S-400 and F-35

[eloise]

Yes, based on my (admittedly amateurish) knowledge of the subject I think you could dismantle a Russian S400 based IADS by understanding their doctrine, which (AFAIK) prioritises using GBAD to protect critical infrastructure and C2 apparatus over maneuver forces. To this end:

- You might first prioritise understanding what critical assets a given S400 system has been tasked with defending - possibly easier said than done.
- With this accomplished, you could then launch a massed Tomahawk/UAS attack against these assets with the aim of forcing the IADS to respond with hard kill measures. If they actually get through to their targets consider it a bonus.
- With this underway, ISR aircraft (including F22/35) would be tasked with geo-locating threat emitters, sorting decoys from the real thing and identifying SAM launch points.
- From here you'd immediately send in your true SEAD/DEAD assets from multiple axes using a mixture of different effectors. PRSM from land based MLRS units, Compass Call and Growler for standoff jamming, F35 w/SDB, MALD-J/N and AARGM-ER, even disposable UAS to misdirect enemy SAMs and aircraft. The idea would be to cause as much chaos and confusion in the enemy IADS as possible in a very short timeframe, ultimately culminating in its collapse.

Perhaps not overly imaginative, as it is essentially a 2020+ version of Operation Mole Cricket 19, but that one did work out rather well didn't it?

I think the strategy at start is to launch hypersonic missile such as ARRW, HSWab and long range cruise missile like JASSM-XR, Tomahawk to attack fixed strategic target such as OTHR, airbase, known command center, TV and mobiles antenna mass (to make passive radar useless). These are high value fixed target so you don't need your ISR aircraft in enemy territory to find them.

Then MALD-N/X or SPEAR-EW coming in second, blasting their jamming system to make it harder for the enemy to find stealth aircraft and stealth cruise missile while also act as more attractive targets for SAM.
F-35 then silently follows behind the decoys screen while using their ASQ-239, EOTS and DAS to look for targets.
If the IADS decided to stay silent, and only launch missiles at jamming sources, they will waste their missile on cheap decoys
If the IADS decided to activate their radars, they let us know where they are and they can be attacked by AARGM-ER, SiaW, SDB, SPEAR and it still very hard to find stealth aircraft in a jamming environment

[weasel1962]

The question is knowing all this, what could a potential defender then do to mitigate this overwhelming qualitative (and likely quantitative) advantage. (hint*, real live defenders would never say nothing. Some low tech solutions can be quite interesting)

[jessmo112]

Do you think that the Russians actually believe their own propaganda? Do they really believe stealth doesn't work?
Do they assume that because they cant detect stealth planes no planes are there?
Do they believe that going all the way back to GW1 the F-117 didnt work, and that Iraq was just incompetent?
Hmm maybe if they are this delusional we should let them stay this way.

[boogieman]

The question is knowing all this, what could a potential defender then do to mitigate this overwhelming qualitative (and likely quantitative) advantage. (hint*, real live defenders would never say nothing. Some low tech solutions can be quite interesting)

Context is everything, so in the case of the Russians you're really looking at the Baltics as the most likely flashpoint. Their approach seems to be to absorb or deflect our initial airborne assault via the use of heavy EW, regular movement of essential IADS systems, camouflage, decoys etc while simultaneously striking at our own high value assets.

I'd expect them to use BM and LACM strikes against all available airbases on mainland Europe to reduce our sortie generation rates and cripple our own C2 structures. Wouldn't surprise me to see them attempt some fairly bold OCA attacks to exploit the lower density of our GBAD network as well. They would take heavy losses from our fighters but it might be worth it to them. I'd expect similar moves against USN carrier groups from Tu22/160 etc, alongside land/sub/ship based AShM to push them away if not sink them. They would also enjoy a vast numerical advantage on the ground so I would expect them to swiftly move to close the Suwalki gap and then overrun our closest airbases with massed mechanized formations, further reducing the amount of airpower we could bring to bear.

The problem here is not one of technological sophistication, but of sheer numbers. We just don't have that many troops in position to mount our defence, whereas the Russians fighting from their home turf could move on the Baltics en masse with relatively little notice.

Do you think that the Russians actually believe their own propaganda? Do they really believe stealth doesn't work?
Do they assume that because they cant detect stealth planes no planes are there?
Do they believe that going all the way back to GW1 the F-117 didnt work, and that Iraq was just incompetent?
Hmm maybe if they are this delusional we should let them stay this way.

I think the real decision makers would know the truth, hence their emphasis on EW. We can't see your aircraft properly, so we'll level the playing field by blinding all your sensors and munitions - at least that's the idea. In practice it's still not ideal, because our side can still play the EW game as well while they are still at square one trying to field a true VLO capability.

[ricnunes]

Thanks ricnunes, I will check that out.

Yes, you should. After knowing how a modern 4th gen fighter aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18 works (or more precisely what are their capabilities from a pilot's perspective) then I'm sure that you'll be instantly aware that the F-35 is indeed a "huge gamechanger".

Glad to hear you're a keen simmer - I would highly recommend you give DCS another look as it has come along in leaps and bounds in the last year or so. The Hornet module is fantastic now as is the Tomcat.

Once and if ever ED/DCS finishes the Hornet module then I'll certainly check it out (purchase it). Currently DCS Hornet is an unfinished product (for example it doesn't have a working Air-to-Ground radar) and I simply won't buy Alpha/Beta products (specially from ED).

The Viper is definitely getting there but still has further to go until it is BMS-level complete.

I believe that even ED admitted that DCS Viper won't have the same realistic level as for example DCS Hornet (and as such as Falcon BMS) or resuming DCS Viper is more of a DCS Flamming Cliffs (FC) level when it comes to realism. There's nothing wrong with this IMO (FC is still very interesting) but its the level of realism isn't expected to reach BMS.

The real beauty of the sim is the ability to jump online and take on numerous other players in their respective jets.

Yes, indeed. Although and personally I prefer the dynamic campaigns of Falcon BMS even because I only and rarely play games online.

Back to the topic at hand, I think you can make an excellent argument that the west is well placed to handle the S400 with its 5th gen assets. Perhaps my mentality is a little more conservative when compared to others though.

Yes, fully agree on getting back to the topic (afterall this isn't a sim forum/thread).

Technically I guess that's no harm in having a "more conservative" approach when comparing to opposing systems. I'm pretty sure that the good folks at LM (and other companies involved in the F-35 project) when designing it (the F-35) are having the same conservative approach when comparing their product (F-35) against emerging threats such as the S-400.
Myself being an "outside observer", I have the 'luxury' of not needing to take such approach and as such I'm basing my opinion on the best information possible.
And the best information possible is that the aircraft (this case the F-35) has and will have a massive advantage over air defense system (such as the S-400) as by the way it always have been throughout the history of military aviation.

Now, if I were an F35 pilot (virtual or real! ) I would be treating the S400 and supporting assets as probably the most dangerous and most valuable effectors in the Russian IADS. IMO this warrants a joint force approach to ensure their destruction. This might prove to be overkill, but my understanding of Russian doctrine says that an S400 site would be protecting highly valuable assets, with the S400 itself being a vital ISR node in its own right. I'd much rather overestimate my opponent and utterly crush him than underestimate that opponent and get a nasty surprise.

The good thing about the F-35 is that a flight of F-35's (for example a 4 ship formation) is by itself and alone "a joint force approach". If you have different F-35's with different loadouts (SDBs, SiAW, etc...) then you'll have much more than a "traditional joint force approach".

[boogieman]

Yes, you should. After knowing how a modern 4th gen fighter aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18 works (or more precisely what are their capabilities from a pilot's perspective) then I'm sure that you'll be instantly aware that the F-35 is indeed a "huge gamechanger"...

...The good thing about the F-35 is that a flight of F-35's (for example a 4 ship formation) is by itself and alone "a joint force approach". If you have different F-35's with different loadouts (SDBs, SiAW, etc...) then you'll have much more than a "traditional joint force approach".

- No doubt the F35 is a massive game changer. I am actually lucky enough to have seen it up close at Avalon Airshow a few years back and got to chat to some of the RAAF pilots about it. A masterpiece of aerospace technology to say the least...

- Yeah the DCS Hornet does need its A2G radar, but that's not a showstopper for me as I'm more of an air to air guy. If they improve the SAM AI, implement a better EW system and/or make player controlled SAMs a viable thing then I will probably shift to the air to mud role a bit more. For now I get a kick out of beating up on Tomcat, Eagle, Viper, Flanker and Fulcrum drivers in my little bug

- By "joint force approach" I mean one that encompasses multiple (if not all) military branches. It's very much a focus here in Australia as we try to develop a networked defence force that can punch above its weight, with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. To my mind this is the holy grail of network centric warfare - moving away from platform vs platform scenarios and pitting a system of systems against the enemy's vulnerabilities.

[ricnunes]

I am actually lucky enough to have seen it up close at Avalon Airshow a few years back and got to chat to some of the RAAF pilots about it.

Now, I'm envious of you

- By "joint force approach" I mean one that encompasses multiple (if not all) military branches. It's very much a focus here in Australia as we try to develop a networked defence force that can punch above its weight, with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. To my mind this is the holy grail of network centric warfare - moving away from platform vs platform scenarios and pitting a system of systems against the enemy's vulnerabilities.

Yes, that will be pretty much the future of warfare.

[underscan]

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/air-defence-s ... vtobaza-m/ I do know that this system is said to track 150 simultaneously. But I cant find how many targets the Moskva-1 can passively track. Are there any new SAM developments with interceptor missiles given the options of passive or active tracking?

[boogieman]

Now, I'm envious of you

Yeah it was pretty sweet. The F35 guys were super popular so it was tough to get much out of them, but I managed to have a good chat to one of the USAF Raptor pilots from the 90th FS. He sang the praises of our Hornet pilots which was good to hear. Also got to have a very long chat to a one of the console operators working on our E7s. He was on exchange from the USN having previously worked on Hawkeyes and was great to talk to. Described being on exercises like Red Flag and watching what happened when the Raptors showed up. In his words "you just watch them supercruise in and suddenly everything dies". Sounds about right...

[spazsinbad]

With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

[boogieman]

With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

Good question. I am paraphrasing of course so I could be misquoting slightly. The emphasis was on the effect the Raptors had more than how they did it. Then again with the MESA on E7 watching, I suppose luneberg lenses could have been in play.

[ricnunes]

With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

Good question. I am paraphrasing of course so I could be misquoting slightly. The emphasis was on the effect the Raptors had more than how they did it. Then again with the MESA on E7 watching, I suppose luneberg lenses could have been in play.

Perhaps thru Data-link instead?
(This way a friendly AWACS radar wouldn't need to actually detect the F-22s in order to keep tracking them)

Afterall luneberg lenses would also make the F-22s visible (or more visible) to "opposing forces".

[Gums]

Salute!

Hmmmm...... tracking a Raptor or Stubbie?

Perhaps thru Data-link instead?
(This way a friendly AWACS radar wouldn't need to actually detect the F-22s in order to keep tracking them)

How do you guys think we're gonna go to war if we can't have a decent idea of where our own forces are? Even 35 years ago when I hung up the gee suit we had "secure" IFF modes. The avionics folks would even code the box while we're on the ramp if the time of day changes were a factor after we cranked up. Then we had a test and they would confirm our jet was correctly coded.

Gums recalls.....

[boogieman]

Salute!

Hmmmm...... tracking a Raptor or Stubbie?

Perhaps thru Data-link instead?
(This way a friendly AWACS radar wouldn't need to actually detect the F-22s in order to keep tracking them)

How do you guys think we're gonna go to war if we can't have a decent idea of where our own forces are? Even 35 years ago when I hung up the gee suit we had "secure" IFF modes. The avionics folks would even code the box while we're on the ramp if the time of day changes were a factor after we cranked up. Then we had a test and they would confirm our jet was correctly coded.

Gums recalls.....

Of course! Silly me

[wrightwing]

With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

Good question. I am paraphrasing of course so I could be misquoting slightly. The emphasis was on the effect the Raptors had more than how they did it. Then again with the MESA on E7 watching, I suppose luneberg lenses could have been in play.

It's likely the they were using ACMI pod data, to see the F-22s.