SrbinThe real advantage of Su-30MK lies in it’s bigger payload and range. The Mig-29M/SMT can carry pretty much ALL the weapons the Su-30MK can, with the exception of possibly the Kh-41 Moskit which is way too heavy for it.
Mig-29M is in another way a scaled down Su-30MK which is of course cheaper. The Mig-29M is more of a middle weight than a light weight, and when compared to the lighter M2K and F-16, it’s performance is not that much better. I am not exactly sure about Mig-29M’s range compared to other lighter fighters. I know that aircraft like Typhoon and Rafale have longer range than Mig-29M with similar fuel capacity if not smaller.
SrbinIf you look at the drop altitudes of Kh-25M, Kh-29, KAB-500, KAB-1500, they are all dropped at lower altitudes. I’ve read it on some sites but I cannot find those right now.
BTW Anyone have any info on the LGB-250? Not much info on it except that its a 300kg LGB. Possibly a replacement for Kh-25ML?
Also, what is such a great big difference between using Bombs or short range Missiles? For example, since JDAM seems to be the future weapon of USA, what will happen to normal Mavericks and laser guided paveway II/IIIs.
SrbinThe thing that the Russian PGMs cannot be dropped from a higher altitude, these aircraft would have to go down low to do it, which exposes them to low level trashfire.
SrbinYahhh, they need a common replacement for the Kh-25, Kh-29, KAB-500, KAB-1500 with a common GPS bomb like Spice or JDAM in different weights. In pretty much all the other fields, the Russians are mostly ahead such as AshMs, ARMs, Cruise Missiles of various sorts and etc. Also in order to match something like JCM and especially the Brimstone, they need to developed a radar guided Hermes, which should be around soon. Vikhr-M very well matches anything Western.
SrbinAccording to The Journal of Electronic Defense, in 1999 in Kossovo, US and UK launched around 1000 HARMs and ALARMs. Less than 5 % of them scored against SAM sites (they did though forced the Serbs turning off the radaras).
Now if these missiles, fired from above, against fixed targets, from less than 40 km, did such a poor job, what would be the chance of a missile, even of a mighty Russian one (LOL) to score against a radar moving with 800 km/h at 400 km?
There is quite a difference between airborne radars and ground radars, ground radars when being fired on can just turn off their radars and move on and usually they’re safe after that because the missile wont be homing on it on anything, while an airborne radar even if it turns it’s radar off, it can still be targeted and usually the missile will keep flying because it might have another type of seeker in it, perhaps IR. I think the KS-172 has two different types of seekers, not exactly sure.
SrbinIt’s more like 100 times because a single Flanker is probably better than any F-22 in any Air to Surface role, the F-22 is like limited to 2 JDAMs and in the future SDBs, while Flanker can carry a **** load of all kinds of weaponry. 6-7 Flankers be 100 times better at pounding anything than a single F-22 can, for the same cost.
SrbinI dunno, but 6-7 multirole Flankers can do 100 times more than a single air superiority F-22 can in terms of other roles. I doubt F-22 will have an easy time tackling exactly 6-7 advanced Flankers anywhere, especially if they are going to be surrounding it and whatsoever.
SrbinRussia is obviously ahead of everyone in terms of Anti-Shipping missiles, AAMs and Cruise Missiles, however is behind in terms of PGMs, namely GPS. I know so far KAB-500S is in development, any other info on other Russian GPS guided PGMs?
SrbinI ran up across this funny story of the Nigerian MFI-9s
Even the Skyraider was like an SR-71 compared to the little putt-putt plane von Rosen built his force around: the MFI-9, a tiny prop-driven Swedish trainer that looks like those ultralights people build in their garages. This plane could park in subcompact spaces at the Stockholm mall. It had a maximum payload of 500 pounds — me plus a couple of medium sized dogs. Lucky those Swedes are so skinny.
Von Rosen bought five of these little “Fleas” down the coast in Gabon, slapped on a coat of green VW paint to make them look military, and installed wing pods for unguided 68mm unguided anti-armor rockets. Then he and his pilots — three Swedes and three Ibo — flew them back to Biafra and into combat.
They blew the Hell out of the Nigerian AF and army. These little Fleas were impossible to bring down. Not a single one was knocked out of the sky, although they”d buzz home riddled with holes. They flew three missions a day and their list of targets destroyed included Nigerian airfields, power plants, and troop concentrations.
The Fleas turned their weaknesses into advantages in true guerrilla style. They were so slow that they had to fly real low — which made them almost impossible to hit in the jungle, since you never saw them till they were on top of you. The low speed made for better aim: almost half the 400 68mm rockets they fired hit their targets, which is an amazing score for unguided AS munitions. (There used to be a joke in the USAF that if it wasn”t for the law of gravity, unguided AS rockets couldn”t even hit the ground.)
SrbinI always thought Lavi would’ve had a lot of export success, I mean it would’ve probably been cheaper and smaller than the F-16 and M2K yet also with no political strings attached.
Also Erez, how can you make the assumption that the 1980s Lavi with modern 80s avionics is better than the 2000s J-10 and especially not knowing whats in the J-10?
SrbinYes, there comes to ARMs, the Russians have the older Kh-58U with 250km range and launch weight of 640 kg. Then you have the Kh-25MPU with something like 300kg launch weight and 40km range, the Kh-15P with 1200kg launch weight and 150km range, Kh-31PD/M with launch of 600kgs and range of 150kms.
There are a few other AshMs I left out.
Srbinwhat about using these on the large Oceans to patrol shipping lanes, do SAR and such?
SrbinAgaisnt an F-22, I would not exactly concentrate fighters to defeat it, a high tech air defense system with few S-400s and A LOT of mobile sensors and computing power. Good luck defeating that! Anything but very low observable aircraft will stand a chance, where I will be digging those up in the sky.
SrbinWell, here is my opinion on some Russian weapons. I have done some research on this topic
When it comes to Anti-Shipping missiles, the Russians are just way ahead, the best West can offer is the subsonic Harpoons and Exocets, while Russia the closest Russian counterpart, the Kh-35U(subsonic, sea skimming 130kms) and the supersonic Kh-31PD/M(supersonic, high flying some 100kms) seem to match/are better with the latest Harpoons and Exocets. This is where the Russians take off, the air launched Klub(Alfa) is a subsonic flying 250km missile which then boosts to m2+ for last 20kms, then the Yakhont-M, a anti-shipping/land attack supersonic cruise missile with range of some 300kms and then comes the Kh-41 Moskit, a low flying 4500kg 300km missile and hten the Kh-22M only carried by Backfire. Perhaps only these can be matched by the subsonic Swedish RBS15F(200km range) and the Israeli Gabriel IV(200km) which is in development. There are a few new Chinese AshMs but I dont have much info, perhaps Crobato can actually give us some info.
Next come the cruise missiles, Russia very well matches the West in this field, from 110 km KH-59M, to the extended range 285km Kh-59MEh, then the 300km Yakhont-M, 600km Kh-SD and the 5000km Kh-101 very well match anything the west can offer.
Where Russia is behind imho is in the field of pgms, the US has developed the JDAM and Israel the SPICE, which has no equivelant anywhere including Europe. Latest Russian PGMs like the KAB-500Kr/S(GPS)/L, KAB-1500L/S, Kh-29T/L/D seem to be inferior to their Western and Israeli counterparts when it comes to dropping altitudes and such and would have to be dropped at lower altitudes. Russia clearly needs something like a JDAM/Spice. These PGMs are rather accurate, but when your enemy might have tons of low altitude air defenses, you gotta stay at a higher altitude. In terms of Air Launched ATGMs, in terms of shorter ranged ones, the Vikhr-M very well matches the Hellfire, SPIKE-ER while in the longer ranged ones, so far Europeans and Israelis have developed the Brimstone and the Nimrod while the Russians and Americans are going for the Hermes and JCM. A radar guided Hermes would be the deal.
SrbinHere is my thought on the FC-1 currently. As already said in the other threads, I think that FC-1 and A-50 are currently the only lightweight fighters out there that are actually very good capability for your buck. The Gripen is twice if not three times more expensive than those two with similar performance, LCA and J-10 are nowhere near service and forget about export and F-16, M2K are quite expensive, and Mig-29 more of a middle weight.
Now as for FC-1. The FC-1 twin seater could very well be used as a AJT much like the A-50, I mean they will be similar in weights, thrust, fuel and everything else. Not only as a supersonic trainer like the A-50, but also like a twin seat Point Air Defense fighter, Interdictor and whatever. You have the real light AJTs like AT-63 Pampa, then you have the more of middle weights like M-346, Yak-130, Hawk, L-159B and then the heavy weights like A-50 and possibly the FC-1B. Though when you think about it really, which 3rd world country is going to buy such a heavy AJT, but hey, a pair of extra eyes is not so bad. though I like the JL-15 too, supersonic(still not as fast as FC-1), probably with similar performance Yak-130 and better because it will use stronger engines and possibly be even heavier. Based on the mockup, it looks like it has 6 hardpoints plus probably another one underfuselage. I also do not think FC-1 will be more expensive to maintain than Gripen, A-50 or Ching Quo or whatever.
So far, JL-15, FTC-2000, FC-1B and A-50 are only modern supersonic AJTs, I would not count much on the FTC-2000 as it’s primitive and only an extension of hte J-7.
Sign In
