Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

Please GarryB read it ,is very interesting

To me it is fairly obvious...

You are in a gun confrontation with someone and all of a sudden they slip on a bullet proof vest... you have to make a decision... estimate how effective his vest is or might become in the near future and develop new ammo for your guns to defeat it... or improve accuracy so you can shoot him in the head... or buy a flame thrower...

victor7 you instead don't read it for any reason at world ,ok ?
I suggest instead to you to go here

Now don't be mean.
Victor has admitted that he is new to this stuff, so rather than put him off and drive him to be one of those drones you are accusing him of being, have some patience and cover his points clearly and explain why he is mistaken.

Anyway, fight between F-22 and Su-35 or PAK FA will be decided in dogfight, where pilot's skills are decisive.

Location will be pretty important too.

Btw, does Russia have something like JORN radar that Australia has. Russian radar in Azerbaijan named Gabala, is it as power also. Although in war situation, these are the first items to go like Awacs having 8 minute time span in European theater.

Russia has lots of such radars, which are protected by the air defence network. An attack on such strategic elements would raise the question of a sneak attack with nuclear missiles (with those radars taken out Russia would not detect an ICBM attack with its land based radar network, the normal response to such a situation would be to assume these radars were taken out to conceal an attack which could be anything from a single bomber to a full strategic nuclear attack. The response will be use it before you lose it full nuclear attack, so I rather doubt it will happen in the first place.)

There is no use splitting hairs on this or that. Basic idea is to have some sort of fire mechanism on each high value item to deflect bombs and if possible the missiles launched by planes.

It would need to be a fairly substantial system to detect and track such targets let alone allow engagement from extended ranges.

The Pantsir-S1 and TOR systems were developed specifically for the role, rather than try to shoehorn mini Tor systems on every tank and IFV it makes more sense to operate a TOR battery with each brigade and to use concealment systems like Nakidka that reduces RCS by something like 6 times and IR signature several times too, so they aren't seen in the first place.

US has already tested a system which kills a RPG round fired at a tank or bmd.

Good for them. The Soviets tested the T-55AD which had a system called Drozd in the mid 1980s in Afghanistan where it was successful in stopping RPG attacks.

Stopping a bomb is a totally different thing.

The detection equipment using MMW radar would actually make the tanks and armoured vehicles easier to detect at extended ranges...

There is another system that is stopping bullets.

Tanks already have armour that stops bullets.

HERE YOU GO, WHAT AM I RANTING ABOUT ALL ALONG. RUSSIA HAS A ARENA SYSTEM WHICH CANCELS OUT RPGs AND MISSILES FIRED EVEN FROM HELICOPTERS ETC. COSTS $300K. IF IT CAN BE MODIFIED TO KILL THE JDAMS/JSOWS THEN ALL THE CONCEPT OF AIR BOMBING IS A BIG HOLE IN PENTAGON'S BUDGET.

ARENA is developed by a different company from Drozd and Drozd 2, the problem is that its munitions are designed to defeat anti armour weapons and it does so by prematurely setting off the target missile several metres away from the tank. Setting off a JDAM several metres from a tank will still kill the tank.

To detect a JDAM and successfully engage ir you need long range detection sensors and long range interception munitions... like the radar and missiles of the TOR, or Pantsir-S1... neither of which will fit into a tank without stopping it from being a tank and making it into an AD vehicle which TOR and Pantsir-S1 already are...

Btw, glad to have made you day!

Sorry Victor, I think he was being very sarcastic...

Btw, can systems like Shilka and others be jammed by SEAD type operations. I think they can be because of radar feature. What is the way out of that scenario, IRST?

Most air defence gun vehicles have optical backups. The Shilka has a modest optical backup with reduced accuracy and effectiveness, but still very potent against helicopters and UAVs within range.
The Tunguska and Pantsir-S1 have more sophisticated optics systems that include autotrackers and night and all weather capability and of course larger calibre guns effective to longer range and higher elevations.

Such systems using guns and missiles represent a serious threat to all low flying targets including but not limited to cruise missiles.

To me it is fairly obvious...

You are in a gun confrontation with someone and all of a sudden they slip on a bullet proof vest... you have to make a decision... estimate how effective his vest is or might become in the near future and develop new ammo for your guns to defeat it... or improve accuracy so you can shoot him in the head... or buy a flame thrower...

GarryB obviously that is not a surprise ,the "surprise", if we can call it so, is discover that :

1) That was a strict many vs many air engagement simulation, over "neutral" area, between advanced opponents on both sides (rather on one side you have the export version -SU-35BM- of not the best Russian aircraft that would available when F-35A will be mass produced and on the other the two most advanced USA aircraft - F-22 and F-35- in theirs domestic version). You could image what would be the results if the same attack would be conducted within the area of Chinese IAD -for not talk of the vastly superior Russian one -even only the same aircraft involved would have the whole Chinese IAD tracking and EW structure at play to theirs advantage.

2) In the unique instance,among those examined, where the USAF aircraft with the aid of four AWACS are not soundly beated and achieve an advantageous exchange ratio -when F-22 is the attacking platform involved with an achieved exchange ratio of about 2:1 - the number of "Raptors" used for this attack in the only Taiwan area is...240.
Problem : only 187 F-22 has been produced before being discontinued, among those no more than 1/3 of them -around 60-65 - could be ever available for a single extraterritorial mission.
Anyone can easily realise what would happen to the final exachnge ratio if the number of F-22 employed would be reduced from 240 to.....60.

3) This advanced simulation (employing the same model used for the Austarlian DoD committed analysis) don't take into account ballistic and cruise missile attacks against the US bases in the theatre (such as Kadena AB), which obviously ,to the exact contrary of assets within Chinese border, cannot count on the protection of hundreds of kilometers of the national multilayered IAD..
In the reality the F-18s, F-22s or F-35s sent to the Air Bases in the theatre for prepare for the attack or defense of Taiwan would very likely not even take-off for the first mission .


The problem ,therefore, is that the same concept of operations ,repeated ad nauseam in all those years [b]after theirs application in very unbalanced wars against immensely inferior enemies equiped with vastly downgraded models of weapons 25-30 years older and attacked enjoying crushing numerical advantage, become suddenly no more than funny jokes when the opponent become a world level opponent equiped with immeasurably greater and better military assets and capabilities.

victor7 wrote:

For that role you just have to modernize Shilka with modern radar and optical system and will do this job just fine.

Btw, can systems like Shilka and others be jammed by SEAD type operations. I think they can be because of radar feature. What is the way out of that scenario, IRST?

Every radar could be jammed, but effect of jamming depend on radar capabilities of countermeasures to jamming and of course on jammer itself. Original Shilka radar is technology from sixties. But old analogue electronics could be replaced with new digital one, which could give radar new better capabilities and better jamming resistance. Also original Shilka have optical sighting system, which also work with ballistic computer, although tracking target manually through optical sight is not as effective as radar tracking. Upgrading optical sight with autotracker and TI and installing data link to integrate with IADS, Shilka become very effective CIWS. Don't forget that original Shilka could fire on the move in both radar and optical mode. Modernized Shilka with new FCS is no less effective than land based Phalanx.

One place I read that soon the weapons launched from machines will take the stealthy form of machines itself and we will be talking stealth Jdam/Jsow etc. We already see stealth cruise missiles.

A system has to be in place which has atleast 180 degree vertical radar to seek out the Jdam/Sdb/Jsow etc. and launch a 1 or 2 foot long missiles to blow it up 1 km or so in the air or away from the area. This should be similar to Arena/Trophy etc. although they only protect from RPGs and that too at a very near distance. Jdam types have to be blown up at a distance to avoid any indirect harm. It might not be too difficult to detect and track a Jdam at 1km distance and handle it. More so because these travel at subsonic speeds although they fall in vertically it seems. Point defenses like Tor/Pantsirs are there but something that costs much less than $25M and $15M. It seems T/B/P are made to kill off the planes launching these bombs. I bet missiles from T/B/P are fairly expensive as they can go upto 100K feet or near. Idea is to kill off the bombs with missiles that cost $1000 a most 1-3Km away. Saturation attacks would lose 'a lot' of its meaning that way.

JDAMs have been totaly revolutionary in the Air Bombing warfares. Before a B2 bomber would fly with 34 million dollar cruise missiles and now it flies with $100K x 34 JDAMS. This means $30M savings per flight. If the B2 is from mid 90s, when it cost $600M, then in 20 flights the JDAMs have paid up for the cost of B2 already.

Btw, has there been any system out there yet which would jam the INS i.e. inertial navigation system of the projectile or trying to work on jamming/defeating INS is a waste of time.

More so because these travel at subsonic speeds although they fall in vertically it seems. Point defenses like Tor/Pantsirs are there but something that costs much less than $25M and $15M.

The Pantsir-S1 and TOR systems are not cheap, but their missiles are actually very cheap. Their missiles have no sensors or expensive components their flight is directed by the vehicle that launched them.

They are expensive because they are capable.

They are much cheaper than their western equivalents, because the western equivalent of Pantsir-S1 is at least two systems, one gun, and one missile with sensors and vehicles duplicated.

For TOR there is no western equivalent.

You are talking about comparing current Russian systems with future western systems.

How about comparing future Russian systems with future western systems... Morfei will be a short tange IIR guided missile with fire and forget capability that will be used as an AAM for PAK FA and other aircraft with a capability to shoot down missiles like AMRAAM etc, it will be used on the ground by the Army as a point defence missile, and the Navy will also use it as a CIWS in addition to Pantsir-S1.

There is also Vityaz, which is a dedicated anti missile system and medium range SAM.

Many years ago they revealed two small missiles in the S-400 family, one with a 40km range and the other with a 120km range.
The Vityaz is based on those missiles, but performance will likely be rather better due to improved electronics and materials.

These missiles will be used in navy and land based systems and therefore it can be assumed their could be an air to air model as well.

INS is basically using internal gyros to determine how the missile is moving. Based on knowing where it started from, it can use information about how it is moving to determine roughly where it currently is.

It can get updates from external sources like satellite nav to get a new fix on its position during its travels, but it is largely and autonomous system.
The best way to defeat the INS of a JDAM is with a TOR missile warhead.

How much a powerful and tough to jam - detection and tracking radar cost to cover 20 km radius.

I have heard since 2008, JDAMs gps cannot be jammed, they have modified it by alot, is that true. Then other than Tor or Pantsirs there is no defense given the gps/gmti capabilities.

I have heard since 2008, JDAMs gps cannot be jammed, they have modified it by alot, is that true. Then other than Tor or Pantsirs there is no defense given the gps/gmti capabilities.

If JDAMS cannot be jammed what makes you think TOR and Pantsir-S1 can be?

Any platform trying to jam anything suddenly becomes a target for higher level SAMs.

JDAM is a bomb and therefore needs to be delivered to the area it is to be used.

As long as that is the case then the aircraft carrying it being targeted and shot down either by long range SAM or the cannon on a fighter aircraft is always the best option to defeat it.

As long as that is the case then the aircraft carrying it being targeted and shot down either by long range SAM or the cannon on a fighter aircraft is always the best option to defeat it.

If I were in position of Syria or Iran, I would gobble up as many Shilka systems and tweak them to fire not only 30mm rounds but also HE bomb clusters that explode and cover an area in sky of 10m x 10m. This way increasing the probability of hit and destruction of the Jdams. Crucial point would be however to make the radar resistant to jamming otherwise might as well have soldiers firing blindly in the air with Ak47s.

Shilka is a 23mm calibre system, though I have seen an upgrade that offers the 30mm cannon of the Tunguska/Pantsir-S1 as a replacement.

To be honest a modification to upgrade Shilka to fire cluster explosives is not realistic.

Old WWII large calibre anti aircraft guns would be the closest equivalent but even the models with radar assistance were firing tens of thousands of rounds for each hit on high flying but relatively slow and straight and level targets.

Even with improvements in rate of fire and performance and radar technology I really don't think it would be worth it.

A Pantsir-S1 or TOR would be the most sensible solution.

Launching Yakhont supersonic anti ship missiles at any western vessel that comes close to the Syrian coast would actually be the best solution... and launching long range SAMs at any western aircraft that approaches without permission too.

Phalax without a radar costs $1.5M.
Some Chinese or even used one should cost nearly half the price.

I am pretty sure some HE cluster shell firing gun can be made which is radar/optic/IRST guided. Having a 30mm firing gun from one angle and HE bombs from some other angle, might end up with a cheap Jdam killing system available for a battlefield zone as that is where most of the tanks and artillery get hit from the air. Even Russia can only afford 300 Pantsirs by 2020. A system costing $2-3M at most should be good to protect dozen tanks on the move.

as that is where most of the tanks and artillery get hit from the air.

Completly FALSE , another metropolitan myth completely devoid of any empirical foundation and ....obviously....attentively spreaded in public media.

In any pasted wars since operation Desert Storm has been systematically proved that Air Forces are absolutely uncapable to inflict signicative losses to ground forces even when the environment was practically Air Force's heaven ,the enemy ground divisions was not only absurdely outdated but also more or less static forces and the aircraft committed to those type of missions was numerically and technically overwhelming.

The definitive, CENTCOM data on the subject say to us that ,contrarely to what declared at "hot" by US Command...for very clear reasons .... in Desert Storm, before G-day (beginning of the ground operations) after over one month and half of operations -literally some thousands of dedicated mission !!!!- less than 10% (9,4%) of Iraqi armoured units and 16 % of not armoured ones had been destroyed by Air Attacks and wide majority of them by Ah-64 not fixed wing aircraft ,in few hours of ground battle Iraqi divisions losses was,naturally, 5-6 times higher than those suffered in the month and half of Air campaign !! .

In Kosovo War ,also here to the exact contrary of initial claims -successively revealed itself as nothing more than PR efforts after postwar European Commission's survey - in the entire NATO Air Campaign Serbian ground losses was : 14 tanks ,20 artillery pieces and few APC ; practically the small Serbian Army merely enforcing '60 years Soviet principles of Ground Forces's preservation through dispersion ,high mobility and tactical deception had caused the entire NATO Air Force's machine to race.

The same identical pattern in enemy Ground Forces losses was observed in GW2.

The 2011 conflict in Liby was a civil war characterized by wide scale internal turmoils, defection and losses of critical military assets and positions in result to widespread insurrection's breeding grounds.
Also here the losses to ground forces by air was minimal ;the central point,instead, is that the military structure of any nation is designed to fight external menaces ,internal military insurrection are highly capable to literally dismember this structure ,above all if a Coalition of nations much more advanced contribute with military advice and command on the ground and destruction ,by Air Forces, of others national assets openly support a similar internal uprising.

I don't think there is Phalanx without radar. Vulcan is US made AAA without radar.

I know in this times SAMs are more popular than AA guns, but AA guns still are very valuable systems. There is no pilot, who will want to fly inside AA gun engaging zone, because when AA gun have plane in its sight, there is no countermeasures for it. You could not jam gun round, which fly against you by ballistic curve. NATO have altitude limits not only because of MANPADs, but also because of AA guns. It's true, that AA guns could not reach very far away, but they are excellent against bombs and missiles because of their rate of fire.

For engaging bombs and missiles, AA guns like Shilka or ZU-23-2 or Phalanx will use AP (armor piercing) rounds to penetrate the bomb or missile.

I have heard since 2008, JDAMs gps cannot be jammed, they have modified it by alot, is that true.

Why not? GPS satellites sends coded signals in exact frequency with constant power. If you have jammer, which work in the same frequency and have greater power than GPS signal, GPS receiver could not hear GPS signals from satellites. Also GPS guided bombs need coordinates of target before bomb release, so if you between that time remove the target, it will not hit it. That is why they give additional TV or laser guidance in GPS guided bombs.

If I were in position of Syria or Iran, I would gobble up as many Shilka systems and tweak them to fire not only 30mm rounds but also HE bomb clusters that explode and cover an area in sky of 10m x 10m. This way increasing the probability of hit and destruction of the Jdams. Crucial point would be however to make the radar resistant to jamming otherwise might as well have soldiers firing blindly in the air with Ak47s.

Iran is doing exactly this with intensive home production of ZU-23-2, Oerlikon 35 mm gun and 100 mm KS-19 guns together with Flycatcher FCS systems to engage such targets automatically in radar and optical mode. As I know Iran have two rings around Natanz of AAA batteries with Flycatchers together with SAMs.

GW1, Kosovo should not be considered given today's technology. Libya Conflict most of the damage to heavy machines was done by NATO bombs. On days when NATO could not bomb, the rebels called it a holiday from fighting. In places like Bani Walid, after G had fallen, NATO was absent and for those days rebels were murdered in numbers on the battlefield. The new NATO model vrs Third World is, bomb the heavy machines and the mop up with special forces or rebels willing to do the dirty work. In 5 years, do not be surprised to see robots paradropping and chasing enemy like in Star Wars movies.

Wikipedia prices Phalax without radar at $1.5M. I am sure there are similar systems that cost much more less like from China or even Russian made.

If somehow the range of AA guns and artillery can be increased to 30K feet then the concept of Air Bombing will take a big hit. This is a major challenge however as it is cheap to keep birds far away using AA guns alone. Jdam-ER can be delivered from 80 km and gps/gmti technology allows for bombing even a fast moving target. So trying to kill a bird that is dropping Jdams from 80km would not be possible using Tor or Pantsirs. Technology needs to meet these J's/SDBs as soon as they enter the 5km radius and 'gangrape' them from various directions and weapon systems.

Is there any system that fires HE cluster bombs even at speed of 10 per minute. Tuning it with fire control radar can prove tough for Jdams to reach the designated target.

The price given in Wikipedia for Phalanx gun system without radar means price only for gatling gun, ammo storage and drives for moving the gun, while radars and electronics will cost more and without them Phalanx could not work.

If somehow the range of AA guns and artillery can be increased to 30K feet then the concept of Air Bombing will take a big hit. This is a major challenge however as it is cheap to keep birds far away using AA guns alone. Jdam-ER can be delivered from 80 km and gps/gmti technology allows for bombing even a fast moving target. So trying to kill a bird that is dropping Jdams from 80km would not be possible using Tor or Pantsirs. Technology needs to meet these J's/SDBs as soon as they enter the 5km radius and 'gangrape' them from various directions and weapon systems.

Is there any system that fires HE cluster bombs even at speed of 10 per minute. Tuning it with fire control radar can prove tough for Jdams to reach the designated target.

All AA guns with cal. 30 mm and higher could have AHEAD round like Oerlikon 35 mm AA gun, where electromagnetic device on the barrel program the distance on which the round will explode, that tungsten sub fragments will have the best effect on target. In combination with FCS complex like Skyguard it is very effective on all targets.

100 mm AA gun KS-19 could reach 10 km altitude and original Russian one work with SON-9 fire control radar. This gun is old and only Iran produce it now with automatic autoloader and connected with modern FCS like Flycatcher or Skyguard, what makes it very effective and specially when work in optical mode it is immune on any jamming.

GPS system by itself don't see target, so when using GPS guidance you need target coordinates before bomb release. So 80 km range for JDAM could be used only against known stationary targets, not on moving ones. For moving targets plane itself have to see the target through targeting pod to send correcting coordinates to bomb to hit the moving target, so it must fly far nearer the target to see it, so in that case it is in the range of Tor or Pantsir, what means ground based jammers could jam data link to JDAM as well as GPS signal and SAMs could shot down both plane and JDAM.

100 mm AA gun KS-19 could reach 10 km altitude and original Russian one work with SON-9 fire control radar. This gun is old and only Iran produce it now with automatic autoloader and connected with modern FCS like Flycatcher or Skyguard, what makes it very effective and specially when work in optical mode it is immune on any jamming.

Now that is an excellent piece of information. Wow! wikipedia says it can reach 40K feet which means its presence can keep lots of birds off the bombing runs. This really meets the objective of saving troops from annihiliation from air alone as all my scenarios are for Third World which have either a) no advanced SAMs b) whatever SAMs they had were blown up already.

Jdams have been high on momentum for last 10 years so why would not nations go after KS-19 type deals. I bet these guns are much more cheap than Pantsir's $15M, although might not offer multiple target tracking and firing capabilities.

Because without guided shells the KS-19s shot to kill ratio is very poor, you will fire about 8,000 rounds for each hit on a bomber sized target.

BTW you don't need AHEAD type rounds for 100mm guns, proximity fuses are much more effective in that regard.

The main problem is that when a shell is fired it is on a fixed trajectory from the muzzle of the gun so in the 10-15 seconds it takes that shell to reach the target area any variation in the targets movement will result in a miss... any inaccuracy in the tracking, and cross wind through various layers of atmosphere...

Guns in this regard are totally obsolete unless the velocity can be greatly inceased (ie EM guns with muzzle velocities of 5km/s or more)

With that logic, against 30K feet targets KS-19 should be only a 'sky denial' value at average, at best it might score a kill or two. May be cluster shells breaking and spreading wide into pieces and then exploding might increase a probability of hit.

However, will a modified or upgraded guided KS-19 vrs Jdams flying at subsonic speeds and in the proximity of 3-5 Kms offer little more potentials? Iran has modfied KS-19 and boast of precision hits by Safir, but then ME countries like to thump their chests even before production lines are in place.

Can a KS-19 type platform be first used to lobby an Igla at say 20K feet and then manpad fires in and does its 15K feet chasing? Similar to your idea of UCAVs armed with Iglas

GW1, Kosovo should not be considered given today's technology.

Today technology?

Lybia conflict has nothing to do with today technology (the most "successful" weapon employed against ground vehicles was a....redesigned AGM-114 Hellfire ), it instead had anything to do with an internal insurrection -obviously guided and aided by foreign forces- in a third world nation with a very limited military structure mostly more than 35 years old ,several cities risen against the government with theirs linked military assets and strategical positions present,lost without that even a battle happening.
No military structure of any nation can win a war against its own people.
For example, insurrecting people in the French revolution was ,under a purely military value, immensely less powerful than French Army but that don't prevented the Nation established structure to collapse ,growing military defections ,loss of defensive deepness and strategic positions are enemies and progressive disintegration of all the civilian assets supporting the same military structure's existence are enemy far, far, far more dangerous than even an invasion by part of militarily superior enemy forces (as well proved in any pasted conflict)

Libya Conflict most of the damage to heavy machines was done by NATO bombs.

Oh True? Well therefore i am all ears and very impatient to know those impressive figures




Victor7 leave out of your mind those odd ideas on how to defend against Air Forces and try to ask to yourself ther question that any serious analyst ask to itself 24/24 any day of the week 12 months at year : in what way is possible to defend Air Forces in theirs classical roles from complete obliteration (both against very advanced IAD or for the effect of destruction of theirs prerequisite structures) in a modern conflict against an advanced enemy ?
In fact today, Air Forces, in a full scale war against a very strong opponent, would result ,by a very long margin, the branch of Armed Forces more frail and vulnerable .
Theirs high "popularity" in the wars of last 30 years has been dictated merely by the scale of those conflict (regional at best),by the level of sofistication of the enemy involved (small ,third world nations, devoid of any offensive and defensive weapons capable to render this type of approach not simply wrong but even suicide) and ,above all, by the political acceptability (Attack by air, against those inferior opponents, generate very low or even null friendly losses ,an element that render a military intervention politically acceptable by part of pubblic opinion on the nations proposing it and even a good internal "promo" for the Government figures ; moreover the lack of a direct "invasion" of the territory of a foreign sovereign state is considered in the international diplomatic chessboard much more politically acceptable).
The problem is that almost any

Air Forces are a very ,very ineffcient way to deliver military power . In the same time window of an Air Operation ,Ground Forces for the same value deliver not some dozen...not some hundreds .....,but some thousands of times more destructive power at a little fraction of the costs and them are also virtually immune to those type of early "beheading attacks" capable ,conversely, to completely cripple or rule out Air Forces in a modern war.

No military structure of any nation can win a war against its own people.

Is that why in one month Gaddafi's forces ran up all the way from Tripoli and were on the outer suburbs of Benghazi ready to take it in few days of time. Then what happened? NATO bombing started Then what happened? G's forces conducted a stiff retreat and by August, Tripoli was in the hands of the rebels. So who made the difference? We all know the answer, so no point in argument.

Air Forces are a very ,very ineffcient way to deliver military power .

Using precision guided munitions, Air Forces can take out tanks, artillery, BMDs and then what is left? Try taking a city without these big machines. Not happening easily.

You logic of heavily depleted, sanctioned and weakened Third World forces getting decimated by US..........has been accepted before. So no differences there. However, quality and quantity of USAF is very large. Other than Russia, no nation on this earth would be able stand and repel USAF beat down. Even main NATO allies like UK, France ran out of ammo against Libya and US ended up leading from behind by supplying weapons, air fueling, intelligence etc.

One place I read that Israel Air Force is confident of destroying main tank divisions of Syrian Army in 3 days using air assets. Going by the past performances of IsAF, I would not throw a denial or rebuttal to those claims.

Again here are the main tasks cut out for the RuAF:

a) Detect, Track and Kill F22s/F35s at a distance of 400 Kms or more in a hostile jamming environment.

b) For IRST capabilities, an ability to DTK, both legacy and stealth planes and missiles at atleast 150 kms.

c) Develop MANPADs that can reach 40K Feet and are resistant to jamming and diversionary tactics like flares etc.

d) Develop a CIWS type defense system using bullets, bombs or cheap missiles against JDAM/JSOW/SDB/LGB etc. within an envelop of 5 km, horizontal and vertical horizons. This system has to have multiple target tracking and engaging capability and should be resistant to jamming in addition to having IRST and Optical DTK capabilities. This system has to be inexpensive as it is going after JDAMs not the planes launching them. This will allow for wide range uses all round.

Is that why in one month Gaddafi's forces ran up all the way from Tripoli and were on the outer suburbs of Benghazi ready to take it in few days of time.

That is the motivation for which a "revolution" initially supported by a very small fraction and minority of the Libyan population (and obviously triggered and attentively guided by foreign forces) was in need of the intervention of NATO Coalition to succeed ; naturally ,in short time, became also very clear that a simple no-fly-zone too wouldn't have allowed the "insurrection" to reach the aim ,so a massive and protracted employement of cruise missiles and bombardments against Libyan major national assets was necessary to let the rebels to gain the momentum (in particular inducing a progressively greater percentage of Libyan population and military operative to desert or pass openly toward the side of theirs revolutionary countrymans).

This type of miserable ,engineered operations for civil wars (including a coverage simply criminal in majority of the so called free media ) against nations completely uncapable to defend themselves ,capitalizing the tensions and the partial interests and aims of theirs tribal and faction components to effectively disintegrate them, represent the most mean frontier of modern imperialist politic aimed at gain access to critical energy sources or at change the political geography in areas not "alligned" to western interests.

Using precision guided munitions, Air Forces can take out tanks, artillery, BMDs and then what is left? Try taking a city without these big machines. Not happening easily.

Now THIS is a perfect example of what i mean when a i say that an immense amount of confusion reign sovereign in those subjects.

1) Air Forces in ANY PASTED conflict ,in spite of heavenly environments (obviously impossibel to be found in a conflict against an advanced opponent where the environment in the air become from difficult to literally hellish) a ridiculous numerical ,technical and training advantage , have always failed by a very long margin to inflict any signbificative damages to enemy ground forces.

2) If we talk of damages to infrastructures the pictures become even more unbalanced.
For render the thing absolutely clear i will take as example just the actual situation in Sirya, if ,instead to be a Syrian city full of Syrian people Homs would be an enemy city in enemy territory it would have been flattened in a matter of hours by heavy artillery.
NATO aircraft coming from Decimomannu AB or Istres AB or Gioia del Colle AB in Libyan conflict to conduct theirs attack must : refuel ,mount the very limited ...and costly...amount of ordnances that is possible to carry in the air (fighting for hundreds of kilometers against a thing called gravity force) come in the area after some time some hundreds of kilometers far, guided by E-3 and with support of jammer (aircraft with same needs of those involved in the attacks), deliver the bomb/missile on the targets and return to theirs air base hundreds of kilometers far,likely after an in-flight refuelling .
Here them will receive technical maintenance ,refuel , mount other costly ordnances ,execute a turn-over of the pilots and a new mission can finally be executed (covering another time hundreds of kilometers both in the outward and the homeward voyage.
A pair of battallions of artillery and tanks coming in a particular area can station here and go on over and over, all the day long, at selectively destroy a fixed or mobile target after the other in a very small fraction of the time required to a much ,much greater amount of aircraft to obtain the same result .
Those two battallions in a single day (as proved in Gulf Wars) can obtain, at a tiny fraction of the cost of an Air campaign, the same military results that Air Force can obtain in a month .

The difference is in the doctrine to fight. West prefers air force to minimize losses on its side. Russia and China probably prefer the ground based offensives and more so because they like to keep the costs under control.

Regarding Libya, I still stick to the fact that NATO bombing was the main factor behind the reversal of tides. It was very obvious. Arguments have no end.

GarryB wrote:Because without guided shells the KS-19s shot to kill ratio is very poor, you will fire about 8,000 rounds for each hit on a bomber sized target.

BTW you don't need AHEAD type rounds for 100mm guns, proximity fuses are much more effective in that regard.

The main problem is that when a shell is fired it is on a fixed trajectory from the muzzle of the gun so in the 10-15 seconds it takes that shell to reach the target area any variation in the targets movement will result in a miss... any inaccuracy in the tracking, and cross wind through various layers of atmosphere...

Guns in this regard are totally obsolete unless the velocity can be greatly inceased (ie EM guns with muzzle velocities of 5km/s or more)

Depend of FCS system battery have. Old SON-9 system work only in radar mode, later it is modified with TV backup, but old analogue ballistic computer still need radar data to calculate firing parameters. Modern FCS systems, which also have day/night optical system with laser range finder could work in passive mode without radar and ballistic computer still could calculate firing parameters for gun battery. Iran connect its KS-19 batteries with FCS system like Skyguard, which have digital ballistic computer and day/night optical channel with laser range finder, so battery capabilities to hit target with first round without guiding rounds is greatly improved comparing to old ones. For firing on missiles and bombs, which don't do a lot of maneuvers in the sky, this is still quite effective weapon. Do't forget, ships still have large cal. guns, which are also used in air defense role.

medo wrote:

GarryB wrote:Because without guided shells the KS-19s shot to kill ratio is very poor, you will fire about 8,000 rounds for each hit on a bomber sized target.

BTW you don't need AHEAD type rounds for 100mm guns, proximity fuses are much more effective in that regard.

The main problem is that when a shell is fired it is on a fixed trajectory from the muzzle of the gun so in the 10-15 seconds it takes that shell to reach the target area any variation in the targets movement will result in a miss... any inaccuracy in the tracking, and cross wind through various layers of atmosphere...

Guns in this regard are totally obsolete unless the velocity can be greatly inceased (ie EM guns with muzzle velocities of 5km/s or more)

Depend of FCS system battery have. Old SON-9 system work only in radar mode, later it is modified with TV backup, but old analogue ballistic computer still need radar data to calculate firing parameters. Modern FCS systems, which also have day/night optical system with laser range finder could work in passive mode without radar and ballistic computer still could calculate firing parameters for gun battery. Iran connect its KS-19 batteries with FCS system like Skyguard, which have digital ballistic computer and day/night optical channel with laser range finder, so battery capabilities to hit target with first round without guiding rounds is greatly improved comparing to old ones. For firing on missiles and bombs, which don't do a lot of maneuvers in the sky, this is still quite effective weapon. Do't forget, ships still have large cal. guns, which are also used in air defense role.

I sometimes think that the good old WWII style heavy flak guns will one day make a comeback.
With the advances in radar location, fire control, shell technology etc, why not fire a large number of 100mm shells into the general area where a high flying aircraft is located and fill that part of the sky with shrapnel?

A six gun battery can input data from any search radar in the air defence network into a simple fire control computer that will constantly calculate (and update) where a target will be and come up with a firing solution. Shoot a half dozen shells at that point of the sky and let them disperse their deadly shrapnel. Reload and do the same again...
Because it won't have it's own search and fire control radars, this kind of low-tech ambush battery against mid and high level flying enemy aircraft will be virtually immune against SEAD missions, ARM strikes and jamming.

Because it won't have it's own search and fire control radars, this kind of low-tech ambush battery against mid and high level flying enemy aircraft will be virtually immune against SEAD missions, ARM strikes and jamming.

Can the cost of such a system can be limited to $1 to 2M. Russia might not be much willing to make such an item because it can compete with Tor/Buk/Pantsir/Tungaska etc. However, in defense industry most of the profit margins are 5% or around, so it would not matter if selling 6 Pantsirs for $90M or 45 KS-19 type system for same $90M amount. I bet the demand for the KS-19 type should be much higher, given the low cost of operations and low cost per kill of Plane or Jdams type entries in the envelop of the radar.