Posted on 02/13/2005 5:28:59 PM PST by Eurotwit
As a hopelessly patriotic sort of person, I have a fantasy of one day being on holiday in the south of France and looking up from, say, a biography of Nelson, to see an aircraft carrier appear on the horizon. Only instead of it being an American one, it will be British. No doubt the captain will come ashore in a smart launch and, if I were to be lucky, he might invite me aboard for a sundowner. All would be well in the world, and I would sleep soundly, dreaming of past glories at the Nile and Trafalgar.
I am not the only one with this fantasy. Geoff Hoon says he has now taken personal charge of the Government's pet defence programme - to build two super-carriers for the Royal Navy. These will be the largest warships ever built in Britain, with four acres of flight deck apiece. In fact, they are so big that no single yard can build them and they will be constructed in bits, by a consortium of companies, before being put together by a "physical integrator", otherwise known as Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of US vice- president Dick Cheney's alma mater, Halliburton. The Navy is salivating at the prospect of having some smart new toys to play with. The current military vogue is "expeditionary warfare", and Vice-Admiral Charles Style, commander UK maritime forces, says: "I absolutely believe this is a very relevant and important capability." Even the Department of International Development, eager to carpet-bomb Africa with aid, or, more usefully, help the victims of natural disasters, wants the carriers. So, how come, six years after they were first proposed, they have not yet been ordered?
Here is the rub. Despite all the brouhaha over the surprisingly fierce negotiating style of Mr Hoon, these carriers have got no further than the drawing board. They have, however, been provisionally named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Something about those names, chosen by an administration that axed the Royal Yacht, worries me. Are they just a bit too unreal, a bit too good to be true? The last vessel to be named Prince of Wales, also the pride of the fleet, sank in unfortunate circumstances in 1941, after Churchill rashly sent it to defend Singapore without enough escorts.
Sadly, there is not much prospect of the super-carriers having enough escorts either. Another handful of frigates and destroyers have been cut, so the Royal Navy now has just 28 afloat, half the number it had at the time of the Falklands. Assuming a typical carrier battle group has at least six escorts, the Navy will be stripped bare to provide the minimum support, once these ships are supposedly at sea from 2012 onwards.
All this points to the really serious question: can we afford them? The initial cost estimate, now six years old, was that the carriers would cost £3 billion, plus their air complements. In theory, we should be able to find the money. After all, Britain is the world's fourth largest economy and a global trading nation. The trouble is that, over the past decade, the defence budget has been halved in real terms by both the Conservatives and Labour, to just 2.4 per cent of GDP. Every bill that comes in from Iraq is quibbled by the Treasury and the MoD has been reduced in effect to cannibalising future capability in order to fund Tony Blair's wars. Furthermore, as far as I can see, such are the burdens on the defence budget, the MoD has resorted to some pretty novel accounting. It treats some items as "near cash", an oxymoronic concept. It also records its hardware as £27 billion of capital assets. All those weapons, so expensive to maintain, depreciate rapidly and so are an odd kind of capital.
But there is really only one very significant thing you need to know about the Ministry of Defence's budget. It is to be found in note 21 to the accounts of a quango called the Defence Procurement Agency and it says future commitments "contracted but not provided for: £14.4 billion". That is the current cost of newly ordered weapon systems, which have yet to be paid for. But the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales have not even been ordered yet, nor have their 70 joint combat fighters. The MoD protests otherwise, but that number looks to me like the black hole in the defence budget, blown by, inter alia, the Eurofighter. No wonder those doughty Scottish regiments are being merged or axed.
The "black hole" is also the ultimate financial consequence of the dualarchy which runs our country. On one side, there is Tony Blair, strutting around the world with a sword in one hand and a handkerchief in the other, sending the Armed Forces into battle. On the other side, there is Gordon Brown, with a fundamentally different idea of Britain as a soft power, a welfare state, whose principal foreign policy ought to be a "Marshall Plan" for the Third World. Mr Brown evidently has no time for the Armed Forces. Gerald Howarth, a Conservative defence spokesman, recently asked in a parliamentary question what defence establishments Mr Brown had visited. And the reply? Too expensive to find out. If any readers have ever seen Mr Brown at a defence establishment, perhaps they might write in to The Daily Telegraph to help solve the mystery.
The military are caught in the middle of this two-personality state - forced to deploy in Iraq and elsewhere, but without the proper support of the Treasury. So here is a pre-election challenge to Mr Blair and to Mr Brown, assuming they are speaking to each other. When will you order these carriers, and where, exactly, is the money to come from? Unless they can give satisfactory answers, my approach to the carrier question will be not to believe the Government, until I see the vessels bobbing on the horizon.
As I stated before USAF F-16CJ serial 90-0830 sported a MiG-29 kill yellow star. The kill star was removed from 90-0830 and no pilot was awarded a kill for Illic's MiG). The USAF pilot was NOT awarded a kill and the star removed from the bird.
Where on earth are you getting that pilots were ejecting out of fear?
I know of three (3) confirmed MIG29s being shot down over YU.
I served during that period and all those 6 (SIX) kills were confirmed. Are you disputing official USAF kills? I take it you are NOT a US citizen then? The Yugoslavs rejoined the Dayton Accord and Vienna Document after the end of the conflict. Pre-conflict they had exactly 16 MiG-29s still in their inventory. This comprised of 14 single-seaters (Fulcrum A) and 2 two-seat trainers (Fulcrum B). Due to the embargo they suffered greatly but pre conflict and under the treaties they were all declared by the Yugoslavs. After the conflct the Yugoslavs rejoined the treaties and declared their inventory of combat aircraft. Out of 152 declared pre conflict they returned the figure of 102. They revealed that they had lost 50 combat declared aircraft during the conflict. The vast majority were lost in the bombing raids. The most lost by type were MiG-21bis (Fishbed L/Ns) of the 83rd Fighter Regiment. Some 26 of the Fishbed L/Ns belonging to this Regiment were lost in bombing raids. The Yugoslavs kept the MiG-21 out of combat with NATO forces and solely relied on the 127th Fighter Squadron with its MiG-29s. This was a vain attempt, but it was all they had to try and inflict losses on NATO strike packages.
If you are disputing some of the USAF kills then you are also disputing the research done in Yugoslavia itself. Aviation researchers have contacted the pilots of the 127th Fighter Squadron and conducted interviews with them. The pilots interviewed were most upset that their combat reports had been manipulated by Yugoslav military/governmnet ghost writers. Those ghost writers gave the pilots air-air-kills that the pilots didn't claim themselves. No Yugoslav pilot made any air-to-air claim and they even admitted to researchers that they did not fire any air-to-air missiles.
When you state "You should read some of their pilot interviews! It's humorous." it is the fantastic claims and insertions of the propaganda ghost writers that you are reading. Yes they are humourous and totally full of rhetoric, but the truth came out after the conflict with the likes of Mark Nixon (aviation researcher) who interviewed some of the surviving 127th pilots. Again I must stress that no Yugoslav pilot made a claim or even got a chance to loose off a missile before being shot down. They admit that they were totally outclassed and their efforts were in vain.
OK. Let's take it back to the USAF kills. I take it you are disputing some of those USAF kills of MiG-29s?
The 5 USAF kills of MiG-29s appear in Air Force Magazine - Journal of the Air Force Association. All the 4 pilots admit to loosing off AMRAAMs at identified MiG-29 targets. Remember they were operating under strict rules of engagement and exacting verification procedures were met in all respects. In some later engagements USAF pilots had to let potential quarry go due to not having 100% confirmation.
