USAF is left behind again
David O. Corsi
although new Russian aircraft may be on a par in maneuverability with even
the F-22, the avionics technology is far behind, not to mention overall
pilot skill is far less because of lack of funding for training. should a
war between frontline USAF and Russian aircraft occur, Russian aircraft
would only stand a chance in a dogfight. with the stealth of the F-22 (no
Russian aircraft have it), superior weapons (no Russian aircraft have them)
and radar (no Russian aircraft comes close) the battle would be over before
it began.
Kostik
At the end of September new russian multirole fighter S-32 (aka S-37
Berkut) has made its first flight. I remeber some ppl here stating that
russian planes are sucks, to be short. Now look at this, and open a BIG
world for yourself, containing not only of USA and its AF. Picture follows.
You can find some info about it on the web in a short period of time. If
you're interested of course.
Kostik
begin 600 S-37_a.jpg
<encoded_portion_removed>
end
Trips
Kostik wrote:
>
> At the end of September new russian multirole fighter S-32 (aka S-37
> Berkut) has made its first flight. I remeber some ppl here stating that
> russian planes are sucks, to be short. Now look at this, and open a BIG
> world for yourself, containing not only of USA and its AF. Picture follows.
> You can find some info about it on the web in a short period of time. If
> you're interested of course.
Wow, that plane is so ugly, I bet it has to sneak up on a tanker to get
fuel...
(just kidding... it looks like one SERIOUS piece of hardware!)
Trips
HELLFIRE
Marc Haynes wrote:
> >At the end of September new russian multirole fighter S-32 (aka S-37
> >Berkut) has made its first flight. I remeber some ppl here stating
> that
> >russian planes are sucks, to be short. Now look at this, and open a
> BIG
> >world for yourself, containing not only of USA and its AF. Picture
> follows.
> >You can find some info about it on the web in a short period of time.
> If
> >you're interested of course.
> >
> >Kostik
>
> Fuck you and your drunk-ass president, you commie bastard! We ought
> to nuke
> your bankrupt country for the hell of it. I've got one thing to say
> about
> Russian engineering, CHERNOBYL! Go back to your bottle of Vodka and
> pray
> that we don't come over there and kick your pinko ass!
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Dave,
Point taken, and given the choice of which to own and maintian, I'd have a
C5A in my hangar any day.
The AN-22 Antheus also had variable pressure tires as far back as the 60's.
The remarkable fact is that so MANY of the remote Russian/ex-Soviet fields
are unimproved, that performing there may be as much rule as exception. <g>
Kindest Regards,
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Pacific Presentation Graphics
http://www.hoscheit.com
Diesel Driver wrote in message
<01bce871$a2fd77c0$2311...@c5engnr.ix.netcom.com>...
>William R. (Bill) Hoscheit <hosc...@home.com> wrote in article
><63kqev$ilu$1...@ha1.rdc1.occa.home.com>...
>> Lest we forget resourcefulness either. Virtually every Russian/former
>> Soviet aircraft has operational requirements that are FAR less
>restrictive
>> than the Western types. For example, almost every transport, from the
>> Yak-40 to the massive AN-124 (and 225) can actually operate from unpaved
>> surfaces, and in most cases, grass. Try doing that in your MD-80.
>>
>
> All of the military transports the US has are able to work from
>unimproved fields, including the C5 Galaxy. In fact, the C5 has a
>deflation system that can lower the tire pressures inflight for landing on
>soft "runways." While this system exists, there isn't any need for it.
>I've worked C5s for 8 years as a FE, and I've never heard of anyone
>requiring it. The plane was designed before improved fields were
>world-wide, so at the time it seemed like a logical system to have.
>
> Since this hasn't been a requirement for the civil carrier fleets, they
>don't carry the extra equipment. The Soviets used to operate all of their
>aircraft as potential military aircraft, so it makes sense that more of
>their planes could be used off-road.
>--
>Dave (Remove NOSPAM in name to reply)
>
Gustavo Flores
In article <345DDC4C...@postoffice.csu.edu.au> Bryn Battersby <bbat...@postoffice.csu.edu.au> writes:
>From: Bryn Battersby <bbat...@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: USAF is left behind again
>Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 01:14:36 +1100
>Marc Haynes wrote:
> Does this explain why most of the rest of the world is very cynical
>when it comes to Americans?
>--
>Bryn Battersby
>Email: bbat...@postoffice.csu.edu.au
>HomePage: http://golum.riv.csu.edu.au/~bbatte02
Yes, and is further proof that stupidity and ignorance are far from rare.
Gustavo Flores
Gustavo Flores
In article <63jl5n$8la$1...@hirame.wwa.com> "David O. Corsi" <dco...@NOSPAM.wwa.com> writes:
>From: "David O. Corsi" <dco...@NOSPAM.wwa.com>
>Subject: Re: USAF is left behind again
Perhaps but as the Russians like to point out , American aircraft are very
technology dependent, very precise and delicate, like a Swiss watch.
Every day at air bases in the US numerous personnel perform "FOD sweeps"
in which they carefully look for and remove all sorts of small debris that
could be sucked into the engines.
Russian airbases look like junkyards, their aircraft being designed to cope
with the foreign object ingestion problem. They have alternate air intakes for
ground use, retractable grates in front of the engine intakes etc. They argue
that during war conditions one could hardly expect that the airfields will be
in such pristine conditions.
If your fancy, very capable aircraft is grounded, you're toast !
Gustavo Flores
Michael L. Cunningham
T. wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Sean Long wrote:
>
> > Waaaaahhht? Respect for one's opponents is never a bad thing. Some of
> > the Russian hardware is extremely badass, and I expect this plane to be
> > "interesting" to deal with...
> >
> > Sean Long
> > WB: eagl
>
> Badass is right! That thing looks like a forward-swept-wing
> technology demonstrator modified from an Su-27, which I think we all agree
> is already a pretty sh*t-hot badass piece of hardware in its unmodified
> form. =)
>
> Kudos Kostik, if you are reading this-- Thanks for the post.
>
> I wonder how that Sukhoi bad boy compares to the Grumman X-29...
>
> T.
You guys forget yourselves. They'll be lucky if they can afford to
produce 100 of them! Did we forget about their economy?
Michael
dave
David O. Corsi wrote in message <63jl5n$8la$1...@hirame.wwa.com>...
>although new Russian aircraft may be on a par in maneuverability with even
>the F-22, the avionics technology is far behind, not to mention overall
>pilot skill is far less because of lack of funding for training. should a
>war between frontline USAF and Russian aircraft occur, Russian aircraft
>would only stand a chance in a dogfight. with the stealth of the F-22 (no
>Russian aircraft have it), superior weapons (no Russian aircraft have them)
>and radar (no Russian aircraft comes close) the battle would be over before
>it began.
>
May we never have to find out.
Udie
Frying Tiger wrote:
>
> Anyone notice the planform is very close to the X-29?
>
> -FT-
I bet the Ruski's have been watching the Discovery Chanel :)
--
Udie
XO<900th>
Bloody Jaguars
Kostik
Marc Haynes <meha...@eos.ncsu.edu> записано в статью
<63ll16$8th$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>...
> I guess America will just have to bow to your technically superior
country.
> Were all just a bunch of buffoons over here with our silly hi-tech
weaponry.
> We do silly fod walks and worry about useless details such as compressor
and
> combustion efficiencies. Yep, we are so stupid. I just wish that our
> feeble minds could develop such an awesome economy as yours. Maybe one
day
> we'll build a great space station such as the MIR and nearly kill all
aboard
> on a daily basis. And your nuclear facilities, whoa, they are fantastic!
> Chernobyl has been shut down for ten years and it still produces heat
(and a
> few three eyed babies every now and then). Yep Kostin, Russian
technology
> is the best!
Very entertaining. Do you think i should go and kill myself, cause i'm
living in such ugly country? Every nation has it's own problems, and
America is not an exception.
Here we're talking about planes, remember it.
BTW, thanks for your previous post to me "Fuck you and your drunk-ass
president, you commie bastard... bla bla bla", it opened my eyes and
changed my life. I wonder if you could say the same if you meet me in real
life.
Kostik
Kevin Buchanan
Kostik wrote in message
<01bce8a0$67156cc0$ead6...@none.ropnet.ru.ropnet.ru>...
>
>
>Frying Tiger <fryt...@cris.com> записано в статью
><345E0C...@cris.com>...
>> Anyone notice the planform is very close to the X-29?
>> -FT-
>
>Forward swept wings technology was used more then 40 years ago, if memory
>serves me well... And X-29 is not the first plane to use that technology.
>And once again, S-32 is not a testbed.
>
You seem very insistent in quoting that the S-32 is not a testbed.... Well,
the X-29 WAS a testbed, and it had the agility to kick quite a few aircraft
asses...... Just don't be puttin down testbeds :-)
Laydezman
Kostik wrote:
>
> Denny Atkin <den...@mindspring.com> записано в статью
> > Very cool looking airplane. Wonder where the money's going to come from
> to
> > build more than the prototype, though?
>
> Denny, the second prototype is near it's completion.
>
> > (Just happy that US/Russian conflicts now take place on the Internet. :-)
>
> No conflicts, we're talking only about planes :)
>
> Kostik
Hmm i wonder if the S-37 will be able to shoot something that it cant
see? Have you heard of the bolt from the blue my friend? Also to say
that is stealthy only because of composites is a serious slap in the
face to any engineer that has ever designed a stealthy aircraft. Im sure
they would point out all the hot spots and corner reflections on the
S-37 if they could. But im sure they are all sitting in their offices
laughing at your orignal post. Also why dont you post to
rec.aviation.military where lots of pilots hang out and let them get an
opinion on the plane. The way i see it an F-22 can take out 4 of these
planes if all its missles work correctly before the S-37 can engage at a
range where it can detect the F-22 unless of course they have a low
probability of intercept of radar on board. Now if i know a shred about
the Air Force im sure they are gonna have counters to this plane.
Unfortunately we dont have someone on has such top knowledge about our
military as yours cuase we know how to keep secrets. Also you better
pray that they dont put a 4d nozzle on the falcon cuase the dogfight
between these 2 critters would be a sight to see... but doh! Russian
pilots only receive 10% of the flying time our pilots get.
ps: In the future if you wanna show us a pic how about posting it 2
alt.binaries.pictures.military and let everyone know that the pic is
there for all to see.
jsallison
And not too surprising, numerous Americans tend to cynicism bout other
Americans :)
--
Remove (Removethis.) to email.
A mime is a terrible thing to baste.
T.
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, William R. (Bill) Hoscheit wrote:
> T. wrote in message ...
> >
> > I wonder how that Sukhoi bad boy compares to the Grumman X-29...
>
> The only shame about "world peace" is that it's less likely that we will
> ever find out (in combat). I sure wouldn't change it, though. <g>
(grin) God forbid that the two should get into a fight-- The X-29
is unarmed! =) I was just wondering how the two differ, performancewise,
especially in the areas of high AOA and poststall flight (which is the
strong point of forward-swept-wing technology I think..) =)
T.
Todd&Kathleen
T. wrote:
> Yep-- The Russians developed and deployed helmet-mounted sights,
> IRST (MiG-29 and Su-27), and electronically-steered-array radars (MiG-31)
> way before the U.S.. No American fighter as of yet uses an HMS or IRST,
> and only the F-22 has the APG-77 electronically-steered radar array.
>
> It would be a mistake to underestimate their hardware.
>
> T.
That's for sure. All that gear was critical for the Iraqi Air Force's successful
and daring dash to Iran during Desert Storm in their Mig 25s and 29s. Imagine if
they actually used the stuff in air combat. :-)
-- Silkrider
Marc Haynes
Sean Long
Waaaaahhht? Respect for one's opponents is never a bad thing. Some of
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Lest we forget resourcefulness either. Virtually every Russian/former
Soviet aircraft has operational requirements that are FAR less restrictive
than the Western types. For example, almost every transport, from the
Yak-40 to the massive AN-124 (and 225) can actually operate from unpaved
surfaces, and in most cases, grass. Try doing that in your MD-80.
Perhaps the west is more advanced in terms of "sophistication", but lemme
tell ya, when it comes to practical application, the Antonovs, Tupolevs,
Ilyushins, Yakovlevs, Sukhois and MiG's can teach the world a lesson in
"putting it to work"
Kindest Regards,
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Pacific Presentation Graphics
http://www.hoscheit.com
Michael Kuebbeler wrote in message <345E28...@muenster.net>...
>David O. Corsi wrote:
>>
>> although new Russian aircraft may be on a par in maneuverability with
even
>> the F-22, the avionics technology is far behind, not to mention overall
>> pilot skill is far less because of lack of funding for training. should a
>> war between frontline USAF and Russian aircraft occur, Russian aircraft
>> would only stand a chance in a dogfight. with the stealth of the F-22 (no
>> Russian aircraft have it), superior weapons (no Russian aircraft have
them)
>> and radar (no Russian aircraft comes close) the battle would be over
before
>> it began.
>
>Good that at least you know about most likely secret issues of russian
>avionics. I don't think they are technology-wise far behind american
>technology, very ignorant to think that. Most likely pilot training
>lacks.
>
>-Michael
Roger Lincoln
In article <63jm7f$sq9$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> "Marc Haynes" <meha...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:
> >At the end of September new russian multirole fighter S-32 (aka S-37
> >Berkut) has made its first flight. I remeber some ppl here stating that
> >russian planes are sucks, to be short. Now look at this, and open a BIG
> >world for yourself, containing not only of USA and its AF. Picture follows.
> >You can find some info about it on the web in a short period of time. If
> >you're interested of course.
> >
> >Kostik
>
>
> Fuck you and your drunk-ass president, you commie bastard! We ought to nuke
> your bankrupt country for the hell of it. I've got one thing to say about
> Russian engineering, CHERNOBYL! Go back to your bottle of Vodka and pray
> that we don't come over there and kick your pinko ass!
Please parents, don't let your children play unsupervised on the
internet. Let them mature first before you give them access to
computers and anything sharp. See what happens when you don't. This
tyke is well on his way to becoming The Ugly American, and we have way
too many of those already.
--
\_____ \__ \__ \__ | Roger H. Lincoln | The activity of |
\__ \__ \__ \__ \__ | MITRE Corp. | "debugging" ends when |
\_____ \______ \__ | Bedford, MA | people get tired of |
\__ \__ \__ \__ \_____ | r...@mitre.org | doing it, not when the |
\__ \__ \__ \__ \_____ | | bugs are removed. |
Diesel Driver
Marc Haynes <meha...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in article
<63jm7f$sq9$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>...
> >At the end of September new russian multirole fighter S-32 (aka S-37
> >Berkut) has made its first flight. I remeber some ppl here stating that
> >russian planes are sucks, to be short. Now look at this, and open a BIG
> >world for yourself, containing not only of USA and its AF. Picture
follows.
> >You can find some info about it on the web in a short period of time. If
> >you're interested of course.
> >
> >Kostik
>
>
> Fuck you and your drunk-ass president, you commie bastard! We ought to
nuke
> your bankrupt country for the hell of it. I've got one thing to say
about
> Russian engineering, CHERNOBYL! Go back to your bottle of Vodka and
pray
> that we don't come over there and kick your pinko ass!
That's what I like to see, a well thought out and articulate discussion
about the state of aircraft technologies of two formerly opposite world
powers. I can sleep well knowing the world is finally secure as we enter
the twenty-first century.
--
Dave (Remove NOSPAM in name to reply)
C5 Flight Engineer
SSG USAF
Diesel Driver
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit <hosc...@home.com> wrote in article
<63kqev$ilu$1...@ha1.rdc1.occa.home.com>...
> Soviet aircraft has operational requirements that are FAR less
restrictive
> than the Western types. For example, almost every transport, from the
> Yak-40 to the massive AN-124 (and 225) can actually operate from unpaved
> surfaces, and in most cases, grass. Try doing that in your MD-80.
>
All of the military transports the US has are able to work from
unimproved fields, including the C5 Galaxy. In fact, the C5 has a
deflation system that can lower the tire pressures inflight for landing on
soft "runways." While this system exists, there isn't any need for it.
I've worked C5s for 8 years as a FE, and I've never heard of anyone
requiring it. The plane was designed before improved fields were
world-wide, so at the time it seemed like a logical system to have.
Since this hasn't been a requirement for the civil carrier fleets, they
don't carry the extra equipment. The Soviets used to operate all of their
aircraft as potential military aircraft, so it makes sense that more of
their planes could be used off-road.
Michael Kuebbeler
Sean Long
Frying Tiger wrote:
>
> Anyone notice the planform is very close to the X-29?
YES. Guess what. The USAF looked at X-29 technology and came up
with... The rather conventional looking F-22. We'll see.
Sean Long
WB: eagl
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
T.
The only shame about "world peace" is that it's less likely that we will
ever find out (in combat). I sure wouldn't change it, though. <g>
Kindest Regards,
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Pacific Presentation Graphics
http://www.hoscheit.com
T. wrote in message ...
>
> I wonder how that Sukhoi bad boy compares to the Grumman X-29...
>
>T.
>
Frying Tiger
Anyone notice the planform is very close to the X-29?
-FT-
T.
Yep-- The Russians developed and deployed helmet-mounted sights,
T.
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Sean Long wrote:
> Waaaaahhht? Respect for one's opponents is never a bad thing. Some of
> the Russian hardware is extremely badass, and I expect this plane to be
> "interesting" to deal with...
>
> Sean Long
> WB: eagl
Badass is right! That thing looks like a forward-swept-wing
technology demonstrator modified from an Su-27, which I think we all agree
is already a pretty sh*t-hot badass piece of hardware in its unmodified
form. =)
Kudos Kostik, if you are reading this-- Thanks for the post.
I wonder how that Sukhoi bad boy compares to the Grumman X-29...
T.
Sean Long
Michael L. Cunningham wrote:
> You guys forget yourselves. They'll be lucky if they can afford to
> produce 100 of them! Did we forget about their economy?
Of course, every petty dictator with an oil field will want a couple
dozen...
Sean Long
WB: eagl
Kostik
Kostik
T. <Tr...@NOSPAM.COM> записано в статью
<Pine.SUN.3.96.97110...@voyager.cris.com>...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Sean Long wrote:
> Badass is right! That thing looks like a forward-swept-wing
> technology demonstrator modified from an Su-27, which I think we all
agree
> is already a pretty sh*t-hot badass piece of hardware in its unmodified
> form. =)
S-32 is not a technology demonstrator, it's a prototype, i agree. But
prototype that flies, and it has all the electronics mounted already. I can
compare it to F22A in terms of completion.
> Kudos Kostik, if you are reading this-- Thanks for the post.
You're welcome :)
> I wonder how that Sukhoi bad boy compares to the Grumman X-29...
It has nothing to compare. S-32 is not a testbed.
Kostik
Michael L. Cunningham <hydrom...@earthlink.net> записано в статью
> You guys forget yourselves. They'll be lucky if they can afford to
> produce 100 of them! Did we forget about their economy?
> Michael
Sounds very pathetic. Are you afraid of something? ;)
Kostik
Kostik
Frying Tiger <fryt...@cris.com> записано в статью
<345E0C...@cris.com>...
> Anyone notice the planform is very close to the X-29?
> -FT-
You're making me smile :)
Forward swept wings technology was used more then 40 years ago, if memory
serves me well... And X-29 is not the first plane to use that technology.
And once again, S-32 is not a testbed.
Kostik
Gustavo Flores <to...@iamerica.net> записано в статью
<tolip.325...@iamerica.net>...
> In article <63jl5n$8la$1...@hirame.wwa.com> "David O. Corsi"
<dco...@NOSPAM.wwa.com> writes:
> >From: "David O. Corsi" <dco...@NOSPAM.wwa.com>
> >Subject: Re: USAF is left behind again
> >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:43:55 -0600
>
> >although new Russian aircraft may be on a par in maneuverability with
even
> >the F-22, the avionics technology is far behind, not to mention overall
Even F22? I'm sorry, but F22 has nothing to say in terms of maneuverability
compared with Su-37 (and don't forget S-32 will be equipped with 4D thrust
vector
engine. America has NO technology to make the plane close to S-32.
> >pilot skill is far less because of lack of funding for training. should
a
Don't say about pilot skill. You can't prove it.
> >war between frontline USAF and Russian aircraft occur, Russian aircraft
> >would only stand a chance in a dogfight. with the stealth of the F-22
(no
> >Russian aircraft have it), superior weapons (no Russian aircraft have
them)
> >and radar (no Russian aircraft comes close) the battle would be over
before
> >it began.
You're actually not well informed about russian weapons i guess. S-32 is a
stealth aircraft. It 90% made of composite materials. And let me say that
S-32 is not a testbed, it's a real plane that will replace SU-27's by 2005
year.
mransr
Hi All
Does anyone know where to find some pics of the new Russia aircraft?
Thanks
Mike
Kostik wrote in message
<01bce89f$d37f2320$ead6...@none.ropnet.ru.ropnet.ru>...
Marc Haynes
Udie
My last post should be read in the voice of Norm MacDonald from Saturday
Night Live...
--
Udie
XO<900th>
Bloody Jaguars
Udie
>
> Perhaps but as the Russians like to point out , American aircraft are very
> technology dependent, very precise and delicate, like a Swiss watch.
>
> Gustavo Flores
I keep seeing people talking about our a/c being so technology
dependent. I don't disagree with this, but about 2 years ago i saw on
the news that 2 f18's had collided during a dogfight practice. They had
footage of the 2 birds limping home. One of the f18's had the radar
cover (nose) and canopy completely gone. The only thing the other f18
was missing was... HALF OF THE LEFT WING!!!!!!!! both planes made it
back to base and landed safely.
Now I wanna see a Russian plane do that. Sure maybe the su-27 and su-37
might be able to do this, but I'd bet those are the only 2 planes they
have that CAN. But if it had not been for FBW only 1 if any of those
f18's would have made it home...
Corsair
Interesting, I was examining your crossposting talents and imagine that, a
binary post sent to a number of groups, none of which is an actual binary
group. I'm sure your bravado justifies this irritating practice of yours.
Thank you for inconveniencing all of us when there are two binary groups where
this would have been applicable. Twit.
Corsair
* Web CAG of "The Jolly Rogers": Past & Present
http://www.interlog.com/~vf84
* If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
*** edit REMOVE out of my email ***
Kostik
L.R.S. <buck...@nospam.empnet.com> записано в статью
> No Signature, no nothing
Garbage snip
I have no time and wish to argue with you.
> just my humble opinion :)
Right, just your opinion.
Kostik
L.R.S.
On 4 Nov 1997 03:17:52 GMT, "Kostik" <apa...@ropnet.ru> wrote:
>
>Very informative, very. I guess you have results numbers of a dogfight of
>F22 against SU-37. Or even S-32. Or you have knowlege that noone else has.
>
>
>Kostik
Well, here we go again. Another Russian aircraft are better than
American aircraft. I sure do love reading these posts. Everytime I
do, I think back to:
A -- Korean Conflict - Once American brought in the Sabre Jet,
American aircraft turned the Red Skies Blue.
B -- Vietnam - As much as I hate to say it, once the U.S. Navy began
teaching their pilots how to fly against Soviet built aircraft, they
to began turning the tide in the air war. I only wish my alma mater
(retired Air Force here) had taught their pilots the same thing. I
wouldn't have lost the friends I did.
C -- Arab/Israeli Conflicts - Seems to me the Arab countries flying
Soviet aircraft took on Israeli pilots flying American aircraft (and
aircraft from other countries, but American primarily) and litterly
kicked butt. The F-15A Eagle alone shot down 81 enemy aircraft with
no loss of an F-15.
D -- Lybia - Just who was it that backed down? Not the U.S. It was
American aircraft that splashed Quackdaffi's flying coffins, again,
with no loss of American aircraft. And Lybia was a prime buyer of
Soviet hardware. Tell you anything?
E -- Gulf War - I followed that war closely as I was close to it. I
don't remember hearing or reading anything about American pilots
flying their aircraft to another country for safe keeping. Nor did I
hear or read about American, or Coalition pilots, saying, "I ain't
flying...I'll only get shot down" American aircraft helped then and
still do to this day, with keeping the skies free of enemy aircraft.
I know Saddam Whosinsane flew aircraft from many countries, but he had
the lastest export models of Soviet aircraft...most of them are
probably still smoking in shelters built by Yugoslavians and German to
the standard of the Warsaw Pact.
No tell me what "USAF is left behind 'again'" means? The USAF had the
X-29 testbed aircraft long before the Russians came out with the S-32.
For a variety of reasons, the forward-swept wing style wasn't
acceptable to the Air Force for combat. I believe that will also be
found with the S-32. As far as the S-32 being stealth...hell, look at
the photo man! There is nothing stealth about that aircraft. It may
have a reduced radar cross section, but that is ALL! Furthermore, I
seriously doubt that the S-32 will never make it to full scale
production for the Russian Air Force. It may become an export model
aircraft sold to other countries after being ordered, but the Russian
economy can't support that aircraft in full scale production.
I could go on and on, but I won't. But I did want to put my two
kopeks worth into this. The S-32 is of an interesting design. It may
have some merit, but stealth...no, abilitiy to ground the USAF?...no.
As a testbed aircraft and primary export model for the next ten
years...yes.
No Signature, no nothing
T.
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Sean Long wrote:
> Frying Tiger wrote:
> >
> > Anyone notice the planform is very close to the X-29?
>
> YES. Guess what. The USAF looked at X-29 technology and came up
> with... The rather conventional looking F-22. We'll see.
I think the bottom line was money. =)
Both Northrop and Lockheed had to keep the cost of the ATF
projects down; they decided that an FSW plane would incur additional costs
(further research and development and more special tooling and
programming) and take too long (they had a set date laid down by the USAF
to meet for the fly-off competition between the YF-22 and YF-23) so they
went conventional. As conventional as it is, each ATF airframe is gonna
cost us taxpayers well over $100 million a copy; I wonder how much more if
Lockheed and Northrop had decided to go FSW.
T.
(Interesting sidenote: Both General Dynamics (former F-22 partner) and
McDonnell Douglas (former YF-23 partner) had looked at FSW technology
too-- GD had an FSW F-16 proposal and so did McDonnell Douglas with an FSW
F-4 Phantom.. Neither made it off the drawing boards though. Would have
been interesting though)
Jussi Saari
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Udie wrote:
> > Perhaps but as the Russians like to point out , American aircraft are very
> > technology dependent, very precise and delicate, like a Swiss watch.
> >
> > Gustavo Flores
>
> footage of the 2 birds limping home. One of the f18's had the radar
> cover (nose) and canopy completely gone. The only thing the other f18
> was missing was... HALF OF THE LEFT WING!!!!!!!! both planes made it
> back to base and landed safely.
> Now I wanna see a Russian plane do that. Sure maybe the su-27 and su-37
> might be able to do this, but I'd bet those are the only 2 planes they
> have that CAN. But if it had not been for FBW only 1 if any of those
> f18's would have made it home...
I'm not so sure it was the FBW that saved those Hornets. Missing a big
part of the wing would cause a rolling momentum, but as long as it wasn't
too great to be compensated for with control surfaces the plane should be
flyable by hand just as well as with FBW. (There was an Israeli F-15 that
lost IIRC much more than half of it's wing in a mid-air with an A-4 and
made it back...). As for Russian planes, a MiG-29 probably would be
flyable with big part of a wing missing as well, after all it pretty much
shares it's configuration with the Su-27, F-15 and F/A-18.
Jussi
Jussi Saari
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, L.R.S. wrote:
> Well, here we go again.
Yep. The last time this was debated I decided that next time I wouldn't
participate in this thread since they inevitably always turn into flame
wars... but here we go again... :)
> Another Russian aircraft are better than American aircraft. I sure do
> love reading these posts. Everytime I do, I think back to:
> A -- Korean Conflict - Once American brought in the Sabre Jet,
> American aircraft turned the Red Skies Blue.
I believe the score was something like 1:13 for the Sabre. However, most
of those kills were made against North Korean and Chinese pilots, who had
their hands full with just flying the plane. (There's plenty of Sabre gun
camera footage of MiG-15 entering a spin and the pilot ejecting, all
without a single hit...).
There was also a Russian unit fighting in Korea, and they did much
better than their yellow friends, with a kill ratio of around 1:4. (2:1
according to Russians, but they were obviously doing some serious
over-claiming and 1:4 seems more reasonable assuming that the American
and Russian figures for their own losses are accurate.) If both aircraft
had similar pilots, the score would probably have been around 1:1.
> B -- Vietnam - As much as I hate to say it, once the U.S. Navy began
> teaching their pilots how to fly against Soviet built aircraft, they
> to began turning the tide in the air war. I only wish my alma mater
> (retired Air Force here) had taught their pilots the same thing. I
> wouldn't have lost the friends I did.
Same as above. Not exactly an equal fight. Inferior pilot training in
the Red side, plus the NVAF pilots often even suffered from varying
degrees of mal-nutrition, to the point that blacking out at 4 G's was
usual. And their equipment wasn't exactly top-of-the line equipment
either: gun-armed MiG-17s (not that much different from the MiG-15s that
had fought over Korea...) were the most commonly seen aircraft in Vietnam.
Even of the MiG-21s that they had, the majority didn't have any missiles.
> C -- Arab/Israeli Conflicts - Seems to me the Arab countries flying
...
> The F-15A Eagle alone shot down 81 enemy aircraft with no loss of an
> F-15.
Just a minor correction here: a large proportion of the Israeli kills in
Lebanon were made with F-16s.
> D -- Lybia - Just who was it that backed down? Not the U.S. It was
> American aircraft that splashed Quackdaffi's flying coffins, again,
> with no loss of American aircraft. And Lybia was a prime buyer of
> Soviet hardware. Tell you anything?
It tells that the Libyans were tried to use obsolete Soviet export
equipment flown by ill-trained pilots against the latest American fighters
flown by far better trained pilots...
> E -- Gulf War - I followed that war closely as I was close to it.
Gulf war was an example of possibly the most inept army of all military
history being crushed by an attacker that had all the time they needed to
prepare, 20-30 years newer technology, some of the best trained soldiers
in the world, in a terrain that is about as bad as it can get for a
technologically inferior army.
> the lastest export models of Soviet aircraft...most of them are
> probably still smoking in shelters built by Yugoslavians and German to
> the standard of the Warsaw Pact.
Actually most of the pictures of Iraqi hardened shelters look very
different from those around ex-Soviet airbases. (Just a fact, not to say
that a Soviet HAS would be invulnerable to PGM attacks.)
> No tell me what "USAF is left behind 'again'" means? The USAF had the
> X-29 testbed aircraft long before the Russians came out with the S-32.
> For a variety of reasons, the forward-swept wing style wasn't
> acceptable to the Air Force for combat.
I'm not an aerodynamics expert, but I believe that the advantages of
forward-swept wing have been known for almost half a century by now. The
problem is that the wing has to be built much, much stronger than a more
conventional design, and until now it would have meant either too
expensive or too heavy wing. Apparently the Russians either figured a
smart way of making it work, or were willing to make greater sacrifices in
cost, weight and time than the Americans. Either way, I don't see the
Russians in any way behind USA here.
> have a reduced radar cross section, but that is ALL! Furthermore, I
> seriously doubt that the S-32 will never make it to full scale
> production for the Russian Air Force.
I don't know about that... It seems that the Russian Air Force isn't
interested in buying Su-35/37s because they want the next generation,
rather than Flanker developments. I certainly wouldn't expect the S-32 to
enter service anytime soon, but my guess is that it has a good chance of
being the next new fighter type the Russians will produce.
> aircraft sold to other countries after being ordered, but the Russian
> economy can't support that aircraft in full scale production.
It's a matter of priorities... If they can support the building of new
SSNs, T-90s, new SAMs, then they should be able to produce a new fighter.
Jussi
Dylan Smith
Udie wrote:
>The only thing the other f18
> was missing was... HALF OF THE LEFT WING!!!!!!!! both planes made it
> back to base and landed safely.
>
> Now I wanna see a Russian plane do that. Sure maybe the su-27 and su-37
> might be able to do this, but I'd bet those are the only 2 planes they
> have that CAN. But if it had not been for FBW only 1 if any of those
> f18's would have made it home...
Fly by wire wasn't necessarily responsible for the return of both
aircraft. There's a report in Flying magazine's book 'More I Learned
About Flying From That' of a Cessna 172 coming together with
a Piper of some description, and losing half of one wing, right up
to the last aileron hinge. The pilot still got it home in one
piece (but it took full aileron deflection on the good wing,
and he had to land at full power to have enough control authority)
--
Email: dy...@vnet.IBM.COM
Dylan Smith 1810 Space Park Drive, Houston, TX 77573
Standard disclaimer applies.
Anti-spam - replace 's' before the @ with a 'z'.
T.
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Joern Philipp Meier wrote:
> Should that one really be the top secret "stealth" fighter which was
> announced some weeks ago?
Hmm... I don't think so. That plane looks like a modified Su-27
Flanker, which is not a stealth airframe.
T.
Diesel Driver
> T.
>
> The only shame about "world peace" is that it's less likely that we will
> ever find out (in combat). I sure wouldn't change it, though. <g>
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
> Pacific Presentation Graphics
> http://www.hoscheit.com
>
World peace? Seems to me that there is more fighting now than there
was during the cold war. It's just that the theaters have gotten smaller,
but more numerous. Now that the US and the Soviets aren't standing toe to
toe anymore, the smaller countries have gone back to their long-standing
tradition of killing each other. Even "SoDamn Insane" over in Iraq is
shooting his mouth off again.
Russia may have plenty of opportunity yet to test their new plane in a
combat environment.
--
Dave (Remove NOSPAM in name to reply)
C5 Flight Engineer
SSG USAF
Michael L. Cunningham
Kostik wrote:
>
> > Michael
>
>
> Kostik
Excuse me? Pathetic?
You need to start reading some journels other than those comic books you
have and the Playboy's you find in the trash... and stay out of the
toilet with them... you'll go blind!
I'm not afraid of anything you post except misinformation. You should
also start reading the business section of your paper more often.
If you think this aircraft "looks" mean, I can't wait for it to scare a
Cessna 182 out of the skies! If looks could kill....
Michael
Michael L. Cunningham
T.
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Todd&Kathleen wrote:
> > Yep-- The Russians developed and deployed helmet-mounted sights,
> > IRST (MiG-29 and Su-27), and electronically-steered-array radars (MiG-31)
> > way before the U.S.. No American fighter as of yet uses an HMS or IRST,
> > and only the F-22 has the APG-77 electronically-steered radar array.
> >
> > It would be a mistake to underestimate their hardware.
>
> That's for sure. All that gear was critical for the Iraqi Air Force's successful
> and daring dash to Iran during Desert Storm in their Mig 25s and 29s. Imagine if
> they actually used the stuff in air combat. :-)
The Iraqi air force was staffed with pilots whose main ability was
to kiss Saddam's butt. Their training standards were laughable.
If the Iraqis had people as well-trained as the Israelis' Hey'l
H'avir, they might have actually put of a good fight and exacted a toll in
Coalition planes in air combat. Fortunately for us, they didn't.
Their hardware like the MiG-29 is good, no question. They just
don't know beans about using it effectively-- Remember Baron Manfred Von
Richthofen's eternal words: "The quality of the crate matters little.
Success depends on the man sitting in it."
T.
tony_lovell
In <01bce8d0$43e42cc0$ead6...@none.ropnet.ru.ropnet.ru> "Kostik" wrote:
>
>
> Laydezman <NoSpamMu...@NoSpamWorldnet.att.net> записано в статью
> > Hmm i wonder if the S-37 will be able to shoot something that it cant
> see?
> >The way i see it an F-22 can take out 4 of these
> > planes if all its missles work correctly before the S-37 can engage at a
> > range where it can detect the F-22 unless of course they have a low
> > probability of intercept of radar on board. Now if i know a shred about
> > the Air Force im sure they are gonna have counters to this plane.
> > Unfortunately we dont have someone on has such top knowledge about our
> > military as yours cuase we know how to keep secrets. Also you better
> > pray that they dont put a 4d nozzle on the falcon cuase the dogfight
> > between these 2 critters would be a sight to see... but doh! Russian
> > pilots only receive 10% of the flying time our pilots get.
>
> Very informative, very. I guess you have results numbers of a dogfight of
> F22 against SU-37. Or even S-32. Or you have knowlege that noone else has.
>
>
> develope an engine
> with 4D thrust vectors that could operate in combat conditions in near
> future. More likely in 10 years or so.
What the plane can do is hooey.
Can you name a country sporting Russian hardware that has a professional
military whose pilots receive 20% the flight time of the US armed forces?
I would expect a force of F-16s to handily defeat a similarly-sized force of
Mig-29's, given the relative competence of the average pilot to be found in
each cockpit.
This is not a knock against any country's pilots, but a sober acknowledgement
that many do not match their hardware investments with training investments.
Nor do I mean to imply that the US is alone in its appreciation of training.
But I cannot offhand think of a Russian-supplied military who approaches the
same thresholds of training and readiness.
tone
T.
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Jussi Saari wrote:
> > footage of the 2 birds limping home. One of the f18's had the radar
> > cover (nose) and canopy completely gone. The only thing the other f18
> > was missing was... HALF OF THE LEFT WING!!!!!!!! both planes made it
> > back to base and landed safely.
> > Now I wanna see a Russian plane do that. Sure maybe the su-27 and su-37
> > might be able to do this, but I'd bet those are the only 2 planes they
> > have that CAN. But if it had not been for FBW only 1 if any of those
> > f18's would have made it home...
>
> I'm not so sure it was the FBW that saved those Hornets. Missing a big
> part of the wing would cause a rolling momentum, but as long as it wasn't
> too great to be compensated for with control surfaces the plane should be
> flyable by hand just as well as with FBW. (There was an Israeli F-15 that
> lost IIRC much more than half of it's wing in a mid-air with an A-4 and
> made it back...). As for Russian planes, a MiG-29 probably would be
> flyable with big part of a wing missing as well, after all it pretty much
> shares it's configuration with the Su-27, F-15 and F/A-18.
Yes, that Israeli F-15A had about 1 foot of its right wing left
after the midair collision. =) The F-15 did have a lifting-body fuselage
though, so it probably is more survivable in that situation. We can't say
the same for the F/A-18 or F-16.
Also, while the F-15 did not have fly-by-wire controls, it did
have a stability enhancement system called CAS (Control Augmentation
System) and power-boosted controls-- Undoubtedly this contributed to that
F-15's survivability in that midair collision.
T.
test
Bryan Walker wrote:
>
> Gustavo Flores wrote:
>
> > >>Perhaps but as the Russians like to point out , American aircraft are very
> > technology dependent, very precise and delicate, like a Swiss watch.<<
>
> suffered appalling Fully Mission Capable rates during the Cold War, and is in even worse
> shape now. A former East German MiG-29 pilot I had the good fortune to talk to in 1992 said
> that around 30% of their aircraft were ready for combat at any given time, and that the
> then-Soviet Su-27 squadrons were even lower. The same also holds up for the export customers
> of many major Russian-built aircraft such as Egypt and, of course, Iraq.
>
> Admittedly, much of this comes from the training and overall quality of the maintenance
> personnel, but the numbers do seem to invalidate the "crude is better" claims in many
> regards.
>
> Bryan Walker
> Simulations Producer
> Eidos Interactive
How much of that 70% unavailability was due to lack of supplies and
parts? Yes, lack of trained personnel (hell, lack of ANY personnel for
that matter) is a significant contributor, but given the dismal resupply
system that existed in the Soviet Military, does this really invalidate
the KISS solution? If the USAF suffered from the same resupply issues,
what would our availability rates be?
--
Mark Greene My real address: mailto:gree...@hlthsrc.com
The above opinions are mine, not my employer's.
Sean Long
Kostik wrote:
> Very informative, very. I guess you have results numbers of a dogfight of
> F22 against SU-37. Or even S-32. Or you have knowlege that noone else has.
It's not a great stretch to assume that the F-22 will have similiar
capabilities as the F-15 it is supposed to replace, and the F-15 has a
proven ability to shoot down multiple advanced aircraft. If you won't
accept the results from Desert Storm where F-15s shot down some of the
finest Russian built fighters in the world but flown by pilots totally
dependent on GCI that was being destroyed at the time, look at the
results the Israli's got using their F-15s and F-16s. No other fighter
in history has a kill ratio anywhere close to the F-15 or F-16. I think
right now it stands at 69-0.
> Also i think you'd better pray that american engineers will finally
> develope an engine
> with 4D thrust vectors that could operate in combat conditions in near
> future. More likely in 10 years or so.
Why? There is already a fully vectorable nozzle developed for the F-15
and F-16... It's a bolt-on replacement, requiring some maintenance work
and a flight-control software upgrade. And the USAF isn't buying it.
No need to. How often will the F-15 or F-22 get into a knife fight with
any Russian fighter? Not nearly often enough to justify the expense
right now. Plus, anyone stupid enough to rely on thrust vectoring when
in a close fight against someone carrying either the AA-11 or the next
Aim-9 variant will be dead rather quickly.
The ability to turn up ones own ass in a dogfight is neat, and would
help in the rare occasions when a merge must be made without missiles on
either side. In that situation, my personal plan will be to remain just
ouside of gun range (using thrust vectoring for nose position makes ya
really SLOW for a while), and drag the bastard tryin to shoot me over in
front of my wingman or flight lead.
Sean Long
WB: eagl
Justin Tyme
Ho hum . . .
"My daddy can beat up your daddy . . ."
--
Justin Tyme
Indiana PA USA
Visit the FS Genesis Scenery Web Site at
http://www.justintyme.pair.com/ or http://207.86.133.69/
Michael L. Cunningham
Bob Cardone
Bryn Battersby
Marc Haynes wrote:
> >At the end of September new russian multirole fighter S-32 (aka S-37
> >Berkut) has made its first flight. I remeber some ppl here stating
> that
> >russian planes are sucks, to be short. Now look at this, and open a
> BIG
> >world for yourself, containing not only of USA and its AF. Picture
> follows.
> >You can find some info about it on the web in a short period of time.
> If
> >you're interested of course.
> >
> >Kostik
>
> Fuck you and your drunk-ass president, you commie bastard! We ought
> to nuke
> your bankrupt country for the hell of it. I've got one thing to say
> about
> Russian engineering, CHERNOBYL! Go back to your bottle of Vodka and
> pray
> that we don't come over there and kick your pinko ass!
Does this explain why most of the rest of the world is very cynical
when it comes to Americans?
--
Bryn Battersby
Email: bbat...@postoffice.csu.edu.au
HomePage: http://golum.riv.csu.edu.au/~bbatte02
Nick E
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.97110...@voyager.cris.com>,
> Badass is right! That thing looks like a forward-swept-wing
> technology demonstrator modified from an Su-27, which I think we all agree
> is already a pretty sh*t-hot badass piece of hardware in its unmodified
> form. =)
>
> Kudos Kostik, if you are reading this-- Thanks for the post.
1. I read an article a while back that examined recent developments in
Russian air-to-air missile technology and it looks like they have some
seroiusly badass kit there also. I thought that the rear-ward firing
missile would make an attacking pilot think twice about getting on your
six.
2. Maybe i just like ugly aircraft but I'm sure that seeing something
like the Hind bearing down on you would cause a certain degree of
uncertainty about your immediate future.
Good post Kostik.
Nick
Kostik
Corsair <vf...@interlog.comREMOVE> записано в статью
<vf84.808...@interlog.comREMOVE>...
> Interesting, I was examining your crossposting talents and imagine that,
a
> binary post sent to a number of groups, none of which is an actual binary
> group. I'm sure your bravado justifies this irritating practice of yours.
> Thank you for inconveniencing all of us when there are two binary groups
where
> this would have been applicable. Twit.
> Corsair
Sorry, i wasn't aware of that.
I couldn't find a web link to that picture, and i thought it would be
interesting for you to see the plane.
Sorry again.
Kostik
Christopher King Perryman
Bryn Battersby wrote:
yes.
Michael L. Cunningham
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Dave,
Of course, you are right, there are more skirmishes around the globe. I was
referring to the relative East/West detente that exists today.
I guess the point I was getting at, without being clear <g>, was that due to
training differences, pilot resources, and other non-aircraft-related
factors, it may be hard to draw a 1-to-1 comparison.
For whatever it means, I do think the west generally enjoys "superiority"
both in aircraft and the quality of the pilots who fly them. On the other
hand, I do find many of the Russian/ex-Soveit approaches to aircraft, and
the aircraft themselves interesting and worthy of appreciation. (Unless of
course you are in the cockpit of an opposing aircraft <g>) Hell. I have a
fairly good understanding of aerodynamics and the principles involved in
creating "flight", yet it still amazes me, when watching all that metal (or
composites) roll down the runway, that it actually gets up in the air at
all. Just still a kid at heart, I guess.
FWIW, living in the El Toro flight path, there are few sights as awe
inspiring (in my mind anyway) than a C5 on final.
Kindest Regards,
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Pacific Presentation Graphics
http://www.hoscheit.com
Diesel Driver wrote in message
<01bce938$0ca65900$5111...@c5engnr.ix.netcom.com>...
Bryan Walker
T.
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Jussi Saari wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, L.R.S. wrote:
>
> > Well, here we go again.
>
> Yep. The last time this was debated I decided that next time I wouldn't
> participate in this thread since they inevitably always turn into flame
> wars... but here we go again... :)
(grin) Well, it *is* up to those of us who can state facts
reasonably to attenuate these silly flamewars, so yep-- Here we go again!
=)
> of those kills were made against North Korean and Chinese pilots, who had
> their hands full with just flying the plane. (There's plenty of Sabre gun
> camera footage of MiG-15 entering a spin and the pilot ejecting, all
> without a single hit...).
Yep-- The American F-86 Sabre crews have two things going for
them: the new A-1 radar gunsight, and a G-suit. The MiG-15 crews had
neither. Consequently, despite the fact that the Chinese and Russians had
experienced pilots with World War 2 experience, they were overwhelmed by
F-86 crews who can turn tighter (with their G suits) and shoot more
accurately (with the A-1 gunsight), and most of our boys had WW2
experience as well.
> Same as above. Not exactly an equal fight. Inferior pilot training in
> the Red side, plus the NVAF pilots often even suffered from varying
> degrees of mal-nutrition, to the point that blacking out at 4 G's was
> usual. And their equipment wasn't exactly top-of-the line equipment
> either: gun-armed MiG-17s (not that much different from the MiG-15s that
> had fought over Korea...) were the most commonly seen aircraft in Vietnam.
> Even of the MiG-21s that they had, the majority didn't have any missiles.
Actually, those factors worked in favor for the North Vietnamese.
They were using MiG-17s and MiG-21s with primary cannon armament, designed
to be dogfighters. The NVs thus retained their air combat maneuvering
skills while the U.S. forces let their skills deteriorate-- Our F-4
Phantom crews were taking humiliating losses because beyond-visual-range
radar missiles (AIM-7) turned out to be a complete disaster (9% hit rate),
and our airmen didn't know how to employ the AIM-9 in its lethal envelope.
The stats show how disasterous it got-- In 1967, the USAF lost 13 F-4
Phantoms to MiGs while we shot down only 5 NVAF jets. The NVAF MiG crews
weren't pushovers by any means.
Only the Navy F-8 Crusader, armed very much like the MiG-17 and
MiG-21 (4 guns in the F-8), did respectably in ACM against the MiGs-- our
Navy F-8 crews had to retain their dogfighting skills out of necessity
because the F-8 is a pure dogfighting machine.
It wasn't until the Navy revamped its training practices in 1969
that we started to see improvement-- Both Navy and AF were posting only a
dismal 2:1 kill ratio before 1972, but after 1972, the Navy posted 12:1
after instituting training programs like Top Gun.
> It tells that the Libyans were tried to use obsolete Soviet export
> equipment flown by ill-trained pilots against the latest American fighters
> flown by far better trained pilots...
Yep-- Both crews of Fast Eagles 105 and 107 (VF-41 Black Aces) in
the 1981 Gulf of Sidra incident were Top Gun-trained.
I'm noture about the two VF-32 Swordsmen crews that shot down 2
more MiG-23s again in 1989, but I think they were Top Gun-trained crews as
well.
T.
T.
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Michael L. Cunningham wrote:
> If you think this aircraft "looks" mean, I can't wait for it to scare a
> Cessna 182 out of the skies! If looks could kill....
Well, we do have to give it some credit-- That puppy did have the
IRST fairing as well as what looks like a functional radome. Looks like
it can definitely fire guided weapons. In that case, I definitely
wouldn't want to be in the Cessna! =)
T.
Kostik
Michael L. Cunningham <hydrom...@earthlink.net> записано в статью
[massive garbage snip]
> If you think this aircraft "looks" mean, I can't wait for it to scare a
> Cessna 182 out of the skies! If looks could kill....
> Michael
If you only had a brain.... lol
Kostik
pap...@ix.netcom.com
Well before we go patting ourselves too hard on the back just remember
that the United States Military is cutting Waaaay back.
I remember the days of Reagan in the 80's in Vegas watching
Nellis...it was so busy with pilots training that it looked like a
permanent airshow....well just got back from Vegas in the 90's and
Nellis looks like a permenant ghost town.....and that scares me. We
keep losing pilots all the time to the Commercial Companies, what
pilots do remain are not getting the time in the air they used to and
Red Flag is dead....
Training is everything.....EVERYTHING....and its the VERY FIRST THING
thats cut back Fat Cheap Prick Congressman. So lets dont get too
starry eyed over our airforces...they are gonna be going into the next
fight with one hand tied behind their back because of some fat cheap
prick.....decided that some wonder weapon was better than training.
PAPA DOC
Shawn J. Keller
> cover (nose) and canopy completely gone. The only thing the other f18
> was missing was... HALF OF THE LEFT WING!!!!!!!! both planes made it
> back to base and landed safely.
>
> Now I wanna see a Russian plane do that. Sure maybe the su-27 and su-37
> might be able to do this, but I'd bet those are the only 2 planes they
> have that CAN. But if it had not been for FBW only 1 if any of those
> f18's would have made it home...
Actually, and F-15 had an accident in which an entire wing was "removed"
and it made it home and was repaired to fly again. And it doesn't have
fly-by wire.
L.R.S.
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:22:48 +0200, Jussi Saari <sa...@hepo.cc.lut.fi>
wrote:
>> The F-15A Eagle alone shot down 81 enemy aircraft with no loss of an
>> F-15.
>
> Just a minor correction here: a large proportion of the Israeli kills in
>Lebanon were made with F-16s.
>
>
Sorry Jussi, but the F-15 in Israeli hands dished out the number of
kills I said. Not the F-16. The F-16 may have gotten the most kills
in recent years, but the information I mentioned is available in a
number of references, including Tom Clancey's Fighter Wing book.
Regarding the forward swept wing aircraft, much of the problem with it
was flutter on the tips of the leading edge. That would mean that the
wing has to be strengthened before it can be effectively used in
combat. It was this problem that led to "more research" on the
concept, rather than a prototype aircraft.
No Signature, no nothing
just my humble opinion :)
Scott Brazell
Justin Tyme wrote:
>
> Ho hum . . .
>
> "My daddy can beat up your daddy . . ."
>
> --
> Justin Tyme
> Indiana PA USA
> Visit the FS Genesis Scenery Web Site at
> http://www.justintyme.pair.com/ or http://207.86.133.69/
Yea, here I am checking into the newsgroup after just one day and wow!
look at all those posts. Maybe some revelation about FS98! No, just
this Cold War thread still going. Oh well.
--
Scott Brazell
University of Oklahoma
Aviation
Jussi Saari
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, T. wrote:
> Yep-- The American F-86 Sabre crews have two things going for
> them: the new A-1 radar gunsight, and a G-suit. The MiG-15 crews had
> neither. Consequently, despite the fact that the Chinese and Russians had
> experienced pilots with World War 2 experience, they were overwhelmed by
> F-86 crews who can turn tighter (with their G suits) and shoot more
> accurately (with the A-1 gunsight), and most of our boys had WW2
> experience as well.
Yes, and then there's the armament issue: the MiG was intended as a
bomber interceptor, and as such was armed with NR-23 and NR-37 cannons
which offered heavy firepower to for taking out B-29s, but weren't that
great against small maneuvering targets. In addition to the slow rate of
fire, the cannons also had different ballistics and it wasn't uncommon for
the MiGs to miss with 23mm shells going above and 37mm below the target...
> > usual. And their equipment wasn't exactly top-of-the line equipment
> > either: gun-armed MiG-17s (not that much different from the MiG-15s that
> > had fought over Korea...) were the most commonly seen aircraft in Vietnam.
> > Even of the MiG-21s that they had, the majority didn't have any missiles.
>
> Actually, those factors worked in favor for the North Vietnamese.
> They were using MiG-17s and MiG-21s with primary cannon armament, designed
> to be dogfighters. The NVs thus retained their air combat maneuvering
> skills while the U.S. forces let their skills deteriorate--
I don't think that lack of missiles helped the NVs in any way. With or
without Atolls, MiG-17s and MiG-21s are within-visual-range dogfighters,
and for the most part would need to get to the opponents tail to fire.
R-13R would have given the MiG-21 a short-range head-on capability, but I
don't think it's availability would have shifted the NVs tactics
significantly away from dogfighting because we're still talking about
short-range weapons, and in any case a small MiG couldn't carry as heavy
missile loads as an F-4. What missiles would have changed, is that the
MiGs' firing envelope would have increased by a wide margin, disengaging
would have become far more difficult for US fighters, and the quick
surprise attacks that the NVAF liked would have become easier to perform
and more effective. Not to mention that the MiGs wouldn't have had to come
within 12.7mm range of B-52s to intercepts them...
> The NVAF MiG crews weren't pushovers by any means.
No they weren't, but they weren't exactly the Israeli Air Force either.
They were disciplined (the mission was to stop US bombers and attack
aircraft - after the MiGs had forced their targets to dump their a2g
ordnance they often disengaged immeadiately if they didn't have a clear
advantage), but in ACM skills they were no match for late-war USN pilots,
as the kill ratios clearly show.
> Only the Navy F-8 Crusader, armed very much like the MiG-17 and
> MiG-21 (4 guns in the F-8), did respectably in ACM against the MiGs-- our
> Navy F-8 crews had to retain their dogfighting skills out of necessity
> because the F-8 is a pure dogfighting machine.
True, but they also carried Sidewinders, and if I remember right (I'm
not quite sure about this one, could be wrong...) the majority of their
kills were made with AIM-9s, not guns.
Jussi
Bryan Walker
test wrote:
> >>How much of that 70% unavailability was due to lack of supplies and
> parts?<<
Of course I have the disadvantage of a southern education, but I would have to believe that the
aircraft in question wouldn't need so many parts as to result in 70% of them holding down the
tarmac if they were as reliable as advertised. What I do know is that in discussions with several
pilots who operated various Russian-built aircraft, they all emphasized how often that hardware
went "Tango Uniform."
I'm no Clancy-esque technologist, but simple and reliable are not necessarily synonymous.
Bryan Walker
Simulations Producer
Eidos Interactive
Kostik
Shawn J. Keller <sha...@lightspeed.net> записано в статью
> Actually, and F-15 had an accident in which an entire wing was "removed"
> and it made it home and was repaired to fly again. And it doesn't have
> fly-by wire.
I have o dozen of same stories about russian planes.
Kostik
T.
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, test wrote:
> How much of that 70% unavailability was due to lack of supplies and
> parts? Yes, lack of trained personnel (hell, lack of ANY personnel for
> that matter) is a significant contributor, but given the dismal resupply
> system that existed in the Soviet Military, does this really invalidate
> the KISS solution? If the USAF suffered from the same resupply issues,
> what would our availability rates be?
There are also a lot of sources out there (AW&ST, etc.) that said
the Russian planes' jet engines need to be changed a lot more frequently
than ours-- They don't have the same sort of high-tolerance materials
engineering that Pratt & Whitney and GE put into their powerplants.
T.
Jussi Saari
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Bryan Walker wrote:
> Gustavo Flores wrote:
> A former East German MiG-29 pilot I had the good fortune to talk to in
> 1992 said that around 30% of their aircraft were ready for combat at any
> given time, and that the then-Soviet Su-27 squadrons were even lower.
That sounds strange... From what I have read, both Su-27 and MiG-29 had
severe maintenance problems in the first few years, but the mission
capable rate rose in a couple of years to around 85%. That's still below
western figures, but not much and is certainly far higher and IMO more
believable than the 30%.
Jussi
T.
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Jussi Saari wrote:
> I don't think that lack of missiles helped the NVs in any way. With or
> without Atolls, MiG-17s and MiG-21s are within-visual-range dogfighters,
> and for the most part would need to get to the opponents tail to fire.
> R-13R would have given the MiG-21 a short-range head-on capability, but I
> don't think it's availability would have shifted the NVs tactics
> significantly away from dogfighting because we're still talking about
> short-range weapons, and in any case a small MiG couldn't carry as heavy
> missile loads as an F-4. What missiles would have changed, is that the
> MiGs' firing envelope would have increased by a wide margin, disengaging
> would have become far more difficult for US fighters, and the quick
> surprise attacks that the NVAF liked would have become easier to perform
> and more effective. Not to mention that the MiGs wouldn't have had to come
> within 12.7mm range of B-52s to intercepts them...
Then again, for the most part the air-to-air encounters between
the MiGs and U.S. fighters were visual-range affairs anyway-- The U.S.
fighters had to get visual ID first before firing to prevent
"blue-on-blue" incidents, which negated any advantage the extremely
unreliable AIM-7 Sparrow (9% hit rate) might have given. In 1966, 2 F-4
Phantoms were mistakenly shot down by another two F-4s from beyond visual
range with AIM-7s, which was why the ROE insisted on visual ID.
As a front-quarter weapon, the AIM-7 still had a long way to go.
It wasn't until 1976 when the more reliable version (AIM-7F) with a
monopulse seeker was introduced. The same is true with the radar-guided
Atoll-- There really wasn't any practical front-aspect attack advantage to
be had in Vietnam.
Thus, the lack of missile armament on the NVAF fighters was not
quite critical-- In close, the gun-armed MiGs were an equal match for
gunless F-4 Phantoms armed with AIM-9Bs or Ds (both of which were nowhere
near as reliable as the current L or M versions, and had far smaller
acquisition and maneuvering envelopes). In fact, the F-4s lugging 4
700-pound AIM-7 Sparrows into close combat have another disadvantage-- The
AIM-7s are useless in-close, and they incur an extra 2,800-pound penalty
on the F-4s.
> No they weren't, but they weren't exactly the Israeli Air Force either.
> They were disciplined (the mission was to stop US bombers and attack
> aircraft - after the MiGs had forced their targets to dump their a2g
> ordnance they often disengaged immeadiately if they didn't have a clear
> advantage), but in ACM skills they were no match for late-war USN pilots,
> as the kill ratios clearly show.
Yes, but prior to 1972, the Navy was doing pretty dismally-- 2:1
kill ratios. The NVs did have a head start in the area of air combat
proficiency. It was only with the establishment of DACT, energy
management, section and division tactics, and effective weapons envelope
employment training in 1969 that gave the Navy the chance to catch up in
ACM skills.
> > Only the Navy F-8 Crusader, armed very much like the MiG-17 and
> > MiG-21 (4 guns in the F-8), did respectably in ACM against the MiGs-- our
> > Navy F-8 crews had to retain their dogfighting skills out of necessity
> > because the F-8 is a pure dogfighting machine.
>
> True, but they also carried Sidewinders, and if I remember right (I'm
> not quite sure about this one, could be wrong...) the majority of their
> kills were made with AIM-9s, not guns.
Yes, the F-8s carried AIM-9s, but only 2 of them. I believe in
Captain Ault's report it was stated the F-8s split their kills pretty much
50/50-- Half guns and half AIM-9s. The majority of all victories by
American aircrews were with AIM-9s because it was in fact the only
effective weapon available to gunless F-4 Phantoms, which served in far
greater numbers (a majority of USAF and USN fighter squadrons) in Vietnam
than the F-8 (only some Navy fighter squadrons flew the F-8).
I should also go back to Robert Shaw's Fighter Tactics book to see
where the stats are.. Stay tuned. =)
T.
test
Bryan Walker wrote:
>
> test wrote:
>
> > >>How much of that 70% unavailability was due to lack of supplies and
> > parts?<<
>
> aircraft in question wouldn't need so many parts as to result in 70% of them holding down the
> tarmac if they were as reliable as advertised. What I do know is that in discussions with several
> pilots who operated various Russian-built aircraft, they all emphasized how often that hardware
> went "Tango Uniform."
>
I reread the post, and I did not mean to imply that the entire 70% down
figure (if that is even reliable, I was actually quoting the previous
poster) was due to lack of spares, but that a significant part may have
been, i.e. 1/3 to 2/3 of that figure at any given time (which would be
23% - 66% of total). So I would say your education did you fine. :)
> I'm no Clancy-esque technologist, but simple and reliable are not necessarily synonymous.
>
No, but then that was my point, which I guess I did not make to well.
Actually, in one of Clancy's books, he does say that the SUPPOSED
advantage of the Russian fighter design was that it could be maintained
by an 18 year old with a ballpeen hammer, as opposed to the US fighter,
which practically requires folks with degrees in electrical and
mechnical engineering.
The point I wanted to make was that the Soviet system was not a very
good measurement of that philosiphy (simple=reliable) due to the cronic
shortages of suppiles, parts, and men. But on the other hand, I suppose
if the shortages are not a problem, then that would imply that cost may
not be either given that you can afford the required infrastructure in
the first place.
So then, does it simply come down to the complexity of any weapon system
is proportional to the affordability of the support system necessary to
run it?
(sounds like a corollary to Murphy, eh?)
> Bryan Walker
> Simulations Producer
> Eidos Interactive
>
> > Yes, lack of trained personnel (hell, lack of ANY personnel for
> > that matter) is a significant contributor, but given the dismal resupply
> > system that existed in the Soviet Military, does this really invalidate
> > the KISS solution? If the USAF suffered from the same resupply issues,
> > what would our availability rates be?
> > --
> > Mark Greene My real address: mailto:gree...@hlthsrc.com
> > The above opinions are mine, not my employer's.
just clarifying my original $0.02!
Jussi Saari
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, L.R.S. wrote:
> > Just a minor correction here: a large proportion of the Israeli kills in
> >Lebanon were made with F-16s.
>
> Sorry Jussi, but the F-15 in Israeli hands dished out the number of
> kills I said. Not the F-16. The F-16 may have gotten the most kills
> in recent years, but the information I mentioned is available in a
> number of references, including Tom Clancey's Fighter Wing book.
No, I'm pretty sure I'm right here. The IAF killed 80+ Syrian MiGs over
the Bekaa Valley in 82, and although I don't remember the exact figures, I
remember that just about every source gives a significant proportion of
these to F-16's. F-15s may have gotten the majority of kills for all I
know, but there were definately many kills by F-16s also, and I'm pretty
sure that the figure for F-15s is more like around 40-60 than 80.
Jussi
Gustavo Flores
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.97110...@hepo.cc.lut.fi> Jussi Saari <sa...@hepo.cc.lut.fi> writes:
>From: Jussi Saari <sa...@hepo.cc.lut.fi>
>Subject: Re: USAF is left behind again
>Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:22:48 +0200
>On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, L.R.S. wrote:
>> Well, here we go again.
> Yep. The last time this was debated I decided that next time I wouldn't
>participate in this thread since they inevitably always turn into flame
>wars... but here we go again... :)
A very good post. Intelligent discussion at last.
I am always amazed at how americans perceive the rest of the world. It seems
the more ignorant the more arrogant they act with respect to other countries
This country has enormous advantages, mainly the enormous size of its economy,
as well as a large manufacturing capacity. ( the latter, sadly, is being
destroyed slowly )
It is a good thing that The Soviet Union is no longer our enemy. It is a very
dangerous thing to underestimate your adversary.
We won WW II due mainly to the enormous production capacity of this country.
