F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1128
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 15:40

Geographically Russia has a busy often aggressive neighborhood in Europe and Asia and the most mass to defend. The US in contrast has no immediate dangerous neighbors which is probably why SAMs are low on the priority list.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1915
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 15:50

steve2267 wrote:Are those huge, hulking ground machines stealth? Are their radio emissions / comms stealth / LPI?


Well, I would say that there are techniques/tactics which could help concealing such systems such as camouflage, using terrain masking or otherwise hiding such systems in other places such as inside cities.
Yes, such tactics can fortunately be defeated (they have been on the past) but nonetheless they definitely make the life much harder for attacking aircraft.

I don't think that even the Russians expect those systems to completely avoid enemy strike aircraft to be able to strike/hit their assigned targets (although they will never admit this!).
IMO, the best that these systems could expect to do would be to cause significant casualties among incoming enemy aircraft and of course destroying significant numbers of incoming cruise missiles and other weapons (or resuming: Attrition).

steve2267 wrote:If they are not, then they would seem to be the 21st century equivalent to fixed fortifications such as the Maginot Line in the early 20th century.


I definitely don't see them like that! For starters and as opposed to the "Maginot Line" those systems are actually mobile and quite so.
Even the monster of a radar system below (the Nebo-M EW Radar) can be "disassembled" and "hit the road" in 15 minutes and vice-versa (assembled and put to work in 15 minutes), so imagine those other much more compact and thus more mobile systems previously mentioned?
Image
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1915
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 15:52

marsavian wrote:Geographically Russia has a busy often aggressive neighborhood in Europe and Asia and the most mass to defend. The US in contrast has no immediate dangerous neighbors which is probably why SAMs are low on the priority list.


Yes, I fully agree.
Basically the US Land based SAM systems are meant to defend US military bases and ground forces deployed abroad.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3118
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 19:47

mixelflick wrote:How on earth did we fall so far behind in Surface to AIr Missiles?

Does the US not prioritize SAM defense, or is it something else? We have... the Patriot. Far inferior at least on paper, and not many of them compared to the Russians/Chinese.

I would have thought after DS1 and all the hoopla around the Patriot, we would have taken that ball and ran with it. Yes, yes I understand most Patriots missed. But still... one well placed SCUD warhead was enough to decimate our troops toward the end of the war.

How did we abdicate our responsibility for building a world class air defense network???



Define fallen behind. No SAMs are more combat tested/proven than the Patriot GEM-T and MSE variants. As for quantity/types, that reflects a difference in doctrine between the US and Russia.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5191
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 20:35

ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:Geographically Russia has a busy often aggressive neighborhood in Europe and Asia and the most mass to defend. The US in contrast has no immediate dangerous neighbors which is probably why SAMs are low on the priority list.


Yes, I fully agree.
Basically the US Land based SAM systems are meant to defend US military bases and ground forces deployed abroad.


Yep. Just look at when the US was convinced hoards of Russian bombers would be coming over the pole. 134 batteries of Nike Hercules (with over 2 THOUSAND nukes produced just for the Nike force), several Bomarc sites, a branch of the USAF, the Air Defense Command, dedicated to defending US airspace with nuclear-armed F-89s, F-101s, F-102s, and F-106s. As the perceived threat went away so did Continental defense.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 23:00

SAM systems were not forgotten in the U.S. during the Cold War. For example, there was literally a SAM site in L.A. : https://mrca.ca.gov/parks/park-listing/ ... tain-park/
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5191
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post22 Apr 2019, 23:15

viper12 wrote:SAM systems were not forgotten in the U.S. during the Cold War. For example, there was literally a SAM site in L.A. : https://mrca.ca.gov/parks/park-listing/ ... tain-park/


"All CONUS Hercules batteries, with the exception of the ones in Florida and Alaska, were deactivated by April 1974. The remaining units were deactivated during the spring of 1979."


"In April 1972, the last Bomarc B in U.S. Air Force service was retired at McGuire and the 46th ADMS inactivated [6] and the base was deactivated."
"There I was. . ."
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post23 Apr 2019, 05:11

sferrin wrote:
knowan wrote:
skyward wrote:The Western missiles are not similar sized to the Russian. They are smaller for the same range.


The SM-2ER/SM-6 is similar in size to the 5V55 missiles with considerably greater range, despite substantially lower velocity.

The SM-6 Block IB is in development; it will use a 21" inch motor to replace the old 13.5" diameter Mk 104 motor.
The 21" motor is likely the same as that used by the SM-3 Block IIA, and it will give a large increase to effective range; such a missile will likely out-range the 40N6.


SM-6 itself probably out ranges 40N6.


It is certainly possible, but without better data I'm not entirely confident. SM-6 Block IB will almost certainly outrange the 40N6 however; the difference between SM-3 Block IA/IB and Block IIA is more than two and a half times the interception range; the same 21" motor on the SM-6 will likely throw it beyond 600 km.



ricnunes wrote:Advanced fighter aircraft (such as the F-35 and F-22) are also part of an air defense network. Actually I cannot conceive "a world class air defense network" without having advanced fighter aircraft (again such as the F-35 or F-22).


Just look at Syria vs Israel to see how poorly an advanced SAM system does without advanced fighter aircraft. Israel hasn't even conducted a widespread DEAD campaign, yet is able to conduct strikes with minimal losses.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2726
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Apr 2019, 08:48

With SAM systems most of the performance parameters are not necessarily readily apparent. Range, altitude and missile speed are fairly easy but can also be a bit misleading as there are multiple ways to define those parameters. They are also very small part of the overall system performances and many of those performance figures are not available in public. Things like real world radar performance (like target detection and tracking performance, EW resistance, LPI features etc), missile seeker performance, missile data link performance, network connectivity etc. There are so many things to consider that it's not very easy to compare systems from public information at all.

One example is that longer range is easily achieved by using bigger missile but they have their own drawbacks. Longer ranged S-300/400 missiles are much bigger than Patriot missiles and would be more difficult to transport and need bigger launch vehicles (or have less missiles in each). Patriot system is far more airmobile while S-300/400 might have better tactical mobility depending on exact system. There are Patriot systems installed directly on top of all-terrain trucks for example.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post24 Apr 2019, 18:40

ricnunes wrote:
marsavian wrote:Geographically Russia has a busy often aggressive neighborhood in Europe and Asia and the most mass to defend. The US in contrast has no immediate dangerous neighbors which is probably why SAMs are low on the priority list.


Yes, I fully agree.
Basically the US Land based SAM systems are meant to defend US military bases and ground forces deployed abroad.



It’s a difference in doctrine. The soviets knew they had inferior aircraft and aircrews. They knew they couldn’t win an air war, especially in OCA. Their SAM systems are designed to compliment their Air Force because they knew we would use penetrating attacks like we did in Vietnam. It played to their strengths to fight on their turf, which is also why their doctrine focuses on GCI. That’s also why the majority of their fighters are for air superiority or intercept. They have actually very few planes capable of providing decent interdiction.

The US knew we had better planes and better pilots. We would always be on the offensive in enemy airspace. That’s why we use the AWACS. Because we knew we’d have air dominance, we focused the majority of our money developing fighters and not ground based platforms. We are much more reliant on our Air Force securing the air space.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3118
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post24 Apr 2019, 23:42

knowan wrote:




It is certainly possible, but without better data I'm not entirely confident. SM-6 Block IB will almost certainly outrange the 40N6 however; the difference between SM-3 Block IA/IB and Block IIA is more than two and a half times the interception range; the same 21" motor on the SM-6 will likely throw it beyond 600 km.



The current SM-6 has a ~500km range as is, which outranges any S-400 missile. That advantage will only increase, with the larger motor.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5191
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 01:22

wrightwing wrote:
knowan wrote:




It is certainly possible, but without better data I'm not entirely confident. SM-6 Block IB will almost certainly outrange the 40N6 however; the difference between SM-3 Block IA/IB and Block IIA is more than two and a half times the interception range; the same 21" motor on the SM-6 will likely throw it beyond 600 km.



The current SM-6 has a ~500km range as is, which outranges any S-400 missile. That advantage will only increase, with the larger motor.


I've never heard 500 km. That said, one of the first SM-3 shots had a dummy 3rd stage and the booster/2nd-stage combo chucked that sucker a LONG ways. They were reading off the altitude and at 65 miles UP it was still climbing at multiple Mach. Keep in mind that was just the vertical component.

Jump to about 9:20 here:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8203
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 02:32

The added benefit to the SM-6 is that it can benefit from endgame updates via assets in the area (F-35, F-18, etc).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5191
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 14:01

SpudmanWP wrote:The added benefit to the SM-6 is that it can benefit from endgame updates via assets in the area (F-35, F-18, etc).


Apparently that's the only way the 40N6 can achieve it's maximum range as well. Without somebody out front telling it where the target is it's basically just another 48N6.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8203
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Apr 2019, 16:56

Can the 40N6 even datalink to other assets?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests