Jump to content

Russian aircraft at Latakia


magman2

Recommended Posts

Isn`t Google interpreter great!!

Truly a modern wonder of our age!

Tony

I hope that the Diplomats don`t use it or we are screwed! :shutup:

Edited by tonyot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to move the specific discussion of the Turkey incident to a new thread? The other thread has been shut down for inevitable politicising, and it would be a shame to lose this one (which is more of a spotters/reference thread) due to speculation on a particular incident.

Edited by Alan P
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S.

In the Russian segment of the Internet discuss that

"absolutely incidentally" in a place of falling of Su-24 press photographers with such photoequipment walked:

JSQYr1UHw04.jpg

simply went by, I trust.

Conspiracy, pure conspiracy. Everybody is conspiring against poor Russians.

THK with Turkish journos, NATO with EU, CIA with Turkey and al-Qaida, Malaysian Airlines with Ukrainian Air Force, Syrian civilians with Daesh...even the RWR and LO-82-MAK IR-receiver on the ill-fated VKS' Su-24M serial number 19 conspired with the AIM-120C-7 that blotted it out of skies - and remained silent, instead of warning the crew.

(...and yes: I've got the serial number of that Su-24 through conspiracy too.)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

M2 is Sukhoi's own upgrade. SVP-24 is run by GEFEST and reportedly several times cheaper, while resulting in same improvement.

In essence, both upgrades are addressing such weaknesses of the Su-24M like low accuracy of the navigational platform, long time needed for mission planning and data-input, and limitations related to compatibility with 'dumb' bombs only, and weapons deployment from straight-line flight only.

With other words: lacking money for PGMs, Russians are attempting to make do by improving accuracy and flexibility of their fighter-bombers in delivery of 'dumb' bombs.

A total of 24 Su-24Ms were upgraded to M2, and up to 50 to SVP-24 standard so far.

Flankerman is likely to know more, but AFAIK, the only visible outside difference to 'vanilla' Su-24Ms is addition of a GLONASS (Russian GPS) antenna on the left side of the spin, behind the cockpit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one, quite a good photo of that bird, taken early this year, and showing her in her full markings (including the RF-serial).

...there is even a photo of the F-16C said to have scored that kill...

'Problem': both were posted on ACIG.info forum, so I can't really 'link' them here (i.e. only registered users can see them)...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in some of the comments about the SU24. I have to admit I do not know a great deal about their capabilities. Are they really lacking in PGM ability that the equivilent western aircraft have?

I noticed in some of the pictures that the wings were unswept, thus the aircraft was flying at low speed? Is that a normal configuration for Russian aircraft when attacking in the combat zone? What kind of speed would that say it was flying at?

Thanks in advance for any kind replies.

Nigel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence: yes. The original nav/attack system is a powerful one, no doubt - for 1980s. Nowadays, it's not only hopelessly obsolete, but outright problematic. For example, it takes very long to program the next mission into it (enter waypoints etc.), it takes very long to spool-up prior to mission (some 45-50 minutes), it prohibits any kind of evasive manoeuvring immediately prior to weapon release etc. - and this in addition to an already aged airframe that was always a handful to maintain (approx one third of VKS' Su-24s deployed in Syria is grounded and waiting for maintenance at any point in time since mid-October; you can 'read' this by quite varrying number of 'kill markings' applied for combat sorties on different airframes too: some have 50+, others 20 or even less).

Re. speed: it seems the two Sukhois were underway at between 300 and 350 knots, and an altitude of 6,000m (18,000+ ft).

If you wonder why... well, it's nearly impossible to explain the entire situation without going into something that many here (including admins) might consider 'politics'.

Edited by Tom Cooper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed in some of the pictures that the wings were unswept, thus the aircraft was flying at low speed? Is that a normal configuration for Russian aircraft when attacking in the combat zone? What kind of speed would that say it was flying at?

Well, depends heavily on the target... if you drop some dumb bombs on a small target, a slow speed may help to increase precision, even more as the air defence is almost non-existent. For a attack with guided missiles in a heavily defended area, I assume the speed would me much higher, and the wings therefore swept back. I guess speed is not crucial in Syria.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate, trust me one thing: with strong winds pre-evalent in most of central and northern Syria (it's really 'blowing' there, most of the times), and from an altitude of 6,000m... sigh... one couldn't hit the Wembley Stadium with dumb bombs, no matter how slow-flying.

EDIT: there is a damn good reason for Western air forces 'changing' to PGMs, 20+ years ago.

Yup, a single PGM costs 'millions'.

But hundreds of 'dumb' bombs that are missing their targets cost at least as much - especially if one adds the price of all the fuel, spares, and crews necessary to drop them.

Edited by Tom Cooper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom and Alex,

Thank you gentlemen for your feedback. It is very interesting.

I have always thought of the SU24 as a Russian Tornado GR4. It appears to fall a long way short.

If it was flying at 300-350 Knots the aircraft must have been a easy target for the Sidewinder.

My Russian aircraft brain has not moved on from the Mig 21, Su7, and Mig 23 we expected to face.

This may therefore be a silly question, do they not have any better aircraft for these missions?

Thank you in anticipation for any kind replies.

Nigel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tom: thanks, didn't know about the local weather. I assume with some more sophisiticated weapon computer you should be able to calculate the wind drift and hit rather precisely with dumb bombs. If Su-24 are capable of that is another question.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always thought of the Su-24 as at least a Russian F-111F. It turned out it couldn't match the F-111A....

Re. missile used: I know everybody says 'AIM-9', but no way. This was a BVR shot, apparently by two AIM-120C-7s, one of which missed.

Namely, the F-16 was quite far away, and the Russians flying perpendicular to it (range 15-20km, Sukhois up-sun and F-16s at their 2 o'clock). Those informed about weaknesses of pulse-Doppler radars in relation to targets 'in beam' to them, should know what a complex shoot this was (and why all the theories about 'conspiracies' and 'ambush' are little else but wet dreaming by... sigh... trolls).

Plus, the Russian formation leader turned away - apparently right after the F-16 fired. That's why 'only' one was shot down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys certainly know your stuff, I thought I was the only one getting the paper plate!

If your 15- 20 miles firing range for the AIM 120 C7's is correct ( I will not ask how you know) the flight time of the missiles must have been what, 40 seconds or so?

The AIM 120 C7 is one of the wests best missiles and it got 50% hit rate. I know you said difficut shot at 2 o'Clock. That also must mean the F16's were well inside Turkey.

Thats a better picture than on any news report I have seen.

Thanks gents.

Nigel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...