"We shoot down MIGs"

[Gyre]

U.S. Official Concerned About Venezuela Arms Plans.

"OTTAWA (Reuters) - A senior U.S. official on Tuesday took a dim view of the possibility that Venezuela would buy Russian MiG-29 fighter jets to replace its U.S.-made F-16 jets.

"We shoot down MiGs," said the Bush administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified.

Venezuela, which is enjoying a windfall from high world oil prices, plans to buy large amounts of arms from Russia, leftist President Hugo Chavez said after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) in Moscow last week."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=6&u=/nm/20041201/pl_nm/arms_venezuela_usa_dc

Ooooh, somebody cutting in on the US weapons trade in OUR HEMISPHERE? Plus they're dumping our F-16s for some damn rooskie airplanes? It's an outrage I tell you. We need to attack EVERYBODY pronto!

Seriously, I love how nobody is allowed to possess any advanced weapons except US, Israel, and the original members of the nuke club no matter how unstable. Guess that's a pretty ringing endorsement of MAD (mutually-assured destruction)as every sensible nations strategic goal.

Gyre

[LisaL]

1. Shot down MIGs?

When and how?

[pfitz59]

4. Not lately!

Sounds like Bushco couldn't keep it's promise to some US War-profiteer! PS - Article from Ottawa. Could our very own Pretzeldent have made an off-the-record comment?

[IndianaGreen]

8. They want Chavez to buy American armaments

This is all about profit!

[phatkatt]

35. He said "shoot" not "shot"

Sounds like a threat to me.

[bullimiami]

2. "leftist"

sorry this eliminates the credibility.

why does reuters feel the need to propagandize for the "ultra right wing" bush junta?

[oblivious]

18. That was the first thing I noticed too.

Why not label everyone!

And ultra-right-wing religious fundamentalist U.S president Bush replied, "We shoot down MIGs."

[aquart]

3. I take note of the specific Israel comment.

Any particular reason why you felt you had to make it? Speak freely.

[alexisfree]

12. Maybe he wanted to express his First Amendment Right

Most of us know Israel has a hidden agenda...Its no secret that the United States is afraid of Israel and will try to keep it under the radar from media or when it comes to diplomatic issues. No big secret ISRAEL has a bunch of NUKES and if it were up to them would have killed every last palestine, iraq, and Irian. It doesn't help that I have neighbors who are from Israel and are always talking about how Palenstines's are the crap of the earth who should all be destroyed...

[Gyre]

16. Israel didn't come by it's nukes on it's own

We "allowed" them to steal everything they needed from our labs. They are the only 'trust funders' in the nuclear club, and they have hundreds of warheads, but they don't play by the same rules as the others, because they won't admit they have them. For decades they totally denied having them, then MV blew the whistle on them and so now they won't admit, nor will they deny. Typical legalistic bullshit that doesn't pass the "straight-faced test". It doesn't hurt of course, in making my list, that their leadership is crazy as a shithouse rat and in the most volatile geopolitical region on the globe. But the bottom-line is that, officially they "don't have any nukes", so nobody can or will inspect them. Just ask Mordechai Vannunu.

Now you know why Israel made my list.

Gyre

[flying_blind]

25. Could the reason be that Israel policy is the most two faced,

causal element for our troubles in the middle east?

because it is an apartheid regime?

because we spend over $15 million a day there to support that apartheid?

because the IDF shoots and kills children by the hundreds?

because countless espionage stories are wiped from our media before they even get off the ground despite daming evidence?

There seem to be a ton of great reasons to point out that Israel is a microcosm of everything wrong with American culture and policy.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

The reason the USA is Israel's little bitch is our shared evil:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1620694_comment.php

[IndianaGreen]

32. It was no accident that Israel supported South Africa's apartheid regime

Governments that practice racism are always found in bed together.

[RivetJoint]

34. Kinda hard for the Israelis

to practice racism against the Arabs, since they are the same "race"...

[IndianaGreen]

36. Israeli Arabs have different identity cards from Jewish Israelis

and are treated "separate but equal."

I won't go into how the Palestinians are treated for that is a topic for the I/P forum.

[RivetJoint]

37. That's not racism however

[IndianaGreen]

38. Israeli Arabs certainly feel the victims of racism

as do their spouses, some of which are Jewish.

[RivetJoint]

39. The point is

it is NOT racism. They are the same friggen "race."

[IndianaGreen]

40. No, they are not!

Judaism is a religion, not a race!

It was the Nazis, and other anti-Semites, that saw Jews as a race (and an "inferior" race at that).

[RivetJoint]

41. Actually, it is seen as both

For example, during the primaries, people made a big deal that Wes Clark was 1/4 (or 1/2) Jewish. How can that be, if Jewish is just a religion?

Judaism is a religion. Being a Jew is seen as an enthnicity. And they are the same "race" as the Arabs.

[IndianaGreen]

42. You are either Jewish, or you are not

If your mother is Jewish, you are a Jew. If you convert to Judaism, you are also a Jew. You are either Jewish or not.

If you read your Bible, you will notice that all Jews were converts, or descendants of converts, and that we were all from different races and nationalities.

[RivetJoint]

44. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth

You say that Judaism is a religion...what if you are born to a Jewish mother but become a Catholic? Are you still a Jew?

[IndianaGreen]

45. No, you are not

Madelyn Albright was born of Jewish parents, but she was raised by Christians and she is a practicing Christian. She is not Jewish.

[RivetJoint]

46. But, but you said

"If your mother is Jewish, you are a Jew."

Therefore, according to you Albright is Jewish, correct?

[IndianaGreen]

47. There is the rabbinical opinion that if you don't practice Judaism

however that is defined by the tradition (Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, or Reconstructionist) you are not a Jew even if you were born of a Jewish mother.

[RivetJoint]

48. That's NOT what you said

You said "If your mother is Jewish, you are a Jew."

[IndianaGreen]

51. Yes, if your mother is Jewish, you are a Jew

but if you choose to practice another faith, you are no longer a Jew. Why? Because Judaism is a religion, not a race!

I encourage you to call a rabbi in your city or town and question him/her about this.

[RivetJoint]

52. Then why do people

say someone is half Jewish? And how can a religion practice "racism" as you accuse the Jews of?

[IndianaGreen]

53. Governments are the ones that practice racism

Many of the things we Jews find deplorable about the current situation in the Middle East run counter to the ethical and moral teachings of our own faith. This is not unlike Christians who find abhorrent the version of Christianity being peddled by religious quacks like Falwell and Robertson. The same situation can be found in Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Religious intolerance and extremism is trying to overpower the mainstream believers.

[RivetJoint]

54. So only Government's practice racism

Individuals can't be racist?

[IndianaGreen]

55. A person can be a racist as long as they don't infringe on others' rights

in which case the racist person can be held accountable in a court of law. The real threat is when governments enact and enforce racist laws, or for that matter any kind of bigoted law, such as DOMA.

[ilife]

5. faint

at first i thought you ment we had :scared:

[Florida_Geek]

6. Maybe someone should tell the WH that INDIAN pilots shot down more

US planes in the last contest they had around 6 months ago. The US pilots had less training than the Indian. Typical Repugs, buy expensive hardware but no money for training.

[AP]

11. Money for training? F*k that! That's money that could be spent on weapons!

They should call the defense budget the "No penny left behind for anyone but the defense corps" Act

[AngryAmish]

28. I read an interesting article on those Indian war games

The Indians were seriously underestimated. However, if it was a real shooting war, the results would be a lot different.

[jakpalmer]

29. Could you please provide a link

I'm interested in that article.
Thank you.

[AngryAmish]

63. I sure can't

I was in the library and picked up an aviation magazine. I want to say it was "Aviation Week" but I am not positive. It was about 1 or 2 months ago.

The upshot of the article was the US could not use long-range radar guided missles. It was more dogfighting. Plus, the US was outnumbered, but that is how we fight all these things.

I suspect that the USAF wants more of the new air superiority fighters (F-22??). This may be a way for the air force to go to congress and say "See? We are losing. We need more jets."

[Zynx]

56. Who do you think takes air-air more seriously, us or India?

When's the last time a US pilot even had to aim at an enemy fighter in the air? 1991?

India has the world's largest air force right next door.

[IA_Seth]

76. thats *misunderestimated* pal! (n/t)

[bluestateguy]

7. Does anybody in this Administration ever go on the record?

"We shoot down MiGs," said the Bush administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified.

What cowardly little bitches.

[Zynx]

9. Actually, well-piloted MiG>F-16.

The F-16 is really not all that good of an air-to-air fighter. Or a very good bomber. Or a very good....you get the point.

[HereSince1628]

21. Story a while back had India beating US airforce in games didn't it

Don't the Indians fly MIGs and SU's? :shrug:

If so, maybe the word is out on successful tactics to defeat US technology...

[Lost4words]

22. all it was supposed to do is produce profit!

and has been a great success for General Dynamics or whoever.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Greed and arrogance, top GOP VALUES!

[AngryAmish]

30. I think you are right

[bhikkhu]

10. If I were a Rich Venezualan thinking about war...

I'd start building cities underground, seriously. Forget about a few overpriced, high maintenance airplanes. Not much use beyond decorating the national pride.

[daleo]

13. A bit of tough talk the last few days

Yesterday, a U.S. general was warning Iran about the power of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and today this guy is bragging about shooting down MIGs. What's up?

[Algorem]

14. it almost seems to sugget that the military and the arms industry are to-

gether in like some kind of a complex or something and ruling U.S. policy?Nah.

[donkeyotay]

90. That's some crazy shit you're smoking

"It almost seems to suggest that the military and the arms industry are together in like some kind of a complex or something and ruling U.S. policy."

Get a grip! That could never happen.
:evilgrin:

[steely]

15. Yeah, we shoot down MIGs, then rush in with deals galore.

eom

[lovuian]

17. The word is out F16's are untrustworthy Migs are safer

Chavez probably has heard through the grapevine we have technology to control the F16 thats why the MIGs are scary for Bush!!!

[madrchsod]

19. the Russians have developed a new

aircraft that is far advanced of anything we have. they do not have the money to build this aircraft in large quantities. they also have a new assualt rifle that discarges two bullets with one trigger pull. this too has no buyers because of it`s cost-the ak 47 is to cheap and effective.

[ORprogressive]

20. We shoot down MiGs?

They'd shit their pants if Russia sold them these:

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-27.htm

It uses thrust vectoring and can so some crazy manuevers. We've got nothing like this.

[DemoTex]

31. I saw the big blue SU-27 "Flanker" at the Paris Air Show in 1989.

At the 1989 Paris Air Show, Sukhoi Chief test Pilot Victor Pugachev cheekily unveiled "his" now famous "COBRA" manoeuvre, a dynamic deceleration achieved by pulling the aircraft's nose away from the direction of flight and momentarily reaching or exceeding an angle of attack of 90 degrees. This was a manoeuvre which could not be emulated by any Western fighter.

http://www.geocities.com/eepohsan/su27.html

The crowd at the Paris air show is stunned when the Soviet Sukhoi Su27 performs its 'Cobra' manoeuvre. The Cobra sees the aircraft transfer from level flight to a vertical attitude and back to level flight with negligible changes in altitude.

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/world/1989.html

When the SU-27 performed it's "Cobra" maneuver at the 1989 Paris Air Show, the western world suddenly learned that the SU-27 design was probably the finest fighter plane in the world. To see this very large airplane fly at an attack angle of 120 degrees without crashing, shocked every observer. Since then the routine has been performed as a demonstration feature at most airshows.

http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/Kits/Academy/1.48/Su-27/Academy_Su-27.htm

I have a tape of a General Dynamics (F-16) official saying, with a straight face, that Pugachev's "Cobra" maneuver was "cute," but didn't have any tactical significance vis-a-vis the F-16.



Test pilots Viktor Pugatshev in the Su-27 and General Dynamics' Bland Smith in the F-16C preparing for their demos.

[RivetJoint]

33. Cool maneuver

Useless in aerial combat, but cool nonetheless.

[Nihil]

49. People said the same about the Harrier ... until the Falklands ...

Sometimes cool can also be useful.

[RivetJoint]

50. Not in a dogfight.

[Zynx]

57. There are benefits to doing turns that will kill the other guy

Plus Russian fighters use the AA-12 Adder "AMRAAMSKI", which means the F-16 won't be making it to the dog fight at all.

[RivetJoint]

59. The US practice is to engage BVR

And the point is that the neat tricks done at slow speed are useless in a dogfight of any kind. Of course all Russian fighters are far outmatched by the F-22 so this is moot.

[DrWeird]

69. Alright.

So how many migs can be purchased for the cost of one F-22?

[RivetJoint]

70. Depends on the MiG

Depends on if they can actually afford to mass produce any of the more advanced ones.

[DrWeird]

71. Let's say your standard MiG-29.

That's your standard modern MiG workhorse, right?

How many of those, ballpark, would you get for the price of an F-22?

[RivetJoint]

73. Hard to say

for sure. Comparing Russian costs for airplanes to ours is almost like comparing apples to oranges. I suppose you could look at what the Russians are charging for the planes they are selling to the Vennies and others, but I don't know how much it really costs to PRODUCE those aircraft. Cost per copy depends greatly on how many aircraft are produced after NRE costs are subtracted from the total program costs. Additionally, the MiG-29 export versions are hard to maintain and that also adds to the total "cost" of the fighter.

Simone would have to have an awful lot of MiG 29s to match up with even a few squadrons of F-22s.

[DrWeird]

74. Mmhmm.

I'm sure those indians' second-hand trade rifles were no match for Custer's fancy expensive revolvers.

[RivetJoint]

78. Again, apples and oranges

BTW, a rifle is better in combat than a revolver...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Russian Arms... Russian Trained Pilots Are Jokes..

If the Arab - Israeli wars and Iraq Wars 1 and 2 didn't demonstrate that nothing will....

[TR Fan]

24. Correct, at least through the 80s

In the 80s I did a bit of "black" work specifically related to Russian arms and military training. Russian arms are markedly inferior to those produced here, in both design and manufacture. For example, they produced a three-man tank (as opposed to the US 4 man) by including an automatic loader. As a result, there are many one-armed Russian ex-tank commanders.

[happyslug]

88. That is not the reports I heard

Now the reports noted the American Weapons where better made than the Russian weapons, of higher quality and even effectiveness. The problem was if you look in HOW the weapons were used (Tactics), Training, supply, replenishment, the Russian weapons were better.

Give you some examples, US Fighters were design to operate off concrete runways, Russian Fighters were designed to operate off improvised grass fields. The Russians kept their Fighters Pilots under Canvas for months at a time, changing the location of their landing fields daily. It was possible for a Russian pilot to take off from one pasture in one district and land in another pasture in another district and be maintained by the same ground crew which had moved while he was in the air. US Fighters just do not do that. To be able to do such grass field operations, Russian Fighters had heavier landing gears and overall tougher built (With a substantial gain in Weight for a Fighter of similar combat capability). The Russians adopted this constant moving policy as its solution to a Surprise Air Attack (The West's solution was to build bigger and stronger concrete bunkers to protect the planes).

Another difference was how the Russians and the West adapted to air- to air Missiles. The West had a technology advantages here, but even in the early 1970s it was found that the edge was not as decisive as it appeared. For example in the early 1970s the US decided to train its pilots to fight pilots using Russian Equipment. The Pilots flying Russian Equipment (Or American Equipment striped down to Russian Electronic levels) adopted a policy of firing on radar contact. Not the "Russian"'s Radar Contact, but when the "Russian" Planes detected it had been detected by an American Radar. With this Tactic, the "Russian" "shot down" every American Plane sent against them (IT should be noted the "Russian" Plane was shot down first, its missiles had been launched BEFORE it was shot down and thus "Hit" the American Plane).

I always like people quoting how the US shot down so many Korean Planes in the Korean War, How the Israeli's Shot down so many Arab Planes during the Israeli-Arab Wars, but no one mentions the Planes the US shoot down in Vietnam (Remember we AIR ATTACKED North Vietnam and the US-Vietnamese ratio was only 2-1, that is for every Two Vietnamese planes we shot down, the Vietnamese shoot down one and that with equipment at least at least a Generation BEHIND the than current Russian Air Force Latest).

Why the Difference? Training. As One Arab said about the Arab Air Forces "We Arabs have Jet Fighters, the Israeli's have an Air Force". There is a world of Difference between the Two Concepts. The main Difference is Training. The more you train, the better you are. Roughly the ratio seems to be 3-1, 3 hours of Training for every hour of Combat. Third World Armies are more like US Police Forces, training is 10% or less of what they do, 90% is guarding, policing and actual Combat use. All of Which downgrade their ability to fight. When the US Air Force faced a foe willing to commit to Training (North Vietnam) the Superiority of our Planes was NOT enough to overcome the fact the Vietnamese Pilots were as well trained as our were (and they were RUSSIAN Trained).

The Russians themselves believed their Pilots could face the American one on One (and some stories from both Korea and Vietnam suggest that they did). Now this is no longer true for Training has gone down hill in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, but again it reflects the reduction in Training and Supplies more than weakness of Equipment.

As to the T-64 and T-72 tanks and their Auto loaders, they was reports of some early problems with the auto loaders of the T-64 trying to load the Gunner instead of the Round into the Tank's gun, but no such reports come from the T-72 (Which uses a different loading system than the earlier T-64) and the reports die out in the early 1970s (With the implication the problem was fixed, through it should be noted the T-64 was never exported unlike the T-54, T-62, and T-72 tanks). Even here training seems to be more important than the actual equipment.

The Classic difference is the M-16/ AK-47 differences which shows the priorities of both sides. The M-16 is the most accurate, highly made, high tech, light weight, assault rifle in the world. The AK-47 is the heaviest, but most reliable, least sensitive to bad ammunition, safest, Assault rifle in the world. The AKM-47 costs about $50 to produce with the M-16 costing $500 to produce. Is the M-16 worth 10 AKs? In the view of the US yes, for the US biggest problem when fighting has been supply, the lighter the equipment the better (You can ship more). The better the equipment the better (If you are limited to 10 rifles, 10 M-16s are better than 10 AKs).

As to the Russia's the situation is different, transport is NOT their chief problem, there are the largest country in Europe and Asia. As such equipping their Army is a higher concern than shipping supplies over seas, thus 10 AKs are better than 1 M16 if all you have budget for is 10 AKs or 1 M16. Russian equipment reflect this reality, During the Cold War they could get an army to a point of decision better they we could, but they had to make sure it had equipment with a lower budget than the US had. The US on the other hand was restricted to how much it could ship, thus higher tech, even if marginal, was an advantage. Thus the M16 over the AK, the M1 Tank over the T-72. The US wanted more for their buck (and obtained it) while the Russians wanted their buck to buy more (and obtained it).

This was a dilemma throughout the Cold War. The US tech advantage over the USSR numbers Advantage. The US never considered its Tech Advantage great enough to truly challenge the USSR thus the Cold war was always fought at the edges of the Russian Sphere of Influence. The Russians were never confident to overcome the US Tech Advantage. Thus the Cold war (Which only ended with the USSR running out of Oil to fund its Army which lead to the Armies Collapse and the Collapse of the USSR).

My point here is the Russian Equipment is NOT inferior to US Equipment, but shows the different priorities of the old Soviet System (Which reflected Russia's Geography location). The US's desire for Tech advantage reflected the US's Geographic location. In the cases where the two technologies came into combat, no clear superiority was seen except that the side that trained the best did the best.

[Stockholm]

26. Hmmm, what does the official mean?

There is no secret that MIG:s in the past have been shoot down but does he mean MIG 29:s?

Then from which of the following countries using the plane?

Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, CIS, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Moldova, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Syria, Turkemenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Yugoslavia

[RivetJoint]

27. He means that

We are not concerned about the Vennies having MiGs; that we don't consider them a threat.

[ewagner]

43. Difference in tactics

The MIGs and SU's have great maneuverability but the US concentrates on fighting "from beyond visual range". IOW shoot them down before they can see you. Our fire control radar is superior to anything they have but in a close fight they can probably (probably is a good word here) out maneuver our aircraft.

[Zynx]

58. I'd hold judgement on the long range combat

The most recent Russian air-to-air missiles are just as good as anything we have, at least on paper.

And since no one knows how our stuff actually works against an enemy who is trained to fly a good aircraft, our stuff is also still basically on paper.

[bemildred]

61. Yep. All blather.

Absent a real-world test everybody is blowing smoke.
In fact, blowings moke is policy, giving out real-world
capabilities amounts to treason.

[ewagner]

62. Haven't heard anything

about the most recent Russian air-to-air stuff....does that include information about acquisition radars?

[Zynx]

84. Not much unclassified about new Russian radar sets.

Current Russian AA missiles are the AA-11 and AA-12. AA-11 is their relatively short range toy, and the AA-12 supposedly has double the range of our AMRAAM.

MiG (no idea what varient the Vennies want to buy):

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29.htm

Missiles:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/aa-11-specs.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/aa-12.htm


It should be noted that these, like our own deployed/acknowledged AA missiles other than the ASRAAM, are all late 80's-early 90's design.

The F-16 design itself, like the MiG-29, seems very old.

[RivetJoint]

64. We've heard that before

Israel (using US Aicraft and weapons) 82 - Syria (using Russian stuff and trained by them) 0

[Zynx]

87. Rather different situation

With the Cold War on, there was virtually no information floating around outside of classified military circles, and very little even there, as to what the Russian equipment could actually do.

We now know that all MiG's through the MiG-21 are basically crap and always were crap compared to contemporary Western fighters.

However, this is in no way comporable to things like the MiG-29 and Su-27 with AA "Double Digits", which we have a much better idea of what they can do.

The F-16 *stinks* in comparison to the more recent varients of the MiG-29 and Su-27 (particularly the latter). The F-16 is a multi-role leaning towards ground attack, while the MiG-29 is first and foremost designed to shoot down fighters, as witnessed by its originally lousy ground attack ability, and the Su-27 is similar. They're more like the F-15 Eagle than the F-16.

As far as whose missiles are better, that's a big "who the hell knows." The US has yet to try to use its AMRAAMS against any opponent roughly in the same league, and the Russians haven't used their missiles against anyone.

[happyslug]

91. You better read up on the M-15 through Mig-21

At the time the MIGs were used in Combat, pilots who opposed them considered them very good.

Now people like to quote the 15-1 US Sabre Jets to MIG-15 combat losses from the Korea War. Great Propaganda for it was true, but it reflected the lack of training of the Korea and Chinese Pilots NOT the MIG-15. At the time of the Korean War US Pilots commented that every so often they would be engaged by pilots who the US Pilots called "Instructors". These Pilots were as good as US Pilots and more often than not the US Plane was shot down. After the end of the Cold war, the truth of the situation was reviewed, several Russian Pilots reported having flown MIG-15s in Korea. Even with the Disadvantage of being forbidden to use their radios (Least it reveal they were Russians not Koreans) these Russian Pilots stated they had a 2-1 advantage in dog fights with the US Sabre.

At the time of the Korean War, the US pilots were so impressed with the MIG-15 that a one million Dollar reward was issued to any Chinese pilots who defected with their plane to an American Air Base. One did and the US had their chance to review it compared to its contemporary the Sabre F-86. The MIG-15 was faster on the climb and on level flight, more maneuverable, and could fly higher than the F-86. The F-86 could dive faster, and the F-86 50 caliber machine guns were easier to aim than the 23 mm Cannon of the MIG-15. Please note the advantages were significant but not something you could not overcome with training. The best explanation of the 15-1 kill ratio seems to be the difficulty in the Chinese and Koreans to master aiming the 23mm guns AND learning the language of flying (Neither country had a long history of flight at the time thus the learning curve was quite steep).

As to the MIG-21, India liked it over the American Planes flown by Pakistan in the 1972 India-Pakistan War. Compared to later planes the MIG-21 had some severe restrictions, but compared to the American Planes of its time period, in Vietnam and the Indian-Pakistan War it held it own. Both the MIG-21 and the F-4 Phantom were designed as first generation Guided Missiles Fighters. Even with the F-4 the US only had a 1:1 kill ratio in the early years of Vietnam (i.e. pre-1970). This improved to a 6:1 ratio in the 1970-1974 era but was the result of adopting extensive training of pilots more than the F-4 being a better fighter than the MIG-17, MIG-19 and MIG-21 it was fighting (With only the MIG-21 truly being of the same time period of the F-4, the MIG-17 being nothing more than a Super MIG-15, and the MIG 19 being intermediate plane between the Sub-sonic F-86, MIG-15 and MIG 17 and the Supersonic Fighters of the F-4 and MIG-21.

People tend to forget that prior to about 1970 most fighters lasted less than 5 years in use before being replaced by faster and better planes. The P-51 Mustang of WWII fame, was designed and flown in 1940, it ceased to be the first rate US Fighter with the introduction of the F-80 Shooting Star in late 1945 (Through stayed in US ANG Service till 1957). That was typical. Five years in the Lime light, 10 years in slow retirement. The F-86 and MIG-17 were 1948-1949 developments. The MIG-15 being a 1946-48 Development (Roughly the same age as the F-80 and F-84 Fighters as opposed to the later F-86, the MIG-17 was build to correct many of the early problems of the MIG-17). The Replacements for the F-86 and MIG-15/17 were in Production by the end of the Korean War in 1953 (The F-100 SuperSabre and the MIG-19). The F-4 Phantom and MIG-21 were late 1950s development that came of age during the Vietnam War. Both were very successful.

During the early 1960s a plateau was reached in Military Aircraft. As speeds exceeded about 800 mph, the fuel needed to get up to that speed was excessive, so to carry the fuel needed the plane had to get bigger. These large heavy planes were found to have no maneuverability and easily target to the recently introduced Surface to Air Missiles (SAM). Thus in the 1960s when the next generation of Fighters were being designed, faster speed had to secondary to maneuverability and the ability to operate closer to ground level (To avoid the SAMs). This lead to the F-14 Tomcat, the F-15, the MIG-23 and MIG 27 Fighters. None of these are the fastest fighters in the world (Reserved to the MIG-25, which is more like the YF-12A/SR-71 missile launcher concept as opposed to a true fighter concept). All of these planes are still front line service 30 years after they first saw service.

The F-16 and F-18 planes came into service in the 1970s, but were intended as "cheap" alternatives to the very expensive F-14 and F-15 Fighters. With the improvement in electronics in the 1970s and 1980s the Russian found their MIG-23 Fighters being outclassed (The MIG-23 and MIG-27 Fighters are more like the F-14 Tomcat in that their wings can move from straight to swept, these makes them easier to land on short runways, but add weight to the plane). The "variable wing" concept had its advantages (Mostly increased maneuverability but at the cost of increased weight, size and reduced speed), but with the improvements in electronics (and thus in long range anti-aircraft Missiles) in the 1970s made maneuverability less and less important compared to being able to hit a target with the Fighters long range Missiles. To address this problem the Russians came out with their MIG-29 and SU-27 Fighters. The MIG-29 being in the same class as the F-16 and F-18 and the SU-27 being in the same class as the F-15. Even in the case of the MIG-29 and SU-27 development started in the mid-1980s and thus almost 20 years old themselves.

The reason for this plateau in Development is the above mentioned cost in fuel and size when one goes over 800 mph, thus almost all combat Aircraft for the the last 30 years are still in use, but improved with improved electronics over that time period. This is the cause of the lack of a replacement of the F-15, F-14, F-16, F-18, MIG-23, MIG-27, MIG-29 and SU-27 with newer aircraft, almost anything newer is roughly the same thing you had over the last 30 years except for the electronics (And electronics have become smaller and used less power over that time period so actually easy to retrofit into these 1960s era designs).

In fact i have read at least on Retired Air Force Officer who advocated buying the SU-27 for the US Air Force, retrofitting the plane with American Electronics and use it to replace the now aging fleet of F-15s. The SU-27 is as good if not better than the F-15 as a pure fighter, with F-15's electronic suite you can have a replacement for the F-15 within the next two years (The Officer had concern for the life left in the F-15 airframe, some are approaching 30 years old, more than what was expected when the F-15 was designed). The Article I read (I tried to find it again but could not) expressed concern over the age of the F-15 Air Frames, and said the best solution would be the Su-27 till the F-22 Raptor project finally gets into production (Something the Officer mentioned may never happen given the cost over run on the project and the lack of a clear enemy for it to be used against).

My point here is that the Russian Planes have been good since WWII. The Russian planes may not be as good the the US Planes of the same time period, but fully capable of fighting on a equal basis with US Design planes of the same time period. The reported "weaknesses" of Russian planes since the 1950s can be traced more to lack of training of the pilots involved (Korea and the Israeli-Arab Wars) and/or fighting against US Planes of 10-15 years later in design (The Various MIG-17 dogfights with F-4s during Vietnam for example). Thus do not downgrade Russian Equipment it has limitations compared to US Equipment but fully functional and usable in properly trained hands.

For data on the MIG-21:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mig-21.htm

Data on the MIG-15:
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-15.htm

Data on the F-4 Phantom:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-4.htm
The F-4 (with a report on the 1:1 ratio in pre-1970 Vietnam):
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/

F-86 and MIG-15 in Korea:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_9.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_11.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86.html

A good cite on US Combat Aircraft:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/

On the MIG-29:
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-29.htm

[Hobarticus]

60. Lotsa "anonymous" tough guys in this administration, eh? eom

[The Night Owl]

65. F-16 is the McFighter of the world. (NT)

[fedsron2us]

66. Our fighters are better than your fighters etc

At the bottom it appears that so much of global politics is little more than playground name calling.

Lord, what fools these mortals be!

[Forkboy]

67. Take a look at this thread

it's the same shit :)

[fedsron2us]

68. Sadly, all too true

Its the fact that this childish behaviour often leads to real war that is so tragic

[Forkboy]

72. Foreign policy almost always boils down to "my dick is bigger than yours"

Usually because it isn't bigger ;-)

[LiberalFighter]

75. Would they be cutting into a piece of Carlyle Group's action?

[RedCloud]

77. Now we can't sell crap to Venezuela to overthrow them...

I would imagine our planes would be defective or rigged to blow.

Chávez is getting his act together.

Alliance with Brazil, Trinidad and Ecuador over oil and energy.

Pipeline through Columbia to fuel China.

Now this?

What's next? An OPEC Bank to help the truly needy?

Somebody needs to tell Chávez to slow down. Prescott's grandson can't keep up with him.

[daleo]

79. I note the term "Vennies" being used

I suppose when the war propaganda machine wants to incite something, stage one is a dehumanizing nickname - "Vennies" for Venezuelans is a start.

[RivetJoint]

80. Oh good Fucking GOD

I used Vennies because it is easier to type than Venezuelans. The Brits (Oh, there I go again!) call us Yanks. Do you think they do so to dehumanize us?

[daleo]

81. I am not necessarily criticizing you personally

Just noting that this is a feature of these things. I agree that Venezuelans is hard to spell and sometimes nothing more is meant by using a idiomatic expression.

Some nicknaming of nationalities is relatively harmless, some is not. It depends a lot on the relationship of the parties involved. Currently, when the British call Americans Yanks, it is usually not meant in a derogatory sense. Same as when Americans call Canadians Canucks. I suppose a Venezuelan would be the ultimate authority on whether the term "Vennies" is considered offensive or just informal usage.

I recall that the British press usually referred to the Argentines as "Argies" during the Falklands war. That doesn't seem too bad, but the British prefer understatement in these matters anyway. I recall that my father, who was in the Canadian army during WWII (which was heavily influenced by the British) never referred to the Germans as anything worse than "Jerries" or the Italians as anything worse than "Eyeties". Although the latter term may be considered offensive to some, we can all think of worse terms we have heard.

The U.S. military has tended to go with more derogatory slang, as far as I recall. If the U.S. does attack Venezuela, I am sure more emotive language than "Vennies" will be used.

[RivetJoint]

82. Why the hell would we attack Venezuela?

[daleo]

86. Lots of people see it as a possibility

Two obvious reasons:
- to control their oil.
- Bush may have a grudge against Chavez.

Venezuela may also be seen to be showing a bad example to the world, as far as the neo-cons are concerned. Chavez has weathered a coup attmpt and a recall vote. Many people believe that the U.S. had a hand in both of these events, and there is plenty of evidence to support that view. Having him remain in power may give other non-aligned countries the idea that they too can go against U.S. wishes.

[IndianaGreen]

93. OIL

The other reason is that Jeb Bush is personal friends of the Venezuelan elites involved in the foiled coup.

The last reason is that the US treats Latin America as a cheap source of resources for American companies.

[Zynx]

85. I can't spell Venezuelan without looking at it.

Vennie I can spell.

[daleo]

89. I know what you mean

The spell checker always finds I got it wrong too. Anyway, I acknowledge shortening a word, or using a nickname isn't necessarily derogatory. It all depends on context, I guess.

[BrightKnight]

83. The Bush administration is responsible for this.

Other countries are less likely to do business with us because they dislike the Bush administration. This will have a negative impact on our economy. It is ironic that the weapons manufacturers supported them. I guess that what the rest of the world spends on weapons is negligible compared to what we spend domestically.

[evworldeditor]

92. Indian AF Vs US AF War Games

I seem to recall that last summer, the USAF engaged in aerial war games with Russian-equipped Indian Air Force pilots and while the official results are supposed to be a secret, the rumor is that the Indian pilots flying the latest Russian hardware resoundly trounced our F-15 Eagles.

[bemildred]

94. US concerned with Venezuela’s MiGs purchase.

"It should be an issue of concern to the Venezuelan people. Millions of dollars are going to be spent on Russian weapons for ill-defined purposes".
Asked if the planned acquisition was unsettling for the United States, the official said, "Let me put it this way: We shoot down MiGs".


---

Peru is another South American country with a long tradition of purchasing then Soviet Russian equipment and Brazil for several years has been in talks to establish a Brazilian-Russian MiG assembly plant.

MercoPress