Russia is closing the gap with US air superiority

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 15 Sep 2015, 16:52

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/russ ... en-gorenc/

borg · by **borg** » 15 Sep 2015, 23:45

Another Advs:

https://youtu.be/rwf98F_VvkQ

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 30 Sep 2015, 10:37

A report shows even buying 220 new aircrafts for the Russian AF in the last 5 years will not be enough without PGM and targeting pods / sensors :
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/th ... flaw-13951

sergei · by **sergei** » 30 Sep 2015, 20:34

oldiaf wrote:A report shows even buying 220 new aircrafts for the Russian AF in the last 5 years will not be enough without PGM and targeting pods / sensors :
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/th ... flaw-13951

"The part concerning the long-range GPS-guided munitions is true enough, striking targets with precision in a hostile air-defense environment has historically never been something Russian Air Force had in mind. Indeed, these sort of munitions come most in handy when we’re talking about a limited bombing campaign against a weaker opponent, and it’s not something Russia ever did.

Historically during the Cold War Russia expected to be playing catch-up with a better equipped and more numerous joint NATO Air Force, there was hardly ever going to be a situation where Russians can bomb the ground at their leisure in an uncontested airspace. For strikes against high-value targets – command centers, airfields etc – behind the enemy lines Russia relied on tactical missile systems like the Scud in the 60es and Iskander nowadays – more expensive, a little less precise but also much more powerful and nearly impossible to intercept by enemy systems, no matter the situation in the air."

The part about the target pods is as Arekusei posted – for a number of reasons, Russians chose to keep a fleet of dedicated “front-line bombers” – fighter-sized jets that can dogfight to a varying extent and defend themselves against enemy “multi-roles” and have integrated targeting systems of essentially the same functionality as the target pods. There are upsides and downsides to that solution, but it’s not exactly a lack of capability the way author describes it."

sergei · by **sergei** » 30 Sep 2015, 21:01

"Certain categories are absent completely, such as precision-guided, air-launched stand-off missiles (in the class of the MBDA Storm Shadow and the Raytheon AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon)"

AGM-154 130-500km range

Storm Shadow SCALP EG 250km range

Storm Shadow MdCN 1000km range

Kh-59MK2 290km (for export sale),Kh59M2 550km (for internal use)

Kh-55 Operational range 3,000 km

Tell me more..

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 30 Sep 2015, 21:21

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164
Clearly the Targets were not hit accurately.

sergei · by **sergei** » 01 Oct 2015, 07:38

oldiaf wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164
Clearly the Targets were not hit accurately.

I think it was clear that recording was made with not the same aircraft who strikes (and not by plane at all ).
And usually the military installations are several away from residential.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 01 Oct 2015, 07:42

DeNile.. not just a river in Africa

The likely reason they missed a bunch is that they used dumb iron bombs and horizontal bombing.

Here is a vid showing three attacks that all miss.

So, either the planes missed their targets (expected due to above reasons) or their package coordination is poor since their Recon & BDA asset (a UAV) was not looking at the target in all three attack runs. Which is it?

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 01 Oct 2015, 07:43

sergei wrote:
oldiaf wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164
Clearly the Targets were not hit accurately.

I think it was clear that recording was made with not the same aircraft who strikes (and not by plane at all ).
And usually the military installations are several away from residential.

Prove your assertion.

jdrush · by **jdrush** » 01 Oct 2015, 18:58

whats the point of worrying about whats in the air when the US can shut down a country using a higher power

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 02 Oct 2015, 00:41

In praise of the Su-34 :
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150930/ ... chine.html

oldiaf · by **oldiaf** » 02 Oct 2015, 00:41

jdrush wrote:whats the point of worrying about whats in the air when the US can shut down a country using a higher power

What do you mean by higher power ?!

sergei · by **sergei** » 02 Oct 2015, 00:50

popcorn wrote:
sergei wrote:
oldiaf wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34399164
Clearly the Targets were not hit accurately.

I think it was clear that recording was made with not the same aircraft who strikes (and not by plane at all ).
And usually the military installations are several away from residential.

Prove your assertion.

With respect to military facilities? or recording?
In first it just common-sense at second I think it is quite obvious it is not same plane 100% and not plane at all 90%
it sort "Recon & BDA asset (a UAV)"

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 02 Oct 2015, 01:00

sergei wrote:With respect to military facilities? or recording?
In first it just common-sense at second I think it is quite obvious it is not same plane 100% and not plane at all 90%
it sort "Recon & BDA asset (a UAV)"

That's opinion, not proof.

sergei · by **sergei** » 02 Oct 2015, 10:30

popcorn wrote:
sergei wrote:With respect to military facilities? or recording?
In first it just common-sense at second I think it is quite obvious it is not same plane 100% and not plane at all 90%
it sort "Recon & BDA asset (a UAV)"

That's opinion, not proof.

West military doctrine involves the placement warehouses with ammunition and fuel in the same buildings as barracks?