F-15X: USAF Seems Interested

NORAD radars can't deal with new Russian cruise missiles. Nor can E-3 because it still use 1970s tech radar no big upgrade radar happen. So massive AESA radar which can be fit in F-15EX would be decent solution at least Kh-50 became operational.

Those Russian Cruise Missiles are carried mostly by a limited number of Russian Bombers and Submarines. Which, are very vulnerable.......

So, until they have a capable Stealth Bomber or a much larger number of Submarines. I don't see how a very modest number of F-15EX's. Are really anymore help than a like number of F-16V's.

Far better solution is more F-35's.

NORAD commander:

Russia has posed a nuclear threat to North America for over half a century, but has only recently developed and deployed capabilities to threaten the homeland below the nuclear threshold. Russia continues to hone and flex its offensive cyber capabilities, and its new generation of advanced air- and sea-launched cruise missiles feature significantly greater standoff ranges and accuracy than their predecessors, allowing them to strike North America from well outside NORAD radar coverage.

https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Speec ... e-hearing/

Which is of course specifically about NORAD radar coverage. Not about any other detection and tracking assets that
land-attack cruise missile carriers would have to pass through.

Which is of course specifically about NORAD radar coverage. Not about any other detection and tracking assets that
land-attack cruise missile carriers would have to pass through.

With cruise missiles which have 3000km (Kh-101) or even more range (Kalibr-M) you really can't have ability to take out bombers before they launch them.

So only option is to go for missiles, this is why as I explain F-15EX is only logical option.

Which is of course specifically about NORAD radar coverage. Not about any other detection and tracking assets that
land-attack cruise missile carriers would have to pass through.

With cruise missiles which have 3000km (Kh-101) or even more range (Kalibr-M) you really can't have ability to take out bombers before they launch them.

So only option is to go for missiles, this is why as I explain F-15EX is only logical option.

I don't recall ever claiming that CMD was heavily focused on destroying the cruise missile carriers.
Detecting yes. Tracking yes.

Most of the CMD focus is about detecting/tracking and destroying cruise missiles with the CAP
combined with surge QRA to handle leakers and SAM batteries or other kinetic kill ground based assets
for terminal.

The F-15EX will never be numerous enough or available enough to furnish a CAP.
But for a surge QRA with a heavy loadout of AAMs it's good.

NORAD commander:

Russia has posed a nuclear threat to North America for over half a century, but has only recently developed and deployed capabilities to threaten the homeland below the nuclear threshold. Russia continues to hone and flex its offensive cyber capabilities, and its new generation of advanced air- and sea-launched cruise missiles feature significantly greater standoff ranges and accuracy than their predecessors, allowing them to strike North America from well outside NORAD radar coverage.

https://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Speec ... e-hearing/

If, the F-16C/V is inadequate than so is the F-15EX. So, you must be making a case for the F-35 instead......

So no need for PAK-DA to launch Kh-101 against CONUS, as you can read Tu-95 and especailly Tu-160 will do just fine. In fact Tu-160M2 upgrade is quite problematic for long range detection, becuase it have RCS reduction measurements applied. Btw there are some Tu-160 which have them already not on same tech level as Tu-160M2 though.

Latest soviet Tu-160 (Tu-160M) had RAM applied for intake:
Tu-160M:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.file ... 624&zoom=2

non M version:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.file ... 160100.jpg

M had special RAM coatings of intakes and ramps, some sources mentioned RAM mesh which is used during subsonic flight.

Russia has few Tu-95's in service and far fewer Tu-160's. Plus, the "second" they take off the US and NATO are well aware of that and their precise track....It's a long ways between Russian Bases and the US.

Russia has few Tu-95's in service and far fewer Tu-160's. Plus, the "second" they take off the US and NATO are well aware of that and their precise track....It's a long ways between Russian Bases and the US.

Only strategic bomber base which is "close" to NATO is one near Moscow, it is still 750km far from Baltic NATO members. So radar stationed there (750km from base) would need to have Tu-95 at 33km altitude to be able to detect it

Other two strategic bomber bases are lot further from NATO/Japan then mentioned base.

That in combination with new very long range alcms gave this:

Russia continues to hone and flex its offensive cyber capabilities, and its new generation of advanced air- and sea-launched cruise missiles feature significantly greater standoff ranges and accuracy than their predecessors, allowing them to strike North America from well outside NORAD radar coverage.

So intercepting those bombers as NORAD commander say is impossible because NORAD can't even detect them from range from which they can fire their missiles.

It is funny you say Russia lack bomber numbers? It sound like USAF have lot more bombers but when you look numbers I don't see huge advantage.

USAF big bombers:
80 B-52, 60 B-1B, 20 B-2

RuAF big bombers:
60 Tu-95, 60 Tu-22M3, 18 Tu-160

So intercepting those bombers as NORAD commander say is impossible because NORAD can't even detect them from range from which they can fire their missiles.

Where did he say it it's impossible? He's saying that NORAD organic assets can't track them.
It's a position piece for improved organic NORAD assets.

That says nothing about any other assets.

Russia has few Tu-95's in service and far fewer Tu-160's. Plus, the "second" they take off the US and NATO are well aware of that and their precise track....It's a long ways between Russian Bases and the US.

Only strategic bomber base which is "close" to NATO is one near Moscow, it is still 750km far from Baltic NATO members. So radar stationed there (750km from base) would need to have Tu-95 at 33km altitude to be able to detect it

Other two strategic bomber bases are lot further from NATO/Japan then mentioned base.

That in combination with new very long range alcms gave this:

Russia continues to hone and flex its offensive cyber capabilities, and its new generation of advanced air- and sea-launched cruise missiles feature significantly greater standoff ranges and accuracy than their predecessors, allowing them to strike North America from well outside NORAD radar coverage.

So intercepting those bombers as NORAD commander say is impossible because NORAD can't even detect them from range from which they can fire their missiles.

It is funny you say Russia lack bomber numbers? It sound like USAF have lot more bombers but when you look numbers I don't see huge advantage.

USAF big bombers:
80 B-52, 60 B-1B, 20 B-2

RuAF big bombers:
60 Tu-95, 60 Tu-22M3, 18 Tu-160

Funny, NATO Fighters intercept Russian Fighters and Bombers before they even reach Allied Boarders in Europe and Asia everyday and with ease. Do I really need to post the countless stories about that??? Which, are thousands of miles from the CONUS.

As a matter of fact when was the last Bear Bomber that got within striking range of the CONUS without the USAF/ANG and NORAD knowing about it well in advance??? That would be news to me...

As for the number of bombers Russia has slightly more. Yet, none are LO or VLO....As a matter of fact the Tu-95's are slow and extremely noisy with a RCS the size of a Football Stadium! Which, makes their detection relatively easy.

This while NATO has a far larger number of more capable fighters. Plus, the U.S. Air Force claims to have the best intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) forces in the world. Do you doubt that???

What's this big "dead zone" with no Radar Coverage between Russian Air Bases and the US is beyond me???

What's this big "dead zone" with no Radar Coverage between Russian Air Bases and the US is beyond me???

If there was a big gap it seems to have been filled based on O’Shaughnessy's remarks to the Senate this year.
There was quite a bit of counter cruise missile work over the last year including a new OTHR array.

But I take milosh's point that practically intercepting bombers at the standoff ranges permitted by
modern cruise missiles is challenging.

What's this big "dead zone" with no Radar Coverage between Russian Air Bases and the US is beyond me???

If there was a big gap it seems to have been filled based on O’Shaughnessy's remarks to the Senate this year.
There was quite a bit of counter cruise missile work over the last year including a new OTHR array.

But I take milosh's point that practically intercepting bombers at the standoff ranges permitted by
modern cruise missiles is challenging.

The discussion here was about the F-15EX vs the F-16V in the Defense of the CONUS. In that context I don't see the Eagle having a significant advantage over the Viper. Especially, when the latter is equipped with both APG-83 and CFT's.......

QUOTE:

In January 2020, Northrop Grumman said the USAF completed the first installation of the AN/APG-83 radar on ANG F-16s at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to meet a U.S. Northern Command Joint Emergent Operational Need (JEON) for homeland defense.

This followed a June 17, 2017, announcement from the USAF that it had selected the AN/APG-83 to upgrade 72 F-16s to meet the JEON. In addition, the USAF plans to retain 350 Block 40/42/50/52 F-16C/Ds in service through at least 2048 and it is putting them through a service-life extension program (SLEP), plus adding new avionics, including the AESA radar.

The new radar enables the F-16 to detect and track targets at greater ranges and with increased precision, especially low flying targets with small radar cross-sections. Cruise missile defense was one of the driving factors in equipping the Guard Vipers that stand watch over Washington, D.C. with the radars.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... se-mission

So, the US Government seems to think the upgraded F-16's are more than adequate to guard the nations capital. Don't see any rush to replace them with F-15EX's....

Funny, NATO Fighters intercept Russian Fighters and Bombers before they even reach Allied Boarders in Europe and Asia everyday and with ease. Do I really need to post the countless stories about that??? Which, are thousands of miles from the CONUS.

As a matter of fact when was the last Bear Bomber that got within striking range of the CONUS without the USAF/ANG and NORAD knowing about it well in advance??? That would be news to me...

Interception you see is classic political game of Russia, they will send bombers close to Alaska or EU NATO members to show their presence, what point would be to fly bombers in North Pacific from where they can fire missiles or fly bombers to Smolensk? From Smolensk to Paris/London you have 2000km, which is lot less then range of massive stealthy Kh-101.

As for the number of bombers Russia has slightly more. Yet, none are LO or VLO....As a matter of fact the Tu-95's are slow and extremely noisy with a RCS the size of a Football Stadium! Which, makes their detection relatively easy.

Tu-160M had rcs reduction treatment, its RCS was lower 5to MiG-21 level, around 3m2. It version had RAM applied in intake and anti radar mesh inside intake, rest of plane wasn't threated. Tu-160M intake:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.file ... 160-21.jpg

M2 which is new upgrade program will have RAM coatings applied on whole airframe and canopy. It is expected to have 10times to 20times RCS reduction. So 0.3 to 0.1m2, average 0.2m2

But you still miss point, you don't need to have LO/VLO RCS when you use missiles with huge range, look B-52 and AGM-129 combo.

USAF start using B-52 as ALCM carrier to compensate for big RCS and lack of speed. Same thing with Tu-95.

What's this big "dead zone" with no Radar Coverage between Russian Air Bases and the US is beyond me???

It is quite simple to check. Put radar on Alaska and calculate how far it can detect bomber flying at 10km, it have range of 400km becuase of radar horizon.

Interception you see is classic political game of Russia, they will send bombers close to Alaska or EU NATO members to show their presence, what point would be to fly bombers in North Pacific from where they can fire missiles or fly bombers to Smolensk? From Smolensk to Paris/London you have 2000km, which is lot less then range of massive stealthy Kh-101.

I doubt a Russian Bomber can take off without the US and NATO knowing about....

Tu-160M had rcs reduction treatment, its RCS was lower 5to MiG-21 level, around 3m2. It version had RAM applied in intake and anti radar mesh inside intake, rest of plane wasn't threated. Tu-160M intake:
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.file ... 160-21.jpg

M2 which is new upgrade program will have RAM coatings applied on whole airframe and canopy. It is expected to have 10times to 20times RCS reduction. So 0.3 to 0.1m2, average 0.2m2

Sorry, that isn't "stealthy"....

But you still miss point, you don't need to have LO/VLO RCS when you use missiles with huge range, look B-52 and AGM-129 combo.

USAF start using B-52 as ALCM carrier to compensate for big RCS and lack of speed. Same thing with Tu-95.

Your wrong.....you need stealth as much a possible to close the range. Before you fire your missiles. The closer the better....

It is quite simple to check. Put radar on Alaska and calculate how far it can detect bomber flying at 10km, it have range of 400km becuase of radar horizon.

You don't have many Russian Bombers to begin with. Which, will have to get by layer after layer of NATO Defenses. From the second they take off......

Odds are the West would know their coming.....

I’m going to agree with Mitosh, sort of. Russia can easily overwhelm NATO’s defenses with cruise missiles and maybe even some bombers. It’s NATO’s offense that Russia is worried about.

You don't have many Russian Bombers to begin with. Which, will have to get by layer after layer of NATO Defenses. From the second they take off......

Odds are the West would know their coming.....

You have almost same number of bombers in American AF and Russian AF. So if Russia lack in numbers then America lack too.

But you miss whole point of what I am writing or I am not precise enough.

Bombers with ALCM don't need to fly close to targets. Why would bombers carry those if you need to fly close to enemy radar and SAM network:



So you can't dected them at all, as NORAD commander said at least if we are talking about dedicated system for such mission which NORAD is or its equivalent in USSR/Russia.

So you can't dected them at all, as NORAD commander said at least if we are talking about dedicated system for such mission which NORAD is or its equivalent in USSR/Russia.

Given that the NORAD commander if no longer saying that after the OTHR array experiment the
gap they were concerned up seems to be closed.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/OShaughnessy_02-13-20.pdf

Ultimately, the large cruise missile carrier aircraft are going to be detected and tracked.
Dealing with the large cruise missile raids they can generate, especially left-of-launch, is another matter.

I don't think bomber intercept is that practical at modern cruise missile standoff ranges unless you
have long-range hypersonic SAMs e.g. the 80's era Ballistic Intercept Missile.

So that leaves a defense in depth for destroying cruise missiles with a CAP, QRA birds and ground-based
defenses; HVP is looking really capable against cruise missiles.

But I think the main cruise missile threat to CONUS and NATO comes from Russian SSGNs or other
sub-surface cruise missile carriers.