LevshaFrogfoot is wired for Kh-25MR/ML/MP and Kh-29 but I would be very surprised to learn that countries like Armenia or Georgia used those on large scale. B-8M is so much cheaper way to knock down a tank or a BTR.
BTW, why is that important?
Because it’s the quality of combat experience that’s just as important as the actual quantity of combat experience.
Sure, the Su-25 has been used in a lot of “bush wars”, but if the tactics, weapons and techniques used aren’t an improvement on those used, for example, in the Korean war, how can it be said to be any kind of progress in any way? The more often a system has been tried and tested the more likely it has any bugs and gliches ironed out, I should think.
The AGM-65 Maverick is a well tested system (since the Yom Kippur war), but what about the Kh-29?
I don’t understand you now. Your own link shows following figures:
6x An-12, 4x An-26, 1x An-30, 2x Il-76, 1x MiG-23, 5x Su-17, 4x Su-25, 24x unidentified – makes 47 aircraft
9x Mi-6, 45x Mi-8, 1x Mi-10, 16x Mi-24, 14x unidentified – makes 85 helicoptersDoesn’t that correspond to what I have written?
Have a look at the top of the wikipedia page I posted, it’s an incomplete list of combat losses, or so they say, but it also states the same statistics that I’m stating.
Here are some other Russian language webpages with the same statistics I am quoting:
http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/sssr/sssr.html
This page lists all aircraft losses for 1987 alone – it states that 21 HINDS were lost in that year alone:
http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/poteri87/afganistan87.html
LevshaFunny that you say that because it was you that got me started with your ‘Warthogs are battle-proven, Frogfoots are not’ claim. I personally see Su-25 and A-10A as roughly equal, both in capabilities, proveness or combat record.
That’s a fair assessment I could agree with, but…
How often has the Su-25 actually ever fired precision guided munitions, compared to the A-10
Levsha‘Heavy losses’ are a bit about a myth. In ‘stan, only 16 Mi-24s were lost with the option of few more for the unidentified.. Hardly heavy losses for an 8-year war. From Soviet types it was the Mi-8 that took most beating (45-55). Far less than 271 Cobras or 3305 killed Hueys over Nam, but Stan was a quite less intensive conflict, I agree.
Until 1986, Mi-24s were shot down roughly at a rate one per year. Since 86 the figure doubled and the worst year was 1988 with five Hinds down. I think it had pretty much to do with Stingers rather than small arms fire.
A few people here might have realized that Soviets actually lost less helicopters in Afghanistan in 8 years (85 lost, both failures and combat losses) than US and coallition forces lost in OIF in half of the time (130 lost, both failures and combat losses, figure from March 2007).
Where did you get those figures?:confused:
The most often quoted figures for Soviet aircraft losses in Afghanistan are 107 fixed wing and 333 rotary winged losses in the 9 year war. I may be wrong but I think the Coalition has already flown over one million helicopter sorties in Iraq while the Soviets may only have flown half that in their war in Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_aircraft_crashes_in_Afghanistan
You can even try Venik’s website
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/afghanistan/
LevshaLOL. What planet have you been living on?
United States lost 2,251 aircraft over Nam, 1,737 because of hostile action. Buddy, think about the number again before spewing more bias.
BTW, Russians lost 132 aircraft over Afghanistan, both due enemy action and technical failures.. that makes 132 against 2,251, buddy. So, let me hear it again, is it Russian or US built equipment that has almost perfect experience in getting smashed on the ground? 😉
Is this a tongue in cheek comparison your making Flex297?:confused:
There was a big difference between theanti-aircraft capabilities between the Mujahadeen and Communist Vietnamese – how many Mujahadeen fighter-pilot aces can you name?:D 😉
Levshahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArkQ_Dcc2Us
Thanks to plane_man contribute this video. I don’t care the rafale or tyfone, I just wondering why only twin-seat S.H. do demonstration on air show not single seat? Generally I think, single-seat version should be more outstanding than twin-seat version on maneuvering performence. Who are SH pilots here?:confused:
I recall reading many years ago, that the Turkish air force preferred the two-seat F-5B over the single-seat F-5A for its air display team – it just had better flying qualities for the role.
Perhaps it’s got something to do with weight and Centre of Gravity considerations?:confused:
LevshaOriginally Posted by Dork Matter
While this is true, just to make things clear for everybody, even the crudest radar can track a VLO aircraft if it is close enough, and the F-117 itself is a very basic machine that relies almost entirely on its stealth for survival (that’s why they only cost $45 million each despite the new technology and limited production run). It does not have a jammer (the S-125 is more vulnerable to ECM than modern SAM systems), nor does it even have chaff and flare dispensers (as far as I’m aware).If this is what you believe, how can you call the shootdown a luck? What you have described here is an excellent example of precise ambush tactics..
Sounds like a lot of effort and resources were wasted on behalf of the Serbian defences just to shoot down one particular type of aeroplane, it seems to me, which might explain why the Serbs didn’t shoot down too many other types of NATO aircraft – in USAF parlance this is what is known as “target fixation” – concentrating on one particular target to the detriment of the overall objective or plan. And it also just goes to show the level of mythology the F-117 had attained in Serbian eyes.
Youare right, the S-125 has no special qualities. Makes the kill look even more impressive to me..
And whether it was luck or not, I care exactly as little as I care about luck Heheman might have had when shooting down two IrAF aircraft with his F-15C in one day.
You’re quite right, it has got nothing to do with luck. The fact that out of the hundreds or thousands of S-125s and other SAMs possessed by the Serbs they managed to only shoot down only a few NATO aircraft; while NATO, having flown thousands of combat sorties lost only a few aircraft in the same war has absolutely nothing to do with luck.
It might have something to do with Technology, skill and know-how I suppose…
1. IIRC, F-22 is less stealthy than F-117. 2. You take an aircraft 25 years newer but still keep the same ancient SAM system which was obsolete even in F-117 times.. God, you really know how to design a story to you favor My piece of advice: take S-400 or at least S-300PMU-2 and reconsider.
Well, who knows, if the Serbs had the S-300 missile system in 1999, it would probably work just as well as the SUPER-DUPER MiG-29, i.e. not very well at all, and then we would still have the same line of defence from the Serbs for its failure – The Russians didn’t supply enough of them, they were only downgraded export versions, eight years of sanctions etc, etc, blah, blah ,blah…
Levshathat’s making the incorrect assumption that there would be 2nd and 3rd waves. If blackjacks were launching cruise missiles at the US their bases would probably be smoking holes by the time the returned from the first launch.
At the moment there are only 15 Tu-160s in RuAF service at the moment, so I should think that there wil be only one small “wave” to be afraid of!:D
Mind you, I would still rate the Tu-160’s chances fairly highly in its ability to penetrate the USA’s air defences and territory.
LevshaAhh, come on… after being omnipotent for a decade and a half and AL Quada not coming out and fighting fair they need a good enemy that will wear the black hat.
Your right, Russia does always need an external enemy. It has always been the way, sadly.
Isn’t it funny that one of the accusations pointed at the old Soviet Union was that it was a militarised society. I can understand that myself… they had to catch up and match most of the rich countries of the world… but what is the excuse for the west?
The old Soviet Union was certainly a militarised state… it was NATO which could never catch up with Soviet arms output. Never done the Soviets much good, in the long term, although all those tanks were pretty useful for occupying all its near European neighbours.:rolleyes:
Simply obeying instructions once you find yourself in the wrong place would have saved them. The fact that they paniced and ran resulted in the same thing that happens in Hollywood movies when a criminal attempts to run away from a crime scene after a cop tells them to freeze… they get shot.
The pilots of those South Korean airliners never received any instructions, GarryB.
Bearing in mind how often you like to discuss and pass comment on the shootdown of the Korean airliners by the Soviet air defences, you still remain blissfully ignorant of the basic details.
LevshaRubbish.
Go back and study aerial warfare history since the end of WWII.
In Korea, Vietnam, Middle East, Africa etc. More Western aircraft were shot down by Soviet/Russian equipment than Soviet/Russian aircraft shot down by Western weapons.
More rubbish!
In nearly all the conflicts mentioned above, the Soviet supplied AD systems most certainly failed to deal with the aerial bombardment metted out by the “Western” enemy. North Korea and Northern Vietnam were among the most heavily bombed countries in modern times with huge damage done to infrastructure and war effort.
Of course western air defence systems rarely shot down Soviet aircraft in any of these conflicts – how many aerial strike sorties did the North Koreans or communist Vietnamese actually carry out against the UN or US forces during their respective wars?
LevshaIt depends. Armoring an F-15C which spends 90% of its flying time above 15,000ft make no sense, unlike with ground attackers and helicopters. As for your farmer’s bullet argument, you probably have AH-64 in mind. I think that Apache has a serious design flaw here.
Really? What evidence is there that the farmer hit or even fired at the Apache? Big claims call for big evidence!:confused:
It was more likely just a half comic, half PR/propoganda stunt by Saddam’s press at the time. If an Apache could be shot down by a single round from a farmer’s hunting rifle, there would indeed have been far more AH-64 wreckages littering the landsape in Iraq and other places… sandstorms and other weather conditions where/are an even bigger problem for the Apache and other helicopters.
LevshaI found a page about Russian simulators and it said the Tu-23M3 simulator quote: ‘ The project is now at the stage of design.’ :confused:
Thanks for the link Jon, a very interesting and promising company.
Hipocrasy, stupidity, asinine, unfathonable… which word best describes US foreign policy… assuming they have something called a US foreign policy I’d for the large part call it selfish and short sighted.
I’m not trying to defend “selfish and short sighted” American foreign policy either – I just don’t see why we should turn a blind eye to the imperialistic foreign policies of other countries either, and that includes the former Soviet Union and the present Russian Federation.
Are you really an A$$ or is this a special performance just for me?
Spasiba za kompliment!:p 😀
Such information is rarely given and even if I had it I wouldn’t bother giving it to a Ruski hater like you.
Aah, but you were the one who began talking about Backfire bomber pilots’ training regime and how they can make up for a lack of flying time by using simulators… but now your telling me you don’t know much about Russian air force strategic aviation training or what type of simulators they’re using!:rolleyes:
giving it to a Ruski hater like you.
Spent a total of 5 years living in the country. When was the last time you visited a Russian speaking country?:confused:
LevshaIf you bothered reading the links, instead of making up events to try and covered up the Patriot’s pathetic history you’ll see they DID NOT intercept even half of Iraq’s missiles, :rolleyes:
The Patriot missile’s combat history is a lot less pathetic than the S-300’s “combat history”!:rolleyes:
LevshaThey weren’t killed because they were muslim, they were killed for other reasons.
The most asinine thing I’ve read on key forums lately (excluding most of star49’s posts of course), you’re saying that sometimes there are acceptable reasons to kill people of a particular religious persuasion and sometimes there aren’t?:rolleyes:
The Buran flew once with noone on board and landed safely… so even a computer can be a highly qualified pilot I guess…
All aircraft could be fitted with an automatic landing system, but the pilot profession is not going to die out yet.:rolleyes:
But does the Tu-22M3 have an automatic landing system? In which case why doesn’t the RuAF recruit chimpanzees instead of spending any money to train pilots (that seems to be your view).
Why? Tu-22M3 pilots are not just taken in off the street and put in a uniform. To get to where they are today they have to go through a long flight training process that teaches them to fly aircraft. Once they get to an operational base with the aircraft they are supposed to be flying they get further training, not all of it in the air.
Do you really have such first hand knowledge of RuAF BACKFIRE pilots’ training programme – enlighten us even further – how many pilots are flying and how many hours a year they’re flying?;)
Ground based flight simulators are becoming a very large part of flight training and crews can learn to work together and to operate their aircraft in ways they could never do in the air. They can test engine failures and system failures that would be very dangerous or impossible to simulate in the real aircraft.
I don’t think flight simulator technology was a traditional Soviet/Russian strength – Do Tu-22M3 pilots get any simulator time? On what type of simulator?
LevshaOf course you are. The only “terrorists” you attack are Islamic. It is just another christian western crusade to clear out of the holy land.
Not true, the Serbians in 1999 weren’t Islamic.:rolleyes:
If you really want to talk about large numbers of dead Muslims, how about present day Chechnya, or Afghanistan in the in the 1980s during the Soviet occupation!:rolleyes:
So the first crew of the first space shuttle launch were hopeless losers because they had had zero hours on the space shuttle… why did it take so long for two to blow up? Surely the first few flights should have been the most dangerous ones with the later flights getting more and more safe as the crews became better at it.
Daft analogy!
But you’re right, you don’t need to be a highly qualified pilot to go up on a space shuttle (or any other type of spacecraft, ask Valentina Tereshkova or some of those space tourists) but you do need to be a highly qualified pilot if you want to land the space shuttle on the runway in one piece…
LevshaIn 2006 the navy put a lot of subs to sea and by 2007 they were no longer able to do this at the same level. I suspect the Russian air force wont be able to maintain the current level of activity for long without a string of accidents and groundings. They ignorned huge chunks of their inventory for 10+ years and now they cant just sorty all this stuff without that neglect coming back to bite them.
Precisely! They had only just introduced the Tu-160 into service by the time of the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and still hadn’t worked out the bugs in the new technology and systems in the aircraft, nor probably had yet to achieve a respectable sortie rate or full serviceability of all the onboard systems. Then comes the end of USSR and fund for Strategic Aviation disappears, which meant the virtually all BEARS, BLACKJACKS and BACKFIRES were almost grounded for 10 years. A lot of good experienced people had left, a lot of skills and know how may have been lost, it could take another ten years or more for Russian Long Range Aviation to redevelop their old abilities.
The Russians problems have their parallel in other countries. The USAF introduced the B-1B into service in the mid 1980s, very slowly and painfully – by the mid 1990s they still had barely 60% serviceability for the type
God, I have no life.
You show an interest in the true actual extent in the training, operations deployment and capabilities of a country’s military aviation and are willing to do some research into the matter… hardly evidence of a wasted life.;)
USSR break up has some thing to do with Tupolev bombers?
In a way yes. Excessive spending on its Military-industrial complex certainly help speed up the Soviet Union’s destruction.
how can Su-27 takes $10,000 per hours. Is it going at Mach 10. for normal subonic flight it will consume 5 or 6 tons fuel in for 2 to 3 hour operation. which comes to less than $2000 for market rate fuel cost per hour.
I have seen that figure quoted a few times on the web, including Russian language sources, I have no reason to doubt them. Have you got a different figure? Please enlighten us…:rolleyes:
yes Fuel prices are not the only factor. but still spare parts of Flanker should be cheaper than Boeing made spare parts for F-15. After all Unit price of Flanker is half of comparable Western Jet for export.
It’s all very well for the Russian AF to fund its flying operations at half the cost of the Americans (presuming that they could do it so cheaply) but if the Russian budget is still only 5-10% of America’s… there’s still going to be a shortfall.
Sign In
