Long range Missiles
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 706
- Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49
A new generation of Russian and Chinese-built long-range air-to-air missiles could threaten the critical nodes that enable U.S. air operations. Those nodes include the AWACS, various intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, aerial refueling tankers and electronic attack aircraft.
While often overlooked in favor of advanced anti-ship and surface-to-air missile systems when examining Russian and Chinese anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities, such long-range air intercept weapons—coupled with the right fighter—could cut the sinews that allow the United States to conduct sustained air operations in both the Asia-Pacific and the European theatres. Essentially, Russians and/or Chinese forces could pair long-range air-to-air missiles with aircraft like the Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound, Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA and the Chengdu J-20 to attack American AWACS, JTARS and aerial refueling tankers like the Boeing KC-135 or forthcoming KC-46 Pegasus. Especially over the vast reaches of the Pacific where airfields are few and far between, lumbering aerial refueling tankers could be an Achilles’ Heel that Beijing could chose to exploit. There are three long-range air-to-air missile programs that bear watching—the Russian Vympel R-37M RVV-BD, the Novator KS-172 (aka K-100) and the Chinese PL-15.
1st off to correct the authors at the moment only the Russians have the fighter aircraft to fully exploit the maximum performance of this missile. I don't trust that the Chinese have figured out how to build GOOD fighter engines yet.
This does bring out some questions though:
1. With 5th generation fighters, and now every one having a longer stick, do we now REDEFINE the entire idea of escorting a high value asset? F-22s or 35s would need to be close to 100 miles out in order to intercept the shooters.
2. How do you Jam a RVV-BD over the horizon
3. Is it time to start looking into stealthy tankers? can you build a stealthy AWACS?
4. While I do doubt the Chinese can build a super cruising engine, It just occurred to me that the J-20 might use LO rather than speed. How do you counter?
5. Do we need to field a counter measure anti-missile Missile for large AAms fired from OTH?
Discuss. And If Im crazy or this has been posted before ban me.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... lles-17607
While often overlooked in favor of advanced anti-ship and surface-to-air missile systems when examining Russian and Chinese anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities, such long-range air intercept weapons—coupled with the right fighter—could cut the sinews that allow the United States to conduct sustained air operations in both the Asia-Pacific and the European theatres. Essentially, Russians and/or Chinese forces could pair long-range air-to-air missiles with aircraft like the Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound, Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA and the Chengdu J-20 to attack American AWACS, JTARS and aerial refueling tankers like the Boeing KC-135 or forthcoming KC-46 Pegasus. Especially over the vast reaches of the Pacific where airfields are few and far between, lumbering aerial refueling tankers could be an Achilles’ Heel that Beijing could chose to exploit. There are three long-range air-to-air missile programs that bear watching—the Russian Vympel R-37M RVV-BD, the Novator KS-172 (aka K-100) and the Chinese PL-15.
1st off to correct the authors at the moment only the Russians have the fighter aircraft to fully exploit the maximum performance of this missile. I don't trust that the Chinese have figured out how to build GOOD fighter engines yet.
This does bring out some questions though:
1. With 5th generation fighters, and now every one having a longer stick, do we now REDEFINE the entire idea of escorting a high value asset? F-22s or 35s would need to be close to 100 miles out in order to intercept the shooters.
2. How do you Jam a RVV-BD over the horizon
3. Is it time to start looking into stealthy tankers? can you build a stealthy AWACS?
4. While I do doubt the Chinese can build a super cruising engine, It just occurred to me that the J-20 might use LO rather than speed. How do you counter?
5. Do we need to field a counter measure anti-missile Missile for large AAms fired from OTH?
Discuss. And If Im crazy or this has been posted before ban me.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... lles-17607
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
- Location: California
You have to find them and then make it through the protective net of F-22s and F-35s.
A CUDA type missile is particularly positioned to defend against this kind of attack.
A CUDA type missile is particularly positioned to defend against this kind of attack.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 706
- Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49
It Just dawned on me Spud. MALD would be the perfect counter for these tactics. I would have some F-35s in the vicinity with 8 CUDA and 2 malds. The jamming MALD would play into the incoming missiles home on jam capability.
The Russian and Chinese also must factor in that they will lose any planes on egress.
The Russian and Chinese also must factor in that they will lose any planes on egress.
- Senior member
- Posts: 403
- Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23
I don't get why some posters will say "discuss". Is that supposed to be a command, an imperative? Is the poster afraid that if he doesn't say "discuss", nobody will realize that the intent of the thread is for feedback on what he posted? I'm confused.
But anyway, the thing that caught my eye was:
1. It's another article from Dave Majumdar!
2. He brings up the 2008 RAND study! Yes, the one that is used by War is Boring to say "hey Chinese Flankers are gonna blast F-35's out of the sky no problem"!
3. He says the study showed that Chinese Flankers would annihilate U.S. tankers, EWACS and so forth in a conflict over Taiwan in a simulation!
What he failed to say, of course, was that the simulation was really just an Excel spreadsheet, and the assumptions going into the spreadsheet was that China had launched a surprise pre-emptive attack destroying pretty much everything in the area (Kadena, Guam, etc.), and so all the U.S. had left was 26 F-22's and F-35's to defend against 72 Chinese Flankers. The study assumed that the U.S. had no submarines, aircraft carriers, or other naval forces left to retaliate, and naturally also assumes that the U.S. wouldn't just nuke or severely cruise missile all of China's military bases after this pre-emptive attack. He also forgets to mention that the reason why the Flankers destroyed the tankers was that even after all the U.S. planes launched all of their missiles, enough Flankers survived to fly on to fire missiles at the tankers, resulting in the U.S. fighters running out of fuel and plummeting to their deaths. He also forgets to mention is that this is because the assumed missile Pk -- which is really just an Excel input cell, where you type in "0.3" or "0.1" or whatever you'd like, rather than anything that tried to calculate likely missile kill probabilities based on range, maneuverability, etc., -- was set low enough to ensure that even after the U.S. planes exhausted their supply of missiles, enough Flankers would remain.
Of course, the study also assumes away any geopolitical realities, like why, after such an attack, it is assumed that the U.S. planes must successfully defend Taiwan (if China managed to fight off the U.S. fighters and then take control of Taiwan then China wins!) instead of pulling their remaining forces back temporarily and then regroup, while all of the U.S.'s supercarriers arrive near China after a few days and while the U.S. reprograms all of its cruise missiles to target China and moves a lot of its Air Force assets (fighters, bombers, etc.) to nearby countries like Korea and Japan who would *not* take kindly to China's naked aggression. I mean sure China might be able to hold Taiwan for a few days, but after an attack like that, it would have a much bigger problem on its hands as the U.S. brings its military to bear on one specific part of the globe. But no, the study avoids all that -- if those 26 U.S. fighters can't fend off 72 Flankers in this imagined scenario, then the U.S. loses and its entire military is a waste!
But anyway, beyond referencing the study several times to give an academic air to the article, it's just the typical speculation that some new foreign wunderweapon is going to make the U.S. military obsolete. I mean, oh no! China or Russia might have missiles that reach 200 miles on a good day! How would the U.S. possibly defend itself against that, except for maybe stealth fighters which have a combat radius of around 600-700 miles and themselves are perfectly capable of detecting and destroying non-stealthy fighters (not to mention however good U.S. EWACS are at detecting planes)?
But I am grateful for you posting the article, because it gave a new link to the 2008 RAND study. My old link to that apparently expired or was taken away, so now I have a new link to the study again that I can reference in case people want to read it for themselves.
But anyway, the thing that caught my eye was:
1. It's another article from Dave Majumdar!
2. He brings up the 2008 RAND study! Yes, the one that is used by War is Boring to say "hey Chinese Flankers are gonna blast F-35's out of the sky no problem"!
3. He says the study showed that Chinese Flankers would annihilate U.S. tankers, EWACS and so forth in a conflict over Taiwan in a simulation!
What he failed to say, of course, was that the simulation was really just an Excel spreadsheet, and the assumptions going into the spreadsheet was that China had launched a surprise pre-emptive attack destroying pretty much everything in the area (Kadena, Guam, etc.), and so all the U.S. had left was 26 F-22's and F-35's to defend against 72 Chinese Flankers. The study assumed that the U.S. had no submarines, aircraft carriers, or other naval forces left to retaliate, and naturally also assumes that the U.S. wouldn't just nuke or severely cruise missile all of China's military bases after this pre-emptive attack. He also forgets to mention that the reason why the Flankers destroyed the tankers was that even after all the U.S. planes launched all of their missiles, enough Flankers survived to fly on to fire missiles at the tankers, resulting in the U.S. fighters running out of fuel and plummeting to their deaths. He also forgets to mention is that this is because the assumed missile Pk -- which is really just an Excel input cell, where you type in "0.3" or "0.1" or whatever you'd like, rather than anything that tried to calculate likely missile kill probabilities based on range, maneuverability, etc., -- was set low enough to ensure that even after the U.S. planes exhausted their supply of missiles, enough Flankers would remain.
Of course, the study also assumes away any geopolitical realities, like why, after such an attack, it is assumed that the U.S. planes must successfully defend Taiwan (if China managed to fight off the U.S. fighters and then take control of Taiwan then China wins!) instead of pulling their remaining forces back temporarily and then regroup, while all of the U.S.'s supercarriers arrive near China after a few days and while the U.S. reprograms all of its cruise missiles to target China and moves a lot of its Air Force assets (fighters, bombers, etc.) to nearby countries like Korea and Japan who would *not* take kindly to China's naked aggression. I mean sure China might be able to hold Taiwan for a few days, but after an attack like that, it would have a much bigger problem on its hands as the U.S. brings its military to bear on one specific part of the globe. But no, the study avoids all that -- if those 26 U.S. fighters can't fend off 72 Flankers in this imagined scenario, then the U.S. loses and its entire military is a waste!
But anyway, beyond referencing the study several times to give an academic air to the article, it's just the typical speculation that some new foreign wunderweapon is going to make the U.S. military obsolete. I mean, oh no! China or Russia might have missiles that reach 200 miles on a good day! How would the U.S. possibly defend itself against that, except for maybe stealth fighters which have a combat radius of around 600-700 miles and themselves are perfectly capable of detecting and destroying non-stealthy fighters (not to mention however good U.S. EWACS are at detecting planes)?
But I am grateful for you posting the article, because it gave a new link to the 2008 RAND study. My old link to that apparently expired or was taken away, so now I have a new link to the study again that I can reference in case people want to read it for themselves.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 706
- Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49
vanshilar wrote:I don't get why some posters will say "discuss". Is that supposed to be a command, an imperative? Is the poster afraid that if he doesn't say "discuss", nobody will realize that the intent of the thread is for feedback on what he posted? I'm confused.
But anyway, the thing that caught my eye was:
1. It's another article from Dave Majumdar!
2. He brings up the 2008 RAND study! Yes, the one that is used by War is Boring to say "hey Chinese Flankers are gonna blast F-35's out of the sky no problem"!
3. He says the study showed that Chinese Flankers would annihilate U.S. tankers, EWACS and so forth in a conflict over Taiwan in a simulation!
What he failed to say, of course, was that the simulation was really just an Excel spreadsheet, and the assumptions going into the spreadsheet was that China had launched a surprise pre-emptive attack destroying pretty much everything in the area (Kadena, Guam, etc.), and so all the U.S. had left was 26 F-22's and F-35's to defend against 72 Chinese Flankers. The study assumed that the U.S. had no submarines, aircraft carriers, or other naval forces left to retaliate, and naturally also assumes that the U.S. wouldn't just nuke or severely cruise missile all of China's military bases after this pre-emptive attack. He also forgets to mention that the reason why the Flankers destroyed the tankers was that even after all the U.S. planes launched all of their missiles, enough Flankers survived to fly on to fire missiles at the tankers, resulting in the U.S. fighters running out of fuel and plummeting to their deaths. He also forgets to mention is that this is because the assumed missile Pk -- which is really just an Excel input cell, where you type in "0.3" or "0.1" or whatever you'd like, rather than anything that tried to calculate likely missile kill probabilities based on range, maneuverability, etc., -- was set low enough to ensure that even after the U.S. planes exhausted their supply of missiles, enough Flankers would remain.
Of course, the study also assumes away any geopolitical realities, like why, after such an attack, it is assumed that the U.S. planes must successfully defend Taiwan (if China managed to fight off the U.S. fighters and then take control of Taiwan then China wins!) instead of pulling their remaining forces back temporarily and then regroup, while all of the U.S.'s supercarriers arrive near China after a few days and while the U.S. reprograms all of its cruise missiles to target China and moves a lot of its Air Force assets (fighters, bombers, etc.) to nearby countries like Korea and Japan who would *not* take kindly to China's naked aggression. I mean sure China might be able to hold Taiwan for a few days, but after an attack like that, it would have a much bigger problem on its hands as the U.S. brings its military to bear on one specific part of the globe. But no, the study avoids all that -- if those 26 U.S. fighters can't fend off 72 Flankers in this imagined scenario, then the U.S. loses and its entire military is a waste!
But anyway, beyond referencing the study several times to give an academic air to the article, it's just the typical speculation that some new foreign wunderweapon is going to make the U.S. military obsolete. I mean, oh no! China or Russia might have missiles that reach 200 miles on a good day! How would the U.S. possibly defend itself against that, except for maybe stealth fighters which have a combat radius of around 600-700 miles and themselves are perfectly capable of detecting and destroying non-stealthy fighters (not to mention however good U.S. EWACS are at detecting planes)?
But I am grateful for you posting the article, because it gave a new link to the 2008 RAND study. My old link to that apparently expired or was taken away, so now I have a new link to the study again that I can reference in case people want to read it for themselves.
van calm down. Its not just China that's discussed. Id fear the Russians overrunning the Baltics, and firing these things from Kalingrad more than I fear China. I thought the idea of stealth aircraft and long range missiles would make for a good discussion. I thought that bringing up the idea of the battle space becoming much wider, would be a good discussion.
I thought the reason we log on here is for.... guess what? If you don't like to have discussion, HERE you can always log onto keypubs.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 924
- Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
- Location: The Netherlands
vanshilar wrote:I don't get why some posters will say "discuss". Is that supposed to be a command, an imperative? Is the poster afraid that if he doesn't say "discuss", nobody will realize that the intent of the thread is for feedback on what he posted? I'm confused.
Totally agree with you vanshilar. Stating "discuss" as a command to start off a discussion on a discussion board makes little sense. Please stop using it jessmo111, it is just cluttering up your posts and sounds patronizing.
35_aoa wrote:Hey Ivan……welcome to the forum. Perhaps the central committee can cough up a few rubles for your postshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
Did I miss something? Is a post already deleted?
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
- Active Member
- Posts: 233
- Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 19:10
I'm sure the people claiming that the tankers are going to get shot down from MiGs hundreds of miles away are the same people who say VLO aircraft will need to close to visual range to ID targets before they shoot, but then again maybe Russia or China really are willing to shoot at all contacts that look like a Boeing or Airbus on RADAR.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
- Location: California
The thought of loosing assets (ISR, IFR, etc) was probability on the DoD's mind given that they have been leaning towards less reliance on those same assets in their latest design requirements.
Look at how the F-35 was designed with longer combat radius, auto-gather & auto-share of info, 3 times the ability to ID a target vs the F-22 (let alone 4th Gen), long-range UCAVs, NIFC-CA, etc.
Look at how the F-35 was designed with longer combat radius, auto-gather & auto-share of info, 3 times the ability to ID a target vs the F-22 (let alone 4th Gen), long-range UCAVs, NIFC-CA, etc.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
- Elite 4K
- Posts: 4474
- Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22
The KS-172, R-37, and PL-15 aren't currently deployed.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7720
- Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55
castlebravo wrote:I'm sure the people claiming that the tankers are going to get shot down from MiGs hundreds of miles away are the same people who say VLO aircraft will need to close to visual range to ID targets before they shoot, but then again maybe Russia or China really are willing to shoot at all contacts that look like a Boeing or Airbus on RADAR.
same as those who see the ASBM obsoleting CVNs.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
- Banned
- Posts: 1293
- Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25
First, these are paper weapons, with paper capabilities. These missiles rely on radars being able to cue them in. In tests, MiG-31M couldn't do it on its own but had to hand off the missile to another plane to get the maximum range. All fine, if you think you're just facing un-escorted tankers. The whole thing seems like a waste of time, because why do you need a 400km ranged missile if your plane can't target anything at that range?
Second, how easy do you think it is to find tankers or other assets flying, somewhere, over the Pacific, without being found yourself, and while also trying to figure out where US CAPs are flying and if they have already found you? How many hundreds of miles out are tankers flying? Where is the CAP positioned? Is F-22/35 sensors going to pick up your radars, and know your position before you know theirs?
The challenge for the adversary here is still the same as it if for them going against a 5th generation VLO platform. It's not the tankers, or missile range. You would need lots of long-range AWACS to get some idea of what is going on a few hundred miles out in the Pacific. Of course lots of escorts for those, otherwise F-22/35 will shoot them down first.
Second, how easy do you think it is to find tankers or other assets flying, somewhere, over the Pacific, without being found yourself, and while also trying to figure out where US CAPs are flying and if they have already found you? How many hundreds of miles out are tankers flying? Where is the CAP positioned? Is F-22/35 sensors going to pick up your radars, and know your position before you know theirs?
The challenge for the adversary here is still the same as it if for them going against a 5th generation VLO platform. It's not the tankers, or missile range. You would need lots of long-range AWACS to get some idea of what is going on a few hundred miles out in the Pacific. Of course lots of escorts for those, otherwise F-22/35 will shoot them down first.
- Banned
- Posts: 1293
- Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25
jessmo111 wrote:And what about if the launch platform is LO or VLO?
The J-20 and T-50 doesnt have to be the same RCS as the F-35/F-22. Its just has to be LO enough to close the gap before launching and dieing.
How low is low enough, and how are they going to detect the assets they are to attack, without first being detected themselves? This is all too much speculation.
BTW just for fun, and probably more informative than a RAND paper
, try playing this scenario out on NWP Fleet Command game. It's pretty much impossible to do it for the attacker.Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests