Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf040750.pdf

Visit this link on Russian AD systems. Pg 6. Kill probability of Tor and Buk overs around 50 to 75% against the cruise missiles. End stage CIWS defenses like Pantsirs should be pretty handy, almost critical requirement.


If Phalax and Goalkeeper types can handle supersonic Yakhonts missiles, then cruise missiles should be easy deals and more so when they are detected much in advance, unlike Yakhont which dips down for last 15kms and gets lost to the radar detection. Stealth cruise is another game in town.

Phalanx was developed well before Yakhont, its ability to deal with any numbers of Yakhont is I think suspect.

Visit this link on Russian AD systems. Pg 6. Kill probability of Tor and Buk overs around 50 to 75% against the cruise missiles. End stage CIWS defenses like Pantsirs should be pretty handy, almost critical requirement.

These are single shot kill probabilities... and the figure for TOR is 50%-99%.

The best defence against cruise missiles is a functioning air force with aircraft carrying modern R-77 and R-73 like missiles.

If Phalax and Goalkeeper types can handle supersonic Yakhonts missiles, then cruise missiles should be easy deals and more so when they are detected much in advance, unlike Yakhont which dips down for last 15kms and gets lost to the radar detection. Stealth cruise is another game in town.

If Phalanx could deal with sea skimming cruise missiles (supersonic or otherwise) they would not be replacing it with SEA RAM.

The critical factor with cruise missiles is detection. The sooner you detect a cruise missile the much greater the chance of defeating it becomes. Having radars looking out to sea to very low levels with no hills or mountain ranges to block the radars view cruise missiles can be detected fairly early.

With plenty of warning aircraft can be scrambled to engage the threats at extended ranges.

Missiles coming from nearby borders are more difficult especially if such areas have fairly rugged terrain.

The thing is that most enemies will have a range of fairly predictible targets they will want to hit and they will certainly have a fairly easy to work out order in which they will want to hit them.

Very long range cruise missiles can be sent on quite a journey that involves a fairly unpredictible route, but the point is that most targets are deep within enemy territory and sensible placement of air defence units and sensible aircraft deployment should make the flight of the cruise missile very difficult.

The greatest advantage of the cruise missile is choosing where and when to attack so that it comes as a surprise.

When the enemy knows it is coming then there is a good chance it wont make it.

Personally, if I was Iran, I would have put in an order in the early 1990s for 200 Mig-31s, but modified so that the belly positions had conformal positions for R-77 missiles. With their tail surfaces folded forward they are very long slim weapons and with a large aircraft like the Mig-31 you could probably fit up to 6 R-77s side by side under the belly of the aircraft. With two rows of 6 missiles that means each fighter could carry 12 missiles on its belly and with special triple ejector racks on each wing pylon for R-77s with their tail control surfaces folded forward you could get another 12 missiles on the 4 standard wing pylons.

In terms of weight the R-77 is a very light weight missile and drag would be little problem either.

With 24 R-77s and a 23mm cannon each Mig-31 would be very well armed to meet even a full scale US cruise missile attack, and with that powerful radar and IRST most other US aircraft would have trouble too.

By now of course I would trade one row of 6 missiles on the belly for 3 RVV-BD missiles, and the outer wing pylons might get RVV-MD (R-73s) and the inner missile pylon RVV-SD(R-77) in new digital form, and I would look to upgrade some of the radars to AESA together with Mig...

Probably look at engine upgrades as well to improve fuel efficiency and power.

The engines of the Mig-31 share a heritage with the engines of the Il-76, so the changes made to the engines in the IL-476 could be applied to the engines in the Mig-31 to increase thrust and reduce fuel consumption.

Wow! infact that's what one Russian Air Force General also said about Mig-31s defending Iraq during the Operation Desert Fox in late 90s. Do not know the details, but he surely mentioned that if Mig-31 was defending Iraq then it would have been a different game all together.

Infact RuAF is itself going for upgrades on its 31s going all the way to 2020s. 31s armed with Novator the Awacs killer missile would be a fearsome theater to hover around in.

The Mig-31 is designed to operate in groups of four with their radars linked together via a datalink.

The four aircraft would fly in an enormous formation in a line with 200km between each aircraft. Together the four aircraft covered a frontage of 1,000km across that was 200km deep where the radars could detect targets.

