AIM120"C" and AIM9"M" TEST TEAM READ!

[TucksonSonny]

Where are the F-15C's mentioned? F-15E's don't do air to air unless they absolutely -must-.

 

Aircraft carrying AG ordnance can do some self-escort, but they will avoid fighters rather than engage them - the heavy weapons and fuel loads limit the fighter's maneuverability and its BVR, not to mention WVR capability. A single air to air can burn all the fuel you had for ingress and cause you to abort. Unless you're playing LOMAC of course, where you can haul AG loads at supersonic speeds in your migs and Su's and have no adverse effect :D

 

Yes, they do:

* 31st Air Expeditionary Wing:

5 F-15E Strike Eagle (Aviano)

* 48th Air Expeditionary Wing:

6 F-15C Eagle (RAF Lakenheath)

20 F-15C Eagle (Cervia-San Giorgio)

20 F-15E Eagle (Aviano)

* 509th Bomb Wing:

36 F-15E Strike Eagle (Balikesir)

36 F-15E Strike Eagle (Bandirma?)

[D-Scythe]

* 509th Bomb Wing:

36 F-15E Strike Eagle (Balikesir)

36 F-15E Strike Eagle (Bandirma?)

 

What on earth is the 509th Bomber Wing doing in an F-15E OOB? Why on earth would F-15Es be assigned to a BOMBER wing?

 

The 509th flies B-2A STEALTH BOMBERS.

 

Active F-15E units are (off the top of my head): 3rd FW (one squadron), 4th FW (4 squadrons), 366th AEW (1 squadron), 48th FW (2 squadrons).

 

FW = FIGHTER Wing.

 

Again, please, please get your facts straight.

[GGTharos]

Mudhen pilots don't practice AA as much - this is the same with vipers...some squadrons pactice A2G, other A2A. THey might practice 'the other' a little, just to be current, but they're masters of their domain and that is what they will be tasked with.

[TucksonSonny]

What on earth is the 509th Bomber Wing doing in an F-15E OOB? Why on earth would F-15Es be assigned to a BOMBER wing?

 

The 509th flies B-2A STEALTH BOMBERS.

 

Active F-15E units are (off the top of my head): 3rd FW (one squadron), 4th FW (4 squadrons), 366th AEW (1 squadron), 48th FW (2 squadrons).

 

FW = FIGHTER Wing.

 

Again, please, please get your facts straight.

 

Find here the 509th Bomb Wing during Operation AF

 

6 B-2 Spirit Bombardier lourd Whiteman (USA) ?

36 F-15E Strike Eagle (Balikesir)

18 F-16C/J (Bandirma)

9 KC-135 Stratotanker (Corlu)

36 F-15E Strike Eagle

12 F-16C/J

20 KC-135 Stratotanker

About the US F-16’s in AF

US F-16 in AF: # 180

* 31st Air Expeditionary Wing:

48 F-16C Fighting Falcon (Aviano)

78 F-16C/J Fighting Falcon (Aviano)

(32 EA-6B Prowler)

* 48th Air Expeditionary Wing:

24 F-16C/J Fighting Falcon

* 509th Bomb Wing:

18 F-16C/J (Bandirma)

12 F-16C/J

Later on 18 F-16CJs were added.

In the past I made an Allied Force version for Cobra one Free Falcon 3.1.x

(I know about everything of this war)

[D-Scythe]

Find here the 509th Bomb Wing during Operation AF

6 B-2 Spirit Bombardier lourd Whiteman (USA) ?

36 F-15E Strike Eagle (Balikesir)

18 F-16C/J (Bandirma)

9 KC-135 Stratotanker (Corlu)

36 F-15E Strike Eagle

12 F-16C/J

20 KC-135 Stratotanker

 

Wherever you got that source, it's wrong. All those F-15Es and F-16CJs operating in a bomber wing? Stationed half a world away in Whiteman, USA? Yeah, right.

 

And where on earth did those 72 F-15Es come from? The 48th FW was the only F-15E unit that participated in combat operations over Serbia, and they have only 48 F-15Es PAA. One squadron (18 I think - may have been more) was sent to Aviano, and the other squadron flew a couple combat sorties straight out of Lakenheath. That only accounts for 48 F-15Es at most.

 

I'd like to see your source please.

[Kula66]

It does not! You, again is just stating the obvious. The question is why did NATO bring 10 F-15’s for every MiG-29A in the theater? NATO knew where the MiG-29A’s were, NATO could see them taking off and landing, NATO had overwhelming technology advantage (software and hardware), NATO knew every cave where hardware was stored at. So why 10 F-15’s for every MiG-29A’s?

 

Because war is not a game, it isn't a fair fight and if you don't do it right you die ... and it was 10 F-15s for every Mig-29A because they couldn't make it 20 v 1!

[TucksonSonny]

 

I'd like to see your source please.

 

Internetlinks from before 2004 were gone together with my Compaq Pentium 4.

Lucky for me that I made a little backup of my stuff.

 

Original links were lost but here you got anyway one copy of the many original sources: http://home.wanadoo.nl/tcc/balkan/allfor_forces.html

[tflash]

We still do not have 72 F-15C's over Kosovo. For those interested; here an issue of Airforce magazine online on the Kosovo campaign. Interesting read!

 

http://www.afa.org/magazine/perspectives/balkans.asp#critics

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Right on Kula, war is war....it's not pretty. Hajduk would you want to go to war 1 vs 1 or 10 vs 1

Be honest and tell us???

Cali,

I don’t like to speculate. However, I will this time just to answer your question.

 

How much force is needed for a war depends on the opponent and the objectives I want to achieve. So, if my opponent has one MiG-29A, two F-15, one AWACS and two Air defense suppression aircraft should be enough to do the job.

Now, if I bring five F-15’s to fight one MiG-29A, something does not add up? Or I just simply have so much resources and can waste them without being punished for that. Now, of course, if you have so much resources and nobody cares or controls how you are spending it, you will use them to project your power. Therefore, no matter who the next president of USA will be, he will start some new war somewhere in the world. Just because he can bring 10 F-15’s against one MiG-29A.

 

Let me remind you that Bill Clinton did not get all the money he needed for military intervention over Yugoslavia. He simply took six billion dollars from social Security fund. Declaration of war on Yugoslavia was defeated in congress 450 to 2. Congress denied money to Clinton (when he asked for additional funding of Yugoslavian military intervention), yet he still ordered 10 fighter airplanes for every one Yugoslavia had, to go to military intervention over Yugoslavia. Clinton also violated War Powers Resolution. And NATO chapter. And UN chapter. But who cares?

 

Now, when it comes to infantry units I would definitely use as many soldiers as I can because technology is not as decisive as it is with air assets.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Because war is not a game, it isn't a fair fight and if you don't do it right you die ... and it was 10 F-15s for every Mig-29A because they couldn't make it 20 v 1!

Well, my point was that NATO (read USA) did not rely on technological advantage. Rather, they chose numerical advantage.

 

Now, if so many airplanes was needed then F-15 (and other modern fighters) technology advantage is questionable. We know that military (almost) never talks the truth. Now we confirmed that.

 

That was the whole point of me pointing out the numbers of airplanes NATO brought into a theater. D-Sytche and GGTharos did not respond to my challenge. They went to say my numbers were not right. While my numbers were not totally right, again, the point was that NATO’s technology could not be counted on against MiG-29A’s and SA-3’s. NATO decided to use numerical advantage instead.

 

And that all brings us to theoretical discussion on how one technology is better then the other one. We saw in Yugoslavian military intervention how good technology was.

[Kula66]

Well, my point was that NATO (read USA) did not rely on technological advantage. Rather, they chose numerical advantage.

 

Now, if so many airplanes was needed then F-15 (and other modern fighters) technology advantage is questionable. We know that military (almost) never talks the truth. Now we confirmed that.

 

Hmmm ... I think the US was after quality, quantity, technology and anything else they could get ... the opposition just had guts!

 

But I don't think having a numerical advantage rules out a technological as well!

[Force_Feedback]

Just one thing, the UN is like Michael Moore, everybody knows he exists, nobody cares about his opinions. (and he's a moron)

I think the main reason all these wars are fought is the lack of an adversary (no more cold war), so they have to come up with 'terrorism' as the new 'enemy'. Now, those a-holes have been blowing up things and killing people from day 1 of the Islam, they always have done that, and always will keep on trying to cause some kind of panic.

So, now the main 'enemy' are the terrorists, right, now, who will need expensive weaponry now the cold war is over? Nobody! That's right, there are no 'equal' potential enemies anymore, so how can the weapon industry (and it's very, very BIG in the US) keep on earning ridiculous amounts of money? Yes, by using up the old stuff, and let the troops complain about the hardware. So, now we have some sandheap somewhere with all kinds of retards thinking their life is boring and their gold-plated toilets won't do it no more, so they buy some hardware, create their own 'army' with all kinds of desperate people in it. Then they go and blow something up, and everybody is scared, that in turn inspires others who are too willing to fight for their 'cause'.

So, now we have your terrorists, rogue nations, how you want to call them doesn't matter, the point is that not natural resources are the primary (real) reason for the invasions, but to keep the weapon industry busy, and running at Cold War levels. No justification for building more nukes? Build an ABM system, that will cost as much. No real air2air adversary? Build some UCAVs.

And all this ends with the weapon manufacturers getting richer and richer, while the 'real' need for weapons is getting less and less. But, with that money they can 'convince' certain members of the goverment and allow for more spendings on the defense budget, in turn creating more jobs and even more unnecessary projects.

[Pilotasso]

Well, my point was that NATO (read USA) did not rely on technological advantage. Rather, they chose numerical advantage.

 

 

this is of course your personal feeling. However the planners had in mind to end the war as fast and as decisively possible. Im sure there was no interest on NATO side to use old soviet doctrines. ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Just one thing, the UN is like Michael Moore, everybody knows he exists, nobody cares about his opinions. (and he's a moron)

I think the main reason all these wars are fought is the lack of an adversary (no more cold war), so they have to come up with 'terrorism' as the new 'enemy'. Now, those a-holes have been blowing up things and killing people from day 1 of the Islam, they always have done that, and always will keep on trying to cause some kind of panic.

So, now the main 'enemy' are the terrorists, right, now, who will need expensive weaponry now the cold war is over? Nobody! That's right, there are no 'equal' potential enemies anymore, so how can the weapon industry (and it's very, very BIG in the US) keep on earning ridiculous amounts of money? Yes, by using up the old stuff, and let the troops complain about the hardware. So, now we have some sandheap somewhere with all kinds of retards thinking their life is boring and their gold-plated toilets won't do it no more, so they buy some hardware, create their own 'army' with all kinds of desperate people in it. Then they go and blow something up, and everybody is scared, that in turn inspires others who are too willing to fight for their 'cause'.

So, now we have your terrorists, rogue nations, how you want to call them doesn't matter, the point is that not natural resources are the primary (real) reason for the invasions, but to keep the weapon industry busy, and running at Cold War levels. No justification for building more nukes? Build an ABM system, that will cost as much. No real air2air adversary? Build some UCAVs.

And all this ends with the weapon manufacturers getting richer and richer, while the 'real' need for weapons is getting less and less. But, with that money they can 'convince' certain members of the goverment and allow for more spendings on the defense budget, in turn creating more jobs and even more unnecessary projects.

Very good post. I totally agree with you. This is certainly one aspect of the military intervention over Yugoslavia.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hmmm ... I think the US was after quality, quantity, technology and anything else they could get ... the opposition just had guts!

This is absolutely right.

We, on this forum often discuss technology and how one technology is superior to other. NATO military intervention over Yugoslavia paints very interesting picture about technology. By no means I want to say the Yugoslavia armed forces were superior to NATO. However, I do want to highlight the limitation of the technology as we saw it in Yugoslavian tragedy.

 

But I don't think having a numerical advantage rules out a technological as well!

It definitely does not and I do agree with you on this one as well. Also, I never said it did.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

this is of course your personal feeling. However the planners had in mind to end the war as fast and as decisively possible. Im sure there was no interest on NATO side to use old soviet doctrines. ;)

I don’t really know what military planners had in mind. They had to do the job the way politicians wanted them. I am sure military planners did the best they could. The facts are, military planners did not rely on technology.

[GGTharos]

Well, my point was that NATO (read USA) did not rely on technological advantage. Rather, they chose numerical advantage.

 

ANY ONE ARMY will use overwheliming force if they can. THat 'they chose numerical advantage' is BS. It is IN EVERY ARMY'S DOCTRINE!

 

Now, if so many airplanes was needed then F-15 (and other modern fighters) technology advantage is questionable. We know that military (almost) never talks the truth. Now we confirmed that.

 

What a bunch of BS. WTF? Do you understand that the engagements were 2v1's or 2v2's in a lot of cases? I think you need to take the blinders off, or understand the difference between a war and an engagement.

 

That was the whole point of me pointing out the numbers of airplanes NATO brought into a theater. D-Sytche and GGTharos did not respond to my challenge.

 

Your point is irrelevant, and we did respond to your challenge. You just can't see past a bunch of numbers and you have -no- understanding of warfare at /all/. The 'get overwhelming numbers' has been written into military tactics since who-knows-when! Technology doesn't matter, you're not there to give them a fair fight, you are there to CRUSH THEM.

 

And did F-15's crush MiGs? They sure did. And that was in -even- numbered fights. MiGs suck, get over it.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

MiGs suck, get over it.

No comments.

 

:pilotfly:

[TucksonSonny]

And did F-15's crush MiGs? They sure did. And that was in -even- numbered fights. MiGs suck, get over it.

 

Only 5 mig-29As were shot down while being airborne. The rest was crushed on the ground!

But your conclusion still is: “MIGs suck”

No comment!

BTW GG, trail formation is used when you have number advantage over your opponent.

Indeed, the first one shoots and run (call it 1on1)

The 2nd one shoots and run (if the first one missed or had no proper lock)

The 3th one shoots and run (for you it is again 1on1 of course)

And so on and on …

Ladder formation is a variant on trail formation but even more difficult for the enemy because of difference in altitude and range.

[GGTharos]

And what relevance does this have to the fact that the F-15's engaging those MiG-29A's didn't even bother A-Poling, let alone 'run and let the other guy shoot'?

[pschelchshorn]

No comments.

 

:pilotfly:

 

*cough* idiot *cough*

 

Flip

[Force_Feedback]

*cough* idiot *cough*

 

Flip

 

Troll.

 

 

 

Yes, reliability is one aspect of the numbers game. Don't get childish GG and schekchschrom, don't let this thread get even more retarded or closed.

How many migs were actually taken out on the ground? Because all that, very informative btw, site says is that the Serbs lost over 100 aircraft, well, I can imagine the biggest part being Galebs and trainer aircraft, as well as helicopters. So, how many of those, barely able to stand on the ground migs were there? I don't consider the mig pilots heroes, there comes a point in which all you can do is retreat and regroup (start a guerilla), taking off in such a state and trying to do something rather than fly to an other airfield is suicidal. Guess they were really proud of their home and were trying to defend it with their life.

 

How many Migs does the Serb airforce still have? I heard they were due for an upgrade in Russia, how is that coming along?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You do know that THEY BREAK sometimes, I see it everyday.

Yes I do. I see it every day as well. And BTW, MiG-29A’s break sometimes as well.

So you only taking 2x15's for 1x29A is a bunch of BS (and I'm not talking about Black Shark)

So MiG-29A’s are more reliable then F-15’s, F-16’s, FA-18’s? That’s’ why NATO needed so many of them?

I think you need to come back to earth because the lack of oxygen is starting to effect your thinking.

Thanks for a friendly advise!

[Pilotasso]

this is where the discussion will drift away from the planes themselves, were in the phase of whos planes are better inside the hangars...

[golfsierra2]

This thread is already way off topic, but I like to add my 2 cents to our Serb friend, who choose to continuing discuss and moan about a lost war and that NATO came with an overwhelming (by that unfair) force over poor Serbia.

 

This is a good example how Hajduk articulates his complaints by blaming the USA, especially their President for unfair, illegal actions:

Cali,

I don’t like to speculate. However, I will this time just to answer your question.

 

How much force is needed for a war depends on the opponent and the objectives I want to achieve. So, if my opponent has one MiG-29A, two F-15, one AWACS and two Air defense suppression aircraft should be enough to do the job.

Now, if I bring five F-15’s to fight one MiG-29A, something does not add up? Or I just simply have so much resources and can waste them without being punished for that. Now, of course, if you have so much resources and nobody cares or controls how you are spending it, you will use them to project your power. Therefore, no matter who the next president of USA will be, he will start some new war somewhere in the world. Just because he can bring 10 F-15’s against one MiG-29A.

 

Let me remind you that Bill Clinton did not get all the money he needed for military intervention over Yugoslavia. He simply took six billion dollars from social Security fund. Declaration of war on Yugoslavia was defeated in congress 450 to 2. Congress denied money to Clinton (when he asked for additional funding of Yugoslavian military intervention), yet he still ordered 10 fighter airplanes for every one Yugoslavia had, to go to military intervention over Yugoslavia. Clinton also violated War Powers Resolution. And NATO chapter. And UN chapter. But who cares?

 

Now, when it comes to infantry units I would definitely use as many soldiers as I can because technology is not as decisive as it is with air assets.

 

Hajduk, you should take into consideration that:

 

1. Serbia was the inner-Yugoslavian aggressor starting ethnic cleansing on the Balkans (and I know what I'm talking about. I learned from my own German history what ethnic cleansing is and so I know what was going on in Ex-Yugoslavia then...)

2. It was not NATO who attacked Serbia, it was the decision of the United Nations to stop this killing on the Balkans. And because the UN have no military assets, NATO was tasked to do so.

 

Between the lines, one can read your mind and that you are one of the history-minded hardliners who still think that Serbia fought a war for good reasons and very bravely was defeated by an overwhelming opponent (but still you were the good boys...in your opinion only)

 

"I'll give my head, but I'll not give Krajina" in your sig is the final proof for your point of view. This is not just patriotism, it's the ongoing reason why there are still NATO-troops on the Balkans (among them about 3000 Germans). And we have to stay there - and will stay there - as long as there are people with a mind set like you show here.

 

Hajduk, I'm asking you here and now to stop your political-historical ranting over the Balkans War. Serbia messed it up - like Germany did it twice in history - and you should accept that as part of your history. Period.

 

Now let's go back to the original discussion which began with

"Hello!

 

aim120C that it is named in the game is a aim 120a/b, aim120A came in production in september 1991, and have a hit ratio of 90% in lomac it is like 1%?? Aim 120c's wings or what there name is, is kutt off to fit in the F22 and joint strike fighter, aim 120a, can alsow be launched using infared search and tracking (irst). where is that?? even the F15A have it."