Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 995
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat May 23, 2020 11:36 am


    Arrow wrote:Why ? Since France has OTH radar, they see air traffic in quite a large part of European Russia.



    Nostradamus do not have such a detection range, it is very efficient and ,for the technology of the time of its construction, also surprisingly accurate, significantly more than what initially computed by Federation's specialists, (like someone has highlighted here it in 1999, a still in development Nostradamus, constantly detected and followed F-117 and B-2 operations against Serbian targets) ,but its range barely reach Warsaw - and therefore would be incapable to early warn an attack against a target placed at this distance -.

    As said deep air operations, like that previously described, in the Western and South-western european targets would be very difficult to carry on because interceptors could be cued toward the incoming aircraft by Nostradamus and therefore would require a level of corollary asset for the strike squadrons very big and also with them the success would be seriously in question.
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 643
    Points : 643
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Arrow on Sat May 23, 2020 12:08 pm

    I wonder how accurate the OTH container is. Apparently he was observing the F-35 in the Middle East near the Iranian border. With the fact that F-35 is easier to detect than B-2 and F-117.

    As said deep air operations, like that previously described, in the Western and South-western european targets would be very difficult to carry on because interceptors could be cued toward the incoming aircraft by Nostradamus and therefore would require a level of corollary asset for the strike squadrons very big and also with them the success would be seriously in question. wrote:

    So all that remains is hypersonic missile attack? Kindzal, Gzur, Zirkon. Zircon is a little short range.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 995
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat May 23, 2020 4:21 pm

    Arrow wrote:I wonder how accurate the OTH container is. Apparently he was observing the F-35 in the Middle East near the Iranian border. With the fact that F-35 is easier to detect than B-2 and F-117.



    So all that remains is hypersonic missile attack? Kindzal, Gzur, Zirkon. Zircon is a little short range.

    Enough to maintain track of the area and the vectors of motion of several thousands of incoming aircraft (and/or UAVs and cruise missiles) and guide supersonic interceptors, proceeding in perfect radar silence and possibly outside the frontal angle of coverage of radar such as AN-APG-70 or AN-APG-81, toward them so to allow theirs engagement using exclusively passive optical tracking systems (aided by the beam or rear aspect angle of inception).

    Ironically what will happen in the reality is that those wester "supposedly" VLO aircraft will be attacked from short (DAS range) to very close range by enemy tactical aircraft or interceptors with way better kinematic performances and superior missiles and moreover completely by surprise.

    It is just for this "mirror thinking" that all the latest domestic radars incorporate always constructive measures aimed to obtain very wide angle of coverage; examples of that are the very wide 3D steering capabilities of Н035 Ирбис or the distributed arrays of the Ш-121.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6198
    Points : 6190
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Isos on Sat May 23, 2020 4:41 pm

    Ironically what will happen in the reality is that those wester "supposedly" VLO aircraft will be attacked from short (DAS range) to very close range by enemy tactical aircraft or interceptors with way better kinematic performances and superior missiles and moreover completely by surprise.

    Awacs can track at very long range su-27/30/35 or mig-29/31 and mig-31. There won't be surprise attack by any side.

    The mini aerial war between india and pakistan shows what new wars will be: everyone sees everything and the one with more fighters/missiles at the right place and right moment wins the battle.

    Radars have expended and they are much better than during cold war.

    If Russia wants to take advantage of the irbis they need to include r-77M on the su-35 quickly. Because right now even if it can spot an f-15 400km away the engagement zone are matched by both aircraft with their respective missiles with max theorical ranges of ~100km. At such distance both aircraft will have spoted the other for a good time.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 995
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat May 23, 2020 8:32 pm

    Isos wrote:Awacs can track at very long range su-27/30/35 or mig-29/31 and mig-31. There won't be surprise attack by any side.


    E3 Awacs with a low observable strike group ? Maybe in area denial missions well within OTAN territory and against.  

    It would not only represent the absolute negation of the whole concept of low observable tactical aircraft but would not resolve in any way the situation; leaving even a part the chances of survival, close to zero literally, of a similar aircraft in area defended by any domestic long range air defense systems (and against a similar trivial target theirs effective engagement range would be significantly greater than the, already understimated publicly, available.....) merely a pair of МиГ-31БМ, to assure the overkill, would proceed at very high supersonic speed at very high altitude  toward a point of delivery of theirs Р-37M, literally at hundreds of km from theirs DCA squads .....if present.....it would not survive a minute ,not in enemy airspace, but at hundreds of km from the border.

    The same idea of penetration in enemy air space with independent, supposedly low observable, tactical aircraft was conceived purposely to adress those kind of unsolvable problems,, in reality the proponents of those idea was very efficient, long 25 years, in allowing the US military industrial complex to absorb titanic amount of resources from the Congress; but nowdays not even the most deceived people with specidfic technical knowledges in the US MIC still believe that similar concepts would really have a single chance of success in an open conventional conflict against an enemy of the level Federation or China, but would achieve acceptable results against much less sophisticated enemies that are the real targets of USA expeditionary doctrine for expansion of its sphere of influence.



    Isos wrote:The mini aerial war between india and pakistan shows what new wars will be: everyone sees everything and the one with more fighters/missiles at the right place and right moment wins the battle.

    That is not true for war between most advanced nations.

    AWACS type of both sides would be near to unemployable except well deep in friendly territory in defensive mission behind the protection of several layers of IAD nodes and DCA screens and also so theirs average survival rate would be marketedly low.

    AWACS has been, in the latest 35 years of western type of air warfare, the single "allowing element" for the realization of operational routines that appear almost expected by default in western Air Force mindset: from Israeli operations in middle East to US Air Campaigns around the world capabilities to be guided toward enemy aircraft avoiding where possible the area of coverage of its nose radar (just what we are debating here...) has been an expected pre-condition at the beginning of the hostilities.

    It was not thanks to secret magical capabilities of western aircraft or theirs pilots that fought in the latest 35 years, even if only against incomparably less advanced opponent, that the loss in air to air engagements was very low, but merely thanks to 16-17 people in a clumsy modified civil aircraft with a powerful high-gain radar mounted overhead that through radio communication guided each pilot toward its targets providing all the commands necessary to circumvent enemy aircraft's radar footprint allowing to attack them usually by surprise.  
    Eliminating this single element you would have obtained very likely a negative exchange ratio in air to air engagements even against the outnumbered outdated enemy aircraft when operating in theirs airspace.



    In an air war without AWACS ,  , like that between great powers, the detection advantage shift immediately toward the aircraft that can boast the wider angle of coverge of its sensor suits and at today western aircraft are anything except prepared ,in its constructive technical architecture, to comply with similar necessity of hiigh-end conflicts.....
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1394
    Points : 1435
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  dino00 on Sat May 23, 2020 8:59 pm

    You are killing me Garry lol1 I hope you are not doing on purpose lol1

    GarryB Kh-59MK2 has a range of 550km... not really enough. The Kh-58 has half that range... wrote:

    If the kh-58 you are talking about is this http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/kh-58ushke/. You are saying that the Russian version only has more 30 km range...


    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6113
    Points : 6264
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 24, 2020 1:13 am

    GarryB wrote:Kh-59MK2 has a range of 550km... not really enough. The Kh-58 has half that range...

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF DeOeuesX0AAKbvG?format=jpg&name=medium
    RuAF vs US-NATO AF DeOeuqiW4AEqY5B?format=jpg&name=medium

    Well the Kh-59Mk2 is .4 meters wide, and the mid-section internal bomb bays are 1 meter wide. They should make a modification, call it the Kh-59Mk3, where instead of 2 missiles, it's just one missile that's .8 meters wide (with comformal drop tanks), probably giving it more than double the max range at something like 1,600-1,800km. The range could be more than doubled because as it stands the Kh-59Mk2 design has to share space for electronics, warhead, engine and fuel, while the drop tanks that doubled the width (and spans the whole length) of the missile only has to store fuel.

    Of course by making it wider it'll be more prone to drag, however less so due to the fact that the Kh-59Mk2 (and the Mk3) missile would be subsonic. To mitigate the additional drag caused by doubling the width, as I mentioned they could instead of having a uniform .8 meter wide munition, they could take the existing Kh-59Mk2 design, and add .2 meter wide conformal droppable fuel tanks on each side that could be bolted on. Kh-59Mk3 will have ports on each side to mount the fuel tanks, and fuel veins that lead to the engine. When the fuel is spent, they would be jettisoned leaving largely the same shape as the Kh-59Mk2 design (but with additional side ports), simultaneously shedding dead weight and reducing drag.

    Future iterations of the Su-57 should, ideally speaking have more modular mid section bomb bays. Ideally speaking in my opinion the 2 door bomb bays should be replaced with a modular revolving door system, which would degrade RCS significantly less, and reduce drag when launching munitions. To further reduce RCS degradation, they could have an electro-magnetic opaque aersol gas (aluminum-silica nanosphere aersol like the AFV smoke grenades) be injected in the bomb bays before launching munitions, which could possibly help mask the munitions from detection too (if it coats the munition).

    The revolving door bomb bays could be designed where set piece revolving doors could allow different sized munitions, like for long missiles (sub, super, or hypersonic) that fits the whole length (and the space between) of both bomb bays combined!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 24, 2020 9:01 am

    So all that remains is hypersonic missile attack? Kindzal, Gzur, Zirkon. Zircon is a little short range.

    Zircon is a surface launched missile with a range of over 1,000km, while Kinzhal from a high speed high altitude launch from a MiG-31 has a range of 2,000km, and the Gzur is supposed to be much slower than either of those weapons (only mach 6) but with a range of 1,500km.

    I would suggest that from an air launch above 12km altitude and perhaps just supersonic speed the Zircon should be good for a bare minimum 1,500km range which would be plenty for most targets as it would be flying at mach 9.

    Awacs can track at very long range su-27/30/35 or mig-29/31 and mig-31. There won't be surprise attack by any side.

    AWACS can be engaged at maximum range from any AAM or SAM... including the R-37M and any new missile that replaces it, and of course S-400 and soon S-500.

    The mini aerial war between india and pakistan shows what new wars will be: everyone sees everything and the one with more fighters/missiles at the right place and right moment wins the battle.

    Honestly India actually seemed a bit confused in that incident...

    Radars have expended and they are much better than during cold war.

    They have indeed.

    If Russia wants to take advantage of the irbis they need to include r-77M on the su-35 quickly. Because right now even if it can spot an f-15 400km away the engagement zone are matched by both aircraft with their respective missiles with max theorical ranges of ~100km. At such distance both aircraft will have spoted the other for a good time.

    I rather suspect Su-35s will be soon fitted with R-37M or perhaps the Product 810 they talk about for the Su-57...

    But lets be honest... the real long range missiles are going to be the hypersonic scramjet powered AAMs they will be developing right now.

    If the kh-58 you are talking about is this http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/kh-58ushke/. You are saying that the Russian version only has more 30 km range...

    I am saying the Kh-58 has a long history in Soviet and Russian service and for most of that time its range was 120km from most of the platforms that carried it.

    The exception was the MiG-25 that could launch it from high altitude and high speed and it could reach 200km in that flight profile.

    For the new Kh-58 that is largely changed to be carried internally its flight range is about 250km from aircraft can can get to 15km altitude and mach 2 speed.

    If you think the Russian version can reach 500km then you are being very optimistic...

    I am impressed it can reach 250km.... it has a 150kg warhead which is huge for such a weapon.

    They should make a modification, call it the Kh-59Mk3, where instead of 2 missiles, it's just one missile that's .8 meters wide (with comformal drop tanks), probably giving it more than double the max range at something like 1,600-1,800km.

    If the missile has that sort of range you might as well carry it externally...

    Triples on external weapon racks would be interesting for the Tu-22M3M... the intake mountings for multiple ejector racks for carrying large numbers of iron bombs could be upgraded to carry twin or triple mounts with tandem missile load outs for heavier conventional payloads...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6198
    Points : 6190
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Isos on Sun May 24, 2020 9:11 am

    AWACS can be engaged at maximum range from any AAM or SAM... including the R-37M and any new missile that replaces it, and of course S-400 and soon S-500.

    Yes but they will see the sukhoi. Maybe not the su-57 but all the other have big rcs. So the Awacs will tell the other jets where they are before beung destroyed or retreating.

    Honestly India actually seemed a bit confused in that incident...

    Pakistan couldn't do anything against indian big wave of fighters and bombers. They saw them on radars but were overwhelmed and had no chance.

    Then during pakistani attack pakistani had numerical advantage and indian couldn't do much even if their MKI had all the jets on their radars.

    I rather suspect Su-35s will be soon fitted with R-37M or perhaps the Product 810 they talk about for the Su-57...

    It is indeed.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 995
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun May 24, 2020 12:10 pm

    Isos wrote:Yes but they will see the sukhoi. Maybe not the su-57 but all the other have big rcs. So the Awacs will tell the other jets where they are before beung destroyed or retreating.

    Isos we must try to remain focused when we reason.

    An AWACS can indeed detect at very long range an aircraft such as Су-30CM ,Су-27СМ3 or Су-34 ,let put even in total absence of jamming (that in an offensive missions ,like those we were examining, would very likely come from ground based EW having power output and band agility absolutely unavailable for any air based one), but how that would come into play in the scenario we were debating ?

    We were debating the material measures in forces and the military thought behind the Federation and western approach to the deep strike missions against enemy command structures, radar structures, weapon depots and above all air bases.

     
    I had highlighted 4 points of analysis of western military structure that has been at the basis of technical choices made by part of Federation's MoD in the requirements for its offensive and defensive systems.

    I recall that the aim of those missions is to degrade progressiively faster the potential of enemy forces ,in this instance the enemy Air Forces, up to the point where it cannot cope anymore with the potential of friendly IAD and therefore is doomed to annihilation, the air bases targets of those operations are those hosting not only tactical avaiation armed with substrategic munitions but just fuel tankers and also AWACS, the number of which are very very low and incredibly difficult and slow to produce.

    Western approach ,that must take into account the enormous amount of long, medium, short range and point AD systems, ground based EW and masking elements and specialized interceptors available to Federation defensive structure.....and all lacking in theris defensive structure.....and therefore the very low chance of success of stand off missions, has been to bet anything on a fleet of supposedly "low observable" networked tactical aviation .

    Those networked "stealth" aircraft should have been supposedly capable to penetrate undetected for 600-800 km in the enemy air space passing through the holes of the supposedly reduced radar footprint of theirs IAD elements so to deliver from close range (because theirs overall size and the volume of theirs internal weapon bays do not allow to host stand-off long range munitions) the PGMs on those deep targets.

    That mission ,that is the same reason of existence of the entire western air doctrine centered around very low observability do not foresee any role for AWACS, or J-STAR or any other not low observable platform for the simple reason that those few aircraft, to avoid to be transformed in few minutes in a burning and twisted amass of falling metal should remain at, at least, 500-600 km from the first echelon of enemy forces and therefore could provide zero aid for the stealth aircraft squadrons that should supposedly endanger the Federation air bases hosting the platforms and weapons that should be emplyed to destroy theris air bases.

    At this point the debate turned around the important role played by some of the most advanced OTH radars in guiding defenses against enemy deep strike groups.

    I have pointed that domestic OTH sensors, such as 29Б6 Контейнер, even leaving a part the considerations about the total fallacy of the western assumptions on low observability of those aircraft against modern samples of domestic air defense that by itself would render useless any further elaboration, is perfectly capable to guide interceptors ,proceeding in toal radar silence, around the frontal radar footprint of those stealth aircraft so to attack them by total surprise using passive optronic systems, opening fire with medium range missiles delivered at supersonic speed from relatively close range to increase the Pk and then proceeding to very close range to destroy the remaining of the sqaudrons.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 995
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun May 24, 2020 1:00 pm


    What majority of scarcely knowledgeable people or enthusiasts ignore is that it is just in this way (turn around the angle of coverage of enemy aircraft's radar) that low observable aircraft attack enemies aircraft remaining undetected , not proceeding head-on against those targets and opening fire.

    In substance the postulate of low observability has been to allow western aircraft to attain in a modern air battle what AWACS guidance (that could be not assured anymore against adavanced opponent) had permitted to achieve in the past : catch the enemy aircraft by total surprise attacking it from outside the angle of coverage of its radar.

    The almost totality of the air to air downings in the latest 35 years, included the latest ones, has been achieved against enemies totally unaware to be under attack simply because the enemy was outside the angle of coverage of its sensors, very often through third part guidance.

    In substance an aircraft attain real invisibility against an enemy aircraft when it manage to manoeuvre around the angle of coverage of enemy radar and attack from there.

    That is what happen also today in exercise such as Red Flag with aircraft like F-35 and F-22: low observability ,in its real effects and parameters, give simply the spacial edge, in the struggle against radar footprint, to manouevre around it and attack from a blind spot; in this way the enemy is downed without even knowing from where the attack come from.

    But if at Red Flag you provide an F/A-18 with the overall uptdated position and vector of motion of an F-22 , you can bet anything you have that this F-22 would be downed (at least in those exercise where medium range missiles launched down always theirs targets ....in reality it would be very different) without even knowing what hit him.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6198
    Points : 6190
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Isos on Sun May 24, 2020 1:32 pm

    I'm not debating about how good awacs are but only saying that they will see older sukhoi pretty far away and the surprise attacks are very unlikely.

    But then like you say it depends of what you do. R-37M is a dangerous weapon for them.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 24, 2020 1:50 pm

    Yes but they will see the sukhoi. Maybe not the su-57 but all the other have big rcs. So the Awacs will tell the other jets where they are before beung destroyed or retreating.

    But most european jets would also see those non stealthy Russian aircraft if they used their own radars.... the value of the AWACS is that they don't normally have to look or think for themselves... once the AWACS are taken out or forced to withdraw then HATO fights one plane at a time with little or no coordination... can you not understand how much less effective that makes them in a single stroke?

    Pakistan couldn't do anything against indian big wave of fighters and bombers. They saw them on radars but were overwhelmed and had no chance.

    Well put Russia in Pakistans position with all those HATO fighters and bombers and they wont be so overwhelming.... they have plenty of SAMs and air defence forces and while not as many aircraft as HATO does, being a defender you only need to send them up to attack incoming enemy aircraft... no need for constant patrol looking for targets.

    Then during pakistani attack pakistani had numerical advantage and indian couldn't do much even if their MKI had all the jets on their radars.

    Of course... a direct analogy for a European conflict... what was it... a MiG-21 shot down and an Mi-17 helicopter... right...

    It is indeed.

    And Object 810 is reported to have a range increase of between 1.6 and 9 times over the R-37M... (the variation depending on launch conditions).

    I'm not debating about how good awacs are but only saying that they will see older sukhoi pretty far away and the surprise attacks are very unlikely.

    But then like you say it depends of what you do. R-37M is a dangerous weapon for them.

    Air to air missiles are a long way from 100% kill probability, but it is not an accident that the R-33 was intended to hit targets pulling up to 4 gs, but the R-37M is able to deal with targets pulling 8gs.

    With its lofted trajectory the R-37M will likely be coming down at a very steep angle at perhaps mach 6... one second before impact it will be a tiny dot at a 60-70 degree angle upwards about 1.5km distant and one second later boom the 60kg HE warhead will be spraying the target with fragments... would be tricky to dodge even if you saw it coming...
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 304
    Points : 283
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  RTN on Sun May 24, 2020 7:22 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    That is not true for war between most advanced nations.
    That's true. But it's only because NATO and Russian pilots are way better trained than third world AF pilots from India & Pakistan. Moreover, NATO and Russia will also have access to far more resources, military hardware than any third world country.

    Mindstorm wrote:AWACS type of both sides would be near to unemployable except well deep in friendly territory in defensive mission behind the protection of several layers of IAD nodes and DCA screens and also so theirs average survival rate would be marketedly low.
    If AWACS are indeed not that useful then why is Russia using the IL-76? AWACS at least in the US were never designed to enter enemy airspace. But we did enter enemy airspace in Iraq, Afghanistan once our fighters established air superiority.

    AWACS, JSTARS operate from inside friendly airspace and provide real time information to blue forces.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4454
    Points : 4450
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun May 24, 2020 8:20 pm

    AWACS, JSTARS operate from inside friendly airspace and provide real time information to blue forces.
    MiG-31s/Su-34s, J-20s & S-400/500 (land &/ ship based) can shoot them down deep inside "friendly" airspace.
    The 40N6 missile of the S-400 has a claimed range of 400km and uses active radar homing to intercept air targets at great distances. It can be launched against AWACS, J-STARS, EA-6B support jammers and other high-value targets.
    https://www.army-technology.com/projects/s-400-triumph-air-defence-missile-system/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_missile_system

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-cares-about-s-300-or-s-400-s-500-could-be-real-killer-32697

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrYjL0QnSUg

    Some H-6s & Tu-22Ms can also be modified to carry long range AAMs & act like the Soviet AF Tu-128s long range interceptors.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6#Current_operators

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-28#Specifications_(Tu-128)
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 995
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun May 24, 2020 10:32 pm


    RTN wrote:If AWACS are indeed not that useful then why is Russia using the IL-76?.



    You mean А-50У and in future A-100 ?

    Just for the reasons previously named Wink

    - Against an advanced opponent: Remain well within friendly airspace to provide search/detection/ and guidance against mostly enemy cruise missiles and coverage of area not densely covered by IAD.
    - Against an inferor opponent : Employ it in a very similar way to western AWACS in the air campaigns in the latest 35 years.


    RTN wrote:
    AWACS at least in the US were never designed to enter enemy airspace. But we did enter enemy airspace in Iraq, Afghanistan once our fighters established air superiority.
    AWACS, JSTARS operate from inside friendly airspace and provide real time information to blue forces

    The fighter aircraft of USA established air superiority in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan with active guidance of AWACS; in all the pasted wars the USAF was stationed in very close air bases in neighboring countries and AWACS operated practically from the borders of those attacked nation providing guidance for the USAF squadron.
    Those very close air bases in Arabia Saudita or Italy where USAF was amassed in a war against a major enemy would have reduced to hot powder in a matter of minutes and those AWACS would have not get a single chance to guide USAF fighters within the enemy airspace simply because those kind of enemies is equiped with long range air defense that would force AWACS to operate at hundreds of km of distance from the border.

    If you remove the friendly voices of AWACS operators from those USAF's aircraft cockpits those aircraft in enemy airspace become suddenly from hunters to preys of enemy fighters and the losses ,even against those widely inferior enemies, increase enormously.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6198
    Points : 6190
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Isos on Sun May 24, 2020 11:39 pm

    US won't send AWACS inside enemy territory. They will try to clean step by step enemy airspace from the front line. They are not stupid.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4729
    Points : 4707
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon May 25, 2020 12:22 am

    Isos wrote:US won't send AWACS inside enemy territory. They will try to clean step by step enemy airspace from the front line. They are not stupid.

    Those bases where the AWACS would sit or go for refueling would be hit.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 25, 2020 6:39 am

    That's true. But it's only because NATO and Russian pilots are way better trained than third world AF pilots from India & Pakistan.

    Not really... various training exercises show Indian pilots in Indian planes can be just as capable as US pilots, and I would expect the same for Pakistani pilots... though the Indian pilots against the Americans have the advantage of using unfamiliar Soviet and Russian planes and weapons, while the Pakistani pilots have to beat the Americans with American jets... and not their best ones either.

    HATO and Russian pilots will perform better because HATO uses AWACS to effectively act as a mobile IADS, while Russian pilots have a real fixed and mobile IADS structure with the support of radars and SAMs and other systems.

    HATO is vulnerable because if you have long range AAMs then those AWACS and JSTARS can be shot down... effectively blinding their forces and making them have to use their own radar making them all much more visible to Russian IADS assets.

    If AWACS are indeed not that useful then why is Russia using the IL-76? AWACS at least in the US were never designed to enter enemy airspace. But we did enter enemy airspace in Iraq, Afghanistan once our fighters established air superiority.

    AWACS is your mobile IADS that you take with you to control your air power... Russia has it because having a radar in the air is useful, but their entire IADS is not centred around large slow vulnerable AWACS planes. They are enormously useful but also vulnerable and clearly a target for your enemy.

    If the US operates anywhere it needs to take AWACS planes with it to direct its aircraft... it tries to avoid getting too close to the enemy but to manage air operations it needs to operate within radar range... and it is not an accident that Russian anti AWACS missiles have ranges of about 400km and can be carried by the Russian equivalent of the F-22 internally....

    Now imagine a Kh-31 with its ramjet motor replaced with a scramjet motor that allows it to fly at mach 9 for 800km at 40km altitude to then dive down at mach 12 on an AWACS aircraft based solely on the radar signal from the AWACS platform... SURPRISE!!!!

    AWACS, JSTARS operate from inside friendly airspace and provide real time information to blue forces.

    Indeed they do and the information they provide friendly forces is critical to the effective use of air power for HATO... over europe and in foreign conflicts... you guys based your whole game around them... what happens when they are not there?

    US won't send AWACS inside enemy territory. They will try to clean step by step enemy airspace from the front line. They are not stupid.

    They are not stupid... in situations like Kosovo where the threat of MANPADS was high they didn't even bother sending Apache attack helos because of the risk and killed a lot of friendlies because they refused to fly low and properly identify that is a tank and not a tractor...

    In a situation where the enemy has S-400 they wont operate their AWACS within 400km of known or suspected positions which dramatically reduces its potential to manage engagements over any front line against Russia, but what are they going to do about a flight of MiG-31s flying at 20km altitude at mach 2.8 with 300km range R-37s or the upgraded replacement... they are subsonic aircraft.... they can't run away effectively... they can direct fighters to intercept but by the time any missiles launched reached their targets the MiGs might have already launched all their weapons... they wouldn't attack alone they would likely be supported by Su-35s that are engaging any aircraft trying to stop them, or any SAMs launched against them too... the AWACS is a very capable system that HATO air power is built around...

    I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a ground launched 2,500km range version of Iskander intended to shoot down AWACS and JSTARS planes... it wouldn't take much modification... they already come with multiple choices of seekers and warheads...

    Those bases where the AWACS would sit or go for refueling would be hit.

    Refuelling planes would also be a high priority because taking them out would dramatically reduce the reach of HATO aircraft and the speeds they could operate at...
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 643
    Points : 643
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Arrow on Mon May 25, 2020 11:23 am

    have pointed that domestic OTH sensors, such as 29Б6 Контейнер, even leaving a part the considerations about the total fallacy of the western assumptions on low observability of those aircraft against modern samples of domestic air defense that by itself would render useless any further elaboration, is perfectly capable to guide interceptors ,proceeding in toal radar silence, around the frontal radar footprint of those stealth aircraft so to attack them by total surprise using passive optronic systems, opening fire with medium range missiles delivered at supersonic speed from relatively close range to increase the Pk and then proceeding to very close range to destroy the remaining of the sqaudron wrote:

    Mindstorm, currently tactical USAF / NATO forces would have a very big problem with penetrating the Russian airspace and trying to destroy bases, command centers, etc. Without AWACS, without tankers in such a large space at all, they have some chance to operate in the Russian airspace with such a strong IADS. It is true that USAF / NATO has many more aircraft. So they have an advantage in aviation. Strategic aviation also has no chance for any action in Russian airspace?
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 995
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon May 25, 2020 12:21 pm


    Isos wrote:US won't send AWACS inside enemy territory. They will try to clean step by step enemy airspace from the front line. They are not stupid.


