|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
September 25th 03, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
September 28th 03, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Brooks wrote:
: Not necessarily. Given that the air threat to the CV's, or for that : matter to their strike packages, is greatly reduced these days, the : USN may be willing to place the major air defense/air superiority : roles solely in the hands of the F-18's with their AIM-120's, and use Well, it does not need to be a 'great' threat to do serious damage: Look at the achievements of the Argentineans with only five Exocet missiles. One of the lessons of the Falklands war (now again conviently forgotten by the British) is that a fleet really needs a strong BVR defense, capable of intercepting low-flying aircraft at distances up to 100 km away. But AIM-54 is now a relatively old weapon (although upgraded several times) and it was designed primarily to defend the fleet against Soviet bombers attacking at high and medium altitude, launching the very big Soviet cruise missiles of the period. The threat has changed, the attack profile of an enemy force would now probably bring them in just a few feet above the waves, only poppping up to fire their missiles. It is likely that AIM-120 has better performance against low-flying targets, although AIM-54's range against high-flying targets is still unrivalled. The F-18E/AIM-120 combination may actually provide a better fleet defense than F-14/AIM-54. Emmanuel Gustin http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
|
|
#3
September 28th 03, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: snip But AIM-54 is now a relatively old weapon (although upgraded several times) and it was designed primarily to defend the fleet against Soviet bombers attacking at high and medium altitude, launching the very big Soviet cruise missiles of the period. The threat has changed, the attack profile of an enemy force would now probably bring them in just a few feet above the waves, only poppping up to fire their missiles. Emanuel, already the Tu-22Ms could attack approaching at low levels: also, the Kh-22M had a low-level trajectory selectable. In the 1990s the threat has changed only in so far that it became more dangerous: the stuff that could now be eventually attacking USN carriers are such things like supersonic cruise missiles, and Su-30s that can fire back (which the Tu-22M-3s couldn't). It is likely that AIM-120 has better performance against low-flying targets, although AIM-54's range against high-flying targets is still unrivalled. The F-18E/AIM-120 combination may actually provide a better fleet defense than F-14/AIM-54. I strongly doubt this: no version of the F/A-18 matches the speed and/or endurance of the F-14 - especially not the combination of these two characteristics. As you certainly know, Emanuel, it makes a huge difference if one is intercepting an incoming threat some 100km away from the carrier, or 250km away. 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. 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. Given the fact that the pk of the AIM-54 in combat against threats of its time was higher than the pk of the AIM-120 in combat against the threats of its time, it is doubtfull any F/A-18 would have a serious chance of intercepting and stopping - just for example - a formation of four such opponents like Su-30s (regardless how far out from the carrier), without either coming too late on the station, or being outranged by enemy weapons and shot down in return, or outrun, or outmaneuvered.... or all of this combined. Given that also the new cruise-missiles became much more sophisticated, faster and longer-ranged than such earlier stuff like Kh-22/AS-4 Kitchens (which were nifty and malfunctioning weapons any way), this threat did actually not diminish but is increasing, while the AIM-120-armed F/A-18 has much less chance of intercepting such threats (especially because of the lack of speed and the weapons-range) than even the 20-years older AIM-54-armed F-14... 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
|
|
#4
September 29th 03, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: snip But AIM-54 is now a relatively old weapon (although upgraded several times) and it was designed primarily to defend the fleet against Soviet bombers attacking at high and medium altitude, launching the very big Soviet cruise missiles of the period. The threat has changed, the attack profile of an enemy force would now probably bring them in just a few feet above the waves, only poppping up to fire their missiles. Emanuel, already the Tu-22Ms could attack approaching at low levels: also, the Kh-22M had a low-level trajectory selectable. In the 1990s the threat has changed only in so far that it became more dangerous: the stuff that could now be eventually attacking USN carriers are such things like supersonic cruise missiles, and Su-30s that can fire back (which the Tu-22M-3s couldn't). Well, the fact that we are not exactly looking at a likely confrontation with a robust Soviet long range naval aviation threat, as we were in the bad ol' days, does seem to indicate that the threat of a long range, massed air attack against the CV's (which is what the AIM-54 was to counter) is greatly reduced; not *gone*, but diminished quite significantly IMO. That you don't think so would tend to beg the question--where, and who, do you see posing this "more dangerous" threat that supersedes the worst of what we faced in the eighties? It is likely that AIM-120 has better performance against low-flying targets, although AIM-54's range against high-flying targets is still unrivalled. The F-18E/AIM-120 combination may actually provide a better fleet defense than F-14/AIM-54. I strongly doubt this: no version of the F/A-18 matches the speed and/or endurance of the F-14 - especially not the combination of these two characteristics. And with the advent of Aegis, the need for that ever-expanding CAP has been reduced a bit. 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? As you certainly know, Emanuel, it makes a huge difference if one is intercepting an incoming threat some 100km away from the carrier, or 250km away. 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. 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. 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. Given the fact that the pk of the AIM-54 in combat against threats of its time was higher than the pk of the AIM-120 in combat against the threats of its time, it is doubtfull any F/A-18 would have a serious chance of intercepting and stopping - just for example - a formation of four such opponents like Su-30s (regardless how far out from the carrier), without either coming too late on the station, or being outranged by enemy weapons and shot down in return, or outrun, or outmaneuvered.... or all of this combined. That sounds illogical. You have to grade the AIM-54 against the threats of the *present* time. And your entire Su-30 scenario is less than convincing; you keep forgetting that the CVN is the center of the likely engagement circle, the F/A-18's are in the next ring, and then, from outside, come your vaunted Su-30's--so how the heck are they gonna outrun, outgun, and outmaneuver those F-18's that they have to first get *by*? Not to mention that the vaunted AIM-54 has, in US service, a combat record of what...zero victories? Given that also the new cruise-missiles became much more sophisticated, faster and longer-ranged than such earlier stuff like Kh-22/AS-4 Kitchens (which were nifty and malfunctioning weapons any way), this threat did actually not diminish but is increasing, while the AIM-120-armed F/A-18 has much less chance of intercepting such threats (especially because of the lack of speed and the weapons-range) than even the 20-years older AIM-54-armed F-14... No, the threat is not increasing. It is still there, but nowhere *near* the scope of the threat that the AIM-54 was intended to defend against (unless, of course, you think that we are still facing hordes of Tu-22's, Tu-95's, and even Tu-16's, streaming from the Kola and bound for the carrier groups in the North Atlantic....). Brooks Tom Cooper
|
|
#5
September 29th 03, 08:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin, you're asking valid questions, no doubt.
Well, the fact that we are not exactly looking at a likely confrontation with a robust Soviet long range naval aviation threat, as we were in the bad ol' days, does seem to indicate that the threat of a long range, massed air attack against the CV's (which is what the AIM-54 was to counter) is greatly reduced; not *gone*, but diminished quite significantly IMO. That you don't think so would tend to beg the question--where, and who, do you see posing this "more dangerous" threat that supersedes the worst of what we faced in the eighties? As first, the Soviet naval bomber threat was neither as massive nor as robust as assessed at the time. There were far less Blinders and Backfires at hand assigned for anti-carrier-ops than believed. Plus, their weapons and avonics were really "nifty". More modern weapons - starting already with the "Moskit" (with its pretty "dumb" quidance system), and then especially Yakhont, are far more serious threats than any AS-4s were ever. Foremost, the capabilities of these weapons are such that no saturation is needed any mo they are developed to fly over or through the envelopes of the AIM-54 and Aegis system, and their theoretical capabilities should enable them this. The threat is also the Moskits are already in service with the Chinese Navy. Yakhonts not yet, but this is likely to happen in the next few years. 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). 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. 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), and again the recent experiences with the PAC-3 show that this is not the case. 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. 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. 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? 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 USN is just about to introduce the 7th Generation of Aegis into service: you don't believe they are doing this for nothing? 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. 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? 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... 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. As second, it is far more maneuvreable, and has proven this too. As third, it is to carry the weapons that can overfly the F/A-18/AIM-120 combination. 