SrbinIIRC, they weren’t deployed- they were too frightened of Serbia’s Igla-1s- in that terrain, it’s even more dangerous than normal- more places to hide. All I recall is that two crashed as the result of accidents.
This is why I prefer Fixed Wing CAS aircraft like Su-39 and A10 over Attack helicopters. I would also prefer Lighter Attack Helicopters like AH-6 over more heavier ones.
SrbinThe Soviets best chance to do something successful was very early in the 1970s and early-1980s and as time went on the quality gap got larger. The MiG.-21, MiG.-23 &, MiG.-27 were the most modern fighters the WP had. These would face the F-4 Wild Weasels, F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Tornadoes, Jaguar, F-111s, etc.. Next to the MiG.-21, the F-16 was the most numerous aircraft in the European Theater! As you can see, there is a big quality edge between NATO and WP aircraft. At that (1988/89) there was only a couple hundred MiG.-29s and far less SU-27s.
I think there were far more Mig-29s and SU-27s there than that. Don’t forgetr that there were few F-14s and F-15s around and most of the F-16s were BVRless and jkust dogfighters, the Mig-27 and 23 were not the most manouverable but they had BVR weapons, and when Mig-29 and Su-27 were introduced they would’ve caused havoc between the F-16s which were very numerous.
As the world found out when selling the MiG.-29s, the gap between the performance of the MiG.-29 and its spec sheet is far greater than any Western fighters. The Soviets had numerous missiles but, reliability and accuracy is far below what we have come to expect in the West.
NATO plans called for the F-15s to have a kill ratio of 6:1 and the F-16 a kill ratio of 3:1 (this is ground and air attack exchange), that the F-14s could take care of naval combat without any assistance and the Tornado be able to control the North Sea, Southern portion of the Norweigian Sea, a large part of the GIUK GAP and, the Western part of the Baltic Sea! This is a large area to have to patrol and obtain/maintain air superiority!
Tornados would’ve proved to be bad like they did in Iraq, the low level attack would’ve not worked very well. The fact was that the Mig-29 at that time was the best dogfighter and there were also quite a few Su-27s and then you’re forgetting the Mig-31s.
There was a reason the Soviets placed a gun in the MiG.-21 after it was designed “without” one, they had such a poor rate of sucess the answer was clear very early. One area in which the West consistently held a lead was air to air missiles.
While NATO had Red Flag type programs with ACMI ranges, the Soviet Union nor China spent this sort of money for realistic training. They also stayed away from air to air combat laboratories (in conjunction with Red Flag) to test new theories in air to air combat. The KGB did do a good job of gaining information on reports such as the Ault Report, AIMVAL/ACEVAL summations, etc..
The Soviet Union if it attacked NATO would send large air forces of several hundred aircraft in a consentrated area. NATO would attack with many aircraft dispersed over a very broad area.
To counter the WP’s large group the NATO fighters would pick along the perifiery and force the WP fighters to break off and fight the NATO fighters. Once the WP fighters did they would be hit from several directions by small groups of NATO fighters. WP attack aircraft that strayed or got out of position in relationship to their escorts (fighters, jamming, etc.).
The problem was not just destroying WP aircraft in the air but actually surviving the initial hits on NATO airfields which would’ve been taken out by Soviet bombers early out in the war.
That is incorrect plus look what the Israeli AF has done with the Sidwinder and Python missiles. They require their pilots to obtain a visual ID before firing.
The US Navy had all of its F-14s by the end of 1978! That is with a production run of just five aircraft per month! The F-15 was produced at a faster rate because it didn’t have the swing wings. The F-15 is down to its lowest production now, five aircraft per month and it will remain that way until the middle of 2008!
Yes but wasn’t the AIM-7 used extensively
The only way NATO could win would be a pre-emptive strike against the WP targets. A pre-emptive strike plus the surprise of the F-117 would have been a real blow. The early air superiority would also hamper Soviet Airborne operations!
If the WP struct first then they would have air superiority or at worst parity in the air which would allow Soviet aiborne forces to conduct their operations. The number of NATO aircraft caught on the ground would be losses NATO would never recover. Runways cratered, radar sites put out of operations due to AR missiles. NATO would also have to depend on its AWACS aircraft also. NATO’s counter attack would not be complete enough to take away the offensive advantage for the WP ground forces and the air parity lasting a lot longer makes it far more likely that NATO would have to use nuclear weapons first!!
How many F-117’s did NATO have?
In the initial days of war Western Europe would’ve not lasted long. You see, the point of WP Fighters was not exactly achieving air superiority but merely annoying and harrassing NATO fighters and mostly protecting Soviet bomber. The Soviet bombers did not even have to cross over to Western German border to launch their missiles, they could easily stay in East German and Czechoslovakian airspace and launch them. In the initial days of war most of the NATO airfields would be taken out and whatever lifted up in the air would be way too overwhelmed by WP fighters. The only thing Western Europe could do is wait for CONUS. On the ground, the war would’ve not lasted so long with WP air superiority, the WP Armies had large number of SAMs so any aerial counterattack would’ve not been easy with anything, even F-117s in bigger numbers would’ve not been exactly suitable enough. It’s not just about the quality about WP fighters, it’s about Soviet bombers destroying the NATO airfields, ammo depots and many other targets quickly enough.
I think we all know that in the 1980s the BVR would not be more common than dogfighting, this is where teh Su-27 and F-16 would come into play. I think we can all question teh quality of R-27 and AIM-7 as well as R-23. But even if it was like that the BVR edge would’ve still probably gone the WP because they not only had many more BVR fighters but the Mig-29s and Su-27s would’ve caused havoc withing anything. Don’t really forget Mig-31s. I wonder how long NATO AWACS would’ve lasted, they are big and clumsy targets for WP Bombers. I doubt they would be able to operate for very long if WP attacked.
SrbinAre they planning to replace every single Jaguar, Mig-21 and 23 in IAF? Or just some?
SrbinWow 12000 hours, what’s the designated total airframe life for a jet like Mig-29M? Western jets seem to last much longer and are usually cheaper to run and more fuel efficient.
SrbinYes but you also have to look at what the IAF wants as well, they want a Western Eastern combo, the Mirages will give the IAF the western leg and the Sukhoi the Eastern one plus an indegenous leg in the LCA. tis not too good to put all your eggs in one basket and do not underscore the great pro Mirage lobby in the IAF.
Agree that it’s not good to put all your eggs in one basket but didn’t they say they want to move much farther away from Western equipment?
There should be a difference, one engine is cheaper to maintain and replace than two engines, Dassault has shown stellar customer support, I do not think that MiG could have come close, especially in the 90s when the IAF MiG-29s had a few glitches with the engines and what not, plus the Mirage 2000-5 is here and can be produced rather quickly and inducted, can the M2 be as well, also add to that that the IAf will want this and that equipment on it, not MiG’s fault there but if the IAF bought the Mirage, it would not have to do that, no need to MKise it.
Well like I said even if M2K is at most 30% cheaper to run than Mig-29 for lets say 30 years, the Mig-29M is twice as cheaper to buy and don’t forget that it would share the costs with the IN’s Mig-29Ks and it would be better for commonality with the Flankers and LCA, in terms of weapons and other stuff. As for support, I agree though Dassault is much better but does that actually matter that much since either of them would be produced locally in India and would be maintained and overhauled there, right?
Cost wise=probably the same if not Mig-29M being cheaper
Commonality wise=the Mig-29M, it will carry the same weapons as the MKI and the IN would operate Mig-29K
Performance wise=M2K probably better in A2G role with stand off weapons. Otherwise everything is similar.
Srbin1)First start with the Russian economy
Establish an open free market economy, set up trade with many nations and complete the necessary pipe lines. Improve Russian infrastructure, military and Russian people. You want an economy that is not very dependant on anyone for any sort of resources or technology or anythign else. You want to exploit Russian natural resources as much as possible and continue to grow it’s technology which is already there. The key to it is capitalistic economy.
-Also in a world of competition you want to become the main exporter of energy throughout the world=you want to do something with world oil powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia, which might mean supporting Israel along with US to weaken the Middle Eastern Muslims, that also includes India and other countries.
2) Since Russia is very good with Belarus, attempt a reunification with Belarus.
3) When economy in good condition, get even better with some of your Allies like Algeria, Serbia, India, China and others via trade, political and military factors.
4) Your first expansion should be in central Asia, into Kazakhstan, Turkeminstan, Uzbekistan and all the central Asian countries and as far as to Afghanistan, should retake all the former CIS countries in Central Asia that are worthy who have oil and gas such as Kazahstan and who are worth some economic and strategic interests.
5)Next is to become a superpower and establish influence among the World like US. Do not get on China’s & India’s bad side but make sure you can outinfluence them in the World. You must have strong economy, political structure to influence everyone and a strong military
6)If expanding to Africa, even more secure ties with Libya and Algeria, politically, economically and military and having to influence all of those of those countries. Start an invasion from Algeria down to Western Sahara and take it from Morocco, this is a disputed area and Polisario would welcome it, however declare it Russian territory and change the language the people speak, do not force them but try. Eliminate Polisario so there would be no threat.
7)Next expansion could be from Libya or Western Sahara into the central african countries and Sudan and others and keep going on
8)Establish good military, polricial and economic relations with Angola who is already a good Soviet ally, from there invade other countries. Replace English, French and others in African countries with Russian.
Europe is not worth going through, countries like Ukraine, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are not economically worth going through, but shall trade with these countries but keep them aware of Russian power.
Anyways, my main thinking is to see what you want to do first, what’s the best to do, what must be done in order for that to be done, decide who is worth it and who’s not and on top of that assess the threats and other possible results that might come up in those actions.
You must be able to influence other countries with power in order to get them on your sides. I would not want to get bad with India and China, they will be way too powerful in the future and the Russian economy needs to be strong in order to face either of them. Above all, keep your military technologically more advanced than theirs in order to contain them if it has to be done. IN terms of military you want to stay smart, Russian economy has a low chance of ever being bigger than India’s or China’s in the future or even European, so you want to be smart on how you spend your money, ie do not try and match them one by one, but rather stay smart. This is the same mistake Soviet Union made in the Cold War against US, you must spend probably less but keep the technological gap much bigger and try to use all the available advantages including geographical and political. India and China are not the type of countries who will want to try and influence the whole World as history showed that they have never attempted to do it nor have they wanted to do it.
Srbin1.5mn? I think you meant to say billion. Anyways that would be some 62mn for each Tiger, I am sorry but no matter what anyone says I would go to the Russians to buy some Mi-28Ns for less than 15mn/helicopter. Thats like 4 times less the cost of a single Apache or Tiger not to mention probably a better helicopter. Ridicilous how pricy Western equipment is.
Srbin2000 hours airframe life? What’s the airframe life of for example F-15C or K or T?
SrbinAnyways to restate what I said earlier on, even if M2K is cheaper at the end of it’s life service than the Mig-29M(which I am not sure since Mig-29M is twice as cheaper to buy), but lets say it is, the Mig-29M would still be kind of cheap to run because it is very similar to the Mig-29K in the IN and it will share the same weapons in the IAF’s inventory as the Flankers and in many ways with the LCA.
I still wouldn’t mind IAF getting either of them, they are both great jets but costwise at the end of their lifetime I don’t think the cost differences will be so great between them either way.
I think in A2G the M2K is better especially with the stand off weapons which Mig-29M doesn’t have incorporated unless IAF wants it to.
SrbinThe Mig 29M2 will alway be as less maintainable than the M2K.
1. Mig 29 is a two engines fighter and M2k is one engine fighter.
2. The Mig 29 engines also have a lower lifespan then once on a M2k.The M2k would be the better choice.
1. M2k may cost more but it is also cheap to maintain.
2. Because M2k take less maintenance, There will be more sortie in wartime.
3. I have heard that India like M2k alot.
True and I would still agree that M2K is cheaper to operate than the Mig-29M STILL, however remember that the Mig-29M would be very similar to Mig-29K which will be operated by IN, also don’t forget that Mig-29M would use same weapons as Flankers in IAF meanwhile M2K would introduce many new weapons.
I think M2K is cheaper to run and maintain than Mig-29M but remember Mig-29M is twice as cheaper to buy and not to mention will have commonality with Mig-29Ks with IN and commonality with weapons of Indian Flankers and not to mention quite feww with LCA.
SrbinRather difficult to say but i guess one can make an educated guess based on some facts.
1. I think most here would agree that western fighters in general are more user friendly, i.e. less maintenance required, higher MBTO, airframe/engine lives, better fuel economy etc., in comparison with their russian counterparts.
2. In a recent AFM article about Israeli F-15s, i remember reading that it costs IDF/AF around $15,000 per flight hour for F-15, more than 50% of which goes onto the fuel.
3. One can assume that overall maintenance costs in India will be considerably cheaper than Israel (or west) especially if the spare parts r produced locally, but the true extent of overall advantage is likely to be reduced by more extensive maintenance requirements.
4. M2K-5’s normal take off weight at around 10,000 Kg (with one engine) is considerably lower than that of Mig-29M at around 17,500 kg (with two engines).
Taking all these factors into consideration, my own guess is that m2K-5 will b considerably cheaper to run than Mig-29M…probably by as much as 50%.
Yahh since either of them would be produced locally both Mig-29M and M2K it wouldn’t matter regarding which one was picked for those matters. However I think that regarding M2K being 50% more easier to run than Mig-29M well, I am not sure but has the M2K being offered to India have any maintenance and cost/hour cost reduced? I would believe that earlier M2Ks are 50% cheaper to run than earlier Mig-29As but not sure about Mig-29Ms and how far that would go. Remember the Mig-29 would also be cheaper to buy by almost twice as much I think. SO use some equations and calculate the approximate total cost for Mig-29M and Mirage-2000 at the end of their lives.
SrbinInfact, how many tanks can they really transport over the strait? They don’t have as many Il-76 to transport enough tanks in order to really hurt Taiwan. I’d rather put my money on mostly the Airforce and the Navy. Taiwanese Navy could really use it.
SrbinAnd what chance is there that they will get there?
SrbinI am still interested in knowing how much Mig-29M costs to maintain and run compared to the M2K that is being offered to India. If Mig-29M is something like at most 30% more to run & maintain then I’d get the M2K
SrbinAre really Apache’s or any other combat helicopters a priority to Taiwan when China can’t even transport 1/200s of it’s Army over the strait?
Sign In
