Adrian_44RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed
> pirate
> With long-term military budget cuts looming once again, the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed
> Martin are finally talking about some of the F/A-22 Raptor’s closely held secrets that
> they hope will keep Congress paying for the $132-million stealth aircraft.
The F-15 does need to be replaced and anybody who knows much about realizes this fact. Initial operation was back in 1974, thirty years ago. That is a long time for a fighter to be among the best in the world. The SU-30 is just one of many aircraft going into operation (EF-2000, JAS-39C, Rafale, etc.) that puts the F-15 in the same class as the P-40 or F-4F Wildcat at the beginning of WW2!
There is a lot of information being released through many sources, not all of them have something to do with aviation! The effort is to read a very broad base of information and you will find all sorts of information! (SEE NOTE)
I recently found that each of its two computers have word length of 128 bits, a clock rate of 10.5 Gigahertz. Currently the first several years it will be operated this way, which is about 70% of its total capability!! Yeah….. it has the ability to expand by another 30%!!
Shhhhhhhh, don’t tell Congress that the AA-10 Alamo and the Sparrow Missile were the BVR missiles for this exercise. The F-15 did have an improved radar but not the new “9X” Sidewinder.
> The Indian pilots also had more flight time in the previous year than the U.S. pilots,
> roughly 300 hr. compared with 250 hr., the pilot said.
Now, if that is not looking for excuses, I don’t know what is. We are talking about about one hour per week difference. There are a whole lot of pilots all over the world who would love to get 250 flying hours!
> for cruise missile defense they would drop into the middle altitudes around 25,000-30,000 ft.
I sure would like to know the profile of the flight of the cruise missiles in examples! Are they flying at 50 feet, 500 feet or, 1,000 feet? A Silkworm missile can fly down around 100 to 200 feet above the ground or water.
> google
> When it can cook me breakfast, I’ll buy one.
When the F-14 Tomcat first came out, Grumman was passing out to anyone who requested, a copy of, “The F-14 Owner’s Manual.” That’s right as a tax payer, I helped purchase an F-22. Maybe I can claim an LED??
> sharmaji
> for the same price as an f-22, you could get super models of your choice cooking you breakfast
If I hire a super model, I would have her do the “and more!” I would hire some ugly woman to cook!!
NOTE:
I did a project once in which I look for information about the B-1 Lancer and F/A-18 fighter. In Rubber Technology I found an article about the new high tech tires for the F/A-18. They are inflated to 250psi for land operations and 325psi for carrier operations. Concerning the B-1, I found in Lambda (a power supply industry magazine) an article about the new multiplex power supply on the B-1 that saved eight miles of wiring on the wiring in the bomber. Popular Mechanics had an article about the overall mission while Electronic Design Magazine had an article about the GPS navigation equiptment.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Syrian Mig-23
> Srbin
> the Russians and the Syrians say they have shot down over 10 F-16s with their Mig-23s
> but the Israelis and Americans deny it.
If they had shot down an F-15 or F-16, don’t you think CNN or Al Jezzera would have paid big money to see a crash site of an American fighter?? Remember in the Balkans when a F-117 was shot down? The video was on the television world wide within two hours. The USAF denied the lost until the pilot was picked up.
One did not have to be an aviation expert to be able to tell the uniqueness of the crashsite of a American aircraft.
The wreckage sites are the one thing people who make these claims can not show! In the Middle East people looking up at dogfights happens, not as unique as say a lightning strike.
The Bekaa Valley was littered with the wreckage of FSU designed aircraft but, only one American made aircraft. That was an F-4 Phantom modified for ground attacks with Israeli avionics. So there was a follow attack that bombed the wreckage site of the F-4. By then there were photographs had been takened.
The IDF/AF has admitted that one of its F-15’s was hit by an air to air missile, but that the damaged aircraft made it back to its home base. The day and area of the incidents claimed by both countries are about the same.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Very nice looking HUD!
> google
> Very nice looking HUD!
Yes it is one of the new wide angle HUDs. This is one of the best pictures I have seen of the F-22 on the ground.
It shows how wide the Sidewinder weapons bay is. I have read that the Raptor can launch its missiles while rolling at sixty degrees per second!
> How does it compare in size to an F-15?
The F-22 is around the same size as the F-15! Actually, it is between the F-14 and F-15 in size, with the F-14 being the largest and the F-15 being the smallest!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Russian and Chinese aircraft – obsession in this forum ??
