Originally by StellarX:
It's fairly simple. When you respond to me it should be easy to note how and where the quote boxes go and all you do is include such boxes around the
part of the text your responding to.
still dont understand what ur saying
Originally by StellarX:
Well there is no other way to test your Sam's than against high speed purpose built drones unless you have plenty of old high performance aircraft
that you can modify for ground based control. You can use various types of missiles as well but high speed drone-like targets are best. I could
probably find a link if i started looking but i really have better things to do than do ALL your research work for you.
still not stealth AC you werent adress ing the questiom there. They cant for example test it out on a JSF (russia is struggling to build stealth
fighters that are blended body quite sad attempts)
Originally by StellarX:
High altitude is no place to try hide from modern Sam's but it is a great way to lob nearly-dumb bombs if you have very low RCS and can sneak close
enough. The S-300 has data links so it can get it's tracking data from AWACS and it can also fire missile long before it has a positive lock on. Not
that all of that is relevant but i think your simplifying the issue a bit much when you claim the F-22 will have a field day against systems designed
with stealth in mind.
The F/A 22 doesnt use altitude and speed for hiding the stealth does that. Supercruise complicates things further. Short wave radar wouldnt work
you're acting like the F/A 22 is easy to bring down. The Raptor can also fire weapons via datalink from AWACS and other fighters.
Originally by StellarX:
And the SA-6 has nothing like the range of these weapons. Against a clever enemy who is willing to use the terrain and manoeuvre effectively there is
nothing simple about taking out Sam's of ANY type.
Give me asources stating what milosevich ddid with his sams.he used
they turned em off, dispersed them and put them under emissions control
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...
beth.htm
Originally by StellarX:
The whole of NATO could apparently not even destroy the Yugoslavian air defenses in all that time so one really has to wonder how much SEAD is in fact
hyped. The fact that they never could take care of the Sam's explains piss-poor performance against the Yugoslav army and ground units VERY well.
They could never really fly the anti ground missions as they were always just waiting and watching to get blown out of the sky.
read the top. it also shows how good the SEAD was during the Gulf war
Originally by StellarX:
The 95% thing is a myth of epic proportions and you will have to be more careful what you use as 'facts'. You will be surprised how few 'facts'
are anything close to certain. The fact that the US lost so few planes as more to do with how limited in scope the air campaign was and how well
supported their bombing missions was.
If you start reading material on this
thread you might notice that a clever enemy making good use of the weather ( and all such things you can't control either) and his manpower and
weapon systems can beat you at your own game. >>>
limites scope the SAMs were perfectly surpressed except mbaghdadad. night hawks fly so amny sorties without getting scratched. No F 15's were lost
in A2A . 95% is ann educated guess based on one war not overall. HARMS have been dangerous sometimes. for example when there were no enemy
emissionsthe HARM hit a B 52. AIm 7 sparrow were optimized for bombers not fighters the article fails at pointing that out. About milosevih rmemeber
emissions control. the HARMS concept is quite simple but when it works its great.
Originally by StellarX:
Unfortunately, radar has not only turned out to be less than invincible, it has recently become a liability. Fueling what is now a raging debate are
the last few shooting engagements in the Middle East: The USS Stark could not defend itself against two Exocet sea-skimming missiles; USS Vincennes
Aegis cruiser fired BVR at what its crew thought was an attacking fighter and downed an Iranian airliner; and two F-14s fired twice at intruding
Libyan fighters, missing them BVR with radar-guided Sparrows and shooting them down within visual range with a Sparrow and a heat-seeking Sidewinder.
The Stark is a an old and sad vessel dont why its mentioned.Sparrows were made to shoot down bombers not fighters. Same with the aptriot incase you
try pointing that out . (patriot was for planes not missiles just modified to do that) . Friendly fire has ahppened before. Sure its embarrassign but
it happens.
Originally by StellarX:
Suddenly, a minor enemy arose who put up a limited air challenge with inferior MiGs. The U.S. fielded its front-line fighters, in particular the F-4
Phantom II, which had been designed for fleet defense rather than violent close-combat aerial maneuvering. Back came the dogfight, but since pilots
had little dogfight training and worried about killing their buddies, the Americans did not do well, especially with radar-guided Sparrows and
especially beyond visual range.
The sparrow was made for bombers not fighters. The F 4 has no gun either.
Originally by StellarX:
Even though Vietnam drove home the lesson that pilots and aircraft must learn to dogfight within visual range, the air services asked for improved
radar missiles. The AMRAAM emerged, supported by advocates inside and outside the DOD. To score a kill during a swirling dogfight, a pilot would have
to launch missiles one after the other at multiple targets, a dubious tactic quickly called "launch-and-leave." "What no one wanted to say," says
Myers, "is that they already had a missile that did this -- the cheap, accurate heat-seeking Sidewinder."
Sidewinder is a short range heat seaking missile it simply doesnt have the range to match it.
Originally by StellarX:
At $ 500,000 a missile, the AMRAAM solution has a cost 10 times higher than a Sidewinder. It is so expensive that the services have been forced to
stop buying the Sidewinder because they can no longer afford both radar-guided and heat-seeking missiles.
like i said
Originally by StellarX:
Burton fast became one of the most unpopular men in the Pentagon. He titled the briefing he gave on his findings "Letting Combat Results Shape the
Next Air-to-Air Missile." His findings? Of more than 260 Arab aircraft knocked down by Israel in 1973, only five fell to Sparrows in 12 firings. Of
the 632 Sparrows fired in all the wars Burton studied, only 73 destroyed the airplane they were fired at, for a kill rating of 11%. The ancient
Sidewinder did almost three times better: of some 1,000 Sidewinder firings, 308 kills resulted in a kill rating of 30%.
In Southeast Asia, Sparrow had such a poor reputation that pilots routinely ripple-fired their Sparrows, firing off two or more in a row rather than
taking a chance on a single shot. Even though few fighters came to Vietnam equipped with guns, they had a better kill rating than Sparrow-equipped
fighters. Burton found that guns actually made about one-third of all the kills counted in Vietnam
Never forget the Sparrows original mission. Missles werent that good back then.
Originally by StellarX:
Burton fast became one of the most unpopular men in the Pentagon. He titled the briefing he gave on his findings "Letting Combat Results Shape the
Next Air-to-Air Missile." His findings? Of more than 260 Arab aircraft knocked down by Israel in 1973, only five fell to Sparrows in 12 firings. Of
the 632 Sparrows fired in all the wars Burton studied, only 73 destroyed the airplane they were fired at, for a kill rating of 11%. The ancient
Sidewinder did almost three times better: of some 1,000 Sidewinder firings, 308 kills resulted in a kill rating of 30%.
In Southeast Asia, Sparrow had such a poor reputation that pilots routinely ripple-fired their Sparrows, firing off two or more in a row rather than
taking a chance on a single shot. Even though few fighters came to Vietnam equipped with guns, they had a better kill rating than Sparrow-equipped
fighters. Burton found that guns actually made about one-third of all the kills counted in Vietna
didnt i say HARMS have the tendency to hit allies when there are no emission from the enemy.
Originally by StellarX:
In 1984, Burton managed to have the idea tested in McDonnell Douglas' differential maneuvering simulators. The results were devastating. Over and
over, ARM-equipped fighters shot down AMRAAM aircraft and missiles. The results were turned over to the AMRAAM office, which invalidated them and
threw out the exercise. In airborne tests in Nevada, Red Force aircraft using simple radar homing and warning devices could see Blue Force AMRAAM
radars coming on 10 mi. away. The warnings allowed Red Force to turn away and beat the missile. When the AMRAAM radar was reset to come on 5 mi. from
the target aircraft, the change negated the longed-for BVR scenario.
well obviously what are anti radiation missiles going to do. They're obviously goign to home on.
Originally by StellarX:
In 1984, Burton managed to have the idea tested in McDonnell Douglas' differential maneuvering simulators. The results were devastating. Over and
over, ARM-equipped fighters shot down AMRAAM aircraft and missiles. The results were turned over to the AMRAAM office, which invalidated them and
threw out the exercise. In airborne tests in Nevada, Red Force aircraft using simple radar homing and warning devices could see Blue Force AMRAAM
radars coming on 10 mi. away. The warnings allowed Red Force to turn away and beat the missile. When the AMRAAM radar was reset to come on 5 mi. from
the target aircraft, the change negated the longed-for BVR scenario.
In addition, the missile's fabled multiple-target tracking and killing capability turned out to be no more effective than single-target shooting,
either in simulations or live aerial firings. "The simple launch-and-leave ARM casts a pall over the whole issue since it homes in perfectly on an
illuminating radar," says Defense Dept. analyst Thomas Amlie. "This means you can't use AMRAAM, AIM-7, Phoenix, or any other radar-guided missile
in combat."
launch and leave gives you good survivability. like everyone says just turn off your radar and go under emissiosnc ontrol there goes your anti radar
missile down the drain. (thats why they didnt choose it). A lot of missiles have bad rep at first then become legendary look at the patriot and the
sparrow. The AMRAAM seeker is being applied to the standard missiles.
Originally by StellarX:
Meanwhile, the USSR has a well-developed series of ARMs, including the AA-10 Alamo for air-to-air combat. They have also converted the AS-4 Kitchen
and AS-6 Kingfish, both with 2,200-lb warheads, into ARMs. Notes Amlie: "They never throw anything away. Flying at Mach 3+, these are a tremendous
threat to the U.S. fleet, which is virtually bathed in radar. Now our prime weapons systems, such as Aegis, STARS, E-3A, Patriot, and Hawk, are in
serious jeopardy."
the latest phased arrays have LPI. and are difficult to intercept. that doesnt work anymore.
Originally by StellarX:
The pilot firing the ARM still has problems, such as obtaining distance from the target, the need for his own radar to paint the target and give its
range, the possibility of the ARM homing in on multiple enemy and friendly radars in the air, ground, and sea, and the very strong possibility of
homing in on decoys. Regardless, the mere presence of ARMs in the air can lead to everyone turning off their radars, which puts the real combat arena
squarely back into the visual, maneuvering, close-up fight that, AMRAAM supporters say, is not likely to happen because of the "reality" of BVR
combat.
yea u tell me why peopel are developing BVR missiles. if you shut your radar off waht good is it going to do with an AMRAAM.
Originally by StellarX:
In 1969, the DOD tried to test an air-to-air ARM developed from the Sparrow airframe under the project name Brazo. At modest cost, three test firings
destroyed three target drones. Amlie says the program "was cancelled when it could be interpreted as eliminating large radar fighters such as the
F-14 and F-15, since the tests proved you could not use a radar fighter in combat when up against ARMs. The only countermeasure was to turn the radars
off, so everything was swept under a rug." Now, department rumblings suggest that development of an air-to-air ARM is again under consideration.
The host of U.S. radar-based weapons are all vulnerable to ARMs. The E-3A AWACS has a superb radar antenna that can detect hundreds of targets
simultaneously -- and can itself be seen at extremely long distances. An AS-4 or -6 could be launched 300-400 mi. away and home in on it with ease.
The same is true for the 40 Aegis cruisers and destroyers destined for fleet service with the Navy. With hundreds of Soviet ARMs ready for firing from
submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and land, a U.S. carrier battle group, heavily dependent on radar, might be in serious trouble, especially if the
missiles were sea-skimmers.
like fighter wil ust fly up to the awacs when swarms of missiles are being shot at them yea........ Ever hear of air escorts, and LPI. but like you
said turn your radar offf. Arleigh Burkes have LOW RCS's and are accompanied by subs.
Originally by StellarX:
At best, Navy countermeasures are limited against so simple a weapon. Sea-skimmers pop up over the radar horizon a bare 14 mi. away, and when radar
does detect the missile, the radar reflections bounce off the waves, making it difficult to determine altitude, thus throwing off tracking. A third
Soviet line of attack comes from their radar jammers, among the world's most powerful.
Pilots of B-1 and B-2 bombers penetrating Soviet airspace most likely will use terrain-following radar to stay low and avoid detection. Using
inexpensive radar finders, like the fuzzbusters motorists use to avoid police speed traps, on hiss surrounded by flat terrain, the Soviets should have
no trouble seeing the bombers coming. And Soviet radar homing and warning equipment can pick up VHF transmissions or over-the-horizon radar from
distant approaching aircraft. In fact, the whole issue of stealth technology could become moot, if one considers that a radar antenna runs along the
entire length of a B-2 wing's leading edge. Once in visual range, stealth is irrelevant. It is more than probable that an F-117 or a B-2 can be
found, identified, and shot down using basic common sense. The F-117 has to make such wide turns that its survival in a visual air-to-air fight is
precarious.
AEGIS is designed to deal with sea skimmers. radars are getting better at recocgnizing targets from clutter.Why would B-2's fly low they can fly
high and avioidd etection. Visual range yea right. Try this...the B-2 is black and so is the sky . Other fighters are near........ F 177's fly at
night. very low chance of visual interception. VHF radar and OTOH cant perform fire control u need x band. These are immobile. The US wiped out all
long wave and OTOH radars out with cruise misssiels and apaches flying low.
Originally by StellarX:
Myers, who proposed the first stealth aircraft ideas under Project Harvey (after the famous invisible rabbit), is extremely disappointed over where
things have ended up. He recommended a small, inexpensive aircraft that would be hard to find with radar and eye. Yes, payload would have been small,
but the idea was to confuse the opposition. "Suppose I weigh only 75 lb, with the payload of a hatpin, but I'm visible," he says. "How much
trouble and chaos could I cause in the enemy camp?" A small aircraft carrying a small ARM and a gun, Myers' original stealth plane was to
effectively blind the enemy by taking out radar vans and emplacements. The F-117 seems to have a similar mission, but had to be bigger to carry
weapons like the Maverick missile as required by current Air Force doctrine.
Still, a growing number of soldiers and analysts are asking tough questions about the future of radar warfare. "We cannot go around radiating
signals," says Amlie. "The French sell a missile to the entire Third World that will hit an Aegis every time. We are building a peacetime military
that will never be effective in combat."
read about modern radar. It isnt easy to dect thme anymore.
Your article made a lot of comments without adressing all facts and recent advances etc. you posted a blog instead of an article please adress the
issue.
forgive any punctuation errors im going to late for an appointment.
awesome and funny.....
media.putfile.com...
[edit on 29-3-2006 by urmomma158]
[edit on 29-3-2006 by urmomma158]
[edit on 29-3-2006 by urmomma158]
Zedd's Handbook for BBcode
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
[Mod Edit: To include proper BBcode tags for quoting another member]
[edit on 4/2/2006 by 12m8keall2c]
They haven't. You obviously don;t understand the difference in teh reentry speeds of ballistic misisles. An
IRBm is far easier to interecept than an ICBM 
