Question about stealth aircraft. - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question about stealth aircraft. (Page 3 of 3)

Posted: 3/3/2013 2:46:41 PM EDT

[#1]

the fact is if you removed the support of the army from the AF mission set, there wouldn't be much flying left to do for the AF.

The B2 fleet and domestic air intercept.
expeditionary air only operations for punitive raids or whatever could easily be done by the navy.

Posted: 3/3/2013 2:51:46 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

I agree that we do not need a huge number of stealth aircraft. We could gain air superiority by using the F-22 and datalink it to non stealth aircraft. I would think that having the 22 over the enemies airspace while feeding targeting data to the missiles of regular fighters would be a big advantage.

Why would you do that? If I have an aircraft radar cannot detect, why would I then reveal its position by lighting off its radar? I would rather the non-stealth aircraft have their radars banging away cueing the F-22 to kill unseen from above.

The F-35? Well I am not sure we need this aircraft. What can we do with it that cannot be done by other aircraft or cruise missiles? Do you need a stealth jet to do close air support? If you need a stealth jet to strike a target because of air defenses then you need to lob some missiles in there to take out the defenses. Then you really don't need the stealth capabilities.

I can't shoot a cruise missile after a target when I don't know it's location. I have to send something out there to observe the enemy, find, fix, and target, and then kill it. F-35's ability to do that, should it ever be fielded, is unmatched.

Remember how successful we were at finding SCUDs? Now think of how successful we would be at finding road mobile missiles orders of magnitude smaller than that. That's the challenge of finding modern Surface to Air Missiles. For that you need an aircraft that can do the find, fix and target thing we were talking about. It's the FFT portion of the F-35 that is really driving the cost. (Although, the technology is very neat and is finding its way into other applications.) Stealth just removes some options the enemy has for killing the aircraft. Which is useful, but not the real advantage of the F-35, should the integration ever come together.

Posted: 3/3/2013 2:58:29 PM EDT

[#3]

Stealth drives a lot. Its unquestionably costly, maybe 20% of total cost? It hurts your maintenance availability. and it limits your capability. nice to haves versus must haves.

we couldn't possibly fight a war with our current 5700 air frame AF, 5000 air frame navy, and 5600 air frame army. nope. we got nothing. where are these threats that we must bankrupt ourselves over.

as for the F22, it got SDB before it got AIM 9X. for whatever that factoid is worth.

more to the point, what is driving the requirement to replace our F15Es and F16s? too many hours? gee, wonder how that happened.

we aren't thinking as a DoD. we are spending.

F35. why the translucent airframe requirement with the magic helmet for a stealth penetration bomber? How much is that feature gonna cost us?

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:02:56 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I agree that we do not need a huge number of stealth aircraft. We could gain air superiority by using the F-22 and datalink it to non stealth aircraft. I would think that having the 22 over the enemies airspace while feeding targeting data to the missiles of regular fighters would be a big advantage.

Why would you do that? If I have an aircraft radar cannot detect, why would I then reveal its position by lighting off its radar? I would rather the non-stealth aircraft have their radars banging away cueing the F-22 to kill unseen from above.

The F-35? Well I am not sure we need this aircraft. What can we do with it that cannot be done by other aircraft or cruise missiles? Do you need a stealth jet to do close air support? If you need a stealth jet to strike a target because of air defenses then you need to lob some missiles in there to take out the defenses. Then you really don't need the stealth capabilities.

I can't shoot a cruise missile after a target when I don't know it's location. I have to send something out there to observe the enemy, find, fix, and target, and then kill it. F-35's ability to do that, should it ever be fielded, is unmatched.

Remember how successful we were at finding SCUDs? Now think of how successful we would be at finding road mobile missiles orders of magnitude smaller than that. That's the challenge of finding modern Surface to Air Missiles. For that you need an aircraft that can do the find, fix and target thing we were talking about. It's the FFT portion of the F-35 that is really driving the cost. (Although, the technology is very neat and is finding its way into other applications.) Stealth just removes some options the enemy has for killing the aircraft. Which is useful, but not the real advantage of the F-35, should the integration ever come together.

dynamic targeting is the argument now?

we need air frames to kill SAMs that kill the air frames. the self-licking ice cream cone.

2700 sorties dedicated to SCUD hunting with teams on the ground and complete air superiority. and we destroyed zero mobile scud launchers.

dynamic targeting is something the AF is NOT good at. It was never designed for it. I got a better idea, lets take care of SAM targeting by rolling HBCTs through the battle space. Its quicker and quickly becoming cheaper.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:04:01 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Stealth drives a lot. Its unquestionably costly, maybe 20% of total cost? It hurts your maintenance availability. and it limits your capability. nice to haves versus must haves.

we couldn't possibly fight a war with our current 5700 air frame AF, 5000 air frame navy, and 5600 air frame army. nope. we got nothing. where are these threats that we must bankrupt ourselves over.

as for the F22, it got SDB before it got AIM 9X. for whatever that factoid is worth.

more to the point, what is driving the requirement to replace our F15Es and F16s? too many hours? gee, wonder how that happened.

we aren't thinking as a DoD. we are spending.

F35. why the translucent airframe requirement with the magic helmet for a stealth penetration bomber? How much is that feature gonna cost us?

I don't pretend to be an expert on these things, but isn't this a technology that will be used in future aircraft? The money will be spent maturing this feature one way or another right?

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:10:29 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Stealth drives a lot. Its unquestionably costly, maybe 20% of total cost? It hurts your maintenance availability. and it limits your capability. nice to haves versus must haves.

Let's take your number as fact. Let's say stealth is 20% of the total cost. Now, compare that to the airframe costs of a conventional aircraft program. How much is that delta?

I can tell you without question, the integration costs, coding, 1s and 0s are the real cost driver. Not stealth. Stealth add some costs yes, but that cost isn't what is making the F-35 more expensive and it's not what is delaying flight testing.

we couldn't possibly fight a war with our current 5700 air frame AF, 5000 air frame navy, and 5600 air frame army. nope. we got nothing. where are these threats that we must bankrupt ourselves over.

And of course answering this question bluntly takes us to SIPR, but I know you're SIPR adverse. I'll just let your rhetorical point go unanswered.

as for the F22, it got SDB before it got AIM 9X. for whatever that factoid is worth.

It's worth exactly the price of the electrons spent typing it. F-22 doesn't have the JHMCS yet, or so I'm told.

more to the point, what is driving the requirement to replace our F15Es and F16s? too many hours? gee, wonder how that happened.

The threat.

we aren't thinking as a DoD. we are spending.

Agreed wholeheartedly. We don't think enough. But that doesn't mean there are non-material solutions for ever threat.

F35. why the translucent airframe requirement with the magic helmet for a stealth penetration bomber? How much is that feature gonna cost us?

Exactly. It's that sort of thing that is driving the cost. But it is that sort of thing that will give F-35 its most important capabilities and will be of the most use in supporting the ground commander.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:14:44 PM EDT

[#7]

Magnets.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:15:57 PM EDT

[#8]

ah,

the best mechanism to support the ground commander is driving the F35 design.

lulz

please, spare me that red herring.

dropping the bomb on the pre-determined target by the JTAC is how the AF supports the Army. better visibility isn't going to change that.

and lets say that the pilot could see something. he wouldn't have the first clue how to relay that information in any meaningful manner.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:17:46 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

dynamic targeting is the argument now?

Hell, dynamic targeting is your argument.

we need air frames to kill SAMs that kill the air frames. the self-licking ice cream cone.

No. We need airframes that can survive the SAM threat in order to bomb shit, as you like to put it. The point is you can't just launch missiles at SAM sights and then roll in with conventional aircraft. That would require perfect knowledge of the enemy, a concept you scoffed at earlier.

The point is the SAM threat has to be dealt with on an as needed basis. You can't plan perfectly and take them all out. Their very existence means there is risk to your aircraft. Risk to aircraft means the aircraft won't be providing the ground commander the support he/she requires.

2700 sorties dedicated to SCUD hunting with teams on the ground and complete air superiority. and we destroyed zero mobile scud launchers.

dynamic targeting is something the AF is NOT good at.

How many SCUDs engaged aircraft?

The very point of SAMs is to engage aircraft. That means they will expose themselves for FFT. And in truth you don't always have to T. You can FF and avoid if necessary.

It was never designed for it. I got a better idea, lets take care of SAM targeting by rolling HBCTs through the battle space. Its quicker and quickly becoming cheaper.

Because that worked so well in 1973. And of course, the enemy is going to allow us the time and space to build up an HBCT in order to roll them.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:18:16 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

I don't pretend to be an expert on these things, but isn't this a technology that will be used in future aircraft? The money will be spent maturing this feature one way or another right?

That technology is finding its way on things other than aircraft.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:20:10 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
ah,

the best mechanism to support the ground commander is driving the F35 design.

You want to talk about design requirements and capabilities and have a meaningful discussion? Oh wait, that would necessitate SIPR. And you're SIPR adverse.

See by not being educated about what is going on, it allows you to throw out these arguments in a vacuum of knowledge and play to the crowd.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:21:42 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
ah,

the best mechanism to support the ground commander is driving the F35 design.

lulz

please, spare me that red herring.

dropping the bomb on the pre-determined target by the JTAC is how the AF supports the Army. better visibility isn't going to change that.

and lets say that the pilot could see something. he wouldn't have the first clue how to relay that information in any meaningful manner.

Part of the huge driver in costs is the sensors and the software that support them that collects data and sends to to everyone, often without the pilot having any input in the matter.

It is almost like putting a whole bunch of intranet, interconnectd AWACS and JSTARS out there for everyone to see what they can

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:23:48 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Doppler radar is VERY slow. In precipitation mode, a scan takes 5 minutes. In a clear air mode (the most sensitive) it takes 10 minutes.

Doppler radar is not slow.

Scanning the cell and collecting the Reflected radar from dust and analyzing it may be slow.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:25:49 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Not Doppler radar, LIDAR. Being used today to detect turbulence by commercial airliners and ground units near airports. But, how would you know the turbulence you were detecting was man-made?

Turbulence in commercal aircraft is detecting by Doppler shift returned from rain. It can not detect turbulence in clear air.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:27:15 PM EDT

[#15]

dynamic targeting is a requirement for counter land. the "instant thunder" target list isn't going to have it.

building an aircraft around an operational concept foreign to the air force is a foolish waste of money.

the air force is built around pre-determined targeting executed through a sacred ATO to destroy strategic COGs.

You could get a great improvement in AF operations through a change in doctrine more so than buying the trillion dollar aircraft.

again, whats the threat in the next 30 years that the F35 is the difference maker? We are broke.

But, buying shit is what we do. How much have we spent on the F35 already?

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:30:20 PM EDT

[#16]

Just aim for the wake of the stealth plane

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:31:51 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
dynamic targeting is a requirement for counter land. the "instant thunder" target list isn't going to have it.

There are applications in both.

building an aircraft around an operational concept foreign to the air force is a foolish waste of money.

Not really. If the aircraft was only a USAF aircraft you may have a point (I say "may" to be kind.). This aircraft is not just an USAF bird.

And if you want to encourage dynamic targeting you're going to need the tools to do it.

again, whats the threat in the next 30 years that the F35 is the difference maker? We are broke.

They are many.

But, buying shit is what we do. How much have we spent on the F35 already?

You are confusing requirements and program execution. The requirements are good. Program execution has been horrible.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:35:38 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
to go wiki deep.
passive stealth works on two major areas. shape and RAM (radar absorbing material)

basic radar works on transmitting an E/M wave and that wave reflecting back to a receiver. almost all radars have the transmitter and receiver co-located. thats how the shape of the aircraft minimizes the reflection of radar which reduces the signature. But if the receiver and the transmitter are in different locations, then that technique would lose some abilities.

RAM literally absorbs the radar wave. with no reflection, there is no signature. However, RAM that I know of only absorbs one wavelength band. So if you use multi-spectral radars, current RAM is defeated.)

If you could develop multi-spectral RAM (assuming we haven't), you'd be one rich mofo.

so, the abilitity to defeat current stealth technologies are out there.
grown ups out there (IAF and CNO amongst others) have realized stealth has expired or is fixing to expire right around the same time the F35 becomes the be all end all.

now, we will still have the ability to JAM which is adjustable to new threats. but if you are going to jam, why buy stealth?

Because they work together.

This is not just about reducing detection.

It is also about reducing detection ranges,Reducing detection of numbers, reducing employment ranges, and reducing PK of weapons systems launched.

ECM goes hand in hand with stealth. ECM is a whole lot more than Jamming.

IN before BullF16 shows up and yells at everybody.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:37:44 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Rain yes dust particles not so much!

I guess you would have to have a crazy high powered radar to detect dust. Probably would fry everything in a ten mile radius.

Just a thought. My mind sometimes has crazy thoughts.

The wavelength of the signal has to be no longer than the dimensions of the object you're trying to detect.

Not really. Very small objects in high volumetric densities can be detected just fine with much longer wavelengths.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:53:23 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Doppler radar is VERY slow. In precipitation mode, a scan takes 5 minutes. In a clear air mode (the most sensitive) it takes 10 minutes.

Wow I never would have thought that.

It's not that the returns take that long to come back, it's that to get back enough of a return to be measurable, the emitter has to rotate pretty slowly.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:55:12 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Don't turn my thread into yet another bitch about tactics thread.
I am genuinely curious about what I started this thread over. If you have input about that I want to hear it.
If not then please don't derail the topic. That goes for everybody.

fair enough.
But it appears your question was answered early on.

Tactics and "stealth" are inseparable components of survivability and vulnerability.

The trap is to fall into the pursuit of low observables without considering how they have to be deployed. It's foolish to believe that "stealth" permits intrusion at all times and points without danger.

Stealth incorporates much more than just the idea of radar signature, too, a detail that is overlooked by laymen because the other factors are less obvious than the common shaping themes.

We like to discuss the technology of gadgets. The "chess" moves about the battle space aren't as accessible or interesting to most people. That's a "Popular Science" effect to a great extent.

Thank you.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:57:28 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
My brother in law was on a patriot missle battery during Operation Desert Storm. He said they coud track F117's with ease. He said they looked for what was "not there" and that they COULD have successfully launched and taken them out. Don't know the specifics...I'm just a dumb cannon cocker. But that's what he said.

You brother thinks that, but. Just because they see him, doesn't mean he is where he is seen.

Posted: 3/3/2013 3:59:53 PM EDT

[#23]

No one knows, but Wales has been at the forefront of stealth aircraft design and manufacture.

No one has heard of welsh stealth.....and there's one good reason

we is stealthy....just like our aircraft.

No one has seen them...we is good.

All your bases belong to Wales

Posted: 3/3/2013 4:08:07 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

No one knows, but Wales has been at the forefront of stealth aircraft design and manufacture.

No one has heard of welsh stealth.....and there's one good reason

we is stealthy....just like our aircraft.

No one has seen them...we is good.

All your bases belong to Wales

you're drunk llewelleyn

Posted: 3/3/2013 4:19:48 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Stealth also means lots of $ made on maintaining the aircraft surfaces.

Not really.
All it takes is a change of mindset from working on 8802 and duct tape aircraft to working on composite and stealth aircraft.

Posted: 3/3/2013 4:48:05 PM EDT

[#26]

I love the GD for the broad range of knowledge and specialities here. You can litterally learn everything about anything vicarously through other people's lives.

With that, with this topic of defeating LO you are going to get 90% open source generalities, 9% close-hold information and maybe 1% of something that belongs on the SIPR net with CAC card access and an EKMS manager.

Take that 1% and multiply it across all sites that aerospace engineers, pilots, planners, warfighters may hang out at and you can start formulating information.

Some things don't need to be asked and/or answered on the open/low side, especially since we/the US run the only operational fleet of LO aircraft.
GD is meant for silly, inconsequential things, carry on!

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:10:18 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I agree that we do not need a huge number of stealth aircraft. We could gain air superiority by using the F-22 and datalink it to non stealth aircraft. I would think that having the 22 over the enemies airspace while feeding targeting data to the missiles of regular fighters would be a big advantage.

Why would you do that? If I have an aircraft radar cannot detect, why would I then reveal its position by lighting off its radar? I would rather the non-stealth aircraft have their radars banging away cueing the F-22 to kill unseen from above.

The F-35? Well I am not sure we need this aircraft. What can we do with it that cannot be done by other aircraft or cruise missiles? Do you need a stealth jet to do close air support? If you need a stealth jet to strike a target because of air defenses then you need to lob some missiles in there to take out the defenses. Then you really don't need the stealth capabilities.

I can't shoot a cruise missile after a target when I don't know it's location. I have to send something out there to observe the enemy, find, fix, and target, and then kill it. F-35's ability to do that, should it ever be fielded, is unmatched.

Remember how successful we were at finding SCUDs? Now think of how successful we would be at finding road mobile missiles orders of magnitude smaller than that. That's the challenge of finding modern Surface to Air Missiles. For that you need an aircraft that can do the find, fix and target thing we were talking about. It's the FFT portion of the F-35 that is really driving the cost. (Although, the technology is very neat and is finding its way into other applications.) Stealth just removes some options the enemy has for killing the aircraft. Which is useful, but not the real advantage of the F-35, should the integration ever come together.

Point taken on the first argument.

On the second, Aren't many SAM sites placed in pre determined locations which are observable by satellites? It isn't like we are just flying around looking for SAM sites.
I would think that they would be protecting a target that you would want destroyed. So you send in the cruise missiles and don't worry about the SAMs. Or you make the cruise missile capable of detecting the radar of the SAM site and destroying it. I really don't see the F-35 being used much in the Wild Weasel role. I know I would not want to risk an aircraft that expensive on that kind of mission.
Road mobile missiles (SCUDS) will always be hard to find even for the F-35.

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:15:35 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

On the second, Aren't many SAM sites placed in pre determined locations which are observable by satellites?

They're evolving past fixed emplacements.

It isn't like we are just flying around looking for SAM sites.

No, but if you're doing something else wouldn't it be great to let others know about it?

I would think that they would be protecting a target that you would want destroyed.

Yes, but not all targets are fixed.

So you send in the cruise missiles and don't worry about the SAMs.

Not all targets are fixed and cruise missiles can't destroy all types of targets.

Or you make the cruise missile capable of detecting the radar of the SAM site and destroying it.

What are you going to do when they use radar intermittently? So you launch a million dollar missile with an anti-radiation seeker and then they don't light off their radars. Then what?

I really don't see the F-35 being used much in the Wild Weasel role. I know I would not want to risk an aircraft that expensive on that kind of mission.

What are you going to use?

Road mobile missiles (SCUDS) will always be hard to find even for the F-35.

The SCUD point was an analogy to road-mobile SAMs.

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:26:36 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

On the second, Aren't many SAM sites placed in pre determined locations which are observable by satellites?

They're evolving past fixed emplacements.

It isn't like we are just flying around looking for SAM sites.

No, but if you're doing something else wouldn't it be great to let others know about it?

I would think that they would be protecting a target that you would want destroyed.

Yes, but not all targets are fixed.

So you send in the cruise missiles and don't worry about the SAMs.

Not all targets are fixed and cruise missiles can't destroy all types of targets.

Or you make the cruise missile capable of detecting the radar of the SAM site and destroying it.

What are you going to do when they use radar intermittently? So you launch a million dollar missile with an anti-radiation seeker and then they don't light off their radars. Then what?

I really don't see the F-35 being used much in the Wild Weasel role. I know I would not want to risk an aircraft that expensive on that kind of mission.

What are you going to use?

Road mobile missiles (SCUDS) will always be hard to find even for the F-35.

The SCUD point was an analogy to road-mobile SAMs.

If they follow the pattern they will use a previous generation plane for Wild Weasel. They were using F-4s through Desert Storm and are now using F-16s. I figure the F-16 will fill that role for a long while after the F-35 becomes operational.

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:33:40 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

If they follow the pattern they will use a previous generation plane for Wild Weasel. They were using F-4s through Desert Storm and are now using F-16s. I figure the F-16 will fill that role for a long while after the F-35 becomes operational.

I'm in an F-35. I have an APG-81 radar with ISAR mode. I have EODAS. I have a RWR system that is next generation. I can find a SAM site using my radar, he doesn't have to be radiating. I can find him when he launches, even if his radar isn't pointed at me thanks to my EOTs/DAS. And of course my RWR gear can "hear" his radar if he paints me. Not only that, I am, at the very least, low observable, meaning I can close his radar without being detected.

Why would I use something else?

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:34:15 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I always wanted to come up with a system of low frequency microphones all over the place that would triangulate sound thereby tracking the aircraft.

Keep in mind I came up with this idea at 13 so.

They already came up with that idea decades ago.

Someone should try that idea for submarines!

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:41:23 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If they follow the pattern they will use a previous generation plane for Wild Weasel. They were using F-4s through Desert Storm and are now using F-16s. I figure the F-16 will fill that role for a long while after the F-35 becomes operational.

I'm in an F-35. I have an APG-81 radar with ISAR mode. I have EODAS. I have a RWR system that is next generation. I can find a SAM site using my radar, he doesn't have to be radiating. I can find him when he launches, even if his radar isn't pointed at me thanks to my EOTs/DAS. And of course my RWR gear can "hear" his radar if he paints me. Not only that, I am, at the very least, low observable, meaning I can close his radar without being detected.

Why would I use something else?

I am not arguing that the 35 should be well suited for the role, I am simply saying what they have done in the past. Maybe they will use it for Wild Weasel duty but I would be astonished if they did.

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:44:26 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If they follow the pattern they will use a previous generation plane for Wild Weasel. They were using F-4s through Desert Storm and are now using F-16s. I figure the F-16 will fill that role for a long while after the F-35 becomes operational.

I'm in an F-35. I have an APG-81 radar with ISAR mode. I have EODAS. I have a RWR system that is next generation. I can find a SAM site using my radar, he doesn't have to be radiating. I can find him when he launches, even if his radar isn't pointed at me thanks to my EOTs/DAS. And of course my RWR gear can "hear" his radar if he paints me. Not only that, I am, at the very least, low observable, meaning I can close his radar without being detected.

Why would I use something else?

I am not arguing that the 35 should be well suited for the role, I am simply saying what they have done in the past. Maybe they will use it for Wild Weasel duty but I would be astonished if they did.

There's been a shift in thinking about the mission. See this article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel#Current

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:48:58 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I always wanted to come up with a system of low frequency microphones all over the place that would triangulate sound thereby tracking the aircraft.

Keep in mind I came up with this idea at 13 so.

Clint Eastwood starred in that movie, it was called "Firefox" , and the acoustic detection system was in the Ural Mts. (?)

Good movie

Posted: 3/3/2013 5:51:52 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If they follow the pattern they will use a previous generation plane for Wild Weasel. They were using F-4s through Desert Storm and are now using F-16s. I figure the F-16 will fill that role for a long while after the F-35 becomes operational.

I'm in an F-35. I have an APG-81 radar with ISAR mode. I have EODAS. I have a RWR system that is next generation. I can find a SAM site using my radar, he doesn't have to be radiating. I can find him when he launches, even if his radar isn't pointed at me thanks to my EOTs/DAS. And of course my RWR gear can "hear" his radar if he paints me. Not only that, I am, at the very least, low observable, meaning I can close his radar without being detected.

Why would I use something else?

I am not arguing that the 35 should be well suited for the role, I am simply saying what they have done in the past. Maybe they will use it for Wild Weasel duty but I would be astonished if they did.

There's been a shift in thinking about the mission. See this article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel#Current

Ok you sold me.

Posted: 3/3/2013 6:06:46 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

the entire theory of strategic bombing is centered around the bombing of fixed targets at the country's strategic COGs. none of which have to do with military targets.

but the AF was created for the mission of strategic bombing., and that is why they are so expensive and yet so bad at the tactical and operational levels.

I forgot about this thread then I read this,

yeah you're doped out on the bombing there

I know understand why you have such fucked up notions about the flying world, you really dont have a clue about it- oh but you read some books

I agree with you on the coin/af support tirades but your other air power views are right the fuck out and are laughable. I think I will post this in our shitter so others in my flying club can have a laugh. You've turned into the quintessential army staffer.

I'm no shit laughing at your comments

Posted: 3/3/2013 6:07:53 PM EDT

[#37]

Doppler weather radar detects water.

Posted: 3/3/2013 6:11:04 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

2700 sorties dedicated to SCUD hunting with teams on the ground and complete air superiority. and we destroyed zero mobile scud launchers.

dynamic targeting is something the AF is NOT good at. It was never designed for it. I got a better idea, lets take care of SAM targeting by rolling HBCTs through the battle space. Its quicker and quickly becoming cheaper.

I should send you some Tpod video-oh wait you know better than the people THAT WERE FUCKING THERE.

I guess you got your facts from a book again.

Posted: 3/3/2013 6:14:20 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

2700 sorties dedicated to SCUD hunting with teams on the ground and complete air superiority. and we destroyed zero mobile scud launchers.

dynamic targeting is something the AF is NOT good at. It was never designed for it. I got a better idea, lets take care of SAM targeting by rolling HBCTs through the battle space. Its quicker and quickly becoming cheaper.

I should send you some Tpod video-oh wait you know better than the people THAT WERE FUCKING THERE.

I guess you got your facts from a book again.

that was official USAF history out of Maxwell.

The AF knows better about what air support the actual ground commander needs and wants than the ground commander does.

I guess institutional arrogance is part of that "airmindedness" you all are so famous for.

Its OK. 20 years from now you'll be the third smallest AF in DoD.

Posted: 3/3/2013 6:31:03 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

dynamic targeting is the argument now?

Hell, dynamic targeting is your argument.

we need air frames to kill SAMs that kill the air frames. the self-licking ice cream cone.

No. We need airframes that can survive the SAM threat in order to bomb shit, as you like to put it. The point is you can't just launch missiles at SAM sights and then roll in with conventional aircraft. That would require perfect knowledge of the enemy, a concept you scoffed at earlier.

The point is the SAM threat has to be dealt with on an as needed basis. You can't plan perfectly and take them all out. Their very existence means there is risk to your aircraft. Risk to aircraft means the aircraft won't be providing the ground commander the support he/she requires.

2700 sorties dedicated to SCUD hunting with teams on the ground and complete air superiority. and we destroyed zero mobile scud launchers. dynamic targeting is something the AF is NOT good at.

How many SCUDs engaged aircraft? The very point of SAMs is to engage aircraft. That means they will expose themselves for FFT. And in truth you don't always have to T. You can FF and avoid if necessary.

It was never designed for it. I got a better idea, lets take care of SAM targeting by rolling HBCTs through the battle space. Its quicker and quickly becoming cheaper.

Because that worked so well in 1973. And of course, the enemy is going to allow us the time and space to build up an HBCT in order to roll them.

Lethal SEAD to take out opposition ADA and SAMs is the upcoming primary mission for drones. X-45 or X-47 airframes loaded with AGM-88s and equipped with on-board sensors similar to the APR-47 employed on the F-4G for emitter location would be perfect for the Wild Weasel mission. Ground controlled by EWO operators and pilots and they could be as effective as the F-4G was over Iraq.

Then the airspace would be open for manned aircraft to go in and do air-to-ground and air superiority missions. The concept proved itself in Viet Nam and Iraq. Using unmanned platforms would be the only new part of the picture.

Posted: 3/4/2013 3:37:51 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Lethal SEAD to take out opposition ADA and SAMs is the upcoming primary mission for drones. X-45 or X-47 airframes loaded with AGM-88s and equipped with on-board sensors similar to the APR-47 employed on the F-4G for emitter location would be perfect for the Wild Weasel mission. Ground controlled by EWO operators and pilots and they could be as effective as the F-4G was over Iraq.

Then the airspace would be open for manned aircraft to go in and do air-to-ground and air superiority missions. The concept proved itself in Viet Nam and Iraq. Using unmanned platforms would be the only new part of the picture.

The X-47 will never carry weapons.

If you're talking about UCAS, I'd like to see your source.

Posted: 3/4/2013 6:23:03 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

2700 sorties dedicated to SCUD hunting with teams on the ground and complete air superiority. and we destroyed zero mobile scud launchers.

dynamic targeting is something the AF is NOT good at. It was never designed for it. I got a better idea, lets take care of SAM targeting by rolling HBCTs through the battle space. Its quicker and quickly becoming cheaper.

I should send you some Tpod video-oh wait you know better than the people THAT WERE FUCKING THERE.

I guess you got your facts from a book again.

Scud-hunting was not a big success story, but "zero" is incorrect as a number of mobile Scuds killed. The number was "very low", from what I've been told.
I wasn't there, but i know guys who were.

Posted: 3/4/2013 6:33:05 AM EDT

[#43]

grazier 1 can find it..... even though it is built for sub terrainian strikes

Posted: 3/4/2013 6:35:49 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

2700 sorties dedicated to SCUD hunting with teams on the ground and complete air superiority. and we destroyed zero mobile scud launchers.

dynamic targeting is something the AF is NOT good at. It was never designed for it. I got a better idea, lets take care of SAM targeting by rolling HBCTs through the battle space. Its quicker and quickly becoming cheaper.

I should send you some Tpod video-oh wait you know better than the people THAT WERE FUCKING THERE.

I guess you got your facts from a book again.

Scud-hunting was not a big success story, but "zero" is incorrect as a number of mobile Scuds killed. The number was "very low", from what I've been told.
I wasn't there, but i know guys who were.

Then what was the number?
I can only go off of what was published, as was noted, I wasn't there.

of course being there isn't always a requirement for expertise in an area. Like say, combat.

Posted: 3/4/2013 4:21:32 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

2700 sorties dedicated to SCUD hunting with teams on the ground and complete air superiority. and we destroyed zero mobile scud launchers.

dynamic targeting is something the AF is NOT good at. It was never designed for it. I got a better idea, lets take care of SAM targeting by rolling HBCTs through the battle space. Its quicker and quickly becoming cheaper.

I should send you some Tpod video-oh wait you know better than the people THAT WERE FUCKING THERE.

I guess you got your facts from a book again.

Scud-hunting was not a big success story, but "zero" is incorrect as a number of mobile Scuds killed. The number was "very low", from what I've been told.
I wasn't there, but i know guys who were.

Then what was the number?
I can only go off of what was published, as was noted, I wasn't there.

of course being there isn't always a requirement for expertise in an area. Like say, combat.

[URL=http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1408/MR1408.ch3.pdf[/URL]

According to this the number is 8 which is more than 25% of the mobile launchers that were in Iraq's inventory at the time.

Yes I suck at hotlinking.

Apparently I suck at reading comprehension too as the report states that we never knew the precise number of mobile launchers they had but they had 28 FIXED launch sites.

Posted: 3/4/2013 4:28:48 PM EDT

[#46]

No.
8 is the number of times munitions were released.

From the AF's own study (also referenced in the RAND report.
The Pentagon’s postwar
study on Gulf air operations, the Gulf War Air Power Survey, concluded
that sensor limitations on coalition aircraft, combined with highly effective Iraqi tactics, resulted in relatively few mobile
launcher kills. According to the report,

"a few [TELs] may have been destroyed, but nowhere near the numbers
reported during the war . . . . [T]here is no indisputable proof
that Scud mobile launchers—as opposed to high-fidelity decoys,
trucks, or other objects with Scud-like signatures—were destroyed
by fixed-wing aircraft.49"

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question about stealth aircraft. (Page 3 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us