SU-57 deployed to Syria

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 762
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post16 Apr 2018, 04:41

To add to citanon one of the first articles I read stated the Syrian missile systems were firing in Damascus for 30-40 min. most cruise missile attacks are designed to hit within minutes of each other to overwhelm the defense system. They may have intercepted a couple, and that's a big maybe since Damascus had the JSOW's I believe, and they are only a few hundred feet off the deck. But the remaining 30 minutes of firing are your most likely fake shots.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 762
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 00:39

Syrian air defense systems have been activated in response to a missile attack apparently targeting Shayrat Airbase in Homs province, state media SANA reports.
Up to 10 missiles were destroyed by the Syrian Armed Forces, a military source told Sputnik. The Syrian air defenses managed to intercept some of the projectiles, according to a SANA reporter. Meanwhile, the Al Mayadeen news outlet is claiming that all the projectiles were intercepted and inflicted no physical damage or casualties at the targeted Syrian base.

The Pentagon has denied initiating strikes or conducting any other military activity in Homs province. “There is no US military activity in that area at this time,” the Pentagon’s spokesperson told Reuters. The same information was also shared with TASS news agency by Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon.

The raid in Homs countryside reportedly coincided with another missile attack against a military airbase near Damascus. According to various Arabic media channels, three missiles targeted Al Dumayr airport, but they were all allegedly downed by the Syrian air defenses.

According to yet unconfirmed reports, the missiles entered Syrian airspace from Lebanon, which may indicate that the Israeli Air Force could have been involved, Al-Masdar News reports, citing a military source. The outlet’s reporter also published several videos allegedly showing the launch of interceptor missiles.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1481
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 08:23

Why did the coalition forces fire 105 cruise missiles on 3 targets, each with a 1,000 pound warhead?
Only one of those would render a building so heavily damaged, it might as well be demolished.

my theory is, they expected some to be intercepted. What they did was a saturation attack
All 3 targets had either JASSM-ERs or Storm shaddow or SCALP stealth cruise missiles, I think these were the ones that they were counting on to hit.

To increase the survivability, they also ripple fired dozens of tomahawks which would act as decoys and soak up the missile defenses.

But since very few or none were intercepted, all 105 missiles reduced the targets to fine powder judging from the photos.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 09:04

mixelflick wrote:Surprised the Brits opted for using Tornado's. Then again, might as well use them as long as they're still around. Sounded like lots of Rafale's, Tornado's etc bombing and F-15/16 top cover out of Aviano.

IIW, they didn't use any of the really new toys..

Because they clearly don't have anything else to do the job.
Their FGR.4s are completely unfit for such task (i.e. long range cruise missile strike). They were limited to air cover.

Similarly, French -5s provided air superiority.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1481
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 10:59

f4u7_corsair wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Surprised the Brits opted for using Tornado's. Then again, might as well use them as long as they're still around. Sounded like lots of Rafale's, Tornado's etc bombing and F-15/16 top cover out of Aviano.

IIW, they didn't use any of the really new toys..

Because they clearly don't have anything else to do the job.
Their FGR.4s are completely unfit for such task (i.e. long range cruise missile strike). They were limited to air cover.

Similarly, French -5s provided air superiority.


I don't necessarily agree with this.

There were lots of ways to destroy those facilities. On the top of my head, I can think of.
-B2 strike
-F-35 strike
-F-22 strike
-Anything that can carry the StormShaddow JASSM-ER or SCALP like a Typhoon, F/A-18, F-15E
-Tomahawk missile strikes from navy subs

But perhaps cost, availability, risk as well as other factors were taken into consideration and these units were deemed the best fit for that moment.

I just don't think it was either Tornado carrying StormShaddow or totally impossible for the Royal armed forces to destroy the targets against lowly Syria
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 12:45

I was talking strictly about the RAF. The only viable British alternative for cruise missile strike are sea and subsea-launched TLAMs.

Typhoon is unable to carry on such tasks, mostly because (1) the Storm Shadow isn't even integrated yet, (2) even if it was, it is only able to load them on the wet wing stations, and thus would only be able to carry a centerline fuel tank, leading to ridiculous range. Tornado, Rafale, Hornets and Super Dupers carry 50 to 100% more fuel than Typhoon with a 2 ALCM payload.

RAF will have a quite embarassing capability gap once the Tonkas will be out of the flight line.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2384
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 13:00

zero-one wrote:Why did the coalition forces fire 105 cruise missiles on 3 targets, each with a 1,000 pound warhead?
Only one of those would render a building so heavily damaged, it might as well be demolished.

my theory is, they expected some to be intercepted. What they did was a saturation attack
All 3 targets had either JASSM-ERs or Storm shaddow or SCALP stealth cruise missiles, I think these were the ones that they were counting on to hit.

To increase the survivability, they also ripple fired dozens of tomahawks which would act as decoys and soak up the missile defenses.

But since very few or none were intercepted, all 105 missiles reduced the targets to fine powder judging from the photos.


That and they probably wanted to make very sure that all the nasty chemicals and related equipment (and personnel) inside those buildings would also turn to ashes. Just damaging the buildings would mean they would've transported those to another location which would've just been a minor nuisance. It might've also released some of those chemicals that could've harmed civilians there.

Tomahawks were likely used as ships carry those and a lot of them float around there. So why not just use them to attack targets? They might have lower chance of penetrating the defences, but there are a lot of them and they probably are still highly capable weapons. I'd say they still have pretty decent chance of penetrating even the best defences.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1481
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 13:29

f4u7_corsair wrote:Typhoon is unable to carry on such tasks, mostly because (1) the Storm Shadow isn't even integrated yet, (2) even if it was, it is only able to load them on the wet wing stations, and thus would only be able to carry a centerline fuel tank, leading to ridiculous range. Tornado, Rafale, Hornets and Super Dupers carry 50 to 100% more fuel than Typhoon with a 2 ALCM payload.

RAF will have a quite embarassing capability gap once the Tonkas will be out of the flight line.


Well about that, according to this link:
https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-ev ... er-typhoon

1. The typhoon's integration for Storm Shadow was done in 2015
2. Photos prove that the Storm shadow can be carried on the wing's weapon stations too
3. Even without EFT's NATO's vast fleet of refueling tankers should allow Typhoons to operate comfortably in the Mediterranean
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 13:35

Yes, the wing wet weapons stations.. where you hang the wing bags. It would be wing tanks OR Storm Shadow, not both.
Storm Shadow cannot be hung from the inner wing stations due to missile length (landing gear behind..) and the tricky release flight enveloppe clearance (the beast is 1,3 tons).

So the only ALCM strike setup for Typhoon is 2x wing Storm Shadows and 1x 1 000 L centerline tank.

Which clearly, is not enough fuel. Yes they could be (very frequently) refueled, but this is not operationally sane. Fighters with twice the fuel load already require enough AAR. "Vast fleet of tankers" sure, more than what the RAF is capable to support. It would be operationally unviable and very unflexible.

There's no wonder why I have yet to see any combat aircraft performing long range strikes with only a centerline tank (besides the F-16E, which has significant CFTs). Number speak for themselves: a SH or a Rafale in an heavy ALCM mission carries around 9-10 tons of fuel. A Typhoon tops off at 5,5 tons.
Offline

gideonic

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 13:46

f4u7_corsair wrote:There's no wonder why I have yet to see any combat aircraft performing long range strikes with only a centerline tank (besides the F-16E, which has significant CFTs). Number speak for themselves: a SH or a Rafale in an heavy ALCM mission carries around 9-10 tons of fuel. A Typhoon tops off at 5,5 tons.


Might this be the reason, why UK wants CFTs for Typhoons, after the Tornado retirement?
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 13:51

It would certainly enable the Typhoon as an at least credible long range striker.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1481
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 14:04

well the RAF won't have a choice would they once the Tornados are retired.

They can also go with
1 x Storm Shaddow in the center line station
2 x Fuel bags on the wing's wet stations

This should give them more fuel.

Is it less optimal than using Tornados, sure, but it moves the argument from, "they didn't have a choice" to the 2nd option doesn't look as good.

All I'm saying is, there were other options on the table and if the RAF can spare tankers to send Typhoons all the way to Iraq, I'm sure they could easily handle strikes in Syria with Typhoons flying from nearby Turkey or Italy.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 14:16

no, the centerline clearance is too narrow betweeh the landing gear doors to allow anything bigger than a targetting pod or a 1 000 L tank there.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1481
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 15:19

f4u7_corsair wrote:no, the centerline clearance is too narrow betweeh the landing gear doors to allow anything bigger than a targetting pod or a 1 000 L tank there.


I'm afraid I'll have to ask for evidence now.
why can't they go with just 1 center-line tank anyway, if you're saying the range is too short, well how short is it?
Do you have any figures to share?
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 15:39

An educated guess would indicate roughly and at best two thirds of the range of its counterparts.

Typhoon, without CFT, loads up two ALCMs, 1x 1 000 L centerline tank, 4-6 AAMs. Tops off at 5,5 tons of fuel (a bit less than 5 tons internally and 800 kg externally).

Hornets with similar ordnance loads up 2-3x 330 gal. tanks, so does the Super Hornet, respectively topping off at 7-8 tons and 8,5-9,5 tons of fuel. Rafale with 2-3x 2 000 L tanks tops off at 8,2 to 9,8 tons of fuel. For comparison with the raid, Tornado launches with 2x 2 250 L tanks, 2 AAMs, that makes 8,6 tons.

The trend is clear: the Typhoon holds roughly a 33 to 50% less fuel than its counterparts for equal ordnance. I will not go into fuel consumption and drag indexes calculations, as these data aren't reliably available to the public anyways. That wouldn't change much, since M88s, F404/414s and EJ200s are roughly similarly efficient (the latter sucking up slightly more fuel at its higher thrust rating however). The RB199s are known to be mildly optimized for med/high altitudes.

There's no need for a crystal ball to deduce Typhoon's range will be severly impared, for any mission profile (hi/lo/hi...). As for the centerline Storm Shadow, I don't have any technical figure to share, but eyeball analysis pretty clearly shows this is impossible. The facts that it is not even marketed in Eurofighter's PR efforts, let alone witnessed on development aircraft, confirm that.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pmi and 9 guests