John Young DWG transcript: EPX, CSAR-X, F-22" maintenance trends, failure on m

[Guest VolkVoland]

This thread is not about which missile is better. Stay on topic or it will be closed.

 

 

Missed your post!

 

Copy that, staying on topic :)

[lomcevac]

Ok. Let me see if I follow your logic. Ok?

 

A: Because an aircraft is rugged or can land on the deck of an aircraft carrier:

B: It is therefore better in air-to-air combat

 

Is that right?

 

I'll try the same logic:

 

A: Because Flankers & Fulcrum aircraft can launch from unprepared strips due to their intake screens/landing gear, etc.

B: I'm going to have pancakes in the morning for breakfast!

 

Who's got the better kill ratio in air-to-air combat? The Fulcrum that can take off from a crumbling runway with weeds coming out of the joints and FOD all around the taxiways? The Fulcrum that has an engine with a time between overhaul of about 100 hours before it's done? The Fulcrum that's never been successful against a western aircraft?

 

Or is it the PUNY F-16 with it's intake so low to the ground that it vacuums up FOD like a hoover?

[lomcevac]

This thread is not about which missile is better. Stay on topic or it will be closed.

 

I'm sorry, but please point out where we've been mentioning missiles? I thought this thread was about the possible abysmal sortie generation rates of the F-22? Was I wrong about that? :smilewink:

[RedTiger]

There is a simple reason – ruggedness. Su-27 and especially MiG-29 were designed with operation from unprepared strips and in horrid conditions with out dedicated support.

 

It’s well known that Fulcrum has top gills and air intake shutters which together with incredibly tough gear allow it to operate from mud, dust and country roads, not to mention 12+G airframe tolerance all of which are BUILT IN by design, therefore navalizing the Fulcrum not a big deal, because gills/shutters were removed which helped to offset the weight added by wing folding mechanism.

 

F-16s deployed in cold European climates have to sit in heated hangars and roll on mirror smooth runways which effectively limit their actual deployment and make them vulnerable to preemptive strikes. Same with F-15s, but their range allows them to operate from somewhat same distances (against tac strikes).

 

I can remember a conversation on Combat Mission general forum years back about the Kalashnikov and its mythic ruggedness and reliability. "You can throw it in mud, clog it with dirt, and it will STILL shoot!", they said. A Marine then smartly made a point that was something like "Who the $#@% throws their rifle in the mud?!". His point was that the M-16 he used was a good rifle, all you had to do was keep it clean and take care of it -- which he received PLENTY of hands-on experience learning to do.

 

The point is this; comparing a rifle that will still shoot if you treat it like a farm tool with a rifle that will shoot just as well with some basic care (in other words, you treat it like a firearm ;) ) is silly.

 

So where do you stop treating your fighters like tractors and begin to treat them like sophisticated pieces of hardware, taking off from paved FOD-free runways?

 

Right...about...here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md00oEyn6kg

;)

 

I'll trade the ability to take off from a dirt road any day of the week for the capability to do this.^^^

Edited February 21, 2009 by RedTiger

[GGTharos]

You have confused the ruggedness required to withstand multiple crash-landings with a design that potentially reduces FOD damage.

 

Navalizing an aircraft never was and never will be trivial.

 

There is a simple reason – ruggedness. Su-27 and especially MiG-29 were designed with operation from unprepared strips and in horrid conditions with out dedicated support.

 

 

It’s well known that Fulcrum has top gills and air intake shutters which together with incredibly tough gear allow it to operate from mud, dust and country roads, not to mention 12+G airframe tolerance all of which are BUILT IN by design, therefore navalizing the Fulcrum not a big deal, because gills/shutters were removed which helped to offset the weight added by wing folding mechanism.

 

Wow, talk about making assumptions. The beefed up landing gear adds quite a bit of weight, as do the airframe modifications required to make it withstand multiple impacts. In fact, the naval MiG-29 IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AIRFRAME.

 

By the way, the F-15 has a history of taking 15g's and landing to brag about it. ;)

 

F-16s deployed in cold European climates have to sit in heated hangars and roll on mirror smooth runways which effectively limit their actual deployment and make them vulnerable to preemptive strikes. Same with F-15s, but their range allows them to operate from somewhat same distances (against tac strikes).

 

The F-16's can operate from as far as they like - that slows down sortie rates, but if you think sortie rates from aircraft taking off of grass fields or roads will be high - well, you must think them russian planes are made out of magic. Seriously.

[Guest VolkVoland]

I have no idea what you mean, especially about the pancakes. Yes, the flexibility of operational capability from rough/unprepared roads is essential for front line combat. Fulcrum is a FRONT LINE fighter. It is a tactical advantage of having front line fighter cover while not having the dependency on runways, that’s the idea behind Harrier.

 

As a front line fighter the original Fulcrum was designed for very rough use with a MINIMUM of field maintenance therefore it is honed to operate in appalling conditions which naturally reflects on flight hours between overhauls. It’s designed to be overhauled at the factory and not where it’s stationed. Similarly, it’s a mission specific platform, and is intended to operate as a part of a team, not as a lone “hunter killer”, and that’s precisely why Fulcrums are not effective when used with out necessary support. They are designed to operate out to only 100km from their base as a part of unified front, with SAM cover, AWACS/GCI support, together with upper echelon assets like SU-27/MiG-31. When they are alone they simply don’t have the SA/EW capabilities to tango with dedicated interceptors/fighters, and they are not designed to do so in first place. I’m not a specialist, but from what I heard tactically Fulcrums were supposed to set ambushes, fire their weapons and rotate ASAP.

 

 

Ok. Let me see if I follow your logic. Ok?

 

A: Because an aircraft is rugged or can land on the deck of an aircraft carrier:

B: It is therefore better in air-to-air combat

 

Is that right?

 

I'll try the same logic:

 

A: Because Flankers & Fulcrum aircraft can launch from unprepared strips due to their intake screens/landing gear, etc.

B: I'm going to have pancakes in the morning for breakfast!

 

Who's got the better kill ratio in air-to-air combat? The Fulcrum that can take off from a crumbling runway with weeds coming out of the joints and FOD all around the taxiways? The Fulcrum that has an engine with a time between overhaul of about 100 hours before it's done? The Fulcrum that's never been successful against a western aircraft?

 

Or is it the PUNY F-16 with it's intake so low to the ground that it vacuums up FOD like a hoover?

[Guest VolkVoland]

A bit off topic here, but in short, mud, blood and dirt is warfare, and crawling around in it is what it’s all about, not strutting around with a cleaning kit. Soldiers happen to “fall” into all kinds of dirt since it goes with a job, and the weapon that functions properly in all that mess is simply a better weapon, a weapon that keeps a soldier alive.

 

I can remember a conversation on Combat Mission general forum years back about the Kalashnikov and its mythic ruggedness and reliability. "You can throw it in mud, clog it with dirt, and it will STILL shoot!", they said. A Marine then smartly made a point that was something like "Who the $#@% throws their rifle in the mud?!". His point was that the M-16 he used was a good rifle, all you had to do was keep it clean and take care of it -- which he received PLENTY of hands-on experience learning to do.

 

The point is this; comparing a rifle that will still shoot if you treat it like a farm tool with a rifle that will shoot just as well with some basic care (in other words, you treat it like a firearm ;) ) is silly.

 

So where do you stop treating your fighters like tractors and begin to treat them like sophisticated pieces of hardware, taking off from paved FOD-free runways?

 

Right...about...here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md00oEyn6kg

;)

 

I'll trade the ability to take off from a dirt road any day of the week for the capability to do this.^^^

[Guest VolkVoland]

Wow, talk about making assumptions. The beefed up landing gear adds quite a bit of weight, as do the airframe modifications required to make it withstand multiple impacts.

 

Well, live and learn. What were the airframe modifications of the Naval MiG-29K? I though it was actually lighter then the AF version.

[Vekkinho]

I'm not THAT convinced by Flanker's intake grills and Fulcrum's FOD panels for one reason! You might remember the launch capacity of Indian Airforce during Red Flag, it was pretty slow or poor. On the other hand, Falcon (which has no FOD guards but still has a vacuum cleaner like intake) has no nosewheel debris deflector (nor does F-15) but Fulcrums and Flankers have it and AFAIK can't operate without risk of turbine damage without it. Especially from typical Russian airstrips, tall grass or covered in snow or rain!

[RedTiger]

A bit off topic here, but in short, mud, blood and dirt is warfare, and crawling around in it is what it’s all about, not strutting around with a cleaning kit. Soldiers happen to “fall” into all kinds of dirt since it goes with a job, and the weapon that functions properly in all that mess is simply a better weapon, a weapon that keeps a soldier alive.

 

There's a line, though, that you cross where you're just making redundancies at the cost of effectiveness. A battle rifle is one thing; a great deal of its use will involve shooting in the general direction of something, but not aiming at an actual target. There have been studies that have compared the amount of small arms fire in WWII vs. the number of casualties from it. Those show that the vast majority of fire didn't kill or wound anybody. This is normal of course, since a lot of small arms fire is involved in suppression of the enemy until they can be killed by arty, aircraft, or by other infantry maneuvering in for a kill. Mikhail Kalashnikov got away with making a loose-fitting rifle with looser tolerances because of the way that rifle was to be used.

 

The analogy was meant to relate to aircraft. Aircraft are different, right? If I have to choose between an aircraft that can operate in dirty, FOD-filled conditions, but does so with less lethality and an aircraft I have to go over with a fine-tooth comb to keep clean but can kill stuff from 60nm in total darkness. I'll choose the latter. All I have to do is recruit skilled people and train them well.

 

I would rather make up for a weakness on the "back end" in training, skill, and maintenance then have to make up for a weakness on the "front end" by sacrificing lethality for ruggedness...if that makes any sense... :noexpression:

[CE_Mikemonster]

I'm afraid the argument doesn't really make sense - that a naval fighter, because it can survive multiple hard landings is more reliable and manouver harder (pull more G).

Are you suggesting that to make an aircraft more manouverable you add weight and bolster up the airframe?

If you happen to pull the max-stated airframe G you're already in trouble.

 

As well as this I notice that Russian aircraft are also more reliable and can apparently sustain more damage (implied), because they can operate from roads as well as runways (in a limited capacity - where do the airport facilities appear from?).

 

The idea to have planes operating from remote roads etc was only there in order to have an air force after the huge air-bases had been nuked. Exactly the same as having a nuclear sub that is available to retaliate following the destructon of the home country.

 

Saab Viggens can operate from frozen roads - does this give them a combat advantage over a plane that can only use runways?

 

Seeing as air combat doesn't work on a 'hitpoint' system, words like 'rugged' do not make any sense - it's just romanticism.

 

What about that F-15 that landed with only half a wing? Or the A-10 that came home missing an engine?

 

Please can we get back on topic, I was quite interested in it.

[nscode]

I can show you pictures of a MiG-29 with a wing torn off any time you like.

[Guest VolkVoland]

I'm not THAT convinced by Flanker's intake grills and Fulcrum's FOD panels for one reason! You might remember the launch capacity of Indian Airforce during Red Flag, it was pretty slow or poor. On the other hand, Falcon (which has no FOD guards but still has a vacuum cleaner like intake) has no nosewheel debris deflector (nor does F-15) but Fulcrums and Flankers have it and AFAIK can't operate without risk of turbine damage without it. Especially from typical Russian airstrips, tall grass or covered in snow or rain!

 

I'm not following, are you saying that Falcon operates in India with no problems but Fulcrums and Flankers can't?

 

If that's so currently India is in the market for a new fighter and Falcon is a competitor, so this would directly apply;

 

"F-16 tyres burst at Indian airshow"

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090215/wl_sthasia_afp/indiausmilitaryaviationairshowf16

[dirt-torpedo]

F-22 must ....no has to have a stealth (skin) capability beyond what "we" know and perhaps an inconceivable long rang missle that we dont know about yet.

Somethings not adding up.

 

Good read.

Edited February 22, 2009 by dirt-torpedo

[Vekkinho]

I'm not following, are you saying that Falcon operates in India with no problems but Fulcrums and Flankers can't?

 

No, it's opposite, Falcons and Eagles operate in Nevada with no prob but Flankers are having a tough launch. There's a "time to beat" requirement between takeoffs and USAF and other NATO members that participate at Red Flag had no trouble with it but it took IAF too long between individual takeoffs.

 

Now, anyone who watched Fighter Pilot:Operation Red Flag probably saw those guys with in-line skates sweeping all the dirt and pebbles from the runway before takeoff in the morning and before mass recovery after mission!

 

Now, this probably means nothing but security requirements in USAF are set pretty high.

[GGTharos]

You think russian aircraft aren't susceptible to hot brakes? ;)

 

I'm not following, are you saying that Falcon operates in India with no problems but Fulcrums and Flankers can't?

 

If that's so currently India is in the market for a new fighter and Falcon is a competitor, so this would directly apply;

 

"F-16 tyres burst at Indian airshow"

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090215/wl_sthasia_afp/indiausmilitaryaviationairshowf16

[GGTharos]

The Indians were being extra careful because damaged engines would mean a call to Russia - IIRC.

 

 

No, it's opposite, Falcons and Eagles operate in Nevada with no prob but Flankers are having a tough launch. There's a "time to beat" requirement between takeoffs and USAF and other NATO members that participate at Red Flag had no trouble with it but it took IAF too long between individual takeoffs.

 

Now, anyone who watched Fighter Pilot:Operation Red Flag probably saw those guys with in-line skates sweeping all the dirt and pebbles from the runway before takeoff in the morning and before mass recovery after mission!

 

Now, this probably means nothing but security requirements in USAF are set pretty high.

[Guest VolkVoland]

A battle rifle is one thing; a great deal of its use will involve shooting in the general direction of something, but not aiming at an actual target. There have been studies that have compared the amount of small arms fire in WWII vs. the number of casualties from it. Those show that the vast majority of fire didn't kill or wound anybody. This is normal of course, since a lot of small arms fire is involved in suppression of the enemy until they can be killed by arty, aircraft, or by other infantry maneuvering in for a kill.

This is way off topic, but never the less.

 

Battle rifles and assault rifles are not the same thing.

 

Depending on the battle scale the most casualties causing projectile is shrapnel, artillery or mortar.

 

When it comes to small arms on NATO side, since M-16 the most casualty causing small arm is a belt fed MG, which currently is M-249/MiniMi.

 

On exSoviet side there is no problems with small arms fire power shortage, AR does what it's supposed to - it puts automatic fire out to 300 meters and does it flawlessly, SVD is a mass produced front line sniper rifle that covers out to 800m and PKM covers the same 800m with automatic belt fed fire. Simple, effective, time/battle proven, all mass produced in tens of millions.

 

Mikhail Kalashnikov got away with making a loose-fitting rifle with looser tolerances because of the way that rifle was to be used.

With all due respect, "Got away" is far from the reality of AKs story. It was a FIERCE competition between numerous designers, Bulkin, Simonov, Sudaev, Shpagin, Tokarev, Degterev, Korobov, etc.

 

Kalashnikovs design won a grueling competition, and went through many generations. The vanilla AK knock off you see in your local sporting store is not what AK is today. I'm not an AK expert, but to my knowledge so far there are at least 6 generations of AKs, and modern AKs are not the loose fitting Warsaw made Vietnam era stereotypes.

 

 

The analogy was meant to relate to aircraft. Aircraft are different, right? If I have to choose between an aircraft that can operate in dirty, FOD-filled conditions, but does so with less lethality and an aircraft I have to go over with a fine-tooth comb to keep clean but can kill stuff from 60nm in total darkness. I'll choose the latter. All I have to do is recruit skilled people and train them well.

 

I would rather make up for a weakness on the "back end" in training, skill, and maintenance then have to make up for a weakness on the "front end" by sacrificing lethality for ruggedness...if that makes any sense...

That does make perfect sense if your area of operations is not anywhere near the battle zone. That means you are not DEFENDING an area, but PROJECTING your airpower over the territory of your opponent – aka attacking.

 

Soviets/Russians GEOGRAFICALLY have a lot of TERRITORY to DEFEND, therefore the idea of pristine airstrips and fine-tooth combed aircraft is ludicrous, because it’s a physical impossibility.

 

As the lessons of WWII clearly showed over reliance on elite groups of highly skilled warriors simply leads to attrition and failure, therefore a system of constant ROTATION is better suited for defense of large territories.

 

It is a typical stereotype that Soviet/Russian forces are all about large numbers of poorly trained and equipped peasants operating cheap and poorly made equipment, while the reality is that in order to defend such a massive landmass it is simply required to have a larger standing army which has all levels of forces, from basic construction workers to elite units.

 

One only needs to look at a map and picture the sheer amount of men and recourses needed to defend a landmass of such size, that’s all, and same goes for air power.

 

Attempting to rely upon delicate high-tech air force in a country with a climate which ranges from deep freeze to scorching heat is not a possibility. The cost of building and maintaining of pristine airstrips is astronomical and simply not practical, therefore it is only rational to design and build rugged airframes that feel right at home operating from a patch of broken asphalt.

 

That about covers it.

[GGTharos]

That's nothing but rethoric. The USAF operates aircraft under similar weather conditions, and they like to keep their aircraft working throughout the war instead of having to house a stack of replacement engines for every other combat sortie ;)

 

They also have a lot of territory to cover - and those aircraft are built to bring the fight to the enemy, not just defense. Lots of cheap stuff is fine for defense. For offense you need force multipliers or just a huge amount of force.

 

What did WWII show us? That well trained soldiers can't do much if their equipment is unmaintainable and in short supply. Think a MiG-29 is more maintainable than an F-15?

[Guest VolkVoland]

No, it's opposite, Falcons and Eagles operate in Nevada with no prob but Flankers are having a tough launch. There's a "time to beat" requirement between takeoffs and USAF and other NATO members that participate at Red Flag had no trouble with it but it took IAF too long between individual takeoffs.

 

Don’t know anything about it, but Flankers operate with out any problems in countries like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc, where temperatures reach over 40 degrees Celsius.

Now, anyone who watched Fighter Pilot:Operation Red Flag probably saw those guys with in-line skates sweeping all the dirt and pebbles from the runway before takeoff in the morning and before mass recovery after mission!

 

Now, this probably means nothing but security requirements in USAF are set pretty high.

 

No, that’s called “the walk of shame”, aka FOD sweep.

[Guest VolkVoland]

That's nothing but rethoric. The USAF operates aircraft under similar weather conditions, and they like to keep their aircraft working throughout the war instead of having to house a stack of replacement engines for every other combat sortie

 

I beg to differ; it’s a fact, not rhetoric. In “certain” European countries where F-16s are on active duty, they have to be kept in heated hangars in order to operate; otherwise they turn into frozen metal.

 

 

They also have a lot of territory to cover - and those aircraft are built to bring the fight to the enemy, not just defense. Lots of cheap stuff is fine for defense. For offense you need force multipliers or just a huge amount of force.

 

What did WWII show us? That well trained soldiers can't do much if their equipment is unmaintainable and in short supply. Think a MiG-29 is more maintainable than an F-15?

I’m not sure which aircraft you are referring to, and I’m not sure where you’re going with this. As far as maneuverability I can only guess that it depends which MiG-29 verses which F-15, but I did visit a few air shows and saw with my own eyes the type of maneuvering that I never saw F-15 perform.

[Guest VolkVoland]

You think russian aircraft aren't susceptible to hot brakes? ;)

 

I don’t know, I never heard of any Soviet/Russian fighter pop both tires on landing, especially at a show. If the info is out there, send it my way I would be interested.

[GGTharos]

It doesn't matter where or when they pop; they aren't magical. Hot brakes = exploding tyres. It doesn't actually matter who manufactures them and which aircraft they're mounted on. It's nothing short of simple physics.

 

And where did I mention maneuvering?

 

As for heated hangars, again, increased reliability - you can stick an F_16 out there, but don't expect it to have the same sortie rate. Russian aircraft aren't any different.

[Vekkinho]

The Indians were being extra careful because damaged engines would mean a call to Russia - IIRC.

 

There's a song by Dire Straits called Callin' Elvis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7iT59rJsM8&feature=related

[Vekkinho]

Soviets/Russians GEOGRAFICALLY have a lot of TERRITORY to DEFEND, therefore the idea of pristine airstrips and fine-tooth combed aircraft is ludicrous, because it’s a physical impossibility.

 

Attempting to rely upon delicate high-tech air force in a country with a climate which ranges from deep freeze to scorching heat is not a possibility. The cost of building and maintaining of pristine airstrips is astronomical and simply not practical, therefore it is only rational to design and build rugged airframes that feel right at home operating from a patch of broken asphalt.

 

That about covers it.

 

There's Alaska and there's New Mexico...