# Russia Loses the Quantity War



## Hunter368 (Oct 17, 2007)

February 1, 2007: Air supremacy. Without it, one cannot hope to win on the battlefield. So, between the United States and Russia, who has a better chance to grab control of the air and hold on to it? The winner is the one who would win a conventional war.

One might ask, why is control of the air so important? The answer is best described in terms of logistics. Armies travel on their stomachs, to paraphrase Napoleon. They need fuel, ammo, and food, among other things to carry out their job. These supplies are mostly delivered by land and sea, often in large, slow-moving ships and trucks. And the one weapon that has proven to be highly effective taking out these ships and trucks loaded with supplies has been the airplane. Surprising? Not really, when one looks at history. In 1943, Japan sent a convoy of eight transports and eight destroyers to resupply a forward outpost. This convoy was sent into the teeth of Allied air power. They didn't just lose all of the transports and most of the troops on board, they lost four destroyers. It was a decisive victory for the Allies.

So, if you are going to control the air, one not only needs the pilots, but the planes. If you stand still in the area of technological development, life can get very ugly. Again, look at Japan. In 1940, they had what was arguably the best carrier fighter in the world, the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Against planes like the Brewster Buffalo, it dominated. But by the time 1944 rolled around, the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were in the skies, and Japan was on the short end of the technological stick. That imbalance led to a one-sided engagement that year called the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Months after the Turkey Shoot, the Japanese Navy was finished off as an effective fighting force at Leyte Gulf.

With those lessons from history in mind, let's turn to the question as to who would have won the air war between the United States and Russia. The Russians went with aircraft that could be produced quickly and in large numbers. This was based on the belief that "quantity has a quality all its own. Before the Cold War ended in 1991, Russia and its allies produced over 10,000 MiG-21s and 5,900 MiG-23/27 fighters. The United States tended to build better planes, and had a technological lead on the Russians. Perhaps one of the best examples was looking at when planes. The F-4 Phantom entered service in 1961. The MiG-21, a much simpler plane, entered service in 1960. The MiG-23, which was roughly comparable to the F-4, did not start flying until 1967. The F-15 entered service in 1974. The Su-27, the Russian answer to the F-15, did not enter service until 1984.

The best example of the American technological lead is stealth technology. The F-117 (really a light bomber) entered service in 1983. The Russians still have not deployed a comparable aircraft, while the United States has deployed a strategic stealth bomber, the B-2, since 1996, and a stealthy high-performance fighter, the F-22, since 2006. A stealthy multi-role fighter, the F-35, is slated to enter service in 2012.

The importance of the American lead in stealth technology cannot be understated. In order to destroy an aircraft, one must be able to hit an aircraft. In order to hit the aircraft, one must be able to see it, be it on radar, via infrared emissions, or visually. If you cannot see the airplane, you have no chance of reliably hitting it. An axiom from fighter pilots puts it best: Lose the sight, lose the fight.

Furthermore, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has not only been unable to pursue new weapon designs, it has also been forced to cut back on production. Some 800 planes from the Su-27 family have been produced, including those manufactured under license by India and China. Compare that to over 1500 F-15s of all types. Russia has produced over 1,600 MiG-29s, roughly equivalent to the F-16 (over 4000 produced) and F-18 (1478 produced). Planes like the Su-37 and Su-47, upgraded Flankers, are still just prototypes.

Russia would have had a hard time trying to control the air when it was able to produce thousands of jets that were behind the Americans on a technological basis, relying on quantity to overcome American quality. Now, Russia would likely be outnumbered and facing airplanes that would be at least on par with theirs. Russia went from having a decent chance of winning air superiority in a war against the United States to none. ? 

By, Harold C. Hutchison


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 17, 2007)

Nice article..

It's also worth noting that modern aircraft are exponentially more difficult to produce than MiG-21's. Even if the soviets never lost momentum, would they still be able to produce sophisticated jets in huge quantities? Even if they had twice as many fighters as we did it wouldn't be enough and producing twice as many SU-30's would be very expensive.

In the old days I'm pretty sure they had us beat 7 - 1..


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 17, 2007)

I liked the article. I'll bet they had easily a 7-1 advantage with those -21s.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 17, 2007)

I can't remember the exact numbers but Russia has in fact a rather small AF, especially when compared to the thousands they once had. 

Of course numbers don't say it all, it's also quality which matters, and boy those Sukhois are great!

But given the large dimensions of their airspace, I feel they don't have enough aircraft to both defend their territory and have an offensive power abroad. To me it was a shame that they gave up their MiG-21s as other countries have been able to upgrade their MiG-21s and make them succesful multifunctional fighters. Another alternative would have been the single-engined MiG-33, that could not only have become their standard fighter, it would probably also have been very succesful on the export market.

A couple of years ago I wrote an equipment acquisition plan for the Russian armed forces, also including nuclear, naval and ground forces. Difficult but they still have many capabilities to become nr 2 in the world again.

Kris


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 17, 2007)

This Guy? 





You know, it's funny, he's doing a hand thing like Bush does, up and down.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 18, 2007)

Civettone, what do you do for a living? That is quite an eye catcher on the ol' resume.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 18, 2007)

This is ignoring SAMs or the huge vastness of Russia. Or the weather.

Since an armed conflict between Russia and US is remote then this study is a bit flat. Plus Nato would be attacking Russia...not just the US.

The Fishbed could still be a useful fighter with a decent radar and a few Archers and Adders.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 19, 2007)

The Basket said:


> This is ignoring SAMs or the huge vastness of Russia. Or the weather.
> 
> Since an armed conflict between Russia and US is remote then this study is a bit flat. Plus Nato would be attacking Russia...not just the US.
> 
> The Fishbed could still be a useful fighter with a decent radar and a few Archers and Adders.



I don't see this thread as a evaluation of the plausibility of WW3. It is simply a statement that Russia cannot match the quality of the West with an Eastern numerical advantage as they have in the past. Are u saying that the Russians have forsaken aircraft production for SAM capability? 

Yes the MiG 21 is still a valid missile platform but i'll put my money on the West's ECM, multi tasking radar and AWACS.

The factors you mention are valid but usually favor the defender and I don't see NATO rolling over mother Russia any time soon.

It is nice NOT to be out numbered!...

.

.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2007)

Britain attempted to replace interceptors with SAMs in the 1960s. It's lucky the MoD saw the error of the idea before putting it into practice - it's foolish...at best.


----------



## DBII (Oct 19, 2007)

My information is dated since I have been out for 10 years but I would still like to throw out some info. 

Russia has always been behind the West in technology and this fact was factured into their war plans. As far back as Peter the Great, Russia has been trying to catch up to the west.

The Russians think differently than the West and this includes their weapons designs. Since the beginning of WWII they have recorded everything. The number of small arms rounds fired in each battle to the flight time of aircraft before it is shot down. Nothing has exscaped being formulated. For example, their charts will show the number of rounds the DAGs and RAGs (Division and Regt Arty Grps) need to expend for an artillery prep against any type of enemy in various stages of defense. 

One of the LTCs I was assigned to worked for General Dynamics. He was on the team that back enginered Soviet aircraft. He explained to me that the Soviets believed the life span of a front line combat fighter was around 200 hours. The aircraft was designed to last a little longer than that. There was no reason to over design an aircraft if it was not going to last anyway. 

The Soviet tried to have a 7:1 ratio at key locations. If the cold war did become hot, NATO would have had it's hands full. With the lack of spare parts like canopies, The F16 and F15 would have been hard press to control the skies for a prolong period. I will let you guess what our computer projections were. 


DBII


----------



## Hunter368 (Oct 19, 2007)

My best friend works for a company called Mac Don Ind here in Wpg. They make farming equip, combines etc. They ship to USA, Australia and lately Russia.

The farming equip that is shipped to Russia lasts only a couple years before they have to buy more b/c they beat the hell out of it and don't do proper maintenance on it. They go through this very expensive equip like a hot knife threw butter.

Good for Mac Don.......bad for the Russian pocket book.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 19, 2007)

DBII said:


> I will let you guess what our computer projections were.
> 
> 
> DBII



I bet it was not "if" but when it was time to use tactical nukes,,,


----------



## DBII (Oct 19, 2007)

It may be a cultural thing. One theory is that since there was no private ownership for such a long time no one takes care of the equipment. One takes care of the things that they own. People that rent houses often times let the place run down. I do not want to offend any members. I would like to hear other's thoughts on the subject. This discusion might be better on another thread.

DBII

DBII


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2008)

Yes, exactly, a very good point that one. It is perhaps hardwired into people that we are likely to factor into whether we take care of things our feelings towards our leaders, and subconsciously there is the question of whether the Russian people really liked their leaders and bosses enough to look after their equipment. I don't know just my thoughts on that.


----------



## Kurfürst (May 4, 2008)

Uhm... someone please tell Mr. Hutchison that the cold war has ENDED, its official now. Russia arms itself against realistic threats (which is who, in view thousends of Soviet nuke warheads..?) within the constraints of its economy. 

And the US is appearantly busy wrecking its economy the same way the Russkies did, investing into ultra-expensive military technology, that will go the the junkyard in 20 years time...

Get real. Russia is still a nuke superpower. Anyone trying his luck against it, will get exterminated by nukes, not once but 16 times in a row.. they don`t need to spend too much on it. 

And, I may add, Russia`s security concern is not the US. Its not NATO, even. Its China, ever since the 60s its an increasing threat. Now THAT is the war I do not want to see.. Right now China is still way behind Russia in terms of military technology, but its progressing rapidly.

I don`t want to make prophecies, but I strongly believe 21st century will be pretty much about the Rise of Asia. And if there will be World War III, its participants are going to be Asians.


----------



## Matt308 (May 4, 2008)

There is much truth to your position Kurfurst. The Chinese are too economically linked with the US for a throwdown... yet. But with a huge influx of military power by the Chinese, the Koreans, Japanese, Indians and Russians are all likely to follow suite. A runaway arms race, your typical sabre rattling, and rising economies needing precious resources to maintain the growth will likely lead to someone in that bunch making a foolish decision.

Scary times.


----------



## The Basket (May 4, 2008)

Read somewhere that you can't train pilots properly in Soviet aircraft as they can't fly the hours needed. So they don't.

I also remember the idea of the Amraam being more expensive than the Fishbed it was shooting down.

The Soviets were ok though and the Fishbed was excellent on its day. 

I doubt a western democracy could accept expendable manpower.


----------



## Matt308 (May 4, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Read somewhere that you can't train pilots properly in Soviet aircraft as they can't fly the hours needed. So they don't.
> 
> I also remember the idea of the Amraam being more expensive than the Fishbed it was shooting down.
> 
> ...



With the exception of the 2nd sentence being rubbish, I would agree Basket. Or perhaps in its inception, the AIM-7 was rubbish.


----------



## The Basket (May 4, 2008)

Difficult to say how much a Fishbed cost to make in a communist system. But would probably not be worth much by the 1980s.

The Soviets had to do something. The MiG-21 was useless against low level hi tech supersonic bombers like the F-111 and out performed by modern fighters. 

What was needed was fighters with top missles...look down shoot down radar and plenty of performance but that would cost. Poor radar and a couple of Atolls was not good enough.

Also they would have to train pilots properly as each Flanker would have a higher unit cost and would be idiotic to send idiots in them just to get shot down. The Flankers would also need proper maintenance and much better build quality as they would carry expensive kit. 

The Soviets had a few wake up calls. The KAL shootdown and the Afghan war showed that the doctrine of quantity is best isn't working and the first gulf war showed the west had a clear technology advantage. Simply having a tank was no longer good enough and it had to be a match for the latest western stuff. Or it was going to be destroyed.


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

The Russians never had a chance due to communism. Imagine the US without its export figures on any product Made in USA or global ventures to make some $$$. How would the US ever have managed to finance its military developments and purchases? The Russians could just make some extra bucks by selling some of their military stuff, oil and gas to outside countries.
Now that they are “free” what do they have besides selling some of their military stuff, oil and gas? Want to buy a Russian TV, car or coffee machine?

Russia had never been a potential thread to the West after Stalin, but politicians and their commercial backers still had a vivid $$$$ interest in up keeping this “fear”.

A very good example out of many I think is the Foxbat / F-15 project. The F-4, and F-111 were better than anything the Russians had and the US congress wasn’t very willing to allocate the necessary budget for the F-15,16 and 18….. until the Foxbat “arrived” in Japan. Even though much later published reports regarding the inspection of the Mig25 which showed the inferiority of this a/c to the existing NATO a/c, I still remember how this Mig25 was forwarded, published as theeee super, high-tech and potentially dangerous Russian a/c that no Western a/c could match (heaviest argument was the speed of the Mig25). 

The PR was soooo good that the congress soon allocated the budget for F-15 etc. etc. the B-1 was resurrected and Ronnie’s plan had worked so well, that due to his upgraded new arms race Russia had to file for bankruptcy 10 years later. (For this reason I still believe that Ronnie after Washington and Roosevelt was the most effective US president ever).

Making today’s arms company’s probably regret that they totally overdid it in the 80th. 

As for China, the history seems to repeat itself. In order to stop or slowing China from building up the logically most powerful economy on this planet, “fear” is spread (Kurfuerst is already affected  ) so that a possibly new arms race will force China to reorganize its budget towards defense spending.

However the Chinese government seems to be much smarter than their former Russian counterparts and continues to distribute its budget in favor for social and economic progress, unlike Bush and his associates. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## SoD Stitch (May 11, 2008)

DBII said:


> The Soviet tried to have a 7:1 ratio at key locations. If the cold war did become hot, NATO would have had it's hands full. With the lack of spare parts like canopies, The F16 and F15 would have been hard press to control the skies for a prolong period. I will let you guess what our computer projections were.
> 
> 
> DBII



If I remember correctly, the front-line conventional units in West Germany and Belgium weren't expected to repel a projected Warsaw Pact thrust, just slow it down a little bit; a friend of mine was in the USAEUR in the '80's, and he said they were basically there just as a "speed bump" for the attacking Warsaw Pact forces, until NATO could arrive in force from overseas. Some projections had the Soviet forces getting as far as the Atlantic coast before NATO could react with sufficient forces to repel the attack (which would probably be too late by then). Needless to say, the TNW's would probably have been released by then.


----------



## The Basket (May 11, 2008)

I agree with that. It was the huge tank armies not migs that was the threat.

Any western fighter would have to deal with SAMs and AAA before he even saw a MiG. And that is after the airfield has been hammered.

An interesting aside on the Foxbat. The F-15 flew before the Foxbat defection. The Fulcrum and Flanker showed that the Soviets were capable of making first class aircraft.
The American experience in Vietnam clearly showed the need for the Eagle. 
The Soviets had a huge nuclear arsenal and when you got the most powerful killing weapon in the history of mankind then a poor kill ratio in air combat can easily be fixed by pressing the fun button.


----------



## solo (May 19, 2008)

" Fun button " you say........I like it nice one.


----------



## SoD Stitch (May 19, 2008)

Kruska said:


> A very good example out of many I think is the Foxbat / F-15 project. The F-4, and F-111 were better than anything the Russians had and the US congress wasn’t very willing to allocate the necessary budget for the F-15,16 and 18….. until the Foxbat “arrived” in Japan. Even though much later published reports regarding the inspection of the Mig25 which showed the inferiority of this a/c to the existing NATO a/c, I still remember how this Mig25 was forwarded, published as theeee super, high-tech and potentially dangerous Russian a/c that no Western a/c could match (heaviest argument was the speed of the Mig25).
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



Yes, I remember the "threat" of the MiG-25 well; my formative years were the late '60's/early '70's, and all that was known about the MiG-25 at that time was that it was incredibly fast and heavily armed. It was also assumed that it was maneuverable, and had an extremely powerful radar (half true). At that time, we had nothing that could touch the "Foxbat"; it's sheer speed made it uninterceptable (like the SR-71). The Israelis had tried downing intruding Syrian "Foxbats" with their '60's-era Phantoms and AIM-7 "Sparrows" in the '70's, but to no avail; it wasn't until the Israelis got Baz-2000's (basically, F-15A's) that they were able to score a kill on a MiG-25.


----------



## Kruska (May 20, 2008)

Hello SoD Stitch,

Yes and the speed couldn’t be utilized as a fighter, since its Apex and Aphid missiles would have been ripped off from its four under wing hardpoints once the a/c exceeded Mach 2.4 Therefore it was only used as a recon/photo a/c and the Israelis noticed that after having used its afterburner (in order to reach its Mach 2.9) the MiG 25 “glided” onto the runway and both engines were pulled out in order to be replaced.

So the whole USAF F-15 program basically was paid just to fend off a recon plane in the 70’s. I think most countries later got to know about this and therefore never optioned or purchased the F-15 as a needed replacement for its F-4’s or F 104’s until the late 80’s. Besides Israel who probably got them for free. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## HealzDevo (May 30, 2008)

But I suppose you have to look at the factor of whether the US front-line equipment was what provoked a pause in the Soviet Mind from actually saying go ahead. I think it might have been the fact that they knew they were looking at equipment they couldn't have a superiority over that stopped them from considering marching because it is no use braving nuclear warfare if you don't really consider your chances of achieving objectives being that high...


----------



## Kruska (May 30, 2008)

Hello HealzDevo,

I would say you are certainly correct on your assumption, what I was trying to forward, is that the western equipment in the 70’s could have easily topped the Russians until early 1990. I think since the early 80’s air superiority was mastered by onboard radar, AWACS and missiles and not much if not to say not at all by maneuverability or speed of an aircraft.

So in my opinion even an present F-4 or F-14 from the 70’s could still match an SU27/33 or MiG 27 in that criteria, and due to missile and radar technology it would even outfight these 90’s or 00’s eastern aircraft.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (May 30, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello HealzDevo,
> 
> I would say you are certainly correct on your assumption, what I was trying to forward, is that the western equipment in the 70’s could have easily topped the Russians until early 1990. I think since the early 80’s air superiority was mastered by onboard radar, AWACS and missiles and not much if not to say not at all by maneuverability or speed of an aircraft.
> 
> ...



Well...
The F-4 had trouble in Vietnam against the MiGs and only superior pilot training made the difference. The Phantom is certainly at a disadvantage against a Fulcrum or Flanker. Plus the helmet mounted sight and the Archer missile. To dismiss Soviet technology as rubbish didn't do the Isrealis any good in 1973.

Todays Fulcrums and Flankers would be as good as you want and only the Raptor would have the edge.


----------



## Kruska (May 30, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Well...
> The F-4 had trouble in Vietnam against the MiGs and only superior pilot training made the difference. The Phantom is certainly at a disadvantage against a Fulcrum or Flanker. Plus the helmet mounted sight and the Archer missile. To dismiss Soviet technology as rubbish didn't do the Isrealis any good in 1973.
> 
> Todays Fulcrums and Flankers would be as good as you want and only the Raptor would have the edge.



*That is what the aircraft industry wants you to believe.*

The F-4's didn't have any trouble by the time the Vietnam war was ending. A helmet mounted sight has nothing to do with the aircraft itsself, neither does any archer missile, you could fit that onto a F-101, A-4, or F-5 any time.
No Russain aircraft was ever a threat to the IAF, not in 1973 not now.

The only thing that matters is the Radar signature, EM emission-hiding/overriding, Antenna positioning and Radar tracking capability + a good missile.
Even a F-4G could match a Raptor, not economicaly/per flying hour but on interception terms. Present RASIGMA II improvments make a Tornado even more effective then a Raptor or F-35 or Eurofighter. 

The problem for the aircraft industry is that a RASIGMA feature costs about 2-4 million $ per a/c - nothing compared to selling/promoting a Raptor, F-35 or a Eurofighter.

So what makes you think that a MiG29 or Su27 would be superior against a GAF F-4G? The sales brochures? 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Henk (May 30, 2008)

Kruska said:


> *That is what the aircraft industry wants you to believe.*
> 
> The F-4's didn't have any trouble by the time the Vietnam war was ending. A helmet mounted sight has nothing to do with the aircraft itsself, neither does any archer missile, you could fit that onto a F-101, A-4, or F-5 any time.
> No Russain aircraft was ever a threat to the IAF, not in 1973 not now.
> ...



I agree with you Kruska.

If you look at the cold war, it was all about who's got the bigger war toy. 

"Oh look I have a plane that can go Mach 3, but that is old news we have a fighter that can do that."

The aircraft company's made tons of money with the cold war, it was never about actually killing each other, money makes world turn around.


----------



## Kruska (May 30, 2008)

Hello Henk,

The SA Atlas Cheetah and the Israeli Kfir are indeed very good examples of refitted upgraded aircrafts. Both originate from 60’s Mirage III’s, and were well capable to fight of any new Russian 70’s, 80’s or 90’s fighter. Due to the F-15/F-16 “present” it was off course far cheaper for Israel to abandon the Kfir project rather than continuing the upgrade on their own costs.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Henk (May 30, 2008)

Yes, even today the aircraft whole spec's is top secret.

The Cheetah entered service in the 80's, but the SAAF did great with the Mirage aircraft in the Bush war in Angola. Gave those Cubans and communist scum everything they had and more. Very brave pilots.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ycjFjk3nM_
Great read this mate.
IPMS South Africa - DENEL Aviation Cheetah


----------



## Kruska (May 30, 2008)

Hello Henk,

Wow, thanks a lot for that fantastic link.

Do you have any good info on the Impala's, I always liked this kind of a/c - simple - rugged - performing on the job.

Even amazing that most of the Impalas were flown by retired or civil reservists who kicked Cuban buts. If someone wouldn't have stashed his pockets, the Cheetah would still be the runner up instead of Saab.

On the public forum I wouldn't be able to tell you much but maybe you want to refer to: http://www.aero-microwave.com/Files/2005-ETTC - Antenna Pattern Measurements.pdf

Fritzel and Steiner I know quite well, for more info try EADS and then search for RaSigma, but it will be very difficult/impossible to find details. If you put RaSigma5 and a Cheetah together you would easily have the worlds best fighter/fighterbomber - forget the F-22 just good looks and a lot of propaganda - it wouldn't stand a chance. 

The US, Russia and China are exteeeemly interested in this.  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (May 31, 2008)

It was the SAM missile threat that did the IAF during the Yom Kippor war.

HoHo...underestimating the Russian people and their technology...why didn't NATO invade? We could be in Moscow by teatime?

I'm sure a few people tried and got that wrong.

F-15 pilots were told both in Iraq and Serbia...do not dogfight with a Mig-29...

Luftwaffe pilots themselves said that with the Fulcrums power, Archers, guns and helmet mighted sight would own anything within visual range. Although they were rubbish in any other engagement.

The South African pilots are as good as anything...so are the Isrealis...if you read what the pilots say...especially during the 70s...they would put it down to pilot training. The Fishbed and the Mirage III were very similar in performance and it was the man that made the difference.


----------



## Kruska (May 31, 2008)

The Basket said:


> It was the SAM missile threat that did the IAF during the Yom Kippor war.
> 
> *Yes, and by simply showing the cold side of the aircraft, or underflying the Radar the "dreadfull" SAM's were put out of action.*
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (May 31, 2008)

Er...How many aircraft did the Isrealis lose...to useless SAMs...

F-15s did tangle with Fulcrums within visual range during Desert Storm.

The rules of engagement needed confirmation of enemy in case you brought down a friendly. Therefore you have to get an eyeball on the jet. And a dogfight begins...

If you're comparing modern day then you're missing the point. A war between America and Russia is unlikely and an Iraqi MiG-29 cannot be compared to a Soviet or Russian MiG-29.

It is how Warsaw Pact would take on NATO...


----------



## Henk (May 31, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Henk,
> 
> Wow, thanks a lot for that fantastic link.
> 
> ...



No problem mate.

Here is a link for the Impala.

IPMS South Africa - Impala Mk1 Mk2 - Classic Italian design.

Yes the Cheetah is a great aircraft and it was retired way before it's time, but the ANC government wants it that way so who are the rest to complain.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The rules of engagement needed confirmation of enemy in case you brought down a friendly. Therefore you have to get an eyeball on the jet. And a dogfight begins...



Who's rules? the USAF? For this ID problem you have a "window" system - not PC windows  you can also call it a "time, air space sectional" system.

There is absolutly no need nowadays to ID an a/c by visual confirmation - it is however done in peacetimes to ensure the savety for "irregular" civilian a/c - not in a war. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

Henk said:


> No problem mate.
> 
> Here is a link for the Impala.
> 
> ...



Thanks Henk,

will do some reading on the Impalas and Cheetah  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Who's rules? the USAF? For this ID problem you have a "window" system - not PC windows  you can also call it a "time, air space sectional" system.
> 
> There is absolutly no need nowadays to ID an a/c by visual confirmation - it is however done in peacetimes to ensure the savety for "irregular" civilian a/c - not in a war.
> 
> ...



I said it happened in the Gulf War...which was a war. The MiG-29 did show up as a friendly so they couldn't fire until the eyeball.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

The Basket said:


> I said it happened in the Gulf War...which was a war. The MiG-29 did show up as a friendly so they couldn't fire until the eyeball.



Yes, I do know how to read, and I wrote that:

There is absolutly no need nowadays to ID an a/c by visual confirmation - it is however done in peacetimes to ensure the savety for "irregular" civilian a/c - not in a war. 

Why should - or how should a MiG29 ID or IDF or show up as friendly???, since no friendly operated a MiG29 in the Iraq.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Yes, I do know how to read, and I wrote that:
> 
> There is absolutly no need nowadays to ID an a/c by visual confirmation - it is however done in peacetimes to ensure the savety for "irregular" civilian a/c - not in a war.
> 
> ...



Ask the USAF.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Ask the USAF.



I do not think that you correspond with the USAF directly if so please let me know since I do not. 

I asume that you retrive your knowledge from publications and as such you might have missinterpreted some statement or you ignore the simple fact that the USAF does not trust to much in its electronical capabilities and especially airspace-disciplin in regards to warfare.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> I do not think that you correspond with the USAF directly if so please let me know since I do not.
> 
> I asume that you retrive your knowledge from publications and as such you might have missinterpreted some statement or you ignore the simple fact that the USAF does not trust to much in its electronical capabilities and especially airspace-disciplin in regards to warfare.
> 
> ...



Assume? Ignore?

Do you assume that I ignore?

You tell me that I can't read in my own language?

Well ain't that something.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Assume? Ignore?
> 
> You tell me that I can't read in my own language?



Missinterpret doesn't equal to not being able to read one's own language. So why do you bring that up?

If you believe that the Russian equipment on one to one was ever superior, or that you need visual ID before engaging in air-combat, or that a MiG29 in Iraq could show up as a friendly, or that F-15's were told not to air combat Mig29's well you are free to believe whatever. And I feel free to put forward my opinion.

And if you base all your believes on according to USAF - what ever that means -, well go ahead 

Just as an example, American military stats. and blah, blah already reported the Vietcong as extinct in 1969 - according to US Army. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The rules of engagement needed confirmation of enemy in case you brought down a friendly. Therefore you have to get an eyeball on the jet. And a dogfight begins...



That is not true.

Each and every aircraft that was part of the coalition had a transponder that would ident them as friendly. Have you heard of IFF?

They did not have to visual on an enemy aircraft to shoot it down.



The Basket said:


> I said it happened in the Gulf War...which was a war. The MiG-29 did show up as a friendly so they couldn't fire until the eyeball.



No the Mig-29 would not show up as a friendly on the Transponder. The Transponder's are loaded every day so they are different every day. If the little thing (I can't remember the name of the tool I used to load our transponder every day before flight) was lost, then the transponders were deleted and loaded with a different code.

The only way an Iraqi Mig-29 could show up as friendly on an IFF transponder would be if they had the thing to load them with. They did not, and they were never compromised. There was never a need to get visual.

I really dont understand were you are getting this from...



The Basket said:


> Assume? Ignore?
> 
> Do you assume that I ignore?
> 
> ...



Sorry Basket, I do not know where you are getting this from, it is wrong.


----------



## Henk (Jun 2, 2008)

This is what happened in SA during the 80's.
IPMS South Africa - Dassault Mirage F1 AZ / CZ

Never heard of the things you're talking about.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

Hello Henk,

thanks again for the Lt. Bomba link. I will enjoy reading it.

*Never heard of the things you're talking about.* are you refering to me or The Basket?

In case you should refer to RaSigma please check my post No.39 under Modern / F-14

Regards
Kruska


----------



## The Basket (Jun 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is not true.
> 
> Each and every aircraft that was part of the coalition had a transponder that would ident them as friendly. Have you heard of IFF?
> 
> ...



Captain Craig Underhill and Capt Caser Rodriguez.

Jan 19 when the Mig-29 flew into the ground...and Rodriguez claimed a manuever kill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Captain Craig Underhill and Capt Caser Rodriguez.
> 
> Jan 19 when the Mig-29 flew into the ground...and Rodriguez claimed a manuever kill



Source and link please?

There is no way that a Mig-29 would show up as a friendly. I can believe that they shot down a Mig-29 in close proximity, but not because its transponder said friendly.


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2008)

Ths has been an interesting thread but I do feel as if the Mig 29 has had a bad press. 
When it came into service it was a good match for most of the aircraft in Nato. Certainly the F15 was a much better aircraft as were the latest F16's but given pilots of a similar standard it would give an early F16 (which were very common in Nato) a run for its money. Certainly I would rather be in a Mig 29 instead of an F4F, Mirage III, V, F1 or F5 which were still around in some numbers. 
The good thing was that the Mig29 was by Warsaw Pact standards expensive and the Mig 21 was the most common fighter around.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Source and link please?
> 
> There is no way that a Mig-29 would show up as a friendly. I can believe that they shot down a Mig-29 in close proximity, but not because its transponder said friendly.


It was on an episode of Dgfights.

It is on youtube but Im on my PDA so can't do any links.

The pilots themselves tell exactly what occurred.


----------



## Henk (Jun 2, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Henk,
> 
> thanks again for the Lt. Bomba link. I will enjoy reading it.
> 
> ...



It is a pleasure mate.

No mate I referred to The Basket.

This is the Youtube link for that dogfight. (check no 4 as well)


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgQHS2hsx84_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44oaapoAqPU_


----------



## Kruska (Jun 3, 2008)

Hello Henk,

Thanks for the u-tube links, I didn’t watch all of it but in the MiG29 Iraq incident, that a/c was clearly identified as a boogie – not friendly – if the US pilots would have taken the (air segment system as a disciplinary measure) they could have just missiled away the guy before he bore himself into the ground.

The other videos all show BVR kills.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2008)

The Basket said:


> It was on an episode of Dgfights.
> 
> It is on youtube but Im on my PDA so can't do any links.
> 
> The pilots themselves tell exactly what occurred.



Just watched it and they were not visual to identify. The AWACS identified them as hostile at 8 miles out.

It did not say how they Identified them as hostile, but most likely it was because thier was no transponder giveng them a Friendly Ident.


----------



## Henk (Jun 3, 2008)

It was fun to watch, but the Iraqi Pilots did a lot of stupid things. A Mig-25 can not perform well in a turning game. Do not know why they used the Mig-25.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 4, 2008)

Is the reason why they had to get visual because of other potential aircraft like airliners that might not have the transponder but still appear as hostile? I thought it was always considered to be good practice not to blast away at a potential hostile object until you had positively identified that it was a hostile object. That was the procedure that led to that civilian airliner being downed by a MiG. Just because you have beyond visual range identification methods doesn't automatically mean that they should be used...


----------



## Kruska (Jun 4, 2008)

Hello HealzDevo,

From what I know, there is such a thing as an air segmentation system meaning: the airspace is divided into airspace cubes of certain dimensions. Any aircraft has to fly according to a prefixed route (Flightpath) within a certain direction, altitude and time.

All aircrafts are forced by international and national law to switch on their transponders signaling the IFF. A ground radar will pick up the IFF signal and compare it to the registerd IFF number on the radar screen. If an aircraft is spotted in an altitude or direction were it is not supposed to be, or supposed to be at all, it is contacted and QRA (quick reaction alert) aircrafts will take off to ID the contacted „intruder“ after failing or delayed response.

In sensitive areas „white house“ or Washington D.C. missiles might be shoot at a non identified target even before an visual ID is obtained.

In war times, coded IFF signals are used to seperate friendlies from hostiles. However the emitting of an IFF also makes the emitting a/c detectable on the radar screen, as such it will not be used in most cases, so the air segmantation sytem takes over.

An AWACS or ground radar knows exactly about the predetermined flight path of the own airunits, and certain radar pickups by an AWACS or Ground radar can also help to identify friendlies from hostile aircrafts. Passive radars (incomming signals are verified – but no outgoing signals) means the US F-15 passive radar will pick up the radar signal of an aircraft (MiG29), it will only receive the directional information, no altitude or speed information. Once the F-15 switches on its active radar, its signals can also be picked up by the MiG29.

That is why I stated in earlier or other posts that the reach of the radar is the key to success - First look-First shoot.
The new generation AESA radars in the F-22 or Eurofighter are able to emit signals without being detected.

The AWACS or ground radar will track the MiG29 and send the respective missing info to the F-15, which then is able/willing to activate its active radar to achieve a lock on and off the missile goes. 

Regards 
Kruska


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 10, 2008)

But my big point is how on radar do you tell the difference between a big large bomber like one of those Tu-95 Bear and a Russian civilian airliner on the radar? I can remember one book by Tom Clancy it might be discusses a plan where bombers are disguised as civilian airliners to drop bombs on US cities.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2008)

HealzDevo said:


> But my big point is how on radar do you tell the difference between a big large bomber like one of those Tu-95 Bear and a Russian civilian airliner on the radar? I can remember one book by Tom Clancy it might be discusses a plan where bombers are disguised as civilian airliners to drop bombs on US cities.


Airliners fly specific routes at specific altitudes and are under control of approach and departure centers - they carry transponders and are assigned squawk codes to specifically identify them.


----------



## Henk (Jun 10, 2008)

Well I remember the two Korean airliners that was shot down by the Russians during the cold war and they went off course and was thus shot down by intercepting aircraft and caused a lot of uproar in the world. The second one to be shot down was a B-747 with the loss of all on board.

What the Russians did was not needed and they was paranoid at the time and thus shot the aircraft down.

Today aircraft are more advanced and like FlyboyJ said they have the right equipment to let the ground identify a enemy from a civilian airliner.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 10, 2008)

Hunter368 said:


> Russia would have had a hard time trying to control the air when it was able to produce thousands of jets that were behind the Americans on a technological basis, relying on quantity to overcome American quality. Now, Russia would likely be outnumbered and facing airplanes that would be at least on par with theirs. Russia went from having a decent chance of winning air superiority in a war against the United States to none. ?
> 
> By, Harold C. Hutchison



Things may be changing though, now that a resugent Russia { perhaps it's mid-east clients} can rake in $130/ barrel for oil, while the US may be facing cutbacks in the future, due to a Democratic President Congress....


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

Henk said:


> Well I remember the two Korean airliners that was shot down by the Russians during the cold war and they went off course and was thus shot down by intercepting aircraft and caused a lot of uproar in the world. The second one to be shot down was a B-747 with the loss of all on board.
> 
> What the Russians did was not needed and they was paranoid at the time and thus shot the aircraft down.
> 
> Today aircraft are more advanced and like FlyboyJ said they have the right equipment to let the ground identify a enemy from a civilian airliner.



Hello Henk,

Well like you said, the Russians were paranoid (after all it was amidst the cold war). The Korean airliner was way out of his designated (approved flight route) and he was passing over a very sensitive area. If true or not – at that time and even until today military aircrafts will use the “shadow” of a civil airliner or even use electronics “overriding –decoy” technology to take advantage of this or even “generate” a shadow.

A stealth aircraft is a good way to avoid this previous scenario  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2008)

I think KAL 007 was trying to make up for lost time....

From Wiki...


_Delayed one hour because of strong tail winds (to avoid arriving at Kimpo airport prior to its work opening at 6 A.M.), KAL 007 departed Anchorage International Airport at 13:00 GMT (4:00 a.m. Alaskan time). It was the practice of Korean Airlines to sometimes delay a flight so that it would not arrive at Kimpo Airport in Seoul, Korea prior to 6:00 a.m., as customs and passenger handling personnel began their operations at that time. Climbing, the jumbo jet turned left, seeking its assigned route J501, which would soon take it onto the northernmost of five 50-mile wide passenger plane air corridors that bridge the Alaskan and Japanese coasts. These five corridors are called the NOPAC (North Pacific) routes. KAL 007’s particular corridor, Romeo 20, passed just 17 1/2 miles from Soviet airspace off the Kamchatka coast.

At about 10 minutes after take-of, KAL 007 began to deviate to the right (north) of its assigned route. ICAO analysis of the Flight Data recorder provides no reason for this deviation[8]

At 28 minutes after takeoff, civilian radar at Kenai, on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet and 53 nautical miles southwest of Anchorage, with a radar coverage of 175 miles west of Anchorage, tracked KAL 007 5.6 miles north of where it should have been. Where it should have been was a location “fixed” by the nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) of Cairne Mountain.

KAL 007 continued on its night journey, having previously received clearance (13:02:40 GMT) to proceed “direct Bethel” when able. Bethel is a small fishing village on the western tip of Alaska, 350 nautical miles west of Anchorage. It is the last U. S. mainland navigational point . But KAL 007 did not make Bethel for at 50 minutes after takeoff, military radar at King’s Salmon, Alaska, tracked KAL 007 at a full 12.6 nautical miles north of where it should have been. It had exceeded its permissible leeway of deviation by six times (two nautical miles an hour error is the permissible drift from course set by INS).

Halfway between waypoint NABIE in its Inertial Navigation System (INS) guided flight, and not yet having reached its next required reporting waypoint, NEEVA, KAL 007 passed through the southern portion of the United States Air Force NORAD (North American Air Defense) buffer zone. This zone, monitored intensively by U. S. Intelligence assets, lies north of Romeo 20, KAL 007’s designated air route, and is off-limits to civilian aircraft. KAL was apparently undetected—or, if detected, unreported.

And so KAL 007 continued its night journey, ever increasing its deviation—60 nautical miles off course at waypoint NABIE, 100 nautical miles off course at waypoint NUKKS, and 160 nautical miles off course at waypoint NEEVA—until it penetrated Kamchatka’s borders[9]

At 15:51 GMT, according to Soviet sources, KAL 007 “bumped” the Soviet buffer zone of Kamchatka Peninsula. The buffer zone was generally considered to extend 200 km. from Kamchatka’s coast and is technically known as a Flight Information Region (FIR). The 200 km buffer zone is counterpart to the United States’ Aerospace Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), but the 100 km radius of the buffer zone nearest to Soviet territory had the additional designation of Air Defense Zone. Heightened surveillance measures would be taken against any non-Soviet aircraft entering the Air Defense Zone._


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

Very possible indeed,

I just had in mind all these Newspaper and magazine articles “forwarding” US espionage and using that KAL liner as a shadow. Some even went so far as to “document” that the US aircraft had even deliberately malfunctioned the navigation system of the KAL flight and some “ventured” on to CIA ground crews manipulating the nav system onboard before takeoff. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> Very possible indeed,
> 
> ...



Yep - I remember those conspiracy theories - hogwash!


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

Without wanting to divert this thread,

one thing I keep wondering about is the US defense doctrine and strategically deployment of its bases and forces.
Many people are talking about Russia – upcoming - armed forces modernization programs, etc. etc. To me, to say it very bluntly the only Weapons of Mass Destruction besides actual existing ABC systems they have is Vodka.

To me a real threat for the next 20 years is still the Middle East with a very valid extension towards Pakistan – India. China to me is not likely at all and if, then maybe in 30-40 years onward. 

Besides Diego Garcia and the carrier fleets there are actually no bases or allies around Pakistan-India that would enable the US to keep a control or even to engage these two countries or let’s say India with a solid base next or bordering these two.

Does the US in your opinion underestimate this Pakistan-India scenario or what could the US do in such an event? 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> Without wanting to divert this thread,
> 
> ...



Interesting subject Kruska. IMO I think the US has somewhat "played" both sides for years. While touting India as "the world’s biggest democracy" we have armed Pakistan to the teeth. When both nations developed nukes the stakes were raised but I think the US has the attitude like it is dealing with two rival children who every so many hears beat the crap out of each other. Also keep in mind that the Chinese are not favorites of the Indians and Pakistan also takes advantage of that in the form or weapons purchases.

Add in Islamic Fundamentalism, and you have a large twisted web. Despite hatred there towards the west (with regards to Pakistan) I think India will always be viewed as the main threat.

Now with all that said, will the US ever intervene in a conflict between the two? I doubt it. Does the US look at either one as a threat? probably not except for the fact that we know Pakistan's connection with islamic fundamentalism. - As in the previous brush fire wars I think the US will just watch and let the two slug it out, hoping that they keep their nukes in check.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 13, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

Actually I do not see a Pakistan-India conflict in this hypothetic scenario but rather a sole Indian scenario. So I am looking at this just as a war gaming scenario – US/Russia or China/US which is forwarded as a possible scenario by the US or others.
If one analyses the strategic setup and placements of US forces around the globe, it just becomes obvious that India seems to be a “white patch” in any US strategy scenario. Even though I would see a probable conflict just as realistic as with the other two countries. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Airliners fly specific routes at specific altitudes and are under control of approach and departure centers - they carry transponders and are assigned squawk codes to specifically identify them.



Besides no airliners were flying over Iraq anyhow. I believe the whole area was made a no fly zone for commercial traffic.


----------

