# New Russian Jet Fighter



## Larry from Calgary (Jun 5, 2006)

Don't know if this has been posted before or not.

It is pretty cool. Click here


----------



## nursegladys (Aug 4, 2006)

have seen it, wow, vectored thrust, what an amazing aircraft.


----------



## jaslfc5 (Jan 2, 2007)

sukoi's are definately the rally cars of the sky. always a highlight at riat.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

It's not a new plane by any means, the SU-30 has been around for at least 10 years and is in fact a modified SU-27 which has been around since the mid 1980's.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Impressive, but our Hawker Harrier jump jet would shoot it's balls off !!!!


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Impressive, but our Hawker Harrier jump jet would shoot it's balls off !!!!


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

There's only one problem Griff ... it wouldnt be able to catch it


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

The Falklands showed that in dog fights with the Argentinians the jump jets never lost. They can literally fly sideways and come up behind a pursuing aircraft that just doesn't know where it has gone. My money would be on the Harrier. I was told the Argie pilots would crap themselves when they saw a Sea Harrier. Armed with the right rockets etc they are the dog's twitcher!!!


----------



## nursegladys (Aug 4, 2006)

JoT said:


> It's not a new plane by any means, the SU-30 has been around for at least 10 years and is in fact a modified SU-27 which has been around since the mid 1980's.


yeah i agree Jon its the SU 27/29 Fulcrum with vectored thrust, you'd think it was hi-tec but it runs on valves not cpu's









Griff, i have seen the Harrier at RIAT and i live at Wittering, so i see them all day every day and i have to say they are the most exciting aircraft, i could watch them all day.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Griff said:


> The Falklands showed that in dog fights with the Argentinians the jump jets never lost. They can literally fly sideways and come up behind a pursuing aircraft that just doesn't know where it has gone. My money would be on the Harrier. I was told the Argie pilots would crap themselves when they saw a Sea Harrier. Armed with the right rockets etc they are the dog's twitcher!!!


I didn't realise you were an expert Griff; I will bow to your expertise


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Just what I was told.........I can't prove it, but I believe the Harrier was formiddable in a dog fight


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Griff said:


> Just what I was told.........I can't prove it, but I believe the Harrier was formiddable in a dog fight


From all I have read I would say you are right Griff .... trouble is the SU-30 is in a different class to the Argentinian Skyhawks and Mirages who were operating at the absolute limit of their range and didn't have sophisticated air to air missiles.


----------



## nursegladys (Aug 4, 2006)

the problem with the Harrier is that it only has a limited amount of time for the hover due to its inability to cool its engine, it only has a limited amount of water on board for cooling said engine, which is why you only see it at air shows doing its stuff. Tactically it uses the hover to pop up from short runways or clearings hence VSTOL. But the US did a good job of updating the Harrier with the AV-8B which is in service now, it has more power and wing pylons for missiles and stuff.


----------



## thunderbolt (May 19, 2007)

The SU-30 made it's maiden flight in prototype form in 1989, it entered service in '96. Apart from the vectored thrust, it's comparable in size and performance to the F-15 Eagle. An awesome aircraft indeed.


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

I know the chances of ever experiencing a ride in any plane like that is impossible, but on the slim chance of me winning the lottery I'd love to have a flight in one of those


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

PhilM said:


> I know the chances of ever experiencing a ride in any plane like that is impossible, but on the slim chance of me winning the lottery I'd love to have a flight in one of those


As they say in Russisa "everything is possible if you have the money"


----------



## thunderbolt (May 19, 2007)

PhilM said:


> I know the chances of ever experiencing a ride in any plane like that is impossible, but on the slim chance of me winning the lottery I'd love to have a flight in one of those


Check this out Phil.


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

thunderbolt said:


> PhilM said:
> 
> 
> > I know the chances of ever experiencing a ride in any plane like that is impossible, but on the slim chance of me winning the lottery I'd love to have a flight in one of those
> ...


Excellent thanks for posting this









Right it looks like I can get a 30min flight in a MiG for about $9k, so how about I start a new thread so we can all donate a couple of quid to help make this happen









Edit: Promise I will try and take some pics


----------



## nursegladys (Aug 4, 2006)

PhilM said:


> thunderbolt said:
> 
> 
> > PhilM said:
> ...


pics will be ok, but what watch will you wear................a brand new thread...............what do you wear to fly in

Tomorrow i'll have a CWC 70's chrono remake to fly in


----------



## thunderbolt (May 19, 2007)

nursegladys said:


> PhilM said:
> 
> 
> > thunderbolt said:
> ...


Thought you might like it. 

How about one of these.


----------



## nursegladys (Aug 4, 2006)

it'll not stand up to the G force........which is Gee I'm sh***ing myself


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

nursegladys said:


> PhilM said:
> 
> 
> > thunderbolt said:
> ...










very cool


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

nursegladys said:


> PhilM said:
> 
> 
> > thunderbolt said:
> ...


Well help get me in the plane, and the pics will show what I'm wearing


----------



## nursegladys (Aug 4, 2006)

mmmmm i'll provide the ladder then


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

nursegladys said:


> mmmmm i'll provide the ladder then


Mate for a couple of quid which would be the first dontation, you can hold it as well


----------



## Mutley (Apr 17, 2007)

Griff said:


> The Falklands showed that in dog fights with the Argentinians the jump jets never lost. They can literally fly sideways and come up behind a pursuing aircraft that just doesn't know where it has gone. My money would be on the Harrier. I was told the Argie pilots would crap themselves when they saw a Sea Harrier. Armed with the right rockets etc they are the dog's twitcher!!!










How we crapped our selves when a Harrier came sideways across the top our RAMC field hospital at the Fairford International Air Tattoo in '85, the pilot would have been safer emigrating to Buenos Aires than popping into the naffi that night


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

The Argentinian pilots were ordered not to engage the harriers. That's probably the only reason the "I counted them all out" legend lived on. The british won the falklands before they even set sail. It's amazing what the right sort of misinformation can acheive


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

That's not right. The British did not win the war before they set sail.

The British had a great deal of luck when ships bombed by the Argentinian Air Force escaped massive wipe out because many of the Argie bombs were set wrong for explosion as they hit the ships. We were bloody lucky with that particular encounter. A friend of mine was a Sgt in the Paras during the conflict and he is extremely bitter to this day that the war was a political one. And guess whose political skin it saved.









The Harriers were, and still are, awesome


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

After HMS Sheffield was hit by an Exocet, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Defense. I may have copied it to the MOD, but I can't remember.

The ship was totally inept at the point of incident, to counter the attack.

I advocated the use of an electrically powered Gatling gun on the deck of ships, preferably operated by radar.

It does seem in recent times that Gatling guns are now on the decks of some British ships, but I am not suggesting it is because of my idea........gawd forbid!!!

I have ideas too how vehicles could avoid deaths by mine bombs in the roads.

My dad was an army officer during World War11, and after the fitting of remote control gear to anti air aircraft guns firing by radar, he says he must have shot down about 200 V1's destined to kill people in London and beyond.

I say he deserves a medal.

He got f**k all!!!!

He is still alive and almost crippled at 90 years of age!!!


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

I reckon my dad literally saved hundreds of lives during World War 11


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Griff said:


> My dad was an army officer during World War11, and after the fitting of remote control gear to anti air aircraft guns firing by radar, he says he must have shot down about 200 V1's destined to kill people in London and beyond.


That's very interesting Griff, any more details?

My dad was a REME sargeant in the western desert in '41/3 and figured out how to prevent fuel starvation on AEC Matadors (and some other vehicles) by wrapping certain parts of the fuel lines with asbestos impregnated tape (or string in "tight" spaces). He also suggested that some of the airflow from the radiators of some vehicles be re- directed to cool the fuel system rather than blowing hot air over it and add to the initial problem.

Mentioned in dispatches twice, ignored other than to confirm that his military conduct was exemplary.

That's often the way it goes mate, trust me.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

My dad was a REME officer Stan

He was a Lt when he started shooting down V1's with anti aircraft guns firing by radar

His first job as an officer was being parachuted behind enemy lines to repair tanks

He described being bombed and shot at as a little inconvenient!!!!

He ended the war as a Capt.

I asked him recently did he really shoot down so many V1's

He replied...........we shot down a lot more than was convenient to Hitler









He is now unable to walk without two sticks, but his humour is superb


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

I know for a fact he shot down at least 200 V1'S

He will die as a serving soldier with a minimum of recognition, and I am just full of contempt

At least we in our family know what he did. That will do!!


----------



## Mutley (Apr 17, 2007)

Griff said:


> He described being bombed and shot at as a little inconvenient!!!!


He sounds like one hell of a cool dude


----------



## adrian (May 23, 2004)

Griff said:


> I know for a fact he shot down at least 200 V1'S
> 
> He will die as a serving soldier with a minimum of recognition, and I am just full of contempt
> 
> At least we in our family know what he did. That will do!!


Give your father my regards. Respect.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

pg tips said:


> The Argentinian pilots were ordered not to engage the harriers. That's probably the only reason the "I counted them all out" legend lived on. The british won the falklands before they even set sail. It's amazing what the right sort of misinformation can acheive


I don't think that's the case at all, not in my experience.

If the Argentine pilots were told not to engage the the Harriers, why were they then told to engage British shipping? That wouldn't make sense.

We certainly didn't win the conflict before we set sale, we had a tough job on our hands. Some of our luck was good and some of it bad, but that's war.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Griff said:


> I know for a fact he shot down at least 200 V1'S
> 
> He will die as a serving soldier with a minimum of recognition, and I am just full of contempt
> 
> At least we in our family know what he did. That will do!!


I hope you mangage to keep him for as long as you can Griff. 

My dad left us almost exactly 10 years ago, aged 84. He didn't have much to leave behind, but at least I got his medals.

Mustn't grumble, he didn't.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Stan said:


> pg tips said:
> 
> 
> > The Argentinian pilots were ordered not to engage the harriers. That's probably the only reason the "I counted them all out" legend lived on. The british won the falklands before they even set sail. It's amazing what the right sort of misinformation can acheive
> ...


Wasn't it a case of they didn't have the fuel to take on the Harriers, and were told to target the ships? Unlike some of you I wasn't there but having read Sandy Woodward's account of the war it was a much closer run thing than is often realised.

And Griff it is a load of bollocks you are talking about it being a political war and it does a great disservice to those who took part. That Thatcher gained popularity was a consequence of the war and not the reason for it.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

JoT said:


> Stan said:
> 
> 
> > pg tips said:
> ...


They may have prioritised the offensive against shipping but would still have to protect thier air assets at Port Stanley, it was the only supply point they had. I may be wrong (nobody tells me anything







) but to leave the only valid air asset you have vulnerable makes little sense to me.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

there have been many documented interviews with the Argentinian pilots since the conflict who were ordered not to engage Harriers. They knew they were no match for them in the air and their tactic was to try and hit the fleet and hope they could deplete the British enough to stop them landing. It has been documented that a number of senior Argentinia officers were extreemly doubtful that their untrained conscripts could defend even a small attack fro the well traind British.

One of the biggest mistakes was when the MoD announced the Sheffield had been hit. The Argentinians had no idea they had even hit her as they launched their exocets out of sight of the target and then turned tail and flew home. The anouncement by the MoD (anyone remember those news briefings) to international press is reported to have boosted the Argentinian morale no end and probably extended the wars duration.

It was probably a bit unfair to say we'd won before we sailed but the Argentinian's top military brass were under no illusions about their total lack of ability to fight, unfortunately their politicians vastly over estimated their abilitiy.

Thatcher was deep in the political mire in 81 but let's be honest she was backed in a corner and didn't really have any option but to launch a task force. It is under no doubt the victory turned around her own and her parties fortunes.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

pg tips said:


> Thatcher was deep in the political mire in 81 but let's be honest she was backed in a corner and didn't really have any option but to launch a task force. It is under no doubt the victory turned around her own and her parties fortunes.


Spot on PG; unfortunately some people have managed to convince themselves that Thatcher engineered the war to increase her popularity. The accounts that have come to light of her meetings with the Chiefs of Staff are quite interesting. The army felt it couldn't be done, the RAF was wondering what it could do from such a distance and it was down to the Chief of Naval Staff at the time, Admiral Sir Henry Leach. He was asked by Thatcher if we could really recapture the islands if they were invaded, Leach himself said he replied as follows "Yes, we could and in my judgement - though it is not my business to say so - we should". Thatcher asked him "Why do you say that?" and Leach replied " Because if we do not, or if we pussyfoot in our actions and do not achieve complete success, in another few months we shall be living in a different country whose word counts for little". If anyone it is Leach whose assurances, which were contrary to all the other military arms, ensured that the war took place.

Yes the government made mistakes, they misread the warning signs and the intelligence services which were focused on the Eastern Block had nothing. The announcement of the decommissioning the Antarctic Patrol vessel HMS Endurance and future navy cuts also contributed to the Argentinians confidence. In fact if the Argentinians had waited another 18 months there wouldn't have been a Royal Navy large big enough to recapture the Falklands!


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

JoT said:


> Stan said:
> 
> 
> > pg tips said:
> ...


Of course it was a political war.

I sat in a pub called The Swan in Collyhurst Manchester, and my mate who is an ex sergeant in the Paras and faught in the Falklands said directly to me that both he and his mates knew full well it was a political war, and I swear that on my mothers life!!!

They still realised they had a job to do and fought for Queen and Country. We were lucky in the war and if those bombs were not faulty our ships would have been blown to hell by the Argentine Air Force. The Sea Harriers did us proud!


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

How many air launched anti ship exocets do you think the Argentinians had?

Five! for their entire air force at the start of the conflict!

They were equally under resourced in air to air missiles and the trained pilots to use them.

On their bombing runs the Argentinians were releasing their bombs too low (as a direct result of the anti aircraft tactics employed by the British) meaning they didn't detonate. The BBC world service actually broadcast the fact that most of their bombs were not exploding which lead to the Argentinians re timing the bombs delay fuses which is believed to have had a direct result on the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram being hit. Colonel Jones wanted to lead the prosecution of the BBC for Treason!

The Argentinians were under prepared, under trained and under resourced. The Junta led by Galtiari were in deep economic crisis, hated by the majority of citizens they saw that reclaiming the Falklands would give them a political boost. Their intelligences led them to believe that Britain would not or even could not try to regain the island by military means, however when scrap metal workers raised the Argentinian flag on South Georgia they had to act fast as they believed the British would increase the South Atlantic fleet in response. It was an ideal window for them, John Knot's decision to withdraw endurance was what started the ball rolling.

Thatcher was in a tight corner. I used to believe she engineered the war but having read many tomes over the years I now believe that she would have avoided it if she could. I don't believe even Thatcher is heartless enough to send men to their deaths in order to win an election. It was clear the Junta would not loose face and leave via a diplomatic solution. John is right the forces cheifs in the main did not think it could be done, hardly surprising considering the defence budget in recession hit Britain at the time. I joined the RAF in 83 and things were dire to say the least and that was after the Falklands and after money had started to come in! But the Junta did not see Thatcher for what she was, they actually believed that she was a weak leader (not surprising considering the mess the country was in at the time).

I'm still of the firm belief the intelligence service did a lot to win the war before the task force had even been assembled. Mis information was a huge success. The Argentinians had so many conflicting reports on what was heading their way they had no idea what to expect. The MoD briefings and the BBC trying to tell the other side our secrets didn't help but in the end it was brave men like Col. Jones who won the Falklands for us. I remember being on a parade in 85 and was very proud indeed to stand next to men wearing their South Atlantic Medals.

Fortune favours the brave. It certainly did for Thatcher


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

btw & getting back to topic, there's video on the net somewhere of two of these crashing.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

At least Thatcher only went to war once in 12 years and that after British sovereign territory was invaded. What's Labour's record in the last 10 years?

1998 - Start of Iraq bombing.

1999 - Serbia - Kosovo

2000 - Sierra Leone

2001 - Afghanistan

2003 - Iraq

According to Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, Labour under Blair had (and may still have for all we know) a policy of intervening militarily when it was practicable and deemed to be ethical .....







.... and Maggie is cast as a warmonger by the left!


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Ah but Thatcher had balls, she went in alone with no other country openly declaring support for her position

Blair only went in because The US told him to


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

pg tips said:


> btw & getting back to topic, there's video on the net somewhere of two of these crashing.


I think we should get back on topic PG, we've messed Larry's thread about enough.

I'll start a Falklands thread in the political section and we can resume the discussion there.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Stan said:


> pg tips said:
> 
> 
> > btw & getting back to topic, there's video on the net somewhere of two of these crashing.
> ...


there probably is one already Stan ......


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

JoT said:


> Stan said:
> 
> 
> > pg tips said:
> ...


Another one won't hurt John, it keeps the lads off the streets.


----------



## thunderbolt (May 19, 2007)

pg tips said:


> btw & getting back to topic, there's video on the net somewhere of two of these crashing.


Found a few, but I think this is the one you mentioned.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Me..........I'll settle for what my dad thinks......and he's a socialist too..........that's good enough for me!!!!!!!


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Griff said:


> Me..........I'll settle for what my dad thinks......and he's a socialist too..........that's good enough for me!!!!!!!


Good for you Griff, but I expect to see you in the Falklands thread tomorrow.

No excuses now.


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Stan said:


> Griff said:
> 
> 
> > Me..........I'll settle for what my dad thinks......and he's a socialist too..........that's good enough for me!!!!!!!
> ...


No thanks!!


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Griff said:


> Stan said:
> 
> 
> > Griff said:
> ...


No problem.


----------

