Su-35 vs F-22/F-35

galicije83 wrote:
Do you know that they need almost 2 hours for deployment and undeployment instead of 2.5 hours as other battery need it..so yes they reduce time but not for god sake to dozen minutes but just to 2 hours instead to 2 hour and 30min...

SEAD, more like seethe. Pathetic. So the very best of NATO wild weasels could not even take down pretty much static targets - and that's with nobody contesting the air space or attacking their airbases

Nobody tell them even the strategic SAMs have setup and tear-down times of 5 minutes, or they'd shit themselves.

lyle6 wrote:

galicije83 wrote:
Do you know that they need almost 2 hours for deployment and undeployment instead of 2.5 hours as other battery need it..so yes they reduce time but not for god sake to dozen minutes but just to 2 hours instead to 2 hour and 30min...

SEAD, more like seethe. Pathetic. So the very best of NATO wild weasels could not even take down pretty much static targets - and that's with nobody contesting the air space or attacking their airbases

Nobody tell them even the strategic SAMs have setup and tear-down times of 5 minutes, or they'd shit themselves.

I mean they couldn’t find them because they spent majority of the time hiding. These SAMs were effectively suppressed and their inferiority showed. NATO bombed them with practically zero resistance. It showed that older Soviet SAMs were essentially useless in this conflict. The f117s that were hit were due to poor NATO mission planning and lack of EW support.

If s300/s400 will have to hide like this from NATO than they are failures.

bitcointrader70 wrote:
I mean they couldn’t find them because they spent majority of the time hiding. These SAMs were effectively suppressed and their inferiority showed. NATO bombed them with practically zero resistance. It showed that older Soviet SAMs were essentially useless  in this conflict. The f117s that were hit were due to poor NATO mission planning and lack of EW support.

Serbia's SAMs were shooting from day 1 until the end of the conflict - why lie?

bitcointrader70 wrote:
If s300/s400 will have to hide like this from NATO than they are failures.

As opposed to US stealth jets that wouldn't even dare come within LOS of Russian S-400?

bitcointrader70 wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

galicije83 wrote:
Do you know that they need almost 2 hours for deployment and undeployment instead of 2.5 hours as other battery need it..so yes they reduce time but not for god sake to dozen minutes but just to 2 hours instead to 2 hour and 30min...

SEAD, more like seethe. Pathetic. So the very best of NATO wild weasels could not even take down pretty much static targets - and that's with nobody contesting the air space or attacking their airbases

Nobody tell them even the strategic SAMs have setup and tear-down times of 5 minutes, or they'd shit themselves.

I mean they couldn’t find them because they spent majority of the time hiding. These SAMs were effectively suppressed and their inferiority showed. NATO bombed them with practically zero resistance. It showed that older Soviet SAMs were essentially useless  in this conflict. The f117s that were hit were due to poor NATO mission planning and lack of EW support.

If s300/s400 will have to hide like this from NATO than they are failures.

My request for you to explain how an APG-81 would cut through DRFM, In detail, Is still pending.
And so is how would it's LPI modes get past SPO150.

I also remind you that a failure to explain any of these will invalidate every argument you've made up until now.

You shot three but could produce only one. F 117s were flying through the same flight path. Zoltan Dani waited for the appropriate time and shot down just one of them.

That does not make any sense. Even if there was a rigid flight path and schedule, you still can't shoot down a plane with that information if you can't see the plane.... get a camera and sit somewhere on a bus route with a blind fold on and set your watch alarm to when the bus should be travelling down a street... when the alarm goes off take a photo... is there a bus in that image? And buses only travel in two dimensions... aircraft travel in three...

The idea that you know the schedule for the plane so you should be able to shoot it down is ridiculous.

Being a habitual importer Indians had zero knowledge about stealth. So those assholes were actually a part of the program. They entered into the Su-57 project thinking the Russians will design a F-22 for them.

The idea was that they were going to take a Russian design and make some India specific changes to it and then put it into production... much like they did with the Su-30MKI... they put Indian and western kit into it and then assembled it in India.

After having burnt their ass on the project Indians realized the Russians are not developing a fighter that is anywhere as stealthy as the F-22. Instead they were developing a far less stealthy platform with great maneuvering capabilities.

The F-22 is not very stealthy either.... certainly not enough for it to be a problem for the Russian IADS.... the only really stealthy aircraft they have is the B-2 and they train to penetrate Russian airspace at low altitude... why would they do that if Russian radars can't see them?

So they bailed out and started working on a home grown version of a stealth aircraft that will be powered by either a US or French engine.

The French don't have an engine in that thrust range do they? They would be better off with Al-41s and upgrading their Su-30MKIs to that engine too if they don't already use it.

India is most likely to just wait and in a few years buy Su-57s from Russia as a finished product.

bitcointrader70 wrote:
I mean they couldn’t find them because they spent majority of the time hiding. These SAMs were effectively suppressed and their inferiority showed. NATO bombed them with practically zero resistance. It showed that older Soviet SAMs were essentially useless  in this conflict. The f117s that were hit were due to poor NATO mission planning and lack of EW support.

If s300/s400 will have to hide like this from NATO than they are failures.

They are not hiding, they were in ambush...wait for right moment to attack enemy.. its different...we fired 163 AA missiles from S125 Neva (93 at 50 targets) and 2k12 Kub (70 missiles at 46 targets). How many hits Yanks and rest of the OTAN knows batter then we are, but they do not want to tell us, for now

This system was great in time were the was made and it was 60s and 70s. Lot of change in warfare during 20+ years. If we have BUK system and S300 OTAN will never attack us, off course we need planes to, but this system will be real treat to them and they will have lot of more shot down planes and possible they will lost some piltos to...Its stupid to compare S300 range with range of S125 and 2k12 system..hell if we have BUK missile system we will probably shoot down more planes, because it is hell of the system with 2 times range then system we have...

galicije83 wrote:So this isnt Serbian battery but Danis battery?..WTF who wrote this shit?!

For the LAST time for You all westerners or any other nation...THERE was NO modification on S-125 NEVA system...this isnt true for GOD sake and it is your propaganda. Dani admit that in his latest interviews and many time before that...this is just bullshit written in USA for lsot of this planes...

Do you know that they need almost 2 hours for deployment and undeployment instead of 2.5 hours as other battery need it..so yes they reduce time but not for god sake to dozen minutes but just to 2 hours instead to 2 hour and 30min...


Yugoslavian engineers of our VTI or military and technical institute modified S-125 Neva rocket in way that we can shot when plane come and when plane goes from zone of distruction (in two ways not just one as it was on original system). This was only modification on that system...

And also you do not know that 3rd battery whole war was in an ambush, because of that they do not have casualties and they was not hit in this war. That was plan of 250. rocket brigade if war start...

Obviously it was a Serbian air defense battery, what an assertion.....

It not suffered casualities because it was in "ambush"?

Practically any AD battery, and even more all Serbian SAM batteries during Operation Allied Forces, shift cyclically from active to ambush stance ,but while any other failed to achieve any downing, suffering at least some material or man losses, this single battery caused instead single-handedly practiclaly the entire losses suffered by NATO in this operation.

In the Federation the Operation Allied Forces has been examined in the most minuscle details and not obviously by public declarations (including those of Dani that correctly continue to adhere to Serbian brothers OPSEC) but by extensive and strictly technical examination of all the factors involved in the clash between NATO combined Forces and Serbian Air Defenses Forces ,up to direct test of a recollected ALE-50 against domestic products that shown the absolute inefficiency of this measure against domestic SAMs of the times.

Precise data about times of transition from march to deployment of different SAMs and the inverse, theirs response times to different air targets, missile's fuse sensitivity, jam rejection thresholds, on road and off road performances and average response times of NATO Air Forces SIGINT elements to decoy emitters and actual radar pinging, metrics about theirs communication channels , average time to arrival at delivery point of different ammunitions after data dissemination, kinematic parameters of different aircraft in evasive maneuvring or attempt egression from a SAM engagement footprint......all was crossed to produce a model harmonized with data of domestic IAD of the time.

The result was that even discounting effect of the Air Forces, EW forces and long range attacks to theirs air bases an operation like Allied Forces would have failed totally and likely conducted to the complete paralysis of the NATO air operations within the first 48 hours cause unbearable crippling aircraft losses.

Z. Dani simply rendered its battery more similar to a relatively modern SAM of the Federation of its times through 19 distinctive modifications to different components of its battery (some minors others more substantial and ingenous).

Mindstorm wrote:

Z. Dani simply rendered its battery more similar to a relatively modern SAM of the Federation of its times through 19 distinctive modifications to different components of its battery (some minors others more substantial and ingenous).    

Yes, he and his crew rendered its battery more similar to a relatively modern SAM system, but he adn they do not modified nothing as i say..only modification was made by VTI was on missiles...

Yes they made some good anti harm systems to neutralized HARM missile similar to the decoy on planes, they made fake radar radiation imitator 1km away from its main radar, and when used real radar to scan airspace and when they turn it off, this fake radar continue to work as main and if NAT launch HARM he will hit this fake radar, not real one. But that was all..off course he was hell of officer, but he also have a good officers under him, and they all work as team, and they all know how IRAQI went trough against USA in 1991 with same systems when they iluminate to much from their main radars..

Rest you can read about him and rest of 3rd battery of 250. AA brigade are FALSE and made by USA propaganda after the war...

bitcointrader70 wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

galicije83 wrote:
Do you know that they need almost 2 hours for deployment and undeployment instead of 2.5 hours as other battery need it..so yes they reduce time but not for god sake to dozen minutes but just to 2 hours instead to 2 hour and 30min...

SEAD, more like seethe. Pathetic. So the very best of NATO wild weasels could not even take down pretty much static targets - and that's with nobody contesting the air space or attacking their airbases

Nobody tell them even the strategic SAMs have setup and tear-down times of 5 minutes, or they'd shit themselves.

I mean they couldn’t find them because they spent majority of the time hiding. These SAMs were effectively suppressed and their inferiority showed. NATO bombed them with practically zero resistance. It showed that older Soviet SAMs were essentially useless  in this conflict. The f117s that were hit were due to poor NATO mission planning and lack of EW support.

If s300/s400 will have to hide like this from NATO than they are failures.

Russia is not Serbia, nor Iraq, nor Grenada. NATO, Israel, or anyone else cannot attack Russian assets and establish air superiority in their classical method of conducting warfare because Russia has unstoppable counterstrike capabilities up to and including tactical nuclear weapons. That's it. Nothing else matters. The circle-jerk about F-22 vs blah, blah is great for a 14-year-old playing video games. Every military analyst in the Pentagon knows Russia can sink a US carrier group at will, can put a missile through the window of choice of any command and control facility, and can turn any airbase into a glass parking lot.

I mean they couldn’t find them because they spent majority of the time hiding.

That is what air defence is supposed to do... remain hidden and active. If they had more modern systems they would have been rather more effective, but they had what they had.

These SAMs were effectively suppressed and their inferiority showed. NATO bombed them with practically zero resistance.

The fact that they weren't massacred and wiped out like arab air defences were repeatedly is to their credit. HATO hit very little in the way of actual military hardware during that entire conflict that Allbright claimed at the start would be over in 3 days.

It showed that older Soviet SAMs were essentially useless in this conflict.

It showed HATO was unable to deal with the oldest and most primitive Soviet air defence systems still in service if they are used with skill and intelligence.

The f117s that were hit were due to poor NATO mission planning and lack of EW support.

If it is invisible it should not need EW support, but then if it was invisible then it could not be hit even with the flight plans sitting in front of them.

If s300/s400 will have to hide like this from NATO than they are failures.

HATO has to hide from S-300s and S-400s.

HATO keeps talking about the future being swarm weapons... well Russia already has a swarm of SAMs and AA guns and sensors of a wide range of types.

Any defence can be chipped away and and eventually defeated given time, but Russian defences are not only very strong, they also have the capacity to strike back so any ship or plane launching weapons can be sunk or shot down and have its port or airport destroyed to prevent further attacks...

Mindstorm wrote:

galicije83 wrote:So this isnt Serbian battery but Danis battery?..WTF who wrote this shit?!

For the LAST time for You all westerners or any other nation...THERE was NO modification on S-125 NEVA system...this isnt true for GOD sake and it is your propaganda. Dani admit that in his latest interviews and many time before that...this is just bullshit written in USA for lsot of this planes...

Do you know that they need almost 2 hours for deployment and undeployment instead of 2.5 hours as other battery need it..so yes they reduce time but not for god sake to dozen minutes but just to 2 hours instead to 2 hour and 30min...


Yugoslavian engineers of our VTI or military and technical institute modified S-125 Neva rocket in way that we can shot when plane come and when plane goes from zone of distruction (in two ways not just one as it was on original system). This was only modification on that system...

And also you do not know that 3rd battery whole war was in an ambush, because of that they do not have casualties and they was not hit in this war. That was plan of 250. rocket brigade if war start...

Obviously it was a Serbian air defense battery, what an assertion.....

It not suffered casualities because it was in "ambush"?

Practically any AD battery, and even more all Serbian SAM batteries during Operation Allied Forces, shift cyclically from active to ambush stance ,but while any other failed to achieve any downing, suffering at least some material or man losses, this single battery caused instead single-handedly practiclaly the entire losses suffered by NATO in this operation.

In the Federation the Operation Allied Forces has been examined in the most minuscle details and not obviously by public declarations (including those of Dani that correctly continue to adhere to Serbian brothers OPSEC) but by extensive and strictly technical examination of all the factors involved in the clash between NATO combined Forces and Serbian Air Defenses Forces ,up to direct test of a recollected ALE-50 against domestic products that shown the absolute inefficiency of this measure against domestic SAMs of the times.

Precise data about times of transition from march to deployment of different SAMs and the inverse, theirs response times to different air targets, missile's fuse sensitivity, jam rejection thresholds, on road and off road performances and average response times of NATO Air Forces SIGINT elements to decoy emitters and actual radar pinging, metrics about theirs communication channels , average time to arrival at delivery point of different ammunitions after data dissemination, kinematic parameters of different aircraft in evasive maneuvring or attempt egression from a SAM engagement footprint......all was crossed to produce a model harmonized with data of domestic IAD of the time.

The result was that even discounting effect of the Air Forces, EW forces and long range attacks to theirs air bases an operation like Allied Forces would have failed totally and likely conducted to the complete paralysis of the NATO air operations within the first 48 hours cause unbearable crippling aircraft losses.

Z. Dani simply rendered its battery more similar to a relatively modern SAM of the Federation of its times through 19 distinctive modifications to different components of its battery (some minors others more substantial and ingenous).    

Great point on the parameters, especially capability for evasive maneuvering.

But going back to Su-35 vs. western airpower and BVR combat:

What is you opinion on Su-35 against AIM-120 in BVR high altitude regime. At what ranges do you think AIM-120 has a credible chance to engage a Su-35?

Su-35 could in theory pull max. allowable (airframe/pilot) g-force maneuver at very high altitudes, in very thin air, via its TVC nozzles.
In altitudes such as 18km, AIM-120 will have immense problems to overmatch the turn-rate at a high enough level to allow for a kill.
AIM-120 only has its aerodynamic surfaces after some 7 seconds of powered flight, no TVC, no gas dynamic thruster system.

If high altitude and TVC is then combined with F-pole energy-bleed evasive maneuvering: Do you think AIM-120 is still a BVR weapon, or rather a WVR AAM?

Can federation Su-35 operate at 18km or more with full air-to-air missile load? Does TVC enable 9 g maneuver at such altitudes?

Stealth/LO is all about BVR engagements. I have doubts whether non-ambush BVR engagements are possible with kinematically weak AAMs such as AIM-120 (against a Su-35 class high altitude fighter).
Is the stealth/LO advantage for BVR fights physically diminished to the natural operation regime of the Su-35?

