sheytanelkebirAnother Iran vs Iraq type war is near impossible, and even there the advanced air force of Iran spanked Iraq.
I’m not sure what you base that assertion on? neither air force made much difference in the grand scheme of that war… and certainly the Iraqis flew 8x more combat sorties than the iranians whilst losing LESS aircraft in the process (but still the iraqis didn’t “beat” iran in the air… but with 130mm and 155mm artillery as well as hundreds of MRLs concentrated).
on the question of “quantity vs quality”… the iraqis managed to maintain control of their airspace and battlespace during 1980-81 despite not having a SINGLE BVR capable fighter! whilst the Iranians had over 300 BVR capable (and long legged to boot!) fighters and never capitalised on that huge potential qualitative advantage.
sheytanelkebiryes and grossly inaccurate… tom and the rest of the crew openly acknowledge that the data there is erroneous, but neither update it nor remove it… perpetuating the myths.
you will get better data from their recent works which begins incorporating, slowly, Iraqi data to correct some of the fabulous claims in their earlier works (iran iraq war in the air and F14 units in combat etc…). I did suggest making “new” book on the iran-iraq air war and they may do an improved book now that much more information has become available since 2010…
sheytanelkebirmaurobaggio… that story is hilarious! it is simply so far beyond the realm of reality that I don’t know where to begin dissecting it.
sheytanelkebirI mean the premise of the question implies that there will be any “difficulties” in inter operating the various 4.5gen and 5th gen assets in a future conflict.
The only thing is, if the 3rd world country has one or two semi capable medium/high altitude SAMs you have to eliminate them in a first strike with 5th Gen assets + EA18G growlers… should take a day or two max.
after that you may as well roll bombs out of A-400s.
with regards to a radical government in egypt closing the canal… the egyptians will still need to “eat”!! so no closure would happen… and if it did, paying off disgrntled and hungry egyptians to overthrow the regime would be much easier than bombing…
sheytanelkebirI am sure they said that in 1950 in Korea!:rolleyes:
the only possible thing could be a “proxy” war between the US/West and China/Russia … perhaps in Syria and its environs.
In such a scenario neither of the puppet masters would involve their militaries directly, but simply arm, train and direct their proxies.
in 1950 china was not yet a nuclear power AFAIK. Today even DPRK is…
A “state collapse” in a place like pakistan is not “impossible”… but in such an even the PAK airforce won’t be in a position to be fighting anyone and any “war” would not see direct western involvement unless a nuke originating in pakistan is set off in a western state… even then, it would be india who’d be doing all the fighting and china would most probably step in too… quickly escalating the situation.
somewhere like the spratyls could see a bit of action by an anti-chinese alliance perhaps… but once again the US/NATO would probably not get involved in direct combat.
I could see the west/US getting into some more combat in africa/middle east/ latin america which are devoid of nuclear powers… but those will be pretty much turkey shoots… except if saudi arabia’s monarchy collapses and the thin veil over wahabism is lifted… but they can’t operate their high tech weapons without contractors anyway… so once again… turkey shoot.
with modern AWACS and interoperable data and voice networks in the US/NATO alliance as well as well rehearsed plans for almost any type of combat scenario (they have plenty of time to mess about)… I don’t see any “issues” arising in interoperability… except perhaps not having enough munitions in storage!
sheytanelkebirwell due to nukes they won’t be fighting anyone who can fight.
so its bombing some third world country in africa / asia / latin america… for which all those planes should be sufficient even on autopilot flying level in large formation at medium altitude.
the “gap” between haves and have nots is so great that its moot even trying to come up with “situations” that challenge the “western” airforces very much… interoperability is not much of an issue either. just avoid going to low altitudes where some dangerous SHORADS and ground obstacles can get you sometimes…
otherwise scooting around at FL150, shooting up ground targets at leisure, and any hapless 3rd/4th generation jet that the “enemy” would launch wouldn’t even retract its undercarriage before a METEOR or AIM-120D hits it… the real problem will be a battle between pilots over getting the kills on the small number of opponents that even manage to leave the runway… dreams of becoming “aces” are long gone… the real battle is sharing up the very limited number of “prey” between the hunters for post war glories and book contracts.
sheytanelkebir8 dead pilots is a lot for an operational fleet which never exceeded a few squadrons (and only operational for a short period!)
sheytanelkebiryak 38.
sheytanelkebirgreat stuff. will be a sad day when the foxbats go.
keep in mind that Algeria needs a long endurance fighter / attack plane just to cover all its massive territory, hence the SU30MKA are useful for that.
It also has a pretty large coastline / EEZ in the med to cover.
I wonder why they don’t operate SU25/39 though. Would come in handy with the troubles in the south nowadays.
sheytanelkebirnew engines are lighter. yes. if the “old” engine was good enough in the past using old fashioned materials, why are new fighters so heavy and complex…
in fact with modern digital electronics, FBW/FBL reduced hydraulics aircraft should become lighter… but of course all the “redundancy” measures built into fighters as well as “over engineering” have penalties…
really the iranian “fake plane” F313 was actually a good idea in principle 😀
are you suspecting some “trader” in Singapore or Dubai is buying up batches of PW307s for “business jets”…
I am guessing you’re planning on doing to SAAB what Nokia did to Ericsson? Finns, always looking to mess things up for the Swedes!
sheytanelkebiraccording to wiki dry weight of allison engine is 1300kg.
whereas the PW307A is 551kg 😀
sheytanelkebirI reckon such a plane could be useful for many potential future wars.
israel vs all neighbours
algeria vs morocco
iraq vs all neighbours
iran vs all GCC
iran vs USA
pakistan vs india
bangladesh vs myanmar
china vs all neighbours
DPRK vs americans and their treacherous lackeys
Georgia vs Russia
Ukraine vs Russia
Pekka vs Ivan
Balkan everyone vs everyone
Greece vs Turkey
Greece vs Germany
Greece vs Macedonia
Rangers vs celtic
France vs Corsican Independence Front
Sudan vs South Sudan the sequel
Libya vs Chad the sequel
Egypt vs Sudan
Alawite State vs Wahabi syrian state
Kurdistan vs all neighbours
etc… sell to both sides. ca$h in.
sheytanelkebirsome basics.
-have VERY simple undercarriage… or even no undercarriage at all (belly land / land in net or deploy landing parachute, or maybe have disposable “landing skis” which pop out when landing on grassy surface). save loads of weight and complexity. also simplifies your internal weapons carriage.
-no ejection seat, just jetisonable canopy and parachute for pilot. (or maybe a MB Mk19 seat?)
-no radar or other emitter for stealth purposes. Make the entire surface an RWR antenna looking for multiple frequencies, and have “360 degree” optronic system with thermal cameras for long range passive detection and targeting. data fusion…
-Share that data with all other fighters and ground assets so everyone sees the “big picture” using some laser data links or other difficult to detect data links.
-No OBOGS, or APU on board.
-Use Fly By Light controls with motor actuation (eliminate hydraulics?)
-Have hand operated canopynot only will all these measures radically reduce the weight, complexity and price of your aircraft, it would also improve the stealthiness without too much negative consequences for “most” fights.
had some second thoughts about this…
-keep the OBOGS.. there are some very lightweight units out there for not much money.
-use ME163 style “dolly” gear for takeoff. and do belly land on soft surface for landing. increases internal space for missiles, eliminates complex hydraulics etc…
-no hydraulics in aircraft at all. motor actuated surfaces and fly by light. eliminate mechanics.
-no analogue displays or instruments, no HUD, just one LCD and lightweight HMD for pilot.
-MB Mk19 ejector seat.
not sure about the inclusion or not of a radar… perhaps there can be two “versions” one with and one without radar, both BVR AAM capable of course. that way you can have a flight of 3-4 of these fighters up in the air sharing intelligence and one fighter, equipped with radar, can briefly designate target if need be for another shooter.
You can also have different “versions” of the same aircraft. one “interceptor with a rocket booster. and one “attack aircraft” with the turbofan and extra fuel.
keep price below that of a SuperTucano somehow.
sheytanelkebir1- if you’re a friend of the west EF2000. If you’re a friend of Russia SU35S.
2- depends on your situational awareness, fuel fraction and loadout when entering combat.
sheytanelkebirsome basics.
-have VERY simple undercarriage… or even no undercarriage at all (belly land / land in net or deploy landing parachute, or maybe have disposable “landing skis” which pop out when landing on grassy surface). save loads of weight and complexity. also simplifies your internal weapons carriage.
-no ejection seat, just jetisonable canopy and parachute for pilot. (or maybe a MB Mk19 seat?)
-no radar or other emitter for stealth purposes. Make the entire surface an RWR antenna looking for multiple frequencies, and have “360 degree” optronic system with thermal cameras for long range passive detection and targeting. data fusion…
-Share that data with all other fighters and ground assets so everyone sees the “big picture” using some laser data links or other difficult to detect data links.
-No OBOGS, or APU on board.
-Use Fly By Light controls with motor actuation (eliminate hydraulics?)
-Have hand operated canopy
not only will all these measures radically reduce the weight, complexity and price of your aircraft, it would also improve the stealthiness without too much negative consequences for “most” fights.
Sign In
