S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?!

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
In Kosovo, NATO did bomb the Serbs into submission.

Only because they started bombing the civilian infrastructure - a war crime, NATO killed more Serb civilians than serbia killed Kosovar civilians - because they were already through the military infrastructure and had it very difficult to actually destroy much military hardware. The claims of the number of tanks destroyed during the war by NATO and what was discovered to be destroyed afterwards reads like a good joke.

Well Simon its called colatteral damage you obviously have no proof of what ur talking about and have no proof.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by urmomma158]

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Um, bull. Russians have often sent thousands of advisers and soldiers into conflicts, especially to their allies in the Middle East.

It's 'bull' only when you but cold war propaganda and assume that the CIA were in fact telling the truth ( OMG!!!) for once. Fact is there has never been much evidence for all those Soviet advisors much as they convinced you to believe it.You will find it funny that the American trained or backed advisors were normally far more numerous and active in the third world than the USSR ever were. I suggest you reset your cold war induced mind and go right back to the start.

Right. This doesn't apply to Russia and China, right? Or Iran? I'm sure America doesn't have any clue where they have positioned their defenses...

Since the defenses are mobile they can and will be moved on 5 minute notice which anything in the SA-10 range can do these days. Please research the situation if you want to understand what i am talking about here.

You have no source. I've provided a source. Guess what? It's now your turn to show otherwise.

I have supplied the sources for my claims so far and if you have a specif claim you want backed just say so. Until such time please back your claims on request.

Problem being here, the enemies are still able to destroy all their targets. If they can do that, the SAMs certainly aren't doing their job.

Let's start this from the bottem then. BAsically you know there is Sam's in the area ( they were scanning the skies 15 minutes ago) but you proceed right over them and continue the strike on target because they are not currently actively scanning you ( but listening for your radar emmisions) and thus pose no threat? The defenses can be actived at any time and in Kosovo it was proven thar the Harms always did/would arrive at the radar site some time after the target of the Sam site was fired at and either hit/evaded the missile on it's own.

In the end, as noted above, enemy SAM fire brought down only two aircraft (both American), thanks to allied reliance on electronic jamming, towed decoys, and countertactics to negate enemy surface-to-air defenses.37 However, NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb IADS, and NATO aircraft operating over Serbia and Kosovo were always within the engagement envelopes of enemy SA-3 and SA-6 missiles—envelopes that extended as high as 50,000 feet. Because of that persistent threat, mission planners had to place such high-value surveillance-and-reconnaissance platforms as the U-2 and JSTARS in less-than-ideal orbits to keep them outside the lethal reach of enemy SAMs. Even during the operation’s final week, NATO spokesmen conceded that they could confirm the destruction of only three of Serbia’s approximately 25 known mobile SA-6 batteries.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

3 out of 25 confirmed destroyed? Now on the hand of what the claimed they destroyed in terms of Serbian fround forces we know that 3 might in fact not have been destroy either if they were lying about this as they were about the ground forces killed. Fact is that fixed targets could not have been defended with the limited means they had. NATo could simply shift air assets onto targets and simply overwhelm defenses, if any, or shift forces to targets less well, if at all, defended thus always staying ahead of the game and avoiding casualties. The fact that Serbian air defenses could largely stay in tact and thus making targetting Serb forces ineffective was the best they could ever hope for and that is exactly what they pulled off this in the only way such a limited air defense system could. To suggest anything else is to day dreaming and thus bashing away at a strawman i did not help build.

Well the fact that we took to the air alone ( considering what we were up against) proves that it's hard to quantify success. Does the book state how effective the penetration of the air defenses was or are you assuming that flying over ' enemy airspace' will intimidate them into surrendering?

Um, right. They penetrated the air defenses. They flew over the space with impunity. The statement is clear. You are just desperately trying to spin this.

In Kosovo, NATO did bomb the Serbs into submission.

No i am stating that they flew as much as they wanted yet could not achieve the destruction or large scale interdiction of Serbian forces on the ground. There is nothing the Serbs could have done with what they had to prevent the penetration of their airspace and to have foolishly tried to resist it might have destroyed a few dozen planes but probably at extreme cost to their air defense weapons. They would thus have given NATo a public bloody nose but would then have very little left to keep NATo planes at altitude ( thus making them largely ineffective against ground forces) leading to far more damage to their ground units. In such a situation a statesmen picks survival and that's what they did. In the end it was not NATO bombing of the Serb forces but the bombing of Serbian civilian and industrial works that forced them to a settlement. If you do not understand that much you have not done your homework.

Once again, tell this to the Iraqis. Their forces were shot to peaces. An invading force of Russians would have been chicken shoot.

The Iraqi's were fighting in the desert which is a entirely different thing to start with without even considering how effectively( apparently not very) they employed their weapons. Whatever in fact happened to the Iraqi forces due to NATO air power should not however lead you, or anyone else, to 'logically 'assume that that is the norm when that has not been shown to be the case. All We have learned from the past is that a defense without option, other than survival, can not in the end do much against overwhelming enemy air power even if they are good/lucky enough to survive it. I have outlined what happened in each of those conflicts and the evidence indicates that the ground forces of each side were normally at fault thus giving the enemy oppertunity to systematically destroy the air defenses. Air defense is passive and if defense is all you got, against a superior enemy no less, you aint got nothing at all.

SAMs can survive, huh? They didn't in Kosovo,

Well they apparently did in Kosovo and why do you not read the source material suggesting as much?

or Iraq. They were ineffective when the Syrians used them.

They were NOT ineffective when used by either sides as i suggested and we are still dealing with the minority cases ( superior air forces going up against inferior opponents). What would you have them do if not defend themselves with Sam's when it is clear that going air to air is a far far worse option anyways? Sam's do what they can but given their limitations and a complete absence of effective air force of your own they should not last and it's surprising to see that they can manage even that.

Your reference to Iranian and Iraqi naval battles is stupid and irrational. Let's assume for a second there were any major naval conflicts during the war. Neither side had the anti-missile defenses of the Western navies.

Oh that them not having those system logically leads to those systems being able to stop missiles? Logic? According to the date we have so far seen cruise missiles are just very effective against ships and it's not like western navies never had to contend with them either.Do soms research!

The genocide was stopped. Peacekeepers were put in.

Tell that to the dead civilians who were not threatened by anything but NATO bombs. The aim of the NATO intervention ( it's a lie anyways) was to stop the killing but the killing escalated after they started bombing. You can call that effective if you want but i do not consider it such.

Sam's did not fail in every major war? Where do you get that from anyways? Germany lost WW2 before middle 1944 ( they were fighting on 4 fronts if you count skies over Germany when the strategic bombing campaign started focusing on REALLY bombing Germany) last i checked there is still a North Korea so that was 'losing' considering the South invaded the north and in Vietnam i did not see the US sticking around forever either. Air defenses played their part in all these conflicts and the US always had the time and resources to absorb the losses, learn some lessons and build another 2 planes for every one destroyed. Few if any other nations can in fact do that and to suppose this as standard for assuming Sam's are ineffective is plain wrong on a global scale. The fact that the US has the massive air force is does makes air superiority almost a given in most conflicts but that would simply not have been true against the USSR thus making their Sam's far more effective. I enemy that can operate his SEAD forces without having to worry about enemy planes has won rather more than half the battle and yet they could not manage that in Kosovo.

The point here is the effectiness of SAMs. What you fail to mention is that the West had air superiority in all of those wars.

The absence of effective opposing air forces ensured that with NATO/American numbers they could fly at certain heights with the right defenses and escape being shot down. That is fine but having a air force fly so height to avoid losses makes it largely ineffective in interdicting ground forces in Western Europe type enviroments where the enemy can hide and hide well. Deploying Sam's in the desert is not what the Russians had in mind with their weapons to start with.

What you now are trying, or would have to argue, to make your point is that air superiority doesn't determine the outcome of the war. This in itself is irrelevent. This is about SAMs vs. planes, or stealth planes in particular.

Well you might want it to be only planes vs Sam's ( complexity avoidance system on it seems) but that is not war and that is not what this thread is about. The thread is about what Sam's can or will have to do vs planes to serve their purpose in the bigger war plan. If you do not understand the relationship your the one trying to turn this thread into the infantile 'Planes vs Sam's' discussion that so many people on the internet love engaging in. Such battle's do not exsist in a 'real war (TM)' scenario.

Israel had inferior equipment? That's complete nonsense.

Go study your history then if you want to argue the point. Israel won it's survival with a patchwork of weoponry that you will not believe.

I've already cited an example of Russian defenses being manned by mercenaries from Eastern Europe. They didn't do any better.

Mostly made up by the CIA to help scare people to death about the USSR trying to take over the third world ( for some reason).

Can anyone explain why Russian had to build up its air defenses? Why did they rely so much on SAMs?

Their Sam's are dual use meaning they can be used against planes or cruise missiles or ballistic missiles. They had Sam's causes planes can not be everywhere at once and especially not everyone to defend ground forces from hostile aircraft. Strike aircraft attack the enemy and the fighters protect them or interdict enemy strike fighters as far as they can. Sam's are point defenses for self defense in case your fighters are not around.

It was because they basically conceded that the West would gain air superiority over the battlefield. They were looking for a means to neutralize the threat to their ground forces from the air.

If you plan well you plan for all contigencies and it is entirely possible that the Russian air force might not have been able to prevent enemy interdiction very effectively or around the clock which is why you have on the spot defenses that works at all times. Tactical nuclear weapons used would have shut down large numbers of air bases on both sides thus making Sam's very important for round the clock defense.

Sweeping away the Russian airforce wouldn't have been easy, but both sides expected the West to win the war in the air.

Well the planes themselves may not have been inferior but training and doctrine might certainly have resulted in a Soviet air force that would have lost in the long run. A air force is however only there to serve the ground forces and if they can prevent the enemy from seriously interdicting their own ground forces, even at the cost of their own destruction, for a given time they would still have been effective. The USSR deployed more than ten thousand Sa-5/Sa-10 missiles ready to fire ( on launchers) in 1989 and most of those were in fact for strategic defenses and thus would not even have taken part in the invasion of Western europe.

Stellar

once again stellar you are making baseless claims the cia is lying just

becauseyou dont want to believe what disturbed deliverer says. You have no

proof other than your own speculation. Sure samsare mobile it doesnt mean

they're invincible FLIR or good MMW will detect it. Even if you shut off the

radar the new generation of arms switch on their radars to home in.

Your claims of nato lying have no basis in fact other than your stupid

assumptions ( half of them which have no facts such as your beliefs on

propoganda) O yes america is filled with liars and eatern block nations are

lttle angels (yea right). Most of your post is an argument full of

baseless opinions that you dont even bother

to state sources for or adress people when people respond to those claims and

fill them with rhetoric not facts,sources, or any proof simply your own

speculation. Anyways the genocide was stopped and you werent providing proof

otherwise and trying to stray away pieces of the argument away. Not only that you make baseless claims of nato getting a bloody nose (ACgetting shot down).

[edit on 11-4-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by urmomma158]

looks to me like this thread is won im just posting it to move it up and attract any more people to post on this thread. Well Steallar do u have any thing else to say.

Originally posted by urmomma158
looks to me like this thread is won im just posting it to move it up and attract any more people to post on this thread. Well Steallar do u have any thing else to say.

Well it takes a great deal of time to deny ignorance and you just happen to have more of it that i have time to cure you from it and while i do love trying it's hardly interesting for me to discuss a topic with someone who has a great deal of trouble simply putting his ignorance in words i can make sense of. If you could brush up on your English that might take me a long way towards helping you with your multitude of problems.

Stellar

[edit on 15-4-2006 by StellarX]

my ignorance?!?!? At least Me and others provide factual things unlike you who gives totally Bs scenario'sand baseless claims and nothing but rhetoric. you obviously seem to be very anti US and very pro russian to me. tsk tsk tsk baselsss ntions are not even worth putting intoa post which you obviously do.

Originally posted by urmomma158
yes but stealth is only detectable at short ranges around the sams.

Given you know exactly where the Sam site is which is NOT a given with such highly mobile systems to say nothing of their shorter range counterparts which moves even faster. Your scenario assumes active static radar sources that sticks around to be destroyed when that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

HARMs and cruise missiles will soften the sams uo .

Harms and cruise missile's can be shot down just like anything else and you still have to know where to fire them at which makes cruise missiles extremely ineffective against anything AT ALL mobile

The S-300 grouping features several different types of missiles built to strike at everything from low-flying drones and stealth cruise missiles to high-altitude reconnaissance airplanes and distant sensor platforms. Arrival of these systems in the arsenals of military foes will greatly complicate US operations, which continue to depend heavily on non stealthy aircraft and will for years to come.

Gen. Richard E. Hawley, the now-retired former commander of USAF's Air Combat Command, told an AFA symposium in February that these new SAMs, if deployed in numbers large enough to create overlapping zones of engagement, would figuratively present "a brick wall" to nonstealthy fighters,

www.afa.org...

Not true the F/ 22 has all aspect stealth and its wideband only wavelengths about the sme size or larger will detect it unlike the F 177. All aspect means all sides not just the front and sides. . like i said stellar do u have any proof that it is high on the backside.

What makes you for one moment thing that the F-22 can be more stealthy than the F-117 even in theory? Provide your sources if you find anything. It is just basically impossible to do all aspect stealth without seriously affecting performance and since this is a high performance plane it's kinda obvious what was done to achieve that.

A JSf is optimized for A2g and wil alert the F/A 22 and other JSf's to fire HArms, cruise missiles etc SAMS can only last for so long.

Data linking is something Sam's can do as well with one radar being sacrificed ( not really required but a option) to get tracking data on multiple planes. There is no specific reason why modern mobile Sam's can not survive a long time as was indicated in Kosovo. Their mere presence affects the battle so much that they do not even have to shoot down airplanes to protect ground forces.

The upgraded F/A 22 air to ground refers to better SEAD weapons.

Maybe after 2012 at which point one can wonder what the Russians will have cooked up in response. Are you always going to focus on what could be done instead of what has been shown to happen? The meager air defenses of the Serbian forces managed to make NATO attacks against ground forces completely ineffective and that was without any Modern Sam's

No matter how advanced your SAM gets the same concepts towards radar still apllies. How about more sources indicating the F/A 22 will slaughter the S400.

Which means Sam's have a decent survival rate depending on what their mission requirements is. If they are simply there to protect ground forces their mere presence is enough to make aggressive low altitude bombing too risky in most circumstances. They will never come up against each other in isolation as that is just not how modern warfare works.

The US AC have been good in the past, that statement u provided exposes your lack of knowledge. look at the F 15 and F 16. The F 15 has bever been shot down in A2A engagement.

So what does that mean exactly considering all the things it could be taken to say? How many Su-27's have been shot down in Combat? You make it very hard for me to take you seriously when you make such arguments. Why is not getting shot down proof of anything specific?

Anyways remember when the SA 5 came out it was supposed to be to counter the SR 71 but failed to shoot them down over so many missions.

As i said there are rather specific reasons it would have a hard time even if it was designed with that purpose in mind.

SAMS havent proven to be all that reliable The Sa 5 has been one example. Anyways it max altitude is only 90,000 feet any conventional jet goign 100,000 feet such as an SR 71 will bypass it.

And what are the plane going to do at 100 000 feet beside survive?

Simple steallar if yu cant discriminate that bee from all the other billions of ones how will u noe which one to fire at.

It will not be easy to shoot down low RCS planes but your once again assuming the US air force having more information than it has shown to have. As i said Sam's are not supposed to be all alone even if it seems that they can survive even that when operated in the right way.

besides under the cover of the ABl and JAmmers the SEAD aircraft will destroy the sam once it turns on.

If there is a sead aircraft with the right weaponry to actually put on target before the enemy shoots you down anyways. You should check the Record in Kosovo where it normally took almost a hour to respond to radars being turned on when the sead aircraft were not flying specific suppression missions to escort ground attack planes. Do you know what sort of resources it takes to fly half a dozen DIRECT strike support aircraft ( not including tankers ) just to do the suppression work for strike package numbering even less? It simple takes time to get it all together and that makes it very easy for ground forces to move around and escape interdiction.

u asked when the new AHrm will come its in 2 years 2008. you probably didnt even bother to read the link.

It MAY come on line at that time with limited production IF it does not fall by the wayside as many programs do. Sam technology wont be standing still either. I read all your links however useless and irrelevant they are.

The janes source u provided doesnt conflict at all where does it state the S400 is better than the raptor. It only says it will cause problems even with Stealth Ac they cause problems since only B 2's and F 22's are the only ones that can operate safely and the altest cruise missiles.

I never suggested the S-400 in isolation would be well advised to take on the F-22 ( once it gets it's upgrades SOMEDAY) but said that the balance is slowly be RESTORED with air forces catching up with passive defenses. Read the link till that makes sense to you.

Also these sams are mobile and only the JSF's front has a low enough RCS. The F/A 22 and B 2 are not necessarily made for A2g against moving targets but i dont see why they cant take them out.

Well it comes down to risking 200 million dollars or 2.2 billion dollars against air defenses complexes that cost fractions of that. Economy of scale would dictate that in a 'fair' fight ( which the US always avoids - and rightly so for fighting fair is fighting stupidly-) Sam's could likely make interdiction against ground forces very expensive in terms of money spent to kill.

their mobility is a problem also these long rnage sams hamper Awacs and other vital Ac like global hawk that are usefu; for avoiding colatteral dmage. The F/A22 and B 2 will bait them to get em active and stay put and then strike.

Which will take a great deal of time which would enable them to get away. The Us employed almost all it's SEAD strike assets IN THE WORLD and that was still not enough. The Europeans have nothing like it so they would not even have been able to do anything like what NATO could at least attempt. There are very few if any powers in the world that can fight even the older 70-80's type Sam defenses effectively and even those that can do so mostly be avoiding the fight to start with.

First and Only 24/7/365 All-Weather Stealth Fighter

* Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems

And even the British claim they can track such aircraft?

* Signatures/emissions of sound, turbulence, and heat that can aid detection are reduced
* Requires no direct assistance from electronic support aircraft that may be more easily detected

Who will suppress multiple targets and provide data on them so that you do not have to expose yourself?

* Includes planform alignment of the wing and tail edges, radar-absorbing sawtoothed surfaces, an engine face that is concealed by a serpentine inlet duct, "stealthy" coating cockpit design to minimize the usually substantial radar return of pilot’s helmet
* Through internal weapons placement, the F-22 eliminates multiple surface features that could be detected by enemy radar

While your not firing or employing weapons your no danger anyways and when you do your in the same kind of trouble as you were before in the oldest fighter in the world. The defenses you will be firing at will shut down and another on your flank or rear will light you up and launch. If your stealth depends on keeping a low profile ( in this case not killing anything) in general that also means your not contributing.

The F-22 provides "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" transformational air dominance capability for the 21st Century - it can see the enemy first while avoiding detection itself.

But the moment it chooses to employ weapons it endangers itself? Now i am sorry but in a 'real war'(TM) trying to kill the enemy ( he will have ample time to shoot back) should not negate your massively expensive airframe.

* When we meet the enemy, we want to win 100-0, not 51-49

Which is what anyone would like to achieve but where is the evidence suggesting that is close to happening?

* The F-22 will be able to get to the fight faster and engage the enemy longer
* Parity or inferiority in air dominance is unacceptable; either one means more friendly casualties and a longer, more uncertain campaign. The American people do not want an even match; they want decisive, overwhelming superiority and minimum casualties with no protracted conflict

And since the US has never managed that despite having every advantage it could possibly get i doubt they will get close now that the nation is entirely bankrupt.

* Downsizing U.S. forces means that in future conflicts, at least initially, we are likely to fight outnumbered – making the revolutionary capabilities of the F-22 essential for national security

At that price of the F-22 the only reason the US will be outnumbered is because the planes cost so many more times as much as anything the enemy is likely to use. Is that a logical reason to want a massive technological edge ( maybe) in the vain pursuit of trying to avoid casualties for stupid political reasons? It's just illogical and the American people will , as always, suffer for it.

Stellar

Nothing is impossible. All weapons meet their match some day, just like all countermeasures are outsmarted. Stealth isn't stealth in the ways it will need to be in the next 10-20 years. Radar and electronic sniffing, plus heat and infrared and other spectrums are not the only ways of detecting the presence of objects anymore. We now have magnetic sensors, audio sensors, and many more things that can detect and identify even human beings of flesh and blood, much more aircraft and other objects. Don't dream yourself away in your "missile-outrunning"-hypersonic stealth planes, because we already have missiles that can do mach 8 plus, and don't give me the "well a missile will never be able to be CONTROLLED at mach 8 plus!" well neither will an airplane! I think a missile that can sense its movements visually or electronically at several thousand times per second, will be a LOT more able to fly and maneuver like a bat out of hell, when tracking a plane operated by a human being who can only sense where they are navigating to at 24 frames/times per second. That missile will out-turn you before your brain registers it has done anything. Patriotism has never saved anyone. heheheheh.

[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire preceeding post]

The B 2 is designed to get past magnetic sensors stealth will be used for a long time. audio sensors?!?! u [Mod Edit: removed derogatory comment] sound waves move at mach 1 while the F/A 22 supercruises at mach 1.7. You obviously dont seem to be a very knowledgeable person to me. Well since the hypersonic planes will be ucav's they will be able to pull so many more G's that a pilot wouldnt be able to take. Visulally?!?! you have to be within visual range and lets not forget adaptive camouflage which makes planes invisible visually. Patriotism wont win you your war but it can help at least. Besides detecting something is not necessarily enough to shoot it down it has to be accurate as well.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/16/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by urmomma158
my ignorance?!?!?

What would you want me to call it if not that?

At least Me and others provide factual things unlike you who gives totally Bs scenario'sand baseless claims and nothing but rhetoric.

The 'factual things' you provide is part of the problem since they have as much to do with conjecture as fact. Now your working on the false premise that if the US air force can take on most Sam defenses in the world this is in fact some kind of standard everyone could achieve? Since your basic premise if false everything else you have so far tried to think up has been skewed using that very bad logic. One nation having a absolutely MASSIVE air force does NOT logically lead to air defenses being useless as much as it shows that numbers, training and superior employment matters WHATEVER your up against. The only country on earth wich the current scenario could have been properly tested against was the old USSR as they had a air force AND all the air defenses on the same scale.

you obviously seem to be very anti US and very pro russian to me. tsk tsk tsk baselsss ntions are not even worth putting intoa post which you obviously do.

If i was "anti American" ( Who isn't these days?) i would not be trying to warn Americans against their corrupt government who is slowly running the American armed forces into the ground. I am sorry that you are so short sighted and consider every criticism to stem from hatred or such base motives instead of taking it for what it could be.

Stellar

Originally posted by urmomma158
The B 2 is designed to get past magnetic sensors stealth will be used for a long time. audio sensors?!?! u idiot sound waves move at mach 1 while the F/A 22 supercruises at mach 1.7. You obviously dont seem to be a very knowledgeable person to me. Well since the hypersonic planes will be ucav's they will be able to pull so many more G's that a pilot wouldnt be able to take. Visulally?!?! you have to be within visual range and lets not forget adaptive camouflage which makes planes invisible visually. Patriotism wont win you your war but it can help at least. Besides detecting something is not necessarily enough to shoot it down it has to be accurate as well.

I'm not an expert on the B2, so that may very well be, but it's by no means a super-plane anymore. AND QUIT CALLING PEOPLE IDIOTS! READ THE RULES!

And I was not speaking about PLANES only, I am talking FULL SPECTRUM here. You don't seem very knowledgeable to ME. In fact your nick makes me believe you joined just to shoot your mouth. In which case I refer you to my signature line.

"Well since the hypersonic planes will be UCAVs..." You don't seem to have ANY knowledge. You seem to believe that ALL hypersonic planes will be UCAVs, but that is not the case at all. And a long range hypersonic bomber like Aurora will not be great at handling, it will relie on speed and "stealth" and operating altitude to not be spotted, and if spotted to accelerate away, relying on outranging missiles, not outrunning like in a race. If you are moving at mach 12 and the missile chasing you is moving at mach 12.5, If it is fired at you from say, 10 kilometers away, it's still gonna get you and kill you in 30 seconds, and WAY LESS if that missile reaches, say, an unofficial mach 18 when using the calculated mach-speed at the altitude that YOU calculated YOUR maximum mach speed of mach 12 for, which is 80'000 to 120'000 feet, and we understand that you were bragging, then you are in WAY over your head, and about mach 6 behind on the evolutionary scale.

Visually invisible? Do you think -PEOPLE- (and: ) will be using the spectrum visible to HUMANS to spot planes and ships??

"..It has to be accurate as well.." YEAH, you could start by being a little more accurate yourself! I know more about this than you do, at least.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Christian IX]

The topic of this discussion is:
S400 Triumf SAM counterstealth?!?!?!





When posting to this thread please refrain from personal attacks and derogatory comments.






Thank you.

calm down there i was simply pointing out that audio sensors are ineffective to detect the F/A 22. Well of course i know there will be manned hypersonic planes but its not about being faster than the missile just denying the enemy reaction time.

Originally posted by StellarX Given you know exactly where the Sam site is which is NOT a given with such highly mobile systems to say nothing of their shorter range counterparts which moves even faster. Your scenario assumes active static radar sources that sticks around to be destroyed when that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Ever hear of the RC 135 rivet joint locating them will not ne as difficult and i told u about mmw radar and the JSf''s EOTS which you kepp out of your scenario which will loacte the sams.

Harms and cruise missile's can be shot down just like anything else and you still have to know where to fire them at which makes cruise missiles extremely ineffective against anything AT ALL mobile

True but not the latest JASSM which is designed for surviving in amodern iads. Besides how stealthy ofa missilecan it take on the JASSM is stealthier than the raptor.
www.strategypage.com...

hat makes you for one moment thing that the F-22 can be more stealthy than the F-117 even in theory? Provide your sources if you find anything. It is just basically impossible to do all aspect stealth without seriously affecting performance and since this is a high performance plane it's kinda obvious what was done to achieve that.

Yous eem to be ignorant of the latest advances instealth its not as difficult and alredy exists.
aimpoints.hq.af.mil...

Data linking is something Sam's can do as well with one radar being sacrificed ( not really required but a option) to get tracking data on multiple planes. There is no specific reason why modern mobile Sam's can not survive a long time as was indicated in Kosovo. Their mere presence affects the battle so much that they do not even have to shoot down airplanes to protect ground forces.

Well so can the JSF and F 22 as well as all other AC involved.

Maybe after 2012 at which point one can wonder what the Russians will have cooked up in response. Are you always going to focus on what could be done instead of what has been shown to happen? The meager air defenses of the Serbian forces managed to make NATO attacks against ground forces completely ineffective and that was without any Modern Sam's

Well ive shown that the F 22 doesnt need the upgraded capability to defeat it. It has nothing to do with surviveability and upgrades wont save you from the JSOW or JASSM etc.

Which means Sam's have a decent survival rate depending on what their mission requirements is. If they are simply there to protect ground forces their mere presence is enough to make aggressive low altitude bombing too risky in most circumstances. They will never come up against each other in isolation as that is just not how modern warfare works.

Well duh they are surviveable i never said they werent but they arent the unfindable vehicles you are putting them out to be.

So what does that mean exactly considering all the things it could be taken to say? How many Su-27's have been shot down in Combat? You make it very hard for me to take you seriously when you make such arguments. Why is not getting shot down proof of anything specific?

I was simply pointing out the F 15 as wellas other AC have been sucessful in response to waht you were saying.

As i said there are rather specific reasons it would have a hard time even if it was designed with that purpose in mind.

It can still shoot down AC which it failed to do even though its altiude was too much for the SA 5. When detected not one was shot down.

And what are the plane going to do at 100 000 feet beside survive?

Attack surface targets and threaten the msot heavily defended spots.

It will not be easy to shoot down low RCS planes but your once again assuming the US air force having more information than it has shown to have. As i said Sam's are not supposed to be all alone even if it seems that they can survive even that when operated in the right way.

Well waht are you trying to say. That doesnt conflict with my statement even.

If there is a sead aircraft with the right weaponry to actually put on target before the enemy shoots you down anyways. You should check the Record in Kosovo where it normally took almost a hour to respond to radars being turned on when the sead aircraft were not flying specific suppression missions to escort ground attack planes. Do you know what sort of resources it takes to fly half a dozen DIRECT strike support aircraft ( not including tankers ) just to do the suppression work for strike package numbering even less? It simple takes time to get it all together and that makes it very easy for ground forces to move around and escape interdiction.

What are you trying to say. If your sam goes away that leaves me free to attack. And it also depnds how far away the AC are.

It MAY come on line at that time with limited production IF it does not fall by the wayside as many programs do. Sam technology wont be standing still either. I read all your links however useless and irrelevant they are.

Well it doesnt advance that fast in 2 years its already 2006. Well they shed some light on weapons you didnt know about ( my links). your links talk fo past failures and you use that do discredit newer and different weapons and tactics which are very different.

I never suggested the S-400 in isolation would be well advised to take on the F-22 ( once it gets it's upgrades SOMEDAY) but said that the balance is slowly be RESTORED with air forces catching up with passive defenses. Read the link till that makes sense to you.

Passive defenses are not accurate enough for targeting. well duh hey will cause problems who said they wouldnt be difficult targets. I read the article. besides upgrades wont save you .

Well it comes down to risking 200 million dollars or 2.2 billion dollars against air defenses complexes that cost fractions of that. Economy of scale would dictate that in a 'fair' fight ( which the US always avoids - and rightly so for fighting fair is fighting stupidly-) Sam's could likely make interdiction against ground forces very expensive in terms of money spent to kill.

economics are not at all relevant to what i said.Stop trying to stray away from the issue.

Which will take a great deal of time which would enable them to get away. The Us employed almost all it's SEAD strike assets IN THE WORLD and that was still not enough. The Europeans have nothing like it so they would not even have been able to do anything like what NATO could at least attempt. There are very few if any powers in the world that can fight even the older 70-80's type Sam defenses effectively and even those that can do so mostly be avoiding the fight to start with.

Well as soon as they're fired upon they have to move and simply driving away doesnt help you remember active seekers.

And even the British claim they can track such aircraft?

I have heard of the VHF and HF radars aswell as the roke manor. All are not capble of targeting and have major weaknesses that can be exploited and air defenses means sams not things like roke manor. Cell pone towers can be jammed.

Who will suppress multiple targets and provide data on them so that you do not have to expose yourself? The JSf will do that and the F 22 can fight wil little combat support and supress them themselves.

While your not firing or employing weapons your no danger anyways and when you do your in the same kind of trouble as you were before in the oldest fighter in the world. The defenses you will be firing at will shut down and another on your flank or rear will light you up and launch. If your stealth depends on keeping a low profile ( in this case not killing anything) in general that also means your not contributing.

The doors are only open for a split second and the F 22 supercruises good luck hitting it.

But the moment it chooses to employ weapons it endangers itself? Now i am sorry but in a 'real war'(TM) trying to kill the enemy ( he will have ample time to shoot back) should not negate your massively expensive airframe.

Remeber the weapons bays in my above segment of the response.

hich is what anyone would like to achieve but where is the evidence suggesting that is close to happening?

Read the above and it will com automatically .

[And since the US has never managed that despite having every advantage it could possibly get i doubt they will get close now that the nation is entirely bankrupt. We are simply in debt and thats not relevant.

At that price of the F-22 the only reason the US will be outnumbered is because the planes cost so many more times as much as anything the enemy is likely to use. Is that a logical reason to want a massive technological edge ( maybe) in the vain pursuit of trying to avoid casualties for stupid political reasons? It's just illogical and the American people will , as always, suffer for it.

Well you seem to be not adressing the point here and even without it we're still outnumbered.

Originally posted by StellarX What would you want me to call it if not that?

You dont really know what i meant by that now do you?

The 'factual things' you provide is part of the problem since they have as much to do with conjecture as fact. Now your working on the false premise that if the US air force can take on most Sam defenses in the world this is in fact some kind of standard everyone could achieve? Since your basic premise if false everything else you have so far tried to think up has been skewed using that very bad logic. One nation having a absolutely MASSIVE air force does NOT logically lead to air defenses being useless as much as it shows that numbers, training and superior employment matters WHATEVER your up against. The only country on earth wich the current scenario could have been properly tested against was the old USSR as they had a air force AND all the air defenses on the same scale.

I never suggested just because you have a big airforce sam defenses would be useless. All sources we both provide is fact however you dont provide sources to back up your claims properly. Well you dont have to be the enmy to know if your stuff will work or not you only have to know much about his equipment.

If i was "anti American" ( Who isn't these days?) i would not be trying to warn Americans against their corrupt government who is slowly running the American armed forces into the ground. I am sorry that you are so short sighted and consider every criticism to stem from hatred or such base motives instead of taking it for what it could be.

Once again more bull. you have no rpoof that the govt is as corrupt as it is. The same can be said about any govt especially countries which i will not name because i do not want to offend anyone. Well you seem to have a foreigners perception of America and it is usually wrong yes there is corruption but not as much as you are trying claim. The same can be said about any govt. Many foreigners seem to pick America as a huge target for claiming corruption. Just because we have a stupid president doesnt mean our ebtiure govt is very corrupt. The claims you make in some of your posts are full of rhetoric and basless claims that even when they come under fire you cslowly change the subject away because you cannot back the claims up such as the stealth AC having huge rear RCS's and low level pentration of the B 2 which is irrelevant of its actual capabilities.


[edit on 18-4-2006 by urmomma158]

darn i seem to have maken a mistake in a quote in my last posti hop the mods dont get mad. Please mods if you hear this it was an accident.

Originally posted by urmomma158
Ever hear of the RC 135 rivet joint locating them will not ne as difficult and i told u about mmw radar and the JSf''s EOTS which you kepp out of your scenario which will loacte the sams.

These aircraft were used in Kosovo and you know the results achieved/not achieved so why pretend they are some new ace-in-the-hole your introducing? The EOTS will certainly not do anything of the sort and i would LOVE to know what new dimension the EOT system adds that you think will somehow be able to find a Sam batteries early warning radars.

True but not the latest JASSM which is designed for surviving in amodern iads. Besides how stealthy ofa missilecan it take on the JASSM is stealthier than the raptor.
www.strategypage.com...

So where American harm missiles not designed to beat the 1960's Sa-3 and Sa-6 systems? Why do you imagine that the new missile will not be equally ineffective considering it's GPS guidance and now cheap GPS jammers in use? If the USA could not beat 1970's ( and i'm being generous) weapons then what prospect do they have of beating anything designed and built in the last decade? Remember that you are proposing that one new weapon will turn the entire thing around when in fact it took a great part of American SEAD capability to manage as little as they did in Kosovo. The closer you are the less stealth you get and by the time your close to your target your also quite the target for point defense fast firing guns and such weapons IF the enemy is in fact still around. Either way neither the JSF or the F-22 can carry the JASSM internally thus negating their stealth.

Yous eem to be ignorant of the latest advances instealth its not as difficult and alredy exists.
aimpoints.hq.af.mil...

And your sources said nothing i could take to mean that the F-22 was more stealthy ( and isn't) than the F-117 of which one got shot down in Kosovo and another limping home with damage. Were the Serbs just really lucky or was the Royal navy telling the truth when they claimed to have tracked a F-117 at 40 miles with 1960 era radars? Why can you spot stealth planes on radars employing low frequencies? Why do stealthy planes fly into combat with the same package of escort planes other totally non stealthy planes use? What's the point?

Well so can the JSF and F 22 as well as all other AC involved.

But see planes have no meaning if the only thing they are achieving is survival........ If they can not effectively interdict then their survival is a moot point as their doing NOTHING. Sam's, however, do not have to shoot down anything to be effective if the ground forces they are protecting can be covered by their mere presence. Once again your talking about systems that can not even carry the basic harm's so one wonders how the F-22 is going to do any better than the current systems.

Well ive shown that the F 22 doesnt need the upgraded capability to defeat it. It has nothing to do with surviveability and upgrades wont save you from the JSOW or JASSM etc.

Neither of those weapons can be carrier internally thus making you a 200 million dollar target like any other. You might kill one of them ( if they do not shoot down your missiles or dislocate to escape your bombs but first obviously you must actually FIND them and fire first which is apparently not easy considering that half the almost 800 harms fired by the USAF were in fact on mere suspicion of enemy tracking radar activity. Fact is they do not have to give their positions away till you threaten something they protect and when you fire on that the element of surprise is gone and your thus mostly caught with your pants down.

Well duh they are surviveable i never said they werent but they arent the unfindable vehicles you are putting them out to be.

I do not propose that they can not be found at all! What i am saying is that the only way to find them is to pose a threat to something they must protect thus forcing them into action and leading to you having to expose something. The defense simply has the advantage if it needs not move troops around on any large scale which was proven quite effectively.

I was simply pointing out the F 15 as wellas other AC have been sucessful in response to waht you were saying.

Survival is obviously part of success but measuring that against lesser enemies is not accurate imo.

It can still shoot down AC which it failed to do even though its altiude was too much for the SA 5. When detected not one was shot down.

The Sa-5 was a air defenses weapon and those have no reason to fire when nothing they are protecting is under threat. Considering where the SR-71 flew from ( and the fact that it could be tracked ) everything that could be hidden would be hidden before it got there. That all being said as far as i know they pretty much avoided Sa-5 sites as much as humanly possible. Either way feel free to show me evidence that they actually got close enough to Sa-5's to actually be threatened by them.

Attack surface targets and threaten the msot heavily defended spots.

From 85 000 feet and Mach 3? Well that would obviously be great but they were not exactly bombers those and for good reason

Well waht are you trying to say. That doesnt conflict with my statement even.

I does conflict with your statement as you keep insisting that the US can effectively shut down air defenses to bomb ground forces which just did not prove to be the case in Kosovo or for that matter Korea or Vietnam.

If there is a SEAD aircraft with the right weaponry to actually put on target before the enemy shoots you down anyways. You should check the Record in Kosovo where it normally took almost a hour to respond to radars being turned on when the SEAD aircraft were not flying specific suppression missions to escort ground attack planes. Do you know what sort of resources it takes to fly half a dozen DIRECT strike support aircraft ( not including tankers ) just to do the suppression work for strike package numbering even less? It simple takes time to get it all together and that makes it very easy for ground forces to move around and escape interdiction.

What are you trying to say. If your sam goes away that leaves me free to attack. And it also depnds how far away the AC are.

The Sam radar only has to shift 500 meters after it scanned and while it's moving another of the battalion's radars will be ready to take over it's job. Not gap in defenses without even mentioning the short range defenses and their various radars.

Well it doesnt advance that fast in 2 years its already 2006. Well they shed some light on weapons you didnt know about ( my links). your links talk fo past failures and you use that do discredit newer and different weapons and tactics which are very different.

As i said the US air force are not getting stronger and Sam numbers are increasing and getting more lethal . The US could not deal with the Serbs and that type of bad weather and terrain is a far more reasonable than anything that ever happened in the ME wars so many people think in terms of. I am not trying to discredit newer weapons but simply pointing out that If the US/NATO can not win against a 1970's type threat situation how will they cope with a 1990's type one? Did US defense research and weapon technology stand still for 20 years or is it just hard to fight Sam's? Your appealing to future weapons to solve current threats which is what i am strongly objecting to.

Passive defenses are not accurate enough for targeting. well duh hey will cause problems who said they wouldnt be difficult targets. I read the article. besides upgrades wont save you .

So if upgrades wont save the Sam's why will it save the airplanes which are far harder to upgrade? Passive early warning radars are not meant to target but meant to passively warn against air intrusions so that at the best time the tracking radars can be switched on for a firing solution. As i understand you can fire on passive early warning notice and then just switch on the targeting radar for mid course corrections for accurate firing solution. How is that countered?

economics are not at all relevant to what i said.Stop trying to stray away from the issue.

You are stating that airplanes are always better when the Us have always been up against inferior enemies with nowhere near the money power to buy Sam's or air defenses in the same dollar value. IF you do not understand how this is relevant it explains why we wont resolve much anything ever. How can we compare systems if the same amount of cash can not be spent concepts?

Well as soon as they're fired upon they have to move and simply driving away doesnt help you remember active seekers.

What will the active seekers do in your opinion? Are they going to find the radar while moving under tree cover; somehow? Active seekers is great and all but they can be shot down just like anything else.

I have heard of the VHF and HF radars aswell as the roke manor. All are not capble of targeting and have major weaknesses that can be exploited and air defenses means sams not things like roke manor. Cell pone towers can be jammed.

I am not talking about cell phone traffic tracking at all. Why can the enemy not use Low frequency scanning radars to expose the stealth planes? All that wonderful strengths of the SEAD forces came to not much at all in Kosovo but yet you keep pretending it was some kind of fair fight. Imagine if the Serbs had the same money to spend ( that NATO airplanes and infrastructure cost) on a modern air defense and it would have been quite a different affair as military analyst frankly admit to.

The JSf will do that and the F 22 can fight wil little combat support and supress them themselves.

The F-117 needed the same support aircraft as the all the others so why imagine that the F-22 is now going to fly into danger all alone? Where is it even CLAIMED that the F-22 can do all that?

The doors are only open for a split second and the F 22 supercruises good luck hitting it.

Split seconds huh? How will super cruise save the airplane from long range Sam's moving at nearly 3 times it's speed?

Remeber the weapons bays in my above segment of the response.

Yes i am still wondering how you came up with that excuse for a obvious weapon system flaw.

Read the above and it will com automatically .

Non of these technologies are new or unexpected meaning there is not much to talk about. The problem of SEAD have been solved in the last few years thus but could not beat 1960-70's IADS?

We are simply in debt and thats not relevant.

It is extremely relevant and another reason this discussion wont ever go anywhere.

Well you seem to be not adressing the point here and even without it we're still outnumbered.

One can build a hundred F-16's for the price of a B-2 Spirit bomber and in the end probably half a dozen for each F-22 so one has to ask why the complaint is raised that the US will be outnumbered when such silly investments are being made. Why not train your pilots to be better and rely on doctrine and superior strategy to win instead of trying to do it by means of single airframes that might or might not achieve anything?

Stellar

Just to let you know stellar ill reply tommow or the day after. Im sort of busy right now i hate my busy life.

Ok... U all say that stealth detection is a lie etc.. lol btw do u have a radar at home to proof that stealth actually IS as "stealthy" as US says it is?.. Or this is like "What Russians say is bull#, what US says is truth"?.. A F117 Stealth aircraft was shot down during Yogoslavia conflict. How did that happen? It wasn't a fighter of fearsome Yogoslavia Airforce.. It was hit by a missile. How? It was detected. And it was stealth. So? Stealth (at leats on F117) IS a myth. B-2's can't be "tested" like F117 cause they symply never leave hangars.. They are too expensive to risk (what risk if they're undetectable? ) F-22 Just went out and it will be for a while before it enteres some real war... So here you have. Stealth isn't that invisible as US propaganda says it is. Well and WHY is Washington prohibing (trying at least) Russia to sell SAM to Iran?... And those missiles are "TOR-M1" They don't even come CLOSE to S-300 not to mention S-400. If US has invisible "ghost" bombers what are they afraid of? So there IS risk of a Stealth plane to be shot down by some "rubbish" Tor-M1 afterall.. Well I AM sure that S-400 can easily Take a B-2 down cause they aren't so "ghost" as US claims. BTW If u want I can find a article about that "magic radar" that Yugos used to shoot the F117 down in the Balkans.
It was invented like 30 years ago in USSR.