aurcovIf you can launch rockets into space and land them back then launching them and landing them on the moon and bringing them home is not as big a step. Launching probes out of the solar system was a waste of probes.
I bet that if US would have launched the first satellite/man in space and OTOH the Russians would have landed on the moon, our friend Garry would tell us that what the US did it was a piece of cake, and the biggest feat of all times was landing on the moon…
aurcovCan you name a conflict where *USSR* had lost more planes than an opponent? Dont bring up Afganistan, as i will get Iraqwar here
My question was “Can you name a conflict in which US lost more planes in WVR than the opponent?” and I ask it because GarryB said that US focused on BVR because of fear to lose planes in WVR.
And yes, I can name a conflict where Soviet pilots, albeit not wearing their insignia, lost more planes than an opponent: Korea. Guess who was the opponent…
aurcovWe have all this discussed many times in the past that the VTAS was a kind of failure, only a naive can believe that 500 Phantoms have been equiped with it. Please do not come up with fratricide caused by Schlem, it is used for 20 years now and no one have said anything bad about it.
The site is in Portuguese, but is not so hard to understand:
VTAS II do USMC com as cores do esquadrão VMF(AW)-314. O HMS russo e o R-73 Archer deram uma capacidade revolucionaria em combate aproximado, mas o primeiro HMS operacional entrou em serviço na década de 70 com a US Navy e USMC nos modelos finais do F-4N equipado com o AIM-9H. O míssil Box Office foi testado no F-16C com um HMS da Honeywell que era uma versão do AVG-8 VTAS. O Honeywel AVG-8 Visual Target Acquisition System (VTAS) foi usado entre 1973 a 1979 em cerca de 500 F-4J/N Phantom II. O VTAS foi instalado nos F-4J Block 45 e 46 e nos F-4N da US Navy. Era usado para apontar sensores e mísseis em combate aproximado. Em 1969 o Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM) AIM-9H foi integrado no F-4 Phantom II, assim como apontar o radar para aquisição de alvos para o AIM-7E-2 Sparrow II otimizado para combate aproximado.
http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ca/hmd3usa.html Also these ones are in English: http://www.ausairpower.net/hmd-technology.htmlhttp://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_25.html
Anyway, what magnetic trackers are you talking about?
This shows little knowledge of HMS/HMD…
yeeh, it always ends by silly statements. Aurcov, who else. If a gang of skinheads attack you alone, you hardly hit someone.
The MiG 29 was involved in some air-to-air combat and lost. What sounds silly?
Fratricide in WVR combat?
Do you what is the only victory of an MiG 29 against a fighter?An Iraqi MiG 23 killed by an Iraqi MiG 29. Would this qualify as fratricide? 😀 :diablo:
One of many reasons why they cancelled it was that VTAS could break your neck during high g combat maneuvers caused by inertia of the HMS assembly.
Yeah, sure…
BVR because the US knew they would lose too many planes in WVR…
Can you name a conflict in which US lost more planes in WVR than the opponent? I am just curious…
The US copied it quickly enough…
:p
aurcovClearly it was not successful. That’s not surprising, considering that it wasn’t mated to a high off-boresight missile like R-73. That’s what makes the Soviet HMS combination good. As for claiming it was a copy- prove it.
The main problem of the VTAS is also present in the Russian HMS–risk of fratricide. Only a HMD that shows data about the ennemy (including the IFF confirmation) eliminates this risk. And what proof do you need : the russian HMS was fielded in ’80 and the US one in the ’70 and both have magnetic trackers.
How does loss to anti-aircraft speak volumes about anything?
AA means air-to-air. AAA is anti-aircraft artilerry.
That’s an absurd statement.
Really? Except for the Eritrean- Etiopian confilct there is no recoreded kill by a Russian BVR missile. In fact 99% of all BVR kill were by US missiles: Sparrow, Phoenix, AMRAAM.
aurcovOn the other side they were astonished by the functionality of the HMS system, how easy a Mig-29A can fire a missile. Because of Schlem the Mig-29 clearly outclasses most fighters of his generation(mentioned above) in close range, so in this case the Mig has better man machine interface. Agree?
No. Because the so much admired Schlem is nothing more than a copy of VTAS (Visual Target Acquisition System) the first operational HMS in the world, used in the US Navy on some 500 F-4B and F-4J from 1973.
Geezz….I didn`t want to offend you much by saying that you are an American. I`m sorry if I did. I just thought that US first started with the buzzword HOTAS, thinking that they invented a wooden iron.
I didn’t consider it an offense. And yes, US started with HOTAS on the YF 17.
NO ONE!!, the Mig-29 pilot kills enemies just by looking at them, still keeping his hands on stick and throttle.
First, I would like to tell that no MiG ever “killed” anything, except an unarmed civilan Cessna. On the contrary, around a dozen were lost in AA, speaking volumes about the qualities of this plane.
OTOH, it is true that I shoud mention in my question that was talking about BVR…But I forget, this is uncharted territory for Russians 😀
From the way the manual looks, anything targeted that is displayed outside of the HUD, BVR or WVR mode, R-73, R-27 or R-77, can be displayed by the Schlem.
I find hard to believe. The Schmel is a HMS not a MHD. Tha later can, indeed display data about the target.
aurcovwhen was it for the first time?
I told you: 1983. That full operational. the first F 18 A being delivered in May 1980.
please, just one example
“god’s view” with you plane in the middle, if you know what it is.
Hmm, what is a paper project according to you?, the M prototypes had flown with glass cockpits for sure.
I said myself that it flew for the first time in 1986…however, I doubt that the first prototype had MFDs…
Does it look a bit like your “AMERICAN” HOTAS? I counted 16 functions on stick and throttle, we might compare it with the F-4.
No, we might not. First, I am not American, so is not my HOTAS.
Let me be more clear: how many buttons and switches has a MiG 29 turn/press in order to fire a missile? Inform yourself and we’ll talk…
aurcovBy the way, IIRC the M flew for the first time in 1986 and its development was finished only in 1992. So in 1985 it was probably in mock-up stage.
aurcovI compared cockpits of first gen. of fighters Mig-29A, Su-27, F-15A/B, F-16A/B. Personally I find those US cockpit a lot messy. .
I was comparing too fighters fielded in the same period. The fact is that MF displays(cathode ray) were first installed in Western fighters. The situational awarness offered by them was matched only later by Russian planes.
Do you have the slightest idea how the cockpit of Mig-29M looked like in 1985? I hope there is no need to explain why the Mig-29M is not in service yet
I saw pictures of M cockpit. The M is one of the endless series of paper project, a field where Russians excel…
Secondly ergonomics is more than just MFDs, it depends on HOW you place them, where you place them and how data is presented as well
A pertinent remark. I would add that aside MFDs another vital point in a cockpit ergonomics is HOTAS. Something US planes had from ’70. When did the Russian fighters assimilate it? Late ’90 I believe…
aurcovThat`s funny, because those western cockpits have always looked to me a lot messier than russian ones, unreasonably placed and unreadable small gauges, not to mention the boring black color all around.
Maybe because you are comparing latest Russian cockpits (many of them on planes not yet operational, and by the way, many using French MFDs) with older Western ones.
The first truly glass cockpit was the F 18 A (the first unit went operational in US Navy in 1983). Did you have the slightest idea how the Soviet cockpit looked in those days?
aurcovWant to call me anti American… fine.
Will take it as an honour, cause the alternative is repulsive.
Why?
aurcovGood, good old chap- I found your outrage amusing as well
I repeat it was not outrage. I don’t take this subject so personally and besides I am not American (though a big fan of the 22).
source for the former would be great. And 5 mtrs sq. << 10 mtrsquare. In an era of LRAAMs every little bit helps.
And the F-15 has the APG-63. Not the APG-65. Since you are so fastidious about designations, I thought you would appreciate it.
I don’t have a source, and generally exact figures are clasified. 180 km for a 10 m2 is an estimative figure. And yes, my mistake, the F 15 is equiped indeed with the APG 63 not the APG 65 (F 18A).
Sure- who said it wouldnt? i just made the statement that F-22 with AWACS is a better combo in terms of long range SA than F-22 without.
Totally agree, but if the F 22 is deep inside the ennemy territory, the AWACS will be at risk, specially by long range SAMs.
Source, please.
Source for what: that a normal RWR can’t measure the range or that the most modern can do it?
aurcovMy dear Aurcov, take a deep breath, hold a rosary in your hand and meditate.
In plain English, take a chill pill and do not hyper ventilate- whilst amusing for me, I fear you shall burst a vein
Thanks for caring about my health, but the
???????
in my post were for amusement/curiosity and not for anger — I would have used: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
What I (and other members) said is that the RCS plotting for a non-VLA plane would be useless. Even if the Su RCS will be reduced to 5 m2, it still is detectable from ~ 180 km by the older APG 65(V)1 present on the F 15C. I don’t dare to deduct the detecting range in the case of the APG77. It probably exceeds 350 km…
Without AWACS support, with reliance on equivalent radars, RCS reduction is useless since both combatants would have given away their positions anyway by using radars on each other. RWRs today are good enough to determine even the radar modes the other aircraft is using on you, as well as provide bearing and range of the emitting aircraft. You won’t get extra kilometers advantage anyway, since you both need to come close enough anyway to launch based on your missile’s no escape zone, which is almost under 40km anyway.
Even without AWACS (a scenario plausible when the F 22 is deep inside the ennemy teritory and the AWACS would probably stay at a safer distance), a pair of F 22 will beable to do silent attacks, one will use its radar and transmit via IFDL data to the second.
By the way, except the latest digital RWRs (all of them made in US) you can’t obtain the range, but only the bearing.
aurcovThe point was that the basic system set up to monitor the F-22 RCS can be replicated, and a similar display set up for pilots of other aircraft. If you look up you have a member speaking of a similar route display for the Eurofighter.
Might not help against the F-22 but is useful elsewhere for the tactical advantage, coz u’ll know which aspect of your profile you are presenting to enemy emitter and try to reduce its range (by showing least RCS portion) for maximum tactical advantage
Let’s assume that this f 22 function can be replicated on Su 3x. So what? What would be its use on a plane with a barn-size RCS???????????? Only to know that your RCS is 10-12 m2 frontal and 30 m2 from 45 deg? It’s a joke…And please, don’t come with the RAM coating idiocy… Stealth (or even LO) it’s much, much more than RAM…
aurcovI think we are going in circles here. Its a fact that TVC a/c (developed by the Russian but inducted by the Indians) have been “operational” since 2002. Just coz there are more of F22 does not mean much that its got as much operational experience as something thats been around for four years (which have been far from static). The very fact that Indians now let rookies fly the MKI means the program has matured. Compared to F22 Test Pilots> Experienced F15 pilots> Experienced F16 pilots > Rookies (now). The MKI had the same evolution albeit for the past 4 years in operational service.
The reason USAF isn’t yet putting rookies in Raptors is not because the program is “not mature”. But because the 183 F 22 will eventually replace some 385 F 15 C. This means that there are a lot of experienced pilots available. The B course (destined for T 38 graduates) is planned to start from 2012.
Since when are the ATFLIR and Sniper, IRSTs?
Since they have dedicated AA tracking function, dedicated software (that eliminates IR background radiation, perform target recognition, etc.), since it can detect fighters (frontal aspect!) some 50 Nmiles away thanks to 3rd generation IIR sensor, do ranging at 40 Nmiles thanks to diode-pumped lasers (instead CO2 lasers).
At the same time, remember that being saturated with data has always been an issue. Another reason why letting an AWACS Battlespace manager prioritise the information for you, is better. Another reason why having a separate WSO, is far far better. If the F-22 were a twin seater, it could have been a much better aircraft.
Sensor fusion was designed specifically to avoid this. It is estimated that it was the main reason the Raptor IOC was delayed for 3-4 years until Dec. last year.
With sensor fusion, the f 22 receives data from its APG 77, its ALR 94, from other Raptors through IFDL, from AWACS, Joint Rivet, GCI through Link 16 terminal (receiver only in this moment). It is the computer not the pilot that assemble this puzzle, so a crystal clear situation is presented to the pilot.
aurcovBased upon what?
Based on the perfomances of the latest targeting pods with 3rd generation IIR sensor (ATFLIR, Sniper). I don’t even bring into discussion the IRST of tF 14 D (AAS 42) because this plane is out.
Sign In
