Any Russian Air to Air missile has Nuclear or Emp warhead ?
Not as far as I am aware... the Americans had some nuke armed AAMs but that was in th 1950s when they thought the Soviets had a lot more bombers than they actually had and they feared they would be overwhelmed with thousands of Soviet bombers... the intention was to launch a nuclear armed missile at a group of bombers and destroy them in groups.
Most of these considerations will then become irrelevant . Americans had some . I wonder if they still have them ? I would arm with nukes now . Particularly the SAM to be used in Russian territory . Same with AA missiles over Russian territory !
Using nuclear or EMP weapons in your own territory in self defence smacks of desperation to me... the sort of desperation Russia should really not be feeling at the moment because overal their air defences and air attack capacity seems to be on the whole pretty world class and effective... but like anything in war there are counters and new threats that need to be adjusted for so changes and updates are always needed...
The US had both a guided and an unguided nuclear tipped air to air missiles. The AIM-26 Falcon and the AIR-2 Genie (unguided rocket).
Intended to be fired at groups of enemy strategic bombers arriving in numbers to overwhelm the air defences... but the Soviets never produced enough to warrant such a measure.
They need more strike drones and desperatly need the Checkmate to be mass produced.
What an interesting way your mind works... event x happens and the solution is always more drones and now Checkmates... are you saying the problem is that they are short of Su-34s and Su-35s so they are now shooting them down... because in that case more strike drones and some Checkmates that have not even flown yet would not even be a solution anyway.
But still it's not a good sign to lose 2 high quality jets within a day of each other
They are just planes.
Either way it's bad because there's not enough jets for this kind of attrition
It would be better to lose a su24 or a su25 then to lose su34 and su35
I would say it is normal... modern aircraft have the most sophisticated self defence systems and modern SAMs and AD are trying to be able to deal with the latest self defence systems... the fact that one is doing better than the other is no real surprise... Javelin seems to be less than effective so far despite the clever idea of being top attack and bypassing the heaviest armour on the front of most tanks... both sides are analysing the results and experience working out what is working and why and what is not working and why... their might not be solutions in time for this conflict... tactics might need to be changed for instance in the mean time.
But this is nothing to get your panties in a bunch about.
I have said it before and will say it again... I think it was Churchil who said war is a game played with a smile on your face and if you can't smile then grin and if you can't grin then you should not be playing... politicians and military leaders are sending their men to die... obviously the best result is to get them to die for what they believe in rather than your guys dying for what they believe in but people are dying on both sides and there is no way around that.
and? the thing was completely pointless you do not need nukes to take down a plane those missiles never saw any use because of how pointless and the other problems that came with using nukes.
The were never used operationally and were a panic measure against an anticipated overwhelming force of Soviet bombers... look at how many fighters and tanks the Soviets ended up making during WWII... they were expecting enormous numbers of strategic bombers to be built too... and fast... and that was their solution...
But it was all bollocks because the missile gap and the bomber gap were all made up to justify spending money on new weapons in the west... to which the Soviets did everything they could to encourage that thinking because it made them look strong at a time when they were not that strong.
Changing IFF every hour? Lol no.
Planes will normally be in the air for hours, waiting for orders.
Changing IFF every hour is also not partial at all, this isn't some video game or war movie. No military does that every hour BS.
Changing IFF every hour would certainly get your own planes shot down and would be a very stupid thing to do...
IFF settings for different locations is what got two US blackhawk helicopters shot down just after Desert Storm... they flew into a Iraqi airspace but did not change their IFF signal to match the new region and got shot down by F-15s thinking they were Hinds.
Someone needs to provide more detailed information on that stuff, maybe LFMS, spherenox, FP, GarryB or mindstorm knows more about it?
Pretty sure that is the sort of stuff the people who actually know somethng about would never discuss, and those with educated guesses would prefer not to speculate about either because I doubt the Russians will listen and learn something new and anyone else listening and learning is probably not very useful either.
Can a large EMP be created without a nuclear blast?
The most powerful EMP weapons use nuclear detonations outside the atmosphere....
I remember vacuum-tube based electronics being EMP resistant, but no way are modern military computer chips?
Old electronics used thicker wires that were more resistent to electrical overloads, but modern electronics could be protected by faraday cages around the electronics boxes...
EMP is a nuclear blast
Rather smaller and more localised EMP weapons can use conventional explosives to effect systems protected by defences that can't physically be penetrated, but it sounds rather patchy and I would say an EMP weapon big and heavy enough to defeat metres of concrete could probably be replaced by a conventional armour penetrating warhead that could "reach" the target too.
Just one hit of a non-nuclear EMP charge of some type would destroy the entire modern air arm at the airfield.
It is hard to judge how effective an EMP weapon has been other than all the lights going out. and they spread their energy in three dimensions meaning distance is critical and the effect on a target 50m from the warhead will be thousands and thousands of times more powerful than the effect on a target located 80m from the warhead... Taking out an entire airfield with an EMP weapon it would need to be enormously powerful... and as we have seen with Russian aircraft if they were dispersed to other locations before the attack you might just be wasting your time.