Chroma 1976 F-16A. Cockpit outdated, flight controls outdated, weaponary outdated, radar outdated, engine worse, much heavier, very conventionally built. Why did the Soviets start a re-design in form of the -M even before the first MiG-29 saw service? They .
Yes, in some areas in terms of TECHNOLOGY it was 10 years behind of F-16A. In terms of CAPABILITIES it was 10 years ahead of it. Never mix these 2 different concepts again. If something is made out of steel instead of titanium, but fly just as good or better, its only mean what constructors of said steel plane have done much better job than constuctors of titanium plane. Nothing more.
F-16A isnt even in some league with Mig-29A in terms of weaponry and FCS. Its a whole generation behind it.
P.S. My book says “The first F-16A achieved initial operational capability in 1979”.
Mig-29S could be compared to F-16C, slightly inferior in some areas (visiblity, range) and overhelmly superior in others (R73, HMS, IRST, Datalink)
ChromNew designs won’t have problems with this as their designers surely will implant counter-measures, just like with night vision goggles. But old F-16A or Su-27 would possibly get into trouble..
No need for that. As i said, i’m 99,999999% sure that claim is just a myth. Any ingenieur knows what amplifier cant output more energy than its designed, and will also not burn if input energy is too high – unless, of course, that enegy ALONE, without any amplify can burn particular electrical element. Its obvious what no imaginable radar can achieve such energy dencity over large distances (kilometres).
It could be possible however what such a focused beam from APG-77 can theoreticaly completely jam any radar by its *continues* illumination.
Chromyou’re forgeting the spatial focus, not only is the temporal burst short, but the ability of an phase array to focus all the radiating elements at one small focal area is not unrealistic. So, ultra fast pulse at an ultra small region…and how many kW is this again? As to the night vision electronic shutters. A simple question should get you believing. If i say i’m shooting a nano, pico, or femto-second class laser at it with very high energy pulse do you think your shutters in the night vision electronics will protect from it? You see it all depends on the specs, no protection is absolute. Same can be said about the Raptor’s protective suite.
My remark is not about possible damage of enemy radars, but rather about supposely “undetectable” by RWR short pulses.
Besides, i still dont believe in enemy radars burning. May be from 50m distance it would be possible, but any more than that is just Sci-Fi. Beam energy drop very sharply with distance, and you need A LOT of induced energy to burn any electrical element. For example, radar in one plane have no problem sustaining illumination from other plane’s radar standing 10m in front of him. Moreover, TRx modules in any radar have no problems working together locating only several sm from each other. Even side-lobes emmiting/reciving from such distance could be creater than direct emmiting/reciving from 1 km.
ChromThe APG 77 is capable of emmiting ultra short (1milisecond), very powerfull (MW class compared to ~8 kW its normal output) signals. This is too short for any RWR. The most sophisticated, full digital RWRs such the ALR 69(A), still needs a few seconds of continous radar signal in order to establish its direction.
Any 70x vintage fighter radar is capable of doing so-called “single sweep”. I wonder how its different from supposed APG 77 ultra-high-tech 1 millisecond signals…
ChromLast news about contract from Russian defence newspaper:
In 7.5 billion contract also included:
3.5b $ for planes
0.5b $ for 30 Tunkguska
1.0b $ for 300 T-90C
1.0b $ for 8 (regiments? battalions?) of S-300PMU2
250mil $ for upgrading 250 T-72
Rest for Metis, Kornet and upgrading Algerian Navy. There are rumors what another 3 billion follow-up contract ready for signing. Old Algerian Mig-29’s will be taken back to Russia, possibly upgraded and sold to other countries.
ChromBut Barb! As the guy says, fallouts from a single nuke explosion amounts
to only a few KGs, thus a few thousand nukes going off simultaneously would mean
no more but a few thousand KGs or so. That’s enough to set off mad cow disease, AIDS, and
ebola but definitely not enough to kill any of us. So! Missiles away boys :p !
.
Ya, thats why ppls at Hirosima and Nagasaki still die 30 years after explosion, and thats why 2-head childrens are still born there. There are many negative effect of nuclear explosion, and some of them are very insignificant for a single explosion but become very dungerous with a thousands nuclear bombs blown. Nuclear winter and radiation is most know ones, but there are also some less known but neverless very unpleasant, like disappearing of ozon layer.
ChromI thought the article of pretty decent quality. The writer does lack some knowledge, or simplefies it in the article a bit too much, in the development of Russian Strategic Force development. But I wouldn’t say its anti-US propaganda. Its reality for as far as I know, Nuclear Supremacy is achieved through a succesive first strike possibility. The US has this at this point of time with few Topols in service and few expected. Even if there are 15 SSBN there is no way that the USA doesn’t know where they are IF they leave port.
Whether its a good thing or not, Im not to sure. MAD was stable and I don’t fancy unstability or dodgy ways to gain retalliation ability
There is NO way they know where they are IF they leave port. That would be right spelling. Close to its bases Russia have full control over blue waters. Distributed sonar arrays, maritime aviation, a lot of smaller ASW vessels, including diesel submarines, thousands of decoys if needed. Any USA submarine would be detected and sunk 300 km away from russian base IF said base is on alert. If its not on alert, it will be still detected. Sonar arrays around important bases works 24 hours/365 days/whole year. On the other hand, russian SSBN only need to move 5 km from the base to evade nuclear strike. There are also other possibilites: for example, Arctic region. Under ice its almost impossible to detect a submarine due to ice moving noise. Some could be said about mobile launchers: for every real launcher there are dozens of fake lauchers which couldnt be distinguished from real ones. These are not normally deployed during peacetime, but could be fielded if needed. And, last but not least, missilies will still need about half a hour to fly from USA to Russia. SSBN dont have enouth missiles to destroy ALL russian nuclear sites, moreover, even if there would be enouth, still there are large parts of Russia where even SSBN rockets will need half a hour to reach its objectives. Simply said, there is enouth time for retailatory strike.
And anyway, while its hard to predict what will be with russian army in 25 years, but in next 20 years USA and Russia nuclear warheads number are expected to be about equal. Thats said, if USA dont start to produce nuclear missilies in greater numbers. But then, Russia can do it as well. Producing modern nuclear missile is not that expencive if you have all tools. Every Topol-M is believed to cost less when 10 mil $. So even producng 1000 Topol-M EVERY YEAR wouldnt bankrupt russian army even IF Russia dont raise its defence spending , which obviosely it could do very well.
ChromIndia will have to pay for its development with some technical risk. the F-18 is virtually ready and could be delivered anytime. MAPO would offer you a MiG Beetle with 400W stereo sound as cabrio if you offer them to buy one.
Althought this is true to some extent, all signs show what India dont expect to buy any new aicraft untill at least 2010. In respect to that fact, Mig-35 becomes a very attractive choice due to much cheaper price and greater commonality with other IAF fighters and better upgradeability. And we didnt even started to talk about political unstability in relations with USA…
ChromAESAs can use spread spectrum techniques, transmitting multiple low power pulses over a wide frequency range and integrating them. It makes it harder to detect.
Boo. Red is red, black is black, and sun is bright. Tell us something what we didnt read 1000 times before.
To torpedo: module cant recive many frequences at once, at least not with some S/N ratio as with single frequence. This lead to huge decrease in radar perfomance while using spread spectrum modulation. And the more spectrum is “spread” , so more radar perfomance is degraded.
ChromWell thats not quite right. MAD is Mutually assured destrution after all. If numbers fall as low as 200 then thats not really enough to completely devestate a nation like US or Russia. Also with only 200 warheads then even NMD as it stands today starts to have an effect on your planning whereas as when you are talking about thousands the current and near future NMD is largely irrelevant.
Daniel
We just disagree at the term “destruction” here. If you want destroy every and each man in the country, then even 20000 warheads would be not enouth. But if we want to damage coutry enouth what it cant continue war, especeally offencive war, then even 100 warheads is more than enouth. The trick with so low warheads number is to not get them all destroyed after first strike. Thats why you need about as much warheads as your enemy – assuming of course, what enemy might know your missilies positions. If you are completely sure what enemy NEVER will know your missilies exact positons, when you can live with fewer missilies. As of now, noone will need 10000 warheads for MAD. 300 for EACH side is enouth. Again, assuming no ABM, and good international control over warheads number.
Chrom[QUOTE=Rokosowsky]My dear RPG-7V: I must tell that in fact you BELIVE in my “dark predictions” because you stated above that Russian nuclear power will fall somewhere between France and PRC deterrence! Isn’t a huge collaps for Russia to shrink its nuclear power from Soviet to French level??? I am sure it is an inexplicable catastrophe! 🙁
[QUOTE]
Nonsense. The whole purpose of START treaties is to reduce warhead numbers on BOTH sides. For guarantied MAD army need only as much warheads as its main enemy. It does not matter – 200, 2000, or 20000 – as long as you have not less than your enemy.
Chromcent of Russia by that. Even that small part without a warranty! Just to keep a sytem going does not give a clue about an related usefull training in fighting possible attackers (weapon-systems). At least when such possible attackers will not stick to your training-books and will do the utmost to degrade/outsmart your systems.
General AD-network distribution in Russia can be found in the open sources. Generally speaking, about half SAM’s are located near western borders, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. Thus the SAM’s dencity there is unsually high, effectively banning any enemy AC operation. The other half splitted all other Russia, protecting big cities and sencitive places. In 1973 AD assets DID managed to protect battles zones where they located. The problem was what back then these SAM’s was very limited in range and mobility, and ground forces what moved 25 km ahead of them was already unprotected. Compare it with later 70x S-200 system with 300km range and later 90x S-300 system with 150-200km range….
ChromIf the Russians really have 33% of their SAM systems manned and ready, the are either paranoid or have too much money.
It was more than 33% during USSR times. SAM site is very expencive to procure but rather cheap to operate. It dont require much fuel or spare parts. It would probably cost more to conservate SAM launcher than to operate it. Its service duties are combined with crew training. They can lock target and execute firing sequence without actually firing any missile 100 times each day against live targets without any problem. SAM’s sites located near NATO borders can even train against live F-15, F-16, B-52, B-2 etc. Whats why SAM operators are by far most trained ones.
ChromOver the Balkans a B-1 Lancer was locked up by a SAM-6 site and it was able to jam the SAM’s radar. The B-2 Spirit used a new piece of equipment in which the B-2 can drop sixteen GBU-24’s, laser guided bombs having them all in the air at one time, each bomb targeting a different target. It is impressive video on what it looks like on the ground.
Oh, by the way, the B-2 was never locked-on nor did the air defense show any sign of detecting the B-2.
Adrian
As i said, last time when combat planes encountered modern SAM’s was early 70x. Ancient Serbian S-125 can be hardly conted as counterporary to B-2….
ChromThe aegis ships and the SAM battery are both out of combat once the radar is seriously damaged.
Several aegis ships carry a lot more firepower than several landbased SAM batteries, a lot more missiles than any land based site.
Adrian
Well, lets see: every individual S-300 SAM launcher have its separate fire control radar, plus every SAM site (4-6 launchers) have AEW radar and command post. Plus, all SAM sites and radars are networked, meaning what most of them turned on only to fire missile. And what have an AEGIS cruiser? Single fire control radar? Moreover, AEGIS cruiser is a shiny big target in the ASM guidance channel, and you can only try to jam or shot down ASM. SAM launcher is invisible untill it turn its fire control radar on (plus, of course, the very some possibilites to protect it with jamming/decoys/smaller SAM’s/etc). And aftrer firing sequence S-300 launcher can relocate in 3-5 mins, making it very hard to detect & destroy.
What i mean by “double thinking”: when you speak about ASM vs CBG scenario, you have a couple of AWACS, dozens F-14, tens of networked AEGIS, decoys, jamming, sattelites and B-2 roaming around. On the opposite side you suspect only a several “blind” Tu-22 at best… Now, when you speak about ground AD network vs cruise missiles, you have again a nacked single S-300 battery vs couple of AWACS, dozens F-14, F15, B-2, tomahawks, usw. Ground clutter suddently starts to give a more noise on the radar screen than sea clutters (althought its useally a other way around). Thats what i call “double standarts”.
Sign In
