Page 14 of 15

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 15:48
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:The latest TOR can handle four simultaneous targets and there's never just one vehicle.

being able to engage 4 targets simultaneously means nothing. 8 command guided missiles per vehicle vs 8 SDBs per aircraft that has the most effective jamming suite on earth. Saying there is more than one vehicle just means more than one F-35 is needed to drop an SDB swarm. The TOR has to rely on 100% hit rate to survive. The F-35 doesn't.


I presume you mean SDB 2 which isn't limited to GPS? Depending on the target they could also have lasers for blinding optics and EW vehicles. Those could make it difficult for SDB2 to see it's target.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 15:59
by wrightwing
sferrin wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:TOR was overwhelmed by SDB/SPEAR swarm. JASSM-ER is powered and stealthy. Take your pick. I have full confidence in the ability of an F-35 to get within SDB range of S300/S400/TOR without being fired upon.


The latest TOR can handle four simultaneous targets and there's never just one vehicle. And they would have plenty of time to shoot down an SDB swarm. JASSM is stealthy but it's flying directly to the radar trying to detect it. It will be detected. Now if they made a variant with submunitions that dropped off, say, 35 20lb terminally guided gliders from 10-15 miles out. . .I don't know how you kill that short of DEWs.

Yes, but MALD/MALD-J/MALD-X make them waste missiles (they have to reload, and they don't have unlimited magazine depth,) and AARGM-ER kills them if they emit. They have to overcome that, as well as F-35s full of GBU-39/53s, and the EW/EA support hiding the incoming ordnance. As for JASSM being detected in time, that's a big if. Presumably, some smart folks have put some thought into penetrating densely protected sites.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 16:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:I presume you mean SDB 2 which isn't limited to GPS? Depending on the target they could also have lasers for blinding optics and EW vehicles. Those could make it difficult for SDB2 to see it's target.

Guidance system for GBU-53/B
Millimeter wave Active radar homing / Semi-active laser guidance / Infrared homing (using an uncooled imaging infrared camera) / GPS coupled Inertial guidance / Data-link

Good luck stopping all those modes of guidance on each munition, meanwhile to stop TOR you only need to jam the host vehicles radar. Again, this is in the F-35s favor.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 17:40
by sferrin
Just sayin' it's likely to be way more complicated than, "drop a load of SDBs and say bye-bye to the S-400 site".

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 18:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Pretty sure I was saying that you could drop a load of SDBs and the S-300/400 defenses are degraded/depleted.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 01:12
by weasel1962
and if really, really don't like the site, there's always the JSOW-A with the nasty BLU-97s. Not sure whether the JSOW-A are integrated but the F-35 is supposed to be able to internally carry JSOWs. ER version for legacies which can launch way outside of the S-series envelope.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 03:00
by madrat
I don't think jamming TOR radars is a bulletproof solution. The fact is TOR was made for a jammed environment. You have to eliminate the control vehicle(s) to neutralize the system.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 04:09
by element1loop
Given the RCS advantage, meaning delayed targeting at much shorter range, F-35 will just 'thread-the-needle' past most heavy SAMs unless one is being used as a point-defense for a target-set or central area that you absolutely must hit, and hit early.

But even in that case a VLO missile can 'thread-the-needle' too (LRASM for instance, and I'm wondering if JSM with radar/radio sensor will be able to do it too), to make effective initial strikes of the critical high-value targets.

While simultaneously going after the main active sensors with the range of weapons above, which if nothing else, will distract everyone and every system, thus further aiding the weapons that are going after the primary targets to be hit.

The layered air-defence is thus far from impenetrable with affordable in service weapons (and very soon on F-35).

Thus such point-defence heavy SAMs become ineffective at their primary tasks of preventing a successful attack or deterring/killing an attacker. It looks like a big failure waiting to happen if core targets are smoked, even after all of the resources put into defending Godzilla's SAM air-defence system.

And in the cases where a heavy SAM complex is used as distributed area defense, F-35 just flies around those and pop-ups (after firing a multirole AAM at it), and prioritizes them lower to kill at leisure when pressure is lower.

Else have Growler and Vipers using an orbiting F-35 as real-time local data pipe (provides ESM, EA, ELINT, SIGINT, AEW&C, JSTAR and MALD-J) with which to approach and plink away at an S-400 network, using AARGM-ER, JSM, SDBII and/or a small hunter-killer drone delivered via a VLO gliding drone-dispenser to mop-up S400 vehicles as orbiting F-35 finds and PIDs with ESM, SAR and EOTS.

The only thing missing here is a VLO gliding drone-dispenser (JSOW-ER may suffice) and a loitering hunter-killer drone with a receive datalink for targeting guidance updates on moving target remnants, for DEAD via orbiting F-35s.

All other F-35s keep up the main attack, F-22A kills fighters, IADS is on the blink.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 06:57
by marauder2048
madrat wrote:I don't think jamming TOR radars is a bulletproof solution. The fact is TOR was made for a jammed environment. You have to eliminate the control vehicle(s) to neutralize the system.


Which is a corollary to active missiles where the launchers can still be dangerous even if
the FCRs have been disabled.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 10:23
by squirrelshoes
marauder2048 wrote:Who said anything about missiles? These are slow moving glide weapon and the defense is more likely to be confident in their characterization of these wapons and the estimate of predicted impact points.

Something hurled at another target is a missile. If I launch a rock from a catapult it's a missile. Speed is irrelevant to the definition of missile, a hyper velocity projectile is a hell of a lot faster than a TOW missile.

missile noun
Definition of missile (Entry 2 of 2)
: an object (such as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike something at a distance
stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets are missiles
: such as
a : GUIDED MISSILE
b : BALLISTIC MISSILE

How do you know the defense is more likely to do anything a certain way? Are there examples of an IADS defending a high value target choosing to not engage a potentially devastating incoming missile with their best weapons as soon as the incoming threat is spotted?

marauder2048 wrote:We are talking about a disciplined opponent who will be making every effort to solve the
hard (in the computational complexity sense) interceptor allocation problem.

No, "we' aren't, you are talking about a disciplined opponent. I merely threw out that JDAM-ERs could very advantageous from an economic perspective because of how expensive SAMs are, you've since tried to pigeonhole the discussion to some imaginary disciplined enemy force that you've designed an engagement doctrine for. Non-disciplined opponents have expensive missiles too.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 10:40
by squirrelshoes
nathan77 wrote:I'm even more sceptical that 'slow moving' glide bombs would be ignored by more expensive SAM batteries.
Afterall, there's no guarantee that point-defences can reliably mop them up (nothing is 100%). Especially when swarm tactics can be so easily employed by the attacker.

For example, there's this infamous video of a functioning & loaded Pantsir system failing to stop an Israeli attack:
https://youtu.be/NI0REqlYhmc

Exactly. Weapons fail all the time, that's why there juicy targets often have rings of defenses and often two rounds are fired at a single target. I've never served in USN but I'd wager if someone launched a large glide bomb at a US destroyer from 50 miles away the commander is immediately putting a couple SM-2s in the air, and priming ESSM. He/she is not going to just say bah let's let the whizz gun have 'em since they are slower with predictable trajectory.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 10:42
by squirrelshoes
weasel1962 wrote:and if really, really don't like the site, there's always the JSOW-A with the nasty BLU-97s. Not sure whether the JSOW-A are integrated but the F-35 is supposed to be able to internally carry JSOWs. ER version for legacies which can launch way outside of the S-series envelope.

There was actually someone on here awhile back saying this wouldn't be a threat to a modern AA gun system since it would just shoot down all 144 submunitions. :D

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 17:40
by sferrin
squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Who said anything about missiles? These are slow moving glide weapon and the defense is more likely to be confident in their characterization of these wapons and the estimate of predicted impact points.

Something hurled at another target is a missile. If I launch a rock from a catapult it's a missile.


That might be the dictionary definition but not really relevant here.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 18:25
by squirrelshoes
sferrin wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:That might be the dictionary definition but not really relevant here.

When it needs to be pointed out because someone else is nitpicking "who said anything about missiles" in a discussion of glide bombs flying towards targets at hundreds of miles per hour, relevant enough.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 23:43
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
nathan77 wrote:I'm even more sceptical that 'slow moving' glide bombs would be ignored by more expensive SAM batteries.
Afterall, there's no guarantee that point-defences can reliably mop them up (nothing is 100%). Especially when swarm tactics can be so easily employed by the attacker.

For example, there's this infamous video of a functioning & loaded Pantsir system failing to stop an Israeli attack:
https://youtu.be/NI0REqlYhmc

Exactly. Weapons fail all the time, that's why there juicy targets often have rings of defenses and often two rounds are fired at a single target. I've never served in USN but I'd wager if someone launched a large glide bomb at a US destroyer from 50 miles away the commander is immediately putting a couple SM-2s in the air, and priming ESSM. He/she is not going to just say bah let's let the whizz gun have 'em since they are slower with predictable trajectory.


Except you actually have a current debate within USN circles about the proper firing doctrine.
Look at the Pk for something like ESSM Blk II and cost and inventory density relative to SM-6.

https://csbaonline.org/about/news/peeling-back-the-layers-a-new-concept-for-air-defense