wrightwingI’m repeating Russian claims about detection ranges vs. RCS sizes.
As for the SDB hitting within 5-8 meters- unless the SAM site has an earthen barrier around it, or some other hardened surface, that’s well within the kill zone.
wrightwingIt’s not just about threatening the UK. It’s threatening the UK’s interests around the globe, unless you think there aren’t any that are worth protecting.
Resources are finite, and demand is increasing, so at some point, one of these dictators might decide to take a bigger share, causing problems for the UK, etc… Conventional deterrence to back up diplomacy, will never be obsolete.
wrightwingIf it’s not the correct band, it’s not going to be tracking anything. There’s a reason why fire control radars use X band. In order to get accurate targeting info, you have to have a high resolution. There are other bands to be sure, but at best they’ll let you know that something’s out there. These radars will also be high priority targets if a conflict with a nation that had this sort of system were likely. As for the F-22’s RCS, I don’t know what it is from every angle, but from its optimal aspect it’s less than -40db. The ALR-94 will alert the pilot to any emitters, and how close it can get to them.
I thought you said
These GPS jammers were never available in Iraq.
A GPS jammer is by no means a guarantee that you’ll degrade GPS guided weapons enough to render them ineffective.
Of course you can get coordinates from an emitting target. That’s why the SAM sites would shut down when a HARM was fired at them. I never said they were useless- it was you making that point. I said they were useful because they rendered the SAM sites ineffective. It’s similar to when a fighter flying CAP for a strike package fires an AAM at an enemy fighter, knowing that it’s likely to miss, but the enemy fighter has to change direction away from the strikers. This is known as a soft kill. The point is that the mission was accomplished without friendly losses. The AARGM will be an even tougher adversary for SAM sites. It will find them even if they stop emitting.
wrightwingIn what respect can a third world dictator threaten the UK or any of the NATO powers? We now know that MI5 didn’t think Saddam was a threat and the other dictators are much of the same. Thinking that Saddam was a threat just got the UK into a morass that actually created a threat.
Personally I think the UK should retain the ability to defend Europe in concert with other EU partners. Offensive capability outside Europe should be ditched on the grounds that if we have that capability then deluded Prime Ministers will always think they can improve the world in our favour by military action.
Regards
I’d rather have a Churchill than a Chamberlain.
wrightwingA high price to spend just to intimidate some dictator. I should think being a nuclear power should be enough of a deterrent in that area. I doubt the Defence Ministry spends tens of billions on weapon systems for the sake of superior diplomacy.
Most dictators are well aware that they are in little danger of getting nuked. A conventional attack on the other hand is something that can definitely be done, if you haven’t gutted your forces to the extent that they can’t even do that.
wrightwingThat’s really the point – “accidents” usually happen after a series of failures and conditions line up “perfectly.” You try your best to mitigate the risk factors as much as possible depending upon desired outcomes. Every time I fly, I am required to file a risk assessment in which you weigh all kinds of factors, compute a score – and if it is too high, you don’t fly.
If the right conditions exist, then you will get shot down. If the SAM is too far in one direction or the other, it won’t be in position to engage the VLO target though, especially if it doesn’t have a reasonably good idea when to look for it. That’s the lesson from Kosovo. If you fly a predictable path, and the bad guys know when you left, and how long it should take to arrive, that’s a big help. If they don’t have that luxury, and have to wait until you accidently fly over, when they weren’t expecting, it doesn’t give them nearly the odds of success.
wrightwingYou know it best cause you also know the real RCS of the F22 and so on..
And btw. I wasn’t talking about the situation in any country now.
You seem pretty confident with your numbers, and knowledge of the F-22’s RCS, and made the initial claim. I’ve seen the numbers that the S-400 system is claimed to possess(i.e. ~90km detection vs. a target in the .1-01m^2 RCS range). Tracking ranges will be even smaller. The F-22’s ALR-94 will spot the S-400 long before it’s ever a threat, allowing the pilot to avoid its WEZ.
These GPS jammers were never available in Iraq.
Read the paragraph on GPS jammers and countermeasures.
Again were do you get the coordinates of mobile SAMs ?!?!
If they’re emitting, you get the locations via ESM gear, UAVs, etc.. If they’re moving, then you can use SAR/GMTI/IR.
Further they are all connected in a network.
So the planes are eating the waves ?!
You may have heard of the material known as RAM. Not only do stealthy plane redirect the radar reflections away from the source, but they also absorb radar energy, so whatever return there is, is far weaker.
I wasn’t talking about Russia or any other country
As I said before you want to think that it is so btw. the front arc is not the front arc in an angel of above 60°.
No I am not optimistic I just saw that the USAF using more then 1000 HARMs in Kosovo.
You’re still missing the point. The point of firing a HARM in a SEAD mission, is to make a SAM site turn off their radar, which allows a strike package to fly through safely. The fact that 3 SAM sites were destroyed is irrelevant. How many safe sorties were flown is the more important number, if you want to learn something from the event. The new AARGMs will make turning off the emitter irrelevant.
No it doesn’t but it’s a little bit surprising using more then 1000 HARMs and achieving against obsolete SAMs only moderate success.
Counting 250k for a missile not enough.
SAMs and fighters cost quite a bit more than that. It’s not a bad exchange ratio.
wrightwingNow China has manned space program.
China has J-10s equivalent to the Eurofighters and J-11s equivalent to the F-15, JH-7s equivalent to the Tornado and J-8II equivalent to the F-4
I’d be a little reluctant to make those claims. The J-10 is equivalent of a Block 30/40 F-16, and the J-11 is equivalent with an F-15 circa 1990s. The Tornado far outclasses the JH-7, and equivalence with an F-4 isn’t much to write home about.
wrightwingCall it what you want, you seem to be making up “scales” of difficulty as you see fit.
This is what would fit your current scale:
Bombing Swaziland = Easy
Bombing Baghdad = Hard
Bombing Moscow/Layered & Modern AD Network = Next to Impossible without ripping yourself a new one
For 1991, Baghdad had a modern, layered AD Network.:cool:
wrightwingTrue, but the 100+ aircraft sitting on the ramp are an old aerodynamic concept. you can not modify its hardware only its software, the T-50 is at least 18 years younger as an aerodynamic concept, it uses newer software developed recently and a lot of commercial electronics. It has benefited from 20 years of difference in aerodynamics and electronics.
You’ve obviously spent a lot of time on youtube.:rolleyes:
You’ve yet to point to anything empirical by which to judge the 2 designs. Newer doesn’t= better.
As a fuselage it has surpassed the aerodynamics of the F-22 and it has achieved its RCS level.
The T-50 hasn’t even surpassed the F-35’s RCS much less achieved parity or better with the F-22.
what it is still a must see is the type of nozzle it will use a 2D like the F-22 or a 3D like the F-35 and the economy and reliability of its engine, so far only the engine is still giving troubles but the airframe has achieved its goal.
Radar and electronics are developed on par and weaponry is possible has already exceeeded the F-22`s
It’s already been stated by Russian sources that the production T-50 will have 2D TVC, using a flat nozzle like the F-22 due to its superior RCS/IR reduction. The radar and weaponry have done no such thing. I’d love to see the source for that claim.
wrightwingShow me such fire control radar.
S400 system.
First of all there are only a total of 3-5 regiments fielded. How much area do you think these systems can cover. Secondly, their radars can’t track VLO targets at 90km. They’ll be lucky if they can track them at 20-30km.
What about defeating let’s say 64 SDBs?
And how you achieve the knowledge about the positions due to GPS guidance btw. a lot of cheap GPS jammers exist and they are for sure integrated in airdefense systems.
Look at the Kosovo conflict
And a CEP of 5-8m won’t destroy or harm the system.
Further, again three systems that the bombs have to pass.
These GPS jammers didn’t work so well for Iraq. There were no JDAMs in Kosovo, so that’s not even relevant. I guarantee you if an SDB hits within 5-8m, it’s going to ruin your day.
wrightwingOk you all don’t get it …
You take.
S-400
BUK-M2E
Tor-M2
Panzir
How many of these systems are currently fielded, and how widely dispersed are they?
Now you take into account that “VLO” aircrafts only reflect the waves in another direction, considering that the long range defense systems are connected by data links and changing the radar dates in real time, they could also track it and shoot down like every else aircraft.
For example it doesn’t work lets get further.
The powerful radar will track the “VLO” somehow or other in a range of ~90km maybe a lot of more and shoot it down.
For example it doesn’t work lets get further.
For instance a “VLO” manage to shoot a HARM in a range of 150km.
It would be tracked by four systems and will be engaged by 3 of them.
If it comes through the air shield it will probably hit nothing due to a wide variety of monkey emitters.
My lingual skills are very limited but if you would read a little bit more on this topic you would take into account that SAMs a very capable against also “VLO” aircrafts.
Here’s what you don’t get- the radars that would be part of this network, are very high priority targets(i.e. not a long life expectancy).
VLO isn’t just about reflecting radar energy in a different direction- much of the energy is absorbed, so the energy that is reflected is much weaker.
A VLO target isn’t going to be tracked at 90km- that might be the case for targets in the .1-.01m^2 RCS range. Targets in the B-2, F-22, and F-35 class will be lucky to be tracked at 20-30km. You seem to be under the impression that there are overlapping coverage/fields of fire covering the expanse of Russia(or wherever), and that there won’t be significant degradation do to the C2 nodes being destroyed, jammed, etc… You also have a very optimistic view of how easy it will be to intercept HARMS etc…, especially under combat conditions, with ECM support
wrightwingSerbian air force obsolete mig-21 and poor maintainance MiG-29 shot down F-117 with obsolete SAM
If you’ve bothered to read some of the previous responses- the SA-3 that was used wasn’t a 1960’s model, and the only reason that it was successful was that it was in the right place at the right time. Given the same circumstances an SA-2, HAWK, Crotale, Rapier, Nike Hercules, etc… would’ve had the same result.
Russian air force
has T-50 prototype and S-400
There won’t be meaningful numbers of either of those weapons till the 2020s.
a few, Su-35BM in order and Su-34s operational plus hundreds of Su-27s and MiG-29s
How soon before the first regiment of Su-35BMs is operational? How many of the Su-27s have been modernized? The Mig 29s won’t be around too much longer, as they’re in a general state of neglect; some Naval models and perhaps some token -35s will be bought, in hopes of securing some exports
wrightwingDid you read my post ?
The USAF flew 4,538 SEAD (suppression of air defense) sorties.
With a result:
3 of 25 SA-6 batteries destroyed, 10 of 41 SAM radars destroyed.
They achieved only to destroy 3 obsolete SAM batteries designed in the 60s in the whole conflict.
Sure the Serbs were also ineffective due to the limited range and the avoidance of the USAF to fly in their engagement range.
With this example i don’t want to show that the Nato force was ineffective, they wasn’t they did their best with a lot advanced technology.
I just want to show that engaging SAMs is highly difficult also older ones.
I highlighted the key word in your statement. Successful SEAD doesn’t require the destruction of SAM sites. Soft kills work just as well, if the overall mission is still achieved. By the way, how much do you figure an S-300/400 costs compared to a HARM?
wrightwingExplanatios a-posteriori are just pretexts. The SA-3 tech was developed in the 50s and deployed in the 60s. May be it hurts to know that the old stuff downed the wonderweapon of this decade, but who cares! Just egos badly damaged.
Did you even read what he wrote? The SA-3 may have been developed with 50s/60s technology, but the one that was used to shoot down the F-117 was by no means an A model. You’re also conveniently leaving out the circumstances which allowed for the shootdown in the first place. Nobody is saying that stealth make you invisible, or that you can fly directly above SAM sites invulnerable. It DOES make the circumstances in which you can be engaged much narrower though.
Sign In