Mindstorm wrote: The response is in the technical details concerning the measures aimed at reduce the losses by part of NATO Air Forces over Serbian skies: NATO aircraft losses during the Operation Allied Force was avoided not thanks to mythical effects produced by EW capabilities or "stealth" designs, if not marginally, what instead really reduced enormously the losses was :

- ALE-50 This towed decoy saved 10-12 B1 bombers and about 36 among F-15s and F-16s from almost assured downing (SAM diverted had radar lock on the aircraft and had surpassed kinematic evasive manoeuvres)
-Altitude limit of the SA-6 batteries
-Fixed nature of the SA-2 and SA-3 batteries, that had the altitude reach to engage NATO aircraft at any operative cruise altitude

USAF used B-52 as well during the war against Serbia. B-52’s does not carry ALE-50 decoys. How many B-52s could the Serbs shoot down?

The B52 has an extensive Electronic Countermeasures Suite. It includes configurable manual and automatic systems. Short of the a dedicated ECM aircraft (Growler/Prowler) no other aircraft comes close. Effective ECM requires sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters for a wide range of frequencies/ bands. Different frequencies provide different capabilities and limitations. That takes power, and space.

USAF used B-52 as well during the war against Serbia. B-52’s does not carry ALE-50 decoys. How many B-52s could the Serbs shoot down?

A decoy is a decoy, you don't have to carry the decoy yourself to benefit from its effect on incoming missiles... or do wild weasel aircraft only protect themselves and kill SAM sites while the bombers around them get shot down?

The B52 has an extensive Electronic Countermeasures Suite. It includes configurable manual and automatic systems. Short of the a dedicated ECM aircraft (Growler/Prowler) no other aircraft comes close. Effective ECM requires sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters for a wide range of frequencies/ bands. Different frequencies provide different capabilities and limitations. That takes power, and space.

So why do they operate with support platforms like jammer and other aircraft types?

RTN wrote:

Mindstorm wrote: The response is in the technical details concerning the measures aimed at reduce the losses by part of NATO Air Forces over Serbian skies: NATO aircraft losses during the Operation Allied Force was avoided not thanks to mythical effects produced by EW capabilities or "stealth" designs, if not marginally, what instead really reduced enormously the losses was :

- ALE-50 This towed decoy saved 10-12 B1 bombers and about 36 among F-15s and F-16s from almost assured downing (SAM diverted had radar lock on the aircraft and had surpassed kinematic evasive manoeuvres)
-Altitude limit of the SA-6 batteries
-Fixed nature of the SA-2 and SA-3 batteries, that had the altitude reach to engage NATO aircraft at any operative cruise altitude

USAF used B-52 as well during the war against Serbia. B-52’s does not carry ALE-50 decoys. How many B-52s could the Serbs shoot down?

The B52 has an extensive Electronic Countermeasures Suite. It includes configurable manual and automatic systems. Short of the a dedicated ECM aircraft (Growler/Prowler) no other aircraft comes close. Effective ECM requires sensitive receivers and powerful transmitters for a wide range of frequencies/ bands. Different frequencies provide different capabilities and limitations. That takes power, and space.

31 B-52s "officially" lost 50 years ago to 1960 era surface to air technology.

My dad has a pot made of crashed B-52. Super durable

All jokes aside, they did use decoy and EA-6 in VN war, which tbh posed enormous threats to our SAM for quite a while. Nothing really impossible to shoot down, though

RTN wrote:USAF used B-52 as well during the war against Serbia. B-52’s does not carry ALE-50 decoys. How many B-52s could the Serbs shoot down?

It is not quite so.

B-52Hs was used mostly as AGM-86 cruise missile delivery platform.
When, successively, them was employed in "stand-in" missions, the B-52Hs were used only in very "safe" areas (practically almost exclusively on the borders with Albania) where no chances of encounters with mobile/semi mobile Serbian SAM batteries was possible.

In USAFE post war analysis there are no noticeable recorded instances of SAMs guided against B-52Hs; that subsonic bomber would have been incredibly vulnerable to downing and just for this reason only B-1s and B-2s were employed in dangerous air sectors over Serbia.