Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

just to interupt this outburst of willie waving , but a couple of questions ,

1 - what function does a radar set serve when its in standby mode ?

in light of the boast that NATO forces in the balkans campaign " wasted " millions of dollars in ordnance

2a - how much ordnance did the serbs and thier allies waste ?

2b - how many men and how much equipment did they loose to airstrikes ?

Plan of Attack by F-22 forces

Use cluster bombs to destroy SAM Site directly, or to reduce its mobility. Follow up as needed with additional cluster bomb sorties until satellite intel confirms a kill.

Plan of Defence by ground forces.

Use sand or caustic/corrosive cloud in flight path of F-22. Volley fire of low tech devices causing accumulated damage or wear over multiple flights. Victory by attrition is the only way. (How many F-22s have been made?)

reply to post by Semicollegiate


sand shells? might as well shoot regular ol flak.

This is not currently in production so it's a bit out of bounds. I don't think there's any other way to beat modern air power unless you are the proxy of a superpower.

Using air currents, like a dust devil, or just rockets, with or without catapults, put a large volume of small particles into the flightpath of a supersonic vehicle. The high speed of collision will give the particles a high momentum and might damage turbine blades or other engine parts fairly quickly.

Ultimately it comes down to economics.

Been a while mister mad ape

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
just to interupt this outburst of willie waving , but a couple of questions ,

1 - what function does a radar set serve when its in standby mode ?

When it's powered down it can lowered on trailer and moved somewhere else within 30 minutes thus sustaining a threat in being. As multiple engagement and tracking radars can be used, and Tel's slaved by digital link to nearby radars that are still tracking, you can in theory shut down the radar that is currently being engaged by the harm's/cruise missiles ( whatever) and still gain tracking information from a nearby batteries radar. In fact you can in theory stagger your surveillance or tracking radars and thus always have a few moving or in reserve to keep your in flight missiles supplied with sufficient data to allow them to get close enough for their SARH warheads to take over. If this is practical in the intense EW environment likely i have no idea but it's certainly WHY these batteries have data link facilities.

But to your original question when the tracking radar needs to be switched off in the attempt to throw of harm's ( the sooner you switch it off the better your chances) your own SARH warheads better have already gotten close enough to the enemy planes to allow them to engage without additional directional data... Alternatively you keep the radar on ( as the design intent of the newer versions of the Sa-10 suggests) and engage the harms with short range missiles of which Tel can deploy up to 16 of... Since it's relatively senseless for smaller air defenses networks ( smaller countries) to fight it out this way it's not something we are likely to see anyone but the Russians and Chinese attempting in defense.

in light of the boast that NATO forces in the balkans campaign " wasted " millions of dollars in ordnance

2a - how much ordnance did the serbs and thier allies waste ?

They sure expended hundreds of millions but what did it cost the Serbs to rebuild the hundreds of factories, power plants, bridges, railway junctions and other infrastructure which their 'national defense' utterly failed to defend? If NATO were not pretending to be fighting fair ( they made a significant go at fighting with both hands behind their back) there would not have been much left of Serbian infrastructure. I have in the past pointed out how well the Serbs did at maintaining their military forces and air force in general but what i may not have made as clear is that they did this at the expense of civilian infrastructure which they could only have defended at the expense of complete destruction of their air and air defense forces.

2b - how many men and how much equipment did they loose to airstrikes ?

Not much but what is the point of that ( you can survive if your well trained and only take a few half aimed shots before hiding again ) when you do so only at the expense of your national infrastructure?

Fact is that the last time we had anything like similar 'high tech' resources locked in large scale battle was the second world war. By looking at the strategic bombing campaign ( first by the RAF, with the USAAF joining in later, during the first three years) one can tell that air power alone is quite unlikely to get you anywhere against someone who has something approaching like resources to commit. I do not believe that lesson has been forgotten by everyone but i also believe that the USAF in it's current form would fair very badly against nations who have committed themselves to effective air defense. It's SEAD/DEAD components and equipment/aircraft have just not in my knowledge kept pace with developments and the number of platforms that are dedicated and/or able to attempt penetration or destruction of enemy air defenses is low and falling.

Cheers!

Stellar

What I don't understand is how could the allies down 150 iraqi aircraft while the iraqis downed only a few and I believe it was from the ground. Soviet aircraft can't be that lousy as I have flown both migs and sukhois in LockOn-MAC versus f-15s and f-18s. Yes nato aircraft have better computer systems and slightly all around better designs BUT you would have to be grossly incompetant not to be able to shoot down ANY aircraft.

Anyway you don't need super-dooper SAM systems because sams are merely speed bumps to a determined enemy. If you can't stop non-stealth aircraft then what chance do you have to stop f-117s, b-2s and f-22s? If I was sadam hussein or gadhaffi I would have about a hundred tripple A batteries and lots and lots of manpads such as stingers or iglas. Trick the enemy to think they are invicible, as they are anyway, then hit them while they fly away from you. Thats what the serbs did to the nato airstrikes and the afghans did to the russians when the cia supported the mujahaden.



Sometimes the simplest and cheapest solutions are also the best solutions. Especially if your a third world country with a limited defense budget. Its a shame they have to spend so much on armaments when they could spend that money elsewhere.

Or develop small yield nukes with a reliable delivery system. Just my two cents since I am not a weapons expert. The only real winners in war are the bankers and the military-industrial complex. Lets not feed the beast more than we have to.

I thought there were news reports saying the F-117 was shot down using Russian cell phone frequency radar to find a stealth plane.

They weren't using conventional radar at all.....but using something the Russian's came up with?

I also want to point out that lots of the stealth technology is allegedly reverse-enginereed alien tech. I have no idea if this is true or not but it is something to consider. BTW there is no such thing as 100% stealth that is not severly classified assuming the philadelphia experiment took place and star wars is true.

F-22s, B-2s and F-117As simply have a much smaller radar cross section due to their slanted surfaces that scatter radar transmissions, special paint coats that absorb radar transmissions and heat signatures, relatively quiet engines, etc.

I think a determined enemy CAN shoot SOME down but no where near enough to make a significant difference in determining the outcome of the war. All nato has to do is launch cruise missles 50-100 miles offshore and your integrated air defense system is history.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What I don't understand is how could the allies down 150 iraqi aircraft while the iraqis downed only a few and I believe it was from the ground. Soviet aircraft can't be that lousy as I have flown both migs and sukhois in LockOn-MAC versus f-15s and f-18s. Yes nato aircraft have better computer systems and slightly all around better designs BUT you would have to be grossly incompetant not to be able to shoot down ANY aircraft.

Yes there is an inequallity there that's hard to believe. The Russian scientists are very gifted but the Soviet system always lacked the variety of production that our free enterprise system acheived. The Russian designs were as good as ours as long as the parts and subsystems were custom made.

However since the 1980's the West has had a gargatuan superiority in information technology. Most of our advantage comes from the electronic aspect of air weapons. Western fighters see the enemy first, can jam or mislead enemy detection systems, and strike from longer distances.

One reason we can sell our new planes is that without our best electronics in them, we will always be able to keep them at arm's length.

We also have had more initiative through out our chain of command, due to our higher level of freedom. Individual contributions to the situation account for alot once the battle has commenced. Our enemies tactics are usually highly doctrinal and therefore inflexable and predictable.

And we train alot more in realistic situations.

""stealth technology is allegedly reverse-enginereed alien tech. ""

Not likely. We lost a $2 Billion Stealth bomber because a couple sensors fed wrong data to the onboard computer causing it to pull up too much on take-off and then belly flopped smack dab in the middle of the airfield and burnt up to nothing.

Alien tech......ain't in this solar system. The B-2 was first sketched up by the Nazi's but couldn't be made to fly until the advent of computers to get the flying wing to be stable enough for flight.

Northrup flew a version of the B-2 long ago before computers and couldn't get it stable because they were flying with wires to the control surfaces.

Today's planes are all fly by wire. That's their achilles heal. As was seen when the B-2 crashed. Most expensive airplane disaster in human history.....so far. It costed more than even the Space Shuttle explosion....and was a worse environmental disaster.

50,000 pounds of advanced carbon composites burnt up.....very very very bad stuff in the B-2 airframe was released to the atmosphere/environment from that little oopsie.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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)

Just had to chime in on what brought down the F-117, OR MIGHT ONLY BE a system that was developed for the counter stealth role (F-117, not to my knowledge the F-22) in the late 1990's. I heard via AW&ST, and Jane's if memory serves. If I recall in the area of, the Balkans Air Defense Network, I don't remember the specific country, but my instincts tell me it was developed in Bosnia. Quite intriguing, it was using the signals sent between cell phone towers, ubiquitous and cheap, to in effect spread a "net", where by a F-117 crossing between towers would be detected though the specifics is not known to me. I could not help but think of a Star Trek TNG episode (talk about hypothetical) where the Federation spread a "Tachyon" net at the Kilingon border, to prevent a Romulan incursion, seemed very close to it in concept. But have not heard about is since, but the impression they wanted to give (the Bosnians not the Federation...) was it was active. Did that take out our F-117 ? I thought it was simple AA fire, or a malfunction...

reply to post by Pervius


I wasn't aware that the B-2 was inheritantly unstable for flight. I only heard that about the f-16 and they said "its better for maneuverability". I find their comments somewhat moronic! Would not a stable and beautiful aircraft such as the f-15 be more maneuverable?

I hate fly-by-wire because I am old-school and believe in pilot skill. I think the mig-21 and mig-23 are the best designed aircraft from the russian side and yes they may lack in avionics but who cares if your not going to fight the usa in a conventional war.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
.
One reason we can sell our new planes is that without our best electronics in them, we will always be able to keep them at arm's length.

I am pretty sure the russians, chinesse and europeans do the exact same thing. There is no sense in developing state-of-the-art weapons if your not willing to underhand the enemy with inferior technology.

Common Sense 101

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Pervius

 

I wasn't aware that the B-2 was inheritantly unstable for flight.

All of the Wings and Discovery Channel documentaries I've seen about flying wings say that flying wings have a yaw problem, especially during precision bombing runs.

reply to post by arbiture


Hi thanks, yes yes. That is anti-stealth technology. You use radio and cell towers that are communicating with each other and once a stealth aircraft flies in between the two towers it disrupts the signal and is shown on screen. I commented about it in a thread long time ago. I believe the technology is called multistatic radar. I wrote about it in some thread a while back..I been trying to search it. It was a very very good thread...cant seem to find it.

Here is one thread about radars:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here I found the thread where I start talking about this subject matter if you are interested i anti-stealth Radars:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Earth citizen I have come to the same conclusion for the past two years that Iran does not have the training for the latest generation of Russian SAM systems to defeat or hamper a US attack. There is nothing wrong with the SAM systems, you just have to know how to use them. They need to be worried about these types of things before worrying about anything else. Basic defense of the nation.

Hi,

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
What I don't understand is how could the allies down 150 iraqi aircraft while the iraqis downed only a few and I believe it was from the ground.

Towards the end of the second world war the once might Luftwaffe were losing a hundred or more fighters destroyed in training ( they were under immense pressure to training replacements), operational accidents, bombing of airfields or attempting to defend their airfields/cities or penetrate strategic bomber formation fighter screens.... If your outmatched your outmatched and having hundreds of inferior aircraft may or may not score victories on a enemy air force that at the time had 5000 operational fighters.

Given the technological gap the Iraqi's were faced with and how outnumbered their few air-air victories might be more surprising than disappointing.

Soviet aircraft can't be that lousy as I have flown both migs and sukhois in LockOn-MAC versus f-15s and f-18s. Yes nato aircraft have better computer systems and slightly all around better designs BUT you would have to be grossly incompetant not to be able to shoot down ANY aircraft.

Even if you took Russian models ( not the export versions) and Russian pilots and forced them to fight in the same low support / vastly outnumbered scenario they would still lose very badly. Provided that most other things are equal being that vastly outnumbered is normally sufficient in and of itself to create very disproportionate casualties. Obviously whatever happens in a game simulation may or may not have much to do with reality as it's entirely dependent on the data fed into the system; even the air force simulators are very much dependent on the input data which obviously involves a great deal of educated estimates and other guess work.

Anyway you don't need super-dooper SAM systems because sams are merely speed bumps to a determined enemy. If you can't stop non-stealth aircraft then what chance do you have to stop f-117s, b-2s and f-22s?

Anti air defenses are much like any other kind of defense in that if you do not have enough of it may simply be bypassed or breached by a superior concentration of force. Iraqi's air defenses were largely reliant on comparatively old SAM's and a very large number of much shorter range anti air gun defenses. These defense were very well integrated ( One of the best in the world) but with the flaw that the Iraqi individual systems were somewhat dependent on tracking and engagement data from the network. Either way it simply lacked the long range SAM' defenses that characterises the defenses of the Soviet union ( on which it modelled it's system) and had no comparatively massive air force to provide any means of staging a mobile defense or of exploiting opportunities presented by AA defenses disrupting enemy penetrations/attacks.

Had i been around to judge i would probably have thought that the Iraqi's would manage more; there were however better informed experts that got the numbers very close to right before the conflict and given the size of the coalition air force in retrospect it seems that the Iraqi's did just about as well as they could have hoped for and perhaps even better given how the coalition actual fought that as a war and risked assets in raids that were playing to Iraqi's strengths. Those low level Tornado raids on air fields comes readily to mind!

If I was sadam hussein or gadhaffi I would have about a hundred tripple A batteries and lots and lots of manpads such as stingers or iglas. Trick the enemy to think they are invicible, as they are anyway, then hit them while they fly away from you. Thats what the serbs did to the nato airstrikes and the afghans did to the russians when the cia supported the mujahaden.

How would you pay for all that? What would you do with the older equipment? Why would the hostile aircraft operate low enough for your short range defenses to hit them when they can lay waste to your countries infrastructure from altitude? The Serbian military/air force remained intact because it refused battle with NATO knowing that it would lose quickly and badly if it tried. The fact that it was 'always' geared to provide e mobile defense to cover the withdrawal of ground forces to the central highland ( facing a Soviet or NATO invasion) helps to explain why it could and did fight in the way it did.

Sometimes the simplest and cheapest solutions are also the best solutions. Especially if your a third world country with a limited defense budget. Its a shame they have to spend so much on armaments when they could spend that money elsewhere.

There is nothing simple or cheap about offering noticeable resistance to a NATO sized force. If your a third world country it's mostly ridiculous to even consider arming yourself in what would offer the best resistance to NATO as what would 'work' ( allow you to shoot down a few planes) against NATO would probably ensure that you lose badly against your neighbors.

Or develop small yield nukes with a reliable delivery system. Just my two cents since I am not a weapons expert. The only real winners in war are the bankers and the military-industrial complex. Lets not feed the beast more than we have to.

Using nukes against countries that can litterally nuke you off the map ( if your a third world country) is just a very bad idea! The whole purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence as their actual usage, when there is such a disparity in numbers of nukes, would ensure your prompt destruction.

I agree that we should do less of this war thing but that's rather pointless given who has been attacking who in recent memory. The only reason why the world has not been united under one king/queen dictator is because people fight back and the only reason why it will remain that way is if people keep on resisting even when it's so very costly.

Cheers,

Stellar

I'd imagine using FAEs would be highly effective. You don't have to actually hit the target and will actually do more damage with an indirect hit. This video for example:



And now imagine how many of these we could drop at once. Sorry, buh bye air defenses.

In a real-world situation though, you would simply send in a ground team to take out air defenses. Rock paper scissors.

JASSM and JASSM-ER was made with the newer generation SAMS taken into consideration.

Originally posted by warbird03
I'd imagine using FAEs would be highly effective. You don't have to actually hit the target and will actually do more damage with an indirect hit. This video for example:

Fuel air explosives are best deployed against forward positions and exposed infantry; using such against modern air defenses vehicles which are NBC equipped ( and thus have some kind of over pressure defense) is mostly a waste of time. Since i will generously presume, as trying to overfly modern air defenses is just not how it's done, that you intend to equip cruise and guide precision munitions with such it's just less efficient than cluster munitions or old fashioned HE.

And now imagine how many of these we could drop at once. Sorry, buh bye air defenses.

In a real-world situation though, you would simply send in a ground team to take out air defenses. Rock paper scissors.

Even in Starcraft II rock, paper scissor responses is dependent on very good scouting and good execution. There is not much rock,paper,scissor stuff going on in the real world where economics and logistics determines the outcomes as often as you would expect. As for 'dropping' FAE' if you can get close enough to drop it on someones air defenses that probably means that you have more aircraft than you know what to do with and probably attacking some third world nation who's conception of air defense involves lots of barrels and heaps of shells.

Stellar

Reply to post by StellarX

You wouldn't use FAEs to target the equipment though, but the personnel instead. Nobody to use the equipment, no threat.

Perhaps the rock paper scissors analogy wasn't the best. Point is, though, that would it not make sense to take out equipment meant for air defense with ground forces?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com