Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7119
    Points : 7192
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  JohninMK on Mon 02 Mar 2020, 23:07

    George1 wrote:BEIRUT, LEBANON (10:00 P.M.) – The Russian Navy was photographed on Monday transiting the Bosphorus Strait that links the Black and Mediterranean seas.

    According to maritime observer Yoruk Isik, the heavily laden ВМФ Project 775 of the Black Sea Fleet 197th Landing Ship Brigade’s Ropucha class LSTM (tank carrying landing ship) Novocherkassk 142 entered the Mediterranean on Monday to deliver more equipment to the Port of Tartous in western Syria.

    https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-transports-massive-amount-of-equipment-to-syria-after-turkish-attack-photos/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

    She wasn't particularly 'heavily laden' as she was running at her normal depth in the water. They have run these ships deeper in the water than this.

    Thanks for posting this George, these ships are the unsung heroes of the Syrian War. I am pretty sure that the workload they have achieved was never in their original design specification. Wars are won on logistics and this one is no different.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 879
    Points : 877
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Mon 02 Mar 2020, 23:43

    JohninMK wrote:
    George1 wrote:BEIRUT, LEBANON (10:00 P.M.) – The Russian Navy was photographed on Monday transiting the Bosphorus Strait that links the Black and Mediterranean seas.

    According to maritime observer Yoruk Isik, the heavily laden ВМФ Project 775 of the Black Sea Fleet 197th Landing Ship Brigade’s Ropucha class LSTM (tank carrying landing ship) Novocherkassk 142 entered the Mediterranean on Monday to deliver more equipment to the Port of Tartous in western Syria.

    https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-transports-massive-amount-of-equipment-to-syria-after-turkish-attack-photos/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

    She wasn't particularly 'heavily laden' as she was running at her normal depth in the water. They have run these ships deeper in the water than this.

    Thanks for posting this George, these ships are the unsung heroes of the Syrian War. I am pretty sure that the workload they have achieved was never in their original design specification. Wars are won on logistics and this one is no different.
    in addition to some old LST they used also several cheap old civilian ships to carry goods to the ports of Tartus and Latakia.

    But yeah, for sure they need new amphibious ships. They have a decent number of Ropucha class LST, however they are getting long in the tooth... the newest of them is s from 1991. In the northern fleet there are still some LST from the 70s that probably need to be retired soon...

    The second ship of the Ivan Gren class will be really needed, and also the larger (8000 tons) second serie (11711M?).

    If they are a successful ship possibly they would need to produce more landing ships in a large serie.. like they did for the Ropucha class (4000tons), even if probably not in the same number since they have twice the displacement...
    crod
    crod

    Posts : 313
    Points : 346
    Join date : 2009-08-04

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  crod on Tue 03 Mar 2020, 00:14

    perhaps it's dropping smaller supplies but not tanks etc but taking some equipment back for works/tweaking???
    avatar
    Vann7

    Posts : 4492
    Points : 4596
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Vann7 on Tue 03 Mar 2020, 02:22


    Russian special forces operations in syria.. old but interesting video.. (2017)



    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1838
    Points : 1840
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue 03 Mar 2020, 10:10

    AMCXXL wrote:F-16 from Turkey attached a group of 3 Su-24MK of sirian air forcé
    one ran away and was safe, another was hit but could land, the third was shot down, the two pilots safe

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 D9ea7f10

    What is this image? It's a Su-20/22 so its not related to the Su-24 shootdown.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5761
    Points : 5890
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  kvs on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 00:41

    And those trailing lights look like flares to me and not missiles.

    avatar
    geminif4ucorsair

    Posts : 3
    Points : 5
    Join date : 2015-09-11

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  geminif4ucorsair on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 03:24

    kvs wrote:And those trailing lights look like flares to me and not missiles.


    Concur.

    Have none of the size, trailing smoke characteristics, etc. of AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM that would have been launched from a F-16.
    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 57
    Points : 61
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Cheetah on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 12:43

    kvs wrote:And those trailing lights look like flares to me and not missiles.

    I don't think there is any question. Very few missiles have burn times that last for the entire flight between being fired and hitting the target. Obviously that would be dependent on range, but very unlikely all the same. It's also very unlikely that two such missiles were fired in rapid succession for them to be in the same frame. At speeds exceeding Mach 2-3, those missiles would have had to have been fired within the same second. Then there is the typical characteristics of missiles to not have a particularly bright burn (Unless you're talking about something like S-300). If you watch an Igla launch, you'll notice that it's all smoke, no flame.

    And, to put it all to rest, those bright lights have the exact physical appearance of your typical aircraft flare.

    EDIT: Not to mention, missiles do not follow a lag-pursuit, as would otherwise be indicated by the image. They'd be gunning it straight for the intercept point ahead of the aircraft, unless they were out of energy, which would be impossible since, if we assume they are missiles, they are still burning, and would have all the energy in the world.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5036
    Points : 5028
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Isos on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 13:13

    The flares you see on that picture and the plane itself succeeded to fool a US f18 launched Aim-9X, the latest and most advanced IR guided that US use.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3838
    Points : 3924
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  flamming_python on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 13:56

    Who claimed they were missiles?

    You're like the Ukrainians, refuting a claim that had never been made.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4268
    Points : 4246
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 14:16

    flamming_python wrote:Who claimed they were missiles?

    You're like the Ukrainians, refuting a claim that had never been made.

    He is referring to the Su-22 that was shot down by Turkey last year where one of the AIM-9X missed (was very close) after the Su-22 flares were discharged.
    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 57
    Points : 61
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Cheetah on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 14:39

    To be clear, I saw the response by kvs and thought I'd dispel any doubt. Nothing else. The scope of my reply was strictly relevant to the image of the Su-22 and the flares, and the potential that someone may have thought they were missiles.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5036
    Points : 5028
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Isos on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 15:24


    Rob Lee
    @RALee85
    ·
    7 min
    According to Izvestia's sources, SAA Pantsir and Buk air defense systems have shot down 5 Anka and 7 Bayraktar UAVs. In response, their sources claim that Turkey is mostly flying its UCAVs at low altitude and at night. 170

    Izvestia's sources say that during the first three days of Turkey's Operation Spring Shield, before Syria moved up air defense systems, Turkey destroyed 23 tanks, 16 IFVs, 9 rocket launchers/MLRS and killed 191 SAA fighters and wounded another 293. 171/

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23774
    Points : 24314
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  GarryB on Wed 04 Mar 2020, 23:25

    You're like the Ukrainians, refuting a claim that had never been made.

    Well to be fair FP.... you just compared big gazza to an orc and therefore you are doing what you are accusing him of doing aren't you?

    What I am interested in is flares distracting an AIM-9X... that is amazing if true... I mean if you have a PIR heat sensor and you fool it with a road flare that is no big deal... it is what you would expect to be honest... a heat sensor being set off by heat is exactly what you would expect, but the IIR seeker on the AIM-9X is supposed to be an imaging sensor that sees an image of the space in front of it of the target... they made claims it was so wonderful you could select a part of the aircraft for the missile to hit... ie if you were a real bastard you could select the cockpit canopy to ensure a literal kill, but clearly these flares generate heat in the right frequency to get a big enough bloom to render the IIR on the AIM-9X useless...

    It doesn't surprise me to be honest... in the 1980s HATO was all up itself about how wonderful its AIM-9L and AIM-9M missiles were, but when tested in the 1990s against east german MiG-29s it was found the flares it used as standard were effective in defeating the missiles easily enough... of course they also found the AA-10 missiles it used were better than Sparrow against an F-15 but like Sparrow they could be spoofed by the sophisticated ESM suite of the F-15 but they thought they could compensate with the F-15s dogfight performance only to find the helmet mounted cueing system and high off boresight R-73 and actually not mentioned but the IR guided model of the R-27 also has high off boresight capacity too, but lacks the thrust vector control to use it off the pylon but in air to air combat it was pretty good too.

    Funny they didn't know about the passive radar homing missile that would have been devastating especially to the British aircraft... their interceptor Tornados were optimised for long range missiles rather than dogfighting so they would have been in real trouble. (the passive radar homing versions of the R-27EP homed in on the target marking signal from an enemy plane guiding a Sparrow. A Sparrow is Semi Active Radar Homing, or SARH so it needs the launch aircraft to get a radar lock on the target before it can be launched... the lock consists of a thin radar beam that reflects off the target like a laser shines on a tank with a laser homing weapon like Copperhead. The R-27EP can detect that radar beam and flys up to the launch platform... it is faster and longer ranged than Sparrow so it will hit first. Turning off the radar will result in the Sparrow missing, and the R-27EP hitting first will also result in the Sparrow missing... so western aircraft except the F-14 with the Phoenix can either use Sparrow (or the British Sky Flash variant of Sparrow) and be shot down with EP model Alamos... which east germany didn't have BTW, or get in close against helmet mounted sights and R-73s and get slaughtered... and while some would argue training and tactics would mean HATO would prevail... I believe the feeling was similar just before WWI... they have machine guns and artillery and so do we but our training and tactics will mean we will prevail... and what a blood bath that turned out to be... for all sides.

    The result was an enormous boost in funding for AMRAAM which had been neglected up to that point because they didn't think they needed it.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7119
    Points : 7192
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  JohninMK on Thu 05 Mar 2020, 00:00

    Erdogan arriving in Moscow tomorrow

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 ESS19khXcAEcbyc?format=jpg&name=small
    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 57
    Points : 61
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Cheetah on Thu 05 Mar 2020, 01:42

    GarryB wrote:What I am interested in is flares distracting an AIM-9X... that is amazing if true

    I mean, let's be honest here. It doesn't matter what A2A missile you're talking about. AIM-7, AIM-120, AIM-9, K-13, R-27 etc, etc... They all have pretty abysmal shoot-to-hit ratios in proper combat, where statistics are available. Vietnam was a good indicator of that. I don't think anyone should be surprised that an AIM-9X missed its target. Regardless of what any missile designer says about how fool-proof their design is, or how revolutionary the seeker-head is, at the end of the day, it comes down to the situational elements and the launch parameters. Regarding an AIM-9, ambient temperature becomes a huge player, especially when the seeker would have to discriminate between the aircraft, the flares it is dropping, and the sun-baked, middle-eastern ground. People may say that the 'x' variant has some state-of-the-art FPA seeker which can do A, B and C, blah, blah. Nothing's perfect, and I think this example with the Su-22 re-enforces that status quo. As sure as the sun rises and sets, designers of military equipment while talk up their product like any other business. Ultimately, it means nothing, and no one should be surprised when it turns out that a design claim doesn't align with reality.

    EDIT: spelling errors
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5761
    Points : 5890
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  kvs on Thu 05 Mar 2020, 02:08

    I am not going apologize for my post. I initially glossed the photo over, but it was trotted out as some sort of actual Syria today event.
    Clearly it wasn't and I am sure that an Erdo-turd fanboi spread it around (not any of the posters on this forum, so don't get
    triggered) because he thought those flares were anti-aircraft missiles. They are that dumb.

    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 57
    Points : 61
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Cheetah on Thu 05 Mar 2020, 05:02

    Apologise? What for? As far as I'm concerned we were in agreement. I was just elaborating on your comment, just in case someone did think those flares were missiles. Being generic here; It wasn't aimed at anyone specific. No need to dwell on it.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23774
    Points : 24314
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  GarryB on Thu 05 Mar 2020, 05:24

    I mean, let's be honest here. It doesn't matter what A2A missile you're talking about. AIM-7, AIM-120, AIM-9, K-13, R-27 etc, etc... They all have pretty abysmal shoot-to-hit ratios in proper combat, where statistics are available.

    Well there is a reason why the word Miss starts the word missile... much the same as anger backwards appears in the word pregnant, but while there was an enormous gap in missile performance from pathetic for BVR missiles to acceptable enough to want to keep using them for progressively better and better IR guided WVR missiles, the AMRAAM did seriously improve BVR performance from F'ing useless to OK against unaware poorly equipped enemy targets... 40% kill rate against a target who is not aware they are being attached is OK because they have thousands of AMRAAMs and most enemies don't have thousands of planes...

    The point is that in the 1990s when the performance of the R-73 was revealed it became a bit of a hittile because you couldn't really out manouver it because of its thrust vector engine and high off boresight visibility of you. Older missiles get outside its 12 degree FOV and it lost lock and you were safe... much much harder to do with Archers.

    The AIM-9X was supposed to be the solution... their own hittile from which nothing could escape... its seeker was too sophisticated and the missile was too smart... when it clearly isn't.

    I mean I know the US Navy likes to talk up the air to air combat performance of Libyan Su-22s, because no one wants to admit to shooting down a largely defenceless plane for dumping its fuel tanks... no honour in that right?

    Vietnam was a good indicator of that. I don't think anyone should be surprised that an AIM-9X missed its target. Regardless of what any missile designer says about how fool-proof their design is, or how revolutionary the seeker-head is, at the end of the day, it comes down to the situational elements and the launch parameters.

    No, it is more than that... the first IR guided missiles homed in on the hottest thing within their narrow field of view... which meant the target aircraft could manouver to place the sun in the missiles field of view and would be safe... or a single flare would do it as long as it was brighter than the engines... so IR guided missile designers set their missiles to not home on the hottest thing they see and instead of a single hot point they adapted them to guide to patterns of heat in the air, so the plane designers started launching variable heat flares in bunches to create patterns for the missiles to hit... the IIR seeker of the AIM-9X was supposed to deal with that problem... recognise a group of flares as being a group of flares as opposed to the aircraft shaped object it locked on to start with...

    The only thing I can think of is like Shtora works with wire guided ATGMs... create a heat signal so intense it blooms the sensor so it can't see anything...

    Regarding an AIM-9, ambient temperature becomes a huge player, especially when the seeker would have to discriminate between the aircraft, the flares it is dropping, and the sun-baked, middle-eastern ground. People may say that the 'x' variant has some state-of-the-art FPA seeker which can do A, B and C, blah, blah. Nothing's perfect, and I think this example with the Su-22 re-enforces that status quo. As sure as the sun rises and sets, designers of military equipment while talk up their product like any other business. Ultimately, it means nothing, and no one should be surprised when it turns out that a design claim doesn't align with reality.

    You are saying it is no surprise, but people talking up the F-35 and F-22 should now realise that all those aircraft have that could reliably kill an enemy target now is their gun, and while the F-22 isn't a terrible dogfighter... the F-35 is.

    I am not going apologize for my post. I initially glossed the photo over, but it was trotted out as some sort of actual Syria today event.
    Clearly it wasn't and I am sure that an Erdo-turd fanboi spread it around (not any of the posters on this forum, so don't get
    triggered) because he thought those flares were anti-aircraft missiles. They are that dumb.

    I don't think you need to, what you said was basically correct for anyone mistakenly thinking these were actual photos of the attack...

    I would say we should be asking AMCXXL how the photo he posted is related to the information he posted... was it supposed to be evidence or just entertainment...

    Either way I agree... no need for anyone to get upset or need to apologise about anything.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5761
    Points : 5890
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  kvs on Thu 05 Mar 2020, 05:26

    Cheetah wrote:Apologise? What for? As far as I'm concerned we were in agreement. I was just elaborating on your comment, just in case someone did think those flares were missiles. Being generic here; It wasn't aimed at anyone specific. No need to dwell on it.

    Sorry, my post was a random answer added to all the ones above it. I was not singling you out. E-mails and forum posts are annoying this way.

    Back OT, it is interesting that no cease fire has been announced. It even looks like there is an escalation. Not quite the usual rinse and repeat
    pattern. Somebody has lost patience.

    Cheetah
    Cheetah

    Posts : 57
    Points : 61
    Join date : 2016-11-26
    Location : Australia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Cheetah on Thu 05 Mar 2020, 09:13

    GarryB wrote:...The AIM-9X was supposed to be the solution... their own hittile from which nothing could escape... its seeker was too sophisticated and the missile was too smart... when it clearly isn't...
    I agree. With the caveat that the skewed 'expectation vs reality' is a common occurrence in most technologies.

    GarryB wrote:designers set their missiles to not home on the hottest thing they see and instead of a single hot point they adapted them to guide to patterns of heat in the air
    The thing with pattern recognition, whether in humans or in computers (especially computers at current), is that you can never cover all the bases with it. There is always going to be a set of certain circumstances which fool said person/computer. I'm not going to claim that I know the internal workings of the AIM-9X; in fact I am curious if it has some basic redundancy programmed in for those moments where it does not recognise what it's looking at. A reversion to the basic 'hottest-target' logic. Anywho, I'm completely in agreement with you here. seeker pattern recognition is the next technological step, and would provide a hit% boost if done right, no doubting that; but I bet dollars to doughnuts that that technology ships with a long list of issues no one saw coming.

    GarryB wrote:...You are saying it is no surprise, but people talking up the F-35 and F-22 should now realise that all those aircraft have that could reliably kill an enemy target now is their gun, and while the F-22 isn't a terrible dogfighter... the F-35 is...
    Well, it should be no surprise to anyone who doesn't blindly follow the military advancements of their favourite horse in the race, and label them as infallible. I'm well aware of numerous people who refuse to let go of the idea that the US military, and by extension, the industries that supply it, can't do anything wrong. It goes without saying that the same goes for Russia, or any nation. Critically analyse any device and you will find flaws.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23774
    Points : 24314
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  GarryB on Thu 05 Mar 2020, 11:24

    Actually with IIR they moved from pattern recognition to 3D internal libraries of shapes for autonomous target recognition... there have been a few Combat Approved TV shows which show ranges with radar and optical sensors in a big circle around a structure to raise objects up and spin them around so real radar signatures and IR and optical signatures of various items can be measured and recorded... these sorts of things are used to determine what object the sensor is looking at all by itself... this sort of thing is necessary for internal weapons and weapons that are launched without already having a missile seeker lock on the target...

    Something like TOR is always launched directly up in the air with side thruster rockets rolling it in the direction of the target with counter thrusters stopping it turning too far and the main engine accelerating it towards its target... the tracking radar will then start tracking both the target and the outgoing missile and flight commands will be sent to the missile to make it fly an interception course... the TOR missile has no seeker.

    For something with an IIR seeker like the Morfei (9M100) then you need a datalink to the missile so the missile sitting inside the weapon bay can't see the target but is thrown out the weapon bay and its main engine lights up to accelerate it in a specific direction that will take it closer to its intended target that has been detected by the launch platform but not yet seen by the missile. The missile might have a sensor image of the target passed to it before launch or after launch via an IRST sensor and it could be directed to look at a specific point in space in front of it for that target using a 3D library of IR images that it can rotate itself to match the targets current flight characteristics... it might pick the wrong target within a group but can transmit its target back to the launch platform to allow the pilot to select another target if needed.

    As you can probably guess these missiles are going to be hard to fool... current defence choices are DIRCMs or counter missiles... the latter favouring non stealthy aircraft that can generally carry rather more missiles than stealthy aircraft can...
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 827
    Points : 934
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  jhelb on Fri 06 Mar 2020, 10:14

    GarryB wrote:Actually with IIR they moved from pattern recognition to 3D internal libraries of shapes for autonomous target recognition

    In Kosovo they used microwave emitting magnetrons sourced from kitchen microwave ovens to confound smart weapons of NATO.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23774
    Points : 24314
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  GarryB on Fri 06 Mar 2020, 10:52

    It is not natural for things in nature to emit microwaves, so one thing you look for in war time is something that emits microwaves because most of the time it will be some sort of radar antenna which will be part of something that needs to be destroyed...

    In this case you have a superior enemy looking desperately for targets to attack... because of the MANPADS risk they fly high so their optical view of the area is not ideal but if they get a microwave signal they can launch an anti radiation missile at it.

    Well normally a microwave signal is coming from some antenna with electronics boxes that are vulnerable to missiles like HARM and ALARM, but if you build an armoured box with the microwave inside it with a small gap for the microwaves to escape but mainly a protected power source plus a heavily armoured box with a few narrow slits in the front to let microwaves out and a microwave inside facing the slits with a big hole cut in the door and you turn it on and point it upwards and then stand well back you should see... over time lots and lots of anti radiation missiles hitting it repeatedly... with good protection it could last quite a few hits and wasting lots of expensive western ARMs...
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 827
    Points : 934
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  jhelb on Fri 06 Mar 2020, 12:24

    GarryB wrote:
    Well there is a reason why the word Miss starts the word missile... much the same as anger backwards appears in the word pregnant, but while there was an enormous gap in missile performance from pathetic for BVR missiles to acceptable enough to want to keep using them for progressively better and better IR guided WVR missiles, the AMRAAM did seriously improve BVR performance from F'ing useless to OK against unaware poorly equipped enemy targets... 40% kill rate against a target who is not aware they are being attached is OK because they have thousands of AMRAAMs and most enemies don't have thousands of planes...

    I read somewhere that missiles are able to hit fighter aircraft because the False Alarm Rate of UV MAWS is too high at higher altitude. IR MAWS has better sensitivity but an inherently high FAR. Dual Colour reduces it somewhat. RF is unique to EF-2K. So far, MAWS works well at low altitude against close-range SAMs.

    MAWS pick up boost phase signature of incoming missiles (UV or IR spectrum). Not influenced by missile's seeker head. Typical range very short (5-10km). They don't pick up AAMs.
    Mainly MAWS are used against shoulder fired missiles, which don't give out any electronic signature.

    From Gulf War experiences, particularly the accounts of F-16s doing SEAD, the need for a towed decoy seems the highest for RF threats

    Sponsored content

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #14

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed 08 Apr 2020, 12:52