Russian Air Power

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Jun 2012, 01:22

Thought I'd post about the Greatest Superpower Ever Known.

I just don't understand what Kopp et al are so afraid of.

The only systems produced and proliferated that are an issue are the double digit SAMs.

In terms of the future of T-50 the link below should explain the level of production and support that can be expected.

It also suggests there won't be a Russian 6th gen.

It's time to counter the threat inflation and the idiot prescriptions it engenders.

I'm thinking 400-600 F-35 should handle the expeditionary warfare we can expect to fight over the next 30 years.

Here's the link:

http://www.aei.org/article/russias-demo ... -disaster/

How again are they supposed to produce swarms of planes to beat the US?
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post18 Jun 2012, 01:49

The T-50 proved to me that they're not even really trying to build the most effective force that they can; they're trying to build a symbol of strength instead. When they were deciding what kind of plane to make next, they could have gone for something that would directly apply to where wars/battles really happen, which is on the ground, but instead, they went for an air-to-air fighter, which would get more attention.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3296
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post18 Jun 2012, 02:16

delvo wrote:The T-50 proved to me that they're not even really trying to build the most effective force that they can; they're trying to build a symbol of strength instead. When they were deciding what kind of plane to make next, they could have gone for something that would directly apply to where wars/battles really happen, which is on the ground, but instead, they went for an air-to-air fighter, which would get more attention.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but that makes a lot of sense.
It's pretty clear that Putin has an affinity for symbolic action.
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Jun 2012, 13:52

Their territory and major interests are guaranteed by nukes. Really, they could use something like a cheap Rafale or F-16. The MiG-33 project would have worked out well because it's an F-16ski. OTOH it has a single engine which means big attrition when the engines stink.

I really can't see the utility of a 30 ton class A2A platform against any of their adversaries. Unless the US and its desire to oppress the masses of workers is the adversary. In that case they need an alternative view of the world's future. They tried that once and failed. Putin's support of Assad in Syria is discrediting him in the eyes of educated world citizens everywhere so it seems any new alternative vision is DOA.

The .2m^2 RCS figure I've read for T-50 is shocking. That's WORSE than a clean Typhoon and not much better than a Typhoon with BVRAAM. Give the Typhoon the edge in sensors, training, networking maintenance costs, etc. and the T-50 looks pretty pathetic.
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 688
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post19 Jun 2012, 18:28

delvo wrote:...but instead, they went for an air-to-air fighter, which would get more attention.

I wonder if it's because that's where they generally make their export sales these days, in air superiority fighters? Maybe from Sukhoi's point of view, that's where the money is.
Offline

ultor

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 20:43

Unread post14 Jul 2012, 22:16

shingen wrote:Their territory and major interests are guaranteed by nukes.


Not at all! In today's World nuclear weapon has marginal importance for country's geopolitical potential and especially - as in Russia's case - if such country has nothing to back up its nukes. Now Russia is only raw material economy without modern technology, industry and infrastructure - those still existing are essentially ruined remnants of Soviet empire's portfolio. Also Russian conventional forces are weak and outdated without real power projection capabilities.

Look at history of major military conflicts after the end of Cold War. The West basically destroyed all Russian (former Soviet) allies in Europe and in the Middle East (Slobo's Serbia, Saddam's Iraq, Gaddafi's Libya, now Assad's Syria is going down in flames). What did "mighty" Russia do to save their allies? NOTHING! Why? Because Russia is now impotent and heavily dependent on Western markets. Can you imagine such wars taking place during the Cold War period? Obviously not because the USSR would not have allowed them.

Russian rulers don't want or cannot modernize Russia in real terms because they are in fact members of degenerated Soviet communist elite called "nomenclature". They treat Russia as a huge reservoir of money for themselves and nothing more so obviously no restoration of Russian might is in their plans except propaganda shows for Russian masses. Basically Russia's and ordinary Russians fate is mainly dependent on oil prices. If they are high, relative prosperity can be found in Russia (2000s) but otherwise poverty rules (1990s). What is important here recently oil prices dropped considerably to only 87 bucks per barrel so entire Russian Government economic prognoses are dead because they were based on assumption that oil price will be above 105-110 USD per barrel in a long term. Therefore all propagandist "arms buildups", PAK-FA and PAK-DA stories are also dead in the water. Realistically looking Russian Air Force in this decade will get ridiculous amount of outdated combat planes like Su-34 and Su-35 while PAK-FA project most probably will end exactly where infamous MiG-MFI died. :)
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 713
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post18 Jul 2012, 00:10

delvo wrote:The T-50 proved to me that they're not even really trying to build the most effective force that they can; they're trying to build a symbol of strength instead. When they were deciding what kind of plane to make next, they could have gone for something that would directly apply to where wars/battles really happen, which is on the ground, but instead, they went for an air-to-air fighter, which would get more attention.


I don't disagree with the thrust of your point here delvo, but I would argue that the Russians have continued to make steady progress in evolving their rotary wing ground support aircraft even though as you point out they haven't invested in new fixed wing for this mission.
They also have a book of lessons learned from the last couple of decades of conflict to their south.

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 6 guests