UAZNumber of Kh-41 deployed = Number of Sovremenny destroyers deployed * Number of Kh-41 loaded in a Sovremenny
That’s 12*8 = 96
It is homework for a child.
Majority of Moskits are deployed on TARANTUL and BORA class corvettes. The Admiral Chabanenko (Udaloy II) destroyer also carries them.
UAZBut the stealthy fighter’s radar is most likely LPI, which means it’ll have a much better chance of not lighting up the interceptor’s RWR, than the interceptor would have against the Raptor.
The only chance the interceptor would have, is if it could approach from a vector that would keep it off the Raptor’s sensors.
We are deliberatly not mentioning the type of aircraft on this thread to avoid politicizing it and create sensitivity which can derail the thread quickly.
The “stealthy intruder” could be Raptor, JSF, PAK-FA or any LO aircraft that may arise in the future.
If the stealthy intruder lights up its radar, it will loose the element of surprise (irrespective of the type of radar on board). It may end up shooting down 1 or more interceptors but abort its primary mission.
————————————————————————-
to topic
Let us not asume that support assets (AWACS, ESM etc.) will be available only to the attacking side.
Also, the GC directed interceptors can use various techniques such as: only one aircraft will be using its radar (and acting as bait) while the others are electronically silent and flying at 2-3 nm from each other.
UAZYou have to understand the nature of stealth and its propose.
In the ideal form it will allow to go in somewhere, before someone is able to prevent that or do even realize that.
The least demand is to give a time advantage to delay the fire-circle to fullfill a given task. Like a MBT, the related weight/cost do not allow a total protection against all threats, the efforts are focused into a few important areas only. Fire control-radar are of short-wave length. You can live through the frustrations, when the operators can monitor such aircraft approaching with their longer-wave surveillance radar, but still unable to do something about that, because your short-wave fire control radar is unable to get a firm lock at that opponent. The best thing such defenders are can hope for is, that enough time was left to do all tricks for own survival at best. The same problem do face alerted interceptors, which may try to close into eyesight, but when doing so be a prominent target itself, because a stealth-fighter has the first firing opportunity most of the time.
I don’t understand the reasoning for the last (highlighted) part. Why would the stealthy intruder get the first opportunity? How would it know the position of the interceptors that are being guided by GCI?
UAZ[color=red]…
2. If someone is being a fool, simply ignore them. If you reply to them and get into some sort of absurd argument, you’re both equally guilty. Be the bigger person and simply don’t reply. The ignore feature works well also, I’ve heard (I can’t use it, or I’d miss half of what I have to edit 😀 ).
…
[/color]
That is the best policy. In other words: “Don’t feed the trolls”
UAZIt was an SA-3 that took out the F-117 over Serbia.
TJ
I have come accross a couple of Russian sources that claim it was an SA-6.
:confused::confused::confused:
UAZAn Argentine Pucara shooting down a British helicopter during the Falklands conflict. An artist’s rendering of that would be nice.
UAZI tend to think they will buy 20 to 30 PAK-FA per year for long time like so 400 to 800 number is reasonable along with 200 Su-34.
I think you are too optimistic. PAK-FA is expensive and production will probably not exceed 10 per year (unless a new cold war heats up). Total procurement will probably be no more than 200 units. There will also probably get about 200 Su-34s for the strike role as well (not enough to replace the Su-24s).
They will have to fill the rest of their squadrons with 4.5 gen fighters and fighter-bombers: SU-35 and Mig-35. The Sukhois mainly for air defense and the Migs mainly for ground attack. The Mig will somehow have to fill in the shoes of the Su-24 ( as there will not be enough Su-34s) and Su-25 on certain missions (PGM delivery), while a single seat ground attack version of the Yak-130 will have to do the low level close support.
There are many places where the airforce would prefer to station smaller and cheaper (more expandable) Migs rather than Su-35s : such as bases near borders and bases abroad (the Russian Mig-29s based in Armenia and the Su-25s in Kirkhizistan come to mind).
The Mig-35 is a extrmely versatile platform. Over 2000km range on internal fuel only, large number of hardpoints for all kinds of air-air and air-surface weaponry, very well equipped (AESA radar, optronics etc.) and fast (Mach2). The Su-35 is more capable in almost every field, indeed. But the Su-35 carries with it a higher price tag plus higher operating costs (fuel etc.).
I think the Mig-35 has a future in the RusAF. I would like to see the actual final version of the real plane (so far we have seen a small scale model and a prototype that is not the final product).
UAZThere’ll be NO 5G MiG, I guarantee it- simply no money.
It was Fyodorov’s pet project and he’s still peeved at losing the tender. Once MiG is swallowed-up by UAC/OAK later this year, you’ll never hear of it again (unless the Chinese do another ‘Lavi’).
It underlines opinion that PAK-FA is a heavyweight fighter of F-22 class, though.Having said that, MiG may still win the UCAV tender.
Not many countries can afford PAK-FA (the export version). A smaller, lighter and cheaper 5th gen aircraft will have huge opportunities on the world-wide market. Nowadays the Russian military-industrial complex is very much export minded.
What would Rosoboronoexport offer to its clients during the 2020’s and 30’s? Su-35 (still unafordable to many) and Mig-35 (not much cheaper either) are only 4.5 generation aircraft. There is a huge gap between the PAK-FA and a souped-up version of the Yak-130.
UAZThe same way you claim, that US did overestimate the SAMs fired, which by the way even not the USA don’t deny, you downplay the number of SAMs fired.
I am not downplaying anything, it is actualy Levsha who has downplayed the kill ratio of SAMs to 1% only. But you seem to prefer a low kill ratio as it seems to suit your personal views better.
Till 1973 the SAMs were restricted to North Vietnam only and massed in a few areas there too
I know that. Hanoi and Haiphong got a good share of them because the USAF liked bombing cities.
You ignore the fact, that most losses of the US-forces took not place over North Vietnam.
Still, a lot of losses occured over North Vietnam and a lot of them must be due to SAMs (more than admitted than the USA). Find some of the “missing in action pilots” and ask them what brought them down…
You do avoid to note, that AAA fire was directed by radar
Are you saying that the Americans were able to jam SAM radars but unable to do so with AAA fire control radar?
BTW, look at Vietnam war photo and videos. A lot of the AAA guns are visualy controlled.
and that the attackers had to go over there to reach the defended targets.
Isn’t that a given.?Where else would one put his AAA defenses? Isn’t that the same in all recent wars? You seem to believe that Vietnamese gunners were realy super sharp-shooters, but their SAMs were almost useless. I guess someone should have advised the Soviets to stop supplying SAMs to the Vietnamese and give them more AAA guns.
Please no counterclaims without the related details or we waste our time about that.
For a moment I tought Jon James had written that line.
UAZWell, for the last year you quote, 1972, you’re stating that almost 70% of all S-75s fired in the whole war were launched in that year, for a 1.15% success rate which more or less squares with what I said about the effectiveness of the S-75 being reduced later in the war.
You are making conclusions based on wrong data. The US provided number for SAM launches is inflated and wrong. The Vietnamese fired only 5885 SAMs during the entire conflict.
Plus, we all know that the number of known (to the US) SAM kills is not exact. A lot of the kills credited to AAA fire is actualy SAMs. They just don’t know what hit them.
The kill ratio of SAMs is much greater than 1%. Even during the last year of the war.
THe North Vietnamese had quite a lot of 37mm, 57mm, and 85mm calibre which are still capable of taking down a fast jet.
I don’t doubt that, but….THOUSANDS of fast jets shot down by those AAA gunners!!!! I doubt the Vietnamse (or anyone) can be that good or have that many “golden bullets”. Surely a lot of the AAA credited kills are due to SAMs or the odd Mig.
Although not in all cases, there must have been instances when the B-52s had to rely on its own ECM only for protection against missiles.
I have not read about any such instances. AFAIK, during the raids over NV, the B-52s were always provided the best protection available(ECM, fighter coverage).
Well then, we’re both in agreement. The SA-5 certainly has the energy and speed to catch an SR-71 – the question is, is it any more immune to the SR-71’s ECM than the SA-2?
Yes, we are in agreement on that point. The S-75 (SA-2) is from the U-2 era. It did well against that spy plane over the Soviet Union and over Cuba during the sixties. Its effectiveness against the newer and faster SR-71 is much reduced, but it still poses a threat if the Blackbird ventures within the limited envelop of the Guideline.
Now, if you can get the SR-71 to fly lower, those super sharpshooter Vietnamese 37 mm AAA gunners will make mince meat of it 😀
UAZThat’s the average for the whole war, by the end of the war the figure was much less.
Here are the figures:
1965: 194 SAM launches. 11 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 5.7%. In other words for every 1 downed aircraft it took over 17 missiles to register a hit.
1966: 1,966 SAM launches. 31 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 1.2%. 63 missiles for every one hit.
1967: 3,202 SAM launches. 96 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 3.0%. 33 missiles for every one hit.
1968: 322 SAM launches. 3 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 0.9%. 107 missiles for every one hit.
Linebacker Operations
1972: 4,244 SAM launches. 49 US aircraft lost, a launch/hit ratio of 1.15%. 87 missiles for every one hit.
As you can see, the success ratio is not going down exactly linearly. A bit more like up and down.
In 1965 the US pilots did not have much experience with SAMs. By 1972 the SA-2 was already obsolete. The SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, SA-6 and even SA-8 were in service.
Some details from the Vietnamese/Soviet side:
– The Vietnamese received a total of 7156 SAMs. They fired 5885 of them during the conflict.
– Multiple missile shooting at the same target was the norm. Some targets were hit more than once.
-Some targets were only damaged (the SA-2 is a near miss proximity fuzed missile with a large warhead) and made it back to base.
– Some missiles were mistakenly fired upon their own Migs (I don’t have reports of friendly kills).
Please note the number of fired SAMs does not correlate to the US supplied figure.
The US attributes the majority of their aircraft losses to AAA. Only 190 to SAMs and about 100 or so to Migs. I sincerely doubt the figures. AAA performance has been dismal in all other modern conflicts, how come they are so successful in Vietnamese hands? I believe SAMs killed more than the 190 the US is saying. Just too many shootdowns are being attributed to AAA fire. I am not saying it is desinformation, just that a lot of aircraft/pilots don’t know what hit them…
And if the ECM on the B-52 is so capable, how capable is it on the SR-71
You are forgetting that the B-52 never operated alone over Vietnam. They and their supporting aircraft (including dedicated ECM aircraft) were doing a group ECM effort. On the other hand, the SR-71 will be flying alone and do all the jamming by itself…
…an aircraft which would only spend a fraction of the time that a B-52 would spend in the S-75’s engagement envelope…
Yes. That’s why I mentioned in my earlier post that the window of opportunity for the SA-2 crew is very small and response time is crucial. The SA-5 would be the weapon of choice against the SR-71.
UAZGiven that Lockheed Martin has pretty much all the practical experience when it comes to internal AAM carriage (F-102, F-106, YF-12A) I’m guessing they’re familiar with the issues. 🙂
And the Big three US auto makers have 100 years experience in buiding vehicles. Their cars never break down:diablo:
UAZThe Vietnamese did fire thousands of S-75s during the war with America, around 5800 or so – how many US aircraft did it actually knock down?
190 aircraft downed by SAMs acording to most US sources.
During the course of the war S-75s had a success rate reduced to around 1% or less,
It is 3.27% according to US provided numbers. I wonder what that number would have been if the Soviets had provided the more capable Volkhov variant (instead of the Dvina variant) to the Vietnamese. And how about all those US planes that had to jettision their bombs in order to be able to do evasive maneuvers/abort missions to avoid being hit by a SAM? US pilots took the SA-2 threat very very seriously.
Bear in mind most US aircraft were not flying at Mach 3 or at 90,000 ft (more likely a bomb laden F-105 at 600 kts).
A lower altitude flying F-105 is not a sitting duck. It is far more maneuvrable target than the SR-71 at 90k feet and Mach 3.2. It can also fight back against the SAM (the SR-71 can’t).
US ECM technology had basically neutralised the GUIDELINE as a threat to normal combat aircraft
Even 20 years after the Vietnam war, the US ECM technology had still not neutralised the GUIDELINE threat. During the 1991 Gulf war, Iraqi SA-2 batteries are credited at least one US plane (F-14).
Some people don’t give the S-75 (SA-2) the credit it deserves. Yes, it is an early generation SAM with many limitations (especially at lower altitudes). But it is still effective and in use an air defense asset in many countries around the globe.
DANCE WITH DEATH is a Russian made TV documentary in 5 parts about the SA-2 versus US air power over Vietnam. It is subtitled in English. A very objective program that even includes US pilot interviews as well as Soviet advisor interviews. A must see. Here it is on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4&feature=related
UAZThe Su-47 flying on 21.03.2008 at Zhukovsky. Look at internal weapons bay doors.
UAZI’m not sure about the S-75 being very effective against the SR-71 – I’m sure that dozens of them were fired at the Blackbird to no avail, especially over Vietnam. I should think that the USAF were more afraid of THE S-200 (SA-5) system, even more so than the MiG-25, and the S-200 would be the main reason why the SR-71 avoided Soviet airspace at all costs.
I wonder if the S-200 has ever been fired at the SR-71, say for example, over Libya?
Yes, the S-200 would have been the main treath to the well being of the SR-71 during those times. But do not discount the S-75 (SA-2) if the SR-71 flies within its target envelope. The S-75 is an old system that has never been very effective against low flying targets. But at the high altitudes where the SR-71 operates, it is at its best. It is not a slow missile and carries a large proximity-fused warhead. If an SR-71 flies close enough to a S-75 battery and within the small window of oportunity, it would be shot down promptly as the aircraft’s un-maneuvrable characteristics (compounded by the thin air at high altitude) will not help it evade the missile. The response time of the S-75 crew will be the key factor here as the window of opportunity is very small indeed because of the high speed of the spyplane.
As for S-200s in Lybia, from memory, there were reports that they were fired against US fighter-bombers during their attack on Tripoli. But no reports of shots taken against SR-71.
AFAIK, the only plane downed by the S-200 is a civilian Siberian airlines Tu-154 over the Black Sea. The missile was mistakenly fired by the Ukrainian air defenses.
Sign In
