By: djcross
- 6th February 2017 at 02:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seriously, the more you try to demonstrate me the feasibility of the concept, the more I'm happy about the decision of my own air force to keep the Tornado ECR...
If, it launch you say? By in the time the first bomb has made two kilometers a SAM would have just emptied all its canisters...
Your scenario assumes the SAM can launch all its missiles while undergoing a coordinated electronic attack from four F-35s. Good luck with that.
By: garryA
- 6th February 2017 at 02:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it's limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.
Let's add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple
SDB II , JSM , SPEAR all have 2 way data link. Which mean they can be re route in flight. Even when not emitting the location of SAM can be updated by SAR/GMTI mode of APG-81 and EOTS. This is particularly easy if their initial location has been discovered once they transmit. The sensors on those missiles/bomb such as IIR , MMW radar , SAL are all useful against moving target too
The released speed from F-35 can be expected to be around Mach 0.8 or 980 km/h, the crusing speed of those bombs/missiles can be expected to be higher than that due to gravity, but for the moment let take the 980 km/h value. If those bombs/missiles are released from 80 km. It would take them approximately 80/980*60 = 4.89 minutes to reach destination
AFAIK, it take around 15-30 minutes for those long range double digit SAMto be set up, take off, so bombs will reach target before they have time to go
How about mobile SAM like 9K330 Tor ?.Let say the SAM truck can move at speed of 50 km/h, in 4.89 minutes they still only move about 4km from initial location , simply not enough to out run the bombs
By: garryA
- 6th February 2017 at 02:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
as for a pantsir plinking down glide bombs, yes, if they can nail a mach 4 harm or a maneuvering fighter,
or grenade shells, they better be able to plink down glide bombs
Yes , but how many at a time ?
Modern cruise missiles can be programmed to approach target from multiple direction, due to their very smal size their RCS isn't so big either
Then there are development for something like this
Short range but very small and can be carried by big amount, very suitable for stealth aircraft
By: Ozair
- 6th February 2017 at 02:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about mobile SAM like 9K330 Tor ?.Let say the SAM truck can move at speed of 50 km/h, in 4.89 minutes they still only move about 4km from initial location , simply not enough to out run the bombs
Probably less reaction time than that given the Tor is unlikely to know it is being directly targeted until the weapon is a lot closer.
By: garryA
- 6th February 2017 at 03:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably less reaction time than that given the Tor is unlikely to know it is being directly targeted until the weapon is a lot closer.
Yes i know, but i was trying to make a point so i simplified it to ease calculation. It very unlikely that the SAM truck will be able to move at 50 km/h constantly
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 6th February 2017 at 04:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SDB II , JSM , SPEAR all have 2 way data link. Which mean they can be re route in flight. Even when not emitting the location of SAM can be updated by SAR/GMTI mode of APG-81 and EOTS. This is particularly easy if their initial location has been discovered once they transmit. The sensors on those missiles/bomb such as IIR , MMW radar , SAL are all useful against moving target too
The released speed from F-35 can be expected to be around Mach 0.8 or 980 km/h, the crusing speed of those bombs/missiles can be expected to be higher than that due to gravity, but for the moment let take the 980 km/h value.
nah...a glide bomb like SDB goes around half the speed of a powered subsonic speed missile,
or can be higher depending on descending rate,
i think you should focus on powered missiles for any kind of SAM suppression,
unless you switch to cheap UAV swarming attacks,
but even then, having them carry a supersonic/hypersonic missile vastly improve penetration probability,
and the number can be reduced accordingly
By: djcross
- 6th February 2017 at 05:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Desert Storm was 25 years ago. Many of the lessons have resulted in new technologies being incorporated to fix the shortfall of TERCOM aided dead reckoning navigation employed by ALCMs of that era. Today's missiles use an IR terminal seeker and GPS-aided navigation to improve accuracy. To use a 25 year old report to prove new tech will not work is an act of desperation.
New
Posts: 645
By: Scar
- 6th February 2017 at 05:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I didn't get it. Why should the system, which main purpose is to engage and shoot down PGM's - just run from them?!
By: Marcellogo
- 6th February 2017 at 08:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JSM , SPEAR both have engine
Anyways , even if SDB II move at Mach 0.6 only, it doesnot change my point that much.
AFAIK, SAM and AA cannon have rotten accuracy too, Ex: in Vietnam war , SAM accuracy was something like 3%
You are keeping to put into equation systems that are actually still in development and compare it against system like Sa-2...
Comparison were between system actually existing and in operational use.
In any case the system that you cites are also them missiles , at this point it would take much less time and effort to integrate existing ARM missiles on the F-35.
Neither my point is changed, we are discussing there about F-35 used like an escort for 4gen strike pack, so before the two bombs from the first F-35 (because they would be in different places in the case given, not in a single pack launching them all together) came halfway, half the escorted ones have received their own present.
I would stick to the post of Bring on it this time, it seems me the most equilibrate of all...
By: Marcellogo
- 6th February 2017 at 08:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Your scenario assumes the SAM can launch all its missiles while undergoing a coordinated electronic attack from four F-35s. Good luck with that.
And have you an idea of the jammers, concealment measures (chaffs, flares and IR resistant smoke generators) and the Shorad/Ciws systems that any russian battery of modern medium to long range SAM carry with them just by default?
You would need much more than luck to engage them with weapons that would take between five and ten minutes to reach them.
Now, I declare here myself to completely agree with the above mentioned, realistic and unbiased, post of Bring_on_it and let the rest to the one that are just interested in a zero sum male reproductive organ measurement contest and so expect all of you, respected and serious debaters as all of you are, to do the same.
By: garryA
- 6th February 2017 at 08:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are keeping to put into equation systems that are actually still in development and compare it against system like Sa-2...
Comparison were between system actually existing and in operational use.
Desert storm is over 27 years ago, various systems that were used in desert storm either been heavily upgraded or will not be used in future. If you want to judge the capabilities of future cruise missiles from Desert storm statistics, then it would only be fair to judge capabilities of SAM through previous conflicts.
Neither my point is changed, we are discussing there about F-35 used like an escort for 4gen strike pack, so before the two bombs from the first F-35 (because they would be in different places in the case given, not in a single pack launching them all together) came halfway, half the escorted ones have received their own present.
If F-35 working as escort for 4th gen, it would either work as a stand in support jamming assets or a SEAD/DEAD assets that fly much closer to the threat compared to the strike formation.
By: Marcellogo
- 6th February 2017 at 09:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Desert storm is over 27 years ago, various systems that were used in desert storm either been heavily upgraded or will not be used in future. If you want to judge the capabilities of future cruise missiles from Desert storm statistics, then it would only be fair to judge capabilities of SAM through previous conflicts.
If F-35 working as escort for 4th gen, it would either work as a stand in support jamming assets or a SEAD/DEAD assets that fly much closer to the threat compared to the strike formation.
About the second leg of your post, again: we were talking about highly mobile pop up systems, not SA-2 like system you know the position days in advance.
If you put the SEAD/DEAD escort forward they would strike in the rear, if you put them all around they would concentrate them on just a side to overload it.
In any case, for those missions, Growlers/Tornado ECR all the time!
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 6th February 2017 at 10:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wouldn't the jet attacking ground targets use a sniper pod to verify or at least ID the target.
Cause as you say, just flipping HARM's away, what happens if the targets go dark again.. what can guide the Harm then and where?
That might have worked against the AGM-45 Shrike.. Current ARMs have a built-in GPS module and inertial navigation unit with laser gyro that allows it to accurately pinpoint the location of the radar emitter and hit it even if the radar has been turned off in the meantime.. Allegedly the systems are accurate enough to achieve a purely kinetic kill against a non-emitting target..
By: bring_it_on
- 6th February 2017 at 10:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The AARGM has a built in GPS/INS, terminal millimeter wave seeker in addition to anti radiation homing. This for both strike against no emmitters and to counter shutdown tactics. The ER version will retain this. The USAF has upgraded some of its HARM inventory to include the HARM Control Section Modifications that add GPS/INS as well.
At the moment, the USN has the AARGM at rate production. That procurement (modification) program will finish in 2023 when the last of the 2475 missile POR is delivered. AARGM-ER is scheduled to complete development in 2021 upon which time the contractor is to deliver LRIP missiles for developmental testing. It is assumed that they'll enter into rate production for the ER variant in 2023 when the AARGM contract delivers on its missile modifications.
The USN has AARGM-ER integration with the F-35C as a threshold capability for that weapon system, so by default, the USAF will get access to an integrated ARM if they wish to acquire it. They have their own wish list and there was some talk about looking at an ARM in the recently concluded AS2030 study. Whatever the case may be there will be an option available and there will be missiles in the inventory. Same goes for most partners and FMS customers. The only roadblock is going to be the long list of US and international weapons that need to be integrated. While that may impact integration timeline but it is still a good problem to have as it gives options going forward. Orbital ATK describes the AARGM-ER as a strike weapon and will likely market it as such even for those that do not necessarily wan;t an ARM. It could be the only F-35 compatible supersonic strike missile for a long time until the Hypersonic weapons are delivered years down the road. Even the standard AARGM is currently slated for F-35 C External integration although the Navy could well skip it in favor of the ER.
About the second leg of your post, again: we were talking about highly mobile pop up systems, not SA-2 like system you know the position days in advance.
If you put the SEAD/DEAD escort forward they would strike in the rear, if you put them all around they would concentrate them on just a side to overload it.
In any case, for those missions, Growlers/Tornado ECR all the time!
Even the most mobile pop up SAM are still ground assets. Their speed/mobility is no where comparable to an airplane. In other words, they have to get in their location before the strike platforms come. Once the strike mission starts, let say if stealth aircraft are in the front, non stealth in the back. Your mobile SAM cannot move behind the aircraft formation to flank them.Moreover, once discovered the SAM battery have to fight back, they can't out run a missile or bomb.
In terms of tactical flexibility, aircraft really take the cake here
By: Mercurius
- 6th February 2017 at 11:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US will have reverse engineered the S-400? Are you sure you are ok, Mercurius?
Given that US engineers successfully reverse-engineered the S-75 (SA-2) during the 1960s, is it reasonable to think that for some reason the US DoD would have decided not to repeat this process on subsequent Soviet/Russian SAMs?
When I say 'reverse engineered'. I am not implying that the resulting hardware was a 'Fan Song' look-alike - the US system was installed in a building, the antennas were located under a radome, and the entire system was heavily instrumented in order to provide data for analysis during trials in which it was pitted against US jammers. So I would not expect an S-400 'copy' to look anything like the hardware it is mimicking. Much of the simulation would probably be done digitally rather than in hardware. And that is all that I feel comfortable saying in an open forum.
While the US built its SA-2 equivalent based on the limited information available from intelligence reports and elint, it would be in a much better position when mimicking the S-400. Despite what JSR says, the S-400 is heavily based on the S-300. For example, despite claims in the Russian press that the 'Grave Stone' radar of the S-400 is an AESA, in practice it retains the PESA configuration of the older hardware from the S-300, but probably using more modern phase-shifter technology (and that information comes from someone who has seen the S-400 radar).
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 6th February 2017 at 13:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You write as if it is as easy to reverse-engineer a modern system as one from the 1960s.
By: Mercurius
- 6th February 2017 at 14:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I made no suggestion that the task of emulating or a modern SAM system is an easy one, but given that all modern missile programmes include within their overall cost the task of creating computer modelling of the weapon that is accurate enough to be used as a substitute for a major portion of traditional flight testing, creating such a model is obviously a task that can be done that can be done for a fraction of the cost of creating the hardware.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 6th February 2017 at 02:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Your scenario assumes the SAM can launch all its missiles while undergoing a coordinated electronic attack from four F-35s. Good luck with that.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th February 2017 at 02:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SDB II , JSM , SPEAR all have 2 way data link. Which mean they can be re route in flight. Even when not emitting the location of SAM can be updated by SAR/GMTI mode of APG-81 and EOTS. This is particularly easy if their initial location has been discovered once they transmit. The sensors on those missiles/bomb such as IIR , MMW radar , SAL are all useful against moving target too
The released speed from F-35 can be expected to be around Mach 0.8 or 980 km/h, the crusing speed of those bombs/missiles can be expected to be higher than that due to gravity, but for the moment let take the 980 km/h value. If those bombs/missiles are released from 80 km. It would take them approximately 80/980*60 = 4.89 minutes to reach destination
AFAIK, it take around 15-30 minutes for those long range double digit SAMto be set up, take off, so bombs will reach target before they have time to go
How about mobile SAM like 9K330 Tor ?.Let say the SAM truck can move at speed of 50 km/h, in 4.89 minutes they still only move about 4km from initial location , simply not enough to out run the bombs
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th February 2017 at 02:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes , but how many at a time ?
Modern cruise missiles can be programmed to approach target from multiple direction, due to their very smal size their RCS isn't so big either
Then there are development for something like this
Short range but very small and can be carried by big amount, very suitable for stealth aircraft
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 6th February 2017 at 02:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably less reaction time than that given the Tor is unlikely to know it is being directly targeted until the weapon is a lot closer.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th February 2017 at 03:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes i know, but i was trying to make a point so i simplified it to ease calculation. It very unlikely that the SAM truck will be able to move at 50 km/h constantly
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 6th February 2017 at 04:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
nah...a glide bomb like SDB goes around half the speed of a powered subsonic speed missile,
or can be higher depending on descending rate,
i think you should focus on powered missiles for any kind of SAM suppression,
unless you switch to cheap UAV swarming attacks,
but even then, having them carry a supersonic/hypersonic missile vastly improve penetration probability,
and the number can be reduced accordingly
i think you should read up on GAO summery of desert storm,
the cruise missiles had so rotten accuracy so the entire text was censored out
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126574-GAO-summary-of-Desert-Storm
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 6th February 2017 at 05:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Desert Storm was 25 years ago. Many of the lessons have resulted in new technologies being incorporated to fix the shortfall of TERCOM aided dead reckoning navigation employed by ALCMs of that era. Today's missiles use an IR terminal seeker and GPS-aided navigation to improve accuracy. To use a 25 year old report to prove new tech will not work is an act of desperation.
Posts: 645
By: Scar - 6th February 2017 at 05:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I didn't get it. Why should the system, which main purpose is to engage and shoot down PGM's - just run from them?!
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th February 2017 at 07:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JSM , SPEAR both have engine
Anyways , even if SDB II move at Mach 0.6 only, it doesnot change my point that much.
AFAIK, SAM and AA cannon have rotten accuracy too, Ex: in Vietnam war , SAM accuracy was something like 3%
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 6th February 2017 at 07:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A dual role CUDA could be a good idea too to saturate radar defenses. 8 missiles onboard. Wishfull thinking at this point for sure.
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 6th February 2017 at 08:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are keeping to put into equation systems that are actually still in development and compare it against system like Sa-2...
Comparison were between system actually existing and in operational use.
In any case the system that you cites are also them missiles , at this point it would take much less time and effort to integrate existing ARM missiles on the F-35.
Neither my point is changed, we are discussing there about F-35 used like an escort for 4gen strike pack, so before the two bombs from the first F-35 (because they would be in different places in the case given, not in a single pack launching them all together) came halfway, half the escorted ones have received their own present.
I would stick to the post of Bring on it this time, it seems me the most equilibrate of all...
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 6th February 2017 at 08:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And have you an idea of the jammers, concealment measures (chaffs, flares and IR resistant smoke generators) and the Shorad/Ciws systems that any russian battery of modern medium to long range SAM carry with them just by default?
You would need much more than luck to engage them with weapons that would take between five and ten minutes to reach them.
Now, I declare here myself to completely agree with the above mentioned, realistic and unbiased, post of Bring_on_it and let the rest to the one that are just interested in a zero sum male reproductive organ measurement contest and so expect all of you, respected and serious debaters as all of you are, to do the same.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th February 2017 at 08:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Desert storm is over 27 years ago, various systems that were used in desert storm either been heavily upgraded or will not be used in future. If you want to judge the capabilities of future cruise missiles from Desert storm statistics, then it would only be fair to judge capabilities of SAM through previous conflicts.
If F-35 working as escort for 4th gen, it would either work as a stand in support jamming assets or a SEAD/DEAD assets that fly much closer to the threat compared to the strike formation.
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 6th February 2017 at 09:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Desert storm statistic? I? What? Who?Where? When? Why?
About the second leg of your post, again: we were talking about highly mobile pop up systems, not SA-2 like system you know the position days in advance.
If you put the SEAD/DEAD escort forward they would strike in the rear, if you put them all around they would concentrate them on just a side to overload it.
In any case, for those missions, Growlers/Tornado ECR all the time!
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 6th February 2017 at 10:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That might have worked against the AGM-45 Shrike.. Current ARMs have a built-in GPS module and inertial navigation unit with laser gyro that allows it to accurately pinpoint the location of the radar emitter and hit it even if the radar has been turned off in the meantime.. Allegedly the systems are accurate enough to achieve a purely kinetic kill against a non-emitting target..Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 6th February 2017 at 10:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The AARGM has a built in GPS/INS, terminal millimeter wave seeker in addition to anti radiation homing. This for both strike against no emmitters and to counter shutdown tactics. The ER version will retain this. The USAF has upgraded some of its HARM inventory to include the HARM Control Section Modifications that add GPS/INS as well.
At the moment, the USN has the AARGM at rate production. That procurement (modification) program will finish in 2023 when the last of the 2475 missile POR is delivered. AARGM-ER is scheduled to complete development in 2021 upon which time the contractor is to deliver LRIP missiles for developmental testing. It is assumed that they'll enter into rate production for the ER variant in 2023 when the AARGM contract delivers on its missile modifications.
The USN has AARGM-ER integration with the F-35C as a threshold capability for that weapon system, so by default, the USAF will get access to an integrated ARM if they wish to acquire it. They have their own wish list and there was some talk about looking at an ARM in the recently concluded AS2030 study. Whatever the case may be there will be an option available and there will be missiles in the inventory. Same goes for most partners and FMS customers. The only roadblock is going to be the long list of US and international weapons that need to be integrated. While that may impact integration timeline but it is still a good problem to have as it gives options going forward. Orbital ATK describes the AARGM-ER as a strike weapon and will likely market it as such even for those that do not necessarily wan;t an ARM. It could be the only F-35 compatible supersonic strike missile for a long time until the Hypersonic weapons are delivered years down the road. Even the standard AARGM is currently slated for F-35 C External integration although the Navy could well skip it in favor of the ER.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th February 2017 at 10:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it was obligatory but alright
Even the most mobile pop up SAM are still ground assets. Their speed/mobility is no where comparable to an airplane. In other words, they have to get in their location before the strike platforms come. Once the strike mission starts, let say if stealth aircraft are in the front, non stealth in the back. Your mobile SAM cannot move behind the aircraft formation to flank them.Moreover, once discovered the SAM battery have to fight back, they can't out run a missile or bomb.
In terms of tactical flexibility, aircraft really take the cake here
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 6th February 2017 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Given that US engineers successfully reverse-engineered the S-75 (SA-2) during the 1960s, is it reasonable to think that for some reason the US DoD would have decided not to repeat this process on subsequent Soviet/Russian SAMs?
When I say 'reverse engineered'. I am not implying that the resulting hardware was a 'Fan Song' look-alike - the US system was installed in a building, the antennas were located under a radome, and the entire system was heavily instrumented in order to provide data for analysis during trials in which it was pitted against US jammers. So I would not expect an S-400 'copy' to look anything like the hardware it is mimicking. Much of the simulation would probably be done digitally rather than in hardware. And that is all that I feel comfortable saying in an open forum.
While the US built its SA-2 equivalent based on the limited information available from intelligence reports and elint, it would be in a much better position when mimicking the S-400. Despite what JSR says, the S-400 is heavily based on the S-300. For example, despite claims in the Russian press that the 'Grave Stone' radar of the S-400 is an AESA, in practice it retains the PESA configuration of the older hardware from the S-300, but probably using more modern phase-shifter technology (and that information comes from someone who has seen the S-400 radar).
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 6th February 2017 at 13:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You write as if it is as easy to reverse-engineer a modern system as one from the 1960s.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 6th February 2017 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I made no suggestion that the task of emulating or a modern SAM system is an easy one, but given that all modern missile programmes include within their overall cost the task of creating computer modelling of the weapon that is accurate enough to be used as a substitute for a major portion of traditional flight testing, creating such a model is obviously a task that can be done that can be done for a fraction of the cost of creating the hardware.