A Question for Limey Defence

[_DigitaLVampirE_]

Originally posted by Voyager13b

You said that you already had the proof. That was weeks ago. Where is it?

I'm curious to read the results of your unbiased research.


Voyager [/b][/quote]
There are some who claim to know the "truth" and nothing but the "truth", so help them God.

Originally posted by Vic07
To your other point, in the conflicts you are reffering to, the people against the U.S. did not have enough support. As you know, an interceptor alone isnt much of a thing, it has to have ground support (if not fire, than atleast information from radars and such, because the aircraft's radar, as you know, doesnt have as long a range as powerfull ground stations) so they were caught with their pants down, and another thing is that the pilots werent trained very well.
Vic

And also if one interceptor fights 30 enemy aircraft, it has no chance no matter how good it is. In any recent conflict US had enormous advantage in number of aircraft.

And also we shouldn't forget that US air force today usually face outdated soviet planes like Mig-21. To kill a dozen of granddads by hundreds of latest planes isn't a worth victory, imho.

[limey_defence]

Based on the aircraft alone the flight characteristics on the Soviet planes are superior to their American counter-parts. They fly higher, faster and normally have a tighter turn.
In terms of Fighter capability I believe that the Americans are still ahead, their electronics are superior as are their AWACS which are very important to any combat situation.

It is true that in most cases American fighters have come up against lower class aircraft, and pilots. The last dogfights for the Americans on equal terms were Vietnam. And they had a nasty surprise from the MiG-21s there.
I did read about Iraq having MiG-29s in 1990, Gulf. I don't know what happened to them, I imgaine they got blown up on the ground.

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by _DigitaLVampirE_

You said that you already had the proof. That was weeks ago. Where is it?

I'm curious to read the results of your unbiased research.


Voyager

There are some who claim to know the "truth" and nothing but the "truth", so help them God. [/b][/quote]

DV,

It must be one hell of document......


Voyager

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Vic07
Voyager, Scandinavian explained it wrong to you. The newer russian fighters/interceptors (Su-37, 47, 33) CAN fire their missiles backwards with great accuracy, the missiles still face forward though. If they want to do this, they release it unevenly (forward end first) and then fires the engine after 1.5 secs. The MINIMUM distance for this is 300m. To your other point, in the conflicts you are reffering to, the people against the U.S. did not have enough support. As you know, an interceptor alone isnt much of a thing, it has to have ground support (if not fire, than atleast information from radars and such, because the aircraft's radar, as you know, doesnt have as long a range as powerfull ground stations) so they were caught with their pants down, and another thing is that the pilots werent trained very well.
Vic

Vic,

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense, and now I know what to look for to read further. It still seems that this would only be practical in subsonic conditions, but it can be useful in a dogfight.

The battles I was referring to include all contact between Soviet and American jets in the modern era. Don't take my assertion the wrong way, as you will find that I am a fan of Russian aircraft. It was offered as a counter to Scandinavian making the case for rating Russian planes as being clearly superior in most important respects. If that were the case, there should have been some fights that went the other way. Not all engagements were with old line aircraft, and not all were at a 30 to 1 ratio (Alex....). In several instances, both the planes and the ground support, including Radar were the best that oil money offered by a Soviet satelite State could buy.

I think there are innovative breakthroughs by all the major players in fighter design from time to time, and that the balance tips one way or another as time passes, but I think the overall capability of the current crop of planes is close enough that training and tactics make more of a difference than the aircraft.

Voyager

[_DigitaLVampirE_]

Originally posted by Voyager13b
DV,

It must be one hell of document......


Voyager [/b]

Somewhere between the depths of hell and San Francisco, somewhere between lunacy and urban legends, somewhere in Texas, and old lady up in some attic, must lie the "truth".

And i am just as keen as you are to find out the "truth".


TITE, i am waiting for the "truth" also.
Enlighten us.

Originally posted by Voyager13b
Not all engagements were with old line aircraft, and not all were at a 30 to 1 ratio (Alex....). In several instances, both the planes and the ground support, including Radar were the best that oil money offered by a Soviet satelite State could buy.


When wasn't it 30:1 (or 15:1, it doesn't change anything)since Vietnam? In Vietnam AFAIK Migs, supported by ground anti-aircraft defence properly organised by Russian officers, shot down a lot of american planes. American vs (Vietnamese only) encounters weren't in asian favor, though. It's also true for Korea, where koreans with masters degree in allowing Sabres to sit right on their tails ruined all statistic


but I think the overall capability of the current crop of planes is close enough that training and tactics make more of a difference than the aircraft.


O tom-to i rech' na samom dele. To est' zrya my tut eto razveli...

Russian and American designs have their advantages and disadvantages, and this is true not only for planes, but for tanks, firearms etc. So choice depends on taste and used tactics.

My personal choice is SU-30 in the sky, T-95 on the ground and AN-94 in my hands. Or, if I have to choose from widely spread weapons only, then Su-27, T-90 and AK-74. Everyone is free to choose other set.