Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-24 modernization

    Share

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  TR1 on Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:47 pm

    That's the Gefest&T upgrade; only 5 or so were originally upgraded because Sukhoi pushed their own Su-24M2 upgrade.
    After 8-8-8 war Generals liked Gefest& T performance (cheap, but usefull nee computers and targeting equipment), and ordered a bunch.

    I have heard estimates that as many as 50 Su-24M have received the upgrade!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:06 am

    The Gefest&T upgrade was a ballistics computer and HUD upgrade that displayed a continously calculated impact point for dumb bombs and unguided rockets in the HUD.

    This greatly increases the accuracy of weapons use in free flight with unguided weapons and resulted in accuracy comparable to guided weapons using dumb unguided bombs.

    It was also fitted to an upgraded Tu-22M3.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    mack8
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 923
    Points : 983
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  mack8 on Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:53 pm

    So, any idea how many Su-24M2 and how many Su-24M "Gefest" have been re-delivered so far, and how many more are planned? Thanks.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  TR1 on Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:58 pm

    mack8 wrote:So, any idea how many Su-24M2 and how many Su-24M "Gefest" have been re-delivered so far, and how many more are planned? Thanks.
    No more Su-24M2. The number is bigger than 24 (Done at NAPO, there were further upgraded at another workshop) but probably no bigger than 48.

    As of earlier this year, from the info I got from bmpd blog, there were 50 Gefest airframes, and more incoming. Not sure if the plan is the whole fleet, some of the birds are getting old and Su-34 is arriving.


    EDIT:

    http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=11757774@egNews

    All Su-24Ms in Central Military District upgraded by Gefest.

    mack8
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 923
    Points : 983
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  mack8 on Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:39 pm

    So right now there should be anywhere between 70 and almost 100 upgraded Su-24Ms?! That's 3 or 4 regiments, pretty decent numbers at least and still to grow. Now, unfortunately i haven't followed Su-24 upgrades (or Su-25 for that matter) too closely, i was just trying to figure out the differences between the Gefest and NAPO upgrades. The net is confusing as always but from what i can make out, the Gefest ones have the SVP-24 weapon system (together with new HUD, MFDs etc.), while the NAPO ones have the PNS-24M2 (also with new HUD, MFDs etc.), would that be correct? Any more details on the avionics differences?

    Also, what are they called in service, the NAPO ones are called Su-24M2, what about the Gefest ones? I've seen the Su-24SM designation in some places.

    Finally, any planned upgrades for the Su-24MRs ?

    Thanks again.

    mack8
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 923
    Points : 983
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  mack8 on Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:34 pm

    Been trying to follow this further, and among other things, the situation seems to be like this: there are about 30 Su-34M2 (one source quoted 28), at Lipetsk and with 2 squadrons of 6988th air base in the Far East. Regarding the Gefest upgrade it seems the CMD has the 6980th base as Su-24M/MR operator, presumably the two squadrons of Ms have been upgraded so this makes at least 24 Gefest ones. Adding the 5-10 at Lipetsk, the minimum number is again  30 or over. However as TR1's sources say that there are about 50 Gefest upgraded Su-24M around, does this mean that a second unit will be equipped with upgraded examples soon? Any idea which one?
    Also, i could swear i've read yesterday somewhere about  50 Su-24s upgraded and 50 more coming, so that would be about 100 planned to be upgraded- not sure how accurate that info is of course.

    PS: Found it
    http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/russian-air-force-procurement-plans

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Sujoy on Fri May 16, 2014 10:19 am

    HOW THE Su-24 JAMMED THE US DONALD COOK  

    Rossiyskaya Gazeta wrote:On April 10, the Donald Cook, entered Black Sea waters and within 2 days, the Russian tactical bomber Su-24 “buzzed” the American destroyer. A few media outlets reported that Donald Cook’s crew was demoralised by this encounter and 27 American sailors resigned from the navy. What petrified the American crew so much?
    Donald Cook is a 4th generation fleet destroyer of the US Navy. Its key weapon is the Tomahawk cruise missile with flying range up to 2500 km, which can carry nuclear explosives. In standard and striking set-ups the vessel carries 56 or 96 such missiles correspondingly.

    The destroyer is equipped with the latest Aegis ballistic missile defence system military. Among other functions it can centralise the air defence forces of all the ships where it is installed in a common network, therefore allowing for tracking and shooting up hundreds of targets at the same time. Four huge standard radar aerials, which can substitute for a few ordinary radars, are located on the sides of the deck erection. About 50 intercept missiles of different classes are installed together with the Tomahawks in the universal launching installations on the bow and by the stern.

    The Su-24 Russian tactical bomber which approached the Donald Cook carried no bombs or missiles but a container with the Khibiny radio-electronic military system. Having approached the destroyer, Khibiny was use to switch off the American destroyer’s radar, battle control circuits and data exchange systems. In other words, it turned off the whole Aegis by remote control. After this, the Su-24 simulated a missile attack at the “blind and deaf” ship, and repeated the manoeuvre 12 times.
    When the Russian fighter left, the Donald Cook rushed to a Romanian port and never approached Russian waters again.

    Several systems at Russia’s disposal

    “To win a contemporary war, it is not enough to dominate in the air. It is necessary to secure an information advantage,” says Vladimir Balybin, Head of the research centre for radio-electronic battle and concealment efficiency. Apart from Khibiny, the Russian defence industry manufactures various types of equipment that could surprise active enemy units as well as criminals and terrorists.

    Airborne forces are being re-equipped with Infauna complexes. These are installed on armoured vehicles or other military vehicles and can locate and jam enemy’s radio connection in short wave and ultra-short wave frequencies, and “put out” remotely-controlled land-bombs. They will explode but only after the Russian troops have passed by and are far enough to be safe.

    Infauna has another function: the optic sensors installed on both sides of the vehicle spot flashes of discharges and command laying smokes-screen to protect convoys from fire.


    The Lesochek device fulfils the same functions as Infauna but is portable and can fit into a backpack or a suitcase.  It can be useful at important talks for protection against most advanced security services interception systems.

    The Borisoglebsk-2 is the core of the radio-electronic warfare of the tactical units of the Russian army. It comprises an automated command point and four types of jamming stations – they use a single algorithm to identify and jam the sources of hostile activity on the air.

    The Zhitel device locates and blocks satellite and mobile phones, subscription complexes of GPS-navigation. It proved efficient during the conflict in South Ossetia by misleading Georgian drone aircraft.
    Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister, has called for the reequipping of Russian strategic nuclear arms with the latest radio-electronic warfare devices.

    English Version (Abridged)

    http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/05/15/russia_surges_ahead_in_radio-electronic_warfare_35247.html

    Russian Version

    http://www.rg.ru/2014/04/30/reb-site.html

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 16, 2014 10:32 am

    Yeah that story is fairy tales.

    No Su-24, in metal, has ever used Khibiny.

    And even if it was a Su-34, the story still reads like a Russian Tom Clancy fantasy.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri May 16, 2014 11:21 am

    TR1 wrote:Yeah that story is fairy tales.

    ...

    And even if it was a Su-34, the story still reads like a Russian Tom Clancy fantasy.

    Wrong forum, you wanted to write this at the mp.net.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 16, 2014 11:33 am

    Nah, that my friend is commonsense.net Wink .

    mutantsushi
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 285
    Points : 307
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  mutantsushi on Fri May 16, 2014 11:49 am

    The story is just transparent BS.  The claims to the events are not attributed to any specific source.
    The claims about USN sailor resignations is absurd, with no clear way any Russian source would know that info,
    Resigning your post while on combat duty would certainly result in being imprisoned, yet the story ends there,
    and no further info on the alleged event has come out, even from Russian military sources.
    The story is padded with generic info on the ship class (threatening reference to nukes) which doesn't bear on specific situation.
    Never mind the technical matter of the idea of Khibini on Su-24.
    It's obviously a "feel good" story for certain perspectives, but can't be taken seriously outside of kindergarten.net.
    Why one can complain about Western MSM fabrication or mis-coverage while applauding such crap is beyond me.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Sujoy on Fri May 16, 2014 8:35 pm

    I am not sold on the idea that this story is entirely "false" considering the constant lies coming out of the US media.

    The Khibiny EW system were able to neutralize the AEGIS phased array radar target tracking capabilities while the ship's crew was unable to re-boot the system.

    A more pertinent question is whether the jammer affected the radar system itself or only the computer-based component or both at the same time ?

    Also , it is essential to note that the Aegis destroyer Donald Cook left the Black Sea post this incident .

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Firebird on Fri May 16, 2014 9:07 pm

    1)I suspect that the Sukhoi could jam the destroyer's radar.
    In a full scale war tho, planes could be shot down. Ships wouldnt hesitate to shoot. And neither would planes.

    Overall, I suspect that superpower v superpower, a LOT of radar could be jammed. Most equipment is designed for use vs lesser powers.
    For superpower disputes... u basically threaten nukes/false flags or other measures.

    2)This sounds a hell of a lot like EM weapons may have been used to disorientate the US crew.
    They already had the stress of "is this ww3 starting... what should we do..." etc.

    EM weapons arent fiction. It seems very likely the US used them to substantially demoralise the Iraqi troops in GW2, astheyd been putting up a fair defence until then.

    I cant understand why Yanukovich didnt use them vs Maidenloons, or why they arent being used in the S and E Ukraine.
    Perhaps they will be?

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Cyberspec on Fri May 16, 2014 11:48 pm

    I'm no expert on EW but I suspect several aircraft would be needed to jam a destroyers main radar.

    But I do find it surprising that the Su-24 buzzed the ship a dozen times without any countermeasures being taken by the ship

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  TR1 on Fri May 16, 2014 11:57 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:I'm no expert on EW but I suspect several aircraft would be needed to jam a destroyers main radar.

    But I do find it surprising that the Su-24 buzzed the ship a dozen times without any countermeasures being taken by the ship

    What exactly was it supposed to do? Shoot it down?

    A reco Su-24 buzzed the ship, nobody jammed anyone, the world moves on.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 17, 2014 11:41 am

    The situation has a lot to do with what happens... and of course whose toys belong to whom.

    If this US ship was in Iranian waters and it was firing on big powerful dangerous speed boats and a plane is detected approaching from 50km away or more then obviously the only result will be to shoot down a civilian airliner.

    In this case however the aircraft in question might have been equipped to shoot back so obviously they would do nothing.

    I have read that a single Mi-9 EW helo has blanked out large areas of civilian radar when occidentally turned on... the effectiveness of jamming is directly related to the square of distance so flying over the target radar would give it the best chance of defeating said radar, but jamming radar rarely damages the target radar...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Sujoy on Sat May 17, 2014 1:57 pm

    So far this is what we do know from the disclosures made by the US Navy :

    (1) A Su 24 "buzzed" the USS Donald Cook on April 10 , when it entered the Black Sea .

    (2) Aegis spotted from afar the approaching aircraft, and sounded alarm .

    (3) The ship's in board radars calculated the speed of the approaching target

    (4) After the incident the USS Donald Cook rushes to Romania .


    What we do NOT know is :

    (1) Did the algorithm of the radar in the “Aegis” not load under the influence of jamming by the Su-24 ? This is what may have caused the screens to go blank .

    (2) Why was the Donald Cook suddenly sent to dock at Romania ?


    Bear in mind that this system of mobile location ( in this case the ship) has a significant drawback. That is, the target tracking capabilities. They work well when there is a number of these ships which can coordinate with each other somehow. In this case there was just one destroyer .


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Werewolf on Sat May 17, 2014 5:07 pm

    Sujoy wrote:
    Bear in mind that  this system of mobile location ( in this case the ship) has a significant drawback. That is, the target tracking capabilities. They work well when there is a number of these ships which can coordinate with each other somehow. In this case there was just one destroyer .


    This goes for both, Su-24 was alone and therefore much weaker jamming capability then with several sources to create a high effective or at least dense EW environment for radar systemes.

    Since the western meida especially not reporting from official side as only "Russian bear aggression" and no comment on the fact that the ship retreated from the scene quickly after that shows already that it was indeed jammed by the Su-24. Usually americans are immidiatley reacting with additional propaganda in media how advanced they are but in this case they only use russophobic propaganda and not "We are the best" propaganda.

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun May 18, 2014 7:56 am

    TR1 wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:I'm no expert on EW but I suspect several aircraft would be needed to jam a destroyers main radar.

    But I do find it surprising that the Su-24 buzzed the ship a dozen times without any countermeasures being taken by the ship

    What exactly was it supposed to do? Shoot it down?

    A reco Su-24 buzzed the ship, nobody jammed anyone, the world moves on.

    Several things it can do short of shooting  Rolling Eyes


    Werewolf wrote:This goes for both, Su-24 was alone and therefore much weaker jamming capability then with several sources to create a high effective or at least dense EW environment for radar systemes.

    Since the western meida especially not reporting from official side as only "Russian bear aggression" and no comment on the fact that the ship retreated from the scene quickly after that shows already that it was indeed jammed by the Su-24. Usually americans are immidiatley reacting with additional propaganda in media how advanced they are but in this case they only use russophobic propaganda and not "We are the best" propaganda.

    There were 2 Su-24's involved according to reports

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  TR1 on Sun May 18, 2014 9:12 am

    What things can do it short of shooting, that would have changed anything in that scenario?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 18, 2014 10:34 am

    No form of jamming I know will make the screens go blank... I would suggest this vessel had a malfunction and put in to port for repairs.

    I would point out that there was a film crew on board the AEGIS cruiser that shot down the Iranian Airbus and it showed a malfunction in launching the Standard SAM that shot down the target. It took a full 1 minute 30 seconds to correct the error to launch the missile... which performed as expected.

    One and a half minutes delay when a Shipwreck is coming will likely result in a ship wreck... or several.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun May 18, 2014 12:40 pm

    TR1 wrote:What things can do it short of shooting, that would have changed anything in that scenario?

    Issue a warning over the radio, lock onto the aircraft, take evasive maneuvers, lay a smokescreen.....just a few of the top of my head....I'm pretty sure heading to Romania isn't their standard SOP after being buzzed.

    ...

    There were reports that land based anti-ship batteries were also tracking the ship and it's not impossible that some land based jammers could've been used.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  TR1 on Sun May 18, 2014 11:02 pm

    This report is 100% bull.

    Stop trying to find reasoning for laughable nonsense.

    You guys....seriously.

    There is zero proof whatsoever anything changed in the operations of the destroyer's functions. Or spooked anyone.


    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon May 19, 2014 1:46 am

    Obviously we are just speculating....as are you

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  TR1 on Mon May 19, 2014 3:37 am

    I am relying on logic and common sense, as well as technical information that is public ally available. The report that is causing this "speculation" isn't worth wiping my rear end with.

    I am surprised they didn't mention the US was pulling out of NATO due to fear of war with Russia, due to the Su-24s shocking capabilities.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Su-24 modernization

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:24 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:24 pm