Their primary targets were the bombers before they released their cruise missiles with the job of chasing down any cruise missiles that might have been launched before they get anywhere near their targets.

Even without any armament modification a flight of Mig-31s can seriously deplete a cruise missile attack before it even starts.

And that is the point... layers.

No one layer will be perfect... BUK might only have a 50% change of shooting down a cruise missile, but careful concealment of its existence might mean a cruise missile attack might cross over two or three BUK batteries on its way to its target which could mean the 10 missiles fired to overwhelm a specific SAM site might result in 6 missiles arriving with the target dealing with those.

Once the enemy is alerted then the airforce suddenly comes in to play too.

It should be interesting to see how Syria Air Defense pans out if NATO attacks them. Basically they have everything that Russia counts on except for S400s. Syria has most advanced S-300 SAMs, Tor, Buk and Pantsirs. Do they have anything to ward off the saturation attack by the cruise missiles. Tor and Buks should help for a while and then it becomes a question of who has deeper pockets given the decoy attacks that NATO can launch also to deplete their missiles. However, once S-300s are taken out it should be an accelerating attrition. It would not be as fast as Libya was, i.e. 2 days around but it will get there. Would love to have some CIWS like Phalax try to kill off cruise missiles 1 km from the target. Cost of 1 phalax gun system without radar is $1.5M. Am sure Russian/Chinese CIWS would be slightly cheap. This is more so because cruise missiles are sub sonic and can be handled by anti aircraft guns if located in time.

Syria doesn't have S-300 and Tor, but have Buk-M2, Pantsir-S1 and Igla-S. Tor-M1 is in Iranian arsenal. Don't forget, that all SAMs are operated by crews and quality of crews is most important. Serbian ancient air defense make a lot of troubles to NATO and in worst electronic warfare and SEAD/DEAD environment they managed to shot down around 200 cruise missiles, 30 UAV, 1 F-117 and 1 F-16 and damage some planes and helicopters. They have well trained crews and good discipline and good strategy and tactics, what Arabs never had. Libya have larger and better air force and air defense than Serbia and was not attacked by 1000+ planes, but i think with less than 100, but they were very quickly out of the game. the main problem in Libya was in air force and air defense personnel. Same goes for Syria and Iran. they have good air defense, but without competent crews they are useless.

It should be interesting to see how Syria Air Defense pans out if NATO attacks them. Basically they have everything that Russia counts on except for S400s. Syria has most advanced S-300 SAMs, Tor, Buk and Pantsirs.

With that sentence, i think, you render any further attempt to respond in a serious way totally worthless...
For some strange reason this attitude recall to my mind the Israeli PR campaign (so naive for any person with even only a minimum of knowledge to appear even childish.. ) just before the September 2007 Operation Orchard , with plentiful of interviews and articles attempting to depict the image of Syrian Air Force as...the best at world.
Such as this article named :" IDF: Syria's antiaircraft system most advanced in world "


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3436827,00.html

Naturally any serious institution depict a completly opposite picture of the level of Syrian AD network


http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/081125_is_syria_air_sam.pdf


After the attack the PR effort came to the point to claim ,unshamedly, that the "heroic" IAF air squad ,with the aid of secret "wondrous" EW assets, had also surpassed the defense of modern Pantsyr-S1E's batteries !!!
Those EW assets should have been very miraculous, because the have not merely managed to jam those Pantsyr-S1E's batteries but have ......literally created them from thin air (the first evalutation unit was delivered only an year after the attack !! )

That type of low level PR campaign -to the limit of childish- have obviously a clear aim : if ,in the information war, i "transform" the air defence network of an enemy composed ,in reality, for 99% by 30 years old export version of Soviet SAM systems in bad conditions an operated by scarcely proficient crew in a "modern" Air Defence network armed with the most up-to-date air defence systems when i conduct...easily..an attack against this enemy i obtain to "stain" the image and ,consequently, the potential market of advanced SAM systems in the theatre .

This element is very important considering that the only instance(Yom-Kippur war) when IAF has confronted few batteries of an export version of a Soviet SAM system of the same generation of theirs aircraft -Kvadrat - the results was an horrible disaster for Isreali Air Force.



This statement appear, more or less, on the same line.

Even without any armament modification a flight of Mig-31s can seriously deplete a cruise missile attack before it even starts.

