DARKY
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 2,007
- Reaction score
- 0
Provided they can see and lock on to an AESA system on an AWACS(most future AEW&C are).. then the missile has to survive massive jamming and countermeasures while being CONSTANTLY illuminated to the target.
Too many variable that need to be constant for it to succeed.
The Russian jets bank on too much untested tech. Figures which are always "Best case"(something the Chinese have started to copy).
Here's an example of Russian exaggeration.
A particular Russian Communications company was offering a low bandwidth compression codec based on a NATO standard that is extremely robust under noise for a particular processor.
I was tasked to evaluate a sample they had sent against existing American standard.
The result was disappointing to say the least... The Russian code failed to perform even close to the benchmark of the US standard. eventually I had to write and adapt existing code based on the standard. the process was long and tedious... but the result now matches the US standard benchmark and outperforms the Russian attempt in many respects.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg.. there are many figures stated for Russian equipment in use with our military(and apparently even in India's fleet) that refuse to make up for their performance claims.
So if I am to keep the exact stated Russian capabilities in mind with what they state to be correct.. then in that case one must also take into account what supporting hardware will back up any Russian super fighter.
datalink abilities, ECM, EW..
What caliber?
The fact being that most users of Russian hardware including Malaysia and India have resorting to sourcing supplementing systems from other manufacturers such as Israel,european nations or even the US.
This has less to do with Russian ingenuity and capability.. and more to do with the decade and more lost after the collapse of the USSR.
Lets take it more close to home..
An MKI with its Bars.. and Israeli jammer.. datalinked with the Phalcon.. is a far more capable jet than a pure russian Su-35.
even then.. stand alone.. with untried weapons such as the R-77M(existing or hypothetical LRAAMS) .. one has to handicap it till its proven in combat.
Recent "combat tests" such as red flag have not been so complementing..
System such as the F-16.. have known to work seamlessly in a combat environment and be part of the defense network.
They have proven records.. whether against an inferior enemy or not becomes irrelevant when combat effectiveness is concerned.
After all.. The Rafale proved itself in Libya.. even against an inferior enemy..it went into combat unsupported.. and was able to perform both A2A and A2G taskings in a single mission(even attacking what should be traditional A2A targets using A2G weapons.
That is combat proof..
Yes the lost decade has considerably affected situation was so bad that It might have further broken.... but now that's a thing of past and a decade has been gained...
Do you know.. the R-77 initially was designed with Internal weapon bays in mind.. all those Al-41 item 129/29 all were started in early 80s..
Just see the Su35BM for instance.. or the all new Su 34 fullback...
Those Extended range BVRAAM have their own counter measures... once the missile gets into active mode the AWACS has little chance... and It won't be like only one missile but 4-6 of them... to increase hit probability... try jamming and counter measures there.
---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------
Provided they can see and lock on to an AESA system on an AWACS(most future AEW&C are).. then the missile has to survive massive jamming and countermeasures while being CONSTANTLY illuminated to the target.
Too many variable that need to be constant for it to succeed.
The Russian jets bank on too much untested tech. Figures which are always "Best case"(something the Chinese have started to copy).
Here's an example of Russian exaggeration.
A particular Russian Communications company was offering a low bandwidth compression codec based on a NATO standard that is extremely robust under noise for a particular processor.
I was tasked to evaluate a sample they had sent against existing American standard.
The result was disappointing to say the least... The Russian code failed to perform even close to the benchmark of the US standard. eventually I had to write and adapt existing code based on the standard. the process was long and tedious... but the result now matches the US standard benchmark and outperforms the Russian attempt in many respects.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg.. there are many figures stated for Russian equipment in use with our military(and apparently even in India's fleet) that refuse to make up for their performance claims.
So if I am to keep the exact stated Russian capabilities in mind with what they state to be correct.. then in that case one must also take into account what supporting hardware will back up any Russian super fighter.
datalink abilities, ECM, EW..
What caliber?
The fact being that most users of Russian hardware including Malaysia and India have resorting to sourcing supplementing systems from other manufacturers such as Israel,european nations or even the US.
This has less to do with Russian ingenuity and capability.. and more to do with the decade and more lost after the collapse of the USSR.
Lets take it more close to home..
An MKI with its Bars.. and Israeli jammer.. datalinked with the Phalcon.. is a far more capable jet than a pure russian Su-35.
even then.. stand alone.. with untried weapons such as the R-77M(existing or hypothetical LRAAMS) .. one has to handicap it till its proven in combat.
Recent "combat tests" such as red flag have not been so complementing..
System such as the F-16.. have known to work seamlessly in a combat environment and be part of the defense network.
They have proven records.. whether against an inferior enemy or not becomes irrelevant when combat effectiveness is concerned.
After all.. The Rafale proved itself in Libya.. even against an inferior enemy..it went into combat unsupported.. and was able to perform both A2A and A2G taskings in a single mission(even attacking what should be traditional A2A targets using A2G weapons.
That is combat proof..
Yes the lost decade has considerably affected situation was so bad that It might have further broken.... but now that's a thing of past and a decade has been gained...
Do you know.. the R-77 initially was designed with Internal weapon bays in mind.. all those Al-41 item 129/29 all were started in early 80s..
Just see the Su35BM for instance.. or the all new Su 34 fullback...
Those Extended range BVRAAM have their own counter measures... once the missile gets into active mode the AWACS has little chance... and It won't be like only one missile but 4-6 of them... to increase hit probability... try jamming and counter measures there.