Russian Fighters

Message posted by Rocketfox on January 01, 2003 at 7:29:16 PST:

Actually, the USAF can do that.

Isn't that part of what J-Stars is about? The techonolgy exists where the airborne sensors on the AWACS {and other} birds can be digitally transmitted to the birds in flight for targeting purposes. The advantage of this is obvious, engagement at Phoenix range (40 miles or so) in the initial contact, and even short range engaements all without radar use. While it's true we don't have a vectored thrust on current combat aircraft, it's being worked on. exactly where that program is in implementation I'm not sure, but I can guess it's something the USAF really wants to have in it's arsenal. There's a caveat to that, in that the air-to-air tactics of the Harrier has proved very interesting. Though not it's primary role, {ground support} the Marines have developed some highly intriguing manuvers for it's ACM role which does include non-line-of-flight firing, and sudden vertical and accellertaional changes. In dissimilar aircraft gunfights the results have been disconcerting, to say the least, for the "enemy" ...

I wanted to take a moment and respond to something Magoo said earlier regarding Soviet {and now Russian} design teams.

You're absolutely right,there's no carbon copy of an American aircraft in the Russian inventory. However, given the state of the vast technical acquisition effort of the KBG and it's cousin the GRU, which has been inplace since the earliest inception of those institutions, there's no doubt that Russia has been more than aware of the amount of research and the design specs of most of our most conventional aircraft. Knowing the has helped them a lot in avoiding "reinventing the wheel" as it were, and exploiting that information to better designing the aircraft they do have.

Where in our case it takes the acquisition of the airframe {by whatever means} to evaluate the Russian state of the art { and I know of several incidents of this} They have had the advantage of being priviy through the design and testing phase of some of our best birds, and have had the couterforce in place even before we've finished testing ours.

It speaks to the efficiency of their Intelligence Systems that they have done this.

Yes, their tolerances are looser, and the aircraft can therfore stand less maintenance, similar to the difference between the M-16 rifle and the AK-47. There is merit in this idea, regarding the capabilities of the aircraft over time, and the level of skills needed to repair and maintain aircraft in combat conditions.

I recall when we got our hands on one particular MIG {which type, I forget now} that landed somewhere outside the Soviet Union {and was eventually returned, in a series of very small boxes} where the investigators were simply amazed at what they had, in regards to engine tolerances, and other design specs. It may not have been up to their standards, but it worked, and worked well. in the ultimate analysis, that's what counts in any weapons system.

One other thought: the tube-type radar systems. By some standards antiquated, and it does shorten the range considerably, but, it's EMP-proof and easy to repair.

Happy New Year to one and all, and I hope it exceeds your expectations...


In Reply to: Re: Russian Fighters posted by Homersonic on December 29, 2002 at 22:14:21 PST:


[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]