Venezuela's SU-30 Sukhoi combat jets
05-24-2008, 11:59 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Student Pilot
Posts: 409
Are you naive enough to think it doesnt?
They were justified in warming up their planes, I didnt say they were not.
I stand true tot he fact that chavo used this as a chance to get som news time. He would not openly fire on a non hostile US plane, he knows all to well what would happen.
I want to make sure that I am fully understanding what you said.
Basically:
We would do nothing if a foreign power acted to intercept one of our a/c in foreign airspace.
IF that is what you are getting at, then you are correct.
Notice the difference what you said and what I am saying.
Now if they shot down our plane, when it was non hostile, instead of jsut escorting it out to international space, then yes, there would be trouble.
05-24-2008, 12:04 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 840
I chose my words badly. "Respect", as USMCFLYR said, is better.
No, I was never on a front line. I worked sigint and elint and got out a dozen years ago.
I have seen some tactics used by "under trained" enemy personnel which were able to slip through the cracks in our defenses. I'm not saying we wouldn't win head to head in a dog fight. Even THEY know they would lose such a battle. But a guy in a cold war MiG can, with creative planning and flying, can get close enough to do some damage and hopefully run away. Sort of use his plane as a sniper rifle rather than attempt air superiority.
Specific examples I have seen (and touched) were two MiGs that landed on US soil in 91 and 93. (One was undetected: the other was detected and written off as being a civil GA craft.)
The Britts have a little experience with South American countries too. See HMS Sheffield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_%28D80%29
((side note for USMCFLYR: spell check has a hard time with your name. ISOMORPHICALLY.... what the heck is that?))
((and to clarify my name, it is FlyJSH ... as in Fly Just So Happy
))
No, I was never on a front line. I worked sigint and elint and got out a dozen years ago.
I have seen some tactics used by "under trained" enemy personnel which were able to slip through the cracks in our defenses. I'm not saying we wouldn't win head to head in a dog fight. Even THEY know they would lose such a battle. But a guy in a cold war MiG can, with creative planning and flying, can get close enough to do some damage and hopefully run away. Sort of use his plane as a sniper rifle rather than attempt air superiority.
Specific examples I have seen (and touched) were two MiGs that landed on US soil in 91 and 93. (One was undetected: the other was detected and written off as being a civil GA craft.)
The Britts have a little experience with South American countries too. See HMS Sheffield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_%28D80%29
((side note for USMCFLYR: spell check has a hard time with your name. ISOMORPHICALLY.... what the heck is that?))
((and to clarify my name, it is FlyJSH ... as in Fly Just So Happy
))
05-24-2008, 12:27 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: A319 320 321 LEFT GOOOOOD
Posts: 377
The Britts have a little experience with South American countries too. See HMS Sheffield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_%28D80%29
What about the relationship they had with Chile, during Augusto Pinochet ?
Plus the Maldives Wars with the Argentines ?
They kick the hell out of the Argentine.
What about the relationship they had with Chile, during Augusto Pinochet ?
Plus the Maldives Wars with the Argentines ?
They kick the hell out of the Argentine.
05-24-2008, 02:38 PM
#35
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
JSH...understand. Wasn't bashing you. I just don't use those terms as far as the enemy goes. USMC nailed it. You don't underestimate your enemy. Fear is natural and drives all combatents. So "fearing" the enemy has to be turned into "wanting" to take the enemies life so bad you can taste it. A matter of believing in your abilities. KNOWING that we are going to whip their asses. Respect for an enemy is only earned after they show bravery AND competent fighting skills. I would venture to say the Russians had earned it at one time. The Taliban and Al Quada have proven to be candy asses cowards who our forces have steadily kicked the **** out of for 7 years now. Good conversation though.
Confidence is good, but overconfidence leads to bad intel. Good intel wins battles, an bad intel causes avoidable casualties. One of the early posts sounded pretty arrogant to me. It hit a nerve.
05-26-2008, 05:40 AM
#36
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 86
I think that if they had engaged that S-3 they might have gotten a rude surprise. Both the S-3 and the P-3 have the ability to defend themselves. The S-3 has a similar radar system to most navy fighters and can carry air to air weapons. As a matter of fact they flew combat attack missions in both Desert storm and the current gulf war. The S-3 is also very manuverable. Just something to consider
05-26-2008, 06:25 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
I think that if they had engaged that S-3 they might have gotten a rude surprise. Both the S-3 and the P-3 have the ability to defend themselves. The S-3 has a similar radar system to most navy fighters and can carry air to air weapons. As a matter of fact they flew combat attack missions in both Desert storm and the current gulf war. The S-3 is also very manuverable. Just something to consider
This link from Wikipedia lists quite a few weapons carried by the Viking - but they are ALL A/G stores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-3_Viking
The ES-3 Shadow didn't stay around for very long which is why I questioned the report that it was an S-3 involved in "spying". Of course even a good set of eyeballs can be useful for intel collecting.
As far as S-3's being manuverable - well I guess that depends on what you are comparing it too.
USMCFLYR
05-26-2008, 09:01 AM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 86
A documentary on the military channel. Had video of S-3 firing heat seeker, however could have been merely test footage. Of course compared to FA18 not so manuverable but for the type. The same show had some pretty impressive footage of S-3 manuvers. Of Course I am not saying they would be able to stay and dogfight but what is thought to be a pushover might be surprising enough to protect themselves in a spot. Just my opinion
05-26-2008, 10:06 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
A documentary on the military channel. Had video of S-3 firing heat seeker, however could have been merely test footage. Of course compared to FA18 not so manuverable but for the type. The same show had some pretty impressive footage of S-3 manuvers. Of Course I am not saying they would be able to stay and dogfight but what is thought to be a pushover might be surprising enough to protect themselves in a spot. Just my opinion
When talking about manueverability - I thought we were comparing the Su-30's to the S-3's. Yes - for a jet of its type and design - I'm sure the Hoover is pretty manueverable.
USMCFLYR
05-26-2008, 10:15 AM
#40
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,050
An S-3 would be entirely outclassed, except that it might have good enough countermeasures to evade a second-rate AA missile. A good pilot might be able to shake a fighter by going low and slow and turning real tight...he would not be able to get rid of the Su, but might be able to avoid a good gun solution long enough for the Su to run out of gas.
But I sure wouldn't want to try it
But I sure wouldn't want to try it
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
