Russia Loses the Quantity War

[Kruska]

I said it happened in the Gulf War...which was a war. The MiG-29 did show up as a friendly so they couldn't fire until the eyeball.

Yes, I do know how to read, and I wrote that:

There is absolutly no need nowadays to ID an a/c by visual confirmation - it is however done in peacetimes to ensure the savety for "irregular" civilian a/c - not in a war.

Why should - or how should a MiG29 ID or IDF or show up as friendly???, since no friendly operated a MiG29 in the Iraq.

Regards
Kruska

 

[The Basket]

Yes, I do know how to read, and I wrote that:

There is absolutly no need nowadays to ID an a/c by visual confirmation - it is however done in peacetimes to ensure the savety for "irregular" civilian a/c - not in a war.

Why should - or how should a MiG29 ID or IDF or show up as friendly???, since no friendly operated a MiG29 in the Iraq.

Regards
Kruska

Ask the USAF.

 

[Kruska]

Ask the USAF.

I do not think that you correspond with the USAF directly if so please let me know since I do not.

I asume that you retrive your knowledge from publications and as such you might have missinterpreted some statement or you ignore the simple fact that the USAF does not trust to much in its electronical capabilities and especially airspace-disciplin in regards to warfare.

Regards
Kruska

 

[The Basket]

I do not think that you correspond with the USAF directly if so please let me know since I do not.

I asume that you retrive your knowledge from publications and as such you might have missinterpreted some statement or you ignore the simple fact that the USAF does not trust to much in its electronical capabilities and especially airspace-disciplin in regards to warfare.

Regards
Kruska

Assume? Ignore?

Do you assume that I ignore?

You tell me that I can't read in my own language?

Well ain't that something.

 

[Kruska]

Assume? Ignore?

You tell me that I can't read in my own language?

Missinterpret doesn't equal to not being able to read one's own language. So why do you bring that up?

If you believe that the Russian equipment on one to one was ever superior, or that you need visual ID before engaging in air-combat, or that a MiG29 in Iraq could show up as a friendly, or that F-15's were told not to air combat Mig29's well you are free to believe whatever. And I feel free to put forward my opinion.

And if you base all your believes on according to USAF - what ever that means -, well go ahead

Just as an example, American military stats. and blah, blah already reported the Vietcong as extinct in 1969 - according to US Army.

Regards
Kruska

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The rules of engagement needed confirmation of enemy in case you brought down a friendly. Therefore you have to get an eyeball on the jet. And a dogfight begins...

That is not true.

Each and every aircraft that was part of the coalition had a transponder that would ident them as friendly. Have you heard of IFF?

They did not have to visual on an enemy aircraft to shoot it down.

I said it happened in the Gulf War...which was a war. The MiG-29 did show up as a friendly so they couldn't fire until the eyeball.

No the Mig-29 would not show up as a friendly on the Transponder. The Transponder's are loaded every day so they are different every day. If the little thing (I can't remember the name of the tool I used to load our transponder every day before flight) was lost, then the transponders were deleted and loaded with a different code.

The only way an Iraqi Mig-29 could show up as friendly on an IFF transponder would be if they had the thing to load them with. They did not, and they were never compromised. There was never a need to get visual.

I really dont understand were you are getting this from...

Assume? Ignore?

Do you assume that I ignore?

You tell me that I can't read in my own language?

Well ain't that something.

Sorry Basket, I do not know where you are getting this from, it is wrong.

 

[Henk]

This is what happened in SA during the 80's.
IPMS South Africa - Dassault Mirage F1 AZ / CZ

Never heard of the things you're talking about.

 

[Kruska]

Hello Henk,

thanks again for the Lt. Bomba link. I will enjoy reading it.

Never heard of the things you're talking about. are you refering to me or The Basket?

In case you should refer to RaSigma please check my post No.39 under Modern / F-14

Regards
Kruska

 

[The Basket]

That is not true.

Each and every aircraft that was part of the coalition had a transponder that would ident them as friendly. Have you heard of IFF?

They did not have to visual on an enemy aircraft to shoot it down.



No the Mig-29 would not show up as a friendly on the Transponder. The Transponder's are loaded every day so they are different every day. If the little thing (I can't remember the name of the tool I used to load our transponder every day before flight) was lost, then the transponders were deleted and loaded with a different code.

The only way an Iraqi Mig-29 could show up as friendly on an IFF transponder would be if they had the thing to load them with. They did not, and they were never compromised. There was never a need to get visual.

I really dont understand were you are getting this from...



Sorry Basket, I do not know where you are getting this from, it is wrong.

Captain Craig Underhill and Capt Caser Rodriguez.

Jan 19 when the Mig-29 flew into the ground...and Rodriguez claimed a manuever kill

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Captain Craig Underhill and Capt Caser Rodriguez.

Jan 19 when the Mig-29 flew into the ground...and Rodriguez claimed a manuever kill

Source and link please?

There is no way that a Mig-29 would show up as a friendly. I can believe that they shot down a Mig-29 in close proximity, but not because its transponder said friendly.

 

[Glider]

Ths has been an interesting thread but I do feel as if the Mig 29 has had a bad press.
When it came into service it was a good match for most of the aircraft in Nato. Certainly the F15 was a much better aircraft as were the latest F16's but given pilots of a similar standard it would give an early F16 (which were very common in Nato) a run for its money. Certainly I would rather be in a Mig 29 instead of an F4F, Mirage III, V, F1 or F5 which were still around in some numbers.
The good thing was that the Mig29 was by Warsaw Pact standards expensive and the Mig 21 was the most common fighter around.

 

[The Basket]

Source and link please?

There is no way that a Mig-29 would show up as a friendly. I can believe that they shot down a Mig-29 in close proximity, but not because its transponder said friendly.

It was on an episode of Dgfights.

It is on youtube but Im on my PDA so can't do any links.

The pilots themselves tell exactly what occurred.

 

[Henk]

Hello Henk,

thanks again for the Lt. Bomba link. I will enjoy reading it.

Never heard of the things you're talking about. are you refering to me or The Basket?

In case you should refer to RaSigma please check my post No.39 under Modern / F-14

Regards
Kruska

It is a pleasure mate.

No mate I referred to The Basket.

This is the Youtube link for that dogfight. (check no 4 as well)


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgQHS2hsx84

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44oaapoAqPU

 

[Kruska]

Hello Henk,

Thanks for the u-tube links, I didn't watch all of it but in the MiG29 Iraq incident, that a/c was clearly identified as a boogie – not friendly – if the US pilots would have taken the (air segment system as a disciplinary measure) they could have just missiled away the guy before he bore himself into the ground.

The other videos all show BVR kills.

Regards
Kruska

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It was on an episode of Dgfights.

It is on youtube but Im on my PDA so can't do any links.

The pilots themselves tell exactly what occurred.

Just watched it and they were not visual to identify. The AWACS identified them as hostile at 8 miles out.

It did not say how they Identified them as hostile, but most likely it was because thier was no transponder giveng them a Friendly Ident.

 

[Henk]

It was fun to watch, but the Iraqi Pilots did a lot of stupid things. A Mig-25 can not perform well in a turning game. Do not know why they used the Mig-25.

 

[HealzDevo]

Is the reason why they had to get visual because of other potential aircraft like airliners that might not have the transponder but still appear as hostile? I thought it was always considered to be good practice not to blast away at a potential hostile object until you had positively identified that it was a hostile object. That was the procedure that led to that civilian airliner being downed by a MiG. Just because you have beyond visual range identification methods doesn't automatically mean that they should be used...

 

[Kruska]

Hello HealzDevo,

From what I know, there is such a thing as an air segmentation system meaning: the airspace is divided into airspace cubes of certain dimensions. Any aircraft has to fly according to a prefixed route (Flightpath) within a certain direction, altitude and time.

All aircrafts are forced by international and national law to switch on their transponders signaling the IFF. A ground radar will pick up the IFF signal and compare it to the registerd IFF number on the radar screen. If an aircraft is spotted in an altitude or direction were it is not supposed to be, or supposed to be at all, it is contacted and QRA (quick reaction alert) aircrafts will take off to ID the contacted "intruder" after failing or delayed response.

In sensitive areas "white house" or Washington D.C. missiles might be shoot at a non identified target even before an visual ID is obtained.

In war times, coded IFF signals are used to seperate friendlies from hostiles. However the emitting of an IFF also makes the emitting a/c detectable on the radar screen, as such it will not be used in most cases, so the air segmantation sytem takes over.

An AWACS or ground radar knows exactly about the predetermined flight path of the own airunits, and certain radar pickups by an AWACS or Ground radar can also help to identify friendlies from hostile aircrafts. Passive radars (incomming signals are verified – but no outgoing signals) means the US F-15 passive radar will pick up the radar signal of an aircraft (MiG29), it will only receive the directional information, no altitude or speed information. Once the F-15 switches on its active radar, its signals can also be picked up by the MiG29.

That is why I stated in earlier or other posts that the reach of the radar is the key to success - First look-First shoot.
The new generation AESA radars in the F-22 or Eurofighter are able to emit signals without being detected.

The AWACS or ground radar will track the MiG29 and send the respective missing info to the F-15, which then is able/willing to activate its active radar to achieve a lock on and off the missile goes.

Regards
Kruska

 

[HealzDevo]

But my big point is how on radar do you tell the difference between a big large bomber like one of those Tu-95 Bear and a Russian civilian airliner on the radar? I can remember one book by Tom Clancy it might be discusses a plan where bombers are disguised as civilian airliners to drop bombs on US cities.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But my big point is how on radar do you tell the difference between a big large bomber like one of those Tu-95 Bear and a Russian civilian airliner on the radar? I can remember one book by Tom Clancy it might be discusses a plan where bombers are disguised as civilian airliners to drop bombs on US cities.

Airliners fly specific routes at specific altitudes and are under control of approach and departure centers - they carry transponders and are assigned squawk codes to specifically identify them.