The Iskander-E is very good, it’s cheap, can pack a lot of firepower(differnet types of warheads can be used) and on top of all it’s hard to detect and destroy, however it’s 300km range is I think a little short to be effectively used to destroy enemy airfields, besides the payload may not be enough.
What you guys think of using something like Shahab-3 or No-Dong and with GPS guidance to strike enemy airfields and such, it’s 1ton warhead payload is not bad. Is this not enough? Is it not accurate enough(lets say CEP is no more than 50m)? How exensive is this? How long do those missiles take to be reloaded?
NATO codenames have not been given since the end of the Cold War I believe, what matters is how good is the radar of this aircraft because an AWACS is as good as it’s electronics are.
If an air launcher version can be developed, which it probably will it will allowed to be carried on just about everything, from light turbo prop trainers, to any sort of transports and anything else and even some light jet trainers. Though Yak-130’s payload is large enough to carry something like Kh-35.
I think those type of Short SSMs like the Prithvi-III are good if you’re invading the country where they can be used for MANY different purposes, much liket the Iskander, as that baby can do ALOT and of different damage and is very accurate. However for keeping something like enemy airfields out of operation will require longer ranged SSMs which have large warheads and are accurate on top of all that, I mean as long as you can disable an airfield which operates aircraft whose range is not sufficient enough to operate in your territory from that airfield. For example if the enemy has an aircraft with long range such as the Flanker, you must have a long ranged SSM to hit that airfield and keep it out of operation in a range where the Flanker will have to be forced to operate from some other father airfield where it won’t be able to reach your assets and/or be used in an effective manner.
So what info do we have on the radar?
Are you talking about nuclear warheads, or conventional ones? And Iskander is not an ICBM.
I guess I am talking about conventional warheads.
I believe Romania is said to use all 3 of them wiuth the Mig-21 Lancer and that Italian AMX’s will be wired to carry besides JDAM also the Opher.
[quote]
Biggest threat to dedicated CAS aircraft are UCAV and MLRS with smart subammo, not thin-skinned fastmovers with PGMs.
[/quoite]
To be honest I don’t know about MLRS as I don’t know much about it but UCAVs are not mature enough yet, I don’t think they are yet.
Without integrated ground troops all those fancy JDMAs, LGBs or whatever becomes worthless. Then your fancy aircraft have to go down and dirty and hand deliver the ordnance the old way. That is when some armour and loiter time makes mores sense then stealth, speed and extreme manouverability.
Not exactly, you could still have aircraft like F-16 engage tanks and other targets and drop PGMs from a medium-high altitude, much like they did in GWI and without the support of ground troops.
Ok as for Lizard, Whizzard and Opher, which ones are going into produciton, which ones have been bought, some info on them?
Also another thing, the not so cheap PGMs on fixed wing aircraft are not so bad, why?
Well think about it, in an airforce, you will either buy lets say hypothetically Su-39 costs 15mn, Mig-29M/SMT costs 30mn. You will spend 350mn all together
1)10 Su-39(150mn) for CAS + 10 Mig-29M/SMT(300mn) for Interdiction, Air Defense and etc
2)Just 15 Mig-29M/SMT(450mn) for Interdiction, Air Defense, CAS and etc.
Depends on what you want BUT
a)obviously the number two choice by having more Mig-29M/SMTs will be an advantage in terms of Air Defense, Anti-Shipping and interdiction since you’ll be able to put out more of them.
b)It will be much cheaper to operate 15 Mig-29M/SMT than 10 Mig-29M/SMT + 10 SU-39
c)the number two choice will not require extra infrastructure to support another aircraft type
d)the number 1 choice will be better in terms of CAS however if your enemy really has a lot of new generation low level SAMs it will be expensive to put those Su-39s out on harms way and you will want to stay at a high altitude, something SU-39 is not suited for
It all depends on what is the main priority, is your CAS as important as 3 roles of Air Defense/Anti-Shipping/Interdiction are or is it less important and equal with one of each of those roles. By having the choice 2 much cheaper, I think you can easily afford some expensive PGMs.
This is just my little analogy.
How effective would it be using these mobile ICBMs to target enemy airfields and other high priority targets? Can they actually be used effectively to keep an airfield out of operation, or in that matter hit it effectively and destroy the aircraft on it at least. How big are the warheads of these modern ICBMs like Iskander?
Erez where are you 😛
In the future as it seems it will become obsolete because yes PGMs dropped from medium-high altitude by other fixed wing aircraft will really be much more cost effective and effective in a way that they don’t have to go down low and get hit by low altitude SAMs, which by the day are becoming more lethal and lethal and hard to avoid. However, there is still some time before cheap PGMs are developed world wide like JDAM.
However, I would not exactly call Su-39 useless, I think it can still stay up at a medium altitude of 10000m and still carry a decent warload to bomb targets at a lower level.
If your ground forces however, do not have that stuff and have to work under natural cover (read trees, jungles, fog) so that they are not visible to the pilot with any optical means, then the good old CAs aircraft is still the only option. Because if you have to go down low and dirty and “hit the smoke” then I would rather be flying a SU-25 or A-10 then any F-35 or Pak-Fa for that matter.
True but this situation is not the most often, so just buying aircraft for this special need is kind of dumb when you could just send a F-35/PAK-FA down there to do that job with cannon or wutever. In another words if you buy a F-35/F-16 or wutever to do CAS from medium level, you wouldn’t want to just buy an A-10 for this special need as it would not be cost effective.
The other need for CAS aircraft is the need to be close by and give precise hits with minimal damage to the surroundings. You cannot use most PGMs when your own soldiers are within 500 yards of the enemy you are targeting. A low flying aircraft with ground visibility and a relatively destructive cannon are far safer and efficient.
Very true, but in this case I’d let a lighter attack helicopter go down.
The thing is, there are a few things that no fixed wing aircraft are good, such as COIN, close in warfare as described by wolverine and Urban Warfare, of course the best option would be to send in lighter and more maneuverable attack helicopters like MD-500/BO 105/Dhruv armed with simpler rockets and machine guns(I don’t see a need for Attack Helicopters, simpled and smaller helis carrying rockets and machine guns can do this job of COIN and Close in Warfare, maybe not as good but good job, and for hitting armoured columns fixed wing aircraft dropping PGMs from low level can also do that job, so when u look at it no need for heavy attack helicopters). However let your fixed wing aircraft with PGMs do the job of CAS from a medium level.
So something like Light Attack Helicopters[BO 105/MD-500/AH-6J/Dhruv] for low level COIN, Close in Warfare while you got normal multirole fighters[Su-30, Mig-29, F-16, F-15 or wutever]/advanced jet trainers[Yak-130, M-346, A-50] from a medium level dropping PGMs.
Its a matter of time before cheap PGMs develop like JDAM and many other ones, and its also a matter of time before fully autonomous, fully mobile Medium-High Altitude SAMs get developed like CLAWS/SLAMRAAM/Derby/R77-3PK get developed to counter this threat of medium-high level CAS aircraft.
Yes, CNG seems to be like a big extension of the Greek Armed Forces lol. Not bad for such a small island and population.
Any new plans to buy any more stuff?
Comon guys lets keep the good level . Well I dont have a map here but as I said with external tanks it can reach 4000kms WITHOUT airrefuelling . I think 4000km is enough to reach South Africa depdending from which part of Brazil the planes takes off . Oh just anohter important thing I forgot to say . The AMX good maneuverability was demonstrade around 1995 during Operation Tiger with US’s F16s when an AMX alone and at that time without radar beat 2 F16s . After that ( humiliating ) defeat the US pilots nicknamed the AMX as “the bee” .
Ohhh now I remember who you are, that one Brazilian guy who used to play Ra2/YR, pointless to argue with u on anything.