The S-37 Berkerut 
The Su-37 Terminator 
Posted on 06/05/2002 12:52:18 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Let's look at the first one. Some of the equipment used by the Iraqis was not frontline equipment. For example the T-72 tank had its heyday in the seventies. Thus it could not stand up to the Chobham armor of the M1A1 Abrams, nor did it have the amazing combat attributes of the Abrams. Hence the T-72 was mere fodder.
Now look at the current Russian Tank, the T-90. Or better yet their next egneration tank, the T-95. the T-95's gun can fire both shells, and guded missiles! And its Reactive Armor is much better than the Chobham of the US abrams, to the extent some say it cannot be penetrated unless it is ganged on. However the beauty of the tank is that it has a system that is placed on the tank that uses radar to track incoming projectiles, eg Hellfire and Javelin missiles, and then fire small projetiles to either blow up the missile or knowck it off course (that is if a missile launched from the main gun does not blow up the apache before it launches its hellfire)!
Thus if you want to compare weapons then compare the Abrams with the T-90 (not the T-95 because, thanks to general Shisenski, the US is doing away with its tank forces! Which means the T-95 shall hav no real competition!).
Now lets go to the second point: equipment that is technologically deficient. A good example here is the MiG-29 Fulcrum. The Fulcrum is one of the best fighters in the world, and is essentially fielded to match the F-15 (although it is much smaller than the Eagle...but the larger Sukhoi fighters mean that if the MiG is in trouble the Su-37s and 30s can help it out). The fulcrum is extremely maneuvrable, and can pack solid weapon systems like the R-77, R-27 and R-73. And its main advantage is that its air to air systems are slaved to the helmet, meaning all the pilot needs to do is look at the target and fire. Something no current american plane has! And with the R-73, that can fire LATERALLY even, it is a lethal combination. The MiG-29 is one of the most lethal suckers out there, anywhere.
However the versions fielded by the Iraqis were basic 'monkey-model' jets! They lacked the more advanced combat suites since the Russians did not want the Iraqis to have advanced tech for some reason, and thus they were no match for our F-15s and F-16s. (However i would love to see a match-up between a fulcrum and a F-16 falcon, both with their advanced combat suites, and flown by competent pilots....although something tells me the fulcrum would win!)
The pilot issue was another crucial factor. Iraqi pilots were either spoilt brats from wealthy families connected to Saddam (eg the ones who fled the war to Iran with their jets), or inexperienced sots who went down in flames in the desert, courtesy of an AIM-120 from our brave lads!
Thus the equipment fielded by Iraq was either obsolete, lacking advanced combat suites, or operated by incompetent sots!
A good example is the American F-16As sold to Pakistan by the US. These were 'monkey-model' planes, with the least advanced combat abilities available. For example they lacked BVR (beyond visual range) capabilities due to the fact they could only fire SideWinder InfraRed missiles! And they were supposed to fight against Indian Sukhoi-30MKIs, that Russia had supplied India with. These Sukhois not onyl had the most recent combat upgrades, but some had been coated with a Radar Absorbent material that reduced their Radar cross-section by 70%! Imagine then a match up between the Indian Sukhois and the Pakistani F-16s.... it would be a slaughter for the F-16s since they would have no way of matching the Sukhois. After all the Su-30mkis would be shooting R-27s at F-16s that are STILL in Pakistani airspace, and the f-16s could do nothing since the only missile they packed was the AIM-9 sidewinder that had no real BVR capability.
And even though the Sukhoi is large, larger than the tomcat even, it still has a smaller cross section than the F-15 (and it can even be coated with RAM to make it even smaller... up to 70% smaller!)
Thus you can see the important role an aircraft with an upgraded combat suite can do. And countries like India, Indonesia, most of the CIS states, Australia (which is retiring its US made F-111s and F/A-18s in favor of Russian MiG-29s and Sukhois), and now apparently Brazil are seeing that with the Russian jets you can get the same quality as American, but at a much lower price. And if the get a Su-34 SuperFlanker , or a Su-37 Terminator, they can be assured of having a potent fighter that can mess with the bad boys.
Thus it would not be prudent to rate Russian equipment from their performance in the gulf war, because those busted tanks and flaming jets were actually from the Soviet Era. Now, matching an F/A-18E against a navalised Su-33 , with both aircraft possessing all their combat suites, is a much better choice (although i fear you may not like the outcome).
The S-37 Berkerut
The Su-37 Terminator
We may never see direct competition between these weapon suites because America and Russia are moving closer and are likely to be allies outright.
I can name one American system that worked much better than it's Soviet counterpart: Their economy.
However i emphasize that just because i tout a much maligned fighter does not automatically imply i am a sycophant for anything Russian!
Which brings me to my moniker. The reason i log on as Spetznaz has little to do with the Spetsnaz special forces! It was just that when i was choosing a moniker for myself i was going through some sort of mental block, and i was too busy to look for more 'appropriate' names. The only other alternative was Shakti (and if i had chosen that someone would have probably asked if i was a Hindu ascetic or something!) It seems the only way i could have 'won' the 'name game' is calling myself by something inert like JamesSmith, or JohnDoe, or the like.
Anyways i am not trying to be a Russian sympathizer! I am just stating fact sitting still and having people post articles that make the Sukhoi seem inferior, when in fact several Western technical agencies rank it as 'equal or better' to the best the US has to offer (and i am referring to Sukhois with their complete combat suites, although even the su-33s sold to Indonesia were enough to make the Australians also switch to Sukhois and give up their F-18s and F-111s)!
Not a Russian sympathizer.... just a realist.
However the chances of the USAF or the USN going to battle against some 'Banana' Republic fielding advanced Russian weaponry (the concept is called Assymetrical warfare where a nation, knowing it cannot match the US militarily, decides to invest in a small number of technologically advanced weaponry meant to 'disuade' the US from attacking it, at least not with impunity. Examples include SunBurn anti-ship missiles to penetrate the Phalanx systems of US Carriers, the hyper cavitating Rocket torpedo, low-band radars to detect 'stealth' aircraft, and high tech combat aircraft coupled with hidden radar grids to threaten american planes).
Thus we will not go to war with Russia, but we have a high chance of going to war with Russian equipment. For example a Chinese attack on Taipei (which is slated by most 'experts' for 2004-2005; or possible in the event of an Indo-Pakistani war).
Now as for the economies! I agree with you, we won fair and square against communism. Capitalism rocks!
However Russia is trying to shift itself (with varying degrees of success) and the objective is to be a completely capitalist nation. The end is to be seen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.