Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Su-57 News and Discussion -version_we_lost_count!-

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SpudmanWP
    Rank 5 Registered User

    Yeah, because Syria is not going to cover the approach from Israel, you know, the neighbour that they are still technically at war with.

    I don't think you know what Occam's Razor is.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

    Comment

    • stealthflanker
      Rank 5 Registered User

      I clearly know. But let's be real and do a google earth., then you would see what i mean. Then search Sipri for how many Pantsyrs or Buk they purchase. You would clearly see there are just not many of them to cover whatever Israeli wants to strike. Unless very few strategic place.

      or maybe we could have..sorry for the lack of better word.. flat earth ?

      Comment

      • JSR
        JSR
        Rank 5 Registered User

        No evidence except for Israel saying so

        Russia would not have to launch themselves as they are "integrated" with Syria and could have directed a launch. A bare minimum it should have warned the Syrians.
        They may have notified discreetly but who knows how much damage would have been without they not notifying.

        Comment

        • SpudmanWP
          Rank 5 Registered User

          I don't think you guys are getting the point of Occam's Razor.

          It is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
          On one side we have just "The Russian S-400 could not see them".

          On the other side is a whole host of mental gymnastics that have to be performed like:
          --The one border that they needed to defend, was not being defended
          --The Russians saw them but decided despite an integrated IADS to not do anything
          --The Russians saw them, but the Syrians could not mount a defence in time so they did not even try
          --The Iranians, which were there to obviously provoke the Israelis, did not have proper IADS integration
          --The Earth is round and Russians & Syrians did not think of that before

          Do you start to see how those things are the exact opposite of Occam's Razor?
          "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

          Comment

          • JSR
            JSR
            Rank 5 Registered User

            The one border that they needed to defend, was not being defended
            you cannot defend that border without constant air to air patrol against standoff missiles. Unless Russia want to shoot down the aircraft the moment it takes off.

            There is not much investment from Syria in defending against these kind of attacks.

            Comment

            • Yama
              Rank 5 Registered User

              Israeli very seldom enter Syrian airspace - there is no need for it. They can easily hit the targets with standoff weapons fired from Israeli or Lebanese airspace and defenses are usually just saturated by number of incoming missiles.

              Comment

              • panzerfeist1
                Rank 3 Registered User

                @spudman

                "Given that Israel has used F-35s in Syria against Syrian and Iranian troops without nary a peep from the Russians in the way of a warning or a coordinated defence, I don't put much stock in their claims of "anti-stealth" systems. "

                But they were really worried about a possible s-300pmu2 sale considering this country did some operation in Greece against just a s-300pmu in 2014. So why should Israel be worried about Syria receiving the S-300pmu2 or not? I dont think their old air defenses are integrated with the S-400. Their old air defense have limited distance in striking targets the S-300pmu2 with a longer striking distance is what raised Israel's concern. Rather if they were warned or not F-35s or other aircraft's can still strike SAM batteries at a long distance or be under the radar horizon doing it but not too low in getting struck by MANPADs. The radars are located in Latakia in a mountainous region to increase detection at a greater distance and the next concern is where is Syria's SAM batteries and how far are they located from the S-400.

                "There is this thing you are typing on called the Internet. Using it, you will find out that Russia has set up an S-400 (it has strong anti-stealth claims) system that they claim is fulling integrated into Syria's IADS."

                Those old SAMs are really compatible with their modern defenses? people are saying yes and no about the integration of the S-400 being effective or not. https://www.quora.com/Can-an-S-400-3...-S-200-missile. If an S-400 was responsible to being integrated with Syrias IAD than shooting a stealth aircraft down that would be a major political issue as it was with Turkey shooting a sukhoi pilot in the back. There are also reasons why NATO threatened Russia with Iran receiving an S-400 and going sanction crazy with s-400 sale deals. Also the S-400 has gotten upgraded missiles and radars like the nebo-m instead of the older 1990s variants NATO was concerned of Iran receiving back in the time.

