Air Battle: What If an F-14 (That Iran Still Flies) Battled a Stealth F-22 Raptor?

[gambit]

@LeGenD

A terrain following missile may dupe a single radar or even an AEWACS but it cannot do much against a carefully designed multi layer air defence system comprising both SAM batteries of various ranges as well as old school AA batteries. In terrain hugging mode it will be identified and neutralized through AA fire before it is able to reach the well defended target. Saturation is the only technique against this, and saturation is what the Americans did.

Now take into account the recent Russian jamming of GPS signals during a NATO exercise and you can see that it is easy to take out the very eyes of cruise missiles. That leaves things like TERCOM which again relies on sensors. As a matter of fact, even ground avoidance in terrain following mode relies on sensors. And as soon as you have sensors, you have a weak point.

This is why it would take an air campaign lasting many months to take out a well constructed air defence system.

When I was on the F-111E -- RAF Upper Heyford -- at every arms limitation talk, the Soviets always demanded the F-111s from RAFs Upper Heyford and Lakenheath removed. The US always replied -- STFU. Years later, Soviet engineer Adolf Tolkachev confirmed that the Soviets never had any functional responses to the F-111.

The problem lies in how we flew the F-111 -- terrain following. Anti aircraft gun emplacements were and still are the least of our problems, namely, they do not know when, how, and which direction the F-111 or the cruise missile will come, and their responses are too slow. When the aircraft, and the cruise missile is an aircraft, can traverse from horizon to horizon in a few seconds, manual AA guns cannot react fast enough. If AA was the solution, the Soviets, as confirmed by Tolkachev, would not have deployed radars throughout the many suspected ingress paths to Moscow.

Which leads to the next item -- air defense radars.

Radar is line-of-sight (LOS) limited.

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

As such, air defense radar suffers some of the same response disadvantages as AA gun emplacements.

The distance from horizon to horizon is barely 15 miles or 25 km. High subsonic or sub Mach speed is about 600 mph or 1000 km/h at sea level. You do the math.

 

[CriticalThought]

When I was on the F-111E -- RAF Upper Heyford -- at every arms limitation talk, the Soviets always demanded the F-111s from RAFs Upper Heyford and Lakenheath removed. The US always replied -- STFU. Years later, Soviet engineer Adolf Tolkachev confirmed that the Soviets never had any functional responses to the F-111.

The problem lies in how we flew the F-111 -- terrain following. Anti aircraft gun emplacements were and still are the least of our problems, namely, they do not know when, how, and which direction the F-111 or the cruise missile will come, and their responses are too slow. When the aircraft, and the cruise missile is an aircraft, can traverse from horizon to horizon in a few seconds, manual AA guns cannot react fast enough. If AA was the solution, the Soviets, as confirmed by Tolkachev, would not have deployed radars throughout the many suspected ingress paths to Moscow.

Which leads to the next item -- air defense radars.

Radar is line-of-sight (LOS) limited.

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

As such, air defense radar suffers some of the same response disadvantages as AA gun emplacements.

The distance from horizon to horizon is barely 15 miles or 25 km. High subsonic or sub Mach speed is about 600 mph or 1000 km/h at sea level. You do the math.

But a well constructed AD network would transmit information at the speed of light to nodes further back, getting them prepared for the incoming aircraft. These nodes don't have to be manual - they can be automated as well. They can fire in anticipation - so their fire meets the incoming aircraft. One needs to invest proper thought into this, but intuition tells me the power lies with the defender here.

 

[jhungary]

But a well constructed AD network would transmit information at the speed of light to nodes further back, getting them prepared for the incoming aircraft. These nodes don't have to be manual - they can be automated as well. They can fire in anticipation - so their fire meets the incoming aircraft. One needs to invest proper thought into this, but intuition tells me the power lies with the defender here.

That is a common misconception of Radar Operation. As part of my AIT, I was cross trained as Ground Radar Operator, that's because as a Tactical Operation Centre Operator, you need to understand radar operation so you can direct asset to TIC

The common misconception is that for modern radar operation, "What you see is what you kill" That mean, if you see something on radar, you can hit that target, but that probably the furthest away from the truth.

To understand Radar Interception, you need to understand the procedure was breaking down into 5 different steps.

1. Detect
2. Track
3. Asset
4. Engage
5. Monitor

4 and 5 can be interchanged depending on Radar system

Now, detect mean you have to be able to detect a target, pick up anything you want to shoot, and designate it as a target, however, what separate between a contact (or a read back in RDR Operation) and a designated target is information. Which mean you need to know what that is, they can be neutral (eg Civilian), bogey (eg unknown article) or Hostile (Enemy target) so, now I have a dot return on my radar, how do I know what is what? In peacetime, you try to raise communication, establish contact with the return, and classify as such, in war however, where communication usually lacking, you need to check if that is anything but, you check local air traffic log (To see if that is a schedule civilian aircraft), you check your base log (To see if that is a friendly fighter) and if both are not, then that is a bogey, now, depending on ROEs across different country you may fire on bogey or you may not.

Now, after you have detected your target, the next thing is to track it, which mean you need to put the tab on target, and isolate it with other traffic, you monitor if there are any collision course or merge, and things WILL get more difficult if you send your own fighter to intercept. In the field, we call it "Maintain Target Integrity" so you know when you shoot it, that would be the same target you raise before. Mind you, even most advance targeting system, this CANNOT be done with automation, because radar return will only identify targets, once two tab merge and then separate, your radar, regardless of how advance it was, cannot tell who's who, and they may not pick up their target at all time, tab can be and did drop intermittently and also, if the target actively shield themselves (like fly behind a crest or obstacle) you lost you radar interception.

Then once you have detect and track the target, you need to find an asset to challenge it or shoot them down, now in the old day, it's using mark 1 eyeball and something called brain. Now with advance AWAC system, you can task and priority which asset you have in the area that is closest to make the interception, and also, which target should be target first. However, bear in mind you either allocate ground asset or vector in air asset to deal with the problem, which mean you need to know the "Chase Time" from your asset. The target is always moving and at maximum speed and at altitude, while your asset could be on the ground (so at rest state) or in the air (so they are on different quadrant of the map), which mean even if you can see it, if you can track it, you may still not be able to task asset for it.

Engagement and Monitoring mean you actually engage the target and more importantly, if the initial engagement failed, you need to know that so you could do it again. Now, with every engagement, you run a chance not hitting your target, what kind of chances depends on scenario and systems. And so if you failed, you need to have another system. deployed else where in place to back it up.

Now, if only all 5 stages hold, you can kill your target.

 

[Hellfire]

LOL where is the evidence that Iran used CWs?? Your bullshit in blue just says Iran had CWs capability, not that it used them.

Nice try you low IQ liar.

Since you do not understand a civil discourse, being a flamebait, let me adapt the route you best understand. @waz Have been polite so far, my apologies.

1. It is because of purely thick headed retards like you that Iran has a piss poor reputation. An effing great country is down the shit hole because thick headed idiots like you can not get it into their thick head that not everyone is an idiot like your retarded self.

2. There were battle casualties of Iraqi Army dumbo. With Mustard Gas, with well documented evidence of the situation reports generated post strike (if you had even spent one day in uniform, you would know. But being the arm chair general, you will show your stupidity) on Iraqi Troops, captured in documents after fall of Saddam. Not everyone is a dumb jerk like you, to ask for an effing evidence for a chemical strike which dissipates in 5 to 6 hours as temperatures rise.

3. Indians provided a team for training your Protection element, idiot, when you were roaming around like the headless chicken that you are exemplifying here. After your best buddy (russia) in form of USSR, sold missiles to hit your cities with chemicals, which actually made your fundoos wet themselves and sue for peace. Ever wonder why India and Iran have been so close that Northern Alliance was being supplied immediately by both? Since 80s why we have great relationship?

4. And if you are claiming that Iran did not use after publicly declaring at OPCW and CWC that they have had capability in this field since the war, then either you are the daft idiot that you exhibit yourself to be, or you have excelled at deluding yourself to the nth limit.



Now get lost.

 

[CriticalThought]

That is a common misconception of Radar Operation. As part of my AIT, I was cross trained as Ground Radar Operator, that's because as a Tactical Operation Centre Operator, you need to understand Radar operator so you can direct asset to TIC

The common misconception is that for modern radar operation, "What you see is what you kill" That mean, if you see something on radar, you can hit that target, but that probably the furthest away from the truth.

To understand Radar Interception, you need to understand the procedure was breaking down into 5 different steps.

1. Detect
2. Track
3. Asset
4. Engage
5. Monitor

4 and 5 can be interchange depending on Radar system

Now, detect mean you have to be able to detect a target, pick up anything you want to shoot, and designate it as a target, however, what separate between a contact (or a read back in RDR Operation) and a designated target is information. Which mean you need to know what that is, they can be neutral (eg Civilian), bogey (eg unknown article) or Hostile (Enemy target) so, now I have a dot return on my radar, how do I know what is what? In peacetime, you try to raise communication, establish contact with the return, and classify as such, in war however, where communication usually lacking, you need to check if that is anything but, you check local air traffic log (To see if that is a schedule civilian aircraft), you check your base log (To see if that is a friendly fighter) and if both are not, then that is a bogey, now, depending on ROEs across different country you may fire on bogey or you may not.

Now, after you have detected your target, the next thing is to track it, which mean you need to put the tab on target, and isolate it with other traffic, you monitor if there are any collision course or merge, and things WILL get more difficult if you send your own fighter to intercept. In the field, we call it "Maintain Target Integrity" so you know when you shoot it, that would be the same target you raise before. Mind you, even most advance targeting system, this CANNOT be done with automation, because radar return will only identify targets, once two tab merge and then separate, your radar, regardless of how advance it was, cannot tell who's who, and they may not pick up their target at all time, tab can be and did drop intermittently and also, if the target actively shield themselves (like fly behind a crest or obstacle) you lost you radar interception.

Then once you have detect and track the target, you need to find an asset to challenge it or shoot them down, now in the old day, it's using mark 1 eyeball and something called brain. Now with advance AWAC system, you can task and priority which asset you have in the area that is closest to make the interception, and also, which target should be target first. However, bear in mind you either allocate ground asset or vector in air asset to deal with the problem, which mean you need to know the "Chase Time" from your asset. The target is always moving and at maximum speed and at altitude, while your asset could be on the ground (so at rest state) or in the air (so they are on different quadrant of the map), which mean even if you can see it, if you can track it, you may still not be able to task asset for it.

Engagement and Monitoring mean you actually engage the target and more importantly, if the initial engagement failed, you need to know that so you could do it again. Now, with every engagement, you run a chance not hitting your target, what kind of chances depends on scenario and systems. And so if you failed, you need to have another system. deployed else where in place to back it up.

Now, if only all 5 stages hold, you can kill your target.

Many thanks for the detailed insight. I am basically proposing a slight enhancement to this regime: targets of opportunity. Suppose post A is a forward post that detects an incoming aircraft. It relays information to posts B and C giving a probabilistic trajectory which the bogey could pursue. In anticipation, posts B and C engage in an opportunistic shooting. Now imagine you had not just B and C, but fifty different posts covering all approaches. If every post takes a shot, the chances are very high that the aircraft will be hit. Now assume all fifty one posts have sensors. Such a distributed network will be very good at tracking the target.

When you want to really protect an asset, you can contour the terrain around it to give you maximum advantage. You can remove obstacles, thus taking away the enemy's advantage. You can even 'flatten' the earth through extensive excavation, giving your radars more 'line of sight'. The advantage lies with the defender.

 

[LeGenD]

I put more trust on American tech tbh, they are more transparent about it, and you have all the details out in the public domain quite often.
With Russians or Chinese, it's all about claims and blind faith.
And no one knows how that blind faith is going to translate into battlefield prowess.

It's true the S-400 has reportedly taken out some test drones and missiles, launched by Russia itself.
But the patriot is taking out Yemeni missiles and rockets launched at the Saudis almost every other week. And that's the difference both bring to the table.

My perception is similar based on my observations, readings and personal experiences. I have also noticed that Western disclosures are more transparent and truthful than Russian and Chinese disclosures on average.

Both Russian [and Chinese] sources tend to create an impression that even top-of-the-line American options are obsolete, or Russian [and Chinese] hardware is every bit as good as American on average. Some are not easily fooled, but many buy into such claims. This isn't to say that Russia [and China] do not develop decent hardware, but it doesn't have to be on par with American to be considered good, and both should dial down their rhetoric.

Americans have a lengthy history of developing better hardware than other countries on average because they have a robust higher education system, their R&D output is unparalleled [quality-wise and quantity-wise], and they have developed finest organizations which continue to push envelope. On the flip side, INSIGHT is important; American armed forces operate in diverse-set-of-environments around the world, and their exposure to 'global pressures' is much higher than their peers accordingly. US have the tendency to involve itself in overseas conflicts in varied capacities from time-to-time, and conflicts are unparalleled teachers. One may have novel ideas, but their is no substitute for "exposure."

Some members here accuse me of being a mouthpiece, but their worldview is constrained by their mindset. It is not easy to be objective, and conventional wisdom is a gift. I would never say that my judgement is infallible [not even close], but why not take a good look at global realities, and why let your biases cloud your judgement? The least you can do is "study."

 

[Hellfire]

@LeGenD

Excellent posts as always. Quite informative. Sorry for trolling the thread with the rather unpleasant person.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So, you want them to assemble in an open field and get slaughtered by cruise missiles? Since when did waging a guerilla war against a far superior enemy has become cowardly? Geneva conventions grant the right to people to wage guerilla war against an occupier state.
The special forces and intel agencies of "brave nations" also wage war through the same "cowardly" means. Nowadays, champions don't duel before start of general battle---and cowardly people sit in front of computer screens and press a button from the comfort of their secure rooms to blow up dozens of people. Or you want us to ride horses and charge towards enemy Armour formations which according to you will be in-line with the principles of battle of badr.

Or are you going to declare people like Umar Mukhtar the lion of the desert and Imam Shamil as cowards for waging guerilla war against occupiers? Seriously how low can one sink as to discredit the struggle and sacrifices of those who stayed and gave their lives for Islam by twisting and manipulating the so called principles of battle to suit one's own narrative. People who left their homes, family and comfort and live in mountains and deserts to fight an impossible battle against the most technologically advanced nations and risk instant death are according to you, cowards---but those who have chosen a life of comfort like people sitting in front of computer screens here are more principally correct and brave...

Perhaps the principles of battle of Badr is to lick the feet of USA, just like a pdf member and I'll not mention who does...

An interesting conversation.

I get a lot of this kind of righteous indignation from members from another country, who consider any and every Indian victory to be a foul, not won in equal combat between equal numbers, and so on, and so forth..

Beyond a point, this becomes tiresome.

 

[Hellfire]

But a well constructed AD network would transmit information at the speed of light to nodes further back, getting them prepared for the incoming aircraft. These nodes don't have to be manual - they can be automated as well. They can fire in anticipation - so their fire meets the incoming aircraft. One needs to invest proper thought into this, but intuition tells me the power lies with the defender here.

Astute observation. But one would still need redundancies for the possible disruptions arising out of potential enemy action to precisely bring about a disruption. In that case, the costs will increase.

Just one point.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Yeah they really showed "power" by wasting 100+ cruise missiles for minimal results lmfao.

Do you even know how much money they spent on their military?

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

1. It is because of purely thick headed retards like you that Iran has a piss poor reputation. An effing great country is down the shit hole because thick headed idiots like you can not get it into their thick head that not everyone is an idiot like your retarded self.

An Indian talking about a country having a bad reputation, LOL. The country where cows are valued above human life and a family vacation is gangraping a female child on a fucking bus in broad daylight.

2. There were battle casualties of Iraqi Army dumbo. With Mustard Gas, with well documented evidence of the situation reports generated post strike (if you had even spent one day in uniform, you would know. But being the arm chair general, you will show your stupidity) on Iraqi Troops, captured in documents after fall of Saddam. Not everyone is a dumb jerk like you, to ask for an effing evidence for a chemical strike which dissipates in 5 to 6 hours as temperatures rise.

It's well documented that Saddam used his chemical weapons ineffectively and ended up harming his own soldiers you dumb prick

Not that I'd expect an animal that shits in the streets to be able to provide evidence of any of your bullshit arguments

Now get lost.

You quoted me first randomly now tell me to go!

get fucked and go cry to the moderators as usual whilst you insult me and Iran in the same breath

 

[Nilgiri]

@LeGenD

A terrain following missile may dupe a single radar or even an AEWACS but it cannot do much against a carefully designed multi layer air defence system comprising both SAM batteries of various ranges as well as old school AA batteries. In terrain hugging mode it will be identified and neutralized through AA fire before it is able to reach the well defended target. Saturation is the only technique against this, and saturation is what the Americans did.

Now take into account the recent Russian jamming of GPS signals during a NATO exercise and you can see that it is easy to take out the very eyes of cruise missiles. That leaves things like TERCOM which again relies on sensors. As a matter of fact, even ground avoidance in terrain following mode relies on sensors. And as soon as you have sensors, you have a weak point.

This is why it would take an air campaign lasting many months to take out a well constructed air defence system.

There are contingencies that are developed even against "well layered defenses". They are not monoliths.

 

[CriticalThought]

There are contingencies that are developed even against "well layered defenses". They are not monoliths.

Nothing is invincible or invulnerable. Given enough force and persistence any resistance can be overcome. The point of good air defence is to make it prohibitive for the attacker.

Astute observation. But one would still need redundancies for the possible disruptions arising out of potential enemy action to precisely bring about a disruption. In that case, the costs will increase.

Just one point.

True. Good defence doesn't come cheap.

 

[LeGenD]

So, you want them to assemble in an open field and get slaughtered by cruise missiles? Since when did waging a guerilla war against a far superior enemy has become cowardly? Geneva conventions grant the right to people to wage guerilla war against an occupier state.
The special forces and intel agencies of "brave nations" also wage war through the same "cowardly" means. Nowadays, champions don't duel before start of general battle---and cowardly people sit in front of computer screens and press a button from the comfort of their secure rooms to blow up dozens of people. Or you want us to ride horses and charge towards enemy Armour formations which according to you will be in-line with the principles of battle of badr.

Or are you going to declare people like Umar Mukhtar the lion of the desert and Imam Shamil as cowards for waging guerilla war against occupiers? Seriously how low can one sink as to discredit the struggle and sacrifices of those who stayed and gave their lives for Islam by twisting and manipulating the so called principles of battle to suit one's own narrative. People who left their homes, family and comfort and live in mountains and deserts to fight an impossible battle against the most technologically advanced nations and risk instant death are according to you, cowards---but those who have chosen a life of comfort like people sitting in front of computer screens here are more principally correct and brave...

Perhaps the principles of battle of Badr is to lick the feet of USA, just like a pdf member and I'll not mention who does...

My point of contention is about RULES OF ENGAGEMENT for all belligerents in modern times.

Consider developments in Afghanistan and Iraq during the period (2006 - 2017), and in Syria during the period (2011 - 2017). Insurgencies in these countries took a DESTRUCTIVE and DIRTY turn, and innocent civilians paid a hefty price consequently. Focus shifted from high-profile (selective) targets to 'entire cities' which turned into a heap of ruins in the process, and a large number of people were forced to flee from their homes because they had no choice.

[1] Suicide attacks
[2] IED
[3] Not wearing uniforms
[4] Hiding among civilians, and using them as cover
[5] Going after SOFT TARGETS in general
[6] Murdering innocent with impunity for political ends (Terrorism)

Fighting tactics of agencies such as Afghan Taliban, ISIS-K, ISIS and Al-Qaeda Network, are a role-model for Muslims now? These agencies have done more harm than good. ISIS and Al-Qaeda Network will be history. ISIS-K will follow course.

Do you honestly expect a professional army to act normal while contending with aforementioned agencies? Expect any professional army to exercise sheer brutality or switch to controversial methods of engagement in return.

You complain about Drone Warfare? Wait for Terminators to arrive; machines will decide our fate. Micro-killers too.

Agencies should conform to civilian-friendly RULES OF ENGAGEMENT in a conflict, and should know [when to stop], or increasingly dreadful set-of-responses will await them in the future.

Iraqi people came back to their senses, but Afghan Taliban?

 

[jhungary]

Many thanks for the detailed insight. I am basically proposing a slight enhancement to this regime: targets of opportunity. Suppose post A is a forward post that detects an incoming aircraft. It relays information to posts B and C giving a probabilistic trajectory which the bogey could pursue. In anticipation, posts B and C engage in an opportunistic shooting. Now imagine you had not just B and C, but fifty different posts covering all approaches. If every post takes a shot, the chances are very high that the aircraft will be hit. Now assume all fifty one posts have sensors. Such a distributed network will be very good at tracking the target.

When you want to really protect an asset, you can contour the terrain around it to give you maximum advantage. You can remove obstacles, thus taking away the enemy's advantage. You can even 'flatten' the earth through extensive excavation, giving your radars more 'line of sight'. The advantage lies with the defender.

Actually, in term of Radar Interception, every contact is a target of opportunity. While you can predict flight path of cruise missile or missile in general (they are what we called one-directional contact) most other contact belong to omni-directional, for which their flight path is unpredictable. Because there are a pilot or remote controller (in case of a drone) so they can alter their flight path at will.

For us to intercept a target, one need to put in mind 2 parameters.

1.) There are ALWAYS defensive gap, because by definition (range, terrain and accessibility and so on), you cannot lay infinite amount of radar/targeting system all over your country.

2.) There are ALWAYS time delay for information to pass from one station to another.

Now, it's kind of hard to just put it into plain word so I draw a few diagram to bring home my point. Please, bear with me with the match stick diagram, I don't have time to make it 3D or anything in better quality.

This is a simple (interpretation of what you will see as a radar contact. The circle are your RDR/ADS The green circle are their range, the Black Triangle are your hostile target. In this case, your defence system is laid in a linear defence line (That is just because I want to illustrate what is what, I know most likely you don't lay defence line like that)

In this case, The target is one directional, probably a missile fired, so it would be easy, A will pick up the target, prepping B to shoot it down, and C as a backup.

However, now, the target is a omni-directional target, either a drone flew by someone, or is a fighter, the pilot picked up your ping, and he move away from your targeting range so now, even with A detecting the target, B and C is no longer in a position to shoot it down.

Finally, we have a multiple target situation, now you have target 1 2 and 3 and is a mix of One-Directional and Omni, now in a perfect circumstance for the defender, A could pick up target 1 and 3, and for this example sake, you know 1 is omni and 3 is one (in reality, you will not know until either one of them change course) and 2 was detected by airborne AWACS, now, it will take time to coordinate the attack on all 3, you need to track target 3 to see if you can task B to shoot it down, and at the same time, if you are sitting on A, you also need to track 1 and task it for B, in this case, 3 go thru B but 1 did not, which mean from the duration you start tracking 1 until it exit your track, you need to determine if 1 can be intercepted by C or D (In this case, its probably C) which you don't know because once 1 is out of your RDR range, you need to pass it on someone, and they will have to track it then. And that hand off take time. Because you need to fill in B your target information (shoot 3 and track 1)

Now, I know what you will say, how about we tandem deploy tracking/targeting asset next to A. But you also need to bear in mind that, it probably work if the target is one directional, not going to work if target is omni, because A.) If you ping a target, they will know you are pinging them, which mean they can avoid detection. B.) If not, they may target your tracking/targeting station first.

And this is not the real complicated example, because we still have not consider Stealth, Target from multiple direction, the effectiveness of each tracking station and 3 Dimensional target (Air/Ground/Sea) which a blip of a radar can mean you are tracking only 1 target, but it might also be 2 smaller target or 2 target that are in a different layer (At the same spot but one is higher than the other).