asymetric warfare

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
(George William Herbert) writes:

John Schilling wrote:

Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.

I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
might as well send in F-15s??

Damo - who would much rather read a discussion about cheap(ish) cruise
missiles then trying to defeat the US on the battlefield. This is a science
based group, not fantasy.



--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"Damo" wrote:

:"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
:
: Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
: missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
: style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
: standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
: an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
: kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.
:
:I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
:air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
:might as well send in F-15s??

I think you're both wrong.

1) When did Stinger get cleared for carriage in an F-22 (and in such
ridiculous quantities, too)? That would be merely insane, since the
Stinger isn't even an air-to-air weapon (and you certainly couldn't
jam 45 of them in anywhere and be able to shoot them).

2) The F-22 carries 8 AAM rounds internally in pure air to air trim:
6 AIM-120C in the main weapons bay and an AIM-9X in each side bay.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Damo" wrote:
:"John Schilling" wrote:
: Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
: missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
: style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
: standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
: an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
: kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.
:
:I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
:air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
:might as well send in F-15s??

I think you're both wrong.

1) When did Stinger get cleared for carriage in an F-22 (and in such
ridiculous quantities, too)? That would be merely insane, since the
Stinger isn't even an air-to-air weapon (and you certainly couldn't
jam 45 of them in anywhere and be able to shoot them).

2) The F-22 carries 8 AAM rounds internally in pure air to air trim:
6 AIM-120C in the main weapons bay and an AIM-9X in each side bay.

The F-22 isn't cleared for Stingers. John is talking about
a hypothetical but reasonable design extension.

Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product
version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on
US Army helicopters.

There exist multiple rocket pods firing rockets with similar
body diameter to Stinger; modifying the pods to actually fire
stingers would be a minor modification. Building a new pod which
volumetrically filled the F-22 weapons bay, was extended out
for firing and then retracted back in, is not trivial but
not a particularly difficult project. I am taking John's
count of how many missiles would fit in such pods on faith;
he knows how to do math.

Similar retractable rocket pods, firing unguided rockets then
but operationally very similar, have been used in USAF interceptors
of the past.


-george william herbert

(George William Herbert) wrote:

:Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product
:version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on
:US Army helicopters.

Against other helicopters. An F-22 is just a bit of overkill for
hunting helicopters.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
:Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product
:version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on
:US Army helicopters.

Against other helicopters. An F-22 is just a bit of overkill for
hunting helicopters.

The thread was specifically on, how does the US respond
intelligently to the swarm of a tenth of a million cheap
cruise missiles fired by the Swami of Elbonia in response
to the 1st Armored, 1st Cav, 1st Inf, 3rd Inf, 7th Inf,
103rd Airmobile Armored, and a host of other units
swarming across his border.

The intelligent response is, of course, that the USAF
on hearing of this threat fits tens of Stingers in
pods to all the fighters they have available;
in twenty years, that will be F-22s and F-35s.
And lasers, no doubt. But lots of Stingers.

There aren't enough helicopters in the world,
probably, to justify fitting that many Stingers
to a F-22 or F-35, though I wouldn't say it would
*never* come to pass.


-george william herbert

(George William Herbert) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
::Stinger is used in air to air mode, there's a separate product
::version for it even (ATAS Block 2). It's used and qualified on
::US Army helicopters.
:
:Against other helicopters. An F-22 is just a bit of overkill for
:hunting helicopters.
:
:The thread was specifically on, how does the US respond
:intelligently to the swarm of a tenth of a million cheap
:cruise missiles fired by the Swami of Elbonia in response
:to the 1st Armored, 1st Cav, 1st Inf, 3rd Inf, 7th Inf,
:103rd Airmobile Armored, and a host of other units
:swarming across his border.
:
:The intelligent response is, of course, that the USAF
n hearing of this threat fits tens of Stingers in
ods to all the fighters they have available;
:in twenty years, that will be F-22s and F-35s.
:And lasers, no doubt. But lots of Stingers.

Except the planes are busy doing other things (like taking out launch
sites and such) and it would take time to vector properly configured
aircraft after the missiles. No, I think this is one you handle by
giving the ground troops better air defense. It would be both cheaper
(when you saw the threat being created) and more generally useful (for
things like aircraft threats) if you never need it for hunting the
missiles. That lets your ground troops interdict these things while
your aircraft hammer the launch points (plus all the enemy C4I assets)
into so much floating dust.

--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer

In article ,
"Damo" wrote:

I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
might as well send in F-15s??

Six AIM-120C in the center bay plus two Sidewinders in the side bays.

Or two AIM-120C + 2 JDAMs in the center bay and two Sidewinders in the
side bays.

If they go with external tanks and missiles, they get another four
AIM-120s and another 1200 gallons of fuel, but they lose stealth if they
do that.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Damo" wrote:

I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and
you
might as well send in F-15s??

Six AIM-120C in the center bay plus two Sidewinders in the side bays.

Or two AIM-120C + 2 JDAMs in the center bay and two Sidewinders in the
side bays.

If they go with external tanks and missiles, they get another four
AIM-120s and another 1200 gallons of fuel, but they lose stealth if they
do that.

Just out of curiosity, why were they not able to design conformal external
fuel tanks that also are fairly stealthy? I find it difficult to believe
that it could not be done.

AHS

"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Damo" wrote:

I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had
and
you
might as well send in F-15s??

Six AIM-120C in the center bay plus two Sidewinders in the side bays.

Or two AIM-120C + 2 JDAMs in the center bay and two Sidewinders in the
side bays.

If they go with external tanks and missiles, they get another four
AIM-120s and another 1200 gallons of fuel, but they lose stealth if they
do that.

Just out of curiosity, why were they not able to design conformal external
fuel tanks that also are fairly stealthy? I find it difficult to believe
that it could not be done.

I think it is not that it could not be done--it is more a factor of not
being required. The F-22 already has a pretty good range (reportedly
superior to all other current and near-future competitors). Of course it can
also carry its conventional external tanks as required--I would think that
dropping those before entering into the threat envelope would clean it back
up to a pretty stealthy profile (the point being that stealth is not
required for the full flight profile--only during the
ingress/attack/egress).

Brooks


AHS

"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

:Just out of curiosity, why were they not able to design conformal external
:fuel tanks that also are fairly stealthy? I find it difficult to believe
:that it could not be done.

Because the weapons carriage is internal. You can't launch weapons
through a conformal tank. It would also make the tank quite expensive
(rather than just steel). There is also the issue of changing the
shape of the airframe with conformal tanks (all those join lines),
which makes this a lot more difficult than you apparently think.

All this means you might as well just design the volume into the
airframe in the first place (which is what they did).

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney