So we are back to the Cold War again?

Where are you getting figures for the percentage of Soviet pilots?

According to Budiansky, "In late March 1951, the 1st RSM (1st Radio Squadron, Mobile), still operating in Japan, picked up Russian ground controllers in voice communication with Soviet MiG fighter aircraft operating over North Korea. This became an "intelligence windfall", because "Soviet doctrine called for tight control of fighters by stations on the ground tracking the location of friendly and enemy aircraft on radar throughout the battle." These radio intercepts gave additional warning beyond the range of radar. This breakthrough in signals intelligence, centralized at a single USAFSS facility in Seoul, meant real-time listening of Russian controllers and fighters and the subsequent passing of information to U.S. pilots. "An analysis of ground control traffic in June 1952 concluded that more than 90 percent of MiGs engaged in air operations over North Korea were being flown by Russians."

That is incorrect. Highly trained Soviet pilots were a match for American pilots.

Condemning Barack Obama for deliberately sabotaging the US armed forces is not grasping at straws.

Right here.

Quote:

According to Budiansky, "In late March 1951, the 1st RSM (1st Radio Squadron, Mobile), still operating in Japan, picked up Russian ground controllers in voice communication with Soviet MiG fighter aircraft operating over North Korea. This became an "intelligence windfall", because "Soviet doctrine called for tight control of fighters by stations on the ground tracking the location of friendly and enemy aircraft on radar throughout the battle." These radio intercepts gave additional warning beyond the range of radar. This breakthrough in signals intelligence, centralized at a single USAFSS facility in Seoul, meant real-time listening of Russian controllers and fighters and the subsequent passing of information to U.S. pilots. "An analysis of ground control traffic in June 1952 concluded that more than 90 percent of MiGs engaged in air operations over North Korea were being flown by Russians."

So there's your answer. At least 90 percent were flown by Russian pilots.

And the MiGs still got shellacked by American planes flown by American pilots.

Maybe if you took the best of the Russian pilots, sent them to the USAF training facility, and fixed them up with an American plane. Otherwise, forget about it-the Russians piloting Russian planes were much more likely to be shot down by an American fighter than shoot down an American fighter.

Sheesh. How many times do I have to post this chart?

"Sabotaging US forces" by continuing the development of the fifth generation F-35, a plane which leaves the Russians behind on both air-to-air and air-to-ground attack.

Face it, we have a much better plane,

but you figured that by complaining about the F-22 cutback you can cover for the way Trump is doing his best to weaken NATO.

It appears that the Soviets added a lot of rookies to their squads in 1952:

How could they do this, when all the American aces in that same period (Ralph Gibson, Dick Becker, etc) could only score 5-6 MiG kills? (except for the intrepid Major George A. Davis, who was credited with 14 kills) As a group, were the Russians 2-3 times better fighter pilots than their American opponents, as the claimed scores of 15 vs. 5 might imply? Not at all. Despite the secrecy surrounding Soviet operations in Korea and the lack of need to inflate the tally for propaganda purposes, several factors helped overstate Russian scores:

Many Soviet medium and high-ranking officers wanted to gain favour with the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin (well known for killing or deporting Soviet generals who failed in accomplish his wishes), and one way to do so was to inflate the score of the MiG regiments in Korea.


The Soviet pilots earn 1,500 additional rubles for every air victory they were credited with. It is quite likely that there were many false claims, just for the money.

The gun camera images of the MiG-15 were of such poor quality, that the Russian gun camera analysts decided that if a US plane appeared in a pic, then they would credit a "kill," even when they did not notice shell strikes, smoke, or an ejection.

If we add to such factors the usual over-claiming -in good faith, but over-claiming in the end- of any war, then we can understand why the Soviet 64th IAK claimed the unbelievable figure of 1,106 UN aircraft destroyed in the Korean War. (532 of them in the "Honcho Period," when only 142 Allied aircraft were actually downed by the Soviet MiG-15 pilots). So, many of those scores must be seen with a lot of skepticism,

Now why would the Russians do that, if their aces were supposedly shooting our fighters down left and right?

Could it be that their "aces" were really not so ace, that the Russian account is faulty and in fact they needed the rookies because their experienced pilots were getting shot down?

Your own link is telling you not to take your own figures seriously.

Besides which, I do not accept-nor would anyone sane accept-simply totalling up some scores of some selected "aces" as proving one side got the better of things.

The Russian sources are not reliable, even your own reference says so. So you have no evidence for your claim that the Russians in Russian planes are anywhere near as good as the Americans in American planes.

History has proven over and over, they are not.

Here's the goddamn chart again. Wrap your mind around it, and accept reality, your flimsy excuses don't stand up to the chart.

Now that this has been settled, your attempt to claim Obama has hurt the US military by ending the F-22 production but continuing development of the F-35, a plane Russia despises because they have no answer for it-also goes down the drain.

Could it be that their "aces" were really not so ace, that the Russian account is faulty and in fact they needed the rookies because their experienced pilots were getting shot down?

No.

oralloy wrote:

Blickers wrote:

Could it be that their "aces" were really not so ace, that the Russian account is faulty and in fact they needed the rookies because their experienced pilots were getting shot down?

No.

Yes, obviously, that's the reason.

The Russian records "prove" the aces were shooting down American jets piloted by Americans, but the same source that gave you this information admits that the Soviet records on shoot-downs was off by some 400%.

Besides which, when you compare how well one side did in any conflict, you take the damage one side did to the other, and decide which is greater. Your cockamamie method says throw up the records of their best few pilots, and if their best few pilots shot down more than the American pilots, that means the Russians got the better of it.

That makes about as much sense as judging a football team's offense by them bragging their best receiver scored 12 touchdowns. Which is pretty nice for one player, but if those 12 touchdowns constitute all or most of your scoring that season, then you are a horribly low scoring team.

Compound that with the fact the Russian records are woefully inaccurate, stated so by the very same source you obtained these "records" in the first place, and what you have on your hands is a complete mess. Matters are not helped by the fact that Russian accounts of planes shot down remain propagandistic nonsense even today, and your argument falls down further, hard as that is to do.

So now that is taken care of, I think it is safe to say that most sane readers will understand that if the Korean War record is what you base your claims on Russian equality in air power, then your claim remains ridiculous.

What is not ridiculous, however, is the F-35 which after numerous delays is the only fifth generation aircraft out there and which puts the Russian aircraft to shame.

It's unfortunate that you have to run down America's finest plane-a technical marvel

-in order to try to push Russian propaganda about the capabilites of their cheap knock-off aircraft, but apparently that is where your arguments have left you. Better you than I.

Russia’s acts of sabotage against western targets may eventually prompt Nato to consider invoking the alliance’s Article 5 mutual defence clause, the head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service has warned.

Speaking at an event of the German Council of Foreign Relations (DGAP) think tank in Berlin on Wednesday, BND chief Bruno Kahl said he expected Moscow to further step up its hybrid warfare.

Regional leaders meet after undersea telecoms cables severed, while Chinese ship remains at anchor nearby

The Swedish prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, has said the Baltic sea is now a “high risk” zone as he met Nordic and Baltic leaders days after a suspected sabotage attack on undersea cables.

The Swedish prime minister declined to speculate on who may have been responsible for the severing of two fibre optic telecoms cables in the Baltic last week. A Chinese ship – the Yi Peng 3 – that sailed over the cables about the time they were severed has remained anchored in the Kattegat strait between Sweden and Denmark since 19 November.

China’s foreign ministry has denied any responsibility in the matter.

Speaking from the summit, in Harpsund, the Swedish prime minister’s country retreat, Kristersson told the Guardian: “We are aware that there is a high risk for different types of activities on the Baltic sea that are dangerous.”

He added: “Now we are careful about not accusing anybody right now of anything. We don’t know that this is sabotage. But we are investigating the matter very carefully.”

Earlier this month, before the suspected attack on the two undersea cables between Sweden and Lithuania and Finland and Germany, Kristersson’s government vetoed plans for 13 offshore windfarms in the Baltic, citing unacceptable security risks.

The prime minister said the move was not connected to any prior knowledge of a potential imminent undersea cable attack.

The Swedish prosecutor on Wednesday said it had finished its crime scene investigations of the two damaged cables outside Gotland and Öland and that analysis of the material was continuing. A state prosecutor, Henrik Söderman, said:

“The preliminary investigation continues, and a closer collaboration will be initiated within the framework of the joint investigation group within the next period of time.”

The Danish navy and German and Swedish coastguards on Wednesday remained close to the Chinese ship, Yi Peng 3.

As a new Nato member, Kristersson said that Sweden was “safer and more secure” within the alliance than it was before – despite the longtime Nato scepticism of the US president-elect, Donald Trump.

He added: “We have known for a long time that the US administration, both Republican and Democrat, have waited for the European Nato countries to take greater responsibility for their own security. That is what we are working on right now.”