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. Given the fact that the pk of the AIM-54 in combat against threats of its time was higher than the pk of the AIM-120 in combat against the threats of its time, it is doubtfull any F/A-18 would have a serious chance of intercepting and stopping - just for example - a formation of four such opponents like Su-30s (regardless how far out from the carrier), without either coming too late on the station, or being outranged by enemy weapons and shot down in return, or outrun, or outmaneuvered.... or all of this combined. That sounds illogical. You have to grade the AIM-54 against the threats of the *present* time. And your entire Su-30 scenario is less than convincing; you keep forgetting that the CVN is the center of the likely engagement circle, the F/A-18's are in the next ring, and then, from outside, come your vaunted Su-30's--so how the heck are they gonna outrun, outgun, and outmaneuver those F-18's that they have to first get *by*? 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. Fighting such a battle like that of defending a carrier is basically not much more but a game of chess, where the figures shot with radar-guided missiles. You ought to bring your platforms into a proper position, _in time_, so to ensure that they will be in position in time to acquire the opponent when this will maneuver through their engagement zones - which are usually directly ahead of such things like F/A-18s. The volume of the Hornet's engagement zone, however, is much narrower and shorter than that of the F-14's, and the plane is also slower, and has shorter endurance, which means that moving it around - especially at high speeds - will mean spending lots of fuel, as well as additional problems. Trying to engage diagonally, for example, would not only shorten the engagement envelope, but also decrease the chance of success by a considerable margin. To illustrate it a little bit: while the F-14 can move three or four fields in the single move, the F/A-18 can - at best - move two. So, you have the F-14 in the place where you need it within a much shorter time than the F/A-18. Plus, you'll have still enough fuel after you have moved the F-14, than this would ever be the case with the F/A-18, and you will still have a much longer reach with longer-ranged weapons. With other words, you'll remain flexible, and still have time for corrections of eventual mistakes - which are unavoidable. Due to the longer range of such weapons like the AIM-54 you'll also be in position to intimidate the opponent. Given the short range of the AIM-120 and the short endurance of the F/A-18, you have no time for correction of mistakes: you have to move them precisely and in time, or you'll miss the interception point, and end aside or behind the enemy: in such case, the F/A-18 will - due to its lower speed and the shorter range of its main armament - also have no chance to catch up with the opponent any more, while taking AIM-120-shots at anything but an opponent closing towards the launching platform is cutting the range of that weapon by at least 50%. Cutting the range of the AIM-54 by 50% mean a max confirmed engagement range of 100km (against a target trying to outdistance the F-14). But, in the case of this being done with the AIM-120, you end with barely 15km, and can be happy if the missile reaches that distance in a test... The second aspect (having time for corrections), comes also from the much wider engagement envelope offered by the F-14/AIM-54 combo. The narrow engagement envelope means that the potential targets will have it much easier to avoid being engaged by the F/A-18/AIM-120 combination than this would ever be the case with the F-14/AIM-54. This eases the organization of the attack immensely, especially to such a flexible attack platform like Su-30 - which can make huge detours around the area where the F/A-18s can be expected to operate. With other words, the Su-30 needs not to go through the F/A-18s in order to reach the carrier: it can easily maneuver at higher speeds around them in order to reach attack position. In fact, due to the shorter endurance of the F/A-18 and the shorter range of the AIM-120, the USN's CVBGs have given up their capability to control wast areas of airspace around them, and so the potential opponents have much more space to maneuver for attack. Not to mention that the vaunted AIM-54 has, in US service, a combat record of what...zero victories? 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. They have confirmed this beyond any doubt in 1991, when not a single F-14 came so far to engage any of their fighters - not even MiG-21s - with AIM-54s. Nobody could expect them (the Iraqis) to be so stupid not to learn how to avoid the threat after eight years of fierce engagements by it, or to forget such experiences by 1999. Yet, the huge envelope of the AWG-9/AIM-54, and the need to maneuver at very high speeds in order to avoid it made them unable to do anything more with aircraft at hand. If they have had such stuff like Su-30s in 1999 - when the USN F-14Ds fired several AIM-54Cs at them - they could have first go for causing the Tomcats to spend their Phoenix missiles, then evade these, and then still have enough fuel to come back and engage on their own terms. 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"? No, the threat is not increasing. It is still there, but nowhere *near* the scope of the threat that the AIM-54 was intended to defend against (unless, of course, you think that we are still facing hordes of Tu-22's, Tu-95's, and even Tu-16's, streaming from the Kola and bound for the carrier groups in the North Atlantic....). As said above: my opinion is that the threat is only decreasing in numbers (and, no: I'm obviously not talking about "hordes" of Tu-22s; there would be no such thing even in the case of a WWIII in the 1980s). Numbers of countries capable of obtaining weapons that are becoming available, and the numbers of such weapons that could be used in a potential conflict, as well as the numbers of potential platforms capable of launching are decreasing. No doubt. _But_, given the much increased sophistication of such weapons, as well as their far greater endurance and speed, and their actual superiority in capability to the future "main fighter" of the USN, the threat is actually increasing. Given the Soviet and Iraqi experiences with the use of AS-4s and AS-6s against Iran, I'd say that a whole wing of AS-4-armed Tu-22Ms or AS-6-armed Tu-16s was actually less of a threat for any USN CVBG than four S u-30s armed with such stuff like Yakhonts. 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
|
|
#6
September 29th 03, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
all this has shown is that there is no aircraft and its weapons that are
perfect for that job. The F 14 / aim 54 and F 18 /aim 120 combos both have weak points. So what is to be done? Spend more money to find one that works or change things so that the need will no longer be there. "Tom Cooper" wrote in message ... Kevin, you're asking valid questions, no doubt. Well, the fact that we are not exactly looking at a likely confrontation with a robust Soviet long range naval aviation threat, as we were in the bad ol' days, does seem to indicate that the threat of a long range, massed air attack against the CV's (which is what the AIM-54 was to counter) is greatly reduced; not *gone*, but diminished quite significantly IMO. That you don't think so would tend to beg the question--where, and who, do you see posing this "more dangerous" threat that supersedes the worst of what we faced in the eighties? As first, the Soviet naval bomber threat was neither as massive nor as robust as assessed at the time. There were far less Blinders and Backfires at hand assigned for anti-carrier-ops than believed. Plus, their weapons and avonics were really "nifty". More modern weapons - starting already with the "Moskit" (with its pretty "dumb" quidance system), and then especially Yakhont, are far more serious threats than any AS-4s were ever. Foremost, the capabilities of these weapons are such that no saturation is needed any mo they are developed to fly over or through the envelopes of the AIM-54 and Aegis system, and their theoretical capabilities should enable them this. The threat is also the Moskits are already in service with the Chinese Navy. Yakhonts not yet, but this is likely to happen in the next few years. 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). 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. 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), and again the recent experiences with the PAC-3 show that this is not the case. 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. 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. 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? 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 USN is just about to introduce the 7th Generation of Aegis into service: you don't believe they are doing this for nothing? 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. 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? 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... 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. As second, it is far more maneuvreable, and has proven this too. As third, it is to carry the weapons that can overfly the F/A-18/AIM-120 combination. 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. Given the fact that the pk of the AIM-54 in combat against threats of its time was higher than the pk of the AIM-120 in combat against the threats of its time, it is doubtfull any F/A-18 would have a serious chance of intercepting and stopping - just for example - a formation of four such opponents like Su-30s (regardless how far out from the carrier), without either coming too late on the station, or being outranged by enemy weapons and shot down in return, or outrun, or outmaneuvered.... or all of this combined. That sounds illogical. You have to grade the AIM-54 against the threats of the *present* time. And your entire Su-30 scenario is less than convincing; you keep forgetting that the CVN is the center of the likely engagement circle, the F/A-18's are in the next ring, and then, from outside, come your vaunted Su-30's--so how the heck are they gonna outrun, outgun, and outmaneuver those F-18's that they have to first get *by*? 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. Fighting such a battle like that of defending a carrier is basically not much more but a game of chess, where the figures shot with radar-guided missiles. You ought to bring your platforms into a proper position, _in time_, so to ensure that they will be in position in time to acquire the opponent when this will maneuver through their engagement zones - which are usually directly ahead of such things like F/A-18s. The volume of the Hornet's engagement zone, however, is much narrower and shorter than that of the F-14's, and the plane is also slower, and has shorter endurance, which means that moving it around - especially at high speeds - will mean spending lots of fuel, as well as additional problems. Trying to engage diagonally, for example, would not only shorten the engagement envelope, but also decrease the chance of success by a considerable margin. To illustrate it a little bit: while the F-14 can move three or four fields in the single move, the F/A-18 can - at best - move two. So, you have the F-14 in the place where you need it within a much shorter time than the F/A-18. Plus, you'll have still enough fuel after you have moved the F-14, than this would ever be the case with the F/A-18, and you will still have a much longer reach with longer-ranged weapons. With other words, you'll remain flexible, and still have time for corrections of eventual mistakes - which are unavoidable. Due to the longer range of such weapons like the AIM-54 you'll also be in position to intimidate the opponent. Given the short range of the AIM-120 and the short endurance of the F/A-18, you have no time for correction of mistakes: you have to move them precisely and in time, or you'll miss the interception point, and end aside or behind the enemy: in such case, the F/A-18 will - due to its lower speed and the shorter range of its main armament - also have no chance to catch up with the opponent any more, while taking AIM-120-shots at anything but an opponent closing towards the launching platform is cutting the range of that weapon by at least 50%. Cutting the range of the AIM-54 by 50% mean a max confirmed engagement range of 100km (against a target trying to outdistance the F-14). But, in the case of this being done with the AIM-120, you end with barely 15km, and can be happy if the missile reaches that distance in a test... The second aspect (having time for corrections), comes also from the much wider engagement envelope offered by the F-14/AIM-54 combo. The narrow engagement envelope means that the potential targets will have it much easier to avoid being engaged by the F/A-18/AIM-120 combination than this would ever be the case with the F-14/AIM-54. This eases the organization of the attack immensely, especially to such a flexible attack platform like Su-30 - which can make huge detours around the area where the F/A-18s can be expected to operate. With other words, the Su-30 needs not to go through the F/A-18s in order to reach the carrier: it can easily maneuver at higher speeds around them in order to reach attack position. In fact, due to the shorter endurance of the F/A-18 and the shorter range of the AIM-120, the USN's CVBGs have given up their capability to control wast areas of airspace around them, and so the potential opponents have much more space to maneuver for attack. Not to mention that the vaunted AIM-54 has, in US service, a combat record of what...zero victories? 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. They have confirmed this beyond any doubt in 1991, when not a single F-14 came so far to engage any of their fighters - not even MiG-21s - with AIM-54s. Nobody could expect them (the Iraqis) to be so stupid not to learn how to avoid the threat after eight years of fierce engagements by it, or to forget such experiences by 1999. Yet, the huge envelope of the AWG-9/AIM-54, and the need to maneuver at very high speeds in order to avoid it made them unable to do anything more with aircraft at hand. If they have had such stuff like Su-30s in 1999 - when the USN F-14Ds fired several AIM-54Cs at them - they could have first go for causing the Tomcats to spend their Phoenix missiles, then evade these, and then still have enough fuel to come back and engage on their own terms. 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"? No, the threat is not increasing. It is still there, but nowhere *near* the scope of the threat that the AIM-54 was intended to defend against (unless, of course, you think that we are still facing hordes of Tu-22's, Tu-95's, and even Tu-16's, streaming from the Kola and bound for the carrier groups in the North Atlantic....). As said above: my opinion is that the threat is only decreasing in numbers (and, no: I'm obviously not talking about "hordes" of Tu-22s; there would be no such thing even in the case of a WWIII in the 1980s). Numbers of countries capable of obtaining weapons that are becoming available, and the numbers of such weapons that could be used in a potential conflict, as well as the numbers of potential platforms capable of launching are decreasing. No doubt. _But_, given the much increased sophistication of such weapons, as well as their far greater endurance and speed, and their actual superiority in capability to the future "main fighter" of the USN, the threat is actually increasing. Given the Soviet and Iraqi experiences with the use of AS-4s and AS-6s against Iran, I'd say that a whole wing of AS-4-armed Tu-22Ms or AS-6-armed Tu-16s was actually less of a threat for any USN CVBG than four S u-30s armed with such stuff like Yakhonts. 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
|
|
#7
September 29th 03, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
Kevin, you're asking valid questions, no doubt. Well, the fact that we are not exactly looking at a likely confrontation with a robust Soviet long range naval aviation threat, as we were in the bad ol' days, does seem to indicate that the threat of a long range, massed air attack against the CV's (which is what the AIM-54 was to counter) is greatly reduced; not *gone*, but diminished quite significantly IMO. That you don't think so would tend to beg the question--where, and who, do you see posing this "more dangerous" threat that supersedes the worst of what we faced in the eighties? As first, the Soviet naval bomber threat was neither as massive nor as robust as assessed at the time. There were far less Blinders and Backfires at hand assigned for anti-carrier-ops than believed. Plus, their weapons and avonics were really "nifty". It was all those "believed" totals that resulted in programs like the F-14/AIM-54, though. More modern weapons - starting already with the "Moskit" (with its pretty "dumb" quidance system), and then especially Yakhont, are far more serious threats than any AS-4s were ever. Foremost, the capabilities of these weapons are such that no saturation is needed any mo they are developed to fly over or through the envelopes of the AIM-54 and Aegis system, and their theoretical capabilities should enable them this. Even given the fact that the Soviet long range threat was perceived as being greater than it was in reality, given hindsight, the fact is that it *still* dwarfed the *scope* of any air threaqt now faced by the USN. 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. Yakhonts not yet, but this is likely to happen in the next few years. At which point, the PLAN *still* won't be a major threat to USN operations. 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? 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, 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, 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). And you can't just trivialize avionics as you have above--they are the heart of modern combat aircraft. 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? 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. Second, the report on PAC-3 has yet to be released from DoD (reportedly will occur soon). 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? How many Iranian aircraft were frat casualties during the PGW? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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*? 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. 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? 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. 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? 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? 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? 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)? Given the fact that the pk of the AIM-54 in combat against threats of its time was higher than the pk of the AIM-120 in combat against the threats of its time, it is doubtfull any F/A-18 would have a serious chance of intercepting and stopping - just for example - a formation of four such opponents like Su-30s (regardless how far out from the carrier), without either coming too late on the station, or being outranged by enemy weapons and shot down in return, or outrun, or outmaneuvered.... or all of this combined. That sounds illogical. You have to grade the AIM-54 against the threats of the *present* time. And your entire Su-30 scenario is less than convincing; you keep forgetting that the CVN is the center of the likely engagement circle, the F/A-18's are in the next ring, and then, from outside, come your vaunted Su-30's--so how the heck are they gonna outrun, outgun, and outmaneuver those F-18's that they have to first get *by*? 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. And if the threat dictates it, you can figure a couple of F-18 packages operating in different areas around that CVN (I really wonder where you get this idea that the USN is intent on turning its CVN's into some sort of defenseless target). Fighting such a battle like that of defending a carrier is basically not much more but a game of chess, where the figures shot with radar-guided missiles. You ought to bring your platforms into a proper position, _in time_, so to ensure that they will be in position in time to acquire the opponent when this will maneuver through their engagement zones - which are usually directly ahead of such things like F/A-18s. The volume of the Hornet's engagement zone, however, is much narrower and shorter than that of the F-14's, and the plane is also slower, and has shorter endurance, which means that moving it around - especially at high speeds - will mean spending lots of fuel, as well as additional problems. Trying to engage diagonally, for example, would not only shorten the engagement envelope, but also decrease the chance of success by a considerable margin. To illustrate it a little bit: while the F-14 can move three or four fields in the single move, the F/A-18 can - at best - move two. So, you have the F-14 in the place where you need it within a much shorter time than the F/A-18. Plus, you'll have still enough fuel after you have moved the F-14, than this would ever be the case with the F/A-18, and you will still have a much longer reach with longer-ranged weapons. With other words, you'll remain flexible, and still have time for corrections of eventual mistakes - which are unavoidable. Due to the longer range of such weapons like the AIM-54 you'll also be in position to intimidate the opponent. Given the short range of the AIM-120 and the short endurance of the F/A-18, you have no time for correction of mistakes: you have to move them precisely and in time, or you'll miss the interception point, and end aside or behind the enemy: in such case, the F/A-18 will - due to its lower speed and the shorter range of its main armament - also have no chance to catch up with the opponent any more, while taking AIM-120-shots at anything but an opponent closing towards the launching platform is cutting the range of that weapon by at least 50%. Cutting the range of the AIM-54 by 50% mean a max confirmed engagement range of 100km (against a target trying to outdistance the F-14). But, in the case of this being done with the AIM-120, you end with barely 15km, and can be happy if the missile reaches that distance in a test... The second aspect (having time for corrections), comes also from the much wider engagement envelope offered by the F-14/AIM-54 combo. The narrow engagement envelope means that the potential targets will have it much easier to avoid being engaged by the F/A-18/AIM-120 combination than this would ever be the case with the F-14/AIM-54. This eases the organization of the attack immensely, especially to such a flexible attack platform like Su-30 - which can make huge detours around the area where the F/A-18s can be expected to operate. With other words, the Su-30 needs not to go through the F/A-18s in order to reach the carrier: it can easily maneuver at higher speeds around them in order to reach attack position. In fact, due to the shorter endurance of the F/A-18 and the shorter range of the AIM-120, the USN's CVBGs have given up their capability to control wast areas of airspace around them, and so the potential opponents have much more space to maneuver for attack. The USN apparently does not agree with your assessment. The F-18 is not quite as slow as you seem to think, they do have aerial tanking capability to support the CAP, 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. And the AIM-54 has proven to be what (and take some of those Iranian claims with buckets of salt)? Not to mention that the vaunted AIM-54 has, in US service, a combat record of what...zero victories? 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. They have confirmed this beyond any doubt in 1991, when not a single F-14 came so far to engage any of their fighters - not even MiG-21s - with AIM-54s. Nobody could expect them (the Iraqis) to be so stupid not to learn how to avoid the threat after eight years of fierce engagements by it, or to forget such experiences by 1999. Yet, the huge envelope of the AWG-9/AIM-54, and the need to maneuver at very high speeds in order to avoid it made them unable to do anything more with aircraft at hand. But you posit that the Su's can operate at such high speeds to avoid the threat and still do the dirty work? If they have had such stuff like Su-30s in 1999 - when the USN F-14Ds fired several AIM-54Cs at them - they could have first go for causing the Tomcats to spend their Phoenix missiles, then evade these, and then still have enough fuel to come back and engage on their own terms. 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. Brooks No, the threat is not increasing. It is still there, but nowhere *near* the scope of the threat that the AIM-54 was intended to defend against (unless, of course, you think that we are still facing hordes of Tu-22's, Tu-95's, and even Tu-16's, streaming from the Kola and bound for the carrier groups in the North Atlantic....). As said above: my opinion is that the threat is only decreasing in numbers (and, no: I'm obviously not talking about "hordes" of Tu-22s; there would be no such thing even in the case of a WWIII in the 1980s). Numbers of countries capable of obtaining weapons that are becoming available, and the numbers of such weapons that could be used in a potential conflict, as well as the numbers of potential platforms capable of launching are decreasing. No doubt. _But_, given the much increased sophistication of such weapons, as well as their far greater endurance and speed, and their actual superiority in capability to the future "main fighter" of the USN, the threat is actually increasing. Given the Soviet and Iraqi experiences with the use of AS-4s and AS-6s against Iran, I'd say that a whole wing of AS-4-armed Tu-22Ms or AS-6-armed Tu-16s was actually less of a threat for any USN CVBG than four S u-30s armed with such stuff like Yakhonts. 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
|
|
#8
September 30th 03, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
|
|
#9
September 30th 03, 05:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message ...
snip 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? snip During the accidental Blackhawk shootdown in the northern Iraq no-fly zone a few years back, weren't the UH-60's flying at low-level? 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
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Israeli Derby BVR Missile | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 2 | September 18th 03 04:47 AM |
| Airborne ballistic missile defense? | Henry J. Cobb | Military Aviation | 1 | August 20th 03 09:17 AM |
| Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
| Rafael's AIM-AIR IR Missile Countermeasure | JT | Military Aviation | 8 | July 13th 03 03:41 AM |
| Missile Sensor Question | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 4 | July 2nd 03 06:58 PM |
Hybrid Mode
