Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 78

Thread: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

  1. #41
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    When talking aircrafts it's also quite important to get them into the air and Soviet production was not the best for it with short service intervals and high failure rates.

    I also found a very good in depth explanation for Shockblasts comments about MiG-29 superiority (here). It's by one of the experts testing it and essentially it shows both Shockblast and I WUB PUGS as correct. Great agility and superior targetting but with weak range and radar.

    Source
    The Indian Air Force (InAF) MiG-29 Experience:

    The Comptroller and Auditor General of India published on 31March1993 the results of an in depth study on the operational performance and reliability of the MiG-29 aircraft. This study was first reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology during 25July1994 (pg.49), and has been obtained by author from Mr. Pushpindar Singh, of the Society of Aerospace Studies, New Delhi.

    65 x MiG-29 single-seat and 5 x dual-seat trainers with 48 x spare engines (sparing factor of 0.7/aircraft) were delivered between 1986 and 1990 at a total program cost of approximately $600 million that included initial spares and support. These aircraft were the first MiG-29's to ever leave the Soviet Union and were not up to the weapons system standard of those that went later to the Warsaw Pact allies. The aircraft were sent disassembled by sea, and re-assembled, and test flown in India. By 1990 three squadrons were operational. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units were included to help pilots debrief their utilization of flight controls and systems. Expectations were that single-seat aircraft would fly 15 hours per month (180 hrs/yr) and dual-seat aircraft 20 hours per month (240 hrs/yr).

    There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend.

    Engineering reports mainly attribute RD-33 failures to design/material deficiencies causing discolored engine oil (8), cracks in the nozzle guide vanes (31), and surprisingly, foreign object damage (FOD). The eight material deficient engines (discolored oil) were repaired by the contractor under warrantee provisions, but the engines had to be recycled to the manufacturer. The thirty-one engines with cracks in their nozzle guide vanes were fixed in the field by contractor teams and adjustments were made to the entire engine fleet. But even though the incidents reduced the occurrences of the cracks, they continued. But the FOD situation is the most interesting, especially after the inlet FOD doors received world press coverage, but there were other concerns about production quality control that led to problems.

    Since the Indian Air Force received early model Fulcrum A's, some just after the 200th production article, there were quality control deficiencies that resulted in numerous pieces of FOD (foreign object damage) and tools being left behind after final construction inside of the aircraft. Remember that the Fulcrum skeleton is made first and then the skin is riveted over top, in the way aircraft were made in the fifties and sixties in the West. Nuts, bolts, tools, etc. all made their way to the engine bays and inlet ducts and when they were loosened up after accelerations they damaged engines and equipment.

    On top of all this, it was discovered that the unique FOD doors on the MiG-29's inlets were not stopping material from getting into the engine ducts. Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

    This problem was known from the earliest days. After the first four MiG-29 prototypes were evaluated, the nose gear was moved further back, but nose wheel "mud-flaps" or guards were still required to protect the engine from flying debris. It took until 1988 before all delivered aircraft were so equipped, therefore the initial batch of InAF aircraft had to be locally retro-fitted with mud guards and that activity was not completed until June 1992. All costs were supposed to be re-imbursed by the contractor but Mikoyan reneged and left the InAF with $300,000 in liabilities. In subsequent MiG-29K/M models the FOD doors were replaced by screens that closed "down", forcing any debris out of the louvers repositioned to the lower side of the inlet duct..

    The Indian Air Force procurement contract was concluded in September 1986, and the first engine was expected to go into overhaul in 1989. However, four engines prematurely came up for overhaul and no repair facility had been prepared. As time went on, 115 of the 122 engines (94%) prematurely failed and had to be re-cycled through engine depots in Russia at great cost. Backlogs were created and only 79 (65%) engines returned on schedule. Even when a regional Indian repair facility was completed in August 1994, the high failure rates continued and the majority of broken engines had to be sent back to Russian depots. Self-sufficiency was achieved in 1994, only after the operations tempo was significantly reduced on a permanent basis. In the process of refurbishing failed engines, the total technical life of most of the engine fleet was effectively reduced from 800 hours / 8 years to 400 hours / 4 years, at a minimum.

    Non-availability of radar and weapon system components also resulted in the grounding of seven aircraft for a period of six to twenty months. Two may have been damaged for life due to cannibalization. Besides this, a large number of subsystems and computers experienced unpredicted failures in the last four years which adversely effected the operational readiness of the squadrons. Some of the computers were field-repaired by specialists from the manufacturers, others were replaced. These repair costs were all in excess to the initial contract costs. It was noted that the 10 additional computers, which were imported, cost the InAF around $806,000. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units quickly became unserviceable during their warranty period and have been lying un-utilized and un-repaired for over two years.
    Last edited by Adar; January 04, 2013 at 06:19 PM.

  2. #42
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by I WUB PUGS View Post
    To be perfectly honest, IMHO the Sukhoi and Mig-29 IR system that FYI is helmet mounted is amazing and the West has nothing comparable until the F-35 is deployed.

    Given our differing philosophies, the F-22 is sort of like this absurd creation we don't even need. We don't even need stealth. The Russians need stealth, they're the ones with the disadvantage when it comes to radar and sensors. The US wants the enemy to turn on their radars, once they do they get blown up, just look at Kosovo. The Serbs didn't even bother to turn on their radars because they didn't want to get blown up. The F-22 is meant to go into a radar heavy area and win, but the only radar heavy area that will ever be seen is one owned by NATO since everyone else is too scared to turn on their radars. I hope someone finally sees why I hate stealth from a Western POV. Its a total waste. You literally only need a dumptruck with wings to carry missiles and launch them at targets tagged by AWACS when you operate in the A2A environments we do.
    The helmet mounted system was the main reason why the German MiGs had such a superiority. For the sake of those who don't know what it did, it allowed the pilot to lock on without turning on his radar and alerting the enemy and what is more important, if the target was up to 45 degrees off his trajectory, the pilot could just turn his head, look at it and the target was locked. The main missile for close combat for the Su-27 and MiG-29 was R-73/AA-11 Archer, capable of catching targets maneuvering with up to 10 G, making it impossible for any fighter to generate a miss through maneuvers alone.

    I believe the idea of stealth is as you said, successfully operating in a radar rich environment. The problem is that the Russians have finally come to gather the concept of AWACS and have their own. Furthermore, they have made great strides in mobilizing RADAR emitters, making it difficult for the EW birds destroy them with HARMs. At the same time, the Russians are busy integrating a multiple-layer mobile SAM network, that would make it difficult for the Weasels come close enough to attack. So the stealth technology is designed to shed a lot of unnecessary money from the federal government but also for the moment when the enemy won't be very afraid to switch on their radars.

    P.S. The Serbians showed how a trained crew can generate a HARM miss time and again. In fact, I recall one case of a HARM that had been duped and then latched onto the signal of a Bulgarian radar. Only before it managed to reach its new target, it ran out of fuel and destroyed the roof of a villa. Hence the contemporary threat "I'ma take you out like a NATO missile takes out a roof"
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  3. #43
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    That's the thing, the absolute best possible role for an F-22 would actually be Wild Weasel....................but does anyone believe the USAF will denigrate the aircraft to such a menial role?

    And in a radar rich environment like that, the F-22 would probably be found and killed anyway if it really was sent in lone gun style like the advertising pamphlets want us to believe. A mosquito at 30,000 feet on a radar screen sticks out just as much as an elephant.

    The systems as a whole will have to compete against one another. For now the west has the best systems and they are improving. I'm much more interested in what all the nerds get to do with their radars and sensors and SAMs than I am about what fancy pants flyboys get to put around in. The Russians are getting there, but its mainly the airborne and integration they lacked in.

    Russia actually beat the crap out of the west when it came to passive detection to acquisition convergence times. Even the ZSU-23 and early SA-6 were legendarily scary to Vietnam War pilots. Operators could track American emissions and acquire targets so quickly after going hot with the radar that the US pilots had little recourse other than taking the shot and bailing out.
    Last edited by I WUB PUGS; January 04, 2013 at 06:17 PM.

  4. #44

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    When talking aircrafts it's also quite important to get them into the air and Soviet production was not the best for it with short service intervals and high failure rates.

    I also found a very good in depth explanation for Shockblasts comments about MiG-29 superiority (here). It's by one of the experts testing it and essentially it shows both Shockblast and I WUB PUGS as correct. Great agility and superior targetting but with weak range and radar.
    Those were 2nd-rate versions given to the Soviet minions. The Soviets didn't export fully-equipped planes with their best avionics to foreign countries.

    I wub pugs: Good post, thanks
    Last edited by Nikitn; January 05, 2013 at 05:39 AM.

  5. #45

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by I WUB PUGS
    but does anyone believe the USAF will denigrate the aircraft to such a menial role?
    Even if they wanted to, they cant -- they spent way too much money on the plane to do that. People would flip a .
    قرطاج يجب ان تدمر

  6. #46
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by motiv-8 View Post
    Even if they wanted to, they cant -- they spent way too much money on the plane to do that. People would flip a .
    Does the raptor even have strike capability besides bombs?
    Last edited by torongill; January 05, 2013 at 11:36 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  7. #47

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    I think it's a silly argument. In a WWIII showdown in central Europe casualties would be absolutely ridiculous - 95+% for both side's first waves in the first week. The WP air forces would be attacking NATO in West Germany three times a day, initially with over 5,000 aircraft, but I can't imagine those would last long. Whatever you want to argue about tank quality, the WP retrofitted their earlier models with the latest reactive armour and gun-launched ATGMs, instantly making them effective aginst the latest NATO behemoths. Who would win is beyond speculation, esspeciall with a nuclear option.

  8. #48
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    I think it's a silly argument. In a WWIII showdown in central Europe casualties would be absolutely ridiculous - 95+% for both side's first waves in the first week. The WP air forces would be attacking NATO in West Germany three times a day, initially with over 5,000 aircraft, but I can't imagine those would last long. Whatever you want to argue about tank quality, the WP retrofitted their earlier models with the latest reactive armour and gun-launched ATGMs, instantly making them effective aginst the latest NATO behemoths. Who would win is beyond speculation, esspeciall with a nuclear option.
    There's no such thing as a Warsaw Pact anymore And the showdown would be not in Central Europe, but in Eastern, possibly along the borders of the Baltic states and Poland. But nobody is crazy enough to go there. For the Russians it's too dangerous with too small benefits. For the Allies... Nobody wants to poke the Bear. This isn't the 50s, when LeMay was getting bored.
    Last edited by torongill; January 05, 2013 at 01:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  9. #49
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    I think Deb may have been referring to 30 years ago or so, which would have been a bloodbath but I think the WP would have made it through Germany with relative ease. NATO non-German troops stationed in Germany were meant to be a speedbump, everyone knew it, which kinda sucks for them. Some of the best French, British and US Army formations were stationed there but a steamroll through the Fulda Gap wouldn't have been stopped. They were needed to give time to mobilize the rest of NATO.

  10. #50
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikitn View Post
    Those were 2nd-rate versions given to the Soviet minions. The Soviets didn't export fully-equipped planes with their best avionics to foreign countries.
    Theres a big difference between production quality and avionics.

  11. #51
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    On the southern flank Bulgaria was supposed to be able to hold the combined forces of Greece and Turkey until the Ukraine-based armies and air regiments could arrive. One of the measures included the breaking of the dams of three reservoirs on the same river, the result of which would be submerging Edirne and its surroundings under meters of water, cutting the route of advance of the turkish tanks, while at the same time the tactical ballistic missiles attacked the bridges of Istambul.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  12. #52
    Getwulf's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guthanlanda
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    I don't know how they would do against US forces in combat but the Sukhoi 35 and by extension the Sukhoi 37 Terminator were impressive aircraft. The Su-37 which is really a more enhanced Su-35 never went into production...

    I think these aircraft were at the very least equivalent if not better than anything the US had until the F-22 showed up. There's nothing out there that could beat an Su-37 in a dogfight... Probably not much that could beat a Su-35 either... They're also BVR capable...

    Su-35


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35
    Sai rodida Guthans!

  13. #53
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    The Su-27 program has been phenomenal. To my knowledge though, Russia has had a problem getting the Su-35 off and running. So far only 6 have been delivered and that was literally 10 days ago.
    http://sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5037.html

    The Anti-AWACS capability (or believed rather) was focused on the Su-35 being able to carry a KS-172 to blind NATO forces. We have no idea how truly effective the missile is, but the Russians claim to have the capability and the missile is certainly large enough to go the distance.

    All the Su-27 + Program is is taking what is a Cold War relic and turning it into a glass cockpit dogfighting beast. The upgrade programs to the Mig-29 are doing the same thing. Russia never lagged behind in aerodynamics or engines, they basically stopped improving their avionics though with all of their frontline fighters in the 1980s and really even up to now until these new ones get fielded; being the equivalent of an F-18C/D (which is crap). With the notable exception of the IR helmet mounted close engagement system which gives the Russians who already have superior maneuverability another leg up in a dogfight.

    I think what people fail to understand is that Russia lost a decade of funding. The engineers still designed all sorts of modern equipment, but you had an entire decade where Russia was completely stalled. They are now capable of acting on implementing their designs but Russia is still in the middle of a transition to a professional force and its more of a cultural shift than anything, and that is the hardest part. The Cold Warriors need to die off and they should make some significant strides in capability. Its not the individual platforms that are lacking, its the integration that is slow. Also Russia has India driving plenty of the developments so they've got a serious partner helping. The US is still more or less having to do it all themselves in the finance department with the EU looking for pennies everywhere.
    Last edited by I WUB PUGS; January 07, 2013 at 10:56 AM.

  14. #54
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Actually the KS-172 is a "medium-range" AWACS killer. You're correct though, it's supposed to be used by tactical fighters, although it's a beast - 6 meters and 750 kg. The problem I have, however is this - how is it going to be guided? Maybe if the Russians develop a datalink to be able to use target data from ground radars or their own AWACS... But I think the greater threat is the MiG-31 + R-37 combination. The R-37 has been tested and has destroyed targets at 300+ km and has a reported range of 400 km. And speed of Mach 6 at high altitude.

    I WUB PUGS, if I may ask, since I'm not very well versed in that area, would it be possible for a ground station(or a friendly eye in the sky) to vector a fighter towards an AWACS based on passive sensors alone? What I mean is this: if a flight of MiG-31 BM wants to perform a kill mission, they would want to approach with their own radars switched off until the AWACS is too far in the envelope to escape(say 300 km). Once in range, they turn on the radar, lock onto the AWACS and release, then turn back. Is this scenario possible?
    Last edited by torongill; January 07, 2013 at 11:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  15. #55
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    I'm thinking you would need a solid area to look at via passive sensor, either ground based radar seeing the AWACS active radar energy or better a plane or ship. Maybe the next gen Russian stealth plane that can get a bit closer?

    The thing is that the AWACS radar has a range of 400km (reported) and again, the further away the AWACS is, the weaker the energy so the crappier the passive detection.

    It would need to be a passive guidance to an area, and I think an uplink from the passive sensor to a satellite then to the missile to get it to the area would be necessary, then the missile would have to have onboard radar.

    The missile has a better chance of remaining undetected if it is running passive, once it turns on its onboard radar it is emitting energy and the target will see it.

    I used the KS-172 example because that was the one that the Russians were working on decades ago and were going to field it on the new Sukhois. But really, look at the money spent on this anti-AWACS fetish by the Russians and its pretty obvious that they are scared of it. The US doesn't even have an effective anti-AWACS missile, or even a good long range one at that unless there is some upgraded AIM-120. The Phoenix was decommissioned along with the F-14 and that was our long range killer platform.

    So to sum up. I'd go with a passive detection and area guidance via satellite before the onboard radar turns on. No passive system will be accurate enough (unless its really really close) to hit an AWACS from 3-400km away on a moving target. Which is already half of what we have in place. You use the mother radar of a fighter or AWACS to give the missile its starting area and then when the missile reaches where it needs to be it turns itself on and by then its too late for the target.

    I WUB PUGS, if I may ask, since I'm not very well versed in that area, would it be possible for a ground station(or a friendly eye in the sky) to vector a fighter towards an AWACS based on passive sensors alone? What I mean is this: if a flight of MiG-31 BM wants to perform a kill mission, they would want to approach with their own radars switched off until the AWACS is too far in the envelope to escape(say 300 km). Once in range, they turn on the radar, lock onto the AWACS and release, then turn back. Is this scenario possible?
    I just reread your post so I'll address it further. Yes, its exactly what the US/NATO does except the AWACS is using active radar, or the ground station is. The passive detection will always give you something to look at, but it is not at all the same as actively tracking a target. Thing is that the accuracy of a purely passive directing system is going to have to be nearly as good as an active one or the the Migs won't find anything when they turn on their radar. The thing with killing AWACS is that the odds are totally against you as an attacker. You are trying to find a target hundreds of KMs away without turning on your radar and lighting yourself up completely, but the AWACS radar is most likely already tracking you and its screening fighters are already on the way to shoot you down and you may never even know that you're being attacked. That's why the Russians have to make missiles that can fly 400km at mach 6. The hope is that the NATO fighters will be within the AWACS envelope and that the Russians can launch and get a kill from the very edge of that envelope before the NATO fighters can engage. This is where a stealth aircraft would be useful.........................which again is why US obsession with stealth fighters is stupid. Stealth bombers? Great if we were going to attack the Russians. Bombers are purely offensive and a stealth bomber has only one purpose: to sneak in and deliver a first strike. Stealth fighter? Best use is for killing AWACS.

    So best case for the Russians would be their sweet new airplane being able to get within even 200km of an AWACS on passive detection, then launch one of these AWACS killers and then at 100km the missile turns on its radar and acquires the target. At 100km at mach 6 that's ~48 seconds to impact. 48 seconds for an AWACS to outmaneuver, no chance an interceptor missile will get there (imo).

    2nd Edit: Then if I were the Russians I'd turn on my own AWACS and ground stations and light up the sky and send up all my conventional fighters. In this scenario, the US having stealth planes would be a great value, but the primary objective for the US and indeed it is the primary objective, should be to protect the AWACS.
    Last edited by I WUB PUGS; January 07, 2013 at 12:16 PM.

  16. #56
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Well of course the Russians will be scared. The AWACS is not just the eyes, it's the brain of air operations. Take it out and suddenly the tactical US fleet will be facing a much more potent SAM network(which is scary as it is right now) and a fleet of very potent fighters, as you said yourself. Especially if the Russians have their AWACS intact. True, the F-22 can perform some of the functions of the AWACS in a pinch, but wouldn't that leave them viable to detection and retaliation?

    Months ago I read about an Alaskan exercise, in which F-22 managed to get within gun range(and score kills) against F-15 and F-16s, without even using their radars. I'll have to dig up the link, though.

    This has been a thoroughly pleasant discussion so far, if I may add
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  17. #57
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    The F-22 cannot do the job of an AWACS, that's absurd. You'd be asking one pilot to do the job of an entire aircrew who are trained to be the hub of the battle.

    I don't buy into these F-22 vs X scenarios. I find them terribly lacking in information and I don't for a moment believe the F-15 or F-16 pilots are being allotted the same resources they would be in a real fight..............ie AWACS support.

    It's all fine and well to put up a Gen 5 fighter against Gen 4 in a blind fight, but the results are already going to be known before the planes even take off. You're forcing aircraft that were designed to fight with eyes in the sky into a fight that doesn't give them even a decent chance. The F-22 has all sorts of widgets on it to allow it to be a ghost. God help the F-15 if it turns on its radar and goes searching.

    If the F-15 and F-16 pilots were up there with their radars on just doing circles, hoping to pick up the F-22, they were just giving themselves away and the F-22 could approach undetected. Total USAF that doesn't prove anything.

    I wanna know what the F-22 can do in a radar saturated environment, and then I want the USAF to tell me who has the capability to reproduce that environment.

  18. #58
    torongill's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    5,786

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Actually I meant "mini-AWACs", basically the F-22 giving the conventional aircraft better situational awareness and allowing them to acquire lock sooner than the enemy... Actually let me try dig up the article The relevant quote:
    "When you are outnumbered on the battlefield -- the F-22 helps the F-18 and the F-15s increase their performance," General Lewis said. "It gives them more situational awareness, and allows them to get their expenditures because you can't kill all these airplanes with just the weapons aboard the F-22. It takes the F-15's and F-18's weapons. It was very successful, (in its) ability to get everybody to integrate."
    I can't access the original report from the "Northern Edge" in June 2006 and "Red Flag" February 2007, that gave more details on the data integration, it's in Aviation Week and requires a subscription.

    Of course you're correct, things would be much more different against an opponent with AWACS support and especially stealth capability. Throw in a potent SAM network and suddenly things won't look that peachy. But that would hardly be an argument in favor of "let's buy more super-expensive stealth fighters", would it ?
    Last edited by torongill; January 07, 2013 at 12:45 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibernicus II View Post
    What's EB?
    "I Eddard of the house Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, sentence you to die."
    "Per Ballista ad astra!" - motto of the Roman Legionary Artillery.
    Republicans in all their glory...

  19. #59
    I WUB PUGS's Avatar OOH KILL 'EM
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Nor ☆ Cal
    Posts
    9,149

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Dunno if its the same article, this one is from 2009, but it basically sums up what the F-22 will do, and to be fair, I don't know if its worth the cost. It was designed to be a frontline fighter to do all of the grunt work, now its going to be sort of a glorified spy plane that can selectively hit targets. The F-15 will still be doing most of the work.

    http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...9playbook.aspx

    I've been reading more this morning about how the F-22 will be employed, some former Secretary of the AF actually thinks we should scrap the 707 platforms altogether and only have F-22 and F-35s. This is totally retarded and puts us at the mercy of our technology. Computers can never decipher what a person can, they can't make gut calls and they can be just as wrong and have been in the past.

    Also there are no studies showing what the F-22 can do in a radar saturated environment (although there are plenty of wildly optimistic forum posts out there that talk about not just the F-22 but the Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale being able to basically walk up to an AWACS). Here's what it seems the future would look like and there's only like 2 countries that would even warrant the use of the full strategy and we won't be tangling with China or Russia sooo...........whatever we already bought the things:

    AWACS, JSTARS and RIVETJOINT all do their thing in the back of the battle. The F-22 deploys on the forward edge as a scout using only passive sensors and rarely engaging. The F-15 and F-16 (maybe F-35) form the layered defenses and attacking platforms. Wild Weasels are waiting for enemy radar to turn on. The F-15s engage any enemy fighters that pop up. Then if the enemy turns on their radars, they get blown up and their planes shot down, then the strike packages roll in and the war is over in an afternoon. The F-22 isn't really pivotal to any of this, its merely an addition to a system that has worked for decades. Essentially a glorified scout/spy plane.

    Again, F-22 or any stealth plane is in theory (since they aren't really proven since the tech for defense is also constantly evolving) the wet dream for Russia or any enemy of NATO since they simply cannot compete with the system NATO has in place.
    Last edited by I WUB PUGS; January 07, 2013 at 12:56 PM.

  20. #60

    Default Re: "Exceptional" American combat performance against Soviet equipment - worthless cold-war propaganda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Theres a big difference between production quality and avionics.
    Well, could you short-down future articles? Not everbody has time to read 4000 words essays. Anyway, if I read it correctly, the Indians got some Mig-29s during the 80's. Those were early models, and thus they suffered some inadequacies. However, why didn't the German article mention anything about poor maintenance? Maybe because the Indians had worse mechanics? Or perhaps the Germans were used to high-maintenance planes?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •