I found a quote in the book Red Storm Rising, "If SAMs worked as well as their manufactures intended, then we would have destroyed every aircraft ten times over."thtthht wrote:
Ok... first of all, I don't know much about air to air combats, so please try and teach me.
It seems that SAMs can take out even the most agile fighters.
So, do we really still need fighters, or will it be wiser to start making planes that more more of ground support planes?
well, I once heard that without stealth planes, russia could've destroyed the entire U.S. air force in 16 days.SgtHeihn wrote:
I found a quote in the book Red Storm Rising, "If SAMs worked as well as their manufactures intended, then we would have destroyed every aircraft ten times over."thtthht wrote:
Ok... first of all, I don't know much about air to air combats, so please try and teach me.
It seems that SAMs can take out even the most agile fighters.
So, do we really still need fighters, or will it be wiser to start making planes that more more of ground support planes?
Last edited by thtthht (2008-02-19 22:08:39)
We will always need air-to-air combat, it's one of the things the Vietnam war taught us.thtthht wrote:
Ok... first of all, I don't know much about air to air combats, so please try and teach me.
It seems that SAMs can take out even the most agile fighters.
So, do we really still need fighters, or will it be wiser to start making planes that more more of ground support planes?
ok, would you please give me some examples?{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
We will always need air-to-air combat, it's one of the things the Vietnam war taught us.thtthht wrote:
Ok... first of all, I don't know much about air to air combats, so please try and teach me.
It seems that SAMs can take out even the most agile fighters.
So, do we really still need fighters, or will it be wiser to start making planes that more more of ground support planes?
I also heard that the Nazis had moon bases, don't believe everything you read on the net.thtthht wrote:
well, I once heard that without stealth planes, russia could've destroyed the entire U.S. air force in 16 days.SgtHeihn wrote:
I found a quote in the book Red Storm Rising, "If SAMs worked as well as their manufactures intended, then we would have destroyed every aircraft ten times over."thtthht wrote:
Ok... first of all, I don't know much about air to air combats, so please try and teach me.
It seems that SAMs can take out even the most agile fighters.
So, do we really still need fighters, or will it be wiser to start making planes that more more of ground support planes?
By the beginning of the Vietnam war we figured that we didn't need to equip our fighters with machine guns and equipped all of the planes like the F-4 Phantom II with missiles and were focused on tactics developed during World War II. The MiG-17s and MiG-21s dominated the skies over North Vietnam until we equipped our pilots with AIM-9 Sidewinders, cannons and better aerial tactics. Just goes to show that you shouldn't underestimate the enemy.thtthht wrote:
ok, would you please give me some examples?{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
We will always need air-to-air combat, it's one of the things the Vietnam war taught us.thtthht wrote:
Ok... first of all, I don't know much about air to air combats, so please try and teach me.
It seems that SAMs can take out even the most agile fighters.
So, do we really still need fighters, or will it be wiser to start making planes that more more of ground support planes?
I feel like learning today.
Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2008-02-19 22:28:28)
Not true, nearly all planes are equipped with active (flares, chaff) and passive (radar muting paint, geometric design) anti-locking systems. If history has taught us anything, Fighter jets tend to be several steps ahead of SAM's, and only other jets are capable of effectively removing them from combat.thtthht wrote:
Ok... first of all, I don't know much about air to air combats, so please try and teach me.
It seems that SAMs can take out even the most agile fighters.
So, do we really still need fighters, or will it be wiser to start making planes that more more of ground support planes?
That's true, but if you think about it, the afgan-russia war proved that handheld SAMs such as stingers can take out many targets, since they are small.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
By the beginning of the Vietnam war we figured that we didn't need to equip our fighters with machine guns and equipped all of the planes like the F-4 Phantom II with missiles and were focused on tactics developed during World War II. The MiG-17s and MiG-21s dominated the skies over North Vietnam until we equipped our pilots with AIM-9 Sidewinders, cannons and better aerial tactics. Just goes to show that you shouldn't underestimate the enemy.thtthht wrote:
ok, would you please give me some examples?{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
We will always need air-to-air combat, it's one of the things the Vietnam war taught us.
I feel like learning today.
In before dumb americans denying that statistic.thtthht wrote:
That's true, but if you think about it, the afgan-russia war proved that handheld SAMs such as stingers can take out many targets, since they are small.{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
By the beginning of the Vietnam war we figured that we didn't need to equip our fighters with machine guns and equipped all of the planes like the F-4 Phantom II with missiles and were focused on tactics developed during World War II. The MiG-17s and MiG-21s dominated the skies over North Vietnam until we equipped our pilots with AIM-9 Sidewinders, cannons and better aerial tactics. Just goes to show that you shouldn't underestimate the enemy.thtthht wrote:
ok, would you please give me some examples?
I feel like learning today.
Also, even for high-altitude flying jets and bombers, can't larger missiles take them out easily?
Also, the f-15 had no air to air casualties, but there were several surface to air casualties.
They did...SgtHeihn wrote:
I also heard that the Nazis had moon bases, don't believe everything you read on the net.thtthht wrote:
well, I once heard that without stealth planes, russia could've destroyed the entire U.S. air force in 16 days.SgtHeihn wrote:
I found a quote in the book Red Storm Rising, "If SAMs worked as well as their manufactures intended, then we would have destroyed every aircraft ten times over."
I may be mistaken, but isn't the F-22 designed with a secondary SEAD capability to take advantage of its stealth?RAIMIUS wrote:
SAMs are a serious threat. That is why anti-radiation missiles were developed. We destroy the radar-control sites, and the SAMs become minimally guided rockets. Modern SAMs can give fighters a run for their money, but with stealth technology and SEAD missions, aircraft gain the upper hand.
Shhhh! We don't want the ruskies reading our forums!!!1 Er uh wait, ya you probably are mistakennukchebi0 wrote:
I may be mistaken, but isn't the F-22 designed with a secondary SEAD capability to take advantage of its stealth?