5th gen fighters versus Ballistic missiles

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 572

Some here believe that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will revolutionize combat.
What is the consensus here?
Will long range missiles usher in a new era and make tactical fighters obsolete?
Are bases and ships indefensible versus these weapons? Discuss.

Original post

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

Some here believe that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will revolutionize combat.
What is the consensus here?
Will long range missiles usher in a new era and make tactical fighters obsolete?
Are bases and ships indefensible versus these weapons? Discuss.

Killer Whale versus a grizzly bear...

Who wins?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]241995[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]241996[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 572

The irony is that its not my thread Idea. Im tired of people jamming up the F-35 news thread with this nonsense.
But ill but $100 on the grizzly.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

The irony is that its not my thread Idea. Im tired of people jamming up the F-35 news thread with this nonsense.
But ill but $100 on the grizzly.

What if the fight happened in the ocean though?

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

Ok, if you need me to explain why ship radar is superior than fighter radar then i think you really need to read some book about common sense

the only difference is ship radar need to handle more targets since ship is more like static target so more threat of saturated attack than fighter. Fighter is more flexible it can move in and out of engagement zone at will. but make no mistake figher radars are getting advanced enough to deal with small rcs and long range strikes.

what does that even mean? and who tell you ground based fighter are always bigger or carry bigger weapons?

long runways bigger weopons.


a ship have more space, do you understand how much bigger a destroyer compare to a bomber?

that is space for fuel, food, living space. interms of strike power it is very less. R&D budgets of bomber and its missile are always more than a ship.
you dont even understand that big negatives associated with Ships. modern warships can use few ports to upgrade and sustain. fighters can use austere fields.

you can just use Google and load of articles come up
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=SCUD+missiles+intercepted+yemen&oq=SCUD+missiles+intercepted+yemen&aqs=chrome..69i57.12608j0j4&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

is there example of saturated attack.

i already said from the start that destroy ballistic missile arenot the main job of fighter, neither does they tasked to do that
The fact that Saudi buy PAC-3 doesn't mean they terrified of SCUD, it just mean they want to improve their military capabilities since they already bought load of fighters

You have no understanding of operation decisive storm. Saudis are short of fighters and bombs. thats why they abondoned coalition against ISIS and asking help from just every other country with airpower. now they are spending money on PAC-3 in huge numbers and will practically run out of money for every thing else they need.


so suddenly all version of SCUD is exactly the same now?

there isnt any investment in scud to improve it against newer airdefense missile. its an abandoned product.


you have no evidence to prove that there wasn't any saturated attack

so show me example of saturated attack. like minimum 20 to 30 missiles fired at airbase.


look at the different between platform launch parameters of KH-31 and KH-31PK
and you will see why one have much longer range than other.

it give you ballpark of export missile range. domestic missile will be more than that.

more money doesn't mean you can bend physic.
claim Brahmos out range similar subsonic cruise missile by 3-4 times is idiotic

you know physics. how much is range of Kh-58 relative to its weight.
http://www.janes.com/article/53889/maks-2015-ktrv-adds-ir-seeker-to-kh-58ushk-anti-radiation-missile


if you only fly at low altitude at final phase then you exposed yourself to enemy's radar from extremely long distance (didn't hide below radar horizon)
they will shot your missiles down before it can even reach that phase

first you have to know that missiles are launched. show me single example of Mach 3 missile shot down that has S curve and steep dive capability.

No they dont, and in fact it likely that the wolfpack formation is a hoax more than anything, not even modern cruise missiles have that capabilities

whats so hoax about it.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

the only difference is ship radar need to handle more targets since ship is more like static target so more threat of saturated attack than fighter. Fighter is more flexible it can move in and out of engagement zone at will. but make no mistake figher radars are getting advanced enough to deal with small rcs and long range strikes.

iam really start to feed up with you now JSR
feeling like you want to troll rather than discussing in a serious manner
Does any point you mentioned explain why you think fighter radar is more powerful than ship radar ?

long runways bigger weopons.

F-18E/F is bigger than F-16 , around the same size with F-15
Su-33 is bigger than Su-27 , mig-29
Rafale-M is around the same size as Typhoon and both are bigger than Gripen
and they use similar weapons

that is space for fuel, food, living space. interms of strike power it is very less.

here is the size difference between a ship and an aircraft
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/US_Navy_060206-N-7748K-004_The_nuclear-powered_aircraft_carrier_USS_Enterprise_(CVN_65)_conducts_a_refueling_at_sea_with_the_guided_missile_destroyer_USS_McFaul_(DDG_74).jpg

R&D budgets of bomber and its missile are always more than a ship.
you dont even understand that big negatives associated with Ships. modern warships can use few ports to upgrade and sustain. fighters can use austere fields.

nonsense


You have no understanding of operation decisive storm. Saudis are short of fighters and bombs. thats why they abondoned coalition against ISIS and asking help from just every other country with airpower. now they are spending money on PAC-3 in huge numbers and will practically run out of money for every thing else they need.

No they dont
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force


there isnt any investment in scud to improve it against newer airdefense missile. its an abandoned product.

an abandon product that used by many country , sure


is there example of saturated attack.
so show me example of saturated attack. like minimum 20 to 30 missiles fired at airbase.

how about you show me the evidence that they are only launched one by one ?
and where do you get 30 supersonic bomber to launch Brahmos ?


it give you ballpark of export missile range.

OMFG , look at the launch speed to see why it reach higher range
domestic missile will be more than that.

You have no evidence for that

you know physics. how much is range of Kh-58 relative to its weight.
http://www.janes.com/article/53889/maks-2015-ktrv-adds-ir-seeker-to-kh-58ushk-anti-radiation-missile

Firstly : smaller missiles will have less drag than a big one
Why dont you list the range of AIM-120 , AIM-54 and R-33 as well ? :sleeping:
Secondly : look at the launch parameter :missiles range affected by launch altitude and launch speed as well
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/516/


first you have to know that missiles are launched.

there is something called Radar , and IRST

show me single example of Mach 3 missile shot down that has S curve and steep dive capability.

Google AQM-37 Jayhawk , MA-31 , GQM-163A , MQM-8 VANDAL and see for yourself what are their purpose

whats so hoax about it.

never been demonstrated , and would required very powerful self thinking AI

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 584

Some here believe that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will revolutionize combat.
What is the consensus here?
Will long range missiles usher in a new era and make tactical fighters obsolete?
Are bases and ships indefensible versus these weapons? Discuss.

That is not really new thinking.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper
What is the point of the discussion?

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

iam really start to feed up with you now JSR
feeling like you want to troll rather than discussing in a serious manner
Does any point you mentioned explain why you think fighter radar is more powerful than ship radar ?

did is say more powerfull in all parameters. Fighter radar can find ship from further distance than ship can find fighter. there are enough advancements in radar technolgy that now there are AESA radars on naval helicopters.

F-18E/F is bigger than F-16 , around the same size with F-15

F-16 payload is not less than F-18E despite USAF not investing in it on same scale as USN in F-18E. F-16 is not front priority for USAF otherwise you will be finding JSF engine inside F-16.

Su-33 is bigger than Su-27 , mig-29

It does not mean it can carry more and further. Su-30SM and SU-34 are much more capable.

Rafale-M is around the same size as Typhoon and both are bigger than Gripen
and they use similar weapons

Sea Typhoon will be much bigger. Land Fighters does not to be too big to get same capability.

here is the size difference between a ship and an aircraft

where is the radar size.


No they dont
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force

it is very small airforce for the tasks ahead. they still dont have all the EF and F-15SA not yet operational. they are critically short of fighters and bombs.


how about you show me the evidence that they are only launched one by one ?

there is no evidence to contrary. there is no saturated attack happen.

and where do you get 30 supersonic bomber to launch Brahmos ?

Brahmos will become universal missile so that it can be launched from Subs, Su-30, Ships etc. in next 5 to 10 years is era of missiles.the country having greater capabilty to built and deploy missiles will be deliver knock out punch. i just give brahmos example there other missiles that are coming online. the bottom line is for you too understand is that greater investments in missiles, giant AWACS, satellites and big jamming pods have more impact on futuristic wars than small stealth planes.


OMFG , look at the launch speed to see why it reach higher range

You have no evidence for that

Firstly : smaller missiles will have less drag than a big one
Why dont you list the range of AIM-120 , AIM-54 and R-33 as well ? :sleeping:
Secondly : look at the launch parameter :missiles range affected by launch altitude and launch speed as well
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/516/


look at it again for updated export version. look at weight and warhead size.
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/?PHPSESSID=ea3b1ad7a55ecf58209f19016a6df530

there is something called Radar , and IRST

Google AQM-37 Jayhawk , MA-31 , GQM-163A , MQM-8 VANDAL and see for yourself what are their purpose

never been demonstrated , and would required very powerful self thinking AI


none of them have shown speed and curves of brahmos. they more comparable to older versions of kh-31. and certainly not saturated attack with wolfpack.

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 1,003

Killer Whale versus a grizzly bear...

Who wins?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]241995[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]241996[/ATTACH]

There's is non conclusive evidence of orcas preying on polar bears (feel free to find a quote which supports your personal preference from t'internet) and polar bears are kings of the ursids. So I'd back orca vs grizzly

If and when ballistic missiles can be given live targeting information and the ability to adapt to changing battle space their insane kinetic energy advantage might make warplanes redundant. I'd have a hard time getting excited about an mirv in the same way I do looking at an F15 though.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

did i say more powerfull in all parameters.

No , but you said this BS nonsense :
what ship weight has to do radar. Airplane radar has always the advantage of range. thats why tiny fighter radar has range as large as ground based radars.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134882-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2015)-Take-two/page66


Fighter radar can find ship from further distance than ship can find fighter.

That depending on fighters's RCS , something like SPY-1 can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 150 km , they will detect your AWACs , supersonic bomber as soon as they pop up from the horizon


there are enough advancements in radar technolgy that now there are AESA radars on naval helicopters.

irrelevance


F-16 payload is not less than F-18E

yeah sure
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=837&t=1
http://www.ausairpower.net/USN/000-Super-Bug-loadout.jpg
F-16 is not front priority for USAF otherwise you will be finding JSF engine inside F-16.

You should do research on engine diameter of the F-135 on F-35 vs F-100/F-110 series on F-16
It does not mean it can carry more and further.

Most of the time it does

Sea Typhoon will be much bigger.

We dont have sea Typhonn

Land Fighters does not to be too big to get same capability.

depending on what capability you talking about


where is the radar size.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ueRgv7bZnDY/T_VfhLoFVII/AAAAAAAAO8I/yjnRcGQRaRY/s1600/Lockheed_Martin_Prepares_Australia's_First_Aegis_Weapon_System_For_Post-Production_Testing.jpg
http://forsvaret.dk/FMI/nytMateriel/Skibe/Fregatter/Foto/Foto%20IVER%20HUITFELDT/2010%20IVER%20HUITFELDT/100320-01%20SMART-L%20Radar%20ankomst.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/INS_Kolkata.jpg

it is very small airforce for the tasks ahead. they still dont have all the EF and F-15SA not yet operational. they are critically short of fighters and bombs.

Saudi airforce is bigger than most countries , especially if you consider number of the modern fighter.

there is no evidence to contrary. there is no saturated attack happen.

There is no evidence that the others side ony launch Scud one by one either, so your point is again irrelevance

Brahmos will become universal missile so that it can be launched from Subs, Su-30, Ships etc.

Most cruise missiles can be carried across all sort of platform

in next 5 to 10 years is era of missiles.the country having greater capabilty to built and deploy missiles will be deliver knock out punch. i just give brahmos example there other missiles that are coming online.

What does this even mean ????
Ship , aircraft , SAM , ....etc all need missiles to attack , it is part of their weapon system so obviously it important


the bottom line is for you too understand is that greater investments in missiles, giant AWACS, satellites and big jamming pods have more impact on futuristic wars than small stealth planes.

advance on missiles , satellite , jamming pod will benefit stealth aircraft more than they benefit a massive AWACs
and as you can see , most countries only have a handful number of AWACs


look at it again for updated export version. look at weight and warhead size.
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/540/?PHPSESSID=ea3b1ad7a55ecf58209f19016a6df530

:sleeping:
Maximum flight range with maximum aircraft speed

and please stop with the BS about e how exported have haft the range and speed of domestic version


none of them have shown speed and curves of brahmos. they more comparable to older versions of kh-31.

Actually they have better speed and agility feat than Brahmos
Some of the latest AQM-37Cs have further improved heat insulation, and can also be used to simulate ballistic missile threats, being able to fly ballistic trajectories to an altitude of 100 km (330000 ft) terminal speeds of Mach 5

In the terminal approach phase, the GQM-163A will fly at Mach 2.5 at 5 m (16 ft) altitude

U.S. Navy GQM-163A "Coyote" Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target missile program. Aerojet developed the world's first variable flow ducted rocket ramjet and is the only company currently flight testing high speed missile propulsion for future U.S. military needs. The successful flight was the third in a series intended to validate the operation of the ramjet engine and target vehicle. Aerojet is responsible for the development and production of the ramjet engine that powers the Coyote missile during the extended high-speed cruise phase. The 108-second flight at Mach 2.5, the equivalent of traveling from Los Angeles to San Diego in under four minutes, included pre-programmed aggressive weaving maneuvers, dives, and climbs that provided valuable engine operating data


certainly not saturated attack

Again this is your opinion and you dont have evidence to support it
Btw ,SPY-1 can tracks 100 targets at the same times


wolfpack.

Do you actually understand what wolfpack mean and what is the purpose of it ?

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 491

What about space based weapons vs ballistic and cruise missiles. Project Thor, Project Excalibur, Golden Eye (yep James Bond movie, but it's perfectly feasible as Starfish Prime demonstrated).

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 906

Some here believe that cruise missiles and ballistic missiles will revolutionize combat.
What is the consensus here?
Will long range missiles usher in a new era and make tactical fighters obsolete?
Are bases and ships indefensible versus these weapons? Discuss.

I don't see any consensus...

tactical fighter obsolete ? Well missiles been around for ages.. and still fighter plane exist.

Indefensible.. well no, modern SAM has been demonstrated capable to engage both type of threat.

-----
I don't really see the point of "Black and white" type discussion here.. bashing fighter jets or missiles... They're all pointless.

The one that can be discussed is perhaps "When to use Ballistic missile" or "When to use fighters" ?

and i got one good source :

http://www.armscontrol.ru/course/articles/primer.pdf

The conclusion from that source :
From cost perspective ballistic missile etc will be effective if the aircraft attrition rate is high. Otherwise there would be other factors

Nonetheless it doesn't mention cruise missile though.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

spot on, if AD is strong: -BM/CM
for cost effectiveness: -bombtruck with un-powered bombs
to really drive down cost: -UAV bombtruck, tho it has been proven sensors cant discriminate between an umbrella vs AK-47

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 572

I don't see any consensus...

tactical fighter obsolete ? Well missiles been around for ages.. and still fighter plane exist.

Indefensible.. well no, modern SAM has been demonstrated capable to engage both type of threat.

-----
I don't really see the point of "Black and white" type discussion here.. bashing fighter jets or missiles... They're all pointless.

The one that can be discussed is perhaps "When to use Ballistic missile" or "When to use fighters" ?

and i got one good source :

http://www.armscontrol.ru/course/articles/primer.pdf

The conclusion from that source :
From cost perspective ballistic missile etc will be effective if the aircraft attrition rate is high. Otherwise there would be other factors

Nonetheless it doesn't mention cruise missile though.

Exactly the China stronq crowd doesn't realize our ballistic missile concerns are self imposed. A few space based pac-3 sized interceptors + some conventional Tridents would end all of this talk quickly.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

No , but you said this BS nonsense :

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134882-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2015)-Take-two/page66


i only said that outrange in realistic condition is not possilbe for ships as satellites can find ships general locations but they cant locate aircraft once its airborne.


That depending on fighters's RCS , something like SPY-1 can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 150 km , they will detect your AWACs , supersonic bomber as soon as they pop up from the horizon

AWACS and Fighter only need to barely pop from horizon. they will already know the directions to look for ships from satellites. Modern ships does not stay to far from cargo ships and ports for extended period of time.
detect does not mean track and intercept. show me intercept of low rcs cruise missile at distance not close encounter.


yeah sure
You should do research on engine diameter of the F-135 on F-35 vs F-100/F-110 series on F-16

Most of the time it does


I already know those charts. there is huge diffference between specifications and operational load.
Do you even understand what i am writing. F-16E is far superior product than F-18E for strike. It has wingtip AIM-120 and CFT capability already in built in it along with modern IRST/Falcon edge EW. F-18E is low speed/external fuel tanks depended fighter. if 600 F-16E order is given to LM in 1990s. i am pretty sure this amount of investments will create even more superior product than 600 F-18E orders. It all depend on amount of investment. Land based fighters are always superior. thats why the best investment is Su-34 for strike as its large cockpit allows pilots to stretch legs and bigger internal fuel allow it to be refuelled from further distance from battlefield. it is called multiplier effect of larger plane.


[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ueRgv7bZnDY/T_VfhLoFVII/AAAAAAAAO8I/yjnRcGQRa…

I will put gigantic radar on mountain top with 1500MW nuclear reactor power supply. i am sure it will be superior by your logic. you dont even understand that Naval power projection is very labor intensive from building/maintianing/training crew on Ships. It needs 10X personal required than Airpower or large missile force. Now with longer life span the health and pension costs ballons. on top of that if 1000 fighters instead of 100 fighters are ordered the price per fighter aircraft will go down alot compared to ordering 10 ships instead of 1. as ship building is much slower process. ordering more does not mean price will drop instead it can increase. Fighter/missile factory you can build anywhere in a country but ship building have few choices.


Saudi airforce is bigger than most countries , especially if you consider number of the modern fighter.

Saudi airforce is not big enough for the task assigned to it. infact by overspending on airdefence there army, navy and airforce are operationally the smallest relative to area to defend. they cant even trust USN presence in Persian gulf as missiles can right pass the small number of Ageis ships there. Every country is now overspending on air defence in Persian gulf. this limit there ability to carry out offensive operations. as those sophisticated air defence systems will need alot of train crew, maintaince people, electric supply.


There is no evidence that the others side ony launch Scud one by one either, so your point is again irrelevance

they are all launched one or two at most. certainly no evidence of 10 to 20 on single target.

Most cruise missiles can be carried across all sort of platform

show me the most example. like land attack version for army on trucks. you will always forget that real battle is on the ground.


advance on missiles , satellite , jamming pod will benefit stealth aircraft more than they benefit a massive AWACs
and as you can see , most countries only have a handful number of AWACs

stealth aircraft are small in size and have less weopon flexibility. they are practically unupgradable. see F-22 example.
Most countries does not have realistic idea of modern warfare. see how many different types of AWACS China introduced. IL-476 based AWACS top priority for Ruaf.


and please stop with the BS about e how exported have haft the range and speed of domestic version

domestic versions are not inhibbited by MTCR.


Again this is your opinion and you dont have evidence to support it
Btw ,SPY-1 can tracks 100 targets at the same times

can it engage small antiship/anti radiation missiles at distance greater than 5 or 10 km. if you cant engage those missiles at long distance it means the rest of ships in fleet are vulnerable to sinking unless you built too many airdefence ships.
Ships are very depended on re suppply. and ports.


Do you actually understand what wolfpack mean and what is the purpose of it ?

yes

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

i only said that outrange in realistic condition is not possilbe for ships as satellites can find ships general locations but they cant locate aircraft once its airborne.AWACS and Fighter only need to barely pop from horizon. they will already know the directions to look for ships from satellites

most delicated destroyer have their radar cover 360 degree around them

. Modern ships does not stay to far from cargo ships and ports for extended period of time.

ship can stay at sea for couple of month , most aircraft cannot leave airbase for more than few hours

detect does not mean track and intercept.

same for all radar

show me intercept of low rcs cruise missile at distance not close encounter.

neither Brahmos , supersonic bomber or AWACs have low RCS like a stealth cruise missiles or aircraft

I already know those charts. there is huge diffference between specifications and operational load.
Do you even understand what i am writing. F-16E is far superior product than F-18E for strike. It has wingtip AIM-120 and CFT capability already in built in it
along with modern IRST/Falcon edge EW. F-18E is low speed/external fuel tanks depended fighter.

You can claim that F-16E superior acceleration , speed compared to F-18E , but to say it have super strike capability is complete nonsense
You should do research on the size difference between the 2
btw , F-18E also have jammer and now it have IRST as well


if 600 F-16E order is given to LM in 1990s. i am pretty sure this amount of investments will create even more superior product than 600 F-18E orders. It all depend on amount of investment.

Nonsense speculation

Land based fighters are always superior

No, if it the same kind of fighter then the naval version will have to suffer in performance parameter such as speed , acceleration compare to the airforce version
however , difference countries use various kind of fighters .

. thats why the best investment is Su-34 for strike as its large cockpit allows pilots to stretch legs and bigger internal fuel allow it to be refuelled from further distance from battlefield. it is called multiplier effect of larger plane.

and why wouldnt F-111 or F-15E be better than Su-34 ?

I will put gigantic radar on mountain top with 1500MW nuclear reactor power supply. i am sure it will be superior by your logic.


yes it will
something like this for example superior to all fighters , ship and AWACs radar
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Sbx_underway.jpg

you dont even understand that Naval power projection is very labor intensive from building/maintianing/training crew on Ships. It needs 10X personal required than Airpower or large missile force. Now with longer life span the health and pension costs ballons. on top of that if 1000 fighters instead of 100 fighters are ordered the price per fighter aircraft will go down alot compared to ordering 10 ships instead of 1. as ship building is much slower process. ordering more does not mean price will drop instead it can increase. Fighter/missile factory you can build anywhere in a country but ship building have few choices.

This isnt relevance to the fact that the sheer size of a ship mean it much easier to put a massive jammer or radar on it


Saudi airforce is not big enough for the task assigned to it. infact by overspending on airdefence there army, navy and airforce are operationally the smallest relative to area to defend. they cant even trust USN presence in Persian gulf as missiles can right pass the small number of Ageis ships there. Every country is now overspending on air defence in Persian gulf. this limit there ability to carry out offensive operations. as those sophisticated air defence systems will need alot of train crew, maintaince people, electric supply.

These are all your opinion that really isnt backed up by any statistic at all.


they are all launched one or two at most. certainly no evidence of 10 to 20 on single target.

So provide evidence for that claim then ?
if you are 100% sure they only launched 1-2 missiles at a times then it would be easy for you to provide evidence for your claim


show me the most example. like land attack version for army on trucks.

Tomahawk
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-84-09185.JPEG/300px-BGM-109G_Gryphon_-_ID_DF-ST-84-09185.JPEG
NSM , JSM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Jelcz_P662D43_z_wyrzutnia.JPG
RBS-15
https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fyjs-cn031.jpg

you will always forget that real battle is on the ground

depending on what kind of battle you talking about


stealth aircraft are small in size and have less weopon flexibility.

their low RCS make jamming alot more effective , and they can get relative close to target to launch missiles thus they dont required long range weapon and carry high number of short range missiles instead , they are less vulnerable to counter attack compared to an AWACs

they are practically unupgradable. see F-22 example.

who tell you F-22 isnot upgradeable ?


Most countries does not have realistic idea of modern warfare.

And you do ? :rolleyes:

see how many different types of AWACS China introduced. IL-476 based AWACS top priority for Ruaf.

You should google and see for how many AWACS Russia actually have

domestic versions are not inhibbited by MTCR.

And ? does that mean Brahmos can suddenly break the law of physic to reach 1000 km range ? ( or 3000-4000 km if you actually believe that it can out range subsonic cruise missiles by 3 -4 times )
the answer is no


can it engage small antiship/anti radiation missiles at distance greater than 5 or 10 km. if you cant engage those missiles at long distance it means the rest of ships in fleet are vulnerable to sinking unless you built too many airdefence ships.

yes it can , since SPY-1 can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 150 km , and your supersonic missiles , bomber have RCS far larger than that


Ships are very depended on re suppply. and ports.

same for everything else from tank to AWACs to fighter , even submarine need re supply of foods


yes

explain why you think it make it harder for SAM to shot down antiship missiles in terminal phase then

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

most delicated destroyer have their radar cover 360 degree around them

Range is limited to 300 to 400km max.

ship can stay at sea for couple of month , most aircraft cannot leave airbase for more than few hours

only stay if resupplied or port visits.


neither Brahmos , supersonic bomber or AWACs have low RCS like a stealth cruise missiles or aircraft

stealth dont matter. radar powerfull enough to detect it. see MIG-31 hitting cruise missile. its only matter off distance intercept. its very difficult to intercept cruise and billistic missile at distance.

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-mig-31-fighter-shoots-down-cruise-missile-during-military-exercises-1941748
The cruise missile was destroyed at an altitude of 300 meters above the ground from a distance of 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) from the target,”


You can claim that F-16E superior acceleration , speed compared to F-18E , but to say it have super strike capability is complete nonsense
You should do research on the size difference between the 2
btw , F-18E also have jammer and now it have IRST as well

it seem you have no understanding of operational fighters. unless F-18E is able to be fitted with CFT and wing tip self defense capability. it will be lessor of fighter.


Nonsense speculation

No, if it the same kind of fighter then the naval version will have to suffer in performance parameter such as speed , acceleration compare to the airforce version
however , difference countries use various kind of fighters .


Its range, load carrying capacity, airframe life etc.

and why wouldnt F-111 or F-15E be better than Su-34 ?

F-111 to obsolete. Su-34 has that wide cockpit, big hump and long tail. no need for external tanks.


yes it will
something like this for example superior to all fighters , ship and AWACs radar
[/IMG]

it is not at top of the mountain. read this why it is located at such height for joint system.
http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_05_31/Russia-preparing-to-launch-Okno-space-surveillance-system-at-full-capacity-2695/


This isnt relevance to the fact that the sheer size of a ship mean it much easier to put a massive jammer or radar on it

you can use group action by sending 10 fighters and bombers with jamming pods fully updated. Ship simply cant be updated fast.


So provide evidence for that claim then ?
if you are 100% sure they only launched 1-2 missiles at a times then it would be easy for you to provide evidence for your claim

there is no evidence of saturated attacks anywhere.

depending on what kind of battle you talking about


Is tomhawk has antiship role as Bation System based on Onyx. can tomhawk be integrated with fighter aircraft.


their low RCS make jamming alot more effective , and they can get relative close to target to launch missiles thus they dont required long range weapon and carry high number of short range missiles instead , they are less vulnerable to counter attack compared to an AWACs

it is not low RCS but high power supply of engines and ability to carry heavier external jammers that make it more effective. there is not place for single engine fighter in 21st century battles. See Saudi airforce all twin engine fighters.

who tell you F-22 isnot upgradeable ?

why it hasnt been upgraded. i doubt there is new engine upgrade in development.


You should google and see for how many AWACS Russia actually have

its sufficient for single theatre war. show me any country that can afford two theatre war simulataneously.


And ? does that mean Brahmos can suddenly break the law of physic to reach 1000 km range ? ( or 3000-4000 km if you actually believe that it can out range subsonic cruise missiles by 3 -4 times )
the answer is no

your physics knowledge maybe much less than those who built Brahmos. and they restrict they the range of Brahmos to 300km due to MTCR.


yes it can , since SPY-1 can detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 150 km , and your supersonic missiles , bomber have RCS far larger than that

it does not matter. it can only intercept at few kms. it cannot intercept cruise missiles that will right pass through it at distance.
you need AWACS to see overhorizon. See the AESA upgrades to helicopter and E-2D.

same for everything else from tank to AWACs to fighter , even submarine need re supply of foods

They are supplied on land bases where food grow and energy and water is available. not standing in middle of ocean and receiving blows and blows of missiles.


explain why you think it make it harder for SAM to shot down antiship missiles in terminal phase then

They may intercept few at very short distance. You simply not understanding the meaning of word distance. the purpose of cruise missile is not the ship but hitting the ports which supply the ship to make it ineffective. thats the reason that all Persian gulf countries are over investing in airdefence due to short range of intercept. ships cannot protect there vast airports, weopon depots, water filtration/thermal plants in vast deserts. every installation needs airdefence missile coverage nearby.
when you invest so much in airdefense there is much less money left for any thing else.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

iam really start to feed up with you now JSR
feeling like you want to troll rather than discussing in a serious manner

:highly_amused:

In other news, Lionel Messi enjoys a bit of football and Joe Satriani's pretty nifty with a guitar.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

it may well be that nations that doesnt wage war on a regular basis is better off financially by using a combo of missiles for offense,
and a fighter force just big enough for air policing, and perhaps the recreational muslim bombing

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

Range is limited to 300 to 400km max.

BS nonsense ,range depending on target altitude


only stay if resupplied or port visits.

and how long can fighters , bombers , AWACs can stay on air exactly ?
you think submarine dont need to resuppy with food ?


stealth dont matter. radar powerfull enough to detect it.

the problem is the distance that your radar can detect a stealth target , especially with jamming and clutter
if stealth doesnt matter then USA , Korea , Japan ,Canada , Australia , Netheland , Russia , China , ..etc wouldnt try to make stealth fighter , UAV , missiles

see MIG-31 hitting cruise missile..

what so special about it ?


its very difficult to intercept cruise and billistic missile at distance.

SM-3 intercept a satellite at 160 miles aways ( FYI , since satellite can stay in orbit , they move much faster than your Brahmos and Scud )


it seem you have no understanding of operational fighters. unless F-18E is able to be fitted with CFT and wing tip self defense capability. it will be lessor of fighter.

nonsense
you should look up the range of F-18E vs F-16
in term of air to air missiles load , here is what a F-18C can carry
http://www.dreaming-wings.jp/media/3dcg/fa-18/fa-18c_14.jpg
F-18E is even better
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/fa-18-ef-superhornet9.jpg


Its range, load carrying capacity, airframe life etc.

it depending on exact kind of fighter in question
for example : F-18E have far better weapon load , range than the one like F-16 , Gripen , Mig-29


F-111 to obsolete. Su-34 has that wide cockpit, big hump and long tail. no need for external tanks.

well F-111 have big cockpit too , it even have a weapon bay
and it can fly further than Su-34 , so obviously it is superior if we follow your logic


it is not at top of the mountain. read this why it is located at such height for joint system.
http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_05_31/Russia-preparing-to-launch-Okno-space-surveillance-system-at-full-capacity-2695/

:sleeping: so now you compare a radar system to a optical system ? :sleeping:
and what make the Russian system superior again ?


you can use group action by sending 10 fighters and bombers with jamming pods fully updated. Ship simply cant be updated fast.

bomber , fighter cannot really be upgraded fast either , and their have size and power constrain much more than a ship


there is no evidence of saturated attacks anywhere.

But you have no evidence that the only launch 1 missiles at a time either , so what your point ?


Is tomhawk has antiship role as Bation System based on Onyx. can tomhawk be integrated with fighter aircraft.

actually there was a version of tomahawk that can be used by aircraft , and there was anti ship version too , however they was canceled
NSM , JSM , RBS-15 , AGM-84 , Exocet , LRASM ..etc all can attack ship and can be carried by aircraft
anyway Onyx cant be carry by fighter either


it is not low RCS but high power supply of engines and ability to carry heavier external jammers that make it more effective.


http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=231760&d=1410975559
jamming power required will decrease in the same rate as RCS reduction
take example of 4 aircraft :
1) B-52 : RCS = 100 m2
2) Mig-31 : RCS = 10 m2
3) Mig-35 : RCS = 1 m2
4) F-35 : RCS = 0.001 m2
now compared them :
from B-52 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.999% =>99.999% less power require
from Mig-31 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.99%=>99.99% less power require
from Mig-35 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.9% =>99.9% less power require
so again a very powerful enemy radar : if F-35 need 5 kW jammer to shield it's radar reflection with noise signals then Mig-35 will need a 5 MW jammer , Mig-31 will need 50 MW jammer , B-52 will required 500 MW jammer , you can argue that bigger aircraft can carry more powerful jammer but remember even the SPY-1 only have power of 5 MW


there is not place for single engine fighter in 21st century battles. See Saudi airforce all twin engine fighters.

many country have single engine fighter , such as F-16E , Gripen , F-35 ..etc

why it hasnt been upgraded.

Unnecessary , budget spend on aircraft that need upgrade more than F-22


i doubt there is new engine upgrade in development.

look at upgrade program for F-35


its sufficient for single theatre war.

BS nonsense again
so if any other countries have low number of aircraft then it is not sufficient
but when it come to Russia it always enough ?


your physics knowledge maybe much less than those who built Brahmos.

True but Iam sure i have more knowledge about physic than you


and they restrict they the range of Brahmos to 300km due to MTCR.

nonsense assessment without any offical source or physical evidence to back up

it does not matter. it can only intercept at few kms. it cannot intercept cruise missiles that will right pass through it at distance.

THAAD , SM-2 , SM-6 , PAC-2 ..etc intercept missiles from long distance all the time , learn to use google

you need AWACS to see overhorizon. See the AESA upgrades to helicopter and E-2D.

AWACs does not see over radar horizon
i really doubt that you understand what is radar horizon or what caused it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon

They are supplied on land bases where food grow and energy and water is available. not standing in middle of ocean and receiving blows and blows of missiles.

As if ground base never been attacked :sleeping:

They may intercept few at very short distance. You simply not understanding the meaning of word distance.

you have provide no evidence to show that they can only intercept missiles at really short distance
in fact THAAD , SM-2 , SM-3 intercept missiles at extreme distance all the time

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 2,014

:highly_amused:

In other news, Lionel Messi enjoys a bit of football and Joe Satriani's pretty nifty with a guitar.

:p i expected him to be somewhat better now as he been here for quite long , but he clearly still a troll :p