Russians have started to build the PAK FA

[Alex Y]

:) As known from russbalt news on 9th of march Novosibirsk Aviational Industrial Association has begun construction of first Suckhoi T-50 fighter.

[Alex Y]

The article allso speaks about that the plane will take his first flight at the and of 2008 and it will be delivered to Russian Air Force in 2012. Besides, Russian deffence minister Sergey Ivanow, earlier said that all the pictures and schemes that are posted in internet are only the enthusiast works and are complitely wrong. How the PAK FA really looks like today is a top secret but it is quite clearly that it will not be similar to F-22 neither to any other western fighter. As known, the Suckhoi's resumed the testing of Su-47 Berkut, so thit tells about, that PAK FA can have a negative wing sweep

[Lancer1978]

The article allso speaks about that the plane will take his first flight at the and of 2008 and it will be delivered to Russian Air Force in 2012. Besides, Russian deffence minister Sergey Ivanow, earlier said that all the pictures and schemes that are posted in internet are only the enthusiast works and are complitely wrong. How the PAK FA really looks like today is a top secret but it is quite clearly that it will not be similar to F-22 neither to any other western fighter. As known, the Suckhoi's resumed the testing of Su-47 Berkut, so thit tells about, that PAK FA can have a negative wing sweep

I have a feeling that the Sukhoi PAK FA will inherit some of the Flanker/Berket family looks. Whatever the final PAK FA looks like, I'am sure that it will best fighter on earth. Unlike the F-22, count on it being export widely to nations such as Algeria, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Libya,Syria, Venezuela and Vietnam.

thank you

[Alex Y]

I have the same feeling. Berkut is a beautifull plane and it might be the first prototype of PAK FA. It even has a compartment for weapon in difference to other experimental planes. And about the terms... Raptor was delivered to USAF in 2004 and PAK FA will be deliwered only in 2012. We can see the 8 year split, but it will be good to recollect that F-15 service started in 1975 and Su-27 only in 1982. And even now the program of Su-27 mods is actual in difference the best F-15 mod is the F-15E from 1986. Before the PAK FA will enter the operation, Russia will get some of the most sophisticaned and powerfull version of Flanker - Su-27BM. And it will be also exported as Su-35BM.
Becides India going to take participation in financing the works on PAK FA :rolleyes:

[Lancer1978]

I have the same feeling. Berkut is a beautifull plane and it might be the first prototype of PAK FA. It even has a compartment for weapon in difference to other experimental planes. And about the terms... Raptor was delivered to USAF in 2004 and PAK FA will be deliwered only in 2012. We can see the 8 year split, but it will be good to recollect that F-15 service started in 1975 and Su-27 only in 1982. And even now the program of Su-27 mods is actual in difference the best F-15 mod is the F-15E from 1986. Before the PAK FA will enter the operation, Russia will get some of the most sophisticaned and powerfull version of Flanker - Su-27BM. And it will be also exported as Su-35BM.
Becides India going to take participation in financing the works on PAK FA :rolleyes:


Yes, well keep in mind that Su-27 was designed to defeat the F-15, and is indeed superior to F-15. I don't believe the F-22 is good as is claimed; my opinion being thats its way over priced and could be beaten by a well flown Su-30/35, Mig-35, JAS-39 Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Refale and maybe even a J-10. The PAK FA will be so dominate that only another PAK FA that will have a reasonable chance against it! The Russian bear is waking up and he is pissed!:D

[Scorpion82]

What the heck are you talking about? First flight of the PAK FA will be about 2012 according latest information. This seems to be reasoned by problems with the engines. Older sources suggested 2009 and the original plan opted for a first flight in 2006. I think it should be possible to get the PAK FA in the air by 2009, but a definite configured aircraft might not fly before 2012. Forget about the 2012-2015 entry into service. You might see few airframes being delivered by ~2015 for evaluation, but it will take several more years before the aircraft will be operational and combat ready.
Resuming tests with the Su-47 suggests nothing and the Berkut is nothing else than a technology demonstrator, though it was originally planned as a prototype. Is PAK FA is going to have stealth unlike the Su-47 which just have a reduced RCS.
The Su-27 is not necessarily better than the F-15 and you shouldn't forget about latest upgrades for the F-15 as well.

[XaNDeR]

What the heck are you talking about? First flight of the PAK FA will be about 2012 according latest information. This seems to be reasoned by problems with the engines. Older sources suggested 2009 and the original plan opted for a first flight in 2006. I think it should be possible to get the PAK FA in the air by 2009, but a definite configured aircraft might not fly before 2012. Forget about the 2012-2015 entry into service. You might see few airframes being delivered by ~2015 for evaluation, but it will take several more years before the aircraft will be operational and combat ready.
Resuming tests with the Su-47 suggests nothing and the Berkut is nothing else than a technology demonstrator, though it was originally planned as a prototype. Is PAK FA is going to have stealth unlike the Su-47 which just have a reduced RCS.
The Su-27 is not necessarily better than the F-15 and you shouldn't forget about latest upgrades for the F-15 as well.

First flight will be in 2008 , it was confirmed by Ivanov.

[Grand Danois]

One must hope for Ivanovs credibility that it does fly in 2008. We will know a year from now.

----------------------

Indian AF Faults Fighter Pact With Russia
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI


NEW DELHI — Senior Indian Air Force officials say they are finding holes in the agreement their government signed Oct. 18 with Russia for joint production of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft.

The Air Force prefers to get involved in the project from the beginning of the design stage, but the Russians say the design of the proposed fifth-generation aircraft is frozen, Air Force sources said.

Being involved from the start would allow the Air Force to introduce its own requirements into the design process and to become familiar with the design of the aircraft they propose to fly, a senior service official said.
Another Air Force official agreed, noting that so far, even the service’s Staff Qualitative Requirements have not been finalized.

In addition, the Air Force says India should not contribute more than $2 billion to the joint project, but the proposed deal calls for an Indian contribution of about $5 billion — half of the estimated $10 billion cost, according to Air Force officials.

No details have yet been released as to how many aircraft would be built for India and Russia through the agreement.
A diplomat with the Russian Embassy here said the two governments have signed the fifth-generation fighter agreement, but Indian state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) and Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau have yet to sign.

The first prototype of the aircraft is projected to be test-flown by 2015, the diplomat said.

“We are willing to participate in the fifth-generation aircraft, but we will invest only $2 billion on our side in the development of the fighter,” a senior HAL official said.

India and Russia signed the intergovernmental agreement to jointly develop and produce the futuristic, multirole stealth fighter, based on Sukhoi’s super-secret PAK-FA project, in Moscow on Oct. 18.
Indian Air Force officials said the aircraft will be a variant of the T-50 aircraft from Sukhoi.

However, the Air Force has already committed about $6 billion to acquire the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI and should not buy more than one type of Sukhoi aircraft, said Surya Pal Singh, a retired Air Force commodore. India is buying 40 Su-30 MKIs, and HAL will build another 140 under license in India.

India also was offered a variant of the MiG aircraft for the fifth-generation fighter project. It is still not clear how Sukhoi was selected.

The Russians, for lack of funds, have wanted to collaborate with India on the fifth-generation aircraft. The fighter will be flown by both the Russian and Indian Air Forces.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3149759&C=asiapac

[funtz]

One must hope for Ivanovs credibility that it does fly in 2008. We will know a year from now.

----------------------

Indian AF Faults Fighter Pact With Russia
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI


The Air Force prefers to get involved in the project from the beginning of the design stage, but the Russians say the design of the proposed fifth-generation aircraft is frozen, Air Force sources said.

Another Air Force official agreed, noting that so far, even the service’s Staff Qualitative Requirements have not been finalized.

In addition, the Air Force says India should not contribute more than $2 billion to the joint project, but the proposed deal calls for an Indian contribution of about $5 billion — half of the estimated $10 billion cost, according to Air Force officials.

A diplomat with the Russian Embassy here said the two governments have signed the fifth-generation fighter agreement, but Indian state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) and Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau have yet to sign.

The first prototype of the aircraft is projected to be test-flown by 2015, the diplomat said.

“We are willing to participate in the fifth-generation aircraft, but we will invest only $2 billion on our side in the development of the fighter,” a senior HAL official said.

India and Russia signed the intergovernmental agreement to jointly develop and produce the futuristic, multirole stealth fighter, based on Sukhoi’s super-secret PAK-FA project, in Moscow on Oct. 18.

Indian Air Force officials said the aircraft will be a variant of the T-50 aircraft from Sukhoi.

India also was offered a variant of the MiG aircraft for the fifth-generation fighter project. It is still not clear how Sukhoi was selected.

The Russians, for lack of funds, have wanted to collaborate with India on the fifth-generation aircraft. The fighter will be flown by both the Russian and Indian Air Forces.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3149759&C=asiapac

It is funny how the Indian Airforce is finding faults with an agreement that has not even been worked out yet, he he, me think the writer jumped the gun, he should have avoided all of the ironical statements.

According to the stated sources in that article the aircraft for the Indian airforce will be a variant of the T-50, a variant of an aircraft yet to be developed :D, nice futuristic thinking it seems.

Judging by the way military projects world over seem to suffer time and cost overruns, a 2008 deadline with time delays leading up to 2012-2015 will not be too difficult to achieve :D.

[Grand Danois]

Judging by the way military projects world over seem to suffer time and cost overruns, a 2008 deadline with time delays leading up to 2012-2015 will not be too difficult to achieve :D.

My perspective too. :D Thinking of gestation periods of various mil projects the world over coupled with my impression that it is still very early days in the PAK-FA program; i.e. concepts, loose designs, validation of isolated technologies. I wonder why Ivanov puts his name to the date 2008.

Could it be that the Russians will pull asurprise.

Edit: Good idea to freeze the design btw. ;)

[funtz]

Even a more relaxin 2017 deadline is nice, considering that there is a market the russian industry can target (not exactly high end considering the one the F-35 project has), about time altough with India more nations could have been includedto fund the project, a generation gap in the AF will be a issue with many not in the US list of friendly states.I guess the IPR issues would be too complex then, afterall no one like lawyers in the world :D

India is in the pocket, the fine print to be worked out, reports are in the media that it is being worked out.

I hope India gets a share of the sales pie wheneve this thing hits the international market.

[Alex Y]

Is there a more reliable source of information than the minister of deffence? There are no russian sources that confirm problems with engines. Engine 117S is now testing on Su-35 and will be ready soon. Considering the latest mods of F-15 I think better see the flight of Su-35 and MiG-35 than tell about why F-15 have no chances fighting them.
2 Scorpion82 and why do you think the technology demonstrators are build? That they have renewed testing means that Suckhoi really considers the negative sweep as a thecnology to new fighters.
And ofcource PAK FA will be a Raptorkiller, as the Su-27 was Eaglkiller:D

[Grand Danois]

Forward swept wings are not sympathetic to "stealth" as it is used in popular terms. The benefits of supermaneuverability is diminishing in the future due to helmet mounted sights, lock-on-after-launch, HOBS, etc. There are also structural issues.

PAK-FA is most likely NOT to have a FSW config. Drawbacks are greater than benefits.

[Scorpion82]

Is there a more reliable source of information than the minister of deffence? There are no russian sources that confirm problems with engines. Engine 117S is now testing on Su-35 and will be ready soon.

I suggest you to check the latest related threads. BTW the article 117S of the Su-35 is not the definite engine for the PAK FA. The PAK FAs engine is based on it, but it will incorporate a new core and will be more powerful. I could imagine that the article 117S aka AL-41F1A will be used as interim solution however.


Considering the latest mods of F-15 I think better see the flight of Su-35 and MiG-35 than tell about why F-15 have no chances fighting them.

That's nonsense. Fit TVC to the Eagle and it will perform a similar show. TVC alone won't make the Flanker better at all. The F-15 has been further developed over the time as well, just look at the F-15K/SG. It is true that Sukhoi invested more work and time to further develope the Flanker, but it had to do so, because there is still no equivalent to the Raptor. The latest Flanker derivates might be better fighters than the latest F-15, but this doesn't apply to all variants and it's not for sure either due the lack of some hard facts and data.


2 Scorpion82 and why do you think the technology demonstrators are build? That they have renewed testing means that Suckhoi really considers the negative sweep as a thecnology to new fighters.
And ofcource PAK FA will be a Raptorkiller, as the Su-27 was Eaglkiller:D

There is no prove that the Su-27 has become an Eagle killer. It has been designed to counter the F-15 and it is for sure capable of doing so, but it has not been proven at all. And of course the russians will praise the PAK FA as Raptor killer, but if it will become reality is something very different. For the moment we know nothing about the PAK FA.

The Su-47 was planned as a prototype as the MiG MFI was. Both eventually ended up as experimental aircraft as the RuAF had no interest in them and decided to launch a new 5th generation fighter program which became the PAK FA. Restarting flight tests with the Su-47 could mean many things, seeing it as evidence that the PAK FA will have FSW is much speculative however.

[Alex Y]

It is necessary to think not ordinary to make another great plane, like Flanker. Ofcource the F-22 is a good plane, but also it is a perfect example of great money overspanding. 100 000 000 for one plane, heh... how can americans sleep at night:D

[Scorpion82]

It is necessary to think not ordinary to make another great plane, like Flanker. Ofcource the F-22 is a good plane, but also it is a perfect example of great money overspanding. 100 000 000 for one plane, heh... how can americans sleep at night:D

Yes the F-22 is expensive, but quality has its price. Neither the Americans nor the Europeans can produce that cheap as the Russians.
I have no doubt that the PAK FA will become a great plane, I just prefer to wait for it rather than putting my money on a horse which has yet to be born.

[Chrom]

Yes the F-22 is expensive, but quality has its price. Neither the Americans nor the Europeans can produce that cheap as the Russians.
I have no doubt that the PAK FA will become a great plane, I just prefer to wait for it rather than putting my money on a horse which has yet to be born.

Seeing recently how much exploded prices for literally everything - i dont think F-22 is too expencive now. Actually, it have quite resonable price. Undoubtly, it is first truly successfull stealth aircraft.
We can speculate whenever compomises made in F-117 and B-2 was worth its stealth and price. For F-22 it is clear - compomisses was minimal. F-22 flight perfomance is on par with other aircrafts of its class while being both stealth, supercruise AND resonable priced. A trully excellent achievment.

[Scorpion82]

Seeing recently how much exploded prices for literally everything - i dont think F-22 is too expencive now. Actually, it have quite resonable price. Undoubtly, it is first truly successfull stealth aircraft.
We can speculate whenever compomises made in F-117 and B-2 was worth its stealth and price. For F-22 it is clear - compomisses was minimal. F-22 flight perfomance is on par with other aircrafts of its class while being both stealth, supercruise AND resonable priced. A trully excellent achievment.

I think your reply would have better suited Alex Y's comments. I see it in a similar way as you. Though there is no way of saying the Raptor isn't expensive. Is it overpriced? In comparison to the originally projected costs definitely. In relation to the cost and capability ratio of other fighters not necessarily.

[Chrom]

I think your reply would have better suited Alex Y's comments. I see it in a similar way as you. Though there is no way of saying the Raptor isn't expensive. Is it overpriced? In comparison to the originally projected costs definitely. In relation to the cost and capability ratio of other fighters not necessarily.
Yes, F-22 is expencive. But what modern aircraft is NOT expencive? EF ? Rafale? Hell, even Su-30 is not that cheap anymore.

[Rossiman]

I have a feeling that the Sukhoi PAK FA will inherit some of the Flanker/Berket family looks. Whatever the final PAK FA looks like, I'am sure that it will best fighter on earth. Unlike the F-22, count on it being export widely to nations such as Algeria, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Libya,Syria, Venezuela and Vietnam.

thank you

I highly doubt it will be the best. When was the last time Russia made a better fighter?

[XaNDeR]

I highly doubt it will be the best. When was the last time Russia made a better fighter?

That would be Su-27

[KGB]

Isn't it a bit early to compare the f22 with a platform that isn't deployed yet?

[Lancer1978]

I highly doubt it will be the best. When was the last time Russia made a better fighter?

lets see, in the field of fighter design Russia is rivaled only by the US. below are some examples

1. Il-16 Rata- was first monoplane to enter service, introduced what at time revolutiony features such as retractable landing gear, enclosed cockpit, heavy canon armament.

2. Mig-15 Fagot- was many in ways superior to its main rival the F-86 Sabre, its poor combat record against the F-86 was do to ecxellent training and tactics of Americans. As well as poor training amongest Chinese and North Korean Pilots.The better trained and more experienced Russian's did much better against the Americans.

3. Mig-17 Fresco- superior to late model F-86 Sabre's, in Vietnamese hands it proved a worthy foe to a later generation of US jets, such as the F-4 and F-105

4. Mig-19 Farmer- far superior to its US rival the F-100 Super Sabre, It may have been the first supersonic fighter to enter service, both the USSR and US make this claim. Had a long career, proved deadly to be a dogfighter in Vietnamese and Pakistani service, capable defeating far more avanced aircraft!

5. Mig-21 Fishbed- the most produced supersonic jetfighter ever! At least 10,000 made in Russia, 700 in India and still in production in China! Has been used by more Air Forces then any other jet fighter in history. The best dogfighter of its generation, it outfought the best US fighter of its generation the F-4 Phantom, during the Vietnam war. Other then the F-4; no US fighter of time was an even match for the Mig-21. Upgraded models such as the Mig-21 lancer C and Mig-21/93 Bison can hold their own vs a G-4 aircraft.

6. Mig-29 Fulcram- excellent light fighter, if flown by well trained pilot, should be a better dogfighter then its chief rival the F-16.

7. Su-27/30/33/35 Flanker family- simply the best fighter of the 4th gen. enough said!

Thank you

[dh19440113]

The top scoring aces of Vietnam and Korea are Mig pilots.
If you don't believe than conduct you own research.
Just to show that a skill pilot in the most important factor to a plane's success. :)

[JackGr]

Although we can't compare these 2 planes,cause we don't really have the one,we can't just obliterate the manufacturing possibilities of Russia.This country has produced in the past many small technology miracles as far as aircrafts are concerned.It's not always cheap and bad,expensive and good,sometimes,it's cheap cause it's made with fewer costs or it's not "advertised";) like a super-super weapon ....

[Jon K]

My perspective too. :D Thinking of gestation periods of various mil projects the world over coupled with my impression that it is still very early days in the PAK-FA program; i.e. concepts, loose designs, validation of isolated technologies. I wonder why Ivanov puts his name to the date 2008.

I would not think that flying an aerodynamic demonstrator by that date would be impossible. It does not have to be true PAK-FA anymore than EAP was Typhoon. It just has to look like one. Thus, in Russian media at least, Russia gets credit by developing a fighter aircraft within crash schedule...

Mvh,
Jon K

[swerve]

l...
2. Mig-15 Fagot- was many in ways superior to its main rival the F-86 Sabre, its poor combat record against the F-86 was do to ecxellent training and tactics of Americans. As well as poor training amongest Chinese and North Korean Pilots.The better trained and more experienced Russian's did much better against the Americans....

Thank you

Much better than the Chinese & N. Koreans, but still soundly beaten. The old American claims of up to 14:1 kill ratios for F-86 over MiG-15 are clearly wrong (& long ago dropped from official US accounts), but the real ratio still seems to have been at least 4:1, maybe as high as 6:1, after deducting erroneous US claims & adding some misattributed US losses to the air-air tally. Deduct Chinese & the relatively few (because they did little) N. Korean losses from that, & their relatively few kills, & it's still at least 3:1 over the Soviet pilots who did most of the fighting.

One problem the MiG-15 had was that its armament was designed for destroying bombers. Very destructive if it scored a hit on an F-86, but difficult to hit a fighter with - heavy shells with a low M/V & rate of fire. The F-86 armament was also not ideal, but better against fighters than that of the MiG-15. The MiG-15 also had an inferior gunsight, IIRC.

[indian bull]

I have a feeling that the Sukhoi PAK FA will inherit some of the Flanker/Berket family looks. Whatever the final PAK FA looks like, I'am sure that it will best fighter on earth. Unlike the F-22, count on it being export widely to nations such as Algeria, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Libya,Syria, Venezuela and Vietnam.

thank you

It will be jointly developed by india and russia not exported to india.

[Alex Y]

India will pay for some research works, but will not reaserch by her own.
2 Lancer1978 you have forgotten to mention MiG-25/31 with their outstanding for a combat aircraft speed and altitude, Su-25(T or evenTM), Ka-50/52 (no words) and Tu-160 :rolleyes:

Considering MiG-15 it has a powerfull weapon and it is placed more rational than on F-86, MiG by it firepower braked Superfortress off in pieces in seconds ;)

And the F-22 is overpriced mostly thanking to its 25 years developing program, during which several times it was on the edge of closing. Such a long time was needed for Pentagon to decide does the USAF need this aircraft. Lets see what country will decide that she needs a 100 million fighter with pretty limited (by its capasition) strike potential

[riksavage]

All this talk about Russian fighters being superior! Can you tell me of a single engagement / conflict / war since WWII where Russian fighters have had the edge over Western fighters? I can’t think of a single encounter.

Arab – Israeli conflict – NO
Korean War - NO
Vietnam War - NO
Gulf War I & II – NO
Balkans conflict - NO

Secondly if Russian fighters are so good why is it we are seeing more and more former Eastern Block countries seeking to buy Western designs (Gripen, Typhoon)?

[Lancer1978]

All this talk about Russian fighters being superior! Can you tell me of a single engagement / conflict / war since WWII where Russian fighters have had the edge over Western fighters? I can’t think of a single encounter.

Arab – Israeli conflict – NO
Korean War - NO
Vietnam War - NO
Gulf War I & II – NO
Balkans conflict - NO

Secondly if Russian fighters are so good why is it we are seeing more and more former Eastern Block countries seeking to buy Western designs (Gripen, Typhoon)?

There where numerous individaul encounters as you put it when Russian fighters, downed a westen aircaft during the cold war. To list them all I would need to start a new thread.

Korean War- both sides greatly overclaimed, it is almost impossible to tell what actually happened. However Russian flown Mig-15's more then likely downed as many total UN/US aircraft as they lost. Russian Mig-15's put an end to daylight B-29 raids. Both sides claim victory, in reality it was most likely a draw!

Vietnam War- the Vietnamese claimed to have downed 4,181 US aircraft, the US admits losing 3,720! While the US claims to hvae downed 193 VPAAF aircraft, the VPAAF only admits losing 134 to all causes. There 16 known Vietnamese Aces! and 320 comfirmed kills. Thats a defeat of the US by North Vietnam, deal with it!

Gulf War II- no air combat took place!

Balkens- results disputed by Serbs and Russians, anyway only minor air combat! too small a sample.

Luftwaffe Mig-29's and Romanian Mig-21 Lancers have held there own against other NATO fighters in simulated combat.

The Indian Air Force, defeated the US in large scale simulated combat. IAF Su-30MKI, Mig-29, Mig-21/93 Bison and the Mirage 2000 all proved able to defeat US aircraft.

lets see how about NATO, the EU, the political need to buy westen fighters and of course both the Tyhpoon and Gripen are excellent fighters!

Thank you

[dh19440113]

Don't forget, Mig-31 intercepted sr-71 nears its airspace and put an end to soviet flyovers. :onfloorl:

SR_71 may not be a fighter but it is cutting edge and was intercepted at very high altitude.

[riksavage]

Based on these statistics -"Vietnam War- the Vietnamese claimed to have downed 4,181 US aircraft, the US admits losing 3,720! While the US claims to have downed 193 VPAAF aircraft, the VPAAF only admits losing 134 to all causes. There 16 known Vietnamese Aces! and 320 confirmed kills. That’s a defeat of the US by North Vietnam, deal with it!" You would think the North had air superiority!

Still does not answer the question why are former Eastern Block countries buying western designs.

[Oryx]

Still does not answer the question why are former Eastern Block countries buying western designs.

As far as I understand it, having had a little insight into a few of the acquisition programmes, by far the biggest two drivers have been (a) political and (b) a requirement to become fully NATO compatible.

In regard to political: Many of the former East Block countries are trying very hard to become independent of their Soviet era masters - Russia. Buying military equipment from the West is a way to at least become independent in one area.

The second point is quite obvious - several East Block countries have already joined NATO and are now required to update equipment in order to be fully NATO compatible. This rules out Russian aircraft to a large extent, unless extensive modifications are made which not only include things such as the weaponry they can fit onto the aircraft, but also logistics and maintenance cycles. In some cases, buying Russian would almost require a full re-design of the airframe, engines and systems. Of course they have found ways to sort-of comply in the meantime (Romanian Hinds and German MiG-29s at the time are two good examples) - but in the long run it is much easier purchasing equipment that is already NATO compatible.

Note that in countries that do not have these two constraints, Russian equipment do become much more viable. India and China being just two such examples. The same goes for many African countries.

[Lancer1978]

Based on these statistics -"Vietnam War- the Vietnamese claimed to have downed 4,181 US aircraft, the US admits losing 3,720! While the US claims to have downed 193 VPAAF aircraft, the VPAAF only admits losing 134 to all causes. There 16 known Vietnamese Aces! and 320 confirmed kills. That’s a defeat of the US by North Vietnam, deal with it!" You would think the North had air superiority!

Still does not answer the question why are former Eastern Block countries buying western designs.

No, I would not go that far. Whenever US aircraft went North, they were flying into heavly defended airspace. Over the course of the war; North Vietnam's intergrated air defense which consisted of thousands of AA guns, hundreds of SAMs and 200 or so Mig-17/19/21's took a toll on US air forces.

Ok as I said the former Eastern block countries; have joined or want join to NATO and the EU. Therefore they need purchase NATO standard fighters such as the F-16, F/A-18, Refale, Gripen and Typhoon. Purchasing new Migs and Sukhoi's are not politcally exceptable to them at present. Also the Gripen and Typhoon are excellent aircraft, it does not hurt that BAE and SAAB have excellent offsets and a solid rep. for support!

thank you:cool:

[kato]

Purchasing new Migs and Sukhoi's are not politcally exceptable to them at present.

New, sure. Upgrades? Of course acceptable.

Poland : 26 MiG-29 NATO-modified by Germany, MLU by Poland
Slovakia: 12? MiG-29 MLU with NATO avionics/systems (by MAPO MiG)
Hungary: 14 MiG-29 MLU with NATO avionics/systems (by RSK-MiG)
Bulgaria: 20 MiG-29 MLU with NATO avionics/systems (by RSK-MiG)

In Hungary's case, the upgrade competed with a F-16 lease, and won on cost grounds.

Quite a lot of Eastern European nations were still buying fighters and trainers from Russia post-Cold-War, in the mid to late 90s (like Slovakia).

[gf0012-aust]

Don't forget, Mig-31 intercepted sr-71 nears its airspace and put an end to soviet flyovers. :onfloorl:

SR_71 may not be a fighter but it is cutting edge and was intercepted at very high altitude.

Absolute Rubbish. The Mig31's were never used to intercept SR-71's - they didn't exist then. The SR-71's were under congressional review in the early 70's. The Mig31 wasn't operational until 1979.

It was never intercepted at altitude. The SR-71 had a 20,000ft ceiling advantage over the Mig31, and it never encountered Mig31's as it had been pulled for use over Vietnam - Ferret missions over Russia were done by satellites and had been done so some 5 years before the 31 was even operational

Be that as it may the US was still running ferrets right through to the late 70's. Over 90% of their recorded flight time was at Mach 3 sustained. The Mig25's and 31's could not and still cannot sustain mach3 as their engines cannot run protracted mach 3 flight.

In all the time that the A-12's and SR-71's did ferret runs, the soviets tried over 3000 missile intercepts - not one got close, even when they tried to volley the shots.

The reason why SR-71' were pulled was because Satellite mapping was far more robust, covered far more area in the same pass, and was immune to intercept. It was cheaper to run satellites that covered over 400% more area than to run a short squadron of SR-71's.

To quote Stockton:

"The U-2 was known to be vulnerable in 1960- "Oxcart" was well under way then. Altitude presents the problem of range, but very high speed presents a much more complicated challenge. The "virtual immunity" of high speed has more to do with basic distance, time and geometry than simply being too fast to outrun. High speed manoeuvres entail great distances- as a result very small changes of course can require a great deal of cross-range capability that is not generally considered practical for very high speed and altitude missiles. The scales involved are not mere exaggerations of existing scales- they are in effect an entirely different regime.

The Soviet pilot who defected in a MiG-25, (1976) Viktor Belyenko, commented that SR-71s were virtually impossible to intercept because of this: side-on, they passed in and out of range too quickly to acquire, track and fire; from behind, it was impossible to accelerate up to a matching speed and still be in range- and in the unlikely event of being forewarned and approaching head-on, the closing speeds were to great for the missiles to react to cross-range manoeuvres: in short, there were windows of opportunity to a priveleged manned, (compared to a missile) agile high speed and altitude platform, but they opened and closed far too quickly to be exploited.

By the late 1970s, SA-10 and SA-12 surface to air missiles posed a threat to SR-71s on the level of MiG-25s, but were also subject to the same limitations. Staying on the edge of Soviet airspace and using SAR appears to have worked as far as they were concerned. In any case, after the Powers incident, direct manned overflights were ceased (I think) as a matter of policy as well as tactics and oblique observational methods were used. It is not impossible to shoot down a very fast vehicle; it is however, extremely difficult."

[funtz]

MiG-15,25,29, su-27-30, SR-71
my my, so many history lessons.

If the US precedence is anything to go by, the PAK-FA will be a very expensive platform (in relative Ru terms), the development part might get a littile easier with a 30~50% financial Indian participation and the level of involvement in recent time between Ru and In can translate into effective participation in the later production and sales stage of the platform.

And i am more than sure that the rest of the russian industry is busy in developing a some what new class of weapons as compared with the current ones, any indications or announcments anywhere in the media regarding this?

[Alex Y]

Ofcource MiG-25 can intercept Sr-71. It was built for it. And Blackbird stands no chances against MiG-31 with its rockets and radar.

[gf0012-aust]

Ofcource MiG-25 can intercept Sr-71. It was built for it. And Blackbird stands no chances against MiG-31 with its rockets and radar.

Being built for it doesn't mean that it could do it.

Belyenko was actually a Mig 25 pilot. Read his own reports. The US deconstructed the Mig25 - they knew its capability.

The Mig-31 never went near the SR-71 as it was built after the Soviet ferret missions were cancelled due to Satellite ISR being cheaper to run, and covering more area in the same pass. The Mig-31 was still 25% degraded on altitude comparisons.

You can't rewrite history just becasue you'd like to get a better outcome.

Quite frankly, the reports and opinions of a Soviet pilot who actually flew Mig 25's holds a lot more substance. Add in the fact that the Soviets never intercepted any of the SR-71's, and that the Mig 31 was never in the region because it never existed at the time reinforces it.

Coulda Shoulda Woulda means zip if it never occurred in the first place.

[Oryx]

Belyenko was actually a Mig 25 pilot. Read his own reports. The US deconstructed the Mig25 - they knew its capability.


Just a couple of small points, although I do agree with your analysis in general:

First, the US did take apart Belenko's MiG-25, but they never had the opportunity to fly it. Without actually flight testing it and the radar, they had to trust Belenko's word for its capability. You cannot look at an aircraft and its parts and say what it can do with any real accuracy. I am not saying Belenko was wrong or lied about its performance, just that the fact that the US had their hands on the aircraft for a short while counts very little when it comes to the performance of its airframe or systems. What you can, however, learn very quickly when you take something like that apart, is what the state of Soviet aerospace technology was at the time.

Regardless of whether or not the MiG-25 could intercept a SR-71, it is an extremely capable high-speed interceptor. As an example, it could actually reach its maximum speed with a full missile load, since the max speed was not a thrust limit but an airframe limit. Compare this to most Western aircraft of today, where the max speed dramatically starts dropping when you add ordinance. So, regardless of whether or not the MiG-25 could successfully intercept an SR-71, or whether they used valves instead of transistors in its avionics (I note the MiG-31 is much more modern in that regard) it is still an aircraft which, especially performance wise, was an incredible feat of engineering at that time. In the context of the current thread, where people were discussing the relative qualities of Soviet/Russian aircraft and their Western contemporaries, I think the MiG-25 is a very good example of an aircraft that could outperform its western contemporaries at the time when it entered production.

[gf0012-aust]

Just a couple of small points, although I do agree with your analysis in general:

First, the US did take apart Belenko's MiG-25, but they never had the opportunity to fly it. Without actually flight testing it and the radar, they had to trust Belenko's word for its capability. You cannot look at an aircraft and its parts and say what it can do with any real accuracy. I am not saying Belenko was wrong or lied about its performance, just that the fact that the US had their hands on the aircraft for a short while counts very little when it comes to the performance of its airframe or systems. What you can, however, learn very quickly when you take something like that apart, is what the state of Soviet aerospace technology was at the time.

Regardless of whether or not the MiG-25 could intercept a SR-71, it is an extremely capable high-speed interceptor. As an example, it could actually reach its maximum speed with a full missile load, since the max speed was not a thrust limit but an airframe limit. Compare this to most Western aircraft of today, where the max speed dramatically starts dropping when you add ordinance. So, regardless of whether or not the MiG-25 could successfully intercept an SR-71, or whether they used valves instead of transistors in its avionics (I note the MiG-31 is much more modern in that regard) it is still an aircraft which, especially performance wise, was an incredible feat of engineering at that time. In the context of the current thread, where people were discussing the relative qualities of Soviet/Russian aircraft and their Western contemporaries, I think the MiG-25 is a very good example of an aircraft that could outperform its western contemporaries at the time when it entered production.

The use of belyenkos mig for aircraft handling assessment wasn't available due to the time frame - but they could make some significant extrapolations from the core data.

The US did have a Mig-25 in their Red Hat squadron. There has never been any acknowledgement as to where it came from. (The gen public only knew about the Mig 21 Red Hats when one arrived unannounced on a truck as a present for the Smithsonian)

I agree with the fact that the west had no equivalence, and have no issue about its capability.

My object point however was the notion that the 31 was the reason as to why SR-71's stopped Soviet ferret runs (it didn't as it didn't exist at the time that the SR-71 stopped those missions, and in fact didn't appear for another 5 years). And the fact that 25's sent up were logged and are present as evidence of historical documents.

The salient point here is that the detection capability of the russian radar systems at that time, the availability and capability of both aircraft and missile systems meant that even volley shots failed against intercepting the Sr-71.

The same techniqe was tried in reverse by the israelis when they tried to get Phantoms to volley intercept Mig-25's. The maths didn't work out for them even thought they had very good early warning and radar capability. They couldn't time the intercept even when they tried to have aircraft already on hi-cap.

As for the Mig31, that rate of climb should make it a missile - not an aircraft. ;)

The reality is that the maths fails. Radar Sensory footprint, missile parameters, vollied shots, aircraft reaction times and endurance all made intercepts unsuccessful. For the Sr-71, at 85,000+ feet and Mach 3, the combination of assets that the Soviets had at the time were unsuitable to do the job.

Any other aircraft would have been dead meat.

The other issue that gets ignored is that 1 satellite yielded more useful data in one pass than a short squadron of Sr-71's. The aircraft were pulled not because of risk (although the Soviets were getting better) - it was because the quality of data was more volumous and beneficial using sats.

I have no difficulty in agreeing that the 25-31's were serious kit - but as for their impact on the Sr-71's? Thats an innaccurate rewrite of history which fails basic forensics.

[Oryx]

The use of belyenkos mig for aircraft handling assessment wasn't available due to the time frame - but they could make some significant extrapolations from the core data.


Not extrapolations in regard to performance. BTW, handling is something different - it refers to the flying qualities of an aircraft. It includes things such as how the airplane responds to a stick input, stability, stick forces, what the ride qualities are at low level or how difficult it is to land in a cross wind. It is quite different from performance which has to do with how fast you can go, how quickly you can climb or turn, etc. When you do analysis or flight testing, you usually separate the two fields. I apologize for this little off-topic note, but as I am very much involved with flying qualities flight testing, it is an important distinction to me.

Getting back to performance: Did they run the engine on a test bench? How could they then know the thrust available? And even if they did, it would have been only static thrust, still without knowing what installation losses there would have been on the MiG-25 and how the engine would perform at speed and altitude. From just measuring the aircraft it is impossible (especially at that time) to accurately predict the drag. Did the Japanese allow them facilities to weigh the aircraft (with and without fuel)? Without those three parameters, as the absolute minimum, and all three of them at that, there is no useful performance calculations that can be made. In fact, using pictures or photographs would give you about the same information as having your hands on the aircraft for a short time, without being allowed to fly it.

What Belenko told them would have been much, much more accurate than what they could have learned out of taking it apart. I assume there may have been some question around Belenko's character at the time as he had just committed high treason, but since his objective was to hurt the country he had sworn allegiance to, I think in regard to aircraft performance hes assessments were probably quite accurate and accepted as such.

Note my comments here only pertains to performance and handling, which includes the performance of the radar - as I mentioned in the previous post there is a lot of other useful information you can get by taking the aircraft apart.


My object point however was the notion that the 31 was the reason as to why SR-71's stopped Soviet ferret runs (it didn't as it didn't exist at the time that the SR-71 stopped those missions, and in fact didn't appear for another 5 years). And the fact that 25's sent up were logged and are present as evidence of historical documents.


Once again, as I said in the previous post, I do not disagree with the points around the SR-71 and your general assessment at all. I was speaking in the context of the main point that the thread had developed into, namely the relative quality of Soviet/Russian aircraft. I also included the part about Belenko's aircraft just to point out that in some areas, such as performance, the actual aircraft was less useful than what the man himself had to say.

[gf0012-aust]

Once again, as I said in the previous post, I do not disagree with the points around the SR-71 and your general assessment at all. I was speaking in the context of the main point that the thread had developed into, namely the relative quality of Soviet/Russian aircraft. I also included the part about Belenko's aircraft just to point out that in some areas, such as performance, the actual aircraft was less useful than what the man himself had to say.

I guess there are multiple considerations here.

1) Belenko's debriefing was obviously invaluable
2) The deconstruction of the aircraft destroyed a lot of the USAFs own assumptions about the capability of the aircraft
3) They did have an indication of what the engine capability was as they discussed the maintanence cycles.

The transcripts of Belenkos debriefings are quiote interesting. eg he indicated that the Mig25 in real terms could not get to Mach 2.8, and most of the time it was mach 2.6. They had general orders not to go past 2.6 as the jets would "overspeed" (??) (i assume that means enter a "runaway" stage. The record breaking attempts were done by lighweight versions gutted of everything non essential. He was surprised to find out in later years that the Mach3.2 of the Sr-71 was genuine - a standard mission configured aircraft.

The other thing which I forgot to correct on the prev posters comments about the 25 was that it was designed to deal with the A-12, not the SR-71. The Sr-71 was larger, and had a 90% reduction in radar footprint, so it was much harder to initially detect. That meant reduced reation times.

[Alex Y]

During the war between Israel ang Egypt none of the five MiG-25's were hit. Actually there was no combat loses of 25's during its history. So we can se, that soviets have built plane that can unpunishedly fly over the enemy teritory, just like Sr-71, but in the same time it is an armed fighter, not a defenceless recon plane. Becides MiG-25 can fly eaven higher than Sr-71. It has a world record of altitude for planes - 37 km.
And further talking about the great soviet planes, we sould mention YaK-41 Freestyle, the first supersonic STOLV. Actually F-35 reminds me (and not only me) a stealty-looking YaK-41.
Soviet Tu-144 was the first supersonic airliner, that taked its flight and entered the service.

[Oryx]

I guess there are multiple considerations here...
snipped excellent summary


I completely agree with your summary. My argument was with some of the finer technical details, but they certainly don't change your main points. I could maybe add one small thing - it is probably possible to work out an intercept profile by a MiG-25 on a SR-71 that will, in ideal circumstances, just allow the pilot to get a missile off within the missiles envelope. But in practice it would be impossible for all practical purposes and I am very sceptical of any claims to the contrary.

You mentioned the "overspeed" comment by Belenko. It is a long time since I read his book (in fact, I seem to recall a claim about Mach 3 flight - versus 2.8 - that he said was unlikely - but my memory is probably letting me down.)
I think his "overspeed" comment meant the aircrafts Mach limit in general rather than "overspeed" in the sense of the speed running away. There are various reasons why Mach limits exist, but the most common are material limitations because of kinetic heating, or the capacity of the environmental control systems to keep the avionics and pilot cool. There may also be issues with engine operation at very high Mach numbers, often also influenced by what goes on in the inlet. On the other hand, limits on high dynamic pressure, which usually limits an aircrafts maximum speed at sea level, is usually due to issues such as flutter or other aeroelastic effects.

The situation is a little different with every individual aircraft type, so there may be some other things at play in the MiG-25 that I am unaware off. Maybe one of the other posters here is more familiar with specific technical issues around MiG-25 operation and limitations?

[gf0012-aust]

During the war between Israel ang Egypt none of the five MiG-25's were hit. Actually there was no combat loses of 25's during its history. So we can se, that soviets have built plane that can unpunishedly fly over the enemy teritory, just like Sr-71, but in the same time it is an armed fighter, not a defenceless recon plane. Becides MiG-25 can fly eaven higher than Sr-71. It has a world record of altitude for planes - 37 km.

There were no combat losses of Sr-71's either - and they flew over the Soviet Union, so whats your point?

You do realise that Oxcart was the armed smaller CIA owned cousin of the SR-71?

You do realise that Oxcart never got shot down over hostile territory either

btw, lets be accurate when quoting stats - otherwise people will question motive:

The highest altitude obtained by a manned air-breathing jet propelled aircraft following an uncontrolled ballistic trajectory is 37,650m (123,523 feet) set by Alexandr Fedotov, in a Mikoyan Gurevitch E-266M (MiG-25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-25)M), on 31st August 1977.

Having the record just because you act like an artillery shell isn't a demonstration of managed aerodynamics, especially when the engines were shot to pieces from overheating when it landed.

The highest altitude obtained by a manned air-breathing jet propelled aircraft in controlled horizontal flight is 25,929m (85,069 feet) set by Robert C. Helt and Larry A. Elliott, in a Lockheed SR-71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71), on 27th/28th July 1976.

What the point if you can't do sustained flight because the engines aren't up to it? They could do a max of 2 minutes at altitude. Whats the point if your endurance is 1/5th of the aircraft you're trying to catch and you can't outrun let alone out reach it?

90% of the toal hours of the SR-71's were at Mach 3+ It holds the record for sustained flight at Mach 3 on all mission profiles.

Note the dates:

"High Flight"
Altitude in Horizontal Flight: 85,135, SR-71A.
World Absolute and World Class Altitude Record for Horizontal Flight - 85,135 feet,
surpassing the previous record of 80,257 feet set by a Lockheed YF12A in June 1965.
SR-71 flown by Capt Robert C. Helt, Pilot and Major Larry A. Elliott, RSO.

"Fast Flight"
Speed Over a Straight Course (15-25km): 2,193.167 mph SR-71A.
World Absolute and World Class Speed Record over a 15/25 Kilometer Straight Course - 2,193.167 MPH
surpassing the previous record set by a Lockheed YF12A Interceptor prototype in June 1965.
SR-71 Flown by Capt. Eldon W. Joersz, Pilot and Major George T. Morgan Jr., RSO

"Desert Trek" (Two Records Set)
Speed Over a Closed Course (1000km): 2,092 MPH
World Absolute Closed Circuit Speed Record over a 1000 Kilometer Course 2,092 MPH,
surpassing the previous Absolute Speed Record of 1853 MPH and the World Class Speed Record of 1815 MPH set by a Russian Mig-25 Foxbat in October, 1967.
SR-71 flown by Major Adolphus H. Bledsoe, Jr., Pilot and Major John T. Fuller, RSO.

[Alex Y]

Sr-71 flight over Soviet union until the MiG-25 arrived :D And the MiG-25 is the most high-altitude jet plane. uncontrolled uh... Ofcource americans want to call it uncontrolled :D

[gf0012-aust]

Sr-71 flight over Soviet union until the MiG-25 arrived :D

No, you're incorrect.

The SR-71 did run overflights over the SU when the Mig 25 was in production. It ceased overflights 5 years before the release of the Mig 31.

BTW, if you ever get to germany you should visit the Sissheim Museum. Both the Tu-144 and Concorde are on display.

There's a Mig 21 and 23 on the static display as well as F104 and Fiat GR.91.

When I was in the US earlier this year I visited the Smithsonian. The SR-71 is much more imposing in real life. Not too many planes look malevolent when in a static display - the Habu does.

[gf0012-aust]

Sr-71 flight over Soviet union until the MiG-25 arrived :D And the MiG-25 is the most high-altitude jet plane. uncontrolled uh... Ofcource americans want to call it uncontrolled :D

No, the International Federation calls it a ballistic flight because it is uncontrolled. It's akin to an artillery shot.

Its got nothing to do with the americans (who btw hold every other world aviation record)

[Alex Y]

There were flights along the SU boarder, not over its teritory. And Sr-71 looks that just beacouse it is designed only for one purpose - speed. And MiG-25 is an interceptor - fighter first off all that carries armaments and is able to intercept Sr. Becides the International Federation was not so independent that time, and the SU didnt talked much about its military

[gf0012-aust]

The Becides the International Federation was not so independent that time, and the SU didnt talked much about its military

Nope. Considering that there were Russians on the Board, I'm not sure why you'd say that.

The Soviets were always submitting E series aircraft for international competition. They believed it was one way to demonstrate technological superiority

For over 15 years the US would send up the Sr-71 and break the record every time the Soviets won it. It demonstrated that each time they won they were holding back the capability of the aircraft ;)

The reason why the Mig25 was a fighter was to kill the Sr-71 (not the XB-70 as commonly promoted).

Bottom line - it didn't do it.

If the Americans wanted to send over a fighter in contested airspace they would have used the A-12. Oh yes, I forgot. They did.

You're confusing aircraft requirements with air speed records.

The Mig 25 was an astounding plane when you consider that the workmanship was a bit ordinary - it could have been a whole lot better of attention had been paid to fit and finish. (If you don;t believe me go and have a look at equivalent Soviet/Russian aircraft of the Mig21, 23-27, Su-7, Su-15. They're a horribly put together piece of work, badly fitting panels, exposed rivet joints, pitot tubes that wwere finished off with a grinder, wheel bays that didn't secure properly etc....

I've seen them close up in poland, east germany and india. There's no comparison to quality control.

Hopefully they've learnt their lessons and the Pak-FA will be better.

[Oryx]

No, the International Federation calls it a ballistic flight because it is uncontrolled. It's akin to an artillery shot.

Its got nothing to do with the americans (who btw hold every other world aviation record)

Zoom climbs is the standard way in which absolute aircraft altitude records are set, regardless of how useful it is from a combat perspective. The previous poster was quite correct in that the E-266M holds the absolute altitude record. It also still holds six other FAI records. Fact is, there is still no Western aircraft equipped with an air breathing engine that can get to that altitude, even in a zoom climb.

And to bring it back to combat applicability - zoom climbs have actually been used in intercept profiles. The idea is to zoom the aircraft up to an altitude consdiderably in excess of its service ceiling, and then launch a missile during the time spent at that altitude. This profile was tested and practiced both East and West of the iron curtain.

Your second point about the Americans holding every other aviation record is not quite true, unless you were talking only about absolute records which only consist of a very small number of categories. You will find a host of records still held by Soviet/Russian aircraft on the FAI website:

http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/
The aircraft in question include the E-266M, AN-225 (admittedly Ukrainian), P-42, TU-114, IL-18, AN-22 and others.

[gf0012-aust]

Unless you were talking only about absolute records which only consist of a very small number of categories

Yes, my bad, I was talking about absolutes. It was in reference to the deviation in topic in why I hold majority responsibility for disrupting ;)

[Oryx]

Yes, my bad, I was talking about absolutes. It was in reference to the deviation in topic in why I hold majority responsibility for disrupting ;)

I suspected that, so I edited my post to be a little less harsh...

Over the years I have worked a little both with the Americans (did my Ph.D. there) and the Russians, and I must say I have great respect for both sides. In this thread I thought some statements were made about Soviet engineering that was very undeserved. The philosophies are often a little different, but both industries were extremely capable, particularly during the cold war period, and produced awesome (as much as I hate that word) products. That mix in world aviation records demonstrate that both sides were capable of occasionally getting a small advantage over the other, just to be outdone a little later on.

[gf0012-aust]

In this thread I thought some statements were made about Soviet engineering that was very undeserved. The philosophies are often a little different, but both industries were extremely capable, particularly during the cold war period, and produced awesome (as much as I hate that word) products. That mix in world aviation records demonstrate that both sides were capable of occasionally getting a small advantage over the other, just to be outdone a little later on.

Well, I guess my comments could be seen in a less than charitable light.

But, it was based on aircraft I've been exposed to. Plus the fact that one of my jobs in Govt after the cold war was interviewing russian and ex warpac personnel who wanted to emigrate to Australia and/or Canada. I went through quite a period interviewing ex Soviet aviation and armour mechanics who had bolted from the warzone and sought assistance to get out.

I don't dismiss Russian capability, but you've got to admit yourself having been in the industry that Soviet attention to detail, fit and finish in their aircraft was borderline awful.

Some of those pilots deserved medals for getting in their planes.

One of the underated countries for aviation advances are the english. If you see some of the designs that they had under development and then had them canned by Sandys due to a belief that all future fights would be missileers only....

[Oryx]

I don't dismiss Russian capability, but you've got to admit yourself having been in the industry that Soviet attention to detail, fit and finish in their aircraft was borderline awful.

Some of those pilots deserved medals for getting in their planes.


Actually, although in this instance I cannot go into details, my experience with them was very positive - the exact opposite of what I expected. I have seen some shoddy worksmanship on a few aircraft in museums, very often in the sheet metal work, but in general they seemed to be quite selective on what tolerances they allowed where. You would often see what looks like very bad worksmanship on one area, but very tight manufacturing on another. I have not seen much that really looked dangerous, although I have heard some hairy stories...


One of the underated countries for aviation advances are the english. If you see some of the designs that they had under development and then had them canned by Sandys due to a belief that all future fights would be missileers only....

Agreed. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to judge how good something would have worked in practice that looked good on paper or prototype form. Yet, the English have been very innovative in the past and it would have been very interesting to see what they could have done without all the political interference.

[Waylander]

Luftwaffe Mig-29's and Romanian Mig-21 Lancers have held there own against other NATO fighters in simulated combat.


Just to add one thing.
The German MiGs only hold their own when they trained dogfights. And I think nobody ever criticised the excellent capabilities of the MiGs there.

But when used in a training which includes BVR engagements they had more than just a few problems to stay in the air until they could strike back...

[KGB]

There's a wiki report that an F15 was downed by a Mig25 on the first day of Gulf war 1. Not bad for a supposed dud design.

[gf0012-aust]

There's a wiki report that an F15 was downed by a Mig25 on the first day of Gulf war 1. Not bad for a supposed dud design.


Thats why you shouldn't trust Wiki. It was a Hornet.

[robsta83]

Thats why you shouldn't trust Wiki. It was a Hornet.

"This was quickly achieved, and for the duration of the war, Coalition aircraft could operate largely unchallenged. Despite Iraq’s better-than-expected anti-aircraft capabilities, only one coalition aircraft, an FA-18 flown by LCDR Scott Speicher, was lost in the opening day of the war."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war

Well one part got it right ;)

[Rossiman]

All this talk about Russian fighters being superior! Can you tell me of a single engagement / conflict / war since WWII where Russian fighters have had the edge over Western fighters? I can’t think of a single encounter.

Arab – Israeli conflict – NO
Korean War - NO
Vietnam War - NO
Gulf War I & II – NO
Balkans conflict - NO

Secondly if Russian fighters are so good why is it we are seeing more and more former Eastern Block countries seeking to buy Western designs (Gripen, Typhoon)?

Exactly it's all in there minds.

[XaNDeR]

US lost their fair share of aircraft during Vietnam and Korean war , Id expect someone like rick to know that already , and I didn't realize Russians fought the Gulf war and Balkan conflict lol.
With that beeing said US pilots had a amazing training during cold war and there is no question they were better trained , but I don't agree with the post above.

[riksavage]

My comments were not specific to individual losses, more aimed at the bigger picture where we have witnessed airforces equiped with Western technology Vs. Russian technology. For this reason I stand by my statement.

The use of 'single engagement' was a poor choice of words.

[funtz]

My comments were not specific to individual losses, more aimed at the bigger picture where we have witnessed air forces equipped with Western technology Vs. Russian technology. For this reason I stand by my statement.

The use of 'single engagement' was a poor choice of words.


What has combat got to do anything with this?
There are other factors, (such as numbers, training, force multipliers, weapons, electronic warfare etc. etc.) to consider in a combat.

The point is they have been involved in the so called generations of combat jet manufacturing and have come out with decent products that suited the doctrine of the soviets Air Force.

[Preceptor]

What has combat got to do anything with this?
There are other factors, (such as numbers, training, force multipliers, weapons, electronic warfare etc. etc.) to consider in a combat.

The point is they have been involved in the so called generations of combat jet manufacturing and have come out with decent products that suited the doctrine of the soviets Air Force.

I believe what was referred was actual combat performance determining what aircraft or aircraft origin was "best".

I would strongly urge such comparisons to cease and desist. As has been observed before, there is an underwhelming amount of factual (accurate as opposed to publicly declared or released) information regarding air platform performance. Also, such claims often overstate the level of importance the platform plays in air combat and discounts other factors that make up the rest of the system, like experience, training, situational awareness, etc.

If the discussion to be returned to that of the PAK-FA and what is known, believed or wondering about it that would be to the good. If on the other hand the discussion continues in the vein of "my country's X is better than your country's y" then this thread will be closed, as nationalism and egocentric claims have no place here.

-Preceptor

[funtz]

The Hindu
Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007

An ambitious Russia-India fighter plane project

Yury Zaitsev

On November 15, officials of Russia’s Sukhoi Military Aviation Complex and representatives of the Indian Defence Ministry held a round of talks on developing a fifth-generation fighter.

On October 18, President Vladimir Putin told a news conference that Moscow would develop such warplanes by 2015. Earlier, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov had said a prototype fifth-generation fighter would perform its maiden flight in 2009, and that serial production would start in early 2010. But most experts were not so optimistic and predicted that the first warplane in this category would not appear before 2012-2014 — which was more in line with Mr. Putin’s statement.

Russia has so far failed to master production of the purely experimental Su-37, built by Sukhoi at its own expense. But the layout of the aircraft makes it possible to streamline various engineering solutions under the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (PAK FA) programme.

Expensive project

The U.S. and Europe spent over $20 billion on the F-35 JSF programme. Therefore, experts believe Russia should team up with a foreign partner to develop a fifth-generation fighter. It will take $600 million to $800 million to design the engine, the most expensive element, and $1.5 billion to launch serial production.

Russia and India began negotiations on the joint fifth-generation fighter programme in 2003. New Delhi insisted that the new aircraft be developed from scratch. Moscow was not very happy about this because it implied another expensive project. There have been some outstanding achievements, but bilateral military-technical cooperation has been marked by major setbacks and even conflicts. And this explains why it took India so long to get involved in the new fighter programme.

The fifth-generation fighter must retain in-flight stability and control at 90-degree-plus angles of attack. The U.S., which faced similar problems, eventually preferred Stealth characteristics and supersonic cruise speeds to super-agility.

This Russian plane features AL-37-FU engines with round rotatable nozzles and can attain supersonic cruise speeds. Its combat efficiency has been enhanced because the Su-27 can bank sharply at high angular speeds and along short trajectories in every plane.

In addition, the fifth-generation fighter will be fitted with advanced avionics, long-range weapons and other radio-electronic equipment to hit any conceivable target. The Indian electronics industry will provide an invaluable contribution to developing automated electronic counter-measures (ECM) systems, secure data-exchange networks and fire-control systems for long-range tactical missions. — RIA Novosti

http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/21/stories/2007112156131300.htm


So now Mr. Putin is quoting a 2015 deadline.

It will be interesting to follow the development of this aircraft :D

Judging by other recent projects i can see a lot of doomsday news clips quoting disasters.

[pankaj]

I believe what was referred was actual combat performance determining what aircraft or aircraft origin was "best".

I would strongly urge such comparisons to cease and desist. As has been observed before, there is an underwhelming amount of factual (accurate as opposed to publicly declared or released) information regarding air platform performance. Also, such claims often overstate the level of importance the platform plays in air combat and discounts other factors that make up the rest of the system, like experience, training, situational awareness, etc.

If the discussion to be returned to that of the PAK-FA and what is known, believed or wondering about it that would be to the good. If on the other hand the discussion continues in the vein of "my country's X is better than your country's y" then this thread will be closed, as nationalism and egocentric claims have no place here.

-Preceptor



Good point Preceptor .

Guys I have joined this forum recently and this is my first post . Just to clarify i have been visiting this forum for quite some time but always as a guest .

I am quite curious about the current state of PAK-FA project . I believe the Indians have agreed to participate in this project.The level of participation is open to question . But i do believe that the indians will be able to contribute handsomely in the software component part.

One thing is for sure any fighter that is developed from now on will have to match against the standard set by F-22 and that will be quite something to achieve . I have always admired the Russians for their basic works in the field of Aerodynamics and the Americans and to a certain extent the Europeans in the field of Avionics.

[nevidimka]

I have a question. Seeing that its a general perception that the Russians would not compromise manouvrebility for stealth, would they n the indians work on Active Radar Cancellation to improve stealth? Will they try to find an alternative way to fool the radar to achive stealth? Also How good is ARC agsint AESA radar's? n how is the french experience in using them?

The russians surely can make use of Indian's big electronics industry to work on the ARC.

[alexsa]

2. Mig-15 Fagot- was many in ways superior to its main rival the F-86 Sabre, its poor combat record against the F-86 was do to ecxellent training and tactics of Americans. As well as poor training amongest Chinese and North Korean Pilots.The better trained and more experienced Russian's did much better against the Americans.



If you are going to make this claimt hen you also ahve to recognise that this aircraft owes much of its ability to the fact the British socialist government in a fit of blind optimisim gave their allies the engine design and a few samples

[Izzy1]

2. Mig-15 Fagot- was many in ways superior to its main rival the F-86 Sabre, its poor combat record against the F-86 was do to ecxellent training and tactics of Americans. As well as poor training amongest Chinese and North Korean Pilots.The better trained and more experienced Russian's did much better against the Americans.

To be fair Lancer1978, the radar guided gunsight of the F-86 surely played a part?

The inexperienced crews mithin the Mig-15s played another.

[locutus]

For over 15 years the US would send up the Sr-71 and break the record every time the Soviets won it. It demonstrated that each time they won they were holding back the capability of the aircraft ;)



I recall reading in a book about the SR-71 an answer the commander at Beale AFB gave when asked what would happen should anyone break the records held by the Blackbird. His response was "We would take one up and step down on the gas a little harder."

These two comments make you wonder just how fast and how high the SR-71 could fly?

[dh19440113]

Absolute Rubbish. The Mig31's were never used to intercept SR-71's - they didn't exist then. The SR-71's were under congressional review in the early 70's. The Mig31 wasn't operational until 1979.


1 SR-71 intecepted by 6 mig-31 on june 3, 1986 over barent sea. Get your facts straight.
Sr-71 didn't totally retire when foxhound came into service. They were still flying.

Admin: Editing your post after a response is a bit cute - especially when your response has nothing to do with the question.

Nobody needs a shopping list of pretend capability and irrelevant comparisons to see that you're not reading the specific claims made.

Respond to the actual claims rather than post irrelevant and unrelated datum not even remotely related to the period discussed

Read the rules about whats acceptable for posting emoticons - this isn't a kids forum.

[robsta83]

1 SR-71 intecepted by 6 mig-31 on june 3, 1986 over barent sea. Get your facts straight. Sr-71 didn't totally retire when foxhound came into service. They were still flying. :mock

Why don't you learn how to read before posting some random bull and insulting a respected member and moderator of the forum. GF stated the US discontinued Soviet Ferret missions, not all missions only that specific type, the idea of the SR-71 totally retiring was invented in your head, so you get it right.

[dh19440113]

Absolute Rubbish. The Mig31's were never used to intercept SR-71's - they didn't exist then. The SR-71's were under congressional review in the early 70's. The Mig31 wasn't operational until 1979.

It was never intercepted at altitude. The SR-71 had a 20,000ft ceiling advantage over the Mig31, and it never encountered Mig31's as it had been pulled for use over Vietnam - Ferret missions over Russia were done by satellites and had been done so some 5 years before the 31 was even operational

Be that as it may the US was still running ferrets right through to the late 70's. Over 90% of their recorded flight time was at Mach 3 sustained. The Mig25's and 31's could not and still cannot sustain mach3 as their engines cannot run protracted mach 3 flight.

In all the time that the A-12's and SR-71's did ferret runs, the soviets tried over 3000 missile intercepts - not one got close, even when they tried to volley the shots.

The reason why SR-71' were pulled was because Satellite mapping was far more robust, covered far more area in the same pass, and was immune to intercept. It was cheaper to run satellites that covered over 400% more area than to run a short squadron of SR-71's.


Satelite is the most valunerable asset of the us military, they can be intercepted if china or russia so wishes.

The mig-31 was used, and did sucessfully intercept sr-71.

I don't have a problem with my response, since rubbish isn't very kind to begin with.

[gf0012-aust]

Satelite is the most valunerable asset of the us military, they can be intercepted if china or russia so wishes.

The mig-31 was used, and did sucessfully intercept sr-71.

I don't have a problem with my response, since rubbish isn't very kind to begin with.


Make the effort to read before responding.

1) The Sr-71 was never intercepted on ferret missions over Russia

2) The Barents Sea is NOT Russia.

3) Ah yes, both Russia and China have made serious attempts to kill US deep space satellites.

Please tell me which ASAT system that Russia demonstrated could do an anti Eyeball or Keyhole Satellite killing in that Cold War period?

Please tell me what Chinese fantasy system is able to undertake anti Eyeball or Keyhole missions now let alone during the Cold War?

Don't use the Chinese own goal LEO shot as an example either, as even the most enthusiastic pro Chinese poster couldn't use that as an example in this debate.

As for your modified post (ie added after your initial response)
Sr-71 didn't totally retire when foxhound came into service. They were still flying.

Make the effort to read and comprehend the post before responding. Sr-71's were pulled from running ferret missions over Russia 5 years before the Foxhound was deployed (and even existed). Note the structure of the statement.