Invisible Threat

[SUBMAN1]

An article on Americas left (from milnet - http://www.milnet.com/index-net.html) when it comes to the military. An interesting viewpoint.

-S

Leftist's Blind Spots

When the left wing media complains that the Military is spending money on last generation's war, when the pundits cry over strained budgets and when politicians claim the military would rather buy a plane, tank, or ship then put armor on our troops, you know it's an election year.

The problem with the Left extends from two seemingly opposing logic centers. They are voiced in back room statements like "We can't have the machines for war, we should not be a warring nation" and "But we cannot look soft on National Security". So how do you manage to ensure that the public's perception of your ideals matches your schizophrenic desires? How do you do that without getting caught in a lie? Simple. Create a bigger lie....

Read on here - http://www.milnet.com/opinion/invisible-threat.html

[PeriscopeDepth]

Hey Subman, I was wondering where you had gone!

Anywho, I found that article pretty interesting. However, I also find it to be written by someone with far more interest in politics (and by politics I mean slinging $hit at the other side of the aisle) than the military. It ignores several things:

- The threat HAS gone away to a large degree. And like it or not, the predominant mission of the US military will be beating up third world countries. But even so...
- ...China. The ONLY threat that comes close to needing a Cold War style force structure is China. BUT. Why are we still building platforms to Cold War specs? The author lauds systems like the F-35 and F-22, but the fact is these platforms were spec'd with a WWIII European battlefield in mind. And while the threats may be similar, the distance to targets will be anything but. We are building platforms to fight WWIII in Europe, but the fight will be much more akin to the IJN defending territory thousands of miles away from home. And BTW, the Mitsubishi Zero had a better combat radius than the F-35 does.

The author hits the left for blindy tearing our military apart. Which is true, to an extent. But I have to hit the right for blindly funding the military to fight a scenario which disappeared nearly 20 years ago. Being strong on defense should not mean blindly dumping money into a Cold War era force structure. No matter how many shares you own of Lockheed Martin.

PD

And as a disclaimer, I consider myself an extreme moderate.

[SUBMAN1]

I hear ya to some degree. F-22 and F-35 I do not agree with you on. We need both of those for survival. The reason is not necessarily to take on China right now, but for survivability. The reason is not other aircraft per say, but new near impossible to evade Russian sams that are being sold the world over to anyone with money. SO you need a platform that can take on something akin to an SU-30 with thrust vectoring and forward canards (or possibly EF2000 since Europe wants to sell it to everybody lately) at the same time of being able to go into a hostile territory and come out again.

Our current aircraft can do it, but with an expected mass causality rate. Americans can't deal with casualties as evidenced with our almost unimaginably small 3000 dead in Iraq. 30 years ago, that would have been 50000 dead, but thats a whole different subject.

Basically, we need both aircraft badly. Look at Bosnia - that didn't go over so well either, but for some reason, the press didn't pick up on that much. Today, the threat is much much much worse.

-S

PS. I read the article with a grain of salt too, but he does have valid points. Milnet however is not focused on this type of article for the most part, so its always a good read when its owners have an opinion or two. Most of milnet is based on equipment capabilities.

PPS. THis is against older Sams and such. Imagine what would happen today? http://www.aeronautics.ru/natodown0524present.htm

PPPS. A Japanese zero with 1,929 mi range has farther range than any jet we have flying by the way!

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I hear ya to some degree. F-22 and F-35 I do not agree with you on. We need both of those for survival. The reason is not necessarily to take on China right now, but for survivability. The reason is not other aircraft per say, but new near impossible to evade Russian sams that are being sold the world over to anyone with money. SO you need a platform that can take on something akin to an SU-30 with thrust vectoring and forward canards (or possibly EF2000 since Europe wants to sell it to everybody lately) at the same time of being able to go into a hostile territory and come out again...Basically, we need both aircraft badly. Look at Bosnia - that didn't go over so well either, but for some reason, the press didn't pick up on that much. Today, the threat is much much much worse.

Sorry I might have pasted the above together incorrectly. Had to do actual work and forgot where I was going to put the ... . But...see below regarding losses during Allied Force.

As for Su-30...today's 4-4.5 gen fighters are perfectly capable of dealing with these threats. Because thrust vectoring doesn't mean diddly in modern BVR. The F/A-18E/F, F-16, and F-15 all have a reach out and touch capability with AIM-120D (IOC by the end of the decade, IIRC) nearly equal to that of the Tomcat, except the AMRAAM was designed from get go to take on fighters. This is all assuming that Yemen, Syria or whoever the hell's 1-2 dozen Su-30s even manage to get into the air. Because any real war is going to start with a huge volley of cruise weapons that will SERIOUSLY degrade the enemy's anti air capability before an American fighter even enters their godforsaken airspace.

As for S-300/400 type systems, I agree. The future of SEAD will be interesting, even with F-35. Because with a VLO'd F-35 you are limited to two GPS guided PGMs on glide kits until JDRADM comes online. More with SDB I suppose. Which S-300/400 are certainly capable of shooting down. But again...this is all supposing the air defenses survive the initital volley of cruise weapons. Then our $70+ MILLION bomb trucks can carry external stores and fly airliner profiles to their targets .

PS. I read the article with a grain of salt too, but he does have valid points. Milnet however is not focused on this type of article for the most part, so its always a good read when its owners have an opinion or two. Most of milnet is based on equipment capabilities.

He does. I agree there are people out there who don't understand just because we're only fighting trash wars today, things might change tomorrow.

PPS. THis is against older Sams and such. Imagine what would happen today? http://www.aeronautics.ru/natodown0524present.htm

It's also completely fake. Written by Russians who can't accept that their equipment is absolutely worthless for the most part. The guy who wrote this (Venik) is an absolute fraud. We lost all of two aircraft during Allied Force. An F-16 and F-117, IIRC.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

A Japanese zero with 1,929 mi range has farther range than any jet we have flying by the way!

Which makes a farce of our future air forces. USAF and USN both plan for China as "the ultimate enemy". Yet they both proceed to procure a VLO fighter with a 600nm combat radius in the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe in 2025+ a US CVBG (er, CSG now. I keep on forgetting.) will be able to survive within 1,000nm of the Chinese coast? Let alone 500. And pray tell where will the USAF be basing its F-35s to stike China? Both services will have to tank like mad to get there. Which will render the USN's carrier decks nearly useless due to a pitiful sortie rate (the other half of the fighter wing, SuperHornets will have its hands full passing gas to the F-35s).

The name of the game in future airpower will be radius. Which demands a manned bomber with a self defense capability or swarms of UCAVs.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Sorry I might have pasted the above together incorrectly. Had to do actual work and forgot where I was going to put the ... . But...see below regarding losses during Allied Force.

As for Su-30...today's 4-4.5 gen fighters are perfectly capable of dealing with these threats. Because thrust vectoring doesn't mean diddly in modern BVR. The F/A-18E/F, F-16, and F-15 all have a reach out and touch capability with AIM-120D (IOC by the end of the decade, IIRC) nearly equal to that of the Tomcat, except the AMRAAM was designed from get go to take on fighters. This is all assuming that Yemen, Syria or whoever the hell's 1-2 dozen Su-30s even manage to get into the air. Because any real war is going to start with a huge volley of cruise weapons that will SERIOUSLY degrade the enemy's anti air capability before an American fighter even enters their godforsaken airspace.

As for S-300/400 type systems, I agree. The future of SEAD will be interesting, even with F-35. Because with a VLO'd F-35 you are limited to two GPS guided PGMs on glide kits until JDRADM comes online. More with SDB I suppose. Which S-300/400 are certainly capable of shooting down. But again...this is all supposing the air defenses survive the initital volley of cruise weapons. Then our $70+ MILLION bomb trucks can carry external stores and fly airliner profiles to their targets .

On the AMRAAM part - AMRAAMSKI (The nickname for the Russian equivelent AA-12) has a longer range than our AIM-120C which is currently fielded. THe D model would be nice if it goes out to and effective range of 30 to 35 nmi (our AMRAAM C model only goes out to an effective range of 20 nmi against fighter type aircraft - not enough kenitic energy to keep on a high G target outside this range), but I doubt it, and this would simply be a crutch for degrading aircraft performance. The only way to achieve effective range increase is to throttle the rocket motor and to reduce weight. THis could be accomplished by changing to a more advanced radar package that uses less space and weight, but that probably gets you out to equal performance to the AA-12.

On the SU-30's - Our pilots borrowed India's SU-30's and went up against our own pilots in our own aircraft. Our pilots in the SU-30's didn't lose 1 single engagement!!! That means our F-15's, F-16's, and F-18's all bit the dust each and every time using their equipment against our own, so do not ever think that aircraft doesn't make a difference. They always got first look and first kill, and where able to close in almost every engagement against our AIM-120's, and finish off what could be killed fromm range.

EF2000 is another story. This aircraft can kick our planes butts without us even being able to do anything about it. Their low RCS and super cruise capability will kill us each and every time with first look first kill capability. Its not even a fair fight. Only an F-22 or F-35 can counter this threat. Chock up that anyone that wants to buy Eurofighter can have one and this is a reciepe for disaster.

We are flying the oldest airforce in the history of the United States Airforce and its beginning to show. We can field more planes, but they can field better ones. Thats like resorting to Russian tactics of overwhelming the enemy airforce with MiG-21's!!! Not my idea of a good fight for my countrymen.

Last is your cruise missiles - easily countered by an S-500 which is at least equal, but probably better than our own PAC-3 Patriot. THe Tomohawk is nearing end of usefulness and needs to be replaced since the future will dictate that you will need to fire 100 of them in the hopes that a few will get through.

He does. I agree there are people out there who don't understand just because we're only fighting trash wars today, things might change tomorrow.

It's also completely fake. Written by Russians who can't accept that their equipment is absolutely worthless for the most part. The guy who wrote this (Venik) is an absolute fraud. We lost all of two aircraft during Allied Force. An F-16 and F-117, IIRC.

PD

Dunno about that. BBC even reported that NATO was hiding its numbers. The truth may lie somewhere in the middle.

Anyway, just my two cents on the subject. We should procure more F-22's though at the expense of F-35's, though the laser equipped F-35's will be very useful in the future, so its a toss up.

One thing people forget is cost of ownership. You could porbably keep 5 F-22's or 5 F-35's flying for the same price as 1x F-15. just a thought. In the end, you will save a ton of money since equipment may be expensive, but man hours is overly overly expensive.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Which makes a farce of our future air forces. USAF and USN both plan for China as "the ultimate enemy". Yet they both proceed to procure a VLO fighter with a 600nm combat radius in the thousands. Does anyone honestly believe in 2025+ a US CVBG (er, CSG now. I keep on forgetting.) will be able to survive within 1,000nm of the Chinese coast? Let alone 500. And pray tell where will the USAF be basing its F-35s to stike China? Both services will have to tank like mad to get there. Which will render the USN's carrier decks nearly useless due to a pitiful sortie rate (the other half of the fighter wing, SuperHornets will have its hands full passing gas to the F-35s).

The name of the game in future airpower will be radius. Which demands a manned bomber with a self defense capability or swarms of UCAVs.

PD

Now you know why tankers are overly important and such a big deal lately. This gives the aircraft unlimited range.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This thread got me looking at data from some of those mix-ups with Indian pilots. I found this one to be rather interesting:

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

Here is another: http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003045.html

-S

PS. India brought the SU-30 MKI to Red flag in 2005 - really messed our pilots up. THe MKI made a mockery of our airforce.

Here is a reprint of the article:

Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'

Aviation Week and Space Technology, aviationnow.com

By David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

[May 24, 2002]

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.


In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.






"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."


THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.


If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.


Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.


"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.


Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.


At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.



Russian Su-27UBs formate with USAF F-15s. While Ex Cope India was the first fully documented DACT with these aircraft, some sources claim that some informal exchanges took place one such visit by Flankers to USA. However this is hotly disputed by others.


The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.


The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.


The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I'm not going to argue with you about military exercise results, because we will never know the full story. And frankly, military exercise results don't necessarily translate into real capabilities. I doubt we let the Indians in on all our secrets. And AFAIK, the performance of every Russian radar guided missile has been abysmal when actually used. Granted our AMRAAM hits are something around 50% IIRC. But I don't think any of the late generation (C7) variant have ever been used in combat

And of course tankers are important. But you are completely ignoring sortie rate and aimpoints. The Marianas are the closest place to China that you KNOW USAF air will be able to park. A round trip of 3,000+NM, and that's just to the Strait of Formosa. Each F-35 can only carry two GBUs when VLO'd. We'd basically be attacking one of the largest countries in the world with pin*****s.

PD

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

per say

What exactly does that mean? Or were you referring to the Latin "per se", which means "by itself"?

[nikimcbee]

@ subman1: Do we know reliable the Russian copies are of our AA missles? (not SAMS, we already know how well those work ) As far as I know, our air to air combat technology, training etc has totally dominated to Soviet stuff. When was the last time a US pilot was shot down in air to air combat? Vietnam, I think. In 91, the name of the game for the Iraqi airforce was "run for your lives."

Did the Serb airforce even show up for Kosovo?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

@ subman1: Do we know reliable the Russian copies are of our AA missles? (not SAMS, we already know how well those work ) As far as I know, our air to air combat technology, training etc has totally dominated to Soviet stuff. When was the last time a US pilot was shot down in air to air combat? Vietnam, I think. In 91, the name of the game for the Iraqi airforce was "run for your lives."

Did the Serb airforce even show up for Kosovo?

I beleive a MiG-29 made the first kill of the war. Not sure though. Let me look.

-S

PS. Here is something saying the same thing - http://jrv127.tripod.com/nato.html

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I beleive a MiG-29 made the first kill of the war. Not sure though. Let me look.

-S

PS. Here is something saying the same thing - http://jrv127.tripod.com/nato.html

This is a wee bit more authoritative than some Yugoslavian kid's wesbite:
http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/inde...d=37&Itemid=47
That USN pilot who was supposedly captured by the Iraqis was the first to get shot down, by a MiG-25. Several more may have been made, but nobody is really sure.

PD

PS, how can you consider that a decent source SUBMAN when on the front page is posted:

This is not the website of the squadron of heroic pilots of the Yugoslav Air Force like Nebojša Nikolić, Zoran Radosavljević, Slobodan Perić and all the other pilots of the 127th squadron of the YuAF, but rather the website of a squadron of cyberpilots who fly on the flight simulator "Jane's Fighters Anthology" on the internet. Although it's not the same thing, we dedicate each of our victories to the Heroic pilots of the YuAF who fought bravely to defend Yugoslavia. Cheers!

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Did the Serb airforce even show up for Kosovo?

Yes. The Dutch got their first kill since WWII on a MiG-29.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/ko...401_01_n.shtml

There is also a GREAT read here written by a USAF F-15C pilot who scored:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/arc...hp?t-4653.html
Scroll down to the fourth post.

A more complete list of Yugo war A2A kills:
http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/inde...d=48&Itemid=47

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

PS, how can you consider that a decent source SUBMAN when on the front page is posted:

Trust me - just like you I am skepticle!

-S