Anticipating & countering future military threats/challenges

[Manish_Sharma]

If the other guy has 5000 swords, making 10000 sword yourself is only a half measure. manufacture 10,000 shields to protect against his 5000 swords and use your swords where he does not have shields.

Sorry for misunderstanding, you are right I did misunderstand as if you were saying "let's manufacture 10,000 shields instead of 10,000 swords".

Thank you for clarification.

[Nihat]

Nice dhaaga we have going here.

As a future conflict scenario I've always been concerned about the Chinese "doing a Kargil" in the peaks of Arunachal, what would our response be and do we have a deterrant in place.

Recent developments have given me hope that the response would be hard and swift but do the resources we are putting there a credible deterrant to the Chinese.

4 Mountain Divisions based in Arunachal = Roughly 65,000 boots on the ground.
M777 light howitzers = 150+ (extremly portable)
2 Squadrons of MKI in North Assam for Quick counter = 36- 40 armed jets
Re-activation of ALG's giving heavy lift cabability
Building of strategic roads.
Squadrons of Akash SAM

IMHO the above looks like a credible deterrent given that they can mobalize as quickly if not quicker than any Chinese forces can but what do the experts have to say.

Since all of the above inductions are underway, would the Chinese attempt anything funny in the future.

[shiv]

Nihat - anyone who "does a Kargil" will need to supply his men. If we are going to say "We do not want to cross the LoC" then we will have a Kargil. The surest and simplest way of killing a Kargil is to kill the supply lines.

What do we need to kill supply lines and prevent a Kargil.

My views as an armchair general

1) Good intel. Continuous surveiilance
2) PGMs to take out bridges and cause landslides across roads
3) Artillery
4) Counter attack to take and control territory where feasible.
5) Air dominance

As an aside - is an ABM system an offensive or a defensive weapon? What does it become if it is used to take out a satellite?

[bmallick]

Hello, first of all I would like to extend my greetings to everybody and hope that I would be able to give my two cents to the discussions in this forum.

Shiv sir, I concur in general with what you are saying.

I believe that at least in the near term a full scale war with Pakistan is most probably out of question, for the simple reason being that as long as US thinks that Pakistan is needed for the 'war of terror', it would not allow a full scale war between Pakistan and India. Such a war would be counter productive for US as Pak resources( I feel the most important resource in war or for that matter in any endeavour is the good old human being ) that are currently being used for fighting US's terror war would needless be diverted to the Indian front. However under these circumstances we should not feel that Pakistan too would be kept under check by US.

If I were a Pak general in charge of the proxy war with India, I would be more than eager to use these very circumstances for escalating the proxy war with India, knowing fully well that I have a big brother who would do his best to prevent Indian retaliation. The parliament attack being a case in point, was it a mere coincidence that just when the US war on terror started after 9/11 and importance of Pakistan increased greatly vis-a-vis America, there was an attack on Parliament of India. Was it done to check what would be India's response and how the world ( read US) would react and check India's response?Was it done to test the waters so to speak. Though people may criticize me saying that I am reading too much, it must be a coincidence; such an attack would take months if not years to plan and Pakistan probably did not have much time after the start of war on terror to plan and execute the attack on parliament. Maybe it is too much of a coincidence, but maybe the plan was there, just that the execution was done at the opportune moment. Hasn't the terror attacks in general increased since war on terror started and Pakistan becoming confident of indirect protection.

What I am driving at is that under these circumstances it becomes more imperative that we as a nation prepare for an asymmetric warfare because unfortunately we are in the in the midst of one, one which I believe would only intensify.

So what shall we do? Well firstly if the enemy wants us to bleed to death by a thousand cuts, we should first make sure that we have have the wherewithal to put a band aid on a cut as soon as it come. No point in ignoring the bleeding and go ahead and punch the enemy. All the enemy has to do is survive long enough to see us become weak by bleeding and then do whatever they want to do. So as Shiv sir said a good offense can only stand on the shoulder of a good defense.

So what do we do?
1. strengthen internal security apparatus to better deal with terrorism(its nothing by asymmetric warfare).
2. increase internal intelligence.
3. probably most important, please give the poor policeman better training and equipment and yes better pay so that he can at least he can make a living.

Can these be done in a year or two, probably not, but at least we should start with a zeal and energy as if possessed. But frankly this would be a slow process and before this bears fruit sadly we would have lost quite a bit of Indian blood.

What about surgical strike, some say. Well, I think any surgical strike by India would be considered an act of war by Pakistan and we would probably end up in war. The Pakistani power structure would be under tremendous pressure to declare war. It is an interesting option for India to do surgical strike and precipitate things to full scale war, because that's where we probably hold the edge. Fighting the enemy on terms where we are better at rather than a slow and painful war on terror. But this too is flirting with danger as we do not know for sure beyond how much pain would Pakistan go for the nuclear remedy.

[ShauryaT]

As an aside - is an ABM system an offensive or a defensive weapon? What does it become if it is used to take out a satellite?

Defensive in war time, offensive in peace time?

[vasu_ray]

one would probably see a deluge of these minisubs in the Arabian sea from TSP soon given its NK links

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100605/ap_ ... ip_sinking

[sawant]

Does asymmetric warfare also mean the liberty to use 'asymmetric' amount of force ? To me the talk of surgical strike seems fraught with uncertainties. Instead why not pummel the border areas with heavy artillery like Smerch and incapacitate border forces... all of this means we are maintaining 'restraint' and not going beyond the threshold. We have to come up with ways to challenge thresholds and not let the other party define it ... I think as far as u make the enemy forces suffer, you are keeping the civilian pressure in check and yet ensuring pain is being inflicted.

[sawant]

one would probably see a deluge of these minisubs in the Arabian sea from TSP soon given its NK links

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100605/ap_ ... ip_sinking

This only makes me fear what kind of a pussy we will become if we don't stop running to Unkil for candy... If u look at SK, even with US hardware, they can not punish NK for any reason, even when the crime is proven. What is Pak sinks our ship ?? again restraint !

[brihaspati]

Asymmetric warfare becomes successful by the perpetrator if and only if the perpetrator enjoys the support - ideological and material - from a significant number of countries and powers. In all the successes that have been discussed here so far, the "guerrillas" or "terrorists" succeeded because they could not be isolated completely and completely delegitimized internationally.

India needs to clear up its external policy - whether to expand or not. If it does choose in favour of expansion (perhaps not many alternative left too for a static defense will eventually lead to Indian retreat), then the "asymmetric" war needs to be carried over into the "perpetrator's" territory. The best bet perhaps is to encourage Balochs and Uighurs . For both, and more so for Uighurs this may very well mean coming to an understanding with the Talebs.