                Comment

                • Levsha
                  Rank 5 Registered User

                  To Framige,

                  "what essential requirement is that?"
                  Manoeuvrability.
                  Maneuverability is certainly not the most essential requirement for Russian aircraft - how do you explain MiG-25 and MiG-31? The essential requirement is usually to have the most capable and powerful avionics, radar and missile systems available in order to carry out the fighter plane's role.

                  "Possibly the same can be said for the USAF as well?"
                  Possibly but the Americans keep praising stealth which, according to them, will make close combat impossible together with long range AA missiles. Nevertheless both F22 and F35 embark two short range missiles and a cannon...
                  Reminds me of those brand new F4 Phantom that were sent to VietNam with air-air missiles but no cannon based on the same idea. But after some of them were shot down by MiG-15 which had no missiles but one 37mm and two 25mm guns the Phantoms where rushed back to the US and equipped with a nice Gatling cannon under the nose...
                  A lot of combat planes in the 1960s never carried guns - or else they were fitted to pods like the F-4D. Most Soviet PVO air defence interceptors were not fitted with guns in the 1960s - except perhaps gun pods.

                  BTW, it was MiG-17 armed with 37 mm and 23 mm guns

                  Comment

                  • Inst
                    Rank 5 Registered User

                    The S-400 systems seem to be S-band, or higher than L-band. The predicted tracking range for vs F-35 should be around 28-56 km.

                    The problem with burn-through-style counter-stealth radar is that you quickly activate ECM systems on target aircraft; they know where you are and can easily dodge you. If they need to target something in your range, they can just fire stand-off missiles from beyond your tracking radius and scoot.

                    Realistically tracking stealth fighters usually needs UHF (-20 to -30 dBsm degradation of stealth) to L band coverage (around -10 dBsm degradation of stealth).

                    Comment

                    • LMFS
                      Rank 3 Registered User

                      @SpudmanWP:

                      sorry to say but this looks to me as a rather weak case. Any proof or at least reasonable bit of evidence that the F-35s have: 1) operated in Syria 2) not been detected by S-400 or other radars 3) their performance being different in that regard to other planes that do regularly strike Syria using traditional tactics (topography among them) to avoid detection?

                      BTW, since when is Israel a credible source in such matters? They have been systematically denying aircraft/military losses for years and overstating their capabilities, which is by the way logical considering they are a tiny state surrounded by a huge amount of potential enemies. According to them Iran has been about to nuke the world for decades and Irak's WMD were an existential threat.
                      Additionally we don't know what happens between Russia, Israel and Syria behind closed doors, where the strict military capacities end and where the politics begin.

                      I see no reason, following your logic, why US does not utterly crush Russia's S-400 reputation by delivering Turkey their F-35s and proving they cannot see their stealth fighter instead of whining constantly about them being operated together. Until now all this hysteria is only giving reasons other "allied" states to negotiate the Russian system despite US "recommendations" not to do it.
                      Last edited by LMFS; 7th August 2018, 09:33.

                      Comment

                      • topspeed
                        Get on uppah !

                        That's what they have been claiming for years.

                        Low band radars are large installations.
                        If it looks good, it will fly good !
                        -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


                        http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

                        Comment

                        • Sab3r329
                          Rank 5 Registered User

                          which is by the way logical considering they are a tiny state surrounded by a huge amount of potential enemies
                          Israel has had nuclear weapons for a very long time now, they've very little to fear from near-peer/peer type of conflict since MAD is in play here.

                          And I'm loving all of this S-400/F-35 discussion, because apparently every time Israel/NATO strikes at Syria, there's a ******* choir of "yyyy d-didn't Rusha S-400 intercebt dem?!?!? Must be BAD SYSTEM!".

                          First, Russia has no interest or agreement in protecting the entirety of Syria whenever Israel/NATO likes to strike at some "bunker/installation/whatever". Russia's goals in Syria are to mainly preserve and advance it's foreign presence, which unless Israel/NATO decide to kick off WW3 and strike at Tartus/Khmeimim, isn't exactly threatened by current Israeli/NATO relations with Syria. Second main goal is eradication of foreign terrorist groups, especially those that have a large influx of Russian citizens from Chechnya, Dagestan, and the the other former Soviet states. Russian defenses are solely for protecting Russian military, no one else.

                          Secondly, why would Russia assist Syria in it's attempt to shoot down Israeli aircraft? Russia and Israel have enjoyed relatively positive military/economic relationships for quite a while, in no small part due to the large amounts of Russian-speaking Jews that reside in Israel. Not only that, Russia is a key energy supplier to Israel, and has even in the past purchased arms from them. Don't forget the times when Israel asked Russia to not sell S-300s to certain customers, and Russia obliged, and vice versa, Israel respecting Russian redlines and not joining in on sanctions and arms supplies to Ukraine and on other events that lead NATO countries to sanction Russia, Israel stayed out.

                          Don't forget the long standing Israeli-Russian deconfliction agreement that has prevented any incidents from happening at all, something Israel pointed out during the whole Turkey/Su-24 ****storm.

                          Israeli-Russian relations have been very warm recently, why should Russia squander that over something as pointless as helping Syria shoot down Israeli jets? They have absolutely nothing to gain.

                          Comment

                          • LMFS
                            Rank 3 Registered User

                            @Sab3r329:

                            agree on your post. I am simply pointing the obvious there: Israel prefers to deter their neighbours from any kind of conflict, be it high or low intensity and cultivates for that reason both a high capability but also importantly image of their military. There are many asymmetrical options that would make use of nukes very difficult to justify. You cannot use nukes against some Hezbollah rockets but they can disrupt your business, cause social alarm and cost you lots of money. Going further, it could be thought that Israel would not use nukes in case Syria tries to retake Golan Heights. So it is much better to convince their rivals they would be crushed in any kind of conflict.

                            Comment

                            • framige
                              Registered User

                              To Levsha;

                              "Manoeuvrability is certainly not the most essential requirement for Russian aircraft - how do you explain MiG-25 and MiG-31?"

                              Simply because those are not fighters but interceptors.


                              "A lot of combat planes in the 1960s never carried guns - or else they were fitted to pods like the F-4D. Most Soviet PVO air defence interceptors were not fitted with guns in the 1960s - except perhaps gun pods."

                              Right but it did not take long before the cannon returned. Later MiG-21, and all the followers (23/27, 29) had one, even the MiG-31 interceptor has. And it is the same on Sukhoi fighters.
                              I am not praising the cannon as the magic weapon. I just remark that even the advanced stealth fighters still have one together with short range missiles. Which to me contradicts the statements about stealth changing it all. Nothing more.

                              Regarding the calibre of the guns on the MiGs in VielNam you are right, my mistake, sorry.

                              Comment

                              • RALL
                                Rank 4 Registered User

                                Originally posted by LMFS
                                @SpudmanWP:

                                sorry to say but this looks to me as a rather weak case. Any proof or at least reasonable bit of evidence that the F-35s have: 1) operated in Syria 2) not been detected by S-400 or other radars 3) their performance being different in that regard to other planes that do regularly strike Syria using traditional tactics (topography among them) to avoid detection?

                                BTW, since when is Israel a credible source in such matters? They have been systematically denying aircraft/military losses for years and overstating their capabilities, which is by the way logical considering they are a tiny state surrounded by a huge amount of potential enemies. According to them Iran has been about to nuke the world for decades and Irak's WMD were an existential threat.
                                Additionally we don't know what happens between Russia, Israel and Syria behind closed doors, where the strict military capacities end and where the politics begin.

                                I see no reason, following your logic, why US does not utterly crush Russia's S-400 reputation by delivering Turkey their F-35s and proving they cannot see their stealth fighter instead of whining constantly about them being operated together. Until now all this hysteria is only giving reasons other "allied" states to negotiate the Russian system despite US "recommendations" not to do it.
                                I do not know if some F-35 was flying inside Syria or not, really nobody know it except IAF. We do not have any official statement about this.

                                But we know because they told that russian and Syrian defence are connected. So, we must think that if russian S-400 detect some hostile fighter, inmediately they will comunicate with syrian defence.

                                But it is not dificult if it is maybe a F-15 or F-16, but very difficult when we are talking about F-35 and/or F-22.

                                The 91N6E is S-400 primary Search radar. Based on public data, it can detect a normal fighter aircraft with a RCS: 4 m2 from 390 km maximum. Using radar equation, for a F-35 (RCS=0.0001 m2 (*)) this corresponds to around 28 km, detection range.
                                This radar is not fire control radar, for this they need the gravestone radar really.

                                We have data from Aviation Week, and they tell; "Almaz-Antey says the S-400’s 92N6E “Gravestone” fire-control radar can detect a 4-m2 radar-cross-section target at 250 km."
                                So if we make the same radar equation, they can not fire until F-35 stay around 17 kms.

                                And this figure does not include EW/jamming from F-35, because then these numbers will be smallers.

                                Stealth fighters are a game changer. If a F-35 was inside Syria, i am sure it was not detected in any moment if IAF do not want to be detected.


                                (*)I take the same rcs as the f-22 since currently by various official data we know that the f-35 is as furtive as the f-22, but less. So i have taken the more conservative number.
                                Last edited by RALL; 7th August 2018, 14:37.

                                Comment

                                • Krivakapa
                                  Rank 5 Registered User

                                  @RALL

                                  IF S-400 detect F-35 that is only one step, how will old Syrian SAMs down it? Their newest SAM is BUK but it lack powerful radar, also how many BUK they have? But if S-400 isn't problem why Israel doesn't want Syria to get S-300? It look like waste of money if F-35 can't be detected even with S-400.
                                  Last edited by Krivakapa; 7th August 2018, 15:00.

                                  Comment

                                  • Trident
                                    Rank 5 Registered User

                                    IIRC Israel was the first outside power to coordinate its Syrian operations with Russia. Why would the Russians shoot them down?
                                    sigpic

                                    Comment

                                    • JSR
                                      JSR
                                      Rank 5 Registered User

                                      Israel respecting Russian redlines and not joining in on sanctions and arms supplies to Ukraine and on other events that lead NATO countries to sanction Russia, Israel stayed out.
                                      Israel also has tough stance towards Nato member Turkey. if Saudi really want to give money to Antonov projects Antonov will not be looking at Turkey and Boeing to help them out which is not possible anyway with current funding. Saudi and Israel policies are bankrupting EU/Turkey so that EU/Turkey can only afford business on Russian terms. Canada is next in line.(large Ukranian diaspora)

                                      Comment

                                      • LMFS
                                        Rank 3 Registered User

                                        @RALL:

                                        Have to agree Krivakapa that we have (again) a discrepancy among claimed capabilities of the equipment and behaviour of a stealth plane operator with the issue of the S-300. My interpretation is this is nowhere as a lopsided case as to allow a F-35 to operate over Syria with impunity with the S-300 deployed in at least minimum numbers. Sadly for Syrian AD, their current resources (with few exceptions) are terribly outdated and scarce

                                        Regarding the data in your post, you say you take a conservative RCS value based in the one from F-22 but used the same value... this does not match right?

                                        Nevertheless, that value is tactically not relevant from what we know (not to say that these values are considered simply ridiculous by Russian sources, not going to push that argument since there is a clear discrepancy with what most in the West accept as valid). Any time the plane's course is not 0 to the radar, operates aerodynamic surfaces etc it will change heavily. Add to this that several radars will be illuminating it at any time and VLO becomes real world technology with limitations and not some kind of panacea.

                                        Comment

                                        • Inst
                                          Rank 5 Registered User

                                          Because S-300, S-400 systems make warfare more difficult. Moreover, the IsAF is not drowning its F-35s, it's drowning in F-16s and F-15s. To handle S-300 and S-400, older IsAF aircraft need F-35s to lead the way and do SEAD, which is a major escalation, or older aircraft need to fly in WHILE being destroyable by S-300s. You don't want to operate with a gun to your head like that.

                                          Lastly, S-300s and S-400s have enough range to target civilian aircraft flying over Jerusalem. An itchy trigger finger amidst major hostilitiies can end up killing civvies, and Israel doesn't want that. Besides dead Jews, it's bad for business.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X