New Russian Jet Fighter

[spookyload]

Even so, guerrillas on the Balkan downed an F-117 with shoulder-fired SAMs, heat-seekers I believe. You can't get away from hot exhaust.

The plane was actually shot down with a SA-3. A 1970's era radar missle. The plane was hit when the bomb doors opened. The reason it was seen was they had attacked the same target multiple times, but always at the same time. When you know when and where to look for a stealth plane it is much easier to see. Much the same reason we lost hundreds of aircraft over North Vietnam. Come in at the same time to the same targets.

John is right about why we wouldn't lose. I will only add that we have a much better resource chain for keeping the war fighting machine repaired than most countries. All of our money isn't just dumped into building the planes, but keeping them in the air as well.

[XJ.]

Originally Posted by TQ

Ah! You watch A&E's "Dogfight", too! I saw that episode.

No, I learned that about 20 years ago. I was thinking about going into the aviation field (and even considered joining the USAF). By I do the History Channel's Dogfight series.
I any case, I think that dogfighting skill are still relevant today - and that why those skills are still taught to US pilots and why we still mount a gun on current designs.

[Rick_EE]

Originally Posted by ATINUT

McCain technically isn't legal to run for President, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and the Constitution states, that you have to be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and have lived in the United States 14 years.

Where does it say that it must be within the borders of the US? Many of the early presidents were born in territories and not states. He was born in US controlled territory to a US solder stationed there. He was a US citizen the moment he was born. That clause is meant to exclude naturalized citizens.

Are you saying that children of the military born in other places are not eligible?

I am not a McCain fan, but this issue was settled in 1999.

[TQ]

Originally Posted by fvbounty

If your in charge of a ship and your not on the bridge and something happens its still on the captain, same with the president!

That's akin to blaming Bill Clinton for the criminal behavior of certain CEO's that was on-going in the 1990's, the fact that GM and Ford designed their companies primary profit dependency on inefficient SUV's during the Clinton years and the "tech bubble" that began to burst in the last couple of years Bill was in office, which threw thousands of people into unemployment.

The "ship's captain" analogy sounds good but it's not realistic. Government is far more the responsibility of vast numbers of people (including the voters) than it is one person.

As far as gas prices, well, as a country we've had decades to deal with that and no party has been willing to do what's been necessary to get us out of our near exclusive dependency on fossil fuels.
By the way, one of the disagreements I have with McCain is that on energy policy he has too often sided with Democrats. No drilling off the coasts of California and Florida and no drilling in Anwar.
On the plus side, he sees the rush to biofuels isn't the panacea the farm states would like us to believe it is and understands how it's raising the price of meat, milk and grains.

[TQ]

Originally Posted by XJ.

No, I learned that about 20 years ago. I was thinking about going into the aviation field (and even considered joining the USAF). By I do the History Channel's Dogfight series.
I any case, I think that dogfighting skill are still relevant today - and that why those skills are still taught to US pilots and why we still mount a gun on current designs.

Can't agree more. What happens when you run out of rockets?

I think I need to brush up on some current jet tech, though. I'm now curious as to what we guns are mounting on our fighters.

[TQ]

A note from a friend who has a friend that works over at NASA:

"Sukhoi Design Bureau is famous for one-off designs that are world class ….SU-29 for example. I think this is the 31, a follow on variant….."

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by TQ

A note from a friend who has a friend that works over at NASA:

"Sukhoi Design Bureau is famous for one-off designs that are world class ….SU-29 for example. I think this is the 31, a follow on variant….."

It's most likely the Su-37, and that model is to my knowledge not in production. The Su-31 is a single-engine prop aerobatic airplane (one of the best monoplanes in the aerobatics field, IIRC).

The Su-30MKI is used by the Indian air force and has a lot of elements from post-Su-30 models, supposedly more like the Su-35 than the Russian versions of the Su-30.

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by TQ

Can't agree more. What happens when you run out of rockets?

I think I need to brush up on some current jet tech, though. I'm now curious as to what we guns are mounting on our fighters.

I think guns mostly are a last-ditch kind of thing. If you've run out of Sidewinders and you're up close and personal with an enemy it's nice to be able to shoot something at him. For exceptional circumstances only.

I believe they removed the gun on the F/A-18 Growler and stuffed the hold with electronic apparatus instead. Of course, it's not actually a fighter per se, but an EWF/jamming support aircraft.

[Kimbo]

Originally Posted by jvandecar

I may be a blind patriot, but I still feel our military, if needed, could dominate any other country in any type of conflict, long or short term.

yawn.....

[TQ]

Originally Posted by k0NG0

I think guns mostly are a last-ditch kind of thing. If you've run out of Sidewinders and you're up close and personal with an enemy it's nice to be able to shoot something at him.

Have you seen the WW1 based film "Flyboys"? There's a scene towards the end that defines "up close and personal" and "shooting something at him".

No Sidewinders back then, though. No 'chutes, either. Yikes.

[Kimbo]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

We'd win against that jet----or any other jet.....

Superior equipment
Superior training
Superior tactics

The best logistics in the world to back it all up---

and----above all----our pilots as a group are far superior as they get better training, more actual air hours and more simulation time---again using superior tactics, equipment and technology.

Originally Posted by spookyload

The plane was actually shot down with a SA-3. A 1970's era radar missle. The plane was hit when the bomb doors opened. The reason it was seen was they had attacked the same target multiple times, but always at the same time. When you know when and where to look for a stealth plane it is much easier to see. Much the same reason we lost hundreds of aircraft over North Vietnam. Come in at the same time to the same targets.

John is right about why we wouldn't lose. I will only add that we have a much better resource chain for keeping the war fighting machine repaired than most countries. All of our money isn't just dumped into building the planes, but keeping them in the air as well.

let's see what i read from these two patriots, within seconds...

1st guy goes on about the best training et al
2nd guy perhaps infers that the unit used was a 70's era "piece of junk"
well then that in itself is points to russia (it's russian made) since a 70's piece of junk can hit a 1988ish "stealth" plane, no doubt retro fitted with heaps newer sh!t.
then he says it was because of the same time. wth ? so are the strike planners stupid ? must be, because then we have:
what the 1st guy said and the 2nd guy says since vietnam and also in vietnam. so the americans haven't learned from the same mistake in decades ?? which is it then ? superior training or none at all ???? i mean here we have them saying: we lost planes in 'nam because of times... nearly 30 years later they loose planes (the 117 was only the most famous - they lost plenty more normal jets) because of the same reason. huh ? (and actually i find that hard to believe anyway - do you have proof? i doubt american military planners are stupid, eh ? show us proof of what you said: the same target was hit multiple times at the same time)


and don't the 117's fly real high ??? and fast... dam that 70's junk must be pretty good then...
also why hit the same target multiple times ? 1st time couldn't do the job properly ?? maybe. (i do know that many targets were multi hit to keep the sorties going because at one stage they ran out of targets.. and had they stopped and then restarted the momentum would be gone. by that i mean to convince the populace of the west about it. because otherwise if there was a time of say two weeks with no strikes at all because they have finished hitting all they could - which they have - then people watching would have said "hey what's going on ? why are you starting new bombings? they finished two weeks ago!!" but that's another story...)

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by TQ

Have you seen the WW1 based film "Flyboys"? There's a scene towards the end that defines "up close and personal" and "shooting something at him".

No Sidewinders back then, though. No 'chutes, either. Yikes.

Nope, haven't seen it. But I don't doubt it. They even dropped most bombs by hand.

One thing I do remember is reading a book by Pierre Clostermann (French WWII ace) that described his experiences during the war, when I was around 12-13. I think it was part of a series of books, because I remember reading one by a German as well, or possibly a Brit. Very exciting, I've always been interested by planes and such, but I was heavily into WWII era planes back then. (I don't remember the title, but Wikipedia says it's called "The Big Show" (Le Grand Cirque).)

[TQ]

When I was a kid I was utterly fascinated by anything WWI and WWII (you could say I still am to a great degree) and one of my favorite comics was a DC title called "Enemy Ace", which was written by Robert Kanigher and drawn by the brilliant Joe Kubert.
Essentially, it was WWI flying combat told from the perspective of German Ace Baron Hans Von Hammer.

The Wikipedia stuff on Enemy Ace is worth a look...

These were great comics and always - to my great delight - managed to work into the storyline the specifications of the various aircraft that Von Hammer encountered.

[TQ]

Back in the early 90's I was lucky enough to see an F-117 up close and personal at an air show here in Austin.

I walked into it and hit my head because I didn't see it at first. Stealthy, you know.

We also had an SR-71 Blackbird at the show, too. What a lovely aircraft.

[ade2008l]

سلام الي كل الاصدقاء اعضا المنتدى
انا لاول مرة اشارك
وارجوا المساعدة
ممكن يا اصدقائي