The Wedgetail can still direct a battle while dodging these long range dumb rockets. MESA has a passive mode and JTIDs will still feed into it allowing the battlespace to be quite clear. The probability of the aircraft being hit is low.
EA/18G Growler
- Thread starter Malayali
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boeing northrop grumman
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
This is an offensive situation. Your kind of just expecting your opponant to sit in his airspace and wait. What happens when its your aitspace you're going to have try and defend in the manner i outlined before. And JSf aint that stealthy in the IR departmet. And with advanced IRST, ESM and RWR coming on to the scene in the next decade, that starts to look a bit worse. And i would give the edge to a flanker in WVR. Missile capabilities are comperable, flanker is a much better airodynamic and kinematic performer, it can generate much better angles of attack. I dont see it as that easy.
I agree with you re Indonesia posing no (well very little anyway) threat to Australia for the next 5-10 years at least.Why is Indonesia allways the only threat nation discussed? What about a regional conflict with PROC or India, its probably more likely than a shooting war with indonesia. And i was outlining a purely tactical scenario, if you want to widen it a bit and make it specific i'm up for it, its always more fun!
I dont consider Indonesia a threat at all. But how about a regional conflict with china, were they have made a push to the malaka streigt? They have taken airfields in malaysia. Lets not bring the yanks in to it too much. Lets just say most of the PLAAF & USAF are dukeing it out over Taiwan (which is irrelevent to what i want to discuss anyway). The RAAF has defend our airspace against PLAAF strike packages equiped with stand off weapons such as club cruse missile. With the range of the flanker, a growing tanker fleet, Badger cruse missile platforms and a soon to be aquired AWE&C's capability i think they could project a fair bit of power into the Sea-Air gap. How would suqaron sized deployments of F35's on CAP over say RAAF Darwin, backed up with Wedgetails fair at trying to intercept Flankers before they reach launch points???? A more challanging scenario. In this case launches of the R127 from 300~350km range at the Wedgetail would be a real pain in the ass even if they didn't shoot it down. This is the tactical situation i was trying to outline before.
As has been discussed in other threads, if Australia was involved in conflict with China we would be fighting alongside US forces so our F-35s and FA-18Fs would be working with the full range of USAF and USN aircraft. The PLAAF would be unlikely to be able to spare aircraft for an operation against Australia.
For discussion purposes, however, if as you suggest, the bulk of the PLAAF was tied up in action with the USAF but it was able to deploy sufficient tankers and Flankers to reach stand off range from Darwin the Flankers would still be operating along way from home with pretty tired pilots. I would favour a defending force of F-35s and/or Fa-18Fs supported by Wedgetails in that scenario. At extreme range I think there would be very little opportunity for the attacking force to take anything other than a very direct and fairly predictable route. Quite possibly Hobart class destroyers would also be available for deployment to work with the Wedgetail/fighter force, increasing the ability to detect and monitor attacking aircraft as well as engaging them if circumstances allowed.
I agree with this. The F-22 is not currently available but in 5 years time, who knows? If it becomes available I would be very pleased to see it considered as part of an RAAF force mix. In the meantime, I am not yet convinced that there are better options than the F-35/FA-18F mix.
Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The flanker carries over 10 tonnes of internal fuel and thats not counting drop tanks. From mainland china with 2 top ups they can just about get to the mainland. From baces in malaysia, easy. Remeber they allready have defacto baces in Myanmar. It would be a 4 hour flight, not too stressfull. And no excuses, no Hobart destroyer. This is a very important question that needs to be asked. Could a squadron sized CAP of F35's intercept flanker strike packages before they reached launch points, or at all for that matter? Personaly i dont think they stand a chance.
If PLAAF is launching an offensive operation you will know they are there before he does. Their AWACs, datalinks, and intel platforms will leave them blind. They are so far behind RAAFs future systems that their radar will have a hardtime just picking up the Wedgetail on passive mode. You have to realize you aren't dealing with an airforce that has alot of experience with AWACs, PLAAF has exactly 30 years to this day of catching up to do in this department. They don't have doctrine, they don't have training, they don't have JTIDS, they don't even have an operational concept that doesn't kill all their top experts. That set them back a decade BTW. If you want a comperable scenario it is safe to say it that RAAFs JSFs against PLAAF will be like F-22s at Red Flag. PLAAF will be blind to the onslaught wether on PLAAF or RAAFs turf... RAAF will always have initiative with stealth and superior avionics.
UNless you intend to turn the Wedgetail into a CAS asset, it will always be up high - why would you argue about horizon issues when the asset will operate at optimum heights for its sensor systems?
arguing about horizon is like arguing about what if a plane gets a flat tyre and can't form up in time.
On a look down system that has 10 times the onboard processing power (min)? Good luck if they can pull that off!
did you read my caveat? besides, as soon as you bring in india (for Kopps xenophobic benefit) you have issues of range, persistence and basing. never let logistics get in the way of marketing material (APA)Why is Indonesia allways the only threat nation discussed? What about a regional conflict with PROC or India, its probably more likely than a shooting war with indonesia. And i was outlining a purely tactical scenario, if you want to widen it a bit and make it specific i'm up for it, its always more fun!
neither do I, but its just as fanciful as waging war against china. You do realise that a war with china will involve other partners which means our sensor footprint is enhanced by some margin. Its a no brainer.
I see little benefit in having these kinds of academic arguments where scenarios are scripted so as to cement an opinion. reality counts over wishful thinking every time.
argue logistics before you talk about marketing facts and figures for weapons systems
Its a zero sum game. improvement in both sensing and detection is an ongoing exercise. do you think that JSF development will stop just because the naysayers are blessed with (public domain) views of its capability? Not me.
Signature mgt can change in leaps and bounds. Collins is a classic example of what can happen in a 4 year window. I don't have any faith in public wailing about platform limitations wrt to signature mgt as I know it can change - and chg dramatically. Hence why public wailings by broadsheet journos etc leave me absolutely cold.
Ozzy, why can't an AWD be considered as part of a defending force? OK, no AWD and the Flankers are operating from Malaysia.
I've read your arguments about the Flanker v F-35 and counter arguments from others. Personally I'm just not convinced that a well directed force of F-35s, supported by FA-18Fs (this is an FA-18F thread!) and Wedgetails doesn't stand a chance of intercepting a Flanker strike package. I'm not discounting the capability of the latest Flankers but I don't think you are giving enough credit to the F-35 or SH. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. Of course the F-35 still has to prove itself. If it fails then its back to first base!
Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Todjager said that the platform fireing the R172 missile could always be detected. I simplly said if the missile still had the adequate range lt could be launched from below the radar horizon.
Unless the laws of phisics have changed since i went to school, radiowaves go in streaigh lines, i.e. cant travell through the earth. And processing power is irrevelent if you cant get platforms into a decent fireing position in time.
I didnt bring india into it. You did. And now your beinging APA into it! I simply outlined a scenario were we had to defend our own airspace against a well equiped opponant. i would have thought that would have been a primary objective for the RAAf, but all i'm hearing is excuses.
Its a pretty simple scenario. Defending our own airspace with the capabilities we have, against a segment of the capabilities of a threat nation. The only reason it seems scripted is becaus we wont have the capabilities to defend ourselvs in such a situation. Oh I must have forgot the USAF will save us, so we dont need to worry about our own airspace. We can just ambush PLAAF in their own airspace while they sit there and wait ofr us.
Why are you getting so defencive? So am i just suppose to not reasearch the potential threats, and disreguard any information i do find. If my numbers a wrong then tell me. All i'm trying to do promote ideas and learn myself. But it seems you just want civies like me to just trust in the allmighty defence proffesionals, who will tell me i'm rong but not why. logistically 2 Squadron's of PLAAF Flankers woth one squadron of of the crappy badger tanker conversions can rech northen australia from baces in malaysia.
Well i'll take your word for it, even though you havn't outlined exactly how the F35 will counter detection in the IR/optical wavelengths, even in principle.
I guess after they reach bingo you don't want them to come back... You aren't taking into account the combat payload into your calculations. They must have two short range and two BVRAAMs before anything, then add the drop tanks, then add the strike package. They aren't going to get max range with this load out. How far is it from Myanmar to target... if it's over 1,000nm you have a problem. PLAAF will either need Indonesian bases or in-flight refueling to pull that off.
JSFs could easily intercept Flankers, it's a no brainer.
SU-30.. 9.6 tonnes of fuel in an 17.5 tonne fighter versus the F-35 8.3 tonnes in a 12 tonne fighter. Big difference in fuel fraction.
Based on that the SU-30 will have a shorter range than the F-35..
Carrying two bombs and two missiles on the wings of the SU-30 will reduce its range by a quarter. The F-35 with the same weapons internally will have nearly no reduction in range.
With the current idea's in this thread, the SU-30's will be carrying Long range anti-AWAC missiles, huge anti-darwin cruise missiles and it may need anti-ship missiles too.
The SU-30 loaded like this will be struggling for fuel... It wont have any kinetic or climbing advantages over the F-35 if it cant turn use its afterburner.
An F-35 with afterburners will go faster, climb quicker and sustain turns for longer than an SU-30 that cannot use its afterburners.
Fuel is life when you are operating a long distance from home.
SU-30.. 9.6 tonnes of fuel in an 17.5 tonne fighter versus the F-35 8.3 tonnes in a 12 tonne fighter. Big difference in fuel fraction.
Based on that the SU-30 will have a shorter range than the F-35..
Carrying two bombs and two missiles on the wings of the SU-30 will reduce its range by a quarter. The F-35 with the same weapons internally will have nearly no reduction in range.
With the current idea's in this thread, the SU-30's will be carrying Long range anti-AWAC missiles, huge anti-darwin cruise missiles and it may need anti-ship missiles too.
The SU-30 loaded like this will be struggling for fuel... It wont have any kinetic or climbing advantages over the F-35 if it cant turn use its afterburner.
An F-35 with afterburners will go faster, climb quicker and sustain turns for longer than an SU-30 that cannot use its afterburners.
Fuel is life when you are operating a long distance from home.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
In a vacuum they travel in straight lines. In the atmosphere they refract. That means they follow the curvature of the Earth. The longer the wavelength the more they are affected. As a rule of thumb the radar horizon is 4/3 times the visual horizon.
http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm
Indonesia is Australias nearest "potential" enemy and must be a concern to the Australian war planners if Indonesia continues on the path of adding new submarines and advance flankers to its armoury. I do see a concern there as its also a heavily populated Muslim country with a number of extremists elements that could "hook" Australia into a protracted war sometime in the future. We have already seen how tensions flared up with the Indonesian military over ET.
However, i am far from convinced that Australia would ever be involved in a stand off along with the US between Taiwan and the PRC. I think having Australian elements fighting the PRC is bordering on "fantasy". So is the suggestion of a conflict scenario with India. Its simply not going to happen. Its also highly unlikely that the US has the political will to carry out a military operation along side the Taiwanese Military to stave off an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC if that ever happened. Unless of course there was a unilateral agreement amongst most Asian countries in the region who would put together forces to join the US, like Singapore, Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India etc. Then its more likely Australia would become involved.
Is it correct to believe that there isnt a joint military agreement that would involve other countries to join the US in taking on the PRC should that happen?
However, i am far from convinced that Australia would ever be involved in a stand off along with the US between Taiwan and the PRC. I think having Australian elements fighting the PRC is bordering on "fantasy". So is the suggestion of a conflict scenario with India. Its simply not going to happen. Its also highly unlikely that the US has the political will to carry out a military operation along side the Taiwanese Military to stave off an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC if that ever happened. Unless of course there was a unilateral agreement amongst most Asian countries in the region who would put together forces to join the US, like Singapore, Phillipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, India etc. Then its more likely Australia would become involved.
Is it correct to believe that there isnt a joint military agreement that would involve other countries to join the US in taking on the PRC should that happen?
Yep! And very long waves go a very long way round the world, or JORN would be purely decorative & you wouldn't be able to hear lots of foreign stations on your old analogue AM radio.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
AFAIK JORN uses ionospheric reflection which works with shortwave or high frequency radio waves. A different phenomenon.
Sorry.
Sorry.
It seems that you've misunderstood the laws of physics - as detailed by GD in his response
I bought India into it as an example of extended lines and logistics. How in gods name do you want to discuss issues of engagement if you don't want to bring in real problems. if its not the Indonesians and its some other bogey like India or China (who then has range, projection, persistence and support issues to contend with) - then including mythical launch points also means that we involve mythical (and more achievable) support. Politically, China would want to isolate us from US influence, going to war against us achieves nothing but attract attention and bring in complications like ANZUS, 5PDA.. etc. Hell, we can even probably manipulate our new treaty with France to make an attack on Aust an attack on France. (The treaty is open to mutual support)
I can tell you now that once China starts deploying fixed wing assets into Myanmar, then the Andomans base will be the next headache they have to deal with - not just a stupid foray into australian territorial areas to achieve what objective? a termination of the $30bn LNG contract? termination of the iron ore supply? termination of the Uranium supply? termination of the tech transfer on aust'n water tech which means more to them than any regular shipment of holeproof socks and undies?
I bought up india because for some unholy reason Kopp and Co see them as a future enemy (along with china) and are fond of displaying radii charts showing reach etc... Discussing India and China as potential aggressors means that the serious issues of persistence, projection and payload have to be factored in. Similarly when someone makes a comment about the Chinese using Myanmar as a launch point, I say to myself "ok, the games gone global, lets ratchett up our own allies" You can't have your cake and eat it. leave out the allies and china can't reach anything except deliver nukes. She's a greenwater navy with localised control, she's a continental airpower whose own doctrine stipulates that nothing is to move unless supported by extended land based air power. Extending her reach to australia to bomb darwin or townsville absolutely defies logic and the issues of logistics. It also means that extending her reach beyond the continent to reach australia has just become a global event - and yes, we wouldn't be on our own.
Come up with a sensible threat scenario rather than "the yellow horde" so oft used by APA as grounds for the F-22 (unavailable but thats not important if you want to push an agenda). Or India (as Fiji has become an elephantine vehicle of conflict that must be used as an excuse to invade australia) etc.... hence why I'm dismissive of the India/China/Malaysia/Philippines threat. (yes in 1997 Federally we actually game played a scenario where a fundamentalist caliphate comprising indonesia, malaysia and the philippines rose up to smite the impudent anglo celts south of PNG)
No, my difficulty is that there are some in here who have been more than willing to give you reasonable answers, but you want to persist in your own agenda. Thats fine by me, but its a big world and I'm happy and comfortable enough to believe the professionals before I believe the academics. I also was unfortunate enough to be subjected to a media liaison course when in Govt, so I get a bit tired with circuitous discussions. Its why more than often or not I am more content to sit back than engage. If you don't believe some of the very credible responses countering your beliefs - then its ok by me anyway.
Others have tried. You seem to think that its a problem. Fine. I'm happy for you to think that assisted IRST is more than a difficulty for a LO aircraft with assisted Radar/AESA/LPI combinations. Seriously, if you think that assisted IRST beats assisted RADAR then there is no point in discussing it further.
Although we have been able to see things on the "dark side" of the hemisphere. Ionspheric systems are still potentially "black magic" outcomesAFAIK JORN uses ionospheric reflection which works with shortwave or high frequency radio waves. A different phenomenon.
Sorry.
Yes, I know, but it's still not going straight out through the atmosphere. I was trying to expand on what you'd said, but I'm afraid I did so hastily & sloppily.AFAIK JORN uses ionospheric reflection which works with shortwave or high frequency radio waves. A different phenomenon.
Sorry.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Fine. but there is a thing called a radar horizon isnt there? If not then im mistaken. And i'm pretty sure most radars dont work like JORN. Again correct me if i'm wrong. Why are we arguing about this? It was a tiny technical issue about the R172. If there is no such thing as a radar horizon thats fine thankyou for the information.
Look if you only want to look at the political situation in the here and now thats fine. In the current political environment you may verry well be right. But does this situation stand up in 20 yrs, becaus these will still be the platforms we will be flying.
And basically your saying that there is no likely scenario in the next 30yrs were we will have to defend a ship/airfield/city/refinary/anything against several strike packages of flankers equiped with stand off missiles that seem to be complimentary with a new purchase? Because if for whatever reason we are whith the assets we are going to buy i dont see the F35 stoping this sort of attack, and none of the "reasonable answers" given have adressed this issue, just that we will never face such a threat.
Again your looking at the 5 to 10 yr timeframe.
1. The chances of a war with china, india, indonesia anyone are less than minimal at the moment. But India and China are the major powers in the region, that would seem to be the reason "Kopp & Co" use them as threat nations. I'm yet to read Kopp say "war with china imminant" or the like. Just comparisons between platforms.
2. Again your only looking in the 5 to 10yr timeframe.
There is no credible threat at the moment from any of these nations. So therefore we should structure our main defenceive arm around the assumption that we will not have to contend with the platforms in the region or they will not attack us, or we will never have to repell air strikes as outlined above. This is very short sighted IMO. But everyone else seems comfortable with it.
That would mean a scenario in the 5 to 10yr timeframe would it not? I'm starting to see a bit of a pettern here.
My agenda is the defence of my nation. If the F35 really will be able to performe the functions we need it to, including air superiority in a situation which is not dictated by the RAAF then great!!! I've got nothing to worry about.
What possible personal interest could i have vested in this?? You think i like taking on the whole forum? But it seemed that questioning the ability of the F35, its suitability to the RAAF or the threat posed by the Flanker is herracy here, and the tendancy to dismiss the threat wothout justifying said dismissal is worrying.
Sure, but you can understand me wanting some justification for why i am wrong? Not simply your wrong?
No i never said that IRST guided IR BVR missiles were more capable, just that the F35 will be able to be engaged by them in a similar fassion.
No i get it. I was wrong before and i didn't fully understand the situation. In a situation were the F35 was contending with a CAP consisting of Flankers or there was an airial "meeting engagement" the F35/wedetail combination owns it. One platform has the radar, one platform carries the missiles to the launch point and the flankers who are still flying around in circles never know what hit them. SU XX can engage with IR guided BVR missiles but that is far from decisive. Its like a balet. But what happens when the enemy forces the pace of the engagement? What if the F35 has to intercept the flanker? What if its the RAAF who's defending something and has to get the flanker before it can employ its stand off weapons??? None of you have outlined exactly how the F35 can stop such an attack. You seem to think that this scenario is so unlikely that even considering it is unwarrented. Thats fine. But that to me seems like stricking your head in the sand.
I've realised that questioning the supremacy of net centric warfare and western tachnology and tactics is pretty much herracy. i just hope i'm not banished for questioning the assumptions we are basing the defence of our nation on.
there is no exclusivity on that passion - unfortunately there is an inference that because we don't bow down and scrape to the wisdom of APA that we are either technically deficient - or negligent. just as APA can trot out people who support their view, I can also drag out operators who disagree.
The breathtaking arrogance of that view (and the fact that they're so readily dismissive of the competency of snr RAAF people who actually do get access to all the data) is what bemuses me and makes me somewhat indifferent to the anti-JSF assaults.
As I said, I'm happy that you are comfortable with your views. I just happen to disagree with them and also am not compelled to justify why I take an opposing view.
I also think that training and competency of the individuals craft plays a bigger role than any widgets bought to the table.
Contrary to your opinion that I'm a netcentric junkie, I'm rather conservative. Again, if I compare Collins in 97 to Collins now, then hell, I'll go for the technology. Those who dismiss technology just because they're situational luddites doesn't wash with me. If you have the edge, then you use it. Hence systems over platforms.
Just as an aside, if you bother to go back over 3 years of my postings, you'll find that I've been anti-JSF and anti-SHornet. People change their views. I have been pro F-22 but realised long ago that the option was unavailable, I therefore see no point in flogging a dead horse.