SchorschThe future of third world air forces seem so bleak. Seems there are three paths that are being taken – give up on your air force and go for a sam based defense, buy a very few stripped down modern planes or buy second hand old junk, preferably the type you have already been flying..
For air space control any subsonic fighter does the job. If it comes to real defence against a hostile air force we have to ask what kind of air force. I cannot deny my airspace to a western air force without big expenses. On the other hand my neighoring 3rd world country does not have the assets to threaten me with his air force. If he had a clever adviser like Chrom he sits on 20 MiG-21 and can only dash with Mach 2 over my border without delivering any worthwile payload. No threat. The few bombs he drops on my army won’t hurt it.
For strategic defense of a small country against a bigger and richer enemy I need a strategic partner. That means less bloodshed under oppsing students for good press in western media, some usable strategic asset (oil, strange metal alloys, hope) to justify western expenses and finally a suitable parking spot for a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
It is always more efficient to have a “big brother” looking over you than start “growing” in power. However, the “big brother” needs some political maintenance and will have some demands. If I hate the “big brother” but want to defend against him, I need to attract the “big brother’s” counterpart and attract him.
For information: “Subsonic” is popularly speaking for everything below M1. Actually I need something with M0.9 top speed, an L-39 can be outflown by any Airbus. A-4 and A-7 do the job, also Hawk and my favorite is the AMX (picture).
SchorschI’ll paraphrase you. “You will be surprised how small and limited the mission envelope of a light SUBsonic aircraft is”. Thats also true. No difference here.
Maintanance cost – thats true to some degree, but only to very small degree. Modern avionic and weapon are quite expencive both in aquiring and maintance and require very skilled technicans. Any subsonic fighter without it – completely useless. So engine maintainace cost will be only a small fraction of total maintance cost. But any supersonic fighter will replace at least 2 subsonic fighter in terms of airspace control ability. I will take 10 supersonic non-BVR Mig-21’s over 20 subsonic non-BVR Harriers any time any day.
So, then we have to talk about design principles of fighters. Your thinking how far I understand (please correct me if I’m wrong):
Supersonic fighter needs a little bit more fuel, they are twice as fast, ergo I need half as much. Avionics are the same anyways, so no reduced costs.
Wrong, completly, sorry.
“Supersonic” is even nearly 60 years after Chuck Yeager no easy game. It requires specialised engines, airframe, avionics, control systems. These are all very expensive. An afterburning engine is a totally different thing than a normal subsonic jet-engine. It will require much more maintenance. check out average engine life times to get a picture. To achieve supersonic speeds with average engine and airframe (so no F-22 or Eurofighter), your designers made lots of compromises. The F-104 and MiG-21 are the best example of a compromise fighter or “what to sacrifice for Mach 2”.
Mission Envelope:
A MiG-21 will fly subsonic. It can dash with two missiles at M1.8, for about 4 minutes. Then internal fuel is empty, if it has external fuel it will hardly reach M1.4. Fuel Flow is in the vicinity of 500 to 800kg/minute. After a dash there is no fuel left for any usable patrol. It needs to engage (if there is a target) and get back to base. To patrol an area (for example above a battlefield) 100nm from base you will need at least equal number of supersonic aircraft. Your basic misunderstanding: in a normal mission a supersonic aircraft is not supersonic, it flies nicely at M0.8. If it goes supersonic, its range decreases rapidly and one minute afterburner is about 10 minutes normal flight.
Note that usually supersonic ac have lower mission rates.
Training:
A supersonic aircraft is tricky to fly! OK, mighty F-16 and Eurofighter not, but anything not equipped with western control technology is tricky, needs training and will crash twice as much. To have a pilot who is at least a little bit skilled you need 100 hours a year, if you have more avionics and no complicated simulators add another 20 to 30 hours. Average engine lifetime of J-7 is surely below 1.000h, airframe maybe about 1.500h. So you fighter lasts 15 years in pure peacetime business. For a 24 fighter fleet plus a few trainers you will have a steady flow of spare parts.
SchorschSubsonic. If you want something subsonic – buy Su-25. At least it will be able to do something else than scare cessna. From your POV – ideal fighter. Simple, cheap, sturdy, armoured, no radar, no BVR missiles. With drop tanks it even have respectable range. Enjoy.
Wrong. Your fighter should rech high subsonic speeds. With a max cruise of M0.9 your are happy. Doesn’t hit for the Su-25. Stick to small and less complex aircraft. In a Su-25 you always carry the “NATO-Stinger hit my tail” bonus around.
And Chrom: If your enemy has low-level, BVR, supersonic fighters, than you have a problem. But if he hasn’t, you don’t need to waste money on that.
You really need to update your knowledge about fighter performance. You will be surprised how small and limited the mission envelope of a light supersonic aircraft is. The feature supersonic adds maintenance (esp. engine), training time, ground facilities and so and so on.
SchorschIt appears to have been a “reverser unlock” on the #2 engine that started this. Fortunately the crew immediately shut down the engine. The airplane was well over 700K. Unfortunately, only one of the three pilots was really comfortable with the new glass cockpit and FMS.The crew decided because of their weight to fly their approach to the longest runway. They also decided to fly at full flap approach to keep the approach speed down The recommended flap setting for a three engine approach is Flaps 40. During the approach the crew became worried about not having enough power to fly a full flap approach and selected flaps 40–which they were now too slow for. The pilot who was familiar with the new glass cockpit and FMS was also the one flying the aircraft. He became distracted inputting the new approach speed in the FMS. There was also some confusion about just who was flying the A/C while he had his head down updating the speed. Aircraft slowed down too much and got into into the shaker, and struck the tail into the trees and it departed the aircraft first. The nose pitched down hard and the nose and left wing impacted next snapping off the nose. Several cockpit occupants suffered spinal compression injuries. The guys sitting at the crew table behind the cockpit actually came to a stop with their legs dangling out over the ground. The left outboard fuel tank split open but fortunately the leaking fuel did not ignite!
How do you know that? Is there an official confirmation for that?
Schorschfrom what i know
during the flight as fuel is used up, the wings become lighter as the fuel inside them is used up. perhaps wings that are lighter are better on landing? not sure…
i think its advantageous if weight distribution can be altered across the aircraft, for whatever reason. fuel can be transfered across the aircraft from tank to tank to improve performance/weight distribution/flight load relief/trim change/in flight safety etc during flight – although transfer possiblities are limited to the crew. weight in the form of fuel is taken from the wing and put elsewhere.
if there was baggage and cargo in the wing, and changes to performance/weight distribution/flight load relief/trim change/in flight safety needed to be made by moving weight from the wings, it wouldn’t be possible – you can’t move baggage and cargo in flight.
the wing is designed to bend as lift is created, but if the wing is filled or partly filled with solid items like baggage and cargo, it might affect how flexible the wing is – the fuel, being a liquid allows the wing to bend without so much restriction.
also, for lots of types of cargo, you need a pressurised space. whilst fuel is also pressurised, the pressurisation for the fuel isn’t the same for cargo. the fuel is stored at very cold temperatures, and the contents of the wing gets very cold – if cargo was stored in the wing, it would have to be heated to stop your clothes in your baggage from freezing. you would need space wasting heating systems and pressurisation systems in the wing to store baggage and cargo.
also the shape and structure of the wing probably isn’t suitable for baggage and cargo. there really isn’t much space in a wing for anyhting other than fuel – being a liquid it can get into lots of spaces – you can’t shove a solid suitcase into a tight space. there are lots of ribs and stringers forming the wing, taking up lots of the large, open spaces, so you end up with lots of smaller spaces which i should think could only be filled efficiently with fuel.
access also probably isn’t the best. how would the cargo be put into the wing? from the bottom or top? new equipment would have to be designed.
you mention engines being put on the fuselage. if the engines remain on the wing, and fuel is put elsewhere on the aircraft, i.e. not the wing, more complex fuel feed systems would be needed to take the fuel further across the aircraft to the engines. with much of the fuel on the wing, next to the engines, the fuel has to travel shorter distances so a less complex fuel feed and fuel transfer system is needed.
safety is another reason. if all the fuel is located in the fuselage, there is perhaps a greater fire hazard and danger to the passengers as the fuel is closer.
i write too much…
if im wrong on any of that, someone feel free to correct me.thanks
I agree with all your points. Especially the pressurization didn’t come to my mind.
The best would be if the wing always keeps its weight. In some situations a loaded wing is better than an unloaden. Problems occur especially for flutter and gust loads.
SchorschNo, actually its YOU think in a wrong dimension. Useall 3th-world dictator (or “president”) dont care that much about defending its capital or oil fields from the air attacks. If he do, he will simply buy old rusty C-75. Its not only much cheaper, but also much more sure way to defend something from bussiness jets or 50-years old bomber from neighbourhood dictator (or, “democratic” president). Useally, he wants to keep clear his airspace from controbandists, rebellion supporters, recon planes, “accidently” wrong flying transport aircrafts or airlines. For all that you absolutly need supersonic fighter. Btw, this is a major obstacle what prevents to sell Yak-130 to a number of African and Latin American countries as cheap “trainer-fighter-bombers-all-at-once” combat plane. It simlply cant control airspace. It can defend any object its stationed, but nothing more. You cant place airfield with Yak-130 near every important object and on each kilometr of the state border.
Radar is absolutley need by any such fighter as 3th world countries dont posses extencive radar network what can direct fighter to its enemy everythere and at any alt. Hell, no countries in the world have such network. Not even USA. Not even Europa. Not even Russia.
You WILL need radar to detect low-flying trespasser – even if it was prior detected by ground based radar. And i’m not even started to talk about bad weather or, god forgive, night.
The problem is that your requirements can barely be met by a “low-tech” fighter.
Supersonic Performance:
The trade is speed versus complexity, range and cost. A fast fighter is short ranged. Anything else is huge and expensive (Su-27). A supersonic fighter needs much more training, simulators, paved runways and still does not convince in payload range (see how the Iraqis and Argentiniens struggled to attack targets 800km away from their airports).
Radar:
Same thing: such a radar is complex and expensive. No MiG-21 derivative, no F-5 and even no MiG-23 can come up with such a radar.
Always ask: who are your enemies? If your enemy has a fleet of J-7 (=MiG-21), you can sleep well at night, because he might overfly you palace in “Freedeom and Wealth Town”, but the only thing he drops is a emptied drop tank.
A working radar network is the basic requirement. How else do you want to identify an intruder in the first hand? You can’t partol your border 24/7 and look with your tiny radars around. A normal air control radar (these things they have at the airport) can easily cover 200 to 300km for high flying targets (airliners, any aircraft with some ordonance). It has the additional advantage of enabling you of doing aircraft traffic control. Of course, in the wide open there is no radar. But, where there is nothing to strike there is nothing to defend.
For low intruders you only need to defend the battle space and the rear lines. However, as the Iraq Iran war showed even these countries were not able to do any meaningful interdiction or strike, despite of all the aircraft.
USA and Europe have radar networks, of course, they have not parked Patriots every 40 miles. Potentially dangerous targets (airliners) are normally defined by civil controllers. Potential military intruders can only come on a few routes were the military steps in.
Your low-tech fighter would come out as F-16A, so way to expensive again.
SchorschYour “colleague” must be looking over your shoulder and translating Farsi for you. Because, you
seem to be able to translate things the Iranians quote.
She will be delighted to hear but unfortunately she doesn’t speak and neither read it. But her french is better than mine. :diablo:
Schorschyeah but they had better jet fighters we had only 11 mig 29s not in A class condeiton and they also were ganaged from 4 f-16s on 1 mig plus we had mig 29A versions not Smt or something and your f-16s and f-15s were upgrade. And for the issue Isreal had money to fund it all plus they get billions from America and we dont we dont even get money from Russia and most of the stuff america gives is free.
… because otherwise Serbia would have defeated NATO, invaded Kosovo, Albania and finally Switzerland and WOLUD NOW RULE THE WORLD!
SchorschI have been meaning to respond to this absurd post for some times, but I guess it wasn’t a
priority for me.You may claim not to like Bush, but you sure sound like you do. My guess is that you are one of
those “used to be” Iranians, who left the country and can’t go back. (You are probably thinking,
damn, how did he know) Therefore, you have become a “long distance” Iran-basher. Sort of like
those traitor, mostly tampon wearing, MEKs and their laughable leader Rajavi. I guess it was not
the best strategy to kill innocent Iranians for no reason whatsoever but to appease Saddam; And
to top it off, side with that Animal against Iran when he invaded. Some Iranians they are.Keep reading the nonsense they blur out in their truly pathetic IranFocus garbage publication.
As for the B-2s, I guess it looks like we may yet see a few of them being shown on Iranian TV
burning on the ground, next to the F-22s and F-117s. Hell, if one of our informed Russian posters
can come up with a brilliant strategy, then I am pretty sure the Iranians have as well.I keep coming across information, mostly from the high ranking Russian sources, that Iranian
got hold of about 250 warheads. And, THAT is why they are not taking crap from “God’s
Messenger” Bush. Well, actually, Cheney. We know who pulls the Dummy’s strings.
Actually I’m German, but my collegeau (and neighbor) is half-Iranian. So, maybe you are partly right. :confused:
Anyways, I am now fearful of God’s revenge issued from your side. Somebody around here seems to be a little bit full of hatred.
Which Russian poster had the brilliant stategy, what did I miss out? You mean the long wave radar or the MiG-31 pointing its radar 90deg downwards. Brilliant strategy, if Iran stick to it the Americans can spare their B-2s (even Stealth airframes have limited lifetimes) and rather use B-1s or simple B-24. The “strategy” of this Russian “expert” is non-sense, based on his desktop-experiences in electronic warfare.
Iran has 250 bombs. So why do they still play idiot’s ball with IAEO? “High-Ranking Russian” source, … that is … to lousy to be commented.
SchorschWell english is my second luangage , what I ment was IT still doesn’t PROOVE Russian Tech is not as good if not better than USA
At least it does prove than advocats for Russian Tech are less knowledgable in written English than the advocats of Western technology. That gives them a hard time in an English Form.
However, people that can’t write proper words (I excuse the spelling, but the general style is too bad), name themself “CLEAR WAR” and are not able to write more than one “sentence”, are registered in my personal “forum white noise” category (and it doesn’t matter if they like MiG or Tomcat).
SchorschStill doesn’t show Rus tech is not good as if not better than U.S.A. because NATO had to come with 841 Fighters/Bombers and 159 other aircrafts to Serbia’s 79 Aircraft, if this was Russia the WESTERN News would have had a field day ridiculing Russia about having to use 1000 Planes against a nation with ONLY 79, a testemony to U.S./ NATO supiriourity over Russian/Serb Tech HA! 😀
The Israelis fought 1982 with inferior numbers, over enemy occupied territory, having no AD systems close, and still defetaed their enemies.
If it keeps up your self-confidence and saves your national pride, you may believe whatever you want. But please spare us from ill conclusions coming from thatwise intended thoughts.
SchorschWell I think your verdict on the F-5E is a little too harsh. The F-5E was first introduced in the mid-1970’s and the last example was delivered to the Singapore Air Force in 1989. Seen from today’s perspective the F-5E is hardly an optimum solution but in the 1970’s it was good enough.
With a good RWR the F-5E could have easily evaded bigger and badder adversaries up to the 1990’s but with the advent of AESA radar, which neutralizes almost all RWRs, the F-5E is now just a sitting duck.
Oh no, my fighter cannot compete against F-18E with AESA!!!!!! We are all gonna die!!!
So what? If big USN decides to position one aircraft carrier in front of your coast, they gonna wreck your airforce in one day if your try to defend, or in one week if you go the Serbian way (which is actually more clever). So why bother about AESA? You need to demonstrate your ability to control your airspace and eventually to use limited airpower for recoinnasance or “phychologic” strikes. That’s it. US Navy would laugh even if you have three times as much. They have 12 carriers.
SchorschYou need AB only to catch airliner, then you can observe it / force to land / shot down it without AB. As with operation costs… yes, its a problem. But not as big as its appears if you consider much higher range of biggers fighters. You will simple need less of them, and also less airfields.
You think in wrong dimensions. You have your fighters to have the option of controlling your airspace. You don’t have a 24h 100% coverage. That is too expensive and normally completly useless. As 3rd world dictator the capital is what matters. Some more dead in the province doesn’t hurt your reign. So, base the fighters close to your capital and maybe close to your favorite oilfield/diamond mine. Everything else is protecting the desert from … what?
If you have 8 super-fighters instead of 24 cheap fighters, the possible punch of your little airforce is neglegible. Then you have been fooled by a Suchoi salesman, like so many 3rd world countries have been fooled by MiG salesman (and LM, too).
Schorschi think also for these countries youd need a fighter also that can handle rough condetions beacuse most of the african countries have air ports for the army on dirt or something beacuse they use migs or f-7s beacuse they can handle these kind of fields. Beacuse on ACIG i heard that a mig 21 landed during some african war in a Haze field and when they found it it wasnet even damaged.
You will be surpirsed who many aircraft can land on rough fields, and I would be interested to hear how a “rough” field is defined. However, what does it gain to land somewhere in the “open” if nobody awaits you with fuel, weapons and line maintenance. No country could afford to have movable maintenance units like the Russians surely had. The “rough-field” ability is therefore useless weight.
Better look for good field performance and low approach speed as it will save you lots of accidents. The MiG-21 is not really famous for that.
A slower and less “tuned” aircraft will have the range to operate from normal airstrips. The A-4 and the A-7 were carrier aircraft. I think they had low approach speed and were pretty tough.
SchorschOk, anything what cant fly at least 1.5M is not suited for an intercepter job. It cant control airspace as it cant even catch civilian airliner.
Actually even a supersonic aircraft will have a hard time catching it from 6-o’clock. How long can a J-7 fly supersonic? When it scrambles to 30.000ft and brakes the sound barrier (after it dropped its external tanks), it has about 5 minutes (optimistic) before it gets in serious fuel problems. Then it might have cought the airliner, but cannot accompany it for more than 10 minutes. After all, rather useless speeding in my eyes.
Next, you will need cockpit. Modern MFD cockpit is not only better, its vastly cheaper than previos hundreds-dials cockpits. So, its MFD’s.
While I agree with the need for a cockpit, the usage for MFDs is somehow irrelevant. A “low-tech” fighter will have “low-tech” systems, so no complicated fuel management system, no hardpoint management system, no radar with 10 modes. So which information needs to be displayed? Time? Look at an early F-16A cockpit. That is the maximum you need. Actually a HUD and one MFD would do it, too.
Next, radar. Now, any radar probably will do, but obviosly modern, but not-so-capable radar would be much cheaper then equaly capable old radar. Espeaceally in maintainance. So, we install modern radar.
“Modern radar” is what? Of course, we will not use the MiG-23MS radar suite, but actually a radar of the early F-16A models is more than sufficient. Even that is overkill. Reliance on ground-based guidance is more appropriate. Most 3rd world countries have pretty nice weather, so no middle-european BS.
Next, weapon. Any modern radar will be able to fire modern missiles, so we can buy these as well. But, for training purposes or non-threat targets we can also get some old cheap missilles.
Any non-radar equipped aircraft can fire all modern IRAAMs. BVR is out of question and won’t really be useful even for a low supersonic fighter. It doesn’t bring a big advantage for a normal 3rd world country and just the maintenance of your BVR-system eats up money you could spend on 3 other fighters.
Chrom, you still think in wrong dimensions and show little understanding of real fighter aircraft performance.
Sign In
