Iran's air defenses.

[ABBAFAN]

Could a Vulcan or similarly equipped bomber get through Iran's air defences?What kind of condition are they in?

[SUBMAN1]

No.

-S

[Enigma]

Russia sold them Tor M-1 missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_Missile_System) in 2007.

Out altitude capabilities would be a problem for them, however....

[SUBMAN1]

They also sold them S-300's - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-10A_Grumble

They also have a mixture of upgraded SA-2's, known as Sayyad-1 in Iran, and have a system based on the Chinese HQ-7 (An ultra low altitude missile) and it is known in Iran as Shahab Thaqeb.

-S

[Max2147]

In terms of aircraft for air defense, Iran has a pretty interesting mix of planes:

They've got the MiG 29: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29A-(9-12A)/1494589/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29A-%289-12A%29/1494589/M/)

They've got the F-14's left over from the Shah's days. They're still flying, but I don't know if they're combat capable: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Grumman-F-14A-Tomcat/1494015/M/

Also from the Shah's days, the F-4 Phantom is still flying: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E/1486518/M/

They've also got some planes that fled Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. Here's a Mirage F1: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Dassault-Mirage-F1BQ/1345290/L/

And here's an Il-76 AWACS plane: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76MD-Adnan/1345546/L/

Then there's the really interesting native modifications of American designs. First, a twin-tailed derivative of the F-5... in Blue Angels colors?: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Northrop-F-5E-Saeghe/1272144/L/

And to cap it all off, a 747 air refueling tanker! Maybe they could use this for the KC-45 ;): http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Boeing-747-131(SF)/1487680/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Boeing-747-131%28SF%29/1487680/M/)

[Oberon]

Much as I like the Vulcan, I expect that the only way it would get into Iran is as debris :wah:

[fatty]

Don't forget Allah's divine will.

[Raptor1]

Well, that's what would happen if you try to get a single bomber that was retired 25 years ago to get through a modern air defense, or any kind of competent air defense for that matter

Well, I suppose it could, given plenty of air cover and SAM suppression, but then, I could get a Cessna through that way too

[ABBAFAN]

Perhaps with a really niffty ECM upgrade? Can any of these missiles get up to 60 000 feet?

[Raptor1]

Pretty much all the aircraft in the Iranian arsenal are armed with da good ol' autocannon, even if you have such a nifty ECM that will effectively jam all the missiles they can throw at you (which I thoroughly doubt)

Could a Vulcan even reach 60,000 feet?

[Tribesman]

Could a Vulcan even reach 60,000 feet?
Yes the B2 versions had their altitude increased to 60,000, and the only remaining flying Vulcan is a B2 .

[ABBAFAN]

I take it an F 14 has no problem getting to 60 000 feet then.But would the missiles from the ground get up rthere?

I also heard in a theatre brief we had last year that maintainance issue with all their equipment means that a lot of stuff would fail.

[Max2147]

The SA-2 has shot down U-2's at altitude, so unless you're in an SR-71 or something we don't know about you can't evade it by flying high.

Maintainance/combat readiness is the great unknown of the Iranian military. My hunch is that they're in better shape than a lot of people think, but I don't have anything concrete to back that up.

Iranian technicians are some of the most ingenious people out there. They've kept their Western airliners and combat aircraft (like the F-14) flying despite 30 years of embargo and a decade long war. The Iranians are also pretty good at working the black market for spares. So if anybody can keep those planes operational and combat ready, it's the Iranians.

[Tribesman]

I also heard in a theatre brief we had last year that maintainance issue with all their equipment means that a lot of stuff would fail.
Which is why they need the new arms deal with Russia , which is why people don't want the deal to go through , which is why Russia can use it as leverage over the American systems going to eastern europe .

[baggygreen]

I also heard in a theatre brief we had last year that maintainance issue with all their equipment means that a lot of stuff would fail.
Which is why they need the new arms deal with Russia , which is why people don't want the deal to go through , which is why Russia can use it as leverage over the American systems going to eastern europe .Don't you just love International Relations :)

[GoldenRivet]

In terms of aircraft for air defense, Iran has a pretty interesting mix of planes:

They've got the MiG 29: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29A-(9-12A)/1494589/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29A-%289-12A%29/1494589/M/)

They've got the F-14's left over from the Shah's days. They're still flying, but I don't know if they're combat capable: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Grumman-F-14A-Tomcat/1494015/M/

Also from the Shah's days, the F-4 Phantom is still flying: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E/1486518/M/

They've also got some planes that fled Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. Here's a Mirage F1: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Dassault-Mirage-F1BQ/1345290/L/

And here's an Il-76 AWACS plane: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76MD-Adnan/1345546/L/

Then there's the really interesting native modifications of American designs. First, a twin-tailed derivative of the F-5... in Blue Angels colors?: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Northrop-F-5E-Saeghe/1272144/L/

And to cap it all off, a 747 air refueling tanker! Maybe they could use this for the KC-45 ;): http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Boeing-747-131(SF)/1487680/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Boeing-747-131%28SF%29/1487680/M/)

well, considering parts are very hard to get in Iran for those things.

given they could be reverse engineered i suppose... but i would put any single U.S. or Royal Eagle Driver up against 3 of Iranians best pilots any day of the week.

in the end it is the man... not the machine that wins the fight.

[baggygreen]

given they could be reverse engineered i suppose... but i would put any single U.S. or Royal Eagle Driver up against 3 of Iranians best pilots any day of the week.

in the end it is the man... not the machine that wins the fight.I dunno..

Man plays a big role, yes, but we're talking 30 and 40 year old tech (in the aircraft & avionics) against top of the line modern fighters with BVR capabilities.. thats like comparing a 1970s f1 racecar against todays top of the line ferarri or similar :03:

[GoldenRivet]

given they could be reverse engineered i suppose... but i would put any single U.S. or Royal Eagle Driver up against 3 of Iranians best pilots any day of the week.

in the end it is the man... not the machine that wins the fight.I dunno..

Man plays a big role, yes, but we're talking 30 and 40 year old tech (in the aircraft & avionics) against top of the line modern fighters with BVR capabilities.. thats like comparing a 1970s f1 racecar against todays top of the line ferarri or similar :03:
ok... true

but put Mario Andretti in the old F1, and say...

http://www.qualitypedalcars.com/files/1743348/uploaded/Race%20Car%20Costume%20Red-Blue.jpg

... put this guy in the super high performance brand new F1 racer

see how that works out.

You have to have your balls screwed on pretty tight for a modern day turn and burn furball... and i just wouldnt rate the iranian pilots very highly.

good perhaps, but not up there with the likes of our guys

[PeriscopeDepth]

In terms of aircraft for air defense, Iran has a pretty interesting mix of planes:

They've got the MiG 29: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29A-(9-12A)/1494589/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29A-%289-12A%29/1494589/M/)

They've got the F-14's left over from the Shah's days. They're still flying, but I don't know if they're combat capable: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Grumman-F-14A-Tomcat/1494015/M/

Also from the Shah's days, the F-4 Phantom is still flying: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-4E/1486518/M/

They've also got some planes that fled Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. Here's a Mirage F1: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Dassault-Mirage-F1BQ/1345290/L/

And here's an Il-76 AWACS plane: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Ilyushin-Il-76MD-Adnan/1345546/L/

Then there's the really interesting native modifications of American designs. First, a twin-tailed derivative of the F-5... in Blue Angels colors?: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Northrop-F-5E-Saeghe/1272144/L/

And to cap it all off, a 747 air refueling tanker! Maybe they could use this for the KC-45 ;): http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Boeing-747-131(SF)/1487680/M/ (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Iran---Air/Boeing-747-131%28SF%29/1487680/M/)

well, considering parts are very hard to get in Iran for those things.

given they could be reverse engineered i suppose... but i would put any single U.S. or Royal Eagle Driver up against 3 of Iranians best pilots any day of the week.

in the end it is the man... not the machine that wins the fight.
The Iranian Air Force does not promote like larger Air Forces do. Many of the pilots there are VERY experienced.

Oh and also:
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/06/worldwide-sam-site-overview.html

PD

[GoldenRivet]

Fair enough... i still say our guys would whip em :doh:

[Quillan]

I'm quite certain that if it came to a head up conflict between the Iranian air force and any major western power's air force, the Iranians would lose. That's not really the problem to my way of thinking; it's rather a lack of political will on the part of the people or the government.

