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.

 

Terroristic Countries will have MiG-31

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Ghost,
I read your post 3 times and really couldn't understand what do you want to say. You quote me and then say something that has nothing to do with the quote. Did any of my posts hint that I don't know the top speeds of the Hornet and MiG-25? I think not. I don't know what your idea of a BVR engagement is, but it is not a 50 km sprint race. If it was, the Russians would still be producing the MiG-25.
If you imply that the MiG-25 used Mach 3 to get out of the cone of the F-18 radar, I think the F-18 could do a much tighter turn at below Mach 1 than the MiG can do at Mach 3 in order to get a shot. So I really can't understand what you are trying to say.
I'm saying that the Iraqui pilot managed to get a kill with a machine from a previous generation with a disadvantage in 2 out of 3 factors, namely radar detection range and radar cross section, using the third most important factor, the human factor. If you argue with that, it's fine, say what you think, but your above post sounds pretty irrelevant to me.




posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
First you said(on another thread) that better radar and lower RCS give a DECISIVE EDGE in BVR.


Yes they do, more so today than in the past, the Hornet was smaller than the Mig-25 but its use of RCS reducing features was limited. This is 1991 we’re talking about here, your idea of BVR is a 30 mile Sparrow and at that range you’re going to get detected before you can fire it. A Mig-25 is going to detect a Hornet at more than 30 miles, that’s why AWACS was so important during the first gulf war, it could warn fighters well in advance so the could get in a position where at those ranges a successful kill was possible.


Originally posted by Pazo
Well the F-18A/B/C/D(I think we're talking C here) has HUGE advantages in both areas (even by Russian data). But for you that is NOT decisive edge.


I wouldn’t say huge, the AN/APG-65 radar is superior to the Smerch-A2 but the R-27R outranges the Sparrow. If a Mig-25 detected the Hornet first he could get into a position to fire the R-27. That’s the likeliest thing that happened IMO.


Originally posted by Pazo
It's not fair you see.
So tell me when did the USAF have a proper opponent and I'll accept I'm ignorant, OK?


Eh… which other Air Force (besides perhaps the Israelis) has had more combat experience in the modern era (post WWII) than the USAF? Which other air force currently posses the same capabilities as the USAF? What you think is fair is irrelevant, fact is our pilots get more than 20-50 flying hours per year and they have constantly performed under battlefield conditions which is more than I can say about a lot of other air forces. I don’t want to go this route and start a pissing contest but you should consider how the "competition" in comparison stacks up.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Westie, you are sinking deeper an deeper man, I don't know where to start, you're giving me a target rich environment.
1. "The hornet had limited use of RCS reducing features", WTF, the MiG-25 which is the size of a passanger plane didn't have any.
2. The Smerch radar detects a B-52 at less than 60 miles, how far away do you think it can detect an F-18, and are you saying the Hornet had a lock but didn't kill him cause the MiG was too far away.
3. MiG-25s have never, ever been equipped with R-27. You mean R-24 (you might look up how that stacks against a Sparrow). And even the R-27(R) is not much better than the Sparrow.(Sparrow range is well above 30 miles last time I checked, closer to 60)
4. I asked you when did the USAF face a proper competition, you answer that they have a lot of experience
, you would have been better leaving this unanswered. If you suggest that there simply aren't ANY worthy opponents I'd tell you that there are (Russia, RAF, IAF, Luftwaffe, PLAAF, French AF...), and I doubt the USAF would have the same succes against them as against Iraq or Serbia
So until they fight one of the above, their experience means exactly zit. I don't even count Cope India here, which was nor a real war, but it gives som indications I think.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
1."The hornet had limited use of RCS reducing features", WTF, the MiG-25 which is the size of a passanger plane didn't have any.


If it wasn’t a head to head engagement or if the Hornet had no idea the Mig-25 was there being smaller isn’t going to save you.


Originally posted by Pazo
2. The Smerch radar detects a B-52 at less than 60 miles, how far away do you think it can detect an F-18, and are you saying the Hornet had a lock but didn't kill him cause the MiG was too far away.


Don’t know, I was giving you an idea of what BVR was in 91, and I said before the Hornet was probably out of position and it didn’t have AWACS support.


Originally posted by Pazo
3. MiG-25s have never, ever been equipped with R-27. You mean R-24 (you might look up how that stacks against a Sparrow). And even the R-27(R) is not much better than the Sparrow.(Sparrow range is well above 30 miles last time I checked, closer to 60)


I though later versions of the Mig-25 were quipped to carry the R-27? And the IRAF did have R-27. But anyway I previously thought the missile that shot down the Hornet was a R-27, my mistake (yes I said it) in all likeness it was an R-40RD. And Pazo you should go check again because the Sparrow did not have a range even close to 60 miles. BTW AN/APG-65 max tracking range is



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
So if it didn't matter why did you mention that the F-18 didn't have RCS reducing features? Just say it doesn't matter because of this and that.

Don no where you get your info on the Sparrow, but it has longer range than R-40, the range of which even in head on engagement is not more than 30 miles. And I don't have time to check now but R-40 was only present on MiG-31 (I might be wrong) If the MiG got him from behind it was probably a "T" (heatseaker) missile, that's why the Hornet didn't know what hit him, again, a smart Iraqi pilot.

You are not aware about the difference between Search range and Track range it seems. I was talking detection (search range) on the Smerch, you are talking track range on the APG-65... Confused, are we?

Please stop with the "No Awacs" thing, you're making a joke out of yourself.

I didn't know it was not OK to mention Cope India. Is this a USAF rulez only forum?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
So if it didn't matter why did you mention that the F-18 didn't have RCS reducing features? Just say it doesn't matter because of this and that.


Because you implied that since the Hornet was smaller it would have had a "decisive edge" in BVR (in the Gulf War).


Originally posted by Pazo
Don no where you get your info on the Sparrow, but it has longer range than R-40, the range of which even in head on engagement is not more than 30 miles. And I don't have time to check now but R-40 was only present on MiG-31 (I might be wrong) If the MiG got him from behind it was probably a "T" (heatseaker) missile, that's why the Hornet didn't know what hit him, again, a smart Iraqi pilot.


I never said the Sparrow had a shorter range than the R-40RD, I said the Sparrow didn’t have a range "even close to 60 miles" which you claimed. No, the R-40RD was used in the Mig-25, and Iraqi had ~24 Mig-25 and R-40RD missiles. There have been other cases of IRAF Mig-25’s using the R-40, during the Iran-Iraq war and during the Gulf War and I believe even in 2002 an IRAF Mig-25PD shot down a Predator drone using the R-40RD. Also, I don’t know that the Hornet wasn't aware of what hit him (if he was painted) as much as he couldn’t really do anything about it. If this Iraqi pilot was as smart was you say he would have used the MiG-25’s high speed and altitude capabilities to give the missile more range in a tail chase scenario.

NOTE: Strong evidece suggests that the pilot ejected from the Hornet before it was shot down.


Note 6: The team of ACIG.org researchers obtained exclusive materials describing the interception of an USN F/A-18 Hornet aircraft by an IrAF MiG-25PD at exactly the time and in place where the plane flown by Lt.Cdr. Speicher was shot down, in the early morning of 17 January 1991. Considering the available evidence, we are now convinced that Lt.Cdr. Speicher was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 "Foxbat", using a single R-40/AA-6 Acrid missile - despite explanations by other IrAF pilots we interviewed previously, that none of them would know about any Iraqi pilot to have scored an air-to-air kill against Coalition aircraft during this war.

Link




Originally posted by Pazo
You are not aware about the difference between Search range and Track range it seems. I was talking detection (search range) on the Smerch, you are talking track range on the APG-65... Confused, are we?


No I’m well aware of the difference thank you, tracking range is usually 60% of the detection range. Why I mentioned the max tracking range of the AN/APG-65 was because in order for the Hornet (in 91) to fire from BVR it had to be closer than 40 miles from its target. However, I still think the most likely scenario is that the Hornet was caught off guard; it had no cover, and it got shot down.


Originally posted by Pazo
I didn't know it was not OK to mention Cope India. Is this a USAF rulez only forum?


Why bring up Cope India in this discussion? It does not pertain to this current discussion in any way shape or form.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
Ghost,
I read your post 3 times and really couldn't understand what do you want to say. You quote me and then say something that has nothing to do with the quote. Did any of my posts hint that I don't know the top speeds of the Hornet and MiG-25?


Sorry Pazo,

That's not what I was after. My Point was that the Foxbat is an intercepter, it's not for dog fighting. A Mig 25 pilot would probably make a run for it if he encountered a Hornet, since he doesn't have the agility for dog fighting like the F-18. In a chase situation the Hornet pilot would be at a clear disadvantage.

Tim



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Just to clarify some facts, Iraqi MiG-25s did NOT carry R-27, they carried R-40 (AA-6 Acrid) missiles just like all other export fighter versions of the MiG-25 do).

But the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are quite different in so many respects that the comparison is a bit pointless.

Here are some potential weapons fits - the first two reflect typical Russian fits. The third is my guess of what an upgraded ex-Russian MiG-31 might carry, and the last is the MiG-31M which is not on the cards here:



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Planeman, thanks for the drawings, they were quite interesting.

Westie, your efforts in juggling with tech spec made me refresh my knowledge on the MiG-25 and F-18.
1. You are talking MiG-25PD buth the Smerch radar was on the first MIG-25s, PD has RP-25 Saphire, which has look down shoot down but not a significant increase in range, so it doesn't matter, just want to correct this(deny ignorance)
2. I was wrong about the R-40(like suspected) but still think that in anything but a head on engagement he would have used R-40T IR missile.
3. AIM-7M which would have been on the F-18 indeed has close to 60 miles range
4. The F-18C/D is equipped with AN/APG-73 not 65 like on the F-18A/B, and since it was a Navy plane, I think were talking C/D here.

So, bottom line, in drawing me into a technicalities argument you succeeded in drawing the attention away from the fact that you simply can't accept the fact that an Iraqui pilot did a very difficult thing scoring a victory against a vastly superior air-force, instead of fleeing to Iran like many of his colleagues.
If it was an American pilot scoring against a superior invading force, there would be at least three big budget movies about him starring Tom Cruise who'd shoot down at leas 7 enemies. But if it's an Iraqui pilot, naah the Hornet didn't have AWACS...
And what was that about the Hornet pilot ejecting before he was shot at, you're not doing this guy a favour... Or do you imply that the the Hornet was left unmanned thus making it an easy target and diminishing the significance of the kill?

About Cope India and it's relevance to this thread, since I was asking you when did the USAF last have a taste of competition, and you avoided answering that, I gave you a hint with Cope India but you obviously didn't get it.
If you imply that my question does not belong on this thread, OK, promise you'll answer my question and I'll start a different thread, OK?
Before you accuse me again of hatred against the USAF, no I have nothing against them, they do a fine job and usually manage to fullfil their tasks.
But I really, really have a problem with USAF fanboys like yourself.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Sorry Pazo,

That's not what I was after. My Point was that the Foxbat is an intercepter, it's not for dog fighting. A Mig 25 pilot would probably make a run for it if he encountered a Hornet, since he doesn't have the agility for dog fighting like the F-18. In a chase situation the Hornet pilot would be at a clear disadvantage.

Tim


Hi Tim,
I understand what you want to say, but in the passage you quoted I say that "I was being ironic" about the dogfighting, I do know the speed envelope of the MiG-25, Mach 2.83 is the imposed maximum, and Mach 2.5 is the recommended. But as far as I know none of the participants went supersonic on that engagement so I doubt it was the speed that won the MiG this fight , or any fight in the missile age, you don't need to catch the enemy, you just need to find him, missile does the running for you



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originaly posted by Pazo
1. You are talking MiG-25PD buth the Smerch radar was on the first MIG-25s, PD has RP-25 Saphire, which has look down shoot down but not a significant increase in range, so it doesn't matter, just want to correct this(deny ignorance).


Not the export version, that version carried the Smerch-A2, export countries as I said before were also equipped with R-40DR/T missiles and R-60’s as well, deny ignorance indeed.


In 1977, at the Gorky-based aircraft plant production of three aircraft, namely, #305, 306, 307, was started under the MiG-25PD programme. The first of them was taken on its maiden flight on 19 November, 1977 by test-pilot V.E. Menitsky with the testing of the other two following in 1978. Besides, the MiG-25P served as a base for deriving in 1977 of a LL-1104 flying lab to develop the SAU-155PD automatic control system, modernised targeting system and other systems. Phase B of the joint official testing was being held during September 1978 - February 1979 with the whole MiG-25-40D intercept complex being included into the inventory in 1980. The MiG-25PD series manufacture at the Gorky plant (Sokol NGAZ nowadays) had been underway since 1978 till 1984 resulting in the total of 150 plus aircraft, some of which were exported to Iraq (20), Syria (30, 6 PU) and Algeria (17). The export versions mounted the Smerch-A2 radar which ensured the firing of the R-60M missile.

Link 1

Link 2



Originaly posted by Pazo
3. AIM-7M which would have been on the F-18 indeed has close to 60 miles range.


Please post some sources for this, because the AIM-7M does not have a range of 60 miles. The range of the Sparrow is apparently still classified though through public sources the average range given is around 28-33 Miles. The highest public figure for the Aim-7 Sparrow that I could find was around 40 miles; I assume that’s optimum range from head on slight alt advantage.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3


Originaly posted by Pazo
4. The F-18C/D is equipped with AN/APG-73 not 65 like on the F-18A/B, and since it was a Navy plane, I think were talking C/D here.


Nope, the F-18C/D was indeed introduced before the Gulf War however the C/D was not equipped with the AN/APG-73 until 1994.


As mentioned, the F/A-18A/B was replaced in production by the single-seat "F/A-18C" and two-seat "F/A-18D" variants in 1987. The F/A-18C and F/A-18D are difficult to distinguish from their predecessors, the changes being mostly internal. One external innovation was the addition in all but initial production of a prominent strake on top of the rear of each LERX to improve airflow over the tailfins in high-AOA flight. However, the strakes are a worthless recognition feature, since they were retrofitted to F/A-18A/B machines.

The improved AN/APG-73 multimode radar was introduced in 1994, with much the same form-factor as the AN/APG-65 but greater reliability and range, plus far greater sophistication…The AN/APG-73 was also refitted to many earlier Hornets, with the old AN/APG-65 radar salvaged and refurbished for use in USMC AV-8B+ "jump-jet" strike fighters.

Link



Since May 1994, the Hornet has been equipped with upgraded radar - the APG-73 -, which substantially increases the speed and memory capacity of the radar's processors.

Link



Originally posted by Pazo
...you simply can't accept the fact that an Iraqui pilot did a very difficult thing scoring a victory against a vastly superior air-force, instead of fleeing to Iran like many of his colleagues.


Oh I can accept that fact; there are quite a few indications that IrAF Mig-25 pilots were good. However you tried to make the Hornet look as if it was invincible during the Gulf War and the Mig-25 look obsolete to make it look as if the IrAF pilot had done something impossible. Talk about Hollywood.


Originaly posted by Pazo
And what was that about the Hornet pilot ejecting before he was shot at, you're not doing this guy a favour... Or do you imply that the the Hornet was left unmanned thus making it an easy target and diminishing the significance of the kill?


Err… I’m implying that the pilot knew he was about to be shot down, he was aware of the missile. Whether he ditched 1 or 5 seconds before the hit doesn’t really matter, nor does it make a difference, that close the missile would have hit anyway given it had enough energy. Go look him up, Lt.Cdr. Speicher, we’re still not sure what really happened to him after he ejected.


Originally posted by Pazo
About Cope India and it's relevance to this thread, since I was asking you when did the USAF last have a taste of competition, and you avoided answering that, I gave you a hint with Cope India but you obviously didn't get it.


Cope India was a training exercise, not even a realistic one at that, the only thing you can deduce from Cope India is that Indian pilots are well trained. Trying to base more off of it is just wishful thinking, go here and read about it. Enjoy.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
You still mess with technicallities.
60 or 40 or 30 miles(the latter is only true about Aim7E, not M) it's still at least on par with the R-40 (30-35 miles max)
APG 65 or 73, they are still better than both the Smerch and Saphir.
And since the Saphir was the most important modification to the PD it ain't really a PD if it doesn't have the Saphir.
And last on the radar BS, even an APG-63 would probably find the MiG at a greater distance because of it's size and RCS.
I'm not trying to say the MiG-25 was crap, you are trying to turn it into a superfighter because it suits your point at the moment. In any other context you'd be trashing it. Remember you tried to diminish the significance of this engagement as soon as someone mentioned it, guess you're not that comfortable accepting it after all. Stop counting the trees and look at the forest. The MiG didn't win because of better missiles, radar, RCS reduction, speed or other technical advantages. It won because the pilot had brains, skill, luck or a combination of the three. If the Hornet was as helpless as you describe it, what the funk was it doing in a warzone?
I've read enough about Cope India thank you very much, don't need to read another sorry a** excuse, had plenty of those. I've read the Indian side of the story too, so each of us can choose to believe what he likes. The only unrealistic thing about this excersise is that the results weren't buried, but I guess the Indian's wouldn't shut up as the Luftwaffe boys did. Cope India happened my friend, nothing you can do to undo it, sorry, you'll have to live with it.
You again managed to dodge my question so I'll just stop asking, I guess your silence is a good answer.





[edit on 3-8-2006 by Pazo]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I’m only going to respond to this one last time, you can call specifications whatever you want but they matter, 60 rather than 40-35 miles is a significant difference, still waiting on you sources BTW. And once again, you got your facts a little mixed up and you're just repeating the same old stuff to cover for it, let me quote a post of mine "…the AN/APG-65 radar is superior to the Smerch-A2…". BTW, the radar was no doubt an important upgrade to the Mig-25P but the PD is so much more, read up Mig-25PD.

Now, the Mig-25 was not a super fighter but neither was the Hornet, given the right circumstances both fighters can shoot one another down. You made it seem as if a Mig-25 couldn’t possibly shoot down a Hornet, which is of course royal BS. Hornet's served a great purpose in the Gulf War, ground attack, they were far from helpless (as no others were shot down) yet also equally far from invincible.

Pazo, ROE’s, Parameters, and number of assets don’t change according to "sides" as they are categories which are not open to personal interpretation, opinion, views and or feeling; they are facts which govern every exercise. Cope India did happen, I remember reading about it quite well, I don’t dispute the outcome, you one the other had seem to only focus on the outcome while ignoring all the factors that go into that outcome. I don’t need to defend the USAF, their record and capabilities speak for themselves.

Alas, its been nice chatting with you but I’m about done here, thanks for you time.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Hey Westie,
If you insist I will acknowledge that Russian engineering from the sixties is on par with American engineering from the seventies

See, we CAN agree on something.
Only thing I doubt we will ever agree on is that the blond girl will look more beautiful without the star sprangled banner.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Primary Mover
We have to make sure that the israeli terrorists dont get any !


Several questions and points:

1) Who is we?

2) "Israeli" is a proper noun and as such requires a capital letter.

3) Why would the Israeli's, who both acquire and produce, state of the art and industry leading equipment and technology. Want to purchase, probably through back channels, a piece of 20+ year old Russia technology?

4) If, as I assume you were, trying to gain attention or possible popularity by branding Israel as a terrorist country you really failed. As no one(up till me that is) has so much as paid any attention to your post or made any gesture of congratulations upon your comment.

5) Have a nice day.



Jensy



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
You have no right to call these countries ' terrorists' , you sound like bush or fox news, brainwashed garbage for the masses.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   
There is no such thing as a 'terrorist country'. The only classifications that can properly accompany the word 'terrorist' are 'individual', 'group' and 'scum'.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Primary Mover
You have no right to call these countries ' terrorists' , you sound like bush or fox news, brainwashed garbage for the masses.


Yay, breakfast!

When a country elects a known terrorist leader and praises his name - that counts for one. When they dance and cheer in the streets because thousands of our people died - that should also count for something. When they routinely kidnap visitors from foreign nations (often missionaries) to do Lord-Knows-What to them.... that should also count for something - especially when such behavior is promoted and rewarded in that country's society.

Now, compare that to our nation. A soldier in a combat zone shoots a civilian who shows little sign of complying with any kind of guestures - it is not known at that time whether or not the person was concealing a hand grenade, bomb detonator, or could have been reaching for a placed trip-wire for a much larger bomb in the building. Our populace largely criticises the actions of the soldier and elicits protests in the nation against the war.

Now that I've wasted a thousand plus characters on you - let's move along.

The Mig-31 is a high altitude, high-velocity interceptor. By today's standards, it is inferior in a one-on one engagement with almost any currently serviced U.S. fighter. However, it does boast significant speed advantages over anything Isreal has. It can strike from high altitude and high speed - where its missiles will have a naturally increased range over those of lower-flying aircraft. This does pose a danger, especially for 'hit and run' strikes on patrol aircraft.

A musket may be old - but it can still kill you just as easily as it killed people in the Civil war.

Russia sure isn't making any western friends with this move - if it goes through. Although one almost can't blame them. They are a cash starved economy. An offer such as this is almost too good to pass up. Unfortunately - most of the people who have money and a need for military surplus have connections to terrorist organizations.

Perhaps it will be a good time for some of our fighter jocks to play a little skeet shooting with those Mig-31s. Or we could just give Isreal a few F-22s and let them have a little fun.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Primary Mover
You have no right to call these countries ' terrorists' , you sound like bush or fox news, brainwashed garbage for the masses.


You are absoultely right, which is why why are no reffering to the countries as terrorists, but rather as "terrorist countries". This implies that they may harbour, train and provide terrorists with equipment.



Aim64c
it does boast significant speed advantages over anything Israel has. It can strike from high altitude and high speed


True, however the training of Israel's piolts combined with superior maintance and sytems upgrades ensures that this margin is very slim.

Hvaing said this I feel that Israel could benefit from smaller number of more advanced air superiority fighters. Whether this is in the form of European or American offerings is up for debate.

Jensy



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I wonder where they're going to get them.

I'd be surprised to see the Europeans sell them Typhoon, and it seems to me very unlikely they will be allowed to buy F-22's. There's that whole thorny "selling US technology to China" issue...

It seems to me that the best Israel is likely to get is the F-35.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join