Russian Nuclear Bombers over Guam

[yubba]

I'm supprised no one picked this up, or if any body cares, because of our mambi pambi-ness our enemies are laughing at us, we are teaching our children to fear guns while our enemies teach theirs to hate us and to kill us, we have become a nation of wussies waiting for the next government hand out.. http://freebeacon.com/bear-bombers-over-guam/

[Dowly]

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/Oh_no.gif

[Jimbuna]

Those bombers have been testing UK air defences for decades....this is little more than a well timed poke at Obama because of the stance taken over the troubles in the Asian theatre.

[Madox58]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/ThreeBears.jpg

[eddie]

Of course yubba is to ignorant to point out that these Russian aircraft were in international air space all the time, that US fighters were sent up too!! Funny how he skips over the facts, but what else would you expect from a neocon.:haha:

[razark]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/BakedPotatoWithButter.jpg/783px-BakedPotatoWithButter.jpg
Potatoe.



To yubba, this is some liberal plot to destroy America.

[Takeda Shingen]

Holy hell Dowly's sig just blinked. Maybe I'm behind the ball, but I was scrolling down and I saw it. Scared the crap out of me. :o

[Stealhead]

Those bombers have been testing UK air defences for decades....this is little more than a well timed poke at Obama because of the stance taken over the troubles in the Asian theatre.

From the late 50's until 1991 they got "escorted" by Air National Guard,Air Force, and Navy units all the time.Putin had them start flying along borders again back in 2007.Wonder why no one made a big deal about it?:hmmm:(it was when Bush was in office).

I find it funny how the article ignores the fact that there was a US military training exercise going on at the same time a major purpose of an exercise in to show possible foes that your ready of course a rival might decide to show up and say "we are watching you".Not really a big deal and I very highly doubt that the Tu-95s where carrying live nuclear warheads.

[Madox58]

Holy hell Dowly's sig just blinked. Maybe I'm behind the ball, but I was scrolling down and I saw it. Scared the crap out of me. :o
:har:

You just ruined my vision of you as the 'ever aware of everything' Moderator.
:03:

[Takeda Shingen]

:har:

You just ruined my vision of you as the 'ever aware of everything' Moderator.
:03:

:haha:

I was all doo da doo da doo OH MY GOD WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?!!?!

[Stealhead]

You just noticed the bilking eye? I noticed it a few days ago I did a double take at first too.

[u crank]

I winked back at her. :D

[Stealhead]

If you click the link it is part of a video on youtube. She blinks in it just as you see in the sig.

[Platapus]

Well them Ruskies sure sent us a clear message: We can fly in international airspace just like everyone else. Take that American dogs!"


ohhh very scary :doh:

Of course this is all rumour until Sara Palin confirms it.

[Dowly]

:haha:

I was all doo da doo da doo OH MY GOD WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?!!?!

LMAO :rotfl2:

[Subnuts]

Noted communist sympathizer and left-wing fifth columnist Ronald Reagan let this happen constantly as well.
http://i47.tinypic.com/hx67pg.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

Just another day of I'll show you my toys and you show me yours.

[Stealhead]

Noted communist sympathizer and left-wing fifth columnist Ronald Reagan let this happen constantly as well.
http://i47.tinypic.com/hx67pg.jpg

Actually "IS" is the code for Keflavik, Iceland the USAF used to have F-15s there though seeing as it is Icelandic airspace that intrusion can be blamed on Bjork.

Here is a closer photo from that same mission:
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/Bjork_zpscff16d16.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

...what else would you expect from a neocon.:haha:
Don't be so political. Yubba gives neocons a bad name. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

Holy hell Dowly's sig just blinked. Maybe I'm behind the ball, but I was scrolling down and I saw it. Scared the crap out of me. :o
:rotfl2:

I first noticed it awhile ago. Now every time I see his post I have to sit and watch until she does it. It's become an obsession. :oops:

[Tribesman]

Noted communist sympathizer and left-wing fifth columnist Ronald Reagan let this happen constantly as well.

But he had no recollection of those events.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I only clicked the link because I thought it said freebacon.com.

[Jimbuna]

These used to be our answer...

http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/7956/lightningbearhiresjm4.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=lightning+intercepting+bear&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=oGwscUuRgOtGZM&tbnid=Ifh81NlxP-W6uM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.militaryphotos.net%2Fforums%2 Fshowthread.php%3F93152-Interception-Pics-from-the-cold-war%2Fpage49&ei=r4EiUfiNJ-jE0QWP24G4Aw&bvm=bv.42553238,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNFhv_QCIN4FBNfu_iggW20nJKKyvw&ust=1361302291779081)

[nikimcbee]

These used to be our answer...

http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/7956/lightningbearhiresjm4.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=lightning+intercepting+bear&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=oGwscUuRgOtGZM&tbnid=Ifh81NlxP-W6uM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.militaryphotos.net%2Fforums%2 Fshowthread.php%3F93152-Interception-Pics-from-the-cold-war%2Fpage49&ei=r4EiUfiNJ-jE0QWP24G4Aw&bvm=bv.42553238,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNFhv_QCIN4FBNfu_iggW20nJKKyvw&ust=1361302291779081)

Isn't that a MiG-21 knock-off?

:hmm2::haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Isn't that a MiG-21 knock-off?

:hmm2::haha:
The Lightning's design predates the MiG-21 by a year, and they both went into service the same year.

Sorry, only funny when it's true.

[AVGWarhawk]

Who is answering the phone in the middle of the night?

http://www.slipperybrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/red-batphone.jpg

[Jimbuna]

Isn't that a MiG-21 knock-off?

:hmm2::haha:

You may well laugh but have a look at how she performed/compared against the F-15 and U-2....and such an old girl at that :03:


The Lightning possessed a remarkable climb rate. It was famous for its ability to rapidly rotate from takeoff to climb almost vertically from the runway, though this did not yield the best time to altitude. The Lightning's trademark tail-stand manoeuvre exchanged airspeed for altitude; it could slow to near-stall speeds before commencing level flight. The Lightning’s optimum climb profile required the use of afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 KIAS before initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 KIAS. This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min. Around 13,000 ft the Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 and maintain this speed until reaching the tropopause, 36,000 ft. on a standard day. If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb.
A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft in under three minutes. The official ceiling was kept as a secret, although low security RAF documents usually stated 60,000+ ft (18 000+ m). In September 1962 Fighter Command organised several supersonic interception trials on Lockheed U-2As at heights of around 60,000-65,000 ft, which were temporarily based at RAF Upper Heyford to monitor Soviet nuclear tests. For the trials operations were carried out by the AFDS temporarily moved to RAF Middleton St George. Energy climb techniques and flight profiles were developed to put the Lightning into a suitable attack position. To avoid risking the U-2, The Lightning could not be permitted to close any closer than 5,000 ft and definitely not fly in front of the U-2. For the actual intercepts four Lightning F1As were used on eighteen solo sorties. The sorties proved that, under GCI, successful intercepts could be made at up to 65,000 ft. Carried out to the backdrop of the Cuban missile crisis, the flight targets were deliberately not listed in the pilot log books. RAF Lightning pilot and Chief Examiner Brian Carroll reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26 600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark", noting that control-wise " on a knife edge".
In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception (thought to be 66,000 feet). Records show that Hale also climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his Lightning F.3 [I]XR749. This was not sustained level flight, but in a ballistic climb or a zoom climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, trading speed for altitude. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against Lockheed F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily with the exception of the low-level supersonic acceleration, which was a "dead heat".
Carroll compared the Lightning and the F-15C Eagle, having flown both aircraft, stating that: "Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lightning leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Takeoff roll is between 2,000 and 3,000 ft [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 ft [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500m]". Chief Test Pilot for the Lightning Roland Beamont, who also flew most of the "Century series" US aircraft, stated his opinion that nothing at that time had the inherent stability, control and docile handling characteristics of the Lightning throughout the full flight envelope. The turn performance and buffet boundaries of the Lightning were well in advance of anything known to him.

[AVGWarhawk]

Do not spar with Jim and aircraft. Since he started collecting Corgi diecast hs is a walking encyclopedia. You can't win!!!! :o

[Oberon]

Isn't that a MiG-21 knock-off?

:hmm2::haha:

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/849/monoclet.png

[Jimbuna]

Do not spar with Jim and aircraft. Since he started collecting Corgi diecast hs is a walking encyclopedia. You can't win!!!! :o

LOL...the facts can't be denied :03:

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/google.gif

[AVGWarhawk]

LOL...the facts can't be denied :03:

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/google.gif

:up:

[Jimbuna]

I was surprised to see some sources citing the service ceiling of the U-2 as around the 55,000 feet mark but on second thoughts I think most countries announce lower values and figures to mislead those they'd rather not know :hmm2:

[AVGWarhawk]

I was surprised to see some sources citing the service ceiling of the U-2 as around the 55,000 feet mark but on second thoughts I think most countries announce lower values and figures to mislead those they'd rather not know :hmm2:

It is one way to beat the surface to air missiles. False info! I think it is still classified. :hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

LOL...the facts can't be denied :03:

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/google.gif

Don't be modest Jim. You know your stuff on this topic.

[Bilge_Rat]

These used to be our answer...

http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/7956/lightningbearhiresjm4.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=lightning+intercepting+bear&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=oGwscUuRgOtGZM&tbnid=Ifh81NlxP-W6uM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.militaryphotos.net%2Fforums%2 Fshowthread.php%3F93152-Interception-Pics-from-the-cold-war%2Fpage49&ei=r4EiUfiNJ-jE0QWP24G4Aw&bvm=bv.42553238,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNFhv_QCIN4FBNfu_iggW20nJKKyvw&ust=1361302291779081)

I love the Lightning. Third Wire's "War over Europe" flight sim has the Lightning. I don't how how the real one flies, but in game it is basically a rocket, a danger (to its pilot), can't out turn or out maneuver any other fighter, but very fast. Perfect for intercepting Red bombers or getting in and out of combat quickly.

