Originally posted by Vympel

Secondly, especially with the kills you’re talking about (F-15 kill ratios), Israel had the numerical advantage (according to “Air Combat: The New Face of War”) not to mention jamming support from specially modified 707s (thus blinding GCI) and E-2 AWACS support! It’s a recipe for a slaughter.

E-2 AWACs, 707s are all western aircraft too. They’re part of an entire war-fighting doctrine that includes air superiority fighters and SEAD too, along with the AWAC and ECM machines.

I’ll retract the numerical advantage I gave to the Arabs as regards the Bekaa valley.

It also continues to say nothing about modern Russian aircraft in comparison to their Western brethren. These were well-rehearsed, set piece engagements over the Bekaa, planned for ages by the Israelis, with the Israelis having every advantage- the 102-0 kill ratio doesn’t come from poor defenseless Israel being assaulted by the Arab horde.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/hurley.html

“Other factors make the Bekaa Valley battle unique in the history of air power and limit its relevance. In addition to their qualitative advantage, the Israelis enjoyed numerical preponderance over the Bekaa Valley, outnumbering the Syrian Air Force by a ratio of about three aircraft to two.”

That’s according to the USAF.

I have to hand it to you, that’s a good link.

The only surprise is the Israelis’ local superiority in numbers in the Bekaa Valley.

The qualitative advantage, both of us know about and have agreed to.

Also, the battle was relevant and the article points these out:

“Three lessons of special relevance to the United States may be drawn from the Bekaa Valley battle. First is the overwhelming importance of winning the war in the fourth dimension (i.e., electronic warfare and C3). It is generally accepted today that to win the land and sea battle, a fighting force must first control the air. This concept–revolutionary in its genesis–was demonstrated numerous times in World War II and subsequent conflicts. Now, in order to win the air battle, one must first conquer the electromagnetic spectrum. What used to be “a minor side show to the real battles that raged on the land, on the sea, or in the air” is now a prerequisite for modern warfighting. The Bekaa Valley has shown that an effective electronic warfighting capability is no longer a luxury, but a necessity.”

Electronically is EXACTLY where the West has its major advantage. Bekaa Valley reinforces that.

Also the article showcases the amazing prowess of Western AAMs in even 1982!

These shots were quite lethal because of the high reliability of US-made AIM-7F Sparrow radar-guided missiles, AIM-9L Sidewinder infrared-guided missiles, and computer-aimed 20-mm cannons. The AIM-9L, which accounted for the majority of the kills, was particularly effective with its “all-aspect capability.” Simply put, the missile could be launched at an opposing aircraft from any angle, including head-on, thus eliminating the need to maneuver behind the enemy to shoot. The AIM-9L had been used earlier during the Falklands campaign, where British Harriers scored 25 kills for 27 launches against faster aircraft in marginal weather. The resulting 93 percent success rate was quite an improvement over the 10-19 percent kill rate for earlier models of the AIM-9 in Vietnam.

Now, we both know what happened to the Russian airforce’s main BVR weapon, the R-27 (R-77 is still not in widespread use), in the Horn of Africa in year 2000 😀

But, the article does include the following that serves your arguments to the tee. You should have posted it in the first place, Vympel 😀

The US Air Force may take comfort from the fact that its premier fighters and other equipment performed so well. However, these aircraft had been greatly modified by the relatively small but competent Israeli aircraft and electronics industry . . . Perhaps even more significantly, the Soviet-supplied Syrian aircraft were stripped-down export models. One cannot predict from the IAF’s overwhelming victory against Syrian MiG-23s and MiG-21s in Lebanon that NATO would achieve a similar tally against Warsaw Pact air forces in central Europe.

Similarly, although Syrian pilots showed severe shortcomings in tactics and initiative in battle, it is dangerous to assume that their Soviet sponsor’s performance in future air-to-air combat will be as poor. In fact, the past few years have seen a revolution in Soviet tactics. While Soviet training may be more rigid, more dependent upon ground control, and less realistic than American training, recent trends in the Soviet military press indicate a change toward more realistic training and tactics designed to enhance and encourage pilot initiative and independence.

Since the USAF itself was cautioning excessive confidence, I’ll concede the point to you on the Bekaa Valley.

Though the article is dated. It is a good read. I took time to read the thing from top to bottom. It reinforced some beliefs I had, but changed others.

Originally posted by flex297
1. Su-27 has no combat record. And MiG-29 has combat record only within Eriterean, Serbian and Iraqi Air Force. That cannot be called representative.

The Su-27 does have a record and its kills were recorded against the Mig-29 in East Africa. The Mig-29 according to Mike Spick is 0-12.

At any rate, the record I was talking about is Soviet aircraft as a whole not the Mig-29 or Su-27.

And it was directed at SOC who came in and said I based my opinion on Russian aircraft on my personal opinion of the Flanker and Fulcrum after I spent the entire thread chronicling the records of the F-15, F-16 and F-4 against Russian aircraft.

