Russia can now shoot down all but 200 US warplanes

The F-117 was a 1st generation low observable aircraft. It was designed in the 1970s in reaction to the SAM threat encountered in the Vietnam conflict.

Keep in mind, there are two facets to stealth. The first is passive, and this involves low observable features and active emitters, radios and laser designators.

The second facet are active, and involve planning all mission maneuvers in order to minimize the aircraft's radar cross section. Normal maneuvers, for example hard turns or opening bomb bay doors, can more than double an otherwise low oberservable (stealth) aircraft's radar return. This is what the Serbs took advantage of when they shot down the F-117. The Air Force did not alter the egress route after 4 days of a continous bombing campaign over Belgrade. The Serb commander of the missile battery was alerted of an F-117 in the area as a P-18 radar picked up a brief glimpse of the aircraft as it opened it's bomb bay doors. They knew where to set up, turned off the radar guidance of the SA-3 missiles and fired in an approximate area where the F-117 would be. Radar isn't the only way an aircraft can be spotted, heat, sound, and other emissions of the aircraft can also be used to locate it.

Stealth does not equal invisible. Low tech can defeat high tech, there is no doubt about that. We see that with buried improvised explosives disabling M1 battle tanks, detonated by a cell phone call. However, in the final analysis, the Kosovo air campaign can be regarded as a successful operation in light of the fact, this was strictly an air war and without troops on the ground, any sort of real victory isn't going to happen.

One shoot-down of an F-117 out of thousands of successful sorties in hostile airspace, can be regarded as a successful combat record.

There is not an aircraft flying today, that is invincible, no one is pretending otherwise..this is a question of winning a war of attrition and I believe the United States maintains a distinct advantage, albeit a small one, in the area of air superiority on a global level. Does this mean even 5th generation aircraft can operate with impunity anywhere on the globe with no risk of combat losses? Of course not.

 

Heck, just look at how it was used in WWII.

During WWI, the British employed barrage balloons and nets, and the German pilots greatly feared them. This is about as low-tech air defense as you can get, helium balloons with wires tethered to the ground. But they were effective still in WWII, even with the advances of RADAR guided guns and proximity fuses. They were even effective in taking down V-1 rockets.

In fact, with all the discussion of stealth in defeating air defense sites, the most effective way to take out such a site still remains the low-tech non-stealth helicopter. They fly below the level that most missile defense systems operate at, and are so slow that many RADAR systems discard the return as ground clutter.

Our biggest fear during air defense war games was always the HIND. "Low and slow" is the biggest vulnerability for any air defense missile site, as are HARM missiles. Take out the RADAR, and the rest of the system is dead.

 

An aircraft flying NOE, nap of the Earth, can evade radar and as you say, take out the radar. The Serbs used microwave ovens to set up false emitters picked up by SEAD aircraft. Your basic $60 dollar microwave proved an effective device...

The U.S. used inflatable tanks to confuse German spotters in the air.

The problem in 1999, was a level of over-confidence exhibited after the utter annihilation of Iraq's military, which as you say had a sizable and competent air defense system. They took it for granted they could manage the SEAD mission with ease in the Balkans. Hopefully they learned a thing or two.

 

As I said before there are arguments I don't discuss on the net beyond what's already public.

But this is not the point.

If you remember the statistics of WWII you could realize that an incredible number of planes was involved in that conflict. Check the numbers by yourself and after doing that, wonder if today we could spend enough money to produce a comparable number of F35 ...

Italian Navy today is working following two paths.

* improving defense of battle groups [odd as it can sound, but Italy has got two battle groups with two battle carriers], employing more than advanced research to give suggestions to military engineers [overall to defend the carriers from the hypersonic missiles .... in particular the Russian ones].

* finding a way to make F35 operative in their B version [a part of the assembly chain is in Italy, so our engineers are working on the problem].

Sure Italy will never have a combat capability comparable with the one of a real power [we are not going to go on war against Russia! Or an other potentially hostile power ... just to be clear!], we will always be a support power, nothing more. Anyway, now to think to send our Cavour carrier with its battle group in a war theater where advanced missile systems are operative is a problem [and not little!].

Sometime I think Americans feel a bit too confident.

[It's evident that I'm not going to discuss the deck defenses of the Cavour or how many hypersonic missiles can its battle group destroy in a time ... only military commands know this and that's enough for me].

 

Italy is making an Air Force substantially made by stealth units in its attack divisions ...

A part this detail, [Italians are crazy, you know, but it was an Italian to find America ... after a lot of Vikings! But the world remembers Columbus, mysteries of history!], when you talk about SU and you don't add a number over 30, you are talking about prehistorical relics ... so our NATO invincible units have faced ... flying dinosaurs ...

Regarding what you say about aircraft carriers ... where have you lived in the last decade?

 

There is only one combat operational 5th generation fighter aircraft in the World today. The F-22 "Raptor." The Russians have their T-50, the Chinese their J-20, and they claim these are equal if not superior to the F-22...however these are paper claims.

The F-22 had signiifcant bugs, which included a faulty OBOGS that nearly killed many of it's pilots as they fell unconscious due to hypoxia. Lots of bugs....as new systems will have. You don't hear about the bugs of the T-50 or J-20, they are "perfect" aircraft right out of the box It's a bunch of propaganda and the Australia air power website (linked in OP) as run by a freelance Dr. Carlos Kopp is a notoriously biased website...with non-existent privy to classified intel to even begin to compare an operational, combat ready system like the F-22 verses the T-50.

Yet they go on record with all sorts of conjecture how the U.S. is no longer able to maintain air superiority, the Russians and Chinese have in fact surpassed the U.S. technological edge. All of this, of course...is conjecture based upon publically available intelligence. This is what they base their opinions on, and you'll never read or hear about any reports out of Russia or China regarding bugs in the transition of their 5th generation fighter aircraft to operational readiness. Unlike the United States which maintains a fairly open public relations pipeline with their systems, any news out of Russia or China is blacked out.

"All is well" "All is well"

Sure thing, comrades.

I will take the bird in hand, the combat ready F-22 verses the paper tiger T-50, J-20, any day.

 

And what does this really matter to me or most others in here?

Yea, Italy is updating it's air force, finally. Until a decade ago, their main fighter aircraft was the F-104 for goodness sakes! They were still building new ones even after the US Air Force had retired their fleet of this 1950's era piece of technology.

And as an FYI, the SU-25 is not a "prehistoric relic". This fighter was introduced in the 1980's, and is newer then most of the aircraft that the US uses (F-15 was introduced in 1976, the F-16 in 197. And it is a damned good plane, still being used to effect by Russia and many other countries. The "newer" SU-34 and SU-35 are simply updated SU-27s. And the SU-33 is simply a carrier version of the SU-27.

You see, it helps when you know what you are actually talking about.

But please, tell me what new and modern developments in aircraft carriers have happened in the last decade. Since you seem to think that there are some kind of major changes and developments, tell us what they are?

And BTW, Cristoforo Colombo did not "discover" America, my ancestors had been living here for thousands of years already, and were not "lost".

 

This is fairly typical for fanbois and "military wonks" who have never actually served. They look at pages full of statistics and with that decide which is the best. Not even realizing they are only looking at a small piece of the puzzle.

Tactics.

At the start of WWII, the Japanese forces outnumbered those of the US, and many considered their equipment superior. However, where the US had the edge was strategy, tactics, and logistics. Against all of those combined, Japan never had a chance. Even their top aces were confounded and forced to retreat when the US started to use the "Thatch Weave", a tactic that is still used to this day by the US because it works.

And this continues today in NATO doctrine. The other major strategy and tactic system in use is the Warsaw Pact doctrine. And over the last 50 years, we have seen how well these two generally work.

Warsaw against Warsaw tends to create long stalemate battles. Iran-Iraq war is a great example, war of attrition. Israel used a modification of NATO doctrine and routinely trounced the combined forces of the Arab Nations repeatedly, both offensively and defensively. The US and coalition forces used NATO doctrine against Warsaw Pact doctrine Iraq 2 separate times, and accomplished in days or weeks what Iran could not do in a decade.

The biggest mistake that poster is making is that he is completely ignoring the most important and critical part of any aircraft, the pilot. And secondly the pilots of the other aircraft they are flying with.

 

F-104? We still used WWI wooden planes!

Well, no. I'm a real expert [and lover] of avionics. SU under 30 are aged. Period. If you say "simply" I can infer that "simply" you don't know the state of the art of Russian production of jet fighters ...

About carriers ... do you know the USS Gerald Ford [still in construction, but just to indicate a clear example of what a modern carrier is ...]?

 

And what is new about the USS Gerald Ford that was not in the USS Nimitz? Or the USS Enterprise? Or the retrofitted USS Midway?

Name for me what is new or revolutionary about this carrier, other then just being a newer bigger carrier.

And BTW, the US is the only country that builds CATOBAR Supercarriers in case you did not know that. The Soviets built 2 skijump "aircraft carrying guided missile cruisers" (of which one was eventually sold to China), and the UK is building 2 skijump carriers. The USS Ford is simply a continuation of the Nimitz class. Which was a continuation of the Enterprise class. Which was largely an upsized and nuclear powered version of the Kitty Hawk class. Which in itself was an upsized and improved Forrestal class.

So what is so new about this one?

In other words, you are an aircraft wonk.

OK, that's fine. To you anything that is not the newest version is junk, and you do not look at the "big picture" when trying to make determinations, just at your airplanes.

Myself, I try to take in everything. Because in a conflict that is what is going to be involved, everything. But thank you for playing.

 

American carriers since the Nimitz have been evolutionary designs.

The Ford IIRC is mainly distinguished by

1) Nuclear reactors that do not require refueling. A significant increase in the amount of time the carrier can be in active service.
2) Electromagnet launch catapults- much less dangerous for crewman and pilots than steam catapults.
3) Better flight deck layout with the island now behind all three starboard aircraft elevators.

 

Nothing new, the USS Enterprise first did this in 1961, over 40 years ago. And on average, she only needs refueling every 20 years. Her last refueling was in 1994. The USS Nimitz was launched in 1975, she has been refueled exactly once, in 2000. And these are always combined with other major refits, such as replacing RADAR units, rewiring and updating the internal systems, and adding new defensive systems. So the "increase of the amount of time the carrier can be in active service" is actually minimal if insignificant.

Roughly every 15-20 years all ships are brought in for a 2-4 year refit. Submarines, destroyers, carriers, even amphibious transports. The fact that refueling happens during that time means nothing, it is expected in a ship designed to last 40-60 years.

Not really. Just a change on the catapult itself, not really anything "new". And since it is not yet in service, the "less dangerous" will not be proven until it is actually used.

Really? I would say this is a return to an earlier design.

Are you aware that the USS Ranger, CV-4, the first aircraft carrier ever built as such for the US Navy (the others were all conversions of existent ships) did not have an island at all?

A small island was added late during construction.



And was then later enlarged when the ship was modified to use an early shipboard RADAR unit. In fact, most early carriers had small to no islands at all. And many other carriers (specifically the Kitty Hawk class) had islands that were placed far to the rear compared to other models.



So new or revolutionary? Not really, simply a break from more recent designs and a return to prior examples to me. The island was never really needed all that much before the era of RADAR anyways, it was more for the pilot and captain to have an ability to watch over the ship then anything else that they were added in the first place. And other then for a place to mount the RADAR they are really not needed today other then for tradition.

But all of the examples you gave are just returns to prior models, or refinements upon already existing systems.

What is new and revolutionary in the USS Gerald Ford? Does it have 2 flight decks so it can launch aircraft in 2 directions at the same time? Does it have hydroplanes so can travel at record breaking speeds? Can it go underwater and hide from enemies? (That may not be new really, the Japanese built submersible aircraft carriers in WWII)

What is "new" or "revolutionary" about yet another iteration of the USS Nimitz? From what I have seen, you might as well claim that the addition of CIWS and RAM is "new" and "revolutionary".

 

Certainly in civil aviation, and to a lesser extent military operations limited to tanker/airlift...pilots are more systems managers than actually hands on flyers of the aircraft. Obviously rotary wing aircraft require constant vigilance just to keep the thing going in the proper direction, speed and altitude. A fully trimmed fixed wing aircraft the size of a C-5, which is a massive airplane... can be flown with two fingers and light pedal pressure with your feet. Truly amazing when you think about...and all the credit goes to the designers and engineers for that.

 

Motion of order.
It's evident that we are discussing in abstract, because we are not taking into proper consideration that a real war on large scale between two big powers could involve the usage of nuclear weapons [and this would change a lot the scenario].

This said, going back to the fractal approach of this thread itself, Americans keep on producing CATOBAR carriers which offer great operative capabilities, but they are very expensive, it takes years and years to build them and they need a great defensive system [they are very huge targets!].

The other powers [overall because of economical reasons] prefer more little carriers [VSTOL / VTOL]: they are cheaper, it takes less time to produce them [a part the Italian ones, we Italians are always the same!] and they are less easy targets [in abstract of course].

About SU-35 and how it has been improved in comparison with original SU-27, even this WIKI page can help ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

Regarding the USS Gerald Ford, you miss something ...
* better nuclear energy system
* improved stealth characteristics [it will be less a "huge target" than traditional super-carriers]
* wider automation with a tremendous reduction of the crew [less service costs]
* better missile and anti missile systems

[it seems that US commands are thinking to improve defenses ... wonder why].

 

I said it was "evolutionary" not "revolutionary".

Learn the difference.

 

Yes, the motion of order is because you really do not know what you are talking about. But please, let's see how right you are, ok?

The HMS Queen Elizabeth, R08. Laid down July 2009, commissioning expected early 2017, operational by 2020. Cost $5 billion US.
The USS Gerald R. Ford, CVN-78. Laid down November 2009, commissioning expected March 2016, operational by 2018. Cost, $12 billion US.
The USS George H. W. Bush, CVN-77. Laid down September 2003, commissioned January 2009, operational 2011. Cost, $6 billion US.

The reason I put in 3 is because of the vastly increased cost of the newest US carrier, a lot of R&D time and costs there. But the point is, it is going to take 11 years for the newest UK carrier to become operational, compared to the 8 years it took for the last Nimitz class. At a savings of only $1 billion (the QE is actually expected to cost in excess of $8 billion based upon current cost overruns, $2 billion more then the CVN-77).

Seems to me it would have been faster and cheaper to just have the US build them 2 Nimitz class ships.

So both of your claims are pretty silly, are they not? Especially the "years and years" part, since the US can build them in much less time. Even their newest state of the art ship will be on it's second or third tour before the first UK one enters service.

My point? Research and know your equipment, do not just make spurious claims and do not expect others to fact check you.

But please, continue to make such claims. And it all really goes back to what you had been trying to say earlier, you are not all that well informed of what most of these things. You make claims, then get upset when people present facts that show you are wrong.

Oh, and in regards to "defensive systems" you mentioned? The R08 will have 4 PHALANX CIWS systems. The CVN-77 has 4 PHALANX CIWS, 2 Sea Sparrow launchers, and 2 RAM launchers.

 

This actually rolls back to claims not by you, but by somebody else.

And I will not dispute the evolutionary part. But he was saying that warfare has changed greatly in the last 20 years, and when I challenged him to prove that he defended his claim by bringing up the fact that carriers were vastly different.

I would not dispute that equipment changes and improves over years and generations. But it is fractional and the majority of the time just an improvement over the previous model. And most times fractional until multiple generations have been made over decades. The CVN-77 is still basically an improved CVN-68. Yes there are improvements, as you would expect with a ship built 40 years after the first in her class. But none of the changes have made any major change in the ship itself or how it operates.

I myself have worked with "evolutionary" equipment. Most do not realize that the PATRIOT missile system was first ordered by President Kennedy, first tested under President Ford, officially ordered under President Carter, and fielded under President Reagan. And while the basic appearance is the same, inside it is radically different. Even though interestingly enough, it is the same equipment.

In my last unit, I was the only operator that was older then his launcher and truck. They were all 1984-1985 era construction (although 1 truck was made in 1987), which made the equipment older then the people that used it. So I am familiar with how old most of our equipment is, and how it changes over the decades. Luke however makes claims and I am simply trying to get him to back up his claims.

 

Of course given that the Patriot missile system started out as "SAM 70" (as in SAM with IOC in 1970) and was finally "SAM-85"

 

You are just feeding my communication strategy. I guess you don't know rhetoric ...

You say I claim, but you show a knowledge even inferior to public information present of WIKIPEDIA [eh???].

 

Actually it was AADS-70 (Army Air Defense System for the 70's), and then migrated to SAM-D (Surface Air Missile - Development). So you are actually mixing up the 2 project names (I have never heard of "SAM-85", must have been a placeholder or upgrade name used at one point). It was changed to PATRIOT in 1975 after it was successfully tested (then the bacronym Phased Array Tracking RADAR Intercept Of Target came much later). The original test systems actually integrated a Navy AN/SPY-1 RADAR system from the AEGIS system mounted onto a building.

And originally it was a pretty dumb system, only capable of shooting down aircraft. But about a decade after it was introduced it was capable of shooting down short and medium range ballistic missiles.

I listed that because most people really have no idea how long it takes for most equipment to go from the concept phase to actually being a deployable system. They seem to think that somebody thinks up the system and 2 years later it should be ready to be put in service. They do not seem to understand that "cutting edge" systems generally take 1-2 decades to go from an engineers table (or CAD program) to a finished product.



That is actually myself in front of the original PATRIOT launcher in 2007. And that first 1975 era launcher is remarkably little changed from what would be put into the field a few years later.

- - - Updated - - -

I prefer accuracy and honesty to rhetoric. You call it rhetoric, I call it dishonesty and false information. If you want to talk rhetoric, then why not go to a more political area of the forum where it might actually apply?

And once again, you do not like what I say so try to trade insults. That's ok kid, I really could not care less what you think (which is obviously not much).

 

Well, IIRC the Polaris SLBM system went from something like 4 and a half years from development to deployment.

Though to be fair, their SSBN was merely an existing SSN design in widespread use, cut in half and then with the 16 missile tubes and ancillary equipment plugged in between the two halves IIRC.

Also, I believe it was the F-16 that took only 6 years from development to rubber on the runway.

But what people forget is that much of the F-16 development by General Dynamics used "off the shelf" equipment to build the first Falcons such as IIRC again the main gear from GDs B-58 Hustler.

 

It was also during an era of incredibly deep pockets, where cost took a second place to time. The need to beat the Soviets created a great many "crash programs", something that has not happened since the mid 1960's.

The F-16 followed several earlier studies and plans, so there was a lot less to create then in many such military projects. F-X became Advanced Day Fighter, became F-XX, became Light Weight Fighter. The same team that eventually developed the F-16 were following a series of projects all attempting to develop the same thing.

In a more modern similar style however, we have seen such projects bog down until they are pretty much dead. The team that developed the PATRIOT by the 1990's turned to working on what was to be it's replacement, MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System). Actually a pretty good system, it uses a lot of pre-existing PATRIOT hardware, and even the same missiles as a way to keep costs down. But the system has been bogged down for the last 6 years because of the cutting of funding to missile defense systems (the same issue which has pretty much stopped development in THAAD - Terminal High Altitude Air Defense). Most of us in the Air Defense realm now doubt if we will ever see MEADS deployed, or THAAD beyond the 2 provisional test batteries that have been created.

 

I'm just discussing ...

What I find odd is that you are a missile operator who doesn't think that missiles are diminishing the importance [and the operative room] or air units.

I can restart from the basics, anyway, let's take a look at what's happening around. In Syria this administration is not able to get some success aiding the rebels [it's clear]. What is going to do? Well, may be you will find this curious, but US Army is supplying missiles [anti tank and anti air] to the rebels.

Why missiles and not tanks and planes?

Because they are cheap [some supplies come also from China, so imagine], easy to transport, easy to smuggle, easy to handle and effective.
So, on little scale the global strategy is based on cheap and adaptable weapons, I guess why on large scale this trend of modern strategy wouldn't be valid ...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/syrian-rebels-blast-two-l-39-albatross-jets-with-a-sing-1649106930
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ec84d8-0f53-4c9f-bf0a-c3395819c540_story.html



http://rt.com/news/158036-syria-american-missiles-test/

 

Missiles are cheaper and simpler to use. Tanks and planes need months to years of training. But missiles are dumb and they're single used item. Missile can be jammed or evade. They can also misfire, miss or not be able to destroy the target.

Missiles are also task specific items. You won't destroy a tank with a Sam or a plane with an anti-tank missile. And you won't win a war with only missiles.