Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Hello all, I am about to talk about a subject that is very interesting to me. That is air defense weapon systems. Most people here are interested in aircraft (I used to be) but I have gained a lot of interest over the past few years in SAM systems.

The topic I am about to present shows how good training and motivation can win a war against a more technologically advanced enemy. This is going to be applicable to future wars. If Iran or NK want to survie a modern attack against the F-22 and JSTARS, AWACS, combined with AGM-88 HARM missiles and Tomahawks, they had better listen up.

It is not about how good your enemies technology is, it is how good you use the stuff you are given. A lot of stuff you will hear from me can be googled for verification, I may miss some sources, but I assure you my facts are accurate. I will not use hypothetical weapon systems, only systems in production. Nor will any discussion of hypothetical systems be discussed. Those are topics for other threads.

Lets look at the contenders in a modern air war campaign against ground targets.

Attackers (air):
F-22
AGM-88E HARM
PGM's (Precision guided munitions) eg:GBU-24, JDAM,JDAM-ER
Tomahawk Cruise missile
Support Craft: AWACS, JSTARs

Defenders (ground):
S-400
Tor-M2E
Pantsir S1

The way I see the war is that don't try to fight the F-22 because it is superior in every way shape or form than any other production aircraft out there. It is taxi for its weapons system. It is merely a weapon delivery system, and focus should be to defeat the weapons it delivers and to namely harass the F-22. It may not be shot down, but harassing it can cause deviation from flight plans etc. If the F-22 is unable to suppress SAM fire, it will only remain an F22 vs SAM fight and ground troops may be unable to move in or at least it will be a lot more difficult for them as their air support will be diminished.

I will provide a story about one of the best air defense commanders I have heard about: former colonel of the Yugoslav Army Zoltán Dani. He was able to down a F16, F117 and damage another F117 using a SAM system from 1963, namely the SA-3 Goa. I repeat that ancient 1960's technology with motivation and training can defeat a superpower.

SA-3


Former Lt Colonel Zoltan Dani:


He used hard training and getting to know his crews very well. He commanded an SA-3 battery and 200 men in his unit. He set up a system of ground rules that his battery strictly adhered to. He studied his enemy (NATO) and his most formidable foe the F117 and AGM-88 HARM. He set up spies near the Italian airbase (aviano I believe), all of this information was unclassified, but he did his research.

These were the basic rules he set up:
1) The battery must move constantly. The commander moved 100,000 KM through the course of the war.
2) Radars were only to be on for a maximum of 20 seconds after which the battery must move
3) Decoys were placed. These decoys were radars from Iraqi mig-21 planes
4) Two missile launch against a target to ensure a higher kill probability.
5) Tuning his radars to better acquire stealth targets.
6) Setting up spies near the enemy air bases and at various points to watch for aircraft.

It is amazing that a set of basic rules and rigorous training can do. The genius commander Dani never lost a SINGLE radar to the AGM-88 Harm. Another advantage Commander Dani had was that the terrain was mountainous and that the AWACs could not look at oblique angles on hillsides.



US and NATO aircraft fired at least 743 HARMs against radars supporting these enemy SAMs




NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia’s approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries




persistent AAA and MANPADS threat- to require NATO fighters to operate above a 15,000-foot floor throughout most of the air effort. Although allied pilots could effectively counter the older SA-7 with flares if they saw it in time, the SA-9/13, SA-14, SA-16, and SA-18 presented a more formidable threat.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

The constant SAM threat meant that the air craft had to operate at higher altitudes, which meant less support for ground troops. Keep in mind this is legacy equipment.

Now back to our scenario. So we have an AWACs and JSTAR providing intel and an F-22 sortie ready to fly in and take out an enemy SAM system. Sounds pretty easy because it is the F22 but we can make it more interesting. The F-22 squadron can unleash a whole lot of HARMs toward the enemy SAM. This is where the Tor-m2E and Pantsir S-1 comes in. Theses systems are designed to shoot down HARM's, PGM's and Tomahawks instead of fighting the F-22, they leave the middle man out of the equation.

If we are to follow Commander Dani's rules the SAM systems can be mobile and defend the unit against tomahawks and HARMs. This battery of Tor and Pantsir can defend the S400 system which is there to harass the f-22. This integrated system may not be able to shoot down a f-22 but can certainly defend against the attacks that an f-22 is providing. If you neutralize the F22 threat the battle is reduced in complexity. The only way an enemy can fight the F22 is to fight its weapons being delivered using Commander Dani's tactics. This is the only way to win against the F22. If other countries are to learn about surviving a modern attack somewhat successfully they had better listen to Commander Dani. I can see this failure in Libya's air defense system right now. They did not prepare for defense against the tomahawks. Appropriate setup of point defense weapons can defeat the tomahawk with some success, so you are able to save yourself. Some people never learn.




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
We have learned from our mistakes, and the soldiers inside these SAM batteries, might as well place tombstones with their names on them, outside the door.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
We have learned from our mistakes, and the soldiers inside these SAM batteries, might as well place tombstones with their names on them, outside the door.


I don't think so, modern SAM systems have evolved much much faster than modern HARM's, JDAM and Tomahawks. The F117 was shot down with 1960s technology. The HARM has remained essentially unchanged. You have to provide a reasonable air warfare tactic sir. I have laid out the scenario. Pretend you are the attacker and I am the Defender, how would you proceed.

I don't think we have seen any change in our tactics. We still fire the tomahawks first, send in the stealth fighters with the HARMs. That's how it was done in 1991 and it is still done today.

I have said that the Tor-M2 and Pantsir systems are designed to defend against HARM so this HARM threat is even smaller today. If Col Dani was operating a modern Tor-M2 imagine how many of our planes he could shoot down.
edit on 19-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Considering a f22 can engage you from about or even over a hundred miles, I am not sure how a sa-3 battalion can shoot down f22's on a daily basis. I suppose if you play cat and mouse from time to time you can. Yet ironically these sam battalions have to have a radar lock in order to fire missiles at. If you wanted my strategy I would launch Comanche or Apache helo's and hunt these sam battalions down. I just do not see it.

not to mention we have some really sophisticated top secret warfare as well, that we will prob. test or err or use.
edit on 19-3-2011 by Bicent76 because: typo



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bicent76
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Considering a f22 can engage you from about or even over a hundred miles, I am not sure how a sa-3 battalion can shoot down f22's on a daily basis. I suppose if you play cat and mouse from time to time you can. Yet ironically these sam battalions have to have a radar lock in order to fire missiles at them and maintain it btw. If you wanted my strategy I would launch Comanche or Apache helo's and hunt these sam battalions down. I just do not see it.

not to mention we have some really sophisticated top secret warfare as well, that we will prob. test or err or use.


I mentioned hypothetical weapons cannot be talked about because they are hypothetical such as the Comanche (which was cancelled btw). What if the Russians made a deal with God as a hypothetical weapon system. No hypothetical talk in this thread, I have clearly mentioned it in my first post. Only talk about existing systems in operation today. You cannot pull hypothetical weapons out, I am sure the Russians have some stuff to but I am not bringing that up because it is not operational or in production. No hypothetical weapons from either side.

I did not say the SA3 can engage or shoot down the F22. I said the S400 can harass the F22, if 2-3 were launched at an F22, it might get lucky. I am talking about a Modern integrated system vs the F22 threat. The modern integrated system consists of the To2M2+Pantsir+ F22 vs F22 squadrons+AWACS+JSTARS+Tomahawks.

The Apache will not be able to get into the defended airspace because air superiority cannot be established without F22 support. Not only that attack helos are vulnerable to small arms fire and these mobile systems as well.

The F22 engagement you are talking about. All the F22 will do is drop a HARM or JDAM and run away. The TorM2 and Pantsir will stop these threats, so the F22 is nothing more than an expenisve taxi.
edit on 19-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


First, Iran does not even have the S-300 let alone the 400 that only Russia has guarding its most important facilities.

ATK seeks to harm Raytheon in new anti-radar missile bid


The navy also wanted a guidance system for AARGM to defeat a relatively new enemy tactic. Opposing radar crews had learned to avoid getting hit by shutting down the radar after a HARM is launched. By adding the guidance system, the missile precisely aims for the last-known point where the radar was emitting.


www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


well that is your opinion. The Comanche was not hypothetical it was made.. Anyhow a apache, can deal with small arms fire, and IF a good enough helicopter pilot was piloting the helicopter it can and would harass these sam sites. Hellfires are great for eliminating sam sites... Just fire and forget. Um maybe throw in some a10's as well.. sam sites alone will not win a air war.....


you can argue with me on that til your purple in the face.. Won't change my mind.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bicent76
 


You do bring up a good point, Apaches have already been tasked to take down radar sites with various weapons as the Apache can sneak up on Radar sites easy let alone shoot a Hellfire up TORs backside lol.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Ahh yes the AARGM, I knew someone would bring it up
I was waiting for this. I hope it is in production otherwise it can't be talked about. Basically the AARGM is an HARM + inertial guidance. Which means if the Radar was stopped the HARM can still track. That is fine and dandy, but once again The point defense weapons of the TorM2 and Pantsir can stop these. They are designed to stop these missiles, once again rendering the AARGM inoperable.

Yes i know that Iran doenst have the s400 that is why I was saying that they are inadequately protected.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by Bicent76
 


You do bring up a good point, Apaches have already been tasked to take down radar sites with various weapons as the Apache can sneak up on Radar sites easy let alone shoot a Hellfire up TORs backside lol.


yup, Its been awhile since I talked about our military weapons but I still remember we have some good weapons, and I have been fascinated with the raptors.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by Bicent76
 


You do bring up a good point, Apaches have already been tasked to take down radar sites with various weapons as the Apache can sneak up on Radar sites easy let alone shoot a Hellfire up TORs backside lol.


Hellfire can be defeated by the Tor. A Tor is designed to engage missiles coming towards it lol from any direction. That is the whole function of a TOR, duh..



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bicent76
 


Comanche is not in service. The apache only has Hellfire and the 30 mm gun. You are fighting on enemy territory. Not only do you have these sam systems but you will also have enemy air support since the F22 would be harassed by s400's. These point defense weapons are designed to defeat the Hellfire easily. It was designed to defeat the HARM which is much much faster, how could it not defeat the Hellfire.

And you guys still haven't commented on about the F117 shoot down with vintage 1960s technology.
edit on 19-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The F22 is an air superiority fighter, so it'd be hard to see that plane being used in your scenario. The US military would probably use F15 Strike Eagles or F35's or F18 Super Hornets in any kind of ground attack mission in the future. B52's, B1's or B2's for any kind of bombing mission, and A10's for CAS.

Any of those would be more vulnerable than the F22 to SAM's, except for maybe the B2. Usually SOP for the military is to disable comm networks and radar installations with B1's going in fast and slow then Strike Eagles afterwards to clean up with any kind of air superiority fighter on hand flying top cover. The B1's usually do a good job cleaning things up.

Any type of adversary in a developing country would probably not use Zoltan's strategy. His story's been around for a while and his battle plan hasn't been out into use by any opfor's since the event happened.

Russia would be pretty scary to go up against. The have some pretty mean missiles in their arsenal nowadays. Hypersonic is the future boys and girls. A carrier killer would just as easily take out a jet and the avionics would probably have a hard time tracking any hypersonic incoming ordnance.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


fine, I would carpet bomb em man. these sam sites your praising are mainly used for low altitude planes, a10, f18 etc. etc. looks like variants have a max range of 12 clicks, I guess if I was in my f22 and I had some wire guided bombs I would drop bombs on them or fire more then one missile at them to make it more complex for the defensive system to engage. I would def. engage them thou beyond 12 clicks and over 8,000 ft. Not to mention my f22 is stealth man..

anyhow thanks I learned about tor.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


First, Iran does not even have the S-300 let alone the 400 that only Russia has guarding its most important facilities.

ATK seeks to harm Raytheon in new anti-radar missile bid


The navy also wanted a guidance system for AARGM to defeat a relatively new enemy tactic. Opposing radar crews had learned to avoid getting hit by shutting down the radar after a HARM is launched. By adding the guidance system, the missile precisely aims for the last-known point where the radar was emitting.


www.flightglobal.com...



Its been reported that Belarus supplied S300s to Iran-theres no shortage of these from ex Soviet states.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bicent76
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


fine, I would carpet bomb em man. these sam sites your praising are mainly used for low altitude planes, a10, f18 etc. etc. looks like variants have a max range of 12 clicks, I guess if I was in my f22 and I had some wire guided bombs I would drop bombs on them or fire more then one missile at them to make it more complex for the defensive system to engage. I would def. engage them thou beyond 12 clicks and over 8,000 ft. Not to mention my f22 is stealth man..

anyhow thanks I learned about tor.


Welcome. Yes the carpet bombing, but you would have to get past the S400 for that to work
it has anti-ballistic missile capability, meaning a bomber is small potatoes
In this integrated battle of the future you have your carpet bombers vs S400 and the HARM/JDAM vs the Tor system's. The only way to win is if the carpet bombers were able to come close enough to drop the bombs, which wont happen because the S400 can engage a few hundred miles out. Meaning the carpet bomber wont be able to get near.

Ah yes the F22, my whole topic was that the F22 is too superior to defeat in the air that is why you defeat the weapons they are dropping, namely the JDAMs, PGMs etc with the point defense weapons.

Yes the F22 is stealthy but the commander fine tuned his radar to better pick up the F117, whos to know that some geeky air defense operator will do the same as well.

But it is not all about the technology, I gave the Colonel's example to show what good training can do. Combine these SAMs with good training, and you have a hell of a system to defeat. Not only that the Colonel never lost a sinlge RADAR to NATO forces, and this was only 1960s technology.

Your welcome hehe. Going for a drink brb.
edit on 19-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I would use precision guided bombs. I would use a Special Forces team on the ground to aim at specific targets on the ground. Moving or not moving it wouldn't make too much difference.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LuxFestinus
 


Precision guided bombs are the Tor's specialty, it is designed to defeat them. Have you seen the video of it shooting down other missles lol? A PGM would be small potatoes for it.



NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia’s approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries


There were 743 HARMS fired. A success rate of 3/743 is miserable dude. And a HARM is much faster than a PGM.

Oh BTW, Colonel Dani and his troops every 10 years plan on meeting and celebrating:

edit on 20-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I am no expert in this topic, but it is interesting to me.
It seems that the Tor missile system and the Pantsir-S1 systems both use ground based radar to acquire and maintain targets. It would seem this would make them vulnerable to attack by targeting that radar signal.

I would like to know how many missiles needed to be fired before downing the 2 aircraft out of the 1000's in the air?
Especially since the cost of the missiles are between 14 million and 25 million each.
Just a little rain on that 10 year reunion parade.
edit on 20-3-2011 by TheEasterBunny because: typo's



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEasterBunny
 


Yes it makes them vulnerable to the AGM-88 HARM missile. Using Commander Dani's tactics the vulnerabilities are reduced. Not only is that interesting, but the Tor and Pantisir systems are designed specifically to defeat the HARM systems meaning even if somehow a SAM system was targeted, there would be good chance it would be shot down.

The two aircraft that were downed were downed by a single SA-3 system with a COMPETENT Air defense commander. I believe they fired approximately 2 missiles per plane.

This is 1960's technology. The TorM2 and pantsir systems are much more modern and therefore in the hands of a competent air defense commander will be able to stop most things that you throw at them. This renders the 50 million dollar F22 just shooting blanks.

Watch the TorM2 shoot down incoming missiles:
www.militaryphotos.net...![

During the NATO war campaign the HARMs were very ineffective. Only a confirmed success rate of 3 out of 743 shots made the hit to target. That is extremely poor especially when they were using legacy equipment.
edit on 20-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join