US warns Egypt over Russian Su-35 fighter jets deal

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 04:04

US warns Egypt over Russian Su-35 fighter jets deal

Apr 9, 2019 in Aviation, News

US senior administration official has warned Egypt against buying a Russian Su-35 multi-role air-defense fighters and air-launched weapons.

“In terms of the expanding Russian influence in the region, that’s obviously something which we are quite concerned. We don’t see a lot of material benefits to engagements with the Russians”, the official said on Monday. “We just would encourage the Egyptians to turn more toward the West, toward the United States”.

According to him, Washington has already faced the same situation with China, India, and Turkey. The official explained that Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act or CAATSA (the law on countering America’s opponents through sanctions) is in effect in the United States. The document provides for retaliatory measures for those countries that enter into transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors.

“The president views the relationship with Egypt, as he does all of our … relationships with foreign countries … through the lens of America First and what serves our interest,” the official said.

The official said the administration was encouraging Egypt to develop democratic institutions while being mindful of U.S. security interests.

According to media reports in recent weeks, Egypt would buy “over two dozen” Su-35 fighter jets from Russia. Egypt has reportedly signed a $2 billion deal with Russia to buy more than 20 Sukhoi SU-35 fighter jets, as well as weapons for the aircraft. Russian newspaper Kommersant reported on March 18, the acquisition will significantly boost the Egyptian Air Force’s potential alongside deliveries of the MiG-29M/M2, which are ongoing.

Moreover, the United States wants to expand its counterterrorism partnership with Egypt given that terrorism remains a significant threat to that country’s stability, a senior administration official said in press briefing.

“Terrorism is a very significant threat to Egypt’s stability, from Libya, Sinai and the South, so they are kind of uniquely positioned to be responding to a whole range of threats in that theater. For us, it’s a very, very important partnership that we want to expand,” the official said on Monday.

The official noted that Egypt plays an important diplomatic role in negotiating with Hamas, and is working to persuade the Palestinian movement to comply with the conditions that would move them out of being considered a terrorist organization.

https://defence-blog.com/news/us-warns- ... -deal.html
Offline

invictus

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 14 May 2011, 07:58
  • Location: Usa

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 10:06

Makes you wonder whether being an ally of the US is worth it.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2330
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 13:01

Or it makes one think being an ally of the U.S. is a choice for success whereas alternatives are failure. Su-35S is high maintenance compared to their F-16's. They also are a huge step back from the technology they already enjoy.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3485
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 13:15

madrat wrote:Or it makes one think being an ally of the U.S. is a choice for success whereas alternatives are failure. Su-35S is high maintenance compared to their F-16's. They also are a huge step back from the technology they already enjoy.


I'm assuming you mean Rafale and F-16 Block 52.

I think the buy is completely logical. Egypt lacks a heavy fighter capable of long range escort/air superiority missions. The Rafale in the strike fighter role, and their Mig-29's are rather short legged. The F-16 force is big/modern but there again there's a slant toward air to ground missions.

Meanwhile, the UAE, Quatar and Israel fly the world's latest F-15's. Even Iran (arguably) has the F-14. They need something that goes deep, sanitizes the airspace and be damn feared. Speaking of which, why no Eagle for Egypt?

They have the $. They're the 4th largest F-16 operator in the world! Something about Israel's qualitative edge being preserved??
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 22:27

Last time I checked american congress don't want to sell AIM-120 nor AIM-9X so it is quite logical to buy from Russians. They will make congress to think twice about not selling modern missiles to Egypt.
Last edited by milosh on 10 Apr 2019, 22:33, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 728
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post10 Apr 2019, 22:32

Qatari Air Force also has too many different types of jets.
Last edited by f-16adf on 11 Apr 2019, 01:44, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

invictus

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 14 May 2011, 07:58
  • Location: Usa

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 00:04

mixelflick wrote:
madrat wrote:Or it makes one think being an ally of the U.S. is a choice for success whereas alternatives are failure. Su-35S is high maintenance compared to their F-16's. They also are a huge step back from the technology they already enjoy.


I'm assuming you mean Rafale and F-16 Block 52.

I think the buy is completely logical. Egypt lacks a heavy fighter capable of long range escort/air superiority missions. The Rafale in the strike fighter role, and their Mig-29's are rather short legged. The F-16 force is big/modern but there again there's a slant toward air to ground missions.

Meanwhile, the UAE, Quatar and Israel fly the world's latest F-15's. Even Iran (arguably) has the F-14. They need something that goes deep, sanitizes the airspace and be damn feared. Speaking of which, why no Eagle for Egypt?

They have the $. They're the 4th largest F-16 operator in the world! Something about Israel's qualitative edge being preserved??



Dont you think so many different platforms would be a logistical nightmare?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 04:01

mixelflick wrote:
I'm assuming you mean Rafale and F-16 Block 52.

I think the buy is completely logical. Egypt lacks a heavy fighter capable of long range escort/air superiority missions. The Rafale in the strike fighter role, and their Mig-29's are rather short legged. The F-16 force is big/modern but there again there's a slant toward air to ground missions.

Meanwhile, the UAE, Quatar and Israel fly the world's latest F-15's. Even Iran (arguably) has the F-14. They need something that goes deep, sanitizes the airspace and be damn feared. Speaking of which, why no Eagle for Egypt?

They have the $. They're the 4th largest F-16 operator in the world! Something about Israel's qualitative edge being preserved??


Logical??? I don't see that at all. As the current Rafale and F-16 Fleets as just as capable in the fighter role and even more capable in the strike role. Plus, both are already in service and with all the needed infrastructure to support them.

Now add the Su-35 which from the start has lower RAS (Reliability, Availability and Serviceability) and none of the benefits of the aforementioned types.

The US has learn a hard lesson of operating to many types that basically perform many of the same missions. Which, is why it develop the F-35 in the first place. In order to consolidate the number of types down to the bare minimum.

Which, is turn will lower cost and increase numbers!

For example I would clearly prefer a fleet of 100 Rafales and 100 F-16's. Over a fleet of 50 Rafales, 50 F-16's, and 50 Su-35's. (i.e. 200 vs 150)
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3485
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 14:02

Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
I'm assuming you mean Rafale and F-16 Block 52.

I think the buy is completely logical. Egypt lacks a heavy fighter capable of long range escort/air superiority missions. The Rafale in the strike fighter role, and their Mig-29's are rather short legged. The F-16 force is big/modern but there again there's a slant toward air to ground missions.

Meanwhile, the UAE, Quatar and Israel fly the world's latest F-15's. Even Iran (arguably) has the F-14. They need something that goes deep, sanitizes the airspace and be damn feared. Speaking of which, why no Eagle for Egypt?

They have the $. They're the 4th largest F-16 operator in the world! Something about Israel's qualitative edge being preserved??


Logical??? I don't see that at all. As the current Rafale and F-16 Fleets as just as capable in the fighter role and even more capable in the strike role. Plus, both are already in service and with all the needed infrastructure to support them.

Now add the Su-35 which from the start has lower RAS (Reliability, Availability and Serviceability) and none of the benefits of the aforementioned types.

The US has learn a hard lesson of operating to many types that basically perform many of the same missions. Which, is why it develop the F-35 in the first place. In order to consolidate the number of types down to the bare minimum.

Which, is turn will lower cost and increase numbers!

For example I would clearly prefer a fleet of 100 Rafales and 100 F-16's. Over a fleet of 50 Rafales, 50 F-16's, and 50 Su-35's. (i.e. 200 vs 150)


Logistical nightmare?

Maybe. But no less so than Quatar who operates the Rafale. Typhoon, F-15QA, Mirage 2000 and Alpha Jets. Or South Korea, who operates F-4's, F-5's, F-15's, F-16's and now F-35's. Or Saudi Arabia, who operates F-15C variants, Typhoons, Tornado's and now F-15SA's.

And while the Rafale and F-16 are capable jets, neither offers the range/reach of the SU-35, nor its vaunted super-maneuverability (nor price tag). You can argue super-maneuverability does/doesn't matter, but it will in a sales pitch where not everyone is a military expert.

Of all of those variables though, price point is the one that matters. I don't think anyone will argue that the SU-35 buys you a whole lotta capability, especially for the price...
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post11 Apr 2019, 20:10

Corsair1963 wrote:
Logical??? I don't see that at all. As the current Rafale and F-16 Fleets as just as capable in the fighter role and even more capable in the strike role. Plus, both are already in service and with all the needed infrastructure to support them.


Egypt's F-16 doesn't have modern radar nor is armed with modern missiles. Its fighter capabilities are same as in 1980s.

Rafale lack radar powerful enough to achieve anything useful against VLO. MiG-35 similar story as Rafale. So only option for Egypt is Su-35.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3485
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Apr 2019, 16:15

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Logical??? I don't see that at all. As the current Rafale and F-16 Fleets as just as capable in the fighter role and even more capable in the strike role. Plus, both are already in service and with all the needed infrastructure to support them.


Egypt's F-16 doesn't have modern radar nor is armed with modern missiles. Its fighter capabilities are same as in 1980s.

Rafale lack radar powerful enough to achieve anything useful against VLO. MiG-35 similar story as Rafale. So only option for Egypt is Su-35.


That's another good point: The SU-35's radar though not an AESA, is absurdly powerful. Much moreso than the competition. So you have a big fighter that can handily out-range its opponents. It can carry a fairly heavy weapons load to altitude, with a monster radar that at least has a shot at detecting VLO targets. And if it gets to the merge, you have to get up awful early to beat an SU-35 and its Archer missiles.

And it's cheap, at least compared to the competition.
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 428
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post12 Apr 2019, 18:27

The problem for the Su-35 is that it’s radar is also very loud. As it’s not an AESA radar, aircraft with decent electronic warfare suites will easily detect the IRBIS-E radar emissions. In fact its radar emissions could probably be used against it. On top of that, it’s got a massive RCS. Plus, in the real world I’ll bet the R-77 is at a major disadvantage against the AMRAAM and Meteor.

You’re a funny guy Mixeflick. You’ve been lamenting the poor performance of the Su-30MKI and here you are singing the praises of an aircraft which is basically a modified version of the same jet. Sure it has a new radar but it’s still a PESA. The engines are a little better and the aerodynamics might be a bit better because it’s a single seater, but I doubt it’s a game changing improvement. It’s basically an incremental improvement on a 70s era design.

There’s a reason why the Flankers are cheap. It’s the same reason why the Russian aircraft industry is in a world of trouble right now. Let’s not pretend that this is anything other than a political decision. Egypt’s relationship with the US has deteriorated in recent years. Thus, they have turned to the Russians, who are less likely to slap on sanctions and other restrictions. While the French were happy to sell them Rafales, they are still very much a firm US ally and would likely side with the US if push came to shove.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Apr 2019, 20:00

icemaverick wrote:The problem for the Su-35 is that it’s radar is also very loud. As it’s not an AESA radar, aircraft with decent electronic warfare suites will easily detect the IRBIS-E radar emissions. In fact its radar emissions could probably be used against it. On top of that, it’s got a massive RCS. Plus, in the real world I’ll bet the R-77 is at a major disadvantage against the AMRAAM and Meteor.


Su-35/Rafale/MiG-35 can't hide from F-35 so all will use its radar on max setting becuase it is pointless to use LPI mode, and that is where Su-35 have much bigger advantage over Rafale or MiG-35. So it is logical to buy Su-35 when Israel get F-35.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post12 Apr 2019, 20:11

icemaverick wrote:The problem for the Su-35 is that it’s radar is also very loud. As it’s not an AESA radar, aircraft with decent electronic warfare suites will easily detect the IRBIS-E radar emissions. In fact its radar emissions could probably be used against it. On top of that, it’s got a massive RCS. Plus, in the real world I’ll bet the R-77 is at a major disadvantage against the AMRAAM and Meteor.


I see this the same way. Ibris-e is a strong flashlight in the dark. It's western 80s tech, on the level of a APG-70. When you look at range (200km) and resolution (3m). And According the Manufacturer, the RBE-2 AA even outrange the irbis-e. Especially in a real world battelspace with jamming conditions. And even the Mica has more range than a the R-77.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 831
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Apr 2019, 21:47

swiss wrote:I see this the same way. Ibris-e is a strong flashlight in the dark. It's western 80s tech, on the level of a APG-70. When you look at range (200km) and resolution (3m). And According the Manufacturer, the RBE-2 AA even outrange the irbis-e. Especially in a real world battelspace with jamming conditions. Even the Mica has more range than a the R-77.


What 200km range you are writing about? N035 range is much better then that, up to 400km for 3m2 in narrow beam mode. That is better then what Chinese Flanker with AESA can it impressed Chinese.

Do you have any info about RBE-2 AESA range? All I find isn't numbers but comparison with RBE-2 PESA, they say new radar have 1000 modules and is +50% better then PESA radar, even if it is 100% better (they will surely marketing it) it isn't nothing so special.

If it have 1000 modules and if they are smilar as APG-77(V) modules (I doubt that) that is 10kW peak power and 2.5kW average power, compare that to N035 20kW peak and 5kW avarage power and there isn't any chance RBE-2 AESA outrange N035, and that is if antenna size are similar, they AREN'T.

What Dasso probable mean, Rafale with AESA will detect Su-35 earlier hten Su-35 with PESA will detect Rafale. This is nice but that mean they didn't count on fuel tanks which Rafale would need to carry to match Su-35 looting capability. I mean Rafale in CAP missions carry three supersonic fuel tanks, those things have huge impact on RCS.

Mica have better range then R-77? No it doesn't, it have same range but as basic R-77 or to be precise export variant RVV-AE:

Mica:
https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... _RECNO=942

RVV-AE:
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... le/rvv-ae/

RVV-SD is ~1.5x better then AE:
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-sys ... le/rvv-sd/

Smaller electronics, longer missile (more space for fuel).

Domestic R-77 is R-77-1 which some say is RVV-SD others say it is RVV-SD with dual pulse engine.

But for Egypt missile range isn't relevant, Adir you can't engage from long distance, if you have powerful radar then it still can be lower part of BVR envelope but if radar is weak then it is already WVR so I really don't see Meteor advantage over RVV-AE/SD or AIM-120. In fact Mica would be lot better option against F-35 then Meteor.
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests