Russia Loses the Quantity War

[Matt308]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by The Basket

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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DBII

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]

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]

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

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Kruska

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kruska

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

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]

Originally Posted by The Basket

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]

Originally Posted by Kruska

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

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.