Ok rite, if you have ever seen what a golf ball looks like (in detail), it has loads and loads of dents covering its surface (an almost if you like honeycomb surface) and apparently these so called “dents” act to create some sort of aerodynamic efficiency to the golf ball’s ability to reuce drag as it flies thorugh the air. My question is that, would future wing designs incoporate such a technique as to reduce drag on commercial aircraft? It would be weird to see dents in the wing of a plane that you may be travelling on, and also perhaps a bonus for your photo collection! But does this provide a new concept to aerodynamic efficiency? Does this have a place in the aviation industry? :confused:

Please check the internet for the word “Reynolds number”.

You cant defeat the U.S, It is impossible. And russia is no longer a superpower, They cant even afford to pay their pilots anymore. And most of their aircraft have not recieved spare parts in decades. And china will not do anything against the u.s since they are not a superpower either, China needs the U.S more then the U.S needs them. China’s eco relies on the U.S outsourcing too much. And china is not willing to risk this on a Dumpster Like Iran.

Ey man, don’t tell them the truth. They don’t like it. That is the reason they start threads like
– How to bring down a B-2
– How Iran can conquer the whole world with brave die-happy revolutionaries
– How many devilish intruders have been downed by heros in MiGs
– How did the USA plan 9/11
…….

If it comes to the decision to
– either back the USA and Europe against Iran
– help Iran against USA and Europe indirectly or directly,
the decision is easy.

Iran will be dropped like a hot potato. That is the problem of China and Russia: They are so dependand on the west, because their economy is totally focussed on exports. Some may argue, that China would need the Iranian oil. Though, they do, but to pay it they need US Dollars which have to be earned with cheap Walmart stuff. China is definetly no world power although it is gaining momentum (China has less GDP than Germany and the Euro zone has more than three times as much, funnily nobody considers Germany a superpower).
Russia made a very quick step down to a weak regional power, at the moment struggling to keep its influence at the edges (Ukrain, Czenyia, Georgien).

But man, please don’t say it too loud.

Sending young men, their fathers and their fathers’ fathers to missions that would be considered
100% deadly, is not Not valuing your countrymen. It is absolute bravery in facing an enemy that
does not hesitate for a moment to use chemical weapons, supplied by the US, use intelligence
about your position and battle planes, supplied by the US, or modern weapons, supplied by the
US. When the alternative is surrendering your country to an animal called Saddam, who,
hopefully, will do some good to the preservation of the California Condors by being hung by his
little balls from a tree. After all Vultures have more value than that scumbag.

Obviously the Iranians are brave and proud to die for their country. AND, that does not mean
they are suicidal, just that they value their Homeland more than their lives. I do believe it is
general knowledge the cowardice and death-phobia of the Americans, and the “westerners” in
general.

Iran will not send its highly trained pilots to kill themselves for one lousy plane, regardless of its
value. Clearly the Iranians learnt that no one on this planet can trust the Americans for anything,
except Israel. Who everybody that knows, knows they run just about every “western”
government, and then some.

Enough of the rhetoric.

Realistically, with what the Iranians have, there must be a way to stop what is known to be
coming regardless of the sophistication of the weaponry.

That is disgusting. You are justifying the wastage of people. Iran was offered peace in 1983 by Iraq, actually they choose to continue because they saw advantage. US did not support Iraq before that. Chemical weapons were not supplied by US. I am sure the Iranian government gave a s##t on the bravery of the 15 years old guys running through mine fields without weapons.

How about getting your head out of the cloud and stop propagating your misinformation.

Edit: The only soldiers in that war who had US delivered battle planes over their head (in hostile intention) were the Iraqis. Without the strong US support of the pre-revolutionary air force Iran would have been defeated in the air very fast. Never forget that!

Kapedani

That is not even a good historical defence of Israel`s claims, DeAgostini has better evidence and here there have been evidence to justify such claims, Krasnaya Zveda has the same credibility as any source while there are no pictures of wreckages or HUD film footage.

Why? Because you can not justify without hard evidence Israel`s claims supported by the West or Syria`s supported by Russia all this amounts to a war of words, in few words a war of Propaganda.

The very little amount of pictures and the disregard of Russsian or Syrian official claims in the West is not a real way to prove Israel`s claims, hard evidence is needed to accept an account as a truthful and accurate version of what really happened.

Actually, from what I see, the issue is settled and only few people remaining which are questioning the validity of Israel claims. They often use outdated overly quoted sources. Just recently read a Russian “source” which claims 30 American aircraft shot down in 1986 by Lybian air defence.
In WW2 normally the validation by another one or two pilots was sufficient to validate a claim. Of course captured pilot and wreck was stronger prove.

The intention behind the questioning of 1982, 1991 and 1999 are normally pretty easy to identify. I don’t think one should believe American and Israeli figures down to the single digit (the definition of “loss” is not standarized), but in general a write-off cannot be hidden for long.
In Israel one can easily count the aircraft and deduct the operational losses in the mean time.

Have fun counting – Israel’s Inventory:
http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/IAFinventory.html

Do it like the NVA did. Stage a mortar attack on the airbase. During the confusion of the attack, sappers sneak through the wire and destroy the airplanes with satchel charges.

How do you transfer the mortars to homeland USA, the place B-2s will stationed?

I personally never considered MiG-21 as very maneuvrable. The machine is long and slender, not exactly a layout for tight maneuvers. If you ever watched a MiG-21 doing display, you have surely noticed how slowly the thing turns..

The claim of manouverability is in my eyes mostly due to American pilots who were unable to outperform the MiG in the normally pretty short encounters, although the advantage of the MiG is not so big that it is inevitably decisive. The high number of downed American aircraft due to MiG was at first a reason of bad tactics and strategy.

The MiG proved its manouverability in the middle east conflicts, being a bit better than the Mirage III. However, here again tactics and strategy were most important, later the available missiles dominated the scene (1967 was a nearly pure gunfight).

Pilots who relied solely on the manouverability of their MiG-21 usually became the dead and captured pilots.

I just realized: This has nothing to do with Iran. Damned!

BTW: Is it “in” at the moment to open a personal thread on Iran, something like “Iranian Military Newspapers” or “Iranian Secret License Plates”. If Iran was a stock I would buy it. Why don’t they offer tourist trips to “hidden” airports. Since the USN phased out their Tomcats, they could earn millions with bringing them to airshows. Maybe some Mod can open a Forum specially dedicated to Iranian issues, with subfora about nuke, MiG, secret BS and of course, the all important TOMCAT.

Well I would play the game the american way:

Get some AWACS from Russia and as many Su-30 as possible with all the Long BVR missiles of mother Russia. Then I would keep them AWACS flying and have them Su-30s shooting at whatever comes its way. I bet you the US would not send any B2 unless all these air assets where destroyed first. So I would try to keep the attrition working for me……Also, I would have my submarine fleet on a do or die mission to sink a flattop and some cruise firing cruisers….keep the numbers high and the US would start looking for excuses to but out of Dodge…

You need three AWACS to have full coverage (6 to 8h shift). Additionally at least 24 Flankers (2 to 3h shift with 4 to 6 ship flight (2 or 3 CAP-flights)). To defend against a pretty conventional attack of BVR-fighters from one carrier (20 F-18Es) this is not sufficient.

They launch frontal attack on your line of Flankers. Not really engaging, but keeping them in a state of directed readiness. Then B-2 sneaks in and bombs your airport with JDAM, coming from an unexpected direction.

Did you notice that one B-2 is 600 Million USD, while having all thise defence assets, keeping them alert and trained is much more expensive. Who will then question the spending on this aircraft?