^^ Many thanks to everyone for preventing a thread derail and providing the needed guidance for the newbie. Over the years, as I learn more about defence from other members my opinion has slowly shifted (from a blind consumer of news to thinking more deeply about our geo-political future). 12 to 15 years ago, I used to believe in the so-called analysis presented by news outlets, which often is coloured by a lens (that at times lack objectivity or the willingness to speak truth-to-power). But over time, in the last 5 to 10 years, I have learnt that the news cycle (or Iranian propaganda) is not useful as a lens to review developments.
Correct, ESM for gathering SIGINT and ECM or other type of defensive counter measures are significantly different
Agreed.
Several international airlines said that they had diverted flights to avoid some of the airspace over the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman, where Iran shot down a US Navy RQ-4 Global Hawk. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warning came as Lloyd's of London warned of increasing risks to maritime shipping in the region. The FAA is
advising US carriers and commercial operators not to fly over the Persian (Arabian) Gulf. The warning, which was relayed by US diplomatic posts, is due to concerns that the US troops operating in and around the Persian Gulf could misidentify passenger aircraft for hostile military aircraft. The FAA’s advisory on airliners operating over the Persian Gulf comes amidst rising tensions between the United States and Iran even before the Iran shot down an unmanned US Navy RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance aircraft, (escalating an already tense situation in the Strait of Hormuz).
Reacting to the announcement of airlines to reroute their flights over Iranian space,
Mark Martin, aviation expert and founder of Martin Consulting, said the ticket fares would go up by at least $300 to $400 and flying time would increase by more than one hour. This was a stark reminder of the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine, in which 298 people were killed. Five years after the Kuala Lumpur-bound flight was shot down, Dutch prosecutors named four suspects Wednesday believed to be responsible for the incident — an announcement that served as a reminder of the risks of operating flights over conflict zones.
While I am interested in the technical capabilities of the various indigenous radars made by Iran, the three basic requirements of an IADS (as explained in AirPower 101) are as follows:
(a) find enemy targets (like aircraft and cruise missiles) using long-range surveillance radars; to use Target Acquisition Radars (TARs) to enable the enemy aircraft or cruise missiles to be located with enough accuracy to allow it to be fired on;
(b) taking the data from long-range surveillance radars and/or TARs, and using the C4I to direct your defensive platforms to attack enemy targets and at this stage, it is not uncommon to use a type of radar system called a Fire Control System (FCS), or sometimes called an illuminator, to direct radar guided surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) towards enemy aircraft, cruise or ballistic missiles. These defensive platforms include fighters conducting DCA missions, SAMs of various ranges and AAA; and
(c) do not let the defensive platforms attack your own forces. Therefore, de-confliction is a key aspect of an IADS (or avoidance of fratricide). Think of IADS as a series of concentric defensive circles; the outermost might be assigned to fighters on DCA; next SAMs of various ranges; and finally AAA. The C4I system must not only provide the defenders with a common operating picture, it must also provide both blue force tracking and airspace management (so the the air bases being defended can continue to launch fighters).
Thus far, I have no idea of Iranian capability to de-conflict their own air space and conduct air to air intercepts with fighters instead of firing a missile into a sky potentially crowded with civilian aircraft.
...They fired one missile - that was all it took!
But of course, this can't be equated with shooting down a F-22/F-35.
If there is a single loss of American life in a shoot down of military planes, the US response would be different.
In contrast to the trigger happy Iranians, it is common for Japanese F-15Js and Taiwanese F-16Cs to intercept intruding aircraft that enter their air space with a total force package to escort the intruding aircraft out of their airspace that includes AWACs (with armed over-watch or a covering force to provide over match). Taiwan and Japan face more complex multi-aircraft scrambles for frequent air-space intrusions (especially the PLA testing of the Japanese ADIZ). So while there is some tension in NE Asia, these tensions between these neighbours are being risk managed to avoid escalation.
Persian Gulf said:
(I see that you are very pessimistic and negative about Iran's capabilities in all of your posts, make sure you don't change your mind in the near future when Iran continues to surprise people like you).
It’s not about being negative. We just don’t buy into Iranian propaganda.
