MarcellogoAnd both refused.:very_drunk::eagerness:
So we know the only thing that can make Russians and Americans unite again:highly_amused:.
MarcellogoIn other news US pilots in Syria rejected request to speak Russian.:D
And UK pilots asked the both of them to speak a correct English:rolleyes:.
MarcellogoThe usual comparison between the MiG-29 and the F-16 repeated ad nauseam is 99% flawed by the fact it usually compares the original vanilla version in service with former Warsaw pact allies with late eighties C&D version of Viper.
Just the S version of the Fulcrum addressed much of those shortcomings you listed, it was available at the end of the eighties also but to Soviet Union only, so no direct comparison was made.
In every case during the Kargil war situation was reversed: Indians had an improved versions of the Fulcrum with AA-12 while Pakistan got the block 15 F-16 with Sidewinder only and never even tried a match.
MarcellogoI think MiG was just unlucky. Like Su-27, MiG-29 was also built for the demands specifications of Soviet airforce. Its not MiG’s fault that their product was something that had no role after cold war. Othervise MiG did built some great aircraft; MiG-21, MiG-25, MiG-31 are all excellent aircraft, even today.
-MiG-23 is a good aircraft with superb supersonic performance (better than F-15A/16A), and good (better than F-4E, F-5E etc) subsonic maneuverability. Its only disadvantage was complexity, but its performance reflects the engineering capability of MiG company.
-MiG-29 was good for exactly Soviet airforce wanted. For late 1980s, it would have been the best aircraft for WW-III IMO, good trade-off of ruggedness, simplicity, avionics, kinematics and cost. But in last two decades world has changed, and MiG-29 needed much bigger advancements to fit in this new world and be competetive on the market with F-16/18, Rafele or Typhoon; advancements that MiG failed to make in time.
Also, lets not forget Sukhoi designed T-4 Sotka, a truly advanced and unique aircraft for Soviet aerospace industry. Now with PAK-FA, Sukhoi is truly getting the experience MiG won’t have.
You said it much more clearer that me, felicitations.
MarcellogoAlthough different design bureaux competed one with the other, MiG was the one that usually ended up developing the frontal aviation fighters while Sukhoi usually do the same with strike planes.
PVO planes were instead divided between the two, but with the exception of the -25 and -31, all others MiG planes in service were adaptations of the main frontal aviation fighter of the moment.
Such a workshare gave a great notoriety to MiG as it was the one that provided the backbone itself of the armed force and the adversary to match up for the western air forces, while Sukhoi and the others ones were the support crew.
The NATO conventional names given to their 4gen fighters were just the remarks of the roles such planes would have had in the VVS if the Soviet Union and the Communism wouldn’t have collapsed.
Being so forced to drastic cuts in defence budget and just to vthe national territory Russia decided to retire all single engined planes and more generally speaking to abandon the same concept of frontal fighter i.e. small,simple with limited autonomy and available in high numbers.
For MiG such a , absolutely right IMHO, choice was a death blow: while the Flankers were easily adaptable to the new requirements, Mig-29 was instead the embodiment itself of the short range fighter and Foxhound were too a niche plane to kept it afloat.
MarcellogoThese ones.
9:30 to 10:50 of this video explain well because these are the “Toyota wars” and not the Umvee’s ones:apologetic:.
MarcellogoQuestion. How much threat is posed by RPG-7 to Mi-24?
It can put it down.
IF it hit it, obviously.
You have more or less the same odds than to win the bingo and usually you will get targeted as first after you try .
ATGM are a much viable alternative, the Kornet above all.
MarcellogoI think Levsha was making a joke of the “civilian” part.
Same as the use of “moderate”?
Sorry was very late and I didn’t get it.
MarcellogoI could well believe that dozens, if not hundreds of “civilians” have been killed as a result of the Russian air force bombings in Syria in the last few weeks. Stands to reason.
Western planes also sound different and they fly (because of the almost exclusive use of jdam bombs) even more higher than russians.
And as usual: in which part of TR1 post is written that Russian strikes have not caused ANY civilian death?
Truth is probably in the middle, some not combatants (families of IS scumbags are not civilian IMHO, just accomplices) are certainly been hit but it happens every time, regardless of the air force involved.
Russian says that they don’t target inhabited areas, I don’t know if 100% but almost they give a try and not just said that terrorist are using civilian as shield like “you know who”.
MarcellogoThey have been using the unguided ones on Su-34’s too for a while now (like a week or two atleast). I guess they emptied the stock of 10 KAB-500S’ they had…
And as soon this happened the ratio of missions and even more important the ratio between the air missions and the objectives hit suddenly skyrocketed…:rolleyes:
No one have said that they have ceased to use it, just that now even Su-34 have begun to use free fall bombs, bombs of a different type of the ones used by others planes, so the joke about their disdain about standardization.
Me think it is something like: important and/or difficult to hit target are out for now, for the rest iron ones enough.
Using M-62 probably means that the Su-34 are still used in deep strike mode and not for direct support like the others using OFAB.
They seems to use a different tools for every kind of target they envisage.
Not a bad things at all, still it seems me one of this gala dinners in which you have five dishes, four spoons, five forks, six knives and seven glasses + a bowl to wash your fingertips as soon it is over.:stupid:
MarcellogoNow even Su-34 use unguided bombs.
FAB-500 M-62…
I still have to understand what they dislike the most: PGMs or standardization?
MarcellogoThere is no point for Russia in using attach helos in Syria, because of the mission Mi24P performs flying low and relatively slow they are significantly more likely to get shot down by a manpad or zu23-2 than a Su25,Su24 or Su34. Deploying more Su25,Su24 and Su34 instead of attack helos would be a better choice. And the Mi24 Gsh-23 gun is not really needed that much in Syria,more cluster bombs is enough of a substitute.
You asked why they have send Mi-24P instead of Mi-28.
I have said what would IMHO have been the reason.
Now you have put in question the fact they have not send more fighters instead of helos.
IMHO again, for two orders of reasons.
First one is logistical: they actually are striving to enlarge the airstrips in order to increase number of sorties from an overstretched base.
Helicopters can operate without using them, so they are almost free of charge on that regard.
Second, it is also for an operative reason: they use just another set of armaments compared to the planes, so they can be used in other scenarios.
We have seen usually them in action in a very close contact with troops on the battlefield and usually in higly urbanized areas, a place russian plane bombings intentionally avoid for political reasons.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241444[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]241445[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]241446[/ATTACH]
It is more risky that launching SDBs from 20000fts? Absolutely.
So, alternative is to wait until they would have something similar or handle things to Americans.
Or keep on thinking and acting like Russians do, using their own doctrines and priorities ( i.e. safety of crew and reduction of civilian casualty reduction are indeed important for them also but not so much to overshadow all others considerations) ,seemingly with quite good results in terms of both efficacy of action than in the security .
MarcellogoBecause of it having the most powerful gun around there (together with the one of the Warthog)?
It is certainly less efficient of the Mi-28 in the AT role but against light infantry and technicals it is the right tool.
MarcellogoKatai’b Hezbollah is one of the many Iraq Shiite militias.
Andno, Austin Iraqi Army and air forces are in a much more worse shape than Syrians one, don’t get fooled by their shinier toys: they have just an handful of them and were unable to use them efficently.
Syrians loyalist have just get some serious setback after they have to face both a united rebel front than IS but this happened just after more than two years of continuous gains.
MarcellogoIF with fighter designation you intend something akin to my own language Caccia or french Chasse: well nor F-111 , nor f-117 and either F-35 are really such a thing, in a certain way the F/A-18 would be a much more fitting designation for a plane that could operate with both roles but with aa definite twist about the A2G.
I thing one thing that determine to fighter designation is the ability to go supersonic: we use our AV-8+ primarly as a Caccia but the denomination staYed the same nevertheless.
Probably it is because of that Usaf want so badly to get rid of A-10: it is a subsonic, low altitude plane that operate in benefit and in a dependant role to the Army and the USMC, while them want to go high, supersonic and in total indipendance, so to fight IS all for itself with the results everyone can see.
Sign In
