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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo






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.


UHm, there was definitely 200 Mig-31, and at least 150 operational. Your source is simply wrong. Original Mig-29 had too short range to be effectively used for offensive purposes. Some of my numbers are wrong (it was 90 Su-27, not 50 and 500 Mig-29 not 1000) but the result is the same - those modern russian planes would be dramatically outnumbered by NATO counterparts 1:5 (Su-27 vs F-15) and 1:2-3 (Mig-29 VS F-16 and Mirages - counting allies too). Look at this link for complete info about USSR strength, it looks like their main fighter force consisted of Mig-23, and seriously those were not big threat to modern western fighters.




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.



Surely, just because F-14 and F-18 are carrier based they cannot operate from airfields if necessary
.




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."


No they didn't outnumber the 10 to 1, not even 2:1. Just look at the link I provided. And American plus NATO F-16 plus some F-18 not needed on carriers could definitely total 2000. And what about hundreds of French Mirages? Those were very good planes, slightly better than F-16. USSR allies air forces were neglible, certainly not better than those of American allies from NATO.


[edit on 29-7-2006 by longbow]




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
[edit on 29-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Sorry mods, double post. Got rid of the first one's text.


Originally posted by longbow
UHm, there was definitely 200 Mig-31, and at least 150 operational. Your source is simply wrong. Original Mig-29 had too short range to be effectively used for offensive purposes. Some of my numbers are wrong (it was 90 Su-27, not 50 and 500 Mig-29 not 1000) but the result is the same - those modern russian planes would be dramatically outnumbered by NATO counterparts 1:5 (Su-27 vs F-15) and 1:2-3 (Mig-29 VS F-16 and Mirages - counting allies too). Look at this link for complete info about USSR strength, it looks like their main fighter force consisted of Mig-23, and seriously those were not big threat to modern western fighters.


Well, that supports our conclusions even more then, if there were indeed that many MiG-31s.



Surely, just because F-14 and F-18 are carrier based they cannot operate from airfields if necessary
.


Again, you have no understanding of the scenario. Stripping the carriers of their fighters when facing long-range bomber threats as well as incredible naval power is a very stupid idea indeed. And in case you're thinking of it, ship-based air defenses would be insufficient in massed missile attacks and if that wasn't bad enough, you have submarines lurking around. You gotta think tactically here. Think. If they ended up using F-14s and F/A-18s on the land, it would've been because the GIUK Gap was secured, a highly unlikely scenario.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Stripping the carriers of their fighters when facing long-range bomber threats as well as incredible naval power is a very stupid idea indeed.

Incredible naval power? Russian? Their surface Navy would be toast in minutes and carrier fighters are no help against submarines, nor can they shoot down supersonic antiship cruise misilles... The only problem would be long range bombers but those subsonic USSR strategic bombers with high RCS were nothing special in early 80ties, certainly they were not designed to attack carriers. Leave half of F-14 for CBG defense, the rest anti sumbmarine aircrafts and helicopters.

Besides there was more naval planes than carriers capacities and not all carriers are constantly operational - those remaing planes could be used for air war in Europe or over Alaska.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
The only problem would be long range bombers but those subsonic USSR strategic bombers with high RCS were nothing special in early 80ties, certainly they were not designed to attack carriers.


What was the objective of the Soviet Navy?

A: Sink carriers

or

B: Cut the link between America and Europe


Now, you don't have to attack carriers to achieve B, convoys will do, and Badgers are more than fit to attack to do that while the Backfires entertain the carriers.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Original Mig-29 had too short range to be effectively used for offensive purposes.


Why?

There are all sorts of offensive missions for instance:

Offensive counter-air
SEAD
CAS
Interdiction
Strikes


You are saying the range is too short for longer strike/interdiction missions, and you'd be right, but for the other 3 the range is fine. Indeed, there is a school of thought that the MiG-29 would actually have been more effective than the Su-27 in a European war.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Actually, I wouldn't put both of these in the same boat. Apart from some similar design cues, they don't really have much in common. A better pairing would be the T-4 and the B-58, based on size and mission profile. The XB-70 would compete with the Tu-160 quite well for similar reasons.
Something I wish to see would be the SR-71 vs. the Tsybin RSR.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Wow i never though i would see the day when the idea of placing navy aircraft in airforce roles. AF would have a fit.

Mig 29 is one of the most capable platforms out there... still. And now with the new Su-30+ family, they have alot greater capablilites. You must remeber that the USSR was the other side of the Cold War and had great capabilites and potential. They also have the advatage of being closer to mobilize then the US would... just my two cents



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wardog108
Mig 29 is one of the most capable platforms out there... still.


But in 80ties before upgrades it was just single purpose short range fighter, although good, especially in dogfight.



You must remeber that the USSR was the other side of the Cold War and had great capabilites and potential. They also have the advatage of being closer to mobilize then the US would... just my two cents


Aircrafts are easier to move than armies, and we were discussing air war. USSR would probably win ground war, certainly they would be able to break through NATO defenses pretty far.




[edit on 31-7-2006 by longbow]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Aircrafts are easier to move than armies, and we were discussing air war. USSR would probably win ground war, certainly they would be able to break through NATO defenses pretty far.




[edit on 31-7-2006 by longbow]


As much as I despise Tom Clancy, he did demonstrate in Red Storm Rising that modern air power can only dominate in the abscence of an opposing modern air force.

That is certainly not the case in 1980s Central Europe. NATO air power would not dominate the battlefield, as they'd be facing a modern air threat that also has advantage in numbers.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
As much as I despise Tom Clancy, he did demonstrate in Red Storm Rising that modern air power can only dominate in the abscence of an opposing modern air force.

That is certainly not the case in 1980s Central Europe. NATO air power would not dominate the battlefield, as they'd be facing a modern air threat that also has advantage in numbers.



Yup - he pulled the F-19 out of his arse to save the day basically. The F-117 would never have been able to remove AWACs from the sky. GCI perhaps, but unlikely with the undoubted high number of SAMs located around them.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yup - he pulled the F-19 out of his arse to save the day basically. The F-117 would never have been able to remove AWACs from the sky. GCI perhaps, but unlikely with the undoubted high number of SAMs located around them.



Well, he didn't necessarily pull it out of his arse. At the time many believed the "stealth fighter" would be capable of air-to-air combat.

Despite that, Clancy also demonstrates that stealth aircraft are not necessarily safe either. Many of the F-19As are lost in combat.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier

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]


So you basically agree with me that the ACTIVE should not be compared with the MKI, which WAS meant and went into production, IS supermaneuverable and IS an airshow performer. If you quote me, please try to catch the essence of the quote.
I agree to the last part of your post, indeed nobody was soothed with the ACTIVE.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
F-15: Mig 27
B-52: TU-95
B-1: TU-160
SU-25: A-10

Tim

[edit on 1-8-2006 by ghost]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Surely you mean Su-27 Tim? MiG 27 is more comparable with the Jaguar.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Surely you mean Su-27 Tim? MiG 27 is more comparable with the Jaguar.


No, actually I meant MIG 29! The SU-27 is more of an air defense aircraft, making it comprable to the F-14.

Sorry about the typo!

Tim



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Urr, I think you really meant Su-27, which is an air-superiority fighter, just like the F-15 (and in the same class too
)
F-14 is tied better with the MiG-31
The MiG-29 was designed as an answer to the F-16/F-18 and although somewhat bigger, it is closer to them in size and capabilities than to the F-15

And again, "comparison" implies saying which one you think is better, not just listing aircraft (randomly in your case)

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Pazo]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo

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 attempt 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 nozzles 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?


I don't understand your anger about my post, this was not a competition or an statement. I was just pointing out similar designs on both ends. As I explained the MIG-23 and the F-14 comparison referred to the use of variable wing geometry and the SU-30MK and the F-15-ACTIVE as modifications of an existing frame (the same modifications I might add, vector propulsion, canards...), whether they became active is irrelevant, is not the point



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
No anger mate,
But browno's opening statement was that when USA comes up with something and the Russians copy it, so when you mentioned MiG-23 & F-14 that was about as much as I would stand silent. I thought you meant the MiG-23 was influenced by the F-14 when everybody knows it flew first.
It's the same feeling I get when people call the Tu-144 "Konkordskii", when in fact the Tu-144 flew first, was much faster and considerably larger. The only reason it was grounded sooner is because there were not enough paying customers to go from Moscow to Ulan-Udet, than there were to go from London & Paris to NY.
You see, I'm touchy on such subjects so sorry for my hostile reply



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join