maurobaggioI can learn something new, too, then, but can you please post a source which confirms it was actually tested at least, let alone produced and put into operational service? Something besides Artem’s page, if possible.
Because, I’ve heard similar claims about EA before and AFAIK that never left the concept stage as the R-77 was chosen by the Soviet Air Force.
In fact, the R 27EA had been equipped with 9B-1103K active radar homing seeker( ARH) that were almost the same like the 9B-1348E that has been used by R 77 ( RVV-AE) , so there are nothing mysterious about the R 27EA, since the R 77 has been produced and exported by Russia, then the R 27EA could have been produced and exported both from Russia and Ukraine if some customer had requested this BVR( Beyond Visual Range) missiles.
The doubts should this: why the R 27ER / ET in the SARH( Semi-Active Radar Homing) and IRH(Infra Red Homing) versions has been equipping fighters as: Su 30MKK/K2/MKI/MKA/MKM while the R 27EA( ARH) has not received any official request from customers?
The most likely answer would be that none country has opted for R 27EA (ARH) since R 27ET / ER (SARH and IRH) would be adequate, unlike R 77 (ARH), which received orders from several countries in the same way as R 27R/T (SARH and IRH).
But the curious thing should that the MIG 31 from 1978 with its PESA N007 radar it has been capable of simultaneously engaging 4 targets with the R 33 SARH missiles, while the Su 35S from 2008 with its Irbis-E N035 radar has been capable to engage only 02 targets with SARH missiles like the R 27, but in the case of ARH missiles the number will be 08 targets.
The same could have been said of the SAM BUK M1 from 80’s that TELAR has been capable to engage 01 target with SARH missiles, while the BUK M2 from 90’s the TELAR has been cabable to engage 04 targets with SARH missiles, since the BUK M2 has been equipped with a PESA radar.
Just a simple theory to justify this contradiction could be that the R 27EA were developed to equip the Su 27M with the planar array antenna N011 Bars radars, however with the modernization of the N011 for the N011M with PESA antenna from 1996, those fighter as: Su 30MKI / MKM / MKA / SM has been received the PESA N011M BARS, and may be these fighter could be capable to engage more than one target simultaneously with missiles as R 27R/T/ER/ET ( SARH and IRH), as well as the Su 35S with Irbis-E has been officially capable of engaging 02 targets with SARH missiles.
So the R 27EA missiles could have become unnecessary with the PESA N011M BARS and N035 Irbis-E radars, as the less expensive R 27ER / ET could perform the same mission of the more expensive R 27EA( ARH). Unlike the R 77 (ARH) that can be used in combat WVR( Within Visual Range) in fire and forget mode to complement the R73/74 IRH as well as in combat BVR.
The great doubt should be that after 30 years the N007 radar of the MiG 31 from 1978 , or even the SAM BUK M2 of the 90s has been more capable with SARH missiles than the N035 Irbis from Su 35S in the in 2008.
I can simply offer a theory to explain this contradiction or the lack of information’s about this matter, but if anyone has any other theory I would like to read about it, after all there are several facts unclear about it, once the fighters as Su 30MKK/MK2 has been equipped with radars N001 VE/VEP with Cassegrain antenna, at least with those fighters the R 27EA would be quite user-full.
It seems that links from FAS and JANES has not longer been available for consultation about the R 27EA and R 27P/EP, but in FAS it is still possible to see the reference to R 27EA (ARH) in the link of Su 30:
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm
About the R 27P / EP that are the anti-radiation version there are several references like this:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/-r-27-aa-10-alamo-guided-medium-range-air-missile/
Today the best source of information about the R 27EA and R 27P / EP should be the libraries, since these two missiles were quite cited before of the internet, and best part should be that information’s won’t just disappear by enchantment like the links in the internet.
maurobaggioWell elaborate analysis, but I guess that Admiral Sergei Gorshkov was not a great admirer from Kreigsmarines, just only a studious of this matter, once he had developed the doctrine using in large scale the lessons from Soviet Navy itself during World War II too.
It shall be interesting to add another great difference between the concept of the US or Western Aircraft carriers in relation of the Soviets like Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk classes, since the latters did not has anti-submarine aircraft such as S 3 Vicking as well as electronic warfare EA-6 Power or bomber A 6 Intruder.
The Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk classes would have not been equipping with anti-submarine, anti-ship or attacks aircraft’s like the US aircraft carriers, instead with highly emphasis in air defence fighters like the Su 27K and even the MiG 29K. Those air defense missions were intended not only to protect both the surface and submarine fleets from Soviet Union, but also to protect the AV-MF and VVS ground-based long-range aircraft’s of attack and patrol.
The Su 27K (Su 33) and MiG 29K from aircraft carriers Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk classes could have been used to provide escort for attack aircraft like the Tu 22M3 from AV-MF and VVS , as well as the ASW / ASuW Tu 142 Bear from AV- MF in the end phase of its mission, while it could be in the range of fighter like the former F 14 Tomcat or other fighters has been located on land bases.
In this case the Soviet aircraft carriers would have been positioned themselves to provide the escort of the Tu 22M3 for anti-ship or ground attack, as well as for the Tu 142 Bear in the anti submarine attack or designation of targets for anti-ship attack, but in the same way the soviet aircraft carrier should have been kept as far away as possible from the opponent’s forces both in sea or land.
Once the opponent’s attack capabilities has been nullified or weakened by strikes from Tu 22M3 like surface task group, in this case as example of an aircraft carrier had been damaged by Kh 22 missiles launched by the Tu 22M3 that were escorted by the Su 27K or MiG 29K, but the aircraft carrier still sailing, then the soviet task force could approach and launch a massive attack with long range missiles like the P 700 Granit( SS-N-19) to sink the damaged aircraft carriers and the escort ships of this enemy task group.
In the case the MiG 29K from India could have been refueled in air the Su 30MKI equipped with the Bhramos missiles as well as to provide escort of these in the final phase of its attack missions, or to escort the P 8 Poseidon in its missions.
Therefore for these escort missions the STOLV Yak 141 could have been restricted both in range and air-to-air capabilities to face an adversary equipped with fighters like the former F 14 Tomcat or the current models in use today.
maurobaggioBrazil has an air force which is perfectly capable of doing any ground attack it might be called upon to carry out. It does not have an urgent need to replace the ground attack capability of its AMX & upgraded F-5E aircraft. But since the retirement of its Mirage 2000s, it has a severe lack of air-air capability, since even with the upgrades, its F-5Es have very limited air combat abilities compared to what they might face, or the JAS39C. The Grifo is a much better radar than what it replaced, for example, but greatly inferior to the PS-05/A in every way.
It was therefore logical to fill the gap until the arrival of the JAS39E by leasing some JAS39C, tasked with air defence only. It does not imply that the JAS39Es being bought by Brazil will be incapable of ground attack. They are not a gap-filler, replacing the already-retired Mirages. They’re meant to be the backbone of the Brazilian air force for many years, replacing at least some of the F-5E.
As far as I know the Mirage 2000C / D are multirole fighters, however in the case of Brazil these were configured only for air-to-air missions to replace the Mirage IIIE capable only of air-to-air missions without BVR capability.
In any case, the Mirage 2000C / D has represented an advance for the Brazilian Air Force, since it were the first fighters of Brazil until 2005 had been capable with BVR missiles like the with SARH Super 530D model.
In my humble opinion there are several difference between the 12 Mirage 2000C / D that Brazil received from France almost for a symbolic value than 12 JAS 39C / D would have been included in the agreement with Sweden about the 36 Gripen E / F.
Brazil had received the 12 Mirage 2000C / D in 2005 while the competitors of the F / X 2 program were not even defined at this point, so at that time it might not make sense for the Brazil Air Force to spend its scarce resources with second hand Mirage 2000C/D that will not chosen by the F/X 2 program.
The JAS 39 C / D should not have been provided just to fill the gap between the Mirage 2000C/D that were retired from service in 2013 and Gripen E/F that will be received after 2021, but the most important aspect about the Gripen C/D that would used to train the future pilots of the Gripen E / F in Brazil, after all the userfull life of the Gripen C / D in Brazil should be at least 10 years. Just remember the Sweden will continue to use the JAS 39 Gripen D as training aircraft for the Gripen E even after it will receiving these.
So the news that the Gripen C / D for Brazil would have been only configured for air-to-air missions were absolutely strange, since the Gripen C/D would be used to accelerate the integration of the pilots into the multirole Gripen E / F from Brazil.
Although strange this will not anything new in the world, once Finland acquired 57 F 18 C / D Hornet that were multirole fighters in 1992 , but had kept these until the early 2000s with only air-to-air missions, and for this reason the designation from Finland fighters of F 18 C/D instead of F/A 18 C / D .
In any case this were done for political or economic reasons in the past, otherwise today the F/A 18C/D Hornet from Finland has been used as multirole fighters with wide variety of attack weapons.
As I said its logic makes sense, however if we follow this chain of events as you have been proposed the sequence would be this for Brazil: Mirage IIIE, Mirage 2000C / D, Gripen C / D and Gripen E / F.
All first three links in this chain it has been referring from fighters that would be dedicated to air-air missions, so the tendency should be that Gripen E / F in Brazil will be dedicated only to air defense too.
As I said I find out this strange at all, and I have not conditioned my opinion with only one fact, yet its explanation that you provided so far will not change anything, because its revealed just one interpretation among several about single fact.
Here we go again. This must be deliberate misinterpretation, as we know that Mr. Baggio is a defence journalist specialising in Brazil, & claiming inside knowledge of Brazil’s military, & of course such a person couldn’t fail to understand something so simple.
I hate mendacious reporting, & I see a prime example of it above. It is clearly dishonest.
Every time you say that I am a journalist , I think that every journalist in the world has been feeling deeply offended by you, once if a journalist could be like a star in the sky, then I am that dark spot in the sky where there are not light even nearby.
Anyway thanks for the compliment.
maurobaggioI salute your amazing skills Sir, I’m just incapable of deciphering even the slightest parts of his texts.
Instead you have been wasting your precious time to decipher my posts without any success so far, I suggest that you could dedicated your precious time to decipher the reasons that made Brazil cancel the leasing of the 12 Gripen C/D, after all I do not have any official information’s, just rumors and speculations about why Brazil has been canceled this contract on leasing the 12 Gripen C/D with Sweden.
All those as well as you that has been responded to me did not even try to refute the news, about that 12 Gripen C / D that should have been configured to Brazil with only air-to-air missions. Maybe I was the last to know this fact.
Because of this I’m curious:
Has the spiral of silence technique been working these days as well as it did in the past?
maurobaggioThis has been sounded very strange even for a country like Brazil, and I do not think the problem was with the translator for the Portuguese language, yet apparently all facts has been pointing the 36 Gripen E/F that will be delivered to Brazil would be restricted only for air defense missions, and therefore it will not be capable of attack missions.
Until recently I just thought that were rumors had been associated with the nonsensical speech about political rhetoric’s of the former Brazilian presidents , in this case that Gripen E / F would have been chosen only for air defense of the Brazil airspace, as well as the lack of interest in this moment about to equip the Gripen E/F with ground or maritime attack weapons, since for now the Brazil has been only interested in to equip the Gripen E/F with BVR and WVR air-to-air missiles.
However such important fact has been recently appeared with an interview about two Brazilian pilots that had completed the training with Gripen C/D in Sweden at F7 Satens in 2015 before the leasing of the 12 Gripen C / D as well as training of the remains 14 pilots were canceled by the Government of Brazil. Then to resume these first two pilots had been completed the training after flew 55 missions with Gripen C / D and received 50 hours in simulator, just to highlight these two pilots had extensive experience with F 5EM and Mirage 2000C/D in Brazil.
However those two pilots had been only training for air-to-air missions or air defense missions, once the Gripen C / D that would have been supplied for Brazil should have been capable only for air-to-air missions, without the capabilities for attack or reconnaissance missions.
This is totally strange once the Gripen C / D has been a multirole fighter (air defense, ground attack, anti-ship attack and reconnaissance), but in the case of Brazil the Gripen C/D would have been configured for air defense missions without attack and reconnaissance capabilities.
If this fact with the Gripen C / D had been restricted with air-air missions would not be very strange at all,then what has been making it even more stranger should be that the Gripen C / D should be the basis for pilots training until the arrival of Gripen E / F .
In fact today Brazil has a multirole fighter that are the modernized version F 5EM Tiger II, and this has been already configured even for anti-radar missions with the missile MAR 1 that has been already been exported by Brazil to Pakistan.
The Brazil has been currently using the LGB with Lightening pods from Israel in fighter-bombers AMX, as well as the F 5EM with WVR and BVR missiles for air-air missions, but the most important that Brazil has been developed an AVT 300 cruise missile that will be launched from the ground by MRLS ASTROS 2, as well as some projects of GPS / INS glide bombs, in addition to MAR 1 itself, but none of these projects has been mentioned that could be integrated in the future with the Gripen E / F. In the case of the AVT 300 cruise missile the same has been applied with the new submarines of the class Scorpene that would be constructed in Brazil.
The Gripen C/D should have been replaced the Mirage 2000C/D that were withdrawn from service in 2013, as well as the AMX and F 5EM( Gripen C/D too) will be withdrawn from service when the 36 Gripen E / F could become operational, but if the former planned 12 Gripen C / D would have been restricted for air-to-air missions until the arrival of the 36 Gripen E / F, at least it seems that Brazil doesn’t want to equip the 36 Gripen E / F with attack weapons, in this case apparently the former presidents of Brazil would have spoken the truth so far in this matters.
maurobaggioWhen exactly? In the 60’s and 70’s they had no money for it (and thus went for the smaller Kiev class in the end), in the 80’s they finally started building one and never finished it as they went bankrupt.
It’s certainly questionable if such a complex project would have been successful given the lack of experience and the issues some of their ships had, e.g. with propulsion systems.
The Ulyanovsk nuclear powered aircraft carrier ( Project 11437) should have been equipped to launch 4 aircraft’s simultaneously like: 2 aircraft’s with catapults in the angle deck and 2 aircraft through the ski jump in the bow of the ship.
About the soviet aircraft carrier classes were quite different concepts in several aspects when it has been compared with western aircraft carriers CATOBAR an even the STOBAR. About the soviet aircraft carrier as : Kiev ( Project 1143), Kuznetsov ( Project 11435 ) and Ulyanovsk ( Project 11437) it had been designed with high emphasis in the weapons embarked like the Battle Cruiser ( Kirov and Slava classes).
Both Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk (at least it was planned for the same) it has been equipped with 12 SS-N-19 ( P 700 Granit), while the legacy Kiev class with 08 SS-N-12 ( P 500 Bazalt). Those heavy missiles were capable to reach targets at long range with supersonic cruise speeds, even at sea level in the end phase of the flight.
Probably such strong reason for Kuznetsov class were equipped with ski jump ramps instead catapults, the Ulyanovsk had been planed with only 02 instead 04 catapults,it could be the launching devices for those 12 missiles SS-N-19 in these ships.
Then it had been resulted that weren’t just possible to install the catapults system in the bow of those ships, since the necessary space in the bow of this ships for the catapult devices should be occupied by those 12 larger SS-N-19,after all each SS-N-19 has been measuring 7.000 kg or 15.400 lb of mass.
Indeed the Yak 141 would have been appreciated very well the ski jump ramps of the Kuzentsov and Ulyanovsk classes, just remember the Yak 38 had been tested with ski jumps ramps in the Zhukovskiy in the early 80’s with satisfactory results.
Still there are at least three simple questions very hard to answer about the former planned Ulyanovsk nuclear powered aircraft carrier ( Project 11437) even today:
[*]
[*]Would not be necessary to build this catapults facilities to trial the concept before it had been designing for the aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk?
As far I know in Crimea it has not been mentioned these catapult facilities were built in this place, or even in another place in the former Soviet Union.
Indeed, the former Soviet Union were bankrupt in the 80’s, but it were nothing new, once the Soviet Union had been bankrupted since the early 1920. The problem were that all Soviet leader didn’t listen about this financial collapse from former Soviet Union because there weren’t soviet bankers to tell about this issue.
maurobaggioThose numbers are entirely believable given sufficient headwind. The speed of the ship is one part of the equation. C-130 took off from a carrier, as did B-25’s during WWII, granted their stall speed is lower than a fighter, but so is T/W. Given sufficient WoD and TORA, a heavily laden aircraft can do a rolling takeoff from a carrier. The cats cut that distance ( in the case of the CdG, as you well know, to 246 ft/75m or 324ft/98.7m in the case of the C-13-2 on the later CVN-72 and up). The Kuz T/O distance is 345 ft/105m. This paper claims the max T/O weigh is 62,000lbs and the upper limit of 72,000lbs/32,658kg is impractical for the Su-33:https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/647f61ae-c554-4475-b344-6e3b8c3d551f/Beijing-s–Starter-Carrier–and-Future-Steps–Alte
Information from former Russian naval officer.
My source has been indicated 55,000 lbs (25 ton) mass at the maximum limit for an aircraft such as the Rafale M that could be launched by the catapult from Charles de Gaulle, while for the Nimitz class the value would be 71,000 lbs (32 ton) like F 14D Tomcat.
This difference would have been associated with the catapult lenght from Nimitz class which has been approximately 300ft (90m), while the catapult lenght from Charles de Gaulle has been approximately 245ft (75m).
In the aircraft carriers Foch and Clemenceau that had been preceded the Charles de Gaulle the lenght of the catapult were of 165 ft (50m). In this case both Foch and Clemenceau could launch an aircraft with maximum mass limit of 47,500 lbs (21.5 ton), which in fact considerably restricted the Rafale M on board.
The trick point would not be the max capabilities of the catapults in those aicraft carriers like the Charles de Gaulle and Nimitz, but the rate of acceleration that should have been supported by the larger mass aircraft ( 71,000 lbs or 32 ton) in the lower lenght catapult ( 245 ft or 75 m) , then it will consequently creating higher effort on the aircraft ( 71,000 lbs or 32 ton).
This additional effort has been resulting from a less length catapult( 245 ft or 75m) under the larger mass aircraft( 71,000 lbs or 32 ton) will raise the strain to levels close or above the safety limits, which could result in such severe decreasing about the useful life of the aircraft. In such extreme cases could trigger off collapse of this aircraft in function a small crack had been undetected during such routine inspection prior of this launching by the catapult.
In this case it shall be necessary to reinforce the structure of this larger aircraft ( 71,000 lbs or 32 ton) to support the add strain from the lower lenght catapult ( 245 fts or 75m), but this can only be done during the development phase of the aircraft and it may not be recommended due to the addition of weight on the such aircraft’s like the Su 27K ( Su 33) or F 14D Tomcat.
maurobaggioThe MiG-29K was already developed and ready for production, while developing a new upgraded Su-33 variant for production would take time and money while at the same time its bigger payload cannot be fully utilized anyway on a carrier without a catapult (like the Kuznetsov class is).
Indeed the catapult system has not been keeping such relevance with this matter, since the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle has been equipped with catapults capable to launch an aircraft with max take off weight of 25 t, which will put at the same max weight of the Su 33 has been launched through the sky jump system from Kuznetsov.
Also the F 14 Tomcat has never been operational aboard all US aircraft carrier classes because of its weight and dimensions even though it were equipped with catapults.
The Yak 141 had also designed to operate on the Kuznetsov class (originally 3 under construction in the former Soviet Union) as well as on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers (4 built). Also the Yak 141 were never a competitor for the MiG 29K in the same way it were not a competitor for the Su 27K (Su 33) in the age of the Soviet Union.
Originally aboard of the Kuznetsov class had been planned three fixed-wing aircraft’s: the Su 27K( Su 33), the MiG 29K and the AWACS Yak 44, while the YAK 141 would be an option according with the aircraft carrier mission.
With the end of the Soviet Union not only the construction of the other 2 of the c Kuznetsov class were suspended as well as the first nuclear aircraft carrier too, all equipped with sky jump ramps. In the same way the AWACS Yak 44 and Yak 141 were canceled in early 90’s, and few years later the MiG 29K program had been paralyzed in the 1990s because of lack of funds in its acquisition by the Russian Navy.
Both the Kuznetsov and Su 33 would be the only survivors in the 90’s of the former Soviet Union’s aircraft carrier program that would have been also involved the aircraft: MiG 29K, Yak 44 and Yak 141.
In the 2000s the second Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier were purchased incomplete by China from Ukraine and it has been equipped now with the J 15 (Chinese version of Su 33), while the only remaining Kiev class were acquired by India and converted to operate with the MiG 29K.
The Yak 141 had been keeping a great potential, but this show a quite problematic development phase in the time of the Soviet Union to assure that Yak 141 would become effective at the point of its acquisition to replace the highly problematic Yak 38 with Kiev class . In this case should be something like plan B for former Soviet Union to operate only with helicopters in the Kiev class, or even it could be converted to operate with the MiG 29K.
maurobaggioThey say the delay is all about the software. That’s credible.
Has Gripen Demo( supposedly Gripen NG) been flying since 2009 without any software’s?
I don’t think so, then it is possible to download the software from Gripen Demo to new prototype Gripen NG, indeed this could be very easy once both it has been equipped with datalink ( wire less), since it should not be necessary to stretch some cable to connect both fighters.
After all the Gripen Demo has been flying since 2009 with perfect safety record, otherwise if this solution could not have been possible for the Gripen NG , then maybe the reason should be that Gripen Demo and Gripen NG are incompatible…
Delays are delays, as well as excuse are excuses.If such important program like Gripen NF has been little bit behind the schedule for some reason, it almost certain that someone will appears with any excuse to justify this situation.
After all the timing are not comfortable for just to admit that program could be little behind the schedule in this moment, once the Gripen NG has been offered for the Indian Government in their program Make in India.
Indeed the promise had been made in the last two years that Gripen F would be developed and built in Brazil has been recently changed that: the Gripen F will be developed and the prototype will be assembled in Sweden.
I do not believe that two facts are remotely connected, but it is almost a rule that programs about new fighters has been found out with some delays, still the most important its not the maiden flight, but that the Gripen NG will performs all the tests and proves its parameters like it has been announced for several years.
maurobaggioAPG-65 or -73 does not matter, all Hornet variants are very well capable to attack ground and sea targets.
A/G capability for Finnish Hornets was introduced only recently iirc.
Above the first resume from 2002:
The Finnish Hornets does not carrying the prefix F/A ( fighter/ attack) like the others operators of the F/A- 18 A/B/C/D, just the F-18 C/D once those fighter has been dedicated only for air defenses duties, because the Finnish Armed Forces has been focused for self defense tasks since the end of the Second War, and in reason of that does not carrying offensive weapons.
The Finland has been studying the air -to -ground roles to be implemented in the near future, and for this new missions would not have been necessary add new changes in the airframe of the F-18 C/D.
Airforce Monthly, magazine. Key Publishing, March 2002, pag 71.
Above the second resume from 2001:
In the interview with Capitan Kary Korpela from Finland Air Force the same has been described that F-18 C/D Hornets has been specialized in air defenses missions, in reason of this the F-18 C/D has not carrying air-ground weapons. For the ground attack missions with free fall bombs and rockets the Hawk has been dedicated for its missions, and now its the only asset for its mission.
Defensa, magazine.Edefa, October 2001, pag 46.
The Finland had not been acquired ground or anti-ship weapons for its F-18 C/D, and most important to mention should be that pilots did not training for ground or anti ship missions with F-18 C/D since 1995 until the early 2000’s.
So its were just a political decision from Finland as I have mentioned before, then the F-18 C/ had not been officially dedicated for ground or anti -ship missions until the early 2000’s.
The same political decision would have been applied about the others competitors in 1992 with ground and anti ship capabilities or without it, like:Mirage 2000-5, JAS-39 Gripen A/B, F-16 and MiG-29.
maurobaggioGoogle translated from: http://www.istoedinheiro.com.br/noticias/negocios/20161122/jungmann-gripen-tem-garantido-bilhao-orcamento-2017/434841
What happened with the value of the contract from US $ 4.5 to US $ 5.4 Billions?
.
What happened with the quantity of 15 fighters to 23 that could be assembled in Brazil?
In fact there would be 15 fighters that could be manufactured in Brazil, but due to the mention of the 23 still I should have a question about this, even its are reality the construction of the 23 Gripen E / F in Brazil of the 36 acquired from Sweden, then would be now 15 Gripen E and 8 Gripen F, but the Gripen F prototype will be developed in Sweden as well as built in Sweden, so:
After all, if this prototype shall be included in the 8 Gripen F has been acquired in Brazil, the number of Gripen F fighters that will be built in Brazil would be less than 8.
maurobaggioParis Peace Treaty had no relevance on the program, since it only banned combat a/c with internal bomb bays (and even that was irrelevant as USSR had already sold Il-28’s to Finland), and German made aircraft. With exception of MiG-29, all participants had pretty much similar ground attack capabilities. Finland simply did not buy any ground attack weapons with the aircraft, because there was no extra money.
I had mentioned this FCMA treat since Finland’s selection came in 1992 after the end of the Soviet Union, once political factors are always preponderant in the military field.
Some details on the treaty:
Part III, Articles 13 through Article 22, limited the future regular Finnish army to 34,400 soldiers, the navy to 4,500 individuals, and the air force to 3,000. There were also exclusions of equipment of an offensive nature, such as bombers, missiles, and submarines. Warships could not exceed a combined total of 10,000 tons. The air force could acquire up to sixty combat planes, but they were not to include bombers or fighter bombers. None of the services was allowed to construct, to procure, or to test nuclear weapons .
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4717.html
The F/A 18 C / D had been officially supplied from US since 1995 without the capabilities to attack the ground or sea targets even though it were equipped with the APG 73 radar, since that has been replaced the APG 65 in the early F/A 18 , as well as the attack capability has been officially introduced in the F/A 18 C/D from Finland as far I know in the early 2000s.
With respect to the MiG 29 had been offered to Finland it were not the MiG 29M version as far as I have the information, but if the former Soviet Union wished this could authorize this in function of the treaty FCMA, as it should have been the case with Il 28:
The Soviet Union has, on the contrary, been willing to sell Finland equipment far in excess of the needs of its standing army.
Changing geopolitical conditions and weapons technology have resulted in an easing of the treaty’s restrictions. In spite of the prohibition against missiles of all types, in 1963 the contracting parties approved an interpretation of the peace treaty permitting Finland to acquire defensive missiles. Finland subsequently armed itself with naval surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs), antiaircraft missiles, and antitank missiles. In 1983, following another interpretation that the treaty’s ban on magnetic underwater mines did not prohibit mines of a defensive nature, Finland was permitted to buy modern mines from Britain and from the Soviet Union.
In my humble opinion Finland made a great choice by the F/A 18 C/D, since with the end of the Soviet Union it could upgrade its F/A 18 C/D to attack function without the need to request it from Russia in the case of MiG 29( 9.12, 9.13 and 9.13S), which could in any way restrict this.
maurobaggioTrue, but there’s a huge difference in that Soviet AF hadn’t actually ordered the type and with its collapse it was rather questionable to say the least if any such order could have been produced, tested and delivered.
The competition in Finland had been started in the late 1980s and involved the following candidates: F/A 18 C/D Super Hornet, JAS 39 A/B Gripen, Mirage 2000-5, MiG 29 and F 16 .
The most important factor about this competition were that all candidates should not have been equipped with ground or sea attack capabilities, because of the FCMA treaty signed with the Soviet Union in 1948.
In 1992 the F/A 18 C/D Super Hornet won the competition, and the version has been chosen by Finland were the most advanced among the F/A 18 C/D in the 90’s, since it had been incorporated the new APG 73 radar that allowed the F/A 18 C/D simultaneously engage 8 targets with AIM 120, as well as a new and advanced ECM system.
In any case, the Soviet Union had not been allowing the multi-role MiG 29M available to Finland under the restriction of the treaty, as well as with Su 27M and Su 30M.
With the end of the former Soviet Union had been suspending almost the entire process of acquiring new aircraft’s since 1991, and only a few programs for Russia would remain as the MiG 29K for the Russian Navy which were the shipped version of the MiG 29M.
Finland has discontinued the FCMA treaty and as far I know until this time the Russia has not expressed itself on this fact, as well as Finland has been introduced the attack capability on F/A 18C/D since the early 2000s.
‘The renewal and redrafting of the 1948 treaty was negotiated with the Soviets in 1991,
but in the end events overtook them and with the disappearance of the Soviet Union also the FCMA-
treaty was buried.
The end result of the events of 1990–91 was that any obvious hindrances that might
have existed on Finland’s neutrality policy had disappeared. The remaining issue was how to fit the
newly gained credible neutrality status with possible European Union membership.’http://www.eisa-net.org/be-bruga/eisa/files/events/stockholm/Aunesluoma&RainioNiemi_SGIR2010.pdf
maurobaggioThe lack of gun was not a problem since their pilots were in general not really skilled enough for dogfighting better trained US pilots and the MiG-21’s were usually considered too valuable to be squatted on that..
The F 4 Phantom II in its several versions during the 60’s were the main US fighters in the Vietnam War.
The conception of the F 4 Phantom II had been based on the principle that would be capable to intercept its targets in BVR( Beyond Visual Range) combat with AIM 7 Sparrow missiles, as well as it would be the main mission , and because of this the WVR( Within Visual Range) combat with AIM 9 Sidewinder missiles should have been secondary as well as the training for this one.
Then in real combat the AIM 7 Sparrow were not as effective as it had been expected in the early 60s, while it were fired against others fighter in the Vietnam. In reason of that it were established several changes in the pilot training as well as the development of future fighter that had been emerged in the 1970s as the 4th Generation ( F 14, F 15, F 16 and F / A 18).
Another problem for US pilots with the F 4C/D Phantom II were that the AIM 9 Sidewinder versions from early 60’s were quite limited to engagements in the rear hemisphere, and this had been a problem for the F 4C / D when it were in combat WVR with high maneuverability MiG 21 PF from North Vietnam.
The F 4C/D had not been built with internal cannons, and because of the fighting in Vietnam, the F 4C/D received M61 Vulcan pods, but this was not an effective solution once the M61 Vulcan pod caused aerodynamic drag and because this had been reduced the maneuverability of F 4 in air-to-air combat.
It was only in 1969 that F 4E version with internal cannon had been appeared as a result of the lessons of the Vietnam War. Just as new versions of the AIM 9 Sidewinder it had been developed throughout the Vietnam War that allowed f less restricts angles of engagements, although the all aspect were only achieved in the late 70s.
The main fact was that US pilots were very well trained for its missions, possibly the best trained in the world. However it were evident that the emphasis on F4 Phantom II training in both BVR and ground attack missions, as well as the aspects of the F 4 Phantom to perform its missions, actually it had been enabled the MiG 21PF / PFM with WVR missiles as AA 2 Atoll and less-trained pilots they faced and on several occasions outperformed their more advanced and supposedly better-trained rivals from US.
In my humble opinion the F 22 Raptor should be the best 5th Generation fighter today, since it were designed to be highly effective in both BVR and WVR combat. So because of this simple summary I presume that the PAK FA has been approaching of the F 22 than the J 20, it seems that China could have been prioritizing BVR more then WVR, since J 20 has not been equipped with TVC engines as well as the WVR missiles from China so far.
Thus, most of the MiG-21 kills were made by being guided by GCI behind USAF large formations where they would approach a target from behind, fire off the missiles at an unsuspecting target and then try to disengage and run home.
The life of the pilots of North Vietnam were not easy as well as this could be quite brief, since in addition to facing an enemy many times more powerful and advanced in all aspects, the USA has been used AEW like the EC 121 and E 1 to watch the air space from North Vietnam, as well as the entire long-range search radar network in South Vietnam as well as the US Fleet.
Beyond the protection of the EC 121 and E 1 AEW in the 1960s, the US had been jamming the North Vietnam’s search radars network as well as its communications during major US attack missions in order to mislead the Air defenses system (AA, SAM, and fighters) from North Vietnam.
As a result North Vietnamese pilots were often unable to receive guidance from GCI while their airspace had been monitored in depth by the US. The result could be the US fighters had been awaiting the North Vietnam fighters before they reached the attack aircraft, or even attacking them on the ground as they prepared to take off.
maurobaggioMy eyes hurt to read all this nonsense. This response is so wrong that it’s beyond believable.. People, don’t you ever get tired of this wishful thinking?
To make it short:
– the Su-33 did not have N001V or N001VEP radar, it had a simple N001 from the outset
– the RLPK-27 is not a designation for the radar but for the whole weapon complex which the N001 is a part of
– Izd. 9.13 was not compatible with the R-77.. Izd. 9.13S was and it was produced in very small numbers.. BTW, it still could not use any PGMs
– there is a simple way to distinguish between N001 and N001V/VEP – look at the radar screen in the cockpit.. Su-33 has exactly the same old indicator as the Su-27P/SI am finished with this crap..
I did not mention the N001V or N001VEP radar for the Su 33, but the N001VE that were exported to China with Su 30MKK, while Su 30MK2 had received the N001VEP but this were long after Su 33 has already been delivered for Russia Navy.Where have you been taken the N001V?
I had mentioned the RLPK-27K system for Su 33 (Su 27K). You can tell the difference between: RLPK-27K and RLPK-27, if you want be capable for this I will explain otherwise?
I mentioned the MiG 29S as (9:13) and I really forget that the right would be something like 9.13S, once the MiG 29C were really 9:13, that was well-observed detail. Officially were built 48 MiG 29S (9.13S) and some of those had been exported for other nations with the capability to operate with R 77.
Still I have not mentioned that the MiG 29S (9.13S) would be multifunctional with capabilities to be equipped with PGM, since only the Mig 29M (9:15) and MiG 29K (9:41) has been the first multifunctional from MiG 29 family.
Both Su 27M, MiG 29M and MiG 29K in the early 90 it had been possessed two displays monochrome in CRT surrounded by buttons, while the Su 27K (Su 33) had only a single monochromatic display for radar and IRST that are the same display from legacy Su 27S/P.
The Belorussian has been modernized some of its MiG 29 to the new standard MiG 29BM, in which it has become multifunctional but it kept the radar N019 which were only modernized with ground capabilities, as well as it has been replaced the single original monochrome display for single more advanced in LCD surrounded by buttons.
I had thought the buttons around the display it has been associated with ergonomics and not with the capability of a fighter to be multifunctional.
So just silly possibility: if the main goal should be to hide this suppose multifunctional capability in Su 33, then it would not be quite convenient to use the same display of the Su 27M and MiG 29M, after all is the first thing that many has been noticed in the West are precisely the cockpit from fighter, especially if this it has been adopting the ‘glass’ style from multifunctional fighters from West.
Then this last argument from you about the display from Su 30MKK have been fully convinced me about Su 33.
To make it short:
………………..I am finished with this crap..
Please do me a big favor and for you too:
Do not answer my post without washing your eyes first, once I do not know where you are putting the same or even what you have been reading before to reach my posts, but I am sure your vision has been quite blurred for something…
Sign In
