Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

Where are these satellites? In service? Powerful enough? Got further reading on this? Please, I take everything you say with a grain of salt because of how inaccurate the things you were advocating in previous posts and your lack of references and your inability to stand by your opinion on the JASSM/JASSM-ER.

I would argue that high powered optical satellites would have a hard time detecting stealth "if" they are available, especially a B-2 in the presence of night time when the B-2 is most deadly. Even though the B-2 is getting outdated, but still more advanced that any other bomber in the world, the 2018 bomber will have ELO not LO. And Optical Satellites don't have the capability to provide radar lockon, a squadron of F-22's would most likely escort the bomber to wipe out any enemy adversaries in the air.

The best bet of detecting stealth is quantum entanglement radar IMO what Lockheed Martin just patented a couple years back, but that is quite far away from becoming a reality.

And when you make write this "article" up, please make a thorough reference sheet so I can go through in detail what you are saying is correct.

But since you brought other systems into the equation, so will I. The United States would DEMOLISH these satellites while or before a ground strike package is sent in, "if" there are even any jeopardizing the American lives, which I highly doubt.

Its common sense.

Good Day

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by mad scientist

 

You don't need to know where precisely. Plus Darpa didnt think of lots of things. The F22 is basically 20 years old now and it still aint invisible. The DARPA people are not the smartest, I met one DARPA person and not the brightest.

How, and why when you met this person from DARPA did they not give you the essence of them being bright?

Did you work on a project with him?

Most likely (if you even did) meet him, in a social encounter, MANY people from a vast array of fields tend to be socially awkward who excel in engineering, etc.

Such as the case with John Robison who suffers from Asperger syndrome

" good training and motivation can win a war against a more technologically advanced enemy."

Seems to me that they have become their own worst enemy :
Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Soldiers: Report

__________________

Networked radar is likely to defeat deflective stealth. But in that game of rock-paper-scissors, all one needs to do is fly something with a decent electronic warfare pod on it and jam it. In that case stealth then resumes being undetectable (obscured by the blob of noise from the jamming aircraft), but by then the enemy obviously knows something is up. (More often than not, diplomatic channels have failed and they already know it's hitting the fan. So stealth is somewhat redundant in that regard.)

I think optical guidance and detection systems will be making a comeback. They won't have the range of radar, but you could paint an aircraft with a laser and have the missile home in on that. Some countries like Sweden already have shoulder launched missiles that use this instead of infra-red or radar guidance.

Alternately video guidance and things like object recognition software becoming a lot cheaper will have an impact too. (Computer hobbyists have access to this stuff now, some even being open-source and developed outside the U.S. or falling through the ITAR cracks. No reason why those developing weapons systems wouldn't be able to use them.) If an average person can get hobby software that lets them lock a tracking box on a specific person's face with 99% accuracy on a home computer and have a webcam follow it, no reason why that couldn't be changed to recognize an aircraft profile and let a missile follow it. Chaff and flares won't easily distract from that specific image either. The cat is out of the bag there.

this is my first post but heres my idea in your hypothetic situation. we could detonate a nuclear bomb a few hundred miles above the country we are attacking. The emp would fry all their electronics including s.a.m. sites. from there we have bombers standing buy at a safe distance, then when its over they will have the ability to bomb anything we want

reply to post by DOJtookmyjob


If you try to detonate a nuclear bomb, it will be mistaken as a nuclear war and we don't want those can of worms opened. Not only that most military hardens all electronics against EMP. If the US uses nuclear weapons for any purpose all other countries will be justified in using them. Do you want a nuke detonated over NYC? That is exactly what the enemy will do.

If it was an EMP strike the enemy could place or manufacture a Z-pinch device right here in the USA borders and set it off near major areas effectively frying out all US systems that have not been hardened.

It really would not work for both sides as all militaries know about EMP and have hardened their systems.

would a rail gun work?

Originally posted by Bicent76
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.

The F22 will eat your Apache's, while it's briskly defended and flying in the "zone" of the AA battallion.

Strategy fails.

It was the Modern AA Battallion and an F22 vs A squadron of F-22's.

Clearly, it's an unwinable scenario, without matching with mobile AA, It becomes a battle for the sky.

What I would do, is get some mobile aa in there, and try to pop their F22, once that's done... we can send in the Apache's under cover of the mobile AA and the F-22 Squadron. Once the Air space is converted to your control -- the battle is essentially won.

The only counter to AA Batallion and an F22 is More F-22's and mobile AA.

(I suppose you can try some UAV attacks on the AA's, but pretty much, you would have to overwelm the AA's to win.)

With regards to the F-117 that was shot down over Kosovo, I seem to remember that it was raining on that particular night. For those of you who don't know how detecting a stealthy aircraft can be achieved, you don't look for any aircraft. You look for something that is not there.

For example if you remember the armoured attacks that took place at night during DS I and II, the Allies seemed to know where almost every Iraqi AFV was, even though they were 'shielded' from radar and thermal detection. The reason? There were 'dark, empty' shadows against a black background which was giving off a certain amount of heat. The tank gunners simply lined up their sights on these targets and destroyed tank after tank!

The same can be done with radar against so called 'stealthy' aircraft. These can be detected because even rain has a radar cross section and believe it or not, if an aircraft stealthy or otherwise is flying through it, there could be a 'nil' return on the detector, thus indicating that 'something' is 'out there!'

A good operator will re-tune his search and target tracking radar to paint any 'blank' spaces in the sky and, depending on the type of radar, send a pencil thin bean which frequency hops within a certain spectrum to detect the suspected aircraft.

It can be done. It has happened before and it will happen again. The trick is to keep doing it when somebody is shooting missiles at you but then of course, as a SAM battery commander, you'll have a 'knock-off' Patriot SAM system of your own and we all know that these are the dog's dangly bits when it comes to area defence against incoming missiles and smart bombs!

A good SAM commander will also utilise dummy SAM sites with smoke missiles which will force said F-22, F15/16s, A10s and Apache pilots to fly higher risking further detection.

Of course all this speculation is null and void if the SAM commander is also armed with a few Metal Storm systems or something fiendishly similar.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Laxpla

 

What if they are russian owned satellites and the Russians are just giving their services to another country say Iran. Is the US really gonna try to shoot down a Russian satellite to start WW3?

Iran no longer exists. We just put sanctions on them so they can't get gasoline anymore. They're dead since they can't take their crude oil and make their own gasoline. We probably promised China something since they will soon lose their investments in Iran...I'm sure they are getting something nice,

I think shooting down a F-22 is irrelevant now. Since the F-35 is getting canceled I think they see it won't work and are opting for the newer birds.

If Russia's space satellites are any good you've already seen what they are. Tiny aren't they?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by DOJtookmyjob

 

If you try to detonate a nuclear bomb, it will be mistaken as a nuclear war and we don't want those can of worms opened. Not only that most military hardens all electronics against EMP. If the US uses nuclear weapons for any purpose all other countries will be justified in using them. Do you want a nuke detonated over NYC? That is exactly what the enemy will do.

If it was an EMP strike the enemy could place or manufacture a Z-pinch device right here in the USA borders and set it off near major areas effectively frying out all US systems that have not been hardened.

It really would not work for both sides as all militaries know about EMP and have hardened their systems.

edit on 17-5-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Simple end run= Saturation Bombing. Stealth is useful for strategic bombing aka "we don't want a too high enemy civilian casualty rate". Send in drones on Kamikaze missions against enemy SAM batteries and other anti-aircraft targets and then just send in B-1B , B-2 , some F-22's as distractions/support to eliminate infrastructure and mop up with a few B-52H.

Of course that would probably violate a few international treaties, high enemy civilian causalities and likelihood of high pilot causalities.

But in the end the target nation would not longer be able to wage war, let alone rule it's own people(so a despotic government would fall into complete anarchy).

Originally posted by korathin But in the end the target nation would not longer be able to wage war, let alone rule it's own people(so a despotic government would fall into complete anarchy).

Does not work in real life - just ask any Libyan civvie!

Excuse, me, but I believe that if you want to judge how the F-22 would perform, at least get half of your facts confirmed, and play sam simulator. In it you can shoot down F-117 with SA-3. Believe me, it is extremely difficult, and the one thing I have noticed is that you have to have the height of the aircraft before you engage. This was possible to Zoltan Dani because the F-117 planners were careless and did not change the're mission parameters around. This was one of the reasons that the F-117 was shot down. Also, remember to look at the scoreboard! Who won in the end, who lost in the end?

I like how as usual the professional sets up a sset of hypothetical rules for his threads and then flagrantly breaks them whenever he feels like it.

This is indicative of someone who bites off more than they can chew repeatedly and habitually. So how about those UBER secret optical tracking satellites? Got any links for us yet?

What about the LIDAR sats? Any links for those?

I didn't think so

What war is OP trying to win?

This thread is traitorous at best, absolute PSY-OP baiting if you ask me....

The newest Tor System: the Tor-M2E has missiles capable of defeating:

0.92-0.95 against aircraft
0.80-0.96 against helicopters
0.60-0.90 against cruise missiles (with an effective range of around 5 km/3 miles)
0.70-0.90 against precision munitions (LGBs, glide bombs, etc.)
0.90 against UAVs

Meaning, no HARMS, hellfires, UAVs, JASSMs, PGMs, LGBs, attack helos, tomahawks etc are coming near it in a modern integrated air defense system. It also includes an all weather optical tracking system meaning stealth is less useful...so yeah..

Actually by your own links it says it can swat cruise missiles .6-.9 times out of one .... This to me is indicative of a real rate somewhere in the .3-.6 range since ALL DEFENSE PROGRAMS OVERSTATE their efficiency by a good 25% or more. This pencils into using 3 cruise missiles per target for a guaranteed kill.

Hardly the NO cruise missiles ever getting you are claiming.

Funny how you with your "physics" degree and real world experience are still incapable of reading simple numerical references like the ones you posted and coming to the conclusion that they aren't NEARLY AS SURE AS YOU ARE about their own system's ability to swat anything and everything that comes at it.

Now if it said 1.0 in all the categories out of 1 then you'd be justified in saying that PGM's Cruise Missiles and etc cannot get through no matter what. But if it said that it would just be LYING. There are no absolutely foolproof systems in complex dynamic situations. There are ALWAYS statistical outliers in complex systems.

What happens when the missile you just meant to send off the rail sits there dumb and stalled out because of a last second fault indicator or burned out component? What happens if the enemy EWO is particularly on his game that day and your sensor radius is down to less area than you can successfully engage from?

There are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of things that can go wrong with a system as complex as these. But you still insist that no cruise missiles or Pgm's will ever get through..... That's foolish and downright idiotic to assert.

Yet here we are with you breaking your own purported rules of the thread making assertions based on an unheard of perfect performance of a highly complex set of interconnected complex systems in the single most punishing torture test of man and machine we have yet to experience (AKA war), these are big big assertions from a very little information you actually have access to.

reply to post by roguetechie

Actually by your own links it says it can swat cruise missiles .6-.9 times out of one .... This to me is indicative of a real rate somewhere in the .3-.6 range since ALL DEFENSE PROGRAMS OVERSTATE their efficiency by a good 25% or more. This pencils into using 3 cruise missiles per target for a guaranteed kill. Hardly the NO cruise missiles ever getting you are claiming. Funny how you with your "physics" degree and real world experience are still incapable of reading simple numerical references like the ones you posted and coming to the conclusion that they aren't NEARLY AS SURE AS YOU ARE about their own system's ability to swat anything and everything that comes at it.

I do actually have a physics degree...

Plus I said modern integrated Air defense system, meaning more than one missile will be shot at the once per target and there will be more than just one Tor per area coverage...

No Air defense person just shoots one missile per target, the computers and commander know what to do.

Plus the System is designed to handle multiple incoming missiles. Nowhere did it say that the probability goes down by shooting 3 missiles at it.

The system is designed to deal with multiple incoming threats

.6-.9 times out of one .... This to me is indicative of a real rate somewhere in the .3-.6 range since

If what you say is correct ( you said with no backing of 25%), 25% less of .6-.9 is actually .45-0.675, not the 0.3-0.6 that you claim.

Where is your evidence that all systems are overstated by 25%.

What happens when the missile you just meant to send off the rail sits there dumb and stalled out because of a last second fault indicator or burned out component? What happens if the enemy EWO is particularly on his game that day and your sensor radius is down to less area than you can successfully engage from?

I said modern integrated defense system, meaning there are more than one Tors in addition to S-400+ systems working in conjunction.

I did not claim that a single stand alone system can survive. That is not the concept of modern air defense.

Not sure if the Rapier MKII BAE Systems has been mentioned yet, but it tracked a stealth fighter at the Farnbourgh airshow some years ago much to the American officials anger. Its surface to air proximity missiles also get from 0 to mach 3 by the time it has travelled its own length in distance. Deadly is not the word to describe this system it is far worse than that. I am pretty certain having seen this system in action that it would be able to down the F22 if it came withing 13 nautical miles of the ground unit.

And no competent ground commander fires single missiles at heavily defended ground targets. Even if the totals are as high as you state there's only so many missiles that can come off the rails before they have to reload. A competent opposing force commander will know how many missiles this is and provide a 20% overkill ratio to that estimate "just to be sure"

Second of all only the Russians have S-400 and they don't seem to be willing to give it to anyone else anyway so this whole point of what the S-400 can do is pretty moot since we won't be fighting Russia any time soon.

I find it interesting that you posit a competent if not world class persona in control of the defender's armaments while at the same time assuming the attacking commander would not be smart enough to calculate the odds and throw in a cherry on top just to seal the deal.

Not every battery commander is as good as your Hungarian hero who shot down an f-117 and an f-16.

To top this all off where in the literature does it state that each s-400 battery is protected by multiple supplemental batteries of pantsir et al? I think this might only be happening in your fertile but futile imagination.

As I've stated before and I'll state this again Air defense systems are very complex setups where THOUSANDS of things have to go right to get a missile off the rail and headed in the right direction, while only ONE THING has to go wrong to make this not happen. IN addition one thing American forces are not stingy with is preparatory missile strikes before an attack. Usually done out of the blue during shift change or etc. YOu can't tell me that every sam battery is fully operationally ready at ALL TIMES. I can pretty much Guarantee you that the US military knows when these batteries are down or functioning at reduced capacity and would pick then to strike.

Basically what i'm saying is you can't just blithely state that EVERYTHING Will ALWAYS go right for the defender while the aggressor will ALWAYS perform below par.

That's just not how reality works.