Shooting down Stealth/F22 and winning the war

IR requires line of sight to work... Meaning NATO aircraft would have to be flying very close for it to be effective (within a few miles). Turning radar on and off wont work as HARM has a remember function now which will still direct it to the last position of the radar when it was switched on. Who needs to protect all of Russia's boarders? Well... Russia, if it wants to make sure its infrastructure remains functional, such as roads, airports, railways (especially trans-Siberian where it transports its oil from) power stations, water treatment stations, etc etc.... How are you going to lay in wait and track aircraft for an ambush? Radar? .... Our aircraft wouldn't be refueling over contested airspace. We have vast naval aviation capabilities meaning many NATO sorties will be with naval aircraft and we have bases in the Baltic, Italy, and Turkey and soon the Ukraine. Why would NATO aircraft not be able to find suitable airfields to land at?

a reply to: asims33

When airspace is being flooded with shells then even 10 miles range for IR would be suitable. IR on planes have 60 miles or more of a range.

Mobile radar switching on, locating and shutting off and moving away from location will only make the HARM useless. Worst, once the radar has moved, left behind is a dummy radar attracting the HARM to be wasted.

Russia has pretty serious anti-ship missiles. US has 10 or 11 air craft carriers. In hostile environment these ACs are much better off, far away from Russian main land and sea ports. ACs are the first "bitches" Russia will go after.

With cheap but modified alternatives from SA-6 and KS-19s, the MALD strategy of NATO will catch only MOLD from being rendered useless. Another way of rendering MALD useless would be to take out their guidance systems i.e. space satellites.

Take out ACs, Space satellites, F-22/F-35 bases, major NATO air bases in Europe and we are talking nearly level playing field for Russian tanks to race on Western Europe while NATO poodles are crying for MaMa loudly.

It's relatively easy to saturate an air-defense system and that is ignoring AEA capability and even JSOW. It would be costly, but it can be done effectively. The TOR system is great and all, and the S-300 is no slouch. They (and the more capable S-400) are nothing to scoff at.

First, ISR. Let's say a Global Hawk is quietly making the rounds 200 miles away from your S-300 at 60,000 feet altitude. It is gathering data on all the signals being emitted, quietly triangulating the sites position within a relatively small window and feeding that information over datalinks. It's probably been doing this every day for however long the thought first popped into someone's head to remove the S-300 complex.

A salvo of 15 cruise missiles was launched somewhere over the horizon. Could have been a sub, a destroyer, a B-52 -- it doesn't really matter.

Is the S-300 radiating at the moment this all kicks off? Under this scenario, probably not. After all, the OP just spent half a dozen pages telling us the trick was to radiate for 10 seconds and then scoot (easier said than done with a S-300). Scooting takes some time depending on how much dirt you want to put between you and your last location. Drive for a minute or two and setup? Set up takes five minutes. Ignoring travel time completely (1-5 minutes?), you're radiating a maximum 10 seconds every five minutes (again operating under the plan advocated in this thread).

I guess we're really determined to take out this complex, so let's say we use JASSM's from a single B-1. It can hold 24 JASSM's. I mean if we really want them dead, we'll double our loadout by using a second B-1, but I doubt this would be necessary. Perhaps we save that loadout in reserve for a repeat performance if deemed necessary. They have an IR seeker head, looking to match up S-300 component signatures with preloaded 3D models. They are terrain masking and have a low enough RCS to get within 5 miles or so before being acquired, but eventually the S-300 is going to pick them out of the clutter and attempt to engage them.

Not right now, however, because they are below the radar horizon and things are getting busy because four F-15E's are also inbound at low altitude and high speed. The SAM crew may not see them because it isn't radiating. Let's pretend the strike force is unlucky and the S-300 begins radiating on the beginning of the inbound leg. Good news, even under a worse case scenario where the terrain is completely flat (unlikely in Iran or Russia, etc) the curvature of the earth protects us from detection to a range of approximately 150 miles. After that the site can detect something very broadly speaking in a 3 mile square of airspace. That's not a good enough target resolution to lock on to, and if the SAM crew try to sharpen, it the horizon moves and they lose our target. But they know something is going on in that 3 miles block. It's okay though because the FLAP LID is the dangerous part that distinguishes the target, and it can't do it at this distance. We can get closer. Things are getting hairy though because sooner or later the RWR is going to let us know that the signals from the FLAP LID are strong enough that we're being tracked. We'll know we're actually being targeted when the frequency shifts even lower. At this point we pitch up and pop off a HARM or two each. This causes some excitement on the ground, as you might imagine. They probably stop radiating and start moving. This makes life easier for everyone else. We still hold two or three HARM's each if they elect to continue radiating.

An F-22 (or a block III F-35) can pickle eight SDB's from seventy plus miles away, well outside the detection threshold for an S-300 (using this example). We're going to get closer to the site -- maybe even detectable range, to shorten the in-the-air time of the SDB's. By the time(/if) the F-22's are detected, tracked and targeted, it is starting to head the opposite direction. So let's say eight F-22's just put 64 guided rounds incoming at your air defense site almost literally out of thin air. At this range depending on the wave length, the signatures of the F-22 and the SDB's will be difficult to distinguish. How many targets does that plot represent? Well, we have to change frequencies to a higher frequency, and suddenly the F-22 is invisible again, but we're able to pick out most of the 64 SDB's individually. They will arrive on target a few minutes later within a 10 second window, and if we time it right, we can put them into the target box at roughly the same time as the JASSM's and the site may have stopped radiating because of the HARM's in the air.

There's another problem because even when/if radiating each FLAP LID is only capable of tracking 72 targets and engaging half of them. Some of them are going to literally disappear from radar screens as the equipment decides which targets are the most "target-like". Also, all the missiles in the battery cannot fire at the same time. Launching 36 missiles from a S-300 battery is going to take two minutes. If each target is targeted by two missiles each, you can see where the math starts looking bad for the SAM site. And there are only so many SAMs, no matter how many batteries you try to link (there are limits with this as well). Once they're all launched, they're gone. It's not a simple matter to reload the batteries. It's hard work and time consuming. Generally spare missiles are dispersed away from the launchers. This makes it take even longer.

A smart and well-equipped SAM battery commander will have dug in and have decoy sites available. Many of our attacking weapons in the air will be spoofed. They are still called "missiles" and not "hittiles". Good news is the millimeter wave radar on an SDB isn't going to be spoofed by an inflatable decoy, and there are a lot of them inbound. The HARM's might be spoofed by false radiaters. Some of these missiles and bombs and Reapers will be engaged by TOR and the S-300's. But there are too many of them to be intercepted.

While this is happening a handful of Reapers is heading towards your hypothetical site, using terrain masking (if it happens in a few years, it will be Avengers moving more rapidly with a lower RCS). Each of these is armed with a few Hellfires and can engage a battery at the approximate edge of TOR's range and will have to be engaged by the SAM site, or ignored at it's own peril. Are the missiles left on the ground? Are there still radars radiating? Are these targets real or decoys? That's where real time ISR from the Reapers is going to give us the ability to pick those targets apart. If a single Reaper survives the initial mayhem, it is now providing ISR for the strike force.

So far we've caused a lot of havoc on the ground and never put a single human being in danger of a SAM. Pretty impressive. We have probably hit several of the batteries components, using only a GH, a Bone or two, four F-22's, four F-15E's, and a few Reapers. We have probably not destroyed the battery en masse, but it is no longer a functioning, coordinated air defense site at this point for a good period of time.

Not a single word was even said about MALD, JSOW (capable of providing the submunitions from a safe distance) in that scenario, nor about AEA degrading enemy radar and communications. Not a single not yet fielded equipment or classified platform was used in the scenario.

The point is this: The site does not need to be completely destroyed to be inoperable. Many or even all of the components of the SAM battery could survive (they won't) and the mission could be completely successful. The point of the exercise is to degrade or suppress the site (or integrated sites as a complex as above) enough to complete another mission either in that area or that requires transiting that airspace.

Noone is losing sleep on blue team worried because Americans got lazy with mission planning and a smart battery commander got lucky and hit a F-117. Over 650 SAMs from fixed and mobile positions were fired at NATO aircraft over Bosnia. They lost an F-16 to a newly deployed mobile SA-6 site and the F-117 to poor mission planning and a very smart man on the ground at a S-3 site over a multi-year campaign.

originally posted by: victor7

Take out ACs, Space satellites, F-22/F-35 bases, major NATO air bases in Europe and ...

And we are in a major war, not an effort to remove a SAM site or shootdown a F-22. Russia could well race through most of Western Europe with sheer numbers. From Fulda to Brittany in two weeks under the best of scenarios (for NATO) in the 80's. I'm not sure the Germans or French wouldn't go nuclear at some point, however.

And the ball field now much more level than the 80's. As you said, remove x,y,z, "and we are talking nearly level playing field". I don't think anyone is going to just sit around as you systematically remove major NATO airbases in Europe. We'd have to have the will to do it, but I think we have the means to stop it and reverse the tide.

originally posted by: victor7

IR requires line of sight to work... Meaning NATO aircraft would have to be flying very close for it to be effective (within a few miles). Turning radar on and off wont work as HARM has a remember function now which will still direct it to the last position of the radar when it was switched on. Who needs to protect all of Russia's boarders? Well... Russia, if it wants to make sure its infrastructure remains functional, such as roads, airports, railways (especially trans-Siberian where it transports its oil from) power stations, water treatment stations, etc etc.... How are you going to lay in wait and track aircraft for an ambush? Radar? .... Our aircraft wouldn't be refueling over contested airspace. We have vast naval aviation capabilities meaning many NATO sorties will be with naval aircraft and we have bases in the Baltic, Italy, and Turkey and soon the Ukraine. Why would NATO aircraft not be able to find suitable airfields to land at?

a reply to: asims33

When airspace is being flooded with shells then even 10 miles range for IR would be suitable. IR on planes have 60 miles or more of a range.

Mobile radar switching on, locating and shutting off and moving away from location will only make the HARM useless. Worst, once the radar has moved, left behind is a dummy radar attracting the HARM to be wasted.

Russia has pretty serious anti-ship missiles. US has 10 or 11 air craft carriers. In hostile environment these ACs are much better off, far away from Russian main land and sea ports. ACs are the first "bitches" Russia will go after.

With cheap but modified alternatives from SA-6 and KS-19s, the MALD strategy of NATO will catch only MOLD from being rendered useless. Another way of rendering MALD useless would be to take out their guidance systems i.e. space satellites.

Take out ACs, Space satellites, F-22/F-35 bases, major NATO air bases in Europe and we are talking nearly level playing field for Russian tanks to race on Western Europe while NATO poodles are crying for MaMa loudly.

I would refer to _Del_'s post above if i were you but allow me to respond yet again :p

IR On aircraft is different than IR on the ground. IR on the ground has to be able to see past trees, buildings, mountains, etc etc... Which obviously it cant... An aircraft at 30k feet however has very little between it and a target thus can track via IR much easier.

Saddam had a similar setup to what you are talking about and how many US planes were lost when bombing him?

2nd point: I dont think anyone expects a 100% kill ratio with ANY weapon including the HARM. But i may point out, it is not that easy to set up a radar, turn it on - then off, tear it down, move it 3 miles and do it again. I dont think you grasp how long this takes. The newest HARM(s) have a remember function and its completely automated. This means that when i fire a HARM at your radar, even if you turn it off my missile is still going to hit the last position the radar was illuminating. If that radar has moved and happens to turn on again before it hits... the HARM re designates and hits it.

Dummy Radars may be somewhat effective but we have accurate digital models of what soviet radar looks like and these are programmed into smart weapons. I cant stress enough the lessons that NATO learned in Bosnia.

Russia has pretty serious anti ship missiles: Russia's best anti-ship missile is the P-800 with a range of less than 200 miles or 300 km (depending on altitude) It is not low observable (not stealth) and is quite large. The Aegis system would have no issues taking care of this threat... IF the ship was within 200 miles of shore. The JASSM-ER has a range of 600 miles. Obviously most naval aircraft have ranges in the neighborhood of 900-1200 miles with loadout but lets say they are REALLY heavy... its not uncommon to run a 500 mile mission (250 there 250 back)

Point is, Russian anti ship missiles, while dangerous, are not your ace in the hole.

You seem to think layering air defenses with old cheap defenses or upgraded new defenses would somehow stop the MALD and JSOW. Im not sure why you think NATO commanders have not thought this out... im not sure why you think that the weapons designers have not been required by our governments to show proof of success?

Let me repeat my last post since you ignored it.

These old SAM systems would be completely shut down by NATO electronic aircraft such as the Growler. Their radars would be picked up the second they were turned on by the global hawk, and the RC-135 along with the Growlers and soon after slammed by HARM, JASSM, and JSOW.

The s-300, s-400, and soon s-500 will all be whiped out quickly too.


Now, take our ACs out? The anti-ship missile idea wont be very effective. With the F-35, F-18, and F-22 Russian fighters wouldnt come close to the AC either.

Take out space satellites... can you show me a weapon Russia would use to do this? They have been trying to develop a weapon that can do this for 30 years now. The USA meanwhile has several successful tests and two ASAT weapons.

Now lastly, how would you propose Russian aircraft would be able to breach NATO air defenses, and defeat NATO air superiority fighters like the Typhoon, Rafael and F-22 along with F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-35, get TO the NATO base, destroy it and then fly home?

Let me make this clear, if the topic here is how would NATO handle Russian air defenses, then thats a topic worth discussing since Russian ADs are very powerful weapons. But please dont turn this into an air superiority discussion because this is an area that Russia simply is out matched in every way possible.

It seems Del is a pro in air defense or warfare, I am not. Good detailed reply anyways !!

However, it seems his scenario is pitching 1 SAM against a whole team of F-15s, B-1s, several dozen JDAMs etc. even including F-22s. All against one battery of S-300 with range of 200 kms and only 60 miles against F-22s. It has to be a fair fight. How about Mig-31s in the area using their ultra long range missile that I think goes 300 kms. Again, I am not air warfare expert.

All the while (my invention only !!) KS-19s with IR seeker shells and SA-6s hardened against jamming and even IR capable, they will soak up a lots of firepower and attention of the invading blues including the MALDs.

While USAF capabilities are impressive but poking holes in Russian air defense and gaining superiority is not something one can do over 2 days like in Iraq or Libya.

Btw, who is talking about RuAF dogging it out to penetrate NATO defenses, throw in cruise missiles and ballistic options, mix in hypersonic deals, special forces creating problems in the area........again all these because Russia is not the C grade powers that have been targeted since 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Regarding the ACs, 1 anti ship can be shot down but a swarm of 12+ will take out the poor AC. As to how many ultra long range ASMs Russia has is also not known.

Btw, Growler jamming the assets................how far away it can do so? would anyone tell? If it is 200 kms then no issue, more than a few options available to shut the Growler up.

Russia does not have anti Satellite?? If China has tested few then consider Russia to be 20 years ahead on these. It would be foolish on RuAFs part to not have anti-Satellite weapons. Take even few satellites out and all the JSSAMs, JDAMs and cousins might go inoperable, along with all sorts of datalinks and other goodies...........this is possible for both the sides ofcourse.

Heck, EMPs have not even entered the fray yet.

originally posted by: victor7 How about Mig-31s in the area using their ultra long range missile that I think goes 300 kms. Again, I am not air warfare expert.

I don't think the -31's are going to detect the F-22 at any capable range. It might be able to pick out the F-15's at useable range, but I'm not sure the scenario changes overly much. And if we're talking about an all out war on the continent, I think NATO has the advantage, because just as you said NATO airfields can be rendered inoperable (they can, but for very short periods of time generally), the same works against Russian airfields. NATO has superior tanker support and the means to hit high value targets like the Mainstays and Midas deep via the F-22. I imagine this means good things for NATO in the number of assets in a given area.

All the while (my invention only !!) KS-19s with IR seeker shells and SA-6s hardened against jamming and even IR capable, they will soak up a lots of firepower and attention of the invading blues including the MALDs.

A passive IR seeker head could mate up well with SAM's and long-range, low-frequency radar. I'm sure it's been looked at. It's still not foolproof, but it would create headaches at somepoint. Just launching them idle has made a mess of plans before. Planes dropping ordinance to avoid them, etc.

While USAF capabilities are impressive but poking holes in Russian air defense and gaining superiority is not something one can do over 2 days like in Iraq or Libya.

I wouldn't think so. The goal would be to degrade or suppress a particular area in support of another high-value mission.

Btw, who is talking about RuAF dogging it out to penetrate NATO defenses, throw in cruise missiles and ballistic options, mix in hypersonic deals, special forces creating problems in the area........again all these because Russia is not the C grade powers that have been targeted since 1991 Persian Gulf war.

All those would create problems, for sure. I don't think any of them is an ace the hole anymore than the US would have one. In an all out conflict between NATO and Russia there would be heavy attrition.

Regarding the ACs, 1 anti ship can be shot down but a swarm of 12+ will take out the poor AC. As to how many ultra long range ASMs Russia has is also not known.

I'll probably ruffle a few feathers, but I don't think I'd risk a CVN in a conflict with Russia or China. It's too high-value in the blue ocean at sea for sea control vs too little gain to be used for ground strikes on Russia or China.

Btw, Growler jamming the assets................how far away it can do so? would anyone tell? If it is 200 kms then no issue, more than a few options available to shut the Growler up.

The Growler and similar assets would be a great help to NATO. There is home-on-jam capability on many Russian missiles. Like everything else, there is a counter.

Russia does not have anti Satellite?? If China has tested few then consider Russia to be 20 years ahead on these. It would be foolish on RuAFs part to not have anti-Satellite weapons. Take even few satellites out and all the JSSAMs, JDAMs and cousins might go inoperable, along with all sorts of datalinks and other goodies...........this is possible for both the sides ofcourse.

JDAMs and JASSMs both have inertial guidance systems slaved to the GPS. They will work without the GPS, though without as great of accuracy. In the case of JASSM, the INS just gets it to the basket. The actual target finding is done with IR. There are versions of JDAM that have terminal laser homing. And of course other guided bombs and missiles that have nav systems and targeting independent of GPS as well.

I'm not disparaging Russia or their armed forces. Nothing would be a cake walk. NATO could possibly lose if political decisions override the military situation -- particularly at the beginning of a conflict. I assume that such a war would have an objective and that such an objective would be attainable by NATO.

a reply to: THE_PROFESSIONAL
The shoot down of the F117 was our screw up, not the accuracy of any weapon or skills of their ADA crews.
The same route was used repeatedly,they just timed us then shot us down.

Stupid yes but THAT is what NATO wanted so...

originally posted by: victor7
It seems Del is a pro in air defense or warfare, I am not. Good detailed reply anyways !!

However, it seems his scenario is pitching 1 SAM against a whole team of F-15s, B-1s, several dozen JDAMs etc. even including F-22s. All against one battery of S-300 with range of 200 kms and only 60 miles against F-22s. It has to be a fair fight. How about Mig-31s in the area using their ultra long range missile that I think goes 300 kms. Again, I am not air warfare expert.

All the while (my invention only !!) KS-19s with IR seeker shells and SA-6s hardened against jamming and even IR capable, they will soak up a lots of firepower and attention of the invading blues including the MALDs.

While USAF capabilities are impressive but poking holes in Russian air defense and gaining superiority is not something one can do over 2 days like in Iraq or Libya.

Btw, who is talking about RuAF dogging it out to penetrate NATO defenses, throw in cruise missiles and ballistic options, mix in hypersonic deals, special forces creating problems in the area........again all these because Russia is not the C grade powers that have been targeted since 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Regarding the ACs, 1 anti ship can be shot down but a swarm of 12+ will take out the poor AC. As to how many ultra long range ASMs Russia has is also not known.

Btw, Growler jamming the assets................how far away it can do so? would anyone tell? If it is 200 kms then no issue, more than a few options available to shut the Growler up.

Russia does not have anti Satellite?? If China has tested few then consider Russia to be 20 years ahead on these. It would be foolish on RuAFs part to not have anti-Satellite weapons. Take even few satellites out and all the JSSAMs, JDAMs and cousins might go inoperable, along with all sorts of datalinks and other goodies...........this is possible for both the sides ofcourse.

Heck, EMPs have not even entered the fray yet.

Del was addressing the original question of this thread and that is how would NATO handle S-400 Batteries if they were defended by TOR.


In war its not about fair fights, its about winning but you are correct to assume that NATO would not contribute that high number of assets for 1 s-300 battery.

I am sorry to say that even the s-400 and s-500 will have many issues with Growlers jamming them, the SA-6 systems would be useless (feel free to look this up). The range of the Growlers capabilities are not known in detail but i can say for certain that they have active jamming including ordinance jamming, meaning a missile in flight can be disrupted by it. Its certainly not an un-hittable aircraft but i can promise you, with 2-3 of these in the air SAM sites will have a lot on their hands.

The MALDs dont have "fire power" they are decoys with electronic packages built in that makes them look like common NATO aircraft. This means i can make my MALD look like an f-15 on your radar. Imagine seeing your Radar light up with 50 of these all looking like F-15, F-18, F-16, Typhoons and so on... This is what stimulates the air defenses. Russia would have to turn on its radars to track these false targets allowing the real NATO aircraft that is mixed in with the MALDs to target the radars.

My reference to Iraq was that Saddam used IR with lead shells from WWII era AA batteries and was extremely ineffective. You have to realize, these aircraft are flying at 500-800 MPH, the WWII era batteries you are referring to were designed for aircraft traveling at less than half that speed. Also keep in mind the limited range of these batteries which is less than 5 miles to be anywhere near effective.

The MIG would be detected by F-15 and F-22 before it could do any real damage to anything. Please read up on the F-35, F-22, and F-15. These are far more advanced than the MiG with the exception of the F-15 which is simply on-par with it (see Red Flag 2013).

You are correct, the USAF and NATO would have a hard time suppressing all of Russia's AD in 2 days but as Del pointed out, we wouldnt need to. Simply suppress an area large enough to get bombers through (B-1 and B-2).

Cruise missiles would be pretty effective against fixed NATO bases but then again, you are forgetting the SM-3 missile system along with the Patriot Missile systems. I am sure damage could be done to the forward NATO bases but it wouldnt do much to slow down NATO.

Ballistic options are off the table. If Russia launched a Nuke at any NATO nation then EVERY NATO nation would fire Nukes back. This means Russia dies along with most of the free world. No one wins here and even Putin would acknowledge that. But in case Russia did... We have an almost fully functional Missile shield up and running.

No one considers Russia a"C" grade power but to pretend that Russia could win against NATO if NATO wanted to destroy Russia is simply an uneducated opinion. The US Military alone is larger and more advanced than Russia's and this is not even counting other NATO nations again, feel free to look this up.

I have already addressed your anti-ship missile and you need to realize that carriers dont travel alone they are in carrier strike groups which consists of many ships all equipped with Aegis. It would take more than 12 to destroy an aircraft carrier and that is IF and only IF they are within the 200 mile range required by the P-800 which i have already addressed by stating that all aviation sorties from the AC and all cruise missiles can be launched well beyond the 200 mile range required by those missiles. The only hope would be an air launched P-800 in which case it would need to get through about 15 war ships all equipped with Aegis... not something a single anti-ship missile can do.


Again to address the growler, it doesnt fly alone. It would be with MALD, F-22, F-15, F-16, F-35, etc etc. Shutting a growler up is not easy to do and in any case common NATO SEAD ops calls for multiple electronic warfare aircraft so shutting 1 growler up if you were able to do it wont help much.

Russia is attempting to develop an anti-satellite weapon but has yet to field one. Feel free to look this up as well.

Taking out satellites would not disable GPS guided munitions they have other means of guiding themselves. Regardless of this, USA DOES have anti-sat weapons that are tested and proven and would have no issues taking out Russian SATs.

In a full blown conflict, excluding Nukes.

NATO would engage in:

Air Superiority including SEAD Missions
Bombing of Infrastructure
Cyber-Attacks (hacking)
Anti-SAT missions
Ground warefare
Special ops warefare

and the most powerful weapon of all....

Government sanctions which would cripple the Russian economy.

As discussed earlier in this thread and all over the internet... Military targets are hardened against EMPs. It would take one mighty-powerful EMP blast to disable NATO infrastructure and this would only be in a concentrated area. EMP is simply not viable.

And as a last peice of info i leave you... Meet HELLADS the anti-missile laser being developed for USAF aircraft which would disable any in flight missile threat to the aircraft.

www.airforce-technology.com...

originally posted by: victor7
It seems Del is a pro in air defense or warfare, I am not. Good detailed reply anyways !!

So good that I said "lower" instead of "higher" in regard to frequency at one point.

We'll know we're actually being targeted when the frequency shifts even lower

The scenario stand, however, despite my oops.

a reply to: THE_PROFESSIONAL

Tactics and training are all well and good against a superior air force during an attack, but the single most effective way to defeat a hugely superior airforce is to deny them flight in the first place.

Destroy them on the ground, when their multi-million $ technology is more than useless.

Spies and agents, suicide bombers and infiltrators could accomplish this if their own safety wasn't an issue to them.

Once those aircraft get airborne they come into their element, on the ground they are just very expensive lumps of metal and electronics and are as vulnerable as a new born baby.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: THE_PROFESSIONAL

Tactics and training are all well and good against a superior air force during an attack, but the single most effective way to defeat a hugely superior airforce is to deny them flight in the first place.

Destroy them on the ground, when their multi-million $ technology is more than useless.

Spies and agents, suicide bombers and infiltrators could accomplish this if their own safety wasn't an issue to them.

Once those aircraft get airborne they come into their element, on the ground they are just very expensive lumps of metal and electronics and are as vulnerable as a new born baby.

Way easier said than done. NATO is not in the habit of letting strangers near 200 million dollar aircraft.

Russia using suicide bombers?.....

Regarding the JASSM, JDAM and JSOWs, these subsonic deals can be handled by the KS-19 type IR tracking shells and even SA-6 and even smaller and cheaper missiles with similar features and strong anti jamming abilities. JASSM and JSOW are both subsonic hence it would be like chasing any small size commercial plane.................i.e not even a fighter jet.


JASSMs cost good $1.2M or more and JSOWs nearly $250k, even each JDAMs cost $25K and more for longer range.

Russia would definitely need to counter two superior abilities of USAF:
a) tracking and defeating stealth at much farther distance. Russia is good 10 years behind on stealth.
b) deny robust jamming by Howler type planes. Russia has been lagging on jamming and anti-jamming abilities all along.

Taking out satellite support even partially from the USAF's package can help alot in degrading its capabilities. Think of when F-15/F-22s or others cannot maintain a datalink between each other etc.

Thus main focus would be to deny USAF from poking "permanent" holes in the air defenses.

Also to do this, Russia will have to conduct comprehensive and efficient response (even if not nuclear) to any attack, even if that attack is limited to a small standalone theater. This "openly declared" approach would trigger a WWIII but then also stop the events happening in that "small theater" in the first place.

Btw, Soviet Union had anti-SAT missiles way back in 1980s so cannot say Russia has not atleast kept some in inventory let alone not modify upon them. Also Mig-31s and Su-27s can be used in anti-SAT roles also.

originally posted by: victor7
JASSMs cost good $1.2M or more and JSOWs nearly $250k, even each JDAMs cost $25K and more for longer range.

If, heaven forbid, a shooting war breaks out with Russia, I don't think that price tags are going to be the driving factor of NATO's strategy.

originally posted by: victor7
Regarding the JASSM, JDAM and JSOWs, these subsonic deals can be handled by the KS-19 type IR tracking shells and even SA-6 and even smaller and cheaper missiles with similar features and strong anti jamming abilities. JASSM and JSOW are both subsonic hence it would be like chasing any small size commercial plane.................i.e not even a fighter jet.


JASSMs cost good $1.2M or more and JSOWs nearly $250k, even each JDAMs cost $25K and more for longer range.

Russia would definitely need to counter two superior abilities of USAF:
a) tracking and defeating stealth at much farther distance. Russia is good 10 years behind on stealth.
b) deny robust jamming by Howler type planes. Russia has been lagging on jamming and anti-jamming abilities all along.

Taking out satellite support even partially from the USAF's package can help alot in degrading its capabilities. Think of when F-15/F-22s or others cannot maintain a datalink between each other etc.

Thus main focus would be to deny USAF from poking "permanent" holes in the air defenses.

Also to do this, Russia will have to conduct comprehensive and efficient response (even if not nuclear) to any attack, even if that attack is limited to a small standalone theater. This "openly declared" approach would trigger a WWIII but then also stop the events happening in that "small theater" in the first place.

Btw, Soviet Union had anti-SAT missiles way back in 1980s so cannot say Russia has not atleast kept some in inventory let alone not modify upon them. Also Mig-31s and Su-27s can be used in anti-SAT roles also.

I admire your determination here but you continue to bring up the IR tracking and KS-19.

You have to realize that these guns fire lead shells like a rifle... The aircraft has to be very close to be effective at all... within a couple of miles if not less, the aircraft also has to be traveling quite slow which they wont be. As for the KS-19 taking out JASSM and JSOW, yes they are sub sonic but they travel at over 600 MPH which is only 200 less than the speed of sound (give or take) this is way faster than what you are suggesting and they would be very very hard targets for the KS-19 to hit.

You are talking about a cruise missile that is 14 feet long and 7 feet wide traveling at 600 MPH... It also flies about 50 feet off the ground meaning unless your KS-19 with IR is in an open desert you wont even see it due to terrain.

I would bet my life savings that even if a JASSM flew at 50 feet directly over an IR operated KS-19 that you STILL wouldnt hit it and this is if all conditions are perfect.

All of this is moot considering Russia doesnt even operate the KS-19 anymore.

The JASSM and JSOW are also low observable (stealth) missiles, Radar wont be able to track them.

Now as for the SA-7 and SA-6 anti-jamming.

About 2 years ago a Rafael with SPECTRA jamming package flew right over an S-300 (SA-10) in testing and was not detected and the S-300 did not achieve a lock (See MACE XIII). The SA-10 is obviously way more potent than the SA-6 and SA-7 systems and it wasnt able to deal with a powerful jammer like SPECTRA. The growler is said to be far more advanced than the SPECTRA system. I am sorry to say your SA-6 and SA-7 will be far less effective than they even were in Kosovo in which out of thousands of sorties, only 2 planes were shot down (not very effective).

Whatever anti-jamming the SA-6 and SA-7 has it wont stand up to NATO i can promise you.

Taking out satellites is way easier said than done. You are talking about launching a missile into space to intercept an object traveling at 13000 MPH. The soviets were TESTING an anti-sat weapon in the 80s but one was never produced in service. Regardless... NATO does have them and will use them.

Any air frame (mig 31 and su 27 included) can be used for Anti-Sat, the technology is not in the aircraft but in the missile used. If Russia develops an anti-sat missile then im sure your aircraft and ships both could launch them. That is how it works for NATO, the SM-3 can be launched by land sea or air and will intercept satellites or ballistic missiles.

Any "Skirmish" with Russia would lead to WWIII, i agree. Which is exactly why NATO and Russia should work to avoid this at all costs. However, a Russian response would not include Nuclear weapons at least not until it had no other options. A Russian Nuke launch would be detected the instant it was launched via satellites and Radar and all NATO nations would respond by firing Nukes back into Russia. This means that Hundreds of Millions will die in Europe, USA, and Russia. We dont include Nukes in these debates for this reason. Nukes means everyone loses.

a reply to: asims33

That JASSMs fly at 50 ft. is still better for other options like regular AA fire to be modified to bring them down. Much more cheaper option also. Heck at that height any modified version of RPG can score decent hits.

If S-300 has been defeated by Rafeal then that is a bad news for RuAF. Wonder what version of S-300 that was but that does not matter. If it has been defeated then Russia has to much worry about.

So per your post, Nukes are the only thing that Russia is counting on to defend itself. I highly doubt it.

But if RuAF does not have anti-SAT weapons, a confident strategy against USN ACs/CVNs, any long lasting tenacious strategy and set ups against combo of F-22/F-15/F-18/B-1/B-2 attacks, then they better inform Kremlin to change the tone of dealings on the global theaters.

If US can overcome their air defenses in say even 4-5 weeks, then it should be really worrisome for war planners in Moscow. Hope they are wise enough to do the needful regarding defending their interests.

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.

Some relief but not much, given that Pantsirs can also be jammed by F-18 Growler types.

Although system is mobile so tracking, shut off and move away would be easier. These can convey the radar data to bigger systems but given only 30km range, that is not too much to feel good about. And these do not come cheap at $15M a piece minimum.

Russia does have other mobile longer range radars but if JASSMs are allowed even under 5km vicinity, then due to IR signatures in missile's database it can find those radars............even if they have folded and moved away by say 1 kms or so.

www.strategypage.com...

Pantsir-S1 is a mobile system, each vehicle carries radar, two 30mm cannon, and twelve Tunguska missiles. The 90 kg (198 pound) Tunguska missile has a twenty kilometer range while the Pantsir-S1 radar has a 30 kilometer range. The missile can hit targets at up to 8,400 meters (26,000 feet) high. The 30mm cannon is effective up to 3,200 meters (10,000 feet). The vehicles used to carry all the Pantsir-S1 can vary, but the most common one used weighs 20 tons and has a crew of three. Each Pantsir-S1 vehicle costs about $15 million.

I would also bet a buck that US has several undeclared weapons in storage that are Russia specific to be used only in the ultimate showdown. Given that it is spending $600B+ a year which is immense hit to even US size economy, the Pentagon would not like to be dumbfounded against the "not so liked" Ruskies.

originally posted by: victor7
Some relief but not much, given that Pantsirs can also be jammed by F-18 Growler types.

Although system is mobile so tracking, shut off and move away would be easier. These can convey the radar data to bigger systems but given only 30km range, that is not too much to feel good about. And these do not come cheap at $15M a piece minimum.

Russia does have other mobile longer range radars but if JASSMs are allowed even under 5km vicinity, then due to IR signatures in missile's database it can find those radars............even if they have folded and moved away by say 1 kms or so.

www.strategypage.com...

Pantsir-S1 is a mobile system, each vehicle carries radar, two 30mm cannon, and twelve Tunguska missiles. The 90 kg (198 pound) Tunguska missile has a twenty kilometer range while the Pantsir-S1 radar has a 30 kilometer range. The missile can hit targets at up to 8,400 meters (26,000 feet) high. The 30mm cannon is effective up to 3,200 meters (10,000 feet). The vehicles used to carry all the Pantsir-S1 can vary, but the most common one used weighs 20 tons and has a crew of three. Each Pantsir-S1 vehicle costs about $15 million.

I would also bet a buck that US has several undeclared weapons in storage that are Russia specific to be used only in the ultimate showdown. Given that it is spending $600B+ a year which is immense hit to even US size economy, the Pentagon would not like to be dumbfounded against the "not so liked" Ruskies.

Yes the US Military has several black list weapons that no one knows about. The F-22 was being developed in the 80s and 90s and is now the top fighter jet in the world. Imagine what is being worked on right now.

The Hellads system will render SAM sites useless if it ever becomes operational.

Let me clarify one thing though. Dont take any of what i am saying to mean that Russia is not a strong enemy. NATO respects Russia's military and doesnt consider them an easy foe at all. There are several strategies Russia can use to effectively defend itself from NATO. Whether any of these are sound enough to defeat NATO is unlikely but at any rate simply hiding behind S-400 and S-300 systems along with anti-ship missiles is not going to be near enough.


A war with Russia would be costly and Russian war planners realize they cant win a conventional war with NATO this is why they have placed so much value in Nukes and why NATO is developing missile shields. If NATO can stop the nuke threat Russia would be in big trouble.

Either way it was a pleasure talking with you about it

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.