What kind of aircraft do you wan't to see next?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Isoul, just give an edit on your post to make it clearer, you missed the numbers there (either that or Afghanistan is in Serbia :D)

 

GGTharos, are we counting combat flight hours or flight hours as a whole?

[GGTharos]

Flight hours.

IIRC back in the 'really poor' years, VVS pilots might have been getting 20/year. US pilots were getting 200-220 at that same time. This of course was at the worst of times.

 

GGTharos, are we counting combat flight hours or flight hours as a whole?

[isoul]

Isoul, just give an edit on your post to make it clearer, you missed the numbers there (either that or Afghanistan is in Serbia :D)

 

GGTharos, are we counting combat flight hours or flight hours as a whole?

 

Ooops error...EDITED and corrected!

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Well, maybe in the late 80's and early 90's the situation might have been as such, but I really doubt it's anything close to that right now.

 

I guess most pilots that flew at the time have been retired from active flying. Still, 20/year is almost depressing.

 

I'm just guessing now, but maybe they got some compensation in flight hours after the situation improved (hard to believe a total one, but I'd expect the Air Force to try to remedy the situation as soon as they could). Maybe some folks from the Russian forums could shine a light on this matter, as I'm pretty sure there are some pilots among them :)

[GGTharos]

If you consider RuAF performance in Georgia, I think you will find it a bit dissapointing.

And yes, they do have more flight hours now, for sure.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I think the problem there was more about coordination with ground forces than performance in-flight.

 

Of course, coordination should be a top priority in training, in both the Army and the Air Force.

 

I was quite surprised when I saw the article in a newspaper about the downing of at least two (maybe three) aircraft by friendly fire (here, for those interested).

 

This part of the article particularly bugged me:

 

"Russian Ground Forces ... were not sure until the end of combat whether Russia's aviation had achieved air superiority," the Moscow Defense Brief said.

 

"Russian aircraft were frequently taken by Russian and Ossetian forces for Georgian aircraft, and they were fired upon without identification and in the absence of any aggressive action on their part."

 

What The Hell?!

 

That sort of says something about communication between Army and Air Force, right?

 

At least they recognize it and are trying to improve it. Let's see how the joint exercises at Vladivostok work out (don't remember the date, name or anything, but I'm 100% sure there will be a big joint exercise there somewhere around now) :)

[GGTharos]

Nevermind friendly fire, they lost a Su-24 to a Georgian BUK, IIRC, and that Su-24 was on a SEAD mission.

 

I think the problem there was more about coordination with ground forces than performance in-flight.

 

Of course, coordination should be a top priority in training, in both the Army and the Air Force.

 

I was quite surprised when I saw the article in a newspaper about the downing of at least two (maybe three) aircraft by friendly fire (here, for those interested).

[Krippz]

Ouch if that happened with the US AirForce and US Army some heads would definitely roll.

[isoul]

Russian Air Force lost 4(1 Tu-22, 3 Su-25) aircraft in the recent South Osetian War (Georgian side claims to be 10, there were photos of 2 wreckages only).

 

If we take the fact that Georgia lacks any fighter aircraft into consideration the 4 losses aren't a good outcome. Still, Georgia has quite modern Air Defense Systems capable of dealing with modern air-threats. Bear in mind that in that operation Russia didn't have the initiative neither had conducted any SEAD sorties prior to the main confrontation.

 

Now, in Operation Allied Force(Bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999) NATO lost 5 aircraft to Yugoslavian Air Defenses. If we take into consideration that this was an air campaign that included destruction of air defenses(at least there was an effort), deployment of EW/SEAD aircraft, stealth bombers and even satellites to guide missiles, (EDIT) 4 modern aircraft( 1 stealth included, another one was severely damaged) isn't a too good outcome either. Now if you take the Yugoslavian losses (personnel/armor/aircraft) into account and NATO mobilization in the area, despite the fact that Operation Allied Force (from a political perspective) was a success , the Yugoslavian war machine, eventhought it was targeted, wasn't harmed that much. Actually it was the infrastructure and other targets of political significance that were destroyed and aided to bring Milosevic down.

 

Keep in mind that there a is a difference in US and Russian air force doctrines that impacts the way aircraft are being used.

 

Ouch if that happened with the US AirForce and US Army some heads would definitely roll.

 

Actually something similar happened at least once in Iraq or Afghanistan! Need to find the link to BBC(if I recall right). This is war! Accidents happen in military exercises, in war its more easy given the stress personnel has in combat!

Edited February 5, 2010 by isoul

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Evontroy, if you check losses at Iraq, well, you'll see quite a number of friendly fire incidents as well.

 

IIRC, NATO's first loss there was a British Tornado shot down by an American Patriot SAM, pilot and WSO killed.

 

GG, any source on the Su-24 incident? Didn't hear about that.

 

Anyway, sounds quite awful to be downed by SAM while tasked to clear the area of it. Seems to be that some pilots were a bit careless. Actually, not careless, but it seems that they really didn't expect many trouble with Georgian air defences.

 

Still, when half of your losses were due to friendly fire, something must be wrong.

 

Just a curiosity here, at the article, it's mentioned that 5 aircraft crashed at South Ossetia and one at Georgia (probably this Su-24M you mentioned). Were the Georgian defences very strong in S. Ossetia or too weak in Abkhazia? Even though it was involved in the conflict as well, none of the incidents took place there. Any thoughts?

[GGTharos]

And the infrastructure in Georgia wasn't targeted? I suggest you start thinking about how many opportunities at downing aircraft over Yugoslavia were missed - in short, think about the number of aircraft flying vs. how many were shot down.

 

There's a vast difference between these conflicts in that respect which you pretty much ignored.

You may think that the war-machine wasn't hurt, and you're right - physically they remained in more or less one piece. But they were rendered ineffective and largely useless against the bombing campaign, too.

 

@Lucas - unfortunately no. I had something back during the conflict, but I don't have these sources handy any longer.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

GGTharos has a good point.

 

When you have 1000+ aircraft and loose 5, it's still way better than when you have around a dozen of MiG-29s and 6 of them are shot down.

 

EDIT: Decided to do some research on this downed Su-24. Apparently (according to the Moscow Defense Brief*), both were shot down by MANPADs, but no specific information is given.

 

*I can't confirm, as the article is for paid members only, but it's mentioned on Wikipedia as the source of the information.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Lucas_From_Hell

[isoul]

And the infrastructure in Georgia wasn't targeted? I suggest you start thinking about how many opportunities at downing aircraft over Yugoslavia were missed - in short, think about the number of aircraft flying vs. how many were shot down.

 

There's a vast difference between these conflicts in that respect which you pretty much ignored.

You may think that the war-machine wasn't hurt, and you're right - physically they remained in more or less one piece. But they were rendered ineffective and largely useless against the bombing campaign, too.

 

@Lucas - unfortunately no. I had something back during the conflict, but I don't have these sources handy any longer.

 

Of course Georgian infrastructure was targeted. The two conflicts have deep differences that would take pages and many military analysts to study. Still Russian AF had by far poorer results(in Ossetia) than NATO in Yugoslavia but I think its easy to explain why. Still the difference in military doctrines of US and Russia plays a big part to it.

Edited February 4, 2010 by isoul

[EtherealN]

isoul, two stealth aircraft lost in Allied Force? One 117 is known (and they failed to bomb the wreckage), but what's the second one?

[GGTharos]

isoul, two stealth aircraft lost in Allied Force? One 117 is known (and they failed to bomb the wreckage), but what's the second one?

 

Another F-117 which recovered to airbase but was rendered unflyable.

[EtherealN]

Ah, there we go, thanks. :)

 

Goes to the question of what counts as a kill or "combat loss" I guess.

[Krippz]

Back to topic boys =)

 

I would love to see an F/A-18E module with great carrier ops added to the DCS series. Enough info for the F/A-18E is declassified (look at VRS Simulations) to be able to do so.

[joey45]

I want this plane > http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/5/5/0767555.jpg

[Pilotasso]

Is the thing being restored?

[Krippz]

I want this plane > http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/5/5/0767555.jpg

 

 

You mean seeing it shot down :D

[ZQuickSilverZ]

AWACS

 

You know half of war is information. Instead of attack this, transport that, How about an awac to keep us all informed whats going on below?

[Krippz]

You know half of war is information. Instead of attack this, transport that, How about an awac to keep us all informed whats going on below?

 

I doubt we'll see good AWACS until we see DCS F-15, etc.

[msalama]

Well I'd take, say, a C-130 or some Russian cargo hauler gladly should ED be willing to expand their scope some day... Hell, you future fighter pukes _NEED_ bozos like me taking care of the supplies don't ya :D

[isoul]

Sry for going off topic but I think, since the matter was discussed, its interesting to report. Actually most of them are reports of neutral media (its interesting sometimes to see how a conflict is broadcasted/received by media in neutral nations such as mine).

 

isoul, two stealth aircraft lost in Allied Force? One 117 is known (and they failed to bomb the wreckage), but what's the second one?

 

The first one was the ONE we all know(*1).

 

About the second one there was much confusion(actually it doesn't count as a kill, see below)... The Yugoslavian side, at a later time and after the first F-117 was shot down, (publicly) announced that its air defences hit one more (stealth)aircraft, some even claimed it that the aircraft was a B-2 spirit(*2). They shown parts of an F-117(which later proved to be parts of the first one shot down) on the ground and claimed that FRY forces are searching for the ejected pilot(which proved to be false). NATO initially denied any loss of aircraft that day. With rumors going wild from the FRY side, NATO remade the statement that one aircraft was forced "to cancel its mission due to malfunction and return to base". Some days later NATO officials, under the pressing journalist questions and the (possible) the danger of a made-up crash-site by FRY, they answered that there was an "incident involving a stealth aircraft which had taken hit and forced to cancel mission and that the pilot was safe and well in his health".

 

This was (probably) interpreted, along with a strict request to the media not to record images of returning aircraft long before and after the flights ETA these days, as a another loss by neutral media as no further comment was made(as expected when we have to do with highly classified military matters). I didn't knew that...

 

Another F-117 which recovered to airbase but was rendered unflyable.

 

...and I have no reason to deny it since I haven't found any convincing material(photos/articles) that it actually crashed. This ofcourse doesn't make it a "kill", especially while the aircraft managed to land but the fact that a stealth bomber was hit was big enough news in the FRY media that day.

 

(*1) To the ones interested about the story behind the first F-117 shot down, follow this link! Its interesting how the commander of the SAM dared to use its radar multiple times to obtain a lock.

(*2) There are further claims by neutral journalists that the "second F-117 hit" was actually a B-2 Spirit hit which actually is said was rebuild(so no one can or will confirm such an incident easily). Serbs claims of several "proximity fuze hits" of its SAMs. Still there is little to no "light" on the matter.

Edited February 5, 2010 by isoul

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Enough info for the F/A-18E is declassified (look at VRS Simulations) to be able to do so.

 

Not sure. Did they model weapon systems, radar, ECM and other military equipment as well? Because FSX doesn't require these at all, IIRC.

 

Plus, did they base it on guesses or in real documents?