No long range missiles for USN

[LoBlo]

Hey what gives...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54.htm
After 30 years of highly accomplished service, the U.S. Navy retired its first long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-54 Phoenix, 30 September 2004. One of the world's most technologically advanced tactical missiles, the AIM-54 Phoenix was the first operational radar-guided air-to-air missile that could be launched in multiple numbers against different targets from an aircraft, making the Phoenix the Navy's main fleet air defense long-range weapon.

Problem is... when the Phoenix missile was retired the USN lost its only long range Air-to-Air Missile. It was originally supposed to be succeed by a new long range missile here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aaam.htm
but that program was cancelled...

...So it seems like the USN has ended production of its only long range AA missile without a replacement...:o :-? :doh: :dead:

... given this strange decision... makes you wonder if the USN was so readly to cancel the program then one might suspect that perhaps the missile was never that effective or reliable in the first place, and may have been grossly ineffective/inaccurate all along...

[Sea Demon]

Who are they (USN) going to use these missiles against? Why maintain an expensive missile like this when AIM-120 is more than capable against current threats? I don't see any long ranged threats impending for US CSG's. Nor do I see any real challenges to US air supremacy in any real world battlespace, that would warrant the re-inception of this type of missile. Russia? No. They can't amass the long-ranged bomber and fighter formations to confront US naval forces anymore. China?? Nope. Not yet at any rate. India? They're becoming more of a friend than anything else.

Bottom line. USN currently doesn't need the Phoenix. ;) And remember, the new AIM-120D upgrade gives it a range reaching 130 Km (70 Nm). That's plenty in the world of modern BVR tactics and modern electronic warfare.

No the Phoenixes were very effective. But today's threat assessments don't require they remain in service.

[LoBlo]

Because the Phoenix isn't that much more expensive than the AIM-120. About $390,000 per missile for an AIM-120. About $470,000 for the Phoenix.

Thing is, if the Phoenix has already achieved the best speed, and better range. While spend time upgrading the AIM-120 when one could instead upgrade the Phoenix?...

Bottom line. USN currently doesn't need the Phoenix

One could argue that the USN currently doesn't need the AIM-120 since it has the Phoenix.:hmm:

[Sea Demon]

I'm not sure where you come up with Phoenix's pricetag. But it's widely known in the industry that Phoenix was actually closer to $1.2 Million a piece. AMRAAM is closer to the figure you listed. And Phoenix is large and heavy. It's also not compatible on Hornets, Vipers, or Eagles. It's electronics package was only available on the "Cats". And they've been retired. Even if they gave these other aircraft the capability to carry Phoenix, they could carry a bigger AMRAAM load due to the weight considerations. And it probably wouldn't fit in the Raptor's weapons bay. AMRAAM has much better electronics and is easier to maintain and upgrade. The only thing Phoenix has over AMRAAM is an additional 30 Nm. And that's about it. :know:

It was a good weapon, but AMRAAM is much more useful for today's threats.

[LoBlo]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-54-specs.htm

[Sea Demon]

hmm. I stand corrected on the costs. I just remember reading in a congressional budget office report, the prohibitive cost of Phoenix and Sparrow versus other newer systems. Not an online report so no link. And they listed $1.2 Million per unit. :hmm: It wouldn't be the first time someone in government screwed up the numbers. :lol:

At any rate, the other stuff I listed is the main reasons we saw the Phoenix go away. I'm sad it and the Tomcats have been retired. But like I said, AMRAAM is more than capable in today's battlespace. And without the Tomcats, Phoenix's aren't useful at all.

[LoBlo]

I remember reading a $1million plus dollar price tag as well somewhere, but I can't remeber where. It may be that GlobalSecurity is the one that's mistaken.

Its just curious that a successor have less speed AND less range than its predessor. I can't think of a another weapon system evolution that has ever showed this trend...:hmm: Especially when "air superiority" is the ultimate goal. One would think that the less closing maneuvers neccessary the more "air superiority" would result.

Then again, I've heard stories of the USN and its systems acquistion policies... they can be somewhat confounded by political implications (favortism toward certain builders, congressional bias, etc) as well as archiac thinking. No doubt some of those factors probably come into play with funding/developing billion dollar acquistion programs.

[Wim Libaers]

Less speed and range, OK. But a more modern radar (OK, so they could have upgraded that instead of making the AMRAAM), and more agile (more likely to hit those things that are in range). Phoenix was mostly for not very manueverable targets.

The smaller size and cost are advantages too, having more weapons and being able to carry more of them at the same time is useful.

Finally, if the need for a long-range missile does arise in the next few years, the US has European allies working on such a missile (Meteor, with a ramjet engine that is supposed to give it high speed (Mach 4) and full manueverability during most of its flight), and it's planned to be mostly compatible with AMRAAM, with modifications to fit it in the F-35. Not ready yet, but they're making progress. http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw060515_1_n.shtml Raytheon had an AMRAAM variant proposal too (FMRAAM).

[TLAM Strike]

Its just curious that a successor have less speed AND less range than its predessor. I can't think of a another weapon system evolution that has ever showed this trend...:hmm: The AIM-120 is a replacment for the AIM-7 not the AIM-54. The long range AIM-120 isn't filling the shoes of the AIM-54 its making new shoes. The AIM-54 was to take out Backfires the AIM-120 is going to be for taking out smaller more agile ASM launching fighter bombers.

[Kurushio]

Let's face it...it's all overkill. Just look at all the conflicts in the last 2 decades...even going further back. Air conflicts have been the biggest pushover for Western airforces. And it looks like the trend is going to continue.
The US (and Western powers) are so far in front in terms of fighter technology, any country wanting to take them on is pure suicidal. Even the old F15 has never been shot down (by an enemy fighter), imagine the F22...

Not for nothing we have the SuperHornet...less emphasis on fighter more on attack.

[goldorak]

Let's face it...it's all overkill. Just look at all the conflicts in the last 2 decades...even going further back. Air conflicts have been the biggest pushover for Western airforces. And it looks like the trend is going to continue.
The US (and Western powers) are so far in front in terms of fighter technology, any country wanting to take them on is pure suicidal. Even the old F15 has never been shot down (by an enemy fighter), imagine the F22...

Not for nothing we have the SuperHornet...less emphasis on fighter more on attack.


Serbs downed an F117 Stealth Fighter.
U-2 spyplanes were downed by SA-2 missiles (one over the soviet union, and one over cuba).
During the Vietnam War, american fighter and bomber squadrons were shot down.

[TLAM Strike]

Serbs downed an F117 Stealth Fighter.
U-2 spyplanes were downed by SA-2 missiles (one over the soviet union, and one over cuba).
During the Vietnam War, american fighter and bomber squadrons were shot down. What he ment was aside from Vietnam and 1 F/A-18 in the Gulf War (1991) no USAF/USN/USMC combat aircraft has been downed in Air to Air combat in the last 50 years.

[Kurushio]

Serbs downed an F117 Stealth Fighter.
U-2 spyplanes were downed by SA-2 missiles (one over the soviet union, and one over cuba).
During the Vietnam War, american fighter and bomber squadrons were shot down.

As TLAM said, if you read properly, you would have noted I was referring to air-to-air combat. Isn't that what this topic is about? The Phoenix etc?

Though goldorak...you keep on harping on about that F117 that got shot down by Serbs. You do realise the F117 isn't invisible to radar, right? Fact remains that out of thousands of sorties, they have still lost only 1 of these planes. That's not bad any way you put it.

Now with the U2 you are talking about SOVIET forces...i.e. the only other superpower which could realistically threaten the US, now defunct. You missed the whole point of my post because I meant AFTER the Cold War, i.e. NOW.

The Vietnam war is the same, considering the Vietnamese were using Soviet technology.

Hope this clears some stuff up...;)

[LuftWolf]

Though goldorak...you keep on harping on about that F117 that got shot down by Serbs. You do realise the F117 isn't invisible to radar, right? Fact remains that out of thousands of sorties, they have still lost only 1 of these planes. That's not bad any way you put it.

Except that I believe this F117 was shot down with a stopwatch and small arms... it's not INVISIBLE to the eye, that's the biggest problem.

[goldorak]

Except that I believe this F117 was shot down with a stopwatch and small arms... it's not INVISIBLE to the eye, that's the biggest problem.
Well stated like that, its the problem of all stealth aircrafts isn't it ? ;)

[SeaQueen]

Though goldorak...you keep on harping on about that F117 that got shot down by Serbs. You do realise the F117 isn't invisible to radar, right? Fact remains that out of thousands of sorties, they have still lost only 1 of these planes. That's not bad any way you put it.


I always think it's entertaining how people outside of the US seem to set their expectations of what American technology can do artificially high, and then when it fails to live up to their artificially high expectations, they claim it's no good at all. Bottom line: Serbia ran out of bridges really fast.

And then they try to copy it...

It's like we got all the creative engineers and everyone else is just jealous. :)

I think the F-117's record is even more impressive considering that it was designed before I was born.

[Kurushio]

Except that I believe this F117 was shot down with a stopwatch and small arms... it's not INVISIBLE to the eye, that's the biggest problem.
No, it was shot down by a radar controlled SAM battery. Or so it seems...though the F/A117 is pretty much invisible at night...it's black. And these things primarily fly night sorties...also think the one in Serbia was shot down in the dark. Which pretty much negates small arms and a stopwatch.

[Kurushio]

I always think it's entertaining how people outside of the US seem to set their expectations of what American technology can do artificially high, and then when it fails to live up to their artificially high expectations, they claim it's no good at all. Bottom line: Serbia ran out of bridges really fast.

And then they try to copy it...

It's like we got all the creative engineers and everyone else is just jealous. :)

I think the F-117's record is even more impressive considering that it was designed before I was born.


