Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by DOJtookmyjob
 


I suspect it is hard to track a target (elevate or traverse) with a rail gun. Maybe railguns will use curving flight paths, like a baseball pitcher throwing a curveball, to hit targets at any set of coordinates.




posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
So forgive me for waking a dead thread here (found it via google) but...


The OP's scenario is completely unlikely. A single F-22 would never be wandering about in enemy airspace by itself. It most likely wont be carrying a2g munitions since its primary role is air superiority. And if all else fails, the TOR, while impressive... Is not full proof.

The F-22 carries a multitude of electronic warfare equipment to help protect it from even the hardest of Air Defenses including the s-400. Most likely the F-22 would just continue on its mission and avoid the Air Defense.

Now, a more realistic scenario is a full scale air assault such as Kosovo vs hardened air defenses like the TOR and s-400.

Lets say there are 2- TORs watching a single s-400.

A TOR has a magazine of 8 missiles before needing a reload and the time between launches is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 seconds but lets just say for arguments sake its 2 seconds.

Now, my battleship launches 3 Tomahawk missiles at each TOR. Now given the TOR is on flat land in with no mountains or hills for the cruise missile to hide behind and assuming the TOR picks up this low flying missile with enough warning to take it out (18 mile range i believe it was) it would obviously be able to track each missile... Now explain to me how the TOR can launch its missiles fast enough to take out 3 Tomahawks before 1 gets through?

Now after you are done with that one, please explain how the crews of each TOR does not waste a missile on the same cruise missile the other one shot at.. In other words both TORs target the closest missile first and fire at it while the other 5 missiles continue inbound?

NOW lets factor in the .6 success rate of the TOR.. PER SHOT.

After you consider those, your idea of defending the s-400 with TORs is far less full proof.

Now all that is irrelevant because of the JASSM which most likely wouldnt be detected by TOR until its too late but even if it were, 2 JASSMs would certainly do the job. A smart commander would fire at the s-400 and forget the TORs since they have altitude restrictions to 19k feet i believe?

But if all else fails the US military has other options.... We are not the same as we were in Kosovo (even if we had some of these in the Kosovo conflict we didnt use them) And against someone with hardened air defense we would pull out all the stops.

Meet MALD, JSOW, and the NEW HARM. - Please watch to the end to see how these technologies work together. Then imagine Growlers, stealth aircraft, and JASSM working with it all...

Im sorry to say but while the s-400 and TOR are impressive.. The wouldnt even slow down the NATO air campaign

www.youtube.com...


edit on 11-6-2014 by asims33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

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


It isn't a mistake. It is a nuclear war.

More seriously, the S-300 and S-400 are formidable systems, and they have large long-range missiles. However this also means that it takes longer to pack up and scoot. If you keep on threatening the system and getting it to scoot, it has less capability since it can't shoot while it's moving.

I believe a serious threat to these are local (not high-atmospheric) directed EMP weapons. There are explosive devices which can make very strong pulses in microwaves frequencies (potentially directed in one direction) and these are intended to damage radar detection systems.

So, one strategy would be to send in some stealth UCAV's which could launch a barrage of small missiles & bombs (e.g. Griffin & SDB). This would soak up much of the point defense but among these would be EMP weapons and some would get through.

An anti-air missile system is worthless without radar.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: fritz


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's different for anti-air. Yes, lower frequency and passive radar techniques might be able to detect low observable aircraft, but not necessarily with the precision needed to guide weapons to it. You'll know that something's coming from approximately somewhere but that's it.
edit on 13-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

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


It isn't a mistake. It is a nuclear war.

More seriously, the S-300 and S-400 are formidable systems, and they have large long-range missiles. However this also means that it takes longer to pack up and scoot. If you keep on threatening the system and getting it to scoot, it has less capability since it can't shoot while it's moving.

I believe a serious threat to these are local (not high-atmospheric) directed EMP weapons. There are explosive devices which can make very strong pulses in microwaves frequencies (potentially directed in one direction) and these are intended to damage radar detection systems.