To date, I think we (the US) have had around 5000 soldiers killed in Iraq. The media makes a huge deal about the numbers, and many civilians think that's way too many. Contrast that with just 65 years ago, the combined US/English/Canadian dead in just one day was nearly that much during the Normandy landings. Then, it was expected. Today, it's unacceptable. The popular opinion seems to be that we should be able to wipe them out of the sky without a single loss, and I think that's frankly unrealistic.

[GoldenRivet]

I'm quite certain that if it came to a head up conflict between the Iranian air force and any major western power's air force, the Iranians would lose. That's not really the problem to my way of thinking; it's rather a lack of political will on the part of the people or the government.

To date, I think we (the US) have had around 5000 soldiers killed in Iraq. The media makes a huge deal about the numbers, and many civilians think that's way too many. Contrast that with just 65 years ago, the combined US/English/Canadian dead in just one day was nearly that much during the Normandy landings. Then, it was expected. Today, it's unacceptable. The popular opinion seems to be that we should be able to wipe them out of the sky without a single loss, and I think that's frankly unrealistic.

you're absolutely right.

it used to be "we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks"

now its "Just get it over with... and try not to hurt anyone or get blood on anything."

[Max2147]

Fair enough... i still say our guys would whip em :doh:
In a conventional conflict, yes. But the Iranians know a lot about fighting an asymmetrical conflict.

The US Navy found this out the hard way in an exercise. The 'red team' (Iranians) launched a human wave suicide attack against the US fleet. The result was 16 American ships sunk, including 3 carriers, with about 20,000 US casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

[SUBMAN1]

In a conventional conflict, yes. But the Iranians know a lot about fighting an asymmetrical conflict.

The US Navy found this out the hard way in an exercise. The 'red team' (Iranians) launched a human wave suicide attack against the US fleet. The result was 16 American ships sunk, including 3 carriers, with about 20,000 US casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm
So that explains the development of the RIM-116 RAM missile. I never knew why before. They are starting to be deployed on all combat ships in the US Navy. Seems to me they did learn something from this exercise way back when. I'm guessing they already knew this vulnerability to close in missiles because RAM development started back in the mid 90's.

-S

[Zachstar]

Any attack against Iran with anything other than a B-2 with that much SAM cover is simply fail. Iran has been preparing for such a battle for ages. And they still have plenty of experience from their war with Iraq.

Do NOT underestimate their abilities. Less you have an Iranian version of the phoenix jammed up your butt.

Any air battle in Iran (Assuming Iran Declared war on one of our treaty allies) Is going to be long and difficult and we will have losses. Iraq was a cakewalk.

Thats what has me worried with all those Iran warhawks still out there. People think that we can "quell" Iran just as fast as we could Iraq and that is BS all the way. Iran has weapons AND people willing and wanting to die using them.

[FIREWALL]

How many seasoned combat veterns with kills are still flying on any side ?

That's the question to answer.

The US and Brits would overwhelm by sheer numbers today.

[fatty]

I'm quite certain that if it came to a head up conflict between the Iranian air force and any major western power's air force, the Iranians would lose. That's not really the problem to my way of thinking; it's rather a lack of political will on the part of the people or the government.

To date, I think we (the US) have had around 5000 soldiers killed in Iraq. The media makes a huge deal about the numbers, and many civilians think that's way too many. Contrast that with just 65 years ago, the combined US/English/Canadian dead in just one day was nearly that much during the Normandy landings. Then, it was expected. Today, it's unacceptable. The popular opinion seems to be that we should be able to wipe them out of the sky without a single loss, and I think that's frankly unrealistic.

Yeah. It's not so much a question of "could we beat them;" the answer to that is obviously yes, pound for pound Western inventories and capabilities outclass Iran several times. Ask instead "could we beat them before we suffer an unacceptable amount of casualties as perceived by governments or public support." My guess, given the mediocre outcome so far in Afghanistan and Iraq and indecisive support for an incursion into Iran, is that this threshold would be relatively low.

[Tribesman]

Ask instead "could we beat them before we suffer an unacceptable amount of casualties as perceived by governments or public support."
More importantly, could we beat them without paying a crippling financial price ?

[Zachstar]

Ask instead "could we beat them before we suffer an unacceptable amount of casualties as perceived by governments or public support." More importantly, could we beat them without paying a crippling financial price ?

Abolutely not

The price in simple bombs used to toss info Sam facilities will be astronomical. We nearly ran out in simple Iraq. With Iran you will have ALOT more misses as fighters have to jink and flare to get away from the many AAA and light Sam batteries.

The ground war will be EXTREMELY expensive. We will lose many tanks we have to run many flights and operations and lose many helos before we secure even half the country. They are ready for such a fight and we can spare no cost in the quest to win even marginally quickly.

Iraq was a very very light war. Iran will be a heavy war. And thus to support a heavy war will mean heavy treasure use. Assuming they invade an allied nation. Everyone will have to chip in to win such a conflict.


Now of course this will never happen because Iran is about to get Iraq as far as resources go as soon as we leave. They have won as far as they are concerned and their pissing contests with Israel will go no further. Look for them to suddenly "give up" on the nuclear issue when the time is right (They will squeeze us for some resources as they all do before they stop)

[OneToughHerring]

I'm quite certain that if it came to a head up conflict between the Iranian air force and any major western power's air force, the Iranians would lose. That's not really the problem to my way of thinking; it's rather a lack of political will on the part of the people or the government.

To date, I think we (the US) have had around 5000 soldiers killed in Iraq. The media makes a huge deal about the numbers, and many civilians think that's way too many. Contrast that with just 65 years ago, the combined US/English/Canadian dead in just one day was nearly that much during the Normandy landings. Then, it was expected. Today, it's unacceptable. The popular opinion seems to be that we should be able to wipe them out of the sky without a single loss, and I think that's frankly unrealistic.

Don't forget the ~100 000 injured (some with extremely serious head injuries that require treatment as long as they live) and the other coalition dead & injured. Also I think it's kinda unfair to not notice the soldiers who have completed their tour, once, twice or even three times. Plenty of those guys around, and I don't think they will be going back there. One should not see their input as nothing, right?

The comparisons to WW 2 seem a bit out of place IMHO, or is this yet another ploy to try to make this debacle seem somehow less bloody then it already is?

[Tribesman]

Zachstar , I was thinking more along the lines of the world economy rather than combattants defence expenditure .

[Max2147]

In a conventional conflict, yes. But the Iranians know a lot about fighting an asymmetrical conflict.

The US Navy found this out the hard way in an exercise. The 'red team' (Iranians) launched a human wave suicide attack against the US fleet. The result was 16 American ships sunk, including 3 carriers, with about 20,000 US casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm
So that explains the development of the RIM-116 RAM missile. I never knew why before. They are starting to be deployed on all combat ships in the US Navy. Seems to me they did learn something from this exercise way back when. I'm guessing they already knew this vulnerability to close in missiles because RAM development started back in the mid 90's.

-S
From what I know about the MC2002 debacle, the problem wasn't that the US didn't have the right weapons, it's that the US fleet had their pants down. They didn't take Iran's anti-ship capabilities seriously, so they didn't have the right radars on, and they didn't know they were under attack until things started blowing up.

It was like the USS Cole attack on a massive scale. The Cole had plenty of weapons that could have destroyed that suicide boat, but they weren't ready for an attack.

The key lesson is NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY. If there's any doubt about the enemy's capabilities, give them the benefit of the doubt. It's better to be too careful than dead. Plan for the worst case scenario. There's nothing wrong with pleasant surprises in war, but underestimating your enemy can cause serious problems.

In the case of Iran, if we attack them we should assume that ALL of their air defenses are fully operational and that their planes are being flown by skilled and experienced pilots.

[TLAM Strike]

Some reading on the subject:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=129494

[Max2147]

Some reading on the subject:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=129494
Very interesting read. Thanks for that!

[ABBAFAN]

Could the F-4 or F-5 or F-14 take on Sea Harriers(notwithstanding their recent withdrawal)with any chance?
Is the phoenix misile superior to the AMRAAM?

[Max2147]

Could the F-4 or F-5 or F-14 take on Sea Harriers(notwithstanding their recent withdrawal)with any chance?
Is the phoenix misile superior to the AMRAAM?
The Phoenix missile (which is only on the F-14) has a much longer range than the AMRAAM.

However the Phoenix was designed as a missile to kill bombers with. I'm not sure if it's maneuverable enough to take down a modern fighter as nimble as the Sea Harrier. The AMRAAM is much more maneuverable. The Phoenix is also an American weapon, so the Americans and their allies would have a leg up in designing an ECM package to defeat it.

Anyways, I'm not sure if Iran's Phoenix missile arsenal is serviceable. I know the Hughes technicians sabotaged the missiles when they were kicked out. I've read that Iran managed to fix them, but I'm not sure if they've kept them in service or not. None of the recent pictures I've seen of Iranian F-14's have shown Phoenix missiles.

As far as the strict plane vs. plane engagement, the Sea Harrier would be at a huge speed disadvantage. If they wanted to, the F-4 and the F-14 could simply avoid the Harriers by hitting the afterburner and flying away. However, you don't protect your country by flying away. The Iranians would also have the advantage of flying over their own territory, whereas the Harriers would probably be near the edge of their range.

[CaptainHaplo]

One thing I never understood was the phasing out of the phoenix. A missile that can reach something like 90 miles to kill your enemy - and instead of modernizing and keeping it up to elite standard - we go with crap like the Amraam. I mean cmon - 40 miles vs 90? If you miss at 90 - you got more time to shoot another volley. The accuracy is comparable, you cant tell me they cant keep the seeker package current - so why git rid of the best AAM in the inventory? I just don't get it.

Same question applies to the harpoon - though in a reverse way. Sure the Tasm has a longer range and is more "flexible" - but its over the shoulder, oh $hit I gotta get the first shot off ability is non-existent. The bugger has to be programmed 7 ways to sunday before you can launch it. With a Harpoon - its "go thataway (fire on bearing) - turn on the radar after travelling so far (narrow or wide search) and nail your target." Sure it had a small chance of a friendly hit - but it gave you an option that the Tasm doesn't. Not to mention the harpoon was a lot cheaper - and harder to counter than a Tasm. The only thing a Tasm strike has over harpoons besides range (and with a VLS - the sheer number) is you can have it hit your target from a direction that doesn't show them where you are.

Which if we really needed to take out a Iranian facility - it would be done with cruise missiles. If a truly massive strike was required, cruise missiles would hit static emplacements, while wild weasels, 117's and rotary wing birds took out the mobile stuff. With the ground defenses down, air cover would be maintained by fighter aircraft, letting heavies go in.

Iran - though having a very in depth ground based SAM network - has a glaring weakness. Low level strikes have proven time and again to be able to take out ground centered defenses. To control the air - you must have employ AEW - and they don't have anything capable of serving in that role. This would give us a HUGE advantage over them should it come to a truly intentional slugfest. Air superiority would be secured within 12-14 hours max.

[Schroeder]

Phoenix and AMRAAM are designed for different purposes. The AIM 54 is designed to deal with heavy soviet bombers not fighters. For engaging fighters it lacks manoeuvrability. Besides about 15 years ago one unit cost about 2mio $ (IIRC and if the source was correct).
The AMRAAM can take on all airborne targets regardless whether it is a bomber or a fighter. It is much nimbler and has therefore a bigger chance to hit.

[CaptainHaplo]

So lets build a physically longer Amraam, use the extra length for fuel, extending the range, and still have that reach out and kill someone OTH ability. Sounds like common sense to me. At least until we get the laser weaponry working right! :yeah:

Seriously - thanks for the info - always wondered that.

[Max2147]

As Schroeder said, the Phoenix wasn't really effective against fighters. The purpose of the Phoenix was to hit Soviet bombers before they got within missile range of a US CVBG. With that threat mostly gone, the Phoenix is sort of a weapon without a mission.

According to Wikipedia, the US fired the Phoenix three times in anger. All the shots were at fighters, and all missed. The F-14 kills over Libya were scored mostly with Sidewinders. In Desert Storm the rules of engagement required a clear identification, so the Phoenix's BVR capabilities were useless.

The AMRAAM is a great missile. More range would be nice, but physically changing the missile could compromise its assets like its maneuverability. A longer range missile is useless if it doesn't hit its target.

As far as Harpoon vs. TASM, I was always a fan of the TASM. The range was nice, but more importantly it packed a much bigger punch than the fairly weak Harpoon. But both are pretty vulnerable to SAM fire. I think the US Navy really needs a long range, high speed anti-ship missile like the Russians are so good at making.

Getting back to Iran, the US could probably attain nominal air superiority within days. But that wouldn't mean the whole country is safe for friendly air operations. Any low flying planes or helicopters would be vulnerable to shoulder mounted SAMs and mobile SAM systems.

It would sort of be like what the Soviets encountered in Afghanistan. The Afghanis didn't have an Air Force or fixed SAMs to use against the Soviets, but they still dealt out huge losses to the Soviets with shoulder mounted SAMs and other tactics. So the Soviets could fly all over the country at altitude, but anytime they got close to somehting important they'd get shot to pieces.

[XLjedi]

I say send in one F-15 with Chuck Norris painted on the fuselage.

Doesn't even matter who flies it...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

One thing I never understood was the phasing out of the phoenix. A missile that can reach something like 90 miles to kill your enemy - and instead of modernizing and keeping it up to elite standard - we go with crap like the Amraam. I mean cmon - 40 miles vs 90? If you miss at 90 - you got more time to shoot another volley. The accuracy is comparable, you cant tell me they cant keep the seeker package current - so why git rid of the best AAM in the inventory? I just don't get it.

The problem is more aerodynamic than the seeker. As an anti-bomber weapon, the missile's airframe is not stressed to the same degree as the AMRAAM, so it is much more likely to be outmaneuvered.

Iran - though having a very in depth ground based SAM network - has a glaring weakness. Low level strikes have proven time and again to be able to take out ground centered defenses. To control the air - you must have employ AEW - and they don't have anything capable of serving in that role. This would give us a HUGE advantage over them should it come to a truly intentional slugfest. Air superiority would be secured within 12-14 hours max.

Historically defensible, but one must be careful. Low level strikes have been able to take out defenses that were built to 1970s or so Soviet tech level (roughly equivalent to say late 60s to early 70s Western electronic tech level, before the microprocessor). The problem is more the tech level of the missile defenses, which weren't able to handle targets that fly low. Even a AEW of that tech level would be useless, because it won't be able to look down properly. Even if the AEW managed to look down properly, the fighter and its missile complex won't be able to lock up that target.

With the microprocessor and PD processing, it was finally possible to create something that can look down. Around the same time, missiles finally got good enough to begin to have a hit rate in real life that's actually worth something. The West achieved this around the mid-70s (with the teens series and their APG-6x series radars), then followed up with the missile (Phoenix, -F and then -M Sparrows) a bit later. But then the Soviets crashed in through that "door" after them in the early 80s.
And with that, the low-altitude "safe zone" was effectively closed.

Fortunately, the proliferation of the 80s generation of Soviet weapons wasn't that quick, especially to the 3rd World. So the West got to fight enemies through the 90s and 200x armed only with pre-NOE capable weapons (except for a few, very few MiG-29s, but then they have a huge advantage just in numbers for that area). I won't mention that many of the enemies so far could have employed what they did have a little more efficiently.

That's probably at least as big a factor than whether the enemy crammed a radar onto a jumbo jet (Iraq had a few AEW aircraft, for all the good it did them). But what happens if they fight enemies with more modern weapons in reasonable numbers? Even the "stealth window" is beginning to close with VHF radars doing what was once rather inconceivable such as getting almost fire-control quality tracks and actually getting mobile...

[Schroeder]

I think in the first gulf war most planes that got shot down were flying low, right?:hmm2:
Don't underestimate the efficiency of AAA. ~edit~ er, I meant effectiveness ~edit~
http://wzeu.ask.com/r?t=a&d=eu&s=de&c=p&ti=1&ai=30751&l=dir&o=0&sv=0a652945&ip=4d85406e&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bharat-rakshak.com%2FLAND-FORCES%2FArmy%2FImages%2F0170.jpg

[ABBAFAN]

What does 'over the shoulder' mean in reference to the TASM?

Would a low level Vulcan attack have more of a chance?

Wasn't there a missile called ASRAAM at one point?

[XLjedi]

What does 'over the shoulder' mean in reference to the TASM?

I think that's how you carry it around...

[Max2147]

I think that's how you carry it around...
You certainly can't carry a TASM around on your shoulder! ;)

What does 'over the shoulder' mean in reference to the TASM?

Would a low level Vulcan attack have more of a chance?

Wasn't there a missile called ASRAAM at one point?
TASM - I think the poster was talking about how quickly you can get a shot off. The TASM needs to have its entire course programmed in advance, while the Harpoon can just be fired in a direction and hope that it hits something. At least that's what I think he was talking about.

Low level - A low level Vulcan attack would have more of a chance, in that on a scale of 1-10, 2 is better than 1. But the Vulcan is far from an ideal low-level aircraft. Considering its age, I don't think the airframe would hold up too well to the stresses of a low-level attack.

ASRAAM - The ASRAAM exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASRAAM. It was part of the AMRAAM project between the Germans, Brits, and US. Eventually the Americans and Germans got fed up with the project and left to build their own short range missiles, but the Brits stuck with the project.

[XLjedi]

You certainly can't carry a TASM around on your shoulder! ;)

:salute: I trust you know your stuff.

I should know better than to comment on things I know nothing about. :hmmm:

[Max2147]

:salute: I trust you know your stuff.

I should know better than to comment on things I know nothing about. :hmmm:
TASM is the anti-ship missile version of the Tomahawk missile. It weighs about 1500 kilos/3000 pounds. ;)

[CaptainHaplo]

Yes Max nailed it - the Tasm requires a lot of programming - the harpoon is relatively simple as a point thataway - put in a couple of parameters and let it go kill your target.

[TLAM Strike]

You certainly can't carry a TASM around on your shoulder! ;) Maybe you can't... wussie :O:

What does 'over the shoulder' mean in reference to the TASM? I think it means a quick shot at a persuing enemy. The Harpoon has that capablity as I recall.

As far as Harpoon vs. TASM, I was always a fan of the TASM. The range was nice, but more importantly it packed a much bigger punch than the fairly weak Harpoon. But both are pretty vulnerable to SAM fire. I think the US Navy really needs a long range, high speed anti-ship missile like the Russians are so good at making. Dont forget the TASM/TLAM is a bit longer than the Harpoon which becomes an issue on smaller ships. But the US never really needed a High Speed ASM since that role was filled by supersonic Strike Aircraft with bombs and mavs.

[Max2147]

But the US never really needed a High Speed ASM since that role was filled by supersonic Strike Aircraft with bombs and mavs.
I'd have to think that any modern ship bigger than a destroyer would shoot a strike aircraft out of the sky well before it got within bombing/Maverick range.

[TLAM Strike]

I'd have to think that any modern ship bigger than a destroyer would shoot a strike aircraft out of the sky well before it got within bombing/Maverick range. I'm sure the Royal Navy thought the same thing right up till a bunch of old A-4 Skyhawks bombed their ships in the Falklands War.

Don't forget a strike aircraft is bigger than a missile meaning it can pack more ECM systems.

[Max2147]

I'm sure the Royal Navy thought the same thing right up till a bunch of old A-4 Skyhawks bombed their ships in the Falklands War.

Don't forget a strike aircraft is bigger than a missile meaning it can pack more ECM systems.
Air defense systems have moved forwards a long ways since 1982. The British fleet in the Falklands didn't have long range SAMs.

I can't say that I have a whole lot of faith in ECM systems. If the enemy ship only gets one shot at you, that's one thing. But with long range SAMs they get multiple shots on each plane. Even if less than half their shots hit they can still wipe out an attacking force.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Air defense systems have moved forwards a long ways since 1982. The British fleet in the Falklands didn't have long range SAMs.
They did have a LR SAM - the Sea Dart. Its theoretical range is IIRC longer than the Exocets the Argies were carrying, to say nothing of bombs. The problem was that the Argies were flying lower than Sea Dart's ability to lock on. LR SAMs are easy compared to the problems of getting SAMs to engage low-fliers right (even when they are above the radar horizon). The new systems are closing that hole at the bottom, or should be (because recent combat experience is mostly a case of America sending low-fliers including cruise missiles against older air defense systems, as I said up there).