Europe and 5th generation aircraft
- Thread starter Vivendi
- Start date
- Status
I don't have a problem with debate - I have some concern when anyone will enthusiastically attempt to establish a technical case by quoting PD data.
Anyone of us who have been involved at certain levels knows full well that some of the data embraced and used in the public domain for some systems is absolute rubbish - yet how many of us even bother to challenge it to make a point? I for one don't. There is no point. As is often the case, those who savagely stand their ground and defend their case with the use of that PD (and this is not meant to be be brutally impolite) - are subject clueless (or dare I say mischievous) as to what and why it is released.
External empirical data that can be visibly confirmed is easy and is readily released - for a reason. The guts and detail of whats inside complex systems and platforms is another thing.
As an example of another platform where range has been discussed ad nauseum - and where the PD is somewhat colourful is the Gripen. Now one doesn't have to think too hard that if the combat critical data for what is essentially a flash 4th Generation marketing opportunity is "rough" - then it's going to be just as dubious and even more rubbery for americas next 30 year frontline (and possibly last manned) fixed wing combat fighter.
At some point, no matter what our personal experience or views, we need to pull back from the precipice before we get carried away with what is essentially a virtual meeting room - and where very few of us do actually know each other, and in some cases, actually know what some of our cohorts actually do for a job (and thus do have some relevant background into the debate).
Last edited:
You may find this interesting:-
http://www.businessspectator.com.au..._matters_bl8cr?OpenDocument&count=30&start=61
Seems the official line is ~18,000lbs, you'll have to let me know if the next new TO changes to the 'official' line in the future.
Cheers
http://www.businessspectator.com.au..._matters_bl8cr?OpenDocument&count=30&start=61
Seems the official line is ~18,000lbs, you'll have to let me know if the next new TO changes to the 'official' line in the future.
Cheers
I've read that the set up time is around 5 mins.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm
Which was why I assumed it should not be too difficult to use it in such a role.
FAS? OK but I'm going to check this through a better source. I like FAS for general info but sites like that tend to post Brochure Statistics without regard to real world performance. Take a look at the F-15 page and it's listed speed for example. I'll say that the S-300 is a very advanced system so I don't doubt the Russians designed it to be very capable. One thing about a system like this is that there are a lot of systems that have to be powered up, comms established and site survey ect. If a battery went from "cold" to hot in 5 min and was prepared to engage targets I'd be impressed. Even so IMHO the size and bulk of this system doesn't make it a good candidate for the kind of independent tactics we saw in OAF. The signature and logistics footprint is just too big.
In your defense though, the Iraqis did well with their large SCUD TELs so I see your point. But the difference is SCUD TELs aren't blasting trons all over the place looking for something to shoot at. Although the SCUD missile exhaust was probably very spectacular and cued a variety of IR sensors. We didn't have the same kinds of autonomous air to ground search capabilities we do now either.
Maybe in 1991, this would work. In 2008 with all the persistent ISR and all weather precision attack capability of today? I don't think it would last long. My view is that if the enemy sensors and IADS aren't constantly on sanitizing the airspace then they are violating the principle of mass. They may get a few jets but it will get to the point that anytime they come out of hiding or radiate the OODA loop will tighten like a noose until they are choked off. This will also no doubt have an affect on the crews even if they survive. In essence, an air defense system that has to hide from the very threats it's supposed to be keeping out of the airspace in the first place has already failed at the system level.
-DA
The MoD website lists 5 minutes to deploy from march to operating. But I see your point. However the idea is that the S-300 could advance along side your troops, or retreat alongside your troops, and if you have radar coverage datalinked to your C2, it doesn't need to turn on and come online until the enemy is detected by your awacs, rls, etc.
EDIT: It's apparently wireless so no cables need to be hooked up, speeding up deployment.
EDIT: It's apparently wireless so no cables need to be hooked up, speeding up deployment.
Iraq also didnt have any counter-measures to speak of. Contrary, more modern military have a lot of assets dedicated to cover own technic from detection. Various optic/ IR / UV covers, false positions, false radars / TEL's, distributed ECM, etc, etc.
One thing i would however agree - no S-300/ S-400 or other wonder weapon would change the outcome in Iraq or Iran case.
That isn't true. They employed various deception strategies, counter-measures and ECM. Some of it publicly destroyed. In fact the insurgents are still using doing it! My argument remains the same. Even a more modern opponent who is forces to hide and can't continuously cover his battlespace electronically is going to get slaughtered. Granted that counter-measures can complicate things to various degrees. But the longer you are forced to stay silent while the enemy is constantly refining his situational awareness...the noose is closing. Remember, outside of China and Russia who have their own industry, relatively modern force with strategic nukes and strategic depth to trade for time. All other opponents would be rapidly overwhelmed and overrun while what remains of their military is mopped up in the aftermath of defeat. It is not possible to support a system like the S-300 when you logistics infrastructure is destroyed. It needs fuel, spare parts and missiles. Also, without the direction of a command element they will have poor situational awareness.
SA-16 shooters, definitely but their Class V would dry up real quick without a benefactor! Seen it happen and can tell the difference between then and now. S-300, no way IMHO. My military origins are on the high-tech-mech side and I know if we were in that situation it wouldn't take very long at all before we would have turned into light infantry/guerillas. I'd drool at the chance to manage and hunt down a unit like this trying to survive and fight back under these conditions.
-DA
Back onto the subject of Europe and 5th gen aircraft apart I am not sure if anyone else had mentioned this, but didn't the UK have some tech demo's for stealth technology as part of the Future Offensive Air System programs. BAE Replica comes to mind as a full sized model was tested, (not flown), from what I gather it was designed to an affordable manned stealth aircraft not as stealthy as say the F-117 but a lot cheaper, (with our budget that's all we can even try to get). While the Future Offensive Air System program was cancelled I haven't found any sources saying Replica was cancelled. (Apart from a short statement and one photo it is still classified.
Regards,
Jack
Regards,
Jack
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
IIRC that program was designed to pressure the US into giving the UK Tier 1 partner status in the F-35. It was a long long long way from becoming an operational fighter.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
You are talking about war. A perfect example in fact. Well done!
Something that shows that people like Eric Palmer, Carlo Kopp, Peter Goon and the other so-called (and usually self-appointed) "analysts" in these debates simply do NOT understand actual war.
They argue that an F-35 (for example) cannot directly attack an S-300 system because of it's power, aperture size, ECCM etc. By implication therefore, any force equipped with such (soley) is technically inferior.
That is ABSOLUTE CRAP. The S-300/400 operators are equipped with an enormous, essentially static system that whilst reasonably powerful in one role, is enormously vulnerable in many others.
There is NEVER a discussion on the numbers of S-300 systems being employed. NEVER a discussion on the numbers of F-35 systems being employed. NEVER a discussion on the force multiplier effects available, nor even the FORCE available, considering that the F-35 is going to be ONE system available from an entire arsenal comprising land, air and sea based assets. NEVER a discussion on what the users of these systems actually use them for (guys, there is NOT a huge overlapping S-300 system covering every conceivable target in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or whomever else you might like to nominate)...
Yep. Turning it into a serious fighter programme was only ever a reserve option.
A good example people can read would be the opening strikes of Operation Desert Storm where the helicopters defeated the early warning radars by exploiting the gap in coverage at low altitude. These transport and anti-tank helos punched a hole that allowed the fixed wing aircraft to enter into hostile airspace. There are many other examples but that one is easy to find info on and people should read it in order to get an idea of how things work at the system level rather than direct comparison of platforms which RARELY happens.
Equally important are the logistic considerations behind organizing a defense. S-300s require missiles, POL and spare parts. So is it really practical to have every square km of battlespace covered? Most certainly not. Good planners will exploit the gaps and limitations.
-DA
None the less the SAM density in places like Central Russia or the Taiwan straight is more then sufficient to plug all or almost all of the gaps. Remember that S-300/400 class systems are complemented by Buk-M1, Tor-M1/M2, Osa-AKM, and of course low altitude MANPADS, Shilka's, Tunguska's, Pantsyr's etc. One more thing. Please don't bring up North Korea. Their AD consists of antiquated Cold War era SAM's and ridiculous numbers of AAA. They are not a good example of modern AD.
EDIT: As for numbers, Russia deploys 35 regiments with about ~50 more S-300P in reserve. China has allegedly 28 battallions (which should add up to 14 regiments, in addition to their indigenous systems).
EDIT: As for numbers, Russia deploys 35 regiments with about ~50 more S-300P in reserve. China has allegedly 28 battallions (which should add up to 14 regiments, in addition to their indigenous systems).
Neither.
The best answers today can be found in the F-22, followed by the Typhoon/Flanker/Rafale, and then the rest. If you think carefully, they have their own unique concepts of fighting the air war, and besides the raptor, it is extremely difficult to decide which will prevail.
There must be a conscious decision or clear idea how one wishes to attain air superiority because it may even be possible to take the out of service Concordes and turn them into air superiority machines (not fighters). Imagine, put rotary METEOR launchers into the body, cruise at 50k+ ft, above Mach 2, an extra powerful AESA radar in the nose, and some more at the sides and back, a coat of the latest RCS reducing paints etc etc, and you get one really mean high speed high altitude flying battleship.
Cheers
guppy
The best answers today can be found in the F-22, followed by the Typhoon/Flanker/Rafale, and then the rest. If you think carefully, they have their own unique concepts of fighting the air war, and besides the raptor, it is extremely difficult to decide which will prevail.
There must be a conscious decision or clear idea how one wishes to attain air superiority because it may even be possible to take the out of service Concordes and turn them into air superiority machines (not fighters). Imagine, put rotary METEOR launchers into the body, cruise at 50k+ ft, above Mach 2, an extra powerful AESA radar in the nose, and some more at the sides and back, a coat of the latest RCS reducing paints etc etc, and you get one really mean high speed high altitude flying battleship.
Cheers
guppy
That isn't how air defense works. If all it was is just buy x amount of a certain air defense system to cover y amount of sq km then nations would just by x systems and air attacks would be a thing of the past. Obviously a lot of people thought the gaps were covered in all the places where SAMs were and it's been CONSISTENTLY proven not to be the case whether we are talking about Libya in the 1980's, Iraq/Serbia in the 1990's and Iraq in 2003 where a Silkworm penetrated US air defenses. Ask yourself how this happened?
Russian and Chinese air defenses may be more advanced, maybe more dense but they cannot cover the entire battlespace and they are vulnerable to a whole bunch of counter-measures and subject to logistical limits. NOBODY just flies an airplane, not even stealth planes or cruise missiles, and just hopes they make it to the target. A lot goes into negating that type of defense which has some serious vulnerabilities one of which is to advertise for hundreds of km their exact location and RF characteristics. The mere act of trying to search for a target can kill a SAM site. I really recommend you read some of the reports from Libyan SAM crews during Operation Eldorado Canyon or simply look at Iraq/Serbia. SAMs are not and have never been insurmountable. Not even the S-300.
Every time Russia squirts out a new SAM the internet traffic spikes about how they will sweep the skies of western jets. Context. During the 1980's the Libyan IADs were considered very dangerous as were the Iraqis in the 1990's. I think we would find that in 2000-2010 the advances in western technology and tactics would yield similar results.
Anti Radiation missiles and stand-off munitions combined with ELINT equipment and electronic warfare capabilities pose a considerable threat. There are even EW capabilities that have disruptive/destructive effects. We are light years beyond where we were in the 1980s in terms of EW/SEAD/DEAD. One thing I can't wait to see deployed and used is the MALD and MALD-J although I doubt we would read about them in OSINT for obvious reasons...
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/mald/
And of course, stealth aircraft. Russia and China are nowhere near secure from air attack.
Now Stealth and EW are areas where Europe has some serious short comings but that doesn't mean they can't compensate with tactics to mitigate some of the technological limitations.
-DA
That isn't how air defense works. If all it was is just buy x amount of a certain air defense system to cover y amount of sq km then nations would just by x systems and air attacks would be a thing of the past. Obviously a lot of people thought the gaps were covered in all the places where SAMs were and it's been CONSISTENTLY proven not to be the case whether we are talking about Libya in the 1980's, Iraq/Serbia in the 1990's and Iraq in 2003 where a
- Status