The Ruskies are getting UAVs. They are being purchased from the Israelis. Why? Because Russia had no real UAVs or never fielded them. (but they paraded them as if evey unit had them). Watch China, not Russia. Russia has enough of a problem defending itself and not enough resources. The defense industry is dead. The technicians gone to high paying jobs. The government has no money, or very little to spend on a modern military. They will be downsizing damatically just to maintain what they have.
u are soo smart , for be a old guy , However , ur right , right now the biggest problem is china not russia , russia air craft are soo sweet is the reality , but what about the stealth tecnology???? f-22 raptor got everything, and ee.uu don't like show what they got , we got surprises for all of you NOOBS COMRADES RUSSIANs.
LOL, thak you from an old guy. Some of us have been know to learn more as we age. I hope you do also. Yes the F-22 has everything and will dominate the skies for the next 40 years. But its more than stealth. Its the radar, and and it ability to track and assimulate data from other aircraft as well as AWACS. Secure communications to other stealth bombers and fighters, and gathers act as a mini AWACs, providing valuable images and information to follow on fighters .
I don't expect miracles with Russia, and I don't expect a resugence in Russian military power anytime in the next 20 years. China is the country that will take Russias place. In Georgia it was 1 TU-22MR, 2 Su-24s, 4 Su-25s shot down. Some apparently to friendly fire. The Su-25s lacked radar sights, computors for calculating ground target coordinates, and long range air to ground missles to launch outside of air defenses.Some of the reactive armor on the T-90 had no explosives in them when KO'd.
The Russians had no UAVs available and their Tu-22MR electronic warfare systems couldn't defeat a Russian missle. The Georgian Air defenses could not be located for several days and it should have been minutes. Their was almost no communication between air and ground forces, as the Russian forward air controllers were left at the end of the invading force. Ground units used cell phones to communicate as radios did not work or could not connect with other ground units. Not very professional.
Nice try, but after the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991, the Russian military went into a steep decline from which it has never recovered. The war with Georgia was a prime example of overwhelming numbers of troops and vehicles, but a total lack of any modern equipment. Especially those paraded in Moscow. Even the Russian Medveidev agreed the Russian equipment was in dire need of being upgraded. The budget has been increased, but more than half is just to "maintain" its nuclear force.
I haven't said the current forces are in parity with US ones. Im just telling that they are waking up very fast. Now its only a matter of time when they will catch up since we both knew that potential is there to be better than west, but they lack money. Now they have them and basically only field they didn't used to full potential yet are the UAV programmes. In this field they still lack behind but there are some very promising projects under development already.
They are waking up very fast to the knowledge that their Navy is almost kaput, their airforce is in dire need of upgrading. (Migs downed in Geogia hadn't been upgraded since the 1980s). The army is still mostly conscipts and the contract soldiers are mostly brutes with no real NCO corps.)(officers still make all the decisions) No UAVs, old equipment, and little training. There are no "secret, hidden, new programs that are going to fix all this. The spiral is still on the down side.
We are here talking about economical miracle... don't expect everything to be on a level of USA just in a matter of a decade. Destroy things is allways easier than to rebuild them. Russia has its priorities in army and airforce. Navy comes last but even then they have ordered 5 new carriers. And regarding Russian losses in Georgia to my information i know only about Su,25,Su-24 and Tu-22M3 aircraft lost in Georgia. While Su-25 were most modernized. Russians already do have the UAVs and...
It might have look like a pig, but it was a very fast pig. Just like its successor Mig-31 which basically caused the rest of the SR-71 fleet to be outdated sooner than expected. But its not about details of each hardware. What i wanted to say that Soviets and now Russians had and still have some superior hardware to the west. And that to say that Ruskies as you know tend to play the secret game and often they tend to go public with things they have deployed 5 years back into serial production.
The SR-71 was in use up until recently. A beautiful aircraft used for reconnisence. I have a number of excellant pictures and stories on the SR71. Give me your e-mail and I'll send them. Enjoyed talking with you
The T-95 is the latest tank the Russians have built over the last 30 years. The T-80 was suppose to be the best, but didn't do very well in the field. The T-80U was suppose to be a significant upgrade, but failed in the field as well. T-90 same. T-95? We'll see. Israel has the best.
PAKFA not produced, in developement with India. Maybe 5-10 more years. J-10 is considered slightly less capable than the F-16, depending on which block you're talking about.
No don't get it wrong. T-95 is a tank of absolutely new generation that has nothing to do with current T series. By Russian doctrine T-90 and T-80 tanks were fine pieces. Small, easy to manufacture and maintain, cheap to buy and yet good enough - you can't sya that they failed when they were actually not in a combat? And overall best tank is LEO They are the old Soviet school of overwhelming enemy by numbers which proved to be effective. J-10 newest upgrade is more capable then any F-16 block.
Well there was mostly T-72 which indeed showed some weaknesses in the way how ammunition is stored and its loader. So the T-90 was introduced, but T-80 was only changed slightly and it is still in use. However the total solution to the urban fighting was BMPT vehicle. T-80 UM1 proved to be in fact very capable with Arena Active Protection System. There is a story flying arround of a certain unit that took 10 RPG shots and is still operational.
And that even today Ruskies are not so eager to show their newest "toys" like T-95, PAK-FA, MFI and others. On the one side it is good that US is underestimating their potential, on the fan side however there are lots of people dying to see their performance :) But today even China is starting to produce better hardware than USA. J-10 is a very fine example
Its not NATO, its the US who develops the best systems. I strongly believe the US (and NATO) carefully analyse when and where AWACs can be deployed and the dangers involved. As well as protection systems and methods.
How well will it work won't be decided until its tried. I'll place my bet on the western systems.
Russia has often claimed its systems as the best, when in practice they often fail to meet expectations. Its for sales purposes. Reality is different.
Well this is the general opinion of westerners.Russians often had differrent approach to solve some problems and in many cases they proved to be better approaches than the west despite initial western critics.This goes from space rockets, through tank technology, helicopters and even airplanes itself. And proof of this claim is that the 2 biggest nations in the world China and India choose Russian technology, while US failed to meet their requirements.Reality indeed is differrent than west think
I agree with you that Russia has been very inovative and has produced some good systems. At times further advanced than those in the west. History of their use in battle against US arms have shown them often to be inferior.
India and China have purchased Russian arms (as well as many other countries) based on cost for equipment that is "good enough" for their purposes.
The Russian military industrial complex has also disintegrated over the last 20 years.
Yes and no... as an example take Ka-50... this helicopter is by far superior to anything that america and west as a whole has in its possesion. Or famous AK-47 - this gun proved to be more powerfull and reliable then current up to date M4 or M16 rifles, and Ak-47 is a very old piece. Mif-25 was a shock to the west... up to this day USA has failed to produce a Mach 3 capable fighter. But one thing is sure yes Russian industry was sleeping during the 90s.
The Ka-50 is very agile, but superior? I would have to take into consideration training as well as weapons load, radars and computors.
The AK-47 has always been known for being very rugged, which has made it the weapon of choice for untrained armies. The M-16/M-4 has always been the weapon of choice for its accuracy with modern nations. By Mach 3, are you talking about the Mig-25? I had to do a paper on the Mig-25. It could do Mach 3 with no weapons load. It was a fast pig (sorry).
Well if you take into consideration Ka-50/52, speed, agility, range, cost, survivability, load and even onboard avionics then it is better practically in all terms. However we have to admit that Apache is a very old piece and i guess it would have been more apropriate to compare him to Mi-28. Which is practically equal with Mi-28N configuration. Mig-25 as far as i know could go over Mach 3.2 even with weapons but there was a danger for the engines to be devastated by high rpm.
The Mig-25 could not fly at those speeds with weapons and was never seen doing so. It became very unstable with weapons at high speed. The one flown to Japan by Lt Belenko in the 70s(?) proved the point. It was a high speed rocket, very powerful, but could not turn or manuever. Its radar was also very powerful and was suppose to "burn" through any coutermeasure or the SR-71. (which it was built to counter).
Well the Mig-25 that flew to Japan what studied poorly tdue to the Japanese prohibiting of doing more thorough study and then it was returned to soviet union disassembled.And even now many of its technical details that USAF found are classified but to my information flying above MAch 3 speed was just a question of engine lifespans. If it need to fly faster it could, but as i said not too fast coz it would cause the engines to break up. It was not agile but it doesn't needed to be.
And yes there are tactics to hunt for awacs. In NATO i think there is a tactic to encircle the AWACS and then attack it. So that even if it will detect enemy planes... it wont have the space to run... but again we will have to see in actual combat. However one thing is clear... NATO would need to carefully consider the deployment of AWACS planes against an enemy that have in its possession these ultra long range missiles that are certainly a big threat to any Airborne early warning...
Not aware of any bases in Georgia(Altho I am aware of the training that went on), Not aware of anything in Mongolia or the Ukraine either, but there could have been a radar site planned during the cold war in Mongolia.
US beligerent? Many think it is Russia who is the problem. Its a subject worth discussion.
It is common sense to have a military that can deal with these issues should the need arise.
To say "if the US doesn't attack anyone, it won't be a threat". Usually that has not been an issue, other than perhaps Iraq. otherwise we have been attacked or have been asked to help. The US was not attacked by Germany during WWII either.
Why does Russia need to build the S-300 SAM system ? Who is threatening Russia?
One never knows when an adversary might act. Iran could block the straights of hormuz, china could launch an attack on Taiwan. Russia could invade Poland, or Venesuela invades Columboa, Pakistan goes militant and attacks India, China invades Kajikistan, Syria invades Lebanon, the Greeks invade Macedonia, and so on
All could end up at some point with S-300, or similar type weapons being used.
The S-400 is an upgrade to the S-300, It is known that even an S-500 is on the drawing board. What exactly are the upgrades I don't know. Perhaps radar range and upgraded ECM.
I always worry about my country if they will have to fight against foreign systems, its only natural.
The S-300 seems as if it will be soon sold to Iran (possible Israeli threat) and to China, (possible US threat).
Another war will come too soon, in a place or time not expected. They always do.
The S-300 at least may have been compromised, and may no longer be a threat to US or Israeli forces. A program called SUTER (by BAE systems)apparently has the ability to pick up a radar, see what the radar sees, and in the latest version known, to feed information to the radar. Check it on the net, or try Wicki, some information on the system is thier. With sources. It appears the Israelis have it as well and may have used it in Syria in 2007.
You are correct. It also was known for its high speed, as was the Mig 25, and can carry all of the most modern Russian missles as well.
But I don't think it would be used as a first line of defense, as its is far from stealthy and would be spotted quickly by any adversary equiped with AESA radar.
It would only be usefull in a BVR situation in large quantities,(I think), and is not capable of close in combat, as it turns poorly.
This babies were not designed for close-in combat. Mig-31 is a high-speed, high-altitude, long-range interdictor. Its main role was and still is protection of the airspace from high-speed/high-altitude targets as well as long range strategic bombers and cruise missiles. It could be used in offensive role by striking enemy strategic air assets like tankers, awacs, and others without having the need to engage their escorts.
It would require missles that would out range the radar on the AWACS. Which while improved over the years, they cannot do. The escorts would be a formidable defense to overcome.
Russians already do have in their possesion a missile with ultra-long range capability that would certainly suprise any AWACS operator. The main point here is the interdictor could approach the AWACS, while AWACS operator will assign some squadron to attack, while he won't know that the AWACS itself already is within range for the MIG to attack. They call it the moment of surprise. It is not about getting close to the awacs undetected, its about launching an actual attack on awacs from afar...
The missle of choice for the Russians would be the R-77 Vymple, or AA12 Adder. Its max range is aprox 110 miles. The AWACS radar range is approx 200 miles for targeting purposes. It would be difficult to close with the AWACS (which would be turning away), while trying to avoid missles fired in defense. Somewhat of a suicide mission. The AWACS carries defensive measures as well. Flares as well as laser blinders.
That is true however these missiles have speeds up to mach 4-5. The Novator should have a ram-jet propulsion. With active/pasive radar homing with inertial guidance autopilot during start and middle phase of its flight. These missiles are fairly wuick and if set to passive mode, there is practically no other defense than to turn the radar off, and even then it could go into active mode and home onto the plane anyway. Loose this kind of missile with jet as big as E-3 is practically impossible.
Passive makes it less visible but not invisible. . Again I would point out defensive measures employed by the AWACS. They can lock onto and blind most any incoming missle. However I am not saying the AWACS cannot be shot down, it could be. I just believe it would be very difficult, and suicidal for a pilot to attemp it. On the other hand the Ruskies tend to use formations of four to eight aircraft and usually fire all missles at the same time.
Well actually the faster the missile fly the better it is viewed on radar right? But here we are not solving the question how much the missile is stealthy. It isn't, but you can say, it doesn't have to be... Regarding the novator missile... i read that this missile have a possibility of third kind of homing, and that is semiactive. Reason for that was stated that the Mig-31 radar is so powerfull that it is very hard to jam. So AWACS will detect the missile but it will be too slow to run-away?
If the Mig -31/35 is using its PESA radar to look for the AWACS aircraft it will be found quickly.(and it is powerfull). Like high beams on a car at night. It can readily be seen coming. The F-22/F35/ Many F-15s, and F-18s have or are being backfitted with the newer AESA radar.(Think of it as night vision gear. I can see you but you can't see me). I looked up Novator, and its in developement (with high expectations) between Russia and India. Not yet developed and untried.
Yes the fighter plane will be found quickly. However again thats not the point. Point is the operator of AWACS thinking he's in "safe" distance from mig, while in reality he will be inside the optimal range of the missile. And while the K-172 is in final development stage, IT HAS already been tested and proved to be highly successfull in testing scenarios. Now works are finalizing as to when and how this missile will be serially produced. There are already several variants and thers still R-37.
I don't think the AWACs drivers will feel safe if their is any threat in the area. However I do feel that the defensive measures they have available are capable of doing what they are intended to do. Blinding or misdirecting the missle guidance system, while performing evasive manuevers.
That would be easy for one or two missles, but the Ruskies usually launch in barages of four to eight missles at a time. So yes, it would be a difficult situation. But still suicidal.
The problem today it is that Russian up to date missiles were not deployed in recent conflicts for years. Only few in Georgia where they striked with lightning ease. But often we saw that west had so many times over and over previously deeply underestimated Russian hardware. You as a senior probably remember what a shock was first public Su-27 demo, to that day west thought that they have the edge in dogfight... well not anymore. But there were several situations over the past history.
The video looks like it was taked quite a while ago. The Mig 31 is a redo of the Mig 25 and entered service in the 1970s. It is no longer a considerable air threat as its radar and other avionics systems are way out of date. It would be formadable as a 2nd tier aircfraft or against any third world country. About as stealthy as a greyhound bus.
omg guys, u still think that somebody win a war?? Nuclear war kills everybody.
MrPhantomka 1 year ago
The Ruskies are getting UAVs. They are being purchased from the Israelis. Why? Because Russia had no real UAVs or never fielded them. (but they paraded them as if evey unit had them). Watch China, not Russia. Russia has enough of a problem defending itself and not enough resources. The defense industry is dead. The technicians gone to high paying jobs. The government has no money, or very little to spend on a modern military. They will be downsizing damatically just to maintain what they have.
gerry301 2 years ago
gerry301
Joined: April 23, 2006
Last Sign In: 1 day ago
Videos Watched: 7,340
Subscribers: 2
Channel Views: 5,601
u are soo smart , for be a old guy , However , ur right , right now the biggest problem is china not russia , russia air craft are soo sweet is the reality , but what about the stealth tecnology???? f-22 raptor got everything, and ee.uu don't like show what they got , we got surprises for all of you NOOBS COMRADES RUSSIANs.
MuerteyMalevolencia 2 years ago
LOL, thak you from an old guy. Some of us have been know to learn more as we age. I hope you do also. Yes the F-22 has everything and will dominate the skies for the next 40 years. But its more than stealth. Its the radar, and and it ability to track and assimulate data from other aircraft as well as AWACS. Secure communications to other stealth bombers and fighters, and gathers act as a mini AWACs, providing valuable images and information to follow on fighters .
gerry301 2 years ago
I don't expect miracles with Russia, and I don't expect a resugence in Russian military power anytime in the next 20 years. China is the country that will take Russias place. In Georgia it was 1 TU-22MR, 2 Su-24s, 4 Su-25s shot down. Some apparently to friendly fire. The Su-25s lacked radar sights, computors for calculating ground target coordinates, and long range air to ground missles to launch outside of air defenses.Some of the reactive armor on the T-90 had no explosives in them when KO'd.
gerry301 2 years ago
The Russians had no UAVs available and their Tu-22MR electronic warfare systems couldn't defeat a Russian missle. The Georgian Air defenses could not be located for several days and it should have been minutes. Their was almost no communication between air and ground forces, as the Russian forward air controllers were left at the end of the invading force. Ground units used cell phones to communicate as radios did not work or could not connect with other ground units. Not very professional.
gerry301 2 years ago
Nice try, but after the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991, the Russian military went into a steep decline from which it has never recovered. The war with Georgia was a prime example of overwhelming numbers of troops and vehicles, but a total lack of any modern equipment. Especially those paraded in Moscow. Even the Russian Medveidev agreed the Russian equipment was in dire need of being upgraded. The budget has been increased, but more than half is just to "maintain" its nuclear force.
gerry301 2 years ago
I haven't said the current forces are in parity with US ones. Im just telling that they are waking up very fast. Now its only a matter of time when they will catch up since we both knew that potential is there to be better than west, but they lack money. Now they have them and basically only field they didn't used to full potential yet are the UAV programmes. In this field they still lack behind but there are some very promising projects under development already.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
They are waking up very fast to the knowledge that their Navy is almost kaput, their airforce is in dire need of upgrading. (Migs downed in Geogia hadn't been upgraded since the 1980s). The army is still mostly conscipts and the contract soldiers are mostly brutes with no real NCO corps.)(officers still make all the decisions) No UAVs, old equipment, and little training. There are no "secret, hidden, new programs that are going to fix all this. The spiral is still on the down side.
gerry301 2 years ago
We are here talking about economical miracle... don't expect everything to be on a level of USA just in a matter of a decade. Destroy things is allways easier than to rebuild them. Russia has its priorities in army and airforce. Navy comes last but even then they have ordered 5 new carriers. And regarding Russian losses in Georgia to my information i know only about Su,25,Su-24 and Tu-22M3 aircraft lost in Georgia. While Su-25 were most modernized. Russians already do have the UAVs and...
Flankymanga 2 years ago
It might have look like a pig, but it was a very fast pig. Just like its successor Mig-31 which basically caused the rest of the SR-71 fleet to be outdated sooner than expected. But its not about details of each hardware. What i wanted to say that Soviets and now Russians had and still have some superior hardware to the west. And that to say that Ruskies as you know tend to play the secret game and often they tend to go public with things they have deployed 5 years back into serial production.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
The SR-71 was in use up until recently. A beautiful aircraft used for reconnisence. I have a number of excellant pictures and stories on the SR71. Give me your e-mail and I'll send them. Enjoyed talking with you
gerry301 2 years ago
The T-95 is the latest tank the Russians have built over the last 30 years. The T-80 was suppose to be the best, but didn't do very well in the field. The T-80U was suppose to be a significant upgrade, but failed in the field as well. T-90 same. T-95? We'll see. Israel has the best.
PAKFA not produced, in developement with India. Maybe 5-10 more years. J-10 is considered slightly less capable than the F-16, depending on which block you're talking about.
gerry301 2 years ago
No don't get it wrong. T-95 is a tank of absolutely new generation that has nothing to do with current T series. By Russian doctrine T-90 and T-80 tanks were fine pieces. Small, easy to manufacture and maintain, cheap to buy and yet good enough - you can't sya that they failed when they were actually not in a combat? And overall best tank is LEO They are the old Soviet school of overwhelming enemy by numbers which proved to be effective. J-10 newest upgrade is more capable then any F-16 block.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
Chechnya was the proving ground and the T-80 and T-80U performed poorly. Reason for T-90/95.
gerry301 2 years ago
Well there was mostly T-72 which indeed showed some weaknesses in the way how ammunition is stored and its loader. So the T-90 was introduced, but T-80 was only changed slightly and it is still in use. However the total solution to the urban fighting was BMPT vehicle. T-80 UM1 proved to be in fact very capable with Arena Active Protection System. There is a story flying arround of a certain unit that took 10 RPG shots and is still operational.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
And that even today Ruskies are not so eager to show their newest "toys" like T-95, PAK-FA, MFI and others. On the one side it is good that US is underestimating their potential, on the fan side however there are lots of people dying to see their performance :) But today even China is starting to produce better hardware than USA. J-10 is a very fine example
Flankymanga 2 years ago
Its not NATO, its the US who develops the best systems. I strongly believe the US (and NATO) carefully analyse when and where AWACs can be deployed and the dangers involved. As well as protection systems and methods.
How well will it work won't be decided until its tried. I'll place my bet on the western systems.
Russia has often claimed its systems as the best, when in practice they often fail to meet expectations. Its for sales purposes. Reality is different.
gerry301 2 years ago
Well this is the general opinion of westerners.Russians often had differrent approach to solve some problems and in many cases they proved to be better approaches than the west despite initial western critics.This goes from space rockets, through tank technology, helicopters and even airplanes itself. And proof of this claim is that the 2 biggest nations in the world China and India choose Russian technology, while US failed to meet their requirements.Reality indeed is differrent than west think
Flankymanga 2 years ago
I agree with you that Russia has been very inovative and has produced some good systems. At times further advanced than those in the west. History of their use in battle against US arms have shown them often to be inferior.
India and China have purchased Russian arms (as well as many other countries) based on cost for equipment that is "good enough" for their purposes.
The Russian military industrial complex has also disintegrated over the last 20 years.
gerry301 2 years ago
Yes and no... as an example take Ka-50... this helicopter is by far superior to anything that america and west as a whole has in its possesion. Or famous AK-47 - this gun proved to be more powerfull and reliable then current up to date M4 or M16 rifles, and Ak-47 is a very old piece. Mif-25 was a shock to the west... up to this day USA has failed to produce a Mach 3 capable fighter. But one thing is sure yes Russian industry was sleeping during the 90s.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
The Ka-50 is very agile, but superior? I would have to take into consideration training as well as weapons load, radars and computors.
The AK-47 has always been known for being very rugged, which has made it the weapon of choice for untrained armies. The M-16/M-4 has always been the weapon of choice for its accuracy with modern nations. By Mach 3, are you talking about the Mig-25? I had to do a paper on the Mig-25. It could do Mach 3 with no weapons load. It was a fast pig (sorry).
gerry301 2 years ago
Well if you take into consideration Ka-50/52, speed, agility, range, cost, survivability, load and even onboard avionics then it is better practically in all terms. However we have to admit that Apache is a very old piece and i guess it would have been more apropriate to compare him to Mi-28. Which is practically equal with Mi-28N configuration. Mig-25 as far as i know could go over Mach 3.2 even with weapons but there was a danger for the engines to be devastated by high rpm.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
The Mig-25 could not fly at those speeds with weapons and was never seen doing so. It became very unstable with weapons at high speed. The one flown to Japan by Lt Belenko in the 70s(?) proved the point. It was a high speed rocket, very powerful, but could not turn or manuever. Its radar was also very powerful and was suppose to "burn" through any coutermeasure or the SR-71. (which it was built to counter).
gerry301 2 years ago
Well the Mig-25 that flew to Japan what studied poorly tdue to the Japanese prohibiting of doing more thorough study and then it was returned to soviet union disassembled.And even now many of its technical details that USAF found are classified but to my information flying above MAch 3 speed was just a question of engine lifespans. If it need to fly faster it could, but as i said not too fast coz it would cause the engines to break up. It was not agile but it doesn't needed to be.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
And yes there are tactics to hunt for awacs. In NATO i think there is a tactic to encircle the AWACS and then attack it. So that even if it will detect enemy planes... it wont have the space to run... but again we will have to see in actual combat. However one thing is clear... NATO would need to carefully consider the deployment of AWACS planes against an enemy that have in its possession these ultra long range missiles that are certainly a big threat to any Airborne early warning...
Flankymanga 2 years ago
Not aware of any bases in Georgia(Altho I am aware of the training that went on), Not aware of anything in Mongolia or the Ukraine either, but there could have been a radar site planned during the cold war in Mongolia.
US beligerent? Many think it is Russia who is the problem. Its a subject worth discussion.
gerry301 3 years ago
It is common sense to have a military that can deal with these issues should the need arise.
To say "if the US doesn't attack anyone, it won't be a threat". Usually that has not been an issue, other than perhaps Iraq. otherwise we have been attacked or have been asked to help. The US was not attacked by Germany during WWII either.
gerry301 3 years ago
Why does Russia need to build the S-300 SAM system ? Who is threatening Russia?
One never knows when an adversary might act. Iran could block the straights of hormuz, china could launch an attack on Taiwan. Russia could invade Poland, or Venesuela invades Columboa, Pakistan goes militant and attacks India, China invades Kajikistan, Syria invades Lebanon, the Greeks invade Macedonia, and so on
All could end up at some point with S-300, or similar type weapons being used.
gerry301 3 years ago
The S-400 is an upgrade to the S-300, It is known that even an S-500 is on the drawing board. What exactly are the upgrades I don't know. Perhaps radar range and upgraded ECM.
I always worry about my country if they will have to fight against foreign systems, its only natural.
The S-300 seems as if it will be soon sold to Iran (possible Israeli threat) and to China, (possible US threat).
Another war will come too soon, in a place or time not expected. They always do.
gerry301 3 years ago
The S-300 at least may have been compromised, and may no longer be a threat to US or Israeli forces. A program called SUTER (by BAE systems)apparently has the ability to pick up a radar, see what the radar sees, and in the latest version known, to feed information to the radar. Check it on the net, or try Wicki, some information on the system is thier. With sources. It appears the Israelis have it as well and may have used it in Syria in 2007.
gerry301 3 years ago
You are correct. It also was known for its high speed, as was the Mig 25, and can carry all of the most modern Russian missles as well.
But I don't think it would be used as a first line of defense, as its is far from stealthy and would be spotted quickly by any adversary equiped with AESA radar.
It would only be usefull in a BVR situation in large quantities,(I think), and is not capable of close in combat, as it turns poorly.
gerry301 3 years ago
This babies were not designed for close-in combat. Mig-31 is a high-speed, high-altitude, long-range interdictor. Its main role was and still is protection of the airspace from high-speed/high-altitude targets as well as long range strategic bombers and cruise missiles. It could be used in offensive role by striking enemy strategic air assets like tankers, awacs, and others without having the need to engage their escorts.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
It would require missles that would out range the radar on the AWACS. Which while improved over the years, they cannot do. The escorts would be a formidable defense to overcome.
gerry301 2 years ago
Russians already do have in their possesion a missile with ultra-long range capability that would certainly suprise any AWACS operator. The main point here is the interdictor could approach the AWACS, while AWACS operator will assign some squadron to attack, while he won't know that the AWACS itself already is within range for the MIG to attack. They call it the moment of surprise. It is not about getting close to the awacs undetected, its about launching an actual attack on awacs from afar...
Flankymanga 2 years ago
The missle of choice for the Russians would be the R-77 Vymple, or AA12 Adder. Its max range is aprox 110 miles. The AWACS radar range is approx 200 miles for targeting purposes. It would be difficult to close with the AWACS (which would be turning away), while trying to avoid missles fired in defense. Somewhat of a suicide mission. The AWACS carries defensive measures as well. Flares as well as laser blinders.
gerry301 2 years ago
That is true however these missiles have speeds up to mach 4-5. The Novator should have a ram-jet propulsion. With active/pasive radar homing with inertial guidance autopilot during start and middle phase of its flight. These missiles are fairly wuick and if set to passive mode, there is practically no other defense than to turn the radar off, and even then it could go into active mode and home onto the plane anyway. Loose this kind of missile with jet as big as E-3 is practically impossible.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
Passive makes it less visible but not invisible. . Again I would point out defensive measures employed by the AWACS. They can lock onto and blind most any incoming missle. However I am not saying the AWACS cannot be shot down, it could be. I just believe it would be very difficult, and suicidal for a pilot to attemp it. On the other hand the Ruskies tend to use formations of four to eight aircraft and usually fire all missles at the same time.
gerry301 2 years ago
Well actually the faster the missile fly the better it is viewed on radar right? But here we are not solving the question how much the missile is stealthy. It isn't, but you can say, it doesn't have to be... Regarding the novator missile... i read that this missile have a possibility of third kind of homing, and that is semiactive. Reason for that was stated that the Mig-31 radar is so powerfull that it is very hard to jam. So AWACS will detect the missile but it will be too slow to run-away?
Flankymanga 2 years ago
If the Mig -31/35 is using its PESA radar to look for the AWACS aircraft it will be found quickly.(and it is powerfull). Like high beams on a car at night. It can readily be seen coming. The F-22/F35/ Many F-15s, and F-18s have or are being backfitted with the newer AESA radar.(Think of it as night vision gear. I can see you but you can't see me). I looked up Novator, and its in developement (with high expectations) between Russia and India. Not yet developed and untried.
gerry301 2 years ago
Yes the fighter plane will be found quickly. However again thats not the point. Point is the operator of AWACS thinking he's in "safe" distance from mig, while in reality he will be inside the optimal range of the missile. And while the K-172 is in final development stage, IT HAS already been tested and proved to be highly successfull in testing scenarios. Now works are finalizing as to when and how this missile will be serially produced. There are already several variants and thers still R-37.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
I don't think the AWACs drivers will feel safe if their is any threat in the area. However I do feel that the defensive measures they have available are capable of doing what they are intended to do. Blinding or misdirecting the missle guidance system, while performing evasive manuevers.
That would be easy for one or two missles, but the Ruskies usually launch in barages of four to eight missles at a time. So yes, it would be a difficult situation. But still suicidal.
gerry301 2 years ago
The problem today it is that Russian up to date missiles were not deployed in recent conflicts for years. Only few in Georgia where they striked with lightning ease. But often we saw that west had so many times over and over previously deeply underestimated Russian hardware. You as a senior probably remember what a shock was first public Su-27 demo, to that day west thought that they have the edge in dogfight... well not anymore. But there were several situations over the past history.
Flankymanga 2 years ago
The video looks like it was taked quite a while ago. The Mig 31 is a redo of the Mig 25 and entered service in the 1970s. It is no longer a considerable air threat as its radar and other avionics systems are way out of date. It would be formadable as a 2nd tier aircfraft or against any third world country. About as stealthy as a greyhound bus.
gerry301 3 years ago