It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video of Norwegian F-16 HUD cam high mach near miss with a Foxbat

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Don't know if any of you missed this. I'm sure we all heard the report but the video has been leaked. Apparently he was doing 500mph when the MiG shot past him at mach 3 at a distance closer than 65 feet. The NATO pilot is heard saying "what the hell!" in Norwegian.


I had heard of the report but had no idea he was pulling that kind of speed. And also reminds me that NATO doesn't really have much that can catch a MiG-31........

For above reference.





edit on 4-12-2014 by aholic because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2014 by aholic because: picture added




posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

It was the Norwegian F-16 that was trying to close with the Russian mig it was the Norwegian whom was poking the bear.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Well it looked like that Russian jet came from the F16s six......how he turned the trick would have been nice footage.....



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter
well, you know how our stories like to be spun out here


Just out of curiosity, just how bad would it have been if they in fact collided at those speeds? Are we talking instant vaporization or can the equipment work fast enough to eject the pilots??



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: stirling

That's the impression I was under. The F-16 was trying to close on a Su-34 miles ahead and the Foxbat was it's escort. Came in to buzz the guy away.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DYepes

I'd imagine the MiG pilot & WSO would actually have a better chance. Much larger aircraft and momentum to carry them through the collision and eject. Just my speculation though. I once thought about doing the Aircraft Accident Investigation course at Prescott but never did, so I'm no expert.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DYepes

A head in collision, if the F-16 were traveling at mach 0.88 and the MiG-31 were traveling at mach 3, would definitely result in some vaporization...

When it's not 130am here I'll come back with some math. I'm curious as to the actual force...



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Wow, so it's "poking the bear" to intercept Russian aircraft fkying near Norwegian airspace? But I suppose its fine for Russia to intercept any aircraft they want however they want?

Sorry, but Russia doesn't get a free pass to do any damn thing they want to wherever they want to.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey Zaph how come we don't got anything that can fly that fast huh?



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

Because we never had to intercept a high altitude, high speed aircraft.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
guess there is a first time for everything eh? I want to see a simulation of the possible impact that could have occurred. Would make for some interesting visual physics lesson.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Until now...Are we missing those F-111s yet?



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

I reckon we do.. Just we don't need to show it of..

Think of it in phallic terms.. They guys running around "rollin coal" or zipping around in their corvettes (cough mig-31) usually are trying to compensate for something...

Sun tzu put It sorta like this, "project strength when weak - feign weakness when strong - tip your waiter"

mr Putin, remember it's not the size of the ship it's the motion of the ocean! No need to stress if the Putin peepee isn't up to snuff! World war 3 won't make it any bigger @Putin (wish @putin really worked lol)
edit on 4-12-2014 by mindseye1609 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

Raytheon makes several products for the US (F-16) aircraft that fly that fast. Also a few more products that don't need an F-16 as a host.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: doompornjunkie

Still have got to get in range though.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

The Foxbat has short legs, and even shorter high speed legs. Russian engines have always been their weak point.
edit on 12/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Flameouts are common, especially when laying on the burner too long.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
I had heard of the report but had no idea he was pulling that kind of speed. And also reminds me that NATO doesn't really have much that can catch a MiG-31........


I think most NATO AAMs could catch up with a MIG 31 from that position!

Russian flyboys are often criticised for their aerial antics, which may seem harmless until they make a mistake and crash, as has happened.

Regards



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
Don't know if any of you missed this. I'm sure we all heard the report but the video has been leaked. Apparently he was doing 500mph when the MiG shot past him at mach 3 at a distance closer than 65 feet. The NATO pilot is heard saying "what the hell!" in Norwegian.


I had heard of the report but had no idea he was pulling that kind of speed. And also reminds me that NATO doesn't really have much that can catch a MiG-31........

For above reference.







1-Foxbat is not the correct NATO code name: the MiG-31 is the Foxhound, the MiG-25 is the Foxbat.

2-As far as i can see from the HUD the Norwegian pilot was pulling ~280 knots = ~322 mp/h (which for us on the other side of the pond = ~518 km/h). That's not much of a high speed for a F-16.

3-For a collision you'd have to consider the fact that both aircrafts are travelling in the same direction, so you have to take into account the difference in speeds between them, not in absolute terms. And that's totally not enough force to vaporize anything. Which means a fair amount of time to eject for the crew, that's to say, if the g-forces of a spin that would probably follow such a collision, don't knock them out. The XB-70/F-104 crash is a good read to get an idea of what could happen in a similar case.

4-There're rules for conducting interceptions, and the MiG-31 crew totally disregarded them, in stunt a la "Ruski Top Gun". Unfortunately that's nothing new as the last months have showed us, and it seems they want to push their luck with these maneuvers. It's all s#it and giggles until a "Hainan Island incident" happens again...

5- "And also reminds me that NATO doesn't really have much that can catch a MiG-31..."
Several MiG-25s have been shot down by F-15s during the late '70s and the '80s. Fear not their high speed, for there are ways to catch 'em



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
It looks like the F-16 was the one moving around a bit, while the Mig appeared to be flying straight, with gear down at a slow speed. They don't tool around at speed with the gear down. At least it looks to me like he has landing gear down!
edit on 426Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:14:37 -060014313u14 by Britguy because: (no reason given)







 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join