NOTE: For the more current take, see “Lessons of Air War in Ukraine”
Introduction
SAMs are the new boogeyman of the USAF, one which they are also using in their political games. They want the F-35 because, they say, legacy aircraft are “unsurvivable”. They want to retire the A-10 and leave ground troops without any support because, they say, it is unsurvivable. But how much truth there is in their assertions?
Historical overview
During the Vietnam war, SAMs saw extensive usage. They were used primarly to defend key targets but were also deployed in the field; many were also mobile (though level of mobility they had does not even begin to compare with modern SAMs, thanks to excessive times necessary to either deploy or pack up).
Next table adresses heavy radar-guided SAMs performance during the Vietnam war.
| Year | SAMs launched | US aircraft lost | Pk |
| 1965 | 194 | 11 | 5,67% |
| 1966 | 1966 | 31 | 1,58% |
| 1967 | 3202 | 96 | 3,00% |
| 1968 | 322 | 3 | 0,93% |
| 1972 | 4244 | 49 | 1,15% |
As it can be seen, kill probability has danced up and down, but always stayed below 6%. Total gives 190 aircraft lost to 9.928 SAM launches, or Pk of 1,9% (or 1/4 of what radar-guided AAMs achieved). Many SAMs were crewed by Russian crews.
SAMs did have major indirect impact. Since USAF predominantly used thin-skinned “multirole” aircraft for air superiority as well as ground attack (including SEAD/DEAD), this meant that aircraft were exceedingly vulnerable to AAA during low altitude attacks on SAMs. NVA used SAMs as baits, drawing US aircraft into overlapping AAA fire – and since most of AAA used was optically-aimed, there was no warning until they opened fire. In the first DEAD mission of the war, 6 aircraft were lost out of 50 present – all of them to AAA, and all of them thin-skinned, sluggish F-105s. SAMs were also effective at their primary mission – shooting down (useless) strategic bombers. B-52s flew 724 sorties in the North Vietnam, losing 15 aircraft – a loss rate of 2,1%, just at or slightly above the limit for sustainable operations (for comparision, B-17s had a loss rate of 6% during 1943). To achieve this, over 2000 SA-2s were fired – a probability of kill of 0,75%. Still, the B-52 attrition rate was still ten times higher than the overall attrition rate in the Vietnam war, which was 0,35% in the 1966 and 0,15% in the 1968. By the end of the war, North Vietnam has mostly run out of the SAM stocks.
North Vietnamese also used some 100 MHz (VHF band) radars, which could not be attacked by anti-radiation missiles. They were not used for SAM guidance, however.
During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel lost between 98 and 280 aircraft. An IAF officer (Cohen) admitted 15 losses in air-to-air combat, though figure might be as high as 21 (Dupuy). Zaloga in “Soviet Air Defence Missiles” p.240 quotes ‘Israeli sources’ as stating that Sa-7 caused 2 losses, 4 possible losses, 28 hits which did not result in losses. Since 5.000 SA-7 missiles were launched, this equals a Pk of 0,04-0,12%. Main dangers were SA-6 and ZSU-23.
There were several factors playing into SAMs success. Israelis were surprised and had to go after priority targets – attacking ground troops – with no time left to organize SAM supression. SAMs were fired in large salvos – often of 20 or more missiles. Obvious answer to SAM threat is to go below SAMs envelope, and that is what Israelis did. However, since they had no proper CAS aircraft, they had to use fast, thin-skinned fighter jets for ground attack, which made them vulnerable to AAA. Israelis also had no previous experience in dealing with SAMs, and had in fact ignored the problem alltogether. SA-6 was effective in particular – shooting down 36 aircraft on a first day – because of three factors. Israeli electronic countermeasures were designed to counter SA-2 and SA-3, and were useless against the SA-6. As a result, ALR-36 RWR used by Israeli Air Force was unable to pick up any radar emissions from the SA-6. Israeli aircraft also had no missile approach warners, which meant that pilots had to pick up SAMs visually. This, however, was hard to do – main Israeli aircraft were F-4 Phantom and A-4 Skyhawk, both aircraft with very bad cockpit visibility and low to moderate cruise speeds (510 kts / Mach 0,87 and 420 kts / Mach 0,62, respectively). After RWRs were modified to detect the SA-6 launches, losses dropped sharply since evasive maneuvers were typically effective against it, despite aircrafts’ less-than-ideal maneuvering performance (F-4 had a very high wing loading while A-4 had low thrust-to-weight ratio). Even then, majority of Israeli A-4 fleet had no RWR at all, and vast majority of all aircraft used had no chaff or jammers. Flares were not used at all. In the end, SA-6 achieved a Pk of 1-2%, and 30-40% of total Israeli losses happened during the first three days of the war.
Egyptians and Syrians lost 500 aircraft of initial 900, with over 2/3 of losses being in air-to-air combat.
Israelis learned from the experience. Nine years later, during the first Lebanon war, they destroyed every single Syrian SAM battery deployed in Lebanon, without losing a single aircraft.
In 1981, Israeli F-16s destroyed Iraqi Osirak nuclear plant, 12 miles southeast of Baghdad. They flew at altitude of less than 300 ft, and no aircraft were damaged.
In the 1982 Falklands war, British SAMs had relatively high Ph of 6,4-13% (15-21 hits for 165-235 launches), with the most widely used SAM – Blowpipe – achieving 1-2 hits in 95 launches (1,1-2,1%). However, they were being used against aircraft that were at the end of their operational range (thus leaving little fuel to maneuver), typically had no RWR or MAWS, had bad out-of-cockpit visibility thanks to the poor design and salt that would accumulate on the canopy during low-level flight, and during the ingress were loaded with bombs and forced to fly predictable attack profiles. Out of all aircraft downed, only 2-4 had RWRs. None had chaff or flares, except few that had chaff crudely improvised at the end of the war. Even so, SAMs were ineffective against low-altitude targets, which led to the British hastily mounting as many light AAA emplacements as they could. On British side, of 10 Harrier losses 1 was to a SAM and two collided; rest were to AAA, as Harrier was very vulnerable (no armor, no redundant systems, single, very complex engine) and during attack missions often operated at the end of its range, making it unable to maneuver (same situation as with Argentine aircraft).
In 1986, US mounted a 55-aircraft raid of Lybia; one F-111 was shot down. In October 1989 a lone Syrian MiG-23 successfully evaded interception by flying at low altitude and landed at an Israeli airfield.
In the 1991 Gulf War, stealth F-117s were touted for their ability to attack Baghdad on the first night, without losses, thus destroying SAMs and allowing non-stealth aircraft to enter. This impression is wrong on all levels. Network nodes and other major hubs were attacked before the first aircraft appeared over Baghdad – destruction was done not by stealth aircraft but by attack helicopters, special forces teams and cyberwar attacks. On the first night 167 “Wild Weasel” and other EW and SEAD aircraft engaged the SAMs, in the same high-threat areas F-117s operated in; this compares to 15 F-117 sorties in first two nights. Out of 15 SAM batteries attacked by the F-117s, 13 continued to operate. They did not “knock the door down” either; two F-16s were shot down by SAMs on day 3. While the F-117s were compared favorably with A-10s in light of latter’s losses, this is also based on a PR spin: F-117s operated only at night, which is a much safer combat environment. Two A-10 squadrons that operated only at night flew as many sorties, and in as dangerous (or more so) environment, as the F-117s did; yet they suffered no losses either, despite the A-10 having a huge RCS for an aircraft of its size (but average visual signature and small IR signature).
In the 1999 Kosovo war NATO managed to destroy only 3 out of 80 missile batteries despite firing 743 HARMs, as missile batteries were camouflaged and highly mobile. On the other hand, while SAMs have proven themselves very survivable, they were very ineffective as well – only 3 kills have been achieved in 845 launches, a Pk of 0,36%, or 1/5th of what radar-guided SAMs achieved in the Vietnam war (this would also imply that radar-guided AAMs will have become less, not more, effective against properly flown and equipped fighters, compared to their Vietnam war performance). Two of these three kills were F-117s – “stealthy” light bombers with crappy maneuverability and situational awareness (bad out-of-cockpit visibility, no MAWS. Interestingly, untested performance of radar stealth was bureocracy’s excuse for omitting MAWS on the F-117, just as the then-untested performance of radar-guided BVRAAMs was bureocracy’s excuse for omitting gun on the F-4 before the Vietnam war. Apparently, bureocracy inhibits one’s ability to learn.). F-117s were detected by VHF radar, which then cued IR SAMs in their direction.
Combining data for the Gulf and Kosovo wars, A-10 suffered a total of 4 losses in 12.400 sorties while the F-117s suffered 2 losses in 2.600 sorties. As it can be seen, A-10s loss rate of 0,032% is only 42% of the F-117s loss rate of 0,077%. In other words, A-10 was 2,4 times as survivable as the F-117 was. Further, both F-117 losses were to radar-guided SAMs while all A-10 losses were to far more dangerous man-portable IR SAMs (unlike the A-10, F-117 never dared fly within MANPADS range). One F-117 loss was a shootdown and another was a mission kill; out of the A-10s losses, 3 were shootdowns and one was a mission kill. Overall, shootdown rate is 0,038% for the F-117 and 0,024% for the A-10. By this measure, A-10 is still 1,58 times as survivable as the F-117.
SAM tactical limitations
One limitation is a radar horizon. Since surface of the Earth is curved, aircraft beyond some distance will be hidden by the planet itself. If we take aircraft altitude to be 10 meters, 93KK Osa with 4,2 meter mast will detect it at distance of 21 kilometer, Buk with 21 meter mast will detect it at distance of 32 kilometers and S-400 with 40 meter mast will detect it at 40 kilometers. If aircraft is at altitude of 30 meters, then Osa will detect it at distance of 31 kilometer, Buk will detect it at distance of 41 kilometer and S-400 will detect it at distance of 49 kilometers. Nominal missile ranges are and up to 15 kilometers for Osa, up to 50 kilometers for Buk and up to 400 kilometers for S-400, meaning that neither Buk or S-400 will make use of their longest-ranged missiles.
Another issue are terrain obstacles. Radio waves are disrupted or stopped by solid objects, which means that radars are typically positioned at high vantage points, making them easier to find. This also means that aircraft can use terrain to hide from detection even at relatively short ranges. While this leaves it in danger of MANPADS and optically-aimed AAA, it is a viable tactic for heavily armored CAS aircraft. Not so for thin-skinned fast jets and “attack” helicopters – former take damage too easily, while latter can pull no more than 3 g and cannot be anywhere as protected – in terms of armor, system redundancy or countermeasures – as CAS aircraft can. CAS aircraft such as the A-10 are actually ideal for SAM supression due to their resillience to AAA and long loiter time
Even when aircraft is detected, there is an issue of range. A premier Russian SAM S-400 has an engagement range from 3 to 200 kilometers against an aerodynamic target. With air-to-air missiles, effective range is cut to 1/4 if target is attacked from the rear, to 1/2 if target is maneuvering, and every 100 knots of speed advantage cut effective range by 5-25%. Thus (and this is optimistic in this case due to target aircraft having few thousand meters of altitude advantage over SAMs), an S-300 will have an effective range of against a Mach 0,9 (516 kts at 40k ft) Rafale of 128 km if Rafale does not turn away, and 20 km if it does. S-400 will have an effective range of 255 km if Rafale does not turn away and 38 km if it does. If Rafale speeds up to Mach 1,4 (802 kts at 40k ft), then S-400 will have an effective range against a retreating Rafale of only 33 km. This will allow a pair of Rafales to easily play “peek-a-boo” with S-400, with one Rafale acting as a bait and providing targeting info to another Rafale.
Alternatively, Rafales can simply go in, fire ARMs once SAMs lit up, and leave. Issue is that a radar-guided SAM battery will have to give away its position to launch a missile. This means that aircraft attacked can lob an anti-radiation missile before having to begin evasive maneuvers, since SAMs cannot launch as soon as radar is turned on – targeting process will take at least several seconds.
(This tactic is viable for any aircraft, though as it can be seen, good endurance, low-altitude flight characteristics and supercruise are major advantages if present; only fighter aircraft that combine all three are Rafale and upcoming Gripen NG).
In effect, a “circle of death” so engrained in a public psyche when discussing SAM’s is a myth. However, it is used to promote expensive and typically unnecessary systems, such as stealth aircraft, drones and UCAVs.
Mobile radars are not invulnerable either. Most mobile radars can only scan when deployed (static), and need several minutes to either deploy or pack up. While it is technically possible to design a radar that can scan “on the move”, vibrations and unsteady platform will cause problems. This means that, once they give up their position, they are just as vulnerable as any other SAM.
IR MANPADS are a greater threat: since they do not reveal themselves with active emissions, have excellent maneuverability and IR seeker, and being used to typically attack low-altitude aircraft, they leave little time for reaction – this results in a very high (for a SAM) probability of hit. Optically-aimed AAA have the same advantages.
Conclusion
Primary element in surviving a SAM threat is situational awareness. Most aircraft that have been shot down by SAMs have been unaware; if pilots attempted to evade SAMs they were typically successful, especially if SAMs in question were radar-guided. Since most modern fighter aircraft are equipped with missile approach warners – many of them of IR or UV variety – SAM success rate can be expected to be far less than it was in any war previous to Gulf War I.
Most important impact that radar SAMs have is the effort required (or believed to be required) to defeat them. Most sorties flown by USAF in recent wars were of SEAD/DEAD nature. Threat from SAMs and MANPADS is used by USAF as an excuse to get rid of the supremely useful A-10 close air support aircraft, and to justify development of “stealth” aircraft and UCAVs. In retrospect, it is clear that actual threat from radar-guided missiles does not justify either measure.
Further, high mobility of modern SAMs combined with development of counter-stealth VHF radars means that high flying aircraft may not be effective in attacking them (except maybe for a few supercruisers, and even then, F-22 at Mach 1,72 and 36.000 ft – the only altitude where it can reach such speed without afterburner – needs 5,6 minutes to cover 100 kilometers.) This again returns us to the SEAD A-10.
History and War 
The issue right now is that the USAF just wants to kill the idea of CAS. To do that, they have proven quite willing to make stuff up to accomplish that goal. Real hard data of large radar guided missiles is not desirable – both because it would suggest CAS is more survivable and it would put a question mark on the doctrine on relying on heavy radar guided missiles/making radar stealthy aircraft.
LikeLike
Precisely. Overrating the threat is always profitable.
LikeLike
I’m sorry picard but in defended area (AAA, IR missiles) A-10 canot survive if it stays or loiters. You have all these stats that don’t really apply. If it flies low optical AAA will shoot it down (or atleast cause it to run away) and MANPAD/Stinger types will too. A-10 is unable to maneuver well enough and flares will only work partially. Some IR missiles will miss but you can trade 10 missiles for an A-10 and still be fine with that, if you are the defender.
A-10 would be good at flying in low hitting a few targets (that ground forces are lacing preferably) and hauling a** out. Hit and run attacks will be succesful. A-10 will still need air to air fighters to at least keep fighters intertained or A-10 would suffer high losses to fighters.
I like A-10 for CAS but that is it. A fast agile jet is needed for strike tactical and strategic. A-10 can’t do that.
Best idea would be for A-10’s to go under control of Army and Marines. Marines arleady have air arm Army should too.
I’m starting to come around to trusting your Pk numbers. I still need more data that I don’t have. Still beleive that AAM/SAM missile volleys if fired seconds apart will greatly improve Pk. Missiles will have to be jam resistant and with radar missiles that is an issue.
Starting to think that with modern agility of fighters missiles will have to be optical/TV guided missiles. Where a person is controlling with joystick.
Maybe with computerization and A.I. a fly by wire for missiles can be developed to increase accuracy.
LikeLike
“I’m sorry picard but in defended area (AAA, IR missiles) A-10 canot survive if it stays or loiters. If it flies low optical AAA will shoot it down (or atleast cause it to run away) and MANPAD/Stinger types will too.”
Except A-10 has already proven survivable in such kinds of environments. Granted, it was not against very competent enemies (Iraq, ISIL, though latter seems to be competent enough), but is enough to dispel the myth that the MANPAD = instant death for the A-10. And AAA it can survive.
“Some IR missiles will miss but you can trade 10 missiles for an A-10 and still be fine with that, if you are the defender. ”
A-10 flying low will give defenders very small engagement window, possibly not even enough to establish a track/lock, let alone to bring it down. So while you may trade 10 missiles for one A-10, how many times will you actually be able to fire a missile?
“A-10 would be good at flying in low hitting a few targets (that ground forces are lacing preferably) and hauling a** out. Hit and run attacks will be succesful. A-10 will still need air to air fighters to at least keep fighters intertained or A-10 would suffer high losses to fighters. ”
That is ideal employment, yes.
“A fast agile jet is needed for strike tactical and strategic.”
For deep strikes, yes, though I have my doubts about actual usefulness of these.
“Starting to think that with modern agility of fighters missiles will have to be optical/TV guided missiles.”
IR missiles would be the best, modern IIR seekers are basically IR cameras, and they can be used at night and in bad weather (optically guided missiles cannot).
LikeLike
Medium caliber AA is definitely a threat, especially if it can keep up with fast tracking.
IR missiles too are a serious challenge – and a couple of A-10s were historically shot down.
Certainly, the A-10 is not invulnerable and even when massed, a CAS aircraft could be shot down. However, it appears to be more survivable than everything else in terms of survivable vs effectiveness.
Several things might help:
The A-10 is probably larger than what is needed. A smaller, more agile aircraft (like the proposals by Picard might help).
Lower wing loading could help (and perhaps a higher fuel fraction, although I’d want the wings to be free of fuel before going into battle).
Numbers. A CAS aircraft is much cheaper (a fraction really, perhaps 1/10th or less) the cost of an F-35 like aircraft – depending on the final cost.
A better gun (ex: one with initial burst like the revolvers or a gas operated gattling cannon) would also help raise up Pk.
On that note, in a conventional war, I fully expect to see ground forces seeing killed pilots. In fact, I expect pilots will suffer casualty rates comparable to that of elite tank forces. This may actually help the morale of the ground troops they understand that the “fliers” are not just bombing at high altitude for fear of being hit, but also risking their lives every bit as much as the ground forces are.
But the issue to me is, with a strike/bombing type of army, the casualties would be even higher for the ground forces. CAS is very good for rescuing beleaguered ground forces from tight spots. bombers have historically not been so good, even the smaller tactical ones.
LikeLike
That is just it. Using dedicated CAS aircraft might result in somewhat higher casualties for the Air Force, but it will save far larger number of lives.
LikeLike
Ironically while I was quickly typing this on the bus, I may have forgotten the most crucial of them all – good pilot quality, which needs a lot of training, practice with ground forces, and ideally, a second person in the back to do half the work of spotting (perhaps some of the shooting too).
That will be the single most important factor in getting good results with CAS – just like any other situation. Peace time training, although it may lead to some losses in training, will vastly reduce wartime casualties, especially if the ground forces and CAS coordinate well together.
Likewise, I’d expect a good pilot to be able to avoid the worst of the missiles and medium caliber gun fire much more effectively.
LikeLike
Most definately!
LikeLike
Nine A-10s were hit by IR-SAMs in the Gulf War ’91. Six of them were lost or written off.
The A-10 is survivable… as long as it doesn’t get hit by a SAM.
LikeLike
CAS is THE most dangerous mission. And you are forgetting the basics: an invulnerable aircraft that has no effect is useless. It’s about risk-reward, not just risk.
LikeLike
Well, here you just played with numbers in a way to approve the theory, but is it so ? You mentioned aircraft flying altitude of 10m and 30m..ok, but, lets just get real, over how many countries and areas in the world such low flight altitudes are possible and with what speed and for how long? Not to mention strains on airframe on such low levels…and, how does this affect the range of weapons carried by plane, would you feel comfortable flying the F-16cj with pair of HARM’s on 30m alt. against s-400? Than, you quite simplyfy scenarios, what if S-300 or s-400 have pantsir-s1 (or Sa-15 tor) to protect them 20 km or so in front of main radars, than what about AWACS and baloon(aerostat) radars, integrated air defence ??? You just simply taking numbers (of questionable sources as i saw quite different numbers for s-75 effectiveness, around 10% on average-i dont say those are correct, but who can really say ??)) without looking a wider picture, for example, what would happen if Serbs were using latest of SAM types with same level of proficiency and not completly compromised 30 or so years old sytems? How arabs (Syrians) were using their SAM systems ? They followed Soviet doctrine or they were even using sa-6 as stationary systems ? You are the one who said numerous times that pilot trainig is essential, so why you dont take same approach for SAM crews, and for the most of cases you mentioned here, that is quite questionable.
“CAS aircraft such as the A-10 are actually ideal for SAM supression due to their resillience to AAA and long loiter time”- What AAA are you acctualy took into account ? Bofors l-70 with bofi and 3p ammo , Tunguska, Gepard, GDF-005 or old Zu-23, s-60 and similar ? With ist cruising speed of around 560km/h how long it will last against just pair of bofi l-70 with 3p ammo ? If it takes 14 rounds for 90% pk against combat helicopter 2km away..how many rounds for A-10 ? Each l-70 can pump at least 5 rounds/sec and has 24 rounds stack ready to go………tunguska fires 83 rds/sec……..
For the end: “Even when aircraft is detected, there is an issue of range. A premier Russian SAM S-400 has an engagement range from 3 to 200 kilometers against an aerodynamic target. With air-to-air missiles, effective range is cut to 1/4 if target is attacked from the rear, to 1/2 if target is maneuvering, and every 100 knots of speed advantage cut effective range by 5-25%. Thus (and this is optimistic in this case due to target aircraft having few thousand meters of altitude advantage over SAMs)”…
Well, missiles of s-400 fly quasy ballistic trajectory, up to 40km so this altitude advantage example is out, than with diving from 40km to its target with endgame speed of mach 3++ also the logic that applyes to AA missiles here just dont apply.
Regards.
PS: “In conclusion, the perception that contemporary Russian and Chinese SAM systems can be defeated as easily as Syrian and Iraqi systems in 1982 and 1991 is nothing more than wishful thinking, arising from a complete failure to study and understand why and how SAM defences failed or succeeded in past conflicts.”- That is from one site with same topic 5 years ago…….
LikeLike
“Well, here you just played with numbers in a way to approve the theory”
I never play with numbers in a way to approve the theory.
“You mentioned aircraft flying altitude of 10m and 30m..ok, but, lets just get real, over how many countries and areas in the world such low flight altitudes are possible and with what speed and for how long?”
It is hard to do, possibly impossible, for most fighter aircraft. But properly designed CAS and AFAC aircraft can do it.
“and, how does this affect the range of weapons carried by plane, would you feel comfortable flying the F-16cj with pair of HARM’s on 30m alt. against s-400?”
Range of weapons is always reduced by low altitude, but that goes both ways. Plus, F-16CJ would stay at the altitude to get S-400 light up, A-10 would be flying low. In fact, argument about the altitude limitation was more to prove that CAS can be done even when SAMs are present in large numbers.
“what if S-300 or s-400 have pantsir-s1 (or Sa-15 tor) to protect them 20 km or so in front of main radars”
Then these will have to be taken out along the way.
“than what about AWACS and baloon(aerostat) radars”
These won’t survive for longer than few days.
“without looking a wider picture, for example, what would happen if Serbs were using latest of SAM types with same level of proficiency and not completly compromised 30 or so years old sytems?”
It would have resulted in slightly better Pk, but nothing revolutionary.
“How arabs (Syrians) were using their SAM systems ? They followed Soviet doctrine or they were even using sa-6 as stationary systems ?”
Arabs almost always used SAMs as purely stationary systems.
“so why you dont take same approach for SAM crews”
I think it is self-understandable, and I got rather tired of repeating it.
“also the logic that applyes to AA missiles here just dont apply.”
It always applies. Missile is a missile, and target flying away will always cut a range to a fraction of stated one.
EDIT:
“That is from one site with same topic 5 years ago…….”
Air Power Australia. They are good as far as technical side goes, but they don’t really make an effort to understand history of air combat, and even less to understand how it applies to the future.
LikeLike
“These won’t survive for longer than few days.”
That’s the one thing I have wondered about air combat for support aircraft – namely AWACS, C&C aircraft, perhaps marine coastal patrol aircraft, and refueling tankers as well. How survivable will they be? Coastal patrol aircraft at least we have some good data from the world wars, but the others – not so much.
LikeLike
“Well, missiles of s-400 fly quasy ballistic trajectory, up to 40km so this altitude advantage example is out, than with diving from 40km to its target with endgame speed of mach 3++ also the logic that applyes to AA missiles here just dont apply.”
End game speed of Mach 3++ with a limitation of 40g turn will result in appalling maneuverability. An A-10 flying at 600 kms/h would need only about a 6g turn to out turn the missile. So if A-10 is equipped with a decent IR MAWS it would see the missile well before it starts its dive of doom. Depending of how well trained the pilot is he/she will have absolutely no trouble in dodging the missile.
Besides I don’t think the Russians are idiots to use S-400 against CAS aircraft and low flying fighters they have BUK, OSA, Tor for fighter sized low altitude targets. S-400 is meant only for Bombers, Missiles and F-35s flying at high altitudes thinking nobody can see them. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you are wright, but you forgot one thing, missile salvo, lets say 4 missiles fired, 10 seconds appart, can a-10 keep 6g for 40sec ? Even if so, it will have to drop all his weapons wich will result in a mission kill, than again, lets not forget 9m96e missiles, think they can pull little bit more than 40g….
LikeLike
“lets say 4 missiles fired, 10 seconds appart, can a-10 keep 6g for 40sec ?”
No need to. If missiles are 10 seconds apart, then the A-10 will need to use maximum turn for about 3-5 seconds, leaving 5-7 seconds to recover the energy.
LikeLike
“No need to. If missiles are 10 seconds apart, then the A-10 will need to use maximum turn for about 3-5 seconds, leaving 5-7 seconds to recover the energy.”-
Well, yes in theory, but can A-10 really regain its energy in such short time? Think even modern fighters could have issue with this in such a short time. Than again, if missile is coming from above, 3-4 sec of maneuver is simply not enough, even in a chasing scenario. Im afraid you are simplyfying things too much here, to defeat missile timing is esential, too early or too late and you end up shot down. Think we both have same formula in mind, but if simply applying of formula would be enough, no plane would be ever hit by missiles so far…and that is clearly not the case. It ussualy takes some bleeding of missile’s energy at first and than final evading maneuver.
LikeLike
“Well, yes in theory, but can A-10 really regain its energy in such short time?”
Depends on altitude. It definetly won’t be able to do it just with 1 g (level flight) acceleration.
“Than again, if missile is coming from above, 3-4 sec of maneuver is simply not enough, even in a chasing scenario.”
A-10 will need to do cca 100-180 degree turn to assure evasion. Now, I know that the A-10 can search at 225 mph with 1.500 ft turn radius. 225 mph is 330 fps, and 1.500 ft radius gives turn circumference of 9.425 ft. This means it will need 28,6 seconds for a 360 degree turn, for turn rate of 12,6 deg/s. Actual sustained turn rate might be better as this speed is optimized for search, not turning. S-400 has an instantaneous turn rate of 22 deg/s; sustained turn rate might well be similar to the A-10s calculated sustained turn rate, but I don’t have any data on it.
“to defeat missile timing is esential, too early or too late and you end up shot down”
I know that. But with radar-guided missiles, you can count on a fair portion of them simply malfunctioning. Plus (and this is especially likely at low altitudes), there is a fair chance of missile’s proximity fuze reacting to birds, trees or terrain, as well as missile detonating too late – once aircraft is well out of its lethal cone. Last one happens quite often if missile is coming at the aircraft from forward or side quarters. So even if missile does reach lethal distance, it does not always equal a kill.
“It ussualy takes some bleeding of missile’s energy at first and than final evading maneuver.”
Typical maneuver is to position the missile to one’s three or nine o’ clock and pull into the missile once it comes close enough. Since missile will have been pulling a lead, and will be coming at aircraft roughly head-on in the last few seconds, there is quite a chance of it detonating outside the lethal zone.
LikeLike
Any plane can outmaneuver any missile due to the extreme speed difference.
The turning radius as function of force is given by this equation:
F = V^2 / (r * g) , => r = V^2 / (F * g)
F = force in multiple of g’s
V = Velocity in m/s
r = Radius of turn in metres
g = Acceleration of gravity 9,8 m/s
A missile flying at mach 3 has a velocity V = 3 * 340 = 1020 m/s near sea level
or 3 * 295 = 885 m/s above 11.000 m
So it’s turning radius r = 1020^2 / (40 * 9,8) = 2654 m near sea level or 1998 m at altitude.
A plane flying at 612 km/h or 380 miles or 330 knots = 170 m/s
To match the missile’s 2654 m turn radius F = 170^2 / (2654 * 9,8) = 1,11 g’s
To match the missile’s 1998 m turn radius F = 170^2 / (1998 * 9,8) = 1,48 g’s
If said plane makes a 2 g turn, its radius r = 170^2 / (2 * 9,8) = 1474 m.
If said plane makes a 4 g turn at 0,9 mach r = 306^2 / (4 * 9,8) = 2389 m.
So to over match a mach 3 missile’s turn radius all a plane has to do is clock a continuous 2 g, 60 degrees of bank turn at mach 0,5 or a 4 g, 75,5 degree bank turn at mach 0,9 Period!
LikeLike
Turn rate also matters, but there too aircraft have the advantage in most cases. But most important difference is in reaction time.
LikeLike
“I never play with numbers in a way to approve the theory.”- I believe, but some things not add up..you stated 9928 radar guided missiles launched but according to SIPRI arms database in period 1950-1975 Vietnam imported 7658 Sa-2 missiles and 700 Sa-3..well of course, rest could be from China, but given its state at that time its quite questionable. The same goes for Yom Kippur war and so on, there are different numbers and statistics, i saw them my eyes, i believe you also….If you tend to do analyses, just picking data relised from one side will sooner or later guide you to mistake. Statistics, especially in this kind of topics are not to be taken for granted, unless you work or worked in defence sector in one of actually involved sides… numbers we can find on internet can be misleading…in most cases it end up in wich side we favor and we choose to believe numbers they are providing, but than, its just the end of analyses and the beginning of funboy stuff…Thats the reason i said what i said.
“It is hard to do, possibly impossible, for most fighter aircraft. But properly designed CAS and AFAC aircraft can do it.”- and yet you forgot to analyse scenario a-10(wich i believe is properly designed) vs modern AAA such as bofi, tunguska, gepard, gdf-005, pancir………
“Range of weapons is always reduced by low altitude, but that goes both ways.”-not exactly the same, while air launched weapons can have 3-5x less range, SAM’s can always be fired in a way to dive on its target…so 2x reduced range example for tail chase is simply out, actually, try to google out chinese tests of s-300pmu2 few years ago…can be just propaganda, of course, but unless someone provides proof of that, why not take it as a true ?
” Plus, F-16CJ would stay at the altitude to get S-400 light up, A-10 would be flying low. In fact, argument about the altitude limitation was more to prove that CAS can be done even when SAMs are present in large numbers.” & “Then these will have to be taken out along the way” -on what altitude f-16cj will stay ? Lets say 11km..what is the HARM range from that altitude ? What is s-400 range for target on that altitude ? How many G’s f-16 can pull on that altitude ? Seem like A-10 will have to deal with pancir and tor by himself..You stated osa will detect 10m alt. target at 21km..so, pancir and tor are worse than that or better.??.What is HARM range from 10m, or maverick range ? Can pancir and tor actually engage HARM and maverick or this is just propaganda ? BTW, IRON DOME proved to be quite succsesfull, lets take it also into game….
Again, “…CAS can be done even when SAMs are present in large numbers” -Motorized battalion protected by, lets say 4 pancir or tor plus dozen or so MANPADS, and SEAD planes busy with S-300, s-400, BUK, VITYAZ…etc (that is called layered defence)..You send fllight of 4 A-10 in a CAS mission ….You really believe they are coming back ?
“These won’t survive for longer than few days.”- Than why almost every country with substantial budget is buying awacs and aerostats if they gonna last so short ? Actually, lets take 2 aerostats covered with brigade of s-300pmu2(or PATRIOT) and pancir to cover s-300(or similar, dont know western equivalent, BARAK maybe) from the ground, plus lets say 2 squadrons of RAFALE(or just any similar modern and capable fighter)…at what costs these aerostats will be destroyed ?? Yes, for sure they will be destroyed, sooner or later, but if the cost is too high and continue to add up…..How many countries in the world can sustain 30++ lost planes for such mission ???
“Air Power Australia. They are good as far as technical side goes, but they don’t really make an effort to understand history of air combat, and even less to understand how it applies to the future.”- Actually, i agree with Kopp, SA-2 maybe was not so effective by itself, but a lot of planes were flying low to avoid it and than fell wictims of AAA…While you just played with statistics (of questionable reliability) of numbers of missiles fired vs number of planes shot down, thus effectivly managing not to see wider picture. Im afraid in this topic you are the one who didnt make effort to understand.
Regards.
LikeLike
“and yet you forgot to analyse scenario a-10(wich i believe is properly designed) vs modern AAA such as bofi, tunguska, gepard, gdf-005, pancir”
A-10 is designed to survive AAA up to and including 23 mm in caliber. It has already proven its ability to do so.
“SAM’s can always be fired in a way to dive on its target…”
Which increases the possibility of the missile missing its mark due to issues with clutter (if the missile uses its own guidance for endgame engagement) and engagement trajectory/profile. And SAM can’t be launched if target is not detected by ground sensors first, so the A-10 is reasonably safe.
And having to reach the altitude from which it can dive on its target still cuts the range, possibly even more than standard engagement profile, while being less effective.
“on what altitude f-16cj will stay ? Lets say 11km..what is the HARM range from that altitude ?”
That is irrelevant because it will not be F-16, but the A-10, firing HARMs. F-16 is just the bait to make the SAMs light up.
“so, pancir and tor are worse than that or better.??”
Depends on mast height. And 21 km is only true if there are no obstacles at all.
“You really believe they are coming back ?”
Yes. BTW, all A-10 losses were to AAA and MANPADS. And losses to the latter can be attributed to the aircraft lacking missile warning system.
“Than why almost every country with substantial budget is buying awacs and aerostats if they gonna last so short ?”
Because most countries are not preparing for World War III or anything similar. AWACS can be very useful in enforcing no-flight zones, and when fighting heavily outnumbered and/or incompetent enemies. Plus, only a few countries have actually developed specialized missiles for shooting down AWACS (Russia and China have them).
“SA-2 maybe was not so effective by itself, but a lot of planes were flying low to avoid it and than fell wictims of AAA”
Because none of these aircraft was actually designed for the task. Israel never had a proper CAS aircraft.
“Im afraid in this topic you are the one who didnt make effort to understand. ”
I did. Maybe you didn’t notice, but I never endorsed using F-35 or F-16 for low-altitude attack runs, specifically because of their vulnerability to AAA.
LikeLike
“A-10 is designed to survive AAA up to and including 23 mm in caliber. It has already proven its ability to do so.”- Yes, up to 23mm, and i was talking about new, modern, 30mm, 35mm, 40mm..even 23mm FAPDS round with V0=1200m/s are quite usable….
“Which increases the possibility of the missile missing its mark due to issues with clutter (if the missile uses its own guidance for endgame engagement) and engagement trajectory/profile. And SAM can’t be launched if target is not detected by ground sensors first, so the A-10 is reasonably safe.”
It can only apply to active/passive radar guiding heads excluding those systems wich implement track via missile tech., but than again, afther so many years of development think that issue is adressed quite good, than again if missile has EO guidance than it really doesnt matter how low A-10 flies.(Israely made Derby system wich can use Pythoon -5 for example) On the other side, if target can not be detected it means some ground obstacles, in wich case things are not so easy also for A-10, it can not fly 30m low and than again, finding targets will be more difficult. On the other side, one who puts his units in a way to be hidden by obstacles from defending SAM’s deserves to see them destroyed. And it seems like you keep forgeting about P-15, P-19, Casta family, Girafe, Mast mounted Clam shell, Tomb stone, Lira…Old 36d6 can detect 50m alt. 1m2 target at 31km, more if mast mounted, so in case A-10 really has 20m2 rcs than it will be detected at 65km at 50m flight ltitude, more from mast mounted radar. But, these numbers are theoretical, becuse of earth curvature, from mast mount at 40m for 50m alt. target horizon is around 55km..
“That is irrelevant because it will not be F-16, but the A-10, firing HARMs. F-16 is just the bait to make the SAMs light up.”
Again, if A-10 goes for s-400 and there are couple of Pancir-s1 20km in front of main S-400 radars ? IADS is implemented…..
“Depends on mast height. And 21 km is only true if there are no obstacles at all.”
Lets take Hungarian theatre just as example, pretty plain coutry right ? Well, how low A-10 can fly there ? Even if it is plain as it is, there are still trees and electric cables, so, for me lowest possible altitude 30m, and im generous..As you stated, at 30m Osa will detect at 31km, its clear from pictures that both Tor and Pancir have their radars a little bit higher than Osa, and than again, lets take into account 20+ years more modern clutter rejection techniques. Lets not even take into account other more powerfull systems such as Buk-m2 etc…What you said, what is HARM range from 30m? Lets play: We take 1999, Allied force tech levels….Old 36d6 can detect 50m alt. 1m2 target at 31km, more if mast mounted, so in case A-10 really has 20m2 rcs than it will be detected at 65km at 50m flight ltitude, more from mast mounted radar. But, these numbers are theoretical, because of earth curvature, from mast mount at 40m for 50m alt. target horizon is around 55km..When cued from comand post reaction time for S-300pmu1 is 11 sec. Acording to Serbian claims, they had window of oportunity long as 18sec, as that time was needed to get firing solution for HARM..So, A-10 pops up at 55km range, both sides see each other, lets say 22sec for S-300 to fire missile..I honestly have no idea about HARM range from low altitudes, and what is the lowest alt. at wich it can be fired, but i know about kh-28 wich has similar range, well for kh-28 from low altitudes range is 25-45km..from 200+m launch alt. So A-10 flying at 50m will detect 36d6 signal at 55km while 36d6 can detect A-10 lets say 80% of radar horizon range..so 45km. But a-10 need 18 sec to get firing solution and than needs to popup to 200m to fire HARM, and for that it will take 5 sec, while maintaining horizontal speed of 600km/h-167m/s, when firing solution is over A-10 is 52 km away. So it can begin to accelerate and gain height. When A-10 reach 100 m it will be detected by 36d6 at 53 km, ..so, afther 5 sec of climb A-10 is now at 200m alt and with max speed of 200m/s (optimistic though) and is 51km away..It was detected when it was at 100m alt 2 seconds ago, so it takes 20 more sec untill 48n6 goes off..and it needs 30 more seconds to reach quite optimisticly assumed 45km launch range plus lets say 2 more sec to actually fire missile. 20 sec later 48n6 goes off, A-10 is now 47km away from s-300..so it needs 12 more sec to fire..At time A-10 reached firing range 48n6 12 sec engine burn time is over and now it is at max speed 35 km away from A-10, as it has average speed of 1km/sec it will take 35 sec to reach A-10 current position, naturally A-10 will turn arround and dive to lowest possible altitude, if 30m is possible than it will be out of 30n6 rech (assuming it has similar range as 36d6) at 48km, if it needs 10 seconds for inverted roll than it might actually survive..if it can go as low as 50m than it might get shot down…What will happen with this HARM fired..who knows, if crews are good and they use false emiters as Serbs did it will most probably miss, maybe even s-300pmu1 can actually shoot it down….Here were used, hope you will agree, quite optimistic assumptions that were in favor of A-10..with 48n6 TEL vehicle positioned lets say 5km in front of radars, time A-10 would have is less, what if HARM range from 200m alt is less than 30km ??? And what would happen if crew actually tilt up 36d6 signal so it can not be seen before 30km from 50m altitude, and use for low level only Clam shell, wich, because of its quite different signal use, can not actually be shot by any Antiradiation missile and no RWR’s could detect its work back in 1999…??? Obviously, no other radars on teritory were taken into game, no IADS, no assets in front S-300pmu to protect it….
“Yes. BTW, all A-10 losses were to AAA and MANPADS. And losses to the latter can be attributed to the aircraft lacking missile warning system.”
Ok, here we have different data, i ask you, just from pure geneurosity to take mine just for play. As i know, out of 4 A-10 downed in Desert storm 1 was by SA-16, 2 by SA-13 and one by AAA. During Allied force one was hit in the engine ba SA-7. All these missiles are pretty crappy taking energy levels, G’s they can pull and speed but yet they scored hits. Compared to them Tor and Pancir are quite more powerfull, Tor’s missile goes 850m/s for 12 sec while Pancir’s missile has top speed of 1300m/s, and still goes 900m/s at 12km and 700m/s at 18km distance, so even if a A-10 (or similar) is equiped with MAWS, there is open question of time to react and properly maneuver, not to mention that both Tor and Pancir have passive (and quite good ones) sensors, so in some cases no pre launch warning is possible.
“Because most countries are not preparing for World War III or anything similar. AWACS can be very useful in enforcing no-flight zones, and when fighting heavily outnumbered and/or incompetent enemies. Plus, only a few countries have actually developed specialized missiles for shooting down AWACS (Russia and China have them).”
Lets just hope WW3 will never happen. Lets take one country which has only 2 options, win the war ol lose country and 90% of people. Israel. As you know they use both AWACS planes (actually they develop their own one ) and aerostats. Lets not forget that they were first ones to use AWACS to effectivly employ ambushes and to coordinate forces in the air, things that are standard today for everyone. What new possibilities AWACS can have, we just have to wait for Israel to go to next war. They were always innovative, so lets be like them, lets just assume next generation of AWACS and aerostats will not be only used for aquisition and recognition of targets but also for long range missile guidiance…With AESA technology mature enough, its just a matter of time. Its just my opinion though.
Regards.
LikeLike
“Yes, up to 23mm, and i was talking about new, modern, 30mm, 35mm, 40mm..even 23mm FAPDS round with V0=1200m/s are quite usable…”
Are these optical or radar-guided? Radar guided guns are not a big danger, as for optically targeted guns, it depends on crew reaction. Keep in mind, when aircraft flies as low as the A-10, you might not have time to shoot at it effectively.
“Again, if A-10 goes for s-400 and there are couple of Pancir-s1 20km in front of main S-400 radars ?”
A-10 can destroy Pancirs if it detects them. Of course, Pancirs have advantage in that regard.
“Even if it is plain as it is, there are still trees and electric cables, so, for me lowest possible altitude 30m, and im generous.”
Electric cables tend not to be that high, as for trees, they are obstacles for missiles and radars as well.
” Lets play: ”
If mast is 30 m high and A-10 flies at 50 m altitude, A-10 will be detected at 52 km. Doesn’t matter how powerful radar is.
“All these missiles are pretty crappy taking energy levels, G’s they can pull and speed but yet they scored hits. ”
It doesn’t matter how crappy missile is or is not if pilot did not notice he was being shot at. As I said, A-10 back then had no MAWS, and in one incident I have description of, A-10s pilot was caught completely by surprise by the hit – as in, he was flying steady and level when aircraft was hit, and didn’t notice he was under attack until after it happened.
LikeLike
Made quite big mistake in previous post, i mentioned inverted roll for A-10, from 200m alt it would not end up nice :-)…One more thing i forgot: when Serbs shot down F-117 they manage to get firing solution in 9 seconds and by literature S-125 reaction time is 60 seconds..so they achieved 500% reduction in time !!! And S-125 is vacuum tube tech, just imagine same level of proficiency applyed to digitalised S-300…..
LikeLike
“I know that. But with radar-guided missiles, you can count on a fair portion of them simply malfunctioning. Plus (and this is especially likely at low altitudes), there is a fair chance of missile’s proximity fuze reacting to birds, trees or terrain, as well as missile detonating too late – once aircraft is well out of its lethal cone. Last one happens quite often if missile is coming at the aircraft from forward or side quarters. So even if missile does reach lethal distance, it does not always equal a kill.”
Yes and no, this issue was pretty much standard years ago, but now a lot of effort is taken to improve missile reliability. As for head to head scenario, take into considerations that new S-300 missiles are designed to be effective against ballistic missiles, and in that case sum of speed is quite higher. than missile vs airplane. SA-2 had lethal radius of 65m, and heavy damage radius of 130-190m, depending of height, S-300 missiles has warhead of pretty same weight, but of much more modern design…
“S-400 has an instantaneous turn rate of 22 deg/s; sustained turn rate might well be similar to the A-10s calculated sustained turn rate, but I don’t have any data on it.”
Yes, the “big” missile, but in most cases it will be used for high alt planes as on those altitudes planes can not pull too much G’s. But smaller 9m96e has 150 deg/sec capability….And Russians claim it has 120km range, with its active radar homin head, average speed of 1km/s seems like ideal thing for low level fliers and as a self defence weapon aginst PGM’s. Quite cheaper than big missiles, and can be fired in mass volleys.
“Are these optical or radar-guided? Radar guided guns are not a big danger, as for optically targeted guns, it depends on crew reaction. Keep in mind, when aircraft flies as low as the A-10, you might not have time to shoot at it effectively.”
Above all i was thinkin about bofi L-70, cued by Giraffe and it has its own optical and radar tracker, with 3P ammo, its quite deadly, for low level high speed targets it fires 10 round ahead of target in such a patern tha target actually have to fly thru cloud of high speed tungsten pellets…quite close to it is a pair of GDF-005 cued by skyshield, with higher rate of fire, 24 round per gun of AHEAD ammo per gun per 1 engagement…Tunguska fires 249 30mm HE round per engagement…of course, if crew is taken off guard as youu said, low level, hi-speed plane will just get thru untouched, but if IADS is working and crew gets first warning that there is low level flyers coming their way 50km far away so they have time to get prepared….than all weapons mentioned will be very very dangerous.
LikeLike
Bofors is a strictly a naval gun. The only AA gun over 30mm that is deployed on land is OtoMelara 76 mm Draco which is only a prototype.
LikeLike
You are quite wrong, feel free to search on internet..Bofors l-70, Thales RAPID FIRE 40mm, Oerlikon gdf-005 35mm, S-60 57mm (obsolete now), on base of old Soviet 100mm KS-12 Iran developed modernized self loading radar cued gun with reach of 10km of height..and so on…..Just check…
LikeLike
not so, LvKv 90 operated by Sweden uses the boors 40mm on land, ref: http://www.military-today.com/artillery/lvkv_90.htm
LikeLike
Generally speaking when it comes to missiles to shoot down aircraft, the smaller will probably be better. Much like large aircraft, the inertia of larger missiles works against then.
I favor stages where range is required, much like how a rocket needs them to get their payload into orbit. The final stage should be as light as possible to try to maximise maneuverability, and by extension, pk.
I have at times wondered if the optimal air defense system would combine both IR missiles with some guns and use those missiles in an attempt to gey an ideal shooting position with the gun.
LikeLike
“I favor stages where range is required, much like how a rocket needs them to get their payload into orbit. ”
Same here, and not only where SAMs are concerned – my ideal BVRAAM would be a two-stage missile, using Meteor’s propulsion section for the first stage and either IRIS-T or MICA IR for the second stage. I believe I made a proposal for such missile as a part of my Air Superiority Fighter proposal 6.
“I have at times wondered if the optimal air defense system would combine both IR missiles with some guns and use those missiles in an attempt to gey an ideal shooting position with the gun.”
Something like that, yes, but you’d still need radars for guidance as ground-based IR systems tend to be short-ranged.
LikeLike
Sorry for veering off topic, but have you guys taken a look at this essai?
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/17/essay-new-strategic-realities-u-s-carrier-operations
Do you think aircraft carriers survivability is really in the red zone with chinese DF-21D missiles?
Could high powered laser beams be the ultimate answear to ballistic missiles, at least on vessels with enough electrical power such as nuclear carriers?
LikeLike
Question is whether or not the DF21 works as advertised.
But most definitely, the possibility of missiles represents an existential threat, in my opinion to carriers, especially when massed.
LikeLike
Carrier survivability is in red zone anywhere past the asian island chain, not because of the missiles but because of the DE submarines. And laser won’t help there.
As far as missiles are concerned, yes, lasers could be a good PD weapon once technology matures.
LikeLike
As Chris mentioned, if opposed to adversory who has the abilitty to launch large enough quantity of missiles than carriers are in problem. There was one study wich showed that Ticonderoga class will be able to stop up to 8 SSN-22 fired on it, 9th and succsesive missiles will hit it.(and that study assumed favorable conditions to Tico). So, take standard carrier task force: one Carrier, 2 Ticos, lets say 4 Arleigh Burke…So around 70 SSN-22 Sunburns will sink both Carrier and guarding ship. I believe Aegis still can perform a little bit better than that so my assumption is around 100 SSN-22. Of course, atack geometry plays big role here..if just from one direction than its easyer for Aegis, if multidirection attack is carried than its problem…
As Picard mentioned, if DE subs are in game, things can get really nasty…
LikeLike
[i]”But most definitely, the possibility of missiles represents an existential threat, in my opinion to carriers, especially when massed.”[/i]
[i]”There was one study wich showed that Ticonderoga class will be able to stop up to 8 SSN-22 fired on it, 9th and succsesive missiles will hit it.”[/i]
In other words, a massive missile attack aimed at any carrier would easily owerwelm its escort defenses. Wilst such an attack would be costly, not very flexible (requiring task force to first step into ballistic range), and very detectable (launching dozen(s) of medium range missiles cannot be done discretly), the impact would be terrible on the ennemy. Just imagine the losses from a drawned carrier, in human, strategical, material, psychological and economic aspect, it really gives the shivers. USA could at least survive it, but other forces equiped with one or two effective carriers would instantly lost so much, that it implies risk management recalling of nuclear deterence.
What’s puzzling me is that neither anti-naval medium ranged missiles nor DE submarines are exactly new threat. Still, some countries are still investing massively in carriers (like UK, India, China, even Russia etc), and other relies a lot on it (France used its CVN as main attack vector in initial stages of most modern conflicts it has been involved in, from the balkans to Afghanistan).
Picard, whenever you have some time it’d be great if you could post an analysis of the strategic pertinence of aircraft carriers in context of modern threats, what alternative or defensive responses can be formulated, etc.
Quoting from your “Aircraft Carrier proposal revised” article”: [i]”Main usage of aircraft carriers is in supporting land bases, providing air cover for surface ships (warships and transports alike), as well as providing close air support to amphibious landing and combat operations near the shore.[/i]
Aren’t those missions (especially the last one) totally antinomic with the concept of evading anti-naval medium ranged missiles and hidden DE submarines ambushes?
LikeLike
“What’s puzzling me is that neither anti-naval medium ranged missiles nor DE submarines are exactly new threat.”
Both threats range to WWII, during which both precursors to anti-ship missiles – japanese kamikaze – and DE submarines caused massive damage and losses to capital ships.
“Aren’t those missions (especially the last one) totally antinomic with the concept of evading anti-naval medium ranged missiles and hidden DE submarines ambushes?”
Indeed they are. But if you look at the entire history of naval warfare, operations were always in the coastal waters or otherwise near the landmass. Battle for Atlantic is the sole exception.
There is also the fact that submarine is the primary ship killer, and that carrier is best at supporting ground troops. Again, it has to be relatively close to coast to do it.
In the end, only thing that can be done is to maximize carrier’s ability to survive in coastal waters – which means that it shouldn’t displace more than 45.000 tonnes.
LikeLike
The biggest issue that has not been addressed is that the submarines of WWII were effectively surface ships that could occasionally go underwater. Diesel submarines have advanced considerably in terms of capabilities since then and are much quieter. There are also many different AIP designs out there worth exploring that could add a new variable.
As Picard notes, most naval fights have historically been close to shore. That might be changing, arguably since WWII, but near coastal operations are still decisive. Even big battles are sometimes not far from coasts. Witness Jutland for example.
Also, in regards to Blue Water operations, one thing that is new is the nuclear submarine. We can guess at how they would work based on the Cold War duels the US and Soviet submarines had, but it is harder to guess at how they would do against ships. My guess though is the ships are targets and will be killed much more than killings submarines.
Another fascinating question is given the costs of nuclear submarines compared to conventional counterparts, I suspect that even for Blue Waters, it may be simply more cost-effective to build more conventional submarines.
LikeLike
” That might be changing”
It won’t change as long as there are no major human habitats on, or under, the open ocean.
“I suspect that even for Blue Waters, it may be simply more cost-effective to build more conventional submarines.”
Maybe, maybe not. Conventional submarine has far lower endurance and is far slower than the nuclear submarine, which means less time on station. On the other hand, it is still dangerous to both ships and other submarines (including nuclear ones) due to its smaller size and quiet operation, but I would still keep a force of nuclear attack subs for quick response capability.
LikeLike
I’m thinking too with a second person in the back, the probability of being hit by surprise will be much lower.
Losses:
1. A fair amount of totally losses will happen in training and peacetime, especially while the pilots are new and are getting use to “hugging” the ground so much; even in wartime, there will be a handful of veteran pilots who might fly into the ground even with a 2nd person in the back
2. But that will lead to overall less wartime losses and better coordination with ground forces
3. Having a second person in the back should address issues of being taken by surprise, reduce friendly fire, and make it easier to spot what is actually going on, in a difficult situation
4. One other variable that must be considered is how good the on the ground crew is at shooting the enemy aircraft – good gunners and missile crews will no doubt net higher kills
5. Weather, terrain, and other factors will heavily influence losses
6. Another factor might be the quality of the ground forces – I suspect both working well will reduce the casualties of each other
There’s no doubt about it though, there are going to be CAS aircraft that will be shot down. I suspect that the ground forces may even at times, find themselves doing “extraction” type missions to try to “rescue” downed pilots. Likewise, the CAS will be there to try to save the ground forces when they are in a tough spot, especially with a large enough force and well trained pilots that coordinate well with well trained ground forces.
LikeLike
Excellent article. Althought it should have been called: “Assessing the RADAR SAM threat”, after reading it.
Also, althought off-topic, I would ask you, Picard587, if you will make in the future some analysis & opinion about Russian modern aircraft &/or vehicles.
LikeLike
I’m planning to do a Su-35 analysis, but that will be a very extensive article (just look at any other fighter aircraft analysis I wrote), and I don’t have time right now to even start writing it. So don’t expect it soon.
LikeLike
Yeah I saw your other articles.
But im talking about, at least, the entire Flanker family.
Also, now that you are here, in one of your articles you post:
“Su-35/Su-30 are comparably expensive to buy and operate, limiting its force presence and ability to provide adequate number of training sorties. Latter is actually impossible to achieve due to high maintenance downtime.”
Althought they arent the cheapest, and compared to other russian aircraft they are somewhat more complex & to maintain… Why would their ability of adquisition & number of sorties be limited that much to be mentioned?
LikeLike
Su-35 is more expensive than any other Flanker (IIRC, it costs 65-75 million USD compared to 35 million USD for Su-27, but don’t hold me for it – I’m going by memory here).
LikeLike
Gripen has always had a large amount of countermeasures. Now there’s also extra MAW and countermeasure pod to further extend survivability and tactics.
LikeLike
The question your article raises for me is whether the investment in SAMs is worth it.. Very low pk although most of the later Russian types haven’t really been blooded. Above a certain height they are the only way though these missiles are one trick ponies and aren’t cheap.
If you took something along the lines of the otomatic or mounted a bofors 57mm on an APC and bought lots of them ( they are, unlike SAMs useful as light artillery or in direct fire) then I wonder whether it is beyond the wit of man to design a cooperative engagement capability assuming that some form of VHF datalink is active.
Hence automatically training turrets with remote spotters equipped with various ir and visual sensors. Spotter sights a target and the computers take over, rapidly training x many rapid firing medium calibre AAA turrets to throw a hail of time fuzed ammunition into every possible future location of the aircraft given it’s vector. Provided both the spotter and the remote turrents’s locations are precisely known, and the aircraft’s range and speed can be assessed quickly ( laser range finder etc) then this may be feasible, question is how many turrets and of what calibre would be required to pepper all possible future locations of the aircraft? Would SAMs, even with low pk’s themselves, make such a system more effective merely by forcing the aircraft to evade and waste energy?
I guess you’d need to know the lethal and frag distances for several types of ammo to work it out. Somehow I doubt it would require the 1000 5 inch shells used per each aircraft kill in the pacific theatre of ww2 though.
LikeLike
“The question your article raises for me is whether the investment in SAMs is worth it..”
My disagreement with Picard about this topic was as i think statistics he used, even if 100% correct, just can not give real picture. For example, SA-2 was one of the first SAM systems so its natural it had a lot of flaws, than, statistics of Arab forces can also guide someone to mistake, as Arabs usualy used SAM system in a quite bad way, in most times just disregarding actual Soviet doctrine, than again, statistics of Serbian SAM usage also can not tell actuall truth as they were using completly compromised and 30++ years old systems against very modern force…Just try to draw a parallel of aircraft development and SAM development..F-4 could pull up to 8g whille the latest missile of SA-2 could pull 9g..Now most modern fighters can pull up to 11g while big SAM’s can pull up to 40g, and some other, like 9m96e, python-5 or Derby, can pull quite more. Than, SA-2 had one aquisition and one firing radar while modern SAM systems have 2-3 aquisition radars(ussualy diferent band) and firing radars are latest development of PESA tech, with programmable scan patterns, programble signal-beam geometryes, very very low sidelobes, and all other ECCM tech..its quite different story. Few people here mentioned staged missiles, just imagine when final stage reach levels of 120G’s and multi trackers onboard with re-attack capability…and that is next generation of SAM’s..while, no matter how good plane one can build, there is not so many people who can sustain 11+ G’s for long enough time….For example, Russians are developing mid range air to air missile with motor burn time of 100 seconds…if vectored trust is used, than this missile will be quite difficult to defeat… Just imagine R-73 agility coupled with good EO tracker (so far unjamable) and 100 sec burn time, with digital autopilot smart enough not to go too fast neither too slow….
Here you ned to see a wider picture, when you buy some weapon from some producer, its usualy wise to employ his philosophy also. For example, You can not expect that S-300 will have same pk against targets above 7000m and below, as you may know, even most modern aircraft has quite less agility 7000m+, so Russian philosophy is: Above 7000m they use S-300, from 3000m to 7000m, Fighter planes and below 3000m SPAAG and short range SAM’s. with some overlapping of course. If you buy only S-300 (no matter how good is it- or not) to protect your entire airspace than you just gonna end up with enemy having air dominance.
No matter how much AA guns you bring to theatre and no matter how good those can be, they have one weaknes, and that is range. So far bigest range has Russian 100mm KS-12, with about 10km reach in height and about 12km range, even if you can achieve 100%pk with, lets say, 4 rounds fired, enemy is going to exploit your weakness, and that is range. Modern JDAM’s, PAVEWAY’s, and missiles have 20+km range, not to mention glide weapons..
Using SAM’s to bleed aircraft energy so you can shoot them down with guns has also one weakness. Just place yourself in a pilot’s position, are you gonna try to stay out from SAM range or you gonna keep going towards it, bleeding your energy ?
Air defence has never been topic of SAM system effectiveness and how good it can perform, air defence is a philosophy how you use all your assets combined, having in mind their strenghts and weaknesses-think about this, one Serbian SA-3 battery shot down 1 F-117 and 1 F-16 (squadron leader, most experienced pilot) and damaged 4 more planes (one of those was another F-117 wich was written off-thats why Picard said 2 F-17 were downed)..The same battery was targeted 23 times and never actually hit..what if they had BUK or S-300 instead old NEVA ?…What if 10 such batteryes were there…?
LikeLike
http://www.newsweek.com/dragonfly-suit-152937 New G-suite that allows pilots to resit peak accelerations above 10G and sustained accelerations around 8g.
Manned fighter planes capable of sustained 9g turns and peaks around close to 20g are just around the corner. The 6th generation successor or successors to the Rafale and Gripen will probably be designed with at least 15g maximum load, even now Rafale can sustain 16.5g but with decrease to the life of the structure (Picard knows better this figures). Puling 15g turns at 0.9 Mach a fighter would still out-turn a missile pulling 120g turns at Mach 4+.
Yes missiles have come a long way. But fighters and their ECM, sensors and situational awareness, have come an even longer way and the advantage will always bee with the fighters where it comes to ECM versus the missiles ECCM or manuvrebility, because the fighter will always have more power available for electronics then a missile and a pilot (even remote one for UAVs) to come up with an unexpected maneuver. DIRCM will remove the EO seeker invulnerability to jamming and the Rafale will probably get them with the 2016 or 2018 upgrade cycle, and when that happens it doesn’t matter how maneuverable the missile is if the MAWS sees it the DIRCM will fry it.
My opinion is that you fail to see the big picture. Nobody says that SAMs are not effective, just that they are not as effective as the producers and those lobbying for buying them or countermeasures to them make them out to be.
LikeLike
“even now Rafale can sustain 16.5g”
Rafale can’t sustain 16,5 g, it has an ultimate g limit of 16,65 g, which means that around 3(?) seconds of experiencing that load will lead to the catastrophic structural failure. It can, however, sustain 11 g loads, even more 12-15 g if you are ready to accept some major reduction in airframe life.
“Nobody says that SAMs are not effective, just that they are not as effective as the producers and those lobbying for buying them or countermeasures to them make them out to be.”
It would be more accurate to say that SAMs by themselves are ineffective as an area denial weapon. They can however be used to compensate for the enemy’s numerical advantage, the way Vietnamese have used it during the Vietnam war, and to (as already pointed out) limit the enemy’s ability to strike multiple targets at once.
LikeLike
“Manned fighter planes capable of sustained 9g turns and peaks around close to 20g are just around the corner. The 6th generation successor or successors to the Rafale and Gripen will probably be designed with at least 15g maximum load, even now Rafale can sustain 16.5g but with decrease to the life of the structure (Picard knows better this figures). Puling 15g turns at 0.9 Mach a fighter would still out-turn a missile pulling 120g turns at Mach 4+.”
Pulling 15G, but for how long ?? 🙂 Dont forget that 1-2 second of 15 G will not have effect in most cases, it takes a little bit more time to effectivly bleed missiles energy, unless you expect that all pilots will be James Bond like cold blodied to wait for exact short time frame of 2-3 seconds to pull this 15g evading maneuvre with questionable efficiency….Anyway..fell free to expand your knowledge, just try to calculate: Height 17000m, cruise speed Mach 1.8 straight and level flight, than with 15g maneuver of 3 seconds..how much you change your previous position ? What is your speed afther this maneuver ? What is the lowest speed you can fly on this height ?..Take any plane you like (that exists of course) and calculate…
About wider picture, tell me, do you really expect that even 6th gen fighter will be capable of pulling more than 10Gs above 11000m for long enough time ? Even with vector thrust air is not dense enough, while missile with side thrusters (just like PAC-3) will have no problem of this kind…
“Puling 15g turns at 0.9 Mach a fighter would still out-turn a missile pulling 120g turns at Mach 4+.”- To defeat plane with speed of Mach 0.9 pulling 15g mach 4 missile will need to pull 296g-NO HIT…now you tell me whats gonna happen if missile’s endgame speed is mach 2 ????? How many G’s ?
“Yes missiles have come a long way. But fighters and their ECM, sensors and situational awareness, have come an even longer way and the advantage will always bee with the fighters where it comes to ECM versus the missiles ECCM or manuvrebility, because the fighter will always have more power available for electronics then a missile and a pilot (even remote one for UAVs) to come up with an unexpected maneuver. ”
Tell me, if you need to jamm SAM system with ARH+COMMAND guidance, what is the level of power your jammer has to have to effectivly jamm 2MW radar ? Do you really expect that you will always have uplink command signal frequencies to jam on those ? Ok, ARH can be jammed, i agree..but other and combination of couple tecniques ? What is the burn- thru range of 30n6 aginst growler ?? Or you just disregard this ? Im not saying that today SAM’s gonna have pk of 90%…but 30% is reasonble and quite enough, of course, good crew is a must. Than we can play: 30n6 has 6 chanel target cappability, you use 4 and leave 2 for self defence. So, you shoot at 4 planes, 100km away (your IADS is working, so you had ability to wait them to come closer)and each plane you shoot with 4 missiles…Combined pk of such 4 missiles salvo is around 70%..so you got 2 planes (at least) shot down with expense of 16 missiles…if each missile cost 1.5mil $$ you spent 24mil$$ in total..but those 2 planes cost 20mill$$ each…tell me, who is winning the war at a moment ?
“Bofors is a strictly a naval gun. The only AA gun over 30mm that is deployed on land is OtoMelara 76 mm Draco which is only a prototype.”
You still claim this or you did your homework ?
LikeLike
“but 30% is reasonble”
0,3-3% against a competent opponent.
LikeLike
“0,3-3% against a competent opponent.”
I already said quite enough,gave enough arguments, raised some questions wich are left unanswered…. if some can not or do not want to understand my point of view, its fine with me.
Regards
LikeLike
Even modern radar-guided Air-to-Air missiles, when used against enemies with no countermeasures and that typically did not maneuver, achieved Pk of 30-50%. In all wars to date, Pk of SAMs was an order of magnitude below that of corresponding air-to-air missiles. S-300 achieveing 30% Pk against a target that is aware it has been attacked and has countermeasures is nothing short of a fantasy… it’s not even a science fiction.
S-400 has an instantaneous turn rate of 22 deg/s at sea level… Rafale has a sustained turn rate of 28 degrees/second at 15.000 ft. Add to that the fact that radar SAMs are easily jammed or decoyed, and you can understand why I don’t believe they will achieve Pk above single-digit percentages.
MANPADS are more dangerous but there is a problem of engagement window.
LikeLike
“S-400 has an instantaneous turn rate of 22 deg/s at sea level… Rafale has a sustained turn rate of 28 degrees/second at 15.000 ft”
Honestly, are you trolling me or what ? Childish playing with facts is something im not gonna buy my friend…48n6e2 has 22deg/sec and it is a big missile thats gonna be used for high alt targets, so, how much Rafale can sustain at 50000ft and how long? And again, for 15000ft, 9m96e with 150deg/sec is gonna be used…life, my friend, is not a game in wich you set parameters, enemy will have unpolite tendency to use most appropriate weapon, not the one that suits your analyses.
“Add to that the fact that radar SAMs are easily jammed or decoyed,”
Im starting to belive that about jamming you actually dont know that much. Are you familiar with term burn-thru at all ? So, 2MW radar aginst up to 20kw jammer….
F-16 that was downed by Serbs was piloted by squadron leader, i guess you have idea what takes to be squad leader..pretty competent one right ???.And it was shot down by SA-3 missile. 30n6 still has burn -thru range aginst jammers (most of them on tactical aircfraft) with more range than range of SA-3 missile, so you want me to believe that much more sophisticated radar and much more better missile is gonna perform the same? Lets get real ! If S-300 misille fired from same distance as that SA-3 missile was fired, considering its speed, even if pilot had exact moment awareness that he was shot up i doubt he will have time to react properly…Because, no matter how some plane can turn, even if its 50deg/sec…its not like evading snowballs with one- “Rafale has a sustained turn rate of 28 degrees/second at 15.000 f “- jiggle, it take same time to actually change your position and relative angle against missile causing it to bleed too much of its energy..so comparisons like S-400 22deg..Rafale 28deg are not telling that much as you tend to like. Even a mig-15 with MAWS can defeat S-300 in some cases and again, even Rafale, F-22, Typhoon…if shot with properly timed 4 round missile salvo on optimal range gonna end up facin 4th missile with not enough energy…But as i said, if you like to believe oposite, it fine with me, just please, dont troll me with non logical scenarios and numbers (statistics) taken out of context.
Have you actually heard of MACE VIII excersise ? What were the conclusions ? But, i guess NATO employs all incompetent personnell, you for sure know better than them…
Regards.
LikeLike
“Honestly, are you trolling me or what ?”
I’m not trolling you, if you have more accurate data feel free to provide it….
“so, how much Rafale can sustain at 50000ft and how long?”
You should learn basics before even trying to discuss more advanced things. Sustained turn rate. It means that aircraft can sustain it as long as it has fuel to burn since thrust is equal to drag. As for how much, I don’t know, but it is certainly going to be more than what S-400 can.
“enemy will have unpolite tendency to use most appropriate weapon”
Enemy will use weapons that are avaliable.
“Are you familiar with term burn-thru at all ?”
I am, but I said “jammed or decoyed”, not “jammed”, for a reason.
“pretty competent one right”
True, though I’d assume that leadership and tactical skills are more important than flying skills.
“30n6 still has burn -thru range aginst jammers (most of them on tactical aircfraft) with more range than range of SA-3 missile, so you want me to believe that much more sophisticated radar and much more better missile is gonna perform the same”
No sane SAM operator is going to leave its radar continuously on, which means that match is between aircraft’s onboard jammer and missile’s onboard radar. A match that jammer typically wins. IR SAMs are a greater danger, but again, some will never find the target (unless ground sensor is also IRST, which would make it immune to anti-radiation missiles but would also limit its range) and some will malfunction.
“it take same time to actually change your position and relative angle against missile causing it to bleed too much of its energy”
Around 3-4 seconds for optimum evasion. How long does the missile need to reach the aircraft (note: missile needs to accelerate after launch, and no missile will achieve maximum speed near the ground)?
“if shot with properly timed 4 round missile salvo on optimal range gonna end up facin 4th missile with not enough energy”
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on altitude and aircraft’s initial speed.
LikeLike
“You should learn basics before even trying to discuss more advanced things. Sustained turn rate”
Ok, you got me by mistake, and “teach me a lesson”, stil, its not excuse for not answering the question (quite few more acctually)..So, how much Rafale can SUSTAIN at 50000ft ?
When speaking of learning basics : “then the A-10 will need to use maximum turn for about 3-5 seconds, LEAVING 5-7 SECONDS TO RECOVER THE ENERGY.”
With T/W ratio of 0.36……!!??? 🙂
“Enemy will use weapons that are avaliable.”
And it seem that you constantly assume that those weapons will be those that fit nice in your analyses…just like 48n6 vs Rafale, instead 9m96…
“I am, but I said “jammed or decoyed”, not “jammed”, for a reason”
While it might work against ARH/SARH, i would like to see your elaborate on decoy vs ARH+TVM ,So far decoys had nice performance against old and by today standards low tech systems..And even those old system had operator guidance mode…and operator can alway choose to go for smaller target on his screen.(if resolution is ok)
“True, though I’d assume that leadership and tactical skills are more important than flying skills”
Well, and who says that only flying skills are enough for one to become squad leader ? Again you twist things as you like.
“No sane SAM operator is going to leave its radar continuously on…”
Not continuously on, just long enough. if your fire control radar has 8 target channels and your missiles and their guidance is good enough to shoot down missiles that are flying straight towards you without high G maneuvers, why not keep it on.. 4 chanels for targets, 4 left for self defence…Again, you seem to forget that defence aids exists. In war Against Serbia more than 700 HARMs were fired, and what was the effect ? Even Serbia, with its crappy tech level was capable of producing quite effective radar emission decoy..Feel free to imagine level of defence aids systems France, Germany, Russia….can produce…so by this your:
” A match that jammer typically wins” claim, wich is, again, based on scenario high tech jammer vs old SAM system, just dont apply anymore.
“How long does the missile need to reach the aircraft (note: missile needs to accelerate after launch, and no missile will achieve maximum speed near the ground)?”
On high altitudes missile will have 1km/sec average speed (48n6e2 for exapmle, some will have more, some quite less), while not so many planes can achieve supercruise of 500m/s even on high altitude..unless they are ready to burn a lot of fuel and than is not supercruise…. Near the ground missile will achive around 70-80% of max speed, and the same goes for planes, no supercruise of mach 1.5+ near the ground,even mach 1.2 is questionable for todays planes.. ..Big missiles will accelerate to max speed in 9-15 seconds, while small ones will reach 1200+m/s in 1.5 seconds and will still have 900m/s 12km away…anyway, its more reasonable to use average speed, in wich acceleration is acounted already…so lets say. aircraft at 15000ft got passivly targeted by Pancir-s1 5km away….. i leave for you to the rest of maths..its not so hard. Laws of physics, my friend, apply to both sides.
You are in Rafale, your task is to hit the bridge 200km ahead your current position, H=30000ft, speed as you like, 30km from behind/in front of you two 48n6e2 in a 3 second succsesion are fired..Please elaborate this -“Around 3-4 seconds for optimum evasion”….
LikeLike
“With T/W ratio of 0.36……!!??? 🙂 ”
Have you ever heard of potential energy? Trading altitude for energy?
“i would like to see your elaborate on decoy vs ARH+TVM”
TV guidance is typically used only in ground to ground applications, as having a human operator adds lag on top of the typical missile lag time. Admittedly, IIR is close enough, but in both cases it is possible to partly blind the missile with flares.
“Well, and who says that only flying skills are enough for one to become squad leader ?”
Point is that squad leader is not necessarily extraordinary flyer.
“if your fire control radar has 8 target channels and your missiles and their guidance is good enough to shoot down missiles that are flying straight towards you without high G maneuvers, why not keep it on.. ”
Because you can never be sure that you’ll actually be capable of shooting said missiles down, even if they are flying straight. Patriot SAM had less than 1% Pk (0,0-2,5%) against Iraqi Scud, a low-tech copy of German World War II V-2 rocket (between none and 4 missiles shot down with 158 Patriots fired).
“Against Serbia more than 700 HARMs were fired, and what was the effect ?”
Just as small as that of Serb SAMs.
“i leave for you to the rest of maths..its not so hard.”
5 seconds is enough for a defensive reaction.
“Please elaborate this -“Around 3-4 seconds for optimum evasion””
Easiest way to render missile ineffective is to pull into it and make sure its lethal cone is behind you when it detonates. If the missile comes from the side, you need to do a 90 degree turn. With Rafale’s 28 deg/s sustained turn rate, it can do 90 degrees in 3,2 seconds. Add the fact that initial turn is quite a bit quicker, and 90 degree turn can be done in 3 seconds. Additional second can be added if you want a greater turn than 90 degrees, or you are not exactly at optimum maneuvering speed.
LikeLike
“Have you ever heard of potential energy? Trading altitude for energy?”
If i remember good we were talking about low flying A-10:
“Range of weapons is always reduced by low altitude, but that goes both ways. Plus, F-16CJ would stay at the altitude to get S-400 light up, A-10 would be flying low. In fact, argument about the altitude limitation was more to prove that CAS can be done even when SAMs are present in large numbers.”
So what potential energy are you talking about ? What trading heigt for energy from 1000ft alt ?
“TV guidance is typically used only in ground to ground applications, as having a human operator adds lag on top of the typical missile lag time. Admittedly, IIR is close enough, but in both cases it is possible to partly blind the missile with flares.”
My friend, i said TVM not TV. TVM stands for: TRACK via MISSILE, and it work like this: Main engagement radar paint the target, missile get the bounces of the signal and sends back what it see to engagement radar, its improved version of SARH. So you in this case have actually a double check, both Patriot and S-300 employ this mode. So, you write article on how SAMs are not efective while you dont know basic terms and all guidance metods ? Quite interesting.
“5 seconds is enough for a defensive reaction.”
At first it was that 3-4 seconds are enough…anyway, i did some calculations cracking your statement…hope you seen it…fell free to prove me wrong on this one.
Regards.
LikeLike
“If i remember good we were talking about low flying A-10: ”
True, though we also mixed in Rafale.
“Main engagement radar paint the target, missile get the bounces of the signal and sends back what it see to engagement radar, its improved version of SARH.”
Then just say SARH next time. And radar for short-range SAM won’t be powerful, so it can be jammed. Radar for long range SAMs is more powerful, but there will be fewer of these to go around, which will leave enough gaps for A-10 to sneak under. As for Rafale, it can always feed the missile a false signal.
“So, you write article on how SAMs are not efective while you dont know basic terms and all guidance metods ?”
I am familiar with older terms, but apparently some feel the need to change terminology every so often… soon we’ll have new terms for toasters. And I’m quite familiar with guidance methods, thank you very much.
LikeLike
“Around 3-4 seconds for optimum evasion”
Lets try to crack this one with some basic trigonometry. We take Rafale, as one of most maneuvrable planes today(actually its not gona matter, just for fun). Rafale has max climb speed around 310m/s, but lets be generous and put it at 350m/s. So, you are 15000ft, V=350m/s missile is coming from your tale, same alt as you. In 4 seconds u can climb (assuming instant 90 degree change of direction) up 1400m, even, lets asuume you can do 90 degree instant change in any direction so in any direction within those 4 second you travel 1400m. Than again, lets say you changed your direction (angle) towars missile instantaneously. How it looks from missile POV ?, So, your shift of 1400m in any derection(in one second time, science fiction but lets play, its fun) is gonna be seen from missile POV as follows:
From 20km your change in angle is 4 degrees
From 10km your change in angle is 8 degrees
From 5km your change in angle is 15 degrees
From 2km your change in angle is 34 degrees
From 1km your change in angle is 54 degrees
From 500m your change in angle is 70 degrees.
So, with some science fiction assumptions like 90 degree instant turn and no loss in angular velocity assumin missile has 22 deg/sec you can evade it from 2km and less..But if we go back to reality and take those 4 seconds instead of one…..i believe you got the point..
LikeLike
“So, you are 15000ft, V=350m/s missile is coming from your tale, same alt as you. In 4 seconds u can climb (assuming instant 90 degree change of direction) up 1400m, even, lets asuume you can do 90 degree instant change in any direction so in any direction within those 4 second you travel 1400m.”
At that altitude there is no need to climb, just place the missile at your 3/9 o’clock, and once missile is close enough, pull hard into it. And keep in mind that missile will always lag behind the aircraft in maneuvers.
Further, even missile entering the lethal distance does not guarantee a kill. Best engagement profile is tail-on, if missile comes at the target from side or front, chances are that warhead will detonate too late and aircraft will not get caught in the lethal cone.
LikeLike
Even modern radar-guided Air-to-Air missiles, when used against enemies with no countermeasures and that typically did not maneuver, achieved Pk of 30-50%. In all wars to date, Pk of SAMs was an order of magnitude below that of corresponding air-to-air missiles. S-300 achieveing 30% Pk against a target that is aware it has been attacked and has countermeasures is nothing short of a fantasy… it’s not even a science fiction.
S-400 has an instantaneous turn rate of 22 deg/s at sea level… Rafale has a sustained turn rate of 28 degrees/second at 15.000 ft. Add to that the fact that radar SAMs are easily jammed or decoyed, and you can understand why I don’t believe they will achieve Pk above single-digit percentages.
MANPADS are more dangerous but there is a problem of engagement window.
LikeLike
“The question your article raises for me is whether the investment in SAMs is worth it”
My question as well. I guess that depends on what do you precisely want. SAMs will never deny the determined enemy an ability to attack your other assets, and will never close down the airspace. They will, however, make such operations more costly and complex, limiting the enemy’s ability to strike multiple targets at once, and may get an occasional mission kill as well. IR SAMs are also far more dangerous than radar-guided ones.
Still, the possibility of running out of SAM stocks is always a real one.
“Would SAMs, even with low pk’s themselves, make such a system more effective merely by forcing the aircraft to evade and waste energy? ”
Possibly.
LikeLike
They also add the possibility of friendly fire. At least one Tornado and rather a large number of casualties at a barracks ( was blamed on a Scud) were down to patriot in the Gulf war. With RWR optimised for unfriendly missiles this could be quite as issue.
Does anyone happen to know the stats for stinger launches and kills in Afghan? Most of the figures come from weapons systems which were a generation behind the aircraft they targetted, given the Soviet refusal to deploy up to date models there the opposite was probably true so could be an interesting comparison.
LikeLike
Theres also the Falklands of course, Seadart put in a good performance overall, despite the Argentines having the system themselves for training, and Seawolf seems to have been very effective. In fact I seem to recall that a Seadart intercepted an anti ship missile in the Gulf too. Poorly equipped aircraft of course and the missiles were a generation ahead of the targets. Rapier on the other hand was next to useless.
LikeLike
“Poorly equipped aircraft of course”
Greatest problems were lack of radar warners and countermeasures, salt accumulation on the canopy and the fact that most Argentine aircraft were operating at the edge of their range. All in all, not very demnding targets.
LikeLike
It is a matter of opportunity cost.
Cost of SAM systems
Cost of training troops (who will inevitably wear out equipment)
Against this, your alternatives:
More air superiority fighters
You have to consider the price to pK ratio of SAM versus fighters.
One thing I should note is that having SAM might be good for the morale of ground troops who can shoot back. That might be worth looking at as well.
LikeLike
My experience is the opposite though for a different reason…
Missile troops, whether Army or Air Force are the arm that noone wants to go into. It is truly difficult to imagine a more boring job in the military than manning SAMs during peacetime, especially large fixed installations for the Air force. You’ll probably never see the enemy even in wartime though tracking a Bear 300 miles out would otherwise be the highlight of your career, assuming you were a radar op rather than a maintenance type. Few people join the airforce to sit for 20 years in a flat and preferably featureless bit of the country, probably miles from anywhere, to clean the seagull crap off a pointy hunk of metal once in a while. The Navy doesn’t have the same problem as they tend to go places, the artillery or tank formations less so but it just isn’t the reason detre for someone joining the guns.
It could be that the historically low pk rates reflect the calibre of troops who are pushed into a service where little operator skill is apparent. That is not to say that skills and drills are not important for a mobile battery, as the Serbs proved, however it is as you say an opportunity cost and the mongs do have to be parked somewhere.
LikeLike
I have met some forces who did enjoy being in the AA division, but that may be the exception. During WWII, the Luftwaffe ground forces did quite well with the 88mm guns, taking out impressive numbers of enemy tanks.
Hmm … it would need a lot more research. It might depend on the military.
But you might be right. In that case, relatively few SAM (save for dual use weapons like medium calibre high velocity AA guns that could be used against ground targets) might be best.
LikeLike
I still think it is however worth equipping at least some infantry with MANPADs, as they (when used well) can be dangerous vs aircraft.
LikeLike
MANPADS are a tactical weapon meant to counter low-flying aircraft, in other words CAS fighters and attack helos – precisely the two greatest threats ground forces face from the air. Not having MANPADS systems is out of question.
LikeLike
Pretty much.
MANPADs for low level stuff (should make helicopters out of the question) and more air superiority fighters for high level stuff. Maybe some medium calibre AA as indicated since they can be useful vs ground forces too.
No need for large radar guided missiles.
LikeLike
“About wider picture, tell me, do you really expect that even 6th gen fighter will be capable of pulling more than 10Gs above 11000m for long enough time ? Even with vector thrust air is not dense enough, while missile with side thrusters (just like PAC-3) will have no problem of this kind…”
Igor I understand you want to make a point but using data that has no relation with the subject just to confirm your point will simply drag the discussion without need.
The subject was not SAMs effectiveness at high altitude but their effectiveness at low altitude against CAS aircraft. That’s why I gave the example of Mach 0.9 and 15g turn. If one is to answer you question one would point out that you are simply missing the picture again. As no 6th generation fighter has been designed so far, who is to say that the designers will not solve that particular problem by adding side thrusters to the fighter, to give it high the capacity to perform 15G turns at 11000m? Or maybe that by that time DIRCM would have evolved into a hard-kill laser based point defense system? If we are to get into speculation we can imagine about anything the technology at that time will provide.
Anyway I was never talking about high speed and high altitude. And in fact I don’t think people in this discussion are clear on what exactly is the point you are trying to make. I discerned at least 2 contradictory points which you try to make:
1) that SAM missiles are super-weapons that will make aircraft obsolete.
2) that SAM missiles are not good at low altitude and you need AAA for low altitude, which is basically what Picard was saying.
So which is exactly you point?
LikeLike
Andrei,
Please, read what i wrote couple more times, maybe than you will understand. If you dont understand something, do not assume all others have the same problem. You expressed some arguments, i replyed with contra arguments, so far you have 13 question to answer, till than….
“I discerned at least 2 contradictory points which you try to make:
1) that SAM missiles are super-weapons that will make aircraft obsolete.
2) that SAM missiles are not good at low altitude and you need AAA for low altitude, which is basically what Picard was saying.”
1) If you read what i wrote with understanding than you will see that i have opinion that modern SAMs will have considerably higher PK than Picard is trying to assume, not as manufacturers claim (90% or so) but for me reasonable will be 15-30%, wich is still 10x more than Picard is assuming.
2) I never said SAMs are not good at low alt, just that SAMs designed for high alt will be much less effective, but than again i mentioned SAM systems that ARE designed for small alt, and that if someone is setting example of 48n6e2 against low flying agile plane is no more than trolling or simple misunderstandig how air defence is working, again, if you red my posts with understanding it would be clear to you. And if i am not wright about this than, why there are systems like Patriot and S-300 on one side and Osa, Tor, Pancir, Roland, Crotale…. on the other ???
“The subject was not SAMs effectiveness at high altitude but their effectiveness at low altitude against CAS aircraft.”
The subject was about SAM effectivenes overall- read article one more time, CAS was just someone’s try to explain how big missiles will not perform well in this role, for me that was just taking things out of context.
Regards.
LikeLike
“1) If you read what i wrote with understanding than you will see that i have opinion that modern SAMs will have considerably higher PK than Picard is trying to assume, not as manufacturers claim (90% or so) but for me reasonable will be 15-30%, wich is still 10x more than Picard is assuming.”
This is the first time you actually said this, that you believe a reasonable Pk is 15-30%. The rest of you comments are simply to angry for anybody to discern that.
“The subject was about SAM effectiveness overall- read article one more time, CAS was just someone’s try to explain how big missiles will not perform well in this role, for me that was just taking things out of context.”
The subject has been SAM effectiveness against ground attack plane. It is stated right in the first phrase:
“SAMs are the new boogeyman of the USAF, one which they are also using in their political games. They want the F-35 because, they say, legacy aircraft are “unsurvivable”. They want to retire the A-10 and leave ground troops without any support because, they say, it is unsurvivable. But how much truth there is in their assertions?”
If you had bothered to read this blog you would have noticed that Picard considers any other form of ground attack plane other then CAS a waste of time. So the point he was trying to make when using the historical effectiveness of SAM was that CAS aircraft are not the obsolete hunk of junks USAF would have you believe but actually more capable then their intended replacements the F-35 and other “stealth” ground attack aircraft.
LikeLike
“This is the first time you actually said this, that you believe a reasonable Pk is 15-30%. The rest of you comments are simply to angry for anybody to discern that.”
My friend, first time i said i believe pk will be 30 % was in response to YOU…here it is:
“Igor said
February 20, 2015 at 11:54 am
…Tell me, if you need to jamm SAM system with ARH+COMMAND guidance, what is the level of power your jammer has to have to effectivly jamm 2MW radar ? Do you really expect that you will always have uplink command signal frequencies to jam on those ? Ok, ARH can be jammed, i agree..but other and combination of couple tecniques ? What is the burn- thru range of 30n6 aginst growler ?? Or you just disregard this ? Im not saying that today SAM’s gonna have pk of 90%…but 30% is reasonble and quite enough, of course, good crew is a must. Than we can play: 30n6 has 6 chanel target cappability, you use 4 and leave 2 for self defence. So, you shoot at 4 planes, 100km away (your IADS is working, so you had ability to wait them to come closer)and each plane you shoot with 4 missiles…Combined pk of such 4 missiles salvo is around 70%..so you got 2 planes (at least) shot down with expense of 16 missiles…if each missile cost 1.5mil $$ you spent 24mil$$ in total..but those 2 planes cost 20mill$$ each…tell me, who is winning the war at a moment ?”
So, now is obvious that you either not read replyes to you, or not understand what is written or can not remember longer than 10 seconds or just trollin..wichever the case is, please, dont vaste my time anymore…
Thanks and regards !!!
LikeLike
“So, now is obvious that you either not read replyes to you, or not understand what is written or can not remember longer than 10 seconds or just trollin..wichever the case is, please, dont vaste my time anymore…”
Have you actually read your replies. They’re long, packed with supposition and useless information, and unstructured, so that it’s almost impossible for anybody to understand what it is you are trying to say. For example the above paragraph should have been two. The phrase ” Im not saying that today SAM’s gonna have pk of 90%…but 30% is reasonable and quite enough” should have been the start of a new paragraph because it draws some conclusions based on the information which you had given. This way whoever is reading your posts can understand them from the first read-through and not have to read them 2 or 3 times which honestly I don’t think any of us have time.
Didn’t you learn all this in school? Didn’t they teach composition in writing in your education system? Or are you still in school?
LikeLike
“At that altitude there is no need to climb, just place the missile at your 3/9 o’clock, and once missile is close enough, pull hard into it. And keep in mind that missile will always lag behind the aircraft in maneuvers.”
Exactly, but as you may see and dont want to admit, your “3-4 second is enough” claim fails here completly as it takes 3 seconds already just to start beaming the misile..Missile evasion takes some time, the closer the distance from wich missile is fired means less time to react and more time to beam the missile as it has higher energy state so it acctually has more speed to trade for maneuvers. Than again, assume you are perfectly beaming the missile, that means that your relative speed to missile (not angular speed) is ZERO, and with missile having 1km/sec speed your timing has to be perfect, second too early and second too late and you are in deep sh##. Even if your MAWS can precisely measure missile’s distance And again, you disregard the fact that modern missiles (at least some of them) are fired in a way (actually autopilot does that) to fly higher than target in order to maximise endgame energy levels, so in this case, “turning into missile” seems like not so good idea as by this you may loose some energy and actually bring your self in same level with missile.. And over and over again, you seem to disregard salvo of missiles, if second one is fired 3 sec afther the first one, your shift in angle(as i showed in trigonometry game) will be smaller than for missile 1..and if 4 missiles are fired in 3seconds succsesion time, the last, 4th missile will have not too much problem tracking your angle changes, than there is only the question- if you can keep your plane in energy good state and choose all appropriate maneuvers in such a short time span…..as once you turn into 1st missile, missile number 4 is coming your way in a 1km/sec+ your speed + your shift in angle from 10+km away (as i showed) is not too hard to cope with + you still have to outmaneuver missiles 2 and 3…..Of course, still this can be done, but apart from extreme agility plane takes also extreemly good pilot. And, just dont forget, if you were in air to ground mission, you will have to jettison all your load to achieve this maneuvrability, and this my friend is called MISSION KILL. So, if i have considerably stronger forces on the ground than you, even if my missiles have pk 0%, your planes will be coming back, followed with hundreds of bodybags…For me, SAMs work even in this case.
” if missile comes at the target from side or front, chances are that warhead will detonate too late and aircraft will not get caught in the lethal cone.”—”
Well, the reason why Patriot failed against SCUDs is exactly this one. Missile guidance was good, missile miss distances were good, what failed is fuse, as it was designed for hitting planes, so in numerous occasions warhead detonated too late, hitting the body of SCUD and not the warhead. This issue was adressed in PAC-2 and also in S-300pmu1 and anwards, so believing that fuse designed to cope with balistic missiles will fail in aircraft interception role is quite optimistic.
Regards.
LikeLike
” as it takes 3 seconds already just to start beaming the misile..”
That depends on where the missile is coming from. And if the missile is coming from the rear or front, just beaming it can be – and oftentimes is – enough to render it ineffective, by making it miscalculate detonation point and detonate once aircraft is out of the lethal cone. Of course, turning into it is the best option, and it is done once missile is already perpendicular to the flight path.
“Missile evasion takes some time, the closer the distance from wich missile is fired means less time to react and more time to beam the missile as it has higher energy state so it acctually has more speed to trade for maneuvers.”
That is true. But as I explained before, missile getting into a lethal radius is by no means a guarantee of a kill, and if used against low-altitude aircraft there is a chance of terrain activating the fuze.
“And again, you disregard the fact that modern missiles (at least some of them) are fired in a way (actually autopilot does that) to fly higher than target in order to maximise endgame energy levels, so in this case, “turning into missile” seems like not so good idea as by this you may loose some energy and actually bring your self in same level with missile..”
By that point, missile will be falling towards the aircraft. And in any case, turning into the missile has two purposes: 1) to force the missile into the overshoot, and 2) to increase the closure rate and thus likelyhood of aircraft being out of the missile’s lethal cone. Former is better served by faster aircraft and slower missile, but latter is actually better served by both missile and aircraft being faster. And if the missile is above the low-flying aircraft, it will have problems with clutter, while aircraft’s MAWS will have a clear view of the missile. This will make calculating the aircraft’s precise orientation and speed, and thus current impact point, more problematic.
“Of course, still this can be done, but apart from extreme agility plane takes also extreemly good pilot.”
About 50% of the radar guided missiles will malfunction along the way, so it is impossible to fire a perfectly timed salvo unless several SAM launchers can get a clear view of the aircraft. If missiles are spaced too much, it gives time for the aircraft to reorient itself and recover some energy, if they are too close then the same maneuver and countermeasure activation/discharge may be effective on more than one missile. You’d need to fire maybe dozen SAMs in a very short time to saturate the aircraft.
” And, just dont forget, if you were in air to ground mission, you will have to jettison all your load to achieve this maneuvrability, and this my friend is called MISSION KILL. ”
Not if you have a 30 mm gun handy to blow up targets by filling them with HE or tungsten. Or DU, in the case you really hate someone and want to make the area hazardous for the next few thousand years. Which is just one more reason why multirole aircraft are a crap proposition.
“So, if i have considerably stronger forces on the ground than you, even if my missiles have pk 0%, your planes will be coming back, followed with hundreds of bodybags…For me, SAMs work even in this case.”
Assuming that most or all my aircraft are mission-killed that way, and that my aircraft can be mission killed that way in the first place, yes. But a properly designed CAS aircraft can be extremely effective even with no external load at all.
“so believing that fuse designed to cope with balistic missiles will fail in aircraft interception role is quite optimistic.”
Not really, as I am unaware of any SAM (or any missile) with variable time fuze where delay changes with target’s orientation. In any case, there are problems with your theory: 1) Patriot SAM system completely failed in intercepting the Scud ballistic missiles, missiles that do not maneuver and have no countermeasures (as Postol has shown, Patriots typically missed by 600 meters, and only managed to hit 0-9% of targets. In other words, they were ineffective against non-maneuvering “rocks”. Israeli sources cite one Scud destroyed and two damaged, a Pk of 0,7% and Ph of 2%). 2) Missile will typically not attempt to maneuver, and even if it does, those maneuvers will not be adaptive. Aircraft will initiate adaptive evasive maneuvers, of however the short duration. 3) Missiles also typically have no onboard countermeasures. Aircraft have countermeasures of several types, designed to 1) prevent detection, 2) prevent the lock-on, and 3) prevent the fuze operation. Last ones are not as relevant today due to most modern missiles not using radar fuzing, but first two remain as relevant as ever.
See here on Patriot:
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/pl920908.htm
http://www.turnerhome.org/jct/patriot.html
Click to access honest-performance-analysis.pdf
As a matter of fact, Patriot system not only failed to defend against Scuds, it increased damage done by the attacks:
LikeLike
“That depends on where the missile is coming from. And if the missile is coming from the rear or front, just beaming it can be – and oftentimes is – enough to render it ineffective, by making it miscalculate detonation point and detonate once aircraft is out of the lethal cone”
Hmmm, strange opinion, quite strange, as beaming the missile has nothing to do with miscalculation of detonation point. Beaming the missile is to bleed of its energy so it can not follow you anymore at certain point as it has no turn performance any more.
“That is true. But as I explained before, missile getting into a lethal radius is by no means a guarantee of a kill, and if used against low-altitude aircraft there is a chance of terrain activating the fuze.”
SA-2 had 65m kill radius, 130m heavy damage radius. S-300 has warhead of simillar mass, but of much modern design and guidance is much more precise…Than again, as i said before, if you still believe that afther 60 years of development clutter is still a big issue….
“About 50% of the radar guided missiles will malfunction along the way, so it is impossible to fire a perfectly timed salvo unless several SAM launchers can get a clear view of the aircraft.”
I would like to see link for this. If it is your assumption than i have 100 acres of fertile land at north pole to sell you. As i said above, afther 60 years of development….Than we can say that Rafale is no way more safer to fly than ME-109…..thats the logic…….
“…as Postol has shown, Patriots typically missed by 600 meters, and only managed..”
This just confirmes what i said, fuse was bad, when you have SCUD falling down with 1km/sec and PAC missile coming its way at 1km/sec 0.3 sec delay will give you this kind of miss distances.
“Not really, as I am unaware of any SAM (or any missile) with variable time fuze where delay changes with target’s orientation”
Well, what you are aware or unaware is rather questionable as we could clearly see that you were definetly unaware of one missile guidance principle wich is in use for 25+ years. I’m sorry, but for “im unaware” kind of argument you dont have credibility any more.
Regards.
LikeLike
“Hmmm, strange opinion, quite strange, as beaming the missile has nothing to do with miscalculation of detonation point. Beaming the missile is to bleed of its energy so it can not follow you anymore at certain point as it has no turn performance any more.”
Intent and effect do not necessarily correspond. I’m well aware of what beaming is used for, I’m just pointing out that even if the missile manages to approach within the lethal distance, it does not necessarily result in a kill.
“SA-2 had 65m kill radius, 130m heavy damage radius.”
Which is not actually a sphere. As I said before, aircraft being within 65 meter distance is by no means a guarantee of a kill.
“I would like to see link for this.”
https://books.google.hr/books?id=qh5lffww-KsC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=air+to+air+missile+malfunction+rate&source=bl&ots=jCCYIaDuWs&sig=cdQuaZNXxE63TN8bV13SrEmXLdM&hl=hr&sa=X&ei=25sMVZqcBtPlataogoAJ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=air%20to%20air%20missile%20malfunction%20rate&f=false
Seeing how even modern radar-guided AAMs achieved cca 50% Pk against typically nonmaneuvering targets, it is safe to assume that reliability has not improved much. This is conclusion from one of my articles:
LikeLike
“Then just say SARH next time.”
No, i will say TVM, as it is kind of SARH, but not exactly, as you could see from described principles of work, As still being SARH- TVM is actually more jamm resistant…way more…
“And radar for short-range SAM won’t be powerful, so it can be jammed. Radar for long range SAMs is more powerful, but there will be fewer of these to go around, which will leave enough gaps for A-10 to sneak under.
Yes, thats why you have Termal and Low Light TV search and track systems on Short range SAM systems.Pancir-s1 can “see” F-16 from 20km+…i think its enough.
“As for Rafale, it can always feed the missile a false signal.”
Rafale has very very good DRFM jammer, thats true (actually for time being i think its the best plane around, will feel confident in Rafale’s cockip against F-22). For all systems that dont employ anti DRFM methods it lethal, actually i mentioned to you MACE VIII excersise, in wich France, UK and Germany were exploring tactics against S-300 (provided by Slovakia). Rafale, Tornado ECR and Eurofighter were used. Averall, S-300 with all jamming in place was still 75% operational, meaning in 75% of cases it was able to get a lock on target, except Rafale. SPECTRA did very good job…Qustion is how big is the diference between Slovak S-300 produced in 80ies and new ones….You like to call upon hystoricl data, than, historycally, jammers are 30-50% effective, so its not always…..
I am familiar with older terms, but apparently some feel the need to change terminology every so often… soon we’ll have new terms for toasters. And I’m quite familiar with guidance methods, thank you very much.
I agree, TVM is quite new term, its been there since late 80ies…just 25years….
Regards.
LikeLike
http://topwar.ru/33460-boevoe-primenenie-zenitnogo-raketnogo-kompleksa-s-75.html
http://pvo.guns.ru/s75/s75.htm
Thats what i meant when i said you take numbers you like.
This 2 sites show diferent “statistics” than those you used. I do not claim these are correct, but if you are up to do some analyses, and to do it properly, you should take a look at what both sides have to say. Trusting just one side is funboy stuff, not analitics. .
Regards.
PS: Even if you can not read russian, google translator will do the job just fine.
LikeLike
Kill claims are always overstated. So the only way to get any reliable data is to use loss statistics provided by the force actually losing the aircraft, and the launch statistics provided by the force launching the missiles.
There are politics as well. Just remember how US overstated the Patriot effectiveness against SCUD missiles – Patriots shot down 0-4 SCUDS, yet US at first claimed 100% effectiveness rate.
LikeLike
As usual, excellent article.
Random thoughts before morning coffee:
One thing that strikes me, beyond numbers and technical specifications, is how much the USAF, in their clear intent to kill CAS fighter, is showing it is part of a world that relies on its representation (by the media, its narrative…) to grow and survive. In the “SAM is the most dangerous threat” trope, there is an hidden assumption that air superiority is already a given for the US or its allies, thus the main threat remaining is from the ground. In this type of antisymmetric conflict (and since the Vietnam war, it’s the only kind of war the US have been involved in), information management and media control is critical: the impact of a downed plane in enemy territory, no matter how it has been shot down, is tremendous for both sides. In putting emphasis on stealth vs SAM threat, the USAF is only trying to manage risk, for its reputation and its image.
Even though I believe this doctrine is largely inherited from the Cold War (which was also a large communication campaign, but with a little bit more at stake), it has stayed en vogue in the Pentagon, and more generally in the US and the rest of the “free world”.
LikeLike
Agreed. Emphasis on unmanned aircraft has the same goal: for all their lack of effectiveness, if an aircraft is lost, unmanned aircraft is just some scrap metal while losing a manned aircraft often means losing the pilot as well (captured or dead).
LikeLike
Of course the establishment will say that SAMs are a ginourmous threat to contemporary warplanes. Not only is it a sales pitch for the F-35, but it’s also a thinly-veiled promotion effort for the US equivalent of the S-300 and S-400 — the Patriot.
What the party line omits is that the ultimate killer of combat aircraft on the Battlefield is ground fire. This caused the loss of 50% of all British aircraft in the Falklands, 75% of all Israeli aircraft in the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War, and 83% of all US fixed-wing aircraft in the Vietnam War.
All ground fire is also more lethal to an aircraft than shrapnel from any SAM, due to the substantially greater size, weight, density, quantity, and dispersion of the projectiles.
This is why Fairchild-Republic and the USAF designed the A-10 to resist 20mm to 37mm shells, and went to all the effort to demonstrate that real A-10 components would survive hits by real autocannon projectiles. They never bothered shrapnel with missile warheads.
LikeLike
“Not only is it a sales pitch for the F-35, but it’s also a thinly-veiled promotion effort for the US equivalent of the S-300 and S-400 — the Patriot.”
Agreed.
“What the party line omits is that the ultimate killer of combat aircraft on the Battlefield is ground fire. ”
And they also lie about aircraft being able to provide CAS from 30.000+ ft.
“All ground fire is also more lethal to an aircraft than shrapnel from any SAM, due to the substantially greater size, weight, density, quantity, and dispersion of the projectiles.”
True. IIRC, only times that SAM managed to down an A-10 were near-direct hits, when air blast effects came into play.
LikeLike
Alas, Picard, you are dead wrong – completely wrong – WRT your basic claim here (that modern Rus/PRC IADS don’t pose a significant threat and that legacy aircraft can survive them).
You’re wrong. The modern, redundant air defense systems deployed by Russia and China have made all legacy Western aircraft utterly impotent and unsurvivable.
Here’s why:
1) Jamming these systems will be extremely hard. Firstly, you have to get close enough to their radar to be able to even TRY to jam them. That automatically excludes a/c like the EA-6, EA-18, F/A-18, and the former EF-111 Raven. Even if you DO get close enough, you’ll need an awful amount of jamming power to seriously jam the very resistant radar and computers of systems like the S-300P/PMU/PMU2, S-300VM, S-400, HQ-9, and S-500 (or upgraded Russian/Soviet systems). Even if you DO, they can simply hop to another frequency, and all that jamming game is for naught.
2) Flying below radar will not do you any good, either, and will actually be even more dangerous than the jamming game. Firstly, the S-300VM’s minimum target altitude, according to some sources, is 5 m, not 25 m. Be that as it may, flying as low as below 25 m is dangerous because:
a) the risk of crash is greater; and
b) for purposes of coverage of lower altitudes, strategic long-range ADS like the S-300/400/500/HQ-9 family are (and for decades have been) complemented by a wide range of medium- and short-range air defense systems designed specifically to shoot down low-flying targets. These include:
i) in the medium range sector – highly-mobile systems like the SA-3, followed by the SA-6 and the SA-11/17; and
ii) in the short range sector – both static AAA and highly-mobile systems like the SA-8, the ubiquitous Shilka SPAAG, the Tunguska (SA-19 Grison), the Tor-M1, the Pantsir-S1, and MANPADS;
c) when you fly at low altitudes, you’re not only flying within the range and the engagement envelope of the above-mentioned systems, you’re flying slow (and are thus an easy target) and you’re in visual range, so during daytime the enemy doesn’t need ANY radar to detect you – at altitudes like 25 m or below, you’re clearly visible to the naked human eye from the ground.
Facts b) and c) are nothing new, BTW – they are the results of a well-thought-out, combat-proven, longstanding Soviet/Russian doctrine of procuring several different, overlapping, mutually supporting air defense systems for various combat envelopes and driving enemy aircraft pilots into a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation – either fly high and thus be detected and shot down by long range IADS, or fly low and be within visual range, as well as clearly visible on the radar of the above-mentioned systems.
The only American aircraft which can survive and defeat such systems are fully-stealthy aircraft, i.e. the F-22 and the B-2, of which the US has a grand total of 204 – woefully insufficient for any major military operation against a well-armed and competent enemy.
The deployment of the above-mentioned advanced and mutually supporting ADS by Russia and China is but one part of the process of these countries’ catching up with and overtaking of the US in the military domain, which means the US is no longer the world’s uncontested top military power. American hegemony in the world is over; Russia and China are now fully capable of competing with the US militarily and thus geopolitically.
Thus, a veritable geopolitical earthquake is now occurring, as the US is losing its military (and economical) primacy in the world. Let this be a lesson for all countries around the world, a lesson General de Gaulle exhorted the entire world to learn in the 1960s: being a vassal of Washington does not pay off.
Russian and Chinese airspace is now FIRMLY CLOSED to all non-stealthy American aircraft. If the Americans try to commit aggression against either country, they will pay a very dear price.
LikeLike
“The modern, redundant air defense systems deployed by Russia and China have made all legacy Western aircraft utterly impotent and unsurvivable.”
Some people refer to all non-LO aircraft as being “legacy” systems, and confuse capabilities of teen-series fighters and concurrent European designs with capabilities of Eurocanards, when in reality there is no comparison. So I guess that accuracy of that statement depends on how you define what constitutes “legacy aircraft”.
“Firstly, you have to get close enough to their radar to be able to even TRY to jam them. ”
That depends on distance from radar. You are assuming standoff jamming via legacy jammers. However, modern fighters – such as Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon – have very capable inbuilt jammers. Rafale also uses directional AESA jammers, which suffer far lesser decrease in power with distance. Such jammers could be retrofitted to legacy jets as well, if there was a will to do it.
“Even if you DO, they can simply hop to another frequency, and all that jamming game is for naught.”
Frequency hopping is not a new thing, and it does not necessarily work against DRFM jammers and some jamming techniques such as gate pull off.
“Firstly, the S-300VM’s minimum target altitude, according to some sources, is 5 m, not 25 m.”
Even if true, it is only relevant if aircraft is detected. But radar horizon and terrain configuration determine ability to detect the aircraft in the first place.
“ii) in the short range sector – both static AAA and highly-mobile systems like the SA-8, the ubiquitous Shilka SPAAG, the Tunguska (SA-19 Grison), the Tor-M1, the Pantsir-S1, and MANPADS”
All of which are excellent against thin-skinned jets, not so much against dedicated CAS fighters.
“when you fly at low altitudes, you’re not only flying within the range and the engagement envelope of the above-mentioned systems, you’re flying slow (and are thus an easy target) and you’re in visual range, so during daytime the enemy doesn’t need ANY radar to detect you – at altitudes like 25 m or below, you’re clearly visible to the naked human eye from the ground.”
That is true. It is also true that what you said is only true at very short ranges, or in completely flat areas, and in forrested/hilly/mountainous terrain nap-of-the earth flying will mean that aircraft will get detected only when it is almost on top of defenders, leaving no time for proper defensive reaction.
“The only American aircraft which can survive and defeat such systems are fully-stealthy aircraft, i.e. the F-22 and the B-2, of which the US has a grand total of 204”
And with low sortie rate (0,3-0,5 sorties/day for the F-22, 1 sortie per week for the B-2), their presence in the air will be even more limited, making it very hard to hunt down mobile SAMs.
“American hegemony in the world is over; Russia and China are now fully capable of competing with the US militarily and thus geopolitically.”
Which has everything to do with economy. Had US (and EU) not embraced rather self-destructive economic policies, they would have been in far better position when compared to Russia and China than they are right now. Despite what some say, simply increasing military spending as percentage of GDP won’t help.
“Russian and Chinese airspace is now FIRMLY CLOSED to all non-stealthy American aircraft. If the Americans try to commit aggression against either country, they will pay a very dear price.”
And with deployment of VHF radars, you can add the F-35 to that list.
LikeLike
First to reply to following statement
“being a vassal of Washington does not pay off”
Being a vassal of Moscow or anyone else does not usually pay off either. You have to be strong enough to hold your own and contribute your fair part in any relationship. Being a Vassal is never a winning proposition.
But, being allied to Washington (and Western Europe) has paid off historically. Look at where Japan, Singapore and S. Korea are compared to ex-soviet Asian allies. Even in China, Hong Kong is the the most prosperous of of its cities per capita and that is even ofter years of being undermined in favor of Shangai, Beijing, etc.
Chinese & Russian airspace has never been and probably never will be compromised not just by virtue of their air defenses but by virtue of their huge nuclear arsenals and other more conventional ways of causing great pain to any agressor.
Same goes for U.S., Canada, Britain, France and any other western NATO memeber whom the above feel the necessity to protect.
All sides know how far they can push before the cost to benefit becomes restrictive.
Ukraine is in that grey area. West has pushed some because they are not sure about Russia’s willingness to defend Ukraine. But, push comes to shove the West will not be willing to risk war over Ukraine. If Putin decides to end this civil-war and launch a full invasion of Ukraine the West will have to stand back. At least militarilly.
As far as:
“The modern, redundant air defense systems deployed by Russia and China have made all legacy Western aircraft utterly impotent and unsurvivable”
It depends on how capable each sides electronic wizardry capacities really are. But regardless, practice has shown that at high altitudes SAM’s are very innefective in actually hitting highly maneuverable targets, regardless of jamming. Furthermore, the future in long-range strike is not aircraft dropping bombs but aircraft launching small hypersonic stand-off missiles that can fly very close to the ground negating reaction time even if picked-up by sensors. Other missiles will fly very high and than shoot straight down again negating ground based defenses. The door will be kicked-down not just by F-22 and B-2 but by cruise missiles. Allowing other less survivable aircraft to operate. Also don’t overlook UAV swarm tactics in overcoming air defenses.
Western adversaries have spent the last 30 years trying to negate Nato abilities to rapidly dominate and destroy air defenses while the U.S. has been building for a new type of war. Playing catch up is never a good idea. The Chinese are coming to understand that better than the Russian side.
The U.S. Economy is still clearly the worlds strongest my friend. China will one day probably overtake U.S. (mostly beacause of its population size) in GDP but it will be a good while.
As we stand today the U.S. economy came out of the last global recession stronger than anyother large power and although much waste exists ($600 billion defense budget) but today and in the forseable future the U.S. armed forces remain more than adequate in defending its territory from any possible apponent (save an advanced allien civilization invading) and remains claerly superior to any in being able to project military power abroad.
You can (and probably will) mention government debt but dont forget that debt is only on paper and means nothing if it will never be repaid. If US government ability to sell debt is ever overcome by the debt repayment, the ponzi scheme will crack and debtors will have to accept “new terms”. China, Japan, & Germany (out top lenders) Know that, but they don’t care. They benefit more from proping the US economy than anyone. If China ever tries to use debt as a weapon the US will simply say China is playing dirty and will cancel all papayments, than what for China?
We have internal issues but speaking in macro for you to say that the U.S. is being overtaken is just wishful thinking. For a thousand years apponenets claimed the demise of the Roman Empire until one day it came true, sort of.
You are just one of those many people in the world who are filled with rage and envy and are blinded by your emmotions and pride. I feel you, if I were in your place I might feel the same but thankfully I am not. Thankfully just like a Roman living in the first years of the first century C.E. I am on the winning side.
And you it seems to me are a Carthagian.
LikeLike
You are wrong on so many issues – practically on everything – that I don’t even know what to start with.
Firstly, I am not filled with rage, envy, or any other emotion. I’m offering impartial, cold, sober analysis – to those who are willing to learn. YOU, my friend, are the one who is driven by wishful thinking.
I agree that being a vassal of ANYONE is a losing proposition – but being an “ally” (read: dependent, needy vassal) of Washington has NOT, historically, proven itself a better proposition than being an ally of China or Russia. In fact, arguably, it has proven to be a worse option. Washington is no better an ally, by any measure, than Beijing or Moscow, as Arab Gulf monarchies, Israel, Egypt, European countries (esp. those in Eastern Europe), and others are now painfully learning, and as the South Vietnamese painfully learned in 1975.
But it gets even worse. It’s not just that you can’t rely on the US to defend you or to stand up to those who threaten you – the bigger problem is that if you’re a vassal of Washington, the US will mercilessly and systematically exploit and abuse your dependency. It will dictate your domestic and foreign policy, the composition of your government, your human rights standards, exploit you economically, and even spy on you with abandon (does the name PRISM ring any bells) ?
“But regardless, practice has shown that at high altitudes SAM’s are very innefective in actually hitting highly maneuverable targets, regardless of jamming.”
WRONG. At higher altitudes, it is EASIER for missiles (but also aircraft) to maneuver because there’s less air resistance and the Earth’s gravitational power is weaker.
“Furthermore, the future in long-range strike is not aircraft dropping bombs but aircraft launching small hypersonic stand-off missiles that can fly very close to the ground negating reaction time even if picked-up by sensors. Other missiles will fly very high and than shoot straight down again negating ground based defenses.”
Which the US has yet to develop, let alone reliably and realistically test, let alone deploy.
“The door will be kicked-down not just by F-22 and B-2 but by cruise missiles. Allowing other less survivable aircraft to operate.”
The door will NOT be kicked down, and less survivable aircraft will NOT be able to operate because there no longer is any “door” that, once kicked down by a “silver bullet” fleet of stealthy aircraft, allows legacy, nonstealthy, unsurvivable aircraft to fly in and operate. This is not the 1960s. This is not the era of static air defense systems deployed at fixed locations. This is the 21st century, an era of highly mobile “hide, shoot, and scoot” ADS which can be deployed anywhere, relocate anywhere quickly, and hide (then attack) at any place – probably where you’d least expect them to. Systems such as the S-300/400/500/HQ-9 in the long-range, high-altitude sector, SA-6/11/17 in the mid-range, mid-altitude sector, or the Shilkas, Tunguskas, Tors, and Pantsirs in the short-range, low-altitude sector. Their operators would just LOVE an opportunity to fire at a nonstealthy, unsurvivable, legacy aircraft flown by pilots thinking that “the door has been kicked down” and they can now safely operate their obsolete aircraft there.
“Also don’t overlook UAV swarm tactics in overcoming air defenses.”
I would strongly advise against such tactics. Even the “cheapest” American drones – and they are hardly cheap – are several times more expensive than the missiles or bursts of AAA that would be used to shoot them down.
It is not Russia or China that are playing catch-up – it’s the US (and the broader West), by trying to negate Russian/PRC air defense systems, while Russia and China are already developing and deploying measures that will negate the traditional Western response to their ADS (stealthy aircraft).
As for your claim that
“The U.S. Economy is still clearly the worlds strongest my friend. China will one day probably overtake U.S. (mostly beacause of its population size) in GDP but it will be a good while.”
you are so dead wrong, it’s hilarious! China ALREADY HAS the world’s largest economy (in terms of GDP), and has had that since late 2014, as attested by both the IMF and your own CIA:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2014&ey=2014&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=subject&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=65&pr1.y=8&c=512%2C668%2C914%2C672%2C612%2C946%2C614%2C137%2C311%2C962%2C213%2C674%2C911%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C624%2C692%2C522%2C694%2C622%2C142%2C156%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C565%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C135%2C321%2C716%2C243%2C456%2C248%2C722%2C469%2C942%2C253%2C718%2C642%2C724%2C643%2C576%2C939%2C936%2C644%2C961%2C819%2C813%2C172%2C199%2C132%2C733%2C646%2C184%2C648%2C524%2C915%2C361%2C134%2C362%2C652%2C364%2C174%2C732%2C328%2C366%2C258%2C734%2C656%2C144%2C654%2C146%2C336%2C463%2C263%2C528%2C268%2C923%2C532%2C738%2C944%2C578%2C176%2C537%2C534%2C742%2C536%2C866%2C429%2C369%2C433%2C744%2C178%2C186%2C436%2C925%2C136%2C869%2C343%2C746%2C158%2C926%2C439%2C466%2C916%2C112%2C664%2C111%2C826%2C298%2C542%2C927%2C967%2C846%2C443%2C299%2C917%2C582%2C544%2C474%2C941%2C754%2C446%2C698%2C666&s=PPPGDP&grp=0&a=
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
And China’s economy is actually much stronger – and yours a lot weaker – than these raw statistics suggest. For China’s economy is based mostly on the production and sale (mostly abroad) of tangible goods, while your economy is based mostly on consumption, credit, local services, and the sale of imported goods. Thus, while the US still has the world’s 2nd-largest economy, it is a colossus with feet of clay.
Not only that, but the US has huge and chronic annual trade deficits and negative balances of external payments with most of the world’s major economies, incl. China, Japan, Germany, Canada, Italy, and others. Which means wealth is being sucked out of the US at an astounding rate.
Your economy is now stronger than before the recession? I guess that’s why unemployment is still higher than before it (even if one uses the Obama administration’s totally falsified and unreliable data), real median wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, unemployment among the young is hardly better than before 2008, and jobs continue to be exported overseas?
Saying that the US is being overtaken is not wishful thinking – it’s a FACT. (But I know, I know, facts are stubborn things.) Economically, the US has ALREADY been overtaken by China – as even your own CIA admits – and now it is being overtaken in the military domain. As the sequester continues to destroy US military capabilities, and as the uber-parochial Congress refuses to authorize necessary reforms to at least let the Pentagon make do with what it has, this trend will only accelerate.
I could go on and on and list your world-record-setting rates of obesity- and lifestyle-related diseases, the incoming $100 trillion tsunami of entitlement spending, the crushing burden of the Baby Boomer retirement, the numerical advantage of the locusts over the bees, the crappy US education system (Chinese students are at the top of PISA test score tables), and on and on, but what’s the point, since you’re not willing to learn?
No, the US is not in the position of the 1st-century-CE Roman Empire. It’s at the point in its history where the British Empire was at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, when it had already been overtaken economically – and by many military metrics – by both the US and Germany. Except that, unlike Britain then, the US doesn’t have a friendly power to whom it can pass over the torch.
America’s situation today is also like that of Germany in 1943 – and America’s poodles around the world, including Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy, Pierre Lellouche, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Bronislaw Komorowski, Andrzej Duda, Shinzo Abe, and others are like the pro-German collabos of the WW2 era, who thought that Hitler’s Reich would last one thousand years. Like the pro-German collabos of those days, these faithful American poodles don’t realize that the master they serve is in rapid decline.
LikeLike
Just to bug in:
“WRONG. At higher altitudes, it is EASIER for missiles (but also aircraft) to maneuver because there’s less air resistance and the Earth’s gravitational power is weaker.”
Actually, no. Aircraft’s agility is defined in two ways:
Maneuverability: ability to change speed and direction of flight path
Controllability: ability to change aircraft’s attitude and thrust
Maneuverability depends on lift, drag, thrust and weight. More specifically, it depends on lift-to-weight, lift-to-drag, thrust-to-weight and thrust-to-drag ratios.
Controllability depends on aircraft’s response to control surface inputs.
Increase in altitude has following impacts:
Lift is reduced. This leads to lower instantaneous turn rate, lower sustained turn rate, and lower minimum speed.
Drag is reduced. This leads to higher cruise speed, higher maximum speed, and partly negates loss in lift when it comes to sustained turn rate (but not to far more important instantaneous turn rate).
Thrust is reduced. This leads to reduced vertical maneuverability. Also, once thrust loss overtakes drag loss, cruise and maximum speeds are also reduced.
Control surface effectiveness is reduced. This means lesser ability to change attitude and thus reduced transient maneuverability.
That is also why close-coupled canard delta is the best platform for maneuvering, since combination of close-coupled canards (powerful vortices) and large wing area reduces adverse effects of high altitude on aircraft performance. Using such a configuration is an impossibility for missiles or stealth aircraft, hence use of thrust vectoring.
Robert L. Shaw, “Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering”, pg 388:
“The lift that can be produced by a given wing is dependent on the speed and altitude of the aircraft. Since the wing interacts with air to create lift, the density of the air is crucial. Air density decreases with altitude in the atmosphere, resulting in reduced lift capability. The faster a wing moves through the air, the greater the weight of air influenced during a given length of time will be, resulting in increased lift capability.”
Same, pg 393:
“Altitude also has a significant influence on instantaneous turn performance. Figure A-4 depicts the variations for a typical jet fighter. At speeds below Vc, both rate and radius performance are usually degraded (i.e., larger radii and slower turn rates) with increasing altitude, because of reduced lift capability. At speeds above the corner, instantaneous turn performance is generally limited only by structural strength, and so is usually independent of altitude.”
You can read the book here:
https://books.google.hr/books?id=hBxBdKr0beYC&pg=PA392&lpg=PA392&dq=turn+rate+vs+altitude&source=bl&ots=9sak0MhMNk&sig=AWUczB9rGUEH_ZIpfUpHIygxnwM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fw5RVafdOcuqsAGIv4Bo&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=turn%20rate%20vs%20altitude&f=false
All of this also holds true for missiles. Higher employment altitude means greater range but reduced agility. If you are shooting AIM-120, Meteor, or any other missile – SAMs included – you can achieve either the maximum range or maximum agility – not both.
“Thus, while the US still has the world’s 2nd-largest economy, it is a colossus with feet of clay.”
Same can be said for the West as a whole, thanks to short-sighted neoliberal policies.
LikeLike
You are so confused it will take much time to clearly prove you so. That is why I am not responding today. I will have to take much of my precious time to properly respond.
You might be partially right about China’s economy but everything else you say is not even close to sound.
Give me a few days and I will show you why you are confused.
LikeLike
“Washington is no better an ally, by any measure, than Beijing or Moscow, as Arab Gulf monarchies, Israel, Egypt, European countries (esp. those in Eastern Europe), and others are now painfully learning, and as the South Vietnamese painfully learned in 1975”
I really don’t know how you can even argue this point?
Arab US Allies:
Israel: Strongest economy in Middle East, most liberties (at least for Jewish people), strongest military best trained and equipped armed forces. US allies usually have better economies, human rights, and better trained and equipped armed forces. Must be a reason why?
Egypt: Although it is now a repressive military dictatorship due to what happened after attempting democracy (Islamic Brotherhood) general living standards, stability and rule of law are good compared to non-allied Arab countries. Militarily Egypt is now a real military power with ability to project power in rest of Africa & Middle East. When allied to Soviets military was a joke. I wonder why?
Saudi Arabia & GCC countries: Although these are not democratic nations where would you prefer to house your family in the GCC countries or in Iran, Syria, or any ex-Soviet republic?
Eastern Europe is still recouping from 45+ years of being Soviet vassals. Eastern Europe is not generally doing as well (economically, socially) as Western Europe but they are making strides mostly and considerably better off than under Soviet “protection”.
S. Vietnam I will give you, and only because it fell apart (and under Soviet “protection”) after American & French militaries (with credit given to Aussies) were unable to control growing insurgency and were forced to pull-out. Had S. Vietnam remained under US/Franco influence it would be S. Korea today.
“the bigger problem is that if you’re a vassal of Washington, the US will mercilessly and systematically exploit and abuse your dependency. It will dictate your domestic and foreign policy, the composition of your government, your human rights standards, exploit you economically, and even spy on you”
So S. Korea, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan, Singapore, pre-China Hong Kong, Australia have been mercilessly and systematically exploited? Really?? Non-western allied Asian countries that have not been “exploited” are doing much better right?
Every nation that can, spies on every other nation. The US just has more capability than others. Even Putin agreed with my statement. Every other government wishes they had an NSA. Spying is only hurtful if used for hurtful purposes. Human rights standards and economies of Western Allies (When I say west keep in mind who the major player is in that alliance geopolitically) are in almost every case superior to non-allied nations.
I really don’t know how you bother to make this argument? You are putting yourself in an indefensible position.
“Which the US has yet to develop, let alone reliably and realistically test, let alone deploy”
Long-range strike missiles are already being used and being massed quietly in inventory. Advanced Tomahawks, and various joint stand of missile types. Europeans are also developing these types.
Longer-range hyper-sonic missiles are not too far from being ready for use. It will probably take longer because of political/economic wrangling and the testing phase is always dragged on. But if needed, these missiles would be combat ready in less than a decade. Honestly the tech is in more advanced stage than Chinese J-20 or probably Russian PAK FA/T-50. T-50 might be ready to fly soon because first models will be basically Flanker tech and engine with an airframe that is stealthy in some aspects. Maybe as stealthy as F-35 assuming Russian coatings have advanced to US standards and that’s very doubtful.
“This is not the 1960s. This is not the era of static air defense systems deployed at fixed locations. This is the 21st century, an era of highly mobile “hide, shoot, and scoot” ADS which can be deployed anywhere, relocate anywhere quickly, and hide (then attack) at any place”
I will concede this argument partially. Yes hide and scoot systems will be difficult to attack or destroy in initial attacks and yes these systems would be dangerous to legacy platforms. But, SEAD aircraft with advanced ARGM’s will be dangerous to those systems as well. US Jammers (Growler being first) will also prove difficult to counter for high altitude radar SAMS. Especially Jammers that can fly supersonic and maneuver to avoid SAMS.
“Their operators would just LOVE an opportunity to fire at a no stealthy, unsurvivable, legacy aircraft”
Training will be key. If both systems (ADS and Teen series) are used correctly, Legacy aircraft will take some losses at high altitude but not a total wipe out as you claim. At lower altitudes (under 30k Ft.) Legacy aircraft would be limited in missions it could perform and in flight envelope but not anywhere close to obsolete.
We are making a useless argument as US/NATO have no plans to invade Russian or Chinese airspace unless they attack first which would be suicidal for any of the two. It just won’t happen. Better chance of world being destroyed by asteroids.
You need to research UAV swarm tactics some more. Main use would be for EA and carry of sensors. None would fly low and use of radar guidance against this type of EA would probably be negated. Plus you cant leave those radars on for long or they will be blown up by AARGM’s. Shoot and scoot is comparable to a guerilla tactic. You will not cause major battle-altering damage with this tactic. It is only used because Russians learned in 1980’s that it might be only tactic that would survive dedicated DEAD forces not because of its great tactical efficiency.
“Russia and China are already developing and deploying measures that will negate the traditional Western response to their ADS (stealthy aircraft”
They are developing tactics against the “traditional” western response. That’s a mistake. By the time that is developed new western weapons and tactics will be in play.
Also, please explain what it is they have upcoming that will negate F-22, B-2 and Tomahawk? I assume that is what you mean by traditional western response to ADS.
“you are so dead wrong, it’s hilarious! China ALREADY HAS the world’s largest economy (in terms of GDP)”
I am not dead wrong. If you are using GDP number based on PPP yes China has slightly surpassed US in GDP. I will concede that PPP might be a better way to measure GDP. PPP measures the actual tangible amount of goods and services produced domestically better than traditional GDP measures, but it is not the whole story. PPP assumes that everyones monetary unit is equal in value and that is not true. PPP does not measure the international impact. Since China’s money is (artificially) so low in value compared to US Dollar it will struggle in having to pay large amounts of Yuan’s to purchase goods internationally. This low money valuation works because China’s economy is based on building stuff for EU & US citizens and firms. Therefore, It can sell more stuff because Euro and Dollar buy so much in China.
If EU & US ever say this is illegal (it technically is) and China will have to allow its money to trade freely with ours to do business with us. Or if US & EU ever decide to stop buying from China and instead go with a list of other developing countries. If that ever happens Chinas GDP will be cut in half and that will be cataclysmic for China. China Needs EU & US much more than we need China, Much more! I would say China has the clay feet not vice versa.
China’s strength is that its government can take whatever steps it needs without any consensus, constitutionality or public support. This works well with great leaders like China has now and Singapore had for long time. But, it can be double edged sword. Also, you give up domestic freedoms for this efficiency in government.
Additionally with 4x the population of US, if China’s economy is anywhere close to sound it should surpass US in total production and consumption.
“For China’s economy is based mostly on the production and sale (mostly abroad) of tangible goods, while your economy is based mostly on consumption, credit, local services, and the sale of imported goods. Thus, while the US still has the world’s 2nd-largest economy, it is a colossus with feet of clay”
Like a stated I would rather be based on consumption than on exporting. US has excess production capacity. If we cannot import, prices would go up on many items but, demand remains therefore our domestic production would skyrocket. Regardless, we can easily replace China with many other developing nations that would love to meet US demand for cheap items. China cannot replace US consumers and if you add EU to equation, China’s economy will implode. In the medium-term at least.
“Not only that, but the US has huge and chronic annual trade deficits and negative balances of external payments with most of the world’s major economies, incl. China, Japan, Germany, Canada, Italy, and others. Which means wealth is being sucked out of the US at an astounding rate”
I agree negative balance of payments is problem anyway you spin it. But, issue is mostly negated by the fact that US Dollar is so strong and continues to be world’s reserve currency. Dollar continues to be safe haven for all around the globe in need of some risk protection. Euro was on track to maybe overtake but must overcome many current issues.
US continues to be able to print as much money as it needs to support all that importing and domestic consumption without any negative effects. Therefore negative balance of payments is mostly negated by ability to reprint all the leakage lost. Also many of those nations taking our dollars for their goods without balance are also lending that money right back to us knowing that we will probably never repay its true worth. The balance of payments is also negated by positive balance of loans. There is more but my time is limited.
Key is US stability, strong legal code, and strong business, innovation, and consumer culture, strong natural resources, reputation, etc. Even if Ponzi scheme collapsed and Dollar took a dive the US economy would do well enough purely on internal production and consumption without participation in international trade. Western Europe can say that too. China cannot say that right now. Maybe in a few decades but not now. To add, most of world cannot afford for US dollar to collapse and for its consumers to stop consuming. Therefore, terms will be negotiated and Dollar would be back real quick if it ever came to that.
Our economic principles are complicated therefore it looks hectic and unsound but look deep and you would see that economically US might be the most sound large economy out there.
“and now it is being overtaken in the military domain. As the sequester continues to destroy US military capabilities, and as the uber-parochial Congress refuses to authorize necessary reforms to at least let the Pentagon make do with what it has, this trend will only accelerate”
US defense budget is 600 Billion $’s. We do not need that much money to be able to field an armed forces that is competent in protecting our lands trade routes and partners if needed. Much of that expenditure is on offensive capabilities that frankly are more likely to get us into a mess than help us. It would help defense industry but not nation.
Reducing expenditures will force us to cut fat and force our allies to stop depending on us and build their own defense capabilities. Some of that is already happening. We have to stop being world cop and learn to do less with less.
“I could go on and on and list your world-record-setting rates of obesity- and lifestyle-related diseases, the incoming $100 trillion tsunami of entitlement spending, the crushing burden of the Baby Boomer retirement, the numerical advantage of the locusts over the bees, the crappy US education system (Chinese students are at the top of PISA test score tables), and on and on, but what’s the point, since you’re not willing to learn?
There are serious domestic, lifestyle, and healthcare issues. But, we could make list like this for every nation or group of nations. PISA test scores are not a barometer for anything except test taking abilities. You need to de more intense economic research (combined with open mind and good sense) if you have the time or care to do so.
“No, the US is not in the position of the 1st-century-CE Roman Empire. It’s at the point in its history where the British Empire was at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, when it had already been overtaken economically – and by many military metrics – by both the US and Germany. Except that, unlike Britain then, the US doesn’t have a friendly power to whom it can pass over the torch”
Britain is doing quite well still today. No grand collapse just a restructuring. Plus Britain is a smallish Island nation without the population and natural resources of US. Many where saying the same after the loss of 13 colonies and during Napoleonic wars (and in previous crisis too) yet British Empire (shift to Asia) did not reach its peak intil mid-18’th century. All great empires reach their peak and most fall. US might have peaked but I don’t see any reason to believe it will fall. The Torch is already being passed all over Asia, Europe and South America. US hegemony is ending but that’s a good thing for all. China will soon have to feel the burden and not just the rewards of being a superpower. US can no longer maintain order alone. Just because China surpasses US does not mean it has to be an enemy. Counter-balance maybe but not an enemy.
“America’s poodles around the world, including Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy, Pierre Lellouche, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Bronislaw Komorowski, Andrzej Duda, Shinzo Abe, and others are like the pro-German collabos of the WW2 era, who thought that Hitler’s Reich would last one thousand years. Like the pro-German collabos of those days, these faithful American poodles don’t realize that the master they serve is in rapid decline”
America’s poodles? A prosperous ally is not a poodle. The above statement is nothing but hate-filled rambling that I think says a lot about the writer. I always prefer to keep my arguments civil (and I understand that people sometimes make stupid statements they might later regret) but for you to compare the USA to Nazi Germany is highly insulting at best. In respect for Picard’s blog I will reserve my response to that statement.
I have already wasted too much of my time in this argument. I will not involve myself in a back and forth argument with you, so write your response but expect nothing further from me.
Best Wishes!
LikeLike
LOL, once again you show your UTTER ignorance of all sorts of issues.
Firstly, regarding those allies you’ve listed, most of them are successful thanks to their own effort, NOT thanks to the US.
My point was (and it is 100% correct) that it is very DANGEROUS to be an “ally” (read: poodle) of the US, because the US leaves you fending for yourself, or even conducts a policy harmful to you, whenever it dislikes your domestic or foreign policy or your form of government. Israel is as good an example as any. Obama can’t stand Netanyahu and his brave, truthful remarks about Obama’s shameful capitulation to the Iranians in Muni… er, I mean Lausanne. So what does his admin to? It has stopped protecting Israel at the UN, stopped opposing the BDS campaign, and may now let the Palestinians join the ICC and demand Israel’s withdrawal to indefensible pre-1967 lines.
Egypt: Marshal el-Sisi toppled the Muslim Brotherhood supported President of Egypt a few years ago. What did the Obama admin do? Withdraw all backing for, including arms sales to, Cairo. Result? Cairo has turned towards Moscow and Paris.
As for Gulf monarchies – they’re irked by Obama’s shameful capitulation at Lausanne, and they’re going to snub him by not visiting him in Washington this year despite being invited. France is now replacing the US as their favorite arms supplier. The proof is in the pudding.
By the by, if I had to choose between Iran or Saudi Arabia, I’d choose the former. In Saudi Arabia, professing any religion other than Islam is a capital offense. This is not true for Iran, which has legally-recognized Jewish and Christian communities despite officially being an Islamic republic.
And BTW, for you to call Israel an “Arab” ally of the US is utterly ridiculous!
The US has yet to thoroughly test, let alone procure and deploy, any hypersonic long range strike missiles. It is behind China in that regard.
As for non-supersonic LRS missiles, the Tomahawk is subsonic and has a range of just 1,700 km, meaning it is outranged by Russian and Chinese cruise missiles, such as the Kh-55 ALCM (3,000 km) and the CJ-20 SL/ALCM (2,000 km). The DH-10 reportedly has a 4,000 km range.
“Honestly the tech is in more advanced stage than Chinese J-20 or probably Russian PAK FA/T-50. T-50 might be ready to fly soon because first models will be basically Flanker tech and engine with an airframe that is stealthy in some aspects. Maybe as stealthy as F-35 assuming Russian coatings have advanced to US standards and that’s very doubtful.”
Only because you are ignorant and biased against the Russians and the Chinese. You simply think they’re too dumb to develop anything that could challenge the F-35, let alone the F-22. In fact, objective, unbiased experts at APA have demonstrated that the PAKFA and the J-20 are far stealthier, and far better in all aspects, than the F-35, and rival the F-22.
“But, SEAD aircraft with advanced ARGM’s will be dangerous to those systems as well.”
No, they will not be – excluding the F-22. Any nonstealthy aircraft can be VERY easily detected and shot down from long distances by these IADS. ARGMs are a joke, and have been for decades. NATO expended hundreds of these in 1999 in OAF and destroyed only 3 of Serbia’s 22 SA-6 batteries. Modern IADS are a) highly mobile (and thus can evade ARGMs easily, plus, they spend most of their time in hiding, meaning they’re hard to find in the first place) and b) protected against ARGMs by point-area ADS. You can therefore forget about using ARGMs or any similar weapons. This tactic is already hopelessly obsolete.
“US Jammers (Growler being first) will also prove difficult to counter for high altitude radar SAMS.”
No, they will not. For the simple reasons that a) modern IADS are VERY resistant to jamming; b) can easily hop from one frequency to another; c) you have to be close enough to an IADS to even be able to TRY jamming it – but as soon as you get close, it will shoot you down as you’ll be in radar and missile range.
“Especially Jammers that can fly supersonic and maneuver to avoid SAMS.”
The Growler and the Prowler can do neither.
“Training will be key. If both systems (ADS and Teen series) are used correctly, Legacy aircraft will take some losses at high altitude but not a total wipe out as you claim. At lower altitudes (under 30k Ft.) Legacy aircraft would be limited in missions it could perform and in flight envelope but not anywhere close to obsolete.”
Legacy aircraft are ALREADY hopelessly obsolete and will be EASY TARGETS for IADS in all flight envelopes, at all altitudes – doesn’t matter at which altitude they fly, each alt. range is covered by Russian/Chinese IADS capable of shooting them down, and at low altitudes you’re in visual range.
“You need to research UAV swarm tactics some more. Main use would be for EA and carry of sensors.”
Doesn’t matter what their main intended use would be, if they’re not stealthy AND supersonic, they’re just gonna be easy targets. And forget about swarm tactics – one drone costs much more than even a dozen SAMs.
“None would fly low and use of radar guidance against this type of EA would probably be negated.”
Wrong. Especially if it flew high – the higher it flies, the easier it’s to detect.
“It is only used because Russians learned in 1980’s that it might be only tactic that would survive dedicated DEAD forces not because of its great tactical efficiency.”
No, it is used because it is deadly effective against unsurvivable aircraft flown by unsuspecting pilots. And your precious Western “DEAD” aircraft, weapons, and tactics are completely unproven against the kind of opponent Im speaking of here. They have only been tested against utterly dumb, incompetent enemies equipped with mostly static, immobile, 1960s-vintage Soviet ADS (Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.). They have NEVER been tried by any Western military (including even the very potent IDF) against modern, 21st-century IADS operated by a competent, cunning enemy using “hide, shoot, and scoot tactics.”
More tomorrow.
LikeLike
A few notes here:
“By the by, if I had to choose between Iran or Saudi Arabia, I’d choose the former. In Saudi Arabia, professing any religion other than Islam is a capital offense. This is not true for Iran, which has legally-recognized Jewish and Christian communities despite officially being an Islamic republic.”
And US support of Saudi Arabia despite SA arming radical islamist groups worldwide (Al-Quaeda and ISIL included) smells of hypocrisy more than little.
“and shot down from long distances by these IADS.”
Detection and shootdown are different things, and generally shooting down maneuverable aircraft at long distances does not work – with either AAMs or SAMs – unless they are surprised… fat chance of that, though, as long as aircraft has competent RWR and SAM is using radar.
Of course, wether you can call EA-18G “maneuverable”…
“NATO expended hundreds of these in 1999 in OAF and destroyed only 3 of Serbia’s 22 SA-6 batteries. ”
‘Cause they were too chicken to go below 30.000 ft. It would have resulted in higher casualties but also in better effect. BTW, battery consists of several SAM launchers (typically 6 I think), so completely destroying 3 batteries would suggest that many of remaining 19 were degraded to some extent.
“The Growler and the Prowler can do neither.”
Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen can but I don’t see US buying them…
LikeLike
“And US support of Saudi Arabia despite SA arming radical islamist groups worldwide (Al-Quaeda and ISIL included) smells of hypocrisy more than little.”
It smells of hypocrisy to high Heaven.
“Detection and shootdown are different things, and generally shooting down maneuverable aircraft at long distances does not work – with either AAMs or SAMs”
It would – even at long distances – unless the aircraft is VERY maneuverable and lightweight (akin to a Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, J-10, Tejas, or F-16A/B) or supercruising (F-22, Rafale, Typhoon, newer Flanker variants, PAK FA).
LikeLike
“It would – even at long distances – unless the aircraft is VERY maneuverable and lightweight”
Depends. Generally, missile range given is aerodynamic range. Targeted aircraft has to simply turn away to cut missile’s range to 1/4, and effective range is 1/5 of aerodynamic range. So a BVR missile with a nominal range of 180 km (AIM-120D) has an effective range of 9-36 km, at altitude. At sea level, it is 1/4 of that.
Missiles can also achieve either maximum range or maximum g, but not both. And even then, S-400 has maximum ITR of 22 deg/s (60 g at Mach 4,5 and sea level) while Rafale has STR of 28,1 deg/s (9 g at 350 kts and 25.000/35.000 ft (?, not sure about precise altitude)), F-22 has STR of 28 deg/s at >=20.000 ft (?), F-15 has ITR of 25,5 deg/s (9 g at 385 kts, unknown altitude) and F-16A has ITR of 28 deg/s (9 g @ 350 kts and 10.000 ft).
LikeLike
“LOL, once again you show your UTTER ignorance of all sorts of issues”
Your attempts at insult are childish! I will not respond to it.
You continue to point out only the facts (most are half truths that you state as fact) that benefit your argument and than you make statements without any evidence.
Like most people who participate in this blog you are not uneducated in the topic of airwarfare but also like most you are very hard headed and have a clear bias. Like any good lawyer you argue your point regardles of truth.
I will not waste my time arguing with you. We can write a book going back and forth.
I have better and more important tasks to attend to.
Cheers!
LikeLike
I am not insulting anyone here – unless me calling you utterly ignorant on all sorts of issues insults you, in which case you’re only proving that you ARE indeed utterly ignorant. I guess I’ve struck a nerve 🙂
I state nothing but cold, hard facts here. The problem is that you simply don’t like them and reject them out of hand, without any evidence whatsoever to support your claims, based on nothing but your own beliefs and wishful thinking.
LikeLike
Maybe you have struck a nerve.
I’ll see if I can make some time over the weekend to dispute your claims. Most are very easily disputable its like you are wearing blinders. You make some decent statements but you are looking at it in a very narrow beam.
I agree I am no expert in airwarfare It is not my strenght. But I can easily see that you are not one either.
In Macroeconomics well I know that topic like few in a macro sense. Finance is my weakness especially in the details.
I have debated with some of the most highly educated Economists out there. althouth education is not always useful some just cant think outside their box and see the wide picture. In fact too much classical education can hinder you.
Your claim about APA alone makes me doubt your inteligence. Any inteligent person who reads that site would easily see that they are nothing more than fear mongers trying to trump up defense spending by trying to make Russian and Chinese systems look much more capable than they really are Vs current West equipment.
LikeLike
@Duviel To be fair, APA is a good source of purely technical data, but I have found more than a few instances where they either didn’t do the research or simply willfully misinterpreted facts (that’s called lying). For example, in analyzing performance of AIM-9 in Falklands, they took 74% Pk it achieved and claimed that modern IR missiles will achieve similar performance based on that (and some “kill chain” values they pulled out of their a**), while ignoring that aircraft shot at by Harriers had no RWR, no MAWS, canopies rendered opaque or nearly opaque by salt, were lugging around bombs (>low cruise speed, enabling rear quadrant approach by Harriers) and even if they noticed danger, they had no fuel left to maneuver. In other words, AIM-9 performance in Falklands is not representative, and is likely 3-6 times better than what modern IR missiles will achieve vs. capable opponent.
LikeLike
I know far more about air warfare (and warfare in general) and economics than you, or any other commenter here on this blog, will ever know. You’ve just proven your utter ignorance again, by making this ridiculous claim:
“Your claim about APA alone makes me doubt your inteligence. Any inteligent person who reads that site would easily see that they are nothing more than fear mongers trying to trump up defense spending by trying to make Russian and Chinese systems look much more capable than they really are Vs current West equipment.”
APA are some of the best experts IN THE WORLD when it comes to air and missile warfare. All of them except Carlo Kopp have served in the USAF or RAAF (they even have one RuAF contributor). All except Kopp are retired military officers. As for Dr Kopp specifically, he’s one of the world’s leading authorities on Russian and Russian-style missiles and air defense systems and speaks the language fluently. They are not fear mongers – they are sober, fair analysts, and they don’t support any increase in the US defense budget. In fact, one of them WGCDR Chris Mills (RAAF, ret.), has told me bluntly he thinks the DOD is very wasteful.
LikeLike
I dont doubt that APA has some of the top experts in the world. I don’t doubt their knowledge or experience. I do doubt their intent.
They have a clear (and I beleive purposeful) bias. There is a lot of money that defense industry and other special interests including governments themselves make available to experts to push their interests. If you are unable to see this I will be wasting my time trying to reason with you on any other topic.
As far as your statement that you know more about any topic than me and everyone else on this blog. Well, since you have been blunt I will to.
That statement is purely stupid!
I am not going to make debating you a part-time job I have better things to do. But, I will give you a few more words for now.
I will wait to sit down and see how I can wade through your clutter of misinterpretations in a day or two.
LikeLike
“I dont doubt that APA has some of the top experts in the world. I don’t doubt their knowledge or experience. I do doubt their intent.
They have a clear (and I beleive purposeful) bias. There is a lot of money that defense industry and other special interests including governments themselves make available to experts to push their interests. If you are unable to see this I will be wasting my time trying to reason with you on any other topic. ”
APA DOES NOT, repeat, DOES NOT accept ANY financial contributions from ANY defense company. APA is funded exclusively through the financial contributions of its members and website readers.
As for political bias: APA is apolitical and is not even an American think-tank – it’s Australian. Moreover, if one actually does read the arguments they raise in support of the policies they advocate, one can’t help but conclude that they’re usually right – and I’m saying this as someone who was initially VERY distrustful of what they were saying.
LikeLike
BTW, since we’ve mentioned China and her astounding ascent to the apex of world economic power, I’d like to say this:
Had France been governed in 1964 by a Nicolas Sarkozy or a Francois Hollande, there can’t be a single shred of doubt that France would’ve never recognized the PRC.
These low-grade politicians, obsequious and servile towards the strong, but contemptous and tyrannical towards the weak, would’ve easily succumbed to the slightest pressure exerted by Lyndon Baines Johnson, just like they have been obsessively servile and docile towards George W. Bush and Barack Obama in our time.
Like the French collabos of the WW2 era, they don’t realize that the master they serve is in rapid decline.
LikeLike
“APA DOES NOT, repeat, DOES NOT accept ANY financial contributions from ANY defense company. APA is funded exclusively through the financial contributions of its members and website readers”
Common dude, you claim to be so well versed in so many topics and you make a statement like this, seriously? All of the money used world wide to influence opinions, buy political favor, finance legal and illegal institutions/groups. APA can easily be paid without anyone (mostly) knowing it. I am not even going to waste my time explaining all the ways I know. And, I don’t know them all.
Now my promised responce to previous post:
“Firstly, regarding those allies you’ve listed, most of them are successful thanks to their own effort, NOT thanks to the US”
US is just lucky that most of its allies are successful I guess? Soviet Union/Russia must be very unlucky I guess? Don’t think the French Allies have done much better either historically?
You did say this:
“Washington has NOT, historically, proven itself a better proposition than being an ally of China or Russia. In fact, arguably, it has proven to be a worse option. Washington is no better an ally, by any measure, than Beijing or Moscow”
Now you admit US allies are mostly successful but change your tone and say US its not to do with US. Well, I’m glad you are starting to change your thinking.
“My point was (and it is 100% correct) that it is very DANGEROUS to be an “ally” (read: poodle) of the US, because the US leaves you fending for yourself, or even conducts a policy harmful to you, whenever it dislikes your domestic or foreign policy or your form of government. Israel is as good an example as any. Obama can’t stand Netanyahu and his brave, truthful remarks about Obama’s shameful capitulation to the Iranians in Muni… er, I mean Lausanne. So what does his admin to? It has stopped protecting Israel at the UN, stopped opposing the BDS campaign, and may now let the Palestinians join the ICC and demand Israel’s withdrawal to indefensible pre-1967 lines.
Egypt: Marshal el-Sisi toppled the Muslim Brotherhood supported President of Egypt a few years ago. What did the Obama admin do? Withdraw all backing for, including arms sales to, Cairo. Result? Cairo has turned towards Moscow and Paris”
In international affairs everyone is in it for themselves. Alliances (with some rare and explainable exceptions) are only good as long as they are mutually beneficial. This is true with everyone not just the US.
Israel and most Sunni monarchies would like world to do their bidding against Iran. But it would not be wise for US and world to act against its own interests. There are various opinions on the “nuclear deal” but regardless the 5 + 1 nations decided the deal was in their best interest. The deal does not stop Iran from pursuing the bomb but it does more than status quo. At worst it greatly delays the pursuit. Embargo and sanctions were not and likely would not work.
Israel wants the US to continue to fight its war. If Israel wants a war with Iran they should do it themselves.
Israel is not a good ally to US. It has always been a one-sided relationship. US has protected Israel at every turn only to make enemies all over the world. In fact the current and very costly war on terror is a consequence of our involvement in protecting Israel for the past 60 years. What have we received from Israel in return? Nice words maybe? Israel is also principal in one of the most overt, long-standing, and well-funded foreign attempts at lobbying Washington and undermining the American people. And they sell weapons and secrets to our rivals. With Friends like Israel who needs enemies!
Not supporting El-Sissi was a mistake in my opinion. But, you fail to mention that Morsi was an elected official (although he was becoming very corrupt) and not only was this a military take-over but, also a very violent and repressive military take-over. Also you must remember that although US spoke up against El-Sissi and did withdraw much support the US quietly did nothing that would actually threaten El-Sissi’s take-over. Morsi was dangerous to US (and Israeli even more) interests and supporting El-Sissi is clearly better of two evils for US.
France & Russia are being very opportunistic in befriending El-Sissi but you don’t call that hypocrisy too? If US had done the same your screams of hypocrisy would have reached the sky. Everyone is and has to be a hypocrite in international affairs it is the real world reality.
“if I had to choose between Iran or Saudi Arabia, I’d choose the former. In Saudi Arabia, professing any religion other than Islam is a capital offense. This is not true for Iran, which has legally-recognized Jewish and Christian communities despite officially being an Islamic republic”
You are correct. I take back my statement when it comes to Iran. But if you say this than why do you hate the US reduction in support for Saudi actions (Iran & Yemen) in the Middle East?
I personally would support the Saudi monarchy for same reason’s I would support El-Sissi. The alternatives are a lot worse. But, that does not sound like your argument. In fact I’m not sure what your argument is? Other than hating the US in whatever they do.
“The US has yet to thoroughly test, let alone procure and deploy, any hypersonic long range strike missiles. It is behind China in that regard.
As for non-supersonic LRS missiles, the Tomahawk is subsonic and has a range of just 1,700 km, meaning it is outranged by Russian and Chinese cruise missiles, such as the Kh-55 ALCM (3,000 km) and the CJ-20 SL/ALCM (2,000 km). The DH-10 reportedly has a 4,000 km range”
You might have a point in above statement. Although I’m sure its highly biased. Also We have not mentioned many more current and upcoming long-range missile systems in NATO inventory.
I never argued against the preceding. I simply stated that Russian ADS is not impenetrable as you claimed. Neither is NATO ADS.
Unfortunately, the offensive capabilities are easier to accomplish and far more advanced in capacity right now. It’s like assassin Vs target. It’s just much easier to be successful as an assassin than it is to protect a target. Contrary to advertisements, the detection, tracking, homing, capabilities of ADS systems are just not there yet Vs current and developing offensive weapons. It’s hard to hit a non-ballistic maneuvering target at long-distances, that’s among many challenges for ADS.
“Excluding the F-22. Any nonstealthy aircraft can be VERY easily detected and shot down from long distances by these IADS.
Just not true. Do some research. Long-range SAM’s will hinder operations of Teen-Series type fighters and will shoot down some (I do agree that Rafale is superior to Teen-Series fighter Picard!) but not to the point that these operations will be prohibited in a real fight. There are various ways to jam, decoy, and evade this large radar guided SAM’s. Even an aircraft like Growler (not all that maneuverable but good enough in right hands) has a good chance against SAM’s even if it can’t jam guidance. And Growler will be able to Jam most Radar SAM’S. SAM’s have shown even worse Pk than AA missiles. Even if you don’t fully prescribe to Picards Pk theory you can’t debate that Pk hase not been very good for Radar SAM’s.
“You can therefore forget about using ARGMs or any similar weapons. This tactic is already hopelessly obsolete”
You forget that missiles like AARGM (developed by ATK) used on Growler and others can continue to guide onto radar even after it is turned off. The missile uses a multi-mode seeker to counter enemy shut-down capability. Providing it has no time to change location. The AGM-88E is equipped with an advanced multi-sensor system comprising a Millimetre Wave (MMW) terminal seeker, advanced Anti-Radiation Homing (ARH) receiver and Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS). With a range over 150 Km AARGM is a danger to modern AD radars.
“modern IADS are VERY resistant to jamming; b) can easily hop from one frequency to another; c) you have to be close enough to an IADS to even be able to TRY jamming it – but as soon as you get close, it will shoot you down as you’ll be in radar and missile range.
ARGM has us much of a chance of disabling AD radar as SAM has of shooting down most jets. For example the growler can Jam its way into AARGM range and than fire and forget. this has been shown in tests. If you trust testing by US Navy and Italian AF. AARGM is no silver bullet but neither are SAM’s or any ADS.
“the higher it flies, the easier it’s to detect”
That’s if your radar systems are not getting degraded and interfered with. UAV swarm tech is designed to overwhelm E systems (Radar) with various sources and types of EW/EA. Correct me if I’m wrong but none of the IR/optical type SAM missiles have much range and will not be able to operate above 30k Ft. If your radar is not working that means aircraft above 30K Ft. are safe. Now that is assuming that EW capability dominates radars. ADS might be able to overcome and still target aircraft with Radar SAMS but not game over like you claim. Not even close. Tactics like frequency hopping are old and E solutions for that tactic are already in place.
“DEAD aircraft, weapons, and tactics are completely unproven against the kind of opponent Im speaking of here. They have only been tested against utterly dumb, incompetent enemies equipped”
Not tested against highly competent enemy you are correct. But, these have been tested against competent adversary forces during development. Also, Russian & Chinese equipment is also completely untested against anyone. Unless you call remnants of Ukraine Air Force a worthy opponent that can simulate what NATO would bring to the fight. Hopefully it will all remain untested.
As far as Macroeconomics there are still things for me to learn im very sure. There are things I can learn from you possiblly. But, from what you have written there is much for you to learn. Macroeconomics is simple in its core (at least for me) but the details are so vast it can be overwhelming. Imagination and an open mind are a requirement.
LikeLike
Regarding Iran, there is also the fact that US need its cooperation if ISIS is to be stopped. General Quassem Suleimani is probably the best possibility for winning the war against ISIS.
“Even if you don’t fully prescribe to Picards Pk theory you can’t debate that Pk hase not been very good for Radar SAM’s.”
Relative p(k) of missiles in the Vietnam war was like this:
IR WVRAAM * 0,7 = IR BVRAAM
IR WVRAAM * 0,5 = RF BVRAAM
RF BVRAAM * 0,25 = RF SAM
While overall Pk(s) do change based on training and equipment differences, relative Pks stay the same (in both Vietnam and Gulf wars, IR WVRAAMs achieved twice the Pk of RF BVRAAMs when fired from same platform. Further, Pk for missiles fired by multirole F-16s and F-18s (0% and 5%, respectively) was far lower than that of missiles fired by singlerole F-15s (67% WVRAAM and 34% BVRAAM), suggesting that pilot training is the primary factor in missile performance). Ergo, 5-10% Pk for RF BVRAAM vs a competent opponent is realistic, and SAM Pk would be 1,25% at most.
LikeLike
The Iraqi regular army has proven unwilling to fight and shia militias are just that, militias. I wonder if Iraqi army (mostly shia’s in that army) would fight if defending shia populated areas?
I agree Baghdad government is incapable of defeating ISIS. Even with Suleimani assisting Iraqi Shia cannot defeat ISIS in Sunni areas. Not any time soon.
Iran would have to send in its own ground forces and turn this into a full fledged Shia Vs Sunni war. In which case how would GCC countries & Jordan react? This is not good option and even if Iran defeats ISIS (like happened to US) problem would be back once Iran leaves.
Worse option would be full-fledged US military involvement. Military victory would be relatively quick (if resources fully commited) like in 2003. But, as soon as we pull-out we are back to same place.
The best solution to this is to negotiate a division of Iraq into 3 nations or self-governing zones. This would allow recruitment of Sunni population/tribes/Bathists into fighting ISIS and hopefully as part of deal get Jordan and GCC nations to provide military/political support to Sunni’s fighting ISIS in Iraq. We have to have Sunni’s fighting ISIS not Iran and Shia Iraq.
This deal would basically hand Shia Iraq over to Iran and turn Sunni Iraq into protectee of the local Sunni powers (who are all US allies). Kurdish Iraq would be stuck in the middle with no clear allies (except Sunni/Kurdish Syria) and many possible foes. But would be friendly to US.
Solution in Syria would mirror that in Iraq in many ways. Syrian Kurdistan might be made a region of New Sunni Syria instead of independant nation to keep Turkey happy.
Turkey would be an obstacle of sorts. Turkey has always strongly opposed an independant Kurdistan.
The elaphant in the room is that Iraq and Syria can no longer maintain current borders. Iraq has to be 3 nations and Syria at least two.
Alawites/Iran/Hezbollah might even be convinced to replace Assad.
Honestly I think US is too involved in Middle East militarily. US has some interests there like in most places but involvement needs to be less than its been. As well as more covert and behind scenes using local power brokers.
LikeLike
“The Iraqi regular army has proven unwilling to fight and shia militias are just that, militias.”
Well led and motivated militias can, and often do, outperform badly led and unmotivated regular troops, especially on defense.
“Even with Suleimani assisting Iraqi Shia cannot defeat ISIS in Sunni areas. Not any time soon.”
Agreed.
“Iran would have to send in its own ground forces and turn this into a full fledged Shia Vs Sunni war. ”
Unless Iran manages to get assistance from Sunni countries. But Saudi Arabia is on full terrorist-support mode since forever, it is unlikely to help Iran against ISIS, and other Sunni countries are also problematic – most of them being, on paper at least, US allies yet refusing to really do anything against ISIS. Them allying with Iran is even less of a possibility.
“The best solution to this is to negotiate a division of Iraq into 3 nations or self-governing zones.”
Agreed. Actually, the best solution would be to do this for the entire Middle East, as European imperialists who drew current borders did so specifically to cause conflicts.
“Iraq has to be 3 nations and Syria at least two. ”
Yes, it is the only possible lasting solution.
LikeLike
“Unless Iran manages to get assistance from Sunni countries. But Saudi Arabia is on full terrorist-support mode since forever, it is unlikely to help Iran against ISIS, and other Sunni countries are also problematic – most of them being, on paper at least, US allies yet refusing to really do anything against ISIS. Them allying with Iran is even less of a possibility”
Sunni countries will not ally with Iran against ISIS without a deal in place to empower Iraqi/Syrian Sunni and even then it would be debatable. Many of these Sunni countries (as you mentioned) have even refused to support US against ISIS because that also means helping shia against sunni.
In Iraq, removing Iran and shia from equation (with a mutually benefiting deal) and getting Iraqi Sunni (with direct support of US, Jordan, and GCC) to defeat ISIS is a lasting solution in the Sunni areas of Iraq. Anything involving Iran and Shia will feed the fire and create long-term issues.
Again similar situation in Syria. Little more complicated in Syria because of groups like Nusra who are entrenched in Sunni resistance. But, that can be overcome with a deal to remove Assad/Hezbollah/Iran from sunni zone and identification of a Sunni leadership group that can be given initial governance over the new created Sunni Syrian Nation. The Syrian Sunni mass will rise up against ISIS and Nusra if it means getting their own nation. Again Sunni countries in region have to play big role.
I would focus on Iraq first because its less complicated right now. Create a template for success and that will pay off when trying same thing in Syria.
All of this benefits local powers more than US but these nations will not step-up as long as US keeps doing it for them. US primary role should be in negotiating and logistical support not direct involvement.
US can cover Gaps but locals need to do this. Not our problem as much as theirs.
US & EU need to focus on intel and battling Al-Qaeda groups that are not fighting for territory but instead working on coordinating terrorist attacks.
There was a time to sit back and let the chips fall but, I think its about time to act. Act with decisiveness and purpose. The people in those areas are ready. There is a market for peace & stability. Lets not let someone else (that might be unfriendly to West) meet that need.
On a more human note. The people in that region are ready for peace and stability it would be beutiful to help them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I came across next information on Serbian forums. Several books were written by generals and published almost 10 years after the war ended. I don’t have those books. Number of missiles that were launched by units that were using system Neva is 98 and for KUB is 70. Sometimes were launched one and sometimes two missiles. With system KUB there were executed 46 shootings with 70 missiles. When first F-117 was shot down two missiles were launched, while only the first one had locked on to the target and the second one just continued to fly on it’s ballistic trajectory.
During 78 days only one unit/squadron from 250 air defense brigade stayed operational. The same one that was responsible for shooting down of F-117 and F-16.
VOJIN lost 14 from 17 radars. Some were damaged (8 out of 14) and some were total losses (6 out of 14).
https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/VOJIN
LikeLike
Thankyou for your regular support sir. I will certainly be visiting your blog more often!
LikeLike
You’re wrlcome, and thanks.
LikeLike
Thanks, I wonder if you could throw some light on effectiveness of chaff and flares in above wars. thanks
LikeLike
Unfortunately I can’t, I never did a research on it and I don’t have time right now.
LikeLike