Re: Stealth and Countermeasures...

ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:

> 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"?

Yep, I goofed.

> 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.

Wrong.	The USAF would love to have a longer range AMRAAM for the F-22.
Ideally F-22's would never engage at short range.  Why?  It is getting
very ugly out there with the proliferation of helmet mounted sights for
short range IR missiles that can lock on to anything in the front
hemisphere.  What this means is that once F-22's get to short range,
they are not going to have a competitive advantage to justify their cost
and reduced RCS.  Too compound this problem is the faster rates of
closure to short range by modern fighters.

> 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.

The Phoenix is a long range AAM, and is irrelevant for the discussion of
the AMRAAM which is a medium range AAM.  The USAF doesn't want an
extended range AMRAAM to have anywhere near the range of a Phoenix (110
nm).  They want extra 15 to 20 nm (totally of 55 to 60 nm range) to give
them the option of loitering and firing more AMRAAM's before a furball
can happen, or disengaging and getting away without furball.  Furballs
are short range dogfights and very ugly now days...

> 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.

I know.  But reduced RCS doesn't do jack in a furball.	And that is
exactly the battle SU-27's and MIG-29's are designed to fight.	The USAF
designed the F-22 to excel at medium range engagements to prevent
SU-27's and MIG-29's from getting to short range.

> 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.

Not if it's IR and picking up the heat signature from the airflow over
the airframe...  The purpose of the background EM passive radar is get
the fighters to within 20 km.  The fighters IR can take over and due the
job from there.

>
>
> >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.

Sure, but the sensors keep getting better and better.  Both more quickly
and cheaper then the counter measures...  This is why I don't like
B-2's.

>
>
> 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..

Then good luck using B-2's and F-117's for interdiction.  There is no
reason why the Chinese (or anybody else for that matter) wouldn't ground
base the passive background radar system and have very short flight
times by there fighters to get at the B-2's and F-117's.  This will also
make the F-117's and B-2's area CAP's very easy to ID and counter...

>
>
> >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.

Runways can be repaired very easily and very quickly.  Iraq proved that
most anti-runway munitions were not nearly as effective as advertised.

>
>
> >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.

Basically all that is going to happen is that those islands are going to
be turned into war zones.  War zones very close to the Chinese
mainland...

>
>
> >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.

The Hood was a World War I battlecruiser that had not been modernized to
WWII standards.  Gee, WWI battlescruiser meets WWII battleship and gets
promptly sunk.	No surprise there...  The Yamato was overwhelmed, but
even then it took a massive pounding.  I'd love to see how a Nimitz
would do in similar situation.	Massive air attacks and only a hand full
of escorts with fifth rate air defenses...

This topic started because implications of extremely long range,
satellite guided, guns the USN is developing.  I think the ideal naval
fire support ship would be a modern nuclear powered battleship with 12 x
16" guns firing these projectiles.  Estimated range would be at least
200 nm's for these rounds.  This would give a battleship excellent
standoff capability, and because of the range, shore based air and
missile attacks would be very difficult.

>
>
> >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.

Guns do to have the ability to salvo.  Look at modern artillery.  They
fire two shots when possible, one on a high slow trajectory, one a low
short trajectory.  The results are twice number of rounds arriving at
the same time in the barrage.  Guns also have the advantage in
logistics.  It takes much less space for an equal amount of through
weight.  The US Army's R&D into extended range guns is not nearly as
interesting as the one by the USN.  There is no reason why larger guns
can't be automated to the same degree as smaller guns, the technology is
the same.  Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean there is any
reason it can't be done.

> >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 USNI Proceedings.  The problem with Harriers is that they are much
smaller then most people think, and while the vector thrust does give
them some neat capabilities, it also imposes real limitations.	Ski
jumps on the flight decks would help some, but the USN still can't find
the money or determination to even do one experimental conversion.

>
>
> >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.

A recent in the Proceedings was about getting rid of all destroyers,
cruiser, and gators and replacing them with one multi-purpose ship that
had a gun, VLS system, landing deck, and well deck.  The article still
wanted carriers, as do I.  I don't think CV's or BB's are examples of
two many eggs in one basket, unless you build one or two.  The arsenal
ship was too many eggs in one basket.  Why?  Let's build the cheapest
ship when can and then stuff it full with 500 Tomahawks...  That's over
half a billion dollars in a fragile...

IAS

>
>
> Randy