MarcellogoActually Iran Air force has either Russian (many types) than chinese planes (J-7). It is consistent with their own political position and the constant risk of embargoes to have different sources for it so probably they would split it up.
Now, I don’t think the J-10 would be their primary choice if they would decid to go chinese: they need a substitute for their own f-5 and J-7 more than for F-14 or F-4.
So IMHO JF-17 for the light ones, Mig-29M for F-4, Su-30 for F-14. And Su-25SM for IRGC, obviously.
There is also another question: embargo.
In case they have to wait 5 years because of that, J-31 and PAK-fa would come in.
MarcellogoDepends on how rapidly changing the picture you’re observing is. In Iraq/Trashcanistan you’re dealing with a lot of highly mobile noddies, so you need up to the second information. For large SAM systems defending fixed assets, the speed of information is less important, so a string of satellites orbiting past at regular intervals will do.
Are you joking or what?
They are not S-75 or S-200, they are at least S-300 whose all component can move up in 5 minutes time, have vertical launchers so doesn’t need to stay in open terrain to launch and cross networked one with the other and with all Russia radar network+ maskirovka obviously
It seems me sometimes that someone is remained in the seventies there.
MarcellogoCertainly not with the M346.
Don’t know about M-346 but here in Italy we extensively utilized his predecessor MB-339 for SMI and for antiship roles using Marte missiles.
Certainly suchy planes have not any utility against real fighters or even strike ones but in actual environment having something for air policy role would be IMHO extremely useful for the USA.
Also because keeping a whole wing of F-22A ( i.e. the only fighter they have capable of SMI ) in Langley to protect Washintong D.C. state buildings is definitively a waste.
MarcellogoI disagree , ever since the shot down of F-117 in Serbia, all i see is people claiming “stealth is death because we have low-frequency radar ” or something similar.Needless to say how ridiculous that sound, kinda like saying” aircraft are death because we have anti air missiles “
And I see a lot of person from other side in full denial mode about what happened, dismissing it as a mere accident or a lucky shot.
Hence I have started with the mention of common sense as a necessary premise.
About Zoltan Dani’s remarkable feat seems me that often they also avoid to mention the other and probably even more important part i.e. the ability of keeping his own unity operative even in a relatively small territory overflooded by enemy planes hence the parallel between a probable overextimation of stealth and a quite certain underextimation of the capability, lethality, mobility and above all resilience of modern Ad systems in the common perception.
Dani had just a modernized SA-3 battery, more mobile but not specifically designed to engage stealth planes, now we are talking to cope with state of the art systems with PESA and AESA radars, active radar homing missiles specifically, networked command systems, specifically designed to deal with both stealth planes than with standoff weapons so surely they are almost a force to be reckoned with and commanding a certain change in the operative approach to them.
Even you have recognized it from the beginning when you talk about the use of stand off weapons and jammers. So at best we are debating about some particular aspect but it seem me that we generally agree on the whole picture.
It’s a very good achievement for such types of discussion threads…
MarcellogoThe problem was never be can you detect something but can you detect it before it can attack you. Even when RCS stuck , there are various other factors that related/depending to it such as jamming , weapons range would change dramatically overtime. To put it in layman term, let say if before your radar can detect a stealth aircraft from 30 km , now your new radar can detect stealth aircraft from 90 km , does that mean you successfully negate advantage of stealth ? no because may be the stealth fighter now equiped with weapons with much longer range than before or alternatively it may have a jammer that is much more powerful that will negate your new jammer ..etc. It never as simple as ah we got a low frequency radar , so stealth is useless.
Certainly no one that have a minumum of common sense would say that but on my experience the qualities of stealth are still now more commonly overextimated than the contrary.
At the contrary the capabilities of modern or even updated SAM system and Ad radar networks are not entirely understood above all when it come to their resilience:their mobility, the ability to stay concealed / dispersed, to operate sinergically , to engage stand off weapons and so on.
There is instead still the idea of having to confront with a gerarchical, rigid system that you can deal with in the first days or even hours of a conflict before to turn on fully into striking unprotected enemy ground forces (and also this one part is actually not a smooth ride at all…neither for russian).
So, i’ll dare to say that is a two way street.
As no one is allowed to say a thing like “we have low frequency AESA radars, so stealth enemy planes are useless”, no one can say either: we have stealth planes, so just don’t care about S-300V and S-400.
MarcellogoA video .
And an article.
http://english.sina.com/news/2016-10-01/detail-ifxwkvys2505618.shtml
MarcellogoIranian “copycat” drones.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248651[/ATTACH]
Great way to celebrate the great contribution given by US/Israel to UAV diffusion worldwide.
MarcellogoLike to read the whole article and see their reasons. Already iam sceptical, sources from Poland and Ukraine, right!!!!.
Pak-fa has asea, mig-35 after 24 models has asea, A-100 has asea, Kamovs naval helicopters have new asea radar, even armata tank has asea. Yes maybe slower to field the techonology but their pesa radars have proven to be excellent till now.
It would be like to say that Italians/british with Selex have not any Esa capabilities given that have still conventional radar on their Eurofighters.:stupid:
MarcellogoMore countries? Just S.Africa and Thailand as Czech Republic and Hungary are actually leasing them. So with Saudi Arabia, Austria and just recently Oman and Kuwait Typhoon sold more.
Said so seem me that swedes had actually exploited well the advantage of having introduced their own fighters well before the other, using the budget allocations freed after the end of its deliveries into redesigning it completely instead of just adding new components to the existing frames like the others are actually doing.
So they actually have used advancement in materials and structural design to drammatically increase “a la MiG-35” the fuel load without a proportional increase if plane’s weight, has a brand new engine installed, more hardpoint and so on.
Add to that the neaar introduction of an “heavy” plane like the F-35 as the new NATO multirole standard fighter and you would eagerly see a potential enourmous market niche for it…
MarcellogoBoys, for those things there is twitter: i’m there by the beginning of the war.
I can advise you who are the best poster to get in contact with, it interested.
Let’s keep this thread almost vaguely aviation /defence matter related.
One question: there is a proof that the Kutnetzov is at sea heading to Syria? or the news was just a anticipation of things to come?
MarcellogoI would reformulate the question: how to measure the point in which a relative superiority in it would really turn into a tactical advantage?
Let’s say (as I did in another thread) that one system give your plane a complete tactical situation of the battlespace in 5 second and another one in 10 , it’s the double of time but in the end it’s just five second advantage.
Also because air operation doesn’t happen in a vacuum: one things is being one plane against the other, another a squadron trying to penetrate a networked enemy AD system.
MarcellogoTake it from someone who has flown the F-22 and the F-35 then.
“and one of them that every fighter pilot knows, is the phrase that: ‘speed is life, more is better’ and if there’s a fighter pilot in the room that disagrees with me i’d be really surprised. Only i don’t think that’s true anymore and that’s what tells me we’re in a revolution; ‘speed is life, more is better’ is yesterdays news.
Information is life and more is better.
I don’t care how fast you are. If you you don’t have the information to make the right decisions, you will be the fastest one to die in a 5th generation fight”
“There’s also a compulsion to compare aircraft using bygone metrics; there’s a compulsion to measure airplanes in the way we were taught to measure airplanes. When i grew up, you measured the airplane in turn rate, turn radius, Gs, wing-loading; all these skills: If i flew up against an F-16, he had a better turn rate, i had better turn radius; we had strengths and weaknesses we had to mitigate or optimise and try to build a scenario where i could play to my strengths and hopefully outperform him and play to his weaknesses, and he was trying to do the same thing to me; that’s how we measured our capability.”
“if you are going to measure an aircraft by speed and agility, you are misunderstanding the capabilities of an airplane in a 5th generation fight. It doesn’t mean they can be absent of speed and agility, and they’re certainly not, fortunately with the F-22 and F-35, you have fast and agile airplanes and the raptor is definitely unique in that category”
“i will tell you, having flown F-22s for four years; the fastest, the most powerful fighter ever built: the least impressive thing about the Raptor is how fast it is, and it is really fast! the least impressive thing about the raptor is it’s speed and manoeuvrability, and it is the fastest, most manoeuvrable fighter out there; and that is the last thing i’m concerned about in that jet, in terms of optimising it’s capabilities.”
Yes but as soon as all operative planes would have something similar these thing would matter anyway.
Also because military operation doesn’t happen in a vacuuum : as your planes are receiving and distribute informations, same your own opponent.
It would not be that you would have a total SA and the other would be completely blind: maybe you reach a tactical situation assestment in 5 second and your opponent in 10, it’s double time but in the end what advantage it would give when compared in having more speed, maneouvreability and so on?
Real question there: if someone can explain me how a SA would translate into a real tactical advantage between 5 gen planes not against legacy ones I will be all ears…
MarcellogoRemember is just a single video recording just a very limited visual of the reality.
SURELY it begin after a first attack was already made as from the very beginning there is fire and smoke.
Also because it is quite logical to think that they are not there on pourpose but began filming just after something big happened.
At the 0.17 there is the clear vision of an explosion after it gunfires and at 2.20 other attack but noticed more by sounds/shaking than by direct vision of it.
IMHO let’s put gunfire apart as they can by also AAA artillery firing in response, we don’t see them coming only heard them.
In any case is one single explosion at time, so I’ll exclude both dive bombing with bombs or rocket than the typical Su-24 pass dropping OFAB 250/270.
Instead we here have something making noise before the hit, one explosion an interval and another single attack.
MarcellogoThe problem is this is a Russian design.. Don’t hold your breath here..
What??? Ehy, stop the mule there!
It’s not Raytheon , it’s not russian: it is an Aermacchi design for an original russian requirement, later developed in two different final designs one for eastern and the other for western styled aircraft.
Not underpinning JAK and Raytheon for what they have done for their own part there but general frame design is ours.
MarcellogoUuuuh, are those sparkles coming out from explosion at 0.15 ignited metal ???
Have russians DIME charges or this is an US exclusive?
Sign In
