Stealth and Countermeasures...

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> No.  What I am saying is that their counter is cheaper.  Our counter
> counter will cost more then their counter counter counter.  Get the
> picture.  This is what determines good strategic choices from bad
ones.

It may be cheaper, but I question whether doctrine would be the real 
determining factor. In the Day of Aegis on DD's I wonder whether the 
Human Wave tactic applied to Air Combat would work. 

> Part of the F-22 original R&D specs called for flights and squadrons
to
> be able to link their radar's into an active inferomter (The specs
also
> included the ability to hand targeting data, etc.  This means only one
> fighter has to have its radar on to provide targeting data for the
> entire squadron.)  I don't know what happen to this, but I do know the
> USAF was having problems major problems with the AMRAAM's.  The
problem
> was developing an extended range version of the AMRAAM that could fit
> into the internal weapons bays  so the F-22 could take advantage of
its
> radar.
> 
> The point of this is that if the US can develop a flying inferometer
so
> can the Chinese and the Chinesse have both a much larger radome to
work
> with and a larger weight of avionics.  This means they should be able
to
> build it with much less technologically advanced components.

Assuming they are able to build an inferometric network that would 
actually work. The kind of data network you speak of is very vulnerable 
to EW. If they are using lower technology to do what the USAF is having
a 
little trouble with, I'd seriously doubt it'd be secure. The EW guys 
would have a field day guiding Mig 21's to shoot down other mig 21s.

> Actually with the new 4th generation or advanced 3rd generations IR
> sensors it is not a big problem.  The USAF knows this and has already
> done some R&D work in cryo-genic cooling system for all high IR
[snip]

Leading Edge skin heating is always an issue. Given that the F-117 isn't

that fast and it operates down in the clutter, it has a better chance of

not being seen than an F-16 does. The added attention to the ir aspects 
of the aircraft are a great help.

> Hey I got a great idea.  You take one Valley Forge CVA with 6 squadron
> of ultra heavy fighters that can be configured at your desire to be
> attack, interceptors, or standard.  Note you can reconfigure them
during
> play if they spend one turn on the carrier.  I'll even let each
fighter

Issues of the Chinese being able to operate 160 aircraft from an
airfield 
in range of our cruisemissles/nukeboats aside, are you going to be
covering 
your entire area of operations? In reality all 6,000 of those really
nice 
Mig 21's with really short legs are going to be spread all over china. A

fraction of that are going to have a hard time operating from the land 
bases even when they are dispersed (if china is able to disperse them 
before a TLAM finds it. 

China doesn't have carriers. And I'll bet that the longer legged better 
trained and better equipped force will win. 

> way, at least 6,000 of the MIG 21's were being re-furbished into more
> advanced and capable version.

Do they have Air to Air refueling? What are their Combat loads? Or are 
they really short legged Interceptors like the Mig-21 Bis? Looking at a 
few sites they have an operational range of 650 nm carrying two AAM.s
Not 
an impressive Warload.

> They did counter the carrier battle groups.  The offensive arm of that
> force was its aircraft.  And the SAM and fighters did reduce USN
> aircraft effectiveness, resulting in	escort sorties (EW and fighter),

After Linebacker there was nothing they could do to stop our aircraft. 
The B-52's were flying with impunity after they shot off their warload. 

> etc.	They couldn't do a #$%# thing about the 16" guns.  Anything
within
> 16  miles of the coast was a target.	The problem with the arsenal
ship

This was in the Day before ASM missiles. 

> was too many eggs in one very fragile basket.  The time of the
> battleship has re-emerge because of satellite guided projectiles. 
There
> is no reason why a 16" gun couldn't fire 300 nm's.

Bing bing bing. You won't see a 16". You will see a 155mm howitzher
doing 
this. It won't be a 40,000 ton ship. It will be a 10,000 ton or less DD 
or CG. With more hulls, I can have more fire missions available all over

the world for every MEU the Jarheads want to float. 

> Some how a 5" gun just doesn't compare to a 16" gun.	Could it be the
> fact that 5" guns only have 10% of the throw weight of 16" guns???  Or
> is it the fact that 5" guns only have 1/3 the range of 16" guns

But the 155 has quite a bit more range. 

> (actually, I'm being very generous here and assuming that ultra range
> guns aren't based on exponential mathematics, probably a mistake).  Or
> is it the ease of building bunkers capable with standing 5" shells...
> And yes I'm well aware of the totally inadequate naval fire support
> currently available to Marines.

If its a bunnker that is hardend, the Flying Jar heads in harriers will 
ace those. Or a flight of F-117s or F/A-18s or JSFs. 

> With modern satellite guided projectiles your going to have a ship
that
> can engage in other ships at range of 300 nm's.  That whole lot more
> then just a fire support ship.

True, thats assuming you have someone to spot your splashes at 300 nm's.

You gonna introduce a Marine manned FO team minisub?

"DD in the open, Traveling SW at 20 knots. Request Delayed HE"

> And far more overall.  Let's see...  We could cut the JSF, or maybe
the
> F 22, or maybe the M1A2, or maybe TLAM's for the fleet...  They are
too
> expensive for what they can do.  This is one of the reasons I call
them
> a failure.  It doesn't matter how good a weapons system is if it is
too
> expensive to field in the numbers required to do the job.

The problem isn't the systems. Its the president we have in office that 
is spending training/purchase money on operations. I don't see the guy
as 
one to really support the military. 

> No.  Not considering the opposition the equipment they have gone up
> against.

Well, some rather nice equipment with poor doctrine. I don't expect to 
see a great amount of doctrine from the Chinese either. 

> Wrong.  Iowa's have a crew compliment of about 2,270 for 9 x 16" guns.
> Nimitz have a ship crew compliment of about 3,300 and an air wing

And no spare parts for the HP Steam Plant. The Crew costs were a fortune

for the amount of work it could do. We were better off putting the money

in the Arliegh Burkes. Take a look at dejanews and look for posts on BBs

in the sci.military.naval newsgroup. They discuss the usefulness of BB's

in modern times.

> will be defensive, escorts, etc.  Flight time for the fighters will
> usually be at least an hour by the time strike is formed up.	Flight

But the fighters can loiter. And delever more HE per strike than a BB 
can. Most of that mass in a 16" shell was 

> time for a 16" shell is in seconds.  Now which can service a target
> faster and with more weight???  Iowa's were axed because the military
> didn't have the money (2 less B 2's and we would still have 2 Iowa's
> operational) and the navy is ruled by carrier admirals (don't take my
> word for it, ask any squid, (submariner)).

There is far more to it than you attribute it to. I'd rather see a fleet

of Arleigh Burkes and LPA's with CVBGs backing them up than fewer of all

and 2 BB's. In a perfect world with lots of money for the military, I'd 
do a specialized Naval Gunfire Support Monitor with a VLS Cell and 
Harpoons on a lengthened Tico Hull. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill	  NRA / DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------