, ,

40 years behind the Russians

The United States amuses itself with stories about the outdated Su-57 and the beautiful F-35

Part 2.

What can Su-57 do with the help of S-70?

Well, at least the fact that since the S-70 has a lower cross-section than the Su-57 (according to Russian sources), the Su-57 uses the S-70 as a means of long-range penetration into the air defense zone, which is entrusted with collecting intelligence signals and relay them to the Su-57. But that’s not all. The Su-57 can also use the S-70 to attack ground targets (including suppressing enemy air defense) and even carry out air attacks. Here, the enormous speed and maximum 6-ton maximum load of the S-70 offer truly enormous opportunities, including the deployment of heavy Russian air-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-ship equipment.

 

Some Russian analysts have suggested that to work with the S-70, the Su-57 should be converted into a double one with a gunner operator operating the S-70 from the back seat. Well, nobody knows this yet, since all this is top secret, but I think this idea contradicts the Sukhoi philosophy, which is to minimize the pilot’s workload. True, the formidable MiG-31, even the new MiG-31BM, has a gunner, but the philosophy of the MiG design bureau is often very different from what people are developing in Sukhoi, and, in addition, between the MiG-31 and Su -57 cost 40 years. My personal assumption is that the S-70 operations will be basically fully automated and even distributed over a network connecting all integrated air defense and air defense systems. If any engineer reads these lines, then I would appreciate any comments or corrections! In the end, this is just my “best” guess.

 

The ubiquitous gang of trolls will probably object, arguing that the Russian computer / microelectronic industry is so far behind the supposedly far superior Western semiconductor electronics that it is all nonsense; that a man was sitting inside S-70; that this thing does not fly; that the Su-57 is a 4th-generation aircraft, significantly inferior to the stunningly superior F-22 / F-35; and everything else. Especially for them, I want to remind everyone that Russia was the first country to deploy radars with an on-board phased antenna array on its MiG-31s, which, when loaded, were able to exchange target data using encrypted communication channels with FOUR (!) Others planes that maintain the mode of electromagnetic silence (using their optoelectronics and transmitting this data back). In addition, these MiG-31s ​​could also exchange data with airborne (AWACS) and ground (SAM) radars. And that was in the early 1980s, almost 40 years ago!

 

The truth is that the Soviet armed forces deployed many network-centric systems long before the West, especially in the Soviet air forces and navy (while the Soviet ground forces were the first to use the so-called “reconnaissance-strike complexes” (RUK), which during the Cold War were a nightmare for NATO). For now, all we need to do is deal with NATO’s complaints about Russia’s ability to restrict and deny access and maneuver (Anti Access / Area Denial (A2 / AD) to make sure that the Russians are still developing advanced military technical means that the West can only dream of.

And further…

 

Now back to the real criticism of the Su-57.

So what about the fact that the Su-57 does not have a very low cross section? But what if the Su-57 was never intended to lead penetration into modern and integrated air defense systems? What if, from the very first day, the designers of Sukhoi were warned by their colleagues from Almaz-Antey, Novator, KRET, or even from kind guys from OSNAZ (SIGINT – signal intelligence, electronic intelligence, radio interception – S.D.) and the 6th GRU Directorate that stealth technology is overrated? What if, from day one, it was clear to Russians that a low cross-section would not jeopardize other possibilities – such as a quasi-complete dependence on a universally low cross-section, would never be detected?

 

It is important to remember that new technological capabilities also create new tactics. By the way, Western analysts understand this, hence the new network capabilities of the F-35.

 

By the way, Western analysts understand this, hence the new network capabilities of the F-35. This is especially true, since the F-35 will be a pathos fighter, while the Su-57 may well be the most capable of them: did you know that the Su-57, in addition to the main one, has several radars that cover different bands and what do they give the Su-57 a 360-degree view of the battlefield, even without the use of signals from S-70, AWACS or ground-based air defense systems?

 

And finally, the invisible container case.

 

Remember the Caliber cruise missile recently seen in the Syrian war. Do you know that it can be fired from an ordinary commercial container, similar to the one you find on trucks, trains or ships?

 

Just remember that the Caliber has a range of 50 to 4,000 km and can carry a nuclear warhead. How difficult would it be for Russia to place these cruise missiles right off the coast of the United States on conventional container ships? Or just leave a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This system is so undetectable that the Russians can deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they want to, and no one will even see that happen. In fact, the Russians could deploy such a system on any civilian merchant ship flying any flag conceivable and place it not only somewhere outside the US coastline, but even in the American port, since most containers never check (and when they are checked, then, as a rule, in search of drugs or smuggling). Once we realize this, it will become clear that all this panic around Russian submarines off the coast of Florida is stupid, isn’t it?

 

Now let’s look at some very interesting recent shots of recent maneuvers in Russia:

 

This is what the person who posted this video (Max Fisher, he has YouTube channek) wrote about this coastal defense system, explaining it very well:

 

For the first time during the tactical exercises of the tactical group of the Northern Fleet, which was on alert on the island of Kotelny, the Bastion coastal missile system was used. DBK succeeded in launching the Onyx anti-ship cruise missile against a naval target located more than 60 kilometers offshore in the Laptev Sea, which confirmed its readiness to effectively carry out combat missions in the Arctic and to carry out tasks to protect the island zone and the Russian coast. Onyx is a universal anti-ship cruise missile. It is designed to combat surface naval groups and single ships in the face of heavy fire and electronic countermeasures. On the basis of the rocket, there are two seemingly identical export options: the Russian Yakhont and the Indian BrahMos, but with significantly reduced combat characteristics. These missiles are capable of launching from under water: they have a flight speed of 750 meters per second and carry a crushing explosive warhead weighing half a ton. The range of their flight is more than 600 kilometers. Previously, the Rubezh DBK was used as the main coastal missile complex of the tactical group of the Northern Fleet. In late August, he successfully hit two targets – Termite missiles, installed in the Laptev Sea, at a distance of more than 50 kilometers from the coast.

 

Now let me ask you: how do you think it would be difficult for Russia to develop a coastal defense system in a container-sized version using the technologies used in the Bastion / Yakhont / BrahMos missile systems? Since the Anglo-Zionists abandoned The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Russians have already developed a ground-based version of their Caliber rocket, which they are ready to deploy as soon as the United States deploys any such missile in Europe.

 

The fact is that Russia has improved a whole family of ballistic and cruise missiles, which can be completely hidden from detection and which can be deployed literally anywhere in the world. Even with nuclear warheads.

 

These funds completely change all previous US deterrence / containment strategies (which were still half stuck in the Cold War and half – in low-intensity operations / anti-rebel operations – as they did (unsuccessfully!) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, as well as in Latin America and Africa).

 

In light of the above, what do you think of the steady stream of NATO ships deployed in the Black Sea to “frighten” Russia? If you find it completely suicidal, then I agree. In fact, all these ships allow the Russians to train their crews on the “real thing.” But if it ever comes to a hot war, then the life expectancy of any and every NATO ship in the Black Sea will be measured in minutes. Literally!

 

Now think about Iran.

 

As I have said many, many times, Russia will not enter into a full-scale war against the Axis of Good joint forces in the interests of Iran (or any other country on the planet). But Russia can get bored with the Axis of Good, and it can sell Iran any missile the Iranians want to acquire. In the past, I often wrote that the real sign that Iran is about to be attacked is not the presence of US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz or along the Iranian coast, but the opposite: the departure of all ships from the strait itself and the careful relocation of the bulk of the US Navy ships under ” Umbrella “US and land based air defense. I can only imagine CENTCOM’s nightmare if Iran starts acquiring at least a small number of Bastion, Caliber, Yakhont or BrahMos missiles.

 

Conclusion: the Axis of Good countries have big, big problems!

 

The United States and Israel have enormous technological capabilities, and in ordinary times, American specialists can gradually deploy systems that can withstand the means (not only Russian) that we now see deployed in various areas of operations. And there is probably enough money, given that the United States alone spends more on “promoting good” than the rest of the planet combined! So what is the problem?

 

Simply put, the US Congress, which may well be the most corrupt parliament on the planet:

 

  1. Hysterically waving a flag and declaring skeptics “non-Americans” and
  2. Creates billions for US ruling nomenclature.

 

Thus, it’s literally impossible for American politicians to imagine and admit that the “shining city on the hill” and its “best armed forces in history” are rapidly lagging behind the enemies that American propaganda has called “primitive” and “lower” for decades. In the end, the US public may wonder why all of these multibillion-dollar toys that the American military-industrial complex has produced in recent decades have not brought a single success, not to mention a significant victory! Trump in his campaign tried to prove it. And he was immediately attacked by the Democrats for not supporting the “best armed forces in history.” After that, he quickly changed his tune. Now even weapons that the United States does not have are better than those that have already been tested and possibly used by Russia.

 

This “feel good” approach to military issues is very pleasant, warm and soft. But he, of course, does not allow to determine the current, and even more so, future threats.

 

In addition, of course, there is a problem of money. Over the course of its short history, the United States has deployed several world-class technological weapon systems. My favorites: Willys MBm, also known as Jeep, and the superb F-16. But there are many, many others. The problem with them, at least from the point of view of the US nomenclature, is that they were intended for war, for many and very different real battlefields. They were never intended to enrich the already fantastically rich!

 

From the point of view of the US nomenclature, the F-35 is amazing, glorious, successful, and not a high-tech flying brick! The cost of this system is not proof of the incompetence of American engineers or the ignorance of American military analysts. Rather, these expenses are proof of the combined effects of endless greed and self-praise of the US ruling class.

 

Sadly, one of the best ways to learn important lessons is a painful or catastrophic failure. Today’s Russia would not have been possible without the horrors of Yeltsin’s “democratic rule” in the 1990s. Think about it: during the first Chechen war, it was difficult for Russians to even find one full combat-ready regiment, and instead they had to use combined battalions. It will probably also happen to the USA.

 

Author: Andrey Raevsky – published under the pseudonym The Saker – a well-known blogger in the West. Born in Zurich (Switzerland). Father is Dutch, mother is Russian. He served as an analyst in the Swiss Armed Forces and in the UN research structures. Specializes in the study of post-Soviet states. Lives in Florida (USA).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code