Re: Stealth and Countermeasures...

Just a few points:

>To clarify what the US is having problems with the F-22 in regards to a
>radar inferometer.  It is the radar that is the problem.

I'm not sure but was this supposed to be "the radar is "not" the
problem"? 
Other wise this doesn't make a lot of sense. Since the radar sets would
be 
used for receive only, other than the F-22's radar is electrically
steered so 
it's a bit more difficult for it to pick up ambient EM signal's, the
problem 
with any use as an inferometer set up would be in data transfer and
computing 
power of the fighter. The Flanker's radome was originally designed to
hold a 
mechanically moved radar dish, so this was one reason it has the larger 
radome. We use satellite up links and digital encoding to
allow faster data transfers. But the AWACS is still the "brains" for
most 
fighters. Of course this sheds a new light on the Chinese push for space

capability :o)

Collating the data and interpreting it is going to be the sticky point
in any 
such system. A fighter body just wont' have the room for the processors
and 
power required.

>It is making an extended range AMRAAM that will fit into the F-22's
internal 
>weapons bays. SU-27's don't have internal weapons bays so they aren't
going 
to 
>have that problem...

1. The range on the AMRAAM is perfect for it's job. You don't need an 
extended range version. It's capable of taking out an aircraft prior to
it 
getting into IR range.
2. It was decided that longer range missiles were of little use. The
Phoenix 
is a great missile. But in order for it to have all the abilities that
it has 
it grew so huge it required a pretty much purpose built carrier craft
(the 
F-14) to use it. Longer ranges mean longer flight times and more time to

avoid or spoof the missile.
3. The REASON that the F-22 has an internal weapons bay is so the it has
a 
lower RCS, while the Flanker is going to stick out like a sore thumb DUE
to 
the external ordinance. 
4. Stealth characteristics don't make a plane invisible. Like camo it
makes a 
plane harder to spot, and more importantly harder to lock onto with a 
targeting radar. Even given a detection system using background EM such
as 
discussed you still have to be able to paint it with enough radar power 
(active radar power not passive) to guide a missile.

>IR technology is out of the infant stage and is evolving exponentially.
>Each new generation IR seeker is much better then the previous.  This
>means that it is becoming much more difficult to suppress enough of the
>IR sensor so that the rest can be lost out in ground clutter.

IR sensors are good for what they do, but they are strictly short range 
detection equipment. Given a slow flying black on black target that you
are 
still pretty much trying to acquire visually it is still a tough job.
This is 
the reason most IR missiles are short range only. Actual detection and
lock 
on ranges are on the order of 9-12 miles in the best conditions. There
is a 
major difference between IR visual detection and the IR seeker
technology 
used in missile guidance. As for picking up and IR
signature from the "background" clutter, it's not as easy as it sounds.
If 
the target is flying high it's easier because the background is cooler
air, 
but if it's below you or in the dirt you have to deal with a hotter 
background. Much more difficult given IR suppressing Turbo-Fans and
slower 
air speeds.

There is also the fact that though the B-2 and F-117 have no Aircraft
flying 
actual escort duty, (in any type of formation, or even "nearby" in
actual 
distance terms) there will be CAPs around the area as a part of normal
combat 
operations. Once the AWACs spots hostile aircraft vectoring towards a 
sensitive area, and the nearest CAP will be vectored to take em out.
Probably 
long before they get to within IR detection range..

>Your first problem is that the USN can't afford 15,000 TLAM's to go
>after all of those MIG's.

Off by at least a couple of orders of magnitude. Try probably less than
150 
TLAM's. They only have to take out the runway's or drop sub-munitions
and 
each TLAM "knock's out" anywhere from 12-100 MIG's. They of course are
"soft 
kills" until we get strikes set up for the bunkers and revetments, but
even 
so, TLAM's have been designed to take out multiple bunkers and are
really 
good at taking out aircraft in revetments. Plus your also forgetting air

strikes and CAP missions which would take
out those that do manage to get off the ground. Against China, it would
not 
be easy, but China is not going to be a country we can get away with a
battle 
of surgical and limited strikes. IF we go at it, we'll be going at it as
a 
full blown war.

>Your second problem is that China is a continental power.
>They can easily grab island next to mainland including Taiwan.
>They don't need carriers for power projection.

Somewhat true. The problem is how is China going to USE the islands if
we are 
constantly blowing up the stuff they are trying to build? If they go
after 
Taiwan, this would be the point where we decide to fight them or not. As
for 
any of the other islands, there are no airbases there so they'd have to
build 
them. Again a point where we either let them do it or we use force to
stop 
em. If they try it during a war, part of our plan will be to take and
use 
those islands within range anyway so if
we don't have them we'll plan to blast them on a regular basis so they
can't 
use them either.

>Battleships don't have much to fear from ASM's.  They were design to
>survive and still be operational after direct hits from heavy and
supper
>heavy guns.  The destructive forces of these guns is far more then
>modern crusise missiles.  A modern battleship would shrug off harpoons.
>Unless your using ballistic missiles or nukes, there not much you can
do
>from the shore to a battleship...

I'm sure the "Yamoto", and "Hood" would be glad to know this. The bombs
and 
torpedoes that sank these ships were less powerful than today's warheads
by a 
good amount. The Iowa's were re-fitted with Phalanx systems for
anti-missile 
protection, not anti-aircraft. Specifically to protect them against 
water-line sea skimers. A "modern" battleship would NOT shrug off a
Harpoon 
hit. It might not be heavily damaged but three or four good hits and
it's 
probably on the way to the bottom.
As for "not doing much from shore" your BB would be inundated with
Silkworms, 
and squadron fighter attacks, probably from far beyond it's gun range.

>A 6" gun (155 mm) does not have more range then a 16" gun.  If you take
>the extened range guided projectile technology and develop a 16" shell
>for it, you will have a much longer range weapon.

Given your statements about flexibility and money, this doesn't make a
lot of 
sense. The size ship needed to carry a 16" gun, powder, and shells is 
enormous. To give the 16" an extended range and a guidance package is
not a 
simple engineering task. The 16" gun is a high pressure high stress gun
while 
the 6" (155mm) is not. To extend the range of the 16", you will either
have 
to A) pack more power/powder into the gun, increasing the stress and
danger, 
B) or put a propulsion system into the
shell.
The Army has done much R&D on extending the range, accuracy, and
lethality of 
the 155, so it would be cheaper to build on the existing research rather
than 
trying to build an exotic new system. The use of a smaller gun system
would 
allow smaller mounts, more automation, and faster firing time. Not to
mention 
giving the enemy multiple targets instead of one slow moving on
Missiles ships also have and advantage in that they can "salvo" more 
firepower against more targets given the proper computing and sensor
power.

>By the way, the typical combat load flown by U.S. Marine Harriers in
Serbia 
was 
>2000 kg of ordinance.
>MIG-21's typically carry 2,500 kg of ordinance. The enhanced versions
will 
carry 
>more.

Just curious where you got that from? The typical load of an F-18/15/16
was 
two AMRAAM's, Two AIM 9's, two, four, or six 500lb or two 2000lb guided 
bombs, not to mention the 20mm load. The Harriers may have been carrying
a 
lighter close support load. Typicaly a F-14/18 will carry about the same

load. In the F-14 case double the Air to Air load at least, then add a
couple 
of Phoenix's.

>The problem is more then just the President.  The purpose of the
>military is to defend the US.	It is not for buying the neatest toys,
>and having the largest branch of the armed forces.  That is something
>that very easily forgotten in peacetime by the generals and admirals...

Agreed in part, but also remember that if you don't have the "neatest"
toys, 
to do the job you have to have more of the older toys and the personnel
and 
money to keep them up and running. As we found out in WWII we CAN beat a

superior enemy's tech with massive amounts of inferior weapons, but you
have 
to be willing to take the loss' that will entail. We no longer have the 
luxury of having great numbers of people in uniform, so we have to do
more 
with what we have. It's not easy nor is it simple. We are still playing 
"Super-power" with non-super-power force levels. We need more bang for
our 
buck and the ability to make every shot count. Plus we have to adjust
our 
forces and strategy's to meet more challenges with less personnel and 
equipment. The F-15/16's are reaching the end of their design life. The
BB's, 
(and CVA's in my opinion) are reaching the point where they are putting
to 
many egg's in one basket. To many resources and personnel and not enough

flexibility.
Given area we must cover and the job's we are doing, what is needed is a

smaller and cheaper ship with multi-weapons capability.

Randy