heavy and sluggish

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://russia-insider.com/en/military/2014/11/04/02-05-14pm/latest_russian_fighter_jet_blows_americas_away>

The Latest Russian Fighter Jet Blows America's Away
Outgunned by the Su-30 family of aircraft and suffering critical design flaws,
the American F-35 is staring down the barrel of obsolescence – and punching a
gaping hole in western air defences.
This article <http://is.gd/OCUMiS> is an excellent read to understand how
Russia's technological level is best in its class in many military sectors,
especially with regard to fighter jets. It originally appeared in Russia &
India Report. The SU-30 continues to be the number one choice among global
buyers. ..

Winslow T. Wheeler, Director of the US’ Straus Military Reform Project, Centre
for Defense information, agrees. “The F-35 is too heavy and sluggish to be
successful as a fighter,” he says. “If we ever face an enemy with a serious
air force we will be in deep trouble.”
So far the US has been lucky it has never really encountered a “serious”
military. Over the skies of war-weary Iraq, tiny Libya and utterly defenseless
Afghanistan, the American aircraft operated with impunity. But luck can run
out – if they ever come up against the air forces of Russia, China or India
the outcome won’t be so one-sided. In particular, the Indian Air Force has
beaten the USAF’s fourth generation fighters using both third and fourth
generation jets.

[Dudley Henriques]

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 10:17:32 PM UTC-5, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> <http://russia-insider.com/en/military/2014/11/04/02-05-14pm/latest_russian_fighter_jet_blows_americas_away>
>
> The Latest Russian Fighter Jet Blows America's Away
> Outgunned by the Su-30 family of aircraft and suffering critical design flaws,

> the American F-35 is staring down the barrel of obsolescence - and punching a

> gaping hole in western air defences.
> This article <http://is.gd/OCUMiS> is an excellent read to understand how
> Russia's technological level is best in its class in many military sectors,
> especially with regard to fighter jets. It originally appeared in Russia &
> India Report. The SU-30 continues to be the number one choice among global
> buyers. ..
>
> Winslow T. Wheeler, Director of the US' Straus Military Reform Project, Centre
> for Defense information, agrees. "The F-35 is too heavy and sluggish to be
> successful as a fighter," he says. "If we ever face an enemy with a serious
> air force we will be in deep trouble."
> So far the US has been lucky it has never really encountered a "serious"
> military. Over the skies of war-weary Iraq, tiny Libya and utterly defenseless
> Afghanistan, the American aircraft operated with impunity. But luck can run

> out - if they ever come up against the air forces of Russia, China or India

> the outcome won't be so one-sided. In particular, the Indian Air Force has
> beaten the USAF's fourth generation fighters using both third and fourth
> generation jets.

There is no doubt that the Sukhoi Design Bureau has put out a very impressive airplane with the -30.
Dudley Henriques

[jack595]

In article <mb1bn7$cqt$1...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...

Before you get jollies and....


Well, before you get piled upon... its really the other way around. The Su-30
and 35 don't hold much chance against an F-35. It has inferior sensors, stealth,
comms, ECM and likely transonic performance (where the flight regime most A2A
actually occurs.) The Sukhoi has significantly poorer air to ground... the
weapons it could carry are markedly inferior to western systems like the JDAM,
JSOW, AGM-130 ect.

The Russians are actually significantly behind the United States in fighter
technology... simply by virtue of an economic collapse and the paucity of
funding given to aircraft development. By comparison the US has developed and in
the process of fielding not one, but two 5th Gen fighters, as well as a series
of new generation stealthy UCAVs (X-47B).

[walt...@gmail.com]

The real problem is experience and currency. When I could fly ACM 3 times a week I didn't have to think about maneuvering I just reacted to the situation as it developed. Anybody just flying enough to maintain "currency" as cited in regulations was easy meat. Once a week is okay for that but not for competition. Once a month isn't enough for a clear day hop around the pattern.
So,Ivan, how many sorties do y'all get a month?

[Daryl]

On 2/6/2015 1:15 PM, jack595 wrote:
> In article <mb1bn7$cqt$1...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...
>>
>> <http://russia-insider.com/en/military/2014/11/04/02-05-14pm/latest_russian_fighter_jet_blows_americas_away>
>>
>> The Latest Russian Fighter Jet Blows America's Away
>> Outgunned by the Su-30 family of aircraft and suffering critical design flaws,

>> the American F-35 is staring down the barrel of obsolescence – and punching a

>> gaping hole in western air defences.
>> This article <http://is.gd/OCUMiS> is an excellent read to understand how
>> Russia's technological level is best in its class in many military sectors,
>> especially with regard to fighter jets. It originally appeared in Russia &
>> India Report. The SU-30 continues to be the number one choice among global
>> buyers. ..
>>

>> Winslow T. Wheeler, Director of the US’ Straus Military Reform Project, Centre
>> for Defense information, agrees. “The F-35 is too heavy and sluggish to be
>> successful as a fighter,†he says. “If we ever face an enemy with a serious
>> air force we will be in deep trouble.â€
>> So far the US has been lucky it has never really encountered a “seriousâ€

>> military. Over the skies of war-weary Iraq, tiny Libya and utterly defenseless
>> Afghanistan, the American aircraft operated with impunity. But luck can run

>> out – if they ever come up against the air forces of Russia, China or India
>> the outcome won’t be so one-sided. In particular, the Indian Air Force has
>> beaten the USAF’s fourth generation fighters using both third and fourth

>> generation jets.
>
>
> Before you get jollies and....
>
>
> Well, before you get piled upon... its really the other way around. The Su-30
> and 35 don't hold much chance against an F-35. It has inferior sensors, stealth,
> comms, ECM and likely transonic performance (where the flight regime most A2A
> actually occurs.) The Sukhoi has significantly poorer air to ground... the
> weapons it could carry are markedly inferior to western systems like the JDAM,
> JSOW, AGM-130 ect.
>
> The Russians are actually significantly behind the United States in fighter
> technology... simply by virtue of an economic collapse and the paucity of
> funding given to aircraft development. By comparison the US has developed and in
> the process of fielding not one, but two 5th Gen fighters, as well as a series
> of new generation stealthy UCAVs (X-47B).
>

One thing the US does in these so called flying contests are placing
restriction on our birds. Even if they lose. When or IF the Russians
actually face them in combat, only then do they get the whole packaged.
Meanwhile, the US has a pretty good idea what their capabilities are
and trains accordingly.


--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Daryl]

On 2/6/2015 4:47 PM, walt...@gmail.com wrote:
> The real problem is experience and currency. When I could fly ACM 3 times a week I didn't have to think about maneuvering I just reacted to the situation as it developed. Anybody just flying enough to maintain "currency" as cited in regulations was easy meat. Once a week is okay for that but not for competition. Once a month isn't enough for a clear day hop around the pattern.
> So,Ivan, how many sorties do y'all get a month?
>

What we get to see is their best. We never get to see their worst.
Meanwhile, we get to see out own across the board. It's like peewee
football. Some only let you see the really good ones play while the
others sit on the bench and others play all players. In the end, the
team that plays everyone (if it sticks together) ends up a better team
with a better win record when the other team is forced to play everyone.

In the case of which is better, the football has missiles, cannons and
soon to be lazers.

[Peter Stickney]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 10:17:32 PM UTC-5, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>> <http://russia-insider.com/en/military/2014/11/04/02-05-14pm/latest_russian_fighter_jet_blows_americas_away>
>>
>> The Latest Russian Fighter Jet Blows America's Away
>> Outgunned by the Su-30 family of aircraft and suffering critical design
>> flaws, the American F-35 is staring down the barrel of obsolescence - and
>> punching a gaping hole in western air defences.
>> This article <http://is.gd/OCUMiS> is an excellent read to understand how
>> Russia's technological level is best in its class in many military
>> sectors,
>> especially with regard to fighter jets. It originally appeared in Russia
>> & India Report. The SU-30 continues to be the number one choice among
>> global buyers. ..
>>
>> Winslow T. Wheeler, Director of the US' Straus Military Reform Project,
>> Centre for Defense information, agrees. "The F-35 is too heavy and
>> sluggish to be successful as a fighter," he says. "If we ever face an
>> enemy with a serious air force we will be in deep trouble."

"It's heavy and sluggish, like a sponge." - ted Stryker, Flight 209,
_Airplane_.

>> So far the US has been lucky it has never really encountered a "serious"
>> military. Over the skies of war-weary Iraq, tiny Libya and utterly
>> defenseless Afghanistan, the American aircraft operated with impunity.
>> But luck can run out - if they ever come up against the air forces of
>> Russia, China or India the outcome won't be so one-sided. In particular,
>> the Indian Air Force has beaten the USAF's fourth generation fighters
>> using both third and fourth generation jets.

Annnd the Russians have encountered a "serious" military _where_, exactly?
Afghanistan, 20th Century Round 2? (Brits fighting the tribesmen was Round
1)
The last time Russians in any number engaged in a serious air war was Korea,
in 1951. They didn't do as well as they claimed.
There were also Russians who were involved in the 1971 War of Attrition
between Egypt and Israel, It didn't work out so well for them, either.
(Losing a MiG-21 to a pair of Fouga Magisters... tsk! tsk!)

We've talked the American/Indian engagements to death. We all know how the
Rules of Engagement were adgered so that they could be any WVR guns-only
combat at all.

>
> There is no doubt that the Sukhoi Design Bureau has put out a very
> impressive airplane with the -30. Dudley Henriques

Don't get me wrong - the Rusians have built some very good stuff. But to
pretend that they somehow have an edge in experiencing modern air warfare,
other than, as used by their clients, allowing McDonnell Douglas to
advertise itself as "The World's Largest Distributer of MiG parts" is, shall
we say, amusing.
--
Pete Stickney
Always remember to close all parentheses.
We're not paying to air-condition the entire paragraph.

[Ike]

A weapons system is comprised of aircraft, offensive/defensive detection
means, guns and missiles, guidance/aiming means, defensive
devices/technologies, pilot training/skill, evolved tactics, and the
infrastructure (systems, people) that keep the aircraft flying and
combat-effective. And we must add to the equation the attitude and
confidence of the pilot, whether in the cockpit or staring at a UAV
control console. It's like a chain - excellence in many of these areas
becomes meaningless if there is one weak link.

As a Marine Corps pilot I'm totally obsolete, but feel confident that
our F/A-18, F-117 (should be A), and F-35 weapon system packages would
stand up against anything from Russia, Sweden, China, or France.

Ike

[walt...@gmail.com]

The stealth designs look promising but the Sukhois from 27 on are flying radar reflectors. Think about that. F4Es could pick up each other at 60+ miles; the SUs are twice as big. As for the Russian IRST, check out the "FA" site to see an expert's appreciation of the MiG 29's kit/. I was surprised at his comments since I was experienced in the Deuce's IRSTS and found it a valuable asset.

[Paul F Austin]

On 2/6/2015 3:15 PM, jack595 wrote:
> In article <mb1bn7$cqt$1...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...
>>
>> <http://russia-insider.com/en/military/2014/11/04/02-05-14pm/latest_russian_fighter_jet_blows_americas_away>
>>
>> The Latest Russian Fighter Jet Blows America's Away
>> Outgunned by the Su-30 family of aircraft and suffering critical design flaws,

>> the American F-35 is staring down the barrel of obsolescence – and punching a

>> gaping hole in western air defences.
>> This article <http://is.gd/OCUMiS> is an excellent read to understand how
>> Russia's technological level is best in its class in many military sectors,
>> especially with regard to fighter jets. It originally appeared in Russia &
>> India Report. The SU-30 continues to be the number one choice among global
>> buyers. ..
>>

>> Winslow T. Wheeler, Director of the US’ Straus Military Reform Project, Centre
>> for Defense information, agrees. “The F-35 is too heavy and sluggish to be

>> successful as a fighter,†he says. “If we ever face an enemy with a serious
>> air force we will be in deep trouble.â€
>> So far the US has been lucky it has never really encountered a “seriousâ€

>> military. Over the skies of war-weary Iraq, tiny Libya and utterly defenseless
>> Afghanistan, the American aircraft operated with impunity. But luck can run

>> out – if they ever come up against the air forces of Russia, China or India
>> the outcome won’t be so one-sided. In particular, the Indian Air Force has
>> beaten the USAF’s fourth generation fighters using both third and fourth

>> generation jets.
>
>
> Before you get jollies and....
>
>
> Well, before you get piled upon... its really the other way around. The Su-30
> and 35 don't hold much chance against an F-35. It has inferior sensors, stealth,
> comms, ECM and likely transonic performance (where the flight regime most A2A
> actually occurs.) The Sukhoi has significantly poorer air to ground... the
> weapons it could carry are markedly inferior to western systems like the JDAM,
> JSOW, AGM-130 ect.
>
> The Russians are actually significantly behind the United States in fighter
> technology... simply by virtue of an economic collapse and the paucity of
> funding given to aircraft development. By comparison the US has developed and in
> the process of fielding not one, but two 5th Gen fighters, as well as a series
> of new generation stealthy UCAVs (X-47B).
>

Don't forget engine life. India has been 'way less than impressed by the
service life of Russian engines. The term "nickel rocket" comes to mind.

Paul

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://kret.com/en/news/3668/>

The new generation of corvettes are in the St. Petersburg shipyard

27 Feb 2015

Electronic warfare systems and stealth technology will make the ship
"invisible" to the enemy

The new generation of corvette, part of Project 20386 for Russian Navy, will
be finished in either late 2015 or early 2016 in St. Petersburg, according to
TASS, citing a source in the defense industry. Modern electronic warfare
systems and stealth technology will make the corvette invisible to the enemy.

The design of the new corvette will combine basic configuration elements and
removable combat units that will significantly expand the range of tasks it
can perform.

The corvette will include an onboard helicopter; the possibility of equipping
it with drones is also being explored. In addition, the ship will have the
latest domestic avionics and electronic weapons systems, which have no
equivalents in the world.

It is expected that this will increase by many times the effectiveness of
monitoring water surface, air and underwater conditions and will facilitate
new possibilities for conducting electronic warfare, despite the fact that the
corvette will be manufactured using stealth technology that makes it invisible
to the enemy.

A number of new systems, including avionics and electronic weapons, will be
installed on the two corvettes Retivyi and Strogii (Project 20380), which were
moved to St. Petersburg's Northern Shipyard on February 20, 2015.

Today, such electronic warfare systems are installed on all Russian surface
ships. They have proven to be effective and practical more than once.

Russia's leading organization for developing electronic warfare systems for
the Navy's surface ships is Taganrog Research Institute of Telecommunications,
which is part of KRET.

Equipment developed by the KRET enterprise can be found on all the large
surface ships of the Russian Navy, including the Moskva missile cruiser
(Project 1164), Peter the Great heavy nuclear missile cruiser (Project 1144),
and the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft carrier (Project 11435).

[jack595]

In article <md7bos$v29$1...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...

Are these the buckets you talked about? Doesn't look like 2015 or even 2016,
especially given the fine Russian workmanship and their on-time delivery of
materials.

http://7fbtk.blogspot.com/2014/10/xlt-project-20386-corvette-and-uavs.html

[jonathan]

According to Wiki they're really frigates, and although Russia
claims they intend to build 30, between 2007 and 2018 they're
projected to have a total of 8, roughly one a year. And they're
still decommissioning the old ships faster then they're
building new ones, and the new ships are much smaller.

So the Russian navy will continue getting smaller in number
and size for a decade or more. Provided they can maintain
current military spending, which is highly doubtful.

While the US is building roughly 2 Arleigh Burkes, 4 LCS's
and two nuclear subs a year.

And you're right about Russian military procurement problems, I
bet it's a nightmare. The old Soviet military contractors are
still in business, but operating at a fraction of capacity
so the inefficiency is overwhelming. Not to mention still
mired in Soviet era technology and a massive brain drain
where all the best and brightest have been fleeing Russia
in droves.

For instance, China has more of the latest Russian
tanks and jets than Russia does. Russia can't afford
many of them, or even afford to decommission their
old subs.




s

[jack595]

In article <md7fg...@drn.newsguy.com>, jack595 says...

Another thing to remember, those workers work to the norm, that is, they do a
fixed amount of work each day and usually finish that by lunch. Roughly half to
a third of what a Western worker would do.

[Paul F Austin]

On the other hand, I've seen bits and pieces about China and Russia
inserting Western commercial integrated circuits developed for e.g.,
cell phone use allows implementation of DRFM that generate
countermeasure techniques that the West can't match or overcome. There's
been a "holiday" in electronic countermeasures since, well, 9/11

Paul

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://sputniknews.com/military/20150304/1019042643.html>

Russian Military Unveils Revolutionary Electronic Warfare System

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE 15:31 04.03.2015 (updated 15:37 04.03.2015)

Russia's new Richag-AV radar and sonar jamming system can be mounted on
helicopters, ships and other military equipment to jam potential adversaries'
weapons systems from distances of several hundred kilometers away; it has been
hailed by developers as having no analogue anywhere in the world.

At a presentation for journalists in Kazan on Wednesday, Russian
radio-electronics firm Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET) announced
that it is handing over the first batch of a new helicopter-mounted electronic
warfare system known as the 'Richag-AV' to the armed forces.

The Richag-AV system, mounted on the Mi-8MTPR1 (a variant of the Mi-8MTB5-1
helicopter) is said to have no global equivalent. Its electronic
countermeasures system is designed to jam radar, sonar and other detection
systems in the aims of defending aircraft, helicopters, drones, ground and
naval forces against air-to-air and surface-to-air defense systems within a
radius of several hundred kilometers. It can be mounted on units from any
branch of the armed forces, including helicopters and airplanes, as well as
ground and ship-based forces.

The Mi8-MTPR1-based Richag-AV platform, using multi-beam antenna arrays with
DRFM technology, is designed to actively jam and thus 'blind' radar systems in
order to defend against radio-electronic guided weapons systems. In a combat
situation, the system would operate as part of an aviation shock attack group
aimed at breaking through virtually any defense system, blinding everything up
to and including the US MIM-104 'Patriot' anti-aircraft missile system.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta explained that in addition to working as a signal jamming
system, Richag-AV is capable of carrying out radar-based intelligence
gathering, which involves the finding of foreign sources of electromagnetic
radiation. With an onboard database on different types of military
installations, the system is capable of quickly determining the type of
target, thus allowing it to jam it effectively.

Reporters in Kazan were informed that the Russian armed forces received three
Mi-8MTPR-1 helicopters equipped with the Richag-Av on Wednesday, and will
receive a total of 18 such systems by October 2016, at a total cost of 11.5
billion rubles ($186 million).

The system's predecessor, the 'Smalta' jamming system, was developed back in
the 1970s, and featured a 100 km radius; in its own time the system was
considered among the most effective in the world. Alongside the Richag-AV, the
Russian military is presently being equipped with other electronic warfare
systems, including the L-175B Hibini air and 1L269 Krasuha-2 and 1L267
Moskva-1 ground-based electronic warfare systems.

KRET is Russia's largest radio-electronic industrial holding; it was created
in 2009. The company is involved in the development and production of
radio-electronic equipment in the civil and military aviation sphere, as well
as air-based radar systems, electronic warfare systems, and a variety of
precision instrumentation.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://sputniknews.com/military/20150313/1019429096.html>

More Money, More Problems: F-35 Software Overwhelmed With False Alarms

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE 03:24 13.03.2015 (updated 08:53 13.03.2015)

New problems - namely, false alarms from overly sensitive threat-detecting
sensors - have arisen with the beleaguered F-35 aircraft, so far the most
expensive, and problem-ridden, piece of military equipment in US history.
The sensors on the fighter that are supposed to detect threats - like incoming
missiles - often don't know what they're detecting and are returning a high
rate of false alarms, Breaking Defense reports. In addition, it is proving
difficult to integrate the "threat" data into the fighter's onboard software.

In order to make the alerts more accurate, the plane's system will require
highly complex sets of files - called a "threat library" - which then must be
incorporated into the onboard system. Creating that "library" requires
coordination of data from all across the military's intelligence community, a
highly complex operation in itself.

The 2014 annual report by the director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Dr.
J. Michael Gilmore concluded that, despite improvements to the software,
"fusion of information from own-ship sensors, as well as fusion of information
from off-board sensors is still deficient. The Distributed Aperture System
continues to exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks, and poor
stability performance, even in later versions of software."

Thomas Lawhead, a civilian involved in integrating the F-35 for the Air Force,
agreed that the fighter's warning system "is still a little too sensitive,"
and that the threat information probably won't be ready until just before the
planes are scheduled to become operational.

There are different versions of the fighter being developed and the one
scheduled to be operational first is the Marine's F-35B which is slated to
debut in the summer of 2015. The Navy's is currently expected in 2018, if all
goes well.

"Flying Swiss Army Knife" to Cost $1 Trillion

But if history is any guide, there's plenty of reason to believe all will not
go well. Since the program to develop the fighter jet began in 2001, it has
seen costs soar even as deadlines are pushed back repeatedly. Senator John
McCain (R-AZ) - hardly known as an outspoken critic of the military - called
the program "one of the great national scandals that we have ever had, as far
as the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars are concerned."

The program has already nearly doubled its original budget to $400 billion
dollars in spending - making it the most expensive plane in history. And that
doesn't take into account the $5 billion or so the military has spent to
extend the existing fleets this plane was supposed to replace or the $650
billion or so in maintenance costs the Government Accountability Office has
estimated will be necessary, which would bring the total cost to well over $1
trillion dollars over the next few decades.

Many attribute the difficulties of the program with the overzealous demands
from all branches of the military to incorporate features to suit their
particular needs all in one plane, with some calling it the Flying Swiss Army
Knife. The F-35 is supposed to be a bomber, a fighter, and capable of
performing ground support, but some of those capabilities have contradictory
needs. Add to it a load of highly complex computer systems and by trying to
please everyone, it may end up performing for no one.

In 2008 the RAND corporation - a think tank that works closely with the US
military - reported on a series of war simulations involving the F-35 and
their analysis was leaked to the press with its pessimistic conclusions.
"Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn
capability," the analysts wrote. "Also has lower top speed. Can't turn, can't
climb, can't run."

Just recently, another software related error was announced, which means that
the fighter won't be able to fire its primary guns until 2019. It will also
not have the necessary software to operate one of its precision guided bombs
until 2022.

There's also been a lot of concern over the possibility that this supposed
state-of-the-art stealth fighter - supposedly designed to evade detection
through its size and special coatings - isn't actually very stealthy. Reports
in 2014 indicated that the F-35 might actually be vulnerable to Chinese and
Russian advances in radar technology.

The planes were also rushed into production before design was even completed,
meaning the military has spent billions of fixing already produced aircraft
that were faulty.

"This will make a headline if I say it, but I'm going to say it anyway," Frank
Kendall, a top Pentagon official, said in 2012. "Putting the F-35 into
production years before the first test flight was acquisition malpractice. It
should not have been done."

> <http://russia-insider.com/en/military/2014/11/04/02-05-14pm/latest_russian_fighter_jet_blows_americas_away>
> The Latest Russian Fighter Jet Blows America's Away
> Outgunned by the Su-30 family of aircraft and suffering critical design

> flaws, the American F-35 is staring down the barrel of obsolescence - and

[Daryl]

sputniknews is solely owned by the Russian Government. The real owner
is Rossiya Segodnya which is a division of the Russian Government. It
was launched in 2014 by a special presidential (Putin) decree.
Misinformation is a wonderful thing.

Now that India has let us know that the PKA-50 Russian Stealth Fighter
is slow, can't turn, weapons aren't working so well, it may look like
it's stealthy but it's still a 4.5 gen fighter, the engines are crap,
the radar is strictly from the 80s, and more. And the Indians are
telling Russia to get it finished or they take their billions elsewhere.
And guess where those billions end up going.

[Richard Brooks]

Daryl wrote on 13/03/2015 08:50:
> sputniknews is solely owned by the Russian Government. The real owner
> is Rossiya Segodnya which is a division of the Russian Government.
> It was launched in 2014 by a special presidential (Putin) decree.
> Misinformation is a wonderful thing.
>
> Now that India has let us know that the PKA-50 Russian Stealth Fighter
> is slow, can't turn, weapons aren't working so well, it may look like
> it's stealthy but it's still a 4.5 gen fighter, the engines are crap,
> the radar is strictly from the 80s, and more. And the Indians are
> telling Russia to get it finished or they take their billions
> elsewhere. And guess where those billions end up going.

Don't forget that the F-35 is good for Thanksgiving only.

"According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a
turkey"

<http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468>

[Jim Wilkins]

"Richard Brooks" <richard...@vickers-armstrongs.co.uk> wrote in
message news:mduqtq$dca$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Sprey dismisses all multi-mission fighters and advanced electronics.
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21483

[David E. Powell]

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 4:50:06 AM UTC-4, Daryl wrote:
> sputniknews is solely owned by the Russian Government. The real owner
> is Rossiya Segodnya which is a division of the Russian Government. It
> was launched in 2014 by a special presidential (Putin) decree.
> Misinformation is a wonderful thing.
>
> Now that India has let us know that the PKA-50 Russian Stealth Fighter
> is slow, can't turn, weapons aren't working so well, it may look like
> it's stealthy but it's still a 4.5 gen fighter, the engines are crap,
> the radar is strictly from the 80s, and more. And the Indians are
> telling Russia to get it finished or they take their billions elsewhere.
> And guess where those billions end up going.

The PAK-50 may not be as advanced as some other aircraft, but the Russians just need to get it produced and flying in numbers.

We need to get ourselves set on aviation in the west, coherently. Set the bean counters aside, ramp up a bit. We have existing types that can do that. F-35 will have to be fixed. I wonder how quickly F-22 production could be restarted? The Russians and Chinese seem to have fixed objectives and a commitment to them in resources. We can match or exceed them, but it starts with the will at the top. It may be a very long two years.

As for India, they are growing closer with the west due to trade and other factors. (Cultural, etc.) There is a golden opportunity to give India other options. Maybe Rafale will start looking pretty good to them, after all. Especially because their Air Force and Navy could both go with the Rafale and have common supply and maintenance benefits.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-loses-sight-of-500-million-in-counterterrorism-aid-given-to-yemen/2015/03/17/f4ca25ce-cbf9-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html>

The Pentagon is unable to account for more than $500 million in U.S. military
aid given to Yemen, amid fears that the weaponry, aircraft and equipment is at
risk of being seized by Iranian-backed rebels or al-Qaeda ..

...

Question to Jack about English.

Whether such a phrasing is hinted that al-Qaeda is or may be Iranian-backed?

[jack595]

In article <mei8jg$82e$1...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...

AlQaeda is Sunni, Iran is Sunni, apparently all of the radical groups are Sunni,
whether that is because Iran is backing them or the way they are set up.

[kirk....@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 6:38:51 PM UTC-5, jack595 wrote:

> AlQaeda is Sunni, Iran is Sunni, apparently all of the radical groups are Sunni,
> whether that is because Iran is backing them or the way they are set up.

Iran is Shia, NOT Sunni.

That's why they are helping the Shia Iraqi militials take on the Sunni Islamic State.

Kirk

[Oleg Smirnov]

jack595, <news:meib1...@drn.newsguy.com>

Iran is heavily Shia, the radical Sunnis consider Shiites
sort of pagans, but my question is strictly about language.
There is the phrasing "seized by Iranian-backed rebels or
al-Qaeda". Does it imply "Iranian-backed" adjective refers
only to first noun of to both?

[Robert D. Arndt Jr]

This entire thread is pure fantasy mixed with delusion. The US is fighting ISIS with old, outdated F-15s, F-16s, carrier F/A-18s, and a few bombers like the old B-1. There US still is dependent on Predators and Reapers and Global Hawk and they all are ineffective. The F-117 is retired, the F-22 halted production at 120 units at astronomical $309 millon each and the USAF got its ass kicked again by Luftwaffe Typhoons just as their detuned inherited MiG-29s beat the USAF, USN, and USMC aircraft in past joint exercises!!! The F-35 isn't even operational and is plagued by cost overruns, electrical and mechanical problems (pretty dangerous for a transitional flight combat aircraft) that can't hope to maneuver like any of the Sukhoi family of fighters or the MiG-35C. MiG is back in business with the MiG-41 Foxhunter, a Mach 4.3 interceptor based on the Foxhound but larger with advanced radars, hyoersonic missiles, and made of new materials at a fraction of cost of both the F-22 and F-35. Meanwhile, the Flankers and Su-32 Fullbacks saw action in Georgia in 2008. Where was the US to back Georgia or today to back Ukraine? Nowhere!!! Talk is cheap. The Flankers have superior radars, aerodynamics, IRST and new EO visual ID systems, swinging pylons, the ability to carry the full arsenal of the VVS, and can do maneuvers no US nor European combat aircraft can (but at least the Eurocanards are more agile than US combat fighters). Fifth Gen my ass. Raptor is a 4.5 and only debuted recently to fight ISIS. Is it a success firing at ground targets in rubble? No, just like in th Balkans whete NATO lied about armor kills to which the Serbs pulled out hundreds of AFVs, MBTs, and artillery in front of the press and military journalists that counted them! The Chinese stole classified info from the US for the Chengdu J-20 and its carrier. They hack in the open and commit corporate espionage, so does N Korea. What does the US do? Nothing!!! Try facing real enemies with sophisticated hardware. Try going through the Russian ADN with anti-stealth radars and missiles. Face S-300s and 400s. America is weak and now is losing all across the globe. Russia AND China even developed anti-carrier missiles!!! You flag-waving morons haven't a clue. And even the Germans are working on more lethal weapons. Rheimetall has operational laser flak in 50-100 Kw range for static defense, or mounts for all its armored families including the Leo IIA7 (world's best tank and Puma, world's best IFV). German engineering means biomimicry for hostile entomopters that will be able to carry explosives and bio agents in swarms of thousands. How can you shoot down an armed craft the size of a large shoe? Then there are swarmers, KKVs, palletized cruise missiles dropped by transport aircraft, autonomous combat robots, IDZ Supersoldier tech, Rheinmetall plasma guns, new HK-121, the Matador, Type 212 U-boat with mast-mounted anti-helo and AA weapons,etc... the US Army has no new weapons for its troops and those in development are delayed by fiscal mismanagement and disaster. Oh. Obama wants to also cut the A-10, tankers, and some of the F-15 inventory! You people really should keep up.

Rob

[Martin Gallagher]

Oleg Smirnov wrote:

> There is the phrasing "seized by Iranian-backed rebels or
> al-Qaeda". Does it imply "Iranian-backed" adjective refers
> only to first noun of to both?

Only to the first.

[Peter Stickney]

Robert D. Arndt Jr wrote:

<Snip - the Rootin Teuton returns >


_This_ is going to be fun!
Oleg, meet Robert.
Robert, meet Oleg.
Oleg - You've met jonathan, noe be preparted to be amazed, astounded, and
confused at the vast panolpy provided by our Freedom of Speech -

[Dean Markley]

Someone should warn Oleg that Mr. Arndt is a nazi-apologist. And someone should warn Rob that Oleg is a communist.

[kirk....@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 9:12:00 AM UTC-5, Dean Markley wrote:

> Someone should warn Oleg that Mr. Arndt is a nazi-apologist. And someone should warn Rob that Oleg is a communist.

Why spoil the fun!

Kirk

[Dean Markley]

Good point!

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://russia-insider.com/en/us-has-spy-place-buzz-russia-defences-screams-hysterically-when-intercepted-russian-fighter/5575>

US Has Spy Plane Buzz Russia Defences, Screams Hysterically When Intercepted
by Russian Fighter

Screamers: Usually US is screaming hysterically when Russia conducts such
flights

(Russia Beyond the Headlines) MILITARY Mon, Apr 13

This article originally appeared at Russia Beyond the Headlines
<http://bit.ly/1ynAklh>

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov has dismissed
the U.S.' allegations that a Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter flew dangerously
close to a U.S. RC-135U reconnaissance aircraft over the Baltic Sea while
intercepting it on April 7.

"No incidents occurred during the intercept of the U.S. reconnaissance plane,"
Konashenkov told Interfax on Saturday.

"The U.S. Air Force's RC-135U flew near Russian borders with its transponder
switched off - the matter that our NATO partners have lately been so much
concerned about," he said.

"As for judgments about professionalism of our pilots, this is exclusively
within the Russian command's purview," Konashenkov said.

"And besides, U.S. reconnaissance aircraft can fly 'routine' routes only near
the U.S. borders," he said.

Pentagon spokesperson Eileen Lainez said earlier in an interview with the
Washington Free Beacon: "On the morning of April 7th, a U.S. RC-135U flying a
routine route in international airspace was intercepted by a Russian Su-27
Flanker in an unsafe and unprofessional manner."

Konashenkov said in commenting on this report that, "At 1:18 p.m. Moscow time
on April 7, 2015, air defense forces on duty detected an unidentified aerial
target over the Baltic Sea, which was confidently moving toward the Russian
state border."

"A Su-27 fighter on duty was scrambled, approached the unidentified aircraft,
flew around it several times, identified it as an RC-135U reconnaissance
aircraft belonging to the U.S. Air Force and read its side number, and
reported it to the command. After having been intercepted by the Russian
fighter, the U.S. Air Force aircraft changed its course and moved away from
the Russian border," Konashenkov said.

This article originally appeared at Russia Beyond the Headlines
<http://is.gd/2NGN7b>

Russian military planes fly over the Baltic Sea in compliance with
international regulations, and the West should "stop being hysterical" about
these flights, says Russian Federation Council international affairs committee
head Konstantin Kosachyov.

In commenting on reports that the U.S. was outraged by the fact that a Russian
Sukhoi Su-27 fighter recently intercepted a U.S. RC-135U reconnaissance
aircraft over the Baltic Sea in what it described as an unsafe manner,
Kosachyov pointed out that the U.S. is not a Baltic country.

"In connection with this incident, one important detail should be remembered:
Russia is a Baltic country, while the U.S. is not. And if we hear that the
matter is about international airspace, the answer is: then stop being
hysterical about similar Russian flights, describing them as aggression and
demonizing Russia," he said.

[walt...@gmail.com]

As few hours as most Russian pilots get, I'd be nervous too if he tried to snuggle up to me. Yeah, the demo pilots are sharp (mostly, barring collisions) but the average guy is behind the bird. Like my first flight in an F4E after 4 years flying a desk. Formation was no problem, my instrument check was hopeless and I was about 100 yards behind the bird turning final. But the second ride was okay and 20 hours in the sim in 5 days, 9 to midnight, brought me back on the gauges. I was 45 at the time and logged another 1000 hours in the F4E in the 3 1/2 years before I retired. Front seat, backseat RTU IP, and flight test. How much time did your pilots average in 1978-1980 time span, Oleg? How much night and weather do they get now?

[Peter Stickney]

Interesting little fact - between 1994 and 2000, the highest time and most
current Mi-24 gunship pilots were at Ft. Polk, Louisiana, USA.
They were flying Hinds for OPFOR training, showing Russian/Socit
capabilities and tactics to U.S. and allied troops.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/u_s_troops_have_stolen_tens_of_millions_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_center_for.html>

The Fraud of War
U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have stolen tens of millions through
bribery, theft, and rigged contracts.

By Julia Harte

U.S. Army Specialist Stephanie Charboneau sat at the center of a complex
trucking network in Forward Operating Base Fenty near the Afghanistan-Pakistan
border that distributed daily tens of thousands of gallons of what troops
called "liquid gold": the refined petroleum that fueled the international
coalition's vehicles, planes, and generators. ..

As of February, he said he had 327 active investigations still under way,
involving 31 members of the military. "You don't appreciate how much money is
being stolen in Afghanistan until you go over there," said Sopko, who says
price-fixing and other forms of financial corruption are rampant in
Afghanistan. ..

...

To me, it's hard to believe that the American military has no links to the
well-known Afghanistan's opium business which production volumes were greatly
increased during the American occupation of the country.

[Byker]

"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message news:mil7vq$1td$1...@os.motzarella.org...

>
> U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have stolen tens of millions through
> bribery, theft, and rigged contracts.

As if the Soviets left Afghan coffers untouched...

[Kerryn Offord]

But the US soldiers are stealing big time from the US ...

It has nothing to do with Afghan coffers

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/har-skrams-homofobiska-ryska-ubatskaptener-bort-med-neonskylt-pa-havets-botten>

The fight against Russian submarines's running in the Stockholm archipelago.
The Singing Sailor is a defense system consisting .. of a flashing neon
sign saying "Welcome to Sweden. We are Gay since 1944 " .. The sign also
sends out the message "This way if you are gay" in Morse code. It's believed
it should scare the homophobic Russian submarine captains. ..

...

Funny guys / gays indeed.

[jack595]

In article <miqm9d$8eo$1...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...

You have obviously never served on a submarine

[Keith Willshaw]

On 11/05/2015 17:43, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> <http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/har-skrams-homofobiska-ryska-ubatskaptener-bort-med-neonskylt-pa-havets-botten>
>
>
> The fight against Russian submarines's running in the Stockholm
> archipelago.
> The Singing Sailor is a defense system consisting .. of a flashing neon
> sign saying "Welcome to Sweden. We are Gay since 1944 " .. The sign also
> sends out the message "This way if you are gay" in Morse code. It's
> believed
> it should scare the homophobic Russian submarine captains. ..
>
> ...

Given the number of Russian submarines spotted in Swedish waters it
appears more likley to be that the women who serve on ships in the
Swedish navy are an irresistible attraction for the poor repressed
Russian sailor boys.


Keith

[Byker]

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message news:mip7q3$834$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> But the US soldiers are stealing big time from the US ...

Watch out, Oleg might demand that you give N.Z. back to the Maoris...

[george152]

:)

[Oleg Smirnov]

Keith Willshaw, <news:mithb0$f5t$1...@dont-email.me>

I'd rather suggest those sweet and pretty Swedish
gays have some interest to brutal Russian submariners,
so they have erected the sign for sly luring.

[Oleg Smirnov]

It would be similar to demanding the Americans / Canadians
to vacate the territory of North America. Afaik NZ tried to
settle its main issues with the Maoris at about the same time
when the Americans created the issues: staged the coup and
occupied Hawaii. It was after there was already established
independent statehood in Hawaii, recognized by major world
powers, including America itself.

Byker, <news:iaqdndZfBfqUGc_I...@earthlink.com>

> "Kerryn Offord" wrote in message

[Andrew Swallow]

Old stories broadcast by the Russian RT TV channel

Last year
'Is Alaska going to be returned to Russia?'
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hK4NEZqRtM>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hK4NEZqRtM

3 weeks ago
'Hawaiians Block Construction of Massive Mauna Kea Telescope'
Listen to the reasons
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3r4MRim9k>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3r4MRim9k

So someone is fermenting trouble. (In Britain the trade unions were used
to bring about the overthrow of capitalism by fermenting trouble in big
companies.)

Andrew Swallow

[dottor Piergiorgio M. d' Errico]

well, IMHO Maoris wasn't cheated; the british blood versed in conquering
New Zealand was a very dearly price for "the other Boot" as we Italians
tend to call NZ ;)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[george152]

Now I just wonder which country would be trying to ferment dissent and
trouble in other countries to take heat off its internal problems ?

[george152]

On 14/05/2015 1:21 a.m., dottor Piergiorgio M. d' Errico wrote:


> well, IMHO Maoris wasn't cheated; the british blood versed in conquering
> New Zealand was a very dearly price for "the other Boot" as we Italians
> tend to call NZ ;)

Thanks.
You have it pretty much summed up.
There are always stirrers.

[Oleg Smirnov]

george152, <news:C7adnfTeXrYSLM7I...@giganews.com>

> On 13/05/2015 8:00 p.m., Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 13/05/2015 07:22, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

>>> It would be similar to demanding the Americans /
>>> Canadians to vacate the territory of North America.
>>> Afaik NZ tried to settle its main issues with the
>>> Maoris at about the same time when the Americans
>>> created the issues: staged the coup and occupied
>>> Hawaii. It was after there was already established
>>> independent statehood in Hawaii, recognized by major
>>> world powers, including America itself.

>> Old stories broadcast by the Russian RT TV channel
>>
>> Last year
>> 'Is Alaska going to be returned to Russia?'
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hK4NEZqRtM>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hK4NEZqRtM
>>
>> 3 weeks ago
>> 'Hawaiians Block Construction of Massive Mauna Kea
>> Telescope'
>> Listen to the reasons
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3r4MRim9k>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3r4MRim9k
>>
>> So someone is fermenting trouble. (In Britain the trade
>> unions were used to bring about the overthrow of
>> capitalism by fermenting trouble in big companies.)
>
> Now I just wonder which country would be trying to
> ferment dissent and trouble in other countries to take
> heat off its internal problems ?

The US is doing that against Russia for a long time.

[Byker]

"george152" wrote in message
news:C7adnfTeXrYSLM7I...@giganews.com...

>
> Now I just wonder which country would be trying to ferment dissent and
> trouble in other countries to take heat off its internal problems ?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=85c_1431292725

[george152]

And Russia is as pure as the driven snow...
You know by now that you cant bullshit us so why do you bother trying

[Oleg Smirnov]

george152,
<news:rsidnZVJhb6xXM7I...@giganews.com>

Statement of the fact that the Hawaii islands
are under continuing illegal occupation is just
a statement of fact.

[Dean Markley]

And how about those portions of Georgia that Russia occupies? Hmmm?

[Bert]

In news:4IGdnaNEAc8Zmc7I...@giganews.com Andrew Swallow

<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> So someone is fermenting trouble.

Fomenting.

Unless "trouble" is the name of some new trendy craft beer.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Andrew Swallow]

On 14/05/2015 14:51, Bert wrote:
> In news:4IGdnaNEAc8Zmc7I...@giganews.com Andrew Swallow
> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> So someone is fermenting trouble.
>
> Fomenting.
>
> Unless "trouble" is the name of some new trendy craft beer.
>

Cheers

[Dean Markley]

Well, yeah, it is:

http://troublebrewing.ie/

[Jim Wilkins]

"Dean Markley" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2423a4c-7238-4535...@googlegroups.com...

Why won't you admit that your occupation of Karelia and the Kuriles is
illegal?

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/submarine-almost-capsizes-uk-trawler-without-proof-ny-times-blames-russia/ri6710>

Submarine Almost Capsizes UK Trawler. Without Proof, NY Times Blames Russia

a.. Another classic submission from the supremely Russophobic New York Times
b.. Stories about suspected Russian submarines are a new trend among Western
press to keep up the scaremongering

RI Staff

Russian submarines are popping up everywhere according to Western media. They
were suspected to be in waters off the coast of Sweden, then Finland, and now
Northern Ireland, but not once have they actually been seen or photographed.

The NY Times lists all those 'incidents' and puts it down to Moscow's
increasing assertiveness, but conveniently forgets to mention that the
'submarine' off Swedish coast tuned out to be nothing more than a workboat
<http://bit.ly/1EHQeED>.

And now the Times keeps banging the drum with a ridiculous piece telling its
gullible readers that it was obviously a Russian sub which got caught in the
nets of a UK trawler.

With a straight face, the article bases this conclusion on assertions from the
notoriously credible NATO navies that it wasn't them, and the fact that if it
had been a NATO sub, it would have surfaced and apologized, in accordance with
maritime law. It never seems to occur to the Times that a NATO sub might have
it's own reasons for not wanting to do that.

Sure it could have been a Russian sub, or a NATO one, and an even-handed
account would have explored the liklihood of either case. But this is the
Times we are talking about, which seems hell-bent on warmongering against
Russia.

Here at RI we are delighted that they carry on in this moronic fashion. It
gives us priceless material.

The New York Times <http://nyti.ms/1Hg1uLs> reports from the scene.

ARDGLASS, Northern Ireland - After a day of fishing in the Irish Sea, Paul
Murphy was about to head for home when his trawler, the Karen, suddenly
shuddered to a halt.

A loud bang gave way to the sound of cables tensing. But when the Karen
started moving again, it was being dragged backward, fast and at an angle.

"It was like the scene out of 'Jaws' when the boat took off - do you
remember, the shark took the boat away?" said Mr. Murphy, the skipper,
pointing to an electronic trace of the Karen's unnatural, disjointed path
that afternoon last month.

"But multiply it by 100," he said. "It was just a bigger event."

An 80-ton trawler that normally catches prawn in its nets, the Karen this
time seemed to have ensnared a submarine. And, with the British Navy and
NATO <http://nyti.ms/1Fn6IaL> both denying involvement, suspicion has
fallen on Russia <http://nyti.ms/1IB0Qvp>, which since the conflict in
Ukraine has been testing the response times of the alliance in the air and
at sea.

The episode, which nearly capsized the Karen, was the second of its kind in
a month off the coast of Britain <http://nyti.ms/1A3F1S7>, and comes at a
tense time in relations between London and Moscow.

In recent months, Britain has scrambled fighter jets several times to escort
Russian bombers around its airspace. After one incident in February, Prime
Minister David Cameron said he suspected "that the Russians are trying to
make some sort of a point."

The Karen's close call coincided with a NATO exercise off the British coast
called Joint Warrior. By coincidence or design, it also happened while the
British Navy was distracted by the appearance of a Russian destroyer and two
support ships in the English Channel.

The growing catalog of similar incidents <http://nyti.ms/1Hg1A5H> - off
Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Baltic States - has raised questions about
Moscow's more assertive stance, and about the ability of Britain and other
NATO countries to defend their skies and waters.

That uncertainty recalls an earlier age of Cold War intrigue, one that set
Swedes on edge last year when a vessel suspected to be a Russian submarine
was spotted off the Swedish coast. In an apparent echo, Finland's Navy
dropped depth charges last month in waters near Helsinki as a warning to a
suspected submarine.

In December, the Norwegian military said one of its warplanes had a near
miss with a Russian fighter, and in November the European Leadership
Network, a research institute that specializes in security issues, detailed
almost 40 incidents <http://bit.ly/11cnPdd> in the preceding eight months
involving Russian and Western militaries, many of which were in Europe.

At the time of the accident, the Karen was in international waters, halfway
between the coast of Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote in message
news:mj2sbm$iv8$1...@os.motzarella.org...

> <http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/submarine-almost-capsizes-uk-trawler-without-proof-ny-times-blames-russia/ri6710>
>
> Submarine Almost Capsizes UK Trawler. Without Proof, NY Times Blames
> Russia
>

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/04/two-russian-nuclear-bombers-intruded-into-alaska-airspace-report.html

"Some analysts see the flights of Russian military aircraft into air
defense zones as mere saber rattling by Moscow, which has raised
international tensions in recent years with a steady stream of
anti-U.S. rhetoric and its annexation of Crimea last year."

[Byker]

"Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message news:mj2sbm$iv8$1...@os.motzarella.org...

>
> a.. Another classic submission from the supremely Russophobic New York
> Times
> b.. Stories about suspected Russian submarines are a new trend among
> Western press to keep up the scaremongering

Gee, now why would they suspect that?

http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/dangerous-brinkmanship-close-military-encounters-between-russia-and-the-west-in-2014_2101.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/world/europe/in-air-and-cyberspace-on-land-and-sea-russia-shows-muscle.html

[Oleg Smirnov]

Jim Wilkins, <news:mj349s$ipu$1...@dont-email.me>

> "Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote in message

>> <http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/submarine-almost-capsizes-uk-trawler-without-proof-ny-times-blames-russia/ri6710>
>>
>> Submarine Almost Capsizes UK Trawler. Without Proof, NY
>> Times Blames Russia
>
> http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/04/two-russian-nuclear-bombers-intruded-into-alaska-airspace-report.html
>
> "Some analysts see the flights of Russian military
> aircraft into air defense zones as mere saber rattling by
> Moscow, which has raised international tensions in recent
> years with a steady stream of anti-U.S. rhetoric and its
> annexation of Crimea last year."

Afaik the Russian military planes don't fly 'into air defense
zones', they are flying in ownerless air space. If there were
violations of some international agreements then there would be
official complaints. Still the claims don't go beyond hysteria
in the mass media.

And, compared to Russian 'anti-US rhetoric', the anti-Russian
fixation of the American politicians and media is far greater
and more hateful/irrational, it rather looks like a psychosis.

[jack595]

In article <mj55tm$5qi$2...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...

If Russian military planes do fly into air defense zone then they are liable for
being shot down? It sounds like a fair game if they are dumb enough to push that
envelope they are certainly open to being shot down.

[Oleg Smirnov]

jack595, <news:mj5a8...@drn.newsguy.com>

> In article <mj55tm$5qi$2...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov

>> Jim Wilkins, <news:mj349s$ipu$1...@dont-email.me>

>>>> <http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/submarine-almost-capsizes-uk-trawler-without-proof-ny-times-blames-russia/ri6710>
>>>>
>>>> Submarine Almost Capsizes UK Trawler. Without Proof, NY
>>>> Times Blames Russia
>>>
>>> http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/04/two-russian-nuclear-bombers-intruded-into-alaska-airspace-report.html
>>>
>>> "Some analysts see the flights of Russian military
>>> aircraft into air defense zones as mere saber rattling
>>> by Moscow, which has raised international tensions in
>>> recent years with a steady stream of anti-U.S. rhetoric
>>> and its annexation of Crimea last year."
>>
>> Afaik the Russian military planes don't fly 'into air
>> defense zones', they are flying in ownerless air space.
>> If there were violations of some international
>> agreements then there would be official complaints.
>> Still the claims don't go beyond hysteria in the mass
>> media.
>>
>> And, compared to Russian 'anti-US rhetoric', the
>> anti-Russian fixation of the American politicians and
>> media is far greater and more hateful/irrational, it
>> rather looks like a psychosis.
>
> If Russian military planes do fly into air defense zone
> then they are liable for being shot down? It sounds like
> a fair game if they are dumb enough to push that envelope
> they are certainly open to being shot down.

Jack is seemingly intoxicated with something again.

[george152]

On 16/05/2015 5:26 a.m., jack595 wrote:

> If Russian military planes do fly into air defense zone then they are liable for
> being shot down? It sounds like a fair game if they are dumb enough to push that
> envelope they are certainly open to being shot down.
>

Not 'if'
Try out some of those new lasers and burn messages into the aircraft skin :)

[Keith Willshaw]

We are not interested n yur erotic fantasies old boy.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

On 15/05/2015 18:35, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> jack595, <news:mj5a8...@drn.newsguy.com>
{snip}

>>
>> If Russian military planes do fly into air defense zone
>> then they are liable for being shot down? It sounds like
>> a fair game if they are dumb enough to push that envelope
>> they are certainly open to being shot down.
>
> Jack is seemingly intoxicated with something again.

If this is Cold War 2 then war rules apply. Military aircraft flying
into enemy airspace get shot down.

Andrew Swallow

[Daryl]

Gives us a real world test of our newly installed Laser guns.


--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Ian B MacLure]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:MpGdnVs4RvI4EcvI...@giganews.com:

And as many may remember the Rooshuns have a long history of
shooting down anything that even nears their borders.

IBM

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Byker]

"Daryl" wrote in message news:mj648r$k7c$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> Gives us a real world test of our newly installed Laser guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBuiPZm6hK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL9_Tldmrhs

[jack595]

In article <MfydnQ3qNPWSasXI...@earthlink.com>, Byker says...

The U2 intercept was a lucky shot, at the extreme range and altitude (65,000
feet) for that system. I don't know what the latest Russian lasers can do but
probably another lucky shot might do it.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://nypost.com/2015/05/14/china-russia-celebrate-the-dawn-of-the-un-american-century/>

Supposedly "isolated" Russia's bromance with China flourishes. .. President
Obama .. argued that under President Vladimir Putin Russia is an isolated
country on the verge of bankruptcy.

That was then. On Tuesday, after months of snubbing the Kremlin, Secretary of
State John Kerry came hat in hand to Sochi, Russia, where he tried to schmooze
Putin and his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov.

The Kremlin signaled its disdain for Washington by declining to confirm
Kerry's meeting with Putin until the last minute. Afterward, Kerry sheepishly
said the sides weren't seeking a "major breakthrough." ..

So who's really isolated here, their aggressive power players, or our hapless
diplomats? .. Our "pivot" remains imaginary. While we lose friends in the
Mideast and Asia, "isolated" Putin gains allies everywhere.

...

Ancle Sam wants you, sheeple.

<http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Aib/ykB/AibykB7i4.png>




> About American support for terrorism.
>
> <http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/15/what-if-putin-is-telling-the-truth/>

[jack595]

In article <mjauln$ra5$1...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...

The man in the medium security prison is telling us "outsiders" that we are
isolated. Yes, Putin has allies in China and North Korea. Other than browbeating
the former "colonies" who else? Georgia, Moldava, the Republic of Eastern
Ukraine?

[george152]

Impressive.

[Andrew Swallow]

Sensors can be blinded almost instantly but the laser can take take a
minute to burn through an aircraft.

[David E. Powell]

I dig that the Destroyer testing that one laser is named the Dewey.

As in "You may fire when ready, Gridley."

It fits.

[Daryl]

From the vids, it would be in less than 5 seconds to blow an AC
Fighter. Less time to take out a bomber.

[Daryl]

David, still waiting for you to log onto militaryvids.com.

[dottor Piergiorgio M. d' Errico]

at these ranges, also the seeing matters:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing

so, current-gen missiles remains the best means of dealing with
high-altitude targets. And I'm sure Fred will concur. Fred ?

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093077/Biden-discusses-Asia-Pacific-region-Navy-graduation.html>

Joe Biden speaks at U.S. Naval Academy graduation - and puts sailors to sleep

...

American new secret hypnotic weapon?

(humor)

[Jim Wilkins]

"Oleg Smirnov" <ve...@gde.ru> wrote in message

news:mjsf6k$b1t$1...@os.motzarella.org...

Leftists are losers worldwide.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://thesaker.is/saker-interview-with-ramzes-a-spetsnaz-gru-officer/>

Saker interview with "Ramzes" - a Spetsnaz GRU officer

May 29, 2015

.. American readers need not to worry, no GRU Spetsnaz will be popping up in
front of the White House or on Wall Street anytime soon, wearing telnyashkas
and sporting prison tattoos with big beards etc. These Hollywood stereotypes
do not reflect a true active GRU Spetsnaz soldier, so don't believe the scripts.
You will never know we are there. ..

...

[Daryl]

On 6/2/2015 1:41 AM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> <http://thesaker.is/saker-interview-with-ramzes-a-spetsnaz-gru-officer/>
>
> Saker interview with "Ramzes" - a Spetsnaz GRU officer
>
> May 29, 2015
>
> .. American readers need not to worry, no GRU Spetsnaz will be popping
> up in
> front of the White House or on Wall Street anytime soon, wearing
> telnyashkas
> and sporting prison tattoos with big beards etc. These Hollywood
> stereotypes
> do not reflect a true active GRU Spetsnaz soldier, so don't believe the
> scripts. You will never know we are there. ..
>

Now you done it. There are some nutcases that barely find their way out
from under their beds already. Now they have to check for Spetnz as
well as those that are out to take every right they think they have.

> ...
>
>> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093077/Biden-discusses-Asia-Pacific-region-Navy-graduation.html>
>>
>>
>> Joe Biden speaks at U.S. Naval Academy graduation - and puts sailors
>> to sleep
>

[Dean Markley]

Many of us would not complain if Spetsnaz popped up in either place!

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://tinyurl.com/q9jqp6f> opednews.com

It took China AND Russia together to crack Snowden's NSA file codes

By Jeff J. Brown <http://bit.ly/1MTS9eB>

In reference to the news that the Chinese and Russians cracked the NSA codes to
get into Snowden's files, it is probably true than neither China or Russia could
crack them separately.

Here's what I think happened. China's Ministry of State Security and Russia's
FSB worked on them TOGETHER, to crack the files. Snowden never figured that they
might combine forces, brains and super computers to get the job done.

<http://rt.com/news/267067-british-spies-russia-china/>

Or, if Snowden is right that no one, not even MSS's and FSB's combined
cyberskills can crack the encryption, then this is just another blase, Western
false flag, MSM psyop, to demonize Russia and China, enemies #1 and #1 in
America's ongoing imperial world war, and make no mistake, it is war by any
other name.

If I had to wager between the two, I think Snowden is still right. The West uses
false flags and psyops like an animal breathes air.

...

I tend to believe that's rather a PR move.

[jack595]

In article <mlkd25$kla$2...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...

I would bet a few bucks on an insider in NSA getting payment for what he or she
thought were untraceable concepts. That both China and Russia got results is the
confusing part of the equation. NSA is pretty tight on security but the
occasional turn coat slips through.

[Andrew Swallow]

Snowden probably gave them sufficient clues. He may have used a made up
encryption key variable value rather than a random one.

[jack595]

In article <86qdnQm46sUMTeDI...@giganews.com>, Andrew Swallow
says...

This seems to postdate Snowden, but it might be a trapdoor operation where the
entry leads to an allowed set of data. The security clearances are so
complicated that it would seem impossible to sort out who is cleared for what
from the outside looking in.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875>

Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can't Dogfight

New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

by DAVID AXE

A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The pricey new stealth jet can't turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy
plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy's own gunfire, the pilot
reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. ..

The test pilot's report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems
<http://bit.ly/1OFB9tg> with the design of the F-35 - which, at a total
program cost of more than a trillion dollars <http://bit.ly/1wJSKeC>, is
history's most expensive weapon. ..

And that means that, within a few decades, American and allied aviators will
fly into battle in an inferior fighter ..

The defeated flier's five-page report is a damning litany of aerodynamic
complaints targeting the cumbersome JSF.
"Insufficient pitch rate." "Energy deficit to the bandit would increase over
time." "The flying qualities in the blended region (20-26 degrees AoA) were
not intuitive or favorable." ..

In the end, the F-35 - the only new fighter jet that America and most of its
allies are developing - is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16,
which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s. ..


> <http://russia-insider.com/en/military/2014/11/04/02-05-14pm/latest_russian_fighter_jet_blows_americas_away>
>
> The Latest Russian Fighter Jet Blows America's Away

[jack595]

In article <mp0v2s$q4p$1...@os.motzarella.org>, Oleg Smirnov says...

But

www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-f-22-raptor-costs-200-million-lethal-fighter-jet-2015-7


This $200 million plane is called the 'most lethal fighter aircraft in the
world'

Jul. 24, 2015, 9:52 AM

I recall the Germans knocked the Sherman tank because their Panzers could
destroy it with one well-placed round. We had many Shermans and they had few of
those Panzers, so the Shermans shot the ass end off them. Also, the Russians are
having problems keeping their aircraft flying, ours seem to be able to fly quite
well.

The US Air Force's F-22 Raptor has been described as "the most lethal fighter
aircraft in the world," but until recently it was used primarily as a bodyguard
for other aircraft. The F-22 has seen combat starting only this past year.

Produced by Grace Raver. Video courtesy of The Associated Press.

Follow BI Video: On Facebook



Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-f-22-raptor-costs-200-million-lethal-fighter-jet-2015-7#ixzz3gwXIq45d

[george152]

On 26/07/2015 9:30 a.m., Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> <https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875>
>
>
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can't Dogfight
>
> New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle
>
> by DAVID AXE
>
> A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike
> Fighter.
> The pricey new stealth jet can't turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy
> plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy's own gunfire, the pilot
> reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. ..

Doesn't have to 'dog fight'
Did you miss the little bit about Air to Air missiles?
And the 'Stealth' bit ?

[jack595]

In article <mp119...@drn.newsguy.com>, jack595 says...

That old comparison of the German tanks, few, vs. the Shermans, many, holds true
with the aircraft. The Su-35 has 34 in service, the F-22 187. Roughly 6 to 1
odds.

[Daryl]

On 7/25/2015 3:30 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> <https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875>
>
>
> Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can't Dogfight
>
> New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle
>
> by DAVID AXE
>
> A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike
> Fighter.
> The pricey new stealth jet can't turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy
> plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy's own gunfire, the pilot
> reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. ..
>
> The test pilot's report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems
> <http://bit.ly/1OFB9tg> with the design of the F-35 - which, at a total
> program cost of more than a trillion dollars <http://bit.ly/1wJSKeC>, is
> history's most expensive weapon. ..
>
> And that means that, within a few decades, American and allied aviators
> will
> fly into battle in an inferior fighter ..

Within a few decades we can live with. In a few decades, every fighter
or attack bird in existance will be obsolete. Very few make it past the
next two decades. Is this your argument? Pretty sad on your part.

>
> The defeated flier's five-page report is a damning litany of aerodynamic
> complaints targeting the cumbersome JSF.
> "Insufficient pitch rate." "Energy deficit to the bandit would increase
> over
> time." "The flying qualities in the blended region (20-26 degrees AoA) were
> not intuitive or favorable." ..
>
> In the end, the F-35 - the only new fighter jet that America and most of
> its
> allies are developing - is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the
> F-16,
> which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s. ..
>
>
>> <http://russia-insider.com/en/military/2014/11/04/02-05-14pm/latest_russian_fighter_jet_blows_americas_away>
>>
>>
>> The Latest Russian Fighter Jet Blows America's Away

russia-insider.com is nothing more than a propaganda tool completely
owned by the Russian Government. Right now, the Russians have trouble
flying what they have because they are so strapped for cash. And since
the US has went ahead with the F-22 and the F-35 there is even less
funding to fly their existing birds. Plus, there is less funding for
the completion of the new aircraft that Russia is trying to field.

We can live with that.

[Daryl]

Plus, the SU-35 is closer to a F-15 than a F-22. When you figure in how
many equivalent fighters that the Russians have compared to the F-22
it's 187 to zip.

[Oleg Smirnov]

jack595, <news:mp1ab...@drn.newsguy.com>

<http://www.rt.com/usa/311126-f-35-problems-extremely-expensive/>

The Air Force secretary admitted that there have been numerous, ongoing
problems with the expensive, high-tech F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft,
saying it has cost the US "way more money than we ever imagined possible." ..

The F-35, made by Lockheed Martin Corp, is the most expensive US weapons
system ever, at nearly $400 billion for a planned fleet of over 2,400
aircraft. It's also a flying computer, with more than 8 million lines of
software code in each plane. The Pentagon will invest nearly $1 trillion to
maintain and operate the joint strike fighter (JSF) program over the course
of its lifetime, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). ..

...

It looks like a particular example in the general line of inadequacy of the
contemporary American strategic thinkers / master minds, it looks like they
are loosing touch with reality, and this process progresses.

[Oleg Smirnov]

<http://sputniknews.com/military/20150816/1025815446.html>

'Dead Meat' in the Skies: F-35 Will Be Torn to Pieces by Old Fighter Jets

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE 21:33 16.08.2015 (updated 21:36 16.08.2015)

The controversy surrounding the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is still
simmering, prompting experts to pose the question: what if the United States
Air Force had dropped the F-35 many years earlier?

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's newest and most
expensive warplane ever, has become a great disappointment for the United
States Air Force and sparked fierce criticism from Western experts and
lawmakers.

"[H]ad the Pentagon foregone developing an entirely new fighter jet, the
$100 billion it has spent to date on the F-35 project would have bought
about 740 Eurofighter Typhoons. Euro-anything, of course, is hardly the
USAF's style, and the War Department hasn't bought a French fighter since
1918," US expert James Hasík, a senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft
Center on International Security, noted.

"So what else might the USAF have done? As a first-order vignette in this
alternative history, let's assume that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates
wouldn't have ended the F-22 program in 2009 at 187 aircraft. That said, the
answer was never just a lot more F-22s," he added.

Indeed, besides the US Air Force, the Navy and Marines were hoping that the
new fighter jet would provide them with new unbeatable advantage in the skies.
It has turned out however that although the project was $165 billion over
budget, the plane has not performed as it was widely advertised.

The main complaint is that the F-35 is less maneuverable than the F-22. In
July, 2015 Australian Federal Parliament member Dr. Dennis Jensen emphasized
in his Op-Ed "Time to Remember the Vietnam Air War Lesson" that the plane's
manufacturer had obviously forgotten the bitter lessons of the Vietnam War.

Referring to the US military doctrine of the 1950s, Jensen noted that it
claimed the era of "dogfighting" was over. As a result, America's F-4 Phantom
planes had advanced air search and targeting radars, eight air-to-air
missiles, and other sophisticated equipment. However, since the days of
"dogfighting" were purportedly over, the F-4 Phantom was designed without a
gun, Jensen pointed out.

"Then came the moment of truth. The might of the United States, with the
highly sophisticated F-4 Phantom, was supposed to easily destroy opposing
enemy fighters like the MiG-17. The obsolescent MiG-17 had no air combat
radar or long-range missiles, but the aircraft had guns. In combat, the
missiles did not work as advertised, and the agile MiG-17 caused the F-4
all sorts of problem," the Australian MP underscored.

And here we go again, he noted. The F-35 is equipped with state-of-art radars
and sensors but what has recently surfaced is that "the JSF was
comprehensively outperformed by a 40-year-old design F-16."

"[I]t is clear the JSF will be dead meat if it ever comes to close range
combat with decades-old fighters," Jensen pointed out.

Interestingly enough, in an interview with RT, famed US aerospace engineer
Pierre Sprey, the co-designer of the F-16 Falcon jet and the A-10 Warthog tank
buster, remarked that the infamous F-35 "would be ripped to shreds even by the
antiquated MiG-21," let alone a dogfight with Russia's fourth-generation Su-27
and MiG-29 jets.

What makes matters even worse is that many experts consider the project an
outrageous waste of money.

The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research and analysis institution, stated
that although the Pentagon has pursued numerous joint aircraft programs,
including the recent F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project in order to reduce Life
Cycle Cost (LCC), it has obviously failed to accomplish this mission.
Moreover, the programs lead to even higher overall costs.

"Unless the participating services have identical, stable requirements, the
US Department of Defense should avoid future joint fighter and other
complex joint aircraft development programs," RAND's analysts recommended,
bemoaning the fact that the presence of fewer prime contractors in the US
market undermines the potential for future competition and "makes costs
more difficult to control."

[Airyx]

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 1:56:46 PM UTC-5, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

> Referring to the US military doctrine of the 1950s, Jensen noted that it
> claimed the era of "dogfighting" was over. As a result, America's F-4 Phantom
> planes had advanced air search and targeting radars, eight air-to-air
> missiles, and other sophisticated equipment. However, since the days of
> "dogfighting" were purportedly over, the F-4 Phantom was designed without a
> gun, Jensen pointed out.
>
> "Then came the moment of truth. The might of the United States, with the
> highly sophisticated F-4 Phantom, was supposed to easily destroy opposing
> enemy fighters like the MiG-17. The obsolescent MiG-17 had no air combat
> radar or long-range missiles, but the aircraft had guns. In combat, the
> missiles did not work as advertised, and the agile MiG-17 caused the F-4
> all sorts of problem," the Australian MP underscored.
>
> And here we go again, he noted.

I enjoy the ignorance of comparing 1967 technology to now.

In 1967, 20mb of data storage required four fridge sized units in a climate controlled room...today, 20gb of storage fits on a chip the size of my fingernail.

In 1967, the combined processing power of every computer in the world was less than the phone that is in your pocket right now.

So, yeah, the missiles in 1967 failed to perform as advertised...but today, 45 years later, they perform quite nicely.

Actual combat since 1985 has shown that nearly all A-A kills happen while the two enemies are still approaching each other, and the guy that fires the first missile wins.

The US has had only a single engagement, Jan 19, 1991, that actually got past the "merge", where the enemies passed each other, and began to turn into each other.

[Daryl]

That was a F-15C versus a Mig-29. Both seasoned pilots. It was thought
if you got to that point, the Mig-29 would win hands down. Imagine the
surprise of the Mig-29 Pilot when the F-15 turned inside him for the
aim-9 kill.

[Dean Markley]

While the missiles did not work as well as expected in Vietnam, there was also the politics tying the hands of the Phantom pilots. BVR shots were forbidden and the pilots had to make visual contact and verification first.

[Airyx]

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:24:16 PM UTC-5, Daryl wrote:

> That was a F-15C versus a Mig-29. Both seasoned pilots. It was thought
> if you got to that point, the Mig-29 would win hands down. Imagine the
> surprise of the Mig-29 Pilot when the F-15 turned inside him for the
> aim-9 kill.

If I remember correctly, they got into a rolling scissors, worked their way down to low altitude, and eventually the Iraqi tried to pull a split-s to disengage, but he was already too low and flew into the ground (but not before ejecting).

[Airyx]

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 2:14:34 PM UTC-5, Dean Markley wrote:

> While the missiles did not work as well as expected in Vietnam, there was also > the politics tying the hands of the Phantom pilots. BVR shots were forbidden and the pilots had to make visual contact and verification first.

True. In 1991, a positive ID was also required, but the combination of ELINT, AWACs, and the RWRs on board the fighters provided a good ID from BVR most of the time. There were 19 Aim-7 BVR kills in 1991 (out of 44 fired). Most of the time, even if you shoot an Aim-7 from BVR, the target is usually visible by the time the missile hits it (since the launch aircraft has to keep flying toward its target to keep it illuminated).

Today, with sensor fusion, and some other available technology, BVR identification is even more reliable.