US defence: Losing its edge in technology?

[Orange Joe]

That's not how it works at all.

The problem is with no bid contracts where we get stuck buying items that should cost 50 cents for 500$. This isn't the military's fault, this is the fault of Congress.

Coming from a military aviation background. We certainly do not "waste" money.

Sounds like we should fix that issue before giving them even more money to blow.

[Theinquisition]

Sounds like we should fix that issue before giving them even more money to blow.

the military doesn't set the prices genius.

[Orange Joe]

the military doesn't set the prices genius.

Never said it does genius. I said we should fix that issue.

[Gaaz]

People seem to forget that no current technology can reliably intercept a hypersonic cruise missile travelling at mach 3 and above. That is why US spends billions on development of laser and kinetic (think railgun) anti air systems. The problem is, even if they can theoretically be effective against high altitude targets like diving missiles (does not mean that this has been achieved yet - it is still in theoretical stage), as of now, no one knows how to counter low flying objects. K-32 can be set to as low as 5m altitude for it's approach vector. That means that ships defence systems will see it at an aproximate distance of 10km, depending on sensor positioning. That leaves a reaction window of just over 10 seconds to detect, acquire terget, aim your weapons systems at it, and to try to shoot it down, while it moves at mach 4+ and maneuveres on approach. That is not even remotely feasible with current technology. If there is more than one of these on approach vectors, there are no chances for a ship to survive even in theory. Well, unless your ship would be fine with multiple 20m+ holes in it and missiles were not nuclear. Current railguns are very inacurate at ranges over several hundred meters. That leaves laser systems. However, most powerful anti air lasers need between 10 and 25 seconds of direct contact to shoot down a military drone at a distance of 300-400m. That is not even close to an equivalent to a hypersonic cruise missile travelling at speeds of close to 1km per second, jumping out of the line of horison 10km from your ship.

[Kellhound]

I agree that's why i lean more to the nuclear option, aka using icbm - mrbm (even slbm) or nuclear torpedoes / cruise missiles against them. The carrier group is a sitting duck against a variety of attacks.

- - - Updated - - -



The SU-27SM is at least equal to the F-15 (C?)
The K-73 is a fourth gen missile best of it kind back then which forced the creation of the Aim-9x. The R-73M2 should be compared with the Aim-9x

As I have said before, smart people do not cross the nuclear threshold except in dire need. There are no nuclear armed ballistic missiles capable of targeting a moving ship at sea anyway.

So you want to say that the 2004 updated Su-27SM (remember that the Su-27 entered serial production the year F-15C production ended) is equal to the 1985 F-15C.... I will give you that.

The AIM-9B was the best IR missile in the world when it came out, your point? The R-74M only has a +/-75 deg off boresight capability, compared to the +/-90 deg capability of the current AIM-9X.

[WskyDK]

Can we have fewer people on these boards who just post other people's articles?

[Kellhound]

People seem to forget that no current technology can reliably intercept a hypersonic cruise missile travelling at mach 3 and above. That is why US spends billions on development of laser and kinetic (think railgun) anti air systems. The problem is, even if they can theoretically be effective against high altitude targets like diving missiles (does not mean that this has been achieved yet - it is still in theoretical stage), as of now, no one knows how to counter low flying objects. K-32 can be set to as low as 5m altitude for it's approach vector. That means that ships defence systems will see it at an aproximate distance of 10km, depending on sensor positioning. That leaves a reaction window of just over 10 seconds to detect, acquire terget, aim your weapons systems at it, and to try to shoot it down, while it moves at mach 4+ and maneuveres on approach. That is not even remotely feasible with current technology. If there is more than one of these on approach vectors, there are no chances for a ship to survive even in theory. Well, unless your ship would be fine with multiple 20m+ holes in it and missiles were not nuclear. Current railguns are very inacurate at ranges over several hundred meters. That leaves laser systems. However, most powerful anti air lasers need between 10 and 25 seconds of direct contact to shoot down a military drone at a distance of 300-400m. That is not even close to an equivalent to a hypersonic cruise missile travelling at speeds of close to 1km per second, jumping out of the line of horison 10km from your ship.

The K-32 is not launched at 5m altitude. The US has proven the ability to intercept a missile going Mach 2.5 15 feet above the sea.

[Gaaz]

The K-32 is not launched at 5m altitude. The US has proven the ability to intercept a missile going Mach 2.5 15 feet above the sea.

Yeah... The problem is, as of february 2016 US military still struggled intercepting even subsonic cruise missiles during the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program tests. There is no reliable way to shoot down even older generation cruise missiles with current technology. Taking down modern armored cruise missiles like x-32 that fly faster than mach 4 (3 times faster than any naval interceptor max speed) and are designed to withstand impacts from 20mm cannon fire is a different thing entirely. Destroying one of these will be something of a miracle. But since a single TU-22M3M can carry 3 of them, I hope you can see that there can be "complications".
Current combat radius of carrier based interceptors in the US Navy is less than 800km. That leaves launch safety zones of more than 200km for approaching x-32 missile carriers.
As for intercepting missiles themselves, max altitude of x-35c is 18km, whereas x-32 can go up to 40km while cruising to the target. So this is not likely to work either. It will likely only go lower when accelerating for attack. And then becomes simply too fast for anything that exists anywhere in the world, not only the US.

[Kellhound]

Yeah... The problem is, as of february 2016 US military still struggled intercepting even subsonic cruise missiles during the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program tests. There is no reliable way to shoot down even older generation cruise missiles with current technology. Taking down modern armored cruise missiles like x-32 that fly faster than mach 4 (3 times faster than any naval interceptor max speed) and are designed to withstand impacts from 20mm cannon fire is a different thing entirely. Destroying one of these will be something of a miracle. But since a single TU-22M3M can carry 3 of them, I hope you can see that there can be "complications".
Current combat radius of carrier based interceptors in the US Navy is less than 800km. That leaves launch safety zones of more than 200km for approaching x-32 missile carriers.
As for intercepting missiles themselves, max altitude of x-35c is 18km, whereas x-32 can go up to 40km while cruising to the target. So this is not likely to work either. It will likely only go lower when accelerating for attack. And then becomes simply too fast for anything that exists anywhere in the world, not only the US.

The US Navy routinely downs Mach 2.5+ target missiles. A missile going Mach 4 is not going to survive intact being hit by another missile. Not only are the seeker head and control surfaces vulnerable, just disrupting the aerodynamics of the missile would be fatal for it.

The F-18E/F has an air superiority combat radius of 750km without drop tanks. Add in the range of the AMRAAM at 160km+ and the extra range provided by three 480 gallon drop tanks (increasing the aircraft's fuel load by 66%) and your safety zone is gone.

The flight ceiling for the SM-6 is greater than 34km, and for the SM-3 it is at least 160km. The Tu-22M can only carry 2 of the Kh-32s, which are very large missiles and easily spotted by Aegis at very long range.

One final thing, the radar horizon for a missile 5 meters off the water's surface against a radar 10 meters off of the water's surface is ~22km.

[Deleted]

K-32 can be set to as low as 5m altitude for it's approach vector. That means that ships defence systems will see it at an aproximate distance of 10km, depending on sensor positioning. That leaves a reaction window of just over 10 seconds to detect, acquire terget, aim your weapons systems at it, and to try to shoot it down, while it moves at mach 4+ and maneuveres on approach.

So you do not think the opponent will use picket ships and ariborne radars to get a extended time to track aim and fire?

So you think the missile will do mach 4+ at 5m height and maneuver sure it can do the mach 4+ in its stratosphere dive but not at 5 m in level flight.

[zmp]

This graph come from a list that includes such things like the Sabine Expedition, the Yellowstone Expedition, West Indies anti-piracy operations as a war. Its filled with information. And you could debate the definition of a "War" is.

So the graph might be "only" 75% red in your opinion?

[Ulmita]

As I have said before, smart people do not cross the nuclear threshold except in dire need. There are no nuclear armed ballistic missiles capable of targeting a moving ship at sea anyway.

So you want to say that the 2004 updated Su-27SM (remember that the Su-27 entered serial production the year F-15C production ended) is equal to the 1985 F-15C.... I will give you that.

The AIM-9B was the best IR missile in the world when it came out, your point? The R-74M only has a +/-75 deg off boresight capability, compared to the +/-90 deg capability of the current AIM-9X.

Listen Kell. All these are hypothetical scenarios and assumptions. I don't know what will happen in such scenario nor anyone else. However it would make sense to nuke them from any point of view. If i was in that position i would definitely use nuclear weapons against the carrier groups because the other solution would need me to commit immense assets to deal with them with uncertain results. If me nuking would trigger the adversary to nuke back my cities, i would respond in kind and that is that.

As for the missile you are mistaken.

AIM-9X block II Range: 26km
R-73m2 Range: 40 km

AIM-9X block II Speed​​: mach 2.5
R-73m2 Speed​​: Mach 2.5

AIM-9X block II FOV: 90 degrees
R-73m2 FOV: 120 degrees
off-boresight AIM-9X block II: 80 degrees
off-boresight R-73m2: 60 degrees (version of R-74 Off-Boresight Capability 75 degrees)

AIM-9X block II Lock on after launcher (but has changed with the new version of AIM-9X Block III LOBL)
R-73m2 Lock on before launcher

When the R-73 first came out, IT HAD NO ANALOGUES, it lost its supremacy when the Aim-9x appeared and regained it with the mod 2

Russia's Vympel weapons designers have developed a one-of-a-kind air-to-air missile, which NATO has dubbed as AA-11, for use on foreign fighter planes. Techically and militarily the new missile, meant for quick-action dogfights, leave its foreign analogues far behind. Vympel experts have also made it possible for the new missile to be easily installed on all available types of aircraft. The AA-11 can also be used on older planes which will now be able to effectively handle the US' highly maneuverable F-15 and F-16 jets. The AA-11 missile is based on all-new components, use new high-energy solid fuel and an advanced guidance and control system which has made it possible to minimize their size. Their exceptionally high accuracy is ensured by the missile's main secret, the so-called transverse control engine, which rules out misses during the final approach trajectory. The transverse control engine is still without parallel in the world.

extremely informative article here:http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Gen-4-AAM-97.html



Read some of the history there:

Closer to home, air superiority remains central to RAAF air power doctrine. The RAAF has always maintained a very high standard of operational proficiency and a technological advantage in the regional air superiority game. When the F/A-18A was acquired, regional capabilities were limited to the Flogger, Fishbed and Farmer, equipped with second generation AAMs. Such aircraft were no match for an F/A-18A shooting the AIM-9 Lima or Mike. The RAAF now faces a regional air combat environment where several players have deployed a range of Flanker variants equipped with a range of AAMs. The Flanker has twice the combat radius of the Hornet, better energy manoeuvrability, high angle of attack manoeuvrability, instantaneous turn rate, and equipped with the Archer and a HMS, a much better dogfight weapon system.

Since the Flanker's NIIP N-001 AI radar outranges the Hornet's APG-65, and the 50 NM Vympel R-77 / AA-12 Adder (Amraamski) outranges the BVR AIM-7M Sparrow, the F/A-18 has been clearly outclassed both in BVR and WVR combat, and outclassed in combat radius / combat persistance by a factor of two. The Flanker is now deployed regionally by India, China and Vietnam. The PRC is currently planning the licence production of the Su-27, and possibly later Flanker variants.

Also, you are completely ignoring the other missile systems that russia has. Anything from land to sea, sea to sea, land to air etc. Most of them have no analogues

[Marcellus1986]

Listen Kell. All these are hypothetical scenarios and assumptions. I don't know what will happen in such scenario nor anyone else. However it would make sense to nuke them from any point of view. If i was in that position i would definitely use nuclear weapons against the carrier groups because the other solution would need me to commit immense assets to deal with them with uncertain results. If me nuking would trigger the adversary to nuke back my cities, i would respond in kind and that is that.

As for the missile you are mistaken.



When the R-73 first came out, IT HAD NO ANALOGUES, it lost its supremacy when the Aim-9x appeared and regained it with the mod 2



extremely informative article here:http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Gen-4-AAM-97.html



Read some of the history there:


Also, you are completely ignoring the other missile systems that russia has. Anything from land to sea, sea to sea, land to air etc. Most of them have no analogues

Lol ausairpower... You could have linked RT and accomplished the same thing... Nothing. Kopp is a shill who cherry picks data to support his argument and findings.

[Logwyn]

So the graph might be "only" 75% red in your opinion?

I haven't done the research that it would take to determine it completely or correctly. My point is running around chasing Pirates isn't a war nor is sending a group of guys to patrol up and down the border a war either. The other problem with it is that if there was an armed conflict that lasted a month. Its counted as a whole year of war. But eh. Whatevers

Someone should do one on other countries too might be interesting.

[Kellhound]

Listen Kell. All these are hypothetical scenarios and assumptions. I don't know what will happen in such scenario nor anyone else. However it would make sense to nuke them from any point of view. If i was in that position i would definitely use nuclear weapons against the carrier groups because the other solution would need me to commit immense assets to deal with them with uncertain results. If me nuking would trigger the adversary to nuke back my cities, i would respond in kind and that is that.

As for the missile you are mistaken.



When the R-73 first came out, IT HAD NO ANALOGUES, it lost its supremacy when the Aim-9x appeared and regained it with the mod 2



extremely informative article here:http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Gen-4-AAM-97.html



Read some of the history there:


Also, you are completely ignoring the other missile systems that russia has. Anything from land to sea, sea to sea, land to air etc. Most of them have no analogues

So, you admit you are a madman with no concern about bringing on the end of the world. Thankfully, even Putin isnt as stupid as you.

Your range and speed numbers are for the AIM-9M, not the AIM-9X, which because of superior aerodynamics are higher for both. Seeker wise, the AIM-9X wins, off-boresight capability alone gives it a HUGE advantage (which oddly the article you linked proves). When the AIM-9B came out it was so revolutionary the Soviets built a direct copy of it, so direct parts were interchangeable between them! But the AIM-9B, like the R-73, has been surpassed in capability.

Your history is very much a history lesson as it is comparing a F-18A armed with AIM-9L/M and AIM-7M missiles compared to a Su-27 armed with AA-11 and AA-12. Of course the F-18 loses. The F-18A is NOT a F-18F armed with AIM-9X and AIM-120D.

I do not ignore other areas, the US and Russia/USSR had very different views/needs for missiles, thus they developed differently. The US has had no need to develop a "carrier killer" ASuW missile because they have had no super carriers to kill. The US hasnt developed massive numbers of SAMs because they believe in using air superiority to protect against enemy aircraft. However, naval SAMs are an area the US has been concerned with, and what do you know, the SM-6 is equal to the S-400's 40N6 missile despite being smaller, and the SM-3 is superior to the S-500. Tactical ASMs are in the US's favor. SLBMs are still in the US's favor (sorry Ulmi, but the Trident II has greater range, better accuracy, and higher throw weight than the Bulava (i.e it can carry more, heavier warheads)), and even the Sarmat is still not better than the retired Peacekeeper.

- - - Updated - - -

So the graph might be "only" 75% red in your opinion?

Lets see what that graph includes as "Major Wars" shall we?

1784-1795: Indian wars
1798-1800: Quasi-War
1801-1805: 1st Barbary War
1806: Sabine Expedition
1811: Indian war
1816-1818: Indian wars and anti piracy
1819-1820: Yellowstone Expedition and anti-piracy
1821-1822: anti piracy
1823: Indian war and anti piracy
1824: anti piracy
1825: Yellowstone Expedition and anti-piracy
1827: Indian war
1831-1839: Indian wars
1842: Indian war
1844-1845: Texas Indian wars WHILE TEXAS WAS NOT EVEN PART OF THE US
1849-1854: Indian wars
1856: Indian war
1860: Indian war
1868-1870, 1872: Indian wars and the "Franklin County War"
1873-1887, 1889-1892, 1894-1896: Indian wars and/or "U.S. forces invade Mexico"
1946-1949: Cold War
1955-1958, 1960: Vietnam War
1979-1980: Cold War
1981: Cold War and Gulf of Sidra
1982-1983: Cold War and Lebanon
1984-1987: Cold War and/or Persian Gulf Conflict
1992-1993, 1996: Conflict in Iraq

I know of no one that would count these either as major wars or involved any sizable US forces (with perhaps the exception of the 1st Barbary War).

[Gaaz]

Ulmita, if I remember correctly (and if the information was precise), Soviet plan to deal with one carrier battlegroup asked for 2-3 squadrons of Tu-22M's.
That means 40-60 strategic bombers for dealing with just one carrier and it's escorts.

Not going to count Tu-160 since their number is way too small and they simply are not meant to attack ships.

Nope. Squadron in russian airforce, when it comes to light ground (sea) attack craft consists of 10 (rarely 12) planes. When it comes to heavier craft, this number goes down, sometimes to 6 or even less. In Syria for example, a 1st squadron of SU-34 bombers consists of only 4 planes. A squadron of heavier TU-160 can be as little as 2 planes. Basically, 2-3 squadrons can mean as little as 4-12 aircraft.
Add to that a confusoin in that russians have two very similar sounding words: "Eskadrilia" (squadron) and "Eskadra" (if I type it correctly). The second is something close to a "wing" in the US. French also use the same designation system as russians, and british are stuck somewhere in between.

[Deleted]

Basically, 2-3 squadrons can mean as little as 4-12 aircraft.

So during the cold war they plane to send out ther plane in penny packet? No more then the carriers alert fighter was capable to decimate alone?

[Kellhound]

Nope. Squadron in russian airforce, when it comes to light ground (sea) attack craft consists of 10 (rarely 12) planes. When it comes to heavier craft, this number goes down, sometimes to 6 or even less. In Syria for example, a 1st squadron of SU-34 bombers consists of only 4 planes. A squadron of heavier TU-160 can be as little as 2 planes. Basically, 2-3 squadrons can mean as little as 4-12 aircraft.
Add to that a confusoin in that russians have two very similar sounding words: "Eskadrilia" (squadron) and "Eskadra" (if I type it correctly). The second is something close to a "wing" in the US. French also use the same designation system as russians, and british are stuck somewhere in between.

A Soviet Naval Aviation Regiment consisted of 3-5 squadrons with a total of 40-60 bombers. Plus all of the Recon, ECM, and tanker planes.....

[Easo]

I agree that's why i lean more to the nuclear option, aka using icbm - mrbm (even slbm) or nuclear torpedoes / cruise missiles against them. The carrier group is a sitting duck against a variety of attacks.

How exactly do you plan to target ballistic missiles against moving target somewhere in the sea? Nuclear torpedoes? You have to get really, really close. Carrier battle group includes attack submarine too.

Nope. Squadron in russian airforce, when it comes to light ground (sea) attack craft consists of 10 (rarely 12) planes. When it comes to heavier craft, this number goes down, sometimes to 6 or even less. In Syria for example, a 1st squadron of SU-34 bombers consists of only 4 planes. A squadron of heavier TU-160 can be as little as 2 planes. Basically, 2-3 squadrons can mean as little as 4-12 aircraft.
Add to that a confusoin in that russians have two very similar sounding words: "Eskadrilia" (squadron) and "Eskadra" (if I type it correctly). The second is something close to a "wing" in the US. French also use the same designation system as russians, and british are stuck somewhere in between.

I meant 40-60 planes, I don't remember the word in Russian, squadron was the closest one I could remember to the correct word in Latvian (pulks).

[Ulmita]

So, you admit you are a madman with no concern about bringing on the end of the world. Thankfully, even Putin isnt as stupid as you.

I'd be a madman if i committed my whole airforce to deal with the American carrier groups. Also, madman would be the person in charge of the invading force not the one defending. Again Kell, the nuclear option is the best option to deal with the carrier groups. Cheap and the most effective, you take them down or render them unusable in matter of minutes.

SM-3 is superior to the S-500. Tactical ASMs are in the US's favor.

Why are you comparing a missile system with a missile lol? Also, in addition to your SM-6 comment:

Lets see:

Characteristics	SM-3 (block IIA)	SM-6	40N6
Max. Velocity	16200 kph	4500 kph	17200 Kph
Max. Altitude	??	34 Km	185 Km
Max. Range	700 km	250 Km	400 Km

Also, the 40N6 is just a first missile of a series of hypersonic missiles. The range of the S-400 is limited by the treaty thats BUT there is a naval version of it almost completed and i would assume with a greater range since there is no treaty for sea missiles.

SLBMs are still in the US's favor (sorry Ulmi, but the Trident II has greater range, better accuracy, and higher throw weight than the Bulava (i.e it can carry more, heavier warheads)), and even the Sarmat is still not better than the retired Peacekeeper.

Russian's build the Bulava with emphasis on avoiding the BMD systems the America has. You see those missiles can alter speed and trajectory mid flight in order to avoid your SM-6 or w/e you throw to them. This is something the Americans DREAM of having.

As for the Peacekeeper i wont even try to get into detail why a 3rd generation icbm is shit in comparison to a 5th gen.