star49I am talking about now and the Su-27s and F-15s in service. History is just that.
F-15s now are old and grounded. Even baseline Su-27 is very competitive against ealry 90s F-15E. and than u have Su-27SM upgrades continuing with much improved IRST/ECM/Communication and radar systems.
star49It needs them, it’s a heavier aircraft. Besides it’s not like the US couldn’t drop a pair of -229s in them if they felt the need. Of course that won’t make you go any faster when you’re grounded. đ
Better than AIM-120 C7 (soon to be AIM-120D) and AIM-9X? (ISTR they’re getting HMS and some already have them.) Also the fuel thing isn’t as significant as you make it out to be. F-15s can carry tanks and still carry their full weapons load so it’s kinda moot. Besides what would you rather be, an F-15 who can punch off 9000lbs of fuel at the push of a button if needed vs a Flanker that takes X number of minutes to do the same so it can actually manuever?
I am referring to mid-80s time period when F-15C and Su-27 were in production. Su-27 had IRST/HMS/high offborsight missile/10 free weopon stations with increase thrust and it is not heavier like Su-30.
and MIG-31 have now 200KM missile. and than there is heavier version of R-27. so AIM-120C is shorter range even now.
star49You missed the point: for 15 years, during the cold war, the soviets didn’t have any plane in the F-15 class.
First generation of F-15 were not silver bullet either neither in numbers, location or weopons. hordes of MIG-23 backed by MIG-25/MIG-31/GCC could have effectively dealth with it.
star49Sure, so, you mean, we should also compare the Su-27 with the F-15A ?
Oh, wait, they are about 15 years apart !
Su-27 has higher thrust engines than even F-15C with better weopons load out and more internal fuel capacity. HMS and offore sight missile another plus point.
star49remember that JDW article on china and Irbis? It was all over the Chinese thread earlier this year.
where it said it has been operationally evaluated?
star49Precisely. V3A was in 1976. Please read my post again. It was deployed. I stated nothing about comparative data with other countries systems, especially as there weren’t any systems in other countries.:dev2: (The US system had already been withdrawn as unsuccesful) At roughly the time when the Soviets were first deploying their first systems, the second development system with V3B was in service already and was used in combat at around that time. The V3A system was a decade old already. Development had moved on, as with all systems, to improve upon the basic concept and parameters.
This does not invalidate the Soviet effort, nor indeed any others.
Certainly Helmet Mounted Sights/Displays are now here to stay.
ur clearly comparing vastly inferior product by ateast two generations to down graded export variant of another product.
http://www.saairforce.co.za/the-airforce/weapons/30/v3p-aa-11r-73-archer
This Russian air-to-air missile revolutionised the short-range dogfight AAM market when it first appeared in the 1980s. With its high agility incorporating thrust-vetoring, excellent off-boresight performance and intergration with a helmet-mounted sight, no Western AAM came close.As a result of the ineffectiveness of the V3B missile and delays in service entry of the new V3C, the SAAF bought 18 of these missiles for evaluation and decided to test the Russian missile by intergrating it on the Mirage F1 in 1993. During these tests, SAAF pilots fired missiles from MiG-29 aircraft at MiG-21 drones. Despite the success of the project, the SAAF and Armscor decided to continued with the V3C and the V3S which were inferior missiles
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=36171&page=5&highlight=su-35
from JED online. April-2004
The earliest of the fifth-generation short-range AAMs was the Vympel R-73 (AA-11). Employed with an Urals Optical-Mechanical Plant helmet-mounted sight, it can be fired at targets up to 30 degrees off-axis, and can track them at twice that angle. It employs both thrust vectoring and canard surfaces for pitch and yaw control. A new export version is expected to combine a laser fuze (which is already on the Russian Air Force version) and 120-degree off-axis target acquisition capability. Maximum range is to be increased from 30 to 40 km, and reports suggest that the R-73 has potential for rear-hemisphere defence
star49Schumacher, It is widely considered that the South African HMS was the first successful system, predating the Soviet system by quite a few years. Please see my post above.
The Kentron V3A missile had seeker angle of only 30 degrees when used with the first South African helmet sight. This missile was in service from circa 1975 until withdrawn in 1978. This was due to the missiles seeker gimble limits. Used on Mirage III and Mirage F1.
The V3B addressed these gimble limits. Production commenced in 1979 and ended in 1985. It’s export version was offered for export from 1981 and called the Khukri. Used on Mirage III and Mirage F1. Some fired in anger during the bush war in Southern Africa.
The V3C follow on had laser fusing and yet more increased gimble limits. No longer in service.
All the above used Helmet sights which were also improved along with the missiles development. The info I posted above is just the latest in a long line of development.I know it is not from the fashionable Soviet or American camp, but there you go. But we digress….
Production commenced in 1979 SA but it does not prove that system was ahead or better than MIG-29 HMS. MIG-29 was supplied to operational units since 1983/84 but it does not mean that HMS development track is related to MIG-29. It could have been tested on other aircrafts and seeing Soviet Union system it usually taken longer to bring idea into production.
star49from PLAAF tests, it does not achieve that figure at all. But then again, Russians do advertise a lot of stuff.
when did PLAAF tests on IRBIS occur?
star49This is total nonsense, Airbus is an independent company, that relies in part on governmental development loans, which are then repaid. Airbus is not a government department, and can make profit (in fact, it does, the A-300, -310, -320 and -330 programs have all been pretty profitable). It is not supported by the whole EU government, it mostly receives subsidy and loans from France, Germany, and to a lesser extent the UK. The problem for the Russian aircraft manufacturers in the west is in terms of quality control (look especially at the major problems the Indians and Czechs have had with Russian purchases) and after sales support (again, look at India). The simple fact is that Russian suppliers have had a poor record on spares support, with customers experiencing real difficulty getting hold of spares.
that spare problems belongs to soviet era stuff when alot of things went out of production. There is no problem with Flanker/IL-76/Mi-17 spares. It takes time to transition from state to customer service oriented system. But it has nothing to do with basic design and capability of system. AIRBUS cant develop a single aircraft without government support.
The bottom line is that Airbus can, and does, turn a profit.
when u take out the money. there is no profit.
You completely miss my point. The reference to PAK-FA is the fact that it, like Galileo, is a project that is not in service. Saying that Galileo is a failure compared to Glonass (a project started in the ’80s) is effectively saying that PAK-FA is a failure compared to the F-16 or Mirage 2000. As for fourteen satellites in Glonass still being operational, that isn’t really the point – the system is not fully operational, and will not return to full operation until 2009, and only with Indian help.
I didnot miss the point. PAK-FA is 21st century technology just lik Flanker is late 70s. so financial and technical challenge is enormous. In case of Galileo ur building some thing which some one else has already done 2 decades ago. and still u need there air lift service because u simply cant afford it. and Glosnass is fully operationals this december over Russian terrirtory and Globally in 2009. u will be decade behind that because in coming years Russians are going to raise the fees and than ur bureacrats will look for more funding an delay.
The An-70 was to replace the 30+ year old Il-76 design, but basically Russia fell out with Ukraine, and therefore favoured the all-Russian Il-76. The An-124 is an outstanding aircraft, I do not argue with that, but it is not the point. Saying Europe cannot have strategic airlift is complete nonsense, they simply haven’t needed it until now (with all emphasis on a regional war). This is changing, and even now Europe has large numbers of smaller airlifters, airliners, and currently leases Antonovs.
IL-76/IL-114 is built in Uzbekistan and will be built in Russia after enormous investment . If there is a technical and financial merit in An-70s they would have done the same just like An-148 and An-124 is built in Russia Aviastar.
As for the MTA, that project is falling apart, due in part to the Russians not playing ball with India, who were funding most of the project. The whole project now seems likely to be cancelled.
Russia does not need anyone else money to complete MTA project.
I think ur not updated. MTA engines are related to MS-21 project and likely to built at same place.
Actually, the European nations have come together to back the project properly just this last week, and the project is going ahead. The Chinese will not be launching it – they have yet to prove themselves in the satellite launch business. As I said, and you ignored, the satellites could perfectly easily be launched on Arianne if the need arose, but Russia is not stupid enough to cancel the launch just to annoy the Europeans.
The speed at which EU take decisions and implement projects even Chinese will make there own GPS systems. and so many satellite cannot be launched by Arianne. cost will increase.
This was exactly what the Russians tried during the Cold war, but Russia has never managed to challenge air superiority of NATO fleets. All it has ever managed to do is fly a few bombers nearby, but this is exactly what the NATO fleets got experience dealing with, and most new ships are designed due to the lessons learned. Lots of NATO navies are now deploying Aegis or similarly equipped ships, and there’s a good reason.
