It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cold War Comparisons

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Anyone up for a thread about Cold War Comparisons?

When NATO came up with a project, The Warsaw Pact came up with somthing the same.

Rockwell Space Shuttle-Shuttle Buran

XB-70 Valkyrie-Sukhoi T4 Sotka

Concorde-Tupolev-TU144

SR-71 Blackbird-Mig 25 Foxbat

F-15 Eagle-Sukhoi 27

Any More?




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Harrier - YAK38 Forger (appropriate name, or what.....)



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
F-14, MIG-23 both featured variable wing geometry
and how about F-15 ACTIVE - SU 30MKI



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I don't think I'd put the SR-71 and the MiG-25 in the same bucket. Totally different roles and tasking.

F-16/F-18 and MiG-29 are similar concepts as well, although the Hornet was designed for ground attack, something that the F-16 and MiG-29 grew into.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
At what point do you think it would have been possible for the Warsaw Pact to win an air war against NATO? This is an aircraft thread, so I'm trying to stick to that.

My own speculation is that the combined air forces of the Warsaw Pact might have been capable of defeating the western air arms by no later than 1984.

My reasoning comes in two parts, and it has to do with the decline of the Soviet Union.

The case can be made that Soviet aviation is at the height of its power in the 1970's. Starting in 1980, there is a noticeable decline. This comes inspite of advantces like the Backfire bomber and the MiG 29.

Secondly, the rise of Mikail Gorbachev signalled an end to the hard-line attitude that would have motivated the Warsaw Pact to actually make war.

Declining readiness after 1984 made the Soviet air forces in to a paper tiger. If they had fought it out with NATO after 1984, they may have lost the air campaign.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
here's one.
Northrop A-9A (YA-10 competitor) and the Sukhoi SU-25 Frogfoot.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by 140th CES]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
another:
General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark and Sukhoi SU-24 Fencer



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
F-86,,MIG-15/17
F-100,,MIG-19
F-104,,MIG-21
B-1,,TU-160
B-47,,TU-16
B-52,,Mya-4
A-10,,SU-25
F-18,,MIG-29
........
This is oooold topic, soooooo old!



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
convair B-58 Hustler and the Myasishchev M-50 Bounder



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Okay, then. I'll assume that no answer means no takers.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by carcharodon
F-14, MIG-23 both featured variable wing geometry
and how about F-15 ACTIVE - SU 30MKI


Small correction, MiG-23 flew before F-14.
And you really don't want to compare the ACTIVE to the MKI. The MKI is a proven production aircraft while the ACTIVE is a half hearted attemt at soothing the public's anxiety by showing them a piece of ugly, not working crap and saying " Look, we can also put canards and moving nozles on a plane... we just couldn't figure out how to do those flips, but that ain't important anyway".

Browno,

Copying goes both ways, and if you want comparisons, at least say which one you think is better. For instance the Space shuttle works, the Buran doesn't.
Harrier-Forger, same.
F-15-Su-27 other way round
Something like that, otherwise I can't see the point of this thread, unless you started it to prove that USA invented the wheel and Russians copied it. Did you?



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The Russian copy of the XB-70 was the Tu-135, not the Sukhoi T-4. Likewise the Russians prepared design clones for the Dornier Do-31 VTOL jet transport and Lockheed S-3 Viking ASW jet (both by Beriev).

There are some fascinating genuine copies if you really look into them, starting with the Tu-4/B-29, but 90% of those mentioned in this thread previously are not copies at all.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
At what point do you think it would have been possible for the Warsaw Pact to win an air war against NATO?


Well...

According to the USAF, they [NATO] would have lasted an estimated 3 weeks against the Warsaw Pact forces. Hence the dawn of the ATF program.


Originally posted by Pazo
Copying goes both ways, and if you want comparisons, at least say which one you think is better. For instance the Space shuttle works, the Buran doesn't.


The Buran did/does work, and flew remotely [something the space shuttle cannot do]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
At what point do you think it would have been possible for the Warsaw Pact to win an air war against NATO?

According to the USAF, they [NATO] would have lasted an estimated 3 weeks against the Warsaw Pact forces. Hence the dawn of the ATF program.


He talked about air war, and NO Warsaw Pact would have no chance. Surely Su-27 were good planes, but they had ONLY 50 of them since 1985 until end of Cold War (1989). That means Russian airforce in 80ties would consists mostly of Mig-29 (less than thousand) - short ranged single purpose planes (at this time). Other thant that it would be mostly Mig-21, 23 and 25 - no match against 500 of F-15, almost 2 thousands of F-16, F-14 and F-18 could be used too, and various other planes , especially French Mirages. The only potent offensive russian airforce would be 200 Mig-31 interceptors and those could be neutralised by F-14. NATO also had better AWACS and bombers. Russians had quality airdefenses but those would be useless in offensive war. The airforces of other Warszaw pact countries were relatively weak - just 100 or so Mig-29 and rest older planes. I really don't see how could they be capable to win airwar.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
He talked about air war, and NO Warsaw Pact would have no chance. Surely Su-27 were good planes, but they had ONLY 50 of them since 1985 until end of Cold War (1989). That means Russian airforce in 80ties would consists mostly of Mig-29 (less than thousand) - short ranged single purpose planes (at this time). Other thant that it would be mostly Mig-21, 23 and 25 - no match against 500 of F-15, almost 2 thousands of F-16, F-14 and F-18 could be used too, and various other planes , especially French Mirages. The only potent offensive russian airforce would be 200 Mig-31 interceptors and those could be neutralised by F-14. NATO also had better AWACS and bombers. Russians had quality airdefenses but those would be useless in offensive war. The airforces of other Warszaw pact countries were relatively weak - just 100 or so Mig-29 and rest older planes. I really don't see how could they be capable to win airwar.


That's a very good version of what NATO would have wanted to have happen and what Tom Clancy could write very well. But, as we all know, reality is reality.

Your entire "analysis" is completely flawed, devoid of any understanding of the actual circumstances faced by NATO, but I let me challenge three specific major points you brought up:



The only potent offensive russian airforce would be 200 Mig-31 interceptors and those could be neutralised by F-14.


This shows a complete lack of knowledge regarding the Soviet Air Force. This is the inventory of fighter aircraft of the VVS by 1987:

2780 fighters
490 MiG-21 Fishbed
1570 MiG-23 Flogger
105 MiG-25 Foxbat
260 Su-15 Flagon
20 Tu-128 Fiddler
20 Yak-28 (Yak-28) Firebar
275 MiG-29 Fulcrum
30 MiG-31 Foxhound
10 Su-27 Flanker

I'm not sure where exactly you got the number 200 from. In case you're wondering, the only other country to ever fly the MiG-31 is Kazakhstan. And the MiG-31 is not the only potent offensive platform, the MiG-29 was almost second-to-none. Factor in training, numbers, and things look very bleak for NATO. That was just an absolutely ignorant statement to make. You've basically created a fantasy scenario, which pretty much renders your opinions invalid.

You also stated F-14s could neutralize the MiG-31s. F-14s would not be operating in Central Europe. Because they are carrier-based, they would be flying BARCAPs and fighter sweeps in the North Atlantic and the GIUK, a long ways away from Central Europe. Before you think about deploying carriers to the Mediterranean Sea, North Sea, and the Baltic Sea, note that those carriers are already extremely vulnerable to submarines and long-range bombers and will be even more vulnerable closer to the Warsaw Pact in the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Mediterranean. Finally, MiG-31s could take out F-14s as well as F-14s could take out MiG-31s.



NATO also had better AWACS and bombers. Russians had quality airdefenses but those would be useless in offensive war.


Its actually the other way around. In Central Europe, the skies would be crowded with so many aircraft that AWACS would literally be overwhelmed by the number of threats. The numerical advantage afforded by the Warsaw Pact would mean AWACS and C4I would have trouble vectoring flights to combat threats of high priority. Factor in tactics (yes, contrary to popular belief, the Soviet military was all about tactics) and NATO has far too much to handle. AWACS would also be high-priority targets for Warsaw Pact forces and many of them would undoubtedly be shot down.

Your second sentence made no sense. You say NATO had better bombers (which is not necessarily true), yet you then say Soviet air defenses would be useless. If NATO has better bombers, then those quality air defenses you speak of would be very useful. I have no idea where you pulled that statement out.

Here's more affirmation. NATO used AirLand Battle as its operational-level strategy in defeating the Warsaw Pact. AirLand uses air power to destroy second-echelon forces, which includes logistics and reserves. These are deep within Warsaw Pact territory, and guess who defends these forces? Air defense is very useful and as a result, and the high-level of risk exposed to the bombers would render NATO bombers almost useless after maybe the first week of war. You also have to factor in the vulnerability of the bombers to the ground invasion.



Other thant that it would be mostly Mig-21, 23 and 25 - no match against 500 of F-15, almost 2 thousands of F-16, F-14 and F-18 could be used too, and various other planes , especially French Mirages.


I don't have the exact figures, but since you can look them up yourself, Warsaw Pact air forces outnumbered NATO air forces 10-1. The sheer numbers alone would've consumed NATO air forces within a short timespan. Again, factor in the ground invasion, just the insane number of hostile forces to defend against would've pushed NATO to a limit no modern armed force can sustain for long periods of time. Your figures on NATO numbers are most definitely wrong, there were not "2 thousands of F-16s, F-14s, and F-18s."

You also forget the most important factor of all: logistics. Contrary to what the propagandists told you, NATO's huge stockpiles of weaponry and supplies were not enough to hold off an invasion of such a magnitude. Even Tom Clancy demonstrated in his novel "Red Storm Rising" that weapon expenditures would be far higher than calculated by DoD and NATO planners. An Air Force veteran named Colonel Buff Fairchild once stated in my presence that the stockpile of AAW missiles would've ran out in about 21 days, the same amount of time kilcoo stated NATO air forces would last. If they were still in the fight, they'd have to "fix bayonets," which in air warfare parlance means gunfighting. When they ran out of bullets, they'd have three options: surrender, fight to the bitter end, or nuke them. Its a moot point, because NATO would most likely have nuked the Warsaw Pact.

Someone once said that the thing that separates the effective armchair generals from the ineffective ones is that the ineffective ones will only speak of how things are supposed to work, what is supposed to happen (basically memorizing the exact words of an advertisement and reciting them), or what is wished to happen. Not trying to be rude, but for the sake of intellectual discussion, I thought that is something worth thinking about when trying to be an effective armchair general. I guess its a plea, I'd like everyone to really study the issue and become experts before making such grand statements. Listen to a wide array of sources and ask a lot of questions. I used to believe NATO could defeat the Warsaw Pact.

I was wrong. Too wrong. I was dreaming.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
At what point do you think it would have been possible for the Warsaw Pact to win an air war against NATO? This is an aircraft thread, so I'm trying to stick to that.

My own speculation is that the combined air forces of the Warsaw Pact might have been capable of defeating the western air arms by no later than 1984.

My reasoning comes in two parts, and it has to do with the decline of the Soviet Union.

The case can be made that Soviet aviation is at the height of its power in the 1970's. Starting in 1980, there is a noticeable decline. This comes inspite of advantces like the Backfire bomber and the MiG 29.

Secondly, the rise of Mikail Gorbachev signalled an end to the hard-line attitude that would have motivated the Warsaw Pact to actually make war.

Declining readiness after 1984 made the Soviet air forces in to a paper tiger. If they had fought it out with NATO after 1984, they may have lost the air campaign.


Sometimes I don't think people give the Soviet military enough credit.

First off, the decline in Soviet military power did not actually start until the actual arms reductions of 1988. The treaty removed huge "bats" from the Warsaw Pact line-up, so to speak, so up until early 1988, the Warsaw Pact was still an overwhelming threat. In addition, the effects of peristroika and glasnost were not felt until around this time, and the Soviet military then began to strain under the constant state of readiness and also by the gaps left by the arms limitations agreements which flooded the Soviet military.

Also, even if your analysis is correct, the nuclear weapons factor pretty much renders it a moot point, as it would've ended in nuclear war even if the Warsaw Pact had defeated NATO. Neither side could afford to let the other attain complete victory.

I think as time goes by and the end of the Cold War becomes more and more ingrained in the history books, we simply have to accept the fact we dodged the biggest bullet of all by having the Cold War stay cold. It is my belief and that of many others in the know that we had no chance against the Warsaw Pact. Even if we did, one way or the other, nuclear weapons would've been used. God would've been the only winner.

"Paper tiger?" As long as it bites, there's no paper involved.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
the ACTIVE is a half hearted attemt at soothing the public's anxiety by showing them a piece of ugly, not working crap and saying " Look, we can also put canards and moving nozles on a plane... we just couldn't figure out how to do those flips, but that ain't important anyway".





The ACTIVE was never meant to go into production and not many know of it's existence in the first place. It probably has one the most, if not the most advanced flight control system in a fighter today. It was original was just used to study a STOL F-15 concept and then NASA took it to further develop TV technology. It's not an airshow performer and it's not meant to be supermanueverable. It's just a testbed.

Nobody's anxiety was soothed as we have the F-22 to do that.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
He talked about air war, and NO Warsaw Pact would have no chance.




Whatever - it was the conclusion of the USAF.




There is alot more to an airwar than just aircraft, you forgot about the SAMs.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
high altitude reconnaissance
U-2S - M-55

AEW/AWACS
A-50U - E-3C

strategic bombers
TU-95H - B-52H

maritime patrol/ASW
IL-38M - P-3C

multi-role fighters/tactical fighter bombers/interdictors
SU-24M/SU-32/34 - TORNADO GR1-4 IDS
SU-30Mk - MIRAGE 2000-5

attack helicopters
MIL MI-28N - AH-64D

transports
AN-12C - C-130J
IL-76MD - C-141 or now C-17
AN-124 - C-5

tankers
IL-78M - KC-135/KC-10A/KDC-10



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Whatever - it was the conclusion of the USAF.


That conclusion is pretty much consistent throughout, although the more accurate conclusion was that the stock of radar-guided AAMs would've run out in three weeks. Even if they had IR-guided AAMs it wouldn't really matter by that point; each fighter would be engaging ten times as many fighters at short range. Not a good way to live.



There is alot more to an airwar than just aircraft, you forgot about the SAMs.


This is what longbow had to say about SAMs:



Russians had quality airdefenses but those would be useless in offensive war.


Not trying to show him up, but pretty damn clueless, huh?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join