Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
I'm thinking the twin engine one was a Sukhoi, can't recall model #. Rather neat jinking around. The question being just how well the average Russian pilot-which those guys aren't-is going to be able to do with it. Granted the comparisons are dated, but there are lots of examples of better trained pilots being able to overcome techical superiority of the opponent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,168 Posts
It's hard to believe what they are doing; I was wondering if the first segment with the delta-wing jets (Rafale? Gripen?) were blended with radio-controlled models. Some of those maneuvers just looked too tight to be a full-sized, manned aircraft. Still, aerodynamics and flight control has come a looong way.
----
The Russian planes look like 'ugly & threatening' is still part of the design specs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
795 Posts
"...pretty amazing..." is an understatement.
I liked the title of your comment. Ten or so years ago I spoke with a retired F16 pilot who had not seen video but had heard of the "Cobra" maneuver on display at many air shows. He reminded me that speed is king in a dogfight. The plane and pilot who goes faster will eventually win the fight. Second, the described could not be used at combat speeds because the aircraft would disintegrate in flight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
The Russians like to use these maneuvers at air shows to entice leaders from developing countries to buy their aircraft. In the real world there is a word for a fighter that is maneuvering at low speed, high angle-of-attack, and in burner (i.e., huge IR signature): target. The missile that is loosed against this clown is thinking, "Thank you, God."

While good, these machines don't compare to western technology, but they can be had cheaply. Additionally, they are attractive to countries to whom the US is reluctant to sell the latest technology. Think of the old refrain, "The only countries that use AK's are the ones who can't afford M-16's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,499 Posts
Our latest and greatest fighters have priced themselves out of every market including the US. Brilliant work, with obvious flaws because the design team didn't study recent designs. "Not Invented Here" syndrome at work. I think the F-35 fiasco is just pending cancellation. Idiots let the USAF run the most cost effective project in history...their words not mine. The USAF cannot even get a simple cargo/tanker replacement right, with 40 years of practice and they have managed to cancel a successful program, C-27J for political reasons, seriously screwing our allies along the way. Now they want to throw away the KC-10s before lifespan, but don't worry, we'll just rent more lift from the Russians.
Geoff
Who notes there are few well run acquisition programs in US history. Usually run by the Marines and only on a relatively small scale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
While I wholeheartedly agree with you for the most part Geoff, it's hard to put a value on air superiority. I spent some time as a FAC, and got a chance to interact with a few of our Army troops. It was heartening to realize that, since WW II, American forces have almost never had to worry about attack from the air. We usually own the skies over our soldiers and marines, and when a grunt looks up, all he sees are friendly jets doing violence to the other side. It may hurt when you pay your taxes, but it means a lot to those guys.

I once attended a football game at the Air Force Academy against Army. The pre-game show featured a fly-by of an impressive array of the most fearsome air power in the world. Guess who was cheering as much as the zoomies?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
While I too admire the Marines I would blame the civilian contractors and politicians for most of the foul-ups rather than the USAF...

Maybe we could put in the bid specs. "only combat veterans may design military hardware."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
The Russians like to use these maneuvers at air shows to entice leaders from developing countries to buy their aircraft. In the real world there is a word for a fighter that is maneuvering at low speed, high angle-of-attack, and in burner (i.e., huge IR signature): target. The missile that is loosed against this clown is thinking, "Thank you, God."

Thanks Mike,

That one escaped me the first time... dammit... wish I had thought of that first.

Somehow I can picture a missile zipping along wearing a silly grin...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,168 Posts
The AF never wanted the C-27J. It was all a con to keep the ARMY from getting them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,116 Posts
The only thing more expensive than a FIRST rate air force... is a SECOND rate air force.
--unknown
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,499 Posts
While I wholeheartedly agree with you for the most part Geoff, it's hard to put a value on air superiority. I spent some time as a FAC, and got a chance to interact with a few of our Army troops. It was heartening to realize that, since WW II, American forces have almost never had to worry about attack from the air. We usually own the skies over our soldiers and marines, and when a grunt looks up, all he sees are friendly jets doing violence to the other side. It may hurt when you pay your taxes, but it means a lot to those guys.
Having been a Sergeant, D Co direct support 123rd Maint 1976 - 1979 1AD when the Fulda Gap was a Highway to Heaven for NATO should the cream of the Warpact come calling, I loved those airplanes too! From an NCOs eye view, and my brother retired from the USAF years back, the Air Force seems dedicated to screwing over it's people, in favor of hardware...and then cannot deliver the %$#*& planes! The F-22 was late and then was cancelled. The F-35 is late and way overpriced, some models projected to be more expensive than the F-22! Even the basic model costs more than the twin engine Super Hornet! Not a good idea.
Geoff
Who notes air superiority is not achieved by designs on paper and a pair of P-40s overhead was better for the WWII infantry, than a P-75 Eagle in flight testing...when it managed to get into the air...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
I don't know if you guys noticed it or not, but there's a pretty aggressive defensive move starting at 7:30. The guy is in a hard left turn when he sees an attacker at his six, pulling lead. He pulls the right throttle to idle, leaving the left engine in burner, and kicks hard right rudder. The result is an abrupt turn reversal and barrel roll to the right, which had the potential to cause the attacker to overshoot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,116 Posts
Geoff
Who notes air superiority is not achieved by designs on paper and a pair of P-40s overhead was better for the WWII infantry, than a P-75 Eagle in flight testing...when it managed to get into the air...
We'll set aside the note that the P-75 was never a serious combat design, just a fraudulent effort to get GM's mitts on War Dept. money... or so it seems in retrospect, GM selling warplanes the way they sell cars, "over-promise and under-deliver".

And as for design... a prof and I have a design where one aircraft could deliver the firepower of an entire air force--the rub is the insane cost, and that fact of "what's defending here when your one-plane AF is over there?" LOL (My prof had a brother-in-law that was an active one-star, who said about the beast "power corrupts, and neither my AF nor any other agency on earth could be trusted with the power this thing would offer if built.") And the Blackbird almost proved the same thing... until they realized that adding 100 pounds of black paint would let them use softer titanium they could actually perform manufacturing operations on. "It doesn't MATTER what you can put on paper, if you can't FIRST get it out the factory door and second get it WHERE the grunts need it WHEN they need it."
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top