Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3448
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post23 Jun 2022, 11:13

I don't see Harrier being anything but a gloried helicopter in the Ukraine. It will not hold up to Tor, old or new. They would be better served with the smaller AMX, a platform with an actual modern internal self-protection. They could really use F-16s.

We are reaching the point where you cannot go antiquated hardware and expect results. Anything from the Soviet era has been a catastrophe for both sides. Dumb munitions favor the aggressor. Defenders require sophistication to create unbreakable, unassailable lines. Maneuver warfare also favors the Russians. The Ukrainians do not have magical supply lines.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 671
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post23 Jun 2022, 15:25

The proposed "Ukrainian Fighter Pilots Act"

https://kinzinger.house.gov/uploadedfil ... otsact.pdf
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4129
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Jun 2022, 15:33

tphuang wrote:
zhangmdev wrote:Kamikaze attack of PD-1 UAV on some oil refining plant in Rostov, 150 km from the border.

https://weibo.com/6893700678/LyUdZqTxt? ... 001030103_


Likely Mugin-5 Pro, which can be found on Alibaba (Chinese version of Amazon) for $20k with everything included
https://gagadget.com/en/139367-chinas-9 ... ussia-amp/

Who needs MQ-1C when you can buy hundreds of these cheap "civilian" drones for the same price and they are absolutely undetectable by the Russian air defense?


I disagree with your last paragraph!
Yes, it's true that such civilian drones (like the Mugin-5 Pro) have been proving their worth in Ukraine. However they are not a replacement for something like the MQ-1C since their capabilities are far, far inferior compared again to the MQ-1C!
For example the MQ-1C can carry up to four (4) Hellfire missiles and each Hellfire missile is heavier than the empty weight of a Mugin-5 Pro drone. Actually the weight of a single hellfire is twice the payload capacity of the Mugin-5 Pro drone!

On top if this the MQ-1C can carry up to eight (8) Stinger missiles which means it can be used against air targets - I can imagine that a MQ-1C in this configuration could be useful to counter enemy drones (or helicopters) which is a capability that drones like the Mugin-5 Pro simply don't possess.

All of this means that a single MQ-1C can deliver a much, much superior destruction power than several Mugin-5 Pro drones combined and can deliver such destructive power at longer ranges and from higher altitudes.
And it is yet to be seen or proven that the MQ-1C is more vulnerable to Russian Air Defences than cheaper drones like the Mugin-5 Pro. I honestly doubt that there's such a big diference in terms of "vulnerability" between the MQ-1C and drones like the Mugin-5 Pro.
Oh, and the MQ-1C sensors are far, far superior to the Mugin-5 Pro which means that the MQ-1C can engage targets from longer distances (combined with more powerful and longer ranged weapons) than drones like the Mugin-5 Pro. This should make the MQ-1C actually less vulnerable to Russian Air Defences (than something like the Mugin-5 Pro).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4129
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Jun 2022, 16:01

madrat wrote:I don't see Harrier being anything but a gloried helicopter in the Ukraine. It will not hold up to Tor, old or new. They would be better served with the smaller AMX, a platform with an actual modern internal self-protection. They could really use F-16s.


With all due respect that part with I put on Bold and Underlined is BS!
An AV-8B armed with AMRAAM missiles is light years away and ahead in terms of (Air-to-Air) capability than whatever an AMX can ever dream of!

And while the AV-8B doesn't carry an "internal" ECM it does carry an ALQ-164 pod in the place of one gun pod or the extra ammo for the other gun pod. So an AV-8B with an ALQ-164 pod can still carry one gun (both under the fuselage) with all the other stations (all under the wings and centre fuselage station) freed to carry whatever ordnance needed for the mission. And I'm also willing to bet good money that the ALQ-164 is superior to whatever internal ECM suite that is fitted in the AMX!

The AV-8B also has a much superior radar compared to the AMX.

So the AMX doesn't have any advantage compared to the Harrier (AV-8B) except for being easier to fly and perhaps cheaper (but since these aircraft would always be donated being cheaper would be a no issue to Ukraine).
Resuming the only real advantage that the AMX would have over the Harrier is being easier to fly and as such easier to train pilot to fly it, I grant you that.


madrat wrote:We are reaching the point where you cannot go antiquated hardware and expect results. Anything from the Soviet era has been a catastrophe for both sides. Dumb munitions favor the aggressor. Defenders require sophistication to create unbreakable, unassailable lines. Maneuver warfare also favors the Russians. The Ukrainians do not have magical supply lines.


I'm confused! How can dumb munitions favor the aggressor?? We actually have been seeing the opposite. Dumb munitions used by the aggressor (Russia) have been mostly "useful" in terrorizing the civilian population and its effectiveness against the defender's side (Ukraine) military forces have been very limited - For instance the usage of dumb munitions have been one of the main reasons why fighter/combat aircraft (from both side) effectiveness have been very limited.

Well, the Russians also don't have "magical supply lines".
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5353
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post23 Jun 2022, 16:25

ricnunes wrote:
And while the AV-8B doesn't carry an "internal" ECM it does carry an ALQ-164 pod in the place of one gun pod or the extra ammo for the other gun pod. So an AV-8B with an ALQ-164 pod can still carry one gun (both under the fuselage)


This gn pod info is incorrect.

To begin, with the GAU-12 the gun is in the left pod and the ammo is in the right pod. There is no "in place of one gun pod or the extra ammo for the other" as one is the gun and the other is the ammo with a fairing over the feeding system between them.

Finding a non-DCS picture of the GAU-12 and ALQ-164 both being mounted was tricky but https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-art ... 3663_1.jpg seems to have it. Possibly the GAU-12 does not block the centerline hardpoint and uses separate wiring?

https://live.staticflickr.com/2494/3975 ... 7b57_b.jpg shows it more clearly, and while the lighting made me initially think this was DCS it represents an AV-8B+ which is not in the sim.

So it seems they can be carried together on B+ which is what the AMRAAM slinger would be.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1757
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 Jun 2022, 18:59

ricnunes wrote:Oh, and the MQ-1C sensors are far, far superior to the Mugin-5 Pro which means that the MQ-1C can engage targets from longer distances (combined with more powerful and longer ranged weapons) than drones like the Mugin-5 Pro. This should make the MQ-1C actually less vulnerable to Russian Air Defences (than something like the Mugin-5 Pro).


MQ-1C have similar RCS as MQ-1 which was easy target even for our very old AD. Mugin on other hand is lot smaller target. If you take in account cost there isn't and comparison.

For price of four Hellfire missiles MQ-1C carry you get whole squadron of Mugin-5Pro, each with 25kg of tnt. Hellfire warhead is 8kg.

Btw this isnt really nothing new, Iran attacked quite protected targets in KSA using similar kamikaza drones. Those things are PITA for any AD.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4129
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Jun 2022, 19:20

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
And while the AV-8B doesn't carry an "internal" ECM it does carry an ALQ-164 pod in the place of one gun pod or the extra ammo for the other gun pod. So an AV-8B with an ALQ-164 pod can still carry one gun (both under the fuselage)


This gn pod info is incorrect.

To begin, with the GAU-12 the gun is in the left pod and the ammo is in the right pod. There is no "in place of one gun pod or the extra ammo for the other" as one is the gun and the other is the ammo with a fairing over the feeding system between them.


Ok, it seems that I confused the AV-8B with the British Harriers the later of which can carry two gun pods (on each side of the fuselage). The American AV-8B seems only to be able to carry one gun (gun pod) at a time.
Thanks for the correction!

British Harrier with 2 (Adden) gunpods:
Image

The above is a Sea Harrier but the Harrier Gr7 and Gr9 were also capable of carrying two (2) gun pods.


sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Finding a non-DCS picture of the GAU-12 and ALQ-164 both being mounted was tricky but https://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-art ... 3663_1.jpg seems to have it. Possibly the GAU-12 does not block the centerline hardpoint and uses separate wiring?

https://live.staticflickr.com/2494/3975 ... 7b57_b.jpg shows it more clearly, and while the lighting made me initially think this was DCS it represents an AV-8B+ which is not in the sim.

So it seems they can be carried together on B+ which is what the AMRAAM slinger would be.


Yes, absolutely.

And I stand by my point is that the AV-8B+ is much superior and more survivable (and useful) than an AMX. The only disadvantage of the AV-8B compared to the AMX is that's a hard plane to land vertically but then again this is something that the AMX cannot do.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4129
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Jun 2022, 22:42

milosh wrote:MQ-1C have similar RCS as MQ-1 which was easy target even for our very old AD. Mugin on other hand is lot smaller target. If you take in account cost there isn't and comparison.


Being "much smaller in size" doesn't necessarily or always equals to a "much smaller RCS".
And again, better sensors and better weapons means longer/standoff engagement ranges which offsets or even nullifies any bigger RCS that the MQ-1C may have.
Resuming: The MQ-1C does NOT need to fly over or near the target as opposed to the Mugin-5 Pro which needs to fly close to (and impact) the target.

milosh wrote:For price of four Hellfire missiles MQ-1C carry you get whole squadron of Mugin-5Pro, each with 25kg of tnt. Hellfire warhead is 8kg.


The Mugin-5 Pro explosive charges probably cannot (or hardly can) destroy Tanks or other hardened targets (bunkers for example) while the Hellfire doesn't have any problems destroying such targets.
A single MQ-1C can destroy several targets (launching several Hellfire missiles or other guided weapons) go back to base rearm and repeat. A single Mugin-5 Pro can only attack a single and non-hardened target. So it's no wonder why the Mugin-5 Pro is cheaper...

Again if the MQ-1C and associated weapons are to be DONATED to Ukraine than PRICE/COST is a NO ISSUE.


milosh wrote:Btw this isnt really nothing new, Iran attacked quite protected targets in KSA using similar kamikaza drones. Those things are PITA for any AD.


Again, one thing is attacking non-hardened and highly volatile targets like refineries. Another totally and a completely different thing is to attack hardened targets like armoured vehicles, fortified positions which BTW are usually more better protected and often can defend themselves.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2856
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Jun 2022, 02:19

Its not AMX vs Harrier. The Kinzinger Act means its an F-15/16 vs Harrier consideration. CTOL vs VTOL.

Top Gun maverick helps put public faith back into legacy platforms. Its not the platform but the pilot. Like the show also, its not just about shooting down the RuAF, its about landing bombs on target and getting the planes back to base (where-ever that is).

Everything the Marines have been preaching the last few decades (and echoed in this forum) on Harrier distributed ops can be validated in Ukraine. Can't think of a better place to apply. Small air/battlespace, short distance to flot, etc....
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 671
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post24 Jun 2022, 04:19

A 500 kg concrete piecing bomb removed from the roof of some residential block in Kharkiv.

https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-war- ... l-12639383

Edit1:

A Russian IL-76 crashed near Ryazan, "due to an engine problem".

Edit2:

Ukraine claims its troops will have to withdraw from Severodonetsk. And HIMARS has been used in battle.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1757
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Jun 2022, 11:13

@ricnunes

Mq1c is sitting duck against even older SAMs. UA don't have US sead capability so SAMs are big problem for mq1c

Mugin on other is much smaller target and cost lot less kn fact you can buy four of them for ONE missile mq1c carry.

Mugin can carry 25kg tnt and 25kg is a lot, tank crew would survive direct hit but in what shape tank nope.

Iran used something similar to attack ksa target which had couple of SAMs systems. So attack vehicles wouldn't be much different.
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3448
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post24 Jun 2022, 13:02

I don't care which version of Harrier you would send, its a sponge for infrared homing missiles and it is accident prone. They guzzle fuel supplies compared to similar size jets, even when used as a CTOL. You can base them close to combat AND you have to for them to be useful. They have always had high wing loading and sensor limitations that dropped their useful ceiling for ordnance delivery. And you don't land on dirt with the Harrier without expecting problems. But you also don't expect antone to just jump into one for VTOL operations.

To suggest Harrier is better than AMX doesn't even make sense. AMX is able to fly with a bombload without delivery limitations. Its not pretty and it doesn't have a sharp, pointy nose but its rugged and more field sustainable than any other options. RecceLite and the JTAC would be very useful to the Ukraine.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 671
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post24 Jun 2022, 15:01

Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4881
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post24 Jun 2022, 15:56

[quote="zhangmdev"]A Russian surface to air missile malfunctioned and turned around.

https://www.mojevideo.sk/video/37b1f/rusky_system_protivzdusnej_obrany_mal_poruchu_zameral_sam_seba_(alcevsk).html

This video should really help sales. I'd imagine Turkey is cursing its decision to buy S-400's right about now LOL.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 671
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post24 Jun 2022, 17:13

Ukrainian Tochka-U three-shot salvo. The APU exhaust before the booster ignition is visible.

https://weibo.com/2136367523/LzcqcwQl5? ... 001030103_

Four months on, VKS still cannot eliminate those missiles.
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests