[BartSimpson]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

There are one or two people on this forum who have flown on Russian aircraft.

As I recall, their opinions of them (quality/workmanship) were not favourable.

I'm mixed on the Russian stuff. Granted, their kit is pretty rough but it's also sturdier and requires far less tender loving care than their high-tech Western counterparts do.

I recall some post-Cold War engineering chats about EMP and how the NATO platforms had to be protected in various ways. Most of the Russian stuff was so simple and basic that it was immune to EMP to begin with.

That led to the realization that if the Soviets had lasted into the current day they'd have been able to EMP us and then invade Western Europe in a fleet of Trabis if they wanted to. All we'd be able to do is sit in the hatches of our armor and watch the Russkies flip us the bird as they drove by.

I've also been for rides in their helicopters and found that I'm far more worried about their pilots than I am their helicopters. Ditto that for the Department of Defense which has procured Russian helicopters for the Afghans because they can stand shoddy maintainence while US helicopters are notorious for lawn darting just because a sliver of metal gets into the oil supply.

Last I got in chatter was that the Russians are now ahead of the West in pilot safety given that they're supposed to be producing a new attack chopper with ejection seats for the crew.

Granted, in a head-on confrontation the Russian kit doesn't fare well against the NATO stuff, but in degraded conditions the Russian stuff survives where the NATO stuff doesn't.

[Canadian_Mind]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I personally like the look and capabilities of the new Sukhoi, but I doubt there is the climate for it. Too many people still stuck in the Cold War.

There are one or two people on this forum who have flown on Russian aircraft.

As I recall, their opinions of them (quality/workmanship) were not favourable.

I'm no professional in this field, so I can't field a solid opinion. I can only comment on my observations and initial impressions.

I've met people on both sides of the fence. As with you, I've met people who've been on Russian aircraft and it put the fear of god into them. But then I've met folks who've been in and worked on Russian aircraft/vehicles and loved them. The common theme is that, while sometimes the simplicity leads to inferior capabilities, the K.I.S.S. principle is applied throughout Russian design, leading to easy maintenance, durability, and redundancy no matter what they build.

An example - I know one of the people who worked on the MiG-21 monument at CFB Comox when it was first set up. Where most aircraft took 2 weeks + to setup, putting the MiG together was considered a breeze and took only 48 hours.

What I always thought would be a true test of equipment is if it were in the hands of equally competent maintainers and operators, or simply how well they would fare in the hands of our maintainers and operators. I think a fine example to help draw conclusions from would be the helicopters mentioned in this story - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/11/24/helicopter-russian.html

[pineywoodslim]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I've also been for rides in their helicopters and found that I'm far more worried about their pilots than I am their helicopters. Ditto that for the Department of Defense which has procured Russian helicopters for the Afghans because they can stand shoddy maintainence while US helicopters are notorious for lawn darting just because a sliver of metal gets into the oil supply.

The U.S. DOD recently proposed buying Russian helicopters for the Afghanistan government. Why we should buy them anything considering how much Karzai has stolen is behind me, but I digress.

A congresscritter from Texas raised a stink about the proposed sale under the guise that the Russian defense contractor building the choppers also has contracts with the Syrian government.

The story behind the story is--surprise--that this Texas congresscritter counts the Bell helicopter facilities in Fort Worth as one of his constituents.

[peck420]

Russian build quality would be a moot issue if Canada bought Russian craft.

If they let China license build, they aren't going to hold out on Canada.

I, for one, would be very interested to see a Russian aircraft built to Canadian standard.

[saturn_656]

peck420 peck420:

Russian build quality would be a moot issue if Canada bought Russian craft.

If they let China license build, they aren't going to hold out on Canada.

I, for one, would be very interested to see a Russian aircraft built to Canadian standard.

Building the jets domestically (with western avionics) would probably negate the cost advantage that Ruskie jets have over western kit.

[Canadian_Mind]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

peck420 peck420:

Russian build quality would be a moot issue if Canada bought Russian craft.

If they let China license build, they aren't going to hold out on Canada.

I, for one, would be very interested to see a Russian aircraft built to Canadian standard.

Building the jets domestically (with western avionics) would probably negate the cost advantage that Ruskie jets have over western kit.

If the cost is comparable to western jets, but it yields a superior aircraft to all of our current options, is that such a bad thing?

[saturn_656]

I haven't seen anything come out of Russia that could claim clear superiority over the Typhoon or Lightning. Their best bet is the PAK FA, but AFAIK it isn't being exported.

[Canadian_Mind]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I haven't seen anything come out of Russia that could claim clear superiority over the Typhoon or Lightning. Their best bet is the PAK FA, but AFAIK it isn't being exported.

Yes it is. The whole program revolves around Russia procuring 200, India 200, and at least 600 more exported. They anticipate China will be a primary competitor as China isn't buying Russia's arms anymore.

[saturn_656]

Just because it's for sale to India doesn't mean it's for sale to us.

Not sure if Russia wants its most advanced piece of fighter tech to be picked apart by NATO.

[Canadian_Mind]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Just because it's for sale to India doesn't mean it's for sale to us.

Not sure if Russia wants its most advanced piece of fighter tech to be picked apart by NATO.

Well we'd want to throw western avionics into it anyways, so I'd imagine it is possible deal of selling just the airframe & possibly engine/limited avionics could be made palatable. Not to mention the political climate is changing. Russia needs friends at this point.

[Vamp018]

Actually what drives up the darn cost of US manufactured Military equipment is the dang Organized Crime Labor Unions and there slave master Democrats who dip the Union coffer's for there table. as for TX Rep. Cruz his region is Houston to San Antonio, I don't recall Fort Worth lol. However the biggest Fort Worth dumbell award in the Military goes for giving Egypt F16's on the US Taxpayer's Back and a idiot President who gun runs and smuggles weapons around like a whore with clap.

[Gunnair]

Vamp018 Vamp018:

Actually what drives up the darn cost of US manufactured Military equipment is the dang Organized Crime Labor Unions and there slave master Democrats who dip the Union coffer's for there table. as for TX Rep. Cruz his region is Houston to San Antonio, I don't recall Fort Worth lol. However the biggest Fort Worth dumbell award in the Military goes for giving Egypt F16's on the US Taxpayer's Back and a idiot President who gun runs and smuggles weapons around like a whore with clap.

Isn't that your boss you're talking about?

[Robair]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

F-18's were state of the art in the 80's and 90's. Jump back to the late 70's when Canada ran the NFA program. The F-18 was very new and unproven when we made our order. Hornets were being delivered to Air Command in '82 before the USN or USMC declared the Hornet operational. We were one of the three launch customers.

If we had the same "go with old and proven" view back then that some are advocating now we would have been stuck flying upgraded Starfighters or Tiger II's instead of the Hornet.

That's a good point.

But the '35 is still a single engine aircraft. And the primary role will be patrolling our north will it not?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I personally like the look and capabilities of the new Sukhoi, but I doubt there is the climate for it. Too many people still stuck in the Cold War.

There are one or two people on this forum who have flown on Russian aircraft.

As I recall, their opinions of them (quality/workmanship) were not favourable.

IT's a bit of an unfair comparison in a way though. The US tends to design a new fighter a/c around the cockpit. The Russians OTOH, tend to design their fighter a/c and then toss in a cockpit so someone can fly the thing.
The US may, MAY have more technologically advanced a/c, but I think the Russian designs are more pragmatic. They tend to be more robust due to harsher operating conditions and are designed with the understanding that they won't always have nice, clean, FOD-free runways to take off from.

[saturn_656]

Robair Robair:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

F-18's were state of the art in the 80's and 90's. Jump back to the late 70's when Canada ran the NFA program. The F-18 was very new and unproven when we made our order. Hornets were being delivered to Air Command in '82 before the USN or USMC declared the Hornet operational. We were one of the three launch customers.

If we had the same "go with old and proven" view back then that some are advocating now we would have been stuck flying upgraded Starfighters or Tiger II's instead of the Hornet.

That's a good point.

But the '35 is still a single engine aircraft. And the primary role will be patrolling our north will it not?

Patrolling the North? A job that mundane can be done by UAV/UCAV. With a fleet of Global Hawks, Reapers, etc we could have an aerial presence up there 24/7/365. Try doing that with manned jets.

Considering our plan is to buy only 65 fighters, we shouldn't squander their airframe hours on milk runs.