Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

new russian super plane?

Discussion in 'Air Warfare' started by majorwoody10, Jan 21, 2007.

  1. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    It certainly doesn't help then when the engine is as unreliable as the Mig-25s and cannot operate at full capacity without destroying itself which is how they set all those records.
     
  2. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    Especially true of the Arrow.
     
  3. Hubsu

    Hubsu New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Remember, that there is a reason why B-70s never entered production and was cancelled and SR-71 was withdrawn from soviet overflights in the early 70's. Also, B-1 was cancelled because of the soviet counterpart emerging.

    The cancellation of high speed penetrator bombers/reconnaissance platforms was directly linked to the increased SAM and interceptor threat from the Soviets.

    Surely we would still see a bunch of fast movers still in the service, if speed was everything it was needed to defeat the defending interceptors and SAM systems?
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    All vehicles can have a higher-than-normal performance if you thrash the engine. As a slightly odd example, the fastest speed for a steam locomotive is 126mph, and was set after they told the engine driver to go for it and not worry about the engine life. The train in question needed some serious overhauling after the record was set.

    The MiG-25 can break Mach 3 if you don't mind having to change the engines afterwards, but it can also reach well into the mid/high Mach 2.somethings without any problems at all, which is more than adequate.

    In the interceptor role they simply need to climb fast. It can do that.
    In the fast recon role they simply need to maintain high speed for reasonably long periods of time. It can do that.
     
  5. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Engines were much improved since Belenko's defection. And i pretty much doubt his claims considering that one owerflew Israel at Mach 3,2 (probably recce) in 1973.

    From Wiki (basicly compilation of quite reliable ACIG articles):
    From reliable source i was told that those buried in Iraq were ECM planes and that much of technology was totaly unknown to western sources. And that that was also the reason that they were promptly carted away for evaluation. It makes sense as planes themselfves were nothing new and were supposed to be outdated.
     
  6. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I would like to see a source for that" later investigation". All I have seen is that the crashed aircraft was found and examined and the indications were that there was evidence of engine failure. If he was brought down by a missle it was almost certainly a ground to air SAM. The other pilots in his flight reported SAMs in the air just before he disappeared from the radar. If there had been a Mig in the area surely someone else in his flight of 10 aircraft would have picked him up on their radar.
     
  7. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    ACIG: Iraqi Air-to-Air Victories since 1967
    ACIG is still one of the more reliable sources and i have no reason to doubt them. On the other hand official US sources tend to disregard opposite claimes and routinley ascribe confirmed aircraft losses to SAM's and accidents (anything basicly, except enemy planes) despite evidence to the contrary.
    ACIG ascribed F/A-18 of lt.cdr. Speicher to MiG-25PDS of 96FS IrAF, but did not provide the name of Iraqi pilot. All other Iraqi claims of 2. gulf war are considered as unconfirmed except one case of fratricide on 17.01.1991 (MiG-29 killing of MiG-23ML)

    BTW
    Engines usualy do have tendency to fail in hit by missile it's fragments or AA :grin: :smok:
     
  8. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I have seen no evidence to the contrary, have you?



    Agreed. However, in this case the liklihood is that if struck by a missle it was a SAM since other aircraft reported SAMs having been launched and none detected a Mig in the area. I certainly don't think that US planes are invulnerable even though they have an extremely one-sided record in their encounters with Migs. It could have happened as you say but with zero evidence the SAM scenario seems more plausible.
     
  9. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Shure,US allways claim that craft was lost by mechanichal failure etc,when they cannot avoid that,claims go to SAM,and last point is enemy plane.Why is that? Coz us attack only when they outnumber enemy for atleast 5 to1 +modern technology,radars,satelits,avaks etc,so it is shame when enemy who was such underpowered score kill in air combat.
     
  10. Hubsu

    Hubsu New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ Gulf war Chronology - Day 1

     
  11. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    You take every opportunity to make your anti-US feeeling known yet in this case the fact remains that there is scanty evidence as to what brought down the aircraft. The liklihood of it being an air combat kill is much lower than the liklihood of a Sam kill or other mishap.
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Those reports predate the report that was issued in 1995 after the aircraft wreckage was examined by US investigators who also recovered the "black box". Prior to that there was much speculation about an air to air kill and Aviation Weekly and some other journalist types were convinced (for unknown reasons) that a Mig-25 was responsible.
    It cannot be ruled out even after examining all the evidence that it was shot down by an air to air missle (though not a IR heatseeking one) but there is precious little evidence to indicate that it was.
     
  13. Hubsu

    Hubsu New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The intelligence people at least thinks it was an aircraft that shot down the Hornet.

    http://www.nationalalliance.org/gulf/intel.htm

    In government jargon, the above text is almost like they admit it was an aircraft that shot down the Hornet, not actually seeing the shootdown itself.
     
  14. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    That investigation was the result of persistent reports that the pilot had survived and been taken captive and was being conducted to determine if LCDR Speicher was still alive and was being held captive or whether he was killed in the crash. It was not about determining what brought down his aircraft thus little mention is made beyond that sentence that "postwar analysis suggests".

    This also from that report:

    Analysis of the wreckage by US Navy experts concluded that LCDR Speicher initiated the ejection sequence, jettisoned the canopy, and likely ejected from the stricken aircraft prior to the crash. The canopy was located near the crash site; the ejection seat could not be found. Investigators were able to examine other parts of the aircraft including large portions of the wings and the fuselage behind the cockpit, the canopy frame, the engines, and wing pylons. In addition, the team recovered a data storage unit and fragments of life support equipment, as well as a flight suit handed over by the Iraqis. (see below)

    The fact that the impact of unknown cause occured in the forward part of the fuselage indicates that it was unlikely to be an IR heat seeking missle. Beyond that nothing is known but other reports from the same investigation (the Navy crash investigation, not the congressional MIA investigation) indicated that there were no penetrations of the engines or fuselage suggesting an exploding missle.


    [​IMG]

    photo caption:
    Probably the most convincing evidence IMO is the fact that if the Iraqis had gotten lucky and downed one of our top aircraft on the first day of the air war do you not think that they would have trumpeted it to the world? This was during the time when Saddam and his people were all bluster predicting the "mother of all battles" and many sober analysts around the world were predicting catastrophic casualties for the coalition forces and many dire consequences.
     
  15. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Seems that those reports are really contradicting...

    and

    or the FA-18 had it's engines on backwards or im :-?

    BTW the AA-6 R-40RD is not IR but SAR :wink:
     
  16. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    That missle comes in both variants. I don't understand what you are saying about the inconsistency between the two statements. The engines apparently stopped at some point (unknown cause) because the aircraft wreckage was consistent with a flat spin into the ground.

    The group had left the fertile flatlands and lakes surrounding Baghdad and, just three hours later, stood on a moonlike surface. They were 1,000 feet above sea level, in the desert. As far as they looked, all they could see was sand and a few scattered clumps of grass, shrubs and vines.

    That quote from this site (all I could find ATM)
    http://www.aiipowmia.com/pgw/speicherpart4.html

    The reason I say it wasn't likely IR is that IR missles don't impact the front of the fuselage.
     
  17. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Sorry Grieg but a flat spin into the ground is not an impact of unknown cause that is the inconsistency (i can't imagine those investigators can't tell the difference between a flat spin into the ground or a hit of something in the air wich the report suggest...and what did those iraqi's do with the crashsite during those 4 years?)!!

    BTW also your link suggests that something hit the Hornet in mid air.

    Also strange is that if he knew he would be crashing why didn't he communicate (if your engine is dead you know your gonna hit the ground sooner or later)

    That is why i mentioned the SAR version!

    The only one who knows what happened with the FA-18 is Speichler so:
    http://www.freescottspeicher.or

    Still whatever happened to him and his aircraft it smells fishy!
     
  18. Hubsu

    Hubsu New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Apparently the AWACS did notice a MiG approaching Speicher's flight from the forward, but the controller strongheadedly declared it as a bogey (unindentified) opposed to a bandit (hostile) target. Speicher's flight lead Cmdr Anderson apparently had a radar lock on the incoming MiG and was trying to get clearance to fire from the AWACS, but never did. The MiG proceeded to fly through the flight.

    One possible reason for the Hornet loss is a midair with the MiG, which would explain the missing marks from a missile hit on Speicher's Hornet. A wing tip or a rudder tip from the front is a possible cause, but the investigation team couldn't say "yes" for any of the 3 outcomes (SAM, AA missile hit or midair)

    We'll never know.
     
  19. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I agree with that. It's a mystery and I don't pretend to know what happened. There are lots of unanswered questions and apparent inconsistencies.
    I'l admit that though I thought of a possible midair also I didn't mention it because it seemed so unlikely. It is really possible when one considers that the data from the black box suggests something catastrophic happened to the front of the plane yet the wreckage didn't show evidence of an explosion like one would expect with either an air to air or air to ground missile. One minute you are cruising along at 28,000 feet and mach .92 when suddenly you are hit without warning. I doubt the true answer will ever be known.
     
  20. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't know, but if the wreckage suggested a flat spin into the ground there must be a reason. If an impact or other unknown cause resulted in a flame out and the pilot ejected then the plane would probably go into a flat spin before it impacted the ground.
     

Share This Page