The F-15 and MP gameplay

[MoGas]

I guess the dedicated F-15 guys, have to show the MiGy's and Flanker guys how it works against the F-15's, in a easy way....jeeezz.

 

Can't read the nonsense anymore....

[Krippz]

I guess the dedicated F-15 guys, have to show the MiGy's and Flanker guys how it works against the F-15's, in a easy way....jeeezz.

 

Can't read the nonsense anymore....

 

But Gas you show them your AIM-120's all the time on the 104th server :D

[Boberro]

Now we have total realism. Soviet birds from 70s and updated F15s from 2001. That's realistic if we fight in Iraq. Not in Crimean.

 

We still dont know we might get only Nevada terrain and the Ukrainian Su-27 whit no radar brought to US. That will be accuret as hell.

 

We should bring that amount of Eagles is much greater than Flankers. How many times? I don't remember.

 

I said it before and I'll say it again

 

HAHAHAH GREAT :megalol::lol:

[GGTharos]

Reality indicates that the plane really matters too ... but this stuff happens a bit out of sight.

 

Or vice versa.

 

History has clearly indicated that it's the pilot who makes the difference.

[RIPTIDE]

We should bring that amount of Eagles is much greater than Flankers. How many times? I don't remember.

How many? This is a rhetorical question BTW, but I'd like you to look at the numbers yourself and come back and tell us how many times more. ;)

[Case]

I think we should focus more on having realistic operations, taskings and realistic composition of units, etc with respect to mission design.

This is already present on some servers. The problem is not so much the missions but the people that fly it. The people flying on it have to be brought to the mindset the server aims for. It can be done, but it is not easy and it will take time for people to get used to.

[Steel Jaw]

This is already present on some servers. The problem is not so much the missions but the people that fly it. The people flying on it have to be brought to the mindset the server aims for. It can be done' date=' but it is not easy and it will take time for people to get used to.[/quote']

 

You would have to lay out weapon employment ground rules mirroring RL that all would have to agree to or be kicked.

[Presing]

Their is working TWS for MiG-29s (ver. 9-13) and i am preapared to call MAPO MiG for this one (GGTharos answering my question about TWS in MiG-29s

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=25726

posts 319, 321,322 and 323).

Stuff's about realism, what I see here is much crying how much F-15c is better then any another fighter in the game. But no one ask where is EWR in the mission's and AWACS? Everybody know that American's would not put not even 1 plane in the air with out support at least one AWACS in that region and Russia have EWR on every base. Then you will see full MiG tactic (flying low, getting data from ground support, EOS only and getting kill's in the mountains with no one knowing where they are). Realism is not for as to discus about it, it is for mission builders how they will make the mission's.

 

Bishop

Edited August 24, 2010 by Presing

[GGTharos]

Yep, that is what MiGs had to do as much as possible.

[Sov13t]

Moderating and enforcing these rules creates a great overhead for server admins. This is why we have events and squad matches, where everything is watched and acted on, rules are understood by all and if not... well you get the picture.

 

So, what ever happens on pub servers stays there... you being able to shoot down X amount of aircraft is no achievement, sorry. Besides personal training/practice of tactics/maneuvers/strategies.

 

What I thought would happen in FC2 though, is that with the introduction of triggers - missions would be able to enforce certain rules autonomously... but even taxi way take off is still virtually unenforceable... :(

[GGTharos]

So, what ever happens on pub servers stays there... you being able to shoot down X amount of aircraft is no achievement, sorry. Besides personal training/practice of tactics/maneuvers/strategies.

 

This is exactly how I have treated MP play on public servers, at least lately - it's just practice - sometimes on your own, sometimes with a group ... keeps you sharper than practicing against AI alone.

 

What I thought would happen in FC2 though, is that with the introduction of triggers - missions would be able to enforce certain rules autonomously... but even taxi way take off is still virtually unenforceable... :(

 

How would you like to enforce it though? Aside from the fact that it can be difficult to detect that you're taking off from a taxiway, what suggestions would you have?

 

Blow up the plane? Issue a temp ban on that player once he is shot down or returns? (I'd certainly go for the latter, he can cool off with a good chew-out ;) ).

You could even account with emergencies like bandits being too close, so people don't get 'chewed out' if they do emergency takeoffs for this reason.

But yeah, it isn't easy.

[Teknetinium]

We should bring that amount of Eagles is much greater than Flankers. How many times? I don't remember.

 

 

 

HAHAHAH GREAT :megalol::lol:

 

 

Those MIG-29 A are not Russian LOL Boberros.

 

If you want to make a joke post some Indian Su-30s.

And I can typ what F-15 pilot would cry out.

 

 

 

Blinking Blinking I guise :) its not fear they are jamming our super radars:) I dont want to fly like this :) Shit I got hit by ET in the Face, they are cheating :)

Edited August 24, 2010 by Teknetinium

[ФрогФут]

Yep, that is what MiGs had to do as much as possible.

Then someone should ask ED to do proper ground homing for MiG.:vertag:

What we have now in game has to do nothing with reality.

[GGTharos]

Do you mean GCI (ground controlled intercept), Frogfoot? :)

[ФрогФут]

That too.

[Moa]

This is exactly how I have treated MP play on public servers, at least lately - it's just practice - sometimes on your own, sometimes with a group ... keeps you sharper than practicing against AI alone.

 

 

 

How would you like to enforce it though? Aside from the fact that it can be difficult to detect that you're taking off from a taxiway, what suggestions would you have?

 

Blow up the plane? Issue a temp ban on that player once he is shot down or returns? (I'd certainly go for the latter, he can cool off with a good chew-out ;) ).

You could even account with emergencies like bandits being too close, so people don't get 'chewed out' if they do emergency takeoffs for this reason.

But yeah, it isn't easy.

 

 

Hi GG,

Logs can be watched in real-time. I've modified the server log scripts to place in a lot of information (required for my pilots stats software that will be released within weeks to the 104th server, and once the kinks are worked out, to all squadrons). Unfortunately the current logs don't include aircraft location. I've tried to modify the scripts by taking the calls available in the export scripts but haven't got it to work (either I'm not doing it right or maybe it is simply not possible from the network scripts).

 

Once you know the location of an aircraft on takeoff you can easily determine whether it was over a runway or not. You would then modify point scores appropriately to discourage behaviour so it wasn't done routinely - although in the 'scramble' situation you're not so worried about points.

 

The other solution is to use triggers to periodically re-populate base defences if there are none. The Su-25T can still have their fun, but if the base defences get re-populated the base won't be left undefended for the remainder of the mission after a SEAD visit. No excuse for taxiway takeoffs then.

[GGTharos]

Good point. I thought the server was now capable of non-local exports while forbidding such to clients, but I forget.

[Moa]

Those MIG-29 A are not Russian LOL Boberros.

 

If you want to make a joke post some Indian Su-30s.

And I can typ what F-15 pilot would cry out.

 

Blinking Blinking I guise :) its not fear they are jamming our super radars:) I dont want to fly like this :) Shit I got hit by ET in the Face, they are cheating :)

 

The Indians have good pilots and use the Su-30 to good effect. They are also not allowed to use all the reserved 'wartime' radar modes while at Redflag (part of their contractual agreements with their Russian suppliers).

 

The Indians fought USAF F-15s in several engagements and the Eagles were considered to have 'lost' a few matches. The Indian and general media made much of this. What takes a bit more research is that the F-15s were always outnumbered by at least two to one and that the 'loss' involved the F-15s killing or warding off the enemy Su-30 but not intercepting the separate force of Jaguars in time. The USAF pilots are so good they like to train as if they had to fight continually outnumbered.

 

In real life there are more than twice as many F-15s operational than Flanker variants. So such a situation is unlikely to happen in practice, and the USAF is well trained for this if it does ever eventuate on the tactical scale.

 

It is similar to how the F-22 was considered to have lost against Chinese Su-27s and Su-30s (the shock loss was published by a group trying to get the US Congress to buy more F-22s, as always the military-industrial complex was working hard to get more US tax money). The 'loss' involved 6 F-22s fighting 3 regiments (72 aircraft) of Flankers and the F-22s killing 20 for no loss before running out of missiles. The 'loss' came about because the Flankers managed to get the F-22's (unescorted) tanker. One one hand would be a loss but looking at the exchange rate 20-0 when outnumbered 12:1 it is a staggering victory.

 

I mention these because your assetion that the F-15s would 'cry' against the Su-30 seems to be based on the mainstream media reports (eg. the Indian success at RedFlag) but is not really that valid. If you dig deeper you can see that the situation is a lot more complicated than and depends on the particulars of the training scenario or strategic set-up.

 

So if you examine the facts carefully you might be more rational in your opinion (let the numerical facts speak for themselves, not the opinions of pundits, or nationalists, or industrial interests). Each aircraft has its own merits.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Moa

[Moa]

Good point. I thought the server was now capable of non-local exports while forbidding such to clients, but I forget.

 

The export documentation says that, but I'm used to documentation not always matching the code. Perhaps I just haven't got the right technique yet to get that data (the documentation leaves a lot to the imagination).

[Teknetinium]

The Indians have good pilots and use the Su-30 to good effect. They are also not allowed to use all the reserved 'wartime' radar modes while at Redflag (part of their contractual agreements with their Russian suppliers).

 

The Indians fought USAF F-15s in several engagements and the Eagles were considered to have 'lost' a few matches. The Indian and general media made much of this. What takes a bit more research is that the F-15s were always outnumbered by at least two to one and that the 'loss' involved the F-15s killing or warding off the enemy Su-30 but not intercepting the separate force of Jaguars in time. The USAF pilots are so good they like to train as if they had to fight continually outnumbered.

 

In real life there are more than twice as many F-15s operational than Flanker variants. So such a situation is unlikely to happen in practice, and the USAF is well trained for this if it does ever eventuate on the tactical scale.

 

It is similar to how the F-22 was considered to have lost against Chinese Su-27s and Su-30s (the shock loss was published by a group trying to get the US Congress to buy more F-22s, as always the military-industrial complex was working hard to get more US tax money). The 'loss' involved 6 F-22s fighting 3 regiments (72 aircraft) of Flankers and the F-22s killing 20 for no loss before running out of missiles. The 'loss' came about because the Flankers managed to get the F-22's (unescorted) tanker. One one hand would be a loss but looking at the exchange rate 20-0 when outnumbered 12:1 it is a staggering victory.

 

I mention these because your assetion that the F-15s would 'cry' against the Su-30 seems to be based on the mainstream media reports (eg. the Indian success at RedFlag) but is not really that valid. If you dig deeper you can see that the situation is a lot more complicated than and depends on the particulars of the training scenario or strategic set-up.

 

So if you examine the facts carefully you might be more rational in your opinion (let the numerical facts speak for themselves, not the opinions of pundits, or nationalists, or industrial interests). Each aircraft has its own merits.

 

 

Im not talking real engagements, in that case F-15s would outnumber Su-27. There is a reason why Russians are slightly ahead whit SAMs defence. In FC2 squad matches are resolved by equal numbers on both side.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

You actually meant to say SAMs, right?

 

There is a reason why Russian are slightly ahead whit A2A defence.

[RIPTIDE]

 

In real life there are more than twice as many F-15s operational than Flanker variants.

Really?. I thought there were broadly similar numbers?

[Moa]

Really?. I thought there were broadly similar numbers?

 

A quick look at wikipedia (yes, I know there are flaws in this):

 

Numbers built:

F-15 A/B/C/D/J/DJ: 1198

F-15E/I/SG : 334+

 

Total: 1532+ (nb. the USAF has nearly all of these)

 

 

Su-27 : 680

Su-30 : ~300

Su-33 : ~24

 

Total: ~1000 (nb. CIS has the biggest share of these, but Indian and China has sizeable fractions)

 

So, strictly speaking the ratio of built aircraft is 1.5. The ratio of flying aircraft will be higher in the F-15s favour (they last longer). Then there is a 'bias' effect where the USAF has a greater share of total F-15 compared to Russia's share of total Su-27. This makes it more likely that the US F-15 will outnumber Russian Su-27 in battles today (and was even more so in the 1980s and 1990s era).

 

If anyone else has more accurate figures then it'd be good to publish them please.

[Teknetinium]

You actually meant to say SAMs, right?

yes, thx GG. here is some propaganda reading.

 

Here is an interesting photograph of two Su-27 that appeared in the article of American magazine Flight Journal for the August of 1999:

 

 

So what is so interesting about these two particular Sukhois? Take a closer look and you will notice they have US Navy markings.

The US Navy markings have been edited onto the photograph of Russian Su-27s and the photo appeared in the article titled “The ultimate irony …Russian fighters for the USAF/USN?”

 

In that particular article, (retired) Rear Admiral Paul Gillcrist – a well-respected figure and a former fighter pilot – explains his proposal for the US Navy to purchase Russian Su-27 fighters as “stop-gap” replacements for F-14 and F-18 aircraft until F-35 enters service. He also suggests that US Airforce could buy Su-27s to replace F-15s that are sent into “forced retirement”.

 

As F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program nears completion, it seems that the USA’s government decided that it would be more cost-effective to wait for their F-35s rather than look for a “stop-gap” solution (Russian or otherwise). I find this decision disappointing only because I would liked to know what those who believe that “everything Russian is inferior to American” would say if US bought Russian Su-27s .

 

 

For anyone interested, I now post a copy of the Flight Journal article below:

 

Russian fighters for the USAF/USN?

The ultimate irony …

 

by Robert W. Kress with Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

 

Editors’ note: In this wonderful piece of aeronautical and political irony, it seems that our newfound but uneasy friends, the Russians, may be our best source of new fighter aircraft. Bob Kress, ex-Grumman VP of advanced programs and chief engineer on the F-14, and Adm. Paul Gillcrist, retired USN fighter pilot, make a convincing argument that rather than spend ridiculous sums for new fighters that will probably show up too late to do us any good, we should buy Sukhoi Su-27 airframes and "Americanize" them with our engines and flight-control systems. Controversial? Absolutely! Logical? Make your own decision.

 

Prelude

 

Above: The Su-27 is bigger than the F-14 and F-15, and its capabilities and economics are so outstanding that a number of nations are in the process of adapting it to set it up as the primary U.S. foe in future conflicts (photo by Katsuhiko Tokunaga).

 

Soon after Desert Storm, by some inexplicable miscalculation, the U.S. Navy voluntarily opted out of the important sea-based, deep-interdiction mission it had brilliantly carried out during and since WW II. It decided on the early termination of the A-6 program and to scrap the new A-6 "composite wing" program for which Boeing had already been paid hundreds of millions of dollars. This would have carried A-6Fs well into the next century.

 

In the strike configuration for which it originally had been designed, the F-14D was to have been the bridging mechanism between the A-6 and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). It is hoped (repeat, hoped) the JSF will arrive easily in the next millennium. With the A-6 out of the picture, and until the JSF arrives, the F-14D is the only game in town that has the same punch.

 

The problem with using the F-14D as the bridge between the two aircraft is that it is on the edge of extinction. In another inexplicable move, beginning about 1990, the U.S. Navy, per orders of then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, planned to phase out of the F-14 program and, apparently to ensure there would be no second thoughts, ordered the destruction of all F-14 tooling. Incredible!

 

The F-18 E/F program that is supposed to take over the sea-based, deep-interdiction, precision-strike mission does not have a long-range, high-payload, precision-strike capability, so the F-14Ds are the current workhorse delivery men of the 2,000-pound, LGB/radar-guided bombs in the many trouble spots around the world, as required. The USAF tries to supplement U.S. Navy strikes but is handicapped by diplomatic and political constraints.

 

Unfortunately, the tragedy does not stop there. The requirement for the Nimitz and follow-on class carriers hinges, most experts say, on its ability to carry out sea-based, deep-interdiction missions. Without the F-14s, Congress will not support the construction of more $3.5 billion Nimitz-class carriers if deep-strike aircraft are not ready on the first day of the conflict.

 

Somebody in the White House will have to answer the President’s question, "Where are the carriers?" with the reply, "What carriers?" We decided not to build any; remember?

 

LEFT: Grumman F-14Ds, as based on the USS Constellation, are on the edge of extinction and are our last Naval aircraft capable of carrying heavy bomb loads for long distances (photo by Randy Jolly).

 

The U.S. Navy

 

The U.S. Navy retired the venerable long-range, heavy-attack A-6 aircraft, not because they lacked their original capability and survivability, but because they were disintegrating due to old age. They went into service in 1962—37 years ago!

 

LEFT: the Grumman A-6E Intruder, now taken out of the fleet, was neither fast, nor glamorous, but it was rugged, reliable and carried an immense bomb load on long, low missions. It has no direct replacement (photos by Randy Jolly).

 

The F-14D has now taken over for the A-6 in the fighter/bomber role as it was originally designed to do. On top of that, when the Tomcat has loosed its bombs, it is a formidable dogfighter! With the 150 or so F-14s left, however, the U.S. Navy can only maintain this fighter/bomber force until about 2010—if it is lucky! And even doing that will require quick funding of restoration efforts to a lot of aircraft.

 

LEFT: according to the authors, the F/A-18 is simply too small to carry either the fuel or ordnance required by deep interdiction missions.

 

Cheney’s order of no more F-14 production was a wasteful move that cannot be explained rationally, nor was there ever any reason offered. The effect of the order, however, was to leave a clear path for further acquisition of the F-18A and its desperately needed mission-performance upgrade, the F-18E. The F-18s are good airplanes, but neither version comes close to the payload/range capability of the F-14 or the A-6.

 

The cake was iced by the acquisition of Grumman by Northrop in 1993—the cat devoured by the mouse, so to speak. Seventy percent of the aircraft on carrier decks at the time were Grumman-built. On the other hand, Northrop had never built a tactically significant aircraft in its entire 60-year history.

 

The USAF

 

The USAF problem is different. The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program resulted in the development of the excellent Lockheed F-22 stealth fighter and the very powerful and well-behaved Pratt & Whitney F-119 fighter engine. The USAF has many upgraded F-15 fighter/bomber aircraft in inventory and could build and upgrade even more. So, acquisition of the F-22 is not as critical an issue, timewise.

 

The problem lies in the enormous acquisition cost of the F-22 (see Aerospace America, November ’98). The cost associated with introducing it to service would probably result in the forced retirement of many workhorse F-15s. Further, the effects of stealth aircraft design measures on fighter aircraft performance, cost and combat operability have been seriously questioned.

 

The F-15s must be replaced in the next 10 to 20 years, but with which aircraft?

 

Above: Scale models show the relative sizes of the different fighters. From the left: MiG-29; F-14D; Su-27; F-15; F/A-18. Note the tiny relative size of the F/A-18 (photo by Walter Sidas).

 

The threat

 

On the other side of the fence, our combined U.S. Navy/USAF fighter/bomber force will face approximately 404 Russian Su-27 Flanker aircraft by 2002 ("Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft"). China has been licensed to build 200 (no license to export—so they say!).

 

The Su-27 is already known as a premier highly maneuverable fighter. What is less known is that it is a brute of an aircraft—bigger than the F-14 and F-15. It has a huge internal fuel capacity and, like the F-14, can carry a lot of very large bombs in attack roles—neatly hidden from radar detection between the podded engine nacelles. In addition, its external shape results in a naturally low radar signature without compromising its performance. The vaunted MiG-29 is a midget compared with the Su-27—not unlike comparing the F-18 with the F-14. No wonder the world market opts for Su-27 payload/range versus the MiG-29. Even better for our purpose, the Su-27 has already been modified for carrier operations, and it was planned for the first Russian carrier, the Adm. Kuznetzov.

 

By 2002, the U.S. will be outgunned by an ever-growing number of countries owning the Su-27. The Su-27 has a deep-strike capability that’s on a par with the current 500-nautical-mile U.S. capability, which, by the way, is in the process of rapidly fading to 300 n.m. as the F-14s go out of service and are replaced by F-18s with half the bomb load. The same goes for the F-15, except that its strike bomb load is on a par with the F-14, and it isn’t disappearing as quickly.

 

We need some more affordable, high-performance "big guys" soon! So what can be done?

 

Above: An American Su-27?

 

Before assuming that the concept of buying Su-27s for the USAF and USN is a whacky idea, let’s first see whether it has some merit. The Su-27 is a known excellent fighter. It has been partially “navalized.” It is a big brute. In the event of a conflict, we will be nose to nose with it worldwide. It exists and is in production, so we could easily buy Su-27 aircraft models as gap-fillers; we already have acquired two for evaluation. To make things even better, the airplane is inexpensive by any standards.?

 

A recent unofficial quote from a Russian source says that Su-27s can be bought for about $8 million apiece. Perhaps the carrier version would cost substantially more. Compared with F-18E/F costs, the Su-27 may offer enormous procurement savings plus large mission- and combat-effectiveness benefits.

 

Aviation Week recently announced plans by Australia to replace its F/A-18s and F-111s with MiG-29s and Su-27s. Maybe this proposal is not such a crazy idea after all!

 

In the long term, we would want to upgrade Su-27 models in thrust and avionics to give us an edge over the worldwide Su-27 threat. The Pratt & Whitney F-119 engine is significantly more powerful than the Russian Su-27 powerplants and can be built with elegant pitch and yaw thrust vectoring. The General Electric F-120 F-23 engine could also be used. Without being specific, the U.S. avionics industry should be able to substantially upgrade Su-27 systems. Cost will be the driver, but here, the Su-27 may be the solution for the U.S. Navy and USAF as interim gap-filler aircraft. For the long term, there are several options:

 

• Buy bare airframes made to specifications for completion in the U.S.

• Obtain a license to build Su-27s in the U.S. without export rights.

• Build some parts in the U.S. and buy major subassemblies from Russia for assembly in the U.S. (really a variant of the second option).

 

LEFT: On the carrier version of the Su-27, both the wings and the horizontal tail fold. The authors argue that the Russian fighter/bomber can do the F-14’s job at a fraction of the cost of a new, U.S.-built airplane (photo courtesy of Paul Gillcrist).

 

As a side issue in the procurement of these aircraft, the U.S. would certainly be funding a large part of Russia’s economic recovery, which would help to keep it stable and less of a threat. Obtaining a really good deal on Su-27s should be realistic and beneficial to both countries. It would also further cement the collaboration between Russia and the U.S. in the face of jointly perceived threats.

 

Action items!

 

Somebody (let’s see some hands, folks) should carefully explore the procurement cost and fleet readiness implications of the proposals we’ve presented. Since we’re supposedly retired, this is something we can no longer explore without the help of a major agency.

 

As long as we’re asking questions about the future fighter programs, what about the JSF program? It is a joint U.S. Navy/USAF/USMC next-generation fighter program! (Heard that one before?) But this time, a dimly perceived USMC VTOL fighter is the objective!

 

Has anyone figured out that when an engine fails during hover, a twin-engine VTOL will do a rollover very quickly, thus preventing pilot ejection? Even Harriers require quick pilot action to avoid insidious, slow, roll-control loss if the nose was allowed to get too high in a crosswind hover. Many were lost. Thus, a VTOL for the Marines must be a single-engine configuration, which means that it must be a single-engine aircraft. It also means that the JSF will be another fighter in the 30,000-pound class (using the F-119 engine, for example).

 

Finale

 

You might wonder why we are taking these positions. We could talk about politicians, the specifics of current international events and future perils—of which we know nothing of substance.

 

What we do know is how we perceived the world unfolding as youngsters on December 7, 1941. Our leaders saw what was coming but were too late to achieve a high state of readiness. So, we listened to the radio and watched “Movietone News” in horror, grief and fear until our industrial capability at last turned the tide.

 

On the surface, the current world situation is not as threatening, but many world trouble spots may demand military attention via conventional forces and weapons. Events that do arise will do so quickly, leaving little time to build up the military. Our forces must be ready at all times—something that seems to have lost its importance in the last decade. Tactical airpower must be refreshed in strategy and form, unencumbered by politics and corporate interference. In other words, we’ll always need the ability to dash in, drop a lot of bombs and get out. If we don’t do something about the impending vacuum of that capability very soon, we may find ourselves unable to effectively smack some dictator’s backside when he needs it.

 

This post has been edited by Someone: 9 Nov 2008, 23:57

Edited August 25, 2010 by Teknetinium

[Teknetinium]

Air Force hires Russian jets

 

Antonov planes ship MRAP vehicles out of Charleston

 

By Ron Menchaca

 

The Post and Courier

Saturday, January 5, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Antonov planes ship MRAP vehicles out of Charleston

 

 

 

The Charleston Air Force Base is synonymous with its C-17 cargo planes, the mammoth military workhorses of the Lowcountry skies. But demand for armored vehicles in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought a new plane to town, and forced the U.S. Air Force to rely on an unlikely partner to help transport the trucks to the war zones: Cold War enemy Russia.

The Department of Defense is contracting with two Russian-based companies that operate fleets of Russian-made cargo planes to move the desperately needed, mine-resistant vehicles to troops overseas.

Airman 1st Class Sam Hymas/U.S. Air Force

The Russian-made Antonov An-124 is a behemoth aircraft capable of transporting twice as many of the largest style of armored vehicles - four as opposed to two - as the U.S. Air Force's C-17.

 

That's because in addition to the Air Force's C-17 and its largest cargo plane, the C-5, the Russian-made An-124 is the only other aircraft in the world with enough room and lift to haul the massive armored trucks.

The Antonov An-124 Condor is the largest commercially available aircraft in the world, with a 240-foot wingspan and lift capability of 120 metric tons.

Roadside bomb attacks targeting American and coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan accelerated demand for the lifesaving armored vehicles in recent years. The trucks, known in military jargon as Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, are

The An-124 can carry four of the largest style of armored vehicle, twice as many as the C-17 can hold. Each vehicle weighs about 38,000 pounds.

To meet the need, the U.S. military began a $300 million, six-month contract in October with Volga-Dnepr, a Russian company with a U.S. office in Houston. The company uses Russian crews, including pilots.

Another smaller Russian-based company, Polet Cargo Airlines, also is supplying An-124s for the missions. Both companies are subcontracted through American-flag carriers Atlas Air and Lynden Air Cargo as part of the military's Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet.

"Most Americans would be shocked to know this fact," said MacKenzie Eaglen, a senior policy analyst with Heritage Foundation, a Washington think-tank. "It shows the challenges facing the Air Force."

The U.S. military routinely contracts with civilian airline and maritime companies to move troops and equipment overseas. Volga-Dnepr has moved U.S. military cargo for years, according to the company.

Charleston Air Force Base officials referred questions about the Russian aircraft to the U.S. Transportation Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois.

Army Lt. Col. Frederick Rice, the command's public affairs officer, said the contract does not mean that the military lacks the ability to do the job with its own aircraft. He said the Russian aircraft frees C-17s and C-5s to fly other missions. "As we continue on a daily basis to support operations, we still want to move troops, bullets and beans," Rice said.

 

He said early demand for armored vehicles was so great that the Air Force opted to transport the cargo by air, a faster but more costly method. As demand has stabilized, the military also has started shipping the trucks by sea. Last month, a military-chartered ship left Charleston for Iraq carrying 240 of the armored vehicles, a voyage that took nearly a month.

Eaglen said the use of Russian aircraft highlights the Air Force's budget challenges as it continues to fly war missions with an aging fleet of aircraft. "They are flying more, longer and harder flights and face a $20 billion shortfall for modernization."

The Air Force owns 111 C-5s and 171 C-17s, including about 50 assigned to the Charleston Air Force Base. But the C-17s are spread thin with constant missions, and the C-5 fleet is in dire need of technological upgrades, military analysts have said.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the House Armed Services Committee in October that relying on the Russian jumbo jets to move war supplies indicates that the Air Force might need more C-5s and C-17s.

"We are now sharing the mission of flying (armored vehicles) over to Iraq between C-17s and Antonov airplanes," Wynne said, according to a report in the Air Force Times. "Did [we] truly envision that we would fly war supplies with Russian-made airplanes? I don't know."

Complicating matters, Boeing, the maker of the C-17, announced in August that it would cease production of the plane in 2009 unless the Air Force orders more planes.

The company has manufactured about 180 C-17s for the Air Force. Rice said there are commitments in place to grow the C-17 fleet to 190. Beyond that, it's up to Congress, which is debating whether to continue funding enough C-17s to keep production afloat.

Ron King, commercial director for Volga-Dnepr in Houston, said his company is happy to fill the void.

The company has a fleet of 10 An-124s out of about 22 in commercial operation worldwide. The Soviet-built Antonov debuted in 1982. It was first made for the Russian Air Force, which still maintains a fleet. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, private investors bought up dozens of the aircraft. Since then the jumbo jets have been in heavy demand for oversized cargo jobs around the world.

Volga-Dnepr began offering its charter services in the United States in 2000. The company's An-124s have moved a wide variety of items — towering Christmas trees, rocket boosters, offshore oil rigs and space satellites.

"If it's big and ugly, we have moved it," King said. "At this point, we could double our fleet and keep them busy."

The contract for the Russian Antonovs runs through March. From a cargo standpoint, the armored vehicles moving out of Charleston are unremarkable, King said.

"It's just another job, very straightforward as far as we are concerned," King said.