ChromI might be wrong but I thought the AA-12 had a poor showing here and the Flankers carrying tons of fuel just out lasted the Mig-29s and got a few with tail shots while the Fulcrums flying back to base? I seem to remember a women pilot getting a kill in a Su-27, I know I read this somewhere I just got to find it.
Throwing out bomb from the back sound like World War I stuff, thanks sealordlawrence
There is absolutely zero realiable information about Mig-29/Su-27 kills in that conflict, sources contradict each other, etc. So i wouldnt base any conclusion on these rumors.
ChromSyria, has been offered upgraded MiG-31s from Russia just recently, hell Russia is willing to allow the Syrian air force to trade in their MiG-25s for the new Foxhounds, so lets talk about Syria. My orginal post was not defining what country is friendly or unfriendly just that Chavez’s decision to buy the Su-30s was based partly on an arms embargo that would not allow him to buy parts for his fleet of F-16s from the U.S. or Israel. So if you want to go off on another tangant go ahead. The USA has SSBNs for nuclear deterrence and we have never publicy said that we want to “wipe a country like Israel off the map” like the president of Iran has been quoted as saying, that is why Iran wants nuclear weapons or vehicles capable of delivering them, that is the differance Iran is demonstrating an intent to use them because of hatred toward Israel and the west. If I recall just recently some Su-25s were recently delievered to Iran and Iran has placed on order for the S-300 SAM systems, Kilo class diesel subs that are quiter than nuclear subs, appears Russia is selling some quality weapons to Iran from where I am sitting.
S-300 was denied to Iran. Fact. I dont know about Mig-31. but S-300 and Iskander was also denied for Syria. You just have to consider what Russia might think what Mig-31 in Syria is much less a threat to russian (and whole region) security than S-300 or Iskander. As for someone saying something… well. western media(heck, any media) tends to twist any words. If i start to quote american presidents and other goverment folks about destroying someone or something i can put several quotes every day in line. Israel and USA cant seriosly openly discuss every day about bombing Iran and expect it to be nice to them at same time. Its just ignorant.
ChromNot propoganda, last time I checked the Chavez administration was not shopping for new U.S. or European built fighters and why? Because the governments of those countries will not sell weapons to that country with him as president. Now to answer your question, since it is a good question the weapon systems your are referencing are strategic weapons, the Typhoon class boats were built in low numbers and today are incredibly expensive to maintain, last time I read the Russian navy does not have all of these boats in service due to costs and need for overhaul, and I doubt that even if Iran could buy one would be able to keep it in service for long, why does a nation like Iran need such a submarine like the Typhoon when their navy is postured for littoral warfare? India would be the same reason, their defense budget would not be deep enough to pay for new MiG-29s the aircraft carrier that is coming with them and the 126 new combat aircraft they are shopping for. As for the C-300/400 SAM system I sure all the countries you mentioned in your question need to do is place an order and they will be delivered. So what is the propoganda myth??? Countries that have requirements to purchase new military hardware that are denied sales by the European nations or the U.S go to Russia who is willing and able to sell them what they need. I am not questioning the capability Russian aircraft the latest Su-30s coming out of their are quite capable aircraft.
Iraq/Iraq was refused to buy C-300. Iran was refused to buy Su-30. Iran was refused to buy many other advanced systems . I dont even speak about Syria here. And if you question why a nation like Iran need Typhoon… then answer a question why a nation like USA need SSBN’s. Iran (and all other countries) need them for the very same reason. Again, Russia refuses to sell sensible weapons (even such minor as MANPADS and RPG’s) to many “unfriendly” countries. You just should keep in mind what term “unfriendly” obviosly differ quite much for Russia and USA. Hell, this term even different for USA and Europa. Whats why sentences like “Russia (China, France, Germany, India, etc) sell weapon to whoeve have money” is propaganda myths. They sell weapon for money to friendly or neutral countries – just like ANY OTHER COUNTRY. NO sane country sell weapon to unfriendly country – unless its planned to convert said country to friendly throught that way.
ChromHe needs new SU-30s because we (U.S.) will not supply him any parts to keep his air force’s fleet F-16s airworthy and Russia will sell their military hardware to anyone who has the cash to pay for them.
When why Russia dont sell C-300 to Iran? C-400 to China? Akula & Typhoon to Iran, China, India? Typical propaganda myths…
ChromThose who see any value in TVC have obviously missed the last 30 years of missile development and knowledge of the prime operational need in any airforce.
Statements such as the missiles wont be able to ‘lock on’ is just ridiculous.
TVC will only make the jet more vulnerable unless fighting a significantly less capable opponent.
Anyone who dont see value in TVC clearly missied the last 100 years in aircraft development. The fighters become more agile with every generation. IF what you said is true then we would see B-1 and B-2 with AMRAAM instead of F-22 and F-35.
Where the TVC might give advantage:
1. WWR – i guess noone can deny what, no matter how good your missile is it must first aquire a lock.
2. BVR – in terminal stage when the missile lost most of its energy TVC may help to evade the missile.
3. General flying – with much better controlabilty TVC helps to evade flying accidents like crashing in stall.
ChromUh…those are all desktop style PCs it looks like, and came from the 1980s, well AFTER Stalin. That’s not even remotely what I was talking about.
Try to look here http://www.bashedu.ru/konkurs/tarhov/english/stages.htm
As you could see, USSR wasnt far behind West in computer technology. It useally could match West in computers for military or even scientific application, but started to lag behind in the early 70-x for bussiness applications. There was also a problem with electronic components – USSR could produce just as advanced components as West – but they average quality was much lower so they was forced to implement very strict and expencive quality control. The result was very high price for advanced “good” electronic components. That wasnt a problem for military, but in civilian use this again caused many problems. Still, given the nature of USSR economic, alll that wasnt an unavoidable problem. The so-called “planed” econmic had a major advantage of being able to concentrate major resources on the key areas, so all these problems could be solved in relative short time if given enouth priority. There are many examples of such behavior, where a several industrial branches was given priority and they matched West in relatively short time. For example aviation (including civilian), energy production, metallurgy, lamp tubes, etc. For example we could see the results of efforts to much western avionic – since the 30x USSR aircrafts always lacked in that department. But by the end 70x-early 80x USSR catched the West and even surpassed in many products – see Mig-31 radar, IRST, Datalink, HMS, off-boresight missiles, etc. The very some could be seen for example on tanks – T64/T-80 FCS was on par with the best examples in the West, ATGM’s had no concurrency, in 70x the night vision equipment on USSR tanks apeared in wide-scale even before these in the West – allthought by the beginning of 80x USSR missed the introduction of TI system. As such, we shouldnt fall to general predjucticy conclusions.
ChromIIRC Finland was compelled to buy from both the Soviets and the West by the Treaty of Paris (1948?), which was why it had Drakens and MiG-21s doing essentially the same job. This restriction was removed when the Soviet Union collapsed, allowing Finland to choose the Hornet as its only fighter. Presumably if the Soviet Union had lasted into the 90s then the Finns would have had to buy MiG-29s as well as a Western type.
There was no official hard-coded restriction about Finnland. They just followed balanced politic – thats all. After collapce of USSR Russia’s influence sharply fall and right now Finnland cant recive as much goodies being neutral. Still, the change from T-72 to Leo have very little to do with politic but a lot with money – for a new T-90 you would need to pay a lot of moneys, but Leo’s come almost for free. The very same could be said about airforce.
ChromABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN NAVY
Those days I made a search about the 15th&16th centuries carracks and galleons and I tried to find if the Russian navy really existed before the Peter the great at the time of Ivan the terrible. If for example were carracks or galleons with Cossack admirals, but I didn’t find any information. Iwant to ask Ireally existed any naval force at Pre Peterthe Great era.
No regular navy existed before P.G. But of course russians had a traditionaly builded ships, very similar to early vikings ships in construction & purpose. I.e. rather small ships designed for trading and ocassional pirating in litorial waters.
Chromdidnt Finland operate MIg 21S., Poland opeated, operated MIGs
Finland is demonstrative neutral country. And i mean TRUE neutral, not just like Switzerland which is strongly leaning towards NATO. Poland was WARPAC, now they wouldnt buy even screwdriver from Russia. The only Western (NATO) country what recently really operates Russian equipment is Greek. But they always had a strong relations with Russia. So, to answer the questions, major NATO countries will not operate essential russian equipment in the forseeable future. The reverse is also true. Partially due to distrust, but mainly due to economical reason. EU countries will always prefer to buy off EU counry, USA will always prefer to buy from USA firms – and that already covers anything we call West.
ChromFlogger wrote,
“the posibility of killing the SR-71 is quit high that is the real reason the US halte any intrusion over Soviet territory.”
Flogger,
Flogger, Your naivety is simply stunning. You do realise that ANY over flights would have been a clear provocation? Here we have two super powers with a huge nuclear arsenal pointing at each other and you think the only reason why there were no Blackbird over flights was because of them being shot down? It is this simple, simple naivety that makes you a laughing stock on these forums.
/url]
Flogger, you live in a very simple fantasy world and it shows repeatedly!
Haha, did you realised what USA wasnt worried very much about any “provocation” till the U2 shot down?
ChromYou’re right, it isn’t any different. But it isn’t “mistreatment” either. A nation which is dependent on another for defense products can’t expect to speak out against its benefactor without consequences. That’s just common sense.
Well, as with all other things, its the quantity what matters (and is a quality of its own). The question here is how deep should be the disagreement to suffer such consequeces as first, and how oft these interests are collide. USA are very twitchy in this matter, they have deep interests everythere in the world and they are not ready for compromisses. As such, they are very uncomfortable partners if you fear do disagree with them. On the other hand, due to very same reasons, they are very usefull partners as they can greatly support you politcaly if its in they interest.
ChromYes, you are 100% right – thats why I used periods ;). But chineese are still open to any suggestion here – Rafale much lighter than Su-33 and this is not only reason.
But truth said, Rafale is not in the same class as Su-33. Better comparation would be new Mig-29K …
ChromKa-50 in Chechnya yes (two helicopters), Ka-52 I doubt it. I don`t think Ka-50 has better agility than Mi-28. Other than changing the direction it looks and keep going in other direction at 100km/h the Ka-50 can`t do anything better than Mi-28. Because of its rotor system, the Ka-50, has quite a few limitations when maneuvring at high speeds. The advantage of the Ka-50 is that it can operate in high wind conditions (proven by its predecesors) and that it uses all available power for lift.
KA-50 fans defends what these “limitations” of KA-50 far exceed the “unlimited” abilites of Mi-28. Which is, well, believiable given potecially much higher KA-50 maneuvering capabilites. The main advantages of KA-50 airframe are easy of controlling and ability to much better hovering than Mi-28 (btw, thats why Ka is the king of shipborne helicopters).
Why Ka-50 lost its race to Mi-28 after initiall success? Rumors said what due to its much bigger height dimension and difficulties with installing MMW rotor radar. Contrary to popular belief, the cost of Ka-50 and Mi-28 is almost the same, the Mi-28 being in slight advantage due to common parts with upgraded Mi-24. Initially Ka-50 was much more expencive than Mi-28 due to more advanced avionic, but final Mi-28N costs about as much as Ka-50.
ChromI would say these the most important features what decide fighter radar “range” ability:
1. Emmiting power
2. S/N ratio of reciver
3. Area of antenna
4. Beam shape
Surprisingly, all these are very easy to describe with numbers. There are other important features which influence true combat perfomance as ecm resistance, ground clutter rejection, beam agility, etc. but they are much harder to describe in objective way, and they have nothing to do with pure “range” perfomance.
F16A didnt used medium range missiles becouse its designers didnt made it (speaks a lot about true perfomance of these missilles…). The radar by itself was technologicaly good enouth to guide medium range AA.
ChromNo, no, no, Chrom.. it has nothing to do with the actual speed of the missile….
The radar is seeing something that is moving at speed and height…which is not only phyiscally challenging.. but not impossible…and it is giving the firing computer data….the lag between the input data and generating the solution and the actual firing is the issue…the missile is plenty quick enough to hit the target.. if its pointed in the right place…to a level of accuracy the the trio of speed, height and lowered RCS aim to degrade.
The tracking radar is giving the steer to the guidance…It does nothing more…and regardless of the length of trakcing it does not provide the accuracy needed. The guidance radar is the one that does that… and the longer it can lock on the more accurate the solution.
The aim of the speed and height design requirements were to reduce the time the guidance radar has to generate a solution before the target is outside the firing envelope of its missile…hence ANY addition measures which serve to reduce that time window are effective.
So if we increase the RCS the time window is therefore increased and the probabilility of a successful intercept increases as well. so even if the RCs reduction exercise was only a 1% improvement it is the single point that ensures success…
Whilst I agree that a relatively small offset would bring the SR to the very edge of the intercept envelope of a single SAM it presupposes the SAM site was either the outer most ring of a complex.. and hence quite some distant from the target. This then brings the actual offset capabilties of the sensors…..or that the SAM site was a solo site.. with no protection fro neighbouring sites…which was not a trademark of the installations in NV at the time..
Again the absolute dismissal of the RCs contribution is unjustifiable.
Again, you understand it wrong. RCS have nothing to do with “accuracy”, at least once lock obtained. Again, we have plenty sources to tell us what lock wasnt a problem. Now why slow missile IS problem: the so-called 3-points guidance method always lead the missile to prediction interception point, but not quite direct – in that case missile would diviate too much with with every slight change of target speed direction and bleed its speed – but somewhere in between these “predicted” and “actual” target points. That method work very well for missille speed >> target speed, but dont work at all once missile speed < target speed – in that case missile will be always behind target.
Also, dont forget what max range of S-125 is 25km, and max height is also 25km. What this data tell us? Well, S-125 is unable to shot anything what flying at 25 km – even airballon unless that ballon would position itself directly over SAM. S-75 had 35-50 km range depending of modification, but with slower missile, and thats still not enouth to hit such high fast target. Again, only S-200 could realisticaly hit SR-71 by that time, but SR-71 never flied near S-200. Still, there are a lot of sources what tell us how the crew of S-200 could track SR-71 300-350 km away.
Sign In
