Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-24 modernization

    Share

    USAF
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 13
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2010-06-03
    Location : Phoenix Arizona

    Phase out the Su-24 quicker?

    Post  USAF on Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:43 am

    It seems the Su-24 makes up a large quantity of the total Russian Air Force fighter/bomber inventory. This airframe is dated and I am sure expensive to maintain and fly. It is, however, still a capable airframe. I assume the Su-34 will eventually replace it. In the mean time, with limited quantities of the Su-34 in service now, the Su-24 still flies. What is the best course of action? Should the Air Force start downsizing its fleet of Su-24’s dramatically? This would mean creating a void in the total number of fighter/bombers in service along with creating a void of aircraft for these Su-24 pilots to train in and fly. This would be a tough decision to make if one was presented with this. On the other hand, cutting the Su-24 fleet can free up money to put towards increasing Su-34 production. This is why I am not a General or in Government.

    Tell me your thoughts.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:53 am

    The Su-24 cannot be withdrawn until the Su-34 replaces it. Last year Su-34 still had not cleared weapons certification which has caused delay. Most of the Soviet era fleet has been retired already with the mass layoff of VVS pilots.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:03 am

    State tests Su-34 will be completed before the end of the year

    MOSCOW, June 7. (ARMS-TASS). State testing of multi-purpose Su-34 aircraft, which are in the State Flight Test Center (glycyl) Air Force Ahtubinsk (Astrakhan region), scheduled for completion by the end of this year, reported June 4 military-industrial complex.

    "We are continuing tests on new types of weapons air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles. Completion of State tests of Su-34 is scheduled for the fourth quarter of this year" - said.

    "Now in State tests involving five Su-34. At one of the machines successfully tested engines AL-31FM1, and has already received the recommendation on the series," - he said.

    According to him, the other day in glycyl began testing installed on the Su-34 gas turbine auxiliary power unit (APU) TA14-130-35, which "will give a totally new quality of the aircraft as well as an opportunity to run engines on the ground without the support of ground equipment" .

    According to the source, APU will significantly increase the autonomy of the Su-34. Previously, the use of APUs on aircraft technical requirements had been made.

    "All the work done by MAT testing will be carried out on the ground without a flight. The test result is bound to the recommendation installing APUs on production of the Su-34", - the source said.

    He believed that "all Su-34, which will be released from the year 2011, to equip this MAT. "In addition, if the customer decides to install something under MAT can be modified and the previously released airplanes, no technical problems are not," - said the source.

    "APU in the Su-34 was tested at the Novosibirsk aviation plant, after which the aircraft drove in Akhtubinsk for the State tests. The volume of testing is relatively small and their completion is expected in June," - said the agency.

    According to the forecasts, the Su-34 in the future form the basis of the strike power of Russian Frontal Aviation. The Ministry of Defence and Sukhoi signed a state contract for the supply of Russian Air Force 32 Sukhoi Su-34. The first machines have already begun to arrive in the Lipetsk center deployment and retraining pilots RF Air Force. Serial production of the Su-34 is the Novosibirsk Aviation Production Association named after Chkalov, which is part of Sukhoi.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:24 am

    With all the single engine aircraft withdrawn, which includes all the light strike aircraft like the Su-17/-22 series, and the Mig-27s and of course also a lack of modified multirole aircraft like Mig-29SMT and Su-27SM aircraft the vast majority of ground attack capability rests with the Su-24 fleet of which something like 500 are still in service from an original number of something like 1200 originally made.

    Removing the Fencer from the fleet would leave an enormous gap in capability, not just in the strike role but also in the jammer and SEAD role too, for which they are also used.

    Upgrades to the Fencers should keep them viable as modern strike aircraft till the Su-34 is available in numbers to replace it. Remember also for some longer range missions with heavier loads there is also the Tu-22M3 which has always been used in the bomber role. With upgrades to the Bear and Blackjack fleet they should also be able to be used in a conventional strike role too.

    There are probably more Fencers in service than there are Fulcrums or Flankers right now.

    I think it is a very underrated aircraft.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I think it is a very underrated aircraft.

    Do you know anything about their use/performance in the wars in Chechnia and South Ossetia? There were lots of SU-25s used, but what about the Fencers?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:59 am

    First of all the Fencer is not a combat air support aircraft like the Su-25 and it would not be used to attack targets near your own troops.

    The Fencer is in the same class as the European Tornado in the strike role (not the interceptor version), or the US F-111, and now the F-15E.
    The Fencer has not been getting all the upgrades those western aircraft have been getting for the last 30-40 years, but for roles like flying deep into enemy territory very low and very fast to hit targets like factories or HQs or communications centres, or indeed deep bunkers then it is the weapon of choice for the Russians.

    With a big upgrade now and all new weapons it could probably match all those western equivelents, but the simple fact is that its replacement has been developed so only a more basic upgrade with sat navigation and CCIP bombing capability is being added.

    Its huge nose still holds two radars, one for terrain avoidance and the other to scan for ground targets and aircraft... the latter to avoid of course, it is not a fighter.

    There are also recon and jammer models that are rare assets in the Russian AF that are expensive, but hopefully their value will retain their services and generate a requirement for a replacement. I had read they were looking at a jammer based on the Tu-22M3, but tested against a jammer based on the Il-76 found the latter to be much more effective because of the extra power. Obviously a Su-34 based jammer would be better equipped to enter enemy territory and could keep up with a strike force, but then they might be considering some thing else.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:35 pm

    GarryB wrote:First of all the Fencer is not a combat air support aircraft like the Su-25 and it would not be used to attack targets near your own troops.

    Correct. And there were plenty of deep strike missions in Georgia (as reported by the "outraged" corporate media) and I suspect that the same was true in Chechnya. This is why I am curious as to how much, if at all, the Fencers were used.

    To be more specific: what I don't understand is why Georgian airfieds, the Georgian Navy, Gerogian supply and fuel dumps, and Georgian radar stations and communication nodes were not destroyed by Fencer strikes in the first 24 hours of the war. These are targets which force packages of strike and SEAD Fencers escorted by Flankers should have been able to engage even before the Russian forces managed to get the first battalion through the Roki tunnel.

    Part of the explanation could be that the Russians were taken by complete surprize by the Georgian attack. But once Tskhinval was clearly under attack and the Russian peacekeepers were dying, the image of what this was all about should have been clear. So is the failure of the Russian Air Force to successfully engage Georgian targets throughout the area of operations indicates to me that the servicability of the Fencers and the readiness of the Russian Air Force personnel (outside the high readiness North Caucasus MD) must have been very low.

    And that makes me wonder how many Fencers could take off today and successfully accomplish their mission.

    Any thought?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:58 pm

    Farhad Gulemov wrote:

    Correct. And there were plenty of deep strike missions in Georgia (as reported by the "outraged" corporate media) and I suspect that the same was true in Chechnya. This is why I am curious as to how much, if at all, the Fencers were used.

    The Su-24 was used widely in the opening bombing campaign and for recon. MoD never released the Su-24 losses but MDB reported 2 lost to MANPADs. There was a minor scandal of cover-up as an Su-24 pilot reported on a casualty list had his facebook with all his Su-24 pictures removed in the middle of the war as he was reported lost on the Tu-22M3. Su-24s were used in the deep strikes against Tblisi and Poti areas. They were targeting air fields, communication centres, and known radar locations. The Georgians claimed attacks on radar and air fields were at the airports and attacks on communications were police stations.




    To be more specific: what I don't understand is why Georgian airfieds, the Georgian Navy, Gerogian supply and fuel dumps, and Georgian radar stations and communication nodes were not destroyed by Fencer strikes in the first 24 hours of the war. These are targets which force packages of strike and SEAD Fencers escorted by Flankers should have been able to engage even before the Russian forces managed to get the first battalion through the Roki tunnel.

    It was done, but not to the effect it should have been. All they knew was before the war. The use of aerial recon was ineffective and there was no ELINT employed. Mobile radars could not be located, unkown communication centres not found, it was a hard time just tracking troop movements. Flying a recon mission and bringing the film back to analyse takes hours, and in a fluid war is just about worthless. Flankers were flying combat patrol but did not enter Georgian air space. There wasn't really a reason to with their lack of ground attack as they would just be another target. Fencers do not have the equipment to run a real SEAD operation. The SPO-15 RWR will tell you what kind of radar, direction of threat and signal strength. It will not give you a missile lock. There is an L-081 pod but they are largely inoperative today as well as the missiles made for them. That means to run SEAD, you have to play wild weasle like the F-105 in Vietnam.


    Part of the explanation could be that the Russians were taken by complete surprize by the Georgian attack. But once Tskhinval was clearly under attack and the Russian peacekeepers were dying, the image of what this was all about should have been clear. So is the failure of the Russian Air Force to successfully engage Georgian targets throughout the area of operations indicates to me that the servicability of the Fencers and the readiness of the Russian Air Force personnel (outside the high readiness North Caucasus MD) must have been very low.

    They weren't so suprised, they knew it was coming at some point. It is the failure of Russian procurement and MIC to develop and buy the weapons and recon assets needed for war. We fought a 21st century war with 70s technology.

    And that makes me wonder how many Fencers could take off today and successfully accomplish their mission.

    Any thought?

    About 300 are in Frontal Aviation... readiness rates are around 50% based on VVS average.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:28 am

    thanks for the exhaustive and very informative reply! thumbsup

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:07 pm

    To be more specific: what I don't understand is why Georgian airfieds, the Georgian Navy, Gerogian supply and fuel dumps, and Georgian radar stations and communication nodes were not destroyed by Fencer strikes in the first 24 hours of the war.
    Did NATO destroy all the targets you listed above in Kosovo and Serbia in the first 24 hours of the war?
    They had aircraft supplied from all of NATO and no shortage of PGMs in stocks.

    The Reality is that the Georgian Air Defence forces had rather more formidible assets than the Serbs ever had.
    The main difference was in aircraft where the Georgians largely had Su-25s and helos, while the Serbs had fighter aircraft... though not in fully operational condition.
    So is the failure of the Russian Air Force to successfully engage Georgian targets throughout the area of operations indicates to me that the servicability of the Fencers and the readiness of the Russian Air Force personnel (outside the high readiness North Caucasus MD) must have been very low.
    I would want to know rather more detail about what actually happened in that 5 day war before I made such assumptions. The numbers on the ground seem rather similar, with about 17,000 Georgians and about 11,000 Russians who arrived a day after the attack started. Russian problems included lack of recon information, and poor communications. The naval landing sounded like it went well and without problems.
    Remember they might have several hundred operational Su-24s, but the Caucaus is hardly the front line so it is not like large forces were sitting waiting to pounce.
    Recon and SEAD missions are specialist jobs and I think if you have a good look through the inventories of many NATO countries you will find that the richer countries have assets in those areas but most countries just have fighters or fighterbombers.
    After a period of no funding such assets will always suffer the most because they are generally the most expensive. In combat however it shows how useful they are in reducing the cost of warfare.

    After Georgia the Russian Armed forces started looking at UAVs... we know know what Georgia was using their UAVs for before the conflict... they wanted to know where to aim their guns.
    I would expect they will also be looking at other things they realise now they need too.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Did NATO destroy all the targets you listed above in Kosovo and Serbia in the first 24 hours of the war? They had aircraft supplied from all of NATO and no shortage of PGMs in stocks. The Reality is that the Georgian Air Defence forces had rather more formidible assets than the Serbs ever had.

    I agree on the latter. However, the Serbs also used a very different defensive technique - they basically did not present NATO with any targets worth engaging. They could do that because they were defending and did not have to move or even challenge NATO forces in the air. This means no need for troop concentrations, no need for airfields, no need for real-time command and control. In a way, what the Serbs did is much closer to what Hezbollah did in 2006. This is why the NATO campaign was such a dismal failure. NATO airforces were designed under an engagement doctrine called FOFA (follow on forces attack) which, among other aspects, stressed the need to destroy 2nd echelon Soviet forces moving West. This is not at all what they saw in Kosovo were the Serbs basically hunkered down and survived the NATO bombing unscathed. As a result, the NATO operation was a dismal failure and this is why NATO had to do resort to basically bomb the civil infrastructure of Serbia and Montenegro: this is also exactly what the Isarelis did in Lebanon. Rather then engaging military targets which they could not find, they began terrorising the population.

    The Russians never did anything like that in Georgia and neither did the Georgians use the kind of strategies the Serbians and Hezbollah did. If only because the Georgians were the agressors, of course.

    GarryB wrote:I would want to know rather more detail about what actually happened in that 5 day war before I made such assumptions. The numbers on the ground seem rather similar, with about 17,000 Georgians and about 11,000 Russians who arrived a day after the attack started. Russian problems included lack of recon information, and poor communications. The naval landing sounded like it went well and without problems.

    Oh but I very much agree here! I was ONLY referring to the Russian Air Forces failure to achieve the kind of results which I think they could have if their readiness had been adequate.

    But the performance of the Russian Army and Navy was nothing short of phenomenal. The speed with which the Russians responded was absolutely stunning and the ability of the Russian military to move through the Roki tunnel in battalion order to then push towards the south and push back the Georgians is nothing short of superb. Considering that the Russian were fighting with 1970s equipment against a numerically superior Georgian force with 21st century gear, the performance of the Russian soliders is absolutely phenomenal. I don't think that there is a military out there who could have done better, or even as well.

    My disappointment and doubts are ONLY about the performance of the Russian Air Force (and GRU strategic intelligence)

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:23 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    The Reality is that the Georgian Air Defence forces had rather more formidible assets than the Serbs ever had.

    There is no reality in that statement. Serbia had far more air defence systems than Georgia had, not to mention an actual air force.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:41 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    There is no reality in that statement. Serbia had far more air defence systems than Georgia had, not to mention an actual air force.

    As far as I remember, Serbia had no Buks, much less so modernized ones with Ukrainian crews.

    As for the Air Force, the Serbian MiG were in bad shape and, besides, the ratio of Serb to NATO aircraft was far worse than what happened in Georgia. Remember, Serbia was under sanctions while Georgia was pumped full of dollars and high-tech gear

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:26 pm

    Farhad Gulemov wrote:
    Vladimir79 wrote:
    There is no reality in that statement. Serbia had far more air defence systems than Georgia had, not to mention an actual air force.

    As far as I remember, Serbia had no Buks, much less so modernized ones with Ukrainian crews.

    As for the Air Force, the Serbian MiG were in bad shape and, besides, the ratio of Serb to NATO aircraft was far worse than what happened in Georgia. Remember, Serbia was under sanctions while Georgia was pumped full of dollars and high-tech gear

    Georgia had one Buk battery. That hardly constitutes an air defence better than Serbia 10 years ago. The Serbs had a plethora of SAMs from Kub, upgraded Pechoras and Dvinas. In large quantities too. Serbian operators are better than Ukraine, they shot down a stealth fighter. The ratio was so bad for Russian fighters in Georgia compared to NATO because NATO has modern equipment, we don't.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:39 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    Georgia had one Buk battery. That hardly constitutes an air defence better than Serbia 10 years ago. The Serbs had a plethora of SAMs from Kub, upgraded Pechoras and Dvinas. In large quantities too. Serbian operators are better than Ukraine, they shot down a stealth fighter.

    Nonsense. One (upgraded) Buk battery does already make one hell of a difference and, besides, the Georgians had pleny more modern gear (If you want to see what the Georgians had fielded by 08.08.08, check out this story)

    The Serbs only had old gear as they were under sanctions. The only reason why the Serbs shot down the stealth fighter is because the Yanks were dumb enough to fly the very same bombing route over and over again. So the Serbs ambushed them. There are pleny of Serb reports about this, including interviews of the guys who were operating the missile batteries. This had nothing to do with hardware.

    Furthermore, the Serbs were massively jammed, NATO had all the SEAD technology one could dream of, including HARMs, they had saturated Kosovo with cruise missile strikes, they had stealth fighters, etc. etc. etc.

    Compare that with what the Russians had...

    NATO had all the time in the word to preparte and to mass all its forces. The Russians had to scramble and improvise (hence the flights out of Lipetsk).

    Botton line: the Georgians were at a huge advantange over the Serbs in financing, training, and equipment. They were NATO's "golden boys".

    I will grant you one thing that the Serbs had and which the Georgians never did: balls. That, and the sense of defending their own land.

    But that's about it.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:50 am

    However, the Serbs also used a very different defensive technique - they basically did not present NATO with any targets worth engaging. They could do that because they were defending and did not have to move or even challenge NATO forces in the air.

    I love the Irony, NATO says you can't compare South Ossetia and Kosovo and they are quite right, but in ways that clearly show their hypocrisy.
    You are right that it was a very different conflict requiring very different strategies, with very different forces involved.
    For the Kosovo conflict to actually be like the SO conflict the Serbs would have had to have flown UAVs over Kosovo for a few months finding peace keeper positions and the disposition of Albanian military forces. Knowing the NATO forces in Kosovo were lightly equipped peacekeepers it made perfect sense to attack with artillery at a standoff distance to prevent their better training being useful and taking advantage of their lack of heavy weapons. I am sure after dozens of NATO soldiers had been killed in deliberate bombing that NATO would merely have bombed an airfield or two in Serbia and perhaps an aircraft factory and there would have been no obliteration of Serbia as a country and no attempt at regime change... NOT.

    Rather then engaging military targets which they could not find, they began terrorising the population.

    Agreed, but this was all largely because they refused to put troops on the ground, which also made it rather different from SO.

    My disappointment and doubts are ONLY about the performance of the Russian Air Force (and GRU strategic intelligence)

    I think the tactics used by the Georgians gave it every chance to succeed but at the end of the day the Georgians didn't want to die for Saakashvili.
    Clearly there were problems with C4I, but that is not new, when funding has stopped for a decade or more such things will suffer, even more so when the former organisation has been fractured between countries. The Caucaus is a military backwater where forces located there are really for internal problems rather than external threats.
    Personally I couldn't believe that Saakashvili could be that stupid... I was clearly wrong.

    There is no reality in that statement. Serbia had far more air defence systems than Georgia had, not to mention an actual air force.

    You are quite right, that was an exaggeration on my part. What I meant was that NATO has long been on the opposite side of the weapons that constituted the Serbian arsenal and they have long ago developed weapons and tactics to use against such systems. Russia was in a very different situation in that it was in a war not of its choosing after a period of stagnation against a foe with largely unknown hardware (in the sense of they didn't know exactly what they did or did not have).

    The main differences were of course that the Serbs knew what they were doing, and NATO had planned and practised what it was about to do, while the Russians were caught out by surprise, most likely without the aircraft and stock of weapons they would have preferred to have used available, certainly lacking Intel and recon capability. The Russian Army, which unlike NATO and the west actually plans to fight alone from the RuAF it seems used ballistic missiles in lieu of precision tactical fighter strikes.

    The only reason why the Serbs shot down the stealth fighter is because the Yanks were dumb enough to fly the very same bombing route over and over again. So the Serbs ambushed them. There are pleny of Serb reports about this, including interviews of the guys who were operating the missile batteries. This had nothing to do with hardware.

    I always find this amusing, claims the Serbs could not detect stealth aircraft at all, yet somehow they found out that the USAF kept flying the same routes... if you can't see a target it doesn't matter how regular its flights are, how do you find out?
    The reality is that stealth aircraft are not invisible and still avoid flying directly over radar sites to avoid being detected at very short range.
    Moving radar sites therefore becomes a good tactic to try... it also prevents the other guy blowing them up as an added bonus.
    If it really was luck rather than planning then why waste money on expensive guided missiles... just fire thousands of Grads.

    I will grant you one thing that the Serbs had and which the Georgians never did: balls. That, and the sense of defending their own land.

    Bravery is part of it, but I think the Serbs used excellent tactics for the equipment they had. All they really needed were missiles that could reach up high.
    The real problem is that up until recently the missile systems that can reach up high are big heavy expensive systems that are easy to spot from the air and too expensive for any but the richest country to buy and put in service in large numbers.
    The solution now is Pantsir-S1 with a ceiling of 10,000m. Newer missiles will hopefully go even higher to plug the gap.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:03 am

    Farhad Gulemov wrote:

    Nonsense. One (upgraded) Buk battery does already make one hell of a difference and, besides, the Georgians had pleny more modern gear (If you want to see what the Georgians had fielded by 08.08.08, check out this story)

    They had one Buk system deployed, we engaged it and captured the rest. It didn't make one hell of a difference except for shooting down one plane which is of little consequence to the war itself.

    The Serbs only had old gear as they were under sanctions. The only reason why the Serbs shot down the stealth fighter is because the Yanks were dumb enough to fly the very same bombing route over and over again. So the Serbs ambushed them. There are pleny of Serb reports about this, including interviews of the guys who were operating the missile batteries. This had nothing to do with hardware.

    Pechora is a radar homing missile, the F-117 is only flown at night. It takes very skilled controllers to be able to identify a target as small as a bird with all the background clutter of an old Soviet radar. It takes even more skill to point missiles at a target they can't get a lock on. It wasn't hardware that shot it down but skill as I already stated. NATO SEAD was unable to destroy the Serbs IADS thanks to their EMCON control and buried communications system. NATO losses were an F-117, 2 F-16s, 1 F-15, 1 AH-64, several damaged fighters and dozens of downed drones. The Serbian air defence survived the war against the most sophisticated SEAD in the world. NATO SEAD assets in 1999 still outclass Russian assets in every catagory to this day. Only reason NATO didn't suffer more casualties was their quality ECM/ELINT systems and training.

    Furthermore, the Serbs were massively jammed, NATO had all the SEAD technology one could dream of, including HARMs, they had saturated Kosovo with cruise missile strikes, they had stealth fighters, etc. etc. etc.

    Yeah, they had all that yet they were unable to shut the Serbian IADS down. The HARM proved ineffective as the Serbs wouldn't leave their radars on long enough to be engaged and the only real way to hunt them down was to physically eyeball the target and cluster bomb or LGB it. They got most of their kills on SAMs transiting on the road as they were too afraid to attack heavily defended emplacements. The Georgians didn't have near the skill as Serb controllers nor did they have the ability to protect their radars. Also they were operating in an uncluttered environment. Nobody was jamming Georgian radars.

    Compare that with what the Russians had...

    NATO had all the time in the word to preparte and to mass all its forces. The Russians had to scramble and improvise (hence the flights out of Lipetsk).

    Botton line: the Georgians were at a huge advantange over the Serbs in financing, training, and equipment. They were NATO's "golden boys".

    I will grant you one thing that the Serbs had and which the Georgians never did: balls. That, and the sense of defending their own land.

    But that's about it.

    To break it down, the Serbs had

    1) better concealment of their IADS
    2) better tactics
    3) far more medium range SAMs
    4) far more radars
    5) far more threats from a superior enemy

    and they still survived, the Serb Army was hardly touched by the end of the war. The Georgians lost a third of their equipment in six days. After 38,000 NATO sorties the Serbs lost less Army equipment than the Georgians did in six days. Don't think for a minute Russian planners didn't have a war-plan drawn up, they not only did but carried it out as effectively as they could with the outdated equipment at their disposal. The simple fact is the Serbs were far more of a match than Georgia 10 years ago then they were in 2008, if Georgia was Serbia 1999 and Russia was trying to invade in 2008, we would have lost so many aircraft we would have to rethink the entire operation. It wasn't that Georgia was NATO's golden boys at all, it was that our SEAD had to resort to visual target confirmation to hit their assets. Much as NATO had to do when their overwhelming advantage was minimised by Serb tactics. The NATO advantage never existed for the VVS because we didn't have those assets to employ. We could have averted most if not all the loss and hit more targets if we had the ELINT, ECM, and standoff capabilities of NATO. Georgian IADs was not that much of a threat to an air force with modern assets.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:50 am

    I have heard, though it is little more than heresay, that the F-117 was shot down because of the tactics of the Serbs.
    The SA-3 system has a ground based (tracking) radar that illuminates the target with a very thin radar beam and the SA-3 missile homes in on the reflections of that beam from the target.
    What I heard was that the tracking radar from another battery was used to illuminate the target so the F-117 shaping that deflects the radar so it doesn't head directly back at the emitting radar worked in the favour of the Serbs.
    The result was the intercepting missile came from a direction that was not head on so it got a stronger signal than it would have if it had been fired from nearby the illuminating radar.
    The other story I heard was that they had been upgraded with alternative optical guidance, which would require less coordination, but I would expect the missile to be more lethal if it didn't need a radar lock to hit the target.

    BTW HARM is not a very good ARM and is really only designed to get a radar painting the aircraft carrying the HARM to turn off and allow the aircraft to escape.
    ALARM on the other hand is a much more capable missile used by the British.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:54 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote: The Georgians lost a third of their equipment in six days. After 38,000 NATO sorties the Serbs lost less Army equipment than the Georgians did in six days.

    As far as I know, the main reason for the failure of NATO to meaningfully degrade the Serb forces had less to do with the performance of the Serb air defences as with the excellent maskirovka of the Serb forces which basically denied NATO a target to engage.

    Then, let me ask you this: do you have any figures about roughly what percentage of Georgian gear was destroyed by the RuAF and how much was destroyed by the Russian ground offensive? Or, to put it differentely, how many sorties did the RuAF fly in these six days?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:01 pm

    Farhad Gulemov wrote:

    As far as I know, the main reason for the failure of NATO to meaningfully degrade the Serb forces had less to do with the performance of the Serb air defences as with the excellent maskirovka of the Serb forces which basically denied NATO a target to engage.

    Serbs wouldn't have been able to use their decoys to any effect if the allies had gotten a good look at them. That is where the air defence came into good use. NATO was too scared to get in close and drones were being shot down left and right. You never hear about that.


    Then, let me ask you this: do you have any figures about roughly what percentage of Georgian gear was destroyed by the RuAF and how much was destroyed by the Russian ground offensive? Or, to put it differentely, how many sorties did the RuAF fly in these six days?

    Well over 80%... Su-25 raped the Georgian columns, wiped out an entire tank battalion on one hill.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:52 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    Well over 80%... Su-25 raped the Georgian columns, wiped out an entire tank battalion on one hill.

    Just to make things clear for myself: are you saying that the Russian ground forces account only for less than 20% of all equipment losses of the Georgian Army during this war?

    How many sorties were flown during these 6 days?
    How many aircraft were actually committed to this operation?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:07 am

    The vast majority of footage and photos I have seen of the SO war at least those of the Georgian forces after the Russians entered the fight were Georgian vehicles driven off the side of the road (so as not to block it) and no Georgian soldiers.

    In other words being in a vehicle made you a target so they ditched their vehicles and literally ran.

    ...now that would be a rather stupid thing to do when facing ground forces... you throw down you guns and surrender, or you turn in your vehicle and get out of there fast... you can't outrun the ground forces on foot, and remaining in a target like a large armoured vehicle you are not safe from air power.

    It is clear that the threat of air power is what made the Georgians run. (And I don't blame them... I certainly wouldn't want to die for Saakashvili.)

    Now this is from a western aviation magazine but there is talk that after aircraft were shot down by the BUK system that it was realised that the Su-24M and the Tu-22M3 aircraft in the strike role and the standoff jammer role were inadequate against BUK and that an Su-34 was used to finish off the BUK battery with its electronic warfare suite, though it is not clear if the Su-34 used ARMs or another platform might have actually launched the kill shots for those radars and SAMs destroyed.
    I will have another read of the article and try to give more details of the account later.

    Vlad, I think what Farhad is after, and I am interested too, is a bit more detail of what happened during that conflict, and who did what and how each arm performed.
    After the conflict the airforce wanted UAVs so clearly they want expendible craft they can send into an airspace with largely unknown defences and collect information about what is there and where it is located, like radars, SAM sites, Comm centres, HQs etc etc. This means that when more capable platforms are sent in they know what threats to expect and their general location to try to prevent the initial ambushes that seem to have occurred because aircraft were sent with little info on what to expect (which is understandable because they had little warning and were forced to act quickly, which cost pilots and planes).

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:00 pm

    Farhad Gulemov wrote:

    Just to make things clear for myself: are you saying that the Russian ground forces account only for less than 20% of all equipment losses of the Georgian Army during this war?

    They accounted for no more than 20% of destroyed vehicles, they captured many more as the Georgians ran away. The only heavy fighting was done in and around Tskhinvali where destroyed vehicles numbered in the dozens. When the Georgian Army was sent running with their tales between their legs, the Russian Ground Forces did not give chase. Much of the footage shot of burning tanks were from air attacks as Russian troops rolled in. There was only one small tank battle to the south of the Ossetian capital.

    How many sorties were flown during these 6 days?
    How many aircraft were actually committed to this operation?

    1000 sorties, around 50 bombing aircraft and 25 support. The majority were Su-25s. No idea of helicopter activity.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:07 am

    Regarding my comments about the use of Su-34s in South Ossetia I found this:

    If at least two full-fledged army aviation regiments equipped with combat-ready helicopters had been used in the South Ossetian sector, then attack helicopters could have effectively supported our peace­keepers, while airborne units could have intercepted the basic routes of advance of Georgian all-arms columns and inflicted fire damage to them at the approaches to Tskhinval. For the same reason - shortage of our helicopter fleet - jammer heli­copters were not used in the initial phase of actions in the South Ossetian sector to suppress Georgian air defenses. The result is known: in the first days of war the Georgian air defenses shot down several our planes using Ukrainian-made SAM systems. However, there were no aircraft losses in the
    Abkhazian sector where at an air base in Senaki alone airborne units seized a Buk SAM battery. The secret is simple: jammer helicopters started operating right after the beginning of actions thus preventing the effective operation of enemy air defenses.

    This doesn't prove Su-34s weren't called in for the South Ossetian conflict of course, but it is clear the preferred situation would have been helicopter jammers supporting attack aircraft.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Su-24 modernization

    Post  Viktor on Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:19 pm

    What is this upgrade SU-24M will get?

    Only accuracy of non guided missiles or something else?


    02/08/13 BOMBERS BASED "SHAGOL" WILL RECEIVE NEW EQUIPMENT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR


    RIA Novosti . Central Military District (CVO) to the end of 2013 to equip all bombers airbase "Shagol" (Chelyabinsk region) new specialized computer system "Hephaestus", which will increase the accuracy of bombing three times, according to a Friday press office CVO.

    "On Air" Shagol "completes conversion of the Su-24M new sighting and navigation system" http://www.militaryparitet.com/ttp/data/ic_ttp/5125/. "Specialized Computer System SVP-24" Hephaestus "will be installed on all bombers connection to the end of 2013," - said in a statement. As noted, by that time the representatives of the aviation industry to be equipped with an additional 8 bombers.

    According to the CVO, a new sighting and navigation system combines the targeting system, navigation and control, it is resistant to weather and increases the survival of aircraft. Using the SVP-24 enhance the ability of the crew to use tactics during the search, leaving the target, aiming and hitting, say the military.

    LINK


    Sponsored content

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:49 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:49 pm