Were Russian and Western aerospace ever equals?

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2004
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post18 Jan 2023, 07:36

This is common mistake Mig23 and Mig29 had datalink but export ones didnt. Being crude datalink is still better then not having datalink at all like f15 or f16 vack then. And datalink wasn't really crude I posted capabilities of datalink but you didn't even bother to read.

Some MiG31 will be used against NATO acting as AEWs because with datalink this would be very effective.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4782
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Jan 2023, 15:39

milosh wrote:This is common mistake Mig23 and Mig29 had datalink but export ones didnt.


Provide me evidence!

But no, the Mig-29 didn't have data-link. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

Early MiG-29s were very agile aircraft, capable of rivaling the performance of contemporary F-18 and F-16 aircraft. However, their relatively low fuel capacity relegated them to short-range air defense missions. Lacking HOTAS and an inter-aircraft data link, and requiring a very intensive "heads-down" approach to operating cockpit controls, the early MiG-29 denied pilots the kind of situational awareness routinely enjoyed by pilots operating comparable US aircraft.


Moreover, there's also DCS. In DCS the Su-27 and Su-33 have data-link while the Mig-29 doesn't have it. If the Mig-29 had data-link then it would have been modeled in DCS as well.

I've read (sorry but I can't find the info/source) that the reason why the Su-27 had data-link and the Mig-29 didn't was available space. The equipment for data-link was quite bulky and didn't quite fit inside the Mig-29 where as opposed, the Su-27 didn't have such problem.
And no, I'm not talking about export variants. I'm talking about Soviet variants.


milosh wrote:Being crude datalink is still better then not having datalink at all like f15 or f16 vack then. And datalink wasn't really crude I posted capabilities of datalink but you didn't even bother to read.


Yes, it was really crude and even you admitted that when you said that those data-links could only receive information and not share it! For example and as opposed the F/A-18 data-link could already share info between aircraft.

The Data-link is only good as the sources that provides data to the fighter aircraft. Soviet AWACS technology was inferior in both technology and above all in numbers (Soviets had much less AWACS platforms than NATO). This means that there would be less information and less quality information being feed to the any potential Su-27 datalink comparatively to the voice information being feed/given to F-15/F-16 by NATO AWACS, so this would more than offset any advantage that the Soviet data-link system might have.

On top of this, without Data-link (or GCI control) even the Su-27 had a very limited capability when searching for targets on its own with its own radar. As opposed the F-15 and F-16 (but specially the F-15) didn't have such problems or limitations.
The only Soviet aircraft that didn't have such limitations was the Mig-31 but more on that below.


milosh wrote:Some MiG31 will be used against NATO acting as AEWs because with datalink this would be very effective.


I totally and completely disagree!
You wouldn't see Mig-31s over central Europe like you never/rarely saw Su-15 in central Europe before it. The issue is that Soviet Union is a massive country (the biggest on Earth) with lots of radar coverage gaps and only aircraft capable of dealing with this at the time would be the Mig-31. As such the Mig-31 would be kept defending "home" which BTW is what it was designed for.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post18 Jan 2023, 21:17

(Yefim/Komissarov) The MiG-29 and MiG-23 or the 1980s had Datalinks like pretty much all Russian aircraft including some export variants. The systems are only described as one way receive for use with GCI.

However they do put a fair bit of detail about the MiG-31 data link - they write it could send command data to MiG-29 / 23 / 27.

Without seeing a lot more detail it is impossible to put this into any real context.
Offline

viperzerof-2

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 15 May 2011, 18:54

Unread post18 Jan 2023, 21:21

Aren’t their Mig-29 manuals we can look at?
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post18 Jan 2023, 21:49

There may be - translation is the issue really.

Assume the 29G had it removed as no trace.

As ever some bits on here may be useful.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... 102/page-2
Offline

milosh

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2004
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post18 Jan 2023, 22:24

@ricnunes

You can find whole information how soviet datalinks worked and which fighters have them but you use DCS???

23 and 29 have only one way datalink reason isn't lack of space but less powerful radar compared to Su27 and especially MiG31.

Su27 and MiG31 have two way datalink and also have fighter to fighter datalink this mean a lot because they can act as wolfpack without using radios at all.

Btw 23 and 29 will see what targets 27 and 31 see and what they are attacking so they will not attack them. So it isn't just getting better radar info it is much more.

And AWACS wasn't prime source of radar info but GCI so all sam and ew radars will share data with fighters trough network GCI.

Simply put it Soviet AF did had much better radar SA then USAF had in late 1980 even though it doesn't look like that at first glance. No wonder USAF invested in stealths.
Offline

viperzerof-2

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 418
  • Joined: 15 May 2011, 18:54

Unread post18 Jan 2023, 22:25

F-15J and F-2 had a similar one way data link from BADGE J/ASW-10 and J/ASW-20. I think the F-15J got J/ASW-10 early on. They both got replace by another data link and the Link 16.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4388
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 Jan 2023, 10:35

ricnunes wrote:
milosh wrote:SR-71 wasn't agile at all but couldn't be down because at altitudes that thing or MiG-31 operate missile controls are very ineffective so even if you have just 2G capability you can easy evade missile thanks to altitude and speed.

So MiG-31 will do same thing but with much higher G limit.

AIM-54 was tested against something which could be consider MiG-31 like target (high altitude, high speed) and it was able to hit it, don't know did target do evading maneuvers, because it could be test against Kh-22/32 like target and those don't turn. For AIM-120D I didn't find nothing similar was done.


Just because you didn't find an AIM-120D test against such a type or target doesn't mean it's not capable of it. Actually I think that both me and hornetfinn clearly explained you why the AIM-54 won't have any advantage over the AIM-120D when engaging very fast and high altitude target.
There's no need to repeat myself, is there?


Exactly. According to Raytheon, there have been over five thousand test shots with AIM-120. We definitely know details about only very small number of all those test shots. I'm sure some of those tests were done against high-speed, high-altitude targets.

https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/news/2022/07/13/amraam-evolution

The AMRAAM missile has been test fired more than 5,000 times and used in combat all over the world. The tests often contribute to the next update, improving aspects such as its range, its GPS navigation or its two-way data link.



US Air Force Justification Book Volume 1 of 1 Missile Procurement, Air Force:

https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY23/PROCUREMENT_/FY23%20Air%20Force%20Missile%20Procurement.pdf?ver=QeRLpOSY7vcLmsKbr3C-Qw%3D%3D

AMRAAM is the premier all-weather, all-environment radar guided missile with improved capabilities against very low and high-altitude targets in an electronic attack environment
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4782
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post19 Jan 2023, 16:21

milosh wrote:@ricnunes

You can find whole information how soviet datalinks worked and which fighters have them but you use DCS???

23 and 29 have only one way datalink reason isn't lack of space but less powerful radar compared to Su27 and especially MiG31.


If you read my last post I didn't only use DCS as a sole source. However and about DCS, this is made by a Russian company which already had contracts with the Russian Air Force, namely for a Ka-50 simulator (a version of which was later adapted for commercial use and available for anyone to purchase) so they have a pretty good idea about the capabilities of Russian aircraft.
However and after digging a bit more it seems that yes, the Mig-29 and Mig-23 had some sort of Data-link whoever this was a even more limited and crude form of Data-link even compared to the Su-27 data-link. For example:
- It could only receive data from GCI and NOT from AWACS.
- It gave data thru symbiology (or text) like assigned speed for the interception, target heading and target height. It didn't projected the target's location on the radar display or HUD like in the Su-27 for example. From what I see, even the data-link system found on USAF century interceptors (F-101B, F-102 and F-106) was more advanced than that.

BTW and for a curiosity sake, DCS doesn't model the above because for some reason the sim doesn't support Data-link between ground radars/GCI and aircraft.


milosh wrote:And AWACS wasn't prime source of radar info but GCI so all sam and ew radars will share data with fighters trough network GCI.


