Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

a reply to: asims33

Russia would need a strategy against the MALDs. I do not have one, do not even know what tech MALDs work on.

In addition allowing JASSMs to enter within 5 miles of site location would be catastrophic, I think. These JASSMs need to be engaged and destroyed within 5 minutes of the launch leaving some time for re-engagement if the first attempt fails. 370 km range missile will take 20 minutes to fly to the site. If S-300 site is 100 kms within the border or coastline then maximum 270 kms is from where these can be air launched. Just few numbers for RuAF to try to deny the "taxi" delivering these weapons packages. Extended Range brands of JASSMs upto 1000 kms are also there but that would give much more time to engage and re-engage them. JASSM top speed is 600 mph and cruise speed is programmed given the mission etc. For a target at a distance of 50 kms, top speed can be used for cruise speed etc.

The defense of the site would be comprehensive coordination. This means when outer layer is busy then inner layers and core are not sleeping in or watching world cup games. Preparing and implementing firing solutions from a given set of variables at hand are a major part of SAM crew's training.

Even if US can outspend Russia 20-1, it would be enough to overwhelm the Russian resources......eventually. That's why I can say that "threat of nukes" is the main deterrent for Russia. With BMDs in place this threat might have been reduced by 50% already. So Russia is in tough spot here and will be much tougher in 5 years or so.

$1 Billion can get upto 60 Pantsirs. But Russians are more busy sending $5B a month looted from state treasury to overseas banks to hide in. Real threat to Russia is its own drunk, corrupt and careless people and culture. US is not a threat unless Russia takes some really offensive posture like attacking a NATO country etc. However, US does enjoy putting external pressure on Russia in hopes to collapse it from internal variables alone.

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.

Again defense is a comprehensive picture of simultaneously working variables. It is not something one at a time type of deal.

Regarding ASMs, consider the situation where Yakhonts become hypersonic like Brahmos II. Chinese already have hypersonic ASM, I think although not sure.

Col. Dani was smart in the sense of "denying" NATO assets a successful kill on this SAM group. There he was smart. Now flooding a 10x10 mile box in the airspace with two dozen SAMs and scoring a hit because F-117 was there is not smart but lucky and that too based on intelligence input from a source within NATO. That's my candid views.

Russians are more advanced than Chinese in cyberwarfare IMHO. Chinese have more intelligence as many of them work for US corporations and get inside information and that's where PLA gets to steal technologies from the US. Chinese are still third world commies.

Btw, IR missiles can now select and non-select the targets they goes after. Adding such feature, if not already, on a MANPAD should be easy. I think that's all to do with sensors etc. Sensors are the deals that can help tracking the cruise missiles even if they flying low and hidden by terrain features.

Also, all this strategies that we are constantly yapping on (although pretty mind involving !!) might only find the trash can space in the real world of professionals and those who are aware of latest advances in weapons. This internet wargaming is at best to feel good about knowing this or that things about warfare...................from the wikipedia sources!! As to if US already has 1000 kms air to air missile would negate all the factors discussed regarding this internet wargaming. Cheers !!

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

Russia would need a strategy against the MALDs. I do not have one, do not even know what tech MALDs work on.

In addition allowing JASSMs to enter within 5 miles of site location would be catastrophic, I think. These JASSMs need to be engaged and destroyed within 5 minutes of the launch leaving some time for re-engagement if the first attempt fails. 370 km range missile will take 20 minutes to fly to the site. If S-300 site is 100 kms within the border or coastline then maximum 270 kms is from where these can be air launched. Just few numbers for RuAF to try to deny the "taxi" delivering these weapons packages. Extended Range brands of JASSMs upto 1000 kms are also there but that would give much more time to engage and re-engage them. JASSM top speed is 600 mph and cruise speed is programmed given the mission etc. For a target at a distance of 50 kms, top speed can be used for cruise speed etc.

The defense of the site would be comprehensive coordination. This means when outer layer is busy then inner layers and core are not sleeping in or watching world cup games. Preparing and implementing firing solutions from a given set of variables at hand are a major part of SAM crew's training.

One thing i think you are continuing to forget is JASSM being stealth. This is not a target you will be able to track 100km out. You wont know its inbound unless it passes a radar site within 10km and that is if you are lucky and detect it.

You are correct that the best course of action here is to deny the taxi of these weapons such as shooting down the aircraft carrying them. But the JASSM can be carried by numerous aircraft including the B-2 which is obviously not very easy to see and detect. The JASSM can also be launched from land or sea.

Even if US can outspend Russia 20-1, it would be enough to overwhelm the Russian resources......eventually. That's why I can say that "threat of nukes" is the main deterrent for Russia. With BMDs in place this threat might have been reduced by 50% already. So Russia is in tough spot here and will be much tougher in 5 years or so.

$1 Billion can get upto 60 Pantsirs. But Russians are more busy sending $5B a month looted from state treasury to overseas banks to hide in. Real threat to Russia is its own drunk, corrupt and careless people and culture. US is not a threat unless Russia takes some really offensive posture like attacking a NATO country etc. However, US does enjoy putting external pressure on Russia in hopes to collapse it from internal variables alone.

Fully agree here. However, if i had 1 billion dollars to spare and im Russia, it wouldnt be on Pantsirs, it would be on the PAK 50 - This is of course assuming that it performs well which is yet to be seen. I for one have tremendous doubts about its stealth and avionics capabilities. Stealth fighters are the only sure way to defend against NATO. Take out the Tankers and AWACs and you have a solid footing against them.

Again defense is a comprehensive picture of simultaneously working variables. It is not something one at a time type of deal.

Absolutely, thats why i find these air defense arguments funny. You are quite level headed but a lot of people who favor Russia assume that the S-400 can stop NATO in its tracks, and this is the furthest thing from the truth. NATO would not be able to fly in un-touched and hurt Moscow but it will also take more than the s-400 to stop them.

Regarding ASMs, consider the situation where Yakhonts become hypersonic like Brahmos II. Chinese already have hypersonic ASM, I think although not sure.

They claim to have one but its effectiveness is yet to be seen. It is in ballistic missile form, the AEGIS system can take it out in its ascension phase. Either way though, hyper sonic is the future of missiles and lasers like the LaWS and Hellads are the future of missile defense. A hyper sonic ASM is a dangerous weapon for sure.

Col. Dani was smart in the sense of "denying" NATO assets a successful kill on this SAM group. There he was smart. Now flooding a 10x10 mile box in the airspace with two dozen SAMs and scoring a hit because F-117 was there is not smart but lucky and that too based on intelligence input from a source within NATO. That's my candid views.

Again very level headed assessment here. Out of all those SAM sites only 2 aircraft were downed out of literally thousands of sorties. This is the best argument AGAINST hiding behind SAM sites i can make.

Russians are more advanced than Chinese in cyberwarfare IMHO. Chinese have more intelligence as many of them work for US corporations and get inside information and that's where PLA gets to steal technologies from the US. Chinese are still third world commies.

I have not heard of any Russian Cyber Warfare tactics... Can you provide some resources to this?

Btw, IR missiles can now select and non-select the targets they goes after. Adding such feature, if not already, on a MANPAD should be easy. I think that's all to do with sensors etc. Sensors are the deals that can help tracking the cruise missiles even if they flying low and hidden by terrain features.

This may be true but also makes the missile large and bulky. Either way the Iglas is not capable on this, but perhaps a different Russian MANPAD will be in the future?

Also, all this strategies that we are constantly yapping on (although pretty mind involving !!) might only find the trash can space in the real world of professionals and those who are aware of latest advances in weapons. This internet wargaming is at best to feel good about knowing this or that things about warfare...................from the wikipedia sources!! As to if US already has 1000 kms air to air missile would negate all the factors discussed regarding this internet wargaming. Cheers !!

I agree, my wife thinks my fascination of weapons is silly but i am very interested in them and always enjoy these discussions.

On a side note, the USA is working on a ram jet AMRAAM missile that will extend its range. I dont know if it will ever hit 1000km but it will be a nasty missile too!

And an answer to the Russian A2A missiles.

Entering service next year across Europe is the Meteor

www.airforce-technology.com...


Seems the idea of NATO air force being destroyed so easily is completely false. An F-35 with a couple of these can easily keep enemy squadrons at bay.

a reply to: asims33

Here is a good candidate for CIWSs to protect the SAM site. Arena system that protects the tanks. $300K/unit. Need 6 such systems to cover 360 degrees many times over. Can engage targets at 700m/second speed. Guess JASSMs travel around 300-350m/secpnd. Only problem is range of 50m. Increase the range to 500 meters to not have any effect from shock waves etc.

Not saying Arena is a replacement but a system of such type modified for point defense purposes. Reaction time is .05 seconds which means multiple threats can be engaged and negated.

Even at $500K a piece after modification, 5 such systems would still be cheaper to adding 1 more Pantsir at $15M.

If nothing else, during a saturation attack by JASSMs and JDAMs, Arena type CIWS handles the JDAMs while Pantsir and S-300s take out the JASSMs.

en.wikipedia.org...
The system uses a multi-function Doppler radar, which can be turned on and off by the tank commander.[20] In conjunction with radar input, a digital computer scans an arc around the tank for threats, and evaluates which of the tank's 26 quick-action projectiles it will release to intercept the incoming threat.[21] In selecting the projectile to use for defeating the threat, the ballistic computer employs the information processed by the radar, including information such as flight parameters and velocity.[22] The computer has a reaction time of 0.05 seconds and protects the tank over a 300-degree arc, everywhere but the rear side of the turret. The system engages targets within 50 metres (55 yd) of the vehicle it is defending, and the ammunition detonates at around 1.5 metres (1.6 yd) from the threat.[10] It will engage any threat approaching the tank between the velocities of 70 metres per second (230 ft/s) and 700 metres per second (2,300 ft/s), and can detect false targets, such as outgoing projectiles, birds and small caliber bullets.[11] Arena works during the day and night, and the lack of electromagnetic interference allows the system to be used by multiple vehicles as a team.[23] The 27-volt system requires approximately one kilowatt of power, and weighs around 1,100 kilograms (2,400 lb).[11] Arena increases a tank's probability of surviving a rocket-propelled grenade by between 1.5[11]–2 times.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

Here is a good candidate for CIWSs to protect the SAM site. Arena system that protects the tanks. $300K/unit. Need 6 such systems to cover 360 degrees many times over. Can engage targets at 700m/second speed. Guess JASSMs travel around 300-350m/secpnd. Only problem is range of 50m. Increase the range to 500 meters to not have any effect from shock waves etc.

Not saying Arena is a replacement but a system of such type modified for point defense purposes. Reaction time is .05 seconds which means multiple threats can be engaged and negated.

Even at $500K a piece after modification, 5 such systems would still be cheaper to adding 1 more Pantsir at $15M.

If nothing else, during a saturation attack by JASSMs and JDAMs, Arena type CIWS handles the JDAMs while Pantsir and S-300s take out the JASSMs.

en.wikipedia.org...
The system uses a multi-function Doppler radar, which can be turned on and off by the tank commander.[20] In conjunction with radar input, a digital computer scans an arc around the tank for threats, and evaluates which of the tank's 26 quick-action projectiles it will release to intercept the incoming threat.[21] In selecting the projectile to use for defeating the threat, the ballistic computer employs the information processed by the radar, including information such as flight parameters and velocity.[22] The computer has a reaction time of 0.05 seconds and protects the tank over a 300-degree arc, everywhere but the rear side of the turret. The system engages targets within 50 metres (55 yd) of the vehicle it is defending, and the ammunition detonates at around 1.5 metres (1.6 yd) from the threat.[10] It will engage any threat approaching the tank between the velocities of 70 metres per second (230 ft/s) and 700 metres per second (2,300 ft/s), and can detect false targets, such as outgoing projectiles, birds and small caliber bullets.[11] Arena works during the day and night, and the lack of electromagnetic interference allows the system to be used by multiple vehicles as a team.[23] The 27-volt system requires approximately one kilowatt of power, and weighs around 1,100 kilograms (2,400 lb).[11] Arena increases a tank's probability of surviving a rocket-propelled grenade by between 1.5[11]–2 times.

So you would take this CIWS and modify it to 500m.

I think we have reached the end of this debate lol

Ships already have CIWS and it is not enough to protect them from multiple-anti ship missiles and many of these systems have between 500 and 1000m range and are way more potent than this one you have linked. This is against a large non-stealth missile. A stealth missile means even less time to track and aquire and that is only IF you can get a radar or IR lock on them.

Lets just put out a realisitc hypothetical using your current set-up (which in my view is unrealistic because such a set up would be very large and bulky to have all those different air defense systems to protect each other)

You have soldiers with MANPADs at (x) Range from the sites - This was never clear where you suggested placing them to negate low flying aircraft. The JASSM has a 230 mile range while the JASSM-ER has a 600 mile range.


So, take a map and draw a circle 200 miles around a point and another circle at 600 miles around that same point.

The S-400 has a range of about 250 miles with its largest missile so draw another circle at 250 miles.


So looking at these circles, its a LOT of area you have to cover to effectively stop the taxi of JASSM weapons. So where do you place MANPADs to ensure coverage of low flying aircraft? - This is the flaw with that idea. You could theoretically get lucky but this is certainly not effective.

Now, the CIWS. - The JASSM is again, stealth. Are you confident that the CIWS (any CIWS) can track and lock and then kill a stealth cruise missile? Now what about 3-5 missiles? 10 missiles? See its easy for my side of the debate to simply increase the number of JASSMs launched to overwhelm whatever defense you put up. Our destroyers carry HUNDREDS of them and in wartime that number could jump to thousands. They can be launched by ship or sub or aircraft.

The USA is currently developing multiple anti-ship missiles one of them being the LRASM based off the JASSM-ER. They are confident it can bypass many CIWS so even in best case scenario your CIWS gets 1-2 of them while the others get through.

I dont think the JDAM would be used against air defense sites especially ones that are as fortified as you are making this one.

So in a real situation on an installation this big, i would expect at least a dozen or more stealth JASSM-ER to hit the site. I dont think you can protect it by layering defenses or adding more defenses. Those solutions only mean NATO targets the outer layers and works its way in or simply increases the number of missiles used to destroy the systems.

The only defense is to remain undetected OR destroy the taxi vehicles well outside of the 600 mile range. This means the US Navy/NATO Navies and maintaining air superiority which...is the whole purpose of having these SAM sites in the first place.

No matter how this scenario gets altered in this debate, the outcome is always the same. The Air defenses go down. Russia's only hope is getting the PAK 50 up and running and that is assuming it can do all the stuff they say it can. A stealth fighter would drastically alter the look of this. They would be able to knock out AWACs and Tankers to keep our F-22s out of the air and then it becomes the F-35's job. The PAK 50 wouldnt win the war but it would be FAR more effective at protecting Russian assets than simply putting SAM sites everywhere.


Again i have huge doubts about it because Russia ALWAYS claims they have the best then when real world scenarios come up they always lose, even in exercises such as Red Flag.

(Before anyone jumps on me im not saying Russia never makes anything good im simply saying they over state capabilities almost all the time.)

a reply to: asims33

No matter how this scenario gets altered in this debate, the outcome is always the same. The Air defenses go down. Russia's only hope is getting the PAK 50 up and running and that is assuming it can do all the stuff they say it can. A stealth fighter would drastically alter the look of this. They would be able to knock out AWACs and Tankers to keep our F-22s out of the air and then it becomes the F-35's job. The PAK 50 wouldnt win the war but it would be FAR more effective at protecting Russian assets than simply putting SAM sites everywhere.

For now, Pak-Fa is just a Russian attempt at Stealth fighter. It comes at $120M a piece and costs can go higher. I would not place all bets of T-50 alone. The above mentioned CIWS will gain lock via IR and also get data from S-300 radar, Pantsirs, Tor and other radars in the IAD. This would not be bulky either and that too given today's tech. If Pantsirs can fit into one truck and engage 4 targets at the same time, then engaging 1 target would be much easier and lighter deal, even if this CIWS is a size of a jeep. For a 1/3rd price of one Pantsir, 10 of such CIWS can make the zone air tight for anything to get through. Look up a weapon system called Metal Storm. It was nearly a whole wall of bullets raining in. Hit the wall and get shredded into pieces. Naval CIWS give a good 4 km range. This modification even placed 1 km from site plus even 2 km range would be enough to block anything. Hypersonic missile would be another thing but should not be a problem to modify the CIWS. It will take a little more cost.

Btw, JASSMs travel at .8 Mach. Here is a video of Mach 1 F-18 flying by.
www.youtube.com...

These can be easily targeted by more than a few tools and even at visual lock (as camera had a lock for 10 whole seconds) although it is not a paintball game so having a radar lock would be a more sure way to go. JASSMs are not complete stealth and hence fit the LO category. At near range, locking on stealth is a little challenge from IR alone.

RuAF can still take out AWACS and Tankers via Novator missile and also other legacy fighters. In many war games even with T-50 not yet present, the AWACS and other big fishes on both sides lasted only few minutes at best. So no worries there.

So end of the day, adding a $120M plane is a good idea but having a $5M airtight close in defense will be a valuable layer of insuring anything does not get through.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

No matter how this scenario gets altered in this debate, the outcome is always the same. The Air defenses go down. Russia's only hope is getting the PAK 50 up and running and that is assuming it can do all the stuff they say it can. A stealth fighter would drastically alter the look of this. They would be able to knock out AWACs and Tankers to keep our F-22s out of the air and then it becomes the F-35's job. The PAK 50 wouldnt win the war but it would be FAR more effective at protecting Russian assets than simply putting SAM sites everywhere.

For now, Pak-Fa is just a Russian attempt at Stealth fighter. It comes at $120M a piece and costs can go higher. I would not place all bets of T-50 alone. The above mentioned CIWS will gain lock via IR and also get data from S-300 radar, Pantsirs, Tor and other radars in the IAD. This would not be bulky either and that too given today's tech. If Pantsirs can fit into one truck and engage 4 targets at the same time, then engaging 1 target would be much easier and lighter deal, even if this CIWS is a size of a jeep. For a 1/3rd price of one Pantsir, 10 of such CIWS can make the zone air tight for anything to get through. Look up a weapon system called Metal Storm. It was nearly a whole wall of bullets raining in. Hit the wall and get shredded into pieces. Naval CIWS give a good 4 km range. This modification even placed 1 km from site plus even 2 km range would be enough to block anything. Hypersonic missile would be another thing but should not be a problem to modify the CIWS. It will take a little more cost.

Btw, JASSMs travel at .8 Mach. Here is a video of Mach 1 F-18 flying by.
www.youtube.com...

These can be easily targeted by more than a few tools and even at visual lock (as camera had a lock for 10 whole seconds) although it is not a paintball game so having a radar lock would be a more sure way to go. JASSMs are not complete stealth and hence fit the LO category. At near range, locking on stealth is a little challenge from IR alone.

RuAF can still take out AWACS and Tankers via Novator missile and also other legacy fighters. In many war games even with T-50 not yet present, the AWACS and other big fishes on both sides lasted only few minutes at best. So no worries there.

So end of the day, adding a $120M plane is a good idea but having a $5M airtight close in defense will be a valuable layer of insuring anything does not get through.

Red flag is a great tool to gauge tactics but real world would be different. At any rate the Novator is a dangerous missile.

You said "The above mentioned CIWS would get a lock via IR" I dont think that CIWS even has an IR tracker on it. It uses Doppler Radar which again you are tracking LO device. Its range is 25m so that gives you time to engage 1 maybe 2 JASSM.

If you had an installation the size you are saying it would take to defend against JASSM here is the outcome.

You have at least 4 Radars between about 8 machines. This, regardless of how you want to say it, is a massive installation to be in one place. The general tactic of turning off radar and moving will no longer be a 5 minute deal but more like 10 minutes in best case scenarios.

If this installation caused enough of a headache for NATO to want it gone you would have:

Multiple stealth aircraft maintaining air superiority
Naval Launched Tomahawks and JASSM-ERs (probably 15-20)
EA-18g Growlers Jamming all radars (or attempting to)
F-16 and F-15 launched HARM missiles (7-8 since Kosovo they like to launch 2 per target)
And possible Guided SDBs

All converging on this installation at once. The reason nato can do this is because

A) It can easily afford to
B) You have placed an ungodly amount of valuable assets in one place

I am with you that the PAK 50 is not the end all be all but you will have to agree with me that a stealth fighter makes non-stealth aircraft's lives hard. AWACs will be in danger as will tankers, F-15s will have problems getting close as will other legacy fighters. Only stealth aircraft such as the B-2, F-22 and F-35 will be able to operate effectively in this environment. THAT is why the PAK 50 is more valuable than these SAM assets we are talking about.

a reply to: asims33

Russia cannot match the US let alone whole of NATO in financial terms. So it has to seek cost effective ways of negating high ticket items of NATO.

The CIWS recommendation was not Arena but Arena type weapon system i.e. modified deal in terms of range, radar and weapon systems. So doppler radar or ir seeker or optical deal does not matter. It has to be able to withstand and deny a saturation type attack by taking a chunk of load away from Pantsirs and S-300s etc. 10 such CIWS taking out 2 JASSMs each and cost equation reverses against the aggressor forces.

Btw, F-22s, the "ace in the hole" would not have similar across the board advantage when it is in the "attack" mode near or within the Russian borders. The RuAF will have lots of support from ground regarding F-22 locations and these inputs will come handy in a dogfight. Still F-22s hold a massive advantage over Su-35s which Russia has only like two dozen currently. Just like Mig-29 or T-72, will Pak-Fa also be "at best" only 90% as good vrs its US counterpart, that has to been seen.

Also found out that Russia will be able to confirm the launch of JASSMs, the moment they leave the "taxi" even if that is a submarine. Other nations might not be but Russia has such tools.

Not to forget that US is most advanced country in military tech and it should already have some secret weapons that can change the tide in any theater.

a reply to: asims33

Regarding the F-22s in the attack mode i.e. near or inside the Russian land:

A Russian mobile VHF radar can see and track fighter sized stealth plane from 320 kms. Again these are mobile radars and Russia plans to get 100 of these units.

Hence, in the defensive mode atleast F-22 threat can be "somewhat" diluted. As to by how much? just ask the Russians !!

In a dogfight over netural territory with no ground support to RuAF, F-22s still hold the supreme card and can wipe off big chunks of legacy planes in very short time.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

Regarding the F-22s in the attack mode i.e. near or inside the Russian land:

A Russian mobile VHF radar can see and track fighter sized stealth plane from 320 kms. Again these are mobile radars and Russia plans to get 100 of these units.

Hence, in the defensive mode atleast F-22 threat can be "somewhat" diluted. As to by how much? just ask the Russians !!

In a dogfight over netural territory with no ground support to RuAF, F-22s still hold the supreme card and can wipe off big chunks of legacy planes in very short time.

Can you provide reference links to the radar that is capable of tracking stealth aircraft? I would wonder why they wouldnt put those on the S-400?

Also, what tool does Russia have to detect the launch of JASSM?

We both seem to be in agreement that stand alone S-400 systems with just a couple TOR and Pantsirs wont hold NATO out of an area at all. You can increase the infrastructure to support these systems but as i pointed out NATO will simply increase the resources used to destroy them.

With MALDs in the air i have no clue how the crews of the S-400 and TOR and Pantsirs dont blow their ammo firing at the MALDs while unknown to them, JASSMs are in bound but this back and forth has gone on long enough.

I would like to see sources for the VHF radar and the JASSM detection tool though!

a reply to: asims33

Don't feel too bad about F22s. MALDs are a 6th generation technology. Radar evading stealth is all but peaked out.

6th Generation is to do with advanced avionics which can

a) destroy the opponent radar via direct energy or computer viruses

b) deceive the opponent radar into seeing false signatures, numbers, formations etc. (i.e. MALDs)

This means US is already advanced into 6th gen. tech and by 2020s we might start to see these showing up on planes.

Be also ready for upgrade from LO to NO i.e Low Observable to Not Observable. That would negate lots of factors in dogfights etc.

Do not know if Russia or China have MALD technologies to use as either offense and defense. I have a feeling that this radar sophistication is based on computing prowess utilized in the radars. More powerful the computing power, more goodies come out as the outcome. But then just a lame guess !!

a reply to: asims33

Just as a rule, vrs other smaller bands the VHF amplification is upto good 300 times. So find out the RCS of F-22 and multiply it by 300. Russians have openly said that they can see Stealth like any other plane and this was way back in 2002.

Now throw in the UHF i.e. Ultra High Frequency radar and RCS of a marble which was amplified to golf ball has now further amplified to a size of a bird.

To this fact, add the point as to how many birds fly at 12000 meters at a constant near speed of 700 kmph or more.

Same holds true for JASSMs and other stealth goodies.

F-22s will be found out if they near to Russian border and then confirmed via other passive sensors and information fed into the various sites. F-22s are most stealthy on X band in the L and S bands they are less stealthy and hence another tool to confirm what's going on.

Standalone without comprehensive inputs from anywhere and everywhere of the IAD, the S-300/400 with couple of Tors and Pantsirs would only be able to hold on for a certain time period.

If Russians do not have MALD tech. then chances further weaken against their defenses.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

Just as a rule, vrs other smaller bands the VHF amplification is upto good 300 times. So find out the RCS of F-22 and multiply it by 300. Russians have openly said that they can see Stealth like any other plane and this was way back in 2002.

Now throw in the UHF i.e. Ultra High Frequency radar and RCS of a marble which was amplified to golf ball has now further amplified to a size of a bird.

To this fact, add the point as to how many birds fly at 12000 meters at a constant near speed of 700 kmph or more.

Same holds true for JASSMs and other stealth goodies.

F-22s will be found out if they near to Russian border and then confirmed via other passive sensors and information fed into the various sites. F-22s are most stealthy on X band in the L and S bands they are less stealthy and hence another tool to confirm what's going on.

Standalone without comprehensive inputs from anywhere and everywhere of the IAD, the S-300/400 with couple of Tors and Pantsirs would only be able to hold on for a certain time period.

If Russians do not have MALD tech. then chances further weaken against their defenses.

Sorry but Russian "Claims" and proof are two different things. I have a very hard time believing that Russians have a radar that can track a steel marble at 300km out...

Do you have any credible source at all to this? Maybe some data to back it up?

And you have far more faith in those SAMs than i do, considering the French flew right over one with a SPECTRA jammer and wasnt detected. With MALD, JSOW, JASSM, Tomahawk, HARM, Growlers, Stealth Aircraft and SDBs i dont see a SAM site surviving no matter what you put around it.

a reply to: asims33

If MALDs are based on manipulating the returns from the AESA radar then they will be blunted by computer programmers. What is actual tech behind the MALDs is unknown for common dudes like us on the ATS.

Once the F22s on the offensive mode are atleast harassed enough on the border, they will not be able to gain air superiority to make way clear for B1/B2s to come in and deliver their JASSMs and JSOWs etc. Rest will be a matter of how many attempts are made and what else goes on in other theaters.

SPECTRA jammer won over the S-300 PMU 1 the export version. This version also cannot handle the hypersonic missiles that new S-300 V and later versions can i.e. upto 8.5 Mach missiles. So a watered down export version from late 1990s to early 2000s getting a beat should be no biggie.

Russian philosophy has always been defense rather than attack and hence emphasis on SAMs. US focus has been on keeping the aggressors at a distance from the mainland and thus not so much need for vast SAMs network.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

If MALDs are based on manipulating the returns from the AESA radar then they will be blunted by computer programmers. What is actual tech behind the MALDs is unknown for common dudes like us on the ATS.

Once the F22s on the offensive mode are atleast harassed enough on the border, they will not be able to gain air superiority to make way clear for B1/B2s to come in and deliver their JASSMs and JSOWs etc. Rest will be a matter of how many attempts are made and what else goes on in other theaters.

SPECTRA jammer won over the S-300 PMU 1 the export version. This version also cannot handle the hypersonic missiles that new S-300 V and later versions can i.e. upto 8.5 Mach missiles. So a watered down export version from late 1990s to early 2000s getting a beat should be no biggie.

Russian philosophy has always been defense rather than attack and hence emphasis on SAMs. US focus has been on keeping the aggressors at a distance from the mainland and thus not so much need for vast SAMs network.

Again, talk is one thing but action is another.

The SPECTRA is less advanced the the Growler's systems and the PMU 1 is hardly watered down. Aside from the newer V version it is the most advanced in the S-300 family. I'd say being able to fully jam that and fly directly over it is a good indication for NATO.

This argument is getting ridiculous though. I have yet to see verified sources of Russian radar being able to track F-22 consistently. The only thing i could find is a video with Pierre Sprey talking about how he thinks stealth is a farce. He has been discredited over and over and the other nations, including Russia, the nation who can apparently track F-22s is also developing stealth aircraft....

Look, Russia has a horrible track record with weapons. Throughout the cold war western forces found themselves up against Russian tech all the time and it was never a problem. USA and NATO has held air supremacy in every conflict since WWII. This includes taking out Russian SAM sites and Russian fighters.

Russia has budget issues and are at least 10 years behind on technology (probably further). These advanced SAM sites alter the battle significantly, i certainly concede that point. Its not like Iraq or Libya where we can tromp them with a few HARMs. But Russia would not be able to secure its boarders from NATO aircraft using these systems alone. Russia has a MASSIVE boarder and with NATO having land-locked Russia in the west and the US Navy in the pacific NATO could easily send the most advanced aircraft ever produced into Russia from ALL sides.

You have already agreed that Russia couldn't really win a war against USA or NATO without nukes so thats not what im driving at here. What i am saying is these SAM sites, while extremely dangerous and requiring planning and resources from NATO, would not sufficiently protect Russia from NATO air strikes.

Syria found that out against Israel using the S-300 already.


Now lastly, can you please provide any source to your claim about the Russian Radar and the F-22?

a reply to: asims33

I think that radar is multiband including VHF, the Nebo-M series. Regarding 160 NM range against F-22, I think that is for non jamming environment. Under jamming variables the range reduces to 60 NM or so.

Another of the RuAF strategy should be to have F-22 waste its air to air missiles in a dogfight and thus not been able to provide environment for B1/B2s to deliver Jassm and similar weapons. Does that mean another ARENA type system but this time for the fighter planes? The plane would have good 10-20 second warning of the missile launch and some measures can be taken to destroy it in the air all the while taking evasive measures. Intercepting a Mach 4 missiles would be some feat but can be done. This system can work well on the legacy planes where Stealth is not the main motive.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

I think that radar is multiband including VHF, the Nebo-M series. Regarding 160 NM range against F-22, I think that is for non jamming environment. Under jamming variables the range reduces to 60 NM or so.

Another of the RuAF strategy should be to have F-22 waste its air to air missiles in a dogfight and thus not been able to provide environment for B1/B2s to deliver Jassm and similar weapons. Does that mean another ARENA type system but this time for the fighter planes? The plane would have good 10-20 second warning of the missile launch and some measures can be taken to destroy it in the air all the while taking evasive measures. Intercepting a Mach 4 missiles would be some feat but can be done. This system can work well on the legacy planes where Stealth is not the main motive.

Multiband radars including VHF is not a new technology at all... Why do you think this can track the F-22?

And sure if you put laser beams and warp drives on Russian planes the F-22 would have problems lol.

The only country that i know of that is going to be fielding an arena type system on airplanes is USA with HELLADs.

Its been stated by Russia before, their most effective tactic would be long range missiles knocking AWACs and Tankers out and trying to use ASMs to keep the black sea clear. Like i said before, there is no way without nukes Russia wins this war. Their economy would collapse from losing almost every trade partner they have and their military would be out matched by NATO.

Edit: Just as i thought the only sources on the NEBO claiming it can track VLO objects are Russian military personnel... The problem with trying to track a metal marble at over 100 miles is you begin to pick up a lot of clutter and static on your screen. You certainly cant track them with enough accuracy to launch a missile. If Russia has discovered a way to detect and track stealth aircraft reliably at ranges equal to normal aircraft they would be upgrading all of their radars for it.

Actions speak louder than words and i dont see Russia rushing to upgrade other radar systems...

This is just another Russian claim probably aimed at selling these Radars to countries like Iran and Syria

a reply to: asims33

Don't worry, once the US fields the arena type systems the Russians will copy it somewhat and Chinese will steal the tech somehow. That is their modus operandi as their culture is not very innovative type. These two countries also suffer from high levels of corruption and thus little money is left for government to devote to new R&D etc.

I doubt if Russia can win any war even if it includes the nukes. They can do lots of damage but there is not point going to the level of nukes which can be devastating for the whole world for some time to come.

This is just another Russian claim probably aimed at selling these Radars to countries like Iran and Syria

a reply to: asims33

Here is a little formula: If a weapon system has Russian tech and claims, then discount it by 20% right away. Further, the same system in the hands of Arabs or other ill trained badly organized third world, give it another 20% discount. Rest is whatever they can do with 60% efficiency.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: asims33

Don't worry, once the US fields the arena type systems the Russians will copy it somewhat and Chinese will steal the tech somehow. That is their modus operandi as their culture is not very innovative type. These two countries also suffer from high levels of corruption and thus little money is left for government to devote to new R&D etc.

I doubt if Russia can win any war even if it includes the nukes. They can do lots of damage but there is not point going to the level of nukes which can be devastating for the whole world for some time to come.

Im not sure if you are familiar with the HELLADs system but short of stealing the design i dont see an easy way for Russia to copy it any time soon... Or China.

Its a liquid based laser that is small enough to be placed on aircraft but powerful enough to destroy missiles almost instantly. I dont think Russia has ANY laser weapons while the USA has already fielded LaWS on some of our ships.

Another tech that China and Russia are very far behind in is Rail gun technology. This technology will negate any anti-cruise missile SAM technology.