Marcellogo@ Whisky Papa
Compared to the A-50 and E-3, A-100 radar is an AESA and for the look of it there are new radars both above than under the cockpit + a quite large set new antennas on the top of T-shaped tail, + jammers on the wingtip, so surely a way greater ESM and ECM capability.
MarcellogoYes, although of similar maximum output NK-32 has a way greater efficence in dry trust (0,72 kg/kfg/h).
MarcellogoFor what I have read the VKS is absolutely happy of having the simple and rugged Su-25 in its inventory, given the stunningly high mission generation rate it has proven capable to perform compared to the much more complex Fulcrum and even Fencer and has so not any intention to renounce at it almost for the next years, nor there is have ever been any pressure from Frontal Aviation to substitute it with some shiny fighter like it happen with A-10 and USAF…
Marcellogo@ Austin
I have read it also but it doesn’t seem me so clear.
How they think to get those results?
Acquiring only guided weapons or using the SVP-24?
They cite Kalibr and KH-101 that are top tier weapon But what they say about Tactical planes seem me suggest they are talking about punctation devices instead.
MarcellogoHoping to be included in the “several posts on last page leaned dangerously close to making this a coherent and worthwhile topic” on#63 post, allow me some point: I’ve cited meteor because its the heavier weapon that can be carried by EF semi-conformal pylon , same applies to Amraam or another that can fit: what reduces RCS is the virtual elimination of the pylon not about the missile dimension in itself.
Picture posted by GarryA in #49 gives you the idea.
Worring however to the perpendicular duct of such a missile fall IMHO on the “stealth, stealth and stealth” syndrome running amok around some posters from the other side of Atlantic.
What increase the RCS of a jet duct are the propulsor blades moving, something you just have NOT on a Ramjet.
Add that to see the interior of the Meteor’s duct ,one should have to be at the very same quote and straight in the front of it as an even minimal angle would get it covered.
To see a missile under the body of a Typhoon of even a Flanker you have to be at a much lower quote, not just a pair thousand feet and directly in the front i.e. a place no one would like to be.
I repeat, the use of RCS have to be tactically convenient to make sense, it a mean to an end not a question of national pride or worse a male reproductive organ measuring contest.
MarcellogoYes but it depends about how it sits on the plane, a Meteor on the Typhoon conformal mounting probably impact less than a vanilla sidewinder on a wingtip (and is covered by plane’s shadow in most cases).
Same with payload sitting in the central tunnel of a Flanker or Fullback, although having a conventional arrangment, they can be seen only from the bottom
MarcellogoI’ll republish there the last post I have made about the argument in the Russiadefencenet, where KgB publish its own under another nickname, hope everyone would take it as as a general recap of the various question pending about the definition of stealth.
Let’s start from the RCS figures discrepancies: the 0,000 etcetera numbers you read are the best possible ones, taken at a certain well determined narrow angle (typically around 45 °/ 315°) against a well determined frequency hitting the surface with a predeterminated inclination: it is basically a standard of measurement used to compare concurrent designs during the development phase, not something aimed to replicate conditions you would ever meet on a battlefield.
Just happened that they (the industries and the top brass involved in 5gen design) presented it instead as it were really something like so to the public in order to better sell their product.Russians (that have not to “sell” anything, given that all the parts involved are state owned) talked instead above the average values that they expect the respective planes to have in the frontal (i.e. the whole sector from + 45° to -45°) and rear ( from +135° to +225 °) aspects i.e. something that has a real operative value (and without revealing what there are their best RCS values instead :p).
So when you see the Rafale listed at 0,3 sqm let’s bet they are putting forth its best angle value, not the average one.Actually all planes after the F-22A beginning from the F-35 itself are designed to privilegiate the frontal aspect reduction instead that the average 360° one and for a very good reason.
To put it simple the mission patterns according to the F-22A but also the F-117A and the B-2A were designed up i.e. penetrate deeply an enemy controlled zone and in the case of the Raptor also to stay there loitering for a consistent time are simply considered impossible to get now given the progresses that were made by AD systems, above all into developing counter stealth operative procedures than in the still notable hardware performance enhancement themselves.
Stealth is still a very valuable asset as it work also today way better than any ECM based approach but also when using such planes, they are however actually expected to operate instead along the same ages old get in straight and fast, drop load and haul ass operative pattern of previous generation of planes instead of trying to stay over enemy space for a long time.
Spending a lot of effort into an average high RCS from all sites is so redundant in such a type of mission (or even counter productive if it would come at the expense of max frontal one) while a radar return increased by 0,1 to 1 sqm passing from a front on to a tail on missile engagement is easily compensated by the doppler effect turning advantageous for the plane.
So, the 0,000-0001 and the 0,1 to 1 are just referring to two completely different things and are with all the probability both sincere, while in the case of the numbers KGB use you don’t even get to undestand if he is talking about the maximum and the average one…
MarcellogoFirst exercise involving Italian F-35.
