Yes, yes. Then peoples have nothing to say on discussion object, they often turn on personals... eh, somehow predicable from you. The complete absence of any logic in your posts..
Europe and 5th generation aircraft
- Thread starter Vivendi
- Start date
- Status
Guys (and ladies if there are any...),
This is supposed to be fun and mind stimulating.
History is good, but history is just that, history. Look at how the french got routed in WWII because they are, er...were still living in history. The Israelis have, on the other hand, done very well against other state actors. Each of their major conflict is of a different nature, and what they have been able to achieve is insight on how things have changed and how they should adapt for the future.
Thus, for the sake of this forum, I hope that we are all here because we can all gain some insight, especially from a different perspective. That is what forums are for, isn't it? Otherwise we should all just go write blogs.
From the current crisis, this is what I think threatens the pilots the most...
1. KC-135 pilots are most threatened by the fighter pilots that can't get fuel when they need it most.
2. F-15C pilots are most threatened by the fact that they are becoming irrelevant unless they move to the F-22 or a bomb carrying platform.
3. F-16CJ pilots are most threatened by USAF plans to move some of them to predator and reaper units.
No offence meant, just what I have been hearing...
Cheers
Guppy
This is supposed to be fun and mind stimulating.
History is good, but history is just that, history. Look at how the french got routed in WWII because they are, er...were still living in history. The Israelis have, on the other hand, done very well against other state actors. Each of their major conflict is of a different nature, and what they have been able to achieve is insight on how things have changed and how they should adapt for the future.
Thus, for the sake of this forum, I hope that we are all here because we can all gain some insight, especially from a different perspective. That is what forums are for, isn't it? Otherwise we should all just go write blogs.
From the current crisis, this is what I think threatens the pilots the most...
1. KC-135 pilots are most threatened by the fighter pilots that can't get fuel when they need it most.
2. F-15C pilots are most threatened by the fact that they are becoming irrelevant unless they move to the F-22 or a bomb carrying platform.
3. F-16CJ pilots are most threatened by USAF plans to move some of them to predator and reaper units.
No offence meant, just what I have been hearing...
Cheers
Guppy
You can't cite a single example of the "even" conflict where two sides blindly fly into active IADS and slaughter themselves yet you are questioning my logic. No one is getting personal. Your post have no basis in military reality. NONE. I can cite history, present activity and personal experience to back up the things I'm telling you. In all my experience I've never seen an "even" fight EVER. Any military commander will tell you no matter what side he is on that he is always trying to fight from a position of advantage even if that advantage is only local. Why do you think so much money is spent on Special Forces, EW and other things that give advantages.
Even if the commander has to fly into an active IADS they will do things like focus on a specific sector where by using the principle of mass they can overload the defense. Thats the advantage of the offense. You can poke holes in a defense that way. With regard to the older SAMs that are in 3rd world nations most of them can only engage 1 target at a time and they have effective ranges of only dozens of km. If an offense puts up decoys, EW and multiple attackers and can achieve surprise how is that even? This how you use the Principles of War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_War#United_States_principles_of_war
to turn an even fight into an uneven fight. All military leaders practice variations of these principles. ALL. Iraqi, America, NGO, Russian, PRC, UK, French, German...ALL military leaders all the way down to individuals. The entire premise of your post and others who lament "even" is a violation of the principles through which victory is achieved.
-DA
I dare say that no modern army will invest exclusively in fighters or SAMs as both are essential to any well thought out IADS. Usually, budget is the constraining factor. Thus the issue would be whether the IADS should be fighter heavy or SAM heavy. Any army that invest exclusively in SAMs will be defeated eventually. Having only SAMs is akin to having only goalkeepers in a football match. It is a matter of time before the opposing striker score. With an unbalanced force (of only SAMs), it is almost certain that an opposing air force will eventually find a way to penetrate the defenses, no matter how good the SAMs are.
The only nations that have to make a choice of exclusive investments would be poor third world nations. Therefore the only time that peer armies might clash with exclusive systems ie fighter vs SAMs would be in conflicts between third world nations. This brings to mind a certain conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea where the SU-27s of the ERAF wiped out half of the Ethiopian MiG-29s. None of the recent US led conflicts qualify as action between peer forces.
cheers
Guppy
The only nations that have to make a choice of exclusive investments would be poor third world nations. Therefore the only time that peer armies might clash with exclusive systems ie fighter vs SAMs would be in conflicts between third world nations. This brings to mind a certain conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea where the SU-27s of the ERAF wiped out half of the Ethiopian MiG-29s. None of the recent US led conflicts qualify as action between peer forces.
cheers
Guppy
I'm sorry but that little bit of humor was badly needed in this thread. Unfortunately Darth is obviously not interested in abstract discussion on utility of SAM's in an IADS in principle, and prefers to just talk about one sided beatings of inferior forces by superior forces.
When discussing any capability disruption it's fundamental to look at it in a worst case scenario.
eg 1991 was the first time that combined arms were instrumentally managed in a theatre by space based systems.
Post 1991 saw a trigger in numerous RMA's by all the capable militaries and those who could "afford to".
The 1991 capability is achievable by various militaries even though some are only at a batlefield rather than theatre level.
ipso facto, suspending reality and debating the capability of IADS against an opposing force without C4 or access to a symbiotic response suite does nothing to further debate.
again, I can think of half a dozen countries that have battlespace capability similar to the US theatre capability of 1991. do we ignore those countries just because they won't assist in debating the strengths of an IADS?
You can't debate on the basis of a sophisticated IADS, and assume that the OPFOR is incapable of dislocating it via it's own sophisticated counter systems
the reality is that combat is "not fair" - so selectively excluding a country just because it disrupts our own pet/favourite theory reflects badly on the debate in general.
But such "not fair" preposition will lead nowhere in analysis and discussion. Because EVERY weapon or tactic will be completely ineffective for the side meeting such "not fair" train.
I ask you again: WHAT tactic, and WHAT weapon should employ a country against such "not fair" enemy? What is your alternative?
So far you presented none. Somehow your always place IADS user on the side which get badly gang banged by "not fair" enemy. This is just wrong and illogical. Lets revert things. IADS user now is "lucky" guy. Non-IADS user get the worst stick and his airforces were completely obliterated in the first strike, while his weak attempts to answer were repelled by opposing SAM's and fighters.
Now, how that "not fair" case sounds to you, and how useful it is for analysis of SAM's effectiveness?
P.S. Btw, it is not only me who think SAM's are very useful. Somehow every other army leaders around the world thinks the same. Even USA, with by far world strongest airforces, still develop, maintain and field fair number of SAM's.
Dont you think they have some plan how to use them?
P.S. Also, may i remind you, what airfields are far, far, like 2 orders of maginitude, more vulnerable then SAM's? And any enemy capable of reliably killing whole IADS will surely have zero problem suppressing and damaging enemy airfields?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The trend is for US (and Euro) SAMS to be BMD specialists, e.g. the PAC-3, PAC-3 MSE. That this is the raison d'être of SAMs has also dawned upon the Europeans, where the BMD role of SAMP-T is getting more attention. The outlier may be the inclusion of IRIS-VL for the Germans version of MEADS, but that is for point defence against cruise missiles of the system itself and for German industrial reasons.
That's the reason why no +250km range telephone poles are being built. Air power is better for defence.
As far as German SAMs go, that depends a lot on whether MEADS is going anywhere (and this reflects to other European PAC users of course).
Slight thing maybe - IRIS-T SL is not a point-defence close-in weapon system. It's a medium-range SAM with 30+ km range. SLS is the short-range version without a booster. Technically, SL is a replacement for Hawk in its point-defence role.
Slight thing maybe - IRIS-T SL is not a point-defence close-in weapon system. It's a medium-range SAM with 30+ km range. SLS is the short-range version without a booster. Technically, SL is a replacement for Hawk in its point-defence role.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
SL, not VL - my bad. You confuse me though, as you seem to say that the SL is not a point defence weapon, yet it replaces the HAWK in its point defence role?
It's not a sole point-defence system, as a plus compared to Hawk it's supposed to be relatively mobile, and it's not dependant on PAC/MEADS infrastructure.
It'd definitely replace Hawk in the role as point-defence (and second tier / close defence of PAC/MEADS sites), but it'll also function as a full medium-range SAM - the packaging so far looks good for light deployments for example.
In that function, it has competed against similar systems such as SL-AMRAAM and Spada 2000 in export tenders.
edit: Essentially, with IRIS-T SL, the Luftwaffe is trying to sneak a Roland/Hawk short-to-medium range system into the budget, by selling it as a "cheaper defence missile" within the MEADS complex.
But you did not presented SINGLE example of this "better for defense"! All your examples were completely opposite - cases where airforces was wiped out in first strike and unable to defend anything! At least SAM's done something in that case...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
This was what I replied to:
The upper-tier systems are focused on BMD, i.e. no +250km range missiles in development for AD.
That is quite true. But everyone also thinks that fighters are important. Again, an imbalanced force will lose eventually to a balanced force. With only SAMs, you will eventually lose the initiative. You are always reacting to probes, and they can be coming from all directions. The more flexible air force will use initiative to peel away the onions until they strike the nodes, then the IADS will become ineffective.
That is actually quite a good point. Airfields are so much easier to hit. But from a different perspective, we put SAMs around the airfield so that the attacker is faced with sometimes devastating choices, assuming stand off weapons are not available:
1. Try and evade the defenses and attack the airfield directly without engagin the SAMs.
2. Attack the defenses first, or at least suppress them (soft or hard) for long enough a period of time to get bombs on target.
Either way, the attacker is extremely distracted. Add to that the presence of some enemy fighters, he is extremely distracted.
If you are in the opinion that it is possible to create an effective IADS without fighters, I think it is. However, I think it would be wiser to channel some of that investment to fighters instead because a fighterless IADS will last not last too long against a more balanced peer force. Pls note, I prefer not to use the term "peer force" than equal or fair.
cheers
guppy
I already said, I didn't want to play pretend. SAMs in the abstract? Their utility? They cover area or point targets. Aircraft penetrating into those areas or approaching those targets protected by point defenses are in danger of being shot down if they take no measures to avoid it. Aircraft can exploit the radar horizon, exploit max altitude limits, use speed, use standoff weapons, avoid those areas or targets, employ EW techniques, use stealth tactics & Technology or destroy the SAM via SEAD/DEAD methods. In other words a million ways exist to penetrate SAM coverage. Especially for aircraft as opposed to ballistic missiles which are a bit more limited in terms of signature management and flight profile(for now). Any airforce applying the right combinations of the techniques I mentioned will defeat SAMs. Airforces that don't will suffer higher loss rates to SAMs. Historically loss rates to SAMs have been VERY LOW. Especially for radar guided SAMs. In brief thats about all there is to it...for the 99th time.
-DA
And just how are you drawing that conclusion? Do you know what the Radar Horizon is for a target penetrating at 200ft AGL? You would be talking about 2 minutes of early warning and potentially much less for a low altitude penetrator. Even a small country would not be able to adequately cover it's blind spots except against the most inept threats.
-DA
That is without any question. SAM's alone will not win it for ya, just as airforces alone usually also dont win. You need some offensive tools - i.e. ground army and airforce.
Extremely powerful airforce alone can do the trick also - but only in the case of so badly superiority what other side equipment dont matter already.
Extremely hard due to nature of modern SAM's. Moreover, such attempt will place your airforce in great disadvantage against defending airforce.
About impossible without so bad overmatching what any other form of defense is unthinkable anyway. Detecting modern SAM's is no easy feat as they turn on radars only to launch missile, they placed to guard each other several times, each of them usually is extremely hard to target with ARM, are protected against ARM's with smaller SAM's and, on top of that, have easily replaceable radars.
Youp. And defender in in no need to maintain constant air presence other own territory, exposing own fighters to enemy ambush. Or at least, forcing enemy to gather much, much larger forces and be much better prepared to try ambush.
Effective IADS without fighters is certainly possible, but still effective IADS WITH competent fighters will be like 3 times more effective.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Libyan a/c losses:
3-5 IL-76 transport planes
14 Mig-23 Floggers
2 Helicopters
US a/c losses
1 F-111
But geez - 3,000 Soviet air-defense techies!
So what? I repeat, look at they airforce performance! What makes you think Libyan have better SAM's crew than pilots? Leave alone USSR crew, in some phrase irritated Libyan crew and slow-to-order Libyan officers are mentioned...
Thats 1st...
Now, there is also second. Libyan AD lacked several key components (like long-range SAM's) , which are essential against 1st-world airforce with full range of tools like USAF.
And third - i ask you again. Look at Libyan airforce performance to better understand how GOOD SAM's performed in these cirumstances...
P.S. Guys, remember, we are discussing DEFENSE. We are discussing what is better for air Defense, not what is better for surprise striking enemy units on enemy territory.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
In response to this:
and
Eldorado Canyon makes a fine example.
It was a low level attack - trashfire envelope - LR SAMs would have added little. Same effect as stealth has today.
They performed well? Both SAM batteries and airfields got hit? Had it been a war of attrition between peers, Libya would have been down. SAMs doesn't prevent preemptive strikes.
Key is that the party with the offensive capabilities (between peers) will have the initiative.
- Status