US shoots down their own satellite

[Daniel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7254540.stm

Lots of people are speculating that it's just a public test of SDI or a missile defence system the US says it's not. But either way the US seems to have been able to take out one of their own satellites which they say was falling to earth and posed a threat to people on earth with it's toxic hydrazine fuel load.

[SOD]

who'se to say that the satellite was detonated?

the pentagon is a source of credible news! :rolleyes:

[Dave B]

I can't receive Sky now. I think they missed :s



:p

[maxu05]

:laugh: more like missile test.

[ioan]

Come on people!
China did it some time ago, They declared it before they launched the satelite.

The only difference is that the Americans managed to do it straight away while the Chinese had several tries before they got it right.

So in a way it was a demonstration of their capabilities.

[anthonyvop]

Come on people!
China did it some time ago, They declared it before they launched the satelite.

The only difference is that the Americans managed to do it straight away while the Chinese had several tries before they got it right.

So in a way it was a demonstration of their capabilities.

And let that be a lesson to all of you.

Actually the US has had the shoot down capabilty for years.

[Breeze]

And let that be a lesson to all of you.
Well that's a tad gratuitous anthony. A smilie there might keep the wolves at bay. But I doubt it. Let the ranting begin. :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

:laugh: more like missile test.
Where were you when China did this? China was also nice and blew it up in higher orbit so now there are blown up bits of missile and satellite in orbit waiting to hit other satellites and the ISS and the shuttles and so on..... At least most of this satellite will re-enter and be burn up within a month or so.

I actually believe the US on this one. I don't think they sent this satellite up there just for target practice. I'm sure they would have said "ooh one of our old satellites is going to re-enter lets shoot it down first" rather than shooting down a brand new satellite which would have cost millions to put up there. But perhaps that's just me.

[ioan]

I actually believe the US on this one. I don't think they sent this satellite up there just for target practice. I'm sure they would have said "ooh one of our old satellites is going to re-enter lets shoot it down first" rather than shooting down a brand new satellite which would have cost millions to put up there. But perhaps that's just me.

I agree. they didn't send the satellite up just to shoot it down. However I doubt it is the first satellite that went busted and fall back on the Earth. So why was this one so important. The Chinese precedent is the explanation. Americans showed that when flexed their muscles are bigger and brighter than the Chinese ones!
And I have no doubt that Russians could do it too, just that they have other more important things to do, like working on their energetic slavery on Europe!

;)

[Magnus]

There is a lot of people out there who questions just about everything that the US government does. The US government is more criticized then any other, and rightfuly so many times.
But I simply can not buy the concept that the US government just are lying and killing people to make themselves richer. It may sound extremely stupid, but that is what many people believe. Somewhere around 30 percent of the US population believes that the US government were directly responsible for 911.
I certainly belive the US on this point. Hydrazine is not a healthy product, but naturally the US also took the opurtunity to have some extra training. something russians, for example, focus on.

[Drew]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh we're all gonna die.

Right?

[maxu05]

Big tin of worms :D

[Eki]

Well that's a tad gratuitous anthony. A smilie there might keep the wolves at bay. But I doubt it. Let the ranting begin. :rolleyes:
Yep. "We have total control over the world and there's nothing you can do. BUAHAHAAA...(and more evil maniac laughter)"

[BDunnell]

And I have no doubt that Russians could do it too, just that they have other more important things to do, like working on their energetic slavery on Europe!

;)

Not so sure they could do it — the current resurgence of Russia's military capability is being somewhat overstated for domestic public consumption — but I like the last part of your comment!

[airshifter]

Not so sure they could do it — the current resurgence of Russia's military capability is being somewhat overstated for domestic public consumption — but I like the last part of your comment!

I tend to think the opposite. I would venture that a number of countries had the capability to do it long before China did. Though often the public is fed what the government wants, I've seen first hand that such information can be the watered down version of the truth.

[ioan]

Not so sure they could do it — the current resurgence of Russia's military capability is being somewhat overstated for domestic public consumption — but I like the last part of your comment!

I actually hate that part of my comment, because is a very real threat to all Europe. Never underestimate Putin and his right arm, Gazprom!

[nigelred5]

It was openly known that this was a US spy satellite as large as a school bus. I suspect we wouldn't want to risk that any of the pieces falling through the atmosphere on re-entry were to remain in large enough chunks to actually make it down to earth. Ones that were say, large enough that one could find and possibly analyze US military technology. ;) :roll eyes:


Hydrazine is dangerous stuff that is best atomized and ignighted in space by a missile. That's our story and were stickin' to it ;)

[anthonyvop]

What was really cool it that the Missle was one of our Standard SM-3 Navy AA Missles and was launched from a ship. It's tageting software was modified for this mission. Which means we have ships all over the 7 seas with satellite shoot down capability.....

How cool is that?

[ioan]

What was really cool it that the Missle was one of our Standard SM-3 Navy AA Missles and was launched from a ship. It's tageting software was modified for this mission. Which means we have ships all over the 7 seas with satellite shoot down capability.....

How cool is that?

I don't know. Could you tell us, people who don't care about having missiles, how cool it is?!

[Daniel]

What was really cool it that the Missle was one of our Standard SM-3 Navy AA Missles and was launched from a ship. It's tageting software was modified for this mission. Which means we have ships all over the 7 seas with satellite shoot down capability.....

How cool is that?
I thought it was interesting that the missile had no warhead and it was just purely two things smashing into each other at 22,000mph :)

I watched the press conference yesterday and the General (I think he was a General!) pointed out that it was very much an experimental use of the SM-3 with test wiring and special data logging equipment installed on the ship which would then be removed so in theory you don't have that capability on the seven seas :p

[thompp]

It wasnt a test of their SDI capability - well at leats I dont think so. The missile used was a kinetic energy weapon (i.e. no warhead) aimed at taking out ballistic misisles, and had to be adapted as a one-off to take out the satellite.

[Daniel]

It wasnt a test of their SDI capability - well at leats I dont think so. The missile used was a kinetic energy weapon (i.e. no warhead) aimed at taking out ballistic misisles, and had to be adapted as a one-off to take out the satellite.
Is there an echo in here?

[Breeze]

Is there an echo in here?
:rotflmao:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:rotflmao:

[anthonyvop]

I don't know. Could you tell us, people who don't care about having missiles, how cool it is?!

You should care because it is those very same missiles that provide the protection that allows you to spout your thoughts.

[DonJippo]

You should care because it is those very same missiles that provide the protection that allows you to spout your thoughts.

Protection against who?

[fandango]

I reckon it was a combination of all theories. The satellite probably wasn't put up there specifically for target practice, but it probably caused worry that it may "fall" into/onto the wrong hands, so they decided to blow it up with their handy missile defence system. And it gives antonyvop and his ilk the chance to launch their own little missile about how great they are, and that we should all be happy they're such good ol' boys....

Demolition must be a great job! ("Hard day at the office dear?" - "No, no it was great.")

[Camelopard]

You should care because it is those very same missiles that provide the protection that allows you to spout your thoughts.

Please elaborate, who do we need protection from? Anyway I hope your missiles will protect us better than the Super Hornets that you have sold us will. Useless pieces of crap they are!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22669524-2,00.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

"In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes."

[Daniel]

Please elaborate, who do we need protection from? Anyway I hope your missiles will protect us better than the Super Hornets that you have sold us will. Useless pieces of crap they are!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22669524-2,00.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

"In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes."

You don't need a TV to tell you the "super" hornet was/is a PoS. Everyone knew it at the time and still the Australians went for them. Perhaps they were sold as soon as someone said "super" :confused:

[Camelopard]

You don't need a TV to tell you the "super" hornet was/is a PoS. Everyone knew it at the time and still the Australians went for them. Perhaps they were sold as soon as someone said "super" :confused:

Hey, it would the first time that we have been conned into buying crap stuff from the US :p . You calling us suckers....... :) .

[nigelred5]

I thought it was interesting that the missile had no warhead and it was just purely two things smashing into each other at 22,000mph :)

I watched the press conference yesterday and the General (I think he was a General!) pointed out that it was very much an experimental use of the SM-3 with test wiring and special data logging equipment installed on the ship which would then be removed so in theory you don't have that capability on the seven seas :p

http://zerotosixty.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/medium_dr_evil_1.jpg

Riiight! ;)

[Daniel]

http://zerotosixty.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/medium_dr_evil_1.jpg

Riiight! ;)
http://www.gems.scot.info/graphics/braveheart.jpg
Leeeeft! ;)

P.S This is the post a picture of someone from a movie and say left or right game isn't it? :confused: Or is it that your post just doesn't have any meaning?

[Daniel]

Hey, it would the first time that we have been conned into buying crap stuff from the US :p . You calling us suckers....... :) .
I'm calling US suckers ;) Don't be fooled by my profile flag I am indeed Australian :)

[BDunnell]

You don't need a TV to tell you the "super" hornet was/is a PoS. Everyone knew it at the time and still the Australians went for them. Perhaps they were sold as soon as someone said "super" :confused:

Very good aircraft, in fact. Not perfect, but nor is any other combat aircraft.

[BDunnell]

I actually hate that part of my comment, because is a very real threat to all Europe. Never underestimate Putin and his right arm, Gazprom!

I'm not so sure, for the reason I gave before. In a nutshell, despite some appearances, the Russian armed forces are actually still in a pretty dire state compared to those of most of their potential 'opponents', and the Russian arms industry likewise.

[BDunnell]

I don't know. Could you tell us, people who don't care about having missiles, how cool it is?!

:laugh:

(Permission for that laugh was granted by the very existence of US missiles, keeping us free and democratic.) ;)

[ioan]

I'm not so sure, for the reason I gave before. In a nutshell, despite some appearances, the Russian armed forces are actually still in a pretty dire state compared to those of most of their potential 'opponents', and the Russian arms industry likewise.

They exported weapons worth 6 billion US$ last year and they are improving each year thanks to the huge amounts of money they earn selling us their gas.

No country in Europe can take them on, not even in their current state. They were in a far worst state 10 years ago!

[BDunnell]

They exported weapons worth 6 billion US$ last year and they are improving each year thanks to the huge amounts of money they earn selling us their gas.

No country in Europe can take them on, not even in their current state. They were in a far worst state 10 years ago!

They were to some extent, but, for example, pilots' flying hours have not increased markedly in many parts of the Russian armed forces, and their state of readiness is substantially lower than their Western equivalents, while major arms procurement programmes that were ongoing 10 years ago are mostly still ongoing now, with major projects now only slowly entering operational service, and even then with major problems. The current Russian bomber activity is intriguing, but I'd say it's little to worry about.

This is not to say, of course, that I feel that many of the actions of Putin's regime and its constant disregard for democracy and the rule of law is anything other than appalling.

[Eki]

You should care because it is those very same missiles that provide the protection that allows you to spout your thoughts.
How's that?

[Daniel]

Very good aircraft, in fact. Not perfect, but nor is any other combat aircraft.
Perhaps PoS was the wrong word to use. In fact it definitely was.

But the US Navy went and replaced a dedicated interceptor with a multi-role aircraft. The Tomcat has a combat range of something like three times that of the Super Hornet, it's faster also which is not a bad thing in an interceptor and it looks good in black.

http://www.airtoaircombat.com/images/F14_black_large.jpg

Now the Australians have gone and replaced the F-111 which is a long range strategic bomber/tactical strike aircraft. Which the Super Hornet isn't. It doesn't have the range, the speed or the capability to carry as much armament. All of which are pretty important for the role.

[Daniel]

This is not to say, of course, that I feel that many of the actions of Putin's regime and its constant disregard for democracy and the rule of law is anything other than appalling.

Yeah but who's going to win in a fight?

Gordie Brown?
http://english.people.com.cn/200506/13/images/g81.jpg
Or Vlad "I gots me some sexy pecs" Putin?
http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/08/14/amd_vladimirputin.jpg

Isn't that what really matters? :uhoh:

[BDunnell]

Perhaps PoS was the wrong word to use. In fact it definitely was.

But the US Navy went and replaced a dedicated interceptor with a multi-role aircraft. The Tomcat has a combat range of something like three times that of the Super Hornet, it's faster also which is not a bad thing in an interceptor and it looks good in black.

It was also becoming harder and harder to maintain, and today, by all accounts, you will genuinely find very few ex-Tomcat pilots who have transferred to the Super Hornet who consider it a retrograde step.

[anthonyvop]

Please elaborate, who do we need protection from? Anyway I hope your missiles will protect us better than the Super Hornets that you have sold us will. Useless pieces of crap they are!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22669524-2,00.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

"In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes."
Oh Please.
The Only thing Russian planes are good for is as Targets for US Built planes. We have proved it time and time again. There has never been a Russian plane of the same generation that has proven to be the equal, let alone superior to a US design.

Comparing the F-111 with the Super hornet is ridiculous. The F-111 was a bomber with virtually no self defense capability besides electronics. The F/A-18 goes from bomber to attack to fighter to interceptor with the flip of the switch. And does them all very well. Just ask the Iraqi Mig 29 Piliots who went head to head with them. Oh wait. You can't. They are dead!!!

[BDunnell]

Comparing the F-111 with the Super hornet is ridiculous. The F-111 was a bomber with virtually no self defense capability besides electronics. The F/A-18 goes from bomber to attack to fighter to interceptor with the flip of the switch. And does them all very well. Just ask the Iraqi Mig 29 Piliots who went head to head with them. Oh wait. You can't. They are dead!!!

Er... no Iraqi MiG-29 pilot has ever gone head-to-head with a Super Hornet.

[Camelopard]

Hey, it would the first time that we have been conned into buying crap stuff from the US :p . You calling us suckers....... :) .

Damn I did it again, I forgot a 'not be'. It was very late in my night shift when I wrote that comment, it should have read:

Hey, it would not be the first time that we have been conned into buying crap stuff from the US :p . You calling us suckers.......... :)

Sorry.

[Camelopard]

Oh Please.
The Only thing Russian planes are good for is as Targets for US Built planes. We have proved it time and time again. There has never been a Russian plane of the same generation that has proven to be the equal, let alone superior to a US design.

Well the Australian Air Force does not agree with you, We will probably pay a $400 million penalty to get out of having to pay for this piece of crap...


http://www.theage.com.au/news/investigations/probe-likely-into-hornet-purchase/2007/08/05/1186252546263.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/there-is-nothing-super-about-this-hornet/2007/03/14/1173722557984.htm

l

[Camelopard]

Yeah but who's going to win in a fight?

Gordie Brown?
http://english.people.com.cn/200506/13/images/g81.jpg
Or Vlad "I gots me some sexy pecs" Putin?
http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/08/14/amd_vladimirputin.jpg

Isn't that what really matters? :uhoh:

Ahhhh Daniel, you make me laugh!!! :)

[Camelopard]

Perhaps PoS was the wrong word to use. In fact it definitely was.

Now this was a PoS: the F-104 Starfighter, just ask the families of the 110 German pilots that lost their lives.

The Germans called them Witwenmacher and the Italians used the term Bara volante, (flying coffin). :mad:

[Camelopard]

Er... no Iraqi MiG-29 pilot has ever gone head-to-head with a Super Hornet.

So has any MIG-29 pilot gone head to head with a super hornet, or is this just another figment of Anthonyvop's over active imagination.

[Daniel]

Perhaps Anthony is thinking of Top Gun and thinks that the Tomcats were super hornets? :p

[ioan]

Oh Please.
The Only thing Russian planes are good for is as Targets for US Built planes. We have proved it time and time again. There has never been a Russian plane of the same generation that has proven to be the equal, let alone superior to a US design.

You're kidding right.
The F-22 Raptor is the first US built plane able to do what Russian MIG's were doing many years ago.

Just because Russian and American pilots were never confronted in direct battle using top machines it doesn't mean you are better.

[BDunnell]

Now this was a PoS: the F-104 Starfighter, just ask the families of the 110 German pilots that lost their lives.

The Germans called them Witwenmacher and the Italians used the term Bara volante, (flying coffin). :mad:

That's actually rather unfair on the F-104. Yes, many German pilots lost their lives in it, and it was undoubtedly a 'hot ship' to fly. However, there were other reasons for that early spate of German Starfighter crashes. Don't forget that the Luftwaffe had only recently been re-formed after the war, using a mixture of former wartime pilots and newly-trained youngsters. All had to be trained to fly modern jet fighters in a short space of time, and this didn't help. Neither did problems with the Starfighter's ejection seat. Fairly soon, the type's accident rate was on a par with all other comparable jet fighters of the era.

[BDunnell]

So has any MIG-29 pilot gone head to head with a super hornet, or is this just another figment of Anthonyvop's over active imagination.

Not as far as I am aware, unless Super Hornets have ever exercised against MiG-29s operated by any of the East European members of NATO that still fly them, or the German ones when the Luftwaffe operated them. I'm not sure about this.

[BDunnell]

You're kidding right.
The F-22 Raptor is the first US built plane able to do what Russian MIG's were doing many years ago.

What, in terms of manoeuvres like the tailslide and 'cobra'? In which case, US fighters (especially the F/A-18) could have performed those manoeuvres, but never did so in public. If you're referring to thrust vectoring, US and Russian development of fighters using vectored thrust has run almost in parallel. In any case, I feel that thrust vectoring is a blind alley as far as its use in today's air combat scenarios are concerned. Others disagree.

[Daniel]

Looks like a Stealth bomber has gone down. Thankfully looks like no fatalities for now though.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwMpLqX99V5mO6nPrBSI2xCKYGLgD8UVV0OO0

[Daniel]

It was also becoming harder and harder to maintain, and today, by all accounts, you will genuinely find very few ex-Tomcat pilots who have transferred to the Super Hornet who consider it a retrograde step.

That's true. But at the end of the day range, speed and the amount of armament you can carry are big limitations. The more reliant you are on tankers the more people are put in harms way in the course of a mission, the slower you are the more chance the enemy is going to get up and meet you and the less armament you carry the more aircraft that may be needed to complete a mission.


What, in terms of manoeuvres like the tailslide and 'cobra'? In which case, US fighters (especially the F/A-18) could have performed those manoeuvres, but never did so in public. If you're referring to thrust vectoring, US and Russian development of fighters using vectored thrust has run almost in parallel. In any case, I feel that thrust vectoring is a blind alley as far as its use in today's air combat scenarios are concerned. Others disagree.

I've often thought the same. I mean how often do pilots these days get close enough to see the whites in the eyes of the enemy pilot? Many years ago the RAAF did excercises in Australia against NZ A-4 Skyhawks and the A4's could outturn them and so on but this isn't like in WW1 and WW2 when you didn't have radar and you'd drop out of the sun and pummel your hapless enemy before he knew what hit him.

[ioan]

What, in terms of manoeuvres like the tailslide and 'cobra'? In which case, US fighters (especially the F/A-18) could have performed those manoeuvres, but never did so in public.

They never did it in public. Then how do we know that they can do it?
It's easy to say: "we can do it too" and than never show you can actually do it.



If you're referring to thrust vectoring, US and Russian development of fighters using vectored thrust has run almost in parallel.

That might well be the case.

Anyway US are still behind the Russians with regard to turbine designs, unless they have the know how but don't want to use it. ;)

[BDunnell]

They never did it in public. Then how do we know that they can do it?
It's easy to say: "we can do it too" and than never show you can actually do it.


Everybody knows that when it comes to demonstrating front-line aircraft in public, American test and service pilots are generally a lot more cautious than their Russian counterparts. This is why the displays by the F-22 look more tame than those by the thrust-vectoring MiG-29. There is no technical reason why an F/A-18 in particular could not perform a tailslide just like a MiG-29 or Su-27, or indeed a 'cobra' (I am reminded that it may be more difficult in an F-15 or F-16, due, on checking an old interview, to design issues relating to the amount of airflow going into the intakes). I seem to recall that the 'cobra' is only possible if you switch off the jet's autostab (automatic stability control) which limits the angle of attack you can attain.

In any case, neither manoeuvre is of the slightest air combat value, despite the claims made by Soviet pilots and designers when they were first demonstrated in the West, and the truth is that exercise encounters between Western fighters and standard MiG-29s have not tended to leave the Western pilots overly impressed with the MiG's performance.

[fandango]

You people have been playing far too much top trumps!

http://afghanappealfund.org.uk/?page_id=22

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Everybody knows that when it comes to demonstrating front-line aircraft in public, American test and service pilots are generally a lot more cautious than their Russian counterparts. This is why the displays by the F-22 look more tame than those by the thrust-vectoring MiG-29.

I've always wondered why the F-22 looks less agile in video than a Eurofighter, if USAF pilots are more cautious than RAF pilots maybe this explains why.

[BDunnell]

I've always wondered why the F-22 looks less agile in video than a Eurofighter, if USAF pilots are more cautious than RAF pilots maybe this explains why.

In fact, we are now starting to see the F-22 being demonstrated in public in a way that shows more of its agility.

[Malbec]

Agility and maneuverability are only relatively minor aspects of military aircraft design anyway. Most air combat is done at BVR (beyond visual range) and factors such as the quality of the respective electronic suites, crew training levels and the depth of backup support (AWACS, electronic warfare, refuelers etc etc) make a much bigger difference. MiGs and Sukhois may well outmaneuvre their Western counterparts at close range but not many will get close enough to do so. I doubt very much if the latest Sukhois have electronics as advanced as the F15C let alone the SuperHornet or F22. Also, most of the countries that operate Russian equipment don't have a body of highly trained pilots.

The one area where the Russians still lead the West is in missile technology. At sea missiles like the Shipwreck simply don't have a Western equivalent and will test our defences severely if they are ever used on us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit

[ioan]

Agility and maneuverability are only relatively minor aspects of military aircraft design anyway. Most air combat is done at BVR (beyond visual range) and factors such as the quality of the respective electronic suites, crew training levels and the depth of backup support (AWACS, electronic warfare, refuelers etc etc) make a much bigger difference. MiGs and Sukhois may well outmaneuvre their Western counterparts at close range but not many will get close enough to do so. I doubt very much if the latest Sukhois have electronics as advanced as the F15C let alone the SuperHornet or F22. Also, most of the countries that operate Russian equipment don't have a body of highly trained pilots.

The one area where the Russians still lead the West is in missile technology. At sea missiles like the Shipwreck simply don't have a Western equivalent and will test our defences severely if they are ever used on us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit

I never said they have better electronics (radar, targeting systems etc) just that they produced better military aircraft ("agility and maneuverability"). Bolt on some of the best available military electronic system and they are better than the American counterparts. I'm in no way pro-Russian, quite the opposite for the obvious reasons, but I still have to acknowledge when they are good at something.

[Malbec]

I never said they have better electronics (radar, targeting systems etc) just that they produced better military aircraft ("agility and maneuverability").

I think your definition of 'better military aircraft' is different to mine. For me, one military aircraft is better than another if it is more capable of shooting down its opponent. Electronics make a bigger difference than simple agility, although the latter is important in getting a plane to the right place in the first place.

I'm actually a fan of Russian military aircraft, for many third world countries they are all the plane they need and are cheap and simple enough to make sense. Few countries actually need or are capable of properly fielding aircraft such as the F-22 or EFA.

[Roamy]

this was just a little notice to Putnam that he has a long way to go with his new program of arming the world against the US. The truth is that ICBM missiles are over - you won't be able to launch and get anywhere.

[Eki]

Anthony, your military may be top notch, but your electrical distribution system is third world. How about routing some military funds that way?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332808,00.html

[tsarcasm]

hmm.... Satellite shot down during a full moon and full lunar eclipse. The iraq war started on March 20 2003 (spring equinox). All military action is symbolic, and highly Pagan - AstroTheology

[Daniel]

I think your definition of 'better military aircraft' is different to mine. For me, one military aircraft is better than another if it is more capable of shooting down its opponent. Electronics make a bigger difference than simple agility, although the latter is important in getting a plane to the right place in the first place.

I agree. An aircraft doesn't need to be agile although of course it doesn't hurt. Perhaps if this were WW2 or Korea then this would make it a better aircraft yes but like you say most engagements take place out of visual range. You get all these people going on about how unstable Eurofighter is and how it needs computers to fly it and the pilot flies the computers and so on and on and how that's somehow great. Is it? Is it really? At the end of the day a fighter aircraft is merely a weapons platform that flies and if the radar, weapons systems and weapons are good then it's going to be a good fighter. As long as it can fly and fly fast enough to get where it needs to go to shoot stuff down then in my mind it's a good fighter. Of course things like range, serviceability, weapons payload and so on also enter into it as well :)

I wonder how much of this talk of how agile fighters are and how they need such advanced systems to keep them up in the air is merely to make people think. Well perhaps X billion pounds is worth the investment if this fighter is good in a way that has very little to do with it's operational success :) Or is that just me?

[anthonyvop]

Anthony, your military may be top notch, but your electrical distribution system is third world. How about routing some military funds that way?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332808,00.html
WOW. I guess there never ever is a power failure in the great land of ICE that is know as Finland.
Or as we call it....That place next to Sweden!

Funny that you mention it. I live in Miami. My power was back in 50 mins. No sweat....No worries.

[Daniel]

Anthony, your military may be top notch, but your electrical distribution system is third world. How about routing some military funds that way?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332808,00.html

Man. Your back mustn't be in too condition with that huuuuuuuuuuuuge chip you're carrying around.

[BDunnell]

Agility and maneuverability are only relatively minor aspects of military aircraft design anyway. Most air combat is done at BVR (beyond visual range) and factors such as the quality of the respective electronic suites, crew training levels and the depth of backup support (AWACS, electronic warfare, refuelers etc etc) make a much bigger difference.

And on that score Russia is seriously lacking. Most of its fighter pilots still receive little or no air-to-air refuelling training — indeed, none of its MiG-29s are even capable of being refuelled in flight. It has very few operational tankers; things are a bit better in relation to AEW, command and control and intelligence-gathering/recce aircraft, but still way behind the US, and probably the UK too. Any Russian force package now would consist largely of aircraft originally delivered over 10-15 years ago that have not been subject to upgrades, flown by pilots who are relatively inexperienced compared to their Western counterparts, and backed up by supporting force elements such as tankers, AWACS aircraft and so on that are similarly inferior.


Also, most of the countries that operate Russian equipment don't have a body of highly trained pilots.

Certainly not by Western standards.

Added to this is the ongoing inability of Russian industry to deliver acceptable products in every case. Take Algeria, for example. It ordered new MiG-29s from Russia. On inspection, it turned out that they had been passed off as new. Algeria is now returning them. I can't think of any other major arms exporting country that would behave in such a way. Maybe the new 'all under one roof' organisation of Russia's big defence producers will have a positive effect, but what I'd describe as the cultural shift required on the part of the constituent companies is truly massive. All have struggled to deliver new products to the Russian armed forces (not helped by inadequate funding, of course.)



The one area where the Russians still lead the West is in missile technology. At sea missiles like the Shipwreck simply don't have a Western equivalent and will test our defences severely if they are ever used on us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit

Their ejector seats are pretty good, too. Some might say that this is just as well.

[Daniel]

Don't forget airbase security too! Clint Eastwood just walked in and stole that Mig-31 Firefox with little trouble :p

[Malbec]

Certainly not by Western standards.

Added to this is the ongoing inability of Russian industry to deliver acceptable products in every case. Take Algeria, for example. It ordered new MiG-29s from Russia. On inspection, it turned out that they had been passed off as new. Algeria is now returning them. I can't think of any other major arms exporting country that would behave in such a way. Maybe the new 'all under one roof' organisation of Russia's big defence producers will have a positive effect, but what I'd describe as the cultural shift required on the part of the constituent companies is truly massive. All have struggled to deliver new products to the Russian armed forces (not helped by inadequate funding, of course.)

Another example was the latest Indian/Pakistan crisis a few years ago. Both sides asked their respective major suppliers for more munitions and spare parts in preparation for a war. China's response to Pakistan was 'how much do you want and when?'. Russia's response to India was 'sorry, thats not possible at such short notice'.

It doesn't surprise me that countries such as India and China when buying Russian equipment often demand licensing privileges so that they can manufacture spares as and when necessary without resorting to the Russians. For those who aren't able to negotiate such privileges the Russians are too unreliable as an arms partner.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Agility and maneuverability are only relatively minor aspects of military aircraft design anyway. Most air combat is done at BVR (beyond visual range) and factors such as the quality of the respective electronic suites, crew training levels and the depth of backup support (AWACS, electronic warfare, refuelers etc etc) make a much bigger difference. MiGs and Sukhois may well outmaneuvre their Western counterparts at close range but not many will get close enough to do so. I doubt very much if the latest Sukhois have electronics as advanced as the F15C let alone the SuperHornet or F22. Also, most of the countries that operate Russian equipment don't have a body of highly trained pilots.



I don't know anything about air to air combat, but surely a more maneuverable aircraft would stand a better chance of escaping a 'locked on' missile even if it was fired from beyond visual range?

[Eki]

WOW. I guess there never ever is a power failure in the great land of ICE that is know as Finland.
Or as we call it....That place next to Sweden!

Funny that you mention it. I live in Miami. My power was back in 50 mins. No sweat....No worries.
That's at least half an hour longer than I have ever experienced.

[BDunnell]

I don't know anything about air to air combat, but surely a more maneuverable aircraft would stand a better chance of escaping a 'locked on' missile even if it was fired from beyond visual range?

Very slightly, maybe, but I reckon the effect is negligible. Most of the so-called 'super-manoeuvrability' involves the aircraft slowing down, anyway, which is a no-no in any form of air combat, whether within or beyond visual range.

[airshifter]

Very slightly, maybe, but I reckon the effect is negligible. Most of the so-called 'super-manoeuvrability' involves the aircraft slowing down, anyway, which is a no-no in any form of air combat, whether within or beyond visual range.

I would think that an advanced thrust vectoring systems would be of great use to a VTOL aircraft for going into vertical mode and once there.

With only a few exceptions other than that, the most impressive things they do at air shows are of little use in the air combat world.

[Daniel]

That's at least half an hour longer than I have ever experienced.
Yeah and I've had longer power failures in Australia. Are we comparing penii, a US satellite being shot down or are we discussing how good the power supplies are in our respective countries :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

I would think that an advanced thrust vectoring systems would be of great use to a VTOL aircraft for going into vertical mode and once there.

With only a few exceptions other than that, the most impressive things they do at air shows are of little use in the air combat world.
Isn't impressing taxpayers or making other countries taxpayers think "why can't our aircraft do that?!?!?!?!" useful? :)

[Malbec]

I don't know anything about air to air combat, but surely a more maneuverable aircraft would stand a better chance of escaping a 'locked on' missile even if it was fired from beyond visual range?

With the latest generation of air to air missiles there's not much that can be done to escape them. Hence the concentration of efforts on not being shot at in the first place through superior training, electronics and stealth.

I'm not saying maneuvrability is unimportant, it is if enemy aircraft manage to survive long enough to get in close with you but it really isn't the most important factor anymore. For the same reasons fighter planes will always have guns on board but they will almost never be used.

[BDunnell]

I'm not saying maneuvrability is unimportant, it is if enemy aircraft manage to survive long enough to get in close with you but it really isn't the most important factor anymore. For the same reasons fighter planes will always have guns on board but they will almost never be used.

Not any more. We are increasingly seeing fighters designed originally for the air-to-air role using their guns in order to help provide close air support to ground troops. The Eurofighter Typhoon has had its gun fitted after years of pleading for, in large part, this very reason.

[airshifter]

Isn't impressing taxpayers or making other countries taxpayers think "why can't our aircraft do that?!?!?!?!" useful? :)

I would think it would be much more useful for a country to not expose the full capability of their aircraft until needed. Though I enjoy watching any type of high performance aircraft display in flight, I'd much more enjoy knowing the aircraft our country makes could down any opposing threats without dramatic flight requirements.

[BDunnell]

I would think it would be much more useful for a country to not expose the full capability of their aircraft until needed. Though I enjoy watching any type of high performance aircraft display in flight, I'd much more enjoy knowing the aircraft our country makes could down any opposing threats without dramatic flight requirements.

No aircraft can really display its full capabilities in public anyway. There is a huge difference between flying manoeuvres that look good at an air display and being effective in combat.

[Daniel]

I would think it would be much more useful for a country to not expose the full capability of their aircraft until needed. Though I enjoy watching any type of high performance aircraft display in flight, I'd much more enjoy knowing the aircraft our country makes could down any opposing threats without dramatic flight requirements.
But at the end of the day taxpayers are paying the bills :) Don't you know you need to impress your bosses ;) Like people have said things like Cobra's and such aren't really all that useful in combat but they have a wow factor for Joe Public :)

[airshifter]

No aircraft can really display its full capabilities in public anyway. There is a huge difference between flying manoeuvres that look good at an air display and being effective in combat.

I agree 100% with that, and even those with access to military training areas can see little of what they can do these days other than the close air support roles.

Having done the latter on military installations while out training I think most people have no idea just how much airspace is used for the CAS role and even "dogfighting" training within gun range.

[Daniel]

Talking of CAS :)

Is it just me or am I the only one to think that the F-22 and F-35 aren't going to adequately replace the A-10?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/images/a10_3.jpg

I mean will they be able to fly as low and slow and be able to take as much of a beating? I doubt it but we'll see I guess.

Am I correct in thinking the A-10 is the only aircraft to ever score an air to air kill with an LGB when one pilot downed a chopper in the first gulf war?

[airshifter]

But at the end of the day taxpayers are paying the bills :) Don't you know you need to impress your bosses ;) Like people have said things like Cobra's and such aren't really all that useful in combat but they have a wow factor for Joe Public :)

I'd have to agree with what BDunnell said earlier in this respect. Different countries adopt different policies on what they will make public, and beyond that what they will display in a public place such as an air show.

The US has long ago quit doing the more wild performances at air shows, no doubt in part to the number of lawyers in this country. I can't speak for certain on current day policies, but I know that in the past the full capabilities of any military hardware were rarely made public information, unless that hardware was so obsolete that any adversary already knew such information.

Most people don't want to accept it, but much of the time Joe Public will never know the details on the capabilities of these aircraft.

[BDunnell]

Talking of CAS :)

Is it just me or am I the only one to think that the F-22 and F-35 aren't going to adequately replace the A-10?

I mean will they be able to fly as low and slow and be able to take as much of a beating? I doubt it but we'll see I guess.

The A-10 isn't being replaced for a long time. Its service life is being extended by a major upgrade programme. I would imagine that its eventual successor, some time in the late 2020s, will be an entirely new type.



Am I correct in thinking the A-10 is the only aircraft to ever score an air to air kill with an LGB when one pilot downed a chopper in the first gulf war?

Two helicopters were downed in 'Desert Storm' by A-10s using their guns, but not with LGBs.

[BDunnell]

The US has long ago quit doing the more wild performances at air shows, no doubt in part to the number of lawyers in this country.

I have to say that US pilots have long operated under limitations with regard to airshow performances that have seen their demonstrations being less impressive than those of their European NATO counterparts in equivalent aircraft. Watch F-16 displays by pilots from Belgium and the Netherlands and compare them with a USAF F-16 routine. The Belgians and Dutch are far, far better. Of course, it could simply be that US squadron pilots are just less confident about that type of flying.

Still, though, the US airshow scene (including the military aerobatic teams) has suffered from a bad safety record in recent years, so the stringent regulations haven't all had the desired effect.


I can't speak for certain on current day policies, but I know that in the past the full capabilities of any military hardware were rarely made public information, unless that hardware was so obsolete that any adversary already knew such information.

Most people don't want to accept it, but much of the time Joe Public will never know the details on the capabilities of these aircraft.

Depends what you mean by 'full capabilities'. It is difficult to put these in writing, after all. They can certainly be hinted at, and potential adversaries worth their salt will have a pretty good idea of the strong and weak points of most weapon systems.

Joe Public, for its part, is often shielded from the adverse aspects of aircraft performance for reasons of maintaining good PR or whatever. Take the F-22 and its problems. Your average American taxpayer may think that, in the F-22, they possess the world's ultimate fighter. It is mightily impressive, but that deployment to Japan that was curtailed when the F-22s crossed the international dateline en route and their systems couldn't cope with it was a deeply unimpressive display. So, the delay to the deployment was initially blamed by the Americans on Japanese peace protestors jeopardising security at the deployment base. Not good. Neither was the incident in which an F-22 pilot couldn't open his canopy after landing because of a systems failure and was trapped inside for a considerable length of time, before being freed by fire crews who had to, basically, smash the cockpit open...

[Daniel]

I wonder if it was one of those urban myths :) Only thing I've been able to find was something about an F15 getting a helicopter in this way.

[BDunnell]

I wonder if it was one of those urban myths :) Only thing I've been able to find was something about an F15 getting a helicopter in this way.

Of course, there were tragic incidents in World War 2 of bombs dropped by Allied bombers hitting others in their own formations.