We're all gonna die Part 2Follow

Old crap, old crap, old.... HOLY **** A RUSSIAN GHOST!

So...

Was it looted, or had it literally been abandoned and derelict for the last 30 years or whatever?

Looks like a cool place for a photo shoot.

I really like their tactical manual for dealing with US stealth fighters.

All their tactical manuals for dealing with US stealth fighters begins with the lines "All strategies are only to be used on grounded and/or unmanned stealth fighter craft" They had no plans for ones already in the air.

According to people on both sides during The cold war, the general oppinion after the fact was that Russia had no real idea how we were pulling off radar stealth. They (correctly as it turns out) assumed that whatever it was, it wasn't at the time ready for deployment to aircraft carriers, and that any land based strike they would have advance notice from their spies that were watching the various european military bases. So Russia concentrated on highly manouverable aircraft rather than sneaky ones, and ways to sink our carrier forces. The Mig-29 at the end of the cold war was significantly more manouverable than the F-15. It was the first production jet to have thrust vectoring, where the engine exhaust is able to be directed to steer the aircraft, had higher titanium content since russia has massive titanium deposits so it was generally capable of higher G manouvers, and they had tons of them. Their Carrier sinking missiles were not as successful, most of them essentially being cruise missiles, but easily countered by existing missile defense nets around carriers. They were working ona particularily nasty hypersonic missile varient, but they never got it working. Rumor has it the Chinese bought the design and have launched at least one functional test flight.

Anyways, where I was going with that is nowadays the Russian Mig 34 and the Su 1.44 are both somewhat stealth equipped. They aren't in the class of an F-22, but they are easily equil or slightly better than the F-35 in terms of combat effectiveness. And the russians are looking to sell to anyone.

Well, *someone's* been in there in the past ten twenty years, because I'm pretty sure I saw a CD.


edit: what decade is this?

Edited, Sep 2nd 2010 9:55pm by Debalic

Harrier uses side ducts for lift, not independant manouvering. You could argue its a form of thrust vectoring but its not really the same system with the same purpose.

Fine, Inline thrust vectoring of the Primary Exhaust duct then. The Harrier can point it's side ducts down or back in flight, that's it. The rear main exhaust has abcolutly no vectoring capability on the Harrier, nor can the harriers ducts be manouvered independantly or pointed up, making it almost useless for thrust vectoring as a combat technique. Sure you can reduce the turn radius at the top of a climb if the aircraf speed is low enough, but thats about it. The nozziles are too close to the aircraft CG to be an effective dive assist system, you can't seperatly control the right or left bank, so they have no use in roll or yaw control. They can't point up because the wing is in the way. The harrier has a Vertical/Short takeoff and landing system. Disable the rudders and elevators on a harrier and you are pretty much ****** if you ry to fly. Disable the same ont eh Mig or any other vectored thrust aircraft and it will be able to steer adequatly for a landing. The Mig 29 has a vectored thrust system that allows it to roll quicker, do a backflip if required, yaw quicker, and do a hard over dive if needed. The new system on the Mig 34 is even more flexable, and actually has mroe travel than the one on the F22, which has no sideways vectoring capability.

Considering at no point have we needed them, I can't really say there was a lack of political foresight at all.

I really must take issue with the author of the book I used to check on VIFFing - naughty boy that he is! After further checking, while taught as a technique in USMC service, it was never taught (and I accept never used) by the RN in the Falklands. They knew about the technique, but did not have to employ it as the Argentinian fighters were operating at the limit of their range and did not fly as aggressively as they could have. Maybe should have, as the RN scored 22 air combat kills without reply. Several Harriers were lost to ground fire/accidents, but none to air-to-air combat.

I also think we should be talking about the MiG-35, rather than 29, as that is the model fitted with 3D vectored thrust as standard. (Yes, it is a development of the 29, but a huge redesign, resulting in a new model number.) I would also contend that with all flying controls shot out, including the forward canards, it would be as much of a flying brick as the Harrier! I've also been unable to find any reference saying at what altitude the Harrier's VTOL capability loses efficiency - I know that VTOL relies on the ground effect of the vectored thrust, but was wondering if it could recover at higher altitude without flying controls.

Anyway - two great aircraft, and an interesting debate. Now, where's that publisher's address......

Edited, Sep 4th 2010 4:23am by Kelanthor

http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2010/09/05/3002836.htm

"The last ever dump and burn by an F-111 strike jet"

I don't know if that just means the last Australian F-11... hang on, it's an F-11, not an F-111, right?

I keep clicking this link like I'm going to start understanding (or caring about) what you guys are talking about.

Carry on.