We7det_el_qetal
New Member
let's say just theoreticaly that the US had to do a SEAD mission in the air space of a country which possesed Su-37 A/C and S-400 SAMs and supported by A-50 AWACS, how would the confrontation unfold in ur opinion?
F/A-22 Vs Su-37 + S-400 + AWACS
- Thread starter We7det_el_qetal
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'd think a combined US force would probably attack that sort of defensive system. You'd probably see (or rather not see) Stealth fighters, F/A-22/F-15E and F-16C/J/JSF type fighters organised in a strike package supported by jamming aircraft, AWACS, air to air refuellers and other "shadowy" USAF ELINT/SIGINT assets.
A Tomahawk missile strike and standoff weapons employed by USAF assets such as B-2/B-1B/B-52 (CALCM, JSOW, JASSM) used initially to create a "corridor" for the strike force, followed by the top end fighters to engage the aerial threat and the Wild Weasal/strike aircraft going after the SAM's and enemy airbases. You might even see a specwarops attack or 2 from the USA before hostilities had even "commenced"...
Such a force as you mentioned might come off okay the first time around, but any US force intent on attacking such a setup would be prepared to keep attacking until such threat is neutralised. "Offence being the best defence and all"...
A Tomahawk missile strike and standoff weapons employed by USAF assets such as B-2/B-1B/B-52 (CALCM, JSOW, JASSM) used initially to create a "corridor" for the strike force, followed by the top end fighters to engage the aerial threat and the Wild Weasal/strike aircraft going after the SAM's and enemy airbases. You might even see a specwarops attack or 2 from the USA before hostilities had even "commenced"...
Such a force as you mentioned might come off okay the first time around, but any US force intent on attacking such a setup would be prepared to keep attacking until such threat is neutralised. "Offence being the best defence and all"...
Check this out:
The PLA has acquired and deployed a range of space-, air-, sea- and land-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems which will enhance its ability to detect, monitor, and target military activities in Asia and the Western Pacific Ocean regions. The latest space programmes include electro-optical, synthetic aperture radar, and oceanological satellites. China has also deployed sky- and surface-wave Over the Horizon Radars (OTHRs) for early warning and targeting aircraft carriers, and is known to be highly interested in acquiring the Czech-made VERA-E passive surveillance systems which could be used to detect stealthy aircraft.
This is from sinodefence.com, C4ISR section.
I didnt know theres a czech system capable of detecting stealth aircraft. I remmember gary and high sea telling me the SPY-1 was incapable of detecting F-22s. Hence, theres little chance a non US radar could be developed capable of detecting stealth aircraft.
I cant get the specs from gloabl security or fas, didnt try google yet.
The PLA has acquired and deployed a range of space-, air-, sea- and land-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems which will enhance its ability to detect, monitor, and target military activities in Asia and the Western Pacific Ocean regions. The latest space programmes include electro-optical, synthetic aperture radar, and oceanological satellites. China has also deployed sky- and surface-wave Over the Horizon Radars (OTHRs) for early warning and targeting aircraft carriers, and is known to be highly interested in acquiring the Czech-made VERA-E passive surveillance systems which could be used to detect stealthy aircraft.
This is from sinodefence.com, C4ISR section.
I didnt know theres a czech system capable of detecting stealth aircraft. I remmember gary and high sea telling me the SPY-1 was incapable of detecting F-22s. Hence, theres little chance a non US radar could be developed capable of detecting stealth aircraft.
I cant get the specs from gloabl security or fas, didnt try google yet.
Vera-E is a passive system based on electronic emissions. It can also used for ATC ops with mode-3 transponders. There is a thread on it here:
http://defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2972
http://defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2972
Last edited:
http://i-newswire.com/pr27627.html
-Newswire) - Putting the next-generation air superiority fighter at the oldest continuously active air base in the United States provides a striking contrast. It is like seeing a computer on a desk next to an abacus, or like parking a 2006 Chevy Corvette next to a two-toned 1960 AMC Rambler.
The 27th Fighter Squadron -- the Air Force’s oldest continuous fighter squadron -- will be the first unit to transition to the Raptor. It is a job the squadron knows well. The squadron was the first to switch to the F-15 Eagle, the Air Force’s premier fighter since the early 1970s.
Langley, located on the shore of the Back River just off Chesapeake Bay, is home to the 1st Fighter Wing. When base officials learned they would get the Raptor, they ordered the construction of maintenance and operations buildings to support the cutting-edge fighter jet.
There was one stipulation however -- the buildings’ exterior designs had to reflect the architecture of the early 1920s. Langley officials said they feel strongly about keeping their heritage alive. To do this, the bricks are specially ordered. Construction workers carefully lifted out the blue concrete stars that adorned the front of the old buildings, then restored and placed them into the new buildings like precious stones in a ring. Although the facilities opened in October, the outside façade suggests a 1923 official ribbon-cutting ceremony.
However, once through the door, that is where the past meets the present. The inside still has that new-office smell. Plasma screens dominate the break rooms and operations desks. And computers with slim monitors are on every desk.
The parking ramps on the flightline are no different. On one are neat rows of F-15s. Though still a top-notch fighter, they are more than 30 years old.
Although still highly effective, they do not have the same get up and go they once had. Like old cars, they rattle a little more and break more frequently. In a few more years, Air Force experts say the F-15s can no longer be counted on to counter today’s air and ground threats.
Next to the F-15s are the F/A-22s. They seem to “crouch,†ready to swoop into the sky and fly from zero to faster than the speed of sound in seconds. With its “super-cruise capability,†it flies supersonic without using afterburners.
Instead of a bunch of cockpit knobs and controls, the F/A-22’s onboard computers do much of the flying for pilots, freeing them to concentrate on the overall battle or mission.
â€We can go against threats that F-16 ( Fighting Falcons ) and F-15s wouldn’t even think about trying to attack,†said Lt. Col. James Hecker, 27th Fighter Squadron commander.
By using today’s technology and smart weapons, he said, the F/A-22 specializes in placing ordnance on coordinates. In other words, he does not have to follow the bomb to the target. The aircraft’s technology takes care of that.
Combine that with stealth, speed and a radar-absorbing paint scheme, and the Raptor will prove a tough customer for the enemy.
“In boxing, if you fought a man you couldn’t see, he’d hit you all day,†the colonel said. That is what the Raptor does.
F/A-22 pilots and maintainers are also a mix of the old and new. Many come from the F-15 and F-16 communities. Those aircraft remain dear to them, like their first cars. But once they get to know the Raptor, it is as if they have peered into a crystal ball -- and loved what they saw, officials said.
“Because of all the things it can do, it takes fewer Raptors to complete a mission than F-15s or F-16s,†said Capt. John Echols, an F/A-22 pilot. “Saying the F-22 is a great aircraft is an understatement. It’s well worth every cent.â€
Most maintainers said just being part of a new program is a thrill.
“The thing I like most about being with the F/A-22 program is the ability to start something new and to make sure the program is running properly,†said Airman 1st Class Jordan Dashley, a 1st Component Maintenance Squadron aerospace propulsion apprentice.
“I am proud to be part of such a new program, and I like the fact that I am basically a pioneer for the future,†said the 21-year-old Milford, Ohio, native.
by Master Sgt. Orville F. Desjarlais Jr.
Air Force Print News
___________________________________________________________________
a SEAD mission would be made very easy if the US was to use the F-22's. all i can say is that there is just no match for this raptor!!!
-Newswire) - Putting the next-generation air superiority fighter at the oldest continuously active air base in the United States provides a striking contrast. It is like seeing a computer on a desk next to an abacus, or like parking a 2006 Chevy Corvette next to a two-toned 1960 AMC Rambler.
The 27th Fighter Squadron -- the Air Force’s oldest continuous fighter squadron -- will be the first unit to transition to the Raptor. It is a job the squadron knows well. The squadron was the first to switch to the F-15 Eagle, the Air Force’s premier fighter since the early 1970s.
Langley, located on the shore of the Back River just off Chesapeake Bay, is home to the 1st Fighter Wing. When base officials learned they would get the Raptor, they ordered the construction of maintenance and operations buildings to support the cutting-edge fighter jet.
There was one stipulation however -- the buildings’ exterior designs had to reflect the architecture of the early 1920s. Langley officials said they feel strongly about keeping their heritage alive. To do this, the bricks are specially ordered. Construction workers carefully lifted out the blue concrete stars that adorned the front of the old buildings, then restored and placed them into the new buildings like precious stones in a ring. Although the facilities opened in October, the outside façade suggests a 1923 official ribbon-cutting ceremony.
However, once through the door, that is where the past meets the present. The inside still has that new-office smell. Plasma screens dominate the break rooms and operations desks. And computers with slim monitors are on every desk.
The parking ramps on the flightline are no different. On one are neat rows of F-15s. Though still a top-notch fighter, they are more than 30 years old.
Although still highly effective, they do not have the same get up and go they once had. Like old cars, they rattle a little more and break more frequently. In a few more years, Air Force experts say the F-15s can no longer be counted on to counter today’s air and ground threats.
Next to the F-15s are the F/A-22s. They seem to “crouch,†ready to swoop into the sky and fly from zero to faster than the speed of sound in seconds. With its “super-cruise capability,†it flies supersonic without using afterburners.
Instead of a bunch of cockpit knobs and controls, the F/A-22’s onboard computers do much of the flying for pilots, freeing them to concentrate on the overall battle or mission.
â€We can go against threats that F-16 ( Fighting Falcons ) and F-15s wouldn’t even think about trying to attack,†said Lt. Col. James Hecker, 27th Fighter Squadron commander.
By using today’s technology and smart weapons, he said, the F/A-22 specializes in placing ordnance on coordinates. In other words, he does not have to follow the bomb to the target. The aircraft’s technology takes care of that.
Combine that with stealth, speed and a radar-absorbing paint scheme, and the Raptor will prove a tough customer for the enemy.
“In boxing, if you fought a man you couldn’t see, he’d hit you all day,†the colonel said. That is what the Raptor does.
F/A-22 pilots and maintainers are also a mix of the old and new. Many come from the F-15 and F-16 communities. Those aircraft remain dear to them, like their first cars. But once they get to know the Raptor, it is as if they have peered into a crystal ball -- and loved what they saw, officials said.
“Because of all the things it can do, it takes fewer Raptors to complete a mission than F-15s or F-16s,†said Capt. John Echols, an F/A-22 pilot. “Saying the F-22 is a great aircraft is an understatement. It’s well worth every cent.â€
Most maintainers said just being part of a new program is a thrill.
“The thing I like most about being with the F/A-22 program is the ability to start something new and to make sure the program is running properly,†said Airman 1st Class Jordan Dashley, a 1st Component Maintenance Squadron aerospace propulsion apprentice.
“I am proud to be part of such a new program, and I like the fact that I am basically a pioneer for the future,†said the 21-year-old Milford, Ohio, native.
by Master Sgt. Orville F. Desjarlais Jr.
Air Force Print News
___________________________________________________________________
a SEAD mission would be made very easy if the US was to use the F-22's. all i can say is that there is just no match for this raptor!!!
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
From what I gather the competetion is between F/A-22 + F-117 + Tomahawks
and Su-37 + S-400 + AWACS
any other asset which is not stealth capable will get chewed up in seconds,
the question is what is the standing of the stealth ability Vs the passive detection abilities.
and Su-37 + S-400 + AWACS
any other asset which is not stealth capable will get chewed up in seconds,
the question is what is the standing of the stealth ability Vs the passive detection abilities.
If you look at the development curve of american stealth platforms, then you'll notice that each design is different. I'd argue that they're different based on mission.Pendekar said:
Look at the lineage, U2, Suntan, Have Blue, YF-11/A-12/SR-71/D-21, F-117, Boeing Bird of Prey, B1B (lower RCS than most 4th generation fighters), SHARC, TACIT BLUE, B2, XC45/XC47, F-22, YF-23 (supposedly a superior stealth concept)
The US is actually into its 5th or 6th generation of stealth/LO aircraft
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Depends I suppose. How many stealth aircraft have ever been destroyed in combat? 1, and that was due to factors other than the aircraft being detected. The same situation could face ANY type of aircraft.We7det_el_qetal said:
The Eurofighter Typhoon is rated as being the most capable fighter in the world, besides the F-22 of course... The SU-37 is still a pipe-dream AFAIK... Russian SAM's also also offer massive capability, on paper. They've been shown to be far less capable than previously thought in other conflicts. They have had their share of success, but generally haven't lived up to the hype, IMHO.
AWAC's, well it's good of course to have it, but the A-50 is not going to be anywhere near as capable as E-3, Wedgetail or probably even Phalcon (seeing as though China tried to acquire IT instead of A-50 Mainstay) in the forseeable future. Any Western Force equipped with F-22's IS going to have AWACS support...
Interesting to note that the USAF has said that some 60% of the F-22 capability will not be revealed. There are also indications that it will act as a mini AWACs in its own right. Add in the fact that F-22's will be netorked with each other (let alone any other available battle management systems) and it will be a nasty package in its own right.Aussie Digger said:
My view is that when you look at the history of US stealth platforms, they invariably not revealed to the public for at least 6-10 years (SHARC - 6 years, Bird of Prey - 6 years, F-117 - 12 years, B2 - 6-8 years). The fact that the F-22 is in the public eye (and its actually a 20+ year old design concept), should indicate that it has some surprises up its sleeve.
Chewed Up,no way.We7det_el_qetal said:
It mostly depends on How good are S-400 and what is the AWACS.
If AWACS is not there then USAF can destroy S-400 Systems.
May be because they were used in different situations by user nations.Aussie Digger said:
They really were sucessfull in many situations during cold war.
SA-2 is credited with may US Aircraft Kills during Vietnam war
SA-3 too was a good SAM shot down F-117.
SA-6 Another lethal SAM shot down many Isreali Aircraft.
Post Cold war was completely different situation,many user countries used the same old SA-2/3 Systems but USAF used the latest EW Systems,HARM,Sealth,PGMs and many more.
Were they hyped,even in post cold war,Desert storm.
May be not
Both the SA-2 and SA-6 were compromised very early in their deployment. The Israelis managed to lift an entire system on one of their raids.ajay_ijn said:
Once the US also gained access to the data, then their effectiveness was considerably diminished.
Why do you think HARM was developed in Vietnam?
The SAM shootdown of the F117 is a very poor example. and it has been discussed ad-nauseum in here. It was an assisted shot plus Intel leaks from the French (Major Bunel) etc...
You didn't - read my response. HARM was developed in that period as a specific solution to a GBADS. As a consequemce, those particular missile systems were reduced in absolute threat terms.ajay_ijn said:
It was a rhetorical question.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Every single time that I can think of, an air force has come out on top of a ground based air defence system, despite the claims of the manufacturers. Yes many aircraft were shot down in Vietnam, but things have changed somewhat. How many aircraft were shot down in Vietnam once aircraft deployed GUIDED weapons? Basically none I'd suggest. Same in Israel/Middle East conflicts.
Since the mid to late 70's "high level" conflicts have been fought in, Bosnia, Iraq, Afganistan and the Falklands have seen no significant quantities of aircraft shot down despite extensive GBAD systems being employed.
Since the mid to late 70's "high level" conflicts have been fought in, Bosnia, Iraq, Afganistan and the Falklands have seen no significant quantities of aircraft shot down despite extensive GBAD systems being employed.
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #17
Since nobody brought it up then I think that Kolchuga radars have their significance in this situation
"
Kolchuga Passive Early Warning Radar
The team of designers with the Topaz state holding, who developed the sophisticated hi-tech [kol-CHOO-gah, Russian for "hauberk"] passive early warning radarequipment, was nominated for the State Science and Engineering Prize. A hauberk is a short tunic made of a mesh of interlinked metal rings. The new-generation strategic long-range passive radar complex "Kolchuga" meets the most stringent moral-ethical and environmental standards as absolutely harmless to people or the environment. It is unique because, firstly, all research, development, pre-process, and serial production works were performed by the Topaz holding, and funded through Ukrspetsexport investment and Prominvestbank credits; secondly, the high technological level of the Ukrainian radar was asserted de facto by the most developed and powerful country, the trendsetter in the military sphere.
A complex consisting of three Kolchuga radar stations makes it possible to spot ground and surface targets and trace their movement within a radius of 600 km (air targets at the 10 km altitude - up to 800 km), which makes an effective early warning air defense system. The Kolchuga station is equipped with five meter-, decimeter-, and centimeter-range aerials, which provide for high radio sensitivity within a 110dB/W - 155 dB/W swath, depending on the frequency.
The 800-km detection range has been achieved only by the Ukrainian Kolchuga. The best the U.S. AWACS can do is 600 km, while the ground-based complexes Vera (Czech Republic) and Vega (Russia) can reach out up to 400 km - half what the Ukrainian complex can reach. The Kolchuga’s lower limit of the working frequency range is 130MHz and is the lowest of all analogs. For the AWACS it is 2,000 MHz, for the Vera it is 850MHz, for the Vega it is 200MHz.
This was developed by the Special Radio Device Design Bureau public holding, the Topaz holding, the Donetsk National Technical University, the Ukrspetsexport state company, and the Investment and Technologies Company. It took them eight years (1993 - 2000) to conduct research, develop algorithms, test solutions on experimental specimens, and launch serial production. The new product dramatically changed the balance in the constant competition between offensive and defensive means. The relatively cheap Ukrainian Kolchuga radar station, which is able to detect and identify practically all known active radio devices mounted on ground, airborne, or marine objects, actually cancels out all those billions of dollars spent on stealth-based armaments.
On 15 September 2002 the US State Department made its first public accusations that President Leonid Kuchma personally approved the Kolchuga sale to Iraq via a Jordanian intermediary. The State Department said it had based its accusations on secret tape recordings made by Mykola Melnychenko, a former presidential bodyguard now in exile in the United States.
The change in U.S.-Ukraine relations was triggered by authentication of a 90-second audio recording from July 10, 2000. The excerpt contained a conversation between Kuchma and Ukrspetsexport chief Valery Malev, in which Kuchma approves a sale of Kolchuga systems to Iraq. In a transcribed nine-minute conversation Kuchma discusses not only the Kolchuga sale to Iraq, but also a deal to repair Libya's MIG-25 fighter jets. In the conversation, Kuchma gives Malev permission to bypass the State Service for Export Control for the deal. The US concluded that the recording of the Ukrainian president is authentic.
Sales of such radar systems would be a clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 661, which prohibits any sale or supply of "weapons or any other military equipment" to Iraq. Equipment like the Kolchuga system could pose a threat to aircraft of the U.S.-led coalition patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.
The government of Ukraine has denied selling Iraq the radar systems and invited international experts to Ukraine to investigate the charges. But as State Department spokesman Boucher said, the government of Ukraine has not been candid on this issue. And US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual suggested Ukrainian officials may have destroyed or manipulated evidence of the radar sales.
The U.S. Government and its NATO allies responded by downgrading Ukraine's participation in the NATO-Ukraine Commission meeting at the November NATO Summit in Prague from a summit to a ministerial. Nevertheless, concurrently, Ukraine developed with NATO a detailed and forward-leaning Action Plan to accelerate Ukraine's integration with NATO.
The United States has "initiated a temporary pause in new obligations of Freedom Support Act assistance that goes to the central government in Ukraine" and is reexamining its policy towards Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma after determining that a tape recording of Kuchma approving the sale of an early warning system to Iraq is authentic, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher told journalists in Washington 24 September 2002. It was impossible to track the matter down by a joint American-British commission sent to Ukraine in 2002 to investigate this purported sale. As of mid-2004 the US had not located Kolchuga systems in Iraq, and the transfer might not have taken place. "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/kolchuga.htm
"
Kolchuga Passive Early Warning Radar
The team of designers with the Topaz state holding, who developed the sophisticated hi-tech [kol-CHOO-gah, Russian for "hauberk"] passive early warning radarequipment, was nominated for the State Science and Engineering Prize. A hauberk is a short tunic made of a mesh of interlinked metal rings. The new-generation strategic long-range passive radar complex "Kolchuga" meets the most stringent moral-ethical and environmental standards as absolutely harmless to people or the environment. It is unique because, firstly, all research, development, pre-process, and serial production works were performed by the Topaz holding, and funded through Ukrspetsexport investment and Prominvestbank credits; secondly, the high technological level of the Ukrainian radar was asserted de facto by the most developed and powerful country, the trendsetter in the military sphere.
A complex consisting of three Kolchuga radar stations makes it possible to spot ground and surface targets and trace their movement within a radius of 600 km (air targets at the 10 km altitude - up to 800 km), which makes an effective early warning air defense system. The Kolchuga station is equipped with five meter-, decimeter-, and centimeter-range aerials, which provide for high radio sensitivity within a 110dB/W - 155 dB/W swath, depending on the frequency.
The 800-km detection range has been achieved only by the Ukrainian Kolchuga. The best the U.S. AWACS can do is 600 km, while the ground-based complexes Vera (Czech Republic) and Vega (Russia) can reach out up to 400 km - half what the Ukrainian complex can reach. The Kolchuga’s lower limit of the working frequency range is 130MHz and is the lowest of all analogs. For the AWACS it is 2,000 MHz, for the Vera it is 850MHz, for the Vega it is 200MHz.
This was developed by the Special Radio Device Design Bureau public holding, the Topaz holding, the Donetsk National Technical University, the Ukrspetsexport state company, and the Investment and Technologies Company. It took them eight years (1993 - 2000) to conduct research, develop algorithms, test solutions on experimental specimens, and launch serial production. The new product dramatically changed the balance in the constant competition between offensive and defensive means. The relatively cheap Ukrainian Kolchuga radar station, which is able to detect and identify practically all known active radio devices mounted on ground, airborne, or marine objects, actually cancels out all those billions of dollars spent on stealth-based armaments.
On 15 September 2002 the US State Department made its first public accusations that President Leonid Kuchma personally approved the Kolchuga sale to Iraq via a Jordanian intermediary. The State Department said it had based its accusations on secret tape recordings made by Mykola Melnychenko, a former presidential bodyguard now in exile in the United States.
The change in U.S.-Ukraine relations was triggered by authentication of a 90-second audio recording from July 10, 2000. The excerpt contained a conversation between Kuchma and Ukrspetsexport chief Valery Malev, in which Kuchma approves a sale of Kolchuga systems to Iraq. In a transcribed nine-minute conversation Kuchma discusses not only the Kolchuga sale to Iraq, but also a deal to repair Libya's MIG-25 fighter jets. In the conversation, Kuchma gives Malev permission to bypass the State Service for Export Control for the deal. The US concluded that the recording of the Ukrainian president is authentic.
Sales of such radar systems would be a clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 661, which prohibits any sale or supply of "weapons or any other military equipment" to Iraq. Equipment like the Kolchuga system could pose a threat to aircraft of the U.S.-led coalition patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.
The government of Ukraine has denied selling Iraq the radar systems and invited international experts to Ukraine to investigate the charges. But as State Department spokesman Boucher said, the government of Ukraine has not been candid on this issue. And US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual suggested Ukrainian officials may have destroyed or manipulated evidence of the radar sales.
The U.S. Government and its NATO allies responded by downgrading Ukraine's participation in the NATO-Ukraine Commission meeting at the November NATO Summit in Prague from a summit to a ministerial. Nevertheless, concurrently, Ukraine developed with NATO a detailed and forward-leaning Action Plan to accelerate Ukraine's integration with NATO.
The United States has "initiated a temporary pause in new obligations of Freedom Support Act assistance that goes to the central government in Ukraine" and is reexamining its policy towards Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma after determining that a tape recording of Kuchma approving the sale of an early warning system to Iraq is authentic, State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher told journalists in Washington 24 September 2002. It was impossible to track the matter down by a joint American-British commission sent to Ukraine in 2002 to investigate this purported sale. As of mid-2004 the US had not located Kolchuga systems in Iraq, and the transfer might not have taken place. "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/kolchuga.htm
How many years before F22 is operational with a useful SEAD weapon... the whole hypothesis is mute. F22 is a force multiplier -a pretty one in the glamorous air superiority role, but not a one-aircraft army. It would be reasonable to suppose that it would have a higher than average chance of destroying the enemy AWACs, but then the S400 has a higher than average chance of destroying alied non-stealthy assets including F16 Wild Weaels (I speculate). The USAF/US has not fought a significantly syemtrical war since early Vietnam. let's not get arrogant.
Lets ignore the polemics and deal with known data:Brit said:
- There are more F-22's flying than Rafales (2 squadrons - 42+ frames)
- The first full operational squadron goes gold in November
- When have Russian SAMs performed disproportionately against a target opportunity over a long term period? The Israelis had counters to the threat within 6 working days - the US developed AR solutions
- Where is there any empirical data that supports the absolute threat capability of the S400?
- What evidence at all is there that Wild Weasel or EW platforms will be vulnerable against the S400?? - absolutely none. The US doesn't send platforms in by themselves - they use systems - if one is compromised - then there are redundant solutions available. What other country has the same level of overlayed package deployability across a broad front at an intercontinental level?
and can people get the Vietnam analogy right? The US never ever lost a force majeur contact in Vietnam, after the Tet offensive the NVA was absolutely decimated at a force upon force level. They never came out and played force against force after that. In fact Linebacker was predominantly responsible for getting them to Paris for the peace talks. They had to start negotiation in good faith.
Using Vietnam as an example of symetrical engagement is absolutely fallacious.
Warfare is about systems and logistics - and not in that order. Who and where has any other country got the capacity to maintain tempo in a force on force engagement?
Just a reminder for some: Warfare is about the multiple "P's":
Projection
Persistence
Performance
Precision
Political Will and Intent
Packages
Lets not ignore reality as well.
The first F/A-22 squadron was the 27th currently commanded by Lt. Col. James Hecker. Another training squadron established was 94th I believe, so I assume the operational squadron going gold this November is the 71st?gf0012-aust said: