SOCJASSM isn’t even ready is it?
I thought the same thing but a few Google searches and I was corrected; they even just placed an order for something like 1,000 more if I remember right. It hasn’t been operational for all that long, but it is now in the inventory.
SOC , why does one need to go to such an extreme length to bring down an S300 SAM site , wont a combination of Base an DRFM jamming along with low RCS JASSM should do the trick , the existing soft kill and hard kill mechanism should be enough to take care of S-300/400 and US has loads of it.
The problem with jamming is:
-you attract attention to your strike mission
-you are just as vulnerable to the home-on-jam capability of the missile
DRFM may be a different story, but the problem is that if your system can only handle one radar type at a time, you have to pick what radar to jam. Jam the BIG BIRD? Fine, the TOMB STONE finds and kills you. Jam the TOMB STONE? Fine, the BIG BIRD still passes track data to the radar and you still get killed eventually if TOMB STONE can modulate its signal into a different part of the frequency band. Plus, you are using massive phased array radars. If they can portion out the arrays to operate using different frequencies at the same time, or simply apply a frequency hopping algorithm to the radar output, then you have a significant problem as they’ll be able to figure out what your DRFM is doing and discern your position. DRFM is a great idea for fighter jets as you can boggle the mind of an enemy fighter’s radar (or his active radar missile’s seeker for that matter) and blow him up, but against a large strategic SAM system there are some problems that you can have making the DRFM less effective.
The S-300/400 were designed with a lot of this stuff in mind. The Russians weren’t sitting in the closet while the Arabs were getting their SAM units obliterated by the Israelis in the 70’s once effective ECM and SEAD tactics had been worked out.
I would like to think that any S-300/400 sites would have a couple of Tor-M1 and BUK system to take care of low flying missile.
True, and that makes them that much harder to get close to and destroy using a vehicle with performance characteristics inside the engagement envelope of the systems.
Personally I feel there is lot of hype associated with S-300/S-400 system , the PAC-3 on the contrary for all its faults are a proven system.
It’s not overhyped, it’s just unproven. All we have to go by are the known system characteristics.
SOCThat’ll change thanks to our good friends the Russians. They just pulled off the best F-22 marketing campaign possible.
Ok, great, but the chances of Congress removing the cap on F-22 production is still slim to none.
SOCThe mission planning for SR-71 avoids any combat zones.
No it doesn’t, they flew within DDR and WarPac S-200 range all the time during the Cold War. They also flew within range of Soviet S-200s on Kamchatka as well specifically to get the operators to activate the SUQRE PAIR radars and collect ELINT data. SR-71As also flew right over Vietnam during that war on a regular basis staging out of Kadena. And if they flew over Libya they were certainly inside S-200 range there as well as damn near the entire nation and a good chunk of the Med is covered.
It was a close call. A lucky escape for Blackbird. So, parts of missile body struct the Blackbird. Wow. Even higher accuracy is needed to achieve this.
Only one small part. It didn’t cause any damage, it was just lodged in one of the corrugations on the undersurface of the wing. And that was an early sortie, they flew over North Korea and then Vietnam for a while after that. Higher accuracy? Or not. The warhead is designed to detonate and do damage within a certain blast radius. When it goes off the rest of the missile tends to go with it, especially if there is any propellant left, but the missile body fragments go wherever they want to.
As it is known now, the A-12 never dared to overfly Vietnam again, and it is retired soon.
And some sources say that it had higher performance than SR-71.
It had marginally higher performance being a lighter weight aircraft, yes. And they still flew over Vietnam. So did the SR-71. The reason the A-12 was retired was because the CIA couldn’t justify keeping that expensive an asset around when the USAF was going to have a lot more of them and a better chance of operating them on a continuous basis. The A-12s left Kadena after being replaced by SR-71s which took over their reconnaissance mission.
Just imagine what could SAM-5 do to SR-71. It would be slaughter.
But mission planning did its job for SR-71 well, to avoid such threats.
A lot of things were avoided because manned reconnaissance aircraft were no longer used to overfly the USSR or Warsaw Pact client states. That had nothing to do with the aircraft.
And yes, the S-200 should have not had a problem dealing with a Blackbird, it was designed for interceptions in that envelope.
Oh, and a lot of the XB-70 unstarts? They were done on purpose to refine the performance of the AICS in anticipation of its use on a potential Mach 3 SST being conceived at the time. Unstarts were when the shock wave popped out of the intake, and it was reinserted by opening bypass doors. In the first jet thsoe doors were manually controlled leading to a lot of interesting experiences, but the second jet had an automated system. An unstart by itself was not a serious problem provided the bypass doors immediately corrected it. The problem was when it wasn’t corrected fast enough, typically in the manual system, and too much air ended up trying to force its way down the intake. Then you got what they called duct buzz when the whole assembly began to vibrate, which could have led to structural failure if it wasn’t dealt with. The Blackbird’s intake system, even once they got the automated system figured out, was still more tempermental as it was designed with their low RCS ideas in mind.
SOCStarting to think about the next fighter isn’t a big deal. They’ll spend a while sorting out the right requirements and defining the concept that they want (as in they’ll wait for PAK-FA to appear to see what it can do, probably), then they’ll spend a while talking to people about the UCAV vs manned option, then there’s preliminary design competitions with manufacturers (ok, both of them), and then they’ll get to a prototype stage. When they get that far at least 15 years will probably have elapsed, and it’ll likely be 10 years from being in service in any significant number. So that’s 25 years down the road as I see it. They’re probably taking a page from ATF, the USAF began looking at the ATF concept in the early 1980’s, and it was 25 years before the F-22A was in service in significant numbers.
SOCi can already see whats going to happen once they leave.
While I think we have an obligation to at least be willing to remain there and fix the mess we created, if they want us out, we should leave. They have to figure out how to deal with running their own affairs and handling their own problems eventually.
SOCi can already see whats going to happen once they leave.
While I think we have an obligation to at least be willing to remain there and fix the mess we created, if they want us out, we should leave. They have to figure out how to deal with running their own affairs and handling their own problems eventually.
SOCDepends on the RCS. It flys at “low level” but it can’t fly treetop as the IIR seeker used during the last 8 seconds in kindof a quasi-TERCOM function to hit the target is mounted on the lower portion of the forward airframe. It’ll have to be a little high to get a good image for the guidance system I assume. It could pop up before it hits that phase of flight though I suppose. At any rate it’ll have to be driving along the road for the S-300P not to see it once it gets within radar range (depending on the RCS again). The only real question is if it can dispense submunitions far away enough to do any damage to the SAM site because if it closes too far in it will get shot at and invariably prematurely detonated.
The only way I can think of barring explosives of the fusion variety to ensure an S-300P or S-400 kill is as follows:
-Design a vehicle that can get really, really close, I.E. absurdly miniscule RCS
-Fire seven of them at the site targeted on the engagement radar
-Your seven missiles need to have a low enough RCS to ensure that when they get detected and six of them are fired on, the seventh will be close enough to have hit the radar before:
1. the system can reacquire and reattack, having blown up the first six, or
2. the first six missiles have been destroyed
If you can do that then you can pretty much guarantee killing a single battery. If you can get the accuracy down to one or two feet, you can even use a kinetic kill vehicle to make the weapon even smaller and then just run it right through the engagement radar’s array. That might not work though depending on the damage done and how the radar’s individual elements can be isolated and controlled. If you put it right through the array and it ends up in the dirt, the radar might be able to simply ignore those elements that have been damaged (providing you aren’t hitting it with enough force to totally frazzle the electronics or melt the thing anyway), but I’d have to figure that out with a bit of research into array workings.
This’ll help when it gets here (stupid publisher, it was supposed to be out in July):
http://www.scitechpublishing.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=468
A more plausible solution if you ask me is a sort of battlefield ARM-BM using ICBM velocities over an SRBM or MRBM profile. That gets you outside the engagement envelope speedwise and you can kill the site using a precision warhead, submunitions, or whatever. Give the thing a smallish diameter with an extremely high-impulse motor to get the speed you want and pack them into boxes fitted to existing AEGIS VLS cells, MLRS units or PATRIOT TELs and you have an interesting sort of DEAD weapon to play with as part of your opening volley in any conflict facing a modern AD network. For total suprise hilarity in an (unlikely) conflict with China where the AD assets are primarily along the coast, make it a two-stage weapon like the Club with a cruise booster for range and a stupid fast kill vehicle for endgame and you can fit a buttload of them into something like an Ohio SSGN and evaporate their AD network in extremely short order.
That one is all about the motor technology though, I’m not sure if you can get something small and cheap enough to use without having to make something that is actually along the lines of an SRBM in size.
SOCPoor state? Despite media allegations to the contrary, it’d appear that they knew what they were doing. There were a few issues with the airpower aspect, but I don’t recall the guys on the ground having any issues rolling right in there.
SOCI got to thinking today, if Russia puts new SRBMs with nukes inside of Kaliningrad, and by some chance it ends up that NATO decides to take them out, how irritating might the endeavour be?
Turns out that it might not be a bright idea:
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/08/air-defense-of-kaliningrad.html
SOCPerhaps. Or the launch system could just be entirely self contained inside the container.
SOCThat appears to be a reload vehicle of some sort. No idea what they are, but they are way too small to be HQ-9 reloads or one of the newer cruise missiles. They certainly aren’t HQ-6, HQ-12, or any other sort of SAM system we’ve seen either, so HQ-16 is as logical a guess as any at this point.
SOCJust ordered right now “Thunder in the deep” by Joe Buff
You should enjoy Joe Buff’s novels, he’s one of my favorites. I do agree with some of the others that Dale Brown has lost a bit over the years, but his last couple of books were better than his “middle period” if you get my meaning. The only problem is that he really has developed a long, interlacing storyline that you can lose part of if you don’t read through his lesser works as well.
If anyone’s interested in printing a copy for personal use, I could also email out a PDF or MS Word document.
If you want to e-mail me a PDF file of your work, you can grab my e-mail address at my blog. I’d be interested in giving it a read, my favorite authors appear to be publishing all too infrequently and I’m always on the lookout for something good.
SOCJust ordered right now “Thunder in the deep” by Joe Buff
You should enjoy Joe Buff’s novels, he’s one of my favorites. I do agree with some of the others that Dale Brown has lost a bit over the years, but his last couple of books were better than his “middle period” if you get my meaning. The only problem is that he really has developed a long, interlacing storyline that you can lose part of if you don’t read through his lesser works as well.
If anyone’s interested in printing a copy for personal use, I could also email out a PDF or MS Word document.
If you want to e-mail me a PDF file of your work, you can grab my e-mail address at my blog. I’d be interested in giving it a read, my favorite authors appear to be publishing all too infrequently and I’m always on the lookout for something good.
SOCRobert Ludlum and Eric von Lustbader’s Jason Bourne books are good reads. They also have very little to do with the movies, so they’ll be relatively new material if you’ve seen the films. I really like Craig Thomas’s books, but they’re harder to find nowadays (he wrote Firefox). Dale Brown is still pretty good, and you can’t go wrong with Clive Cussler, James Rollins and Jack du Brul. Ted Bell is also a good one, but you have to get used to his propensity for skipping ahead. I read Pirate and there were parts where he’d just skip parts and jump ahead to move the story along. If you want submarine combat, try Joe Buff, he has fabricated a whole new war that the world is fighting instead of trying to make his world fit into the post-9/11 world. 9/11 reminds me, David Hagberg is another really good writer as well.
SOCRobert Ludlum and Eric von Lustbader’s Jason Bourne books are good reads. They also have very little to do with the movies, so they’ll be relatively new material if you’ve seen the films. I really like Craig Thomas’s books, but they’re harder to find nowadays (he wrote Firefox). Dale Brown is still pretty good, and you can’t go wrong with Clive Cussler, James Rollins and Jack du Brul. Ted Bell is also a good one, but you have to get used to his propensity for skipping ahead. I read Pirate and there were parts where he’d just skip parts and jump ahead to move the story along. If you want submarine combat, try Joe Buff, he has fabricated a whole new war that the world is fighting instead of trying to make his world fit into the post-9/11 world. 9/11 reminds me, David Hagberg is another really good writer as well.
Sign In
