JSRLook at F-22 š
The once golden prospect of F-35 is lookin rather bleak as well. Several years ago, i read from the F-35 Pro Club, that the F-35 was going to be produced in the 3500 figures.. Go figure šBack to the Pak-Fa, it will be an expensive and complex jet. 1000-1500 units? No way!
F-22 gives away to much larger F-35 programe. There is no closing of procurement. F-35 still can get around 2000 units provided other programes dont take too much money like LRSB.
PAK-FA does not have competition. It is replacing MIG-29/MIG-31/Su-27. so maintainance cost over the long run will be cheaper. It has long range so more efficient flights and less need of air refuellers. procurement of Su-35/Su-34 will close around 2020. Every investments is for much larger capacity. There is no way they are going to spend money on new engine and stop procurement.
see this example.
http://www.atominfo.ru/en/news3/c0448.htm
Russia to Field 30 Times More Cruise Missiles by 2020
when you look at the land area of CIS countries and than add permanent presence in Mediterranean. It needs very large air force.
JSRPope has spoken out against intervention. Italy followed Pope. Putin said defending christian values.
bible belt politicians in US completely revolted against Obama. Obama would have lost both houses of congress.
Even Israel dont have the power to move things once issue becomes of Christians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/world/middleeast/seeking-credible-denial-on-poison-gas-russia-and-syria-turn-to-nun.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
A Nun Lends a Voice of Skepticism on the Use of Poison Gas by Syria
considering the massive manpower (often use as cannon fodder) and money that Arabs and Turks there is danger of these chemical weapons falling into wrong hands.
JSR@JSR
you do have a weird view on economy..
No way in hell Russia will ever buy 1000-1500 Pak-FA, Are you being serious!!?
While Russia is driving their rearmament program forward to 2020, After they have reached their goals, they will cut Defence spending.
They are in fact shrinking most of their armed forces right now, they have been doing it over many years, and that include their AF.
They have never fielded so few units and AB as they do now. Soon allmost every Mig 29, Su-24 along With a larger protion of Legasy Flankers will be gone, and the prospect of ordering New units are not that high, not by a far cry..
I gave very good estimate. MIG-31 are going to be retired by 2028.
when tactical missile corporation is going to increase its production rate by several times. and stealth fighters carry less weopon load. so who is going to use such high produciton rate. you need multi year programe for worker training with lifelong employment incentive, advance machines and research in matellargy. you just cannot close the procurement system when production rate reach its peak.
add to that billions invested in new engine for PAK-FA. several thousand units of engines will required to justify cost. and it will need constant yearly procurement so that workers dont lose the skills.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-09-20/russia-upgrades-missiles-and-guided-bombs
The corporationās rate of production will increase āby two to three times over the next five yearsā and āfar moreā by 2020, Obnosov said. The production increase is needed to support Russian armed forcesā modernization programs, with large Soviet stockpiles having been depleted by expiring lifetimes of legacy missile types.
JSRarticle mentioned that India order reduction from 250 to 125 will make programe unviable. which is joke. in the end Ruaf alone will be buying 1000 to 1500 PAK-FA all the way for next 30 years production untill 6th generation UCAV.
Ruaf will not stop at year 2020 for 600 new aircraft.
Russia does not have limit of area like Western EU/China/Japan. you didnot fully understood tower crane example.
see this money spending.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/19/sport/sochi-winter-olympics-russia-amanda-davies/?hpt=hp_c2
GDP/Oil prices measurements are for countries that need investment/ borrowing to look good or want to influence other countries that they have money.
JSRPerhaps PAK FA will face even more issues than the F-35?
T-50 is expected to get faster FOC than F-35 because industrial chain is in one country under one company and not spread out in many locations.
I dont think T-50 has anything to do with Indian funding. infact Russia is overflowing with private and public money so it can afford to spend.
count the cranes not produced in EU.
http://www.worldhighways.com/sections/general/news/russia-one-of-europe-growth-engines-for-construction-equipment/
According to the CECE, one out of three tower cranes produced and sold in Europe are currently going to Russia. –
T-50 price will be lower than Rafale even from the start as industrial base behind T-50 from engines to weopons is much larger and efficient.
JSRGuard their own airspace from whom? For simple air policing, why would a country the size of Netherlands need a larger force than the RAF detachment at Mount Pleasant?
The threat from Russia having receded to the point where its comfortable buying warships from France, most of the NATO is now expeditionary in nature. In which case, the KLu contribution can go upto two squadrons of F-35s in wartime. That’s a fairly potent force.
I am not sure buying of a transport ship has anything to do with threat perception.
France still a significant seller to Middleast and Russians would want to know as much as possible about French technologies. France is also center of Middleast royals property and business. Russia by deploying money in France will try to learn about them.
see this example
http://www.relocatemagazine.com/immigration-a-visas/immigration-a-visa-articles-main/2348-russiafrance-no-more-work-permits
RussiaāFrance: no more work permits!
NATO is weakened to the point that first major Land exercises after long time has only 6000 troops participating. It is better not to do land exercise with such low number of troops.
JSRKh-31a and its later variants can sort of be called a manageable air launched supersonic antiship missile. While still a bit larger than your average harpoon, and certainly larger than nsm/jsm family, its size does allow a usual mission loadout of two missiles per aircraft. Theoretically larger ac like su30 family could carry even four.
Also, kh-31, at least in its ma-31 variant, is the only supersonic missile that is confirmed to actually do a mach 2.5 low level run, five or so meters above sea level. Such a result was also corroborated by confirmed 2.5 mach low level speed of its american counterpart, gqm-163, which is size wise and design wise rather similar. Furthermore, operator of ma-31 variant claims 20 g manouvers. That and other data available here: 2004 report
Actual seeker tech level is an unknown, though there have been at least two further variants since the original kh-31a missile, kh-31ad, which had a longer body, and kh-31am, which added a new seeker. But truth to be told, i haven’t heard much of kh-31am variant even though it was supposed to go into testing some 7-8 years ago. The core design seems sound, though. With a new, modern avionics suite kh-31 seems to be quite potent. A big drawback is certainly its poor range. Subsonic 10 km launch yields a modest 50-60 km range. 15 km launch, according to the manufacturer, gets you to 70 km of usable range. All that means that the delivery platform itself needs to fly low and do a pop up manouver for the launch. subsonic 300 meter launch, according to ma-31 document gets you 37 km range. Enough to evade ships but perhaps not enough to strike deep within a task force of several ships without first peeling the outer layers of their defense (outer ships)
Using the longer body, AD variant (ADM? in modernized seeker version?) one gets quite decent 120-160 km range, according to manufacturer. Though the latter figure is mach 1.5 at 15 km. All that suggests that the ranges, while enough against certain threats, are not enough for all threats and that the low level approach by the delivery platform is still sometimes the best choice. Lucikly for the user, the added range does allow for pop up launch manouver at longer ranges, probably enough for striking deep within the spread out task force. And please lets not get into operational details. Low level approach is a possibility, its by no means (as everything in war) a sure thing. Enemy could potentially use third party platforms to detect and help bring down/deter launch platform or even missile itself. That applies to any missile in the world, results range dependant.
A thing to note – a some western missiles too can’t really be sure to be air launched from high altitude, for maximum range, and still do it outside of theoretical range of a theoretical threat. Exocet AM39 mod2, which was recently tested, despite its new avionics and seeker, is still a 70+ km missile when launched from high altitude. Range wise it is almost as bad as original kh-31a.
rbs15f, even in block ii configuration, if i am not mistaken, still has 150 km range. (air launched)
Air launched harpoon has in newer versions, with better fuel, gotten to a very respectable 220 km range, outside most of SAM systems, if one wants/needs to settle a straight flying trajectory.
i am not sure if there ever was a nsm in air launched variant or the effort shifted entirely on jsm project as the air launched choice of that family of weapons. Anyway, one aviationweek article did cite a 280 km range when air launched (presumably at high altitude). Save for some theoretical naval s400 sam system that should be enough to stay out of all known/near future systems. Again, if one settles for a less efficient straight to the target flight route.
supersonic missiles certainly do lack in range compared to subsonics, but as the tech progresses for both sides, so does range/weight class ratio. brahmos class weapon which would stay under expected radar horizon the whole time (save for possible target check pop out manouver) certainly wont have the theoretical maximum range of same weapon flying at 10 or 15 km altitude. But flying as high as possible while staying under the expected radar horizon, then cruising at a very shallow dive trajectory (to keep itself from going over the expected radar horizon of the enemy) is still more fuel efficient than a sea skimming profile throughout. If a basic kh31a derivative, ma31, can do 37 km in pure sea skimming mode, as seen in that file i linked, then a brahmos class missile could be expected to double that figure, and perhaps double it still for the described medium altitude, descending as to keep below radar, trajectory. Actual math would require more time, but a ballpark figure of 150 or so km seems realistic.
That being said, brahmos class missiles are still really too large for your everyday multirole fighter. even indian su30 will be carrying just one per plane. As we are seeing with japanese supersonic asm-3 missile and chinese yj-15 missile (Even if the latter is still shrouded in much secrecy, but some images have leaked out), it seems the air launched supersonics, despite the range challenge, will strive to be closer to sub 1 ton class weapons than closer to brahmos sized 2.5 ton weapons. I don’t know how reliable the figure is, but asm-3 is sometimes claimed with a 200 km range. For a weapon of that size and supersonic flight profile, that is a pretty good figure. It might allow a 100+ km launch point for the delivery aircraft, while still below expected radar horizon.
supersonic speed and lowering the radar cross section are not two interchangeable objectives. while certainly easier and more efficient to pull off on a subsonic missile, it is only a question of when will the next generation of supersonics start using more and more RA materials. While it may somewhat limit their cruise speeds, medium sized missiles that won’t be intented to be launched from 300 km away, at 15 km altitude, won’t really suffer that much from somewhat longer to target time.
Even more so, IIR seekers and supersonic antiship missile don’t have to be mutually exclusive. While certainly active radar seekers have their uses over IIR seekers in certain enviroments and mission profiles, overall idea of using IIR seekers, or perhaps at some point in the future, dual seekers for supersonics, is quite sound.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what will the next decade bring when it comes to antishipping missiles development trends.
kh-31 not much heavier than subsonic missiles. Flanker can carry 6 Kh-31. Aircraft engine power is increasing along with more powerfull jammers and radars. which will likely degrade ship based radars performance. there is possibility of combined ARM & Ashm attack on ships. unless Kh-31AD has different flight profile than PD i dont see why its export version will have less range. or keep it under 300km due to MTCR.
http://www.ktrv.ru/news/publ/932.html?PHPSESSID=60af86e66cb61ad6a940393c577aa76e
29.08.2013
Zhukovsky (Moscow Region), August 28 – RIA Novosti. Corporation “Tactical Missiles” in the next two years, expects to start exporting two specialized missiles “air-to-surface” X-31PD and Kh-31AD, told reporters on Wednesday CEO Boris Obnosov.
“The tests are completed, she went with us to the series. To date, we have made an export version, and is currently under a number of pre-contract negotiations. I think that in the next year or two we will start to export “, – said Obnosov.
He added that at present negotiating with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation under the contracts for the missiles.
X-31AD – antiship (high) long-range missile.
X-31PD – anti-radiation missile, equipped with a wide-range passive radar homing, ensuring the defeat of the enemy air defense radars operating in either pulsed or continuous radiation.
JSRThey didn’t during Gaddafhi because Gaddafhi made sure sectarianism was buried.
But before Gaddafhi Libya was highly sectarian and highly regionalised – Tripolitania v Cyrenaica and hostility towards Berbers and black Libyans.
These are tribal hostilities practically nothing to do with islamics. Even before the US ambassodor attack. things were heating up.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/blatter-european-leaders-told-us-to-vote-for-qatar-to-host-world-cup-29588744.html
Blatter: European leaders told us to vote for Qatar to host World Cup
when you this kind of news coming out. credibility is lost.
JSRNothing surprising here – Belgium signed up for F-104 and F-16 as well.
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway pool their fleets together for expeditionary warfare. They deploy joint squadrons.
If they want to be able to do this, they need to operate the same type as Denmark, Netherlands and Norway, all of whom are F-35 operators.
The lower possible number quoted is the scary thing here – at worst a mere 35 jets (3 Belgian squadrons or 2 more normal size squadrons).
The future fighter numbers for these 4 fleets look pathetic:
Belgium: 35-55 – to replace 59 F-16s
Denmark: 18-24 to replace
Netherlands: 37* to replace 85 F-16s (since shrunk to 61 by 2014)
Norway: 48-52 to replace
TOTAL: 138 – 168Compare that to F-16A/B (incluidng deliveries of F-16A/B-15s in early 1990s)
Belgium: 160
Denmark: 77+2 attrition
Netherlands: 213
Norway: 74
TOTAL: 526 F-16A/BShows how much some airforces have shrunk. It equates to an overall fleet reduction of 68%- 74%.
Even adding Italy (96), Turkey (116) and UK (138) at optimistic levels only brings up total European F-35 buys to 488-518 a/c – still less than original European 4 F-16A/B buys.
And after that market opprtunities for 2020-2030 decline considerably in Europe to:
Finland – up to 60 a/c to replace F/A-18
Poland – up to 32 a/c to replace MiG-29
Spain – up to 100 to replace F-/A-18 and AV-8B but in reality probably a lot less.
