- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #21
Thank you sir. Will appreciate anything you find, when able.
Transitioning from Western to Russian/Chinese aircraft
- Thread starter adroth
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
I remember reading similar sentiments in an old magazine . . . not sure if it was Air Force magazine. The article stated that Western aircraft were essentially peacetime aircraft that might eventually have to go to war. So it had all the necessary bells and whistles that allowed it to co-exist in a non-combat environment with civilian aircraft.
Russian aircraft, on the otherhand, were specifically designed for war -- with only that in mind. So aviation safety was not a consideration, and neither was long-term maintainability.
Unfortunately I don't have access to that magazine, so I can't quote it reliably for discussions.
Chrom, could I trouble your for info about your sources of info regarding the philosophical differences between Western and Eastern air forces?
"Philosophical" - no. I never, never, EVER saw or heard from reliable sources about any even half-official "Philosophical" view from USSR (or western countries from that matter) for aircrafts, tanks, etc. Usually such sentences are used for pure propaganda on both sides - nothing more.
But we can draw some conclusion watching the difference in maintaince (or designing) strategy. For example, Soviet aproach work very well for low-educated field maintaince, done with much less sophisticated equipment.
This have several advantages both in peace and war time - for example, russians can pay MUCH less to field technical staff, economy a lot of money for field equipment, can quickly relocate and support technic in more difficult conditions. In war time, along with obvious advantages, this could lead to additional strain to logistic - depending on cirumstances.
Partially, this property was also trasfered to civilian aircrafts - thats why usually russian aircrafts are great to be used by less developed countries.
This propery obviosly do not affect reliabilty in any bad way - quite contrary.
Usually big factory repair facilities can provide much better quality and relibility repairs.
On the other hand, when such technic started to be used in western countries, without technical crew adaptation - a lot of additional cost rised. For example, simply tasks what could be made by 6-months conscript are made by high-qualification staff in airfield. Of course, 3-times cost overhead. Or engines, which originally meant to be repaired 1-5 thousand km away on nearest factory - but within same country - are sended 10 thousands km over 4 borders, and in aircraft instead of train.
In case of long-term prepared, very good equipped airfields, with trained personell - western aproach is cheaper. I stress it, not more reliable. Just cheaper. In more distant places, with less trained personell - russian aproach is better.
All this have obviously nothing to do with value of human life in both system. This is just often brought (funny on both sides) propaganda trick.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
The article wasn't referring to combat readiness. Nor did it imply that US combat aircraft were not ready for war.
The article simply meant that Western (to include US) combat aircraft were meant to work well both when in combat, and in the period between wars. Its been a while since I read it, but as I vaguely remember reading about how US combat aircraft even have transponders that are compatible with civil aviation secondary search radars so as to avoid potential collisions with civilian aircraft in high aircraft density environments.
No such "luxury" on Russian birds. Combat was all that their there for.
This may be going a bit off topic, but relative to the Cold War era, most of the Soviet Forces were based close to home, even in the case of Eastern Europe.
NATO and especially the USA had forces forward deployed. The USA in fact had to forward base a very large amount of Army, Navy and Air Force equipment for extended periods of time. Hence the USA had to adopt a maintenance philosophy to support the forward deployed forces. There were even overseas intermediate maintenance (IMA) facilites, Subic Bay, Philippines was just one such IMA.
The whole point is that US forces forward deploy for extended periods of time and have a maintenance philosophy and system to support this.
NATO and especially the USA had forces forward deployed. The USA in fact had to forward base a very large amount of Army, Navy and Air Force equipment for extended periods of time. Hence the USA had to adopt a maintenance philosophy to support the forward deployed forces. There were even overseas intermediate maintenance (IMA) facilites, Subic Bay, Philippines was just one such IMA.
The whole point is that US forces forward deploy for extended periods of time and have a maintenance philosophy and system to support this.
Civilian aviation radars control was formally a part of military infrastructure in USSR. Also USSR enjoyed much greater space for training - so there were actually less need for " high aircraft density environments." At least, i dont know much incidents in USSR regarding civilian vs military aircrafts - certainly, there were no more than in the west. Personally, i think it is much overhyped issue anyway.
P.S. I want to made it clear why such transponder was not needed in USSR:
USSR had very strong military radar & flight control network, which tracked both military and civilian aircrafts. Obviosly, for such network civilian transponders are not nessesary. This CGI control was responsive for avoiding any civilian vs military collision, and could directly order civilian aircrafts if nessesary.
In the West it wasnt that easy due to Allied (mainly) occupation forces and bases - they obviously had much weaker, much more fragmented radar network, and had difficulty controlling civilain air traffic.
Last edited:
A number of Israeli companies have done instrumentation conversions. As well as Thales and Sagem
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
Thanks for the insight Mr S.
Thanks for the clarification. I never thought about this matter in those terms.
Would you know if the Indians, Malaysians, etc. eventually had such transponders installed on their aircraft?
What equipment do non-Russian users usually replace on their Russian birds? I've encountered quite a number of references that say that western electronics have been substituted for Russian ones -- but no mention of exactly what was replaced. (This question probably violates operational security for many items . .. but perhaps someone here has run into less sensitive info)
I think it is case-by-case basis, depending on funds / political options available. There are very rare cases when russian electronic/upgrades are installed on western technic - mainly due to license/cooperation/compatabilty issues.
On russian technic following areas got prime attention for western electronic exchange:
1. Comms, NAV, battle managment electronic - almost in every case.
2. MFD's (mainly in 90x, now Russia produce own good enouth)
3. TI
4. EWR, ECM, targetting pods - very often due to compatablity/security issues is absolutely required replace, just as p.1
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Certainly,Thank you sir. Will appreciate anything you find, when able.
As GF said, there are a number of companies that do instrumentation and/or avioinics work. In doing research so far, the Israeli companies IAI and Elbit have both come up with upgrades for MiG-21 aircraft making use of Western systems. Elbit has also developed upgrades for Su-25, L-39 and IAR-99 aircraft using Western avionics. EADS is also reported to have done upgrade work on the MiG-29 along with Elbit.
I would expect that they would be capable of conducting aircraft upgrades could (with varying amounts of success) develop a program to integrate Western avionics in a Russian or Chinese aircraft assuming it was not already included in the design. A site to look at is airforce technology which lists a number of different aircraft along with some program information including upgrades for a number of them. While it does not always cover in any detail what was upgraded (sensors, displays, systems, etc) it can suggest companies to look at.
One area which I would expect would not be changed or upgraded unless second-hand (or third-hand or more...) aircraft were purchased would be the airframe and engines. If used aircraft were acquired in an aftermarket sale, they could perhaps require some form of SLEP/MLU, but which companies involved would I expect very much depend on the state of the aircraft.
Hope this helps answer some questions on who could 'Westernize' Russian or Chinese aircraft.
A somewhat different discussion, which might be the basis for a new thread as well as the desired information or discussion, would centre around the PAF (Philippine Air Force). If that is the desired discussion, please let me know since that would have a definite effect on any discussion of aircraft, both in terms of what is useful, cost-effective and realistic.
-Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #33
this would only unnecessarily increase the cost of the Russian/Chinese aircraft. And frankly, the avionics on these planes as they stand are more than enough for PAF needs.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
One instrument that is a candidate for replacement is the artificial horizon. Fewer differences, fewer chances of mistakes.
The suitability of existing equipment depends on the safety standards that the PAF eventually chooses to implement.