Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/12/2004 6:40:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 6:45:18 PM EST
ahhh, the cobra manuver. Makes every pilot tingle with delight, me included. The russians sure know how to make giant heavy fighters turn very well, and go very fast. Too bad we make ours stealth...
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 6:50:34 PM EST
It is an awesome looking aircraft.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:00:10 PM EST
Holy shit that's awesome! Can you give some more details about what that manuever involves? It looks like the plane is put into a stall and then pushed back over. ... It looks awesome!

Doc
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:09:09 PM EST
Pretty neat video. I didn't know you can do that in a plane. The Ruskies were so short of money, they looked forward to flying their planes during airshows so they can get some real flying time. Another words, they couldn't afford to put the gas in the super duper SOTA fighters.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:12:19 PM EST
The manuver involves changing the aircrafts AOA (angle of attack) so quickly that the jet literally points the opposite direction of its acutal path. In essense, it flies backwards. However, this is just a show manuver, as the aircraft is left with little to no energy to continue. No energy in a dogfight = death. I still love this plane
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:33:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 7:37:33 PM EST by MichaelSavage]

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Damn that thing is agile!

bemil.chosun.com/movie%20link/su-35.wmv



The reason that this video is impressive is not really because this aircraft is special. It's because the Russians/Soviets have always been known for practicing show maneuvers like these, which are very dangerous and don't really have much to do with the effectiveness of the aircraft in modern times. The SU-27 and Mig-29 drivers have been doing this stuff for 20 years.

Our aircraft are lightyears ahead. You can tell just by looking at the SU-35 that it is just a revamped SU-27, which is a 1970's design. It looks like they've figured out thrust vectoring and overhauled the avionics and weapon control systems to get the crew from 2 down to just 1.

If you don't believe me, look here:

SU-27


SU-35


See what I mean? When your latest multirole fighter looks just like your 1970's-era interceptor, you know that you are only innovating to a point. Hell, the SU-27 looks just like the Mig-29 even!

MIG-29



Now... look at our latest multi-role fighter...

F-22


Who is innovating here? The F-22 employs stealth technology AND thrust vectoring, cutting-edge avionics and control systems, carries its weapons completely internally, and is a supercruiser, which means that it can cruise at above the speed of sound without afterburners (which greatly increases effective range).

Don't get me wrong, the Russians/Soviets make some wonderful aircraft. But these days it is painfully obvious who is at the fore-front of aircraft technology, and who is simply retro-fitting old designs with new ideas.

I just wanted to make this point before too many oooooh's and aaaaah's accumulate over the Russian's latest Su-27 iteration, and to remind everybody who is king, even though the Russians have brass nads at air shows.

Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:45:54 PM EST
The russkies are good at copying our aircraft designs as best they can.
Odd how these "new" planes look a lot like our older ones. (F15, F16,F14,F18 ETC..ETC..)
Have they been able to build a washing machine that works yet ?
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:53:10 PM EST
The russkies love to show off, ergo Cobra maneuver...

Could be done in an F-15 if the AF wanted to try...

The SU-27 is roughly a F-15C class aircraft, the SU-37 is somewhere between a F-15E & a Super Hornet.

The MiG-29 is basically a F-18.

Best copy-job, however, goes to the SU-25, aka the Northrop A-9 (the plane that lost to the A-10)...
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:59:10 PM EST
They sure milk that cobra maneuver for all it's worth. I still prefer our hardware.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:05:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 8:20:58 PM EST by MichaelSavage]

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
The russkies are good at copying our aircraft designs as best they can.
Odd how these "new" planes look a lot like our older ones. (F15, F16,F14,F18 ETC..ETC..)
Have they been able to build a washing machine that works yet ?



True... they rip off our stuff a lot. Look at their "Space Shuttle", their "C-5 Galaxy" (Kondor), and the classic example ---> the Tu-4. The Tu-4 was a complete and total ripoff of the B-29, produced with three 'borrowed' B-29's as a real-life template.

However... there is one Soviet aircraft that put us in to catch-up mode. The Mig-25 Foxbat. When the mach 3+ Mig-25 Foxbat showed up, our most advanced fighter aircraft was the F-4 Phantom. When the Mig-25 showed up on the scene, we got real busy with the F-15 project.

Evidence:

Mig-25 Foxbat


F-15 Eagle



Now... I realize that the F-15 and Mig-25 are very different aircraft. The F-15 is much more refined, reliable, and modern. However, since the Mig-25 definitely came first, you must admit that we were probably inspired by that new (at the time) Russian design. I don't think that the F-15 was a "copy" of the Mig-25 by any means, but it was certainly at least inspired by the Mig-25.

(edited to fix image links that died)
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:11:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 8:20:02 PM EST by MichaelSavage]

Best copy-job, however, goes to the SU-25, aka the Northrop A-9 (the plane that lost to the A-10)...


Whoa, thanks for sharing that. I wasn't even aware of the A-9 or the SU-25!

A-9


Su-25


Good call. However, I must differ in that the best copy-job has got to be B-29 / Tu-4!!!!


B-29



Tu-4



I mean come on!!!
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:28:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:34:11 PM EST
The Ruskies are no fools, why re-invent the wheel, when the USA spent billions developing it. Just steal the plans and that's that. The only plane the Ruskies haven't been able to clone is the Stealth fighter and bombers. The super-secret technology is in the fabrication of all the high-tech non-metallic epoxies and carbon fibers.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:41:54 PM EST
That's a BADASS Cessna!
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:43:32 PM EST
Indeed, the MiG 25 is a POS and that was known when Viktor Balenko (sp?) defected and the plane was examined. They built that plane to catch the XB-70, then when that was canceled they made it's role to intercept the SR-71. That plane can only do short dashes at Mach 3, and when it does the engines must be changed. It is made of nickel steel alloy, not even titanium like our Mach 3 planes. This means it is heavy. Furthermore, the MiG 25 was designed as a ground controlled interceptor where the pilot basically flew the thing up there and the people on the ground actually called the shots and fired the weapons. It has terrible low speed handling and can't maneuver worth a damn.

The US over estimated that POS and that's why the F-15 was designed and built. Once it was flying and the defected MiG 25 was looked over, we knew we were light years ahead of them. The USAF certainly got what it paid for in the F-15.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:45:55 PM EST
This is all fine and dandy, but can the Russians afford to field many of these aircraft? I think not.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:53:30 PM EST
I saw a vid on Discovery Wings of an old Tomcat pulling the cobra manuever. Sure it looks good but, it leaves you slow and now where to go. The only change of survival is if the Raptor pilot starts fumbling with his controls when he sees this giant ass turkey just floating in front of him. Missles...guns...missles...guns...misslgeingsingFIRE FIRE FIRE!
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:58:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 9:00:10 PM EST by TheOtherDave]
Warlord wrote:

"The Ruskies are no fools, why re-invent the wheel, when the USA spent billions developing it. Just steal the plans and that's that. The only plane the Ruskies haven't been able to clone is the Stealth fighter and bombers. The super-secret technology is in the fabrication of all the high-tech non-metallic epoxies and carbon fibers."



Don't bet on it.... The Ruskies have been working on stealth technology for a long time, at least as long as we have (late 40's). They have stealth naval ships, if they can do that, they can build an airplane too.

Plus, they appear to have the ability to detect our stealth planes, at least the F117. You may recall the F117 that was shot down over Bosnia flying missions against Milosevic's government. When shit hit the fan over there, the Russian military sent a shitload of Spetnaz dudes to an airfield that housed an underground radar station. We dropped a JDAM at the entrance before they got there, but the Russkies still managed to get in and clean the place out completely in the space of a month, then went home as quickly as they came.

Then again, cell phone systems going on the fritz in England showed us hoe to detect our own airplanes, so maybe it isn't that hard. But OTOH, Knowing they are there and shooting them down with a missile is another think entirely.

Oh, the Russians have always been way ahead of us with composites manufacture. Carbon Fiber is nothing new to them.

Dave
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:59:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By brouhaha:

Originally Posted By MichaelSavage:
However... there is one Soviet aircraft that put us in to catch-up mode. The Mig-25 Foxbat. When the mach 3+ Mig-25 Foxbat showed up, our most advanced fighter aircraft was the F-4 Phantom. When the Mig-25 showed up on the scene, we got real busy with the F-15 project.



Actually, it was the US that put the USSR into "catch up" mode with the XB-70. That was their impetus to develop the Foxbat.

A guy I used to work with was on the engineering team of the XB-70. He's got some cool stories.



Well, it was an arms race after all. So I guess the argument could be made that any innovation on either side of the iron curtain could put the other side in to "catch up" mode. Aircraft like the B-58 Hustler and XB-70 got Russia worried that our next generation of long range bombers would be supersonic and impossible to catch with their existing aircraft. So this motivated them to design an extremely fast interceptor... the mach 3+ Mig-25 Foxbat, like you said.

However, I think my point about the F-15 being partially inspired by the Mig-25 still holds true. When the Mig-25 arrived our most advanced interceptor was the F-4 Phantom, which is slow and gay when compared to the Mig-25. And then... when the F-15 is put in to service, it is a very similar-looking overall design to the Foxbat!

Point taken though.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 9:00:22 PM EST
I want to see some video of the F-22 in action.

Jerad
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 9:03:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By CFII:
ahhh, the cobra manuver. Makes every pilot tingle with delight, me included. The russians sure know how to make giant heavy fighters turn very well, and go very fast. Too bad we make ours stealth...


Maneuverability is fine, but I'll take stealth. All that maneuverability does you no good if your enemy kills you before you even know he's there.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 9:04:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 9:19:58 PM EST by MichaelSavage]

Originally Posted By A_G:
Indeed, the MiG 25 is a POS and that was known when Viktor Balenko (sp?) defected and the plane was examined. They built that plane to catch the XB-70, then when that was canceled they made it's role to intercept the SR-71. That plane can only do short dashes at Mach 3, and when it does the engines must be changed. It is made of nickel steel alloy, not even titanium like our Mach 3 planes. This means it is heavy. Furthermore, the MiG 25 was designed as a ground controlled interceptor where the pilot basically flew the thing up there and the people on the ground actually called the shots and fired the weapons. It has terrible low speed handling and can't maneuver worth a damn.

The US over estimated that POS and that's why the F-15 was designed and built. Once it was flying and the defected MiG 25 was looked over, we knew we were light years ahead of them. The USAF certainly got what it paid for in the F-15.



You are totally right. The Foxbat is just a big fast clumsy low-tech brute.

Link Posted: 5/12/2004 9:19:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Damn that thing is agile!

bemil.chosun.com/movie%20link/su-35.wmv





Hey FiveO do you play Aces High at all? That vid showed up on the board about a week ago, and I saw it then, it's a cool ass vid, and it rocks. If you do fly in Aces High and your flying for the rooks, look me up. Screen name is the same except the numbers are dropped off.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 9:31:45 PM EST
Damn!

Why wasn't I a fighter pilot?
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 9:49:08 PM EST
I had no idea the Frogfoot was a rip!

No, not an Aces High flier.

Glad y'all found the vid interesting!
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 9:54:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 9:55:49 PM EST by eaglebite]

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Plus, they appear to have the ability to detect our stealth planes, at least the F117. You may recall the F117 that was shot down over Bosnia flying missions against Milosevic's government.



That F117 flew through a wall of AA and crashed, as would any plane. Do you know where the parts where shipped, and what happened afterwards?
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:07:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By MichaelSavage:
However, I think my point about the F-15 being partially inspired by the Mig-25 still holds true. When the Mig-25 arrived our most advanced interceptor was the F-4 Phantom, which is slow and gay when compared to the Mig-25. And then... when the F-15 is put in to service, it is a very similar-looking overall design to the Foxbat!



As stated in previous posts here on this thread, the Foxbat wasn't that much in the way of leading edge. We over-estimated its capabilities and thus put inordinately high performance requirements on the F-15. The F-4 was still a better interceptor (its originally designed role) than the MiG except for speed. But, it should be noted that the F-15 isn't much faster than the F-4.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:09:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:47:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By eaglebite:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Plus, they appear to have the ability to detect our stealth planes, at least the F117. You may recall the F117 that was shot down over Bosnia flying missions against Milosevic's government.



That F117 flew through a wall of AA and crashed, as would any plane. Do you know where the parts where shipped, and what happened afterwards?


Most likely it probably would be much of a big deal. The newer F22s that are about enter service uses technology that is head and shoulders above anything in the F117. The big thing about the F117 is the fabrication of the exotic materials. The Ruskie probably already stolen the plans to the F117, but they don't have the sophisticated technology of welding and bonding the various materials.

True the parts may enable our adversaries to develop techniques to defeat or minimize the stealthness, but the technology is more than 20 years old.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:50:51 PM EST
that thers some good cheese
thats not cheese its caulk
then that theres some good caulk
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:59:13 PM EST
I find it amazing that none of you noticed that it was in desert camo


I wonder what the Bohlshaviks are up too?
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 1:54:31 AM EST
The Russians have become very proficient at demonstrating the reliability of their ejection seats at airshows.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 2:35:20 AM EST
Some of you .....just crack me up!

Armchair Engineers!
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 3:39:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 4:18:41 AM EST
Interesting. No traditional "stick", rather a fly by wire ala F-16. Logical considering the G-forces involved and the pilot fatigue issue.

Beautiful and clearly very maneuverable plane. The AA-11 Archer missile and it's helmet mounted missile guidance system just add to this aircraft's deadly capabilities. Clearly, opposing fighters would much prefer to engage this guy at BVR rather than get into the furball. For our conventional fighters, this guy is a very formidable opponent.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 6:22:59 AM EST
Very interesting and impressive. One important thing to remember. All that agility won't do anybody much good when your enemy can lock and fire before you even know he's there. When the F22 Raptor goes into combat, the first clue the enemy will have that they're not alone will be the incoming missiles.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 7:25:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/13/2004 7:37:39 AM EST by TheOtherDave]
That F117 flew through a wall of AA and crashed, as would any plane. Do you know where the parts where shipped, and what happened afterwards?

Considering that the F117 is a night fighter, AA crews would have to know it was operating in the area in the first place.... Sure, it could have been a lucky hit, but circumstances make me believe it was more than a golden BB. The pics I remember showed a very close shrapnel perforation pattern, like you would expect if an AA shell burst right next to the aircraft or a missile detonated near it.

Where did the parts go? To the highest bidder.. Russia or more likely China.

Dave
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 7:36:55 AM EST
My father has pulled a manuver like that in the hornet. Said it hurt too damn much to try again, and its pointless. Energy managment is essential for ACM survival. Dumping it all in one move gets you killed every time. The russians do build impressive aircraft, but ours are about 3 lightyears ahead. Gotta love a healthy economy
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 8:01:08 AM EST
The parts from F-117 82-0806 "Something Wicked" made their way to Russia.

www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm











Aviation Week & Space Technology:
October 8, 2001


Russians Admit Testing
F-117 Lost in Yugoslavia
DAVID A. FULGHUM and ROBERT WALL/
MOSCOW and ZHUKOVSKY, RUSSIA

Mystery surrounded the ultimate fate of the aircraft. Now it has resurfaced as a research tool for missile designers

Russian officials admit for the first time they are using remains from the U.S. Air Force stealth fighter shot down over Yugoslavia to improve the ability of their air defense systems to detect and kill stealth aircraft.

DAVID A. FULGHUM/AW&ST

Prominently on display at the Moscow air show were low-frequency, long-range surveillance radars, including this lineup, as well as the latest surface-to-air missile designs.

Also as part of the effort, designers say a small number of Russian tactical aircraft have been upgraded with locally produced, low-observable modifications to further test and improve their surface-to-air missile (SAM) designs.

Acknowledging that researchers had access to the remains of the F-117 strike aircraft shot down in 1999 during the Kosovo air campaign, a senior Russian aerospace official said, "Yes, of course. We've been able to test our system against the broken pieces."

BUT THE FIND IS PROVING somewhat less than a Rosetta stone to unlocking the secret of targeting stealthy aircraft. Because only sections of the F-117 survived intact, "we haven't been able to model the entire [low-observable bomber]," the official conceded. "It's not the same as testing against an undamaged F-117. You provide us with a complete stealth aircraft and then we'll tell you how effective we are against it."

One of the problems engineers face with having the F-117 parts is that they can't accurately determine how radar energy is dissipated over the entire aircraft. Furthermore, the faceted stealth design of the F-117 won't necessarily provide many clues to how best to defeat the stealth designs on the B-2 or the F-22. These aircraft use different materials and handle radar energy differently.

Even so, the F-117 analysis represents only a portion of Russia's antistealth efforts. Experts also have been pursuing other ways to fine-tune their air defense missile systems to stop attacks by small stealthy cruise missiles (a problem that also has riveted U.S. researchers and military planners) and stealth aircraft.

A second prominent Russian expert said that his project development team can now locate low-signature targets at something near 60 mi., a range great enough to be "tactically useful." That would indicate that the new generation of air defense missiles could defend high-value sites against cruise missiles and long-range weapons, but not against stealth aircraft launching long-range stand-off missiles.

Although Russia hasn't fielded a full-up, stealth aircraft that could be used in tests of its improved air-to-air and ground-launched air defense missile systems, industry officials said the Russian air force has modified and significantly decreased the radar cross section of at least two tactical aircraft. The "special aircraft" with reduced radar reflectivity have been made available for the aerospace industry's stealth and antistealth development programs.

Researchers have been testing several components of their air defense systems against those secret test assets, including the radio-frequency seekers on surface-to-air missiles and proximity fuzes. Similar tests are being run against the F-117's components. Data from both is then fed into huge databanks to be used in simulations of stealth targets. Using the flying test beds, developers say they have been able to detect reduced signature aircraft. The test data are being used to produce improved sensors with increased detection ranges.

However, there is a major obstacle to accelerating development of defense against stealth aircraft and missiles. "We have to simulate engagements against stealth [vehicles]," the first official said. "Using a real stealth target and destroying it is too expensive. We are doing flying tests [against the modified fighters], but we not doing firing testing."

Another limitation the researchers are encountering is that the test aircraft can only fly at subsonic speeds. While that performance is adequate to be able to assess an air-defense system's performance against an F-117 or B-2, it won't suffice for the more modern stealth aircraft, such as the F-22, which can fly at more than Mach 2.

www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20011008/avi_stor.htm
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 8:21:56 AM EST
Victor Balenko? I thought Clint Eastwood stole that Foxbat for us.!!!
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 8:25:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
Victor Balenko? I thought Clint Eastwood stole that Foxbat for us.!!!



"I am speaking to the indiWIDual who has stolen the propery of the USSR"
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 8:26:43 AM EST
That was a Foxfire....
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 8:41:52 AM EST
That damn airplane was wearing MARPAT!
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 8:50:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Interesting. No traditional "stick", rather a fly by wire ala F-16. Logical considering the G-forces involved and the pilot fatigue issue.



The Russians still look down upon G-suits. I can't see the pilot wearing one on that vid.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 8:54:53 AM EST
Very cool! Thanks for the video.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 9:11:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By headpulper:

Originally Posted By MichaelSavage:
However, I think my point about the F-15 being partially inspired by the Mig-25 still holds true. When the Mig-25 arrived our most advanced interceptor was the F-4 Phantom, which is slow and gay when compared to the Mig-25. And then... when the F-15 is put in to service, it is a very similar-looking overall design to the Foxbat!



As stated in previous posts here on this thread, the Foxbat wasn't that much in the way of leading edge. We over-estimated its capabilities and thus put inordinately high performance requirements on the F-15. The F-4 was still a better interceptor (its originally designed role) than the MiG except for speed. But, it should be noted that the F-15 isn't much faster than the F-4.



Wrong.

I might agree with the general idea that the F-4 is a "better" aircraft than the Foxbat, simply because the Phantom was more versitile, reliable and probably more sophisticated from an avionics/electronics and possibly construction point of view. So yes, looking back over time, and taking in to consideration how many different roles the Phantom performed, and performed well, I would agree with this idea.

However. as far as raw intercept capabilities go the Mig-25 could absolutely and completely mop the floor with the F-4. Apart from top speed, have you ever compared the climb rates or the high-altitude performance of the two aircraft? The Mig-25 could probably climb out of the F-4's effective attack cone within a short time, even with the F-4 in full pursuit. The time from the runway to the stratosphere was probably cut in half by the Mig-25, which is another important measuring stick for interceptors at the time.

So, I'll say this again, because I know it is true:

When the Mig-25 showed up, the US primary interceptor was the F-4. It was known by the US pretty quickly that the F-4 was totally outmatched by the Mig-25 in the realm of physical performance. The top speed of the Mig-25 was about 30% faster, and the climb rate was almost doubled, the effective operational ceiling was raised quite a bit, and the performance at high altitudes was significant. The Mig-25 undeniably had an influence on our F-15 program. You can even see it in the design of the F-15!

I am not trying to make a case for Soviet aircraft. I know who's gear I'd rather take in to combat, and it isn't theirs. I also agree with many of the points made in this thread about the Foxbat being a big, clumsy, low-tech, unreliable brute. All I am saying is that when the Foxbat showed up we didn't have anything that could catch it and shoot it down. Not only that, the design influence on the F-15 is undenyable. And for the record, I believe that the F-15 is a 1000% better aircraft overall.

Also, I remember reading a story about when the Foxbat first came out. I remember reading that under some ambiguous condition, an F-4 and a Mig-25 met over the atlantic ocean somewhere. They flew together a bit, and the Mig just took off, hurling towards orbit. The F-4 driver tried to keep up but was absolutely left in the dust by his climb rate, operational ceiling, and performance at altitude. I think that this incident was part of the inspiriation to the US that I am talking about. I'll try to dig this source up... I seem to remember thinking that it was a true story but it's been a long time.

<­BR>


Link Posted: 5/13/2004 9:37:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By CFII:
The manuver involves changing the aircrafts AOA (angle of attack) so quickly that the jet literally points the opposite direction of its acutal path. In essense, it flies backwards. However, this is just a show manuver, as the aircraft is left with little to no energy to continue. No energy in a dogfight = death. I still love this plane



Bingo! I have a friend whose father flew P-47s in the Pacific in WWII. We are both aircraft nuts. While watching a vid of the ruskies doing their cobra and tail slide type maneuvers, I asked him what he thought of it and would he be afraid to go up against an aircraft like that. He looked at me with a sly grin on his face and said "In air combat speed is life, all I see is a big easy target! It maybe fine to show off, but in real life it's going to be another kill on the side of my Jug." I love this old guy, he's got a ton of stories about flying and crashing in burma. His health is failing and it will be a sad day when he passes.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 9:46:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By LotBoy:
This is all fine and dandy, but can the Russians afford to field many of these aircraft? I think not.



Can we afford to field ours? We spend tens of billions and decades on the next great fighter, bomber, or helicopter. The contractors know all they have to do is make enough progress to keep the money flowing because eventually it will all get chopped to nothing (B-2, F-22) or cancelled outright (Commanche).

We have seen the last great aircraft produced in any numbers by this country. The Russians may be behind but it won't be for long. Tens of our super-tecnological toys won't stand up if N. Korea and/or China throws their THOUSANDS of old clunkers at us.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 10:02:36 AM EST
1. The Mig 25 was overflying Isreal and other middle east targets with IMPUNITY i the early 70s. Israeli F4s couldn't get up and touch it no matter how they tried. That is why we have the F-15 and F-14 today. Both those aircraft were created to counter the threat of the untouchable Mig-25 recon aircraft.

2. I have never seen the A-9, but I knew the SU-25 was a close copy of the A-9. Thanks for posting the pick.

3. The TU-4 was a DIRECT, carbon copy of hte B-29 reverse engineered by Tupaeluv from several B-29s that landed i the USSR during WWII.

4. My understanding of hte F-117 shoot down was that they illuminated it when the pilot opened his bombay doors which made the aircraft very reflective. Also, so they can detect the aircraft from 60 miles? That makes the radar emmitter a very large target for our HARM missiles.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 10:25:45 AM EST
The F-14 was not designed for combating the MiG-25.
It was an outgrowth of the failed F-111B TFX project.

Had the US Navy wanted it, the Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III would have delivered near Mig-25 performance back in 1958! It was fast, carried a good weapons load and handled like a dream.


During flight testing, the XF8U-3 demonstrated speeds of Mach 2.2 and zoom climb altitude of nearly 90,000 feet. Sustained altitude levels of 60-65,000 feet could be achieved. The Crusader III was never flown to its limits becaused of the windshield construction, which was made of acrylic and could not take the high temperatures of the aircraft's upper envelope. It was thought that without the windshield limitations it could have reached speeds as high as Mach 2.7 or 2.9 at 35,000 feet.

Although the Crusader III showed great promise, the Navy chose the competing McDonnell Phantom as the winner of the contest. The XF8U-3 was designed exclusively as a fighter/interceptor, but the Phantom was designed to a more encompassing set of requirements which included interception, reconnaissance, and ground attack roles.. The Vought development contract was cancelled in December of 1958. The limiting windshield was being redesigned when the contract was cancelled. At the time of cancellation, three XF8U-3s had been built and flown, and a further six were in various stages of construction. Serials had been allocated for a further 13 pre-production examples (BuNo 147088/147100)

Had it been accepted for production, the XF8U-3 aircraft would have been the world's fastest jet aircraft in service, with a maximum speed perhaps approaching Mach 3. It had excellent acceleration, maneuverability and high-speed stability. It was a delightful airplane to fly, with excellent control harmony. The aircraft was in every way a winner, and it is a pity that no place in the Navy could be found for it.



Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top