    Of course Isos, but that would be not a free strategical choice ,but a forced one, and precisely dictated by the enemy.

    Federation's planners have long time ago designed the structure of the Ground and Aerospace Forces , in particular in relation to the defensive component - IAD nodes, both subordinated to the aerospace defence that to the Ground Forces , ground bases EW and area and point masking and decoy systems - and offensive ground based and air based elements to force an enemy constructed around western air-centric warfare philosophy to proceed from the outher layers to the internal one.

    In this way in the same time window that the enemy is forced to expend immense amount of offensive resources in the attempt to break or ,at least weaken, the most external noded of the IAD placed near the border or within the first echelon of the Ground Forces - and those external nodes are the most optimized to purposely absorb ,divert or disperse against saturating attacks ,being saturated with high-moibile medium and short range SAMs, EW sytems and masking and decoy systems and having plentiful of redeploying tunnels and heavily hardened shelters - attacks against theirs forward deployed air-bases will be executed by combination of few high speed missiles - theatre ballistic and supersonic cruise missiles - to prevent for some time theirs operativity and Ground Forces or Airborne Forces offensives in theirs direction ; attacks against theirs deep air bases and radars, will be executed with very long range missiles and Long Range Aviation


    The effect is that the offensive potential of the enemy would degrade progressively faster, because all the losses that the enemy Air Forces will suffer on the ground will sharply increase those received on the air while attenpting new offensive operations against the layers of the IAD and vice versa, this up to the point that the possibilities to confront the IAD and/or hinder the operations of Ground Forces would become effectively impossible, while the offensive potential of the friendly forces, in the same time frame, would remain intact because the enemy would have been forced to attack outers IAD's defensive layers instead of critical military installations.

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3139
    Points : 3139
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Hole on Mon May 25, 2020 5:38 pm

    AWACS was developed with an air war like that in Vietnam in mind. The radar has sufficient range to keep it outside the range of old S-75 systems but even the S-200 was a large danger for these planes. That´s why the S-200 was deployed in the GDR and CSSR. In a war the S-200 would have forced the AWACS to retreat behind the Rhine. With todays 40N6 and R-37M missiles the best way to use an AWACS is to try to guard your own airspace against an attack = defensive. Which is a loss for NATO.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7809
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  JohninMK on Mon May 25, 2020 5:43 pm

    As well as all these missiles coming from the east, the UK in particular, with its air tanker/AWACS bases, will be under assault from the west as well, with missiles rising out of the sea.

    Attacks don't even need to disable their runways, although that would be an objective, once the over/under ground fuel tanks are gone or seriously reduced its game over.

    The UK and most of Europe took the 'peace dividend' and cut significantly the number of military airfields, I think from the top of my head that we only have 10 now. Although many did turn into civilian airfields so can still probably refuel AWACS at least.

    They say that Generals fight the last war but in this aspect, blinding the enemy air defences, the lesson of the Luftwaffe not destroying the UK's radar stations and airfields, has been well learnt.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1394
    Points : 1435
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  dino00 on Mon May 25, 2020 8:40 pm

    What I think is absent in the discussion is the F-15 EX with JASSM-XR, that because of the combat radius of the carrier and the range of the weapon could target Russian sites in less forward positions.

    From the Russian side there's SU-34 that will probably be able to carry all the new weapons the Backfire can, and because of their numbers and unique characteristics will be the best platform for this mission, interested to know what the Russian MOD expects for S-70.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4454
    Points : 4450
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon May 25, 2020 9:40 pm

    Although many did turn into civilian airfields so can still probably refuel AWACS at least.
    The E-3 AWACS can also be Refueled in Flight:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbJolf1ilhA

    They would be used closer to/over enemy territory only after massive missile strikes to degrade the IAD & destroy airfields, to help achieve air superiority & clean the skies of any remaining defending fighters.

    Sponsored content

    RuAF vs US-NATO AF Empty Re: RuAF vs US-NATO AF

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:17 pm