Snippet from the Air Force Article:
"The same rules applied five years later during Operation Allied Force, NATO’s 78-day air campaign over Serbia and Kosovo. In that war, only four Air Force pilots were cleared to engage Serbian MiG-29s.
Capt. Michael K. Shower, an F-15C pilot, was part of a 16-aircraft escort for F-117s and B-2s on the first night of the war. The air operation was divided into northern and southern packages. Shower was in the northern package when he heard an AWACS call out “splash one MiG-29” and knew someone in the southern package had scored.
It was none other than now-Lt. Col. Cesar A. Rodriguez, bringing his combined Desert Storm-Allied Force total to three victories. Rodriguez and his wingman marked a MiG-29 taking off from Pristina airfield, heading north then turning back to the southwest. “It was obvious he [the MiG-29] was on a prebriefed vector to intercept the strike package,” said Rodriguez. Once he ensured a clear field of fire, Rodriguez launched his AMRAAM. The MiG-29 “exploded over the western mountains of Kosovo,” said Rodriguez. Snow on the mountains reflected the tremendous flash. “It was like 10 or 15 football fields right next to each other. It just lit up the night sky like nothing I’ve ever seen before.”
Two minutes later, Shower spotted an unidentified aircraft launching out of Batajnica airfield north of Belgrade—a known MiG-29 base.
Cleared to engage, Shower fired two AIM-120s but missed. Now the MiG-29 was closing in on him and nearby F-117s. Adrenaline surging, Shower held his ground. “I didn’t think I had a choice of turning and running away,” he later told the Nellis base newspaper. “You’ve got a MiG-29 running around in the area, and there is a chance he could get lucky and find a stealth.”
No one knew that better than an F-117 pilot who saw Shower’s first two missiles streak past him. The F-117 was just 2,000 feet from Shower’s F-15C. Shower took one more shot and this time, the AIM-120 found its mark.
Two days later, ANG Capt. Jeffrey C. Hwang chalked up two victories. He engaged a MiG-29 leader and wingman, both at close range, with AIM-120s. Lt. Col. Michael H. Geczy, flying an F-16CJ, also got a MiG-29 several days later on April 5, 1999. Geczy’s kill brought USAF’s Balkans total to nine."
The only typo in the article is on the last line of the snippet."Lt. Col. Michael H. Geczy, flying an F-16CJ, also got a MiG-29 several days later on April 5, 1999". Lt Col Geczy's MiG-29 kill took place on the 4th May 1999.
Lets examine the kill timeline/eye-witness accounts:
24 March 1999
David Wilby, Air Commodore, RAF
"I can give you a small update from night one. Whilst I am obviously unable to give you the tactical details, I can confirm that 3 MIG 29 Fulcrums were shot down. One over Kosovo and two over Central FRY."
NATO aircraft involved in MiG-29 shoot downs on 24th
Lt Col Jon Abma, RNLAF, Commanding Officer of the Belgian-Netherlands Deployed Air Task Force.
"At 19.30hr local time four F-16AMs took off from here for a fighter escort mission to protect one of the first NATO strike packages. After an in-flight refuelling over the Adriatic Sea, the flight crossed over Albania into Serbia. Upon entering Serbian airspace, they were informed by AWACS that three MiG-29 aircraft had taken off from an air base near Belgrade," Col Abma said. That base is understood to have been Batajnica, home of the Yugoslav Air Force's only MiG-29 unit, the 127th Fighter Aviation Squadron 'Knights'. Col Abma said: "The four F-16AMs headed out toward the threat, working to detect the MiGs on their own radars. Subsequently, one of the MiGs was picked up by all four F-16s. When within range, our flight leader fired one AMRAAM against the MiG. It was an instant hit, after a flight of 30 seconds." The AMRAAM, credited with a speed of over 4,000km/h, would be capable of covering a distance of more than 33km in 30s seconds. According to RNLAF personnel at Amendola, the head-on missile intercept took place 18km from the lead F-16. "The pilot involved visually saw a fiery explosion. At the same time, the AWACS recorded that the MiG disappeared from the scope," Col Abma said. "We have never seen the other MiG-29s, but around the same time two US F-15s shot down two of those aircraft."
Lt.-Col. Sylvain Faucher, Canadian Air Force CF-18 pilot, being escorted by Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16s on the 24th March. stated:
"And on the radar: two MiG-29s, Yugoslav fighter jets 110 km off their nose and coming at them fast. An American airborne surveillance plane immediately tagged them "bandits." Two Dutch F-16s patrolling the skies over the Kosovo capital of Pristina picked up the surveillance signal and intercepted the MiGs on the Canadians' behalf. Pelletier and Faucher both saw the Dutch missiles streaking towards the Yugoslav planes, saw one MiG hit and the other pilot turn and flee. "I could hear the instructions to fire and knew the Dutch missiles were going past me," recalls Faucher. "You could see one spark in the sky and then what looked like a shooting star." That, he says, "is when I knew what we were doing was for real."
Lt. Colonel Rodriguez, F-15C pilot, USAF- on the events of 24th March stated:
"We located a MiG-29 that was coming out of the Pristina airspace. There was some confusion between the controllers and our formation. The confusion arose from not having trained together and from a slight language barrier. I handed him (MiG-29) off to my wingman who a very young - his very first combat mission - who goes by the name of 'Wild Bill'. I've got the MiG on my radarscope and we take the shot. We couldn't see very far because we're not equipped with night vision equipment, but when the MiG-29 exploded the large orange fireball erupted and illuminates the western mountains, lighting up the sky. The first blood had been drawn on night one!"
Details from Capt. Shower's interview on the events of 24th March:
'Capt. Mike Shower, flying an F-15C, was escorting the first of two strike packages - one package flew into southern Serbia while Shower's package went north over Belgrade. The strike packages were made up of 10 F-117s and two B-2 bombers with escort coming from a total of eight F-15Cs and F-16CJs. Approximately four minutes into the mission, Shower said they heard a "Splash one MiG-29" (a MiG-29 has been shot down) call from Airborne Warning and Control System from the south strike package. We got a little excited at that point since there was no doubt the Serbians were going to launch their aircraft. Six minutes into the mission, the Captain's radar picture was complicated by an unidentified aircraft taking off from Batajinica Airfield, a MiG-29 base in northern Belgrade.. The Captain said the final shot illuminated his aircraft from the rocket plume so the F-117 pilot could tell the two aircraft were approximately 2,000 feet from each other. The missile went right across the front of his aircraft down to the MiG-29 which blew up about 7,000 feet underneath the F-117. The MiG-29 crashed within 25 nautical miles of Batajinica Airfield.'
Yugoslav MiG-29 pilot accounts of the air-combat on 24th:
MiG-29 pilot Major Milorad Milutinovic stated in his interview "I tried to avoid the missile with a sharp turn, taking forces the likes of which I have never felt before. Only a few seconds later a powerful explosion shook my plane. I radioed that the plane was hit and that I'll do anything to save it. however, the stick wasn't responding. I tried it a few times, but all was in vain. The aircraft fell toward the earth at great speed. There was nothing else to do but to pull the eject handle"
MiG-29 pilot Major Arizanov stated in his interview "Then a missile hit me in the rear part of the plane that threw itself to the left and spiraled to the ground. I could not control the plane anymore. I saw in my rear-view mirror that a fire erupted. I ejected. When the parachute opened, I heard the plane above me."
MiG-29 pilot Major Nebojsa Nikolic recounted in his interview that " In a haze he maneuvered, although he was losing altitude. His view clouded in the smoke. His controls served him a little while longer. He deserved this little luck meant for the brave. Then he listened to his instinct and pulled the eject handle. A few hundred meters away the flaming wreckage of his aircraft fell."
MiG-29 pilot Lieutenant Colonel Dragan Ilic stated, "I had the signal that I was locked on by an enemy missile. A fireball pushed the plane and the aircraft shook. The cockpit glazing cracked and fogged. I didn't feel any changes in engine performance and I was thinking how to save the plane. I pointed the plane to my home airfield at low speed, around Mach 0,5. All would have been different if the cracked glazing failed, I would have to had to eject and sacrifice the Mig." Ilic landed his stricken MiG-29 on a nearby airfield. It was later stripped and put out as a decoy at Nis. Later destroyed in a cluster bomb attack.
The above Yugoslav accounts dovetail exactly with claims of 3 MiG-29s shot down on the first night. Illic's in his MiG was able to make an emergency landing.
26 March 1999:
26th March 1999 - David Wilby, Air Commodore RAF
"Two of our F15s were on a combat air patrol in the vicinity of Tuzla as part of Operation Deny Flight. They were warned of 2 MiG 29s to the east, who were deemed hostile. The MIGs subsequently violated Bosnian airspace with hostile intent and moved into a threatening position on our aircraft. Our aircraft took the appropriate counter-offensive action and engaged their targets, shooting both down. The wreckage of one aircraft lies in a minefield in SFOR's MND north sector and the other has yet to be located. We have no information as the whereabouts of the air crews."
Surviving Yugoslav MiG-29 pilot account of air-combat on 26 March 1999 (his wingman was killed):
Lieutenant Colonel Slododan Peric "I performed the anti-missile maneuver. turned the aircraft on the back, headed left, then right. The first missile missed me, but second one hit the right engine at the rear. I have tried to run away to our territory, but the stick didn't respond to commands. My MiG started to loose height. The air started to enter into the smashed cockpit. I was hanging on my seatbelts. I was at some 7000 meters. I have pulled the ejection handle. I was falling trough the clouds for so long that I get very cold!" In regards to Major Zoran Radosavljevic (Peric's wingman) he was killed in the air-combat.
04th May 1999 - David Wilby, Air Commodore RAF
”At approximately 12:41 pm local Kosovo time, the aircraft was detected. A flight of 2 NATO F-16s were leaving the area after completing their mission. By 12:43, the E-3 airborne early warning and control aircraft had identified the aircraft as a hostile MiG-29 and committed the F-16 flight against it. At 12:46, the F-16s fired air-to-air missiles. At approximately 12:47, the F-16s observed an explosion and the AWACS confirmed that the MiG-29 had been destroyed."
4th May 1999. Unidentified pilot, call sign 'Dog', of F-16CJ serial 91-0353 was interviewed during the conflict and stated the following. He was photographed in front of his aircraft 91-0353. 'Dog' was anonymous at the time, but was later identified as Lt. Col. Michael H. Geczy.
"It didn't take but a few seconds; wasn't much of an engagement; one more MiG-29 gone." (The pilot, whose name cannot be released for security reasons, carries the call sign "Dog". He was part of a four-ship formation en route to an air refuelling when the warning of a Serbian MiG was received.) "We turned around and intercepted him," he said.” What the Serbians were thinking as far as tactics (when they launched the MiG), I can't speculate," Dog said, "but he was airborne so we engaged him." ."Frankly, if one of my fellow F-16 pilots hadn't made the first call stating he'd heard AWACS communications, I might not have turned around and gotten the successful engagement," he said. "Of course the AWACS controller got me there, so it was a team effort from start to finish."
Lieutenant Colonel Milenko Pavlovic was shot down and killed while flying his MiG-29. Some of his personal belongings are on display in the Belgrade Military Museum. These objects are his pistol, gun and notebook. The rear part of the AMRAAM which shot him down and recovered from the locality is also on display. Pavlovic who was the commander of the 204th Fighter Regiment (127th Figher Squadron) was posthumously promoted.
So there you have it. Take away all the rhetoric of the Yugoslav Ministry of Information and you have simply have Yugoslav pilots vainly attempting a defence of their country and being taken apart by a force with capabilities that they could only dream of.. Again I stress that no Yugoslav pilot made any A2A claim.
Of the 16 MiG-29s that Yugoslavia started the conflict with they admitted to losing 11 to all causes. The five MiG-29s that survived the conflict comprised of 4 single-seaters and 1 two-seat trainer. Those five MiG-29s have been verified by OSCE inspectors as part of Dayton / Vienna Document. The five surviving MiG-29s were finally grounded in 2004. The Yugoslavs have no money for upgrade in Russia and the fleet is deemed too small to continue with. The burden is now put on the fleet of MiG-21bis to provide air defence fighter cover pending a decision on what the future of the air force is. Aviation researchers with help from Yugoslav personnel have been able to piece together the demise of the MiG-29 fleet:
Aviation researcher Mark Nixon spent time in Yugoslavia researching the fate of the 16 MiG-29s. Nixon met with pilots of the 127th and ground personnel and was able to piece together their fate:
Fulcrum A's:
18101 survived conflict - in storage
18102 survived conflcit - in storage
18103 stripped of spares and used as decoy - destroyed
18104 Major Illic's aircraft combat damaged A2A on 24 March 1999. Stripped and later pushed out as a decoy airframe. Destroyed 11th May by cluster munition.
18105 survived conflcit - in storage
18106 shot down by Major Tankink (Royal Netherlands Air Force) Yugolsla pilot Milutinovic ejected successfully.
18107 stripped of spares and used as decoy - destroyed
18108 survived conflict - in storage
18109 shot down by Lt Col Geczy - Lt Col Pavlovic killed
18110 was lost on the 26th March 1999 due to pilot error (stalled on approach to landing) admitted by Major Slobodan Tesanovic, 127th Fighter Squadron.
18111 shot down by Captain Showers - Major Nikolic ejected successfully
18112 shot down by Lt. Col. Rodriquez - Major Arizanov ejected successfully
18113 shot down by Capt. Hwang - Capt. Radosavljevic killed
18114 shot down by Capt Hwang - Major Peric ejected successfully.
Fulcrum B's:
18301 - survived conflict - in storage
18302 - damaged during NATO bombing raid and later pushed out as decoy - destroyed.
Yugoslavia produced a number of MiG-29 decoys in the run-up to the conflict. The MiG-29 decoys induced a false NATO BDA reading and enabled 5 MiG-29s airframes to survive the conflict intact:
Fulcrum A serials, 18101, 18102, 18105, and 18108. Fulcrum B serial 18301. The M-18 was a true masterpiece of deception and Djordje Ivanov (an ex-MiG-21 pilot, artist and model maker) is to be congratulated for his brilliant conception.
NATO declared that 6 MiG-29s were destroyed in A2A and 9 destroyed on the ground These are the NATO claims of MiG-29s destroyed on the ground.
March 26 - 1 MiG-29 claimed destroyed in Tomahawk attack on airfield.
April 27 - 1 MiG-29 claimed destroyed on ground during air raid.
May 3 - 1 MiG-29 claimed destroyed on ground during air raid.
May 4 - 1 MiG-29 claimed destroyed by F-16s using laser-guided bombs.
May 11 - 1 MiG-29 claimed destroyed on ground using cluster bomb.
May 17 - 1 MiG-29 claimed destroyed at dispersed site with AGM-130 launched from F-15E.
June 7 - 3 MiG-29s claimed destroyed by Dutch F-16s using Paveway II LGBs
Without inside information there was no way of knowing about the MiG-29 decoys and subsequently 15 in total were claimed destroyed.(6 in A2A and 9 on the ground) The decoys were designated M-18 (L-18 being the Yugoslav designator for the MiG-29).
Reports/information you get on the Net is mostly garbage. Here's an example:
http://www.warinfo.org.yu/natodown.html
Yes. Over Iraq a MIG23 pilot ejected out of fear as he was running to Iran. No one is going to admit that they pissed themselves and punched out. But that does happen.
OK. I believe you. 6-MIG29s were shot down. I also found this.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_380.shtml
Don't know how reliable it is. But in coincides with what you wrote.
However, we digressed from the original point. You’re going into spin off debates here and are trying to show you’re right on some issue OTHER than the issue at hand. The issue you brought up was: The Tornado in its fighter variant and its capabilities. How it matches up against current threats in a real world environment. The answer is still the same. It’s marginal at best.
It is almost irrelevant at this point what some exercise outcome is. It’s ALWAYS the same. The German MIG29s, Indian MIGS, Israelis, Tornados too- and EVERYONE seems to win at these simulations. But in reality mode. When the -1 kicks in. When the radars are cued up and the real stuff gets loaded into the pods. Then, it’s for real and the game is a lot different. In reality mode, we tend to do a whole lot better than in a simulation.
The Tornado did not perform well in Iraq (1991) and even in the Balkans, it got limited roles it could still handle. As an airframe, this plane is obsolete. It’s a LESS capable F111 (Which lost NONE in Iraq and flew more missions, bombed more targets, and flew further in). The Tornado is a perfect example of the “Jack of all trades master of none” adage. Mediocre at AI, CAS, air CAP and in a naval role it can do a little of everything in its variants. However, it’s mediocre at them as well. Incapable of laser designating until the mid 90s (I believe), not carrier capable, poorly turning………this plane is a versatile design where mutually exclusive compromises were made all within tight cost restraints.
“I take it you are NOT a US citizen then?” :) Nope. American through and through. I’m from Fairbanks AK. I take it you’re a “Brit” whose in love with the Tornado F.3?
One of the aircraft you mention is this guy:
http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/news02/uns02026.htm
Something you mention though is very true and prevalent today (Also a digression). It's obvious that many nations such as Serbia conducted black Psyop campaigns. I believe the Russians did so as well with Chechnya and that others meddle with influencing the public perception within the US and its allies. It’s hard to prove and it ends up becoming a game of polemics (Define Psyop as it applies to the real world?). However, if you serf the net you quickly see the fake, ghost (as you call them), sites intended to sway public support. Sites which mimic official sites and are probably in a round a bout way sponsored by a state. Unfortunately- Only the NATO members have agreed to target only non-members who have been approved and then only with white Psyop campaigns. As usual, the enemy is not bound by the formalities and rules that we are.
Red6
The F-111 as used by the USAF was never used in a dedicated A2A role. It hung AIM-9s for self protection as do Tornado IDS variants. The USAF never hung AIM-7s from it and it never perfomed an A2A role. What you are referring to is the US Navy variant that never entered service. This was the F-111B that was axed in 1968.
The air CAP was NOT flown by a bunch of Tornado F.3's.....Why do you think the Tornado or the F4 didn’t get the CAP missions in the Balkans years ago? Why were the F15/16s used for this and the Tornado given missions to “take pictures”.
Wrong. The CAP during the Balkans was most definately flown by both RAF and Italian F.3s. The F.3s first started flying CAP over Bosnia back in the 90s with the RAF. The Italian F.3s flew CAPs during the conflict in 1999 with Serbia. The RAF F.3s at that time were assigned to flying CAP over the Southern No Fly Zone over Iraq. Italian Tornado F.3s were involved in CAPs deep inside Serbia and also on the Deliberate Forge missions over Bosnia.
The two Serb MiG-29s that were shot down over Bosnia were downed by two F-15s on a Deliberate Forge CAP. Captain Hwang and Captain McMurray relieved two Italian Air Force Tornado F.3s that had been flying CAP. After handing over from the Tornado F.3s little did they know that their tedious CAP would result in action. Deliberate Forge was a multi-national mission and flown by a several nationalities. For example Turkish F-16s, Portuguese F-16, Belgian and Dutch F-16s also flew those long and tedious CAPs. The Italian F.3s escorted strike packages inside Serbia along with flying CAPs during Allied Force.
Horrible instantaneous and sustained turn rates combined with engines that smoke, large optical and huge RCS make the Tornado a big flying coffin even against a decent enemy. Steam gauges for the pilot, lesser visibility…….. Come on, are you serious?
The Tornado F.3s use an uprated version of the RB.199. The Tornado ADV's twin RB199-34R Mk.104 turbofans don't smoke. If you are thinking the smoke produced by certain F-4 variants then you are wrong. It is tuned to eliminate those tell tale smoke trails. This was met when the ADV had RAM, HOTAS fitted.
Being shot down by enemy ADA (Hmmmmmm-sound familiar?) this plane was even grounded for a while and then given lesser roles. Roles this platform was considered still able to handle.
Wrong. As with your ascertion that their was only 3 MiG-29 kills in Allied Force. The RAF Tornados continued to do their role delivering JP233s and ALARMs even during the losses of a number of airframes. Reserve aircraft and crews replaced the losses and the missions continued. There was no grounding of the Tornado. Where on earth did you get that one from? After the initial low-level suppression missions the campaign was moved up to medium-level operations in a bid to take Coaliton forces out of the high threat AAA. This was pre-planned and the Tornados also went to medium-level. The aim from then on in was delivery of laser-guided munitions.The first three-nights of the conflict was the low-level phase which after the degradation of the Iraqi air defences by the Coalition moved up out of the weeds to medium-level. During the first three nights even the B-52s were conducting low-level missions against Iraqi airfields until the sustained combined operations degraded the defences.
The F-111 as used by the USAF was never used in a dedicated A2A role. It hung AIM-9s for self protection as do Tornado IDS variants. The USAF never hung AIM-7s from it and it never perfomed an A2A role. What you are referring to is the US Navy variant that never entered service. This was the F-111B that was axed in 1968.
The air CAP was NOT flown by a bunch of Tornado F.3's.....Why do you think the Tornado or the F4 didn’t get the CAP missions in the Balkans years ago? Why were the F15/16s used for this and the Tornado given missions to “take pictures”.
Wrong. The CAP during the Balkans was most definately flown by both RAF and Italian F.3s. The F.3s first started flying CAP over Bosnia back in the 90s with the RAF. The Italian F.3s flew CAPs during the conflict in 1999 with Serbia. The RAF F.3s at that time were assigned to flying CAP over the Southern No Fly Zone over Iraq. Italian Tornado F.3s were involved in CAPs deep inside Serbia and also on the Deliberate Forge missions over Bosnia.
The two Serb MiG-29s that were shot down over Bosnia were downed by two F-15s on a Deliberate Forge CAP. Captain Hwang and Captain McMurray relieved two Italian Air Force Tornado F.3s that had been flying CAP. After handing over from the Tornado F.3s little did they know that their tedious CAP would result in action. Deliberate Forge was a multi-national mission and flown by a several nationalities. For example Turkish F-16s, Portuguese F-16, Belgian and Dutch F-16s also flew those long and tedious CAPs. The Italian F.3s escorted strike packages inside Serbia along with flying CAPs during Allied Force.
