Military AviationA forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.
Whenever new Russian or Chinese aircraft are commented on in our press or by military experts, they are generally described as being less advanced and less capable than their western counterparts. Is this factual, or militarily or commercial biased?
I remember going to one of the first Farnborough shows after the Russians began to open up their world outlook. It was fascinating to get a close up look at some of their offerings, which looked somewhat agricultural in construction by comparison with US or European fighters. But they were built like brick out-houses and may have been very rugged and effective.
I am not technically adept, so I am unable to draw my own objective comparisons, but I have a healthy scepticism about appraisals of equipment from competitors.
So are the Russians way behind, in line with, or just different from the West? They are certainly cheaper, so perhaps you get what you pay for?
Not a simple question to answer. There are disadvantages and advantages to both The West, and to Russia in their solutions.
1/ Cheaper aircraft mean you can afford to purchase more of them. More of anything is generally a good thing.
2/ The more complex an aircraft the more expensive it is and often it is less reliable than simple aircraft.
3/ The older an aircraft model, e,g. the Tornado, the better it is in some ways. All the kinks have been worked out of it and it now works as it should have done all along. Unfortunately the design is now out of date and there are more modern aircraft on the market
4/ The more expensive an aircraft, the better it should be at picking up an opponent, avoiding detection. The more likely it is to achieve its aim initially. The problem is, if it makes it back home it is liable to require more maintenance than a simpler aircraft prior to being able to fly again.
5/ Complexity can be overwhelmed by numbers. There is no point having 100 hugely fantastic aircraft with a kill ratio of 1 to 10, when the opponent have 10,000 aircraft.
6/ An overly complex aircraft reliant upon computers to fly will not be very good when the computers that help fly the aircraft go wrong.
7/ An overly complex aircraft may kill every opponent it sees, with a capability of shooting down 144 aircraft at the same time, but if it only carries two missiles, all that technology is not much help.
8/ Spending huge amounts of money making an aircraft hard to see electronically can be extremely problematic when the opponent spend relatively little money finding another frequency that the aircraft can be picked up on. Whoops! You suddenly have an aircraft that is easy to see, which has design limitations on how well it flies, as it has compromises on how well it flies due to being hard to see (originally).
Designing an aircraft is very much a case of compromises; what compromises are you willing to accept to meet your requirements?
we no longer have enough troops secure all the POW's we would take
I know, I know, but that's not the only problem. Since we have got rid of all those military bases we don't have anywhere to keep all those prisoners we are bound to capture.
Putin says Russia to get hundreds of military planes | Reuters
Count me sceptical. Two points: (i) the Russians seem to have taken lessons in creative announcing from the Blair and Brown; (ii) spooling up the Sukhoi and MiG factories and the supply chains - even under United Aircraft - is going to take some real time and a large pile of dosh. If it does happen, I can't see it before 2025.
They surely can not be as incompetent as MOD Abbey Wood. I also do not call Ј459.4 billion/ $720 billion a small amount of money. In the UK we could get at least two aircraft carriers with two aircraft for each one.
I suspect your proposed date of 2025 is going to be more realistic.
If they and the Chinese work together they will be unstoppable. We may have won the first Cold War, but I wonder who will win the next! Our future will depend on the US, also to a degree who India sides with. If India joins the otherside its game over!
I have often wondered, when the war starts, how long our aircraft supply will last. Even with excellent performance on the part of crews, it should not take too long for a larger enemy to destroy 100 - 150 Typhoons, be they on the ground or in the air. I do not believe we are in a position to escalate production in the same way as fighter production in WW2, especially given the complexity of the aircraft today. Therefore, the argument about quantity over quality is certainly a strong one, unless the aircraft chosen is the modern equivalent of the Boulton-Paul Defiant or the Fairey Battle.
The UK, IMHO, is busting itself to afford two capabilities that are to my mind unnecessary. Namely aircraft carriers and the JSF. I believe acquisition of these will actually set our defence back decades because they are either the wrong answer to the right question, or vice versa.
Preparation for the defence of the UK should concentrate on adequate numbers of capable assets, be that Typhoon, Mirage or even a Saab, local maritime patrol and protection by the RAF and the RN and research/development of excellent defensive technology such as advanced radar, missiles, UAVs, cyber-type weaponry etc.
So Russian Air Force claiming its 100th anniversary!
That would make them the oldest air force in the world, and I thought it was the RAF...wait a minute...Russian Air Force
Simple vs. complex has been an issue for sometime between the western philosophies of aircraft design that is also needed to have a 20 or 30+ service life.
As for the Russians or Chinese their biggest issue has been around systems design, development and integration for these aircraft and not aerodynamic. Unfortunately as the west has transferred its manufactory capability to China including advanced computer manufacturing, this will not be the limiting factor anymore, as I am sure the Chinese are very adept at copying these technologies and transferring them for other uses.
In the end it will be a numbers game of who can shoot down the most aircraft by any means possible to gain air superiorly over the battlefield.
Now the big worry is that the Russians and Chinese are not as politically restricted to whom they will sell their weapons technology to, unlike the west that is restricted for one reason or another, including to other friendly partners.
dermedicus........"I have often wondered, when the war starts, how long our aircraft supply will last. Even with excellent performance on the part of crews, it should not take too long for a larger enemy to destroy 100 - 150 Typhoons, be they on the ground or in the air. I do not believe we are in a position to escalate production in the same way as fighter production in WW2, especially given the complexity of the aircraft today"
The most intelligent/thought provoking post to date. Imagine a three year conflict with another European country (fill in the blanks ------) Could our manufacturing industries produce the a/c? Back in WWII Spit/Hurricane pilots had at the most a week or two 10/15 hours on type. When all the first line pilots from our Squadrons have been depleted, how long would it take to train new pilots without any experience, or build new a/c of the computer flying a/c of today?
As a last ditch, to this scenario I would imagine the Government would revert to older designs, yes the Spit for example sporting some modern a/a technology on her wings and a shorter type rating for the pilots, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a/a heat seeking don't work too well on props. I would consider this as a 'last ditch' before the subs launched the Big Sun, with the approval of the US, Dave can't 'PRESS' it without Obama ok. What a waste of tax payers money. It's like a Xmas present without the batteries.
I have had doubts about the RAF doctrine of a very few, sophisticated and expensive fighters to do everything. I tend to the view that a bottom up structure works best ie a sound numerical base of capable, adaptable, affordable and reliable 'workhorses' to perform the vast majority of tasks the air force has to do, with a pinnacle of fewer, complex and very capable fighters to do the seriously clever stuff necessary against a very-well equipped opponent.
We are now unlikely to ever to take on the very big boys on our own, so the fights we pick ourselves would most likely be better executed by our 2nd tier fighters. If a very big boy picks on us, well we just have to hope they are sufficiently deterred by our nasty, big black boats, or we have a bigger friend to back us up.
Being not just a sceptic, but an old sceptic, I do wonder about how much you can rely on computer simulations of just how few of your super fighters you need to defeat umpteen multiples of the bad guy's planes.
Wasn't it meant to be one of the very bad guys who was accredited with the concept of quantity having a quality of its own?
I saw this item from Dave Majumdar, in the Dew Line this morning. It partly addresses questions from my post above (#2) in that it appears that the quality of finish on Russia's latest offerings may still lag behind. Production of stealth fighters might therefore be a problem for them.
In Russia successfully completed the first phase of testing multipurpose fighter 5 generations
Smart, fast, unobtrusive. Experts today announced the end of an important phase of testing the latest multi-purpose fighter of the 5th generation. On the basic parameters of the T-50 is much greater than their foreign counterparts.
Smart, fast, unobtrusive. Experts today announced the end of an important phase of testing the latest multi-purpose fighter of the 5th generation. On the basic parameters of the T-50 is much greater than their foreign counterparts.
First impression: the planes do not fly they can not. But when at the helm of a supernova fighter T-50 experienced pilots perform aerobatics, it becomes clear: there can, how.
Modern combat vehicles will never be the same. Now this is a fighter and attack aircraft and bombers, which can carry out any task. In the sky plane of the fifth generation. It means he's "invisible" (that is invisible to enemy radar), it means that the fastest (top speed of more than 2,500 kilometers per hour), then with artificial intelligence (he thinks and makes operations, which previously had to be take care of the pilot).
"That is, the pilot took off, threw the pen, not even including the automatic mode - the plane still will not go down, the plane smoothly switches to horizontal flight. Though the aircraft tail will start to fall down, the pilot will warn about it," - said the test pilot hero Sergei Bogdan.
And even if something happens to the pilot during the task, the fighter can independently go back to the base and even to land. This airplane pilots generally provide much "on a silver platter." For example, an automatic target recognition.
Boarding fighter - like a living organism. It reacts to everything that is happening around, thanks to a special transceiver elements. They literally sewn into the body of a fighter. It is also called "smart paneling."
Before the advent of the T-50 the most advanced aircraft of the fifth generation was considered an American F-22 Raptor. But the Russian fighter today passes him on several parameters: it can reach speeds of 500 kilometers per hour more he easier, and can fly further. But the main thing, of course, is hidden inside.
Within a few years of secret tests of PAK FA (promising aviation complex tactical aircraft, so this is called a fighting machine) has completed more than 500 missions. Constructors sum up the first phase of testing and is safe to say, the normal flight.
"We were hoping, of course, get a degree, and I believe that with this task in the first stage we managed. According to a number of characteristics we got better results than expected to get the start. For example, we received a very good performance at a supersonic cruise speed, by super-maneuverability, "- said the first deputy director of the Research Design and Research Center, deputy chief designer of" Sukhoi "Mikhail Sagittarius.
All this is largely due to the design: a small tail, the absence of angles between the surfaces. A weapon will place in the inner compartments: the so air resistance during maneuvers less, and find the plane for a special coating difficult.
"We got the opportunity to respond to any threat that may arise from our potential adversaries. In the world today are complexes of the fifth generation in the United States. Our complex is in no way would be to give in, and will be superior to their foreign counterparts. This gives us confidence in the future" - said the president of JSC "United Aircraft Corporation" Mikhail Pogosyan.
Cabin one to one, as the T-50 at a special center pilots undergo additional training before they get behind the wheel of the new fighter. Even the system of catapults and chairs - a science. Pilot weight, speed - all this allows the computer and allows you to safely evacuate the pilot.
The test is held for 4 handsome T-50. By the end of the year will experience another one. By 2015, the plan to put into production.
Quick...we had better disband some more Squadrons!!