Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    General Questions Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2396
    Points : 2434
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  franco on Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:00 pm

    Probably officially two Bomber Aviation Regiments (182nd & 79th). There is around 30 (give or take a couple) Tu-95MS aircraft in total. I believe there would be 12 assigned per regiment with the rest as spares. May actually be 2 squadrons with 6 aircraft each per regiment. There seem to always be some Il-78's on site along with other transport and support aircraft plus a couple of helo's. A lot of maybe's as Air Force reorganization (names & numbers) take place. Does that help?

    Fer_Cabo

    Posts : 4
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2017-01-19
    Age : 44
    Location : Spain

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Fer_Cabo on Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:19 pm

    Thank you franco, yes, everything helps Laughing

    About the Il-78s, all existing tanker assets seem to be concentrated in the 219th Special Purpose Detachment based at ENGELS-2 (some 20 aircraft), from which they probably deploy to other bases depending on the needs as they arise.

    Anyhow, it's a very low number of tanker aircraft available, even when the Heavy Bomber / Long-Range aviation has been reduced and reshaped. Guess they're working on that.

    I do not know if, as you say, a couple of tanker Il-78s are permanently allocated to UKRAINKA. Can we take that as a fact ?¿ (with a reasonable and justified basis, i mean)
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2396
    Points : 2434
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  franco on Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:02 am

    Fer_Cabo wrote: I do not know if, as you say, a couple of tanker Il-78s are permanently allocated to UKRAINKA. Can we take that as a fact ?¿ (with a reasonable and justified basis, i mean)

    You cannot take anything as fact I'm afraid. A quick look around various Sat Images from different Map websites show from 1 to 5 of them. It would make sense for there to be always a couple available but dunno
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Maybe not the best topic to ask this question but I do it : I just want a quick answer not a debate, thanks!!

    Post  Isos on Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:51 pm

    Maybe not the best topic to ask this question but I do it : I just want a quick answer not a debate, thanks!!

    I've read somewhere, on a forum I think, that the F-22 radar was totaly jammed by growler with it's big jamming pod. Is it possible that Russia, in the case it needs to fight against them, to make a big jamming area where every X band radar would be jammed thanks to ground equipements which is probably better than a jaming pod, and direct it's Pak fa which have better manoeuvrability and OLS system with Less precise low frequency radars which would take Paf Fa's at a range where its ols would have like 100% chance to see them?

    They are making their fighter to win in a dogfight and be able to defeat an attack at long range and they are investing a lot in electronic warefare, so it would be logical idea for them to do that.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:22 pm

    And the new engine needed to fly from carriers.

    Why?

    On the existing Kuznetsov carrier the Su-33... an aircraft bigger and heavier than a PAK FA, with rather less powerful engines than those fitted to the current PAK FA let alone the new engines seems to get airborne just fine from both the short and long takeoff positions on the carrier.

    Surely a smaller lighter aircraft with more powerful engines and the lower drag of internal weapons carriage should be fine as it is... of course with a bit of structural strengthening and a tailhook.

    @Losos

    The Russians don't need to totally jam the radar of the F-22... the F-22 has AMRAAMs, AIM-9X sidewinders, and a gun... jam the little ARH missile seekers, directed energy to defeat the optically guided sidewinders and then it comes down to guns where the superior manouver capability over both the F-22 and F-35 should give it the win...



    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 448
    Points : 448
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    And the new engine needed to fly from carriers.

    Why?

    On the existing Kuznetsov carrier the Su-33... an aircraft bigger and heavier than a PAK FA, with rather less powerful engines than those fitted to the current PAK FA let alone the new engines seems to get airborne just fine from both the short and long takeoff positions on the carrier.

    Surely a smaller lighter aircraft with more powerful engines and the lower drag of internal weapons carriage should be fine as it is... of course with a bit of structural strengthening and a tailhook.

    @Losos

    The Russians don't need to totally jam the radar of the F-22... the F-22 has AMRAAMs, AIM-9X sidewinders, and a gun... jam the little ARH missile seekers, directed energy to defeat the optically guided sidewinders and then it comes down to guns where the superior manouver capability over both the F-22 and F-35 should give it the win...



    The SU-33 and mig -29naval whatever designed to fly with few small rocket and kill anti submarine patrol aircraft in a few hundred km radius, in high altitude.

    Additionally, the SU-33 too big for carrier, it is on borderline to be transportable by the lifts (and every time they risk to drop the plane into the ocean or shave off the radome)


    BY using the wiki data, the pakfa need with same kN engine as su33 can carry 7% more weight, with new engine it is something like 30-40% more.

    Means the pakfa can be used as 500-700km radius attack platform with heavy bomb/rocket load against terrestrial or naval targets from any skyjump carrier , or as refuelling airplane or as mini AWACS.

    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 502
    Points : 489
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Rmf on Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:35 pm

    Isos wrote:Maybe not the best topic to ask this question but I do it : I just want a quick answer not a debate, thanks!!

    I've read somewhere, on a forum I think, that the F-22 radar was totaly jammed by growler with it's big jamming pod. Is it possible that Russia, in the case it needs to fight against them, to make a big jamming area where every X band radar would be jammed thanks to ground equipements which is probably better than a jaming pod, and direct it's Pak fa which have better manoeuvrability and OLS system with Less precise low frequency radars which would take Paf Fa's at a range where its ols would have like 100% chance to see them?

    They are making their fighter to win in a dogfight and be able to defeat an attack at long range and they are investing a lot in electronic warefare, so it would be logical idea for them to do that.
    its a question of power. if it has enough power to use broadband jamming in x-wavelenghts then it can, infact LPI mode is useless then, and usual full power output with frequency hopping is better.

    Sponsored content

    Re: General Questions Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:00 am