Strategies for overcoming VAST technological disadvantages?

[stud40111]

What kind of a strategy or approach would a country adopt when trying to fight back against a foreign air force's superior planes with their own planes that are of lesser quality and based on older technology? For example, assume that a country is forced to rely on their F-4 Phantom II aircraft to fight against an invading nation's F-16s. What would their strategy potentially be to overcome the vast technological advantage that is enjoyed by those who are flying te F-16s? Would it even be worth trying or is it too much of a mismatch?

If the scenario above would represent too much of a mismatch, then answer the question based on the scenario above except insert F-14 in place of F-4 Phantom II.

I am eager to hear everyone's responses.

 

[Todjaeger]

There is a great deal this depends on. Is this just a meeting engagement or skirmish, or is this part of a larger campaign?

Are you talking about just air warfare, or are you including naval battles and ground warfare?

Incidentally, if I understand the example given, I would recommend changing the example. How about a stock MiG-17 vs. F-16 Block 52? The F-14 and the F-16 are from the same aircraft generation and I believe there was only a difference of about 5 years in terms of start of deployment.

 

[stud40111]

There is a great deal this depends on. Is this just a meeting engagement or skirmish, or is this part of a larger campaign?

I would like answers regarding both scenarios.

Are you talking about just air warfare, or are you including naval battles and ground warfare?

Incidentally, if I understand the example given, I would recommend changing the example. How about a stock MiG-17 vs. F-16 Block 52?

Ok, I agree that your scenario would be a far better one for the purposes of this discussion.

Given the clarifications above, would anybody care to share their insights, thoughts, and opinions?

 

[Reg Shoe]

Modern air combat depends far more on the weapons systems (radar, missiles) carried than on the aircraft itself. An airforce using F-4s or F-14s and suitable missiles would be quite well matched against F-16s, particularly if they used tactics which played to the strengths of their aircraft -- for example, engaging at a distance to avoid the maneuverability of the F-16 in a dogfight and using the greater speed of the F-4 and F-14 in hit-and-run tactics.

Mig-17s however would be completely outclassed. Remember these are 1950s fighters evolved from 1940s designs. Only one variant of the Mig-17 had both radar and air-to-air missiles, and the range and capability of both was no match for the radars and missiles of any of the F-4, F-14 or F-16 (for example, the K-5 missiles used on the Mig-17 had a range of no more than 6 km, the AMRAAM carried by the F-4, F-14 and F-16 has a range of 75-100 km). The F-16s would simply engage the Migs at a distance and destroy them before they got close.

Any airforce fielding Mig-17s against F-16s would be best advised to forget them, and concentrate on mobile SAMs: cheaper, easier to hide and more effective. If forced to fight, though, they would have to adopt the methods of all outclassed forces: guerrilla tactics, surprise, using terrain and hitting soft targets away from the F-16s. Come in low to avoid radar, hit slow transports, planes on the ground, airfields, supply lines, and run and hide before the F-16s came in. Even so, they would probably manage no more than a few raids before being destroyed.

In air-to-air combat, a Mig-17 might down an F-16 under the right conditons - if the F-16 was out of missiles, got caught in a close-quarters cannon dogfight and didn't run away, and the Mig pilot was very good. Stranger things have happened, but it would be a one-off, not something you could plan a campaign around.

 

[Todjaeger]

Modern air combat depends far more on the weapons systems (radar, missiles) carried than on the aircraft itself. An airforce using F-4s or F-14s and suitable missiles would be quite well matched against F-16s, particularly if they used tactics which played to the strengths of their aircraft -- for example, engaging at a distance to avoid the maneuverability of the F-16 in a dogfight and using the greater speed of the F-4 and F-14 in hit-and-run tactics.

Mig-17s however would be completely outclassed. Remember these are 1950s fighters evolved from 1940s designs. Only one variant of the Mig-17 had both radar and air-to-air missiles, and the range and capability of both was no match for the radars and missiles of any of the F-4, F-14 or F-16 (for example, the K-5 missiles used on the Mig-17 had a range of no more than 6 km, the AMRAAM carried by the F-4, F-14 and F-16 has a range of 75-100 km). The F-16s would simply engage the Migs at a distance and destroy them before they got close.

The importance of weapon systems, and the difference in quality between weapon systems is part of the reason I mentioned a stock MiG-17. After all, Indian Air Force MiG-21 Bisons which had modern Israeli avionics defeated US F-15s 90% of the time in an exercise in Alaska a couple of years ago. If I recall correctly, the MiG-21 airframe itself was developed in the late 50's.

Regarding the strategy used (for air warfare) it depends on how much of a technological difference exists between the two forces, and what the numerical difference is between the available forces and any force multipliers. After all, quantity is a quality all its own.

Using the above example I gave of a MiG-17 vs. F-16 Block 52, if the engagement is 1-on-1 (or 2-on-2) I would recommend the moment the MiG-17 pilot(s) see a light coming towards them at high speed I'd recommend they eject. On the other hand, if it's a flight of 2 F-16 Block 52 and there are 100 MiG-17s... I think the MiG-17s would win. Using a historical example of the 1st Gulf War, the Iraqi air force either remained on the ground or fled to Iran with their aircraft aside from perhaps a few odd engagements. The Iraqi air force didn't have the numbers, quality, or technological advantage to effect the coalition air campaign.

Whether it is air, land or sea based, mobility and surprise are needed for victory against a technologically superior enemy. If the enemy doesn't know where you are, they can't strike you. Similarly, if you can have a concentration of forces without the enemy's knowledge you can launch attacks that in limited areas might overwhelm the enemy. The problem with air warfare, and to a lesser extent naval warfare, is that those with higher technology most often are the ones benefitting from the advantages of surprise and mobility.

Something to think about for naval operations though. In 1988 an Iranian WWI-tech mine costing $1,500 to build struck and badly damaged a 2 year old OH Perry frigate of the US navy.

 

[Rich]

I suggest flying in your old generation fighter bombers in at 100', catching the enemy completly by surprise, and destroying their air force on the ground. And do it the morning after your leaders come out and say they have accepted a peace initiative.

 

[stud40111]

The importance of weapon systems, and the difference in quality between weapon systems is part of the reason I mentioned a stock MiG-17. After all, Indian Air Force MiG-21 Bisons which had modern Israeli avionics defeated US F-15s 90% of the time in an exercise in Alaska a couple of years ago. If I recall correctly, the MiG-21 airframe itself was developed in the late 50's.

.

What kinds of weapons systems were put on the MiG-21 Bisons in that exercise and what particular Israeli avionic systems were placed on it? Furthermore, what kind of a strategy did they use when engaged the F-15s?

Great info thus far on this thread guys.

Thanks a bunch for those who have shared their knowledge and insights so far.

 

[Todjaeger]

What kinds of weapons systems were put on the MiG-21 Bisons in that exercise and what particular Israeli avionic systems were placed on it? Furthermore, what kind of a strategy did they use when engaged the F-15s?

Not sure exactly what type avionics were on the Bisons, but here's a link which provides some info.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/Bison/index.html

It does mention an advanced radar warning receiver, but I would imagine the radar & targeting was upgraded, and Israel is noted as making good countermeasures packages.

Incidentally, something else I remembered about the incident. The average Indian pilot had roughly twice the airtime of his USAF opponent.

I'll see if I can dig up more info on what the Bisons had/have.

 

[stud40111]

.......
Any airforce fielding Mig-17s against F-16s would be best advised to forget them, and concentrate on mobile SAMs: cheaper, easier to hide and more effective. .....

Are good SAM systems really cheaper than fighter jets?

I recently read that India had purchased six S-300 systems along with 48 missiles for each combat system for a price of $1 billion dollars (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm). If that was the case, then one would be led to believe that each S-300 system, including the 48 missiles for it, would come out to be about $167 million dollars. Would you consider that to be much cheaper than buying some fighter aircrafts? Or is something wrong with the numbers that have been quoted above?

If somebody could shed light on the above, it would be appreciated.

 

[Todjaeger]

Are good SAM systems really cheaper than fighter jets?
I recently read that India had purchased six S-300 systems along with 48 missiles for each combat system for a price of $1 billion dollars (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm). If that was the case, then one would be led to believe that each S-300 system, including the 48 missiles for it, would come out to be about $167 million dollars. Would you consider that to be much cheaper than buying some fighter aircrafts? Or is something wrong with the numbers that have been quoted above?

I double checked the article, here's the exact text.
"India
Since 1995 India has been negotiating with Russia regarding purchase of the S-300, in response to Pakistan's deployment of M-11 missiles from China. In 1995 Russian Defense Deputy Minister Kokoshin offered to sell S-300 missiles during his trip to India. Following this offer Indian officials started negotiations with the Russian manufacturers, and in August 1995 the Indian Defense Secretary Nambiar went to Russia to observe tests of the missiles near Moscow. The $1 billion purchase is said to include six S-300 systems, with each combat system consisting of 48 missiles. Reportedly in June 1996 27 S-300 missiles were delivered to India. " from
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm

The way I read that, the 6 launchers & 288 missles might have been part of a larger purchase for other defence items. Two other things to remember about the purchase. The first was that it was made in 1995 with delivery around 1997. The second is the role of the S-300/SA-10. These missles are primarily not going to be used against enemy aircraft. The US equivalent SAM is the PAC-3 Patriot which is used as a short-range ballistic missle interceptor, and the reason India purchased them was because Pakistan deployed the M-11 missle and India wanted something that might be able to intercept them.

As for good SAMs being cheaper than fighters, it depends on what scale of air defence you're looking to have. If the combat conditions are such that aircraft would be engaged at fairly low altitudes, then Manpads (Stinger, RBS-70, Grail, Starstreak, etc.) could be very effective, relative to their cost.

On the other hand, if you're looking for area air defence, an effective system could very well end up more expensive than the aircraft it would be used against, and with a properly conducted SEAD mission, potentially useless.

Something to keep in mind. The US currently only has 3 ground based SAM designs in service, Stinger, Patriot, and the Hawk (used by the USMC). Stinger is a short-range Manpad, the other two were designed for medium range air defence but are now being adapted for BMD. The reason we don't have more ground based designs is that we assume wherever we operate the US & allies will have air supremacy.

Similarly, a number of other advanced militaries have little in the way of SAM systems aside from Manpads. Keep in mind the naval SAM landscape is different entirely, since ships must be able to provide their own air defence since they won't be able to rely on allied air cover.

 

[rjmaz1]

The only way a second or even third rate military could withstand the USAF is surface to air missiles.

KPI's idea is very interesting. The idea of creating a large re-usable surface to air missile that can stay in the air for 30 minutes and search for the targets itself is the way to go. This means the attackers cannot take out the guidance and tracking equipment on the ground.

This is all good in theory however the radar on such a small missile would have to be pretty powerful to detect a stealth aircraft. It would have to get fairly close to an F-22 before it could see it. By then the F-22 would have already seen the missile even though the missile would have a very small radar cross section the F-22's radar is many times more powerful.

Current tactics mean that the enemy launch a missile in the general area of the stealth aircraft and hope it was even pointed in the right direction and not fired too late or early as the missiles only have a few seconds worth of fuel. With longer endurance and better search and tracking on the missile itself you could fire a dozen when you knew the enemy was approaching.

Expanding on this idea these large missiles could carry say four short range missiles that are fired 30 seconds before intercept. This would make the missile more complicated however it would elimate the need of having dual speed powerplants. The main missile could use a cheap/small turbjet to cruise at 1000km/h for many minutes. However the smaller missiles could have rocket motors designed for very high supersonic speed. You could even have a rocket/rail system for launching the missiles to eliminate the need of a booster rocket on the misille itself. To share cost the main missile and small missiles could share the same seeker/radar. The main missile links the four small missiles radars together to provide longer range of detection.

So combined with lookouts on the border when they hear aircraft overhead they can fire these missiles and hope for the best. Even if 10% of the attacking aircraft were shot down the loss would be HUGE to a coutnry like the US.

 

[Todjaeger]

So combined with lookouts on the border when they hear aircraft overhead they can fire these missiles and hope for the best. Even if 10% of the attacking aircraft were shot down the loss would be HUGE to a coutnry like the US.

The US and a number of allied nations have developed counters to this, and at the same time reduced the usefulness of SAM platforms. Through the use of guided cruise & ground attack missles (Tomahawk, SLAM, JASSM, etc.) Aircraft and ships are able to engage ground targets outside of the effective range of SAM. One consequence of this is that the cruise missles are used to damage air defence components, thus making it easier and safer for aircraft to operate. All without endangering aircraft or crew.

While I do agree that a loss ratio of 10% on sorties would be considered huge for the US, I don't recall the last time the USAF, USMC or USN suffered losses of that magnitude. Sorties over North Vietnam, perhaps?

During the Vietnam era, Hanoi had one of the largest & most comprehensive air defence grids in the world. It consisted of AA, SAM, radar stations & comm facilities and was arranged in rings that aircraft would pass through. At the time, much of the technology we are familar with today was starting development, or being thought up to counter problems aircraft ran into in North Vietnam. Given the large quantities of air defence, North Vietnam managed to make up the difference in technology between what they used and what the US was using. And the difference wasn't all that great to start with. By the end, the USAF had started to deploy some LGB and the Shrike ARM was in service.

Contrast that picture with the current operations in Iraq. Most of the aircraft (particularly helicopters) that are shot down are brought down by man-portable small arms, things like RPGs automatic weapons fire or in some cases Manpads. Keep in mind the aircraft are usually low to the ground, having just taken off or are preparing to land when they are shot down.

As for the idea of 1 large missle becoming separate smaller missles, I'd check out the British Starstreak which becomes three individual 40mm sabots. Not sure if that was what you were getting at or not. If it isn't not sure of anything in service that would match. Incidentally, that sort of system would most likely not be available to a nation with little or poor technological resources. Instead this would be something the US might be working on, not a country with a low tech military/air force.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Reg Shoe]

While it's true that most of the aircraft (usually helicopters) shot down in Iraq have been flying low, MANPADS can hit targets much further - Stingers, for example, have a ceiling of 3km and a range of 5km. Besides, a helicopter lost at low altitude is still a loss, and it is probaly easier to get a 2-3 man MANPAD unit close enough to that helicopter than getting an elderly Mig through in the teeth of a much superior airforce.

As for cost, the calculation must also include the infrastructure needed to operate the aircraft as well as the cost of the aircraft themselves: runways, fuel, maintenance, parts, pilot and ground crew training, air-to-air missiles and so on. For SAMs (perhaps excluding complex ballistic-missile area defence systems like Patriot), the cost of the missile system is essentially limited to the launcher, missiles and radar, mounted on more-or-less conventional trucks for mobility, and crew training and maintenance are much simpler.

As has been said, for a 3rd rate military up against a modern, 1st-rate airforce (US, NATO, Israel etc.), a good SAM system will be significantly more cost-effective than an elderly airforce. It will also likely be overwhelmed eventually, but it will take longer and cause far more damage than aircraft for the same investment.

This http://www.house.gov/israel/issues/shoulderfiredmissles.htm is the page of a US congressman who wants to protect civilian aircraft from missiles gives various statistics.

To quote from Combat USAF Manned Aircraft Combat Losses 1990-2002:

"In operations between 1990 and 2000, however, the USAF lost 17 airplanes in combat, including 14 over Iraq and three over the former Yugoslavia. Thirteen USAF airplanes fell to Soviet-designed surface-to-air missiles (SAMs): seven to heat-seekers (infrared) and six to missiles guided by radar. Antiaircraft artillery (AAA) downed three airplanes. ... Allied air superiority assured that no USAF airplanes were lost to enemy aircraft, either in aerial combat or because of enemy raids on friendly airfields."

Conclusions: If a country with an elderly airforce is attacked suddenly by a modern force, their best strategy is to fight guerrilla tactics and avoid direct combat. However, if planning the possible defence of a small country without the resources to develop a modern airforce, a SAM defence will be siginificantly more (cost-)effective than any airforce that country is likely to assemble.

India in this context is a somewhat anomalous animal, while they may not have the most modern planes, they have the resources to upgrade them, field a comparatively large number, and train their pilots to an excellent standard. Moreover, the size of the country makes an airforce more sensible, as they can fly in from distant airfields, while a SAM defence would have to be huge to cover the whole country.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[stud40111]

"Fighter pilots, in general, fear AAA more than SAMs. You can divert or stop a SAM but never a bullet.

.

What do you mean by "AAA"? Do you mean "Anti Aircraft Artillery"?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[stud40111]

Ok, given your clarification, I would like to ask: Is anti-aircraft artillery really any sort of a threat to air craft that are flying at very high altitudes?

I was personally under the impression that anti-aircraft artillery had a range that was similar to Stinger missiles or SA-7s. Am I wrong about this?

Regardless, if someone could expand on the issue of anti-aircraft artillery and high flying aircraft, I would appreciate it.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Todjaeger]

Realistically Manpads like Stinger, etc. can be used against low altitude aircraft but would be pretty much useless against something like a B-52. As for AA, it can be very effective (even at fairly high altitudes) assuming that there is a great deal of it.

Remember that aircraft are used to achieve air superiority, while SAMs and AA are used to deny control of an area. The air superiority, and the ability to deny control, are not the same thing.

Can in point, denying control of an area means that within an envelop enemy aircraft cannot operate without risk of loss. Air superiority means that in a given area it is your aircraft that operate. For example, if an enemy has a great deal of Manpads, then it might be unsafe for an aircraft to launch low-altitude attacks. That will not, however, stop an aircraft from launching an attack from perhaps 25,000 ft.

As I had mentioned before that a ground-based system wouldn't necessarily be cheaper, lower tech, or more effective than an air force. In order for it to be effective a ground based system would need to be able to detect incoming aircraft before they reach the strike area. In order for the system to do that, the ground-based radars need to be on which then reveals their location, making them targets. The small radars that are mounted on some of the mobile SAM and AA platforms are insufficient to be used to detect incoming attacks being relatively low powered and short-range. In order to provide air defence over a nation without the use of aircraft, there would need to be an air defence unit every few miles all across a country. There would also need to be a way for the different units to communicate with each other to so that the progress attacking aircraft could be tracked.

The level of command and control needed for ground based air defences to significantly disrupt air attacks means that the nation possessing it already has a fairly high degree of technology.