Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Anticipating & countering future military threats/challenges

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 25 Oct 2010 07:18

http://www.comhaha.com/blog/524004-f-11 ... -in-tibet/

Posting in full
PLA F-11 fighters flying over the exercises in Tibet.

LONDON August 10 report, according to Global Strategic Network 6 reported that the Chinese F -11 fighter flight training for the first time in Tibet. J -11 is the most advanced system of planes in China. Although 90 years since the last century, China is only less than 150 which built fighter planes, but they have appeared in many unexpected places. Reported that the Chinese Air Force planes stationed in Tibet is not, despite the old F -7 regular fighters often fly in the area, but mainly in large commercial airport, temporary assignments.

Report, said the past five years, the model of friction between China and Russia to become one of the reasons. In 1995, the price of 25 billion won from the construction of 200 Russian Su -27 fighter permissions. Russia is responsible for providing engines and aerospace electronic equipment, while the Chinese side is responsible for the drawings and specifications in accordance with the Russian construction of other parts. However, the construction of 95 Su -27 fighter, the Russian side to cancel this agreement. Russia says China has used Su -27 fighter procurement project from the knowledge gained, the construction of its replica of the Soviet Union -27, that is, F -11 fighter. Russia warned that China simply copy the Russian technology, can build a low-quality aircraft. Obviously, China does not think so, its use of technology to the development of the Chinese fighter J--11.

It is believed that F -11 fighter is now more advanced equipment, including aerospace electronic equipment and some other Chinese design improvement. China to produce F -11 fighter most of the parts, the main problem is its still has to import engines. China believes that in the next five to ten years, it will get rid of dependence on Russian military aircraft engines. At present, China imports two Russian engines - priced 3.5 million U.S. dollars of the AL-31 (Su -27/30, F -11, F -10) and Unit 2.5 million U.S. dollars of the RD-93 (MiG -29 dispensed RD-33 engine in a version).

Reported that the People's Liberation Army Air Force fighter planes stationed in Tibet is not the main reason was the region's high altitude, large quantities of fuel costs as well as in Tibet and other supplies required for the maintenance of aircraft. At present, only one railway to Tibet (made recently built), and one of the few passable roads for heavy trucks.

Moreover, the PLA officers and men of altitude sickness in Tibet is the Chinese presence in Tibet fighters to a major problem. When people who grew up from the plain areas (most of the world population is so) migrate to the high mountain areas, will be insufficient oxygen due to air in such a reaction occurs. This "mountain sickness," the main symptoms of shortness of breath, a sense of direction, confusion, nosebleeds, nausea, dehydration, decreased quality of sleep and eating problems, headaches, etc., if there is "Altitude Sickness" and stay at altitude for too long time loss of labor force will slow.

Reported that the average altitude of Tibet 4100 meters. Most people can adapt to local environment, but some people can not. Most of the soldiers came to the Tibetan plateau need to spend a few days or weeks to adjust to the local environment. But if they overworked, especially long exertion, still prone to altitude sickness. This has weakened the combat effectiveness of the Chinese troops stationed in Tibet.

Researchers recently found that in the past 3 1000-6 thousand years, Tibetans have evolved to adapt to this environment. The reason these people will become the main inhabitants of Tibet, mainly because they are more robust at high altitudes. Almost all Tibetans have this gene (control red blood cell activity, to maintain adequate oxygen levels). Low elevations, but very few Chinese people these genes.

Reported that the Chinese army is now putting in a lot of time, money and effort to solve this problem. Now, most of China's Chengdu Military Region, troops are deployed in the basin of the eastern half of the points. In Chengdu, western Tibet, China has deployed 52 and 53 Mountain Brigade, and strive to maintain the ability to perform tasks of 5,000 troops. The event of emergencies, like two years ago, as 13 and 14 near the army to its base in the lowlands to send troops overseas. However, once reached heights of more than 20% of soldiers are suffering from high disease, leading to disruption of work, but commanders have been trained to adapt to this situation.


Now, based in the plateau (the Sino-Indian border highland 4,500 meters) of the Chinese troops have the training room, training room in one of 1,000 square meters, and another 3,000 square meters, the training room are in oxygen-rich state. In the training room for training of soldiers, soldiers of the body can increase the oxygen content in the blood and reduce the prevalence of risk of altitude sickness. In this way, the soldiers deployed there can stay healthy. In addition, the Department of soldiers in high altitude patrol the border areas, usually carry oxygen bottles and breathing masks.

However, so far, China can only alleviate altitude sickness, not eradicate. Taking into account the aircraft maintenance personnel awareness of requirements, and the pilots prepare for flight, coupled with logistical problems, the PLA Air Force has announced timely training in Tibet, but not the air force deployed there. However, perhaps one day the Chinese Air Force will have to fight over in Tibet, so they should be there for related training.

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby khukri » 13 Nov 2010 05:48

Not sure if this belongs here, but........
http://www.gizmag.com/electronic-explos ... dium=email

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2011 06:06

Cross post as discussion is OT in the original thread:

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Consider the following example as my attempt to answer your question:

Let's say that a Su-30MKI is attempting to intercept the J-20 head on. If the enemy had been a SU-30MKK, let us assume the detection range on the radar was 100Km. Now, with the J-20 etc and the stealth factor, your detection range is only 20 Km. So earlier, where you might have taken a shot at 50 Km, you are now forced to do so at less than 20Km. What happens in between? If the J-20 has even the same radar as the MKI, it would have detected the latter at 100Km and would have taken a shot at 50Km, without the Indian pilot having a clue as to what just happened. Now, if on the other hand, instead of the MKI, we have, let's say, the AMCA, then even the J-20 with its super duper stealth would only detect it at say 20Km (apples to apples). In this case, the Indian pilot has been allowed to close the distance between him and the J-20 without dying using his own stealth features. After that, at 20Km, when both aircraft "see" each other, its down to the knife fight and whoever wins on account of weapons superiority.

The other alternate route would be to increase the power of the radar on the MKI to ensure that even though the J-20 has stealth, you still detect it at the original range of 100Km. But doing so is far more difficult than designing your own aircraft around stealth, IMVHO.


Vivek - I think you need to go beyond this. I know this. You know it and this is, after all, the much advertised USP of stealth discussed in a thousand enthusiast fora.

Tell me - what would YOU do if you if you were on the side of the MKI? Would you lament? Would you shiver? Would you fail to take off? Or would you evolve tactics to trap the guy? If so what would you attempt to do to redress the imbalance?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2165
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Jan 2011 06:44

shiv wrote:Tell me - what would YOU do if you if you were on the side of the MKI? Would you lament? Would you shiver? Would you fail to take off? Or would you evolve tactics to trap the guy? If so what would you attempt to do to redress the imbalance?


Okay, I agree with your line of argument.

Once you assume that the military balance is tilted so that say the Chinese are deploying their J-20s against your fleet of MKIs, let's assume, then of course it comes down to tactics. You are of course going to deploy your fighters, whatever they may be, against the threat. But here's the thing: you are at a extreme disadvantage from the very beginning. This would mean that while individual cases of loss/victory would be dependent on the case by case study, overall the kill/loss ratio in the BVR environment at least, is not going to be in your overall favor.

Put it another way: since the J-20 would definitely not have very good side or planform RCS, (and heck, they may very well be just as bad as most other fighters of today) an obvious tactic would be to flank the enemy. But the enemy also knows this. And in a BVR environment, the enemy will always try to ensure he is coming at you head on. Maybe if there more numbers on your side, you could flank the enemy while he's trying to aim somewhere else. But that means you are assuming something: you can actually "see" the J-20 and predict what its going to do and where its going.

If you had something in the way of airborne version of the ground based bi-static radar environment, you could capitalize on the higher RCS on the sides of the J-20 and use current AEW aircraft to cue in accordingly. Again, its doable and is an example of tactics beating technology. But enforces you to deploy much larger fleets of AWACS and fighters to deal with the threat.

Another aspect of this is to increase the power of the AWACS radars so that even frontal detection is possible, and set it up so that they provide the cue for the guidance of the fighter launched missiles while covered behind them. If this can be done, the J-20 stealth environment is defeated completely, without affecting the MKI fleet. Only changes required are increased power on the AWACS aircraft that have a compartment size suitable for this effort. But again, we are now countering stealth aircraft with high power radar aircraft, while maintaining minimal change to the MKI fleet. Is it doable? In theory, yes. In practical terms? Not sure.

And finally of course if you deploy your own stealth fighters, you fight the enemy on his own grounds. Costliest option of the three, of course.

Stealth is far from this all-enveloping, all-destroying technological capacity that the Americans have made it sound.

The real term, more accurate term, is rather: low observable aircraft

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2011 06:51

Nice discussion, just like to have some opinion on this.

Can a superior ESM change the table upside down when encountering stealthy plane by a non stealthy plane?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6089
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 07:21

Take it for what is worth.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html

Vivek, as soon as the J-20 fires at 50 km it will start getting painted on the radar.

But, I am all with you that a non stealthy plan is at a disadvantage over a stealthy plane till a cure for stealth is found.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2011 07:29

vivek_ahuja wrote:And finally of course if you deploy your own stealth fighters, you fight the enemy on his own grounds.


Vivek - this is the very point that I have a serious problem with. This is what started off this discussion. If your fighters cannot see him and they cannot see you - who will be fighting whom?

If you can't see his fighter till he is 20 km away - it matters little whether you have a stealth fighter or not. Even your stealth fighter cannot see him until he is 20 km away. All the scenarios that you have described revolve around the following simple story:

He can see you from 100 km. You can only see him from 20 km. Therefore he will fire off his BVRAAMs and will have shot down all your fighters between 100 km and 20 km and you lose. Tell me Vivek. Is this the way wars are going to be fought - except between the US and Iraq?

Is every attack from your adversary going to come with stealth attack aircraft which you cannot see? If that is the case you will know of his presence only after your ground targets are hit. If you can predict that, what would be your response?

If all his attacks are not going to be from stealthy aircraft - let us say he sends 4 non stealthy attack aircraft with 2 or 4 stealth escorts whom you cannot see. What would happen? You send up interceptors and they get attacked from BVR ranges. You don't think "Hey I don't know what hit my interceptors" (which is the usual end point of internet forum jingo scenarios). You surmise that the adversary is sending stealthy escorts along with his attack aircraft and those escorts were not picked up at the ranges at which his attack aircraft were picked up. Once you can anticipate this, what would your response be?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6208
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby disha » 07 Jan 2011 07:39

Interesting discussion. Just tossing in another idea:

Put radars over UCAVs and create a swarm of such UCAVs.

Further idea, can each UCAV be an element in the Radar grid? Or the element of the radar itself? Of course there is a standoff range., but the idea is to detect an ingress early.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6208
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby disha » 07 Jan 2011 07:53

Another one: Send in a swarm of LCA. They are low observable and can be produced in numbers. Note here, the pilot is important and not the plane. And LCAs have full right to turn tail, all it needs to do is draw out the AAMs from the J-20.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2165
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Jan 2011 08:07

shiv wrote:Tell me Vivek. Is this the way wars are going to be fought - except between the US and Iraq?


I didn't say at any point that this is how wars will be fought. I said this is what the technological scenario is. Big difference.

It was for that reason that I described additional tactics based methods to beat LOA.

Is every attack from your adversary going to come with stealth attack aircraft which you cannot see? If that is the case you will know of his presence only after your ground targets are hit. If you can predict that, what would be your response?


The primary stages of any campaign would involve the destruction of enemy's electronic eyes, both on the ground and in the air. AWACS, AEW, aerostats, ground based radars and so forth. Out of these, the most difficult to tackle are the airborne AWACS and AEW aircraft, given their mobility and detection ranges. But they are only a handful on either side. Your main tactical fleet of LOA would be of use against these targets alone. Ground targets do not merit Stealth optimized aircraft. Cruise missiles followed by standard mud-movers would do the job once the enemy's ability to interfere with your aircraft has disappeared.

I would say that t90% of all air effort would be undertaken by non-stealth aircraft. No big leap of faith there. Except for the fact that the remaining 10% would be stealth aircraft going after your high value targets and prized fighters.

If all his attacks are not going to be from stealthy aircraft - let us say he sends 4 non stealthy attack aircraft with 2 or 4 stealth escorts whom you cannot see. What would happen? You send up interceptors and they get attacked from BVR ranges. You don't think "Hey I don't know what hit my interceptors" (which is the usual end point of internet forum jingo scenarios). You surmise that the adversary is sending stealthy escorts along with his attack aircraft and those escorts were not picked up at the ranges at which his attack aircraft were picked up. Once you can anticipate this, what would your response be?


If that happens, unfortunately, it means that you have already lost total aerial situational awareness and the initiative is with the enemy. Too late for anything at that point. In fact, I am at a loss to suggest what else could be done if that were to happen. The whole argument is to prevent the above scenario from happening!

And if you anticipate this, then you have to fall back on the lines of what I had said earlier...
Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 07 Jan 2011 08:15, edited 2 times in total.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2165
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Jan 2011 08:12

Kanson wrote:Can a superior ESM change the table upside down when encountering stealthy plane by a non stealthy plane?


Exactly.

Which is why a true stealth aircraft cannot be the source of any electronic emissions, radar or otherwise. You don't have to see the J-20 on your own radar if you can simply track the origin of its radar signals.ESM is key here.

You cannot hold a flashlight and say that since you are standing in the dark, nobody can see you. All they have to do is see the source of the light.

Operationally, the only way true-stealth would be achieved is if the J-20 replicates on its side what I described earlier: use supporting radar emissions from other stand off radar aircraft and launch missiles at closer ranges using those emissions.

Far from easy engineering task to handle.

indranilroy wrote:Vivek, as soon as the J-20 fires at 50 km it will start getting painted on the radar.


Similar argument as above, with the addition that this will happen only if the J-20 uses its own radar, and also the increased radar cross section seen during weapons release, though the latter is temporal only.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2011 08:22

disha,

UCAV, and Swarm of LCA UCAV is already thought about concepts, yes, LCA UCAV. At present the technology for doing that is still evolving and may be fielded in the role you mentioned in the future and exactly meant for the role you mentioned but doubtful for the immediate future. To point out, these concepts are considered for Japan's next generation fighter concept that will see the light somewhere around 2040.

I guess the discussion is how to counter J-20 assuming it is a low observable one on radar and it will see service much before we can field an equivalent stealthy plane.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2011 08:24

There is yet another possibility.

The attacking aircraft are unstealthy and the escorts are stealthy. You concentrate on getting the attackers BVR.

Alternatively you send interceptors to take out the attackers. The assumption here is that those interceptors will be seen and killed BVR by the stealthy escorts. So the conclusion from that is that you need stealthy interceptors even to get near the attack aircraft. But tell me - if your aircraft are tangling with attack aircraft at WVR ranges how does your adversary's stealthy escort at BVR range know whom to hit? He will have to keep flying in closer to get a a better fix.

So for your adversary the best chance to protect his unstealthy attack aircraft is to hope to get all interceptors at BVR ranges. If he fails to do that his mission will be a partial or complete failure. How can you ensure that this happens? If your MKIs are picked up at 100 km what about SDRE LCA hiding behind something?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2011 08:31

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Kanson wrote:Can a superior ESM change the table upside down when encountering stealthy plane by a non stealthy plane?


Exactly.

Which is why a true stealth aircraft cannot be the source of any electronic emissions, radar or otherwise. You don't have to see the J-20 on your own radar if you can simply track the origin of its radar signals.ESM is key here.

You cannot hold a flashlight and say that since you are standing in the dark, nobody can see you. All they have to do is see the source of the light.

Operationally, the only way true-stealth would be achieved is if the J-20 replicates on its side what I described earlier: use supporting radar emissions from other stand off radar aircraft and launch missiles at closer ranges using those emissions.

Far from easy engineering task to handle.


In other words, simply having relevant shaping and RAM coating isn't stealth. Even if one fields LPI radar, the one with better ESM wins the day.

How you value the ESM of Raptor, Rafale, Su-30MKI and F-18.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2165
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Jan 2011 08:33

Right,

the Achilles heel of all LOA will be WVR fights. They have little to no advantage in that environment where an adversary can get a rear heat signature for IR attacks, or direct radar signature because those aircraft will be twisting and tumbling in the skies, exposing their non-stealth aspects to enemy radar.

If the J-20 fails to take out the enemy aircraft at BVR, its best bet would be to bug out and live to fight another day with BVRs, not to mix it with MKIs etc in WVR IR and gunfights

And yes, at that point it would have anyway failed to do its job.

Four our part, we have to enforce this condition on the CAF during any fight.

Only problem is, to enforce this condition, we have to have some sense of the situational awareness. Hence the argument for lrger fleets of AWACS/AEW that can provide multi-directional radar coverage. In other words, if a J-20 is facing towards one AWACS, it is exposing its side to another further away, laterally. And if it is doing that, then that AWACS that has a visual spot on the J-20 will take over as the lead controller for the takedown by MKIs.
Last edited by vivek_ahuja on 07 Jan 2011 08:37, edited 1 time in total.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2165
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Jan 2011 08:35

Kanson wrote:In other words, simply having relevant shaping and RAM coating isn't stealth. Even if one fields LPI radar, the one with better ESM wins the day.


Right. An often overlooked aspect of aerial combat with stealth aircraft.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2011 08:46

vivek_ahuja wrote:If that happens, unfortunately, it means that you have already lost total aerial situational awareness and the initiative is with the enemy. Too late for anything at that point.


Yes in one battle at one point of time in a war. Provided everything works like clockwork for your adversary. This is what seems to get forgotten in a lot of these scenarios. The assumption is made that the entire war will be along these lines because one engagement worked this way. Note the words you have used

you have already lost total aerial situational awareness and the initiative is with the enemy. Too late for anything at that point.


Are you referring to an entire conflict? this is why I asked - are wars going to be fought like this and you denied having suggested that.

Just because the US made this work against Iraq all predictions of scenarios between all adversaries seem to be created along the same lines. I just believe that the US created an ideal scenario and made it work and I do not believe that things get so easy with more equally matched adversaries.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2011 08:53

vivek_ahuja wrote:The primary stages of any campaign would involve the destruction of enemy's electronic eyes, both on the ground and in the air. AWACS, AEW, aerostats, ground based radars and so forth.


Israel actually failed to to do what was needed against teh Hezbolah in the last campaign despite the technological superiority merely because the Hezbollah planned for just the sort of scenario that Israel would impose on them

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 07 Jan 2011 09:01

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Only problem is, to enforce this condition, we have to have some sense of the situational awareness. Hence the argument for lrger fleets of AWACS/AEW that can provide multi-directional radar coverage. In other words, if a J-20 is facing towards one AWACS, it is exposing its side to another further away, laterally. And if it is doing that, then that AWACS that has a visual spot on the J-20 will take over as the lead controller for the takedown by MKIs.



Therefore, having stealthy aircraft of your own is not necessarily the only approach to be adopted. This was where my question came up. Do you absolutely need stealth aircraft to counter an adversaries steatlh tactics. There has been an across the board assumption on BRF and other jingo boards that the only way to counter stealthy aircraft is to have stealthy aircraft of your own. This is an erroneous line of thought as you have yourself pointed out above.

Of course having stealthy aircraft of our own is definitely an advantage, but not an absolute condition. Like I said If someone uses the night for stealth, you light up the night to defeat him. You have said the same thing above by pointing out how AWACS/AEW can be used.

"Stealh" like the performance of AAMs is a closely guarded secret. Nobody says where his stealth is weak and everyone who speaks of stealth only tomtoms the greatness of his stealth for psy ops. And any adversary who has discovered those weaknesses is not going to say "He he he - I know your weakness". He will keep his findings a closely guarded secret. Who knows how stealthy the SDRE LCA is?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6089
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Indranil » 07 Jan 2011 09:10

Here is what WGCDR Chris Mills, AM, BSc, MSc(AFIT), RAAF (Retd) feels about A2A engagements between a F-22/F-35/Su-35. Its from Carlo Kopps site, so be prepared for some JSF bashing
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html.
Imagine an apocryphal story of three fighter pilots meeting in the bar at an air combat conference in Stockholm, in the year 2015. Chuck is a NATO F-22A Raptor pilot based in Germany, Boris an Su-35-1 Flanker E Plus pilot flying from one of the bases protecting Moscow, and Johan, a F-35A Lightning II pilot from the Netherlands. All are masters of their craft and after drinks, “merely to lubricate the vocal chords”, they do what fighter pilots all over the world do – swap stories and make claims about their beloved aircraft.
Chuck starts. “I’m king of the skies,” he claims. “I supercruise at 52,000 feet and Mach 1.7. Boris, I can see you from ~100 nm, and my AIM-120D launch range at this Mach is 70 nm. You are one dead Flanker.” Boris acknowledges the performance of the APG-77 and the Raptor, but replies, “Your missiles are easy to avoid. When you fire, my OLS-35 will see the flare, and I will turn away to out-run the missile. You need to fire closer than 50 nm – even then at 50,000 feet and Mach 1.2, my Flanker can out-turn your missile. If you are side or rear on I can get a lock-on at ~40 nm and I have a choice of seeker heads, so you might wear an R-77M in the backside.” “No way Boris,” Chuck replies, “I know that game. I’m head on and you can’t see me until about ~15 nm. If I have not killed you at 50 nautical, I’m outa there at the speed of heat.” Boris and Chuck concede that there might be a nil-all draw, with Chuck being untouchable because of the Raptor’s stealth, altitude and speed and the well defended Su-35-1 defeating the Raptor’s missiles [1].
Now Boris makes his point. “Comrade Johan, I have something special for you. My IRBIS-E will see you head-on at ~25nm, but I fly my boys very wide and share the paints on our digital network. At side and rear looks, I see you at ~45 nm and my ramjet RVV-AE-PDs can get you at that range.” “No way”, Johan responds, “my APG-81 radar will see you at ~75 nm and I can launch at 50 nm. If you fire, my DAS will see the missile at launch, so I’ll turn away to break lock”. “And my wingman will see you in the turn, computer network will still know where you are, and we will skewer you in the cross-fire” is Boris’s riposte, “and you will run out of missiles before I do, If I duck your AIM-120D shots, I will win easily”. They bicker about the strengths of their own aircraft and weaknesses of the other’s and Johan grudgingly agrees the Flanker might be the winner.
Chuck and Johan stay in the bar after Boris is unexpectedly ‘called away’ by men in dark coats, and agree that work needs to be done on improving the AIM-120D’s terminal lethality.
Essentially, this is a deadly play between stealth, agility, sensors and missiles. From the front quarter the Raptor’s 0.0001 square meter Radar Cross Section (RCS) and the Lightning II’s 0.001 square metres make them difficult targets. The Flanker-E Plus, while having a reduced radar signature, still has a residual RCS of about 2 square metres, such that the F-22A and the F-35 will see the Su-35-1 way beyond their missile launch range. The Su-35-1 struggles to see the F-22A on radar, but can find the F-35’s 0.01 square metre lower side and rear RCS. The AIM-120D is a fine missile, but the Su-35-1 has finer defences, so the missile kill probabilities are likely to be low. When out of missiles, the F-22 Raptor can escape. The F-35 Lightning II cannot.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2165
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Jan 2011 09:16

shiv wrote:Are you referring to an entire conflict? this is why I asked - are wars going to be fought like this and you denied having suggested that.

Just because the US made this work against Iraq all predictions of scenarios between all adversaries seem to be created along the same lines. I just believe that the US created an ideal scenario and made it work and I do not believe that things get so easy with more equally matched adversaries.


Agreed.

No, I wasn't talking about the war, just that particular battle. Once those enemy fighters with the advantage go home to refuel, and return a second time to fight, its another battle and another setting and preferably a different result.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6208
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby disha » 07 Jan 2011 10:03

Kanson wrote:... LCA UCAV. At present the technology for doing that is still evolving and may be fielded in the role you mentioned in the future and exactly meant for the role you mentioned but doubtful for the immediate future...


Kansonji, I did *not* mean LCA UCAV. You took it that way.

I meant just simple UCAVs with Radars on top of them and swarms of *manned* LCAs. Both of them we have right now.

Now to add, one does not have to bring down J-20s to defeat the J-20. One can defeat the purpose of J-20. One of the primary purpose of a LO attack aircraft is to suppress enemy air defenses. What happens if the air defence is not suppressed? Lots of AEW and redundant grid(s) of VLF radars with dummies spread around....

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2069
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby abhik » 07 Jan 2011 12:59

indranilroy wrote:Vivek, as soon as the J-20 fires at 50 km it will start getting painted on the radar.
But, I am all with you that a non stealthy plan is at a disadvantage over a stealthy plane till a cure for stealth is found.

I think it was posted some time back that the PL-12/SD-10 has the capability to home in on the enemy aircraft radar emmisions.

Amit J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 27 Dec 2009 18:16
Location: CLASSIFIED

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Amit J » 07 Jan 2011 15:27

Since this is the Anticipating & countering future military threats/challenges Thread.

I would appreciate the forum inputs on the J 20 all with respect to it being used against India especially in a deep strike role

What are the typical threat scenarios from this platform?
What additional capabilities does it bring to the PLAAF against Indian Military assets ?
With the induction of this platform what ground based targets have suddenly become vulnerable in India ?
Which Air Bases of China (near India) would be suitable for the deployment of the J 20 ?

- and -

How do we counter this threat in terms of
- Tactics
- A 2 A platforms, types & sizes / nos etc
- Sensors and Ground to Air defences
- Also which types of Anti Aircraft Missiles would have better chances in downing this aircraft

What kind of precautionary activities need to be undertaken by India to safeguard its assets ?
Which Indian Air Force Bases would be directly be affected / involved considering the J-20 range
What Kind of exit strategies could be employed by the J 20 and how could IAF destroy it while it attempts to egress

Some of the questions are too broad and have general answers, however i would still like to understand cauz thats what this thread stands for and the members here are more attune than a global audience on the Indo-China situation.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2069
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby abhik » 07 Jan 2011 15:38

shiv wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:
Only problem is, to enforce this condition, we have to have some sense of the situational awareness. Hence the argument for lrger fleets of AWACS/AEW that can provide multi-directional radar coverage. In other words, if a J-20 is facing towards one AWACS, it is exposing its side to another further away, laterally. And if it is doing that, then that AWACS that has a visual spot on the J-20 will take over as the lead controller for the takedown by MKIs.


Therefore, having stealthy aircraft of your own is not necessarily the only approach to be adopted. This was where my question came up. Do you absolutely need stealth aircraft to counter an adversaries steatlh tactics. There has been an across the board assumption on BRF and other jingo boards that the only way to counter stealthy aircraft is to have stealthy aircraft of your own. This is an erroneous line of thought as you have yourself pointed out above.

Of course having stealthy aircraft of our own is definitely an advantage, but not an absolute condition. Like I said If someone uses the night for stealth, you light up the night to defeat him. You have said the same thing above by pointing out how AWACS/AEW can be used.
..

Most of the ways suggested to counter stealth using legacy systems such as creating a Chakravyuh with multiple AWACS/ground radars or some how come use tactics so that you mostly meet the enemy stealth fighter sideways or from the behind or within visual range. But in fact all these theories are based upon n-number of assumptions being true, and even if a single one is false then the whole strategy collapses like a pack of cards.
Take for example Vivek's theory , based on multiple AWACS providing interlocking coverage 24/7. But what happens when some of your AWACS are temporarily down(because they need repairs and servicing) and you aren't able to deploy the required numbers. Or what if the Geography is such that in some areas this "interlocking" coverage is not possible , Or what if the enemy chooses a high risk strategy of attacking the AWACS themselves (and prepared to take a few losses to achieve this) . Now tactics and weaponry to conduct such missions are already well established and that too using 4th gen aircraft, and a stealth fighter undertaking such a mission will only find easier.
The thing is that you cant have a situation where your fighters are at a clear disadvantage and expect to mostly "win" simply based on the use of tactics.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Kanson » 07 Jan 2011 19:48

disha wrote:
Kanson wrote:... LCA UCAV. At present the technology for doing that is still evolving and may be fielded in the role you mentioned in the future and exactly meant for the role you mentioned but doubtful for the immediate future...


Kansonji, I did *not* mean LCA UCAV. You took it that way.

I meant just simple UCAVs with Radars on top of them and swarms of *manned* LCAs. Both of them we have right now.

Now to add, one does not have to bring down J-20s to defeat the J-20. One can defeat the purpose of J-20. One of the primary purpose of a LO attack aircraft is to suppress enemy air defenses. What happens if the air defence is not suppressed? Lots of AEW and redundant grid(s) of VLF radars with dummies spread around....


Swarm and UCAV go together.

Of course that is one way of dealing with home advantage. What do we have to do if we have to carry the operation into their territory facing an adversary having J-20? That is achieved by having Superior ESM/ECM. Real Stealth plane is the one having superior characteristics in ESM/ECM area. ESM is also provided by AEW.

In this age where information war is waged equally well; used to decide the outcome of the war, we must not give too much leeway in giving J-20 a free bomb run, however inconsequential the bombed area is.

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby sarabpal.s » 07 Jan 2011 21:40

i think biggest threat anytime near is from Pakistan.
Because pak army is playing in the hand of radicals and more & more people inclining toward Taliban style rule (latest is killing of Pak punjab governor where killer treat it like hero)

What would happen when pak army openly support the radicals and support them against India when this happen another 1947 or kargil repeated when Pakistan show helplessness to world and projects intruder as not own.

Take look at PAF you would expect that a rogue radical pilot or cluster of pilot take on suicidal mission in India with his fighter plane attack any biggest target inside India.

Can we check them on time?

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2165
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Jan 2011 23:10

abhik wrote:Take for example Vivek's theory , based on multiple AWACS providing interlocking coverage 24/7. But what happens when some of your AWACS are temporarily down(because they need repairs and servicing) and you aren't able to deploy the required numbers. Or what if the Geography is such that in some areas this "interlocking" coverage is not possible , Or what if the enemy chooses a high risk strategy of attacking the AWACS themselves (and prepared to take a few losses to achieve this) . Now tactics and weaponry to conduct such missions are already well established and that too using 4th gen aircraft, and a stealth fighter undertaking such a mission will only find easier.

The thing is that you cant have a situation where your fighters are at a clear disadvantage and expect to mostly "win" simply based on the use of tactics.


Technology is a constant advantage, tactics are dependent variables.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby vasu_ray » 08 Jan 2011 04:42

A SARH missile works by the way of homing on the radar reflection off of the target, with Stealth the target has its RCS decreased, so an AWACS sized radar can be used to paint it and the MKI's radar will track the VLO based on the reflection only and in this mode as long as the MKI's detection range is beyond 100km then its safe from the VLO's BVR missiles

Now instead of the regular AWACS which has to maintain a standoff distance, the MKI can behave as a mini AWACS painting for other fighters so in this context, miniaturization of the radar antennas would be a key breakthrough similar to the recent ICL-20 explosive chemical

The MKIs could carry special pods for this purpose instead of the stock BARS radar

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 09 Jan 2011 19:50

So what does it take to defeat the advantage gained by an adversary who uses a stealthy aircraft?

I think the approach has to be to try and negate the advantage that stealth gives the adversary.

What are the advantages of stealth in an aircraft?

1. A stealth attack aircraft can approach a target undetected until it is too late to intercept. However only kindergarten children will believe that "magic" was used for the attack. The minute the attack occurs it will be clear that there is some attacking aircraft nearby.

After the first stealth attack it will be clear that stealthy aircraft have been used. if you already know that the adversary can use stealth, you should prepare for attacks in which the attacking aircraft is stealthy.

What can you do to prepare?

    *You can have multiple decoy targets.
    *get your close in defences secure so that anything detected at short range can be engaged quickly and intensely
    *try and intercept during or after the attack by scrambling from nearby bases or pulling in fighters that are on CAP. But your fighters could get shot down at BVR ranges by stealthy escorts. So a different approach is needed for this.
    *develop a robust network of AEW radars - both ground based and airborne

2) Stealthy escorts could engage your fighters at BVR ranges while another set of aircraft attack your assets. you can't see the escorts because of their stealth.

Possible "fixes" include keeping your interceptors stealthy by using terrain masking where possible or by deception where there are two or more groups of defending aircraft - all of which have to be engaged. The minute a missile is launched at any one of these the stealth of the stealthy escort gets broken giving an approximate fix on which direction the missile was fired from.

Either way robust AWACS assets, ground radars and infra red search assets are useful. Both for attackers and defenders.

If your fighters also are stealthy the only advantage it gives them is that they can get closer to the attacking aircraft and engage them before the defenders themselves are detected by a stealthy enemy escort waiting at BVR range. If your stealthy defending aircraft do not have a clue as to where the stealthy attackers or stealthy escorts are there is nothing they can do - no matter how stealthy they are. Their stealth will only reduce their chances of being seen BVR by escorts. they will not be able to prevent the attack on your assets.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Kanson » 09 Jan 2011 20:03

Possible "fixes" include keeping your interceptors stealthy by using terrain masking where possible or by deception where there are two or more groups of defending aircraft - all of which have to be engaged. The minute a missile is launched at any one of these the stealth of the stealthy escort gets broken giving an approximate fix on which direction the missile was fired from.


How do we know that the missile is from stealthy escorts and not from non stealthy escorted plane. First of all how we know there is a stealthy plane? Even an ordinary plane can deceive radar as we seen in Israeli intrusion in Syria.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 09 Jan 2011 20:14

Kanson wrote:Even an ordinary plane can deceive radar as we seen in Israeli intrusion in Syria.

An ordinary plane that deceives radar is a stealthy plane. Whoever launches the missile indicates that there is some missile launching entity in the area from which the missile approaches (and not a djinn). However if the missile launch aircraft is not stealthy (or deceiving radar) it should be picked up. If not the effect is same as "stealthy"

But I must point out that having an entire system in the air with AWACS, stealth fighters, non stealthy fighter etc is the "ideal" that the US and NATO have achieved against Iraq. If we are like Iraq, and are fighting an adversary as capable as the US/NATO, we too will perform as well as Iraq. the idea is not to perform liek Iraq and think what it takes to do that while understanding that a war with China will not have the level of threat sophistication that the US and NATO achieved against Iraq. If we can deal with one we can deal with the other.

What assets do we need to build up?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Kanson » 09 Jan 2011 20:31

An ordinary plane that deceives radar is a stealthy plane. Whoever launches the missile indicates that there is some missile launching entity in the area from which the missile approaches (and not a djinn). However if the missile launch aircraft is not stealthy (or deceiving radar) it should be picked up. If not the effect is same as "stealthy"

Ok. But how we know that the attack is from airplane and not from missile ? If it releases a stealthy missile, how we know that it is from low-level attack aircraft and not from stealthy bomber.

I'm just trying to point out the complexity.

the idea is not to perform liek Iraq and think what it takes to do that while understanding that a war with China will not have the level of threat sophistication that the US and NATO achieved against Iraq. If we can deal with one we can deal with the other.

What assets do we need to build up?
It is not only the assets, but data regarding radar signature/EM signals/specific characteristics/weakness/their pattern of employment and even spies at their military base etc. JMT

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34246
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 09 Jan 2011 20:37

Kanson wrote:Ok. But how we know that the attack is from airplane and not from missile ? If it releases a stealthy missile, how we know that it is from low-level attack aircraft and not from stealthy bomber.



It is complex. but not complex enough to cause despair and stop minds from working. After all that missile may miss, or the launching entity detected. It is hardly going to be a cake walk for an adversary who does not have the assets of NATO for fighting against someone who is better than Iraq after decades of war and sanctions.

The idea is not to build individual scenarios but to put in the requisite thinking power that points towards solutions rather than despair or Discovery channel fanboy rhetoric "You don't know what hit you so you will be too scared to take off". That is the level we have achieved so far and we need to go beyond that,

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2921
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Kanson » 09 Jan 2011 21:38

^ But this thread is about "Anticipating...future...threats" and discussing about countering them, no? :)

It is complex. but not complex enough to cause despair and stop minds from working.

Of course, how should it has to be done is the answer this thread is suppose to search for. I gave only the complexities one could expect, if we are attacked stealthily.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2214
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby darshhan » 09 Jan 2011 23:02

How about going after refuelling aircraft ? Apart from B-2 bomber no stealth aircraft(both in operation and planned) can penetrate a decent size country like India without using refuelling aircraft until unless they are taking of from an airfield very close to border(in which case they are themselves vulnerable to counter strike).

In my opinion Destroying refuellers of the enemy would have a serious impact on the operational rate of their stealth fighters.

We should also not depend too much on technology related solutions for countering stealth.For eg. AWACS which will be of limited utility according to me.If an aircraft is stealthy enough it will be stealthy for AWACS too.At the most if a conventional fighter detects a stealthy bird at 50 miles the AWACS will increase that range to about 100 miles.But at this range the AWACS plane itself will be a sitting duck for any stealth fighter worth its salt.And anyway India is not likely to have a decent fleet of AWACS planes which can give 24 hr coverage in every sector before the end of this decade(that is if everything works out).

Instead we should be thinking asymmetrically on how to defeat stealth.One of the ideas that I could come up with is to target refuellers.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2214
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby darshhan » 10 Jan 2011 17:17

About Zoltan Dani.The Air defence guy whose team was responsible for downing the sole F-117 in the Kosovo war of 1999.Seems like an enterprising officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani


Another article where he discusses the events which led to the downing of F-117.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 ... alth_x.htm

Col. Zoltan Dani was behind one of the most spectacular losses ever suffered by the U.S. Air Force: the 1999 shooting down of an F-117A stealth fighter.
An F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter pilot lowers the plane's landing gear and approaches the runway.
By Ellis Neel, Alamogordo Daily News via AP

Now, for the first time since that night six years ago, the former Serbian commander of an anti-aircraft missile battery has consented to speak publicly to Western media about the circumstances surrounding the unprecedented downing of a U.S. stealth plane.

The hit on the radar-evading plane on March 27, 1999, during the 78-day NATO campaign over Serbia, triggered doubts not only about the F-117s, but also about the entire concept of stealth technology on which the U.S. Air Force has based its newest generation of warplanes.

Military analysts debated how the planes would fare in a war against a militarily sophisticated opponent if an obsolescent air defense such as Serbia's could manage to track and destroy them.

In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Dani said the F-117 was detected and shot down during a moonless night — just three days into the war — by a Soviet-made SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missile.

"We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.

It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge.

The F-117 was developed in great secrecy in the 1970s. It entered service in 1983 but was not revealed officially until 1988. It saw its first combat in the 1989 invasion of Panama and was a star of the 1991 Gulf War.

"Long before the 1999 war, I took keen interest in the stealth fighter and on how it could be detected," said Dani, who has been hailed in Serbia as a war hero. "And I concluded that there are no invisible aircraft, but only less visible."

The F-117 was one of only two allied aircraft shot down in the war. The other was an F-16 fighter, which the U.S. Air Force said was also hit by an SA-3. Both pilots bailed out and were rescued by NATO helicopters.

Dani said his anti-aircraft missile regiment, tasked with the anti-aircraft defense of the Serbian capital, Belgrade, downed the F-16.

Several other NATO warplanes were damaged by missile hits but managed to struggle back to bases in neighboring Bosnia, Macedonia or Croatia. At least one is said to have ditched into the Adriatic Sea as it attempted to regain its base in Italy.

Despite NATO's near-total air supremacy, the alliance never succeeded in knocking out Dani's batteries.

The Serb SAMs remained a potent threat throughout the conflict, forcing attacking warplanes to altitudes above 15,000 feet, where they were safe from surface-to-air missiles but far less effective in a ground attack role.

NATO won the war in June 1999, after President Slobodan Milosevic decided to withdraw his largely intact army from Kosovo, following the destruction of numerous government buildings, bridges and other infrastructure targets throughout Serbia.

"The Americans entered the war a bit overconfident," Dani said. "They thought they could crush us without real resistance."

"At times, they acted like amateurs," Dani said, listing some ways the Serbs managed to breach NATO communications security, including eavesdropping on pilots' conversations with AWACS surveillance planes.

"I personally listened to their pilots' conversations, learning about their routes and bombing plans," Dani said.


Dani said that his unit has had annual reunions on every March 27 since 1999 when a cake in the shape of the F-117 is served.

manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby manish.rastogi » 10 Jan 2011 17:22

Okay.....i am just suggesting an idea.....how about we set up a private company for advertisements on aerostats stuff then during manufacturing the aerostats we place radar and other equipments to monitor the airspace.....would greatly increase the area of airspace monitored and also would give us a warning of any incoming stealth planes quite in advance to prepare for that!!!

I suggested Private company because if some country would try to figure out how do we get the warning in advance time.....they would try to get a picture of the whole situation and when they would get to know about a private company aerostats with advertisements and all.....I doubt they would place much attention to it!!!

Just my thoughts but suggestions and pointing out of fallacies is welcome!!!!

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2214
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby darshhan » 10 Jan 2011 17:24

Another article from Strategypage regarding the downing of F-117.I know the site is illegal on BRF but it might be relevant to our current discussion.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/ ... 51121.aspx

The Serbian battery commander, whose missiles downed an American F-16, and, most impressively, an F-117, in 1999, has retired, as a colonel, and revealed many of the techniques he used to achieve all this. Colonel Dani Zoltan, in 1999, commanded the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade. He had search and control radars, as well as a TV tracking unit. The battery had four quad launchers for the 21 foot long, 880 pound SA-3 missiles. The SA-3 entered service in 1961 and, while it had undergone some upgrades, was considered a minor threat to NATO aircraft. Zoltan was an example of how an imaginative and energetic leader can make a big difference. While Zoltan's peers and superiors were pretty demoralized with the electronic countermeasures NATO (especially American) aircraft used to support their bombing missions, he believed he could still turn his ancient missiles into lethal weapons. The list of measures he took, and the results he got, should be warning to any who believe that superior technology alone will provide a decisive edge in combat. People still make a big difference. In addition to shooting down two aircraft, Zoltan's battery caused dozens of others to abort their bombing missions to escape his unexpectedly accurate missiles. This is how he did it.

--- Zoltan had about 200 troops under his command. He got to know them well, trained hard and made sure everyone could do what was expected of them. This level of quality leadership was essential, for Zoltan's achievements were a group effort.

--- Zoltan used a lot of effective techniques that American air defense experts expected, but did not expect to encounter because of poor leadership by the enemy. For example, Zoltan knew that his major foe was HARM (anti-radar) missiles and electronic detection systems used by the Americans, as well as smart bombs from aircraft who had spotted him. To get around this, he used landlines for all his communications (no cell phones or radio). This was more of a hassle, often requiring him to use messengers on foot or in cars. But it meant the American intel people overhead were never sure where he was.

--- His radars and missile launchers were moved frequently, meaning that some of his people were always busy looking for new sites to set up in, or setting up or taking down the equipment. His battery traveled over 100,000 kilometers during the 78 day NATO bombing campaign, just to avoid getting hit. They did, and his troops knew all that effort was worth the effort.

--- The Serbs had spies outside the Italian airbase most of the bombers operated from. When the bombers took off, the information on what aircraft they, and how many, quickly made it to Zoltan and the other battery commanders.(very important)

--- Zoltan studied all the information he could get on American stealth technology, and the F-117. There was a lot of unclassified data, and speculation, out there. He developed some ideas on how to beat stealth, based on the fact that the technology didn't make the F-117 invisible to radar, just very to get, and keep, a good idea of exactly where the aircraft was. Zoltan figured out how to tweak his radars to get a better lock on stealth type targets. This has not been discussed openly.

--- The Serbs also set up a system of human observers, who would report on sightings of bombers entering Serbia, and track their progress.

--- The spies and observers enabled Zoltan to keep his radars on for a minimal amount of time. This made it difficult for the American SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) to use their HARM missiles (that homed in on radar transmissions.) Zoltan never lost a radar to a HARM missile.

--- Zoltan used the human spotters and brief use of radar, with short range shots at American bombers. The SA-3 was guided from the ground, so you had to use surprise to get an accurate shot in before the target used jamming and evasive maneuvers to make the missile miss. The F-117 he shot down was only 13 kilometers away.

Zoltan got some help from his enemies. The NATO commanders often sent their bombers in along the same routes, and didn't make a big effort to find out if hotshots like Zoltan were down there, and do something about it. Never underestimate your enemy.



kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2169
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby kit » 10 Jan 2011 17:32

Does anyone know what happened to this Zoltan dude ? In any country he would be a war hero and most probably a good tactician.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w and 32 guests