UAZA footnote on the PS-90A engines:
Another reason why there were few export orders is that until recently the manufacturer (Perm Engines) could make only a handfull per year.
Production has increased a bit recently and some decent export orders are coming (Tu-204 from Iran, China, Cuba…).
Perm is gradualy increasing its output of the engine. In the meanwhile, a newer engine (PS-12) is being developped for the MTA (Russia/India) transport and the MC-21 airliner. The PS-12 may eventualy replace the PS-90A as it will come in various thrust variants (upto 18 T).
UAZStealthy is not a silver bullet, it will gradually be eroded by ever more capable all powerful all aspect sensors. As long as a physical object is moving through the sky sensors will be created that can detect it. All the stealth race will do is try and give aircraft a slight advantage against another. Sure a ‘stealth’ aircraft versus a ‘non stealth’ aircraft will have a massive advantage but in the coming decades that will be greatly reduced.
x2.
The effectiveness vs cost of stealth will be diminished over the years.
I believe that 20 years from now we will have no more than 5 or 6 stealth aircraft types in worldwide service (F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, B-2 plus 1 or 2 new types). There will also be some stealth UAVs, UCAVs and missiles. Most airforces will still use non-stealth aircraft.
As for the original question: In the air-air role the stealth aircraft will be more detectable than in the air-ground role:
– They will use afterburners more (leaving a bigger IR signature)
– Maneuver more (and expose their less stealthy sides)
– Turn on their radars (and everybody will know where they are)
UAZAnd in absolute terms, trading a $200k (?) 9M96 for a $70k SDB does not seem like a good deal either.
It is not as bad a deal as it may seem.
You have to take into consideration all the costs involved.
In a scenario where a single SEAD aircaft fires one SDB at an S-300 battery which shoots it down (the SDB) with a single 9M96:
– Cost incurred by the SAM battery = cost of 9M96 missile + little else
– Cost incurred by the aircraft = cost of SDB + cost of jetfuel for the aircraft + cost of wear and tear on aircraft
UAZSounds like the F-14 you got up there, or the F15E, or even the F-111B!;)
Why not add the Su-30 and Tornado to your list.
The F-14 was designed a naval interceptor. It is still an interceptor for the only country that still uses it (Iran).
The F-15E and the Su-30 are more of a multirole aircraft.
According to your “must have” list above, nearly all Soviet PVO interceptors, with the exception of the MiG-31, could not be classified as interceptors!
My wish list is for a 21st century interceptor.
Even a Mig-21 can do interceptions. However all the previous dedicated interceptors like the Mig-25 and Su-15 have been replaced in this modern world by multirole aircraft like the Su-27 and Mig-29.
One should mention the Tu-28 Fiddler 2 seat interceptor. The Mig-31 is the replacement for that aircraft. It is now the only “pure” interceptor in the RuAF.
UAZA pure interceptor does not make sense for a smaller country. A multirole fighter would be sufficient and more cost effective.
For larger countries, the role of the long range interceptor becomes more significant. The Mig-31 is a perfect example.
A multirole fighter will lack one or more of the following:
-High (sustained) speed.
-Long range.
-Inflight refueling capability.
-Powerfull radars and sensors.
-2 pilots sharing workload.
-Ability to operate as mini AWACS
-Lots of firepower
-Long range missiles
-Ability to operate without ground control
An interceptor can be regarded as a SAM system that you can transport at supersonic speed.
UAZJust to clarify: The point of backing into a bunker is so that the radar doesn’t have to drive a couple of hundred metres to the next ‘position’ to be safe – it can go into the bunker until the ARM has eliminated itself by crashing into the ground and then emerge to start emitting again more quickly. The concept, incidentally, isn’t mine, I heard about it from a Yugoslav PVO veteran of Allied Force. Though it is worth mentioning that I don’t have any info more detailed than that.
It does make sense.
In my opinion a covered bunker is not a must. A deep enough trench should be sufficient to provide protection from the shrapnel of an ARM exploding nearby.
UAZWhy do you not stick to the own advices.
You claim something and disprove it in a single sentence. You do challenge someone by that behavior.
Do you have an idea, when the first Gulf War took place?
Instead of attacking me, why don’t you doublecheck what you are writing. The first gulf war (desert storm) happened during 1991, not 1990 as you seem to believe.
But too much details I fear for desktop-warriors, which do prefer to deal with total production numbers (680 ac) till the 90s and have to be aware that the production-rate may have reached its peak from 1989.
Hahaha…
One can also say that production started slowing down from 1989 because of the economic problems that the Soviet Union was having…
Please back up what you said with actual production numbers, otherwise you are what you have described in your post :diablo:
Desktop-warrior, armchair-general etc. aaaahhh! The names we can call each other:D
UAZIt will be more helpfull to give us real numbers. Guessing around from your side is questionable to stay polite.
Google is your friend.
The number of aircraft quoted by Adrian44 can be found all over the place (including Wikipedia).
No source has the EXACT number of Flankers in inventory during the eighties.
A quick google search will reveal that around 680 SU-27 were produced (excludes the later Su-30 etc models). Most were delivered before the breakup of the Soviet Union as the RuAF could not afford to get more after that. One will have to guesstimate from there.
In Iraq and Syria several systems were operated by Russians and even flown in missions.
Soviet pilots over the Bekaa Valley????
Soviet pilots fighting the coalition in Iraq????
In the aftermath of 1990 it was learned, that several shortcomings the clients were blamed about may have been suffered in a similar way in Central Europe too.
Which (1990) event’s aftermath are you referring to?
Also, please be kind enough to provide details/source of that conclusion.
UAZI found this on the “Naval Forces Web Board”
TOPIC – GAO Report on LCS By “rickusn”
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval-forces/4863-gao-report-lcs.html
“The USN did strike these ships from Naval Register in 1995 but pressure from Congress got two placed back in reserve but even these were not back on the Navy List until 1997. The USN planned to again strike these in 2003. This hasnt happened yet.
The USN though has no intention of bringing them back.”
I love battleships and would love to see them sailing again. Unfortunately, it is not going to happen.
The USS Missouri was opened as a museum in 1999 (pearl Harbour).
The USS New Jersey was placed on the register of “Historic places” in 2004
The USS Wisconsin will eventualy become a museum ship in Norfolk
The USS Iowa is still considered a “National emergency mobilization asset” but no one is expecting any reactivation.
The bulk of these aircraft were under the command of the PVO not V-VS. The Su-27 for the most part, the Su-27 did not start operations until mid-1988. Only around one hundred and eighty by mid-1990.
The 180 Su-27 aircraft available is wrong. The correct number is a multiple of that. The RuAF received few Su-27s after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Maybe this is the number of Su-27s in the VVS and the balance are with the PVO.
The number of Mig-31s also seems low as it entered service before the Su-27.
The Syrians were not outnumbered in the engagements over the Bekaa Valley in 1982 and the outcome was very one-sided.
Yes, they were outnumbered, but not hugely. Also, they were using previous gen. Mig-21s and 23s (most of which were monkey models with lesser radars etc) against the latest F-15s and F-16s…add to that insufficient training and poor tactics and you have a recipe for a disaster.
I doubt anyone would think the Israeli Air Force would show so poorly if faced with the same situation as the Iraqi AF in 1991. The first attacking wave of aircraft would have faced serious aerial opposition.
Bad comparison. The Israelis have (had) the latest weaponry while Iraqis didn’t. If Saddam had Su-27, Mig-31, S-300, S-300V, BUK, TOR etc.. and his people knew how to use them adequatly, the aerial warfare would not have been so one-sided
The SA-6 is a case where the weapon should not have been a surprise at all. It was the Soviet equivalent to the HAWK Missile, which had been in operation for over ten years. Yet, the USAF had no CW jamming gear to counter this missile!
Equivalent in size/range, yes. But the SA-6 is on a mobile tracked chassis and more difficult to find and destroy than the fixed HAWK. Other differences can be found in propulsion etc.
UAZFull-fledged PAK FA will take off in 2012, said Deputy Commander of RFAF general-lieutenant Igor Sadofev. “The terms have been set – to take off in 2012, and in 2015 to be commissioned.”
From : http://www.shipbuiding.ru
Maybe a prototype of some form will still fly in 2009. The full-fledged aircraft following in 2012.
UAZCan’t remember the exact words Bismarck used, but it was something like :
“Russia is never as strong as it seems and is never as weak as it appears”.
Rarely did the Soviets supply their clients their cutting edge and latest designs to be used against their opponents. Most of the time they delivered the previous models, monkey models or the cheaper, simpler and less capable assets. All for a varity of causes including cost, politics, secrecy or simply the inability of the client state to operate the goods.
On the rare occasions when the latest models were delivered and used, a nasty surprise was provided to the users of Western type arms.
Just a few examples;
– Mig-15 in Korea
– SSN-2 Styx (Termit) missile in 1967 sinking the Israeli destroyer Eilat
– SA-6 (Kvadrat) SAM in 1973
And more recently the KORNET antitank missile that was sucessfully used by Hizbollah aginst the IDF Merkava tanks.
UAZThey are there for the same reason the US Navy has the USS Iowa Class battleships in reserve.
They are no longer held in reserve. AFAIK they are now museums.
Yes, the WP had in access of 3,500 MiG-21’s, and MiG-23’s but, they were no match for the F-15’s and F-16’s of NATO from the early 1980s onward……Now, the MiG-29 with the HMDS and HOB Archer Missile would have caused real problems but these did not exist until the late 1980’s and then in small numbers.
Amazing how some people remember the least expensive and least capable point defense fighters and forget that the main defenders of Soviet airspace were the Su-15 and Mig-25 during the seventies and the Mig-31 and Su-27 later on during the eighties.
Check all the engagements between Soviet designed aircraft against Western designed aircraft since 1980
In all these engagements, the users of Soviet design aircraft (Syria, Iraq, Serbia) were vastly outnumbered and were mostly using monkey models supplied to them……hard to make any conclusions.
Even the first engagement between an F-16 and a MiG-25 ended with the F-16 firing a Slammer down the throat of the MiG-25
Can’t recall any such incident. Can you provide details of that engagement?
UAZHow about decoy radars? Something like the following scenario:
– ARM launch is detected
– Switch off your main radar(s)
– Switch on your cheap and/or obsolete decoy radar
– ARM will head towards decoy
Now, if you also switch off your decoy radar after a short emitting time you might even be able to save your decoy for re-use later.
UAZDuring the Vietnam war, S-75 (SA-2) operators were detecting the launch of Shrike ARMs. They had on average 30 seconds to shut down their radar to avoid being hit by the missile.
Here is a good video series “Dance with death”. The S-75 vs the US aircraft. One of the best documentaries I have seen about the air war over the skies of Vietnam.The videos are in Russian with English subtitles:
Part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4
Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ndbdTh0jU
Part 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOVjmtjNR24
UAZThanks Arthur.
AFAIR the deal also included some two-seaters Mig-29s. Are these new built aircraft? If so which factory? Sokol?
Sign In
