NationStates Jolt Archive

Although Raysia has evolved above the YF-23 (or the F-22 for that matter)...

I am confused, why doesn't anyone sell them? The YF-23 was clearly a better plane that the 22 in almost every aspect, save for low-speed flight. It was more maneuverable, stealthier, better looking, and the government chose the F-22 cuz they were playing favorites with Lockheed. I would really like to see some nation out there try to sell the YF-23. We currently sell the RF-11, which is our own personal kockoff, only without the stealth ability.

On it:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1573817#1573817

Although Raysia has evolved above the YF-23 (or the F-22 for that matter)...

I am confused, why doesn't anyone sell them? The YF-23 was clearly a better plane that the 22 in almost every aspect, save for low-speed flight. It was more maneuverable, stealthier, better looking, and the government chose the F-22 cuz they were playing favorites with Lockheed. I would really like to see some nation out there try to sell the YF-23. We currently sell the RF-11, which is our own personal kockoff, only without the stealth ability.

The Air Force chose the F-22 because it could dogfight better than the YF-23. Saying that the government plays favorites with Lockheed doesn't make much sense... otherwise, Lockheed would have won the Advanced Technology Bomber competition and not Northrop, which supposedly had a less stealthy design than Lockheed's entry.

Although Raysia has evolved above the YF-23 (or the F-22 for that matter)...

I am confused, why doesn't anyone sell them? The YF-23 was clearly a better plane that the 22 in almost every aspect, save for low-speed flight. It was more maneuverable, stealthier, better looking, and the government chose the F-22 cuz they were playing favorites with Lockheed. I would really like to see some nation out there try to sell the YF-23. We currently sell the RF-11, which is our own personal kockoff, only without the stealth ability.

The Air Force chose the F-22 because it could dogfight better than the YF-23. Saying that the government plays favorites with Lockheed doesn't make much sense... otherwise, Lockheed would have won the Advanced Technology Bomber competition and not Northrop, which supposedly had a less stealthy design than Lockheed's entry.
The government was not really "playing favorites" in the decision. They were, however, looking at the performance of those companies in the past, and the decision was influenced by that. Remember that Lockheed's F-117 was delivered on time and under budget, while the Northrop B-2 was plagued by delays and cost overruns.

I have always wondered about that playing favorites bit. Ever since Boeing proposed the 747 as a military transport, and then lockheed out did them and won the competiton with the C-5, and then when the X-32, Boeings JSF, was out done by Lockheeds competitor the F-35, but if you look at the factors they take into consideration its easy to see they choose the best aircraft that could do the job well and be cost effective, crew friendly etc.

I and a few others use the F-23 Wildcat (naval version of the F-23) and the FB-23 Black Widow (basic F-23 configured as a multirole fighter/bomber ) There was a web storefornt which sold them but the site that hosted them is no longer up so the store died, It was biocorp or biologics.

Ardor also sels YF-23's.


Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.

Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.
You admit that omg!!!! :shock:

Ardor also sels YF-23's.


Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.
The Serbians MiG-29s dogfighted with the F-16s in the Operation Allied Forces, though.

The results is still F-16 win, since obvsiouly the American pilots are better trained.

Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.
You admit that omg!!!! :shock:
huh?

Ardor also sels YF-23's.


Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.
The Serbians MiG-29s dogfighted with the F-16s in the Operation Allied Forces, though.

The results is still F-16 win, since obvsiouly the American pilots are better trained.
Too bad the serbs didnt have too much BVR capabilities... :evil:

At least they downed an F-117.

Ardor also sels YF-23's.


Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.

Just like dogfighting was obsolete in Korea and Vietnam? While Beyond Visual Range combat is the game of the future, pilots and their planes still have to have that basic dogfighting capability when it comes down to it.

Too bad the serbs didnt have too much BVR capabilities... :evil:

At least they downed an F-117.
MiG-29 Fulcrom As suck at BVR anyways, since its radar is poor quality and its range is short.

Too bad the serbs didnt have too much BVR capabilities... :evil:

At least they downed an F-117.

An F-117 that had been flying over a flight path that had been repeatedly used by Allied forces... it's not hard to shoot a plane down if you already know where it is going to be because of poor planning. It wasn't the technology that failed... it was the use of it.

Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.
You admit that omg!!!! :shock:
huh?

Remember you said the Su-37 beats the F22 cause it was a better dogfighter? :?

Ardor also sels YF-23's.


Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.

Just like dogfighting was obsolete in Korea and Vietnam? While Beyond Visual Range combat is the game of the future, pilots and their planes still have to have that basic dogfighting capability when it comes down to it.

F-14 has never lost an engagement, and it kills enemies at 90 mile ranges. Although it only shot down 3 Libyan fighters in the 1980's...

Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.
You admit that omg!!!! :shock:
huh?

Remember you said the Su-37 beats the F22 cause it was a better dogfighter? :?
I meant in a dogfight.


Su-37MK's I use simply detect F-22 at 150 mile range and blast it to pieces with AA-13M anti stealth AAM.

The Libyan fighters were MiG-23s and Su-22s, unfortunately :lol:

Su-37s are good at manuvering, but the F-22 is actually better at stability and stuff...

Ardor also sels YF-23's.


Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.

Just like dogfighting was obsolete in Korea and Vietnam? While Beyond Visual Range combat is the game of the future, pilots and their planes still have to have that basic dogfighting capability when it comes down to it.

F-14 has never lost an engagement, and it kills enemies at 90 mile ranges. Although it only shot down 3 Libyan fighters in the 1980's...

The F-15 has never lost an engagement... and that was almost all dogfighting. Were those Libyan fighters shot down with Phoenix missiles?

Ardor also sels YF-23's.


Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.

Just like dogfighting was obsolete in Korea and Vietnam? While Beyond Visual Range combat is the game of the future, pilots and their planes still have to have that basic dogfighting capability when it comes down to it.

F-14 has never lost an engagement, and it kills enemies at 90 mile ranges. Although it only shot down 3 Libyan fighters in the 1980's...

The F-15 has never lost an engagement... and that was almost all dogfighting. Were those Libyan fighters shot down with Phoenix missiles?
Yep. F-15... well yes because the iraqis were horribly trained. Su-27 can defeat an F-15 every time at BVR combat, BTW.

Apart from MiG-31, F-14 is the best fighter in the world.

The F-15 has never lost an engagement... and that was almost all dogfighting. Were those Libyan fighters shot down with Phoenix missiles?
The Libyan fighters were mostly MiG-23s though.

Also, the F/A-18 went to air-to-air combat once, that is, shooting down 2 Iraqi MiG-21s :lol:

The F-15 has never lost an engagement... and that was almost all dogfighting. Were those Libyan fighters shot down with Phoenix missiles?
The Libyan fighters were mostly MiG-23s though.

Also, the F/A-18 went to air-to-air combat once, that is, shooting down 2 Iraqi MiG-21s :lol:
Which it did with Sparrows.

Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.
You admit that omg!!!! :shock:
huh?

Remember you said the Su-37 beats the F22 cause it was a better dogfighter? :?
I meant in a dogfight.


Su-37MK's I use simply detect F-22 at 150 mile range and blast it to pieces with AA-13M anti stealth AAM.

OOC: So you're claiming that a Su-37 outdoes an F-22 because your own NS mod of it is better than the basic F-22A? That doesn't make sense when anyone can mod and F-22 to beat it....and it does not mean that the Su-37 could do better.

Yep. F-15... well yes because the iraqis were horribly trained. Su-27 can defeat an F-15 every time at BVR combat, BTW.

Apart from MiG-31, F-14 is the best fighter in the world.

Actually, the F-15 is generally regarded as the best fighter in active service in the world today. The F-14 has horrible reliability problems... that's why it is being phased out of service by 2014. The F-15 has fought in several theaters, by multiple air forces, against varying air targets, with pilots of varying skill... and has always come out on top in air-to-air combat.

I do sell them but not publicly because of the rather advanced avionics in the ardorian models. ALso i was the first in the NS world to offer them to the public, but the post went away when they wiped the forums a long time ago, but suffice to say i've been selling them, advanceing and refining the tech since early march in rl. But anyways, i sell them for only 40 million each. I sell for cheap becuase i have a stockpile that costs more to take care of then then i need to produce. ALso these are the basics model form the beggining of their production series. if ya wanna buy any jsut ask

Yep. F-15... well yes because the iraqis were horribly trained. Su-27 can defeat an F-15 every time at BVR combat, BTW.

Apart from MiG-31, F-14 is the best fighter in the world.

Actually, the F-15 is generally regarded as the best fighter in active service in the world today. The F-14 has horrible reliability problems... that's why it is being phased out of service by 2014. The F-15 has fought in several theaters, by multiple air forces, against varying air targets, with pilots of varying skill... and has always come out on top in air-to-air combat.

F-15/14 is not considered the best doffighter in the world, the best dogfighter in the world is actually the F-16 and then its counterpart from the russian, which i'm not sure cause i'm tired. But the F-16 have manuverability on both the f-15 and the f-14. This is based actually on close up, gun combat. Ohh and amybe someoen should say that its not really to much the plane that makes it the best dogfighter, but the pilot

Yep. F-15... well yes because the iraqis were horribly trained. Su-27 can defeat an F-15 every time at BVR combat, BTW.

Apart from MiG-31, F-14 is the best fighter in the world.

Actually, the F-15 is generally regarded as the best fighter in active service in the world today. The F-14 has horrible reliability problems... that's why it is being phased out of service by 2014. The F-15 has fought in several theaters, by multiple air forces, against varying air targets, with pilots of varying skill... and has always come out on top in air-to-air combat.
F-14 is bieng phased out due to financial restraints.

Id like to see F-15 survive flying into MiG-31's territory, too.

You know, the "Dogfighting is dead" mentality was shared by the Designers of the F-4.

After experience in vietnam, Pilots bolted gun pods to their centerline hardpoint, without proper sights, because they needed a gun.

*Fast forward to present day*

Missles with BVR capibilities have taken over combat. Everyone knows it.

The question is, what happens when you Run out of BVR missles.

Or if the combatants close to a range where BVR missles can no longer track?

I have said my peace, I will shut up now.

F-15/14 is not considered the best doffighter in the world, the best dogfighter in the world is actually the F-16 and then its counterpart from the russian, which i'm not sure cause i'm tired. But the F-16 have manuverability on both the f-15 and the f-14. This is based actually on close up, gun combat. Ohh and amybe someoen should say that its not really to much the plane that makes it the best dogfighter, but the pilot

The F-15 can fly circles around the F-16 because of its superior thrust-to-weight ratio. The F-15, in all its incarnations, has never lost an air-to-air engagement... never. The F-16 simply cannot boast that kind of record.

I think both the F-15 and the F-14 also has high mintance costs... That's why I switched.

Yep. F-15... well yes because the iraqis were horribly trained. Su-27 can defeat an F-15 every time at BVR combat, BTW.

Apart from MiG-31, F-14 is the best fighter in the world.

Actually, the F-15 is generally regarded as the best fighter in active service in the world today. The F-14 has horrible reliability problems... that's why it is being phased out of service by 2014. The F-15 has fought in several theaters, by multiple air forces, against varying air targets, with pilots of varying skill... and has always come out on top in air-to-air combat.
F-14 is bieng phased out due to financial restraints.

Id like to see F-15 survive flying into MiG-31's territory, too.

In current world the F-15 is actually the best plane around, the reason is mostly the pilots, i mean look at the countries flyign the MiG-31's, their training sucked. the US training is over 4 years, or about that much and is of much higher grade because the financing is actually there.

The F-15 can fly circles around the F-16 because of its superior thrust-to-weight ratio. The F-15, in all its incarnations, has never lost an air-to-air engagement... never. The F-16 simply cannot boast that kind of record.
Still, F-16s are quite manuverable.
The F-16s did shot down those Serbian MiG-29s (Fulcrom As), as I said earlier. But that's due to the fact that the Serbian pilots were poorly trained anyways.

F-15/14 is not considered the best doffighter in the world, the best dogfighter in the world is actually the F-16 and then its counterpart from the russian, which i'm not sure cause i'm tired. But the F-16 have manuverability on both the f-15 and the f-14. This is based actually on close up, gun combat. Ohh and amybe someoen should say that its not really to much the plane that makes it the best dogfighter, but the pilot

The F-15 can fly circles around the F-16 because of its superior thrust-to-weight ratio. The F-15, in all its incarnations, has never lost an air-to-air engagement... never. The F-16 simply cannot boast that kind of record. Yeah but i dont really expect in RL any F-16s beign in combat wiht a F-15

Yep. F-15... well yes because the iraqis were horribly trained. Su-27 can defeat an F-15 every time at BVR combat, BTW.

Apart from MiG-31, F-14 is the best fighter in the world.

Actually, the F-15 is generally regarded as the best fighter in active service in the world today. The F-14 has horrible reliability problems... that's why it is being phased out of service by 2014. The F-15 has fought in several theaters, by multiple air forces, against varying air targets, with pilots of varying skill... and has always come out on top in air-to-air combat.
F-14 is bieng phased out due to financial restraints.

Id like to see F-15 survive flying into MiG-31's territory, too.

In current world the F-15 is actually the best plane around, the reason is mostly the pilots, i mean look at the countries flyign the MiG-31's, their training sucked. the US training is over 4 years, or about that much and is of much higher grade because the financing is actually there.
Training plays a smaller role when MiG-31 has 100 mile ranged AAM's.

An F-4 Phantom could beat a MiG-99 as long as an American pilot was flying the F-4.

F-14 is bieng phased out due to financial restraints.

Id like to see F-15 survive flying into MiG-31's territory, too.

And where do those financial restraints arise largely from? The fact that the F-14 is a maintenance nightmare (the aforementioned reliability issues)... thus, making it too expensive to maintain.

If I remember correctly, the MiG-31 has a turning radius measured in -miles.- The F-15 can outfly the MiG-31 easily.

The F-15 can fly circles around the F-16 because of its superior thrust-to-weight ratio. The F-15, in all its incarnations, has never lost an air-to-air engagement... never. The F-16 simply cannot boast that kind of record.
Still, F-16s are quite manuverable.
The F-16s did shot down those Serbian MiG-29s (Fulcrom As), as I said earlier. But that's due to the fact that the Serbian pilots were poorly trained anyways.

IF your actually talking about just gun fights, then the F-16 wins, becuase it can make sharper turns, also sayign if the plane ur facing is about as fast as you.

An F-4 Phantom could beat a MiG-99 as long as an American pilot was flying the F-4.
If you are talking about MiG-29... then not really.

Historically, the F-4s did beat the MiG-21 Fishbeds though.

Well if you can find access to the soviet document for MIG-23 pilots they produced after the 1982 Bekka valley clashes (where syrians got thier arses handed to them by the israelies).
Basically it concludes that against anything newer than the Phatom the Mig23 is toast unless it can get very close to the enemy.


Interestingly enough the F15E's first air to air kill was made using a paveway that the crew/ground units (unclear which) giuded into a hovering Hind....

An F-4 Phantom could beat a MiG-99 as long as an American pilot was flying the F-4. Funny thing is that Isreali pilots still fly the F-4 II, alogn with mayn other US freindly countries.

Well if you can find access to the soviet document for MIG-23 pilots they produced after the 1982 Bekka valley clashes (where syrians got thier arses handed to them by the israelies).
Basically it concludes that against anything newer than the Phatom the Mig23 is toast unless it can get very close to the enemy.


Interestingly enough the F15E's first air to air kill was made using a paveway that the crew/ground units (unclear which) giuded into a hovering Hind....Ibet that was an awsome site to see.

F-14 is bieng phased out due to financial restraints.

Id like to see F-15 survive flying into MiG-31's territory, too.

And where do those financial restraints arise largely from? The fact that the F-14 is a maintenance nightmare (the aforementioned reliability issues)... thus, making it too expensive to maintain.

If I remember correctly, the MiG-31 has a turning radius measured in -miles.- The F-15 can outfly the MiG-31 easily.
If MiG-F-15 get close enough, it has missiles vary comparable to Phoenix!

I was talking about the MiG-99, which doesnt exist yet and probly wont for a while :lol: just trying to make a point. Let me rephrase, a MiG-21 could beat a F-15 as long as the MiG-21 was American. :twisted:

Yep. F-15... well yes because the iraqis were horribly trained. Su-27 can defeat an F-15 every time at BVR combat, BTW.

Apart from MiG-31, F-14 is the best fighter in the world.

Actually, the F-15 is generally regarded as the best fighter in active service in the world today. The F-14 has horrible reliability problems... that's why it is being phased out of service by 2014. The F-15 has fought in several theaters, by multiple air forces, against varying air targets, with pilots of varying skill... and has always come out on top in air-to-air combat.
F-14 is bieng phased out due to financial restraints.

Id like to see F-15 survive flying into MiG-31's territory, too.

In current world the F-15 is actually the best plane around, the reason is mostly the pilots, i mean look at the countries flyign the MiG-31's, their training sucked. the US training is over 4 years, or about that much and is of much higher grade because the financing is actually there.
Training plays a smaller role when MiG-31 has 100 mile ranged AAM's.

Well what ur talking about is NOT dogfighting, actual dogfighting is usually between 2 planes wiht guns.

F-14 is bieng phased out due to financial restraints.

Id like to see F-15 survive flying into MiG-31's territory, too.

And where do those financial restraints arise largely from? The fact that the F-14 is a maintenance nightmare (the aforementioned reliability issues)... thus, making it too expensive to maintain.

If I remember correctly, the MiG-31 has a turning radius measured in -miles.- The F-15 can outfly the MiG-31 easily.
If MiG-F-15 get close enough, it has missiles vary comparable to Phoenix!
Missiles like the AA-9 and Phoenix are for engaging bombers, not fighters. These missiles have extremely long range at the cost of maneuverability. Sluggish targets like bombers and transports will fall easily, but fighters, which are smaller and more agile, will, more often than not, successfully evade. Thus, more often than not, the F-15 will have the advantage, and take the victory, unless the MiG-31 can get out of there fast enough.
In general, purpose designed interceptors do not fare well against air superiority fighters.

F-14 is bieng phased out due to financial restraints.

Id like to see F-15 survive flying into MiG-31's territory, too.

And where do those financial restraints arise largely from? The fact that the F-14 is a maintenance nightmare (the aforementioned reliability issues)... thus, making it too expensive to maintain.

If I remember correctly, the MiG-31 has a turning radius measured in -miles.- The F-15 can outfly the MiG-31 easily.
If MiG-F-15 get close enough, it has missiles vary comparable to Phoenix!
Missiles like the AA-9 and Phoenix are for engaging bombers, not fighters. These missiles have extremely long range at the cost of maneuverability. Sluggish targets like bombers and transports will fall easily, but fighters, which are smaller and more agile, will, more often than not, successfully evade. Thus, more often than not, the F-15 will have the advantage, and take the victory, unless the MiG-31 can get out of there fast enough.
In general, purpose designed interceptors do not fare well against air superiority fighters.
Which is why, I presume, the F)14 has only downed fighters.

OOC: The USN put the F-14 as air-superiority fighters in their carrier airwings I believe. The F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/Fs, A-7, and the A-6 are all designed for ground attack roles.

F-14 is intended for fleet defense, to shoot down attack aircraft threatening the carrier, also any non-fighter pilot who detects a F-14, either lands as soon as possible or ejects. :) :) lol

F-14 is intended for fleet defense, to shoot down attack aircraft threatening the carrier, also any non-fighter pilot who detects a F-14, either lands as soon as possible or ejects. :) :) lol
But most of the times modern fighters can outmanuver the Phoenix anyways, since it is bulk, heavy, and unmanuverable.

yeah thats why it carries amraam sparrow or sidewinder missles..............

The Phoenix is not a maneuverable missile....the Tomcats' kills probably came with Sparrows or Sidewinders.

The Phoenix is designed for use against bombers and cruise missiles - part of the reason why the Tomcat has that rediculously powerful video camera in the nose. Using that it can visually identify the hapless bombers off in the distance who are about to eat a Phoenix, or pick out the small cruise missile below it.

F-14 is intended for fleet defense, to shoot down attack aircraft threatening the carrier, also any non-fighter pilot who detects a F-14, either lands as soon as possible or ejects. :) :) lol
But most of the times modern fighters can outmanuver the Phoenix anyways, since it is bulk, heavy, and unmanuverable.
Although it does go mach 5.

The Phoenix is not a maneuverable missile....the Tomcats' kills probably came with Sparrows or Sidewinders.

The Phoenix is designed for use against bombers and cruise missiles - part of the reason why the Tomcat has that rediculously powerful video camera in the nose. Using that it can visually identify the hapless bombers off in the distance who are about to eat a Phoenix, or pick out the small cruise missile below it.
Actually they were with Phoenix.


But against MiG-23's and Su-22's.

Ardor also sels YF-23's.


Dogfighting is obsolete, just use AMRAAM.
The Serbians MiG-29s dogfighted with the F-16s in the Operation Allied Forces, though.

The results is still F-16 win, since obvsiouly the American pilots are better trained.

From what i've learnt the Serbians only used their oldest/weakest/whatever aircraft during the fighting and started hiding their best aircraft from the moment the first bomb fell.

The Phoenix is not a maneuverable missile....the Tomcats' kills probably came with Sparrows or Sidewinders.

The Phoenix is designed for use against bombers and cruise missiles - part of the reason why the Tomcat has that rediculously powerful video camera in the nose. Using that it can visually identify the hapless bombers off in the distance who are about to eat a Phoenix, or pick out the small cruise missile below it.
Actually they were with Phoenix.


But against MiG-23's and Su-22's.

Well that explains it...both are attack aircraft, if I remember right (though you'd know better than I would, DT).

The Phoenix is not a maneuverable missile....the Tomcats' kills probably came with Sparrows or Sidewinders.

The Phoenix is designed for use against bombers and cruise missiles - part of the reason why the Tomcat has that rediculously powerful video camera in the nose. Using that it can visually identify the hapless bombers off in the distance who are about to eat a Phoenix, or pick out the small cruise missile below it.
Actually they were with Phoenix.


But against MiG-23's and Su-22's.
Actually:

Libya, Gulf of Sidra: August 1981
On August 19th, two Libyan Sukhoi Su-22 Fitter-J fighters were shot down by a pair of VF-41 Tomcats after one of the Fitters fired a missile at the American fighters. Both kills were with the AIM-9L Sidewinder.

January 4th 1989
Two F-14A's (159437 and 159610) from VF-32 flying of the John F. Kennedy (CV-67) shot down a pair of Libyan MiG-23 Floggers, one with an AIM-7 Sparrow, and one with an AIM-9 Sidewinder (one of two Sparrows fired failed to hit its target).

It pays to look things up first :P

Well damn, I was right all along.

Stupid DT, telling me I was wrong :D

:lol:

MiG-23s had its glory...

Well damn, I was right all along.

Stupid DT, telling me I was wrong :D
Actually, I just needed to grab some proof myself. I happen to know that, there hasn't been a conflict where the ROE and opposing forces would allow for Phoenix missiles to be used since the Vietnam War (and probably not even then). Unfortunately for them, they're really only suited for full-scale wars against a major power, and we've been engaged only in limited wars and peacekeeping operations.

The Phoenix is not a maneuverable missile....the Tomcats' kills probably came with Sparrows or Sidewinders.

The Phoenix is designed for use against bombers and cruise missiles - part of the reason why the Tomcat has that rediculously powerful video camera in the nose. Using that it can visually identify the hapless bombers off in the distance who are about to eat a Phoenix, or pick out the small cruise missile below it.
Actually they were with Phoenix.


But against MiG-23's and Su-22's.

Actually they were with AIM-7H Sparrows.

:lol:

MiG-23s had its glory...23 is a fighter.


Goddamn wrong sources.... :evil: (Im talking about the original source I found).


Phoenix can be used with some success against fighteres, (about 50% Id presume), though I use 150 mile ranged AAM's by now.

andd Im pretty surprised it wasnt Phoenix, Su-22 is an attack aircraft, MiG-23 is well.... a fighter which cant manuever for its life.

You're right...I was thinking of the MiG-27 - they're both Floggers, but for totally different missions.

Well damn, I was right all along.

Stupid DT, telling me I was wrong :D
Actually, I just needed to grab some proof myself. I happen to know that, there hasn't been a conflict where the ROE and opposing forces would allow for Phoenix missiles to be used since the Vietnam War (and probably not even then). Unfortunately for them, they're really only suited for full-scale wars against a major power, and we've been engaged only in limited wars and peacekeeping operations.

The ROE for Vietnam dictated that American forces visually identify enemy aircraft before engaging to avoid "blue-on-blue" fire.

:lol:

MiG-23s had its glory...23 is a fighter.


Goddamn wrong sources.... :evil: (Im talking about the original source I found).


Phoenix can be used with some success against fighteres, (about 50% Id presume), though I use 150 mile ranged AAM's by now.
50% is too high. 33% tops, and probably closer to 25% or lower. Any fighter, interceptor, or strike aircraft with an RWR or some other form of warning would have a pretty good chance of evading, as the Phoenix runs out of fuel midway into its flight and just glides to the target, preventing it from doing much in the way of maneuvering. Because of that, a simple quick climb is a VERY effective evasion method.

You're right...I was thinking of the MiG-27 - they're both Floggers, but for totally different missions.MiG-27 actually has potential, though.


During Vietnam Sparrow was EXTREMELY unreliable, during gulf war it scored almost all the kills.

:lol:

MiG-23s had its glory...23 is a fighter.


Goddamn wrong sources.... :evil: (Im talking about the original source I found).


Phoenix can be used with some success against fighteres, (about 50% Id presume), though I use 150 mile ranged AAM's by now.
50% is too high. 33% tops, and probably closer to 25% or lower. Any fighter, interceptor, or strike aircraft with an RWR or some other form of warning would have a pretty good chance of evading, as the Phoenix runs out of fuel midway into its flight and just glides to the target, preventing it from doing much in the way of maneuvering. Because of that, a simple quick climb is a VERY effective evasion method.
....didnt know about it running out of fuel....

Yeah, Sparrow sucked in Vietnam...I've read stories of how pilots just got fed up with the missile and launched it unguided at bandits from right behind them.

That thing about the Phoenix sounds right - don't they actually climb and accelerate first, then sort of descend towards the target? Not a steep climb, but sort of a really shallow arc...?

:lol:

MiG-23s had its glory...23 is a fighter.


Goddamn wrong sources.... :evil: (Im talking about the original source I found).


Phoenix can be used with some success against fighteres, (about 50% Id presume), though I use 150 mile ranged AAM's by now.
50% is too high. 33% tops, and probably closer to 25% or lower. Any fighter, interceptor, or strike aircraft with an RWR or some other form of warning would have a pretty good chance of evading, as the Phoenix runs out of fuel midway into its flight and just glides to the target, preventing it from doing much in the way of maneuvering. Because of that, a simple quick climb is a VERY effective evasion method.
....didnt know about it running out of fuel....
I'm not entirely surprised. That particular fact isn't common knowledge, and can only be found in a few sources. Complete performance specs on missiles and radars are very hard to come by. There's often some important info left out, with no sign that it might be worth knowing.

Meh, AA-13 Arrow has a range of 150 miles, which is 75 miles of fueled flight...

Yeah, Sparrow sucked in Vietnam...I've read stories of how pilots just got fed up with the missile and launched it unguided at bandits from right behind them.

That thing about the Phoenix sounds right - don't they actually climb and accelerate first, then sort of descend towards the target? Not a steep climb, but sort of a really shallow arc...?
Yes, the missiles are preferably launched at high altitude, and climb further to the thinner air to get greater speed and range for their fuel, as well as to maximize glide distance.

As for the Sparrow, it is much less effective than the info would lead one to believe. I'm not sure if I can find the exact specs again, but the even modern versions of the Sparrow have a painfully low success rate compared to newer weapons, which was one of the key reasons that the AMRAAM was needed.

*grins*

And all my friends thought I was nuts as I read Stephen Coonts novels in the 3rd grade... :shock: :? :lol:

I have SAms which go mach 8 in the upper atmosphere. So much for hypersonic bombers.

*grins*

And all my friends thought I was nuts as I read Stephen Coonts novels in the 3rd grade... :shock: :? :lol:
lol
I myself added a little Dale Brown on the side. 8)

Wow, this is... Some of you people don't know what you're talking about, though I'm surprised that there is a good amount of people in the know about combat aviation.

Let me start out by saying that no Su-37MK variant exists, or ever has existed. The aircraft you are talking about is the Su-30MK, the Su-27's naval variant. The Su-37 isn't in service, and unless Russia gets export orders, it never will be. However, that doesn't mean that it's not a great fighter. The Flanker series of aircraft have long been superior to all other aircraft in their classification, the venerable MiG-29, included. The Su-37 incorporates not only the newer design features of the Su-35 such as forward canards, but also features thrust vectoring, and a completely digital throttle, which, as some pilots remark, is not a good thing. However, the Su-37 can literally stand up on its ass at 500ft and spin around to match any conventional aircraft's turn radius around it. This, coupled with the capacity to carry up to twelve air to air missiles, "rear-radar" and rearward-firing missiles, make the Su-37 indeed, the most fearful dogfighter around, capable of outmaneuvering the F/A-18, F-16, EF-2000, and many others, possibly including the F/A-22.

As for the YF-23 Blackwidow, its main design flaw, reportedly, was that its missile bay was operated by a hydraulic arm which, at high speed flight, had the tendency to jam often. Aside from that, it was truly the superior aircraft, and many 'experts' agree. I personally look at the F/A-22 as a toy. In fact, I consider most of the Western aircraft of this era to be so. Multirole is far overrated; It's cost effective, but that's about it. The Su-37, for example, could easily take on any aircraft any other country has to throw at it in a dogfight, and since the AIM-120C AMRAAM has the distinct tendency to fall prey to ECM with its active radar system, more than likely, they would be capable of getting close. The Sparrow is a bit different, but its technology is considered archaic. This, coupled with the fact that the Su-37 would barely even need long-range radar in the first place with its far more advanced IRST system (Su-27UB's can get IRST tracking up to 50km; That's old technology), thus making it difficult to detect, despite its size.

As for the F/A-18's scoring kills on MiG-21's, I wouldn't get too excited about it. That's like a P-51 mercilessly gunning down a Sopwith Camel. The F/A-18 is faster, and has better technology backing it. The MiG-21 is pre-Vietnam era.

I would also like to point out that the AIM-54C Phoenix missile travels at mach three, not mach five, and is used primarily for fleet defense, AND long-range bomber/missile interception. It was originally designed to destroy Tu-160's and their standoff ordinance, but quickly developed into a fleet defense weapon. The F-14D variant of the Tomcat, equipped with the AN/APG-71 radar, can track up to twenty four targets over 370km away (though the radar's max range is 740km), and fire on six of them at a time. With its IRST and TCS, it can identify targets up to 185km away, thus making it to this day an invaluable fleet defense fighter that is being slowly and likely stupidly replaced by newer, cheaper, less capable F/A-18E's.

However, I don't know of any incident where an F-14 had downed another aircraft with the AIM-54C Phoenix.

I must point out that there is no such aircraft as the MiG-99, and there is no MiG F-15. You both are likely referring to the MiG-29 or MiG-25/31, or as per the MiG-99 remark, you are likely referring to the MFI MiG1.44 "Raptor Killer", which is, in many regards, a piece of junk.

As for the F-4, it reportedly still compares to today's fighters in terms of maneuverability. The main reason it was replaced by the F-14 was because of high costs for maintenance, and the need for a long-range fleet defense/interception aircraft, and unfortunately, the F-4 didn't fit that role, in any of its configurations. I still laugh at the US Navy, who thought that with the advent of missiles, cannons were unnecessary, only to have their air force of F-4B's shot out of the sky. Of course, from that came the F-4E, and the standard for all aircraft to carry at least one 20mm cannon, usually the M-61A1. The A-10 Thunderbolt II is a big exception to this role, with its 30mm GAU-8 Avenger, used primarily for tank busting, since its shells are usually too heavy to be accurate in the air for anything but short range.

In that case....


Ill make a missile called AA-16 Acid which will be multi-staged and designed for killing fighters at 150 miles.


Expensive, but worth it.

Wow, this is... Some of you people don't know what you're talking about.

Let me start out by saying that no Su-37MK variant exists,

yes I know I made a version with anti stealth radar, 2 wingtip pylon hardpoints, lower RCS, and some other improvements.

....Speed In excess of 3,000 mph (4,800 kmph) ....

Mach 3 is 2000 MPH.
Source:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-54.htm

yes I know I made a version with anti stealth radar, 2 wingtip pylon hardpoints, lower RCS, and some other improvements.

I'm telling you right now that the Su-37 does not have an MK variant.

Wait, I misread that. I thought you were being sarcastic; Sorry.

yes I know I made a version with anti stealth radar, 2 wingtip pylon hardpoints, lower RCS, and some other improvements.

I'm telling you right now that the Su-37 does not have an MK variant.I KNOW, I MADE IT MYSELF FOR NS RPING!

If you err know what that is.

Good info overall Kokka no Kitsune, though I could argue a few points.
However, as I have somewhere to be soon, I'll just state that despite the fact that it employs Sidewinders for defense, the first air-to-air victory for the A-10 (and the only one that I know of) was with that 30mm cannon. The victim was an Iraqi helicopter during the Gulf War, which could not be identified after being hit. However, the A-10 should not be compared to the other aircraft as it's a pure attack craft, and is almost useless in offensive operations against airborne targets.

*grins*

And all my friends thought I was nuts as I read Stephen Coonts novels in the 3rd grade... :shock: :? :lol:
lol
I myself added a little Dale Brown on the side. 8)

Yep, Dale Brown is good too. I think I read Flight of the Old Dog not too long after Final Flight.

Also, MFI/MiG-35 is in many respects far better than F-22, but russia cant afford any.

yes I know I made a version with anti stealth radar, 2 wingtip pylon hardpoints, lower RCS, and some other improvements.

I'm telling you right now that the Su-37 does not have an MK variant.I KNOW, I MADE IT MYSELF FOR NS RPING!

If you err know what that is.


I was going to point that out but thought better of it.

I'm sorry, I only picked up on that after the fact, and when I edited, it was too late. I thought for a moment you had been being sarcastic.

This photo basically sums up my opinion on F-22 anyways:
http://nenesite.ifrance.com/nenesite/AVIONS/RUSSES/SUKOI/SU47-1.jpg

No matter.

So we've determined that CSJ and I read novels on this stuff...what's your story :D

I'm sorry, I only picked up on that after the fact, and when I edited, it was too late. I thought for a moment you had been being sarcastic.Oh OK then. Su-34 doesnt have an M variant either... doesnt mean I didnt create it.


I also created MiG-37 [little plastic model IRl but hey great concept] and MiG-41[modified MiG-37 for strike

that pic of his...

Yeah yeah, when that happens IRL then you can post it up everywhere :D

No matter.

So we've determined that CSJ and I read novels on this stuff...what's your story :D
....got interested in this in 2nd grade.


:?

Not you, the other guy 8)

But we do have a lot of second-grade air nuts...myself included :P

Not you, the other guy 8)
:lol:

Gee thanks.

lol, check the edit

And even though I don't particularly like made-up stuff in NS, I have to give you credit for making your stuff plausible (and not using crudely-drawn Crayola pictures to represent them!)

And even though I don't particularly like made-up stuff in NS, I have to give you credit for making your stuff plausible (and not using crudely-drawn Crayola pictures to represent them!)
(Lol. I dig up projects the end of the cold war killed and develop em. MiG-37 was probably the MiG 7.01 project, so thats real but the pic is a plastic model.)

I was thinking yesterday how sweet it would be to dig up the XB-70, speaking of Cold-War projects.

See, now basing it on RL projects makes sense to me...not like these people who just make stuff up and proclaim it to be the best fighter ever.


And to get back on topic (sort of), Remiesia has purchased 2 squadrons of F-23s from Freedom Country, though we're waiting for the shipment. I always did think the F-23 was the better of the 2 planes. Funny how that competition worked.

I was thinking yesterday how sweet it would be to dig up the XB-70, speaking of Cold-War projects.

See, now basing it on RL projects makes sense to me...not like these people who just make stuff up and proclaim it to be the best fighter ever.
Well, MiG-41 is a bit creative. But plausible [I hope, lol].


I tossed out XB-70 for T-4M...

looks better. And is russian :P

The YF-23 was considered to be a superior aircraft in many aspects. The problem was that the thing is simply too damned expensive to mass-produce. The 22 could deliver the kind of performance the Dept. of Defense was looking for, but the key element was that it could deliver that kind of performance without skyrocketing production costs.

The F-15 can fly circles around the F-16 because of its superior thrust-to-weight ratio. The F-15, in all its incarnations, has never lost an air-to-air engagement... never. The F-16 simply cannot boast that kind of record.
Uh...no pal.
A high thrust-to-weight ratio doesn't equal manuverability.
The F-16 has a much tighter turn radius than the F-15.
Where the F-15 does out do the F-16, due to it's thrust-to-weight ratio is in climbing.

The climb rate on an F-15 is higher than on other jets, making it a "vertical fighter", meaning it's best at out manuvering foes with vertical manuvers (climbs, dives), however on an F-16 will out turn an F-15.

Now, the F-15 is considered an all around better air superiority fighter due to it's good manuverability, large payload capacity and effective radar. It is widely considered the best Air Superiority fighter currently in operation.

The F-16, however, is arguably the world's most important fighter, in widespread service around the world, forming the vast majority of the west's (and a few assorted countries) attack aircraft.

As for speed, the F-15 has about .6 mach higher speed than the F-16, as it "blunt forces" it's way through the air. Whereas the F-16 is much slimmer with a better aerodynamic profile.

-This Public Service Announcement brought to you by an AF cadet with an aerospace engineering major.

Note: The use of currently in operation discredits prototype planes and next generation planes with very limited engagement.

MiG-29 is still far more agile than F-16.. or for that matter F-15.

The F-15 goes really really fast in a straight line...F-16 could outmaneuver that thing up down and sideways (literally).

And I think he's right, the Fulcrum takes the cake.

But the Eagle can accelerate pointed straight up...how cool is that?

The F-15 goes really really fast in a straight line...F-16 could outmaneuver that thing up down and sideways (literally).

And I think he's right, the Fulcrum takes the cake.

But the Eagle can accelerate pointed straight up...how cool is that?
And MiG-29 can summarily shred it, assuming the pilot is decently trained.

MiG-29 is still far more agile than F-16.. or for that matter F-15.That is of course, before they fall into disrepair, along with lacking the sophisticated avionics packages that American planes had/have.
Where the MiG-29 outclassed the F-16 was in durability, however, the F-16 had a higher propability in getting the first shot.


Fast Fact:
The largest operational Mil Mi-24 (Hind Attack Helicopter) squadron is owned by the U.S., the very country it was designed to fight.

Russia has more, however they are in various states of disrepair, with pilots averaging around 1 flight a month, due to inability to fund flights and repairs.

The F-15 goes really really fast in a straight line...F-16 could outmaneuver that thing up downIncorrect, read my previous post.

The F-15 goes really really fast in a straight line...F-16 could outmaneuver that thing up down and sideways (literally).

And I think he's right, the Fulcrum takes the cake.

But the Eagle can accelerate pointed straight up...how cool is that?
And MiG-29 can summarily shred it, assuming the pilot is decently trained.

I said the Fulcrum was the most agile :?

The F-15 goes really really fast in a straight line...F-16 could outmaneuver that thing up downIncorrect, read my previous post.

Ah, give me a break..."up down and sideways" is one of those blanket expressions :wink:

Russia has 1,000 Mi-35's.... but due to the breakup of the USSR, theyre useless. Cant wait for the communists to regain power.


Russias airforce, BTW, mainly conducts bombing practice in the winter because then they can clear up frozen rivers with all that ordenance.

It is also worth noting that the most important part of any fighter aircraft is the pilot.
Then you run into how has better logistics and intelligence (relating to the current air situation), along with who's planes are better maintained.

In those regards the USAF outclasses Russia's air force.

I could take a stock F-15 and a stock MiG-29. While the MiG-29 may have the better turn radius, the F-15 carries a more advanced avionics package and is inevitably in better repair.

In an air war between the two Air Forces, the USAF would most likely come out on top( altough they may give us a run for our money), due to the fact that the russian air force is undermanned, underfunded, and has been in a state of disrepair for a decade or more. Whereas the USAF has a much larger financial base, enabling higher technology all around, better maintainance, and more training. In my opinion, arrived at by logic (not a bais as you may think), the USAF is the best. (Well, I should do research on Isreal's AF, as they have had very stunning victories against enourmous odds)

The USAF would win over the Russian Air Force, because the USAF's aircrafts have better maintance, better electronics, and its pilots have a much higher wuality of training.

Manuveribility does not decie whether a fighter aircraft is good or not. If it is that way, I could say that a MiG-29 Fulcrom A is better than a F-16C.

...higher wuality... I'm pretty sure we call it quality in the USAF
:wink:

The USAF would win over the Russian Air Force, because the USAF's aircrafts have better maintance, better electronics, and its pilots have a much higher wuality of training.

Manuveribility does not decie whether a fighter aircraft is good or not. If it is that way, I could say that a MiG-29 Fulcrom A is better than a F-16C.
Yes, and unfortunately, the russian capitalists managed to get rid of any quality there, too.


However, russia does posses excellent SAMs and anti stealth radar....

Yes, and unfortunately, the russian capitalists managed to get rid of any quality there, too.


However, russia does posses excellent SAMs and anti stealth radar....
To add to that, I've seen many people say that a MiG-29 "can beat up a F-15 in every dogfight".

The answer? Without the BVR capabilities, electronics, good maintance quality, and badly trained pilot, the F-15 can shoot up the MiG-29 as if it is a MiG-19.

That's why, even the F-16s are outnumbered I believe, in Operation Allied Forces almost every dogfight/BVR fight the F-15/F-16 won.

...higher wuality... I'm pretty sure we call it quality in the USAF
:wink:
OOC: Sorry for the typo. not a professional typist.

Thx for the pointer :P

The USAF would win over the Russian Air Force, because the USAF's aircrafts have better maintance, better electronics, and its pilots have a much higher wuality of training.

Manuveribility does not decie whether a fighter aircraft is good or not. If it is that way, I could say that a MiG-29 Fulcrom A is better than a F-16C.
Yes, and unfortunately, the russian capitalists managed to get rid of any quality there, too.


However, russia does posses excellent SAMs and anti stealth radar....Just like they possess GPS jamming units, which many countries try to use.
Like Iraq...wait, we bombed those. One with a GPS guided bomb none-the-less.

Point is, you may have the uber weapon of doom, but if you don't have the money or skill to use it, it won't do you much good. Think of it as an expensive lawn ornament.

The idea of stealth is not to make one invisible (thats impossible).
The point is to make you hard to find.
The harder you are to find, the more resources your enemy has to expend to find you.
The more resources your enemy expends to find you, the less resources your enemy has to fight you with.
The less resources your enemy has to fight you with...

I could take a stock F-15 and a stock MiG-29. While the MiG-29 may have the better turn radius, the F-15 carries a more advanced avionics package and is inevitably in better repair.

Perhaps the F-15C has more advanced electronics then the MiG 29 Fulcrum A and C, however against a MiG 29SMT, MiG 29OVT, MiG 29 EADS(NATO-ized Fulcrum), MiG 33 or MiG 29 Sniper the MiG would have the electronics advantage, in addition to manuverability.

I could take a stock F-15 and a stock MiG-29. While the MiG-29 may have the better turn radius, the F-15 carries a more advanced avionics package and is inevitably in better repair.

Perhaps the F-15C has more advanced electronics then the MiG 29 Fulcrum A and C, however against a MiG 29SMT, MiG 29OVT, MiG 29 EADS(NATO-ized Fulcrum), MiG 33 or MiG 29 Sniper the MiG would have the electronics advantage, in addition to manuverability.
True. But still, those "America's enemies" have Fulcrom Cs the most, most being Fulcrom As.

No big threat against the USA, unless some of those "enemy" countries bought some SMTs.

The USAF would win over the Russian Air Force, because the USAF's aircrafts have better maintance, better electronics, and its pilots have a much higher wuality of training.

Manuveribility does not decie whether a fighter aircraft is good or not. If it is that way, I could say that a MiG-29 Fulcrom A is better than a F-16C.
Yes, and unfortunately, the russian capitalists managed to get rid of any quality there, too.


However, russia does posses excellent SAMs and anti stealth radar....Just like they possess GPS jamming units, which many countries try to use.
Like Iraq...wait, we bombed those. One with a GPS guided bomb none-the-less.

Point is, you may have the uber weapon of doom, but if you don't have the money or skill to use it, it won't do you much good. Think of it as an expensive lawn ornament.

The idea of stealth is not to make one invisible (thats impossible).
The point is to make you hard to find.
The harder you are to find, the more resources your enemy has to expend to find you.
The more resources your enemy expends to find you, the less resources your enemy has to fight you with.
The less resources your enemy has to fight you with...
Yes Ive realized for quite some time that for now russia is screwed courtesy of Yeltsin and co.

Lesson of the cold war:
The US spent Russian into the ground.
Russia simply could not keep up with the US expenditures, once again proving that money really is everything (sorta)

Lesson of the cold war:
The US spent Russian into the ground.
Russia simply could not keep up with the US expenditures, once again proving that money really is everything (sorta)
It also proved communism don't work.

Lesson of the cold war:
The US spent Russian into the ground.
Russia simply could not keep up with the US expenditures, once again proving that money really is everything (sorta)
It also proved communism don't work.

YEP! ~ :D

Lesson of the cold war:
The US spent Russian into the ground.
Russia simply could not keep up with the US expenditures, once again proving that money really is everything (sorta)

Perhaps overspending during the Cold War is what made the USSR collapse?

Lesson of the cold war:
The US spent Russian into the ground.
Russia simply could not keep up with the US expenditures, once again proving that money really is everything (sorta)
It also proved communism don't work.
That's why the Chinese can finally afford the Su-30s after finally have its economy at a "good" status.

It was Vietnam?

The USAF would win over the Russian Air Force, because the USAF's aircrafts have better maintance, better electronics, and its pilots have a much higher wuality of training.

Manuveribility does not decie whether a fighter aircraft is good or not. If it is that way, I could say that a MiG-29 Fulcrom A is better than a F-16C.
Yes, and unfortunately, the russian capitalists managed to get rid of any quality there, too.


However, russia does posses excellent SAMs and anti stealth radar....Just like they possess GPS jamming units, which many countries try to use.
Like Iraq...wait, we bombed those. One with a GPS guided bomb none-the-less.

Point is, you may have the uber weapon of doom, but if you don't have the money or skill to use it, it won't do you much good. Think of it as an expensive lawn ornament.

The idea of stealth is not to make one invisible (thats impossible).
The point is to make you hard to find.
The harder you are to find, the more resources your enemy has to expend to find you.
The more resources your enemy expends to find you, the less resources your enemy has to fight you with.
The less resources your enemy has to fight you with...
Yes Ive realized for quite some time that for now russia is screwed courtesy of Yeltsin and co.

DT, I hate to tell you...but Yeltsin and co. were (and still are) dealing with the fall-out of the crap that the USSR left them with. It's not as though they suddenly let all of the planes fall apart--they'd been falling apart since they were made...same with helis....and T-72 tanks (which were literally made to be cannon fodder...and which spent more time in the motorpool).

Reality of why Israel has succeeded so many times (and so well) against the Soviet-backed Arab states: Training, Money, Dedication, and Care (nod to Berserker).

The Arab armies were armed with russian tech, which, aside from the AK-47s, tended to break down pretty damn quickly in the ME (well, anywhere actually, since it broke down anywhere that it could be used...and the AKs still couldn't shoot for shit across the desert and in the mountains).

The Israelis were armed with trusty and maintainable American and British weaponry (some french weaponry was also available), much of which had been modified or otherwise prepared for desert combat. The Israeli crews 'made do' with the supplies and, when needed, made their own parts...but the important point is that the military was provided for and that the military took careful care of its tech.


The Arab armies were not based on a meritocracy...and they were not based on a healthy hierarchy. Instead, fiefdoms of power were carved out as one part of the military (under the leader of Egypt, Nasser) and another (under the Field Marshal, 'Amer, who was engaged in a weird love-hate relationship with Nasser). More than that, the lower-level commanders of the Egyptian army only heard of orders as they were handed down (they didn't have a clear idea of what they were supposed to be doing as they moved out into the Sinai at 'Amer's order). An unhealthy and silly war in Yemen meant that troop morale was low and soldiers were dispatched off of the trains from Yemen to the front lines...often without supplies or weapons (as they were ordered, but not provided for).

The Israeli army had to contend with nervousness within the population over the effect of calling up military reserves...but it was also based on a meritocracy and stable heirarchy. The capable commanders led the capable and trained (if semi-civilian) troops...into planned actions that sectional commanders were able to change and plan to fit the situation. As a note, the Israeli tactics (similar, to some extent, to American tactics for such actions) were proven superior to the Arab tactics (planned, in Egypt at least, by Soviet 'advisors')...the Soviet plan of battle-fodder tanks supported by somewhat superior "elite" tank squads failed miserably under the Israeli combined-arms action based on the fast-strike and other tactics.



There's much more, but to answer Berserker's question (somewhat), the IAF has trained with itself to prepare for actions. They actually lost a lot of fighters in 1967 (some to enemy fighters, but a LOT to SAMs over Syria and Jordan) but by 1973 they'd perfected SEAD and other tactics (and they had a larger, more modern airforce of French and American fighters...often modified) which allowed them to get through the war with many fewer casualties than previously. They're good for the same reasons that the USAF is good--the pilots train hard and are allowed to practice their skills...and they're given what they need to perform their missions.

After the proven power of air superiority in 1967, the IAF made it a mission to always be prepared for operations within the theatre. The F-15I and F-16I are modified and designed (respectively) specifically to meet the needs of the IAF--a deep strike and high-power capability to bring strikes against enemy forces throughout the theater of operations.

The Israelis have modified almost any weapons that they get to meet their proven needs and requirements...making the Merkava Mk. 4 not only one of the most capable tanks in the world, but one of the only tanks with proven tactics for Urban Operations (UO, the replacement term for MOUT, it seems) and specifically designed to face likely threats (desert and mountain combat). The design teams are spared the generalizations that the US military had for the M1 Abrams and so they included what's important (like space to carry an entire 8-man infantry squad within the tank and internally-loaded mortar systems).

Another weapon of Israeli design, the Lavi (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/Lavi.html) jet, is apparently being used by China under the name of the 'L-6' (or some such), and is mainly not used in Israel because IAI had to cancel the project and it has not been revived (almost certainly thanks to the availability of F-15I (E-based)).

The surrounding "hostile" Arab countries is not a large threat to Israel anyways --- since the Israelis would probably have better equipment, tech, and training. The hostile Arab countries (Iraq and Syria comes to mind) doesn't have good training and equipments. And the worst thing is, the morale of the Iraqi and prbably the Syrian soldiers are poor (proven through history, with Syrian pilots defencting to Israel with their MiG-23s and 21s, and with the whole bunch of Iraqi soldiers surroundering in the GW2.)

And yes, Merkava Mk.4 is one of the most urban-capable tanks in the world.

Sadly, in spite of the power of Israel, the other nations still pose a viable threat. The main reason being that the surrounding states can depend upon large numbers of troops attacking from several directions to cause at least some concern that the Israeli forces could be overwhelmed by the stress of fighting on 3 or more separate fronts....

...that being said, the Arab States turned away from too-direct assaults after 1973 and defaulted to the current terrorism-based system, where the nations fund the terrorists (obtaining deniability of involvement by claiming that they're 'humanitarian organizations'...ignoring that they're sending weapons). This system has been very successful in demonizing Israel as it seeks to fight terrorists who not only strike at Israeli civilians, but who also manipulate a mob-rule system to oppress opposing Palestinian groups that might seek to actually establish peace and security. A striking demonstration was to be heard on NPR earlier this week, when a Palestinian woman being interviewed expressed relief over the return of the Israeli soldiers to her town--she was glad that they came because then the gangs couldn't go after the civilians and demand 'protection' money from the businesses.


Oh, and Omz's post reminds me of a plug: Michael B. Oren's authoritative "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East." This book uses sources from the government to reconstruct the events leading up to the war and the progress of the war for both sides (school has left me only mid-way though, but I still have gained a tremendous amount of understanding from the book). Another great book about the politics of the region is Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem" (among others) which shows Arafat in his 'good old days' in Beirut and the basis for Israel's failed "Operation: Peace for Galilee"--mostly based on the first-person experiences of Friedman as a foreign correspondant in the war-torn capital of Lebanon, and later as a correspondant in Israel, for US news papers.

Another weapon of Israeli design, the Lavi (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/Lavi.html) jet, is apparently being used by China under the name of the 'L-6' (or some such), and is mainly not used in Israel because IAI had to cancel the project and it has not been revived (almost certainly thanks to the availability of F-15I (E-based)).

The Lavi became the Jian-10, which is projected to enter service in the next few years to replace the obselete J-7s and J-8s. How did Isreal and China end up working together though?

Ell, thanks for the correct designation.

The Israelis ended up working with the Chinese for the same reason that they've been involved with the Apartheid-era South Africans, Turkey, and India--all outcasts from the 'first world' for some reason or another and seeking to benefit each other. Israel gets trading partners who will support it politically and the partners get technology almost to the level of American military tech with much less cost.

Israel found that China was willing to pay top-dollar for older Western tech such as the Lavi (which is still actually a viable threat to modern aircraft) and advanced radars (the US blocked one proposed sale of current radar tech to China, and I think the sale of some Arrow ABM system components to India).

Israel buys in the West (http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/ISR_IMPS_93-02.pdf) and sells to everyone left (http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/ISR_EXPS_93-02.pdf). I think that Israel ranked as the 3rd or 4th largest arms exporter in the World last year...and in the arms trade, "combat tested and proven in Israel" is a definite selling point.

One of the wonders of International Politics is that, if a country is isolated and maligned enough, its leaders will tend to reach out to other maligned countries to gain friends. In normal circumstances, Israel would've joined the political and economic blockades on Apartheid SA...but at that time, Israel couldn't afford to turn down the opportunity.

Actually, unfortunately the Chinese Officials favoured the Russian Su-30MKK Flanker as the J-10, so then the Levi jet was turned down by the Chinese.

But these jets did go ubnder testing in the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force I believe.

Yeah, I was pretty sure that they scrapped the Lavi altogether, since it was too expensive compared to the Western imports, didn't have enough export value nor demand, and didn't offer enough of a performance increase from the Western craft to make the cost feasable.

Theres no arguing US has far better training, and so forth. But russia has better equipment (Fulcrum-M has better electronics than the originals), just no money to buy it or train pilots.

Also, USSR was bankrupted because its military was 4 times bigger than that of the US. It did OK on the 1970's.

Theres no arguing US has far better training, and so forth. But russia has better equipment (Fulcrum-M has better electronics than the originals), just no money to buy it or train pilots.
True, the Super Flanker, IMO, is an amazing aircraft. But the equipments are never used "properly", with good care and maintance.

Also, USSR was bankrupted because its military was 4 times bigger than that of the US. It did OK on the 1970's.
Add the economical policy. With a new economical policy, and gaining the 2th largest economy in the world, China can finally afford to buy a bunch of Su-30s to replace its decades-old MiG-21s and MiG-19s.

Theres no arguing US has far better training, and so forth. But russia has better equipment (Fulcrum-M has better electronics than the originals), just no money to buy it or train pilots.
True, the Super Flanker, IMO, is an amazing aircraft. But the equipments are never used "properly", with good care and maintance.

Also, USSR was bankrupted because its military was 4 times bigger than that of the US. It did OK on the 1970's.
Add the economical policy. With a new economical policy, and gaining the 2th largest economy in the world, China can finally afford to buy a bunch of Su-30s to replace its decades-old MiG-21s and MiG-19s.
Russia also doesnt know how to use its army, hence massive losses in Chechnya.


You should remember that even today russia has 41,000 tanks compared to the US having 9,000. And it has 3 times more T-90's than the US has M1A2's.

If Russia's equipments are actually used well, and if it has better electronic systems, it should be as superior as the US' counterparts

If Russia's equipments are actually used well, and if it has better electronic systems, it should be as superior as the US' counterparts
Remember that russia has Arena and Shtora-1 on its more modern tanks... drozd on older ones (still somewhat effective).


And mostly everything has ERA now, although onlt T-72B and up can be used as anything other than APC killer.

Russia is lost becuase they spent to much to quickly at the expense of their people. I agree wiht the russians having the most agile fighter plane, but they sure as hell dont have the most effective planes. ANd to say that their planes are better on papaer is much easier to say then what the actual performance gap is. Which you may want to take into consideration wiht the F-22, for its never been in combat with anythign yet, and is not even in active service, or even delivered to the air force yet(they shit in 2006 i believe and then like 4 years after that they get a few more, and i hope to be one of those pilots).

Russia is lost becuase they spent to much to quickly at the expense of their people. I agree wiht the russians having the most agile fighter plane, but they sure as hell dont have the most effective planes. ANd to say that their planes are better on papaer is much easier to say then what the actual performance gap is. Which you may want to take into consideration wiht the F-22, for its never been in combat with anythign yet, and is not even in active service, or even delivered to the air force yet(they shit in 2006 i believe and then like 4 years after that they get a few more, and i hope to be one of those pilots).
Russia is also lost because Yeltsin destroyes the USSR to get rid of Gorbachev.

Remember, we had a military 4 times larger than the US. Thats another reason.

I agree wiht the russians having the most agile fighter plane, but they sure as hell dont have the most effective planes. ANd to say that their planes are better on papaer is much easier to say then what the actual performance gap is. Which you may want to take into consideration wiht the F-22, for its never been in combat with anythign yet, and is not even in active service, or even delivered to the air force yet(they shit in 2006 i believe and then like 4 years after that they get a few more, and i hope to be one of those pilots).
Agility is what it usually comes down to if they can get inside BVR range, which should be a cinch, due primarily to the AMRAAM's inherent vulnerability to ECM due to its active-radar seek, and also the fact that newer IRST technologies provide pretty phenomenal track ranges. An F/A-22 with its radar off may be pretty stealthy (reportedly about the signature of a .50 cal round), but with radar on, it's not all that stealthy at all, which is one of the main reasons the F-117A wasn't equipped with radar. When the United States goes up against a well-equipped, and well-trained foe, and not these third world countries they've been trampling, they'll know that it all comes down to speed and agility. BVR combat is useless against anything but bombers and other large targets, and I say this not because of the example set by Phoenix, but because anything smaller can easily evade something that relies on its own radar, especially if it's agile and equipped with ECM, which is what the Russians are doing. What happens when the missile loses tracking? The whole shot would likely be a miss.

While the F/A-22 can outmaneuver any aircraft in the US's arsenal, the Su-37 can outrun, outfly, and outshoot it any day of the week, and that is that. Add this with the fact that the R-77 (AA-12 "AMRAAMSKI") missile can fire from ranges 50km farther than the AMRAAM can, and you have the Americans finding themselves outgunned, especially if you discount the fact that it, like AMRAAM, uses active radar guidance, though it receives mid-cource updates from the launch craft to show whether or not it's on track. From what I've read of AMRAAM, it works by taking data from the launch craft to close in on and eventually track the target once it gets within range of its own radar... Not great. All one needs to do is get a missile warning and flick on a jammer, and the missile would likely be dumbfounded.

This is all nice theory. The F-22 is stealthy with its radar on, there was a sim done where a single F-22 invaded Russian airspace with Su-37s doing patrols within 100 miles and then the instructor switches the aircraft to a F-15 and it gets blown apart. As for guidance, the Air Force will use AWACs aircraft to guide missiles once the F-22 come around because an AWACs can burn through any jamming in the world with ease and even fry an enemy aircraft's electronics.

This is all nice theory. The F-22 is stealthy with its radar on, there was a sim done where a single F-22 invaded Russian airspace with Su-37s doing patrols within 100 miles and then the instructor switches the aircraft to a F-15 and it gets blown apart. As for guidance, the Air Force will use AWACs aircraft to guide missiles once the F-22 come around because an AWACs can burn through any jamming in the world with ease and even fry an enemy aircraft's electronics.
Yep, but russia has these nice 250 mile ranged anti AWACS AAM's called KS-172's.

If F-22 turns its radar on it can get detected... simple.

That's AWACS, Airborne Warning And Control System. The last S is capitalized, since it's all part of the acronym.

Either way, it would be kind of hard to have an AWACS in the air at all times just to let fighters fire off AMRAAMS at the enemy. Add this with the fact that the Russian forces have the A-50 Mainstay, which has a max detection range of 800km (which is approximately 497 miles) and the aforementioned "Anti-AWACS" missiles, I find it difficult to believe that the United States would maintain air superiority for long if they went up against a economically sound Russian-equipped force.

KS-172 (AAM-L) info:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ks172.htm

Im not sure about the 1040km range though...

This is all nice theory. The F-22 is stealthy with its radar on, there was a sim done where a single F-22 invaded Russian airspace with Su-37s doing patrols within 100 miles and then the instructor switches the aircraft to a F-15 and it gets blown apart. As for guidance, the Air Force will use AWACs aircraft to guide missiles once the F-22 come around because an AWACs can burn through any jamming in the world with ease and even fry an enemy aircraft's electronics.
Yep, but russia has these nice 250 mile ranged anti AWACS AAM's called KS-172's.

If F-22 turns its radar on it can get detected... simple.

Really? Do you think they're in launchable condition? It takes quite a bit of money for upkeep on a missile like that.

It's not so simple as that, an F-22 with its radar on is as stealthy as a F-117 and the reason the US Air Force developed that kind of doctrine was so they could use the high output radars of the AWACs to guide missiles into enemy aircraft while retaining the element of surprise (no active tracking is ever done by the launch aircraft so the enemy doesn't know he's fucked until it's too late).

http://www.combatsim.com/archive/htm/htm_arc3/missiles.htm
Better link to KS-172 and russian missiles in general.


Russia probably has a few hundred lying around...


Also, how hard would it e to launch the KS-172, which homes in on radars, at an F-22? Lol. Well F-22 would evade it, but making a different radar homing AAM seems like a good idea...

I'm sure they do have quite a few of them laying around, just like they have quite a few MiG-29s laying around. The question is, how many of them work? I imagine that quite a few are starting to develop cracks in the motors like the Phoenix missiles are and unlike the US, Russia can't afford to buy more if it so chooses. I don't think the Raptors would have to bother evading, by the time the missile reached where it was targeted the F-22 would be long gone having out accelerated it.

I'm sure they do have quite a few of them laying around, just like they have quite a few MiG-29s laying around. The question is, how many of them work? I imagine that quite a few are starting to develop cracks in the motors like the Phoenix missiles are and unlike the US, Russia can't afford to buy more if it so chooses. I don't think the Raptors would have to bother evading, by the time the missile reached where it was targeted the F-22 would be long gone having out accelerated it.
Actually russia still can afford something... it buys 30 T-90's a year, 100 BTR-90 APC's, and some KS-172's as well. Its also commisioned about 5 new ships...

I'm sure they do have quite a few of them laying around, just like they have quite a few MiG-29s laying around. The question is, how many of them work? I imagine that quite a few are starting to develop cracks in the motors like the Phoenix missiles are and unlike the US, Russia can't afford to buy more if it so chooses. I don't think the Raptors would have to bother evading, by the time the missile reached where it was targeted the F-22 would be long gone having out accelerated it.
Actually russia still can afford something... it buys 30 T-90's a year, 100 BTR-90 APC's, and some KS-172's as well. Its also commisioned about 5 new ships...

Wha??? Are they stupid or something? They're in the process of decommisioning ships, why would they commision new ones?

I'm sure they do have quite a few of them laying around, just like they have quite a few MiG-29s laying around. The question is, how many of them work? I imagine that quite a few are starting to develop cracks in the motors like the Phoenix missiles are and unlike the US, Russia can't afford to buy more if it so chooses. I don't think the Raptors would have to bother evading, by the time the missile reached where it was targeted the F-22 would be long gone having out accelerated it.
Actually russia still can afford something... it buys 30 T-90's a year, 100 BTR-90 APC's, and some KS-172's as well. Its also commisioned about 5 new ships...

Wha??? Are they stupid or something? They're in the process of decommisioning ships, why would they commision new ones?
1st of all 3 neustrashimy class frigates, then a modernized neustrashimy, probably 1 or 2 other smaller vessels.

I'm sure they do have quite a few of them laying around, just like they have quite a few MiG-29s laying around. The question is, how many of them work? I imagine that quite a few are starting to develop cracks in the motors like the Phoenix missiles are and unlike the US, Russia can't afford to buy more if it so chooses. I don't think the Raptors would have to bother evading, by the time the missile reached where it was targeted the F-22 would be long gone having out accelerated it.
Actually russia still can afford something... it buys 30 T-90's a year, 100 BTR-90 APC's, and some KS-172's as well. Its also commisioned about 5 new ships...

Wha??? Are they stupid or something? They're in the process of decommisioning ships, why would they commision new ones?

It's called attrition.

I'm sure they do have quite a few of them laying around, just like they have quite a few MiG-29s laying around. The question is, how many of them work? I imagine that quite a few are starting to develop cracks in the motors like the Phoenix missiles are and unlike the US, Russia can't afford to buy more if it so chooses. I don't think the Raptors would have to bother evading, by the time the missile reached where it was targeted the F-22 would be long gone having out accelerated it.
Actually russia still can afford something... it buys 30 T-90's a year, 100 BTR-90 APC's, and some KS-172's as well. Its also commisioned about 5 new ships...

Wha??? Are they stupid or something? They're in the process of decommisioning ships, why would they commision new ones?
1st of all 3 neustrashimy class frigates, then a modernized neustrashimy, probably 1 or 2 other smaller vessels.

Hmm, at least the Russians aren't floundering around, last I heard their navy was in a sad state. I'd still take the Japanese fleet over the Russian fleet any day of the week.

Yes but if their SSM's work no japanese fleet.

Yes but if their SSM's work no japanese fleet.

*laughs* The Japanese have the second largest navy in the world and the most advanced because they upgrade everything they get from America. The only thing they don't have is aircraft carriers and that's only because of their damn constitution.

Yes but if their SSM's work no japanese fleet.

*laughs* The Japanese have the second largest navy in the world and the most advanced because they upgrade everything they get from America. The only thing they don't have is aircraft carriers and that's only because of their damn constitution.
So? Russia has SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles to engage em at range.

Just for those of you who don't know, those missiles travel 450km at mach 1.7, making it exceedingly difficult to shoot them down compared to the US's slower missiles.

Just for those of you who don't know, those missiles travel 450km at mach 1.7, making it exceedingly difficult to shoot them down compared to the US's slower missiles.
But Harpoon is also not that easy to shoot down, since it sea-skimmers, even though it is subsonic.

Just for those of you who don't know, those missiles travel 450km at mach 1.7, making it exceedingly difficult to shoot them down compared to the US's slower missiles.
But Harpoon is also not that easy to shoot down, since it sea-skimmers, even though it is subsonic.Kahtan gun/missile system can shoot the down. But its too expensive.


SS-N-22 travels at mach 2.5, BTW.

Just for those of you who don't know, those missiles travel 450km at mach 1.7, making it exceedingly difficult to shoot them down compared to the US's slower missiles.
But Harpoon is also not that easy to shoot down, since it sea-skimmers, even though it is subsonic.Kahtan gun/missile system can shoot the down. But its too expensive.

The problem is that, instead, many radars can't target on it, since it flies so low.

Just for those of you who don't know, those missiles travel 450km at mach 1.7, making it exceedingly difficult to shoot them down compared to the US's slower missiles.
But Harpoon is also not that easy to shoot down, since it sea-skimmers, even though it is subsonic.Kahtan gun/missile system can shoot the down. But its too expensive.

The problem is that, instead, many radars can't target on it, since it flies so low.
Rif SAM can engage sea skimmers at 25km range

As long as there are no objects such as friendly vessels and/or terrain in the way, surface radar should be able to detect a missile assuming it's flying above the surface (if it's not, then it's not exactly a missile; But rather a rocket powered guided torpedo).

Also, while the SS-N-22 Sunburn may travel at mach 2.5, its range is far more limited than the SS-N-19 Shipwreck; In fact, it's almost half.

As long as there are no objects in the way, surface radar should be able to detect a missile flying at 5 feet off the surface.

Also, while the SS-N-22 Sunburn may travel at mach 2.5, its range is far more limited than the SS-N-19 Shipwreck; In fact, it's almost half.
250km is half the -19's range?

I said almost half. It's 50km more than half. Still, 250km is 200km too close if you've got SS-N-19 shipwrecks.

Then russia has AS-4 Kithchens which are air launched, go mach 3, and can pretty much sink anything.

Ah, yes, the AS-4 Kitchen. The big drawback there, though, is that it requires a Tu-22 (and I'm assuming Tu-160 can drop one, too), though they're modifying Tu-95's to use it as well (Tu-95K-22).

Excellent range (450-500km). Nifty variants, too, aside from the conventional, there's a nuclear variant, and an EMP-type variant, or so this particular reference seems to say. I'm not sure what it is, so I'm guessing it's an EMP or some sort of jamming; They say it's used for "overcoming enemy radars".

Its speed is more along the lines of mach 3.8 (at 40kft, mach 3.3 at sea level), however, at 4000km/h

Given that, the concussive damage done through its kinetics alone should sink a ship. :lol:

TU-22M can carry three I believe.