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

[RedTiger]

*rifle stuff*

 

I hate to summarize it as such, but:

 

1. You're really getting into semantics with the battle vs. assault rifle. Imagine what I meant as a generic "a rifle that you provide to an army". I wasn't being specific as to the differences between the two.

 

2. Yes, I say "got away", again, its sematics. I'm not talking about the competition with the idea Kalashnikov went in an opposite direction as others -- not specifically his competition, I'm not talking specifically about them -- he left play between mechanical parts and loosened tolerances. Ever seen a Vietnam-era AKM fired full auto vs. an M-16A1 filmed on a high-speed camera? The differences are staggering! One jostles around and rattles, parts jerking about violently, the other stays fairly rigged through out. It isn't an indication of quality or effectiveness, just design philosophy. :)

 

3. Yep, I'm aware of where the AK has come 1949-present.

 

 

 

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.

 

Impossible is it? How many pristine airstrips did the US have during the Cold War in the US and abroad? No, it isn't impossible. Either they didn't have the capability (which is just silly to say. You can't mow the grass sticking through the runway? :D) OR they didn't see the need or didn't care.

 

Soviet equipment was far from defensive. STOL and FOD grills were just as much a part of a doctrine that called for taking off from anywhere to support a ground offensive as any defense of the frontier borders.

 

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.

 

I would be careful about this generalization. If you're referring to the Axis, they conscripted just like anyone else. It was more of a lack of cohesive war-fighting alliance like the Allies had and a late transition to a war economy that did them in. Another topic, another thread.

 

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.

 

Typical where? Here on these boards? No, it isn't. I'd daresay few here misunderstand why the Soviet armed forces did things they way they did. However, they also understand the limitations and short-comings of running things this way, of which there are many. :)

 

 

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.

 

Refer to Vekkinho's post. ;) What you consider impossible, the US did back then and does currently. If I may say so, the reason why we are able to do is precisely because we run a smaller, professional volunteer-only armed forces. The smaller numbers and fact that people voluntarily sign up to serve allow for better training for recruits. Which also allows for better maintenance of those high-tech "delicate" aircraft.

 

The Soviet's large standing army was very much an instrument of the offense, or perhaps counter-offense. I hold no such stereotype of a Soviet suicide-horde. I've got two words for you -- David Glantz. ;)

 

What is interesting is that despite the fact that Russia is still enormous, they're trying to transition more to a Western-style armed forces in some respects. If nothing else, THAT should tell you something.

Edited February 22, 2009 by RedTiger

[Guest VolkVoland]

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.

 

Off course it matters how they failed, and so far nothing has been said about hot brakes, but the article did clearly state the following;

 

"An indication that the right tyre was going to burst before landing was shown on the flight control panel before the landing," Randell said as the company in a statement added that no one was hurt.

That means the pressure sensor already showed an overpressure warning while still in the air, and that could only mean that the air in the tires was heated by ambient temp, it expanded and resulted in a catastrophic tire failure during landing.

 

And where did I mention maneuvering?

Maneuvering what?

 

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.

Actually Russian planes are designed to operate from out in the open, and there are videos of how the ground crews walk around and knock the ice of from frozen planes, spin them up, pilots pop in and up the go. That’s pretty much the point, and has been since WWII.

[RedTiger]

 

Actually Russian planes are designed to operate from out in the open, and there are videos of how the ground crews walk around and knock the ice of from frozen planes, spin them up, pilots pop in and up the go. That’s pretty much the point, and has been since WWII.

 

Yeah, but what's the sortie rate on those vs. the F-16s?

[Vekkinho]

Actually Russian planes are designed to operate from out in the open, and there are videos of how the ground crews walk around and knock the ice of from frozen planes, spin them up, pilots pop in and up the go. That’s pretty much the point, and has been since WWII.

 

That's correct, but if you consider possibility of a mishap you'll notice that knocking the ice of from frozen planes with a broom is not a good idea!

 

edit: I made a quote so didn't notice Red Tigers post above!

[Guest VolkVoland]

RedTiger, with all due respect, since we’re still of topic but not on the same page, let’s clear up some of the usual misconceptions.

 

 

I hate to summarize it as such, but:

 

1. You're really getting into semantics with the battle vs. assault rifle. Imagine what I meant as a generic "a rifle that you provide to an army". I wasn't being specific as to the differences between the two.

 

 

There is a difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle, and it’s not matter semantics, it’s a matter of fact.

 

Examples of battle rifles; M-14, FN-FAL, HK G3, AVS-36, SVT-38/40, etc

 

A battle rifle provides effective fire well beyond 300 meters, while AR does NOT.

 

Simply put “A Battle Rifle or Main Battle Rifle is a full-size select fire rifle designed for military use that fires a high-power rifle cartridge”

 

 

2. Yes, I say "got away", again, its sematics. I'm not talking about the competition with the idea Kalashnikov went in an opposite direction as others -- not specifically his competition, I'm not talking specifically about them -- he left play between mechanical parts and loosened tolerances. Ever seen a Vietnam-era AKM fired full auto vs. an M-16A1 filmed on a high-speed camera? The differences are staggering! One jostles around and rattles, parts jerking about violently, the other stays fairly rigged through out. It isn't an indication of quality or effectiveness, just design philosophy.

 

Kalashnikov did not invent the concept of loose tolerances; PPSh-41 is based on loose tolerance design, again, not semantics but facts.

 

Personally I’m not aware of ANY AKMs that were used in Vietnam.

 

Vietnam AKs; early, limited production MILLED receiver AK-47s (ID by the receiver recessed cut out over the mag well), limited transitional “soft” Warsaw manufactured AKs which did sufferer from flexing do to insufficient pin bracing, (ID by the lack of bracing pins) and that’s precisely the one that was shown in the well known comparison video. Basically the worst AK ever produced, made in some Warsaw factory was probably stamping out frying pans a few months before.

 

Further more, in the video the cleaning rod was not even secured to emphasize the flex, the entire weapon was clearly worn our (just look at the furniture), while the footage of M-16 did not even show the barrel, so its flex was simply not visible. Not to mention that 7.62X39 round produces+/- 2000 joules, so naturally the recoil/flex is going to be much stronger verses low impulse 5.56.

 

Only later PRODUCTION AK-47s with additional pins made their way into Vietnam, while the standard Soviet AK since 1959 was AKM.

 

3. Yep, I'm aware of where the AK has come 1949-present.

 

Then you are aware that AK-74 was chosen over the 74M model in order to save on manufacturing costs, and that the current balanced AK-100 line is a direct descendent of the original 74M balanced design.

 

In any case, since this is so COMPLETELY of topic, I would not mind if a moderator moves all of these AK posts to a dedicated thread, because I’m feeling a bit uncomfortable discussing firearm details in F-22 thread! :)

[Guest VolkVoland]

Impossible is it? How many pristine airstrips did the US have during the Cold War in the US and abroad? No, it isn't impossible. Either they didn't have the capability (which is just silly to say. You can't mow the grass sticking through the runway? ) OR they didn't see the need or didn't care.

You mean NATO? Since WWII – strategic bombing, SAC, Air Dominance doctrine, and so on. Deterrence is achieved by the PROJECTION of air power.

As far as airfields, Soviet Union built some of the longest concrete runways, but at the same time much smaller back up strips are literally everywhere, in case the main bases are nuked.

 

Soviet equipment was far from defensive. STOL and FOD grills were just as much a part of a doctrine that called for taking off from anywhere to support a ground offensive as any defense of the frontier borders.

 

I’m not following. Even a defensive shield can be used to hit the enemy, so yes, naturally Soviet military had both defensive and offensive wings.

 

I would be careful about this generalization. If you're referring to the Axis, they conscripted just like anyone else. It was more of a lack of cohesive war-fighting alliance like the Allies had and a late transition to a war economy that did them in. Another topic, another thread.

It’s not a generalization, it’s just one of the ways it’s done, and yes, I do agree that it’s a topic for a another thread.

Typical where? Here on these boards? No, it isn't. I'd daresay few here misunderstand why the Soviet armed forces did things they way they did. However, they also understand the limitations and short-comings of running things this way, of which there are many.

This is a matter of history, not opinion, what matters is the source and the version of history one chooses to accept.

 

Refer to Vekkinho's post. What you consider impossible, the US did back then and does currently. If I may say so, the reason why we are able to do is precisely because we run a smaller, professional volunteer-only armed forces. The smaller numbers and fact that people voluntarily sign up to serve allow for better training for recruits. Which also allows for better maintenance of those high-tech "delicate" aircraft.

 

The Soviet's large standing army was very much an instrument of the offense, or perhaps counter-offense. I hold no such stereotype of a Soviet suicide-horde. I've got two words for you -- David Glantz.

 

I’m not familiar with David Glantz, but I am aware that USSR held a decisive conventional military advantage through out the Cold War, and only mutual nuclear deterrence equaled out the scales.

 

As far as misconceptions about conscript verses professional army, in USSR military service was a matter of citizen’s duty, just like in Israel for example, and I do not recall anybody referring to Israeli army as unprofessional conscript force.

 

In USSR all boys and girls began taking military preparation classes while still in junior-high school (middle school), and by the time they were 16 they were already taught how to properly shoot AKs, so by the time they are 18 and are enlisted they already had at least 4 years of both physical and academic military education, and that is precisely why required service in Soviet army was only 2 years.

 

In fact most Soviet conscripts were much better prepared/educated at the time of their enlistment then US volunteers after boot camp, not to mention that the draft was dropped only after Vietnam, and nobody is labeling American draftees as unprofessional conscripts.

What is interesting is that despite the fact that Russia is still enormous, they're trying to transition more to a Western-style armed forces in some respects. If nothing else, THAT should tell you something.

 

I beg to differ. After loosing the massive centralized infrastructure of the USSR, Russia was forced to reorganize its forces primarily do to the restructuring and consolidation of the MIC. Everything including radar networks also had to be reorganized and rebuilt. The transition to a smaller, better trained volunteer force is not an attempt to mimic NATO standards, but a simple logical necessity in a financial reality of a free market economy.

 

A better example of a transition to NATO standards would be the Baltic countries (Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania), and it has to be mentioned that all of them are having serious difficulties to actually meet NATO requirements do to financial difficulties. Georgia was also equipped and trained by NATO, and we all now how that one turned out when they met only a part of the 58th Russian Army.

 

Anyway, back to F-22.

[CE_Mikemonster]

As far as I was aware.. opposing fighters take off and operate in the same operating conditions. So any NATO aircraft must therefore be just as capable as a rival Russian aircraft in an extreme theatre of operations.

If NATO accomplish this by means of a more complex and expensive infrastructure for their airforces then it must be seen as an advantage of prior strategic planning.

 

If Russia's aircraft do require less attention prior to launching sorties it will come as a compromise - technology, performance, or mission effectiveness will have been sacrificed.

Edited February 23, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[RedTiger]

Well, VolkVoland, you missed what I was getting at about the "battle rifle" two times, choosing to ignore my explanation that I was using the term generically the second time and arguing against a point that I did not even make, or in some attempt to educate me. You do understand the concept of "generic", right? How about next time I just say "gun" and then there's no misconceptions you'll feel the need to clear up, fair enough? :P

 

You also seem to misunderstand what I mean by "Western-style". "Western-style" does not mean "NATO", not as I mean, at least.

 

better trained volunteer force

= "Western-style" as far as I'm concerned. You could also add in something about about very high sophistication in military technology -- and a purposeful, well-planned increasing escalation of said technology. It represents, in my mind, what the US military had at the very end of the Cold War, or as I like to say, "the point when it got it's sh*t together".

 

Feel free to educate me with all the specifics I'm missing and clear up my misconceptions. :smartass:

 

All sarcasm aside and with all respect, I do admit that you know more than I do, albeit with more than a little bias. ;) I would appreciate it if you'd read what I said a little closer, in some of my responses. I'll admit I do tend to speak in a very high, macro level since this is usually as deep as my interest goes, so you'll have to excuse me for not going into all the nitty gritty that you know of. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm ignorant of it, at least in some cases. :)

 

I'm through with this off topic back and forth, I've said my peace. Maybe the thread will get back on topic.

Edited February 24, 2009 by RedTiger

[Guest VolkVoland]

Well, VolkVoland, you missed what I was getting at about the "battle rifle" two times, choosing to ignore my explanation that I was using the term generically the second time and arguing against a point that I did not even make, or in some attempt to educate me. You do understand the concept of "generic", right? How about next time I just say "gun" and then there's no misconceptions you'll feel the need to clear up, fair enough? :P

 

You also seem to misunderstand what I mean by "Western-style". "Western-style" does not mean "NATO", not as I mean, at least.

 

RedTirger, if that’s how you feel then we definitely got off on the wrong foot :)

 

You are correct; I did miss your “battle rifle” example. I didn’t ignore it though, just misunderstood.

 

As you probably noticed I’m not at all impartial to firearms, therefore I do get a bit too vigilant when it comes to certain facts, and please don’t think that I’m here to “educate” anybody, I’m here to learn and share :)

 

We do seem to have a different understanding of what “Western-style” means to us. I now see that you have a much broader concept while I stick to narrow NATO oriented examples.

 

 

= "Western-style" as far as I'm concerned. You could also add in something about about very high sophistication in military technology -- and a purposeful, well-planned increasing escalation of said technology. It represents, in my mind, what the US military had at the very end of the Cold War, or as I like to say, "the point when it got it's sh*t together".

 

A very appropriate train of though, especially considering John Young’s report. I like where this is going already.

 

Feel free to educate me with all the specifics I'm missing and clear up my misconceptions. :smartass:

 

All sarcasm aside and with all respect, I do admit that you know more than I do, albeit with more than a little bias. ;) I would appreciate it if you'd read what I said a little closer, in some of my responses. I'll admit I do tend to speak in a very high, macro level since this is usually as deep as my interest goes, so you'll have to excuse me for not going into all the nitty gritty that you know of. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm ignorant of it, at least in some cases. :)

 

I'm through with this off topic back and forth, I've said my peace. Maybe the thread will get back on topic.

 

Again, I stick to “live and learn” principle, because as long as one learns he lives. I’m not here to shove my opinions down anybodies throat, and I’m far from being a knowledgeable man. I have a long way to go and I’m not in position to educate, only to share what I came across.

 

I very much appreciate your candor, I in now way think of you as ignorant, just the manner in which you approach this shows that you are far from it, and also would like to ask you to correct me when I’m wrong, as I am so most of my life, just ask my wife :) !

 

It’s a pleasure conversing with you RedTiger, looking forward to your thoughts!

Edited February 25, 2009 by VolkVoland
typo

[Guest VolkVoland]

As far as I was aware.. opposing fighters take off and operate in the same operating conditions. So any NATO aircraft must therefore be just as capable as a rival Russian aircraft in an extreme theatre of operations.

 

I’m not following you here CE_Mikemonster. Maybe I’m misreading you, but to me it looks like you are presenting an opinion with an assumption instead of a fact with an assessment. If I’m wrong please correct me.

 

I do not know the details of European operational procedures for military aircraft, but what I overheard is that most aircraft and especially F-16 simply require heated hangars which are all monitored, or at least were during the Cold War.

 

If you have any solid info on cold weather OPs I would appreciate if you could share it.

 

If NATO accomplish this by means of a more complex and expensive infrastructure for their airforces then it must be seen as an advantage of prior strategic planning.

 

Again, I do not have the stats on the total number of paved military airstrips of the former USSR verses the European NATO block, therefore I can not judge who enjoyed a strategic advantage of deployment and operational reach.

 

If you do, then I would once again appreciate some info on that.

 

If Russia's aircraft do require less attention prior to launching sorties it will come as a compromise - technology, performance, or mission effectiveness will have been sacrificed.

 

I’m curios, how did you arrive to such a conclusion and what did you base you opinion on? I’m asking because it seems like you might have first hand knowledge of military aircraft maintenance.

[CE_Mikemonster]

I am not so much presenting information as I am trying to present logic Voland.

 

I am not experienced in aircraft maintenance and i'm certain that you and many others on this site know a huge amount more than me on the specifics of systems, information sources, doctrines and staticstics.

 

Unfortunately it seems though that when such people get their heads together the debate can end up taking so many twists and turns that the end subect where one person is right has nothing to do with the original subject of the debate! (the battle-rifle example ;))

 

It seems, when you get right down to the source of this debate, that the debate is over the following subject:

 

'NATO have aircraft requiring an advanced airbase infrastructure when in exterme cold weather, and Russia have aircraft that as a bonus do not need this.'

 

My post above were linked to this rather than as a reply to anybody else's statements.

 

As far as I was aware.. opposing fighters take off and operate in the same operating conditions. So any NATO aircraft must therefore be just as capable as a rival Russian aircraft in an extreme theatre of operations.

 

With the airbase infrastructure behind them that they were designed for, i'm certain that NATO aircraft can sustain the same sortie rates as Russian aircraft.

 

I'm basing my assumptions on that if they could not it would be a complete failure of design for the manufacturers. Swedish aircraft operate in such 'extreme cold' conditions for example, and Norway operate the F-16 in the same climate. I'm sure that all US aircraft in Alaska are mission capable - if they were not I doubt that they'd be stationed there.

 

If NATO accomplish this by means of a more complex and expensive infrastructure for their airforces then it must be seen as an advantage of prior strategic planning.

 

I possibly used the word 'strategic' here incorrectly.

 

What I meant is that the overall system for supporting the Air Force allows for better airbases in NATO bloc countries.

I'm basing this on the fact that as you have mentioned most front line combat NATO aircraft are not designed for operating from dirt-strips or public highways.

 

If Russia's aircraft do require less attention prior to launching sorties it will come as a compromise - technology, performance, or mission effectiveness will have been sacrificed.

 

To me it seems that if Western aircraft need heated hangars it means they have components or systems that are not 'weather proofed' or cannot cope with repeated starts in extreme cold.

If Russian aircraft are capable of this either new materials must have been added to provide this capability, or new systems must have been added to the aircraft itself to allow it to carry out some of the functions provided externally in Western hangars. In either case there has been a compromise that will negatively affect the aircraft in some way.

 

I'm not disputing your or anyone elses knowledge here mate, respect to everyone! :)

[Guest VolkVoland]

CE_Mikemonster, I agree with and there is not much to add really :)

 

Alaskan F-16s do operate form heated hangars, and actually have better performance then all other US F-16s because their turbines are fed by thick cold Alaskan air.

 

I don’t know if Euro fighters fully weatherized, but I do know that as a FLF MiG-29 is completely covered.

 

SU-27 stands farther from the FL so they might be less protected, but MiG-31s that are stationed in the Far East are also completely covered.

 

That about covers it :)

[RedTiger]

If Russian aircraft are capable of this either new materials must have been added to provide this capability, or new systems must have been added to the aircraft itself to allow it to carry out some of the functions provided externally in Western hangars. In either case there has been a compromise that will negatively affect the aircraft in some way.

 

OR the Russian aircraft are missing those parts that are hard to weather proof, which by a gross process of elimination, might be the "sophisticated" parts.

 

You put it well; its not so much information as more of a logic. If the NATO plane can do X, Y, Z but it can't sit outside in freezing weather and still do them, but the Russian fighter can, you have to ask, can it still do X, Y, and Z? Can it do them as effectively as the NATO plane?

 

If it can, then you probably have a better designed plane or possibly one using some technology the other one does not. However, if it can't, then you MIGHT logically assume that its missing the ability to do X, Y, or Z. If this is the case, then the designers either were incapable of designing it to do this or they decided to sacrifice something for the ability to sit outside in freezing weather OR a combination of both.

 

My point was that I'd rather just have it do X, Y, and Z if all it meant was that I had to take a modicum of care and attention towards maintaining it, i.e. heated hangars. ;)

Edited March 3, 2009 by RedTiger

[CE_Mikemonster]

Aaah yes, and even if the technology was designed better to cope with the conditions, it is still a compromise compared to a version not needing the modification, size/weight/materials/simplicity/price/development time [that could have been used elsewhere or on upgrading the existing component].

[Guest VolkVoland]

I don’t know… Up until F-22, MiG-31 was the most sophisticated platform and still is the fastest one to this day, all while being “weather proof” for the dreadful winters off the Far East.

[GGTharos]

It sure was faster than an F-15C ... but not more sophisticated.

 

Up until F-22, MiG-31 was the most sophisticated platform

[Guest VolkVoland]

It sure was faster than an F-15C ... but not more sophisticated.

 

Phased array radar, secure fully digital data link (GCI/SA/attack, etc) with mini-AWACS mode and tactical command of other platforms (SU-27/MiG-29 and down the chain), so yes, I would call that sophistication.

 

F-15 does not even come close to launching range, just as Japanese F-15s are well aware of when they encounter MiG-31s.

 

Apples and oranges, completely different aircraft with different requirements.

[GGTharos]

I could always mention the Alaskan eagles, but it's pointless. While the Phased array radar was great for ECCM for the MiG-31, IIRC its actual detection ability wasn't much better than the Eagle's. IIRC.

 

But yes, the USAF managed to remain conspicuously behind in terms of datalinking etc. The NAVY was on top of'em there.

[Guest VolkVoland]

It’s a bit more proper to compare MIG-31 to Tomcat, and even then ‘Flash Dance” outshines AWG-9.

 

To be honest I don’t really care to go into another Foxhound verses Tomcat debate, to me it’s simple, ESA verses Doppler, and its all there’s to it, not to mention that it’s of topic.