Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Russian Su-27 "Chases" Off NATO Fighter Jet

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Russian Su-27 "Chases" Off NATO Fighter Jet

Old 2nd Feb 2019, 16:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 93
Russian Su-27 "Chases" Off NATO Fighter Jet

Hmmm.........not too sure what to make of this one ??

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=acShY_1548932459
Tiger G is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 17:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,496
“Go away!”

More interesting to my eye is the way the SU-27 disappears against the background, unlike the dark blob of the F-15.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 20:07
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 50
Posts: 1,362
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
“Go away!”

More interesting to my eye is the way the SU-27 disappears against the background, unlike the dark blob of the F-15.
They certainly nailed it with that camo scheme.
Tashengurt is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 20:28
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Looks more to me that the Eagle driver was avoiding being clobbered while retaining safe separation and respecting their ROI.
Lets be honest an interception is designed to show presence and a response, a little negative G and top rudder would have made the Flanker driver look silly and unprofessional.
Monarch Man is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 09:09
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
“Go away!”

More interesting to my eye is the way the SU-27 disappears against the background, unlike the dark blob of the F-15.
Absolutely - once they get against a partly cloudy sky the Su pretty much disappears............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 12:37
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 48
Posts: 930
I've often wondered why grey has prevailed for medium/high altitude ops, particularly in the west. PRU blue was the standard finish during WW2 and it certainly seemed to work well.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 14:33
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kammbronn
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by Martin the Martian View Post
I've often wondered why grey has prevailed for medium/high altitude ops, particularly in the west. PRU blue was the standard finish during WW2 and it certainly seemed to work well.
We went to grey/light olive for low-level helicopter ops in NW Europe when it was determined that with the poor viz and the smoke of battle/Chieftain engine heat-exchanger failure, everything goes grey at about 1km. It helped that they'd figured-out a way to stop the Gem engine dumping it's oil down the side of the aircraft so we lost the shine at about the same time.
diginagain is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 16:38
  #8 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
BV, two observations:

Why did the RAF embrace tone-down in UK when the threat was ARM and radar equipped bombers using very high quality mapping?

If your opponent closes to the merge the one with the lower visual signature should have the edge.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 17:45
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,496
Cam/tone-down was in my office during my last MoD tour, and even had the pleasure of discussing aircraft cam with Mr [Grey] Barley.

You can’t hide, but you can confuse, CF-18 cockpit painted on the underside, for example, although the airframe favours that. We discussed large contrasting areas of colour, a bit like the WW2 black/white undersides, and how extending that idea could actually confuse in a close visual engagement. You can rarely optimise cam for every environment/background, so confuse instead.

As for airfield cam ... loads of radar reflectors, including ‘false positive’ IPs, is a fairly cheap option. And fill the ‘black hole’ of the airfield’s radar/IR signature ... again cheap and easy. At high speed, low level, it doesn’t take a lot to confuse or throw off aim in a SAM-intense environment (if we had one).
MPN11 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 20:38
  #10 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by MPN11 View Post
As for airfield cam ... loads of radar reflectors, including ‘false positive’ IPs, is a fairly cheap option. And fill the ‘black hole’ of the airfield’s radar/IR signature ... again cheap and easy. At high speed, low level, it doesn’t take a lot to confuse or throw off aim in a SAM-intense environment (if we had one).
So what was the reason that we never deployed radar distraction or jammers but thought it well worthwhile painting a few ex-WW2 Airfields green?

In our case we could use an aiming point up to 28 miles from a target. Using conventional weapons we would have needed aiming points much closer to the target. Neither paint nor radar reflectors could not hide our aiming points.

Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 4th Feb 2019 at 12:49.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 23:03
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,689
Quick spell check or translation please!
langleybaston is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2019, 23:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 53
It should be noted that the US Mil has only just recently got their #### together re uniform camouflage.
Just saying.
weemonkey is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 10:24
  #13 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
Quick spell check or translation please!
My interpretation is - “Camo ain’t worth Jack Sh*t when you’re tossing a nuke using an offset aiming point”......
ORAC is online now  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 10:31
  #14 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
We discussed large contrasting areas of colour, a bit like the WW2 black/white undersides, and how extending that idea could actually confuse in a close visual engagement.



ORAC is online now  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 11:02
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,496
Never seen that B-24 image before ... interesting! I wonder if that was an 'Assembly Ship', although it doesn't feature in my tome on "The Mighty Eighth". The dazzle on the ship is certainly impressive.

As to PN's typos [] I agree tossing nukes is a different topic. We were obviously considering passive defence against conventional attack aircraft. Our work never made the 6th Floor, as we were disbanded in the post-USSR euphoria!
MPN11 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 11:10
  #16 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,198
ORAC is online now  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 11:22
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West London
Posts: 1,019
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
That's a well known 'assembly' aircraft scheme.
GeeRam is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 11:30
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,496
ORAC ... your #16, marking not found. But your #14 is Assembly Ship for 392nd BG, 8th AF.

These are the ones illustrated in "The Mighty Eighth" ... what fun!!


Last edited by MPN11; 4th Feb 2019 at 11:41.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 12:57
  #19 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
MPN, in the CW any aircraft capable of attacking the UK would not have needed to see its target - conventional or nuclear.

When Fencer aircraft could reach East Anglia their mapping and navigation kit would have got them on target even without radar or visual acquisition.

Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2019, 13:10
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
It should be noted that the US Mil has only just recently got their #### together re uniform camouflage.
Personally, I thought the US mil got its #### together re uniform camouflage in the mid-80s to early 2000s - 3 schemes (woodland, arctic, desert) that seemed to perfectly fit their intended environment while affording the US a look that set them apart from other nations (surely, part of the role of a uniform). They could have added a fourth more specifically tailored to Afghanistan if they needed to, but the environment hasn't changed so why did the camo need to?

On the subject of aircraft camo, I think it was mentioned on a different thread that the Nimrod was given the finish it was so it would blend into the parking apron rather than the ocean - so not always about operating environment. I'd wager the Eagle is a little less conspicuous sat at the end of a runway than the Flanker.
melmothtw is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.