And that's putting it mildly. I've been in a discussion with both Serbs and Kosovon/Albanian fighters who were there. Every Serb blames the US Airforce (or the Kosovon Airforce as they refer to it) as the only factor for pulling back to pre-war borders. The only reason the Kosovons weren't massacred is because of the US Airforce...their words. ;)

[LoBlo]

The only reason the Kosovons weren't massacred is because of the US Airforce...their words. ;)

Go USA. :up:

[LuftWolf]

No, it was shot down by a radar controlled SAM battery. Or so it seems...though the F/A117 is pretty much invisible at night...it's black. And these things primarily fly night sorties...also think the one in Serbia was shot down in the dark. Which pretty much negates small arms and a stopwatch.

Didn't know that.

Actually, the best color for night flying is grey... the B-2 and the F-117 are painted black for propaganda reasons, at least that's the story I heard.

Who knows... seems like they're enough propaganda on their own.

[Kurushio]

Didn't know that.

Actually, the best color for night flying is grey... the B-2 and the F-117 are painted black for propaganda reasons, at least that's the story I heard.

Who knows... seems like they're enough propaganda on their own.
Out of curiosity, how did the story about the stopwatch and small arms go? The F/A117 was shot down by a Soviet SAM radar battery (as you'd imagine in that part of the world)...though was bound to happen sooner or later with the amount of AA they throw at those things.

I've seen a 117 fly overhead in the day time...twice (double flyover)....beautiful planes...very strange indeed. Was supposed to have seen the B2 in 2002 but it was being prepared to bomb Iraq. :rock:

edit: Actually, the last line should read "was being prepared to POSSIBLY bomb Iraq". Otherwise conspirators will say the Iraq War was a forgone conclusion in 2002...

[TLAM Strike]

Out of curiosity, how did the story about the stopwatch and small arms go? There was a line of people with Cell Phones from the base they were taking off from in Italy to accross Yugoslava, they would call in with sightings to their command and after a few sightings they would have a good idea the target for the bomber and ready their weapons to shoot right when he would fly overhead (F-117s have a larger RCS from below).

[Kurushio]

There was a line of people with Cell Phones from the base they were taking off from in Italy to accross Yugoslava, they would call in with sightings to their command and after a few sightings they would have a good idea the target for the bomber and ready their weapons to shoot right when he would fly overhead (F-117s have a larger RCS from below).

Ok...a bit of espionage (done on the cheap) and a bit of eagle-eyeness and a bit of pot luck shooting. :D Though it does leave many questions. Where do the "small arms" come in? Also, I can understand if the plane flew out of Italy (probably Aviano) it could be spotted (just about...at night remember). But how is anyone over Yugoslavia supposed to spot it at 40,000 feet from the ground? Something nobody tells you....the F/A117 is ghostly quiet...I could barely hear it and that was flying over my head at a height of 200 feet. It's also virtually invisible at night, unless it has it's landing lights on.

[TLAM Strike]

But how is anyone over Yugoslavia supposed to spot it at 40,000 feet from the ground? Something nobody tells you....the F/A117 is ghostly quiet...I could barely hear it and that was flying over my head at a height of 200 feet. It's also virtually invisible at night, unless it has it's landing lights on. Ironicly they spot it with Radar. From directly below the F-117 is visable on radar if the weather conditions are right (rainy).

[Deadeye313]

I think the F-117 is should still get a gold star for only one getting shot down. I mean, in Red Storm Rising, written back in the 80s, Clancy gave the stealth fighters (he had a fighter/bomber imagined rather than just a bomber) a 2% chance of being shot down. Therefore, after like 50 mission they were losing guys every couple missions.

I think though, with hundreds of sorties flown, and only 1 shot down, the actual odds of killing a stealth fighter/bomber is like next to nil. Granted it wasn't the soviet we were fighting but it was their technology.

[TLAM Strike]

I think the F-117 is should still get a gold star for only one getting shot down. Well... 1 shot down 1 damaged beyond repair... :know:

[timmyg00]

Its just curious that a successor have less speed AND less range than its predessor. I can't think of a another weapon system evolution that has ever showed this trend... I can think of one example; I recently completed reading U.S. Submarines Since 1945 (An Illustrated Design History) by Norman Friedman (ISBN 1557502609), which details some concerns over the loss of speed between the Permit class and Sturgeon class SSNs.

I know that has absolutely nothing to do with AAMs, but you rang a bell, so I had to answer the door... :-j

TG

[Kurushio]

Ironicly they spot it with Radar. From directly below the F-117 is visable on radar if the weather conditions are right (rainy).

Yeah but he was talking about spotting it with binos

Anyway, the F/A117 isn't invisible to radar...never was. It's just a myth. The radar cross-section of the plane is so small, it is equivalent to that of a large bird. But, if they calibrate the radar to pick up small objects such as large birds...and there are no birds in the sky (i.e. night)...

[TLAM Strike]

...and there are no birds in the sky (i.e. night)... Uhhhh what about Owls and Bats genius? :doh:

[Kurushio]

Uhhhh what about Owls and Bats genius? :doh:

By large bird we're talking about an albatros or crane....don't think any bat comes close to those dimensions and only 1 owl I know does (the Eagle Owl)...though what are the chances? Don't think radars are set up to pick up anything smaller then the largest birds out there...even then...can't be easy.

[TLAM Strike]

...don't think any bat comes close to those dimensions... What about Dracula? Dosn't he come from that area of the world? :hmm:

CIWS can lock on to Seagulls and they aren't that big.

EDIT: Oh and Bats can fly in groups and flocks of birds can be picked up on Radar.

[Kurushio]

What about Dracula? Dosn't he come from that area of the world? :hmm:

CIWS can lock on to Seagulls and they aren't that big.

EDIT: Oh and Bats can fly in groups and flocks of birds can be picked up on Radar.

CIWS is a world away from a SAM battery radar. Just think of the ranges...

[TLAM Strike]

CIWS is a world away from a SAM battery radar. Just think of the ranges... What about the CADS-N-1 and its 'Hot Flash' FCR? It controls both twin 30mm guns and a SA-N-11 Battery. ;) The US CIWS radar can track a target long before it can attack.

[Kurushio]

What about the CADS-N-1 and its 'Hot Flash' FCR? It controls both twin 30mm guns and a SA-N-11 Battery. ;) The US CIWS radar can track a target long before it can attack.

Yeah ok, don't actually give us the distance...I believe it's not supposed to be public knowledge. Can radar track a seagull? Probably. Would you want it to though? Not likely. And that's the point...the F/A117 works on this principle. You can't track every flying object out there, so unless you know what you're looking for, you wont see it. That's why they probably shot it down...they knew what to look for. Maybe they were tracking it through Yugoslavia...who knows?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

There's always velocity rejection and MTI. Not that many birds fly at 200knots plus.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I think though, with hundreds of sorties flown, and only 1 shot down, the actual odds of killing a stealth fighter/bomber is like next to nil. Granted it wasn't the soviet we were fighting but it was their technology.

To be fair though, it:
1) They weren't fighting against the Soviet best, but the 2nd line that were being replaced by the time F-117s started coming in (SA-6 instead of SA-11, SA-8 instead of SA-15...)
2) They were fighting against Soviet tech, not the Soviet system itself. That's a very important distinction. When you pit a complete system (like the US does) against some tech or even an incomplete system, you will win big.

[swimsalot]

1. It would seem that the need for the AIM-54 Phoenix is no longer present, the threat has changed.
2. The primary delivery platform for the AIM-54 Phoenix has been retired (F-14 Tomcat).
3. The radar aquisition systems on the 2 missiles are fundamentally similar, but vastly dissimilar in terms of capability.
4. If you fire enough SAMS or bullets into the air, eventually ypu will hit something, irregardless of Stealth technology. It's just a matter of odds. Curious to hear people "bragging" about the downing of 1 F-117 out of the thousands of sorties flown in combat envirionments. Envy?

[TLAM Strike]

Curious to hear people "bragging" about the downing of 1 F-117 out of the thousands of sorties flown in combat envirionments. Envy? I think as humans (more or less) we like to see people fail, and if something blows up during that failure even better. ;)

[Deadeye313]

the word failure doesn't even apply to that shooting down of the F-117. I think in world war 2 if you lost 5 B-17s (50 men out of 200 (20 planes)) your mission was successful.

Losing one plane over the course of several wars is completely unheard of. damn, it's almost like using cheat codes for the US to be so friggin successful.

[TLAM Strike]

Yea but for the cost of 1 F-117 you could buy like 800 B-17s.

[Kurushio]

Yea but for the cost of 1 F-117 you could buy like 800 B-17s.

You'd have to match the relative costs compared to the US dollar in the 1940s. I bet a B-17 cost a hell of a lot in those days. ;)

Kazuaki....if that's the case, I can play at that game. Let's see...the F/A117 wasn't designed to fight small guerilla wars such as the one in Yugoslavia, so when it was shot down, it was not in it's intended theatre of operation. Considering only one was shot down, that's not bad.
Second point: The F/A117 is designed primarily for incursions into Soviet airspace. They were thinking massed search radar etc. Not the old, sly AA battalion commander who would fire up the radar when a plane was in his suspected vicinity. Remember that the Soviets would have their radar on pretty much always...and wouldn't have all night to look for 1 plane.

So the argument works both ways. The Gulf War was more F/A117 territory...and it performed excedingly well. Did well in Yugoslavia despite one loss...just ask the Serbs. ;)

[TLAM Strike]

You'd have to match the relative costs compared to the US dollar in the 1940s. I bet a B-17 cost a hell of a lot in those days.

What was the cost of a B-17 back then anyways? Can't find any data on it...