[Sailor Steve]

LOL...the facts can't be denied :03:

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/google.gif
Actually those aren't facts, they're claims. They are all valid and substantiated claims, but there is still a difference.

First, acceleration. The Lightning has an empty weight of 31,068 pounds and maximum thrust with AB is 32,000 lbf (foot/pound) total. The F-15 has an empty weight of 28,000 lb and a maximum thrust of 50,000 lbf. That should tell you something right there. I would have used standard takeoff weights but I coudn't find that number for the Lightning. Maximum takeoff weights are 45,750 lb (Lightning) and 68,000 lb (F-15) which means that the Eagle is the lighter aircraft with more thrust, but can carry a lot more ordinance, which is irrelevant to a discussion on performance.

The Lightning's trademark tail-stand manoeuvre exchanged airspeed for altitude; it could slow to near-stall speeds before commencing level flight.
One of the hallmarks of the F-15 is the wing design, which allows a 70-degree pitchout, meaning the plane is stable through a much tighter turn than normal. It also means that it is stable in a near-vertical attitude in very slow flight. I have personally seen one of their favorite airshow tricks: The plane comes over the field at around a 70-degree angle, only making about 30 knots. Once he is in front of the audience the pilot kicks in the afterburners and the Eagle will accelerate straight up until he is completely out of sight.

The Lightning was, and is, a great aircraft, and among the fastest, but modern aircraft work toward what is most important in a dogfight, and that's maneuverability.

[AVGWarhawk]

Steve, how does a watch work?


:O:

[Jimbuna]

It is one way to beat the surface to air missiles. False info! I think it is still classified. :hmmm:

Most likely and rightly so :yep:

[Jimbuna]

Don't be modest Jim. You know your stuff on this topic.

Modesty my friend...........will get you EVERYWHERE :)

[Jimbuna]

I love the Lightning. Third Wire's "War over Europe" flight sim has the Lightning. I don't how how the real one flies, but in game it is basically a rocket, a danger (to its pilot), can't out turn or out maneuver any other fighter, but very fast. Perfect for intercepting Red bombers or getting in and out of combat quickly.

Actually those aren't facts, they're claims. They are all valid and substantiated claims, but there is still a difference.

First, acceleration. The Lightning has an empty weight of 31,068 pounds and maximum thrust with AB is 32,000 lbf (foot/pound) total. The F-15 has an empty weight of 28,000 lb and a maximum thrust of 50,000 lbf. That should tell you something right there. I would have used standard takeoff weights but I coudn't find that number for the Lightning. Maximum takeoff weights are 45,750 lb (Lightning) and 68,000 lb (F-15) which means that the Eagle is the lighter aircraft with more thrust, but can carry a lot more ordinance, which is irrelevant to a discussion on performance.


One of the hallmarks of the F-15 is the wing design, which allows a 70-degree pitchout, meaning the plane is stable through a much tighter turn than normal. It also means that it is stable in a near-vertical attitude in very slow flight. I have personally seen one of their favorite airshow tricks: The plane comes over the field at around a 70-degree angle, only making about 30 knots. Once he is in front of the audience the pilot kicks in the afterburners and the Eagle will accelerate straight up until he is completely out of sight.

The Lightning was, and is, a great aircraft, and among the fastest, but modern aircraft work toward what is most important in a dogfight, and that's maneuverability.

Designed as an 'interceptor' eons ago and fullfilled her requirement adequately :sunny:

Pity about the crap ordnance she carried :oops:

[Stealhead]

Designed as an 'interceptor' eons ago and fullfilled her requirement adequately :sunny:

Pity about the crap ordnance she carried :oops:

That could be argued. As far as I am aware the kill ratio of the Lighting is 1:0(and that was a RAF Harrier whose pilot had ejected the plane kept flying so a Lightning was sent to destroy it.) it never got to actually intercept and shoot down an enemy aircraft so we can only take an educated guess as to how well it would actually perform.We also know that it ordnance was lousy so it would have had to resort to the 30mm cannon most likely at least in the early part of its career.

Of course you could also say that given the nature of the Cold War the Lightning was around to give Soviet Long Range Aviation something to worry about and from that stand point the Lighting did a good job.It should aslo be taken into account that of all nations that have employed missile armed interceptors there have only been a handful of combat intercepts of bombers too few to truly evaluate effectiveness. You would have to go back and look at WWII air combat to have solid enough numbers on such aircraft(in the interception role) and of course the Luftwaffe is kind of bomber interception.

The F-15 on the other hand has a ratio of 105.5:0 (though supposedly an JADF F-15 shot down another JDAF F-15 by accident once and two USAF F-15Cs once collided in mind air during 4 vs. 4 training).

As you say as well two different aircraft designed 20 years apart with a differing concept of role.The F-15 was originally designed to be an air superiority fighter(or killing the enemies ability to control air space namely killing fighter aircraft).The F-15 of course can strictly intercept of course but at the time of its design another aircraft the F-106 had this specific duty.Being an air superiority fighter the F-15 needs it agility in both speed and maneuverability.The F-15 has an unfair advantage as well because it used missiles that had over 95% reliability so when an F-15 fires a missile the odds are very high that another aircraft is about to become scrap."F-15 leading supplier of MiG spare parts"

The Lighting on the other hand was designed to intercept bombers and therefore only needed agility in the area of speed and namely climbing it did not need to dog fight.

The Lighting has the advantage of being the best looking 2nd generation jet fighter and is easily the second best looking British designed jet fighter(Hawker Hunter is number 1) and that is easily worth 20,000 points.

[nikimcbee]

@Jim
Do you know if the Lightning had the same/similar rolling problem that the MiG-21 has? I read that MiG-21 pilots had to be really careful when they rolled or they could start an uncontrolable roll:down:

[Bilge_Rat]

Its not really fair to compare the Lightning with the F-15 since they are a generation apart.

If you compare the Lightning with others airplanes of its generation, i.e. Mig-17,-19,-21 or F-100,-104,-4, Mirage III, it fares better. It had equal or better performance/radar than its contemporaries. Only the F-4 would be a superior all around fighter.

[Sailor Steve]

Designed as an 'interceptor' eons ago and fullfilled her requirement adequately :sunny:
And I wouldn't say a bad word about it. Great airplane.

Its not really fair to compare the Lightning with the F-15 since they are a generation apart.
And that was Jim's original point. Even a generation later the Lightning is still a great airplane. I have no idea what its capabilities as a dogfighter may have been, and now we'll never know, but the purpose of an interceptor was to intercept nuclear bombers. This was the purpose of the F-104 and its contemporaries. Dogfighting and air superiority were considered secondary to that single purpose.

Only the F-4 would be a superior all around fighter.
The Phantom II has always amazed me. It was designed as one of those late-'50s interceptors. It had a fairly poor thrust/weight ratio, which gave it mediocre acceleration and climb, a terrible turn radius, was bloated and heavy, and originally it didn't even have a gun. With all that against it the plane still managed to rack up a very good kill ratio in Vietnam. Part of that was due to the combination of radar and heat-seeking AIM-9 Sidewinders, and part of it was due to its pilots figuring out tactics that used its strengths and played down its weaknesses.

[Platapus]

The Phantom II has always amazed me. .... It had a fairly poor thrust/weight ratio, which gave it mediocre acceleration and climb

Despite the imposing dimensions and a maximum takeoff weight of over 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg), the F-4 was capable of reaching a top speed of Mach 2.23 and had an initial climb rate of over 41,000 feet per minute (210 m/s). Shortly after its introduction, the Phantom set 16 world records, including an absolute speed record of 1,606.342 miles per hour (2,585.086 km/h), and an absolute altitude record of 98,557 feet (30,040 m). Although set in 1959-1962, five of the speed records were not broken until 1975. http://www.guideall.com/f4phantom.htm

To show off their new fighter, the Navy led a series of record-breaking flights early in Phantom development: All in all, the Phantom set 16 world records. With the exception of Skyburner, all records were achieved in unmodified production aircraft. Five of the speed records remained unbeaten until the F-15 Eagle appeared in 1975.


Operation Top Flight: On 6 December 1959, the second XF4H-1 performed a zoom climb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_climb) to a world record 98,557 ft (30,040 m). The previous record of 94,658 ft (28,852 m) was set by a Soviet Sukhoi T-43-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-9) prototype. Commander Lawrence E. Flint, Jr., USN accelerated his aircraft to Mach 2.5 at 47,000 ft (14,330 m) and climbed to 90,000 ft (27,430 m) at a 45° angle. He then shut down the engines and glided to the peak altitude. As the aircraft fell through 70,000 ft (21,300 m), Flint restarted the engines and resumed normal flight.
On 5 September 1960, an F4H-1 averaged 1,216.78 mph (1,958.16 km/h) over a 500 km (311 mi) closed-circuit course.
On 25 September 1960, an F4H-1 averaged 1,390.21 mph (2,237.26 km/h) over a 100 km (62.1 mi) closed-circuit course.
Operation LANA: To celebrate the 50th anniversary of Naval aviation (L is the Roman numeral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral) for 50 and ANA stood for Anniversary of Naval Aviation) on 24 May 1961, Phantoms flew across the continental United States in under three hours and included several tanker refuelings. The fastest of the aircraft averaged 869.74 mph (1,400.28 km/h) and completed the trip in 2 hours 47 minutes, earning the pilot (and future NASA Astronaut), Lieutenant Richard Gordon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_F._Gordon,_Jr.), USN and RIO, Lieutenant Bobbie Young, USN, the 1961 Bendix trophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendix_trophy).
Operation Sageburner: On 28 August 1961, a Phantom averaged 902.769 mph (1,452.826 km/h) over a 3 mi (4.82 km) course flying below 125 feet (38.1 m) at all times. Commander J.L. Felsman, USN was killed during the first attempt at this record on 18 May 1961 when his aircraft disintegrated in the air after pitch damper failure.
Operation Skyburner: On 22 December 1961, a modified Phantom with water injection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29) set an absolute world record speed of 1,606.342 mph (2,585.086 km/h).
On 5 December 1961, another Phantom set a sustained altitude record of 66,443.8 feet (20,252 m).
Operation High Jump: A series of time-to-altitude records was set in early 1962: 34.523 seconds to 3,000 meters (9,840 ft), 48.787 seconds to 6,000 meters (19,700 ft), 61.629 seconds to 9,000 meters (29,500 ft), 77.156 seconds to 12,000 meters (39,400 ft), 114.548 seconds to 15,000 meters (49,200 ft), 178.5 seconds to 20,000 meters (65,600 ft), 230.44 seconds to 25,000 metres (82,000 ft), and 371.43 seconds to 30,000 metres (98,400 ft).




(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II#cite_note-32)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II


Mediocre acceleration and climb eh?

I do not think that word means what you think it means. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

The Phantom II has always amazed me. It was designed as one of those late-'50s interceptors. It had a fairly poor thrust/weight ratio, which gave it mediocre acceleration and climb, a terrible turn radius, was bloated and heavy, and originally it didn't even have a gun. With all that against it the plane still managed to rack up a very good kill ratio in Vietnam. Part of that was due to the combination of radar and heat-seeking AIM-9 Sidewinders, and part of it was due to its pilots figuring out tactics that used its strengths and played down its weaknesses.


Plus it could take beating and still fly back to base. :yeah:

[nikimcbee]

very good kill ratio in Vietnam

...post Top Gun/ Red Flag.:D Prior to that, it wasn't so good:dead: (1965(?) Operation Rolling Thunder:hmmm:)

I need to look it up.:06:

[Oberon]

If I had to compare the Frightening to any US jet, I'd compare it to the F-104. They both flew in '54 and rolled out within a year of each other. Both were interceptors through and through, both had short legs and both were essentially a rocket with wings.
While the Lightning might have been able to out-pace the F-104 in most races, and keep up with it on the deck, the F-104 wins out because it can actually shoot at the enemy with its Sidewinders...whereas our Firestreaks and Red Tops just sort of go 'over there' and probably would wind up in a tree somewhere in East Germany.

Of course, this all took place in the late 1940s, early 1950s where the British government really wasn't quite sure whether it actually wanted an airforce or not... :/\\!!

Aaah, the things we could have done, the Miles M52, TSR-2, Black Prince...

We don't need an enemy, us Brits, we defeat ourselves! :nope:

[Stealhead]

...post Top Gun/ Red Flag.:D Prior to that, it wasn't so good:dead: (1965(?) Operation Rolling Thunder:hmmm:)

I need to look it up.:06:

It was very bad 2.5:3 I believe now this is to blame on several factors the most notable one being that especially in the USAF "dog fighting" was not even practiced.Of course there where many problems with both the Aim-7 and Aim-9 and the Aim-4 used by some USAF F-4s was found to utterly useless.The Navy improved the Aim-9 under a different program from the USAF and they had an effect sidewinder the Aim-9D by 1966 while the USAF did not have the Aim-9E until 1967.It was found that most of the issues with the Aim-7 where caused by poor maintenance practices.

The Navy started Topgun in 1969 or 70 so they improved their ratio in 1972 the Air Force did not start an air combat specific program until after Vietnam was over so their ratio improved but much more marginally than the Navy did during Linebacker I & II i guess they thought that the Navy was wasting its time they got proven other wise.

The first Red Flag took place in 1975 a few months after the fall of Saigon.However unlike Topgun every single Air Force combat pilot will go through several Red Flags during their career while only a percentage of Navy pilots get to go to Topgun the idea being that they teach their squadron mates that have not been what they learned.Red Flag also covers the full spectrum of air combat not just dog fighting and everyone is involved from the pilot to the maintenance crews to the intel officers.I went though a Red Flag when I was assigned to an A-10 squadron the operations tempo was more intense than ones I experienced in support of actual combat operations to give you an idea just how intense a Red Flag is I was very happy not to be an A-10 driver because they looked much more strained than I did.The missions in the training are designed to be impossible you have to beat the absolute best pilots in the USAF no holds bared.Of course Navy and Marine and NATO units come to Red Flags all the time Usually the side benefit of going to Red Flag is they held at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas some are held up in Alaska though.

The USAF ratio was an embarrassing 2.2:1 from 1965 to 1972 while the Navy ratio was from 1965 to 1969(start and end of Rolling Thunder) 2.5:3 and in 1972 during Linebacker I & II it went up to 12.5:1 a notable improvement considering that the school had only been around for 3 years.

[Sailor Steve]

Mediocre acceleration and climb eh?
Yep. I never said it wasn't fast. The Phantom was one of only two aircraft at the time that was capable of sustained supersonic flight at sea level. The other was the F-105.

The records were all set with an empty airframe, no self-sealing tanks, no armor, no back-seater and enough fuel to make the attempt. Combat ready the plane was a pig.

Let's look at some real-world numbers:
Thrust/Weight ratios:
F-4: 0.86 at loaded weight, 0.58 at Max Take-Off Weight
MiG 21: 0.80 at gross weight. Phantom is better, but we knew that.
Lightning: 0.78.
F-104: 0.76 loaded, 0.54 MTOW
F-15: 1.12
F-16: 1.092

So you're right. For its time the Phantom was pretty impressive in speed, and yes, acceleration, but not when loaded. It wasn't a good turner, but neither was the MiG-21. The MiG-17, on the other hand, was a dogfighter, but missiles don't dogfight.

Actual all-up rate of climb:
F-104: 48,000 ft/min
MiG-21: 44,280 ft/min
F-4: 41,300 ft/min
F-16: 50,000 ft/min

While the F-104 looks good on paper, it has to be remembered that its loaded weight is not much different from its empty weight, not exactly carrying a lot of fuel or ordinance. A loaded Phantom is, as I said, mediocre.

[Oberon]

I believe we used to call it the 'Brick'.

Versatile aircraft though, can't knock it. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

It was very bad 2.5:3 I believe now this is to blame on several factors the most notable one being that especially in the USAF "dog fighting" was not even practiced.
You have to remember that the Air Force went into the 1960s with the same mindset they had from the '50s. The mission they trained for was stopping Soviet bombers from attacking the United States. Fast, unmaneuverable airplanes armed with missiles were needed to stop those high-altitude bombers, and fighter combat was considered to be a thing of the past. They went into Vietnam thinking that they would be able to stand off and shoot missiles. They didn't envision actual dogfights, which have a habit of slowing down to 500 knots or so, and require turning.

[Oberon]

You have to remember that the Air Force went into the 1960s with the same mindset they had from the '50s. The mission they trained for was stopping Soviet bombers from attacking the United States. Fast, unmaneuverable airplanes armed with missiles were needed to stop those high-altitude bombers, and fighter combat was considered to be a thing of the past. They went into Vietnam thinking that they would be able to stand off and shoot missiles. They didn't envision actual dogfights, which have a habit of slowing down to 500 knots or so, and require turning.

Sounds tragically familiar. I believe our boffins considered scrapping the whole thing at one point, deciding that future wars would be fought between ICBMs and that there would be no use for aircraft.
In a war against the Soviet Union they may have had a point, but they forgot the rest of the world. :/\\!!

EDIT: To put a bit more meat on the bones of my comment, the 1957 Defence White Paper is what I refer to, although it doesn't mention the removal of the RAF (I think such things would have caused an uproar) it shows the decision to scale back interceptors in favour of SAM launchers, the Frightening only scraped through because it was too far advanced in planning to be worth stopping.

[Jimbuna]

I believe we used to call it the 'Brick'.

Versatile aircraft though, can't knock it. :yep:

Now that I didn't know....that is also one of the names we gave to the Buccaneer, our last nuclear bomber.

She also took part in the Red Flag exercises and as far as I am aware always 'won' because of how low an altitude she could attack from meaning she never showed up on the US radar.

Best not dwell on this though, she was a bomber not a fighter or an interceptor.

[Sailor Steve]

I believe we used to call it the 'Brick'.

Versatile aircraft though, can't knock it. :yep:

Now that I didn't know....that is also one of the names we gave to the Buccaneer, our last nuclear bomber.
One of my favorite 'unofficial' nicknames were the whole series applied to the aircraft from Seversky/Republic.
Plane.......... Official Nickname.......... Unofficial Nickname
P-47........... Thunderbolt................ Jug (this is claimed in some sources to be short for "Juggernaut", but in fact refers to the shape of the plane if stood on its nose). This also led to the other nickname - "Seven-Ton Milk Bottle"
F-84........... Thunderjet.................. Hawg
F-105......... Thunderchief................ Thud, Thunderthud, Lead Sled
A-10........... Thunderbolt II.............. Warthog

[Stealhead]

One of my favorite 'unofficial' nicknames were the whole series applied to the aircraft from Seversky/Republic.
Plane.......... Official Nickname.......... Unofficial Nickname
P-47........... Thunderbolt................ Jug (this is claimed in some sources to be short for "Juggernaut", but in fact refers to the shape of the plane if stood on its nose). This also led to the other nickname - "Seven-Ton Milk Bottle"
F-84........... Thunderjet.................. Hawg
F-105......... Thunderchief................ Thud, Thunderthud, Lead Sled
A-10........... Thunderbolt II.............. Warthog



You got the A-10 somewhat wrong A-10 drivers call it simply "Hog" trust me I used to work with these guys everyday."Warthog" was the name that pilots and maintenance crews originally named it back in the late 70's but developed into simply "Hog" a long time before I was ever working around them.I used to love talking the F-16 and F-15 pilots they would always say how badly that wanted to fly the Hog.

I heard that RAF pilots where the ones to call the P-47 Jug after a milk jug due to its massive size and lack of appeal that the Spitfire had.


One of the more interesting nicknames goes to the B-1B officially the "Lancer" it is known a simply as "Bone".

The F-16 is another example of an unpopular official nick name Lockheed went with "Fighting Falcon"(after the Air Force Academy football team "Fighting Falcons") while many even in the company and also its test pilots wanted to call it "Viper" because its shape is like that of a vipers head when it strikes.F-16 pilots have called it the "Viper" ever since I hear that they do mean things to you if call it Fighting Falcon.

[Herr-Berbunch]

That could be argued. As far as I am aware the kill ratio of the Lighting is 1:0(and that was a RAF Harrier whose pilot had ejected the plane kept flying so a Lightning was sent to destroy it.) it never got to actually intercept and shoot down an enemy aircraft so we can only take an educated guess as to how well it would actually perform.


Kill ratio 2:0 actually, if you include the Herc (63-7789?) stolen by a Crew Chief (Sgt Paul Adams Meyer) from Mildenhall. The Crew Chief had been refused leave over xmas and was making his own way. A QRA lightning pilot was told to stand down whilst a USAF pilot took his aircraft and came back minus one missile. The Herc was listed as 'crashed', near Alderney. You decide. :hmmm:

And if we're actually keeping scores then to be more accurate it would be Lightning 0 : Fire Lots.

A recommended read - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lightning-Boys-Pilots-English-Electric/dp/190811715X

[Sailor Steve]

"Warthog" was the name that pilots and maintenance crews originally named it back in the late 70's...
And I was around when the plane was new, and that's what they called it then. It's changed now? Fine. How does that make me "somewhat wrong"? Not my fault times changed out from under me. :O:

I heard that RAF pilots where the ones to call the P-47 Jug after a milk jug due to its massive size and lack of appeal that the Spitfire had.
I don't know for sure. You could be right.

The F-16 is another example of an unpopular official nick name Lockheed went with "Fighting Falcon"(after the Air Force Academy football team "Fighting Falcons") while many even in the company and also its test pilots wanted to call it "Viper" because its shape is like that of a vipers head when it strikes.F-16 pilots have called it the "Viper" ever since I hear that they do mean things to you if call it Fighting Falcon.
I had a friend who worked on them back in the '91 Gulf War. He said because of the shape they all called them "Lawn Darts".

[Oberon]

I've heard Lawn Dart for the F-16s too. :yep:

Also, Lead Sled for the F-84, and Tent Peg/ground nail for the F-104.

The old joke with the F-84 was that at the end of the nose there was a little sensor that sniffed out the dirt at the end of the runway and then turned the controls on so the pilot could take off. :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Tent Peg/ground nail for the F-104.
:rotfl2:

I had not heard that one!

The old joke with the F-84 was that at the end of the nose there was a little sensor that sniffed out the dirt at the end of the runway and then turned the controls on so the pilot could take off. :haha:
I have a book buried somewhere on the Korean airwar. One of the stories it tells is of the old straight-wing F-84-Es taking off on their first mission from a forward base, basically Marston Matting laid out in a big clearing. It was a bombing mission, and it seems that the fully-loaded Hawg caused the steel mat to bunch up under the wheels in a kind of wave mostion - not enough to see, but enough to slow them down. A large crowd of local villagers had turned up to watch the jets take off, and were standing at the far end of the runway. When the pilot realized he wasn't going to get airborne and had run out of space to stop in, he toggled off all his ordnance. The plane leaped into the air, barely clearing the trees at the end of the clearing, and the not-yet-armed bombs went bouncing down into the trees.

As the second pilot was ordered to stand down while they tried to figure out what the problem was, somebody noticed that the civilians had all disappeared.

[Jimbuna]

Best courseof action me thinks :o

[Stealhead]

I have heard the "Lawn Dart" nickname for the F-16 before.I have also heard a few places that "lead sled" was first used by some P-40 pilots in reference to its average performance in level flight.(Soviet Lend Lease P-40/Kittyhawk equipped squadrons sometimes had an anchor painted on the tail:haha:.)

@ Steve I said that you where some what wrong because you did not list the currently used vernacular actually served in an A-10 squadron in the mid 90's so the term is at least 20 years old.

I am not 100% sure but I think Hog may have originally been coined by pilots of other Air Force aircraft to be insulting (warthog sounds aggressive) in stead A-10 pilots and crews embraced the Hog.

I am not sure but it seems at least since the F-84 that the term hog has been used with ground attack aircraft because during Vietnam the UH-1Bs that where converted to gunships where called "Huey Hogs" I think the Navy called their UH-1C "Huey Hogs" as well.

[Sailor Steve]

@ Steve I said that you where some what wrong because you did not list the currently used vernacular actually served in an A-10 squadron in the mid 90's so the term is at least 20 years old.
And I said :O:. That was the important part.

[Oberon]

As the second pilot was ordered to stand down while they tried to figure out what the problem was, somebody noticed that the civilians had all disappeared.

I think it was the Germans that called the F-104 the Tent Peg, there was also the common conversation of:

Q: "What's the cheapest way to get an F-104?"
A: "Buy a plot of land and wait."

That being said though many Luftwaffe pilots swore by it, and some at it, and if you wanted to go in a straight line very very fast it did its job very well...just don't try to turn it... :dead:


The story about the F-84 (hilarious btw :haha:) reminds me of an incident a bit closer to home, about five miles close. This was back when we were developing Blue Danube I think, and the sea just off Orford Ness was being used as a test range for dropping a dummy version of it by a Valiant bomber I think, probably from RAF Barnham. Well, the aircraft came over the target and pressed the button to drop the bomb...and nothing happened. So the mission was aborted and the aircraft returned to base, when it got there they had to prise the bomb bay doors open because they had gotten jammed. When the doors finally came open, the dummy bomb fell out onto the ground. Had it been the real thing, chances are it would have detonated as the aircraft came in to land, having been activated on the drop and then sensing the barometric pressure changes. :oops:

[Stealhead]

I think it was the Germans that called the F-104 the Tent Peg, there was also the common conversation of:

Q: "What's the cheapest way to get an F-104?"
A: "Buy a plot of land and wait."

That being said though many Luftwaffe pilots swore by it, and some at it, and if you wanted to go in a straight line very very fast it did its job very well...just don't try to turn it... :dead:


The story about the F-84 (hilarious btw :haha:) reminds me of an incident a bit closer to home, about five miles close. This was back when we were developing Blue Danube I think, and the sea just off Orford Ness was being used as a test range for dropping a dummy version of it by a Valiant bomber I think, probably from RAF Barnham. Well, the aircraft came over the target and pressed the button to drop the bomb...and nothing happened. So the mission was aborted and the aircraft returned to base, when it got there they had to prise the bomb bay doors open because they had gotten jammed. When the doors finally came open, the dummy bomb fell out onto the ground. Had it been the real thing, chances are it would have detonated as the aircraft came in to land, having been activated on the drop and then sensing the barometric pressure changes. :oops:

I know for a fact that Eric Hartman hated the F-104 and felt it was too dangerous to pilots.

From Wikipedia:I read this information in a book some time back about Luftwaffe aces but this outlines his feelings.

"In 1956, Hartmann joined the newly established West German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany) Luftwaffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Air_Force) in the Bundeswehr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr), and became the first Geschwaderkommodore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschwaderkommodore) of Jagdgeschwader 71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdgeschwader_71) "Richthofen". Hartmann resigned early from the Bundeswehr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr) in 1970, largely due to his opposition to the F-104 Starfighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter) deployment in the Luftwaffe and the resulting clashes with his superiors over this issue. He was later involved in flight training."

"Hartmann considered the F-104 a fundamentally flawed and unsafe aircraft and strongly opposed its adoption by the Luftwaffe. Although events subsequently validated his low opinion of the aircraft (282 crashes and 115 German pilots killed on the F-104 in non-combat missions, along with allegations of bribes culminating in the Lockheed scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals)), Hartmann's outspoken criticism proved unpopular with his superiors. General Werner Panitzki (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Panitzki&action=edit&redlink=1), successor to General Josef Kammhuber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Kammhuber) as Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, said, "Erich is a good pilot, but not a good officer." Hartmann was forced into early retirement in 1970."

I would trust his judgement when considering that his greatest pride was not being the highest scoring ace but that no wing man that flew with him was ever killed by the enemy showing that he cared more about his men than he did glory.

The F-104 was a mediocre design at best the USAF was very displeased with its performance in service.The only reason so many NATO air forces got stuck with the F-104 was due more to the fact that nothing else was available that was cost effective.

Interesting fact: Some of the first production batch of Starfighters had downwards firing ejection seats there was a panel below the seat that blew out allowing the seat and pilot pass through.They did this over concerns that at certain speeds the seat would not be able to clear the "T" tail in time all export F-104s had upwards firing Martin-Bakers.Several USAF pilots died because they ejected at too low of altitude.The B-52 had downwards firing seats for the navigator/bombardier and the weapons officer and the tail gunner in the BUFFs that had a manned turret his section came off and then he simply egressed from it manually.

Of course there was also the "capsule" ejection seat concept the B-58 had a capsule that only went around the seat and pilot and the F-111 the entire cockpit actually ejects with the canopy still in place a good concept in theory but very heavy and in enemy territory the crew would receive no benefit of shelter provided.With the B-58 the capsule was only supposed to protect the pilot at supersonic speeds this idea fell out of favor when it was discovered that the likely hood a a crew attempting to eject at supersonic speeds was so low that it was not worth planning for.Which is why export F-104s did not have a the downwards seats by the mid 60's even it was clear that designing for supersonic ejection was pointless.

I wonder if ejecting upwards compresses the spine and actually makes the person shorter would you become slightly taller ejecting straight downwards.:hmmm: