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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
So your saying the Raptor is at least 400% more capable?
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
Two out of five are after the year 2000.
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]
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?
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
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.
And if these russian radars are so amazing and America didnt destroy and SAMS, than why didnt all of the F-117s go down?
Why only one? Those were the most commonly used bombers in the war.
Why didnt a B-2 go down?
That day was a combination of factors and USAF dropping to ball on many accounts, moist air, lucky shots.
Stealth still wins so far.
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.
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.
The reason that the F-15 soldiers on in because it still works, where the F-117 is a maintenance nightmare.
It also doesnt do its job as well as it used to.
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.
The SDB isnt radar guided, its GPS guided. Something russia will have trouble destroying.
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...
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.
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,
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
-The F-15 has a top speed of Mach 2.5 while the Su is about mach 2.35.
-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...
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...
-The F-15 has an AESA radar, the Su-27 has a flash dance radar.
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...
-The F-15 has JHMCS and the Su-27 does not.
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...
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...
-The F-15 has a maximum altitude or 65,000 and the Su? 60,000.
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.
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.
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...
So over neutral ground, you say that the RuAF will triumph because they have "too many advantages"? GIVE ME ONE.
The US has more aircraft.
The F-22s will probably take out four times their own numbers in enemy aircraft,
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.
USAF has many more tankers...it doesnt even need airfields in the immediate area with KC-135s flying around WITH fighter escort.
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.
Even if 10 times was an exagguration, the USAF pilots DO get much more training than RuAF pilots...thats a fact.
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...
I am also sticking firmly to my belief that RED FLAG is an accurate portrayal of an air war.
Despite bluefor having an AWACS aircraft, redfor has high performance SAMS on its side and other such things.
The fact that the F-15s cant get a lock on the F-22s at any range says something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And yes, USAF training IS MUCH better, longer, and has more flight hours than RuAF training.
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.
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]
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.
Originally posted by YASKY
I said (I'll be back with more but now I'm doing research) so you prooveNOTHING you LOSE
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]
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.
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]