Originally posted by Vympel
I think you’ll find just *one* post declaring victory, and that was near the end.

It’s the same tactic you use every time we discuss anything. Actually, every one of our discussions pretty much follows the same tumultuous path 😀

Bringing up examples to rebut your impossibly wide statements is not a side issue.

Actually no, you brought in training as a reason for the poor performance and when I said the trainers would have been Russian you agree that Russian training was inferior. Along the line you also agreed that the Russian equipment compared to those that the Israelis had then was inferior.

At any rate, we’ll leave the previous discussion at that.

There aren’t any, because Russian aircraft haven’t been engaged against vastly inferior foes (both numerically and skill wise) in inferior generation equipment (MiG-21s and MiG-23s vs F-16s and F-15s? This isn’t rocket science), which is where your kill ratios come from. None of them originate from a remotely ‘fair’ fight- which is a credit to the victorious forces and the nations that produced them.

First of all, there is no “fair fight” in combat in any combat whether in air, on land or at sea.

Secondly, and this even more important, the fact that Mig-21s and Mig-23s were fighting against F-16s and F-15s in the 1970s and 80s in the Middle East were indicative of the huge gap between tech level of those armed by Russia and those armed by the West.

The Flogger was THE MAIN fighter of the Soviet Union at the time. If I recall my Salamander references corectly, between the Mig-21 and the -23, you had roughly 60 percent of the East Bloc’s frontline aircraft.

That the Su-27 and Mig-29 came so late in the 1980s that it missed most of the fights between East and West is really no excuse to claim any sort of equality.

If you weigh so much on what Arthur says you might take on board his comment that your position is indefensibly broad.

I’ve read enough of Arthur in the good old days of CMF to know he is a romantic socialist (not really an anarchist :D)

There’s a soft spot in his heart for the old commie systems.

Now, while it might be indefensible to claim that every single nut and bolt of the Russian defense industry is inferior to the West, it is without question that taken as a whole that western military standards, whether in hardware, strategy or tactics, are way ahead.

The battle records don’t lie.

Now if they are are “unfair” because the those who used Russian equipment were always technologically inferior at the time to those who used western ones, then it’s a mark on Russian ability to produce equivalent weapons at the appropriate time. Not three decades later.

Well, anyways, out of respect for him, I’ve toned down my comments 🙂

Originally posted by flex297
Anyway, Israeli and EADS upgrade programmes for MiG-29 became everything but an export hit. Elbit’s Sniper was left in one single prototype and EADS never got through paper stage.

The Mig-29 itself is anything but an export hit recently.

Bangladesh couldn’t maintain theirs and is the process of attempting to unload. It falls into an unhealthy catergory where it is too expensive to maintain for many smaller nations but not good enough for countries that could afford western.

Now, there is something to be said for politics. Malaysia bought their Mig-29s along side the F-18 as a political message to the US.

As for Peru’s Mig-29s, the US has a policy of not selling first-rate Amercan systems in South America and blocks most European ones as well to avoid major arms races there. (Also because many Central and South American countries flirt with socialism.)

BTW, I don’t really think, an F-16 is more complex than a MiG-29SMT, even regarding the software.

Perhaps complex is not the right word for what we are discussing. Western aircraft are actually “simpler” in many ways than Russian stuff because of things like strap-on systems and modular avionics blocks that were designed for easy maintenance, upgrade and replacement.

The more correct adjective (or adjective clause) is “harder to replicate and upgrade” for anyone outside the western circle.

The material science that goes into the F-100 series engines, for example, is harder to upgrade or replicate for a non-western state. You are talking about an engine with a service life that that isn’t a few percentage point longer than equivalent Russian engines but exponentially greater.

There is nothing outside the west that can improve upon it.

Yes, the MKK could be even far more advanced, especially the N001VE radar could be replaced by either Bars or at least upgraded with Pero antenna. But this is up to Chinese order specifications, this ain’t strictly lack of technology available in Russia. I think the Chinese don’t want to carry the things to excess with the MKK on behalf of their J-10 and I also expect to see at least Chinese J-11s with domestic radar in ten-twelve years.

The disquiet is not over the MKK but the Su-27SK. When the first Su-27SK showed up, much of it including the cockpit was as primitive as any Chinese one.

The MKK is another matter. It’s Chinese funded to bring the Flanker to what really amounts to what Chinese considers approaching “western” standards. The whole idea of MFD is a western and particularly American idea anyways.

When the F-14, -15, -16, and especially -18 came out, one of the core design requirements was to lighten the pilot’s workload. The MFD was a major piece in achieving that (along with “Bitchin’ Betty.”)

The Mig-29 and Su-27 when they came out AFTER the American teens approximate them in aerodynamics but not in workload for the pilot.

Take one look at a Mig-29’s and F-16’s cockpit and you could tell that a F-16’s pilot would have a much easier time. The cockpit upgrades for the Flanker and Fulcrum today is attempting to match American standard set three decades ago. And I doubt the Americans had stood still in those 30 years.

Would you fight for Bangladesh or Korea against U.S. for free?

Comintern solidarity? 😀

Yes, but nothing like Ethiopian or Chinese F1 exists. If Schumacher was driving Renault or BMW, he could be winning w/o problems even if Ferrari cars are slightly superior.

The racing commision limits a narrow range of performance on the track so you have a competitive race. Combat is not designed for equality unlike a F-1 race.

There is no official to disqualify the equipment that the Arabs were using against the F-15 and F-16.

In an open race, govern by open rules – like combat, it entirely depends on the type of car that Schumacher ends up in. He won’t win if he’s given a Yugo against a Ferrari.

I did not mean to switch on, sorry, I meant to adjust the fuze range manually (depending on conditions, target speed, range, g-load, altitude etc.) IMHO, every fuze is switched off during the take-off anyway and switches automatically on during the flight, otherway it would explode right down on the adapter.

Adjusting the fuse range seems strange to me.

A proximity fuse (which is a small radar echo ranger) should set off the charge when it is near enough to explode. Proximity fuses were invented by Americans in WWII to do away with ” target speed, range” which are associated with time fuses.

From what I’ve read, AAMs like most American ordnance have the fuse inserted when loaded operationally on deck. In storage the fuse is keep apart from the warhead.

The fuse is “armed” when with the missile is fired.

Even the older AIM-9Bs in Vietnam never needed to have its fuse adjusted before firing. The Sidewinder is considered a primitive weapon that was easy to use.

Even the old Sparrow didn’t require fumbling with the fuse. Keeping lock and false readings from the radar was the main problem.

Now if Russian weapons require the steps that you say must be taken before the missile engages then the odds is stacked even against the best Russian aircraft driver. This is like giving Schumacher a two stick steering system (like a WWII tank) instead of a wheel.

Yes, the F-16A has a winning battle record. Only because of PAF (against Su-25, Su-22 and An-26) and IDF/AF (mostly MiG-21s which are at least two generations behind the Dart). Those all were no serious opponents. Imagine a MiG-29A shooting down a two-gen older Starfighter, does this say anything about MiG’s quality?

Ah, but has the Mig-29A ever shot down a Starfighter?

There was one and only sharp engagement between MiG-29s (IAF) and F-16As (PAF). According to AFM MiG-29s scored twice to zero loss.

This is new information but I’ll certainly look into it. I thought the story was that of three Mirage 2000s and one Mig-29 against three F-16s?

Originally posted by flex297
1. Well, removing all the 80s era stuff and fitting new avionics does not necessarily mean westernizing. There are various upgrade packages available that are based on Russian products only. Su-30KN and KN2, Su-27SKU, Su-30MKK, MiG-29SMT/SMT-II, MiG-21 Bison etc. (Phazotron, NIIP, Russkaya Avionika, Vympel and many more companies)

True. There are not only Russian but others too. But when you have Israelis upgrading Migs (and T-55s) there is a belief, largely based on previous records, that Western products are more trusted.

Conversely, a western plane being upgraded with Russian avionics is simply beyond the realm of reality right now because of the perception that it will be a step downward. (That’s assuming that a Western aircraft like the F-16 with its complexity, especially in the software and engine material could even be upgraded by countries not within the Western circle.)

The MKK and the Su-27SMK brings up an interesting item that people in the Chinese boards had noticed for a long time. That’s the grumbling about the SK. It’s not considered an exceptional plane according to many.

It could simply be pride but there are subjects from Shenyang being held back by the J-11 project as a political directive to the Su-27SK being beaten by J-7Es and J-10s.

Again, the perception that Russian components are behind occurs even among the Chinese who, for all intents and purposes, are the largest user of Soviet/Russian designed aircraft in the world outside of Russia herself.

[b]2. Yes, it was a great experience.. My father was technician in Czechoslovakia only (his personal plane was L-39C #0102, it is still flying with Slovak AF!). He was also called to Libya but refused due to his first son being born, my brother (*1977). Maybe it was good, because many CS technicians and instructors from *his* ex-team died in Libya due to various tropical diseases, some others were senselessly accused of spying and imprisoned by Khaddafi’s regime.. The uncle managed to get thru this without harm. A good friend of my father was one of the instructors on MiG-23 there, I have seen him 1996 for the last time (he was Commander of CzAF AFB Caslav at that time), he was telling similar stories as my uncle did. He also took part on the famous raid on Tripolis (F-111, A-6, F/A-18), but from the *wrong* side. (apparently) 🙂 There were several CS and German instructors there but these refused to fly sharp combat missions in Libyan colors, they did not want to risk lives for nothing.

[/b]

Thanks for narrative! So this commander of Caslav AFB actually flew against the A-6s under Libyan colors? Did he fired a shot?

3. I still believe it is the pilot what counts. I don’t know if Formula One racing tells you something, but you got the Ferrari team there, which have slight superiority in terms of technology over other teams like Toyota, Renault, McLaren Mercedes or Williams BMW. But this all would mean nothing without Michael Schumacher, the second pilot Rubbens Barichello would definitely not manage to win the championship that easily, even if the small technological advance is there.

The person driving the plane (or car) counts up to a point.

If Schumacher was driving an first-time entry with an Ethiopian or Chinese engine, he’ll most likely lose even if he were the best driver in the world. If everyone had equally equivalent machines, he would likely win (and Schumacher had won lots – but he never used an distinctly inferior engine and chasis that never won a race.)

In the military world, there were plenty of good experienced Sherman tank commanders who were killed before they had a chance against far less experienced kids in the Hitler Jurgend SS Panzer division because they were simply outranged by a superior weapon system.

4. R-23 also had proximity fuze but you had to switch it manually prior to launch. The same about early R-27s. It is nothing that cannot be done (in BVR you got the time to do it) but you definitely need some experience to adjust it properly

I don’t think any of the AIM-9s even the B needed the fuse to be switched on. The seekerhead must be turned on but I’m not sure about the fuse. I would imagine it is (was) a safety issue with the Russian weapons.

5. It is a nice and true article. But the pilot talks about basic early MiG-29 Fulcrum-A (Product 9.12). Then we can generally say that F-16 is junk because it lacks any BVR capability (early F-16A Block 15 and 20) and Mirages 2000C are also worth nothing due to their monopulse radar (early RDM). If you take early MiGs, then please, do the comparison with early F-16s, not the latest variants. In the terms of early variants (A-A mode), F-16 is inferior to both Mirage and MiG.

6. see Fig.2

Point taken. But, again the F-16As had a winning battle record. The Mig-29A a losing one. When push comes to shove the actual record is the final arbitrator.

Vympel, I’m condescending only to condescending inviduals who can’t properly debate. You can’t debate and you basically spend your time declaring yourself victorious (which, in all seriousness, is stupidity at its worse.)

But seriously, Vympel, just discuss the topic. Don’t try to win small points with semantics.

If you want a discussion, put it in simple words in a straight forward fashion in reply to really the only point I’ve made. In the real world, clouding a proposal or theory up with side issues is the best way to get your message dismissed out of hand.

Now my point is: Russian aircraft are inferior to western products (I’ll leave out the colloquial “crap”).

This premise have been proven in straight air to air combat. The records I put forth were of the F-16 and the F-15 in the modern age (starting with F-14 – high maneuverability in WVR coupled with BVR). The F-4 with 282 kills and about 30 odd A2A defeats spans the vacuum tube era where Chinese J-6s could compile a winning record over Hainan and the modern age where I know the J-6 can’t.

The point is simple. The battle record is what we have and everything else is basically conjecture. What’s more the record shows the Russian aircraft in extremely bad light. A similar equipment would at least be close in record. 102-0, is infinity in straight mathematics.

Now tell me something that is not conjecture such as a conflict where Russian aircraft actually shot down more western ones in the modern age and we will go from there.

Heck, even in the vacuum tube age.

Anyways, it’s up to you wehther you want to debate this in a civilized manner or you want to continue with the previous garbage.

I’m doing this out of respect for Arthur 🙂

Originally posted by Arthur
Give it up GD. Being stubborn and in denial is one thing, the tone you display it with is really painful to watch.

Arthur, that tone I reserve only for foul mouthed children like Vympie 🙂

A person who argues by using names and twisting words is accorded the same manner by me.

But in deference to you, I will stop it with Vympie. I still like him for his idiotic persistence, you know, otherwise, I’d just ignore him from the start 😀

Originally posted by Vympel
[B]
[ quote]

“Each pilot must be trained in conjunction with the machine he’s given.”

Moron.
[/b][/quote]

LOL. Numbnuts, you’re such a numbnuts.

Each pilot does have to be trained in conjunction the machine he’s given. You’re going to have an American train an Arab for F-15 and then give him a Mig-23 once he gets into service?

You either have no sense or you simply looking for little pieces to win some idiot internet discussion.

” Russian training which is needed to operate these machines is inferior.”

Double moron.

I was speaking in context of the Arab pilots and even so, even the East Germans had Russian instructors at one point.

Vympie, you can’t argue and you can’t put forth much knowledge beyond the obvious because you have very little beside trivia 😀

You spend your time attempting to “win” points with these idiot semantics. Basically you try to say you “win” through making up your own rules on what other people say 😀

You have persistence though, numbnuts.

Now, watch me and Flex have a rational discussion. 🙂

Originally posted by flex297

The topic is very simple, Russian equipment is inferior. Russian training which is needed to operate these machines is inferior. Russian doctrines (GCI, mass attacks, robustness instead of sophistication) to which these machines are made to fit are most definitely inferior.

That is questionable… Not every country that buys Russian equipment currently must strictly hold up to Russian tactics or training doctrines.

Now who actually said that MUST use Russian tactics and doctrines? You could buy a pair of chopsticks and use it rather efficiently as a fork (for meatballs, anyways).

It won’t be optimal but it could be done.

Now all baseline Russian machines, including Fulcrum and Flanker were introduced in the SOVIET era, my friend.

Until the PAK-FA comes out, all Russian machines are built on top of designs and thought processes that originate that dysfunctional bygone era.

Germany uses the Mig-29 because it came free with the Ost volk.

It rather obvious that one can’t change the west-oriented Luftwaffe to Soviet doctrines to accommodate the Mig-29 so they crowbar the Mig-29 into the Luftwaffe.

With western avionics, of course, it would be better but it’s not optimal. If it is then why doesn’t Germany with its great wealth simply buy up older Mig-29s being discarded in Eastern Europe or better yet order new ones from Russia?

The Mig-29s were toys that came with the stepbrothers but certainly not something one would buy new if he has access to Western toys.

Well, some 20-30 years ago in the Fishbed and Flogger era it was less possible to stay independent but now Russians simply produce multirole fighters just like anybody else..

Some 20-30 year later, most of the factories are still producing the same crappy equipment. Well, the Mig ones that did produce Fishbed and Flogger are dying out. And if it weren’t for China being embargoed in 1989 being forced to buy the Flanker and then fund the MKK. Most of the ones that designed and made Sukhoi would be on its way out too.

It is up to each user what he can do with that. There are several countries that use Russian stuff combined with Western tactics and even Western aircraft.. Germany, India, Iran, Malaysia for example..

Iran had no choice, like China. Given a choice, Iran would stay Western. Malaysia went with Russian planes partly as a political to the US that it is free to buy Russian as well.

Now, Flex, don’t be taken in by Vympie’s attempt to change the subject from crappy Russian equipment to doctrine and training (which are also crappy.)

The records gained by the F-15 and F-16 are there. Vympie attempt to blame training. Training for nearly all the 102 victims claimed by the Eagle was done by Russians.

They were trained by the people who designed and manufactured the nutty aircraft.

Unless Vympie is stupidly saying that the Arabs would have been better trained by Americans in how to fly the Mig-21(?!), we should realize that Arabs are trained as fully by the manufacturer of the Fishbed and Floggers as the Israeli were trained by the manufacturers of the Phantom II (282 kills) and the Eagle (102 1/2 kills).

Therefore, since each was as well-trained in their respective machines as the other, the kill ratios indicate severe inferiority of set to the other.

Vympel’s implied message, and he really has to reach for this one, is that the Arabs would lose no matter what. This is BS. It was the Russian machines that lost badly.

If the Arabs were trained by Americans in using Russian aircraft, they would performed better? Nuts.