Horrible instantaneous and sustained turn rates combined with engines that smoke, large optical and huge RCS make the Tornado a big flying coffin even against a decent enemy. Steam gauges for the pilot, lesser visibility…….. Come on, are you serious?
The Tornado F.3s use an uprated version of the RB.199. The Tornado ADV's twin RB199-34R Mk.104 turbofans don't smoke. If you are thinking the smoke produced by certain F-4 variants then you are wrong. It is tuned to eliminate those tell tale smoke trails. This was met when the ADV had RAM, HOTAS fitted.
Being shot down by enemy ADA (Hmmmmmm-sound familiar?) this plane was even grounded for a while and then given lesser roles. Roles this platform was considered still able to handle.
Wrong. As with your ascertion that their was only 3 MiG-29 kills in Allied Force. The RAF Tornados continued to do their role delivering JP233s and ALARMs even during the losses of a number of airframes. Reserve aircraft and crews replaced the losses and the missions continued. There was no grounding of the Tornado. Where on earth did you get that one from? After the initial low-level suppression missions the campaign was moved up to medium-level operations in a bid to take Coaliton forces out of the high threat AAA. This was pre-planned and the Tornados also went to medium-level. The aim from then on in was delivery of laser-guided munitions.The first three-nights of the conflict was the low-level phase which after the degradation of the Iraqi air defences by the Coalition moved up out of the weeds to medium-level. During the first three nights even the B-52s were conducting low-level missions against Iraqi airfields until the sustained combined operations degraded the defences.
Avation bump for later
The Harrier, which one of your buddies claims is so great in A2A ALSO did not hang radar guided missiles until a lot later. EVEN the F16 did not really carry radar guided missiles in the beginning (1980)!
The F104 (Which Italy still flew until recent) ALSO carried heaters at least originally.
You're comparing 1990s to 1970s. The F111 WAS used for the A2A mission and MANY planes at that time and even AFTER which were also used A2A did NOT have BVR radar guided missiles.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT? The F111 flew 13 years before the Tornado did. During this time the Germans still flew the F104 with heaters.
Read this:
http://www.csis.org/burke/reports/941015lessonsgulfIV-chap06.pdf
Adding RAM to a HUGE aluminum can with big open frontal exposed engines and a big vertical tail is an emergency fix (The geometry is all F***** up). Next you’ll tell me the RCS is comparable to an F18? Maybe F117? Why not-you added RAM!
The F111 was for its time a breakthrough in technology and military aviation.
http://www.f-111.net/index.htm
First variable geometry wings, first terrain following radar, internal bomb bay, rear looking IR camera, ejection capsule, afterburning fans, laser retracting track ball (Vietnam era)……….. The F111 had MANY firsts, and could go faster, further with more than a Tornado.
Again. The F111 struck more targets, flew more missions, flew further behind enemy lines and lost ZERO from enemy activity in 1991. The Tornado lost 7.
As I said before, since the 50s RCS has been at least considered in aircraft designs. It’s really not that new. Even the F111 made use of RAM materials, but the RCS is still BIG compared to GEN 5 or even the newer GEN 4 airframes like a F18, EF. Ever wonder why the tail of the F18 is angled funny? RCS. Geometry AND RAM reduced RCS.
“Deliberate Forge was a multi-national mission and flown by a several nationalities. For example Turkish F-16s, Portuguese F-16, Belgian and Dutch F-16s also flew those long and tedious CAPs. The Italian F.3s escorted strike packages inside Serbia along with flying CAPs during Allied Force.” You say.
(Macro)
The Coalition in Iraq is multinational too! Yet the US gets the Sunni triangle. Somalia was multinational also. But the US gets Mogadishu. Guess who’s in the areas where there are still Taliban and real hostilities today in Afghanistan? Politics, economics are considered at the macro level. The Germans went in with ground forces in the Balkans! To this day they talk in chat rooms about there Leo2 (The only combat it ever saw) engaging someone at a TCP. But guess who really went in first, paved the path and took the losses?
(Micro)
The ATO specifically marries up airframe and ordinance with mission requirements. The F15 will carry in a 5000-pound bunker buster, the Mirage will do recon, and a CJ will play the weasel role. Multiple airframes can do certain missions. But desired EFFECT will dictate. The Tornado can drop bunker busters today. But the F15E will go in with a 5000-pound bunker buster. The F15E will go in where enemy air is a real threat. The F16 can also do CAP! But the F15C is MORE capable in several aspects which make it the preferred airframe for certain missions.
With all your “I love the Tornado” talk, are you telling me really that I should “prefer” the F-3 over the F15C or a F16/50/52?
Do you think it is really a mere coincidence that it was F15/16s that scored, and not Tornados in the Balkans? That is what you are claiming, and I’d say you’re wrong.
You write a lot, but never answer the issues that are “sticky” for your position. Your Tornado will have issues against a MIG31, SU27, SU30 and a few other threats even BVR (I’m not throwing in friendly). At the merge the Tornado is a lost cause. Over enemy airspace, where the ADA is capable, the RCS and LACK of turning ability and quick depletion of energy will be fatal.
Is GB replacing the Tornado F-3 soon with the EF? I bet they will. And there is a reason.
"After the initial low-level suppression missions the campaign was moved up to medium-level operations in a bid to take Coaliton forces out of the high threat AAA. This was pre-planned and the Tornados also went to medium-level" You say.
That's not true. It's a spin again. The US argued that the campaign should go medium from the start. Others insisted on going low.
Red6
I'm talking about aircraft tasked with the sole mission of A2A. F-104s sat QRA as interceptors, the F-111 did not sit QRA with its sole task of being a fighter/interceptor. It hung AIM-9s for self protection. The same way as RAF Jaguars and RAF Buccaneers. The same way as RAAF F-111s carry winders to this day. F-111Es and Fs were located at RAF Upper Heyford and Lakenheath, England respectively. They did not sit QRA to take on incoming fighter / fighter-bombers. The F-111 could be fitted out with winders for self protection - not as a dedicated A2A mission. You are aware that it wasn't until the early 1980's that the F-111s starting hanging Sidewinders? That is when they got their shoulder rails for the carriage of self-protection Sidewinders. Any A2A capability that the F-111 had was secondary if not tertiary to its air-to-ground role.
Well,
What do you think the Tornado was primarily designed to do? How do the Germans and Italians primarily use it (Air to ground, air to sea)? The Tornado and F111 ARE conceptually similar aircraft. They are comparable, although the Tornado is more fighter like and the F111 a little more bomber.
The F111 is retired (1996) and besides Australia no one uses it. However, in 1980 when the F111 carried heaters the F16 was not better armed, nor MANY other A2A airframes. Even your Tornado carried Skyflash (AMRAAM really wasn’t around much until after 1991). When did the Tornado get Skyflash? I don't think it was until later? The F111 was not the preferred interceptor, but then again, nor is a Tornado. Don’t make it sound like the Tornado had the capabilities it has today. It didn’t.
The F111 was a great plane from its capabilities, considering when it came out. This airframe is still viable. The USAF canned this plane because of cost. Much of the electronics was sandwich boards and had to be remanufactured when it broke. The plane was mechanically a nightmare (extremely complex and analog). The drawdown and change in threat made the doomsday mission it had in SAC obsolete. The F117 took over the Strategic Attack mission and is better at it. The F15E can defend itself better and the EA6 was cheaper and truly/better carrier capable (EF111). Maintaining a small fleet of F111s was costly and most the jobs were obsolete or being done by other platforms; hence they went away. But Australia even procured some more in 2001 I believe.
