TEEJ[QUOTE=Banshee;1056121]Well?, what do expect?
“We have a Prime-minister whom is happy to preside in office, even after being interviewed by the Police for corruption!”
He was interviewed as a witness.
TEEJBournemouth
Work is being done on the MiG and has recently had to move around inside the Museum hangar due to safety reasons. It now lives on the Side of the hangar in its own taped off compound where work is being done.
To be accurate it isn’t a MiG, but actually a Lim-5. A Polish licence-built variant.
TEEJNot to me. It sits without one engine in the north corner of Shiraz AB, among C-130s with engines missing – it’s clearly canibalised to help keep the transport Il-76s in working order.
Remember that imagery is 1 to 3 years old. That airframe is no longer at Shiraz and has been noted elsewhere.
TEEJAdrian wrote:
“They could detect the U-2, they just could not do anything about it as long as the U-2 stayed at altitude (except diplomatic protest). The USA had been flying over the Soviet Union for four years before Powers was shot down. Many of the flight were from Turkey to Norway. Powers was shot down due to a flame-out and he decended from seventy to fifty thousand feet to restart the engine. That is where the U-2 was shot down by the SAM. “
Adrian, your tale is very much an urban myth. There was no flame out and Powers was up at 70,000ft when the SAM took him out. His declassifed debrief brought to an end all those tales of ‘flame outs’ and ‘50,000ft. Powers was debriefed in 1962:
Declassified brief:
TEEJI do not believe that explanation niether your what is important for the supporters of the invulnerable Super Sr-71 is it can not be shot, that is a total lie, what the americans learnt when Gary Powers was shot down is the USSR was capable technologically speaking to shot down US aircraft and the risks involved into these over flights were nuclear war, would have they over flown the USSR would they have known the SR-71 was invulnerable to interception? the answer is yes
Did they tease the Soviet defences the answer is yes, did they intrude a few kilometers into soviet air space? the answer is yes, what are you try to cover is the fact over flights are not forbidden, they will do over flights when ever the enemy or hostile nation is uncapable of shooting down the SR-71 and the risks involved are certainly low such as a UN complaign.
Flogger,
It is very, very clear that you never served in the military. You simply haven’t a clue. Again, explain to me why there was no overflights of the Soviet Union by Blackbirds from the late 1960s onwards. Explain to me why there was no overflights of recce MiG-25s deep into NATO airspace? Answer: both sides played the political game and restrained their military in order to stop miscalculations. No side could have entered a dialogue of arms negotiation and political goodwill if each side was violating each others airspace.
Yes, other nations were fair game to overflights, but with the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact the potential to turn cold into hot was far too risky. Your naivety clearly prevents you from understanding this simple fact.
TEEJI will give a simple answer Topol M and MiG-31
So explain to me, why was there no A-12 or SR-71 overflights of the Soviet Union from the late 60s onwards?
TEEJHaha, did you realised what USA wasnt worried very much about any “provocation” till the U2 shot down?
Eisenhower did recognise the implications of the missions over the Soviet Union. He himself banned certain overflights in an effort to keep relations with the Soviets. It was Eisenhower that proposed in 1955 that the United States and Soviet Union conduct surveillance overflights of each other’s territory to reassure each country that the other was not preparing to attack.
Archived material indicating that Gary Powers mission was to be the last overflight of the Soviet Union:
“CIA, Situation Estimate for Project CHALICE – Fiscal Years 1961 and 1962, March 14, 1960. Top Secret, 15 pp.
Source: National Archives, CIA 2000 Release”
Despite Eisenhower’s concerns about the consequences of a loss of a U-2 over the Soviet Union, he did approve further missions after his initial, July 1956, order to stop the overflights. During a 23-day period in August 1957, U-2s conducted Operation SOFT TOUCH – seven overflights of the Soviet Union and two of the People’s Republic of China. This activity, particularly with regard to the Soviet Union was atypical. Thus, Francis Gary Powers May 1, 1960 overflight would be 24th and last of Soviet territory. This situation estimate, prepared a little less than two months before the shootdown, was intended to provide “guidance for the planning and conduct of project operations during the FY1961-62 time period.” In addition, it provides a concise history of the program and an assessment of the intelligence desired from future U-2 flights.”
TEEJFlogger wrote,
“the posibility of killing the SR-71 is quit high that is the real reason the US halte any intrusion over Soviet territory.”
Flogger,
Flogger, Your naivety is simply stunning. You do realise that ANY over flights would have been a clear provocation? Here we have two super powers with a huge nuclear arsenal pointing at each other and you think the only reason why there were no Blackbird over flights was because of them being shot down? It is this simple, simple naivety that makes you a laughing stock on these forums.
Any direct over flights could have rapidly turned the cold war into a potential hot war. Even Eisenhower worried that the Soviets would misinterpret direct over flights as a precursor to a nuclear attack. Direct deep penetration of Soviet airspace would also have the follow on effect of similar over flights of NATO countries by Soviet reconnaissance aircraft. Imagine the consequences of misinterpretation if that status existed during the Cold War? It was simply a no-no based purely and simply on the misinterpretation that could have resulted.
Imagine the impact that direct over flights would have had on any disarmament treaties/talks that were going on? No side wanted to make that mistake. The SR-71s ran standard collection flight profiles on numerous peripheral areas of Russia. It’s sensors were excellent and in no way did any Russian interceptor stop those missions being carried out or deterred them. Flogger, you live in a complete dream world!
If your belief in the MiG-31 stopped all SR-71 over flights is to be believed, then why didn’t any SR-71s make deep flights into Soviet airspace from the late 1960s onwards?
Some declassified docs on SR-71 missions:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/U2-45.pdf
Flogger, you are aware of the ‘hotline’ that was set-up between the U.S. and the Soviet Union? Imagine that hotline, designed to stop any escalation, if both sides were making deep reconnaissance incursions into Warsaw Pact or NATO airspace?
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/treaties/hotline1.htm
Flogger, you live in a very simple fantasy world and it shows repeatedly!
TEEJSo what is it to be Flogger? You seem very confused.
“You know perfectly NATO lost a F-16 and Mirage 2000 in the Balkans and they simply claimed that those losses were to SA-7s”
“Second not all the sources agree all the time, the F-16 effectively many claimed it was shot down by a SA-6 others said it was and Strela 2M.”
Are you still claiming that the F-16 was shot down by an SA-7?
For your info the Straight Flush signal for O’Grady’s F-16 was detected.
TEEJAnd there you go yet again with dodgy sources.
Flogger wrote:
“You know perfectly NATO lost a F-16 and Mirage 2000 in the Balkans and they simply claimed that those losses were to SA-7s”
O’Grady’s F-16 was shot down by an SA-6 and the F-16 lost on the 2nd May 1999 was downed by an SA-3. It was assessed that the Mirage 2000 was downed by a more advanced Russian MANPAD than an SA-7. The same goes for the Sea Harrier downed by the Bosnian-Serbs during 1994.
Is it so hard for you to follow? And yet again how are those undisclosed NATO losses being covered up?
TEEJFlogger wrote:
“the Serbs also used the SA-7 with some success and if you read what brought down some of the know NATO aircraft you will find also the SA-7 shot them down”
“Some of the known NATO aircraft” Still spinning the lie I see Flogger? All those undisclosed NATO aircraft and still you can’t provide how they are being covered up?
TEEJyeah TEEJ democracy means angels populate the west media who do not lie :rolleyes:
So when are you going to explain exactly how the ‘cover ups’ are being orchestrated? Enquiring, un-naive, minds want to know?
TEEJFlogger wrote:
“Uhmm more of the same, funny you can claim NATO forces had BVR combat so if they do not find wreckage of air combat it means okay but the Serbs are different they should prove all their claims because they are a bunch of liars, the West can not lie every thing would be known in minutes uhm….”
Flogger, You do you realise that the NATO claims of air-to-air kills tie in exactly with the corresponding post combat reports of Serb MiG-29 pilots? You have failed to comprehend or realise this fact. Why?
Flogger wrote:
“In what kind of world do you live? if an aircraft is missing you just say accident, conviniently, or a crash landing or fratricide, yeah yeah.”
I live in an open society. I served in the RAF for 22 years. You live in Russia, correct? Can the Russian Ministry of Defence provide a list of serials for every combat aircraft in their inventory. Are these lists published? Are they accountable to the tax payer, members of parliament, audit offices etc?
Flogger, this is where your simple naivety is glaringly apparent.You believe that RAF Harriers and Tornadoes were combat lost during Allied Force. You are now telling me that these NATO losses are all being covered up with claims of accidents etc. Take a step back. Explain to me and other on this forum exactly how the combat loss of aircraft A is being covered up? Explain to me exactly how aircraft A is still being covered up nearly 7 years after the event? For the loss to have taken place you would have to announce it as an accident. The aircraft are accountable. Are you naively suggesting that an accident in the UK post conflict was to cover up for the loss of an aircraft during the conflict?
Flogger your claims of “anything can be covered up” is extremely naive. You have failed consistently to explain how the loss of an RAF Harrier or Tornado over Yugoslavia can be covered up to this day?
TEEJFlogger wrote:
“Tell me how many HUD displays have you seen from 1991 showing Iraqi aircraft shot down and published?, how can you prove all the SAM claimed aircraft kills in 1991 were only SAMs caused and not by aircraft carreid air to air missiles beside the own NATO statements?”
What has NATO got to do with operations during the Gulf in 1991? Pssst it wasn’t NATO. Not doing very well on this thread now are you? You do understand that the majority of kills were BVR. What do you want to see the radar tapes from AWACS and every gun-camera footage with Fulcrums etc filling the HUD?