> seahawk
> in the last months that this forum is imho biased in favor of Russian and Chinese planes.
Any time there is a website that has an international attraction, you will find those who have a bias for or against one of many topics. Right now militarily the USA is number one, so we are the ones with the “bullseye” on our backs!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Good Mil Aviation Films
> matt
> Good Mil Aviation Films
I made the mistake of reading the book “Flight of The Intruder” before seeing the movie! The last scenes the A-6’s were supposed to blast a hole to assist the B-52’s and instead get “hung up” on trying to destroy a single ZSU-23-4! Instead of showing Jake going after his buddy’s widow, take the time to show Jake flying as a A-6 tanker pilot and how he helped an A-4 pilot (who was in “the barrel” that night) and was about to run out of fuel! How the A-4 pilot really earned the resect of his fellow pilots by hopping into his A-4 the next day. After landing on his fourteenth try because the weather was bad and he could not “divert” to Da Nang.
Now, I really enjoyed Bat-21 then again I have not read the book!
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: American fighter prefix
> Saleem Y Hatoum
> Can anybody help me with the missing numbers in American
> fighter designation:
Most of the number were used for developement aircraft that never went into production! The only other number not used that has not been mentioned above is;
F-32 (loser in the JSF project)
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Single Engine v. Two Engines
BACK TO PAGE ONE!
(Sorry I have been offline for a couple of days)
> Dutchy
> What strikes me is that most of the current Hornet users,
> were replacing singel engine aircraft with it.
The previous light attack aircraft were all single engine. While the F/A-18 did not have the range of the F-16, in lower speed dogfighting it could hold its own. The YF-17 had two engines for there was no single new engines of which fit the designers needs. The new P&W engine for the F-15 and F-16 was a high risk project, the “404” engines were a safer choice. Plus the reality that McDD was redesigning the YF-17 to the F/A-18 and being stressed for carrier landings meant that land based countries could operate the aircraft at least 50% longer due to the stronger frame.
PAGE TWO
>> The rotation of the Mig-29 at the farnborough airshow was
>> very slow… if he had been higher or slightly faster he
>> could easily have recovered from the bird strike.
> The pilots assured me the bird is able to perform a perfect
> take-off with a single engine running at full dry thrust
> without afterburner. Any yaw effects that occur can be easily
> justified by trimming the fin rudders.
If you look at the video tape of the 1989 Farnborough Air Show air demonstartion of the MiG.-29, you will see it had just come out of a square loop. The rudders had “authority” and the aircraft was under control. The MiG.-29 had about 30° AOA. The right engine just shut down/quit as a 20 foot lick of flame shot out from it. Without any significant loss in airspeed, rudder authority was loss due to the assymetric (thanks for the correct spelling Authur) thrust problem! Had the pilot had another 1,000 in altitude the aircraft had already started a righthand spin! The aircraft had already started to spin. The aircraft would have had to be going a lot faster for the ailerons to have the authority to counter the yaw created by just one engine. The MiG.-29 was just above stall speed, not like an aircraft taking off that is well above stall speed and excellerating. If one engine quits in most cases the additional speed allows the pilot some options. In this case Anatoly Kvotchur the Chief Test Pilot for Mikoyan at that time of the MiG.-29 project said, the engine just quit and I tried to control the aircraft. Failing this I then directed the aircraft to a part of the field where there were no people. After insuring that, I ejected. Anatoly ejected just 2.8 seconds before the MiG. crashed. Watching the Aviation Week Video “Hot Flying” you can see (in slow motion) the left engine still operating ejects a long flame as the back end of the aircraft crumbles. The right engine already down does not eject any flame.
The birdS that were suck into the engine occurred at the beginning of the flight demonstration. It just took a few minutes for the damage to become catastrophic!
F-14A Tomcats have experienced the same thing when they approach the carrier for a landing with those damn TF-30 engines, if one of them fails it leaves the pilot with few options. Many pilots wind up crashing in the water because there was not enough air speed to pull up and accelerate away. Instead they are just above stall speed at a high AOA! If one engine quits then the pilot must lower the nose immediately, hit afterburner with the one operating engine, miss the carrier and, hopefully gain enough airspeed to try another landing at a higher speed!
It is a different situation when an aircraft is flying along and the engine experiences problems and the pilot decides to shut down the engine. Even if the sequence is rather rapid, under some degree of control the process is not an issue.
If the aircraft had been a F-4, F-5, F-15, F/A-18 or, Jaguar with the engines right next to each other, the assymetric thrust problem would have been a lot less.
> flex297
> Could it be that Eritreans and Ethiopians hired not only
> Ukrainian and Russian pilots
No both sides have indigenous pilots as well as mercenary pilots.
> GarryB
> the F-16s IR guided missile have and will it be enough for
> a tailchase engagement of a highly supersonic Fulcrum?
The Sidewinder-9L and Python-3 are two two missiles that can do the job.
> crobato
> The F-15’s IFF should have been able to pick out the
> Blackhawks.
The Blackhawks were not using their IFF nor had they filed a flight plan! So AWACS cleared the F-15’s to fire on the two targets. Months earlier a DC-9 airliner did not file a flight plan, Two F-14’s were vectored to intercept the target. AWACS cleared the Tomcats to kill the target! The lead pilot decided to get a visual before firing. As they got closer, they were able to use their TVC and they discovered it was a chartered airliner.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Russian Anti Shipping Missiles
> Srbin
> Russian Anti Shipping Missiles
> The Russians seem to have quite a few Anti Shipping Missiles,
> so which one is the best and which ones are planned for RuAF
> and RuN?
I don’t know which one is best but the US Navy knew of the developement of many of the missiles but, the missile they decided to get a purchase production license for was the SS-N-22! They use it as a target missile to sharpen the skills of aegis crews. The US Navy’s version is designated as the Mk-31 Target Missile.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: How much do the Russians know about USAF aircraft?
> aerospacetech
> There has never been any evidence that the USSR had physical
> access to Tomcats and Phoenixes
Oh yes! They US Navy considered the F-14 and Phoenix Missile compromised when the Shah of Iran lost his throne. The Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIRAF) lost many of the service manuals for both the F-14 and Phoenix during the mess of the political power change. Later there has been talk of an F-14 photograph takened by a satellite at an Soviet air base! Most likely the Iranians hating the Americans lent the F-14 to the Soviets for a couple of weeks in exchange for some technicle help. The US did that several times with Eastern European nations lending the USAF Soviet aircraft for a several of weeks then, send aircraft home in the original box using the original nail holes.
> the head of Vympel specifically denied seeing a Phoenix
He is correct, the way the Soviets do things is different than the way the USA does. The Soviet Union likes redundancy also, using infra red as well as radar. Using ramjet and rocket propulsion for long range missiles.
> They also got detailed info on the APG-65, too late to
> influence the N019 and N001
Again the integrated circuits was far behind that of the US industry. At that time they were about 15 years behind the USA. We used a lot of digital circuits while they accomplished the same thing using more analog circuits. The fact that F/A-18 was a carrier aircraft. So being able to filter out “sea clutter” is extremely important while the Soviet Union is a land locked nation and its aircraft don’t need that capability as much so they don’t have it much.
The F/A-18’s radar was slower than the MiG.-29’s but the F/A-18 handles more difficult problems digitally. The MiG.-29 has a faster clock speed than the F/A-18 and this scares the big brass of NATO for several years. The MiG.-29’s radar is a good radar but the F/A-18’s radar is better. It handles sea and ground clutter better. Better against deception jamming and, maintaining lock-on while target and attacker are both maneuvering.
> GarryB
> It is a misconception to think that only Russian engineers
> copy
The Russian engineers are very good at what they design. Their big brass has been a road block for many of the programs. Management problems is the reason the Soviet Navy had noisey submarines, simple aircraft like the MiG.-21 and to a lesser extent the MiG.-29. They are not fans of complex weapons like the SU-27.
In answer the the initial question, both sides go out of their way to find out what the other guy is doing! They often solve problems other engineers can’t.
EXAMPLE -The initial specification for the B-52 called for a swepted wing bomber with four turbo-prop engines. One problem was there was too much vibrations. Boeing was about to lose the contract due to non-performance when GE designed a new engine jet engines and we now have the B-52 that we know and love. Now, look at the TU-95, the Soviet engineers solved the vibration problem and made the design work! It looks very similiar to the original design of which Boeing was trying to make work.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Russians know about USAF aircraft?
Sorry, this is a little long! -Adrian
> saf2000
> Russians know about USAF aircraft?
A better question is, “what don’t they know!” The Former Soviet Union (FSU)had its intelligence people studying what America planned to do, what they were debating to do and what they decided to work on. They would then try to have agents in the companies that was doing the work.
Now you don’t need someone on the design team to find out exactly what is being designed. In the past the FSU tapped the telephone lines of the FAX machines. When people check to see if the lines are being tapped, they normally just check the voice telephone lines.
The FSU also legally purchased over one million pounds per year of technicle magazines and journals! You have to remember that in a democracy complex systems have to be discussed for budget purposes.
The best way to see what I am talking about is when you first hear about about a new weapon system, keep a folder and when you hear or see something place it or a note of what it is about in the folder. After a year and a half, take out all the articles and read them and you can get a good idea of what is going on. Not all good information has to be obtained from magazines like Aviation Week & Space Technology. In an issue of Rubber Technology I found an article on the F/A-18’s tires. They are pressurized to 250 psi for land operations and 325 for carrier operations. In Lamda Magazine (a magazine in the power supply industry) I read of the new power system in the B-1 Lancer Bomber. It told that the B-1 has one power supply and one set of lines. There are pieces of equiptment that are powered by twelve volts, twenty-four volts and, forty-eight volts! Each piece of equiptment has a “bypass” transistor, so when the transistor is turned on, it will allow power to that piece of equiptment and then turns off.
Electronics Design writes about the philosophies of testing the new integrated circuits, Oceans discusses the latest in submarine technology. Then there are the technicle magazines from each service, Surface Warrior, Submarine Review, Tailhook, Airman, Armor, Fighter Weapons School Journal, etc.. (This is about one percent of the military periodicals.) During the Cold War there were 247 susscriptions of Aviation Week to the FSU! This often contained explosive information, such as the truth of what happened to Korean Airlines “747”, KAL-007! You can bet the KGB knew where every copy of that magazine went and, why the person or people had a need for such information.
So the power supply will start at twelve volts and all the bypass transistors turn on and allow the power into all pieces of equiptment at that voltage turn on for several milli-seconds then turn off. Then all pieces of equiptment powered by twenty-four volts have their bypass transistors turn on for a few milli-seconds also and then turn off. The same thing happens at forty-eight volts.
So the power supply stair steps the power up and down many times per second. Each piece of equiptment has some capacitors that store the power until the next time the bypass transistors allow more power in. By doing this almost several dozen times per second, one pair of wires are able to supply all the power requirements for the entire aircraft. So, the aircraft saves several miles of wire and almost a half a ton in weight.
Getting service manuals by one means or another is an extremely good way of obtaining information. When the Sha of Iran lost his throne FSU agents were able to get their hands on manuals for the F-14A Tomcat and AIM-554A Phoenix Missile! Later on the FSU was able to make a deal with “some people” of the Iranian Air Force and they “borrowed” a Tomcat for a couple of weeks! This was several years after they had gottened their hands on the manuals.
Making a deal with a third party country, to allow you to examine the aircraft you want to know more about for a week or two. The USAF was able to do this with some people in Eastern Europe who were under Soviet rule and hated it. So, when a fighter aircraft was being shipped from the FSU through country “X” to country “Y”, some how the shipment would get mess up and an invetigation would have to take place. Meanwhile the create containing the fighter was shipped to the USA! There it was assembled, tested and, dis-assembled! The freight package was shipped back to country “X” where it was discovered, then shipped to country “Y”!
This happened several times.
There are other means each nationality has a different distance between centerline of one pupil of the eye to the other one, now there is a reference measurement!! So, a photograph of the weapon system along with a crew member, use a little “descriptive geometry” and a good draftsman can calculate the true distance/measurement of an item plus its angle or radius.
While the FSU wanted new fighters to replace the MiG.-21 (in 1969), the new design would follow the design philosophy of the US Navy’s F-4H Phantom 2. First request for the new fighter project of which Sukhoi was working on, their initial aim was to produce a aircraft that had specs 10% better than the F-15! The first design efforts did not meet their goals and it was somewhere down the line the vectored thrust engine was included in the design
So, in answer to your original question of, “Russians know about USAF aircraft?”, they know a lot about a new weapon system. Now, things like stealth are a little different in that the key to their design is in the materials. So, even if you find out how the USAF did something, if you can’t duplicate it, the information is useless. If you have a material the does the same thing but is different then, you have to design the process of making the material and engineer the steps in manufacture the finish product.
These are just a few of many ways of which information can be collected. Then there has to be a whole organization behind the agents to distribute the information to those who need it.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: Single Engine v. Two Engines
> WACHENR0DER
> a single engine design versus a double engine design
Originally the concept of two engines was better because of reliability situations. It is only a help when the engine has a problem and the pilot is able to shut the engine down in an orderly fashion, trim the aircraft so it will fly with just one engine.
McDD is unusual in that it places the two engines close together (the F-15 and F/A-18). This way if there is an engine problem there is no axi-metric thrust problem. Aircraft like the F-14, MiG.-29, SU-27 and, F-22….. if one engine fails suddenly, the thrust from the working engine will rotate the about the yaw axis.
There is an old joke from private aircraft owners, “those who for have two engine aircraft, if one engine fails…… you have one engine to take you to the scene of the accident!”
> kya bidu
> + side-by-side means it is easier to design lifting
> body airframes such as the F22 / F15 / Su27 and
> the Mig29.
What about the F-14, the first aircraft to have this arrangement.
In the 1989 Parish Air Show where the MiG.-29 lost power suddenly. At such slow speed the flight controls had no authority! At such a low altitude, the pilot Anatoly Kovachur (sp?) did not have much time to react. He said in the Aviation Week Video, “Hot Flying.” In it he said, “when it first occurred I tried to maintain control of the flight, seeing that was not possible I then directed my aircraft to an area where people were not around and finally, after insuring that I then ejected.” He ejected just 2½ seconds before impact and, his parachute fully deployed when he was just a few feet off the ground.
In my opinion he is one fantastic pilot! He was up flying the demonstration the next day! What guts!!
> of course this doesn’t really apply to the big fighters
> like the F-15, 14, and Flankers
Why not? The only reason the F-15 has two engines is because when the aircraft was being designed there were no companies producing an engine that could develope 50,000 pounds of thrust, according to Irv Borrows Chief Test Pilot for the F-15 Project.
> matt
> its similar to two pilots versus one.
That has been a real debate since two person jet fighters started being designed. This debate went on in “Letters To The Editor” for about a year and a half on the merits of one versus two engines and air crew.
Yes, the two person aircraft does have the advantage of a second pair of eyes but, the second person adds significant weight to the aircraft.
Some people sight in the Arab/Israeli conflicts the two person Phantom doing so well against the MiG.-17, MiG.-19 and, MiG.-21. The same arguement was made about Viet Nam but, in this case the highest scoring MiG. pilot Col. Toon had 13 kills. The counter was that Col Toon was shot down by Lt.Cmd. Cunningham. The debate has been going on for a long while and the and the Navy and USAF should have definitive numbers on this debate. Testing the C models versus the D models, for the F-15, F-16 and, F/A-18.
> “In recent years, however, Alaska’s airports have suffered
> significant losses in service because of the introduction of
> new, long-range aircraft that no longer needed an Alaska
> refueling stop, and the opening of Russian airspace with the
> resulting shortening of many northerly air routes.”
While the new long range airliner aircraft don’t need a stop over between North America and the Far East. Non-stop is a selling point but, the reality is that flying a DC-10 from New York to Anchorage to Tokyo takes less time! Yes, dispite the one hour stop-over in Anchorage, it is faster than a non-stop flight.
Adrian
Adrian_44RE: One shot, two kills?
> cbstd
> during the first Iraq war (1992) a F-18 pilot launched on
> a pair of Iraqi aircraft two Iraqi pilots “broke formation”
> right into each other!
1) There are two different incidents that being sighted here. The Iraqi Air Force did have one case of fractricide, it happened on the first night.
Two MiG.-29’s were up trying to intercept some Coalition aircraft. Their radars were being effectively jammed by EA-6B’s and EF-111B’s. Still flying around hoping their luck would change. The two MiG’s got separated and many minutes later as one MiG. turned he detected a target that was not being covered by the jamming. The MiG. pilot was so happy he did not check his IFF! He just locked the target up and fired a missile at target. The missile hit the tail end of the target and the pilot’s elation was cut short by his fellow pilot calling and saying he had just been hit by a missile. The attacking MiG was following the victim downward. Then the atacker realized he shot his wingman down. The victim MiG. crashed killing the pilot, the attacking MiG. pilot was in shock and continued to decend until he crashed also! This whole event was recorded by the AWACS.
2) The closest F-14D’s came to getting two kills was when two Russian MiG.-21’s (or Chinese J-8’s) got to close to an attack package and were being chased away by the two F-14D’s.
Lt Cmd, Scott Fox was leading a flight of four F/A-18C’s to bomb a target (H-3) with four Mk-84 (2,000 pound) bombs each from the carrier USS Saratoga. His wingman Lt. Nick Mangillo would killed the other MiG.-21.
While on the way to the target the E-2C called Lt. Cmd. Fox “400 that bogey is on your nose at fifthteen!” (The fighter director aboard the E-2C knew Lt Cmd Fox personnally) The MiG.-21 was traveling mach 1.3 while the F/A-18C’s were traveling at mach 0.9. Cmd Fox told his element leader to take his wingman and continue to the target “H-3 airfield” while Lt. Cmd. Fox and his wingman would take on the bogeys. The MiG.’s were around 28,000 feet and climbing while the F/A-18’s were at 33,000 feet (I read the altitude from the HUD, which was shown on the video tape) and in a shallow decent. When the MiG.’s got well within the “heart of the envelope” for the Sparrow Lt Cmd Fox fired a AIM-7M Sparrow Missile. It seemed to take a long time so Lt. Cmd. Fox fired a Sidewinder-9L and just seconds after the missile left the “rails” the Sparrow killed the MiG.. Many seconds later the Sidewinder hit the flamming wreckage, and still the front end of the MiG. was intact!
Both of these two incidents during the PGW#1 was part of the post war special that Aviation Week & Space Technology did about a month after the war.
In addition there was also the incident where the Coalition lost it only aircraft to enemy fighters, it occurred on the first night of the PGW#1!
A flight of four from the USS Saratoga which was on a SEAD mission as a part of a strike package. The flight recieved word from the E-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry that a bogey was approaching from their left side, in the front hemisphere by outside the angular range of the F/A-18’s radars. The MiG.-25PD did not lock up the F/A-18C. The E-3 which was in charge of the overall detection for the Coalition later dismissed the threat because the MiG.-25 appeared to be on a course that was going to it behind the F/A-18’s. The MiG.-25 indeed passed behind the flight, passing over their path then doing a righthand turn into a “stern conversion” which placed it direcly behind many miles from the flight. The MiG.-25PD locked-up the F/A-18 on the far rightside of the formation. The crew of the Hawkeye’s ESM also recorded emissions from Foxbat’s fire-control system. The members of the flight heard the radar warning reciever (RWR) go off but,after many seconds it stopped. The MiG-25PD acquired their target with the help of their Sapheer-25 radars and most probably fired a SARH-homing R-40DR or a “IR & SARH-homing” R-40DT missiles. A very short while later there was an explosion and Cmd Speicher’s aircraft was burning and going down.
One of pilots in this flight was Lt Mongillo from VFA-81, part of the package of Speicher’s on the first night, who later killed an MiG-21.
After this incident the Navy changed its policy and the E-2 was to have final say in radar coverage for any aircraft of the Navy!
Cmd. Speicher as did many pilots had just recieved a new “personal radio,” as part of his survival equiptment. Unfortunately, the new radio did NOT fit into the flight suit pocket as did the previous radio. So, the radio hung out of his chest pocket, unable to be secured. Not a problem “unless,” one has to eject from the aircraft! No rescue mission was attempted because there was no radio contact with Cmd. Speicher.
It was about two years later before Aviation Week recieved information that the F/A-18 was shot down by the MiG.-25PD rather than the original theory that it was shot down by a SAM.
> TTP
> I’m reminded of a video from an F-15 cockpit that showed a
> dogfight, all the while the “bitching Betty” is screaming
> out “Fuel, Fuel” the pilot never heard it…
The was a scene from the Aviation Week Video, “Hot Flying.” The second dogfight scene with the F-15’s of the 33rd Fighter Squadron. The was approaching three Iraqi aircraft -two MiG.-25’s and one MiG.-23. As they approached the flight leader’s computer sounded the warning (in a woman’s voice) “Bingo Fuel.” The third time the computer sounded the warning, the flight leader asked, “is anybody in burners?” There was a moment of quiet and then Number Two said, “afirm!” The flight leader then said, “everybody out of burners!” The flight continued to fight the MiG.’s without the usage of their afterburners and, shot all three down.
That is my favorite scene on that tape! That is the first version of the tape. Aviation Week changed the video and that was one segment left out! I had taped the video when it first came on. Later when Christmas came I recieved it as a present, only to find out that segment of the F-15C’s killing MiG.’s during the PGW#1 eliminated, for some reason! Frankly, I think it was a great scene showing an flight of aircraft low on fuel yet, able to complete the fight.
Adrian
Sign In
