nettaDear sir,
The attack on Syria was widely reported, and even caused some concern among the Russians. To quote a famous villain, ” I find your lack of faith disturbing”
nettaDear trident,
So then lets both take the F-117, and the S-300 out of the equation.
when will the S-400 be ready for export?
nettaDear sir,
If there is a unit on the system receiving then its not closed. other ways would be cutting into underwater cable like the cold war or getting an agent to put a sleeper into the system via USB. We don’t know how Israel got in. But we do know that shut down ALL of the Syrian defenses. and we SPECULATE that they did it from the air. maybe they where Broadcasting the signal, I dunno.
nettaYes yes and yes
Do Russia export fighters?
Is it in their interests to drum up interest for PAK-FA sales by using the marketing concept of the 5th generation fighter?
Will the PAK-FA be able to fire air to surface missiles?
netta@pee
Getting a worm into a professionally operated IADS should be close to impossible. The software structure is unknown and closed to the outside. Furthermore, even shoot&scoot systems can easily use cables for their Ethernet.
Dear sir,
Is it safe to assume that you have been living under a rock for the last year?
1. Israel already demonstrated the ability to hack/spoof Syrian air defenses.
2. Israel and the United states Already know the ins and outs of the S-300
3. The United states bought S-300 systems.
4.Israel has threatened to nutrelize or give away techinical data on the S-300 is its sold to Iran
The threat of a modern IADS being hacked to the point of total shut down is very real
While it is clear Israel has successfully used cyber-tactics against enemies, it is harder to know to what extent it has been hit by cyber-attacks. Israel says little about its cyber-operations, but occasional leaks point to a trend of active involvement by computer experts in covert and sometimes overt operations.
In September 2007, for example, Israeli jets destroyed a suspected nuclear facility under construction in a remote part of Syria. From what journalists have discerned, Israel jammed Syrian radar and other defenses, allowing sufficient time to launch the strike undetected. During the attack, cyber-tactics appeared to involve remote air-to-ground electronic attack and network penetration of Syria’s command-and-control systems.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,210486,00.html
You will say that The Syrian air defense are not as modern. I will counter that the U.S. and Israel already have data On the more modern S-300.
nettaDear sir,
I still think that hacking the network might be a better solution than blowing it up.
Israel warns Russia: We’ll neutralize S-300 if sold to Iran
Aug. 8, 2008
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST
If Russia goes through with the sale of its most advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran, Israel will use an electronic warfare device now under development to neutralize it and as a result present Russia as vulnerable to air infiltrations, a top defense official has told The Jerusalem Post.
Its na old article i cannot find the source on Jp but its real.
nettaI agree, it was a decent air defense given the sheers numbers and coverage density. But state-of-art systems were lacking. Be aware of the fact that IOC of S-200 Angara or 2K12 Kub SAM systems was as early as 1967.
We only can imagine how US losses would have looked like if Vietnam operated state-of-art systems for their time, like SA-5 or SA-6 instead of obsolete SA-2.
Dear Mr MSphere.
Will you please tell us what other country besides The Soviet union and China would have been able to challenge the USAF in 1967? Are you turning this into a hypothetical scenario? are you saying that if the VC has Tor-M1 and the S-300 of today that things would be differnt? What about GW1?
Please show us what a modern Air defense looked like During GW1.
Mr Msphere the only direct counter to U.S. air power during that era was behind the iron curtain. Why not just cutt to the chase and say “If WW 3 started then the U.S. would have a real fight” Which brings us back to our point. The U.S. knew that the Soviet air defense would be a tough nut to crack. Hence the U.S. Interest in stealth
nettaYes they are only useful when radars give the coordinated of a small area for them to track. Therefore limitations in low-band radar accuracy or a faint echo or a short echo while the weapon bays are open is not going to stop angle tracking as well as identification by TI systems
This was my response to your AESA jamming point. Any jamming will give away the location of the F-22/35 and the coordinates gathered will be enough to lock the TI systems on the F-22/35.
If the jamming continues for a longer time period, a missile can be even launched in HOJ mode as Trident pointed out.No not ignoring, such a future IADS system could use the several Pantsyrs and their TI systems and the agile beam of the Tombstone PESA to quickly change the target and enable multiply target engagement. New generation SAMs are not LOBL, they have their own INS system and secure data-link.
SARH missiles can be jammed but the S-400’s engagement radar has a very high output and the TVM/data-link system could use hybrid information when jamming begins via TI and ESM systems.
Then the question is how effective it will be against networked brute force systems.
I highly doubt that, modern PDS are designed to engage targets vertically and arranged in a smart pattern, some of the battery’s PDS will not need to engage vertically. At best the PK will be reduced.
The MALD Jamming is also unlikely to affect networked systems which get their surveillance data from a primary brute force system.Well such details are of course classified but all there technology is already there, it’s more a software problem than hardware. The question is whether the assets are as integrated as I say in these worst case scenarios.
Right. A large number of expensive JDRADM could bring the reaction times of the IADS to its knees. My point is that the cheap F-22/SDB solution will likely not work against future systems.
No I’m not saying that. It was my response to you close SDB release scenario for high speed and vertical drop. This should be impossible to archive at 50nm, at least when it come to speed.
For your scenario a release distance of 15-20nm is more realistic and then yes, the Nebo would likely become deadly at such a distance especially with opened weapon bays and TI systems which would get any faint echo provided by the Nebo.Performance of the NGJ and more so the MALD-J against modern multi-band high power systems remains questionable and F-22/35 AESA jamming would be deadly in presence of ESM systems.
Depends on the PDS and their pattern/location but I clearly disagree.
The main objective will be to get the launching aircraft, if this goes wrong the PDS are to protect the system for another chance during the next engagement. But I agree with you, a massive and concentrated attack would likely kill the system, it depends on the numbers.
Dear sir,
Would hacking the S-300/400 be more efficient since you have a Multiple networked systems all either pumping trons into the air or passively receiving?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/22/israel_air_raid_syria_hack_network_vuln_intrusion/
Will hacking become the Achilles heel of the Future IADS? Wouldn’t a Stuxnet type of viral weapon wreak havoc on a modern networked system?
The U.S. also has the option of brute force. 2 Ohio class subs with 100 TlAMS each, and 2 B-2s loaded with 200 SDB, with 24 F-35s added, would almost certainly overwhelm any IADS you can imagine. You don’t have to hit ever radar and Missile lorry in the country, you just need a transit area for legacy assets
nettaExcept that the poor, impoverished, warmed up coffin, ****box, 4th generation French Rafale has usefully dropped bombs in Afghanistan.
The 5th generation all-singing all-dancing F-22 has not and can not.
So, right now, in terms of usability… the F-22 is inferior to even 40 year old F-16s.
That is my central point in this thread about the stupidity of the generation game. It suits lockheed to focus on that; as it deflects from the massive and obvious failings of their key programs.
Dear sir,
What about Russia? Do they work for LM?
nettaDear sir,
Using that logic, the A-10 could be considered superior to the squall.
I’m sure that the Rafale isnt useless, because it can’t take 20mm rounds and Sam strikes.
nettaDear sir,
If you don’t think a VLO fighter has a chance, what makes you think the non VLO Typhoon can causally fly into S-300 and point defense range. Also Im very curious as to whether the GBU-103 can be used in the SEAD role or not.
nettaDear sir,
If I am not mistaken arnt there only a few countries in recorded history that could challenge the USAF pound for pound on a tech level? what other countries besides China and Russian during the Vietnam war era could match U.S. tech? And please sir, if you don’t mind this line of reasoning bothers me, because many U.S. French an others lost there lives in the war.
nettaDespite all this talk (or maybe because of it), you still seem to fail when reading my posts. Please return to my response No.52 and refer to this specific sentence: Both Vietnam and Iraq were 2nd/3rd class forces with large stockpiles of old trash and few dozens of modern assets.
Now return to AMiga500’s original question which was:
When did the USAF last face off against an enemy with state of the art front line and support equipment?Is there anything of what you don’t grasp? Both Vietnam or Iraq had large amounts of weapons… – all of this stuff was technically and morally obsolete. There were very few high-tech assets like Su-24MK or PGMs for Mirage F1EQs – and even those were not used.
If this still doesn’t ring your bell, then I’m sorry, got much better things to do than waste my time here..
Dear sir,
Didn’t the Chinese and the Soviets fly there best migs at the time into battle?
Did they not fly missions against U.S. airmen?
nettaDear sir,
What about wind corrected munitions? can they hit the bomb before it disperses? or breaks away into segments?
nettaDear sirs,
If I might be allowed to interject. I think in order to understand the topic, I think we need to look back at history.
Fact: During the cold war USAF assessments of the Warsaw pacts ability to maul USAF fighter and bombers with air defenses did not look good for allied air power.
Fact:The F-117 was born after combat experience in the Vietnam War when increasingly sophisticated Soviet surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) downed heavy bomber flights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk
Fact: Even though the Soviet Union is gone we face a new threat using anti- access strategies IE using high level IADS+ SRBMs to make the air space extremely difficult for a legacy fighter.
Fact: The USAF needed new weapons and new tactics to deal with advanced SAMS.
Fact: Low level penetration strikes CAN be extremely dangerous when your dealing with a modern IADS with modern point defenses Both Vietnam and GW1 demonstrated the dangers of low level, especially in desert areas with little cover.
Fact: The F-117 was the precursor to modern 5th generation tactics. The aircraft it self was not 5th generation but demonstrated that the tactics worked in combat. When I say tactics I mean Deep penetration strike, Contempt of engagement tactics.
Fact: Stealth has also been proven to be a high force multiplier. with 1 plane and 2 bombs doing the work of and entire squadron ( 12-24 air frames). What would have taken several flights of aircraft during NAM for 1 strike mission can you done with 1 flight.
Fact: Thus we conclude that for the 1st time in history stealth and the before mentioned tactics made Deep penetration strike much less a mission of suicide.
The F-22/B-2 have taken over this role as deep striker
P.S. I enjoy your company and like the site :D. I await with baited breath your highly entertaining and intellectual response.
Sign In