Our factories could continue to produce airplanes, tanks and armaments while
the germans were being bombed repeatedly. And still it wasn't a cake walk. we
had to fight inch by inch all the way to victory.
-Just read some numbers, by 1945 3763 B29's had been delivered, 12,692 B17's
9,916 B25's 18,188 B24's 10,245 C47's 3,144 C46's 9,536 P38's -
( That's a lot of aluminum)
Technology alone is not the answer, you know , you come up with something new
but the other guy isn't sleeping. The Germans had in many cases superior
weapons, but they just could not compete in production.
Gustavo Flores
BORIS
Please do not count the rantings of one American as the views of this
country!
I am American and I feel he is wrong.
If there is any country in the world where so many people think in
different ways it is America, just look at our government for proof.
NOW may we please get back to Flight Sims and stop this ridiculous
thread.
BORIS
BBBLLLLLAAAAAAAA!!! Run for your lives LONGBOW 2 is coming!!!!!
--
Jerrit "BORIS" Tyler
jer...@cyberspace.grnet.com
""""Please remove NOSPAM from my address to respond""""
http://grnet.com/stinger/index.htm
I AM a Flight Sim nut and Iv got the jacket to prove it.
Gustavo Flores wrote:
> I am always amazed at how americans perceive the rest of the world. It seems
> the more ignorant the more arrogant they act with respect to other countries
<SNIP>
> Gustavo Flores
BORIS
I Applaud you for your wisdom!
BORIS
P.S. Im American!
Gustavo Flores wrote:
>
> Please don't be so foolish and arrogant.
> If you want to deride the Russians you should not bring up the Mir space
> station.It has long exceeded its design life and if it has technical problems
> it is to be expected considering it is well past its retirement age.
> We did build a space station called Skylab and it had all sorts of technical
> problems, from overheating, a damaged solar panel ( sounds familiar ?)
> The astronauts had to rig a kind of shade to keep temperatures down to a
> manageable level. ( and it was brand-new ! )
> It finally crashed after reentry due to orbital decay, while all we could do
> was watch helplessly lacking a suitable launch vehicle to boost it to a higher
> orbit.
>
> Our space shuttle is essentially a new machine every time it's launched
> having gone extensive overhaul between launches.
> It's easy to be smug whwn we take our throw away society approach and build
> something new that only lasts a short time.
> I think the Russians in the space program are to be admired considering how
> much they have accomplished within such a poor economic system with all the
> shortcomings it produces,
> Remember, they had the first artificial satellite ( Sputnik) had the first man
> in orbit ( Gagarin), while whe had not even had Sheppard's sub-orbital flight.
>
> I can't even believe I would ever be defending the Russians having been born
> in Cuba and growing up hating the Soviet Union. It's just that I like empty
> rethoric , no matter from which side. make no mistake, the Russians are just
> not stupid.
>
> Gustavo Flores
Gustavo Flores
In article <63ll16$8th$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu> "Marc Haynes" <meha...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:
>From: "Marc Haynes" <meha...@eos.ncsu.edu>
>Subject: Re: USAF is left behind again
> I guess America will just have to bow to your technically superior country.
>Were all just a bunch of buffoons over here with our silly hi-tech weaponry.
>We do silly fod walks and worry about useless details such as compressor and
>combustion efficiencies. Yep, we are so stupid. I just wish that our
>feeble minds could develop such an awesome economy as yours. Maybe one day
>we'll build a great space station such as the MIR and nearly kill all aboard
>on a daily basis. And your nuclear facilities, whoa, they are fantastic!
>Chernobyl has been shut down for ten years and it still produces heat (and a
>few three eyed babies every now and then). Yep Kostin, Russian technology
>is the best!
Fourth Horseman
In article <34681214...@news.picknowl.com.au>,
mi...@s054.aone.net.au wrote:
> It is fun to read your messages, Russian and those from the US.
>
> Well my name is Michal. I live in Australia.
> I had to run away from my own country, Czechoslovakia.
>
> Russians invaded it in 21 hours. No reason, just enlarging the empire.
> It took them 21 years to leave. Oh, yes, they used they "awesome"
> technology.
>
> USA just watched. We had no oil fields with pipelines to Washington.
> Well, they did not use their "awesome" technology.
>
> Well done both, "brother Russians" and "friends Americans".
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mimes
> Michal Scasny.
I didn't see you talking about taking up arms to defend your homeland from
the Communist agressors.
Or perhaps you're fighting a rear-gaurd action from the warm, sunny
beaches of Sydney?
Why should others defend your country if you won't?
But I'm sure its easier to blame others than to acknowledge your own cowardice.
Have a day.
- Fourth Horseman -
hors...@nospam.xmission.com
http://www.xmission.com/~horseman
[Remove "nospam." from my address to send me E-Mail!]
Safeway
In article <horseman-111...@slc131.modem.xmission.com>,
hors...@nospam.xmission.com says...
> In article <34681214...@news.picknowl.com.au>,
> mi...@s054.aone.net.au wrote:
>
> > It is fun to read your messages, Russian and those from the US.
> >
> > Well my name is Michal. I live in Australia.
> > I had to run away from my own country, Czechoslovakia.
> >
> > Russians invaded it in 21 hours. No reason, just enlarging the empire.
> > It took them 21 years to leave. Oh, yes, they used they "awesome"
> > technology.
> >
> > USA just watched. We had no oil fields with pipelines to Washington.
> > Well, they did not use their "awesome" technology.
> >
> > Well done both, "brother Russians" and "friends Americans".
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Mimes
> > Michal Scasny.
>
> I didn't see you talking about taking up arms to defend your homeland from
> the Communist agressors.
>
> Or perhaps you're fighting a rear-gaurd action from the warm, sunny
> beaches of Sydney?
>
> Why should others defend your country if you won't?
>
>
> Have a day.
>
> - Fourth Horseman -
> hors...@nospam.xmission.com
> http://www.xmission.com/~horseman
> [Remove "nospam." from my address to send me E-Mail!]
>
You missed his point. The Russians were the aggressors. The Americans,
not seeing Czech as a strategic country, did nothing to intervene. Thus
goes worldwide politics, propoganda, and reading what they want you
to believe.
SafeWay
Todd&Kathleen
Mimes wrote:
> It is fun to read your messages, Russian and those from the US.
>
> Well my name is Michal. I live in Australia.
> I had to run away from my own country, Czechoslovakia.
Smart move.
>
>
> Russians invaded it in 21 hours. No reason, just enlarging the empire.
> It took them 21 years to leave. Oh, yes, they used they "awesome"
> technology.
>
> USA just watched. We had no oil fields with pipelines to Washington.
Nor did they have any other security interests "vital" to the US. Not to
mention Czechoslovakia was a communist government. De-Stalinization didn't
begin until the early 60's (the invasion was in 1968). The KSC was being
pressed by Moscow to institute more liberal reform policies, and had the
hardliner Antonin Novotny replaced as head of the KSC by the more moderate
Alexander Dubcek in early 1968. When the reformist policies, most notably
the lifting of censorship and granting the right of free expression,
resulted in writings criticizing foreign influence (Soviet) on the reform
movement, the Soviets invaded. This invasion was indeed helped along by
anti-reformists in the KSC, although resisted by the general population.
This scenario certainly did not warrant US intervention. The US, BTW, was
already intervening in another communist quagmire at the time.
> Well, they did not use their "awesome" technology.
They did during WWII, when Czechoslovakia disappeared at the hands of the
Nazi's.
>
>
> Well done both, "brother Russians" and "friends Americans".
Do you really believe that it is the moral equivalent to invade a country
as it is to prevent the invasion of a country half the world away?
Equating the two is absurd.
Your sarcasm would be better placed elsewhere, as it is arguable that
your "friends Americans" fought a forty year Cold War against your
"invaders", relieving you of their presence.
Please save your demagoguery. Someone like you who really gives a damn
should go home to your country and try to build a decent government.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mimes
> Michal Scasny.
-- Todd Rose, aka Silkrider
Mimes
It is fun to read your messages, Russian and those from the US.
Well my name is Michal. I live in Australia.
I had to run away from my own country, Czechoslovakia.
Russians invaded it in 21 hours. No reason, just enlarging the empire.
It took them 21 years to leave. Oh, yes, they used they "awesome"
technology.
USA just watched. We had no oil fields with pipelines to Washington.
Well, they did not use their "awesome" technology.
Well done both, "brother Russians" and "friends Americans".
Kind regards,
Mimes
Michal Scasny.
tony_lovell
Well, mimes, I like to believe in angels, too.
But angels would seldom invite nuclear catastrophe by daring to intervene
with their lily-white wings and haloes a-glowing. We would have, to be sure.
I think your bad fortune was unavoidable, but thanks for sharing.
tone
Gustavo Flores
In article <horseman-111...@slc131.modem.xmission.com> hors...@nospam.xmission.com (Fourth Horseman) writes:
>From: hors...@nospam.xmission.com (Fourth Horseman)
>Subject: Re: USAF is left behind again
>In article <34681214...@news.picknowl.com.au>,
>mi...@s054.aone.net.au wrote:
>> It is fun to read your messages, Russian and those from the US.
>>
>> Well my name is Michal. I live in Australia.
>> I had to run away from my own country, Czechoslovakia.
>>
>> Russians invaded it in 21 hours. No reason, just enlarging the empire.
>> It took them 21 years to leave. Oh, yes, they used they "awesome"
>> technology.
>>
>> USA just watched. We had no oil fields with pipelines to Washington.
>> Well, they did not use their "awesome" technology.
>>
>> Well done both, "brother Russians" and "friends Americans".
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Mimes
>> Michal Scasny.
>I didn't see you talking about taking up arms to defend your homeland from
>the Communist agressors.
>Or perhaps you're fighting a rear-gaurd action from the warm, sunny
>beaches of Sydney?
>Why should others defend your country if you won't?
>But I'm sure its easier to blame others than to acknowledge your own cowardice.
>Have a day.
>- Fourth Horseman -
>hors...@nospam.xmission.com
>http://www.xmission.com/~horseman
>[Remove "nospam." from my address to send me E-Mail!]
Dear Mr Horseman:
How nice for Americans to condemn others while you never had to fight a
modern war in your own soil.
Do you know all the circumstances surrounding Michal's departure from
Czechoslovakia ?
Do youi remember 1968 ? Do you know how the communists got to power in
Czechoslovakia ?
And more to his point, why did we risk American lives to free Kuwait, a
definitely undemocratic country who did nothing to defend itself ?
I eagerly await your next installment of erudition.
Gustavo Flores
skyt...@usa.net
Mimes wrote:
>
> It is fun to read your messages, Russian and those from the US.
>
> Well my name is Michal. I live in Australia.
> I had to run away from my own country, Czechoslovakia.
>
> Russians invaded it in 21 hours. No reason, just enlarging the empire.
> It took them 21 years to leave. Oh, yes, they used they "awesome"
> technology.
>
> USA just watched. We had no oil fields with pipelines to Washington.
> Well, they did not use their "awesome" technology.
>
> Well done both, "brother Russians" and "friends Americans".
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mimes
> Michal Scasny.
officer. Too young to invade Chechoslovakia but I was enough grown for
officials to send me to Afghanistan. Well it was spring of 1988, and I
saw the beginning of withdrawal, but nevertheless the War was ON. And
they shoot us although we didn't( I flew Ilyushin Il-76). Nobody asked
me do I want to go for a ride to so beautiful Southern Mountaneous Land.
NOBODY! It was order. So it was in Chechoslovakia, Romania, Viet-Nam and
so on. The warrior MUST obey orders, dont think. You do then think that
you did it righ way, otherwise you're dead. If you don't believe - ask
others. You can send Fucks to your country to your goverment to your
stupid commander BUT in thoughts and after you've done your job.
Over.
Mike.
Todd&Kathleen
Gustavo Flores wrote:
> Dear Mr Horseman:
>
> < Guilt easing lamentings snipped >
> And more to his point, why did we risk American lives to free Kuwait, a
> definitely undemocratic country who did nothing to defend itself ?
The political and legal reason is the Carter Doctrine (yes, president Jimmy Carter). Which in 1980 stated that "an attempt
by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the
United States," to repel which the United States would employ "any means necessary, including military force."
The doctrine was intended to clarify US foreign policy interest to the Soviet Union. The doctrine clearly equates the
security of the oil producing Gulf region with the security of the United States. This is an accurate association since the
US economy is more closely tied to energy access as to any other single factor, and US security is certainly tied to its
economy.
>
>
> I eagerly await your next installment of erudition.
So do I, his previous post had very little erudition about anything other than his personal feelings towards whiners and
cowards. Perhaps in his next post he will enlighten us on his feelings about guilt ridden, spoiled, demagogues.
>
>
> Gustavo Flores
Gustavo Flores
In article <3469631C...@rahul.net> Todd&Kathleen <mal...@rahul.net> writes:
>From: Todd&Kathleen <mal...@rahul.net>
>Subject: Re: USAF is left behind again
>Gustavo Flores wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gustavo Flores
To whom are you referring to with the guilt ridden, spoiled demagogues
epithet ?
I merely asked some questions to find out if this person knows
anything besides football scores.
I am glad you are honest enough to state the reason for the Gulf War,
something that George Bush was incapable of doing.I believe that protecting
economic interests by force is legitimate and necessary , I just did not like
the sugarcoating and the marketing campaign that accompanied it.
More appalling was the behavior of Americans acting as though it was a
football game and the absolute intolerance towards dissenting opinion.
You must remeber Peter Arnett being pilloried for reporting on what the bombs
did when they landed in Bagdad. I guess American were no prepared to see
anything more than bright lights and perfect bulls-eye scores from the gun
camera videos so widely shown on TV.
Gustavo Flores
Udie
Willem Van der Voort wrote:
>
> Sorry butt as a Belgian I must say tad it was not Belgium’s fault.
> I been in Germany as a military waiting for the Russians.
> They never came.
>
> We still are grateful here in Belgium for what the Americans did
> in WW2 .
>
> We will never forget you.
>
> Willem.
>
> From Antwerp Belgium.
Willem, I must say as an American, THANK YOU!!!!! I have been wanting
to say that on this thread for about a week, but did not want to seem
like a "gloater". Please know that when it comes to freedom and
democracy, that there are still many Americans who are willing to give
their lives for that cause if it need be...
INCLUDING THIS ONE!!!
--
Udie
XO<900th>
Bloody Jaguars
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Willem,
As an American, thank you for your kind acknowledgement of the American
effort during WWII. As one who has lived in Belgium, and whose family
originates in the small town of Hoscheid, Luxembourg, which neigbors
Diekirch and was overran no less than four times before Patton and McAuliffe
got down to business, this is certainly a close-to-home issue for me
personally.
Much history has passed, but it is very nice when one comes along with a
simple "thank you" or acknowledgement.
As few of the most recent posts have actually had much to do with the
USAF/Russian issue anymore, I thought this might be as appropriate a place
to thank you as any. <g>
Kindest regards,
William R. (Bill) Hoscheit
Pacific Presentation Graphics
Willem Van der Voort wrote in message <346AD8...@ping.be>...
>Sorry butt as a Belgian I must say tad it was not Belgium’s fault.
>I been in Germany as a military waiting for the Russians.
>They never came.
>
>We still are grateful here in Belgium for what the Americans did
>in WW2 .
>
>We will never forget you.
>
>Willem.
>
>From Antwerp Belgium.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Dear Mr. Flores,
>>
>> Allow me to attack your points in order.
>>
>> First, we Americans did fight a modern war on our soil - our civil war.
>> But to address the intention of your (erronious) post: Why, exactly, do
>> you think that this nation invests so heavilly in our military?
Projection
>> of political will is, of course, part of the answer, but the security of
>> our homeland is the primary objective.
>>
>> Do you fault us for wishing to maintain the security of our nation?
>>
>> Secondly, it was not *I* who mouthed off about having to leave *my*
>> country and how the rest of the western world was to blame for that, was
>> it? If my country was invaded by a hostile power and I chose to leave
>> instead of resisting, I'm sure I wouldn't get on the Usenet and blame the
>> EU for it. Maybe it would be Belgium's fault? Or Germany's, perhaps? Its
>> easy to pass the blame, but harder to stand up and admit that we're all
>> responsible for our actions -- or our lack of action.
>>
>> Finally, to address your criticism of the liberation of Kuwait: The
United
>> States, like the other western industrialized powers, requires energy to
>> survive. Allowing an interruption to strategic energy resources would
>> result in economic collapse that would be devestating not only to the
>> United States' economy, but the entire world economy. Iraqi forces were
in
>> position to lay claim to 1/5th of the world's oil supply. Maybe that
small
>> point eluded you?
>>
>> The gulf war was packaged and sold to the American people as a crusade
>> against aggression, but only the truely foolish believed that. However,
>> that is not to say that the operation was wrong. The United States of
>> America, as the most politically, economically, and militarilly powerful
>> nation on earth has every right to protect its strategic interests both
at
>> home and abroad.
>>
>> Still, I'm sure you're loading up the flame thrower right now and
>> preparing to launch into a diatribe about American imperialistic policy,
>> or something similar, no?
>>
>> By all means, please do -- I find it amusing to publicly eviscerate your
>> puerile arguments.
Fourth Horseman
In article <tolip.352...@iamerica.net>, to...@iamerica.net (Gustavo
Flores) wrote:
> Dear Mr Horseman:
>
> How nice for Americans to condemn others while you never had to fight a
> modern war in your own soil.
> Do you know all the circumstances surrounding Michal's departure from
> Czechoslovakia ?
> Do youi remember 1968 ? Do you know how the communists got to power in
> Czechoslovakia ?
> And more to his point, why did we risk American lives to free Kuwait, a
> definitely undemocratic country who did nothing to defend itself ?
>
> I eagerly await your next installment of erudition.
>
>
> Gustavo Flores
mcgarvey
Safeway wrote in message ...
>In article <horseman-111...@slc131.modem.xmission.com>,
>hors...@nospam.xmission.com says...
>> In article <34681214...@news.picknowl.com.au>,
>> mi...@s054.aone.net.au wrote:
>>
>
>You missed his point. The Russians were the aggressors. The Americans,
>not seeing Czech as a strategic country, did nothing to intervene. Thus
>goes worldwide politics, propoganda, and reading what they want you
>to believe.
>
>SafeWay
sorry gents n ladies, just have to throw my 2 cents worth in. You need
to look back to that period of history, the U.S. was embroiled in Vietnam,
consequently a vast proportion of military assets were not available. NATO
as a whole lacked the political will to start a WW III over the Warsaw Pact
invasion of Czechoslovakia, much the less the U.S. which had already shown
it's failure to commit politically to a "police action". In the offhand
chance that NATO had indeed contested the Czech invasion, the only
battlefield force multiplier available to counter the extreme imbalance in
conventiol capabilities were nuclear weapons. Not much of a choice in the
scheme of things sadly.
Pat
Fourth Horseman
In article <64dpt7$dp5$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, "mcgarvey"
<mcga...@MCI2000.com> wrote:
> sorry gents n ladies, just have to throw my 2 cents worth in. You need
> to look back to that period of history, the U.S. was embroiled in Vietnam,
> consequently a vast proportion of military assets were not available. NATO
> as a whole lacked the political will to start a WW III over the Warsaw Pact
> invasion of Czechoslovakia, much the less the U.S. which had already shown
> it's failure to commit politically to a "police action". In the offhand
> chance that NATO had indeed contested the Czech invasion, the only
> battlefield force multiplier available to counter the extreme imbalance in
> conventiol capabilities were nuclear weapons. Not much of a choice in the
> scheme of things sadly.
>
>
>
> Pat
Very true. When the choice is allowing it to happen or risk a full scale
exchange of strategic weapons, which do you choose?
If NATO would have countered the invasion and the result ended up going
nuclear, the world would condemn the US for escalating the situation.
We could not have won in that situation.
Gustavo Flores
In article <horseman-121...@slc547.modem.xmission.com> hors...@nospam.xmission.com (Fourth Horseman) writes:
>From: hors...@nospam.xmission.com (Fourth Horseman)
>Dear Mr. Flores,
>- Fourth Horseman -
Willem Van der Voort
Sorry butt as a Belgian I must say tad it was not Belgium’s fault.
I been in Germany as a military waiting for the Russians.
They never came.
We still are grateful here in Belgium for what the Americans did
in WW2 .
We will never forget you.
Willem.
From Antwerp Belgium.
> Dear Mr. Flores,
Fourth Horseman
In article <346AD8...@ping.be>, Willem Van der Voort
<Willem.Va...@ping.be> wrote:
> Sorry butt as a Belgian I must say tad it was not Belgium’s fault.
> I been in Germany as a military waiting for the Russians.
> They never came.
>
> We still are grateful here in Belgium for what the Americans did
> in WW2 .
>
> We will never forget you.
>
> Willem.
>
> From Antwerp Belgium.
Willem,
Please understand that my previous message was meant in sarcasm. If a
hostile power invaded the United States of course it would not be
Belgium's fault, or Germany's or anybody elses. That is exactly my point:
if that happened it would be the United States' fault for allowing it to
happen.
In truth, I know there are a lot of uneducated Americans on the net who
find it amusing to antagonize others. But believe me when I tell you that
the majority of Americans are better educated and more responsible than
that. We value our European allies very much -- we've fought and died
along side you.
Of course American policies don't always sync with the policies of
European nations, but that is to be expected.
What I object to is those who criticize the United States for defending
its strategic interests abroad.
Just wanted to make sure you understood I was not taking a shot at Belgium
or Germany, it was sarcasm.
Best regards,