VVS Russian Airforce Force: News #2

Austin wrote:Does the Su-34 and Su-30SM operating in Syria has MAWS ?

AFAIK they dont and only Su-35S has 360 degree MAWS ?

Without MAWS these types operating in Syria wont come to know they are under MANPAD attack

Austin wrote:Why because it has MAWS on top of Spine probably just covering top 180 Degree

Mindstorm wrote:

Austin wrote:Why because it has MAWS on top of Spine probably just covering top 180 Degree

Yes very likely Austin.

Л-082 was purposely designed and conceived for open war operations against NATO targets; the very "peculiar" situation in Syrian theatre ,instead, has generated a scenario totally inconceivable for original designers of the system.

In none instance in a true conflict, in facts, an "enemy" interceptor potentially capable to engage an Su-24M (moreover one perfectly tracked and followed any second, since its take-off, by the Federation's sensor echelon present in the sector) could had be capable to approach at only 5 km of distance at 35 degrees in the rear sector from lower altitude ,receiving target positional update from a pair of AWACS in the area, to deliver an AIM-9X in LOBL close combat mode ostensibly without a radar lock.

The position on the Su-24M's frame of the Л-082's calotte take into account that in an open conflict a Su-24M  pass through or egressing from a contested area of would mostly proceed at low altitude and high speed, therefore an air engagement with IR homing missiles would come from the upper hemisphere.  

If any the very odd modality of this attack (even discounting the spatial ,temporal and procedural elements of the engagement sequence, very far from the normal international procedure between not enemy operators not threatening each the other) reinforce the hypothesis of an accurately planned ambush.

In particular some factors are important in ascertain that :


1) The vector and azimuth of approach of the Turkish aircraft, that seem to any extent guided directly by third party ISR assets to an useful point of interception, out of the chosen SU-24Ms sensor FOV.  

2) The accurate avoidance by part of the F-16 of a direct radar lock , that could have alerted the Su-24M and/or the allied ground operators that had the Viper was following that Viper in theirs screens ,that the aircraft in question had become hostile

3) The choice of a close range IR missile, shot at point blank range against a target moving at low speed and totally unaware that any aircraft could even only think to enegage it ,not constituting a menace for any actor in the theatre (except for the local terrorist groups).

This is the technical meaning of the words "stab in the back".

     

franco wrote:Hi-lights of VSK Commander in Chief press conference:

- expects to receive over 140 new aircraft and helos in 2016
- experimental PKA DA may fly sooner then presently planned
- VSK will conduct over 500 drills in 2016
- VSK to restore over 40 airfields by 2020
- Berkuts (Mi-28N) aerobatic team crash prompted new preventive measures
- Swifts and Knight's aerobatic teams to get new aircraft
- T-50 to start serial production in 2017

Berkut wrote:Could anyone link to the actual video of the conference/interview?

JohninMK wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Not sure where to post this as there is no general attack helicopter thread.

For a change a really good article hosted by VT, written by an American for South Front, on the Mi-24/8 and Ka-50/2. Very positive.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/30/military-analysis-russian-attack-helicopters-come-of-age/

To be honest there are quite a lot of typos and wrong data like dates of helicopters aswell type of helicopters in what configuration and in active service.

The guy who wrote it clearly doesn't have the knowledge and expertise that is around here. I posted it as it is unusual to see such a generally positive writeup on Russia. Also a decent thread in VT.