Author Topic: New Russian tank - T14  (Read 36355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Flaser

  • 210
  • man/fish warsie
Re: New Russian tank - T14
While the media is salivating and making wild-ass guesses to the capabilities of the Armata platforms (MBT, BMP, etc.) what I really wonder about is what *mix* the Russians will actually use. I doubt the T-90 (and other platforms based on the T-72 chassis) will be altogether phased out.

This has the hallmarks of the kind of hi/low mix that was often suggested in the west too, with a cadre of low-weight, easy to deploy general fighting vehicles and another line of heavy vehicles for front line engagements against high threat targets.
"I was going to become a speed dealer. If one stupid fairytale turns out to be total nonsense, what does the young man do? If you answered, “Wake up and face reality,” you don’t remember what it was like being a young man. You just go to the next entry in the catalogue of lies you can use to destroy your life." - John Dolan

 

Offline qwadtep

  • 28
Re: New Russian tank - T14
I still wouldn't like the proposition of getting shot at but not being able to shoot back. And that is IF the system works - Russian electronic suites have gathered a certain reputation at this point.
Simple but pretty reliable?  We're not in the 80s anymore.
The 2008 Georgian war would suggest otherwise. I know Russia's been hard at work to correct those failings, but until a system is actually proven under combat conditions, it isn't "reliable."

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: New Russian tank - T14
Arena (and the whole T-90A, really) was combat tested in Chechnya from 1999 to 2002.  By all accounts, it performed quite well. The T-90 wasn't deployed in Georgia at all.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 06:27:52 am by Aesaar »

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Re: New Russian tank - T14
Well, you could start by naming a single electronics manufacturer originating from Russia that's selling products world wide.

There are truly brilliant individuals in Russia. However, the problem of the country has always been the management and the governing level. Despite the brilliant individuals, it is the combined system that needs input from several people and that's where things start falling apart. To put it as my company commander put it, "Typically in war those who **** up less, win"

I note that the former Jugoslavian pilots discovered the MiG-29s they were piloting a bigger threat than the NATO missiles. Their anecdotes show them mainly fighting against the systems of the airplane. Radar warning receiver not working, for example. It would be an argument to say that the Jugoslavian MiGs were poorly maintained, but how is that different from Russia itself? I think Russian Air Force rolled back to semi-active missiles quietly some time ago, perhaps they have now a functional active one? I do recall each of these systems were again marketed as "fully functional", "combat tested", "better than anything else on the market".

The tank casualty differences in the two Chechnya conflicts cannot be only attributed to the reactive defenses, but also to a completely different strategy of employing them. This time, tanks did not go to narrow streets where their fighting ability is nullified, and used hit & run tactics instead, or waited outside the effective range of hand weapons outside the cities and instead sieged the city from a far. However, it turned out that the more modern tanks T-80s were unusable for mountainous regions, and older T-62s had to be employed in more mountainous terrain, negating any advantages in the reactive armor.

This is not to say that the Arena system is useless or a wrong development, it's definitely welcomed by the tank crews. The thing is, though, how reliable it really is, given the Russian track record of electronics and other tank related problems from Chechnya? I think the only success where the results have been both surprising and impressive are their SAMs. One would think that the Anti-tank missiles would still be easier and cheaper to develop than the tanks, which is actually something what Soviet Union said about aircraft and SAMs.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: New Russian tank - T14
Well, you could start by naming a single electronics manufacturer originating from Russia that's selling products world wide.
How is this even relevant?  The majority of big electronics companies in Russia are primarily in the defense industry, which naturally limits the international market to state governments.  Consumer electronics in Russia are still in their infancy, a consequence of the USSR's economic policies.  But I guess I could throw in Angstrem, which is one of the biggest integrated circuit manufacturers in Europe.  No, Russia doesn't have any giants like Intel, but then again, how many countries do?

Quote
I note that the former Jugoslavian pilots discovered the MiG-29s they were piloting a bigger threat than the NATO missiles. Their anecdotes show them mainly fighting against the systems of the airplane. Radar warning receiver not working, for example. It would be an argument to say that the Jugoslavian MiGs were poorly maintained, but how is that different from Russia itself? I think Russian Air Force rolled back to semi-active missiles quietly some time ago, perhaps they have now a functional active one? I do recall each of these systems were again marketed as "fully functional", "combat tested", "better than anything else on the market".
Here's how the modern Russian Air Force is different from the old Yugoslavian one: It's actually funded and maintained.  We aren't in the 90s anymore.  Russian military funding has shot through the roof over the last 15 years.  The core of their armed forces, that is, the bits they actually plan on keeping, are in fairly good shape now.  Yes, there's still a lot of rusting, poorly maintained vehicles lying around, but that's because Russia still has the stockpiles of a superpower's military, and what they plan on keeping is significantly smaller.  They have no real need for the USSR's stockpiles of tens of thousands of T-55s and hundreds of MiG-23s.  Stop assuming that the Russian military of the 1990s and early 2000s paints a good picture of the Russian military of 2015.  Hell, even the on one that fought in Georgia in 2008 presents an outdated picture.  The Russians have been very, very active in reforming their military.  It's one of the big reasons why the war in Ukraine is so different from the one in Georgia.

And yes, the Russian Air Force does have a modern active guidance missile.  It's the R-77.  Yes, they're also still using the semi-active R-27.  Better to use them than to let their stockpiles go to waste.  Though I'm fairly sure there's a version of it with an active seeker.

Quote
The tank casualty differences in the two Chechnya conflicts cannot be only attributed to the reactive defenses, but also to a completely different strategy of employing them. This time, tanks did not go to narrow streets where their fighting ability is nullified, and used hit & run tactics instead, or waited outside the effective range of hand weapons outside the cities and instead sieged the city from a far. However, it turned out that the more modern tanks T-80s were unusable for mountainous regions, and older T-62s had to be employed in more mountainous terrain, negating any advantages in the reactive armor.
I never said Arena was why Russian tanks performed better in the Second Chechen War.  I said Arena and the T-90A were combat tested there and performed well, which is true.  So I can't say I'm entirely sure what your point is.

Vehicles have always been and are always going to be more expensive than the weapons used to destroy them.  This isn't anything new.  Again, not sure what your point is, because Russia's hardly the only country now building expensive tanks.  In spite of all the T-90A's electronic countermeasures, it's still only half of the cost of the M1A2, and the M1A2 isn't that much better.  Current estimates for the T-14's cost puts it around what the M1A2 costs (~8M USD).

TBH, your opinion seems based on an antiquated view of Russian equipment and hardware that either hasn't reflected reality since the 1990s, or never reflected reality at all.





« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 04:49:58 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline Flaser

  • 210
  • man/fish warsie
Re: New Russian tank - T14
The Hungarian Air Force also used Mig-29s, but they never had such a bad reputation... maybe it was because our mechanics were more inventive or willing to ground a plane than let a pilot fly it in a bad condition?

As for Russia not having its own electronics industry, they've just released a VLIW processor of their own. I think the design is very interesting. Intel's similar IA64 (EPIC architecture) chips didn't do so well, but today with OS visualization and most business software developed in languages using JIT compilers they should be a lot more competitive.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/205463-shadows-of-itanium-russian-firm-debuts-vliw-elbrus-4-cpu-with-onboard-x86-emulation
"I was going to become a speed dealer. If one stupid fairytale turns out to be total nonsense, what does the young man do? If you answered, “Wake up and face reality,” you don’t remember what it was like being a young man. You just go to the next entry in the catalogue of lies you can use to destroy your life." - John Dolan

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Re: New Russian tank - T14
The reason I'm asking about the electronics and world wide distribution is that it is one of the more demanding places to be in. And traditionally, this is an area where Soviet Union was weak, and where Russia remains weak. The reason for that is explained in the above post: despite of brilliant individuals, the system as a sum of several contributions doesn't function, which leads to frustration, depression and if lucky, then immigration to elsewhere for those who can. Disclaimer: some of my work colleagues are from Russia. I feel a bit sad about that processor, a lot of effort for something which will not sell around the globe. The reason? Nobody wants to fund Putin's Russia until attitude changes happen.

Finnish Air Force utilized MiG-21s until Hornets became available. Their public commentary was quite nice for the MiG-21 despite a number of high profile accidents where pilots elected to stay in the plane in order to prevent the stricken plane from hitting houses. In person, the pilots were very happy to get rid of it. The same applies pretty much to any weapon system from Russia, they look good on paper, but it is the actual implementation which is almost always lacking. Hand held weapon systems from there tend work best, but anything more complex is highly questionable. Any commentary of the actual performance of the tanks in Chechnya is quite revealing: the fire prevention systems of T-80s were not used since that would have increased the work load of maintenance :lol: Avionics coolant is ethanol based, and the mechanics drink it, leading to reduced or non-existing performance of the jets. And this is rampant up to this day, up to the point where I'm starting to think that the best way to stop Russian army on their tracks would be to place some 50 000 liter containers of Vodka on their path :lol:

And yes, I know they are supposed to have R77 in service. The question is, is it really? That is because the real life performance of R27 in itself is quite dubious, and to carry that instead of R77 is sort of a statement. I know Australia goes with Sparrows, but the later variants of AIM-7 seem to perform considerably better. Again, it might be that I'm over-reading things here, but then again, Russia has a proven track record of this sort of stuff happening, and I have seen it happen before. That and the cancellation of a long distance ramjet version of R77, and there certainly isn't going to be any help regarding the avionics in the recent years from Western side!

The discussion about missiles and tanks was related to my earlier comment of the possibility of tanks going the way of the battleship. Nobody actually wants to start a tank-to-tank slogging fest without decisive advantage in numbers, so instead I suppose a more portable, more silent and faster systems will be used instead since that will allow shooting the tank while tank cannot shoot back. And of the Arena, I remain in that the system was created to prevent anti-tank missiles from hitting the tank. However, it was not tested in the same type of engagement where Russia last time suffered a number of casualities (which was a tactics failure, not a tank failure in itself). So no roof top RPGs in this case yet. Correcting the tactics also made easier for the tanks, as most of the threats are then coming from the frontal sector where the tank is the strongest. However, I suppose Russian armed forces will like Armata since it most likely rectifies some hilarious design features (from the opposition point of view) of T-72s, T-80s, and up to T-90s.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: New Russian tank - T14
Finnish Air Force utilized MiG-21s until Hornets became available. Their public commentary was quite nice for the MiG-21 despite a number of high profile accidents where pilots elected to stay in the plane in order to prevent the stricken plane from hitting houses. In person, the pilots were very happy to get rid of it. The same applies pretty much to any weapon system from Russia, they look good on paper, but it is the actual implementation which is almost always lacking. Hand held weapon systems from there tend work best, but anything more complex is highly questionable. Any commentary of the actual performance of the tanks in Chechnya is quite revealing: the fire prevention systems of T-80s were not used since that would have increased the work load of maintenance Avionics coolant is ethanol based, and the mechanics drink it, leading to reduced or non-existing performance of the jets. And this is rampant up to this day, up to the point where I'm starting to think that the best way to stop Russian army on their tracks would be to place some 50 000 liter containers of Vodka on their path.
And yet India still happily buying up Russian tanks and aircraft when the USA, Britain, Germany, etc. would be more than happy to sell equipment to such a large military.  Out of all potential tanks, the only tanks still in the running to replace Peru's ancient T-55s and AMX-13s are the M1 Abrams and the T-90S.  Canada, of all countries, is using Mi-17 utility helicopters to complement its Chinooks, rather than, say, the UH-60 or MH-53 we'd have easy access to south of the border.

The T-80s deployed in the First Chechen War had a lot of issues, most of them related to the sorry state of the Russian military after the fall of the USSR.  They were deployed without infantry support, many didn't have their smoke launchers loaded, and most didn't even have their ERA packages installed.  Their failure isn't a result of them being bad tanks, it's a result of the army having serious difficulties because of the fall of the USSR.  Again, notice how the T-90s deployed during the Second Chechen War didn't have any of these issues.  They were more competently used, they were equipped properly, and they performed quite well.  Times have changed. 

Again, stop assuming the USSR or even the Russia of 20 years ago paints an accurate picture of the state of the Russian military now.

And I'm just going to add this, might help you get a better idea the differences between US and Russian aircraft of 25 years ago (and it's generally a fascinating read): http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

Quote
And yes, I know they are supposed to have R77 in service. The question is, is it really? That is because the real life performance of R27 in itself is quite dubious, and to carry that instead of R77 is sort of a statement. I know Australia goes with Sparrows, but the later variants of AIM-7 seem to perform considerably better. Again, it might be that I'm over-reading things here, but then again, Russia has a proven track record of this sort of stuff happening, and I have seen it happen before. That and the cancellation of a long distance ramjet version of R77, and there certainly isn't going to be any help regarding the avionics in the recent years from Western side!
That statement probably being "we have a lot of these and don't really need to use more modern missiles against older, less well maintained Georgian and Ukrainian planes."  And I'm sorry, "Russia has a proven track record of this stuff happening"?  As opposed to who, the Americans?  Yes, a shining example of flawless technology development there.

There's also the fact that much of the Russian Air Force's inventory of fighters (about half, going by the numbers) can't actually fire the R-77.  It's a post-USSR missile, and only modernized aircraft can fire it.  The US Air Force had a similar problem when they adopted the AMRAAM.  The AIM-7 was still pretty widely used during the 2003 Iraq War.

Quote
The discussion about missiles and tanks was related to my earlier comment of the possibility of tanks going the way of the battleship. Nobody actually wants to start a tank-to-tank slogging fest without decisive advantage in numbers, so instead I suppose a more portable, more silent and faster systems will be used instead since that will allow shooting the tank while tank cannot shoot back. And of the Arena, I remain in that the system was created to prevent anti-tank missiles from hitting the tank. However, it was not tested in the same type of engagement where Russia last time suffered a number of casualities (which was a tactics failure, not a tank failure in itself). So no roof top RPGs in this case yet. Correcting the tactics also made easier for the tanks, as most of the threats are then coming from the frontal sector where the tank is the strongest. However, I suppose Russian armed forces will like Armata since it most likely rectifies some hilarious design features (from the opposition point of view) of T-72s, T-80s, and up to T-90s.
Battleships became obsolete because their primary purpose (killing ships) was done better with anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, and bombs, and you don't need a big heavy battleship to throw those around.  Smaller ships and aircraft do it just fine.  Tanks, on the other hand, don't have a job that can be done by something else.  Infantry don't move as fast, and aircraft can't hold ground (and are starting to become even more vulnerable than tanks because AA systems are advancing insanely fast and planes can't hide as well, even stealth ones).
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 10:06:06 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline qwadtep

  • 28
Re: New Russian tank - T14
That statement probably being "we have a lot of these and don't really need to use more modern missiles against older, less well maintained Georgian and Ukrainian planes."  And I'm sorry, "Russia has a proven track record of this stuff happening"?  As opposed to who, the Americans?  Yes, a shining example of flawless technology development there.
1) Russia's more modern missiles were useless in Georgia anyway because of the American GPS blackout. The further development of GLONASS remains untested.
2) Georgia didn't have fighter planes to begin with and Russia still couldn't achieve air superiority
3) Are you seriously insinuating that Russia has anywhere near the aerial warfare capabilities of the American fleet?

It's one of the big reasons why the war in Ukraine is so different from the one in Georgia.
Georgia was a direct engagement between militaries. Ukraine is still a proxy war, despite the very high likelihood of Russian SpecOps shenanigans. They're fundamentally different conflicts.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: New Russian tank - T14
That statement probably being "we have a lot of these and don't really need to use more modern missiles against older, less well maintained Georgian and Ukrainian planes."  And I'm sorry, "Russia has a proven track record of this stuff happening"?  As opposed to who, the Americans?  Yes, a shining example of flawless technology development there.
1) Russia's more modern missiles were useless in Georgia anyway because of the American GPS blackout. The further development of GLONASS remains untested.
2) Georgia didn't have fighter planes to begin with and Russia still couldn't achieve air superiority
3) Are you seriously insinuating that Russia has anywhere near the aerial warfare capabilities of the American fleet?

1) Air-to-air missiles don't rely on GPS.
2) AA matters.
3) Uh, no.  I'm saying that the USA has just as much of a military technology development problem as Russia does.  They both have their share of boondoggles and technology they never got working.  It means very, very little.

Quote
Georgia was a direct engagement between militaries. Ukraine is still a proxy war, despite the very high likelihood of Russian SpecOps shenanigans. They're fundamentally different conflicts.
Yes, they are.  Why do you think that is?  The Russian military of 2008 would have had a lot of difficulty prosecuting the war in Ukraine as it's being done now.  It isn't just a proxy war.  Keeping it up this long requires a logistical and organizational structure the Russians just didn't have 7 years ago.  The mobilization and deployment of a few of their units for exercises a year or so ago was done in absolute record time compared to the one they went through for Georgia.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2015, 07:30:08 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Sorry for quite the massive Bump for the others, but I recalled talking about the Russian missile technology in this thread with Aesaar. Based on the current events in Syria, I find it quite interesting that the new Amraamski is actually NOT carried in Syria by Russian Air Force despite your claims (and very much according to mine). Instead, a 30 year old Sparrowski is (R-27), and it is not even the active variant which apparently never left the drawing board.

Not to mention unguided carpet bombings by Blackjacks, gloriously hitting grain silos (= oil refinery in the official propaganda) and water purification plants. Sigh, it is indeed true that nothing has changed since the Sovjet Unijon. Which may actually be for the better for most of the world that currently are not being aggressed by Russia.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline Polpolion

  • The sizzle, it thinks!
  • 211
    • Minecraft
Quote
Canada, of all countries, is using Mi-17 utility helicopters to complement its Chinooks, rather than, say, the UH-60 or MH-53 we'd have easy access to south of the border.
What? I take it you don't mean the four they leased back in 2010 because they were already in Afghanistan (three of which were shipped off to Bulgaria in 2011). So exactly in what capacity is Canada still using their mi-17s?

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
'Despite my claims'?  I don't remember saying anything about the R-77 in Syria.  In any case, I did more research on the subject and found complaints about design flaws with the R-77, primarily all-weather issues, which would explain why it isn't commonly deployed.  They're overhauling it, apparently.  We'll have to wait and see how well that'll work out. 

So I'll give you this one.  I haven't been able to find enough info about it being used recentlyto believe it doesn't have significant issues.

And everything I can find about the Tu-160's deployment in Syria indicates they've been shooting cruise missiles, not unguided bombs.  Tu-95s as well.  The Tu-22Ms are the only ones that dropped unguided bombs.  The whole strategic bomber deployment has just been about showing off.  A show of force meant for NATO more than for efficient use of assets.  Same goes for that swarm of cruise missiles they fired from the Caspian Sea.

We've seen Su-34s loaded with KAB-500KR TV-guided bombs.  They're use a lot of unguided ordnance, but they've got some pretty sophisticated stuff in use too.

Quote
Canada, of all countries, is using Mi-17 utility helicopters to complement its Chinooks, rather than, say, the UH-60 or MH-53 we'd have easy access to south of the border.
What? I take it you don't mean the four they leased back in 2010 because they were already in Afghanistan (three of which were shipped off to Bulgaria in 2011). So exactly in what capacity is Canada still using their mi-17s?
I'm referring to the six Mi-8Ts leased from SkyLink Canada in 2008 and the four Mi-17/CH-178 we leased in 2010.  We're barely in Afghanistan anymore, so I should have used the past tense.  We're not using them anymore.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 04:10:46 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline Polpolion

  • The sizzle, it thinks!
  • 211
    • Minecraft
Quote
Canada, of all countries, is using Mi-17 utility helicopters to complement its Chinooks, rather than, say, the UH-60 or MH-53 we'd have easy access to south of the border.
What? I take it you don't mean the four they leased back in 2010 because they were already in Afghanistan (three of which were shipped off to Bulgaria in 2011). So exactly in what capacity is Canada still using their mi-17s?
I'm referring to the six Mi-8Ts leased from SkyLink Canada in 2008 and the four Mi-17/CH-178 we leased in 2010.  We're barely in Afghanistan anymore, so I should have used the past tense.  We're not using them anymore.

I'm not even sure the handful of Mi-8s from SkyLink count in the first place. From what I understand, those were basically a taxi service to keep troops off the roads; they were piloted by civilians and eventually replaced by Chinooks anyway. These were deals made out of necessity because someone didn't think their deployment to Afghanistan through. It wasn't some incredible deal on superb Russian hardware made at the ire of western defense industries.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
I'm not even sure the handful of Mi-8s from SkyLink count in the first place. From what I understand, those were basically a taxi service to keep troops off the roads; they were piloted by civilians and eventually replaced by Chinooks anyway. These were deals made out of necessity because someone didn't think their deployment to Afghanistan through. It wasn't some incredible deal on superb Russian hardware made at the ire of western defense industries.
  Of course it wasn't, but the biggest reason we didn't and will never adopt the Hip as a widespread helicopter isn't a failing of the helicopter itself, it's that it's just not strategically viable to buy equipment from a potential enemy.

You do that and you get the problem Iran has had with their F-14s since the revolution.

If that hadn't been the case, I think we'd have probably bought them, much like we ended up buying the 20 Leopard 2A6 tanks the Germans leased us (and another 80 Leo 2s from the Dutch).  Why?  Because they're good helicopters and filled a significant gap in our capabilities, and they're flat-out better than our Griffons.  Crews liked them, too.

Do remember I'm arguing against Mika's notion that anything Russian-made more complex than a personal weapon is "highly questionable", which is simply wrong.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 05:50:16 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
You do that and you get the problem Iran has had with their F-14s since the revolution.

That's less of an issue than people think. It took several years for the operational readiness and sortie rates of the Iranian F-14s to decline; in fact, Iran essentially fought the Iran-Iraq War with F-14s, F-5s, and F-4s (also SuperCobras).

There are also several potentially friendly manufacturers of Mi-8/Mi-17 parts. There are also numerous operators in the modern era who are not on the best of terms with Russia, like Poland, Hungary, Colombia, and Turkey. They're relatively simple machines; it would not be difficult to develop a domestic parts supply if it was seen as needful. (Iran lost their F-5 fleet because they kept purging the Western-trained maintenance crew, not because they couldn't have made parts for them. Even today, they can still mechanically maintain their few remaining F-14 airframes. Their problem is with keeping the radars running.)
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Do you know how they maintain their F-14 airframes?  By cannibalizing parts from the others.  It's why they have so few left.  They originally bought 80, they're down to about 20.  They tried to keep 60 operational during the Iran-Iraq War, and had about 40 operational when it ended.  Routine wear and tear is costing them planes.  Not to mention the obscene amount of money it costs them to keep their AIM-54s functional.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 08:06:20 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Do you know how they maintain their F-14 airframes?  By cannibalizing parts from the others.

That's how they did it originally. By the end of the Iran-Iraq War they were able to fabricate most of the parts needed for basic maintaince.

It isn't cannibalization that's kept twenty of them flying to the present day, and it wasn't cannibalization that reduced them from sixty to twenty. The airframes are old and have a very high number of hours. The airframes themselves are wearing out and you don't "fix" it when a main wing spar develops a crack. You have to retire the aircraft or send it back to the manufacturer to be completely taken apart and everything over a certain number of hours is stripped out.

The USN was experiencing the same problem with many of its operational Tomcats when the fleet was retired. (Arguably the reason Iran has any of them left at all is they don't make arrested landings.) Most of them had been withdrawn from service pending remanufacture when Congress used that as an excuse to kill the type. At the end of the Tomcat's carrier lifespan most ships only embarked a half-dozen planes, sometimes less.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Yeah, they can handle basic maintenance, but that isn't enough.  When the engines break down, or the radars break, they can't just manufacture new parts (also the biggest issue with their Phoenixes).  Complex maintenance is what they can't do, and that's what they need to cannibalize other planes for (usually taken from the least airworthy airframes, obviously).  Hell, Canada's having a similar issue with our CF-18s.  They need replacement, not because they can't do the job, but because we can't easily replace some components.  Average flying hours for most of our planes is around 6000 hours, and the airframe is rated for 8000.

I'll add that the USAF and USN have an unsually high amount of flying hours compared to most air forces, so judging the airworthiness of planes from other air forces based on US maintenance requirements isn't going to paint the most accurate picture
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 09:34:06 pm by Aesaar »

 
You do that and you get the problem Iran has had with their F-14s since the revolution.

There are also several potentially friendly manufacturers of Mi-8/Mi-17 parts. There are also numerous operators in the modern era who are not on the best of terms with Russia, like Poland, Hungary, Colombia, and Turkey. They're relatively simple machines; it would not be difficult to develop a domestic parts supply if it was seen as needful.

Actually we shall retire these helicopters pretty soon. M-17's and Mi-8's are excellent machines, easy to fly and maintain so the crews love them. But sooner or later we will be unable to keep them running because of lack of the spare parts. The only reasonable source of such parts would be Ukraine however the situation in this country is not very stable so we rather want to pick other source. Of course the best option would be a domestic production, but we don't have resources to do that <our biggest helo factories were sold to Sikorsky/ now Lockheed Martin and Agusta Westland>.

Before the elections our Ministry of Defence chosen the Airbus H225M Caracal <other offers were a sh***y S-70i Black Hawk parody with weak engines and avionics and untested, unknown AW-149 which lacks the lift power> to replace the Mils. However after the elections the new Minister of Defence said that the whole auction for multi-role helicopters should be reconsidered (there was a big political sh**storm over this.) So everything remains in flux for now. But I hope that they will stick to the Caracal.