In the case of Syria (for example), would these foxhounds if available be vulnerable to F22s and F35s. Syria has S300 but range is only 150-200 kms. Mig's Zaslon-M radar has 400 km range to kill off any AWACS and also has IRST but with only 60km detection. So F22s can still sneak in to say 75kms and release their AIM-120D missiles. While these are expensive missiles at $700K each but can get the job done to remove the Foxhound layer from IAD.

This infact brings the thread to full circle, regarding the main challenge being detection and tracking of F22s (when S400 is not in picture in case of Syria and Iran).

What would be your strategy for them. Syria has S300 and Iran only a domestic version of HQ-9.

Also very importantly, how would Mig-31 defend against the stealth cruise missiles like AGM-158 JASSM. Instead of F-18, if USAF uses F22 for initial SEAD ops, then a hole is already punched as some IAD radars would be out of the game.

victor7 wrote: Syria has S300 and Iran only a domestic version of HQ-9.

Syria does NOT have S-300 and god know what has Iran but I doubt is HQ-9.

It may be some PR info war.

Syria announced an intention to buy the S-300P in 1991 and now seems to possess the system. During the Syrian revolution, Russia supplied the Syrian military with an array of S-300 missiles and sent Russian technical advisors with the missiles to provide the technical support for Syrian military to operate the missiles


The above is from Wikipedia.

Why would a country buy S-300 system and not order say a dozen Mig-31s. Syria also orderd 8 Foxhounds but delivery got stopped either by pressure from Israel or Syrian lack of funds.

Israel threatened Russia that it will 'neutralize' S-300 if these were delivered to Iran. It seems Russia bucked and stopped the S-300 sales to Tehran. Do not know the real reason. Also, Russia has stopped the production of S-300 since few months ago. All focus is on S-400 and S-500 down the road.

Syria has S300 but range is only 150-200 kms.

Victor please , try to participate in a serious way : Syria has NOT any S-300 of any type ,the latest SAM it will receive is BUK-M2E ,in observance to has signed a contract still not implemented (at now only some evaluations units of this system are present in Syria ).

victor7 wrote: Syria announced an intention to buy the S-300P in 1991 and now seems to possess the system. During the Syrian revolution, Russia supplied the Syrian military with an array of S-300 missiles and sent Russian technical advisors with the missiles to provide the technical support for Syrian military to operate the missiles


The above is from Wikipedia.

There is a lot of good information in Wikipedia, but also a serious amount of inaccuracies and outright lies/false information. There are no reliable sources confirming S-300 in Syria claims, if such a deal was to be made you should expect a lot of noice and protesting from Israel as happened with the S-300 deal to Iran and Yahkont sales to Syria.

In the case of Syria (for example), would these foxhounds if available be vulnerable to F22s and F35s.

First of all lets eliminate the F-35 it is simply not ready for service yet.

With the F-22 a foreign deployment of F-22s would not go unnoticed and whereever they are based becomes a target for Syrian Scuds and Scud modifications.

Basing F-22s would be considered an act of war by Syria as soon as the first explosions occur, so any tankers belonging to NATO would be on the hit list along with any airborne early warning aircraft.

Ground based radar would be used, and I think probably a press release stating that any attack on Syria would lead to a direct attack on Israel and western assets in the region (ie oil assets and US bases) would be targeted if Syria was attacked by an outside threat would be sufficient to prevent the US risking an attack.

If they do attack then launching Scuds at nuclear facilities in Israel and US oil interests in Jordan and Iraq would be priority one.

The Israeli airforce would kill the Syrian Air Force, though with Mig-31s they would certainly have plenty of losses themselves.

The biggest problem with the Arabs vs the west and the Arabs vs Israel is their division...

The point is that the USAF will not deploy the F-22s anywhere.

Mindstorm wrote:

Syria has S300 but range is only 150-200 kms.

Victor please , try to participate in a serious way : Syria has NOT any S-300 of any type ,the latest SAM it will receive is BUK-M2E ,in observance to has signed a contract still not implemented (at now only some evaluations units of this system are present in Syria ).

Syria has S300 or not does not matter, the question is how to defend a territory using a combination of S300 and Foxhounds. The attackers being F22s and F35s using stealth cruise missiles.

The whole concept of stealth aircraft was intended to defeat the combination of S-300 and Foxhound... both of which are late 1970s designs originally.

It is like saying "How do you use an M47 US tank to defeat a T-90AM"

In a conventional air attack both the Foxhound and S-300 can engage conventional enemy aircraft at extended ranges and cruise missiles at medium ranges.

Make them stealthy and the effective ranges shrink dramatically to the point where they are not much use.

But then you could say the value of having such systems drives up the cost of the attack.

The 120 cruise missiles used in Libya were not stealthy uber cruise missiles, and the aircraft used in the attack would all have been vulnerable to S-300s and Foxhounds.

The solution to evade S-300 most of the time is to fly very low... where MANPADS become a threat.

The point is that the cost of a regime change has skyrocketed when the opposition starts using air defence systems developed in the 1970s and 1980s by the Soviets.

Make them stealthy and the effective ranges shrink dramatically to the point where they are not much use.

This means Russia is vulnerable to salvos of stealthy cruise missile attacks in combination with F22s acting as some sort of jammer initially. May be IR type missiles might be able to locate these stealth cruisers and real late stage CIWS should fire like mad once JASSMs are optically visible.

Btw, does US have the capability to monitor a area say 10km x 10km in the real time via satellite. I know they can do that via spec ops planted in the area. But purely satellite ability is the question. Because that would further erode the advantages of mobile SAMs.

the question is how to defend a territory using a combination of S300 and Foxhounds.The attackers being F22s and F35s using stealth cruise missiles.

Victor i truly don't understand what is your fixation with F-22 and F-35 m which are obviously among the less worrying menaces for Russia in an eventual conflict against USA .

1) F-22 and F-35 DON'T carry in theirs internal weapon bay any type of long range (stealthy or not) cruise missiles , therefore if you want at any cost to employ those two aircraft (...i don't know why, but those seem to me the typical symptomes of the infamous F-16 . net disease) at least try to maintain integer their distinctive CONOPS and capabilities.
If instead you want to talk of a BY FAR much efficient and truly dangerous massive stand-off cruise missile attack ,obviously those two aircraft have literally zero strategic value and what become critically important is the efficiency of the opposing IAD's layers capable to credibly deal with that menace

2) The corollary to what up said is that the employment of stand-off cruise missiles and ballistic missiles attacks can render any critical not hardened asset, such as C4, radar stations and ....airfields of an enemy devoid of a very extensive ,dense and multilayered IAD ,COMPLETELY WORTHLESS and incapable even only to come into play in the conflict's operations (from that derive the very strong emphasis putted by Russians in the anti-ballistic and anti-cruise missile performances of almost any of its domestic SAM systems).
Destroy Elmendorf Air Base with almost any assets and aircraft here present (only to respond to your question on F-22s) become a truly trivial task employing real strategically useful capabilities between military great power .such as stand-off cruise missile attacks and even more ballistic missiles attacks.
Several groups of mobile Klub missile launchers form well within Russian Federation territory under the protection several layers and several hundreds of Kilometers of national IAD and Aior Forces, exit for a pair of minutes from : multi-exit redeploying tunnels , abandoned hangars, old trains stock, a group of inflatable launchers etc..etc...shoot theirs missiles and quickly disperse or return to the tunnels for reload and prepare to attack another target . From this instant the only element capable to save thiosd assets from complete annihilation is the quality and extension of the multilayered IAD at its defense ...if present.

URSS/Russia invest in this type of multilayered Strategic IAD since '50 years ; the results are : Mig-31 the aircraft at world by far more optimized for the task, various type of mobile ground based long range EW assets like SPN-2/4 ,SPN-30/40, 1L245 series and various type of GPS jammers (any of which ,like you well know, with a level of jamming power radiated 6-7 times greater than the greater airborne one !!), Long range SAM ,such as S-300 family, with 360 degree engagement capabilities and impressive anti-low-altitude cruise missiles and anti-ballistic missile capabilities, Medium range SAMs such as BUK-M1/2 with very good cruise missile interception features, and point defense systems , such as Tunguska-M1, Tor-M1/2, Pantsyr-s1 and Igla/Igla-s MANPADS all with impressive anti missile/PGM capabilities .
Now i am curious to know what is the "made-in-USA" corresponding of a Tor-M1 or a SPN-40 or a Tunhuska-M1 or Pantsyrs-S1 and the extension and density of the IAD ..if the employment of a similar word wouldn't appear ironic in this instance...at defense of its widely spread and insulated airbases and command centers , capable to save all those assets from similar decapitating attacks conducted safely from thousands of kilometers of distance under full protection of the enemy entire Air Force and National IAD

JASSM with range of 370Kms can be launched by F35.
JASSM-ER/XR can be launched from 500 to 900 to 1600 from the target even by a legacy bird.

The challenge for Russian AD and RuAF is the

"ability to detect, track and kill stealth aircrafts and missiles at longer ranges than 60km by S400 and that too in a hostile full power jamming assault on own assets."

F22 is a game changer and only lion in the jungle until Pakfa comes out in 2015.

Btw, thanks for the informative reply. So you think that Russian Federation will be able to "hold off" and "repel" a full scale USAF assault......successfully.

If someone asks me, I would say ICBMs are currently the main and probably the ONLY source of threat that Russia can pose to US/NATO and that is why Medvedev came on tv to warn about ABM plans in Poland and Czech. Once ABM is in full swing, then Russia's ability to counter strike will diminish by alot and that is why Russian high command is really worried. Strategic Rocket Forces (i.e. missiles research) has been probably the only area in Russian Defense that was not brutally neglected in the 1990s and hence Russian lead in air to air missiles, Topols etc.

This means Russia is vulnerable

THAT IS THE KEY.

Russia is vulnerable.

There is not sense in trying to be invulnerable because such a state does not exist.

Russia is vulnerable to stealth cruise missiles.

NATO and the US is vulnerable to stealth cruise missiles.

Russia is vulnerable to submarine launched ballistic missiles.

The US is vulnerable to submarine launched ballistic missiles.

It is the same with ICBMs.

It is the same with suicide bombers.

This means Russia is vulnerable to salvos of stealthy cruise missile attacks in combination with F22s acting as some sort of jammer initially.

If an F-22 wan'ts to give away its position by being a jammer then that is their mistake.

Btw, does US have the capability to monitor a area say 10km x 10km in the real time via satellite. I know they can do that via spec ops planted in the area. But purely satellite ability is the question. Because that would further erode the advantages of mobile SAMs.

The US has shown zero capability to hit scud launcher vehicles before they launch, their performance against mobile SAMs is worse.

Russia is too far north.

Satellites can't hover like you see in the movies, unless it is in a geostationary orbit very high up and near the equator, a satellite comes over every 90 minutes or so and can see one spot on the ground for between 2 and 6 minutes depending on its flight path in relation to the spot on the ground.

Most Russian SAMs are mobile to some degree, and some, like Pantsir-S1 can fire while moving... the thing is that the Russians would never just sit and take a US or NATO attack... odds are they would strike back... and NATO and the US's ability to stop a stealth cruise missile attack is worse than Russias.

The advantage of mobile SAMs over static SAMs is proven in Libya and any conflict before it.

MANPADS are effective because they are mobile and concealable.

They force the enemy to fly higher... that is their goal and a sign of their success.

It is normally the cost of the rest of the required system that prevents most non colonial/non imperialist countries from defending themselves against Team America World Lynch mob.

They force the enemy to fly higher... that is their goal and a sign of their success.

Just read that JDAMs and JSOWs can be launched by planes flying at 33-40,000 feet. I think that's what was happening in Libya and more so because both J's have gps/intertial/laser based targeting support and these can be updated while in flightalso.

Btw, thanks for the informative reply. So you think that Russian Federation will be able to "hold off" and "repel" a full scale USAF assault......successfully.

There wouldn't be an attack in the first place.

Very simply the F-22 is not for Russia, it is to pinch oil from Libya when Libya starts buying S-300s and Flankers.

If the F-22 ever crossed the Russian border in anger the result will very quickly become nuclear.

Putin himself has already said that current conventional military options are accurate enough to be comparable to nuclear attack in terms of decapitation, so any conventional attack by NATO on Russia would be considered a nuclear attack and be replied in kind.

Very simply the goal of any attack would be assumed to be aimed at taking out Russias nuclear deterrent capability before they could use it. The obvious response is to use it before you lose it.

F22 is a game changer and only lion in the jungle until Pakfa comes out in 2015.

Not even slightly. It is a very expensive conventional weapon that can only have one purpose against Russia and therefore can't be used... just like a Minuteman III.

Game changer is a stupid term, war is not a game. Most of the time it is murder for property or possessions. Recently it has been on moral grounds which is even worse.

Even if you consider war a game, what is a game changer? Does it suddenly become Soccer?

Will the F-22 suddenly allow the US to do what it wants? It does that anyway. Will it suddenly be able to invade countries and not lose all its fighters to enemy action? It is already doing that.

Will it make North Korea and Iran so scared they will work even harder on nuclear weapons to try to defend themselves? Probably.

Will it be invincible and make America never lose in combat ever again... I doubt it.

Will it help in Afghanistan and Iraq? Nope.

Will it cost the US taxpayers enormous amounts of money never go any where near Russia or China and currently be grounded because of problems with oxygen generation systems? Yup.

Once ABM is in full swing, then Russia's ability to counter strike will diminish by alot and that is why Russian high command is really worried.

The US ABM system is not really a threat as such, in its current form it is pathetic and can easily be fooled. The problem is that being sea based with potentially thousands of missiles, and being unregulated and unlimited that eventually it might evolve into something that the US might think is more effective than it is. This makes it dangerous because the US might get to the point where it thinks in combination of a first strike with stealth and SLBMs located close to Russia that much of Russias nuclear capability could be neutralised to the point where the ABM shield could stop the remainder.

The problem is not that it will stop the Russian retaliation, but it will make the conflict more likely in the first place.

And the new Russian ICBMs should have no trouble evading US ABM systems for several decades to come, though if plans for the US ABM systems around the world go forward I can see Russia withdrawing from the New Start and INF treaties and putting nukes into large scale production.

Regarding the lack of Russias ability to invade the US... just shows what poppycock all that cold war crap about the threat of the Soviet Union was all about... nothing.

Russia used to be an imperial power but since WWII the only imperial powers are the west.

so because both J's have gps/intertial/laser based targeting support and these can be updated while in flightalso.

To hit their targets they need to get lower though...

JASSM with range of 370Kms can be launched by F35.

JASSM-ER/XR can be launched from 500 to 900 to 1600 from the target even by a legacy bird.

The challenge for Russian AD and RuAF is the

"ability to detect, track and kill stealth aircrafts and missiles at longer ranges than 60km by S400 and that too in a hostile full power jamming assault on own assets."

F22 is a game changer and only lion in the jungle until Pakfa comes out in 2015.

Victor7 please , please , do you realise that not reading what other people write (or ,for better say ,i hope for you that you don't read...because if you read the problem would be a much more serios problem of comprehension) damage ,not reinforce your line of reasoning ?

That is NOT F16 . net, here repeating 100 or 1000 times ridiculous,low level mantras devoid of any empirical grounding and founded on the basis of odd ideas and comical misunderstanding conceived by confused or fanatical amateurs will only render your position less and less credible.

JASSM with range of 370Kms can be launched by F35.

JASSM CANNOT be carried in the internal weapon bay of F-35 (and even less a F-22)
Only to be more clear, a supersonic B1B with a much greater range is ,for this specific role (practically the only with some weight in a conlict between world level powers) ,immensely more efficient than F-35.

Like you can see any line of argument , at the end of the day, return on the unique element having some weight in a conflict between advanced opponents : stand off cruise missile attacks.

In this optic ,Victor7, you can easily realise that the problem exist obviously NOT for the side owning a monstrous extensive and lutilayered IAD, which, to the contrary ,create billions of immense problems and strategic bonds for the enemy, but on the side lacking a similar IAD , because the same assets necessary for carry out attacks against the enemy would be easily and very quickly destroyed by the enemy employing the same stamd-off offensive means in a progressively faster demotion's chained process of its offensive military capabilities ,clear ?

ability to detect, track and kill stealth aircrafts and missiles at longer ranges than 60km by S400

I have understood perfectly ....and unfortunately .... from what come from this odd figure of 60 km for S-400 and F-22 , you have two possibilities at this point:

1) Elaborate your model of representation of the tracking sequence, avoiding to fall in the traps of involved parametrical figures.....completely out of line
2) Read what other ,nore informed people have written and ,hopefully, realize the laughable misunderstandings that had originated those odd numberes.

You can see from future air defense plans that Russia ,after introduction of the latest OLS , EW assets and above all the latest generation SAM systems is so sure to having fully responded,from its root, to actual menaces ,don't even consider LO/VLO aerodynamics targets still as a threat element against which shape the requirements of its future air defense systems ,and instead work intensively and has redirected all it s R&D work ,already since several years, toward the neutralization of future offensive means ,such as low orbit hypersonic weapons and space based tracking, offensive and defensive means.

