jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) (04/12/90)
From: jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) From: ESVENSSON%brage.qz.se@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU >According to what I've heard, the cockpit in the F-15 is much better, the >Flanker being in the F-4 class. Electronics-wise, the F-15s radar is propably >much better. The Flanker has a IR search device that the F-15 hasn't. Thats's >a point in favor for the Flanker. I think it's safe to say that you can't , A friend who is a weapons director in an E3 informs me that the newest Soviet fighters have electronics similar to middle-production F4s, and that they turn like them for the most part. He also says that the lack of a true built-in IRST system in American aircraft is one of our weakest points, in that IR is not detectable, so an IRST-equipped plane can approach without emitting. >One rather interesting point is the MTBF for the russian engines. As their >life is much shorter than western counterparts, (about 1000 hr/engine) one >should expect their engines to fail more often. This can influence the >performance of the aircraft a lot. I have read material which suggests that the Soviet philosophy is that a system will not last long in combat, so don't spend the extra money and maintenance to make them. This limits the amount that they can be used in peacetime, and adversely effects training. >Erik Svensson >Guided Weapons Division >National Defense Research Establishment (FOA) >Stockholm, Sweden