F-14s last flight..

[Ivan]

One fac you shouldn't forget...

The main thing USAF learned from Cope India 2005 is that the MiG-21 (yes that old Vietnam era fighter) is as dangerous to the F-15 as any Sukhoi... if it can get close and has a bunch of weapon upgrades.

Those upgrades are sold to anyone that is willing to pay the price.

MiG-21 as operated by India (not an off-the-shelf upgrade package):
Kopyo radar (phased array one that can be shoehorned in the nosecone)
R-73 with HMD
Thomson/CSF HUD and MFDs

[beefhole]

if it can get close

Exactly.

And if I remember correctly, many American pilots consider the -21 an absolute pig (or maybe I'm thinking of the -19...).  As deadly as anything, but not as manueverable as American pilots demand. Which would imply it would have some trouble consistently... damnit I'm continuing the debate I keep shouting to stop

[Ivan]

MiG-19 was hated fondly by russian pilots... the engines weren't exactly reliable (catching fire) and the whole thing, while being capable of supersonic flight, wasn't exactly what they wanted in the first place.
But eventually it wasn't a bad aircraft after all... Wasn't too hot on export sales though.

The one you mean is the MiG-23... built on the same philosophy as the first F-4s (no cannons)
It had bad handling... killer spins that made them crash often and variable geometry with two fixed stops: all or nothing. When you add inexperienced pilots and bad training you have the recipe for a marketing disaster.
One of these even claimed a well known USAF test pilot when they tested one they got from Israel.

[Mr. Bones]

The pilot doing this crazy fly by was Dale Snodgrass. A while ago a read an interview with him where he was telling about this. Nothing about the 30 days though.  ;)

Dale Snodgrass was and is the man with the most hours on the Tomcat. He's believed to be one of the best pilots the navy has/had. He's retired now and flies his F-86 Sabre together with Ed Shipley. Nobody can fly the Sabre like they do! So tight and low...amazing.

I also read Dale had plans to buy a Tomcat so the type would remain in the airshow circuit. I think it's a great idea but I'm not sure if the USN will sell one...

[Chris_F]

The problem with all those "published studies" is that they're published by someone.  Who?  Someone looking to sell something.  Read a study that says XXX missle will shoot down YYY airplane and you'll find that the people behind the study just happen to sell XXX missle.  Why don't we believe car ads but we do believe these silly studies?

The reason I think the USAF aircraft make the best combat package is simple: nobody spends as much money as the USAF.  They can buy anything they want and they choose to buy the aircraft they do for a reason.  The studies they do aren't stuides you'll see published anywhere.  

And their recent combat record is an impressive indicator of their success.  Iraq during the first gulf war was probably the most high tech, heavily defended airspace in the world.  Granted a lot has changed since then, but the stunning one-sidedness of the air operation there I think caught a lot of people (most of them US military) by suprise.

[beefhole]

Yeah Chris, that's the point I've been trying to make.

I'd be wary of the US combat records-they're only partially applicable to a war with a nation that has fully modernized armed forces. Actually, the best records to reference were set by US aircraft, but not by US pilots-Israelis, if I recall correctly, actually hold the majority of the F-15s air to air kills, and have used it far more often in combat. I don't believe I've ever once heard of a modern Russian fighter being used in combat, the situation just simply hasn't arisen (correct me if I'm wrong)

The best pro-US argument that can be taken out of the two Gulf wars is, as I've preached, the near-perfected US capacity to succesfully coordinate mass air operations.  It's the infrastructure that really counts in these types of large air battles, and it's taken for granted in terms of the success of our air operations.

And yes, it was the Mig-23 I was thinking about Ivan, thanks.

[Ivan]

[quote]And their recent combat record is an impressive indicator of their success.

[beefhole]

In the end nothing works better against a defence system than getting the people that control it to be supportive of your side.

In a close second, of course, is making them think that if they even dare to turn on their equipment they will die.

[Chris_F]

[quote]The best pro-US argument that can be taken out of the two Gulf wars is, as I've preached, the near-perfected US capacity to succesfully coordinate mass air operations.

[Skligmund]

At the very least, put them in mothball. There is no reason to destroy these aircraft. When our airforce is torn to shreds by the threat of older technology. You ask how? Imagine 10,000+ Mig 23's vs 500 F22's (assuming time to organize). Who will win? Can we say China? An F22 can evade a missile. An F22 can evade 2 missiles. An F22 can evade 3 missile if the pilot is good. How about 4? 5? 10? Our high tech airfoce can be wiped out in a single day if planned correctly by the wrong country. I'd rather have a large base of fighters (F-15C's, F-16's), a large base of attack planes (A-10's, A-6's, F-111's), and a small, specialized force of expensive aircraft (F22, F117,B-2). We also need long range high altitude bombers (B-52) and supersonic longrange bombers (XB-70, B1 [NOT B1B], B-58?). note how we don't have a current supersonic long range bomber anymore. The B-58 Hustler was the last one of those. The B1 was gonna be a sweet aircraft, but it was dumbed down into the B1B, which is only about 75% as good, if that.
The F/A-18 should be used by the Navy for multi-role aircraft. The F-14 should be available at all times to the Navy for WHEN we need an interceptor, until a purpose built aircraft replaces it. Purpose built aircraft have a place. Why? Because built for purpose, they do their job better than anything else.

As for the crap about not having a person there, and using a remote control or something other than having a person doing it, that is utopian idealistic nonsense. There will not be a utopia. Deal with it. To get something done correctly, we need specialized people to do it first hand. When the first nukes go off, and our satellites are destroyed, we won;t have the option of targeting via satellite, and using a remote control to drop a bomb on a missile command center.

We are so used to fighting against hardly existant militaries, that we forget what a real war would be. Imagine bombs dropping on downtown (insert your town here). At that point, you'd wished we had an airforce large enough to cover the airspace we occupy. Can;t do that without a substanualy large air force.

I'm ranting, I'm about ready to pass out I'm so tired, and I think I'm starting to write gibberish. IDon;t take my word direct, but take the idea. If our air force consisted of only F-22's, F/A-18's, F-117's, B-2's and C-130's, we'd lose a real war. At that point, I'd rather stick a couple machine guns or rockets on a Cessna Bird Dog, and take charge of my own battles, since they will end up on our soil.

I'll shut up now and go to bed.