The basic problem of the ultimate conflict is that the civilian population of India has to be gradually prepared for the consequences of a nuclear and conventional attack by China and the Pakis. The main concern, cynically of course, in the war scenario is that the fighting capacity - the military and its supply infrastructure is protected until victory and destruction of the regimes completely to the point of never to be recovered.

If the basic fighting units can be concentrated quickly into the heart land of the "enemy" away from Indian borders, then the nukes from the enemy are not really effective in military terms. The interior of India will take hits - but this damage can be managed if there is a comprehensive plan to distribute population concentrations around to dilute targeting effectiveness.

My hunch will be that Pakis will not use all or even most of their nukes, facing a massive conventional assault that quickly can concentrate close to their power bases. They will try to preserve and move the nukes to regions or countries for safe keeping to use for a hoped for later resurgence. By all means they should be allowed to hope for such an escape route and cut it off at the last moment.

India's pretension of no aggressive action can only be effective if India simultaneously has a concrete political decision of completely subjugating areas currently under Paki occupation. So more important than (or perhaps equally important) matching of weapons, a clear political decision is needed.

[shiv]

Does asymmetric warfare also mean the liberty to use 'asymmetric' amount of force ?

Interesting interpretation.

But I think the evolution of the term asymmetric warfare has come form Amrika. So we have to put ourselves in Amriki shoes to see how they define it. The US has for decades been able to do what you say - i.e. use an "asymmetric amount of force". This is not called asymmetry. It is called "preparedness" or "adequate military strength"

But the US found, starting from Vietnam, that the ability to use asymmetric force did not translate to victory (like in WW2). It was then realised that there were methods of fighting that could be used to bypass the overwhelming asymmetric force of the US and still keep the war going effectively, preventing the victory of the person who had the "asymmetric superior firepower". So this came to be called "asymmetric warfare"

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

4 Mountain Divisions based in Arunachal = Roughly 65,000 boots on the ground.
---
---
Re-activation of ALG's giving heavy lift cabability
----

<SNIP>

A small correction - (a) Two Mountain divisions are for NE (already raised) and other two (of which news came recently) are for Northern Command Area. These will be most probably dual tasked for LOC as well.

(b) There is a reason that ALG are called Advanced Landing Ground - They will permit at the max. an AN-32...so, while ALG allow for accessibility, the "heavy airlift" part is not applicable. But what will be interesting to see if the C-130J and MTA can land on these ALG.This should allow for more payload.

[Manish_Sharma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDeljava_Air_Base

Nice read about underground Air Base which could withstand 20 kt hit. Would it be too expensive to have 20-25 squadrons under such Airbases?

[ashthor]

Can anyone enlighten as to how the cyberworld will be lightened up during a threat and
how will it affect us both militarily as well as corporate/civilian? What can we do to limit the threat.

How will our politicians respond? Timid/brave/look at unkil/will find new ways to make money and stay in power.

[Craig Alpert]

Boeing starts war gaming den in India

The US defense major Boeing has started an Analysis and Experimentation Center in Bangalore in partnership with the Indian government-owned defense company Bharat Electronics Limited.

So far soft-launched, the center will conduct studies for clients that require projections of play-outs of future conflict scenario. Boeing’s International Director of Analysis and Experimentation, Eugene Beckles says the Indian Integrated Defense Staff (IDS), the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) have been apprised of the opportunities this unit would present them to better plan their acquisitions and structures for future conflicts. He says the reaction so far has been ‘mixed’.

....................................

One simulation was run for the benefit of visiting journalists.

It visualized the neutralization of a hostile insurgent group armed with biological weapons on one of the Andaman islands.

......................

[kallol]

Moved from Technology thread.


I have been a Scientist in Government organization for long time. During my tenure in Government I had suggested a comprehensive network of arrays for peninsular India to identify and track unknown vessels (only bigger vessels) which will provide the much needed security during war. I believe that a similar prototype is being tested.

With the Mumbai incident, I was wondering if we can have some monitoring systems like the
geostationary satellites which will keep constant watch on the crucial and troubled areas.
However geostationary satellites can only be at 36000 kms above and might not have the right
resolutions to be effective.

It occurred to me that blimps with right sensors can act as low height geostationary
station.

These can be deployed over cities, forests, coastline, LOC and other vital strategic places.
Being at a height of 25 km, it is beyond reach of guns, fighter aircrafts, civil aircrafts, etc. These
blimps can stay afloat and keep its position for 7-10 years with solar energy supplement. They
can be brought down in a controlled way to replenish and redeploy. These can also be
controlled to move from one place to another.

Having the right sensors, cameras and SARs, these can be deadly tools against terrorism, Naxals, poachers, riots and other crimes. It can also monitor 24X7 the LOC and the ocean passages.

Hardly any technology is there to detect small dingies, LOCs forests effectively. These blimps can be the right tools to control these menaces.

Now we have all the necessary technology to monitor and curb crimes. We can also retract the
grave to cradle path after an incident. So tracking the origins of criminal activities become easy.
Cost wise it will be much cheaper for similar kind of monitoring by other means. This can
be implemented by ISRO and DRDO. Similar systems are being developed and deployed by US and research is going on on this (DARPA) along with Raeython for the right payload and dedicated radar system.

This is one tool, we need to have a network of, which will provide the right security cover for the cities, forests, LOC and maritime boundary.

[shiv]

This is a cross post from a now locked thread:

I have been a Scientist in Government organization for long time. During my tenure in Government I had suggested a comprehensive network of arrays for peninsular India to identify and track unknown vessels (only bigger vessels) which will provide the much needed security during war. I believe that a similar prototype is being tested.

With the Mumbai incident, I was wondering if we can have some monitoring systems like the
geostationary satellites which will keep constant watch on the crucial and troubled areas.
However geostationary satellites can only be at 36000 kms above and might not have the right
resolutions to be effective.

It occurred to me that blimps with right sensors can act as low height geostationary
station.

These can be deployed over cities, forests, coastline, LOC and other vital strategic places.
Being at a height of 25 km, it is beyond reach of guns, fighter aircrafts, civil aircrafts, etc. These
blimps can stay afloat and keep its position for 7-10 years with solar energy supplement. They
can be brought down in a controlled way to replenish and redeploy. These can also be
controlled to move from one place to another.

Having the right sensors, cameras and SARs, these can be deadly tools against terrorism, Naxals, poachers, riots and other crimes. It can also monitor 24X7 the LOC and the ocean passages.

Hardly any technology is there to detect small dingies, LOCs forests effectively. These blimps can be the right tools to control these menaces.

Now we have all the necessary technology to monitor and curb crimes. We can also retract the
grave to cradle path after an incident. So tracking the origins of criminal activities become easy.
Cost wise it will be much cheaper for similar kind of monitoring by other means. This can
be implemented by ISRO and DRDO. Similar systems are being developed and deployed by US and research is going on on this (DARPA) along with Raeython for the right payload and dedicated radar system.

This is one tool, we need to have a network of, which will provide the right security cover for the cities, forests, LOC and maritime boundary.

[shiv]

The question of defence against cruise missiles came up in the two front war thread. Long long ago I had wondered on this forum whether barrage balloons would help vital installations thwart cruise missile attacks.

I was fascinated to read in the latest issue of Vayu that barrage balloons could have a role in thwarting anti-runway munitions. How? I don't know. need to probe this more deeply.

[Pratyush]

If one is looking at defending from ccruse missiles, then just improve the shorad and Vshorad ccapability of the defender. No need to get hyper technologies. Just plain vanilla systems will do the trick

[ManuT]

I remember, in 1991, seeing a cartoon about the future, in a magazine of a person on a computer reading 'you are being hit by an earthquake right now'. That future is here today.

Anyone on the front foot will get only 15 mins worth of element of surprise at the max, (before the news channel break it) and the maxim that the battle plan lasts only the first15 mins of the war is even more true today.

Moreover, any large troop concentration will be in the knowledge of at least 4 countries, even if it is within 96 hours. This would lead to intense backroom diplomacy and pressure even before the outbreak of hostilities. The engagement will go hot, only if the PM of the day has made a decision in advance and not as the situation builds up, or else there will be just a poached frog.

At the onset, the only thing that matters are CAPABILITIES alone. During Kargil conflict, there was an overwhelming response at the recruitment centres to sign up. (By the time the movie on it was released things were back to normal though) The sentiment is fine, by that time it is a bit too late. Last time I checked, there is a shortage of 15000 Officers, that is a not brawn but brains. Shortage of 15,000 in a country of 1 billion!

As someone said, 'there is only one rule of the game - SPEED'. Speed in acquisitions, Speed in decision making, Speed in action.

In 1965, had the Indian Defence Minister Chavan waited for the Cabinet to figure out how to respond everything might have been lost. He, asked IA to get a move on right away, informing the PM later. Cabinet met the next day. That is just not possible today, in case, an enemy takes the initiative.

Between 1962 and 1965 a lot of changes were done, enough to change the outcome. (I do think, India kicked Pakistan's butt and that not that it was not an == affair). The one lesson GoI should learn from it, is to bring back Emergency Commissions to be that its required officer strength. This not an increase, but a correction of an existing deficiency. I would like to remind, that PC was deeply concerned (a year back) about the shortage of 200 IPS Officers that it impacts his capacity to deal with the naxal problem. Hence, this should be an obvious step. No DRDO, tender business involved. Just GoI notifications will do.

I want to put an idea out there about how folks on BR can possibly impact the acquisitions. It might be a bit OT here but I am little pressed for time. Please bear with me.

There can be a 4 step process.

Step 1: Create a spreadsheet, for lack of a better term, Just call it the BR Overt Capabilities Indicator.

This should cover Strategic, Army, Navy, Air Force. (CPOs to be added later)
1. It should list all the acquisitions that the forces are trying or are in the process of acquiring? (from Gruskhov to RT guns to LCA)
2. It should include the critical level of the equipment (that is it is needed NOW, 2 years from now, 5 years from now, etc). This should be color coded Red and Green. Red indicating anything less than induction.
3. When it was originated.
4. It should include it is indigenous or foreign in origin.
5. What is the original target for delivery.
6. At what stage it is, in terms of induction. i.e. RFI, RFP, Tender, Trials, delivery, partial delivery, induction, development of tactics, staffing, effectiveness.
7. If it has not been acquired, with which department the file is, Forces, MoD, Finance Ministry, DRDO, MEA, Foreign party/ country?
8. For how long was the file with a particular department.
9. Reason for delay.
10. On which date did the date change or finally inducted?

Step 2: Create a 'babu wall of shame' on BR.
Create the a babu wall of shame that will list all the item in red, and the Ministry, Department or the Arm responsible for the delay with the top Secretary for that ministry (no politicians, only to make them irrelevant) getting the 'honors' for the delay.
This can be a monthly vote by the BR members or can be by the time of the delay.

Step 3: Garland them.
At the end of the year, declare annual awards to them as the 'babu of the year'.

Step 4: Invite the press.
Notify the babu and the media of the annual rankings and awards (What the heck everyone is doing it for stars, leaders, cars, bikes, etc, these days). Facilitate the babu by sending them virtual 'donkeys' or 'slippers' or 'rotten tomatoes' and a Certificate on behalf of BR.

If there can be a system by which the delays are tracked and made available to public to make their own opinion, they will and BR can have a positive impact.

back to lurking... Thanks

[shiv]

Om Ganeshaya namah

(Always start with an invocation to Ganesha )

SHOOTING DOWN THE F22 RAPTOR

Disclaimers:

• I think the Raptor is a great aircraft
• I think the PAKFA is also likely to be a great machine and would be happy to see it or a derivative in India
• I am not going to make any claims of knowing how to shoot down a Raptor

Having done the initial formalities, I just want to make a few points on the general topic of shooting down the Raptor. I will start with a story. Many decades ago in my school bus were two second standard kids who were arguing Both of them are now married and one is an accomplished doctor in Yamerika - but I digress. The argument was about how one kid was going to dominate the other and went something like this

I'll bash you
No I'll bash you
I'll call my father
My father can bash yours
My father will bring his car
My father will bring a bus
My father will bring a truck
My father will being a fire engine

The point I am trying to make here is that for each child - each weapon was invincible. It would end the battle. Each weapon could not be defeated by what the child had in his mind as a "lesser weapons". Truck could never defeat fire engine. The technicalities of how these weapons could be used or neutralised were not important to the kids.

Now if you scour the internet about facts and data about how to defeat stealth you get two viewpoints:
1) Stealth is important, although there are ways of defeating stealth. But nobody, NOBODY who has thought of effective ways of defeating or neutralizing stealth is making anything public.
2) Most of the information from stealth fanboys on the net comes from the same one or two sources. The same facts and figures are quoted over and over again indicating that information about stealth and certainly its weaknesses if any are a very closely guarded secret. In fact everything seems to have been done to promote US stealth fighters as invincible and that the end of warfare as we know it has come.

So when you look at some sites on the net where stealth is discussed the arguments end up looking like the car-bus-truck-fire-engine argument I heard many years ago. The people who know are not saying anything. If someone knows how to defeat stealth, he is not telling because something will be done to counter that. If someone knows some weakness of stealth machines, he is not telling. he is only saying 'There is no weakness. It is perfect.

I note that not a few statements about the Raptor end up suggesting that once Raptors come in - everyone else had better run. Just give up. Stop fighting. And indeed just such a statement has been made right here on this forum. The real world does not work that way. If it did the Vietnamese and the Taliban would have stopped fighting.

So the first thing I want to say is - for every Raptor sent into battle, there is an "opposing side" who will have to face the might of that Raptor. When you are actually fighting that Raptor (as opposed to being a fanboy who is happy merely predictig and second guessing the mindset of the person facing the Raptor) you do not have the luxury of saying "Oh I won't fight. Something is killing my people. I don't know what is killing them. Must be the Raptor. So I give up"

For this reason all talk of the Raptor ends up being uninformative bullshit that repeats the same info on the net over and over again.

The fact is if an armed force has to face a Raptor, they have to fight despite that Raptor. And they have to fight to win. How is that possible? That is what we need to talk about. Oh yes I can think of many ways in which an attacking force of Raptors can, like the India Pakistan border, be "rendered irrelevant". Of course every one of these scenarios clearly shows that Raptors are not going to be defeated easily and will cause much havoc. But the whole idea is to expect that havoc, expect attrition, expect losses and still win in the end. That is the idea of fighting a war.

I am merely throwing this discussion open. I am certain there are ways to defeat a force that has Raptors. One may not even have to defeat the Raptors - but the way may be to render the effect of Raptors irrelevant in the war. Similar things have been done in previous wars - but it requires one's mind to be open to the fact that there surely are some methods to defeat a force of Raptors and that dismssing that subject of "defeat of Raptor" like fanboys tend to do is not the way of gaining any insight into how a military that has to face a Raptor might think.

Will stop for now. More later.

[Mr_Li]

i am merely throwing the discussion open

1) radar is not the only way to "see" an aircraft.
2) highly tuned array of audio sensors at strategic locations can also indicate the vector (speed and direction) of a raptor (or any other a/c) - this works at night too
3) even a raptor (or a dozen raptors) can be fooled into thinking that a formation of 20 mig-21s are 80 LCAs, and a raptor will most likely turn around. Because a Losing a raptor is very expensive indeed, and a returning raptor is as good as dead.
4) a raptor formation can be detected in future by sensitive satellite based detectors.
5) a tune-able radar (one that is tuned to only detect dragony sized objects) are being designed in many countries - look for a dragonfly that flies at supersonic speeds
6) given an array of detection methodologies and counter attack scheme it can be a very expensive proposition to send in a raptor squadron against a sophisticAted enemy. Leaving raptors solely for use against only iraqs of the world.

My two RMB only

[Vivek Raghuvanshi]

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general ... posal.html

China-Pakistan rail link proposal news

[Carl_T]

So what are some scenarios in which a team of mig/sukhoi/any other plane can defeat Raptors? Not saying there are no such scenarios, but how likely are those scenarios? Would the US have thought of them and drawn up plans to prevent them?


Also, is stealth the only strength of the F-22?

[shiv]

So what are some scenarios in which a team of mig/sukhoi/any other plane can defeat Raptors? Not saying there are no such scenarios, but how likely are those scenarios? Would the US have thought of them and drawn up plans to prevent them?


Also, is stealth the only strength of the F-22?

I think that this question needs to be approached bit by bit.

Stealth is the single most important characteristic that is needed at crucial times when major enemy assets have to be destroyed - lie radars, airfields and shooting down an AWACS. Secondly the Raptors may not be sent in alone, they could come "hidden" among say F/A 18s and remain undetected long enough to do a specific job. If it is rendering an airfield unusable it may have to get physically close to the airfield. But if it is to take out an AWACS - it merely has to get within BVR range.

So the first step is to analyse how Raptors would be used, and to think of ways of merely reducing the damage caused by Raptors while giving the impression that they have done great damage or giving the impression that defenders are scared to fight.

Another scenario would be Raptors waiting stealthily to pounce on any defender who comes to intercept a flight of attacking unstealthy F/A 18s. In this scenario a numbers game could put the Raptors at risk. Possible ways would be to allow the attacking aiircraft to carry out their mission, and send fighters to intercept the returning F/A 18s knowing that Raptors in the air would be waiting to get these defenders and send in a large number of supporting fighters to spot and get a Raptor or at least pose a deadly numerical challenge to the force. If interceptors and the attacking aircraft are very close together BVR combat would risk getting a friendly and Raptors could be forced to break the BVR advantage and come in close. Here a numbers game would put Raptors at risk.

Of course there are counters to every one of these scenarios - but it would be unwise to assume that having Raptors in your side enables you to get away and move to outright victory.

Another point is (and I am looking for info on the subject) - even Raptors become visible to radars when they are 40 km or closer. Remember that all aerial combat since the beginning of aviation have been fought at distances of less than 10 km, except for recent (last 15 years) US (and maybe some Israeli ad Saudi) air combat . If you remove the BVR advantage by some way and force close in combat - you can put Raptors at risk

[negi]

While it will take time for multi static Radars or other exotic forms of detection schemes to find active use to counter stealth AC a country can still ramp up its ADS to counter the F-22. The key point to note is F-22 by itself wont be able to achieve its primary objective of attaining air superiority it would actually closely work alongside the EW AC like the growler and depend on the AWACS cover for penetrating the enemy air defenses in LPI mode (operating APG-77 in passive mode) , if the adversary can force the F-22 to use the APG-77 in active mode long before it enters its air space then it can be brought down by directing interceptors or even command guided missiles (using APG-77's emissions for tracking the Raptor) . So if one employs long range S band radars to detect lumbering AWACs AC near its air space and has decent long range SAM systems to take out the AWACs from a stand off distance it will ensure that AWACs wont be able to extend Radar cover for strike missions and the Raptor would have to switch the APG-77 into active mode.

[hnair]

Some kindergartner was talking about beams at one point, but we thought he dropped his binky in the sand

IIRC Raptor flies higher than most aircraft, to utilize the higher launch velocity of missiles. At those heights, atmospheric distortions to strong beams can be lower and adaptive optics does its job. Much before the Pak FA flew, we see a hastening up of khan's tactical laser programs that can be carried by fighter sized aircraft. Fuse together a good radar and optical sensors and the Raptor would be spotted at reasonable distance to cue up the optical thingies. All it needs to cook is the prescribed lasing time (which can be reduced exponentially with advances, unlike the missile speed to the target) for crisping up the Raptor's skin, despite all the makeup. Dodging a lock-on by such a system by even a fast craft like Raptor is, suffice to say hard, unless it dives straight into a large cloud bank etc (which makes it a bit of an expensive wussy). Same for whatever counter fire the Raptor fires at such a platform. Can be shot down by the defending platform with ease.

So IMO, the Raptor in its present form is a rather dead end, unless it too carries the same systems. Which again could be carried by a less stealthy and inexpensive existing platform. The Raptor in its present form is like the space shuttle. It might be "better" than the Soyuz, but the civilian programs doesn't need its complicated glide features and has a choice for something simpler in design for civilian needs. Even NASA (as well as us and the Chinese) has realized this and decided to sacrifice glide back (as well as mythical re-usability) for cost effective launches. Of course, military applications are different and there might not be an armada waiting to pull a returned capsule from the ocean during war time. So we see space planes programs still happening there, so the crafts can return to base on their own for faster turnaround. But still even these are going up as payloads inside shrouds, rather than as carriers (like shuttles in the STS).

Anyways, I am biased, for I am solidly in YF23 camp. I love its design and its cost effectiveness as an exhibit.

[Mr_Li]

Q & A for Raptor Killer Excersize
=====================

1) where is the theater of engagement?
( in and around Indian air space ?)

in that case raptors will fly in from TSP badlands?
Or Diego Garcia? (definitely not from Utah)

2) what is the asset priority
(allow a ship to be sunk but rapti is detected before it hits a nuke power plant)

3) what A/C and missiles are available for defense
(today's? Bisons and MKIs)
(tomorrows? LCAs and EF typhoons?
(futuristic? PAK FA and UCAV?)

4) what SAMs and radars are used?

5) who is the adversary and who are the allies?

6) who is the nations leader
(is he/she a peacenik or churchilllski)

7) what is the nuclear threshold?
(if a raptor attacks from Diego Garcia,
what if we take out Diego Garcia with multiple nuclear strikes)

moral of the story:
Raptor killing is not just a pokemon computer game but should be viewed in a broad geo- political sense and then one can come up with thousand ways to render that white elephant irrevelant....

[arindam]

Pretty much new to the forum and please I might be grossly wrong.

The way I see China as of now it somehow gives me the ideal concept of a brute-force algorithm; nothing complex, nothing superior probably very effective. Do mind by "effective" I am in no way challenging or undermining India's capability to withstand or better off completely thwarting it.

Maybe because of my naivety but it truly gives me scare by just imagining the aspect of a barrage of cruise missile strike by China against India. When 3 US subs resurfaced with around 462 or so Tomahawk near China, it sent cold chills down the spine of China and it started barking aloud. It probably scared the hell (I hope) and now imagine the number of cruise missile that China has fielded against India as we speak. Why is it not scaring us and indeed if it is doing so then what are we doing to give ourselves comfort? Please do not get me wrong here but I believe only fools don’t get scared. We get scared but do not leave the scene; we stand ground and fight with best judgement and plan.

The way China operates on number is it not possible that they might have already earmarked say 100 for Delhi, another 100 for Mumbai etc... Say each progressing day of the battle they choose to bleed India with one city a day, sounds childish or some kind of divine justice but the essence is scary. We never know what we are loosing today. Even if India continues to hold china at the border with superior air support at the border region but who will take care of the swarms of missile attack. They would surely target the high value assets like factories, HQs etc. Severely crippling the ability to replenish the mechanized units or air assets and in the mean time our brave jawans holding the regular army/airforce of China at the border.

It is like the dragon vs the mighty elephant. Let us just assume for arguments sake that the dragon can't breathe fire. The elephant with its mighty great white tusk able to defend against the full frontal blow of the dragon, swinging it wildly with great sound and the dragon not able to do any all out attack except one and only possibility of charging gung-ho and getting severely injured in the process. What about the tail then? The sharp edged long tail which the dragon can wield at its discretion and bleeding the elephant to death or further worse severely injuring it and bringing it down on its knees, without even charging at the elephant, all the while keeping it busy with the defence and then blow after blow of the long reaching tail. What good is the mighty tusk against the tail, which is too flexible and agile for the elephant?

The white tusk along with the elephant thus in my view is the Indian armed forces and the tail of the dragon is the Chinese missiles.
Are we capable enough to defend our own cities of the missile attack? How many SAMs do we have at our disposal? How effective are they against an impending Chinese cruise barrage? How effective is our entire ADM systems? Do we have enough overlapping radar coverage, satellite convergence to track and destroy any impending Chinese cruise shower.

Say for example sake we kept the enemy at bay and best case sliced off a portion of land to bring the adversary to the table but what good will it serve against the severely crippled industry? The damage has been done and India is back by a decade or two in all aspect. Whereas China with its landmass and everything, maybe back by a decade in military aspect but what about the other industrial aspects which probably is pretty much intact. Surely India will also inflict damage but to what extent? How can we bleed the Chinese with whatever we have got?

The above scenario timing may be within the next 5 years. Maybe within the 5 to 10 years window India will be competent enough to retaliate at China with massive conventional blow, maybe not enough to bring the dragon to its knees, but at least inflict certain amount of damage if not equal to deter China from attacking India. I guess China will not risk its infrastructure against Indian missiles once India has a massive load of those to pop holes in that nation.

Considering no nuclear confrontation and with 300KM limit of Brahmos it severely restricts the infrastructure damage that India could inflict on China. The country having human right violation as a state agenda wouldn’t mind killing its own people for the sake of slowing India down and slice of a strategic piece of land from India. Utter humiliation of India and bolstering its own claim for world supremacy. The heyday of west is gone and China does really need a strong example to set precedence.

I somehow tend to believe that we need a huge stockpile of conventional missiles. Supersonic, hypersonic, subsonic whatever it takes the agenda is to have it long range; enough to cover the entire Chinese industrial belt and give a tit for tat/an eye for an eye treatment. Even though we will be blind doesn’t matter, we are going to get blind anyway. China is already poking into our eyes, now we need to decide do we poke back hard or not.

In a nutshell, the current endeavor of ADM might be fine or rather that needs speeding up too along with surveillance but we definitely need to increase the production of long range conventional cruise missiles and have them in multiple of thousands. The effectiveness of defense against a cruise shower is yet to be proven(I am not skeptical, but just in case) but the effectiveness of hundreds of cruise missile is already proven. The message is clear “Buddy, you touch my land, I will go back a decade and so do you” and with the kind of aspiration China is having as of now, I guess it won’t go for a full frontal attack only then.

[Indranil]

Shivji, Thank you for starting this chain of thought.

Let me put my perspective of the fanboish defence of the F-22 on the Pak-FA thread. I too, like anyone here want India to have the best plane (solution) in the world. I too am equally enthusiastic and adore the Pak-FA. But where I differ is that I don't want nationalism to mask our judgement. The worst that we can do is underestimate or talk down a real threat. I don't know if the F-22 will ever be a threat to us, but as of now (let me say for close to decade from now) we are not in a position to challenge F-22 as a machine. That doesn't mean that we would sit on our hands if the challenge ever presents itself. Infact the Pak-FA is one of the outcomes of trying to challenge the F-22. Phillipji is right when he says, we can get and maintain 3 Pak-FAs at the price of 1 F-22. And that in my opinion is the turning point along with the fact that in combat the F-22's uptime may not be as high as the Flanker brothers. However, if you pitch machine against machine, the F-22 (atleast going by specs) is an unmatched plane. That's all I meant. Please point me towards spec-wise limitations of the F-22. Something which we can use against the F-22.

Also please bear in mind that on the Pak-FA thread I opposed F-22 being compared with the Su-30MKI. I would be very glad to know scenarios where the Su-30 is going to have an upperhand on the F-22, considering both of them have enough fuel, and are not outnumbered. I have thought of many scenarios. Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with any. The only scenario that I could think of is that the Rambha was chasing the F-22, with the guidance from an AWAC.

Now moving back to how we can defeat the F-22s. I think Mr, Li does have very valid points. The arena and the objective are critical.

Also I would again say that the beauty lies in the numbers. It is often said that Raptor has kill ratios of 1xx:1 against other 4++ gen aircrafts. However, I believe that 1 Raptor will not be able to handle simultaneous attack by 3 Su-30s. We have to swarm them. Engaging one-after the other will not be the solution. Besides the F-22 will never fly alone, it will try to provide air dominance/cover to land attack vehicles like the F-18/F-35. We have to pick those guys up. I think a defence formation should be swarm of Su-30s hiding smaller point defence fighters (LCA/MMRCA). While the F-22s are engaged by the Su-30s, the lighter and agile point defence fighters have to deny the land attack fighters any chance of an attack. This can be done considering that the A2A performance of point defence fighters are generally better than the bomb trucks laden with bombs. The oppositions objective will be foiled and they would try to fight another day. And that is when our chance will arrive.

Shivji said look to the Taliban and the Vietnamese. The reason why they succeeded was not because they killed much more than the attackers. They survived it out. Look at the ratio of death of lets say the Taliban:US forces. Again with Vietnam, their victory was not because they created a lot of casualties, but because they could take many more casualties on there side. In the air, the US was almost had complete air dominance. what the hell they had unarmed Hueys ferrying soldiers everywhere. So I don't believe that it should be our case study.

To be able to absorb an air attack, we should be able to handle attrition. The better we can absorb it, the better our chances. Going back to Shivji's friends, it would be like one of the kids saying, "Ok you get your big daddy, but I will get my daddy and 2 uncles".

Woefully the IAF lacks the numbers, but then who doesn't know it.

[shiv]

Indranil Roy - two points I want to make.

I don't believe that the PAKFA was designed to "take on the Raptor"

OK let me explain that. The PAKFA was not designed to say "Here is an aircraft that will take on the Raptor one on one in air combat'

The PAKFA is an oblique compliment to the Raptor as well as a demonstration of Russian aviation design skill. Apart from defence of the USA (Raptor) and defence of Russia (PAKFA), both are designed to keep their respective military aviation complexes cutting edge so that both countries will eventually benefit from sales of the finished product (not the technology). The Russian have been brilliant. The US has been first off the mark. The F 22 is the third stealth combat aircraft they have put into service. PAKFA will still be the first for Russia. But PAKFA has export possibilities that do not clash with F 35 (Raptor is not for export generally) - so both USA and Russia stand to gain while third countries slug it out and fanboys talk like my two friends and say

"My father will bring Raptor"
"So what. My father will bring PAKFA"

The fact is that if USA was attacked by PAKFAs they would not say "Hey we will have to send Raptors onlee. Nothing else will work', and if mother Russia is attacked by Raptors they will not say "We can defend against Raptor by RAKFA only and nothing else"

Both Raptor and PAKFA are similar stealthy aircraft with internal weapon carriage and a good sensor suite and good networking capability. If you have to shoot them down you have to defeat the stealth and the maneuvarabilty and the BVR capability. It is wrong to imagine that someone is some country will sit and say "Hey we are being attacked by Raptors - so let's send in the marines er PAKFAs" PAKFA is not meant as a first responder to Raptor and Raptor will not necessarily work as the most effective response to PAKFA.

That is what I want to point out to most fanboys who go off on a tangent and shut down their brains on the issue. If you want to shoot down the Raptor

1) Do not say "I will send PAKFA"
2) Do not say "I will be so scared that I will stop all flying and keep my planes on the ground"

The second point is a minor one. The Vietnamese won by keeping on fighting despite losing 2 million, as opposed to the 70,000 that the UIS lost.

[Indranil]

Shiv ji, we are on the same page. We are speaking of the same things too. We are speaking to different fanboys . you are speaking to the fanboys who believe F-22 can't be beaten. I am speaking to the fanboys who have suddenly equating the Su-30MKI to the F-22.

All I am saying is don't lay the slack, we are not there yet!

[abhik]

The F-22 is a tour de force of technology unparalleled even to this day. The technological lead it gave it gave the Americans is absolutely astonishing, Its only "equal" the PAKFA had its first flight a full 20 years after that of the F-22. Now many points are being made to diss its capabilities, competency etc. some valid and a lot which are not, but without going in to it I just want to make one point:-
At the end of the day the main reason for inducting any new technology is to increase the cost of fighting a war to the enemy. With the induction of just one weapon system you have rendered your legacy aircraft and radar based SAMs obsolete. Suddenly you go from using a highly evolved SAM like the S-300 which can knockdown aircraft from over a 100 km with out breaking a sweat , to I am sure you will agree with me are quite sub optimal solutions being given. But after implementing this sub optimal system you can't ditch your existing SAM system either because you will leave yourself to be overrun by by not so stealthy fighters, bombers, CMs etc. which will be in the hundreds.
Now I don't feel there is much use in discussing "speculative" futuristic technologies like satellite detection etc. because there is an inherent drawback in trying to find ways of countering yesterdays threats tomorrow.
As far as "SHOOTING DOWN THE F-22 RAPTOR" today, you may suggest multiple Mig-21s or other fighters for each F-22 so as to shoot it down (even this scenario highly improbable because it involves the F-22 walking into an ambush when it could simply keep picking off the juiciest targets from afar) but haven't you lost half the war when you make these ratios 1:2, 1:4,8,10 etc. What happens when one more f-22 than you were expecting comes along, how good does 2:2 or 4:8 etc. look?
As far as I can see there is no "easy" way presently to shoot down the raptor and in that it is an excellent weapon system.

[shiv]

but haven't you lost half the war when you make these ratios 1:2, 1:4,8,10 etc. What happens when one more f-22 than you were expecting comes along, how good does 2:2 or 4:8 etc. look?

Isn't the answer evident from your own question? If you cannot figure out the answer from your statement you are merely repeating what is said by F 22 fanboys everywhere on the net. It does not matter if the F22:MiG 21 ratio is 2:2 or 4:10 - in a war those who must keep fighting will keep fighting. The actual way to shoot down a Raptor will come in real combat and the way the US keeps the Raptor under wraps is precisely because there are weaknesses that can be exploited and they do not want people to figure them out. Only the strong points are advertiseed. That is a fair tactic - but it does not mean it is invincible. It only means there are weaknesses to be hidden. Those weaknesses could be as simple as an inability to maintain stealth in rainy weather or after a few sorties that that call for repainting or smoothening out of bumps/scratches occurring in a forward deployment area.

Pleased don't talk about "half won wars". If the F 22 could win a war it certainly hasn't shown the capability of winning against a ragtag Taliban. "That is unfair" you might say. But what is the use of 144:1 air to air kill ratio if the Raptor cannot hit a ragtag Taliban force? So lets leave out the hype about "half won wars" - which belongs in the same fanboy genre as "Oh the raptors are here so I won't fight". By the same logic the US can't fight if there are no Raptors - and it shows no?

The US has faced no seriously determined adversary yet (aside from Taliban and Vietnam) and winning and losing wars is a different ball game from ratios used as a sales pitch/Discovery channel psyops. Lots of tactics are available to an inferior enemy as well - as long as they keep a cool head and expect attrition. If you do any reading about real wars - attrition is expected. I am sure the US expects attrition too - and as soon as Raptors start showing attrition the color of a war can change.

[hnair]

The US has faced no seriously determined adversary yet (aside from Taliban and Vietnam) and winning and losing wars is a different ball game from ratios used as a sales pitch/Discovery channel psyops. Lots of tactics are available to an inferior enemy as well - as long as they keep a cool head and expect attrition. If you do any reading about real wars - attrition is expected. I am sure the US expects attrition too - and as soon as Raptors start showing attrition the color of a war can change.

an ability to absorb damage and still keep a chankian brain working to adapt is the basics of any fight with a foe bigger or smaller. Superpowers tend to come crashing down on both points, as is seen in vietnam or afghanistan. Mainly because of falling on their own psy-ops swords.

Cashmere is an example of where a bigger player (India) did both to a smaller player (pakis) and is still standing confident, with both sword and shield in hand.

Even without going into the flaws of Raptor, a lot of its creators apparently seem to believe it is a dead end in its current form. Its only saving grace is that it did not have to face the wrath of the cynics at GAO, unlike its sister brontosaurs, the Crusader and Commanche. And only because Raptor was already tested and manufacturing has started with significant investments. I mean we are hearing of a retirement of B1-B bombers (and probably B2s, if pride allows), but still the BUFFs (B-52) are flying high. Same for the Sea Wolfe vs Virginia (comparatively inferior to its predecessor) class debates.

If it was half as useful as say the drone tech, things would have been different

[abhik]

Isn't the answer evident from your own question? If you cannot figure out the answer from your statement you are merely repeating what is said by F 22 fanboys everywhere on the net.

I wasn't asking a question, just pointing out the flaw in the ambush and overrun strategy.

The actual way to shoot down a Raptor will come in real combat and the way the US keeps the Raptor under wraps is precisely because there are weaknesses that can be exploited and they do not want people to figure them out. Only the strong points are advertiseed. That is a fair tactic - but it does not mean it is invincible. It only means there are weaknesses to be hidden. Those weaknesses could be as simple as an inability to maintain stealth in rainy weather or after a few sorties that that call for repainting or smoothening out of bumps/scratches occurring in a forward deployment area.

Of course no weapon is invincible, It must have weaknesses but what level of weakness is it, can you take advantage of it. For arguments sake lets say that its stealth disappears due to rain so does it suddenly fall out of the sky ? You should keep in mind that the F-22 is still the most superior aircraft kinematically and with respect to avionics in service even than the MKI, Su-35, EF etc. In theory it will still be the better aircraft. So even if the probability of such weather conditions is say 50% , it will work fine the rest of the 50%.And you must have heard this before "50 % of something is better than 100% of nothing. At the end of the day in what way does the prospective adversary take advantage of a weakness like this? pick a fight only in the monsoon or attempt cloud-seeding.
As for it loosing its stealth after a few sorties what is to say much of the adversary will be left after this.

But what is the use of 144:1 air to air kill ratio if the Raptor cannot hit a ragtag Taliban force?

The US has faced no seriously determined adversary yet (aside from Taliban and Vietnam) and winning and losing wars is a different ball game from ratios used as a sales pitch/Discovery channel psyops. Lots of tactics are available to an inferior enemy as well - as long as they keep a cool head and expect attrition. If you do any reading about real wars - attrition is expected. I am sure the US expects attrition too - and as soon as Raptors start showing attrition the color of a war can change.

you seem to have convinced that there necessarily are easily implemented some or many tactics which an inferior enemy can reliably and repeatedly used to defeat the F-22 but what if that's not the case.

[shiv]

but what if that's not the case.

So far this is the only story that has been released in public via fanboy channels and I note that the same story is repeated again and again everywhere. There are a few papers out there that talk of countering stealth and there are many historic accounts of how nations have gone about undermining a technology that seems invincible by countering its weakest spots.

I started this topic on this thread so people can look at the issue in this way and get brain cells whirring about how humans have fought against odds in war rather than sinking back into fanboyism. There is no other option - someday some stealthy F 22 like weapon is going to fall into the hands of one of our adversaries and their fanboys will be making the very statements you have made. What we to do then? Stop fighting?

We have only two modes on BRF. One is the USof A mode where we go rah rah rah because we are all US allies and do not expect the Raptor to be used against us. The other is the China mode where we are saying "We are finished. We have lost"

The Indian armed forces cannot be in US of A mode or China mode.

Look at it this way. Suppose Pakistan had 100 Raptors and India had 150 Raptors

Who would win?

And why?

[shiv]

For those armchair marshals who have spent some time reading of real accounts of real air warfare I ask you what you would do if you were expecting an attack (on an airfield) of a flight of say 4 F/A 18s with the support of 4 Raptors (whose presence or absence you would not know about). Assume that you have deliberately provoked the attack by using that airfield to hit some installations and are deliberately inviting a counter attack to set up a trap for the attacking force of F/A 18s with or without Raptors. Assume you have a lot of JF-17s as your assets - armed with BVR and close in weapons. Assume that many can fly in from other air bases.

Remember that the attacking force are hoping to get away with no losses and the loss of even one Raptor wil be a big blow and show that they are not invincible, and force them to change tactics from what they have practised so far. For you - imagine you are willing to lose several aircraft is achieving this.

[shiv]

Cross post
Here is what Prof Prodyut Das says about some things
Stealth


BVR


Fighter tactics

[shiv]

Once again folks - I have nothing against the advertised (and spectacular) capabilities of the F 22. The aircraft is as close to being a modern marvel as anything can be. But that is not the point. Even the telephone was a modern marvel as was the submarine at some time in the past.

The F 22 was designed as a fighter to shoot down other aircraft. If you go back in history people have given more and more spectacular names for the same job - i.e shooting down other aircraft. The names include "Air dominance fighter" (1990s), "Air superiority fighter" (1980s), "Intercerptor fighter (1960-70s)" and just "Fighter" (1915 to 1960). World War I stories also have accounts of fighters that dominated there air. The reason I write all this is that it is important to get past the rhetoric and look at little details.

To repeat, the Raptor is truly marvellous. It incorporates stealth against radar to the extent that its radar signature is stated to be similar to that of a "steel marble". Most sites go into great detail of how this was achieved including features like wing leading and trailing edge angle, serrated edges to cockpit canopy, weapons bays and wheel bay doors, the canopy itself prevents even the pilot's head from sending back radar reflections, the nose cone over the radar reflects every frequency except the frequencies at which the Raptor's own radar works. The Raptor incorporates sensors within its body to give (IIRC) all round coverage. the Raptor can act like a mini-AWACS and send target data to other aircraft. It's radar shifts frequency 1000 times per second making it difficult to detect and the beam can be focused down to a 2x2 inch beam shining on a target. The beam can also overload and fry an opponents radar. The Raptor requires a lot less stealth paint than the F 117 or B-2 because stealth is built into its design much better. It's thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles are stealthy and suppress its IR signature. Its intakes have no unstealthy moving parts (like the JF 17 ) and needless to say S-ducts from the intakes prevent the engine face from being visible. It can fly extended ranges at supersonic speeds at high altitudes. Weapons are internal for the stealth mode and they are ejected in a mater of seconds so the weapons bay doors do not have to remain open long enough to be easily detectable by radar. It's sound signature is suppressed. The Raptor can carry 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, or it can serve a secondary attack role carrying 2 x 1000 lb (450 kg) PGMs or two racks each carrying 4 x 110 kg bombs. (total 8 ) with 2 AMRAAMS and 2 Sidewinders.

The philosophy behind the Raptor is "See the enemy first and shoot him down first without being seen"

Now let me come to the "issues" the Raptor has faced. It is expensive and the "cheapest" estimate I have seen is US$ 131 million per plane (INR 600 crores per plane). It's mission availability rate is between 60 and 70 %. (commonly quoted figures are up to 68% from 62%). It requires 30 hours of maintenance for each hour of flying. The cockpit canopy rapidly degrades, reducing visibility and requires frequent replacement. The advertised stealth figure "radar signature the size of a steel marble" is only at certain optimum angles and when the plane is static. Movement of the plane and as the angle changes the radar signature too changes. The plane is said to have operated reliably from all sorts of difficult environmental conditions - but rain affected its electronics and stealth was affected by soot and dust. No information is available about the Raptor's degree of serviceability and stealth in monsoon conditions and flying through dust - both of which are common over India. Raptor spares are not always interchangeable as many of them are hand-made custom parts. The 144:1 kill ratio comes from only one exercise, the first one with Raptors, held in 2007. (Recall that the F-15 was supposed to have a 782:1 ratio against its adversaries) All these factors mean that the Raptor is a maintenance headache - information that can be used in some way.

Regarding the weapons suite, the AMRAAM has been advertised as having an 85% single shot kill probability. But as always this is under optimum conditions. The Russians have assessed the AMRAAMs kill probability in the order of 50%. That means that two missiles will be needed to kill one plane. With 6 AMRAAMs - one Raptor can in theory take down 3 aircraft in one BVR mission. (Two Raptors could make that 6 if the opposing aircraft waited around like Pakis claim that Indian Hunters stood in a row waiting for Alam to shoot them down. There is always Pakiness in such claims) When we look at numbers like this you can equally assume that if 10 JF 17s (or MiG 21s) were around - the Raptors would not be able to take all of them down before the latter had a chance to attack an unstealthy formation being escorted by Raptors. In a numbers game such as this - it would be essential to force the Raptors to lose their BVR stealth advantage and come for a close in, within visual range interception. Despite its supermaneuverability it is a big target and if outnumbered it could get shot down or at least damaged. The operators of the Raptor would do their best to avoid that and are likely to try and avoid such a situation from arising.

The Raptor is a very valuable aircraft . Not just because it is very capable but because it is expensive and is high maintenance. The slightest damage may put it out of service for days - which would be very valuable for an adversary - given that even in the absence of war the mission availability is only 60% i.e only 2 out of 3 Raptors will be available for missions. So it would be vitally important to shoot down or damage at least one Raptor because such a success would force a change in tactics and the expensive Raptor would be kept even more safe and behind the scenes, out of harm's way.

Tactics have to be evolved to force Raptors into open, within visual range conflict with a view to overwhelming it with numbers. And remember that if the Raptor never comes for close in conflict - it is still a waste because it has such great capability that is going waste. If 4 JF 17s get mixed up in dogfights with 4 heavily laden attacking F/A 18s, any escorting Raptors at BVR ranges will risk shooting down one of their own. If they close in for a WVR combat - they could get overwhelmed by numbers if they are over enemy territory. If they don't come close for WVR combat - they remain safe - but one or more of the F/A 18s they were escorting could get damaged or even shot down. In war damage can be as bad as shooting down.

Will try and state my amateur views on Raptor as attack aircraft later.

[shiv]

http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... sonic.html

Stealthy F-22 may have little defense against detection from an IRST flown at high altitude(s) if Raptor is to be flown at high speeds and altitude, due to frictional heating of her airframe and canopy, in addition to (below) her exhaust heat plumes; in surrounding air temperatures of -30F, -40F, -50F, -60F degrees below zero.

Integrated IRST effectively allows the radar to switch (focus its power) straight into powerful-narrow beam(s) directly at the (thermal) target – ‘straight to target-track-mode’ rather than remain in a broader ‘search’ mode. This is consistent with public information reporting that Stealth: “prefers hostile scanning-radar over hostile tracking-radar.”

Target RCS (see below) is determined by: 1) the power transmitted in the direction of the target. 2) The amount of power that impacts the target and is reflected back in the direction of the radar. 3) The amount of reflected power that is intercepted by the radar antenna. 4) The length of time in which the radar is pointed at the target.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aYAUsn-hXgc/S ... n_time.jpg

Some in the DoD would be quick to point out that the F-14A Tomcat IRST (the AN/ALR-23) was of limited range, limited quality and misidentified source of IR emissions. A much improved system was fitted to later USN Tomcats, the Northrop AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS). The TCS could be "slaved" to the radar to follow whatever the radar was tracking, and the radar could be slaved to the TCS to track whatever the IR camera "sees"... so in effect 'Time on Target' (Pay close attention to number “1” and "4" of the graphic).

Keep in mind that fighters like Flanker could employ their IR-version of the R-77 ‘Adder’ medium range missile; regardless of what happening (or not happening) in the radio spectrum, read: with less regard to RCS.

Also Flanker does not use radar to track an aggressively maneuvering dogfight target for it's gun firing solution. Only its IRST w/laser rangefinder is needed. So it’s a fair statement to say Flanker's IRST has a robust air-to-air capability (IRST OLS on Flanker is NOT THE SAME unit as MiG-29).