Know Your 'Rafale'

[asianobserve]

Interesting, bust SEAD has evolved in modern air warfare:

Or SAM radars can be teased by drones like MALD mimicking specific fighter aircraft signatures.

It's very hard for SAM forces not to turn on their radars if incoming aircrafts are detected because they'll never be certain if it's just drones or real aircrafts until it's too close.

 

[gadeshi]

Interesting, bust SEAD has evolved in modern air warfare:

You don't attack the radar alone with ARMs, because that has proven to be ineffective most of the time. When even the radar was turned off, the target lock was lost and the missile didn't hit. That's why PGMs like JSOW or AASM will be used against the radar and the missiles, after the target coordinates were aquired. Sadly AASM was not properly uparaded and further developed, which makes it pretty useless against triple digit SAMs and Rafales weapon of choice might be Scalp. But the EF with the P4E upgrade, might get EA capability combined with SPEAR 3, just as Israelis and US might use SPICE 250 and SDB. All 3 off these missiles can also attack moving targets, via mid course upgrades and in combination with stealth fighters will be even more efficient.

Not to mention that the example in the picture also shows, that you aircrafts to tease SAM radars and aircrafts that fly below detection will be a credible tactic too. The USN will use similar tactics with the F35 / F18 Growler combo.

This is true for countries like Lybia or Yugoslavia with poor AD density, passive ESM and AWACS absense, absense of ECM and no network capabilities at all multiplied by poor crews training and skills making them unable to constantly keep moving.

In adequate countries nobody will allow strikers to come closer than 200-250km to SAMs.
And of course those strikers will be jammed and datalinks/GPS spoofed forcing them to withdraw their mission or try to come by 5-10 km to their target which is a suicide mission.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[gadeshi]

Or SAM radars can be teased by drones like MALD mimicking specific fighter aircraft signatures.

It's very hard for SAM forces not to turn on their radars if incoming aircrafts are detected because they'll never be certain if it's just drones or real aircrafts until it's too close.

American and Western SAMs can be teased and tricked by drones and decoys, not Russian ones.

Rusians will assess those targets using multiple active and passive sensors which are highly densed and multiple times nested by frequencies and range to determine what they are and simply burn them from the skies with Krasukha-4 EMP cannons or even spoof/hijack control on them using Moskva-1/2 and Avtobaza-1/2 drone control busters and land them for review or send them back to their owners like in Syria 2 weeks ago

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[gadeshi]

Any attack of SAM sites will be preceded by EW, cyber warfare, spoofing, MALDs, drones and non-stealthy cruise missiles to lure SAM rafars to turn on to detect their bubbles. Then once SAM radars are determined SEAD on standby can choose from a host of weapons to use from EW, more drones, cruise missiles, LO standoff missiles, SDBs or good old anti-radar missiles.

BTW, the latest AGM-88E can lock on to SAM radars even after it's turned off. It can even be released without acquiring its target as it has its on board sensors and targettibg systems. And soon AGM-88E will become even deadlier with longer range under ER version (double its current range) and with the ability to be carried inside F-35 weapons bays for even longer penetration capability.

Ultimately, the greatest problem of SAMs is that it's like an old fort, heavily defended but stationary (and like old forts are expensive to build and operate) On the other hand anti-SAM forces are mobile, nimble, have a lots of tricks up their sleaves and thus can always exploit SAM's weaknesses. That's why for air defense NATO, especially US forces, relies on offense via air power. Newer NATO SAMs are increasingly BMD.

Are you dumb or retard?

Western SAMs are stationary.
But not the Russian ones.
It's because Russians have learned painful lessons of late Viet Nam and ME wars according to SAMs.
The main lesson is: If you've got caught - you are dead, sooner or later.
All of the Soviet SAMs destroyed in Viet Nam and ME were caught and hit on rearm, when they were stationary and harmless.
Western countries had ignored this lesson for their own misery.

And in general: American "experts" in medias are stupid because they believe that if their own forces are and doing one or another way then all the others are the same and do the same either.
But you cannot extend your own body to the others, right?

Western SEAD are weak, underpowered and outranged to counter even old Soviet S-300PM, not speaking about S-300PM-2 or S-400.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[asianobserve]

Are you dumb or retard?

Western SAMs are stationary.
But not the Russian ones.
It's because Russians have learned painful lessons of late Viet Nam and ME wars according to SAMs.
The main lesson is: If you've got caught - you are dead, sooner or later.
All of the Soviet SAMs destroyed in Viet Nam and ME were caught and hit on rearm, when they were stationary and harmless.
Western countries had ignored this lesson for their own misery.

And in general: American "experts" in medias are stupid because they believe that if their own forces are and doing one or another way then all the others are the same and do the same either.
But you cannot extend your own body to the others, right?

Western SEAD are weak, underpowered and outranged to counter even old Soviet S-300PM, not speaking about S-300PM-2 or S-400.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

You're claiming that Americans have forgotten the lessons on how they decimated Iraqi and Yugoslavian SAMs, and yet I'm the retard?

Anyway, there are no mobile SAMs when they're in operation, especially not S-300 or S-400. They all stop to acquire their target and fire. They can move afterwards but it will take minutes. But in a SEAD environment you don't have minutes, you seconds. It's because anti-sam units are just waiting for SAM radars to light up. The AGM-88E for example can be fired even before a SAM radar is turned on.

 

[gadeshi]

You're claiming that Americans have forgotten the lessons on how they decimated Iraqi and Yugoslavian SAMs, and yet I'm the retard?

Anyway, there are no mobile SAMs when they're in operation, especially not S-300 or S-400. They all stop to acquire their target and fire. They can move afterwards but it will take minutes. But in a SEAD environment you don't have minutes, you seconds. It's because anti-sam units are just waiting for SAM radars to light up. The AGM-88E for example can be fired even before a SAM radar is turned on.

I wish to look at yoy (or anybody else) to try to catch any of entire S-400 battalion battery scooting after fire and covered by another batteries of the same battalion.

You are the same stupid as US media experts

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Immanuel]

Any SAM can be overwhelmed including the S-400, it does require 5 dozen cruise missiles + decoys to be launched but this can be done when countries can afford it. As for anti SAM capability, the US fighters do have an edge, most of the Russian fighters are easy prey to ground based SAMs like Patriot-3, SM-6 etc. due to significantly higher RCS figures for most Russian aircraft. I would rate SM-6 missiles better than S-300 and just as capable as the S-400 except for the longer range 400 km missiles. THAAD is a formidable AD for ballistic missiles.

Moreso, the US has a edge in 5th gen tech including Stealth, super cruise and far better operational AESAs. It's silly for Russia to dismiss even fighters like F-18 SH block-2s, on general US aircraft have better MTBF for majors parts, far better reliability and availability. They'll be able to put more fighters in the air than can Russia. Not to mention,the US has far more large scale exercises that actually test concepts, tactics, team work and so many other aspects. They also deploy towed decoys.

US is far ahead in smart weapons, weapons like the CBU-105SFW is a nightmare to any ground force and this can be deployed by a humble F-16 however it would have to survive Pantsirs, Sosna, Shilka etc. to hit targets but if one does slip through the damage is enormous.

Russia has a distinct advantage with cruise missiles and these would be a nightmare to US assets but again there are ways around this.
All 4.5 gen and 5th gen fighters have their pros and cons, in the end it comes to pilot skill, working a team with well honed tactics.

 

[Armand2REP]

You're claiming that Americans have forgotten the lessons on how they decimated... Yugoslavian SAMs, and yet I'm the retard?

The way I remember it the US was unable to shut down Serbian air defences because their HARM missiles were useless. Not only that they lost their precious stealth fighter to an antiquated SAM system. French fighters destroyed more of the IADs with PGMs than the US did with HARM.

 

[asianobserve]

The way I remember it the US was unable to shut down Serbian air defences because their HARM missiles were useless. Not only that they lost their precious stealth fighter to an antiquated SAM system. French fighters destroyed more of the IADs with PGMs than the US did with HARM.

Of course not. NATO forces had a hard time destroying Serbian SAMs were because of the excellent discipline of Serbian SAM forces - that is, they hardly turned on their radars! They apparently learned a lot from the Iraqi experience in Desert Storm not to try to match NATO forces mano-a-mano.

In fact American air commanders were so sure of the competence of Serbian SAM forces thst they predicted 10 aircraft losses on the first day alone, which turned out to be unfounded as no coalition aircraft were lost on the first day.

It was certainly not the fault of AGM-88 which although during that time still did not have the capability to lock onto radars after it has been turned off. Even those early HARMs however would have devastated Serbian radars had they only turned them on more frequently.

And you're dreaming if the French had more success in destroying IADs in the Serbian air war. The Americans as usual saved European asses in Europe itself by carrying out more than 50% of the air war, which is the reason why more American planes were lost than their allies. In fact Chirac as usual was preventing NATO planes from directly attacking Milosevic's political and economic base in Belgrade, which ultimately proved to be more successful in stopping ethnic cleansing in Kosovo than aytacking Serb forces directly in Kosovo.

 

[asianobserve]

Ultimately the Kosovo campaign is another proof of European incompetence. How could they allow another ethnic cleansing in their soul just 50 years after the most shameful ethnic cleansing program on European soil? They are lucky that time that America again came to their rescue.

 

[Armand2REP]

NATO forces had a hard time destroying Serbian SAMs were because of the excellent discipline of Serbian SAM forces - that is, they hardly turned on their radars! They apparently learned a lot from the Iraqi experience in Desert Storm.

But you just said the Americans decimated Yugoslavian SAMs... do you backpedal much?

It was certainly not the fault of AGM-88 which although during that time still did not uave the capability to lock onto radars after it has been turned off.

It was certainly the fault of it because everyone but the French relied on it.

And you're dreaming if the French had more success in destroying IADs in the Serbian air war. The Americans as usual saved European asses in Europe itself by carrying out more than 50% of the air war. In fact Chirac as usual was preventing NATO planes from directly attacking Milosevic's political and economic base in Belgrade, which ultimately proved to be more successful in stopping ethnic cleansing in Kosovo than aytacking Serb forces directly in Kosovo.

We destroyed 988 targets, 25% of it targeting the IADs. The result of HARM was practically zero. Even the US had to revert back to LGBs and cluster bombs for SEAD even though they did not train that way. French had to teach them all over again as well as the British and German Tornadoes.

It was French resistance to destroying civilian targets that kept the coalition together. You do not remember how sensitive Europe was to bombing another European country. it was also necessary to keep Russia out of the war and France was the only reason that happened.

 

[asianobserve]

I wish to look at yoy (or anybody else) to try to catch any of entire S-400 battalion battery scooting after fire and covered by another batteries of the same battalion.

You are the same stupid as US media experts

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

Just review the history of American and Israeli SEAD missions against Soviet sourced and established integrated AD sites in the ME and Asia. I believe most of these missions were successful.

 

[asianobserve]

But you just said the Americans decimated Yugoslavian SAMs... do you backpedal much?

That turned on long enough to be targeted.

It was certainly the fault of it because everyone but the French relied on it.

It was not its fault that Serbian radars were rarely turned on.

We destroyed 988 targets, 25% of it targeting the IADs. The result of HARM was practically zero. Even the US had to revert back to LGBs and cluster bombs for SEAD even though they did not train that way. French had to teach them all over again as well as the British and German Tornadoes.

It was French resistance to destroying civilian targets that kept the coalition together. You do not remember how sensitive Europe was to bombing another European country. it was also necessary to keep Russia out of the war and France was the only reason that happened.

The Americans were using smart bombs and cruise missiles against known radar sites from the start. Again, HARM was very effective when there was a target.

It was the bombing efforts that targeted political and economic sites in Belgrade and other major cities that broke Milosevic's back. Before that when NATO air war was only concentrated in Kosovo trying to desrupt Serbian forces Milosevic was only laughing. And the misguided Chirac almost broke NATO's resolve with his devisive stance (exactly what Milosevic was hoping to accomplish).

 

[Armand2REP]

That turned on long enough to be targeted.

It was not its fault that Serbian radars were rarely turned on.

Whose fault is it when you say they decimated them when they didn't? I guess it's your fault?

The Americans were using smart bombs and cruise missiles against known radar sites from the start. Again, HARM was very effective when there was a target.

HARM was only effective if they left the radar on continuously, which they didn't, which made it totally ineffective.

It was the bombing efforts that targeted political and economic sites in Belgrade and other major cities that broke Milosevic's back. Before that when NATO air war was only concentrated in Kosovo trying to desrupt Serbian forces Milosevic was only laughing. And the misguided Chirac almost broke NATO's resolve with his devisive stance (exactly what Milosevic was hoping to accomplish).

Bombing the Chinese embassy really broke the back of Milosevic? Anyway, France vetoed any targets that would have escalated the conflict and Chirac was given credit for keeping the coalition together. The Americans try to blame France for the loss of their F-117 because we would not allow the destruction of the main airport radar but really, that is just a lame excuse. It should never have been able to detect it but then again, US stealth appears to be a myth.

 

[gadeshi]

Just review the history of American and Israeli SEAD missions against Soviet sourced and established integrated AD sites in the ME and Asia. I believe most of these missions were successful.

That's what I'm talking about.
All the Soviet SAMs in both wars were hit on rearm due to low mobility and absence of self-defence suits and network centricity.
But none of them hit when armed and ready.

Anyway lessons learned the proper way.

Western countries ignored lessons that could be learned for free on Soviet mistakes.
It's OK, westies will learn them on their own losses

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

This is true for countries like Lybia or Yugoslavia with poor AD density, passive ESM and AWACS absense, absense of ECM and no network capabilities at all multiplied by poor crews training and skills making them unable to constantly keep moving.

That's why I said that AASM is an inadequate weapon for SEAD against triple digit SAMs and why Rafale is limited to Scalp in that case, by the lack of other suitable stand off weapons or ARMs.
But that doesn't take away that tactics as well as weapons are evolving too, especially with stealth being a force multiplier!

A stealth aircraft can get into the 250Km zone you described, it can attack within that zone alone or guide attacks, that are launched outside of that zone too. So even if the SAM is mobile, it doesn't necessarily can avoid an attack anymore, simply by turning off the radar and re-positioning.

For India the same situation is a key to success or loss in future wars as well, since we are not fighting enemies like NATO moat of the time, but to highly capable enemies, with credible air defences and AWACS support. SEAD tactics and capabilities will have to improve, but sadly neither the limited numbers and capabilites of Rafale, nor FGFA seems to be a help anytime soon.

 

[Sancho]

Or SAM radars can be teased by drones like MALD mimicking specific fighter aircraft signatures.

It's very hard for SAM forces not to turn on their radars if incoming aircrafts are detected because they'll never be certain if it's just drones or real aircrafts until it's too close.

Yes, as I said air warfare is evolving and new tactics, weapons and capabilities are being developed.
But so are Russian SAMs, underestimating them would be a big mistake.

 

[asianobserve]

Yes, as I said air warfare is evolving and new tactics, weapons and capabilities are being developed.
But so are Russian SAMs, underestimating them would be a big mistake.

Nobody is understimating them. All I said that between a fixed type of AD and the one that is mobile that brings the defense (fight) to the enemy the latter is more effective and efficient.

 

[asianobserve]

Btw, after reviewing accounts of the NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia only 2 American aircraft were lost to Yugoslav forces, 1 F-16C and 1 F-117 (the rest were lost to accidents and mechanical problems) while the Yugoslav air force lost 121 aircraft.

 

[asianobserve]

HARM was only effective if they left the radar on continuously, which they didn't, which made it totally ineffective.

The presence alone of HARM and SEAD assets has prompted Yugoslavian AD forces to shut down their radars most of the time, that in itself is already a small victory for HARM and SEAD. In fact NATO planners were so worried about Yugoslavian SAMs that they predicted at least 10 aircraft losses on the first night alone. But because Yugoslavian AD forces kept their radars off for fear of being located and targeted by HARM this bloodbath scenario did not happen.

Bombing the Chinese embassy really broke the back of Milosevic? Anyway, France vetoed any targets that would have escalated the conflict and Chirac was given credit for keeping the coalition together. The Americans try to blame France for the loss of their F-117 because we would not allow the destruction of the main airport radar but really, that is just a lame excuse. It should never have been able to detect it but then again, US stealth appears to be a myth.

That Chinese embassy incident was a mistake. It means something went wrong in the process. But considering the number of targets struck and their locations (in public city centers) the NATO bombing ops had very minimal collateral damage.

There were a host of reasons for that lucky shot against F-117. Yes, one was the problematic radar in Montenegro, but another was good intel/spotters of Yugoslavians in Aviano AB, excellent skills of Yugoslavian AD forces, constricted air space which the F-117 operated in, lax planning which resulted in F-117 using the same flight path in 4 straight days, lack of SEAD in the area at the time of shootdown. But ultimately, considering the volume of sorties flown, the 2 losses suffered by NATO were nothing short of stunning.

Btw, B-2s from US also operated in Yugoslavian air campaign. And they had a very good record since for one there were no Yugoslav spotters from where they take off and more importantly B-2 was a generation later than F-117. Meaning B-2 was stealthier and more undetectable to even older Yugoslav radars.