"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
...
Kevin, you're asking valid questions, no doubt.

snip

The threat is also the Moskits are already in service with the
Chinese
Navy.

The Chinese Navy is not, as yet, a major threat to USN operations.

Of course it is not.

And on 10 September 2001 there was also no threat from idiots hijacking
airliners and crashing them into the WTC and Pentagon...

(and this despite the fact that already in 1992 the Philippino police
arrested a Pakistani terrorist cell in Manila, which was planning to do that
with 12 aircraft in Hong Kong and the USA....)

Especially the situation with China is such that a confrontation around
Taiwan is highly likely (as seen already several times), and far less
predictable than in the case of the "I Cold War" (against the USSR).

I would change "highly likely" to "possible". Combat over Taiwan means
that all of the capital the PRC has put forth to gain WTO memebership,
improved trade relations with western nations, etc., would have been
wasted for little gain. How predictable did you find the Berlin
blockade? Hungary? Berlin II (61-62)? Czechoslovakia in 68? Cuba in
62? Not to mention the myriad of air incidents, including KAL 007 and
a host of US ferret aircraft?

Not only that in most of the cases you're talking about (and especially in
the case of the Cuban missile crisis) the USA were taken completely by
surprise, but you now also want to explain that the "modern" threats are
more predictable than the Soviet ones?

Kevin, seriously, on which planet do you live?

Besides, the main threat from the Chinese are not dozens of bombers, but
hundreds of multi-role fighters, each of which is far more flexible and
superior to the F/A-18s in anything but avionics.

They have *hundreds* that are unquestionably superior to the Hornet?
Come on now--they have their Su-27's,

You're simply underinformed, and that's all. By 2006, the PLAAF and the
PLANAF will have around 400 Su-27/J-11s, Su-30MKKs and similar planes -
supported by A-50s - in service. Go and check the orders they issued in the
last six years to Russia, and the numbers they're receiving each year.

How would you tackle that threat? With a single carrier stationed in Japan,
carrying 48 Hornets, and a wing of 18 F-15Cs based on Okinawa? Oh, man, what
a bloody good exchange rate to start with...

which are maybe equivalent to a
Hornet, minus the pilot quality and support issues (both big issues in
themselves); they can't even depend upon the ability of defeating
decisively the ROCAF, with their F-16's and Mirage 2000's, in the air,

The ROCAF is already losing the "shadow boxing" that is going on in the air
over the Straits since years: just last year the SU-30s have forced several
of their F-16s to pull out of the area where the Chinese operated.

much less the added strength of the USN (not to mention the inevitable
SLCM, ALCM, and B-2 strikes they would be absorbing as body blows).

Oh, this is really developing into a "very serious" one, especially if we're
so far to discuss the "mine is bigger than yours" issue. It could also be
said that you're ignorant of the Chinese threats against such places like
Los Angeles; their capability to blast Taiwan with over 1.000 IRBMs and
attack any USN CVBG that comes their ways with "hordes" of Su-27-likes etc.,
etc., etc.

And with the advent of Aegis, the need for that ever-expanding CAP has
been reduced a bit.

The experiences with Aegis from 1988 (the IranAir incident),

Hey, did that Aibus get through?

No: the Aegis prevented it from dropping 300+ people on the deck of the USS
Vincennes...

and again the
recent experiences with the PAC-3 show that this is not the case.

PAC-3 is not a naval missile, for one thing.

So what? Is it equipped with a system that makes it capable of VID over
BVR-ranges? Is it making its users better able to safely identify distant
targets than any (manned) interceptor can do?

Second, the report on
PAC-3 has yet to be released from DoD (reportedly will occur soon).

Oh, that's really a "big problem": the PAC-3 crews in question were already
freed of any blame - just like the crew of the USS Vincennes - so the DoD
can now release as many reports as it likes.

I get the idea that you are focusing on the fratricide issue as the sole
factor applied to determining the effectiveness of the SAM
systems--but that is only a part of the equation. You think your
F-14's tossing Phoenix missiles about over 100 nm away are not going
to be subject to the same kind of frat incidents?

No. But, at least the F-14 has had the TCS, which was enabling it to VID
bogeys from serious distances. This is something no SAM can do - and
especially no SAM-site or an AAW-warship.

How many Iranian
aircraft were frat casualties during the PGW?

They've shot down five of their own F-14s with MIM-23s (plus at least half a
dozen of other fighters), just for example. The IRIAF F-14s haven't shot
down even a single Iranian fighter, regardless the distances and complex
tactical situations in several cases.

You can't
go out with the Aegis cruiser and hope to shot down the potential
attackers,
but instead blast either several own fighters returning to the carrier,
or a
few airliners.

A bit oversimplified, IMO. The Aegis provides but one layer of the
full defense system.

It is undeniably another layer of the full system. But, as the word "full"
describes it, it is a part of the system, and a part/layer that comes
between the interceptors and the carrier - not in front of the interceptors,
which you seem to consider it capable of doing.

The identification systems are obviously not sophisticated
enough, and the USN - especially not in its "new", "litoral"
environment -
also obviously can't hope to have a situation where the Aegis can have a
free field of fire.

But hey, those same systems are apparently quite capable of handling
waaay beyond VR IFF in the case of Phoenix?! Do you not see the
disconnect in your reasoning between the two here?

Such things like TCS are. Don't you notice that you permanently forget at
least one factor that makes the difference?

Consequently, there is still a need for a proper EID/VID
of the potential target - a task the ships can't do properly in every
possible situation from ranges longer than 20 (or even less) nautical
miles.
I hope you will not tell me in turn that anybody is going to risk $1
billion
warships by moving them down the threat axis in order to try anything
similar - especially because it is pretty obvious that the "new"
interceptor
on the carrier's deck can't accomplish the taks in a manner safe for it
and
its crew?

Wow, those EID systems on your Tomcats must rival Hubble if they are
picking up and ID'ing targets in the far reaches of the AIM-54
envelope.

Well, at least I don't know about a single case (out of several dozens)
where the enemy-IFF-interrogator of an F-14 failed to properly identify the
target. The fact is that this happened in 100% of the cases where the Aegis
was used in "combat".

What airborne threat out there do you see that the
F/A-18 with AIM-120, supported by AWACS and the normal aerial
refueling packages, and backstopped by Aegis-equipped CG's and DDG's,
can't handle?

Threats of Su-30s armed with R-77s, Yakhonts and other advanced weapons
that
are about to enter service within the next few years, supported recce
satellites and AEW aircraft based on Israeli/US technology.

The numbers of which in *any* nation's hands at present dont equal the
threat that the USN faced in the North Atlantic in 1980-85.

You again missed the point: the modern threats are such that one needs no
dozens or hundreds in order to saturate: today it can become too dangerous
for any USN CVBG to let the opponent fire even a single thing of Yakhont's
caliber...

The USN is just about to introduce the 7th Generation of Aegis into
service:
you don't believe they are doing this for nothing?

Likewise for the same reason that AIM-54 is likely to go the way of
the dodo, technological progress and a changing threat environment.

No dispute. But, this doesn't mean that a much more powerful replacement is
needed - but nowhere in sight.

Back in the days when you were looking at a realistic possibility of a
saturation attack, that would be correct; but those days are now in
the past, thank goodness.

Yes they are. Instead, in the following years a completely new
generation of
anti-shipping weapons will enter service, which will not need to
saturate
the defences. The possibility of attacks with single weapons that can
penetrate the layered defences of USN carriers due to their sheer flying
performances will considerably increase.

And your Phoenix/F-14 combination, with its admittedly
less-than-spectacular low altitude performance, is fgonna change this
equation you posit exactly *how*?

In my last post I have explained to you that in COMBAT - repeat: combat, not
in testing - the AIM-54 proved capable of tackling low-level targets. The
AIM-120 was fired in combat, and also in the SD-mode, but never against a
target operating at levels bellow 100m. Perhaps some AMRAAMs were test-fired
against such targets like cruise-missiles: this is very likely. But then,
the test-performance of the AIM-54 against such targets is superior to that
of the AIM-120 any way, already on the basis of the range.

As next, given the lack of speed and endurance, there is also the
lack
of
range: the AIM-120 can't - and will for the next ten years or so
also
not be
able to - intercept enemy at such ranges like the AIM-54 can.

It doesn't have to. And neither can the AIM-54 reliably operate at the
lower altitudes that the AIM-120 has proven to be quite capable of
handling.

In combat, the AIM-120 was never used at low levels, so I must wonder a
little bit what makes you so sure about it being able to handle
low-flying
threats?

Repeated test shots, including snap down shots at targets operating
IIRC quite a bit lower than Phoenix ever was designed to handle.

How about details? How many, when and where?

On the contrary, the AIM-54A (and a "downgraded" version of it) proved
capable of tackling multiple low-level threats in combat, and was also
successful in combat against low-flying cruise missiles. Certainly,
these
were of the same generation like the AIM-54, nothing of the "new breed"
that
is about to enter the service, but the point remains that without a
proper
replacement for the AIM-54 the USN will stand there with its hands
shortened
by two thirds, to say at least...

Gee, it is amazing that the USN can be so stupid, huh? Or is it a case
of their having a more realistic view of both the threat environment
and the shortcomings of their older systems?

Well, not really stupid: just catching-as-catch can - after all the failures
and massive mistakes with the A-12, ATF etc., etc., etc. they had to get
something new on their decks, or face the situation in which the A-6s and
F-14s would start falling apart within few years.

I don't know if you read any of the USN reports and hearings to the Congress
in the last few years: they do not say any more that the F/A-18s are
"better" than the F-14. They say that the F-14 is running out of life (which
is meanwhile undeniable) and the USN simply needs new airframes. So, it's
not any more to "get the best of the best" but to "get at least something".

The result of
this is that the slower, and shorter-ranged F/A-18s, armed only with
AIM-120s, are in a danger of literaly being overrun by faster,
longer-ranged, and fighters - such like Su-30s - that carry weapons
with
a
similar (or potentially better) range to that of the AIM-120.

Those Su-30's, if they are toting external weapons viable against a
CVN, are not going to be able to seriously outpace the F/A-18's; not
to mention the fact that they will usually find the Hornets *between*
them and their target, not in a tail chase scenario.

There are multiple factors in this game: as first, the Su-30 is much
faster
and has a better acceleration than any Hornet.

Not with big honking ASM's onboard it does not.

Sigh, I'd like to see acceleration rates for a SH loaded with three bags and
four AIM-120s alone.... Do you really believe it's superior to the Su-30 and
likes?

As second, it is far more
maneuvreable, and has proven this too.

If it can outmaneuver an AIM-120, not to mention the more likely two
AIM-120's, coming in at it from BVR, then it is one heck of an
airplane--but it really can't do that, now can it?

The Serbian MiG-29s proved several times they can outmaneuver AIM-120s in
1999 (they outmaneuvered at least three of them). Of course, a fighter
forced to outmaneuver missiles is of not much use. But, if you can get them
busy with one of yours, you still can bring the whole pack around.... Some
call this: "hold him by the nose and punch him in the tights". You might get
surprised that the "others" (than the US Americans) could come to the idea
to use this "tactics".

As third, it is to carry the weapons
that can overfly the F/A-18/AIM-120 combination.

What weapons are going to be launched that operate outside the AIM-120
altitiude envelope? And isn't that possibility one reason why a
layered defense, including Aegis with Standards, is present today?

How about trying to get yourself informed about the Yakhont's attack
trajectories?

As fourth, the low speed
and endurance of the F/A-18 do not ensure at all that they will always
find
themselves "between" the carrier and the Su-30s - especially not in
time.

You are aware that those Su's are not going to be "supercruising" in
towards the target from any great range? Do you really think they are
going to be operating above the typical transonic regime that has
typified the vast majority of air-to-air combat, and will continue to
do so for the next few years at least?

I'm meanwhile only sure that you're not completely up-to-date to this topic.
Which is the only recent war in which BVR-air-to-air combats were fought on
a large scale (and in which BOTH sides were firing BVRAAMs)? What were the
usual speeds of the involved aircraft in average BVR-battles in that war?

It might surprise you, Kevin, but the times of subsonic dogfighting at
medium and low levels are past, and people like you should slowly start to
realize this fact. This comes from the sole fact that already approaching an
enemy capable of BVR-shots at high speeds is rapidly decreasing his
engagement envelope...

Care to guess what that
supersonic flight does to the range capability of your posited
Su-armada (and the question of whether they can even get to those
speeds while toting ASM's is another issue)?

To make one thing clear: I'm not some "Flankeristi", believing the plane can
"do it all, anytime, anywhere". You miss, however, the fact that the
Su-27-family is simply superior to any Hornet in its raw flying
performances. Or worst: you do not miss it: you simply ignore and deny it,
according to the principle: if you say they are not capable of doing it,
they will not be capable of doing it.

This might sound illogical only if you think that the battles of this
kind
are fought in only two dimensions, not in all four. Being on station
100,
200, or even 300km out from the carrier down the threat axis does not
ensure
that the F/A-18 will be in proper place and the needed time. Quite on
the
contrary: the far superior endurance of the Su-30, just for example,
maxes
it flexible enough to maneuver around the threat axis - along which the
F/A-18s can be expected - and goes for the kill "from the other side"
(i.e.
several of them go along completely different routes around or away from
the
threat axis, where the F/A-18 are most likely to expect). In turn,
having
only Hornets at hand narrows down the capability of the CVBG CO to
maneuver
them, and also declines his flexibility massively.

An amazing aircraft if you think it can operate on external lines (so
to speak) at tremendous speed, with a substantial external warload,
and the required fuel to enable it to accomplish all of this external
maneuvering. Frankly, I seriously doubt that it has those
capabilities.

The only problem here is that you chose to ignore what is obviouis. Compare
the published performances to get the proper picture.

Can you - instead of being sarcastic - disprove what I said on the basis of
available data for F/A-18s and Su-30s?

The USN apparently does not agree with your assessment. The F-18 is
not quite as slow as you seem to think,

Is it faster than such planes like Su-27/30, Rafale, EF-2000, F-22, just for
example? Has it a better range, higher top speed, longer-ranged weapons?

they do have aerial tanking capability to support the CAP

Yes, they do. In fact, they not only have such capability, but also need it
badly: just take a look what was the main task of the few F/A-18Fs of the
VFA-41 that arrived in the Gulf in time to "participate" in the war against
Iraq, earlier this year...

, and the AIM-120 has proven so far to be
a rather lethal missile to aircraft ranging from the old Mig-21 to the
Mig-29.

Err, sorry: how many MiG-21s were shot down by AMRAAMs?

And the AIM-54 has proven to be what (and take some of those
Iranian claims with buckets of salt)?

The AIM-54 has proven to have a 20% higher pk in combat against contemporary
threats than the AIM-120. You can take these "Iranian claims" with
containers of salt if you don't like them. Just take care to drink enough
water.

That's the USN's problem, not even the one of the AIM-54 or the F-14:
due to
its own ignorance and arrogance, they attempted to engage an opponent
with
weapons that were known to this opponent first-hand. The Iraqis have
suffered immensely from the AIM-54 through the 1980s, consequently they
studied it very intensively, and already by 1988 - when they finally
managed
to shot down two IRIAF F-14As - they have also shown that they started
learned how to fly around the engagement envelope of the AIM-54 in order
to
bring the Tomcats inside the envelope of their weapons.

But those Su-30's can't manage that? Sounds like you are positing now
a case that *any* CAP, be it F-14 or F-18 based, is doomed to failure.

You simply chose to ignore the facts: what is your argument here, actually?
That the F/A-18 is "superior" in speed, range and capabilities to all the
possible threats, and there is no problem with the lack of range of the
aircraft or that of the range and kynethic capabilities of the AIM-120, nor
with the fact that the USN's CAPs can't operate agains threats from ranges
away from carrier as safe as before?

Do you want a serious discussion here or are we now about to start with
personal attacks, flamewars and other nonsence?

Do you seriously believe and expect that nobody will ever be able to
learn
to do the same against an aircraft with low top speed and shorter
endurance - like F/A-18 - and the main weapon of a much shorter range
than
the AIM-54 - namely the AIM-120? And this to remain so "forever"?

What am I thinking? Of course you are right, the USN is dumb, and the
Su is the greatest airplane ever built, capable of things that would
make the F/A-22 green with envy... All sarcasm aside, I fail to see
where the AIM-54 equipped F-14 is essential to USN CV defensive
efforts forever.

Surely, when one refuses to think soberly then it makes no sense to talk
with the person.

Thanks for losing my time: no interest.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585