Just how effective is the S-400 system?
Whenever it's brought up on the internet there seems to be a somewhat mystical fear of the S-300/S-400. People believe that it is extremely difficult to counter leaving only the US with a doctrine effective enough to remove the system. People seem to believe even the US would be hurting while running SEAD (am I using that term right?) against the S-400 system.
For any true ground to air autists here:
> How much do we know about the S-400?
> What kind of capabilities does one system have?
> How many systems with overlapping coverage are needed to truly deny air supremacy to an opposing air force?
> What are the US hard counters to the S-400 and why levels of difficulty would the US have in removing the S-300/S-400 threat in a conventional war?
Pic related. It's the S-400's deployed in Syria, but the chassis are an older model unless I'm mistaken.
>>29291793
I don't have many AA pics, but we can make this a general anti-air thread.
Just send an F-22 to drop some bombs on it and call it a day
>>29291793
Here was the projected range as Russia announced the arrival of the S-400 to Syria. I believe one was an air base for Russia in the North, and the other was if a system was posted in Damascus.
Could be wrong, but the point was that the system covered most of Syria. Making a US no-fly-zone untenable and further dis-incentivizing Turks from flying across the border.
>>29291820
Beep beep. It's like that carnival ride where you get spun around in your chair.
>>29291816
I have absolutely no idea how stealth actually works, but is this really the US solution?
>>29291850
Fuck no, you're talking some long range stand-off munitions for something like that, no human pilot is going near it
>>29291793
No way those things can pick up an F35 let alone shoot it down.
>>29291965
Well if it did pick it up why wouldn't it be able to shoot it down?
>>29292048
F35 can evade it easy or jam the missile
>>29292048
Detecting something is far easier than identifying it, and identifying it is far harder than getting a strong enough, steady enough bead on it to launch anything with more than a scant hope at a luck hit.
>>29291850
>I have absolutely no idea how stealth actually works, but is this really the US solution?
No, we have Prowlers for that.
>>29291965
Has F-35 been yet tested on drunk Serbs with rustbucket 50s AA?
>>29292184
You've touched a sensitive spot, he will now shitspam you with damage control.
>>29291894
>>29292155
Not him but I don't get it
What can a growler/prowler do that an f22 can't
>>29292184
Unfortunately nom the drunken Serb in question was executed for disobeying orders during wartime.
>>29292184
>low flying planes can be hit by conventional weapons
Who'd have thought it
Retard question.
Can MLRS's take down missiles. I mean at all?
>>29292261
I thought I read he became bff with the pilot
>>29292280
No, unless you're trying to hit the launchers themselves. Rockets are generally unguided, and even the newer GPS guided rockets don't have the guidance or propulsion to intercept fast moving airborne targets.
>>29292321
>Rockets are generally unguided, and even the newer GPS guided rockets don't have the guidance or propulsion to intercept fast moving airborne targets.
What about cruise missiles, i know they don't hit other missles, but they are very well guided.
>>29291965
>>29292076
Good, good, feel the ignorance flow through you...If the F35 somehow fails, the US can always send in Iron Man and the Avengers to deal with those nasty self defence weapons.
>Just how effective is the S-400 system?
We don't know until we get a live test under battle conditions.
>People believe that it is extremely difficult to counter leaving only the US with a doctrine effective enough to remove the system.
Utter BS...that's what that is. Any country with a capable airforce could neutralize an S300-S400 battery. There is nothing magical about them...they just bite back hard.
Anyone going up against a battery of S300 or S400 should be prepared to pay in blood and hardware, that's all. And we all know the US (and many others) is scared shitless of losing planes and pilots. Only to see them appear on youtube videos being chased down or lynched by angry people who's airspace they have violated.
>>29292331
Cruise missiles also generally rely on GPS/INS for guidance. Great for hitting bunkers but incapable of hitting moving targets, much less missiles.
Dunno, it's supposed to be really good at shooting down aircraft.
If Serbs can link 50s systems and radios and shoot down f-16 then im sure this can shoot down f-22s.
>>29292499
>they can shoot down 40 year old air frames so it should be able to shoot down a 10 year old one
>>29292570
S-400's radars are so powerful and it's missile so fast i don't see why not it couldn't turn a F-22 into scrap.
>>29292570
> accepts that a 60 year old system could shoot down an air frame 20 years younger, can't accept the possibility that a modern one could shoot down a modern air frame
/k/ in a nutshell
>>29291793
S-400 is never alone. What would it do alone? Empty the tubes and sit there? No, it is a long range system, there are also mid range and short range systems around it, maybe even connected to the same big radar of S-400 (s400 isnt just one truck, its rocket truck, radar truck and connection/targeting truck, maybe the radar truck can give radar to other systems, i dont know for sure).
In that area are always a few ivans driving in a shilka and 2 ivans have iglas.
>>29292406
That may have been true 30 years ago, but technology has advanced a bit since then.
>>29292223
ECM and it can assist in SEAD and help guide missiles in be it cruise or otherwise.
This shill video does a better job at explaining it than I would. Mind that its made by an American company so I can't speak for its actual effectiveness only stated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pu_PKpEhqU
>>29292223
They're an aircraft with electronic warfare capabilities. Basically they exist just to troll air defenses into looking for them so they can drop a HARM on them.
>>29292332
>Any country with a capable airforce could neutralize an S300-S400 battery
>an S300-S400 battery
>an
Good. Now the only thing left is to actually find a place in Russia where there is AN S-300 battery. Dumbass.
>>29292652
Because s-400 is russian and f22 is american and this is a board on a forum where those who are allowed to own guns legally, jack each other off, and its fucking amazing.
I dont care if it can shoot down satellites, its not american, therefore its shit and to be laughed at because it was made by subhumans and commies
>>29293038
Quality post, my friend.
>>29291820
Is the 400 km missile (40N6) in the s-400 system deployed in Syria? It may be wrong, but I heard something about that it was not, limiting the range to 250 km (48N6).
>>29293221
Here is what I found...
>It should be noted that the system can only cover 400km with its longest range missile. These long range missiles have more limited agility and like all long range missiles need either constant data on a target location or an active/semi-active radar. I'm not saying it can't take out an F-16, however it is not some silver bullet.
>It is the variant of S-400 launchers called 5P85SE2 on MAZ chassis ( 5П85CE2 ), it's used for both S-300PMU-2 and S-400. The more common version is on the BAZ chassis, but essentially it's the same S-400.
So we can't know what kind of missiles they are using, but presumably the longer range variant.
>>29292332
>Any country with a capable airforce could neutralize an S300-S400 battery. There is nothing magical about them...they just bite back hard.
these are meaningless statements.
>>29291793
>>29293393
>active/semi-active radar
oh hey there
>>29291793
>tfw Anti Air used to be cool>>29291793
Rather than having dedicated AA assets, all ground vehicles should be capable of elevating their guns, targetting/accepting targeting data, and firing on aircraft.
>>29293524
>Operational range 150 kilometres
Try again.
>>29292661
>>29292661
Russia's S-400 divisions always have mid-range launchers connected to it, it's called S-350E. Tor-M2 and Buks can also all work together with the S-400 radars.
The S-400 missile itself would only be used against high-level threats. Everything else would be engaged by simpler missiles which are connected to the S-400.
I'm positive the S-400 in Syria has all layers of defense possible. From Pantsirs all the way to the S-350.
>>29293751
>it's called S-350E
Not yet in service, also the export version.
>Tor-M2 and Buks
Both wheeled versions seem to be only for export at the moment.
The Only air defence systems used by the airforces are the S-300PMU/400 series and the Pantsir-S1
>>29293849
>S-300PMU/400
And S-300PS
>>29293751
Last time I checked S-350 was neither deployed nor even finished trials yet. It's really the stuff like Kolchuga, Gazetchik, Baikal and alike that makes it so good. Not even mentioning the mobility.
>>29291793
You seem to take idiots on the internet to be representative of all those who appreciate the S-400 for what it has been designed to do.
>>29291965
>all these claims without basis
Practically no one here knows what they're talking about anymore.
>>29292111
And vice versa.
>>29293849
First, it's Aerospace Forces. Second, there's shitton of SAM systems in Ground forces varying from Tunguska to S-300VM.
>>29293221
>Is the 400 km missile (40N6) in the s-400 system deployed in Syria?
No. This missile is not ready for production.
>>29294013
I was answering this line
>Russia's S-400 divisions always have mid-range launchers connected to it
Obliviously they don't.
>in Ground forces varying from Tunguska to S-300VM.
Yes, in the Ground Forces.
>>29294060
Yeah, right.
>Ha вoopyжeниe poccийcкoй apмии пpинятa нoвaя зeнитнaя paкeтa в cocтaвe кoмплeкca вoйcкoвoй ПBO C-300B4. Peчь идeт o paкeтe 40H6
http://vz.ru/society/2015/3/11/733858.html
I don't get all this rah-rah about AA systems.
I can't recall a single air campaign where AA, no matter how dense, was actually able to shut down an air campaign without heavy involvement from friendly air.
AA can make it more difficult for the planes to operate, force them to abort some missions, and force them to fly more SEAD missions, but it has never been able to make the enemy stop flying missions.
The only thing that's been proven to stop an enemy air force is your own air force, AA can help, but it can't do it alone.
As for people bringing up Serbia, remember that NATO could still fly their planes basically wherever they want as long as it's politically acceptable. The Serbs shot down an F-16 and an F-117, but only after expending almost 1000 missiles.
What would you guys say is the best SPAAG in the world as of now?
>>29296240
Tunguska/Pantsir.
That is one thing that the Russians are indisputably leading the field at. But then you have to think about what can a SPAAG do that a good MANPAD can not.
Otomatic would have been an interesting competitor but nobody bought it.
>>29296178
>ignores the point of the discussion, brings up victories against ill equipped third worlders
>makes absolute claims about the nature of warfare, with nothing to back it up with
>actually uses ''rah-rah''
You know how i can tell you are a 16 year old pussy?
>>29296301
> But then you have to think about what can a SPAAG do that a good MANPAD can not.
They can molest aircraft until well above their flight ceiling.
MANPADs suffer from lack of altitude and range that jets can just fly around 10-15km high and drop bombs all day long and you can do nuffin about it.
>>29296585
Pantsir autocannom maximum altitude - 3km.
What point are you trying to make here? It sounds like nonsense
>>29296635
>Pantsir autocannom maximum altitude - 3km.
> What point are you trying to make here? It sounds like nonsense
they have missiles too you know...
>>29293706
>what is radar horizon and terrain masking
>>29296301
Hose down infantry with 20mm shells?
>>29296674
He was asking about the gun though.
>>29296706
Yeah, that's what i was thinking as well. 4x35mm cannons make a hell of a fire support vehicle.
>>29296635
large SPAAG's go all the way to 50,000 ft
A modern SPAAG with rocket assisted/base bleed shells could probably go higher
Slap a little armor on the vehicle and its 100% suitable for fire support/anti-armor.
>>29296748
More seriously, a MANPAD is a one use item. If you're firing against fixed or rotary wing CAS, and you miss or the enemy evades, you are probably about to have a bad day. It's quite all or nothing.
A cannon is an ongoing threat, so it's better at forcing its target onto the evasive and preventing it from attacking.
>>29296748
Pantsir's gun still one of the best ones because Pantsir can go stationary with those hydraulic stabilizers. It can deliver some pretty accurate fire.
>>29291793
Radar horizon and square laws of physics are the bane of SAMs, because of these two things, aircraft will always have a substantial advantage over any ground based threat, no matter whose air defense it is or whose aircraft they are. Because radar energy can be detected and triangulated well before the radiating platform can get a useable return, the aircraft can alter course appropriately or use radar horizon to its advantage. The only true way to mitigate this is to have AWACS on station feeding targeting data.
>>29291820
A poor image. SAMs never fire at their max range
Which model of S300 did the US buy and has been testing to see exactly how they work?
Do you think there have been massive changes in the S system with the 400 that makes these studies less valuable?
>>29297044
American and Soviet definition of max range differs.
>>29296178
This is just my retarded conjecture, but it seems like air defense in modern times would be more effective. Planes are far more valuable. High rate of attrition would lead to a lack of presence. If it was too expensive to go in then it probably wouldn't work.
Can we really churn out F-35s the same way we churned out fighters in WW2? Genuine question, but I kinda assume no.
Still, I don't know shit about the mechanics of it.
>>29296178
North vietnam
>>29298356
did the north vietnamese actually stop B-52's from bombing Hanoi, or did they just make it more inconvenient and require more SEAD missions before the bombers roll in.
>>29296460
Lets look at some other examples.
> Combined bomber offensive in WW2. Daylight bombing on halt in late 1943, resumed in early 1944 with greatly reduced bomber losses despite German flak getting much heavier. The difference is that the P-51 allowed for fighter sweeps and the elimination of the Luftwaffe. An opposing modern air force stopped the bombers, AA didn't.
> Vietnam, as stated above. During linebacker II, the USAF lost 8% of the B-52's committed to the operation. While heavy, are levels far below loss rates for WW2 bombers.
> Desert Storm, you should know this one
> Allied force, same here. Serbians launched 1000 missiles and only shot down 2 planes.
The only real example of a IADS shutting down and air offensive was during Yom Kippur, where the Israelis lost 20-30% of their strike aircraft to AAA and SAM's. Then they learned from this and took out all the SAM's a decade later in Beqaa valley without a single loss.
Current trends in stealth tilt the balance towards air power more and more, and I don't think that will change until laser become a heavy part of air defense.
>>29297091
Slovakia has PMU's and lets the US play with them on a pretty regular basis.
>>29298356
That perfect evidence of the lack of capabilities in IADS the north Vietnamese never shut out the usaf bombing raids.
>>29293126
>Leopard 2
>Mig25
Am I being baited?
>>29296178
Ukraine basicly grounded most of it's airforce in the recent donbass war purely because of MANPADS.
>>29299548
> never shut out the usaf bombing raids.
That's also reason why so many B52 were lost
>>29298309
F-35s wouldn't churned out like fighters in WW2 in the same way Abrams wouldn't be churned out like Shermans or T-34s.
The game has changed, but is hasn't shifted in the direction of air defences.
>>29297295
No, it does not. They're both calculated for when the projectile less so much energy it cannot sustain flight.
>>29299473
Slovakia had a monkey model of S-300PT
>>29299572
> Ukraine basicly grounded most of it's airforce in the recent donbass war purely because of MANPADS.
After they lost 16 jets and 24 helicopters, kek
>>29291793
tfw can't resist
>>29291793
The big issue with these long range SAMs is not their ability against fighters, but support assets. Both tankers and AEW aircraft are dead meat against these things. If those assets are too far back, then obviously they can't help the fighters overmuch. This is half the reason why the USN has chosen to make the CBARS primarily a tanker, despite it being a stealthy aircraft. With it, the tanker can fuel the fighters far closer to their targets, meaning longer range or loiter over target.
>>29299577
17 were lost to enemy fire during the entire Vietnam war. That's not much at all considering the production run of B-52's, how many sorties they flew, and how many SA-2's got shot at them.
The USAF doesn't like lose planes, but it did not stop air operations over North Vietnam because of aircraft losses.
>>29296635
Autocannons are irrelevant shit, only A-10 fanboys concern about them.
>>29299600
Welcome to modern mechanized warfare.
>>29296178
Those thousands of missiles that were launched hit a lot more than just 2 airplanes. A shitload of drones and cruise missiles went down, and numerous aircraft were hit but not destroyed.
>>29299590
Nope. Max range is maximum range where interception of target X can happen with probability not less than P.
Where X is specific flight vehicle with specific speed, altitude, relative to launch system course and executes specific manoeuvres (including no maneuvres at all). P is arbitrary number bettwen 0 nad 1.
>>29299572
Weren't they primarily using Su-25s?
Their flight ceiling is pretty shitty when under weapon load.
>>29296178
IAF lost more than 100 aircraft to SAM systems during the Yom Kippur War.
>but it has never been able to make the enemy stop flying missions
That's because no one ever attempted to preform SEAD against modern IADS.
>>29296701
>What is minimum firing range and minimum firing altitude
You didn't even try. Try again.
>>29297014
And ground based radars will always have an advantage in power output, positioning and supportive measures thus being capable to effectively detect and triangulate an aircraft well before it even gets a usable return. The aircraft is limited in missile firing range and altitude and is incapable of preforming an effective suppression mission against echeloned air defence in an excessive EW environment.
>>29297091
Last time I checked US has a lone cardboard basic S-300P mock-up in some desert shithole. And yes, there have been massive changes since that.
>>29299473
Slovakia has like one battery of S-300PS. They can let the US play with it however they want, Russians don't even use 5V55R missile anymore iirc and it's not like a lone battery of an obsolete S-300 model is some space magic. It's the Russian IADS that is.
>>29299571
>Mig-25
Am I?
Compared to other legacy SAM, S-300 has a couple of significant advantages:
1. Long range/theatre ranged missiles that can engage target in excess of 150km (for the PMU-1, 200km for the PMU-2) and even target low flying cruise missiles. The missiles have a speed of Mach 6 and their approach is basically invisible until terminal stage illumination through pencil beam of the Gravestone radar.
2. Literally unjammable radar: The engagement radar is a solid state electronically steered array (PESA) and utilizes a pencil beam to target and engage multiple air-targets in milliseconds. Due to the narrow beam, EW planes cant really begin to intercept the emissions and jam it until a beam has already been foccused on the aircraft - which means that a missile is already underway. Other aircrafts and stand-off EW planes cant just jam, since they cannot even get a hold of the gravestone radar's emissions.
3. Digitally controled long band search radars are very hard to intercept vie ESM and ELINT. These radars support the S-300 in searching for targets, basically while invisible in the electromagnetic spectrum. Another added effect of UHF/VHF radars: A certain degree of counter stealth capability. Even more so with the Nebo-M radars.
4. Highly mobile. The TEL and the radar vehicles can be readied within minutes and are off-road capable. While pre-surveyed SAM sites are still used, they could still operate with hasily prepared launch sites or just out in the wilderness. Everything that needs to be known to the S-300 battalion is merely their current location. In a world of GPS/Glonass/Beidou, this isnt hard. So, preemtive strikes against SAM sites or SAM hunting in general is very hard on its own. Plus, S-300/400 unit never travels alone >>29296912
Wont claim that they cant be suppressed (since we are training for that), but they will significantly complicate any airstrikes.
>>29300075
OP here. This is the answer I was looking for thank you.
>>29291793
The s300 was already overcome by the idf, it's only a natter of tim before the s400 is overcome by someone
>>29291793
Anyone here have any experience with western SAMs, mainly MEADS, THAAD and NASAMS? I have been trying to read about them but information is scares
>>29292184
>Has F-35 been yet tested on drunk Serbs with rustbucket 50s AA?
The S-125M "Neva-M", which is what downed the F-117 that you are talking about was developed in 1964. It was very dated by 1999 sure, but it was not "rustbucket 50s AA". The 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade got the systems it used during that event in 1980. No idea if it was hand me downs from the USSR or East Germany.
>>29300303
inb4 S500 is released.
>>29300288
So you were looking for drivel that supported what you wanted to hear, rather than facts?
Could have just gone on RT if you wanted that, anon.
>>29300303
>The s300 was already overcome by the idf
Looks like someone has been watching Fox News a lot lately, lol.
>>29300730
It was not "developed in 1964". It was designed in 50s and introduced in 1961.
>>29300860
Sure, the base version of the S-125 was. There is not small differences in the S-125 and S-125M systems. You have to remember that electronics were improving by leaps that time. Most of the outer casing after a up date would be the same but the insides not so much. Also the S-125 and S-125M uses a different missile from 1970 on words.
>>29300995
Also the newest version of the S-125, the S-125-2D, came out in 2010. Just accept that the S-125 is a family of systems rather then a single system with small linear upgrades over time.
>>29300788
Not really, no. The guy I replied to listed some strengths of the system that I am ignorant of. If he is wrong about any of them let me know.
What are the facts, Anon?
>>29301039
>>29300995
Not exactly. S-125 has been obsoleted as soon as S-300 came into service. Everything after - is purely exports, and yes some of those mods could be considered new systems due to the amount of changes.
As for the ones in actual USSR service (base, M, M1) - those were incremental updates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAjvemG8e0o
here you go /k/, now you can make your own when they start using drones to take your guns
>>29292261
thats fucking bullshit, he is alive and well today you fucking american retard
>>29292261
He is alive and well and has a bakery. The pilot went to visit him
>>29291965
No need, the f35 will just down itself like usual.
>>29301083
Anyone that says "literally unjammable" shouldn't really be taken altogether that seriously.
>>29300027
>capable to effectively detect and triangulate an aircraft well before it even gets a usable return.
This is not how inverse square law works. Quit being a vatnik for once in your life. A radiating ground based platform will always be at a disadvantage to any air based SEAD missions.
The S-125 has the adventage of operating within the UHF band, which makes it quite effective against anti-radar missiles because UHF optimized seekers are too big for such missiles.
>>29299694
>Max range is maximum range where interception of target X can happen with probability not less than P.
You have EZ and Max range all mixed up, bro.
>>29301260
>inverse square law
Works both ways, only that ground based radars are much more powerful than anything you can put on a plane and are all the more so linked in a network. Do you realise that your SEAD will not be facing A radar in the case of Russian IADS?
>>29302308
You are not understanding the physics of radar waves.
Ground radar waves have to be emitted from an antenna, hit the target aircraft, then reflect back to the antenna, while aircraft RWR picking up the radar emission doesn't need the wave reflecting back to the antenna.
Radar > Aircraft > Radar has the wave travel twice as far as Radar > Aircraft RWR, and by the inverse square law, assuming the aircraft is a perfect radar reflector that does not scatter at all, the RWR is receiving 4 times the signal strength than the ground antenna.
This is the case for all radar, it will tell the enemy where you are long before where returns are strong enough for you to get good information on the target.
The fact that ground antennas can be very big and high gain helps with counter this, but on the other hand aircraft are not perfect radar reflectors, especially not stealth aircraft. A radiating radar is telling everyone "I'm right here, try and kill me".
>>29302490
>Ground radar waves have to be emitted from an antenna, hit the target aircraft, then reflect back to the antenna, while aircraft RWR picking up the radar emission doesn't need the wave reflecting back to the antenna.
>picking up the radar emission
What is that? The 80s?
The radar beams of modern PESA/AESA are so narrow and fast changing that aircraft can't pick any beams anymore.
>>29302308
>Works both ways, only that ground based radars are much more powerful than anything you can put on a plane and are all the more so linked in a network
This only means the area in which they can be detected without providing a useful return is even further out and larger. More power does not obviate the inverse square law; the geometry is exactly the same, only longer range in both detection threshold for return and, much further out, radiation detection threshold for opposition. Networking only helps to push the system detection threshold for returns a little further out, but does not come close to invalidating the fact that all the emitters can be detected far, far further out than they can get a useful return. VLO technology only widens this margin.
This is basic physics, anon, and you should probably cover it before arguing the virtues of IADS vs SEAD if you wish to be taken remotely seriously.
>>29302578
>The radar beams of modern PESA/AESA are so narrow and fast changing that aircraft can't pick any beams anymore.
You are confusing air search radar for target track radar and showing your ass.
Even frequency agile emitters, even if they take a little longer to localize, still provide immediate bearing and strength of signal information no matter what.
>>29302578
you are acting like multi-spectrum RWR's don't exist.
Remember all the new fighters have their own AESA radars, which can definitely pick up emissions from hostile AESA.
>>29302596
It's basically noise at this time. Especially if modern surveillance radar systems operate within UHF band.
Question: would be possible to build multiple cheap antennas, scatter them over a large area and have them all work together? Maybe have some antennas be always active and when they detect something they order a number of "sub antennas" to turn on?
Ideally that would allow for a (reasonably) cheap system where the only thing that is in immediate danger is the antenna rather than the launcher or more costly electronics
>>29302308
>legitimately thinks that you can get around the hazards of radiating by having MORE objects radiating and that will somehow negate the fact that you can detect radar from further away than the radar can get a return
There's nowhere for this conversation to go if you don't understand basic physics.
>>29302696
>basic physics
>>29302706
Sorry, it also involves high school trig.
>>29302706
If I repeat it often enough it will work as argument of authority.
>>29302662
This is done already with radio telescopes, where lots of small antennas over an area combine to get the effect of a very large antenna.
The problem here is signal processing and antenna placement. Combining returns from multiple antennas is a very computation intensive process, which is why most aperture synthesis systems have their antennas set up in a fixed geometrical pattern.
That really limits your options for field deployment. Without Aperture synthesis small radars don't have the power to pick up the things that it needs to.
>>29302653
>It's basically noise at this time. Especially if modern surveillance radar systems operate within UHF band.
No. Chose either high power multiple emitter networks or frequency agile LPI mode. You can go frequency agile and high power, but you are not remotely LPI at that point. You do not get both simultaneously, which you would know if you knew much about all this.
As for LPI mode, its a matter of both processing and how much time and access the aggressor force has had for studying the emitter pattern algorithms so as to incorporate them for quick ID into air and ISR assets. This careful preparation and testing is a huge reason for why Desert Storm went so well. So, for the US at this point, with all the resources they spend on vacuuming every bit of the EM spectrum they can get on every piece of Russian equipment available (Radar or comms), just how much time and effort do you think they've put into developing the necessary algorithms and processing to identify all AA emitters as quickly as possible?
>>29302706
Well, radar systems are also more a thing of electronics and computer science with all the DSP and algorithm stuff.
Not that "Radar > Aircraft > Radar" does even matter when radar waves moving with the speed of light (well, a little slower on earth).
>>29302738
>>29302706
>He didn't learn about inverse square in his first physics class
I seriously hope you didn't pay for your education, because you got ripped off.
>>29302781
Not that the information "I get tracked" even give you more information than the fact you get tracked.
>>29302752
>The problem here is signal processing and antenna placement.
This. It works great for long distance (interstellar) slow scans on long wavelengths.
Just by it's nature and the physics of the problem, it's not something that can be used to real time weapons track a plane flying essentially in the middle of the array. It'd be like trying to read .5pt font on transparent paper almost touching your eyeball. You might know vaguely that something is there, but you'll have absolutely no means to localize it in a real way.
The distributed radar arrays the Russians, Chinese and US are developing work a good bit differently, but that's a whole dissertation just to get to the point where we understand the differences. While we're currently struggling with the concept of the inverse square law and how it affects target track information from both sides, it seems a little pointless.
>>29302781
Radar > Aircraft > Radar certainly matters when it means that the signa that the ground radar gets are only 1/4th as strong that the aircraft gets under absolute perfect conditions.
It means your detection range might be 100km, but the target aircraft knows exactly where your radar is at 150km, has shifted course to not go near your radar, has relayed where your radar is to his friends, and there's possibly something nasty on the way to where your radar is.
>>29302851
Exactly.
I'm not sure why certain people on /k/ are having such difficulty understanding this simple concept when EMCON has been a thing for decades.
>>29302872
It's basic physics after all!
>>29302872
>I'm not sure why certain people on /k/ are having such difficulty understanding this simple concept
Wouldn't you be extremely nervous about the concept if your country had put almost all its eggs in the IADS basket, had yet to get an operational 5th gen aircraft or even manned VLO aircraft into service AND can't be fucked to stop sabre rattling constantly and shitting on as many neighbors as possible because they left their shitty club?
>aircraft radar in charge of detecting radar emmisions of modern radar systems.
Well, why not.
>>29302922
>Well, why not.
AWACS/AEW&C at the very, very least. Also, since the tactical aircraft is getting four times the signal strength the radar is getting, why the everloving fuck shouldn't it be able to detect the emissions on a smaller array?
Do you really have this much trouble understanding how all this works?
>>29302968
Yes, because the basic fantasy physics in your head is fucked up
>>29302968
Wanna see your AWACS getting close to a supposed SAM zone in radar emmision detection mode.
>>29302706
>>29302738
>>29302909
>>29302981
Yes, it is basic physics. I cannot even conceive how uneducated you must be to think you can comment on this topic from an informed perspective and not understand BASIC electromagnetic radiation properties.
>The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).
>is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).
>so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).
>twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy
>only one-quarter the energy
Literally one of the first assertions in any high school physics EM module.
>>29302909
Do you deny that the inverse square law is taught in Physics 101 and isn't a core part of gravity?
Simply trying to meme it away does nothing to tarnish it's validity and your ignorance.
>>29303003
If your ground radar can detect the AWACS at 250nmi, then all else being equal, that AWACS can detect your ground emitters at 1,000nmi. EVEN IF THE AWACS HAS HALF THE RESOLUTION/PROCESSING, it still sees that ground radar at 500nmi, or twice the distance it can be seen from.
>inb4 radar horizon 1,000nmi hurr durr
Yes, I am aware. It's a fucking example.
>>29303037
>If your ground radar can detect the AWACS at 250nmi, then all else being equal, that AWACS can detect your ground emitters at 1,000nmi.
>he believes that
>>29303003
Why do you need an AWACS if the Barracuda on an F-35 can do the same job only somewhat worse, but comes on a stealth platform so you can be closer in to compensate.
>>29303056
>does not understand the implied difference between active radar emission/return/process/track and passive EM detection
>still commenting
why
>>29303088
He's just shitposting at this point.
>>29303067
also this. yet another strength of the "totally worthless and overrated, guize! i swear!" stealth.
>>29303101
>SAM is totally useless!
As expected of shitposters
>>29303114
I love that "USA doesn't have it, so it's total shit" on /k/.
>diesel-electric submarines
>every ship class smaller than a destroyer - except the LCS of course
>hypersonic
>glide vehicles
etc
>>29303139
>glide vehicles
Not that autist again
>>29303139
Or stuff they defend like crazy like the turbine in the Abrams although even the army wants to get rid of that with the new version.
>>29303139
>>29303139
>>29303161
/k/ being /k/
>>29303114
Never said it was totally worthless. But talking it up as if it has no weaknesses is beyond potato. Then going so far as to pretend the basic weaknesses dictated by high school physics do not exist gets into potato farm territory.
Look, it's not like the US doesn't use extensive IADS. What is AEGIS if not a mobile and extremely sophisticated IADS? Thing is, US tactics recognize and bulwark the inherent weaknesses of ground emitter networks by keeping an E-2D aloft at all times, if for no other reason than radar horizon. Sophisticated EMCOM/emissions patterns go further toward collecting data without giving too much away, but the primary long range sensor is STILL the E-2D in the network.
You cannot outshill physics, man.
>>29303114
The joke is that they are shitting on SAM while in the next thread they can't stop talking about how great and OP AEGIS is.
>>29303161
>although even the army wants to get rid of that with the new version
[citation required]
Diesel is one option they are looking at. Among other options.
>>29303139
>>29303161
>>29303176
>vatnik gets BTFO and doesn't even attempt to refute it
We are now in Stage 4
>immediately goes into damage control mode
>>29303193
diesel electric is what will be in the next tank
>>29303200
Ironic after you are only posting meme pictures.
>>29303208
Stage 4
>>29291793
It's only as good as the software allows, given that probably comes from Russia it will be total shit.
>LPI doesn't exist
>>29303190
>AEGIS
Without AEW&C aloft and tactical fighters flying CAP, AEGIS is dogshit. We know that. None of us expect 100% intercept rates when your radar horizon is at best 35nmi against sea skimmers. I cannot imagine why you seem to expect this.
One big advantage of having LPI for Sam radars is that an LPI war of an aircraft trying to identify LPI sam radar transmissions and a Sam radar trying to remain covert, greatly favours the sam radar since its computational power can be greater than the aircraft where space for computational power is at a premium.
>>29303226
>doesn't understand what LPI is, nor why the inverse square law is applicable no matter what
>>29303253
>expecting vatniks to understand something that isn't vodka and jingoism
>>29303253
The joke is that inverse square law doesn't even matter here if the question is to detect a pattern under all the noise.
You need computational power for that shit.
>>29303241
>greatly favours the sam radar since its computational power can be greater than the aircraft where space for computational power is at a premium.
It would have to be four times more powerful. While this is possible (but unlikely considering the costs of such a system for tactical assets), I find it highly unlikely that it is also four times more power than the processing in an E-3 or E-2D.
>>29303275
What also stops ground based radar systems of being OP is the fucking radarhorizont - not the inverse square law.
>>29303275
>The joke is that inverse square law doesn't even matter here if the question is to detect a pattern under all the noise.
>You need computational power for that shit.
Anon. Jesus. The search radar has THE SAME FUCKING PROCESSING PROBLEM when looking at the return as the targeted object has when detecting the emission. BUT THE TARGETED OBJECT GETS THE SIGNAL AT 4 TIMES THE POWER LEVEL. If you cannot see how this would be detectable far earlier on a smaller array even with less processing, then you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.
It's a basic fucking rule: if you're emitting, you're hanging your ass out. Period.
>>29303290
AWACS also have the adventage of being able to cover a wide area.
The radar of the SAM is limited to its relative small bubble, so you need many expensive radar systems to cover a wide area.
>>29303299
>THE SAME FUCKING PROCESSING PROBLEM
No.
Well, there is jammer mapping and noise jamming but that are active systems with all kinds of own problems.
A normal return of an aircraft doesn't suffer from pattern hiding radar signature.
>>29296178
>The Serbs shot down an F-16 and an F-117, but only after expending almost 1000 missiles.
The F-117 alone probably costed 3 times as those missles though. AA missles are more expendable and cheaper than aircraft.
>>29303037
>AWACS can detect your ground emitters at 1,000nmi.
>>29303200
>vatnik gets BTFO
>Stage 4
Dude, to detect ground emitter at 1000nmi distance, your precious AWACS must be on low-earth orbit. Unless you believe in flat Earth. It's not vatnik gets BTFO. It's 'Murican doesn't get proper school education.
>>29303325
I like how is argument is solely based on muh inverse square law without really understanding anything of radar technolgy.
>>29303325
>No.
This is not an argument. This is just a denial with no meat.
>Well, there is jammer mapping and noise jamming but that are active systems with all kinds of own problems.
Also available from the air side of the equation, and also rife with its own set of problems from emitting, WHICH IS ALWAYS A RISK.
>A normal return of an aircraft doesn't suffer from pattern hiding radar signature.
Throw in the inverse square law and VLO tech and you're luck if you've shaved the margin to 2:1 from 4:1 even with the best frequency agile algorithms completely unknown to your opposition.
Again. It's basic goddamn physics. The aircraft return isn't subject to pattern masking, yes, but that return is nowhere near 100% surface area to reciprocal energy return, and even if it were the emitter STILL has the inverse square law hump to climb.
Does the guy want to make "basic physics" a meme?
>>29303346
>The F-117 alone probably costed 3 times as those missles though.
I'd love to see a source for that. Go on, argue that missiles only cost $14,200 apiece.
>>29303346
>>29303377
Don't forget to include the cost of all the targets the aircraft destroyed, too, in lives, tactical/strategic advantage, currency cost and opportunity.
Arguing that a single F-117 and single F-16 offset the cost of trying to bring them down and the cost of the targets the air campaign destroyed is absolutely retarded.
>>29303349
>Dude, to detect ground emitter at 1000nmi distance, your precious AWACS must be on low-earth orbit.
I knew he'd take that bait. I even preempted him in the fucking post he quoted:
>>29303037
>>inb4 radar horizon 1,000nmi hurr durr
>Yes, I am aware. It's a fucking example.
>>29303371
My basic physics stands!
>>29303420
Respond to >>29303016.
Make an actual rational argument, if you can.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
>>29303303
RADAR systems aren't nearly as expensive as they used to be, and can be deployed in far greater numbers.
At this rate, it's only a matter before stealth becomes a special snowflake tech when it's overmatched by cheaper, far more powerful, anti-air systems. Anywhere with a power grid is good enough for these systems to be deployed.
http://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chinese-russian-radars-track-see-u-s-stealth
>>29303623
The F-35 is cheaper than non-stealth planes
>>29303664
Basically basic physics
>>29303664
Why are you responding to a post full of the same old disproven claims from 3 years ago's /k/?
>>29303682
I don't think USNI source is a "disproven claim". It was just a matter of time before RADARs caught up to stealth tech.
>>29303664
RADARs are cheaper than F-35s. I never made that point you just responded to.
>>29303371
Well, all of his basic physics explains that there are radaw waves and there is a return.
Anything else isn't basic physics but high level electrical engineering. computer science and algorithm.
>>29303623
>At this rate, it's only a matter before stealth becomes a special snowflake tech when it's overmatched by cheaper, far more powerful, anti-air systems.
I love this argument.
If you truly believe this, then defend the fact that China and Russia are still producing VLO aircraft.
>>29303679
Actually, yes. Aircraft with smaller signatures, reduced radar returns and LPI sensors/comms will ALWAYS hold a detection threshold advantage against aircraft without these systems. NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM IS USED.
You are correct in that at some point it becomes a cost/benefit equation when considering what technology is operationally ready for mass production/introduction, but the basic assertion remains true.
When you consider the cost of the F-35 against other 4.5gen western aircraft, you must also weigh the benefits and then consider your decision. When the costs become nearly equal, as they are now, the choice only gets easier.
>>29303708
He does get his basic physics wrong as well.
The guy in the aircraft doesn't have a 4 time stronger radar signal but just 2 time.
>>29303719
Stop replying. The "muh low-frequency radar" meme had a new asshole torn into it a long time ago. You just need to learn to mentally filter out those posts.
>>29303700
effective modern radars that won't just get jammed, and are mobile so they don't get missile'd, are not particularly cheap
>>29303700
>RADARs are cheaper than F-35s.
This is true. However, all the shit behind those radars (like the entire country's infrastructure, logistics, C4SIR, etc) are not. You are buying capability. The US is buying the ultimate capability to reduce IADS through SEAD and then destroy targets at will. Russia is purchasing the end capability to defend and deny this airspace through IADS, but lags in spending/capability to attack reciprocally. The basic fact of the matter is, defense does not win wars. Attrition and loss can make it costly, but forcing an overall victory is impossible.
Furthermore, it's not as if Russia is buying ONLY radars to offset the US air attack capabilities (which are by no means represented by the F-35 alone). They STILL have to fund a very sizable air force for point defense and interception, and they STILL have to fund a navy. The IADS costs are in addition to all this. It is by no means a 1:1 cost ratio.
SAMs are the coastal artillery of our time.
The attacker is forced to deploy a larger more expensive force than the defender.
And it also does it jobs with just doing area denial.
>>29303719
Because advancements in MANPADs never stopped anyone from producing Hinds, Hermits, or Alligators. Just because you have it doesn't mean your enemy does.
>>29303747
>and are mobile so they don't get missile'd
These don't exist. Set-up and tear-down times for displace-and-move strategies are in the tens of minutes for all current mobile IADS systems. The only way to avoid localization and destruction is to limit the number and duration of your radar emissions windows before displacing, which has been standard IADS tactics since Vietnam.
>>29303778
MANPADs indeed changed how helicopters are used.
>>29303778
>Because advancements in MANPADs never stopped anyone from producing Hinds, Hermits, or Alligators.
Or Apaches, etc.
What it did do, however, is force attack helicopter tactics to have a sea change and in some ways limit their effectiveness and how they operate, especially over mountainous and urban areas - anywhere with heavily obscured natural hidey-holes.
There is no permanent end-all platform, only a constant evolution of attack measure VS countermeasure. It's just that some platforms enjoy natural advantages over others due to their physical characteristics.
>>29303770
>SAMs are the coastal artillery of our time.
>The attacker is forced to deploy a larger more expensive force than the defender.
I cannot find anything wrong with this analogy. Well put, anon.
>>29303721
It is 4 you moron, 2^2=4, which is why it's the inverse square law.
It would be twice as strong if radar waves only propagated in two dimensions rather than 3.
Hint, they don't.
>>29303790
in Afghanistan Soviet Hips and Hinds would fly below Mujahideen positions because Stingers couldn't fly below the horizon. They were clunky and, from the words of one of the best Afghan insurgent generals, highly overrated. Now you don't even need to worry about that anymore.
>>29303804
But the attacker is ALWAYS forced to deploy a larger force than the defender. This is true in almost all technological eras of warfare. It is neither profound nor new.
The flip side of this coin is that defense NEVER wins conflicts. At some point, you're forced to interdict and destroy your enemy's ability to wage war, either through logistics and production raiding or outright front line forces reduction.
>>29303812
Think about your post
>>29303830
Writing in bold latters doesn't make your statements more true.
>>29303803
Traditional tactics against MANPADS don't even really work anymore. Even flying low or reducing your heat signature is not a guarantee of not being hit. The US never really had this problem because we spent most of our career invading third world countries.
>>29303721
see >>29303016
It really isn't that difficult. Just remember that the T/R modules on the emitting radar are always twice the distance from the target of the sensor because the signal has to travel to it and then back.
>>29303803
>It's just that some platforms enjoy natural advantages over others due to their physical characteristics.
Just come out and say it: aviation platforms enjoy those natural advantages over surface-bound platforms. I know it, you know it, the US Navy knows it. Even Russia knows it. Being up in the sky above the curving surface is a big deal, and that's before we even get into things like speed and range.
>>29303812
the target receives half the initial radiated power, the radar receives 1/4.
that's still twice the power. it's a useful advantage and i believe it holds true in submarine combat with sonar as well.
>>29303786
Well then I think these countries running IADS are going to get a shocking surprise once a proper air offensive occurs.
>>29303859
>it's a useful advantage and i believe it holds true in submarine combat with sonar as well.
It holds true in nearly all forms of radiated energy.
>>29303866
>Well then I think these countries running IADS are going to get a shocking surprise once a proper air offensive occurs.
They do every time, but no one seems to learn anything from it. It is shocking to me how little the historically terrible performance of IADS affects people's opinions of them. Save the one very early Israeli example from 50 years ago, IADS has not once stopped a developed air force from hitting targets at will. Attrited them? Yes. Stopped them? No.
>>29291793
Goddamn it! We told the government not to get rid of the Army with all of its artillery and long range missiles, and infantry, and tanks and shit.
And the Navy with its missile platforms, and the Marines, what with their ability to also use rifles and tanks.
And we TOLD the AirForce to NOT scrap their high altitude stealth bombers, with the ability to launch long range air to ground missiles, and we ESPECIALLY told them not to scrap the combat controller program denying us super elite infiltration and recon units to guide those missiles home.
Nazi Germany had perfectly capable anti-air systems, but they still lost air superiority. The industrial might of a nation like the USA would grind a place like Russia into dust.
>>29303859
It doesn't really matter in radar warfare, which is more about bruteforcing with computional power than the energy level of radar waves.
Sonar has the special condition that you can't hide your noise.
>>29303786
>Set-up and tear-down times for displace-and-move strategies are in the tens of minutes for all current mobile IADS systems. The only way to avoid localization and destruction is to limit the number and duration of your radar emissions windows before displacing, which has been standard IADS tactics since Vietnam.
This reminds me of an anecdote. Apparently counter-battery radar operators are referred to as "pop-up targets"
>>29303855
Fleet defense is a whole different ballgame than your SAM traps and it's been so goddamn long since we've done legit Wild Weasel operations I'm starting to think you guys are forgetting something.
>>29303899
you can to a certain extent via using haloclines and thermoclines according to the tom clancy books i read in 6th grade.
>>29303890
1973 wasn't "very early Israel"
>>29303866
>Well then I think these countries running IADS
so all countries?
>>29303890
>They do every time, but no one seems to learn anything from it. It is shocking to me how little the historically terrible performance of IADS affects people's opinions of them. Save the one very early Israeli example from 50 years ago, IADS has not once stopped a developed air force from hitting targets at will. Attrited them? Yes. Stopped them? No.
That nonsense.
Read some reports about the efficiency of SEAD missions and SAM in the Gulf War and Kosovo.
>>29303899
>It doesn't really matter in radar warfare, which is more about bruteforcing with computional power than the energy level of radar waves.
Anon. Jesus. How can you not see that this statement is completely unsound logically?
>>29303910
people thought a heavily tech-dependant air force who hadn't been in a shooting war with anybody near what was at the time thought to be a near-peer competitor in 1991 would get BTFO by IADS...
turns out diligent dissimilar and focused training with acceptable levels of risk does wonders for aircrew readiness.
>>29303914
>1973 wasn't "very early Israel"
But it is "very early" in terms of the history of IADS, both in IADS capabilities and air force experience against it/capabilities to reduce it (SEAD).
It's funny using Isreal as example if they have some of the most advanced air defence system in the world.
>>29303916
>Read some reports about the efficiency of SEAD missions and SAM in the Gulf War and Kosovo.
Once more for the slow bus:
Are you actually suggesting that IADS stopped air forces from striking whichever targets they chose in either Kosovo or Desert Storm? Reeeeeeally?
>>29303914 (samefag)
1970: Israel btfos the joint Syrian/Russian IADS in Bekaa
1973: Israel fails to defeat Egyptian AD along the canal, is severely restricted in operations.
>>29303928
It only appears because you have no idea how radar systems operate.
>>29303934
Ah I see what you meant. Point taken.
>>29303944
$30 says he brings up Package Q
>>29303944
>Are you actually suggesting that IADS stopped air forces from striking whichever targets they chose in either Kosovo or Desert Storm?
They did.
That's the reason why SEAD missions have the highest priority.
>>29303916
NATO fell to some very, very basic bait and switch tactics during SEAD missions in Kosovo. This comes from NATOs own reports on the operation.
>>29303952
Then educate me as to why signal strength has NOTHING to do with "bruteforcing with computional power". Go on, tell me the final determination of detection threshold range on a given object is STILL not determined by a signal strength floor, no matter how good your signal processing and T/R module array size.
>>29303928
Your aircraft wouldn't even know how to handle radar waves which operate in UHF band.
>>29303976
>They did.
That's pretty huge news. You better let the Iraqi armed forces of 1991 know, 'cause they'll be MIGHTY surprised.
>>29303933
>people thought a heavily tech-dependant air force who hadn't been in a shooting war with anybody near what was at the time thought to be a near-peer competitor in 1991 would get BTFO by IADS...
This did happen, though. As a matter of fact, it was so bad that US halted day operations on Baghdad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqnAHlOEja0
>>29303946
Beqaa was after tomorrow kippur, and used a lot of the lessons learned from it.
>>29304002
1) that does fuckall for weapons-release grade tracks
2) what on god's green earth would suggest that the most modern RWR systems do not include L-band detection/localization capability?
For instance, the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda on the F-35 has a publicly stated L-band capability.
http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system
>Always active, AN/ASQ-239 provides all-aspect, broadband protection, allowing the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars.
>>29303993
>NATO fell to some very, very basic bait and switch tactics during SEAD missions in Kosovo. This comes from NATOs own reports on the operation.
This was mainly because since they had no ground forces in the Balkans, NATO had no real way of actually verifying if they were bombing decoys or not, or forcing Serbian forces to move or mobilize in a way that would make them easier to spot in the air. As a result, NATO had to bomb anything that looked like a threat regardless if it was a decoy or not.
And regardless, the use of decoys still didn't stop NATO from bombing Serbia virtually unmolested. An unused IADS is a useless IADS.
>>29304009
>US halted day operations on Baghdad.
The US never started with day operations in Baghdad until WELL after the IADS had been reduced to non-functional levels. How do you not know this, yet still be willing to comment on it? How are you not embarrassed as fuck right now?
>At 2:43 A.M. two USAF EF-111 Ravens with terrain following radar led 22 USAF F-15E Strike Eagles against assaults on airfields in Western Iraq. Minutes later, one of the EF-111 crews – Captain James Denton and Captain Brent Brandon – destroyed an Iraqi Dassault Mirage F1, when their low altitude maneuvering led the F1 to crash to the ground.
>At 3:00 AM, ten USAF F-117 Nighthawk stealth bombers, under the protection of a three-ship formation of EF-111s, bombed Baghdad, the capital. The striking force came under fire from 3,000 anti-aircraft guns firing from rooftops in Baghdad.
>>29301229
>>29304034
Shit, you're right. I thought it happened in '70 for some reason
>>29304061
>The US never started with day operations in Baghdad until WELL after the IADS had been reduced to non-functional levels. How do you not know this, yet still be willing to comment on it? How are you not embarrassed as fuck right now?
This is patently false. US didn't do this until after the F-16 raid.
>>29304093
>This is patently false. US didn't do this until after the F-16 raid.
Those are literally the first strikes in the fucking air war, you idiot.
The F-16 raid didn't happen until DAY 3, and even then it was only an indication they needed to further reduce IADS before executing daylight attacks with non-VLO aircraft unsupported by jamming. So they did. And then it was fine.
>>29304093
>stopping one raid stopped the US from leveling Iraqi IADS, C4SIR and pretty much any other target they wanted to hit
ok, kid
>>29304009
well i was off a bit.>>29303965
>>29304123
>>29304112
You guys do realize you didn't directly refute my point, right?
>>29304179
i think the thought process at the time was
"ok, we've been bombing Iraq's IADS... let's try to hit things in downtown Baghdad now."
"i know, the best way is to use a massive F-16 formation (56 jets!) plus wild weasels, F-15C's as top cover, etc.)
then you proceed to have massive problems with last minute target changes not getting properly disseminated, basic aircraft marshaling, aircraft falling out before the push, MIGCAP and the wild weasels bingoing out and having to RTB... all this and the IADS wasn't quite as dead as believed.
so yeah, they flew F-117's over downtown Baghdad and blew up more things instead.
>>29299667
It's like raping helis isn't your fetish.
>>29304217
No, he's either willfully obtuse or he actually cannot understand the difference between actually denying and successfully defending targets in a conflict VS the US jumping the gun on permissive airspace raids and needing to reduce IADS a little more (all the while bombing any fucking target they like at night).
Whichever it is, I have no time for him. He's trying to pull the conversation away from his glaring deficiencies in understanding how radar actually works.
Why not use AWACS to feed targetting info to ground AA? Then the ground AA doesnt need to turn on their radars, so the enemy planes have no idea where they are till they fire.
AWACs can also hang back behind the AA so enemy planes have to get within the AA's optimum firing range to engage the AWACS.
>>29304405
Because that's dumb and completely circumvents the concept of AA. Your objective is not so much defending an area but trapping enemy aircraft in a kill zone.
>>29304431
but you are still trapping enemy aircraft in a kill zone.
enemy planes see your awacs, tries to engage it, gets engaged by your hidden AA, you win.
>>29304405
That's the basic structure of USN CSG air defense, and generally the optimal setup for IADS networks. However, it leaves the entire system even more vulnerable to VLO aircraft, as AWACS systems don't have the antenna size for the best L-Band resolution, nor do they have fixed-position distributed array capability because they are constantly moving. The US has been working on this problem for years, and by all accounts are near or at a solution to the processing problems (which require very precise position refinement in all three directions updated at the shortest possible intervals, which vastly increases required datalink bandwidth with distributed platforms - this is part of why the F-35 has such a fat data pipe). Implementing the system with mobile ground IADS assets is doable, but very expensive. I'm not sure Russia has input the necessary research into the problem, as AWACS for them has always been secondary to ground control, and never a central IADS node - only secondary.
>>29304461
There are far better forms of bait.
>>29304476
other forms of bait require you to turn on your ground radars which then gets killed by SEAD.
>>29304506
there are former soviet aircraft and missiles which are basically dedicated/designed to shoot down AWACS. if russian doctrine procedes down that path, the US would develop similar missiles.
>>29304462
I should further note that it requires good CAP aircraft aloft, also running passive generally. This allows the aircraft themselves to vector on incoming threats and plug any holes in the IADS due to basic geometry/good attack planning and losses due to SEAD. Remember, tracking radiators is by no means the only way to find IADS assets.
