Will stealth works in a crowd airspace

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The F-22 has partaken in multiple exercises which simulate actual conflict to the best of the US Armed Forces ability, and then some.

All aircraft have been placed in "simulated" combat. But you wont say the Rafale, Typhoon, Su-XX series has "simulated combat" experience when discussing it compared to American aircraft like the F-15 because it doesn't mean much.

The F-22 Raptor kill ratio was 244 to 2

Which means very little. If 244 F-15s were to attack 2 F-22s, which group of aircraft would come out the victor?. And those air exercises did not test the F-22s. They merely put them into current situations to show congress the shock and awe the F-22 would cause against conventional forces. Why don't you think the USAF tested it on its own "anti-stealth" technology which it undoubtedly has which would show you were stealth is heading. You can bet the Russians, Europeans and Chinese themselves are working on anti-stealth technology and probably already modified existing technology to combat the advantages of stealth. Something the Iraqis or other US combat zones did not have

there will be 58 Raptors stationed within the immediate vicinity of the Pacific Rim

Where will they be stationed?. How will they get there? And is the airbase they are at going to be already dysfunctional from the barrage of Ballistic missiles which will definitely be fired at them. Please don't bring up the "anti-missile" capabilities of the SM-3, un-proven, not in general service etc. A whole list of items from the second gulf war

Also, The Taiwanese air force wouldn't have a few hundred aircraft in the sky. Their Air force might be large but they have few airbases to operate on, these of course will be attacked by the roughly 1000 IRBM in service which are "known". Other projectiles include A2G missiles and cruise missiles in Chinese service. Do you actually think that any enemy would allow you free access to your airbases which are so close to their offensive weapons. Even iraq tried to attack US bases with their limited resources and would have had some success if not for their useless silkworm missiles which they modified themselves

Then you factor in the US wings in Korea and Japan and the forces that would be flown in at Guam and Okinawa.

Korea and Japan are both 1500km away. Guam is 3000km away

F-15 Combat Radius = 1270km
F-16 Combat Radius = 550km

Tell me how they are going to re-fuel those planes, especially the ones that need to fuel near the Taiwan Strait. Also, which government report states that Japan or Korea will allow American aircraft to take off in their airspace. You can get into this issue if you like but one thing is for sure, money is the loudest form of communication. China is the reason the Japanese economy is not in recession and the last prime minister resigned because of economic performance. Korea unlike japan does not have to support the US in a war and enjoys a very close relationship.

Kadena will be subject to Ballistic missile, cruise, A2G etc. Basically anything that can be used to destroy the airbase.

with greater force multipliers

You mean those HUNDRED's of fixed and mobile land based radars based on chinas very own shores?

Just one point about Chinese SAM's, they would have to be placed near the Chinese coast making them highly vulnerable and predictable. I wont even mention VLO, EW, SEAD/DEAD etc... capabilty.

Why would placing them near the coast make them "highly venerable". The US had a lot of trouble finding large SCUD launchers in the Iraqi DESERT, try find S-300s in the jungles, hill and valleys of southern china.

The Chinese military is no third world Iraqi military based in the open desert. When it denies the airspace around Taiwan for enough time so ground toops land it finishes its mission

I mean night time combat, and the suks got IR sensors with ~20km range, that will be a good advantage.

That's why the F-22 uses all kinds of IR suppression ideas, and why supercruise is such a big deal. They started that with the F-117, by using bricks wrapped in the same material they used for heat shields on the space shuttle in the exhaust.

Some point in this thread is going to 意淫（somebody f u c k thimself in dream）

224 to 2 means 112 to 1. The first question I should ask is how many missiles F-22 can load in/on? Would F-22 launch missiles like shoot bullets? Apporximately each 5 bullets make 1 F-15 down. US made so many rubbish

[edit on 4-3-2008 by emile]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I'm not sure if Nellis birds had any restrictions placed on them in terms of limited speed and G's but even if they did it would not matter, the margin would still be the same. The F-22 has also faced F-16's and Super Hornets and come away without any problems.

The speed of the target makes a difference when you shooting from behind as it reduces the range depending how much speed advantage the missile has. So more likely to turn into a WVR.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Maybe Willard can answer this one, I'll ask around. With AESA LPI, MAW would only be useful when the missile goes active so I don't thinkg it would not be a game winner since by that time you better be pulling the O ring.