When you look at the design of the Tornado, you're looking at a multi-role aircraft which quickly became obsolete in the A2A role since this mission is highly demanding if you want to penetrate an enemy offensively and gain air supremacy. It’s a trade-off design where many sacrifices were made so that it could be a jack of all trades.
Red6
The first operational Tornado F.3 squadron was number 29. This was formed at RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire in April 1987. The Tornado F.3 was fully operational with Skyflash and took on QRA duties in 1987. I'll get back to you when I have more time. My time is limited due to work at the moment. Regards TJ
Here's a bit of Info for you. The F111"A" was AIM-9 capable since it came out. Your 1980 time is for the ones stationed in Great Britain. :)
Red6
Hanoi was bombed with lights still on for the first time by F111s.
Being the first plane with terrain following radar, the F111s came in and bombed them unsuspectingly. They first realized they were under attack when things began to blow up.
The F111 still flew missions in the late 90s (Balkans).
Red6
Correct, no one is disputing the fact that AIM-9s were part of the F-111 capability. The fact is that these winders were for self-defence. A2A was not the primary mission of the F-111. It is the same way as Su-24 FENCER carry AA-8 (APHID) and Tornado IDS carry AIM-9s. It gives the aircraft a self-protection capability. F-111s were not sitting QRA as part of any air defence projection due to the fact that it could mount winders.
The F111 still flew missions in the late 90s (Balkans).
Correct, why are you telling me this? You are aware that this was the EF-111 Raven. The EF-111s took part in Deliberate Force in 1995 over Bosnia.
Modern fighter combat records
http://www.indiandefence.com/forums/indian-defence-industry/3768-modern-fighter-combat-records.html
The Format is:
[Name of aircraft] Air-to-air kills - Air-to-air losses - Losses to ground fire
[Name of conflict aircraft was used in] (Nation that used aircraft in said conflict) Air-to-air kills - Air-to-air losses - Losses to ground fire
Aircraft which were destroyed on the ground are not included in this analysis, because any plane can get destroyed on the ground no matter how good it or its pilot is.
F-16 Falcon 76-1-5
Gulf War (USA) 0-0-3
No-Fly Zones (USA) 2-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 4-0-1
Kosovo (USA) 1-0-1
Kosovo (Netherlands) 1-0-0
Kosovo (Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Turkey) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1979-1986 (Israel) 6-0-0
Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0
Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 44-0-0
Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 3-0-0
Intifada (2000-present) (Israel) 0-0-0
Soviet-Afghan War (Pakistan) 10-0-0
Border clashes (Pakistan) 1-0-0
Kargil War (Pakistan) 0-0-0
Northwest border wars (Pakistan) 0-0-0
Aegean Sea clashes (Turkey) 1-1-0
Venezuelan Coup 1992 (Venezuela) 3-0-0
F-15A/C/I/S Eagle 102-0-0
Gulf War (USA) 32-0-0
Gulf War (Saudi Arabia) 2-0-0
Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Fox (USA) 2-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 4-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1979-1981 (Israel) 19-0-0
Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0
Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 38-0-0
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 4-0-0
Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 0-0-0
Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Saudi Arabia) 1-0-0
F-15E Strike Eage 1-0-3
Gulf War (USA) 1-0-2
Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Fox (USA) 0-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq War (USA) 0-0-1
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 0-0-0
Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 0-0-0
Yemen Border Clashes (Saudi Arabia) 0-0-0
F/A-18 Hornet 2-1-1
Gulf of Sidra 1986 (USA) 0-0-0
Gulf War (USA) 2-1-1
Gulf War (Canada) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Spain) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Canada) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA, Australia) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA, Australia) 0-0-0
F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet 0-0-0
NFZs (USA) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
F-14 Tomcat 135-4-4
Vietnam (1975) (USA) 0-0-0
Gulf of Sidra (USA) (1980) 2-0-0
Lebanon 1983 (USA) 0-0-0
Gulf of Sidra (1986) 0-0-0
Gulf of Sidra (1989) 2-0-0
Gulf War (USA) 1-0-1
Iraq NFZs (USA) 0-0-0
Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 130-4-4
F-4 Phantom 306-106-545
Vietnam War (US Navy) 40-7-66
Vietnam War (USMC) 3-1-74
Vietnam War (USAF) 108-33-337
Desert Storm (USAF) 0-0-1
NFZs (Turkey) 0-0-0
Soviet border clash 1976 (Iran) 1-0-0
Dhofar War (Iran) 0-0-1
Kurdish rebellion (Iran) 0-0-1
Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 68-29-33
Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Iran) 0-1-0
Kurdish Civil War (Iran) 0-0-1
War of Attrition (Israel) 26-3-5
Yom Kippur War (Israel) 55-28-22
Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Israel) 4-3-1
Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 1-1-1
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 0-0-2
Mirage 2000 1-0-1
Gulf War (France, UAE) 0-0-0
Bosnia (France) 0-0-1
Kosovo (France) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (France) 0-0-0
Aegean Sea 1996 (Greece) 1-0-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Alto-Cenapa War (Peru) 0-0-0
Sea Harrier 21-0-3
Falklands War (UK) 21-0-2
Gulf War (UK) 0-0-0
Bosnia (UK) 0-0-1
Kosovo (UK) 0-0-0
Sierra Leone 2000 (UK) 0-0-0
Iraq War (UK) 0-0-0
Mirage F.1 24-43-20
Chadian-Libyan War (France) 0-0-0
Afghanistan (France) 0-0-0
Paquisha War (Ecuador) 0-0-0
Alto-Cenapa War (Equador) 2-0-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 15-35-11?
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-8-0
Gulf War (Kuwait) 3 (possibly 12)-0-0
Western Saharan War (Morocco) 0-0-7
Angola Border War (South Africa) 4-0-2
Aegean Sea clashes (Greece) 0-1-0
Rafale 0-0-0
Afghanistan (France) 0-0-0
Tornado ADV 0-0-0
Gulf War (UK, Saudi Arabia) 0-0-0
NFZs (UK) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Italy) 0-0-0
Iraq War (UK) 0-0-0
JF-17 Thunder 0-0-0
Waziristan War/NW Pakistan campaigns (Pakistan) 0-0-0
J-7 1-0-0
Sudanese Civil War (Sudan) 0-0-0
Uganda-Tanzania War (Tanzania) 0-0-0
Sri Lankan Civil War (Sri Lanka) 1-0-0
MiG-21 240-501-[too little information for an accurate count of losses to ground fire]
Vietnam War (North Vietnam) 78-95-0
Vietnam War (North Korea) 1-0-0
Vietnam War (USSR) 6-0-0
1967 border clashes (Syria) 0-7-0
Six-Day War (Egypt) 5-13-
Six-Day War (Syria) 0-7-
Six-Day War (Iraq) 0-1-
War of Attrition (Syria) 7-56
War of Attrition (USSR) 0-5-0
War of Attrition (Egypt) 18-93
Yom Kippur War (Syria) 30-26
Yom Kippur War (Egypt) 26-65
Yom Kippur War (Iraq) 1-9
Egypt-Libya Border War (Egypt) 6-1
Soviet-Iranian border clashes (USSR) 1-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 5-26
Lebanon War 1982 (Syria) 2-38
Turkish border violation 1986 (Syria) 1-0-0
Ogaden War (Somalia) 1-6
Angola Bush War (Angola) 1-3
Congo Civil War (Zaire) 0-0-0
Congo Civil War (Angola) 0-0-1
Uganda-Tanzania War (Uganda) 0-0-1
Uganda-Tanzania War (Tanzania) 0-0-1
Mozambique Civil War (Mozambique) 1-0-0
Sudanese Civil War (Sudan) 0-0-3
Somali Civil War (Somalia) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 0-3
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 32-40
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-4-0
Indo-Pakistani War 1965 (India) 0-0-
Indo-Pakistani War 1971 (India) 6-1-
Kargil War (India) 0-0-1
Soviet-Afghan War (Afghanistan) 0-4
Atlantique Incident 1999 (India) 1-0-0
Afghan Civil War 1992-1996 (United Front) 4-0-
Afghan Civil War 1992-1996 (Dostum-Gulbuddin Militia) 0-2-
Abkhazian War (Georgia) 0-0-0
Nagorno-Karabakh War (Azerbaijan) 0-0-6
Nagorno-Karabakh War (Armenia) 0-0-1
1986 Cuban border incursion (Cuba) 1-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 1-0-7
Croatian War (Croatia) 0-0-1
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 1-0-0
Balloon shootdown (Belarus) 1-0-0
1966 US China border violation 1-0-0
1963 US Czech border violation 1-0-0
Korean DMZ (North Korea) 1-0-0
Sa’dah Insurgency (Yemen) 0-0-1
MiG-23 25-102-[too little information for an accurate count of losses to ground fire]
Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 3-2-0
Lebanon War 1982 (Syria) 1-30-
Israeli UAV shootdown 2002 (Syria) 1-0-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 16-56
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-8-0
NFZs (Iraq) 0-1-0
Gulf of Sidra 1989 (Libya) 0-2-0
Egypt-Libya Border War (Libya) 0-2
Soviet-Afghan War (USSR) 0-3
Iran-Afghan border violations (USSR) 4-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 0-1
Angola Bush War (Cuba) 0-0-0
MiG-25 8-8-1
War of Attrition 0-0-0
Yom Kippur War 0-0-0
Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 0-2-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 5-1-0
Syrian-Iraqi border violation (1986) (Iraq) 1-0-0
Soviet-Iranian border violations (1986-87) (USSR) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 1-2-0
NFZs (Iraq) 1-1-0
Nagorno-Karabakh War (Azerbaijan) 0-0-1
MiG-29 6-18-1
Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria) 0-2-0
Gulf War (Iraq) 0-5-0
Transnistra War (Moldova, Russia) 0-0-0
Brothers in Rescue incident (Cuba) 2-0-0
Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0
Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0
Kosovo (Serbia) 0-6-0
Kargil War (India) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea) 3-5-0
Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia) 1-0-0
Darfur War (Sudan) 0-0-1
Su-27 6-0-2
Abkhazia War (Russia) 0-0-1
First Chechen War (Russia) 1-0-0
South Ossetia War (Russia) 0-0-0
Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 5-0-0
Somali Civil War (Ethiopia) 0-0-0
Angolan Civil War (Angola) 0-0-1
F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger 25-23-30
Vietnam War (USA) 0-0-1
Vietnam War (South Vietnam) ?-?-?
Vietnamese-Cambodia War (Vietnam) ?-?-?
Ogaden War (Ethiopia) 7-0-2
Yom Kippur War (Morocco) 0-0-0
Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 18-23-12
Western Saharan War (Morocco) 0-0-14
Yemen Border Clashes 1979 (Taiwan) ?-?-?
Gulf War (Saudi Arabia) 0-0-1
Fighters that have yet to see combat: F-22 Raptor, Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Ching-Kuo, J-10, Saeqeh, Azarakhsh, MiG-31, Su-30, Su-33, Su-35.
Observations:
1) US multi-role fighters seem to be primarily used in the strike role. They barely break even between kills and losses on the air-combat scorecard.
2) The F-15 Eagle is completely dominant as a fighter, 1) because it’s a really good aircraft, and 2) because it’s so expensive it can only be used by nations with enough money to invest in the training and maintenance it takes to make really good air forces.
3) Looking at the losses of the F-4 to ground fire, one can see how big of a threat SAMs were in the 1960s and 1970s. Compare this to more modern fighters and one can see how aircraft design has outpaced SAM systems.
4) The poor performance of the Mirage F.1 is somewhat surprising.
5) The ridiculously high kill ratio of the F-14 in Iranian service is also surprising. The common canard is that training trumps technology, but an air force with great technology but beset by political purges and struggling with maintenance problems and embargoes can still have a turkey shoot against an air force with both poor training and poor technology.
6) Su-27 is the only Russian fighter to have a positive kill ratio in combat, but as we all know this is likely due to “monkey model” export fighters, as well as the poor training standards of Arab air forces.
7) The unbeatens (aircraft that have engaged in significant air combat but never been shot down in air to air combat): F-15 Eagle, Sea Harrier, Su-27.
Relative overtake was a BIG problem. In normal combat energy bleeds with the maneuvering until both combatants are quite slow and break away. The SHAR could maneuver with equal roll-rate and turn at all speed regimes and could even fly 20 knots below stall (!) at a 40’ degree nose up just pointing at the F-15.
***This is not accurate. The harrier can fly 70MPH backwards. It flies below stall, at the hover, and backwards up to 70MPH. No other aircraft in the world could do that at the time. Maybe the F35 could do it in the future.
You simply don’t get it. The Harrier is not a fighter.
***That’s correct, though somewhat dimwitted. The harrier was an multirole aircraft; the F15D was a strict air-to-air fither. Note that it’s the multirole aircraft throughout history that got shot down the most by ground fire, like the F4; even the F15 ground fire version didn’t do so well.
But the statement is basically comparing apples to oranges. The Harrier was a van. The F15 was a Ferrari. The harrier van beat the F15 ferrari in head-to-head matchups by 7:1. In real combat, its record was 28:0 in air-to-air contrasted to the F15 of 102:0. Now, how much money was a harrier compared to an F15?
Could you fly F15’s from carriers, like the harriers, even though the PILOTs HAD NEVER LANDED ON CARRIERS BEFORE? Try that on an F15. Could you land on a cargo container ship? Try that on an F15. Could you take off from a tennis court? Try that on an F15.
Of course, the F15 was designed from a different perspective. Could you fly the Harrier with 20 different missiles? Did it have look down radar? Does the Harrier have supersonic capability or air superiority range?
But here is the thing to notice: Avionics keeps getting better, to the point that you can add.. say.. lookdown radar and missiles to older airframes, making them competitive. So, how does an F15 with lookdown radar contrast versus a harrier with lookdown radar? Probably about 1:1, but the harrier is 5x cheaper, can operate from cargo ships or remote airfields, and has a small RCS with engines that hide infrared under the wings.
After all the huffing and puffing in this thread, the end result seemed to be that F15 and F14 pilots eventually learned to avoid knife fighting and close-in air dogfighting with the harrier, because the harrier had the advantage. In other words, to quote bandit, the harrier DID have a magic move and its adversaries either learned to work around it or ended up with thoroughly unexpected negative kill ratios. The main resulting strategy was to shoot-through and treat the harrier as a ‘strafing rag’, maintain “corner speed” and stand off or leave the battle when needed.
This account has been banned or suspended.
Well, bucko, looks like your whole existence was lotsa opinion, very little fact. Bye.
Quite frankly, I don’t sense any obligation on my part to respond to an Internet fighter pilot postulating in his pajamas.
***I never claimed to be anything but. It was bandit who claimed to be a fighter pilot and his story didn’t add up until a dozen other pilots started pecking away. But a few years later after looking at this thread, it was just those pilots bullying someone. Most of them didn’t answer the questions, and they even went so far as to claim that the F15 pilots and others were bad pilots when they went up against the harrier. Bull Shiite. The best operating principle is to proceed as if they were well trained pilots, all of them, and they lost to harrier pilots who were, as Sharkey Ward said, “straight from squadron school”, and they got their tails waxed by a superior airplane... bucko...
Red6: NONE of these games are realistic representations. The F15 loses against the Indian SUs, Israel, Germans- EVERYONE apparently.
Reality is the F15 flew against the Indian SUs and were NOT allowed to play any engagement past 20 Miles
***Nothing unrealistic about that.
and were outnumbered 2:1.
***The F15 was designed against a 5:1 numbers advantage from the soviet air forces, so being outnumbered 2:1 in an exercise is just plain whining.
GBA writes:
It’s all been very revealing of both character and knowledge...that is, who has it and who doesn’t. They do and sorry, but I don’t think that you do...regardless of how long you’ve been at Free Republic.
***That is quite right, the character of some freepers has been shown, such as el bucko. Many of the freepers who chimed in on this thread have the character of bandwagon jumpers, such as el bucko. Others are bootlickers, shining the footwear of those who have shiny jets at their virtual side. Keep in mind that those shiny jet dudes have had plenty of opportunities afforded them that some of us with more humble backgrounds have not been given. Yet, their arrogance shines through, in some cases blindingly. And many of those shiny jet dudes with privileged backgrounds simply don’t seem to be able to explain things worth a damn. What I found difficult to comprehend was why so many freepers hide behind anonymity to throw their darts. Those who operate out in the open seem to have more character. Character is definitely NOT defined by kissing the butts of those who have had better opportunities afforded to them.
B4Ranch:
Saying, “I hope that this laziness about reading through the material isn’t a common trait among fighter pilots.” is a ridiculous statement.
***A look through this thread is enough to show that it WAS a common trait among claimed fighter pilots.
B4Ranch:
various insults towards masculinity
***Yeah, classic horse laugh argumentation, worthless towards the end goal of resolving the dispute. Maybe you should have alerted JimRob if it made you feel better, then maybe you would have argued more cogently.
Rokke:
Before I say anything, I would like to commend USNBandit for having the patience of Job.
***Bandit did not display any patience, he was a jerk. He couldn’t shake any of my argumentation. He needed you guys to do that.
You are a credit to your nickname, and living proof that not all fighter pilots are arrogant assholes.
***Bandit was an asshole. He didn’t answer questions. He obfuscated. He accused. He claimed to be a fighter pilot, while I only claimed to be an afficianado, so his claim required more proof, more validity, more facts that lined up. Some of his facts did not line up but you tuys moved in to protect him.
Kevin, I have pinged everyone I know on FreeRepublic who actually flies or has flown military combat aircraft. Those
aircraft include the following: A-6, A-10, F-4, F-15, F-16, and the F-18. I not pinging them to gang up on you.
***Now that I have had a few years to reflect on this, looked at some of the answers from others in this thread, and grown even more thick-skinned and egalitarian, the conclusion I draw is that the end result WAS ganging up. The only real refutation of the kill ratio figures was not that it was invalid primary source material as I stated, it was that it doesn’t measure up to Real World Experience. And yet, the Real World Experience of the harrier is discounted in this thread. You guys are a bunch of bull shiite artists.
I’m pinging them to give them the opportunity to validate or refute what USNBandit has been trying to help you understand.
***Fighter pilots appear to have a short attention span. None of them read the whole thread. They approach things from their own PRESENT perspective, saying things like “that’s why the triplane isn’t the terror of the skies”. But a great majority of the primary factual evidence in this thread was from the Falklands and 1980’s red flag type exercises. In the contemporary exercises at the time, the harrier was turning off its viffing capabilities. The main original contention was that bandit said the harrier didn’t have a magic move, and lots of responses after that showed that pilots were staying out of knife fighting and close-quarter turn fighting because the harrier had an advantage.
You are obviously a big fan of the Harrier, and there are many things about the Harrier that make it a great aircraft. “VIFFing”, however, is not one of them.
***You lack an understanding of what viffing actually did. You seem to think that it ONLY involved pushing the nozzles 90degrees, but that was not the case.
Neither is its air to air capability.
***Undefeated in the air, second only to the F15 which it defeated in exercises at 7:1. I would say its air to air capability was the best when you consider that the F15 was designed to take out 5 air frames at such a wing loading & cost as the harrier.
In short, you really do have no idea what you are talking about.
***In long, I did know what I was talking about but I withdraw due to bootlickers, lack of time, and deference to your first hand knowledge.
I would like to believe that the fact that neither the RAF nor USMC considers the Harrier a primary air defense asset
***Harrier was not designed as a primary air defense asset, and yet its kill ratio is among the best and it took other primary defence assets in head to head exercises. That’s like saying the harrier van can beat the F15 ferrari in a quarter mile race most times, and yet it isn’t even designed for that task. That makes it a formidable van.
to be strong indicator that maybe your assessment of it is not accurate.
***My assessment was accurate.
Certainly USNBandit has done his able best to set you straight.
***I am sure he did his able best but he needed you guys to gang up, relying also on bootlickers like el bucko to finish up.
Having read this whole thread, it is very clear to me the USNBandit speaks with the knowledge of actual experience. It is equally clear that you do not.
***Explained upthread. I’m an afficianado. Bandit is a guvmint employee, paid to fly and didn’t do a very good job explaining things.
I have flown with Harriers and against Harriers. I think they are one of the coolest aircraft around. But air to air killing machines they are not, and they never will be.
***They were undefeated air to air, just like the F15. The operating issue here was the tenses used. I was using past tense and present tense. Bandit was using present tense and future tense, such as how well it would do versus the F22. So is Rokke, using present tense and future tense. Was the Fokker triplane a killer? yes. Will it be a killer in the future? no. Keep the tenses straight, keep the facts straight.
Despite the best anecdotes you can Google on the web.
***As stated upthread, most of the primary material I introduced in this discussion was pre-internet. I really wish I had more time when this thread was current, but I didn’t. Today, the USMC is buying leftover harriers from the UK as a hedge against the F35’s continued delays. If the F35 gets cancelled by zer0bama, it will be advantageous to upgrade harriers with better radar, missiles & avionics. That is also one of the red herrings exhibited in this thread, where someone downgrades an airframe by saying that “such & such missile” was added to it, making it a better platform. And yet, msot of the harrier’s kills were from rear aspect after maneuvering. The issue all along was airframe vs. airframe, not airframe + radar + avionics platform vs. airframe + radar + avionics platform.
Rokke:
Your air to air kill ratio numbers against anything more potent than the Argentinian Air Force are all based on anonymous sources pulled from internet chat sites.
***No, they were taken from pre-internet published sources, such as Commander Sharkey who flew harriers.
Nor do I know anyone else who has ever fought a Harrier that performed a “VIFF”. That is because it would be stupid for them to do that, and they know it. Getting extremely slow in a within visual range engagement is your last move before dying.
***The straw argument here is assuming that VIFF is full 90degree nozzle engagement, which is not the case. VIFFing at 10-15 degrees means that the turn is tighter, the throttle is still at 100%, but a high wing loading airfoil like the harrier turns like a low wing loading Mirage. None of the guys on this thread addressed this and other straw arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.