dark light

Starfish Prime

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 706 through 720 (of 947 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2147886
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    Those two links are highly solid, loved the bit about “Crew 1 and 2 (pilot)”, or “Armament – Guns 2× 30 mm internal cannon”, nevermind “Ferry range 5,500 km (3,400 mi)” and the absolutely fabulous “- supersonic 2500” (thats 2500 km´s for supersonic range…). Those links are utter rubish.
    There´s no data on things like weight of the dam thing, nevermind the amount of internal fuel or its range. We wont see any solid, confirmed data for atleast a decade.

    True, the second link is certainly dubious but 22,700lbs is the widely accepted internal fuel capacity of the PAK-FA and based on size relative to Su-35 and the fact it has to carry weapons internally too, I’d say it’s spot on that it has less fuel than an Su-35.

    http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2044/thumb_620x2000/s27j20t50f22.jpg

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2147888
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    Lol! Dude, do you even read your own sources..?

    This;
    Designed to compete against the F-22 in traditional Beyond Visual Range (BVR) and Within Visual Range (WVR) air combat, the PAK-FA shares all of the key fifth generation attributes until now unique to the F-22 – stealth, supersonic cruise, thrust vectoring, highly integrated avionics and a powerful suite of active and passive sensors. While the PAK-FA firmly qualifies as a fifth generation design, it has two further attributes absent in the extant F-22 design. The first is extreme agility, resulting from advanced aerodynamic design, exceptional thrust/weight ratio performance and three dimensional thrust vectoring integrated with an advanced digital flight control system. The second attribute is exceptional combat persistence, the result of a 25,000 lb internal fuel load. The internal and external weapon payload are likely to be somewhat larger, though comparable to those of the F-22A.


    Not that i stand behind such claims.
    But enough of this, a can’t be arsed any more. Welcome to my Ignore list.

    From first link.

    Fuel capacity: 10,300 kg (22,700 lb)

    From second link:

    Fuel (kg): 10300

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2147942
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    For years I have been implying that pilots most likely will be closely instructed on what to say about the aircraft and therefore, especially the positive claims have to be taken with a {large} grain of salt. This was furiously denied and rejected by the usual worshipping suspects.. This has confirmed it.. That’s it, I am not making any scandal out of it..

    How convenient, this way you can exclude the opinion of the only people whose opinions are actually valid.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2147960
    Starfish Prime
    Participant
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    The MiG-15 had superiority in some of the envelope, but not everywhere.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Energy_Maneuverability_diagram.jpg

    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    Talk about you can lead a horse to water…………

    You are completely barking up the wrong tree – and have just demonstrated to me (again) that you are not even aware of the basics of the Vietnam air war which is why I have pointed you at some very good sources to help you out……..and you reply with some 5 second searches on Wiki!!!!.

    I am well aware of Bolo (The actual declassified report is available ) and no it was not everyone lived happy ever after……..the VPAF stood down and just changed their tactics and came back even more effective (as they did several other times).

    The USN certainly did turn things around after Rolling Thunder but the USAF never did and sure as hell do not consider near parity or 2:1 ratio to be good enough considering the massive technological and numerical superiority they had over the VPAF.

    And no despite what you want to make up in your head – the best research tell us there were no Soviet pilots who flew in combat for the VPAF. (intentionally – barring a training incident)

    You can either listen to what I am telling you or continue to post your ignorant drivel.

    By the second week of Linebacker II they didn’t come up at all though.

    The ratio was 3:1 and was likely even better than that by the end of the war iwth the F-4E.

    So you disagree with Randy Cunningham.

    “I don’t believe every pilot we faced in Vietnam had tan skin, slanted brown eyes, and black hair…”

    Well since you were already wrong about Korea, why should anyone listen to you?

    And Jack Broughton.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thud_Ridge_(book)

    Lt. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (pilot) and Lt. JG. Willie “Irish” Driscoll (RIO) in their F-4J Phantom II “Showtime 100”, VF-96 Fighting Falcons, against three VPAF MiG-17F Frescoes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_EEaw4-UKY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnXbRuoriwU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiuAxisJZ-0

    The third MiG-17F shot down by Cunningham and Driscoll was piloted by “Colonel Toon”, who was actually a Soviet instructor pilot.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZGGbNuXxkI

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2148001
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    Man why am i even wasting time with you.. You can’t even get the correct specs out from wiki it seems..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

    http://knaapo.ru/products/su-35/

    The Su-35S has Fuel capacity: 11,500*kg (25,400*lb) internally

    F-35 Internal fuel capacity: 18,498*lb (8,382*kg)

    Pls do some research before posting this nonsens.

    PAK-FA has 2,700lbs less fuel than Su-35 and a fuel fraction of 35% vs 38.5%. Should have been obvious I was talking about the PAK-FA.

    in reply to: U-2: why no imitators? #2148054
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    The real aircraft with no imitations (officially) was the SR-71, although something did crash at Boscombe Down.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2148066
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    Dedicated platforms aren’t in development anymore because they’re expensive and restrict flexibility. Previously dedicated platforms have also been upgraded to include A2G, e.g. F-15s in Israel and Japan, the F-14 Bombcat. Right now the likes of the F-15C and F-15D are pretty useless in many current conflicts because of their A2A dedication.

    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    You wont find anyone that agrees with you that the US won in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese may have taken a sound beating on the tactical side (up to when the US left) – but strategically they got the US out of the war which also cut funding to South Vietnam to a trickle eventually. Therefore the invasion in 75 was literally a walkover ( despite the South having a lot of very good US equipment) and North Vietnamese achieved what they had set out to do after WWII.

    During the air war we know they only faced North Vietnamese flyers (some were quite experienced by the end of Rolling Thunder (were beating the USAF 5:1 at this point) and the Soviet based IADS was still very effective even up to the start of Linebacker II . They were not idiots and when they suffered set backs they changed tactics – and were still a nuisance. By the end of Linebacker II the IADS was literally crushed by overwhelming B-52 bombing and having the supply lines cut – but that had more to do with the lack of equipment rather than the type of equipment.

    I cannot summarise the complexity of this air war – but this is a good primer despite being old is based on declassified info and writen by a USAF F-4 vet who is rightly very critical of an incompetent USAF high order and their obsolete tactics.

    https://www.amazon.com/Clashes-Combat-North-Vietnam-1965-1972/dp/1591145198

    As for Korea that kinda finished as a stalemate on the ground (and still is to this day). Fact – the MiG-15bis was considered and proven superior in certain aspects to the early F-86s – there is nothing classified or unknown about these. Some very good Soviet flyers (WW II vets) started the war in combat but they were not there that long because they got replaced on a division basis and the Soviets wanted to pass it off to the PLAAF as soon as they could.

    Short book by ex USAF pilot Doug Dildy might be useful:
    https://www.amazon.com/F-86-Sabre-MiG-15-Korea-1950/dp/178096319X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473255677&sr=1-1&keywords=mig-15+vs+f-86

    What I actually meant was that they defeated the Soviet pilots in air engagements.

    The result is debatable. In the Paris Peace Accord after Linebacker II the NV agreed to all US terms and they didn’t dare invade whilst Nixon was still in office because they knew he meant business. But Ford was a pussy who made a series of mistakes including cutting funding. Congress also refused the funds. If Watergate hadn’t happened and Nixon served a full second term, the NV would have got bogged down fighting in Cambodia and not had time for South Vietnam. The invasion of the South actually lasted 5 months even with the NV spending 1 out of every 2 $s in revenue on the military.

    As it was, the outcome was quite satisfactory in that they managed to pit Soviet sponsored Communists against Chinese sponsored Communists causing a rift between the two.

    Bull crap. During the air war, they faced Soviet and VPAF pilots. They had a few aces but the USAF and USMC still beat them 3:1 and the USN beat them 6:1. The aces mainly went after F-105s and weaker aircraft. The US realised this and instituted Operation Bolo, sending F-4s down fighter bomber routes, the results was a 7:0 walkover.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bolo

    The AAA was effective, the SAMs were nice on useless aside from the fact they scared people into flying at low altitude. Even with a 440lb warhead, only 1 in 29 proved effective overall and they only had to get within 150m of an aircraft to achieve a kill. Many were so bad that they were fired blind and set to burst at a given altitude. They were no better than long range flak-pipes.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/weapons-war-the-five-deadliest-air-defense-missiles-10969

    The SA-2 formed the backbone of North Vietnam’s high and medium altitude air defense, where it was known as the “flying telephone pole” among American pilots. North Vietnam reported a staggering 5,800 SA-2 launches which downed a total of 205 American aircraft. In 1965 SA-2s scored one hit per fifteen launches; by 1972, due to American advances in tactics, electronic warfare and defensive systems, the ratio had worsened to one hit per fifty launches.

    Oh many mistakes were made. Hell the USAF didn’t really even fight the war until 1972. They pussy-footed around avoiding key enemy targets for political reasons. You can’t fight a war that way, it’s impossible. By week 2 of Linebacker II, enemy jets weren’t even coming up to intercept, the NV were literally crippled. They had to chain drivers to the steering column of trucks to get them to drive the Ho Chi Minh trail. Why do you think they returned to the negotiating table?

    Stalemate in Korea my ar5e. The North tried invade the South, they failed, the Chinese even pitched in and suffered such ridiculous losses so quickly that they gave up and forced the North to sign a truce. In the air the kill ratio was heavily in the US’s favour. There are pilot interviews even stating that they were all flown by Soviets. They even strafed one of their own pilots in the water after he got shot down in case anyone found him.

    History even says they had 26,000 there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

    https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-43694886.html

    ‘In Korea We Whipped the Russian Air Force’

    America fought a hot war with the Soviet Union in Korea during the Cold War. This secret aerial conflict claimed the lives of hundreds of U.S. airmen, but has yet to be fully revealed.

    There was no doubt about it,” Col. Walker M. Mahurin, commander of the 4th Fighter-Interceptor Group (FIG), said in his biography, “we were fighting the Russian air force.” Indeed, a July 30, 1952, National Intelligence Estimate stated “…a de facto air war exists over North Korea between the U.N. and the USSR.” Yet no one in Washington was willing to risk divulging this provocative fact.

    “If we started to disclose these facts,” said Paul Nitze, who was head of the State Department’s Policy Planning Division in the early ’50s, “the American public would demand retaliation, and we did not want war with the Soviets. …

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG_Alley

    One Soviet pilot who was shot down in UN-controlled territory shot himself with his pistol rather than be taken captive. Another pilot who bailed out into the Yellow Sea was strafed to prevent him from being captured. Soviet pilots were not allowed to pursue UN aircraft over the UN-controlled Yellow Sea.[

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2148101
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    SACM, GBU-X, AGM-X, HPEM, HSSW

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-reveals-slimmed-down-sacm-air-to-air-missile-co-422413/

    http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014SET/Wilcox.pdf

    http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2015PSTS/Gloystein.pdf

    GBU-X – 100nm

    AGM-X – 300-500nm

    HPEM – Leverage existing munitions, multiple target function kills per missile

    HSSW – Hypersonic Speed Strike Weapon
    https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8291/29191844700_91b58b559b_o.jpg

    https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8149/29203234580_3d13a0305f_o.jpg
    https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8538/29383919702_f9e31213f6_o.jpg
    https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8723/28870298823_4fb9cca4e0_o.jpg
    https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8495/29458143736_167db7bd69_o.jpg

    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    My remark stands by itself. In my original post, the ‘cold war goggles’ are explained in the same sentence, and it’s not the explanation you understood.
    Foreign countries were indeed supplied with worst equipment. That also sets the scene. It is a parameter we have to acknowledge. Nothing more nothing else.

    Well it’s a misleading statement, because the Cold War mindset, i.e. ‘Cold War googles’, led people to overestimate enemy equipment.

    But it isn’t a relevant factor because even in the instances where the Soviets fought first hand, or in the case of proxy vs proxy, Western gear still came out on top. Proxies weren’t always supplied with the best kit either, except maybe other NATO countries got something close. But recognise the fact that the F-22 was never exported, nor was the F-117 although the latter was offered to the UK.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2148131
    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    A 9M100 might fit.

    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    The ‘what?’ was aimed at the fact that I don’t think you read the post carefully. Had you done so, you ‘d never come up with the reply you did, as it makes no sense whatsoever.

    On the contrary, first remark was aimed at the ‘Cold War’ goggles. Second remark was aimed at the fact you claimed foreign countries were supplied with worse equipment, in reality it made no difference. Pilot skill is obviously a factor but the original premise put forward by others was that Soviets were well trained but proxy pilots weren’t.

    Starfish Prime
    Participant

    Except that we don’t have a coherent & credible Iraqi account.

    The Iraqi accounts concur on the shooting down being on the 19th, by Jameel Sayhood, & I think they all set it in the middle of the day. Some say it was Waddington & Stewart, some say it was Lennox & Weeks. They disagree on the location. Waddington & Stewart were shot down by a SAM on the night of the 19th. Survived to tell their tale & it was consistent with the wreck, which was found & examined. Neither their account nor the damage is consistent with an IR missile fired in a tail chase. Lennox & Weeks were lost on the night of the 22nd. Both killed, wreck not examined. Explosion & fires on the ground seen on their track, at about the point contact was lost. Could have been one of many causes, including an R-60 in a tail chase.

    Neither of those losses is consistent with any of the Iraqi stories, which contradict each other in basic points. Some seem to have been massaged to fit the nearest RAF account, so e.g. the location & the Tornado crew change.

    I agree. And from memory that was only day 3, and I don’t think daytime flights had even started at that point. The early sorties were all flown at night, they only started coming out during the day after some weeks of eroding Iraqi defences, which is possibly why both the accounts you mention occurred at night.

    My only point about the R-60 is that an AIM-120 has a range of about 5km at that altitude, now the R-60 only has 8km range (total) even at optimal altitude, so probably a few hundred yards in tail chase at 200ft, which is risky for obvious reasons. It’s a very small missile relative to even an AIM-9 and I remember an F-15C pilot during an interview saying he struggled to engage a MiG-25 at low altitude. Then you have the fact that the GR1 would definitely have popped flares.

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=216497&d=1368489056

    So in summation:

    1. The aircraft never flew at that time.

    2. No aircraft flew at that time, night only.

    3. SAM strike confirmed by wreckage and pilots.

    4. Extremely difficult shot with an R-60.

Viewing 15 posts - 706 through 720 (of 947 total)