My replies on the Mig-31, Tu-160 and R-37 were one liners.

Don’t be so sensitive, Flex.

Originally posted by PhantomII

The JH-7 is unlike anything in Russian service and shares some design similarities with Western aircraft like the Jaguar or some aircraft from the East such as the Mitsubishi F-1.

The JH-7 is the face of what the PLAAF would be like today if 1989 didn’t happen.

I agree that generally speaking Western aircraft have been better quality than Soviet (now Russian) aircraft, but you must remember the Soviet Cold War doctrine of “quantity over quality” contrasts sharply with the West’s “quality over quantity”.

We’ve gone over this. It was their doctrine and the planes were built under the rules of that doctrine.

You can’t totally divorce the end product from the doctrines that created them.

The Flogger is a prime example. It was an amazing feat under that doctrine.

It flew at the same time as the F-14 in the late 1960s but over 5000 planes Mig-23 was built to only around 700 for the Tomcat. But they represent polar extremes in doctrine. For the US, it’s highly capable (and expensive) systems while for the USSR, it’s cheaper. more robust machines in great numbers.

The Su-27 and Mig-29 were a reaction to the F-14 and American teens. Remeber that that. They came later and while they matched the teens in flight performance, they did not in avionics, pilot workload or dependability.

Dependability or service rates, unfortunately for Russian planes, is affected foremost by the engine and in service life Russian engines are even half as reliable as western ones.

I’ll repeat again, that I actually like Russian planes a lot. But reality tells me that they’re nothing but fodder against their western equivalents.

Look, I’m about as neutral as you can get, I’m Chinese, not Russian or Western. If anything, I should be biased toward Russian equipment.

But I’m not because I’m a realist when it comes to records.

Originally posted by flex297
GD, I am trying hard to be open to your arguments but you did not convince me a tiny little bit so far.

If you are not convinced then it is because you don’t accept those arguments. Other people might. Actually, other people do. My position is actually pretty common among Americans and increasingly among the Chinese (and Chinese nationalists traditionally would have pump up Russian stuff to say they have an actually chance against US forces.)

Since there never was a major conflict between US and Russia which could have shown the actual capabilities of the aircraft, your arguments are pretty much pointless.

Nope, but there had been numerous engagements between Western- and Russian-made aircraft.

We could ignore the records that came out of those conflicts and say those things mean nothing or we could use them see what happened.

You are taking these silly kill ratio numbers once again, you are comparing F-15s with late 50s era MiG-21s and monkey versions of MiG-23, you are comparing IDF/AF victories over Arabs, what does it say?

Look, it is up to you to accept or discount records. But without those records, the modern age of military aviation amounts to nothing. Are you saying that the hundreds of kills from 1967 (Six-Day War) to today mean nothing because Russia and the US never fought face to face? Or are you discounting records simply because the record is so lopsided?

Remember, I was the one who brought up monkey versions. Let’s not turn this into an excuse for Russian quality. The monkey versions contribute to the world’s belief in the inferiority of Russian weapons. It’s not an unreasonable bias. Those planes, degraded for whatever reason, were really flown by Arabs and were really shot down and the people in them really died.

Have you ever tried to find out figures about US military aid to Israel in dollars during the 70s and compared them to Soviet aid to Egypt? Was it ten or twenty times more? Then, what the heck are you speaking about?

What has the amount of US aid to do with this? Other than indicating that US has more money and is more considerate of its allies, it does nothing for the argument.

You exaggerate drawbacks of Russian hardware and silently pass over those of US hardware to make things up. Strangely, I have never seen you critisize F-16A for missing BVR capability, F-14As for their immense problems with TF30, poor safety record of F-16 (all versions) etc., but I have already heard thousands of comments on MiG-29’s short range, MiG-29 lacks this and lacks that, what is this all about?

Look Flex, it is hard to call the battle records exaggerations. If I wanted to go after American planes I could. That’s outside this discussion for now.

You say Russian aircraft are currently closing to the 30yr old US standard in terms of cockpit layout. OK, now we got 2004, minus 30years is 1974, this is roughly F-4E Phantom or (+/- some years) early F-15A (non-MSIP). So we got Su-30MKI and F-4E. I am sure now you’d like to reconsider this statement of you…

The MKI has western avionics.

My statement is that the American “teens” began a standard for reducing pilot workload with the evolution to today’s “glass” cockpit. The new Su-30 and Mig-29 variants are conforming to this standard way of design first established with the F-14 and the subsequent American teens.

The F-14 had a tactical information screen display and screens for the vertical and horizontal indicators even in the 1970s. These were forerunners for the MFDs.

Can’t really say, the arrangement of upper and lower access panels on all three are roughly the same.

Who chases the UFOs in Ireland? (Not flippant, it’s actually a critical sovereignty issue.)

Or does the Republic allow RAF and other European aircraft to fly back and forth over Irish airspace whenever they feel like a shortcut?