There isn’t a lot of ECM gear aboard most AWACs, you know. As AerospaceT. wrote, the most viable countermeasure for an AWACS platform would be a towed decoy with EM+IR+radar signature c haracteristics similar to the AWACS.
You shouldn’t forget that the traditional defense of an AWACs is it’s position well behind the ‘frontlines’. Missiles like the KS172 for a large part negate that, and bring the AWACs back to what it actually is: a huge electro-magnetic lighthouse, floating on a few square feet of metal with slightly different pressures on either side.
And the Spanish unit, 431 TFS from Torrejon.
32FIS, Soesterberg / Camp Amsterdam AFB
496FIS, Hahn AFB
Some European-based Deuces. First the 526 FIS, Ramstein.
Originally posted by Victor
There’s Option 3:
Jam the incoming missiles circuits silly.
If the incoming missile is homing passively, your jamming signal is only luring the missile. Additionally, the jamming signal should be stronger (be that genuinely or just by spoofing) than your radar signal. And considering an AWACS is an AWACS and not a jamming station, it’s a no-no. And even if it would be launched in some sort of active mode, it’s silly to think a missile this size and price wouldn’t come with a home-on-jam capability.
There’s also Option 4:
As soon as the AWACS sees the missile(s) approaching, turn around and make the missiles travel longer and be in the AWACS ECM FoV longer. Making the missiles more susceptable to jamming.
So you let yourself be forced out of your patrol zone, allowing enemy fighters to take advantage of the gap in your radar coverage you just created by fleeing for that missile. What’s worse, your AWACS radar has just became useless when you initiated your evasive maneuver: in a banked turn, you’ll be scanning the ground on one side of your AWACS, and the sky on the other. Thanks for the mission kill, Victor!
Just because one has a long range AA-ARM doesn’t mean that AWACS are gonna play dead. If that was the case, then every AAM would have 100% PK.
Please explain. Because the US Navy has AIM-54 missile, that doesn’t mean the Russian A-50s are useless, because if they were, even the AIM-4 Falcon and R3R missiles would guarantee a hit with every launch? Uhhhh…. right.
:confused:
Good, still beat them by a few hours 🙂
PII,
Just having some fun. And the dental document is genuine, by the way. It will probably be in some newspapers this week, if not for it’s news value then for it’s oddity.
Unfortunately I can’t find the pic of the Ghost-painted Greek F-102 decoys someone (Fantasma, i think it was you?) posted here a long time ago. But those look absolutely great.
Here’s a normal ADCOM Deuce (with arctic red bits) in good company.
-70-
Su-24 FENCER-A, one of the really old ones. This ones is built somewhere in production batches 3 to 11 as you can tell by the fixed intake, lacking intake in the fin, and the gooseneck pitot/antenna array on the nose. Too bad you can’t see the rear of this one, because Fencer-As have really ugly, boxy bums.
-71-
This is the true Su-27 prototype, the T10-1. It had to be redesigned somewhat to become the Flanker as we know it, as you can see.
-72-
This is a MiG-21bis-Lazur, you can tell by the shape and size of the spine (which with the Bis extends as far backwards as the chute housing extends forwards) and the antenna on the fin.
-73-
This is that Su-7 testbed with an all-skid landing gear mentioned above. It’s official designation is S-26
-74-
A Su-17M3 or one of the nearly identical variants. I won’t bore you with the details, there is a pretty recent thread on these Fitters in the military aviation forum.
-75-
A Yak-27R MANDRAKE recce plane.
-76-
A Yak-28L BREWER-C bomber. Easiest way to tell if you’re looking at a Yak-27 or Yak-28 is to check the star on the tail: -27s have the star below the horizontal tail, -28s have it above. Thankfully neither was exported…
-77-
Yak-36M FORGER-A. It is better known as the Yak-38 of course, but that designation was only given after the Forger had been in service for some a couple of years. Prior to that (about 1977), these jump jets were called Yak-36M. Since this is a pre-series aircraft (full production aircraft have strakes next to the dorsal intake for the lift engines) which was already withdrawn from use by the time the designation Yak-38 was issued, this is a Yak-36M.
-78-
MiG-15Sh. This is a one-off prototype for a Shturmovik variant of the MiG-15, but it wasn’t taken up.
-79-
MiG-19PM FARMER-D. The variant with radar and missiles, but without guns.
-80-
MiG-21S/SM/M/MF. It’s one of these four, which all have a shorter spine as the Bis. Differences between these four are even more obscure than the rest of the stuff i posted now, so i’ll spare you.
-81-
The one surviving La-250 Anakonda, the last aircraft from the Lavochkin design bureau. A little bit bigger than a La-9…
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawk75
[B]And Su-27/30/32 is combat proven?
That’s a MiG-29 in the crosshairs, not a Flanker.
At least Bush posed in the cockpit 😀
Seriously, i was given concrete evidence that GWB did visit his ANG base in 1973. The White House has off-the-record released records of a dental visit by the later president in January 1973 as a PDF to selected journalists. Being only one email away from a certain selected journalist… here’s the unmistakable evidence of GWB fulfilling his duty.
I left the actual teeth markings out, they probably aren’t up to date anymore and they wouldn’t be helpful in identifying the guy anyway

Now, get out of that cockpit! You’ve got a dentist appointment.
And so he did…
Greece wants to sell them, but they have to find a customer first. I don’t know where they are stored, but my bets are on Tanagra since that would be the right place to keep (bring?) them in such shape that potential customers aren’t scared away immediately.
Finland wasn’t the only Hornet-For-Food program. When Thailand ordered it’s Hornets prior to the Asia-crisis, part of the deal was that most of it would be paid with food: mostly chicken, but also rice and palm oil. The Malaysian Hornets (as are most of Malaysia’s current defence procurements) were also paid in palm oil.
Originally posted by flex297
Apache is not cleared for carrierborne operations.
The Brit WAH-64D’s are, it’s one of the many reasons why they are so hideously expensive.
I have to agree with Omohat that fitting a radar (why not the Blue Vixen, those are perfect for the job and will be coincidentally available shortly) to the Harrier GR.9 makes a lot of sense, especially since the FAA is going to be robbed of it’s fighter arm – at least for a short time, but i wouldn’t be surprised if the eventual F-35Bs (assuming the program doesn’t go Aardvark) eventually end up under a so-called joint but in effect RAF hands. After all, the RN did function so well without intrinsic fighters since we retired the SHar F/A-2s in 2006, why give them the capability back????
I’m pretty sure that thought will spring up in the mind of a few people at Whitehall or parliament in a few years time. And you can speculate a lot about the consequences that thought might have.
Time for another IDF/AF-marked aircraft which never flew with the IDF/AF…
This is a French F-84F from EC1/1, which operated out of Israel during the Suez crisis. For the operation, the 18 aircraft of EC 1/1 (some of them were bailed from EC3 though) was ‘officially’ an IDF/AF squadron, given the designator 200 Tayaset, and flying from Lod. EC 3/2 with Mystère IVA’s was operating in a similar manner as 199 Tayaset from Ramat David.