dark light

Levsha

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,011 through 2,025 (of 2,665 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Levsha
    Participant

    Trivia quiz here (an interesting fact which came to my attention very recently).

    Which one of the above mentioned fighters/interceptors uses an airliner style control yoke ínstead of a central ‘joystick’ more typical for fighters/interceptors?:)

    in reply to: Making the best of MiG-21 #2385641
    Levsha
    Participant

    It was not done in 1967, when most MiG-21s were destroyed in the AB-attacks.
    That very maneuver was done during the last week of YKW 1973 to survive only. 😉

    came across this piece of ‘Historia’ just today – “Crazy Egyptian pilot” doing a split S…

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2227449/egyptian_mig_21_crazy_pilots_escape_from_a_chasing_mirage/

    in reply to: Best COIN aircraft of all time #2385702
    Levsha
    Participant

    MQ-9 Reaper
    MQ-1 Predator

    Westland Apache AH1
    AH-64

    Cessna A-37 gets a good mention, to understand why, start with this article:

    http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Legends-of-Vietnam-Super-Tweet.html

    in reply to: underestimating U.S. air power. #2386947
    Levsha
    Participant

    Did you read my post ?

    The USAF flew 4,538 SEAD (suppression of air defense) sorties.
    With a result:
    3 of 25 SA-6 batteries destroyed, 10 of 41 SAM radars destroyed.
    They achieved only to destroy 3 obsolete SAM batteries designed in the 60s in the whole conflict.

    SEAD: Suppression of Enemy Air Defences

    DEAD: Destruction of Enemy Air Defences

    There’s a difference between the two acronyms, (SOC actually explained it a year back or so) and NATO were obviously aiming for and almost completely achieved ‘suppression’ to judge by their air losses: one aircraft.

    Bear in mind, a HARM missile, or any other anti-radar missile, doesn’t neccessarily have to destroy any part of a AD system to be considered successful. I’m sure the USAF would have been quiet happy to launch double the number of HARMS in order the achieve the same result they achieved in the Kosovo bombing campaign.

    in reply to: underestimating U.S. air power. #2387041
    Levsha
    Participant

    Right…..ok…..The aim was just pressure to force Serbia to do what NATO wanted, which it did so it worked…..

    And that’s exactly what I meant.
    NATO did achieve it’s aims, kicking ther Serbian army out of Kosovo, and I just don’t understand how people can say that the NATO bombing campaign was not successful, just because most of the Serbian army’s clapped out tanks managed to survive in one piece till the end of the war.

    in reply to: underestimating U.S. air power. #2387122
    Levsha
    Participant

    To destroy the Serb military – why would NATO need to ‘destroy’ the Serb
    military? How was NATOgoing to assess the completion of the destruction of the Serb military, what yardsticks or benchmarks were going to use – ten serb tanks, a hundred?

    in reply to: underestimating U.S. air power. #2387157
    Levsha
    Participant

    I would have thought the SEAD campaign was a success in 1999, if only one NATO aircraft was ever shot down – regardless of the actual type of aircraft that got shot down?
    Didn’t NATO achieve their aims in the end, with minimal losses?

    in reply to: underestimating U.S. air power. #2387273
    Levsha
    Participant

    And the S-300 system has been in service almost 30 years by now. Surely someone, somewhere has found a way to jam or fool it, EW wise, by now?:confused:

    in reply to: Rank the best to worst fighter companies! #2390669
    Levsha
    Participant

    Huh?
    Douglas, Douglas, oh yeah, the Douglas Dauntless!:cool:

    But that wasn’t a fighter now was it? what pure fighter types did Douglas ever produce in its history?

    in reply to: Sukhoi Su-15 Flagon #2391172
    Levsha
    Participant

    Lovely poster there, I take it that is the Red falcons aswel?

    Well, I’m not sure that there was a permanently established air display team called the Red Falcons at that time or was there?
    It seems that for any of the big air displays of the 1950s and 60s teams of 4 or 5 aircraft were formed on some sort of ad hoc basis. There were the red painted Yak-15s in the 1940s and the MiG-15, MiG-17 and MiG-19 teams after that.
    I remember having a book on military aviation as a kid with the following photo in it, I love it! :):cool:
    check out the link for some more pictures of the 1961 flypast at Tushino in Moscow:

    http://airforce.ru/history/tushino1961/tushino_1961.htm

    in reply to: Rank the best to worst fighter companies! #2391316
    Levsha
    Participant

    Didn’t BAe design the wings on the SAAB Gripen? that’s proof of some sort of fighter design know-how I guess.
    And what’s wrong with the ADV as a fighter? I dare say it was as fast and manueverable as any of its potential targets in the cold war…

    in reply to: Rank the best to worst fighter companies! #2391553
    Levsha
    Participant

    Why no Sopwith?:confused: They were pretty good in their day, I thought.
    Are they still around?:D

    in reply to: Making the best of MiG-21 #2391873
    Levsha
    Participant

    It appears that 21 can still hold its own in dogfight

    The MiG-21 spent a lot of the 1960s fighting and been shot down, by such shining paragons of low speed ‘pointability’ and maneuverability, such as the Mirage III and F-4.
    I don’t see how the production of a 15 page PDF file is somehow going to rectify the matter forty years later?:rolleyes:

    in reply to: Sukhoi Su-15 Flagon #2391879
    Levsha
    Participant

    Observe the the very un-soviet choice of colours for the exhaust plumes… (might be a guide to the authenticity of the poster).;)

    in reply to: ONLy 50-100 T-50s? #2391894
    Levsha
    Participant

    Sens; sure, radial-flow jet engines were losing popularity by the end of the 1940s, been seen as having limited development potential. But… it was the use of such an engine on the MiG-15 which actually made it very competitive with the F-86 in the Korean war – especially at higher altitudes (B-29 altitudes).

Viewing 15 posts - 2,011 through 2,025 (of 2,665 total)