Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

The Russian SA-12b mobile SAM has ABM capability and has a max` altitude of around 98,000 feet, slant range of 45 miles.(Depending on missile round type).

The SA-10,11,17,20 all have 60K ft within their envelopes.
It is obvious though that a Raptor will not play fair and get within range of these systems, rather, lob JDAMS from afar! The later double-digit SAMs can engage 6 or more targets simultaneously, so swamping them could prove difficult. Defeating them electronically seems a more viable option. A stealthy JDAM seems a damn good idea if that is possible, it makes the defenders game even harder.....

F-16.net Sponsor

A stealthy JDAM would be a grea idea, but also a stealthy AIM120 would be usefull.
The problem is to give whith thath weapon's fragments an interesting gift to enemy's scientists (but, yes.. after the famous shutting down of '117 over Bosnia, this problem si no longer so critical)

Lots of ways to destroy a mobile SAM? Tell that to the SA-6 radars witch exited from Kosovo as nothing was happened in 6-1999... or to Scott O'Grady's F-16 shot down by a 1967 SA-6... and we are speaking of SA-6 not double digit SAMs...
In modern aerial warfare you won't see a SAM battery (or any ground military target) staying active all the time in an open area waiting for a HARM and saying:" Hey Flyboys, I'm here, F**k me!"...

Then you say 2300 Kph HARM? ok 10000, yes TEN THOUSANDS Kph 48N6E SAM by last SA-10 batteries... not a joke!

And that's for HARMs... and JDAM or SDB with F-22?
Thay are exellent against fixed targets, for a suprise attack on an enemy that don't wait for an air raid or when you're providing CAS for ground troops... in few words when you know the coordinates of the target.

But if (as always) the enemy is waiting for you you'll enter in a relative quiet air space (as in Yugoslavia and Iraq) and then you'll just see the RWR telling you that a SAM battery went active just 10 miles away from you and has launched a couple of SAM at you... if you have a HARM, you'll fire it and then try to avoid enemy SAMs... if you have JDAM or SDB you just have to avoid those SAMs hoping that the SAM battery commander is so stupid to remain fixed there with radar active so you'll be able to strike back with yours bombs...
but we all remember the SCUD hunt in Desert Storm: tons of fuel spent, few SCUD seen and not a SCUD hit.

Then, if you not make a surprise air attack (as was never done a part from Israel in 1967) or not in contact with ground troops do you really belive you can hit something from 100 Km away and 60000 ft out of abandoned barracks, abondoned HQ, wooden decoys, burning oil drum or worse refugee convoys?
Example: 1999 attack on serbian forces in Kosovo: just 12 (yes TWELWE) tanks destroyed... of witch more than half where old WWII tank placed there as decoys. Yes NATO made hundreds of ANTI ARMOUR strikes and was able to take out just 12 tanks.

Fly low, risk the plane and life, but you will be able to take out something of military value. GBU-12, AGM-65, Cannon fire, unguided, CCIP aided bombs and SDB from 3000 ft are the weapons to take out target of opportunity like mobile targets.

If you don't want to risk, stay home don't go at war.

Don't under rate enemy's weapons and don't over rate ours.

mt_hg

I read my post again and I can`t see where I underestimated Mobile SAM sites... I suggest you read it again.
Kosovo taught many lessons, weapons and tactics have been improved since then, from the attackers and defender viewpoints. I certainly don`t take SAM sites lightly but the right tactics can defeat them. Kosovo was 7 years ago, how many NATO aircraft were lost to Russian SAMs versus sorties flown? A tiny, tiny percentage. Check any VIABLE and UNBIASED record.

Your points broken down...

1. A mobile site is "fixed" when it is radiating, so vulnerable to all of those weapons, HARM, SDB and JDAM. Note improved HTS (HARM-Targeting-System) fitted to SEAD assets for a rapid response to targets of opportunity. GPS co-ordinates can be dialed into a computer as fast as your finger can do the job.

2. Improved HARM can still destroy a SAM site even when it switches off, this capability existed in 1999 with the ALARM anti-radar missile. Shutting down doesn`t work anymore.

3. Desert Storm was 15 years ago and we are now talking about systems and tactics that exist TODAY!

4. Fly low and get taken out by an AK-47 and every other idiot with a MANPAD, no thanks, give me an F-22 two ship lobbing JDAMS from 44km away without being detected.

5. SA-6 mobile batteries survived Kosovo because they weren`t used, forces were preserved or they would have been destroyed.

6. Lots of ways to defeat a SAM site... yes. How about forcing them to switch off every time they are threatened and allow a strike package to fly right through them? If it isn`t used what use is it?

Mobile or fixed SAMs are very dangerous, especially the low to medium altitude IR systems. I am just saying that the tactics exist to defeat them.

mt_hg wrote:

Lots of ways to destroy a mobile SAM? Tell that to the SA-6 radars witch exited from Kosovo as nothing was happened in 6-1999... or to Scott O'Grady's F-16 shot down by a 1967 SA-6... and we are speaking of SA-6 not double digit SAMs...
In modern aerial warfare you won't see a SAM battery (or any ground military target) staying active all the time in an open area waiting for a HARM and saying:" Hey Flyboys, I'm here, F**k me!"...

Then you say 2300 Kph HARM? ok 10000, yes TEN THOUSANDS Kph 48N6E SAM by last SA-10 batteries... not a joke!

And that's for HARMs... and JDAM or SDB with F-22?
Thay are exellent against fixed targets, for a suprise attack on an enemy that don't wait for an air raid or when you're providing CAS for ground troops... in few words when you know the coordinates of the target.

But if (as always) the enemy is waiting for you you'll enter in a relative quiet air space (as in Yugoslavia and Iraq) and then you'll just see the RWR telling you that a SAM battery went active just 10 miles away from you and has launched a couple of SAM at you... if you have a HARM, you'll fire it and then try to avoid enemy SAMs... if you have JDAM or SDB you just have to avoid those SAMs hoping that the SAM battery commander is so stupid to remain fixed there with radar active so you'll be able to strike back with yours bombs...
but we all remember the SCUD hunt in Desert Storm: tons of fuel spent, few SCUD seen and not a SCUD hit.

Then, if you not make a surprise air attack (as was never done a part from Israel in 1967) or not in contact with ground troops do you really belive you can hit something from 100 Km away and 60000 ft out of abandoned barracks, abondoned HQ, wooden decoys, burning oil drum or worse refugee convoys?
Example: 1999 attack on serbian forces in Kosovo: just 12 (yes TWELWE) tanks destroyed... of witch more than half where old WWII tank placed there as decoys. Yes NATO made hundreds of ANTI ARMOUR strikes and was able to take out just 12 tanks.

Fly low, risk the plane and life, but you will be able to take out something of military value. GBU-12, AGM-65, Cannon fire, unguided, CCIP aided bombs and SDB from 3000 ft are the weapons to take out target of opportunity like mobile targets.

If you don't want to risk, stay home don't go at war.

Don't under rate enemy's weapons and don't over rate ours.

Gee, you mention Desert Storm and Kosovo and, in both instances, the enemy was WHIPPED. If you survive by protecting your assets they are still rendered ineffective, as if they never existed. Actually come out and play and you get shot in the a$$. That's what DEFENSE SUPRESSION is all about. Over the years, U.S. and allied warplanes have become ever more survivable vs. Soviet and/or Russian threats. So, give me a break with all the doom and gloom and face the fact that through various wars and conflicts since Vietnam U.S. and allied aircraft have been flying with near impunity against any threat armed with utterly inferior Soviet equipment, foes who are far too cowardly to actually come out of hiding and battle overwhelmingly superior U.S. and allied forces. Thus they resort to suicide bombers, or ethnic cleansing...

Quote:

Gee, you mention Desert Storm and Kosovo and, in both instances, the enemy was WHIPPED. If you survive by protecting your assets they are still rendered ineffective, as if they never existed. Actually come out and play and you get shot in the a$$. That's what DEFENSE SUPRESSION is all about. Over the years, U.S. and allied warplanes have become ever more survivable vs. Soviet and/or Russian threats. So, give me a break with all the doom and gloom and face the fact that through various wars and conflicts since Vietnam U.S. and allied aircraft have been flying with near impunity against any threat armed with utterly inferior Soviet equipment, foes who are far too cowardly to actually come out of hiding and battle overwhelmingly superior U.S. and allied forces. Thus they resort to suicide bombers, or ethnic cleansing...

Well I certainly would expect them to be whipped, considering the superior training, equipment and numbers the allied forces had in those campaigns. Would you really expect an enemy who is fighting a very superior force to fight them on equal footing, to apply clean and moral tactics? It is extremely unlikely for that enemy to obtain victory by fighting on an equal footing. They resort to below the belt tactics, guerrilla warfare and insurgencies. Its the only possible way for them to win, if an inferior foe conducted their campaign with the similar tactics and organisation as the allied forces they would be defeated in no time.

NATO and other allies may have no trouble getting air superiority but getting superiority over an insurgency campaign is something that needs work on. I mean look at Iraq, for the allies the future is not looking to great, the insurgents have left their toll on the coalition forces there. British forces have proved invaluable thanks to their experience with the IRA in Northern Ireland, but still its a different ball game with the current insurgents they are dealing with. The fact that a possible insurgency wasn't accounted for in the Iraq campaign means that the miltaries of the coalition need to improve on counter-insurgency.

TO snypa777

1. ok, wonderful... but can we be sure that the SAM battery (that is going active in a place where we didn't expect it) will track the SEAD/DEAD aircraft?... or maybe will track a fighter sweep or a bomber, than re-deploy in five minutes (maximum) not giving SEAD package the time to reach the target and find it were it was spotted?

2. ok we had, I know... but as said in the point one...

3. Desert Storm is past? Not so much a great example how the richest countries in the world armed with 1980-early 1990 technology took out some 1960 and 1970 technology used by an import country... we won (it was not so difficult on paper if you think all the rich world agaist 20 milion people with no weapon producing capability a part some Ak-47 and few spare for tanks) but we were not invulnerable.

4 and 5.you said: 4. Fly low and get taken out by an AK-47 and every other idiot with a MANPAD, no thanks, give me an F-22 two ship lobbing JDAMS from 44km away without being detected.
5. "SA-6 mobile batteries survived Kosovo because they weren`t used, forces were preserved or they would have been destroyed"
... in fact!: F-22 at 60000 ft as it is not fighting! Do you want to destroy something different from abandoned buildings downtown or whorse a refugee column?... risk, fly down and take out something of military value!

6. ok... we hide, they hide, all hide, tons of fuel and munitions spent for.... a TV SHOW! (some abandoned HQ destroyed by so wonderful explosions to be filmed)

in Kosovo? we lost 2 aircraft to enemy action... an F-117 and a F-16CG to SA-3 (some other damaged but repaired, among them another F-117, an F-15E and an A-10). And them? 60 not airworthy old airframe (also the MiG-29 had a lot of problems with RWR, radar, electronics, engines...), 12 tanks (the half were decoys), 200-300 soldiers, a SA-3 battery radar damaged... A lot of abandoned buildings, the chinese ambassy, a couple of refugee convoys... We spent more money to fly that armada that the real damage it did to military infrastructure... We won... Luckly the enemy wasn't so determinated as it is in Iraq now... or we would find in a hell of RPGs, Ak-47s, IEDs, SA-7s, rocks, knifes and so on.

yes, we loose always less aircrafts... why? we are attacking always import countryes that field the SAME soviet TECHNOLOGY form 1960-1970 that we were facing in Vietnam always with newer technology from 1990-early 2000!!!! nothing more (a part a dozen MiG-29 with a lot of problems)!

oh... just two last things:
1. PAC-3 battery in Iraq 2003... a Tornado and a FA-18C down ir error by Patriot battery: new SAM technology (from 2000s) against 1990 aircraft technology: 2 SAMs fired, 2 Kills.
In another occasion SEAD F-16CG tracked by PAC-3 battery, HARM fired... and radar unit DAMAGED, no one Killed (fortunatly): that battery radar had time to re-deploy!
2. someone remember the very, very near 8-2006, israeli bombing campaign over Lebanon?... or also it is very past? Bloks and blocks, bridges, roads and power stations wiped out to kill... few more than ONE hundred guerrillas??... probably also killed by ground troops...

Don't wanna make more widows and crying mothers? Don't wanna risk? Don't go at war, stay at your home!

mt_hg, god knows where the hell you are getting your stats about Kosovo. Judging from your English or lack thereof, you must be Serbian and buy their propaganda bull. Question is, if they really sustained such few losses, how come they capitulated? Where they too cowardly to keep fighting despite minimal losses?

Regarding Patriots shooting down allied aircraft, gee, I wonder how many U.S. and allied aircraft are equipped to jam a Patriot radar. I wonder how many pilots are on alert, expecting to be shot down over friendly territory while returning home by their own missiles. And when an F-16CJ (not CG) WAS targeted, guess what? Patriot unit got a faceful of shrapnel and the aircraft survived. So, what the hell is your point? Honestly, most of the time I can't understand what the hell you are trying to say. Work on that English, bud.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Well I certainly would expect them to be whipped, considering the superior training, equipment and numbers the allied forces had in those campaigns.

The U.S. fought a supposedly inferior enemy in the air in Vietnam and its results were dismal, to say the least. Thousands of aircraft shot down, a one-to-one air-to-air kill ratio during a good part of the war, limited effectiveness of bombing raids. The same cannot be said of either gulf wars or the Kosovo campaign, although in both instances (first gulf war and Kosovo) the U.S. and its allies were fighting vastly superior, integrated air defenses compared to those the U.S. faced in Vietnam. This is not due to a fluke or to the fact that Iraq and Serbia were militarily inferior to Vietnam but simply because U.S. and allied forces were vastly qualitatively superior thanks, in large part, to lessons learned from Vietnam, both in terms of technology and training. Again, it was expected that the U.S. should have whipped Vietnam in the air, and that did not exactly happen.

Quote:

NATO and other allies may have no trouble getting air superiority but getting superiority over an insurgency campaign is something that needs work on. I mean look at Iraq, for the allies the future is not looking to great, the insurgents have left their toll on the coalition forces there. British forces have proved invaluable thanks to their experience with the IRA in Northern Ireland, but still its a different ball game with the current insurgents they are dealing with. The fact that a possible insurgency wasn't accounted for in the Iraq campaign means that the miltaries of the coalition need to improve on counter-insurgency.

This is something completely different. I was referring to air warfare, not anti-insurgency campaigns, where air power is, up until now, severly limited in its effectiveness despite some gains here and there (think JDAM, SDB, fighters used as airborned spotters with the likes of Litening and Lantirn pods). And yes, the U.S. has botched that particular mission due principally to inept and incompetent political leadership and a culture (ours) that would be unable to stomach the only clear path to victory (namely, the wholesale slaughter of entire Iraqi towns, in the manner of Stalin). Indeed, the only way the U.S. can get that country under any kind of control is to act EXACTLY as Saddam would have. And you would watch just how quickly all the murderous cowards would pipe down as would their civilian enablers. But of course, in this politically correct day and age, that would never happen.

Not Serbian, but German (and West German).

You said:

"... and a culture (ours) that would be unable to stomach the only clear path to victory (namely, the wholesale slaughter of entire Iraqi towns, in the manner of Stalin)."

Weren't we there to free them? I am a bit confused now! Wink

But let's return to aerial warfare: my point is that also the F-22 will be shot down if it will go at war against a country with a medium imported air defence network. Star Treck weapons don't exist!

you said

Advanced air defence network in Kosovo and Iraq... are 1960s SAMs advanced?

and then: 8-2006, israeli bombing campaign over Lebanon...is it very past? Bloks and blocks, bridges, roads and power stations wiped out to kill... few more than ONE hundred guerrillas??????... probably also killed by ground troops...

...oh my stats: just to find the simpler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War ... and_losses

mt_hg wrote:

But let's return to aerial warfare: my point is that also the F-22 will be shot down if it will go at war against a country with a medium imported air defence network. Star Treck weapons don't exist!

We could argue about this endlessly with no point. Let's just wait to see what happens if and when it happens. If we keep in touch, I'll bet one year's salary that the Raptor will not be touched.

mt_hg wrote:

...oh my stats: just to find the simpler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War ... and_losses

Wow, I can't believe you're actually quoting wikipedia as an authoritative source. It says at the very beginning: "the neutrality of this article is in dispute." Enough said.

http://www.geocities.com/operationalliedforces/

http://www.geocities.com/operationalliedforces/

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3057_0_2_0_C/

And now the answer of NATO (and it's official!): http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2000/0700kosovo.asp

... be optimistic: 600 target hit and the other tens of thounsand missions for what? to take out some refugee columns? maybe

The Kosovo campaign was 7 years ago , the air-strikes brought Milosovic to the table and he was prevented from wiping out an entire ethnic group...

The military facts were...only a handful of NATO aircraft were lost to enemy fire in over 2,000 air-strikes and even more sorties.... The SAM threat remained throughout the war and was successfully suppressed, even though not eliminated.

The aim of all those Russian built SAMS was to shoot down huge numbers of enemy aircraft, and in that, they ultimately failed. If the radars had been used more aggressively, the sites would have been killed. Milosovic wanted to preserve his batteries for the future, he did that by not exposing them, ultimately having them fail in their primary mission.

This failure to destroy large numbers of Serbian mobile SAM sites was probably due to the tactics employed by Serbian forces and the limited capability of the allied weapons of the day. The F-16 SEAD aircraft ran out of time between detecting the sites, targeting them and launching their HARMS. The HARMS then "harmlessly" hit the ground when the SAM radars went silent. Weapons have evolved since then.

Allied forces now have better weapons and tactics to deal with "first division" SAM sites but the SAM designers always try to keep pace with countermeasures, it`s an on-going battle. These air defence systems will always provide a lethal opponent to an unprepared airforce. We just have to make sure we are always prepared and ahead of the game.

That WAS the thread topic wasn`t it?

Rolling Eyes

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 Survivability against latest Russian made SAMs