Adrian_44RE: BEST AND WORST MOVIE AVIATION SCENES
> Cheguvera
> Tuskeege Airmen P-51s against the Me-109s over North Africa and
> also escorting B-17s over Europe…(HBO production)
You are one of the few people who picked up that the TA used P-51s the entire combat time in the movie. Reality was they did not the P-51s until they were stationed at Rametelli Air Base. Three squadrons got P-51s and one got P-47s!! The German destroyer was killed by the P-47s not the P-51s. The TA’s were the last fighter wing in the European/North African Theater to recieve the P-51 Mustangs! The 99th FS flew the P-47.
The flew mainly groud support missions in North Africa in P-39s, P-40s and, shooting down several Me-109s.
They flew from North Africa and flew “CAPs” over Anzio. Shooting down several Fw-190’s with their P-40 Warhawks!
> cru
> Tora, tora, tora! — A movie made in the 70′ about December 7th 1941
> Incredible aerial combat scenes with real P 40s and Zeros
Tora Tora Tora did the same thing for dogfights in movies what “Star Wars” did for science fiction! A lot of films which use scenes from Tora³ use in Midway and Pearl Harbor don’t have the solid story to go with a the excellent scenes.
> Lightndattic
> The almighty AWG-9 not picking up close formation “Migs” at 15
> miles?
No TCS used either! The AWG-9 did pick up the MiG.-“28” but, it was around thirty miles and only after CDC (used to called CIC) had contacted them.
> Charlie calling his little braking amneuver a split S and
> can you say compressor stall?
The F-14A can pull AOA than that and not have compressor stall. It is only a series of conditions that allow that! The maneuver can only be done at certain altitudes, airspeeds, etc. to avoid compressor stall.
The other thing is Charlie chastized Maveric for his aggressive maneuver frankly I would rather have a pilot who is aggressive and unpredictable (like Israeli pilots) than, to have someone who flys by the book only.
In real like the woman whos position caught the fancy of someone in Hollywood never talks to the pilots. She is one who design tactics, does calculations like John Boyd to find out if there is a better way of doing it.
> Both catapults breaking at the same time with only those 2
> fighters airborne?
CORNY, no E-2’s, etc..
> The RIO is just an extra set of eyes / cheerleader?
Hollywood does not want to deal with radar jamming. The radar sweep line appears to go 360º. The RIO was shown to do little except to give the pilot the warm fuzzy feeling that he is not alone.
One thing I did find funny, is in the big dogfight at the end, the helo was sent out without any fighter coverage. Two hundred miles away, the helo went out rescued the two men and returned mighty quick. The rescue helo got back to the carrier a few seconds after Maveric and Iceman landed.
Buzzing an airfield and buzzing a carrier are two different things. A carrier with the “captain/base commander” and or the battle group admiral on the bridge of the carrier watching something as value as a carrier is not appreciated.
> 666th_Birdy
> One that should be in this tread is “flight of the intruder”
The movie is only enjoyable “if,” you haven’t read the book! The book was exellent and dynamic. It showed all the task the A-6 Intruder performed.
The finally was such a dissapointment! That squadron was supposed to take out some targets that would the B-52’s a bad time. What did they do, lost three Intruders and wasted a lot of time of the “Sandys” (A-1 Skyraider) and for what, to kill a single ZSU-23-4! What a waste, I hope those B-52’s didn’t need them but, they got that “Flak Panzer!”
> Arthur
> The Bridges at Toko Ri perhaps? That one was absolutely great – if only for all those lovely 1950s Navy jets in it!
Gawd, I forgot about that. It lets you know how far CSAR has come. The helicopter saving a pilot and the crew member left in the water while the copter went back with the pilot. Then, return to pick up the crew member and hope hypothermia has not killed him by then. All because the copter could only carry three people, not four! A solidly good movie.
Adrian
Adrian_44Re: World`s stealth programs
> Flogger
> The F-22 is the first but not the only
Thanx for the diagrams and pictures. It is one thing to design a stealth type aircraft, it is something else to manufacture it. That is where the bulk of the money goes, the new materials, how to process them and how to fabricate them into the aircraft/vehicle the designer wants.
After that is done, intelligence must provide valid data on all current radars and those in development! to find out at what range and what angles each radar can detected. Re-examine the design and see what can be done economically to reduce the worst of the threats.
Russian Federation Air Force Commander-in-Chief, Colonel-general Vladimir Mikhailov stated in January of 2004 that the Russian Air Force is at least ten years away from introducing it first true stealth aircraft to compete with the other fifth generation aircraft.
See URL: http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/89/357/11829_aviation.html
The solution for the verticle take-off version of the Yak-43 uses a similar solution as the F-35B.
I knew the French scientist were advance for they purchased the Skunk Works “Have Blue” prototype..
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Yf 23 or YF 22?
> Ubiquitous1
> a few of you prefer the YF 23. Which do we think (aesthetics aside)
> would have better served the U.S. In other words was the F/A 22’s focus
> on maneouvrability
Personally, I favored the F-23 before the selection but after reading the reasons why I feel the USAF made the correct choice!
The F-22 had vectored thrust and the USAF wanted to be into that field. The F-22 was better in the slow speed maneuvering.
The F-22 was shorter and lighter therefore cheaper to manufacture.
The F-22 had more room in its weapon’s bays.
The F-22 exceeded the specs for stealth, it is stealthier than the B-2!
The F-22 has the joy stick between the pilot’s legs.
The F-23 was faster by three-tenths of a Mach in top speed and super cruise speed.
The F-23 was stealthier than the F-22.
The F-23 was a higher risk program from the technology standpoint
The F-23 had a side-stick controller like the F-16.
In essence, the F-22 was more of what the USAF wanted at a lower risk program.
> pluto77189
> Kinda like the F-16. marketed as a cheap, lightweight fighter, now it
> drops tons of bombs and does mostly strike missions.
The F-16A was cheap but, other than daylight fighter it had little capability. The designers at GD were far sighted and with “add-ons” the F-16 has become a well rounded aircraft. So when you add all the options available, the F-16 is a good multi-purpose aircraft.
> SteveO
> Your wrong about the engines, there where 2 prototypes of each ATF
> design, one powered by P&W F119 engines, the other by GE F120 engines.
Correct, the two engine makers were also competing.
> I thought it was the USAF that made the decisions, not Northrop.
No each manufacturer had to test both aircraft using both engines. Based upon the data they got during testing the two manufacturers decided which engine they would choose but, the USAF looked at all the data. Where is why the all the technicle data took 44,000 pages to spell out every aspect that Lockeed sent the USAF on all of its testing, design, materials and, manufaturing.
> seahawk
> the next enemy would use airliners in suicide flights
> the next enemy would be mainly armed with RPGs and AKs
> the next enemy would not stand a fight in the airwar
> development of the next generation threats would be so slow
> force reduction would be so huge
> multi role would become so important
This is a myopic look into the future. You are basically saying the USA will not get involved in a sizable war. Unless the US Government does a better job with its State Department, many of our conflicts will be solved by conflict. The US Government’s foreign policy is based upon what is best for big business, nothing more.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15K 1st Flight
> alexz
> F-15K 1st Flight
Actually just the first aerial display at an international air show. The F-15K’s first flight was February 03, 2003.
> dreadnought
> because it still kicks everything up in the air to the moon if it
> get’s in his way? even after 33 years
The new P&W engines with 29,000 pounds thrust engine, I would like to see it upgraded to the F-110-GE-132 32,000 pound thrust engines like the F-16 Block 60.
> 21Ankush
> the Indian Su-30 will see the F-15K first and fire first too.
Not likely, when you listen to Luftwaffe pilots and others who deal with both American and Russian aircraft fighters, at the end of five to ten years which aircraft do they speak most highly? It isn’t the Russian aircraft! This is the way the Luftwaffe, Polish AF, Malaysian AF all feel as they are selling off the Russian aircraft or relagating them to a back-up type positions.
Malaysia purchased both MiG.-29 & AA-12 plus F/A-18C/D & Slammer combinations yet, when they send aircraft to international exercises which aircraft do they send? It is not the MiG.-29.
Russian spec sheets overstate the capabilities of the weapon systems. Dispite what the spec sheets say, those who have both Slammer and Adder Missiles sing the praise of the Slammer. Having the largest “no escape zone” of any missile today.
Seeing the weak point of Russian aircraft is their avionics, even though the Indians have provided the Su-30MKI with better avionics, excuse me if I don’t feel that India’s avionics industry is as good as America’s.
Combat being the ultimate test of a fighter’s quality, neither the Su-27 and even worst the MiG.-29 (W:L -10:28) have done well.
Boeing F-15K Website
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/index.html
bbbbbb
Finally with the new low observable features, superior avionics, best Human Systems Integration (HSI what used to be called Human Engineering),
that it will have a long service life -it will not be replaced by the F/A-22 or F-35, combat load and range….. my choice would have to be the F-15K.
> fabe
> yeah just like it did with Indian Su-30s
Well, before you go any farther in “bad mouthing” the F-15…. please read the article from the Aviation Week Magazine (10/04/04) issue.
“3rd Wing Explains ‘Cope India’ Exercise” by David A. Fulghum Elmendorf AFB, Alaska page 50.
The URL is located at;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237790/posts
All is not what it initially appeared to be. The ROE’s were greatly one sided. Let’s discuss it after reading the article.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Fighter Aircraft Generation: Classfications
> Austin
> What Constitutes Fighter Aircraft Generation , Whats a Third
> Generation Fighter ,
> etc.
Thank You Austin, you have done a nice piece of research!
I guess to write a definition of each classification, this referers to jets only. Aircraft like the AD-1 Skyraider, Corsair or, P-51 Mustang while fighting in the Korean War… don’t belong here. I define the generations as such;
The first generation of jets starts in WW2 and continues through the Korean War.
The second generation of jets are the aircraft that arrived to late to participate in the Korean War and significant improvements had been made in the area of speed, endurence and, weapons load.
