star49They can create their own criteria, but in this case we will compre apple with oranges.
it has always been apple and oranges. compare 45 ton tank to 70 ton. and u can see this from them simulaneously pursuing 3 or 4 bvr missiles. some of them are monsters.
agreed in A-G not in A-A.
how u made this decision about A-A?
star49Why use the Mig-29K then? Su-30 MKI+IL-78+A-50(phalcon) could do the same.
Su-30 does not have the range of A-50/IL-78. bomb laden Su-30 is even less. and that difference increases with airrefuelling of larger aircraft. u need aircraft carrier for transporting fighters.
The carrier will definitely protect its fleet but also needs offensive capability to take the fight to enemy’s territory. I don’t mean just anti-ship role but also establish some sort of air superiority which requires a decent AWAC’s. Unfortunately E-2 can barely get off from gorky or ADS.
I havent seen any airsuperiority based on E-2. Land attack aircraft and bases are more critical.
star49The Erieye brochure scan pasted also says, Greek EMB 145 AEW&C delivers 360° (Compensated) coverage. What does ‘compensated’ mean in this context mean?
.
compensated in this context means use of ESM to cover. It isnt a 360 system but most countries may not need it.
star49Not really global. 🙂 Carrier strikes which need land-based AEW seem absolutely pointless to me.
why not global? One off global strike u can pull of with (A-50+IL-78+MIG-29K)
IN will most probably use carrier in Indian ocean and may occasionally use it to bome some third world countries. PS-90 powered IL-76 has extended range, better cruise speed and most probably better radar range because of bigger radar and transmitter. I cannot see India fighting Argentina.
What purpose is the carrier serving? Might as well leave it at home.
carrier is mostly use for fleet defence as long range anti-ship missile are more commonn so u need to intercept those aircraft. and can hunt enemy ships.
star49Star, let’s be serious. Su 34 will be a very good fighter-bomber (maybe the only real contender for the F 15E), but to label it as 5th gen. it is too much, even from a Flanker fan. The 34 doen’t have any of the caracteristics that (at least in the West) define 5th gen A/C: stealth, supercruise and sensor fusion (not just multi-sensor integration that the last Russian A/C might have) thanks to non-federated avionics. Now if the Russians have a different criteria in evaluating A/C doesn’t mean that the 34 is a 5th gen A/C.
why they cant create there own criteria for 5th generation fighter? (like missile proof)
Just a moment–since when the A 50 radar is a PESA? And Russian IR tech. better than the US ? Ever heard about the AAS 42 (that’s the IRST from the F 14D now mounted on the Howkeyes and on the new ABL). The one that can detect “cold” targets at max. range of the Phoenix (180km)? Name one Russian IRST that can do this.
why u have to put name on it. u can only find names of export product. this from last year russo-chinese exercises
http://www.royfc.com/news/aug/2405aug01.html
Ivanov reported that a Russian A-50 long-range radar observation airplane (the counterpart of the American AWACS), which is able “to see” the whole region of the exercises, has been activated in the exercises. “Any airplane within a radius of 2,000 kilometers from the epicenter of the exercises, naturally, will be seen on its screens,” the minister noted.
Source: 24.08.05, RIA Novosti
In A-G or A-A?
both.
star49Broncho
The current thread on the larger Spanish BSAC design is case in point here. There was a 27k ton carrier available at the time, 1994, apparently with a sticker price of $400 million. The French, at the time, were flying their early Rafale-M and it was showing large promise as a revolution in efficient and capable carrier fighter design. Lets say that the IN put an order in for the three carriers its declared requirement was for in 94 – plan in for the first carrier to join in 2005 and the last in 2015. Bazan could have easily met those schedules, if not, delivered all three by 2010 through full trials and into commission.
We give the airgroup per boat as two 8-plane squadrons of Rafale-M for 32 in service. We then add in an additional 12/8 Rafale-M/N for OCU and attrition reserve and your looking at 52 aircraft to be purchased over the twenty year period from say 1995-2015. Now, even at $70 mill per copy for the Rafale-M the Indian Defence budget could’ve coped with paying for two and a bit Rafales a year!.
ur whole post seems to me full of wishfull thinking. u are comparing 1995 Rafale price with 2004 Mig price. didnot dassault offered 40 rafale to SK for $4b in 2002.
That would’ve put the IN as owners of an efficient, reasonably economical, carrier force operating largely future-proof, low-maintenance, true swingrole fighters capable of deploying SCALP, Meteor, AASM, ALARM and, dare I say, NSM too!. Grab hold of half a dozen E-2’s or S-3AEW conversions and you have true deployed battlespace management capabilities in to boot. Equal to a US CVN perhaps not, but, the equal of anything else sailing under anyones flag until the French PA-2 hits the water!.
Instead they get Gorshkov, STOBAR, KA-31 and a Cavour-esque STOBAR ADS that will still do little more than sea-control work!. Indian posters here tell us that the IN is happy with this state of affairs too!!!
u forget to mention that rafale has only Exocet to boost off for Anti-ship. It is underpowered short range aircraft.
and IN does not need E-2C. IF MIG-29K has to do Land attack. it can easily be guided by IL-76 Phalcon (backed by IL-78 tanker) for global strike. Ka-31 is only for fleet defence. there is exclusive KAB-500SE Glonass guided bombs for strike. ur whole point is based on sortie rate of aircraft carrier but not considering the extended airtime offered by the MIG-29 internal fuel and 4 external fuel tanks and multiple racks for missiles. it is not only powerful platform but much verstile than any thing else.
star49Star, Mig will have 8 wing stations not 11. The range and payload is much more than sea harrier but it can only carry r-77 and r-73 for now. The KS-172 has a range >300 km which means the mig-29k’s radar (zhuk-me) cannot guide it to the required target.
its 11 but with twin rack it becomes 13. and KS-172 will have 100km or so seeker range. so i dont think there will be problem with long range bvr.
http://www.migavia.ru/eng/news/?page=1&tid=4&id=18
As a multirole fighter MiG-29K is capable to destroy different aerial, ground and naval targets using wide range of precision weapons. MiG-29K combat payload makes 5500 kg, number of hardpoints – 13 (including the ones on multi-lock bomb carriers).
star49I think it is not 360 degree because there is no mention of it on saab site which owns the system.
http://www.saabgroup.com/us/ProductsServices/products_az.htm
The most suitable platform with excellent Hot and High performance and 180 degree turn capability in less than 30 seconds
star49What?? And the PK-FA will be in this case 6th gen? :p :p :p
It can be 5+ generation when it enters service as they want to surpass current 5th generation fighters.
That the russians have experience in AWACS, no one can argue. I’ve said just that US has more experience.
It is not just operating AWACS but particular kind of technlogy. like PESA and IR.
Su 34 has other job than the Su 27 that notoriously lack precision A-G capabilities. So yes in A-G probably su 34>su27 (i have some doubts about the 1:12 though). But can you say that 1 Su34/27SM> 12Su30MKI?
I can alteast say 1 Su-27SM/Su-34> 1 Su-30MKI :p
star49Most probably would the Israelis be equally impressed by M2000, F-16 or MiG-29. If the latter is delivered as newest version with latest avionics and a2g-capability it may change the picture, but from the threat level all three types are equal.
Egyptians are interested in air to air version only. which they put in F-15C class. so all three are not the same.
And after all: Israel and Egypt learned that war against each other for a piece of desert doesn’t pay off.
Yes they have learned that the more they fight and have threatening posture the greater economic/milatary aid they can get.
star49And are you sure that the same figures you mention about the Irbis are the ones presented to potential foreign buyers? As for Russian stuff for Russian armed forces being superior to Russian stuff ofered for export, I doubt it. In this moment the best variant of Flanker, for example, is not flying in Russian AF.
so what do u think about Su-27SM and Su-34. there are plenty of statements associated with them. one of it is 1 Su-34> 12 Su-27
Excuse my ignorance…I assumed that the f 22 is the only operational 5th generation fighter :p …
ur ignorance is obvious. they put Su-34 as Fifth generation. and i think there is 25+ A-50 in service in both countries. and building next generation. so it is plenty of experiance as far as AWACS is concerned.
star49Excuse me, but Irbis is not operational. The Russians “sources” can quote whatever figures they want. Irbis performances, albeit superior to present Russian radars (Bars) are hard to predict.
u cannot offere half baked stuff(without verfying the figures) for export. (thats why they put no less than ) and export technology is alteast a step below what industry can offer for domestic purpose.
What is so hard to understand? The topic of the thread is if AWACS will in danger because of the new breed of 5th generation fighters. I used the example from the Alaskan exercise to show that an E 3 did not detect the Raptor before this one “shot down” the AWACS. So, IMO AWACS are in danger. Of course, you may chose to have a different opinion–that an A 50 will have no problem sin detecting F 22…
the topic of thread is not AWACS vs 5th generation fighter. It is about F-22 threat to Russian/Chinese AWACS. and i put counter example that Russia has fought pre-emptive wars near to its borders where they think threat is Actual much ahead of time. not some speculative threat.
star49Well that news from Russian source.You shoud take this with a grain of doubt
the same can be said about all the stealth news coming from western source[quote]
. And yes, I think that it is possible for an AWACS (either US or Russian) to detect a target at 1000 km. But not a fighter-sized one! A Boeing 747 may be…Isn’t Krasnaya Zvezda the official Russian miltary newspaper by any chance? 😀
take a look at ability of export IRBIS fighter radar. and u cannot deceive with export figures as client will independently evaluate it. so do u think domestic AWACS radar will be far superior to these figures? they even have special IR tracking for missile fumes.
just look at Janes figure for chinese AEW against cruise missile.
Irbis-E can detect and simultaneously track up to 30 air targets with preservation of uninterrupted observation of the airspace (passing-by tracking mode), can attack two targets with two missiles with semi-active self-homing heads and up to eight targets with eight missiles with active self-homing heads simultaneously including up to four targets at distances exceeding 300 kilometers. In the air-to-surface mode the radar provides for map making of ground and water surfaces and detection of ground targets in the modes of observation with real beam (low resolution), with Doppler beam narrowing (medium resolution) and observation with adapted focused synthesis of the aperture (high and super high resolution modes).
The range of detection of air targets with effective reflecting surface of 3 square meters amounts for Irbis-E to not less than 350-400 kilometers for counter courses and to not less than 150 kilometers for pursuit courses (when target altitude is 10 kilometers and more).
Well, it isn’t impossible for a radar (even a fighter radar) to detect stealth tagets. The problem is at what distance…In the metioned news (also from a military source, USAF site, I must admit 😮 ) the detection range was to short–the E 3 detected the Raptor after this one simulated firing the missile…
so what relevance has E-3 performance with A-50?
star49I didn’t say this. I just ask if he believe that the A50 can detect a target with a given RCS at longer distances than an E 3.
what this has to do with beliefs? If u want to go on beliefs than Russian has helped in put down Islamic rebellion in mountanous tajikistan. this is the sole measure of military competence in modern world and shows they see threat ahead of time.
It is simply to with radar technology starting from phased array MIG-31 radar to S-300 radars. China alone has been export 29 divisions of S-300s.
Puting your suppostion (A 50 can detect stealthy targets) together with Star ‘s one (A 50 can ddetect targets at 1000 km) it results that an A 50 can detect stealthy targets at 1000 km :p :p :p
So anyone who doubts the performances of A 50 is a nazi in your opinion 😮
I didnot put a supposition. I put a news item of 1000 Km range.
Later a refit of the Russian “AWACS’” electronic stuffing was carried out, and the complex became known as the A-50Eh in the improved variant. In combination with very fast operating computer equipment and special devices for suppressing noise being used, the improved radar is able to “see” cruise missiles and airplanes developed with “stealth” technology
Source: 02.02.04, Krasnaya Zvezda
star49Broncho,
Yep Ocean was built to Civilian rules but she’s serving quite nicely, after some initial issues!, thankyou very much and the fact remains this ‘free gift’ of an aircraft carrier is actually turning out to be a little pricey!.
I’d stack Sea Eagle up against Kh-35 any day of the week and aren’t the Indian Sea Harriers the same ones that gave a bunch of Aeronavale Rafales a bit of a pasting in WVR a wee while ago?.
Either way, its indisputeable that the MiG is the more powerful aircraft of the two. As stated though all this really means is that its a bit better at performing the local BARCAP and it has a bit more range when tooling uselessly over the sea on SURCAP missions. Gorshkov will do Viraat’s missions better than Viraat I am sure….but no more than that and for the money spent I dont think thats good enough!.
MIG is simply faster. infact the fastest jet in naval operations. so no target can escape from it both in air and sea. it can stay longer and it can take heavier external fuel tank in centre line now. (500 gallon). and still have weopon stations for other work (11). Its radius of action will be extended further with longer range R-77/KS-172. it is almost 10 times as effective as seaharrier with smallish nose with no multi target ability against ships.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/11/23/Navigation/198/203253/MiG+confident+of+win+in+Indian+fighter+contest.html
These variants include a helmet-mounted target designation system, a solid-state laser rangefinder and the ability to detect targets both in front and behind the aircraft
Sign In
