Russian Air Force 3rd Rate Post 2030???

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

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post09 Aug 2018, 15:44

element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:That said, we are getting off the topic..... :?


I had a read up last night on RuAF, they have been really struggling for resorces for a couple of years, and the projected defense budget isn't set to grow, it is set to slowly shrink as a percent of GDP.

They have upgraded and remanufactured a lot of jets, and rotors, but precision weapon quality and quantity (plus data from sensors) remains their enduring weakness.

Given they're apparently stuck with a 4th-gen force for a long time to come (little or no money for one thing), it's predictable that their new weapons drive must emphasise standoff plus try to build the LO into those, instead.

So it seems the issue is not platforms (which won't improve much), but the weapons, sensors and C4i which they can develop and field in the interim as they develop new platform options. As long as the price for hydrocarbon energy remains low-ish, the Ru defense budget and funded programs are going to languish or dissipate.


The real issue is this: They don't have any better options than designing LO cruise missiles, etc because.... they can't design stealth aircraft. While that still affords them some strike capability, it won't be happening first day of war with a peer (or greater than peer) adversary. The TU-160 upgrade is a good example of this. It's not a LO design, but they're pumping up the new cruise missile it carries. They're supposedly working on a stealth bomber (PAK-DA), but that's an even bigger pipe dream than the SU-57.

I'd love to see the design though. Would likely be their first flying wing..
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5614
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post09 Aug 2018, 21:50

Reminder: There are are very few, if any, western formations that can withstand an assault by 200 tanks.



Image

icemaverick wrote:
If you can't achieve any sort of air dominance, why are you spending money and resources on armor?


Because contrary to Russia’s posturing they know very well that they can’t compete with the West in a conventional war. They simply don’t have the economic/industrial might. They do however need tanks in order to maintain control over regions like Chechnya and Dagestan. They also need the tools to defeat neighbors such as Ukraine, Georgia etc. These are Russia’s more pressing conventional concerns. They have nukes in order to deter against any serious existential threat from the West. Russia’s main strategic goal at this time is to preserve its shrinking sphere of influence. Towards this end, it’s unlikely they will pursue direct military confrontation with the West but they may get into conventional wars against former Soviet republics or fight to prop up allies like Assad.



And this is basically what it comes down to. Russia isn't trying to be the toughest guy in the entire city, just the toughest guy on their block.


There are a lot of Fanbois, that are confusing the basic facts posted above by IceMaverick. I hate to "call out" a banned member but that was the issue with Cobra, he was simultaneously trying to hold that the Su57 was a counter to the F-22, (which is direct competition with the US) when Russia is not interested in "beating" the US. They're interested in keeping the US Neutral while they pursue and support regional Russian influence. The Su-57 can't "beat" the F-22 because its simply not designed to based on their modest goals. So when I say something like "well the Su-57 is no F-22" Fanbois start in using the F-22 as a yardstick, and then try and prove how the Su-57 is built the same way for the same purpose done the same way-- its not and never will be. They fall into a trap of their own perspective. Its like comparing Al Queda to the US Army, and saying Al Queda will never work since its not run or operating like the US Army. Thats the "trap" Al Queda isn't interested in being a massive and uniformed army. They prefer 19 guys armed with box cutters and a suicidal hijacked air force. So some idiot comparing Al Queda to the US Army because they both practice marksmanship is really missing the bigger picture.

Thats the Paradox Fanbois want to get on the internet and chest thump and "beat" America. Not even Russia is really interested in "beating" America. Beating their neighbors? certainly.



Think of this all as a high level bank heist. If you (Russia) are shooting at the police (USA) something has gone very wrong. You just want to get your cash, and have no one be the wiser except the guard you beat up to get what you needed. Repeat until rich. There is no need to play open Rambo in the streets. Russians have been brilliant at finding subtle "gray zones" to use to their advantage. Like those nice "not Russian" chaps who just happened to spring up all over the Ukraine a few years back in full combat garb.


And BTW Only fanbois will tell you that "quantity has a quality all it's own" when it comes to spamming tanks but not to MONEY. Lol watch them suddenly change their entire argument on a dime with that one
Choose Crews
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 397
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 04:08

Russia’s military, particularly its ground forces, are entirely configured to fight NATO. The best units are stationed in the Western Military District and are heavy on tanks, air defenses and artillery. This is not a structure needed for fighting truly third tier countries like Georgia and Ukraine. Russian exercises also portray NATO as the simulated enemy.

The US Army realizes it has fallen behind in artillery, which is why long range precision fires is the number one modernization priority for the Army. Of course, no European NATO country seems to be making similar investments. Well, Poland cares but has a lower GDP than some other countries.

The lack of credible opposition from European NATO countries is why Russia could win in a short war to seize territory from bordering countries. The Poles would fight but the USAF is the main worry Russia would have. It would be interesting.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 855
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 10:10

talkitron wrote:
element1loop wrote:Consider, if you have a VLO aircraft, plus a VLO internal JSM, and known precision location of fixed targets, and the F-35A can rapidly recon and update the targeting minutes prior to a strike, and missiles can be retargeted in flight, plus there are F-35As escorting E-7As, to provide air-sea gap coverage in a degraded axis of approach coverage, will even a substantial incremental degrading of JORN, aiming to degrade F-35A battle SA at longer range, reduce the attack's effectiveness much? Or reduce their tempo?


Glad to hear Australia is thinking even more carefully about its defense than I thought. I haven’t heard about any Western country other than Australia, Japan (missile defense) and the US investing huge resources in non-sexy infrastructure like long-range radar.

One minor point: I am of the opinion that adversaries will buy longer range BVR AAMs and shoot down non-stealthy. platforms like the E-7A. But maybe not everyone agrees and I do like the plan of striking first while the enemy aircraft are parked on the ground.



Just a little update on this earlier (somewhat OT) discussion, from three pages back.

The bi-annual exercise 'Pitch Black' has been under way all week in Northern Australia, and a RAAF spokesman was on Channel 10 news tonight and just said RAAF [Hornets] plus Growlers, achieved a kill ratio of 78:3, with no specifics on what the aggressor mix was. Potentally a mix of Su30MKI, Rafale, F-16 and F15, etc.

Anyway, apparently the Hornets are OK at A2A.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1942
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 12:52

'simulated threats'
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 855
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Aug 2018, 13:37

Simulated hits.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

project458

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2017, 22:21
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post21 Aug 2018, 19:29

3rd rate haha, RUAF is already first rate when compered to Western Europe. Russian 4++ fleet alone is bigger than Germany, Italy and France put together
Offline

Tiger05

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post22 Aug 2018, 01:03

project458 wrote:3rd rate haha, RUAF is already first rate when compered to Western Europe. Russian 4++ fleet alone is bigger than Germany, Italy and France put together


Well, Europe has several dozen 5 generation fighters in service (F-35) while Russia has exactly zero. And that gap will only grow larger in the next decade as more F-35s are delivered/ordered. :wink:

Btw, Russia doesnt have ~400 4.5 generation fighters in service... Nice try. And frankly to classify the Su-30/35 as "4++" jets is being a bit generous. They are essentially souped-up versions of a 1970s design while the Rafale/EF are clean sheet designs. Flankers and Eurocanards arent to the same level in terms of avionics, sensor fusion, EW, LO characteristics, weapons, etc. Hell, the R-27 was still the standard medium range AAM of VVS fighters (including Su-30/35) until very recently. Christ. :|
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4589
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Aug 2018, 03:39

project458 wrote:3rd rate haha, RUAF is already first rate when compered to Western Europe. Russian 4++ fleet alone is bigger than Germany, Italy and France put together



How many Su-30SM's and Su-35's does Russia have compared to Rafales, Typhoons, and Gripens. Which, doesn't even count the New F-35.....


We are waiting.... :wink:
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 855
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post22 Aug 2018, 04:40

project458 wrote: ... Russian 4++ fleet alone is bigger than ...


And don't forget the twelve 6th-gens!

A govt and Airforce that just lets its spokesmen speak to media about Russia having an Su57 6th-gen capability in the wings has bestowed very low credibility on itself from there.

I'm embarrassed for the RuAF's Officers, Ranks and its professional Airmen to have to listen to that supreme idiocy being trotted out so foolishly and ineffectually, disgracing all of them, not to mention how the engineers at Sukoi will feel about such absurdist trash and lies.

Talk about a "jump the shark" moment.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

project458

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2017, 22:21
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post22 Aug 2018, 05:13

Tiger05 wrote:
project458 wrote:3rd rate haha, RUAF is already first rate when compered to Western Europe. Russian 4++ fleet alone is bigger than Germany, Italy and France put together


Well, Europe has several dozen 5 generation fighters in service (F-35) while Russia has exactly zero. And that gap will only grow larger in the next decade as more F-35s are delivered/ordered. :wink:

Btw, Russia doesnt have ~400 4.5 generation fighters in service... Nice try. And frankly to classify the Su-30/35 as "4++" jets is being a bit generous. They are essentially souped-up versions of a 1970s design while the Rafale/EF are clean sheet designs. Flankers and Eurocanards arent to the same level in terms of avionics, sensor fusion, EW, LO characteristics, weapons, etc. Hell, the R-27 was still the standard medium range AAM of VVS fighters (including Su-30/35) until very recently. Christ. :|



The prototypes for both Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon made their median in flights in the mid 80s, clean sheet design my a$$.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4589
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Aug 2018, 05:41

project458 wrote:
The prototypes for both Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon made their median in flights in the mid 80s, clean sheet design my a$$.


What??? The Typhoon and Rafale are both "Clean Sheet Designs". Yet, feel free to disprove that........... :wink:
Offline

marsavian

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 416
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Aug 2018, 07:20

Corsair1963 wrote:
project458 wrote:3rd rate haha, RUAF is already first rate when compered to Western Europe. Russian 4++ fleet alone is bigger than Germany, Italy and France put together



How many Su-30SM's and Su-35's does Russia have compared to Rafales, Typhoons, and Gripens. Which, doesn't even count the New F-35.....


Russia has about 100 Su-30 and 60 Su-35 which is under half the number of Typhoons and Rafales Germany, Italy and France can muster. Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen have a clean frontal RCS under 0.5 sq m whereas Su-30 is over 10 sq m and Su-35 is 3-5 sq m. When just carrying missiles the Euro-Canards will see the Flankers first on radar.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2326878.html
https://lenta.ru/news/2016/12/15/fighters/

At present, according to various sources, the Russian Air Force has about 500 fighters of different types. Speaking about the current state of the fighter fleet of the Russian Armed Forces, including both the VCS and the Naval Aviation of the Navy, it should be pointed out that now, according to known data, there are 246 new fighters with a service life of less than 10 years (58 Su-35S, 79 Su -30SM, 20 Su-30M2, 12 Su-27SM3, 44 MiG-29SMT, ten MiG-29UB, 23 MiG-29KR / CUBR) and about 440 old fighters, including modernized ones (approximately 180 Su-27, 20 Su-33 , 120 MiG-29, 120 MiG-31).

Of this number, 210 new fighters (58 Su-35S, 66 Su-30SM, 20 Su-30M2, 12 Su-27SM3, 44 MiG-12SM, 29SMT, ten MiG-29UB) and 370 old fighters, including modernized ones (approximately about 160 Su-27, 120 MiG-29, 90 MiG-31), and practically all the "old" MiG-29s (with the exception of the air group in Armenia) are used already for educational purposes or stopped using.

With the current organizational structure of the VCS retained (without new transfers of their units and formations to the Navy), the figure of 700 fighters looks quite achievable for the Russian military aviation system by 2025, although it will require the maintenance of deliveries of Su-35S and Su-30SM fighters to the troops on average 25-30 aircraft per year in the period 2021-2025. As for the fifth-generation fighter of the T-50, we can expect the release of only relatively small series of these fighters in the period of 2021-2025, and that indeed the "mass" mass production and deliveries to the T-50 combat units will begin as a "second phase" "in the period after 2025.

Thus, according to the optimistic scenario, in 2025 the fighter fleet of the Russian Air Force can number up to 480-500 fighters of a new construction with a service life of less than 20 years (approximately 50 T-50C, 150-170 Su-35S, 150-170 Su-30SM 30 Su-27SM3 / Su-30M2, 50 MiG-29SMT / UB, 36 MiG-35) and up to 210 modernized fighters of old types (up to 90 Su-27SM / SM3, 120 MiG-31BM / BSM).
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1632
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post22 Aug 2018, 07:53

Gents lets not be too critical of the RuAF.
Remember Col. Fornlof
He specifically said the Flankers are now a tad bit better than "Our 4th gens". I suppose he was referring to USAF F-15C, F-16s and maybe F/A-18s.

So let that sink in for a while. The backbone of their air-force is made up of Fighters that are a bit better than F-15s, F-16s and maybe F/A-18s if Fornlof is to be believed.

yes the F-22 and 35 will more than make up for this, but with so few (for now) there will be moments when F-15 pilots will have their hands full fighting against fighters that according to the good Col. are actually better
Offline

marsavian

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 416
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Aug 2018, 08:48

I doubt they are better than US AESA equipped 4th gens and the retrofitting is well under way on F-15 and just starting in F-16 and standard on F-18E/F.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests