Originally Posted by StellarX These aircraft were used in Kosovo and you know the results achieved/not achieved so why pretend they are
some new ace-in-the-hole your introducing? The EOTS will certainly not do anything of the sort and i would LOVE to know what new dimension the EOT
system adds that you think will somehow be able to find a Sam batteries early warning radars.
Well thats because they shut their radars off
and went under Emcom not onlytthat but the terrain is very mountainous over there it's difficult to catcha signal.
So where American harm missiles not designed to beat the 1960's Sa-3 and Sa-6 systems? Why do you imagine that the new missile will not be
equally ineffective considering it's GPS guidance and now cheap GPS jammers in use? If the USA could not beat 1970's ( and i'm being generous)
weapons then what prospect do they have of beating anything designed and built in the last decade? Remember that you are proposing that one new weapon
will turn the entire thing around when in fact it took a great part of American SEAD capability to manage as little as they did in Kosovo. The closer
you are the less stealth you get and by the time your close to your target your also quite the target for point defense fast firing guns and such
weapons IF the enemy is in fact still around. Either way neither the JSF or the F-22 can carry the JASSM internally thus negating their stealth.
Well GPS jammers were used in iraq however they didnt stop the PGM"S. The JASSM can be fitted with other seekers such as IR,Lidar, etc Not
to mention AARGM. The reason why the regular HARMS didnt work in kosovo is because of the mountainous terrain,the radars were off and went under
Emcon. It's not a flaw in the missile its clever tactics in the Gulf Wars sams were taken out with HARMS and many were taken out. It has nothing to
do witha deffeciency.But they are working ona shrunken JASSm with the same range. Also the JASSM can be carried by the B-2.
And your sources said nothing i could take to mean that the F-22 was more stealthy ( and isn't) than the F-117 of which one got shot down in
Kosovo and another limping home with damage. Were the Serbs just really lucky or was the Royal navy telling the truth when they claimed to have
tracked a F-117 at 40 miles with 1960 era radars? Why can you spot stealth planes on radars employing low frequencies? Why do stealthy planes fly into
combat with the same package of escort planes other totally non stealthy planes use? What's the point?
Well stop trying to change waht you
said you said it didnt have all aspect wideband stealth and it does even though it's aerodynamic. The F117 has a slightly smaller rcs which is true.
But doesnt have the all aspect wideband part,turning increases the F117's RCS. Not tommention the F117 is an older generation it just has a slightly
smaller RCS that's all. Well we know that sharp turns increase its RCS by 100 and sharp turns were most likely made. Not tomention they flew the same
filight path a few times in a row. Besides that was mistakes the US made and the serbs took advantage of it. In other campaigns such as the GW1
F117's oerated with no combat support and came out unscathed . Longwave radar can track it but not accurate for a shot it's common sense....laws of
Also during the day they are vulnerable to visually guided weapons (F117 and B 2) due to their painst scheme and the enemy can use radars with huge
wavelengths to detect it although not accurate for fire control fighters can be sent into the general area and fight at visual range. Otherwide they
operate with little or no support .
But see planes have no meaning if the only thing they are achieving is survival........ If they can not effectively interdict then their
survival is a moot point as their doing NOTHING. Sam's, however, do not have to shoot down anything to be effective if the ground forces they are
protecting can be covered by their mere presence. Once again your talking about systems that can not even carry the basic harm's so one wonders how
the F-22 is going to do any better than the current systems.
Well they may not tdo better but even without harm you can perform sead . The weapons bays open and close fast so the time it's exposed is ver y
little especially the F 22 which goes at mach1.7 around the battlefield.
Neither of those weapons can be carrier internally thus making you a 200 million dollar target like any other. You might kill one of them ( if
they do not shoot down your missiles or dislocate to escape your bombs but first obviously you must actually FIND them and fire first which is
apparently not easy considering that half the almost 800 harms fired by the USAF were in fact on mere suspicion of enemy tracking radar activity. Fact
is they do not have to give their positions away till you threaten something they protect and when you fire on that the element
B 2 carries
it internally. Wel suspicion cans ave your life it's a combat situation better safe than sorry.The JASSm is designed to strike heavily defnded
targets by the time it's detected it's too late.
I do not propose that they can not be found at all! What i am saying is that the only way to find them is to pose a threat to something they
must protect thus forcing them into action and leading to you having to expose something. The defense simply has the advantage if it needs not move
troops around on any large scale which was proven quite effectively.
Well thats' what i said you need to bait them well you seem to be
proposing that they can shoot down anything you thow at them. Even if they're moving you can still target and shoot at them. If such mobility for
sams is invulnerability how come many mobile vehicles can be killed.
Survival is obviously part of success but measuring that against lesser enemies is not accurate imo.
Yes but dont you think someone
would eventually slip up and get shot down it's happended to the F16, F 18 but not theF 15. Combat experience is combat experience.
The Sa-5 was a air defenses weapon and those have no reason to fire when nothing they are protecting is under threat. Considering where the
SR-71 flew from ( and the fact that it could be tracked ) everything that could be hidden would be hidden before it got there. That all being said as
far as i know they pretty much avoided Sa-5 sites as much as humanly possible. Either way feel free to show me evidence that they actually got close
enough to Sa-5's to actually be threatened by them.
Well why did they fire if that's so they were protecting soviet territory but they failed so did the other sams. Well they still pnetrated the
airspace the soviets had the most sophisticated and largest air defense net.
From 85 000 feet and Mach 3? Well that would obviously be great but they were not exactly bombers those and for good reason
bombers but fighter the mig 25 was close to the SR 71 and it could fight.
I does conflict with your statement as you keep insisting that the US can effectively shut down air defenses to bomb ground forces which just
did not prove to be the case in Kosovo or for that matter Korea or Vietnam.
Vietnam and korea had older versions of the current weapons. GW1
and gW2 had good sead successes as well as oither conflicts and instances. If a boxer wins a fight loses and wins again and if he trains more it
doesnt mean he sucks. Older tech that is diff doesnt didctate newer tactics will be a failure.
I does conflict with your statement as you keep insisting that the US can effectively shut down air defenses to bomb ground forces which just
did not prove to be the case in Kosovo or for that matter Korea or Vietnam.
Clarify on this please.
The Sam radar only has to shift 500 meters after it scanned and while it's moving another of the battalion's radars will be ready to take
over it's job. Not gap in defenses without even mentioning the short range defenses and their various radars.
Well although that's true
shorter range ones are not as deadly without the long range ones which are the backbone.
As i said the US air force are not getting stronger and Sam numbers are increasing and getting more lethal . The US could not deal with the
Serbs and that type of bad weather and terrain is a far more reasonable than anything that ever happened in the ME wars so many people think in terms
of. I am not trying to discredit newer weapons but simply pointing out that If the US/NATO can not win against a 1970's type threat situation how
will they cope with a 1990's type one? Did US defense research and weapon technology stand still for 20 years or is it just hard to fight Sam's?
Your appealing to future weapons to solve current threats which is what i am strongly objecting to.
Well the US is getting more advanced
equipment , such as the upcoming mEADS,THAAD,SM missiles,MLRS upgrades the list goes on. Well the US destroyed many of the same types of sams in iraq
if a boxer wins a match loses and wins again it doesnt mean he's rubbish. The same can go with a sport's team its an analogy.
So if upgrades wont save the Sam's why will it save the airplanes which are far harder to upgrade? Passive early warning radars are not meant
to target but meant to passively warn against air intrusions so that at the best time the tracking radars can be switched on for a firing solution. As
i understand you can fire on passive early warning notice and then just switch on the targeting radar for mid course corrections for accurate firing
solution. How is that countered?
Well once the missile is launched the plane will now (raptor supercruises at mach 1.7) by the time it comes
close to midcourse it will be gone its not going to stay there and fly into the missile's detection range.
You are stating that airplanes are always better when the Us have always been up against inferior enemies with nowhere near the money power to
buy Sam's or air defenses in the same dollar value. IF you do not understand how this is relevant it explains why we wont resolve much anything ever.
How can we compare systems if the same amount of cash can not be spent concepts?
Well Russia has been up against inferior enemies such as
afghanistan in the 80's and lost with their tails between their legs.Besides even if you went up against an inferior enemy one of your guys will
probably mess up and get shot down it's happen to a lot of other Us fighters other than the F 15.
What will the active seekers do in your opinion? Are they going to find the radar while moving under tree cover; somehow? Active seekers is
great and all but they can be shot down just like anything else.
MMW wave radar can probably goe through terrain very well it's a very thin
beam not to mention if obstructing terrain always saved the sam from the active radar why even bother with active seekers. True they can be shot down
but how many no anti missile system is 100% accurate some will get through.
I am not talking about cell phone traffic tracking at all. Why can the enemy not use Low frequency scanning radars to expose the stealth
planes? All that wonderful strengths of the SEAD forces came to not much at all in Kosovo but yet you keep pretending it was some kind of fair fight.
Imagine if the Serbs had the same money to spend ( that NATO airplanes and infrastructure cost) on a modern air defense and it would have been quite a
different affair as military analyst frankly admit to.
I was talking of passive coherent location. Because low frequency waves have very long
wavelengths and not accurate enough to guide a missile. And only very large wavelenths will expose them giving youa very big receiving antenna making
it very immmobile.
The F-117 needed the same support aircraft as the all the others so why imagine that the F-22 is now going to fly into danger all alone? Where
is it even CLAIMED that the F-22 can do all that?
The F117 fights with no combat support usually like over baghdad not a single F117 was shot
down if they always needed cover to be safe there is little value in bothering with AC like the F117. Well if you read the rapto link properly you
would know it can fight with little or no support.
Split seconds huh? How will super cruise save the airplane from long range Sam's moving at nearly 3 times it's speed?
designed to open and close well before the enemy can react.Supercruise shortens the enemy's time to react and maxi izes the range of all weapons.
Yes i am still wondering how you came up with that excuse for a obvious weapon system flaw.
A flaw for which you have no proof for
other than your own speculation if that were true many F117's wouldve been killed.
Non of these technologies are new or unexpected meaning there is not much to talk about. The problem of SEAD have been solved in the last few
years thus but could not beat 1960-70's IADS?
they bea them in the gulf wars not to mention they shut off their radar harms have no other
guidance so what are they going to do. It's not a systems flaw its a clever tactic used by the serbs which had consequences though.
It is extremely relevant and another reason this discussion wont ever go anywhere.
Not to the topic at hand.
One can build a hundred F-16's for the price of a B-2 Spirit bomber and in the end probably half a dozen for each F-22 so one has to ask why
the complaint is raised that the US will be outnumbered when such silly investments are being made. Why not train your pilots to be better and rely on
doctrine and superior strategy to win instead of trying to do it by means of single airframes that might or might not achieve anything?
with or without these planes we'll be outnumbered and the need for them is obvious many other jets are at parity with the F 15 and otherswill surpass
it. Not to mention the R 77 has a greater range in the AMRAAM.
The Russians ( or anyone else ) can stop the AGM 129 given they have limited space to defend or enough planes to patrol the skies in search of
them. They are just stealthier cruise missiles with VERY long range but since there is only 400- 500 in stock and they have not been in production for
a decade now one has to wonder if anyone will spend strategic weapons ( 3700 km range) on Sam radars which can move around? The US forces fired over
750 short range ( relatively little response time compared to this 800 km/h weapon) HARM's killing very few ( 3 out of 26 Sa-6 batteries confirmed)
for the effort. Whatever the decisions made the only planes that carry them are the B-52H Stratofortress which will likely be operating from their
American basis meaning this weapon will be very unlikely to be effective against fleeting targets such as mobile Sam batteries.
talking of certain wepaons which cans trike targets in heavily defnded airspace and the se can be upgraded with seekers like MMW or IR.
Well where did you read such a weapon will be used against mobile Sam radars anyways? Do you believe there is not 400-500 strategic targets to
hit in any given country and in this case Russia? Would anyone waste such limited stocks on such fleeting targets considering the odds of it being
effective? Most of Russia is not in Europe but one can argue that most of the great population and strategic ( and thus defenses) is in European
Well you can modify it with seekers like MMW like the JASSm has an IR seeeker.
Well if you were born in America you must be very young to speak the language the way you do. I am not ignorant of what the Harm will or can do
considering we had a good opportunity to see it in action against fleeting targets in Kosovo. The only aircraft that can currently carry the AGM 88 is
the F-16c's which still have to get in range ( 50 km's of the threat radar to fire the weapon even if you know where it is) which will probably be a
bad idea against 200 - 300 km range S-300 systems.As you can see the system is rather limited and it explains why it was so ineffective against
Kosovo's Sam batteries. When the newer system enters service we can debate whether it will do any better to fight the S-400 than the current Harm
will likely in fighting S-300's.
Well you can fly below their horizon and fly through terrain and sneak up on them. Well why talk of the
new harms failing if the old ones did especially since they're so different.
Well it's not even in service yet ( and it might never be) so it could not POSSIBLE have been there much as you like talking about it.
We just have to wait and see.
I full well know they surrendered but their defense forces were more than read to continue the battle had the political will existed. They
folded because losing your industries ( and thus your friends) is something a president/dictator can only take for so long before seeking terms.
The srbs wouldve been defeated anyway.
Anything stealthy is seriously compromised in rainy weather as the effect of water bouncing in every and all directions makes for a far larger
RCS and generally degrades the RAM coats.
wouldn't the rain come off in the high air sppeds?
They have all weather capability but every plane flying today is far less effective in bad weather situations if they fly at all. "All
weather' is a catch-phrase which means they can fly and bomb stuff and MAYBE even hit it.
They have hit things plenty of times yiur statement
has nothing to do with allweather it degrades yes but they can still fight.
It rains plenty and everything stealthy will have it's RCS increased by ANY rain falling on it.
Well if you fly above the
It is at least as much American stupidity as it is Serb Ingenuity and they not only shot down that one but damaged another which sent it back
to base rather promptly as i understand.
Well that's true
RCS is not meaningless but as i said before the F-22 carries nothing that another plane could not carry even if the F-22 can probably get
it's JDAM's closer by virtue of surviving to get them there. RCS is great but it coming at the cost of carrying effective weapons leads me to
question the logic.
The DDX carries all the same weapons. Well it can still carry a good variety of weapons but not many which is a
War is only 'easy' if the enemy presents you with opportunities( by virtue of having no means/intelligence/practice) enough to make it so.
Considering how standards differ 'easy'( for politicians) can still mean almost anything unless your the grunt with the bullet in the gut ( if your
Well that's true no navy is unbeatble but that doesnt meanthey're easy to kill.
Yes i do and i am still laughing that anyone in their right mind can be sold such apatently dumb idea when the platform is still only moving at
30 odd knots.
What does pped have to with it it still reduces the appearnce of the carrier.
What do i not know about the first gulf war according to you? The only things patriots seems to shoot down with success is friendly aircraft
and the performance only improved in operation Iraqi freedom because it could not really get any worse than it was in the first one.
not what i meant in GW1 they did bad but in GW2 they did good.
I did and there is really nothing to talk about when it comes to the sparrow's success in iraq. I never suggested that the missile itself was
horrible as much as that it did not live up to the specified task of killing enemy aircraft at the ranges it was supposed to.The Sparrows are
intermediate-range air-to-air missiles. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, they were used by American forces to shoot down 25 Iraqi planes.While having
missiles coming at you from long range is certainly not going to brigthen up your day ( even if you see them coming) it really does not say much that
the USA can still not manage such a small percentage of their kills on BVR. These sources basically make it clear that even if all of the BVR kills
were made with the Sparrow that still means only half of planes killed with sparrows were from BVR. Is this really all that 2 decades of fighting the
BVR doctrine could result in?
Well no one said semi active seeker were perfect you can outmaeuver and survive.
When i claim something as fact odds are massively in favour of it being such as i probably checked just to be sure. I have pride enough to make
sure my claims are supported. I have posted many sources but after seeing how you treat those ( you have great trouble reading it seems) i will just
keep talking for now. Feel free to make a list of things you consider lies so i can then proceed to embarrass you at lenght.
Well you have
good sources but dont use them properly sometimes. Some of the assumptions you make are not well founded or rooted in much fact.
Now if you want to disagree with that just tell me why with your own sources. The B-2 was meant to replace the B-1 which was a low altitude
penetrating bomber. I am not suggesting that the B-2 could not fly at high altitude as well but just that it's primary design function was to
penetrate Soviet defenses at the time which is something you did not try do at high altitude.
Well in the future please try to make some
agruments clearer. The B-2 can still penetrate defenses at high altitude although i never said they had to fly low.
I have plenty of proof to show how CNN and most other Western networks consistently lie about most anything you can imagine and if you have not
noticed them doing so it says far more about your general knowledge( rather lack of it) than it does about mine. The only one full of 'propaganda
stuff' is the one who claims that that things work as specified in their manuals and that is NOT what i am doing as should be obvious to anyone. I
know about the JSF's EOTS and it's just not something that will change much anything considering what it adds.
Well post them i'd like to
see them so i can stop watching them there have been plenty of time russian networkds have lied too.
Past failure is all we should spend time on as those are the best cases to learn from. You thought the patriot was some kind of wonder women
and i showed that it could not even destroy scuds, once, it seems. You talk about real life tactics? Where did you and for that matter everyone uses
propaganda so i am not suggesting the US is the only military that inflates it's prowess beyond reality.
Well it doesn not mean othert
weapons will fail as well. www.itworld.com...
It was a software glitch.
If one shuts it's radar off there are still others in the battalion which could keep theirs on. They could in fact always have at least one
on or ready to go on moments notice while the rest are displacing to new positions. You seem to forget that they still all have their early warning
radars and that the Russians also had their mainstains and other early warning aircraft to warn the Sam's of approaching hostiles. Your entire theory
is centered around the fact that you imagine Sam's all on their own when they are designed to work with supporting forces towards a general effort.
Since most countries the US attacks can simple not contest US air superiority ( when it comes to having their own airfields and planes not shot to
bits) you now imagine that because their Sam's do not contribute towards winning that Sam's are thus useless. Well your the one making up fantasy
scenarios to try make one system look worse than it is.
Well then you're not getting the most out of your system and those can be targeted
Unguided missiles for part of the flight after you possibly picked up enough data for general directional launch. The S-300 missile has it's
own radar and when it gets close to target it will send the data pack for processing so that the battery can send it a firing solution for
intercepting the target. This means that you can fire unguided without having precise tracking information thus greatly increasing the range at which
you can attack even fleeting targets.
Ive heard but that also means the plane can fly away away before the missile can come (especially
All of your posting show that you read a few military brochures and that you know think you understand anything about combined arms warfare
when it's patently obvious that you do not. I have plenty of proof to show that the US armed forces is designed for policing third world nations and
not designed to fight a major war against a rival like the USSR were. The USSR understands that in a nuclear war you build your armed forces around
throw-away weapons and that you can not depend on massively expensive things ( aircraft carriers and B-2 stealth bombers) that can operate only from
certain ports or in the case of the B-2 from i think four airfields that would not be there to return after the first mission. If your weapons system
can only operate from air conditioned hangers and need 10 hours of maintenance( B-2 and it used to be almost 20 meaning it flies one mission every
four to seven days) for each in the air your looking for trouble and reasonable sure that the enemy can not in fact do anything to upset your delicate
Well the B-2's new RAM significanly reduces maintenaance time and although it can only fly from certain bases it flies 6000
mles without refueling.Even though the hangars may not be there you ca still land on any landing strip. Why are you speaking of nuclear warfare if it
ever happned no side would win. So it really doesnt matter who has what.
Yes it can but how far away can you detect something by FLIR? If the are not moving or have had some minutes for their engines to cool their
will not see a thing unless you want to target random humans i imagine. Now how easy is it to place decoys against infrared detection you might ask
and i will say not so hard. Ask the Serbs how they managed to fill various things with water and how sunlight then helped warm it so that the USAF
could then waste rather expensive weapons on it. How will you decide which of the dozens of vehicles employed by a Sam battery is actually the radar
given the entire battery recently moved so is still visible? There are more questions then answers IMO and if you fire on the wrong you you expose
yourself rather well and you only have to look at the weapons load out of the stealth mission JSF to see that you do not have the weapons to get into
the type of fights where you must destroy multiple targets to ensure your own survival.
The EOTS allows detection at very long range to give
360 degree situational awareness and track and attack moving ground targets.I can use the radar in conjunction with it to avoid decoys or datalinks
from offboard sources. Well firing wont expose it much the bays open and close quick well before the enemy has time to fight back.
The JSF can not carry ARMS internally and if it's on pylons there goes your stealth.It was proven that even in a small country, relatively
close to American bases, and surrounded from all sides the US could never have enough Harm carrying platforms around to do anything but protect strike
packages to some extent and even then most of the HARM's fired were preemptive with very VERY little result. I am sorry but it's quite obvious that
the threat of modern Sam weaponry is on another level entirely and that you do not even begin to understand the complexity of fighting IADS.
I know the complexity of a modern iads and how deadly it is it would take very long to take it out. true F 35's may not be but it could be upgraded
to carry it. Anyway ARMS arent the only way to target sams and moving targets you can use the maverick. You also seem to using the failure of old
weapons and how it will forever dictate future SEAD which will not.
Your offending me by still being here and insisting that you know what you clearly do not.
You seem to think that because of past SEAD
failures any future sead attempts will fail.
[edit on 22-4-2006 by urmomma158]