Russian Air Force vs. US Airforce

No, it doesn't GUARANTEE he will. There are no guarantees in war. But if you have a pilot who can flip switches and arm weapons, and do all the things he has to do in combat, WHILE LOOKING OUT AT THE THREAT, he's a HELL of a lot more likely to survive and be able to win the fight, than the pilot that goes into combat and has to look down to find the switches because he has had 25 hours of flight training over the last year. If you're looking down in your cockpit more than you're looking out at the threat, you're dead. It's that simple.

Originally posted by om3ga123
Opinions none the less. You could train a pilot year round and that still would not guarantee that he would get the job done. A pilot does not train under the pressure real combat brings.

Mramar, San Diego

I've seen them go up to battles, they do it about every 2-3 hours.

YES IT DOES matter how much training someone gets.

First and foremost, there is no way in hell that a pilot who has trained 50 hours in the cockpit can withstand high G turns for as long as someone who has 1,000 hours in it. They are simply more used to the Gs.

Second, RED FLAG and TOP GUN are about as real as training can get.

Third, certain maneuvers become muscle memory. Its like comparing a kid just out of drivers ED to someone who has been driving stick shift for half a century...its simply not the same. People without that much time in the cockpit have to think about everything too much, while trained pilots simply recognize "hey he's got a tighter turn radius than me, I'll do a barrel roll to the outside and come around on his six". A less trained pilot will think "oh crap, he can turn tighter than me. what do I do, hmmmm...well, I could do this or that or this, but this might be better but..."blam. A sidewinder is in him before he knows what to do.

I can't give you a source, but there is a rumor floating around here that Russian AF has flown more training hours in the past 2-3 years that it did during the entire 1990s... So the training gap may still exist, but it's not widening any more.

And Russians do fly a lot of a2a training "topgun" style, force on force, these days.

Thanks for the post Northwolf and your get the first response because you are at least offering something worthy of a response.

Originally posted by northwolf
I can't give you a source, but there is a rumor floating around here that Russian AF has flown more training hours in the past 2-3 years that it did during the entire 1990s...

Very very unlikely as they only declined to about 200 000 for the entire Russian air force by 1999.

The former Air Forces and Air Defence Forces have now been merged into a single service (at a cost of some 93,000 posts), under Colonel General (Aviation) Anatoly Kornukov. Whilst still a large force, it has suffered from a decade of underfunding, which has led to a lack of modern airframes, abysmally low flight training levels and problems with repair and maintenance. It has also failed to adjust to the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union and the effect that this would have on Moscow's old integrated air defence system. In 1998, the deputy Commander-in-Chief of the air force expressed his desire for the annual flying hours per pilot to average around 50 hours. In 1990, the air force accumulated two million annual flying hours, by 1999 this had dropped to 200,000-230,000. T

www.aeronautics.ru...

By employing some basic math that still means that 2000 pilots could have flown 100 hours each and the 20 -30 hour per pilot then means that the Russian air force have chosen to maintain a core of around 6000-8000 pilots which is as far as i am concerned a choice and something they may feel does not degrade the effectiveness of their air force. Considering the scale of Russian air defenses 500 Su-27's and Mig-31's ( and they have more than that) are more than enough to prevent any serious gaps from forming in those defenses and thus more than enough to defend Russian airspace.

So the training gap may still exist, but it's not widening any more.

The training gap is there but then the Russian air force is not a offensive force that must train it's pilots in five different types of air 'doctrines' which does take a hundred or more hours per year.

And Russians do fly a lot of a2a training "topgun" style, force on force, these days.

And considering the fact that they will only fly in support of a very dense SAM network they do not need several hundred hours... It will pretty much be a take off followed by a ground controlled approach ( the ground controllers 'fly' the plane to the engagement area) and a final long range intercept a fast egress back to base followed by much the same for as long as it takes. That does not take 150 hours a year or even 100 hours ( which is more like the NATO standard ) a year...

So in the end the Russian air force were never that short of cash or flying hours but made sure that anyone who wanted believed it.

Stellar

[edit on 13-6-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Knowsstuff
a correction first, the US has never lost a B-2, they have lost an F-117, but since stealth technology on the F-117 was designed to confuse rather than hide, the law of averages is bound to dictate that eventually one will be lost.

The 'law' of averages had nothing to do with it and the B-2 and F-117 are designed along the same lines and does exactly the same thing to radio waves.

One F-117 has been lost in combat, to Serbian/Yugoslav forces. On March 27, 1999, during the Kosovo War, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani, equipped with the Isayev S-125 'Neva-M' (NATO designation SA-3 'Goa'), downed F-117A serial number 82-806 with a Neva-M missile. According to Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Yugoslav air defenses found that they could detect F-117s with their "obsolete" Soviet radars operating on long wavelengths. This, combined with the loss of stealth when the jets got wet or opened their bomb bays, made them visible on radar screens. The pilot survived and was later rescued by NATO forces. However, the wreckage of the F-117 was not promptly bombed, and the Serbs are believed to have invited Russian personnel to inspect the remains, inevitably compromising the US stealth technology.[9]

www.answers.com...

The exact cause of the F-117's loss has yet to be determined, but senior
Pentagon officials, speaking on condition that they not be identified,
said the plane was tracked for a time by Yugoslav military radar and
probably was hit by a Russian-made SA-3 surface-to-air missile.
American military officials have not disclosed the operating conditions
of the plane at the time it was lost, or how long it had been visible on
radar.

But private military experts say that under the right conditions,
stealth aircraft can be detected in a variety of ways, including with
certain radars. Still, they said, the planes have great advantages over
conventional warplanes without such "low-observability technology."

The F-117 operates more effectively when American forces know the
position of enemy radars so the plane can find its way through holes in
a defense screen, he said, and tightly placed or unexpected radars
operating at certain frequencies can detect the plane.

www.netwrx1.com...

Stealth doesnt make an aircraft invisible to radar, mearely give the aircraft a smaller RCS, the B-2RCS is roughly that of a small bird, so operators ignore it or dont notice it and sometimes the radar computer filters it out as noise.

That depends on what you are looking for and if you are interested in bugs moving at high speed your going to find stealth planes on even regular radars.

i was just thinking, i remember hearing a story, weather its tru or not i dont know. the F-117 that was shot down, im sure i remember hearing something about the ground crew forgetting to remove the metallic panels they use on normal peace time flichts to allow them to be tracked by radar. not impossible for the americans to do something like that im sure!

Since it is now admitted that F-117's were tracked on at least numerous occasions i don't see why we need to believe something quite as ludicrous; it's possible but we really do not need such stupidity to explain the shoot down of a stealth aircraft.

As for the debate, the US would win battle of the airforces hands down. while the russians have some very effective equipment, the americans, have a much larger and diverse array of very effective equipment.

Very effective equipment that proved so incapable of dealing with very limited by well employed air defenses in Serbia and Kosovo?

Their aircraft, whilst not as numerous in all categories, though much more closely matched after the USSR became russia and lost aircraft to the new republics, the American aircraft are well maintained and updated.

But how well will a well maintain Mustang from the second world war do? You can maintain a bad idea/plane as well as like and that might not be enough. Since the primary threat to the F-15 and like planes are Russian air defenses the quality of Russian aircraft do not even have to come into the pure analysis of how the USAF would fare in a agressive war against the Russian federation American aircraft are not bad but then they planes or pilots do not have to be bad to be shot down in large numbers by effective air defenses.

Most of the russian aircraft are not airworthy

50% not airworthy? Evidence?

and their pilots are struggling to get 10 hours a month

The question is not how many they do get but how many they could be getting. The NATO average is about 170 but it's skewed massively upward by the USAF which means that most NATO countries are perfectly happy giving their pilots around ten or less hours per month which amounts to about seven training sorties. If the VVS flies 200 -300 000 hours per year then it means they could be giving 2000-3000 pilots a 100 hours each. If they choose to give 6000 pilots 50 hours each they must obviously think their pilots only require 50 hours training per year to perform their missions.

in the air cos the air force cant afford Fuel!

I don't believe that and frankly i don't see why anyone would. They can deploy new ICBM's and air defense systems by the dozens but not afford fuel?

Stellar

[edit on 13-6-2007 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
Very effective equipment that proved so incapable of dealing with very limited by well employed air defenses in Serbia and Kosovo?

Speaking as a matter of opinion the US hardly went "all out" on the Serbs, choosing to remain at times not only politically but militarily conservative (ROE's, tactics, weapons etc...) as well. Speaking as a matter of fact though the Serbian AF (or lack of it) never prevented the US from having free use of air space and air dominance. Nor did we lose a significant number of airplanes, despite what you may want to believe.

No doubt the Russians have an impressive nationwide SAM system but the US trains for that environment and circumstance. And if I may be so bold, we do have a few systems to counter that threat. Let's not kid ourselves here, it would not be easy for either side, no matter who theoretically "wins".

[edit on 13-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

WestPoint are you kidding me?, the U.S. was forced to bomb "civilian" infrastructer to "Terrorise" Milosivic to pull out of "Kosavo", BTW I have never seen ALL 21 B-2's in a picture after the Kosavo war, thiere were reports the Serbs shot down 2 or 3 of them.

Originally posted by YASKY
WestPoint are you kidding me?, the U.S. was forced to bomb "civilian" infrastructer to "Terrorise" Milosivic to pull out of "Kosavo", BTW I have never seen ALL 21 B-2's in a picture after the Kosavo war, thiere were reports the Serbs shot down 2 or 3 of them.

well, there were reports that 1 B-2 and 2 f-117 were shot down in serbia , acc. to russian and serbian sources,

There's no way they could have kept it quiet if they had. The base rumor mill would have had it out in minutes all over the base. And once it's loose on the base then it'll be all over.

You haven't seen a picture of all 21 B-2s, because they only do those for PR pictures, and they didn't have any reason to do it. And lately they've been busy fighting a war, and having deployments. They don't have all 21 bombers together in one place that often anymore. They're not going to cancel deployments, or say "I'm sorry, we can't send any bombers to help you out today. We have to take a picture."

Originally posted by Russian
Stealth tech does NOT always work!

Look at Yugaslaviy(spelling)

2 B2s were shot down!

[Edited on 8-12-2003 by Russian]

That's odd. I remember an F-117 being shot down, but I don't recall the loss of a B-2. You wouldn't happen to have a source for the loss of one (or both) of those alleged B-2s?

Given the size of the B-2 fleet (or rather, the *lack* of size), it would be almost impossible to miss a missing aircraft. As of about five minutes ago, the 509th Bomb Wing still has 21 operational B-2's...which neatly ties in to the 21 B-2 airframes built.

If you want to double-check that, it's a fairly simple telephone call.
(660) 687-6123 - Public Affairs Office, Whiteman AFB.

The only source I'VE ever seen was a Serbian propaganda page. They claim all kinds of F-15s, F-16s, a couple of B-52s, 2 B-2s, 3-4 F-117s, and tons of helicopters. Another page claims 4 F-117s shot down over Serbia, and 3 over other countries. But the Serbs also claim to have shot down 100+ aircraft. The page that I had seen before is down now unfortunately.

aren't this vs that threads especially involving countries banned???

just wondering.

No B2 has ever been shot down. Serbian propoganda is rediculous. Russian sources are wrong. I made that phone call a few minutes ago - sure enough, there are 21 B-2s in operation right now. As far as I know, its never even been shot at.

As for a picture of all 21 B-2s in one place, dont count on it ever. Have you ever even seen TWO B-2s in one picture? I havent. Much less 21.

LoL, if the serbs had ever brought down a B-2, its wreckage would be on display right next to the F-117, if not towering above it on a ceremonial platform.

Not only that, but it would have caused such an uproar in the USA due to ultra-expensive tech that doesnt work, we would have heard about it.

BOTTOM LINE: NO B-2 HAS EVER BEEN SHOT DOWN. PERIOD.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Speaking as a matter of opinion the US hardly went "all out" on the Serbs,

You do not have to state that as your opinion as you will find that it is not hard to prove as fact.

choosing to remain at times not only politically but militarily conservative (ROE's, tactics, weapons etc...) as well.

Like Vietnam, Korea etc.... This is all true and i have consistently asked why this is the case? Why are the us administration getting involved in wars they refuse to 'win' in the traditional sense of the word?

Speaking as a matter of fact though the Serbian AF (or lack of it) never prevented the US from having free use of air space and air dominance.

The ineffectiveness of that 'air superiority' might either say something about the pointlessness of air superiority in the absence of bomber aircraft or might show that there was no useful air superiority in the first place.

Despite the heavy bombardment, NATO was surprised to find afterwards that the Serbian armed forces had survived in such good order. Around 50 Serbian aircraft were lost but only 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces.[12] Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000ft (5,000m), making accurate bombing much more difficult. Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Serbian troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties.

www.answers.com...

An antiseptic war, fought by pilots flying safely three miles high. It seems almost too good to be true-and it was. In fact-as some critics suspected at the time-the air campaign against the Serb military in Kosovo was largely ineffective. NATO bombs plowed up some fields, blew up hundreds of cars, trucks and decoys, and barely dented Serb artillery and armor. According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58.

www.geocities.com...

Nor did we lose a significant number of airplanes, despite what you may want to believe.

Not according to the Serbians!

There were other casualties after the war, mostly due to landmines. After the war, the alliance reported the loss of three helicopters, 32 unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and five aircraft — all of them American, including the first stealth plane (a F-117 Fighter Bomber) shot down by enemy fire. Several of these were lost in accidents and not by enemy action. The Yugoslav armed forces claimed to have shot down seven helicopters, 30 UAVs, 61 planes and 238 cruise missiles. However, these figures were not verified independently and have little support among non-Yugoslav analysts.

www.answers.com...

www.aeronautics.ru...

Nato is suffering significant losses. Reliable alternative sources in
Washington have counted up to 38 aircraft crashed or shot down, and an
undisclosed number of American and British special forces killed. This is
suppressed, of course.

www.aeronautics.ru...

It is clear from the amount and quality of intelligence received by this journal from a variety of highly-reputable sources that NATO forces have already suffered significant losses of men, women and materiel. Neither NATO, nor the US, UK or other member governments, have admitted to these losses, other than the single USAF F-117A Stealth fighter which was shown, crashed and burning inside Serbia.

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had denied, about a month into the bombing, that the US had suffered the additional losses reported to Defense & Foreign Affairs.

By April 20, 1999, NATO losses stood at approximately the following:

* 38 fixed-wing combat aircraft;
* Six helicopters;
* Seven unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs);
* “Many” Cruise Missiles (lost to AAA or SAM fire).

www.aeronautics.ru...

So while i don't claim to know the exact number i find it almost completely unbelievable that they lost dozens of aircraft against Iraq but only half a dozen against Serbia. How can so few losses explain NATO's inability to quickly win the war or the few casualties they managed to inflict on the Serbian armed forces?

No doubt the Russians have an impressive nationwide SAM system but the US trains for that environment and circumstance.

No they do not and in fact there is no way you can train to survive such systems without absolutely horrendous casualties.

For those looking at the current campaign, I have seen the SAM threat picture for Afghanistan. It is not very daunting and we may let our guard down on EW because of that. Only lower-grade SAM systems are there. But when you look at the SA-10s and SA-20s in countries the War on Terror may take us to, aircrews face a fearsome threat. We must maintain the ability to master new enemy air defense systems.

We learned on September 11th that the intelligence picture we saw -- of a dangerous world -- was accurate. Unfortunately, we ignored it. If we are to continue the War on Terror, allied aircrews will face very robust, advanced surface-to-air missile systems. U.S. and allied forces need to be able to handle them. One of my deputies in Kosovo was killed in the Pentagon. My other deputy luckily was not. One of the things we were planning before the hit on the Pentagon was a brief on these new advanced SAM systems. I think Members of Congress need to see the capability of these new threats to allied aircrews and especially their real ability to burn through our current jamming.

I am very worried about these new systems. I know that the Kosovo campaign would have shifted radically had advanced SA-10 SAMs ever shown up in theater. As the squadron's Intelligence Officer, I was asked one question each morning: where are the SA-10s and have the Russians delivered them to Serbia or not? That would have radically changed the situation. For the future, we have got to plan on facing such fearsome SAM batteries in the next conflict.

www.house.gov...

So if one battery was such a worry what would they do against a hundred or more that are very well supported by numerous types of short range defenses deployed in hundreds of additional batteries?

And if I may be so bold, we do have a few systems to counter that threat. Let's not kid ourselves here, it would not be easy for either side, no matter who theoretically "wins".

Once you start looking at just how limited the NATO SEAD/DEAD capabilities are you might soon agree with me that NATO could not prosecute a air war against Russia with any success.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
The ineffectiveness of that 'air superiority' might either say something about the pointlessness of air superiority in the absence of bomber aircraft or might show that there was no useful air superiority in the first place.

Or perhaps it might show the end result of not utilizing and fully exploiting a clear and decisive military advantage.

Originally posted by StellarX
Not according to the Serbians!

I understand, but still it does not matter what they claim, the public informational and verifiable sources largely indicate otherwise. As such, Serbian claims have to be taken with caution.

Originally posted by StellarX
... i find it almost completely unbelievable that they lost dozens of aircraft against Iraq but only half a dozen against Serbia...

Every conflict is different, I do not find the above hard to believe, in fact it's the other way around. Understand past lessons and apply them.

Originally posted by StellarX
No they do not and in fact there is no way you can train to survive such systems without absolutely horrendous casualties.

Oh really? Red Flag and most other large combined force exercises in the US DO simulate double digit SAM systems and an intense EW/ECM environment. And if you look at the results of those exercises (and even recent real world US results) you'll see that there have been no "absolutely horrendous casualties...".

Originally posted by StellarX
...NATO could not prosecute a air war against Russia with any success.

I disagree, I tend to think that Russia could not sustain a defensive ground to air campaign against NATO. Provided that NATO utilizes all of it's assets in an appropriate fashion of course.

Originally posted by THENEO
Okay,

patriotic for what? history? culture? tradition? sense of duty? don't know why? have to? sense of superiority?

just curious that's all.

Well let me satisfy your curiousity THENEO. Let me start by saying that I have in my life only ran into a handfull of foreigners that truly understood the Russian mentality. Throughout countless conflicts - WW1 and WW2 as prime examples, the world watched but simply couldn't understand why the Russian soldier while being ill equiped, without food, shelter, ammo or even a gun, constantly being let down by his superiors, sent to certain death and often simply forgotten about still would fight to the last drop of blood in him with everything he had. This isn't because they are motivated by their goverment. First and foremost Russians fight for their country, their motherland. Our ancestors gave their lives for this land. We do not serve for ideological political reasons. So yes; history, culture and tradition, that definately sums that up. No matter what state Russia is in, no matter how bad the goverment might treat us, Russians will always fight because their country asked them to; sense of duty. This is my land, where I was born. This is where my house, my home, is. This is the land that my family has lived and died on for generations. This is the very soil on which my church stands. This country is my past my present and my future and I would gladly put my life on the line for it should it need me to.
As for having to fight - every soldier has to fight. A soldier doesn't have a choice in that. Sense of superiority - I suppose it depends on the person more but I should tell you that it is not in Russia's nature to be the first in everything and better then everyone, we wouldn't go to war over it anyways.

As for not knowing why - well first and foremost you fight because you are told. Any soldier knows that befor anything. However with the collapse of the USSR Russia was at rockbottom during the 90s. During this period a it became very hard for people, especially those growing up, to understand what their country was and what it stood for. You mentioned earlier the conflict in chechnya. Few people here seem to know much about it. Even less know how or why it really started. This war is a classic example of the Russian military superiors sending it's troops ill equiped and unprepared to their deaths. The soldiers that fought and died there weren't defending their country, but they were fighting because their country asked them to. That and the fact that those chechen S.O.B.s massacre innocent little children would definately bring rage to a Russian's heart.

Appologies for straying off topic.

As for the subject - we're all putting our opinions down. We're not arriving at any conclusions besides the fact that many would die... and I don't think we ever will. Both countries have tons of aircraft and good pilots. Some very good tech two. Pray to God they'll never go to war with each other.

Regards,
Maestro

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
No B2 has ever been shot down. Serbian propoganda is rediculous. Russian sources are wrong. I made that phone call a few minutes ago - sure enough, there are 21 B-2s in operation right now. As far as I know, its never even been shot at.

As for a picture of all 21 B-2s in one place, dont count on it ever. Have you ever even seen TWO B-2s in one picture? I havent. Much less 21.

LoL, if the serbs had ever brought down a B-2, its wreckage would be on display right next to the F-117, if not towering above it on a ceremonial platform.

Not only that, but it would have caused such an uproar in the USA due to ultra-expensive tech that doesnt work, we would have heard about it.

BOTTOM LINE: NO B-2 HAS EVER BEEN SHOT DOWN. PERIOD.

1. You Mean these Pics: www.zianet.com...
2. Here's the link Steller X provided before; www.aim.org... showing the U.S. Govrernment addmitting it can,and has lost tracks of Planes/Tanks/Missiles, so it would be difficult for them to hide the news that B-2's have been shot down, not that difficult.

Originally posted by YASKY

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
No B2 has ever been shot down. Serbian propoganda is rediculous. Russian sources are wrong. I made that phone call a few minutes ago - sure enough, there are 21 B-2s in operation right now. As far as I know, its never even been shot at.

As for a picture of all 21 B-2s in one place, dont count on it ever. Have you ever even seen TWO B-2s in one picture? I havent. Much less 21.

LoL, if the serbs had ever brought down a B-2, its wreckage would be on display right next to the F-117, if not towering above it on a ceremonial platform.

Not only that, but it would have caused such an uproar in the USA due to ultra-expensive tech that doesnt work, we would have heard about it.

BOTTOM LINE: NO B-2 HAS EVER BEEN SHOT DOWN. PERIOD.

1. You Mean these Pics: www.zianet.com...
2. Here's the link Steller X provided before; www.aim.org... showing the U.S. Govrernment addmitting it can,and has lost tracks of Planes/Tanks/Missiles, so it would be difficult for them to hide the news that B-2's have been shot down, not that difficult.

no he was saying that it would be difficult to impossible losing track of an aircraft that runs at a costly price tag of $2 billion dollars per aircraft. Good luck hiding that.

[edit on 043030p://3106pm by semperfoo]

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by YASKY

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
No B2 has ever been shot down. Serbian propoganda is rediculous. Russian sources are wrong. I made that phone call a few minutes ago - sure enough, there are 21 B-2s in operation right now. As far as I know, its never even been shot at.

As for a picture of all 21 B-2s in one place, dont count on it ever. Have you ever even seen TWO B-2s in one picture? I havent. Much less 21.

LoL, if the serbs had ever brought down a B-2, its wreckage would be on display right next to the F-117, if not towering above it on a ceremonial platform.

Not only that, but it would have caused such an uproar in the USA due to ultra-expensive tech that doesnt work, we would have heard about it.

BOTTOM LINE: NO B-2 HAS EVER BEEN SHOT DOWN. PERIOD.

1. You Mean these Pics: www.zianet.com...
2. Here's the link Steller X provided before; www.aim.org... showing the U.S. Govrernment addmitting it can,and has lost tracks of Planes/Tanks/Missiles, so it would be difficult for them to hide the news that B-2's have been shot down, not that difficult.

no he was saying that it would be difficult to impossible losing track of an aircraft that runs at a costly price tag of $2 billion dollars per aircraft.

Good luck hiding that.

[edit on 043030p://3106pm by semperfoo]

No what I was meaning, is "It would NOT" be difficult for the U.S. Gov to hide info about U.S. planes being shot down.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 16-6-2007 by YASKY]