[goldorak]

What was the cost of a B-17 back then anyways? Can't find any data on it...

Almost $ 240.000 in 1940 curreny.

[TLAM Strike]

Ok lets do the math class...

B-17 Bomber in 1983 USD: 1,671,918.15
F-117 Nighthawk in 1983 USD: 45,000,000.00

(Pfft I ain't showing my gorram work!)

So you can buy 26.91 B-17s for the price of one F-117. (If you trust someone who barely passed math).

:-j

[Deadeye313]

of course, though, you would lose all those B-17s if the enemy had SAMs. The B-17s were built for WW2 when all they had to worry about was little machine gun fighters and Flak. Missiles would rips a B-17 squadron apart.

[Kurushio]

Ok lets do the math class...

B-17 Bomber in 1983 USD: 1,671,918.15
F-117 Nighthawk in 1983 USD: 45,000,000.00

(Pfft I ain't showing my gorram work!)

So you can buy 26.91 B-17s for the price of one F-117. (If you trust someone who barely passed math).

:-j

What has the price of a B-17 in 1983 got to do with anything? Yeah so buying a museum piece in 1983 is comparable to buying a front-line war machine? :roll:

$140,000 dollars in 1940 was very near the mark considering you cuold buy a house for about 1,000 dollars.

[TLAM Strike]

What has the price of a B-17 in 1983 got to do with anything? Yeah so buying a museum piece in 1983 is comparable to buying a front-line war machine? :roll: To compare the prices of something from two decades you must adjust for inflation. I had the price of a F-117 in 1983 USD so I adjusted the cost of a B-17 from 1940 USD to 1983 USD. So if they were both being sold fresh from the factory in 1983 those two prices would be valid.

[Kurushio]

To compare the prices of something from two decades you must adjust for inflation. I had the price of a F-117 in 1983 USD so I adjusted the cost of a B-17 from 1940 USD to 1983 USD. So if they were both being sold fresh from the factory in 1983 those two prices would be valid.

Well then, I think you've done your sums wrong. 240,000 US dollars in 1940 was a hell of a lot more then the equivalent 1,600,000 odd in 1983. Trust me. Also, how can you compare the price of the F/A117 in 1983 when it was still in development? Surely you'd have to apply the price when it started production onwards....

Mind boggling. :-?

[LuftWolf]

TLAM is adjusting the cost of both to 1983 USD value, and then comparing the price.

Seems solid to me. In this US this is high school math... and I thought our schools were supposed to be bad? :know:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Kazuaki....if that's the case, I can play at that game.

Anyone can play the tactic I just did, only that it takes a bit of care to make sure the change of circumstance is clearly disadvantageous to the side you wish to defend.

Let's see...the F/A117 wasn't designed to fight small guerilla wars such as the one in Yugoslavia, so when it was shot down, it was not in it's intended theatre of operation. Considering only one was shot down, that's not bad.

Saying "guerilla war" might help if the F-117 was backshot by some SA-16 by by some machine guns mounted on trucks, and that's might, because the lack of a system means that the F-117 should be able to fly at a height which virtually eliminates such low-alt threats. Being shot down by a SA-3 made it a very conventional battle.

Second point: The F/A117 is designed primarily for incursions into Soviet airspace. They were thinking massed search radar etc. Not the old, sly AA battalion commander who would fire up the radar when a plane was in his suspected vicinity. Remember that the Soviets would have their radar on pretty much always...and wouldn't have all night to look for 1 plane.

Now tell me how this massive inferiority in equipment is supposed to help me fight a F-117. :D

It is obvious how a fully implemented system could help improve the odds. It is not clear how lacking such a system would help.

So the argument works both ways. The Gulf War was more F/A117 territory...and it performed excedingly well. Did well in Yugoslavia despite one loss...just ask the Serbs. ;)

Gulf War - see Post 1 :D

[Kurushio]

Anyone can play the tactic I just did, only that it takes a bit of care to make sure the change of circumstance is clearly disadvantageous to the side you wish to defend.

hmmm...ok :hmm:



Saying "guerilla war" might help if the F-117 was backshot by some SA-16 by by some machine guns mounted on trucks, and that's might, because the lack of a system means that the F-117 should be able to fly at a height which virtually eliminates such low-alt threats. Being shot down by a SA-3 made it a very conventional battle.

No offence, but this post shows me you don't really know what happens on the battlefield. It's not about the equipment used. It's about how you use it.
Guerilla Warfare means war by unconventional means. i.e. Again, it has nothing to do with the equipment used. You see ideally and in a conventional war, you'd expect radar to be up pretty much always to protect important military assets. That is not what they were doing...



Now tell me how this massive inferiority in equipment is supposed to help me fight a F-117. :D

It is a well known fact that older Soviet equipment is actually better at picking up the F/A117...

It is obvious how a fully implemented system could help improve the odds. It is not clear how lacking such a system would help.

See post above.



Gulf War - see Post 1 :D

You'll have to be more specific. Gulf War was a very different conflict to the Kosovo War. ;) You do realise Iraq had one of the best Air Defence networks of any nation at the time, do you? And no F/A117 lost in hundreds of sorties. That just puts more weight on my argument about conventional war (Gulf War) and Guerilla Warfare (Kosovo).:up:

[Kurushio]

TLAM is adjusting the cost of both to 1983 USD value, and then comparing the price.

Seems solid to me. In this US this is high school math... and I thought our schools were supposed to be bad? :know:

I dispute 240,000 dollars in the 1940s is equivalent to 1.8 million in 1983. No way Jose. With 240,000 dollars in 1940 you could probably buy a hotel....with 1.8 million in 1983 you could just about buy a penthouse. Just to put it in layman's terms.

So it's not the maths I dispute.;)

[LuftWolf]

You are talking about purchasing power, which is a different measure than the inflation rate.

I believe it is standard practice to use the inflation rate to compare the value of dollars rather than the purchasing power, because the purchasing power is tied to the price of goods in a society, which is not strictly related to the value of the currency... formal classical economics is not something I've paid ALL that much attention too... so don't laugh too hard out there, if someone who should actually know what they are talking about read this. :oops:

Cheers,
David

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

No offence, but this post shows me you don't really know what happens on the battlefield. It's not about the equipment used. It's about how you use it.
Guerilla Warfare means war by unconventional means. i.e. Again, it has nothing to do with the equipment used. You see ideally and in a conventional war, you'd expect radar to be up pretty much always to protect important military assets. That is not what they were doing...

Not good enough. You have to explain how that suddenly made the F-117 vulnerable. Some radars and SAMs being off is just part of basic strategy of deception.

It is a well known fact that older Soviet equipment is actually better at picking up the F/A117...

Sorry, pal, no dice. It is true that ancient, metric-wave radars are said to be more effective at picking up the F-117, but:
1) The lowest-freq radar usually associated with the SA-3 is the P-15, which is only down to C-band - that's only decimetric.
2) The P-15 is also associated with SA-8, which is being replaced but still in Soviet service. If you say the F-117 is vulnerable to it, then it is vulnerable to Soviet Air Defense, which still includes the system.
3) The P-15 is a 2D search radar - even the height finder is E-band. The fire control radars are I-band as is usual.
3) Remember, it is a system. Even if the F-117 is specifically vulnerable to one radar, the American system as a whole should have made up for it.

You'll have to be more specific. Gulf War was a very different conflict to the Kosovo War. ;) You do realise Iraq had one of the best Air Defence networks of any nation at the time, do you? And no F/A117 lost in hundreds of sorties. That just puts more weight on my argument about conventional war (Gulf War) and Guerilla Warfare (Kosovo).:up:

Not only did the Iraqis use an older generation of equipment on its way out for the war (a mix of 60s and 70s equipment), but this "one of the best" really shows the abyss that exist between first (as in superpower) and second-tier nations that became even more apparent than it ever was in recent times.

For example, the Brits, Germans and Canadians got "three of the best" air forces in the world. In some limited areas, they may be better than the United States itself. Now throw these three air forces together against the Iraqi air defense system. They may or may not succeed but they'd almost certainly take heavy casualties. Throw them against the Soviet air defense system all by themselves and it may disintegrate into a complete massacre.

The problem is that a second-tier nation simply cannot afford a system like a first-world nation can. What can be done is that they either settle for making the best system they can alone, knowing that if a first-tier nation got serious on them, they'd die - that's Iraq and we all know what happened there. Or they can become supplementary "plugs" to a first-tier nation's System. Either way, the chasm in real ability is huge.

Finally, the Gulf War is also a bit funky in that the Americans were allowed effectively a 2-month air prep before the first move. Not real likely to happen again.

[LuftWolf]

Finally, the Gulf War is also a bit funky in that the Americans were allowed effectively a 2-month air prep before the first move. Not real likely to happen again.

The Law of Power Projection sez, "we'll do it any time we feel like doing it". :smug:

[Kurushio]

Exactly, who's going to stand up and say "No! you will NOT prepare your aerial campaign 2 months in advance!...because...errr". :lol:

Finally, the Gulf War is also a bit funky in that the Americans were allowed effectively a 2-month air prep before the first move. Not real likely to happen again.
Kazuaki...your arguments are all over the place...and you should check your facts. The Gulf War wasn't Iraq against the US but Iraq against a UN coalition force. If you can;t even get that right...frankly I'm wasting my time.

By the way, what's this mysterious "system" you're talking about. You say "system" as if it's shrouded in mystery... :roll: I think you don't know yourself. :hmm:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Exactly, who's going to stand up and say "No! you will NOT prepare your aerial campaign 2 months in advance!...because...errr". :lol:

Actually, most of the time, people won't give you six months to set up, move all your guys in by ship, and so on...

Kazuaki...your arguments are all over the place...and you should check your facts. The Gulf War wasn't Iraq against the US but Iraq against a UN coalition force. If you can;t even get that right...frankly I'm wasting my time.

I'd call this a real nitpick, considering the preponderance of US forces (over 50% in raw manpower), 74% of the troops, probably more in combat power, and even more when one considers that the US owns virtually all the "force multipliers" of the System (getting to this, getting to this) involved.

By the way, what's this mysterious "system" you're talking about. You say "system" as if it's shrouded in mystery... :roll: I think you don't know yourself. :hmm:

Not really that mysterious - the System could basically be phrased as the combination of Thought, Material and Actualization. In fact, by Soviet definition the term may be unified into Doctrine, but I wanted to emphasize the Material part of all this and we aren't Russians, so I avoided the term.

Every nation, of course, has strategists that look at the strengths and weaknesses of themselves, their allies, and their enemies. Then they write plans - that's doctrine. Generally, it'd be a Combined Arms plan with various types of weapons.

To make doctrine useful, you need Equipment. When the two come together, combined with a third member, training, it becomes the Holy Trinity called the System.

[swimsalot]

Actually, most of the time, people won't give you six months to set up, move all your guys in by ship, and so on...

The poster seems to to forget the point that they didn't "let" the Coalition Forces spend 6 months building up; Iraq didn't have a friggin choice in the matter, it was decided for them. They spent 6 months digging ditches in the sand, which Coalition forces conveniently went around with a beautiful left hook maneuver.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

How was it decided for them if they decided to spend six months of time digging trenches instead of say launching a spoiling attack. They wouldn't necessarily have won, but it surely would have been better than waiting six months, then another two while they bombed you, and so on.

[Kurushio]

I don't see how all that gobledygook has anything to do with an F-117A which was shot down over Yugosliavia. Frankly. So I'll just answer: weejooma doo ba ba, smchelkzsda! :up:

As for your point about a spoiling attack. You do realise countries have laws too, yes? So if Saddam, at the time, had attacked Coalition forces massing in say, Saudi Arabia...you do realise what that would mean, yes? It would mean the whole muslim world would side against Iraq considering Saudi Arabia is "holy land" to muslims and Saddam was considered pretty much an infidel. So, Saddam would've been in even more trouble.
Let's go onto the second Iraq War...again if Saddam attacked beyond his borders in a pre-emptive strike, then this would give an excuse for the US to ask for UN assisstance...which again would make it worse for Saddam.

You also forget that moving his ground forces would make him vulnerable to attack and his ground forces without close aerial support (which they never had either in the Gulf War or the Iraq War) would be sitting ducks anyway. And...you forget that some bombers, such as the B-2 fly out of bases a long long way away....how could he manage that?

Thank God you're not a military strategist. Fact remains, countries like Iran, Iraq etc. are sitting ducks when it comes to a conventional military campaign.:rock:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I don't see how all that gobledygook has anything to do with an F-117A which was shot down over Yugosliavia. Frankly. So I'll just answer: weejooma doo ba ba, smchelkzsda! :up:

Me neither. That wasn't even my main drive.

As for your point about a spoiling attack. You do realise countries have laws too, yes?

If Saddam cared about international laws, maybe he wouldn't have invaded Kuwait in the first place.

So if Saddam, at the time, had attacked Coalition forces massing in say, Saudi Arabia...you do realise what that would mean, yes? It would mean the whole muslim world would side against Iraq considering Saudi Arabia is "holy land" to muslims and Saddam was considered pretty much an infidel. So, Saddam would've been in even more trouble.

If he wins (gets Saudi oilfields and the like), then he would probably have enough geopolitical power to temporarily deter his enemies, much as they hate him, and he'd have enough of the oil to make even the West cautious. If he loses, it doesn't matter either way. Militarily, I'd much prefer having some Arabs about to attack me than the United States.

You also forget that moving his ground forces would make him vulnerable to attack

They were plenty vulnerable enough anyway. Might as well try attacking. That is, by the way, what the Soviet air defense systems (his SA-6s and -8s) they had were meant to do - defend an advancing force for a relatively limited period of time until it finishes its objective (or so the plan stipulates). Not sit there for two months while planes with equipment their successors were designed to hopefully match bomb them.

and his ground forces without close aerial support (which they never had either in the Gulf War or the Iraq War) would be sitting ducks anyway. And...you forget that some bombers, such as the B-2 fly out of bases a long long way away....how could he manage that?

The B-2 wasn't in service yet in 1991, pal. Sorry. The B-1B and B-52 can do so, but they don't have PGMs so their accuracy will be low. The B-52 will likely be relegated to firing cruise missiles. The B-1B - there are only 100 of them, and they are only semi-stealthy.

And the best part is ... the American system will be incomplete, while their's would be in the best possible state. This gives them a much better chance - certainly far better than the one they actually had, which was to let the Americans complete their set piece and employ their Superpower grade System in all its glory versus a Third World Regional grade System...

Thank God you're not a military strategist. Fact remains, countries like Iran, Iraq etc. are sitting ducks when it comes to a conventional military campaign.:rock:

Since you are qualifying your statement in such a way, what are we arguing over. Even though our reasons are slightly different, I'm not disagreeing with you on this general point.

[Deathblow]

This thread done be hijacked! YeeeeeeeHaaaaaa!!!:arrgh!:
"Round up the horses boys! We done got us a stray!":p :lol:

[Kurushio]

Me neither. That wasn't even my main drive.

LOL....me neither.



If Saddam cared about international laws, maybe he wouldn't have invaded Kuwait in the first place.

Yes, but...there's invading, then there is INVADING. You know, while he was at it, why didn't he call Chairman Mao a poopy pants and Yeltsin a drunk (wait a minute...he was). He already had his hands full and anyway, Saddams Republican Guard did penetrate into Saudi soil I believe with a view at possible capturing the oil fields....that's why they sent...top of my head...was it the 7th cav? I can't remember...not bothered looking it up.



If he wins (gets Saudi oilfields and the like), then he would probably have enough geopolitical power to temporarily deter his enemies, much as they hate him, and he'd have enough of the oil to make even the West cautious. If he loses, it doesn't matter either way. Militarily, I'd much prefer having some Arabs about to attack me than the United States.

See post above...the scenario is a bit far fetched considering you're back to square one, because if he "wins", presuming he wants to keep the oil fields, he'll have to dig in....and be vulnerable to airstrikes.



They were plenty vulnerable enough anyway. Might as well try attacking. That is, by the way, what the Soviet air defense systems (his SA-6s and -8s) they had were meant to do - defend an advancing force for a relatively limited period of time until it finishes its objective (or so the plan stipulates). Not sit there for two months while planes with equipment their successors were designed to hopefully match bomb them.

Yeah but that's with hindsight...Saddam was certain his T-72s could give the Abrams a fight...though everyone was convinced it would be a one-sided one, nobody would've put money on it being a massacre. Same with the Apache's and then you had the hype about his being the "4th largest army in the world, 1 million men blah blah". Who knew...

The B-2 wasn't in service yet in 1991, pal. Sorry. The B-1B and B-52 can do so, but they don't have PGMs so their accuracy will be low. The B-52 will likely be relegated to firing cruise missiles. The B-1B - there are only 100 of them, and they are only semi-stealthy.

Not I mentioned the Iraq War in the same sentence. ;)

And the best part is ... the American system will be incomplete, while their's would be in the best possible state. This gives them a much better chance - certainly far better than the one they actually had, which was to let the Americans complete their set piece and employ their Superpower grade System in all its glory versus a Third World Regional grade System...



Since you are qualifying your statement in such a way, what are we arguing over. Even though our reasons are slightly different, I'm not disagreeing with you on this general point.

Ok then...now back on topic...NO LONG RANGE MISSILES FOR THE US NAVY? :huh:

[LoBlo]

Ok then...now back on topic...NO LONG RANGE MISSILES FOR THE US NAVY? :huh:

I'ld say that its probably too late for that.:lol: No worries.

[PeriscopeDepth]

AIM-120D + AESA should go a long way to improving the SH's fleet defender capabilities. Not on par with the Tomcat's reach, but markedly better than present capabilities I would think.

PD

[XabbaRus]

In SCX Thomas with a bit of fudging got SSBNs able to launch SLBMs.

He had two versions of each SSBN in the database, one with missiles one without.

Now with a better physics model that allows a ballistic trajectory would you be able to have SSBNs that can launch?

Although the map is only 600x600 it could add that little bit more urgency in hunting boomers if only for fun value.

I think it would be something worth looking at.

[LoBlo]

In SCX Thomas with a bit of fudging got SSBNs able to launch SLBMs.

He had two versions of each SSBN in the database, one with missiles one without.
Now with a better physics model that allows a ballistic trajectory would you be able to have SSBNs that can launch?
Although the map is only 600x600 it could add that little bit more urgency in hunting boomers if only for fun value.
I think it would be something worth looking at.


Has nothing to do with the Phoenix missile but an interesting idea none the less.

What could be easily done is to add a TLAM or LAM to the game with a flight altitude setting of whatever the maximum altitude of the sim is. The missile would launch just like a TLAM, but would set its altitude for 90,000 ft (or whatever the highest altitude is) and then fly to the target and do a strike just like a TLAM. It would probably only take one or two lines added to the TLAM doctrine language as well.

Probably wouldn't be that much work. I've put a Rattlers into my own game with a 5000ft cruise altitue (the Rattlers isn't a sea skimmer) and only had to change the "SetAlt = 5000" instead of "50" and it works great as a high diving missile.

Add some more launchers to the SSBNs and make a higher flying cruise and it should be just enough to make a decent SLBM sim.:).. Thoretically that is...

[LuftWolf]

Moved.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=264677&posted=1#post264677