Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Radically Reduced Red Air Force
SYSOP    5/26/2015 6:11:11 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
keffler25       5/26/2015 9:17:35 AM
I would not rate the SU-35 as equal to either a Rafale or even a current Typhoon.  
 
Quote    Reply

bond007jlv       5/26/2015 10:35:44 AM
Why?
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       5/26/2015 11:21:45 AM
I believe it is difficult to say anything. Vietnam war re-emphasized dogfights, perhaps because the missiles were unreliable at that time. For example, AIM-7 was unreliable, and AIM-9 was good, but those early versions could hit aircraft only from behind. Today missiles seem to be unforgiving. Post Cold War conflicts often had Russian built fighters flown by second class pilots.
 
Also it looks like widespread MiG-29 is not maintained properly in many countries that own them. For example when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, their MiG-29's were barely flyable. Recently Iran used ancient F-4 in Iraq, instead of MiG-29's or locally made fighters. Ancient, indeed, because majority of Iranian 'Phantoms' are older variants, there were few F-4E's. It looks pretty desperate to me. I don't know if Su-27/3X is more or less maintenance intensive.
 
Match between Su-3X and Rafale or Typhoon doesn't seem to be likely anytime soon.
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/26/2015 11:31:44 AM
Radars, missiles, air to ground ordnance, countermeasures, acceleration, fuel  efficiency, engines, ergonomics, avionics in general, signal management, (especially infrared and optical [the engines are hot and they SMOKE in reheat giving aim cues] for easy tracking.)
 
The Russians build agile planes but that is about it until the planes are 'westernized' to acceptable levels of performance as either strikers or air to air combat platforms. And then the Russian weapons carried by these launch platforms are not very good with radar guided missiles that are distinctly inferior and air to ground munitions that is stuck in the 1980s as to guidance and effects.
 
Even the cannon is a piece of obsolete crap left over from WW II.
 
That about covers it. 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       5/26/2015 12:48:29 PM
What can be wrong with a WWII era 30mm cannon?  If it was the weapon which lasted post-war, I would expect it to be pretty good.  The bad stuff got dropped. M2 Browning HMGs are ancient, but are still good.
 
This is a restored piece of Swiss propaganda from 1964.  Skip past the first five minutes of gumpf.  It plays like a 1960s action movie, but with live ammunition.
 
There are a few good shots of Hawker Hunter's strafing with their four 30mm cannon, and the ground is shredded.  Old kit can still be effective.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       5/26/2015 1:50:20 PM
There seem to be some problems with Gsh 30mm cannon, and not because it might be old design. Durability of the barrel seems to be the main problem. Note, unlike some other Gsh cannons, Gsh-301is not based on Gast principle.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/26/2015 1:51:13 PM
The Russian cannon are based off a twin barrel German designs that traded muzzle velocity for counter-recoil cyclic. Modern European cannon also are variants of this system but they suffer from vibration, slow cyclic and dispersion problems. The Euro cannons are also large caliber but low velocity explosive shell weapons. American experience (and who has more air combat experience? Nobody.) is that sawing a plane in two makes more sense than blowing it apart. Your plane swings (arcs) through a shoot setup and the cannon acts like a direct extension of that motion. So treat the bullet hose like a slicing weapon.  
 
That being said, there is an unusual statistic you should check out about air combat since Vietnam 1966. Most air to air kills have been missile kills and those accomplished in the main by SIDEWINDER, the Russian copies of Sidewinder, Israeli copies of Sidewinder and with the second most prolific and successful missile being SPARROW in its monopulse SARH variants.       
 
The gun is most definitely a second best choice if you have a reliable snap shoot heat seeker on the rail. And since 1978, Sidewinder has been that kill you dead missile on that rail if you are unfortunately flying Russian aircraft.  
 
Sparrow since all the fixes hasn't been too shabby either. 27% PK doesn't sound very good compared to AMRAAM's 70% PK, but when the best Russian radar missile can't even boast half that PK, you have to wonder at the Russian's chances when he's being chased by as Sparrow and the Sidewinder armed adversary who launched it.     
Don't believe the Russian propaganda. Look at combat results. There's been a lot of air to air combat since 1978 and it is clear which tech used by which pilots is better.and what worked and what didn't. Pay particular attention to Eritrea and Ethiopia where Russian fought Russian and the Sukhois and Migs thoroughly embarrassed themselves along with the tyro pilots who flew them. .      
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       5/26/2015 2:15:27 PM
I thought it was a 'common sense' that the American idea about guns on fighter aircraft was wrong, ever since the Americans were still using .50 cal HMGs on the Sabre in the 1950s when everyone else was looking at 20mm, 23mm and 30mm cannon.  Hence why America latter adopted 20mm (and 25mm on Harrier?).
 
WWII experience again demonstrated that heavier cannon was desirable to destroy aircraft such as heavy bombers.
 
But, saying that, I agree with the missile argument.  All-aspect missiles cued by helmet mounted sights end any romantic notions about dog-fights.  I think cannon are more for ground attack these days; it amazed me that the Harrier GR.7/9 didn't have any cannon when it was essentially a light-strike aircraft.
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       5/26/2015 2:18:40 PM
The Vietnam statistics are not so much unusual. Majority of air-to-air kills were American. Main American fighter later in the war was F-4. Most of them were without a cannon. At some point some were equipped with cannon pods and F-4E had built in cannon. I am not sure if F-4E participated in Vietnam or not. If it did, it was very late in the war.
 
Old F-8 had cannons, and, yes, it looks like even they accomplished most of their kills with Sidewinder (AIM-9), indeed. One of the problems with any missile is that you can't use it if you are too close to the target. With cannon you can get as close as you like, as long as you don't fly into debris of the target being destroyed.
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/26/2015 3:08:50 PM
Yimmy. that was WW II. Korea merely re-emphasized that the 50 cal lacked punch and tear. Hence the 20 mm Gatling gun.    
 
The 25 mm on the Harrier was because the Vulcan (nearly a tonne in weight and very long and fat with a large requirement for electricity, would not fit onto a HARRIER.  Can't fit a gun that won't work on the plane as is.
 
Trenchsol, look at the Israeli, Vietnamese and Indian air forces. Their experience since 1966 is that as the missiles and radars for air to air and air to ground work got better, they relied less and less on the gun in either role. What makes the Indians unusual in this case is how they improved the Migs they had with WESTERN missiles and radars. Still a crappy set of planes, but you know what they say about good  pilots who know their tools?   
 
Training beats the tyro with the latest toys every time, unless the tyro happens to be a trained professional and has them, too.  Then you are second best guaranteed first dead.. 
 
Fundamentally as you push closer and closer to Mach 1 in the turning fight or in the angle solution, you need a weapon that can turn in the signal chase. Yimmy called it right when he said you have to achieve an off-centerline or off-boresight look for your weapon as it acquires the signal to chase. This is both for air to air and air to ground weapon delivery because if you can come at your target from any beam bearing then you have an enormous edge in an angle solution. when your enemy does not have that capability.        
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics