MeatI’m likely the biggest American flag waver on this board, but even I doubt this story is true. First of all, Newsmax isn’t exactly a top-notch journalistic outfit. But mainly, the simple fact is that US (and UK) intelligence was wrong on this issue. The WMD, while almost universally believed to be there in the 90’s, was gone by 2003, either destroyed, or “expired,” as an earlier poster put it.
MeatHe’s right about the changing paint scheme – especially on the vertical stabilizer. That’s cool, in a weird sort of way.
This is an “A” model, is it not?
MeatWWII
Spitfire
Me-163
B-29
J7W (for the last 3 choices the emphasis is on Fantasy 😉 )
Actually, the Confederate Air Force (now called the Commemorative Air Force, actually, but I refuse to recognize the change 😀 ) had a flying B-29 for many years – as recently as 1995, I’m certain. Not sure if they still do, though.
MeatMeat, firstly, you hardly qualify to debate this
Well, fine. Enough. If you won’t grant me the basic respect that anyone who posts on this board deserves, then I guess there’s no point in going any further. Though I would have expected more from a moderator.
MeatAbsolutely no need to,
Um, actually, yes there is. You claimed that F-15E pilots admitted that they were “embarrassed,” and didn’t feel they could match up with the MKI, and now you conveniently decide it isn’t necessary to state where you heard or read this statement.
I have footnoted almost every one of my posts with the caveat that it is only my opinion, and I could very well be wrong. I acknowledged my error in regard to the TVC on the MKI, for example. The only person in this thread making “flag-waving” statements is you, sir, with such fanciful claims as “the F-16 was easy prey,” and “the F-16 is no big deal.” Oh, and let’s not forget the one about Western aircraft being scared into a corner by the mere sound of a Flanker’s engine! I realize that last one wasn’t your statement, but you quoted it in your post, suggesting that you agree with it.
And again, Cope India rears its head. If you had bothered to read the full report, you would have seen that the Eagles were specifically prohibited from using their primary weapon, the AIM-120, or at least they were prohibited from using its full capabilities. That renders any conclusions made from the exercise completely invalid. You wouldn’t accept an evaluation of the Fulcrum’s capabilities based on an exercise where the -29 couldn’t use its HMS, or it’s off-boresight IR AAM capability, would you? Okay, then.
Wishing for something doesn’t make it true, my friend. As I stated before, I realize that it’s a difficult pill to swallow if you’re so enamored with Russian aircraft, but the simple fact is that there are some things the US intrinsically does better than Russia, and building combat aircraft is one of them. Point to economics, political systems, or whatever you like as a reason for it, but it is undeniable fact, and has been for about, oh, half a century or so.
The Russians have closed the gap over the years, no question. The disparity in quality, performance, and capability isn’t near what it once was. I’d even go so far as to say that if Flankers and Eagles were to meet air to air, the Eagle (which has been untouchable for 30 years in A2A) would most likely take some losses here and there over the course of a campaign.
The Russians have fantastic engineers, working wonders with limited funding and (for the most part) outdated technological resources. But to claim that Russian aircraft have not only overtaken those of the US, but would actually make easy, short work of them in combat, as you imply, is wishful thinking.
MeatI stand corrected re the TVC on the Su-30MKI.
However, I still believe the Viper is the better multirole fighter, due to the obscene array of weapons it can deliver. JDAM alone is unstoppable, undefendable. If a Viper armed with JDAMs sees a target, it’s dead. Period. It isn’t going to miss. The Viper is easily the most versatile plane in the air today as well.
Air to air against the MKI, it’s true the Flanker will probably get the first shot with it’s R-27s. However, American ECM has never had much problem dealing with Russian radar (hell, we have more Russian equipment at Nellis for threat training than some countries deploy in the field!). The Viper has a better than average chance at getting past the first wave of R-27s, and by then the Flankers are in range of the AIM-120, which is the most deadly, most feared missile in the world. It has a larger “no-escape zone” than any other AAM, and that is fact, not opinion.
Given the whole picture, not just selected bits and pieces, I’ll take the F-16.
That is, of course, unless and until the MKI proves itself to be superior in combat, but many people on this board simply refuse to believe in the relevancy of that statement.
Meatthe Flanker should be much better, remember it has a better T/W ratio(more power) and of course TVC and such.
None of the Flankers in current service have thrust vector control (TVC). The Su-37 does, but in reality it will never be built in numbers, much less become a standard service variant. It’s just too expensive for the Russian economy.
Again, just my opinion.
MeatThe Viper is the best multi-role fighter in service today. No other aircraft can match it in terms of the variety of weapons it can bring to bear against ground targets, nor can anything match it in agility, with the possible exception of the Fulcrum. This will remain the case until the Raptor and JSF come into service (the Raptor in agility and the JSF in available weaponry). I realize it’s a hard pill to swallow for fans of Russian machines, but there are simply some things that the West in general, and the US in particular, does better – and building combat aircraft is one of them.
You can bleat all you like about the supposed “capabilities” of the Flanker series, or the improved Fulcrums, but until they’re proven in combat, it’s all just talk.
All of the above are just my opinions – I could be wrong. But the available evidence says otherwise.
MeatGood old media can’t tell a ‘MiG’ from a Sukhoi!
TJ
I think for the media, and laymen, “MiG” has just become a generic term for Russian aircraft.
MeatOne picture shows a tail clearly showing that it did not have F117 camo but looked very like an F15 tail…
Israelis never accept their losses so there is a big question mark there as well.
Sigh…here we go.
MeatKill/loss ratio is an important consideration. The F-15 has never been shot down.
I agree with you, Rocky, it’s never been shot down A2A. But be prepared, because you’ve opened the floodgates, so to speak. You’re now going to hear from Venik’s disciples, who will claim that hordes of Eagles have been shot down by everything from MiG-29s to An-2s.
And even some who don’t worship at the altar of Venik will try to tell you that 90+ kills to 0 losses is irrelevant in the face of today’s infinitely superior Russian machines.
MeatI am aeronautical engineer and I know something about that matter.
Mig-25/31 familly are the only combat aircraft which could break through the thermal barrier. And that is remarkable achievement.
All other Mach 3 aircraft are just experimental or non combat flying fuel tanks like SR-71.And I am not comrade. Comrade will not say that F-4 was the best multi role aircraft ever built and I say that.
You may be an engineer, and I respect that, but I politely submit that you are mistaken if you are claiming that the MiG-25 could achieve Mach 3 with external stores. This is simply not the case. The -25 could only hit Mach 3 in clean configuration, and could not maintain it for long without seriously damaging the engines. The Blackbird, while not a combat aircraft (not its role anyway) could sit there at Mach 3+ until out of fuel.
Russians have always been great metallurgists, and the Foxbat and Foxhound are indeed immensely strong airframes with respect to thermal stress. The limiting factor was the engines, which simply weren’t technologically on par with those of the Blackbird.
MeatAt sea level max speed of SR-71 is 540 Kt (1000 km/h ). Mig-25 can do 1300 km/h (first versions 1200 km/h).
That is because Mig-25 have much stronger construction.the SR-71 is essentialy very fragile flying fuel tank, without fire control system and weapons.
Mig-25 is multi mode aircraft. That is big difference.
Step away from the bong, comrade.
The Foxbat, while it could approach the Blackbird’s speed, was and is not anywhere close to the same league as the SR-71 technologically or structurally (with respect to intelligence of design, not just brute strength). Even today, 15 years after its retirement, and nearly 50 years since its conception, Russian techies would wet their pants if they got hold of one to play with.
MeatAnd that heli movie with Nick Cage….god what a piece of s**t that was..some good flying scenes…where else can you see a Draken in action??
You’re thinking of “Fire Birds,” also with Tommy Lee Jones and Sean Young.
Also known for the classic scene in which Sean Young’s character removes the Stinger AAM assembly from the downed Apache’s wingtip, converts it into the shoulder-launched version, and with Jones’ advice (“shoot him in the ass”), dispatches the strafing Draken.
MeatWhat you people mention is good compared to the movies Iron Eagle I & II; especially the cockpits in the aircraft filmed. 😀
Oh yes, especially the scrolling-LED readouts!
“Graphics by Timmy’s pocket calculator.”
Sign In
