New Russian Fighter Not Up To Western Standards

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Russian Fighter Not Up To Western Standards

Posted by timothy on Sunday January 26, 2014 @04:21AM from the does-this-come-with-the-xm-radio? dept.

schwit1 writes "Despite initial high expectations, the Indian Air Force appears to be souring on a joint development deal with Russia for a new fifth-generation fighter jet, according to the Business Standard, a major Indian business publication. The Russian prototype is 'unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered,' said Indian Air Force Deputy Air Marshall S Sukumar at a Jan. 15 meeting, according to minutes obtained by the Business Standard. 'They're very good at building airplanes,' Cordesman said. 'The problem that Russia, since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, has been putting out the military equivalent of show cars. They look good, but it isn't always clear how practical they are and how many of the specifications they can actually meet.'"

235 of 354 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hrm... by AdamColley · 2014-01-26 04:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

From model villages to model aircraft eh?
1. Re:Hrm... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-01-26 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What surprises me is the implication that this is something new. The Soviet jets seldom if ever met the specs of similar Western planes, and pretty much never met the claims made for them.
2. Re:Hrm... by mendax · 2014-01-26 08:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What surprises me is the implication that this is something new. The Soviet jets seldom if ever met the specs of similar Western planes, and pretty much never met the claims made for them.
  Well, historically, that has been true to a point. Originally, early jet fighters from the Soviet Union were hot stuff. The MiG-15 was the equal of the American F-86, more or less. But later, Russian fighters were later designed with the idea that they would be simpler to build and fix. The combat strategy was that they would overwhelm Western air forces in battle by sheer numbers. This theory seemed to change with the development of the MiG-29 which is a pretty good fighter when there is a good pilot sitting at the sharp end.
  There is another analogue of this thinking. The German Sturmgewehr 44, the first assault rifle, was a good weapon but overly complicated. The Russian AK-47 is not as accurate but is more reliable and easier to manufacture because it has fewer parts and was designed to work when wet, dirty, muddy, etc. I dare say that jammed weapon is not much of a weapon no matter how well-engineered.
  Keep in mind that the Russians can build good military equipment if they want to. The Germans in World War II learned that fact the hard way. German military equipment and vehicles was good and well-engineered but was not designed to operate in the bitter cold. Russian equipment was designed to operate in the cold and the rest is history.
  
  --
  It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
3. Re:Hrm... by Newtonian_p · 2014-01-26 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  The Su-27 was a pretty formidable plane, comparable to the F-15.
  
  --
  There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't
4. Re:Hrm... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-01-26 08:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  " But later, Russian fighters were later designed with the idea that they would be simpler to build and fix. The combat strategy was that they would overwhelm Western air forces in battle by sheer numbers."
  Yes, this is true but beside the point. Much of the Russian military equipment was intentionally designed to be lower-tech but cheaper to build and replace. I realize this was a strategic decision, but it doesn't change the fact.
  
  And yes, I almost abandoned my reply when the MiG-29 occurred to me. Instead I modified it to say "seldom".
  
  My main point was, though: the Soviets were prone to make lofty claims about their equipment that often did not pan out in the real world. That may have been a strategic decision, too... but again, it doesn't change the fact.
5. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Good talk. T-34 in it's variations. Great tank made in extreme volume.
  "Quantity has a quality all of it it's own" (unless one plane/tank/soldier can achieve a 10:1 kill ratio)
6. Re:Hrm... by Kartu · 2014-01-26 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  I'm pretty sure Su-27 was a great jet fighter back in the cold war era.
  It was definitely better than Mig-29.
7. Re:Hrm... by tomhath · 2014-01-26 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but it's hard to know what volume is needed. See Medina Ridge
  
  During the battle, the American forces suffered only one fatality (due to friendly fire), while destroying 186 Iraqi tanks
8. Re:Hrm... by Kartu · 2014-01-26 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Germans in WW2 where always outnumbered.
  They started the war being sure they are the better fighters (if you check most battles, including the largest tank battle of the WW2) and they were indeed.
  Check the losses (typical in that war):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
  USSR lost 4 times more people and 7 times more tanks while defending. (normally it's the attacker that takes more casualties, since it needs to breach prepared positions). Germans were outnumbered 2 to 1, yet they were attacking.
  Entire campaign was adventurous from the very beginning, yet they were not far from succeeding.
9. Re:Hrm... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-01-26 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Entire campaign was adventurous from the very beginning, yet they were not far from succeeding."
  Probably not true. Adventurous, yes. But succeeding? No. Not toward the end.
  
  Yes, they kept advancing. Yes, they were coming close to making more major victories. BUT... they were shy of resources, they were fighting on 3 fronts, their supply lines were weakening, and their effort was simply no longer sustainable. Despite their "successes" on paper, they were actually losing the war in a practical sense, for some time, before their actual surrender.
10. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 10:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Soviets were prone to make lofty claims about their equipment
  
  True. I am an reserve officer of Serbian Army. When we learned about Soviet/Russian equipment, we always learned two values - declared value (e.g. range) and actual value proved in practice.
11. Re:Hrm... by hairyfeet · 2014-01-26 11:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually even the Russians admit the Germans were kicking their asses for the first year, until Hitler made a huge blunder that was practically suicidal. Stalin had refused to vacate Moscow so they had the chance to grab him and pretty much end the war but Hitler took Army group Center and split it in half, believing he could grab the oil fields in the south AND Moscow. this was a foolish move that caused his troops to get bogged down until the winter which they just weren't ready for.
  Look up "Soviet Storm" on YouTube, its made by Russian TV and is as good a quality as Battle 360 when it comes to re-enactments and they don't pull any punches, they talk about when soviet strategy was wrong, when commanders failed, and when the Germans were doing well. its an unblinking look at the Eastern front and pretty damned riveting.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
12. Re:Hrm... by Creepy · 2014-01-26 11:37 · Score: 2
  
  If I remember correctly, it was always the plan to go after the oil fields, as the Germans were getting pretty desperate for oil (remember, the US was the #1 supplier of oil at the time, and the sole reason the Japanese declared war with the US because the US refused to supply oil to them - Germany was getting into a similar bind), but the original plan was to do it with tanks only splitting off three panzer divisions, and these tanks could then quickly reunite with the front. Hitler's blunder was he wanted infantry to go with the panzer divisions and split the army, slowing the advance of the southern front significantly.
13. Re:Hrm... by rtb61 · 2014-01-26 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Get real, it's the global corporate military industrial complex, they who pay the biggest bribes and supply the prettiest youngest hookers, 'WIN'. All the rest is marketing bullshit.
  Once they got to nuclear tipped stealth cruise missiles the game was over, everything is now just for show and sucking up billions upon billions of dollars in the military black hole.
  The real competition for a real future, is which country can create and maintain the best most efficient infrastructure, from broadband to energy generation. The continued wasteful military development is psychopathically driven insane shit.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
14. Re:Hrm... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-01-26 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  I am fairly familiar with the situation, though I don't claim to be an expert.
  
  Remember that it is one thing to overtake an area. It is quite another to keep it. (Something the U.S. should have kept in mind, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.) Germany was spread pretty damned thin.
15. Re:Hrm... by Aighearach · 2014-01-26 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  Tanks of that era needed infantry for protection, or they were easily destroyed by... infantry.
16. Re:Hrm... by captain_sweatpants · 2014-01-26 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  +1 insightful
17. Re:Hrm... by Chrisq · 2014-01-26 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  From model villages to model aircraft eh?
  Look at the bright side, when you open the cockpit there's a smaller model aircraft inside
18. Re:Hrm... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-26 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's true of tanks of every era.
19. Re:Hrm... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-26 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  When looking at Soviet losses in WW2, it's worth reminding that this is a total, and the actual ratios were different in different stages of the war.
  For the first year, Germans were ruling the battlefield with ridiculous proportions when it comes to casualties. But by the end of it - if you look at battles that took place in 1944-45 - Soviets have not only evened it out to 1:1, but even exceeded that in some of the more successful operations.
20. Re:Hrm... by AmiMoJo · 2014-01-27 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  My main point was, though: the Soviets were prone to make lofty claims about their equipment that often did not pan out in the real world. That may have been a strategic decision, too... but again, it doesn't change the fact.
  How is that any different to any other military?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
21. Re:Hrm... by ptkdb · 2014-01-27 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  I would add to factors that contributed to Stalin's survival the fact that Hitler was delayed in starting Operation Barbarossa(invasion of the Soviet Russian) he had to divert some of the forces allocated to the operation to go bail out Mussolini in Greece, that delayed the start for about 6-8 weeks. What could he have done with another month or two of good weather?
22. Re:Hrm... by Kelbear · 2014-01-27 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Is the combat strategy of overwhelming opposing forces by sheer numbers no longer workable? I'm sure 5th gen planes would fly virtually unopposed in many scenarios, but wouldn't the hundreds/thousands of cheap disposable drones they could get for the same price would be incredibly difficult to stop too when sent en masse?
23. Re:Hrm... by hairyfeet · 2014-01-27 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  But just like in the battle of France the generals had a good blitzkrieg run going with army group center, such a good run that the supply trucks were having trouble keeping up, but by splitting up army group Center instead of letting the run play out he ended up with 1.- 2 severely weak armies, not capable of fighting past any real resistance without great cost, and 2.- TWO badly stretched supply lines and not enough trucks to feed either one with vital fuel.
  If the generals would have done to Hitler what they did in France and just keep him in the dark with old intel they probably could have taken Moscow before Hitler was the wiser and with Stalin as their prisoner they wouldn't have had any problem taking the south.Ever watch "Fatherland"? because that map was based on what many historians thought would have happened if they had captured Moscow and Stalin, they had a small pocket fighting in the Urals near the recently moved tank and plane factories while the center and south of the country would have given up due to lack of munitions and material which was all in the north. By sending every last factory to the Urals Stalin took a BIG risk, if Moscow and the middle of the country was cut off everybody in the south would have been left without so much as a single tank factory so by grabbing Moscow and splitting the country in two it would have been all but over.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
24. Re:Hrm... by Rich0 · 2014-01-29 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Soviets were prone to make lofty claims about their equipment
  True. I am an reserve officer of Serbian Army. When we learned about Soviet/Russian equipment, we always learned two values - declared value (e.g. range) and actual value proved in practice.
  Well, you could say the same about any countries weapons. If you stick an assault rifle on a mount and train it on a target on a very calm day you could probably hit something miles away, given enough shots to find the right azimuth/elevation. However, you'd never use an assault rifle that way in real life - if you open fire at a guy miles away all you're going to do is give away your position so that they can call in an attack using something that actually is effective at that range. If you're actually stopping to fire while running between cover you really just care that the bullet travels in a rough straight line and smashes up whatever it actually hits at a few hundred yards at most, and if you're firing while running you just care that it makes a lot of noise and kicks up dirt and makes whizzing sounds so that the guys shooting back duck.
25. Re:Hrm... by Aighearach · 2014-01-30 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Modern tanks have anti-personnel machine guns that can be operated by remote without popping the top. They still obviously need protection by infantry (armored personnel carriers, anyway) to fight a major battle, or to move through an area with lots of infantry, or infantry prepared for anti-tank actions, but they can move pretty well at speed and defend against a light patrol, especially one that isn't expecting them.
  In the WWII era, a light patrol could destroy an unprotected tank just by running up to it, climbing on, covering it with oil, and lighting it on fire.
  Yes, tanks still need infantry support; but less so especially for a side diversion. And for many situations, you could substitute a few attack helicopters.
  A patrol can fire RPG pot shots at a tank, but they can't just run up and even board it; moving too fast. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan... most of the losses of tanks comes later, after locals get a familiarity and plant roadside bombs, or deploy teams with anti-tank munitions.
26. Re:Hrm... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-30 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, one other thing with Iraq and Afghanistan is that most AT weaponry in use there is the good old RPG-7, which is not really adequate against modern composite armor - you need to deploy it in volleys to ensure a hit, with several people firing at once from different angles (like Chechen jihadis did in Grozny in 1994).
  OTOH, with something more modern like RPG-29, a single hit can seriously damage a modern tank, even a frontal hit at the turret. Luckily for allied forces, they don't encounter those often in the hands of insurgents in modern war theaters; but when they do, the results are impressive. And IDF had more trouble along these lines in Lebanon because they've got large numbers of RPG-29 from Syria.
  And in any conventional large scale conflict, with two national armies on both sides, as WW2 had been, you can be sure that the AT weaponry on the other side will be more modern and more widespread, and it is entirely likely that a light patrol would still have one on them (it's why they are made so light as to be carried by a single person, after all).
27. Re:Hrm... by Aighearach · 2014-01-31 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Right, in the comparable scenario to WWII, you could send a bunch of tanks and lose a few, but you'd be able to achieve the objective unless there was more resistance than expected. But also you'd have better intel now.
  In Lebanon they were dug in, prepared for tanks in the border area, and had had years to prepare and stockpile quality munitions, and were just barely able to stop the advances.
  WWII Russia was mostly low tech, and relied on numbers. But that is all they needed to stop state-of-the-art tanks, if unprotected.
28. Re:Hrm... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-31 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  WWII Russia was mostly low tech, and relied on numbers. But that is all they needed to stop state-of-the-art tanks
  Germans didn't have "state of the art" tanks at the onset of the invasion. Most of their force was Panzer III, which was utter crap by 1941 in general, and most certainly not a match to T-34 which they faced most often, that being the most common Soviet tank. For that matter, their armor was so weak that even the Russian PTRD and PTRS anti-tank rifles could punch through it from the side (the 14.5mm Soviet AT round could penetrate 30mm of steel armor at 300m; PzIII only had 15mm of side armor). PzKpfw IV fared somewhat better, but could still be busted both by a determined anti-tank rifleman, and easily wasted by T-34.
  Really, the only reason why the initial German tank losses were so relatively low was because of their superior tanker training and Soviets being demoralized by shock attacks they were utterly unprepared for. Even so, they were high enough that Germans had to scramble to upgrade Pz III and PzKpfw IV to stand up to the realities of the battlefield on the Eastern Front, and it wouldn't be until Panther that they actually enjoyed technological superiority in tanks, and until Panzerfaust that they had effective AT weaponry to deal with Soviet tanks.
To be fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 04:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

They haven't had quite as much opportunities to field-test their designs as the Americans.
1. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yup, all those wars in the Mid East serve as great testing grounds. It's a pity loads of troops die in the process of testing, but hey you can't let morals get in the way of profits.
2. Re: To be fair by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  What was Georgia then?
3. Re:To be fair by dywolf · 2014-01-26 08:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Also worth noting, they dont have 35+ years of experience working with stealth technology.
  The various stealth prototypes and demonstrators (Have Blue, Tacit Blue, Bird of Prey) had their share of problems too.
  Yet the production birds (B2, F117, and F22) have done their jobs well.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
4. Re:To be fair by gtall · 2014-01-26 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, you are right, Saddam and the Taliban Air Forces gave the U.S. planes a run for their money.
5. Re: To be fair by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-26 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  A walk in the park. It was traditional-style conventional warfare against a "normal" enemy (meaning a regular army of an established state) with no guerrilla warfare component to it. And the enemy in question had significantly less resources and a poorly trained and equipped army.
6. Re:To be fair by eyendall5185 · 2014-01-27 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, all those wars in the Mid East serve as great testing grounds. It's a pity loads of troops die in the process of testing, but hey you can't let morals get in the way of profits.
  To "profits" for the industrial complex, you can add medals, promotions, and new toys for the boys. No heroes here.
So a good match... by TWX · 2014-01-26 04:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

...for the current development level of the F-35?

In all seriousness, as compromised as the F-35 has been in what's been delivered to customers so far, it sounds like it'd be a fairly even match. Compromised plane against compromised plane.

And don't rule out older designs, the military used to train pilots in new planes by pitting them against experienced pilots in F4s and other older jets, and routinely the older jets would get kills against the new ones.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
1. Re:So a good match... by DerekLyons · 2014-01-26 04:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And don't rule out older designs, the military used to train pilots in new planes by pitting them against experienced pilots in F4s and other older jets, and routinely the older jets would get kills against the new ones.
  So long as your Air Force is made up of nothing but experienced pilots, you'll do fine then.
  We''l just recruit new pilots from Lake Wobegon.
2. Re:So a good match... by Truekaiser · 2014-01-26 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  As long as it costs less than 1 trillion(the f-35's current running total) it is not only a match but a good counter.
3. Re:So a good match... by Waffle+Iron · 2014-01-26 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  And don't rule out older designs, the military used to train pilots in new planes by pitting them against experienced pilots in F4s and other older jets, and routinely the older jets would get kills against the new ones.
  Now wait a minute... I seem to recall one of those rah-rah! documentaries on cable, where they were boasting about an exercise where the latest plane (probably an F-22) knocked out a whole squadron of F-16s before they could even detect it. I'm not sure how pilot skill comes into play there, unless "camping" is frowned upon in a real war.
4. Re:So a good match... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-26 05:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  So long as your Air Force is made up of nothing but experienced pilots, you'll do fine then.
  One (of many) reasons that the US military sucks up so much money is that our pilots train continuously. In the C17, pilots do not reach the Aircraft Commander level until 4 or 5 *years* after putting on wings. Obviously, fighters have a different training program, but clearly huge amounts of continuous training are involved. So, yes, in practical terms, the operational Air Force is made up of almost nothing but experienced pilots.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
5. Re:So a good match... by 0123456 · 2014-01-26 05:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If you read the history books, you'll also see how the F-4 was going to destroy all opposing aircraft with missiles, so it would never need a gun because they'd never get close enough.
  Once it actually got into actual combat in the actual real world, there were sudden orders for a gun pod for close-in dogfights.
  The F-22 may be able to hit less stealthy aircraft with missiles from well beyond visual range, but that doesn't help if the rules of engagement won't let them fire missiles at random dots on a radar screen. Also, I was reading recently about new IR trackers which can detect F-22s from well beyond radar range, making radar stealth far less useful.
6. Re:So a good match... by Rick+Zeman · 2014-01-26 05:22 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And don't rule out older designs, the military used to train pilots in new planes by pitting them against experienced pilots in F4s and other older jets, and routinely the older jets would get kills against the new ones.
  So long as your Air Force is made up of nothing but experienced pilots, you'll do fine then.
  We''l just recruit new pilots from Lake Wobegon.
  Yeah, all the pilots are above average there.
7. Re:So a good match... by hairyfeet · 2014-01-26 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And its all because of that damned stealth which cripples the HELL out of the aircraft! The ONLY advantage it gives you is on sneaking up, that's it, and in return for the sneaking up? 1.- no external hardpoints means you can't carry shit for stores, 2.- this cuts down loiter times to joke levels, 3.- it limits your new toy to a couple of missiles at best, 4.- it drives the costs to insane levels thanks to the exotic materials and perfectly flush seams required.
  Frankly we are making the same mistake that Germany made in WWII, as we are making planes that are extremely complex, have very low flight to maintenance ratios, spend more time on the ground being worked on than anything else,can't afford to have more than a handful built making spare parts costs soar, and are ignoring the fact that any potential enemies are gonna be able to pick up the MiG 29s and SU35s for a song thus enabling them to "plane spam" us with planes that can carry a hell of a lot more stores than our techno turkies ever can.
  If we HAVE to buy stealth toys? The stealth eagle can be had for a song, eagles are reliable, when you don't need the stealth it can carry a ton of stores and most importantly we get the line cranked we could easily have 2 or even 3 of those for every F35 which they STILL haven't been able to show will actually work with any reliability. Its the F22 all over again and all TFA does is show me that stealth is just a bad idea with current tech. the Chinese are likewise finding this out, with their F22 copy ending up on the "for sale cheap" pile because after trying it the Chinese air force don't want it.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
8. Re:So a good match... by Alarash · 2014-01-26 05:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And I heard stories of the Dassault Rafale shooting down F-22 with their canon. There'll always be stories of "plane X shot plane Y so plane X is better than plane Y" but that overlooks individual skills (dog fighting), tactical conditions (can't shoot from beyond visual range if the target is flying low in a mountain range) or even strategic considerations (can you afford, both money and time wise, to replace your planes when they go down or need maintenance). The whole problem of military design is to find the right balance between high-technology and affordability. And it seems that lately the US have been shifting a lot more towards the former. Keep in mind that you can live using credits only for so long, and during war times it becomes even more critical.
9. Re:So a good match... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-01-26 05:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  And if you can afford it, it really pays off. Take a good look at what the highly trained, badly outnumbered Israeli air force did to to the Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi air force during the Six Day War. The Soviet trainers of those national air forces there were explicitly prevented from providing extensive training and from keeping the aircraft fully fueled and armed. The constant concern was that educated, trained local pilots would steal the planes and fly to NATO airbases, for both economic and political reasons. The list of successful pilot defections during the time is quite long:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
  It's an amazing list, and purchasers of Soviet aircraft of the era were constantly handicapped by the risk of the best trained and educated pilots defecting.
10. Re:So a good match... by MightyYar · 2014-01-26 05:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  pitting them against experienced pilots in F4s and other older jets
  Sometimes the older jets are quite nimble performers, but lack some other quality which renders them obsolete. Maybe they have poor loiter time, low ordinance capacity, or limited range. Maybe they simply cost too much to maintain, or are unreliable. Thus they might still make excellent dog-fighting opponents on a training course where the scenario specifically evens the playing field.
  There is more to a jet's war-fighting ability than simply being good in a dogfight or the ability to go really fast.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
11. Re:So a good match... by MightyYar · 2014-01-26 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  F-35 has external hardpoints. So does the F-22. They can carry fuel or missiles.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
12. Re:So a good match... by ShanghaiBill · 2014-01-26 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  One (of many) reasons that the US military sucks up so much money is that our pilots train continuously.
  Yet another reason to move to pilotless planes. Drones don't need training, they just need to be programmed.
13. Re:So a good match... by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 06:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  That one is actually feasible. The most distinguishing feature of Rafale is that they have a fully integrated (advertised as) revolutionary electronic warfare suite called SPECTRA. This proved itself well in Libya, where there were two kinds of NATO attack sorties. Those where aircraft were escorted by dedicated electronic warfare aircraft like Prowlers and Growlers, and those where Rafales went in without. The task of electronic warfare aircraft is to jam enemy radar guided missiles. They are the main force responsible for high survivability of NATO aircraft in recent conflicts.
  F-22 is highly reliant on its radar guided missiles to do the job. It's a pretty bad dogfighter as dogfighting would put emphasis on maneuvreability and F-22 is designed for stealth first and foremost. Rafale is designed for speed and superagility, so it's meant for dogfights. If Rafale's integrated electronic warfare suite is indeed powerful enough to disrupt F-22's radar guided missiles as it's rumoured to be, F-22 is going to be boned very hard in a duel against it. If both sides are able to render radar guided missile attacks useless, guns and IR seekers come into play and that puts F-22 at a massive disadvantage.
  The historic analogy here is ninja vs samurai. If a ninja could get a sneak kill, he would win. But a frontal fight against a heavily armoured and armed samurai is a suicide for a ninja.
14. Re:So a good match... by DerekLyons · 2014-01-26 06:02 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  One (of many) reasons that the US military sucks up so much money is that our pilots train continuously. In the C17, pilots do not reach the Aircraft Commander level until 4 or 5 *years* after putting on wings. Obviously, fighters have a different training program, but clearly huge amounts of continuous training are involved. So, yes, in practical terms, the operational Air Force is made up of almost nothing but experienced pilots.
  In practical terms, no, the operational Air Force is anything *but* made up of experienced pilots. You have a significant fraction that are relatively new (less than two or three years experience). You also have a significant fraction that have (within a year or so) just returned from non-flying duties.
  
  Not to mention the "experienced" pilots in the OP are either pilots with notable air combat experience, or long (twelve to fifteen years plus) service experience.
15. Re:So a good match... by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-01-26 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  If the F-4 actually had had good missiles, it wouldn't have needed its cannon. The Sparrow missile however was a piece of shit, and it didn't help that it never occurred to the designers that it would be used in a tropical environment. F-4 pilots got into the habit of firing two at a time, because they knew one of them would fail to light and fall into the jungle, or immediately go straight and fail to track, or some other problem.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
16. Re:So a good match... by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Doing so makes them into very expensive and very inefficient fighters. Not to even mention F-35 which has massive issues with its external hardpoints right now, ranging from not having enough thrust to function as a fighter with full external loadout to actually destroying its engine trying to achieve maneuvreability and acceleration on par with F-4, much less a modern 4th gen aircraft.
  F-35 program is a complete mess right now, and honestly not a good comparison point to anything that is actually functional. Same goes for most post USSR Russian military aircraft development.
17. Re:So a good match... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-26 06:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yet another reason to move to pilotless planes. Drones don't need training, they just need to be programmed.
  *Some* drones are pilot-less, mostly high altitude reconesonce drones. *Most* US drones in fact have qualified pilots at the controls, sitting in control rooms at places like Creech Air Force Base, outside of Las Vegas. Creech is both a training / testing base for drones, as well as a Command and Control location where actual pilots sit in rooms controlling drones in "real-time".
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
18. Re:So a good match... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-26 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In practical terms, no, the operational Air Force is anything *but* made up of experienced pilots. You have a significant fraction that are relatively new (less than two or three years experience). You also have a significant fraction that have (within a year or so) just returned from non-flying duties.
  I disagree. But hey, I've only worked in operational flying for the USAF for around 20 years. Maybe I'm wrong.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
19. Re:So a good match... by khallow · 2014-01-26 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  And its all because of that damned stealth which cripples the HELL out of the aircraft!
  
  They have a role. What carried more stuff and has a longer loiter time, a stealth fighter or a smoking hole in the ground? Once you have air superiority, that stark choice no longer exists. But you have to get to that point. Using a lot of gimped stealth planes is the current US approach.
20. Re:So a good match... by rotorbudd · 2014-01-26 06:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wasn't it Stalin that said "Quantity has a quality all it's own" when the Allies told him USSR's equipment was inferior?
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
21. Re:So a good match... by SpankiMonki · 2014-01-26 06:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  One (of many) reasons that the US military sucks up so much money is that our pilots train continuously.
  Off topic, but the USAF flight training budget for FY2014 represents just over 1/2 of 1 percent of the total USAF budget. In terms of money suckers, flight training is way way down the list.
  Total budget = $144,425B (page 4 here)
  Flight training budget = $792M (page 1 here)
22. Re:So a good match... by SpankiMonki · 2014-01-26 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Another true story ruined by an eye-witness!
  BTW, thanks for your service (hope that doesn't sound glib).
23. Re:So a good match... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  The most distinguishing feature of Rafale is that they have a fully integrated (advertised as) revolutionary electronic warfare suite called SPECTRA.
  The second most distinguishing feature is that they are piloted by a guy petting a white cat.
24. Re:So a good match... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-26 07:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well, there is a *grain* of truth in the post I'm objecting to. Some pilots take non-flying staff jobs later in their careers for a few years, but these are senior folks who wouldn't be doing much flying anyway. And, some younger pilots have other career issues that take them out of the "seat". But the majority of USAF pilots fly training or operational missions several times a month not counting simulator time, which is much more extensive than civilian pilots. For our airframe here at McChord, our aircrew fly 10 day missions into the AOR (shit-holes like Shank, Bagram, Kandahar, what have you) with a week or so off here at Home Station, and than out again for more of the same.
  This will significantly uptick in 2014 as we pull out of Afghanistan - try to get as much of our crap out as possible - and than things should quiet down a bit unless some politician (or General Dynamics lobbyist) gets us into another war.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
25. Re:So a good match... by MightyYar · 2014-01-26 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  The F-35 is indeed very messed up, but then so was the F-18 program back in the day. Not at this level, but you know inflation and all that... :)
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
26. Re:So a good match... by Zero__Kelvin · 2014-01-26 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds a little libc to me ...
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
27. Re:So a good match... by garyebickford · 2014-01-26 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes, IIRC (probably from Wikipedia) that the Air Force insisted on using the Sparrow despite strong encouragement to use the Navy's Sidewinder, which was already well established as effective. But NIH predominated. The AF finally did accept the Sidewinder, but I think that was much later. I think the Sidewinder is still in use, on its 9th design iteration.
  But from what I've read, missiles alone would still not have been a good idea in Viet Nam. Sometimes getting up close and throwing lead 'rocks' is still necessary. For example, what if all your missiles are gone? If the opponent _knows_ you don't have guns, they know you're a sitting duck. If they don't know, they have to be a little more careful, leaving you a way to either continue fighting or scoot on out of there.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
28. Re:So a good match... by garyebickford · 2014-01-26 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  What carried more stuff and has a longer loiter time, a stealth fighter or a smoking hole in the ground?
  Well, technically the hole in the ground can carry more stuff, and will loiter there for a long, long time. ;)
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
29. Re:So a good match... by garyebickford · 2014-01-26 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Software is hard.
  
  Excellent point. Some years back I learned that the total cost of the then in-development F-18 was over 50% software. There were IIRC several hundred (thousand?) VME circuit boards in the machine.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
30. Re:So a good match... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  That barely scratches the surface. Consider the time on jets, fuel, maintenance, support operations, etc. Once you add in actual secondary costs the cost is very very high.
31. Re:So a good match... by paiute · 2014-01-26 07:51 · Score: 2
  
  And don't rule out older designs, the military used to train pilots in new planes by pitting them against experienced pilots in F4s and other older jets, and routinely the older jets would get kills against the new ones.
  True. In the '80s, in combat games against Vietnam era pilots flying older planes like the Phantom, hot young pilots in brand new planes were getting their asses kicked. This led to the founding of the Top Gun program - the brass realized that sophisticated missiles were not enough. Pilots still needed lots of air combat experience.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
32. Re:So a good match... by viperidaenz · 2014-01-26 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  That pilot sitting at his desk can't defect without the guy next to him finding out though. If he flies the drone to the enemy he doesn't go with it.
33. Re:So a good match... by philip.paradis · 2014-01-26 08:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I read "defect" as "defecate" at first, and was solemnly nodding my head in agreement, as that would be difficult to cover up.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
34. Re:So a good match... by mendax · 2014-01-26 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  So long as your Air Force is made up of nothing but experienced pilots, you'll do fine then.
  Yep. American fighter pilots regularly shot down Serbian MiG-29's in the 1990's during the NATO intervention. The MiG-29 is a very good fighter jet but only when flown by a experienced pilot.
  
  --
  It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
35. Re:So a good match... by Cochonou · 2014-01-26 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  And here is a video of such an dogfight. Of course as you say, this does not mean that the plane X is better than plane Y (Rafale and F22 in this case), but this is nevertheless interesting... if anything, just to see how the pilot is really having a hard time pulling out so many Gs.
36. Re:So a good match... by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  F-18 was technologically fairly sound however. F-35 is not.
37. Re:So a good match... by MightyYar · 2014-01-26 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  I could be a victim of my own memory, but I remember it being quite under spec until they changed the spec. They didn't really remedy it until the redesign with the Super Hornet.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
38. Re:So a good match... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-26 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  Last year McChord spent over 500 million on gas and ground servicing, over half of which was for local training.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
39. Re:So a good match... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-26 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  By the way, that 500 million works out to around 17-20K an hour for our C17.
  But in any case, your numbers are not accurate in terms of training dollars spent.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
40. Re:So a good match... by SpankiMonki · 2014-01-26 08:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That barely scratches the surface. Consider the time on jets, fuel, maintenance, support operations, etc. Once you add in actual secondary costs the cost is very very high.
  It's true that the line item "Flight Training" in the USAF's 2014 budget likely doesn't include any of those costs. But even if you add in the entire "Air Operations" budget of $6,730B, you still only arrive at 5.2% of the USAF total. And the total "Air Operations" budget includes a lot more than support costs for training alone.
  Disclaimer: I've never worked for the USAF, but I am an accountant familiar with GAAP for government/NFP. (well, I was...I'm semi-retired)
41. Re:So a good match... by Type44Q · 2014-01-26 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  One (of many) reasons that the US military sucks up so much money is that our pilots train continuously.
  I'd be awfully surprised to find out that pilot training consumes more than a small fraction of a percent of our defense budget but perhaps you know something I don't (I'm guessing not, however).
42. Re:So a good match... by Martin+Blank · 2014-01-26 09:08 · Score: 2
  
  I don't see many people mentioning AWACS here, which is a core component of US battle airspace management. Those stealth aircraft can be guided to their targets by the distant AWACS crew while retaining relative electronic silence, surprise the enemy, and at least knock their numbers down. The US did it in 1991 to enormous effect and it's only improved since then. Once air superiority is established, the hardpoints can be attached for greater payload (or older, less stealthy planes employed).
  Modern air combat is about who can see the most. Those with effective AWACS (the US, Russia, Israel, and to lesser extents, China, India, and several European nations) are at an enormous advantage over those without. Stealth can complicate the balance, but those with better AWACS also tend to have better stealth. Battle between those of equivalent capability would be interesting, but would also largely involve powers that are unlikely to face each other at such scales.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
43. Re:So a good match... by pipingguy · 2014-01-26 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  The Soviets gave inferior stuff to their intentionally-failed drone states. In a 5-to-1 fight, the US and allies would have won easily, but it would have been a war whose outcome nobody would want due to likely escalation and UN shoe-banging. Soviet clients wanted cool-looking, impressive stuff. Just enough to scare their own population. Russian technology is not something to be dismissed, however. Remember the T-34 and current rockets?
44. Re:So a good match... by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 09:25 · Score: 2
  
  That would be because original specs were closer to requirements of superagility and other features that are now considered 5th gen features.
  Problem is, F-35 is performing on the level of 3rd gen according to reports when under external combat load. We're talking it being barely push mach 1.5 and it actually damages it's engine when doing this. It can barely handle 4g turns and no more. And other similar problems. F-18 was a clear improvement to the existing platforms, where F-35 is looking like a distinct downgrade in many aspects right now just to get partial stealth.
45. Re:So a good match... by pipingguy · 2014-01-26 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Rules of Engagement" would seem to be a relevant term. "He punched me in the face and went down that alley!" Instruction: Do not follow. Yes, maneuverability was a Thud weakness.
46. Re:So a good match... by SpankiMonki · 2014-01-26 09:35 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Hey, I'm just working off of the USAF pro-formas. : )
  Fuel (and other direct/indirect expenses) are booked to "Air Operations", then a portion of those costs are allocated to training for reporting purposes. So yes, the $792M figure for training doesn't represent all the costs associated with training. And you're right, $792M isn't even close to the "real" number once all the expenses are allocated.
  I would however point out that even if one adds the entire 2014 USAF Air Operations budget to the $792M Flight Training budget, it still only amounts to a little over 5% of the total USAF budget for FY2014. So I think my original (clumsily made) point still stands.
  But I'm becoming argumentative. I certainly defer to your experience in any case.
  Cheers!
47. Re:So a good match... by Ihlosi · 2014-01-26 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  And its all because of that damned stealth which cripples the HELL out of the aircraft! The ONLY advantage it gives you is on sneaking up, that's it, and in return for the sneaking up?
  And worse yet, all them terr'ists that are the new enemy nowadays don't even have any radar you could sneak up on.
48. Re:So a good match... by SpankiMonki · 2014-01-26 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Total budget = $144,425B
  144 Trillion?
  LOL! I guess I mad a shitty BM mistake.
49. Re:So a good match... by evilviper · 2014-01-26 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  And its all because of that damned stealth which cripples the HELL out of the aircraft! The ONLY advantage it gives you is on sneaking up, that's it, and in return for the sneaking up?
  Being somewhere else, when the hundreds of radar-guided missiles blow-up, is quite an advantage, and that has nothing to do with "sneaking up".
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
50. Re:So a good match... by evilviper · 2014-01-26 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  The historic analogy here is ninja vs samurai. If a ninja could get a sneak kill, he would win. But a frontal fight against a heavily armoured and armed samurai is a suicide for a ninja.
  And then the pirates come sailing in, and blow them both up with their long guns...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
51. Re:So a good match... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-01-26 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  As does the USA and other armament selling states. We don't sell our best materials, and the degree to which we strip it of its best features depends profoundly on the depth of the bonds with our partners or satellite states. US clients, such as Israel, Iraq at various times, Pakistan at various times, Afghanistan at various times, all want the latest and most exciting technologies. Failure to maintain or train them with them has been more of a problem of the Soviet clients or partners, historically.
  I do respect Soviet weaponry. It's not as effective per unit as the best American tools, but it tends to be more robust, cheaper, and easier for undertrained personnel to maintain.
  The aircraft and weaponry in the Middle East former Soviet clients were clearly not just to "scare their own population". The Egyptian and Syrian arsenals of the six day war were there partly to protect them NATO, from each other, and from their despised political bogeyman, Israel. Sadam Hussein in Iraq accumulated an effective military by pointing to aggressive outside nations, such as Iran, the Soviets, and later the US. Arms trades with such leaders and nations are dangerous: the technologies sold for "national defense" do get turned against other partner nations, such as Iraq invading Kuwait, and against civilian populations, and against nations whom we'd like to de-escalate and reduce danger throughout the region. But internal security is hardly the only reason for buying advanced weaponry: National conquest is stiill an ongoing practice: Afghanistan, as an example, was conquered by _both_ the Soviets and the USA in the last 50 years, and their oldest leaders remember well how they survived the Soviet control.
52. Re:So a good match... by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-26 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, for those who have the opportunity, getting promoted requires not wasting time flying airplanes.
  I dispute this and suggest you are not a very good captain.
  I work with *many* regular everyday officers of O3 and up. If you have an issue making O4, perhaps that's *your* issue.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
53. Re:So a good match... by Patent+Lover · 2014-01-26 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  No, all drones are pilotless. Hence the name. Some are guided by computers. Some are guided by humans a thousand miles away. If pilot means remotely flying a plane than ever RC hobbyist is a pilot
54. Re:So a good match... by ultranova · 2014-01-26 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Drones don't need training, they just need to be programmed.
  
  Training is programming. The pilot is building a subroutine in his brain to do flying. With enough training, it eventually gets optimized enough to run on the background, at which point we call the skill automatic. Now, the reason it takes training to reach that point is that you need to define program parameters (how the plane acts in various situations), and that takes data. The second phase - optimization - can, to some extent, be done through image training (simulating the plane in your mind, however in practice you need to interleave data gathering and optimizing to minimize space taken by intermediate buffers), but the data gathering can't. And you can't skip it when programming computers either.
  So yes, drones need training. The real advantage is that once you train one drone you can copy it endlessly.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
55. Re:So a good match... by gtall · 2014-01-26 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about the F22 or F35, but the U.S. Air Force routinely announces the mothballing of the A-10...they just did again, dunno if they'll get away with it. The USAF doesn't really want to be used in support of ground missions. The A-10 is only a ground mission support aircraft, and a damn fine one at that. It is cheap to build (right side and left side parts are mostly interchangeable). The Pentagon should take the A-10 and shove it up the Air Force Generals' tail pipes, and make them support it.
56. Re:So a good match... by hairyfeet · 2014-01-26 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say it really comes down to pilot training more than anything. Sure not having the missile would cripple the F22...if all the pilot knows how to do is spam missiles.
  For a perfect example watch "Dogfights of the Middle East" where for the first half of the program the Israelis are fighting with a bomber interceptor (Mirage 3 & 5) against enemies in the MUCH more agile MiG 17s and 19s. at the end of the day the IAF pilots were hyper aggressive, refused to disengage once homed on an enemy, and just wouldn't let an enemy go. I'll never forget one scene where a pilot talks about having to "talk down" a rookie who is so damned determined to nail a MiG he is about to stall as he is trying to stay behind a MiG landing on the runway!
  At the end of the day the tech can make things easier, and nothing can help if the planes are truly gimped (The Imperial navy not having self sealing fuel tanks making one hit kills quite easy for even slow USAAF dive bombers for example) but if you have even a halfway functional plane and a damned good pilot? Even today that still matters a lot.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
57. Re:So a good match... by cusco · 2014-01-26 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Every time our designs go up against the competition the result is a bunch of smoking holes filled with Soviet era relics.
  When did this happen? The Iraqis covered their planes with sand so that occupying forces couldn't use them rather than fly them, there hadn't been spare parts available for so long that almost none were airworthy. Afghanistan had no air force, nor did Granada or Somalia, and Panama's air force was made up of US-built planes (and defected immediately anyway). Attacking US aircraft weren't even detected in time for Sudan's air force to get off the ground. Ah, you mean Yugoslavia, where most of the trained pilots disappeared into the population during the chaos.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
58. Re:So a good match... by DerekLyons · 2014-01-26 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  The statistics are well known, you're biased and wrong.
  Especially if you don't know the type of pilot assigned to the Aggressor/Red Flag (or whatever their current name is) squadrons. Take off your blinders and get out of your bubble.
59. Re:So a good match... by mbkennel · 2014-01-26 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  Saddam Hussein in Iraq accumulated an effective military by paying the USSR hard currency from oil sales, creating a secular military dictatorship internally, rewarding loyal military people well, and agreeing to being to be a Soviet ally.
  
  In 1990 most of its military hardware was Soviet.
  
  Back to the original topic. In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians flew US F-4's and F-14's (purchased prior to the revolution obviously) and the Iraqis had Soviet and a few fairly modern French aircraft. The F-14's performed very well versus the Iraqi aircraft. In the Gulf War I, Iraqi pilots sometimes engaged (to their detriment) some US aircraft but always ran away from the F-14.
60. Re:So a good match... by mbkennel · 2014-01-26 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Missile seekers today are much much much much better than in 1968.
61. Re:So a good match... by mbkennel · 2014-01-26 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Iraqis engaged Iranian F-14's and lost heavily.
  
  Egypt & Syria engaged Israeli aircraft and lost heavily.
  
  Vietnam war was fairly even until late.
62. Re:So a good match... by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid that pilot training is largely irrelevant here provided necessary basics to operate the aircraft sufficiently are met. Both stealth and SPECTRA are fully automated and require minimal pilot input. This isn't about pilot skill but system capability.
63. Re:So a good match... by swilver · 2014-01-26 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  And this will make a return.
  Kamikaze drones will win the next major air engagement, as they're cheap and there's no human cost involved if you lose one. I don't understand why countries even bother with the F-35 or anything similar. Build an expendable drone that can outfly anything with a human pilot in it -- can even make it stealth if you really want to bother with it.
64. Re:So a good match... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-26 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  Saddam, like everyone else, got the export version of anything he bought from the Soviets. Those would generally have significantly reduced capabilities (e.g. vanilla homogeneous armor and no night vision in tanks).
65. Re:So a good match... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-26 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  The irony is that USSR's equipment was actually not all that inferior - it was lagging behind in some areas, but quite advanced in others. T-34 was the single best tank on the battlefield at the beginning of the war, much to the dismay of Germans. In later years, IS-2 gave Tiger a run for its money. Soviets had very good SMG designs, too - for all the issues with PPSh, it was still superior to MP40 or Thompson on the battlefield. And so on.
  What Soviets were truly lacking was well-educated and experienced officer corps.
66. Re:So a good match... by Alioth · 2014-01-27 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  They've existed for years, but we call them cruise missiles. This is effectively what a cruise missile is - it's not just a straightforward ballistic missile, but a missile that flies like an aircraft and can navigate like an aircraft (Tomahawks are powered by turbine engines too). The only thing we're not doing with cruise missiles is have them be remotely piloted rather than automatic.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
67. Re:So a good match... by Drethon · 2014-01-27 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, if BVR was going to be all that useful it seems like an advanced F-14 would have been developed. Seemes the ability to shoot down six targets at over 100 miles in one volley is not particularly valued.
68. Re:So a good match... by u38cg · 2014-01-27 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Germany made very, very few mistakes in WWII that actually mattered. Had they not screwed up Enigma and continued to bomb airfields, I'd be speaking German to you. The majority of warfighting at scale is about resource and it is only occasionally that such decisions really, really matter. Certainly the design of Germany's planes was not the tipping factor.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
69. Re:So a good match... by spyfrog · 2014-01-27 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I strongly disagree.
  Germany made numerous mistakes and they all mattered. Many of the was made by Hitler himself. A few examples:
  *) The war was started prematurely, before the navy building program was finished - which meant that the German navy couldn't defeat the British navy.
  *) Germany underestimated the power of the Royal Airforce and the importance of radar and lost the battle of Britain.
  *) Germany grossly underestimated the Red Armys tank supply and infantry strength.
  *) Germany grossly overestimated their own tanks quality and underestimated the russian tank quality and got their ass handed by the T-34
  *) Germany didn't continue the development of the atomic bomb despite having a head start
  *) Germany didn't in time used their early lead in jet fighter development
  *) When Germany finally started to produce jet fighters so did Hitler ordered them to be converted to dive bombers - which they was totally useless as
  *) Germany wasted precious resources on the costly and ineffective V2 weapon, resources that had been better been used for fighter production
  *) Germany didn't produce a working SAM missile until late in the war despite one being developed early. Resources was instead wasted on the V2 project
  This is only a few mistakes that Germany made and that all mattered.
70. Re:So a good match... by u38cg · 2014-01-27 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  In a war of resource, you have to make decisions about allocation continuously. Faced with rapid technological change, it is near impossible to make correct judgements about which routes will pan out, and of those that pan out will be effective when used in combat. Both sides made huge numbers of mistakes, some forgivable, some less so. On the Allied side the failure to pile in immediately Poland was invaded was strategically the worst. It really could have been over by Christmas.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
71. Re:So a good match... by Aighearach · 2014-01-27 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  All the drones have remote pilots, they're just using autopilot most of the time, and controlling more than one aircraft at a time.
72. Re:So a good match... by Aighearach · 2014-01-27 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  LOL that is a truly hilarious picture. "Ha! That'll show them, I just flew to Iran!" "Hey George, I think you're off course a little bit." "Uhhhhhh... I'll be in the restroom...."
73. Re:So a good match... by Aighearach · 2014-01-27 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably, and you can answer this better than I can, most US pilots have at least simulator experience flying head-to-head against allied pilots who had different training. Plus, they have lots of co-workers with extensive combat experience.
  I'm guessing that is not the case for many pilots from other countries than our allies. Obviously the Russians and Chinese will be well trained, but perhaps won't have access to the experience, and won't have trusted allies with experience and state of the art simulators.
74. Re:So a good match... by Aighearach · 2014-01-27 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's because after Israel proved the superiority of American fighter jets in combat, enemies keep their planes grounded when facing them. :)
75. Re:So a good match... by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-28 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, and the main reason they were lacking that officer corps was Stalin's purges. He had executed much of the Red Army's leadership out of paranoia that the Army might overthrow him.
  
  The purges did contribute to it, but one thing that came out after the NKVD/KGB archives were declassified after the dissolution of USSR was that their extent was greatly overstated. Before we had the actual numbers, the oft-quoted assumption was that anywhere from a quarter to half of the officer corps was purged. This was based on the observable effects on the very top of the hierarchy, where the senior brass was indeed affected very severely
  The documents show that the effect was nowhere near as great for lower ranks. Overall, it was something closer to 5% of the entire officer corps. Furthermore, another assumption was that the victims of the purge were either executed or sent over to gulags for a decade, and that was the end of their military career - now we know that about a third of them was actually pardoned after Yezhov's fall, and returned to the ranks.
  Anyway, the purges were not the main contributor. It was rather than Red Army before WW2 was generally lacking when it came to education in military tactics and strategy, especially for lower-ranked officers (i.e. the ones who'd actually be leading men at the front lines, and making operational decisions in the heat of the battle).
  
  If the USSR had had a better leader than Stalin for the decade prior to the war, WW2 would have gone in a very different direction.
  It's really hard to say. One thing that Stalin did was rapidly industrialize the country by very brutal methods (collectivization etc). It proved very handy in WW2 because all that industry could still outproduce the Germans even after huge swaths of the country were captured in the initial attack, and so Soviet strategy on the large scale basically boiled down to "hold them off for long enough for them to exhaust their manufacturing capacity" (German industry simply couldn't maintain the level of output sufficient to support the troops for a prolonged campaign, not to mention logistics - which is why Blitzkrieg was a logistical necessity, and not just cunning tactics). Without that degree of industrialization, it might not have been a feasible strategy.
  OTOH, we don't really know how European politics would develop in the absence of Stalin. Assuming that whoever else would be in power instead - Trotsky is generally considered the only other viable candidate - would still be a commie, the rise of fascism and Nazism was still inevitable. But Stalin's decisions wrt Comintern and KPD contributed a great deal specifically to Hitler's rise to power. If KPD was not explicitly ordered to disavow SPD as "social facist", and the two parties would have formed a single bloc, it could present a very strong opposition to NSDAP both in the parliament and on the streets.
On par with F22 and F35 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 04:30 · Score: 2, Informative

From Pierre Spray, the lead designer of the F16 and of the A10
1. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by WindBourne · 2014-01-26 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  not even close to the F22. OTOH, the F35 .... meh.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by amiga3D · 2014-01-26 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  The F22 is certainly impressive. A maintenance nightmare but bad ass in a fight. The F35? A single engine fighter? Just what we needed, another lawn dart to replace the F16.
3. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by WindBourne · 2014-01-26 05:38 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, I think that we need a cheap single engine fighter to replace the F-16. Sadly, the F-35 is a nightmare.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
4. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by nojayuk · 2014-01-26 06:54 · Score: 2
  
  "bad ass in a fight?" The F-22? Did you see how it performed in "Pacific Rim"? Pitiful.
5. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by HornWumpus · 2014-01-26 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Only one tech can work on a plane at at time? Blithering moron.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
6. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  The figures I read were quoted as hours of maintenance not man hours of maintenance. It's still possible the websites I read were wrong and should have written "man hours of maintenance". Since I wrote "hour of maintenance" and not "man hour of maintenance", you should have corrected the possible factual error instead of assuming that
  1) I meant "man hour of maintenace".
  2) I didn't understand the concept of "man hour of maintenance".
  It makes you both rude and someone with reading comprehension problems.
7. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by ebno-10db · 2014-01-26 07:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Pierre Spray, the lead designer of the F16 and of the A10
  Sprey was not the chief designer, despite his claims. As a member of the fighter mafia in the 1960's, he did have some influence on their design. Even the influence of the fighter mafia as a whole has been exaggerated. John Boyd's work on OODA hand E-M in the 1950's and early '60's was excellent and highly influential. However, when he created the informal fighter mafia group in the 1960's, along with Christie, Riccioni, Hillaker and Sprey, they emphasized dogfighting above all else, as though these newfangled radars and missiles would never be of any value. Their cause got a boost from the problems with the original F-4, without a gun and with poor maneuverability. However, they were far from the only people that noticed that there was a problem. These days Sprey spends his time "analyzing" military equipment as though nothing had changed in the last 40+ years, and exaggerating his own role in the past.
8. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by mha · 2014-01-26 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  > despite his claims
  *He* does not make that claim (not in that video/interview, and nothing else from him has been referenced here). You responded to some random Slashdot commenter.
  I'm curious, why do you think you can attribute what some random person says about some 3rd person (not present or involved or even aware of the discussion) to that person?
9. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by HornWumpus · 2014-01-26 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  The commonly used stat is man hours of maintenance/hour of flight. Often shorthanded into maintenance hours/flight hours.
  How would you even quantify 'hours or maintenance'? Assuming an infinite # of techs? Critical path?
  You're just an idiot trying to defend being wrong. That fact you shot your mouth off about something you are so clueless about, is not to your credit.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
10. Re:On par with F22 and F35 by WindBourne · 2014-01-26 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  well, there are lots of places where the F-16 does fine. Personally, I think that the F-16 should be replaced by drones rather than F-35's. It would be cheaper to manufacturer loads of these. That is also why I think that the next bomber should be based on BWB, and then see boeing create a simplier version for cargo, perhaps tankers (3-4 refuel lines would be very useful). And from that, move into civilian cargo and then passengers. Yeah, a number of ppl dislike the g's on the edge, but simply charge less for those edges.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When an F22 can't give its pilots oxygen... by Ken_g6 · 2014-01-26 04:33 · Score: 1

This is different how?
The F22 and F35 also seem like impractical boondoggles.

--
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
1. Re:When an F22 can't give its pilots oxygen... by DMUTPeregrine · 2014-01-26 04:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Essentially it seems to be a problem with the entire concept of "fifth generation" fighters. The idea that you can have useful all-aspect stealth without sacrificing performance in other areas is ridiculous with current technology. The PAK FA (Russian version) sacrifices stealth for performance, the HAL/PMF (Indian version) changes the avionics and tries to add more stealth features. No 5th gen fighter has lived up to its manufacturer's promises of "invisible, supermanuverable ultra plane!!! At a reasonable price!!!" They're all over budget with worse performance than promised. The F-35 is an un-stealthy brick, in the variants that actually work. It also costs as much as an F-22, if not more. The F-22 was cancelled because it cost too much. The PAK FA is a 4th gen fighter with some front-aspect stealth tacked on, and better avionics, including anti-stealth radar. It's probably also going to be the cheapest of the lot.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
2. Re:When an F22 can't give its pilots oxygen... by jon3k · 2014-01-26 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  While I don't want to minimize that particular problem with the F-22, do you understand how amazing those jets are? And they have many, many successful missions. There were probably lots of other very scary, very real problems the F-22 had during development. It's kind of the nature of the beast. It's a stealth jet not a seesaw.
3. Re:When an F22 can't give its pilots oxygen... by 0123456 · 2014-01-26 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  The only countries I can see that the F-22 and F-35 could defend America from are Mexico, Canada and Cuba. Canada is buying F-35s, Mexico will probably be down to a few drug-gang Cessnas by the time the F-35 is in operation, and Cuba has airliners full of Canadian tourists.
Admittedly... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 04:35 · Score: 1

it does only cost a quarter of what the F-35 costs.
Reap what you sow by rmdingler · 2014-01-26 04:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

While no nation's government is free of political graft, Mother Russia is a Kleptocracy of the highest order.
Not that long ago, the Soviets were on the leading edge of science and technology. Nowadays, a fat military contract gets lean in a hurry once all the palms are greased.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:Reap what you sow by PPH · 2014-01-26 04:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So the Russians are learning lessons well from the decadent western capitalists.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:Reap what you sow by PPH · 2014-01-26 05:37 · Score: 2
  
  Because our Germans are better than their Germans.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:Reap what you sow by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Because they had to tear their own system apart in 1990s and replace it with whatever we told them to replace it with.
4. Re:Reap what you sow by HornWumpus · 2014-01-26 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  WTF? We told them to let the KGB take over?
  Have you ever actually met a Rusky? If you wanted one to do something (especially in Russia), your best bet is to 'tell them' to do the opposite.
  At the time we had a difficult time convincing them to let us pay the costs of keeping their nukes secure. We surely didn't 'tell them' much.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
5. Re:Reap what you sow by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm talking about 1990s, when KGB was sitting in the basement grinding teeth helplessly watching us pillage their country. KGB only managed to take over after Yeltsin gave up power.
6. Re:Reap what you sow by HornWumpus · 2014-01-26 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  What? What did we pillage? One example. The only thing I can think of is a large abstraction like 'east Germany' that was never owned by the Ruskies and is now owned largely by east Germans.
  The assets of the former soviet union were sold off/stolen by to the former KGB. Who then fought among themselves. Putin won.
  Under Yeltsin, the players were still jockying for position.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
7. Re:Reap what you sow by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  We pillaged everything. From high tech, to low tech to agriculture, everything was bought up for pennies. Biggest winners of the post-collapse privatization programme was the West and its investors by far. We were buying their entire country up and it was hilariously cheap as Russia was absolutely desperate for money back then. Hell, unofficially several people retired from high positions in the government apparatus on US and its allies claimed that US had a roadmap for the entire process in place for a while, as they predicted the collapse of USSR quite a while before it actually occurred.
  Problem was that we overreached in the feeling of complete immunity to any kind of opposition to the process, and started to grab their most sacred - oil industry. And that's where Russians slammed the brakes hard. The deal was almost done too - Khodorovsky was finalizing the sale of Yukos which controlled a large slice of Russian hydrocarbon sector to investor group headed by members of Rockefeller family when he got nailed. That's why we defended him to the last. He was our man. Hell, we don't even deny he was a criminal. The official defence line is that "we object to selective application of justice". In other words, we know he's a criminal, but since he's OUR criminal, we object that he was nabbed and his criminal friends who weren't OUR criminals weren't.
  Incidentally trying this particular excuse in any Western justice system will get you something ranging from laughter to jail for contempt of the court.
  And frankly, considering your other replies in this thread, you appear pro US to the point of looking overbearing and somewhat simple-minded, as you appear to not understand that we're talking about one of the biggest achievements of US and its allies this century - a complete collapse and pillaging of its main geopolitical rival of almost half a century without firing a shot. You should be proud of it, as the people who talked about how it was done where. It was a great achievement in terms of realpolitk.
  People on the ground on the other hand got the brunt of it, and the fact that capitalist business arm that was allowed to pillage failed to moderate itself in the process triggered the rejection that we still feel today. For all bits and purposes we had a chance to actually bring Russia to Western fold, and we missed it because we engaged in an orgy of pillaging a country we could not stop seeing as an enemy. It was the greatest failure of the last century.
8. Re:Reap what you sow by gtall · 2014-01-26 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  They were a Kleptocracy in Soviet times as well, the only thing that functioned was the State. And they also had the vaunted Soviet Bureaucracy to run the joint. Their bean counters were really that, every time something left the factory, they could count 1. It didn't matter to them whether anyone actually needed the widget. So they produced a lot of stuff that was unneeded, or needed but couldn't get to where it was needed. The best thing the Soviets could have done was build a modern expressway system, but their bean counters had no way to value it, they tend not to come in discrete units. Come to think of it, the Libertarians in the U.S. have no use for a federally funded road system either, maybe they are really Soviets in their black little Rand hearts.
  So let's all hail Putin whose fervent hope is to put the Soviet model back in command again. If they didn't have nukes or chem or bio weapons, Putin wouldn't be able to get the time of day from any world leader...much less his Soviet watch.
9. Re:Reap what you sow by HornWumpus · 2014-01-27 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  So what does the west now own that was pillaged? I asked for one concrete example?
  I can actually think of one, not so much pillage as scammed. Nuke fuel from decommissioned Russian bombs. Received but never paid for; education in western bankruptcy laws for the Russians. I knew a lady who worked for the company that ran that scam. The bastard burned all the employees too.
  You do realize that we beat the Ruskies to the point their economy was basically a wreck. They needed western investment, it is not 'pillage' to own a part of what you invest in. Especially if you are investing while the thing is a mess.
  Selling a company at market value is not pillaging. Selling it at below market value is.
  Putin and Khodorovsky pillaged. The difference between what they paid and what they were trying to get is the difference between 'pillage' and 'sold at market'.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
10. Re:Reap what you sow by Luckyo · 2014-01-27 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Essentially all tech companies. For example, all automotive companies are now wholly owned or at least co-owned by Western companies. Most of the agricultural companies are either owned by Western companies or worse - were purchased and killed by the West. Russia has to import a huge amount of food mostly from EU's heavily subsidised agricultural export market because of it. It's a very lucrative market for us and a massive strategic problem for Russia.
  Countless others. It would be harder to find what we don't own, other than hydrocarbons and a few other key industries that are held by oligarchs that didn't sell out. Mainly metallurgy if I remember correctly. All of the rest was bought up for pennies during 1990s period.
  As I noted in my post in the other thread, your statements make you look very US centric to the point of being either ignorant or naive. You actually talk about the fact that we set them up so they would have all the problems of our capitalism in 1920s, and then you actually have the foolishness to argue that this is Russia's fault.
  As the internet saying goes, "not sure if ignorant or trolling".
and you have to think in Russian to use it by Joe_Dragon · 2014-01-26 04:42 · Score: 4, Funny

and you have to think in Russian to use it
In Soviet Russia.... by Joe_Dragon · 2014-01-26 04:43 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia We Show You!
In post-Soviet Russia, bank robs YOU! by Chas · 2014-01-26 04:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

In one of the articles about this, I read that Russia has done the equivalent of building show cars.
Sure, the prototypes look great.
But they're not sustainable, serviceable or even functional most of the time.
And there's no way in hell they can be delivered for what the Russians are charging.
What they're REALLY doing is playing the long con. They hook you up front. Then gradually bleed more and more money out of you to deliver what you promised.
Ask India about the Admiral Gorshkov.
And since they're holding all the cards, and you've sunk all that money into it already...
They've been pulling this crap for the last 25-30 years.
The only time you get your money's worth is when you want something cheap, simple and produced in massive quantities. Essentially, disposable.
Then, the Russian defense industry can churn stuff out faster than anyone but maybe China or the US.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
1. Re: In post-Soviet Russia, bank robs YOU! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't Lockhead Martin have a patent on that business strategy?
2. Re: In post-Soviet Russia, bank robs YOU! by amiga3D · 2014-01-26 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  They licensed it from General Dynamics.
3. Re:In post-Soviet Russia, bank robs YOU! by Chas · 2014-01-27 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  These are governments we're talking about.
  You spend a few million buying the right people, and you get contracts for billions.
  And because most governments are so huge and unwieldy, there's no skepticism (and if you pay enough, no oversight).
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
David Axe is a joke by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 04:45 · Score: 1

It is safe to say David Axe is the least reliable military analyst in the internet. Move on, nothing to see here.
PAKFA by Clived · 2014-01-26 04:48 · Score: 2

Well to be honest, I just think the Russians ran out of money as this aircraft project would have never moved along without the Indian $. Judging from the points in this article, they had to cut corners, older engines, half assed "stealth" profile. Not surprising, as Sukhoi has built some fantastic planes, SU-35, SU-37, SU-47, but they only built a few as demonstrators for air shows (eg. annual Paris Airshow), not having the dollars to put them into active service. They built and marketed the SU-30 to a variety of nations (Sukhoi 30 MKI to India as an example)but the Indians reportedly found them to be inferior based on proposed adversaries, and are planning (as reported) to buy some French Rafales as their front line military interceptor.
As thye say, money talks !

--
Clive DaSilva Email: clive.dasilva@gmail.com Ubuntu 18.10 Kernel 4.18
There is an old anecdote by mjwx · 2014-01-26 04:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

That the AK47 and 74 rifles that the Russians would sell to others would have a chamber that was slightly too small so that if they picked up rounds from dead Russian soldiers they would not work in the foreign soldiers rifles.
I dont know if that was true, but it could easily be the same story here. India is potentially a rising power and with their experience with China, the Russians may be uneasy about providing the Indians with a powerful weapon. In this case the Indians are smart enough to realise it and powerful enough to confront the Russians.
Of course there's still the old adage, never blame malice for what can easily be explained by stupidity. The stealth fighter had very difficult requirements and rather than admit they couldn't produce the goods, it was easier to present the Indians with a fighter that clearly didn't meet the specifications.
In either case, I dont blame the Indians for being upset.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
1. Re:There is an old anecdote by Zocalo · 2014-01-26 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  That the AK47 and 74 rifles that the Russians would sell to others would have a chamber that was slightly too small so that if they picked up rounds from dead Russian soldiers they would not work in the foreign soldiers rifles.
  So, what you are saying is that some rounds might be more equal than others...?
  
  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
2. Re:There is an old anecdote by jo7hs2 · 2014-01-26 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm impressed by how clever this particular animal is in relation to the others.
3. Re:There is an old anecdote by wiredlogic · 2014-01-26 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  The Russian T-50 is less advanced than the Indian version which is getting more sophisticated, Indian-developed avionics. There can't be much if any withholding of technology for export models.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
4. Re:There is an old anecdote by garyebickford · 2014-01-26 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC I think it's the US (AR-15? I forget) is chambered so AK-47 can't use the rounds but the US gun can use AK-47 rounds.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
5. Re:There is an old anecdote by pipingguy · 2014-01-26 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  You are forgetting the ace-up-the-sleeve that the US has. Alien technology.
6. Re:There is an old anecdote by evilviper · 2014-01-26 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  India is potentially a rising power and with their experience with China, the Russians may be uneasy about providing the Indians with a powerful weapon.
  Except the Russians are motivated by money, here. If they don't provide what they promised, the Indians will merely go to the next major suppliers, which may either be technically superior and/or less expensive, and as a result, Russia will only lose billions of dollars.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
7. Re:There is an old anecdote by evilviper · 2014-01-26 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  They want a stealth figher for 6 billions. Check the R&D cost for the F22 and then come back.
  The F-22 and F-35 unit cost is about $150m per. That's not much worse than the $100m unit cost of the Indian T-50.
  And they're paying much more than the $6 billion you're quoting...
  "The Russian and Indian air forces each plan to build about 250 FGFAs, at an estimated cost of $100 million per fighter. That adds up to $25 billion each, in addition to the development cost."
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
8. Re:There is an old anecdote by Zero_DgZ · 2014-01-26 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Both anecdotes are wrong, but both stem from an urban legend about the Japanese Arisaka rifle (WW2) which allegedly was deliberately chambered in .31 caliber so it could fire American .30 caliber munitions but the Japanese cartridge would not fit an American M1903. This legend is also false, but it endures, and every time there's a new generation of military rifles some dolt starts repeating it again for no discernible reason. I imagine you heard your story from one such dolt.
  The American AR-15 and its variants (M-16, M-4, etc.) are chambered in 5.56x45, AKA .223 Remington. The Russian AK-47 and its equivalents (including the AKM, etc.) are chambered in 7.62x39, which is a completely different cartridge with a completely different size. The 5.56x45 is a much longer cartridge, for a start, and also thinner. If you dropped one in the chamber of an AK like a dummy the bolt wouldn't even close all the way. It would be impossible to fire the gun out of battery like that, but if you somehow managed it the casing of the 5.56 would surely explode because it is not contained by the walls of the chamber. You couldn't even begin to fit a 7.62 in an AR-15's chamber. The cartridge is too fat. I think you'd have trouble fitting it through the ejection port, and you can forget about jamming one in the magazine. It just ain't gonna happen.
  Likewise, the modern Russian AK-74 and its variants are chambered in 5.45x39, which is superficially similar in concept to the American 5.56x45, but is still a completely different size. Again it is a shorter cartridge and this time with a smaller diameter bullet. A 5.56x45 cartridge will be too long to chamber in an AK-74, and too fat for the bullet to fit down the barrel. A Russian 5.45 round dropped in an AR-15 would just rattle around in the chamber. Again, if you managed to set it off somehow it would just explode in place, because the casing doesn't fit the chamber properly.
  I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that you can modify an AR-15 variant rifle -- by way of a major parts swap consisting of replacing the barrel, chamber, bolt, and attached upper receiver assembly) to fire different calibers, up to and including Russian 7.62x39. The vast majority of upscaled AR-15's are actually chambered to accept .308 Winchester (AKA 7.62x51) which is again a totally different cartridge than 7.62x39 Russian. Don't get confused by the 7.62 in both of them: The .308 Winchester is longer and stouter than the AK cartridge, and plain old will not fit in an AK-47, and vise versa.
  The only result of making your rifle's chamber half a mil bigger than the enemy's ammo so you can physically fit his cartridges but he can't fit yours has no effect other than allowing the enemy's ammo to explode in your gun's chamber. This has no practical advantage at the expense of making your gun woefully unsafe to fire with the wrong ammunition in it, which you purposely designed it to be able to accept.
  TL;DR: Guns do not work that way. People are confused enough about firearms as it is, so don't contribute to the problem by perpetuating falsehoods like this. It only leads to some redneck dim bulb trying to shoot a 7.62 out of his .223 deer rifle, maiming himself, and therefore causing some politician to pass a law about it that makes life harder for the rest of us.
9. Re:There is an old anecdote by garyebickford · 2014-01-26 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I should have said NATO round, but it's still apparently a legend, as you say. Thanks!
  Here's more discussion for those interested. And another.
  There are some differences between the rounds, and it can cause problems, but it's not as significant as I believed, and it's not about the diameter per se. Or so it appears! :)
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
10. Re:There is an old anecdote by gtall · 2014-01-26 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Alien technology? Do you mean Viagra? That would explain all that genital probing the aliens do when they catch one of us awares...sneaky little devils.
11. Re:There is an old anecdote by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-01-26 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  The story is actually true (and dates to pre-WW2), but with respect to mortars rather than firearms. Soviets did indeed on one occasion design a mortar in a caliber just slightly bigger than that of any potential adversaries.
  Germans had a 81mm mortar (Granatwerfer 34), in service from 1934. French also had a 81mm mortar (Brandt Mle 1927/1931), which was also used by US (M1 mortar) and Japan (Type 97 mortar). These were all derived from the British Stokes mortar of the same caliber
  Soviets captured a bunch of Brandt mortars from Chinese in a border incident in 1928, and used those as a basis for their own, BM-37 - but changed the caliber to 82mm. The project documentation is, in fact, explicit on the rationale for this, which is indeed the ability to use captured enemy munitions while denying the same to the enemy.
12. Re:There is an old anecdote by Zero_DgZ · 2014-01-27 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's a case of two American chamberings being kinda-sorta incompatible with each other, largely owing to the fact that the "military" 5.56x45 is in reality a modified version of the already existing civilian .223 Remington, beefed up with a hotter load and heavier bullet. The Russians didn't enter into this one, or anyone else's military -- Us Americans did it all to ourselves. The .223 was a pretty weedy cartridge for war use at the time of its adoption in Vietnam, so the designers cooked up a more powerful cartridge of the same size that'd fit in the same gun, and then modified the gun to handle the higher pressures and heavier bullets they used.
  In reality, this was never intended to present a problem. The military "should" be using the hotter 5.56x45 loads in their rifles, and civilians "should" be using .223 Remington, but as things go they all got mixed up in the ammo chain and you can buy surplus (and commercial!) 5.56x45 and stick it in your .223 deer rifle and vise versa. Now you can buy guns with mil-spec receivers that are made to accept the mil-spec ammo, which leads to a couple of manufacturers selling mil-spec civilian equipment and others just touting up their stuff as if they wish it was mil-spec (and their customers wish it was mil-spec) but it isn't.
  Again, the short version: Forget the whole thing and just buy something chambered in 6.8mm SPC instead.
13. Re:There is an old anecdote by Alioth · 2014-01-27 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Surely if a cartridge is only 0.1mm smaller in diameter than the chamber, the metal of the cartridge can stretch by this small amount without exploding when fired? Are cartridge manufacturing tolerances really so tight that 0.1mm difference in diameter is the difference between safe firing and catastrophic explosion?
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Funny you should mention that by dbIII · 2014-01-26 05:01 · Score: 1

... since most of the corruption in the US seems to be in the arms trade.
1. Re:Funny you should mention that by amiga3D · 2014-01-26 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  mostly in Washington D.C. you mean.
2. Re:Funny you should mention that by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-01-26 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  > .. since most of the corruption in the US
  Oh my goodness. Do you ever attend hardware purchase meetings? Or contractor bid proposals? Please believe me when I say that corruption exists in most fields. The _scale_ of it may be higher in military manufacture.
3. Re:Funny you should mention that by dbIII · 2014-01-26 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  That's where most of the corruption in the arms trade is perpetrated. Especially consider how a lot of diplomacy requires the non-US party to buy stuff from company X to complete a deal that should be purely between nations.
4. Re:Funny you should mention that by dbIII · 2014-01-26 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Most not all. Funny you should mention hardware purchase - once you hit on electronics that has mainly military applications it can get incredibly sleazy. I don't want to have to go through that shit again.
Re:not invented here. by PPH · 2014-01-26 05:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Perhaps because members of the Russian Air Force don't like working in labor camps in Siberia.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Where's the use-case for these toys? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 05:03 · Score: 1

Scenario 1: War with some less developed enemy. No matter what it is, technology will beat it. New gear will optimize minimum losses to none. Kind of like wearing protective clothing for seal-clubbing. Not even really a necessary war, it could simply be not fought.
Scenario 2: Fighting a real enemy, developed and armed nations fighting among themselves. Losses on both sides. Production as reinforcement is important, under war conditions. This is much more difficult than long time ago - distance of production facilities from the enemy is practically meaningless, modern toys require highly specialized components produced in special facilities distributed over multiple locations. Production times are insanely long.
Shouldn't there be a development of a fighter that can be produced by mostly untrained workers in barely lit caves from commodity materials in minimum time?
1. Re:Where's the use-case for these toys? by PPH · 2014-01-26 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Scenario 2:
  Nobody is going to put up with a long term, high intensity war similar to WW II anymore. We will go to war with the resources we have and hope to win it, or at least force a stalemate and negotiations fast. Because if we don't, someone will get desperate and escalate to nukes.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:Where's the use-case for these toys? by ebno-10db · 2014-01-26 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  War with some less developed enemy. No matter what it is, technology will beat it. New gear will optimize minimum losses to none.
  
  That's what they said about Vietnam.
  
  Fighting a real enemy, developed and armed nations fighting among themselves. Losses on both sides. ... Shouldn't there be a development of a fighter that can be produced by mostly untrained workers in barely lit caves from commodity materials in minimum time?
  Einstein addressed that issue:
  
  I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
3. Re:Where's the use-case for these toys? by viperidaenz · 2014-01-26 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Scenario 3: Have and show off capabilities that prove you can crush less developed enemies with little effort. Net effect is less aggression from them.
  If you start clubbing baby seals with a base ball bat, eventually a massive one ton bull is going to come up and eat you.
  If you run over the baby seals with a tank, the bull gets squashed too, if it doesn't flop away first.
Congressional stupidity in action again. by the_humeister · 2014-01-26 05:03 · Score: 1

If only Congress allowed the F-22 to be purchased by allies. Even a watered down F-22 for other countries would be better than what we have now: an overbudget F-35 program and other countries buying opposing aircraft.
1. Re:Congressional stupidity in action again. by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  There is a problem with F-22 in that it's not designed for what NATO needs aircraft for - multirole, attack focused aircraft. It's a stealth fighter first, second and third, with potential attack role being an afterthought at best.
  So here lies a foreign policy issue for US in addition to stealth technology export issues. US wants its allies to have more ability to attack ground targets in NATO campaigns. Selling them F-22 would consume much of their air force budgets will effectively reducing their air force's effectiveness in ground attack tasks.
2. Re:Congressional stupidity in action again. by HornWumpus · 2014-01-26 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  So basically NATO is leaving air superiority (and it's costs) to the USA. Nice.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:Congressional stupidity in action again. by gtall · 2014-01-26 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  So, you are saying we should get the Chinese and Russians stuck on the F-22...mwahahahahaha...Air Superiority will be OURS!!
4. Re:Congressional stupidity in action again. by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Air superiority is already ours in every recent conflict.
American bombers have similar issues by WindBourne · 2014-01-26 05:04 · Score: 1

We need a new bomber, but one that makes sense. A simple idea would be for Boeing to use the BWB as a bomber, and then carry it over to commercial aircraft as well.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:American bombers have similar issues by gtall · 2014-01-26 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Could rent out some of Al Qaeda's suicidal nutjobs, and we'd have a handy way to get rid of air craft we don't want any longer.
Perhaps It's A Game? by Frosty+Piss · 2014-01-26 05:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Your argument is very good. But also consider the possibility that the Indians are simply manipulating Russia and the US to their advantage? It's like Company X publicly announcing they will dump their entire Microsoft IT infrastructure for Linux - until Microsoft offers them a sweet deal. Perhaps they are simply playing Russia against the US for better arms deals?

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:Perhaps It's A Game? by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. India is a long term partner of Russia in terms of arms deals. They're not fishing for a better deal elsewhere. At most they are trying to push their prices down.
  You can't just switch your military supplier. Not even US has the ability to do so. Afghanistan and Iraq made excellent examples - US military industrial complex pulled all stops it could to get those two countries' military build up to be on their tech. It failed completely. The cost and more importantly time that would be necessary to switch was prohibitive even to the long-term involvement like Afghanistan. So both were supplied with Russian technology bought from Russia or used technology sourced from third countries.
2. Re:Perhaps It's A Game? by HornWumpus · 2014-01-26 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  They never even tried to supply Iraq or Afghanistan with US weapons.
  They are both being supplied with Chinese weapons and ammo. So they can pay their own way after we leave them to fight among themselves.
  We could have left them better equipped. But why would we? It's not like we don't know they're not our friends or allies.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:Perhaps It's A Game? by DMUTPeregrine · 2014-01-26 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  It likely is at least partly an attempt to lower prices. India is developing the weapons and some other systems for the PMF, and is paying 35% of the cost for the plane's development. They can threaten to lower that 35% and do more of the development at HAL (in-house).
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
4. Re:Perhaps It's A Game? by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not talking about assault rifles and other low tech weaponry that does not require significant infrastructure for support, but high tech systems, like helicopters, which are vital in mountainous country with no functional road infrastructure.
Re:not invented here. by WindBourne · 2014-01-26 05:07 · Score: 2

because it was developed by BOTH Indians and Russian and both are flying it.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:not invented here. by aliquis · 2014-01-26 05:13 · Score: 1

Because India is looking into buying planes and compare them?
Entire article in summary by Gothmolly · 2014-01-26 05:19 · Score: 1, Funny

"'...unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered,' said Indian Air Force..."
Sounds like they're asking the Russians to Do The Needful.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:Entire article in summary by viperidaenz · 2014-01-26 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  For the same.
Monkey Models by Distan · 2014-01-26 05:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Russians have a very long history of selling inferior versions of weaponry to their allies. They call these inferior versions the "monkey models". That's all that is going on here.
1. Re:Monkey Models by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  These are called "export versions". Every major weapon manufacturing country does this.
2. Re:Monkey Models by spyfrog · 2014-01-27 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Strange. That is why Germany have bought a better version of the Swedish RB-15 robot than Sweden fields.
  Obviously doesn't all countries do this.
3. Re:Monkey Models by Luckyo · 2014-01-27 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Swedes do this for their cutting edge tech, through mostly because of US restrictions on exports. Some pieces of technology may be judged as not strategically important, or sold to a very close ally and therefore not subject to controls.
drone future? by sociocapitalist · 2014-01-26 05:38 · Score: 1

How can airplanes that require human pilots remain competitive against (future) drone fighter jets that do not have human limitations of G forces?

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
1. Re:drone future? by foobar+bazbot · 2014-01-26 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  By having a local pilot whose not nearly as subject to hacking/jamming as current drones' up- and down-links?
  Of course the hacking problems, the not-even-bothering-with-encryption problems, etc. can all be fixed, eventually, but jamming remains impossible to completely prevent with current tech.
  Of course one can take measures to reduce susceptibility, but that's just an arms race with the jammers. Unless/until we invent some SF tech like quantum-entangled transceiver pairs or onboard AIs capable of autonomous combat, drones will have jammable communication links, and that disadvantage may or may not outweigh the advantage of high-G maneuverability.
2. Re:drone future? by sociocapitalist · 2014-01-26 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  By having a local pilot whose not nearly as subject to hacking/jamming as current drones' up- and down-links?
  Of course the hacking problems, the not-even-bothering-with-encryption problems, etc. can all be fixed, eventually, but jamming remains impossible to completely prevent with current tech.
  Of course one can take measures to reduce susceptibility, but that's just an arms race with the jammers. Unless/until we invent some SF tech like quantum-entangled transceiver pairs or onboard AIs capable of autonomous combat, drones will have jammable communication links, and that disadvantage may or may not outweigh the advantage of high-G maneuverability.
  You're assuming a lack of autonomy. Self driving cars today, totally automated fighter jets at some point (no idea when not saying tomorrow).
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
3. Re:drone future? by foobar+bazbot · 2014-01-26 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  I did say "Unless/until we invent some SF tech like ... onboard AIs capable of autonomous combat". I do agree that that's likely to happen, someday, but I think handling the job of a fighter pilot (with a low enough failure rate to be politically viable) is more "SF technology" than "a few incremental advances" -- but of course I'll be happy if I'm proven wrong in a few years.
  The difference between a car and a fighter jet is not merely one of degrees of freedom and speed, but a more fundamental one: a car works best if it kills nobody, and worst if it kills everybody. A fighter jet is a failure whether it kills everybody or nobody -- it must kill the enemy and not kill friends to be useful.
  Fallback behavior for situations the AI doesn't understand is pretty easy for cars, and relatively harmless even if somebody figures out how to reliably trigger it, since it'll be designed to be the safest course of action, but an equivalent for a fighter jet is a serious liability one way or the other, since it's either a danger (trying to keep working in the face of spurious or contradictory input risks misidentifying friendlies as enemies) or a liability (enemies win if it renders your drone temporarily harmless).
  Of course the same double bind applies to human pilots, as any number of friendly-fire incidents demonstrate, but as with self-driving cars, the (computer-augmented) human solution is already entrenched, and superseding it with a humanless solution will not require merely matching the rate of errors that is excused/accepted among humans, but dramatically reducing it.
4. Re:drone future? by sociocapitalist · 2014-01-26 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  Computer augmented flying has been around for quite awhile as well.
  I think it's just a matter of time -
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
5. Re:drone future? by stealth_finger · 2014-01-27 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  How can airplanes that require human pilots remain competitive against (future) drone fighter jets that do not have human limitations of G forces?
  Same reason we don't watch robot cars racing each other round F1 circuits at top speed. Would be cool and all but probably not all that great.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
6. Re:drone future? by sociocapitalist · 2014-01-27 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  How can airplanes that require human pilots remain competitive against (future) drone fighter jets that do not have human limitations of G forces?
  Same reason we don't watch robot cars racing each other round F1 circuits at top speed. Would be cool and all but probably not all that great.
  You're talking today's tech. We already have self driving cars it's only a matter of time before they're competing against human drivers in races.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
7. Re:drone future? by stealth_finger · 2014-01-28 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  You're talking today's tech. We already have self driving cars it's only a matter of time before they're competing against human drivers in races.
  Regardless of anything else, that will make good TV.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Yup, predicted it by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-01-26 05:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Before I clicked on the comments, I was convinced that the comments discussing the Russian fighter would be few, and the comments tearing into America would be many. Yup, I nailed it.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. Re:Yup, predicted it by Megol · 2014-01-26 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  And I was convinced that someone would post something like the above! Yup, nailed it! ;)
Re:not invented here. by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 06:06 · Score: 1

Money. India is the main buyer and it wants good deals.
Also culture. Russian military culture doesn't support airing their dirty laundry in public.
Re:Engineering judgement by Luckyo · 2014-01-26 06:12 · Score: 1

That they are as smart as US folks who chose Russian tech for arming Afghan and Iraqi armies, because they like their American counterparts understood that switching supplier would mean tearing up most of infrastructure and starting from scratch. Even for Afghanistan, where material infrastructure was all but destroyed, the cost was deemed to be excessive, even in light of the massive budgets involved. For an intact country like India, the cost would be beyond astronomical.
T-50 is still a prototype by guacamole · 2014-01-26 06:17 · Score: 1

I am surprised that something life five have already been built. It's a development prototype. Now is the time to voice the concerns, introduce modifications, etc. By the way, how much is the India input in the development, besides the money?
Re:Hrm...fuck off by Gorshkov · 2014-01-26 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

model villages to model aircraft - an (obvious, I think) reference to Potemkin Villages. And a damned good comparison, at that.
pick your poison by csumpi · 2014-01-26 06:52 · Score: 1

unreliable, or well connected to the nsa.
what a coincidence by Mitchblahman · 2014-01-26 06:53 · Score: 1

Sounds just like the F-35
It's unimportant by Mister+Liberty · 2014-01-26 07:20 · Score: 1

As long as the industry gets its state subsidies (i.e. paid from your taxes).
This is not limited to Russia (see F-35) by thesandbender · 2014-01-26 07:32 · Score: 2

"Bloat" is a feature common to all engineering tasks, not just software. Anyone who follows the aviation industry can tell you that this happens over, and over and over again. Requirements are put out, designs are submitted and then the wonks start coming in and saying "well, we could also add this", "well we could also add that". Every time this is allowed to happen, it's a complete failure. The designs that succeed are the ones that stay true to the original requirements. e.g.
U-2: I fly high and far, nothing else.
SR-71: I fly fast, nothing else (attempts we're made to add intercept capability and rejected).
F-14: I intercept, nothing else (attempts we're made to add bombing capability and rejected).
F-15: I will own the skies and do nothing else (bombing has been added on but it has not strayed from it's mission).
AV-8B: I will provide forward air base support and nothing else.
1. Re:This is not limited to Russia (see F-35) by Ihlosi · 2014-01-26 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  Every time this is allowed to happen, it's a complete failure.
  See ME-262 as another prominent example.
Re:India = 'puppet of the West' by garyebickford · 2014-01-26 08:02 · Score: 1

Technically she was not a diplomat, but a consular assistant. Consular people do not have diplomatic immunity. They are here essentially on a business visa.
I don't recall/haven't followed the specifics of the case but if the accusations are correct she was in violation of laws against human trafficking and near-slavery.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
I take things "said" by Boyd with a grain of salt by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2014-01-26 08:33 · Score: 1

Since I saw one of his fan boys basically claim Boyd invented the flanking maneuver. (For those that wonder I've heard that Boyd came up with the plan for the first Gulf war, instead of "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle." because generals are too stupid to know the right thing. It was described as revolutionary but it was really a basic flanking maneuver. I didn't believe it since a flanking move like they did was kind of the obvious best move that even I predicted it before the ground war started so why would Schwarzkopf do the straight up the middle? Real answer, because originally he didn't have the troops to do a flank. When asked what the best move would be if you had enough troops it was do the flank. So they gave him enough troops and they did the flank. Of course since I'm not a general I didn't understand how the lack of troops would screw up a flank so before I read all of that I didn't appreciate what the general needed to consider to pull that one off and most likely Boyd didn't either.)

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Re:Hrm...fuck off by AdamColley · 2014-01-26 08:51 · Score: 2

Indeed it was a reference to the Potemkin villages (Apparently NK still has them for the tourists) -.o
Wow, never had so much hate directed at me for using a Facebook login before, good lord.
~makes a note to use his real slashdot login in future~
Nah by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 09:29 · Score: 1

The F35 is a Pork Dominance Bomber. It will drop much more pork bombs on the corporate campus of Lockheed than any other plane in history. And the greatest fact is: Initial operational Capability of Pork Bombing was in 2002 !
A proven design !
Regarding the "war" thing: Please listen to what the f16 chief designer has to say. In short, the F35 is aerodynamically the shittiest aircraft since the starfighter. It will never do arrested landings without a total physical redesign and they would know if they read their own regulations. Wing loading to high for high-G maneuvering. Triple shit.
A display of the moral corruption of the western world; from London to Tokyo. If London weren't corrupt, they would be doing Rafale or F18 cats-and-traps at this very moment. Instead they have castrated themselves. Hell, even a A8 is better than the F35 at this point.
Electronic Warfare ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 09:49 · Score: 1

The big, big unknown for a hypothetic F-22-against-Su27 battle is electronic warfare. The Russkies now had more than enough time to develop advanced long-range, low-frequency (100 MHz an less) ground-based radars.
These radars would provide the "eyes" for the Su27s (you cannot mount low-freq radars in small planes) so that they could maneuver into a shooting position, acquire the F22 on a short distance by IR or radar. Then launch their super-maneuverable vympel AAMs with IR warheads.
Of course, American electronic warfare might be able to blind the Russkie radars by simply overpowering or by the "novel" approaches. See Stuxnet.
Who knows what the Russkies have in space ? An IR satellite might work wonders against the F22.
The Russkies might have been warned and might have beefed up their radars to the point where it cannot be disabled. Spread spectrum, massive computation power (NVIDIA to the help), strong cyber countermeasures,....
It might come down to the tactial readiness of electronic warfare; Russia vs America. In short, a Black Game and nobody knows the outcome.
1. Re:Electronic Warfare ??? by Rich0 · 2014-01-29 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  The Russkies now had more than enough time to develop advanced long-range, low-frequency (100 MHz an less) ground-based radars.
  I have to admit that I haven't read up much on an ELF radar concept, but how do they get around the fact that this is a wavelength of 3000 km? Wouldn't that basically tell you that there might be something in the sky somewhere in the southern hemisphere?
  I think the key to defeating stealth is to separate radar transmitters from receivers. Best would be to figure out how to make the transmitters super-cheap and spam them all over the place. The receivers would be passive and undetectable (and thus undefeatable with anti-radiation weapons). I believe most stealth and jamming techniques really rely on defeating a receiver co-located with the transmitter. A lot of jamming techniques probably only deny the radar range information, while giving away azimuth. That means that if you have two receivers in the vicinity and they can talk to each other, the jamming would be useless (indeed, it would only broadcast the position of the aircraft).
  I'm also not convinced that you could use low-frequency radar to actually guide missiles. Even if you know where the target is, the best you can do is try to strategically position fighters to intercept it. Those interceptors wouldn't actually be able to fire at it unless you can reflect radar radiation off of it for missiles to home in on.
Better by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-26 10:16 · Score: 1

Just look at Su27 aerobatics. Then check range and payload. They are better than anything else in the non-stealth field. This is the modern-day P51 and the equivalent of the F15 would be the FW180. In this picture EFA would be Me109 or Spitfire.
Re:Hrm...fuck off by LifesABeach · 2014-01-26 12:35 · Score: 1

There is no denying India's contribution to world culture, the "Kama Sutra." And there is the Taj Mahal. Look! I still have more than enough fingers to hold a cup of coffee!
Re:I take things "said" by Boyd with a grain of sa by gtall · 2014-01-26 12:35 · Score: 1

The neatest thing Schwarzkopf pulled was something akin to what the Allies pulled on Germany before D-Day. They set up George S. Patton with a fake army across the straits from Calais. The Germans were known to have a fair amount of respect for Patton and fell for it. Schwarzkopf knew the Iraqis had respect for the Marines and their amphibious capability. So he made the Iraqis think the Marines were going to go charging up the beach at Kuwait. Tied up quite a number of Iraqi troops awaiting for the grand invasion which the Marines obliged by not invading that way.
I'm more of a fan of Dicta Boelcke by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2014-01-26 12:59 · Score: 1

Which amongst other things pretty much says the best way to nail another plane? Shoot him in the fucking back before he even knows you're there.

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Maybe it matches the F-35 perfectly by sandbagger · 2014-01-26 14:13 · Score: 1

Non performing, over budget and impossible to manufacture. Yep, all the boxes ticked.

--
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Re:I take things "said" by Boyd with a grain of sa by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2014-01-26 14:25 · Score: 1

I totally forgot about that part but you're right. Schwarzkopf was definitely knew his business.

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Re:Hrm...fuck off by cheesybagel · 2014-01-26 16:00 · Score: 1

Defense. They border China and Pakistan. So if China has stealth they want stealth too.
Per Cryptonomicon by dangle · 2014-01-26 16:32 · Score: 1

“Ask a Soviet engineer to design a pair of shoes and he’ll come up with something that looks like the boxes that the shoes came in; ask him to make something that will massacre Germans, and he turns into Thomas Fucking Edison.”
Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
Re:Hrm...fuck off by Gorshkov · 2014-01-26 19:48 · Score: 1

Except, nothing according to ANY wiki can be considered to be anything but suspect. Personal (and professional) opinion is that they did exist. -- signed, somebody who has an honours degree in Soviet & East European Studies, and has used the name Gorshkov (yes, from the self-same Admiral) on the internet since the early '80s.
Re:Hrm...fuck off by perryizgr8 · 2014-01-26 21:11 · Score: 1

If India wants to dominate the country side, start teaching reading, writing, and 'rithmatic to all children in the region...
we are already doing that. theres no need to get so butthurt just because someone else can behave more professionally than you.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:Hrm...fuck off by stealth_finger · 2014-01-26 21:36 · Score: 1

Wow, never had so much hate directed at me for using a Facebook login before, good lord.
~makes a note to use his real slashdot login in future~
Fuck that, make the AC rage harder. Maybe you have a twitter acount you can use. Or maybe bebo or something. Anything to make him go on about rancid arseholes and black cocks like that's all he thinks about.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
West bribes. by cleberalves · 2014-01-26 23:52 · Score: 1

How much was your bribe, Mr. Deputy Air Marshall S Sukumar? West must thank you.
Re:You sure you are doing that ? You *SURE* ?? by perryizgr8 · 2014-01-27 01:04 · Score: 1

yes we are, it doesn't happen in a day. this kind of social upliftment takes decades. and it IS happening. i have seen considerable changes (supported by statistical indicators too) in the last 10-15 years.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:Fucking Stupid, Cheap Indians by Virtucon · 2014-01-27 01:33 · Score: 1

Indians can only afford Fiats. A Mercedes costs 3 times as much but will save your life in a critical moment. Please refer to Ayaton Senna for more on this.
Ayrton Senna died because of a broken, badly modified steering shaft in a Formula One car built by WIlliams, a British Company. The modifications were requested by Senna and Williams didn't have sufficient time to make a proper shaft, so the bodged one together. There was a trial and it resulted in a Guilty Verdict against Patrick Head co-founder of Williams who retired from F1 in 2012.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
No problem by wcrowe · 2014-01-27 02:47 · Score: 1

They could just buy that that new one from Iran.

--
Proverbs 21:19
F-35 by davie1003 · 2014-01-27 06:57 · Score: 1

Yes, once this can be made to fly it will be the best.
Re:Fucking Stupid, Cheap Indians by ckedge · 2014-01-27 15:20 · Score: 1

> There was a trial
In Italy. I grew up assuming Italy was a first world western country, and from a few select aspects it is. But there's a whole bunch of other things that they are almost no better than 2nd or 3rd world at. The fact that they prosecuted and convicted someone of something like this in my and many people's books is utterly and completely worthless.
Re:Fucking Stupid, Cheap Indians by Virtucon · 2014-01-28 00:04 · Score: 1

Well you may question the system but it is a system and it is respected. I think the FIA is a bunch of meddling dumbshits but once in awhile they do come up with some good things. The fact remains in the case of Senna's death that the steering shaft broke leading to him crashing into the wall. He wasn't driving a Fiat or Mercedes Racing has its risks and that's part of the excitement for participants and spectators, sure the guy shouldn't have died but it also lead to quite a few changes to the rules that have saved quite a few drivers and while maybe a small consolation for his family it's at least something.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Did anyone actually read the article? by baddcarma · 2014-01-28 15:16 · Score: 1

Quoting:

The Russian version of the T-50 is reportedly simpler than the Indian version, which includes Indian avionics and a wider range of compatible weapons. Five Russian T-50 prototypes are flying. The Indian model still exists only on paper.

But that hasn’t stopped the Indian air force from voicing its unhappiness with the T-50. According to transcripts of December and January meetings obtained by Business Standard, air force and defense ministry officials listed at least four “shortfalls in terms of performance and other technical features”:

The AL-41F engines currently fitted to the T-50 are unreliable. The radar is inadequate. The airframe is poorly built, with serious implications for the jet’s stealth profile. And in light of these defects, $6 billion is too much to pay up front.

According to Business Standard, Russian officials countered, saying the AL-41F engines are a temporary fit until brand-new and more powerful motors can be developed. The radar, too, is temporary—pending new sensors being developed specifically for the Indian version of the warplane.

But the allegations of sloppy construction appear to be particularly serious. Besides posing an accident risk, low-quality construction can result in gaps and mismatched angles that elevate a plane’s radar signature.

Press reports in 2013 indicated that Sukhoi was having problems with quality control in the T-50 effort. At least one of the prototypes needed patches on its wings to keep from falling apart during high-stress maneuvers.

All the same, Business Standard speculates that the Indian complaints could be somewhat politically motivated, as New Delhi is also planning to buy 126 new Rafale fighters from France for an eye-watering total price of $18 billion. Scrapping the T-50 could help India pay for the French jets.