Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian Fifth-generation fighter)

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
]My friend one can count on one hand how many Russian crashes have happend scince 2000, you act like Russia has the most amount of crashes in the world, as a matter of fact there's a cable show called "The Worlds Most Amasing Crashes Caught on Tape" DUDE



Su-30 crash
youtube.com...

Su-27 crash
youtube.com...

Mig-29 crash
youtube.com...

Another Mig-29 crash
youtube.com...

Another mig-29 crash
youtube.com...

A Mig-29 "accident"
youtube.com...

These, are just a few.


it's shocking just how many U.S.A.F. crashes that the U.S. Media has not reported about, just SHOCKING F-14's B-52's do the reseach man you'll get what I'm talking about.


And im sure you have sources that help 'save face' in regards to such claims?




posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I probably can get 50 pictures of US "accidents" + many more pictures of US equipment and documented cases of "accidents". Now please don't act as if Russian aircraft are the only ones which crash or have accidents.

Was this ever reported?




Originally posted by West Coast
The USAF is not stupid either, at the most your looking at 20% of what the USAF wants you to know about there bird.


So your saying the Raptor is at least 400% more capable?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
No one is saying that the US is accident free. They report all their accidents, it's just that many of them don't get coverage in the media. It's a matter of having to dig for an accident list (which isn't THAT hard to get) to find them. The point being made was to dispute the claim that since 2000 there have been almost no Russian accidents at air shows or in demonstrations.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The point being made was to dispute the claim that since 2000 there have been almost no Russian accidents at air shows or in demonstrations.


The claim was actually the amount of fingers on ones finger. I have seen 6 clips posted, one double posted so there is only 5 clips. One is also not a crash in an air show but a take off mishap where the wheels give way

"Su-30 crash " - 1999 Paris air show

"Su-27 crash " - 2002 Ukranian air show

"Mig-29 crash " - Engine stopped at a Hungarian air show 2005

"Another Mig-29 crash " - 1989 Paris Air show

"A Mig-29 "accident" " - Pilot error, Not at an air show



Two out of five are after the year 2000.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
I probably can get 50 pictures of US "accidents" + many more pictures of US equipment and documented cases of "accidents". Now please don't act as if Russian aircraft are the only ones which crash or have accidents.

Was this ever reported?


Accidents happen. Perhaps if it would have fallen out of the sky like a brick, it would have received more face time with the media.



So your saying the Raptor is at least 400% more capable?



That would be an overstatement on your part. Something I never said. However, can you honestly, with 100% certainty prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it isnt atleast that much more capable? As I said, (or meant to say) no one here qaulifys in expertise in regards to the true known capabilities of the F22 raptor. only the USAF would know better. And its the specs of there bird that they leak to the press that tells the rest of the worlds powers just how many tricks there bird can do. That is precisely why they do not release 'to much' info in regards to the raptor. So, the point of my initial post was to show that no one here honestly knows. So why even try and compare it to a 4th gen fighter (as if you know all the facts)? It makes no sense to me.


[edit on 10-8-2007 by West Coast]

[edit on 10-8-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
The claim was actually the amount of fingers on ones finger. I have seen 6 clips posted, one double posted so there is only 5 clips. One is also not a crash in an air show but a take off mishap where the wheels give way


Ahh yes I did post two of the same videos. Perhaps I can do a bit better next time.



Two out of five are after the year 2000.


I didnt recall any specified date on some of those videos. However, the point that was being made was that Russian aircraft have had a history of "falling out of the sky". My post was more in retaliation to what YASKY had to say about some 'unknown' number of american planes that have crashed, yet he chose to not provide and post any source material that neither confirms nor denys/debates such a claim. I think we all would like to learn a thing or two here, I also think we can all appreciate ones honesty. Lastly, I'll try and do a bit better job next time in trying to make myself a little bit more clearer with the purposes of my posts.


[edit on 10-8-2007 by West Coast]



[edit on 10-8-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by chinawhite
The claim was actually the amount of fingers on ones finger. I have seen 6 clips posted, one double posted so there is only 5 clips. One is also not a crash in an air show but a take off mishap where the wheels give way


Ahh yes I did post two of the same videos. Perhaps I can do a bit better next time.



Two out of five are after the year 2000.


I didnt recall any specified date on some of those videos. However, the point that was being made was that Russian aircraft have had a history of "falling out of the sky". My post was more in retaliation to what YASKY had to say about some 'unknown' number of american planes that have crashed, yet he chose to not provide and post any source material that neither confirms nor denys/debates such a claim. I think we all would like to learn a thing or two here, I also think we can all appreciate ones honesty. Lastly, I'll try and do a bit better job next time in trying to make myself a little bit more clearer with the purposes of my posts.


[edit on 10-8-2007 by West Coast]



[edit on 10-8-2007 by West Coast]

Be back with more right now I'm researching something important.
www.cnn.com...

www.stevesairshow.com...

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 12-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Since this thread has suddenly 'come alive' again i wont put off posting these any longer.



Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Oh come on stellarx, this is a discussion not a poop fliging contest, so lets keep away from the personals eh?


if your going to be running over those lines in the sand please don't be a hypocrite and warn me about them.


The reasons those radar guided missiles dont hit things that have their radars are switched off? I'm not going to bother explaining this one


If you think your too clever to deal with such mundane 'explanations' the rather focus your energy on explaining why it took so many decades for the US to integrate GPS technology into the HARMS enabling them to home accurately on the last transmission?


Two stealth aircraft? I guess I'm missing something, as far as I know the F-117 is the only one that has ever gone down.


But two were written off; one due to being shot down and the other never flew again after taking damage from a nearby SAM warhead explosion. The sources made this clear so you have not even bothered to read the few paragraphs i presented.


And if these russian radars are so amazing and America didnt destroy and SAMS, than why didnt all of the F-117s go down?


Because they simply stopped using them with even more extensive jammer and SEAD support while only sending them on missions were the risks were low to start with?


Why only one? Those were the most commonly used bombers in the war.


They lost two and the B-2's and F-117's did not drop the majority or any significant portion of even the so called smart bombs, flew any significant fraction of the sorties, or do damage that other systems could not.


Why didnt a B-2 go down?


According to the Serbs one did but the US has not admitted to losing any so we don't know and do not have much of a chance to prove it either way.


That day was a combination of factors and USAF dropping to ball on many accounts, moist air, lucky shots.


It's OK to accept the blame and aim to improve but are we sure that would be a valid way of dealing with the fact that the Serbs could track F-117's on at least enough of their radar systems to write off two in the first ten days?


Stealth still wins so far.


In battles that could and would have been won without the participation of any stealth aircraft. How does this prove ANYTHING especially considering that they still managed to lose two?


Nothing went down in desert storm, nothing in OIF....so I really dont see that F-117 as a decloration of stealth being ineffective...if something newer goes down, than I'll happily stand corrected.


Many dozens of coalition planes were shot down during operation desert storm and given the active participation of US defense and intelligence personal in Iraq's war against Iran one might presume that they learnt a great deal about how Iraqi air defenses are employed and deployed. That coupled with the fact that SH never planned, prepared to or imagined that he would soon be fighting a coalition of relative epic proportions tells me that the US and allies knew what they were getting themselves into while SH simply did not.


I'm not going to argue with the F-117 retirement thing, because I agree with you here. Some USAF brass is probably happy that these are going because they ARE vulnerable to newer SAM'S, but you fail to see that it is following the same standard USAF retirement cycle. The replacement is coming, the F-35, and so the F-117 is leaving.


How is it following the 'standard' USAF retirement cycle? What do you base that claim on?


The reason that the F-15 soldiers on in because it still works, where the F-117 is a maintenance nightmare.


The F-117 was a maintenance nightmare since day one and the airframes themselves should not be 'exhausted' by this time and i would be surprised if you can find me verifiable facts that shows that percentage wise they are now any more expensive than other planes of the same age and special utility.


It also doesnt do its job as well as it used to.


It never did it's supposed job ( penetration of forward Soviet air defenses over European battlefields) and it's should still be able to penetrate third world air defenses if it was to have any such potential against 1980's type Soviet defenses. Why can it no longer managed to penetrate 1960/70's era air defenses what would happen if it came up against anything remotely modern?


So its being retired faster...that isnt at all a decloration that USAF is afraid it will be hit again, even though some might be afraid, that is not the reason for quick retirement.


I think it is being retired for exactly that reason and they probably only waited for a another war so they would not have to retire them directly after losing two.


The SDB isnt radar guided, its GPS guided. Something russia will have trouble destroying.


Then you should study what modern air defense can intercept at speeds far in excess of the HARM's speed and flying much lower.


The F-22 pilot takes off, supercruises to 1.5mach at 50,000 feet, releases it and the sattelite does the rest so who is ignorant here stellar?

www.globalsecurity.org...


How will it find a target given that what shoots down SDB's can move very fast when it does not want to expose it's position by taking active defensive measures? How long will GPS satellites last in this type of war when both countries had the capacity to several damage or destroy spy Sat's starting in the mid late 70's? Do you realise how many GPS jammers you can purchase or build for the price of a SDB?

Stellar

[edit on 12-8-2007 by StellarX]

edit:fixed quote code

[edit on 19-8-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Valid points however:

Well SEAD/DEAD aircraft don't strike deep into the heart of defenses, they start at the edge and work their way in, blowing things up as they go. Fighter escort would come along without having to cross into extremely dangerous airspace.


With national defense grid such as the one still being operated by Russia it would be best to start from the inside out but given the limited and fast declining US SEAD/DEAD abilities they will have to fight their way in and out with predictably high casualties.


While russian aircraft might be able to outrun the F-22, they cant outrun an AMRAAM, with the increased range of the AIM-120D, the AMRAAM would be fired before the hostile aircraft were in firing range of the attack aircraft,


Given the restrictive ROE that have become standard due to inadequate IFF methodology/technology neither of those missiles will be fired at anywhere near it's full range to start with and they probably would not be effective either given the degraded kinematics of smaller airborne missiles; both sides will likely be able to fire their long range weapons and the type ( SARH, ARM, IR, RH) of missile will in my opinion play the deciding part. If the Russian aircraft serve to prevent or destroy deep penetrating strikes and to disrupt strike packages by launching ARM's or IR they wont be required to get involved in long range duels and may just fire and disengage.


and they could keep going, fire, get blown up and hope their missiles find their targets, or they can turn back before the AMRAAMs get to them


That is the case for RH/SARH but not for IR/ARM types and while the IR detection can still be hard to impossible at AMRAAM type ranges that's not the case for ARM's which can be fired


I do not believe for a second that RuAF would triumph against USAF in neutral skies. It is in fact America that has more advantages, such as a fleet of AWACS and tanker support aircraft.


I believe they would but mainly due to the fact that the large majority of US aircraft would be destroyed by strategic weapons on the ground for lack of sufficient active defenses. the Russian air force have similar capabilities, if not at all in size, than the USAF but given their likely defensive employment or significantly reduced enemy forces i believe they will prevail with obvious serious implications for all those freedoms the US armed forces pretends to defend.


What help are G-forces in BVR? How about evading missiles? Although these missiles can usually pull over 12G, USAF pilots are trained to make a missile waste its energy, and bring it down to a level where it can be evaded at 9G, which usually involves climbing 10,000 feet, descending again, than climbing again over and over. Rocket fuel doesnt last that long and neither does momentum.


All of which is entirely useless without the aid of both active and passive countermeasures which tends to run out quite quickly; Russian air defenses can make it rain far longer than the USAF can in my opinion swim.


The MiG-23 is in no way a match for the F-15, in any aspect. The F-15 could take on as many MiG-23s in BVR as it has missiles. Radar, weapons, flight characteristics....MiG-23 is a helluva stretch.


The Sparrow was the standard missile for the F-15 in that era and the Mig-23 weapons were very much comparable; if the Mig-23 were fighting with airborne and ground radar support it were not greatly inferior to the F-15 and certainly not when deployed in the type of numbers it were.



Now for the F-15 vs the Su-27...hmmm lets look at the facts.

-The F-15 has a thrust/weight ratio of about 1.25:1, the Su is more like 1:1.



The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range. Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges.

www.fas.org...


So unless you wish to state that FAS is simply wrong in this instance ( and they are frequently so in my opinion) be more specific in your claims and do source them.


-The F-15 has a top speed of Mach 2.5 while the Su is about mach 2.35.


My fault for bringing that up but what little i could find indicates to me that the aircraft have similar operational high speeds with the same weight in air-to-air weaponry...


-The F-15 has a range of 3,450m, the Su-27 has a range of 2,485m



Range 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks. 3,100 nm (3,570 miles; 5745 km) ferry range with CFTs and drop tanks
2,400 nm (2,765 miles; 4445 km) with drop tanks
1,000 nm (1,150 mi; 1,853 km) Max Combat Radius
685 nm (790 miles; 1270 km) combat radius

www.globalsecurity.org...



Range: 1,340km combat mission at sea level 3,530 km combat mission at high altitude (800 mi at sea level / 2070 mi at high altitude)

en.wikipedia.org...



Range 1,500 km combat radius [typical]
1,800 km cruise radius
4,000 km maximum range

www.fas.org...


So as you can see combat ranges favours the Su-27 and obviously so considering it's a rather larger ( empty weight differ by 30%) plane with a significantly larger internal fuel carriage ability.


Fuel Capacity (F-15A)
internal: 11,600 lb (5,260 kg)
external: 11,895 lb (5,395 kg)
(F-15C)
internal: 13,455 lb (6,105 kg)
external: 9,750 lb (4,425 kg)

www.aerospaceweb.org...



Fuel 13,123 lb (5952 kg) internal
21,645 lb (9818 kg) in two CFTs
up to three 610-US gal (2309-liter~ drop tanks;

www.globalsecurity.org...



Maximum internal fuel, kg 9,400

www.sukhoi.org...



Fuel in four integral tanks: three in the fuselage and one split between each outer wing. Max internal fuel capacity is approximately 11,775 litres (3,110 US gallons or 2,590 Imp gallons), while the normal operational fuel load is 6,600 litres (1,744 US gallons or 1,452 Imp gallons). The higher figure represents an internal auxiliary tank for missions in which manoeuvrability is not deemed important. There are no provisions for external fuel tanks, except in those versions where it is specifically indicated. The aircraft is fuelled by either pressure or gravity fuelling. An in-flight refuelling capability is optional, as the Su-27UB operated as buddy tanker during the development of the system.

www.scramble.nl...


So given that it's obvious which is going to go further and very probably faster....


-The F-15 has an AESA radar, the Su-27 has a flash dance radar.


Which according to FAS means the F-15 were at a disadvantage when it still mattered.


In long-range encounters, with its superior radar the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities. Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraft’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles.

www.fas.org...


As i said before it's just FAS so feel free to post some sources that have other views on that issue.


-The F-15 has JHMCS and the Su-27 does not.


Both the Su-27 and Mig-29 have HMS( helmet-mounted sights) and as far as i know their first production models had them meaning the Russians implemented this technology almost two decades before the USAF...


ACEVAL/AIMVAL

Although the VTAS HMS was flown in the 1974-78 ACEVAL/AIMVAL JT&E by F-14 and F-15 fighters and received praise for its effectiveness in targeting off boresight missile concepts in AIMVAL, the US did not pursue fielding of VTAS in either aircraft or a high off boresight missiles although VTAS was integrated into the Navy F-4 Phantom.

The threat

The Soviet Union observed the ACEVAL/AIMVAL JT&E and embarked on a crash program to counter the technology. As a result, the MiG-29 was fielded in 1985 with a HMS and a high off-boresight weapon (AA-11 Archer/R-73) giving them the advantage in close in maneuvering engagements.

en.wikipedia.org...





[edit on 12-8-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Many pundits, such as the Federation of American Scientists, assert that in an individual dogfight, the MiG-29 is potentially better than the F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon. MiG-29s of the German Luftwaffe have demonstrated their advantage in within-visual-range (WVR) engagements during training missions against Western F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters.[3] The success of the MiG-29 during DACT was partly due to its ability to use its helmet-mounted sight (HMS) to achieve high off-boresight targeting solutions for the Archer SRM. The HMS allowed German pilots to achieve a lock on any target the pilot could see within the missile field of regard, including those almost 45 degrees off boresight.[4] In contrast, the U.S. aircraft were only able to lock onto targets in a narrow window directly in front of the aircraft's nose. However, the USAF and US Navy achieved Initial Operational Capability of the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X in late 2003.

en.wikipedia.org...


So wrong again and i am becoming less surprised by the minute....



-The F-15 has a maximum altitude or 65,000 and the Su? 60,000.


Grasping for straws so soon? The higher you go the easier you make it for modern SAM's but i suppose this can count as a 'advantage' for the F-15.



Yeah, I see how the Su-27 has better performance in all areas. OOh!! It can do teh cobra at 20 knots!!. That doesnt sh1t matter if the aircraft is limited to pulling 9.5Gs just like the F-15, and I'd like to see some idiot try a cobra at 300 knots.


No one who is interested in what the Su-27 can do in combat will be talking about the Cobra or anything related so i will just ignore the last statement.


Vietnam huh? Do you realize that Vietnam resulted in the catastrophic destruction of the communist air force? The F-4 had a 10:1 kill ratio over the MiGs.


Well i can not 'realise' that as it's quite the blatant lie.


The MiG-21 initially achieved renown in the Vietnam War, during which it saw frequent action. It was one of the most advanced aircraft at the time; however, many North Vietnamese aces preferred flying the MiG-17, since the high wing loading on the MiG-21 made it less maneuverable than the MiG-17. Although the MiG-21 lacked the long-range radar, missiles, and heavy bombing payload of its contemporary multimission U.S. fighters, it proved a challenging adversary in the hands of experienced pilots. Poor air-to-air combat loss-exchange ratios against smaller, more agile enemy MiGs during the early part of the Vietnam War eventually led the Americans to establish dissimilar air combat training programs such as "Top Gun", which employed subsonic A-4 Skyhawk and F-5 Tiger II aircraft to mimic the performance of more maneuverable opponents like the MiG-21.

On 10 May 1972, Randy "Duke" Cunningham and William P. Driscoll flying an F-4J called "Showtime 100" shot down three MiGs to become the first flying aces of the war. Their fifth victory is believed to be over the mysterious North Vietnamese ace Colonel Toon. On the return flight, the Phantom was damaged by an enemy surface-to-air missile. To avoid being captured, Cunningham and Driscoll flew upside-down (the damage made the aircraft uncontrollable in a conventional attitude) and on fire until they could eject over water. During the war, Navy Phantom squadrons participated in 84 combat tours with F-4Bs, F-4Gs, and F-4Js. The Navy claimed 40 air-to-air victories at the cost of 71 aircraft lost to enemy fire (5 to aircraft, 13 to SAMs, and 53 to AAA). An additional 54 aircraft were lost in accidents. Of the 40 aircraft shot down by Navy and Marine Phantom crews, 22 were MiG-17s, 14 MiG-21s, two Antonov An-2s, and two MiG-19s. Of these, 8 aircraft were downed by AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, 31 by AIM-9 Sidewinders, and one by an AIM-4 Falcon (the WSO in that USAF Phantom was a Marine).[7]

Reconnaissance RF-4Cs made their debut in Vietnam on 30 October 1965, flying the hazardous post-strike reconnaissance missions. Although the F-4C, being essentially identical to the Navy F-4B, carried the Navy-designed Sidewinder missiles, the USAF-tailored F-4Ds initially arrived with AIM-4 Falcons. However, the Falcon was designed to shoot down slow bombers and proved virtually useless in combat against agile fighters, and F-4Ds quickly reverted to using Sidewinders under the Rivet Haste program. Like other Vietnam War Phantoms, the F-4Ds were urgently fitted with radar homing and warning (RHAW) antennae to detect the Soviet-built SA-2 Guideline SAMs. The attrition resulted in a shortage of F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers and USAF pressed the Phantoms into the hazardous ground attack role. As the result, by 1972 the F-4 was second only to the F-105 in combat losses with 362 downed aircraft. On 28 August 1972, Steve Ritchie became the first USAF ace of the war. On 9 September 1972, WSO Charles B. DeBellevue became the highest-scoring American ace of the war with six victories. WSO Jeffrey Feinstein became the last USAF ace of the war on 13 October 1972.

en.wikipedia.org...


If you can manage to construct a 10:1 kill ratio out of that you are certainly a better researcher than myself.
While you are inventing that alternative reality try to remember that the primary target of the Mig's were strike aircraft and they normally spent their time trying to evade escorting fighters such as the F-4.

Here are some more specific statistics as to the aircraft losses:

orbat.com...

www.geocities.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

So if one wishes to play around with the numbers ( US lost 3300 aircraft and nearly 5000 helicopters to all causes against 200 aircraft for NV) you can easily say the exchange ratio for aircraft losses were 15:1 in favour of the North Vietnamese. Is that 'fair' and can we learn anything from statements that are accurate buy so devoid of context? Why is it that US airman are so proficient at shooting down enemy planes while managing to write off 1500 odd planes in 'accidents' or for 'operational causes' when the NV can't really seem to shoot down much but don't seem to have any accidents while doing it? Does that seem at all strange to you?


So over neutral ground, you say that the RuAF will triumph because they have "too many advantages"? GIVE ME ONE.


Well that statement was obviously conditional as i do not believe that the Ru AF will ever fight the type of conventional war the USAF might possibly 'win'. In this scenario that clear and obvious example is the fact that the Russians are operating a very mobile national ballistic missile defense system that is quite capable of blunting or destroying a full scale nuclear attack thus allowing the nuclear reserve firepower that would enable the destruction of the type of USAF asset concentrations that could pose a threat to the Ru AF's operations. If we look at a plane by plane comparison over neutral territory with conventional arms and no surface to air assets i can easily imagine the USAF triumphant but that's not in my opinion realistic and the Russian leaders understand the limitations of their armed forces far better than American leaders does their own.


The US has more aircraft.


Which strangely only seems a relevent point when it's the USAF that has the numbers; during the cold war the masses of Soviet aircraft were just plain old evidence that individual aircraft were no good!


The F-22s will probably take out four times their own numbers in enemy aircraft,


The Israeli's proved that you could do that with inferior aircraft if they were employed in tactically sound ways in support of realistic strategic goals; when you subtract the added stealth the F-22 is a much larger F-15 with the type of radar and general electronics that you could easily build into regular F-15's for a fraction of the F-22's cost. Whether the F-22 will or could really bring down four or five Russian planes each does not really matter in my mind as i am not working from the unrealistic assumption that many will get into positions where they are a threat to any Russian planes.


the F-15s ARE a check for most anything RuAF has in BVR, AESA and AIM-120D cover that area as well as the F-22. USAF has many more AWACS.


The F-15's are comparable to either the Mig-29 or Su-27's/ Mig-31's but on basics they are in no way superior and it will come down to which sides ECM/ECCM/IFF/RWR equipment holds up best in environments where nuclear detonations are taking place. The Russians not only deploy systems that are comparable to AESA technology and the AIM -D but have the funds to upgraded their current aircraft with the same improvements some F-15's and F-18's have been receiving over the last few years and as for the AWACS issues they have dozens of their own which will be flying in support of their extensive ground radar networks. It really comes join to choices and the Russians have chosen to deploy new Sam's and ICBMs/SLMBs while upgrading the older one's instead of investing similarly in even more modern aircraft. In my opinion that reflects their nuclear fighting doctrine where getting planes in the air at all will be the significant factor; as far as i can tell they believe what they have now is sufficient to fight and win against whatever remnants of the USAF/NATO air forces remains.

Continued



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

USAF has many more tankers...it doesnt even need airfields in the immediate area with KC-135s flying around WITH fighter escort.


But both need airfields and i do not believe that NATO forces in Europe have the capacity to protect their for very long or at all and to fight a defenses air war over Europe from staging bases in Canada wont be a simple task at all.


Top that off with hundreds of F-35s flying around...what advantage does the RuAF have over USAF? The USAF has more F-16s and F-15s than RuAF has Su-27s and MiG-29s.


It's one thing to talk about the past but i think we can leave future aircraft out the discussion for now? The USAF/USN/USMC does not operate 'more' aircraft but there is a obvious qualitative edge when all operational platforms are considered. Once again it find it interesting that numerical superiority is only worth noting when the US happens to lead in that branch.
The US armed forces does operate more F-15'/16's/18's than the RuAF operates Mig-29's/31's and Su-27's but not overwhelmingly so and certainly not in respect to the ground based air defenses these planes will be supporting.


Even if 10 times was an exagguration, the USAF pilots DO get much more training than RuAF pilots...thats a fact.


If we are talking averages that's surely the case but there is no reason to suspect that a smaller core of Russian pilots are in fact flying a 120 hours or more.


The former Air Forces and Air Defence Forces have now been merged into a single service (at a cost of some 93,000 posts), under Colonel General (Aviation) Anatoly Kornukov. Whilst still a large force, it has suffered from a decade of underfunding, which has led to a lack of modern airframes, abysmally low flight training levels and problems with repair and maintenance. It has also failed to adjust to the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union and the effect that this would have on Moscow's old integrated air defence system. In 1998, the deputy Commander-in-Chief of the air force expressed his desire for the annual flying hours per pilot to average around 50 hours. In 1990, the air force accumulated two million annual flying hours, by 1999 this had dropped to 200,000-230,000. T

www.aeronautics.ru...


So assuming they were interested two thousands Russian pilots could be flying a hundred hours a year. To put that in perspective it means that in the mid-80's the Soviet air force may have had upwards of 20 000 pilots that were flying a hundred or more hours per year or 12-15 000 that were flying a 150 hours per year....


I am also sticking firmly to my belief that RED FLAG is an accurate portrayal of an air war.


Well i suppose you would have to stick to that type of beliefs to come up with such a rosy unsubstantiated picture of reality but if that's the case where is the evidence?


