Mig 29s-Su-27s third world wonder toys

A little correction:

Lavi was scrached in the late 80's early 90's due to pressure from their main weapons supllier. It seems that upgraded version will shortly make a debut in Iran (min. 24 ordered) and Pakistan ( 24+ oredered) under guise of Chinese J-10 fighter.

 

Thanks for that... My mistake.

I always find it interesting who and how the IMI and Israel sells
to.

 

US, Britain (and other Typhoon customers), and possibly France have deliberately gone for systems that are far more capable than the Russians' - perhaps Australia should be doing the same after all - you've a big sky to take care of down there.

 

Indeed we do.

Which is why we should not spread ourselves thin.

 

... Is it better to have more 2nd rate planes or fewer 1st rate planes - now there's a debate ...

 

The old balance of quantity and quality...


Basically it is a balancing act between how inferior the quality of the quantity is...

I'd rather have 100 F-35s than 10,000 Sopwith Camels, but I'd rather have 1,000 Typhoons (Eurofighter) than 100 F-35s.

 

Actualy Russian fighters got some disadvantages. One is usualy shirter range (Mig- 29 and Su-27) ,shortther life of engines,and bigger fuel consumption overall, but generaly they r shurely not inferior to any Western made aircraft,for much lower price.Australia is not israel,(in size ovkors) and u cant compare them in Air demands. Australia shure need more planes then Israel,but if i must pick hat plane to use,il go for Mig-31, interceptor,with decent range,powerfull radar,excelent combat load, in combination with Mig-29 and Su-27 (or the new generations of SU fighters) as air superiority units.

And Edit about that F-117 shooted down in Serbia. Notthing was accidently as u say,and TISO is right that hes detected by old P-18 radar with longer wave amplitude. Only problem,why serbia did not shoot more Airplanes was that we did not had any ....not close to modern AA systems. Goa has extremly short range and NATO usualy flow in higher altitudes, and only way to get lock was to go straight over the AA. We killed goliat with sling shoot and that is enought. Our army played hide and seek by using a decoys and models (NATO claimed that he destroyed 35% of Serbian army capacity,but true was that Army capacity was not even a scratched,but Civilian objects,industry,infrastructure impact was enormous.In case of Ground assault,Serbian army was fully prepare to defend efectly , NATO did not had good cards there,as US had in Iraq (Serbia is moustly hill/mountains country with high tree coverage) so Apache,warthog,etc,cant be used good,and below acceptable losses ( we did not had any good long range AA,but we did had enough portable SA-16 Gimlet,and older Strela 1M,with tons of AA flak weapons) ,allso Country not suitable for Intensive armor use (except on north) and with good anty armor system "Bumbar" (just type bumbar in google),winter in few month ,bad weather to use UAV-s and otther spy systems,etc,etc,etc....Nato casulties probably above aceptable.

 

"any" - do you really beleve that ?

 

The comparasion I made between Australia and Israel is not based on Geography but about limited man power and having to make every aircraft count. We like Israel have no defence in depth, once our front line air assets are gone, we have nothing. Israel has no territory, more fighters. We have a lot fo territory but minimal fighters. That was the comparison.

The Mig - 31....No. Why would we go to something like the Mig - 31, when we have a more capable F/A-18.

The range thing is not that much an issue as far as modern fighters are concerned, our bases are far forward up North within strinking distance of any potential foes. PLUS we have an airbase in Butterworth, Malaysia.

The intial point I was making is that we are slowly and painfully updating our fighter assets with expensive and few fighters compared to our neighbours who are buying alot of cheaper and arguably as nimble fighters. The Mig -29 and Su-27 are dog figters, versatile point defence and strike capable fighters.

The F-35 is an expensive air superiority fighter, that is also considered to be very versatile. How agile is it as a dog fighter ?

The Mig -31 is an archaic interceptor designed to intercept the B-70 super sonic bomber and other cold war High Altitude bomers. It was made obsolete by more capable SAMs. Now the Mig - 31 like the Mig - 25 is used as a recon air craft and I am sure on a rainy day in desperation it would be used as a fighter. Why would we want to use them ? as a missile plat form ?

In any case in regards to the NATO-Serbia thing. Serbia succumbed. Case closed.

Kym

 

well, we weren't exactly evenly matched...

 

Another mismatch, of course, was Serbia/Kosovo.

 

definitely. oh well, you use whatever advantages you have.

NATO his us in our weak spot, and didn't even attempt a ground campaign, which could have spiraled into a situation not unlike the one in Iraq. better to stand off and use superior air power against which we had almost no adequate defenses. hell, it's just sensible thinking

 

Or Serbia-Bosnia...

Besides its not a sporting contest, its conflict when is anything evenly matched in the real world.

Kym

 

The old Wargames mentality where everyone must have an equal and balanced base of forces...

Can't recall that the Serbian security efforts in Kosovo exactly were supposed to be an even handed affair either. IIRC NATO or EU (I confess my ignorance in this matter) troops still police Kosovo on the ground anyway so it's not exactly fair to suggest that the nations concerned were afraid to put their soldier's feet in the mud.

 

My point was only that Serbia was quite happy with a succession of mismatches as long as they were in their favour.

 

Indeed.

 

It is a strike fighter, hence the name ''JSF'' on the program, designed for the air-to-ground role primarily. Any of the new fighters, Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen, and a few of the old ones are more agile.

I wouldn't underestimate the MiG-31, it is a bit more than an upgraded MiG-25. It is an excellent long-range heavy interceptor, but as you write yourself:

The range thing is not that much an issue as far as modern fighters are concerned, our bases are far forward up North within strinking distance of any potential foes. PLUS we have an airbase in Butterworth, Malaysia.

The Russians on the other hand need long-range interceptors because of their geography.

 

@Robinson: very true. now, Serbia-Bosnia wasn't exactly 'even', nor was Serbia-Kosovo... but Serbia-NATO was worse. way worse than that. what i meant to say originally, is that it's no wonder we surrendered, being faced with the military resources of the western world (well, a good chunk of the western world).


@Simonr1978: I'm not suggesting that NATO was afraid of, or reluctant to send in the soldiers. it's just that the operation relied on a massive bombing campaign, not ground troops (something i should have mentioned earlier, i admit).

i think we can agree that every nation would be happy with that

 

Russian Frontal Aviation still operate the Mig 31 in the interceptor fighter role ?

I know they use the Mig 25 for recon-high altitude bomber, phot survey and joy flights. BUT no longer an interceptor.

 

If the answer is yes to "could the US B-52s or B-1Bs infiltrate Russia from the north or is there a danger where US submarines might launch cruise missiles from the north Atlantic" then they're still in the service.