Really, what was that vulnerability and why couldn't it be exploited again?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:2710d024-5eda-416c-b117-ae6d649146cd
The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.
anyone familiar with computer security will recognize this as an insecure network
the radars weren't overcome with brute power, they were backdoored
and backdoors can and are fixed all the time
once it has been exposed, you can count on them fixing that vulnerability so you'll never be able to use it again
maybe they've discovered more vulnerabilities, maybe not, but it's risky to depend on such holes remaining open in the future
Capability development does NOT work like that. Crew's need to be provided individual training on ANY platform, platforms need to be integrated into your existed order of battle and systems need to be tested in exercises to provide what is known as "collective training".
A modern SAM system capability is not going to be developed in a week and stating such, shows you have no clue about ACTUAL military capability and what it takes to develop it.
1. crews can be trained in advance of the arrival of the missiles
2. maybe a week is an exaggeration, but it can be done awfully fast
3. russian hardware often comes with russian 'advisors' no?
It does because its a risk mitigation and management issue. If everyone else could afford it, they would also apply the same level of package support to mitigate risk and ensure mission success.
of course, but as Rumsfeld famously said, you go to war with the army you have. if you can't put together such a support package, then you do the best you can
The use of a LO aircraft with 2 hardpoints
this is a false comparison since the the non-LO arrives at the target with 0 hardpoints (because it never arrives)
that can only fly at night to maximise its effectiveness
so what
and that requires extensive support to maximise its chances of success
here is the crux of the issue
yes an extensive support network maximises the chance of success, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS NO CHANCE OF SUCCESS WITHOUT IT
you don't have an extensive support network
so you must look at the two alternatives
1. sending a s/hornet against a heavily defended target
2. sending a f-117 against a heavily defended target
given those two options, do tell me which one you think maximizes your chance of success
i've stated this so many times i think you all have selective reading:
A NAKED F-117 IS MORE SURVIVABLE THAN A NAKED F-18
A Shornet can carry twice as much strike ord as an F-117
what good does extra ordnance do if it never reaches the target?
don't forget the biggest threat it's going to face is SAM sites
It can carry ewarfare pods
would you be confident going against an S-300 with just a pod to protect you?
The F-117 enters the strike phase emission silent to facilitate strike - so it cannot communicate with any other asset for fear of transmitting its position.
so what
As the americans found out in Serbia, once the otherside demonstrate decent tactical planning and intel, then they compromise the platform.
and the US learned a valuable lesson: don't keep sending planes on the same route night after night or the enemy might get smart and put a pop-up surprise right under your flight path
F-117 generation Stealth has niche but high risk value vulnerability.
that's rich
if the F-117 is highly vulnerable to SAMs, then what does that make the F-18? super-dooper-ultra-mega-eXtremely vulnerable?
F117 missions were designed around the fact that the support package either engaged in DEAD or the F-117's skirted the air defences - and that means preplanning of tanker support at given corridors at given altitudes at given times.
you make it sound more complicated than it really is (not to say it's not complicated, but still)
you know where the radars are, you know where the holes are (note 'holes' only exist for the F-117, for the F-18 it's more like a solid wall), you tank up as close to the defenses as you dare and then you slip in and have tankers waiting for you when you come back out. Such a mission is well within Australia's abilities to carry out
If you have not dominated the air battlespace and communications battlespace, then the F-117 could not enter the game - period.
false
the idea is enemy fighters never find you because they never know you're there
as far as 'communications battlespace', um, yeah, whatever
the enemy can communicate all they want, but if they don't know where you are, they have nothing relevant to communicate
In contested space its actually dependant on the assisting package to clear the corridor before it enters its own mission stage.
if it required a 'clear corridor' then there would be no need for an F-117, they would just send B-52s
OTOH, Shornets (eg) can and will enter complex battlespace as their job is to be primary.
i would really love to see a shornet enter the 'complex battlespace' of a group of S-300s and come out alive
11 years ago we ran a theoretical assessment on a worst case scenario where Indonesia, Malaysia and The Philipines were seized by fundamentalist extremists - our capacity to respond and deter was based on dealing with 3 active aggressors concurrently.
it boggles the mind how i can explain the same thing over and over and over and people still be seemingly blind to it
sure, you could fight them off in a conventional conflict
but they're not stupid, so they WOULDN'T FIGHT A CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT
thing asymmetric warfare, think state funded terror operations in australia
think assassinations and suicide bombings in cafes
think mines in shipping lanes
there's a million ways to attack australia without using conventional forces
you're right 4 Flankers aren't a threat to Australia, but how many flankers does bin laden have?
Unlikely as USAF has bought and already received 600+ missiles, Australia has ordered 250, other Countries are interested in it and it's reliability has improved since upgrades have been performed to the weapon.
Your article supporting your argument is old news.
this finally is the one argument that can change my mind
the jassm and jassm-er are formidable weapons and would give even the f-18 strategic deterrence
and with that, i bow out, it's been fun
(of course if it does end up getting killed then i'll be back
)
