PAK FA, T-50: News #1

Mindstorm wrote:
About luck , the Commander of the 3 battery of 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade -Col. Zoltan Dani- should have had a truly legendary one, taking into account that its battery:

- Heavily damaged another F-117
- Downed an F-16
- Damaged very heavily one A-10 and lightly another one
- not suffered a single life or material loss in the entire campaign (in spite being the most wanted SAM battery in the theatre and that all JSTAR and SEAD/DEAD squadrons conducted literally hundreds of missions purposely aimed against him).

You know this debate is getting more & more hilarious by the hour . Zoltan Dani according to you was such a larger than life soldier that he carried out all the above mentioned impossible tasks all by himself .

Has he ever explained why he chose NOT to share such best practices with his other Serbian brothers so that they could have shot down B2s & F 117s left , right & center

He hasn't .... coz he can't ....coz he knows there ain't any . Soon after retiring from the army our friend Zoltan Dani writes a book which was advertised by him as a step by step guide on shooting down stealth aircrafts

However, Dani ( Holy be his name ) could NOT sell any copies of this great literary work in Europe . So Dani swims across the pond and arrives in the Land of the Free , Home of the Brave to resurrect his rotten luck .

But the content of his work was so sub standard that he found no luck in the US either . When asked how he manged to shoot down our F 117 he says he brought about certain changes to the warhead which is classified . No wonder this moron never manged to sell his book . I will be surprised to know that he has found any kind of work since then .

You know this debate is getting more & more hilarious by the hour .

Exactly !
And what is even more hilarious is that you ,even unawarely, are the true comic star of the show

Zoltan Dani according to you was such a larger than life soldier that he carried out all the above mentioned impossible tasks all by himself .

Exactly ,to the letter.

Note : Naturally "by himself" include also the high professionalism and strict adherence to the revisited S-125's concept of operation by part of all the crew manning its battery ; crew that it had purposely selected and trained just for the operational cycles and fire discipline for its "two missile/semi-mobile" S-125 battery.

Has he ever explained why he chose NOT to share such best practices with his other Serbian brothers so that they could have shot down B2s & F 117s left , right & center

Oh my....

Ok, try to significantly modify the CONOPS and technical design of some critical components of a system fruit of an US's R&D programs and test and validation phase several years long ,moreover even pretending to force theirs adoption by part of an entire branch of Armed Forces and i strongly suspect that you will be incriminated on the spot for dangerous tampering of Federal assets and intentional aggravated attack to US's security by military authorities

Naturally acting in a totally independent and not-authorized way, you could manage to execute some important modifications, for example, to the seekers of the AIM-120 C7s mounted on the F-15C's squadron you lead (because you received some info on some enemy ECM purposely designed to suppress or seduce the original AIM-120C7's digital seeker) ; after, in a conflict of just some 70 days, you discover ,on the field, that while the F-15Cs of all other squadron are literally decimated because their AIM-120C7 are systematically neutralized/seduced, the F-15Cs of your squadrons continue to obtain very good results ,against any odd, even against crushingly superior outnumbering enemies.

After 14 years a guy appear on internet and ask why ,"if those modifications to AIM-120C7 was so efficient, all F-15s was not equipped with them".....

Simply PRICELESS !!

LOl, someone sounds angry that that "moron" took down a supposedly stealth aircraft with an ancient missile system.

Once again, aquatint yourself with S-125 operations before calling it luck.

The second F-117 has been reported by several US sources as well... but depending on what the agenda is they either downplay or exaggerate it's significance.

Riccioni, Colonel Everest E:

Note: This event, which occurred during the Kosovo conflict on 27 March, was a major blow to the US Air Force. The aircraft was special: an F-117 Nighthawk stealth bomber that should have been all but invisible to the Serbian air defences.

And this certainly wasn't a fluke—a few nights later, Serb missiles damaged a second F-117.


The advocates of stealth have never understood that it isn’t design to stealth that makes aircraft unsensed by the enemy. It is the cost of design to stealth that reduces the operational force to the point that it will seldom be in operation. Proof — we possess only 21 stealthy B–2 bombers instead of the 135 that the fully funded program was to buy! Can one win a war against a powerful country with 21 bombers that fly at half the frequency of the B-52 Stratobomber? Of course not. We can only fight small, very weak nations like Somalia, Serbia, Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, and teeny Grenada — so we do. They fight us asymmetrically — making our expensive preparations for war fruitless. We win these campaigns about half the time. And even after winning, we sometimes lose the war.


Of the three aircraft shot down during our incursion into Serbia, one was an F–16 flown by a pilot doing other than he was directed to do, and two were the most stealthy F–117 Night Hawks, one of which staggered back to its home base never to fly again, so it is seldom counted. With our extensive use of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) ordinary aircraft survive just as well as the stealthy ones. Some claim that the Raptor has the signature of a bird. True, but only in the forward quarter, co altitude, and only to enemy fighter radars. It is quite visible to ground based radars.

Source:
Colonel Riccioni, Everest E. "Description of our Failing Defence Acquisition System." Project on government oversight, 8 March 2005

There was an interesting discussion on the MyCity-Military Forum (http://www.mycity-military.com/) a few years ago on this topic. Some of the posters there are ex radar operators and a some took part in the war.

(this is from my notes)

After the first successful detection of a stealth target, the appearance, strength and unique fluctuation of the signal on the radar screen were known. A special code was assigned and was passed on to other units.

The 450th SAM Regiment based near the town of Kraljevo, south from the 125th Brigade, also detected stealth targets on several occasions but was not in a position to engage.

...

I wouldn't rule out the B-2 incident completely either, however unlikely it might seem. There is a report of a damaged B-2 during the war but the official explanation given was that it was an accident during aerial refueling.

this is Almaz-Antey's opinion of the B-2 (3:36) and the F-22 (5:56)

Cyberspec wrote:I wouldn't rule out the B-2 incident completely either, however unlikely it might seem. There is a report of a damaged B-2 during the war but the official explanation given was that it was an accident during aerial refueling.

B-2 stayed completely out of range of SAM using standoff weapons to take out its target.

The B-2 going down is a redhearing chances are even if it got detected as Zoltan mentions he saw something on the radar that had low rcs like F-117 he could have done little to bring it down.

What ever Zoltan did is simply awesome under pressure and when completly blanketed by Enemy Air Superiority and SEAD/DEAD mission to survie itself is a big challenge and to survive and bring down some of assets using 60's AD and Radar system is worth every praise.

I am sure of Zoltan had been Russian citizen he would have received Hero Of Russia Award for his feat.

War&Peace wrote:So Dani swims across the pond and arrives in the Land of the Free , Home of the Brave to resurrect his rotten luck . But the content of his work was so sub standard that he found no luck in the US either .

Unless he has a facination for jumping into troubled waters I don't think he chose to swim .

Col Dani was INVITED to the US by a host of defense contractors who have since then used his expertise to fine tune their own SAM systems . Subsequently his expertise has also been used by leading Chinese defense contractors to help them refine Chinese SAM systems .

Mindstorm can ELINT system like the Russian Vega and Valeria are capable of passively tracking Stealth Aircraft ?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Warpac-Rus-PLA-ESM.html#mozTocId992026

I recollected reading Czech and Ukranian system called Tamara and Kolchuga were mentioned by AW&ST as capable of tracking stealth fighter based on ELINT ,Triangualation etc

Austin wrote:Mindstorm can ELINT system like the Russian Vega and Valeria are capable of passively tracking Stealth Aircraft ?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Warpac-Rus-PLA-ESM.html#mozTocId992026

I recollected reading Czech and Ukranian system called Tamara and Kolchuga were mentioned by AW&ST as capable of tracking stealth fighter based on ELINT ,Triangualation etc

Obviously is not possible to respond to this question in absolute terms because probability of a successfull extraction of useful noncooperative radio emissions, along the available spectrum of your receiver, to obtain stable target's positional data is the product of dozen of different variables pertaining both to the emitter - such as radiated power managementg, sidelobes reduction ,frequency hopping, phase modulation techniques ,pulse compression and modulation etc...- and the receiver - such as effective bandwidth ,demodulation potential for single or integrated systems architecture, receiver spatial arrangement, data processing speed/sharing/dissemination , selective pulse/CW cancellation's speed etc...-.


The capability of those systems to detect or track an aircraft, therefore, has nothing to do with its RCS but exclusively with the technical characteristics of enemy radio on-board emitting systems.

For finish ,at second of the year of production, systems falling under some of the names by you mentioned change enormously for performances offered in detecting, classify and triangulate position of the most up-to-date LPI radars and jamming systems, above all if inserted in a well designed IAD.

Some of the radars in past portrayed as "Low Probability to Intercept" aren't so anymore since several years by now ,for strict constructive reasons, and the same can be said for some of the ELS by you mentioned with latest radar products and EW pods.

SOC wrote:

TR1 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:There are claims that by the time the Su-50 is in service USA will already be testing 6gen fighters. Is this true?

Think about it.

Is the F-35 in service yet?

The F-35 is only loosely defined as a "fighter" anyway. That being said, seeing a demonstrator for "6th generation" technology in the near future wouldn't surprise me. A lot of relevant concepts have in fact already been evaluated on other platforms.

"This is a major breakthrough! Machine broke 7000 km

Rhetoric fail. 7,000 km would be relying on IFR rather than landing twice. They'll get around to making long-endurance test flights eventually I'm sure, but this doesn't count.

So my worst fears are confiremed. Russia would be marginally technologicly equal to the US only if it starts having hundreds of at least 2 types of 5gen fighters in the next 10 years and have working 6gen prototypes at that same time.

So my worst fears are confiremed. Russia would be marginally technologicly equal to the US only if it starts having hundreds of at least 2 types of 5gen fighters in the next 10 years and have working 6gen prototypes at that same time..

Your worst fear ?


KomissarBojanchev ,believe me, here anyone.....ANYONE..... ,from day one, has perfectly understood your childish, convoluted attempts to trolling through expressed positions ,supposedly related to third persons, but clearly representing, instead, your thoughts, or assertions clearly produced to achieve flamed reactions.

The conceptual level of similar naive attempts are so low that them result even self-offensives....

What save you is only the exemplar level of tolerance ,pluralism and freedom of expression ruling as first principle in this forum, to the point that ,save for very grave and reiterated instances of rule's infraction, the anti-democratic habit to ban (so common in majority of western forums on military subjects, literally controlled and where informed positions considered dangerous for the ideas and image that them are tasked to spread, are selectively insulated and quickly erased ) is almost banned .


By the way, the next time you will try to allude to the military technological level between advanced nations forget those ridiculous vehicles with wings, flaps and airlerons the level of "low observability" of which is not only the product of true metropolitan legends but also the direct fruit of a little part of the Scientific achievements of Domestic Scientific Institutes literally imported in US ,which became so popular lately only because useful for attack ,with very low losses, immensely inferior enemies totally incapable to defend themselves , because those vehicles in a serious conflict wouldn't survive more than 20-30 minutes (in a full nuclear conflict) and 24-48 hours in a full conventional conflict between powerful opponents.

Instead try to think to technological level of the high end strategic systems such as Ballistic Missile technology (Topol-M, RS-24, Bulava, and new generation solid and liquid fuel ICBMs) , Strategic Air and Space coverage radars (Nebo-M ,Voronezh series) high end strategic IAD elements (S-300V4 , S-400 ,S-500, A-235 and....something other....),strategic range cruise missiles (Kh-101 ,K-555), new generation submarines (Pr-855/855M, Pr. 955/955M) integrated ground-space system ( Project "Aquarel") , for remain silent on perspective programs.....and you will realize that ,outside theirs controlled ,PR-guided media, the best West can hope for ,in the middle term, is to remain close enough ,in almost all most critical military segments, to being still capable to eat our Scientific dust, not differently than in the past.

Sorry for you KomissarBojanchev but '90 years are gone for good since a while

Mindstorm wrote:the best West can hope for ,in the middle term, is to remain close enough ,in almost all most critical military segments,
to being still capable to eat our Scientific dust, not differently than in the past.

Unfortunately this will not happen as the population of local Russians are declining very rapidly and most young Russians are traveling to the West . In their place you are getting wretched people from China , India and such third world countries who will only take Russia through the highway to hell .

[quote="Mindstorm"]

So my worst fears are confiremed. Russia would be marginally technologicly equal to the US only if it starts having hundreds of at least 2 types of 5gen fighters in the next 10 years and have working 6gen prototypes at that same time..

Your worst fear ?


KomissarBojanchev ,believe me, here anyone.....ANYONE..... ,from day one, has perfectly understood your childish, convoluted attempts to trolling through expressed positions ,supposedly related to third persons, but clearly representing, instead, your thoughts, or assertions clearly produced to achieve flamed reactions.

The conceptual level of similar naive attempts are so low that them result even self-offensives....

What save you is only the exemplar level of tolerance ,pluralism and freedom of expression ruling as first principle in this forum, to the point that ,save for very grave and reiterated instances of rule's infraction, the anti-democratic habit to ban (so common in majority of western forums on military subjects, literally controlled and where informed positions considered dangerous for the ideas and image that them are tasked to spread, are selectively insulated and quickly erased ) is almost banned .


By the way, the next time you will try to allude to the military technological level between advanced nations forget those ridiculous vehicles with wings, flaps and airlerons the level of "low observability" of which is not only the product of true metropolitan legends but also the direct fruit of a little part of the Scientific achievements of Domestic Scientific Institutes literally imported in US ,which became so popular lately only because useful for attack ,with very low losses, immensely inferior enemies totally incapable to defend themselves , because those vehicles in a serious conflict wouldn't survive more than 20-30 minutes (in a full nuclear conflict) and 24-48 hours in a full conventional conflict between powerful opponents.

Instead try to think to technological level of the high end strategic systems such as Ballistic Missile technology (Topol-M, RS-24, Bulava, and new generation solid and liquid fuel ICBMs) , Strategic Air and Space coverage radars (Nebo-M ,Voronezh series) high end strategic IAD elements (S-300V4 , S-400 ,S-500, A-235 and....something other....),strategic range cruise missiles (Kh-101 ,K-555), new generation submarines (Pr-855/855M, Pr. 955/955M) integrated ground-space system ( Project "Aquarel") , for remain silent on perspective programs.....and you will realize that ,outside theirs controlled ,PR-guided media, the best West can hope for ,in the middle term, is to remain close enough ,in almost all most critical military segments,
to being still capable to eat our Scientific dust, not differently than in the past.


Sorry for you KomissarBojanchev but '90 years are gone for good since a while


[/quoute}
Good points but still the fact that russia previously planned to restart production of the Tu-160, An-124 and An-225 by now yet they're still negotiations with the ukrianians that will delay the production of the antonovs up until 2020+ is causes concern not to mention the delays with the indians on the FGFA project.

NickM wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:the best West can hope for ,in the middle term, is to remain close enough ,in almost all most critical military segments,
to being still capable to eat our Scientific dust, not differently than in the past.

Unfortunately this will not happen as the population of local Russians are declining very rapidly and most young Russians are traveling to the West . In their place you are getting wretched people from China , India and such third world countries who will only take Russia through the highway to hell .

Man your unitopic blathering about indians doesn't stop, eh?

Nobody ever planned to re-start An-225 production.
An-124 as far as military is concerned is just as good modernized as new build.

NickM wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:the best West can hope for ,in the middle term, is to remain close enough ,in almost all most critical military segments,
to being still capable to eat our Scientific dust, not differently than in the past.

Unfortunately this will not happen as the population of local Russians are declining very rapidly and most young Russians are traveling to the West . In their place you are getting wretched people from China , India and such third world countries who will only take Russia through the highway to hell .

Making things up does not make them true.

TR1 wrote:Nobody ever planned to re-start An-225 production.
An-124 as far as military is concerned is just as good modernized as new build.

Are less than 20 An-124s and Tu-160s numericly sufficient in case a war breaks out?

Yes.

Strategic missile forces exist for that exact reason, if any way breaks out that the An-124s are not enough for.

AN-124s are expensive to maintain and to run for most transport uses, how many do you expect the military to operate in peacetime?

If russia can barely maintain around 10 An-124s and 16 Tu-160s then how can USA easily operate a 50 C-5s, 20 B-2s plus a few hundred C-17s. even if russia's budget is smaller how can it only operate less than 1/3 of the current US heavy transport and strategic bomber forces?

Russian AF is planning to have 25 combat ready An-124 by 2020, which is plenty. Do you see how much more nations have (or rather, LACK) in terms of air-lift capability, with the kind of budget that Russia has?
16 Tu-160s arr flying just fine, I am not sure where you get this "barely" business. It is hard to take your posts seriously with all the panic mongering.

Russia has a budget that is anywhere from 10% to 15% of the American military budget.
So it seems like they are doing very well if we compare the budget ratios.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Man your unitopic blathering about

Good advice for yourself I think...because you haven't posted anything but rubbish since you joined.


...

ON the An-124...

The decision not to produce the An-124 is a mistake. IMO they'll regret it later on.

Just MOD decided to not buy it, that does not mean production will not restart for civilians!

Ofc a MOD order would seal the deal....if it does not happen I hope the new engines are at least still developed.

TR1 wrote:
Russian AF is planning to have 25 combat ready An-124 by 2020, which is plenty. Do you see how much more nations have (or rather, LACK) in terms of air-lift capability, with the kind of budget that Russia has?
16 Tu-160s arr flying just fine, I am not sure where you get this "barely" business. It is hard to take your posts seriously with all the panic mongering.

Russia has a budget that is anywhere from 10% to 15% of the American military budget.
So it seems like they are doing very well if we compare the budget ratios.

Werent there plans to finish those Tu-160 airframes left in the factories during the cold war? If its doen how many millions will it cost?

If russia can barely maintain around 10 An-124s and 16 Tu-160s then how can USA easily operate a 50 C-5s, 20 B-2s plus a few hundred C-17s.

Interesting line of thought: (wronged) number of An-124s and Tu-160s against combined number C-5 ,C-17 and B2......totally arbitrary for not say completely out of line.


For first, accurate numbers : (From Military Balance 2012)

Russian Airlift aircraft show :

Heavy transport aircraft

-12 An-124 Condor
-21 An-22 Cock
-118 Il-76MD/MF Candid

At those you must add, obviously, the contract with Aviastar for the repairing and upgrading of 22 AN-124 to AN-124-150M and the large scale acquisition of Il-476 and AN-70 foreseen in SAP 2020.


B-2 ,clearly, is NOT the counterpart of TU-160 ; in facts the unique real role that strategic bombers would have, in the very unlucky event of a full scale conflict between very powerful opponents not involving ICBM (in this instance relevance of any branch of Air Forces of both side would be next to ZERO and the only elements at count would be efficiency of ICBM and strategic IADs elements) , would be to take-off ,reach in the lesser time possible useful point of delivery for strategic range cruise missiles -with conventional or nuclear warheads ,at second of the typology of conflict- aimed at the most critical enemy assets (C-4 nodes, main airfields, main radar stations, satellite's data relay) land ,reload and repeat the sequence with the shortest cycle possible.

Even a monkey would be capable to realize that Speed of the delivering bomber and capability to deliver the cruise missiles with the greater range (and obviously the quality of enemy IADs) are the factors by far most important in producing the shortest cruise missile delivering cycle generating ,at its own time, the most quick possible progressive degradation of enemy military capabilities.


B-2 is a low subsonic bomber totally incapable to employ any kind of long range cruise missiles (the Unique American bomber with that critical strategic capability is only B-52 with AGM-86 !!! ), moreover NORAD lack even the shadow of a mediocre IAD and also any kind of very high speed interceptor optimized to track ,destroy and greatly dilute the density of incoming cruise missiles waves.

Russian Federation ,also today operate the greater fleet at world of high supersonic bombers capable to deliver long range stategic cruise missiles : 16 Tu-160 and 172 Tu-22M/M3/MR, all capable to employ Kh-55SM and the new Kh-101.
Anyone is capable to realize how the difference in capability between those aircraft (plus the Tu-95 fleet...) and cruise missiles against the USAF B-52H and AGM-86 in generating very short cycles of cruise missiles delivery to destroy opponent's Airfields, Command and Control bases ,main Radar stations etc...is simply CRUSHING !!.

An element even more important is the presence, on the Russian Federation's side, of a fleet of interceptors highly specialized for the task (detection and destruction of very high number of high performance cruise missiles) like Mig-31s, and the ,by far, most extensive and efficient IAD at world.

On western media that picture is avoided like death , but it is exactly how things stand behind PR-mist.