Best of East and West?
-
I am a great fan of Russian military aircraft most notably the Su-27 and Mig-29 series. They look so much better than the Western aircraft. They are also without a doubt more maneuorvable as compared to the F-15 and F-16 planes.
Therefore if one day these aircraft are allowed to be equipped with Isareli avonics ,Western radar and allowed to be armed with both the best of Western and Russian weapons, this will be the best combination! These east- west combi aircraft may be cheaper and at the same time more powerful than the pure western counterparts! They may continue to be carrier capable planes even after modifications as both Mig-29(one of the versions but not sure which one) and Su-30 is currently capapable!
-
MiG-29 K is the carrier based version..
Yeah, MiG-29 look cute .. -
Russian aircraft are also prone to more problems too. It's not all about how manourverable they are.
-
unfortunately, the problem with eastern block aircraft or vehicles for the matter is the rate they wear out. Most of them were designed to be lost, and not seriously maintained..
-
Unreliability and maintenance could be one of the reason why RSAF dropped SU-30 so early
-
PLAAF is having a hard time to maintain their Sukkoi 30 fleets. The maintenance required a lot of skills and $$$ (inventory); as the russian components usually have a lower MTBF (Mean Time Btw Failure). In addition, the Russian engines are very hungry for fuel and required more frequent check compare to the US P&W or GE engines onboard F15. This is very cruical factor in deciding the operation status and "uptime" of the fighter squad in the battlefield.
F15 is a logical choice. We need not to face off with the Su35, at least not in the immediate future. By the time, our F15 already have few tricks on their sleeves. The F16 fighter pliot could be easily cross train for the F15 as well. This will reduce the lead time for the F15 squad to become fully operational. -
The russian engines are EXTREMELY powerful, that is why those russian aircraft can perform amazing manuevers such as cobra, cartwheels, tailslides, controlled stalls and spins etc. Cos the engines can provide the sudden burst of power required to get the aircraft out of the stall, or high AOA situations.
On the other hand, because their engines require more maintenance. -
The IAF is already operating the Su-30 which is modified with western avionics. I am sure if the RSAF is really intrested we could have done a even better job at upgrading this aircraft to a better standard due to our funding.
-
actually russians a/c are a lot cheaper than western a/cs.....
-
The Russian keep their AL-31F engines and related technologies close to their chest. It is very difficult for SG to obtain a license to produce the engine locally. It would be nightmare for RSAF if the Al-31F engines run out of stock or supply being disrupt during wartime. The PLAAF has been trying very hard to stockpile their AL-31 engines for possible cross-straits conflict in the near future, but Russians had been "regulating" the flow of the engine spares to PLAAF. Thus, the operation readliness of PLAAF Sukkoi is really a concern, given the low MTBF of the AL31 engines, compare to the P&W or GE engines.
-
I remember an unofficial proposal in the US Navy to buy Navalised SU-27 frames from russia, strengthen its undercarriage, stuff with with P&W engines, + western avionics, as an interim solution to replace the F-14s until the JSFs came into service.
Naturally, that poor admiral was shot down quickly, and retired soon after. -
Yes Shotgun, i know of that proposal as well. I believe he have a valid point. The point he made is that the Superhornets used to act as an interim replacement for the F-14 are still significantly smaller as compared to the F-14. . This is despite the fact that the Superhornets are the largest in the F-18 class. The F-14 is around the same size as the Su-30 which the Russian navy carriers used. He claims that being smaller in size the amount of weapons carried and range is lesser as well. I am no expert but i think this is a very logical conclusion. I think his proposal is very practical given that the low cost of the Russian aircraft and the obvious superior maneouvability of these planes. Unfortunately he is being brushed off due to political reasons.
-
Well, that and the fact that the Su 27/30 is more agile than the F18E. Still strange to me how they are replacing an agile dogfighter (F14) with a less agile aircraft (F18E).Originally posted by tankee1981:Yes Shotgun, i know of that proposal as well. I believe he have a valid point. The point he made is that the Superhornets used to act as an interim replacement for the F-14 are still significantly smaller as compared to the F-14. . This is despite the fact that the Superhornets are the largest in the F-18 class. The F-14 is around the same size as the Su-30 which the Russian navy carriers used. He claims that being smaller in size the amount of weapons carried and range is lesser as well. I am no expert but i think this is a very logical conclusion. I think his proposal is very practical given that the low cost of the Russian aircraft and the obvious superior maneouvability of these planes. Unfortunately he is being brushed off due to political reasons.
True, most air-to-air is at AMRAAM range now, but you never know. And why take a step back when buying a new aircraft? Weird. -
Well, I guess maybe the Americans figured that agility doesnt count as much as it did in air combat today. Most engagements are BVR, so really tight turning dogfighters aren't as useful anymore. It has always been a weight issue.
More high tech gizmos the aircraft its carrying, its heavier and cant turn as tight. But if those hi tech gizmos are worth their weight, then i guess its okay to forfeit a bit of manueverability.
True enough, the flankers are more agile in the air than the SuperBugs, but the Superbugs pack more sophisticated ECM, AESA Radars etc etc.
Besides, the sheer amount of Superbugs required to replace the tomcats... thats a lot of jobs! In the end, I figured they'd rather give their own people more jobs than to give it to the Russians.
Superbugs aren't as manueverable, but, they retain energy better. In a typical F-16 vs Superbug scenario, the F-16s' manueverability advantage will only last for a while. While the Superbug can hold its energy, wait for the F-16 to quickly bleed off his in hope for quick kill. Once its energy its bled off, the superbug can then finally out turn its adversary to set up for the kill.
Good luck against flankers and fulcrums tho... those bastards can tolerate extremely high AOA, can with their brute force AL-31s, they'll still be able to bring their nose to close enuff to shoot.
I believe the Americans bought quite a few Flankers and Fulcrums. One of those many black projects to dissect Eastern Bloc aircraft to study. I used to have this rare pic of a flanker that carried US NAVY markings... awesome sight. -
Found it. Haha
Wat MIGHT have happened.
-
Great pixs!
Wonder where, or rather who, they bought the aircraft from.
Maybe they should have bought more and equip their agressor squadrons with them instead of F16s and F5s. -
Oh! And if the F16 can out manourver its for in the first few seconds, who cares if the F18 can retain energy better?
I totally agree with you on the jobs and weight bit. Probably lots of politicians involved too and not just those in civvies.