That's all find and dandy, but it still doesn't negate the fact that the old/current ADS has now been compromised, so to speak and that's by the Russian rep's own admission in so many words.
Most of the important secret details will be software based and would not have been captured, and even if they were that is just a really good excuse to upgrade everything to a whole new level. The MiG-31M upgrade didn't happen because they couldn't afford it... lets face it times were tough and they didn't have a lot of money to throw around, but when the original MiG-31s design was compromised by "donald" they got a significant improvement in equipment and systems and performance... and the defection of Belenko had the same effect with the MiG-25 with all its systems and missiles getting significant upgrades and the missiles weren't even compromised in that case.
The Tunguska was sold to the UK in the 1990s... it has been almost 30 years so I guess Pantsir is useless, or the UK has an air defence system as good as Tunguska?
No they don't.
The west bought all sorts of things including an incomplete SA-12 S-300V battery and yet their ability to penetrate Soviet and Russian air defences I would say is pretty weak. Finland has BUK and so did Ukraine so BUK has not been cancelled... it has been upgraded to Viking... MiG-29s to MiG-35s and Su-27s to Su-30 and Su-35...
The solution is to keep upgrading.
During the 1990s they didn't just learn about how potent a MiG-29 with an R-73 is in close combat, they also learned that the flares they issued to their combloc allies were also effective against all the models of Sidewinder they had in service at the time. Experience with Su-22s and AIM-9X missiles suggests their flares are still very effective.
If you know anything about the defence industry it is about developing new stuff and the best way to develop new stuff and better stuff and effective stuff is to be at war with a peer or near peer enemy. In Russian technology and system that would take years to get approved and tested and into production and operational use now probably takes months in some cases and companies with ideas and systems are taking the chance to test new ideas and systems as solutions to problems that 6 years ago no one thought existed.
A leading drone manufacturer and producer in the US admitted that while all their drones met US military requirements on a battlefield against Russia they are simply not good enough to be effective systems. Russian EW and systems and air defences just render them junk... and they are expensive junk at that... some hand held four prop drones cost $20K plus... something China or Russia would make 200 drones for that sort of money.
It was not long ago that HATO claimed technology advantages and numbers advantages... now they would struggle in both areas... they have a lot of planes but against a real air defence network they need 100 times more to be serious... and with western prices that is just not practical.
That may be the nature of the game but it's still a valid concern, wouldn't you agree?
From his own perspective surprise is valuable and so upgrading and improving and changing what you have makes you more of a threat to your enemy... in many ways them capturing an aircraft means they will learn how damn potent they are and perhaps cut you a bit of slack when they realise the performance the Russians and now Egyptians are operating at, and they will try to find weaknesses and strong points to develop tactics to defeat you, but you just need to learn the aircraft yourself and learn its strengths to exploit them and its weaknesses to minimise their effects in combat and general use.
It is nothing to get upset about... it is normal.
Why? Is Russia our enemy?
The drones and missiles they used to destroy those Abrams tanks and Bradley vehicles are normal export items and have been for the last 20 odd years in the case of the missiles. Russia has essentially exposed the Abrams as being a tank that can be killed with anything that will kill any other tank.... which is incredibly bad news for the US and Abrams tank users because the reason you put up with their enormous costs and their enormous weight and their enormous fuel consumption was because they were supposed to be very well protected, and yet it turns out they are just as easy to destroy as tanks a fraction of their size and weight and cost.
Tanks are tanks and there is nothing much in the way of something like the Ka-52's ADS which is a specific technology that's part of the aircraft's defensive EW suite which is on the same lines as OPSEC material.
I disagree... checking out the optics performance of an enemy tank is important to work out what they can see at what distance in what conditions, and also their real rate of fire, their real mobility, even in the case of Russian tanks their decoy jamming equipment and their smoke and EW equipment, and the composition of their armour and ERA and any APS system... what can the see around their vehicle when closed up... can you approach from the side on foot without being seen or are they going to spot you far away enough to nail you. Is the armour you use better than theirs... cheaper, lighter, more effective... can we copy it...
For example, the deal for 500 T-90MS' would've potentially included the Arena-M APS (and I'm just throwing this out there) that the trickle-down effect could now affect this deal. Again, this isn't complaining or bashing, it's understanding if this is the case and if this is an inherent problem with such particular systems that could possibly have a simpler solution without making the system irrelevant.
So you wont buy T-90MS from Russia because you are afraid the west has had a look at them?
Are you going to buy French or German or British or American tanks that have been easily destroyed in the Ukraine, or in the case of the Leclerc... chose to sit this one out...
The point is that it does not matter if the enemy get a good look at your stuff unless you are bald face lying about performance and they don't know that till they test it.
I really don't think that is the case.
Perhaps a change in the avionics' programing/software/hardware or a simple mechanism swap that's not too involved which would give it a new & unknown signature.
When a new system goes into service the group who designed it almost always start working on upgrades and improvements that can be implemented, but also on the next gen replacement for the system that is a complete redesign. Some of the upgrades will be based on the brand new design so they can be put into service and operationally tested, but when you have to put things in service there are always ideas or improvements you didn't have time to include because it would have made testing take longer and it would otherwise not get into service because you are always making changes that needs retesting.
Equipment being compromised by the enemy is NORMAL. and often does not make any difference at all.
I already mentioned that all sorts of Air defence systems were sold to the west in the 1990s... some HATO countries even operate Soviet era air defence systems that western aircraft can't defeat and most of that has been replaced now in Russian service with upgrade and improved models.
SOSNA is a very simple two stage rocket powered missile that uses simple laser beam riding... handing it over to the west before it even enters service would make no difference because what can they do about it?
The 10km range missile moves at about 1.3km/s to start with and reaches 10km range in about 8 seconds of flight, the missile is very small and very fast and has a rather good warhead and is essentially optically guided so RCS and IIR are not critical for aiming the system... flares and chaff would not be effective and DIRCMs would be a waste of time too because there is no seeker in the nose of the missile... the sensor is in the tail and looks back at the launcher which directs a low powered laser at the target that the missile flys down. Popping smoke or laser dazzlers wont help either.
The west does not need to capture it... they know how it works... the Kornet essentially does the same at much lower flight speeds.
They still have no real defence against either system.
Or add/change an EW component that alters its current signals?
The frequencies and signals they use were likely chosen to make them the most effective they can be.
It's tough to convey these concerns sometimes without making them sound like just bitching or bashing, especially on this platform! lol1
Imagine their position... the Storm Shadow/Taurus/whatever else they want to call it, was supposed to be this super stealthy impossible to stop super missile that would dismantle the Russian military and open the way for the western airforces to flood in and have their way to slaughter Putins forces and get a win real fast... but it turns out they are not so invisible and a few have been captured intact... and of course they will get their hands on super 1nm chips the west uses in its weapon systems to defend peace and democracy around the world.
So maybe it's just a precautionary upgrade? That's a good thing, then.
The dazzlers as such are lasers that direct light at the frequency the target missile operates at at the missile sensor... I would say in the few years they have been in service the technology and power of lasers has likely improved and the ability to use different frequencies in different useful IIR frequencies means upgrades are likely a good thing and this compromise is the perfect reason to get those upgrades into service and use.
Nothing like a good war to get rid of shit that does not work as expected and upgrade everything that does work to make it better.
Capturing an AK-12 does not render it useless or obsolete or compromised... but it will give the enemy an insight into the improvements in performance it provides over existing or alternative rifles. It is not nothing, but certainly not something to panic about either.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Hole
