If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Albania retires MiGs after years of fruitful service duiring which they killed 35 pilots and zero enemies   (today.reuters.co.uk) divider line 210
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

11386 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2005 at 11:40 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-01 12:02:29 PM
They were cetainly effective. Albania was never invaded.

/equipped with Tiger repelling rocks
 
2005-11-01 12:03:16 PM
Leonard_Cohen: If I wanted to say "free" I would've said "free"

and of course my free healthcare.

You were, umm, saying?
 
2005-11-01 12:03:49 PM
the current and near future production Migs and Sus would probably beat the F-22 in a close in, whites of their eyes, dog fight, but the F-22 would be quickly victorious in a realistic modern combat scenario. it's hard to destroy something you can't easily detect at most vectors and which just shot down your squadron singlehandedly at 100 NMs.
 
2005-11-01 12:04:41 PM
anyone remember on ebay someone was selling a jet and all sorts of military trucks n stuff?

He should put a few on ebay, hehe
 
2005-11-01 12:06:20 PM
Shrinkwrap
About that Russian plane, I don't know too much about them, but why are the wings facing the opposite way as compared to most other planes?



Ok..to explain that one I'll just rip some info from the X-29 project.

The X-29 almost looked like it was flying backward. Its forward swept wings were mounted well back on the fuselage, while its canards horizontal stabilizers to control pitch were in front of the wings instead of on the tail. The complex geometries of the wings and canards combined to provide exceptional maneuverability, supersonic performance, and a light structure. Air moving over the forward-swept wings tended to flow inward toward the root of the wing instead of outward toward the wing tip as occurs on an aft swept wing. This reverse air flow did not allow the wing tips and their ailerons to stall (lose lift) at high angles of attack (direction of the fuselage relative to the air flow).



The concepts and technologies the fighter-size X-29 explored were the use of advanced composites in aircraft construction; variable camber wing surfaces; the unique forward-swept wing and its thin supercritical airfoil; strake flaps; close-coupled canards; and a computerized fly-by-wire flight control system to maintain control of the otherwise unstable aircraft.


Research results showed that the configuration of forward swept wings, coupled with movable canards, gave pilots excellent control response at up to 45 degrees angle of attack. During its flight history, the X-29's were flown on 422 research missions 242 by aircraft No. 1 in the Phase 1 portion of the program; 120 flights by aircraft No. 2 in Phase 2; and 60 flights in a follow-on "vortex control" phase.
 
2005-11-01 12:07:47 PM
but the F-22 would be quickly victorious in a realistic modern combat scenario.

and no other country has the awacs and other support that our planes have. we could could put f-4s up there and still shoot down anything another country could send up.
 
2005-11-01 12:08:37 PM
Mosey

What's that f-15 cost, I want one for my kid's birthday party.

About $45m for an older 'C' model. That's before extra avionics.
 
2005-11-01 12:09:03 PM
The Albanians are simply making way for their MiG-31s to enter service and own us all.

You must think in... er, Albanian.
 
2005-11-01 12:09:18 PM
I saw a MiG15 at an airshow this summer here in Michigan, it was painted black with some cool designs, very neat little jet, even in complarison to all the modern jets that completely outclassed it there. It definately has small size going for it, very hard to spot, an advantage the Mig17 pilots used well against us in Nam. You still have to get the ol' Mk1 eyeball on the target, even today (mostly).
 
2005-11-01 12:09:41 PM
albo: and no other country has the awacs and other support that our planes have. we could could put f-4s up there and still shoot down anything another country could send up.

A good point. What was Iraq flying around in the no-fly zone?

What does Syria have?

What does Iran have?

Does Canada have an air force? Do the rubberbands on it still work?

Obviously Albania was a bit behind the times.

I assume Chinca and Russia are doing just fine
 
2005-11-01 12:10:30 PM
Countdown to Mig on EBay...

Won't be the first..
 
2005-11-01 12:10:34 PM
almost all airplanes in the world are asymmetrical when you get down to closely looking at them. Not splitting hairs here, but it is true. Especially prop driven jobs...

naw nevermind. this is fark.
 
2005-11-01 12:10:50 PM
I said free
so in this case I will go to lunch.
 
2005-11-01 12:11:14 PM
ancient as it is, a f-4 in the right pilots hands is still a force to be reckoned with. but as we see, mainstream fighter aircraft are like a knife and we are talking guns here.
 
2005-11-01 12:11:44 PM
impaler: No they don't. Not even close. Both the F-117 and B-2 were known about long before they were ever used in combat. We all know of the F-22, and it isn't even in production yet.


The first combat use of the F-117 was in Panama in 1989. Depending on how tuned in you were, it was technically still VERY classified at that point. It was brought into the light before the first Gulf War, in which its stealth capabilities were first used to the fullest.

The B-2 was brought forth to the public before first use, mainly because its primary mission became a moot point anyway (nuclear delivery through Soviet air defenses).

The F-22 is currently not only in production, but in squadron service. Not long ago deliveries were made to the USAF for service around Virginia (unsure about exact spot). Anecdotally, 8 of them were refueled at Lambert Airport in STL not too long ago (a friend of mine works for the company who contracts with the USAF for ground refueling and said they were very cool and very very large).

While the Russians do build nifty planes (the Mig 29 is quite good, and the SU-35 is downright impressive), their pilots are nowhere near as good as ours, and it is kinda hard to fight if you get blown out of the sky before you even know there is an enemy there. While our airplanes were not always the class of the world, our pilots have been (well, with the exception of some dogfighting hiccups in Vietnam), and that is the real reason why we always win.
 
2005-11-01 12:12:15 PM
so in this case I will go to lunch

i hear you canucks also get free lunch from the government. what a country!
 
2005-11-01 12:12:19 PM
"This plane could proabaly take the F-22"

F22 would shoot that down before it ever showed up on the Su-37's radar. Forward swept wings light up a radar like a xmas tree.

anybody remember the X-29?
 
2005-11-01 12:13:21 PM
F-22's are way cool, but my fave plane is still:

wings are bent like that to raise the fuselage higher off the ground to make room for that monstrous prop.
2nd place: spitfire.
3rd place: phantom F-4, since my dad flew one in vietnam
cheers
 
2005-11-01 12:13:46 PM
Reeve: About $45m for an older 'C' model. That's before extra avionics.

Maybe I have no fing clue what I am talking about, but that seems cheap. I mean, plenty of even tiny nations have $300M annual military budgets. In scale, that's not a ton of money.

So what is to stop them from buying 3 a year for half a decade and having a pretty decent sized (and from the sound of it kickass) air force that could tearass around the Indian Ocean or South America at will?

/assuming "C Class" doesn't mean "sucks"
// Also assuming "avionics" doesn't include "ability to fly or shoot things."
 
2005-11-01 12:14:04 PM
albo: so in this case I will go to lunch

i hear you canucks also get free lunch from the government. what a country!


I still don't know if he's trying to make a differentiation between "free" and free (sans quotes) or if he's just clueless.
 
2005-11-01 12:16:06 PM
Mosey: What does Syria have?

Used to have alot more MiGs until Israel shot down 100+ '81.
Israel lost 1 jet (F-4) and a helo. Ratio was close to 100-1.

What does Iran have?

Iran was the only other country in the world to have F-14's but have had no support in years.(1979, the Shah?) Even the Tech Reps from Gruman burned manuals before leaving..

Does Canada have an air force?

F/A-18's but No Aircraft Carriers. Not sure what else..
 
2005-11-01 12:17:09 PM
WJllope

Nice pic of the f4u-4.

Please visit my corsair website.

http://www.thecorsairexperience.com
 
2005-11-01 12:19:09 PM
Good thing to live in a country that don't have to spend a bazillion dollars on protecting itself.
 
2005-11-01 12:22:26 PM
albo:
no doubt. i was at an air show once and the f-15 took off and lifted off halfway down the runway and went straight up, 90 degrees to about 1,000 feet then leveled off. so much power.

I saw the same thing at an air show, only it was an f-16. Afterburners and all, right infront of the crowd standing on the taxi-way. As a 12 year old I was rather impressed.
 
2005-11-01 12:22:28 PM
Does Albania even HAVE enemies? Besides of course the USA whom most of the world can reasonably consider an enemy now...
 
2005-11-01 12:22:53 PM
i occasionally eat albanian candy with fighter jets on it....maybe the next line of defense????
 
2005-11-01 12:22:57 PM
apelsin: Good thing to live in a country that don't have to spend a bazillion dollars on protecting itself.

Actually, all tings considered Sweeden spends a ton.

1.7% of GDP (compared to 3.3% for a "superpower" like the US).

most nations spend less (i.e. Germany is at 1.5%)

Does Saab still make cars?
 
2005-11-01 12:23:16 PM
 
2005-11-01 12:24:17 PM
No pics of the migs in Team America???
 
cot
2005-11-01 12:24:31 PM
nerfball: somehow i don't doubt the chinese are doing exactly that (and the money to do it is coming from wal-mart).

fyi - the military isn't worried about preparing for the last war, they are worried about preparing for the next one.


I'd be more afraid of the advances in the chinese space program being a harbinger of icbm technology developments. We're in another cold war, they're just playing catchup to fill the USSR's shoes.

as far as preparing to fight the next war... are they predicting a return of the importance of dogfights?

shiat, spend the money on better surface to air missles if you really are afraid of other airplanes. Otherwise bombers seem to be where it's at.
 
2005-11-01 12:25:53 PM
What was so bad about the MIG-19???
 
2005-11-01 12:26:03 PM
Did anyone else read that as "Alabama"?
 
2005-11-01 12:28:20 PM
akula: The first combat use of the F-117 was in Panama in 1989.

And had been operational sense '83. (I remember thinking how it was nice to know someone could still keep a secret.)

It may have not been exposed then if not for a hi-profile 'miss' where a bomb wasn't even close and had caused some damage. Aviation Leak and Technology had been asking the Pentagon for years about the existance of a F-17, which truthfuly had been denyed.

They once use to 'mock-up' A-7's so the pilots could log day hours in a bird with a similar 'cockpit'.

Their original trainning could only be held during the night.
 
2005-11-01 12:28:57 PM
"The Chinese-built versions were dangerous, Teta said."
heh, heh. Glad walmart doesn't sell cars... Yet.

I bet you could get one of those old migs for like 10k US, if it wasn't in flying condition. Could be fun just to have in the yard or somthing. you know for the kids to play on and shoot the cannons.

I got a kick out of this on wiki "This MiG-15 was test flown by renowned test pilot Chuck Yeager (after replacing the USSR built ejection seat with an American one)."

Yuri Gagarin died in a mig-15. You learn something new every day.
 
2005-11-01 12:29:12 PM
Does Saab still make cars?

A better question is if they still make fighter jets? The JAS-39 entered service, I thought, but is Sweden working on a replacement at all?
 
2005-11-01 12:29:58 PM
Whoa, the russians are seriously making a reverse wing craft? Kick ass. The X-29 has been in development hell for decades upon decades - the damn things are nearly impossible to make work right.

Reverse wing craft is a fantastic concept, but it's really hard to do. The advantage: consider the air flowing along the leading edge of the wing. In a normal swept-wing configration, that flows outwards and falls off - so the air is causing drag (pusing against the wing) and no lift (it's not going under/over the wing).

In the X-29 configuration, it goes inward, hits the "armpit" and flows over/under the wing, providing lift. More efficient.

Here's the catch - there are two big rules of mechanics. F=ma, and you can't push on a rope. A rope flops when you push it, but does fine when you pull. In a normal swept-wing config, the wing is being "pulled" by the fuselage - the wing is behind everything, dragged back by the air. In the X-29 config, the wing is "pushed" by the fuselage - the bulk of the wing is forward of its position. Now, a wing is not a rope - it's rigid. But it can bend. And bend it does. And flop. And vibrate.

And break off.

So yeah, it's hard to get those things to work right.
 
2005-11-01 12:30:24 PM
Mosey

/assuming "C Class" doesn't mean "sucks"

C model = Air superiority. There is also a 2-seater, the D model.

E model = 2-seat "Attack" version. Built for bombing/attack runs. Far more sophisticated avionics than the C model.

So no, it doesn't mean it "sucks."

Any model designation beyond E usually refers to a country code. F-15I = Israel, F-15J = Japan, for example.
 
2005-11-01 12:31:04 PM
about the existance of a F-17, which truthfuly had been denyed.

You mean F-19...the (Y)F-17 was Northrops competition for the F-16, which eventually became the F/A-18.
 
2005-11-01 12:31:22 PM
i wait for the day that the dollar tree sells cars.

BRING YUGO BACK!
 
2005-11-01 12:31:37 PM
Mig-19 problem area was transonic flight. Old pre-supersonic design meets supersonic. Not too stable.

The mig21 fishbed was much more suited to supersonic flight.
 
2005-11-01 12:32:44 PM
DrySocket: This plane could proabaly take the F-22, if only the russians could afford to actually put it into production

Direct ripoff of the X-29 FSW design. The US didn't put it into production for a reason, probably stability-related, though the program taught us much to apply to future avionic and stability targeted projects. Any plane that needs 3 computers to just prevent itself from crashing at any second is over engineered. If they made it pilotless, then it would pwn, but regardless of how you slice it, humans cannot survive enough Gs to make a super-agile plane useful.
 
2005-11-01 12:34:43 PM
Rev. Skarekroe

Yeah yeah yeah.
If by "free" you mean "paid for with taxes".


Well, with our lower tax rate, the vast majority of us can't afford to take a 5-week vacation, a year of maternity leave, or our own health care.

That's besides the point. In response to "We're so far ahead of every country", keep in mind that we're currently looking at frigging Albania.

Albania. Think about it.

Besides, the Britons and French have some crazy high-tech military shiat.
 
2005-11-01 12:37:16 PM
PC LOAD LETTER

I hadn't thought about it, but you do make a good point that FSW could be applied in autonymous craft. I'd discarded it as a technological dead-end.
 
2005-11-01 12:39:19 PM
wjllope

F-22's are way cool, but my fave plane is still:

wings are bent like that to raise the fuselage higher off the ground to make room for that monstrous prop.
2nd place: spitfire.
3rd place: phantom F-4, since my dad flew one in vietnam
cheers


Ah, the Corsair. In the hands of anyone but the best pilots, they were deathtraps.

My favorite:



I love the idea of it. "Here's a big farking gun. Build a plane around it." What other aircraft can still fly after getting half a wing blown off?
 
2005-11-01 12:40:30 PM
PC LOAD LETTER

Direct ripoff of the X-29 FSW design. The US didn't put it into production for a reason, probably stability-related, though the program taught us much to apply to future avionic and stability targeted projects. Any plane that needs 3 computers to just prevent itself from crashing at any second is over engineered. If they made it pilotless, then it would pwn, but regardless of how you slice it, humans cannot survive enough Gs to make a super-agile plane useful.

Yeah, think another reason was because the Russian government won't allow Sukoi to sell us the plans...

All that aside, the F-22 actually has a system that limits out the G's that it can pull to 9... to prevent killing the pilot obviously.

Speaking of ripoffs, the F-15 was a 'ripoff' of spy photos of the MiG-25 Foxbat. The F-15 was also designed mostly based on rumors of capabilites that the Foxbat had. So when it was released, the Foxbat was a super-fast piece of crap by comparison (only service plane faster at the time was the RS-71).
 
2005-11-01 12:43:01 PM
Kurohone

Nope. Now we've got the coolest boats instead. :D

 
2005-11-01 12:43:37 PM
tkrispin: it was an f-16.

F-18's did that as part of a check flight and at night the burners would get lost in the stars.

I didn't find that nearly as impressive-after a while- as their capability to fly slow.
They looked like they were about to stall and 'slip' backwards out of the sky before the pilot added throttle to keep them flying. They almost looked like they were 'pogoing' into and out of a stall. Really slow and with slow, comes loud!

Hollywood makes people forget that 'out-slowing' can be as much of an advantage as 'out-running'.

I know the A-7 pilots used to drop their flaps and landing gear sometimes during trainning to avoid being 'shot' during practice.
Stressed the heck outa the airframe, though.
 
2005-11-01 12:45:15 PM
********* stiletto_the_wise
Does Albania even HAVE enemies? Besides of course the USA whom most of the world can reasonably consider an enemy now...
*********

Albania(ns) *LOVE(s)* the USA. actually Gallup found this:



http://extranet.gallup-international.com/uploads/internet/VOP2004_US%20relea
se.doc

GREECE: ANTI-AMERICANISM UP TO THE SKY, SURVEY

(ANSA) - Athens, October 13 - Anti-americanism in Greece is very strong.

According to a survey carried out in 60 countries through a company called TNS ICAP in collaboration with the Gallup International Association, Greece is the second country in the world where the majority of the citizens has a negative impression of the United States of America.

Switzerland ranks in the first place with 68%, and it is followed by Uruguay and Greece with 63%, Egypt with 60% and Indonesia with 59%.

According to today's daily newspaper of Athens, ETHNOS, seven out of 10 Greeks are against the war in Iraq, and believe that the American foreign policy has negative influence on Greece.

The same way, 8 out of 10 citizens in Greece think that the role of the US for peace in the world is not a positive one and that the Americans do not contribute into fighting poverty or protecting the environment. 68% of the
Greeks are opposed to the war against terrorism that the U.S. has embarked, and 57% consider the role that the Americans play in the development of the
world economy as negative.

The countries that register the highest percentage in support to the U.S. are Albania with 95%, Kosovo with 89%, Israel with 84% and Afghanistan with 80%.
 
2005-11-01 12:45:33 PM
LincolnLogolas: "Here's a big farking gun. Build a plane around it."


"Take this 30mm cannon and make it fly!"

mmmmm! depleated uranium!
 
2005-11-01 12:46:31 PM
LincolnLogolas

Amen. The A-10 is the sexiest thing ever. So what vehicle is the USAF pretending will replace it again?

Reeve

Gotta love the Foxbat. One of the fastest armed aircraft ever built. I read somewhere that the airframe was designed to crack Mach 3, the only reason it couldn't make that was the engine being pegged at 2.7
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report