It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thoughts on the ULTIMATE AWACS hunter

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Here are my thoughts on what the US could have as an Ultimate AWACS hunter, usable NOW.

Outfit the B-1b with a rotary launcher in the forward two bays (making one large bay over 30 feet long) that houses multiple SM-6 missiles. The SM-6 already has the AMRAAM seeker so no problems there. The US also has experience mounting the Standard family if missiles to aircraft.

Global Security SM-6 Info

Raytheon Info

Here is the scenario:
As the B-1b approaches outer AWACS detection range, it fires multiple SM-6s in high-apogee trajectories and then retreats.

Forward F-22s give any mid-coarse guidance needed. After AWACS shot down, F-22s mop up any fighters.

How to make it better:
1. Larger, slower burning booster increases range. Remember that the booster fitted was designed to take it from sea level to over 60,000 feet and super sonic. I know that the booster alone does not get it to 60k, but it is responsible for a good deal of the speed.

2. Let it coast as it reaches apogee before igniting second stage to extend range.

3. Since the bay is over 30 feet long, lengthen the booster to extend range.

In the end you could have a anti-AWACS platform with over a 1000 mile range.

[edit] Yes, I know that the dev work on the SM-6 is not complete... Use the longest range SM2/3 instead. How about a Patriot Mod2 (longer range than Mod 3).

[edit on 24-7-2006 by SpudmanWP]




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
so, what are the current shortcomings of the AIMs' used by the USAF in hunting A"whacks"? and why use a dedicated platform. not to many air arms field AWACS aircraft.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
There is never anything ultimate. Ultimate would suggest it is the last and best, but as we all know, time goes on, and with time comes new technology, so we can't say Ultimate until we truely know nothing comes after it.


Anyways, how could this possibly aid us in having a dedicated Anti-AWACs platform?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 140th CES
so, what are the current shortcomings of the AIMs' used by the USAF in hunting A"whacks"? and why use a dedicated platform. not to many air arms field AWACS aircraft.


Well, to start with the AMRAAM has too short of a range to deal with the 600k+ detection range of a good AWACS plane. The only plane that stands a chance is the F-22 and we have too few of them and their legs 'could' be too short in some scenarios.

As to the dedicated platform argument, the only thing dedicated would be the rotary launcher. The missile would, pardon the pun, be a standard 'Standard' of an extended SM-2/3/6 variety. The only change would be a software upgrade to deal with the different flight profile. We lost our long range AIM strike capability with the retirement of the AIM-54.



Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Anyways, how could this possibly aid us in having a dedicated Anti-AWACs platform?
Shattered OUT...


That is not my point. I was stating that, in a pinch, the US could field a long range (both in aircraft and missile) anti-AWACS platform that could be slapped together using today's tech with as little as a software upgrade. The B-1b airframes could be tasked from any unit and would not have to be dedicated.

My inspiration for this thread came because I have had to defend the capabilities of the F-22 too often. Many I have talked to have always thrown in the 'F-22 against multiple AWACS' scenario. I just tried to show that they (AWACS) could be taken off the playing field very quickly.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by SpudmanWP]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Why do you need a dedicated launch platform for this? We've fitted Standard Missiles to jet fighters in the past (AGM-78 "STARM") with little trouble and I doubt even an extended-range SM-6 would be too heavy for carraige by current jets (F-15/16/18) although it likely wouldn't fit internal laucnh bays on the F-22 or F-35.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
RedMatt

B1 would seroiusly outrange fighter aircrafts and it wouldn't be a dedicated platrform, but rather a weapons package for existing aircrafts, right?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Why wouldnt the Raptors just shoot the AWACS down? You mention they are "forward" anyways.

Lets say you have a collection of Raptors, maybe 6 or so, why couldnt they kill off any fighters BVR before engaging the AWACS? Or at the same time? Who is to say one single Raptor cant sneak up on an AWACS long enough to shoot it down?

I cant imagine that an enemy force could locate and engage a half dozen Raptors before one of them could kill off thier AWACS. I mean after all, this is EXACTLY what they are designed for. They arent invisable, but they dont have to be, they just need to be undetectable long enough to get a few shots off, and they do that nicely. Once that AWACS is gone, you dont need Raptors to mop the skies up (but they sure would not have a hard time doing it)



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedMatt
Why do you need a dedicated launch platform for this? We've fitted Standard Missiles to jet fighters in the past…


It is not a dedicated launch platform… It is just an optional load package. The Raytheon RIM-156 Standard SM-2ER Block IV is 21.5 ft long…. Way too big for the internals of a F-22 or F-35. It might be too long for a wing mount. Add the longer booster and your pushing 30ft in length.


Originally posted by skippytjc
Why wouldnt the Raptors just shoot the AWACS down? You mention they are "forward" anyways.


Several Reasons:
1. Because there are very little F-22’s NOW.
2. The B-1b has longer legs, carries more, and has a better EW package.
3. The B-1b could operate in theaters where the F-22 has no access. Think about the first few weeks of the Afghanistan campaign where it was all Navy fighters for the most part.
4. The B-1b could carry just a few as part of a regular mission load and continue to prosecute a standard (pardon the pun) mission after the AWACS are disposed of.


Who is to say one single Raptor cant sneak up on an AWACS long enough to shoot it down?


I think it can. Although, for the reasons stated above, that may not be possible. Check HERE for what I think would happen in a F-22 vs. AWACS engagement.


I cant imagine that an enemy force could locate and engage a half dozen Raptors


IMHO, the single greatest threat to an F-22 in the near term is improvements in enemy AWACS platforms. Think about it, how do you defeat stealth???? Build a bigger, smarter radar!

While it is impractical to upgrade fighters with larger radars and more computing power to better detect the F-22’s LPI radar, a large AWACS bird is the perfect candidate for the upgrades. To counter this, you would have to improve the EW suite in the F-22 which is not going to happen as there is VERY little room.

One final thought, SEAD aircraft tend not to be frontline frames as they are in a very dangerous position. This is why I did not propose using a B2



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpudmanWP
Here are my thoughts on what the US could have as an Ultimate AWACS hunter, usable NOW.

Outfit the B-1b with a rotary launcher in the forward two bays (making one large bay over 30 feet long) that houses multiple SM-6 missiles. The SM-6 already has the AMRAAM seeker so no problems there. The US also has experience mounting the Standard family if missiles to aircraft.

Global Security SM-6 Info

Raytheon Info

Here is the scenario:
As the B-1b approaches outer AWACS detection range, it fires multiple SM-6s in high-apogee trajectories and then retreats.

Forward F-22s give any mid-coarse guidance needed. After AWACS shot down, F-22s mop up any fighters.

How to make it better:
1. Larger, slower burning booster increases range. Remember that the booster fitted was designed to take it from sea level to over 60,000 feet and super sonic. I know that the booster alone does not get it to 60k, but it is responsible for a good deal of the speed.

2. Let it coast as it reaches apogee before igniting second stage to extend range.

3. Since the bay is over 30 feet long, lengthen the booster to extend range.

In the end you could have a anti-AWACS platform with over a 1000 mile range.

[edit] Yes, I know that the dev work on the SM-6 is not complete... Use the longest range SM2/3 instead. How about a Patriot Mod2 (longer range than Mod 3).

[edit on 24-7-2006 by SpudmanWP]


AWACS aircraft are already obsolete against technologically sophisticated enemies.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by orca71]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
How is the ability to command a mass amount of aircraft over a battlefield obsolete?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
again, not very many air arms field AWACS platforms, this fact alone negates any expensive modifications to the B-1 fleet. the few nations that do fly indigenous AWACS are utterly lacking in effective C3 and overall capability.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
How is the ability to command a mass amount of aircraft over a battlefield obsolete?

Shattered OUT...


Even the most technologically advanced AWACS aircraft would be hard pressed to "command a mass amount of aircraft over a battlefield" while exploding in mid-air and plummeting to earth in flames.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
1. Hit the AWACS on the ground with cruise missiles or SOF, nobdy puts these things in hardened barns and so they are all relatively easy to kill because they all require very large, heavyweight capable, ramp and runways.

2. Roll back the AWACS detection thresholds with jammer/chaff corridors. We've been doing this, with drones as the chaff bombers, since the Vietnam war. Not a single bomber in the later phases of the 1972 action was lost so long as it was within the proper zone to be protected by the radar.

3. Shift to 'throwaway A2A' in the form of UCAVs or hunting Turbo-AAM and get the same range without the parent vehicle modifications and furthermore with improved signatures and the ability to potentially come in /very high/ and -extremely fast- as Mach 2-3 sustained vehicles in the 80-90K foot range (which will both remove most counter-shot engagement options from the 'escorts' which will be completely out of envelope and negate the large part of any retrograde maneuver by the AEW&C). All while potentially maintaining the ability to make multiple passes, the largest vulnerability of conventional SAMs or AAMs of all kinds.

4. Acknowledge the fact that an F-22 will do about 15 miles per minute in full on supercruise. And an AIM-120D will probably average about double this for the first 10-15 miles and then the same amount thereafter out to 60-80. While an ABL-1 will destroy targets upwards of 400km away (some sources say line of sight for high altitude targets which means 1,000km) in approximtely .00134 seconds. If you include splash correction and thermal ablation effects on the target, a 'generous' proposition would be for a 3-4 second total engagement window.

ARGUMENT:
There is no real justification for anything manned once we shift to DEWS. Everything will be throwaway. At the same time, most of the 'roles and missions' restrictions are purely artificial turf-war related to service parochialism so the notion that we will not have platforms of sufficient standoff to _protect our carriers and ground environment_ is equally ludicrous, if only because, once you permanently eject the idiot on the front end, all aspects of system aero performance increases by orders of magnitude while losing weight.

The SM-6 is designed to extend the engagement window against loloing threats buried in land clutter as with the Iraqi Mirage F-1 attack on the U.S. carrier groups close inshore in 1991. Or vs. submarine or longrange ASUW naval threats attempting saturation attack in mixed-profile trajectories (cough, Brahmos) where SARH and even SARH/IR is horizon/lane coverage restrictive.

It is not intended as a full-depth OCA system to support penetrating overland power projection assets. However; if it were to be so used (assuming the HG&U navy could ever overcome the Air Admirals) it should be possible to incorporate most of the SM-3B mods to achieve a full 500km aeroballistic flight path. Which, given the size of most of the city states which claim 'nationhood' should be more than sufficient to reach in and smack down any BMC2 system which can nominally be detected by a netcentric theater-wide/CEC type engagement system.

CONCLUSION:
The reason peon nations like Pakistan are buying into Swedish AEW (with Saudi Funding) is because they wish to continue a border raid conditioned conflict, knowing that she lacks either the numbers of sorties or the depth of country to survive any real conflict with India.

The reason China is 'trying hard' is because she is of a mass where not having a topline military force is embarrassing to the national sporting ego.

Truth be told, the way forward is going to be with aerostats or sondes carrying cheap, hi-rez, optics in such density as to devalue the cost of attacking them with conventional AAM. In combination with powerful ground optics, acoustics and possibly PCLS type systems in a secure network, the ability to control ones airspace will be more complete, _more cheaply_, with remote sensors than with manned aircraft.

As usual, the worthless slavering biped dobermans just don't want to give up their knights-on-charger image and so they suppress the truth in all things relevant to air defense.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join