Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

During one of the Red Flag exercises, the Greek pilots had a very hard time gaining a lock on the F-22s, despite being right behind and WVR. There is something that F-22 has that throws off any lock attempted on it.

One missile or two missiles like K-77M or even K-77M tech applied on 400 km range R-37s will not totally change the vast superiority that USAF has over RuAF. They can surely gritten up the defensive fight that Russians can put up if under attack.

While I might be wrong, but it seems S-400 is only a range extension over the S-300 in terms of tracking and missiles range etc. It is not a new generation technology. Just as T-90 tank is a major modification of T-72, not too many new age technologies there. Similar is the case of Mig-35 which is just an upgrade of Mig-29s. Russian R&D went into stagnation or even recession in the 1990s and thus only small upgrade type results.

One other major advantage US has over Russia is in terms of corruption in the armed forces. Highly corrupt Russian military can say and project one thing and in actual time the weapon system or ammo inventories etc. can come out short handed. Has happened many times before.

originally posted by: victor7
During one of the Red Flag exercises, the Greek pilots had a very hard time gaining a lock on the F-22s, despite being right behind and WVR. There is something that F-22 has that throws off any lock attempted on it.

One missile or two missiles like K-77M or even K-77M tech applied on 400 km range R-37s will not totally change the vast superiority that USAF has over RuAF. They can surely gritten up the defensive fight that Russians can put up if under attack.

While I might be wrong, but it seems S-400 is only a range extension over the S-300 in terms of tracking and missiles range etc. It is not a new generation technology. Just as T-90 tank is a major modification of T-72, not too many new age technologies there. Similar is the case of Mig-35 which is just an upgrade of Mig-29s. Russian R&D went into stagnation or even recession in the 1990s and thus only small upgrade type results.

One other major advantage US has over Russia is in terms of corruption in the armed forces. Highly corrupt Russian military can say and project one thing and in actual time the weapon system or ammo inventories etc. can come out short handed. Has happened many times before.

Very true man. Even with all that Russia is a tough enemy.

Lets just hope we never have to see WWIII. I would rather trade with people and get rich

The harm missile has been up graded twice since then.

All good navy missile systems are up graded every time someone counters them. and after every major use.

The latest variant is the AGM-88E AARGM missile.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.navair.navy.mil...

The harm missile system is a china lake system and they take great pride in keeping there systems the best there is.

The 1950s AIM 9 sidewinder missile is at mod X now and they are working on a Block III variant,
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: victor7

Just an point of interest, What is the latest way for verifying kills with BVR missiles in a real air to air engagement?
I assume that in the majority of air war exercises, this is done more or less by the monitoring systems set up in exercises.

But in a real air war scenario, how would credit for BVR kills be given to a pilot?

Also, with the advent of advances in "situational awareness" and "stealth" in air to air combat, would credit be given to the pilot of the firing plane, or would it be given to the stealth aircraft that allowed the kill to happen? I wonder if the shared kills count system would be used.







Thanks in advance

originally posted by: pzkw3
a reply to: victor7

Just an point of interest, What is the latest way for verifying kills with BVR missiles in a real air to air engagement?
I assume that in the majority of air war exercises, this is done more or less by the monitoring systems set up in exercises.

But in a real air war scenario, how would credit for BVR kills be given to a pilot?

Also, with the advent of advances in "situational awareness" and "stealth" in air to air combat, would credit be given to the pilot of the firing plane, or would it be given to the stealth aircraft that allowed the kill to happen? I wonder if the shared kills count system would be used.

Thanks in advance

See if the blip on the radar goes away after impact lol.

In reality, some weapons like the Spice-250 actually take a picture right before impact and send that photo back. But this is only on weapons with active data links. Interesting question man.

Not sure at all about the shared kill question.

originally posted by: victor7
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.

FLAP-LID has a detection of 300kms for targets at altitude. There is a radar horizon. Objects below the horizon will not appear on FLAP LID or anything other than rather low frequency radars. My memory says, 72 because it was multiples of six as I remember. You may be correct, though I'd like to see a source. If you are correct, this number will be for detection. Tracking and targeting phases are completely different. The FLAP LID can engage only 6 targets at a time and only within a 90 degree arc. Which is why low altitude targets arriving from several directions at once can be most effective.

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

I don't believe it is at all. Even a Tomahawk at NOE levels will be picked out ten miles or so from the FLAP LID. You have already stated, however, that the FLAP LID will be running away and not set up and radiating, so I don't see the issue. The JASSM will almost certainly be inside the minimum engagement envelope for the S-300 site when acquired if the site is radiating. The hope left is to acquire, track, and engage the cruise missiles in the 3 mile effective threat bubble the Tor provides before the missiles impact. The success rate of a Tor missile against cruise missiles is not particularly high. I can't imagine it would be higher against a low RCS target.

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.

Certainly. And it's possible some or even many of them will be hit in the even smaller window of time that they are within the engagement envelope of TOR before the others impact targets in the area.

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.

With the site taking up roots and moving away it is no longer a air defense site. It is no longer engaging any of the threats. The SDB will be approaching on a ballistic flight path and using a millimeter wave radar and IR specifically because it is intended for use against mobile targets. I do not believe a S-300 site will be able to move most of its components outside of the basket in three minutes. Even assuming it could, the site is now eight minutes away from firing at another target, all while several threats are inbound with the ability to find those components.

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.

I don't think the Novator will successfully engage a small platform like the F-15. It's not designed for it. It's also not carried by Foxhounds to my knowledge. Could it engage with an Amos or similar? Possibly. It will depend on the proximity of the Foxhounds and the altitudes of the F-15's. Amos is really designed to intercept agile platforms. Then we're back to R-77 vs AMRAAM and I think the F-15 drivers are comfortable, if not exactly ecstatic about that scenario.
We can further assume top cover if there is a threat of enemy air. Will those Foxhounds be able to engage those F-22's or F-15's on equal or advantageous terms? Probably not.

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.

This is possible if the Tor is radiating and making itself a target for the incoming HARMs. Each Tor will be able to engage four targets.

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.

I think I said roughly a dozen JASSMs, but the risk on the ground is even greater. The price tag will never enter into the equation if this scenario becomes a reality.

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.

You can certainly try to set up another site. That is how we lost a F-16 in Croatia. I think this will be difficult to accomplish given current ISR abilities, but it is not impossible.

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

Certainly. The purpose of the Reaper is only to provide real-time ISR and to saturate your air defense. Every radar that targets a Reaper approaching from whichever direction is now focused in that direction and is capable of engaging one less high-value target. They are completely expendable.

So end of it all $500M is thrown to destroy a site with value $200M with no guarantees.

You keep adding financial figures as though it will matter. 100 million for the S-300, 3 launchers, Flap Lid, command vehicle. Half a million per for the dozens of missiles you think are going to intercept all the SDB's (you'll never get enough of them in the air to kill more than a quarter of the threats on the radar screen). 25 million for each Tor that you are apparently planning on using to engage and not run and hide like the S-300 units. 60 million for each Foxhound you are introducing. It adds up quick and not a penny will matter.
There are no guarantees in combat. That's the nature of the beast. In the worst case you could have possibly devised under this one-hand-behind-our-backs scenario, NATO loses dollars and a few F-15s and Reapers while not damaging the S-300 site (which is ridiculous to assume) -- all while suppressing the site so that another mission could be successful in the same area. I have to assume that original mission was worth the cost of admission or the suppression mission would never have been launched. No AEA to degrade your Foxhounds or S-300. No JSOWs adding their destructive payload. No MALs being engaged as ELINT gathers all the appropriate data needed to shut down the radars in the area. No silver bullets or classified platforms. And we still got the job done. Not bad for leaving many of our best toys at home.

The anti-satellite thing is a dead end. I mean, it should be done from Russia's perspective. It will diminish capabilities, but each of those weapons has an inertial system capable of putting you inside a basket and independent sensors for target acquisition when it gets there. The basket is much smaller without GPS, but the weapons don't suddenly stop working or fall out of the sky or stop heading towards the target.

originally posted by: asims33

originally posted by: Zaphod58
No, I don't have that much faith in the Russians. I do however believe in not UNDER estimating an opponent either.
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.

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.

NATO could quite possibly lose a substantial part of the airforce in theatre in 28 hours even without the new missiles. It would depend on the circumstances of the attack and the reaction to it. NATO as a political entity is much more likely to drop the ball than Putin is. If Putin uses force, it will be calculated and sharp. He isn't going to hem and haw about how to best fight the war without offending anyone before reacting.

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: asims33

originally posted by: Zaphod58
No, I don't have that much faith in the Russians. I do however believe in not UNDER estimating an opponent either.
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.

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.

NATO could quite possibly lose a substantial part of the airforce in theatre in 28 hours even without the new missiles. It would depend on the circumstances of the attack and the reaction to it. NATO as a political entity is much more likely to drop the ball than Putin is. If Putin uses force, it will be calculated and sharp. He isn't going to hem and haw about how to best fight the war without offending anyone before reacting.

I will concede that if NATO chooses not to react quickly they would suffer substantial losses in the east. I dont think this would equate to anywhere near the majority of their air force but it would be damaging.

However, in a full blown conflict in which NATO does react accordingly. No one on this board is going to convince me that NATO's air supremacy will be defeated in 28 hours. The only way you will convince me is with reliable sources and again, the new missile that is not proven yet is not a war winner by itself even if it IS as good as they say (which remains to be seen based on Russia's horrible track record of military gear)

Regardless of what NATO does, i know what the USA would do and i dont see any scenario in which the USA sits back and watches while EU gets ripped apart. At this point its all useless arguments though. I came to this thread to outline why the s-400 and TOR systems are not unstoppable and can be overcome with current technologies.

A full blown war with Russia would have a lot more moving parts than air defenses.

Economic sanctions
Naval engagement
Ground engagement
Air engagement
Cyber warfare
Espionage
Covert Missions

the list goes on and on. And after looking at that list i cant see one category that i give Russia the edge on. Most categories they down right lose miserably.

a reply to: _Del_

Regarding FLAP-LID and its radar issues, that is where Mig-31BM comes very crucial. It can field 6 R-37s which have range of 380kms and its radar can look upto 320 kms range to find targets. It also has look down shoot down radar and flies high at more than 60k feet. Seems foxhounds are very crucial for IAD network.

JASSMs: If these are normal range then they are flying in at most from 370kms and LRs at 1000 kms. If they are normal range then B-1 will be spotted by the Foxhound and atleast harassed. It will also get to know the release of the missiles and give good air-sea distance to prepare a firing solution and activate other parts to engage and if needed re-engage the JASSMs. 20 minute time to travel 370 kms it seems at top speed of 600 mph for these missiles.

Ground Sensors: Are the second most crucial part in tracking the JASSMs flight path and hitting them with various tools. Russia has thousands of ground sensors in important places. Btw, just read that F-35s sensor can pick a missile launch from 1200 miles far. That is very powerful. Does Russia have even the sensors that pick from 300 miles, probably so.

Tor and Panstsirs: Engaging 600 mph cruise missiles within 5 mile envelop and that with 60% kill probability is a scary feature for the defense team. Worst Tor can engage only upto 4 targets at a time, while atleast 12 JASSMs are homing in. Let's say there are 2 Tors and 2 Pantsirs with their own radars. I think Pantsirs also have CIWS type feature which can range upto 4kms and fire 2500 rounds per min with very low altitude kill abilities. They also have 700 rounds of variety ammo like HE Fragmentation, Fragmentation tracers. These HE Frags will come real handy when 64 JDAMs are approching. So will 32(16x2)+24(12x2) missiles of 2 Tor/Pantsirs each be able to take out atleast 12 or 24 JASSMs given 50% rate, probably.

F-15s and HARMs: Will Mig-31 be able to pick them out along with sensors and other tools before they fire off the HARMs. Flying low will make them very vulnerable to Iglas launched in multiples. So F-15s w/HARMs can be negated, I think.

F-22s and JDAMs: F-22s can come upto 60 miles near the S-300 battery and release their JDAMs. Mig-31 cannot see them due to being stealth. So no early warning until JDAMs are released and that too 64 in number. Avoiding JDAMs would require moving away of the S-300s and use of GPS jammers to throw them off track. Let's say move away will waste 15% of JDAMs, but they still have INS to home in. That's where HE frags/Frag Tracers/amor piercing tracers of Pantsirs come to high use.

Will few JDAMs slip in and find some targets. Will there be a jamming system on ground to throw off their millimeter wave radars. How much diversion will the decoys provide in protecting the battery. Do Russians have any lasers even short range to add to the defense.

All these make up a very exciting scenario especially in the first few engagements. US does have the advantage of numbers. Will the same IAD be able to withstand another wave of combo attack in next one hour? probably not, although in one hour it will be far away from the current location but that would also mean a temporary hole has been punched in the IAD and B-1/B-2s can slip through for the time being.

Just taking out Satellites from the equation as these can help the attackers in finding out where IAD components have moved and can redirect the missiles/bomb mid course to new coordinates. Similarly presence of SATs will help the Russians in finding out F-22s much early and start the harassment long before the 60 miles and even partially deny the Raptors from releasing their bombs.

No AEA to degrade your Foxhounds or S-300. No JSOWs adding their destructive payload. No MALs being engaged as ELINT gathers all the appropriate data needed to shut down the radars in the area. No silver bullets or classified platforms.

That would also allow to add goodies on the defensive side. But have no doubt that neither defense nor offense would go into battle with partial variables in the equation. That just defies the strategic logic.

Btw, this from wikipedia..............no where it says JDAMs have a milimeter wave radar or IR seeker for retargeting. It does say GPS/INS for guidance systems. Some new one's also have laser seekers now. However the page also says JDAMs can go after mobile targets.

Range is upto 28kms but newer one's do have 80 kms i.e. 60 mile range.


Primary function: Guided air-to-surface weapon
Contractor: Boeing
Length: (JDAM and warhead) GBU-31 (v) 1/B: 152.7 inches (3,880 mm); GBU-31 (v) 3/B: 148.6 inches (3,770 mm); GBU-32 (v) 1/B: 119.5 inches (3,040 mm)
Launch weight: (JDAM and warhead) GBU-31 (v) 1/B: 2,036 pounds (924 kg); GBU-31 (v) 3/B: 2,115 pounds (959 kg); GBU-32 (v) 1/B: 1,013 lb 1,013 pounds (459 kg)
Wingspan: GBU-31: 25 inches (640 mm); GBU-32: 19.6 inches (500 mm)
Range: Up to 15 nautical miles (28 km)
Ceiling: 45,000 feet (14,000 m)
Guidance system: GPS/INS
Unit cost: Approximately $22,000 per tailkit (FY 07 dollars)[4]
Date deployed: 1999
Inventory: The tailkit is in full-rate production. Projected inventory is approximately 240,000 total, 158,000 for the US Air Force and 82,000 for the US Navy. (As of October 2005)

originally posted by: victor7
Btw, this from wikipedia..............no where it says JDAMs have a milimeter wave radar or IR seeker for retargeting. It does say GPS/INS for guidance systems. Some new one's also have laser seekers now. However the page also says JDAMs can go after mobile targets.

Range is upto 28kms but newer one's do have 80 kms i.e. 60 mile range.

JDAM is a kit for a standard bomb. A Small Diameter Bomb is a completely different animal.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: _Del_

JASSMs: If these are normal range then they are flying in at most from 370kms and LRs at 1000 kms. If they are normal range then B-1 will be spotted by the Foxhound and atleast harassed. It will also get to know the release of the missiles and give good air-sea distance to prepare a firing solution and activate other parts to engage and if needed re-engage the JASSMs. 20 minute time to travel 370 kms it seems at top speed of 600 mph for these missiles.

Sure it's possible. Especially if NATO for some reason leaves it's AEA at home. While the Foxhounds are chasing down Bones and cruise missiles and attempting to engage these targets, who is protecting the Foxhounds? You should probably invent some Su-27's for the scenario soon.

Ground Sensors: Are the second most crucial part in tracking the JASSMs flight path and hitting them with various tools. Russia has thousands of ground sensors in important places.

Tracking them, even if it is possible for these systems, is not the problem. Engaging them is. It is a completely different thing.

Tor and Panstsirs: Engaging 600 mph cruise missiles within 5 mile envelop and that with 60% kill probability is a scary feature for the defense team. Worst Tor can engage only upto 4 targets at a time, while atleast 12 JASSMs are homing in. Let's say there are 2 Tors and 2 Pantsirs with their own radars. I think Pantsirs also have CIWS type feature which can range upto 4kms and fire 2500 rounds per min with very low altitude kill abilities. They also have 700 rounds of variety ammo like HE Fragmentation, Fragmentation tracers. These HE Frags will come real handy when 64 JDAMs are approching. So will 32(16x2)+24(12x2) missiles of 2 Tor/Pantsirs each be able to take out atleast 12 or 24 JASSMs given 50% rate, probably.

How long will each JASSM be in the threat bubble of each mobile site. That is the question you need to be asking. Because tracking, targeting, and engaging the targets all take time. 2 Tors will be lucky to engage 2 missiles each in the time that the missile transits their area. A Pantsir can engage and track one target at a time. Assuming it hits a JASSM each time, it also has to change modes, reacquire, retrack and engage a new low observable target. That isn't instantaneous. The success ratios against cruise missiles by a Tor and Pantsir are not encouraging.

F-15s and HARMs: Will Mig-31 be able to pick them out along with sensors and other tools before they fire off the HARMs. Flying low will make them very vulnerable to Iglas launched in multiples. So F-15s w/HARMs can be negated, I think.

I don't know how the Mig-31s are going to "negate" Bones, JASSMs, and the F-15's while staying invisible to the F-22's. Do you?
I'll take the rather less than 25% of a successful engagement by Igla.

All these make up a very exciting scenario especially in the first few engagements. US does have the advantage of numbers. Will the same IAD be able to withstand another wave of combo attack in next one hour? probably not, although in one hour it will be far away from the current location but that would also mean a temporary hole has been punched in the IAD and B-1/B-2s can slip through for the time being.

That's the point. It can be done. Easily in this scenario even without any form of AEA, without MALDs, without JSOWs even. Will NATO lose planes in a pitched battle with Russia? Of course it would. I'm not saying Russia's air defense is useless. New systems like the S-400 are even scarier. The fact is the site can be overwhelmed even without using the niftiest of toys. No site is impenetrable. You can add as many variables as you want, and the site still disappears. You can make it harder. You can cause more damage to Blue Force, but the site still goes down. Add in the shiny new toys and I don't think there's a chance that the air defenses survive a concerted attack.

a reply to: _Del_

I don't think that JASSMs would be allowed to within 5 miles of the site despite flying atleast 20 minutes. The site needs another layer of mobile 4-6 CIWS type system which also armed with IR seeker missiles. These will guard the further out perimeter and offer another layer of defense. Even at $2m a piece they will filter out lots of JASSMs and JDAMs and make it less busy for Tor/Panisters.

Also just found that S-300 can engage 10 targets per minute which means 1 per 6 seconds. This way S-300 alone can take out JASSMs by itself and then relocate. Models like S-300 PMU2 can simultaneously engage upto 36 targets at a time with missiles fired every 3 seconds. Thus it would make more sense for S-300s to be active and meet up the challenge (although real world SAM guys would know better for sure).

For F-15s 4-6 Iglas per plane fired would certainly get hits to keep them out of business.

Below are the facts about targets regarding Pantsirs radar. OptoElectronic can engage only 1 target in addition.
Maximum number of targets can be tracked simultaneously: 20
Maximum number of targets can be engaged simultaneously: 3
Maximum number of missiles can be radio-controlled simultaneously: 4

In addition Tor can engage 4 targets at the same time.

So it seems that it will take lots more than 12 JASSMs to saturate the site defenses.
64 JDAMs can be handled by adding another layer of CIWS type mobile tools which are also armed with IR missiles.
The moment F-22s open their bays for JDAMs they will be lit up and a 'somewhat' idea of their location will have several IR missiles on the way for the "hunt".

In any scenario, it is absolutely imperative for Russia to right away achieve these two goals in the event of hostility with the US.
a) Bomb the F-22 bases and try to take out as many planes. F-22 is the ace in the hole for the US. Stealth is something Russia lag in.
b) Take out as many ACs of US Navy to deny abilities to project force in far away theaters.

To make up for the Stealth, Russia should try to enhance the Electronic Jamming/anti-Jamming abilities as these would keep lots more of firepower in active mode.

Btw, it seems both F-22 and F-35 have way more advanced avionics that can disable and infect the hostile radars. This should also be a point of major concern, as in 2007 Israel used 'virus intrusion' to disable Syrian defenses. Denial of such abilities would force the aggressors to rethink their plans.

a reply to: victor7

NATO will probably have to resort to sorcery to ever have a chance of surviving modern air defense.

a reply to: _Del_

For now, it is Russia which has to resort to 'sorcery' to negate stealth planes from longer distances. The new avionics of US stealth planes can fry up the opposing plane's radar in addition to infecting other radars with virus to render them impotent. S-300/400s can only do so much for defense.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: _Del_

I don't think that JASSMs would be allowed to within 5 miles of the site despite flying atleast 20 minutes. The site needs another layer of mobile 4-6 CIWS type system which also armed with IR seeker missiles. These will guard the further out perimeter and offer another layer of defense. Even at $2m a piece they will filter out lots of JASSMs and JDAMs and make it less busy for Tor/Panisters.

This is pure speculation. How robust are these systems? How good are their radars? What is the terrain? Are Growlers or other electronic attack aircraft in the air?

If the answer to that is that these systems are very robust and in ideal situations, why wouldn't NATO take them out first then go for the higher valued air defense further in?

Also just found that S-300 can engage 10 targets per minute which means 1 per 6 seconds. This way S-300 alone can take out JASSMs by itself and then relocate. Models like S-300 PMU2 can simultaneously engage upto 36 targets at a time with missiles fired every 3 seconds. Thus it would make more sense for S-300s to be active and meet up the challenge (although real world SAM guys would know better for sure).

The S-300 can only hold 8 missiles. This is 8 shots before reloading. A full battalion of s-300 can fire 24 missiles before reloading. Depending on the number of missiles in bound i dont think an s-300 alone stands a chance. Keep in mind, we haven even factored in JSOW or MALDs this is simply JASSM and SDB.

For F-15s 4-6 Iglas per plane fired would certainly get hits to keep them out of business.

Iglas are infa-red. Simple flares used in the appropriate way will significantly reduce their effectiveness. Also, NATO primarily flies at night making it very difficult for soldiers with MANPADs to be effective.

Below are the facts about targets regarding Pantsirs radar. OptoElectronic can engage only 1 target in addition.
Maximum number of targets can be tracked simultaneously: 20
Maximum number of targets can be engaged simultaneously: 3
Maximum number of missiles can be radio-controlled simultaneously: 4

In addition Tor can engage 4 targets at the same time.

So it seems that it will take lots more than 12 JASSMs to saturate the site defenses.
64 JDAMs can be handled by adding another layer of CIWS type mobile tools which are also armed with IR missiles.
The moment F-22s open their bays for JDAMs they will be lit up and a 'somewhat' idea of their location will have several IR missiles on the way for the "hunt".

Again pure speculation. If the air defenses are layered like this, NATO simply takes them out layer by layer. Whats the rush? Its not like Russia can drop 80 million over and over again for new s-300/s-400s to replace them...

JASSMs are not used to saturate an air defense system, they are used to destroy them. MALD is used to saturate them.

As for the F-22, its not going to be used as a ground strike aircraft for one so the idea of it opening a door to release a JDAM is not accurate. More realistic would be F-18 and F-15s doing this roll but if this happens more than 5 years from now it will be F-35s.

Now the idea that a stealth aircraft is observable when it opens its doors originates from Kosovo in which the F-117 was shot down when this happened (this was not the only reason it was shot down by the way). The F-22 is a lot more "stealth" than the F-117 and i would find it very hard to believe that they designed the F-22 with the same flaw.

In any scenario, it is absolutely imperative for Russia to right away achieve these two goals in the event of hostility with the US.
a) Bomb the F-22 bases and try to take out as many planes. F-22 is the ace in the hole for the US. Stealth is something Russia lag in.
b) Take out as many ACs of US Navy to deny abilities to project force in far away theaters.

Both of these are way easier said than done. The Russian bombers and cruise missiles will have a difficult time getting near NATO bases to destroy them. I agree that this is a tactic Russia would have to use but i dont think its an easy one to accomplish given NATO air superiority.

As far as taking out ACs, that is an almost impossible task. They know to stay well out of range of Russian shores to defend against land based anti-ship missiles. The biggest threat would be air launched anti-ship missiles in which case again, NATO will have air superiority not to mention the AEGIS system in the carrier strike groups are more than capable of taking out 5-6 anti-ship missiles launched by a squadron of SU-30s

To make up for the Stealth, Russia should try to enhance the Electronic Jamming/anti-Jamming abilities as these would keep lots more of firepower in active mode.

Btw, it seems both F-22 and F-35 have way more advanced avionics that can disable and infect the hostile radars. This should also be a point of major concern, as in 2007 Israel used 'virus intrusion' to disable Syrian defenses. Denial of such abilities would force the aggressors to rethink their plans.

As i mentioned earlier, there are several factors in a real war environment including cyber warefare. This is an area that cant even be disputed that the USA is far more advanced in than Russia. I would expect power blackouts in Russia, gas lines shut down, banking industry crippled, military computers breached, etc etc...

Again i can only say that Russia is very capable and would not be a push over but this idea that they can hide behind layers of air defenses while launching offensive air attacks is not going to work against NATO.

a reply to: asims33

Idea for layer of CIWS raining in 30mm and HE frags was to deny/divert/destroy the JDAMs launched in numbers like 64, from reaching the main site. If JASSMs are sent to these CIWS then Tor and Pantsirs will engage them. Just looked up, Russia has barely 22-30 Pantsirs, not enough at 1 for every single battery of S-300s. They do have lots of Tor and Buks along with Tungaska. I have mentioned it before, US has both quantity and quality advantage. However taking out layers of Russian air defense would not be like Day 3 against Libya i.e. total air superiority. I would strongly believe that after first attack on the site or its perimeter, it would be wise for NATO air forces to not really come near again soon or in similar manner. Enemy already alerted would be 2-3 times more dangerous and responsive. See a video on 500 kmph railway Maglev train. An item going at that speed or even double can be easily handled by a mach 2 missile, just need the tracking information from the ground, telecommunications sensors. Btw, JASSM has peak speed of 600 miles, so reduce the cruise speed to 500 miles, even half a dozen Iglas can team up for the kill.

Am not sure but I think Iglas have a smart feature that helps them ignoring the flares type diversion.

Russia if aware of MALDs technology will very soon find an answer to negate them. More than a few alternatives available. Why won't Russia be able to put in a MALD type decoy for its sites and other high valued assets. Guess the game becomes reciprocal.

Regarding taking out 'ace in the hole' F-22 bases, it would be very tough but should be priority #1. An Australian defense expert had a whole paper which confirmed that a swam of 24 ASMs will overwhelm the carrier group defenses and achieve serious kills. Question is how will Russia launch the 24 ASMs if these ACs are far away. RuAF has been reduced to local defensive mode and at most would be able to go to Alaska or Koreas to project power. However, if these ACs are far away then power projection of USAF would not be happening also.

The JDAMs and missiles of F-22s are not stealth, hence when bay is opened for release there is an immediate radar return.

Kosovo was stupid nonsense of luck that area was saturated with missiles because intelligence said a certain path was taken by F-117s day after day. The IR feature caught the plane and missile homed in. If Col. Dani had figured out stealth then why did he and others not shoot down dozens of stealth or even legacy fighters. He could have sold his findings to Saddam for $1 Billion and retired in style.

The other main strategy of Russia should be use 10% cost to kill off 100% asset. Hence use $130K to kill off $1.3M JASSMs. Modifying ZSU-23-4s into a strong mobile CIWS can be a very cost effective layer to protect the SAM site. Similarly, S-125 Pechora is still in production while S-300 production has stopped. That's because it was found that S-125s can do the same job for much less costs. Kind of strange but true. Polish upgrades on S-125s are even on sale for third world nations to consider. Pechora-2M is also used to kill off the cruise missiles.

While costs matter a little during high stakes war, but costs do become very loud after certain point. More so when enemy starts to take toll on assets of high value. Regarding blackouts, cyberattacks etc. expect the same in return also.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

Idea for layer of CIWS raining in 30mm and HE frags was to deny/divert/destroy the JDAMs launched in numbers like 64, from reaching the main site.

It would take more than a couple CIWS to destroy 64 JDAMs moving past it. A CIWS usually has a range of maybe 1 mile around it. If this CIWS were a real threat to the mission, they would be added as targets to the mission package. And the senario starts all over, how do you protect the CIWS from JASSM and JSOW so NATO can then go further in an target the higher priority S-300/S-400 site? Again, this back and forth can go on all day long.

I guess at the end of the day the question i should ask you is... How successful do you think Russia would be in a full blown conflict with NATO by hiding behind layered air defenses?

If JASSMs are sent to these CIWS then Tor and Pantsirs will engage them. Just looked up, Russia has barely 22-30 Pantsirs, not enough at 1 for every single battery of S-300s. They do have lots of Tor and Buks along with Tungaska. I have mentioned it before, US has both quantity and quality advantage. However taking out layers of Russian air defense would not be like Day 3 against Libya i.e. total air superiority.

While im sure the TOR and Pantsirs are capable of picking up the JASSM close in, the question is how close and how many JASSMs are on the way? Are their MALD and JSOW in the air too? TOR and Pantsirs are air defense weapons. MALD will stimulate them just like any other site with multiple MALDs in the air the TOR and Pantsir crews would have to hold fire to wait for JASSMs to fly by, not an easy thing to do if you think those MALDs are real F-15s.

JSOW and JASSM are low observable (stealth) missiles. They are not easy to detect and track and if 3-4 were launched at a TOR site it may get lucky and knock one out before being hit but i certainly dont think 1 TOR and 1 Pantsir is enough to stop an assault on a SAM site.

The other thing i think you are forgetting it these missiles fly very low. Due to "Radar Horizon" they would have to fly very close to any of these air defenses to be picked up.

I would strongly believe that after first attack on the site or its perimeter, it would be wise for NATO air forces to not really come near again soon or in similar manner. Enemy already alerted would be 2-3 times more dangerous and responsive.

You are correct here. This is a lesson learned in Kosovo. Not to use the same routes over and over. But keep in mind, in Kosovo NATO was accomplishing missions just like Del pointed out. Stimulate the air defenses while your bombers got through to destroy other military targets. By focusing all this attention on JASSM, MALD, JSOW, Growler, F-22, you are allowing B-2, B-1, F-15, F-16, F-35 in your territory to destroy targets.

See a video on 500 kmph railway Maglev train. An item going at that speed or even double can be easily handled by a mach 2 missile, just need the tracking information from the ground, telecommunications sensors. Btw, JASSM has peak speed of 600 miles, so reduce the cruise speed to 500 miles, even half a dozen Iglas can team up for the kill.

Yes a Mach 2 missile can easily destroy a cruise missile. The trick is tracking the cruise missile. With missiles like JASSM this is way easier said than done.

Just curious, why would the JASSM slow to 500 miles per hour? Also, MANPADs are extremely limited in range. NATO Night missions would be almost unaffected by them. I cant emphasize the importance of low altitude enough. A low flying JASSM will not be visible but for a few hundred feet unless its flying over water or flat terrain. Where do the soldiers aim these MANPADs if they cant see or hear the target?

Am not sure but I think Iglas have a smart feature that helps them ignoring the flares type diversion.

If the missile is IR then flares will be effective.

Russia if aware of MALDs technology will very soon find an answer to negate them. More than a few alternatives available. Why won't Russia be able to put in a MALD type decoy for its sites and other high valued assets. Guess the game becomes reciprocal.

I am sure Russia is aware of them but the MALD carries an electronics package that simulates NATO aircraft. On the radar it looks and flies like other NATO aircraft, they are not easy to tell apart.

Russia using decoy sites is one strategy i expect them to deploy. This was used in Kosovo as well. With Rivets it will be tough to do again but its possible.

Regarding taking out 'ace in the hole' F-22 bases, it would be very tough but should be priority #1. An Australian defense expert had a whole paper which confirmed that a swam of 24 ASMs will overwhelm the carrier group defenses and achieve serious kills. Question is how will Russia launch the 24 ASMs if these ACs are far away. RuAF has been reduced to local defensive mode and at most would be able to go to Alaska or Koreas to project power. However, if these ACs are far away then power projection of USAF would not be happening also.

Killing the Russian High command would be priority #1 for NATO, it doesnt make it any easier or likely to happen in the early stages of war.

Can you provide a link to this paper? And 24 ASMs would be a scary site but i doubt the carrier strike group would let that happen. For 24 ASMs to be launched there would have to be a serious failure in tactics on NATOs part to allow this to happen, for example, getting in range of shorelines or allowing aircraft in range... a lot of aircraft.

The JDAMs and missiles of F-22s are not stealth, hence when bay is opened for release there is an immediate radar return.

While its possible that the F-22 carries a JDAM its very unlikely. The F-22 will be busy cracking the heads of MiGs and Su-30s not attacking ground targets.

Kosovo was stupid nonsense of luck that area was saturated with missiles because intelligence said a certain path was taken by F-117s day after day. The IR feature caught the plane and missile homed in. If Col. Dani had figured out stealth then why did he and others not shoot down dozens of stealth or even legacy fighters. He could have sold his findings to Saddam for $1 Billion and retired in style.

While i agree it was nonsense i do disagree that it was luck. Col. Dani was smart to position his assets where they were.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33


The other main strategy of Russia should be use 10% cost to kill off 100% asset. Hence use $130K to kill off $1.3M JASSMs. Modifying ZSU-23-4s into a strong mobile CIWS can be a very cost effective layer to protect the SAM site. Similarly, S-125 Pechora is still in production while S-300 production has stopped. That's because it was found that S-125s can do the same job for much less costs. Kind of strange but true. Polish upgrades on S-125s are even on sale for third world nations to consider. Pechora-2M is also used to kill off the cruise missiles.

While costs matter a little during high stakes war, but costs do become very loud after certain point. More so when enemy starts to take toll on assets of high value. Regarding blackouts, cyberattacks etc. expect the same in return also.

Playing the cost to replace game is a bad way to go about war. NATO can out spend Russia 300/1. The USA Alone can out spend it over 100/1. You also have to be able to destroy the targets you mentioned which i have already shown is not easy to do.

As far as cyber warfare... Does Russia even have a cyber warfare division? The USA is already involved in small scale cyber attacks with China so we have already found and fixed many problems with our cyber security. I wouldnt expect the same in return from Russia.

a reply to: Bicent76

A-10, is not a good aircraft to send in after a sam. It's heavy, it's slow, it's a huge radar target, it would be dead... Pretty much all modern SAM's ACE an A-10