Oh, I don’t know, I dare say the most heavily criticised aircraft on the forum would be the F-35…
Totally fake photo – of Czech origin, IIRC.
The Su-15 was never used by any aerobatic team, ever.
It was never that maneouverable, for a start.
Ken
The USAF Thunderbirds display team once flew the F-105 for a year or two – the Su-15 is hardly any less maneuverable than the ‘Thud’, is it?:confused:
Has anyone any idea what is the purpose of the black and yellow square stripes often seen painted on the air intake fence of the Su-15? is it for some sort of camera calibration or something?
It also shot down a few airliners jammed with passengers; as well as colliding with a CL-44 over the Soviet Union in 1981. A Su-15 shot down the KAL Boeing 747 over Sakhalin in 1983. A classic, uncompromised PVO interceptor of the 1960s, like Schorch said, Its probably somewhere between the F-106 and EE Lightning in performance.
Hurricane? Now there was an very odd looking British aircraft!:):cool:
Did you know that there are Hunters still flying in France and help to train the French Navy! I didn’t know either until I saw an article on the subject in a German aviation magazine recently, They belong to a French company on contract to the French military. Check out their website here, some good pictures, very interesting.
I recall it happening in Vietnam also with an F-105 coming back with an R-13 (Sidewinder clone) stuck in its tail also. It happens all the time, and you don’t have to carry a ton of armour to survive a direct direct hit from a missile. What’s probably more important is a high level of redundancy and backup systems, along with having twin engines and twin tailed – I should think a Su-34 would normally survive a direct hit from a IR MANPADS in the tail no problem especially with such a massive and dense structure of any FLANKER derivative. An F-15E should do ok too.
The warhead on a Stinger or Igla is just too small to be effective on such tough targets.
Gee bazv, you’re going to see more of Ireland than most Irishman ever do – I didn’t get to travel ‘West of the Shannon’ till I was thirty years old myself!:o
Gee bazv, you’re going to see more of Ireland than most Irishman ever do – I didn’t get to travel ‘West of the Shannon’ till I was thirty years old myself!:o
Reality check:
More then one Su-25 survived a direct missile hit by a modern shoulder launched SAM and survived in Georgia only two years ago. Not because the SAMs were faulty, but because the plane was designed to do so.
And when speaking about attack/close support aircraft, R-73 or S-300 isn’t relevant.
There have been many photos like that, of aircraft returning from missions riddled with holes – one of my favourite been that of the french air force Jaguar returning from a raid during Desert Storm with half its tail blown of by an Iraqi SA-14.
Such photos don’t prove how invulnerable combat aircraft are to MANPADS and AAA – in fact they prove quite the opposite, most of the Russian AF planes shot down by the Georgians were Su-25s…
Originally Posted by dionis
But here’s the catch! They test the TOR and Pantsyr against OTHER SAMS! That’s not some glide bomb, that’s a Mach 2+ flying object. And they practice firing at salvos. At last MAKS, it was 100% success.
See, exactly my point!:cool: What chance has a Su-34 got when it gets pumped by 50 rounds from the Pantsir’s 30mm?
Personally, I’d say the Su-34’s armour is a holdover remaining from a 1980s very ‘old school’ Soviet AF cold war requirement. Tell me, how much armour do the Su-30, Su-35 or MiG-35 carry?:rolleyes:
For Americans war is a business. For Russian – tragedy
And that’s exactly what the Indian tax payer must be thinking… everytime the Russians hike up the price of that aircraft carrier they were supposed to have delivered to the Indian navy by now!;)
Paralay, really?:rolleyes:
The F-15E was not designed and introduced into service to fight Iraq or Serbia. It was created to fight the Warsaw Pact – an entity with considerably more air defences than NATO, including the USA, ever had.
I have a video showing what even a small missile like a PAC-3 can do to a fighter. It damn near tore a Phantom in two.
And that’s exactly my point, all types of modern anti-aircraft missiles air or land launched, are so accurate, reliable, and effective no aircraft has a chance against a direct hit, do they? Su-25 had little chance against Pakistani AIM-9P (or was it’ AIM-9N?) of 30 years ago, what chance against AIM-9X? What chance has an A-10 and its titanium bathtub against R-73 or S-300?
Su-34 might be better off replacing a ton of armour for extra EW capability?:confused:
Does JHMCS and aim9x negate super maneuverability; canards and tvc?
What exactly is ‘super maneuverabilty’?
Is there any actual generally agreed definition for it to explain it, or are we just talking about performing Cobras at airshows?:confused:
Sounds a bit like another catch phrase in the style of ‘Stealth’ – much bandwidth expended talking about it, even if people say exactly what it is.:rolleyes:
Are the Eurocanards all that more ‘maneuverable’ than the F-16 or F/A-18 anyway…?:confused:
I read recently that the armour on the Su-34 weighs close to a ton and a half… is it really?:eek:
Question is, why? If it’s going to be used as a stand-off bomber, long range precision attack, SEAD etc, what good is the armour against the associated remaining threats (various AAMs and the ‘bigger’ SAMs) The A-10 and Su-25 might be well protected against 12.62mm ‘Dushkas’ and IR MANPADS, but does anyone really think that both armoured pigs could survive an attack by a F-16 or MiG-29? Is bolting armour plate on to a plane going to protect it againt a double digit SAM or even an I-Hawk?:confused:
Two Su-34 participated in war with Georgia, they worked as planes of radio-electronic struggle. One surface-to-air missile system “Buk” has been destroyed by rocket Х-31 started with Su-34
Have you got a source for that? Has the Russian Ministry of Defence made an official announcement about this, showing photos of destroyed BUK installations etc…;)
In these test the F-15A beat the F-5 64-0 in 1V1. As the number of aircraft increased the kill ratio came down so by the time you get thirty-two or more aircraft on each side the F-15A had a kill ratio over the F-5 of only 2:1!! The unseen shooters were making the kills.
Surely it should be 16 F-5s versus 32 F-15s? Half of the F-5s (or MiG-21s) should have already been blown out of the sky by the F-15s’ BVR weapons, Sparrow, amraam, etc?:confused: