Air Superiority [Archive] - Military Photos

Flagg

10-17-2003, 04:17 PM

I'd say it's unlikely the US will face an air-superiority problem in the foreseeable future. Here's why(in my opinion):

Against any LIKELY air superiority threats the US will dominate the sky..not just because of combat proven quality aircraft and weapons systems...but more importantly training and tactical information advantanges like a fully integrated C3I capability..knowing WHERE your enemy is at all times and the ability to DENY your enemy the same capability is paramount.

Imagine being a US fighter pilot on CAP at night.....no radar emissions setting off enemy "fuzzbusters" because you're relying solely on a datalink providing you with a "god's eye view" of your aerial battlefield.

Compare that with an opponent's MIG 29/SU 27 air superiority airframe forced to use his internal search/intercept radar which looks like a flashlight in the dark because his own C3I capability has already been smoked by SEAD Wild Weasels.

In the end the MIG or Sukhoi driver is dead even if he is the better air-to-air pilot because he can't "see" as well as the US Air Force driver.

Just my opinion

BMF

10-17-2003, 04:30 PM

thats pretty much what it comes down to. we're the only military left that has both the quanitity AND quality of aircraft left. some nations (england for example) have excellent pilots and aircraft, but the sheer numbers arent there. others like N. Korea have fallen behind in the technology race. in fact, the 3rd largest standing collection of military aircraft is the U.S . militaries' "boneyard" of retired airframes (which we still occasionally resurrect, in cases such as the A 10)

Russian Texan

10-17-2003, 07:10 PM

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a50 I do believe China has multiple of those

China is also on the waiting list for http://arms.host.sk/missiles/s400.htm

Almost forgot, I think China recently bought 30 and purchased a licence from russians to build more http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-30.htm

Va_Dinger

10-18-2003, 04:20 AM

80's technology 2nd hand Russian Weapons will not get China even five minutes of Air Superiority against the U.S. arsenal. Remember those weapons systems were designed to have a massive superiority in numbers. No way China could afford to buy enougth to get the job done. The way we are spending on defence and the way the economy is going, it would be far cheaper for the China just to sit back and watch us destroy ourselves. China is no real threat for at least another 30 years.

Kriz

10-18-2003, 08:29 AM

I dont think it's likely that the USA will face a nation that has a large airforce pretty soon, why ?
I think it would be very unwise to spend several billions on creating a large airforce, I think it's much wiser to spend all that money on nuclear weapons and missile systems to launch them. That way you'll avoid a real conflict with the usa (while the nuclear treat avoids the declaration of a real war) thus making a large airforce obsolete.

Anyway just some thoughts :)

Royal

10-18-2003, 08:37 AM

perdurabo

10-18-2003, 10:04 AM

GazB

10-19-2003, 04:11 AM

"We really haven't been challenged in terms of air superiority in a long time. "

That is because you never pick on (ie invade) powerful countries. The US spends 350 billion a year of "Defence". The rest of the world put together doesn't spend that much. Even NATO is a poor second cousin and cannot really operate outside Europe without the US.

"80's technology 2nd hand Russian Weapons will not get China even five minutes of Air Superiority against the U.S. arsenal. Remember those weapons systems were designed to have a massive superiority in numbers."

The S-400 is not 80s technology, in many respects it is much better than PAC-3 Patriot. (400km range compared to 90km for Patriot for a start).
China will have enough weapons for local superiority. The US could send carriers but would have few nearby land bases to attack from.
This is all academic anyway the Chinese economy relies too much on US investment.

ArmoredDov_D9

10-19-2003, 05:18 AM

Considering that the next war will be USA against a third-world-country like one of the Arab dictatorships, they'll not even try to question US air-superiority. But there is one ultimate defence against superior air-force, (it is dirty one but Arab countries doesn't have any moral values and won't hasitate to use it), the defence is to hide all of your weapon systems deep within densed high populated cities, a specially missile systems and WMD. Next to the WMD and the most important systems, they would place serveral dozens of children and if the US will atempt to air-strike them, they'll have great trouble from CNN and hypocrite French.

Yes, Human Shield is disgraceful low tactic, but the world hypocracy encourage to use it, espically by low-life scumbags.

MARK.TIGGER

10-19-2003, 05:25 AM

the problem with the attitude oh we'll never face an air to air threat leads to complacency. Having all the gear is great but knowing how to use it effectivley is what makes it a battlewinner. a major flaw in modern defence thinking is an over reliance on technology machines are falible and can be duped. and what happens when your opponent disables all your C3I?

Flagg

10-19-2003, 06:13 AM

MARK.TIGGER

If you're responding to my post Mark....you may be missing my point.

Yes, it is possible that ECM could disrupt US C3I capabilities....but the likelihood is quite slim...do I have any evidence to back it up? Not really....just the fact that billions have been spent perfecting secure and robust C3I systems.....but even taking into account some "wildcard" preventing US forces from relying upon C3I systems they would still win, here's why:

1.) Philosophically, US forces are taught to seize initiative if a command and control vacuum exists giving the flexibility to "work around" a C3I breakdown, whereby the old Soviet centralized command and control system is rigid and inflexible.....in a C3I vacuum...where it is fair to assume BOTH sides are lacking solid command and control US forces would have an easier time adapting to a potentially devastaing loss of C3I

2.) Flight time........Read Chuck Yeager's autobiography.......he says there are no "natural" fighter pilots.......they're built........and he claims(correctly) the best pilot is the one with the most flight hours....US pilots fly a LOT relative to any potential adversaries...especially in the last 2 years with a much higher than average operational tempo...EVERY pilot is flying a LOT now.

Compare this with China's cream of the crop Taikonaut/Astronaut....after being a fighter pilot for well over 15 years, he's only accumulated 1350 hours flight time.....not nearly enough "time in the saddle" to compete against US pilots...

So in the end......WITH C3I the US wins, WITHOUT C3I the US still wins

Just my opinion...but I think it's a reasonable one

GazB

10-19-2003, 08:09 PM

So in the end......WITH C3I the US wins, WITHOUT C3I the US still wins

Just my opinion...but I think it's a reasonable one

Therefore the US is omnipotent? The US can and has been defeated before and will be again. It doesn't matter how flash your equipment is, or how much you spend on weapons development. You certainly took out the Taliban government and the Saddam government, but your ability to win hearts and minds is still at the level it was in Vietnam. The Soviets were just as arogant in Afghanistan when they were there... like the US in Iraq they claimed to be helping the locals, building schools, allowing women to be treated as equals and go to school and work and even drive cars... they weren't after oil either as there was none. At the end of the day the afghans didn't want to be ruled by foreigners... They got their wish and the soviets were kicked out of the country and they have enjoyed peace and prosperity since... NOT.

So in the end......WITH C3I the US wins, WITHOUT C3I the US still wins

If this were true then the issue of the Israelis and palestinians, the Tibetans and the Chinese, the IRA and the British, the Russians and the Chechens, and the north and south koreans could all have been solved through US military might... and we all know that isn't going to happen.

In Kosovo the US had to resort to bombing Serbia to stop serbian troops in Kosovo to stop so called ethnic cleansing... the result was a reverse ethnic cleansing.

Need I bring up Somalia? Instead of getting the local warlords together and create an interim government the US picked out those they liked and created a potential for civil war. (Ironically the same female US diplomat that gave Saddam what he thought was a green light to invade Kuwaite was the same person who appointed one of Addaid's (spelling) sworn enemies to help organise a government... talk about setting yourself up to fail...)

Flagg

10-19-2003, 09:31 PM

GasB

A couple of things:

Therefore the US is omnipotent? The US can and has been defeated before and will be again. It doesn't matter how flash your equipment is, or how much you spend on weapons development. You certainly took out the Taliban government and the Saddam government, but your ability to win hearts and minds is still at the level it was in Vietnam.

1.) I'm not the US mate...I'm located in Australasia...so vent your spleen away from my general direction.

2.) This topic is Air Superiority.......which has absolutely nothing to do with the taking & holding of enemy ground territory...and all of the many inherent problems that frequently coincide with that...some of which you were accurately describing.

3.) If my post gave you the impression of arrogance that the US is the guaranteed victor in an air superiority situation it was not my intention...but the fact remains that no potential adversary to the US faces even a reasonable chance of success in an air superiority situation......the current environment of one global superpower outspending the entire planet on defense is too lopsided for it to be a "fair fight".

96B

10-20-2003, 06:01 PM

The S-400 is not 80s technology, in many respects it is much better than PAC-3 Patriot. (400km range compared to 90km for Patriot for a start).

The true range of the PAC-3 is classified and could very well be much greater than 90km. Also, the S400 is mid-late 90's technology and although I am not sure how it fares with the PAC-3, it is certainly more effective than the older Patriots.

The situation in Afghanistan has improved dramatically since the fall of the Taliban and I wouldnt say that the US is running the country anymore. The Soviets went there to conquer whereas America intended on ousting the Taliban and eliminating AQ while restoring long lost freedom.

There was no way that the warlords in Somalia would join forces or agree on any kind of government. They all wanted supreme power and the heads of their rivals. Originally the US was welcomed and the tension was minimal but after a series of raids etc where "noncombatants" were injured or killed, the tension began to rise. Once the 20,000 Marines were pulled out all hell broke loose once again.

That is because you never pick on (ie invade) powerful countries.

Well it just so happens that none of the "powerful" countries on your list (assuming China, Russia, NK) have done anything to provoke an attack. War with the first two would likely result in nuclear war which in itself is a good enough reason to use diplomacy. America does not invade any nation simply to gain territory, there is always a reason behind it.

GazB

10-21-2003, 01:32 AM

"1.) I'm not the US mate...I'm located in Australasia...so vent your spleen away from my general direction. "

My point doesn't require you to be american for it to be valid. You basically stated that the US was unbeatable... if it can't be beaten with C3I or without C3I then logic states that it can't be beaten. This is what I questioned, not the fact that you are or are not American.

"This topic is Air Superiority.......which has absolutely nothing to do with the taking & holding of enemy ground territory...and all of the many inherent problems that frequently coincide with that...some of which you were accurately describing."

Quite true, but my comments were regarding your comments about the US not being defeatable. Somalia defeated US air superiority simply by forcing the US to leave... Same with the US and the French in Vietnam, and for Afghanistan it was the Soviets to lose air superiority... not from anything in the air... attack helos do not constitute air superiority.

"If my post gave you the impression of arrogance that the US is the guaranteed victor in an air superiority situation it was not my intention...but the fact remains that no potential adversary to the US faces even a reasonable chance of success in an air superiority situation......the current environment of one global superpower outspending the entire planet on defense is too lopsided for it to be a "fair fight"."

I didn't view your post as arrogance... just blind faith in technology. That is why I pointed out that in the past technology has failed to deliver many times and will no doubt continue to do so in the future.
Such over confidence leads to getting in to situations that are not so easy to get out of...

"The true range of the PAC-3 is classified and could very well be much greater than 90km."

It isn't. The PAC-3 is also a much smaller missile and does what the US military required of it. Even the Basic S-300 has much more capability than the PAC-1 or PAC-2 patriots against ballistic targets, simply because the Soviets designed ti to be part of an overall defence network to defend from anything the the US could use up to and including ICBMs.

"Also, the S400 is mid-late 90's technology and although I am not sure how it fares with the PAC-3, it is certainly more effective than the older Patriots. "

It has only just been accepted for Russian service and is brand new.

"The situation in Afghanistan has improved dramatically since the fall of the Taliban and I wouldnt say that the US is running the country anymore."

No it hasn't and the US was never running the country. Outside of Kabul is not safe and even inside isn't that safe either... ie assassination attempts etc. A lot of the rebuilding that was promised has been put on hold due to the situation. Cable TV has been banned and Berkhas are being worn again. Certainly not as bad as under the Taleban, but not rosey either.

"The Soviets went there to conquer whereas America intended on ousting the Taliban and eliminating AQ while restoring long lost freedom. "

The Soviets went in to stabilise and make friendly a neighbouring country... especially after the Soviet ambassador and his family were butchered. The CIA were operating in Afghanistan 6 years before the Soviets invaded in 79.
America was after the Taliban and AQ and could care less about the Afghan people. If they ever cared for the Afghans then they wouldn't have helped fund the Taleban in the first place.

"Well it just so happens that none of the "powerful" countries on your list (assuming China, Russia, NK) have done anything to provoke an attack."

How about China's oppression in Tibet... what about the freedom and lack of democracy for tibetans?, or how about Russias assistance to Iran with nuclear technology?

"America does not invade any nation simply to gain territory, there is always a reason behind it."

I would never suggest the US invades for territory and always has a reason to attack. It is just that often it is not a very nice reason, and certainly never the reason said during press conferences like spreading democracy or bollocks like that. (Kuwaite and Saudi Arabia tow the line so they don't need democracy, but why does Iraq need it, and why did they need it this year I wonder...)

Flagg

10-22-2003, 04:10 PM

GazB wrote:
My point doesn't require you to be american for it to be valid. You basically stated that the US was unbeatable...

which you took completely out of context...I wrote unbeatable in the AIR....which I stand by

GazB wrote:
if it can't be beaten with C3I or without C3I then logic states that it can't be beaten.

..again....I only claimed in the AIR

The world's largest fleet of modern combat proven equipment supported by modern combat proven C3I flown by many combat-experienced aircrew averaging more flight hours than any likely opponent = likely victory

GazB wrote:
This is what I questioned, not the fact that you are or are not American.

I don't mean to pick but what you meant and what you actually wrote are two different things, notice the "yous and yours" see below:

GazB wrote:
It doesn't matter how flash your equipment is, or how much you spend on weapons development. You certainly took out the Taliban government and the Saddam government, but your ability to win hearts and minds is still at the level it was in Vietnam.

GazB wrote:
Quite true, but my comments were regarding your comments about the US not being defeatable.

You may have read into it, but I never wrote that the US in unbeatable "across the board", I have been staying with the topic of air superiority in all of my posts on this thread and stand by the US beating ANY potential air superiority threat for the foreseeable future.

Somalia defeated US air superiority simply by forcing the US to leave...

That is a HUGE stretch and you know it.........Somalia did NOT achieve air superiority....it wasn't a result of a lack in military capability but a lack of political will

Same with the US and the French in Vietnam,

I can't really comment on the French but the US achieved and held air superiority throughtout the conflict.....did NVAF Migs shoot down some aircraft?...yes.....were US air assets able to effectively engage and destroy identified targets approved by the POLITICAL chain of command with impunity? YES

Did US forces completely deny the NVAF from operating in ANY role outside of basic air defense? YES

So I think it could easily be reasoned the US possessed air superiority in the conflict.

and for Afghanistan it was the Soviets to lose air superiority... not from anything in the air... attack helos do not constitute air superiority.

I'd say you're wrong again......

At the beginning of the conflict Hind gunships operated with complete impunity....against an opponent lightly armed with limited mobility and NO air assets...this would fit the definition of air superiority

Did MANPADS alter Soviet air operations?.....yes....no longer were the Russian Hind gunships and fixed wing air support practically invulnerable. Did it reduce their effectiveness by having to release ordinance from higher altitude or gunships firing from longer ranges? Yes...But the Soviets still were able to conduct air operations completely unopposed outside the envelope of MANPADS, as well as within, albeit with losses. The Soviets still controlled the air space.

GazB

10-23-2003, 03:08 AM

"which you took completely out of context...I wrote unbeatable in the AIR....which I stand by "

Unbeatable in the air assumes your enemy is a moron. Attacking you in an area where you are strong is stupid.

"The world's largest fleet of modern combat proven equipment supported by modern combat proven C3I flown by many combat-experienced aircrew averaging more flight hours than any likely opponent = likely victory "

You said can't be beaten first and now you suggest victory is only "likely".

"I don't mean to pick but what you meant and what you actually wrote are two different things, notice the "yous and yours" see below:"

I was not referring to any specific nation. I mentioned nations that thought they were technologically superior to their enemy... which they were at the time... I mentioned France and the US in vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. The yous and yours apply to any nation or force that thinks technology will save the day.

"You certainly took out the Taliban government and the Saddam government, but your ability to win hearts and minds is still at the level it was in Vietnam."

Was directed at the coalition that included the US, the UK, the Aussies... even the NZ government sent soldiers to Afghanistan...

"That is a HUGE stretch and you know it.........Somalia did NOT achieve air superiority....it wasn't a result of a lack in military capability but a lack of political will "

They never competed in the air, but the US currently has no air control over Somalia.

"So I think it could easily be reasoned the US possessed air superiority in the conflict."

I didn't say they didn't have air superiority... I said they lost it... and they did lose it when they withdrew... US airpower was defeated politically. It achieved all of its goals... well most of them during the war, but few enemies can be defeated from the air alone.

"I'd say you're wrong again......

At the beginning of the conflict Hind gunships operated with complete impunity....against an opponent lightly armed with limited mobility and NO air assets...this would fit the definition of air superiority "

If you are suggesting that the Soviets lost air superiority because MANPADS forced them to fly higher and change their tactics then I could argue that the Serbs defeated US and NATOs air power by denying them the airspace below 20,000ft where US and NATO planes did not fly due to the very real threat of MANPADS.

Stingers did not stop Tu-16s dropping 9,000kg FAB-9000 bombs on villages and muj bases. All they succeded in doing was reducing the accuracy of airstrikes and increase Soviet emphasis (and investment) in artillery.

"Yes...But the Soviets still were able to conduct air operations completely unopposed outside the envelope of MANPADS, as well as within, albeit with losses. The Soviets still controlled the air space."

Not after 1989 when they withdrew... though being a neighbouring country it would be very easy for them to fly over the border and drop a few bombs on certain guerilla camps when required.

In every case I have mentioned the US or France or the Soviet Union or NATO has had an overwhelming advantage in airpower... and it meant nothing. That is my point. In the end they tended to lose air superiority simply because they were forced to withdraw by an enemy prepared to fight to the end.

usa320

10-24-2003, 04:12 PM

China will have enough weapons for local superiority. The US could send carriers but would have few nearby land bases to attack from.

The US no longer needs land bases in the region to wage war from the air.

If we wanted to we could,a s we did in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, fly strike sorties with B-2's all the way from Missouri, to Baghadad and back.

Bottom line though is the US wouuld win any aerial battle, beause of the earlier reason stated. Better intelligence and situational awarness, thanks to technologies like AWACS, JSTAR, datalinks, Satellites, ect.

Few operational OPFOR aircraft are even equipped with electronics other than the traditional russian radar scope, as compared to American/western planes that feature stealth technology, precision weapons and glass cockpits. Yes Russia and China have the technology, but its not widely fielded.

Also, most nations still rely on a land based GCI to control the air war.

Now adays GCI bunker are the first or second target hit by F-117 within the first minutes of a war.

GazB

10-24-2003, 11:56 PM

"The US no longer needs land bases in the region to wage war from the air."

Hahahahahaha... that is Hilarous.

"If we wanted to we could,a s we did in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, fly strike sorties with B-2's all the way from Missouri, to Baghadad and back. "

Then why did you use NATO bases in Greece and other countries for your attacks on Serbia, and bases in Pakistan and former Soviet republics when you attacked Afghanistan, and bases in Kuwaite, Saudi Arabia and asked for bases in Turkey for your attack on Iraq.

A B-2 can indeed fly that far with inflight refueling, and although it also uses inflight refueling the B-52 can do the same. You can't fight an air war with just strategic bombers. Even B-2s are subsonic medium altitude targets that any Ancient IRST equipped Mig could kill. A Mig-23 would easily take down a B-2 with its 23mm cannon and IRST tracking device. Without air support and air superiority the B-2 would be dead meat and there is no way an F-22 or F-15 can make regular CAPs from the US in any of those places you mentioned.

"Also, most nations still rely on a land based GCI to control the air war.
Now adays GCI bunker are the first or second target hit by F-117 within the first minutes of a war."

Except that the F-117 has never operated against a modern air defence network. Even on the last day of the Kosovo campaign the Serbian air defence network was fully intact, and while its old SA-6 and SA-3 missiles were largely ineffective replace them with later weapons like SA-17 or Sa-20 then NATO would not have done very well at all.

(BTW the only difference between GCI and use of AWACs is the fact that AWACS is airborne... in other words the only difference between the Soviet system of air defence and western air defence is that the the western system is designed to attack countries whereas the Soviet system is purely for defence.)

"Few operational OPFOR aircraft are even equipped with electronics other than the traditional russian radar scope, as compared to American/western planes that feature stealth technology, precision weapons and glass cockpits."

What sort of stealth features do exported F-16s and F-15s have? Currently exported Flankers and Fulcrums have fully integrated IRSTs, passive array radars and helmet mounted sights with the missiles to go with them... the US still doesn't ahve that and won't till the AIM-9X becomes available in widespread service... 15 years after the Soviets had it. PGMs are widespread too as are so called glass cockpits.

NcDeuce

10-26-2003, 07:45 PM

If we wanted to we could,a s we did in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, fly strike sorties with B-2's all the way from Missouri, to Baghadad and back.

Woot woot. woot

martinexsquaddie

10-27-2003, 03:15 AM

thats all very well the russians have some impressive tech.
But how many hours do there pilots Fly.
How many airfields would survive the First salvo of tomahawks.
F15s have BVR engagement capability so anyone up hunting B2s will have more than that to worry about as well as RPVs. etc etc.

GazB

10-27-2003, 05:17 AM

"How many airfields would survive the First salvo of tomahawks."

Most Soviet aircraft don't need airfields.

Even the An-124... the largest mass produced aircraft in the world can taxi on grass.

Besides such an attack would be considered an act of war... London and Washington would be glowing within 30 mins and no doubt Moscow not long after.

"F15s have BVR engagement capability so anyone up hunting B2s will have more than that to worry about as well as RPVs. etc etc."

How many refuelings would an F-15 need to fly from Missouri to the target area and back? If you are going to base the F-15s near the target area then you had better protect it from ballistic missiles and strike aircraft. Late model SAMs in use in Russia would be more than capable of bringing down F-15s.
(The point is that
"The US no longer needs land bases in the region to wage war from the air. "
Means there would be no F-15s... a B-2 on its own would be not much safer than a B-52 that is why then never use them alone and continue to rely on bases near targets)

martinexsquaddie

10-27-2003, 05:37 AM

lets leave russia china and the US out of it.
Any other country brought export Russian kit against the USAF they lose.
Theres no country on the planet which could hope to hold air superority against the US on a conventional Battlefield. In fact on a conventinal battlefield nothing could stand against the US army. Russian steppes would be perfect tank country even with home side advantage russian tank armys would be cut to shreds. would be intersting to wargame but bit two much like French vs British pennisular war battles i.e. the britsh always win. even the vaunted Israeli air force could'nt stop the USAF

andrew45c

10-27-2003, 05:44 AM

thats pretty much what it comes down to. we're the only military left that has both the quanitity AND quality of aircraft left. some nations (england for example) have excellent pilots and aircraft, but the sheer numbers arent there.

England doesn't have an Airforce (or a Navy or an Army for that matter). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does.

We may speak English (so so some of you, kind of ;) ) but we ain't all English, we're Brits...

Royal was that really nessacary we all know what he ment but you had to make him look silly.

Kingpin

10-27-2003, 07:39 AM

1. About training. Yes, training is most important thing when speaking about air dominance. And US pilots now have all chances because they constantly flying training and combat missions

2. As for technology. Actually there are now only two competitive sources of state-of-the-art airforce tech - US and Russia (Eurofighter isn't proved itself as worthy opponent yet). So, when someone talking about air dominance we should compare US tech and Russian tech.

First of all Russia have very good modern AA technologies, which can be used to provide good cover for ground troops from airstrikes - the main tool in US army arsenal. I'm not sure that US ready to deploy tactical air defence equipment in large numbers if someone succeded in winning air for they bombers.

As for aircrafts itself Russia have great airframes and engines and for export variants they use one of the best Israeli made avionics. So if China buy and produce large numbers of modern Su-30 it can achieve air dominance in local combat theater.

A don't forget about Mig alley and Ardennes as examples where US didn't have definitive air dominance.

96B

10-27-2003, 11:02 AM

First of all, B2s are only going to be deployed at night over enemy territory. Second, the chance of a radar site actually picking the B2 up would be about the same likelyhood that I meet Elvis today. All of our stealth technology is designed not only to evade radar, but IR signatures are dramatically reduced by the way the engines and contours around the aircraft are designed. You have to know where and when to look to pick one of those babies up on IR and even at that the chances are slim. By the time it gets close enough for your radar to get a chance it would be too late.

I actually agree with GazB that the only suitable platform to deliver air power around the world without nearby land bases would be carriers. Each carrier has its own air force of about 80 aircraft with AA/AG/SEAD etc capabilities. They are a formidable fighting force and can project massive ammounts of air power however to fight a nation like China with only carrier based air power, we would need nearly all of our 13 or so in the region.

If tomahawks were used to take out airfields, they could be used to target taxiways, runways, control towers, supply depots/equipment, aircraft and anything nearby. The likelihood of any aircraft being able to take off anytime soon after the strikes are slim. Sure they could taxi on the grass, but the ground would have to be hard enough to support the weight of the aircraft or else they will get stuck.

Just how many nations use the latest and greatest Russian made equipment? Sure its great stuff and most certainly an alternative to expensive American etc made equipment but I cannot think of any nations that have say Sukhoi 35's in their arsenals. Also, when the Russians export their military hardware to other nations, arent they downgraded a bit?

As for aircrafts itself Russia have great airframes and engines and for export variants they use one of the best Israeli made avionics. So if China buy and produce large numbers of modern Su-30 it can achieve air dominance in local combat theater.

A don't forget about Mig alley and Ardennes as examples where US didn't have definitive air dominance.

Today is a different story, and the technology that goes into American fighters/bombers is superior to that of anyone else. Millions are spent per pilot for training and combat readiness. The Russians certainly do make great airframes but the actual technology in avionics simply cannot rival the west. The only way that for example China could even hope to attain air superiority over the US in a war would be to have strength in numbers. Outside of the US, the hardest country in the world to have air superiority over would probably be Russia.

Royal

10-27-2003, 12:16 PM

thats pretty much what it comes down to. we're the only military left that has both the quanitity AND quality of aircraft left. some nations (england for example) have excellent pilots and aircraft, but the sheer numbers arent there.

England doesn't have an Airforce (or a Navy or an Army for that matter). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does.

We may speak English (so so some of you, kind of ;) ) but we ain't all English, we're Brits...

Royal was that really nessacary we all know what he ment but you had to make him look silly.

Yes it was necessary. I'm not English and I'm fed up with being called English. I don't call Yanks Cannucks, so why should they call me English?

MARK.TIGGER

10-27-2003, 05:34 PM

a few points I seem to remember in the 1960's the United states had similar views on its military strength then went to vietnam. where you had to relearn alot of lessons from ww1 & 2. The problem with history is I'm afraid the people who need to take on board the lessons of the past never study history.
Yes there is now stealth technology stealthy from what? usually modern equipment but not so stealthy from older kit.
its is a very bad position to take that you will always have superiorty even if the enemey hasn't the kit to take out c3i they may get lucky and do something that nulifies your technology

IDFM203

10-27-2003, 06:26 PM

even the vaunted Israeli air force could'nt stop the USAFListen there is no doubt that the scope and size of the USAF is much bigger then Israel’s.

I think they would perhaps win based more to do with strength in numbers and in size then in technology and training.

With that said, The Israeli air force training is defiantly on equal or more level then any one else.

Besides the U.S. technology (the actual planes) which is the greatest in the world, Israeli planes have added Israeli technology that takes it a step further.

Again we are speaking in the hypothetical here for this wont happen but if the Israeli air force and the American met on the battlefield, it is not a given as to who would win.

What I know for sure is that any squadron of U.S. fighters vs. Israeli squadrans, the Israelis would come on top.

I say this for besides my obvious inherent bias, this has been somewhat proven in the mock training battles that have occurred in the past two years.

About two years ago Israel and the U.S. had mock battles and Israel came up on top big time. Now I have the clippings from an Israeli newspaper that reported that but I cant find any English sources about that on the net (except when they say that these mock battles happened and that is all) but I have this item from the AP that I posted a while back about the mock battles between the IAF and the German air force.

Israeli airforce beats German pilots in 'dogfight' exercise

The Associated Press Sep. 22, 2003
Israeli air force pilots handily beat their German counterparts in "dogfights" in the first ever air force exercise between the two countries, an Israeli military official said Monday.

The Israeli F-15 pilots, aided by special technology that Israel does not share or sell to other countries, beat the Germans by more than 100 "hits," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the past,Israel has beaten American air force pilots by similar margins, the officials added.

Israel purchases U.S. warplanes without battle technology,installing its own locally made systems into the aircraft.

The exercise was conducted over the past two weeks in the skies of Sardinia in Italy.

Germany is considered one of Israel's closest defense allies. Recently, Germany sold for a symbolic fee three advanced "Dolphin" submarines to Israel.

Israel's air force has held exercises with the United States and Turkey recently.

shalom :D

GazB

10-28-2003, 01:03 AM

"In fact on a conventinal battlefield nothing could stand against the US army. Russian steppes would be perfect tank country even with home side advantage russian tank armys would be cut to shreds. "

Yes, in an ideal situation for airpower the US would do well, however apart from the steppes (and you said we should leave the Russians out of this) and the desert there aren't many places like that. The reality is that combat is morelikely to be in wooded or urban environments where balls and tenasity are great equalisers. There was no great rush to put ground forces into Kosovo till the Serbs had withdrawn... I wonder why. The US has excellent equipment but its leadership has skin thinner than eggshells.

How many died in Somalia?

Obviously the US leadership will fight harder for oil, but probably not much harder.

"First of all, B2s are only going to be deployed at night over enemy territory. Second, the chance of a radar site actually picking the B2 up would be about the same likelyhood that I meet Elvis today."

The B-2 relies on shape for stealth... ie it deflects the radar emissions from a radar away from that radar. Using bistatic radars (ie seperate emitters and receivers) or simply metric wave radars (with a frequency length that can't see shape) Stealth aircraft are perfectly detectable... these radar types are just not very good for targetting. ie they can be used to vector a Mig-29 or Su-27 to the target area where their IRSTs can capture the target and the B-2 can be shot down with cannon fire... the B-2 cannot operate alone. Late model SAMs are expected to be able to shoot down stealth aircraft too... ie sensitive to be able to detect and track sub insect sized targets (lets face it how many insects are there at 25,000ft flying at 700km/h).

Haven't you wondered why so few F-117s have been made? Of course this will change with the introduction of the F-22, but then change again with the introduction of the R-74 and late model R-77M missiles, and the PAK-FA fighter project.

"I actually agree with GazB that the only suitable platform to deliver air power around the world without nearby land bases would be carriers. "

Though for Russia and China you could draw circles for maximum ranges of the various shipborne assets on a carrier and from that deduce where these carriers might be. The use of carrier aircraft to interfere in Chinas affairs (ie Taiwan) would be considered and act of war that would no doubt result in a few tactical ballistic missiles coming their way. (Of course actually sinking the carriers would result in a nuclear strike on China so a high alt burst with EMP disabling the carrier fleet might be tried).

"Just how many nations use the latest and greatest Russian made equipment? Sure its great stuff and most certainly an alternative to expensive American etc made equipment but I cannot think of any nations that have say Sukhoi 35's in their arsenals."

Brazil is considering the Su-35 and the Chinese and Indias are producing different variants of the Su-30 which equates to a two seat Su-35. The Indians version includes Israeli and French avionics too.

"Also, when the Russians export their military hardware to other nations, arent they downgraded a bit? "

Because they didn't like the downgraded avionics on offer they are both adding French and Israeli Avionics.

millhouse

10-28-2003, 04:02 AM

Ahem... cough... 2005.

http://i.timeinc.net/popsci/flat_files/space/space1103faster_slideshow/slide24.jpg

Kingpin

10-28-2003, 07:02 AM

mmm... We have 2 years until 2005 :roll:

http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/i/su30mkk-4.jpg

http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/i/su30mkk-6.jpg

http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/i/su30mki-2.jpg

http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/s/su34-16.jpg

96B

10-28-2003, 11:53 AM

The F117 relies mostly on its shape to be stealthy, whereas the B2 does not. Although shape is an important part of the design, the materials and electronics put into the aircraft are also what make it stealth. Radar Absorbant Materials are used and as far as shape goes you will notice there are no right angles on any stealth aircraft. An aircraft does not cost 2 billion dollars for nothing, and if stealth could easily be defeated as you say, I see no need for us developing the technology any further because it costs so much. I have never heard of the radars that you mentioned but I will be doing research into it to understand what you are talking about.

They did not produce that many F117's because they didnt need that many to do their missions. I am not sure of the actual number but I think its sub 200.

To my knowledge Brazil and India are allies with us, thus those weapons would not be employed against our forces anytime soon. China would be the biggest threat but IMHO they rely too much on our economy and a war would not be in their interests. Also because it would probably lead to nuclear war which would be bad news for us all.

Russian Texan

10-28-2003, 12:41 PM

I am not sure of the actual number but I think its sub 200.

53 to be exact. Basically the whole project was a mistake but there were too much money dumped into it not to make it operational just like with the shuttle program. The aircraft itself, according to its pilots comments, is a flying brick that is very unstable and requires great skill to fly it, not to mention it's "great" payload capacity. I think all of the existing F 117 will be retired as soon as F 22 will get into service in sufficient numbers. Actually once F 22 and JSF become operational plus B2 and AWACS we will have ourselves an ultimate airforce. And I also hope that "Osprey" will never be buid in numbers for the sake of marines.

96B

10-28-2003, 01:16 PM

F/A-18E/F Superhornet + F/A-35 JSF + F/A-22 Raptor + B2 + AWACs = most advanced air force in the world, not to mention with the exception of the last, all of these aircraft have stealth characteristics.

With regards to the F117 being unstable, it is extremely unstable, as are many of the modern day fighter planes. The pilot can be holding the stick very still and still look outside and the control surfaces are moving and it is because the onboard computers are adjusting them constantly to maintain stable flight.

Russian Texan

10-28-2003, 02:06 PM

What stealth characteristics does the Superhornet have?

96B

10-28-2003, 02:30 PM

Diamond shaped air intakes... cant remember the rest but I thought there was a few more new features perhaps in the avionics. I wouldnt necessarily call it "stealth" come to think of it, but they are features designed to reduce the RCS (Radar Cross Section) and supposedly help out alot.

millhouse

10-28-2003, 10:35 PM

mmm... We have 2 years until 2005 :roll:

There are 23 in the world right now. A couple have been tested in the skies over Iraq. Once there is enough planes for a squadron, they should be operational covertly before the set operational date. Currently the F/A-22 is made at a rate of one per month, but will soon be at 3 per month. With a reduced order of about 240, they should be built constantly for a looong time. In addition, the JSF will also be operational around 2005, and will be made at a much faster pace. These JSF's and F/A-22's will not complement the current fighters such as the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, they will eventually replace them. Simply speaking of air combat capabilities pitted against countries, the US has air superiority, and will continue to hold this, and even more tightly as time goes by. These planes are tested and perfected against the benchmark designs mentioned above, so they will really be new and improved. As we speak, the avionics on the JSF as well as F/A-22 are going through phases of improvement.

GazB

10-29-2003, 12:23 AM

millhouse

10-29-2003, 02:30 AM

"The F117 relies mostly on its shape to be stealthy, whereas the B2 does not. "

Sorry that is very not true.

"Although shape is an important part of the design, the materials and electronics put into the aircraft are also what make it stealth."

If it was RAM (radar absorbant material) that had improved then why bother spending billions on each B-2? Why not just cover B-52s with RAM?

The simple answer is that the B-2 relies as much as the F-117 on shape for its stealth capabilities. Look at the basic designs. Lots of saw tooth edges, and no surfaces that are flat to the forward arc. The difference between the F-117 and the B-2 is computer power. When the F-117 was made computer power was not powerful enough to make all the calculations necessary for curves, so flat surfaces are used in the F-117. Huge improvements in processing power mean that the radar reflections of curves can be calculated so B-2s and F-22s can exist.

"In addition, the JSF will also be operational around 2005, and will be made at a much faster pace."

JSF s only stealthy from one aspect... ie the front. From the side it can be detected and engaged.

Stealth aircraft require special hangers... hangers that can be targetted and destroyed with ballistic missiles quite easily.

" I wouldnt necessarily call it "stealth" come to think of it, but they are features designed to reduce the RCS (Radar Cross Section) and supposedly help out alot."

It carries external weapons. Its stealth capability is zero, though pretending to congress it is stealth costs millions... give me a Tomcat anyday.

Marketed as stealth or not, the 760 F/A-22's and JSF's originally ordered have been reduced to about a third of the original number, making them more expensive. R and D costs a sh$tload more money than the actual construction and materials. They are already in contract to be made, and with the extra $52 billion going to the war with Iraq, its doubtful that should change anything. And special hangars??? nonsense, the B-2 is different in that it must have a correct runway to land, as well as security due to its nuclear payload capabilities. (that is, after all one of the reasons it was made to do - deliver a nuclear strike anywhere in the world at any time). F/A-22 and JSF may seem "stealthy", but they are what will become standard in a matter of a few years, and all those countries who have been sold F/A-18's, F-16s, etc etc will be PWNED.

96B

10-29-2003, 04:15 AM

Notice I said "materials and electronics are also what make it stealth" and I never said that they were the only thing. RAM is used on the B2 and F117 and it along with the shape/avionics/design of engine outlets etc are what make stealth. If you could just simply have a certain shape and instantly be stealth (what you imply) then why doesnt everybody have stealth? Its because there are other things that go into the aircraft to contribute to stealthiness. Note also that I later retracted my statement about the SuperHornet being stealthy and emphasized that the redesign of the air intake and removal of their rounded shape helps reduce the radar cross section not make it stealth.

With the way modern AWACS and JSTARS works in conjunction with modern US aircrafts own avionics, who do you honestly think will see who first on the battlefield? Would you feel perfectly confident in a Su-30 knowing there are F/A-22s - F/A-35s out there in supercruise that you cannot see and are hunting for you?

Russian Texan

10-29-2003, 09:46 AM

One of the reasons USAF stoped at 20 "B2" besides the cost of $2bil. is the fact that they are extremely difficult and expensive to maintain. And they do require special airconditioned, with the certain level of humidity hangers. It was also learned that entire RAM coating must be reapplied if the plane gets sprinkled by the rain. You can find some more info at Jane's review website.

MARK.TIGGER

10-29-2003, 04:36 PM

interesting though is that an RAF regt raiper FSC was seen tracking a B2 with no difficulty at a recent airshow

NcDeuce

10-29-2003, 04:50 PM

Main word: airshow

martinexsquaddie

10-29-2003, 04:57 PM

True but boy did it make the USAF mad rofl
There $2 billion toy lit up by a rather old low level SAM system rather naughty but it made me laugh :backhand:

AFACadet

10-29-2003, 07:38 PM

heh I don't know if I should laugh or cry after reading this thread. Its amazing how much people can pull stuff out of their butts...

Where do some of you guys get this stuff from????

GazB

10-29-2003, 10:37 PM

"Notice I said "materials and electronics are also what make it stealth" and I never said that they were the only thing."

You said:

""The F117 relies mostly on its shape to be stealthy, whereas the B2 does not. " "

and

"Although shape is an important part of the design, the materials and electronics put into the aircraft are also what make it stealth."

As I quoted. And as I said that wasn't true. The F-117 uses RAM too and all of the other measures that the B-2 uses, like light grills over engine intakes, curved intake routes, upward facing exhausts, special chemicals injected in the the jet exhausts to cool the air etc etc.
In a way the B-2 is less stealthy as it actually has a radar, even if it is a LPI radar. With a much greater capacity however the B-2 is a much more practical aircraft. (F-117s capacity is pretty much two LGBs).

"interesting though is that an RAF regt raiper FSC was seen tracking a B2 with no difficulty at a recent airshow"

It was a TI tracking system... rapier would be next to useless against the B-2 at operational atlitudes due to it not being able to engage aircraft flying at that height. With late model Mig-29s and Su-30s equipped with TI cameras in the IRSTs then the B-2 will need an escort if it is to do its job.

"And special hangars??? nonsense, the B-2 is different in that it must have a correct runway to land, as well as security due to its nuclear payload capabilities."

Special air conditioned hangars are required for B-2s, one of the main reasons the US likes to fly them from the US to target and back.

DE6

10-29-2003, 10:53 PM

The S-400 is not 80s technology, in many respects it is much better than PAC-3 Patriot. (400km range compared to 90km for Patriot for a start).
China will have enough weapons for local superiority. The US could send carriers but would have few nearby land bases to attack from.
This is all academic anyway the Chinese economy relies too much on US investment.

400km? Missiles? Boy...missiles are SO 20th century...get up to date! rofl

Ever heard of THEL?

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-99d.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/thel.htm

Those thingies will be able to shoot down incoming arty rounds...not only ICBMs in high atmosphere...

AFACadet

10-29-2003, 11:06 PM

GazB,

That was one of your first posts on this topic that was mostly right.

A couple points: The B-2 does not have engine grills. The F-117 does not have chemicals to cool the exhaust. The B-2 does, but its purpose is not cooling, but to keep contrails from forming. It has nothing to do with temperature and everything to do with chemical reactions.

The biggest thing is that you highly overate IRST systems. Most people do though. The amount of sky these things can search at any time is extremely small. Chances are slim to none that an IRST system will find an aircraft when the pilot has no idea where it is.

A couple things to confirm:

Yes, the B-2 uses 'special' hangers. A couple were built on Deigo to allow B-2s to be based there.

The B-2s main stealth comes from the shape of the aircraft. Jammers are a huge no no because it would be the same as putting a big neon light on your head saying 'look, I'm here.' Any ECM systems on the B-2 are highly classified and would not be the same as 'normal' jammers. Jamming in no way makes an aircraft stealthy. If for some reason the aircraft is compromised, it does not really matter if that sign is on your head though. In that event, chances for a sucessful intercept on the B-2 would be slim to none.

The B-2 is MUCH more stealthy than an F-117 pretty much any way you look at it.

AFACadet

10-29-2003, 11:13 PM

DE6,

The MTHEL is a shorter ranged tatical device. It does not have the range to knock down ICBMs and is intended for lower altitude targets such as rockets, artillery, helicopters, and low flying aircraft.

The ABL is a different story though. That's the one designed to take down balistic missiles and they are working on getting it to target aircraft and inflight SAMs as well.

The directed energy system for the JSF is being designed to target aircraft, in flight missiles, and ground targets.

The AC-130 system is for ground targets.

The self defense systems being put on some aircraft now only target the IR seekers of missiles though.

MARK.TIGGER

10-30-2003, 06:24 AM

the fact is though FSC tracked it both activley and passivley, and a nice little article in the daily telegraph showed how the F117 can be tracked.

DE6

10-30-2003, 04:13 PM

Baah, you get the point! ;)

The future of air defence is something akin to THEL, not missiles, that's what I wanted to emphasize.

Anyway, cheers!

Coolie

10-30-2003, 05:41 PM

Im just reading here, but let me get this straight...A MiG-23 could take down a B-2 with 23MM cannon and IRST...um how does he know its there?

AFACadet

10-30-2003, 06:25 PM

Baah, you get the point! ;)

The future of air defence is something akin to THEL, not missiles, that's what I wanted to emphasize.

Anyway, cheers!

Yes, I get your point. I agree with you on that one too. There is actually an article on CNN.com about this topic:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/10/29/laser.cannon.ap/index.html

Hi there Coolie! Nice to see a friendly face

Seoulstriker

10-30-2003, 09:59 PM

Im just reading here, but let me get this straight...A MiG-23 could take down a B-2 with 23MM cannon and IRST...um how does he know its there?

visual scanning, right?

ogukuo72

10-30-2003, 10:01 PM

interesting though is that an RAF regt raiper FSC was seen tracking a B2 with no difficulty at a recent airshow

The Rapier system can be used with visual tracking. Was it daylight by any chance? :)

NcDeuce

10-30-2003, 10:32 PM

http://www.grunts.net/navy/ships/mo3.jpg

Hmm...those kamikaze pilots sure had balls!

Russian Texan

10-30-2003, 10:46 PM

Wouldn't the laser air defense have the same problem as laser guided weapons do with rain, smoke, fog, snow, sand storms, etc.? Besides, from what I understand, it's only good for defending stationary targets since it can not be mobile due to the need of huge amount of energy to power it up. May be some day in the future... but for now - missiles is the way to go.

AFACadet

10-31-2003, 02:38 PM

"Wouldn't the laser air defense have the same problem as laser guided weapons do with rain, smoke, fog, snow, sand storms, etc.?"

That they would. In the places this is to be used, that won't be much of a problem (Israel, ect).

In aircraft that will not really be a probelm since they will be flying well above the weather (especially in the ABLs case).

"Besides, from what I understand, it's only good for defending stationary targets since it can not be mobile due to the need of huge amount of energy to power it up."

Little bit behind the times with this though. The FIRST version was stationary. That program was dropped somtime in 99-00. Now its the MHETL (I bet you can guess what the M stands for). This is still a chemical laser, so power is not an issue at all. We are not into the solid state lasers yet. One is being designed for the F-35.

Russian Texan

10-31-2003, 04:04 PM

Thanks for the info, didn't know about chemical laser. How reliable are they and what is the success rate?

AFACadet

10-31-2003, 04:34 PM

"Thanks for the info, didn't know about chemical laser. How reliable are they and what is the success rate?"

Well if your meaning the laser itself, its very reliable. Chemical based lasers are the oldest and most well understood types. Currently they are by far the most powerful types of lasers, but have a limited about of 'shots' before the chemicals run out.

Solid state lasers are the ones that take energy and turn it into light beams. They can be fired as long as there is power. They are wroking hard to get a solid state laser small yet powerful enough to fit into the JSF. When connected to the clutch, it can take the energy created by the engine and have an unlimited amount of shots while the engine is running for a couple cents each.

Right now each chemical laser shot costs something in the low $100s range.

I'm not sure what you mean by success rate, but if you mean against targets, its been excellent. There was a couple tests where the system shot down one rocket. Another test had it knocking down a swarm of rockets, quickly killing all of them. The newest tests have had it shoot down artillery shells in flight. Its not targeted aircraft yet, so I don't know how that will go. If the laser can get enough energy on an aircraft to destroy, it would be easier being that its much easier to track a large target like an aircraft than an artillery shell in flight.

GazB

11-03-2003, 04:39 AM

"The biggest thing is that you highly overate IRST systems. Most people do though. The amount of sky these things can search at any time is extremely small. Chances are slim to none that an IRST system will find an aircraft when the pilot has no idea where it is."

The IRST was part of the GCI system implemented by the Soviets. It compliments the Radar as it is most effective with receeding targets, whereas radars halve their range with low alt receeding targets IRSTs increase greatly in range. I also mentioned new IRSTS that include imaging IR sensors in the new IRSTs used on upgraded models (for dual air to air or air to ground use of imaging IR weapons). A metric wave radar can give a B-2 position within 2-3km due to accuracy levels of metric wave radars. That is adequate for an interception. The Mig-29 was optimised for GCI and had datalinks that allowed it to intercept targets it couldn't "see".

Medium wave IRSTs have ranges that exceed the radar range of F-16s. And IRSTS generally have a much wider FOV than radars... often up to 180 degrees.

"The future of air defence is something akin to THEL, not missiles, that's what I wanted to emphasize. "

Why do you think that? You sound like the British government in the 60s that claimed fighters were obsolete and that missiles would do everything.

"The Rapier system can be used with visual tracking. Was it daylight by any chance?"

It was a thermal system, and the B-2 showed up quite clearly, though it would never fly withing the engagement envelope of a Rapier in combat.

"In aircraft that will not really be a probelm since they will be flying well above the weather (especially in the ABLs case). "

If it is going to be used to maxium range then due to the curvature of the Earth the the beam must travel at least part way through low altitude air.

"Besides, from what I understand, it's only good for defending stationary targets since it can not be mobile due to the need of huge amount of energy to power it up. "

During the early 80s a modified Il-76 was shown with a turret near its nose...

... like anything else there will be measure and countermeasure. Which will be more powerful... a ground based laser system that can be protected by concrete slabs or a great big 747 that needs a direct line of sight and be on station 24/7 in case there is a launch. Coating missiles in ablative coatings, even making them spin all make the job of shooting them down harder. The best defence is waiting for a thunderstorm before you launch your missiles.

AFACadet

11-03-2003, 10:20 AM

"The IRST was part of the GCI system implemented by the Soviets. It compliments the Radar as it is most effective with receeding targets, whereas radars halve their range with low alt receeding targets IRSTs increase greatly in range. I also mentioned new IRSTS that include imaging IR sensors in the new IRSTs used on upgraded models (for dual air to air or air to ground use of imaging IR weapons). A metric wave radar can give a B-2 position within 2-3km due to accuracy levels of metric wave radars. That is adequate for an interception. The Mig-29 was optimised for GCI and had datalinks that allowed it to intercept targets it couldn't "see"."

You fail to remember large doorways of IADS with GCI will be down in around 20 minutes. That means fighters will be on their own.

"Medium wave IRSTs have ranges that exceed the radar range of F-16s. And IRSTS generally have a much wider FOV than radars... often up to 180 degrees."

Here is where it starts getting shakey. I agree, LARGE IRST systems can detect heat at extreme ranges. These need to be ground based, or are in very large aircraft (eg the ABL, Boeing's Army funded 767 IR testbed, RC-135s). These systems very much depend on the actual heat produced by the target. Something like a rocket can be detected 100-200 miles away on a good day. These huge IRST systems can detect there is something there, but not with any accuracy (much like meter lenght radars). After that, very powerful IRST systems with single digit degrees FOV pinpoint the target.

Fighters only carry the smaller IRST systems. These can have around a 20-30 mile range, but only when in FOV of around 5-7 degrees. Just like a telephoto lense, if you want to see something further, you must zoom in. When you zoom in, your field of view get much smaller. If you were trying to find something through the lense of your camera, you are not going to search with your telephoto lense, you are going to get the general area with you eyesight. The IRST systems are the same way. They can search with large fields of view, but then their range drops to only a couple miles.

Most people don't know about this, and so they think IRST systems are the best things ever.

"In aircraft that will not really be a probelm since they will be flying well above the weather (especially in the ABLs case). "

If it is going to be used to maxium range then due to the curvature of the Earth the the beam must travel at least part way through low altitude air.

Do this math calculatiomn, its a simple LOS due to earth curvature problem:

1.23 (sqrt(A1) + (sqrt(A2)) = R
A1 = Altitude AGL of target in feet
A2 = Altitude AGL of emitting device in feet (radar or in this case a laser)
R = Range in miles
Putting A1 and A2 in will give you the range of a target without going behind the curvature of the earth.

At 45,000 feet (the normal operationg altitiue of the ABL), and putting the A1 = 0, we get a range of 260.92 miles that the target is still in LOS.

Of course the Laser does not go that far, it has a range closer to 150 miles.

So, putting that in for R, and sloving for A1 gives us: 8132 ft.

With a max range of 150 miles flying at 45,000 ft, the missiles will need to be at lest 8132 feet before it can be hit. more likely, the engagement altitude will be from 10,000 ft on up. That's not exactly low altitude.

GazB

11-05-2003, 05:21 AM

"You fail to remember large doorways of IADS with GCI will be down in around 20 minutes. That means fighters will be on their own."

Yes, I read a lot about how GCI systems are so vulnerable, yet mobile versions that the west uses (with Awacs) are invincible. Simply put every major Russian SAM system has radars that are part of a rather enormous network with mobility and redundancy built in. Used in conjunction with their own fighters and other equipment I think you would have found that the Cold War Soviet airspace would have been a rather tough nut to crack. Even the inferior Serbian air defence network remained largely intact during the conflict there, though they lacked the modern missiles and radars to defeat the aircraft as well as the weapons used by NATO.

Fighters only carry the smaller IRST systems. These can have around a 20-30 mile range, but only when in FOV of around 5-7 degrees. Just like a telephoto lense, if you want to see something further, you must zoom in.

Sorry, I am metric, but the IRST on bog standard Su-27s are credited with a range in ideal conditions of 90km. (ie high alt, tail view of target in AB). A Long wave IRST can easily match that and in the right conditions can exceed the effective range of an F-16s radar, and in most conditions exceed it in low level tail chase situations. (A receeding low level target is much harder for a radar to track and range is halved to about 20-30km for radars of the size of the Mig-29 or F-16).

IRSTs are very accurate at measuring angles to target, though obviously they can't detect range. Even in the Mig-29 and Su-27 base models the IRST is fully integrated into the weapon fire control system and any target locked up with the IRST is also locked with the radar... ie no scan is required and a pulse to determine range from the radar will be a mere blip on a RHAWs and probably be lost in the noise... hense you have effectively passive tracking with accurate range info. It can also be used in close in dogfights for locking missiles passively.

"Most people don't know about this, and so they think IRST systems are the best things ever. "

They are not perfect, but they are very a useful addition... especially for the Soviet air force as it has BVR IR guided missiles for fully passive engagements. Also the interception model of GCI means that some targets are approached from several angles so engagements from the rear would require IRSTs for tracking at reasonable ranges.
As I tried to suggest IRSTs weren't to be used instead of other technologies, but with them. This meant that their problems were avoided... ie head on range isn't anywhere near as great as tail on range... but head on range for Radar is very good, so for a head on target radar would be used to close for the final kill, whereas a tail chase engagement would mean IRST would be better.

These can have around a 20-30 mile range, but only when in FOV of around 5-7 degrees.

I have seen missile ranges quoted, but in real combat how many really long range engagements of targets have there been in the last 20 years?

"At 45,000 feet (the normal operationg altitiue of the ABL), and putting the A1 = 0, we get a range of 260.92 miles that the target is still in LOS. "

I wasn't suggesting that the earth was in the way... though in certain mountainous regionds that might be the case. A long range shot will pass through the lower altitude regions on its way to the target due to the curvature of the Earth.

AFACadet

11-06-2003, 09:40 AM

Yes, I read a lot about how GCI systems are so vulnerable, yet mobile versions that the west uses (with Awacs) are invincible.

Both you and I know that sarcastic comment is incorrect. But it really says a lot that countries *both east and west* are scrambling to drop their huge, ponderous, and extremely vunerable IADS, for much more difficult to kill AEW&C systems and systems that can operate on their own with a chance of sucesses (eg later model Sus, MiG-31s, later model MiG-29s, current production run of western aircraft).

I have seen missile ranges quoted, but in real combat how many really long range engagements of targets have there been in the last 20 years?

I'm still trying to figure out where this came from but anyway, that answer is more than you think. Iran has used their Aim-54s to extremely good effect using long range missile shots. Of course they are out of them now, but during the Iran Iraq war, they gave Iraq a huge amount of grief (now Iran is using HAWKs to replace the Aim-54s).

A long range shot will pass through the lower altitude regions on its way to the target due to the curvature of the Earth.

Reread the last part of my post. I proved very clearly that's not the case.

GazB

11-07-2003, 02:41 AM

"Reread the last part of my post. I proved very clearly that's not the case."

First of all this in www.fas.org :

"The ABL weapon system consists of a high-energy, chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) mounted on a modified 747-400F (freighter) aircraft to shoot down theater ballistic missiles in their boost phase. A crew of four, including pilot and copilot, would be required to operate the airborne laser, which would patrol in pairs at high altitude, about 40,000 feet, flying in orbits over friendly territory, scanning the horizon for the plumes of rising missiles. "

OK using your calculations. The ABL is used on targets at a max range of 400km. As it is a 747 and therefore rather vulnerable (Ancient SA-5s can down such aircraft at over 250km as regrettably proven by the Ukrainian military) it is likely that the target will be engaged at very near max range. There is 1.6km to each mile so 400km is 250 miles.
So R = 250.

As you have already done the calculation for a target at ground level as being 260 miles with an alt of 45,000ft then the reduction to 40,000ft would mean the shortening of the range to 246 miles.

ie something 400km away would be hidden... hidden by what? The GROUND!!!! of course :D

What altitude is the ground at? The laser travels in a straight line so aiming at a target on the groudn requires that laser to pass through low altitude air. Operating at 40,000 ft then it will pass through low alt air and a bit of ground too. In actual fact as the ABL detects potential targets by detecting their rocket plume detection at 0ft would be impossible anyway.

AFACadet

11-07-2003, 06:08 PM

There are a few things wrong with FAS.org, namley accuracy and not being up to date anymore. Overall they are one of the better sites though.

I'll give you that the ABL will not always fly at 45,000 ft. The normal operating alititude is in the very high 30,000s to 45,000 ft.

That will influence LOS a little.

The range of 400 km is WAY to high though. A range of 240 km is much more accurate. This means that the laser at extreme range won't be able to reach the target until a little more than 8,000 ft. That was my point.

GazB

11-08-2003, 09:56 PM

"There are a few things wrong with FAS.org, namley accuracy and not being up to date anymore. Overall they are one of the better sites though. "

I tend to use it because it has a lot of info all in one place that is easy to search... though it is dated (the guy who maintined it properly has moved to the global security site) and there are inaccuracies... especially with Russian stuff (check out the picture of the R-77... I realise the west like to call it Amraamski, but it actually looks nothing like the Amraam).

I'll give you that the ABL will not always fly at 45,000 ft. The normal operating alititude is in the very high 30,000s to 45,000 ft.

That will influence LOS a little.

It will influence LOS, but most importantly if you think about the curvature of the earth and the fact that "weather" exists below about 20,000 ft and that due to the curvature of the earth that to aim at something at 8,000 ft the straight laser beam must therefore travel a large amount of its path through weather then weather will be much more significant than you suggest. (Note if the world was flat then firing from 30,000 ft to 8,000 ft would still require the beam to travel a significant distance below 20,000 ft... because the earth is curved (as is the atmosphere) then 8,000 ft at the target area is actually much lower and the beam would spend a lot of time in the "weather".

Regarding range if the ABL is being used to patrol the airspace around countries like North Korea and Iran... countries unlikely to ignore a 747 flying 250km from their missile bases... especially a large country like Iran. Remember what happened to that EP-3 on China's border... such aircraft will no only have to fly 24/7 during times of tension but will also need significant escorts as well. Equally rockets are relatively easy to make... produce a few thousand first stage rockets with structures on top that are made of ablative material. The ABL will detect the launch plume and direct the laser at the solid ablative material nose... no chance of destroying it... how many shots will they fire at each fake missile?

Even tactically how many FROG rockets could even poor forces afford... tens of thousands no doubt.

I amnot suggesting that the ABL is junk, just that it is not the perfect solution for every problem... not that anything is. Certainly suggesting that missiles are obsolete is very premature and is a mistake that has been made in the past (I think it was DE6 that mentioned it first here)

AFACadet

11-08-2003, 10:43 PM

You're right, the ABL is far from perfect, but it can also do stuff no other military weapon can do.

You said it would have to fly 24/7 for full coverage, and that's exactly what they are planning to do now.

Its not the best solution, but its better than not having anything at all.

Plus its pretty much the forrunner to the space based defenses in the works that will not have the negitive aspects of a laser in a 747.

GazB

11-10-2003, 02:59 AM

Blanke

11-10-2003, 03:39 PM

"Its not the best solution, but its better than not having anything at all. "

It is certainly a huge first step... but until the technology matures and becomes much more efficient then it will not be too hard to counter... at the moment it has too many problems. (Most of all it needs to be on station in times of tension 24/7 to cover potential launches... and for countries like China or even India or Russia it will never be able to get within 400km of the launch area. It is really the idealised first part of star wars that was the most efficient (ie blow up the missiles while they are largely fragile bombs moving relatively slowly and with a huge IR signature for easy detection and tracking) and was always the most vulnerable part of the system... and the most tricky (ie generally require a weak enemy... that the USSR never was, or an already defeated enemy... NK and Iran might qualify but I doubt either would be stupid enough to initiate a strike on anyone friendly to the US to warrant the use of ABL (and incur the retaliation most likely repaid 1,000 fold... mad and stupid are not the same thing).

You need to understand something here... The ABL isn't just any weapon, it is also in large part a political tool, sort of the opposite of a nuclear missile. Can you imagine the reaction the Soviets had when Reagan announced SDI, they were scared ****less (not to say that they weren't researching the same field here). I mean it's obvious that even with a large array of space or ground based lasers or other such weapons that it probably would not do much to prevent wide scale devestation if a full scale nuclear exchage were to take place. But disregarding arguments that once you go nuclear there's no going back, a large scale exchange was only a few possible scenarios involving nuclear weapons. Another could have been a few tactical warheads launched in central europe, or a few ICBMs launched only at military installations in the US, something SDI may have been able to counter. Of course this would push the Soviets more and more towards resorting to an all out attack on the US (or complying), but then again they probably would not be to anxious to do that; and even in one just at a glance who would stand a better chance of surviving it? This is something that the Soviets seriously had to consider, it's just too much to ignore and assume that the US probably will not be able to test and deploy a reliable SDI weapon system any time soon.

With that being said, with countries like Iran and N. Korea, countries who at the most can threaten to only launch one or a few nuclear missiles either at the US, theater forces, or an ally, just a "small" (compared to SDI) system like the ABL poses a serious obstacle. They could indeed sneak a nuclear bomb into an American city, but nuclear missiles are big and visible, and they give you a lot of leaverage, and the ABL can potentially negate this.

Now whether or not laser weapon systems are worth spending billions to develop is another argument, and I'm not really sure where I stand in it. N. Korea and Iran may not be stupid enough to launch a nuclear missile attack on the US or US military forces but at least N. Korea is moving ahead with attempts to procure such missiles, again maybe not for the sole purpose of launching them at the US, but once they do have them people (namely the US) will have to listen to them and quit bullying them around (I'm just guessing as to what Iran and N. Korea are thinking).

GazB

11-15-2003, 01:32 AM

"The ABL isn't just any weapon, it is also in large part a political tool, sort of the opposite of a nuclear missile."

Unfortuantely it is worse than a nuclear weapon. Set to a moderate power (powerful enough to blind) it could be used to bring down aircraft much further away than 400km... imagine the opportunity to take out certain enemies of the US in a deniable way.

"Another could have been a few tactical warheads launched in central europe, or a few ICBMs launched only at military installations in the US, something SDI may have been able to counter."

SDI would have either created a Soviet SDI or a preemptive strike to prevent it being put into action... 20m optically perfect mirrors are incredibily vulnerable... especially in space. A space based laser system is a direct threat and is very unlikely to be tollerated (by either side). Of course needless to say a ground based laser can be much more power anyway.

"will have to listen to them and quit bullying them around (I'm just guessing as to what Iran and N. Korea are thinking)."

Perhaps if they listened to them now rather than bullying everyone to get their way then perhaps such nations would not see the need to aquire nuclear weapons capability just to be respected. It seems that the US knows what is best for everyone and what particular form of government countries with written histories that go back several thousand years further than any in Europe show be allowed to have.

Blanke

11-15-2003, 04:29 PM

Unfortuantely it is worse than a nuclear weapon. Set to a moderate power (powerful enough to blind) it could be used to bring down aircraft much further away than 400km... imagine the opportunity to take out certain enemies of the US in a deniable way.

I fail to see how a laser is a more horrific weapon than a nuclear weapon annihilating an entire city.... When I said political tool, I did not mean the US gov't whacking indviduals at its leisure.

SDI would have either created a Soviet SDI or a preemptive strike to prevent it being put into action... 20m optically perfect mirrors are incredibily vulnerable... especially in space. A space based laser system is a direct threat and is very unlikely to be tollerated (by either side). Of course needless to say a ground based laser can be much more power anyway.

As for the Soviets creating their own SDI, that's debatable as to whether or not it would have been possible. But a preemptive strike, I think it's undeniable that it may have been a real possiblity as a direct result of SDI. Weapon systems like SDI, the B-2 bomber, and the Trident D-5 missile could be (and have been) considered "destabilizing" weapons.

Perhaps if they listened to them now rather than bullying everyone to get their way then perhaps such nations would not see the need to aquire nuclear weapons capability just to be respected. It seems that the US knows what is best for everyone and what particular form of government countries with written histories that go back several thousand years further than any in Europe show be allowed to have.

Well regardless of what you think of the US and its politics, right or wrong an ABL type of weapon would put countries like N. Korea and Iran in a rather uncomfortable position even with the potential flaws that may go along with it.