Russian Navy: Status & News #4

Interesting, but Ka-27 sized UAVs will be enormously expensive, though I suppose you could adapt old airframes whose life has nearly expired and use them as disposable items... but it is hardly compact... most ships could only carry one at most... and of course being a helo based aircraft it wont be fast and it wont have a very great range.

In certain situation it would be rather useful and for time expired airframes it would make sense, though the sensors fitted will make it a rather expensive expendable system...

As mentioned in the first article the Ka-31 (called Ka-35 now) is probably more useful, but rather more important a fixed wing aircraft... whether manned or unmanned would be much faster and much longer ranged, and offer rather better endurance... and to be honest I think the Liana satellite network makes more sense to rebuild with modern high tech components and sensors too.

You could even make a 50kg optical system and put it in a 300km low earth orbit and launch it from a MiG-31 when you want it... a semi disposable short term satellite that can be launched when needed probably makes rather more sense than a disposable 12 ton helicopter... whether it is manned or unmanned.

Of course a stealthy version of the PAK DA could also be a replacement for the Tu-142 in the MPA role...

And then again a huge airship design with enormous radar antenna, nuclear energy generation with electric propulsion as well as hydrogen fuel cell technology to allow water ballast and hydrogen lift... you could use electricity from the nuclear PP with the fuel cell to generate hydrogen or water... depending on whether you need lift or ballast... Solar panels could also generate free energy but for large radar antennas of high power a nuclear power plant would generate a powerful reliable energy source... you could surround the reactor with water ballast for radiation protection for the crew.

A large supply ship in the group could accommodate several Ka-27 sized UAVs, & some could be even modified as tankers to extend their range.

The guard ship "Fearless" of project 11540, being under repair at the Yantar CVD in Kaliningrad since 2014, is 85% ready today and will go to mooring trials by the end of the year, RIA Novosti reports with reference to a representative of the Yantar plant.

As it was explained at the shipyard, the ship has already completed the repair of the hull, the installation of pipelines and air conditioning systems is being completed. This year, the dock repair will be completed and the "Fearless" will go to mooring trials. According to the plans of the company, the transfer of the sentry to the Russian Navy will occur in 2019. The ship will continue to serve in the Baltic Fleet.

Earlier it was reported that according to the plans of the Ministry of Defense, the repair of the ship was to be completed at the end of 2016, but during the inspection, a large amount of additional work was identified and the repair of the ship was extended. Also a big delay in the repair of the ship caused the repair of the propulsion system of the ship, produced in Ukraine.

"Fearless" - the lead patrol ship of the project 11540 "Hawk", built in 1993 on the "Yantar". Designed for searching, detecting, tracking and destroying enemy submarines, for anti-ship and anti-submarine defense of warships and ships at sea, attacking submarines and surface targets at sea and bases, supporting ground forces combat operations, providing landings, and also for covering naval forces.

The ship’s displacement is 3590 tons, speed up to 30 knots, autonomy 30 days, crew of 210 people. In service: AK-100 artillery, Kinzhal and Dirk missiles, 533 mm torpedoes, Ka-27 helicopter.

par far wrote:"Russia’s new maritime doctrine and issues with the surface fleet."




https://southfront.org/russias-maritime-doctrine-and-issues-with-the-surface-fleet/

Russian submarines and surface fleet are vulnerable because they lack fighter cover from CVNs?

Does anybody think that this could be mitigated with cutting edge AD systems and helicopters on smaller ships? They could be submarine's eyes and complement it with reconnaissance, firepower and support. Submarines could be also fitted with UUV, that is also UAV.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Russian submarines and surface fleet are vulnerable because they lack fighter cover from CVNs?

Does anybody think that this could be mitigated with cutting edge AD systems and helicopters on smaller ships? They could be submarine's eyes and complement it with reconnaissance, firepower and support. Submarines could be also fitted with UUV, that is also UAV.

Russian ships would operate under the cover of the air force near its border. Once a naval group is spotted they would load tu-22M and organised a cordinatated massive launch with the ships, specially the small corvettes/ missile ships. In matter of hours after the deection of enemy ships.

What they need is more il-38M and more AWACS. They have enough missiles and the panned ships will more than enough against any navy.

Their SSK would be safe and all P-8 trying to find them would be shot down by r-37.

Isos wrote:
Russian ships would operate under the cover of the air force near its border. Once a naval group is spotted they would load tu-22M and organised a cordinatated massive launch with the ships, specially the small corvettes/ missile ships. In matter of hours after the deection of enemy ships.

What they need is more il-38M and more AWACS. They have enough missiles and the panned ships will more than enough against any navy.

Their SSK would be safe and all P-8 trying to find them would be shot down by r-37.

It goes without saying, that I meant operating in distant areas. Aforementioned Russian 2017 maritime strategy clearly supports such use of navy, considering main national threat NATO dominance in the world oceans.

So Tu-142 in ASW will need some complement in AD.

It goes without saying, that I meant operating in distant areas. Aforementioned Russian 2017 maritime strategy clearly supports such use of navy, considering main national threat NATO dominance in the world oceans.

So Tu-142 in ASW will need some complement in AD.

In a big war they won't send their ships anywhere.

It depends of what deployment you are talking.

Syria is good exemple. They send it there where they have friendly support, their own base with their own fighters and awacs and they made a A2/AD zone with their ships operating near the shore.
Then they talk with the neighbour powers to prevent accidents with them.

And all that with the protection of their nuclear weapons that would keep calm the "hot heads" like Shoigu said.


If you are talking about something like US intervention where they attack a country with their navy and 10 carriers, it won't happen. Neither would happen a war against nato in the Atlantic.

They are not stupid, they know very well the limitations of their forces, a text published officialy won't change that. Most of the ships being retired are destroyer size, most of upgraded are also destroyer size but not enough of them while most new build ships are corvettes and small frigates. Gorshkov class was meant to be the backbone of their navy and they have only one. That doesn't allow them to make deployemebt far away.

Isos wrote: the limitations of their forces,

This is what I was talking about. Theoretical capability (to defend a submarine against hostile aircraft and missiles with shipborne AD). Like you said, practical campaigns depend on capability. I was wondering where's the limit of the capability. If they operate a task group of any kind of submarines + air cover from frigates and destroyers anywhere in the world in distant waters. If you need a concrete example, it's conflict between Russian submarines in Tartus and Israeli fighters. No matter how unlikely the conflict and the absence of fighters in Hmeymim.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Isos wrote: the limitations of their forces,

This is what I was talking about. Theoretical capability (to defend a submarine against hostile aircraft and missiles with shipborne AD). Like you said, practical campaigns depend on capability. I was wondering where's the limit of the capability. If they operate a task group of any kind of submarines + air cover from frigates and destroyers anywhere in the world in distant waters. If you need a concrete example, it's conflict between Russian submarines in Tartus and Israeli fighters. No matter how unlikely the conflict and the absence of fighters in Hmeymim.

Fighters will have the advantage of being able to launch stand off cruise missiles against ships while being far away of the AD on the ship.

Against submerged subs their are useless. Most likely russian subs will launch kalibr at headquarters of israeli air force navy ... but it would be a limited engagement and they would get away. They would be at some 1000km away too so hard if not impossible to be detected.

The missile could be launched at israeli nuclear plant leting the country with major nuclear catastrophe and unpowered.

If you need a concrete example, it's conflict between Russian submarines in Tartus and Israeli fighters.

They won't be going to Tartus, unless in an emergency breakdown. A surface ship can defend itself in port but a sub can only use MPADs, & they r useless against a waive of PG/CMs.

Isos wrote:Against submerged subs their are useless.

Anyway, to sound like a broken record, airborne ASW is in general the pillar of ASW warfare. Aircraft can search submarines over a large area effectively and fast. That's why submarines need air cover and aircraft give submarines biggest added value.

Perhaps R-37 can shoot the P-8 in the coastal area where fighters operate, but in the open ocean Russian naval task group without a CVN will be in a different position. Should be the P-8 accompanied with fighters, the winner might not be that easy to tell. Especially if it can drop its weapons from safe distance. So the answer would probably lie in comparing ranges.

Does anybody think that this could be mitigated with cutting edge AD systems and helicopters on smaller ships? They could be submarine's eyes and complement it with reconnaissance, firepower and support. Submarines could be also fitted with UUV, that is also UAV.

Certainly the Navys SAMs and anti aircraft capability is significant, but while the Russian Army is structured to operate in environments where there is no air control, it would benefit from air force support... and I think the same with the Navy... an air component would improve target detection and engaging threats early before they get close to those expensive ships and subs.

I think satellite support is also important as well.

It goes without saying, that I meant operating in distant areas. Aforementioned Russian 2017 maritime strategy clearly supports such use of navy, considering main national threat NATO dominance in the world oceans.

A large part of controlling any part of sea or ground is also controlling the air space above it.

In a full war scenario such isolated groups would be in serious trouble, but the presence of Zircon means no enemy ship would be safe, so with an air component they would actually be rather more powerful than many countries entire military forces, but during general peace time allowing Russian use of the open sea having aircraft means you avoid stupid situations...

For instance if you detect something approaching and you radio it to turn away and it keeps coming... you either launch a SAM, or gamble it might be totally innocent.

With a carrier you can send a fighter to fly out at very high speed armed to the teeth with AAMs to identify the radar contact and warn it off or if it is hostile to deal with it.

The further you can do this from your carrier and ships the better for them.

So Tu-142 in ASW will need some complement in AD.

I would love to see something rather more exotic... a nuclear powered airship as an example that could operate as an AWACS and a MPA...

In fact it could use trade winds at different altitudes to get places quite quickly...

If you are talking about something like US intervention where they attack a country with their navy and 10 carriers, it won't happen. Neither would happen a war against nato in the Atlantic.

To support an ally... like they did successfully in Syria... because it was close enough to send bombers and cruise missiles... if they had tried that in Libya they probably would have struggled without a carrier.

With a carrier it means they can send a sizable force that could have started setting up an IADS like they are currently doing in Syria... Gaddafi could have paid for it... and it would have saved a civil war and a lot of deaths... of course it would have blocked the flood gates of the immigrants from Africa to Europe so it wouldn't be all good...

They are not stupid, they know very well the limitations of their forces, a text published officialy won't change that. Most of the ships being retired are destroyer size, most of upgraded are also destroyer size but not enough of them while most new build ships are corvettes and small frigates. Gorshkov class was meant to be the backbone of their navy and they have only one. That doesn't allow them to make deployemebt far away.

Their land neighbours in europe hate them, and while the sell gas, there is not that much else Russia should be buying from the EU... they should be making that sort of stuff themselves and selling it to China and Africa and central and south america.... but to sell to those regions they will need to ensure the sea lines of communication are kept open, and you can bet your ass that the US navy and the Royal navy and the French navy wont lift a finger to help a Russian ship trading with Cuba or Venezuela or anyone else.

Against submerged subs their are useless.

Fighter aircraft from a carrier should be able to carry the same torpedoes that helicopters and Il-38s can carry... a few naval helos with dipping sonars to find said subs would be the other needed component.

Perhaps R-37 can shoot the P-8 in the coastal area where fighters operate, but in the open ocean Russian naval task group without a CVN will be in a different position. Should be the P-8 accompanied with fighters, the winner might not be that easy to tell. Especially if it can drop its weapons from safe distance. So the answer would probably lie in comparing ranges.

The thing is that a CVN would extend the sight and reach of any surface group and add several defence layers to their already pretty good defensive screen.

Seeing things early means more time to react... more importantly having fighter aircraft you can send out to investigate something means you are no longer a blind man with a rifle... an approaching air contact can be investigated... 200 closing at high speed does not really need investigating but being able to launch fighters with AAMs able to blunt any attack before it comes over the horizon means any attack needs to be much bigger to succeed... which makes it more expensive for the enemy... harder to organise for the enemy, and of course limits the number of enemy that could threaten your force.

Just because you have a CVN does not make you a US force... you will still have Onyx and Zircon and other capable systems to defeat any enemy surface fleet, but it makes them easier to find and it gives you more options to deal with an enemies air component too.

The R-37M is for all 4++th Gen Russian fighters and 5th gen Russian fighters too.

In the near future the AAMs are only going to get even better... likely with missiles optimised to deal with F-22 and large numbers of F-35 expected to be in service.

The new mini Pantsir missiles however with four missiles per tube suggest that an aircraft like Su-39 (Su-25TM) could carry 8 missiles per middle pylon, so that would be 64 missiles on two pylons... the Ka-52 should be able to manage the same... 64 guided two stage AAMs with high speed and likely 20km range, and two spare pylons for something else would be a useful point defence system on its own.

GarryB wrote:The further you can do this from your carrier and ships the better for them.

UAVs are well suited to play AWACS role instead of Mig-29K or Ka-27, without risking lives and expensive aircraft. Modern Russian UAVs like Fregat and Orion have endurance of 24 h, range of 250 km, speed of 700 kmph, MTOW of 1200 kg. Considering how small and cheap they are, even corvettes can carry enough VTOL UAVs to have one circling around the ship constantly. Besides AWACS, why not use them also for SAR, MPA, transport and finally combat duties. 50 kg CMs were mounted on Orion 2 for the first time last month. Want to bet when will they be ready for Kh-35? Or Kh-32? Waves of tens of stelthy composite material low-flying smart CM carrier drones sounds like a nightmare for an US captain.

GarryB wrote:I would love to see something rather more exotic... a nuclear powered airship as an example that could operate as an AWACS and a MPA...

Airships' advantage over drones could be endurance, namely, being able to sit and wait, e.g. above enemy bases, on lower altitudes as satellites. But lack of defence due to low MTOW could prove too big limitation.

GarryB wrote:you will still have Onyx and Zircon.

I miss Brahmos references on this forum. It's so good that it should substitute Onyx on Yasens and elsewhere.

I miss Brahmos references on this forum. It's so good that it should substitute Onyx on Yasens and elsewhere.

Brahmos is limited to 290km compare to 660km for oniks. Oniks proved be able to hit ground target in Syria. Russian softwares/harwares are much better than indian ones, they still have issues with their totally indian made missiles and info leaked to pakistan about brahmos. Russia creates missiles of any kind since 1945 while india haven't produced anything really successfull till today.

So replacing oniks on Yasen is not even an idea they would start thinking about in Russian navy ...

UAVs are well suited to play AWACS role instead of Mig-29K or Ka-27, without risking lives and expensive aircraft.

Can't say I can agree here.... if it is going to be an AWACS platform they it needs some rather expensive and complicated electronics and systems and it never going to be "Cheap".

And certainly not expendable.

Modern Russian UAVs like Fregat and Orion have endurance of 24 h, range of 250 km, speed of 700 kmph, MTOW of 1200 kg. Considering how small and cheap they are, even corvettes can carry enough VTOL UAVs to have one circling around the ship constantly.

You need a decent radar antenna and of course a decent power supply to run all those systems...

Besides AWACS, why not use them also for SAR, MPA, transport and finally combat duties.

Indeed, I agree unmanned vehicles do have their place, but to actually be useful they need to be expensive, which again means not really expendable at all... capable means not cheap.

People who suggest UAVs can be cheap are perfectly right, but the cheap ones are next to useless...

Waves of tens of stelthy composite material low-flying smart CM carrier drones sounds like a nightmare for an US captain.

Rather suspect a US captain would be more afraid of the weapons than the carrier platforms... Kinzhal, Kh-32, Zircon, Onyx, Brahmos II, etc etc.

Airships' advantage over drones could be endurance, namely, being able to sit and wait, e.g. above enemy bases, on lower altitudes as satellites. But lack of defence due to low MTOW could prove too big limitation.

Actually having an enormous Airship makes a lot of sense... a 300m+ long airship would need multiple hits to bring down... most AAMs and SAMs wont burst enough bags to make it crash quickly.... it could have an endurance of years... you could put stadium sized radar antenna on it that could simply melt the seeker of any ARH or ARM guided missile and DIRCMS could deal with optically guided weapon... a few self defence missiles like TOR or Pantsir could round out the self defence suite...

Remember it will be occupying the high ground... you could design it to operate at 30km altitude or more so most missile wont even be able to reach up and touch... it will be safe from the cannon fire of fighter aircraft...

I miss Brahmos references on this forum. It's so good that it should substitute Onyx on Yasens and elsewhere.

The difference between Brahmos and Yakhont is mostly computer and electronic hardware and software... I would expect any improvements applied to the Yakhont design to create the Brahmos have already been applied to the production of Onyx missiles for the Russian navy... and also applied to Granit and Vulcan and other systems including Kh-31 and Kh-35...

So replacing oniks on Yasen is not even an idea they would start thinking about in Russian navy ...

I rather suspect they are thinking about Zircon on Yasens as their next step, and work with Brahmos likely effected the design of the Zircon too... at the very least adding land attack capability to their missiles.

Money spent improving any design has trickle down effects when applied to other systems...

Expanding horizons: how a new naval base will open up the opportunity to strengthen the Caspian flotilla

Ah, I hadn't realised the Soviet era Caspian Flotilla was based in Baku.
The move makes more sense in that context even after the Caspian treaty.

Base further south should help with the credibility of Buyan-M Kalibr deterrent against US Persian Gulf bases, potentially can launch strikes from port. (though also means the port is more vulnerable to US strikes)

Looking at the Kaspiysk port in Google Earth is interesting, apparently that was the Ekranoplan base, Lun is still there but
the Orlyonok that was there in 2005 is gone since 2008. (moved to a monument at Moscow?)
Port has had a new breakwater & quays put in post-2008.
Also there is a hovercraft base whose hovercraft didn't move from 2011 to 2014 & appear to have been scrapped in-situ in 2015.

Brahmos is limited to 290km compare to 660km for oniks.

Not anymore, India is a member of MTCR now.

Isos wrote:Brahmos is limited to 290km compare to 660km for oniks.

You means wat? Brahmos' range is 450 km + considering a 600 km upgrade. The difference is that Onyx's flight altitude is 10 m or more and speed 2,5 mach, while Brahmos flies at 3-4 m at 3 mach. When engaging warships with good point defence, it will make a difference.

GarryB wrote: And certainly not expendable.

So they prefer to max their costs and choose Ka-27 over Fregat for a risky reconnaissance mission? This is not Zumwalt    Expendable doesn't mean one time use, but easier to replace with. I don't think I'll ever see single Fregat's cost exceed Kamov's 15 mio.

GarryB wrote:You need a decent radar antenna and of course a decent power supply to run all those systems...

Battery for electric car weighs 230 kg, a radar and engine should weigh less than 1200-230=970 kg. Plus they can simply plug it in and recharge it on ship like e-car.

GarryB wrote:Actually having an enormous Airship makes a lot of sense

During peacetime it could be used for monitoring NATO exercises, but during conflicts it should be easy to engage for western vassals with their high altitude defence systems.

hoom wrote:Base further south should help with the credibility of Buyan-M Kalibr deterrent against US Persian Gulf bases, potentially can launch strikes from port. (though also means the port is more vulnerable to US strikes)

Yes, they can reach Manama from Makhachkala. But to reach all of Gulf bases in Oman and UAE and to perhaps strike Yemeni ISIS, they need access to Turkmeni or Azerbaijani waters. So they should join CSTO. For starters, I believe they're working on Uzbek re-entry right now (Putin's visit in Tashkent 4 days ago).

They could even reach future Russian naval base in Eritrea, if somebody attacks them there.

A-222 Bereg 130 mm very few only 6 with 40th Bn to Utash, Krasnodar Black Sea Fleet

Extraordinary Russian naval activity during NATO Norway exercises. Besides destroyer in Indian ocean, destroyer and cruiser in the Pacific, now also two corvettes on a long-distance voyage in north Atlantic. They are present in all world oceans at the same time.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Extraordinary Russian naval activity during NATO Norway exercises. Besides destroyer in Indian ocean, destroyer and cruiser in the Pacific, now also two corvettes on a long-distance voyage in north Atlantic. They are present in all world oceans at the same time.

Trident Juncture start the 27 but yet ships en route i have 4 ships lol

The difference is that Onyx's flight altitude is 10 m or more and speed 2,5 mach, while Brahmos flies at 3-4 m at 3 mach. When engaging warships with good point defence, it will make a difference.

The only missiles I know of that fly anywhere near that fast are the sizzler... the supersonic version of the Club... and it uses a solid rocket motor to accelerate to mach 2.9 at sea level.

The speed of Onyx at sea level would be about mach 2, and most models of Brahmos would be the same. There was a model... I think it was called Brahmos-M that was smaller and lighter and also faster but I don't know whether it was actually developed or not.

Granit flys at 7m altitude and I really don't see why Onyx would need to fly at 10m above the water.

So they prefer to max their costs and choose Ka-27 over Fregat for a risky reconnaissance mission? This is not Zumwalt Very Happy Expendable doesn't mean one time use, but easier to replace with. I don't think I'll ever see single Fregat's cost exceed Kamov's 15 mio.

Who is talking about risky recon mission?