Greece – handful really.*Dutch have confirmed their commitment to F-35 with a mere 37 airframes:
It is not just the numbers but time line and yearly procurement rate.
for example starting from what year & what yearly rate these Netherlands F-35 are coming.
This was not the case with F-16 in late 70s when everything was ordered much early and at a faster rate.
It is hard to forecast economics into 2020s but generally EU will be alot poor than what it has now.
JSRNATO air power was key in tipping odds in favour of rebels.
Libya is complete import dependend country. just embargo was sufficient to collapse the government. use of airpower exposes weakness of EU powers to rest of world. Infact Obama team told rest of the world that it his leading from behind (US power) that sold the problem.
Saudis are dithering on EF price. Brazil/UAE practically backed out of Rafale deal. India still negotiating two years later despite knowing the price. otherwise how can it know Rafale is cheaper than EF.
Sure if the Americans went in at 100%
100% means alot of money and months of preparations and that adds to hesitations.
As it stands it was a limited operation with limited assets. Even a lot of aircraft contributed by various parties were not cleared to conduct ground attack missions and were limited to Combat Air Patrol.
I’m sure the Russians would’ve taken just as long if they had one arm tied behind their back.
Limited operation was mistake. Russians learned from Iraq and Georgia war. by 2011 they have sufficient idea. All Russian exercise are now large ground formations. It is the EU powers that did not learn (always depended on highly unreliable allies).
The Europeans and Americans didn’t really care. Libya seemed to be an Anglo-French ego building exercise and designed to make their leaders more popular by fighting a successful role.
Libya operation was Arab league voted operation. I highly doubt UK/France can go against Arab league resolution.
Also NATO manpower in Libya wouldn’t have stopped collapse of Libyan society because Libya never had a society in the first place – it’s a mismatch of clans and regions with the odd Islamist fundamentalist.
Libya didnot have secatarian problem. Only problem is Qatar/Saudi funded islamists that make sure the there is no Oil competitor.
Gaddafhi was the glue in Libya, just like Saddam was the glue in Iraq, the Assads are the glue in Syria and the Saud family is the glue in Saudi Arabia. Take these away and you have anarchy.
You need to understand better. There is no such thing as glue. US invasion into Iraq supported by Kurds/Shias. That is 80% percent of population. It is only 20% of population that become violent and offcourse outside supported.
The true problem is borders written by Europeans in the 19th century that even then had no basis in ethnic, religious, or cultural realities.
That is not a problem at all.
EU already has. Hence NATO’s only discussions are on containment of the war. Hence UK’s Parliament voting against participation in a war.
UK didnot want nor capable to take action. thats why the whole issue was thrown to parliament too fast.
By “active role”, do you mean deploying Russian troops?!? Why would Russia want to step into another crap war?!? Putin certainly isn’t a stupid man and I doubt he’ll risk any more intensive Russian involvement.
That’s about the only way the Russians can be “more active” in Syria. They’re already 100% behind Assad diplomatically and are continuing to supply him with weapons.
i am talking about after summer 2014. If the status quo is maintained untill that time. than Russia will esclate this war to whole new level. start with permanent naval presence around syria. All those cargo landing ships are for arms supplies. some more A-50 modernized AWACS with ground survellence. more longer range tube artellery. infact this whole Russia rearmament programe is related to settling scores with that part of the world. for that it needs to lure countries like Saudi and Turkey into Syrian battlefield.
My prediction is that the status quo will remain, but with Americans ramping up supplies to rebels.
status quo is extremely dangerous to Turkey and rest of arab world. Just Turkey alone has i think 60 to 70k troops around syria.
Obama has proclaimed pivot to Asia and energy independence. All he makes some announcment and no follow through. Arabs dont trust him. http://www.aawsat.net/2013/09/article55316662
as long as S300 missile not sold to Iran he will keep low profile.
JSRCorrect. But it depends on whether the IAF thinks its worth the risk.
Generally they are conservative in buying new Russian weapons because they come with teething issues unless they have been in service a while.
With the Rafale, they are planning for Kh-31 PD, and with Super-30, the RVV-SD and RVV-MD, but with the MiG-29 UPG, they chose the more mature RVV-AE, Kh-31P, R-73E. By the time the PD comes on Indian aircraft, it would have been in production for Su-35 etc and proven. So the Kh-58 will most likely come with the FGFA.
An Indian AAM & ARM are also in progress.
Ruaf has much better funding. It is simultaneously inducting Su-34/Su-35/Su-30SM with lots of upgraded aircraft. India will not have to go through finding bugs.
kh-58ushke should be in production as it was shown in MAKS. higher speed (almost twice of Kh-31) and large blast radius has big advantage if your dealing with missile launcher TELs separate from radar.
JSRI agree, in an ideal world the Israelis wouldn’t have WMDs either, but the extreme scenario you’ve painted in unlikely given the stronger controls, security and stability of the country as a whole. Of course, we can’t predict the future, but there’s unlikely to be a collapse of Israeli society in the near future, similar to what we’ve seen in more authoritarian, corrupt and fragmented countries of the middle east. There are specific reasons behind the events that are happening in the Arab states, which are absent from Israel.
Obviously Israeli has stronger society but you have to look how that become stronger. It managed Peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan. (this thing cannot happen without Saudi). relative peace with Syria for long time.
Millions of Israeli dont work in Kingdom of Saudi so no external influence on inside society.
Israel is small country so not too large porous border but on opposite way its hard to defend industrial structures. The point is Israel has neither bombed Saudi nor Saudi has funded war against Israel on same scale as Soviet Afghan war.
Seems like your mind is made up, no matter what happens, you’ll always have an axe to grind against the US/west for whatever reason. While I actually agree that the US/west shouldn’t be arming the “rebels”, which is running the same risk we experienced in Afghanistan in the 80s, I think an earlier, swifter and more decisive air campaign could have ended the Syrian conflict by now, similar to what we saw in Libya.
what is so decisive about Libya war?. Even the bombing dont seem that effecitve. Country like libya should be finish in days not months. Lack of money and manpower from Nato in securing peace contributed to collapse of Libya society.
It will take some time for EU to realize the folly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10295045/Brussels-fears-European-industrial-massacre-sparked-by-energy-costs.html
Brussels fears European ‘industrial massacre’ sparked by energy costs
my own prediction about Syria is that if Asad system survive untill summer of 2014. than Russia is going to take much more active role in supporting him to finish the job. Sochi olympics will be done. Ruaf will be in more stronger position along with large airdefence/ cruise missile inventory.
JSRso no Kh-58ushke for Su-30 upgrade.
the Mach 4 missile with 150kg warhead. you need faster missile to deal with mobile radars if shooting from long ranges.
JSRhad IAPO and KNAAPO been focused on making one flanker variant and there were no Su-34 orders, NAPO most likely would’ve taken charge more of commercial aircraft production.
In any case its Russia’s lost for holding on for so long to Soviet era production systems and management.600 Su-30SMs made from 2000 and up sounds a lot better than just a hand full of SMs, 35S, 34s, MKs painted in varying un-standardized grey patterns.
In that period of time they also have to upgrade MIG-31BM. (kinematic performance is the key)
Su-27SM and Su-25/Su-24 upgrades. These are still very new airframes from late 1980s.
Adding new airframe at that time could have taken money for all these projects.
Now Su-34 and Su-35 is perfect answer.
Su-34 has done 8000km strike. More space for pilots to stretch on long flights. Alot more space for electronics in Spine and tail. fully certified for large external pods & fuel. thats why you see upto 140 Su-34 orders but 60 Su-30SM orders.
It is the capability and verstaility that matters.
JSRPLAAF has access to all that tiger penis extract, hence greater potency. :dev2:
Anyhow…
The Arabs are an interesting force and not necessarily all lumped into the same category either.
I think right now Israel has absolute dominance over it’s immediate neighbours.
However the threats have expanded from Israeli neighbours to include further countries. I suspect this is why Israel wants more tankers.
Turkey is actually probably the bigger threat than Iran. The Turks are slowly drifting from NATO and Europe and Erdogan is trying to redefine them as Muslims and increase involvement in Middle East.
He has already gone to head with Israelis on a number of issues, either symbolic like Gaza blockade or due to strategic issues such as Israeli-Cypriot oil exploration in contested waters.
Definitely a “watch this space” issue.
Turkey and Israel has same issue. both got hands me down airforce on outside money from 1980s to 1990s.
I dont think F-15I would have been affordable and certainly not without F-15S order in 1990s. I think Turkey got rewarded for participation in first gulf war. both airforces can pull one off strike but not sustained operations without outside Aid. so chances of Turkey and Israel fighting airwar practically nil. They may fight dummy war if some arabic money reward them.
I can forsee both airforces significantly downscaled in inventory and training.
Sign In
