Iran's air defenses.

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

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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...d.php?t=129494

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Some reading on the subject:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...d.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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?
Don't underestimate the efficiency of AAA. ~edit~ er, I meant effectiveness ~edit~

[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]

Originally Posted by ABBAFAN

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

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