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?:)
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/
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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:
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?
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:
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…
Why no Sopwith?:confused: They were pretty good in their day, I thought.
Are they still around?:D
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:
Observe the the very un-soviet choice of colours for the exhaust plumes… (might be a guide to the authenticity of the poster).;)
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).