F/A-22 Vs Su-37 + S-400 + AWACS

[Brit]

Lets ignore the polemics and deal with known data:

• There are more F-22's flying than Rafales (2 squadrons - 42+ frames)
• The first full operational squadron goes gold in November
• When have Russian SAMs performed disproportionately against a target opportunity over a long term period? The Israelis had counters to the threat within 6 working days - the US developed AR solutions
• Where is there any empirical data that supports the absolute threat capability of the S400?
• What evidence at all is there that Wild Weasel or EW platforms will be vulnerable against the S400?? - absolutely none. The US doesn't send platforms in by themselves - they use systems - if one is compromised - then there are redundant solutions available. What other country has the same level of overlayed package deployability across a broad front at an intercontinental level?

The US hasn't had to fight a symetrical war for eons because it has had absolute technical dominance across the spectrum.

and can people get the Vietnam analogy right? The US never ever lost a force majeur contact in Vietnam, after the Tet offensive the NVA was absolutely decimated at a force upon force level. They never came out and played force against force after that. In fact Linebacker was predominantly responsible for getting them to Paris for the peace talks. They had to start negotiation in good faith.

Using Vietnam as an example of symetrical engagement is absolutely fallacious.

Warfare is about systems and logistics - and not in that order. Who and where has any other country got the capacity to maintain tempo in a force on force engagement?

Just a reminder for some: Warfare is about the multiple "P's":

Projection
Persistence
Performance
Precision
Political Will and Intent
Packages

Lets not ignore reality as well.

Thanks for the reply gf0012-aust



You make your case clearly enough but I think our thought processes differ somewhat.



Whilst you rightly say that there is no empirical data on S400 threat assessments there is equally none on the effectiveness of the F22 (!). Obviously we would be wise to consider that the F22 is likely to be effective –but the same goes for the S400.



All this talk of the F22 being operational… not in the SEAD role. SEAD is still the domain of non-stealthy aircraft, particularly the F16 and A6 in US doctrine.



S400 is a mobile set-up designed to be moved around (assumption based on S300 pedigree). It’s phased array radar, data link networking etc make it an inherently difficult system to counter –the target aircraft is not aware if it has been ‘locked onto’. The missile launchers can be many miles closer to the target than the radar.



Whilst the US makes great pains to reduce the shoot-loop it is still unrealistic to suggest that stealth aircraft such as the F117 can be employed loitering above the battlefield waiting for a non-stealthy aircraft to be shot at so that it can respond with JDAMS (unless F117 is operational with ARMs?).



S400 poses a real threat to stand-of surveillance platforms such as AWACs and JSTAR which tend to be relatively high flying slow moving targets. The question is, would the US run out of JSTARS/AWACs quicker than the enemy runs out of S400….



Well anyway, it’s not as if S400 is even deployed in meaningful numbers… yet.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for the reply gf0012-aust



You make your case clearly enough but I think our thought processes differ somewhat.



Whilst you rightly say that there is no empirical data on S400 threat assessments there is equally none on the effectiveness of the F22 (!).

au contraire - there is already documented evidence where a tall flight of F-15's were tasked against a single F-22. It is the typically referred to "clubbing baby seals" incident.

Obviously we would be wise to consider that the F22 is likely to be effective –but the same goes for the S400.

In the last 50 years what persistent evidence is there of Russian SAM superiority for the duration of a conflict? Where have Russian SAMS absolutely dominated the theatre and changed the outcome? In all SAM engagements the US and the Israelis were able to identify core data and counter the systems to the point of them being redundant.

All this talk of the F22 being operational… not in the SEAD role. SEAD is still the domain of non-stealthy aircraft, particularly the F16 and A6 in US doctrine.

It might be a good idea to read "Bandits over Bagdhad" It's by the pilots of the F-117's and details some of their missions. A core majority of their role was principally SEAD. Whats more to the point is that F-117 pilots have already indicated that part of the F-22 EW suite is superior to the F-117

S400 is a mobile set-up designed to be moved around (assumption based on S300 pedigree). It’s phased array radar, data link networking etc make it an inherently difficult system to counter –the target aircraft is not aware if it has been ‘locked onto’. The missile launchers can be many miles closer to the target than the radar.

and have you read any of the publicly available data on the F-22's systems - they're able to be active and passive - and more to the point, can be sans AWACS as they have organic AWACs capability

Whilst the US makes great pains to reduce the shoot-loop it is still unrealistic to suggest that stealth aircraft such as the F117 can be employed loitering above the battlefield waiting for a non-stealthy aircraft to be shot at so that it can respond with JDAMS (unless F117 is operational with ARMs?).

No, the mission of the LO aircraft is to go in ahead and pull the critical targets ahead of the conventionals or ahead of the PGM's. What you've described is not the operational procedure that the aircraft operate under.

S400 poses a real threat to stand-of surveillance platforms such as AWACs and JSTAR which tend to be relatively high flying slow moving targets. The question is, would the US run out of JSTARS/AWACs quicker than the enemy runs out of S400….

again, the role of AWACs and JSTARs doesn't take them anywhere near the S400. I'm not sure how you think these assets are used in a volatile envirtonment - but it's not in the fashion you describe.

Well anyway, it’s not as if S400 is even deployed in meaningful numbers… yet.

No, but the US (amongst others who run hi-tech systems) actually plan responses against future weapons systems as a matter of course. The USAF and RAF actually assume worst case scenarios. They're more likely to assume an abundance of S400's than a shortfall. Any potential target country is harvested electronically well before things go hot. If Pine Gap was picking up SCUD launches from the middle of Australia, then you can assume pretty safely that other systems in place can also pick up launch flares in a "watched" location of risk.

The military axiom is PPPPPP. "Prior Planning Prevents P### Poor Performance"

 

[Brit]

lol. Where you one of those guys in the mid eighties who'd cite the Baka valley as proof that the Russians couldn't produce credible dogfight AAMs? lol.

 

[gf0012-aust]

lol. Where you one of those guys in the mid eighties who'd cite the Baka valley as proof that the Russians couldn't produce credible dogfight AAMs? lol.

The Israeli's smacked them about in the Bekaa Valley.

www.afa.org/magazine/June2002/0602bekaa.pdf

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/ airchronicles/apj/apj89/hurley.html

http://www.blue-chips.net/israel.htm

http://www.ausairpower.net/AADR-E-2C-AEW.html

You seem to forget that the credibility of a system lies in how long it remains secure and protected from a response.

Russian missiles have had a lousy track record - even when flying against similar opponents (Lets use the Eritrean example as the most recent and relevant)

Why do France and Israel make a killing in selling "counter" systems to Russian weapons?

Like it or not, SA2, SA3, SA6 systems were bypassed within days if not hours of contact by the IAF.

expensive million dollar fireworks systems. - warfighting is about systems - not platforms. its a salutary note that most analysts recognised after 1991 when it was demonstrated in spades.

 

[Brit]

The Israeli's smacked them about in the Bekaa Valley.

Yes, they did. But the Russians learnt from that much better than we (the West) did, in terms of missile technology, particularly dogfighting. Within a few years the Russians had deployed AA11 with HMS etc etc -way ahead of what the West was deploying in the late eighties. That the Russians could suddenly leap ahead in terms short range missiles was in comprehendible to many analysts –they cited Baka as proof of Western equipment/doctrinal superiority. You are making the same mistake citing wars thirty years previous as indications of the effectiveness of contemporary Russian missile technology –that is why I mentioned Baka.



Think about it, AA11 has been operational for twenty years and equips numerous air arms –yet Britain, US and Australia (amongst others) still fly with Sidewinders…

 

[ajay_ijn]

Yes, they did. But the Russians learnt from that much better than we (the West) did, in terms of missile technology, particularly dogfighting. Within a few years the Russians had deployed AA11 with HMS etc etc -way ahead of what the West was deploying in the late eighties. That the Russians could suddenly leap ahead in terms short range missiles was in comprehendible to many analysts –they cited Baka as proof of Western equipment/doctrinal superiority. You are making the same mistake citing wars thirty years previous as indications of the effectiveness of contemporary Russian missile technology –that is why I mentioned Baka.



Think about it, AA11 has been operational for twenty years and equips numerous air arms –yet Britain, US and Australia (amongst others) still fly with Sidewinders…

What do u mean still fly sidewinders,there has been number of versions of sidewinders and latest version AIM-9X is significantly superior to R-73 or AA-11 Archer.
I agree AA-11 surprised everybody when it was deployed in the early 1980s but US and europe immediately went for developing a better missile.
Aim-9X,Pyhton-4,ASRAAM,IRIS etc all these missiles were developed to counter the AA-11 Deployment.

As gf said Russia weapons are countered by US and their allies early in their deployment.
By the time AA-11 Archer reaches user countries like India/Iran/China etc,US immediately develops a better Missile.

In the same way by the any new weapon system reaches user countries,US develops a Counter Weapon system or strategy against it.

Things would have been much differrent,if US had direct conflict with Soviets during cold war.At that time soviets would deploy modern systems and would difficult to US to counter them i.e they must be ready to face heavy losses.
But an Conflict between US and Soviet is highly unlikely to be a conventional one.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, they did. But the Russians learnt from that much better than we (the West) did, in terms of missile technology, particularly dogfighting.

I'm not challenging Russian technological innovation - and I don't think you'll find many "western" military equipment analysts challenging that view either.

That the Russians could suddenly leap ahead in terms short range missiles was in comprehendible to many analysts –they cited Baka as proof of Western equipment/doctrinal superiority.

The reason being is that it is a classic example of how a platform advantage can be negated by superior systems management and training

You are making the same mistake citing wars thirty years previous as indications of the effectiveness of contemporary Russian missile technology –that is why I mentioned Baka.

No, what I'm stating is that for all the touted advantages of some Soviet/Russian systems - NONE of that has ever translated into anything that represents a battle event changer where the client has been able to demonstrate clear, unimpeachable tactical advantage due to technical leverage.

Think about it, AA11 has been operational for twenty years and equips numerous air arms –yet Britain, US and Australia (amongst others) still fly with Sidewinders…

Well, small point of fact - Australia is almost an "ex" sidewinder user.

But, you ignore the reality that training in airforces that didn't use russian gear involved developing evasion and suppression systems to counter any systems advantages. Thats where some people persistently make the mistake when saying that their "widget" is superior to your "widget". "Widgets" are singularly critical, but they have to deal with systems solutions.


Bekaa is a very good example of how systems (esp battle management and training) can swing the advantage to the defender using different generations of technology.


For all the advantages of HMS - there is no clear record anywhere of it assisting dominance when all logic says that it should have. The RAAF (and its NATO allies) immediately developed doctrine to deal with AA-11's - even though they were nominally a superior weapons solution, nobody "wet their pants" about confronting them as the training and engagement processes were regarded as lifesavers.


We're talking about two very different philosophies here. In essence it's like comparing the skills of the Red Baron against the skills of the "Flying Circus"


If you've looked through the history of my responses you'll find that I have a great deal of respect for some Russian capability in some weapons specifics, but you'll also note that I am somewhat dismissive of absolute capability as I've seen some of their gear up close. It's high attrition equipment, and their build philosophy is completely if not opposite to what the Germans, Americans, Israelis, French, Swedes or Norwegians etc... would produce.

Look at the history of NATO doctrine against WARPAC OPFORS - quality was always seen as a viable sword against saturation by quantity.

addendum. The Su-27/30 is a good example in point. The Russian platform was to be respected but it wasn't absolutely superior. OTOH, the Indian MKI is a different kettle of fish, as is the PLAAF modified Su-30. Analysts are far more cautious in dismissing Chinese copies of Russian missiles as we know that they modify them with reliable COTS/dual use replacement parts and the fact that they always improve the basic design (hence why even the dble delta Chinese Mig21's are still respected even though they are old Gen3 Jets, or to use a missile example, the Chinese modification to the Soviet Styx)

Within a few years the Russians had deployed AA11 with HMS etc etc -way ahead of what the West was deploying in the late eighties.

hmm, not within a few years - it actually took them 9 years and only after witnessing another major "equipment slaughter".

A further salient point of an analysis of Bekaa:

The key to Israel's stunning success in this preemptive strike lies in the use of Elint and AEW aircraft. Without the Elint capability offered by the E-2C's PDS, Israel would have found it difficult to rapidly sort out all the data gathered on the SAM radars, once baited by the drones into exposing themselves. Any delay would give the launchers time to move.

The ability to track low flying aircraft allowed the E-2C to coordinate the low level strikes directed against the SAM batteries. The role AEW played in the annihilation of the MiG force was paramount. The MiGs could be lured into traps, if following GCI instructions to attack IAF jets at medium altitudes once detected by ground based radar, the MiGs could be attacked from six o'clock by low flying IAF fighters, concealed from the Syrian GCI radars.

The E-2C could monitor all of this and set such traps (this could account for the high success rate of the Phantoms and Kfirs, supposedly dedicated to the ground attack phase of the operation - once having released their ordnance they could loiter at low level, awaiting a vector from the E-2C).

It must be rather humiliating for the Russians to see their SAMs destroyed by cheap free fall bombs and watch new MiG-23 Floggers fall to gunfire from ageing F-4E Phantoms, but the the decisive edge in this war was provided by AEW and E-2C.

Any weapon system is defenceless if it isn't aware of it's enemy's location. The combination of AEW and jamming provided Israel with all the information it needed, and denied Syria as much as was available.

The results speak for themselves - an air-air kill ratio better than 80:0 against front line aircraft operated by the Warpac, ie the Soviet Frontovaya Aviatsia (Tactical Aviation).

The Soviets will be seriously rethinking their air defence strategy after observing the two days of carnage that decimated (rather exterminated) an air defence system modelled on that of the Red Army and the FA. It will further accelerate their efforts to deploy AEW systems in the European theatre, backing up the AWG-9ski equipped Super Foxbats serving with the PVOS and presumably attached to units of the FA VVS [Editor's Note 2005: this expectation was optimistic in terms of Soviet capacity to adapt. The Desert Storm campaign produced a similar effect and only then did the Soviets react, by which time it was too late].

again, I point out that mastery of an environment by a platform is only as good as its survivability and redundancy against systems. That is a clear single lesson of post Bekaa navel gazing..

 

[Aussie Digger]

Just one or 2 more points to add. SEAD isn't only conducted by aircraft with ARM's. Does not an accurately placed LGB or JDAM that destroys a SAM site also effectively constitute a SEAD mission?


Also both Britain and Australia use ASRAAM as their frontline WVRAAM nowadays. The Brits use it on the F-3, we of course use it on our F/A-18's and soon the F-111...

 

[ajay_ijn]

Just one or 2 more points to add. SEAD isn't only conducted by aircraft with ARM's. Does not an accurately placed LGB or JDAM that destroys a SAM site also effectively constitute a SEAD mission?


Also both Britain and Australia use ASRAAM as their frontline WVRAAM nowadays. The Brits use it on the F-3, we of course use it on our F/A-18's and soon the F-111...

whats the difference bwteen SEAD and DEAD

 

[gf0012-aust]

whats the difference bwteen SEAD and DEAD

One is Suppression and the other is Destruction of Enemy Air Defences.

Technical description is as follows:

....the "airborne electronic attack" mission area consists of three activities: (1) the nonlethal suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD); (2) the lethal suppression of enemy air defenses; and (3) self-protection. "Nonlethal SEAD," as it is often called, is just an obscure way of describing the electronic jamming of radars and related communications. "Lethal SEAD" means using missiles or other munitions to physically destroy enemy radars and related infrastructure. (Some practitioners now refer to lethal SEAD as "DEAD," or destruction of enemy air defenses.)

 

[Brit]

Gf2005aust, your recent posts have clarified your points in my mind. You make sense, particularly in the wider picture. The single-system performance arguments which dominate these types of boards/threads is relevant to an extent but within the modern network centric battlefield that we strive for, it becomes less relevant to the overall outcome. I would suggest that the current state of network centricity, particularly of the Americans, whilst impressive as a relative, is hardly mature in absolute terms. The fact that the S-400 is largely negated if it is denied the necessary force multipliers (reliable AWAC, ESSMs, intell etc etc) –but that wouldn’t be very comforting to the pilot of an F16 who happens to cross its path.



Countries with less impressive arsenals, including (sadly Australia and Britain) have more to worry about.



Similarly, we can hypothesise that Russia’s geographically larger and militarily developed clients (India/China) can build S400 (or similar advanced systems) into well-structured and extensive air defence environments where it has a much greater potential than less sophisticated and smaller (less hiding) countries such as Iran or North Korea. Only America can realistically operate in such an environment.







On a separate note, several people have pointed out how Australia and UK have replaced the Sidewinder with the ASRAAM. However, that doesn’t alter the fact that both UK and Australia do still deploy front line aircraft with Sidewinders. And as for the AIM-9X being better than the AA-11 –quite possibly. But very few AIM-9X are actually deployed and the previous AIM-9s are well behind the AA-11.

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012-aust, your recent posts have clarified your points in my mind. You make sense, particularly in the wider picture. The single-system performance arguments which dominate these types of boards/threads is relevant to an extent but within the modern network centric battlefield that we strive for, it becomes less relevant to the overall outcome. I would suggest that the current state of network centricity, particularly of the Americans, whilst impressive as a relative, is hardly mature in absolute terms. The fact that the S-400 is largely negated if it is denied the necessary force multipliers (reliable AWAC, ESSMs, intell etc etc) –but that wouldn’t be very comforting to the pilot of an F16 who happens to cross its path.

The issue is defining the benchmark. As an issue of "absolutes" then the US is pre-eminent power in terms of precision, projection, persistence, rythmn etc... The arguments are sometimes better couched in terms of theatre of operations and participants. The only other country really able to bring a sophisticated system that reflects all of the warfighting aces is Israel and at a pinch, Russia.

Countries with less impressive arsenals, including (sadly Australia and Britain) have more to worry about.

But this also needs to be measured against the likely threats to those countries. Arguably, the Aust air warfighting footprint (and moreso when the wedgetails and AAR's come online 2006+) alter the capability footprint. The RAF and the RAAF would not enter any zone unless they had established leverage of some form. That could mean spoofing Radar in pairs, splitting the engagement mix, merging radar signatures of a flight to make them look smaller or terminating the ground based system with a long range stand-off strike package before entering their engagement circle. That could be aircraft based, or it could be submarine or skimmer launched TLAMs (eg)

Similarly, we can hypothesise that Russia’s geographically larger and militarily developed clients (India/China) can build S400 (or similar advanced systems) into well-structured and extensive air defence environments where it has a much greater potential than less sophisticated and smaller (less hiding) countries such as Iran or North Korea. Only America can realistically operate in such an environment.

Which is why arguments needs to be configured around engagement scenarios. If we judge everything against a "hyper tier 1" player like the US, then it becomes difficult to apply relevance and reason to some response.

On a separate note, several people have pointed out how Australia and UK have replaced the Sidewinder with the ASRAAM. However, that doesn’t alter the fact that both UK and Australia do still deploy front line aircraft with Sidewinders. And as for the AIM-9X being better than the AA-11 –quite possibly. But very few AIM-9X are actually deployed and the previous AIM-9s are well behind the AA-11.

That does get back to a training and homework scenario. Obviously any aircraft going in unassisted against a AA-11 carrier would be more cognisant of what they need to do to stay alive. Tactics were developed to deal with those systems, so although nominally the AA-11 platform might appear to have the edge against an AIM9L etc.... the issue of training becomes critical. Point in fact being ecercises by the RAAF Bugs against the RMAF Mig-29's many years ago (prior to the Bugs being upgraded). Although the Mig-29 in WVR was nominally superior, they lost some advantage because RAAF pilots were able to "read" the Mig-29's performance behaviour by the amount of smoke being discharged under load. They could tell when they were accelerating or even where they were turning by the exhaust signature pluming under load. One of the singularly large influences on getting the Wedgetail AWACs was after we experienced coming up against the Mig-29's. Nations will buy and implement other platforms and systems to assist in creating an imbalance so that you can prosecute with higher confidence levels.


Platforms are critical - training is even more so - and logistics is King.

 

[highsea]

...and the previous AIM-9s are well behind the AA-11.

On paper, maybe, but comments from users and tests would dispute this. The R-73 has a bit of a reputation for being flare hungry, with trajectory rejection only (which makes it fairly easy to spoof with a programmed flare sequence). The missile was developed in 1985, and Russian optics on the seeker is not on a par with the Sidewinder. The Sidewinder has a much smaller dead area in the sun (5 deg. vs. 15), and no limitations wrt differences in altitude between the launch platform and target (R-73 has 3,000 m limit). The quoted range of 30km is just the ballistic flight path- the actual range is ~11km.

Also, do not forget that in addition to the French tests, the US purchased over 100 R-73's from Moldova in 1997. The R-73's capabilities are well known, and countermeasures have been in place for some time. Further development of the R-73 seems to have come to a halt for lack of funding, there is still no IIR seeker and no digital processing. And all the export versions are the standard R-73E- the RDM2 is just a paper missile at this point, and likely to stay that way.

On a side note- why is this thread about a production AC vs. a tech demonstrator and a SAM system that is only partially developed?

 

[ajay_ijn]

the "airborne electronic attack" mission area consists of three activities: (1) the nonlethal suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD); (2) the lethal suppression of enemy air defenses; and (3) self-protection. "Nonlethal SEAD," as it is often called, is just an obscure way of describing the electronic jamming of radars and related communications. "Lethal SEAD" means using missiles or other munitions to physically destroy enemy radars and related infrastructure. (Some practitioners now refer to lethal SEAD as "DEAD," or destruction of enemy air defenses.)

So using ARMs,LGBs and other stand off missiles is DEAD right?

Although the Mig-29 in WVR was nominally superior, they lost some advantage because RAAF pilots were able to "read" the Mig-29's performance behaviour by the amount of smoke being discharged under load. They could tell when they were accelerating or even where they were turning by the exhaust signature pluming under load. One of the singularly large influences on getting the Wedgetail AWACs was after we experienced coming up against the Mig-29's

About the Smoke,Is it due to engines problem
Indian Mig-29s had several engine problems,overhauling and i also heard something about smoke.
Is this problem solved in latest version of Mig-29.

The only other country really able to bring a sophisticated system that reflects all of the warfighting aces is Israel and at a pinch, Russia.

And about Soviets??

Platforms are critical - training is even more so - and logistics is King

Tactics and Strategy are the ultimate,isn't it?

The fact that the S-400 is largely negated if it is denied the necessary force multipliers (reliable AWAC, ESSMs, intell etc etc) –but that wouldn’t be very comforting to the pilot of an F16 who happens to cross its path.

I didn't get u,
Force Multipliers denied for S-400 or Force Multipliers denied for F-16.
if S-400 is denied the Force multipliers,then its advantage for F-16.

The quoted range of 30km is just the ballistic flight path- the actual range is ~11km.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Brit, the RAAF F/A-18 fleet no longer use the AIM-9M. They use ASRAAM and have done so for nearly 12 months. They might in some "total" war situation but only once available stocks of ASRAAM were exhausted.

The F-111 still uses AIM-9M but an upgrade program exists to integrate the ASRAAM onto the F-111. The F-111 at any rate is not a fighter and is hardly likely to out fight an AA-11 equipped fighter should everything else be even.
The F-111's best chance would be to surprise said enemy fighter, this is indeed how it has managed to acquire A2A "kills" of F-16's at Red Flag...

Th Hawk Mk 127 also only uses AIM-9M, but I can't see this remaining the case for very long once the F-111 is retired. At any rate again, it is not a front line fighter only being used as a trainer/LIF in RAAF service.

Australia has no other fighter aircraft...

And semantics aside if a radar was hit by an LGB I'd say the radar would be pretty well supressed, though I can also think of another term, but this one starts with an f, and ends with a ked...

 

[Brit]

Aussie Digger. Cheers, agreed re F18s. But like you point out, they aren't the only "front line" aircraft. Going back some, the AA11 was widespread by 1990... Australia gets ASRAAM meaningfully operational c2003(?).

I don't want to labour the AA-11 point but it is a useful illstration of the general habbit of underestimating enemy technologies even when you remain dominant overall. The RAAFs experience with Malaysian Mig29s is made all the more interesting though because on paper, the Malaysians have their own F18s to playfight so they ought to have been better prepared. But how would an IAF or PLAN Mig/Sukhoi pilot fare with the AA-11 equiped aircraft against RAAF F18s with AIM-9s in WVR combat? -thank god it never arose. But with even Vietnam having a handful of Su27s (foriegn pilots?)....

 

[gf0012-aust]

So using ARMs,LGBs and other stand off missiles is DEAD right?

if it kills it outright - it's DEAD - in more ways than one...

About the Smoke,Is it due to engines problem

Indian Mig-29s had several engine problems,overhauling and i also heard something about smoke.
Is this problem solved in latest version of Mig-29.

They still smoke like puffing billy - overhauling the engines doesn't fix it, it's an inherent engine fault.

And about Soviets??

They never had sufficient organic AEW&C. Their systems were never comparable. Mass does not translate into capability.

Tactics and Strategy are the ultimate,isn't it?

No, there is a long held saying that more or less says "amateurs talk tactics and strategy, professionals talk about logistics". Ask anyone within the military at a planning level and they'll surprise you with their priorities.

I didn't get u,
Force Multipliers denied for S-400 or Force Multipliers denied for F-16.
if S-400 is denied the Force multipliers,then its advantage for F-16.

Force multipliers revolve around the multiple "P's" of warfighting - which I've flogged ad-nauseum in prev threads. (which also include the 2 x "F's" - "flexibility" and "fluidity")

 

[We7det_el_qetal]

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/stealth/stealth1.asp

that's a link concerned with countering stealth, i would like very much to hear ur comments on it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/stealth/stealth1.asp

that's a link concerned with countering stealth, i would like very much to hear ur comments on it.

For the general reader its a good simplified article. It obviously deals in generalisations.

A better and more detailed precis can be found through mil-industry journals such as C4ISR.

 

[Aussie Digger]

For the general reader its a good simplified article. It obviously deals in generalisations.

A better and more detailed precis can be found through mil-industry journals such as C4ISR.

I also detected a distinct hint of "light weight mafia" about that article. No B-2's have ever been shot down, despite being used in numerous operational scenarios. Only 1 F-117 has ever been shot down and that was NOT because of targeting capabilities, but rather because the gunners knew where and when to fire due to information received from other sources...

Also the writer is a retired US Navy officer. How many stealth aircraft does the US Navy operate? The one they tried to acquire (A-12) was cancelled... A bit of inter-service rivalry might also have had an influence on this article...

The problems with "stealth" haven't prevented elements of it being incorporated into the Super Hornet though...