Dear Member,

I have no way to know except what I have read. As to the Wikipedia article, I actually edited some of that article. Also the link it had to anothe article on the French Eryx showed an early TOW missile. That was taken down and now there is no photo (I didn’t take down though). That is the problem with Wikipedia. Sometimes it is the gospel and sometimes….well

Jack E. Hammond

Dear man, you can use google and find nearly 1000000 links with RPG-29 word. In each link you will find when RPG-29 was entered the service – year 1989. IF you dont believe internet links at all, find hard paper magazines and read them. Besides, in that case, what are you doing in INTERNET forum?

Dont believe all what Mikhailov says, hell, dont believe ANYTHING what he says. His interviews are not for information, but rather for disinformation. I dont know why, but he is probably the only general in russian service who speak pure nonsence in EVERY interview.

Sealord, I disagree – first use has never been ruled out, and if a carrier were hit, anything short of a devastating response would not be acceptable.

There is one major problem with sinking carrier: it could be sunk only by surprise, before USA carrier group get to full strenght. But, USA will NOT attack Iran BEFORE they get enouth forces up. So, essenceally, Iran would need to do almost unprovoked first strike against USA assets. Cant see that somehow happpens as it will not change the outcome of the war: Iran will lose, USA will win. Contrary, there is always a hope what USA will not begin its “peacekeeper” operation against Iran, even if they threat to do it.

This is getting to be too funny – We have absolutely no evidence that iran is getting any version of the flanker and yet we have discussions upon discussion about how the iranian Flanker is going to take out a Carrier .. Dont we all have something better with our time ;):)

No resonable amount of Flankers or S-300 will help Iran vs USA. Flankers will be almost completely useless as there is only so much airfields in Iran, S-300 will be more usefull and can increase USA losses & time need to break iranian AD network but still not enouth to cause significant losses to USAF. Its very simply: 10000 soldiers will ALWAYS win 100 soldiers in direct war, and most likely they will suffer only few casualities. So few S-300 will not help against hordes of F-15, F-18 and F-22. What S-300 and Flankers COULD do and why Iran (and Syria) might want them? Its simply: Israel. Look at Livan. Without S-300 and Flankers Israel can easely bomb Iran and Syria – may be not without few losses, but nothing serios. With S-300 Israel have no chances and should ask USA for direct help in form of large scale invasion. This operation is much, much harder for USA hawks to push throught congress, especeally in current political situation. Actually, its some argument with Chavez: of course, Su-30 will not help against USA carriers. But they WILL help against USA-supported small-scale merc invasion or USA-supported invasion from neighbourhood country. Still, the probabilities what Iran get modern russian planes and long-range SAM’s is very slim. Russians have many problems with islamic terrorists, and allthought majority of them are supported by american puppets like Saudi Arabia and Emirates (does not mean what USA support these terrorists of course, just mean what Iran and Syria can better control they own terrorists groups than SA or AE) , still russian public and politicans feel what it’s not in russian interest to arm such politicaly unstable leader as iranian president. Its also unwise to anger USA that much by supplying offencive weapon to Iran & Syria. Addidtionaly, right now these is no need (and even no capability) in addidional contracts for Su-30 and C-300/400 – after Algere, Venesuella and some other not-yet fully finished contracts the heads of military production plants in Russia in several interviews said what plants already go full-scale and no further contracts with immediate delivery could be signed.
What Syria and Iran CAN possible recive? Tanks, AFV’s, short or medium range SAM’s, medium range ballistic or cruise missiles, new ATGM’s, ships, helos, varios radar and communication equipmet, all kind of very usefull giggles like night vision sights and so on. Expect to see such contracts in near future.

What is interesting is operational functionality using quality proven products available today. France, Sweden, UK have all flown AESA demonstrators but just because it’s “AESA” doesn’t make it any better than the current mature operational system. Russia has a small fleet too so I suppose they to wish to wait for their AESA products to mature.

with baby-steps…

IF you trying to convince me what slotted-array antenna for EF is modern world-leading radar solution better than everage PESA- you are making useless job.
…

The roadmap is all the way to 2025, by 2012 the first AESA is to be operational and by 2015 the breakthrough Saab Ericsson Multi-sensor integrations suite with a multichannel AESA/EW is to be available. This is the funded SwAF plan, if a foreign customer would like to buy a AESA Gripen much earlier, then they can, it just won’t be a significant step up from the current radar.
…

This is precisely the root of problem – euros also need much time for starting producing TR modules at resonable cost. Ericsson is of course a great company, still it would need to build that line i have spoken to produce TR modules in adequate quantity. That line cannot be used for commercial purpose like for example chip line can. TR modules require special technology what is much different. Obviosly, if they could produce these modules they would do it. Again, i repeat, with resonable price and resonable quantity.

About european AESA: euros still didnt managed to get it operational. Simply as that. Contrary to Russian they actually have both MONEY and NEED to install AESA instead of antic EF and Rafael radars. Still they dont install it. Tells much about radar’s level of readness. As i said, i wouldnt bet what europeans AESA will be inducted in service before russian AESA. About producing TR modules overboard: realistically, you can only order an already completed&developed TR module. You cant just place order to produce TR modules of your design to big chip manufactures (IBM, UMC, TSMC, etc) like costume designed DSP orders are placed – as these modules have completely different characteristics than computer chips and require special technology to produce. You can either produce them yourself (read you need develop special technology and build special plant) or you have to sponsor these big manufactures a building of special production line, at which point its cheaper to build that line in your country anyway. This is also a problem for European AESA manufactures.

Nobody in their right minds would sell the russians short specially when they have consistantly come up with world beating hardware. However the truth still is that the Apg-77 and 79 are operational radars whilest there is yet to be a operational AESA of russian origin aboard a fighter there the question still remains. In terms of the cost the Apg-79 is actually not as expensive as many would think considering the initial cost of 1st generation AESA , the US with the development of hundereds of AESA peices for various fighters and prospective orders of thouands of antenna’s for the Apg-80 radar have brought down the cost of the radar to levels which are very comfortable . No longer are AESA’s costing 5-8 million a pop . The APG-79 in LRIP cost about 2.3 million a peice and the costs will further come down when there is a complete full production batch . The cost of the Apg-77 with the newer 2nd generation T-R mods is allready a lot lot less then what it was to begin with ( and with the cost comming down the capability is actually improving) . the real advantage of AESA is obviously is interms of maintainability and the USAF has seen the maintiance costs come down with its limited experience with AESA in operation ( the f-22 has been flying with a fully tested and developed Apg-77 for quite some time now) .

Thats why actually Russia started serious work on AESA for fighters – now it can be integrated within resonable price. Either way, i wouldnt bet what Eurofighter AESA come out sooner when Mig-35/Su35 AESA, and what it would be at least as capable. Some here for french AESA, and even for Israel AESA. After all, russians already have plenty of experience with AESA radars – not for fighters, but for SAM’s. So they shouldnt have any problems with maths, algorithms and logic behind AESA. So as soon as they could produce TR modules within resonable price(low-volume experemental production is already mastered) AESA radar will be done overnight.

KS-172 has been offered to India and now R-33E is cleared for export. It means Ruaf has something better for itself.
.

RuAF dont have anything better or even comparable in service. But it might have something better in advanced development stage – espeaceally seeker/eccm relating. Take for example Brahmos. Its widely believed what its close brother Yachont have same hull/proplusion but more sofisticated ECCM/guidance, including some form of datalink.