Egyptian Air Force (EAF)

Vladimir79 wrote:Egypt never got MiG-29s. From the December 2009 MILICAS World Air Forces directory.

Corporation "MiG" is looking to upgrade to 250 Russian MiG-29 in air in the Middle East. Fighter modernization Market operating in the countries of the Middle East region, estimated Russian aircraft Corporation MIG 200-250 cars. "One of the main operators of MiG-29 are countries of the Middle East-Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Iran. By our estimates, the needs of those countries in modernizing the MiG-29 is measured at 200-250 vehicles, "said to Interfax on next Sunday in United Arab Emirates air show" Dubai Air Show 2005 Deputy Director RSK MIG on marketing, sales and after-sales servicing Vladimir Vyprâžkin

Russia, the world arms trade analysis center that Russia supplies to Egypt up to 40 MiG-29SMT fighter of the negotiations have been ongoing for several years

http://www.china-daily.org/Mil-News/Russia-and-China-because-the-supply-of-frozen-conflicts-of-interest-RD-33-aircraft-engine/

Vladimir79 wrote:The document you posted is from the early ninties. 15 years have past and there is no sign of MiG-29 in Egypt. It is not a secret, the deal never took place. From your own source...

Russia, the world arms trade analysis center that Russia supplies to Egypt up to 40 MiG-29SMT fighter of the negotiations have been ongoing for several years

http://www.china-daily.org/Mil-News/Russia-and-China-because-the-supply-of-frozen-conflicts-of-interest-RD-33-aircraft-engine/

The competitor to this deal is JF-17. Egypt has yet to make a decision.

ahmedfire wrote:
we have signs of mig 29 in egypt,some times we see aircraft with 2 engines..!!
it's picture on the website of egyptian air force.....

Lol, high speed launch, yeah, so subtract 30% off from that 130 km and we get: just over 100 km!

These missiles were in service since the 1980s, and the advances in electronics (making them smaller and lighter and much more reliable and effective) and rocket motors (much more powerful and longer burning) suggest a modern R-27E would still be a fairly potent family of AAMs.

The R-77 has better terminal manoeuvre capability because its tail mounted grid fin control surfaces allow for very high angle of attack angles without the control surfaces stalling, but the latest model R-77s for internal use will have triangular fins for lower in flight drag.

But as Vlad said, they aren't the bit maneuverable? How do you even expect to catch a F-35 if your end game kill box is tiny?

A missile doesn't need to be super manoeuvrable when a missile comes in at 4 times the speed of sound it is moving faster than a bullet... it is not important whether the target is pulling 2gs or 12gs. What is important is where the missile is directed by its guidance system and as it approaches the target what last second manoeuvres it needs to perform to get close enough for its proximity fuse to work.
A missile that flys directly at where the target is will need to manoeuvre hard as it approaches because the target is moving away from that point.
A missile that anticipates the movement of the aircraft and flys to an anticipated interception point in front of the target will have to perform less terminal manoeuvres.

In other words a highly manoeuvrable missile like the R-77 that can engage targets pulling 12g (note that is TARGETS) suggests manoeuvrability and a good guidance system. G force depends on speed so an object walking at 5km/h can't actually turn sharply enough to turn at 5gs. Travelling at mach 4 like a missile you can easily pull enormous gs in a turn and the faster you go the higher the gs of the SAME turn.

What I am trying to say is that a new modern seeker and new electronics and new guidance algorithms and the R-27E should be able to engage 12g targets too. Personally I think the old models ability to hit targets pulling 8g was already pretty good anyway.

BTW improvements in electronics and rocket motor etc etc should allow the 40kg warhead to be smaller which will also further improve performance.

What one should do is purchase Aircrafts with uber IRSTs like the Su-35 to handle B-2s instead of using a surface force.

Actually the correct solution is to buy both... and I thought this thread was about Egypt?
The comment about JASSM made me think you were expanding it to anything.
And you don't need S-400 for JASSM... JASSM is just another aircraft that can be shot down... Pantsir, TOR, Patriot would all do the job,

Non-interference eh? And you say we are blind.

Well you felt bound to step in in Kosovo where the Serbs were moving Albanians by train back to Albania, yet you were able to ignore hundreds of thousands of Rwandans getting hacked to death with machettes. It is a kind of blindness.

Because Russians were the dominants in the Soviet system?

Were they? The person in charge when most of the bad stuff happened wasn't Russian at all. He was from the republic of Georgia... I read a small pamphlet released by the UK government in late 1941 and in the entry for Joseph Stalin it said he was a b@stard... but he is our b@stard.
The division of Europe and even the gift of the Kuril Islands to Uncle Joe was accepted by the west... what happened to their apology?

And you just keep avoiding my questions, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, etc, all fairly large countries, oppressed by the Soviet system led by Russians, yet you're asking for an apology? Yeah, right.

The Soviet Union was a communist state made up of lots of elements. Russia did not rule the Soviet Union the Soviet Government ruled the Soviet Union. The Russian government controlled Russia just like the Georgian government led Georgia.
Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union when it collapsed and Yeltsin was the leader of Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Trying to suggest that Russia and the Soviet Union are the same thing is like suggesting that one country on the North American continent might have the balls to call itself America. Or a group of states in the northern continent of America might call itself the united states of america... assuming that other states on the continents of north, central, and south america wont do the same.

Russia adopted the international responsibilities of the Soviet Union. That doesn't make Russia the Soviet Union... any more than England was Britain. BTW I dare you to tell a Scotsman he is English because he is British and English is British.

Bio weapons are for those who can't fight an honorable war. And who'd be the better man then?

Honour in war is for the victor to decide. Countries who care about honour in war are clearly fighting for amusement.

Yet the OP of this thread has a computer and Egypt is still a bad boy to us?

How generous of the US to allow Egyptians, New Zealanders and even Russians to use their computers....

Or do the same with a B-1B, it works.

Yup... it could kill a B-1B at 200km too.

Put R-37s on that C-5 and it'd kill the MiG-31 anyways.

So your solution is bigger longer ranged missiles?

Well seeing as the Mig-31 with R-37 missiles exists and C-5s or B-1Bs with R-37s don't...

Vlad posted a video of a news story of a S-300 killing 10 targets in however much time, that can be confirmed, what you're saying, isn't.

Except that exercise did not use up all the available missiles of the S-300 or the SAMs defending it. A bit like an F-22 AMRAAM missile test where it shoots down a target. Does that mean the F-22 ONLY has the capacity to handle one target?

A S-300PMU1 battery can engage 36 targets at one time and can fire two missiles at each of those targets, which means up to 72 missiles in the air all the time.
Any SAM co-located to protect it can also engage multiple targets too.

Oh sure, if you were to put low-frequency long band radars to anything, you might see a reduced RCS JASSM, but by then it'd be about 50 km out and there'd be about 100 more behind each one. Good luck!

A decent long range SAM battery like S-300 would deal with that... and the long flight range of the JASSM means that its long flight path might take it near other AD assets which can also start dealing with the mass attack. Aircraft can be launched to shoot down missiles in flight too.

The Criminal whom I'm referring to was Russia, which you've obviously missed by cropping out my statement.

What makes Russia a criminal? Doesn't the US sell weapons too... yet you are upset when I suggest the US is a criminal for doing the same thing Russia does.
Ahhh, now I get it. If you have money you are not a criminal. It is the OJ Simpson defence. America has lots of money so it is good. (PS don't ask where that money came from).

It's better than you whom only care for Russia and not for the sake of the world.

The US cares for the world like a baked bean cares for the world. The US cares for itself and that is all.
Russia is learning the same lesson... and if everyone else did people would have less reason to be angry.

Jeez, I didn't realize you thought Egypt was stagnant and didn't improve or worsen relations with other countries because they could buy F-15s if they did 7 little favors.

Egypt turned its back on the Soviet Union and got into bed with the US and the Juice. It can't expect T-50s from Russia with love just because it might have the money.

Or maybe the Andromeda strain? Yeah, I lost my tin foil hat for a bit.

Andromeda Strain was a movie... and fiction.
You can consider weaponised Ebola fiction if you want.
Marburg fever probably hasn't been weaponised either...

Quit joking around, you obviously never had 5 tonnes on you before.

Merkava 4 weighs about 65 tons and was not know as the flying tank. Making it a 70 ton tank would not effect its already modest mobility enough to make it noticeable... it would still be a slow heavily protected tank.

IMO, should of just bought radios. Oh wai- we do. So again, learn the word, "Redundancy".

And how many airliners have military band radios?

Didn't help the Iranian airbus shot down in the 1980s...
The AEGIS cruiser was identifying the target using the wrong IFF code so they ignored the message.

But we've already apologized to the Natives, and what I've been saying all along is that Russia hasn't apologized to the CIS, as far as I know that is.What you've done is instead of answering my questions you just skipped over them to attack me and make me answer instead of for yourself.

First of all the attitude of the former Soviet Republics demanding the apology... WTF would Russia want to apologise even if there was a reason for it to do so. The crap that happened in Estonia during the cold war also happened in Russia too.
Second why should I answer for Russia... I've never even been there.

Understand this, if America were to dissapear tomorrow, Russia will replace us.

