| Author |
Message |
|
golden_eagle
|
 Posted: Sep 14, 2011 - 07:32 AM
|
 
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 18, 2010 - 01:10 AM
Posts: 59
Location: Jucy Bar
Status: Offline
|
Copy the article...the first two (Penney and Sass) F-16's of the DC ANG were NOT armed, hence the thoughts and quote of ramming from 1LT Penney. The article is incorrect on that last line...they had ZERO 20mm loaded.
I still don't understand the 15 plane formation you speak of...no pilot in his right mind would be in a 15 plane formation...source?
As for the AA-3 it was not designed to bring down B-52's and British V-bombers the Su-15 (going to your source wikipedia) was designed for such not necessarily the missile itself...though coincidentally both the B-52 and the AA-3 were developed and brought on line in close time frames...an 88lb war-cranium is not that large (AIM 7 Sparrow has same weight war-nugget)...
Possible reasosn for a misquote of the russian pilot was the Su-15's inability to "look down - shoot down" with its radar...thus necessary to descend below the target to get a clean radar contact to lock and shoot. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 26, 2013 - 3:24 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
golden_eagle
|
|
Posted: Sep 14, 2011 - 07:39 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 18, 2010 - 01:10 AM
Posts: 59
Location: Jucy Bar
Status: Offline
|
| Copy your next source...this is probably the confusion a newsperson/writer gets from writing a story from multiple accounts. It’s my understanding that the first two had ZERO armament and the subsequent flights were loaded with what they had on hand which was 20mm training rounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marco9
|
|
Posted: Sep 14, 2011 - 07:40 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 26, 2007 - 03:27 PM
Posts: 76
Status: Offline
|
|
golden_eagle wrote:
Copy the article...the first two (Penney and Sass) F-16's of the DC ANG were NOT armed, hence the thoughts and quote of ramming from 1LT Penney. The article is incorrect on that last line...they had ZERO 20mm loaded.
I still don't understand the 15 plane formation you speak of...no pilot in his right mind would be in a 15 plane formation...source?
As for the AA-3 it was not designed to bring down B-52's and British V-bombers the Su-15 (going to your source wikipedia) was designed for such not necessarily the missile itself...though coincidentally both the B-52 and the AA-3 were developed and brought on line in close time frames...an 88lb war-cranium is not that large (AIM 7 Sparrow has same weight war-nugget)...
Possible reasosn for a misquote of the russian pilot was the Su-15's inability to "look down - shoot down" with its radar...thus necessary to descend below the target to get a clean radar contact to lock and shoot.
I linked another article. Those F-16s had some sort of rounds in their guns. It is becoming clear that one pilot reported something different from what actually happened.
The Soviets designed the interceptors as weapon systems. When they were starting an interceptor design they designed anything from scratch, missiles included.
The Su-15 was supposed to bring down bombers -> so everything that was developed for it was supposed to bring down bombers.
Tu-128 <-> AA-5
Su-15 <-> AA-3
MiG-25 <-> AA-6
MiG-31 <-> AA-9
The same applies to Soviet interceptor radars |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marco9
|
|
Posted: Sep 14, 2011 - 07:44 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 26, 2007 - 03:27 PM
Posts: 76
Status: Offline
|
| I see the veteran realistic pilot reporting what happened (let's fire these lead rounds and let's see)... The rookie pilot reporting a dramatized version (let's go kamikaze). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marco9
|
|
Posted: Sep 14, 2011 - 07:48 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 26, 2007 - 03:27 PM
Posts: 76
Status: Offline
|
As far as the 15 or so formation... there you go. http://cencio4.wordpress.com/
"Air Force One journey on September 11: no escort during the attacks, 11 fighters when the airspace was completely free of airliners"
This guy is keeping quite a good blog. He is a trusted source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