Syria has S300 and Iran only a domestic version of HQ-9.

Syria and Iran have S-200 (SAM-5) not S-300. I know Iran produce Chinese HQ-2 (SAM-2) and domestic improved HAWK as well as Crotale and Rapier.

The challenge for Russian AD and RuAF is the

"ability to detect, track and kill stealth aircrafts and missiles at longer ranges than 60km by S400 and that too in a hostile full power jamming assault on own assets."

F22 is a game changer and only lion in the jungle until Pakfa comes out in 2015.

[quote]

In 1999 war in FRY, Serbs have no problem to see stealth B-2 and F-117 with their old metric wave radars and Russia have a lot of new metric wave radars as Nebo-U, Nebo-SV, Nebo-SVU and Nebo-M as well as a lot of other passive detecting systems, so Russian air force and air defense will not have such problem to see F-22 and F-35 on long distances. When they are spotted, they could send Su-35 fighters, which will intercept them using IRST and L-band wing radar. Su-35 and F-22 will end fighting in dogfights, where Su-35 is no worse than F-22, because Su-35 could easily detect and overcome AMRAAMs launched from F-22 or F-35.

In 1999 war in FRY, Serbs have no problem to see stealth B-2 and F-117 with their old metric wave radars

Shot down 1 F-117 by flight path information and then flooding the area matrix with missiles............and that proved the ability to see stealth for the end of time.
This impracticality scares me and hope RuAF does not think like that. Best counter point is 'if so, the why did not FRY shoot down more Stealths' and why did not they develop technologies to export to others who are on the list of 'bad guys' for the US.

This brings me to another crucial point. Not only Russia has to develop ways to see, track and kill stealth at longer distances, it also has to develop more robust defenses for the next layers of the IAD. End of it, the most vulnerable items like Tanks, BMDs, Troop trucks, Artillery, mobile AAA, Mobile C2s etc. need to be protected in order to do their jobs well. With laser/INS/GPS guided bombing taking place from 40K feet, there is a limit to how much Tor/Buks can do to protect columns on the move. Pantsirs seem nice but they are expensive. If MANPADS can't kill 40K birds then there has to be tech to kill off the JDAM/JSOW/SMACM and other launched. I am talking about end stage CIWS and cheap and small enough to be installed on each tank, BMD and offer protection of 1 km radius. At what speed do JDAMs fall? I bet several Machs, so there has to be a way to kill or deflect them before they hit the intended target. Be it Laser/Small Missile/CIWS or whatever. With this in place the overwhelming advantage of USAF to 'bomb at will' will be mostly gone. F22s can take out S-200/300/400 SAMs and then Tor/Buk and even Pantsirs. But ability to deny their weapons reaching moving troops and machines will force their hands out of the game. However, in next 5 years, US will be fielding robotic warriors good enough to put a dogged fight and meeting full or partial ground objectives.

Developing the end stage defenses will be a boost for the Russian defense industries. Nations will have to put $100M to buy a couple of Su-35s but for the same amount they can have enough goodies to protect a small coloum of thousand troops and dozen tanks moving into a area and getting the job done.

When they are spotted, they could send Su-35 fighters, which will intercept them using IRST and L-band wing radar. Su-35 and F-22 will end fighting in dogfights, where Su-35 is no worse than F-22, because Su-35 could easily detect and overcome AMRAAMs launched from F-22 or F-35.

In 1995, Pavel Grachev the Russian Defense Minister confidently quipped regarding attack on Grozny "Oh, it will take only two small brigades of VDV troops to finish off the rebels in 3 days at most". What actually happened is known to everyone and how much did it cost Russian in 2 Chechen wars? I can say easily $10B and probably much more in direct military costs. Do not mention the troops and civilians killed, there is no dearth of troops and civilians in Russia to be used as cannon fodder. Also, how many towns and villages blown into rubbles.

The above comment quoted is very much on those lines as made by the corrupt former defense minister. So for now, a squadron of F22s can eat up, digest and spit the bones out of............any legacy air force and that includes airforces with Su-35s fielding 60 Km IRST capability. There is a rumor that Russian and Chinese pilots carry some gadgets with them to see and track stealth. But that is only a rumor, not a fact and can't count on rumors to save the country from aggressors.