Zephyr Net


Return to the Fighters Anthology Resource Center

Go to the VNFAWING.com Forums
It is currently Wed Jan 08, 2025 03:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 20:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 18:58 pm
Posts: 2041
Location: Charleston, USA
Image

_________________
Image

allah no longer exists, for I have killed him. You must worship me instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2003 20:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 17:12 pm
Posts: 1606
Location: NY, USA
Doesn't come standard on their planes like ours does. I know the TU-160 has it. Probably the Tu-22M also, Su-24. Some mods of the MiG-29(?) and Flanker add it but it definitely isn't standard. It's like leaving out seatbelts in a car ya know. Just a dumb idea. I also don't know of any air toa ir inflight refuleing tankers other than some buddy packs for the Su-24.

_________________
"Smile, AMRAAMs love you!"
"May the PATRIOTS down the FROGS!"
1Lt. Centurian57_76/369th

For all your FA needs and Game Remod 6 visit
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 18:58 pm
Posts: 2041
Location: Charleston, USA
Yeah, it's a dumb move to not have in air refueling as standard. Considering the fact that Russian jets are big time gas guzzelers. I don't understand how they thought they'd be able to "bury us" as Kruschev said when only a handful of their planes can reach the U.S., lol. And even if they managed to do so, they'd have to deal with F-15s :twisted:

On the other hand we had the ability to escort our bombers into Russian airspace with figher escort..........

_________________
Image

allah no longer exists, for I have killed him. You must worship me instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2003 16:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 18:31 pm
Posts: 464
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Passing throug the artic is difficult?

How is the weather up there(30.000 ft)?

did that radar line really existed in the artic?
sorry, I just dont know anything about it....

_________________
"History is written by the winners"
Robert McNamara


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2003 17:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 19:00 pm
Posts: 763
Well, you have too look at what the Russians used their aircraft for and if they really needed in-flight refueling. The Flanker, Fulcrum, and Foxhound all have probes as upgrades. They initially didn't have them because both the Flanker and Foxhound were designed for air defence, which generally means they aren't too far from their base, and have large internal fuel capability. The Fulcrum was designed for air defence and IIRC frontal aviation air support. Generally this would be short range work. The Su-24 has the buddy refueling capability to extend strike range. The standard Russian tanker is the Il-78 Midas, with three hose and drogue systems. Also, M-4 Bisons were converted into tankers. The Tu-22M Backfire cannot reach the US, and I don't think it has inflight refueling capability. The Tu-95 and Tu-160 both have inflight refueling capability and IIRC can reach the US without refueling. Flying over the pole poses no difficulty. The air at high alititude is cold everywhere in the world. There is a US NORAD radar warning line, called the DEW Line IIRC, through Canada and Alaska.

Zephyr


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2003 21:16 pm 
Zephyr wrote:
Well, you have too look at what the Russians used their aircraft for and if they really needed in-flight refueling. The Flanker, Fulcrum, and Foxhound all have probes as upgrades. They initially didn't have them because both the Flanker and Foxhound were designed for air defence, which generally means they aren't too far from their base, and have large internal fuel capability. The Fulcrum was designed for air defence and IIRC frontal aviation air support. Generally this would be short range work. The Su-24 has the buddy refueling capability to extend strike range. The standard Russian tanker is the Il-78 Midas, with three hose and drogue systems. Also, M-4 Bisons were converted into tankers. The Tu-22M Backfire cannot reach the US, and I don't think it has inflight refueling capability. The Tu-95 and Tu-160 both have inflight refueling capability and IIRC can reach the US without refueling. Flying over the pole poses no difficulty. The air at high alititude is cold everywhere in the world. There is a US NORAD radar warning line, called the DEW Line IIRC, through Canada and Alaska.

Zephyr


DEW line runs from Alaska through Canada to Britian and Greenland. multiple stations with radars ranging in age fro mthe 1950s to the 1980s...

TU-22Ms initially had air to air refueling capacity but had to remove this to fall within the scope of the SALT/START talks. However it was never clear as whether the Russsians simply removed the probes and kept them with the aircraft or destroyed the probes...

The Russians have very few Midas aircraft and these are dedicated to supporting the TU-160 fleet and occassionally support fighters during training.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2003 18:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 00:26 am
Posts: 1409
Location: Mid-Coast USA
off topic but i thought I'd throw this in cause of the DEW line referances. We (the USA) also had a DEW line of sorts consisting of RADAR stations inside China along the Chinese Russian border ( nope not a missprint I said inside CHINA !! LOL)

_________________
Fighting for justice with brains of steel

Let your anger be like the monkey which hides inside the piniata.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 12:52 pm 
Really? At what era? I would love to read about this!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 20:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 17:12 pm
Posts: 1606
Location: NY, USA
Ruskies woulda never got to us. NORAD would have seen them coming and all those missiles we had in Canada would have annihilatd them. If anything a few of their cruise missiles would have gotten through. I doubt they could have successfully bombed the continental US.

_________________
"Smile, AMRAAMs love you!"
"May the PATRIOTS down the FROGS!"
1Lt. Centurian57_76/369th

For all your FA needs and Game Remod 6 visit
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2003 20:45 pm 
Just so you know Cent... We had nothing in Canada to shoot anything down with.. no SAMs past 1977. And the ones we had, all of the Zeus, Nike family could not engage anything at low altitude...
Scrambled fighters could have gotten some, but the majority would have hit their targets.

Our defense was a good offense.. The real reason for the DEW was not to intercept inbounds as much as to give our bombers time to scramble to go kill Russia... Our defense was a good offense!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2003 00:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 17:12 pm
Posts: 1606
Location: NY, USA
Doubtful. Bomarc's, Nike's, and after 77 we had newer stuff such as the Hawk and what not defending our targets. Our SAMs were always superior to theirs. I doubt they would have done 1/10th the damage we'd have done.

_________________
"Smile, AMRAAMs love you!"
"May the PATRIOTS down the FROGS!"
1Lt. Centurian57_76/369th

For all your FA needs and Game Remod 6 visit
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 13:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 18:54 pm
Posts: 4437
Sorry Cent but again you are completely wrong. We had no cities or major installations protected with SAMs in the CONUS after 1977(last Nike Site was deactivated). Canada had very few sites, and I am not certain they had any after 1977). The DEW sites themselves were undefended.

IHawk is a very short ranged weapons systems. The Russians abondoned laydown nuclear delievery long ago. Everthing they had for the 'varsity' was cruise missles and standoff direct attack missiles like our SRAM. NORAD itself does not even have any SAM defenses.

Bomber attack was considered such a remote possibility that the CONUS was totally undefended compared to the USSRs SAM chain network. ADC relied on F-106s and SAGE backed up by supplemental F-4s and later ADC F-16As plus help from TACs F-15s and F-16s to do the air defense job.

I know its surprising, but the Continential United States had no functional SAM defense sstems for the last quarter century...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 16:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 17:12 pm
Posts: 1606
Location: NY, USA
I seriously doubt they left DC unprotected as well as LA, NY, etc. Just doesn't seem fesible.

_________________
"Smile, AMRAAMs love you!"
"May the PATRIOTS down the FROGS!"
1Lt. Centurian57_76/369th

For all your FA needs and Game Remod 6 visit
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 17:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:23 pm
Posts: 481
DC is defended, the Secret Service has got Stingers :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2003 17:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 18:58 pm
Posts: 2041
Location: Charleston, USA
Hell, they got HUMRAAMs outside of the Capitol building right now........

_________________
Image

allah no longer exists, for I have killed him. You must worship me instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group