How often would the US send a Sentry AWACS aircraft on a risky recon mission into enemy airspace on its own?

Battery for electric car weighs 230 kg, a radar and engine should weigh less than 1200-230=970 kg. Plus they can simply plug it in and recharge it on ship like e-car.

How many big land based radars run off batteries?

With its rather small compact and efficient engines most UAVs would need additional power generators to operate large sensors like a big radar array... AESA radars use a lot of power and generate a lot of heat.

During peacetime it could be used for monitoring NATO exercises, but during conflicts it should be easy to engage for western vassals with their high altitude defence systems.

You mean like all those AWACS aircraft the west has lost in combat over the years?

Built from modern fire resistant composite materials, and filled with helium gas around the outside to reduce the fire risk but hydrogen gas bags all down the core of the structure with the space between the bags filled with nitrogen you could launch a road flare into the internal structure and not start a fire... (hydrogen needs O2 to burn)

A direct impact from a heavy missile would result in the loss of a lot of lifting gas so the airship would descend... which could be reduced to a safe speed by immediately dumping all ballast... of course DIRCMS and with an enormous radar antenna present you could jam the brown stuff out of any little missile heading towards the airship anyway... and if it was operating at 30km altitude 90% of SAMs and aircraft launched AAM would not even reach it.

A-222 Bereg 130 mm very few only 6 with 40th Bn to Utash, Krasnodar Black Sea Fleet

It is a very interesting system, but its performance has been eclipsed by the Coalition 152mm system.

Will they convert to 152mm or will they go a step further to 203mm to outrange potential naval gun threats...

If you are a hardcore survivalist then those large trucks would be real fun...

GarryB wrote:The only missiles I know of that fly anywhere near that fast are the sizzler[b]

Official Brahmos website states that second stage liquid scramjet engine reaches 3 mach.

GarryB wrote:How often would the US send a Sentry AWACS aircraft on a risky recon mission into enemy airspace on its own?

It doesn't matter, Russia increasingly wages non-linear warfare. Can you imagine sending Russian A-50 or Il-20 instead of UAV in Donbass? Btw what happened with Il-20 in Syria last month? I thaught Russia decided to accompany their aircraft with fighters back when Turkey downed their Su-24. As UAV are getting more capable, the dilemma manned vs. unmanned will remain only for hypothetical linear battlegrounds, say US vs. Russia.

GarryB wrote:How many big land based radars run off batteries?

They generally don't put "big land based radars" on aircraft. Small power generators aren't that heavy, besides drone could have solar panels. PESA radar would be good enough for a drone.

GarryB wrote:You mean like all those AWACS aircraft the west has lost in combat over the years?

Aircraft as a target for SAM aren't comparable to airship.

GarryB wrote:Built from modern fire resistant composite materials, and filled with helium gas around the outside to reduce the fire risk but hydrogen gas bags all down the core of the structure with the space between the bags filled with nitrogen you could launch a road flare into the internal structure and not start a fire... (hydrogen needs O2 to burn)

Fire is not a problem when fast kinetic warhead is engaging you. Jamming is the only option for defence. And the enemy wouldn't know it it's C4ISR or bomber, platform so it wouldn't hesitate to use THAAD or something similar.

Official Brahmos website states that second stage liquid scramjet engine reaches 3 mach.

Only at altitude...

A MiG-31 can go at mach 2.8, but not at sea level...

Can you imagine sending Russian A-50 or Il-20 instead of UAV in Donbass?

You are confusing a recon drone with an AWACS drone... you would never send an A-50 anywhere near harms way without serious support...

The Il-20 would also only go to places where it is properly protected.

Btw what happened with Il-20 in Syria last month?

They kept the Il-20 away from conflict areas... the Israelis said they were attacking in the North so the Il-20 was in the west so it was ordered to land... the lying Israelis then attacked one minute later in the west where the Il-20 was located... there would have been no time for it to do anything anyway, but they could have contacted Syrian Air Defence to tell them there was a friendly aircraft in the air.

The Israelis lied about where their attack was taking place and they gave only 1 minutes warning so the Russians could do very little... personally, I have a good idea of what happened so I would have ordered the Syrian Air Defence to stand down and not fire on anything and then I would have used S-400 missiles and shot down all four F-16s... after all they can't have been Israeli fighters because Israel said their attack was in the North...

The S-400 system would have identified the five different aircraft in the air and brought down the F-16s...

I thaught Russia decided to accompany their aircraft with fighters back when Turkey downed their Su-24.

There was no agreement with Turkey... there was an agreement with Israel that Russian forces would not interfere with Israeli forces as long as those forces kept outside a 60km exclusion zone around Russian force positions, and would warn of any attacks to take place to ensure there were no Russian forces in harms way.

Israel broke that agreement when the Il-20 was shot down...

As UAV are getting more capable, the dilemma manned vs. unmanned will remain only for hypothetical linear battlegrounds, say US vs. Russia.

I think however capable a UAV might get it wont take over every job... for recon and other similar missions I think UAVs would be ideal... for AWACS however, it is more than just taking pictures and scanning areas with a radar sensor... the ACS is the important bit... processing the data and issuing commands to control other forces based on the information collected... so communication and command are critical aspects of AWACS as opposed to AEW.

They generally don't put "big land based radars" on aircraft. Small power generators aren't that heavy, besides drone could have solar panels. PESA radar would be good enough for a drone.

Sorry but solar panels couldn't even power a two bar heater, let alone a modern radar used to scan long distances 360 degrees...

Aircraft as a target for SAM aren't comparable to airship.

Do you think either would have any chance of dodging a missile?

Fire is not a problem when fast kinetic warhead is engaging you. Jamming is the only option for defence. And the enemy wouldn't know it it's C4ISR or bomber, platform so it wouldn't hesitate to use THAAD or something similar.

Actually THAAD would be the absolute worst choice for the job of shooting down an airship...

THAAD is a kinetic hit to kill missile...

Imagine a normal sized balloon filled with hydrogen... it will float but it certainly wont pick you up. Now imagine an enormous mesh bag filled with thousands of normal sized balloons filled with hydrogen... it can carry you up in the air... an airship is a light structure inside which there are an enormous number of relatively large bags of hydrogen gas... if you hit it with THAAD it is the same as if you hit it with a 30mm AP cannon shell... both are moving at high speed and will go right through the shell structure holding all the bags together and it will puncture probably a dozen or more balloons but that is only a small fraction of the total number of bags there... so instead of plummeting like a rock... falling in flames like a normal aircraft with its wings shot off an airship directly hit by THAAD would simply start to descend because of the loss of lift.

Replace THAAD with AMRAAM and the exploding warhead will pop a rather large number of balloons, but again... not enough to make the whole airship fall like a rock...

It is like a big empty container ship... rather hard to sink because it is largely empty space.

And importantly at 30km altitude the air is thin so blast waves from explosives are not effective at all... it would only be fragments that will rip hydrogen bags.

If it was operating at lower altitude you could try to set the thing on fire... to get it to go up like the Hindenberg... but with flame resistent materials and nitrogen purged internal spaces that likely would not work either.

Ironic how I dislike STOVL aircraft designs because of the performance problems being able to take off or land vertically impose on a design, yet in the field of Airships the improvements in materials and technology like fuel cells and electric motors means it is actually a very viable technology that would be ideal for VTOL operations... a huge airship could pick up enormous and heavy items like turbines for a hydro electric dam directly from the factory that made it and carry it directly to the dam site where it is needed... without trucks or ships or aircraft and without transfers to different transport vehicles...

Only at altitude...

If Brahmos if faster at altitude, then it should be also at sea level. See where I'm going?

The Il-20 would also only go to places where it is properly protected.

So not only that Fregat would be cheaper to produce, but also to operate. I hope those recon and fighter pilots won't lose their jobs. And, oh, so much fuel will go unspent!

The S-400 system would have identified the five different aircraft in the air and brought down the F-16s...

Yes, that should be more viable threat now. Hopefully also Syrian S-300 will be good enough for that.

processing the data and issuing commands to control other forces based on the information collected...

Since early nuclear submarine days, Soviets trusted machines more than people. Compare the level of automation between US and Russian submarines and tell me Russians won't exploit machine learning and artificial intelligence in control and command at tactical level.

a huge airship could pick up enormous and heavy items

Kirov length Hindenburg could lift something more than 9 tonnes nett, while more mobile Fregat can lift more than 1 tonn gross, care to bet how long will it take it to surpass that?

I don't know how many Russian engineers do you want to work on that kilometer long airship, but I'd prefer them to work on Karakurt diesel.