Yes, certainly the “american” proposals are way off of any export potential, so if Leonardo is convinced of not having any concrete possibility in the US tender why to waste money into refining a product that would still have the upper hand in any other contract as it actually is?

Now what could possibly be the point of that?

Now what could possibly be the point of that?

Using rockets? Cheap, fairly accurate, good for anti-infantry work. In that scenario (advancing light infantry) probably better than lobbing a few unguided bombs.

Probably an overkill that a Su-25 could do, but there are not many Su-25s in theater, and I guess Flankers have the advantage of loitering in the area for targets for a much longer period than the short legged Grach.

Its actual worth a debate.

Pound by pound, doesn’t those S-** Rockets offer higher damage posibility than a singel bomb. Once you drop/launch the bomb you can’t use it again on different targets.

Actually the rebranded Al Quaeda and their moderate buddies have launched an offensive in Northern Hama province + Them and Aish al islam, a pristine indigenous Jihadi organization another one from Damascus suburb Jobar, add that SAA offensive in E.Aleppo is at a key point and same around Palmyra and you would see both SyAAF than RuAf having their hands quite full a.t.m.

To counter such ongoing offensive rocket pods are a better weapon than bombs, as they can be used both against infantry than light vehicles, even moving, doesn’t require prior determination of targets from outside sources and can be rapidly reloaded once depleted.

Using rockets? Cheap, fairly accurate, good for anti-infantry work. In that scenario (advancing light infantry) probably better than lobbing a few unguided bombs.

Probably an overkill that a Su-25 could do, but there are not many Su-25s in theater, and I guess Flankers have the advantage of loitering in the area for targets for a much longer period than the short legged Grach.

They need more attack choppers . Fighters still can’t see individuals, small civilian vehicles and anti tank locations . Plus the 30mm gun from lower altitude more effective. Lower altitude attack also has element of surprize.

Certainly more Su-25 would be the better solution but in a sudden emergencyyou play with asset you have.
About the alternative of using helicopters, russian have them but they near Palmyra so starting from there is out of question, moving them to Hama would take time and would end to leave a even more important sector unguarded.
Jets can instead cover all the open fronts with ease and stay longer on objectives.

Certainly as soon as the front would stabilize and SAA start the counter-offensive they would go back to the usual OFAB-250/270 and thermobarics to deal with entrenched troops.
Rocket are a good weapon for some situation i.e. moving targets and area saturation but the ratio between the warhead weight and the total one (pod+ propulsion part9 is not at all convenient. Just one more tool in the large box of russian airborne weaponry.

I think advancements in RADAR tech are going to hurt non-VLO fighters more than 5th-gen because the low frequency RADARs that are most effective against VLO are physically large (easier to fix and engage kinetically), while also operating in thin spectrum that is relatively easy to bury in noise.

VHF is 30-300 Mhz compared to X-band at 8-12 Ghz. To raise the noise floor to the same level in both bands, you would need to pump out nearly 15 times the energy for X-band than you would for VHF. Also note that building antennas and transmitters capable of operating in the whole VHF band is massively more difficult than doing the same for X-band. A full VHF band antenna would have a fractional bandwidth of ~1.6 vs 0.4 for X-band, so it is unlikely for a VHF radar to be able to operate in the entire 30-300 Mhz spectrum. A closer comparison would be a VHF AESA that can use 200-300 Mhz vs an X-band radar that uses 8-12 Ghz. In that example, the VHF radar can be jammed with 1/40th the power output you would need for the X-band. If the tech exists for a VHF radar to operate in a wider slice of spectrum, then the tech also exists for a radar that can use the C, X, and Ku bands at the same time.

I think current technology is already sufficient to build a SAM battery with a large X band AESA that would have no problem seeing legacy non-VLO jets at significant range even if they are supported by massive ECM. While VLO jets will undoubtedly need EW to defeat the IADS of the future, legacy jets may be absolutely unsurvivable with such support.

100% agreed there, in the sense that no one around plans to introduce or keep in service for more than a few years in wait for a replacement a plane that has not some serious RCS reduction features (i.e. something like SH, Rafale-D, Su-35S).
What I was contesting is not the VLO in se but the sort of intention than I see underlined but in some cases also clearly expressed, in some US programs to try to replicate the, repeat again, absolute technological advantage the stealth once gave them.
Now the genie is going back in the bottle i.e. also the others are introducing advanced VLO planes and there is not any more bottle around i.e. not any new technological advancements others can’t cope in a reasonable length of time.
So, if the PCA program would evolve in the realistical sense of explore ways to cope with advanced AD defence be absolutely my guest, if is an attempt to design some sort of wunderwaffe in the hope to replicate an one in a lifetime exceptionally favourable condition, I fear they would hit a very thick and hard wall.

1985 was what milestone for Su-27? Not FOC surely, as that was achieved around 1990. One can read about su-27 started being delivered to the air force in 1985. That would suggest that some combat capability must’ve been achieved by 1987 or so.

? Repeat, there is not in Russian practise the habit of have an IOC and /or a LRIP phase: they begin full scale production as soon as the plane has passed the State Trials.
The OKB/NAO (that produce the prototypes) get in contact with the main production concern (that made serial ones) as soon as the last prototype has been produced and organize the so called first serial, a small batch of planes to optimize the subsequent ful scale production . After it they wait completion of state test, apply the latest modifications and start the full scale production of the first contracted batch.
Also in this there is an huge difference with western practise as there is not an overall prevision of the total numbers of plane to be produced, they order a batch at time, once one is near completion they made a contract for a new one.
And what you depict as a worrying thing is a.t.c. quite usual for them: first batches of both MiG-23 and -29 entered in service with the latest radar of MiG-21 and -23 respectively.
They just add new things, developed in the meantime at any new production batches
This is the reason of the huge numbers of subsequent changes in denomination of any of their models, comparable in the west just with the F-16 different block numbers.
Official entering in services in their praxis means just that the first operative unit reach full readiness status i.e. we are talking about unit’s FOC not plane’s design FOC.

PAK-FA will supercruise over Mach 2 just like MiG-31 and can carry large long range missiles like izd 810 so it can take the MiG-31 role. PAK-DP can just use variant of PAK-FA T-50.

A-emh, fact is that neither MiG-31 supercruise at all, at any quote and/or velocity: it is just that in its supersonic cruise mode; that is something completely different from supercruise, it still flies faster and at a greater range than a F-22 using the said overhyped characteristic.

And with this one last post, my congratulations: you are a serious candidate to the “Bimbominkia of the month” award.

P.S. So, there is not an english equivalent to Bimbominkia, really??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:confused::confused:

They know about low frequency radar since WW II. There were some serious effort of using it against submarine.

Or may be not since LM claims their RAM works at low frequency anyway. “Stealth” is also hard to define, what values of RCS at low frequency should the aircraft have to be considered stealth?.

Excuse me, it was not a years long mantra of hardcore supporters of 5 gen planes that stealth was about shaping first, after this about more shaping and both of them followed by shaping again…now it only takes a pixie dust RAM coatings to solve everything?

For the rest the problem of multi band stealth lies exactly there :stealth level is dependent from performances, if you need a XXI century F-117 equivalent to get it is better to quit program immediately
My impression is that they know what they want in terms of requisites but have not actually any clue how to satisfy them all together as they are self contradictory one with the other.
So they have started this wide array search hoping to gather the diverse technological breakthroughs they need to get what they want.
Good luck with that… Very good one…

i think marcellogo refer to the fact that if an AF just got a spanky new GaAs AESA,
they wont get the money for a spanky new GaN AESA anytime soon, throwing those spanky new GaAs AESA
in the trash can in the process.
USAF might be exempted from the principle of monetary diligence tho

Can you clarify that? Wait until 2030 for what?

If you mean an AESA fighter radar, then there’s plenty of choice. Raytheon & Northrop Grumman both have ’em, including radars advertised as scalable (RACR & SABR) for various fighters, Elta has one (EL/M-2052) & Selex has a family covering armed trainers/light fighters up to high-end fighters, Thales has one in service. Japan might even sell you the J/APG-2.

If you want one with a GaN antenna, then I expect you could get one of the above adapted well before 2030. SAAB converted its Erieye AEW radar to GaN in a fraction of that time, & integrated it into a new platform.

I was referring to the Bring-it-on saying that leaves only a new fighter program for such a radar application: given that the only completely new fighter programs on the run in the west are the US ones for after 2030 i though he referred to it.

And Gripen-E customers aren’t swapping a radar out even when the aircraft has yet to finish development and testing. That leaves only a new fighter program for such a radar application so lots of work to do but before everything else, they have to secure a customer.

So it means we would have to wait until 2030 at the earliest if we talk about western ones? No possibility for the new Eurofighter’s one?