[My deference is that I would not have included the MiG.-17, F3H Demon, or F-9F Panther or Cougar. In the first generation but rather in the second generation of jets.
I think the statement that advances in guided missiles were enough to replace the gun. That was the wish, reality was still a ways away.
The MiG.-21 was designed without a gun but, in trials the Atoll did so poor a gun was placed in the production models!
The F-4 Phantom II and the MiG.-21 were also designed and began operation during this period of time.
The third generation of aircraft were even more advance and could fight effectively with guns and missiles. These aircraft also gave designers information about what worked and what didn’t work so the fourth generation would be truely effective!
The four generation realized many lessons from the Viet Nam War and these were applied to these generation of aircraft. Things such as;
A) Interceptors can be forced into a dogfight.
B) The identification problem made the BVR fight far more difficult than expected.
C) In combat a fighter might fire a missile and when it doesn’t kill the target, the enemy might be so close, a gun could be a better option.
First of these aircraft is the F-14A Tomcat. The F-14A, F-15A Eagle and the Su-27 all started their design in 1969! I feel the Su-27 should be the last aircraft of this generation.
The fifth generation of aircraft are marked by some of the greatest technicle improvements in aviation history. So while the French Rafael and Swedish JAS-39 were “born” early they have the technologies that the other fifth generation aircraft have. Things like supercruise, low observability, pilot situational awareness, supermaneuverability are all required to make this class.
So I see the fifth generation of aircraft as the Rafael, JAS-39, F-22, EF-2000. These aircraft are all currently in some stage of production. I did not include the F-35 for it is not here yet. I did not include the Su-27+ (Su-30, etc.) or the F/A-18E/F because these are modifications of fourth generation aircraft. While they have “some” of the new technologies of the fifth generation, they have more in common with the fourth generation than the fifth generation aircraft.
> Russia hopes that technologies being created by the Mikoyan
> Gurevich MFI and Sukhoi Su-47 may make them competitors in
> that market.
Yes, but like the F/A-18E/F and the family members of the Su-27 these new features are “add-ons” and not true fifth generation aircraft.
The Russian Federation Air Force Commander-in-Chief, Colonel-general Vladimir Mikhailov said, in 2003 that Russia’s true fifth generation aircraft will not come out until after the F-35 is in production! Somewhere in the time spand of 2010 to 2015!
> The categories I’ve showed could shurely be considered as
> “pro” european from an american point of view
True but, there are definite distinctions between each generation and, I think you have done a good job of defining them!
> Charlie Echo
> I understand the 4th generation as having digital avionics
> and swing-role capability
Whether you design your avionics and use a digital computer versus an analog computer does not change the function, thus the generation of the equipment.
The F-22 is a single mission aircraft and the only reason it is being sold as an F/A-22 is to sell congress on funding the aircraft, that is all!!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Operation Red October!
> Blackcat
> is there any repeat telecast of these???
Not as of Wednesday 03/02/05 at 05:00AM Pacific Standard Time.
> bring_it_on
> I WANT TO BUY IT IF THE VIDEO IS FOR SALE.
If it is on sale, you would be able to find it on the History or Discovery Channel network’s websites.
> Arthur
> For those who don’t know what these guys are talking about:
> it’s about one of the USN’s Hornet deployments to do some
> sparrin’ with the Luftwaffe’s MiG-29s.
Yes, I taped the program and have writened an outline of it. I have made a posting entittled, “Results -Operation Red October!” located at;
http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3086
Enjoy -Adrian
Adrian_44Operation Red October!
> Milos
> Its nice to see original Mig-29A (in good shape) flown by best pilots.
Any aircraft flown by aggressor is tough to defeat but, whereas it appears that the MiG.-29 has only flown into combat once or twice with at least equally competant pilots, it is really difficult to truely assess the quality of this aircraft. It is ashame because from all appearances, it is a quality air plane.
I wish they would show the original two hour un-altered version of Red October.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: soviet 5x MiG-23 vs 2x F-16 1980s
> nastle
> this is a hypothetical scenario b/w soviet mig-23s and f-16s
> in the 1980s
My vote goes to the F-16 for several reasons. One, the beam maneuver was well known, so the F-16 would get inside the MiG.-23’s BVR window. In a turn and burn dogfight there is no contest between the F-16 and MiG.-23. NATO calculated that the F-16 in the ground attack as well as the air to air roll would have a kill ratio of at least 3:1 F-16’s favor. The majority of the F-16’s being shot down by ground air defense forces. NATO calculated that the F-15 would have a kill ratio of at least 6:1 or else the NATO air forces would lose so many aircraft that they could not adequately support the ground forces. This all translates to NATO having to go nuclear in order to avoid a defeat!
> soviets had AWACS too …further more there are lots of su-15
> mig-25/31 to deal with them
Yes, the Soviets had AWACS but they did not have it integrated into their attack of the Western European countries like the USAF uses it, the Soviets tended to use it as a back up for when ground radar sights have been killed by anti-radiation missiles and there are now gaps in the defense. The USAF and NATO used AWACS for defensive back-up as well as offensive power projection.
The Soviets did not have aerial tankers integrated into their air warfare plan either and none of the MiG.-21’s, MiG.-23’s or, MiG.-29’s had any refueling probes!
These were all some of the things that the Soviet generals felt were needless add-ons in the West. That was until the PGW#1 and their whole opinion changed when they saw the US and its Allies attack Iraq and conduct a air warfare they could not have done by their own admission.
They did not have enough tankers or AWACS aircraft, both instrumental for power projection air warfare.
As for the Su-27’s and MiG.-29’s…… well the Su-27’s had a slow production start-up for the first couple of years. So the first operation units went to the PVO in 1986 and after two or three squadrons were equipt the VVS -Frontal Aviation started getting their first aircraft in 1988!
The MiG.-29 had its first operational units in Frontal Aviation in 1986 but, it wasn’t until about 1988 were there several squadrons of them. The bulk of the Warsaw Pact Air Forces was comprised of MiG.-23’s followed by the MiG.-21’s! So by 1990 the Warsaw Pact would have had less than 500 Su-27’s and MiG.-29’s total. At least half of the Su-27’s were part of the PVO not the Frontal Aviation.
These would face over one thousand F-15’s and over two thousand five hundred F-16’s, six hundred plus F-14’s plus the Pan Avia Tornados. So while the NATO air forces were out numbered by almost two to one NATO had almost all modern aircraft while the Warsaw Pact did not!!
> Airsande_plus
> Pitted against the F-15A, the MiG-23MLD has the only notable
> advantage in the zoom climb performance at speeds above 620kts
I highly doubt that statement! The MiG.-23 is basically a third generation aircraft and performance wise competitive to the F-4 Phantom. The F-15 simply eats up the F-4 Phantom. The F-15A breaking the sound barrier down at sea level then having a significant greater inertia from a heavier airframe plus a real thrust to weight advantage in climbing…. I don’t see it happening.
Unless the Soviets/Russians are talking a small glitch type point in the envelope and the spec sheet treats it like a general position when in reality it is a very specific and narrow point!
> Spectral
> Do you know the effect of ECM and ECCM on radars, missiles
> etc. for both sides ?
As far as airborne ECM/ECCM the West was ahead especially on deception and spot jamming. The Soviets were equal in broadband jamming, powerful jamming across many frequency bands.
Aircraft like the EF-111B were to penetrate deep, jam, stop/move, jam again and continue this pattern for six to eight hours before returning to friendly lines! That is “strategic jamming!”
As for missiles the Soviet missiles were behind until the AA-11 Archer but, since only a few aircraft had that weapon system its impact would not have been major.
The AA-12 Adder is a active radar homing (ARH) missile but, its performance falls far short of what the spec sheet say. So it was not the significant improvement the Soviets had been hoping for when they designed it. So the old standby the AA-10 Alamo, the Soviet equivalent to the Sparrow Missile was the most numerous as well as most effective BVR missile that would have been used by the Warsaw Pact.
> firebar
> In close range, also, R-60 and R-73 are much better than Aim-9L
These two missiles were not available in the early 1980’s and the mid to late 1980’s when the MiG.-29 and Su-27 started becoming operational the R-73 also became operational. Intially the MiG.-23 did not have access to this weapon system. The AIM-9L started operation around 1980. Its first combat was in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
> F-16 had advantage in close combat, but only below tropopause.
> Above that Mig-23 is better
That is incorrect! Any aircraft that is competitive with any version of the F-4 Phantom is no maneuver match for the F-16.
I don’t know where you read that the F-100 engines did not perform well at high altitude but, these are the same engines that power the F-15 Eagle. Both of these two aircraft are designed for the high speed dogfight at altitudes of thirty to thirty-five thousand feet. Now the F-15 can operate at a higher speed range than the F-16 can. The F-16A had the highest T/W ratio -1.4:1 of any aircraft until the F-22 came along -1.55+:1! Towards the end of the mission when the fuel load is lower, the T/W ratio can go above 2.0+:1!!!!
> DeathAngelBR
> there WAS an exercise in which F-16’s with AWACS faced MiG-23’s
I would like to hear more about this exercise.
> Rocky
> I seem to remember that the F-16/J79 was actually better than
> a F-16A at high altitude
GD looked at this option to reduce the cost even more of the F-16A. While the performance was better than the F-4 Phantom it was not a large enough improvement to warrant purchasing the F-16, especially when almost every owner of the F-4 Phantom was in love with the aircraft. It did so many things so well.
> The French seem to think differently. With its turbojet
> engine and delta wing, the Mirage 2000 is optimised to fight
> at high altitude.
The Mirage 2000 does have have a larger envelope than the F-16 but, within the F-16’s envelope, it is truely an outstanding aircraft.
Against a Mirage 2000 the F-16 should not try and fight it above 450 knots and about 25,000 feet. Against a MiG.-29 or F/A-18 the F-16 should try and keep the altitude up and the airspeed between 325 and 450 knots. These two opponents are exellent at handling below 300 knots and lower altitudes. The F-16 should always try to fight an opponent in the verticle plane not, the horizontal plane.
> alexz33
> Didn’t they face each other over lebanon?
Yes in the skies over the Bekaa Valley back in 1982 among eighty plus Syrian aircraft shot down by the IDF/AF, the second largest single type killed was the MiG-23’s, with eighteen confirmed aircraft lost! (The largest type of aircraft killed was the MiG.-21, with thirty-three confirmed kills.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Bad US carrier landing
> Flood
> I’d guess the pilot walked away, but did he walk away from
> a career too?
No, it was an accident and everybody knows the hazzards of being a carrier pilot, the fear and stress. A greater question is how much did he want to continue to land on a carrier. The real test would be his first “night trap” after this accident. If he could handle that, then he has everybody’s respect for courage. (SEE NOTE)
It looked like he over corrected in his roll attitude and then at the last second panic and pushed on a rudder peddled! So, as he caught the hook his nose wheel was steering incorrectly also. Thank gawd he caught a wire or else that could have been a real mess on the carrier deck. All those parked aircraft and deck crew members in between the parked aircraft.
This illustarted one point the US Navy did not like about the YF-16 or YF-17 was the narrow wheel base of the main landing gear as compared to the F-4 or F-14.
NOTE:
In the book, “Flight of The Intruder” a young A-4 Skyhawk pilot tried twelve times to land aboard the carrier after a night strike over North Viet Nam. The pilot asked for permission to divert to DaNang but, permission was denied because DaNang was closed due to bad weather. Some of his misses were not his fault such as “hook bounce!” The Air Boss told him if he missed on his twelth attempt to climb to five thousand feet and bail out.
The hero of the story Jake Gafton (sp?) was flying the A-6 tanker that night and when the young pilot missed his twelth attempt Jake dove from his altitude of fifthteen thousand feet (I think) down to four thousand feet just ahead of the young pilot in the A-4. Jake off-loaded about fifthteen hundred pounds of fuel which would allow the pilot a couple more attempts at the deck. By this time all other aircraf involved in the strike had already landed. On the thirdteenth attempt the A-4 caught the number three cable and was yanked to a stop. The pilot followed the directions of the deck crew as he cleared the landing area so Jake could land. As the canopy lifted up and the crew chief climb up the ladder the pilot had tears rolling down his cheeks!
The next day the pilot climbed into his A-4 Skyhawk and took off as nothing had never happened and the other pilots seeing this knew this young pilot had the “right stuff!”
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15 vs. Su-27
> WHITE CLOWD
> Hey Adrian 44 ( Or Any one else who might know) who won the wargames
> exersice in 94 in South Korean between the Rus SU-27 and U.S.F-15?
I never did hear the results or anything about the ROE’s.
This was also the year the USAF purchased two Su-27’s from Russia. I did hear about the exercise between the Su-27’s and the F-15’s at Langley AFB. The exercise were done over the Altantic Ocean.
I found out about the purchase of the Su-27’s in Janes Book of Aircraft page 407 and, (I think) 2000/2001 issue.
> Flanker_man
> http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk…ker_combat.html
I heard two different things, one that the Russians broke formations performed a cobra like maneuver and jumped on the tail of the F-15’s and the other was that the two took turns getting on each other’s tail and the aircraft in front would trying out maneuver the one behind. Supposedly the Su-27’s when in front quickly reversed the position and got on the F-15’s tail and the F-15 could not shake them. When the F-15 was in front it could not escape from the gunsights of the Su-27.
Who is telling the truth and who is not I have no idea. I know from my late friend Art Doty that the air exercises not only help teach but, also helping out relations between the two countries.
He told me of one exercise in which his flight of four Tomcats in air engagements another country’s air force and the Tomcats were “not” allowed to pull more than five G’s! Or, another exercise where the air wing was told there would be no tanker support….. translation -don’t use your afterburners.
> Sens
> At least when those Flanker pilots were not ordinary Russian AF ones
That is one thing the American military does during these exercises is to use pilots of various experiences. When the US Navy went Laage, Germany for Operation Red October, only one pilot was an aggressor pilot, another pilot was a “nugget” (new pilot) who had just finished his first carrier tour of duty. The other eight pilots had various levels of experience.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15 vs. Su-27
> crobato
> Don’t generalize Americans. What you mean is the USAF. The
> USN still loves the furball and the low speed dogfight,
> e.g. Tomcat and Hornet.
It is a generalization that is accurate about American as well as Israeli air warfighting, “speed is life.”
The low speed dogfight is the one that is most likely to degenerate into a furball.
Now…. the US Navy aircraft can fight the low speed fight due to the reality of bringing an aircraft aboard a carrier.
One real problem with the low speed dogfight is that some buddies of your enemy could enter the fight at a higher energy state/higher speed & altitude and prevail over you and your buddies who have little energy and will get squashed like grapes.
If you look at the corner velocities of American versus Russian aircraft, you will see for any set of parameters the corner velocity is higher for American aircraft than it is for Russian aircraft for comparative aircraft.
AIMVAL/ACEVAL (look up these test they took 10 months in 1977 at Nellis AFB) showed the furball is not productive. A F-15 can defeat a F-5 64:0 by the time you get to 32 versus 32 the F-15 wins by a kill ratio drops to that of 2:1!! The unseen shooter is a bigger factor in the furball and the unseen shooter accounts for 80% of aerial kills.
It was these series of test that set the requirements for what was needed in the next generation of air to air missiles, WVR and BVR.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: F-15 vs. Su-27
Before you make any more conclusions about the results of COPE INDIA, read the article in Avaition Week’s article 10/04/04. A Maj. Snowden from the 3rd Fighter Squadron explains what went on, such as IAF asked 3:1 numerical odds, etc.. Neither country used their best equipment, so no MKI, Slammer/ARH missile, no HMDS, etc.. The missiles simulated are the AA-10 Alamo and AIM-7 Sparrow Missile.
The article is publish online, the URL is located at;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237790/posts
> WHITE CLOWD
> I was wondering I heard that Russian pilots flew Su-27’s against
> our F-15 in a war game exersice some time ago in 1990’s and the
> Su-27’s beat the F-15 does anybody have any Info on this??
Yes, there have been many exercises between the USAF and VVS. In the mid-’90’s there was an exercise between the two in South Korea. In 1994, a private firm (CIA front company?) purchases two Su-27’s! These aircraft are delievered in AN-124 transports….. to a area that is “sandy” (Nellis AFB?).
Then there was a time when Su-27’s came to the USA and exercised with the F-15C’s off the eaast coast.
What the Russians don’t say is that when you chart rate of turn (degrees per second) at “9g’s”, there was no mention of what altitude. The lines indicate that the two are about a two degree separation at 156 mph (12º-Sec to 10º-sec) to the advantage of the Su-27. They become identical at 413 mph and the F-15 slowly edges ahead until 540 mph where the F-15 gains a two degree advantage (24º-Sec to 22º). By 625 mph they are coincident again and will never separate more than two degree until the maximum speed of 905 mph.
In high speed performance the difference between the Su-27 and the F-15 is not clear.
The corner velocities of the two aircraft at “9G’s” are;
F-15C -450 @ 25º
Su-27 -393 @ 28º
To put it plain and simple, the Russians believe in the furball and the low speed dogfight. The Americans believe the low speed dogfight and furball are not productive. The Americans love high exchange ratios 7:1 and better. This is accomplished best in small numbers involved in a dogfight and to keep the speed up.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Stealth obsolete?
> Ubiquitous1
> Given that F/A 22 / F 35, B2, F117 need accurate 3 dimensional
> routing as well as stealth to survive on a modern battlefield,
> does not LPI sam radars make these assets much more vulnerable?
This goes both ways! The SAM site will have difficulty detecting an on comming LPI airborne radar.
If given a choice between being in an F-22 or being at the SAM site, I prefer the F-22.
In late 2003 Israel started offering Western countries a course in how to defeat the S-300 Missile System! This course was for operators of F-16’s. So, if the IDF/AF feels confident it can challenge an S-300 site using F-16’s, tactics using the F-22 really increase the pilot’s chances of survival.
> SOC’s
> I don’t see a reason why most modern mobile “shoot and scoot” SAMs
> wouldn’t be able to be detected by an aircraft’s RWR gear.
The reason LPI radars are so difficult to detect is because almost every pulse is of a different frequency and in some cases (like the F-22) a different power level. The result is the signal comes to the RWR as “random” noise or static!
Aircraft when can operate on data links have another means of operating of which the ground can not depend on in detecting the enemy.
If the enemy is attacking for the first time like the PGW#1 (01/16/91) or the Israelis did over the Bekaa Valley (1982) then, the option with decoys can bleed your SAMs until you run out. Even if you don’t run out, you do reveal where your air search radars are and these can be killed by anti-radiation missiles.
The other aspect with SAMs shooting down stealth aircraft, broadband jamming can still be used to counter LPI radars. Big aircraft like the B-52 can stay back fifty to one hundred miles from the most forward SAM site and use brute power to assist the stealth aircraft penetrate even farther without being detected.
> YourFather
> AWS&T just reported that altitude tests were conducted on the F-119
> engine to demonstrate a loiter capability for the Raptor at very
> high altitudes
Yes, the F-119 (& the F-120) engines performed better than expected in many specs. The room for growth is a lot higher also. In the future the ability to modify the engines so the F-22 can supercruise at a higher speed, at a higher altitude (60,000+ feet) and, with better fuel economy appears to be closer than expected and will cost lest than originally planned to modify. One must remember that before the end of the Cold War, the F-22’s specs were the ability to supercruise at 60,000 feet and a maximum supercruise speed of Mach 2.0! After the fall of the Soviet Union the maximum supercruise specs were reduced to Mach 1.7 at 50,000 feet.
> seahawk
> An F-22 is not untouchable, but it cleary enjoys a sound advantage
> over “conventional” fighters
Yes, it enjoys a greater technology advantage than the F-15A had over the MiG.-21 or MiG.-23 and look at the record of the F-15. While the SU-27 has a real advantage over the F-15 at low speeds, at high speeds their performance near the transonic or supersonic speeds are very similar. This is not what you would see at an airshow but, in a dogfight this would be interesting.
> Foxmoth
> I think stealth is dead! Most people can see through it now!
Tell that to the navies of the world who deal with stealth weapon systems all the time…. the submarine!
If stealth were dead, why are so many countries spending real money on building a stealthy aircraft? What are so many countries interested in purchasing the F-35? Why is the Russian command structure talking about it being another ten years before Russia introduces its first true stealth aircraft? The answers to these questions tend to disagree with your conclusion.
> over G
> the reality is that the stealth features of the f22 are very
> over-rated
How do you come to that conclusion? This aircraft has a greater technicle advantage over its contemporaies than the F-15A did over the Mig.-21 or MiG.-23! Look at the F-15’s record 104+:0.
In combat test between the F-22A and the F-15C….. 2 Vs 2, 2 Vs 4, 2 Vs 8 and, 2 Vs 16, the F-22A won all the contest 24:0! There is too much data comming out about the advantage of LO in fighter aircraft in general to make such a statement!
> bistatic concepts that are used in passive tactics with Sa6 and
> Sa10, makes truly stealth aircraft vulnerable
Bi-static techniques and bi-static radar are two entirely different things. Bi-static radar is the greatest way to detect stealth vehicles. There are a couple of different types of bi-static radar. One is the one currently being developed in which multiple antennas are used and they use very low frequencies to detect aircraft. The problem with low frequency is that it is sensative to noise, just riped for jamming.
The other type of bi-static radar is the high frequency radar. It will broadcast over one thousand separate frequencies simultaneously, over several frequency bands! The recieving of all these signals and sorting out the legitimate returns versus the background noise is something at this time we can not even design the logic for!!! Some frequencies will travel travel straight, others will hit the upper atmosphere and reflect down to the ground before hitting something to force a return. How do you control a timming gate when you have some signals that will have a useful range of fifty miles (very high frequencies low on the horizon) and others whos useful range is three hundred and fifty miles or more.
When stealth aircraft become visiable to radar, non-stealth aircraft will seem like a beacon on radar! Survival will be based upon effective jamming. Stealth aircraft will be able to hide more effectively in a jamming envirement than non-stealthy aircraft.
> Distiller
> the BVR kills that are the supposed sphere of activity for the F-22
> are in the single digit percentages.
In Viet Nam the percentage for the sparrow Missile was in double digits. The percentage has gone up consistently in each conflict since then. Most kills take place along the boundary of WVR/BVR! This is when both sides know about the other. The thing about stealth is the ambush, the enemy will not know the F-22 is around until his flight mates start to blow up. If there are two or more F-22’s, the first attack will kill some of the enemy but, the enemy does not know where the other F-22’s are. Anyway the enemy turns, they could be putting another F-22 in their six o’clock position!
> May I point the Gentlemen to the Russian thoughts about the usefulness
> of stealth in the air-to-air environment?
Yes, they thought about it but, whereas they have no money and stealth is a “money black hole.” It sucks money in from all over. The Russians are waiting until after the F-35 becomes operational and “obtain” the technology and materials. Until then Russia will try all sorts of make shift means of stealth and RCS reduction.
The Chief of The Russian Air Force speach, URL:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/89/357/11829_aviation.html
> Garry B
> I would think that AIM-7s would be a more likely weapon
It was the F-4 Phantom 2/AIM-7 combination that failed because there was no window!
The particular incident that brought everything to a climax occurred in Spring of 1972 when the Israeli intelligence found out the next day that the Russians were going to fly a MiG.-25 at around 80,000 feet and speed around Mach 2.8 (this was the first time the MiG.-25 was “clocked” at Mach 2.8 for an extensive time). The Israeli AF launched an F-4 Phantom and sent it up to 44,000 feet directly in the path of the MiG.-25. The F-4 detected the MiG.-25 in time and fired the Sparrow Missile. The missile missile missed and the USAF and McDD both concluded there was no window of opportunity for that combination. That place urgency for the IAF to recieve the F-15A ASAP!
Aviation Week did a response to a letter to the editor about this incident and gave this story.
> Sens
> The Israeli data about speeds were radar-readings
How else would they determine the speed?
> the posted speed numbers are rough estimates at best and influenced
> by the wish to get F-14/15s later on
No, there was no problem with the funding for the F-14 and F-15. The need had been spelled out and all agreed that these aircraft were needed. Remember, these were the first fighters after the F-111 (TFX) which was a disaster as a fighter aircraft. Even the liberals in Congress realized that the F-4 Phantom 2 needed a replacement. Yes at the end of the developement program there was complaining about the price tags but, these new super fighters were so capable and dynamic in their performance.
The F-14 would be able to attack bombers three hundred plus miles from the carrier and a few F-14’s will be able to destroy many bombers before they can launch the anti-ship missiles. If the bombers have fighter escort, the F-14 had the autonomy to get around the fighters -attack the bombers and remain on patrol. If the bombers launched their missiles the F-14 has the ability to deal with any missile the bad guys wanted to use.
The F-15 was designed to kill the enemy at a very fast and efficient rate and move on to other aspects of its mission.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Myths of Aviation
> SOC
> Doesn’t mean it was a genuine airframe.
Let us say for the sake of arguement, that you are correct, then how do you explain sudden turn around in the I²RAF’s ability to keep their F-14’s operational when previously a large percentage of their F-14’s had been “hangar queens” which were being cannibalized for their spare parts only. All of a sudden large numbers of F-14’s become operations and the number of hangar queens virtually disappears.
My contention is that for the inspection and evaluation of the F-14A, the Soviet Union provided technical support in teaching the Iranians how to produce the parts they so badly need.
There is other intelligence from Iran and the Soviet Union to support this position, not just a couple of satellite photographs.
> Ramenskoye/Zhukovskii is actually southeast of Moscow
“I stand corrected,” I was thinking of Kubinka AFB which is west of Moscow. Thank you for correcting my mis-information!
> ogami musashi
> i said F-16 like many planes can sustain 9G’s but at a speed that
> provides a slow turn rate.
Yes, saying the F-16 can sustain “9G’s” is one thing but, it is not particularly meaningful unless you know the altitude and speed. The sustained rate of turn in degrees per second is also a valuable parameter.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Myths of Aviation
> Transall
> according to that book, the first stop for the Tomcat
> that defected was in Iraq, not Saudi Arabia
> they say in the book that they definately didn’t
> deliver a Tomcat to the Soviets
US satellites photographed a Tomcat at Ramenskoye Air Base -thirty miles west of Moscow. The story was that Iran obtained knowledge on how to make some parts for the Tomcat in exchange the Soviets got a good look at the Tomcat.
Now, when the Soviets look at an American weapon system or American looking at Soviet weapon system, neither side can copy the other side’s design. Both sides have entirely different design criteria. They can learn the technology the other side had at a previous time, from that the intelligence people can tell how accurate their information was. They can learn where their intelligence is the most accurate and from that be able to predict the technology available to the other side at a given time in the future.
You have to remember that when the Iran/Iraq War started, Iran did not have a good supply of parts. After a short while the I²RAF had more “hangar queens” than combat capable aircraft. Something needed to be done in order to manufacture replacement parts. The source of that manufacture knowledge came from the Soviet Union! There was no back door source of parts for the Tomcat like there was for the Skyhawk!
Did Iran like or trust the Soviet Union, no! Dealing with the Soviets was preferable to grounding six dozen of their most capable aircraft. It is not the first time in war one had to “dance with the devil!”
> HuntingHawk
> a U2 taking off from a carrier
During this series of test the US Navy also landed a C-130 and later took off all without conventional carrier landing aids.
> ogami musashi
> Wrong. The F-16 best turn rate/radius combo is achieved
> at 5,5g to 7,33g sustained
CORRECTION, the F-16 can sustain 9.0 G’s. It is the F-15 that is limited (during peace time) to 7.33 G’s)
> A lot of plane can sustain 9G like the F-16, mirage
> 2000 included but to do this plane have to go faster
> then reducing their turn rates.
The higher speed of the Mirage’s turn is due to the fact that the F-16, F/A-18 and, MiG.-29 were designed to accell in the area of battle space of between 250mph and 450mph, 30,000ft. down to 15,000ft. These three aircraft were designed to be lightweight low cost aircraft.
At speeds above 500mph and altitudes above 35,000ft. the lower wing loading plus reasonably high thrust translates into the Mirage maneuver very well along with the F-15 and Su-27. There are a couple of aircraft that somewhere in their envelope have a greater instantaneous rate of turn than the F-16 but, no aircraft (without TVC) has a sustained rate of turn than the F-16.
(The F-14 was designed to perform its best down around 20,000 ft. to better protect the fleet.)
> While the static thrust to weight ratio is indeed
> greater than one
The F-16 is designed so by the time it gets to the area of combat, its T/W ratio is 1.4:1! The highest of any aircraft until the F-22 comes along.
The USA rates its aircraft’s T/W ratio by what they are capable of when they fly from their base to the target area and encounter the enemy aircraft. This is where T/W ratio is meaningful. Not all countries are conservative like this.
> cru
> What ‘s really good about F 16 C and F 15 E is their
> ability to sustain 9 Gs at full internal fuel load
> and some respectable weapon load
That is one fine peace of engineering! This is one problem of the Su-27 and family have, they can not perform those show stopping maneuvers on a full tank of fuel!! They have to be at least a quarter tank down.
> milavia
> Myth: F-117 can carry AIM-9 Sidewinders.
Currently that is incorrect but, I would imagine it would not take that much modification to make the weapon compatible.
The only reason I could think of for wanting an F-117 to carry a Sidewinder Missile would be to kill an AWACS aircraft.
Adrian
Sign In
