+51

galicije83

nero

Sujoy

Arkanghelsk

Belisarius

limb

franco

ALAMO

jaguar_br

Mir

Singular_Transform

Krepost

Scorpius

bitcointrader70

PapaDragon

RTN

tanino

Atmosphere

Broski

TMA1

lyle6

lancelot

Podlodka77

Backman

kvs

Admin

Hole

MiamiMachineShop

GarryB

LMFS

dino00

southpark

miketheterrible

magnumcromagnon

nemrod

KomissarBojanchev

jhelb

Ives

marcellogo

Azi

HM1199

George1

Isos

AlfaT8

moskit

macedonian

nightcrawler

Austin

medo

IronsightSniper

ahmedfire

55 posters

Go to page :

1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13

Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

calripson

calripson: Posts : 728
Points : 789
Join date : 2013-10-25

Post n°301

You Miss The Point

calripson Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:08 am

bitcointrader70 wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

galicije83 wrote:
Do you know that they need almost 2 hours for deployment and undeployment instead of 2.5 hours as other battery need it..so yes they reduce time but not for god sake to dozen minutes but just to 2 hours instead to 2 hour and 30min...

SEAD, more like seethe. Pathetic. So the very best of NATO wild weasels could not even take down pretty much static targets - and that's with nobody contesting the air space or attacking their airbases

Nobody tell them even the strategic SAMs have setup and tear-down times of 5 minutes, or they'd shit themselves.

I mean they couldn’t find them because they spent majority of the time hiding. These SAMs were effectively suppressed and their inferiority showed. NATO bombed them with practically zero resistance. It showed that older Soviet SAMs were essentially useless in this conflict. The f117s that were hit were due to poor NATO mission planning and lack of EW support.

If s300/s400 will have to hide like this from NATO than they are failures.

Russia is not Serbia, nor Iraq, nor Grenada. NATO, Israel, or anyone else cannot attack Russian assets and establish air superiority in their classical method of conducting warfare because Russia has unstoppable counterstrike capabilities up to and including tactical nuclear weapons. That's it. Nothing else matters. The circle-jerk about F-22 vs blah, blah is great for a 14-year-old playing video games. Every military analyst in the Pentagon knows Russia can sink a US carrier group at will, can put a missile through the window of choice of any command and control facility, and can turn any airbase into a glass parking lot.

GarryB, magnumcromagnon, galicije83, Azi, BliTTzZ, miketheterrible, TMA1 and like this post

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 35735
Points : 36261
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°302

Re: Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

GarryB Thu Feb 03, 2022 10:31 pm

I mean they couldn’t find them because they spent majority of the time hiding.

That is what air defence is supposed to do... remain hidden and active. If they had more modern systems they would have been rather more effective, but they had what they had.

These SAMs were effectively suppressed and their inferiority showed. NATO bombed them with practically zero resistance.

The fact that they weren't massacred and wiped out like arab air defences were repeatedly is to their credit. HATO hit very little in the way of actual military hardware during that entire conflict that Allbright claimed at the start would be over in 3 days.

It showed that older Soviet SAMs were essentially useless in this conflict.

It showed HATO was unable to deal with the oldest and most primitive Soviet air defence systems still in service if they are used with skill and intelligence.

The f117s that were hit were due to poor NATO mission planning and lack of EW support.

If it is invisible it should not need EW support, but then if it was invisible then it could not be hit even with the flight plans sitting in front of them.

If s300/s400 will have to hide like this from NATO than they are failures.

HATO has to hide from S-300s and S-400s.

HATO keeps talking about the future being swarm weapons... well Russia already has a swarm of SAMs and AA guns and sensors of a wide range of types.

Any defence can be chipped away and and eventually defeated given time, but Russian defences are not only very strong, they also have the capacity to strike back so any ship or plane launching weapons can be sunk or shot down and have its port or airport destroyed to prevent further attacks...

BliTTzZ likes this post

PeeD

PeeD: Posts : 25
Points : 27
Join date : 2017-07-07

Post n°303

Re: Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

PeeD Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:31 am

Mindstorm wrote:

galicije83 wrote:So this isnt Serbian battery but Danis battery?..WTF who wrote this shit?!

For the LAST time for You all westerners or any other nation...THERE was NO modification on S-125 NEVA system...this isnt true for GOD sake and it is your propaganda. Dani admit that in his latest interviews and many time before that...this is just bullshit written in USA for lsot of this planes...

Do you know that they need almost 2 hours for deployment and undeployment instead of 2.5 hours as other battery need it..so yes they reduce time but not for god sake to dozen minutes but just to 2 hours instead to 2 hour and 30min...

Yugoslavian engineers of our VTI or military and technical institute modified S-125 Neva rocket in way that we can shot when plane come and when plane goes from zone of distruction (in two ways not just one as it was on original system). This was only modification on that system...

And also you do not know that 3rd battery whole war was in an ambush, because of that they do not have casualties and they was not hit in this war. That was plan of 250. rocket brigade if war start...

Obviously it was a Serbian air defense battery, what an assertion.....

It not suffered casualities because it was in "ambush"?

Practically any AD battery, and even more all Serbian SAM batteries during Operation Allied Forces, shift cyclically from active to ambush stance ,but while any other failed to achieve any downing, suffering at least some material or man losses, this single battery caused instead single-handedly practiclaly the entire losses suffered by NATO in this operation.

In the Federation the Operation Allied Forces has been examined in the most minuscle details and not obviously by public declarations (including those of Dani that correctly continue to adhere to Serbian brothers OPSEC) but by extensive and strictly technical examination of all the factors involved in the clash between NATO combined Forces and Serbian Air Defenses Forces ,up to direct test of a recollected ALE-50 against domestic products that shown the absolute inefficiency of this measure against domestic SAMs of the times.

Precise data about times of transition from march to deployment of different SAMs and the inverse, theirs response times to different air targets, missile's fuse sensitivity, jam rejection thresholds, on road and off road performances and average response times of NATO Air Forces SIGINT elements to decoy emitters and actual radar pinging, metrics about theirs communication channels , average time to arrival at delivery point of different ammunitions after data dissemination, kinematic parameters of different aircraft in evasive maneuvring or attempt egression from a SAM engagement footprint......all was crossed to produce a model harmonized with data of domestic IAD of the time.

The result was that even discounting effect of the Air Forces, EW forces and long range attacks to theirs air bases an operation like Allied Forces would have failed totally and likely conducted to the complete paralysis of the NATO air operations within the first 48 hours cause unbearable crippling aircraft losses.

Z. Dani simply rendered its battery more similar to a relatively modern SAM of the Federation of its times through 19 distinctive modifications to different components of its battery (some minors others more substantial and ingenous).

Great point on the parameters, especially capability for evasive maneuvering.

But going back to Su-35 vs. western airpower and BVR combat:

What is you opinion on Su-35 against AIM-120 in BVR high altitude regime. At what ranges do you think AIM-120 has a credible chance to engage a Su-35?

Su-35 could in theory pull max. allowable (airframe/pilot) g-force maneuver at very high altitudes, in very thin air, via its TVC nozzles.
In altitudes such as 18km, AIM-120 will have immense problems to overmatch the turn-rate at a high enough level to allow for a kill.
AIM-120 only has its aerodynamic surfaces after some 7 seconds of powered flight, no TVC, no gas dynamic thruster system.

If high altitude and TVC is then combined with F-pole energy-bleed evasive maneuvering: Do you think AIM-120 is still a BVR weapon, or rather a WVR AAM?

Can federation Su-35 operate at 18km or more with full air-to-air missile load? Does TVC enable 9 g maneuver at such altitudes?

Stealth/LO is all about BVR engagements. I have doubts whether non-ambush BVR engagements are possible with kinematically weak AAMs such as AIM-120 (against a Su-35 class high altitude fighter).
Is the stealth/LO advantage for BVR fights physically diminished to the natural operation regime of the Su-35?

Finty likes this post

RTN

RTN: Posts : 697
Points : 676
Join date : 2014-03-24
Location : Fairfield, CT

Post n°304

Re: Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

RTN Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:12 am

Mindstorm wrote: The response is in the technical details concerning the measures aimed at reduce the losses by part of NATO Air Forces over Serbian skies: NATO aircraft losses during the Operation Allied Force was avoided not thanks to mythical effects produced by EW capabilities or "stealth" designs, if not marginally, what instead really reduced enormously the losses was :

- ALE-50 This towed decoy saved 10-12 B1 bombers and about 36 among F-15s and F-16s from almost assured downing (SAM diverted had radar lock on the aircraft and had surpassed kinematic evasive manoeuvres)
-Altitude limit of the SA-6 batteries
-Fixed nature of the SA-2 and SA-3 batteries, that had the altitude reach to engage NATO aircraft at any operative cruise altitude

USAF used B-52 as well during the war against Serbia. B-52’s does not carry ALE-50 decoys. How many B-52s could the Serbs shoot down?

The B52 has an extensive Electronic Countermeasures Suite. It includes configurable manual and automatic systems. Short of the a dedicated ECM aircraft (Growler/Prowler) no other aircraft comes close. Effective ECM requires sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters for a wide range of frequencies/ bands. Different frequencies provide different capabilities and limitations. That takes power, and space.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 35735
Points : 36261
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°305

Re: Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

GarryB Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:59 pm

USAF used B-52 as well during the war against Serbia. B-52’s does not carry ALE-50 decoys. How many B-52s could the Serbs shoot down?

A decoy is a decoy, you don't have to carry the decoy yourself to benefit from its effect on incoming missiles... or do wild weasel aircraft only protect themselves and kill SAM sites while the bombers around them get shot down?

The B52 has an extensive Electronic Countermeasures Suite. It includes configurable manual and automatic systems. Short of the a dedicated ECM aircraft (Growler/Prowler) no other aircraft comes close. Effective ECM requires sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters for a wide range of frequencies/ bands. Different frequencies provide different capabilities and limitations. That takes power, and space.

So why do they operate with support platforms like jammer and other aircraft types?

calripson

calripson: Posts : 728
Points : 789
Join date : 2013-10-25

Post n°306

Serbs Shot Down Zero, North Vietnamese Shot Down 31

calripson Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:23 pm

RTN wrote:

Mindstorm wrote: The response is in the technical details concerning the measures aimed at reduce the losses by part of NATO Air Forces over Serbian skies: NATO aircraft losses during the Operation Allied Force was avoided not thanks to mythical effects produced by EW capabilities or "stealth" designs, if not marginally, what instead really reduced enormously the losses was :

- ALE-50 This towed decoy saved 10-12 B1 bombers and about 36 among F-15s and F-16s from almost assured downing (SAM diverted had radar lock on the aircraft and had surpassed kinematic evasive manoeuvres)
-Altitude limit of the SA-6 batteries
-Fixed nature of the SA-2 and SA-3 batteries, that had the altitude reach to engage NATO aircraft at any operative cruise altitude

USAF used B-52 as well during the war against Serbia. B-52’s does not carry ALE-50 decoys. How many B-52s could the Serbs shoot down?

The B52 has an extensive Electronic Countermeasures Suite. It includes configurable manual and automatic systems. Short of the a dedicated ECM aircraft (Growler/Prowler) no other aircraft comes close. Effective ECM requires sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters for a wide range of frequencies/ bands. Different frequencies provide different capabilities and limitations. That takes power, and space.

31 B-52s "officially" lost 50 years ago to 1960 era surface to air technology.

magnumcromagnon likes this post

Lennox

Lennox: Posts : 67
Points : 69
Join date : 2021-07-30

Post n°307

Re: Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

Lennox Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:08 pm

My dad has a pot made of crashed B-52. Super durable Smile

All jokes aside, they did use decoy and EA-6 in VN war, which tbh posed enormous threats to our SAM for quite a while. Nothing really impossible to shoot down, though

LMFS and Mir like this post

Mindstorm

Mindstorm: Posts : 1135
Points : 1302
Join date : 2011-07-20

Post n°308

Re: Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

Mindstorm Mon Feb 14, 2022 4:37 pm

RTN wrote:USAF used B-52 as well during the war against Serbia. B-52’s does not carry ALE-50 decoys. How many B-52s could the Serbs shoot down?

It is not quite so.

B-52Hs was used mostly as AGM-86 cruise missile delivery platform.
When, successively, them was employed in "stand-in" missions, the B-52Hs were used only in very "safe" areas (practically almost exclusively on the borders with Albania) where no chances of encounters with mobile/semi mobile Serbian SAM batteries was possible.

In USAFE post war analysis there are no noticeable recorded instances of SAMs guided against B-52Hs; that subsonic bomber would have been incredibly vulnerable to downing and just for this reason only B-1s and B-2s were employed in dangerous air sectors over Serbia.

GarryB, Arrow, BliTTzZ, LMFS, Mir and Belisarius like this post

Russia Defence Forum

Su-35 vs F-22/F-35