Syrian Mig Purchase.

[MikeyD]

The problem with the little bombs is many (most?) of them do not detonate on impact. Eventually the population returns to their homes, and...

I heard Lebanon had to pick up some outrageous number of unexploded bomblets after the residents returned. Like a half million or something like that? Hezbollah lead the cleanup effort ahead of the government, if memory serves.

[flamingknives]

The proportion of little bombs that do not go off isn't much different to the proportion of big bombs that go off. The cluster bomb means that an attack on an armoured column can involve a single aircraft, a few bombs and a reasonable effectiveness. Doing the same thing with big bombs?

The large number of duds in the Lebanon was due, AFAICT, to the Israeli use of old and unreliable systems in a somewhat spiteful attempt to sow a de facto minefield across Southern Lebanon. Somewhat ironic as the Israeli weapons manufacturers make the most reliable bomblets out there.

Modern, western clusterbombs have something like a 2% dud rate. Somewhat better than Russian weapons or obsolescent weapons used by second and third rate powers.

But, as with all things, it is how the owners use them that is the key.

[Redwolf]

The MIG-31 is really the same thing as the MIG-25, except they still make parts for it. This upgrade does not represent a substantial change in Syrian defense potential.

[tiny_tanker]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Remember that in the Iraq war a single Mig-31 (Mig-25?) made it to Saudi Arabia and back on one very high speed mission. The goal I think was to demo their ability to deliver NBC materials. So, keep that in mind. The flight was a success, btw, but they had no ordinance.

Had to have been a Mig-25, since no one but Mother Russia had the 31 at the time. There was a story of a Mig-25 trying to make a gun run on a predator UAV very early in the war, but it just happened to be a test bed for carrying stinger AAM's facing rearwards to defeat such a threat. I can only imagine that the pilot **** himself when he saw those missiles streaking back his way, they both missed unfortunately but the Mig broke contact and ran.

[Ivan Drago]

I think the real important issue people are overlooking here is that Mr. Putin can now buy himself another high-priced datcha as a sort of retirement present to himself...capitalism is great, shame the Russians didn't pick up on it before the CCCP collapsed

[flamingknives]

A MiG 25 making a gun-run? Scarcely credible, as it doesn't have a gun or the agility to use one. Making a high-speed pass, perhaps.

[unsobill]

keep dreaming in your fantasy world where sun always shine and ballistic rockets gets intercepted LMAO face reality - MIG and SU is most advance planes in the world today - theres no analogs or ANYTHING that comes close to it. thats why just the fact that Syria bought those makes you uncomfortable...

as for SU there's nothing on the planet that can stop it

[ June 28, 2007, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: unsobill ]

[tiny_tanker]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

A MiG 25 making a gun-run? Scarcely credible, as it doesn't have a gun or the agility to use one. Making a high-speed pass, perhaps.

Ah yes, you are correct, had to have been a Mig-23, its been a while since I heard the story and I've slept a few times in between.

It will be interesting to see how long the Mig-31's last in Syrian hands. They'll have fun with their new toys for a while until they break. I must admit I'd rather fly around in a brand new Mig-31 than in an old Mig-25 or Mig-29 that hardly fly's anymore. Maybe they intend to use them as a mini AWACS. They might live slightly longer in a conflict in that role.

[Redwolf]

The Iraqi MIG-25 were all reconnaissance versions, as are the Syrian ones. Of course they fly over their brother countries all the time. It's the point.

There is a story that an Iraqi MIG-25 shot down a U.S. F/A-18 in 1991. This is not true according to official records, however it shows the one use a plane like this could have against U.S. planes: making an attack that is so fast that U.S. planes cannot be massed against it and that the target cannot evade into friendly cover. It is highly questionable, however, whether the MIG's radar and the radar in the missiles would work against U.S. electronic countermeasures. Difficult in 1991, more difficult in 2007.

In any case, as has been pointed out, this is a pure high-speed high-altitude interceptor that has no capabilities for dogfighting whatsoever.

What Syria wants here is a fast and high reconnaissance platform to take a look at things that are guarded by superior air forces.

[unsobill]

Soviet Air is most superior on the planet - its even so good that many capitalists copying it for their army's - VTOL F35 was copied from 20 years old Yak141 - who are you trying to fool here - even if you keep repeating that F's is better then Mig it doesn't change the numbers F-15's that were downed by MIG's in cosovo conflict and even more F's in Vietnam war... its NOT about planes its about quality of pilot, i repeat.

2 Ivan Drago - stop trying to discredit Putin - his approval ratings in 80's percents - he's doing quite good without dachas and moneys rebuilding the country that were robbed in 90's... give him third term and you see ;D

is the video just for you comrade

[JonS]

Originally posted by AdamL:

Remember that in the Iraq war a single Mig-31 (Mig-25?) made it to Saudi Arabia and back on one very high speed mission. The goal I think was to demo their ability to deliver NBC materials. So, keep that in mind. The flight was a success, btw, but they had no ordinance.

If by "the Iraq war" you mean the one in 1990-91, it would seem this recollection is a bit mangled.

Page 263-266, The General’s War (Gordon & Trainor):

By late January, the Iraqi’s were in a fix. The Scuds they had fired at Israel had failed to provoke an Israeli attack. A few Allied warplanes had been downed and their pilots captured, but the losses were not nearly large enough to provoke a public reaction against the war. The Allies had begun to pound the Iraqi warplanes that had taken refuge in their hardened shelters, slowly decimating the Iraqi air force. Worse, there was no ground war in sight.

With its back against the wall, the Iraqi air force gambled by launching a potential headline-making attack against Saudi Arabia to make the costs of war visible to King Fahd. The January 24 raid had all the earmarks of a well-planned operation, including a deceptioin plan aimed at spoofing the American AWACS planes that monitored airspace in southern Iraq from the point of takeoff. The operation began when tweo Iraqi aerial refueling tankers left the Shuaiba airfield in southern Iraq and flew southeast to Tallil, where they met up with four Mirage F-1s. The aircraft flew together. But as the formation turned north, two of the Mirages broke away and followed an exiting American strike package, flying 10,000 feet below the Americans at their dead six o’clock. It was evident that the Iraqis had closely studied the American exit routes and were trying to make it look as if they were friendly planes returning from an attack in Iraq.

What the Iraqis could not have hoped to count on was the problem the Air Force and Navy would have in operating together. To protect its Persian Gulf fleet, the Navy kept aloft a Navy E-2C Hawkeye radar surveillance plane. Also scanning the skies was the USS Bunker Hill, a $1 billion Aegis air defense cruiser equipped with an array of sophisticated radars, stationed in the northern part of the Gulf. Any potential intruder over Gulf waters would be intercepted by a Navy combat air patrol, which flew twenty-four hours a day. To the west the Air Force maintained a similar vigil, using its AWACS to monitor the air picture while American and Saudi planes guarded the airspace over eastern Saudi Arabia.

Well before the Gulf crisis, it had been decided that there would be occasions when the Air Force and Navy surveillance planes would need to share their tracking data. A secure communications channel, called Link 11, had been developed so that thje computers on the two aircraft could talk to each other. But on January 24, Link 11 was out of order. The E-2C and the AWACS commanders could still communicate with each other by voice, but that was not an ideal arrangement, particularly for a situation in which an intruder could cross from the Navy to the Air Force sector at low altitude.

When the Mirages were over Bubiyan Island, the E-2C asked the AWACS whether it saw the potential bogies, military-speak for enemy planes. The AWACS was confused. It saw the returning American strike package flying at medium altitude but could not see the lower-flying intruders. There were miscues between the E-2C and the Bunker Hill as well. The air defense officers on Bunker Hill initially found it difficult to believe that the Iraqi air force was launching a desperation strike at the Americans. Its crew initially assumed the two blips on the radar screen behind the strike package were Navy jets. When the two planes broke away from the strike package and set a course due south, the Bunker Hill became alarmed. The planes were declared to be “unknown, but presumed hostile.”

The Navy was in a jam. Its combat air patrol consisted of Navy F-14 Tomcats and Marine FA-18 Hornets, sophisticated aircraft with well-trained crews that would be more than a match for the Iraqis. But the patrol was not in a good position to intercept the Iraqis. The Mirages had already flown under the patrol, which was circling over Bubiyan Island. It would not be possible for the Tomcats or the Hornets to intercept a receding Mirage flying at more than 500 knots. The Iraqis were splitting the seam fo the Air Force and Navy defenses, flying along the fringes of the E-2C and AWACS radar coverage.

The Navy sent out an urgent call to the AWACS. Some way or other, the AWACS would have to orchestrate the defense, using whatever interceptors it could muster.

The AWACS, however, had its own set of problems. No Air Force planes had been scrambled to challenge the intruders. The only planes at the AWACS’s disposal were four Saudi F-15s, which had recently relieved the Air Force patrol over eastern Saudi Arabia. Saudi pilots were American-trained and by third would standards highly proficient, but they were still regarded somewhat patronizingly by the Americans. The coordination between the two air forces was not always what it could have been, and the Iraqi gambit put them both to a real test. For any air force, it would have been a tough intercept. The Saudis would be racing to cut off the Mirages to their east. The first two Saudi F-15s overshot the projected Iraqi flight path. That left two Saudi F-15s between the Iraqi Mirages and coalition targets to the south. The American Hawk missile sites near Al Jubail were alerted. If the coalition could not stop the Iraqis in the air, it would have to try to shoot them down from the ground.

The remaining Saudi planes, flown by Capt. Ayedy Al-Shamrani and his wingman, also overshot the Iraqis but managed to recover. As the chase proceeded, the wingman began to run out of fuel, pulled his nose up, and lofted a radar-guided Sparrow missile before giving up the hunt and returning to base. The Iraqi planes were well out of range of the Sparrow, but the missile firing spooked the Navy. Watching the radar-scope, the Navy could only conclude that the Mirages had fired Exocet anti-ship missiles and went to general quarters.

Al-Shamrani continued to pursue the Mirages, which jinked left to get away from the F-15 and dropped what appeared to be their fuel tanks to lighten their load. About forty miles north of Al Jubail, Al-Shamrani fired a Sparrow, but he, too, was out of range. The Saudi pilot continued to close on the Mirages and fired his last two missiles, two heat-seeking Sidewinders. Both Mirages were destroyed, and Al-Shamrani landed at Dhahran air base on fumes.

After the war, American officials retrieved documents from Tallil that appeared to describe the strike. The plan described in the documents was to hit the Saudi oil complexes at Abqaiq and Ras Tannurah, which could have resulted in major damage to the Saudi oil infrastructure, as well as representing a political coup for the Iraqi military.

After the episode, accounts circulated in the Western press that the Navy CAP (Combat Air Patrol) was restrained from attacking the Mirages so that the Saudis could get their first air-to-air kill. It was a distorted and ungenerous account of the episode, but a convenient one for the American military. With the Mirage attack, the Iraqis had come far closer to striking the heart of the Saudi oil network than CENTCOM ever acknowledged.

But foiling the attack marked the end of a chapter. The Iraqi air threat was finally neutralized. Iraq was running out of tricks. The next day, the Iraqis released millions of gallons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf. But even that did not provoke much of a response. On January 27, two F-111Fs from Taif used their precision-guided bombs to shut down the pipeline and stop the flow of crude to the sea from the Al Ahmadi refinery.

With air superiority, the Pentagon was confident. Speaking before the Pentagon press in late January, Powell described the goal this way: “Our strategy to go after this army is very, very simple. First we are going to cut it off. And then we are going to kill it.” But that did not mean that Washington was in any hurry to get on with the land war.

By the end of January, the Iraqis had concluded that if they wanted to strike at the alliance and provoke the long-awaited ground war, they would have to do so on the ground.

[segue to The Mother of All Battles]

Mirage, not Mig. Two, not one. Oil installations, not NBC demonstration. And they didn't make it back.

Regards

Jon

Edit: Incidentally, as of next year the 1991 liberation of Kuwait will be as far in the past as the withdrawal from Vietnam was during Op Desert Sheild.

[ June 28, 2007, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Ivan Drago]

Originally posted by unsobill:

is the video just for you comrade

ROFL, that's actually funny...in a retarded way. But after drinking a few bottles of Baltika you really kinda appreciate the idea of Putin singing about maintaining power indefinitely...

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[FAI]

Originally posted by unsobill:

Soviet Air is most superior on the planet - its even so good that many capitalists copying it for their army's - VTOL F35 was copied from 20 years old Yak141 - who are you trying to fool here - even if you keep repeating that F's is better then Mig it doesn't change the numbers F-15's that were downed by MIG's in cosovo conflict and even more F's in Vietnam war... its NOT about planes its about quality of pilot, i repeat.

What downed F-15s?

[John Kettler]

Where to begin?

While the MiG-31 does share a basic airframe with the MiG-25, the two aircraft are not the same at all. The MiG-25 was intended for supersonic head-on engagement of B-70s and similar, using AAMs designed for that environment. The MiG-31, by contrast, was reengined for lower level, slower speed, extended duration ops against low flying bombers and cruise missiles over the polar cap and similar, preferably before bombers could launch ALCMs. To do this, it was equipped with AWG-9 and Phoenix equivalent weapon systems. Has a WSO, too, I believe and is able to operate as a miniAWACS via datalinks to a cluster of lesser fighters. Either aircraft can be fitted with a gun pod.

Anyone who thinks the Russians do nothing but copy is severely delusional. We've spent billions dealing with the AAM threat on the Su-27 and MiG-29, starting with the revolutionary off boresight AA-14? ARCHER and its helmet mounted sight. And don't forget the integrated deadly accurate IRST/LRF cannon system. MOAB's "waffle" guidance fins are based on Russian aerodynamic discoveries first seen on the AA-10? ALAMO. Belenko's FOXBAT had frequencies we'd never detected and an entire J-band radar system we didn't even know existed. Oh, it was inherently EMP hard by virtue of "primitive"

vacuum tubes and had such enormous power it could burn through our jamming. The FOXBAT flew so high and fast that it took the Israelis a lot of work and special tactics (timed GCI directed zoom climb) to have a prayer of hitting one with a Sparrow, despite the FOXBAT's lack of maneuverability. Engines were vastly more powerful than what the West imagined, but then, the engineers here weren't expecting a mostly steel plane.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Peter Cairns]

The Mig-31 is a good high speed interceptor, and a look down radar makes it effective as a quick response to cruise missiles, which can often come in too low and fast for even a dense SAM network to track and kill.

It is as John says also potentailly a cheap mans AWACs, using it's altitude speed and radar to feed information to other assets, be they fighters or ground defences.

I could certainly see Syria use them from deep in the country to provide early warning , staying high enough and far enough back to avoid F-15's and then running if it looked like they'd be engaged.

Potentially as it flies twice as high as an AWACs a Mig-31 could see Sea level a lot further off. As such it is far less vulnerable than ground based radars.

It might also be able to warn other aircraft of interception allowing them to abort a mission rather than get chewed up.

Finally it is also capable of doing fast high runs parrallel to a border from it's own airspace allowing close to real time intelegence, which is handy if you can't afford anything in orbit.

None of which makes it anywhere near US or Israeli capabilities.

Peter.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by unsobill:

keep dreaming in your fantasy world where sun always shine and ballistic rockets gets intercepted LMAO face reality - MIG and SU is most advance planes in the world today - theres no analogs or ANYTHING that comes close to it. thats why just the fact that Syria bought those makes you uncomfortable...

as for SU there's nothing on the planet that can stop it

Are you high?

[Moronic Max]

On nationalism, perhaps.

Most potent drug in the world, don'cha know.

[unsobill]

Originally posted by Splinty:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by unsobill:

keep dreaming in your fantasy world where sun always shine and ballistic rockets gets intercepted LMAO face reality - MIG and SU is most advance planes in the world today - theres no analogs or ANYTHING that comes close to it. thats why just the fact that Syria bought those makes you uncomfortable...

as for SU there's nothing on the planet that can stop it

Are you high? </font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by unsobill:

Soviet Air is most superior on the planet - its even so good that many capitalists copying it for their army's - VTOL F35 was copied from 20 years old Yak141 - who are you trying to fool here - even if you keep repeating that F's is better then Mig it doesn't change the numbers F-15's that were downed by MIG's in cosovo conflict and even more F's in Vietnam war... its NOT about planes its about quality of pilot, i repeat.

Make up your mind, old bean. If it's about the pilots, then why would any material superiority matter?

AIUI, the thrust vectoring nozzle on the F-35B is similar to the mechanism used on the Yak 141. The rest of the VTOL system is different and every other system and the design methodology is different.

Is a simple mechanism proof of Russian aeronautical supremacy?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by unsobill:

Soviet Air is most superior on the planet - its even so good that many capitalists copying it for their army's - VTOL F35 was copied from 20 years old Yak141 - who are you trying to fool here - even if you keep repeating that F's is better then Mig it doesn't change the numbers F-15's that were downed by MIG's in cosovo conflict and even more F's in Vietnam war... its NOT about planes its about quality of pilot, i repeat.

What downed F-15s? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

I have a detailed breakdown of every USAF manned aircraft from 1990-2002. A total of 17 were lost, ZERO due to enemy aircraft. In fact, the Yugoslav airforce lost 9 planes shot down and Iraq lost 39 (GW1), so the kill ratio is 48:0 in favor of the USAF.

Three planes were lost during the Bosnian/Kosovo conflicts:

F-16c -> lost to SA-6 on 2 June, 1995

F-117 -> lost to SA-3 on 27 March, 1999

F-16CG -> lost to SA-3 on 2 May, 1999

How do those losses stack up to operational flights? From the report I'm citing from:

Given the number of sorties flown, the number of aircraft lost is miniscule. For example, during Operation DESERT STORM against Iraq in 1991, the USAF lost a total of 14 aircraft after flying more than 29,300 combat sorties, or .048 percent. This was against an enemy with 16,000 SAMs, 7,000 antiaircraft guns, and 750 combat aircraft. During Operation ALLIED FORCE against Serbia in 1999, the USAF lost one F-16 after more than 4,500 F-16 sorties, or .02 percent.

0.02% Loss Rate... yeah, the USAF might as well shut itself down. That's a TERRIBLE record.

Interestingly enough, yesterday I heard a synopsis of an annual survey of what the world thinks about various things domestic and international. There were plenty of tidbits in there, but two things are relevant to this discussion.

Despite the fact that nearly every "developed" country in the world now has an unfavorable view of the United States (Africa still likes us for some reason!), every single country in the world has a HIGHLY favorable view of the US technology. Well, except for one country. Yes, one country in the whole world thinks the US technology isn't very good. Wanna guess what country that is? Russia, of course

The other interesting one is that President Bush has universally horrible popularity numbers world wide. The world's view of him as a leader just about matches the domestic opinion of him. In other words, nobody in the world thinks that Bush is doing a good job. Putin, on the other hand, is universally thought of as being just as bad as Bush everywhere on the planet except... Russia, where his numbers are in the high 80% approval rating as opposed to the 20-30% range for the rest of the world.

So either Russia is right and the rest of the world is wrong about technology and Putin, or Russia might want to take a harder look at its belief system.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The report I cited is available on the Internet (don't remember where I got it from)

USAF MANNED AIRCRAFT COMBAT LOSSES 1990-2002

Dr. Daniel L. Haulman

Air Force Historical Research Agency

9 December 2002

It's a 16 page summary of all losses and the context in which they were lost.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for the info, Steve. I was pretty sure there hadn't been any US Air-to-Air losses in the last few decades, but I wasn't 100% sure.

There's no doubt that the MiG-29 is an excellent airframe, and that it has some impressive capabilities and weapons systems attached. But it, like the F-15, is also an airframe that is decades old. Considering it first entered service 7 years after the F-15, it *should* be a little better -- the MiG-29 is the last of its generation -- the last of the the big, flashy, unstealthy, high-speed cold war air supremacy interceptors. If it's turning and burning you're after, it's hard to beat the Mig-29.

But the cutting edge in air superiority has now shifted to stealthy, first-look, first kill systems like the F-22. Compared to the F-22, both the F-15 and the Mig-29 are about as stealthy as a schoolbus. It's not long before both of them will be relegated to secondary, linebacker duties. I'm sure the Russians are hard at work at something to counter the F-22. What that is/will be, those of us without security clearances will have to wait and see. . .

Cheers,

YD

[flamingknives]

I think that you'll find that the Typhoon is the last flashy, unstealthy, cold war air supremacy interceptor. The MiG-29 isn't big, and nor is the Typhoon. SU-27 series is big - comparable to the F15.

the MiG-29 and the Typhoon are more comparable size-wise to the F18, but performace closing on the F15/F18 super