Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: asims33

Given enough time to field two new air-to-air missiles (5-7 years), Russia takes Europe almost every time in simulations, in a matter of days.

Right now, however, they're rebuilding, and are having major production issues doing so.

Link the simulations please

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: victor7

There is a paper out there talking about the Russian military (actually about militaries the world over) and the Russian military is the only one that has strategies built around tactical level nuclear weapons. It's actually built into their main plans and operations.

The Russians would be severely outnumbered versus NATO.

China might be in that apocalypse also.

A nuke strike would destroy an force sized somewhere between a brigade and an army.

Maybe a whole front.

a reply to: asims33

They're non public. They were talked about in a thread here though, I don't remember which one it was however.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Just did a google on it. One of the new missiles is called K-77m. It has special radar fitted on R-77 and that guarantees a 100% kill in a dogfight. R-77 has a range of 160 kms. They plan to put it on Pak-Fa and probably Su-35s.

a reply to: victor7

There is no 100% kill rate, no matter what they say. But it will be a very dangerous missile, especially if used correctly. It will hurt the Legacy fleet immensely.

The other one you won't find, because they haven't officially announced it yet. But I've heard rumors that there's a second one that will be pretty dangerous too.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: victor7

There is no 100% kill rate, no matter what they say. But it will be a very dangerous missile, especially if used correctly. It will hurt the Legacy fleet immensely.

The other one you won't find, because they haven't officially announced it yet. But I've heard rumors that there's a second one that will be pretty dangerous too.

Not sure what simulations you are talking about then..

And as i mentioned previously. NATO answer to any missile is the Hellads program and that IS documented.

While not disrespecting Del's good experience in air warfare, here are few points I found questionable in his "good post" above.

a) FLIP-LAD radar has a detection range of 300 km vrs 240 kms (150 miles) as mentioned in the post. Also it can detect 100 targets not 72.

b) JASSMs being acquired merely 5 miles before SAM site is being too optimistic.

c) SDBs launched from F-22s will travel at supercruise speed of 1.5 mach and travel 60 miles in roughly 3 minutes. Is 3 minutes a lot of time for TORs and Pantsirs to engage.

d) With so many SDBs on the way, the site would most likely move away and SDBs do not have database to keep track intact.

e) HARM missiles fired from 150 kms. Will a Mig-31 be patrolling the area and detect F-15s and shoot its Novator 300 km range missiles? Will that negate F-15s even approaching the 300 km radius. Most probably.

f) Tor missiles have engagement range of 12 km while Hellfire range is 8 km. Newer missile 9NM338 has higher range than 12 kms. That negates the Hellfire option.

g) The cost of 48 JASSMs, 64 SDBs, 8 Harms, 8 Hellfires is easily equal to $75M. Although, in war time money does not matter but amount risked is nearly $500M given each F-15 alone is $50M.

h) There can be a S-300 site in advance to the targeted site. So when F-22s fly towards the target, the advanced site keeps quiet until it receives the data from the targeted site and then goes live and targets the returning F-22s. Each F-22s cost $125M alone. I am sure, given the low fuel levels of F-22s and also really experienced air warfare jockies have many other strategies to try to keep F-22s at a distance.

i) Each Reaper alone costs $18M, 5 of them nearly $100m. Killing off drones is easy business for Russia atleast.

So end of it all $500M is thrown to destroy a site with value $200M with no guarantees. If Russia kills off the US military satellites (even partially) the coordinated attack will majorly lose its sting.

Hence I conclude the following:

a) Russia is way behind in stealth tech when it comes to detect-track-kill. S-300 range on F-22s of 60 miles is not impressive.

b) The only three other force negation or multiplier options available are
1) enhance Russian capabilities in jamming and anti-jamming pursuits.
2) increase the number of point defense goodies like Pantsir/Tor/Buk systems to deny any $1B worth attack as mentioned by Del, on the SAM sites. Increase number of Mig-31s, Su-35s and Su-30s in the inventory.
3) enhance the anti-Satellite capabilities to deny coordination among the attacking forces.

There is a saying, if you want peace then prepare for war. Guess Russians need to get off the vodka bottles and spend more resources of time and money in the right areas.

a reply to: victor7

on my tab at the moment, but I'll hit you up later

a reply to: asims33

They were run by the military, and were posted about in a thread. Against the legacy fleet the new K-77M is going to decimate just about anything it comes up against. It uses an AESA radar, which if used with an LPI datalink from the launch platform, doesn't have to go active with any kind of detectable value until about 12 miles out or so from the target.

There was quite a bit of discussion in this thread. It was said that with a full on 100% Russian surge (with the new missiles), as well as China surging in the Pacific, European Air Forces would be devastated in 28 hours.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I am sure NATO will have to find a way to jam these missiles somehow even if they are as close as 12 miles.

To Del:

Sure would welcome the counter arguments, would be good for the knowledge atleast.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: asims33

They were run by the military, and were posted about in a thread. Against the legacy fleet the new K-77M is going to decimate just about anything it comes up against. It uses an AESA radar, which if used with an LPI datalink from the launch platform, doesn't have to go active with any kind of detectable value until about 12 miles out or so from the target.

There was quite a bit of discussion in this thread. It was said that with a full on 100% Russian surge (with the new missiles), as well as China surging in the Pacific, European Air Forces would be devastated in 28 hours.

Ok this is me ignoring the fact that China's economy would crap out completely if it lost EU and USA as trade partners (which it would)

Can you please link any credible source stating that Russia could come anywhere close to "Decimating" NATO air force in 28 hours?

Please dont link me to a thread. Its very obvious that many people dont know what they are talking about and just spew propaganda.

An addition:

Mig-31BM has radar detection range of 320 kms.

Also its armaments have upto 18 missiles each over 200 kms range.

6 R-37s pack a range of 400 kms.

Seems Russia should right away buy the 29 used Mig-31s that are currently with Kazakstan's Air Force to further boster it air defenses. A group of 4 Mig-31s can offer coverage of 800 kms via datalink.

Although I would image that if US is in the attack mode, it will first take out the Russian satellites........to be fair.

Also

Does Russia have radars deep in its territory that can look more than 1000kms. If so, then finding out that B-1s have launched JASSMs would be much easy and much more time to prepare the 'firing solutions' to cancel them out. Question remains is would these radars be able to find out JASSMs flying at 50 feet from the sea level.

a reply to: asims33

The sources of this simulation are not the kind to "spew propaganda", and have a very good track record of information.

As stated, this is if they get the new missiles under development into production in large numbers, before NATO could come up with a good counter for them in place. Currently, Russia couldn't do it, and everyone knows it. Give them 5-10 years, and no viable counter (which is going to be difficult to come up with), and it COULD be done.

And I'm well aware of HELLADS, but that is not going to be in place before the new missiles could be ready. They're planning demonstrations for this year. It will take 10 years plus to have them on all the aircraft for the US alone, if it were to go perfectly.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: asims33

The sources of this simulation are not the kind to "spew propaganda", and have a very good track record of information.

As stated, this is if they get the new missiles under development into production in large numbers, before NATO could come up with a good counter for them in place. Currently, Russia couldn't do it, and everyone knows it. Give them 5-10 years, and no viable counter (which is going to be difficult to come up with), and it COULD be done.

And I'm well aware of HELLADS, but that is not going to be in place before the new missiles could be ready. They're planning demonstrations for this year. It will take 10 years plus to have them on all the aircraft for the US alone, if it were to go perfectly.

I read 2 pages of your thread and didnt see any credible source for the 28 hour number just a couple guys who favor Russia throwing numbers out.

You really think those fancy new missiles are going to reliably lock onto F-35 and F-22 at BVR? All the while the lastest block of F-15 has Radar equal to the latest Russian Radars with the AIM 120D missiles.... This is also not factoring in the 6th gen planes that are in development... NATO already has missiles that are as dangerous in the 120D. Im not saying this missile you speak of is not dangerous but its not a war winner by itself.

Look man, we can do this all night but if you think that one air-to-air missile means NATO loses then this isnt worth my time.

go to www.globalfirepower.com...

The total number of fighter aircraft for NATO this is ONLY air to air aircraft is 3700

Russia has 763

So... 763, most of which are out dated are going to somehow "Decimate" 3700 aircraft in 28 hours?

Lets add china to this

China has 1170 95% of which are REALLY outdated

So thats a total between both of 1933

So now i ask, how is 1933 going to destroy 3700 in 28 hours?

And again this is me forgetting the fact that China would most likely say # off to Russia considering China's economy would crumble if it lost USA and EU as trade partners.

Hellads is expected to be operational before 2020 and yes it will take 10 years to outfit the aircraft but do you honestly think this wouldnt be rushed if there was a large war that broke out? Come on man...

Last point... Even if all 700 Russian fighters were to head into NATO airpsace with these new missiles... Who is defending the flank from the US Pacific fleet?

Until you show me a credible source for that "Simulation" its all propaganda bull #. Even with a 3k aircraft advantage i wouldnt even say NATO could take out Russian airforce in 28 hours so its completely nuts to say the reverse is true.

a reply to: victor7

No such critter as a 100% hit missile. Or they'd be, as one member put it, hittles .

I'm old enough, though barely, to remember how, when the first air to air missiles were used in Vietnam were going to be the end of the dogfight... Yeah. How'd that work out again?

Any tech. can be spoofed. That's proven again, and again, all over the world.

The US military would do well to relearn that lesson...again.

a reply to: asims33

Those guys do anything but "favor Russia", unless you're saying that you disagree because you "favor the West".

And they were talking about the CONVENTIONAL fleet. There wouldn't be many F-35s, and there aren't many F-22s, and even if there were, if Russia were able to hit the bases in the UK, and that region, there wouldn't be anywhere for them to operate from.

Personally, I trust my sources that agree with that, and this is a worst case scenario, as so many military plans are designed to be. There are ways that Russia could hammer the hell out of NATO forces with these missiles. They don't have to destroy all the fighters, just where they can operate from. Punch holes in the defenders, and hammer their bases, and suddenly you have a useless fighter fleet sitting on the ground.

But hey, it's just Propaganda, since everyone knows Russia isn't a threat, and won't be. Believe it, don't believe it, it doesn't matter much to me. I simply tossed something out that came from sources that I have come to trust.

originally posted by: victor7
An addition:

Mig-31BM has radar detection range of 320 kms.

Also its armaments have upto 18 missiles each over 200 kms range.

6 R-37s pack a range of 400 kms.

Seems Russia should right away buy the 29 used Mig-31s that are currently with Kazakstan's Air Force to further boster it air defenses. A group of 4 Mig-31s can offer coverage of 800 kms via datalink.

Although I would image that if US is in the attack mode, it will first take out the Russian satellites........to be fair.

Also

Does Russia have radars deep in its territory that can look more than 1000kms. If so, then finding out that B-1s have launched JASSMs would be much easy and much more time to prepare the 'firing solutions' to cancel them out. Question remains is would these radars be able to find out JASSMs flying at 50 feet from the sea level.

Those figures for the Mig is for AWAC sized targets, not small fighter jets and certainly not stealth jets. If your SU-30s cant do it im sure your Mig cant.

Im sure Russia has radars deep in its territory but those are fixed based radars... Easy pickens for HARM. The JASSM is stealth, unlikely that the radars would see them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: asims33

Those guys do anything but "favor Russia", unless you're saying that you disagree because you "favor the West".

And they were talking about the CONVENTIONAL fleet. There wouldn't be many F-35s, and there aren't many F-22s, and even if there were, if Russia were able to hit the bases in the UK, and that region, there wouldn't be anywhere for them to operate from.

Personally, I trust my sources that agree with that, and this is a worst case scenario, as so many military plans are designed to be. There are ways that Russia could hammer the hell out of NATO forces with these missiles. They don't have to destroy all the fighters, just where they can operate from. Punch holes in the defenders, and hammer their bases, and suddenly you have a useless fighter fleet sitting on the ground.

But hey, it's just Propaganda, since everyone knows Russia isn't a threat, and won't be. Believe it, don't believe it, it doesn't matter much to me. I simply tossed something out that came from sources that I have come to trust.

What you require to trust something and what i require may be different. I do obviously favor the west but numbers dont lie my friend. I have no clue why you think Russia would be so successful other than a forum thread you linked me to in which one person said they could kill NATO air force in 28 hours because of this new missile lol.

Show me a reliable source of that and i will agree but i know for a fact that its complete bull crap. 760 fighters 500 of which are out classed by most NATO fighters and somehow you think those numbers could defeat 2k NATO aircraft... Boggles my mind.


I mean what is NATO doing in this simulation? Running around with their hands on their head? What do you mean without many F-35s? You mean if it happened today? Your missile isnt in production today... how fair is this argument lol?

Russia always does this... here is my new anti-air and its un-stoppable meet the s-300, then a rafael flies directly over the damn thing with a simple SPECTRA jamming system and the s-300 cant even get a lock.

Your latest SU-30s come to Red Flag with the Indian airforce and Russia says how unstoppable they are and the F-15s have no problems with them. The F-22 literally decimated them.

Why do you have so much faith in Russia? No one is discounting it, no one is saying Russia isnt a threat but to pretend like NATO is not a threat is completely laughable. The USA could handle Russia on its own WITHOUT NATO, imagine with...

a reply to: asims33

The F-35 is looking at IOC for one version by 2015, and the C model not until almost 2019. They won't reach FOC until after 2020. They're paying for them at a rate of roughly 34-38 a year, and actually cut the numbers being bought next year. Just how many do you think they're going to have operational if something were to happen in 5 years? Not a huge number. They're calling for the K-77 to be entering service in 5-7 years.

No, I don't have that much faith in the Russians. I do however believe in not UNDER estimating an opponent either. Yes, it has been shown that the S-300, and the Su-30 aren't as good as hyped, but that's happened with Western technology too. That can happen to anyone.

I'm not ready to say "Oh, Russia sucks, and the US could easily whip them in any fight", just because right now they are hurting militarily. It's been proven many times that under estimating a foe can and does come back and bite you in the ass.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: asims33

The F-35 is looking at IOC for one version by 2015, and the C model not until almost 2019. They won't reach FOC until after 2020. They're paying for them at a rate of roughly 34-38 a year, and actually cut the numbers being bought next year. Just how many do you think they're going to have operational if something were to happen in 5 years? Not a huge number. They're calling for the K-77 to be entering service in 5-7 years.

No, I don't have that much faith in the Russians. I do however believe in not UNDER estimating an opponent either. Yes, it has been shown that the S-300, and the Su-30 aren't as good as hyped, but that's happened with Western technology too. That can happen to anyone.

I'm not ready to say "Oh, Russia sucks, and the US could easily whip them in any fight", just because right now they are hurting militarily. It's been proven many times that under estimating a foe can and does come back and bite you in the ass.

But this is where you are misunderstanding me.

No one here underestimates Russia, especially not me. I have stated over and over that a war with Russia would be very very bad for everyone but i get tired of seeing people say stuff like "Nato would lose its airforce in 28 hours" when that is the furthest thing from the truth.

Russia is strong and a dangerous enemy but this new missile and the s-400 doesnt mean NATO would lose. I am only here explaining that NATO has very dangerous answers to the Russian air defense question and this new missile wont be effective against the F-35 if it can even achieve what Russia claims which as i have already pointed out, is almost always over hyped.