Well tue US wanted to replace the A-10 with F-35... Just there's nothing to replace these CAS airplane anyway.
Ask anything Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
That's assuming they would replace them 1-for-1. The Yak-130 probably has a bit of design growth available to close that gap too. But from a quick google search, around 2017 the talk turned away from the proposed Yak-130 ground attack variant to a clean-sheet Su-25 replacement.
South East Asia Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
Russia to sell six Su-30 fighter jets to Indonesia MOSCOW, December 7 (RIA Novosti) Russia started the first day at an arms show in Malaysia with a preliminary agreement on the delivery of six Su-30MK2 fighters to Indonesia, the Kommersant business daily said on Wednesday. Kommersant...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Why did Russia provide technical support to South Korea in developing the local KM-SAM?
Hi,
why Russians are not upgrading their Su series planes with AESA radars,
though if IAF can upgrade their SU30 with AESA if news is authentic, then
is it not possible for Russians to do the same job
thank you
why Russians are not upgrading their Su series planes with AESA radars,
though if IAF can upgrade their SU30 with AESA if news is authentic, then
is it not possible for Russians to do the same job
thank you
Money. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia paid its debts to South Korea with military hardware like the T-80 and BMP-3. This was the spark in relations bringing their MICs together.
South Korea was also interested in getting into making military hardware they owned all the rights to manufacture as a future possible export. Most of the projects jointly done with the US used imported components which they could not re-export. The US government also did not allow support to South Korea in certain projects like the long range missile program.
MIC relations were quite extensive. You had Russian company NTC Module fab their NeuroMatrix AI accelerator chips at Samsung in the late 1990s. The KM-SAM project allowed Almaz-Antey to develop the basic S-350 hardware without Russian government funding. South Korea also seemingly got access to the Iskander and cruise missile technology assistance. The Naro-1 space launch rocket used an Angara first stage. So Russia was also instrumental in getting South Korea's space program going.
Of course the Russians could in theory do this. The Su-57 uses an AESA radar. So the Russians have the technology already.
The reason they have not done that is likely because of cost.
The reason why the Su-35 uses Irbis-E PESA instead of an AESA radar is that at the time that aircraft was produced Russia only had first generation AESA radar technology. If you look at other first generation AESA radars like the ones the Japanese used in the F-2 fighter (J/APG-1) it did not have better performance characteristics, it had low lifetime of components, and was very expensive. So back then the Russians did not go for AESA and waited until they had second generation AESA radar technology to put it into a production fighter. Which was used in the Su-57.
Last edited:
Why don't most militaries invest in ballistic missile programs? Countries like Egypt, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. Turkey, I know recently started a SRBM program, but why now? Why not 20, 30, 40 years ago?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Need. Do they need it? Despite how it seems there are only a small number of countries in the world with armies that are expeditionary capable. So the majority of countries that have armies are primarily intended for territorial defense.
Many of the weaker states are constantly fighting low level insurgency and insurrections. This could be groups like IS, or tribal groups, it could be revolutionary fronts or even really well established narcotics gangs. Against such an enemy a ballistic missile is kinda useless. In fact such a weapon might even be more of a problem as insurgents have a nasty habit of getting access to places and equipment you don’t want them to have.
Besides considering the downside of such systems. It’s not like they can just side there forever waiting for the day they might be used. Rocket fuel has an expiration date, the equipment used to launch the rocket has to be maintained, you have to have transport equipment in good order, the Warhead has to be tested and certified. If you are doing all of that it’s expensive and you are launching them to test and train so you eventually have to replace them. For a lot of the world the question is what gets me more bang for the buck?
A ballistic missile can do somethings but for the money, if my threat is in my own country why not just buy more MLRS systems or spend the money on MRAPS? Or a few Super Tucanos to deal with the problems I have.
For the Armies that do have Ballistic Missile programs most are dealing with a national security issue beyond their countries borders. In the case of Turkye. The direct message by Erdogan was Greece. He directly pointed at Athens and the long term dispute between Turkye and Greece. Erdogan wants to make Turkye a regional player with his own brand of Turkish Islamic nationalism at the core with the threat of ballistic missiles at the heart of that.
First off, some assumptions. SRBMs are longer ranged than MLRS. We're looking at a lower end of 300km (eg. ATACMs) to maybe 500km+ (eg. Iskander)
That range is also Cruise Missile territory. The classic tradeoff of Cruise Missile vs SRBM is essentially that of ease of detectability vs difficulty of intercept. Cruise missiles are easier to make terrain hugging and therefore hard to detect but "low and slow" makes it easy to intercept. BMs fly a ballistic trajectory making them easy to detect but their speed makes them hard to intercept. As early as your time line goes ("20, 30, 40 years"), this is the perennial trade off. You could make a really fast cruise missile (eg. Oniks) but then they are harder to make and much more expensive and therefore out of reach of these 2nd tier militaries you mentioned.
All this time, LACM and SRBMs are primarily for fixed targets. The further back in time you go, the more fixed the target had to be. Accurate land survey and accurate INS to ensure your missiles hit where you want them to. Uploading targetting data into the missiles ... all these took time. Somewhere between then and now, access to GPS-like systems made that easier and cheaper and therefore more within the reach of small-medium MICs (allied to friendly GPS providers).
Another big factor is also that of advances in electronics and miniaturisation has also brought down the cost of the components significantly. The one big change that modern tech has brought though, I believe, is the advent of tech that closes the sensor-shooter loop - which changes the game (and use of SRBMs).
The problem with having a range of 300-500km is that you are likely to be shooting at things about 200-300km infront of your FEBA. ie. 200-300km behind enemy lines. Except for fixed installations, most military organisations will struggle to expand the target list beyond that.
You cannot shoot what you cannot see/find.
The traditional method involved SOF teams ala Bravo Two Zero or low level recce flights - both really really hazardous duty in any high intensity conflict.
However, more nations now have their own ISR satellites. Heck, even Singapore has their own.
More than that, as witnessed by the Ukraine conflict, the ubiquitousness of ISR drones - from HALE to tactical drones means that even more Militaries are now capable of finding target of opportunities deep in the OPFOR rear. The big game changer I believe are the tactical drones like the Orlan-10/30. Big HALE/MALE can be very successful in a benign environment but high-end tactical drones have shown that that they can operate in high density AD environments that ground HALE/MALE assets.
Today, a 15kg drone has the ability to stay on station for 10+ hrs, relay in teams to extend reach to 200-300km away from the drone operator, while carrying onboard an IR/EO ball and a TD to boot.
What this means is that you can find targets, relay the info quickly and easily and if neccesary, lase the target for pin point accuracy even if it moves.
Given a flight over 200km - a LACM at high subsonics = about 15mins time on target, a SRBM = about 1.5mins ... No biggie really IF the target is fixed. But 13.5 minutes (or more) is plenty for a target to displace or disperse (a wheel based system can easily displace 15km in that time) - hence probably the increasing value of SRBMs?
(footnote: A suicide drone, at speeds typical to a drone, would take 80-120 mins to cover that 200km ... an eternity in a fluid battlespace)
So yeah, I'd say we'll see more 2nd tier militaries having a broader mix of options to prosecute targets. From suicide drones (of all sizes) to MLRS to LACM and SRBMs. All together providing a Hi-Lo mix of options for fixed and fleeting targets.