In NATO, AWACS was a primary source of information (and GCI was also important for NATO of course)! For the Soviets/Warsaw Pact it obviously wasn't.

Of course GCI is also a source for detecting and vectoring fighter aircraft to intercept incoming enemy aircraft.
However GCI is far more limited than AWACS in terms of area that it can cover. For once their radars when operating are static and they can't cover space at low altitude masked by terrain features such as hills, mountains, etc... and the last but not the least, there's the Earth's curvature (which greatly limits GCI effectiveness!).

As opposed AWACS can cover a much, much and much wider and longer area than any GCI and it's ground radars can since they are much and much less affected by the same terrain features (hills, mountains, Earth's curvature, etc...)


milosh wrote:Simply put it Soviet AF did had much better radar SA then USAF had in late 1980 even though it doesn't look like that at first glance. No wonder USAF invested in stealths.


LoL, stop drinking the "Russia Stonk" KoolAid. :doh:
No, the Soviet AF did NOT had much better radar SA then USAF. Not even by a long shot, read above!

USAF investing in Stealth isn't because the Soviets had better radar SA then USAF (not even by a long shot! As you can read above) but because it's part of the USAF strategy for Air Superiority which allowed aircraft to easily penetrate enemy air defences. Resuming, Stealth at the time was though by USAF as an attack/offensive tool and NOT as an defensive/interception and much less a SA tool.
The Soviets never had a strategy of Air Superiority unlike USAF! Their tactical aviation was either used for interceptions over friendly territory or near the frontline or for tactical strikes/interdiction around and not far from the frontlines. And the Soviets also didn't have the technology to pursuit Stealth aircraft technology which for example required massive computer power something that the Soviets again didn't have!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5035
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jan 2023, 19:03

Well, an interesting tidbit I read about yesterday...

Indian Flankers are conducting DACT exercises w/Japanese F-15J's as we speak, the results of which I'm sure will be interesting/classified :(.

You could argue they're fighting tomorrow's war with yesterday's fighters, but I don't see it as such. These airframes (modified Flankers/upgraded F-15's) are going to be around for a loooong time. As a 2nd or 3rd day of war exercise, it might be productive. I'd imagine moreso for the Indians, as they don't and won't have a stealth fighter for years... if not decades.

Can't wait to hear... something lol.
Offline

milosh

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2004
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Jan 2023, 22:16

ricnunes wrote:However and after digging a bit more it seems that yes, the Mig-29 and Mig-23 had some sort of Data-link whoever this was a even more limited and crude form of Data-link even compared to the Su-27 data-link. For example:
- It could only receive data from GCI and NOT from AWACS.


I think A-50 shared data with GCI and GCI would shared it with other fighters, need to check that more.


ricnunes wrote:From what I see, even the data-link system found on USAF century interceptors (F-101B, F-102 and F-106) was more advanced than that.


Well that is problem with arugment with folks like you. I for example don't have problem to gave credit to things US had better then USSR but folks like you will try to find something which you have better on some US fighter (I saw folks which even use Vigen data link as argument what Soviets had isn't nothing special) as evidence having digital datalink in Soviet fighters wasn't nothing special.

In 1980s you don't have any kind of data link in F-15/16. Even cheap MiG-29 and old MiG-23 did had some kind of digital datalink when best land based western fighters don't have nothing.

How this happen I really don't have clue when as you said century series did have quite advanced datalink but that is that not some "Russia stronk".

Btw datalink is very important because it make argument of awful SA of soviet pilots much weaker, I mean if those pilots can get quite a lot info without even turn on their radars it can't be consider awful SA.

ricnunes wrote:In NATO, AWACS was a primary source of information (and GCI was also important for NATO of course)! For the Soviets/Warsaw Pact it obviously wasn't.


A-50 do share data with GCI so what A-50 see, see GCI and then it is send over datalinks to fighters. Advantage of Su-27 and MiG-31 is ability to directly operate with A-50 which is important in parts of USSR where ground coverage is lot poorer like behind Ural.

ricnunes wrote:The Soviets never had a strategy of Air Superiority unlike USAF! Their tactical aviation was either used for interceptions over friendly territory or near the frontline or for tactical strikes/interdiction around and not far from the frontlines. And the Soviets also didn't have the technology to pursuit Stealth aircraft technology which for example required massive computer power something that the Soviets again didn't have!


Stealth is developed to reduce efficency of soviet radar network a lot, and USAF did saw it good also for fighters. Soviets of course did have different air strategy then west I never said they had similar, in fact with Su-27 and MiG-29 they did start accepting some western doctrines but still strategy was very different.

I don't get what you want to say with massive computer power?

In 1980s Soviets did have quite capable mainframes like Elbrus 1.

So will Cray 1 which was one of best mainframes back then was of course couple time more powerful then Elbrus 1, Elbrus 1 was design to be expandable with other Elbrus 1 so you can have up to 10 procesors and lot more memory which increase computing power a lot.

Folks working on Elbrus program later became part of Intel development team:
https://download.intel.com/newsroom/bio ... A-docs.pdf

I think myth about not having computers was reason why soviets didn't work with stealth is based in fact on early soviet stealth program which gave math which Lockheed used later to make ECHO 1 program, but that soviet program was from 1950s and yes back then you really didn't had computer power nor FBW capability to make something like F-117 flyable.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4782
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Jan 2023, 23:39

milosh wrote:Well that is problem with arugment with folks like you. I for example don't have problem to gave credit to things US had better then USSR but folks like you will try to find something which you have better on some US fighter (I saw folks which even use Vigen data link as argument what Soviets had isn't nothing special) as evidence having digital datalink in Soviet fighters wasn't nothing special.


And the problem when argumenting with "folks like you" is that time after time Soviet equipment has been proving to be "crap" but yet "folks like you" keep coming with all the possible excuses such as export variants, etc... in order to prove the inevitable: Soviet equipment is inferior technologically wise. :roll:


milosh wrote:In 1980s you don't have any kind of data link in F-15/16. Even cheap MiG-29 and old MiG-23 did had some kind of digital datalink when best land based western fighters don't have nothing.


And like I previously said, the F-14 and F/A-18 had more advanced datalinks than any Soviet aircraft of the time. But for some reason you keep ignoring this.


milosh wrote:How this happen I really don't have clue when as you said century series did have quite advanced datalink but that is that not some "Russia stronk".


The Century series interceptors had datalinks quite advanced for its time. For example these datalinks were connected to the interceptor's autopilot and allowed the GCI ground stations to take control of the interceptor aircraft and vector them (automatically) towards enemy aircraft.


milosh wrote:A-50 do share data with GCI so what A-50 see, see GCI and then it is send over datalinks to fighters.


That's pure speculation on your part (you even admitted that before). Anyway the number of A-50 available was much, much smaller than available NATO E-3s even at the time.


milosh wrote:I don't get what you want to say with massive computer power?

In 1980s Soviets did have quite capable mainframes like Elbrus 1.

So will Cray 1 which was one of best mainframes back then was of course couple time more powerful then Elbrus 1, Elbrus 1 was design to be expandable with other Elbrus 1 so you can have up to 10 procesors and lot more memory which increase computing power a lot.

Folks working on Elbrus program later became part of Intel development team:
https://download.intel.com/newsroom/bio ... A-docs.pdf

I think myth about not having computers was reason why soviets didn't work with stealth is based in fact on early soviet stealth program which gave math which Lockheed used later to make ECHO 1 program, but that soviet program was from 1950s and yes back then you really didn't had computer power nor FBW capability to make something like F-117 flyable.


REALLY?? :bang:
Now you're trying to argue that the Soviet computer power and technology was on par with the US or the West :doh:

Anyway, in just in case you missed it - but I suspect you're doing this on purpose - the US/West computer technology was FAR MORE ADVANCED than the Soviets because of MINIATURIZATION of electronic components which made (and still makes) the US/West computer tech far superior than the Soviet/Russian one. If you can't understand this then go study computer science!

BTW, good luck putting mainframes inside combat aircraft and building enough of them for each combat aircraft! :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

milosh

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2004
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post27 Jan 2023, 23:08

I don't give much importance to F-14 or F-18 datalinks because those will not do most fighting against soviet fighters! F-15 and F-16 would and they lacked any kind of datalink.

MiG-29 could receive A-50 data because GCI and A-50 were connected so A-50 will send data to GCI, same as MiG-31 and Su-27.

Because of datalink soviet fighters with capable radars act as AEW, MiG-31 was in fact developed to act as AEW platform, which is something overlooked.

First you had four connected MiG-31 acting as huge AEW (covering 1000km x 200km) later it was increase to six MiG-31 with better radar range.

What they see they will send to GCI which would then coordinate fighters using datalink.

But folks expect MiG-31 will not be used in such manner in case of WW3 because we need to eliminate clear advantage Soviet AF did had back then???

So while lagging in electronics Soviets were able to use what they have quite good. Why USAF and NATO didn't developed something similar even though tech was there I don't get.

Btw it is similar to Space Shuttle and Buran. Buran was able to do what X-37 do today, remote controlled space flight, and it is sure Roscosmos didn't had tech nor funds NASA had.

Maybe they were able to do better programing in USSR, being force to use less (some times lot less capable) electronics pushed programing to maximum? I know they got superb theoretical base on their universities as our professor did he would have three books from machining one was Russian he would show us and say this is which you use to prepare exam, another is American this one you use to fast solve problem in practice, and this one in middle is German one it is best of both worlds enough theory and enough practice.

To be clear what I wrote about USSR can't apply on modern Russia, there isn't better example of Potemkin village then modern Russia.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4782
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post28 Jan 2023, 01:30

milosh wrote:I don't give much importance to F-14 or F-18 datalinks because those will not do most fighting against soviet fighters!


Oh, poor Canada! Always being overlooked or outright ignored. :roll:
In case you missed Canada operated an entire Air Wing of F/A-18s in West Germany during the 1980's and early 1990's.
That's way more (bigger number) than Soviet Su-27s and Mig-31s near the Iron Curtain whose numbers were basically ZERO!


milosh wrote:MiG-29 could receive A-50 data because GCI and A-50 were connected so A-50 will send data to GCI, same as MiG-31 and Su-27.


No, you don't know that Mig-29s could receive data from A-50 using GCI as a sort of a relay station! And even if that was possible - which again you don't know (you're just pulling stuff from your a$$ as usual) - there would be all sorts of line-of-sight problems. Moreover what you're saying isn't likely accurate since the Mig-29 datalink could only receive an interception vector from GCI for a given enemy aircraft and couldn't receive and show several contacts on a display sent by AWACS like for example the F/A-18 or Su-27 datalinks and displays could.

And I don't give much importance to Su-27 or Mig-31 datalinks because those would not do most fighting against NATO fighters over Germany or near the Iron Curtain! :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post28 Jan 2023, 22:13

milosh wrote:Maybe they were able to do better programing in USSR, being force to use less (some times lot less capable) electronics pushed programing to maximum?





Alexander Velovich was a designer at MiG and worked on the MiG-25/29/31 but left in 1990 and went to the US and said this about the difference in his experience.

A Soviet Designer used the best systems he could find in the Soviet Union from any manufacturer regardless of cost. We never had a cost trade off between a less capable and more capable radar. The task was to install in a given space the most capable radar that the Soviet Union could produce.


Systems are only put on most western aircraft if somebody wants it there and is prepared to pay for it. Capability can be based on a fixed price point not what is technically possible. A 1974 F-16 proposal to Japan shows a data link - with Japan paying for it probably.


It certainly looks like both the MiG-31 and MiG-23 radars / data links were compromised in the early 80s by Tolkachev - which was one of the main reasons for the redeveloped MiG-31B and BS that started around 1989/90.
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests