wrightwingAvoid complicating the matter with other armed forces.
Whatever the Patriot might be rated to engage, (cough cough how did it perform before?) – even however improved it is, it’s hit probability is unlikely to pass 90%. That leaves plenty of room for the radars to be damaged.
The Patriots performed very well in the 2002/2003 time frame.
wrightwingThis is why an entire squadron of Fencers will empty its payload into a Patriot battery. 4 – 8+ missiles to be exact.
The Patriot will have 2 minutes exactly to react from launch position.
Now you need to assume the Patriot will be able to successfully lock onto the missile as its RCS isn’t exactly the size of a bomber. . .
Well, if we’re talking PAC-3 sites, then each launcher has 16 missiles. Secondly, the ARM will be travelling much slower than a TBM, which the PAC-3 has the capability of engaging. Thirdly, which scenario are we discussing again, where a squadron of Fencers is going to get within 200km of a location being defended by Patriot batteries? That’s why I brought up the fact earlier, that the bigger threat to the Fencers would be the USAF/USN, and the Patriots would mop up anything that got through.
It’s not the ARM’s RCS that’s of biggest concern here, but the Fencer’s.
wrightwingFor the launch aircraft, but not for the Kh-58U, which has to close the longer distance and does become more vulnerable or less effective by that. :diablo:
Exactly! The Patriot battery has a longer reaction time to respond, than had the missile been fired closer, and from low altitude(so that the launching aircraft might have the element of surprise).
wrightwingDoes anone else find this slightly suspect:
“The maximum speed I achieved on the jet plane without a canopy glass was around two times greater than speed of sound.”
There’s no way in hell that plane’s gonna reach M2 without a canopy.:eek:
wrightwing————-
How could you possibly say there will be no increase? If there is 25% better performance. . .
That’s nonsense SOC!
A 25% improvement would be 150km vs. 120km, and this is based upon a high launch speed. To get 200km(and a lower launch speed) would be a LOT more than a 25% improvement.
wrightwingSOC, you are pulling numbers out of nowhere. Nothing of this sort is said anywhere in those links.
Actually the range figures given are 36km at low level, 120km from 10,000m, and 160km from 15,000m. The U model’s max range was extended to 250km at high altitude(i.e. 50,000 feet or more which likely means a Mig-25/31 would be the aircraft used). The lower altitude ranges are still going to be considerably shorter.
You can’t assume that the max range is from the MiG-25BM.
Also, the 11Km ceiling on the Fencer is sufficient, with 1.3 mach speed for a 200KM + launch of the Kh-58U.
Also, any “air cover” the Patriot will have will be irrelevant for further discussion due to Flanker doctrine of covering the Fencer.
Why can’t you assume that the max range is from the Mig-25? It has the kinematics that would allow for such a shot. 200km+ from 11km altitude is HIGHLY optimistic. Furthermore, which Air Force are you describing in your scenario(RuAF attacking Western Europe?) You’re also forgetting that while you might get the maximum ballistic range from that high altitude shot, the probability of mission success is going to be much lower, due the lack of the element of surprise. Your SEAD bird isn’t going to get that close undetected, flying at that altitude. In the event of a successful launch, a PAC-3 has a high likelihood of killing the inbound missile, seeing as how it has the speed and accuracy to take on faster moving TBMs.
wrightwingDon’t throw fighters and other garbage into this. You are just dodging the real issue. 😀
You seriously shock me with your horrible number knowledge regarding anything Russia.
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/516/ Kh-58E Export version200KM
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/ Kh-58UshKE 245KM
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y8kePYFK1L8C&pg=PA149 Kh-58U 250KM
Well you shock me with your lack of knowledge regarding realistic operational ranges, and the platforms/conditions needed to achieve those ranges. Secondly, US and Russian doctrine are different with regards to air defense, so if I didn’t include fighters, you’d only see part of the picture. Even including fighters, you’re not seeing the whole picture with regards to air defense philosophy. Suffice it to say, assuming a 250km shot could be made, it would require the Mig-25/31 to fly at altitudes that would cause them to be detected from much further out, which would result in them having to get through fighter CAPs in and out.
wrightwingPerhaps I wasn’t clear… a significant number of VLO aircraft are needed.. but from there to create an entire fleet of VLO airframes is a stretch that many would say is not needed. A VLO first strike fleet backed up with non VLO modern designs is an alternative. Sure its less capable ultimately but also more affordable.. and that is better than a rump VLO fleet that is too big to be affordable yet too small to get the job done in other areas….
Note I make no mention of legacy airframes… your assumption and its one that is incorrect.
How much do you think it would cost(and how long would it take to get in service) a brand new fighter(non-legacy and non-VLO) vs. building F-35s?
Even with the plan of building F-35s at a high rate, we’re still looking at airframe shortages, as legacy aircraft will be retired at a faster rate. If you don’t build a platform that is survivable, it’s not a good investment, and it just doesn’t make sense to waste money on aircraft that can only survive once all ground and air threats have been eliminated.
A solely legacy based force is vulnerable and unacceptable.. but there is a way of creating a lower RCS airframe than the legacies which does not have the on going maintenance (and hence cost) issues associated with a VLO airframe.
It would be ironic in the extreme if due to cost issues the USAF was forced to integrate the F-18E/F models into its fleet…..
A capable non-VLO aircraft wouldn’t cost much less than a VLO aircraft(and if it weren’t built in high volumes, could actually cost more), and it’d still take 10yrs or more before it’d be ready to be produced in numbers. Meanwhile, we’re retiring legacy aircraft by the hundreds. It simply wouldn’t make sense to design a brand new non-VLO aircraft- we’d be better off with highly modified new build legacy airframes, than a completely new aircraft.
wrightwing5) History… the F-22 and F-35 are planes for a future that has long since evolved.
The definition of both programmes had their genesis to fight the USSR. Now there is absolutely no doubt that VLO airframes in good numbers are a vital asset to have within the fleet. But to create the primary fleet as VLO airframes…that is far harder to justify. We can say..” but we are planning for the future”…how far into the future? It could be argued that there is no credible threat that justifies a majority VLO fleet for the next 25 years. Equally we could create rational scenarios that state it’s a requirement to be able to do this job or that one. The reality is that the only threat that is real is the current money threat.. it is here today and will be resolved today.
Any adversary with modern SAMs is going to be a problem for legacy aircraft to deal with, without huge strike/support packages, and high risk of losses.
VLO aircraft allow these targets to be attacked with much smaller forces, and much lower risk.
6) The F-22 brings capability that is not required right now. Many would argue it will not be needed for a long time and certainly if there is a need the current fleet will do the job.. aided by other assets. Others will have their own view. Who is correct? The only ones with the answer; right or wrong are those with the money. Your snapshot of who provides the answer is very enlightening. The answer is provided by the politicians…nobody else. Going into Iraq and Afganistan is not a military choice.. it’s a political one. The politicians deceide which battles to fight not the ‘experts’….so lets agree that politicians are often not experts at very much…
Any foe with late model Flankers or Western aircraft is going to be far more challenging with Legacy aircraft. You never want to fight at parity if you can help it, and you certainly don’t want to be at a disadvantage.
wrightwingCommon traits of the F-35 marketing campaign….
LM claims 4 to 1 or better than legacy in air to air. Complete and unproven tripe. Good for the gullible sheep though.
Well how well did they expect the F-22 to perform against Legacy fighters, and were their expectations met, or has the Raptor been a dog? While the F-35 isn’t as fast, I think some lessons can be extrapolated(especially seeing as how they’ve seen the way the avionics work in tests), and the VLO advantage.
wrightwingBoth, but primarily in terms of system performance, as kill probability is determined through testing and can always be fooled with to make the system look more potent on paper. And PAC-3 is overrated as of now, until they get the newer missiles with bigger motors. Until then the range is what, 30 kilometers?
The current PAC-3s range is listed as between 40-70km, and the MSE variant will increase that range by at least 50%(and there’ll still be PAC-2 GEMs with the 160km range out there too).
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw091508p1.xml
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/specs.html
One thing to keep in mind when looking at these figures is this bit of info-
Time of Flight-Between 9 seconds and three and a half minutes
Now I’m not sure what the average speed of the missile is for the duration of its flight, but the max speed is Mach 5+. Methinks some of the figures are on the conservative side.
Yes it is, the radar array emits for both search and track functions. If you want to have a chance in hell of killing any sort of TBM in the area, you have to be radiating in search mode.
IF the threat is TBMs perhaps. If the threat is enemy aircraft, I suspect that more judicious use of emitters will be more likely. In any event, the Patriot battery will be cued by other early warning radars(ground or air), and any air breathing threat will have to get past fighter CAPs, before launching ARMs.
wrightwing“#1 above, an Aim-9X, Aim-132, or Aim-120C5 could take him out long before the F-35 was detected.”
Interesting theory. That somehow the F-35 is invisible to 2nd and 3rd gen IRST. Hmmm.
The F-35 isn’t invisible to IRST or Radar, but….the ranges that it can be detected are considerably less than that of legacy fighters. Those late model IRSTs still need to be cued somehow, so they’ll know where to look.
Nice try- No extreme super-cruise combined with extreme altitude means that something that only depends on stealth is going to have serious problems.
-The F-35 can operate at >50k feet.
-It has excellent acceleration.
-We don’t know what it’s max cruise speed is, only that it doesn’t meet LM’s definition of Supercruise, which is M1.5 or better.
Lets see… what is the combat PK of the AMRAAM?… or any air-to-air missile. Note that the AMRAAM so far has only been up against 3rd stringers.
-Those AMRAAMs were earlier models.
-We don’t have the stats for how many of the AMRAAMs that were fired would’ve been lethal(i.e. more than one missile fired at target, and of those, more than one was within the kill zone of the target), or that were fired outside of their NEZ, or that were soft kills(which allowed another mission to be successful).
Part 2 of that is that an F-35B or C may have left the deck that day without its gun. Good luck.
F-35s won’t be operating alone. The wingman may very well have a gun.
HOBS no matter what you are flying brings WVR into the 1-1 kill range. Not so good. Worse if the guy coming into the merge carries more HOBS missiles than you do.
If the F-35 gets to the merge unseen, it’ll have the advantage. If flown to its strengths, the necessity of entering the merge is significantly reduced.
Before the merge? …Yeah keep dreaming the AMRAAM as 100% PK.
No one is saying a 100% PK, but as I said above, even the early AIM-120’s stats don’t provide the whole story, as we’re not privy to the launch conditions, how many missiles actually passed within the lethal radius(but weren’t counted), how many missiles were fired to achieve soft kills, etc….
The newer models will presumably be far more effective due to the higher end state energy, higher off boresite capability, higher resisitance to ECM, 2 way datalinks, HOJ, etc… Now take into consideration that these more effective missiles will be fired from a VLO platform, which will likely be able to position itself for optimal launch conditions, as well as giving their foe less warning, minimizing the ability to employ countermeasures/evasive manuevering.
wrightwingWhere are you all digging up at 250KM range for the Patriot?
The Su-24 pilots can cruise in at max altitude and launch at leisure if the Patriot is active.
Where are you digging up a 250km range for the Kh-58? At low altitude it doesn’t even have a 100km range, and at high altitudes I’ve seen figures from 120-200km. If the SU-24 is at high altitudes though, the Patriot will be the least of its worries, as it’ll be taken out by fighters. Secondly, a Patriot battery most likely isn’t going to be broadcasting its position, until it’s cued by other sources(other ground or air based early warning sensor information).
wrightwing—
Pardon my skepticism of Mr. Kopp.
wrightwingwould that not provide a nice and easy HOJ kill for the patriot?
Not to mention, the Patriot is very hard to jam.
Sign In
