SchorschSu-27 does not really apply here, since this includes development of two completely different aircraft (you know the history of T10, I guess). MiG-29 development was plagued by neverending problems with slotted array radar (came much later as N-010 with MiG-29K/M), not with design itself.
Russians are indeed a bit faster than West with new versions.. Look at two comparable aircraft F-15 and Su-27.
F-15 has the basic A/B/C/D lineage and then the reinforced F-15E plus F-15 ACTIVE proposal. That is all…
Su-27 has the cancelled T10, Su-27P/S/UB, Su-30 without canards, Su-30 with canards, carrierborne Su-27K, tandem carrierborne Su-27KUB, Su-27IB (now Su-32 or Su-34 or whatthehellitsnameis), Su-35/37, even Berkut.. Quite a difference, isn’t it? And that all under uncomparably smaller budget..My estimate is that PAK-FA could be flying pretty soon but then come the neverending delays with funding and introduction into service. Look at Su-34..
Hmm, that is a question definition. I would say that development time is the time from first noticeable budget release to entry into service. The T-10 was not designed as something different, it was designed to beat the F-15. The T-10 was considered below requirement so they developed a new one. One could call that more optimistic a flying technology demonstrator. If we include YF-22 in the development time of the F-22, we have to include the T-10 in that of the Flanker. There are always one-way roads and political things in a development, so it is sometimes difficult to really compare. But in my opinion the Russian developments normally were even more chaotic and normally did deliver the real product as M-version.
When it comes to makeshift and attitude, the Western approach is often way more complicated with some noticeable gain in ability but a much higher penalty in cost. It is like that: You achieve 80% in investing 20%, but have to invest another 80% to get the final 20% performance (old college saying for exam preparation). I saw some problems with Russian programs by not defining well enough the technologies needed to achieve stated goals. Like in the US all proposals had to be cleared people did sometimes not tell the truth about the real challenge.
Kabelbinder: cabel tie or just binder
Look here:
http://dict.leo.org/?lang=de&lp=ende
SchorschThe F-110 (AKA F-4) can possibly be called a “Century Fighter”, but F-111 definetely not. The Century Fighters had some things in common, especially their focus on high speeds. Some of them were usuable, some not:
F-100: day fighter-bomber, outdated as fighter around 1960 but still a usuable aircraft with swept-wing teething problems
F-101: useful interceptor and reconnaissance aircraft
F-102: founder of the area rule and an extended prototype program for F-106. Always surprising that USAFkept it in service so long (even George W. flew it)
F-104: useless as fighter. Only successful as -G in european service and there with a very specific target: drop the bomb!
F-105: useful aircraft but tought some lessons about survivability. As conventional fighter-bomber not really the best choice, but a design that reflected its time. The USAF never had to think hard about life-time because Vietnamese AAA did the job.
F-106: started as F-102C and that says all. As interceptor a useful design like Su-15 was.
F-107: always wondered about engine airflow at high AoA
The Century Fighters impressively showed the technological leadership of the US industry at that time. At the same time they paved the way of the USAF and USN procurement, that led to always more complex aircraft and general addiction for technology.
SchorschUnder appropriate funding, the development of PAK-FA would probably take less time than of Western projects. This has much to do with typical Russian *vsyo v paryadke!* (everything OK!) attitude. THe time schedule is strongly dependant on money and whether it will be available, that is something noone can really tell in forward.
Taking into account the last projects that took place under Soviet Cold War funding (so the early MiG-29 and Su-27), there is no prove for this statement. The Su-27 needed more than 10 years for development, the MiG-29 a bit less due to the decision to go without FBW. ‘Sens’ is perfectly right when stating that software related problems are the most demanding.
A flying prototype like YF-22 is a very useful platform to test and verify the design. All changes in the final F-22 were gained by testing YF-22. Same with EF-2000 vs EAP. Dassault Rafale had similar history. No-one should expect the Russians to perform so much better.
After all a flying aircraft is nice to picture and people will call it “service-ready”. But no-one knows what is under the skin, how many weapons are cleared and which level of the flight envelope is really accessable to pilots. See J-10 and think about my words.
It is often surprising how long it needed to really clear all hurdles for service.
Schorsch…
As one can see from my little aviator I like that Phantom. However, it is rather unlikely that it broke the sound barrier. Despite the fact that those condesations occur befoe the sound barrier is broken, a Phantom can hardly achieve supersonic speeds with pylons and external fuel tank.
SchorschYeah cause sparrows were sooo effective… decisive even. I doubt the North Vietnamese would have been able to keep an F-4 operational.
Probably not, but on the other hand a usable fighter defence could have saved the tremendous cost on ground-based air defence. Let’s not forget that Vietnam got all the SA-2 (at some time 40% of the Russian production) virtually for free, along with all the other hardware and “soft” support.
Soviet aircraft were designed to defend the Soviet Union. Not to travel half way around the world to attack some poor ex french colony.
Read thourougly! I said 500nm, that is france from the border of ex-GDR. A clear strike mission. But Russian aircraft at that time were unable to reach that target. Americans heavily relied on air refueling. But their aircraft could takt much more external fuel than any Soviet counterpart at that time.
You ignore what I said completely. Replace US aircraft with Soviet aircraft and give the Vietnamese US aircraft. Would the US still lose?
Did they lose the air war over Vietnam? they scored more kills, had positive kill ratio, devastated the country, but lost a hell lot of aircraft. After all, they did not win, but the Vietnamese did not win either. In end 1972 the Americans actually put air defence and air force out of work, in 10 days. If the Americans had Soviet aircraft, they would not even reached Vietnam. Take strike aircraft of the Soviet Union 1970: Su-7, -9, maybe Su-17, early MiG-23BN, Il-28, MiG-21, MiG-25BN, which one of those could have performed a similar mission like a F-105 or F-4 in 1966? Even when we just think for a second that they all had flight refuelling.
Oh contrare. PVO was in combat 24/7. They shot down plenty of US bombers… with designations starting with R…
Oh, tough combat. Destroy the single unprotected recce-aircraft in own (at least after the Soviet statements) airspace. Short range is not a problem, if you miss them you come the other day. They deny-flight zones in Iraq 1991-2003 were actually tougher combat.
As far as I know the Russian operate their bombers more than any other aircraft type except transport. The Tu-95 started having wing cracking problems when they switched to a low level flight role, but certainly nothing out of the ordinary or unexpected. the Strategic bombers forces got money even when no one else did.
As far as I know … ; I never heard …
Yes, at first you have your personal assumptions, but when it comes to a specific question you don’t know anything. It would be honest to just admit that you don’t know, but that could leave a bad image on mighty Soviet aviation, so not possible.
SchorschSo put Israelis in Soviet planes and Arabs in US planes and the Arabs would have won? Yeah right. In cases like Vietnam, or Korea, or Iraq and serbia for that matter exactly which combination of American planes would have helped these nations beat a superpower?
The Vietnamese would have performed much better if they had something like the Phantom (BVR, loiter time), the MiG-17 was useful but never achieved a positive kill ratio although it carefully picked its engagements. Same applies for MiG-21, which had some successful periods but in total has negative kill ratio. These were at that time the best hardware available (to export customers) and the tacticakl situation was always advantageous for the Vietnamese.
Imagine how a Soviet aircraft mix of 1966 would perform missions like Rolling Thunder. Il-28 and Tu-95 to engage enemy targets 500nm away? No fighter escort over the target, some MiG-21 for covering take-off and landing, maybe a Su-15 for a fighter sweep before the strike group enters the arena. Oh no, Su-15 wasn’t operational at that time … hmm, maybe a Jak-28 Firebar. Sounds awesome.
That all under the eyes of a ground based radar stations, the “defender” could easily position his F-104 and do slash attacks. When it comes to Firebar vs Starfighter, it will be an interesting “dogfight”.
The Soviets built for war. Made sense to me if you look at the timeframe since WWII… Mig-15, Mig-17, Mig-19, Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-29… that is 6 front line fighters over a period of 50 years. WTF do you need a plane that will stay oeprational for 30-40 years when it would be too obsolete in that role in 40 years anyway. Especially for fighters. For Bombers I have not heard that their bombers are lacking in airframe life.
Soviets built with a general lack of cost considerations. About 100% of the PVO fighters were never used in combat. A MiG-21 can be updated and still be a usable second line fighter even in the 1980s, current MiG-21 users demonstrate that. An aircraft like the Phantom still proves its worth as bomb carrier and SEAD-aircraft.
A “50 year” period would mean 200FH*50 = 10000FH. That is much. Today’s aircraft have 4000 to 6000h, Soviet normally had 1000FH. That is, for normal 200FH per year “Cold War” training, the aircraft is due for replacement after 5 years. Engine had a MTBO of 200FH. These limits have to be understood as soft limits and normally required depot maintenance.
But still it would mean that a force of 500 MiGs has constantly 100 aircraft/year in depot maintenance for structural check and needs replacement every 10 years. Every single engine sees the depot once a year. Pretty expensive. The consequence was the reduction of FH and training schedules, like today F-15 fly with lower G-limit and Europe air forces reduced FH per pilot to 100.
After all, the lack of life-time is less a technical issue than a missing design requirement. The Soviet military never ever cared about cost at all. People and machinery had to be there, non-military interest were secondary to that. That a system, which does not charge the military for its fighting machines, brings out machines as “consumables” is logicals.
Bombers: How many flight hours life-time had the Russian bombers? How many did they fly? Are the Tu-95 still the same as 1950? In US and UK nearly all bombers except B-58 experienced severe life-time problems, the B-58 was just retired before and generally had fewer flying hours.
SchorschRe :attrition . 5% loss rate =replacing entire force with crews every 20 missions. A nightmare for sustained operations .
Only very few operations in the last 50 years had loss rates that high. For sustained operations of Americans in Vietnam and Gulf War the loss rates were lower. These loss rates (if they are from useful literature) normally include only airframes, the crew loss rate is a different thing.
In WW2 squadrons often ended up having left only 50% of their aircraft after less than 4 week campaign, that despite easier repair and normally on-hand replacements for aircraft.
A loss rate of 10% is something like the limit. The loss rate normally increases with fewer aircraft available, because the air defence are less saturated.
When comparing loss rates it is always important to look for the mix of operations. A squadron normally doesn’t fly several “hot” missions in a row, there are always secondary targets which can be used for “refreshing”. The Israelis flew nearly only hot missions. I think the Arabs ran into serious supply problems after a few days, simply running out of missiles. I don’t know about the SyAF and EAF loss rates, but I think they were even higher than the Israeli ones (at least when offensive strike missions are compared).
Sens will know about that.
SchorschGarryB,
as always you show little interest in a real discussion. You tear my statement apart just and answering to statements I did not make at all.
Example:
Russian AC were for Russian Air Force at first, everything else was secondary.
GarryB: And you call that a fault? The RuAF got exactly what they wanted… no compromise.
Not that US was big difference, but just the Russian doctrine did not find similar counterparts in the rest of the world.
GarryB: So now you are saying Soviet aircraft could only be useful to the Soviet AF?
You seem to like answer to statements with open polemic questions. If it fits your reality I don’t mind. Actually, which air force used Russian AC really succesful? Can’t think of one at the moment. But how many air forces bought Russian AC and failed to achieve results that matched their investment? I can think of some located in the Arabian area.
So now life times are a measure of design rather than use… you have changed your tune…
Did I? I mentioned the topic of life-time long before. It is a uncomfortable topic when talking about Russian AC due to their general lack of airframe and especially engine lifetime. The ill habit of many users to compare Russian AC prices with western and deduct from the much lower costs of Russian AC is just a symptome of misunderstanding of aircraft design. That may fit for a Cessna, but everything bigger or more loaded (more G) will have restricted lifetimes.
And the F-16A when released, was just a daylight only short range dogfighter with some daylight only PGM capability. Whipty doo!
So, like the MiG-29A, except for the much better ground attack ability of the F-16. Why was it a daylight fighter? Sure, it was not the best choice for night fighting, but it had radar and necessary navigation avionics. However, I sometimes think you might mix up YF-16 and F-16A.
SchorschVery True, As for my remarks about the incident in the Baltic, had the Mig 25 been serious, the Blackbird would have been very dead. As for what happen up north, nobody knows unless they have a security clearance. Its possible that a Mig 25 actually got a photo of a SR-71, however, I would put that down to the SR-71 having a problem that had caused it to slow down (Intake unstart or alike) and the pilot had pushed on instead of turning back. As far as Iām aware the SR-71 never made an intention penetration of Warsaw part airspace (may have come very close however and may have done it by accident š ). The real pity about this thread is that I’ve got access to hundreds of photo’s , the problem being however, is that I cannot post them.
One can read a lot of BS about Blackbird intercept and MiG-25. Fact is that any M3 aircraft can be intercepted. It just needs proper planning. And you are right: An aborted mission is a successful intercept.
A Blackbird can (if RWR warns it of incoming interceptors and their intentions), evade one, or even two. But if an interception is done from three different directions it gets tricky to impossible.
Of course, setting up this trap isn’t easy and needs close coordination. The MiG-25 can’t loiter at M3. But on the other hand the Blackbird doesn’t want to take photos of frozen tundra.
The real purpose of these missions (like with the submarines) was intelligence on the opposites intercepting tactics and hopefully one nervous pilot switching his radar to wartime mode.
tbzz: many thanks for the photos and those opn the “weapons Load” thread. I really appreciate your very pregnant hard disk. š
SchorschRussia may lease single A-50 to china,hoping for order but negative evaulation by both chinese and Indian air force found aircraft dashed the hope.
according to indian AF,mainstay has difficult tracking low flying aircraft,outdate instrucment panel…etc.or “hawkeye in steroid”
after israel caved in US pressure not to sale Phalcon to China,Russia step in offering improve version,better electronic,modern MFI display
The Russians don’t have the ressources to update their AWACS at the moment. The A-50 is end 80 standard and would need a complete new radar system, price tag (western standard) around several hundred million each. The airframe itself is possibly in good condition but that doesn’t count much. If the Russians want to spend that money is questionable. If the Chinese want to buy outdated late 80s electronics (and software!) is questionable, too.
As I said: EW systems need lots of soft maintenance.
SchorschAgree on pretty much all of them. Except that one on the MiG-29 -> Remember that a MiG-25 got an F/A-18 and a MiG-29 did lock on to an F-15 at considerable distance. I won’t dismiss the possibility of the MiG-29 acheiving a kill or two.
Please do not compare mighty MiG-29 to mighty F-15, but the very special versions: F-15C as latest USAF update (it was 1999 and the USAF had several F-15C squadrons, I guess they send the best). The Serbian MiG-29 was the downgraded A-versions which proved to be inadequate mostly for unguided (without GCI) BVR-combat (Germany had even better A-versions and was still very unsatisfied with the radar and BVR-capabilities). I am not talking about later models of MiG-29, of agility or the the general capabilities of MiG vs F-1x. It is just this single conflict.
I further do not understand how a MiG-25 kill in 1991 made a MiG-29 kill in 1999 more likely? Different aircraft, different situation, different people (with the USAF/USN-people already digested the 1991 loss). Doing such comparisons is not very professional.
SchorschActually I’ve heard the A-50 and A-50U are superior to the E-3 Sentry in some respects- in any event, it is certainly not grossly inferior to the E-3.
One point of complaint was that the amenities for the crew on the A-50 aren’t nearly as good as they were on the previous (and by all accounts, uselss) AEW&C for the Soviet Union, the MOSS. Not as comfortable, because the MOSS was converted from an airliner and the A-50 is from a cargo plane.
I heard the Tu-204 might be a replacement for the A-50, when they feel the need. Which will be a while from now I think.
I think nobody here (me incl.) can really judge about the capabilities of an AWACS. The capabilities are very different in the fleet itself, as some things are modified by new software codes based on new intelligence. An AWACS is a living system.
Of course, some deterimants stay: so the radar power, processing capability, personal working stations, CiC-integration … blablabla.
It is safe to say that NATO/USA spend more money on upgrading their AWACS than Russia did in the last 15 years. Also they were able (or forced to) include lessons learned during Iraq 1991 and Kosovo 1999 in their systems. A retro-fit of the A-50 with up-to-date systems may reduce or equalize this difference.
As platform the Tu-126 was a bitch (only 8 were built at all). The A-50 was necessary due to field requirements. However, best platform normally is a civil airliner due to long range and the high efficiency and low maintenance requirement.
But always remember: An AWACS is a living system, much more dependant on constant update and “software maintenance” than any fighter. Electronic Warfare is the future battleground.
SchorschMost bad surprises in the east are related to high flying aircraft getting their flight profiles changed to low altitude penetration, which obviously leads to more stress on the wings than was anticipated is the design. (ie Bear and Backfire particularly), but the problems of fatigue like the C-5s wings are rare in the east…
The Galaxy had with the ill wing structure a life time of 7500h. The An-124 was never designed for more than that. they lifted the requirement and reduced the envelope, especially kick out the 150 tons and short field landing. Normally western aircraft have much higher life times (when you compare an F-16A against a MiG-23ML, both produced at the same time).
The real problem with Russian aircraft in service was that most of the buyers were stupid… shiny fast supersonic Mig-21s, instead of Su-25s. If you want bombing capability you get an Su-24. If you want a fighter you get a Mig-29 or Su-27. If you want a CAS you get an Su-25. If you want all three you get all three… don’t expect one plane to be able to do it all well.
So buy a Phantom and have all with comparable ability, disadvantage is the price. An F-16A would still do a reasonable attack aircraft with some limitations. Think about the fact that in Israel conflicts the radius for interdiction missions was hardly beyond 100nm. You just compared a MiG-27 to a Jaguar: How many bombs can a -27 carry when having two drop tanks? And now swing back the wings!
Russian AC were for Russian Air Force at first, everything else was secondary. Not that US was big difference, but just the Russian doctrine did not find similar counterparts in the rest of the world.
SchorschThere were no aircraft that could possibly shoot down a Harrier. With the exception of one single engagement with radar-equipped Mirage IIIs, Harriers only encountered Skyhawks, Mirage Vs, Fingers, Daggers and SuEs. Not really a combo for aerial dogfight, if you ask me, these are ALL dedicated attack aircraft.
For this little air2air war we have a lot of sources on hand, and we know enough details to understand that any Argi’ kill was unlikely. But for people a Mach 2 Mirage still is better than subsonic Harrier. Popular sources even today claim that the Harrier was the underdog against “much more capable” Mirage. Knowing it in detail and taking AEW, range, weaponry, pilot skill and mission profile into account, any Harrier a2a loss would surprise.
Same applies for Lebanon 1982, were the circumstances for the Syrians were so bad that the poor result does not surprise. We can name half a dozen without even mention the aircraft type:
– nearly no AEW for Syrians
– poor tactics and doctrine made for PVO-style interceptions
– a generally lower skill of Syrian pilots (though not really bad, they had some experienced pilots)
– poor weaponry like AA-3 Atoll
– cover-missions of low to medium level bombers, always the worst mission a fighter pilot can imagine
– “limited conflict” style, no interdiction or strike on Israeli bases (would have been pointless anyways)
SchorschYou all have good arguments, even though some touch on the conspiracy thing a little bit too much.
Some of u argue that it would be bad marketing for Russia to sell its latest MiG-29 saying it had been shot down but achieved no kills…can’t we take a look at the flip side of the coin though??? Could u imagine the F-15 being marketed to Singapore and Korea etc with small print at the end of a fab’ advert boasting its power saying…P.S. lost three over Syria to elderly MiG-21…
If the US choose to cover up its air-to-air losses by claiming technical failure or TRIPLE A then they could easily do so and it wouldn’t be a conspiracy it would just be simple propoganda.
Who remembers the F/A-18 that got shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25, the pilot of the Foxbat was in the right place at the right time and squeezed off a missile which happened to hit, now how many times have we all heard on this forum and others that the F/A-18 was lost by technical failure, pilot error, SAM’s, bird strike….so far the only thing I haven’t heard was ET kidnapped the pilot and the plane fell out of the sky!!! :p
If anybody based his procurement decision on these kind of successes, he would be a complete idiot. Definitely, when selling unappropriate aircraft to 3rd world countries, you giving them hardware barely usable (like MiG-23MS to Syria) in their forces and already are lying to them. If they buy such things, they might be impressed by some claims.
In modern days countries buy systems, the aircraft is part of it. If somebody bought the aircraft without the system or with the wrong system, he can’t blame the particular fraction of the system.
When Schumacher won the F1-series, he did not because of the engine, the car or the mechanics. The whole system was a winning team, how stupid would somebody look who emphasized the car and paid no attention to the other factors.
Sign In
