Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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)


I'm guessing more than 2 were fired before the 2 planes were downed though, thats what I'm getting at. Maybe not at just those planes but at many others before they got 2 planes.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Hi Professional,

Air defense like most other aspects of defense strategy mostly comes down to 'mass/resources' and given the concentration of force air power allows there are only a few nations on Earth who could even attempt to gain counter concentrations of air defense systems and related networks. Iran and such smaller powers have absolutely no chance to provide themselves a effective defense as they simple lack the economic means to purchase sufficient quantities of air defenses to break up enemy formations/penetrations and interceptor/fighter aircraft to provide the required strategic reserves to counter enemy formations.

The former USSR and the Russian federation today maintains sufficient air defenses /strategic depth ( it's a large country) to protect itself against even the USAF but other than that only China is attempting anything like it and wont achieve it for some time to come.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Just as a reiteration, these are the tracking performance specs of the acquisition radar and electro-optical systems for the Pantsir System:

Radar Performance:
* 36 km for a small fighter with a 2 m2 RCS;
* 20 km for a manoeuvring cruise missile with a 0.1 m2 RCS;
* 16 km for a glidebomb with a 0.2 m2 RCS;
* 12 km for an AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile with a 0.1 m2 RCS;
* 32 km for an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.
Electro-Optical performance:
*Acquisition performance: F-16 at 17 to 26 km; AGM-88 HARM at 13 to 15 km; cruise missiles at 11 to 14
km, and glidebombs at ~10 km

This system protects the S400 SAM from HARM threats and Hellfire threats. The hellfire has a range of 5 miles, the HARM has a range of 66 miles. When both come close they will be tracked and will be shot down. The apaches wont be able to get close enough to defeat this system and the S400 SAM will have free reign over the skies.

Easterbunny:


Lock was obtained and at a distance of 13 km and an altitude of 8 km. Two SA-3 missiles were launched in short succession, with one obtaining a proximity fuse hit, as notified by an automatic radio pinger burst.


Only two, no more and no less missiles were shot at the F117 to bring it down.



Owing to these measures, Dani's unit evaded 23 incoming HARM missiles, all of which impacted off-site with insignificant or zero damages.


LOL commander Dani shot down 2 US air craft, damaged one and AVOIDED 23 HARMs,with 1960s technology. Each harm missle costs 870,000 USD, so he wasted 20 Million USD of the USA on missiles, and the $42 million on the F117, and $15 million on the F-16. So for a grand total Commander Dani destroyed $77 million worth of high tech US equipment.
edit on 20-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Personally I'd call a record of 1300 Wins (sorties) and 1 Loss a pretty good record concerning the F-117 and taking into account that it's technology is 30+ years old.

It's a matter of time before you lose a plane , It's a numbers game... If you get shot at X amount of times , and you're flying a subsonic plane, eventually you're going to get hit , It's not a science ,ANY PLANE can be shot down. One of the factors that you don't have in the equation is "The Human Factor".

Our fighters & bombers establish dominance in a way that is demoralizing to our enemies & our pilots are the best in the world, If you're a SAM site operator and you notice that everytime other sites turn their radar on they get "poofed" guess what you're not going to do... turn your radar on.

If you're a fighter pilot and your buddies are getting killed by Phoenix missiles (30+ year old technology) 120 miles away before they have visual or signals intel telling them there was even a threat , how gung ho are you going to be taxiing on the runway prior to mission ... not very.

Doubt like that can fin a fight before it's started

The F22 is a different animal altogether , all the speculation of how to down it is exactly that SPECULATION! Until we get more combat feedback in theater of how it performs , we won't know... but the technology is there and it's not even the most stealthy fighter we had, The YF23 is actually Faster and more Stealthy but is less agile due to the lack of thrust vectoring.

I think time will tell but the jury is still out on this one.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I come at you with a different tac.

I fly 3 b-2s over your base.

good luck



An assessment published by the USAF showed that two B-2s armed with precision weaponry can do the job of 75 conventional aircraft.
edit on 3-21-2011 by Loki because: To add quote re: B2
edit on 3-21-2011 by Loki because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Loki
 


The PGM's wont matter because they will be shot out of the sky, and then the B2 can be targeted because they have just given their position away. Good luck.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Just as a reiteration, these are the tracking performance specs of the acquisition radar and electro-optical systems for the Pantsir System:


That may be it's performance, it might be better or worse, under ideal conditions but they wont be ideal even if operated on a Russian scale.... Suffice to say that in small numbers ( meaning what most countries can afford) the USAF can make it rain much much longer than these systems can stay 'dry' so while their not irrelevant without the much much more expensive long and medium range systems these can not likely provide the defense concentrations that will escape destruction in detail.


This system protects the S400 SAM from HARM threats and Hellfire threats. The hellfire has a range of 5 miles, the HARM has a range of 66 miles. When both come close they will be tracked and will be shot down. The apaches wont be able to get close enough to defeat this system and the S400 SAM will have free reign over the skies.


When either comes close they will be engaged and they may be shot down. If sufficient harms are fired the S300/400 will probably have to disengage anyways as they are darn expensive, hard to replace and as subject to saturation as any other air defense system.


LOL commander Dani shot down 2 US air craft, damaged one and AVOIDED 23 HARMs,with 1960s technology.


I have overstated that point as well but it's probably best to say that it's essentially late 60's missile technology with much of the rest of the system gaining substantial ability over the decades... I helps to remember that the F-117 is basically late 70's technology so the gap is hardly as big as suggested or the F-117 as impossibly hard target as supposed.


Each harm missle costs 870,000 USD, so he wasted 20 Million USD of the USA on missiles, and the $42 million on the F117, and $15 million on the F-16. So for a grand total Commander Dani destroyed $77 million worth of high tech US equipment.


The equipment destroyed was hardly high tech ( the USAF is like practically everyone else fighting with technology that is thirty years old today; or were 20 years old then) and since the US can expend harm's by the hundreds without noticing evading them by shutting off your radar and allowing them to thus hit the targets they were aiming for is hardly the solution. I do however agree that the Serbs managed their air defenses quite expertly given what they had and who they had to defend against.

Air defense that for survivals sake ( as keeping the threat in being will for most countries be the best aim) must switch off it's tracking radars is not greatly aiding in national defense and if you fail to destroy the planes/weapons aimed at airfields and supply/ critical infrastructure your survival soon becomes moot.

In the Russian/Chinese ( or say France/Britain/Germany/Japan) scale of things these systems may play a significant role but they certainly do not constitute a revolution in air defense and still do not stop a ground invasion.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
It's actually quite simple.. No 1 vs 1 bulls***.. You send 2 bombers, 10 cruise missiles, and 2 apache's and you can't tell me that site can track that many targets at once.. Time the attack properly with multiple incoming threats(like 10 - 12) and that entire site is "Buh bye.".
edit on 21-3-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 


Fine I can increase the numbers of pantsirs to triple the amount. If you can increase the forces so can I. This is about the scenario I laid out. If you increase forces, I will add more air defense veichles to counter them ALL and say BuH Bye to your aircraft.

You have to show me precisely how each and every weapon you described will be able to get through a group of say 4 Pantsirs and 4 Tors and 2 S400s. Ok there you happy, we are talking about even numbers of systems on both sides. That is 1 vs 1.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
ummmmm
an interesting thread that makes me salivate.
Keep up the debate, I'm paying attention

gotta love this stuff .... lol



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Use the F22 to kick you where your TORS arent until you are forced to expend your S400's trying to get lucky again and then carpet bomb.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
It's actually quite simple.. No 1 vs 1 bulls***.. You send 2 bombers, 10 cruise missiles, and 2 apache's and you can't tell me that site can track that many targets at once..


Hi Liberty,

Unless you can go to the trouble to check how many targets the tracking/engagement radar can track and how many it can engage at once you are not adding much and just presuming that one side has sufficiently more ( and high 'tech' at that) to always settle the issue. I suppose in a way that is true as imperial nations are essentially schoolyard bully's who bully the smallest kid they can steal the most lunch money from.


Time the attack properly with multiple incoming threats(like 10 - 12) and that entire site is "Buh bye.".
edit on 21-3-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


Thing is even the baseline old Sa-10 Grumble/S-300 had somehow of a shoot and scoot ability and could theoretical pack or or redeploy in 10 minutes. I'm sure that would vary wildly with the number of support personal/training and equipment levels but it still amounts to it being able to become tactically invisible. The system we are currently discussing can actually fire on the move and while i have not checked if that is limited to the autocannons i suspect it is with the missiles being able to engage tracked targets within seconds of having stopped...

Perhaps if we have a budget to work with ( question for you professional) for both sides or knew how large or small the defending country is? The actual systems makes up such a small part of the actual outcome... It's like Iran still operating 3-4 dozen F -14 Tomcats; exactly what would their effect be on the outcome if they were to engage another country? How did Iran lose the air war even with their aid?

Stellar



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 




Perhaps if we have a budget to work with ( question for you professional) for both sides or knew how large or small the defending country is?


The Tor-M2 units cost $25 million
The Pantsir System costs $15 million
The S400 System $300 million/unit (I didnt find a cost anywhere but from the quote below).



trying to sell a dozen S-400 missile systems worth $4 billion (Zaman, July 21). The SSM earlier rebuffed the Kremlin’s offer of direct sales, advising Rosoboronexport instead to submit a RfP.


F22 unit cost: 150 million
AGM-88 HARM unit cost: US$870,000
JDAM: $35,000+ for the GBU-38 $70,000+ for the GBU-31
Tomahawk: $1,066,465

So A mid size country like Iran could get one S400 system and 3 Tors and 3 Pantsirs to guard the prized S400 all for under a billion dollars and then stock up on missiles.

The way I see it, after having read expert analysis: since Iran doesn't have the setup the way I have shown you, they will lose miserably trying to defend against the US. There is no way Iran will win against the US unless or hamper the US efforts unless they upgrade like I said.

China can most certainly have the budget to protect the North Korean peninsula and with these defensive systems.

So if we say $500 million in defense spending per side it can be a fair, interesting fight. There can be various scenarios and combination's budget-wise that can be played out. For instance you could use all that money and buy 500 tomahawks, or buy 2 F22 and a crapload of JDAMs. The defending side must think equally and stock up on efficient ammo (especially the chain guns, because a lot of JDAMS and tomahawks) will be coming their way.

Oh interesting side note for you people ragging on the S400. It has a 30% larger aperture than the AN_SPY1 radar on the Aegis battleships. Meaning it is basically an Aegis on land. Let me tell you that the Aegis can track golfball size objects, do you really think things are going to be undetected flying close to a modern integrated defense system. Here is what the S400 radar vs the Aegis radar looks like:

edit on 21-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
The F-22, as with its 5th gen Russian and Chinese counterpart were designed (so i've read) to penetrate heavy radar coverage without revealing themselves before the target has a chance to respond. Also, I think the range advantage on the air to surface missile is kind of the game winner, you just have to detect the target which can be done through various means and wait for it to turn its radar on. The US's standard policy for SEAD ops it seems would be to bring along a EA-6B Prowler to defeat the missiles radar and a few HARM packing Super Hornets. Though if you only apply your specific situation in which it is just one single F-22 that for some reason is wandering into Russian missile defense range, yes it seems the F-22 would be at a disadvantage as would any aircraft at that point.

I believe the US has sacrificed planes to 'probe' Russian air defenses during the Cold War, these days though I doubt they would be stupid enough to send a lone and technically advanced F-22 directly into Russian hands waving and flashing radar at all their SAM sites as they pass.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
The Tor-M2 units cost $25 million
The Pantsir System costs $15 million
The S400 System $300 million/unit (I didnt find a cost anywhere but from the quote below).
F22 unit cost: 150 million
AGM-88 HARM unit cost: US$870,000
JDAM: $35,000+ for the GBU-38 $70,000+ for the GBU-31
Tomahawk: $1,066,465


I asked for the budgets on the countries involved as weapons systems are not bought and sold in isolation and their true prices are rarely reflected by the per unit cost. When you buy the Russian S-300, if their willing to sell as it's a political decision, the one you will be getting is also likely to be the version their busy retiring or downgraded for security reasons. Either way the systems are from different era's and working out a same budget year cost or estimating current production run cost is something i have not yet tried to do!

We can however use the numbers as a general guideline while also presuming that the military structures,doctrines and training exists in the purchasing nation...


So A mid size country like Iran could get one S400 system and 3 Tors and 3 Pantsirs to guard the prized S400 all for under a billion dollars and then stock up on missiles.


That's very close to the definition of a single point failure and thus a truly terribly idea; one or two lucky cruise missile ( as for the price you mention, not that the Sa-21 will be for sale any time soon, you will probably get little more than a single battery of probably the S-300 PMU1/2) and your national strategic defense is gone? One traffic or training accident and the tracking/engagement radar doesn't any more and you national defense is halved? Admittedly for a billion dollars you can probably get 3 PMU1/2 batteries + spare missiles and 3 pantsirs for each but that is still a very small force and one that will be easily saturated by the only country that could inspire you to buy such modern equipment!


The way I see it, after having read expert analysis: since Iran doesn't have the setup the way I have shown you, they will lose miserably trying to defend against the US. There is no way Iran will win against the US unless or hamper the US efforts unless they upgrade like I said.


The Russian federation have been for the longest time been under immense pressure not the sell Iran modern air defenses as you describe and so far they have not seen it worth their while to sell Iran the long range defenses that must be the cornerstone for such a large country. Iran will not be able to US air assault no matter what they do or what they buy as the infrastructure and personal required for such system simply does not yet exist there. They could not defeat the Iraqi air force and they will not scare the USAF away.


China can most certainly have the budget to protect the North Korean peninsula and with these defensive systems.


Why would they want to protect the North Korean peninsula? China has been doing licensed production of the Sa-300PMU1 for some years now and they probably operate something aproximating 150 batteries in the city and coastal defense roles. That coupled with their far more numerous shorter range native defense systems already gives them a air defense network that is second only to that of the Russian federation.


So if we say $500 million in defense spending per side it can be a fair, interesting fight. There can be various scenarios and combination's budget-wise that can be played out. For instance you could use all that money and buy 500 tomahawks, or buy 2 F22 and a crapload of JDAMs. The defending side must think equally and stock up on efficient ammo (especially the chain guns, because a lot of JDAMS and tomahawks) will be coming their way.


If only war was fair and both sides had similar resource pools from which to draw matched forces... I love these thought experiments as much as the next guy but Iran simply can not afford ( nor will the Russians sell it to them) to buy sufficient quantities of the weaponry that will be able to prevent the USA from crushing them given motivation. Admittedly if Iran could acquire even a dozen batteries of the S-300 PMU ( and gain some time to integrate them) it will probably deter the hawks in the white house as their military advisors will inform them of what it will cost to breach it and thus make it harder for them to sell such campaigns to the military who after all do not like real wars any more than you or i do.


Oh interesting side note for you people ragging on the S400. It has a 30% larger aperture than the AN_SPY1 radar on the Aegis battleships. Meaning it is basically an Aegis on land. Let me tell you that the Aegis can track golfball size objects, do you really think things are going to be undetected flying close to a modern integrated defense system. Here is what the S400 radar vs the Aegis radar looks like:


There are no 'Aegis' equipped 'battleships' in the USN (admittedly the Tico's are by no mean small ships) but if you want to see what that would look like go take a look at the Kirov class operated by the RF. I am not sure that the Aegis today performs up to the design specs it was sold on so comparing the S-400 to it in my opinion does it a great injustice
Either way the S-400 is merely a evolutionary design so we can and should talk about what is in service in numbers and what countries other than the Rf may actually acquire!

Stellar



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
VERY interesting


F-117 (S/N 82-0806) "Something Wicked"[39] remains the only F-117 lost to enemy action. It was lost during a mission against the Army of Yugoslavia on 27 March 1999, during the Kosovo War.[39] The Nighthawk was shot down by a missile fired by elements of the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Air Defence Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani, a Hungarian national with extensive experience in missile defense systems who was employed with the Yugoslav military's air defense.[40] "Something Wicked", callsign "Vega 31", was downed with a Yugoslav version of the Soviet Isayev S-125 'Neva' (NATO name SA-3 'Goa') anti-aircraft missile system.[39][41][42] According to NATO Commander Wesley Clark and other NATO generals, Colonel Dani detected F-117s by operating his radars on unusually long wavelengths, making the aircraft visible to radar for brief periods. It is also possible that the aircraft was visible on radar due to a disruption or enlargement of its radar signature caused by open bomb-bay doors. This was the justification given by Colonel Dani in a 2007 interview.[43]



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
i think most of you participating in this discussion should take this information into consideration:



The radar mounted on the F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be used to fry electronic parts of ground-based radars and disable airborne cruise missiles, program officials for the planes acknowledge.


Link

2005 ATS Discussion

make of this what you will, it could be disinfo or a significant piece of the puzzle. i would appreciate it if more people would chime in regarding the authenticity or lack thereof, about this.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Simple facts are the F-117 was shot down due to extreme luck even the Serb commander says this. The F-117 was probably caught with it's bombay dorrs open. You make a big deal about the S-125 being 1960's technology, well the F-117 is 1970's technology, so there is much of a generation gap as you seem to make out.

With attacking an S-400 site there would be a multitude of tactics used. One could be to use the F-22 to deliver SDB-II's with a supersonic release over 60 miles from the target and then duck down below the radar horizon. They could do this several times until the S400 missiles are depleated. Also bearing in mind these missiles won't work at 100% efficency, so if one missiles misses say bye bye S-400. Also of course there would be heavy jamming degrading the battery radars, degrading their range.

Not to mention a wave of cruise missiles preceeding any strike.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist





(The Air Force is said to have ruled out theories hinging on a stuck weapons-bay door, a descent to below 15,000 feet, or a hit by AAA.)17

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

The USAF said itself there was no bomb door malfunction.



Simple facts are the F-117 was shot down due to extreme luck even the Serb commander says this


The Serb commander did not say this, his team also shot down other planes. He tuned his radar to get a general vicinity location and then used optical tracking.



Colonel Dani detected F-117s by operating his radars on unusually long wavelengths, making the aircraft visible to radar for brief periods.




With attacking an S-400 site there would be a multitude of tactics used


The S400 is defended by the systems above mentioned which stop HARM/supersonic threats such as the one you mentioned.

The S400 is an antiaircraft system and the Air defense commander will not be stupid to waste their missiles. Unless they are guaranteed a shoot down on the F22. It is my opinion that the F22 is too superior to be shot down honestly and the S400 is merely harassment so that the F22 has to perform standoff duties and won't be able to provide optimal air support if it is relegated to air to ground missions.

Also jamming aircraft are subject to attack by s400 missiles, they home in on the jamming beacon, and bye bye.



Not to mention a wave of cruise missiles preceeding any strike


They will be defened against because the network of pantsirs and Tors are designed to defend and SHOOT DOWN the cruise missiles. That is their primary function to destroy incoming missiles at the main s400 system.
edit on 23-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
JASSM

Pretty isn't it.



Edit: Jassm-ER

And honestly, I want the Rods from God to get deployed so bad, I know its not in this scenario and we probably wont know if it ever will get deployed but still lol. That thing is bad ass and can ruin someones day. Sorry off topic.
edit on 24-3-2011 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join