I doubt that very much. Russia doesn't crave controlling the world... just look at its spending. It only flirted with aircraft carriers, whereas a country bend on world domination would need lots of them. The carriers it is planning are not Nimitz class carries with strike aircraft as well as fighters. They want fighters to protect their ships. Their plans for carriers are to protect their ships from air attack. Your carriers are to invade countries or bomb them.

Someone is always going to be the Superpower, whether you like it or not.

I don't care. I wouldn't care if the US disappeared and I don't care that they haven't. I just try to ignore them when I can.

The problem is when talking to Americans about Russian weapons and equipment it always comes down to whose stuff is better and why America is so wonderful. If I loved American stuff I would not bother coming to this website.

Because people are A$$holes. And people with power are the biggest a$$holes.
I am trying to say... I am interested in Russian weapons and equipment. I am not interested in American equipment or weapons.

America is also here to provide a reference point for morals, what is considered consensus and what is considered non sense.

America is living proof you can have morals but if you don't actually apply those morals to your own actions, but call everyone else on when they violate YOUR morals you talk to them like they were your children... or something you just stepped in.
Can you see why someone who is not protected from your wrath by being an American citizen might largely ignore you?

It is like a guy who is clearly a bodybuilder sitting at a bar telling all the out of shape people around him they should eat better and get more exercise. Of course he "eats" protein milkshakes and takes steroids and will die in his 50s because of the damage he is doing to his heart and kidneys...

So bottom line, before you call us for what you think we are (a collection of rich, belligerent, interventionist racists who only look out for ourselves) then I can only ask you to look deeper into our people and our character.

You missed out selfish and arrogant.

Perhaps if you bothered to look deeper into the 5.5 billion other people living on this rock you might not intervene so much, but I doubt you will take the time.

For me, what difference would my understanding of the average American Joe make? Your government will always act in its own interests... sometimes I will benefit and other times I wont.
Understanding that the average American Schmuck is just the same as the average Russian Schmuck or New Zealand Schmuck is a lesson America needs to learn not me. The Iraqis they have killed are probably a lot more like them than they think. I know a couple of Iranians who are the friendliest and gentlest people you could meet anywhere. Don't talk about their wonderful time under the Shah the CIA installed in Iran though. They really don't like Americans for that... and they would like an apology for your undemocratic actions there too.

The problem with that is that the alternative is to listen to more media because your sources are mostly people educated by media anyways so if you want another Orwellian, you'd have to spend your life contemplating society in a forest.

Actually the solution is the Internet. Go and look at Russia Today. Go look at Aljizera (Spelling). They will give you different points of view of the stories your own news agencies cover. And no, before you say it... they are not liars and it is not propaganda... If what you see on your media is news then what they see is news too. The difference is that each "news" medium has a different view. CNN will show an American perspective. The BBC will tend to show a British perspective. Russia Today shows a Russian perspective etc. None of them are lying, but they are covering things from their perspective which means you are not getting a complete picture... of course the real question is do you want the real picture. If the "BP oil spill" had happened off the coast of Africa it might have been mentioned once or twice and then buried by more important stories.
BP have been involved in lots of oil spills yet you know which incident I am talking about because of the media coverage alone.

Which of course could be a good thing or a bad thing for Afghanistan.

99% of Afghans will not see a cent from it. It will be the same result as any other case of big business dealing with the natives... the natives end up screwed.

The problem with that is that we weren't the ones in Hinds strafing.

Those Hinds weren't strafing at random. If they didn't fight back there wouldn't have been a problem.

Because what you're asking us is like asking Pakistan to rebuild Afghanistan after we leave because they funded most of their shenanigans.

Pakistan didn't spend a cent of their own money in Afghanistan. The US and the Saudis needed Pakistan to get the money and weapons to the Afghans so it all went through Pakistan... well some of it probably did.

So you'd much rather dump away a chance to look at the other side of the fence just because you don't want a hand up your ass?

I am not a "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" type guy. If the guy over the fence smiles and waves I will smile and wave back, but I am not going to take a hand up the arse to find out that he thinks about the same things I do.

Because my views change, they aren't going to be stagnant, and although I do admit my arguments do come off as hard headed, you yourself is hard headed so there's no point in being soft headed in this argument because the only way I'll punch a hole through the wall you've built is to be harder than the wall itself.

There is the problem right there.

You think this is an argument.

I think this is a discussion.

Which of course, as we know, ended in nothing. America intervened, Soviets intervened, and the resulting clash; nothing.

The British were in there about 5 times previously with the same result.
Currently Afghanistan is a few cities and warlords. Unless you engage the warlords into national politics and teach them that they can progress more and get wealthier with peace and democracy than with bullets and guns then it will remain a feudal society that has continuous conflict and no future.

All the while leaving the money in the hands of Russian fat cats while boys on the front line had to do with mediocre equipment? There's a reason why I supported the F-22, even though it might as well bankrupt us.

They have a democracy now. It is not just a few powerful communist politicians controlling everything and having all the land and the power. They have democratically elected officials... and former communist party people who got very wealthy overnight and with that wealth they can buy politicians and control everything and have all the land and all the money....

The Plane itself might be similar, but electronics are the Brains of the plane and Su-30MKIs are better in that aspect.

Not really. The Su-30MKI design was finalised before the Su-27SM was so they probably use very similar electronics. They just have different things attached to them.
In a strike role with an Su-30MKI with a targetting pod like Damocles will have similar performance to the Su-27SM with the same pod. The difference of course is that if the Russians wanted a target hit with a strike aircraft they wouldn't send Su-27SMs, they would send Su-24 or Su-34 aircraft. In that sense the Su-30MKI has to be better because it is both a fighter/interceptor and a strike aircraft. The Su-27SM is a fighter interceptor only though it has extensive air to ground capability.

Because we don't call our block 60 F-16s F-16DM (deep modernization) just to make people want to the new version, we just scrap the old version and sell only the new one.

The letters the Russian design bureaus use mean something.
A block number means what?
The Mig-21SMT was an upgraded Mig-21M with added fuel capacity (ie hump back) for a T to be added. The Mig-29SMT is an upgrade using components of the Mig-29M and it also adds fuel with a hump back...

In what way is a block 50 F-16 and a block 50 F-15 similar... apart from the block numbers?

Of course, which leads to Team killing.

Clearly a problem for India I guess.

Or one site has radars up giving 6 sites their radar image so we just attack those 6 sites.

If you can detect those 6 sites RECEIVING information from a data link then there is no way the F-22 or F-35 or B-2 are stealthy. They receive all sorts of data including data from Navstar to tell them where they are.

That's a bad analogy, it's like we're 2 boxers and I just knocked you out, so your Coach gives you a gun to shoot me, which is so unfair.

You just wiped out Russias airforce in an unprovoked attack and you call their retaliation by detonating tactical nuclear devices on the airfields you sent your attack force from unfair?

You need to reread the rules of war... ie there are none.

Ahahaha, my point has been proven exactly. Honor is something lost on you.

Well some might say stealth fighters and stealth bombers are unfair too. The US clearly has no honour either.

But we're talking Su-35 v.s. MiG-29...the enemy is THAT way Garry!

They wont be buying a base model Mig-29, it will be at least Mig-29SMT so both Su-35 and Mig-29 have excellent air to ground capability. Every bit as good as any block F-16.

Vladimir79 wrote:Don't forget the ending...



Kind of reminds me of this crazy Rafale pilot, of course a Rafale can get out of it.

nightcrawler wrote:Do remember there were many Pakistan pilots dubbed Egyptians; who clearly beat the shit out of Israeils

KRON1 wrote:

nightcrawler wrote:Do remember there were many Pakistan pilots dubbed Egyptians; who clearly beat the shit out of Israeils

I remember there were mercenary Pak pilots. I do not remember a case where they shot down Israeli planes.

Vladislav wrote:

Turk1 wrote:CCIP is a good upgrade. It has made us the Super Power of the Middle East and Egypt isn't far behind.

Super Power of the Middle East? You think you can beat Usreal?

GarryB wrote:Have not heard anything official.

Egypt is a close friend to the US, which means it is rather unlikely Russia will sell Su-35 or S-400 to Egypt as that pretty much hands them over to US intel.

I suspect if Egypt wants to buy Russian they might accept a large order for the Mig-35 if only to improve the situation of Mig and perhaps save the aircraft design from extinction.

They might also be prepared to sell late model S-300s which are still very capable air defence systems when used properly and properly supported (ie Pantsir-S1 or TOR).

GarryB wrote:There is no reason why Egypt under a new government cannot have good relations with Russia.

I still don't think they will trust Egypt with their latest products just yet however.

It is a bit of a myth that the Russians sell to just anyone... they used to be desperate for money and sales would have been more likely then, but now they need large production runs and large orders to set up significant production facilities and tooling.

...like I said, if Egypt wants to buy what Russia needs to sell then they increase their chances of also being offered to buy what they really want.

Buy a few Frigates and a few subs and perhaps even buy a couple of hundred Mig-29M2s or Mig-29SMTs and then you can probably talk about Flankers and S-400s.

Kornets, and Metis-M are good sellers as are Igla-S missiles, so that sort of order would be viewed as normal too.

msaabneh wrote:Written by Egypt News
SUNDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2010
Egypt is set to produce its first fighter and drone "in cooperation with a foreign side", ..............

The official did not name the foreign party which will take a hand at the process, ..........