Despite bluefor having an AWACS aircraft, redfor has high performance SAMS on its side and other such things.


Well the red air force will have AWACS too and coupled with high performance SAM'S, extensive ground based EW and tracking data and non of it's fighters flying with radars on before the final attack phase one can but wonder how the blue force wins and why it does so with so few losses.


The fact that the F-15s cant get a lock on the F-22s at any range says something.


It may in fact simply tell us that the ROE are hopelessly restrictive as the F-15's radar are more than capable of detecting the F-22 from the side or rear at extended ranges. If you set up the simulation with false or biased 'facts' you can ensure the result and while that may fool very many it's no test of combat capabilities.

In response to some claims you made about the Vietnam war



Originally posted by BlackWidow23
YASKY I really dont want to be rude that that is just about the biggest load of crap I have ever seen posted in this forum.


Then you need to start reading what's on this forum or just stop lying!


345 CONFIRMED kills...there is also such a thing as probables, which means the gun camera records the enemy aircraft blowing up but it doesn't record a parachute.


Confirmed kills have absolutely nothing to do with the enemy pilots survival.


Give me a source for the 1800 F-86s shot down claim...if you can prove to me that a fifth of those were shot down I will become a communist.


I doubt there exists official source for that claim but we do know that the US alone lost more than 2000 aircraft 'due to all causes' and you should excuse me if i am VERY skeptical when it's suggested half were somehow unrelated to enemy air action. Why should we ascribe the more or less 3000 UN aircraft losses to runaway accidents ( or god knows whatever other excuses they came up with beside the more obvious) or just ground fire and allow some people in the pentagon to create the illusion that only German pilots could actually shoot down US aircraft in large numbers?


As for vietnam...NVAAF had its fair share of MiG-21s, agile and fast aircraft. 10:1 kill ratio...no thats not numbers at all, in fact many times the NVAAF completely outnumbered the USAF.


UN aircraft were never outnumbered in Korea and the USAF were never outnumbered in Vietnam and these lies need to stop and stop right here. The ten to one kill ratio is only achieved if one presumes, inaccurately, that in either war the defending fighters were in the air to fight other fighters and not strategic/fighter bombers, that the local pilots had the luxury of hundreds of hours of training time and clear skies to do it in, that the defenders outnumbered the attackers, that the Koreans or Vietnamese had access to the same support structures and best aircraft at the time and that there in fact was any 'good' explanation for the casualties the USAF took in those conflicts.


And yes, USAF training IS MUCH better, longer, and has more flight hours than RuAF training.


Well it's surely 'longer' but 'better' is probably nowhere near the sure thing you think it to be.


And as for vietnam...I suggest you look up the relitive numbers of aircraft. And than, I suggest you look at the K/D ratio between F-4s and MiG-21s....USAF pilots were amazing in that war, they would masquarade as F-105s and than when the MiG-21s came up, they went down just as quick. They were helpless, flailing pilots and they got shot down, very very quickly.


The 'relative' number of aircraft were always low for NV and even under the conditions i outlined earlier the F-4's NEVER managed to exceed a exchange ratio of 3.5 to 1 and not specifically against the Mig-21 either. Given the different tasks and difference in resource investment that's pretty damn close to 1.5 to 2 planes lost for every one shot down and thus absolutely nothing to brag about given the backwards nature of the Vietnamese attempts at defense.

Stellar

[edit on 12-8-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
Be back with more right now I'm researching something important.
www.cnn.com...

www.stevesairshow.com...

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 12-8-2007 by YASKY]


Mr. YASKY. Allow me to show you your earlier statements that you have forgotten about. And I quote "DUDE it's shocking just how many U.S.A.F. crashes that the U.S. Media has not reported about, just SHOCKING F-14's B-52's do the reseach man you'll get what I'm talking about. -YASKY"

Now I see two CNN sources (huge american media outlet BTW) and one F-14 report that was reported on the news outlets as well.. you didnt prove anything in regards to your initial claims. Deny Ignorance.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Mr. X, It is of my opinion that russia is several steps behind the US in military terms, however discussing possible future military contact between the two nations is, in my opinion, moot.

All in all the US will not have to worry much about russia. Russia faces a population crisis, an aids epidemic, as well as the possible disintegration of russia itself.

I ask you to watch the youtube videos below. It is a well drawn out documentary of russias current state. Life is good in Moscow, but not much anywhere else in russia.

Death of a nation - Russia
Part 1
www.youtube.com...
Part 2
www.youtube.com...
Part 3
www.youtube.com...
Part 4
www.youtube.com...
Part 5
www.youtube.com...
Part 6
www.youtube.com...

I really do feel for the innocent people of russia who are just trying to get by.

[edit on 12-8-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by YASKY
Be back with more right now I'm researching something important.
www.cnn.com...

www.stevesairshow.com...

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 12-8-2007 by YASKY]


Mr. YASKY. Allow me to show you your earlier statements that you have forgotten about. And I quote "DUDE it's shocking just how many U.S.A.F. crashes that the U.S. Media has not reported about, just SHOCKING F-14's B-52's do the reseach man you'll get what I'm talking about. -YASKY"

Now I see two CNN sources (huge american media outlet BTW) and one F-14 report that was reported on the news outlets as well.. you didnt prove anything in regards to your initial claims. Deny Ignorance.

I said (I'll be back with more but now I'm doing research) so you prooveNOTHING you LOSE



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
I said (I'll be back with more but now I'm doing research) so you prooveNOTHING you LOSE



It was never up to me to prove to begin with. I wasnt the one who opened my mouth and made the accusations that are in question. You did, you made them, there for you prove them.

If you do have source confirmation, I then read your sources and then we debate. Thats how it works
Until then, im afraid you have nothing (just as I thought all along).

[edit on 12-8-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by YASKY
I said (I'll be back with more but now I'm doing research) so you prooveNOTHING you LOSE



It was never up to me to prove to begin with. I wasnt the one who opened my mouth and made the accusations that are in question. You did, you made them, there for you prove them.

If you do have source confirmation, I then read your sources and then we debate. Thats how it works
Until then, im afraid you have nothing (just as I thought all along).

[edit on 12-8-2007 by West Coast]

F117 Crash www.cnn.com...
B-52 Crash youtube.com...
F-15 Crash youtube.com...
F-22 CRASH youtube.com...
There thats a Total of 7 I have posted.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   
But didn't you say that you would post a bunch of them that fell out of the sky and the media didn't cover? I remember each and every one of those incidents as having made mainstream media coverage. In fact they were pretty major stories when they happened. All you've proven was that the USAF has some incidents during displays, most of which were directly related to human error. You haven't proven that they "fall out of the sky" and is covered up or not covered by the media.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But didn't you say that you would post a bunch of them that fell out of the sky and the media didn't cover? I remember each and every one of those incidents as having made mainstream media coverage. In fact they were pretty major stories when they happened. All you've proven was that the USAF has some incidents during displays, most of which were directly related to human error. You haven't proven that they "fall out of the sky" and is covered up or not covered by the media.

What I ment by media hasn't not covered them is "constantly" reruning them to where Americans can see over and not forget, thats they have just as much crashes as other nations, and not trying to make themselves "seem" better, (WHICH THEIR NOT) here's another one:BTW at the bottom of this link is additional links to 4 other B1 B crashes so make this 12 links that I've posted www.cnn.com...

[edit on 13-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
So somehow Russian crashes are different, and don't prove anything, but US crashes prove that we're trying to show we're better than everyone else. Right, got it now.
Again, several of the crashes you are showing had MAJOR media coverage, were shown over and over again, and were blamed on human error. There was no attempt to cover it up, there was no attempt to hide that the planes crashed.

Oh but I forgot. We're evil Americans, who are more arrogant than the rest of the world and have to pretend we're so much better than everyone else when in reality we have the worst equipment and military. Sorry, carry on. Nothing to see here. Business as usual.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
F117 Crash www.cnn.com...
B-52 Crash youtube.com...
F-15 Crash youtube.com...
F-22 CRASH youtube.com...
There thats a Total of 7 I have posted.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by YASKY]


Mr. YASKY.

"DUDE it's shocking just how many U.S.A.F. crashes that the U.S. Media has not reported about, just SHOCKING F-14's B-52's do the reseach man you'll get what I'm talking about. -YASKY"

Again. The burden of proof is yours to prove, not mine.


Your excuse to Mr. Zaphod after this post would be more believable if you hadnt left me this little gemstone.

"it's shocking just how many U.S.A.F. crashes that the U.S. Media has not reported about,"

Now, has not reported about? Not reported about as in has somehow deliberately chose not to in order to propagate propaganda? What do you want the American media to do? Play over and over every morning these crashes that happened years and years ago? Did it ever occur to you, sir, that there is a whole lot more going on in the world today that needs media coverage?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join