This is not a commercial song. This video was made by Sukhoi. I was missing this ever since my PC died... thanks nikkit for putting this on RUclips! :D
In the description of Su-33 at wikipedia you can also find: "Also, with a ski jump launch, the aircraft can engage full afterburner earlier than a catapult launch, because the aircraft is restrained by pop-up detents rather than a catapult shoe. Once in the air the aircraft has a positive AOA as well as pitch angular speed which increases during acceleration, and assists the climb. This method does require an aircraft that is more stable and maneuverable at low speeds."
Having a Su33 refuel another Su33 would actually be a lot less trouble than using another plane. As you can imagine it is much easier for them to match speeds and handling conditions. Plus the turbulance behind a Su33 would be a lot less severe than say an American KC135 or a KC130 going max speed, most jet fighters would be on the verge of stalling trying to go slow enough to connect. The cobra is still an incredible maneuver to watch though.
@EMT308 as you noticed, the Admiral Kusnetsov does not need a catapulting system. the Su-33 has enough power to start from the angled jump pad (just like on the british carriers the harrier does)
Its because the flanker is aerodynamically stable enough to have such low takeoff speed without stalling, thus removing the need to build catapults. (less landing gear reinforcement = less weight = more payload) You only see the canards on the Naval flankers because it is there to improve low speed handling.
To answer your question, the MiG-29K production line is currently running due to an export to India, the Russian SU-33 airframes are in dire need of replacement and it was far more cost effective to bolt on extra MiG-29s to the Indian production run for the Navy's requirement than it would be to start up the SU-33 production line again to make new jets for the Navy.
the ramp is due to the lack of aircraft catipult research when the admiral kuztensov was being constructed, so the ramp helps the aircraft gain extra lift.
@JVC7400 True. Detection range matters and I'm not disputing that. Regarding F-35 though, I'm not sure whether Su-35S will be purchased with L-band AESAs in wing leading edge which will change the detection range. We'll have to see how RuAF will order their stuff.
Lets not forget the date of design. Its essentially still a 1990 design with old avionics while Super Hornet was relatively recently produced. It can turn with 8G and possibly more while F/A-18E/F can have about 7.5 if my figures are correct. Also Super Hornet doesn't do Mach2+ due to fixed-geometry intakes. Su does 2300km/h. Super Hornet has vastly better avionics package.
Yup, you got that right Nikitns! And yes, I remember the old US-India war game. This year, for the RedFlag exercise, Indian Sukhoi pilots have been ordered NOT to use their new Irbis radars... obvious reasons.
IMO aesthetically the SU-33 is the most beautiful fighter a/c in the world, when as a kid I was drawing fighters it always looked like a MIG29 or SU33 despite I'm dutch and we have F16's here ;)
Bigger, faster doesn't mean better. The hornet is the first naval jet of its kind that is a fighter and attack plane, which is why the F-14 was decommd. Israel doesnt need a carrier jet, they use the F-15 and 16 (and Kfir) since they meet the attack and air superiority roles. Ask anyone who has flown both the F-14 and F-18 and let them tell you which is better for the intended role. The JSF is due to enter service in the US Navy soon. 8 other countries currently use the hornet (AUT,CAN)
The Su-33 is a heavy air combat jet some F-14, the F-18 is short and limit operation, the Su-33 is a one naval air combat jet, over Rafale and Harrier air combate jet.
Only F-14 available? News flash, the F-14 has been retried from US front line service and replaced by the F-!8 Super Hornet, which is a better performing plane compared to the F-14. The F-14 was designed for long range interception (w/ Phoenix ). It would be interesting to see how the 33 would compare to the new Lockheed JSF. It can perform the cobra, and take off/land vertically.
As to external fuel: none of the Flankers, except the newest Su-27BM use external fuel pods due to the fact that their range on internal fuel makes them meet expectations that were placed on them in Russian armed forces. So, I can imagine the Su-33 taking off on 60% internal fuel and with a full weapons load. Doesn't seem to be a problem, since its range on 100% is 3000km.
Don't forget what he said about thrust vectoring. The Su does not have that. They tried it with the Su-37. Which was an Su-27 with thrust conversions and what not. 2 crashed, the third was turned back into a 27. So far Russian efforts wit thrust vectoring and engine reliability have been failures.
Aircraft Carriers are part of a larger offensive army. In fact you don't need aircraft carriers if you've a defensive military strategy, like Russia does.
@YZach Also if it were to fire 180 degrees back, the missile will have to go through 0 velocity region which would reduce its range even more since the missile will first bring itself to a literal stand-still (where it'll simply start falling out of the sky) and then it'd have to accelerate up and towards a target. Try remembering that firing up from low speed (as F-35 will) reduces missile range while firing down from high speed (as Su-35S will) increases it. Kinematics are fun :)
Irrespective of the ability of the carrier or aircraft SURELY everyone has to agree that the Soviet Carrier looks much better, a absolute man made beauty, as does the Su-33 compared to an Eagle or Tomcat
@arkstone May i ask from where you got that information? the F-22 is the size of a metal marble. far less than 0,01 m2. - (0.0002~0.0005 m2) 0,3m2 is the same as a clean Rafale.
@KEEPitGREEN4201 Are you referring to the "feel" of it or actual advantages? I just don't exactly understand what you are trying to say there. It would feel great for accelerating fast no doubt.
@RRVCrinale exactly, the T-50's and Su-35/30MKI are not build against america but for export and money, its a commercial brance. thats why they are made by companies like Mikoyan and locheed Martin.
All these Su-33s need is a thorough avionics and mission systems refit to Su-35S standards. They are still fine airframes that will show at least 90% of modern fighters today what it can do. The only thing that this plane can be faulted on is its electronics.
From the forums i red, that radar is considrably more advanced than the APG-68 mate. And barely? that was just funny rofl. It is now being modified with ligher parts, and becoming lighter. Its simply overlord, if i would speak in youre manner... :)
@Spetsnazovets This is not what i meant... first of all, im talking about the next decade, russia has accuired 60 su-35's with 12 already in service. The US is looking forward to purchase 2443 F-35's. The Irbis-e can detect 0,01 m2 target at 90 km away. the F-22 has a RCS signature of a marble, (ball with 1,4 cm diameter). now you do the math, all i am saying that it is way smaller than what the SU-35 can pick up at a fair distance. Compare this to what distance the Su-35 will be detected.
@arkstone Yes, he says they are designed to track them, but have they ever picked one up, (And identified) one of them? it may be buildt to do it. but that does not mean it works in practical. - But how are they going to know that the RCS is 0,03 m2?
@YZach LOL FYO the only missiles that MIGHT have that ability are AIM-9X and F-35 would use DAS for that. But you failed to read my post: With Flanker firing first, from 25km, its OUTSIDE AIM-9X RANGE of 10km hence CAN'T be killed by it since AIM-9X can't hit targets beyond its max range. Also to shoot 180 degrees back, F-35 would have to be in "see through plane" mode and the pilot'd have to look back and lock onto it for the missile to have an idea where actually to go.
@supermankicass That's interesting. And what kind of air to air kill ratio does the MIG-29 have? How about the SU-27 and its millions of varients? Have any of them shot down an F-16 or F-15? That's a trick question. Who is best is proven on the battlefield. Not at an airshow.
@ganarzon Look up the weapons loadout of this carrier. It has a compliment of anti-ship missiles. Granit i think. Russians call it Aircraft carrying battle cruiser for a good reason.
thats what YOU think.but you are a bit right for some thing ,f22 need better missiles,range,stealth !(btw:russian radar and missiles can easily see Stealth plane ,just like f14 and f16 and f18...
The Russian might have the more impressive aircraft on their deck, but the USN has them beaten by sheer bulk alone. Currently, the US have a dozen nuclear-powered supercarriers and the Russians have that one small carrier.
what are you basing the "bad air combat jet" from? The super is better, yes, but last i checked its an improvement over the F-14 in many ways. "The Hornet cost per flight hour is 40% of the F-14 Tomcat and requires 75% less labor hours per flight hour." Cost is a factor, and in combat "The F/A-18 demonstrated its capabilities and versatility during Desert Storm, shooting down enemy fighters (Mig-29, SU's) and subsequently bombing enemy targets with the same aircraft on the same mission"
@JVC7400 Yeah. Suspicions may keep it spotty for the time being, but at this point we're all just developing aircraft to stay current and to stay ahead of any customers for either nation's export weapons. That's why fighter development was important, is important, and will be for the forseeable future. As an American who loves his country and respects Russia, I hope whenever our fighters meet with sights squarely set on each other it's for exercises to improve the breed.
@YZach I merely stated my professional opinion as an aviation techo. Another thing you STILL ignore is the missile range. I never said that LOAL is impossible. I stated about what that kind of launch will do to its missiles range. While that kind of shot might be possible, the missile will simply not reach its target since its outside the range the missile can cover.
@JVC7400 First off USAF haven't got a single operational F-35 just like Russia don't have operational Su-35S However Su-35S is vastly cheaper and more capable in BVR as well as WVR. How will F-35 (and F-22 for that matter) guide their missiles if and stable emission (in our case target update data-link) is easily detectable (missile needs to receive it) and opponent with a good ESM system can lock onto those and either jam it (missile fails) or use it for its own missile shot as guidance?
Also, a Raptor can, but i dont see it could own Sukhois, as they use more accurate and longer range missiles than US does. Theyre also currently being refitted with EW.
Now, about US so called BVR advantege: AIM-120 AMRAAM: Speed: Mach 4 Top range with top version: 180Kms, Warhead, 23 Kgs fragmentation. Guidence: Active radar, INS. Vymppel R-77M1 Warheads: 30Kgs Speed: Over mach 4. Range: 175 Km Guidence: Inertial with mid-course update and terminal active radar homing The Vympel is also considerd far more accurate and manouvrebal than the AIM-120 AARAAM.. Also, as i said, the new Sukhois are now being fitted with EW,so i dont see much of an advantege to US
The F-22 has fancy LO technology, which comes at a trade off,while the max G figure for the F-22 is 7.5 G The F-16 and F-15 have a max G of 9+, Although, the F-22 also has thrust vectoring which probably makes it's turn rate pretty good, But the F-16 and F-15's still can make much more powerful 9 G turns hmmm,
@blairmulcahy You are sooo right. The american carriers are so big they are US territory! Massive target, key to the mission, sink the carrier, and that is a major set back. The Russian ones look nicer, and along with the FA18, the SU33 would be my choice for carrier fighters. Also, hit the deck of a US carrier and they have to repair the deck and catapult. For the Adm. Kuznetzov just repair the deck.
well i'm from america and i say you dont know what you're talking about this plane has never been on the same side of the earth as any air to air combat
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This is not a commercial song. This video was made by Sukhoi. I was missing this ever since my PC died... thanks nikkit for putting this on RUclips! :D
Even as an American, I admire this amazing piece of Russian technology
In the description of Su-33 at wikipedia you can also find: "Also, with a ski jump launch, the aircraft can engage full afterburner earlier than a catapult launch, because the aircraft is restrained by pop-up detents rather than a catapult shoe. Once in the air the aircraft has a positive AOA as well as pitch angular speed which increases during acceleration, and assists the climb. This method does require an aircraft that is more stable and maneuverable at low speeds."
Having a Su33 refuel another Su33 would actually be a lot less trouble than using another plane. As you can imagine it is much easier for them to match speeds and handling conditions. Plus the turbulance behind a Su33 would be a lot less severe than say an American KC135 or a KC130 going max speed, most jet fighters would be on the verge of stalling trying to go slow enough to connect.
The cobra is still an incredible maneuver to watch though.
the sukhoi flankers really are the most beautiful planes in the world.
holy shit it doesnt even need a catapult
Beautiful plane and excellent music! This video is saved to my favorites. :-D
@EMT308 as you noticed, the Admiral Kusnetsov does not need a catapulting system. the Su-33 has enough power to start from the angled jump pad (just like on the british carriers the harrier does)
This is really a nice video, thanks a lot to the uploader.
Its because the flanker is aerodynamically stable enough to have such low takeoff speed without stalling, thus removing the need to build catapults. (less landing gear reinforcement = less weight = more payload)
You only see the canards on the Naval flankers because it is there to improve low speed handling.
In soviet russia, planes launch aircraft carriers !
To answer your question, the MiG-29K production line is currently running due to an export to India, the Russian SU-33 airframes are in dire need of replacement and it was far more cost effective to bolt on extra MiG-29s to the Indian production run for the Navy's requirement than it would be to start up the SU-33 production line again to make new jets for the Navy.
Very Cool. But I didn't like the Bond style explosion sound placed over the video.
But otherwise, one of the better aviation videos I've seen.
i dont like war but its cool to see these fighters and awsome techonologies people have
This is a great video. What soundtrack is that ? Very good
the ramp is due to the lack of aircraft catipult research when the admiral kuztensov was being constructed, so the ramp helps the aircraft gain extra lift.
@OpelGTC one of unique aspects is the shortened tail boom between the engines
Actually the thrust vectoring version of this aircraft is the SU-37
@JVC7400 True. Detection range matters and I'm not disputing that. Regarding F-35 though, I'm not sure whether Su-35S will be purchased with L-band AESAs in wing leading edge which will change the detection range. We'll have to see how RuAF will order their stuff.
Lets not forget the date of design. Its essentially still a 1990 design with old avionics while Super Hornet was relatively recently produced. It can turn with 8G and possibly more while F/A-18E/F can have about 7.5 if my figures are correct. Also Super Hornet doesn't do Mach2+ due to fixed-geometry intakes. Su does 2300km/h. Super Hornet has vastly better avionics package.
Yup, you got that right Nikitns!
And yes, I remember the old US-India war game. This year, for the RedFlag exercise, Indian Sukhoi pilots have been ordered NOT to use their new Irbis radars... obvious reasons.
IMO aesthetically the SU-33 is the most beautiful fighter a/c in the world, when as a kid I was drawing fighters it always looked like a MIG29 or SU33 despite I'm dutch and we have F16's here ;)
They take off easily, but it would be nice to see the suspense of a full payload and a large amount of fuel aboard.
Bigger, faster doesn't mean better. The hornet is the first naval jet of its kind that is a fighter and attack plane, which is why the F-14 was decommd. Israel doesnt need a carrier jet, they use the F-15 and 16 (and Kfir) since they meet the attack and air superiority roles. Ask anyone who has flown both the F-14 and F-18 and let them tell you which is better for the intended role. The JSF is due to enter service in the US Navy soon. 8 other countries currently use the hornet (AUT,CAN)
The Su-33 is a heavy air combat jet some F-14, the F-18 is short and limit operation, the Su-33 is a one naval air combat jet, over Rafale and Harrier air combate jet.
me impresionan todos los aviones de combate rusos
Only F-14 available? News flash, the F-14 has been retried from US front line service and replaced by the F-!8 Super Hornet, which is a better performing plane compared to the F-14. The F-14 was designed for long range interception (w/ Phoenix ). It would be interesting to see how the 33 would compare to the new Lockheed JSF. It can perform the cobra, and take off/land vertically.
2:20 WOW o.O
As to external fuel: none of the Flankers, except the newest Su-27BM use external fuel pods due to the fact that their range on internal fuel makes them meet expectations that were placed on them in Russian armed forces. So, I can imagine the Su-33 taking off on 60% internal fuel and with a full weapons load. Doesn't seem to be a problem, since its range on 100% is 3000km.
@cchanderson
I think this plane came in to serves during the 90's. It was finished during the 80's
lol i like how they have a ramp instead of steam projection system
Player is Joe Satriani for sure, they love to use his music a lot for Sukhoi videos!
Don't forget what he said about thrust vectoring. The Su does not have that. They tried it with the Su-37. Which was an Su-27 with thrust conversions and what not. 2 crashed, the third was turned back into a 27. So far Russian efforts wit thrust vectoring and engine reliability have been failures.
2:21. Tom Cruise would love this aircraft!
Aircraft Carriers are part of a larger offensive army. In fact you don't need aircraft carriers if you've a defensive military strategy, like Russia does.
2:22 i admire this f@cking maneurability that su series has,,,
damn,,,, its Perfect, its the best,,,,,
this is a nice video and the su-33 is a nice jet
There would be insane when we could see videos like this, but with the PAKFA :A
Who knows the author of this music? or composition?
p. s. great video, excellent music!
Sukhoi's are freaking huge. 72-74 feet long. 10 longer then the F-15, which was as long as a WWII bomber.
DAME THIS SONG ROCKS
@YZach Also if it were to fire 180 degrees back, the missile will have to go through 0 velocity region which would reduce its range even more since the missile will first bring itself to a literal stand-still (where it'll simply start falling out of the sky) and then it'd have to accelerate up and towards a target. Try remembering that firing up from low speed (as F-35 will) reduces missile range while firing down from high speed (as Su-35S will) increases it. Kinematics are fun :)
@harris3693 not exactly, the terminator is not even a fighter in service. just a tech demonstrator
I love this plane. It's one of the many reasons I have a massive amount for Russia.
Irrespective of the ability of the carrier or aircraft SURELY everyone has to agree that the Soviet Carrier looks much better, a absolute man made beauty, as does the Su-33 compared to an Eagle or Tomcat
My favorite plane, considering how much the flanker looks like a bird of prey.
@arkstone May i ask from where you got that information? the F-22 is the size of a metal marble. far less than 0,01 m2. - (0.0002~0.0005 m2)
0,3m2 is the same as a clean Rafale.
Probably my favourite fighter in the world, definitely my favourite russian fighter!!
From Australia!
@KEEPitGREEN4201 Are you referring to the "feel" of it or actual advantages? I just don't exactly understand what you are trying to say there. It would feel great for accelerating fast no doubt.
Best fighter plane in the world,no plane is a match to this
@RRVCrinale exactly, the T-50's and Su-35/30MKI are not build against america but for export and money, its a commercial brance. thats why they are made by companies like Mikoyan and locheed Martin.
fantastic video bravo.thx.
I like this song. Any ideas where it's from? Or is it just some internal job?
All these Su-33s need is a thorough avionics and mission systems refit to Su-35S standards. They are still fine airframes that will show at least 90% of modern fighters today what it can do. The only thing that this plane can be faulted on is its electronics.
the only problem is that they are always twenty years behind....
From the forums i red, that radar is considrably more advanced than the APG-68 mate. And barely? that was just funny rofl. It is now being modified with ligher parts, and becoming lighter. Its simply overlord, if i would speak in youre manner... :)
@Spetsnazovets This is not what i meant... first of all, im talking about the next decade, russia has accuired 60 su-35's with 12 already in service. The US is looking forward to purchase 2443 F-35's.
The Irbis-e can detect 0,01 m2 target at 90 km away. the F-22 has a RCS signature of a marble, (ball with 1,4 cm diameter). now you do the math, all i am saying that it is way smaller than what the SU-35 can pick up at a fair distance. Compare this to what distance the Su-35 will be detected.
Dude here are the catapults? awesome
nice video, nice background music too, anyone have any idea what's name of this music? many thanks.
so damm cool airplane...nice video =)
@pR05t0 We have always had both.....thank you!
@arkstone Yes, he says they are designed to track them, but have they ever picked one up, (And identified) one of them? it may be buildt to do it. but that does not mean it works in practical.
- But how are they going to know that the RCS is 0,03 m2?
very impressive plane
@YZach LOL FYO the only missiles that MIGHT have that ability are AIM-9X and F-35 would use DAS for that. But you failed to read my post: With Flanker firing first, from 25km, its OUTSIDE AIM-9X RANGE of 10km hence CAN'T be killed by it since AIM-9X can't hit targets beyond its max range. Also to shoot 180 degrees back, F-35 would have to be in "see through plane" mode and the pilot'd have to look back and lock onto it for the missile to have an idea where actually to go.
What's the music? I love it.
@supermankicass That's interesting. And what kind of air to air kill ratio does the MIG-29 have? How about the SU-27 and its millions of varients? Have any of them shot down an F-16 or F-15? That's a trick question. Who is best is proven on the battlefield. Not at an airshow.
Su-33 offer to China and India, without F-14 of US NAVY. the Su-33 is the best caza in aircraft carrier.
@ganarzon Look up the weapons loadout of this carrier. It has a compliment of anti-ship missiles. Granit i think. Russians call it Aircraft carrying battle cruiser for a good reason.
Beside this aircraft carrier is the only one in the world with an intrinsic atack capability.
@ImTheMightyOne Cheers. I havent looked that up for a while and my memory is a bit rusty.
If you look carfully you can see a little bit of f16 and f15 mix together
thats what YOU think.but you are a bit right for some thing ,f22 need better missiles,range,stealth !(btw:russian radar and missiles can easily see Stealth plane ,just like f14 and f16 and f18...
man i wanna fly that... loks awesome!
They call them Wing Air Refueling Pods or WARPs
WEll not really, the EA-6B Prowler has seen continual upgrades, and now the EA-18G Growler is on its way
I do not love war. But high technologies are necessary to avoid it. But some countries understand it scornfully.
This is hard facts i brought. you brought hard nationalism...
The Russian might have the more impressive aircraft on their deck, but the USN has them beaten by sheer bulk alone. Currently, the US have a dozen nuclear-powered supercarriers and the Russians have that one small carrier.
what are you basing the "bad air combat jet" from? The super is better, yes, but last i checked its an improvement over the F-14 in many ways. "The Hornet cost per flight hour is 40% of the F-14 Tomcat and requires 75% less labor hours per flight hour." Cost is a factor, and in combat "The F/A-18 demonstrated its capabilities and versatility during Desert Storm, shooting down enemy fighters (Mig-29, SU's) and subsequently bombing enemy targets with the same aircraft on the same mission"
@JVC7400 Yeah. Suspicions may keep it spotty for the time being, but at this point we're all just developing aircraft to stay current and to stay ahead of any customers for either nation's export weapons. That's why fighter development was important, is important, and will be for the forseeable future.
As an American who loves his country and respects Russia, I hope whenever our fighters meet with sights squarely set on each other it's for exercises to improve the breed.
Very nice vid
@JVC7400
On the other hand how do you know the F-22's stealth works as advertized?
Admiral Kuznetsov = sold to Indian Navy undergoing a complete rehaul.
@YZach I merely stated my professional opinion as an aviation techo. Another thing you STILL ignore is the missile range. I never said that LOAL is impossible. I stated about what that kind of launch will do to its missiles range. While that kind of shot might be possible, the missile will simply not reach its target since its outside the range the missile can cover.
su 27 ,su30,su33,su37, how many times can you rebuild the same goddamn plane?
@Spetsnazovets aircraft carrying battle cruiser!! i like that
Is it just me, or is there no Cat on that ship? How do they get flying speed on such a short deck? Or is the SU-33 just that good?
What a beauty!
Actually you should compare the F-22 to the Su-27BM or PAK-FA. The Su-33 is the Russian equivalent of the American Super Hornet and the Rafale.
@JVC7400 First off USAF haven't got a single operational F-35 just like Russia don't have operational Su-35S However Su-35S is vastly cheaper and more capable in BVR as well as WVR. How will F-35 (and F-22 for that matter) guide their missiles if and stable emission (in our case target update data-link) is easily detectable (missile needs to receive it) and opponent with a good ESM system can lock onto those and either jam it (missile fails) or use it for its own missile shot as guidance?
can these machines do such manueveurs with full load during a dogfight?
Also, a Raptor can, but i dont see it could own Sukhois, as they use more accurate and longer range missiles than US does. Theyre also currently being refitted with EW.
Now, about US so called BVR advantege:
AIM-120 AMRAAM: Speed: Mach 4 Top range with top version: 180Kms, Warhead, 23 Kgs fragmentation.
Guidence: Active radar, INS.
Vymppel R-77M1
Warheads: 30Kgs
Speed: Over mach 4.
Range: 175 Km
Guidence: Inertial with mid-course update and terminal active radar homing
The Vympel is also considerd far more accurate and manouvrebal than the AIM-120 AARAAM..
Also, as i said, the new Sukhois are now being fitted with EW,so i dont see much of an advantege to US
awesome...
The F-22 has fancy LO technology, which comes at a trade off,while the max G figure for the F-22 is 7.5 G The F-16 and F-15 have a max G of 9+, Although, the F-22 also has thrust vectoring which probably makes it's turn rate pretty good, But the F-16 and F-15's still can make much more powerful 9 G turns hmmm,
@blairmulcahy
You are sooo right. The american carriers are so big they are US territory! Massive target, key to the mission, sink the carrier, and that is a major set back. The Russian ones look nicer, and along with the FA18, the SU33 would be my choice for carrier fighters. Also, hit the deck of a US carrier and they have to repair the deck and catapult. For the Adm. Kuznetzov just repair the deck.
Beautiful jet i love american and russian jets if they got to together they would be unstoppable
that is one great plane...
well i'm from america and i say you dont know what you're talking about this plane has never been on the same side of the earth as any air to air combat
2:21 WTF