Adrian_44RE: F-15, F/A-18
Adrain if you read what i said, the Russians do acknowledge Iraqi MiG-25 were shot down by the Iranians they say these were MiG-25R
however i have not seen those fotos you affirm exist
I agree, and a large percentage of the kills during the Iran/Iraq War are acknowledged by the other side. I do know the IRIAF claims one confirmed MiG-25PD shot down on December 04, 1982 and an unconfirmed kill on July 03, 1986. I don’t know if the IRAF agrees or disagrees with these two claims?
i hope this is not the video you claim shows scenes of MiG-25s being shot down
Thank you for the You Tube video and no, it is not the one from Hot Flying (AW&ST video). This video was taken by the US Navy’s F-14A of an Libyian MiG-25. I remember when this happened back in the mid-1980’s and how th US Navy celebrated this gun camera footage because it appears there is nothing the MiG-25 pilot can do to get away from the F-14A.
The two USAF dogfights on the AvLeak video were with Iraqi aircraft during the PGW#1 occurred during the day. One was four F-15C’s being challenged by two MiG-23’s and one MiG-25. These three interceptors were approaching the F-15C’s from three different directions. The other was a 4V2 between two MiG-25’s and four F-15C’s, with the MiG-25’s rising to intercept the F-15’s. The most interesting part of the second video was “Bitchin’ Betty” (the female computer warning voice) announcing “Bingo Fuel”, just as the MiG-25’s were crossing the BVR/WVR boundary area. The lead F-15 pilot asked , “is anybody in burners?” One flight member answered “afirm.” Then the flight leader ordered, “everybody out of burners” and the fight continued.
I recorded the video “Hot Flying” off the Discovery Channel shortly after the PGW#1. About five years later I received a prerecorded video from AvLeak as a Christmas present, only to be surprised and disappointed to find the video had been changed and the two dogfights had been excluded.
I wish when it comes to confirmed kills or acknowledgments of aircraft lost or damaged, that there is one position or source of which would formally speak for all the air forces of a particular country. To me a good example of the many sources for kill information is the first night of the PGW#1, when an F/A-18C was shot down by a MiG-25PD. First claim of loss was by the US Navy that a SAM killed the F/A-18C. Two years later the USAF announced that the AWACS’ ESM gear had picked the MiG-25PD’s radar lock-on signal and credits the kill to the MiG-25PD, using a R-40T Missile. The Iraqi Air Force had not previously credited any pilots with a kill for that conflict.
Concerning the dogfights between MiG-25’s against F-14’s or F-15C’s after the PGW#1, many missiles of three different types (Sparrow, Phoenix and, Slammer) were fired in these encounters without any success. I have found no hard evidence, I have read only ‘speculation’ that the MiG-25’s used new jamming equipment.
Such sentence like “.. MiG-25RB Syria carried out a number of successful reconnaissance flights over the territory of Israel and southern Lebanon..” did proof what?!
Keep in context the Israeli Military in general and its air force in particular had a reputation of invincibility. Recce flights over portions of Israeli airspace showed there is some weakness in the IAF’s air defense. A badly needed moral boost.
All that people do the Russians no favour to stick to such “truth”.
Non do claim that the Russian fighters were bad ones. But ignoring the limitations and use that in a wrong way did led to disaster more than once.
Deny that disaster and blame the other side of similar bad behavior may give a better personal feeling, but it will change nothing really. It is just a question of time, when the truth about that will surface.
Very well put!
After 2003 none will prevent former Iraqi pilots to speak or write about their former combat experiences and related details. They are not in need to expose their real identity, when presenting that to foreign writers/publishers. It seems, that there is not a lot around to speak off.
I am glad to find that they are finally speaking out. Some want to remain in hiding while others are willing to speak in the open.
Finally, ‘MiG-23MLD’ keep the volumns of information coming, I don’t agree with all of it but, it does give me a perspective I would not get otherwise. “I was born ignorant, I don’t want to die that way!”
Adrian
Adrian_44F-15, F/A-18
However by confirmed you have no pictures just statements and that has been mostly all the time later they say confirmed as if there were independent observers the one who have confirmed it.
Actually, there are many pictures plus video. The slaughter over the Bekaa Valley was covered by the Lebanese mass media with video and photos. There were many people interviewed who saw the wreckages as it fell.
The confirmed kills always means they claimed confirmed but who confirmed them?
Many times it is historians who go back and check not only the incidents but also whether the maintenance records. If a plane is thought to have been shot down and suddenly the maintenance records cease after that date, that is a damn good indications the report of the plane being shot down is valid.
I have not seen Iraqi MiG-25 wreckages from the Iran iraq war
Two MiG-25’s were shown to have been shot down on gun camera on one of the earlier versions of the Aviation Week video, “Hot Flying.”
the F-15 has achieved success against the MiG-29 becasue simply it has superiority in numbers it was an upgraded version against an early 1980s MiG-29A version
The MiG-29 has always been playing “catch-up” compared to its Western counter-parts. It was granted “full operational status” in 1985 while the F-15A became operational in November of 1974, the F-16A in January of 1979 and, the F/A-18A in May of 1980 (carrier operations). The MiG-29 started the same time the F-16 and F/A-18 programs started but, the MiG-29 took far longer, due to designing problems. Not as severe as the Su-27.
the MiG-29 started operational service in 1986 it means they displayed it in the West the same year, in 1986 the MiG-29 flew to Finland as a part of a friendly visit, it does not sound logic since the Soviet Union was a secretive nation
The MiG-29/RAM-L was known about long before its first flight. In early 1984, Air Force Magazine, AW&ST, and Jane’s published retouched copies of the earlier satellite photo’s of both the Su-27 (RAM-K) and the MiG-29 (RAM-L).
As you can see old MiG-29s can fight on a one to one basis, but outnumbered, without AWACs and no R-77s is easy to see why they could not achieve success
The MiG-29 did not have AWACS but they did have GCI. They did not have R-77’s but, most all MiG-29 were shot down by F-15’s were with Sparrow Missiles, the counter-part to the Alamo which was available to the MiG-29. The F-15 has nine kills against MiG-29’s four with Slammers and five with Sparrow Missiles. This is as of the year 2000.
There also was an interface problem between the Alamo Missile (AA-10) and the fire control systems of Russian design aircraft.
Source?
I first read about it over in the “Air-Launched Weapons” section of ACIG, about three years ago. The posting stated the missiles could not be launched when closure speed was high. I was not able to find any additional information so, I checked all the dogfights between the American aircraft and Soviet designed aircraft from the mid-1980’s to 2000, recordings, transcripts, MP3 files, etc. In all cases, the US aircraft work to charge head-on and kill the Soviet designed aircraft before the merge. In all the cases since the mid-1980’s, none of the Soviet designed aircraft fire a missile prior to the merge which is where they died, never getting to the merge. It doesn’t matter whether it was an F-15’s versus a MiG-29’s, F-16’s versus the MiG-29, the F-16 versus the MiG-25 or, F/A-18’s versus MiG-21’s. It all plays out the same way, the US aircraft charges head-on and fires missiles and kill before the merge and no missile is fired Soviet designed aircraft. As though they are waiting until after the merge to start combat.
It’s easy to forget under what cirumstances the serbian fighters were operating.
This was same situation the MiG-21’s of North Viet Nam operated under. Part of the MiG-29’s failures comes from inept Serbian GCI. Against the Su-27, the MiG-29 faired no better than against the F-15.
Had the Cold War gone hot in 1989, there would have been the #500+ F-14A’s, #1,000+ F-15C’s, #2,500+ F-16C’s (for NATO) and, #500+ F/A-18A’s of American air forces that would provided a large percentage of NATO air forces.
Allready discused before,and found that your numbers are totally wrong.
I would suggest you inform Janes Book of Aircraft, their annuals of 1988 and 1990 have incorrect information. These numbers are directly from their books! I do have (but would have to search for) the production listing of the F-15’s from the Janes Annual. It list how many aircraft in what blocks, what years and which air forces received what models. I can look through my photostatic copies of Janes materials should you want greater detail.
The USAF had #1,247 F-16’s in the USA by 12/87 plus what F-16’s NATO countries had.
The US Navy had #557 F-14A’s by 12/89. Plus F-14B’s
The US Navy had #243 F/A-18C’s and #81 F/A-18D’s plus additional F/A-18A’s and F/A-18B’s.
If you have a more authoritative source than Janes Annuals, I would like to hear about it?
Adrian
Adrian_44Super Hornet
Perhaps, but they are still flying A-4s off of a Brazilian carrier 50 years later!
Yes, like the Harrier, MiG-21, F-5, A-4, etc., these aircraft are combat capable. The only problem is that they would suffer high losses in a ‘high threat’ environment.
Are you talking about the change from the YF-22 to the F-22A? Thats not a picture of the YF-22 that flew.
No, this is a picture of the YF-22, the semi-finalist along with the YF-23 that had the elimination of five contractors for the ATF contract and placed Lockeed and Northrop as semi-finalist. The re-design (from July to October 1987) that completely changed the fuselage, wings and tail structure.
Now, there were changes made to the design from the test aircraft to the production aircraft. Things like moving the cockpit more forward, the size of the vertical stabilizer was changed a little, etc. but, nothing major.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15, F/A-18
The main reason why American 4th generation aircraft had to content with blowing Soviet 2/3 generation aircraft out of the sky during the last decade of the Cold War was because there was no such thing as a Soviet built 4th generation figher to be found anywhere around the world for much of this timeframe!
Both the F-14 and F-15 were in service ten years ahead of the MiG-31 and Su-27
respectively.
Levsha, you are correct. The MiG-29A became operational in March of 1985 while the Su-27 became operational with the PVO in November of 1986 and with the V-VS in mid 1988. By January 1989 there were #450 MiG-29’s operational and #210 Su-27’s by 1990. The WP air forces were comprised of over #3,500 MiG-21’s and MiG-23’s.
Had the Cold War gone hot in 1989, there would have been the #500+ F-14A’s, #1,000+ F-15C’s, #2,500+ F-16C’s (for NATO) and, #500+ F/A-18A’s of American air forces that would provided a large percentage of NATO air forces.
since the Bekka valley to the GWI the F-15 was challenged by MiG-29s and Su-27s
The F-15’s have not met the Su-27 yet, anywhere. The only fourth generation aircraft the Su-27 has met is the MiG-29! Part of the reason the MiG-29 has a negative kill ratio, 11:38!
In 1982 Israel had dead and captured POW pilots, in 1991 the Western alliance did too, in
Over the Bekaa Valley, only one IAF fighter was shot down, an F-4 SEAD plane. The Syrian Air Force makes one claim of killing an F-15. A MiG-23 fired a missile and damaged a F-15 but, the plane in question made it back to it to a safe base -no air to air kill.
[QUOTE=MiG-23MLD;1170426]1999 over the former Yugoslavia there were also western pilots shot down however the motto has been say SAMs have killed our aircrafts or accidents in the best case of course accidents in the combat zone, the F-15 is invencible in air to air combat/QUOTE]
Actually, the Serbian Air Defense (JRViPVO) does not make these claims about air to air kills, those claims are made by th Russian Air Force officers! It was also the Russians who claimed the F-117 was shot down by a MiG-29. Col. Dani Zoltan on March 27, 1999, commanded the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade said, they used SAM-3 Goa Missile to kill the F-117. The F-117 he shot down was only 13Km (8⅛mi) away from the mobile radar site. The F-117 stealth fighter shot down on the fourth day of the air campaign.
There also was an interface problem between the Alamo Missile (AA-10) and the fire control systems of Russian design aircraft. The reason you look at all the encounters between USA and USSR fighters, the US fighters charge head-on at the USSR fighters, firing missiles and killing the Soviet designed fighters as they approach the merge. In almost all these cases, the Soviet designed aircraft never fired a missile at the head-on charging American designed aircraft. Investigate the dogfights of;
01/04/89 F-14A kills two Libyian MiG-23’s
01/18/91 F/A-18C’s kill two MiG-21’s.
12/27/92 F-16C kills an Iraqi MiG-25 (first Slammer kill)
03/24/99 F-15C kills one Serbian MiG-29
03/24/99 F-16C kills one Serbian MiG-29
03/26/99 F-15C kill anther two Serbian MiG-29’s
Etc., etc….. There are transcripts and MP3 files on the Internet of each of these dogfights (NOTE 1).
I have not seen a single MiG-25 shot down niether evidence of it, of 1982 air to air combat with F-15s
There have been many. Iranian F-4’s and F-14’s have killed MiG-25’s. F-14’s have nine confirmed kills and two unconfirmed kills. There are photographs of wreckage of MiG-25’s killed by the Iranian AF.
The Israeli AF makes no claims on MiG-25’s during the campaign over the Bekaa Valley. In other combat there are claims of MiG-25 kills.
Have the Users of F-15 admitted F-15 losses? yes the USAF has, have they acknowledged air to air lossses basicly not directly but the USAF has sometimes leave the door open to that possibility.
There are only three countries that have F-15’s that have seen combat, the Israeli, the Saudi Arabia, and the US Air Forces. Only one air force has any claims against its F-15’s and that is Israel. All F-15 combat has occurred outside the border of Israel. So wreckage should be able to be found easily yet…. no F-15 wreckage has ever been found. I don’t know about where you live but, where I live aircraft wreckage falling out of the sky is news worthy. There are several TV networks that will pay big money if you have any evidence of F-15 wreckage after there has been any aerial combat in the surrounding region.
Adrian
Dogfight Files (NOTE 1):
Mike’s Dogfight Recording & Transcript Page
http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/dirk.html
F-16 Falcon Engine Fire Persian Gulf, 1991
http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/benji.html
First AMRAAM KILL against Foxbat E MiG.-25 -27 Dec 1992 by Capt. Gary North in one of two F-16D’s (Blk #42)
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/amraamsrc.htm
F-16 Falcon Shootdown Over Kosovo, 1999
http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/serbia.html
Adrian_44RE: Super Hornet
What is the cost of an A-4 compared to a F-35? (even accounting for inflation).
A valid comparison can not be made here because the A-4 Skyhawk was designed with a minimalist attitude using proven technology while the F-35 was designed to be state of the art in almost every phase of its design. The A-4 was not designed to have a long service life since America (and the USSR) were designing new aircraft every couple of years. The F-35 is designed to have at least a twenty year lifespan. It could be the last manned American attack fighter with UCAV’s being its successor!
It depends on when you reckon design began. The start of formal, authorised design? The sketch of a concept?
Design of the F-14 formally began in January 1966
The studies on the various configurations that lead to the F-14A, started back in 1966 but, the configuration that was settled on and of which the contract was signed on was in 1969.
This brings up another point, the Su-27/T-10 program started in 1969 with the contract signing but, the real work did not truly begin until after the KGB and GRU provided Sukhoi the complete set of specifications for the F-14A and F-15A. The Su-27’s target parameters were to be better than either American aircraft’s individual parameters by ‘at least’ ten percent! This is why it took so long to field the first operational units, mid-1986 for the PVO and 1988 for the V-VS.
The Rafale that flew at the 1986 Paris Air Show is not the same animal that is in production now. The same is true with the F-22. The YF-22 had a complete re-design from July to mid-October of 1987. (Before the re-design, the YF-22 looked like a modified F-117.) Plus both programs were greatly affected by the ending of the Cold War. Otherwise both aircraft would have become operational in the mid-1990’s.
Adrian
The picture is of the YF-22 before the design change, it looks like a modified F-117.
Adrian_44RE: Super Hornet
A-4? A-7? F-8?
The Navy didnt have a problem with those apparantly. This no-single-engine-jet-idea is in reminiscence of the F-16/F-17 thing iirc. The Navy didnt want the F-16 so they absolutely needed two engines. As if there were no other reasons.
The USAF wanted the F-16 for their own reasons and didn’t care what the Navy wanted, especially with the Navy not buying the F-111 while the USAF was stuck by contract to purchase them.
The Navy did not want the F-16 because of all the changes that would have to be made in order to make it compatible with carrier operations. Some of the changes between the land based F-16 (Model #1600) and the aircraft carrier version (Model #1601) were;
1) The fuselage is stretched, both forward and aft.
2) The wingspan is wider and each wing has a increase in area of 57 square feet.
3) The flaps are larger.
4) The distance between the trailing edge of the wing to the stablator is greater.
5) The area of the stablator is greater and the width is greater.
6) The fuselage area ahead of the cockpit is broader.
7) The chord of the wing is longer.
8) It would be powered by the P&W401 engine.
9) The stablators are larger in area and their span is greater.
10) The Navy version of the F-16 would be manufactured by LTV!
Plus materials in many areas would have to be changed to deal with the “salt water enviroment.” After all these changes, the performance of the F-16N would be significantly degraded, far more than a modified YF-17.
Aviation Week Magazine had two issues with articles on the changes involved. There were the issues of Jan. 20, 1975 Pg 28 and Jan. 27, 1975 Pg 17.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Super Hornet
General comment: Stumbled across this:
Chapter Report, 06/18/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-98
This was a very damming report. I can’t think of another report on a fighter that was as negative as this report. I read the report and I can’t think of anything of substance, in which the E/F outperformed the C/D.
The main point is to be substantially faster than your opponent, not just an arbitrary limit (why mach 1.5?)
Because the ability to have aerial combat throughout history has takened place well below Mach 1.0.
The Ault Report found over eighty percent of aerial combat has taken place between 250mph to 450mph, altitudes between 15,000feet to 30,000feet. These were the major parameters that was to govern the lightweight fighter program. The Super Hornet was started as a modification of the F/A-18A-D, that was to have seventy percent commonality with the new E/F. It is this last requirement that restricted so much the design of the E/F. In the end the E/F shared only a thirty percent commonality with the A/D!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15, F/A-18
Has any bothered to look back in 1975 when McDD proposed an upgraded F-4 Phantom 2 as an alternative to the high priced F-14A. The F-4 had LEX that changed position depending on the need. Paperwork was done on how much the performance would improved with higher thrust engines.
They went so far as to have a fly-off! It was not even close, the F-14 outmaneuvered the F-4 in the horizontal and vertical planes. Even when the F-4 was allowed to start at the F-14’s “six”, the F-14 was able to completely shake the F-4 in less than twenty seconds. When the F-14 started on the F-4’s “six”, the F-14 kept the gun piper on the F-4 until the exercise was called off. That ended McDD’s efforts to get the US Navy to look at the F-4 again.
I wouldn’t want to count on the target always being head on. Its also always better to shoot down the target sooner
The greatest threat to the fleet will be approaching the carrier. The best opportunity to kill the threat will come meeting it head-on as far away from the carrier as possible.
There will be a need for the F-14 until the last Backfire is melted down.
I agree but, the civilian leadership controlling the money are the ones who are short sighted. The Backfire even in limited numbers can still be a threat and let us not forget the Blackjack!
The AIM-120 is sophisticated, but it does not have the range and hitting power of an AIM-54.
The AIM-120D will have comparable range.
the argument that you can operate more of a cheaper fighter only works for the Air Force.
The economics are the same. You can fit more LWF’s on an airbase than a carrier but, that requires more people and all the other expenses. Money is what governs everything.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: f/a-22 range
does any one have any iea..about range (both subsonic and supersonic)
The specs of the ATF call for the F-22 (or YF-23) to be able to have a radius of 800 miles. This would allow it to fly from bases in the UK and cover Central Europe. The specs also call for the F-22A to supercruise at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet for a total 600 miles. But, if the F-22 is based 410 miles from the “forward edge of the battle area” (FEBA) with no tanker support can supercruise for only 100 miles after crossing the FEBA.
Again, this spec was at 50,000 feet and the F-22A has been cleared for flight operations at 65,000 feet. I have no idea as to how an increase in altitude will affect the range.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15, F/A-18
I guess for many, the debate about the range of the F/A-18 in general and against the F-14 in specific comes down to;
1) The F-14 in the fleet defense mission, the outer air defense zone could and would be defended. The retirement of the F-14, the US Navy felt it could no longer adequately defend the outer air defense zone. It would now defend the middle and inner air defense zone with the F/A-18’s.
Had the Cold War turned hot, the F-14A’s would have intercepted enemy bombers in the outer defense zones while the F/A-18A/D’s would deal with the ‘leakers’ in the middle defense zone.
This has nothing to do with Hollywood’s perception of the F-14 but, rather how the Navy felt and was prepared to defend the fleet with its airborne assets.
2) That during the PGW#1, the F/A-18A/D’s received more fuel from airborne tankers than any other coalition aircraft. This was shown to be embarrassing when comparing USMC F/A-18 to USAF F-16’s flying from the same airbases with similar weapon’s loads and ranges to the targets. This was a real wartime situation where the F-16 and F/A-18 were going head to head.
I do have one real complaint with the F/A-18 community, I can not think of another air community that has done a worst job in promoting its aircraft!! At the Salinas (Ca) Air Show 2001 I got a chance to talk to an F/A-18F pilot who had recently converted from the F-14B. He told me of the numerous advantages in radar modes the pilot could control in the E/F that were very helpful to him as a pilot of which he did not have in the F-14. That in today’s world, the higher bring back load offered tremendous flexibility. I told him from what he told me he had a good aircraft but, that I felt the “community” did a very poor job of promoting their aircraft!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15, F/A-18
When the Tomcat is in delta config, it will lose energy quite quickly.
When the F-14 is in the fully swept wing configuration, it is performing in a manor of which it can’t in an unswept configuration. Speeds above Mach 1.2 and 22,000 feet fully swept wings is the only way decent performance can be achieved.
The F-18 has lower wing loading.
That is not an absolute, it depends on where in the flight envelope you are talking about. The F-14A could have a minimum wing loading under 90lbs per square foot.
Too much gold-plating. What for did they need Sparrow on the F-18A?
Not for what the Navy needed the F/A-18 for. Looking back at what the F-16 has become, what was gold plating back then is now considered necessities. Jamming equipment, ARH missile, HMDS/HOB missiles, low level light, IRST systems are no longer expensive extras. So, they were not building gold plated features but, rather having a far sighted people in responsible positions. Twenty years from now, how many features on the F-22 and F-35 will be necessary equipment?
Congress actually obliged the Navy to buy the LWF winner. They didn’t. Now they have to stick with it.
Like the TFX program, the Advanced Day Fighter (ADF) contract was written in a manor in which the Navy was not locked into the contract. So, the Navy decided not to purchase the F-111 and the USAF wanted out but, discovered their contract was written differently and the USAF was obligated to purchase the first couple of blocks of the F-111. The USAF and Navy were supposed to agree on one of the two ADF candidates. The USAF liked the YF-16 because it shared many parts with the F-15. The USAF chose the YF-16 (Model #1401) without fully considering how badly changes to the YF-16 for carrier operations would affect performance (Model #1400).
The Navy’s needs for a fighter was quite different than what the USAF needed. The Navy needed a light attack aircraft to replace the A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair 2. The fighter-interceptor to replace the aging F-4 Phantom 2 and was also needed to back-up the F-14 for fleet defense. In this second role, an aircraft that could fire the Sparrow Missile, for the protection of the fleet was needed. As a fighter the Navy needed more than a day time fighter.
The YF-17 was originally supposed to be produced in two separate variants. One a fighter (the F-18) and the other an attack aircraft (the A-18). Flight computer improvements made it possible to combine the two aircraft with flight characteristics that differed for the two different roles thus, the F/A-18.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: The F-16 concept versus its rivals
I think the F-16 is not a F-15E counterpart, only the Su-27 can be called an F-15E equivalent however the Su-27 is a semi hybrid of the F-15 and F-16.
No, the Su-27 had original specs to be at least 10% better than the F-14A and F-15A. The Su-27 is larger than its American counterparts. This requirement to be at least 10% better than the Americans is in part, the reason it took so long to develope the Su-27. All three aircraft programs started in 1969. The F-14A became operational in March of 1974. The F-15A became operational Nov. 14, 1974, while the Su-27 became operational with the PVO in Nov. 1985 and the V-VS in mid 1988.
The limited radar ability and no BVR ability in the early models was so as not to be a threat to F-15 procurement. I.E. what if the USAF could get by without spending money on expensive air to air only F-15s?
The USAF considered the F-16 a threat to the F-15, not because it was but, because Congress lacked the sophistication to tell the difference. Reguardless of weapons, the F-16 was never designed to deal with the MiG-25 (and the like) at altitude. The F-16A was designed to be a daylight fighter. It is the pods and additional equipment that made the F-16 the all around fighter we know today.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Can planes get any better?
Rostislave Belyakov Chief Designer for Sukhoi stated in an interview that the Su-27 is capable of withstanding 13G’s.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Three questions about radars
Can the F-22 detect that he has been detected
Yes, and the ALR-94 can determine the transmission source’s range (time of arrival technique) and angular accuracy of ±2º. Accurate enough to target a Slammer Missile to the target!
if you don’t have the emitter characteristics in your database, you can conclude little.
If the ALR detects hostile emissions, but doesn’t have an entry in it’s database on that particular emitter, it can’t approximate the range
That is what “air intelligence” is all about. Obtaining information without ever encountering the potential enemy. Remember, by 1986 the KGB/GRU had provided the Soviet AF commanders the complete specs for the F-117, they thought the information was ‘mis-information’ from Lockeed! The commanders did not believe the intelligence estimates until Jan. 1991, then they believed the reports.
Using signal levels alone to determine the range will get you nowhere
Power level is just one element in determining detection range. Knowing the RCS of your aircraft, the power level, frequency, characteristics, etc. all go to making a fairly accurate estimate as to the range at which your aircraft can be detected.
The F-22 has an offensive display screen and a defensive display screen. Symbology on the screens shows circles around ground radar sites at which the F-22 can be detected and a cone shaped area in from of a fighter symbol that indicates how far away the F-22 can be detected. So the pilot can determine what tactics he will use.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: state of the Israeli Air Force
Janes Book of Aircraft 2005/2006 credits the Israeli AF with 280 F-16’s (of all variants), after the F-16I’s are delievered. They also stated that the Egyptian AF has 220 F-16’s.
Adrian
Sign In
