Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Warplane Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Air Supremacy; USA vs Russia
human6    12/1/2002 7:02:06 PM
I have been doing a lot of research and it appears that the Russian Su-37 is currently the most technologically advanced plane in the world. I do not want to hear about the JSF or F-22 as they are not in production yet. Besides the Russians have a counter plane to the JSF, the PAK FA or I-2000/Interceptor-2000/Istribityel-2000. http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/janes004.htm
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
Dancing Johnny    RE:US vs Russia    1/4/2004 3:06:01 PM
Until we see some actual combat results from the newest Russian missiles systems (both A/A and S/A), you just can't say how good they are. Now if you think the Russians have learned from all their past mistakes and have now built perfect missiles systems, while the US has been sitting around doing nothing, I would think again. It's hard to compare the two nations relative weapons systems against each other, because we haven't fought head-to-head with each countries best stuff. But you can look at recent conflicts to judge the relative merits of each countries systems. Stinger vs. SA-7: The Stinger is the clear winner. It decimated Soviet air power in Afganistan, and while the SA-7 has some kills, it has not stopped US air operations. Medium to long range SAMs: This one is a lot harder, being that US Patriot and Hawk missiles haven't much of a history of being challenged (enemy planes never make it past screening fighters), though the Hawk does have a history of being highly successfull in Israeli hands against Egyptian aircraft. On the other hand, the US has been able to penatrate and defeat Soviet SAMs, and the losses the US has incured to these systems has never stopped their air operations. A/A missiles: Clear cut US! Someone is going to have to tell me when the last US aircraft (or Israeli) was lost to a Russian a/a missile. While hundreds of Russian aircraft (in the hands of Iraq, Syria, ect.) have been downed by US a/a missiles. I don't have much knowledge on the latest Russian long range missiles (SA300,400), but I would venture that they would be used in the same manner as the SA-5, that is, as a long range anti-bomber missile. Just because Russian missiles might have greater range and speed, that won't help you if you can't hit what you attack. That is where the better American electronics comes in. Our missiles can lock on better and our aircraft can jam enemy missiles better. The US will start worrying heavyly about Russian military equipment when the Russians start making better cars than the US (or anybody else). What I mean by that statement is that the US makes good commercial goods and good military goods, while the Russians make poor commercial goods and poor military goods. So when the Russians start making commercial goods that are as good as the US, then I'll start worrying.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:US vs Russia    1/9/2004 3:44:09 PM
Mostly true, but don't underestimate the Russians. They have the ability to turn out tough, quality fighters. Rarely have I heard American pilots who have gotten their hands on MiGs say that they were poor stuff. The S-300 is supposed to be a killer. What it comes down to, as always, is training. The Luftwaffe in 1945 showed that you can have the most technologically advanced aircraft in the world and still get gunned down by well-trained pilots in older equipment. USN aviators who got a chance to fly MiG-17s and MiG-21s during Vietnam said that the VPAF should have been tearing the Americans apart, despite the fact that the F-4 was far more advanced. The problem was that the VPAF were using Russian tactics and Russian training methods, and weren't trained well to begin with. The same goes for the Arabs. In the few times that the Russians and Americans went head to head (Korea and a few limited instances in Vietnam), the honors were about even. The Russians have always managed to produce very good pilots, but a limited amount of them. The rest tend to be cannon fodder. The Americans tend to produce a wide range of pretty good pilots with a few hamburgers and a few killers. Russian training has loosened up considerably since the end of the Cold War, but it's also fallen dramatically. I would like to take Ivan Joeblowsky out of Kazan and stick him in a MiG-29, then send him up against John Q. Air Force in a F-15, and see how they do. My money's on JQ Air Force, simply because he flies his Eagle four times as much as Ivan flies his Fulcrum. Of course, nothing's certain, but it would be a better comparison than using one of the top Russian test pilots as a basis for their whole air force. It would be like saying all our pilots are Dick Bong.
 
Quote    Reply

fox    Plazma???   1/10/2004 2:27:27 AM
Plazma is a stae of matter where the electron are stripped off an atom. The tempuratures to do this are huge and would melt the aircraft pretty quickly. It would have to be held a chamber bye huge lectro magnets. I don't belive that this type of system would fit on a fighter size aircraft.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    Plasma   1/10/2004 2:45:41 AM
Plasma is also a legacy effect of "some" weapons systems. The airframe isn't the plasma generator.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:Air Supremacy; USA vs Russia   2/3/2004 5:23:37 AM
The F22 is not quieter than the F22, and does not have the ATA RADAR suite of the F22 (or anywhere near). Fot its ATG capabilities, its as much relient on its advanced networking package to get a clear picture as it is its own onboard systems.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:The stealth vs stealth question.   2/3/2004 5:27:26 AM
In regards to the whole stealth question, look at the F117. First generation stealth. Then look at the B2. Second generation still. And still the aircraft with the lowest-profile out there. Then theres the JSF and the F22... Anyone notice super-stealth designs shifting towards the conventional? My guess is the US has a secret up its sleeve, and is not disclosing its nature. Somehow, theyr breaking the rules of stealth and improving its capability. And lets not forget the SR71. WHY wont someone admit that this was the first stealth aircraft? How long are we gonna hang tight onto that secret? Guess thats in the CIAs hands, not the DoDs.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    Air Supremacy; USA vs Russia - spacebar (noname)   2/3/2004 5:37:03 AM
[The F22 is not quieter than the F22] Are we having an attack of platform schizophrenia here? ;)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:The stealth vs stealth question.   2/3/2004 5:41:51 AM
[My guess is the US has a secret up its sleeve, and is not disclosing its nature. Somehow, theyr breaking the rules of stealth and improving its capability.] continuing the conspiracy/roswell mantra, isn't the issue that the range of B2 is disproportionate to its range? therefore it has some "other technology mumbo" sourced from men in black, green, grey, white morphed into its body. As for the SR71, I'm happy to stand on a soap box in hyde park (in sydney or london) and declare that its the first real stealth widget! My fav aircraft of all time. I just want to see whats replaced it!
 
Quote    Reply

Jan Zizka    RE:US vs Russia    2/4/2004 10:17:39 PM
Sentinel 28 is partialy correct, training is key when it comes to piloting military aircraft. A good example of this is the Israelis, they have arguable the best traine dpilots in the world and the combat record speaks for itself. It does not hurt that they operate top of the line American fighters but they are extremely well trained and very innovative in their tactics. What is of even greater importance in my opinion is situational awareness. In other words, who is able to have the clearer picture of the battlefield and exploit this to their advantage. US jets have the ability to maintain EMCON (emission control) throughout their missions generally, this means radars off because they can receive data from AWACs, JSTARs and other platforms. Hence they can be vectored right onto the six of any enemy aircraft without using their radar which gives away their position. There are many variables to be considered but a lot of the time it comes down to who sees who first and when you have the big eyes in the sky (AWACs and JSTARs)you are the one who can see anything. To quote.."In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king"....
 
Quote    Reply

serpentx777    RE:The stealth vs stealth question.   2/4/2004 11:03:54 PM
I don't think the SR-71 was supposed to be stealthy. I have read that it was shot at several times by sams but because of it's spead and how high it can fly it never got hit.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics