what the hell is a janes guide?!  I was just about to eat dinner and unwind, too...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%27s_Information_Group


FWIW, from what I can say, from an avionics perspective, the US has historically been far advanced, but from the perspective of construction, Russia has the edge- so what this means is that you'd want the most advanced Russian aircraft in a dogfight.  But that would do you no good, because the Russian aircraft wouldn't get close enough where that would make a difference.  Engagement range for US aircraft far outstrips the same for Russian aircraft in general.

Quote from: Tinman57 on July 25, 2013, 01:25 AM

Quote from: 40hz on July 25, 2013, 12:49 AM

^Funny. I know a whole raft of defense contract engineers and they've all said pretty much the opposite about a lot of Russian tech. Especially their aircraft. Described them as all balls and no finesse with decades old electronics.

Also just had a friend (non US citizen working for a non-US company btw) come back from China and Russia. He's an EE with a PhD in physics. He was very impressed by what he saw of China's tech - and very unimpressed with what Russia showed him.

Guess it all depends on who saw what - and who you talk to.

  Russian aircraft technology is waaaaaay behind the U.S.  Their aircraft, while looking sleek, are very heavy.  While their engines produce a lot of thrust, they are heavy and don't get good gas mileage.  Basically they still use nuts and bolts where U.S. aircraft use high stress rivets and special titanium bolts, which makes for a much lighter aircraft.  Not to mention titanium airframes and boron carbide for high stress panels, flight control surfaces and speed brakes.
  Of course there's a lot of "other" things that goes along with this, but I signed a non-disclosure agreement and really don't want to go to jail....   

Dunno. This was about 17 years ago, so that was then...

I remember they described an SU (IIRC) fighter that could hover while oriented vertically, fall backwards then fly upside down. (I don't recall the model number or if they'd mentioned it.) Kind of like this:

1)
------>

2)
stop, hover & flip

3)
<------

They'd seen it in defense videos and claimed that there wasn't anything in the west that approached the maneuverability of that particular jet.

But it really does depend on who you talk to. A lot of stuff is not very well known, and then you have things like that one general alluded to - god only knows what he was talking about. (I forget the reference - perhaps someone else knows.)

I've still got a defense catalog and DVD around here somewhere from a gig a while back. Some of the weaponry in there is pretty freaky. e.g. There's a type of rifle/rocket/grenade launcher in it designed to kill people that have taken cover behind something or that are in a foxhole. The projectile simply explodes overhead, killing everything underneath. I forget the details. (Oddly enough, the actual physical catalog and DVD I saw that in you can't get without clearance, but they at one point had a lot of it publicly available on an open web site. Go figger.)

  Personally I wouldn't trust any video unless it was examined and proven to be real and not some video graphics.  They've hyped up things in the past, like their Mig 25 Foxbat's, trying to make the rest of the world think they had superior technology.  It actually worked for a while until a Soviet-U.S. spy found different.  lol  While they are a beautiful aircraft, well, see my post above.

  As far as the exploding ordinance, it is being (or has been) tested and in production by a U.S. company.  Israel, on the other hand, has created a automatic carbine rifle that shoots around the corner.  Not only that, but it has a video scope with laser dot accuracy. Now that's pretty awesome.

you'd want the most advanced Russian aircraft in a dogfight.

Speed has its place in air combat. But most of the consensus on modern air warfare has pretty much relegated dogfighting to the dustbin of military history. As was noted, when it comes to modern long-range weaponry and satellite/ground coordinated tac-intel and support, being fastest no longer matters. Having the best "eyes," being the stealthiest, and having the longest striking range will outweigh raw speed every time. The original stealth fighter (the F117 Nighthawk) was only capable, by design, of subsonic flight. And it didn't much matter. [Note: According to official reports, in the thousands of combat operations conducted between 1984 and the Nighthawk's retirement in early 1992, there has only been one incident where of an F117 was shot down, and a (disputed) second incident where an F117 was seriously damaged by enemy fire.]

But where almost all US weapons systems excel is in their coordination and operational intelligence.

Forays today are no longer the exclusive domain of ace pilots acting on their own or with a small squadron of fighters. Todays operations are an extensively coordinated activity involving satellite and air reconnaissance, ground observers, support units, backup teams, "second strike" and related operations. And all of it is coordinated by global command and control communications which greatly reduces incidents stemming from the old "fog of war" problem.

It ain't your grandfather's - or even your Dad's battlefield any more.

The next step will be pulling the soldier off the battlefield as much as is humanly possible. (Far easier for politicians to convince their country to take military action if the nation can go to war without putting it's own boys and girls in harm's way.) This is whats driving the interest in combat robotics. The attack drones are the the first in what will eventually become whole new families of combat systems. And last I heard, walking and swimming  remotely guided weapons will soon be joining the fray in a war near you if the research continues at its present pace.

T2 anyone?

Quote from: wraith808 on July 25, 2013, 02:45 AM

you'd want the most advanced Russian aircraft in a dogfight.

Speed has its place in air combat. But most of the consensus on modern air warfare has pretty much relegated dogfighting to the dustbin of military history. As was noted, when it comes to modern long-range weaponry and satellite/ground coordinated tac-intel and support, being fastest no longer matters. Having the best "eyes," being the stealthiest, and having the longest striking range will outweigh raw speed every time. The original stealth fighter (the F117 Nighthawk) was only capable, by design, of subsonic flight. And it didn't much matter. [Note: According to official reports, in the thousands of combat operations conducted between 1984 and the Nighthawk's retirement in early 1992, there has only been one incident where of an F117 was shot down, and a (disputed) second incident where an F117 was seriously damaged by enemy fire.]

That was the point of the rest of the statement in context, i.e.

But that would do you no good, because the Russian aircraft wouldn't get close enough where that would make a difference.  Engagement range for US aircraft far outstrips the same for Russian aircraft in general.

Quote from: superboyac on July 25, 2013, 02:35 AM

what the hell is a janes guide?!  I was just about to eat dinner and unwind, too...

It's THE defense magazine. http://www.janes.com/ Every 14 year-old boy needs a subscription.

Yup. They're sometimes called the poor man's CIA. More on Jane's Info Group here.

Humorous note: in the movie Clear and Present Danger you see Dr. Ryan and his adversary both trying to identify the exotic weapon used to attack the drug lords in the previous scene. Ryan's adversary is using a computer, and some military intel database. Ryan (being an academic) is digging through a pile of books, with some Jane's Guide titles prominently visible in the stack he's consulting. IIRC, he did find what he was looking for in Jane's - as probably did Clancy when was working out the plot of his novel. (note: successfully identifying the actual weapon used was the key turning point in the story)

Funny how real life and fiction can blur at times.

Magnitsky bill? You mean the "Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012"?

...

Back now... I had to go change my pants as I pissed myself laughing.

I just can't hear the words "rule of l...

...

Sorry. Back again. Pissed myself while rolling on the floor in hysteria yet again. I'll avoid those words lest I have another uncontrollable peeing fit. I hate doing pissy laundry. And the carpet is going to need cleaning. Sigh.

I'm still rooting for Snowden.

It would be pants-warming funny to see him get a new US passport only to fly to Venezuela. I'd totally whiz myself laughing yet again, and thoroughly enjoy it!

(Really, it's kind of like a mini-warm bath or slipping into a hot tub!)

...And ^that^ was today's watersports report!

We aim to entertain!

Gold, silver or bronze peeformance there?

^No...the Russians wouldn't just hand him over. But they said nothing about not selling him back.

^No...the Russians wouldn't just hand him over. But they said nothing about not selling him back.

They're going to have to throw in something else if they aim to trade for Syria.

Quote from: wraith808 on July 25, 2013, 02:45 AM

you'd want the most advanced Russian aircraft in a dogfight.

Speed has its place in air combat. But most of the consensus on modern air warfare has pretty much relegated dogfighting to the dustbin of military history. As was noted, when it comes to modern long-range weaponry and satellite/ground coordinated tac-intel and support, being fastest no longer matters. Having the best "eyes," being the stealthiest, and having the longest striking range will outweigh raw speed every time. The original stealth fighter (the F117 Nighthawk) was only capable, by design, of subsonic flight. And it didn't much matter. [Note: According to official reports, in the thousands of combat operations conducted between 1984 and the Nighthawk's retirement in early 1992, there has only been one incident where of an F117 was shot down, and a (disputed) second incident where an F117 was seriously damaged by enemy fire.]

  Dogfights were never flown at high speeds, usually only 200 to 400 knots.  The faster your going, the wider your turns are, and in dog fighting you need really fast turns.  But your right about how everything is computerized in combat now.

  The F117 wasn't retired until 2008, I left the F117 Skunkworks in 1995.  The F117 could fly Mach I, but when it reaches Mach the radar absorbing material (RAM) starts peeling off, rendering it less stealthy.  So it was restricted to speeds under Mach and 4 G's maximum.

@T0Man - Mea culpa - got careless with the dates.

FWIW, Wikipedia is citing the maximum speed and cruise speed as both at .92 Mach, and citing the USAF as its source for the specs. Seemed odd to me that both speed specs were the same, but I'm no expert. You might want to go in and do an edit.

Had a fighter jock who first saw action around the end of Viet Nam tell me that by the end of that war it was pretty obvious dogfighting was over. He told me at the speeds the fighters were moving even back then it was already becoming impractical. And on a head to head pass, all other factors being equal, whoever fired first usually won. So the name of the game became more to sneak up and shoot first rather than go mano a mano with an enemy pilot. He said once the new "smart" weapons systems and support from E-6B Looking Glass aircraft and satellite recon all came online, it then got down to who had the best technology. He said his feeling was the fighter pilots were slowly becoming highly trained delivery boys whose main role was to cart the new weapons around until you were close enough to let them off the leash so the "chip-brain" inside them could decide what to do next.

Said he was glad he got out when he did, which was right after Desert Storm. (He's a bit crazy IMHO, but he's still a great guy.)

Back on main topic a moment, here's a minor strategic move in the game. This in from TechDirt (link to article here):

Obama Promise To 'Protect Whistleblowers' Just Disappeared From Change.gov
from the not-the-change-we-were-looking-for dept

The folks from the Sunlight Foundation have noticed that the Change.gov website, which was set up by the Obama transition team after the election in 2008 has suddenly been scrubbed of all of its original content. They noted that the front page had pointed to the White House website for a while, but you could still access a variety of old material and agendas. They were wondering why the administration would suddenly pull all that interesting archival information... and hit upon a clue. A little bit from the "ethics agenda":

  Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

Yeah. That statement seems a bit embarrassing at the very same time Obama's administration is threatening trade sanctions against anyone who grants asylum to Ed Snowden. Also... at the same time that we get to see how whistleblower Bradley Manning's "full access to courts and due process" will turn out. So far, it's been anything but reasonable, considering that the UN has already condemned Manning's treatment as "cruel and inhuman." And people wonder why Snowden left the country...

[attach]