LevshaWell, bcs North Vietnam fired thousand :rolleyes: of SA-2 missiles, more likely the diagram is based on Vietnamese SA-2 type.
The Vietnamese did fire thousands of S-75s during the war with America, around 5800 or so – how many US aircraft did it actually knock down? Bear in mind most US aircraft were not flying at Mach 3 or at 90,000 ft (more likely a bomb laden F-105 at 600 kts). During the course of the war S-75s had a success rate reduced to around 1% or less, US ECM technology had basically neutralised the GUIDELINE as a threat to normal combat aircraft (we won’t even talk about the “insane” ECM kit on SR-71s).
Levshayes, about 1km per sec, the 5Ja23 missile moved at 1100m/s, it was enough range to shoot it down according to S-75 operators, the Blackbird was generally considered as an easy target.
I’m not sure about the S-75 being very effective against the SR-71 – I’m sure that dozens of them were fired at the Blackbird to no avail, especially over Vietnam. I should think that the USAF were more afraid of THE S-200 (SA-5) system, even more so than the MiG-25, and the S-200 would be the main reason why the SR-71 avoided Soviet airspace at all costs.
I wonder if the S-200 has ever been fired at the SR-71, say for example, over Libya?
LevshaSo the west had high off boresight missiles and HMS in service in 1990?
The USA had long already developed high off boresight missiles and HMS before the Soviets’ R-73 system. Just because you decide it’s to expensive to do something doesn’t mean you don’t have the know-how to actually do it…
LevshaFirst Taxi trials of the SSJ
The Sukhoi Superjet carried out it first taxiing and runway trials earlier today 13/05 in Komsomolsk-na-Amur in the Russian Far East. The plane reached a speed of 162 km/h on the runway.
According to flightglobal.com the first flight should be about the 20th of May.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/09/223562/superjet-aims-for-20-may-first-flight.html
LevshaIn addition, Caracas has expressed an interest in purchasing Mi-28NE Night Hunter attack helicopters.
Kommersant said Venezuela may buy at least 10 Night Hunters for a total of $200 million, with delivery beginning in the second half of 2009.
The advanced Mi-28N helicopters were inducted into the Russian Air Force last September. The first four aircraft will join the Russian Air Force in 2009 after additional testing.
It must take a lot of nerve to even consider buying the Mi-28N, bearing in mind that the Russians themselves have still not fully entered the type into military service.
I recall reading a while back that the Australians wouldn’t consider the South African Rooivalk (spelling) helicopter gunship when choosing a new gunship for the Australian military (later won by the Eurocopter Tiger).
Not because the South African machine didn’t fulfill the required specs, but simply because there were so few Rooivalks in service or ever likely to be and it was feared that servicing and finding spare parts would be a problem in the future.
LevshaA Lightning, with bubble canopy, four guns, two BVR AAMs, more fuel, and four underwing winders.
Or a Draken with a better radar and more AAMs.
Didn’t the Draken actually have the same British radar as the Lightning, the Airspeed AI-35 or some sort of designation like that?
It seems strange that the Draken, flying on one RR Avon seemed to be a more heavily armed aircraft and with a greater range than the Lightning, flying on two!
Just goes to show how much the EE Lightning was designed from the beginning as a pure uncompromised high-performance interceptor, while the SAAB was always intended to be a multi-role aircraft I suppose…:confused:
Levsha…and Mig-23s having to use afterburner occasionaly to keep up with the Tu-22M Backfires they are escorting.
Just like F-4 Phantoms had a hard time keeping up with A-5 Vigilantes over Vietnam (even though they were both powered by a pair of J-79s and the A-5 had a much heavier take-off weight).
LevshaThat’s nothing strange. Every pilot will confirm you that a Mi-24 Hind cannot match a transport Mi-8 Hip in terms of speed or maneuvrability, let alone the souped up Mi-17. Combat helicopters carry hundreds of kilograms of dead weight which cannot be removed (like armor or systems for aiming and firing weapons).
Really? Interesting!
By the same logic, I wonder could the AH-1 Cobra actually keep up the UH-1 Huey in Vietnam?
LevshaI watch both US (Discovery, History channels etc.) and Russian (Udarnaya Sila, Voennoe Delo etc.) military documentaries.
The US produced ones are nothing more than propagandist infomercials designed to entertain the average unknowledgable Joe-Joe. For example, I have never seen from them a single engagement (say in Vietnam) where the Americans did dot come out victorious:rolleyes:
The Russian made ones also contain some propaganda for the local masses, but they are more informatory and are far better made. Apart from showing bright victories and successes, they are more open in discussing failures, mishaps, crashes etc.
It is up to us to be able to filter out the junk out of the data/information and move on.
I lived in Russia for a few years and watched no small amount of Russian documentaries on TV, and I’d have to say, as regards bias, objectivity and quality of research, that they are a mixed bag indeed. I can remember one Russian documentary which spent a whole hour giving credence to the American manned missions to the moon as being nothing but a giant hoax, trotting out the usual lame evidence about strange shadows and flags flying in a wind that shouldn’t exist etc, without ever once mentioning the most obvious important fact, that the Soviet Union was itself engaged in its own manned lunar mission at the same time.
This was all counteracted the following week later by another excellently researched documentary about the very same Soviet lunar manned missions project, where one of the leading chiefs of the Soviet space programme accused those, who called the Apollo programme a hoax, as being “negramotnii” – illiterate!!
The last Discovery channel documentary I watched must have been “The Ten Greatest Helicopters” (on youtube) and while I can’t say it was a marvellous piece of documentary work, it did contain the two strong points typical of ‘Discovery’ – excellent footage and some interesting odd facts. How many people know that the AH-64 Apache has a hard time keeping up with the fully loaded Chinooks that they’re supposed to be escorting? Apparently the CH-47 actually has to slow down if it’s to retain its escort…:cool:
LevshaAcording to this newspaper it will indeed be the Tu-160 “White Swan,” possibly with an escort of fighters, if this is the “special surprise” we are talking about?:confused:
http://www.ng.ru/nvo/2008-04-30/7_parade.html?scroll=1
Between these two events just 10 days. At the Engels airbase in the Saratov region representatives of the Kazan aircraft production association named Gorbunov hand over 37 – Army and Air Force Russia entirely new supersonic strategic bomber Tu-160, which the West called Blackjack, and our pilots – “White Swan”. And on May 9 Red Square parade for Victory Day exactly the same aircraft will fly over the Kremlin, surrounded by an honorary escort of fighters.
Tu-160 now regularly flies at air patrols in the Arctic Ocean, Atlantic and Pacific, as well as in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. “Training both its pilots and pilots from NATO”, – said Russia Air Force Chief Colonel General Alexander Zelin.
Development of the Tu-160 began at the end of 1960s of the last century in response to the creation in the U.S. strategic B-1 bomber. Even outwardly they resemble something that is still the subject of jokes professional – whether Americans “grazed” we external shape and the principle of variable-geometry wing, whether we, as in the case of the atomic bomb, benefited from the domestic intelligence intelligence . But experts argue that these matches accidental, caused by a similar development of design ideas. A project originally EDO Tupolev, he won the contest for the creation of a new strategic bomber, similar to passenger aircraft Tu-144. But this configuration did not provide the necessary range in flight at subsonic speeds. And in 1975 a new draft – the plane “70” with variable-geometry wing.
Levsha[QUOTE=SOC;1240013]The Tu-144 was intended to be an SST just as much as the T-10 was intended to be a fighter jet.QUOTE]
well, an intention is something different entirely from actually achieving the real thing…
The Tu-144 was earning revenue before 1977, and before Concorde…
Yes, but not by carrying fee paying passengers. The flights between Moscow and Alma Ata carrying freight and mail were part of the final certification and acceptance trials before it’s allowed to carry passengers. It was typical of the Soviet system of bringing into service new types of civilian airliner. The Tu-154 underwent the same process.
Call the ‘CHARGER’ the world’s first supersonic ‘trash hauler’ if you like!:D
LevshaCough, cough.. RCAF C-17s…. RAAF C-17s… RAF C-17s… Cough, cough..
I should have said “USAF C-5s and C-17s were developed and purchased for the use by the USAF only”
The Australians, Canadians and the British were, of course, never consulted when the design specifications of these aircraft were being laid down.
Those particular countries won’t be renting their C-17s out for hire in the near future either…
So which aircraft was, then?
The Tu-144 which first flew in December 1968 was never an airliner and could never have been a suitable candidate for one either. Its role was more of a technology demonstrator if anything – in the same way that the EAP was in no way a Eurofighter or “Have Blue” was a stealth combat aircraft. The final Tu-144 which entered passenger service in 1977, was a very different aircraft in airframe design.
Concorde – first flown 02-Mar-1969, service commenced 21-Jan-1976
Tu-144 – first flown 31-Dec-1968, service commenced 26-Dec-1975
No, the first passenger service of the Tu-144 was on 1-Nov-1977, almost 20 months after the Concorde.
Unlike you, SOC know damn well what he is talking about.. I don’t require any proofs from him, because I know he has those.
Well, that’s just Hunky-Dory for you, isn’t it!:rolleyes:
But that’s of no use for a dispassionate observer of the discussion, who expects to see a logical process of reasoning and argument in action, now is it. What you’re saying is that it’s far more important the identity of the person making an argument – rather than the quality or strength of the argument itself…
So, those were not MiG-23MLs because you said so? Prove it.
I never tried to state anything. It’s you who needs to ‘prove it’.
But is it necessarily true, just because acig or the Iranian air force says it’s true? They both also say that Iranian F-14 Tomcats shot down 130+ Iraqi aircraft during the war, so that must be true too, I suppose… :rolleyes: 😎
As regards introduction date for the MiG-23ML into Iraqi air force service here’s something I found on the airwar.ru site
http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/persg/mig23/mig23.html
Check the first sentence on the second paragraph.
According to this site, the first MiG-23MLs were first delivered to Iraq through the port of Aqaba in the Dead sea during the winter of 1983 – but unlike some, I don’t believe every source I see – feel free to find an alternative source with an earlier delivery date if you can … they’ve all got equal validity, within reason, as far as I’m concerned!
Yes, they have existed. But I wonder what you really know about them. My question : how did Iraqi MiG-23MFs and MLs differ from those serving in SU?
Setting examinations now are we… are you some sort of member of an examinations board on Mig-23s?
Who runs the overall governing authority… GarryB??:dev2:
LevshaThe F-15 was designed especially to take on the Mig-25 – the Foxbat is the father and almost identical model for the F-15. In fact reduce the speed requirement for the Mig-25 to mach 2.5 so aluminium alloys can be used to reduce weight and cost and give the Mig-25 the later F-15s radar and avionics and you pretty much have an F-15.
No it wasn’t. It was designed to achieve air-superiority/supremacy over the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe – as a PVO fighter serving over the USSR proper, the MiG-25 would rarely expect to meet an F-15 in such a conflict (with the exception of the odd MIG-25R/RB).
Not lead and follow… action and reaction.
No, it’s being proactive, being reactive!
What makes you think RuAF are nonoperational?
I never said they weren’t operational – just that they probably fly as often as any other RuAF aircraft in service – not very often at all!
Even the US military uses An-124s under lease because their C-5s are inadequate for the job. When was the last time the Russians used a US transport to meet their needs? Never? Correct.
The United States of America did not collapse as political entity in 1991 and the USAF still functions as the world’s largest, busiest and best funded air force. C-5s and C-17s were developed and purchased for the use by the USAF only and are not for hire or sale to the highest bidder…
Never let the facts get in the way of a good stereotype….
There’s a grain of truth in every stereotype…
SOC:
Talk to almost any USAF pilot, even one outside of the air mobility community!
But what would a USAF pilot know about the operational issues and costs of an An-124 or any other Soviet built aircraft?
And when was this actually done with Soviet aircraft exported to other nations? MiG-23s, apart from the E model, were exported with R-23/24 and R-60 AAMs. MiG-25s were exported with R-40 and R-60 AAMs, a lot of which were the MiG-25PD variant. MiG-29s were, contrary to open press theories, never exported with the R-23. They were all exported with the R-27R and R-73 (the R-27T being an apparent rarity even in Soviet MiG-29 units, although it may have been exported as I recall seeing one on an Iraqi MiG-29 hit on the ground in DESERT STORM). They all featured the aircraft’s native radar system, albeit with a few sensitive and un-needed avionics items removed or replaced (recall the example where nuclear weapon carriage was not found on MiG-29s exported to other nations). I fail to see how these export aircraft can be seen as severely downgraded given the fact that they featured the same basic radar and weapons sets found on the aircraft serving within the Soviet Union.
But it has been repeated 101 times on this forum that the SU did export monkey versions of their weapon systems (you’re upsetting a lot of people, SOC!) and certainly how do you explain the existence of the MiG-23MS/BN in the first place, if such kind of policy didn’t exist It seems to me that the SU were themselves unsure whether to export downgraded gear and to what extent, just look at Iraq in the 1980s!
1MAN:
Not really, being able to take a hit/s is a VERY important part in serviving.
You’re right, it is important… just not as important as avoiding been hit in the first place. Which is the bigger (easier) target to hit, Cobra or HIND?
Actually the USSR’s “Concordski” was built before the French Concord.
The Tu-144A prototype which first flew in December 1968 was NOT
the world’s first supersonic airliner!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levsha
No, the FLANKER was designed to be 20% better in most parameters than the F-15, which would not be possible unless the Soviets already had a sound knowledge of the F-15’s performance and capabilities. I’m pretty sure the KGB would have acquired a lot of technical data relating to the F-15 in the 1970s for Sukhoi to work on.Flex297: There is no evidence about that.
I have read that that was the case, on numerous occasions – and it would be Soviet practice/tradition – look at the relationship between B-70/A-12 – MiG-25 or F-4 Phantom – MiG-23
I don’t have to have that kind of information because I have never stated that An-124 is so much more serviceable than C-5 or vice versa. I have never stated anything, it is you who presents his own BIASED GUESSWORK as FACT, so the burden of the proof lies with you. It’s easy, prove your strong claims or admit you know nothing about that and stop spreading nonsense.
I was actually replying to SOC’s original post – he didn’t provide too many proofs either, when he was making his comparisons, but you didn’t feel a need to get into a huff about this for some reason… now who’s being biased?
Even acig admit to lack accurate data about delivery dates of these versions. Nevertheless it must have been in the 70s, because official Iranian kill listings include an Iraqi MiG-23MLA piloted by Lt. Ah-Sabah shot down by Iranian F-14A using AIM-54 Phoenix as early as October 1980. There goes your theory..
And you treat ACIG’s word on this as gospel – don’t be cherry-picking now, I’ve read some of your comments on Tom Cooper’s site before.
I thought you stated that C-5s are A LOT MORE SERVICEABLE than An-124. Suddenly, the An-124 is easier and cheaper to maintain? Get a grip with reality..
What you seem to forget is that many An-124s are in commercial service – as long as there are a supply of clients willing to pay for Volga Dnieper’s or Polyot’s services, actually funding the flying of An-124 shouldn’t be a problem. This is not the case with an air arm like the USAF or the RuAF, who have a pre-set and limited budget to carry out a limited amount of flying. Actually, it’s somewhat specious, for any of us, to compare the operational costs between aircraft of a commercial profit making organization and a budget restrained air force.
Iraqi MiG-23MF/MLs had R-23 and R-24 onboard, too. Their MiG-29s had R-27s, just like Soviet versions. Where is the difference?
Yet monkey versions do exist, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, as you have already stated.
LevshaYawn. The same old crap repeated over and over again. This has been talked to death already.
welcome to the Key publishing forums…
Yugo aircraft were poorly serviced, most of them were only flightworthy, not combat ready. From airframe to airframe various problems were present – from lacking RWR due to missing parts up to incomplete radars. I salute to the bravery of the jocks, they had nothing but low level flight and few functioning R-73Es..
I’m not denying that at all, but the fact is, many posters have stated that downgraded equipment is often the reason why Soviet tech is often unsuccessful in combat and it certainly could be a factor, but I never implied it was the only one.
Disagree. Eagle was an inspiration, spare yourself your fathers and Kenobis. MDD engineers did not come to Russia to help design the 27, so what father are you talking about? Russians had nothing on the Eagle except few drawings, performance chart and a couple of photos. So what? I can provide you dozens of photos of YF-23, if it’s that simple, will you please make me a copy that is a tad superior and more stealthy?
No, the FLANKER was designed to be 20% better in most parameters than the F-15, which would not be possible unless the Soviets already had a sound knowledge of the F-15’s performance and capabilities. I’m pretty sure the KGB would have acquired a lot of technical data relating to the F-15 in the 1970s for Sukhoi to work on.
Saddam has not paid a single aircraft delivered. It is more than logical that Soviets didn’t exactly break their legs in effort to deliver him the most advanced stuff available.
Irrelevent.
they were still willing to do business with him right up till the invasion of Kuwait. France never got paid for their weapons deliveries either.
Ahh, you don’t.. So how can you you say that the C-5s are far more serviceable?
No I don’t this type of information, do you?
If you don’t, how can you or anyone else say that the C-5s aren’t more maintainable (to pick a better word) than the An-124?:confused:
BTW, funny that you mention the MiG-23 with MiG-21 avionics (ergo MiG-23MS) because Iraq only used 20 aircraft of this version, the rest having been MiG-23MFs and a squadron of MiG-23MLs. But why bother with checking facts if bias is so much fun?
When were the MFs and MLs delivered? unlikely to be the 1970s.
Cost.
And why did the Tu-144 become so expensive?
3 different types of engine (NK-144, RD-33, NK-321) plus 1 major airframe redesign (if not more)
It looks like it was one torturous and extended design programme!
A generation apart? That means strategic transports are getting replaced after 16 years of service? Wait, what are the almost 40 year old Galaxies doing there, then?
Are you saying that 16 years isn’t a a long time in aircraft design especially in the 1970s??:rolleyes:
An-2s are still in service too, that means they’re the same generation as the An-70 I suppose…:rolleyes:
Yes, Russians use them much less since they don’t have any expeditionary wars in their itinerary and therefore their requirement sfor strategic airlift are much smaller than the ones of the USAF. So? What exactly does it say about the aircraft?
Just that it might indeed explain why they are easier to maintain (if they are) than the C-5, just as it’s easier and cheaper to maintain a 2 year old car than a 10 year old car.
That’s but one example. A lot of internal systems and whatnot were always altered or deleted from US aircraft for export. So I guess the people who insist that the Russians only sold inferior “monkey versions”, an asinine proposition if they wanted to continue selling aircraft anyway, would have to maintain that the USA did the same thing.
But the Iranian F-14s still had AWG-9/AIM-54 on board – if they were as downgraded as much as a Soviet aircraft they should have been delivered with the avionics and weapons of the F-4E or even the F-101 Voodoo!
Which is besides the point, really…
In any war between Iran and Iraq why would it be besides the point?:confused:
I bet if we compared Volga-Dnepr or any other carrier operating the An-124’s operating record with that of your average C-5 squadron, your story would change. The C-5 is a notoriously maintenance intensive and problematic aircraft to operate, and that’s when it flys!
Go ahead, lets compare! Have you got the necessary info and details to base any comparison on?
LevshaAnd here we have it, by post #30 the thread arrives at exactly the spot Garry predicted in post #5. This is pathetic.
And why go all the way to the 30th post?
Things went downhill at the 5th post after what was a reasonable civilized discussion, what with GarryB ranting on about “Russian peasants”!:confused:
Deleting nuclear weapons compatibility and altering some systems such as the IFF does not make the overall weapon system “second rate”.
Well, that’s not how a lot of posters on this forum were putting it – apparently it was only because the USSR would only export downgraded versions of the MiG-29 which prevented it from performing superbly over Iraq and Yugoslavia!
Otherwise, the USA has been doing the exact same thing.
Are you referring to the Shah of Iran’s F-14s?
Whatever alterations might have occurred to the AWG-9/AIM-54A on Iran’s Tomcats they were still probably the most sophisticated and lethal fighter aircraft in service in the world outside of the USA in the 1970s.
They were certainly miles ahead of Saddam’s export spec MiG-23s and their crappy MiG-21 avionics…
Now you’re playing the numbers game, making my point for me
No, it’s the ‘quantity versus quality game’ I’m playing.:D
The technological characteristics of the Tu-144 were NOT why it was dropped by Aeroflot.
Well it certainly looks like that, but what reasons do you think provoked Aeroflot to drop the Tu-144?:confused:
In 1991 Soviet AF had around 660 Flankers in service, including few Su-30 and all carrier-based Su-27Ks. Why?
The Cold war was over long before 1991.
The point is, the FLANKER was designed especially to take on the F-15 – the Eagle is the Sukhoi’s greatest source of inspiration, its Father, its Obi Wan Kenobi, if you like. Consequently the FLANKER entered service a good 10 years after the F-15, so it’s a bit unfair to compare the two aircraft in that respect.
I guess you can say that some lead – others must follow…
Yeah, I’m not so sure about that one. C-5s are notorious for maintenance problems. Infamous, even.
Why, I don’t know, how many An-124s were in Soviet AF operational service in 1973?
Prove it. Especially that *a lot more*. For such strong statement I expect you to have some serious *manhours per flying hour* type data.
What’s your point with Syria? An-124 flew for the first time in 1982 !!
Serviceable as in aircraft that fly on a regular basis, like USAF C-5s, as apposed to aircraft that don’t, like RuAF An-124s!
I haven’t got such “serious manhours per flying hour type” data. Is such data available for the An-124, especially those of the Ruaf? In which case you’re right, it isn’t possible to make any real comparison (which I didn’t raise in the first place) between the two aircraft?
The Galaxy entered service in 1970, the same year as the Boeing 747-100, the Antonov entered service in 1986, a year or two ahead of the Boeing 747-400, so yeah, the Antonov and the C-5 ought to be a generation apart in technology and design. The C-5s have an average of well over 20,000 flying hours on each airframe, some with over 25,000 perhaps? I doubt if the entire Ruslan fleet can even approach that – so if there is a disparity in maintainability in the present day it shouldn’t be surprising, should it?
Sign In
