US journalist beheaded by ISIS...

[Jimbeaux]

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

True, they will load it up with boom boom and fly it into a base or try for a carrier off shore, which would result in some serious target practice.

I would think the carrier is safe , assads palace more likely

I would say you are correct. Either way, it's not a good thing for a stateless group to have an air force.

[Lost soul]

Jimbeaux said:

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

True, they will load it up with boom boom and fly it into a base or try for a carrier off shore, which would result in some serious target practice.

I would think the carrier is safe , assads palace more likely

I would say you are correct. Either way, it's not a good thing for a stateless group to have an air force.

I would think the captured aircraft would be high up the target list

[Jimbeaux]

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

Lost soul said:

Jimbeaux said:

True, they will load it up with boom boom and fly it into a base or try for a carrier off shore, which would result in some serious target practice.

I would think the carrier is safe , assads palace more likely

I would say you are correct. Either way, it's not a good thing for a stateless group to have an air force.

I would think the captured aircraft would be high up the target list

Yes, I wonder how well they have hidden it. Where are they practice flying? That should be an air to air engagement really fast.

[Jimbeaux]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This is true if it's a ground target with no air defense. If it is a carrier group they are after, then they likely will not get close.

[Jimbeaux]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

We can only hope not.

[TheRealFingers99]

Jimbeaux said:

Why do you keep asking that stupid question? No, I never thought Saddam was responsible. What has that got to do with this subject?? That is my question to you.

ETA: Your significant other snatched your donkey; he said it was a better listener....

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 17th October 15:13

A lot of Americans do. Just checking if you followed the authorised Republican line. I think your significant other snatched my donkey. Said it had more brains and a bigger dick than you.

[Jimbeaux]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Why do you keep asking that stupid question? No, I never thought Saddam was responsible. What has that got to do with this subject?? That is my question to you.

ETA: Your significant other snatched your donkey; he said it was a better listener....

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 17th October 15:13

A lot of Americans do. Just checking if you followed the authorised Republican line. I think your significant other snatched my donkey. Said it had more brains and a bigger dick than you.

It may well have.

What is a "Republican line" btw? There are so many myths out there...party of the rich, etc.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 17th October 19:29

[TheRealFingers99]

Jimbeaux said:

It may well have.

What is a "Republican line" btw? There are so many myths out there...party of the rich, etc.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 17th October 19:29

Well, there was a Republican line, held by Bush and Cheney, that Saddam was deeply involved with al-Q. I think the line was generally revised as soon as convenient, although Cheney seemed to continue believing it. Washington Post rated it at 3 Pinocchios.

Apparently bin Laden doubted that Saddam was a Muslim, and the ideological founder of Ba'athism, Michel Aflaq, was himself a Christian, as was at least one member of Saddam's inner circle.

I doubt if the demographic -- by income -- of Democrat and Republican supporters differs significantly.

[Jimbeaux]

TheRealFingers99 said:

I doubt if the demographic -- by income -- of Democrat and Republican supporters differs significantly.

Very good; you would be correct. Unless you are speaking of Congress themsleves; there are more Democrat millionaires than those "rich" GOPers.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 17th October 21:04

[Langweilig]

From the Belfast Telegraph

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/...

Mig 21 and Mig 23? Hopelessly outclassed by the F15 and F16. Wouldn't you just love to see what a Tornado could do to those museum pieces?

[TheRealFingers99]

Langweilig said:

From the Belfast Telegraph

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/...

Mig 21 and Mig 23? Hopelessly outclassed by the F15 and F16. Wouldn't you just love to see what a Tornado could do to those museum pieces?

Not really. Against ground troops they'd be pretty effective though, or against drones.

A bigger problem would be differentiating between them and Syrian Air Force aircraft. Start shooting down Assad's aircraft and things change very quickly.

A lot would depend on training, expertise, numbers and weaponry, but the 23 does seem to have had a few successes against F-15s.

[Jimbeaux]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Langweilig said:

From the Belfast Telegraph

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/...

Mig 21 and Mig 23? Hopelessly outclassed by the F15 and F16. Wouldn't you just love to see what a Tornado could do to those museum pieces?

Not really. Against ground troops they'd be pretty effective though, or against drones.

A bigger problem would be differentiating between them and Syrian Air Force aircraft. Start shooting down Assad's aircraft and things change very quickly.

A lot would depend on training, expertise, numbers and weaponry, but the 23 does seem to have had a few successes against F-15s.

"A lot would depend on training, expertise, numbers and weaponry" - And there you have it; no chance.

[Cobnapint]

Jimbeaux said:

"A lot would depend on training, expertise, numbers and weaponry" - And there you have it; no chance.

I think recapping on ejector seat training would have been high on the requests at the end of a typical ISIS AF training day.

[TLandCruiser]

TheRealFingers99 said:

but the 23 does seem to have had a few successes against F-15s.

In your head more like, the f15 has one of the best combat records of any aircraft... And 0 have been lost in combat.

[TheRealFingers99]

TLandCruiser said:

In your head more like, the f15 has one of the best combat records of any aircraft... And 0 have been lost in combat.

Depends who you believe. Syria claims five Israeli F-16s and three F-15s by 23. Soviet 23 claimed Pakistani F-16. The Israelis admit to one F-15, claim it was hit by a Mig 21.

Generally, though, the USAF stuff will have better avionics, better missiles, much fresher aircraft. On the face of it, no contest.

But you'd be crazy to send 23s into air to air combat, even against those supplying air cover for the bombing missions (seemingly, relatively inexperienced coalition pilots).

You'd use them as ground attack. Or against drones.

Foxtrotalpha has analysis.

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 18th October 00:12

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 18th October 00:16

[2013BRM]

Langweilig said:

From the Belfast Telegraph

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/...

Mig 21 and Mig 23? Hopelessly outclassed by the F15 and F16. Wouldn't you just love to see what a Tornado could do to those museum pieces?

That just does not make sense, if they want to take the West on in a conventional setting then they are fked, this is what we do and have done for many decades.
They are best sticking to what they know, murdering civilians by brainwashing the vulnerable

[Mojocvh]

Langweilig said:

From the Belfast Telegraph

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/...

Mig 21 and Mig 23? Hopelessly outclassed by the F15 and F16. Wouldn't you just love to see what a Tornado could do to those museum pieces?

REF [!] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-...

Performance tests


Many potential enemies of the USSR and its client states have had opportunities to evaluate the MiG-23’s performance. In the 1970s, after a political realignment by the Egyptian government, Egypt gave MiG-23MSs to the United States and the People's Republic of China in exchange for military hardware. In the US, these MiG-23MSs, and other variants acquired later from Germany, were used as part of a Soviet military hardware evaluation program. Dutch pilot Leon Van Maurer, who had more than 1,200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23MLs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded the MiG-23ML was superior in the vertical to early F-16 variants, just slightly inferior to the F-16A in the horizontal, and had superior BVR capability.[45]

The Israelis tested a MiG-23MLD flown to them by a Syrian defector, and found it had better acceleration than the F-16 and F/A-18.

U.S. and Israeli reports also found that the MiG-23's Head-Up Display (HUD) doubles as a radarscope, allowing the pilot to keep his eyes focused at infinity while operating his radar. This allowed the Soviets to omit the separate radarscope from the MiG-23. This feature was carried over into the MiG-29, though in that aircraft, a cathode ray tube (CRT) is carried on the upper right corner to double as a radarscope. Western opinions about this "head-up radarscope" are mixed. The Israelis were impressed, but an American F-16 pilot criticized it as "sticking a transparent map in front of the HUD" and not providing a three-dimensional presentation that would accurately cue a pilot's eyes to look for a fighter as it appears in a particular direction.[citation needed]

Additionally, a Cuban pilot flew a MiG-23BN to the U.S. in 1991, and a Libyan MiG-23 pilot also defected to Greece in 1981. In both cases, the aircraft were later repatriated.[46]

The early MiG-23M series was also used to test the American Northrop F-5s captured by the North Vietnamese and sent to the former USSR for evaluation. The Russians acknowledged the F-5 was a very agile aircraft, and at some speeds and altitudes better than the MiG-23M, one of the main reasons the MiG-23MLD and MiG-29 developments were started. These tests allowed the Russians to make modifications to several of their fourth-generation aircraft. The MiG-23, however, was not designed to combat F-5s, a weakness reflected by early MiG-23 variants.[47]

Early Western reports claimed that the aircraft had poor dogfighting capability, due to being designed to outaccelerate the F-111.[48] Later analysis showed the MiG-23 to be equivalent to the F-4, surpassed only by newer fourth-generation fighters, such as the F-15 and F-16. (The MiG-23 is considered a third-generation jet fighter.) The Soviet combat manual for MiG-23MLD pilots claims the MiG-23MLD to have a slight superiority over the F-4 and Kfir, but is no match for the F-15 and F-16 in most combat parameters. This manual also recommends tactics to be used against these fighters.[49]

Mig 23 can go like the clappers in a straight line, Mach 1.14, 1,350 km/h at sea level 1,553 mph / 840 mph. If it's a one way mission, 2,820 km ferry range 1,750 miles then they need to have something to make a big impression at the other end.......

[IanMorewood]

A lot would depend on weapon fit and crew training, I wouldn't fancy my chances against an AMRAM/ASRAM equipped fourth generation fighter with crew that had more than a few hours air supremacy practice under their belt.

[Mojocvh]

IanMorewood said:

A lot would depend on weapon fit and crew training, I wouldn't fancy my chances against an AMRAM/ASRAM equipped fourth generation fighter with crew that had more than a few hours air supremacy practice under their belt.

I don't think that your average dedicated suicide pilot would actually think like that.

More the case if they have the numbers to swamp/soak up the missiles that a defense line [cap,etc] could bear on them, it will only take one to make it.....remember the '23 was designed to catch F-111 [which was the fastest of NATO @ low level]....of course the important point is to operate offensive counter air operations before they gain whatever capability they MAY be attempting to meet...

[IanMorewood]

The talk is they (ISIL) have three aircraft, that would struggle to swamp anything, gives the coalition's ground attack aircraft something actually worth firing a brimstone/maverick/hellfire missile at once they find where they are parked.