That cold war is different than this one. just think over it.
Actually, European nations have high levels of wealth, and can easily afford to increase public spending – yes, tax levels seem high, but they’re actually very reasonable, especially compared to some countries. As such, it is complete nonsense to keep saying that European countries cannot afford weapons. Perhaps you need to actually look at GDP figures and weapons costs – during the Cold War, lots of nations maintained 5% of GDP defence budgets, without sacrificing their economies. You seem to be completely unable to follow the fact that Europe has a massive advantage in both population and economy – Russia has a declining population, and a much smaller economy.
Europe has zero advantage in population and economy. the movement European put there population into defence industries in higher numbers the rest of industrial base will shift to China for making things cheaper as they will not afford the expensive stuff because money is going to defense.
Russia has natural resources that is always liquid wealth.
Actually, debt levels in western countries are relatively manageable, and public spending levels are such that defence budgets could be increased substantially. The fact that you don’t seem to follow is that Europe represents a massive political union, with a massive economy, so much so that it dwarves the Russian economy. Tax rates are actually quite reasonable in European nations, and have certainly been higher before.
No matter how many times u say. Defence budget cannot be increased beyond pay and pension no matter how big the threat.u have lost that capcity to respond to new challenge.
star49The simple fact that Western Europe feels confortable with the lowest PIB percentage spent in defence, EVER, should tell what his the general perception of the “Russian threat” in Paris, London, Berlin, etc… It doesn´
t exist.The simple fact that there´s a huge migration from Russia, Bielorussia, Ukraine to the west should tell you why Europe doesn´t feel threatened.
And if the simple fact that a 130 million country with a GDP of 733 billion US$ is a “no threat” to a block of 500 million habitants and a GDP of 16 Trillion US$ doesn´t open your eyes, well, then you can start your own “limited but destructive war”… with your third floor neighbour, because Putin won´t start one.
Again ur putting in accurate Math. u simply cant collect $50B of Tax revenue in a month from $733B GDP with 14% income tax rate. even if there is asset sale.
http://www.kommersant.com/p824481/r_500/macrofinance/
EU simply does not have money to buy its own stuff in sufficient quantity and capability and by the time it wakes up it will be completely dependent on outside forces.
star49Airbus, as with pretty much all aircraft manufacturers, the world over, has relied on government loans and subsidies, same as Embraer, Boeing, and indeed Ilyushin, Tupolev, Sukhoi and Antonov. The simple fact is that Airbus is a successful company – okay, many (including myself) disagree with their management methods, and project management in particular, but they are a successful company. In contrast, how many Tu-204s or Il-96s have been sold, despite overtures to gain western sales (western engines and avionics, and half the price of western rivals)?
Airbus is successful company to the extent it is supported by Government of whole EU. It cannot do anything by itself. There is nothing wrong with Tu-204/IL-96 as an aircraft it is the investement in production/credit/global servicing that hinders there sale in large scale but that is going to change. but the bottom line is the same u cannot turn profit with Airbus no matter how many u sale.
In terms of Galileo, it is a project that has yet to be put into operation – how many PAK-FA are in service? Comparing a project in development to an established program is apples and oranges. Also, Glonass has been in a sorry state of affairs, after finally achieving global coverage in ’95, the system fell into disrepair, and it is likely to be 2009 before global coverage is restored.
how is PAK-FA and Galileo comparable.? If EU has to put PAK-FA comparable project into operations it will need alteast $300B and 100 years. Glosnoss budget is fraction of PAK-FA. ur comparing different scales. and still 14 are active.
http://www.glonass-ianc.rsa.ru/pls/htmldb/f?p=202:20:13759333992006660994::NO
With regard to strategic airlift, this is only a relatively recent concern for Europe, hence the A-400M project took so long to get off the ground. This is being addressed, and the overall strategic airlift available will improve a lot. Russia, on the other hand, has long needed its airlift capability, and therefore has inherited the old Soviet-era transport fleet. On the other hand, the replacement/renewal of strategic airlift in Russia has been mired in problems, with the An-70 cancelled after many years; now the emphasis seems to be on just re-engining old Il-76s. The money is available in Europe for strategic airlift, and is being spent, it just takes a while for the aircraft to become available.
