A10 vs Ka-50/52

[Weta43]

If D-Scythe is right & you can't count on a shot from more than 2.5km at a fleeing target & assuming you are very lucky & he's flying over your head, you have 22 - 23 seconds from when you see him to his being overhead & another 11 at his rear. 33 - 34 total. That doesn't leave a lot of slack, especially if you aren't expecting anything.

 

I do agree though that I would expect a high value target in a time of war in any NATO or (probably) ex-Warsaw pact country to have enough SHORAD to make life very difficult for a pilot.

I also suspect that there would be wide swathes of country between these targets that could be more safely traversed NOE than at 10,000m.

After all, that is the way Special Ops forces go in:

'The first operational MH-47E was delivered to the 160th SOAR in January of 1994, although the first flight had taken place in mid 1990. The delivery followed an extensive modification and testing phase designed to give the Army a special operations craft with a greater than 90% chance of returning from a deep-penetration mission behind enemy lines.'

For an aircraft attacking a well defended target, once in the general vicinity of the target, a more conventional approach might be more sensible.

[GGTharos]

You've got plenty of time. As for helos, just look at what happened to helos in Viet-Nam.

 

Sure, if you're not expecting it ... but in a war, you're expecting it. Period.

 

And, list I said. Belts, Belts, BELTS.

[Muzzlehead]

Well so far as Lock On is concerned I have learned (thanks to your spirited advice) that height is the key.

 

When I attack at altitudes above 7000m my success is much better and basically the ground targets are screwed (helios included) but if I try a NOE strike ... I'm nothing but a ball of fire. Now I can swarm the ground once all the AA is gone but you never know if another will arrive or setup in a few minutes

[Weta43]

Helos don't fly at 500mph +

The belts get more dense & cover closer to the ground the further in you get.

I still think NOE won't get you to the target, but it might get you in the area - closer than flying @ 10,000m through the enemy's radar & fighter cover.

[D-Scythe]

Yes, troops with NVGs CAN pick up enemy aircraft coming in. Over your own territory, you may even have lookouts in the villages 10km around you who'll call you on your cell, but let's say you do not.

 

You have the SHORAD belt around your target at 10and 5km. They'll talk to each other.

 

Well, I think I stated it enough times that you fly low to *get* to your target, not *attack* it.

 

A Stinger RMP is capable of reaching out and touching a target as small as a cruise missile with the engagement beginning at 9km (but these are typically cued in from a Sentinel)

 

And I'll remind you that -loads- of cruise missiles have been shot down by SHORAD, despite eing as fast, but smaller than an F-15E ... and certainly much less noisy, and they do NOT require a pop-up for attack until the aircraft itself - I have a squadmate who is with the US ARMY AD, doing specifically SHORAD with the avenger and stinger teams, and they'll happily blow up anything heading for whatever they're defending.

 

So again, when you're flying low and avoiding SHORADS, what's the danger? There aren't enough Avenger units in the world to completely cover the airspace over the state of Texas, let alone the entire United States. As such, over 95% of the airspace above ANY country would have zero SHORAD defenses. The other 5% would be limited over troop concentrations and other targets of military importance.

 

Cruise missiles will be taken on head-on if possible, tail-on otherwise. Aircraft will be taken on prefferably when they pop-up.

 

How can aircraft be engaged when they pop up 20-30 miles away?

 

Thinking that SHORAD won't be an issue when flying NOE is simply suicidal. You could get lucky and enemy defense might be poor, disorgazined, and possibly even known and obvious.

 

I'm not saying MANPADS, small-arms, and SHORAD would not be an issue. All I'm saying is that in certain cases, the chances of running into some guy with an Igla and him engaging you successfully is small enough that it is an attractive alternative to flying high and having enemy MiGCAPs and S300s constantly hasseling you.

 

You've got plenty of time. As for helos, just look at what happened to helos in Viet-Nam.

 

Helos hardly have the speed of an inbound strike fighter.

 

As for the time, in the ideal situation where the fighter passes directly over the MANPAD soldier, the guy has roughly 24 seconds (in total) to react to a target travelling at 750 kmph, or ~0.63 Mach. This assumes that the MEZ of the MANPAD is about 5km down to 1 km, head on, then 1 km to 2 km, tail on. Now, if the target is travelling at Mach 0.9 (about 1070 kmph), the soldier has less than 17 seconds to react, acquire, lock and shoot.

 

Then, at night, you factor in the reduced detection range and the reduced visual qualities/FOV of NVG, and these numbers start looking even worse - for the MANPAD soldier.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yeah, but you're leaving out the fact that virtually all the losses aircraft suffered at low altitudes was over the target area or some kind of enemy military position. My point is that flying NOE can help you get within a comfortable range of an enemy military position, stealthily no less, whereby you can then attack it from high altitude.

 

 

Actually, I didn't leave out any facts because that is not true. Those aircraft did not knowingly plan to fly over gun emplacements that they knew were there, that would be suicide. These air defense assets were highly mobile and had a nasty habit of showing up in places they weren't supposed to be. Some of these missions required the strike aircraft to fly for miles over enemy territory, and many of them would be knocked down long before ever reaching the target area...others were nailed on their egress. Now, suppose a fully bomb-laden aircraft penetrated to within a comfortable range of his target at low altitude without getting his rearend blown out of the sky...how then, does this heavy aircraft climb to a safe altitude in a reasonable amount of time? The truth is, he'd have to unmask and start his climb far enough in advance of IP that everything in the area that has a radar is going to have plenty of time to prepare for his arrival...so the purpose of his NOE has just been defeated. The only problem is that, those radars who end up seeing him anyway...LONG before he gets to the target...are not the only things on the ground that are meant to kill him. That's not even considering environmental factors, such as those that exist in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. In both places, you have extremely high temperatures, which act quite negatively on aircraft performance...especially in the area of climb rate and how much ordnance they can actually get off the ground with. In Afghanistan, you also have the problem of ground level being MUCH higher than sea level, which further hinders aircraft performance. High-speed NOE flight also stresses the airframe and even the ordnance under its wings, not to mention that it eats up fuel like crazy.

[EvilBivol-1]

In Afghanistan, you also have the problem of ground level being MUCH higher than sea level, which further hinders aircraft performance.

Not to mention look-outs and 'MANPAD soldiers' hiding on the slopes and hilltops, prepared to fire both up AND down... Tough lesson learned by the Soviets.

 

In D-Scythe's defense, don't you think much of the recent shift away from low-level flight has to do with the particularities of recent conflicts? I mean, outside of the opening days of Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom, arguably the highest threat faced by NATO aircraft was short and medium range air defenses. Thus, the best approach has been to stay high. Given a different scenario (Cold War-gone-hot type of thing), I imagine low-level ingress would have its place as well.

[D-Scythe]

Actually, I didn't leave out any facts because that is not true. Those aircraft did not knowingly plan to fly over gun emplacements that they knew were there, that would be suicide. These air defense assets were highly mobile and had a nasty habit of showing up in places they weren't supposed to be.

 

In Desert Storm? Absolutely not. Strikers who were shot down by AAA and MANPADS were shot down over the target, or over enemy troop positions as they were doing some battlefield prep. I don't think ANY aircraft were shootdown en-route to their target on a low altitude ingress/egress.

 

Now, suppose a fully bomb-laden aircraft penetrated to within a comfortable range of his target at low altitude without getting his rearend blown out of the sky...how then, does this heavy aircraft climb to a safe altitude in a reasonable amount of time? The truth is, he'd have to unmask and start his climb far enough in advance of IP that everything in the area that has a radar is going to have plenty of time to prepare for his arrival...so the purpose of his NOE has just been defeated.

 

What? The purpose of flying NOE is certainly not defeated. Sure, the strikers would have to unmask, but prior to that, they are invisible, unseen. On the other hand, aircraft flying at high altitude are already unmasked.

 

Add to the fact that you have SEAD and CAP messing around with defenses well before the strikers even arrive on target, and flying NOE on approach to the target becomes much more attractive. The SEAD and CAP will handle defenses, get them to point in one direction, before the strikers pop up 30 miles away from where anyone expects them to be, lofts their JDAMS/AGM-130s and streak away.

 

In fact, with long-range glide weapons like SDB, JSOW, JASSM and AGM-130, an F-15E or F-16 could attack enemy military installations without ever entering the outer ring of the target's SHORAD defenses. This can be attractive when the U.S. actually has to *fight* for its air supremacy, as I'd much rather deal with MANPADS and small arms than Su-27/MiG-29 CAPs and S300/Buk long-range missiles.

 

That's not even considering environmental factors, such as those that exist in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. In both places, you have extremely high temperatures, which act quite negatively on aircraft performance...especially in the area of climb rate and how much ordnance they can actually get off the ground with. In Afghanistan, you also have the problem of ground level being MUCH higher than sea level, which further hinders aircraft performance. High-speed NOE flight also stresses the airframe and even the ordnance under its wings, not to mention that it eats up fuel like crazy

 

Now imagine that strain/fuel consumption, and multiply it by 5 times. That's what the airframe of the strikers are gonna feel if they go high and have to deal with enemy CAPs and S300 SAMs. Sure, once the Su-27s/MiG-29s are gone and the S300s history, by all means, go high. Until then, flying NOE is an attractive, valid option for strike package ingress.

 

In D-Scythe's defense, don't you think much of the recent shift away from low-level flight has to do with the particularities of recent conflicts? I mean, outside of the opening days of Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom, arguably the highest threat faced by NATO aircraft was short and medium range air defenses. Thus, the best approach has been to stay high. Given a different scenario (Cold War-gone-hot type of thing), I imagine low-level ingress would have its place as well.

 

Thank you! :thumbup:

[Guest IguanaKing]

 

What? The purpose of flying NOE is certainly not defeated. Sure, the strikers would have to unmask, but prior to that, they are invisible, unseen. On the other hand, aircraft flying at high altitude are already unmasked.

 

Which does not address what I said at all. Do you think an aircraft can zoom climb to a safe altitude with a full bomb load? The truth is, they can't, it would be a rather slow climb and the threat radars would see them well enough in advance for the element of surprise to be negated. Especially if you are high and/or hot...heavy is already a given. ;) Granted, you MIGHT not show up as soon, depending on the range of the radar, but they will still have PLENTY of time to get ready to shoot at you. The good thing is, these types of weapons give you warning that they're there through their own radar emissions. They also give you a warning when locked on and/or fired. You don't have to visually acquire a radar threat to know when he is shooting at you. Low altitude defenses give you no warning at all. If you don't see the gun that is about to kill you, or if you don't see the SA-14 that was just launched at you, there's a very good chance you're not going home that day.

 

Add to the fact that you have SEAD and CAP messing around with defenses well before the strikers even arrive on target, and flying NOE on approach to the target becomes much more attractive. The SEAD and CAP will handle defenses, get them to point in one direction, before the strikers pop up 30 miles away from where anyone expects them to be, lofts their JDAMS/AGM-130s and streak away.

 

How does flying that profile become more effective? Are you saying that those CAP and SEAD assets are causing a diversion through their activities? If so, how does flying lower improve anything? It doesn't, it just makes you vulnerable to ground fire.

 

In fact, with long-range glide weapons like SDB, JSOW, JASSM and AGM-130, an F-15E or F-16 could attack enemy military installations without ever entering the outer ring of the target's SHORAD defenses. This can be attractive when the U.S. actually has to *fight* for its air supremacy, as I'd much rather deal with MANPADS and small arms than Su-27/MiG-29 CAPs and S300/Buk long-range missiles.

 

So...by all this, I assume you are now speaking of a major conflict, like the Cold War gone hot mentioned by Evil Bivol? If that's the case, where are the enemy AEW&C aircraft? They can usually see you well enough, even when you are at low altitude, to know that you're there. The other nasty fact there is that they are datalinked to fighter assets AND ground-based air defenses. So, the goal is to take a few cards out of the deck that is already stacked against you. You don't have to fly into SHORAD defenses to die. Many armored and mobile infantry units are going to have their own air defenses with them, and you're not going to be quite sure where any of them are. Depending on terrain, yes, your 500 knot aircraft is going to be quite easy to spot visually because of how the human eye reacts to movement. This puts you at a disadvantage because the random armored platoon you are about to fly over is either stationary or moving at less than 50 MPH...unless of course the ground is dry, so the dust clouds make him more visible. But, anyway, just because something isn't a known, dedicated air defense asset, doesn't mean that it won't kill you.

 

Now imagine that strain/fuel consumption, and multiply it by 5 times. That's what the airframe of the strikers are gonna feel if they go high and have to deal with enemy CAPs and S300 SAMs. Sure, once the Su-27s/MiG-29s are gone and the S300s history, by all means, go high. Until then, flying NOE is an attractive, valid option for strike package ingress.

 

The airframe stress I speak of is not necessarily due to maneuvering, it is due to higher air density near the ground. Fuel consumption? Not sure where you are getting the 5 times multiplier, because that seems to ignore how a turbine engine works. Let's say I'm flying an A-10 (no AB), or even an F-15E at MP...do I burn more fuel at low altitude or at high altitude? Again, this is assuming we actually have to fight for air superiority, and again, those enemy AEW&C aircraft, unfortunately, will be able to see me anyway. BTW...one of the reasons the A-10C is getting improved engines is so that it will perform better at higher altitudes, which is where US doctrine is sending more and more aircraft. Afghanistan made this need especially apparent...the higher the terrain, the higher you have to be above sea level to avoid getting knocked down by a low-altitude weapon. Hogs in Afghanistan usually fly at around 19,000'.

[D-Scythe]

Which does not address what I said at all. Do you think an aircraft can zoom climb to a safe altitude with a full bomb load? The truth is, they can't, it would be a rather slow climb and the threat radars would see them well enough in advance for the element of surprise to be negated. Especially if you are high and/or hot...heavy is already a given. ;) Granted, you MIGHT not show up as soon, depending on the range of the radar, but they will still have PLENTY of time to get ready to shoot at you. The good thing is, these types of weapons give you warning that they're there through their own radar emissions. They also give you a warning when locked on and/or fired. You don't have to visually acquire a radar threat to know when he is shooting at you. Low altitude defenses give you no warning at all. If you don't see the gun that is about to kill you, or if you don't see the SA-14 that was just launched at you, there's a very good chance you're not going home that day.

 

Firstly, my point is the strikers would unmask way before they enter SHORAD range, so MANPADS and SA-15s around the target are not gonna be a problem. Secondly, getting detected 30 miles from the target as you unmask is MUCH better than flying high and being detected all the way from your homebase. The enemy only has that 30 miles to engage you, only has that 30 miles to vector fighters against you.

 

If you fly high, the enemy can vector fighters to intercept you hundreds of miles before you even reach the target. Gee, I wonder which option is better?

 

How does flying that profile become more effective? Are you saying that those CAP and SEAD assets are causing a diversion through their activities? If so, how does flying lower improve anything? It doesn't, it just makes you vulnerable to ground fire.

 

Why would it make you vulnerable to ground fire? Firstly, yes, the CAP and SEAD birds will cause somewhat a diversion, as the enemy radars don't know they are purely CAP and SEAD jets. Secondly, flying low also enables you to attack from another direction without being seen. All (or most) of the enemy attention would be focused on the F-15Cs and CJ Vipers flinging AMRAAMs and HARMs around, and then you, in your F-15Es, pop up 25 miles away, acquire the target, loft your PGMs from 18 miles, and then disappear again into the ground clutter.

 

So...by all this, I assume you are now speaking of a major conflict, like the Cold War gone hot mentioned by Evil Bivol? If that's the case, where are the enemy AEW&C aircraft? They can usually see you well enough, even when you are at low altitude, to know that you're there. The other nasty fact there is that they are datalinked to fighter assets AND ground-based air defenses.

 

Your point would be valid if you were fighting over the sea or a desert. Radars cannot pick you up through a mountain or hill. In any case, they will still have smaller detection and threat rings when you're at 200 ft than when you're at 30 000ft. You will *still* be detected later, rather than sooner.

 

So, the goal is to take a few cards out of the deck that is already stacked against you. You don't have to fly into SHORAD defenses to die. Many armored and mobile infantry units are going to have their own air defenses with them, and you're not going to be quite sure where any of them are.

 

Which brings me back to one of my original points - no army in the world has enough mobile infantry/armoured units with AA assets to cover more than a TINY fraction of the airspace above that country. Sure, you'd be taking a chance, but considering the alternative would be to have multiple incoming Flankers from many directions, then it's a good trade, no?

 

Depending on terrain, yes, your 500 knot aircraft is going to be quite easy to spot visually because of how the human eye reacts to movement. This puts you at a disadvantage because the random armored platoon you are about to fly over is either stationary or moving at less than 50 MPH...unless of course the ground is dry, so the dust clouds make him more visible. But, anyway, just because something isn't a known, dedicated air defense asset, doesn't mean that it won't kill you.

 

And at night, everyone's blind, for the most part. Sure, some will be looking through NVGs, but that's like trying to find a needle in a haystack while looking through a roll of toilet paper.

 

The airframe stress I speak of is not necessarily due to maneuvering, it is due to higher air density near the ground. Fuel consumption? Not sure where you are getting the 5 times multiplier, because that seems to ignore how a turbine engine works. Let's say I'm flying an A-10 (no AB), or even an F-15E at MP...do I burn more fuel at low altitude or at high altitude? Again, this is assuming we actually have to fight for air superiority, and again, those enemy AEW&C aircraft, unfortunately, will be able to see me anyway. BTW...one of the reasons the A-10C is getting improved engines is so that it will perform better at higher altitudes, which is where US doctrine is sending more and more aircraft. Afghanistan made this need especially apparent...the higher the terrain, the higher you have to be above sea level to avoid getting knocked down by a low-altitude weapon. Hogs in Afghanistan usually fly at around 19,000'.

 

Maneuvering consumes fuel VERY rapidly. And if you're doing the BVR tango with enemy Flankers (while avoiding S300s, of course), you are going to be doing a LOT of maneuvering. That's where the 5 times multiplier comes from.

 

Plus, when maneuvering against these Flankers, your airframe is also carrying several tons of PGMs. Guess what? Multi-G maneuvers with A/G munitions would probably even put more strain on the airframe than a 1 hr. NOE ingress. That is, if you don't jettison your A/G bombs because of the air threat right away (which would be the smart thing to do). Then you scrap the entire mission, wasting fuel and money, both of your flight and in those of the CAP/SEAD jets.

[GGTharos]

You missed the 'there's a limited amount of 'between the mountains' flying and one can plop down a nice stinger team right smack in the middle of the valley ... and for real effect, another one of two down that valley ...

[Guest IguanaKing]

Firstly, my point is the strikers would unmask way before they enter SHORAD range, so MANPADS and SA-15s around the target are not gonna be a problem. Secondly, getting detected 30 miles from the target as you unmask is MUCH better than flying high and being detected all the way from your homebase. The enemy only has that 30 miles to engage you, only has that 30 miles to vector fighters against you.

 

If you fly high, the enemy can vector fighters to intercept you hundreds of miles before you even reach the target. Gee, I wonder which option is better?

 

 

 

Why would it make you vulnerable to ground fire? Firstly, yes, the CAP and SEAD birds will cause somewhat a diversion, as the enemy radars don't know they are purely CAP and SEAD jets. Secondly, flying low also enables you to attack from another direction without being seen. All (or most) of the enemy attention would be focused on the F-15Cs and CJ Vipers flinging AMRAAMs and HARMs around, and then you, in your F-15Es, pop up 25 miles away, acquire the target, loft your PGMs from 18 miles, and then disappear again into the ground clutter.

 

 

 

Your point would be valid if you were fighting over the sea or a desert. Radars cannot pick you up through a mountain or hill. In any case, they will still have smaller detection and threat rings when you're at 200 ft than when you're at 30 000ft. You will *still* be detected later, rather than sooner.

 

 

 

Which brings me back to one of my original points - no army in the world has enough mobile infantry/armoured units with AA assets to cover more than a TINY fraction of the airspace above that country. Sure, you'd be taking a chance, but considering the alternative would be to have multiple incoming Flankers from many directions, then it's a good trade, no?

 

 

 

And at night, everyone's blind, for the most part. Sure, some will be looking through NVGs, but that's like trying to find a needle in a haystack while looking through a roll of toilet paper.

 

 

 

Maneuvering consumes fuel VERY rapidly. And if you're doing the BVR tango with enemy Flankers (while avoiding S300s, of course), you are going to be doing a LOT of maneuvering. That's where the 5 times multiplier comes from.

 

Plus, when maneuvering against these Flankers, your airframe is also carrying several tons of PGMs. Guess what? Multi-G maneuvers with A/G munitions would probably even put more strain on the airframe than a 1 hr. NOE ingress. That is, if you don't jettison your A/G bombs because of the air threat right away (which would be the smart thing to do). Then you scrap the entire mission, wasting fuel and money, both of your flight and in those of the CAP/SEAD jets.

 

In all of that you STILL miss the most important point, you will be vulnerable to ground fire, no matter how many times you click your heels together and wish it won't happen. Another point you miss is that the USAF no longer deems low altitude penetration as a viable tactic. Aside from that, I guess I can't explain myself any more simply than I already have. You also failed, once again, to address getting all of that ordnance from NOE to a safe altitude in an amount of time that would make much difference...and...you are still vulnerable to ground fire.

[Guest IguanaKing]

You missed the 'there's a limited amount of 'between the mountains' flying and one can plop down a nice stinger team right smack in the middle of the valley ... and for real effect, another one of two down that valley ...

 

Oh no...the enemy would never do that ;) ...and I have also heard, recently, that turbine engines apparently use more fuel up high than they do down low...silly me. This completely negates the need for anyone to have me RVSM-certify their aircraft...I dearly hope my customers don't learn that secret. :doh: :D

[D-Scythe]

In all of that you STILL miss the most important point, you will be vulnerable to ground fire, no matter how many times you click your heels together and wish it won't happen. Another point you miss is that the USAF no longer deems low altitude penetration as a viable tactic. Aside from that, I guess I can't explain myself any more simply than I already have.

 

I didn't miss anything. I never said that an NOE aircraft is invulnerable to ground fire. And the USAF still practices some low altitude flying, so I don't get why you think it's *completely* obsolete.

 

Just because since Desert Storm the U.S. hasn't faced any opponent that can seriously challenge air supremacy doesn't mean that sometime in the future somebody won't come along to put up a fight.

 

You also failed, once again, to address getting all of that ordnance from NOE to a safe altitude in an amount of time that would make much difference...and...you are still vulnerable to ground fire.

 

What's with the failing? If you think that a strike package being tracked for HUNDRED of miles is gonna be harder to defend against than a strike package showing up 30 miles from its target, then that's your opinion.

 

And on the issue of "addressing getting the bombs to a safe altitude," it wouldn't take more than a couple minutes for an F-15E to unmask, perform a loft attack to 8000ft, then dive back for the weeds. JDAMs, JASSM, JSOW, and SDB can be lofted WELL outside SHORAD range - no need to "climb to a safe altitude and overfly the target."

 

You missed the 'there's a limited amount of 'between the mountains' flying and one can plop down a nice stinger team right smack in the middle of the valley ... and for real effect, another one of two down that valley ...

 

Gee, would I rather blast past a bunch of MANPADS at a 1000 kmph or would I rather be intercepted two hundred miles from my target because EWR picked up my strike package and vectored/scrambled every single Su-27 and MiG-29 to intercept my flight?

 

But hey, if you think NOE flying is completely obsolete and useless, than fine with me. I'm just the kinda guy that thinks there are advantages and disadvantages in everything, so yeah, I still think there would be some situations where going low would be a viable alternative to staying high. And since I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it's a lot harder to pick up a striker flying NOE than one flying at 30K ft, then there's no way anyone can convince me otherwise.

[GGTharos]

Sorry, but an 8000' loft won't get you 18nm. Might get you what ... 4? Let's say 6. Do you think you're safe in that pop-up? Do you think theater missiles won't reach you? Do you think the SHORAD won't be pounding away while you're doing this?

 

I'm not sure how you also came across the idea that SHORAD has no datalink capabilities because they uh - they do.

 

Even the guy with the MANPADS can be cued from a surveillance radar with the right equipment, and if not, all you need is a lookout in the town 10km down the road to give you a call on your cellphone that a plane's coming. he might even ID it for you!

 

If you're facing a foe who has no MANPADS, fine, sure. If he does, and better yet, if he's got defense in-depth then um. Yes. It's obsolete.

 

This is precicely why the B-2 exists, and precicely why the B-1B had the ASRAAM. Wether YOU like it or not, if you go after a military or infrastructure target, going NOE will put your nose in the ground. Of course, it may be the case that they'll only nail one out of your four ships, but someone still has to buy it.

 

You're not saying anything about advantages and disadvantages, you're preaching about how NOE IS THE WAY. That is -exactly- what you're doing.

 

And, you know what? The AF may still practice it, but they seem to have decided that stand-off jammer support and high altitude flight is a much better deal. Not to mention that high-altitude flight is the ONLY way to put 'stand off' into 'stand off weapon', save for using powered-all-the-way weapons like SLAM-ER+, that at least you can release at low altitude and expect it to go some 30-40nm. Just remember to keep LOS for that datalink!

[Guest IguanaKing]

Tracked for HUNDREDs of miles? LOL. What kind of radar are we talking about here? Oh...could it be, maybe, networked radars? If so, what would make anyone think these networked radars that "wouldn't see" your strike package didn't have random air defenses and even ground forces, including infantry, around them? I meant to address your earlier comment about my scenario being based on flying over the sea. Maybe you missed what I said earlier about an airspace that was actually defended by enemy aircraft. Presumably, in this worst-case scenario, AEW&C aircraft would be present...yes? I'm sorry if it somehow offends you, but I feel a need to define AEW&C. It stands for Airborne Early Warning and Control. What makes AEW&C such a valuable asset? It puts the radar ABOVE the battlefield, hence the radar horizon, which limits ground based emitters, is pretty much negated...although I realize it doesn't entirely negate the "value" of NOE. You said radar can't see through mountains and hills...I agree with that. So, what if the radar is above all of the ground clutter, like it is with AEW&C aircraft. Is your strike package flying through a tunnel in the mountain? You also mentioned SA-15s in your earlier post. What do they have to do with passive air defense systems? Last I checked, the SA-15 had a pretty powerful friggin' radar on it, hence it is not a passive low-altitude system. I had spoken of the SA-14, which, as GG stated earlier, can be carried on a man's back and networked with a cel-phone call. I don't care how fast your NOE aircraft is, it isn't going to come anywhere close to matching the speed of a microwave transmission, even if it has to go through several repeaters. Someone will be waiting for you, and he'll very likely kill you. You also mentioned your justification for the 5X multiplier in your earlier post. If you are at high altitude and have to pull high-g maneuvers to evade an imminent a2a attack...guess what? In order to live to fight another day, you have already punched off your ordnance...hence...you are NOW...out of the fight. Any use of combat aircraft depends on competent planners, and as long as they exist, low-altitude penetration will seldom be used.

[D-Scythe]

Sorry, but an 8000' loft won't get you 18nm. Might get you what ... 4? Let's say 6. Do you think you're safe in that pop-up? Do you think theater missiles won't reach you? Do you think the SHORAD won't be pounding away while you're doing this?

 

Um, 6 miles with a JSOW? Or AGM-130? Your kidding, right?

 

I'm not sure how you also came across the idea that SHORAD has no datalink capabilities because they uh - they do.

 

It doesn't matter if they are datalinked to God Himself. They cannot engage an F-15E shooting AGM-130s/JSOWs 30 miles away.

 

You're not saying anything about advantages and disadvantages, you're preaching about how NOE IS THE WAY. That is -exactly- what you're doing.

 

Um, what? Where on earth did you get that idea? Have you even been reading my posts? From the beginning, I made it clear that I'm outlining certain ADVANTAGES to flying NOE. Yes, I didn't say much about the disadvantages, but I felt I didn't have to, because I thought they were well understood. Obviously, you missed something along the way.

 

I'd like to see you quote me where I say that "NOE IS THE WAY."

 

And, you know what? The AF may still practice it, but they seem to have decided that stand-off jammer support and high altitude flight is a much better deal.

 

Of course it's a "much better deal" with the current foes they are fighting. Or the ones that are most likely in the near future. There's no point in flying low if they enemy doesn't have any MiGs or S300s to engage you with.

 

Sure, going high may still work when up against a country with Flankers and long-range SAMs, but it's advantages no longer COMPLETELY overshadow it's disadvantages.

 

Tracked for HUNDREDs of miles? LOL. What kind of radar are we talking about here? Oh...could it be, maybe, networked radars? If so, what would make anyone think these networked radars that "wouldn't see" your strike package didn't have random air defenses and even ground forces, including infantry, around them? I meant to address your earlier comment about my scenario being based on flying over the sea.

 

Um, let's see...flying low would reduce the detection rings around ANY radar the enemy has, to the point where aircraft flying NOE can fly between them (the known ones, at least). Flying high would put you right into the 300+ mile range of ANY EWR radar, whether on an AWACs or on the ground. So yes, they could (and would) track you literally for hundred of miles.

 

Don't see where you're going with this. A strike package flying NOE can both fly between these EWRs plus avoid the FLOT.

 

And I still don't seem to get why you think every cubic metre of enemy airspace is defended by MANPADs and AAA. I thought it was clear that this was physically impossible.

 

So, what if the radar is above all of the ground clutter, like it is with AEW&C aircraft. Is your strike package flying through a tunnel in the mountain?

 

Um, it's still entirely possible to "disappear" within ground clutter, even to an AWACs radar. This is a well known fact. AWACs may still pick up NOE targets, but it'll still be harder to pick them up than say, ones flying at 30 000ft. Thus, *delaying* detection, not preventing it.

 

You think AWACs will be able to pick up a NOE target at 300 miles like they can for a target at high altitude? More power to you.

 

I don't care how fast your NOE aircraft is, it isn't going to come anywhere close to matching the speed of a microwave transmission, even if it has to go through several repeaters.

 

Um, the point of going fast while NOE is to reduce the engagement window of the actual MANPADS soldier, not to outrun a radio transmission. MANPAD soldiers IRL are not the uber-SA robots that are in LOMAC. They're not gonna shoot you the moment you come within range *every* single time, because they are HUMAN. They can be caught by surprise, they make mistakes, they may not be 100% vigilant/aware.

 

You also mentioned your justification for the 5X multiplier in your earlier post. If you are at high altitude and have to pull high-g maneuvers to evade an imminent a2a attack...guess what? In order to live to fight another day, you have already punched off your ordnance...hence...you are NOW...out of the fight.

 

Firstly, you are hardly out of the fight. You scrapped your A/G mission, but you can still exact revenge on the MiGs that force you to do so. Secondly, by going high altitude, ALL the time, you are expecting that your escorts basically would have to protect you from EVERYTHING up until the point you punch off those bombs. Kinda hard to expect them to be 100% perfect 100% of the time, would you? Especially if you're on the first wave of jets to cross the fence and the enemy's AD is 100%.

 

But hey, if you guys think that going high is the ONLY way to go, fine with me. My position always has been that having more than one way to do things is always better. But you guys seem adament that going high with massive CAP, SEAD and SOJ support is the only way to go in future conflicts. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it makes much sense to argue this anymore.

[Guest IguanaKing]

As an A-10 or F-16? LOL!!! The only "revenge" you'd exact is to flip the bird through your canopy...unless you had a death wish, of course. ;) A Mud Hen? Maybe. But what kind of serious a2a ability did you manage to get airborne with after all of my previous silly talk about temperature and altitude, if you were tasked with an a2g mission? About as much ability as the Hog would wield. Sure, you're faster than the hog, but would you go toe to toe with the Flankers? Not if you expected to live to carry more ordnance aloft.

 

You reference "robots" in LOMAC? That's hilarious, dude, since ground based AI in LOMAC doesn't even come CLOSE to being as smart as real-world ground forces. Fortunately, for us LOMAC fantasy flyers, the Hadjis, Johnny Jihadi, or even Ivan don't carry that kind of simple, yet effective, hardware. If they did, the low-altitude, Rambo fantasy would end really quickly.

 

Hey...if you like NOE...more power to you, and fly it in LOMAC...all you have to worry about is getting your virtual butt shot out of the sky and complaining to people like GG that his defenses were too tough. On the other hand, if you want to attempt the same thing IRL, just let us know where to send condolences to your family.

 

This was too funny to pass up..."Flying high would put you right into the 300+ mile range of ANY EWR radar, whether on an AWACs or on the ground". LOL!!! Do I really have to point out why this is funny?

[D-Scythe]

As an A-10 or F-16? LOL!!! The only "revenge" you'd exact is to flip the bird through your canopy...unless you had a death wish, of course. ;) A Mud Hen? Maybe. But what kind of serious a2a ability did you manage to get airborne with after all of my previous silly talk about temperature and altitude, if you were tasked with an a2g mission? About as much ability as the Hog would wield. Sure, you're faster than the hog, but would you go toe to toe with the Flankers? Not if you expected to live to carry more ordnance aloft.

 

Um, did you miss the context of my point? (i.e. strike package, ALL at high altitude, enemy interceptors get through MiGCAP escorts to force strikers to punch off their bombs).

 

If an F-15E (or F-16CJ) punched off its bombs and tanks at 30 000ft (which was the scenario I was outlining before cause you outlined it), there's nothing stopping it from going toe-to-toe with a bunch of Su-27s in a BVR duel. And considering that your escorts would also likely ALREADY be engaging the enemy bandits, it makes sense to lob a few AMRAAMs around to help them out.

 

You reference "robots" in LOMAC? That's hilarious, dude, since ground based AI in LOMAC doesn't even come CLOSE to being as smart as real-world ground forces.

 

Seriously, you're kidding right? Have you not BEEN around the AI discussions in LOMAC? I thought it was COMMON knowledge that the AI, though much DUMBER than humans, have MUCH greater SA and WILL shoot you almost the instant they get within range.

 

Being dumb has NOTHING to do with having good SA. And LOMAC's AI has super-SA.

 

I defy you to try to catch LOMAC's AI unawares. Go ahead, try it. Try to gun down an enemy bandit or even an Igla soldier without him throwing a missile at you (usually around the 5-6 nm range). Better yet, shoot them with a heater, and show me an instance where they do NOT react to your missile. It's IMPOSSIBLE to catch them by surprise.

 

Nah, there's no way you were serious. You're just pulling my leg now.

 

This was too funny to pass up..."Flying high would put you right into the 300+ mile range of ANY EWR radar, whether on an AWACs or on the ground". LOL!!! Do I really have to point out why this is funny?

 

Um, yeah? Tell me what's to stop an EWR, either on the ground or in the air, from picking you up at long range when you're flying high. Are all U.S. jets stealthed with plasma technology and I don't know about it? Or is there some kind of special radar clutter at 30 000ft caused by an unexplained scientific mystery of the weather that automatically stealths any aircraft flying at that altitude? You seem to know something I don't know.

 

Anyway, I think two or three pages of this off-topic discussion is enough. I mean, if you seem to think that an enemy country can post a MANPADS unit on every acre of its land, and that these same MANPADS units has the super SA and instant reaction time that LOMAC currently has, and if you think the instant you go NOE you're gonna get your bird blown in half, and that a NOE ingress has absolutely NO place in modern warfare, well...let's just agree to disagree.

 

I'm gonna stick with my position that it's sometimes better to risk flying NOE than trying to fight your way through waves of enemy AAMs and S300s, and that no country has enough soldiers to cover cubic feet of airspace up to 10 000ft. I also believe that these same soldiers are not perfect, and are unlikely, at night, to get a shot off at a supersonic-capable plane on its first pass. I also think an F-15E popping up 30 miles away to loft a volley of JSOWs/SDBs is a pretty difficult target to intercept. Finally, yes, I think that normally, staying at high altitude is probably the best way to go in most circumstances, but there are certain situations where a low-altitude ingress may present an attractive alternative. I do not dispute any of your points, which I do agree with, but I simply don't understand your strict adherence to the high-altitude ingress and complete and utter dismissal of an ingress at low altitude.

 

But hey, doing the same thing over and over and over and over again can't hurt right? No point in training for a variety of tactics if the previous wars you fought in taught you strictly to stay high. If it worked for Iraq and Afghanistan, it'd surely work all the time against countries like China and Iran, even though they have much newer and capable weapons, and are probably much better trained. An SA-2 can't be all that different from an SA-20/17, right?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Whatever, dude...I can't continue this discussion with you, as I am apparently speaking a foreign language...so, feel free to go forth with your belief. :megalol:

 

Ummm...yeah? Many of your counterpoints are simply embarrassing for you, so I won't touch them.

[D-Scythe]

Ummm...yeah? Many of your counterpoints are simply embarrassing for you, so I won't touch them.

 

Embarrassing to me? Gee thanks, that was entirely necessary and called for man. You go on and adhere to the notion that you're plane will explode instantly once you dip below 10 000ft. Believe for us non-believers :thumbup:

[Weta43]

For what it's worth D-Scythe, having read the entire thread & considered the arguments, I find your position more convincing.

[Kula66]

I'm gonna stick with my position that it's sometimes better to risk flying NOE than trying to fight your way through waves of enemy AAMs and S300s, and that no country has enough soldiers to cover cubic feet of airspace up to 10 000ft.

 

I'm with you D-Scythe ... until the radar guided SAMs and enemy interceptors have been rolled back, NOE is the way to go. After all the HARM/ALARM volleys and AMRAAMs have cleaned up ... then switch to high alt - much safer flying, easier to locate targets, longer toss distances, etc.

 

Just look at the design of current strike systems ... all optimised for NOE! Of course stealth does change everything!

 

Of course if the enemy has no radar SAMs and interceptors then start high ...

[Guest IguanaKing]

...and NOE was all but completely abandoned in the early 90's. Not sure about other countries, but US technology is leaning even more toward long-range target ID AND high-altitude weapon delivery. Sorry for my behavior, D-Scythe, but I was getting frustrated by how it seemed as if we were not even having the same conversation.

[D-Scythe]

I'm with you D-Scythe ... until the radar guided SAMs and enemy interceptors have been rolled back, NOE is the way to go. After all the HARM/ALARM volleys and AMRAAMs have cleaned up ... then switch to high alt - much safer flying, easier to locate targets, longer toss distances, etc.

 

Not exactly...IMO, flying NOE entails certain risks that are *always* present, even when air supremacy is established. And even if the Su-27s and S300s are not all cleared up, it is probably still better to stay high in a lot of situations, especially if you have a flight of F-22s doing MiGCAP in front of you and F-35 SEAD birds flinging SDBs and some advanced HARMs at SAMs.

 

My point was/is that going NOE is always an option, and should always be an option for a non-stealthy bird like an F-15E, even if it isn't exercised at all.

 

For example, most fighter jocks train to dogfight/BFM, even though in modern air combat philosophy has seen a major shift away from dogfighting.

 

Just look at the design of current strike systems ... all optimised for NOE! Of course stealth does change everything!

 

Of course if the enemy has no radar SAMs and interceptors then start high ...

 

Yes, stay high :) But to be fair, only strike systems produced in the 80s were geared toward low altitude, like the F-15E's LANTIRN. Follow-on equipment in the 90s have mostly been designed for high altitudes, like the Sniper XR advanced targetting pod. Especially in the U.S., since if you have stealth, there's no point in going low at all unless you want to risk a shiny new F-22 or F-35 to some lucky soldier holding a MANPADS who just happened to be standing in the right place at the right time.

 

@ IguanaKing:

 

Don't worry about it. Considering what some people think of me, I think it's a step up for me that you only think some of my thoughts as embarrassing ;)