 1990 to 2010. The report was very accurate, the F-22's parameters were based upon the report. The F-22 was to become operational in Clinton's first term. The end of the Cold War caused those in Washington to stretch out the schedule. The process is as foolish as paying on a credit card three times the minimum amount. Then to save money you decide to make minimum payments only, the results are the whole programs winds up costing far more money.
When it comes to a program taking a while Number One would have to be the Su-27! It started the same year the F-14 and F-15 started -1969. The Su-27 did not become operational until 1988! The F-14's initial operation in late 1974 and the F-15 in 1976.

> The F-4 did not develop from the f-86
NO! The F-86 was developed from the US Navy's FJ Fury program! The FJ Fury was designed by North American Aircraft Co. The F-4H was design by McDonnelDouglas Aircraft Co.

> The F-4 was a combination of the multiple 1950s interceptor models (F-100,
> 101, 102, 103, and 104)
The F-4H Phantom was designed to fill the Navy's need for an interceptor to deal with Soviet bombers.

> the need for a offensive fighter (something that could engage enemy
> fighters not just attack bombers
The Phantom was designed to go a long way at high speed to intercept bombers. Now when killing bombers they are known to be bad guys. It was thought that missiles would be all it needed.
(The MiG.-21 was also designed without a gun but the lack of confidence in the Atoll Missiles quickly changed minds and a gun was installed before production!)

> The F-4 certainly was a disappointment in its orginal models, ie the lack
> of any guns, difficulties with the Sidewinder.
I would suggest you read the Ault Report by Cmd. Frank Ault. The report showed the problem was not the plane but the lack of realistic training. That 65% of the missiles that missed were fired when eith the launch aircraft or the target were outside launch parameters.
Top Gun was started during the 1968 bombing halt over VN. Some of Cmd. Ault's Report indicated preliminary results showed a new training program was needed.
While the pilots saw a need for a gun, the F-4H Phantom was given praise for its all around performance. It was a jack of all trades and master of none.
It could be a good light bomber, Wild Weasel, fighter, interceptor, etc.

> it is an anemic argument to state the NVA air force forced the development
> of the F-16
NO, the YF-16 and YF-17 were borne of a need to find a cheaper solution for the number of fighters needed. The F-14A and F-15A were considered too expensive.

> only 5 american pilots become aces
Only two of them were pilots! Lt Cunningham and Capt. Richie the other were RIO's or WSO's! Actually this was pretty good when you consider that a US pilot only flew 100 missions and was sent home. Let us not forget the horrible/ridiculous ROE's impossed by Washington.
"The Russian or North Viet Namese are not our enemies; they are our adversaries. Our enemies are the politicians in Washington, D.C.!" -Lt. Col. Lloyd "Boots" Boothby USAF (Ret.)

> So with the F-22 being technologically three decades old one can only
> fathom how much superior the MiG MFI is. "
The F-22's were so advance to start with. It computer running at a clock speed of 10.5 GigaHertz!!!
( As one who worked as an IC Layout Engineer -Intel does not offer the latest in technolgy! They offer the latest in technology at an affordable "price." There are companies here in Silicon Valley who do custom IC work. If like NSA, CIA and, other government agencies which must have the latest in technology plus willing to spend say... $50,000 per chip (or more) you are able to get all sorts of great stuff.
I used the figure of $50,000 per chip because the highest price "that I know of" a circuit I worked on, was that price. It was a special product in the mid-1970's and NASA was the customer!
While many professors were submitting papers stated MOS circuits could never work above 10 MHtz back in 1968. The company I worked at alread had P-channel circuits working at that speed. Shortly after this this speed was greatly exceeded.

> "The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of
> the F-5."
The F-5 was borne of the need to supply US Allies with a fighter plane that is equal in performance to the MiG.-21 but, the F-5 like the MiG.-21 does not have the ability to export a fight.


Top Gun the kill ratio went up to 13:1 and stayed that way.???
VERY FAR FROM THE .....REALITY
FIRST YOU MUST UNDERSTAND the way of cuonting MIGs kill by the US air force
after the flight-fight americans ware watching the gun-cameras and in the last day of war if they count only 3 hits on the MIGs body,(3 bulets) by the 12.7mm gun shoting by the sabre, then they said that MIG was SHOT DOWN!? but there was situation, by the words of the american pilots , that MIG15 could take very big number of 12.7mm shots in to his body and stay on the sky.
3 hits 12.7mm could'n shot boys plain-toy from the sky!
so the question is is it true the kill ratio 13:1?
something similar is the ISRAEL VS SIRIA, 100:0 FOR ISRAEL?
BUT AMERICAN PAPERS WROTE THAT THERE IS A GUN CAMERA SHOTS FROM SIRIA PLANES,ON THE TAPE IS AT LEAST 22 SHOT DOWN ISRAEL PLAINS BY THE SIRIA PILOTS!?
SORRY, MY ENGLIS IS VERY BAD... AS YOU SEE...

SRB
22 Jun 06,, 00:48
Bus on sky dont waste your time they dont like facts against US aircrafts.

Arrogant they were over my sky, with F-117 yeah right.
It is simple lie from USAF to cover up fiasco with F-117.
If it wasnt the case why all F-117 missions were cancel after Budjanovci debacle.
Also B-2 never get close to my conutry after 27 march.
On wiki there is data that two F-117 were hit.

Soviet pilots in MIG-15 kick US ass over Korea.
I belive long time in US kill ratio until I read book write by old Russian pilot about that war.
He said 2:1 in favor of Soviet pilots and it is possible after all MIG-15 is better dog fighter.
Chinese and NK pilots were unexperience folks and that is why they lost so many planes.
As I know there were only 30 to 60 Soviet pilots and they wasnt there all war.
P.S. They could say that pilot of F-117 make phonecall to our AirDefence to say were he would be. And later he make many turns to make batter position for hit :biggrin:

gunnut
22 Jun 06,, 01:30
So who's dominating the world now?

Let me get this straight, Russian tanks are better, planes are better, ships are better, socialism is better than capitalism, but yet the old Soviet Union crumbled.

Exactly in what field is the US better than Russian to enable us to dominate the world right now?

JCSVT
22 Jun 06,, 03:10
Also B-2 never get close to my conutry after 27 march.


Bwahahahahaha!!!! Wow. All those billions down the drain. All that research and money for nothing. I think we should just stop making stealth aircraft after that Russian SAM got a good shot. The Air Force could run a three B-2s through that country undetected right now and obiliterate it. Do you really think the guys up top are scared to run through Serbia? The F-117 has run thousands of sorties with one certified shot down. I don't know of many planes that can match that.

Ranger C-5-89
22 Jun 06,, 03:58
I find this thread pretty hilarious......pseudo migs....super cosmic radar....Serbia being the kings of the air....

that leads me to ask.....what does Russia have that is equivalent to Bondo and duct tape?

gunnut
22 Jun 06,, 04:00
I don't know of many planes that can match that.

Oh, anyone with half a brain would know you can cover Yugoslavian sky with Russian planes and no one could even detect them.

So what happens if we use Russian planes to attack targets defended by Russian air defense? What if Russian planes meet not US, but planes that are much superior, like other Russian planes in the air? Would that cause a rift in the space-time continuum?

gunnut
22 Jun 06,, 04:15
America's next "MiG killer." It can change into a big robot to smash Russian tanks...

I found this on the INTERNET so it must be true.

http://www.robotech.com/infopedia/mecha/viewmecha.php?id=7



STATISTICS:

Designation: VF-1A
Mecha Class: Veritech fighter, aerospace capable
Crew: 1 pilot
Weight: 13.3 metric tons (dry)

FIGHTER MODE
Length: 14.2 m
Height: 3.8 m
Wingspan: 8.3-14.8 m
Max speed at sea level: Mach 1.4
Max speed at 10,000m: Mach 2.71
Max speed at 30,000m: Mach 3.87

GUARDIAN MODE
Length: 11.0 m
Height: 8.7 m
Wingspan: 8.3-14.8 m
Max speed at all altitudes: 500 kph

BATTLOID MODE
Height: 12.7 m
Depth: 4.0 m
Breadth: 7.3 m
Max speed at all altitudes: 194 kph
Max walking speed: 160 kph

ARMAMENT
1 x 3-barreled 55mm gatling cannon in a gun pod
1 light laser cannon, mounted on the head/turret
2 x light lasers in the nose (upgrade from sensors, only for Veritech fighters aboard the SDF-1)
4 wing hardpoints (2 per wing) each capable of carrying:
- 3 x 300mm medium range missiles, or
- 1 (inner) or 2 (outer) x 533mm long range missiles, or
- 1 x short-range multiple ejection 150mm missile launcher containing 15 missiles




DESCRIPTION:

The Veritech VF-1 is Earth's first transformable trans-atmospheric fighter. Powered by fusion engines, the VF-1 is fully space-capable, and is carried in great numbers on the SDF-1 as well as the Armor series of carriers. The VF-1 supports 3 modes of operation: fighter mode for aerospace superiority missions, guardian mode for close air support missions, and battloid mode for ground combat missions.

By itself, the VF-1 performs well in a variety of atmospheric operations, due to its sizable, variable-sweep wing surface area and high thrust-to-weight ratio. The VF-1 uses its wing hardpoints to mount a significant number of missiles as well as a gun pod for close range combat.

Though the VF-1 is capable of reaching lower Earth orbit, it is unable to attain escape velocity on its own. Various booster and armor systems were devised to extend its range and/or combat performance.

avon1944
22 Jun 06,, 08:58
This article is so full of mistakes it isn't funny;



The failure of the Sabres against Korean MiGs saw the development of the F-5.
The F-86's have a very positive kill ratio against the MiG.-15's. Even the recent book, "Red Devils over the 38th Parallel," Igor Seidov and Askold German (courtesy of Nikolai Bakalov and Rubén Urribarres). [This book used to be carried by Amazon.Com but, not anymore.]
This book establishes the number of MiG.-15's shot down is over five hundred while the number of Sabres shot down was a miniscule seventy-eight!
Finally after forty plus years the Russians are admitting they sent pilots into the Korean conflict, something they denied for decades.



