echonineKnowledge is lacking…
Your reading assignment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_probability_of_intercept
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_warfare_support_measures
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/845.html
Yeah man, this stuff is like so foreign to the Russian weapon designers! :rolleyes:
echonineDoes the Flanker fly around with its ECM emitting at all times? What is the real world performance of its ECM? What is the chance that HOJ mode might be used if the answer to the first question is yes(or even an AIM-9X when the F-35 is within range)? My assertion is that the Flanker won’t be running its ECM at all times, as that’ll give its position away to ESM, just like it’s Irbis will set off any RWR/ESM. The F-35 will be within the AIM-120’s NEZ by the time the Flanker knows it needs to jam/evade, if we’re doing a 1 vs. 1 comparison.
The moment the F-35 fires its AIM-120 that close, it’s going to get shot out of the sky right back with either an R-27TE or R-77M.
At that point, you may as well say the F-35 losses, since the Flanker’s 3D TVC would give it evasive advantages.
Remember the ECM talk from that USAF rep after the latest Red Flag?
echonineSounds like more fan boy whining.
What no one has considered here is the use of ECM, which clearly helps the Sukhoi a lot more.
echonineMy point is that F-16C can self-escort, fly SEAD, deliver PGMs, while Su-25s can only fly CAS missions. The chances of F-16 surviving engagement with enemy fighters and SAMs like Kub, Buk, or Hawk are far higher than those for Su-25, which requires friendly fighter escort and SEAD assets.
If Su-34 costs less than Strike Eagle than why is it procured in such small numbers? Only 70 are to be in service by 2015.
MiG-29 is cheaper to operate than Su-27 or Su-24 and there is a large number of relatively low-houred airframes available. Su-24’s advantage in payload cannot be used in full due relatively short range when flown with maximum payload. MiG-29SMT can carry same number of ARMs (2 Kh-31), PGMs (2 Kh-29) as Su-24. I am not claiming that it is superior to Su-27SM, however it would have been useful complement in RuAF.
In December 2006, Ivanov revealed that approximately 200 Su-34s are expected be in service by 2020.[7] This was confirmed by Air Force chief Vladimir Mikhailov on March 6, 2007.[8] (WIKIPEDIA)
—-
That aside, an Su-25SM I believe can also carry the Kh-31P, though this task would be assigned generally to the Su-24M with same/similar weapons. The Su-25 can also use shorter ranged Kh-25 ARMs – do not forget. They can only procure so much at a time. It happens that they are upgrading everything but the MiG-29. Why? Who knows, maybe the upgrade is the most extensive (extra fuel tanks, etc) which also makes it the most expensive? Just a guess.
Janes on the Su-25SM (what I could get for free): “”As noted in JDU Vol III No.9 p5, the Russian air force has decided to upgrade 80 Sukhoi Su-25S ‘Frogfoot’ close-air support aircraft and some of the Su-25UB two-seat trainer variants. The design work has been carried out by the Sukhoi Shturmoviks consortium, which was established in March 1992. The cost of modernisation of a single aircraft is estimated at US$2.5-3 million. The scope of Su-25SM modernisation is much wider than that announced earlier (JDU, Vol I, No.20, pp7-8). It involves the entire replacement of onboard equipment and a cockpit redesign, as well as extending the number of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles available. The most important part of the modernisation is the installation of the new Pantera (Panther) fire-control system (FCS) with high-speed digital computer and RLPK-25SM radar system and Kopyo (Spear) radar. Some components have already been tested with two prototypes of Su-25TM (Su-39) attack aircraft. Unlike Su-25TM, where the radar was carried in the container suspended under the fuselage, the Su-25SM radar will be built into the fuselage nose. The Phazotron Kopyo-25 multi-mode radar is capable of ground-mapping, as well as detecting and tracking air, ground and sea targets. The manufacturer claims a search range of 200km for large naval targets, 75km for small naval targets and 25km for groups of armoured fighting vehicles. Aerial targets (fighter aircraft) can be detected from 57km. As a result of the radar FCS, the Su-25SM will be able to use medium-range R-27R (AA-10 ‘Alamo’) and R-77 (RVV-AE: AA-12 ‘Adder’) and short-range R-73 (AA-11 ‘Archer’) air-to-air missiles. The air-to-surface armament will be extended by KAB-500Kr bombs, TV-guided Kh-29T (AS-14 ‘Kedge’) air-to-ground missiles, Kh-25MPU (AS-10 ‘Karen’) and Kh-31P (AS-17 ‘Krypton’) anti-radar missiles, as well””
And with that being said, the F-16, flying higher as per its usual mission profile, would be a much easier target for long range SAMs. In mountainous terrain, it’s possible the Su-25/A-10 would be able to fly near undetected by all except short range SAMs that can visually ID it. Low altitude flight will always have its merits.
echonineOk, I apologize if you have been drinkin from the Starbucks *******s coffee cups….. I was just trying to have a simple convo…..But, It seems I can not have one with ya.
No where was I prescribing a strike on the motherland, you are the one that brought that up. No where did i ever put down Russian forces, I never did and never will. “Better to overestimate ones enemy than underestimate” is what I say.
Honestly, I got involved in a convo I should never have bothered with, I knew where it was going, but thats ok, I tried my best. Good luck yo ya and your respective country, I notice you don’t have it listed…
Oh, and btw, before ya try to bash me, look at my post on the top of this very page….it may tell ya I ain’t bashin Russian stuff whatsoever, but its up to you, otherwise, have a good 1
:confused::confused::confused:
And how many fighters could the RUSAF put up to counter those 200 F-16s and 200 Subpar hornets?
echonineCompare 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm mags side by side and you’ll see that the former has much more of a “banana” shape while the latter is closer in curve to an AUG or M-16 magazine.
I know this, but again, from that angle and video, I’m surprised anyone can be certain 😛
echonineAnd how many fighters could the RUSAF put up to counter those 200 F-16s and 200 Subpar hornets? I’m not picking a fight with you per say, im simply looking at this as a possibility.
And who’s idea is better? Major SAMs all over, or Fighter coverage? I don’t know, im sure the sims have been played in the Pentagon and Kremlin millions of times over, I was just looking at it as a mental exercise.
Also, where are you just going to randomly find a place to fly in 200 F-16s from?
Why don’t you look at the numbers yourself? Any scenario is going to be situation specific. The Russians have 400+ Su-27, 200+ MiG-31, and 300+ MiG-29 in active inventory. Then there are SAMs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force
Back to the realism point, the US can’t and will never ever touch a hair on the Russian mainland, as anything like that could well lead to nuclear retaliation. So that’s irrelevant as even a hypothetical scenario.
As I’ve mentioned to people on this forum before, and realistic military escalation would involve fighting over someone other country’s territory. Even with a large number of Nimitz size carriers, 200 Super Hornets is going to be a stretch. So what’s your confusion? Yes the US can invade any little country, as Russia can, but so what? Is five S-400 batteries going to save Iran from a US invasion? No. Will it inflict massive losses on legacy jets? You bet.
echonine1 F-16? of course not, but as we all know, the US doesn ‘t send 1 F-16 alone…
And may I add, I was looking into the full powers of the AD kit for both sides, and their respective modes of AD.
One F-16? How many you think they can afford to send lol?
200 F-16s? or 200 Super Hornets? With 100 lost in the first sortie? Good stuff. :rolleyes:
No disrespect, but wait till the real world of economics hits Russia, they’ll be bulding PAK-FA “lite” aka F-35 type. Nothing against Russia, its just the way it is.
There is no “lite” version of the PAK-FA. It’s a heavy 2 engine jet that’s going to feature a new generation of sensors, weapons and engines.
echonineEhhh, short of a WWIII the F-16 will do just fine, the F-35 even better. No one, well not me, is putting down Russian AD, but there comes a time where “back doors” are always found. Personally, I’ve found the the question between
1) SAMS
2) FightersFor Air Defense, beyone all the east/west crap, has anyone come to a logical conclusion? WHat are you better off with? (with all things being equal)
You are going to have to really saturate any real SAM system with cruise missiles before you send any F-16 in. Or even F-35.
Do you really think the F-16 can penetrate an S-300PMU / S-400 covered area? Not even in Russian airspace.
echonineUnlike RuAF, USAF has large numbers of multi-role late model F-16s. USAF does not use A-10s in what is termed “first day of war” conditions. Su-34 is a capable platform, but it is expensive and only around 80 aircraft will be fielded in the near future. Upgraded Su-24M2s are still vulnerable to enemy fighters, just as upgraded Su-25s will be. RuAF has large numbers of MiG-29s available for upgrade, yet they spend funds on upgrade of obsolete and single mission aircraft.
First day of war conditions against who?!
You think the F-16 is going to be safe in a real war zone with high-end SAM systems present? That’s non-sense if I’ve ever heard any.
F-16s are also vulnerable to enemy fighters. . . so the point is irrelevant.
And how is the Su-34 expensive? It costs far less than any Eagle strike variant.
The MiG-29 upgrade is worthless, when they can field Su-27SM aircraft for the same role, with much longer range and heavier payload. The MiG-29SMT is no mud-mower, and can’t carry as much bomb tonnage as even the Su-24.
echonineWhat about SU-25 and SU-24 replacements? Recent conflict with Georgia underlined SU-25’s vulnerability to modern SAM systems. SU-25 was never meant to penetrate heavily defended enemy air defence. In 1980’s that mission was relegated to late model MiG-27s and SU-17s which had higher performance and better mission equipment. Even if SU-25s will be modernised they will still suffer from design limitations.
The Su-34 is a replacement for both the Su-24 and Su-25.
Do not forget that the Su-25TM “Su-39” program only yielded a few units for the Russian Air Force, as their design was really Cold War oriented. The Su-39 has a plethora of new offensive and defensive systems.
The Su-24M is also being upgraded to the Su-24M2 standard even though the Su-34 is now in serial production.
I mean the same question could apply to the USAF – the A-10 is really “vulnerable” to modern SAMs as well . . . once a mud mower, always a mud mower I guess.
The Su-25SM upgrade is still on from what I understand, which upgrades the Su-25 with better avionics.
echonineWhat aircraft types will partner PAK-FA in the years past 2017? It seems doubtful that RuAF will be able to introduce large numbers of PAK-FA in a span of few years. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to develop a cheaper multi-role aircraft in the class of F-35 or at least Rafale?
IOC for the PAK-FA is 2013, and assuming things are on schedule – especially with the new powerplant and radar, this date is fairly realistic.
There is also no need to develop a “cheaper” jet – as I’d bet the PAK-FA will be cheaper to operate than even the overpriced F-35.
echonineWell, that maybe a Russian Claim. Yet, that is all it is……..”a claim” Which, sounds a lot like “suggest”, “intentions”, and now “claim”???:eek:
Okay . . . it’s what Russian officials have “said” :rolleyes:
echonineBack to the name calling………….Sorry, I think your lack of maturity is showing yet again.:eek:
As long as you bring it up. That is “thick”………..if the Russia Air Force needs the Su-35 as a transition to the PAK-FA. Why didn’t the USAF need one with the arrival of the F-22. Clearly, the gap between the old F-15C and F-22 was much greater than the upgraded Su-27SM to the PAK-FA. Sorry, that argment just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny………….:p
That argument – is no argument.
It’s what Russian officials have claimed and it makes good sense. The level of automation on the PAK-FA will probably surpass the Raptor. Can the Raptor fly out an entire mission on autopilot?
So stop whining about facts. :rolleyes:
echonineWell, you didn’t I just wanted to prove a point. If, the Su-27SM is the approximate equal to the Upgrade F-15C Eagle. Why does Russia need the Su-35? Especially, with the PAK-FA coming down the road shortly……….
So, its not that I don’t agree that the Su-35 is better than the older upgraded Su-27SM. I just don’t see the need with the PAK-FA so close to production. Which, is likely why Russia isn’t pushing for the Su-35 in the first place…………..
OMFG man are you seriously this thick?
I explained to you TWICE why the Russians need the Su-35BM.
It’s for a SMOOTH TRANSITION TO 5TH GEN FIGHTERS.
Sign In
