Actually the rebranded Al Quaeda and their moderate buddies have launched an offensive in Northern Hama province + Them and Aish al islam, a pristine indigenous Jihadi organization another one from Damascus suburb Jobar, add that SAA offensive in E.Aleppo is at a key point and same around Palmyra and you would see both SyAAF than RuAf having their hands quite full a.t.m.

To counter such ongoing offensive rocket pods are a better weapon than bombs, as they can be used both against infantry than light vehicles, even moving, doesn’t require prior determination of targets from outside sources and can be rapidly reloaded once depleted.

Certainly more Su-25 would be the better solution but in a sudden emergencyyou play with asset you have.
About the alternative of using helicopters, russian have them but they near Palmyra so starting from there is out of question, moving them to Hama would take time and would end to leave a even more important sector unguarded.
Jets can instead cover all the open fronts with ease and stay longer on objectives.

Certainly as soon as the front would stabilize and SAA start the counter-offensive they would go back to the usual OFAB-250/270 and thermobarics to deal with entrenched troops.
Rocket are a good weapon for some situation i.e. moving targets and area saturation but the ratio between the warhead weight and the total one (pod+ propulsion part9 is not at all convenient. Just one more tool in the large box of russian airborne weaponry.

Interesting commentaries at all, especially about moving targets has been attacked with unguided rockets.

About the Su-25SM, indeed the Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S has been equipped with multi-mode PESA radars, while the Su-25SM does not .

Probably the N011M (Su-30 SM), B004 (Su-34) and N035 (Su-35S) radars has been programing with GMTI modes that allow those to locate and track vehicles used by the insurgents in any weather day and night, as well as these radars can calculate with more precision from mid-altitude the launching of unguided rockets against mobile targets with extremely maneuverable as the vehicle pick ups used by the insurgents.

Otherwise the Su-25SM should have need to locate and lock on its targets with laser telemetry to determine both the range and speed of those vehicles on the ground, in order to obtain such fire solution for the unguided rockets, as well as the Su 24M once the radars of this has not equipped with GMTI modes.

Perhaps the Russians could have been employing such new feature to improve the accuracy of the unguided rockets has been launched by the Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S, in that case this new feature could be the use of the PESA radar to track the course of the unguided rockets.

In fact, such a technique has been already used with cannons from fighters in WVR combat against others aircraft, in this case the Sweden had been developed this technique for the JA-37 Viggen in the 80s and still using today with JAS-39 Gripen, as well as the CIWS against anti- ship missiles.

In the case , the radar from those fighters has been tracking the shells fired from 35mm cannons from JA-37 and 27mm cannons from JAS-39 , and according to the trajectory has been described by the fired projectiles, those fighters automatically could adjusts the bearing in order to increase the accuracy of the shots against the target.

This possible feature with unguided rockets could be that: first unguided rockets are fired by the Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35S could have been tracked by the radar, then the deviation between the planned trajectory against the performed trajectory from unguided rocket trajectory could have been calculated for the subsequent rockets , once the deviation will occurs in reasons of the atmospheric conditions and variations in the properties of the solid propellant of the rocket, such as time that has been remained in stock. As the deviation has been calculated by the computer its possible to adjust the fighters bearing automatically for the subsequent rockets that could be fired with more accurately even before of the first unguided rockets hit the ground, and even broadcasting the fire solution by data link for others fighters in the air.

I do not know if this technique with the cannons has been used by the JAS-39 Gripen against ground targets since that JA-37 Viggen were only interceptor fighters, once in that presentation from JAS-39 in the early 2000s for highly experienced US pilots had began to laugh about it, since they thinking it was a joke of the Swedes, and due to the interruption in the presentation to explain that it were not a joke, there were such loss of the trajectory of this presentation, however in the end the North Americans pilots were haunted with this capability in the WVR combat.

I agree entirely. From what I have been told .. the IAF distinctly likes the Gripen E – they find it an impressive jet that fills the void between the Tejas and the Gripen E … but as I have mentioned earlier … its no longer about the aircraft … its about the technology transfer and whether Gripen would be able to provide the technology transfer package (including India manufacture of the fighter) – Again, from what I have been told, Gripen believes that it has an impressive package which should suit Indian requirements but so do Lockheed Martin which is offering to transfer the production line to India …

I think it’s impossible that Gripen E has been between Tejas Mk1 and Gripen E, since the laws of physics has been preventing that t same object like Gripen E has been taking two places at the same time.

Perhaps you could have been referring to Gripen C/D, in that case India the had been interested a in the early 2000s as an alternative at the development of Tejas Mk1.

But the US had been vetoed Sweden’s negotiations with India’s in reason of the nuclear program at the time.

In fact, India has not been shown such highly interest in the Gripen E, since the Gripen E were rejected in the MMRCA program, as well as India has been sending RFI for several countries like France and Russia that doesn’t produce fighters with a single engine like the Gripen E or F 16.

Lots of errors and guesswork written here.. where to start..

– there were no Su-27M delivered.. that type has been dead and gone since ages..
– the difference between N001VE and VEP is only slight – the ability to support the Kh-59ME missile, new backend with Baguet 55 series processor, simultaneous tracking of four A-A targets instead of two
– Chinese Su-27SKs have been acquired well before any multimode N001VE radars became available..
– Su-27SK are completely different from J-11A, BTW..
– Su-27SKs were not multimode

I hope you do not get upset that about the different versions of the J 11(A,B,C,D) , so far I have been considered Deino as authority on the subject, since Internet there are such contradictory sources about different versions of J 11. Yet as I am not won the lottery to buy his book, the same has been already in my shopping list, then you can feel free to correct any information posted here with any sources that you believe as reliable, of course that has been included your guesswork.

Below is the table with the different purchases made by China with both the Su-27SK and the Su-30MKK and Su-30MK2:

China had been produced only 15 Su-27SK between 1998 and 2000 , so the others 80 Su-27SK as well as 28 Su-27UBK were all produced after 2000 until 2004.

This can not be characterized as evidence that 108 Su-27SK/UBK could have been equipped with the N001VE or N001VEP multimode radars from Su-30MKK and Su-30MK2, instead than the original N001 from Su-27SK in the early 1990s.

It was interesting that China had been kept the Su-27SK in production until 2004 in the same standards that it first batch were acquired in 1991, with only air defense capability, and so far it has been limited to engage single target with BVR SARH missiles. Despite that China had brought the Su-30MKK and the Su-30MK2 with multirole capabilities.

Those 12 Su-27SM3 has been most advanced among the Su-27SM, once it could happened because it were new , and then it has been received the latest upgrade package, or perhaps because it were already more advanced than Su-27S/P, once the Su-27SK were in production for China in the early 2000.

In fact there are whispers, or maybe I have been listen voices in my head , that Russia could have been considering to create new simpler versions of the Su-35 in reason of same demands for possible customers, in this case should have been a lot of speculations like the engines could have been chosen among the Al-31FU with TVC from Su 30SM/MKI , as well such less expensive version from Al-41S without TVC. The radar could have been remained as the PESA radar N0035 Irbis E or another like the PESA version from Zhuck MSE, once the latter has been produced for the MiG 29K among others avionics items.

The main idea would be to repeat the same concept of the Su-30MK, once the Su-30MK could have been classified between two main classes, as the less complex and expensive like the Su-30MKK( China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Indonesia,Russia, Uganda and Angola) without canards, TVC and PESA radar N011 Bars, while the most advanced and expensive like the Su-30MKI ( India, Algeria, Malaysia, Russia) that has been equipped with: canards, TVC and radar PESA N011 Bars.

If the Al-41S would be replaced by other version without TVC, or even by the Al-31F with TVC, certainly in both cases there are considerable loss of capabilities in relation of the Su-35S, but at the present time with the great reduction of weight of the avionics, especially of the radars, as well as the airframe of the Su 35 has been optimized from the legacy Su-27M , this whispers at least sound not totally impossible.

Certainly that loss of capabilities could be offset by decreasing the acquisition and operating costs, as well as the option for simpler avionics like PESA radars could remained as option, especially if an AESA version of N035 should not be too far away to reach the Su-35S.

There are two fact in these rumors: first it should be that reason about Russia has been keeping the designation Su-35 for export, while Russia maintains the designation Su-35S for itself, once that each possible customer could have been opting for a specific version like it happened with the Su-30MK, then it would be less confusing than the designation of Su-30MK has been created in the 90s for the export version of the Su-30M.

The second reason it were more obvious, once it happened before with Su-30MK , as well as the Su-27SK that were less advanced than multirole Su-27M( canards, N011 radars without PESA), but the Su-27M didn’t enter in production in the 90’s, while the Su-27SK had been brought in considerable quantities in the 90’s.

Indeed the Su-27M are dead, but the Su-27M were renamed as Su-35 in the mid-90s, and now the Su-35S are quite alive and inherited the identity of Su-35 for export …

US think-tank calls for stealthy, carrier-based UCAV

In fact as it has been mentioned in the article above, such heavy fighter for air defense of the fleet shall be necessary to complement the F 35C:

‘Finally, the manoeuvre force will need a new aircraft optimised for offensive counter-air missions. Recalling the USN’s evolving requirements for a Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet replacement, CSBA’S report calls for an aircraft capable of fending off bombers and fighters armed with long-range anti-ship cruise missiles. ‘
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-think-tank-calls-for-stealthy-carrier-based-ucav-434654/

There are several opinions that interceptor F-14 Tomcat has not been totally replaced by the multirole F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet , once in the air defense missions of the fleet at least few gaps could have been appeared with the withdrawal of the F-14 Tomcat, may be with the F 35C it does not taken all necessary attributes to perform all air defense missions of the fleet in the near future too.

After the Gulf War in 1991 the US Navy had been sought a replacement for F-14 Tomcat that could be able to perform the missions from F 15E of the USAF, once the program A-12 were canceled in the early 90’s.

Apparently the first proposal of the MD were an aerodynamic version of F/A-18 with the engines and radars from F 15E to compete with a new proposed version of the F-14E, so this first concept were that new fighter could even replaced the own F 15E in the production line for both the USAF and other customers in the near future.

In fact, both F-15A/B and F-14A had not been developed with unstable aerodynamic and FBW system in the early 70’s, then both designs could have been replaced with some advantages by unstable aerodynamic design like such heavy F/A-18.

However, the F/A-18 E/F has become lighter than the F-15E, otherwise the F-15E has been remained in preference like several countries opted by the same as: Saudi Arabia, Israel, South Korea and Singapore.

The point should that : if the F/A-18 E/F had become such heavy as the F-15E , then it were not remained many factors to keep the F-15E itself in production, in this way it could have been unified the production around this possible heavy F/A-18 E/F which would increase the scale of production of the subsystems of this and consequently decreasing the cost of it.

Anyway I do not think the US Navy would be unhappy today with such heavy F/A-18 E/F that could have been show the same capabilities of the heavy F-15E/K/SG/I, otherwise it could have been any strong reason about the US Navy did not opt for such heavier version from F/A-18 E/F.

An important factor about STOLV fighters like the F-35Bs has been only depending on its means to take off and landing at an aircraft carrier like Queen Elizabeth class.

In the case of the F-35C and all others fighters has been equipping those CATOBAR aircraft carriers requiring steam catapults or new magnetic catapults, as well as the arresting hook devices.

Indeed CATOBAR aircraft carriers has been extremely efficient to operate aircraft’s in the sea, otherwise its ships are highly complex to operate too.

Even in the case of the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuzentsov that is STOBAR, then it does not use catapults but sky-jump ramp , this had been paralyzed its operations for weeks in Syria due to malfunctions in the arresting gear , which it caused the loss of a new MiG-29K due to lack of fuel.

The complexity of steam catapults has been several times high than the arresting devices, once the catapults has been requiring steam or electricity, in the case of the new magnetic catapults, from aircraft carriers.

As the complexity of a system( CATOBAR aircraft carrier) has been increasing with the introduction of new features , then the opportunities for failure increasing too, despite that can be balanced with the introduction of redundancies or alternative measures to keep the system reliable.

About CATOBAR aircraft carrier the redundancies are essential in all aspects, especially in the event of battle damages, even redundant or alternative systems could be out of operation, especially steam or even the new magnetic catapults.

The steam or magnetic catapults has been depended of steam pipes or electric cables to supply it, and in general those pipes has been doubled or tripled for each catapult, as well as it are running a different way in order to prevent that damages in one section of the ship cut off all supply lines for the catapults. In general terms it would be necessary to cut off the ship in half to interrupt all supply lines for the catapults.

In the 80s there were such fear about those heavy supersonic missiles such as AS-4 (Kh-22) and SS-N- 19 (P-700) that could be capable to process the signals from its active radars and to obtain data such as the indication of target movement, with the detection of the movement of the ship it could trace its heading and then to segment such large ship between: bow, half and stern, which would allow programing those missiles to reach a specific section of the ship instead of performing at random.

Apparently all modern anti-ship missiles today will be capable to choose a specific section of a ship, so by multiplying the damage in a single vital section of the ship, the same could be disabled with fewer direct hits by anti-ship missiles or even heavy torpedoes .

In the case of a CATOBAR aircraft carrier, although it is possible to multiply the supply lines of the catapults, otherwise it is not possible to multiply the machine room, since nuclear reactors, boilers or electric generators has been concentrated in such section of those ships.

Some genius has been calculated that it would necessary to take 12 direct hits from missiles like AS 4 and SS-N-19 to incapacitate such heavies US nuclear aircraft carriers. However I do not know if those 12 impacts should have been concentrated or randomly distributed by the ship to incapacitate the same.

In the case of F 35B, those fighters has been requiring that the aircraft carriers like Queen Elizabeth class are only floating without a high heeling to operate in case that aircraft carrier has been suffering with combat damages.

Unfortunately, this time, there was substance to that deliriuos and stupid idea, by the highest voices in the MINDEF. The said: “We needed to look at options, so we looked everywere, and for this year 2017, the needed fighter selection has been put on hold. We have adquired (actual verb usage, as in a certainty) 12x Texans IIs, 4x C-295, and a C-130. A4-AR will be phased out by 2022.”

In my forum we became extremely angry at the stupidity of even considering the MiGs as a valid system, and spending money on sending personel to evalute whatever.

By the Way, since this is month 2 of the year 1 under the Macri adnministration budget, the Armed Forces have increased their share of GDP% spending from 0,40% to 0,95%. By 2019 the proyection calls for 2,20% GDP, which is quite substancial. In U$D FY17 we are looking at U$D 6,080,000,000 for this year, when 2016 under the f…..g kirchners cleptocracy it was U$D 2,430,000,000. The proyection is for FY17 U$D 14,000,000,000 in 2019.

Make no mistake, we need basically everything. Good thing we already paid Beretta for the 100,000 ARX-200 and 120,000 M-9s, and the factory to make them.

Cheers.

EDIT: By the way, Macri has a FA-50 model in his presidential office.
EDIT2: I understand it was a very nice phone call with Pence and later with Trump. Macri and DJMT have been doing deals since the 80’s.
EDIT3: Get it off your heads. Soviet (russian) or chinese equipment is utter fantasy down here. Will never happen.
EDIT4: We don’t have oficial papers on the T6-C+ Texans IIs, other than the program runs for U$D 300,000,000 and estipulates 24 airplanes initialy.

As far as I remember the Argentine Air Force has been keeping good relations with the Peru Air Force, so if Argentina would like to evaluate the MiG 29, maybe the best place should be Peru than in Russia itself, after all Peru has been using the MiG 29S (9.13S) equipped with the R 77, so far as I know the Russian Air Force does not equipping the R 77 with its MiG 29 (9.13) and MiG 29SMT, perhaps the Russian Navy with the MiG 29K.

About Argentina had sent a delegation to Russia for evaluations maybe there are some interest on the part of Argentina, however this can not be considered as a possible sale, another options about this movement from Argentina could opens some western doors that has been closed for Argentina.

If today Argentina had such budget enough to buy 24 F3 Rafales from France I could bet that Hell would have been cooling like a glacier before France would authorized the sale to Argentina, luckily for the US and France that Argentina has not been keeping resources in its budget for Rafales F3, which is a lot convenient for US and UK, as well as this possible refraction that you had mentioned from Argentine about equipment from China and Russia.

However, I believe that Argentina military put the sovereignty of the country as an absolute priority, and they does not care about its equipment origin due to some political or ideological rancor of the past, after all in 1982 the Argentina had been obtained MANPADS SA 7 Grail from Libya during the Falklands War …

Was fortunate to fly on the Gripen D again at Aero India – This is my third sortie on the Gripen .. actually my fifth … since two of the sorties from Linkoping involved landing, hot refuelling and taking off again. Was lucky to have flown on the Gripen NG prototype in one of the earlier sorties and believe I may be the first civilian to have experienced super-cruise. Anyway, here are a few images from my sortie a few days back. Enjoy.

I have some good news and bad news .

The good news is that Gripen Demo has been the only twin seater fighter capable to fly at supercruise, so it is highly possible that you are the first civilian has been obtained this, then my congratulations.

Indeed I did not want to break you, but I have to tell you the truth that has been omitted from you since 2011, in fact you did not fly the Gripen NG but the Gripen Demo that were converted from Gripen D to use the F414 engine instead the F404 from Gripen D.

Although the Gripen Demo and Gripen NG should have been keeping several parts in common such as 60% of the airframe and the engine F414, yet the Gripen Demo is quite different from the Gripen NG, once the Gripen Demo hasn’t been used even like test bench from software from Gripen NG, despite the Gripen NG has been developed for almost 15 years.

Another bad news is that aircraft carrier Sao Paulo (ex-Foch) from Brazilian Navy will be withdrawn from service once its modernization plan from DCN has been abandoned by the Brazilian Navy.

In fact, such program to extend the useful life and modernize such aircraft carrier with 32,000 t for US$ 1 Billion does not seem very costly, but the program would have been taking almost 10 years to be complete, so there were lots of doubt from Brazil Navy about the feasibility of this program as well as its end cost after 10 years.

There are not definition about the replacement of the Sao Paulo aircraft carrier, since the cut of resources has been generalized among Brazilian military forces, even the acquisition of the SAM SA 22 Panstir S 1 were also canceled by Brazil.

So far the acquisition of the 36 Gripen NG has not been affected since it will be financed by the Government of Sweden through loans to Brazil.

However about the supposed development of the Sea Gripen or Gripen M for the Brazil this plans has been disappeared from radar screen across the Never Land.