maurobaggioBaggio@
Why should VKS keep at the fast flying CAS platform. Surly they are(just like A-10) a tool from Soviet era.
If Russia can field a decent Sniper pods and use it on all their Flankers and Su-34.. Hell even Tu-22M3 as long as it remains in service, then the Su-25 is not really needed anymore.
O=n top of this Russia have a pretty impressive new fleet of Mi-28 and Ka-52 going by now.
Thank you very much for not putting me on your ignored list, and in this way making me write this ‘short text’ below, in fact I had hoped that some charitable soul would have been accepted this mission with much better knowledge.
To be polite is an excellent and difficult question to answer:
I think like almost all here that the most important aspect for fighters should be the multirole( air-to-air, air-to-ground, air-to-sea) capabilities in order to accomplish different attack missions: CAS( close air support) , BAI ( battlefield interdiction) , deep and even strategic strikes.
Perhaps the most appropriate example of this had occurred in the first Gulf War in 1991: while B-52H and F-111F carried out battlefield interdiction missions, F-16C / D fighters carried out strategic missions as well as the A- 10 carried out missions to hunt and destroy TEL with TBM( Tactical Ballistic Missiles) missiles deeply in the Iraq territory.
The conclusion could have been that: you should have multirole resources to allow such broad aspect of missions as: to sweep the skies from adeversary fighters, then to shootdown SAM radar with DEAD/SEAD missions that will support such aircraft as the A-10 like in this deep missions over Iraq terretory against the SCUD missiles.Still the same reason could have been applied for the A-10 in this CAS missions.
At the end of the Soviet Union, the Su-25 had been shared the CAS with two other supersonic fighters-bombers: Su 17M3/4 and several versions of the MiG 27.
The Su-25 has not been intended to replace the Su-17M or MiG-27, even less the Su-17M4/R or the MiG 27K, once both Su-17M and MiG-27 were used in BAI (Batle Air Interdiction) missions too, while the Su-24s had been aiming on deep strikes at low-altitude missions, or on medium-high or high-altitude missions escorted by Su-27S.
With the end of the former Soviet Union all Su-17M and MiG-27 versions were withdrawn from service due budget restricitions from Russia in the early 90’s. Then the Russia Air Force has been preserving the Su-25 and the Su-24M since the 90’s, in reason of that the Su-24M has been dedicated for the BAI missions as well as the Su-25 for the CAS missions.
In the BAI at the presence of enemy fighters the Su-24M could have been show some maneuverability restrictions as well as Su-25 speed (subsonic) restrictions in the CAS missions, thus requiring a great deal for escort fighters (Su-27 and MiG-29)to protect against enemy fighters.
The MiG-27 were quite capable in WVR ( Within Visual Range) against other fighters in reason of that maneuverability and supersonic speed, so the MiG-27 were capable even to make dificult the life of enemy pilot that would pursuite the Su-25 in CAS missions, just like the Su-17M were more maneuverability and less expensive than Su-24M in most of the BAI missions, once the highly complex missions as deep strikes will remain with Su-24M.
Both Su-17M4 and MiG-27 would be withdrawn from service at some point by the Soviet Union, but the missions of these would be carried out by the multirole Su-27M and MiG-29M, as well as by the Su-34 that will replace the Su-24M at same point too.
The USAF has been keeping such balanced combination with the A-10 / F-16 as well as the USMC with AV-8 Harrier / F/A-18C/D in CAS / BAI missions, however the combination developed by the former Soviet Union with Su-17M4 / MiG-27 / Su-25 were undone due to terrible budget conditions in Russia over the years 90.The main difference between the US and Soviet Union were that F-16 / F/A-18 had been designed as multirole fighters, while the MiG-29 (9.12, 9.13 and 9.13S) were designed as air superiority fighter.
The situation of Russia has been improving since early 2000 with deliveries of: Su-27SM, MiG-29SMT, Su-30M2, Su-30SM, Su-34, Su-35S and MiG-29K( Russian Navy).
In any case, those new multirole assets has been capable to carrie out BAI missions as well as CAS missions, but in the CAS missions the introductions of new attack helicopters has been extremely relevant: the new Ka-52 and Mi-28N must have been revolutionized the doctrines of the attack helicopters by Russia, as well as the Mi-35M.
However, it should be also important to mention the new Kh-38M tactical missile, once it will be combined with the long range sensors as radars in ground mode from Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S , it will enable them to carry out long-range attacks (over 40 km) against important targets such as MBT and IFV in CAS missions.
The Su-25SM has been extremely important for the Russia Air Force(VKS), once it has been modernized as Su-25SM standard since the early 2000s, yet all fighters has been keeping a useful life, and due to the large number of missions made at low altitude by the Su-25 since the Afghan War in the 1980s, is likely the same could started gradually to withdrawn from service after 2020.
I guess the point is that : the Su-25 has not been considered obsolete by the Russia Air Force, and because of this would be the reason for so many discussions about the Su-25 successor.
maurobaggioI do not know if I’m on the ‘same page’ as the interviewee from article, however the idea from single seat version from 2 generation Su-34 could have been keeping some favorable factors at its side, since all 5 Generation fighters are single seat (F-22, F-35, Su-57, J-20, FC-31) and mostly of the 4.5 Generation, and several of those will be used in deep strikes as well as CAS ( Close Air Support).
During the development of the Su-27IB (Su-34) in the 80s it were envisaged that the Su-27IB (Su-34) could have been equipped with ejection cockpit such as the F-111 from US, however due to the high weight( titanium armor plate) and dimensions of the cockpit from Su-24 the idea was abandoned early, since its complexity( seize and weight) would require a large and heavy parachute that would take up a lot of internal space that otherwise should have been earmarked for avionics and fuel.
In the same way it were considered such ejection cockpit with titanium armor plate from Su-25T (Su-39) , even for the attack helicopter Ka-50 , during the 80’s. But even such armored cockpit for single pilot would require large parachute for such ‘small’ dimensions of the Su-25T, in the same way would occupy too much space that could be better intended for avionics and fuel.
The reason for these idea from armored and ejection cockpit came as the the result of the Afghan War in the 1980s, once the Soviet pilots had been ejecting from their damaged aircraft were targeted as they descended from parachute, then this armored cockpit could serve as shelters until the rescue arrive.
The most critical problem in the rescue of pilots and crew has been this possibility: they can be surrounded by enemy troops, and due to the proximity of these enemy troops often it has been highly risk to carry out air attacks against those enemy troops without hitting the own downed pilots.
However, if the pilots could have been sheltered in this armored cockpit, the attacks will carried out with low risk, especially with the use of fragmentary and incendiary (thermobaric) weapons.
The C-SAR operations are extremely difficult and complex, especially if such clever enemy instead of capturing or even killing the downed crew members using them as baits, in which case the enemy will approaches discreetly at the downed crew members, and will keeping hidden until the arrival of the helicopters with the C-SAR teams, only when the C-SAR team has been approaching or even landing in the ground the enemy will opens fire turning one target into several.
However in the case of this suppose version single seat of the Su-34 this could have been received an armored cockpit with ejection capability, today it would not be possible with the Su-34 with its two crew, otherwise with cockpit for a single pilot this would be smaller and lighter than the Su-34,in that case will increasing the maneuverability as well as decreasing the front RCS of this supposedly new version Su-34.
With ejection cockpit there is no need for an ejection seat, in this case the pilot’s seat could have been capable to recline as the first-class or executive commercial airlines, until now I have not verified if they really work as demonstrated in the movies, but if it really works the pilot could rest or stretch during long missions, or even access compartments with food and liquids in the back of this supposed cabin, thus keeping the same concept of the current Su-34.
Just a curiosity about the Su-25 with R-95 turbojets engines: in fact the Su-25 (T-8) prototype were designed with Al-25T turbofan engines, but under the requirements of the former VVS (Soviet Union Air Force) the T-8 had been equipped with RD-9B turbojets ( R-95). Among several factors for this change such detail aren’t much known like such capability this R-95 turbojet engine also operate with diesel fuel in an emergency mode (maximum of 2 hours).
It seems that were a desire of the VVS that Su-25 had bee capable to operate with diesel fuel even in combat missions too, since the diesel fuel is less susceptible to the explosion and fire than the aviation kerosene, therefore the combination of sealed fuel tanks and diesel fuel could have been making the Su-25 more resilient in combat like CAS operations. This were not possible with R-95, however the R-95 engines has been capable with this emergency mode to operate with diesel fuel, about the R-195 turbojet engine from Su-25TM(Su-39) I am not aware if its possible.
AFAIK there has been a lot of discussion about the replacement of Su-25SM, since such UCAV based into YAK-130 that has been under development since 2006, or even by MiG-29M2 / MiG-35, but it has already been widely reported over time that Su-34 will take over the missions from Su-25SM when it will be withdrawn from service.
maurobaggioThe JA-37 Viggen were fighters from 4 Generation , while the AJ/SK/SH-37
Viggen should have been described better as fighters from 3 Generation like the MiG-23/27.
In fact the JA-37 had been created as second generation from AJ/SK/SH-37, once the JA-37 were delivered for service in the 1978/9 with the purpose to face the new generation from Soviet fighters in development (MiG-29 / Su-27/ MiG 31) that were keeping into secrecy, as well as the new versions of the 3 Generation (MiG-23 and MiG-25) of fighters from former Soviet Union.
As a result of this, the JA-37 had been received new systems (fly by wire, datalinks, digital computers, MFD, ECM, BVR missiles and others) that were introduced among 4 Generation fighters (F-14 , F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Mirage-2000) from West as well as in Soviet fighters (MiG-29 , Su-27 and MiG-31).
The Sweden were quite able to transform such 3 Generation like the AJ-37 into 4 Generation that were the JA-37, however after the JA-37 the Sweden had been decided in the early 80’s to develop such new 4 Generation fighter that has been resulting into family JAS-39 Gripen since 1995.
So the JA-37 could have been highly capable to face the MiG-29 / Su-27 in BVR( Beyond Visual Range) combat, but in the WVR( Within Visual Range) aspect the maneuverability from MiG-29 / Su-27 would put these over advantage against the JA-37. However it were possible to probe better the concept from JA-37 after the MiG-29 has been entering into service since 1983 as well as the Su-27 in 1986.
In combat fighters versus fighters the WVR aspect should have been more important than the BVR, then it were not recommended to continue with the development of the multirole version for the JA-37, otherwise such new fighter with high maneuverability were started the development like the JAS-39 Gripen in the early 80.
The MiG-31 has been receiving missions as interceptor and command aircraft since 1981, as well as its predecessor Tu-128 Fiddler, because of this MiG-31 were capable to command both MiG-23 and MiG-25P fighters had been equipped with analog datalinks, as well as Su-27S/P and occasionally MiG-29 with digital datalinks.
However the MiG-23 and MiG-25P were not capable to share data with each others MiG-23/25 through the analog datalink, since both fighters had not been equipped with instruments for this purpose as well as the second crew like the MiG-31.
The MiG-23 with different versions were used by both VVS (Soviet Air Force) and IA-PVO (Soviet Air Defense), but only IA-PVO has been equipped with MiG-31 and AWACS A-50, while VVS were depended only with CGI( Command Ground Interception) among countries from Warsaw Pact.
maurobaggioIn my opinion Deino is absolutely correct in the post above, but I think that among Deino description it could has been introduce some other fighters besides the PAK-FA such as: F-22A, F-35A/B/C, J-20 , FC-31( J-31?) and several others if we included those from 4.5th and 4.0th Generation fighters, until we finally will reaching the Me-262 from the first generation of jet fighters, in that case the complete list could be quite extensive.
New technologies has been creating new problems that has been demanding new solutions( new technologies) .These ‘surprises’ has been often not predicted in schedules setting in the conceptual phase of the program. In resume it could be described as learning curve.
As well as political and commercial factors in some cases( most cases!) will overlap the technological factors, then it could be responsible for setting unrealistic goals and objectives for the program.About the time of the former Soviet Union none program were never behind the schedules or it had been found out problems at the official statements by the state press .
In this case censorship in the information about deadlines could yields good dividends in the field of internal and external advertising when these can be implemented with ‘descriptions’, but this high rate of good results were not exactly the reality in the former Soviet Union once important facilities in Siberia were always crowded with celebrities guests.
As it has described in the article about the PAK-FA I guess that in near future the PAK-FA and others fighters from 5th Generation will be able to perform some missions as reconnaissance in the unmanned mode, after all the fighters from 4th Generations has been limited at the load of 9G because of the crews( human physiology), since those fighters had been developed along the 70’s it could be able to perform maneuvers with load factors of 12G. In addition the pilots has been restricted the time of the the missions around 10 hours maximum, but it should be possible to extend the missions through refueling in air beyond further 10 hours, but again the limit are the resistance of the pilots.
Some research’s had been carried out in U.S and Soviet Union since the 70’s to create aircraft’s ( fighters, bombers and others) that could operate with crews or like such UCAV in function of the mission.
In the case of the former Soviet Union the greatest example of the research had been carried out in this field should be the space program of the Buran orbiters, since the Buran spacecraft could be manned or not depending on the mission.
By the way Deino or someone with great knowledge from German language could translate the German expression into English, since I think translators would ruined its meaning.
maurobaggioWell, i didnt say they will be doing it. I said it would be easier/better to do it that way than modifying the whole underside. And as said, clearly the wings are structurally up for it since original BM could carry Kh-58/Kh-31 not to mention fuel tanks. They didnt consider it for BM because that upgrade was more aimed towards ground capability. Either way, more missiles is pure speculation for BM2.
051 was a frankenstein between vanilla and M as i remember it, so yeah, probably normal belly.
In fact, the Kh-58/Kh-31 missiles were added with prototype MiG-31F in the 80’s or even the MiG-31BM in the 2000’s, still the MiG-31B/BS/Dz had been equipped with up 06 BRV( Beyond Visual Range) with SARH( Semi Active Radar Homing) and IRH( Infra Red Homing) missiles: 04 R-33 (490 Kg) SARH missiles on the ventral supports and 02 R-40 IRH or SARH missiles (675 Kg) on the wing pylons, however after 2010 the R-40 were removed from service.
While the MiG-31M these could have been equipped with up 10 BRV with ARH ( Active Radar Homing) missiles: 06 R-37 (600 kg) missiles on the ventral support and 04 R-77 (RVV-AE) on the pylons on the wings.
However, the MiG-31M never went into service since the program had been canceled in 1994 after the construction of 07 prototypes while another 03 prototypes were left unfinished since1992, when in fact the program were suspended due to lack of financial resources.
Such fact about MiG-31M were that two prototypes (Blue 056 and 057) had been used in the development of the R-37 missile until 1998, in fact in the 90s those missiles were improved into version R-37M , whereas none R-77 missile (RVV-AE ) should have been tested by MiG-31M until 1998.
The curious explanation for this fact would that: it will be the futility testing the R-77 with MiG-31M, once the only versions available from R-77 could not support the tactical conditions (flies under extended time in Mach 2) with MiG-31 (B/BS/M), as well as the R-77 would not be able to exploit the kinetic advantages (Mach 2.5 velocity and altitude of 20,000 m) from MiG-31 at the launch of the missiles, since the available version of the R-77 in the 90’s will not withstand the thermal and mechanical stresses with such extended range by more than 50% due at the MiG-31.
Just like it had been happened with the anti-radiation missile Kh-58 that equipped the former MiG-25BMs in the 80s, once it was necessary to develop a specific version of the Kh-58 to equip the MiG-25BM. The same principle has been applied with MiG 31, then to equip the MiG-31 with R-77 it has been necessary to develop a specific version of R-77 , other wise it would be necessary to limit the performance of MiG-31. Anyway, it were not possible in the 1990s to create this new version of the R-77 due to the lack of resources for this.
The MiG-31BM program has been launching since1999 , it has been announced that MiG-31BM/BSM will be equipped with a specific version of R-77 (RVV-AE) and later the R 77-1 (RVV-SD), so it would be like 08 BRV missiles : 04 R-37M in the ventral support and up 04 R-77 in the wing pylons.
Speculations could have been suggest a range of over 160 km for the R-77-1 with the MiG-31BM / BSM, or even up to 200 km, in this case only as comparative R-33 with SARH ( Semi active radar homing) has a range limited to 125 km.
Another rumor that has been emerged few years later could indicate that the MiG-31BM will be equipped with a version of R-77-1 with folding fins, then 02 missiles R 77 could be transported in place of 01 R-33 or R-37M in the ventral supports, which could total Up to 08 R-77-1 instead of 04 R-37M. This supposed fordable version of the R 77-1 could have been proposed to decrease the aerodynamic drag while it has been mounted on the wing pylons from MiG 31 too, in this case the MiG 31BM could be equipped with up to 12 R-77-1, or a combination between : R-37M, R-77-1 and R-74 (short range WVR).
However, the simple addition in tactical condition’s from 02 R-77-1 with 04 R-37M should be formidable increasing about the capabilities of MiG-31BM / BSM while it has been compared to MiG-31B / BS with 04 R-33, once the R-77-1 does not decrease significantly the performance of MiG-31BM in the wing pylows.
After reading the post from Berkut about the suppose MiG 31BM2 maybe another possibility instead of adding those supports for 02 R-37M (600 kg) with hydraulic actuators in the belly of the MiG 31BM / BSM, that same place could be used to carry 02 pylons more simple for the R 77-1 (175 kg) between the 04 R 37M , In this case we would have 06 BRV missiles (04 R-37M and 02 R-77-1) in the belly of the MiG 31BM, without even using the wing pylons.
Anyway, I’m not sure if the MiG-31M had been used hydraulic actuators for those additional 02 R-37M in the center of the belly , this system has been necessary with the 04 semi-conformable supports of the R-33 from MiG-31B/BS/Dz as well with R-37 from MiG 31M, since those missiles can be launched at the Mach 2.5 velocity from MiG-31.
If it is not necessary to install supports with hydraulic actuators to add 02 R-37M in the MiG-31BM / BMS, then it would more feasible once it make necessary only pylons in the center of the fuselage, although that each R-37M missile has been described with mass of 600 kg and this must be added with aerodynamic drag at speeds of Mach 2.5 from MiG-31.
Interesting times that we are living in these days, just like it has been supremely interesting to observe the photos taken during the modernization of the MiG-31BM with apparent consent, still the information’s about the MiG-31 has been remained as hazy as it were in the 80’s.
maurobaggioAny reason why interceptor of S-300/S-400 were never provided with a IR Guidance and only had ARH guidance ? They could have built the interceptor one with ARH and other with Dual Colour IR guidance ( like on RVV-MD ) of better ECCM and target discrimination ? .
Among the various versions of the S-300 there are only SARH( Semi Active Radar Homing) missiles, however in two different versions: the S-300PM( ground and maritime versions) had been equipped with 5V55R missiles SARH and command link, while the news versions S 300PM1/2( ground and maritime versions) has been equipped with missiles 98N6 SARH and TVM( Track Via Missile) that allows the data from 98N6 missiles has been transferred by a two-away datalink to the fire control radar from S-300PM1/2.
In the S-400 there are SARH missiles with TVM as well as the new long range missile 40N6 with ARH( Active Radar Homing).
In fact there are not missiles with IRH ( Infra Red Homing) head seeker among the S-300/400, as well as among all medium and long range SAMs of the former Soviet Union and Russia.
Otherwise among of AAM( Air Air Missiles) with BVR( Beyond Visual Range) has been keeping such long tradition between SARH and IRH missiles since the former Soviet Union, the last AAM BVR with IRH has been the R-27T/ET as alternative in case of the radar fightes could have been jamming by ECM( Electronic Counter Measures) from enemy aircraft’s.
There are at least three possible explanations for S-300PM and S-400 has not been equipped with IRH missiles:
The first should be that radars from SAM S-300 PM and S-400 are more difficult to cancel by ECM than fighter radars, since the S-300 PM and S-400 batteries has been using separate radars (two S/X bands) for search and fire control, while fighters has been using single radar in X-band for both search and fire control.
The second reason are that fighter radars has been limited by weight and dimensions, whereas in the case of SAM radars like the S-300PM and S-400 there are not such restrictions in the ground or even with ships, so the S-300PM and S-400 radars has been more powerful than the radars fighter , which makes it difficult for ECM from enemy aircraft’s.
The third explanation should be that IRH has been typically used by short range SAM (MANPADS) and AAM WVR( Within Visual Range) missiles like AIM-9 Sidewinder and R-73/74. Due the fact those last missiles has been capable to reach max speed of the Mach 2 and Mach 3 respectively, while missiles S-300PM and S-400 could have been capable to reach Mach 4.5, as well as with several times range than MANPADS and AAM WVR missiles, which it will creates among the missiles a demand for a high-efficiency cooling system to keep the IRH refrigerated on the S-300PM and S-400 missiles.
Therefore this will makes the IRH system more complex and heavy than those has been used in the WVR, just like the R 27T/ET( IRH), once the speed of Mach 4.5 will create high heating process in the missiles noses, then its IR emission from nose missiles could reduce the range of this IR sensor, while it has been compared with the same head seeker in those missiles WVR at an atmosphere with high density (low and middle altitudes).
The suppose version IRH from R 33 had not been built in the former Soviet Union to equip the MiG 31,instead it were equipped with secondary R-40T, so this R 33 IRH could not have been effective against cruise missiles (AGM 86 and AGM 109) like the R 33 SARH. Once the cruise missiles has been emitting low IR signature as well as in flying at low altitudes, so in adverse weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, clouds) those IR emissions will be difficult to detect by IRH head seeker, in the same way it would be for IRH versions of S-300PM and S-400 missiles.
As far I know there are not versions of R-77 or R-37 with IRH or new IIRH( Infra Red Imaging Homing), once both the first generation of R-77 (RVV-AE) and the second generation R-77-1(RVV-SD) had been announced for several sources about the development of an IRH version or even IIRH(Imaging Infra Red Homing) in the case of R-77-1, but so far there are not even single model of those.
In the early 1990s the trend had been observed with development of the MiG 31M were that the R-37 ARH should be the main BRV missile, as well as the secondary missile in the BVR function would be the R-77 (RVV-AE), the last would replace the R 40T (IRH) with MiG-31B/BS . Just like in the development of MiG-29M and Su-27M in the early 1990s, once the R-77 and R-27EA (Extend Range Active Radar Homing) should be the replacement for R-27R/T /ER/ET (SARH and IRH).
Otherwise the fighters (Su-27M, MiG-29M and MiG-31M) and missiles (R-77, R-37 and R-27EA) did not go into production for the Russia Air Force, just lide the R-27R/T/ER/ET has been exported by Russia and Ukraine , and even R-77 (RVV-AE) by Russia, so this trend were not confirmed so far.
However, in the lasts years the R-77-1 ARH has been acquired by Russia, and as a result, the R-77-1 could be the replacement for R-27R/T/ER/ET in the next future.
maurobaggioLook, there is not any advanced Air Defence made with Carrier Wings.
Actually they are moored most of time on continental America but in any case they are NEVER displayed along the route russian bombers would do as it pass through the Artic sea.
Just a week or two ago a Tu-95 was scrambled over the Sea of Barents, so it’s really a two way game
It is not only Aircraft Carriers, once AWACS aircraft’s, interceptors fighters and even armored divisions has been also moored in their bases too, since only small part of it has been dispatched on mission or training out of its bases at the same time.Otherwise this would be interpreted on the other side as a prelude to a war, and consequently the other side would mobilize its assets, and in the process could go to war although this were not the intention at the beginning.
In the case of bombers both US and Russia these has not been carrying nuclear warheads during its training missions for several decades ago, in fact the last time it had been mobilized on large scale for a possible conflict was in 1963.
I did not know that the Russian bombers could have been only using the routes through the Arctic or the North Pole, since I did not know that should only attack targets in the US, as the ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile) .
During all these years I have believed that both the US and Russia would attack military and strategic targets (industrial, energy and economic) in all parts of the planet, as well as their respective allies and even its allies if the other side didn’t first in the beginning of the war.
I would like to know if there is at least one treaty in which Russia and the United States had declared that they shall only destroy each other and just leaving the rest of the planet with only fall out of the nuclear ashes.
Tu-22m are not strategical bombers but theatre only, they even removed the refuelling tube for not have them classified as such.
They had a different role, to engage NATO fleets and to put pressur to the nuclear capable UK and France
In fact you are right , once the Tu-22M3 has been classified as long-range attack aircraft from former Soviet Union, while the Tu-95SM and Tu-160 are classified as Strategic bombers by the same, still the main fact that are about the Tu-22M3 does not have autonomy to reach the US, but it does not make it an tactical aircraft either, after all with its capabilities from Tu-22M3 would put several strategic targets from US and its allies at the range from Tu-22M3.
During the Cold War the Tu-22 Blinder and Tu 22M2/3 Backfire had been equipped with nuclear version of the Kh-22 missile, as well as the Tu-22M3 were equipped with Kh-15 nuclear missile, and it were operated by both the VVS and the Soviet Navy, once it were not intended only for sea missions. Otherwise the US had been used the FB-111 with mission of nuclear attacks in the Strategic Command.
At present both Kh-22 and Kh-15 with nuclear warheads has been withdrawn from service, but the discussion between tactical and strategic mission has been more associated with the mission than with the aircraft since 1991, although the Tu-22M3 has not been equipped with refueling probes in reason of the SALT II treaty, yet its capabilities put it in the category of strategic for targets not far away as the US homeland.
To increase the confusion between the old definition of the strategic bombers( Tu-95SM and Tu-160) and long range attack aircraft’s( Tu-22M3) should be mentioned the new definition from PAK-DA, since its abbreviation from PAK-DA would be this: Perspective Airborne Complex of Long Range Aviation, indeed the PAK DA will replaced all ( Tu-95SM, Tu-160 and Tu-22M3).
Acvtually no one really invest on a penetrating strategic bomber anyway, although both stealth PAK-DA and B-21 would act like Tu-95 and B-52 actually do, not like B-2 was supposed to do launching long range missiles, in the case of russian ones with an hipersonic one neaing completion.
Both Tu-160 and Tu-95SM has been planned with the main mission to launch long-range cruise missiles, in these days with both conventional and nuclear warheads, as well as the B-52H and B-1B from US, then all these cases it has been preferably out range of the Air Defenses from both US and Russia.
However there is the dilemma from Russia just it were from former Soviet Union, once the other side with large fleet of interceptor fighters and AWACS has been supported by aircraft tanks and air bases scattered around the planet, as well as Aircraft Carrier has been distributed in several parts of the world, in this case due to a serious crisis between Russia and the USA: how would it be possible to establish the max range of US Air Defense?
About the US the problems with Strategic Command (B-52H, B-1B, B-2) would start within of the Soviet Union or Russia’s airspace, since the main mission of the MiG-31B/BS and the SAM S-300 has been intercepting cruise missiles that could have been launched by the B-52H and B-1B. However for the Soviet Union or Russia the problems of its long-range aviation (Tu-95SM, Tu-160 and Tu-22M3) would start outside of the former Soviet or Russia airspace.
In this case: would be the STEALTH subsonic bomber like the B-2 or the new B-21 the configuration has been chosen for the PAK-DA to replace all bombers ( Tu-160, Tu-95SM and Tu-22M3)?
maurobaggio@Sab3r329
Man , you have not any idea of a strategic bomber force routine.
According to your idea it seems that they are all sitting in their own air base waiting for the alarm bell to ring signalling a nuclear attack, after it they take off and have to run thousand of miles before launching their missiles toward attacking country.
In the mean time all their homeland have been ravaged by enemy ICBM and SLCM but who cares? Important thing is to made a beautiful mach 2 run.
Just doesn’t work like this, strategic air forces are instead organized to keep a permanent presence in their own launch zones through a constant rotation of their own assets , so to have always a plane incoming before the one on patrol have to left it.
For this boring but absolutely necessary deterrence mission subsonic planes are clearly greatly advantaged as they have not to cope with the design restriction needed to fly in supersonic mode.
The same longevity of dinosaurs like Tu-95 and B-52 is a proof of that, no need to reinvent the wheel there.
Supersonic bombers are instead more fit for a theater level and long duration, conventional engagement.
This is not a problem however because we are talking about a two item forces not between choosing one instead of the other.
So the question would instead be IMHO if it is more convenient to develop a new subsonic VLO bomber or if it would instead be better to keep Tu-95 instead. Or also if it is better to use the PAK-fa or the Tu-160M2 to cover actual Tu-22M role.
I found yours arguments very well placed in this post, though as a coin usually has two sides, I will argue on the other side of the coin.
Both the former Soviet Union and United States had been developed different doctrines regarding Air Defense , and its were extended until these days.
The US Air Defense concept can be described as ‘mobile’ as it employs several Aircraft Carriers and Airbases has been distributed throughout the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, as well as an impressive fleet of aircraft tanks to refuel both interceptors and AWACS.
About the Soviet Union’s the Air Defense has been remained as ‘fixed’ like Russia today, since the interceptors and AWACS has been limited by the range in relation from its homeland air bases, since the Soviet Union were never equipped with a fleet of Aircraft Carriers or large fleet of aircraft fuel tanks to support interceptors and AWACS.
While strategic bombers B-52H, B-1B and B-2 from US could have been intercepted only near of the former Soviet Union ( Russia today), otherwise the Tu-95SM, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 could have been intercepted when its just leave the Soviet Union ( Russia), since after its leaving the Soviet air space had been protected by IA-PVO ( VKS today) those bombers will use routes has been patrolled by the US.
In the case of the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 it would have been using the supersonic speed as the main means of defense against interceptors has been supported by AWACS, although the AWACS (E-3 and E-2) will be quite capable to track the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3, otherwise the interceptors (F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18) will found out problems to pursuit the same, since although the interceptors are supersonic it does not have the autonomy to maintain the supersonic speedy as the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3, in this case the interceptors would have been forced to end the pursuit for lack of fuel (Bingo Fuel).
After getting rid off from interceptors the Tu-160 could return to subsonic speed, just like the Tu-22M3, so it will keep the autonomy to fulfill its mission or return for base.
In the case of the Tu-160 the supersonic speed for a short period of time has been combined with its autonomy would give it the possibility of penetrating the US external air defenses and launching the Kh-55 (2,500Km or 1,553mi) and Kh-55SM (3,500km or 2,147mi) cruise missiles before others Interceptors from bases in the US will be capable to intercept the Tu-160.
With the introduction of the F-22 with super-cruiser capability the advantage of the Tu-160 has been greatly reduced about the supersonic autonomy, since in this case the Tu-160 could have been reaching such Bingo Fuel before the F-22 at supersonic speed.
In reason of this Russia has been introduced the new Kh-101/102 cruise missiles with an autonomy of 5,000 km against the 3,500km of the old Kh 55SM in the Tu 160 in order to compensate the advantage of the F-22 in the regime of supercruiser speedy.
Shall be the Tu-160M2 obsolete in the near future?
About the 600 F-22 that should have been produced just only 197 were completed before the production line was shut down, as well as the US Aircraft Carrier fleet will be expected to remain with eight ships.
The F-35A / C are not an interceptor at the same level of the F 22, and there is no guarantee that production from F 35 will not be less than planned too.
In my humble opinion the Tu-160M2 shall be replaced the remnants of the Tu-142 especially in the AsuW(Anti Surface Warfare) missions, and in this case could support the PAK DA in the attacks against Task Forces supported by Aircraft Carriers too.
At the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 both the Tu-95SM and Tu-160 were in production as well as the Tu-22M3, in this case I always thought this did not make any sense to keep the Tu 95 in production, once the Tu 160 has been much more advanced than the Tu-95SM, therefore only the Tu-160 should be produced at this point.
The explanation I got was curious to justify the production of the Tu-95SM: with the introduction of the Tu-160 and the difficulty of intercepting these, then the Tu 160 would create holes in the air defense network from US, which would allow an aircraft less complex and expensive than the Tu 160 to explore these temporary gaps had been created by the need to intercept the Tu-160, in this case a bomber like the Tu 95SM would be able to fulfill this mission without the cost and complexity from Tu-160.
maurobaggiohaha I don’t like them. Reminds me of the commi white walls.
Edit: someone explained it. Its a function. not fashion
Those TEL S 300PM and S 400 has been designed as off road vehicles , as well as to launch missiles on unprepared terrain ( without concrete pavement).
As mentioned above by TR1 these red cover plates has been used to protect the top and ‘fragile’ part of the missile tubes, but AFAIK such secondary function would be to protect the other vehicles and equipment from the battery that could have been hit by ‘unwanted projectiles’ launching from the TEL.
Those ‘unwanted projectiles’ could be like the heads screw or even nuts that fixing the wheels from TEL, anyway it could broken in reason of this high load during the launching process, even by the material fatigue or by the loss of torque of those screws, then its head screw could have been turning into ‘high speedy’ projectiles( tempered steel) with the capacity to damage others vehicles and equipment from battery or base, as well as injuring or even killing member of the garrison if it were hit by these screw heads in the open terrain while still around from TEL.
Due to this high effort has been created in the launching process from cold ejection system , in reason of the missiles weight has been approximately 4.5t( 9920 lbs) from each missile, indeed it could create high load over the vehicles, although it has been using hydraulic shoes to stabilize these vehicles, anyway those vehicles has been supported on its wheels during the launching process of the missiles especially in unprepared terrain, then its overload will be transmitted among the wheels too, and because the terrain could have been not prepared( flat terrain) the load could be asymmetrically distributed among the wheels.
Then its cover plates that were removed from the launching tube from missiles has been put in the wheels , it will not prevent any screw heads from breaking apart, but would prevent it from reaching other vehicles or garrison members in the open terrain like shield.
All this should not be common problem, probably it has been used during training and trials of the battery from S 300 and S 400 from safety reasons, but this same problem with screw head or nuts could have been occurred with low frequency either in the landing gear system from aircraft’s both in landing and takeoff phases around the world, among several other factors this problem makes the airport landing areas as out-limited from persons , still many photographers has been exposing at this risk to get better angles for your photos.
The simple tightening of a screw can be highly complex and expensive task to accomplish among several applications.
maurobaggioOccam’s razor says so – there is no good indication to the contrary (you can’t use the assumption that it’s an aerial in later models to prove that it is anything else but a deflector in the older version, and then use that to “prove” your original hypothesis – that’s circular logic).
I agree that if there isn’t any indication in the contrary, then the best hypothesis should be that device at the front of the IRST in the Su-27/33/30 are in fact a particle deflector or even heat deflector from the radar dome.
I believe TR1 answered that one recently – the Su-35S IRST is made by a different manufacturer and uses a more modern, erosion resistant transparency. It doesn’t need a deflector.
I think that the innovation that TR1 has been pointed out in replacing the glass for the crystal (eg:quartz, synthetic sapphire) in the IRST from Su-35S has been deeply associated with the best properties of light transmission (IR, laser) through the crystal dome from IRST.
Such crystal dome could reduces the light reflection (IR, laser beam) on the outer and inner surfaces, in this case it has been reducing the loss of light( IR, laser beam) that crosses the dome, as well as reducing the refraction of light( IR, laser beam), which in turn should reduces the distortion in the capture of light( IR, laser) , in fact it allows such great improvement in IRST range and accuracy for both the IR sensor and the laser telemetry.
In any case, the best properties of the crystal in relation to the glass also allow reducing the dome temperature gradient between the outer and the inner surface, in this case the external temperature (IR signature of the dome) could have been decreased by cooling system from IRST, thereby increasing the sensitivity of the IR sensor and its range.
In this case I agree that a crystal could have been more resistant, then it would make this particle deflector less necessary, however this crystal dome should also be more expensive than the previous glass, and a simple particle deflector would be an aid in increasing the useful life , as well as it is possible that the Su-30SM has been also equipped with crystal dome on the IRST.
Yes, all of them – do you need me to google for you again?
Thanks for this information, after all this has been saved me a lot of time to research and observe such detail in the Su-30.
The design is different because the IRST location is different – the Su-30 device is asymmetric because the IRST is offset.
I agree with your assessment in the case of Su-27 and Su-30, but in this case I have been noticed that MiG-29A (9.12) had been already shifted the IRST to the right like the Su-33 and Su 30 in the 90’s, and in all the photos tha I have observed on Google I did not identify any particle deflector like: MiG-29A, MiG-29C, MiG-29S, MiG-29M, MiG-29K and MiG-35.
Since the MiG-29A (9.12) from 80 it has not been equipped with particle deflector in the IRST such as the Su-35S from 2008, however I think such particle deflector to protect the IRST were quite necessary in the MiG-29A from Frontal Aviation, as it were in the Su-27S , as well as in the MiG-29K in relation to the Su-33.
In fact, both MiG-29A ( 9.12) and Su-27S has been quite different fighters , as well as MiG-29K and Su-33, but the absence of a simple particle deflector in all MiG-29 seems to me that same has been unnecessary at all, whereas Su-27 / Su-33 / Su-30 those device has been necessary as the same had been modified over time until it has been eliminated on the Su-35S.
In any case this is not such proof that the particulate deflector in the Su-30SM / MKM could be an antenna for some sensor of the same as IFF.
IFF is typically a relatively low band like NATO L, a slight offset such as this isn’t going to affect coverage much. If even the IRST itself gives acceptable coverage when offset like that, IFF isn’t going to be a problem.
It has been a long time since the IFF system has been added the radar antenna from fighters in the West, since this allows the IFF to obtain the same angle of view of the radar.
In the case of the former Soviet Union the MiG-31 has been the first fighter with the IFF system integrated into the N007 radar, but the MiG 29M (radar N010) and Su-27M (N011) also introduced it in the late 1980s.
As far as I know the IFF system has been integrated with the N011M Bars radars from Su-30SM , in the case of the Su-30MKM the option to equip with the French IFF system at the top left, it does not seem to be recommendable, since I think there is a considerable loss In the angle of view of this sensor in relation to the radar, however I do not know if the Su-30MKM has been keep the original IFF on the N011 Bars radar, anyway it seems to me that the Su 30MKM could have been equipped with both systems, while this can create an important sensor of ELINT with Su-30MKM.
maurobaggioOh for crying out loud – it’s just a particle deflector that has been present on various Flanker variants almost right from the start:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Su-27UB_cockpit.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/37/ce/17/37ce174e8db5c0659f66f3ba4c1ee0a8.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/96/80/19/968019d68a3f0315e0256b428c8b1b2a.jpg
http://www.britmodeller.com/walkarounds/aircraft/su-27/SU-27-0015.JPG
As for the IFF on the MKM, one look at an actual photo of that version would have told you its aerials are something entirely and very obviously different:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FQ4uhtFJ0qQ/UkrijXeNT3I/AAAAAAAAEhI/7-ri6VMMSJU/s1600/4557224_large.jpg
https://su27flankerfamily.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/su-30mkm-19.jpg
http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2012/5/5/208356.jpg
At least you had been noticed that photos you posted here, but surely you did not read what I wrote before, maybe because you were already with your eyes full of tears from crying about my post.So if you think it is a simple particle deflector this is a good conclusion.
However to show that you are right about the particle deflector that its my simple explanation about this issue: when particles has been reaching the protective dome of the IR in subsonic or supersonic air flow speedy that will creating friction with outside dome,then its friction will increase IR signature of the outside dome. So an aerodynamic deflector can reduce the air speed over the dome from IRST and that could reduce the outside temperature( IR radiation) of dome, possibly increasing the sensitivity of the IRST both with IR sensor and the laser rangefinder, in addition this deflector could avoid the occurrence of grooves by particles in the dome, which would disrupt both the IR sensitivity and the emission of the laser beam from IRST.
Otherwise the particle deflector could have been used as heat deflector from radar dome of the Su 30MKM/SM too.
So there are my the questions once I have doubts: Are you sure even in the Su 27 or Su 33 this device in front of the IRST are only such particle deflector either?
If the design of the Su 30MKM particle deflector are so efficient, why it has not been used on the Su 35S?
Does other versions of the Su-30MKK/MK2/MKI/MKA has been used this particle deflector with the same design as the Su 30MKM/SM?
Still the designs of these devices has been show some different aspects among the photos between the Su-27 and the Su-30SM/MKM, then it could have been suggesting that the old device in the Su-27 were not effective, or this new in the Su-30SM/MKM could have other functions as an antenna.
If you notice the photos that you posted from Su-30MKM the antennas of the French IFF has not been symmetrically distributed along the axis of the Su-30MKM, in fact these are to the left of the pilot, while the IRST and the device in front of this are on the right.
Therefore I do not think that it is absurd that device in front of the IRST are an antenna too. In the case of Su-30MKM from Malaysia could be part of the French IFF system to extent the cover in the right side of the fighter, once that advanced IFF systems has been performing functions like ELINT.
If you reply to this post please do not cry, since you will surely waste your tears.
maurobaggioYou can see the same “field-mod” on Su-30MKM which served as a base-model for Su-30SM.
Thanks to Austin posted the link for the Take-off magazine that ‘mystery’ has been partially solved so far.
‘For instance, the Su-30MKM mounts an advanced French-made IFF system , with its ‘plates’ situated on top of he nose section fore of the cockpit.’
Take-off Magazine, page 20. March 2017.
http://www.en.take-off.ru/index.php/component/content/article/45/431
In the case of the Su-30MKM from Malaysia it seems from my interpretation of the above description that device front of the IRST are antennas of the French IFF( Interrogator Friend Foe) system.
However on the Su-30SM from Russia I do not think that Su-30SM has been using the French IFF system.
Otherwise, such advanced IFF systems could have been executing other functions such as ELINT (Electronic Intelligence), and the location of the antenna so close to the IRST, or even in front of it, may suggest that both systems has been working together in the same way the radar and the IRST since its legacy Su-27S/P.
maurobaggioI always wanted to ask this.. what is that white thing right in front of the IRST ball?
This looks like an antenna, perhaps it has been retractile in reason to not obstruct the line of sight of the IRST, in reason of that probably its part of the RWR (Radar Warning Receiver) system of the Su 30SM.
The placement of this antenna so close to the IRST could have been the function of heading it sensor with more precision against targets that has been emitting radar signals and ECM ( Electronic Counter Measures), once the IRST can establishes contact with the target that antenna could retract in order not to obstruct the line of sight of the IRST during the combat.
As there are many ‘perhaps’ and ‘probably’ in the paragraphs above it will be better that someone with greater knowledge about this issue to confirm or deny this explanation.
maurobaggioYet the US military ‘deliberately avoided bombing sarin stockpile at Assad airbase’, because they feared that it might “be ignited and cause a hazard to civilians”.
Very interesting this article described by Bellum.
“ the administration had a “very high level of confidence” that the massacre in Khan Sheikhoun was carried out by Assad’s forces using sarin, which is banned as a weapon of mass destruction under international law .”
Rex Tillerson, the US Secretary of State
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-attack-us-trump-air-strikes-bombs-avoided-sarin-stockpile-airbase-chemical-weapons-idlib-a7672126.html
Indeed there aren’t 100% confidence in this Universe, so this is evidence that the US does not know what happened in Syria if was an air strike with chemical weapons or the detonation of chemical weapons stored by the rebels.
In any case, the US will deny that US friendly rebels has been stockpiled chemical weapons, once this would be a domestic and diplomatic disaster for the US, after all the US invaded the Iraq for it had been keeping chemical weapons or WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction ), in fact it has never been proven by the US so far.
In the same way that Russia will deny that it was an air attack ordered by the Government of Syria, since this would also be a diplomatic disaster for Russia.
Neither the United States and Russia has been interested in the truth, after all this could be embarrassing for both.
However, there are few complicating factor in this case of the chemical weapons incident or attack in Syria, as it had been occurred a few days after the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg in Russia.
Many among us were expecting a strong attack from Russia, probably with strategic (Tu 160, Tu 95MS) and long-range (Tu 22M3) aircraft in retaliation for the ISIS terrorist attack, which in fact has not yet been occurred so far.
However, in this hypothetical case of the incident with chemical weapons has been true, but under other circumstance like this: if this incident with chemical weapons had been caused by Russian tactical fighters based in Syria instead of the Syrian fighters, or during this supposed attack by strategic aircraft?
Then what would be the headline in the leading newspapers in the West: Russia attacks with chemical weapons in Syria and Kills dozens of children’s?
What would be the reaction from US after this: Are they have been launched 59 cruise missiles against the Lataika Air Base used by Russia in Syria?
It is good fortune we are at this moment here, while you are posting if were Syrian fighters that carried out the attack , or it were chemical weapons incident.
Maybe next time we will not have the same luck, specially for me that I live in the city that will be the primary targets from ICBM.
maurobaggioLOL.
I think Gripen will do much better than that for the following reasons:
1. The new RBS-15 will be much lighter (and presumably also smaller) than the current RBS-15.
2. Gripen E has grown quite a lot since Gripen C; if you look at my previous post, it is now (compared to F-16 block 50) roughly the same length, empty weight is approx. 600 kg less but still carries 200kg more internal fuel than the F-16 block 50.
Of course Gripen E will still remain a small fighter so range will probably drop considerably when carrying so many missiles, but at least it will have a significantly better “starting point” than the current Gripen.
Very interesting this comment, since that Gripen E/F should be much better in all aspects because its has been increasing the size as well as the weights in relation at the Gripen C/D, however the new version of the missile RBS-15F should be better because it will be lighter and smaller than its current version…
Perhaps my brain needs at least another million years of evolution to understand this concept of alternative realities, or then the other alternative reason for this could have been that new version of RBS-15 will be smaller and lighter once it could have been transported in the weapons bay of the F-35, after all hundreds of these fighters has been ordering by several countries.
An important aspect of anti-ship missiles are highly specialized in this mission so far, as well as it has been extremely complex and expensive to build and keep in operation, and AFAIK the last time that an anti-ship missile were fired it had happened in the Golf War in 1991, when the F/A-18 C/D launched the AGM-84 Harpoon against frigate and missile boats of the Iraq.
Due to these factors such demand has been placed by several navies that new anti-ship missiles should be capable to hit targets on the ground with high accurately too, so these new missiles would be in the category of modern cruise missiles.
Anyway, a new version of the RBS-15F probably will have a multi-function radar than only anti-ship capability, once it could have been equipped with multi-function radar this new missile will also be capable to hit targets on the ground with accurately.
In this case the new version of the RBS-15 could use its multi-mission radar to navigate at the targets on terrain following mode, and to locate the targets with ground mapping or high definition SAR modes , that it would be recorded in the memory of the missile or it could has been transmitted by datalink while the missile were flying until the suppose target.
Then the radar from Gripen E could take the data at long range from target and transmitting it to the missile before , or by datalink after this were fired in order to avoid that enemy’s defenses has been alert in advance by the scanning of the radar from Gripen E.
This technique to create such missiles with multi roles capabilities are not new in the West, but because of political barriers it has not been used at least for export missiles, since there were such fear that nations could have been acquiring such tactical missiles with this technology, and they would transfer the navigation system and attack for long range cruise missiles of their own project.
As Russia has been exporting missiles like versions of the 3M-14E Kalibr cruise missiles with capabilities to hit both naval and ground targets, such policy restriction in the West has been outdated today.
Sign In
