Adrian_44RE: B-58 Hustler compared to Soviet types(Blinder and Backfire)
> junipergoth
> how the american B-58 Hustler bomber compares to the Tupelov
> Blinder and leter Backfire(2versions) in speed, payload,
> range, electronic countermeasures(are soviet systems known
> about on the 2 Tupelov bombers yet?), radar and similar
> avionics capability
The B-58 was the first supersonic bomber back in Nov. 11, 1956. The Hustler had the disadvantage of carrying one weapon and flew at high altitude. The pod carried fuel in the upper portion and a nuclear weapon in the bottom section and after dropping its bomb, it could then speed away at Mach 2.0. This limited its tactics of which it could do. It is the least flexible. It had the highest speed capability and longest range of the three.
The Blinder was next in becoming operational in 1962 but, by 1969 there were only 300 Blinders. It had a shortest of the three in unrefueled range, slightly slower but, a larger and more versatile payload than the B-58.
The Backfire is the latest version of the Blinder and youngest of the three and its capabilities reflect it. It was first deployed in 1976 and it among the three is the only intercontinental bomber.
Now the Blackjack in comparison to the B-1 Lancer is faster at high altitude but much slower (by 40%) than the B-1 at sea level. The B-1 can hold Mach 1.2 when on its bomb run at sea level. The B-1 has been updated continuously so its avionics is the most likely to have the most advance. Still the few Blackjacks operational are very capable. The Blackjack is about 20% larger than the B-1 and its MTOW is about 30% heavier.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15 versus F-14
> F-15 versus F-14
> which is the top fighter?
Comparing the F-14A/D versus the F-15A/C the results are the same, the F-15 is a better as a dogfighter but, the F-14 is better as an interceptor. Which is why in three USAF studies, the F-14A was chosen #1, #2 F-15A, F-4E (with the Hornets radar &), #4 the F-16A. No mention of the F/A-18A in the three studies!
The studies concluded that the F-15A equipt with two AIM-54’s had less range & loiter time than the F-14A equipt with six AIM-54’s.
Their missions are so different even though they perform strike escort missions. The F-14 was designed to be “autonomous” while the F-15 was designed to be part of a “warfare system.”
The F-15 is designed to turn and burn while the F-14 is designed to take the missiles into “parameters” where a missile can be launched with a high PK.
> Wanshan
> Depends on whether you are comparing single seat ‘early’ F15A
> or ‘late’ twin seat F15E with twin seat F14 and for which role
> (air defense, strike, ground attack).
A very good point if you are talking a competition. Whereas it is not a competition. As a fighter escort they are capable of doing the job even though their jobs are different in the task of fighter escort!
The F-14 is designed to escort an attack group to go in and attack a target with the carrier’s airwing. The attack while it might be fairly large in size, say sixty aircraft will only spend a short time over the target. The F-15 was designed to escort a far larger strike package that is going to be over “bad guy land” for hours! Protecting deep penetrating aircraft (F-15E, Tornado, etc.), Wild Weasel aircraft and, EF-111’s. To control the skies well enough so the tankers and AWACS can operate as far forward as possible.
> Srbin
> So what. The F-14A proved to be quite a god air superiority
> fighter in the Iraq-Iran War, the same role F-15A was designed
> for originally. It doesnt really matter what tehy were
> originally designed for, but what they can actually do well.
It makes a difference when the amount of time over the target is greatly different. A carrier alpha strike will come and go but, the F-15’s will be among the first in and last out, many hours later.
> Rocky
> The F-14 has a lower effective wing loading. The F-15 has
> a higher thrust/weight ratio.
Under certain conditions, plus the F-14 can show its opponents its energy state by its wing sweep!
> The F-15 can out climb, and out accelerate the F-14. The
> F-15 has a better sustained turn rate.
The better T/W ratio plays a big part.
> I think it has a better roll rate too
This is the acchilles heel of the F-14! At lower speeds where the wings are unswept, its roll rate is low. At high speed -transonic and under 25,000 the F-14 rolls better then most other aircraft except maybe the F-15 and Su-27! The F-14’s corner velocity is Mach 1.2 at 20,000 feet.
> There was a great deal of inter-service rivalry involving
> the two aircraft. Design proposals were made on both sides
> of the fence, one being to modify the F-15 for Navy use,
> the other to modify the F-14 for Air Force use
Yes, this was the crux of the letter to the editor printed by Aviation Week and Space Technology (09/09/74 issue Pg 60), one of two of my letters AW&ST published.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: THE F-23 BLACK WIDOW/GRAY GHOST
> THAM
> This is the plane which the USAF should have chosen as their
> next-generation fighter – not the F-22
I feel the F-22 is the overall deserving winner, even though I was pulling for the F-23. There were many reasons the F-22 won the comptition.
Both aircraft had very similar performance except in low speed and altitude. [I guess the USAF figured that in a worst case scenario, such as a HVAA being attacked by a Su-47 as the F-22 is returning from its mission and all missiles expended, it will have a gun to use.] The USAF also wanted to be in the thrust vectoring control (TVC) field even though they had given Northrop permission to not have TVC on the
F-23. The USAF also liked the F-22’s conventional stick rather than the F-23’s side stick controller, several feet shorter in length, weighed less -cost factors. The F-23 was faster and stealthier but, its edge was not significant when you consider that the F-22 was well above the specs. Overall the USAF felt the F-22 had more for growth to the point Northrop is the prime contractor for the B-2 program and, the USAF is not happy with the B-2, its manufacturing and cost containment. This also affected the choice of the F-23.
A good example of how the USAF felt is the fact that when a new material was developed for the wing panels, the USAF decided to give up Mach 0.2 in top speed and Mach 0.1 in supercruise to use “bismaleimide” (BMI)! This material was more durable, far cheaper to produce and,
maunfacture. The liability is that the material is sensative to heat!
> The Gray Ghost’s air intake design deflects radar emissions
> better, and its exhausts hide its IR signature very effectively
This is the initial impression but, it is not true. The TVC is able to control its IR signature to the point that at 50,000 feet, Mach 1.2, the nose pitched up at 25º…. that enemy must be in the rear cone of ±60º in order to get a good IR signature. All the hot spots are in places that could not be detected unless you are in that cone. The F-22 is engineered so the hot spots on the wings are 25% of the way back along the chord, for that portion of the wing, not along the leading edge! All other leading edges are designed that way.
The USAF has stated no IR system or in developement can detect the F-22 at ranges greater than 18 miles!
> The engine the USAF should have chosen too should have been
> GE’s variable cycle F120, which far outperformed PW’s F119
The F119 seemed to work best with the F-22 while the F120 worked best in the F-23. The USAF were also felt the F119 had more room for growth than the F120. The USAF also plans that after several of the planned improvements the F-22 will meet the original specs of supercruising and performance of the ATF program! That being supercruising (near) Mach 2.0 at 60,000!
> I note that Northrop has always made superb aircraft which due
> to politics or otherwise, are not selected.
Northrops aircraft are not “gold plated” (having all the bells, buttons and, whistles), the USAF loves gold plated aircraft. The Navy doesn’t like Northrop because Jack Northrop told Congress that the USA did not need aircraft carriers, that “flying wings” loaded with A-bombs. So President Truman cancelled the first USS America even though the keel had been laid. [Part of the reason that in the conversion of the YF-17 to the F/A-18 McDD built the F/A-18 for the Navy and Northrop was to sell the F/A-18 -Land version.]
> Instantly Grumman was excluded from the ATF competition,
> because a forward swept wing doesn’t work without the canard
The technology was not mature, and the US Military had little confidence in technology. The FSW also can not tolerate combat damage to the wings.
> flex297
> the jury seemed to be overly impressed with YF-22’s man-to-
> machine interface, could have played some points in.
Yes, the USAF did like the cockpit more.
Either way, I personally feel the F-23 is “The Most Elegant” aircraft ever built!!
These combat maneuvers in which the F-22 and F-23 can do is something none of the Russian aircraft can do!! While these two can do all of the maneuvers that the new Russian aircraft can do!! These maneuvers are only good at low speed, below 450mph. Otherwise the G-load becomes excessive and the American aircraft are designed to fight well above Mach 1.4, something
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15 versus F-14
> Rocky
> They had a fly off between the two because congress wanted
> to save money by buying only one of the two. The F-15 won.
There waas no “fly-off” in fact Congress passed a law that prohibited ACM between the two fighters.
The two fighters from day one had entirely different philosophies on mission requirements.
The F-14A was designed to fly far from the carrier, stay on station for a while and provide air protection over large expanses of the sky. It had to do this with far greater autonomy than any previous fighter. To look into powerful jamming and still detect the enemy at a long enough distance to take effective action against the incomming missiles and or kill the bombers if possible. While it was designed to perform ACM well beyond the capabilities of third generation aircraft, its real strength was in using its missiles to engage its number one threat, the anti-ship missile carrying bombers. To kill the bombers at long range so if the bombers are being escorted by fighters, the F-14’s can kill the bombers without dealing with the fighter escorts.
The F-15A was designed to fight a lot closer ACM. To detect the enemy, kill him and, quickly move to the next target. All this was to occur near the BVR/WVR border.
The F-15 was designed to have support from AWACS, tankers and, jamming aircraft.
Each of the aircraft can accomplish some missions as well as the other aircraft but, basically these two aircraft are very different.
NORAD looked for an interceptor to replace the F-106 Delta Dagger and assigned the North Dakota NG to study the situation. The SD National Guard chose four possible aircraft;
1) The F-14A with six Phoenix Missiles
2) The F-15A with two Phoenix Missiles
3) The F-4H Phantom II with the AN/APG-66 radar
4) The F-16A
(Notice no mention was made about the F/A-18!)
> The F-15 has a better sustained turn rate.
It depends on altitude and speed. It is not a constant.
> I think it has a better roll rate too, but I’ve never
> seen the numbers.
At the slower speeds when the wings are not swepted back, the roll rate was/is poor.
> Wanshan’s
> Depends on whether you are comparing single seat ‘early’
> F15A or ‘late’ twin seat F15E
The comparison was mainly on the F-15A although the F-15B (two seat trainer) was also considered.
> Vortex
> F14…but it’s just too damn expensive
When all was said and done, block #1 of the F-14 was not much more expensive than the first block of the F-15. The F-15 did have the advantage of a greater production run which reduced the unit cost.
> the F14 out gun, out range, out manuevers, and out look
> the F15.
The F-15A could fight in the “vertical” far better than the F-14A. The F-14A used its swing wings to achieve better aerodynamics, especially in the horizontal. The F-15A had the brute force P&W F-100 engines
> Miroslav
> The F-15 is designed as air superiority fighter (not a
> pound for air to ground)
That was the cheer of the USAF but….. the engineers at McDD quickly saw the potential of the F-15 as a deep interdiction aircraft. While they desinged an air to air machine they always had a suplementary design for the “Mudhen!”
> Lightndattic
> The F-15 outmatches the TF30 powered F-14s in most aspects
The design of the F-14 was very complex so the Navy decided to use the TF-30 engines to lower the risk. As it turned out, the Navy was correct because not long after the F-15 was operational the engines were de-rated from 30,000 pounds thrust down to 25,000 pounds thrust.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-18E performance
> Rocky
> Does anyone have performance figures for the F-18E?
I found this report once before but for over two years have not be able to find it again. Thank you for printing the “heart” of the report. The GAO did a bunch of reports on the E/F and is it worth the money being spent on it.
Here is another URL that has a lot of information;
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns96098.htm
> The F-14 would have had more capability than the F-18E
The light weight fighter mafia wanted no part of a competition between an updated F-14 versus a new F/A-18 and the tax payer lost!!!
> the F-18E has a mission capable rate 00.5% better than
> a 30 year old F-14A
Yes but, the maintenance hours per flight hour were still very high compared to the F/A-18E/F.
The F/A-18 family during PGW#1 also took more fuel from airborne tankers than any other aircraft in the Coalition!
> frankvw
> GAO report questioning the cost effectiveness of the F/A-18 e/f
Thanks for the URL.
> Raygun
> how a mach 1.8 fighter going to doge a mach 3-4 missles?
It won’t by maneuvering! It will have to use ECM. The F-22 is the only aircraft that can maneuver extremely well at these speeds.
The problem with trying to maneuver at these speeds is the number of degrees per second is not high. The F-22 is different it can especially at high altitudes.
> the hornet better have alot of aim 120 onbroad….
As a interceptor, the F/A-18E/F will be a “missileer!” Its combat will be like the Navy’s version of the F-111 or the Tornado. It will not depend on maneuvering but, rather killing the enemy in BVR.
> Puffadder
> The F18E is a fine plane. Don’t listen to Frankvw.
There is a real problem with trying to find positive information about the F/A-18E/F. What the GAO showed is a real bad picture. The Boeing internal memo comparing the F-15E to the F/A-18E/F was a bloody mess. The only thing the E/F could do better than the F-15E was to land on a carrier! The F-15E has greater ranger, payload, better dogfighter by far and, cost less than the E/F!!
> AMRAAMs can be launched at separate targets with no limit,
Well, not quite. You still have launch parameters and the target must be within. In other words, you can’t roll at 60º per second and launch a missile at the same time.
> i would think this is not true at range since you do need
> that data link for that.
You only need the data link “if” the target makes a change in course. If the enemy is unaware that he has been fired on, his first knowledge of his danger is when his RWR goes off, he has only a couple of seconds to take effective action.
> The French guy will only tell you about those puny MICAs…
Smart money says before there was the Slammer, there were times US pilots who wished he had the Mica instead of the Sparrow!
The Slammer is the new missile, so it is espected to have better performance. One IDF/AF general stated, the reason the IAF is purchasing the Slammer even though they are producing the Derby, is because the Slammer has a longer range and the largest “no escape zone” of any missile in operation.
> The F18E has few supporters.
And they are “both” nice people! ;-}
> when is Flight International more accurate than the GAO ?
The GAO’s complaint is that, the E/F is not a good buy for the money. They did not say the improvements the E/F has is not good or needed.
> No Tomcat, A7, A6 or any other plane has close to the mix
> of capabilities that the F18E has.
The only reason the A-6 did not carry some of these weapons is because it was retire before they came online. When the A-6 was retired the carrier force lost it “real” offensive punch! The ability to carry eight tons plus almost severn hundred miles.
The retirement of the F-14D means the US carriers can no longer attack targets up near the northern Afhganistani border. The F/A-18 family does not have the range with mid-air refueling over the Indian Ocean/Bay of Bengal to hit targets north of Kabul.
> The F18E is the perfect one plane solution for the Yanks.
I have always wondered if the US Navy had gone in with the French Navy and gottened the Rafale.
> Castro
> there might be people on this board that have real-life
> experience of modern combat jets, may it be as engineers,
> technicians or pilots. Not everyone wants to go public on
> their profession and experience.
Post a request for people to list their occupations maybe, something about themselves.
> legolas
> we can just compare the performance and stuff. nothiing more
Don’t be so sure. On a web board that no longer exist, a Russian woman who loved aviation was going back to Russia to her family and her husband had saved up the $10,000 to get a one hour ride on a Su-27!
> Sens
> Every modern AAM can outperform a fighter with ease.
Well true but, that does not mean a fighter can not maneuver to force the missile to miss the intercept point.
> A close dogfight is still subsonic down to corner-speed.
> But this is no good idea any longer the modern AAMs
> in mind.
It depends on where the corner velocity is. The corner velocity for;
The F-14 –Mach 1.2 at 20,000
The F-15 –Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.1 at 30,000 feet
The Su-27 and family is in the same transonic region.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Winningest Fighter
> flex297
> Adrian, there is a very good article about the 2001
> incident at ACIG, namlely the Israeli-Syrian Shadow Boxing
> by Tom Cooper
> http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_437.shtml
Thank you for the information, I read the posting shortly after Tom posted it. The ACIG website is my number one web site that I am a member of which I visit almost daily.
> there is no single NATO air force outside the US that is
> equipped with F-15s. F-15 is a backbone of the USAF only.
The F-15 is not the only aircraft that NATO uses for top cover. The Mirage 2000, Tornado are also used for top cover as they were in the PGW#1. To avoid any political problems each country that sent their aircraft into Iraq, provided their own top cover!
> F-15E stands no chance against Su-30 in terms of range.
Under combat load the F-15E is still king, it carries about three tons more ordnance than the Su-30. The Su-30 does have a longer range and greater fuel load because of the fuel efficiency (pounds of thrust per unit of fuel) is not as good as the engine in the F-15E.
> It is so difficult, because, as already mentioned, IDF/AF
> officials themselves actively denied any Syrian MiG-29
> shotdowns in the 2001
Yes, some sources afirm and other deny the incidents but, others have listen in on the communications between GCI and the aircraft.
> BTW, it is very interesting, that Zuhar’s (MiG-25PD) kill
> of Speicher’s F/A-18C over Iraq is still listed at ACIG
> as unconfirmed
Did you read the note partaining to that incident?
Note 4: Extensive investigation of Iraqi interceptor operations during the IIPGW by the ACIG.org team, mainly conducted with the help of former IrAF interceptor-pilots, initially proved that no Iraqi pilot claimed even a single confirmed kill against any Coallition aircraft. Interviewed pilots stressed that they never fully recovered from the fact that they failed to shot down even one enemy, despite their sternous efforts to mount at least a single successful interception, and a number of air combats in which they fired missiles. On the basis of this as well as on the basis of additional evidence supplied from official USAF, USN, RAF and AMI documents, conclusion was that there is no basis for any of the known claims for downing of Coallition aircraft by IrAF interceptors in 1991. These entries will be kept in the list nevertheless as a designation of our position in regards to them, but they remain marked white. Additional Iraqi sources, however, are currently providing new – previously unpublished – information and details about various interceptions of US and Coallition aircraft. These are currently under additional investigation.
> We only can guess whether the kill would have been still
> listed in white if Speicher was the shooter and Zuhar the
> victim.
Yes it would be listed, just like the unconfirmed for the F-14’s and F-15’s.
> firebar
> Who can say for sure how many kills Iranians have had with
> their F-14 ??
Whenever an aircraft communicates with its base bunches of ELINT people are also listening in on the conversation. The number of aircraft communicating between each other, radars that are searching and, radar lock-ons are all detected well outside the borders or areas of the of the conflict.
In the case of the first Tu-22M’s killed by F-14A’s, the Americans, Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis and, French were all studying the ELINT! The Saudi AF instructed its pilots not to fly in that portion of the Gulf, at least for a while.
> It can not be checked at all
No but a very large percentage can be. The USA and the Russians use their satellites to check for wreckage in the areas where the combat took place. If there is wreckage today that was not there yesterday then you know an aircraft was shot down. You can tell by the wreckage what aircraft was shot down. That is how both sides know the score from the conflict over the Bekaa Valley in 1982.
> In Gulf war, only sure kill was a Mi-8 helicopter.
> It is not very useful aircraft and, so, its replacement
> with F-18E is rapidly under way
Boy, do you have that wrong! Check the Soviet Naval Aviation (SNA) and their response to the F-14A Tomcat. It completely changed their manor of attacking surface fleets! No longer could they penetrate to 100 miles and fire anti-ship missiles and get away.
When expecting an attack by the SNA, it was the F-14’s that escorted the E-2C’s while they patrolled a good distance from the carrier. It was the Tomcat that was the first line of defense. By the late 1980’s the Soviet command structure concluded in their war exercises that only 3% of the anti-ship missiles would penetrate the fleet defenses!
They then ordered their sub captains to no longer stand off at a distance and fire anti-ship missiles but to press in and use their torpedos! I don’t know about you but to me that sounds like one weapon system intimidated another opponent. Not only were the bomber pilots fearful but, the fighter pilots were also fearful of this new American aircraft.
Research the SNA and the changes they made to attacking American carriers back in the mid-1970’s.
The Internet “might” have some information but, these changes took place before the ARVNet!!! This one you will need to check books!
> In fair fight, with similar numbers on each side and without
> AWACS , Mig-29 and SU-27 have no equal in aerial combat.
What pilot wants a fair fight? He wants to find the enemy, get him in a position of which escape will be difficult and kill him before he can take effective action to avoid dieing.
Fair aerial fight is something romanticize in the movies. The Red Baron always sought a victim who had gotten separated from the rest of his flight mates, pounce on him from above kill him, gain another advantage position on another aircraft and continue.
Why does the opponents of America make such a big deal out of AWACS? Until AWACS came along, the defense had all the command & control advantages with GCI! The American fought over Europe, Korea, and, (to a lesser extent) Viet Nam…. without the assistance of command and control. Now we have AWACS and the field has been leveled and people cry now.
> German commander of JG-73, said after combat experiences
> with the F-15/16/18: “Within 20 km, I can not be beaten
> in Mig-29
Yes, an aggressor pilot says he and his aircraft are great, what’s new. I don’t know of an aggressor squadron that can not handily wip an operational squadron any day.
The only way to see how effective aircraft are is to pit operational pilots against each other or, aggressor pilots against each other.
> Harry
> Why do people still think that a lumbering Mirage-III/V
> has a prayer against the agile Harrier, irrespective of it
> being piloted by the Argentinians or French?
Because until recently, the Harrier had no BVR capability. The Harrier fit in well in the fleet defense plans. The Harrier only to kill the low level attacker. Any high altitude attackers could be handled by the fleet SAMs.
So, when the Mirages approached the fleet at high altitude, the Harriers only had to protect against the medium and lewer altitudes. The Mirages tried to lure the Harriers up but, the Harriers knew they did not have to so they remained lower altitudes. Finally, the Mirages came down and fought the Harriers in the WVR arena bad move.
> TJ
> On the 14th September 2001 there was no IDF/AF 707 up on
> a mission
What is your source about the activity of Israel’s ELINT activities.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Winningest Fighter
[THIS IS LONG]
> flex297
> Five kills of MiG-29 downed by Israeli AF? That reminds me a slightly reversed Venik.. Can you provide any source?
The same old, same old…. acig!
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_270.shtml
——————————————————–
Date ____ Unit _ Aircraft _ Missile _ Aircraft _ Unit
——————————————————–
02Jun89 / 106 Sqn / F-15C / AAM / MiG-29A / 697FS/SyAAF
02Jun89 / 106 Sqn / F-15C / AAM / MiG-29A / 697FS/SyAAF
14Sep01 / 106 Sqn / F-15C/Python-4/MiG-29A/ SyAAF
14Sep01 / 106 Sqn / F-15C/Python-4/MiG-29A/ SyAAF
14Sep01 / 106 Sqn / F-15C/Python-4/MiG-29A/ SyAAF
——————————————————–
> If you take the whole Warsaw Pact into account, then you
> cannot compare it with USAF od IDF/AF alone rather than
> thake the whole NATO into account.
In the role of air superiority it was and is! Desert Storm showed the proficiency of several large NATO countries. There is no “fall off” when facing the UK’s or French AF’s.
Many Warsaw Pact countries would not be able to hold their own in a major conflict.
>> Adrian
>> the F-22 and the Rafale would have become operational in
>> the early to mid-1990’s.
> flex297
> There is little reason to believe that F-22 would have made
> it operational in mid 90s. It is only a fiction of yours.
That was the schedule and it was on schedule! What did happened is that Congress interfered with the program! To reduce the cost of money spent each year, very similar to paying off your credit card by making minimum payments! The worst possible way to pay for something. What else would you expect from the US Congress.
It wasn’t just stretching out the schedule, it involved changing specs and, other aspects of the program.
> Five kills of MiG-29 downed by Israeli AF? That reminds me
> a slightly reversed Venik.. Can you provide any source?
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_263.shtml
http://www.answers.com/topic/israeli-air-force
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml (infor in the lower 25% of the page)
Why is it so difficult to believe the IDF/AF has shot down five MiG.-29’s? Other than the spects, there is nothing to indicate the MiG.-29 is a good aircraft. It has shown potential but, as part of the program for operating the MiG.-29 not much is applied to pilot training, so overall results are poor. A kill ratio of 10:28 opposition’s favor speaks very poorly of the aircraft in combat. Many of the pilots who were shot down were former Soviet MiG.-29 pilots who worked as mercenaries for countries like Erithia or Ethopia.
> despite of that some members here cannot swallow that the
> 15 is slowly becoming old.
CORRECT!! When you say the F-15C is getting to the point where it is no longer combat effective, you are now messing with someone’s religeon!
> In reality these aircraft are in direct competition with
> the F-15E in polls
Only as a multi-purpose aircraft. The F-15E family can carry a heavier load for a greater range than the other aircraft. In fact, the USAF plans to keep opporating the F-15E family after the F-35 becomes operational.
> I would dare to fight Mirage 2000-9 in a F-15C, too. Sometimes
> I would win, sometimes I would lose, but the kill ratio would
> be nowhere near the 95:0 rather than cca. 40:55.
You are correct. Winning air forces are a system that works and, losing air forces are from systems that lose. That means a country has to be willing to spend the money to make its air force combat capable.
> That is incorrect. Soviet pilots were totally restricted to
> get involved into fight ith Israeli AF
It did happened because Begin and Sadat discussed it when they met at Camp David with clinton! Aviation Week had a short article about it because when the Soviet instructor pilots were shot down, the Egytian pilots knew the Soviet aid would greatly increase…. they partied most of the night at all the Egyptian fighter bases!
In the War of Attrition Soviet instructor pilots were sent to Egypt. Israeli ELINT detected Russian language being spokened on the Egyptian CGI network!
I got this article from ACIG before they were hit by a hacker the first time and they lost most all their data! You can go to Google and search for “war of attrition” + “soviet pilots.” I got 330 hits and this is one that got it right.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_263.shtml
http://www.answers.com/topic/israeli-air-force
“Russian Pilots In Egyptian MiG.-21’s Vs. Israeli F-4’s”
July 1970, in detail:
– at 14:00 two Phantoms attacked an Egyptian radar site at Sohana, near the Gulf of Suez; they were covered by four Mirages, lead by Amos Amir, which crossed the Canal near Ismailia.
– at 14:12 Amos lead his quartet into a second run into Egyptian air space, crussing the Gulf of Suez near Ras al Sudar;
– at 14:21 an Israeli SIGINT-unit recorded the GCI-order in Russian for a take-off of first four Russian-piloted MiG-21MFs – lead by Capt. N. Kamenev – from Beni-Sueif;
– at 14:25 Amir established contact with Kamenev’s MiGs and pulled them towards Cairo; the Soviets closed to six kilometers and continued to pursue;
– at 14:28 another quartet of Mirages, lead by Yiftah Spector, appeared from low level; Soviet GCI immediately scrambled four – and then eight MiG-21MF from Bein Sueif; additional MiG-21MFs alarmed at Komm Amshim and Khotmiya;
– at 14:30 Amir turns his formation back towards the Kamenev’s four MiG-21MF which pursued him; Russian-speaking GCI starts 12 additional MiG-21MFs from Komm Amshim; four F-4E Phantom II, lead by Lt.Col. Ben-Nun (two other pilots were Aviem Sela and Ehud Hankin) appear in low level under the Soviet formation;
– first clash followed shortly after, as Asher Snir used two Shafrir 2s to destory one MiG-21MF; the Russian pilot ejected and his position was used as a mark during the following battle;
– remaining three MiG-21s of Kamenev’s formation, and first four of the formation subsequently scrambled from Beni Sueif jettisoned their drop tanks simultaneously, causing considerable problems for low-flying Phantoms which now came closer, but were still in climb; during following seconds, MiGs fired a number of AAMs, but scored no hits;
– Aviem Sela attacked one MiG which was behind Ehud Hankin and hit it using one AIM-9 Sidewinder, the MiG continued flying and Sela fired the second AIM-9: the Soviet pilot ejected before the second missile scored a hit and the MiG exploded.
– Avihu Ben-Nun and his wingman, “Gal”, attacked another MiG and Ben-Nun scored a direct Sparrow-kill, which cut the MiG-21MF in two pieces;
– several seconds later Russian-speaking GCI ordered the start of eight additional MiG-21MFs from Khotmiya;
– meanwhile, Avraham Shalmon came closed on one of MiG-21s and destroyed it by gunfire;
– simultaneously, remants of first two Soviet “Zvenos” (four-ships) tried to disengage; they were pursued by Asher Snir or Yiftah Spector, one of which – probably Snir – hit one MiG from long range by gunfire;
– while he fired at the MiG ahead, Snir’s Mirage was badly damaged by shrapnel of either a K-13/R-3S near miss; he apparently broke the pursuit of his target without seeing it going down and was forced to make emergency landing at Refidim; on order from Gen. Moti Hod the rest of the Israeli formation pulled away before the contact with 12 MiG-21s from Komm Awshim or eight MiG-21s from Khotmiya could be established; some Israelis landed also in Refidim, but most managed it back to Israel.
According to most sources, one Soviet pilot was killed, two injured and two ejected safely.
In his “MiG-21 v Lokalnih Konfliktah”, A. V. Kotlobovskiy said, that four MiG-21s were shot down (he also mentions the Israelis claiming five kills), and Capts. Zhuravlev, Yurchenko and Yakovlev were killed during the battle. I must say, however, that I don’t completely understand following Kotlobovskiy’s sentences: he mentions two other pilots, V. Kopesov and Y. Puska, but I don’t understand if these are the names of remaining two pilots which ejected, or if they fired several AAMs together and damaged Snir’s Mirage.
> Not to speak about the fact that they only had seven minutes
> of fuel for fighting.
Air to air refueling or a quick stop over at the islands refuel and take off to attack the fleet would also provided a solution.
The AAF was not prepared for war, plain and simple. It did evidently have drop tanks or something because the Mirage jet “shadow boxed” with Harriers sometimes nearly an hour before the first engagements. The Mirages would not lose altitude and the Harriers would not go up. Finally, the Mirages came down and died.
> Su-27 is also credited with a R-73 kill of Chechnyan L-39
> Albatros on 04-Sep-94.
Thank you for the information.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: US secret aircrafts – do they exist?
> saf2000
> Do aircrafts like Aurora, lockheeds “Brilliant buzzard”
> and General Dynamics model 100 really exist?
The USAF has something. I have no project name but, seimologist down in the Los Angeles Basin, about ten years ago noticed there was a seismic disturbance every Thursday morning at 11AM the phenominon would occur.
Now when they checked they found by triangulating the forces and knowing there was no earth movement at that time, they were able to calculate what ever was causing the problem was flying from north to south. Flying somewhere over sixty thousand feet and in access of Mach 3.0+ to produce such occurrences.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Winningest Fighter
> flex297
> I would consider the F14 and F15 to be pretty similar in generation
“Pretty similar”…. first flight and the start of operational status are just two years apart! These are the first two generation aircraft, the aircraft that benefited from the lessons learned in the skies over North Viet Nam.
> Show me your confirmed kill list of current gen aircraft shot
> down by F-15
The USAF over the Balkans F-15C’s killed four MiG.-29’s plus the five MiG.-29’s killed by the Israeli AF’s F-15C’s (as of 09/01).
> I put my argument about *F-15’s superiority over the aircraft
> that slowly belong to the past* back and admit its superiority
> over current aircraft
The aircraft that you are talking about are the aircraft the Warsaw Pact would have used if WW3 had broken out in 1987. The MiG.-23 was the backbone of the Warsaw Pact Air Forces.
So don’t talk about the MiG.-21 or MiG.-29 like they were Korean War relics. As I said before, it is not America’s fault that the Soviet Union did not manufacture the fourth generation until the West was able to introduce its fifth generation aircraft! The Su-27 saw initial service in 1986 with the PVO but, the VVS did not get theirs until 1988. The MiG.-29 saw initial service in 11/85 but, it was more than another year before there was more than one squadron.
Until the Soviet Union started to falter economically, the F-22 and the Rafale would have become operational in the early to mid-1990’s. The Typhoon and Gripen JAS-39C towards the later part of the 1990’s.
> Su and Eagle are very likely on par..
Correct but, that is not saying much for an aircraft that did not start operational status until thirdteen years after the aircraft it was designed to challenge… the F-15, even though the designs started the same year.
Without ROE’s, the F-15 is very good at killing quickly and efficiently in the near BVR area. Much like the Israeli Air Force uses the F-15.
> R-27s are rumored to be less reliable than expected and
> effectiveness of R-77s is still one big question mark
The AA-10/R-27 missile in many situations is still a desirable weapon! Its range and reliability makes it the Russian’s best BVR dogfight missile!!
The AA-12/R-77 Adder was not the missile the designers thought it would be, in essence it has been a disappointment! While given the bumb name “AMRAAMSKI” the truth is that it became opporational years before the Slammer. Part of the reason the AA-10 has continued to be a weapon still being used in combat. Long after the USAF has retired the Sparrow in the air to air role.
> I said Eagle’s superiority is related to machines slowly
> belonging to past (MiG-21, MiG-23, Mirage F1s early MiG-29).
At thirty years old and is just being replaced in the number one spot, says something about how far advanced it was for its time. It has hung on long after the F-22 was supposed to be operational.
By the way, the MiG.-23 is eight years older than the F-15A. Far closer in age than the MiG.-29 or the Su-27.
> today there are several opponents who dare to fight (and
> many times also win) against the Eagle any day of the week,
> be it Flankers, Rafales, EFs.
These aircraft are twenty-five to thirty years younger than the F-15’s! These aircraft are competitors of the F-22.
> the 95 kills of the F-15 were not scored against Gripens,
> Super Fulcrums, Mirage 2000-9 or J-10s, or have I missed
> something?
You missed something…. I have no problems sending the F-15C up against the Super Fulcrum, the JAS-39A or Mirage 2000-9. With the Mirage line of fighters, the JAS-39A, etc. NATO still considered the F-15C as their number one air to air machine until some other fighter comes along in sufficient numbers to be effective!
> Nanook
> what’s the kill record of the almighty, unbeatable Su-27/30/33?
The Su-27 has six confirmed kill against MiG.-29’s and the MiG.-29 has one unconfirmed kill against the Su-27.
> What’s the kill record of the superb Mig-29 series?
The MiG.-29’s kill ratio is 10:28! Almost three to one “against” the MiG.-29!
Don’t talk about the quality of the pilots who flying the aircraft because the Israeli Air Force showed that Soviet instructor pilots were as good as the Egyptian pilots they trained! Israeli Air Force five the Soviet instructor pilots zero!
> Phil Foster
> I thought 29 – 0 by a handful of subsonic ‘puffer jets’ in
> 1982 was quite impressive
In the air to air role, the Harrier pilots having two weeks of a “Red Flag” type of schooling in how to fight the Mirage III fighters was a real help. I think if the Argentines had an access to such an education in what to do and what not to do, the score would have been different.
I think the Argentine pilots were good but, they did not use effective tactics against the Harriers. (I would like to see how well the Harriers would do against French operational Mirage III pilots, not aggressor pilots.)
The reason I say they were good is because the A-4 Skyhawks dropped bombs on sixteen Royal Navy ships while maneuvering to avoid being lock-up by the ship’s radars. This meant have to jink at least once every 1½ seconds! While doing this you line your aircraft and drop the bomb at the correct time. Only good pilots could accomplish this.
> IDF/AF Mirages, F-15s, IRIAF F-14s or Falklands BAe SHARs
> show that battles are being won by particular air forces,
> not by particular types, anyway.
There in lies the heart of the problem. It is not the aircraft but the national values on air crew training and combat support. Those who devote the money to having and maintaining a proficient people have effective air forces.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Winningest Fighter
> flex297
> Depends on who are you facing.. the 90 to 0 kill glory mirrors the
> superiority of the Eagles over the aircraft that slowly belong to
> the past.
The Eagle faced the aircraft it would have faced in WW3! While the Su-27 went into operation in 1986, that was with the PVO only! It was 1988 before the VVS got a squadron of operational Su-27’s. The numbers of MiG.-29’s were also limited. Its first introduction to operational status was 11/86. So by late 1988 the aircraft the USSR was depending on to defend the “Motherland,” in numbers was versions of the MiG.-23.
ALSO, don’t blame the Americans that it took the USSR so long to develope fourth generation aircraft. America did not get some sort of head start, they were just very efficient about designing and deploying the fourth generation aircraft.
The contracts to start the F-14A, F-15A and, Su-27 were signed in 1969. The F-14A started operational in early 1974 (it provided air cover for the retreat from Saigon). The F-15A in 1976, one year before the design of the Su-27’s/T-10’s design was completed. This effort for the T-10 failed and had to be designed again, so this delayed its operation with the VVS until 1988.
> After the breakdown of SU many were expecting a complete breakdown
> of Soviet aerospace industry and folks like you
I did not laugh for it relieved pressure towards the end of the Cold War. I saw problems in a world that was no long bi-polar in alliances.
> Every coin has two sides, maybe it is time Russkies start to laugh.
Probably not laugh but, look at their accomplishments since the late 1980’s with pride for what they have accomplished in the aerospace field dispite the financial problems they have.
> In return, 5 F-14As were downed, one by a MiG-21 (wonder how ),
> two by Mirage F1EQ-6 and two by MiG-23MF.
Yes, the Iraqis did come up with tactics and ocassionally scored a kills. I know there was a change in tactics were the Iraqis would send up some aircraft to intercept some F-4’s. During the engagement, Iran would send some F-14’s. What the Iraqis did was as the F-14’s approached the furball a Mirage F.1 would be on the other side of the furball appoarching the furball slowly. As the F-14 closed in it would detect that was being locked up. They kept their focus on the furball and how best to make a real impact on the fight. What the Tomcats did not know was that they had been fired on by a Mirage F.1 with Super .530 Missile. After losing a couple of F-14’s this way the Iranians figured out the tactics and started locking on the F.1 on the other side of the furball before the F.1 got anywhere close to the range to make the most distant shot. The F.1 would get scared that a Phoenix was on its way and broke off the attack.
> Yes, I agree, they have scored no kills. What does it say?
It says they protected the fleet, the A-6’s, EA-6B’s and, A-7’s very well. None of these groups were interferred with by enemy aircraft!
> Flogger
> Reality th Irakies shot down a F-14 with SAMs in GWI and the
> F-14 was not as active as the F-15, all those are Iranian claims.
Correct concerning the kill of the F-14. As far as the F-14 being active, it was very active, it just did not get any opportunities to engage in aerial combat.
—————————————————-
* Date * /Aircraft/ Weapon /Victim/ Country
—————————————————-
04/21/81 /MiG-23BN/ 23mm / F-14A / * IRIAF (Damage)
* 02/88 / Mirage / Super / F-14A / IRIAF
******/ F.1EQ / * 530 / ***** / Confirmed Kill
07/19/88/ Mirage */ Super / F-14A / TFB.8/IRIAF
******/ F.1EQ * / * 530D/ **** / Confirmed Kill
07/19/88/ Mirage */ Super / F-14A / TFB.8/IRIAF
******/ F.1EQ * / 530D / ***** / Confirmed Kill
====================================================
* Persian Gulf War #1 *
—————————————————-
01/17/91/ F-14A */ AIM-54C/* F.1EQ*/ IrAF Unconfirmed Kill
—————————————————-
01/17/91/ F-14A */ AIM-7M /MiG-25PD/ IrAF Unconfirmed Kill
—————————————————-
> It is a known fact the american US navy lost an F-14 and
> the F-14 combat record in GWI was unimpressive
Actually it is, the F-14 like the Tornado ADV and, Mirage 2000 fighters providing top cover for their own attack aircraft, did not have a data link that the AWACS/F-15C combination had, part of the reason the F-15’s were the only escorts that had any real chance to make a kill. The USAF and the US Navy didn’t have the same data link. Something they always wanted to do but, never got around to doing.
The US Navy’s F-14A’s killed two Su-22M-2K’s in August of 1981, another two kills MiG-23MF’s in January of 1989, that is four Libyian aircraft. A force down of a B-737 with some terrorist aboard.
The Tomcat did an excellent job for what it was designed for, protecting surface ships from air attacks. SNA had to change its tactics and never considered the ability to attack NATO shipping as being as easy or have a large percentage of missiles being able to get through the defense. At one time during the mid-1980’s the Soviet Union in their war simulations/practice efforts (I don’t believe in calling these efforts “games”) they calculated that only three per cent of the anti-ship missiles would hit their targets! The Soviet Navy then ordered its submarines not to attack using anti-ship missiles but, rather bore in and attack with torpedos.
> while supercruise has many uses in combat, I think that being
> able to realistically dash up around Mach 2 if required has a
> lot of use too.
Only from the priority of crossing a SAM protected area. You can only do this at high altitude.
The original specs for the F-22 & F-23 was to have the ability to supercruise at Mach 2.0 with a top speed of Mach 2.4+. All this at sixty thousand feet. When the Soviet Union financially crashed, the specs were revised downward. The F-22 was designed so these modifications can be added at a future date!
> GoldenDragon
> the USAF had priority over the air superiority role.
True, for the Coalition the F-15C was charged with overall air dominance. Each large country that had many attack planes also provided their own top cover. So when the French AF’s Jaguar and Mirage F.1’s attack targets they always had Mirage 2000 providing top cover, the Tornado ADV, provided top cover for all Royal aircraft attack missions, etc.
> a F-14 killed a helo but that hardly counts.
The same sort of bean counters who give credit for shooting down a UAV, credit was given to the Cuban MiG.-29 which shot down a Cessna-337 (owned by Brothers to the Rescue) off the Cuban coast! So why not give a kill to a helo being killed!
> the two F-18 kills were in the course of a bomb strike (the
> kills were made without any dumping of ordnance.)
The two MiG.-21Bisons that the F/A-18C’s shot down were running from two F-14’s because they got close to a strike package!! The F/A-18C’s had four two thousand pound bombs as the made their air to air attack, were on there way to a ground target. The flip of a switch and the F/A-18 goes from a air to air mode to a air to ground mode. The HUD symbols are different and, the aircraft flies different.
In the air to ground mode, the aircraft flight control system and the HUD presents symbology that aids the pilot fly a specific track through the sky. In the air to air mode the the aircraft flight control system and the HUD presents symbology that aids the pilot by pointing the aircraft better.
> That’s a very good record and hardly surprising considering
> the F-14’s radar and weapons suite which outranks even the F-15.
For the task the F-14 is tasked for with yes, its radar is better. The AWG-9/AN/APG-71 were both designed to look into massive jamming and still see the targets in the distance. While AN/APG-70 is a good radar, its three modes of “PRF” provides it with critical data for engaging hostile aircraft quickly, kill them then move on the the next target. Much like the way the Israeli AF uses its F-15’s.
> over G
> we live in an occidental world
True but, you don’t have to depend on them to get valid data. There are websites which has the serial numbers of each aircraft produced and some even have how the aircraft ended up. If you are willing to devote the time, you can get valid information.
There are countries which release information on some of the transmissions they have recieved. One indication about the effectiveness is the Saudi Arabian AF memowhich told its F-15 pilots to stay away from a certain area in the northern Persian Gulf because a F-14A had killed a Tu-22B the day before.
There is a lot of legitimate sources of information (many are not on the Internet), you only have to know where to look for it! Not all Occidental sources are pro-Western.
> GarryB
> The present Su-33 has far more growth potential than the sewer
> whorenet.
That spelling is cute.
> What is the no escape zone of the R-77? Or when you say
> operation do you mean operation by western forces?
The statement, “the Slammer Missile has the largest no escape zone of any missile currently operational.” This was made originally by a general of the IDF/AF when explaining why Israel is purchasing the Slammer Missile while it is introducing the Derby Missile. I have seen generalized diagrams of the Slammer versus the Sparrow Missile. With no numbers it is just a pretty diagram. I have never seen any numbers of this area, which changes when one of many parameters changes. In other words the no escape zone will differ when the missile is coming at you from a higher altitude versus one the is climbing to intercept you. These are different for other directions. If the target is in a good position (energy wise) and is using this advantage, the no escape zone is reduced. The opposit is also true, a target aircraft low on energy has a larger than normal no escape zone.
> Who invented ships whose only purpose was aircraft carrying?
Don’t forget the angled flight deck.
> Kovy
> Well we have many clues about the raptor being able to fly
We know it is pretty hot because its program is being “raping” the F-22’s program to get the technology for F-35. The F-35 in the air to air mission is supposed to be better than the F-16C Block 50!
> I think a turkish F-16D (or B ?) were shot down by a greek
> mirage 2000
The only jets aircraft the Greek AF has shot down are from the Turkish AF. A M-2000EG using a R.550 Magic Missile to kill a Turkish F-16D on 10/08/96.
This is a “Confirmed” kill, there are others from the Greek and Turkish Air Forces.
> Rocky
> At low airspeeds and low altitude the high thrust/weight will
> give good acceleration for the Harrier, but as the Harrier
> approches Mach 1 its acceleration goes to nil.
It was never designed to go that fast. It is like saying the F-15’s low speed maneuvering (below 250mph) is not good. Gee what would you expect considering the specs.
There appears to be a lot of background information about the F-14, F-15 and, other aircraft about what was going on during this era. There are a lot of numbers thrown out but, they have little usage if not placed into proper perspective.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Winningest Fighter
> TOMCAT TERRTORY
> considering that the F-14 had 159 confirmed victories with the IRIAF
> and 5 with the USN doesn’t it now have more A2A victories than the
> other three U.S fighters
In checking the records of the ACIG (as of the year 2000) -I counted the F-14A’s of the IRIAF killing 123 confirmed kills and 5 unconfirmed. The US Navy F-14’s have 6 confirmed kills and 1 unconfirmed.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml
> Meat
> Venik’s disciples, who will claim that hordes of Eagles have been
> shot down by everything from MiG-29s to An-2s.
Yes there are all sorts of charges, there should have been at least a half dozen kills against the F-15’s BUT, either the pilot or GCI made bad errors and the F-15 prevailed.
NOW…. as a rebuttal to the claim the F-15 has been shot down I say, “show me the wreckage!” After the Israeli AF scored about fifthteen kills, it would have been news worthy. Any F-15 shot down would have made the news. When the F-117 was shot down over Serbia, Al Jessera and CNN had video on TV world wide within an hour. The USAF denied the event until the pilot was picked by CSAR.
Whereas the F-15 does not fight over friendly territory, if it were to be shot down, neither the Americans, Israelis, Japanese, or Saudis would be able to cover up such an event because it happened over their territory.
The kills would have takened place over Iraq, Lebanon or, Syria. So my “catch phrase” to those who do not believe the F-15 is undefeated is, “show me the wreckage!” If there ever was any wreckage, there surely was photographs takened. I know there are several networks that would pay real money to see the wreckage of an F-15 Eagle.
F-15’s Kill Record
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_270.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_302.shtml
> Rocky
> How many IRIAF F-14s have been shot down?
The IRAF shot down 3 confirmed F-14’s killed, 9 unconfirmed and, 1 damaged -in the Iran/Iraq War of the 1980’s.
> I don’t recall any Air to Air victories against the F-16.
Yes, 1 MiG.-29 and 2 Mirage 2000H’s from the Inidan AF achieved radar lock-ons against the Pakistani F-16A’s.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_327.shtml
The Pakistani AF has several kills by F-16’s against a variety of aircraft.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_324.shtml
Turkish AF Kills of Greek F-16’s
08/10/96 Mirage 2000EG kills a Greek F-16D with a Magic .550 missile
11/13/00 F-16C kills a Greek F-16CG, weapon unknown.
There is at least one unconfirmed kill also
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_299.shtml
> I think an F-18 got shot down by a Foxbat in the the first Gulf War.
Yes, in the first couple of hours (around 02:00 AM local time 01/17/91) there was a mix up in the coordination of interceptors versus self escort.
The MiG.-25PD approached from the left-foward hemisphere but, outside the angular range of the Hornet’s radar. While the S-3 Sentry was trying to get some F-15C’s over to deal with the MiG.-25. The E-2C gave a warning but when the MiG.-25 passed behind the flight of four Hornets no further mention was made. After the MiG.-25 passed behind the Hornets by several miles it then turned to the right (270º plus) and lined up directly behind the flight of Hornets. The MiG.-25 turned on its radar for just a few seconds and locked up one of the Hornets. Almost a minute later the MiG.-25 fired a missile. So after locking up the Hornets and confirming the range, the pilot evidently used his IRST system to continue to track the flight until he fired. The MiG. fired the R-40T Missile, broke off the attack headed for home and, the missile hit Lt. Speicher’s Hornet.
Later that afternoon Lt. Mongillo and Lt. Fox in their F/A-18C’s loaded with four 2,000 lb bombs, killed two MiG.-21Bisons with a Sidewinder-9M and a Sparrow-7M.
> Buddha
> Where is this database of reported kills?
The Air Combat information Group (ACIG) is located at;
http://www.acig.org/
From there go to the journal which allows you to research a whole lot of aircraft kills from many different theaters.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Did the Russians ever come close to shooting SR-71 Blackbird
> SR-71 is basicaly streight line flying fuel tank. A very inflexible
> machine.
> its max altitude is 85.000 ft.
> There are many myths about its max ceiling. Do not be missinformed.
YEP….. that is the official maximum speed. If you believe this then you will believe the maximum speed of the USS Seawolf (SSN-21) is twenty-five knots and the maximum depth is one thousand feet! That the LA Class and the Ohio Class subs have a maximum depth of eight hundred feet. (Those same folks saw the Easter Bunny last weekend) The same mentality that makes comments about jam proof radars and other weapons that are fool proof!
When PRC exploded its first nuclear weapon, an SR-71 was overhead at 120,000 feet.
The Federation of American Scientist’s specs state;
Altitude: “over” 85,000 feet (26,000 m)
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/sr-71.htm
> firebar
> SR-71 is much slower and much larger target than D-21.
At what altitudes were the D-21’s flown? Were the getting recon information on a potential ABM system?
The Western AF’s paniced when Gary Powers was shot down in his U-2. USAF bombers could not use altitude to penetrate Soviet air space, BS! Powers had a flameout and his U-2 was down to 60,000 feet when the SAM’s near miss damaged the plane to the point that Powers had to bail out.
> GarryB
> The turbojet engine is a turbojet engine.
> although it uses ramjet principals it is not a ramjet.
LET US JUST SAY, “WE AGREE TO DISAGREE!”
Adrian -OUT!
Adrian_44Re: BEST AND WORST MOVIE AVIATION SCENES
> SteveO
> Crap scene= B-2 launching cruise missile at Independence Day alien
> ship within visual range.
You are correct, why weren’t the missiles launched at a higher altitude where they could attack the alien space ship from above and prevent any blast effect going downward.
> Billy Bishop
> Actually the scene with the SA-13 downing the Super Hornet is very
> realistic and exactly how it would have happened in real life.
Heaven’s NO!!! There is no missile fired into the air that can lose contact with a target and re-acquire it again! The only missiles that can detect a target and re-acquire it are torpedos.
> Cheguvera
> Backfire bombers lauching cruise missiles against US Carrier battle
> group in Sum of all Fears…..
It lacks common sense! An atomic bomb has exploded on a US city, US defense forces are on DEFCON 3 and, a US CVBG is sailing in the Norwegian Sea with the E-2 and F-14’s on deck!
Incomming missiles are detected at one thirty miles, no Sea Sparrows are fired just the CIWS is fired. The CIWS sound like a light machine gun, not the “zipper” sound of the Phalanx or M-61 cannon. Let us not forget no aegis ship detected the incomming aircraft nor, the Norwegian Air Defense detected the Russian bombers as they left the Kola Penninsula heading westward past North Cape, Bear Island or, heading south to the CVBG. Not passing on the contact information to NATO headquarters so the CVBG would not be surprised.
> Lightndattic
> The almighty AWG-9 not picking up close formation “Migs” at 15 miles?
The sweep line of the radar appearing to be going 360º. The lack of usage of the TCS which would have let the F-14’s know the number of aircraft they were facing. Covering your flight leader by following him just a hundred yards/meters behind.
> I picked up “The Day After” off the clearance rack
> it does have some of the most realistic SAC alert/scramble scenes
> I’ve ever seen.
If you get the chance, watch the old movie, “A Gathering of Eagles.” It stars Rock Hudson and is about the life of SAC base commander, several good scramble scenes.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Did the Russians ever come close to shooting SR-71 Blackbird
> firebar
> J-58 engines of SR-71 is not so technologicaly advanced. Secret
> behind SR-71 speed is propulsion system, not engines.
The Pratt & Whittney J-58 (JT11D-20A) engines were very advanced for their time (still are). A combination turbo jet/ramjet engine, who else has desinged an engine that operates efficiently at Mach 3.0+ for many hours and does not require significant engine work upon landing. The SR-71 can fly a 7,000+ mile mission and the only segnments of which are flown subsonically are the take-off, refuelings and, the landing.
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/diagrams/index.htm
http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/diagrams/reconprofile.htm
> Did the Russians ever come close to shooting SR-71 Blackbird
In some respects you could say yes but, these were recon profile flights that were in international airspace with SR-71 flying at lower speeds and altitudes. When the USAF did not want to be “touched” (like when the SR-71 flew over ground zero for the PRC’s first nuclear explosion at Mach 3.0+ at an altitude of 120,000+ feet plus) the SR-71 was and still is untouchable.
Do I feel the SR-71 could still fly from Bodo, Norway north past North Cape then south (east of Finland) over the Kola Penninsula to the Baltic Sea, my answer is YES! At altitudes in access of 110,000 feet at speeds of Mach 3.0+ the SR-71’s biggest danger is ABM sites.
> Sens
> This type of powerplant has been called a ‘turboramjet’, or a
> ‘supercharged ramjet’ and the term is accurate to a degree.
You are correct.
> GarryB
> Rubbish. It is either a ramjet or it isn’t… and it isn’t.
YOU ARE INCORRECT!!! This is a special type of engine and at high speed and high altitude the engine operates as a ramjet. As you know a ramjet does not operate well at low speeds such as four to five hundred mph at 25,000 feet. That requires a turbo jet.
Just one of many creative solutions by “The Skunk Works.”
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: ACIG forums HACKED !!
> Mirko_Filipovic
> ACIG forums HACKED !!
Yes, it is truely sad that some fat head hacked the website again. I only hope the number of postings each person had can be reliably maintained.
The first time that I know of it was hacked, I already had 208 postings. This time I had 424 postings when this hacking took place. It is truely sad that someone has nothing better to do than interferre with someone else’s computer.
Adrian
Sign In
