PDA

View Full Version : The last ever dogfight



Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 11:58 AM
Have we seen an end to air to air combat? Since the end of the cold war the likelyhood of ever having to use air superiority fighters seems to have vanished.

In whatever conflict that could be imagined NATO or UN "approved" forces are likely to have sole control of the skies over hostile territory. e.g. not one enemy plane took off in Iraq.

The new Eurofighter Typhoon... a fantastic machine... is going to be a complete and very expensive waste of time for this reason. It will never find anything to shoot at!

Short of all out war with China (which is pretty unlikely), the only role for air power today and into the distant future is for air to ground attack.

IL2/FB portrays the "golden" period of air to air combat where the machines were good but still simple enough to reveal the level of skill, creativity and bravery (the personality even) of the pilot.

There will never be another real dogfight in a war. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it seems to be the case.

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 11:58 AM
Have we seen an end to air to air combat? Since the end of the cold war the likelyhood of ever having to use air superiority fighters seems to have vanished.

In whatever conflict that could be imagined NATO or UN "approved" forces are likely to have sole control of the skies over hostile territory. e.g. not one enemy plane took off in Iraq.

The new Eurofighter Typhoon... a fantastic machine... is going to be a complete and very expensive waste of time for this reason. It will never find anything to shoot at!

Short of all out war with China (which is pretty unlikely), the only role for air power today and into the distant future is for air to ground attack.

IL2/FB portrays the "golden" period of air to air combat where the machines were good but still simple enough to reveal the level of skill, creativity and bravery (the personality even) of the pilot.

There will never be another real dogfight in a war. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it seems to be the case.

lbhskier37
02-19-2004, 12:01 PM
IDK, when France finally has enough of us making fun of them, maybe they will find a use for them Eurofighters.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

JG7_Rall
02-19-2004, 12:01 PM
I agree! I want to be a pilot when I'm old enough to enlist (working on pilots license right now) but doesn't look like too much action will be occuring..maybe that's a good thing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

JG7_Rall
02-19-2004, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>IDK, when France finally has enough of us making fun of them, maybe they will find a use for them Eurofighters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, does this mean Germany will have to save them this time!? AHH, the irony! I love it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2004, 12:06 PM
Maybe if something went really weird with the USA and Europe we`d have a more or less equal setting for potential dogfights of aircraft. China is a more realistic possibilty, but again Nato, the US would probably not put themselves in a postion where there would be dogfights, everything would be destroyed by long range cruise weapons.

Of course Heaven forbid.
Any war like this would be so bad that no-one would be thinking about dogfighting in the skies. Y`see war is not about fair fights, but winning by any means.

In my opinion, that period IS over.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LAlowblue.jpg

BM357_TinMan
02-19-2004, 12:14 PM
We HAVE to keep developing, making and learning how to use high tech, cutting edge interceptors guys; just in case the aliens come http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just think how "Independance Day" might have turned out had there not been for the highly trained U.S. / Nato intereceptors and pilots

***Just in case, I'm joking***

lol

We have to keep making killer cool interceptors because they rock!!!

BM357_TinMan
xo BM357 VFG
www.bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com)

BaldieJr
02-19-2004, 12:24 PM
If we spent as much time developing better bacon as we have war pieces, the world would be a far better place.

Bacon makes everything better.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

watteville
02-19-2004, 12:39 PM
It would be nice for once to see the US fight someone as strong as they are, instead of picking some poor schmuck bombed every 6 month, UN sanctioned "I have dirt under my fingernail because I can't even buy a bar of soap" country.

looking at the success of Iraq, I bet the U.S is probably longing for a real adversary like North Korea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ; And I think that even with all its technological superiority, the US would sadly loose.

Still looking for some brave Yankees to kick some French butts everyday at 4 PM ET at the Co-OP UBI lobby. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

BaldieJr
02-19-2004, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by watteville:
It would be nice for once to see the US fight someone as strong as they are, instead of picking some poor schmuck bombed every 6 month, UN sanctioned "I have dirt under my fingernail because I can't even buy a bar of soap" country.

looking at the success of Iraq, I bet the U.S is probably longing for a real adversary like North Korea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ; And I think that even with all its technological superiority, the US would sadly loose.

Still looking for some brave Yankees to kick some French butts everyday at 4 PM ET at the Co-OP UBI lobby. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jealous that your country couldn't put up a good fight?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

How very tiny of you. If you are going to dream of the US's demise, also include in your dream the very real effects on the rest of the world. No US = No World Economy = No internet for you to show your ignorance on.

Way to go!!!!11

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

SKULLS_LZ
02-19-2004, 01:00 PM
LOL here we go! Yet another 7 pages of "enlightenment" to come...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

BaldieJr
02-19-2004, 01:02 PM
Error

You have not been given the security rights to access this page. You require the rights to add message alerts. For a full list of any special rights you have on this site, see your profile. If you want to be given this access right, contact your administrator and ask for the 'Add Message Alerts' right. This right is forum specific.

Why can't we report posts?

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

woofiedog
02-19-2004, 01:02 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI believe that the classic dogfight you are writting about is still here and will be for awhile.
Irag did send up missions againest the Coalition forces, although we had knocked out their eyes the radar site with a mission called Puba's Party that attacked these site on a grand scale.
But here's a statement written by the Coalition Air Force Commander Gen. Chuck Horner.
In the hands of a good pilot, virully any interceptor can badly hurt an attacking airforce. Irag had some excellent aircraft, especially their Mig 29 and Mirage F-1, as well as an invertory of older aircraft, prinipally Mig-21 and Mig-23s. Though the older aircraft weren't much of a threat on their own, if used in cojuction with the newer Russian and Freach models, they could have caused us serious problems.
Their best tactics would have been to engage our air to air fighters with their top of the line fighters, then run the older Migs in on the bomb-laden aircraft using high-speed hit and run tacics.
Even if they didn't achive a kill, their supersonic bounce would have forsed the bombers to jettison their air to ground ordnance.
The weapons carried by these fighters, on hand, were not nearly as good as our radar and heat-seeking missiles. Neverless, they were more than adequate if the enemy pilot could put his aircraft in a position to shoot them.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
02-19-2004, 01:02 PM
http://www.uavcenter.com/

Sad to say but this is prolly gona be the airforce of the future. Lets face it Jets are just too damn expensive and pilots cost money. Name a country that can afford to fund an airforce with out taxing its populace into recession ?? The recent Xplane competition between lockhead and boeing is a point in case prime factor was 'Make it cheap'

Red_Storm
02-19-2004, 01:03 PM
ERUOP SUXXZZZ!!!11 WE PWN!!11 SO THERE ROTFLMAO!!!! PWND U!!!!11

chris455
02-19-2004, 01:07 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by watteville:
It would be nice for once to see the US fight someone as strong as they are, instead of picking some poor schmuck bombed every 6 month, UN sanctioned "I have dirt under my fingernail because I can't even buy a bar of soap" country.

looking at the success of Iraq, I bet the U.S is probably longing for a real adversary like North Korea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ; And I think that even with all its technological superiority, the US would sadly loose.

Where do we get pathetic people like this? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

gates123
02-19-2004, 01:12 PM
To get back on topic I think its safe to say that the pilots of the "Golden Age" of dogfighting were true pilots in the sense. Todays pilots are nothing more then radar operators and button pushers trained with g-suits on. Having contact with a unknown bogie is a thing of the past and my respect goes to all those pilots who fought and died on both sides because they are a dying breed. It truly amazes me that anyone even survived the war in those chaotic skies. For that they deserve a S!

http://gr.fipu.krasnoyarsk.edu/camms/archive/ww2_fighters/0112/pics/0112_2_1.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

Maple_Tiger
02-19-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by watteville:
It would be nice for once to see the US fight someone as strong as they are, instead of picking some poor schmuck bombed every 6 month, UN sanctioned "I have dirt under my fingernail because I can't even buy a bar of soap" country.

looking at the success of Iraq, I bet the U.S is probably longing for a real adversary like North Korea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ; And I think that even with all its technological superiority, the US would sadly loose.

Still looking for some brave Yankees to kick some French butts everyday at 4 PM ET at the Co-OP UBI lobby. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

High im from Canada and if US get into a fight, we will be in it Like always.

I disagree with 100%

I mean your basicaly saying that the US peolpe are longing to go to war with NorthKorea.

Are you all there?

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

woofiedog
02-19-2004, 01:35 PM
Watteville. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
When did you first noticed that you were looking thru a long tunnel that ends at your backside.
Whip this area with some paper and rinse with water and see if this clears up your vision, rinse and repeat if necessary. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG7_Rall
02-19-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by watteville:
It would be nice for once to see the US fight someone as strong as they are, instead of picking some poor schmuck bombed every 6 month, UN sanctioned "I have dirt under my fingernail because I can't even buy a bar of soap" country.

looking at the success of Iraq, I bet the U.S is probably longing for a real adversary like North Korea ; And I think that even with all its technological superiority, the US would sadly loose.

Still looking for some brave Yankees to kick some French butts everyday at 4 PM ET at the Co-OP UBI lobby.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

more specifically:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the US would sadly loose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean we would lose. Loose describes your anal cavity.

Btw, we're not the war ravaging beasts that you make us out to be.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To get back on topic I think its safe to say that the pilots of the "Golden Age" of dogfighting were true pilots in the sense. Todays pilots are nothing more then radar operators and button pushers trained with g-suits on. Having contact with a unknown bogie is a thing of the past and my respect goes to all those pilots who fought and died on both sides because they are a dying breed. It truly amazes me that anyone even survived the war in those chaotic skies. For that they deserve a S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's kind of what I was thinking...

The WWII pilots taking off not really knowing what they were going to find... amazing courage!

I don't agree that modern pilots are a bunch of button pushers but they certainly must be more informed about what to expect on a mission.

woofiedaog says about iraq:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Their best tactics would have been to engage our air to air fighters with their top of the line fighters, then run the older Migs in on the bomb-laden aircraft using high-speed hit and run tacics.
Even if they didn't achive a kill, their supersonic bounce would have forsed the bombers to jettison their air to ground ordnance.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's all very nice but the thing is that this could not happen because the first thing the aggressive force would do would be to neutralise the airfields so that the enemy could not operate.

That's the thing with these modern jets, you can't just take off out of a field somewhere... you have to have all the infrastructure as well. Which is too difficult to defend and all too easy to destroy with today's weapons.

