Which you think will win if a gunship helicopter like the KA-52 go against a jet fighter like F-16 or even F-35:)
i know that normally ,people think helicopter have no chance to shot down jet fighter but i think actually helicopter have a lot of advantages if it is an ambush make by the helicopter
Advantages of helicopter :
– Most fighter use Doppler radar so when the helicopter hovering (stationary ) they will be invisible to the fighter radar or the AIM-120’s seeker
-compared to fighter helicopter have much slower speed and don’t have jet engine so they have very low IR signature , if helicopter are painted by some thing like this http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/camouflage/intermat/ finding them by FLIR would be almost impossible for the jet fighter pilot
-almost every helicopter have DIRCM so they are quite immune to IIR or EO missile , even the most modern one like AIM-9x , by contrast jet fighter only use flares
-helicopter have much better armor that can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles
-normally helicopter have short range radar but new helicopter like the KA-52 will be equip with zhuk-AE radar ( mig-35 radar )
-new helicopter can also carry long range missile ,( as i know russian decided to put the KH-31 on the KA-52 so may be in my opinion this gun ship can also carry missile like R-77 , R-37 … )

Advantages of jet fighter
-fly much higher and faster so it is easier for them to out maneuver a missile
-have towed decoy to evade radar guide missile
-carry a bigger load , more missiles , more bombs

So what your opinion :p
P/s : in an experiment in 1978 the helicopter proved to be extremely dangerous to jet fighter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH

DJCross is right, there´s no contest, the doppler return was a real problem for the likes of the AN/APQ-72 (back in 1978), not today. The heli blades are a gigantic radar return beacon. Today against a decent equiped FJ fleet the Helicopter will not only get detected, it will get locked. targeted and destroyed, the heli can be moving or hovering, its indiferent.
There´s one good reason why no one tries to go “mano to mano” with FJ using Heli´s, its a suicide.

Politics run deeper than what is reported in the media. The Democratic party shares similar ideologies with China’s Communist party. I wouldn’t be surprise if there’s quite a bit of under the table deals between China and the US.

The Democratic Party shares ideology with China´s Communist Party and with the MLM (Mars Libertarian Movement) …

That ESSM didn’t exist in 1991 is besides the point. ESSM can be carried on a small ship like a FAC and WILL outrange Penguin. Clearly, that doesn’t mean defence against AShM, which have varying ranges (but tend to longer ranges). Meanwhile, all but a VERY few select navies will find their ship SAMs being outranged by SSMs. So, how does this disqualify (only) FACs?

ESSM on a FAC? Thats a SARH weapon! It needs quite e “beefy” guidance kit on the ship to actually use it.
Or are we calling ships reaching the 900/1000 tons of displacement a FAC?

The endless “intellectual property” butthurt is amusing not least of all because it originates chiefly from that nation which, of all nations of present and historical significance, has contributed by far the least to the human song, indeed which does not even have a anguage to call its own. Even its greatest achievements — the space program and the atomic bomb — were built on the back of intellectual achievement lifted wholesale from Europe.

?!

Rii, that text of yours goes right into the “what have the romans/americans ever given us” category!

From the Wright Flyer, to Casablanca, the Marshall Plans and ending on the iphone, they have more than done their share. And in a significant way, in their cultural background the USA are has “European” as Portugal, GBritain, Germany, Poland, etc. They didnt “lifted” anything, they were/are an integral part of it.

Yes, because Mirage 4000 can’t land on carriers.

The MN would be flying what they originaly asked, the legacy Hornet.

The Rafale exists today because of the Typhoon’s lack of carrier variant.

You´ve missed the target by a bucket load of miles.

Have to be rude here: All this talk about the U.S. attacking mainland China is nonsense. You don’t play such games with a thermonuclear armed major power. Full stop.

Have to be rude here: All this talk about the U.S. attacking mainland China is nonsense. You don’t play such games with a thermonuclear armed major power. Full stop.

Last time i´ve checked, “Proceedings (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings) is covered with articles discussing South China Sea Scenarios…

Sintra,

Again the thread is about a swarms replacing heavier ships, not exclusively about Iran. In the real world there exists another scenario – the PLAN Type 22s and their support.

Shalav

Again, read what i´ve wrote. I´ve specificaly answered what would happen to FAC´s “swarm´s” if they would try to go after a CVBG in a South China Scenario. They would be cut to pieces…
You have stated that everyone was discussing Iran but no one talked about the PLAN, remember?
And that assertion was completely off the marks because i was specificaly mentioning the PLAN fleet South China Scenario.

Jonsey,

In the PLAN scenario are you telling me that those LACM etc… will be effective in knocking out enough port facilities to allow OPFLEET to come closer than 300 km? What about land based variants of those missiles?

Why in a South China/PLAN scenario would the OPFLEET get into a 300 km´s range of land? Can you devise any realistic scenario in wich American Carrier Battle Groups would need to go so near the chinese shores?
And independently of being stationed at 300, 500 or 1000 km´s, what would be the main reasons for that? Fac´s and small boat´s “swarms”?
Or Air power, submarines, long range Ashm and balistic missiles?

Why would unopposed CASOM strikes be allowed by the PLAAF? How effective can those CASOM strikes be once there is no guaranteed air superiority?

If you need to heavily involve fast jets to protect Fac Swarm´s, then delete those FAC´s and stick the Ashm in the Jet´s…
The only place in wich a “FAC” is “Fast” is in his name, they are slow moving, two dimensional, encumbered by the radar horizon and with almost no space for sensors.

In any case with C803 – you don’t need those FACs to leave port. They can be berthed and still keep that fleet out to 300 km. Just because port facilities are destroyed does mean land based versions of those missiles can be discounted either.

Precisely the point that Jonesy was making.

Once a country has a good number of longer ranged missiles – OPFLEET will stay beyond 300 km (or max range) till they are sure those AShMs are truly gone. With air support and air launched AShMs, the OPFLEET is going to stay further away than a mere 300 km!

It all about range and support. I am thinking symmetrical or near symmetrical aux support. You are assuming aux on only one side! The PLAN scenario does not allow such an assumption.

“Again the thread is about a swarms replacing heavier ships”, remember?
If those “Swarms” are completely incapable of defending themselves of air power, if they are completely dependent of aerial or submarine assets for OTH targeting and if they dont have much in a way of range, what´s their utility?
The obvious answer is “not for much”, only in very narrow scenarios (“tripwire”) and for the first day of war (because there wont be much left of those swarms if someone tries to actually use them in a high end scenario).
Bigger ships at least have range and sensors, they can be used has escorts, and they have obvious blue water missions in wich they are irreplaceable, swarms of small boats dont have range, nor sensors nor any mission in wich they are “irreplaceable”, there´s almost nothing that a FAC can do that aerial or underwater assets dont do it in a vastly more eficaceous way.