There are posts outside my 'remit' and this is one of them, so I come to learn, not to lecture. If I'm in error, please just set me straight. I have to admit I was in error over the f22 post but the result was a nice learning curve and certain things came out as a result.
Basically, I confused the British situation where the government has consistently underfunded and underequipped the armed forces with the American situation, where the issue is defense contracts and less than 100% technical quality, e.g. the dragon skins.
Anyway, Bob B pointed me in the direction of this youtube below, which compared the F22 with the Russian SU47. The first thing which worried me were the words "a scientific analysis" becasue people who usually trot that expression out are either amateurs or people with a barrow to push who think the word "scientific" is an automatic trump card, which of course is rubbish.
However, the main arguments were that the F22 had four main things going for it - stealth, service altitude, internal weapons capability and supercruise, whereas the SU47 had speed, manoeuvrability [forward pointing wings], range and wing loading.
The arguments then started in the comments section and once we got past the gung-ho stupidity such as, "We Americans will kick your a--e every time, Russkie," and the retort that, "You're talking through your a--e - a good Russian will beat a good American every time for these reasons ... yada, yada" - once we were past that, we got down to the real comparison.
The F22 would not be detected and could fire from 25 miles away, negating any need for manoeuvrability, air to air dogfighting or pilot skill. The sophisiticated technology, as long as it worked and wasn't disabled, can detect and disable ahead of time. That's the F22 line.
The Russian line and one my mate here put forward was that where the Americans favour the all-in-one fighter that can do everything you could think up, the Russians tend to the design of single purpose craft and would not go into this theatre alone - there'd be some Ilyushins sitting back out of the firing line and they'd be doing all the radar and stealth work required. They'd advise the SU47 when to fire and where and the Russian "hive mentality" would come into play. That's the SU47 line.
I'd imagine the same argument would apply to the F15 and Mig 29 or whatever number is a better comparison. There was also a good argument made that the SU47 is not in production anyway and this is in line with the "Concorde" sitting, rusting outside Kazan, Russia and a young man once telling me - our plane is technically superior to the Concorde. True, it doesn't fly but it is technically superior.
My mate says the question is not how the top pilots would fare but how the average pilot would fare. Russians tend to "seat of the pants" flying, with everything manual and therefore non-controlled turning circles etc., whereas the American average pilot is supported by technology and therefore should prevail. An interesting head-to-head.
This tendency of the west and Russia can be seen in cameras, where the west tends to fully automatic, with everything which opens and shuts, whereas the Russian is still using manual aperture and shutter by preference. I'm not Russian but my blog runs this way - the template is a case in point. Still in classic, I do my own html and produce the effect I want, rather than take it off the shelf as a widget.
I really know sweet FA about military and air warfare issues but start with the usual baggage of professional scepticism with which ex civil servants were infused before politicisation began.
ReplyDeleteThis leads to habitual tendencies to assess whether policy claims can withstand comparison with available evidence and analysis, a tendency apt to lead to personally uncomfortable outcomes - such as when being sceptical about the supposed benefits of joining the Eurozone in a government department where that was the approved policy line.
When executions in the Soviet Union for ideological infractions incurred too much international odium, the Soviets switched to diagnosing dissidents as mentally sick and consigned them instead to secure psychiatric hospitals. Naturally, we don't quite do that here.
"the British situation where the government has consistently underfunded and underequipped the armed forces" - James, sorry to contradict, but can the armed forces really be underfunded when £166million is wasted on the Panther Rupert taxi, £100 million on the Pinzguaer Vector, £185 million for six Danish Merlins that require upgrading, £500 million for eight unusable Chinooks,£400 million on aborted studies to develop replacements for the Scorpion family, £314 million on development of the failed Trigat AT missile, unusable UAVs, Nimrod AEW etc? No wonder the UK armed services are underequipped with waste on that scale.
ReplyDeletePilot training is more important than anything. Topgun improved kill-ratios for US pilots in the Vietnam war (where pilots were sometimes Russian) four times, to where the communist simply stopped sending planes up for combat.
ReplyDeleteA plane designed for one use is always going to be better than one that attemps many purposes, all other things being equal. The F-111was McNamara's attempt at charging the windmill. The accountants pencil does not work so well in the draftsmen's hand.
It seems to me that maneuverability is the kind of past virtue that tradition extracts too high a price for. Who in future is going to get inside the blizzard of weapons systems, front and back, to engage in a dogfight?
My old friend from the 8th Air Force was a lifer mechanic. He met and married his wife in England during the war. Lester told me, about 1948 or 49, while still in England, they used to run mock dogfight exercises to get the pilots sharp. Afterward they would all put in their claims of who shot down who, and a score would be tallied. Les said there was no boasting and no arguing from the few remaining veterans of the war. They could care less what anybody believed, and seemed to be only amused by the claims. Then the day came where cameras were installed for the dogfights, and it seems that all those laconic veterens shot down all those hot-shot pilots every time.
Bob - no argument.
ReplyDeleteGallimaufry - I came to learn. Interesting info.
Xlbrl - this is the type of thing I was hoping to find out.
Politicians are vulnerable to claims by lobby groups that governments are underfunding defence, thereby jeopardising national security.
ReplyDeleteIf history is anything to go by, the (foreseeable) result is a regular successsion of late projects and project overspends, not least because of design changes to incorporate the latest, must-have gizmo, a response to a newly perceived threat or a role stretch for a weapons system - to save money, of course. It's always thus.
A tentative hypothesis: developed countries with smaller armaments industries have more successful manufacturing industries. The reason is that armaments manufacturers find it easier to make their money by twisting the tails of politicians.
When it comes down to it these aircraft are only part of the battle theatre. No one works in isolation anymore and the name of the game is finding a weak point in the enemy and exploiting it.
ReplyDeleteEverything has it's strangths and weaknesses and you need to apply your strengths to the enemies weaknesses. Unlikely to be an F22 against an Su47 on a head to head.
I remember the Soviet SST version of the Concorde well. The debate over technology is always interesting!
ReplyDeleteThanks, gentlemen and welcome, David.
ReplyDelete