SKULLS_LZ
02-19-2004, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by woofiedog:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI believe that the classic dogfight you are writting about is still here and will be for awhile.
Irag did send up missions againest the Coalition forces, although we had knocked out their eyes the radar site with a mission called Puba's Party that attacked these site on a grand scale.
But here's a statement written by the Coalition Air Force Commander Gen. Chuck Horner.
In the hands of a good pilot, virully any interceptor can badly hurt an attacking airforce. Irag had some excellent aircraft, especially their Mig 29 and Mirage F-1, as well as an invertory of older aircraft, prinipally Mig-21 and Mig-23s. Though the older aircraft weren't much of a threat on their own, if used in cojuction with the newer Russian and Freach models, they could have caused us serious problems.
Their best tactics would have been to engage our air to air fighters with their top of the line fighters, then run the older Migs in on the bomb-laden aircraft using high-speed hit and run tacics.
Even if they didn't achive a kill, their supersonic bounce would have forsed the bombers to jettison their air to ground ordnance.
The weapons carried by these fighters, on hand, were not nearly as good as our radar and heat-seeking missiles. Neverless, they were more than adequate if the enemy pilot could put his aircraft in a position to shoot them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, HOWEVER, Gen. Chuck Horner's statement is obviously written for the purpose of protecting his AF budget and job. There aint no "interceptor" in any AF in the world that is gonna "badly hurt" the USA air power. Civilians might buy Gen. Chuck's nonsense, but I think we here know better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

masamainio
02-19-2004, 02:12 PM
Jets will have a tough time when opposed by Camels and Fokker triplanes of the future......

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 02:19 PM
A question...

does anyone know of or think it is possible to shoot down a modern jet fighter with a WWII single prop fighter?

In theory... with an ace in the cockpit and favourable weather conditions.

Say Iraq instead of all the expensive jets instead had hundreds of Stuka and 109 types... would this have been more of a threat to coallition forces?

Menthol_moose
02-19-2004, 02:21 PM
Wait a few more decades until unmanned drone aircraft become really developed.

Things are really going to get boring.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Xnomad
02-19-2004, 02:37 PM
Eh? The whole point of the fighter is to keep other fighters from shooting down the interceptors. The interceptors are there to shoot down bombers.

It's all about bombers if you can't shoot down a country's planes because you are too fast and they are too manouvreble but they are too slow to shoot down your bombers then you win. You just ignore their fighters and bomb their cities from the stratosphere. Simple

Oh and by the way Europe sucks!

Oops I got the wrong side ...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif too much drink at lunchtime, nah I love you all honestly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif well sometimes....however, I can't stand those nationalists ("patriots")they put the Na.. in you know what, hail to victory and all that sh!te.

edit (I bet some illiterate basher thinks I'm a yank now)

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

[This message was edited by Xnomad on Thu February 19 2004 at 01:49 PM.]

DONB3397
02-19-2004, 02:38 PM
Perhaps the attraction of FB is exactly this...WWII (and possibly Korea) may have been the end of "dogfighting," one-on-one aerial combat in which one combatant overcomes another with developed ability and effort (and mechanical advantage).

But, sadly, there will be forms of individual combat in the air and elsewhere as long as mankind relies on war to resolve conflicts. I'm not much interested discussing the ethics and/or morality of war here; only the evolution of methods. The reality is that look-down satelites and GPS-guidance systems and munitions make it possible for a "pilot" in Australia to fly and fight an armed aircraft halfway around the world with more accuracy and effectiveness than a WWII fighter pilot on the tail of his adversary.

It seems to me that ground-to-air and air-to-air guided systems make it unlikely that we'll see another conflict in which the players see and interact in a limited space.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCiIbMAB3LrWLZQo

arcadeace
02-19-2004, 02:38 PM
That's what it will become moose, and it maybe in the next decade or two. No more limits of g-force or pilot error. Aerodynamic structure may change substantially. Ground vehicles also will increasingly become robotic and remote controlled.

Glad you replyed watteville, a lot of folks now know what you are. Have fun in your stay here bigot.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

TheGozr
02-19-2004, 02:45 PM
I'm very sorry to tell you that but in France they used the internet base system with the minitel way before us in the U.S have real bread in stores...

oops!

The world is between L.A and N.Y for some.
Pfffttt! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
It's becoming ridiculous to talk about that what a B S we do.

[This message was edited by TheGozr on Thu February 19 2004 at 01:54 PM.]

woofiedog
02-19-2004, 02:45 PM
To Huxley_S,
You have a valid point , but read up on the airwars over Vietnam, Middle East, and more recent The Irag and Iranian War, Britian and Argentina and the fighter is still a valid dogfighter.
The US losses in Vietnam showed that most of these losses were because we were not teaching our airmen the basic fighter skills taught since WW1 and WW2. And that is why US aircraft now have cannon back up to their missiles.
That is why the US started Red Flag Air Training to teach the basic skills need in aircombat.
This training was one main reasons why we did so good even againest the Irag Airforce.
A good book to read is Every Man A Tiger, By Tom Clancy & Gen. Chuck Horner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

woofiedog
02-19-2004, 02:54 PM
Did the TheGozr know that the Irag Air defence network was using a modern French Air Defence System? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Guess what the ending of that story was. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

TheGozr
02-19-2004, 02:56 PM
I know that the French radar could easly detect the incredible invisible stealth AC.. ofcourse denied by us forces..

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/images/pix/il2fbtmhlogosmall.jpg &lt;--Uncensored version IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Did the TheGozr know that the Irag Air defence network was using a modern French Air Defence System? Guess what the ending of that story was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Knowing that the enemy is coming and being able to do something about it are two different things http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. This is a thread about dogfighting. If you want to flame Americans/French for sport can you please start a different thread. Thank you.

TheGozr
02-19-2004, 03:01 PM
we can go on and on about who did what or who have the biggest D..k!

It is stupid agreed HUXley.

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/images/pix/il2fbtmhlogosmall.jpg &lt;--Uncensored version IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

woofiedog
02-19-2004, 03:02 PM
How did they pick up Wonder Woman? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif I'd have to see the proof. Have you got any pic's of Wonder Woman flying over Bagdad?

BaldieJr
02-19-2004, 03:03 PM
Take it easy GOZR, France is not a victim in this thread, and neither are you.

It doesn't have to devolve into a "You is gay" thread unless enough people just WANT it.

Your call.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

arcadeace
02-19-2004, 03:08 PM
I've always had the hots for you Baldie http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

Old_Canuck
02-19-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
If we spent as much time developing better bacon as we have war pieces, the world would be a far better place.

Bacon makes everything better.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.realcanadianbacon.com/images/header.jpg Come on up for breakfast BaldieJnr. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 03:19 PM
I'm all in favour of bickering and the wearing of national flag underwear... but...

Would a WWII Luftwaffe style air force offer a greater threat to a modern air force than the typical modern jet air force that say Iraq had (for example).

My thought is this... large squadrons of single-prop fighters and ground attack aircraft could inflict large casualties on the ground.

Being more mobile they could fly from improvised airstrips and be easier to maintain.

Being far less expensive they could have the advantage in numbers... they would lose many pilots on each mission but you wouldn't be able to shoot them all down.

Could a modern jet take on single props (armed with missiles) outnumbered 10-1 and survive?

TheGozr
02-19-2004, 03:23 PM
"Could a modern jet take on single props (armed with missiles) outnumbered 10-1 and survive?"
interesting.. yeap something i wantto know..

Baldie.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/images/pix/il2fbtmhlogosmall.jpg &lt;--Uncensored version IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

Korolov
02-19-2004, 03:30 PM
I think I heard somewhere that a A-1 Sandie shot down a MiG-21 in Vietnam. Not fully modern but close enough, I'd say.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Menthol_moose
02-19-2004, 03:47 PM
Many have said that we are seeing the last generation of manned fighters with the F22/JSF.

Its foolish to predict the demise of something (just look at radio and vinyl):P but the writing is on the wall when it comes to making extremely expensive aircraft to fit a human.

and FFS no country bashing, even if its france :P

! Keep this thread open for a change.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

watteville
02-19-2004, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
A question...

does anyone know of or think it is possible to shoot down a modern jet fighter with a WWII single prop fighter?

In theory... with an ace in the cockpit and favourable weather conditions.

Say Iraq instead of all the expensive jets instead had hundreds of Stuka and 109 types... would this have been more of a threat to coallition forces?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it would have been harder to get them a 100 1943 Me-109 would have been more efficient than 2-3 Migs. There is probably a market for a cheap prop fighter, Probably some kind of 400 Mph Long-Eze with a 300-400 Hp 2 stroke turbo-diesel, Arm it with a 30mm, a simple infrared missile an you get a very dangerous weapon for the price of a medium car One could literaly buy a hundred of them for the price of one F-16, mass them in one hell of an aerial cavalry charge and you get something very low tech but pretty destructive

theaps
02-19-2004, 04:42 PM
I think dog fighting has evolved over time. Pilots have a lot more training then they ever had. Jets are so fast that dog fights in the sense of WW2 are very rare. Why get into a dog fight with cannons if you can pick of your opponent miles away? So it comes down to a simple thing, evolution, look at how the air war was fought in the major campaigns and you see an evolution in arms and tactics occur. WW1 gave you the introduction of the airplane into military service; WW2 gave you a wider role in suppressing the enemy by the means of crushing the economic centers, transportation, and a better use in engaging the enemy at sea, ground, and air. The rest of the conflicts bring that even into wider view and you also get more inductions to counter the aerial threat by stealth technology, a range of laser to missile defenses and more precise strikes on enemy territory heightening enemy casualties and lessening civilian deaths.

theaps
02-19-2004, 04:44 PM
The WW2 dog fight was a necessity during those times but the definition of the dog fight has evolved and it still comes down to one thing, what is the easiest way to kill the enemy without having to but our combatants into harms way.

theaps
02-19-2004, 04:47 PM
"literaly buy a hundred of them for the price of one F-16, mass them in one hell of an aerial cavalry charge and you get something very low tech but pretty destructive"

The pilots would still have to have some training and that would take time and money. By the time you spend the money and time training 100 pilots you could buy that F16 with a trained pilot.

Menthol_moose
02-19-2004, 04:51 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by theaps:
"literaly buy a hundred of them for the price of one F-16, mass them in one hell of an aerial cavalry charge and you get something very low tech but pretty destructive"

QUOTE]

hmmm.... slower moving aircraft like that could be chopped to bits using mobile AA like the ZSU-23-4.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The pilots would still have to have some training and that would take time and money. By the time you spend the money and time training 100 pilots you could buy that F16 with a trained pilot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

er yeah.. but do the math... for the price of 2 F16s you get 100 of your super-prop fighters with a hundred trained pilots to sit in them!

SKULLS_LZ
02-19-2004, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The pilots would still have to have some training and that would take time and money. By the time you spend the money and time training 100 pilots you could buy that F16 with a trained pilot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

er yeah.. but do the math... for the price of 2 F16s you get 100 of your super-prop fighters with a hundred trained pilots to sit in them!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try it with FB. Setup a mission in FMB or UQMG with 100 P.11s and 2 Me-262s. See if the P11s can shoot you down.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Try it with FB. Setup a mission in FMB or UQMG with 100 P.11s and 2 Me-262s. See if the P11s can shoot you down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol I will http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Surely this is a task for the CFS mod crew...

JR_Greenhorn
02-19-2004, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
A question...

does anyone know of or think it is possible to shoot down a modern jet fighter with a WWII single prop fighter?

In theory... with an ace in the cockpit and favourable weather conditions.

Say Iraq instead of all the expensive jets instead had hundreds of Stuka and 109 types... would this have been more of a threat to coallition forces?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only way that I think something like this could occur is with a fatal pilot's error in the jet. If the prop plane brandished guided missles then probably, but why fire them from a prop plane when there are numerous ways to fire SAMs, and they don't have to be carried into the air first, or be light enough for the prop plane to carry them. Even with unguided missles and an "ace" firing them, the jet would have to fall prey to extraordinary cicumstances (read: dumb luck) or pilot error. With guns, not a chance. The speed and manoueverability differences are too great.



As for the flight of 100 prop planes attacking ground targets, I think this was the concept behind the COIN a/c project that inspired the Piper PA-48--arguably the final evolution of the P-51. The USAF had little interest in it, and it became but a footnote in P-51 history.

There is more to consider in this scenario. With the state of attack helicopters today (granted, they are designed for ground attack, not air-to-air interception), how do you think the flight of 100 would do attacking ground troops and vehicles protected by loitering helicopters? I think that makes a more interesting situation. Against modern day supersonic fighter jets and guided missles, there's just no contest.

BaldieJr
02-19-2004, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
Come on up for breakfast BaldieJnr. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Argh! Thats not bacon! Thats fried balogna!

No thank you. Bacon comes in strips, and is salty, fatty, and crunchy. Yummm. Bacon.

I like to put a piece of bacon between to other pieces of bacon.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even with unguided missles and an "ace" firing them, the jet would have to fall prey to extraordinary cicumstances (read: dumb luck) or pilot error. With guns, not a chance. The speed and manoueverability differences are too great<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

Absolutely. But for the jet pilot would he also not have difficulty shooting down the large prop squadron. Ideally I suppose he'd just circle from above picking them off one by one... how many of these guided missiles would he have and how effective are they against small, fast moving, low altitude fighters when fired at range? And how many indiviual such targets can be despatched in how short a time?

The 109's vs Apache helecopter sim sounds good... not one for the purists I can understand that...

VW-IceFire
02-19-2004, 06:21 PM
I don't think dogfighting has gone the way of extinction just yet. At least in that limited perspective.

The latest modern aircraft like the F-22, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Rafel, the Su-35 and the Mig-29S (I think its S)...we see that aircraft are more manuverable now than ever before.

Long range missiles are the opening in a fight with modern warplanes...but those missiles only work so well. Inevitably with the right kind of force balance (defense and offense) you'll end up at point blank where you will dogfight with short range IR missiles and rotary cannons. Its not quite the same as before...but the trend in creating these high tech aircraft is towards supermanuverability. Thats not going to do you much good at long range...but at short range...it can make up the difference.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

BSS_Goat
02-19-2004, 06:45 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BaldieJr:

No thank you. Bacon comes in strips, and is salty, fatty, and crunchy. Yummm. Bacon.

I like to put a piece of bacon between to other pieces of bacon.

bacon kicks arse!!

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The latest modern aircraft like the F-22, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Rafel, the Su-35 and the Mig-29S (I think its S)...we see that aircraft are more manuverable now than ever before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but is their excellence only going to matter at air shows?

Here's the scenario...

2 flights of 4 F22's are sent to intercept a flight of up to 100 small single-prop planes similar to 109's although they are fitted with modern but (relatively) inexpensive cockpit equipment navigation and counter measures and the pilots are wearing G-suits of a kind. They're 109's but built with 21st century home-brew technology let's say.

This formation is headed towards a coalition camp where 4,000 men as well as armoured divisions and helicopter gunships are preparing for an assualt on the enemy capital city.

As far as coalition intelligence is concerned the country's air command structure no longer exists and all their known runways and airbases have been destroyed so where they came from is a mystery but you now have the coordinates for intercept.

Some of these aircraft are carrying bombs, rockets and others air to surface missiles but you don't know how many or which ones. Others carry one short range modified IR air to air missile (not very accurate) with the rest equipped only with MG and gun pods / canon.

They will be at their target in less than 1 hour and you are leading one of the flights of F22s and you will intercept in 35 minutes. 4 additional flights are scrambling but will not be at the target zone in less than 55 minutes.

What will you do? What outcome do you predict on each side of this engagement?

SkyChimp
02-19-2004, 07:27 PM
I agree. Inevitably, warplanes will one day be unmanned. And the next experten may be a 12 year old kid with a MS stick and a bag of Doritos.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 07:28 PM
P.S. I don' t believe the outcome will have any reference to bacon. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Huxley_S
02-19-2004, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And the next experten may be a 12 year old kid with a MS stick and a bag of Doritos.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if they're giving away free Doritos...

Menthol_moose
02-19-2004, 07:42 PM
I think modern AAA and Sam's would have a feeding frenzy on these ground attack aircraft.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

[This message was edited by Menthol_moose on Thu February 19 2004 at 06:55 PM.]

Frosty288
02-19-2004, 08:01 PM
In the talk of a prop plane and a Coalation Jet meeting, lets say and F-18. I don't think either plane would be shot down. First of all, missles are useless in that sort of situation, because the F-18 can't lock onto the Hurricane(let's say) Becuase missles lock onto the enemy aircrafts computer, and since when did a Hurricane have a computer. Also that F-18 would be going around 700 mph and it would be damn near impossible to shoot down a 200 mph Hurricane because it would seem like the hurricane was standing still. Just a thought to consider.

Menthol_moose
02-19-2004, 08:09 PM
ummm.. I always though they locked on to heat signatures and radar reflections http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

CAP401
02-19-2004, 09:42 PM
My belief: You will most likely have the computer taking more and more of a role in the plane maybe doing most of the attack. But the human pilot will always be there as a backup. I would like to call upon the example of Neil Armstrong as my example. When our friend Neil landed on the Moon. He had, at first, the computer on. Then as they got closer and closer to the surface, he realized the computer had picked a landing zone that was covered with rocks. THe computer was about to land them into a huge rock! So he took control and landed the lunar landing craft manually. On a safe sandy area may I add. If he had just sat back and let the computer do it, or had it just been commanded and unmanned, the U.S. would have crashed the rover nad it would have lost them tons of money along with a huge embarresment right in front of Russia http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. So a human has to be there because sometimes we just have a sense that something is wrong. And a computer doesn't have that sense. Also, what happens if the enemy just comes up with a jammer(and you know they will http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif) and blocks all signals or worse, finds a way to take it over and turn it against us. If you have a pilot in there, he can shut that computer down and fly it manually.

skunkertx7
02-19-2004, 09:47 PM
If you're looking for combat between a modern jet fighter and an extinct WWII fighter, just rent the movie "The Final Countdown" with Kirk Douglas. You'll see F-14 Tomcats taking on A6M Zeros just before their infamous strike on Pearl Harbor.

If a WWII fighter took on one of today's military aircraft, the only possibility I see would be the P47 attacking an A-10 Thunderbolt. The A10 is damn slow. The only problem is that I don't think the P47 can knock out the jet's armor with its .50cals. The pilot is situated in a titanium "bath tub" that can withstand pretty much anything.

BaldieJr
02-19-2004, 09:55 PM
I would toss hot bacon out the window as a diversion for heat seakers.

Not really. I'd happily chew the bacon while shooting the heat seakers down with my side-arm.

Nothing comes between me and my bacon.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

CAP401
02-19-2004, 10:00 PM
Gotta love that bacon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif.

Menthol_moose
02-19-2004, 10:03 PM
reminds me of that iron eagle 3 or whatever movie.

A guy throws some cooking foil out the window of his ww2 plane to defeat to radar guilded missle.

Lame.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

JR_Greenhorn
02-19-2004, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
But for the jet pilot would he also not have difficulty shooting down the large prop squadron. Ideally I suppose he'd just circle from above picking them off one by one... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I follow you now, like Space Invaders--shoot as much of the swarm as you can before it reaches the target. What do you suppose the jet fighter would have better luck at (after the ATA missles are gone)? strafing the group (the speed diferential would be like shooting stationary targets), or staying subsonic and trying to mix it up with the props olde school style?



A little searching turns up some proposals for "Swarms of Lightweight Scout/Attack Aircraft" to combat the staggering expence and logistics required for modern jet fighter aircraft. This sounds a lot like what you describe here.

Istreliteli
02-19-2004, 11:16 PM
Well if modern ac have a secondary role to strafe ground targets with their cannon armament then id say an f16 can attack and destroy the evil horde (jesus im sounding like the ***** of Hamburg and my beautifl Black Sun)of spitfires or sturmoviks, and guess what i have computerized lead calculator so i dont have to EVER miss.

UShtravnikov odin zakon odin konetz kalir rubi, fashistkaya brayagu,
viy luchikh lest, rupi tyen na grabiy, pro rif idut, shtrafnye batalione
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=Yak-3/v=2/l=IVI/*-http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/downloads/yak3-3.jpg

Rajvosa
02-20-2004, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I don't think dogfighting has gone the way of extinction just yet. At least in that limited perspective.

The latest modern aircraft like the F-22, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Rafel, the Su-35 and the Mig-29S (I think its S)...we see that aircraft are more manuverable now than ever before.

Long range missiles are the opening in a fight with modern warplanes...but those missiles only work so well. Inevitably with the right kind of force balance (defense and offense) you'll end up at point blank where you will dogfight with short range IR missiles and rotary cannons. Its not quite the same as before...but the trend in creating these high tech aircraft is towards supermanuverability. Thats not going to do you much good at long range...but at short range...it can make up the difference.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This maneuverability is NOT for fighters vs. fighter engagement, but for evading missiles. This is not something I made up, but something a Swedish fighter pilot told me. He flies the JAS 39 Gripen, and that is one of the most maneuverable jets ever made.

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

Rajvosa
02-20-2004, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I would toss hot bacon out the window as a diversion for heat seakers.

Not really. I'd happily chew the bacon while shooting the heat seakers down with my side-arm.

Nothing comes between me and my bacon.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know...

You are what you eat! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

Slush69
02-20-2004, 03:30 AM
Well, the purpose of a fighter force is not dogfights, but to gain air supremacy. If fighters can do that just by being there and not actually having to fight, they've accomplished their mission.

It's very much like the naval "fleet in being" strategy.

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-20-2004, 03:40 AM
Very interesting...

I did a fanyasy cartoon once with 2 Jets taking on 4 WWII Spitfires. And the Spitfires won! But that was because they flew into a special time zone where 21st century technology failed (computers, etc) and so the Spits turned and wasted them.

Umm, it`s a fantasy story, what d`ya expect?

I`d print a page here but I don`t have a scanner big enough. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LAlowblue.jpg

DaBallz
02-20-2004, 04:08 AM
Dog fighting has been declared dead many times.
I do believe it is finally dead and buried.
Visual contact is no longer a requirement.
If you are up against the USAF or NATO for that matter
you can expect death to come anonomously.
From 50 miles away your death sentence has
been mailed.


To argue about the outcome of any US vs Foe contest
in the air is moot. At this time NO nation
can stay in the same airspace as the US.
Like it or not, the US is truly dominant
in airpower, and will likely remain so for
the forseeable future.

Da...

Rajvosa
02-20-2004, 04:12 AM
Yes, of course it will. At what cost? Feed the hungry first! I wish someone could make an universal law that would forbid any kind of weapons. Planes, ships, tanks, guns, grenades, missiles, knifes (keep them as tools and utensiles)...

Utopia

http://stu.wccnet.org/~ecrnovrs/inp150/finalp/sarajevo1/images/sarajevo.jpg

SeaFireLIV
02-20-2004, 04:16 AM
In truth of course, Daballz right. The US has the power to take on the whole of Europe alone if it so wished. The US (with Nato in a small way) is the new Roman Empire.

DaBallz
02-20-2004, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The US (with Nato in a small way) is the new Roman Empire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not agree with you more.
Rome is alive and well in washington DC.
It has made it's move from Rome, to Constantinople, Paris, to London and on to
Washington.
The "Eternal City" is not just for Rome Italy.
It's the stuff of empire.

Da...

Slush69
02-20-2004, 04:32 AM
The US is the new Roman empire? C'mon people. Seriously ...

What is it exactly that makes it the ROMAN empire? Where is the parallel supposed to be?

Of course the US of today has many of the characteristics of an empire, but there's no reason to compare it with the Roman one. Actually the British empire might be a better comparison, if you really need one.

/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-20-2004, 04:39 AM
Well simply because they have more widespread power than even the British had in the Empire days. The closest comparison is the Roman Empire (which owned most of the known world). There are many other comparisons, but you mustn`t look at it in terms of land occupied, but influence (and military ability) around the world...

Slush69
02-20-2004, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well simply because they have more widespread power than even the British had in the Empire days. The closest comparison is the Roman Empire (which owned most of the known world). There are many other comparisons, but you mustn`t look at it in terms of land occupied, but influence (and military ability) around the world...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same can be said about almost every other antique empire...

Anyway, aside from the obvious fact that "the world" does not equal the Roman world, that the Romans not had the widespread presence of the British empire, and that other large empires, unknown to the Roman, existed at the same time, there's one major flaw with that argument: The Romans were NOT all powerfull in a military sense. They were the strongest major power in their area, but not the only superpower like the US i today.

The Romans expanded until they met military power greater than their own and empires that could beat them on equal terms. And much of their grand strategy was based on finding defensible borders against those empires.

IMHO people compare the US with the Roman empire simply because that's the first thing that springs to mind. Nothing else. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

WhiskeyRiver
02-20-2004, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_LZ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by woofiedog:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI believe that the classic dogfight you are writting about is still here and will be for awhile.
Irag did send up missions againest the Coalition forces, although we had knocked out their eyes the radar site with a mission called Puba's Party that attacked these site on a grand scale.
But here's a statement written by the Coalition Air Force Commander Gen. Chuck Horner.
In the hands of a good pilot, virully any interceptor can badly hurt an attacking airforce. Irag had some excellent aircraft, especially their Mig 29 and Mirage F-1, as well as an invertory of older aircraft, prinipally Mig-21 and Mig-23s. Though the older aircraft weren't much of a threat on their own, if used in cojuction with the newer Russian and Freach models, they could have caused us serious problems.
Their best tactics would have been to engage our air to air fighters with their top of the line fighters, then run the older Migs in on the bomb-laden aircraft using high-speed hit and run tacics.
Even if they didn't achive a kill, their supersonic bounce would have forsed the bombers to jettison their air to ground ordnance.
The weapons carried by these fighters, on hand, were not nearly as good as our radar and heat-seeking missiles. Neverless, they were more than adequate if the enemy pilot could put his aircraft in a position to shoot them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, HOWEVER, Gen. Chuck Horner's statement is obviously written for the purpose of protecting his AF budget and job. There aint no "interceptor" in any AF in the world that is gonna "badly hurt" the USA air power. Civilians might buy Gen. Chuck's nonsense, but I think we here know better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't Chuck Horner retired when he wrote his book? Why would he need to protect his job if he was retired?

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

watteville
02-20-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
I think modern AAA and Sam's would have a feeding frenzy on these ground attack aircraft.

http://simpsons.metropoliglobal.com/fotogramas/2f13/09.jpg

Eh, mates! What's the good word?

[This message was edited by Menthol_moose on Thu February 19 2004 at 06:55 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A long -Eze is a very very small target about 1/4 the size of a F-16 it also has a very low radar signature and weak heat signature compared to a jet. A 400 mph long-eze would be harder to shood down than a 800 mph F-16.

What makes it lethal is to arm it with a Stinger type missile weight 35 lbs range 3 miles.

The jet starts it's B&Z the Long-eze turns hard to evade and finds itself looking at the butt of a F-16 on full afterburner with a heat seeking missile locked on it easy kill.

BSS_Goat
02-20-2004, 06:32 AM
Man, we are probably the smartest people on earth.....a whole lot smarter than the Generals who really fight wars and engineers who design planes. I think we should get a couple hundred WW2 fighters and take over the world. It would be kinda like a Mad Max movie!!

Salfordian
02-20-2004, 07:01 AM
Yeah a valid point, but could the Long-eze turn hard enough to evade without ripping its wings off

HansKnappstick
02-20-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slush69:
The Romans expanded until they met military power greater than their own and empires that could beat them on equal terms. And much of their grand strategy was based on finding defensible borders against those empires.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. The Romans were beaten by the barbarians, who in their barbarian way negated the effect of better shear military power of Romans. Also, the territorial expansion of the Roman empire halted because the people and rulers of Rome lost tehir interest in the expansion and because there were no economical reasons for that (not much to win/huge costs). The Roman empire never met Chinese, for instance, and only this would be "empires that could beat them on equal terms". Persia was not an opponent for Romans, should they ever want to go east!

Thus, the Roman empire was the only one power known to the people of the Roman empire. This was the only power on _their_ world. The United States is the only power on our world, but you do not know if there are other powers on, say, Arcturus. They just do not matter for us.

Also, if the comparison to the Roman empire is the first thing jumping to the mind then perhaps it is a valid comparison. At least what concerns the _image_.

SeaFireLIV
02-20-2004, 07:15 AM
Yes, HansKnappstick got there before I could, but indeed the Romans simply stretched their lines too far in the end. In Britain`s case they just packed up and voluntarily left, telling the Britons to `look to their own defences`. They weren`t actually beaten by another organised military power, just more and more overwhelming barbs.



SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LAlowblue.jpg

masamainio
02-20-2004, 07:46 AM
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/icons/guns/kalashnikov/ak47.jpg


Jets have been shot down with Kalashnikovs

DynamicBass
02-20-2004, 08:52 AM
During our 22 year border war(South Africa Vs Angola, who had Russian/Cuban/EastGerman and other backing) - we shot down 2 Mig 21's Whith our Mirage F1's. Air to Air IR Missiles were fired by us with no real effect. The G forces, lock- ons and a miriad of other aeronuatical principles involved mean that in real life a simple lock-on and fire = target destroyed as in the movies does not always happen (IR AAM's)

In both cases the pilot closed in and shot down the Mig's using the 2x 30mm Defa cannon. Some good gun camera footage of these!

Missiles of IR and Radar type were fired at us and only one damaged one of ours that when it landed the ejection seat fired as the bracking parachute was damaged and caused the pilot serious injury.

That is not to mention the hundreds on SSAM's that were fired at us during this long campaign

Regards
Dynamicbass

DynamicBass
02-20-2004, 08:59 AM
Sorry - Just to correct myself.

The F1 that had it's bracking parachute damaged by a Russian Air to Air misslie that was fired at it by a Mig 23.

The F1 landed but ran out of runway because the bracking parachute did not deploy and when the front wheel hit a small bump in the rough at the end of the runway, the jolt caused the ejection seat to fire. The ejection seat was not damaged in itself by the missile as perhaps misconstrued in my previous post.

LilHorse
02-20-2004, 11:09 AM
I wasn't too long ago that the U.S. Army was concidering design entries for a prop close air support/ ground attack a/c. A prop plane might still be very useful in that role, but they would need to have jets to establish air superiority for them to do their job.

These days, however, it seems that the A-10 has filled that role. They are being used in Afganistan now for that purpose. So, the tank buster has now proved itself versitile enough to expand on it's role when there are no tanks to bust.

LilHorse
02-20-2004, 11:16 AM
Also, something I've been wondering vis-a-vis UCAVs. Suppose you make use of a weapon that instead of having to hit it, merely creates a big enough EM pulse to roach it's computer systems. What then? For that matter, couldn't you do the same thing to a manned fighter's computer systems? This would really be hell for a fly-by-wire type a/c. Wouldn't they need a straight up electro-mechanical/ hydraulic system as backup? Just wondering out loud to you guys who know more about this stuff than me.

DynamicBass
02-21-2004, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
Also, something I've been wondering vis-a-vis UCAVs. Suppose you make use of a weapon that instead of having to hit it, merely creates a big enough EM pulse to roach it's computer systems. What then? For that matter, couldn't you do the same thing to a manned fighter's computer systems? This would really be hell for a fly-by-wire type a/c. Wouldn't they need a straight up electro-mechanical/ hydraulic system as backup? Just wondering out loud to you guys who know more about this stuff than me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no proof and in no way can I bvack it up, but I have been told by a very well connected source a few years back that it has been done/invented.

The major problem, I was told is the control of the pulse/s as you could very easily score an "own goal".

Aparently you fire off the pulse/s (you can fire them off very rapidly) from your own Radar!

This means that your Radar range determines the range of your pulses. This makes all AA IR missiles and most if not all BVR AA Missiles obsolete.

Cheers
DynamicBass