Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How many fighters in total US and Russian inventory?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sandman
    replied
    OK, we have all read about the max range of the newest long range SAM the RUssians are making. The SA-10 and SA-20, are claimed to be able to hit somehting like 400 km out. The US had the Nike Herculese that could hit 90 miles, and the BOMARC
    http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos...ar/bomarcb.htm
    which could reach 440 miles with a nuclear warhead. The SA-5 could do much the same. So long range is not anything new if it were to be desirable to design into a missile. My question is this, and maybe Avon or some of those with SAM experience can shed some light; If the curvature of the earth is such that the "radar horizon" is 20 miles or so against a low flying aircraft, (with no geographical advantages to the attacker like hills or mountains, meaning a flat surface to the horizon for argument sake) then any long range figure is useful only against high flying targets at any sort of "long range". In the Falklands the Argentinians were able to fly under the radar horizon and attack well armed SAM missile ships of the British Navy,(no lightweight in technology), and attack them with GRAVITY BOMBS! So why would long range in a SAM be desirable, at considerable expense, when they can be circumnavigated by flying low, a relatively easy task, and approached and attacked from low level at relatively short stand off range from a non-stealthy aircraft?
    I guess what I am getting at is that the cost does not justify the returns,,,,, that is unless the latest Russian SAMS aren't just SAMS, but might in fact have ABM capability. The missiles themselves have quite a good performance base, not Sprint or Spartan performance, but still good, and all they would need is the nuclear warhead option, and a data link, microwave tower or satellite uplink, to a "battle management" system with an X-band capability. Interesting thought...

    PS, much of this question copied from my post on another forum, but they didn't give me much to work with.
    Last edited by Sandman; 17 Dec 05,, 22:01.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sandman
    replied
    Originally posted by lurker
    That stuff has being used for some time already. Those new ones are different, because they emit real (prerecorded?) station signature, and can be digged to the ground.

    If we just take into account the recent positive experience of the immitation false tragets by Serbs, and couple of new models of inflatable heated mockups appeared in recent years...

    The hunt for radars is going to be more complicated than before.


    The "ART" continues to evolve, but I doubt that what we know about is the cutting edge. The HARM has been around for 20 years now, and I am sure some other angle is the "cutting edge", but I am also sure that HARM will be around for a while. As soon as someone switches on a radar the HARM will turn out his lights unless the SAM operator is smart about it and shuts down. But then the strike aircraft that the HARM was covering gets through, and the whole purpose of the SAM is moot. Remember, the US bought about 30,000 HARMs, more than enough to take care of radars and their decoys in any major contingency. They were launched by the thousands in every recent war the US has been in.
    From what is commonly said about the latest weapons, the S-400 will be countered with the F-22 and the 60 mile range Small Diameter Bomb, "SDB". If detection is still a problem then it will be JASSM, Cruise missile and lofted JDAMs in mass quantity will be the solution, along with HARM, to overwhelm in quantity at less cost than the hi tech SAM.
    A SA-20 battery costs what? 50 million plus? Can it take on 50 or 20 or 10 million worth of aircraft delivered stand-off weapons? The most common rule of war is that the agressor has the advantage against any possible defense, assuming good intelligence. The WW2 Maginot line is classic. Economics rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • lurker
    replied
    Originally posted by Garry
    Hei, Lurker. Did you hear about new anti HARM emmitters? It is like a special low cost emmitters which are being placed around actual radar posts. At a time when the missile comes close to attack radar, it switches off and emitters start working making it go wrong way.

    I heard that these were tested recently giving 98% survivability for protected radar against Russian alternative of HARM.

    Any comments are welcommed
    That stuff has being used for some time already. Those new ones are different, because they emit real (prerecorded?) station signature, and can be digged to the ground.

    If we just take into account the recent positive experience of the immitation false tragets by Serbs, and couple of new models of inflatable heated mockups appeared in recent years...

    The hunt for radars is going to be more complicated than before.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Garry
    replied
    Originally posted by Jay
    And whose got the money to maintain it?? Dont worry Russia has enough nukes to prevent Chinese adventure. Sleep tight!
    Hi Jay,

    I have little understanding on how much it is cost to run/maintain an S-125 or S-200 battery. Nukes are good thing, but better to have some arms ready for conventional war...

    Hei, Lurker. Did you hear about new anti HARM emmitters? It is like a special low cost emmitters which are being placed around actual radar posts. At a time when the missile comes close to attack radar, it switches off and emitters start working making it go wrong way.

    I heard that these were tested recently giving 98% survivability for protected radar against Russian alternative of HARM.

    Any comments are welcommed

    Leave a comment:


  • Jay
    replied
    Originally posted by Garry
    Thank you Lurker! that was really interesting. Listen, why they don't send these S-125 and S-200 which are replaced by S-300 in European part to Far east? These would be at least some enhancement of the density of SAM coverage. Why not?
    And whose got the money to maintain it?? Dont worry Russia has enough nukes to prevent Chinese adventure. Sleep tight!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sandman
    replied
    Originally posted by Maxor
    Honestly you should probably reduce any listed number by about 1/3rd to get rid of planes in phasedock, canabalized to some extent or hanger queens. As for the reserve, so much depends on weather they were talking about the US reserve fighter wings or about those chlling in nellis. The resrve wings have instant capable fighters with fairly upto date electronics. The planes in nellis will need a light phase dock for the most part to get airborne and will need an electronics upgrade to be considered modernly capable.
    I did find this, and you can just add them up. I think it comes out about 2400 fighters and attack aircraft in the active, and reserve and national guard.
    http://www.af.mil/library/factsheets/

    Any better links on Russian figher and attack aircraft levels though, not in Russian?

    Leave a comment:


  • Maxor
    replied
    Honestly you should probably reduce any listed number by about 1/3rd to get rid of planes in phasedock, canabalized to some extent or hanger queens. As for the reserve, so much depends on weather they were talking about the US reserve fighter wings or about those chlling in nellis. The resrve wings have instant capable fighters with fairly upto date electronics. The planes in nellis will need a light phase dock for the most part to get airborne and will need an electronics upgrade to be considered modernly capable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Garry
    replied
    Originally posted by lurker
    How do I know? ;)
    :)

    I just thought there is some logic in scrapping those..... some logic which I don't understand but it is evident to former officer from SAM

    Leave a comment:


  • lurker
    replied
    Originally posted by Garry
    Thank you Lurker! that was really interesting. Listen, why they don't send these S-125 and S-200 which are replaced by S-300 in European part to Far east? These would be at least some enhancement of the density of SAM coverage. Why not?
    How do I know? ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Garry
    replied
    Originally posted by lurker
    Good and most current resource is http://www8.brinkster.com/vad777/russia/air/bbs.htm (in russian but... there is a lot of online translators)

    The guys who keeps it compiles data from all available resources, both russian and english.
    Thank you Lurker! that was really interesting. Listen, why they don't send these S-125 and S-200 which are replaced by S-300 in European part to Far east? These would be at least some enhancement of the density of SAM coverage. Why not?

    Leave a comment:


  • lurker
    replied
    Good and most current resource is http://www8.brinkster.com/vad777/russia/air/bbs.htm (in russian but... there is a lot of online translators)

    The guys who keeps it compiles data from all available resources, both russian and english.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sandman
    replied
    Thank you Garry, good post.
    Last edited by Sandman; 04 Dec 05,, 15:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • Garry
    replied
    Originally posted by Sandman
    This may seem a silly question, but exactly how many operational US and Russian fighters are there? Bombers? Any good sources to track this down? Include AF, Navy and Marines in US total and PVO and frontal AF in Russian.
    Hi Sandman, I had same question some time ago and went asking around. You may find this useful
    http://www.warfare.ru/?catalog=true

    this also gives some outdated informtion
    http://mylima.com/airforce/qr.htm#RUSSIA
    http://www.saunalahti.fi/~fta/ruaf-1.htm
    http://www.aviation.ru/data/Regiments.html

    The problem which gives a lot of discreapancy in sources is that many aircraft for both Russia and US are in reserves......, while figures usually give numbers of aircraft in service.

    In general Russian AF and number of its inventory is around 2-2.5 smaller than that of US, and it is around 3 times larger than that of the EU. However this figures in reserves of US and Russia are bad representation of actual force available. I recently learned that in US aircraft are also VERY badly stored on open air in a desert - they can not be counted operational until gone through thorough repair..... just I as have seen in Russian stores.

    Russian AF has a number of MiG-25,23,21 and some other generation 3 aircraft but they are being taken down from active service and being currently sent to reserve. After these aircraft leave there would be just 908 fighters left.
    So in general Russia has now around 908 fighters in service of which around 600 are combat ready without requireing any repair. Of these around 334 are Flankers, 120 MiG-31 and rest are MiG-29.

    Leave a comment:


  • leib10
    replied
    Englisch, bitte.

    Leave a comment:


  • JG73
    replied
    http://www.globaldefence.net/

    Nordamerika -> Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika (United States of America) ->

    Luftstreitkraft (US Air Force) / Seestreitkraft (US Navy) / Marine Corps (USMC)
    Last edited by JG73; 04 Dec 05,, 00:58.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X