JSRBecause it costs a lot of money and human effort to maintain an airforce – fuel, spares, ordanance, training etc etc.
There’s also things such as training of pilots/aircrew (and several training bases have been overrun), disruption of normal schools (remember you need education to make people suitable for high tech airforce jobs).
Reports are stating that sortie rates are already in decline due to lack of fuel and aircraft being worn out through sustained combat and high level of losses. Furthemore large number of pilots are not flying due to suspicions about their political loyalty.
As stated several air bases have been overrun, especially in North of country. This includes training, helicopter and at least 1 fighter base as well as 2 air defence bases (in one case entire AD batallion defected to rebels but missiles seem inoperative).
If the war continues at current tempo for a prolonged period of time, the air force will run out of resources. It happened in Somalia and Afghanistan post-1991.
.
I mean those who have defected already did. now only the commited persons left. sorties are that much less?. I dont think they will have problem with fuel. both Iraq/Iran can do crude swap with Russia for jet fuel supply to Syria.
Afghanistan/Somalia left alone after Soviet collapse. This is not the case with Syria. and coming years will prove this point
JSRI assume you mean post-civil war?
And let’s make the extremely fantastic assumption that Assad goes away and all the Syrians live in peace happily ever after.
They would buy nothing for many years to come.
Assad was Moscow’s friend so no purchases there.
Syria is poor (no oil resources) so can’t afford top of the line. Furthermore country needs rebuilding.
They still have a massive air force including MiG-29s and would probably “fly” them as long as they could.
Realistically, Russia will deliver some of the MiG-29s and Yak-130s on order.
These will be last combat deliveries for a long time. Country will sink further into chaos becoming like Lebanon in 1980s or even Somalia/Afghanistan with different groups constantly at war with each other.
At some stage Syrian AF will run out of resources and disappear.
I am not sure why Syrian AF will disappear. Arabs will keep sending insurgents and Russia will keep maintaining it in air. Country is still not in choas. Coastal areas are protected as is the capital. Not all countries have same importance.
JSRErrr no JSR those countries had a rather wide set of choices except the UK for obvious domestic political reasons. Neither India or Saudi Arabia are under sanctions and every aircraft manufacturer that sells a modern training jet has proffered a solution to them. If you remember Mikoyan were highly put out that the Mig-AT was not selected by India.
That statement is odd even for you considering your predilection for anything made by Mikoyan that the Mig-At was heavily pushed as a solution for India and Russia clearly not having any sanctions on one of their largest customers. I am not even wasting time debating the Hawk airframe with you.
These countries dont have wide choices. what else would India would have chose after two decades of wait. it would have taken alot more negotiation to switch to alternatives. MIG-AT is not certified plane like Yak-130 nor it has modern production line. and doubts about engine.
Saudi will rather spend summer in UK than in Korea/Italy. there is not chance of any alternative for them. It does not change the fact that Hawk is aerodynamically outdated.
JSRIndeed it is. Hence they’re still selling well (big orders for India, Saudi Arabia and UK). In fact Hawk is doing better than M346 or T-50 in terms of export orders in recent years.
All the above countries don’t have that much option if you think logically. Hawk is outdated airframe.
JSRWho was shooting BVR, RF missiles without using his/her own radar (or data linking to another fighter with active sensors) 30 years ago?
I only referring to high bore sight missile like R-73. Mica range is prioritized despite the missile came very later.
MIG-31 was capable guiding 3 other fighters.
http://www.niip.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:-l-r-lr&catid=8:2011-07-06-06-33-26&Itemid=8
JSRThe folks that use them sure do think they do. When you can launch a missile in the rear aspect without using any of your active sensors and then cuing it to the target all the way while maintaing stealth ….its a big deal ! The HMD/HOBS combo is tried and tested both in russia where it was perhaps developed and in the west, current HOBS missiles (and future planned) along with HMD will and have changed the nature of WVR combat, no longer is it necessary to get to an opponent’s six to get a good shot, the fight might be over by the time you do that…Here again i suspect the missile would be launched very early and close to the merge, even if chances of it actually scoring a kill are little, in order to force the opponent into hard manuevers…When both sides have such things (DAS,HMD,HOBS) tactics would have to change…and in my guess WVR is best avoided.
that was 30 year old concept. shooting missiles in rear aspect is more desperate attempt as the missile fired in front will have greater speed and pilot will know much ahead of time as he will be seeing the engine burning tail from considerable distance on IRST.
Alot more more money investing in BVR AAMs. R-73 has increased range/ active seeker. much less emphasis on increase offbore sight.
Aircraft with limited performance and limited internal fuel capacity will always be in disadvantage. I think with computers all the various scenarios (against all major aircrafts) are tested before hand so even if there is wvr the pilot of superior platforms will know how to get out of it and rengage at favorable terms.
TVC is like any other value addition to the weapons system, there is a positive impact as mentioned, and yet it has to be evaluated among other things to see if tradeoffs can be made. This is the same with VLO vs LO , or 6 Missiles internally vs 4 etc etc …Having it obviously helps, but not having it may be a better solution for some weapons systems …such as the F-35 where TVC would have just added more weight, complexity to the entire system and the F-35 did not need the performance gains because it could meet its slow turning high AOA requirement without it.
Modern TVC does not add that much weight. Su-35 has higher TWR than previous Flankers despite carrying more internal fuel.
JSRTimes change. The turnaround from Vietnam to Reagan was a little over a decade and, psychologically speaking, one followed from the other. Personally I expect the Republicans to return to the White House in either 2020 or 2024, and to pursue an aggressive foreign policy coupled with military expansionism. The single largest factor driving this is the rise of China to near-peer status. Far from causing the United States to back down, this transitional period in the great power balance will occasion increased belligerence and inflexibility on the part of the United States.
Secondary factors reinforcing this structural tendency include the aforementioned period of relative — very relative, only in the sense of ‘no boots on the ground’ — quiescence under Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the fading of Afghanistan and Iraq from political consciousness. Additionally, given the demographic transition in the nation, this period will likely represent the last chance for Republicans to rapidly advance their economic agenda, an objective that will be greatly enhanced by directing the attention of the American people abroad whilst their society is disassembled from under them.
It is likely that the mid-late 2020s will see American militarism reach heights not seen since the 1950s.
The demographics of US in mid 2020s will be completely different than 1950s. so how can it will have same policy as 1950. there is limitations due to retirement/health care costs on budgets. Life expectancy in 1950s different than 2020s. input cost for material and skilled manpower is alot more expensive.
Systems developed in 1970s-80s are relatively simple to operationalize. so Reagon could afford more of them at faster pace.
now each new system is multi decade effort. which is not easy to sustain when there is musical chairs in congress. voters have short life span.
China cannot rise much more than what ever level it has achieved now and that also due to massive debt and import dependency . see the amount of time it took for them L-15. It is not easy to certify 10,000 hr airframe that is relatively light weight and sustain higher gs with reliability. It has decades to go to field reliable systems that is not disposable.
JSRNever said that they wont have an edge. Performance would always give you an edge…The main point of performance is to get your weapons to bear on your opponent, things like DAS, Spectra,HMD, HOBS etc will make this task a lot easier probably shortening the normal WVR engagement …
I am not sure what this things have any practical edge. If you are in wvr situation it means your in last minute chaos.
The experiance pilot of superior platform will still make it out to the top by taking advantage of qucik acceleration and turning ability with no constraints on fuel.
wvr missiles have tiny engines and it will take while for it to accelerate to desire speed if there is sharp turn involve during launch. so it is not advantageous to launch missiles with high offbore sight.
JSRThese points only echo the views regarding WVR combat in the years to come, with things like IRST, HOBS/HMD,Spectra/DAS like systems…the chances of one fighter having a very significant advantage over many engagements is going to very hard in real war like scenarios…In a strict WVR engagements between F-16’s and F-22’s , it would be hard for the Raptor to achieve a very significant edge in kill ratio over multiple engagements and both fighters would be risking mutual kills …
Fighter with superior twr, tvc, fuel capacity will still have edge even in wvr by quickly gaining height and nose point to give the most favorable shot. I highly doubt 9 ton F-16 has much of chance with current engines.F-16 pilot will always be thinking of dropping fuel tanks and in absence of fuel tanks the scope of afterburner is limited. this indecision will make F-16 ineffective in most situations.
Figher with superior speed, fuel capacity, tvc will always have first of option to disengage and than re engage on favorable terms.
JSRLook, the very artcile you linked with says the Flankers escort the Mig-31’s. Therefore the flight profile CANNOT be one that uses the MIG-31 at max speed because it’d simply leave the Flanker standing and outranges it too at such speeds. Once again, Mig-31 is a patrol aircraft. It does not zoom round Russian airspace at M 2.8 scanning the skies, much in the same way as a Tornado ADV (its closest western couterpart) dis not fly around on a patrol over the North sea at Mach 2. Essentially you are confused because you think the Mig-31 is used in the same way as a Foxbat. It is not.
And class of engine power is totally irrelevant when looking at the design goals of the two different aircraft. I have no idea why you’d even bring it up because this debate isn’t a game of Top Trumps. I won’t post on this subject anymore because it would seem to be to complex for you to grasp.
where did is said that MIG-31 is Mach 2+ on throughout its flight profile. It will be used during flight times to use it flight profile for maximum training which is offcourse at higher speed and altitudes. No it wont leave Flankers behind as Flankers could be airborne before MIG-31. MIG-31 is not scanning skies either it is the work of radar network where data is transmission from 2000km. Tornado is joke. it simply doesnot have any internal fuel capacity, radar and engine power for high end interceptor. The existence of modernization of MIG-31 solely due to its unique capability.
JSRTo some extent yes that’s true but to say they will simply not reveal anything is flat wrong. For example if they were peddling misinformation then we’d here that the Mig-25 is a low altitude strike fighter, or the Su-27 is an attack aircraft. Now obviously nobody has ever claimed such things because it’s damned obvious that isn’t the case. And another example against you saying operational tactics won’t be revealed is that we saw Russian Su-25 HUD footage from the Georgian confict, it revealed the tactics they use quite beautifully.
Remember HUD footage is after the fact and it doesnot indicate anything operationally except short range attack.
In short, you won’t hear anything vital or secret but they know there is no point telling porkies about stuff that’s obviously untrue
Certaint things you cannot verify if its true or not.
Can’t say i’ve ever heard anyone call the Eagle underpowered either. And the post you quote from Indiandefence doesn’t really prove alot, it says nothing about supersonic intercepts, just that they do intercept. I’m sure they do go supersonic but when patrolling they stay sub sonic as there is nothing to gain by doing routine patrol at Mach 2.3 becasue it shortens the endurance greatly. Notice how they don’t feel the Mig-31 is safe without the Flankers either.
Eagle is not in same class as MIG-31 for engine power. Civillian D-30 has 20% thrust increase in latest modernization. It is not out of realm that MIG-31 is in 45000lbs class engine, combined with lighter avionics the operational speed and altitude will be even higher. Most of Eagles have engine less thrust than Su-27 modernizations. MIG-31 has unique role of using its radar and higher speed/altitude so Flankers escorting it dont have to use radars often. It is the realistic training that Russia can afford. There is no point in subsonic training with MIG-31. Patrol and training is two different things. There is vast difference in financial spending. Fleet is continously upgraded during overhauls.
http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/6/14/1747/
A new communications system intended for long-range aviation will be delivered to the Russian air forces
http://rbth.ru/society/2013/06/09/russian_air_force_undergoes_biggest_drill_in_twenty_years_26877.html
Russian air force undergoes biggest drill in twenty years
JSRAir international. It’s a Key Publishing magazine as is AFM. And from what I know Alan Dawes is highly respected. I have no reason to question his word.
A profile of his employment and links to a few of his web-based articles.
I didnot say about person. but operational and tactics details will simply not revealed or disinformation will be provided.
MIG-31 upgrades exist because the rest of fleet even with upgrades cannot provide that kinematic and radar performance.
F-15I are overweight for the engine performance. F-15A/C simply dont have engine power. without CFT short of range and with CFT even more weight. It is simply not the right balance to provide anything more than F-16. MIG-31 is the most ready part of air defence systems with unique high altitude eye in sky with unmatched speed for BVR shot and pilots full time trained for that single role. This is not for airforces that are short for funds.
More than 30 MiG-31 Foxhound supersonic interceptor
aircraft are on round-the-clock high-alert duty every
day protecting the Russian airspace from airborne
threats, Air Force spokesman Col. Vladimir Drik said.
“They [the MiG-31s] scramble every time they receive
warnings of a potential violation of the Russian
airspace, including the appearance of foreign weather
balloons in the stratosphere,”Drik said on Saturday .
The official said the MiG-31s are usually accompanied
by highly-maneuverable Su-27 Flanker fighter jets,
which provide protection for heavy interceptors.
JSRGoing from what I can remember from an old AFM article the Mig-31’s don’t operate anything like the Foxbat, as JSR assumes.. Instead they pootle round subsoniclly for most of the mission. I’ll do my best to go through the damn stack of magazines later if i’ve got time and hunt out the relevent article.
Upate – Sadly I couldn’t find the article I wanted to, however I did find a great write up by Alan Dawes about the Mig-31 in the December 2002 edition of Air International. It mentions that it has a three and a half hour subsonic cruise time without inflight refueling when its carrying four R-33 missiles and and it can cruise at Mach 2.35 for 756 miles with that same payload! At Mach 0.8 again with the same load and flying at between 8 and 10,00 metres it can travel up to 1300nm. It can also be flown by a controller on the ground, which is really neat (in my opinion). There’s even more interesting info in the article if anyone would like more…
Anyway, the part that’s relevent to what I was saying about subsonic travel is this –
“The Letter ‘B’ in the designation is believed to stand for Barrazhirovshchik or ‘Loiterer/Patrol Aircraft’ , from the adopted Russia word ‘barrazhirovat’ meaning to ‘loiter’ or ‘conduct standing (air) patrol’. The distinction between this and the more usual designation of perekhvatchik or interceptor for this catagory of aircraft is that the Mig-31 was intended from the outset to perform standing air patrols, rather than carry out purely reactive intercepts.”
Now, I fully realise that alone does not fully back up my statement (though it does hint towards what I was saying) but if someone else has the Mig-31 article I was thinking of then they’d be doing us all a service by having a flick through it and reeling off some of the info to this site. We are all here to learn afterall… (The article focuses more on the operational methods of the Mig-31 and not so much the technical aspects of it).
so AFM article gives realisstic operational details?. Su-27SM is now with enhanced engines but it still dont reach to MIG-31.
JSRFirstly how many Mig-31’s would be sent and secondly the Israelis alone have 75 F-15’s of different marks but all highly upgraded and supported by AEW so why are we using the F-16’s as a bench mark?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217869[/ATTACH]
F-15 that Israel have does not bring anything above F-16. Do they have electronic scanning radars?. what is the engine upgrade situation. F-15A/C is more comparable to MIG-29M rather than MIG-31. AEW are small size. There is nothing it will contribute rather critical resources will be deoployedd to defend AEWs. rather than any offensive operations.
There is budget cuts and deficit in Israel. country depended on external flows. so it is hard to finance any high tempo sustain operations.
JSROkay. So at what average Mach does the Mig-31 operate at in during these scenarios?
I am not sure whats the point of asking such obvious. MIG-31 existence is due to its speed & altitude. so if they dont train on those parameters than what happen in real war when it will need to operate at higher speeds/altitude constantly for days or years?. how reliability of weopons/systems and piliot fitness/skills will be established.
Sign In
