Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

F-117 Shot down in 1999

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
MiG-25 btw, with its “old” 50s technologies, scored a low altitude kill on F-18 by a missile designed to track bombers, all while the Hornet was beaming, dumping chaff and jamming with modern ECM.

When? Where? Conditions?
Personally, the story has about ten different versions. It was not a true air-to-air engagement, if I am correct in assuming 'where' and 'when' you are referencing in the MiG-25 kill on a F-18. I will await to see if I am correct in this once you reveal 'where' and 'when' you are referring to.

Furthermore, you are not proving anything, except that even a broken clock gives the accurate time twice a day. That once in a while, luck becomes/plays a factor, even when using "'old' 50s technologies"...





seekerof

[edit on 6-12-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Iraq 1991. Unconfirmed and almost impossible to know for sure.
The Navy investigated it and said it was impossible to tell. Apparently the CO of the USN squadron the F-18 was part of felt it was an A2A kill by the Mig.

And I don't see anything so shocking about the possibility, of course a Mig-25 could score a BVR kill on an F-18, given the right opportunity and a competent pilot.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Seekerof, It’s been chewed to death.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you’re biased, here’s wiki, even though I consider it more of an entertainment value rather then factual.

“The MiG-25`s acknowledged combat record by the West is one F/A-18 Hornet during the Second Gulf War, when a Iraqi MiG-25PD shot down a U.S. Navy F/A-18C on January 17, 1991, 29 nautical miles southeast of Baghdad.”

en.wikipedia.org...

In December 1992, a pair of AWACS supported F-16Ds did score on a blind MiG-25 with an AIM-120 from 3 miles out. No surprise there, just a properly executed kill knee deep in the kzone.

In January 1999 Tomcats did try their teeth on a Foxbat with a pair of Phoenix, no luck. Another engagement in September of 1999 resulted in another two misses. After that further Phoenix development was dropped in favor of ramjet-powered AMRAAM's, and still waiting.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
“And I don't see anything so shocking about the possibility, of course a Mig-25 could score a BVR kill on an F-18, given the right opportunity and a competent pilot.”

My point exactly.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
“Furthermore, you are not proving anything, except that even a broken clock gives the accurate time twice a day. That once in a while, luck becomes/plays a factor, even when using "'old' 50s technologies"...”

Absolutely, I have completely forgotten that when the enemy succeeds it’s only a matter of incompetent peasants dumb luck, and when we are victorious it’s do to the unrelenting professionalism and unquestionable superiority of our military might.

I have no love for such PO noise.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
"Tomcats also flew in the air-defense role during the Iraq strikes, and on 6 January 1999, one fired two Phoenix missiles at two Iraqi MiG-25s at extreme range. Both missiles missed. This was the first time the US Navy had ever fired the Phoenix in anger, though it appears that the Iranians shot off a few at the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq War. Two more were fired at Iraqi fighters in September 1999, missing again.

These incidents leave the effectiveness of the Phoenix an open question. Apparently the Iraqi fighters were at extreme range and just trying to be a nuisance, and the missiles were mainly fired to suggest that the Iraqis get lost. They were also the last times the Phoenix was fired in anger. Plans were made to modify the Tomcat for carriage of the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, a much more modern weapon but with considerably less range, but it never happened. "

Obviously saying, beat it, or you will be blown away. The phoenix range is what, 120 miles? But theres no doubt, if the Mig's were closer, they would have been splashed.

Train



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
iskander,
I find it dubious that you would insinuate talk of "PO noise."
"PO noise" is when you make outlandish descriptions of an incident as if it was a glorious and boisterous accomplishment; a feat that could not be accomplished. Hardly.

Considering the angle of attack, the attack coming from behind an aircraft manned by an unaware skilled pilot, that MiG-25PD kill was a wonderous feat accomplished by old technology, eh? Your description, "all while the Hornet was beaming, dumping chaff and jamming with modern ECM," is incorrect, nonsense, and amounts to being "PO noise."

Furthermore, the description is indicative of a skilled pilot who knew he was being targeted from behind, thus began unloading all he could to save his aircraft, which was not the case. Your own PO noise was returned with like PO noise. There was no head-to-head engagement, it was a fluke of circumstance, whether you wish to hear or believe it. Besides, the MiG-25PD was detected but because the AWACS controller could not confirm the MiG-25PD as a bandit, the aircraft did what it did. By all rights, the MiG-25PD was toast, and undoubtedly would not have made a kill on that F/A-18 if it had been idenitified as a bandit. Head-to-head, that F/A-18 would have destroyed that MiG-25PD. As such, luck prevailed and the MiG-25PD was not sorted as a bandit. The F/A-18 is attacked from a bad position and unaware, only to end up on the desert floor, intact, engines intact, the canopy, ejection seat, and flight suit not far from the intact F/A-18. Man, that MiG-25PD air-to-air missile must have just nipped that F/A-18 for it to be intact, as described above, eh? Strange....nonetheless, "PO noise" or not, luck played its part.

I, nor anyone here, is nullifying that the MiG-25PD is a highly lethal weapon in the hands off a good/skilled pilot. What gets me is that you cite one case to make a point, when the point you were making was pointless. Your point though was what exactly? That any aircraft, despite using old technology can gain a kill? Hence me asking the 'conditions' of that kill, iskander. Did really that MiG-25PD score a victory/kill because it utilized old technology or because it got lucky, was not identified as a bandit, which then allowed it to attack an unsuspecting target? Again, your point was pointless, as mentioned already.





seekerof

[edit on 6-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
“They were also the last times the Phoenix was fired in anger.”

There is a Russian saying “Swung for a ruble but hit for a dime”, so no kidding, at 1 million a pop that’s some expensive anger.

“Obviously saying, beat it, or you will be blown away. The phoenix range is what, 120 miles? But theres no doubt, if the Mig's were closer, they would have been splashed.”

That’s funny. Kind of something you’ll hear outside some dive after a guy waived his fists around but hit nothing but air. “Yea man, I swung real hard at that punk, I was mad angry, and if he only stood a little closer, I would have punched that suckaz lights out, no doubt man, no doubt.”

There is simply no doubt though that Foxbat “got legs and she knows how to use ’em”.

In the real world, not a school playground where kids argue who will win in a fight, Batman or Spiderman, it’s called tactical advantage.

BTW I don’t know where you’re getting you quotes from, but the full page is here;

www.faqs.org...

So unless you’re engaging in some creative editing, you’re getting second hand info bud.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
ANY missile is easier to defeat at long range. That's why pilots wait to get in range until they're about medium range or so. Firing a Pheonix at extreme range is a good way to chase pilots off. It's like saying "I can see you, and I can shoot at you, but you can't shoot back." Most pilots won't risk going closer, knowing that the closer they get, the better the chance of a hit. It's expensive, but effective.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
well iskander, actually were furter incidents in which 25s out-turned f15s and shoot missiles and failed, after they escaped inmid a rain of sparrows and sidewinders, the problem here is that these engagements were done at medium-hight height, actually the f18 was downed in a heigh well above the 5km, wasnt at low level, it was a face to face fight, but the 18 just hoped the awacs confirmation for the f15s defence by sparows, the responce was too much late and the f15s just cant shoot aim7s because both planes were very close at that moment, so both went a face to face fight, i guess that you are wrong in the low level detail, f18 or f15 are superior machines at some enviorements (heigh and speed), but other planes are better at other enviorement

in a close combat at low level the 25 is dead duck, but the machine shines in other "arenas" and heights

anyway, the link that you posted is interesting -me also like quantum physics and EM theories-, thanks


[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
intelgurl

As long as we are on the same page, considering the proposed shift from asymmetrical warfare toward horizontal integration, this will still be on the topic

Naturally the only positive prevention method is to prevent deployment, but our flawed nature (short sided policies) brought us to the brink time and time again.

...


It doesn't really matter whether we are faced with assymetrical warfare or a larger, more organized foe with similar strengths to our own; horizontal integration of information assets and enhancements to the killchain are the conerstone of ISR transformation into the 21st century.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Seekerof, I apritiate you comments as everybody elses.

My previous post, a comment made to post from xmotex .

“And I don't see anything so shocking about the possibility, of course a Mig-25 could score a BVR kill on an F-18, given the right opportunity and a competent pilot.” - xmotex

My point exactly.” – me.

That should have pretty much covered it. You comment of “wonderous feat accomplished by old technology” simply does not apply.

“skilled pilot who knew he was being targeted from behind, thus began unloading all he could to save his aircraft, which was not the case.”

If in your opinion RWS of an F-18 is not capable of detecting and radar lock from a MiG-25 and leaving the pilot unaware of being fired upon, that’s one hell of a “fluke of circumstance”. If the pilot was alerted and failed to perform evasive maneuvers, that speaks for it self about his skills.

“ Besides, the MiG-25PD was detected but because the AWACS controller could not confirm the MiG-25PD as a bandit, the aircraft did what it did.”

Pardon me, but that is utterly ludicrous. It is common knowledge that for ages radar installations automatically compare radar returns to a database in order to determine target type. Even if heavy ECM and ground clutter prevent a positive id, IFF confirmation is standard procedure, and even if IFF is non conclusive, every friendly in the area is informed of the unidentified target, whose possible engagement envelope is predetermined by intel among other things.

“By all rights, the MiG-25PD was toast, and undoubtedly would not have made a kill on that F/A-18 if it had been idenitified as a bandit.”

No clue what that means.

“Head-to-head, that F/A-18 would have destroyed that MiG-25PD.”

Speculation, lets move on.

“As such, luck prevailed and the MiG-25PD was not sorted as a bandit.”

That’s not luck, but grounds for an investigation on competence or the lack there of.

“Man, that MiG-25PD air-to-air missile must have just nipped that F/A-18 for it to be intact, as described above, eh? Strange....nonetheless, "PO noise" or not, luck played its part.”

Feel free to take the time and look into the tracking/warhead type in the missile used and draw you own conclusions.

“What gets me is that you cite one case to make a point, when the point you were making was pointless.”

Again, the point was about the general misconceptions of radar technology, and in this instance about you missing it.

“Your point though was what exactly?”

See above.

“Did really that MiG-25PD score a victory/kill because it utilized old technology or because it got lucky, was not identified as a bandit, which then allowed it to attack an unsuspecting target?”

Contradicting, and that’s entirely up to you to speculate upon, since the topic of this thread is “F-117 Shot down in 1999”, and my example had to do with see above.

I’m sorry you feel that my points are pointless.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The problem with RWR is it only shows you the type of radar. If two fighters us the same type of radar, then it's going to show up the same on the RWR. So if, say an F-15, and a MiG-25 use a similar band radar, it's going to appear the same on RWR, and you're not going to know if it's an Eagle, or Foxbat.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
guys the problem wasnt the f18, was the awacs that didnt identificed the mig in time, actually it was planed that all the planes should be downed by f15s -tipical bvr tactics-

and that was acually a face to face fight

the mig downed the f18 with an IR acrid not radar, was a face to face, the mig outurned the hornet and shoot the missile

end of the story

anyway too much of topic here, lol


[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Zaphod58 I agree with you entirely. If the situation requires only containment, absolutely.

If Tomcats indeed fired entirely out of “anger” as BigTrain suggested, while being outside the engaging envelope, it simply shows irresponsible waste of military resources, and/or poor training, which I’m sure was not the case.

Cheers grunt2. I don’t think I’ve mentioned neither aspect nor altitude though. Good to hear about your interest in quantum physics and EM theories. Intelgurl started a great thread about plasma generators.


Intelgurl, no worries. I read your disclaimer btw. Bum wrap. Sorry you had to deal with nagging srm crap. What was the project? The part which has already been made public naturally.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Intelgurl, DCGS by any chance?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2

the mig downed the f18 with an IR acrid not radar, was a face to face, the mig outurned the hornet and shoot the missile


[edit on 6-12-2005 by grunt2]


That is the most outrageous and rediculous and "no way in hell" claim I have ever seen on ATS. It is physically impossibe for a Mig 25 to "out-turn an f-18"

That my friend, was blatant disregard of the facts on your part.

Train



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

If Tomcats indeed fired entirely out of “anger” as BigTrain suggested, while being outside the engaging envelope, it simply shows irresponsible waste of military resources, and/or poor training, which I’m sure was not the case.



I didnt make the claim, FAS.org did. I added the last 2 sentence of my original post that dealt with the tomcats, by the way, notice the quotation marks around my post. DUHHHH

Train



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
It is physically impossibe for a Mig 25 to "out-turn an f-18"


Not necessarily - a high supersonic hornet may well be out-turned by a slow Foxbat.

Highly improbably, yes, but not impossible. Virtually nothing is impossible.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Really? I thought it was impossible for any plane with an American pilot in it to be defeated by anything?





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join