MarcellogoIF the previous european multinational planes design would be considered it would easily be found how until it was a deal between two thing went quite smooth, while the more nation partecipate to it the messiest it come.
Alpha Jet, Jaguar, AMX, Orao but also Yak130/M346 went smooth but for what it came to Tornado and even more to Eurofighter conflicting interest and doctrinal divergences exploded.
So, I would see better UK trying to join force with Italy or Sweden more than France and Germany.
MarcellogoThe news it’s a patwork of unrelated facts put together, some has surely happened, other are not what they parts claim to be:
F-35 is just have been introduced in Israeli service, so no way such plane was involved.
S-200 is positioned very deep into Syria, 50 km east of Damascus: so or the planes were not doing their routine foreign air space violation over Lebanon but they were instead over Syria or they wouldn’t have been able to engage the targeting radar with bomb.
What is probably true is that the action was made in coincidence with the russian defense minister visit to Israel so someone (from one of the two parts involved, I mean) probably used this to launch a message but it with all probability backfired and went into nothing or better into a series of funny Syrian memes on Twitter.
In the end, no F-35, planes not over Lebanon or alternativey other AD missiles used, Syria no more passive toward violations of its airspace but still not able to nail down Israeli intruders.
For the S-200 against F-35 match, let’s wait until the latter will recover from the one it lost against Mother Nature.
MarcellogoThe UAV’s part has been uber important for VKS and overall INTEL gathering. We know its purely Recon platforms(Bar a few Iranien UAV’s).
What is very interesting to me, is that Israel has not allowed(US Bigbrother sees you) any more UAV’sdeals on their export to Russia.. still something is not right. We see the Israeli PM travel to Kreml occasionally. The Russi VKS has crossed Israeli Airspace(probably the Golan hight area), and Russia seems ok with IAf’s doing strike inside Syria. There seems to be an understanding between them.
?? Seems me that your reply have scarce connection with what I said: the utility of UAV in the case given was intended to be limited just to their capacity to offer a way more precise BDA (as they stay around for more time before and after the strike and can choose the angle of visual) when compared to the systems used prior of their introduction i.e. a recon plane passing along the same route of the strike package.
MarcellogoThe one about people killed is quite an abstraction but is probably in gross defect not in excess: if you hit a building and level it to ground, how can you ascertain how many people there are inside?
So probably they counted all the people (infantry) killed in open and made a sum.
Numbers of strikes and targets hitten are instead quite simply to ascertain, any time you drop a weapon you add it to the total and the same for every target your UAV or other recon devices register as destroyed/ damaged , exactly the same that coalition do, so or we consider them as simul stabunt, simul cadent (and thank to said UAV, i would take them as quite accurate) or we would start another flamewar.
MarcellogoTo bring back the thread on the righ track and not derail it further I would propose to look to those numbers.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256020[/ATTACH]
Referring to the russian mission.
And compare them to the ones of Cjtf-OIR.
As of August 9, 2017, the Coalition has conducted 13,331 strikes in Iraq, and 11,235 strikes in Syria, for a total of 24,566 strikes total in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.
Since operations began in Iraq and Syria on Aug. 8, 2014, the Air Force has flown more than half of the total 167,912 sorties.Total Cost
Extrapolated Total Cost in Millions of U.S. Dollars
Extrapolated Total Cost ($M): Total Cost
(8 Aug 2014 – 30 June 2017, 1058 days) % of Total
By Expense
Daily Flying OPTEMPO $ 5,356 37%
Daily Ship OPTEMPO $ 23 0%
Munitions $ 3,230 22%
Mission Support $ 5,747 40%
Total: $ 14,356 100%
ALMOST we would made considerations on real (and military related) things and not about opinions and empty words
P.S. I think that there the use of word Sorties is quite different between the two documents. Cjtf-OIR count every single plane flown (even tankers and UAV) as one mission.
MarcellogoAgain, what “commissioned into military service” exactly meant in Chinese procurement system?
What would be the equivalent point in western (or russian )procedure?
MarcellogoHaving kept track of this conflict from beginning I am with Austin 100% on that, twitter and indipendent bloggers are extremely important to gave a sense of all the mess, not just they can somewhere get news from primary sources but can cross check one with the others, there are of different kinds of them and they are declarately for one side or another but almost their affiliation is clear.
Al masdar news a american based pro-SAA site is by far one of the best, Southfront russian based is much more clearly propaganda but absolutely worth reading, Islamic world news (****e/axis of resistance) is much less affordable.
About Russian media, they can be all propaganda but their own footage is first class and always on the middle of action: so i found it a millionth time more affordable source of the ” actually functional independent media ” who actually only publish what the rebels or their government say without any crosscheck.
So , Maybe I am an empty head but almost I know that the one is propaganda build over real facts and the other are actually :rolleyes:functional:highly_amused: independent:highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused:media publishing just lies and rumors.
Sign In