Flogger wrote:
“There is something you should see and understand pictures can be manipulated too, you say there is only two pictures so it means only two aircraft were shot down, yes so it means the Serbs always recovered the wreckage ? no you tactic to explain it implies the Serbs always recovered their enemies aircraft wreckages, possible uhmm……? “
So where all all the missing aircraft then? Explain how they are still being covered up today from aircraft spotters, tax payers, members of parliament, serving and retired armed forces members etc? You can’t! You fail time and time again in your arguement. For such a cover up to have taken place would involve a plethora of individuals to be involved in it. I served during Allied Force from a very unique position. There were only ever two combat search and rescue missions flown. Apart from those very well known losses no other aircrew ejected from any aircraft involved in combat operations over Yugoslavia.
Your claims of Harriers and Tornados missing are laughable. You fail to even grasp the political culture that exists in the UK. A combat loss of an aircraft under Blairs command would not last five minutes before the story broke. You naively think that anything can be covered up. Is it your mindset, the regime that you were brought up in? The same goes for the U.S. An undisclosed combat loss under Clinton’s command would similarly not have lasted five mintues let alone 7 years!
What you are naively falling for is all the cheap propaganda that was spewn out in regards to NATO aircraft losses. You have bought them hook line and sinker. You see images of combat jettisoned fuel tanks and naively think that they belong to a complete aircraft lost in combat. Why? It doesn’t take much to understand your simple naivety when you examine the image that you posted claiming to be an F-14 wreckage. It simply beggars belief! This simple naivety extends into your defence of the image and how you were positive it was an F-14. Again simply staggering!!
You naively believe that NATO suffered undisclosed combat losses. I’ve explained the serial system to you in past thread posts and the lengths that individuals take to track them down. Do you even understand the definition of the term ‘aircraft spotter’?. Flogger do you naively think that for the past 7 years there has been continued re-marking of serials to cover up the loss of an aircraft way back in 1999? You fail to grasp even the very basics of the serial system. It appears to be completely alien to you along with the wealth of information compiled by numerous groups and individuals. How are they still doing it Flogger in an open society. How are they hiding the losses to this day? Did they secretly re-open the production lines? You just naively believe!
TEEJFlogger, its not my fault that you sadly believe in numerous undisclosed NATO manned aircraft losses. If I remember correctly you believe that RAF Tornadoes and Harriers never returned from their mission over Yugoslavia. Sadly you are so very wrong. But never mind here is something to keep that dream alive.
“BELGRADE, Mar. 17 – A unique collection of the NATO war memorabilia opened in Belgrade on Friday, Mar. 17, as a prized exhibit in the Yugoslav Army’s airspace museum, the Associated Press reported on Mar. 18. The museum director unveiled several new pieces to mark the March 24 anniversary of NATO’s air bombardment of this Balkan nation.
Among the new pieces were the very first Tomahawk missile shot down by the Yugoslav air defense the day the campaign began, and a highly sophisticated AGM 154, which when dropped from an aircraft releases cluster bombs.
The 1,500 NATO artifacts collected or donated from across the country take up half the ground floor of the three-story domed building.
Museum Director Cedomir Janjic said more pieces were being polished and prepared for the exhibit * in a new wing to be dedicated to the air strikes.
“It is truly amazing how many aircraft and drones were downed with the relatively modest and primitive equipment” of the Yugoslav army, Minister for Science and Development Cedomir Mirkovic said Friday.
The downing of the F-117A was the first known loss of a stealth aircraft in combat. The pilot ejected and was later rescued by U.S. troops. Next to the stealth lay the remains of an F-16 fighter like a giant bird’s wing. It was hit by an SA-3 surface-to-air missile. Its tailpiece, chipped and charred around the edges, still brandished a huge white painted Night Hawk, the AP report said.
Mirkovic refuted Western claims that Yugoslav air defense downed only the two planes. “We shall prove we have more,” he said, without elaborating. During the bombing, the then-chief of the Yugoslav army, Gen. Dragoljub Ojdanic, claimed 61 NATO aircraft had been downed.
A few feet away, a Predator drone hung suspended from the ceiling like a large model plane. It was one of seven pilotless NATO drones on display. Six more had yet to be recovered from unexplored sites, Janjic said.
In total, Mirkovic said, the Serbs downed more than 230 Tomahawks.”
Mirkovic refuted Western claims that Yugoslav air defense downed only the two planes. “We shall prove we have more,” he said, without elaborating.
Flogger, in a few month it will have been seven long years since Mirkovic made that statement. “We shall prove we have more,” he said. Does that give you a warm fuzzy feeling Flogger? Is it really seven long years of massive cover-up Flogger, or did these claimed ‘undisclosed’ losses actually NEVER take place?
Do you naively think that undisclosed combat losses under Blair and back then Clinton can still be covered up? Do you naively think that the bubble is going to burst and your so-called ‘truth’ is going to come to fruition?
Sign In
