ChromYou will be surprised how small and limited the mission envelope of a light supersonic aircraft is. The feature supersonic adds maintenance (esp. engine), training time, ground facilities and so and so on.
I’ll paraphrase you. “You will be surprised how small and limited the mission envelope of a light SUBsonic aircraft is”. Thats also true. No difference here.
Maintanance cost – thats true to some degree, but only to very small degree. Modern avionic and weapon are quite expencive both in aquiring and maintance and require very skilled technicans. Any subsonic fighter without it – completely useless. So engine maintainace cost will be only a small fraction of total maintance cost. But any supersonic fighter will replace at least 2 subsonic fighter in terms of airspace control ability. I will take 10 supersonic non-BVR Mig-21’s over 20 subsonic non-BVR Harriers any time any day.
Chromi good plane for a third world counrty that doesnt need too much operating cost but east to maintain and can carry resonable weapons beaucse ull be just facing maybe mig 21s and mig 15s and 17s but 1in 30 countries a mig 29 it would good for them to purchase a l-39 or l-139s or l-159s. Id go for the l-39 they cost as much as a mig 21.
Subsonic. If you want something subsonic – buy Su-25. At least it will be able to do something else than scare cessna. From your POV – ideal fighter. Simple, cheap, sturdy, armoured, no radar, no BVR missiles. With drop tanks it even have respectable range. Enjoy.
ChromNonsense! Purchase price is only a small part of the cost of a fighter. If you can’t operate it (& both the MiG-21 & F-4, especially the F-4, are very maintenance-intensive by modern standards), every penny of the purchase price is wasted.things, including numbers of skilled technicians, capital budgets & operating budgets. You’re only considering capital budgets. Sorry, but that is far too narrow a view.
They might be more maintanance-intencive than modern fighters regarding man-hours , but much less intencive regarding skill and technical level. Poor countries useally have much more problems with technical level than technican numbers. Anyway, every other non-supersonic fighter you can think off will require just as much maintanance as mig-21. Just slightly less fuel for flying hour. Lets make it clear – if someone cant afford such rugged&nondemanding plane as Mig-21, then he surery cant afford anything else. Simply as that.
P.S. Only imagine a picture: Someone cant afford to fly cheap Mig-21, but CAN afford to install modern radar, avionic, missiles on non-supersonic fighter…, provide it with excelent CGI coverage and buy them in enouth numbers to land them on dozens airfields around the country…
ChromYou give the answers to your own claims.
The same situation in most other African countries. I do not see Libyan or Algerian intercepters or SAM-sites based to their southern borders to intercept such types of aircraft. It seems that your thought about possible “air-threats” is not shared by many military in those countries.
Well, lets see it again – the question was about MODERN low-tech FIGHTER. See it? FIGHTER. To scare fast business jet under CGI command we can use another business jet with 0.50 cal – and just as well as true transsonic fighter. But, as i said, if we want protect something except airfield itself – we WILL need supersonic jet. All else – little use. Now radars… yes, any radar from 80x age will do. But fully expect what any “big” radar from that age will be more expecive to aquire and maintain than “baby” Kopyo-M radar. Later will have about same (or slightly lower) detection ranger, and better processing power & fire control compatabilty. And last thing… what use have range on low-speed fighter if it cant get in place fast enouth… – its useless. Said intruder can safely fly throu “protected” country and nobody will be able catch him if there are no airfields near his path. Moreover, even if interceptor have managed to achieve interception point in time, 1 min confusion or small delay in attack could lead to failed attack. As i said, you even will not be able to force someone to land, or even identify intruder. And all these problems for a *slightly* lower price? Meh… Mig-21 and F-4 cost virtually nothing. Moreover, you can actually SAVE money by aquiring supersonic fighter. Low-speed fighter will be only effective with top-art avionic, excellent radar, and top-modern BVR missiles – at least in R-77/AIM-120C class. Whereas supersonic fighter will be effective even with simple cannon…
ChromWrong. In modern times an intercepter will be vectored by GCI to an ingressing intruder. Modern AAM are all aspect or at least capable of frontal attack.
There is no longer need for surplus speed to exercise a “dog-leg manouvre” and the related tail-chase, when not executed faultless till the 70s.
Khehe. Even in modern times, CGI will lose track if said target will fly below radar horizont. Thats 1st. Even in modern times, airfields with fighters are not placed on the each square kilometr. If said airliner or fast business jet crossed the border, there might be just not enouth time to get to interception point in time. Moreorver, even IF said fighter will get to that point in time, intruder can just change course and avoid him – he will have enouth speed. And, even modern AA’s like AIM-120C, especeally at lower alts, have very sorry range. 15-20km at best. There is also another problem – if you want to only shot said inturder down, then long range SAM is much better choice. But if you want to force it to land… how you will do it with something what cant even fly as fast?
ChromJust for a change of talking about things with guns and missiles, what is the future of Russia’s transport fleet…both strategic and tactical?
I’ve heard talk about stretched Il-76’s and new An-74 deliveries, but how long will it take until we see an all new transport fleet and what will it consist of?
Bearing in mind transports are probably the bane of every air force, not even the US can afford to keep an entirely new transport fleet with some aircraft being very old, can Russia achieve its aims? :confused:
Upgraded IL-76 (IL-76MF) and, for very big cargos, AN-124 will be a host of russian MTA. IL-76MF (and upgrading old IL-76 to IL-76MF standard) are in full scale production and have success at export market. Its planned to reanimate production of An-124 – the demand for such aircraft class is very high in the world. That segment of MTA have clear future. Russia also need light transport aircraft. Thats where all confusion rises. IL-112, IL-214, deriviatives of TU-334, An-70, may be even some others- all these are proposed for that role. Best chances to replace old An-12 and An-26 have IL-214 – its development supposely supported by Indian goverment which insures successfull end of development and stable initial order. Worst chances have An-70 – its developed in Ukraine, development is not finished, but Russia have lost interest in cooperation with Ukraine – mainly, political reasons. The main problem here is what Russian Army dont need light transport aircraft as much as medium/heavy transport – in most cases light TA can be substituted by medium TA (IL-76). An-74 is too small for a real transport aircraft, and it have same major drawback – its Ukrainian design. So, its fututre is also not bright.
ChromYou think in wrong dimensions. You have your fighters to have the option of controlling your airspace. You don’t have a 24h 100% coverage. That is too ).
No, actually its YOU think in a wrong dimension. Useall 3th-world dictator (or “president”) dont care that much about defending its capital or oil fields from the air attacks. If he do, he will simply buy old rusty C-75. Its not only much cheaper, but also much more sure way to defend something from bussiness jets or 50-years old bomber from neighbourhood dictator (or, “democratic” president). Useally, he wants to keep clear his airspace from controbandists, rebellion supporters, recon planes, “accidently” wrong flying transport aircrafts or airlines. For all that you absolutly need supersonic fighter. Btw, this is a major obstacle what prevents to sell Yak-130 to a number of African and Latin American countries as cheap “trainer-fighter-bombers-all-at-once” combat plane. It simlply cant control airspace. It can defend any object its stationed, but nothing more. You cant place airfield with Yak-130 near every important object and on each kilometr of the state border.
Radar is absolutley need by any such fighter as 3th world countries dont posses extencive radar network what can direct fighter to its enemy everythere and at any alt. Hell, no countries in the world have such network. Not even USA. Not even Europa. Not even Russia.
You WILL need radar to detect low-flying trespasser – even if it was prior detected by ground based radar. And i’m not even started to talk about bad weather or, god forgive, night.
ChromIf you’re engaging in tail chases with airliners you’ve done it wrong. Think big empty spaces – you won’t get many chances to chase an airliner with afterburners on without crashing when you run out of fuel.
I agree with everything you said about new avionics, though
You need AB only to catch airliner, then you can observe it / force to land / shot down it without AB. As with operation costs… yes, its a problem. But not as big as its appears if you consider much higher range of biggers fighters. You will simple need less of them, and also less airfields.
Chroma Yak 130 would suit a third world country, as a simple to operate fighter but what is the cost of operating them and there up keep?
any idea on the cost of a Yak 130?
Ok, anything what cant fly at least 1.5M is not suited for an intercepter job. It cant control airspace as it cant even catch civilian airliner. So, we are down to supersonic-capable airframes here. Next, you will need cockpit. Modern MFD cockpit is not only better, its vastly cheaper than previos hundreds-dials cockpits. So, its MFD’s. Next, radar. Now, any radar probably will do, but obviosly modern, but not-so-capable radar would be much cheaper then equaly capable old radar. Espeaceally in maintainance. So, we install modern radar. Next, weapon. Any modern radar will be able to fire modern missiles, so we can buy these as well. But, for training purposes or non-threat targets we can also get some old cheap missilles. So, what we get? Indian upgraded Mig-21 is a good example. Another would be varios upgrades of F-4.
Chromthey didn’t know what to do else.
German actions in Eastern Europe were often retaliation actions and the hunt for “partisans”, which were defined as 100% of the male population between ).
Large scale extermitation was, indeed, often provoked by partisans. On the other hand, official german doctrine was what all slavic, juwish, etc. natioanalities are “underhumans” and they was handled accordinly, including burning villages with all womens, childrens, etc for a single killed german soldier. The very some relation we can see from British, American, Turkish ,etc. goverements to they enemies. If even german WW2 behavior you dont accept as genocide, then i dont know what you mean by “genocide”. Certainly, there are no such examples in Iraq or Iran, or, for that matter, in other countries. So saying what West is supposely somehow different here is a bogus.
ChromWas genocide a state policy in either of those conflicts?
I cant remember any real STATE genocid in 20th century among developed countries except Hitler’s WW2. Even Turskish-Armenian genocid was rather like a very bloody civil war. Even China-Japan WW2 conflict dont fall in that category. Despite millions of deaths. Of course, we dont count African countries here.
But, if we count every major racial-based cleanup, indirectly supported by goverment, then we can safely point to almost any West country. Each of them done something like that with hundreds of thousands or even millions deaths. As i said, Vietnam and Algeria are good examples here. Hitlers – but before also cleanup what affected millions of germans in Poland in 30x. Juwish hunt in Ukraine and Baltic countries in 1920th, with hundreds thousands dead juwish – and that long before Hitler. Britain empire in 19th and 20th centrury – several not-so-small nationalities was completely wiped from the world. Millions deaths. North American native population – 19th and even beginning 20th century – millions of deaths. That list can grow and grow. Thats something every one should learn in the shool, so they dont allow they goverments repeat mistakes of the past.
ChromI was including the USAAF raids over japan in my statement, I was simply trying to point out that with the exception of WW2 the west in general has been very civilised in its conduct during war.
Should we mention Vietnam here? May be Algeria? In many middle-scale conflicts West shown itself just as bloody as anything you can imagine….
ChromYou also forgot one, but importand requirement – you victim should have no pride and no self-esteem whatsoever. Besides, even in that case it dont solve a problem, but rather supressing it for a some time. After several years either said country will by any means aquire weapon powerfull enouth to destroy its enemy (N. Korea?) , or you will bomb it to ashes and they will have nothing to lose (Iraq, Vietnam). In both cases you will not recive what you want.
ChromI have occasionaly wondered what would happen if the US and its allies adopted a policy of massive retaliation, for instance, suicide bombers blow up a train in the US and a Trident is fired at a major Islamic city. A roadside bomb kills an American soldier in Iraq, so the entire population of the nearest village is slaugtered. Obviously Highly unpopular Internationally but I could see it having an impact.
They have already tryed it in Vietnam… Well, lets just say it mildly, it caused more problems than solved.
ChromWho says they have to have F-22’s to attack? is there a Law that says this, quite capable enough without the F-22 to do the job. And who says USA will attack first? Again no law or rule says this has to be the case – why not an Iranian attack on US assets in the region?
Of course not. B-2, F-22, FCS – USA dont need all that to destroy Iran. 20-years old technic is perfectly capable of doing that – as first Gulf war have shown. Today’s Iran is no more military capable than Iraq in 1991.
As who attack first… well, we should maintain at least slightest connection to reality, no?
Sign In