The low kill ratios of the Phantoms and F-5s against the nimble MiGs over N. Vietnam saw the development of the F-16
The F-5 was designed as a low cost aircraft for USA allies who could not afford the F-4 Phantom. It is the equal of the MiG.-21.



the high speed MiG-25 lead to the F-15s development.
The MiG.-25 was designed in response to the XB-70 bomber. Yes, the USA saw that at high altitude the F-4 Phantom/Sparrow Missile combination was not effective against a MiG.-25 at altitude, so the F-14 and F-15 were designed to counter this.
A kill ratio of 104:0 the F-15 has done pretty well... don't you think? By the way what is the kill ratio of the MiG.-25? I think it is 1:5, that is pretty negative. The only kill of the MiG.-25 was the F/A-18C on 01/18/91. The MiG.-29 is worst with a kill ratio of 11:38!



the ATF program began in the early 1980s with the YF-22 making its maiden flight in September 1990 the F-22 probably won’t be fully operational with the USAF by 2008-2010.
The ATF study and proposal started in 1991, the contract to design actual aircraft was signed in 1986 with Northrop and Lockeed. Maiden flight of the YF22 was in Sept. 1990.



the F-22 being technologically three decades old one can only fathom how much superior the MiG MFI is.
You are correct by the time Russia fields a fighter to challenge the F-22 it will be three decades! Because the Russian stealth 'fighter' will be fielded after the MPA-FA (a competitor of the F-35) and that is not scheduled to enter service until after the F-35 becomes operational in all three variants after 2012.



MFI will have a top speed of Mach 2.6 versus Mach 1.7 for the F-22 Raptor
INCORRECT! The F-22 has surpassed Mach 1.8 in supercruise and its top speed is now being stated by the USAF as being faster than the F-15 which is Mach 2.4.



making it stealthier than the F-22 as MiG MAPO claims.
Russia has not made one stealth aircraft even though they have known the USAF had one back in 1984/85..... twenty plus years ago!




Russia has plenty of cash.
No that is also incorrect. Putin is not just putting money into military development, this was the downfall of the USSR. He doesn't want to repeat the collasp. So he is building the civilian sector to help support the military spending. Corruption is a real problem also, much money is being lost this way.
United Bank -Moscow, a venture capital bank is still recommending caution to its investors that place their money into the combined Mikoyan/Sukhoi firm. It was foreign investors that kept these two firms open during the financial collasp of the 1990's.




people claim that it can go Mach 2.5, but by then, the RAM coating and radar disspiating paint are totally useless(non-repairable) because of heat damage
INCORRECT AGAIN. The first coatings of ram were heat sensative but, Lockeed develped new RAM coatings that are cheaper and far more heat resistant. Operational altitude is also being impoved, the F-22 can now operate from 60,000 feet (18,300meters), with another 10,000 feet to go before it will reach its original design maximum altitude.
The new coatings are a lot more repairable also, one of the lessons from the F-35 program.




How many Russian/Soviet aircraft -vs- US made aircraft shot down?

US airpower is dominant

VERY FEW, after the PGW#1, several Russian generals had to admit they could NOT have conducted an air operation like the US and its allies did. The RuAF only had at that time three squadrons of MiG.-23's that had airborne refueling capability.

As far as the plasma stealth goes, the B-2 bomber uses a high voltage wire on the leading edge of the bomber to defeat radars. The F-35 uses electrically charged wires along access panel doors to eliminate the gap producing a large RCS. Some panels where RAM can't be used, have wire mess electrically charge also to defeat RF energy. Some panels have more than one layer of mesh.

Since the mid-1980's America has designed, developed and, operated stealth aircraft, so the USAF has a lot of experience in these areas and they are working hard to 'maintain' this technical edge.
America leads on stealth ships also, surface and underwater -submarines are stealth ships.

Adrian

-{SpoonmaN}-
22 Jun 06,, 10:34
America's next "MiG killer." It can change into a big robot to smash Russian tanks...

I found this on the INTERNET so it must be true.

http://www.robotech.com/infopedia/mecha/viewmecha.php?id=7


I think the A-10 has finally found it's match, M21 will be so upset...

nutter
22 Jun 06,, 10:43
Watch it! My 3d model will kick your in-service fighter's ass!



Hmm...

Interesting concept.... but we can compare paper figures all day.....

What's to say the successor to the F22 isn't already in some skunk-works type design lab right now? About as production-ready as the mig42 is....

canoe
22 Jun 06,, 11:01
I find this thread pretty hilarious......pseudo migs....super cosmic radar....Serbia being the kings of the air....

that leads me to ask.....what does Russia have that is equivalent to Bondo and duct tape?

Don't be daft, everyone knows Serbia has the most powerful airforce in the world. Every country trembles in fear of their airpower.

[Serbian Information Minister]
"Wait until we unleash our plasma stealthed, hypersonic, unlimited range, super mig that will shoot anti-stealth missiles from both its front and backend at the same time towards targets 400 miles away while continiously doing the cobra maneuver to evade all incoming missiles. You will rue the day you doubted the mighty Serbian airforce! Arrogent Amercians you will know fear! We will slaughter any forces you have!"

Дмитрий
22 Jun 06,, 12:32
There is a very big difference between RUSSIAN pilots flyin over korea and KOREAN ones.

Its just that Chinese and North Korean pilots were SO bad that the US could score a very high kill ratio against them. Many US and Soviet pilots were veterans of World War II. Most of the Soviet pilots sent to Korea were veterans and aces, including Ivan Kozhedub, 3-time Hero of the Soviet Union with 62 German kills to his credit. So pilot quality was even (since USSR sent almost exclusively elite pilots, you could even say that man-for-man they were superior). In addition to their good scores against enemy fighters, the Soviet pilots were the primary reason the US stopped using B-29 bombers (US first switched from day to night bombing and, after 1951, hardly used them at all).

SRB
22 Jun 06,, 13:35
Corect myself about F-117 and B-2.
24 F-117 operate after 27 march 1999.
B-2 bombers were 1% of all sorties but they drop 11% of all bombs :eek: in bombing of my country.

Our airforce survive bombing but before bombing it was allready in ruins.
Problem for aggressor was our models of planes, tanks, rockets etc..Also big problem for NATO (finance) was false radar emiters (each cost 50$ and antiradiation missile cost 50000$)

So Stealth is big leap forward.
Small story for anti-stealth folks:

It was April 1999.Time 22.00 I was outside with my friends, and then explosion after that AA canons start chaotic fire and one minute later warning siren starts.
NATO bomb airport probable with B-2.
We had very density radar network with many old Soviet radars which possible can detect stealth, but they did see nothing :mad: .

If we exclude Stealth planes rest US aircraft are same performances to Soviet or Russian(in same conditions)

My opinion is:
Russian aircrafts:
1.Better fly performance
2.Cheaper
3.Durable

US aircrafts:
1.Better electronics
2.lower maintenance costs
3.easier to operate

Maybe new Su are better than F-15 but there is F-22 to counter them.

About F-22 and speed of 2,4M or more(without damage) :confused: if it is true that it is incredible.
But I will be cautious about that, because for such speeds you need titanium not composite.
Dont forget that MIG-25 could fly 3M for couple of seconds before it disintegrate :biggrin: .
We cant say that speed of MIG-25 is 3M.

Mig-15 with Soviet pilots were match to US sabres in Korea.

hello
22 Jun 06,, 14:38
This article is so full of mistakes it isn't funny;


The F-86's have a very positive kill ratio against the MiG.-15's. Even the recent book, "Red Devils over the 38th Parallel," Igor Seidov and Askold German (courtesy of Nikolai Bakalov and Rubén Urribarres). [This book used to be carried by Amazon.Com but, not anymore.]
This book establishes the number of MiG.-15's shot down is over five hundred while the number of Sabres shot down was a miniscule seventy-eight!
Finally after forty plus years the Russians are admitting they sent pilots into the Korean conflict, something they denied for decades.


The F-5 was designed as a low cost aircraft for USA allies who could not afford the F-4 Phantom. It is the equal of the MiG.-21.


The MiG.-25 was designed in response to the XB-70 bomber. Yes, the USA saw that at high altitude the F-4 Phantom/Sparrow Missile combination was not effective against a MiG.-25 at altitude, so the F-14 and F-15 were designed to counter this.
A kill ratio of 104:0 the F-15 has done pretty well... don't you think? By the way what is the kill ratio of the MiG.-25? I think it is 1:5, that is pretty negative. The only kill of the MiG.-25 was the F/A-18C on 01/18/91. The MiG.-29 is worst with a kill ratio of 11:38!

Adrian

"The F-86's have a very positive kill ratio against the MiG.-15's. Even the recent book, "Red Devils over the 38th Parallel," Igor Seidov and Askold German (courtesy of Nikolai Bakalov and Rubén Urribarres). [This book used to be carried by Amazon.Com but, not anymore.]
This book establishes the number of MiG.-15's shot down is over five hundred while the number of Sabres shot down was a miniscule seventy-eight!
Finally after forty plus years the Russians are admitting they sent pilots into the Korean conflict, something they denied for decades."

I agree. The kill ratio was around 796 MiG-15s downed for around 76 F-86 Sabres.

"The MiG.-25 was designed in response to the XB-70 bomber. Yes, the USA saw that at high altitude the F-4 Phantom/Sparrow Missile combination was not effective against a MiG.-25 at altitude, so the F-14 and F-15 were designed to counter this.
A kill ratio of 104:0 the F-15 has done pretty well... don't you think? By the way what is the kill ratio of the MiG.-25? I think it is 1:5, that is pretty negative. The only kill of the MiG.-25 was the F/A-18C on 01/18/91. The MiG.-29 is worst with a kill ratio of 11:38!"

Nah, MiG-25 has the worst kill ratio. 1:5 means that losses were 5 times of the kills. MiG-29s is better. with 11:38, it's a little more than 3 and a half times more losses than kills. So the worst kill ratio goes to MiG-25. However, if you consider WHAT those 11 kills by the MiG-29 were, you'll probably declare it the worst. At least the Foxbat got an F/A-18C.

bus on the sky
22 Jun 06,, 15:02
[QUOTE=SRB]Bus on sky dont waste your time they dont like facts against US aircrafts.

I agree. The kill ratio was around 796 MiG-15s downed for around 76 F-86 Sabres


i say it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
it is not REAL kill ratio
the way of counting shot down MIG15s was wrong......
amerikan count "MIG SHOT" if mig was only hit by 3 buletts.
NO one SEE THAT MIG WAS destroid from the sky........................
QUESTION?
WHY ARE THE AMERICANS START TAKING CANADAS SABRES, IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE WAR?

SRB
22 Jun 06,, 16:26
After Korea every new decent fighter was arm with canon(like Mig-15) not machinegun (like Sabre).Jets can stand much more punching from mg.
It is one of the aspect of Mig-15 victory Mig-15 kill machinegun mafia in USAF.

canoe
22 Jun 06,, 16:41
[QUOTE=SRB]Bus on sky dont waste your time they dont like facts against US aircrafts.

I agree. The kill ratio was around 796 MiG-15s downed for around 76 F-86 Sabres


i say it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
it is not REAL kill ratio
the way of counting shot down MIG15s was wrong......
amerikan count "MIG SHOT" if mig was only hit by 3 buletts.
NO one SEE THAT MIG WAS destroid from the sky........................
QUESTION?
WHY ARE THE AMERICANS START TAKING CANADAS SABRES, IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE WAR?

There were about 230 Sabre losses during the entire war from all causes including enemy losses and other reasons. The total number of Sabres ever present in the war was 674.

The U.S at the time claimed to have shot down 746 Mig 15's.

At the time the Soviets claimed 650 Sabre kills and 1300 air victories over all and China claimed 211 Sabre kills which is impressive because the total number adds up to more Sabres downed then the U.S actually ever had during the war.

Since the end of the war both Russia and the U.S have released documents from the time that show more realistic figures. Post war research by the U.S has been able to confirm 379 air victories of the 746 claimed for the Sabres which is relatively close to recently released documents from Russian which claim 345 Mig 15's were lost.

Actual overall Sabre losses are likely very close to the 230 figure more recently released. Those losses are from both China, Russia and non combat related losses.

usplanefan67
18 Jul 06,, 08:50
buddy, neither do you, supercruise is sustained speeds over Mach 1, are you retarded?, thats just normal economic cruise speed, supercruise is sustained speeds beyond Mach 1.5, hence the name "super"cruise

and where did you get that load of b/s from? the F-22 is lighter than the F-15E

okay, i'll try and be nice, can you provide me with a link? thanks

Your Right the F-22 is a larger aircraft than the F-15's although the F-15E may weight more due to its ground strike weapons that may be the only diffrence. While some aircraft are overall faster than the F-22 they have to reach full afterburners to do it which means the f-22 could run just about any of them out of gas and they have with some f-15's so overall speed really means nothing so let him spout off.

and for the record the I-42 or what ever the piece of junk is called isnt going to kill anthything other than dust collecting on its wings.

FORCEXXI
28 Jul 06,, 16:57
Too bad it won't be fielded. Just because an aircraft is superior in performance, it all comes down to pilot skill.

YellowFever
29 Jul 06,, 08:50
Oh man....don't they have any GOOD mig pilots in the world?

It seems by the way these Russian (I'm presuming they're russians) guys post, every Mig ever shot down was piloted by bad pilots.

Impressive Sabre record against Mig15's in A2A: Bad Chinese pilots!

Impressive IDF record against Arabs in A2A: Bad Arab pilots!

Impressive coalition record against Iraq in A2A: Bad Iraqi pilots!


You would think the Mig pilots would have better records against the Western Jets on pure laws of averages alone.


The reason why mig defenders are getting pasted on this board: Bad Pro-Mig posters!

SRB
30 Jul 06,, 20:29
Oh man....don't they have any GOOD mig pilots in the world?

It seems by the way these Russian (I'm presuming they're russians) guys post, every Mig ever shot down was piloted by bad pilots.

Impressive Sabre record against Mig15's in A2A: Bad Chinese pilots!

Impressive IDF record against Arabs in A2A: Bad Arab pilots!

Impressive coalition record against Iraq in A2A: Bad Iraqi pilots!


You would think the Mig pilots would have better records against the Western Jets on pure laws of averages alone.


The reason why mig defenders are getting pasted on this board: Bad Pro-Mig posters!

In Korea there were maybe 50 Russian pilots and they had 1 Mig-15 for 2 Sabres. If you read, watch or search on net you will see that US pilots were only advantage witch Sabre had over Mig-15 fly by Chinese. Off course Russians send their WW2 Aces (best Allied air ace was Russian over 50 German fighters).
If you look Chinese had only 5 years to build air force (1945-1951) and majorty of training was on prop. fighters not jets. US start with jet in 1945 so in 1951 they had more top pilots (count WW2) and more jet train pilots.

IDF kick Russians in Syria.Russians fly on (around 20 planesMig-21bis and Israels on new Mirrage (10) and large number of F-4(more then 20) so Isreal had advantage in numbers, not to meantion superior Mirage off course for that time.
Also IDF kick USAF in training couple years ago. So they could best world pilots.

Yes there are were good Mig pilots. Yugoslavia(now Serbia) my folks fly their Mig-29 (without radar) against 20 enemy planes with only one Mig-29, they surive couple of minutes evade couple of missiles and many time catapute, but couple of this heros died.
Also Germany had very good Mig-29 pilots they kick ass in dog fight.
Russia, China, India etc all are very good.

I am sorry also to forget Vietnam air force, they rock&roll in Nam war with Mig-17. Anyone know ration in Vietnam between USAF and NVAF?
Try to find out and you will see that US are hide this numbers.

Bluesman
31 Jul 06,, 04:26
Loonie.

gunnut
31 Jul 06,, 04:46
There can be very good individual pilots. But good pilots does not an airforce make. It's a team game. You have to have the numbers and good support to have an effective airforce.

The best pilot in the world can't do much if he's blinded.

The US doctrine is simple. Blind the enemy. Then kill him.

Or as I always say, I like to shoot at people who can't shoot back.

Our pilots may or may not be the best in the world. But we have the best airforce in the world.

SRB
31 Jul 06,, 16:08
There can be very good individual pilots. But good pilots does not an airforce make. It's a team game. You have to have the numbers and good support to have an effective airforce.

The best pilot in the world can't do much if he's blinded.

The US doctrine is simple. Blind the enemy. Then kill him.

Or as I always say, I like to shoot at people who can't shoot back.

Our pilots may or may not be the best in the world. But we have the best airforce in the world.

I total arrange with you.

YellowFever
20 Aug 06,, 09:53
In Korea there were maybe 50 Russian pilots and they had 1 Mig-15 for 2 Sabres. If you read, watch or search on net you will see that US pilots were only advantage witch Sabre had over Mig-15 fly by Chinese. Off course Russians send their WW2 Aces (best Allied air ace was Russian over 50 German fighters).
If you look Chinese had only 5 years to build air force (1945-1951) and majorty of training was on prop. fighters not jets. US start with jet in 1945 so in 1951 they had more top pilots (count WW2) and more jet train pilots.


Well, I searched over the net and I find your statement above foolish.
Give me a link where it states that each time a russian mig pilot went up into the sky it was out-numbered two to one.
And where can I find this mythical article that states that the Us pilots were only at an advantage when confronted by Chinese pilots.




IDF kick Russians in Syria.Russians fly on (around 20 planesMig-21bis and Israels on new Mirrage (10) and large number of F-4(more then 20) so Isreal had advantage in numbers, not to meantion superior Mirage off course for that time.
Also IDF kick USAF in training couple years ago. So they could best world pilots.


So the IDF "kicked" the USAF a couple years ago ni training. BIG WHOOP!
I'd have to see the conditions and ground rules for whatever excercise before I can make any conrete judgement.




Yes there are were good Mig pilots. Yugoslavia(now Serbia) my folks fly their Mig-29 (without radar) against 20 enemy planes with only one Mig-29, they surive couple of minutes evade couple of missiles and many time catapute, but couple of this heros died.
Also Germany had very good Mig-29 pilots they kick ass in dog fight.
Russia, China, India etc all are very good.



Yep..they're all good..until they get shot down and then they'll be bad inferior Mig pilots in your eyes.




I am sorry also to forget Vietnam air force, they rock&roll in Nam war with Mig-17. Anyone know ration in Vietnam between USAF and NVAF?
Try to find out and you will see that US are hide this numbers.

By the worse kill ratio during vietnam, the USAF kill ratio was something like 2 to 1.
So what's your point?

Bottom line is that, whatever the reason, superior platform or superior pilots, the Migs do not have a superior kill ratio against anything flying except Cessnas.

VovaLee
20 Aug 06,, 13:18
Well, I searched over the net and I find your statement above foolish.
Give me a link where it states that each time a russian mig pilot went up into the sky it was out-numbered two to one.
And where can I find this mythical article that states that the Us pilots were only at an advantage when confronted by Chinese pilots.
Heh...
http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/koreya/mig15/1.jpg
http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/koreya/mig15/mig15.html

/*******************
За три года войны в Корее летчики-интернационалисты 64 ИАК (истребительного авиационного корпуса) провели 1.872 воздушных боя, сбили 1.106 самолетов американского производства, из них 650 "Сейбров". Потери МиГов составили 335 самолетов.
********************/
64 IAK (fighter air corps)
1872 - operational flight
1106 - aircraft shake down (650 Sabres)
335 Mig 15 - loses


By the worse kill ratio during vietnam, the USAF kill ratio was something like 2 to 1.
So what's your point?
MiG-21 shake down 103 F-4
F-4 shake down 54 MiG-21
Yes ratio was something like 2 to 1. :)
:)

hound
20 Aug 06,, 16:21
Over the years and decades, the Russian/Soviet equiptment has proven inferior and technologically behind the US counterparts. T-72 pitted as 1to1 match vrs M1A1 proved to be totally outgunned and crushed. The only Russian equiptment that has impressed me lately is Su30-MKI, flown by a good driver from Russia, China or India it can kick some serious ass....no matter which airforce was on the opposite.

VovaLee
20 Aug 06,, 16:38
Over the years and decades, the Russian/Soviet equiptment has proven inferior and technologically behind the US counterparts. T-72 pitted as 1to1 match vrs M1A1 proved to be totally outgunned and crushed. The only Russian equiptment that has impressed me lately is Su30-MKI, flown by a good driver from Russia, China or India it can kick some serious ass....no matter which airforce was on the opposite.
Whence do you know it?
Over the years and decades americans never fighted 1to1.

HistoricalDavid
20 Aug 06,, 16:41
Whence do you know it?
Over the years and decades americans never fighted 1to1.

So?

The T-34 never fought one-to-one, did it?

VovaLee
20 Aug 06,, 16:47
[QUOTE=HistoricalDavid]So?

Well if only to compare T-34 and Abrams...
:)

HistoricalDavid
20 Aug 06,, 16:52
Nope.

You know very well plenty of people advocate the T-34 as one of the best tanks in WWII, and with good reason. Certainly on a 1-to-1 basis, it could never hope to compete with the best German tanks, could it?

The minute you start talking about 'fair fights' and only 1-on-1, you start talking of war as a sport.

hound
20 Aug 06,, 16:56
'Over the years and decades americans never fighted 1to1.'

The objective of war and fight is to WIN.

The days of honor are long gone so if Russians are waiting for a day to arrive when they can fight 1to1 and prove that their equiptment are much better then they are befooling themselves on the same level that they befooled and traumatized their people under 70 years of communist illussion. T-72s in ODS were a major failure and Russians mainly blamed the Iraqi tankers that they did not stand ground and fight but rather ran away meekly leaving their tanks sitting like ducks to be shot through several times. Might be true but only upto an extent, T-72 or even T-90 do not stand a good chance against M1A1s.

BVR missiles were invented by the Americans knowing that Russians in their Mig29s can be very dangerous and hence better not to get near the pig. Dogfight with mig29 is like wrestling with a pig, you get dirty and muddy but the pig loves it all along. The motto of USAF is 'No one ever comes close'.

VovaLee
20 Aug 06,, 17:21
Nope.

You know very well plenty of people advocate the T-34 as one of the best tanks in WWII, and with good reason. Certainly on a 1-to-1 basis, it could never hope to compete with the best German tanks, could it?

The minute you start talking about 'fair fights' and only 1-on-1, you start talking of war as a sport.

Not. The T-34 (27-32t(t34-85)) as one of the best middle tanks in WWII.
But Many like to compare t-34 to the panther (45t)
but not like to compare panther to the IS2 (46t)
Then many like to compare t-34 to the tiger (57t) and not like to compate tiger to IS3 (56tonn)

HistoricalDavid
20 Aug 06,, 17:33
Not. The T-34 (27-32t(t34-85)) as one of the best middle tanks in WWII.
But Many like to compare t-34 to the panther (45t)
but not like to compare panther to the IS2 (46t)
Then many like to compare t-34 to the tiger (57t) and not like to compate tiger to IS3 (56tonn)

So what was more important in winning the war? The T-34 or the IS-2?

It is ridiculous to isolate weapons systems from their armed forces. If you have only 1 tank to every three of your enemies, than that doesn't invalidate his victory, because perhaps your tank costs three times as much?

War isn't always fair, because there's no referee.

VovaLee
20 Aug 06,, 18:04
So what was more important in winning the war? The T-34 or the IS-2?

It is ridiculous to isolate weapons systems from their armed forces. If you have only 1 tank to every three of your enemies, than that doesn't invalidate his victory, because perhaps your tank costs three times as much?

War isn't always fair, because there's no referee.
German had the T-IV. :)
But people spoke about

Over the years and decades, the Russian/Soviet equiptment has proven inferior and technologically behind the US counterparts.
You spoke about

If you have only 1 tank to every three of your enemies...
I spoke about

Over the years and decades americans never fighted 1to1.

YellowFever
21 Aug 06,, 04:54
Heh...
http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/koreya/mig15/1.jpg
http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/koreya/mig15/mig15.html

/*******************
За три года войны в Корее летчики-интернационалисты 64 ИАК (истребительного авиационного корпуса) провели 1.872 воздушных боя, сбили 1.106 самолетов американского производства, из них 650 "Сейбров". Потери МиГов составили 335 самолетов.
********************/
64 IAK (fighter air corps)
1872 - operational flight
1106 - aircraft shake down (650 Sabres)
335 Mig 15 - loses


MiG-21 shake down 103 F-4
F-4 shake down 54 MiG-21
Yes ratio was something like 2 to 1. :)
:)


Oooops...
The sentence I wrote:

"By the worse kill ratio during vietnam, the USAF kill ratio was something like 2 to 1."

Should be ammended to read:

By the BEST kill ratio during vietnam, the USAF kill ratio was something like 2 to 1. "

I should have checked my typing before I posted :)

I'm sorry for the goof. The kill ratio was 2 to 1 in favor of USAF before 1968 but unlike the USN , the Airforce never adopted so by 1972 the kill ratio was something like 4 to 1 in the Mig's favor.

And unlike the mig defenders I won't atrribute this to bad F-4 pilots but rather to the godawful ROE's they were forced to operate under.

Ok, as near as I can tell the correct stats for vietnam are as follows:

1965 to 1969 kill ratio

USN: 3.7 migs shot down for 1 american loss
USAF: 3 migs shot down for 1 american loss.

1972 on

USN: 12.5 migs shot down for 1 american loss
USAF: 1 mig lost for 3 or 4 american losses

See? Despite what you might have seen or heard, we americans are pretty well versed in the goods AND the bads of our military.



As far as your article goes...care to translate?

You guys seem all hot and bothered when we link you to english articles proving our case, crying how it's all fake american propoganda and we are mislead by partial american writers but you guys keep posting Russian articles as counterweight, treating it as gospel. :)

Oh, by the way, the T-34 was an awesome tank for it's time.
I think it had an engine designed by an american. :)

hound
21 Aug 06,, 05:12
Russian folks should agree to the fact that their equiptment is pretty good overall but not as good as US. Lets take into account the training factor also and there also Russian doctrine in training and operating weapons has been found to be lagging behind that of the US. Infact Russians might have lagged lots more in training and result is their weapons were termed as far more inferior than they really were.

Arabs like Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis etc. have brought bad bad name to the Russian weapons.

Russians are very bad in spending dollars on training their own men (seeing over 70+ years and forgetting the last 15 years of economic collapse).

VovaLee
21 Aug 06,, 05:56
Oooops...
1965 to 1969 kill ratio

USN: 3.7 migs shot down for 1 american loss
USAF: 3 migs shot down for 1 american loss.

1972 on

And what about 1969-1972 where was your aircraft? ;)
In this years your plane can't fly on N.Vietnam at all.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_17.shtml
The incomplete list of losses Air-to-Air

Date. . .A/C. . .Pilot. . .Victim. . .AF
6Nov61. . .Li-2. . .Dinh Ton. . .RB-26C. . .CIA (damaged)
??---64. . .T-28B/D 963. . .Nguyen Van Ba/Le Tien Phuoc. . .C-123K. . .USAF (over Laos)
3Apr65. . .J-4. . .Pham Ngoc Lan. . .F-8E. . .USN (Thomas)
3Apr65. . .J-4. . .Phan Van Tuc. . .F-8E. . .USN
4Apr65. . .J-4 1036. . .Le Min Huan. . .F-105D (59-1764). . .USAF (Bennett)
4Apr65. . .J-4. . .Tran Hanh. . .F-105D (59-1754). . .USAF (Magnusson)
3Jun65. . .J-4. . .?. . .A-4C 148577. . .VA-22/USN (over Laos)
17Jun65. . .J-4. . .Le Trong Long. . .F-4B. . .VF-151 or 161/USN
17Jun65. . .J-4. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
20Jun65. . .J-4. . .?. . .A-1. . .USN
20Jun65. . .J-4. . .?. . .A-1. . .USN
20Jul65. . .J-4. . .. . .F-4. . .
20Sep65. . .J-4. . .?. . .A-4E. . .USN
14Oct65. . .J-4. . .foreign pilot?. . .F-105D 62-4305. . .USAF (Schuler)
6Nov65. . .J-5 2050. . .Pham Ngoc Lan. . .CH-3C. . .USAF
6Nov65. . .J-5 3003. . .Pham Ngoc Lan. . .?. . .?
25Nov65. . .J-4. . .?. . .A-4C. . .VA-144/USN
3Feb65. . .J-5. . .Lam Van Lich. . .A-1H. . .USN
3Feb65. . .J-5. . .Lam Van Lich. . .A-1H. . .USN
4Mar66. . .J-5. . .Ngo Duc Mai. . .F-4. . .USAF
4Mar66. . .MiG-21F-13. . .?. . .AQM-34. . .USAF
5Mar66. . .MiG-21F-13. . .?. . .AQM-34. . .USAF
23Apr66. . .J-5. . .?. . .F-105D (610048). . .USAF
23Apr66. . .J-5. . .?. . .F-105D (610157). . .USAF
24Apr66. . .J-5. . .?. . .F-105D (624340). . .USAF
24Apr66. . .J-5. . .?. . .F-105D (610051). . .USAF
26Apr66. . .J-5. . .Ho Van Quy. . .F-4C. . .USAF
29Apr66. . .MiG-17. . .. . .A-1E. . .USN (Boston)
5Jun66. . .J-4/5. . .?. . .F-8. . .USN
5Jun66. . .J-4/5. . .?. . .F-8. . .USN
7Jun66. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-105D (61-0168). . .USAF (Bayles)
9Jun66. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
9Jun66. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
13Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .A-4. . .USN
15Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .A-4E. . .USN
15Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-4B. . .USN
19Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF*
19Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF*
21Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .Trung/Tan/Van Bay/Van Tuc. . .RF-8A. . .USN (Eastman)
21Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .Trung/Tan/Van Bay/Van Tuc. . .F-8E. . .USN (Black)
29Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .Huyen/Van Man/Van Bay/Van Tuc. . .F-105D (60-0460). . .USAF (Jones)
29Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .Huyen/Van Man/Van Bay/Van Tuc. . .F-105D. . .USAF
29Jun66. . .MiG-17. . .Phan Than Trung. . .?. . .?
7Jul66. . .MiG-21F-13. . .Tran Ngoc Xiu. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Tomes)
11Jul66. . .MiG-21F-13. . .Vu Ngoc Dinh/Dong Van Song. . .F-105D. . .USAF (McClelland)
14Jul66. . .MiG-17. . .Ngo Duc Mai. . .F-8E. . .VF-162/USN (Bellinger)
19Jul66. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Ba Dich. . .F-4. . .?
19Jul66. . .MiG-17. . .Ngo Duc Mai. . .F-105D (60-5382). . .354TFS/USAF (Diamond)
19Jul66. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Bien. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Steere)
29Jul66. . .MiG-17. . .Luu Huy Cao. . .RC-47D (43-48388). . .606ACS/USAF (Hoskinson+7)
12Aug66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF
17Aug66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105F (638308). . .USAF
17Aug66. . .AAA. . .?. . .MiG-17. . .Fratricide
21Aug66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF
21Aug66. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF
5Sep66. . .MiG-17. . .. . .F-8E. . .USN (Abbott)
5Sep66. . .MiG-17. . .. . .F-8E. . .USN
16Sep66. . .MiG-17. . .. . .F-4C. . .USAF (Robertson/Buchanan)
21Sep66. . .MiG-17. . .. . .F-4C. . .USAF (Kellems/Thomas)
21Sep66. . .MiG-17. . .. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Ammon)
5Oct66. . .MiG-21. . .V.Shchbakov?. . .RB-66. . .USAF
5Oct66. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-4C. . .USAF (Garland/Andrews)
6Oct66. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-4C. . .USAF
9Oct66. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Minh. . .F-4B (152093). . .VF-154/USN (Tanner/Terry)
9Oct66. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Minh. . .F-4. . .?
2Dec66. . .MiG-17. . .. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Moorberg)
2Dec66. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4C. . .USAF (Burns/Ducat)
2Dec66. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4C. . .USAF (Fisher/Berger)
5Dec66. . .MiG-17. . .. . .F-4. . .USAF
5Dec66. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Bagley)
5Dec66. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Bagley)
8Dec66. . .MiG-21. . .V.Shchbakov?. . .F-105D (59-1820). . .USAF (Asire)
8Dec66. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF
14Dec66. . .MiG-21F-13. . .Dong Van De. . .F-105D (60-0502). . .USAF (Cooley)
14Dec66. . .MiG-21F-13. . .Nguyen Doc Xiu. . .F-105D. . .USAF
6Jan67. . .MiG-21. . .Chanh Khanh. . .F-4C. . .USAF
5Feb67. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
26Mar67. . .MiG-17. . .. . .F-4C. . .USAF
19Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105F. . .USAF (Madison/Sterling)
19Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105. . .USAF
19Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Tan/Tho/Trung. . .A-1E. . .USAF (Hamilton)
19Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Tan/Tho/Trung. . .A-1H. . .?
24Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Van Bai. . .F-4. . .?
24Apr67. . .J-5 2039. . .Le Hai. . .F-4. . .?
24Apr67. . .J-5 2039. . .Le Hai. . .F-4. . .?
24Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Dinh Phuc. . .F-4. . .?
24Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Toai. . .F-4. . .?
24Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Mai. . .F-4. . .?
24Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Ki. . .F-4. . .?
25Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Van Bai. . .F-8. . .USN
25Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Toai/Hai/Chao/Ky. . .F-105D (638277). . .USAF (Weskamp)
25Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Van Bay/Hon/Bon/Ba Dich. . .A-4C. . .USN (Stackhouse)
25Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Van Bay/Hon/Bon/Ba Dich. . .A-4E 151102. . .VA-212/USN (Crebo)
25Apr67. . .MiG-17. . .Van Bay/Hon/Bon/Ba Dich. . .F-8. . .USN
28Apr67. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Caras)
30Apr67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Ngoc Do. . .F-105D (59-1726). . .354TFS/USAF (R.Abbott)
30Apr67. . .MiG-21. . .Le Trang Huyen. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Thorsness/Johnson)
30Apr67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-105D. . .USAF (J.Abbott)
30Apr67. . .MiG-21. . .Vu Ngoc Dinh. . .F-105D. . .USAF
12May67. . .J-5 2011. . .Ngo Duc Mai. . .F-4C (63-7614). . .390TFS/USAF (Gaddis/Jefferson)
12May67. . .MiG-21. . .Le Trong Huyen. . .F-105F. . .USAF (Pitman/Stewart)
12May67. . .J-5. . .. . .F-105F. . .USAF (Grenzenbach)
12May67. . .J-5. . .. . .F-4C. . .USAF
12May67. . .J-5. . .. . .F-4C. . .USAF
19May67. . .MiG-17. . .Phan Thanh Tai. . .F-4B. . .USN (Plumb/Anderson)
19May67. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Huu Diet. . .F-4B. . .USN (Rich/Stark)
20May67. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-4C. . .USAF (Van Loan/Milligan)
22May67. . .MiG-21. . .Dang Ngoc Ngu. . .F-4C. . .USAF (Perrine/Backus)
11Jul67. . .MiG-21PF. . .Le Trong Huyen. . .A-4. . .USN
17Jul67. . .MiG-21PF. . .Nguyen Nhat Chieu. . .F-8. . .USN
20Jul67. . .MiG-21PF. . .Nguyen Ngoc Do/Pham Thanh Ngan. . .F-4. . .?
26Jul67. . .MiG-21PF. . .?. . .RF-4C. . .USAF (Corbitt/Bare)
10Aug67. . .MiG-21PF. . .?. . .RF-4C. . .USAF (Langyel/Myers)
20Aug67. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4C. . .USAF
23Aug67. . .MiG-21PFV. . .Nguyen Nhat Chieu. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Baker)
23Aug67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-4D (66-0238). . .555TFS/USAF (Tyler/Sittner)
23Aug67. . .MiG-17. . .NK Pilot. . .F-105. . .USAF
23Aug67. . .MiG-17. . .NK Pilot. . .F-105. . .USAF
23Aug67. . .MiG-17. . .NK Pilot. . .F-4. . .?
23Aug67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Tho/Nguyen Hong Diep. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Carrigan/Lane)
31Aug67. . .MiG-21. . .NK Pilot. . .RF-4C. . .USAF
16Sep67. . .MiG-21PF (41??). . .Nguyen Ngoc Do. . .RF-101C (56-0180). . .20TRS/USAF (Bagley)
16Sep67. . .MiG-21PF (41??). . .Pham Thanh Ngan. . .RF-101C (56-0181). . .20TRS/USAF (Patterson)
31Aug67. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .RF-4C (65-0894). . .11TRS/USAF (Stavast/Venazi)
26Sep67. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4C. . .USAF*
29Sep67. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4B. . .USN
30Sep67. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-105D. . .USAF
3Oct67. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .RF-101. . .USAF
3Oct67. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Moore/Gulbrandson)
7Oct67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-105F. . .USAF (Howard/Shamblee)
7Oct67. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
7Oct67. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
9Oct67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Clements)
25Oct67. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Huu Tao. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Horinek)
8Nov67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Hong Nhi. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Gordon/Brenneman)
8Nov67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Dang Kinh. . .F-4. . .?
??Nov67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-4. . .?
17Nov67. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-105D. . .USAF
18Nov67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-105F. . .USAF (Dardeau/Lehnhoff)
18Nov67. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Reed)
19Nov67. . .MiG-17. . .Le Hai. . .F-4B. . .VF-151/USN (Clower/Estes)
19Nov67. . .MiG-21. . .Vu Ngoc Dinh/Nguyen Dang Kinh. . .EB-66. . .USAF
19Nov67. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Din Phuc. . .F-4B. . .VF-151/USN (Teague/Stier)
19Nov67. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Phi Hung. . .F-4B. . .USN
19Nov67. . .MiG-??. . .?. . .RF-101. . .USAF
20Nov67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Butler)
12Dec67. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-105. . .USAF
16Dec67. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Low/Hill)
17Dec67. . .MiG-17. . .Nguyen Hong Nhi. . .F-4D (66-7581). . .USAF (Fleenor/Boyer)
17Dec67. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-4D (66-8720). . .USAF (Brett/Smith)
17Dec67. . .MiG-21PF 4324. . .Vu Ngoc Dinh. . .F-4C. . .USAF
17Dec67. . .MiG-21PF 4320. . .Ha Van Duc. . .F-105D. . .368TFS/USAF (Ellis)
17Dec67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Hong Nhi. . .F-105. . .USAF
19Dec67. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-105. . .USAF
3Jan68. . .MiG-21. . .Bui Duc Nhu. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Bean)
3Jan68. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Dang Kinh. . .F-105D. . .USAF
3Jan68. . .MiG-17. . .Bui Van Suu. . .F-4. . .
3Jan68. . .MiG-21. . .Ha Van Chue. . .F-105. . .USAF
5Jan68. . .MiG-17. . .?. . .F-105F. . .USAF (Hartney/Fantle)
14Jan68. . .MiG-21. . .Don Van Song/N.Dang Kinh. . .EB-66C. . .USAF (Mercer+6)
14Jan68. . .MiG-17. . .Le Hai. . .F-4. . .?
14Jan68. . .MiG-17. . .Luu Huy Chao. . .F-4. . .?
14Jan68. . .MiG-21. . .NK Pilot. . .F-105D. . .USAF
16Jan68. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4C. . .USAF
18Jan68. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Simonet/Smith)
18Jan68. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Hinckley/Jones)
3Feb68. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-102A. . .USAF (Wiggins)
4Feb68. . .MiG-21PF 4324. . .Vu Ngoc Dinh. . .F-105D. . .USAF (Lasiter)
12Feb68. . .MiG-21. . .NK Pilot. . .F-4B. . .USN
23Feb68. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Guttersen/Donald)
03Mar68. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .EB-66. . .USAF
7May68. . .MiG-21PFM 5014. . .Dang Ngoc Ngu. . .F-4B. . .USN
7May68. . .MiG-21PFV. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .F-4B. . .USN (Christensen/Kramer)
7May68. . .MiG-21PFV. . .?. . .KA-3D. . .USN
14Jun68. . .MiG-17F 2043. . .Le Hai. . .F-4. . .?
14Jun68. . .MiG-17F. . .Luu Huy Chao. . .F-4. . .?
16Jun68. . .MiG-21. . .Dinh Ton. . .F-4J. . .USN (Wilber/Rupinski)
9Jul68. . .MiG-17F. . .Nguyen Phi Hong. . .F-8. . .USN
19Jul68. . .MiG-17F 2043. . .Le Hai. . .F-8. . .USN
1Aug68. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Hong Nhi. . .F-8. . .USN
19Sep68. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-8C. . .USN
21Sep68. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .AQM-34. . .USAF
26Oct68. . .MiG-21. . .Dien Chau. . .F-4. . .?
??--68. . .MiG-21PFV. . .Nguyen Hong Nhi. . .AQM-34. . .100SRW/USAF
4Sep69. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .RT-33A (1140). . .RTAF/CIA (Field Goal)
??Dec69. . .MiG-21PFV. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .AQM-34. . .100SRW/USAF
??Dec69. . .MiG-21PFV. . .Nguyen Van Coc. . .AQM-34. . .100SRW/USAF
??---69. . .MiG. . .. . .OV-1. . .USA
18Jan70. . .MiG-21. . .Phan Dinh Tuan. . .F-4. . .?
28Jan70. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4D. . .USAF
28Jan70. . .MiG-21. . .Vu Ngoc Dinh. . .HH-53B. . .USAF (Bell+5)
28Jan70. . .MiG-17. . .Luong Duc Truong. . .AQM-34. . .100SRW/USAF
9Mar71. . .MiG-21. . .. . .MiG-21. . .Fratricide
??Mar71. . .AAA. . .?. . .MiG-21 (921). . .Fratricide
20Nov71. . .MiG-21. . .Vu Dinh Rang. . .B-52. . .USAF
18Dec71. . .MiG-21PFM. . .Le Thanh Dao. . .F-4D (66-0241). . .555TFW/USAF (Johnson/Vaughan)
18Dec71. . .MiG-21PFM. . .Vo Si Giap. . .F-4D (65-0799). . .555TFW/USAF (Stanley/O’Brien)
??--71. . .MiG. . .. . .UH-1. . .USA
??---71. . .AAA. . .?. . .MiG-17 (921). . .Fratricide
27Apr72. . .MiG-21. . .Hoang Quoc Dung. . .F-4B. . .VF-51/USN (Molinare/Souder)
8May72. . .J-6. . .Nguyen Ngoc Tiep. . .F-4. . .?
8May72. . .J-6. . .Pham Hung Son. . .F-4. . .?
10May72. . .MiG-21. . .Dang Ngoc Ngu. . .F-4J. . .USN
10May72. . .J-6. . .Pham Hung Son. . .F-4D (65-0784). . .555TFS/USAF (Lodge/Locher)
10May72. . .J-6. . .Nguyen Manh Tung. . .F-4E (67-0386). . .USAF (Harris/Wilkinson)
10May72. . .MiG-21PFM. . .Le Thanh Dao. . .F-4B. . .USN
10May72. . .MiG-21PFM. . .Vu Duc Hop. . .F-4B. . .USN
11May72. . .MiG-21. . .Ngo Duy Thu. . .F-105G (62-0230). . .17WWS/USAF (Talley/Padgett)
11May72. . .MiG-21. . .Ngo Duy Thu. . .F-4D (66-0230). . .555TFS/USAF (Kittinger/Reich)
18May72. . .J-6. . .Nguyen Hong Nhi. . .F-4D (66-7612). . .421TFS/USAF (crew?)
20May72. . .MiG-21. . .Do Van Lanh. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Markle/Williams)
23May72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Doc Soat. . .A-7B. . .USN (Barnett)
23May72. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Byrns/Bean)
23May72. . .J-6. . .Pham Hung Son. . .F-4E. . .35TFS/USAF
23May72. . .J-6. . .Nguyen Hung Son. . .F-4E. . .35TFS/USAF
23May72. . .SAM. . .-. . .J-6. . .925 (fratricide)
1Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .Pham Phu Thai. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Hawks/Dingee)
2Jun72. . .SAM. . .-. . .J-6. . .925 (fratricide)
10Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .?. . .?
13Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .Do Van Lanh. . .F-4. . .?
13Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .Pham Phu Thai. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Hanson/Fulton)
21Jun72. . .MiG-21MF 5128?. . .Do Van Lanh. . .F-4E (69-0282). . .334TFS/USAF (Rose/Callaghan)
21Jun72. . .MiG-21MF 5128. . .Do Van Lanh. . .F-4. . .?
23Jun72. . .MiG-21MF. . .?. . .F-4D. . .USAF
24Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Doc Soat. . .F-4E (68-0315). . .421TFS/USAF (Grant/Beekman)
24Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .Ngo Duy Thu. . .F-4D. . .USAF
24Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Nghia. . .F-4D (66-7636). . .25TFS/USAF (McCarty/Jackson)
26Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
27Jun72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Duc Nhu. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Sullivan/Francis)
27Jun72. . .MiG-21MF. . .Ngo Duy Thu. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Dam)
27Jun72. . .MiG-21MF. . .Nguyen Doc Soat. . .F-4E (67-0248). . .308TFS/USAF (Cerak/Dingee)
27Jun72. . .MiG-21MF. . .Pham Phu Thai. . .F-4E (69-7271). . .366TFW/USAF (Aikman/Hanton)
27Jun72. . .MiG-21MF. . .Bui Thanh Liem. . .F-4E (69-7296)). . .366TFW/USAF (Miller/McDow)
5Jul72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Tien Sam. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Spencer/Seek)
5Jul72. . .MiG-21. . .Ha Vinh Thanh. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Elander/Logan)
8Jul72. . .MiG-21. . .Dang Ngoc Ngu. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Ross/Imaye)
10Jul72. . .MiG-17. . .Han Vinh Tuong. . .F-4J (155803). . .VF-103/USN (Randall/Masterson)
24Jul72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Tien Sam. . .F-4E (66-0369). . .421TFS/USAF (crew?)
24Jul72. . .MiG-21. . .Ha Vinh Thanh. . .F-4. . .USAF
24Jul72. . .MiG-21. . .Le Thanh Dao. . .F-4. . .USAF
24Jul72. . .MiG-21. . .Troung Ton. . .F-4. . .USAF
29Jul72. . .MiG-21MF. . .Nguyen Tien Sam. . .F-4E (66-0367). . .4TFS/USAF (Kula/Matsui)
30Jul72. . .MiG-21MF. . .Nguyen Doc Soat. . .F-4D (66-7597). . .523TFS/USAF (Brooks/McAdams)
26Aug72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Doc Soat. . .F-4J (155811). . .VMFA-232/USMC (Cordova/Borders)
2Sep72. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-105G. . .USAF
9Sep72. . .MiG-21. . .Do Van Lanh. . .F-4. . .USAF (Delecky/Murphy)
11Sep72. . .MiG-21. . .Le Thanh Dao. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Ratzlaff/Heeren)
11Sep72. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-4B. . .USN
12Sep72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Tien Sam. . .F-4E. . .USAF (McMurray/Zuberbuhler)
1Oct72. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-4D. . .USAF
1Oct72. . .MiG-21MF. . .?. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Dam)
5Oct72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Tien Sam. . .F-4D. . .USAF (Lewis/Alpers)
6Oct72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Van Nghia. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Anderson/Latella)
12Oct72. . .MiG-21. . .Nguyen Doc Soat. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Young/Brunson)
23Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
23Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
23Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
23Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .?. . .F-4. . .?
26Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .. . .F-4E. . .USAF
26Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .Pham Tuan. . .B-52D. . .USAF
27Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .Tran Viet. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Jeffcoat/Trimble)
27Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .Tran Viet. . .F-4E. . .USAF (Anderson/Ward)
27Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .Tran Viet. . .F-4E. . .USAF
27Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .Pham Tuan. . .B-52D. . .USAF
28Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .Vu Xaun Thieu. . .B-52D. . .USAF (Lewis+6)
28Dec72. . .MiG-21. . .. . .RA-5C. . .USN (Agnew/Haifley)

YellowFever
21 Aug 06,, 06:05
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_17.shtml
The incomplete list of losses Air-to-Air....


:eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:


http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usvictor.html

http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usloss.html


and your point for posting that was...???

YellowFever
21 Aug 06,, 06:09
BTW...

Is there a translate version of this article??

http://airwar.ru/history/locwar/koreya/mig15/mig15.html

I really would like a Russian's take on the air combat over vietnam.

YellowFever
21 Aug 06,, 06:10
ooops.. i meant the korean war

VovaLee
21 Aug 06,, 06:11
:eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:


http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usvictor.html

http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usloss.html


and your point for posting that was...???
I have some others data:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_243.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_244.shtml

Bill
21 Aug 06,, 07:11
It's the same link you already posted before.

VovaLee
21 Aug 06,, 08:49
Is there a translate version of this article??

I can't translate this... it's too difficult for my english. :(

But, compete they did, and by the end of the war when US pilots had reliable missiles, a gun, and good ACM training they dominated(even though the lousy ROE never did get lifted during the entire war).
Do you know that from 31 march 1968 till 10 april 1972 your aircraft fly off North Vietnam and 27 january 1973 US start withdrawal of troops?



And unlike the mig defenders I won't atrribute this to bad F-4 pilots but rather to the godawful ROE's they were forced to operate under.
Ok, as near as I can tell the correct stats for vietnam are as follows:
1965 to 1969 kill ratio
USN: 3.7 migs shot down for 1 american loss
USAF: 3 migs shot down for 1 american loss.
1972 on
USN: 12.5 migs shot down for 1 american loss
USAF: 1 mig lost for 3 or 4 american losses
See? Despite what you might have seen or heard, we americans are pretty well versed in the goods AND the bads of our military.

http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usvictor.html
http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usloss.html
and your point for posting that was...???

ooops.. i calculate Losses\Victories air-to-air on your references :eek:

Losses - 249
Victories- 217

What about 12.5 for 1? :biggrin:

oooooooooooooooooooooops...
B52 killed 3 MiG-21 :confused: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Do you believe in this dream?

Bill
21 Aug 06,, 17:52
Again...no idea what you're even talking about.(as usual)

And please, stop posting that chart on the board- it's illegible in this format. A simple link is good enough for all of us to see the figures you're trying to put forth.

YellowFever
23 Aug 06,, 08:33
I agree with Sniper......

Dude, I want to debate this with you, volvo, but I have no idea what you're trying to say...

YellowFever
23 Aug 06,, 08:34
Vovalee I mean..sheesh ..sorry..no wisecrack was intended.. :redface:

Captain Drunk
23 Aug 06,, 11:05
It is ridiculous to isolate weapons systems from their armed forces. If you have only 1 tank to every three of your enemies, than that doesn't invalidate his victory, because perhaps your tank costs three times as much?

Question is, which tank/tanks would you choose? The expensive single one or the 3 enemy ones at 1/3 the price of your tank? Definitely the enemy's tank.

Same way, you could buy 3 Mig-23s for the cost of one single Super Hornet, that when upgraded, as you yourself have stated here "it is ridiculous to isolate weapons systems" could defeat any F-18.

Anyway coming back to the topic, nothing is yet known about the MFI to compare it with any fighter.

Shadowsided
23 Aug 06,, 16:08
Question is, which tank/tanks would you choose? The expensive single one or the 3 enemy ones at 1/3 the price of your tank? Definitely the enemy's tank.

Same way, you could buy 3 Mig-23s for the cost of one single Super Hornet, that when upgraded, as you yourself have stated here "it is ridiculous to isolate weapons systems" could defeat any F-18.

Anyway coming back to the topic, nothing is yet known about the MFI to compare it with any fighter.
Don't underestimate the Hornet Drunk it'll mop the floor with an F 14 if equipped with AESA's and AMRAAMS.

HistoricalDavid
23 Aug 06,, 18:54
Question is, which tank/tanks would you choose? The expensive single one or the 3 enemy ones at 1/3 the price of your tank? Definitely the enemy's tank

...Er, tanks are not created equal. The expensive tank may be able to wipe the floor with the other tank. Like Abrams were able to do with T-72s in the Gulf War, even when outnumbered.


Same way, you could buy 3 Mig-23s for the cost of one single Super Hornet, that when upgraded, as you yourself have stated here "it is ridiculous to isolate weapons systems" could defeat any F-18.

Perhaps I don't have enough pilots? Or, because my country has a high regard for human life, I'd rather put 1 pilot in danger than 3? Perhaps I want to use really advanced weapon systems? Perhaps my aircraft will be able to take advantage of my existing AWACS support with their advanced avionics and datalinks? Perhaps I need an aircraft built to take off from carriers? Or is easy to maintain? Perhaps I need a good bombtruck in the knowledge that a few F-22As will be around to help protect this new aircraft I'm buying?

There are plenty of real factors to consider, not how erotically charged you become when you look at the aircraft, or simple performance figures like max speed on afterburner, like that comically stupid time when you claimed a Mach 2.6 MiG-29 could easily catch up with an F-22A which could manage 'only' Mach 1.7.

JCSVT
23 Aug 06,, 19:43
There are plenty of real factors to consider, not how erotically charged you become when you look at the aircraft, or simple performance figures like max speed on afterburner, like that comically stupid time when you claimed a Mach 2.6 MiG-29 could easily catch up with an F-22A which could manage 'only' Mach 1.7.

That paragraph made me laugh out loud. My roomate just looked at me like I crazy.

Shadowsided
23 Aug 06,, 20:12
historical david which thread was that where Drunk said that about a MIg 29 and an F 22.!!!I need a good laugh!!! :biggrin:

HistoricalDavid
23 Aug 06,, 21:31
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=177736&postcount=149

Out of this supremely comic thread: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=177736

Shadowsided
23 Aug 06,, 21:45
LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOLOOLOLOL!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Captain Drunk
26 Aug 06,, 08:48
historical david which thread was that where Drunk said that about a MIg 29 and an F 22.!!!I need a good laugh!!! :biggrin:

He is mistaken I did not say Mig-29, you can see in that post, I was refferring to the Mig-1.42 with 2 Lyulka afterburning turbofans ~ 40,000 Ibs each that gives Mach 2.6+

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=177736

HistoricalDavid
26 Aug 06,, 12:05
Aha, my mistake but this is even worse - trumpeting performance figures for a plane that hasn't gone beyond a 15-minute gear-down test flight and probably never will.

Shadowsided
27 Aug 06,, 00:52
He is mistaken I did not say Mig-29, you can see in that post, I was refferring to the Mig-1.42 with 2 Lyulka afterburning turbofans ~ 40,000 Ibs each that gives Mach 2.6+

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=177736
The plane does NOT exist and probabaly never will. Besides the thing aint that stealthy(shape) and don't start with the plasma stealth bull **** because it's garbage. In BVR with the Raptor it's simply a target. WVR may be a little different but the plane doesn't exist.

The_Burning_Kid
27 Aug 06,, 01:42
The MiG-1.44 can't even fight the dust collecting on it, let alone a Raptor.

Shadowsided
29 Aug 06,, 20:12
Apparently he doesn't even uderstand the difference between ruise and afterburner speeds lol!!!

sukhoi
26 Oct 06,, 22:05
lol, The Topic is saying something called has Raptor Killer, so where in the Hell is that Raptor Killer is Hidding.

Blackjack
27 Oct 06,, 00:06
All this talk the Mig 1.42 ... so far, it looks like the Russians are far more capable of adding new bells and whistles onto older aircraft. This Mig isn't going anywhere anytime soon. A theoretical "Raptor Killer" isn't a Raptor Killer unless it flies.

Defcon 6
27 Oct 06,, 05:18
The Mig 1.42 is a flying oversized spitball. And ya know what? It's almost as ugly as one too! lol.

canoe
27 Oct 06,, 11:16
Simple way to solve this, the U.S can put all its Raptors in the air and anyone who has Mig 1.42's can put them in the air and we'll see who wins.

Hard to lose against a fleet of nothing.

Garry
27 Oct 06,, 15:26
The project is closed in 2004 by new head of MiG Alexei Fedorov who came there from Irkut - a person responsible for Su-30MKI being sold to Indians.

MiG 1.44 is now just a good part of technology musium.

MiG is working on two lighter designs of 5th gen fighter. The work is in the very begining but is quite promising. Fedorov was always good learner

canoe
27 Oct 06,, 15:41
The project is closed in 2004 by new head of MiG Alexei Fedorov who came there from Irkut - a person responsible for Su-30MKI being sold to Indians.

MiG 1.44 is now just a good part of technology musium.

MiG is working on two lighter designs of 5th gen fighter. The work is in the very begining but is quite promising. Fedorov was always good learner

No doubt, very interested to see what the Russians come up with for 5th gen. I know their going the conventional stealthy route and planning to compete directly against the F-35 but beyond that very little is known.

Main issue with the Russians is the need to focus on the things there good at until their R&D can start to catch up to the U.S in certain areas. I think if they can build a F-35 like aircraft at half the price with the option for western avonics and include things like vector thrusting engines and long range engagement capabilities they'res probably a niche market for those.

Ultimately the high end bidders who can afford the U.S stuff are going to go for that but theres still alot of open territory for the bargin bin buyers and countries the U.S won't sell to.

Garry
27 Oct 06,, 18:06
No doubt, very interested to see what the Russians come up with for 5th gen. I know their going the conventional stealthy route and planning to compete directly against the F-35 but beyond that very little is known.

Main issue with the Russians is the need to focus on the things there good at until their R&D can start to catch up to the U.S in certain areas. I think if they can build a F-35 like aircraft at half the price with the option for western avonics and include things like vector thrusting engines and long range engagement capabilities they'res probably a niche market for those.

Ultimately the high end bidders who can afford the U.S stuff are going to go for that but theres still alot of open territory for the bargin bin buyers and countries the U.S won't sell to.

Well. I know they will have both - long-range and light fighter... Soviet Flanker was good answer to Eagle so I am very interested to hear about this as well.

As for avionics - Soviet union had many breakthoughs - helmet sights, R-73 etc. which were not matched at their times.

In general it looks like swings - US advances - USSR catches up and goes beyond, doing it everytime faster and cheaper. Probably this is because following is cheaper and more efficient... it is always easier to design something against existing conterpart than making a whole new conceipt on unknown areas....

There is an oppinion - some people from MIG want to scrap PAK FA and produce both light and heavy fighters simultaneously designing a unified component base. Like - heavy would have twin engine thurst and light single engine.... but engiens of the same family... radar for light being a downscalled from same of a heavier.... same avionics.... same weapons.... Hence difference would be in payload / range tradeoff with heavier having always larger payload/range equasion.

Sukhoi calls this plan a b.s. They believe that one design should go ahead of another so to maximise learning from first project... They protect their PAK FA.... and have support from Ministry of Defense.... while Air Force command favor re-consideration of the program from the begining... the truth is that requirements has changed since times when PAK FA conceipt was outlined. Raptor set new targets to be achieved and some experts of air foce are not sure that modification of PAK FA programe would meet that. Sukhoi believe they can do it with PAK FA frame....

Hence there is a fight now between Sukhoi and MIG schools... "mortal combat" :) and this fight is in on the edge of creating united company.... it is not yet clear whose victory would be better for RAF.... both parties sounds quite experienced in their field.

GGTharos
27 Oct 06,, 22:47
Well. I know they will have both - long-range and light fighter... Soviet Flanker was good answer to Eagle so I am very interested to hear about this as well.


For a couple years ... until the Eagle got upgraded and left the flanker in its dust.



As for avionics - Soviet union had many breakthoughs - helmet sights, R-73 etc. which were not matched at their times.


That's untrue. HMS existed on US NAVY F-4's before the Russian combo. It used old tech, and old missiles, so it was abandoned due to low reliability and discomfort, no doubt. What the Russians had was the first aircraft to use a reliable set up of the sort, but nothing resembling any sort of break-through ;)



In general it looks like swings - US advances - USSR catches up and goes beyond, doing it everytime faster and cheaper. Probably this is because following is cheaper and more efficient... it is always easier to design something against existing conterpart than making a whole new conceipt on unknown areas....


No, you get what you pay for. Period. If they did it cheaper, it's likely not as good as the more expensive fare. Not that there haven't been expensive blunders of mismanagement of funds, but Russians are definitely, categorically -not- immune to such behaviour either ;)



There is an oppinion - some people from MIG want to scrap PAK FA and produce both light and heavy fighters simultaneously designing a unified component base. Like - heavy would have twin engine thurst and light single engine.... but engiens of the same family... radar for light being a downscalled from same of a heavier.... same avionics.... same weapons.... Hence difference would be in payload / range tradeoff with heavier having always larger payload/range equasion.

In other words, pretty much the same ideology they had previously, with the MiG-29 and Su-27.




Sukhoi calls this plan a b.s. They believe that one design should go ahead of another so to maximise learning from first project... They protect their PAK FA.... and have support from Ministry of Defense.... while Air Force command favor re-consideration of the program from the begining... the truth is that requirements has changed since times when PAK FA conceipt was outlined. Raptor set new targets to be achieved and some experts of air foce are not sure that modification of PAK FA programe would meet that. Sukhoi believe they can do it with PAK FA frame....

Hence there is a fight now between Sukhoi and MIG schools... "mortal combat" :) and this fight is in on the edge of creating united company.... it is not yet clear whose victory would be better for RAF.... both parties sounds quite experienced in their field.

Things will go on as always. They're not competing in the same programmes usually, and Sukhoi is quite right - they know well how these things go.

omon
02 Nov 06,, 17:33
the real f22 killer is a lack of worthy opponent. mig 1.42...ect. isn;t real , migs,SUs as good as they are probably will never face raptor, so what do we need 200 mil$ plane that is too good for it own good. f 18 ,15 ,16. are good enough planes for anything. ussr is gone, who else is out there to match usa? or who would fight full scale war with us. no1. all modern canflicts are more guerilla war than conetional war, do we need raptor in a fight against rebels and insergents? they don.t have any planes may be a few. a 10 are perfect planes for that kind of war. choppers too. no wonder project ah 66 comanche got scraped, appaches are good enough, even cobra still kikss ass.

highsea
02 Nov 06,, 18:00
...ussr is gone, who else is out there to match usa?USSR is done, but Sukhoi is still building and selling airplanes. China is learning. Would you have the US sit on our asses until we lose the advantage?

Jimmy
03 Nov 06,, 02:50
the real f22 killer is a lack of worthy opponent. mig 1.42...ect. isn;t real , migs,SUs as good as they are probably will never face raptor, so what do we need 200 mil$ plane that is too good for it own good. f 18 ,15 ,16. are good enough planes for anything. ussr is gone, who else is out there to match usa? or who would fight full scale war with us. no1. all modern canflicts are more guerilla war than conetional war, do we need raptor in a fight against rebels and insergents? they don.t have any planes may be a few. a 10 are perfect planes for that kind of war. choppers too. no wonder project ah 66 comanche got scraped, appaches are good enough, even cobra still kikss ass.

The existence of the Raptor is almost enough to guarantee we'll never face those opponents. The lack of a new fighter is almost enough to guarantee that the F-15's winning streak will end.

Shadowsided
03 Nov 06,, 21:35
not to mention sophisticated IADS are popping up all around the world the USSR may be gone but its tech is sold abroad.

BIGAL
11 Nov 06,, 06:59
With many oil rich countries and places like north korea or china-there is lots of money for the soviets.China spent 15 billion in 2000-estimated that they have about doubled their spending at 30 billion/year.
I think the lpoint of the original post is to show the soviets are not idle,and are producing comparable fighter jets.Why argue which is technically better without thinking first.How do 2 jets going head to head,employing stealth techniques find each other????Somebody will use thier radar and when you do this you announce to the whole world "here I am". It is like a submarine pinging everywhere to find enemies-it is NOT stealthy.
Also a note some of the Sukhoi used passive hunting methods using huge infrared cameras to track/destroy enemies.I was not a chief designer for the USSR so I cant say how effective or good they are,but when you think of the entire scenario it is not so cut and dry anymore.
It wiould come down to many factors, experienc,numerical superiority,weather,altitude,etc... but it is reasonable to assume that the USSR is not far behind the USA.

GGTharos
11 Nov 06,, 15:27
With many oil rich countries and places like north korea or china-there is lots of money for the soviets.China spent 15 billion in 2000-estimated that they have about doubled their spending at 30 billion/year.
I think the lpoint of the original post is to show the soviets are not idle,and are producing comparable fighter jets.Why argue which is technically better without thinking first.How do 2 jets going head to head,employing stealth techniques find each other????Somebody will use thier radar and when you do this you announce to the whole world "here I am". It is like a submarine pinging everywhere to find enemies-it is NOT stealthy.


That isn't entrely true. Unlike a sub, an F-22 can sweep with his radar, then clear datum at nice clip of about 0.5km/s. Not an issue.



Also a note some of the Sukhoi used passive hunting methods using huge infrared cameras to track/destroy enemies.I was not a chief designer for the USSR so I cant say how effective or good they are,but when you think of the entire scenario it is not so cut and dry anymore.


No, they do not. These IRSTs have less range than a radar, and are unreliable against non-afterburning targets. A head-on detection range that I -could- quote you is about 20km at best for a head-on non-afterburning target. It'll be shorter against an F-22 which uses a cooling system to keep skin temp down.
There's a VERY GOOD REASON why these aircraft carry HUGE, POWERFUL radars. And why the IRST is /way/ secondary.



It wiould come down to many factors, experienc,numerical superiority,weather,altitude,etc... but it is reasonable to assume that the USSR is not far behind the USA.

Actually that is -extremely- unreasonable. Right now the Russians can't even produce reliable electronics for their aircraft and missiles.

kams
11 Nov 06,, 16:17
Actually that is -extremely- unreasonable. Right now the Russians can't even produce reliable electronics for their aircraft and missiles.

Not so unreasonable, with likes of major US chip makers like AMD selling their used Chip making machinery to Russains. According to latest news reports AMD sold their FAB 30 capable of manufacturing 130 micron Chips to Russia. Congratulations:) .

GGTharos
11 Nov 06,, 17:36
That may be, but the integration and some parts are still made in Russia. Right now, they're /not/ capable of doing what they really want to do. They may be capable in a few years, but they're still playing /massive/ catch-up.

AMD's stuff won't save them on its own ... it's but a piece of the puzzle - more is needed ;)

kams
11 Nov 06,, 18:47
That may be, but the integration and some parts are still made in Russia. Right now, they're /not/ capable of doing what they really want to do. They may be capable in a few years, but they're still playing /massive/ catch-up.

AMD's stuff won't save them on its own ... it's but a piece of the puzzle - more is needed ;)

Very true. More importantly, the sorry state of affairs of Russian aerospace industry is making talented engineers to seek greener pastures elsewhere. Result of this 'braindrain' will be felt in years to come.

GGTharos
11 Nov 06,, 20:22
Yes indeed ... I don't mean to knock the Russians. They've put together some fantastic stuff in the past, but their Political and Economical structure, plus the economical war that went on in the Cold War destroyed their ability to built 'bigger and better'.

Archer
13 Nov 06,, 07:06
With COTS, why are we even discussing chip making ability here! Even developing countries like India and I daresay China can probably field (I am unsure about the latter), multi gigaflop boards with multiple parallel processors for dedicated number crunching & the like.

gunnut
13 Nov 06,, 19:31
Not so unreasonable, with likes of major US chip makers like AMD selling their used Chip making machinery to Russains. According to latest news reports AMD sold their FAB 30 capable of manufacturing 130 micron Chips to Russia. Congratulations:) .

You mean 130nm, or 0.13 micron.

130 micron would be....huge! :biggrin:

kams
13 Nov 06,, 19:52
You mean 130nm, or 0.13 micron.

130 micron would be....huge! :biggrin:


Sorry, .130 micron;)

howieskiv
20 Nov 06,, 20:41
the bottom beltline down reminds me of the yf-23

HistoricalDavid
20 Nov 06,, 20:44
The Russians are getting 130nm chip technology? Whatever shall I do with my Core 2 Duo'ed laptop and its mere 65nm (i.e. two generations ahead) manufacturing process? :(

kams
20 Nov 06,, 20:53
The Russians are getting 130nm chip technology? Whatever shall I do with my Core 2 Duo'ed laptop and its mere 65nm (i.e. two generations ahead) manufacturing process? :(

Hmmm which Chip is used in Raptor ?(not that it has to be current generation)

howieskiv
20 Nov 06,, 20:55
why dont we buy out russian companies and incorporate them to bennefit us I mean everything including air frame manufacturers even apple uses microsoft

GGTharos
20 Nov 06,, 23:24
Hmmm which Chip is used in Raptor ?(not that it has to be current generation)

Probably a Pentium, or a fast 486 (well, many thereof) plus many custom ASICs.

canoe
21 Nov 06,, 02:35
why dont we buy out russian companies and incorporate them to bennefit us I mean everything including air frame manufacturers even apple uses microsoft

Unlikely the Russian government would allow the U.S to buy out their aerospace industry.

However your referrence to globalization and complex componet intigration is correct. Ultimately Russian aerospace companies will be dependant on companies in foreign countries for componets and parts if they want to keep up with everyone else. Its simply the trend the big world powers are heading in.

canoe
21 Nov 06,, 06:53
Probably a Pentium, or a fast 486 (well, many thereof) plus many custom ASICs.

The F-22's CIP's are reputed to be currently capable of more then 10.5 billion operations per second per CIP.

There are 2 CIP's, both are liquid cooled and connected by a fault tolerent fibre network and have a total of 66 module slots. Currently CIP 1 is using 19 of its 66 slots and CIP 2 is using 22 of its 66 slots.

The CIP modules contain the actual processors themselves and can supposidly be upgraded fairly easily.

Garry
21 Nov 06,, 09:00
However your referrence to globalization and complex componet intigration is correct. Ultimately Russian aerospace companies will be dependant on companies in foreign countries for componets and parts if they want to keep up with everyone else. Its simply the trend the big world powers are heading in.

This seems to be absolutelly inevitable for all.... USA, Russia, Europe.... at present US aerospace industry needs this for cost efficiency. It is alive only due to the nature of the industry which pushes US government buying its own product.... at ANY cost. In all other issues competitiveness is melting away....

canoe
21 Nov 06,, 23:35
This seems to be absolutelly inevitable for all.... USA, Russia, Europe.... at present US aerospace industry needs this for cost efficiency. It is alive only due to the nature of the industry which pushes US government buying its own product.... at ANY cost. In all other issues competitiveness is melting away....

The U.S is going to have the most trouble with major intigration. Most of their fighter aircraft arn't what people would typically describe as conventional. At least in the sense they almost completely revolve around the stealth concept. Most Russian/Euro fighters are more conventional type fighter designs, at least for now.

However its definately happening in the U.S for things like transport aircraft, tankers and trainers, etc.

Shadowsided
22 Aug 07,, 02:16
Hes a damn Apple Computers fan...I was raised on them and learned to hate them.
That'sa good eye LOL Apple may have good OS's but they're ahrdware for comp's is rather standard and overpriced. LOL PC users found out how to put OS X on a PC LOL there goes Apples advanatge out the window!:biggrin:

gunnut
22 Aug 07,, 02:24
P4 was a miserable failure. It was developed at the direction of overzealous people in marketing who wanted GHz at all costs.

Not only is the G5 faster than the P4, clock for clock, the Athlon and the Athlon64 soundly defeats the P4 in processing power.

Sorry, I just can't resist commenting on PC related topics.

Feanor
22 Aug 07,, 08:21
Resurrecting this thread borders on necrophilia.

Stan187
22 Aug 07,, 10:05
Resurrecting this thread borders on necrophilia.

Aw naw he didn't!!:biggrin:

glyn
22 Aug 07,, 11:12
And nuclear warfare makes your eyes water.

entropy
22 Aug 07,, 12:48
Russian quality airframes with US quality avionics, isn't that the best on the planet?

Feanor
22 Aug 07,, 19:06
This is my idea of a raptor-killer

http://www.eclectric-fx.com/model/images/xwing.jpg

Shadowsided
22 Aug 07,, 20:12
P4 was a miserable failure. It was developed at the direction of overzealous people in marketing who wanted GHz at all costs.

Not only is the G5 faster than the P4, clock for clock, the Athlon and the Athlon64 soundly defeats the P4 in processing power.

Sorry, I just can't resist commenting on PC related topics.

Apple is switching to intel chips!!!!!!!!!! Jsut take a look at the Macbook pro!