An-70 looks duplication of effort. U already have IL-76 from 40-60 tons class and u can also use IL-96T/An-124 and further new 20 ton MTA is coming.
As for your comment about Galileo needing to be launched by the Russian space launchers, this is a little misguided – the Russians had the lowest bid, hence the Russian launch. If Europe wanted, it could perfectly easily launch the satellites on an Arianne launcher, as they have with many other satellites. The Russian space program relies very heavily on selling launches – take that away, and the Russian space program could easily grind to a halt.
If Galileo is not launched by Russians than may be Chinese for a little more cheaper otherwise project will be canned due to increasing costs.
How on Earth do you come to that conclusion? Germany is fielding hundreds of cruise missiles, as is France and Britain. European nations have looked at supersonic anti-shipping missiles, but considering the fact that the Russian Navy surface fleet was largely a no-show during the Cold War, there wasn’t much need. There simply hasn’t been much of a surface threat for NATO countries, hence they haven’t had to buy into the huge range of anti-shipping missiles that Russia had. Russia faced a major surface fleet, hence put a lot of emphasis on anti-shipping – Europe placed far more emphasis on anti-submarine warfare, and rightly so.
ur surface fleet is as good as far as u have airsuperiority. if submarine is firing longer range missile with ur at disadvanatge.
It is quite simply untrue to say that Europe can’t afford to buy weapons – the money is certainly there (especially compared with the Russian economy!), but the need isn’t. Many of these countries could field supersonic or even hypersonic anti-ship missiles if they wanted to. Also, it should be noted that a lot of navies field the American Standard Missile, which is actually a highly effective supersonic anti-ship missile.
Money is simply not there for cost of weopons and the capability they provide.ur already very high taxed society. u cant do any more.
I suggest you look at the European economy, and realise that most of the countries are only spending between one and two percent of their GDP on defence at the moment. If they wished to, these countries could easily double, or even triple their budgets, without major impact on their economies. They just don’t need to at the moment, and are therefore rightly not wasting huge amounts of money on maintaining huge unnecessary forces.
unnecessary forces?
i can create huge GDP with unlimited credit expansion and put higher tax rate over the top of that. these countries simply cant increase defence spending because of debt and already stretched Tax rates.
star49I have to seriously challenge that assertion Mig23, Airbus is an incredibly successful company, with thousands of sales. In contrast, the Tupolev Tu-204/214 and Ilyushin Il-96 have hardly sold anything, despite being much cheaper. The simple fact is that cheap labour is not everything – you need the build quality to match. This is what Embraer got right, they made the EMB-145 a good aircraft, and could build it cheaply, and they are now doing the same with the -170 series. Outsourcing may be a two-way street, but Russia is no China, and is not a rising giant, and is not suddenly going to start challenging Airbus and Boeing (Sukhoi Superjet possibly excepted, in part because of its affiliation with western partners). Also, Russia doesn’t benefit that much from outsourcing, with western airframers preferring to outsource to Eastern Europe, or certain parts of Asia. As for your earlier point about Russia being self sufficient on technology, so is Europe. Manned spaceflight is not much of an issue – Europe does have a manned spaceflight program, and launches astronauts, it is just cheaper to do so on Soyuz or the Shuttle. If Europe wanted to, it could have its own launcher, and indeed has expressed an interest in doing so, but there’s not much need. As for Russia, its launch program still relies on the old, reliable Soyuz, and seems likely to for the forseeable future. The simple fact is that Russia is still relying on developments from the ’80s, and even a number of their ‘new’ projects are no more than warmed-over ’80s projects. Not a great sign for the future…
AIRBUS is successful to the extent it is supported by government subisidies and bank credit. Can Airbus finish that basket case A-400M/A-350 with its own profits?. one other hand there are much better 250+250 IL-76 in operations. EU strategic airlift ability is close to zero. EU has technical ability but cost is beyond its means. there 14+4 Glosnoss Satellite in orbit how many Galileos are in Orbit?. and there is no guarantee that Galileo will be on time and budget and surely it will launch by Russians otherwise Satellites will be sitting on the ground:diablo:
Sukhoi alteast built RRJ without Government subsidies untill 2006.
Sferrin: On the issue of GLCMs, this is one area Russia really doesn’t want to go down. Europe is pretty well equipped when it comes to cruise missile programs, and could easily field thousands of cruise missiles. The unit costs of them can be kept down, and even the Eastern European nations could afford to field thousands of the missiles each. It also has to taken into account just how close the missiles would be now, making Russia itself a viable target, whereas during the Cold War, it was only really WarPac nations that were within range. There are also other systems, like Rattlrs, but also you’ve got to look at things like ATACMS, which can have ranges of 300km nowadays. Not a route that Europe would like to go down, but equally a route that Europe could comfortably afford to go down.
EU weopons are so expensive they couldnot afford to buy anything. where Club/Brahmos class weopon in EU Navies and that i am referring to tecnology of 1980s. EU simply cannot filed anything in quantitiy or the same technical ability. Is there anything on hypersonic missile fielding?
star49Market prices have to be payed by all.
When you can sell a barrell of oil for $ 90 (or similar hard currency),
but you give it to the own people for $ 9 your country will loose $ 81,
when not exported for $ 90.
The market price is for all the same.
wrong maths. when u sell energy product cheaper in home market it means ur lowering the cost of living for ur own people so they can spend money on some thing else and u can still get indirect Tax from home grown consumption that is generated from extra money in people pockets. this thing is alot more complicated.
Is there even a country around, which does even field the numbers allowed in the former CFE in 2007?!
Germany scales down from over 5000 MBTs to less than 400.
The UK will field a similar small number and France too. All that countries will field no more than 300 fighters each in the near future
The problem with EU countries is that there products are alot expensive and obsolete for the price they are paying. Consider that EF/Rafale class fighter. they are close to $80m in fly away. Now compare that to MIG-31/Su-27/MIG-29 upgrades. I can assume Russia is upgrading alteast 10 MIG-31 for price of 1 EF/Rafale. Similar is the case for other fighters like Su-27/Su-24 upgrades. It is the left over from Soviet Union and low flight hours from 90s that gives them huge quantitative advantage to bring future capability. u can go into Bombers/Transports/AWACS/Tankers etc.
$102 Billion per year Defence budget gives them as much capability as $1 trillion per year of EU defence budget. and I am not going into advantages longer range aircrafts and missiles that Russia possess with airfields far away from shorter range EU fighters. EU is conventionally too weak.
http://jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtml
Russia sets its first-ever three-year defence budget
Russia has committed USD308.5 billion to national defence and security expenditure for three years from 2008. Viktor Ozerov, chairman of the Russian Federation Council Defence…
26-Nov-2007
star49The worth of the rubel does show it. Despite what every country may claim about his economy. It is the value of the currency in the end.
At the moment it is ~ 35,5 Rubel per Euro.
Russia is still paying debts. Thanks to the high prices for oil/gas it can do that at a faster rate. Similar to China the free trade is limited to keep foreign contenders away.
Except the export joint Su-30MKI, none of that military projects is earning some money really. The small number of Tu-160 is being under reconstruction to get some operational use from that.
But as I claimed before, it will be intresting to learn at what level Russia will come out in the future. All has to be payed for by ~ 140 mio. Even to keep the Mexican level of personal income, they have to be payed accordingly. India is feeling the impact from that, when charged with further money to keep its contracts going.
35.5 rubele to euro does not represent underlying economic reality. It just show that Surplus producing economies fo Asia/Middleast are diversifying from declining dollars to Euros. In any conflict quite oppsosite can happen.
Like India EU simply does not have choice but to accept higher prices.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India_to_buy_347_T-90_tanks_for_Rs_4900_cr/articleshow/2586594.cms
NEW DELHI: Despite Russia’s propensity to squeeze more money out of India in ongoing arms contracts, it continues to maintain its stranglehold over the huge market here. India inked yet another massive contract with Russia on Friday, worth a whopping Rs 4,900 crore, to import another 347 T-90S main-battle tanks
star49Of course he can… Of course that there are no alternative to Russian oil, and of course that the russian economy could afford to loose more than 50% of their exportations… In one single day…
Of course that a country with the economy of Russia´s could take on the EU… And of course that Russia could easily economicaly crush the entire European Union… Of course…I´m forgetting the Russian demographic implosion?
when u have $500B worth of foreign reserves (3 year imports) u can afford to take a stand. EU is simply not in any position. and barring immigrants every country is demographic implosion.
Sign In
