comon people we are talking about TV…..the same place we watched tom cruise shooting down black F-5Es [sorry i mean mig-33s] in his tomcat, not so long ago. :rolleyes:

The film called them Mig 28’s

All sounds a bit to much like the plot of the Dale Brown book day of the Cheetah.

I liked his earlier books but his later ones are awful.

Just something for anybody who would like to build their only little Bloodhound 1 Fire Unit (that was the name that was used by Bristol’s and the RAF for a Bloodhound Battery). A full Fire Unit was a couple of brick buildings (Launch Control Post and Works Services Building), 16 launchers and LPA’s, and two radars (a fire unit could engage 2 targets at the same time, and two FU’s made a Squadron, with the exception of 264 Squadron at North Coates who had 3, however they were never all operational at the same time). Find attached the dimensions and layout of the Type 83 Target Illuminating Radar. It was made up of two mobile wagons, one for the transmitter / receiver and aerial, and the other for display and control.

Do you mean a model or the real thing? 😀

This subject always seems to crop up every few months and we always seem to tread over the same old ground. That Veniks website always gets quoted in these arguments brings on an element of farce.

In the end the Western figures for combat losses are more credible then those from so called Russian sources. Western airforces like America’s always buy their aircraft in batches with the serial numbers applied at the factory. It is fairly easy to trace the life of a particular airframe and the idea that somehow combat losses are covered up doesn’t connect with reality. The idea that somehow aircraft that are shot down can effectively be vaporised removing any chance of wreckage is plain silly. The will always be some form of wreckage if such event happened.

It is possible that a Mig was involved with the F117 shoot down but there isn’t any clear evidence. That the F117 was shot down wasn’t denied by NATO or America who don’t have any reason to hide this fact.

The loss of any aircraft and aircrew would of been noticed!

These arguments always seem to boil down to defending the corner of various Russian weapon systems. The thing is there is no need for this, NATO actually takes these weapon systems seriously! We need to get the Kosovo bombing campaign into context, the Serbian airforce ended up taking on the entire NATO alliance with all the aircraft, command and control and SEAD assets available to them. For a small air arm like Serbia they had no chance of offering any kind of credible defence against that kind of opposition. The outcome would of been exactly the same if Serbia had been equipped with a squadron of F16’s armed with AMRAAM.

Hi all,

For reference I found a link to an image of the Land Dart proposal:

http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/seadart.htm

I was thinking of one of the points you made over the rejection of Pariot and Land Dart BIGVERN1966 which led me to dig out my copy of Jane’s Land Based Air Defence 1997-98. Lack of altitude capability was one of the rejection issues for both systems, according to Jane’s Patriot PAC-2 has a max speed of M5.0, max range of 160,000m and a max altitude of 24,240m. I’m curious to know how this compares to late model bloodhound and what was the RAF’s minimum performance requirement at the time for its replacement. Considering Patriot was probably the only thing on the table bar designing a completely new system it almost sounds like the standard was set too high to make it impossible to choose a replacement within the requirement thus saving the MOD a bag full of money.

Currenty the Serbian Air Force MIG 29’s are all non active. They lay in hangers waiting to be scraped or put back into service. I have 2 theories on their fate:

1.The Serbian Air Force will scrap them and get some money out of it. 😡

2. The Serbian Air Force will come to their senses and put them back into operation. 🙂

I really think they should put them back into service because tension is brewing in Kosovo and you never know, these fighter planes may be needed.

Its more than a matter of coming to their senses and put them back into service. These aircraft will need to be inspected to see if they are even worth an overhaul, it is possible that they are just too far gone to make it worth the expenditure.

Even if there is trouble brewing in Kosovo (i can’t comment as we don’t see much of Kosovo on the News in the UK these days) a small number of Mig 29’s are hardly going to make a difference especially as the local NATO member airforces are hardly going to let Serbia interfere in Kosovo’s affairs these days.

I would of thought that Serbia’s government have other far more important spending priorites at the moment.

P.S.

Whilst information about the former Yugoslavia’s armed forces are interesting “theserbian” any thread along those lines usually descend into rather nasty flame wars. Please don’t take any comment about the relative capabilities of the Serbian armed forces as an insult. Personally I have no reason to have much against the Serbian airforce but I do want to point out any inpracticalities with muted ideas of it future direction.

Sometimes called Neutron bombs these are the opposite of the topic here… though interesting nonetheless.

A bit of an eggageration. In fact no really big nukes are made these days as unless there is a particularly hard target to take out like a bunker deeply buried in a grannite mountain range then a single powerful bomb is often less effective than a lot of smaller bombs, particularly when used against area targets like cities.

For instance three 3kt warheads equally spaced around a city would do more damage to that city than one 15kt weapon detonated in the centre. Because the blast disperses in three dimensions the effect of the blast rapidly diminishes with distance. With three blasts you get multiple shockwaves and three centres of total anhialation, whereas with one blast… even though it is more than the combined force of the three smaller weapoins and one larger centre of destruction it is not three times bigger. The buildings under the one explosion would be destroyed more than if they were under one of the three smaller explosions but after a certain point adding more explosive power just shifts around rubble more…

Im not exagerating here where talking of a weapon which if detonated would of had a yield of over 100 megatons!

If detonated in the European theatre of operations the area of destruction would of covered most of Germany. I am of course adding the area covered by firestorm and shock wave in this. The less powerful Tsar bomb would of left an area of total destruction 30 miles wide itself.

The only thing that I couldn’t understand is the difference between Atomic bomb and Nuclear bomb
Some people say that they are the same…
Other people say that there are differences between them
By the way, they say that the bomb thathit Japan in 1945 is Atomic.. it’s not Nuclear
And Nuclear warhead is not atomic bomb…
Can you tell me the differences between Atomic and Nuclear Bomb???

Nuclear bomb tends to be used as a cover all description of all nuclear devices be it Atom bomb or Hydrogen bomb.

An atom bomb works by creating a fission reaction through the colliding of critical material creating a fission reaction.

A Hydrogen bomb works by using a fission reaction and boosting it too a fusion reaction creating a far larger release of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_bomb