IADS vs Legacy Fighters - The need for the F-35

I was away and didn't get the chance to respond to some of the comments made in the "Who is ELP" thread before it evolved to an IADS discussion and became locked...so, in the interest of man's desire to always have the last word, here it goes.

Code3 wrote: Take a look at N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and especially China, and then see if you feel that way, unless you feel SA-10s, 20s, and multiple areas of dense, overlapping engagement areas are not sophisticated. Plus, all of these countries are very real potential hot-spots for the U.S. and allied nations.

DarthAmerica wrote:N Korea, Iran and Syria do not have the kind of IAD you describe. While dense in some cases, the IAD weapons are primitive and well understood from a EW point of view. This has been demonstrated. China is more sophisticated but not nearly at the level of Soviets during the Cold War relatively speaking. And while the PLAAF is to be admired for it's rapid progress. it is still a land locked air power and tied to GCI and probably incapable of the kinds of combined arms operations and precision warfare that we use. Moreover, their ISR/BDA and inventory of late model 4th GEn fighters is pretty small as well. I'm not discounting them but they are in no way prepared to engage the USAF.

DA, I was careful not to associate specific systems with specific countries for a reason. I’m sorry if this makes you feel I’m uneducated about the threats, but there’s really nothing I can do about that. The fact remains that all these countries have very robust IADs, and they’re getting better all the time. The more advanced countries have mobile systems, which pose an incredibly serious threat for reasons previously mentioned. I especially disagree with you regarding China. Any country that possesses SA-10s should be considered a very potent threat and should not be taken lightly. Its combination of range, mobility, speed, and radar make it incredibly difficult for legacy aircraft to operate in its presence. If you disagree, then please explain to me what you’re strategy would be if operating in an SA-10s AOR with legacy aircraft.

Regarding the PLAAF, I don’t understand what threat country air force could pose more of a threat at this point in time. Regarding it being land-locked, I don’t see that as a disqualifier. All it means is that we would be engaging them over their territory with their SAMs backing them up and taking the pressure off for them to accept disadvantageous scenarios/merges. The Soviets were essentially a land-locked air force as well. Did we use that as an excuse to scoff them during the Cold War? Further that with the fact that they are thought to have nearly 100 J-10s, 250 J-11s, and 350 Su-30 MKKs, and that adds up to nearly 700 front line fighters, with a lot of cheap 3rd Gen fighters to act as distracters, irritators, and missile sponges first. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -equip.htm)

Code3 wrote:

ELP wrote:Yet still real. After long range SAMs are beat down, any other SAM threat is fish in a barrel with today's weapons and ISR. An F-15, F-16, etc can contempt of engage most lower tier SAM threats with JDAM from up high.

WOW! If this is ELP's understanding of SAM systems, it should be enough to discredit him as a reliable source for ANY future air system. "Lower tier" systems are still extremely capable against 4th Gen fighters. Take for example the SA-6 (which has a notoriously high rate of success). How do you plan on dropping a GPS bomb on one of these? Are you planning on getting satellite images, generating coordinates from those images, then going out to drop a GPS bomb on it 48 hrs after the images were taken? If you do, you'll most likely make a nice crater where the SA-6 used to be. They make all modern SAMs mobile for a reason, and after Desert Storm most countries have figured out that moving your SAM systems frequently is a must, even if it's only a quarter-mile or so. And if you actually find the SA-6 while it's on the move, how the hell are you going to hit it with a GPS bomb, by magically predicting the coordinates of where it's going to be at your bomb's time of impact? Good luck. Even laser-guided bombs don't make the task of hitting a moving target too much easier. With IAD's acquisition radars sitting hundreds of miles behind the launchers, it's not even required for the launch platform to turn on their radars and let all the HTS pods start sniffing for them. The controllers will simply tell the SA-6 operators when the aircraft is within its engagement zone, and then the SA-6 will quickly turn on their system and have a missile airborne in no time. Just ask pilots who flew in Bosnia how difficult this tactic was to counter. And a HARM vs an SA-6 both launched at the same time...which one do you think is going to get to its target first? I wouldn't want to be the one playing chicken. Further that with the fact that most older systems are receiving upgrades all the time, and are not the same systems that were built in the 60's and 70's.

ELP wrote: Wow, your lack of understanding of how GPS/INS weapons are targeted is truly shocking. 48 hours? You are claiming that JDAMs have target cords put into them before take off and can't be altered once in flight?

Bzzzzzz! wrong. Guess again. Bosnia? Where have you been Rip Van Winkle? JSOW had a few drops there. However there was no majority of GPS/INS guided weapons in the class of JSOW/JDAM in that era. Not even close. And JDAM class was only on the B-2 at the time.

Now we have a lot of them. JDAM and JSOW on a 4gen jet from altitude can manage a SA-6.

ELP, I understand the implications, benefits, and difficulties of dropping GPS/INS weapons. I don’t think you understand the point I was trying to make. Trying to drop GPS bombs on mobile systems is very difficult. If you are lucky enough to find them, then you have to then generate coordinates to drop on. It’s not like dropping an LGB where you just put the laser on them and let the bomb do its job. Not only that, but the coordinates you generate are going to need to be very accurate if you plan on taking out something as small as an SA-6 even with a GBU-31, and especially if you plan on using a GBU-38. Preplanned targets such as building and bunkers are great for GPS weapons for this very reason. You know where they are and you know their coordinates accurately so the bomb has a good chance of hitting its target. However, mobile threats don’t often afford you the luxury of being a preplanned threat, and thus targeting them with GPS weapons is far from ideal. I couldn’t disagree with you more when you say that “JDAM and JSOW on a 4th Gen jet from altitude can manage an SA-6.” JDAM and JSOW are the worst type of weapons to employ on mobile/moving targets. How do you plan on finding them in the first place without trespassing their MEZ? Public figures put the SA-6 range at 24 kilometers, which means 1800 square kilometers you need to search in order to cover its engagement envelope. Not an easy task while looking through a targeting pod which is essentially like looking through a soda straw. And the fact that it’s mobile means as soon as it starts moving the area to search grows exponentially. This is all for a 1960’s SAM. Imagine the difficulties for the double-digits being developed now.

ELP wrote:Yet CAS has in fact been done from "35k feet" as you describe. Funny that. JTAC with the ground troops comes under fire, Calls in CAS, CAS shows up with JDAM, JDAM is not altitude dependent for its accuracy.... is given the cords by JTAC etc etc checklist etc... and the drop is made. Works also for CBU-105 (big threats not dirt insurgges) , and some other weapons that should be obvious. So yeah it works.

A-10 getting shot up? Part of the deal. It is slow and is altitude/payload limited vs. high end threats. And well nothing is perfect. Yet how many A-10s have been engaged by dirt insurgs in OEF?

ELP, the CAS you describe is easy in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where there is no longer a surface to air threat. JTACs are not going to be there for us on DAY 1-7 when we’re still trying to knock down the IADs of serious threat nations. You’ll need to locate the threats by most likely looking out the window. Furthermore, when you’re doing CAS, you don’t get to pick any altitude you’d like. Most of the time you’re capped at a lower altitude so that Predators, Global Hawks, other aircraft, and even artillery can transit the area you’re doing CAS in. Simply saying “I’ll take 35K please” doesn’t work. It means that no aircraft will be allowed to fly beneath you, which is often a major problem.
I also don’t know how to take your “A-10 getting shot up? Part of the deal” comment. It comes off as nonchalant at best and flippant at worst. Especially for our airframe that’s a dedicated CAS platform and will be doing most of the dirty work and facing the AAA and MANPADs. I don’t know if I’d appreciate that type of attitude from somebody signing my ATO.

This brings me back to my original point. Modern, and to a very real extent single-digit SAM systems still pose a very real threat to legacy fighters. The days of beating up on stationary IADs are most likely over for us, and the threat has gone mobile. Complete destruction of an enemy IADs may no longer be a real possibility or even the desired outcome. The desire to operate freely may be all we care about, and having an all stealth force allows us to do that in a way that 4th Gen fighters simply will not. We need the F-35, and we need it ASAP unless we want to lose the capability to wage war if need be against modern threats. And as more countries continue to buy SA-10s and 20s, and as the systems become older or new versions come out, you're going to see their price drop to the level where you don't need to be a 1st world country to purchase them, and we may lose the ability to wage war effectively even against third tier nations.

Code3 wrote:I was away and didn't get the chance to respond to some of the comments made in the "Who is ELP" thread before it evolved to an IADS discussion and became locked...so, in the interest of man's desire to always have the last word, here it goes.

Code3 wrote: Take a look at N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and especially China, and then see if you feel that way, unless you feel SA-10s, 20s, and multiple areas of dense, overlapping engagement areas are not sophisticated. Plus, all of these countries are very real potential hot-spots for the U.S. and allied nations.

DarthAmerica wrote:N Korea, Iran and Syria do not have the kind of IAD you describe. While dense in some cases, the IAD weapons are primitive and well understood from a EW point of view. This has been demonstrated. China is more sophisticated but not nearly at the level of Soviets during the Cold War relatively speaking. And while the PLAAF is to be admired for it's rapid progress. it is still a land locked air power and tied to GCI and probably incapable of the kinds of combined arms operations and precision warfare that we use. Moreover, their ISR/BDA and inventory of late model 4th GEn fighters is pretty small as well. I'm not discounting them but they are in no way prepared to engage the USAF.

DA, I was careful not to associate specific systems with specific countries for a reason. I’m sorry if this makes you feel I’m uneducated about the threats, but there’s really nothing I can do about that. The fact remains that all these countries have very robust IADs, and they’re getting better all the time. The more advanced countries have mobile systems, which pose an incredibly serious threat for reasons previously mentioned. I especially disagree with you regarding China. Any country that possesses SA-10s should be considered a very potent threat and should not be taken lightly. Its combination of range, mobility, speed, and radar make it incredibly difficult for legacy aircraft to operate in its presence. If you disagree, then please explain to me what you’re strategy would be if operating in an SA-10s AOR with legacy aircraft.

Regarding the PLAAF, I don’t understand what threat country air force could pose more of a threat at this point in time. Regarding it being land-locked, I don’t see that as a disqualifier. All it means is that we would be engaging them over their territory with their SAMs backing them up and taking the pressure off for them to accept disadvantageous scenarios/merges. The Soviets were essentially a land-locked air force as well. Did we use that as an excuse to scoff them during the Cold War? Further that with the fact that they are thought to have nearly 100 J-10s, 250 J-11s, and 350 Su-30 MKKs, and that adds up to nearly 700 front line fighters, with a lot of cheap 3rd Gen fighters to act as distracters, irritators, and missile sponges first. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -equip.htm)


This brings me back to my original point. Modern, and to a very real extent single-digit SAM systems still pose a very real threat to legacy fighters. The days of beating up on stationary IADs are most likely over for us, and the threat has gone mobile. Complete destruction of an enemy IADs may no longer be a real possibility or even the desired outcome. The desire to operate freely may be all we care about, and having an all stealth force allows us to do that in a way that 4th Gen fighters simply will not. We need the F-35, and we need it ASAP unless we want to lose the capability to wage war if need be against modern threats. And as more countries continue to buy SA-10s and 20s, and as the systems become older or new versions come out, you're going to see their price drop to the level where you don't need to be a 1st world country to purchase them, and we may lose the ability to wage war effectively even against third tier nations.

Code 3,

I edited out the ELP garbage. Look, you keep mentioning SA-10 or SA-20. First of all neither N Korea or Iran operate that SAM. They use upgraded SA-2, Hawk and SA-5 systems. Geographically speaking the Iranian ground based IAD is a mess. Its mountainous terrain make coverage below medium altitude difficult at best and primitive compromised SAMs don't help much either. N Korea is in the same situation with regard to outdated systems. By outdated I mean that western air forces fully understand the capabilities of the weapons from an EW and flight performance point of view. These two nations IAD aren't much beyond what the Iraqi's had and would not last long against any USAF attack.

China, why you think the SA-10 is any different boggles the mind but that's a compromised weapon as well...

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.31417 ... &t=h&hl=en

...Do you know what that is and where? Also read about Operation Glorious Spartan.

With regard to Chinese Flankers. Look at this map...

http://midnightcafe.files.wordpress.com ... /china.jpg

...That's an aweful lot of Terrain to cover for 700 fighters. You do know the Russians and Chinese aren't exactly friendly? Or the Vietnamese, S Koreans and especially Japanese. How many of these 700 fighters can they concentrate in one place without compromise of others? And then there is the issue of coverage. 700 fighters seems like a lot until you consider that a fighters radar can only monitor a very small volume of airspace. Also what about Ramp Space? Think the Chinese can concentrate all those fighters in one area? If you do then you aren't informed. And this doesn't even consider battle management. When have the Chinese EVER conducted an operation or training where that many fighters have been coordinated. Its not just take off and go hunting. Operations on the scale you are thinking require very precise C3 or you get Fratricide...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8142999.stm

With regard to mobile SAMs, yeah I hear you except they aren't that mobile yet. And the few systems that are are operated by the Russians. Sure many SAMs can drive from point a to point b and fire a missile. But tying that into a coordinated defense network that could challenge the USAF SEAD/DEAD capability is beyond the threats you mentioned. And as OAF demonstrated, SAM guerilla warfare sounds good on forums. But in reality if you are relying on those methods for air defense at the end of the war all you will have is a bombed out country and a lot of SAMs left.


-DA

The F-35 was never designed to take on high end IADS. Even if the marketing hypers want to wish it so.


As for the SA-6. It is not an area SAM. The flight times of the weapon to reach it are much shorter. Shorter than the time it takes to pack up an SA-6 and move it.

As for chopping down a country after big area SAMs and fighters are subdued, the remaining targets.. POL, bridges, airfields, and any other fixed place of interest is going to die and there is no remaining air defense able to stop it. So yeah, "I can touch you but you can't touch me" in near any weather. Put a couple thousand DMPIs on the list and they will get done and all the enemy can do is watch.

elp wrote:The F-35 was never designed to take on high end IADS. Even if the marketing hypers want to wish it so.


As for the SA-6. It is not an area SAM. The flight times of the weapon to reach it are much shorter. Shorter than the time it takes to pack up an SA-6 and move it.

As for chopping down a country after big area SAMs and fighters are subdued, the remaining targets.. POL, bridges, airfields, and any other fixed place of interest is going to die and there is no remaining air defense able to stop it. So yeah, "I can touch you but you can't touch me" in near any weather. Put a couple thousand DMPIs on the list and they will get done and all the enemy can do is watch.

ELP,

That's just a plain ignorant statement and demonstrates why your comments aren't taken seriously. You don't build a STEALTH FIGHTER with all the inherent design penalties for anything less than high end SAMs ELP. I mean such an obviously ignorant statement from you almost speaks for itself about your technical competence.

READ:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ction.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvnhFgzIKI


All F-35 variants will be first-day-of-the-war stealth fighters, capable of deep penetration of the most sophisticated air defenses.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... ities.html


Get a clue ELP.



-DA

Well, somewhere out there have to be plans to take on current high end state of the art IADS with our current inventory. Even if I was deaf, mute, mildly retarded, but not blind, I could still see that the F-35 would make these plans less complicated. So as far as I'm concerned, everything is kosher.

Please stop calling everyone else, 'ignorant', DA. It just reinforces your lack of credibility here.

700 fighters seems like a lot until you consider that a fighters radar can only monitor a very small volume of airspace.

It's not the 70s, sir. There will be plenty of airspace volume monitored (domestic and beyond) by greater means than mere fighter radar, increasing every year.

Also what about Ramp Space? Think the Chinese can concentrate all those fighters in one area? If you do then you aren't informed.

First off, you may wish to stop inciting the Chinese directly in your public comments.. imo this repetitive style of discourse, multiplied across the web in similar fashion, can only encourage unwanted antagonism and further inflate mutual tensions. Secondly, if you must know.. who said anyone will necessarily plan and prepare to 'concentrate all those fighters' in one particular area's truly vulnerable 'Ramp Space', in a hypothetical worst case crisis?!? Something to think about next time.

And this doesn't even consider battle management... Its not just take off and go hunting. Operations on the scale you are thinking require very precise C3 or you get Fratricide...

Don't underestimate major powers' intentions, methods and will.

Geo,

I didn't call "everyone" else ignorant. Just ELP and his post where he suggest a stealth aircraft isn't designed to handle high end threats proves that. I'm not concerned with "credibility" on some website. That you think I am is laughable. And no I will not stop mentioning specific countries and especially not China in the context of an enemy. If that offends you, I don't care. And there are reasons why I mentionthe coverage provided by 700 CHINESE fighters and the ramp space needed to support them. If you are ignorant as to why just ask. The answer would be that just because globalsecurity says China has x number of fighters doesn't mean they will all be in the AO. and I'm not underestimating CHINESE intentions.

EDIT: definition of ignorant
http://i.word.com/idictionary/va=ignorant

That is not an insult. Just acknowledgement that someone lacks some specific knowledge of something. Perhaps Geogen you were ignorant of this definition ne it is why you were offended. Everyone is ignorant of something. ELPs comments were obviously ignorant of the fact that the F-35 is a first day of the war high threat fighter. That's not what I think, you can read his own words and see for yourself!

-DA

Bah...a more versus thread I say we start an F-35 Versus Mr. T
thread. Can an F-35 defeat Mr. T? To be or not to be is the question...
, may be. Is the F-35 the most powerful force in the universe?

Lol. I don't really think I'd call this one a vs thread. Just a lil confusion about IAD and the F-35's role is all.

-DA

I don''t even know what IADS stands for ... obviously it's not working?

Acronym Definition
IADS Integrated Access Devices
IADS Integrated Air Defense System
IADS Integrated Air Defence System
IADS International Association of Dental Students
IADS International Agricultural Development Service (New York, USA)
IADS Interactive Authoring and Display System
IADS Icelandic Air Defense System
IADS Integrated Air Defense Simulation (US DoD)
IADS Interactive Analysis and Display System
IADS Integrated Audio Distribution System

http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162201
Same as this?



This is what we should be buying!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJIXb300AQk

Sorry, but a F-35 will smoke a Blk 60.

How to you figure?
Because in real time we are still flying F-16 Blk 10’s, 15’s, 30’s (THE BACKBONE OF THE FLEET), 32’s, 40’s, 42’s, 50’s, 52’s, and 60’s!

Jets you buy now has to last 35-40 years from now.

More "legacies" = No go. Waste Of Time And Money. No future.

From warfighters and money counters perspective.

VarkVet wrote:How to you figure?
Because in real time we are still flying F-16 Blk 10’s, 15’s, 30’s (THE BACKBONE OF THE FLEET), 32’s, 40’s, 42’s, 50’s, 52’s, and 60’s!

The F-35 will have better avionics, Data Fusion, IRST, DAS, Comms, and Stealth.

bumtish wrote:Jets you buy now has to last 35-40 years from now.

More "legacies" = No go. Waste Of Time And Money. No future.

From warfighters and money counters perspective.

I dare you to say that into the face of a Buff, Hurc, or even a Talon?
Vipers have achieved more than all three combined and are still being developed!
You can put anything the F-35 HAS on a Viper … if you want STEALTH? Let me go to Autozone and I’ll see what I COME UP WITH!