So, one strategy would be to send in some stealth UCAV's which could launch a barrage of small missiles & bombs (e.g. Griffin & SDB). This would soak up much of the point defense but among these would be EMP weapons and some would get through.

An anti-air missile system is worthless without radar.


Exactly, the link i provided in my last post shows exactly how NATO would handle the s-300 and s-400 systems. They are nasty machines and i think NATO would expect losses but other than NATO having to alter their initial air campaign because of them, they pose no real long term threats in an air campaign. They will all be taken out in the first weeks.

Now, if Russia is able to perfect stealth technology in aircraft like the PAK 50, thats a different story and their best bet at defending their airspace since they could take out Tankers and AWACS but we will have to wait and see the PAK 50 in action to see if Russian claims are true about it.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
These birds are beatable. They are fly by wire so the proper EMP blast will render them inoperable.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The F117 was actually not very good pass it's stealth. Subsonic, poor maneuverability, just a small bomber.

F22 is a completely differnt animal.

edit on 14-6-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
These birds are beatable. They are fly by wire so the proper EMP blast will render them inoperable.


Military targets are all hardened against EMP...

EMP would be mostly ineffective against both Russia or USA.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Over the period of time this thread has been going we here in the USA have developed an energy weapon that will essentially clear the skies. If you look on youtube you will find our contractors have systems that can even take out a mortar round. To use aircraft and missiles to attack us would just be a waste of time now. The whole concept of defense has changed and nobody noticed. They let me see the death ray and I understand how it changes things, just like the atom bomb changed things. Where are the awake people? Where is my portable death ray for home defense? We were also promised flying cars.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
There has been a massive jump in stealth capabilities in recent years. The new stealth aircraft will make the B-2 look like a B-1 RCS wise, if not bigger, when the two are compared. Add in some EW systems that will make opposing radar systems dance, and you have a system that is so formidable that it's not even funny. They'll be almost unbeatable for awhile until detection capability starts to catch up.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: asims33

originally posted by: jrod
These birds are beatable. They are fly by wire so the proper EMP blast will render them inoperable.


Military targets are all hardened against EMP...

EMP would be mostly ineffective against both Russia or USA.


It depends on what you mean. Surely not everything is very well hardened---much too expensive. EMP would be quite effective against many technological militaries.

Any radar system, especially one designed to detect low-observable aircraft must necessarily, by virtue of physics, be able to detect and amplify very low-amplitude microwave frequencies. This means that the antennae and circuits must necessarily be exposed to incoming EM radiation in certain bands and the chips are very sensitive with high gain. You can't make this "hardened" against a very high powered EM weapon because of the fundamental nature of the technology.

Also, something specifically against radar systems is different from a generalized high-altitude ionospheric EMP phenomenon.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: asims33

originally posted by: jrod
These birds are beatable. They are fly by wire so the proper EMP blast will render them inoperable.


Military targets are all hardened against EMP...

EMP would be mostly ineffective against both Russia or USA.


It depends on what you mean. Surely not everything is very well hardened---much too expensive. EMP would be quite effective against many technological militaries.

Any radar system, especially one designed to detect low-observable aircraft must necessarily, by virtue of physics, be able to detect and amplify very low-amplitude microwave frequencies. This means that the antennae and circuits must necessarily be exposed to incoming EM radiation in certain bands and the chips are very sensitive with high gain. You can't make this "hardened" against a very high powered EM weapon because of the fundamental nature of the technology.

Also, something specifically against radar systems is different from a generalized high-altitude ionospheric EMP phenomenon.



Im not sure where you are getting your information... Yes some military equipment may crap out in the event of EMP but no essential systems nor aircraft systems would be affected. Tanks will still roll guns will still fire and missiles will launch.

You may experience some issues with small electronics like hand held GPS or Night vision goggles. Possibly some radar system issues but i couldnt imagine much if any. EMP has been around a LONG time... The countries of the world are not spending hundreds of billions on equipment that can be knocked out by something as cheap as an EMP.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: asims33


Im not sure where you are getting your information... Yes some military equipment may crap out in the event of EMP but no essential systems nor aircraft systems would be affected. Tanks will still roll guns will still fire and missiles will launch.


That isn't under discussion.



You may experience some issues with small electronics like hand held GPS or Night vision goggles. Possibly some radar system issues but i couldnt imagine much if any. EMP has been around a LONG time... The countries of the world are not spending hundreds of billions on equipment that can be knocked out by something as cheap as an EMP.


I wasn't talking about an EMP but specific anti-radar microwave weapons to overload radar detectors, and possibly computers in a particular local area, not a general EMP pulse.

www.economist.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: asims33


Im not sure where you are getting your information... Yes some military equipment may crap out in the event of EMP but no essential systems nor aircraft systems would be affected. Tanks will still roll guns will still fire and missiles will launch.


That isn't under discussion.



You may experience some issues with small electronics like hand held GPS or Night vision goggles. Possibly some radar system issues but i couldnt imagine much if any. EMP has been around a LONG time... The countries of the world are not spending hundreds of billions on equipment that can be knocked out by something as cheap as an EMP.


I wasn't talking about an EMP but specific anti-radar microwave weapons to overload radar detectors, and possibly computers in a particular local area, not a general EMP pulse.

www.economist.com...


Oh, well you did say "Emp pulse" in the original thread lol

So then yes we agree, there are certainly various electronic weapons to disable things like Radar. Its not an easy thing to do but the growler is the most advanced jamming aircraft in the world.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: asims33

Nice article !! Guess Russians are in hot waters against the MALD, JSOW and HARM combo attacks.

However how about deploying layers upon layers of 1970s missiles system called the SA-6 with modifications to higher anti jamming capabilities. These missiles reached Mach 2 speed, 42K feet height and 25 km range. That was in 1978. Use same technology but with enhancements of 2014s and you are talking enhancing capabilities by atleast 50%.

Who needs to protect villages in Siberia. Layer upon layer of SA-6 type missiles, protecting major cities and military areas, that reach certain section on the sky map and each further unleash 6-12 cheap IR missiles killing off the MALDs to the wholesale effects.

I hope this makes atleast some sense. Look forward to counter arguments !!



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Here is another bitch to bite your MALDs

en.wikipedia.org...

Made by no other than USA's best friend Iran. Russians invented it back in WWII.

It is called KS-19. Reaches 50K feet ceiling and also has smart features like IR tech etc.

Flooding the area with these AA artillery shells will take out lots of drunk MALDs.

Each MALD costs $120K. Each KS-19 shell probably around $1K.

Lots of bang for the buck !!



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: victor7
Here is another bitch to bite your MALDs

en.wikipedia.org...

Made by no other than USA's best friend Iran. Russians invented it back in WWII.

It is called KS-19. Reaches 50K feet ceiling and also has smart features like IR tech etc.

Flooding the area with these AA artillery shells will take out lots of drunk MALDs.

Each MALD costs $120K. Each KS-19 shell probably around $1K.

Lots of bang for the buck !!



Most NATO ops are done at night rendering these old AA guns useless. The potent ones are ones that are...surprise! Attached to radar which is what HARM is designed to take out.

Your theory on using these weapons from WWII era is far off the mark man. Yes MALD costs over 100k each but with the budget NATO has you could imagine how many of these along with JSOW and Growlers would be flooding the airspace. Along with JASSM-ER and stealth aircraft.

I know the most recent Russian claim to fame is mobile SAMs but NATO would steam roll them pretty quickly. Also take into account Russia's biggest weakness... Its size. Try positioning air defenses to cover its borders effectively. NATO will have a hole punched in a matter of days and have almost no issues getting aircraft into Russian territory to destroy roads, bridges, rails, etc etc... Again.. along with JASSM.

No one is saying Russia is weak but please look at this in scope. There is no way an 88 billion $ per year military (Russia) can stand up to well over a Trillion $ from NATO. And forget China lol, they would crumble if they lost the EU and USA as trading partners.

Russia is a super power, be happy with that and try to learn to live in harmony with everyone else and get a long because the days of Russia being able to rule with an Iron fist are loonnng gone.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

Nice article !! Guess Russians are in hot waters against the MALD, JSOW and HARM combo attacks.

However how about deploying layers upon layers of 1970s missiles system called the SA-6 with modifications to higher anti jamming capabilities. These missiles reached Mach 2 speed, 42K feet height and 25 km range. That was in 1978. Use same technology but with enhancements of 2014s and you are talking enhancing capabilities by atleast 50%.

Who needs to protect villages in Siberia. Layer upon layer of SA-6 type missiles, protecting major cities and military areas, that reach certain section on the sky map and each further unleash 6-12 cheap IR missiles killing off the MALDs to the wholesale effects.

I hope this makes atleast some sense. Look forward to counter arguments !!


Old systems are very very susceptible to jamming. Most of them would be useless and unable to even fire but the entire purpose of MALD and JSOW is to stimulate the air defenses. They would simply flood the airspace and watch all the Radars light up. Once they are up, HARM will identify them and destroy them. The old tactic of turning off Radar doesnt work now that the HARM remembers the last position the radar was located at.

A few growlers in the air would render these old SA-7 systems useless



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: asims33

Read my posts again, no one said SA-6 from 1970s era will be used but these upgraded and fine tuned would pack a mean punch. Just like even today Mig-21 upgraded into Mig-21 BIS can stand up confidently to F-16s.

Regarding AAA, with these guided by mobile radars switching on and off at will with shells flooding the night skies, the NATO pilots will have hard hard time focusing on when to duck and when to locate and fire. The AAA shells with IR tracing would not need radar guidance. Even making your MALDs stealth or semi-stealth would not work but sure would increase the cost per unit to several millions.

Another point is who needs to cover whole of Russian territory and whole of its border perimeter. Better to lure the enemy into the vast airspace, tracking them all along and then ambush them when their fuel is low and refueling tankers have been taken out just a minute ago.

Regarding punching a hole in Russian Air Defense, do not think Russia will be sitting around watching world cup games. NATO planes might not find a suitable airports to land onto even if few of them are able to make it back to the hometown.
edit on 21-6-2014 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

Read my posts again, no one said SA-6 from 1970s era will be used but these upgraded and fine tuned would pack a mean punch. Just like even today Mig-21 upgraded into Mig-21 BIS can stand up confidently to F-16s.

Regarding AAA, with these guided by mobile radars switching on and off at will with shells flooding the night skies, the NATO pilots will have hard hard time focusing on when to duck and when to locate and fire. The AAA shells with IR tracing would not need radar guidance. Even making your MALDs stealth or semi-stealth would not work but sure would increase the cost per unit to several millions.

Another point is who needs to cover whole of Russian territory and whole of its border perimeter. Better to lure the enemy into the vast airspace, tracking them all along and then ambush them when their fuel is low and refueling tankers have been taken out just a minute ago.

Regarding punching a hole in Russian Air Defense, do not think Russia will be sitting around watching world cup games. NATO planes might not find a suitable airports to land onto even if few of them are able to make it back to the hometown.


IR requires line of sight to work... Meaning NATO aircraft would have to be flying very close for it to be effective (within a few miles). Turning radar on and off wont work as HARM has a remember function now which will still direct it to the last position of the radar when it was switched on.

Who needs to protect all of Russia's boarders? Well... Russia, if it wants to make sure its infrastructure remains functional, such as roads, airports, railways (especially trans-Siberian where it transports its oil from) power stations, water treatment stations, etc etc....

How are you going to lay in wait and track aircraft for an ambush? Radar? ....

Our aircraft wouldn't be refueling over contested airspace.

We have vast naval aviation capabilities meaning many NATO sorties will be with naval aircraft and we have bases in the Baltic, Italy, and Turkey and soon the Ukraine. Why would NATO aircraft not be able to find suitable airfields to land at?





new topics
 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join