If the MAW was a passive radar detector, which doesn't work for heat seekers anyway, so that's more of a lock warning. They can be active radar, of course limited range. They can also use UV to detect the rocket plume,but they loss track of the missle when the rocket burns out.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
See Constant Peg, also, Red Force pilots try to simulate avionics, maneuvering, weapons and tactics of likely enemies.

Very interesting, show how very different the possible enemies aircraft are. Also show sometimes you just have fly againt the real thing to compare.

Originally posted by deckard83
Also rear-facing radar which the russians use.

Basically irrelevant.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Even if your radar cone happens to be in the particular sector where the F-22 is operating you would not be able to track it when it open its weapons bays to fire. At best you might notice something and work your way into figuring out what it was. The bays are designed to be open for only a fraction of a second, not enough time to really detect or track anything, and that’s with direct main radar coverage. Much less with a limited rear facing radar system.

All the clips i've seen it's been much longer than a fraction of second. The limited rear radar at least have the advantage it being a much closer than a head on encounter and the briefly open bay will be a big radar return. Might give you a chance to run.

Possible ideas which could be used against stealth, like a over the shoulder launch of a heat seeker at where you got that brief radar return and rocket plume launch. it would need to ignore the missile coming your way and wouldn't have time for friendly checks so you also need to net centric and know where all your friendlys are. You would also need to know that F22 are in the air, but I guess when you friends start dropping out the sky I guess that would give that away. Of course all the jamming might mean you don't get that radar blip.

Another reason the exercises kill ratios are going to be different to real world is in the exercise they trying to get through whatever the cost, where in the real world there are going to be mission aborts.

Also I disagree quite how many raptors would be over Taiwan once you've taken into account the raptors not flying due servicing and any ongoing upgrades you would pretty much have every flyable raptor committed which I don't think the US would.

I don't think China would win and I'd rather be in the F22 then up against it.

Triple post!

[edit on 4-3-2008 by deckard83]

Triple post!

[edit on 4-3-2008 by deckard83]

Originally posted by chinawhite
All aircraft have been placed in "simulated" combat. …"simulated combat" experience when discussing it compared to American aircraft like the F-15 because it doesn't mean much.

Red Flag is considered to be the largest and most challenging exercise for combat aircraft, with many countries taking part in missions. Of course it cannot make up for actual combat experience and or history. However it does give an indication and it has shown to be effective in preparing the people involved for combat as they seem to do better after having done the course.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Which means very little. If 244 F-15s were to attack 2 F-22s, which group of aircraft would come out the victor?

How does that mean "very little"? It shows that the F-15 is significantly inferior to the F-22 when it comes to performance under a constant and equal environment. As for your question, pointless.

Originally posted by chinawhite
And those air exercises did not test the F-22s. They merely put them into current situations to show congress the shock and awe the F-22 would cause against conventional forces.

Umm… right, expert pilots, latest 4th Gen US aircraft, double digit SAM's, Jamming/EW, AWACS, essentially unlimited number of fighters (regeneration), no restriction on parameters and tactics for the OPFOR, latest USN fighters and AEGIS ships. Yup, only a pony show indeed, with only "conventional" forces as our likely opponents will far surpass those above mentioned systems and capabilties.

Originally posted by chinawhite
You can bet the Russians, Europeans and Chinese themselves are working on anti-stealth technology and probably already modified existing technology to combat the advantages of stealth.

I'm not a betting man and you are contradicting yourself. I can't mention the SM-3 an operational missile with proven capability and published test result. However you can "bet" on speculative programs which the Russians, Chinese and European must surely have that will render the F-22 completely useless? Utter rubbish.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Where will they be stationed? How will they get there?

The first Raptors on the scene would be those which are based in Alaska and Hawaii. They could depart within 24 hours and fly via tanker support non stop first to Japan and Guam before heading to Kadena and other bases in theater. There will also be 40 Raptors based at Holloman in Arizona and another 40 at Langley in Virginia. They can also be flown direct to Hawaii before heading in theater. Other aircraft within the region would follow a similar plan, those already in Japan and South Korea would be re-stationed even closer to the fight and other CONUS and currently deployed aircraft would be emergency deployed to the region.

Still, any comprehensive attack on Taiwan by China would be near impossible to keep a secret due to the inherent traits of such an operation. As such it is likely US forces and assets (of all kind) would already be deployed in the region with strength. They would be on alert and political and military alliances, contingencies and plans between the likely parties involved would be updated and resolved before the conflict even starts.

Originally posted by chinawhite
And is the airbase they are at going to be already dysfunctional from the barrage of Ballistic missiles which will definitely be fired at them. Please don't bring up the "anti-missile" capabilities of the SM-3, un-proven, not in general service etc.

China would not dare expand any potential conflict to include ballistic missile launches on Japanese territory, US bases and US territories. Fighting in theater US forces near Taiwan is one thing, launching ballistic missiles at Japan, Okinawa, Guam and Hawaii is another.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Their Air force might be large but they have few airbases to operate on, these of course will be attacked by the roughly 1000 IRBM in service which are "known”.

Taiwan knows this too as such their airbases are shielded and dispersed, they also have a limited anti-missile capability. Still, I concede that their facilities would get targets and largely damaged and or destroyed. However they always train to be able to use and operate from improvised and informal runways and secondary bases. Highways, roads, fields etc…

Originally posted by chinawhite
Korea and Japan are both 1500km away. Guam is 3000km away...

Your combat radius figures for the Viper and Eagle are wrong but anyway ever heard of in flight refueling? The US military in general and combined with it's allied partners is the pre eminent leader in that type of logistical support and capability.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Tell me how they are going to re-fuel those planes, especially the ones that need to fuel near the Taiwan Strait.

I don't know what you are asking for here, a procedural listing of how tankers re-fuel planes in the air? Our aircraft would have no trouble refueling midway between Kadena and Taiwan. It's a point that would be easy to cover with AEGIS SAM's and fighter support from Kadena and it's too far from mainland China to cover with costal SAM's. China would have to commit a large portion of its most advanced fighter force and whatever tanker support it has to mount and sustain a fighter attack on it, same goes for a sea based approach.

Hundreds of US Navy aircraft which are not limited by land based would get closer to the action and take up coverage for other parts of the battlefield.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Also, which government report states that Japan or Korea will allow American aircraft to take off in their airspace.

The US has a mutual defense treaty with South Korea and Japan. And if you are planning on attack US bases in both countries then it's rather silly to say they wont allow free US operation. By that point you're looking at having the JSDF and perhaps even the ROK military involved in the fight, not a situation China would like.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Kadena will be subject to Ballistic missile, cruise, A2G etc. Basically anything that can be used to destroy the airbase.

If you're willing to go down that route, which I'm almost confident China won't, then the US can in turn lay waste to all Chinese facilities and forces in Southern China. Once you open that can of worm's it will be hard to stop our Bomber and missile force from returning the favor.

Originally posted by chinawhite
You mean those HUNDRED's of fixed and mobile land based radars based on chinas very own shores?

Those radars would be one of the first targets, and as I said previously if they are used constantly then they will be easy to destroy given the factors, fixed site or not. Mainland based SAM's would not be a major issue, besides their survivability and effectiveness in a VLO/LO environment with incredible situational awareness and SEA/DEAD/EW capability. They would have a very limited NEZ due to the distances and speed of the targets involved.

Originally posted by chinawhite
Why would placing them near the coast make them "highly venerable". The US had a lot of trouble finding large SCUD launchers in the Iraqi DESERT, try find S-300s in the jungles, hill and valleys of southern china.

That was 1991 and they were not large active radar based SAM's. If China were to put S-300's in predictable zones along it's coast to optimize their coverage of the battlefield then they would be easy to locate and destroy. US ISR and DEAD capability has increased dramatically since even the Serbian war much less the first Gulf War. They would be vulnerable from aerial as well as sea based assets.

Originally posted by chinawhite
The Chinese military is no third world Iraqi military based in the open desert. When it denies the airspace around Taiwan for enough time so ground toops land it finishes its mission.

And the US alone is the pre eminent global military power in the world, now add Taiwan and Japan in the equation. China will not be able to defeat such a force and simultaneously mount a very large scale amphibious assault, invasion and occupation of Taiwan in the near future.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
China would not dare expand any potential conflict to include ballistic missile launches on Japanese territory, US bases and US territories.

Wouldn't dare?

So Chinese facilities and aircraft will be targeted and China wouldn't dare attack Kadena?. I am sure they wouldn't dare to attack US ships as well. I am sure they wouldn't dare attack US fighters shooting missiles at them. The Iraqis wouldn't dare invading Kuwait, The Chinese wouldn't dare enter the Korean war. There is no difference between a aircraft carrier or a US territory, they are all considered "sovereign US territory". They even have their own "no-go zone" just like a mini-nation state.

If the US entered ANY conflict involving China and Taiwan then they will use any force available to fight the Americans, especially if any US aircraft or naval vessel enters the conflict, you can kiss the Kadena good bye. That means the small area (which BTW can only hold about 100 or so aircraft) of Kadena Airbase will be one of the heaviest targets of the war. To suggest that it would some how be left to operate untouched is ridiculous.

However it does give an indication and it has shown to be effective in preparing the people involved for combat as they seem to do better after having done the course.

It gives a indication of how Western forces will fight against western forces but apart from that I don't see how they will prepare themselves against air forces of different nations, especially against nations which have had profound changes to their doctrines and tactics. Textbook situations are also played out, Force A attacks force B protecting a radar station. What about Force A returning to base and runs into a group of unknown enemy fighters etc. Just to show that even the best air exercises are staged which does not give a good indication of how a real unknown enemy will react.

Cope India is a good example of what the US will face when they use different tactics than what the US expects, but also staged by telling them the amount of aircraft on either side and having time to plan the method of attack since they already knew the specifications of each aircraft.

It shows that the F-15 is significantly inferior to the F-22 when it comes to performance under a constant and equal environment.

I focus on the words "constant" and "equal". Under the current purchasing plan, the US will only get 183 Raptors which means that in most conflicts they will be outnumbered by their enemy.

Umm… right, expert pilots, latest 4th Gen US aircraft, double digit SAM's, Jamming/EW, AWACS, essentially unlimited number of fighters (regeneration), no restriction on parameters and tactics for the OPFOR, latest USN fighters and AEGIS ships. Yup, only a pony show indeed, with only "conventional" forces as our likely opponents will far surpass those above mentioned systems and capabilties.

So you named all the conventional tools the US has. Big deal. How about the F-15/F-18 dont use their radars, rely on multiple AWACS, fly close to the ground and shaped apart. Why do they continually use similar tactics to the ones where they would use against non-stealth aircraft. Why cant the AESA radar even find a F-22 at the supposedly 2km or so the away the F-22 is getting visual kills. I am absolutely positive the US has Passive radars like the VERA-E system they brought, why aren't they used.

I wrote this before during another discussion about F-22s single handedly winning the air war in Taiwan, it was posted before or a little after the US started producing F-22 fighters so the numbers are a little outdated.

The YLC-20 passive system which is much like the VERA-E system which the US was very worried about any tried to buy out the company so the technology wouldn't fall to potential enemies.




The other system that can be used is a long-wave radar which is much harder to scatter than millimetric radar currently being used. These older type radars were discontinued because the newer radars provided more accuracy than the older long-wave types. But these can be used to find the general location of stealth aircraft so they could be intercepted or alert fighters in the air of a potentional enemy. Then there are new generation radars which utilize different designs compared to the average Monostatic radar which has the reciever and transmitter in roughly the same location, these new radars seperated their transmitter and receiver at longer differences, Bistatic radar and the Passive radars which is are called multistatic. I cant really explain the in depth details but these articles give a brief description. These can be used and will be used to detect stealth aircraft

Multistatic
Bistatic



Here is a possible scenario, this is assuming that the US has a chance to deploy the F-22 at any bases close to the Chinese border. There has been talk of the F-22 coming all the way from alaska and Guam but i assume this is some ridiculous assumption that the US is capable of anything. But anyhow, the PLAAF will always have superior number of fighters compared to the amount of F-22s deployed.

*Currently the PLAAF has .

100+ J-10s
300 J-8IIs (F/H variants are in the minority)
76 Su-30
76 Su-27SK/UBK
24 Su-30MK2
90-100+ J-11/A/B.

The Current F-22 force is about a few SQN of about 50 planes, these figures might be +/- but i dont keep tags on the USAF as oftend as i do with the PLAAF. But lets assume all those F-22s can be stationed on Kadena Air Base on okinawa to replace the F-15s currently stationed there. The F-22 will still be out-number by a fair ratio.

Now here is a situation, 20 F-22s managed to get up and are engaged by about 100 or so Chinese fighters from a number of airbases near Taiwan. The numbers are about 25 J-10s, 25 Su-27/30, 10 J-8II and about 40 J-7E/G and a random amount of monkey fighters which are basically J-5/6/7 drones to confuse the F-22 fighters while assuming that the US air force is here to gain air superiority as you claimed. The F-22 will be closing in to their NEZ of the Aim-120C which is about 2/3 or 1/3 of the Maximum range of their missiles. When they fire they will probably assume the most dangerous posture which is the closet fighter objects in the sky which are the drones in the air, they will need to wait and paint the fighters until the active seekers on the Aim-120 activate at 40km asumming that they dont have a NEZ as well. But this time, the 20 F-22s will be within 40km of the 100 or so fighters which had no been engaged traveling at about 800-900km a hour until they are 20 km towards the F-22s and then use after-burner to get there quicker.

900km/h is about 15 kilometers a minute.
1500km/h is about 25 kilometers a minute.

So that is roughly 2 minutes towards engagement at visual range. The F-22 can then be engaged by a number of methods, the F-22 can be painted about 10-20km by conventional fighters frontally which means they will be less from the side or even the back if the fighters do a aerial pincer movement. Short range heat-seekers while dogfighting against a ratio of 1:5. They could even be located earlier by the OLS-31E on the Su-27/30 and will be in visual sight so a cannon kill could even be possible.

This senario will only be possible if the PLAAF is datalinked to a AWACS aircraft which is getting feeds from ground based radar which i think the PLAAF has already developed somewhat.

EDIT: ALL new PLAAF aircraft and older ones have received data links which can be seen on the glass cockpits. They are either linked to ground or airbased AWACS aircraft or the Su-30MK2 with the M-400 pod which acts like a mini-AWACS

you are contradicting yourself. I can't mention the SM-3 an operational missile with proven capability and published test result. However you can "bet" on speculative programs which the Russians, Chinese and European must surely have that will render the F-22 completely useless?

Where did I say "will render the F-22 completely useless"?. I never made that statement and you have made your own assumption.
Where have I contradicted myself?

How is the quote "You can bet the Russians, Europeans and Chinese themselves are working on anti-stealth technology" the same as claiming the the SM-3 having this technology. And the existing technology I am talking about are the ones below. The Swedish AASR, Russian S-400M, British at Farnborough with the rapier. ITS NOT SPECULATION

www.military.com...
www.ausairpower.net...
www.aeronautics.ru...

I also have a CCTV SC showing the YLC-20 at work

The first Raptors on the scene would be those which are based in Alaska and Hawaii. They could depart within 24 hours and fly via tanker support non stop first to Japan and Guam before heading to Kadena

I love this quote you made before
"In the end even if China manages to magically launch every single military aircraft it posses at once, after it has instantly transported and housed them at forward bases near Taiwan"

They would need alot of tankers to support that operation. Have the US ever done any like this before with such a long ferry range with 40 or so fighters?. Does any of the airbases you propose have F-22 facilities or maintenance support or maintain 40 F-22s and the other fleet of aircraft you propose will be stationed there?. Where are the support aircraft?, where are the munitions, where is the fuel?. In theory everything is possible, but like that old saying communism worked in theory as well. Thats why I haven't put any numbers or ridiculous claims about numbers deployed and obviously china has BETTER logistics than the Americans





[edit on 4-3-2008 by chinawhite]

Is this not a completely ludicrous question?

You're never going to have a US-Japanese air war over China airspace. Period.

Any super power goes to war and it's all over but the crying.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Taiwan knows this too as such their airbases are shielded and dispersed

Only one air base is properly protected and only because it is located within a mountain range. There are 10 major bases and a few more small bases which cant house large numbers of fighters and whose facilities are more suited to non-supersonic fighters. It cant support a Wing of fighters nor can it continually support those fighters which will be stationed there because they lack locations to keep supplies and are not well protected.

You couldn't consider them dispersed because Taiwan is such a small area so they wouldn't be to far from each other considering how fast aircraft travel. The Serbians also had shielded aircraft hangers but it didn't stop the US from destroying every 50 or so meters of runway

However they always train to be able to use and operate from improvised and informal runways and secondary bases.

Only a few units train to use them and the highways they use because of the quality of construction and its general design will be targeted. There is probably three short distance high ways they can use but if they put aircraft out in the open like they do, they will be easy targets to pick off. These are only emergency factors practiced by the minority of pilots which will not have a massive bearing on the air war

BTW: You can operate a supersonic fighter off a road/fields. Not because roads in general are not weighted for 10 ton fighters but because there will be also of fragments going into the engines which will most likely cause it to crash

Your combat radius figures for the Viper and Eagle are wrong but anyway ever heard of in flight refueling? The US military is the pre eminent leader in that type of logistical support

You could give me your figures for COMBAT RADIUS. I mentioned in flight re-fueling beforehand.

The US is the pre eminent leader in space travel but we haven't advanced beyond the general design of a rocket the chinese were using for celebrations almost 1000 years ago.

Pre-eminent means you will be the most likely to pull off a operation but it doesn't mean you can. Where are those hundreds of Tankers going to take off from and land?. YOu give the impression that Kadena can support any amount of aircraft it chooses to support which is not the case

It's a point that would be easy to cover with AEGIS SAM's and fighter support from Kadena

Actually I was talking about the ones you said that would arrive from Japan or South Korea which would need to be refueled right over the East China Sea right next to a host of Chinese Airbases and military facilities. I have already established that Kadena will be attacked and has a limited amount of space. You also mentioned that Chinese fighters don't have enough range?. If you look on a map the Su-XX series and J-10 EASILY cover that distance, while the Chinese Navy does have quite a few long range missiles which they can use.

BTW: According to your NEZ the SM-2ER has a range of about 1/3 or 2/3 its 240km maximum range or about 80km/160km which is shorter than potentional Anti-ship missiles the PLAAF have on its airborne fleet. Whilst its conventional submarines might cause a lot of problems and we already know the trouble the USN have in finding submarines

The US has a mutual defense treaty with South Korea and Japan. And if you are planning on attack US bases in both countries then it's rather silly to say they wont allow free US operation.

I did not refer to those bases because I didn't even think they would allow you anyway. Also look at the defense treaties and tell me where it says either country has to allow the US to perform any action.

Korean treaty
""ARTICLE III

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
ARTICLE IV

The Republic of Korea grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement. ""

If you're willing to go down that route, which I'm almost confident China won't, then the US can in turn lay waste to all Chinese facilities and forces in Southern China.

With what?

The US doesn't have enough munitions to accomplish that. You couldn't defeat a nation like Serbia with thousands of munitions including "dumb bombs" which the US wont have the luxury of doing and over 1000 aircraft and roughly 1500 cruise missiles. And the fact that the war was fought in Europe with the backing of NATO bases and aircraft which shows how ineffective bombing is without real fire support like artillery.

At most the bombings will destroy some fixed radar sites and fixed command centers but the Chinese military have been implementing large programs to mobilize the armed forces from air attacks the US is most likely to launch. Obvious lessons have been learnt and arms designers have created new weapons and technology to combat US techniques used against Iraq or Serbia

How much Cruise missiles do the Americans have?. 3000, 4000?. How many did they use in Iraq or Afghanistan with limited effect. Serbia had 1000+ aircraft dropping a multiple of bombs and cruise missiles and yet did not destroy all their equipment or command centers, NATO/US claimed lots of kills which were later proven to be only dummy tanks and aircraft. Which forces and weapons can the Americans use to "lay waste" to the extremely large military sector of southern china.

This time the Americans you said have about 500 or so aircraft without nearby NATO countries and their airforce against a force alot more capable than the Serbian military using equipment which is a lot more modern than the Serbians had (limited numbers of SA-6 missiles compared to S-300s in large numbers + HHQ-9 and a host of other missiles). They will also have foresight in previous US tactics and the technology which was produced to equip them with and have continuous military production in either the Russian factories or in Chinese factories which also are widely spread out which can produce large amounts quickly

Those radars would be one of the first targets, and as I said previously if they are used constantly then they will be easy to destroy

And the Chinese aircraft above will allow the US to just go in and just conduct SEAD missions?. You think the militaries didn't look up and see what happened when you use the same tactics as iraq.

The HARM missiles CANNOT destroy mobile missile sites and only looked more capable than they were because they were fighting against the Iraqi airdefence system which couldn't even defend themselves against the Iranians which employed no HARM and mostly obsolete technology compared to what the Americans had. They had only static radar stations and only a few of them. China has hundreds if not thousands of radar transmitters and a lot of them are mobile.

Su-300PMU2 range = 200km
AGM-88 range = 90km

The SEAD aircraft will most likey be destroyed before it can reach chinas sames. Also the S-300 has anti-EW capabilities which were designed to counter the effective tactics the Americans used in the Gulf war and later. I dont even want to mention the Tor-1 which is designed to shoot down cruise and air-launched munitions because its just like the SM-3 which is unproven. These units will be used in conjunction with S-300s to give a more layered defence and protect againest HARM or other missiles

The popular idea of shooting cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles or standoff missiles at the S-300P/S-300V battery, assuming its location is known, is only viable where such a weapon has a sufficiently low radar signature to penetrate inside the minimum engagement range of the SAM before being detected - anything less will see the inbound missile killed by a self defensive SAM shot. The current Russian view of this is to sell Tor M1/SA-15 Gauntlet self-propelled point defence SAM systems as a rapid reaction close in defensive system to protect the S-300P/S-300V battery by shooting down the incoming missile if it gets past the S-300P/S-300V SAMs.

Ausairpower

If China were to put S-300's in predictable zones along it's coast to optimize their coverage of the battlefield then they would be easy to locate and destroy.

Predictable zones are a VERY vague term. China has 14,500km of coastline. Any zone near Taiwan is as large as most battle regions and those regions near the Chinese coast are hills, jungles and valleys. Not your ideal region to go missile finding. The US couldn't find Iraqi SCUDs nor Serb SAMs. These countries are tiny compared to the area in which the Chinese are operating and the environment the Chinese are operating is MUCH bigger with a lot of economic activity to blur the lines for any aircraft which gets through the chinese air defense.

Show me where the US has proven it can combat a well structured LARGE scale air defense system. Baghdad was a joke and Serbia was not a major military power by any definition. Neither of them had any modern air defense equipment nor radar and whose forces only received inadequate funding at best. Its been almost 20 years since the "shock and awe" of stealth and methods to combat them have been developed and development still continues.

You mentioned that US SEAD capabilities have improved, of course they have. But has SEAD or any other EW aircraft proven it can beat a well equipment modern air defense system. The Yom Kippur War demonstrated this fact until t

Originally posted by chinawhite
Which means very little. If 244 F-15s were to attack 2 F-22s, which group of aircraft would come out the victor?.

I think your missing the point. If it were 244 F-15 at one time then yes, its physically impossible for the two F-22's to down all of those fighters. But unless the Chinese communist mass thier entire frontline force in one giant sortie we are not going to see that matchup and the taiwanese a/c plus the carrier aricraft will also take thier tool eh?

Where will they be stationed?. How will they get there? And is the airbase they are at going to be already dysfunctional from the barrage of Ballistic missiles which will definitely be fired at them. Please don't bring up the "anti-missile" capabilities of the SM-3,

If the SM-3 is unproven , then why did the Chinese Communists pitch such a hissy when it took out the satelite?. The Raptors could stage froma bit further off, or Okinawa etc. Unless the communist plan on bringing Japan into the war.

Battle of the legends! Thanks guys i know now alot more than i ever did So lets say 10 F22's and 50 Su33 flankers. Taiwan is still the location yet no anti air weapons are being used from the ground. It is just the air battle. Still with the AWAC's abilities used. Pick a side and share your tactics. Note: You can also pick the time, either day or night. The AWAC's are seperate from the main group. And for now fuel is not a factor only weapons. And pilots are aces.

Night: Personally i would split the F22's into 2 groups of 5. One of the groups heads for the AWAC's and began to attack there engines with machine gun fire. Then after the distress Call has been put out and the 50 Su33's are flying to cover the AWAC's the other F22's line up with the flankers on a horizontal intercept course. 1 by 1 the F22's fly and open fire using machine gun to try and take out as many using chain reaction tatics. Then hopefully one or luckily both the AWAC's are taken out meaning stealth can be used. Once the calls been given out that stealth can be used all the fighters disperse over the airspace. Once the Su33's have given up, the F22's return and begin using stealth tactics to take them out. Hehe yes abit of imagination but still I'm allowed to its the F22! hehe what would you guys do?

Chinese communist?. gee take off your tin hat.

What would like me to respond with, US imperialist or Capitalist running dog. Or maybe grow up?

Originally posted by FredT
The Raptors could stage froma bit further off, or Okinawa etc.

Kadena Air Base IS ON OKINAWA

If the SM-3 is unproven

, then why did the Chinese Communists pitch such a hissy when it took out the satelite?.

The "hissy fit" is a American style diplomatic protest.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by chinawhite]