GarryB, although not a copy, I agree the Su-30 MKI may clearly be an inferior design as compared to the F-15 Strike Eagle. Despite being larger and weighing nearly 6 tons more than the F-15, the max. weapons load capacity of the Su-30 is lesser than the F-15 Strike Eagle by 4 tons. Note that like the Su-30, the F-15 too can carry its max. weapon load while performing full 9G maneuvers.

The F-16 Strike Eagle may thus be the best fighter plane in the world.*

So, the empty weight of an F-15E/I/SG is certainly less than that of a Su-30MKI, while the Eagle also has greater thrust from its engines – I should think that the F-15E has a much better power-to-weight figure than that of the Su, any idea how both aircraft compare, maneuvering at speeds above 400 knots?

All Russian stuff is directly copied from western stuff so when an F-15 copy like the Su-30 engages an F-15 original of course it is going to beat it with carbon copy huge numbers making up for poor workmanship by the peasants in the fields that slapped the Su-30s together.

Probably very little truth in what you say, GarryB, but I admire your guts in being so frank and to the point in your criticisms of Russian hardware!:rolleyes: :diablo:

Interestingly, the Russians also have a nickname for all Boeing airliners!!

They call them “Bobr” or even “Bobrik” (affectionate diminutive) which means Beaver, you know, the buck-toothed animal that builds dams…

(Mind you, I’m not sure if the Russian word for this animal carries the same “innuendo” as the English… it was probably just chosen as a nickname because it rhymes???):confused: :p

Maybe some of our Russian posters could enlighten us?:D

If we are comparing the US and UK etc forces in Afghanistan now against the Taleban with little outside support with the Soviets in Afghanistan against the Muj with the full financial support of the US and Pakistan, then yes, I think comparison with Vietnam is also fair.

I’m not denying that Mujahadeen in the 1980s were far better provided for in the 1980s than the Taleban are in the present day, it would be one reason why the coalition has suffered only 711 fatalities (wikipedia) in the last 6 1/2 years in Afghanistan while the Soviets suffered 14000+ in their war 20 years ago – but there must other reasons as well.

And how many Americans were killed by the overpowering airpower of the Viet Cong airforce? How many of the 50,000 killed were killed by north vietnamese airpower? How many migs operated routinely over south vietnam? The reality is that the extensive airdefence network deployed by the vietnamese largely covered the northern part of the country where US ground forces never operated except covertly.

That’s not the issue I’m disputing or raising, the point is the North Vietnamese were 10 if not a 100 times better armed and provisioned for than the Mujahadeen ever were, and that would help explain the different casualty figures between the Soviet and American armies.

It completely changed the Soviet tactics even if it didn’t kill as many aircraft as some would like to think. Instead of heliborne assaults on villages they reverted to using artillery, but gun tube and rocket. The result was lower accuracy and more “innocent” dead which of course suited the opponents of the Soviets as it made recruiting easier.

Well the Stinger did completely change Soviet tactics – it meant that in most cases Soviet pilots wouldn’t fly below 4500 metres (15,000 ft) or so, which would completely rule out any accurate strikes or CAS for the troops below. One could argue, that because of this, the AIM-92 Stinger was probably one of the most successful air defence weapons to see action in the cold war period.

Quite frankly much the Soviet air war was nothing more than one complete carpet/terror bombing compaign which certainly brought no glory to to the Soviet air forces.

The result was lower accuracy and more “innocent” dead which of course suited the opponents of the Soviets as it made recruiting easier.

Aah… and in your own words you have helped to explain why the Coalition don’t have such a rough time and are probably not as unpopular as the Soviets were – the coalition do at least “try” to keep civilian casualties to a minimum… even if they do fail on occasion.:(

Good luck getting them to intercept ICBM warheads.:rolleyes:

Or even ALCMs!:rolleyes:

For foreign wars of conquest, or maintaining a global empire then a professional army is much more useful which is why the west prefers such an arrangement.

Nonsense: Countries have large conscript armies when they feel that they may have to go to war or there’s a danger of being invaded. Island nations are difficult to invade which is why the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and even USA and Canada for now don’t call up every 18 year-old for 12 months or more. Most of the above countries do have larger naval forces though.

Wasn’t the US army in Korea and Vietnam a conscript army? Isn’t the Israeli army a conscript army?

Put very simply you want your entire population to know that a Grad and a 122mm ammo store are not the same thing even if a Grad rocket does have a calibre of 122mm.

The Russian Federation does have plans for a volunteer only army in the near future, if they ever have the political will to carry it out. As it stands, there is a lot of draft avoiding in Russia at the moment, and most of the Chechen war has been fought with full time professionals, especially from the interior Ministry “MVD”.

Those countries that had real defensive policies like Finland and Sweden continue with conscription…

Interesting choice of example countries you’ve used – against which country do you think Sweden and Finland’s militaries mostly expect to defend themselves from?

Last I checked the USSR beat Germany/ 80% of the German forces were in the east fighting Russia.

80% of the Luftwaffe or the Kriegsmarine were not on the Eastern front fighting the Soviet Union (not Russia).:rolleyes:

Well that would be true if Russia didn’t upgrade a lot of thier weapons in the 90’s.

And don’t seem to to have much luck upgrading their weapons in the 21st century either – how many MiG-29SMTs, Su-27SMs or MiG-31BMs are in service at the moment? How many Mi-28s are in service?