the mig-31's engine lifetime is enough of a weapon against it on it's own.
it's funny that with all the cope russia had about supermaneuverability, that one of their better and more disruptive aircraft is one that exclusively relies on BVR.
keep in mind that it's not actually very effective at killing aircraft with those long range missiles, as they were built to attack bombers and can't follow a maneuverable fighter in a turn, just force it to wave off (they did get a few when they first introduced this tactic, to their credit.)
>that one of their better and more disruptive aircraft is one that exclusively relies on BVR.
I mean it has an active radar and good range. It's not that it's a "good missile" or a "better aircraft", it's that the Ukrainians have nothing to counter it. An F-22 would wipe the fricking floor with it.
i agree, it just puts it into perspective that the most interesting and arguably most effective weapon they've had in the air is one that is completely contrary to all of their outward facing bravado/propaganda/narrative.
if they didn't have any nukes the west would've invaded them and they'd be hiding from the skies underground like rats by now.
>he thinks what he's heard vatniks sa
I'm not even going to bother completing that greentext. have a nice day, moron. You're as dumb as they are, in fact probably dumber for even believing it.
>if they didn't have any nukes the west would've invaded
The west doesn't give a frick about a barren steppe inhabited by slaves. The west just wants the shit to stay within those borders, they can eat dog poop while they rape each other (nohomo) for lulz and nobody will care.
i never implied they'd stay and occupy, we don't have near enough people to occupy such a large steppe dreg.
but annihalate their ability to do a moron moment for a while? absolutely.
>if they didn't have any nukes the west would've invaded them and they'd be hiding from the skies underground like rats by now.
lmfao, you cant make Yemen do what you say, and you think you will somehow land invade Russia?
>thirdie gets wienery and then bolts the moment the conversation about who's winning gets going
it's fricking hilarious to see it unfold in real time every time, you guys are like women, you're so shifty and scared of direct confrontation.
Every war the americans have fought in the last 50 years has ended with thier opponents hiding from the sky in caves and tunnels like rats, including the fight against the houthis
I see no reason to assume a war with Russia would go any differently
cope?
i never said it was the best aircraft, i said it was the one with the most tangible effect.
ukrainian jets have far less trouble staying out of the sights of these conventional aircraft, but the totallynotfoxbats can make them scram from a much greater distance.
you said it was the most effective, which it very clearly is not, the su-27 has proven itself to be far more effective this conflict and it's not even close
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Neither side has used their air force to any serious degree, idk how the SU-27 has proven anything
there's also more advanced datalink stuff they'd have to deal with.
like, 2 f16's show up, you fire a missile at one, that one launches a missile back but waves off, and the 2nd f16 you weren't targeting continues to keep his nose pointed and guides the other f16's aamraam onto you.
They're gonna pull some bullshit with datalinks. The Russians don't fully grasp the power of networked warfare because they never deployed it widely. F-16s will ambush a flight of MiG-31s and Russia will lose one or two. They will operate farther back for the rest of the conflict and become less of a threat thereafter.
>The F-16's
are MLU's, which are late 80's planes, they won't be doing shit against Flankers, Foxhounds and Felons. >why?
inferior radar, the AN/APG-66V2 in use on the MLU is inferior to the Irbis-E found on the majority of russian planes, I'm fully expecting them to end up being used exclusively for bombing russian ground targets
to have a counter against russian air power ukraine needs to get at least Block 50/52's, which they aren't, they are getting the shitty old ones that lack a modern radar and important features like datalink, JHMCS and compatibility with newer american missiles like the AIM-9X or later versions of the AIM-120C (the extended range versions which actually matter)
ideally they'd get F-16's upgraded to Block 72 standard, but the DoD doesn't want a modern AESA radar potentially falling into the hands of the russians and by extension the chinese
>There were some talks that there is a chance that some planes that Ukraine will receive will be upgraded
last i heard those plans were scrapped since upgrading the planes would take too long combined with pilot training
even then the upgrade that was talked about is the Block 52, which is only equal if not slightly inferior to the planes being used by the VVS right now, the only Viper variant which actually outperforms the planes of the VVS in Ukraine are the Block 72 and its various subvariants, which as I've said before the DoD is not very keen on sending to Ukraine due to the sensitive hardware on it. I can see Vipers being used for point defense against missile attacks on cities like Kyiv and Kharkiv as well as ground strikes against the russian ground forces, but really not much else. Trying to tie up russian planes in BVR missile jousts is a losing game due to the ever present danger of Vadim pressing the fire button on his R-37M from deep inside russian territory, where none of the missiles the F-16MLU carries can reach. Ultimately engaging russian aircraft is better left to the various SAM systems Ukraine has as it carries much less of a risk than an air engagement
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
R-37's aren't really that much of a threat to combat jets. It's such a huge-ass missile that it gets spotted immediately and the plane has enough time to dive and evade.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
it still results in a mission kill as the targeted plane has to eject its payload to dodge
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>R-37's aren't really that much of a threat to combat jets. It's such a huge-ass missile that it gets spotted immediately and the plane has enough time to dive and evade.
Such bullshit. Its fired from so far away that there is no visible signs of launching. And the F-16s the ukies will get will have to fire their amraams from barely above ground level, while the russians would launch their R-37s from high altitude, giving them a huge advantage. If the ukie f-16 try to climb, the russian SAM network will launch on them.
BTW the AIM-54 was pretty useful against fighter jets in the Iran-Iraq war and its a missile in the same class as R-37.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>le R37, R37, R37
Jesus christ stop spewing shit about this overhyped missile just because it's good in DCS. If the capabilities were true there would be no ukie air force anymore. F16 is suddenly more vulnerable to missiles than mig 29s and Su 24s? Russia lied about having hypersonic cruise missiles, russia lied about capabilities of s400 and I'm almost certain that they are lying about their modified soviet uber long range BVR missile. Also F16s in Ukraine will be used mostly for SEAD and as AGM launch platform so they don't have to Black person rig harms and scalps to soviet planes, not as their no superfighter to lob AMARAAMs at MiG 31s and dogfight su 35s.
it still results in a mission kill as the targeted plane has to eject its payload to dodge
>targeted plane has to eject its payload to dodge
lmao
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>another anon who doesn't realize the Ukrainians have S-300s, Buks and Patriots
I tire of this shit so much. If you're going to cry about S-300s and shit why not grab BMS and actually try to fight against a simulated one?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Inverse square law, moron. If a radar can see a target, the target's RWR is blinking like a christmas tree. On top of that, Phoenixes were effective because the targets had no RWR and made no defensive maneouvers.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
not necessarily the case btw. if the radar (very high gain) can use low power/high processing time, it can make it difficult if not impossible for the RWR (older ones are omnidirectional or relatively low gain) to pick it out and give a warning. its hard to find open material talking about how any aesa radars do this but there's enough independent sources saying it's both possible (we know that) and done in service for it to be taken as fact. this apparently only works at longer ranges though.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Radar received power decays with range to the fourth, RWR received power decays with range squared.
Unless there's a comical tech gap that allows the radar to operate below the noise floor of the RWR, the RWR always wins.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
yeah that's precisely what i'm saying anon. with older or shittier rwrs apparently it's possible to make a modern radar function in such a way that it can hold a track at a range where the rwr can't detect it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The RWR needs to be programmed to detect the threat. Modern AESA radars can obfuscate their signature in various ways. To a soviet RWR the radar of an F-22 might look like occasional one-off pings by different emitters. Far too little to establish direction and estimate range.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>What is LPI
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Inverse square law, moron.
Are you the moron that doesn't know what the inverse square law is and always posts this in LASER, DEW and RADAR threads? The inverse square law has nothing to do with RADAR being detectable at twice the distance it can detect you, because RADAR isn't emitted or reflected omnidirectionally. If a
someone designed a RADAR that followed the inverse square law it would be the world's shittiest, lowest range RADAR.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
[...]
More to the point, if it was the inverse square law then RADAR would be detectable at the square of the distance it could detect you, not double the distance.
I don't know if you're trolling or whatever, but ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
Radar emissions only have to travel half the distance to the plane, moron. Double that for the return signal.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Radar (Radio Detection and Ranging) is one of the entities that behaves according to the inverse square law. It has its roots in the work of Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) and other late nineteenth-century researchers who found that radio waves could reflect from solid objects. The implications became more fully realized in the first years of World War II when British electronic engineers developed means to detect hostile aircraft coming their way across the Channel.
>Inverse square law, moron.
Are you the moron that doesn't know what the inverse square law is and always posts this in LASER, DEW and RADAR threads? The inverse square law has nothing to do with RADAR being detectable at twice the distance it can detect you, because RADAR isn't emitted or reflected omnidirectionally. If a
someone designed a RADAR that followed the inverse square law it would be the world's shittiest, lowest range RADAR.
More to the point, if it was the inverse square law then RADAR would be detectable at the square of the distance it could detect you, not double the distance.
I don't know if you're trolling or whatever, but ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Its fired from so far away that there is no visible signs of launching
You have neglected to account for NATO ISR
>t. has no fricking clue about aviation tech
I bet you can't even tell me the major difference between a passive electronically scanned array and an active electronically scanned array without using google to give a most likely wrong reply
keep out of shit if you have no clue what the frick you are talking about
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
NTA, but, an AESA is something not one (1) Russian plane has. Also, that anon is right. Literally all of Russia's planes are stuck using pre-85 electronics.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> what is N036 Belka
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
A pipe dream. Which is why China bought their AESA tech from Israel.
>dude MLU's will totally BTFO Su-35S's
you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, just the AN/APG-66V2 already puts the MLU at a disadvantage compared to the Su-35S's Irbis-E ,and that's only the radars.
Come back when you've actually done enough research into aircraft tech to know what the frick the different F-16 Blocks and Variants are for, when they were made and what their capabilities are compared to russian aircraft operating in ukraine
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you should come back when you've learned that the Russians always massively oversell their weapon specs and capabilities
F-16s will EASILY take on any Vatnik plane and win. Superior avionics, EWAR, RWR, engines, and long range missiles without needing to juryrig the missiles.
Western jets might as well be alien tech to Russia, and the doomposters and concern trolls like yourself will be getting clowned on in every screencap once F-16s start SEADing over Ukraine
>The F-16s,
Are every bit as shit at countering a MiG-31 with LRAAMs as Su-27s and MiG-29s.
The AMRAAM is literally just a sparrow with active guidance. It's a light midrange missile. It's better because you don't have to guide it all the way in but you still need to get deep into the MiG-31s no escape zone to even shoot one at max range.
>keep in mind that it's not actually very effective at killing aircraft with those long range missiles, as they were built to attack bombers and can't follow a maneuverable fighter in a turn, just force it to wave off (they did get a few when they first introduced this tactic, to their credit.)
The west is as serious as it wants to be about sending aid. Feel free to make a reasoned argument as to why they should increase their level of seriousness. Or just screech "vatnik", I don't really care anymore.
the mig-31's engine lifetime is enough of a weapon against it on it's own.
it's funny that with all the cope russia had about supermaneuverability, that one of their better and more disruptive aircraft is one that exclusively relies on BVR.
keep in mind that it's not actually very effective at killing aircraft with those long range missiles, as they were built to attack bombers and can't follow a maneuverable fighter in a turn, just force it to wave off (they did get a few when they first introduced this tactic, to their credit.)
>that one of their better and more disruptive aircraft is one that exclusively relies on BVR.
I mean it has an active radar and good range. It's not that it's a "good missile" or a "better aircraft", it's that the Ukrainians have nothing to counter it. An F-22 would wipe the fricking floor with it.
i agree, it just puts it into perspective that the most interesting and arguably most effective weapon they've had in the air is one that is completely contrary to all of their outward facing bravado/propaganda/narrative.
if they didn't have any nukes the west would've invaded them and they'd be hiding from the skies underground like rats by now.
>he thinks what he's heard vatniks sa
I'm not even going to bother completing that greentext. have a nice day, moron. You're as dumb as they are, in fact probably dumber for even believing it.
no? so the airshow shit that they jerk off over all the time isn't real?
You are a worthless subhuman.
stay mad.
>if they didn't have any nukes the west would've invaded
The west doesn't give a frick about a barren steppe inhabited by slaves. The west just wants the shit to stay within those borders, they can eat dog poop while they rape each other (nohomo) for lulz and nobody will care.
i never implied they'd stay and occupy, we don't have near enough people to occupy such a large steppe dreg.
but annihalate their ability to do a moron moment for a while? absolutely.
>if they didn't have any nukes the west would've invaded them and they'd be hiding from the skies underground like rats by now.
lmfao, you cant make Yemen do what you say, and you think you will somehow land invade Russia?
>thirdie gets wienery and then bolts the moment the conversation about who's winning gets going
it's fricking hilarious to see it unfold in real time every time, you guys are like women, you're so shifty and scared of direct confrontation.
Yemen was invaded by egypt and saudi arabia before. It's not an impenetrable fortress, it's just that no one gives enough fricks atm
Every war the americans have fought in the last 50 years has ended with thier opponents hiding from the sky in caves and tunnels like rats, including the fight against the houthis
I see no reason to assume a war with Russia would go any differently
it clearly is not their most effective air plane in any way you consider effective, the su-27 is still the best airframe in russia
what absolute cope
>One of their most 'modern' planes is worse than the cope F-15
grim
cope?
i never said it was the best aircraft, i said it was the one with the most tangible effect.
ukrainian jets have far less trouble staying out of the sights of these conventional aircraft, but the totallynotfoxbats can make them scram from a much greater distance.
you said it was the most effective, which it very clearly is not, the su-27 has proven itself to be far more effective this conflict and it's not even close
Neither side has used their air force to any serious degree, idk how the SU-27 has proven anything
Nah frick that noone wants to invade that shithole
Going against a MiG-31 armed with R-77s or R-37 in an older gen Su-27 or MiG-29 armed with R-27s is not nice.
The F-16s, if they ever get there, will actually make Russian pilots have to think twice since they would be facing active missiles.
there's also more advanced datalink stuff they'd have to deal with.
like, 2 f16's show up, you fire a missile at one, that one launches a missile back but waves off, and the 2nd f16 you weren't targeting continues to keep his nose pointed and guides the other f16's aamraam onto you.
They're gonna pull some bullshit with datalinks. The Russians don't fully grasp the power of networked warfare because they never deployed it widely. F-16s will ambush a flight of MiG-31s and Russia will lose one or two. They will operate farther back for the rest of the conflict and become less of a threat thereafter.
>The F-16's
are MLU's, which are late 80's planes, they won't be doing shit against Flankers, Foxhounds and Felons.
>why?
inferior radar, the AN/APG-66V2 in use on the MLU is inferior to the Irbis-E found on the majority of russian planes, I'm fully expecting them to end up being used exclusively for bombing russian ground targets
to have a counter against russian air power ukraine needs to get at least Block 50/52's, which they aren't, they are getting the shitty old ones that lack a modern radar and important features like datalink, JHMCS and compatibility with newer american missiles like the AIM-9X or later versions of the AIM-120C (the extended range versions which actually matter)
ideally they'd get F-16's upgraded to Block 72 standard, but the DoD doesn't want a modern AESA radar potentially falling into the hands of the russians and by extension the chinese
There were some talks that there is a chance that some planes that Ukraine will receive will be upgraded, I hope it was all about radar.
Would be neat if true, but I can see them pussying out because someone doesn't want them to be used on targets in Russia or whatever
>There were some talks that there is a chance that some planes that Ukraine will receive will be upgraded
last i heard those plans were scrapped since upgrading the planes would take too long combined with pilot training
even then the upgrade that was talked about is the Block 52, which is only equal if not slightly inferior to the planes being used by the VVS right now, the only Viper variant which actually outperforms the planes of the VVS in Ukraine are the Block 72 and its various subvariants, which as I've said before the DoD is not very keen on sending to Ukraine due to the sensitive hardware on it. I can see Vipers being used for point defense against missile attacks on cities like Kyiv and Kharkiv as well as ground strikes against the russian ground forces, but really not much else. Trying to tie up russian planes in BVR missile jousts is a losing game due to the ever present danger of Vadim pressing the fire button on his R-37M from deep inside russian territory, where none of the missiles the F-16MLU carries can reach. Ultimately engaging russian aircraft is better left to the various SAM systems Ukraine has as it carries much less of a risk than an air engagement
R-37's aren't really that much of a threat to combat jets. It's such a huge-ass missile that it gets spotted immediately and the plane has enough time to dive and evade.
it still results in a mission kill as the targeted plane has to eject its payload to dodge
>R-37's aren't really that much of a threat to combat jets. It's such a huge-ass missile that it gets spotted immediately and the plane has enough time to dive and evade.
Such bullshit. Its fired from so far away that there is no visible signs of launching. And the F-16s the ukies will get will have to fire their amraams from barely above ground level, while the russians would launch their R-37s from high altitude, giving them a huge advantage. If the ukie f-16 try to climb, the russian SAM network will launch on them.
BTW the AIM-54 was pretty useful against fighter jets in the Iran-Iraq war and its a missile in the same class as R-37.
>le R37, R37, R37
Jesus christ stop spewing shit about this overhyped missile just because it's good in DCS. If the capabilities were true there would be no ukie air force anymore. F16 is suddenly more vulnerable to missiles than mig 29s and Su 24s? Russia lied about having hypersonic cruise missiles, russia lied about capabilities of s400 and I'm almost certain that they are lying about their modified soviet uber long range BVR missile. Also F16s in Ukraine will be used mostly for SEAD and as AGM launch platform so they don't have to Black person rig harms and scalps to soviet planes, not as their no superfighter to lob AMARAAMs at MiG 31s and dogfight su 35s.
>targeted plane has to eject its payload to dodge
lmao
>another anon who doesn't realize the Ukrainians have S-300s, Buks and Patriots
I tire of this shit so much. If you're going to cry about S-300s and shit why not grab BMS and actually try to fight against a simulated one?
Inverse square law, moron. If a radar can see a target, the target's RWR is blinking like a christmas tree. On top of that, Phoenixes were effective because the targets had no RWR and made no defensive maneouvers.
not necessarily the case btw. if the radar (very high gain) can use low power/high processing time, it can make it difficult if not impossible for the RWR (older ones are omnidirectional or relatively low gain) to pick it out and give a warning. its hard to find open material talking about how any aesa radars do this but there's enough independent sources saying it's both possible (we know that) and done in service for it to be taken as fact. this apparently only works at longer ranges though.
Radar received power decays with range to the fourth, RWR received power decays with range squared.
Unless there's a comical tech gap that allows the radar to operate below the noise floor of the RWR, the RWR always wins.
yeah that's precisely what i'm saying anon. with older or shittier rwrs apparently it's possible to make a modern radar function in such a way that it can hold a track at a range where the rwr can't detect it.
The RWR needs to be programmed to detect the threat. Modern AESA radars can obfuscate their signature in various ways. To a soviet RWR the radar of an F-22 might look like occasional one-off pings by different emitters. Far too little to establish direction and estimate range.
>What is LPI
>Inverse square law, moron.
Are you the moron that doesn't know what the inverse square law is and always posts this in LASER, DEW and RADAR threads? The inverse square law has nothing to do with RADAR being detectable at twice the distance it can detect you, because RADAR isn't emitted or reflected omnidirectionally. If a
someone designed a RADAR that followed the inverse square law it would be the world's shittiest, lowest range RADAR.
Radar emissions only have to travel half the distance to the plane, moron. Double that for the return signal.
>Radar (Radio Detection and Ranging) is one of the entities that behaves according to the inverse square law. It has its roots in the work of Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) and other late nineteenth-century researchers who found that radio waves could reflect from solid objects. The implications became more fully realized in the first years of World War II when British electronic engineers developed means to detect hostile aircraft coming their way across the Channel.
https://www.testandmeasurementtips.com/the-inverse-square-law-and-radar/
More to the point, if it was the inverse square law then RADAR would be detectable at the square of the distance it could detect you, not double the distance.
I don't know if you're trolling or whatever, but ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
>Its fired from so far away that there is no visible signs of launching
You have neglected to account for NATO ISR
>which are late 80's planes
so like all the flankers and foxhounds and vatniktechs vatnikstan is currently flying
>t. has no fricking clue about aviation tech
I bet you can't even tell me the major difference between a passive electronically scanned array and an active electronically scanned array without using google to give a most likely wrong reply
keep out of shit if you have no clue what the frick you are talking about
NTA, but, an AESA is something not one (1) Russian plane has. Also, that anon is right. Literally all of Russia's planes are stuck using pre-85 electronics.
> what is N036 Belka
A pipe dream. Which is why China bought their AESA tech from Israel.
Why does Israel, Americans greatest ally, sell weapons technology China, America's greatest adversary?
Merchants gonna merch
The heebs have a long history of selling arms to anyone willing to pay, as long as they customers aren't muzzies.
To send them down the wrong tech tree.
>dude MLU's will totally BTFO Su-35S's
you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, just the AN/APG-66V2 already puts the MLU at a disadvantage compared to the Su-35S's Irbis-E ,and that's only the radars.
Come back when you've actually done enough research into aircraft tech to know what the frick the different F-16 Blocks and Variants are for, when they were made and what their capabilities are compared to russian aircraft operating in ukraine
you should come back when you've learned that the Russians always massively oversell their weapon specs and capabilities
F-16s will EASILY take on any Vatnik plane and win. Superior avionics, EWAR, RWR, engines, and long range missiles without needing to juryrig the missiles.
Western jets might as well be alien tech to Russia, and the doomposters and concern trolls like yourself will be getting clowned on in every screencap once F-16s start SEADing over Ukraine
>The F-16s,
Are every bit as shit at countering a MiG-31 with LRAAMs as Su-27s and MiG-29s.
The AMRAAM is literally just a sparrow with active guidance. It's a light midrange missile. It's better because you don't have to guide it all the way in but you still need to get deep into the MiG-31s no escape zone to even shoot one at max range.
>The AMRAAM is literally just a sparrow with active guidance.
kys
>keep in mind that it's not actually very effective at killing aircraft with those long range missiles, as they were built to attack bombers and can't follow a maneuverable fighter in a turn, just force it to wave off (they did get a few when they first introduced this tactic, to their credit.)
Thats not what the ukrainans say.
That's exactly what they say. Now, quote the same two articles you always do, and then get BTFO and run. Like always.
BVRs maybe?
vodka
No need, just spread out operations. Kinzhals are $10 million each, and Russia is going to bankrupt themselves using them.
>MiG-31K
???
>What weapon can the west provide to down those pesky MiG-31K?
Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen with Meteor
its a matter of amount
Why can’t the West get serious about sending aid? I’m tired of all these half-assed trickles
The west is as serious as it wants to be about sending aid. Feel free to make a reasoned argument as to why they should increase their level of seriousness. Or just screech "vatnik", I don't really care anymore.
France could easily send 1 squadron of Rafales that could be used with Meteor just to frick up russian air forces.
Fricking nothing, those planes can take down UFOs.
The aid bill just passed
s-300 on the russian side
Revive the phoenix missile
a very long stick
U N D E F E A T E D
It's like they don't update their bots.
>What weapon can the west provide to down those pesky MiG-31K?
Russian anti-air systems in russia.
Provide Russia with more AA.