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: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 30 Jul 2010 09:39

From 32 sec onwards , Raptor in an IR camera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Carl_T » 30 Jul 2010 09:40

What is the range of IRST?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 30 Jul 2010 18:19

Cross post
prastor wrote:I see a lot of F-22 Raptor "fanboyism" in this thread. I say fanboyism because of the lack of any citations on any of the claims most people are making about an F-22 Raptor's strengths.

Did anybody bother to provide a credible source that talks about the F-22s proven reliability?
Anybody wonder why F22s are not being used in Afghanistan or Iraq currently?

Here are two sources that talk about the weaknesses of the F-22 Raptor and why even the American DoD found it very impractical.



I read one article with an incredibly bad excuse for the F 22
http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/edop_7-13-09.asp
The best weapon may be the one that isn’t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. :eek: Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence.
:shock:


Maybe that is why there is a concerted network of fanboy generation sites on the net.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby prastor » 30 Jul 2010 18:54

shiv wrote:From 32 sec onwards , Raptor in an IR camera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU


Wow! It's lighting up like a flood-light in a cricket stadium.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Gaur » 30 Jul 2010 19:08

Carl_T wrote:What is the range of IRST?

Needless to say, it depends upon the IRST and the target a/c.
According to Iggor's blog, ols-35 has range upto 90km. Though a blog is not a proper source, Igorr does provide proper reference to his source.
http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ols-35-irst-option-for-su-30-family.html

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6462
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Indranil » 30 Jul 2010 19:16

prastor wrote:
Wow! It's lighting up like a flood-light in a cricket stadium.


What are you speaking of ... this is FLIR video of an object which is always within 2-3 kms! In fact if you would have noticed closely you should have found out that there is hardly a signature of the exhaust plume beyond a few feet of the aircraft when the plane is not on afterburner. That my friend is considerable stealth.

I would ask you something since you have come out so strongly against the F-22. Could you please tell me attributes of the F-22 which are inferior to any other plane presently in service? Lets forget strength. Lets speak about aerodynamics and avionics.

P.S. please do not point out the cost related stuff. We all know that. Besides are you really asking for links which prove the Raptors capabilities. It is the simplest Google search away. You would find many independent reviews by pilots, agencies, and airforces outside of the US.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 30 Jul 2010 21:24

People might be interested in knowing that the Wiki article on IRST has only one reference. See the authors' SDRE names
Mahulikar, S.P., Sonawane, H.R., & Rao, G.A.: (2007) "Infrared signature studies of aerospace vehicles", Progress in Aerospace Sciences, v. 43(7-8), pp. 218-245.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infra-red_search_and_track

A Google for that SDRE paper gives a whole lot of links including this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/stealth-aircraft
In air combat, the optronic suite allows:

* Detection of non-afterburning targets at 45 km range and more;
* Identification of those targets at 8 to 10 km range; and
* Estimates of aerial target range at up to 15 km.

For ground targets, the suite allows:

* A tank-effective detection range up to 15 km, and aircraft carrier detection at 60 to 80 km;
* Identification of the tank type on the 8 to 10 km range, and of an aircraft carrier at 40 to 60 km; and
* Estimates of ground target range of up to 20 km.


Also check this - for those of you who have free access to journals

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/infrared-signature/

Infrared stealth is an area of stealth technology aimed at reducing infrared signatures
Mahulikar, S.P., Sonawane, H.R., & Rao, G.A.: (2007) "Infrared signature studies of aerospace vehicles", Progress in Aerospace Sciences, v. 43(7-8), pp. 218-245.. This reduces a platforms susceptibility to infrared guided weapons and infrared surveillance sensors,Rao, G.A., & Mahulikar, S.P.: (2005) "New criterion for aircraft susceptibility to infrared homing missiles", Aerospace Science & Technology, v. 9(8), pp. 701-712. and thus increases the platform's overall survivability. Infrared stealth is particularly applicable to military jets because of the detectable enginesMahulikar, S.P., Kolhe, P.S., & Rao, G.A.: (2005) "Skin temperature prediction of aircraft rear fuselage with multi-mode thermal model", AIAA Journal of Thermophysics & Heat Transfer, v. 19(1), pp. 114-124. and plumesMahulikar, S.P., Rao, G.A., Sane, S.K., & Marathe, A.G.: (2005) "Aircraft plume infrared signature in nonafterburning mode", AIAA Journal of Thermophysics & Heat Transfer, v. 19(3), pp. 413-415. from non-stealth aircraft, but it also applies to military helicopters,Mahulikar, S.P., Prasad, H.S.S., & Potnuru, S.K.: (2008) "Infrared signature suppression of helicopter engine duct based on `conceal and camouflage`", AIAA Journal of Propulsion & Power, v. 24(3), pp. 613-618. warships, land vehicles and dismounted soldiers.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Gaur » 30 Jul 2010 21:47

indranilroy wrote:
prastor wrote:
Wow! It's lighting up like a flood-light in a cricket stadium.


What are you speaking of ... this is FLIR video of an object which is always within 2-3 kms! In fact if you would have noticed closely you should have found out that there is hardly a signature of the exhaust plume beyond a few feet of the aircraft when the plane is not on afterburner. That my friend is considerable stealth.

You should check out the following video also by flightglobal filmed during the same Farnborough airshow. It captures Eurofighter, F-16, F-22 among others using the same flir camera. Notice that Eurofighter's exhaust IR signature is comparable to that of F-22 (specially during the beginning of the Typhoon's part when the afterburner is off).
[youtube]PLzD1SCk__g&feature=related[/youtube]

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Carl_T » 30 Jul 2010 22:41

Gaur wrote:Needless to say, it depends upon the IRST and the target a/c.
According to Iggor's blog, ols-35 has range upto 90km. Though a blog is not a proper source, Igorr does provide proper reference to his source.
http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ols-35-irst-option-for-su-30-family.html


shiv wrote:
In air combat, the optronic suite allows:

* Detection of non-afterburning targets at 45 km range and more;
* Identification of those targets at 8 to 10 km range; and
* Estimates of aerial target range at up to 15 km.



From a maximum of 90km to actual identification of targets at 8-10km range for IRST is not really a lot, especially when the Raptor's radar has a range of about 108 miles or so.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 0909p2.xml

I don't know if the source is halal.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 31 Jul 2010 06:25

Carl_T wrote:
From a maximum of 90km to actual identification of targets at 8-10km range for IRST is not really a lot, especially when the Raptor's radar has a range of about 108 miles or so.


Good thinking. So what needs to be done in combat is to force the Raptor to come close to some fighter - (within 40 km) - by either deceiving the Raptor or overloading him with targets and then shot him down with a salvo of IR missiles. The completely idiotic idea that everyone should run away from battle if there is a Raptor around (as expressed by someone) needs to be dismissed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 31 Jul 2010 14:11

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ealth.aspx

Discussion of countering stealth centers on two topics. The first is how to unmask the radar signature reduction attained through stealth. The second is whether the radio portion of the spectrum—often referred to as the RF spectrum—is still where the fight is. Some contend that infrared will become the next detection arena.

Unmasking radar is a subtle business. If stealth is a handful of methods for altering the expected return to the radar, then counterstealth has to overcome those measures.

There has been great exaggeration about countering stealth. It is based in part on a lingering misconception that stealth aircraft are not detectable. The aircraft were never intended to be invisible, nor was it claimed they would be. What the F-117, B-2, and F-22 designers aimed to do was to overturn the existing tactics for air defense. They did so in several ways:

* Herding radar returns into controlled patterns so that, instead of radiating 360 degrees, the attacking aircraft had minimal spurts of radar return in known areas—which would be pointed away from threat radars, or too fleeting for steady detection and tracking.

Developing onboard systems for locating threats and showing the aircraft’s "best face" to them.

* For the B-2, optimization to fly at high and low altitude.
* With the F-22, combining stealth with extended flight above Mach 1, known as supercruise.

Thus the counters to stealth have always been part of the advanced design concepts. Every low observable feature—from design and coating to seal and antenna—is evaluated for its strengths and weaknesses. Continued maintenance and testing of fielded low observable aircraft is like a daily reminder of the integrated balance required for stealth.

Among the stealth trade-offs, infrared signature is one of the classics. Reducing infrared emissions is difficult, but has long been a design requirement for low observable aircraft. Advances in adversary infrared search and track capabilities are certainly something to keep an eye on.

Against surface-to-air missiles, the challenge is not much changed: delay or obfuscate tracking. Here the continued advantages of stealth still place a nearly insurmountable burden on the defender.

A much bigger concern is the longer detection ranges of the SA-10 and SA-20 missiles against nonstealthy aircraft.

Those who work with stealth are steeped in these trade-offs. That’s why stealth continues to be a requirement for new systems such as the F-35, next generation bomber, and the Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator. The F-35, too, has banked on stealth as its top survivability feature.

No one is suggesting that there aren’t challenges ahead. Air defense systems, radars, and anti-stealth countermeasures will all improve over time. But so too will the low observable features of the aircraft, as can be seen in the evolution of the stealth features on the F-117, B-2, and F-22.

The next wave of enhanced survivability depends directly on making the best use of information, by sharing what stealth aircraft learn over data links that aren’t likely to be intercepted. It is certainly time to enhance the ability of stealth platforms—the B-2, F-22, and eventually, the F-35—to swap threat and mission data.

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Carl_T » 02 Aug 2010 23:52

shiv wrote:Good thinking. So what needs to be done in combat is to force the Raptor to come close to some fighter - (within 40 km) - by either deceiving the Raptor or overloading him with targets and then shot him down with a salvo of IR missiles. The completely idiotic idea that everyone should run away from battle if there is a Raptor around (as expressed by someone) needs to be dismissed.


I don't think it's possible to coax the raptor to come inside 40km in A2A combat when he could take advantage of his radar and shoot from 50km+ out.

Now what may be possible is to not challenge them aerially and allow them to come over land. Once they come over land, there can be many small IR/radar sensors dotting the ground that may prove difficult for the raptor to hit.

JMT

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6462
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Indranil » 03 Aug 2010 02:03

Gaur wrote:
You should check out the following video also by flightglobal filmed during the same Farnborough airshow. It captures Eurofighter, F-16, F-22 among others using the same flir camera. Notice that Eurofighter's exhaust IR signature is comparable to that of F-22 (specially during the beginning of the Typhoon's part when the afterburner is off).
[youtube]PLzD1SCk__g&feature=related[/youtube]


Gaurji, I had not noticed this post of yours till today, so sorry for the delayed reply. I don't think that the FLIR signature of the exhaust of the F-22 and the Eurofighter is the same during dry thrust. Contrast the plume at 1:01 (of the Eurofighter) to the plume of the F-22 at 1:38 (Both of them are at the same bank angle etc etc). also bear in mind that the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 on the F-22 is rated at 106KN whereas the EJ200 on the Eurofighter is rated at 60 KN, i.e. in almost half!

I am sure you know about the basic IR suppression tech on the F-22 by using cold air from nearby.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Gaur » 03 Aug 2010 03:08

^^
Yes. I am aware of the basic IR suppression technique you are talking about. Someone had even posted a diagram representing that on this forum sometimes back. Also, you are correct that F-22's FLIR signature of the exhaust seems to be less than that of Eurofighter at those time instances (hence the use of the word "comparable" instead of "same"). However, I had always imagined the difference to be significantly greater ( Not being an expert, I have little control over my imagination :D ). Though, as you rightly pointed out, one has to take into account the higher thrust rating of P&W F119. Even so, it makes me wonder if the difference is enough to provide F-22 with significant advantage against modern IR & IIR missiles? But I guess that this is a question which can be answered only by the people having deep knowledge and understanding of modern seekers.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2010 07:03

Carl_T wrote:
I don't think it's possible to coax the raptor to come inside 40km i


At BVR ranges you still have to identify your target, If your target is mixed up with your own fighters then you have to come in close for positive identification. If you don't - something else that belongs to you will get damaged or destroyed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 03 Aug 2010 07:18

Cross post reply to
viewtopic.php?p=915772#p915772

Rishirishi wrote:But it will come at a huge cost.


Of course. And that is the fallout of all war. What is the cost to you versus what is the cost to the other person?

If one side is willing to lose 10 JF 17s for the loss of one Raptor, it will be an indicator of the Raptor's fallibility. The US is not sending Raptors in to lose them and if the other side is willing to lose aircraft you do not need a 1:1 or even 1:4 advantage before the US starts changing tactics and making Raptors "more safe" than they are. Worse, even if Raptors are not lost but their mission effectiveness is reduced by approriate tactics knowing that raptors are there in the batle, it would still make the Raptor's side lose.

But this whole scenario was configured to face a Soviet Union style foe - and perhaps can only be extended to a China style foe who will produce low tech aircraft in huge numbers to throw against a force of 12 or 20 or 100 Raptors that may be sent to battle. Forget all the scenario building - the fact that one side has the Raptor does not mean that the other side has already lost or will stop fighting. They will change tactics. This, in my view is the real take away lesson that is lost in the fanboy mail about the Raptor because nobody wants to think after reading all the glowing descriptions.

One of the reasons why the Raptor is not being proliferated in large numbers (apart from reliability issues) is that having a nearly invincible plane that comes at great cost ultimately only sterilizes and dominates one aspect of a battlefield without being able to reduce cost in life by a similar margin in other aspects of the battlefield - such as a land battle. So you can end up having Raptors configured to dominate the air after which there is no significant air battle that they lose, but air superiority is unable to win a land battle that goes on and on.

This is what happened in Korea where the Sabre dominated the skies. It happened in Vietnam. It is happening in Afghanistan. The net effect is like a 100 soldiers fighting where one soldier has a magic sword and is invincible. But the other 99 soldiers are taking it in the gut like anyone else. Unless the entire battlefield can be dominated the Raptor finishes its job but the war goes on.

In other words - even if you have the Raptor, you have to choose your enemy well. You need to choose an enemy who is most likely to be affected adversely by the Raptor. What follows from this is the key to counter the Raptor. Anyone who has to fight a nation that sends a Raptor style weapons platform against you will have to devise a way to fight that makes the Raptor's advantage useless. Than might mean hiding and fortification of radars and SAM systems in the way the Hezbollah did versus Israel. It might mean investment in passive detection systems. It could mean investment in cheap unguided and guided ballistic and cruise missiles for offence. It could mean refusing to be drawn into an air battle until the tactics of the other side are studied - lulling them into thinking that you are afraid to fight and them pouncing on him when he gets more daring, thinking he has knocked out your radars.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3368
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby hnair » 04 Aug 2010 00:01

Random thoughts:

About statistics of 100000000000:1 kills, those are to be treated as a marketing tool being used against you. It means a particular parameter was better (eg: radar) than existing tech, but conveniently ignores numerous other things that eff up life. Gora's marketing is adept at identifying a single USP and selling via such routes. It is a great tool for marketing people to do effective trash talk before a fight for contracts or even a war. Everyone is happy: the pilots, the planners and the people, because they are "infallible"

Infact movie Jurassic Park is a great example making fun of this marketing of false sense of infallibility (and gora made money out of that movie too! priceless) :D I personally got my first "aha!" flash in the early 90s, after (in my mind) an infallible boxer named Mike Tyson got loved up by a 35:1 underdog (Douglas). Till then I fell for Don King's line of the "most fearsome, invincible boxer in history" etc. Infact in a naive fashion, I got angry at Buster Douglas, instead of at Tyson for loosing the fight. Got over it after my friend pointed out how ridiculous I sounded and did some thinking. Turns out Mikey was destined to fail, if somebody spooked his tough guy act and still stood up after the first two rounds. Not that I stopped being a fan-boi for random stuff :D

IIRC, detection of the Raptor is not the main issue, tracking it accurately to declare a "lock" by an FCR seems the issue. As it flies fast and the angles keep changing, the track might waxe and wane drastically. A solid lock is difficult (as is the case with even the teen fighters, but more so for a ULOA). So the Raptor is about making the AAM (and SAM) weaponry LESS effective (though marketing talk replaces "less" with "ineffective") in its current form.

Two things that come to mind
1) those docile Doppler weather radar type tech that detects atmospheric disturbances and plots its air currents. A furious turbulence caused by something "invisible" at mach 1.2 might sound interesting

2) A submarine hunt is never about keeping a constant track on the quarry. It is about knowing a sub capability and then doing an estimate of its current position from other factors like sonar dunks, probable routes based on sea floor mappings etc. In essence it is the ultimate hunt for a stealthy object. But still it gets done

Combine the above - fused data from all sorts of sensors (OLS is the boss of this, no doubt) + networked 4th gen fighters.

I am not going much into counter measures to a Raptor's BVR weaponry, as these are the cheapest way to get over its pricey advantages. Make sure the AAMs are ineffective with decoys or other soft/hardkill (from intense jamming to DIRCM for dual-sensor AAMs) options and Raptor has to come close for canon work, where unfortunately, a certain MKI is king. Infact those "hilarious" French guys who were doing nothing but sniffing around for emissions during that Red Flag in which IAF was trash talked by that pizza-loving Kernail of USAF, I believe they got it right. I hope our guys too clasped their hands and caught stuff from the air over Nellis....

So one doesnt have to curl up and die on such percentage talks. I mean, that obnoxious fifth dentist too would have lifafa-ed for Crest toothpaste by now, if world did that, right? :mrgreen:

One thing is for sure - cowboy airwar (one chap shooting stuff down on his own) is long over. Both sides need extreme teamwork and in that sense, a raptor might be a challenge to unadaptive airforces. And Raptor is an end of road thing for Pentagon planners. It got lucky and a lot got ordered before winds changed. Will be retired or reduced much before the F35. That is unless the Japanese or Ozzies fall for Carlo.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 04 Aug 2010 06:52

That is a brilliant post hnair, although parts of it are strictly speaking OT. I am talking about the "marketing skill" aspect.

One thing that SDREs have not caught on about technology is that its development needs funds, and funds come from sales. Sales are driven by marketing. Marketing is nothing if it does not involve hype.

If you look past the Raptor on this forum you find the same themes being repeated across the forum in which technology is announced as a solution either before it is mature or when it is suitable only under certain circumstances. But the manner of announcement of that tech is pure marketing hype. I am referring to the way topics like the urgent need for "Blue Edge" rotor technology or Fenestron rotors becomes established by strategically situated news items and a network of fanboy media (I was reading Flight magazine by age 10). For a nation that lacks technology everything is dazzling - but as nations become more adept at tech they should be able to suss out the hype from reality.

In fact marketing hype is itself a huge money spinner because I have come to believe that arms sales to a majority of 170 odd countries in the world ( sold by the handful of countries that sell arms) are all powered by brochuritis and lubricated by slush funds, middlemen and bribes. To me it appears that India has put in a valiant effort to stop that - often at the risk of slowing down acquisition to snail's pace.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1442
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Craig Alpert » 05 Aug 2010 03:55


Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Carl_T » 06 Aug 2010 04:29

Illustration of shiv's point


China readies Carrier killing missile.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_ ... ier_killer

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 06 Aug 2010 07:33

Carl_T wrote:
China readies Carrier killing missile.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_ ... ier_killer


The important thing here is the thought process that leads on to this carrier killing missile or to any weapon system designed to kill the latest and greatest
1) The first is absence of defeatism: "Oh the US is the most technologically advanced and we cannot do anything. Whatever we do - they will counter"
2) Lack of fanboyism: "The US has it. It is the best. A a democracy we are on the side of US and freedom and democracy. We won't have to fight it. And that's the way things should be. God bless America"
3) Eyes wide open to reality: What is the reality?
  • There is no effective countermeasure for ballistic missiles, or for that matter most missiles no matter how advanced you may be
  • There is no counter to nuclear bombs
  • Use your existing strengths, don't try to compete with the other guys strengths - he knows where he is stronger. The counter to a carrier need not be a carrier - but could be a barrage of missiles.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20752
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Austin » 06 Aug 2010 10:32

shiv wrote:Use your existing strengths, don't try to compete with the other guys strengths - he knows where he is stronger. The counter to a carrier need not be a carrier - but could be a barrage of missiles.


Indeed and that is the crux of the matter , there is a tendency in our R&D organisation ( probably pressure from armed forces or inherent tendencies ) to ape the West/US and then try to enter in a race to develop systems which they have developed leading to a generating gap( between them and us ) when we actually manage to do it and that too with substantial imported components.

There are very few example where we did not try to ape the west ( Prithvi , Agni ) but did it what was possible and within our means ,incrementally develop and innovate it as well in a way created a asymmetric response and succeeded plus these systems are percentage wise largely indigenous.

Compare that where we tried to ape and we ended up with substantial imported components or lic built ones.

The example of carrier vs missile which you gave is a good example , when the US tried to develop big fleet of CBG , the Soviet responded by not building similar CBG fleet but investing on barrage of missile in the form of ( SS-N-9/12/19/26 ) which can be fitted on submarines which they were good at developing and presented an assymetric response to US/NATO threats which if required can be defensive or go offensive.

China is another example of not trying to ape but developing what is within their means and trying to be innovative where ever possible , the ASBM is a good example where conceptually it is cost effective and can be mass deployed and a good deterrent against USN CBG in Chinese area of interest.

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby prastor » 06 Aug 2010 11:31

indranilroy wrote:
prastor wrote:
Wow! It's lighting up like a flood-light in a cricket stadium.


What are you speaking of ... this is FLIR video of an object which is always within 2-3 kms! In fact if you would have noticed closely you should have found out that there is hardly a signature of the exhaust plume beyond a few feet of the aircraft when the plane is not on afterburner. That my friend is considerable stealth.

I would ask you something since you have come out so strongly against the F-22. Could you please tell me attributes of the F-22 which are inferior to any other plane presently in service? Lets forget strength. Lets speak about aerodynamics and avionics.

P.S. please do not point out the cost related stuff. We all know that. Besides are you really asking for links which prove the Raptors capabilities. It is the simplest Google search away. You would find many independent reviews by pilots, agencies, and airforces outside of the US.


I will give you just one strong reason why an F22 will fail in real life war: NUMBERS.

America has around 187 Raptors on order. 1 crashed and few left to be delivered. Till date, the program has not achieved the complete list of KPPs to be considered combat ready. So, expecting they eventually will meet all the KPPs and no further crashes diminish the numbers, we can expect a total of 186 combat ready F22 Raptors with USAF. With the current MC rate of 70%, you can count it down to just 130 Raptors available for mission at any given point in war.

Now, do not expect all 130 Raptors to be deployed at the front. Some are reserved for defensive and deterrence roles across home bases and other strategic locations. So, say 60% of them are used actively in front line missions. That means, 78 Raptors would be deployed for missions. That is, to say the least, a pathetic number if USAF really intends to maintain air superiority over countries as huge as China or even India.

Let us take the example of China. If US is thrust into war with China with just 78 raptors, I just can't fathom an American air superiority over Chinese skies while the Chinese are fielding over 300 'air-superiority' (AS) fighters in the form of Su-30s and J-11s.

Assuming the same abysmal MC rates on China's part, let us say only 70% of their fighters are available at any given time. This translates to 210 Chinese AS fighters versus 78 American Raptors. Now, do not jump to consider the "1 vs. 1" kill ratios so aggressively advertised for an F22 at 30:1 by LM. This ratio will deplete a lot when it comes to a 20 raptors vs. 50 J-11s battle with AWACS on both sides with huge SAM installations at Chinese advantage. Even assuming a 5:1 advantage to the Raptors (which is still a stretch), you would end up with just 36 Raptors before the Chinese AS fighter fleets are destroyed.

In the mean time, China replenishes it's AS fleet with more J-11s from their rapid production lines, while America's F22 production line is non-existent. They would either have to fill the gaps with the much inferior F-15s/F-18s or move the other F22s from home or other strategic bases. This will only weaken the American efforts immensely and will have a very negative effect on USAF's confidence.

Of course, all this is as much hypothetical talk as is the talk about F22's strengths in real battles.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6462
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Indranil » 06 Aug 2010 12:45

Prastor. I am sorry to tell this, but you have put up a useless post. Please read up what I have written in previous posts on this thread and the Pak-FA thread. I have given elaborate scenarios where (I believe) the F-22 can be hunted in numbers. Also I have constantly contradicted the 1xx:1 kill ratio. I can believe that ratio in 1-vs-1 scenario (you know much like the action hero flicks, when 20 villains attack the hero, but 1 by 1, and hence the hero always wins). But I don't believe that will be the scenario in formation fights (though many might prove me wrong through asymmetric air exercises/evaluations till date where formations have taken up formations). So I myself have given these points before, you have brought nothing new to the table, expect making me write this long reply.

You had dissed the F-22 on it's IR signature based on the FLIR video and carried on your rant. Some posters ahead of you had suddenly started saying if the Pak-FA can take on the F-22, why can't the Su-30MKIs. I had just asked for specifications of any other operational plane of where the F-22 lags behind. I am still waiting!

I still believe (along with some very knowledgeable people in this world) that the F-22 is the plane to beat. As to beating the F-22, one can do two things, either build a plane spec-wise better than the F-22 or build a counter measure. Till date neither exists. Please contradict that fact with reports. I will be glad to change my views. On a side note the Chinese too seem to try to build a plane spec-wise comparable to the F-22. Nobody seems to be building a counter measure! The rest of the world seems to be playing catch-up even after 2 decades. Actually the F-22 stealth covers almost all kinds of modern-day seekers. So to counter the F-22 we need a to build a seeker based on some other signature or something that can pick up the IR trail of the F-22 from a significant distance when the F-22 is not on the afterburner (which it will not be while it is 100 kms away, given its TWR).

F-22 is a labour intensive plane when it comes to maintenance! There is no denying that fact! But it in many ways it is the precursor to many future planes. Technologies developed (read planform alignment, extensive use of composites, AESA, radar absorbing paint, LPI radars, side looking radars, internal weapons bay, non-circular tail-pipe) on it are getting refined to become part of any upcoming plane (including the Pak-FA). Lessons learnt on it are also being used on planes being designed today (read Pak-FA, F-35, J-xx, ATD-X, or the MCA). A lot of tech has trickled down from the F-22, which the rest of the world has gladly absorbed. It is much like tech on F-1 cars 2 decades back are in our road cars today. It is actually very interesting for me as an aircraft enthusiast to see where it goes from here. Something has got to give!

I am not saying we say "hail F-22, we all are lesser mortals and forever will be" . But at least we should learn to give credit where it is due. IMHO, otherwise we would only underestimate the competition.

Everybody, sorry for the long reply!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7621
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Pratyush » 06 Aug 2010 15:52

Guys, Just a question, How do you protect a tank against the third gen Fire and forget ATGM?

i.e, will an active protection system such as ARENA, work against a third gen Fire and forget ATGM

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 06 Aug 2010 16:12

This page, a cross post - show the sort of innovation that people can come up with in extremely adverse circumstances against an overwhelmingly powerful adversary. This man's creativity is admirable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani
Based on experiences of the 1981 Syrian War, constant relocation of all assets was key to survival of Dani's unit, the 3rd missile detachment of the 250th Serbian Air Defence Battalion. Although the SA-3 / "S-125M Neva" system is not a mobile SAM complex per design, its solid fueled missiles are transportable in near combat ready condition (in fact the Polish military created a mobile SA-3 version on T-72 tank chassis in the 1990s).

Therefore Lt. Col. Dani trained his SA-3 unit to achieve a 90 minute equipment break-down time with minimal lighting provided for better camouflage, one hour better than the standard time. Further set-up and break-down time reductions were achieved by reducing the SA-3 unit's number of active 5P73 launchers and V-601P missiles to just 2x2 from the original 4x4 configuration.

This reduction in missile capability was justified, because of the expected strictly limited time slots and occasions where a Serbian SAM battery could open fire in face of a tremendous NATO Wild Weasel capability, with any hope of self-preservation. The lean use of SAM missiles also became a necessity later on, as the initial March 24, 1999, 20:20 NATO air strike destroyed 100pcs of ready to use V-601P spare missiles in two concrete vaults at the Jakovo SAM base.

Lt. Col. Dani made it a strict field rule that the SA-3's UNV type fire control radar can be turned on for a maximum of 2 x 20 seconds in combat, after which the battery's equipment must be immediately broken down and trucked to a pre-prepared alternative launch site, whether or not any missile has been fired. This rule proved essential, because other Serbian AAA units emitting high-frequency radiation for any longer periods or forgetting to relocate, were hit by AGM-88 HARM missile counter-strikes from NATO aircraft, suffering radar equipment and personnel losses, even getting completely obliterated in some cases.

In order to train personnel operate efficiently under such pressures, Zoltán Dani obtained access to an "Accord" electronic signal simulator, which allowed the SA-3 radar and guidance crew practice combat scenarios based on imitated engagements. Several soldiers were removed from position both during the pre-war practice drills and wartime guard shifts, when they proved unable to cope with the psychological stress of being targeted by enemy aircraft.

It was decided two missiles will be launched against any target near simultaneously, in order to maximize hit probability. Unusually, launches were to be conducted against NATO aircraft that have already accomplished their ground strike missions and were about to leave Serbian airspace. Their northern heading was pointing away from the direction of powerful NATO airborne jammer sources, thereby allowing the SA-3's un-modernized UNV fire control radar set to operate with less interference.

Dani's mobility rule was strictly observed in his unit, with the trucks collecting more than 100.000 km in the odometer during the 78 days of Kosovo War, as they constantly shuttled missiles, radars and equipment between the dozen alternative launch sites, most of them embankments left over from already phased out SA-2 (S-75) units.

Radar sets obtained from confiscated Iraqi MiG-21 planes were planted around the SAM sites to serve as active emitter decoys, which diverted some anti-radiation missiles from the actual targets. (Dozens of Iraqi MiG-21/23 warplanes, sent to Yugoslavia for industrial overhaul, were seized in 1991, after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.) Retired SAM radar sets were used as optical decoys, left at well-known military bases to lure NATO planes waste munition on worthless targets. Owing to these measures, Dani's unit evaded 23 incoming HARM missiles, all of which impacted off-site with insignificant or zero damages.

General surveillance of NATO aircraft was provided by vintage P-18 radar sets, which used vacuum tubes and a large rotating Yagi antenna grid for meter-band illumination. Under optimal conditions the soviet made P-18 was able to plot large-RCS aircraft from 125 to 200 km, depending on the target's size, but with a high range inaccuracy of several hundred meters.

Zoltán Dani tuned his P-18 to the lowest possible frequency and further replaced four major capacitors in the electronics to achieve an even longer wavelength, hoping that meter band waves will reflect from the inside of targets, rendering stealth aircraft skin technology ineffective. In practice his modified P-18 provided stable plot of F-117 movements from just 25 km, which was useful when combined with the comparatively short missile range of the SA-3 air defence complex. Furthermore, the P-18 meter band radar could be kept almost constantly emitting, since most NATO radar warning receiver devices did not cover such a very low frequency band.
[edit] The stealth kill

On the particular night of the F-117 shootdown, 27 March, 1999, Zoltán Dani broke his own ruleset. He had information about unfavourable Adriatic weather conditions and Serbian spies residing near Italian NATO airbases informed the Serbian Air Defence HQ about lack of EA-6 Prowler electronic jammer and "Wild Weasel" anti-SAM aircraft launches during the late evening. Therefore any F-117s in the air on that fateful night were literally alone in the dark, but with high crew morale due to their invulnerability during previous day's sorties.

In the evening Dani's P-18 long-distance radar set malfunctioned at 19:05, almost the same time when four F-117s prepared for take-off from Aviano air base to attack targets in Belgrade. The repaired P-18 radar returned to air by 19:50 and started to emit at the specially modified lower frequency. Lt. Col. Dale Zelko's plane (tail number 82-0806) and three other F-117 flying northbound were acquired at 20:40 local time and so the SA-3 battery's fire control radar went on air to provide a riding beam for V-601P missile launches. The UNV radar emitted at high frequency for 2 x 20 seconds, but it was unable to obtain a lock on the targets.

Lt. Col. Dani then ordered a third illumination round, against his own rulebook, but knowing that NATO lacked immediate counterstrike capability on the particular occasion. Lock was obtained and at a distance of 13 km and an altitude of 8 km. Two SA-3 missiles were launched in short succession, with one obtaining a proximity fuse hit, as notified by an automatic radio pinger burst. The F-117 was structurally disabled by the sudden minus 6G negative load and stall-crashed in inverted position in an agricultural field, near the village of Budjanovci. The pilot ejected successfully and was rescued later on by NATO CSAR helicopters. The F-117's large kite-shaped titanium engine outlet heatshield is still kept by Dani in his garage.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 06 Aug 2010 16:16

Another example of creativity in wartime - this time from India eventually leading to the shooting down of a Baki F-104
http://rapidshare.com/files/409373561/p ... n.pdf.html

prastor
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 11:43

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby prastor » 06 Aug 2010 17:02

indranilroy wrote:Prastor. I am sorry to tell this, but you have put up a useless post. Please read up what I have written in previous posts on this thread and the Pak-FA thread. I have given elaborate scenarios where (I believe) the F-22 can be hunted in numbers. Also I have constantly contradicted the 1xx:1 kill ratio. I can believe that ratio in 1-vs-1 scenario (you know much like the action hero flicks, when 20 villains attack the hero, but 1 by 1, and hence the hero always wins). But I don't believe that will be the scenario in formation fights (though many might prove me wrong through asymmetric air exercises/evaluations till date where formations have taken up formations). So I myself have given these points before, you have brought nothing new to the table, expect making me write this long reply.

You had dissed the F-22 on it's IR signature based on the FLIR video and carried on your rant. Some posters ahead of you had suddenly started saying if the Pak-FA can take on the F-22, why can't the Su-30MKIs. I had just asked for specifications of any other operational plane of where the F-22 lags behind. I am still waiting!

I still believe (along with some very knowledgeable people in this world) that the F-22 is the plane to beat. As to beating the F-22, one can do two things, either build a plane spec-wise better than the F-22 or build a counter measure. Till date neither exists. Please contradict that fact with reports. I will be glad to change my views. On a side note the Chinese too seem to try to build a plane spec-wise comparable to the F-22. Nobody seems to be building a counter measure! The rest of the world seems to be playing catch-up even after 2 decades. Actually the F-22 stealth covers almost all kinds of modern-day seekers. So to counter the F-22 we need a to build a seeker based on some other signature or something that can pick up the IR trail of the F-22 from a significant distance when the F-22 is not on the afterburner (which it will not be while it is 100 kms away, given its TWR).

F-22 is a labour intensive plane when it comes to maintenance! There is no denying that fact! But it in many ways it is the precursor to many future planes. Technologies developed (read planform alignment, extensive use of composites, AESA, radar absorbing paint, LPI radars, side looking radars, internal weapons bay, non-circular tail-pipe) on it are getting refined to become part of any upcoming plane (including the Pak-FA). Lessons learnt on it are also being used on planes being designed today (read Pak-FA, F-35, J-xx, ATD-X, or the MCA). A lot of tech has trickled down from the F-22, which the rest of the world has gladly absorbed. It is much like tech on F-1 cars 2 decades back are in our road cars today. It is actually very interesting for me as an aircraft enthusiast to see where it goes from here. Something has got to give!

I am not saying we say "hail F-22, we all are lesser mortals and forever will be" . But at least we should learn to give credit where it is due. IMHO, otherwise we would only underestimate the competition.

Everybody, sorry for the long reply!



I am sorry to have not read all your previous posts, but I joined this discussion only recently and was merely answering your question. You asked me to point out at least one weakness of the F22. I said Numbers. I find it amusing that you now find my answer to your question useless. If you agree with me on the numbers aspect, then our discussion ends.

As for the IR signature of the F22 and my comment on it, I was merely making an observation based on the video. I never speculated the consequences of it, or the distance of video source or any other aspect of that video. I did not diss it or make any additional comments against the F22. So, please do not try to portray my comment as some sort of a rant at F22's IR signature.

If there are any countermeasures against Stealth, they will obviously not be made public until effectively used in war. But everybody knows how low frequency radars can easily spot stealthy planes, thanks to the F117 incident. Another example of the secrecy usually maintained around such countermeasures is the U2 incident. So, do not expect any official reports on any such countermeasure even if such a measure exists.

In the mean time, countermeasures are merely shields and we need swords too to fight the battle to win. And, this is where having the latest tech in fighters comes into play. Just because all the major air forces are developing stealth fighters, does not mean there is no effective countermeasure in place or in development.

I never claimed the F22 is garbage like some people might claim on BRF. I merely claim that all the fanboyism is undeserved for the F22. The F22 today reminds me of the German Messerschmitt Me 262 from 1944. That pretty much sums up my opinion of the F22.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6462
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Indranil » 06 Aug 2010 22:00

Prastor, apologies extended! Your posts were engulfed amongst a lot of posts which simply trashed the F-22, and I misjudged your tone.

But, please do read previous posts. That would saved all of us the time to write and go through this repetition of same thoughts.

The F-117 incident is a really commendable effort (though not if you are an American), but I would not rest on beating the F-22 on that. F-117 had much lesser stealth than the F-22, had no EW, and aerodynamically nowhere close outrun a SAM. Again, I am willing to concede to anybody who said, that if I detected a F-22, would hit out with a salvo of SAMs giving it almost no chance of evasion.

The only thing I have been saying is that we can't bank on such chances. We have quite some distance to go before we can have any credible deterrence against attacks by stealth planes, and the F-22 currently is at the pinnacle of such planes. As an aircraft enthusiast one does have to marvel at the specs of the F-22.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5173
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Viv S » 11 Aug 2010 17:01

prastor wrote:
I will give you just one strong reason why an F22 will fail in real life war: NUMBERS.

America has around 187 Raptors on order. 1 crashed and few left to be delivered. Till date, the program has not achieved the complete list of KPPs to be considered combat ready. So, expecting they eventually will meet all the KPPs and no further crashes diminish the numbers, we can expect a total of 186 combat ready F22 Raptors with USAF. With the current MC rate of 70%, you can count it down to just 130 Raptors available for mission at any given point in war.

Now, do not expect all 130 Raptors to be deployed at the front. Some are reserved for defensive and deterrence roles across home bases and other strategic locations. So, say 60% of them are used actively in front line missions. That means, 78 Raptors would be deployed for missions. That is, to say the least, a pathetic number if USAF really intends to maintain air superiority over countries as huge as China or even India.


Why the heck would F-22s be deployed at home bases if they were required in a war against the second/third largest airforce in the world? When was the last time the US mainland was attacked?

You've included all PLAAF aircraft in your analysis, but ignored 2000 USAF and 1500 USN fighters.

70% is the mission availability rate during peacetime operations. During exercises, the crew were able to scale that figure upwards of 90%.

Now, do not jump to consider the "1 vs. 1" kill ratios so aggressively advertised for an F22 at 30:1 by LM. This ratio will deplete a lot when it comes to a 20 raptors vs. 50 J-11s battle with AWACS on both sides with huge SAM installations at Chinese advantage. Even assuming a 5:1 advantage to the Raptors (which is still a stretch), you would end up with just 36 Raptors before the Chinese AS fighter fleets are destroyed.


All aspect stealth ensures ground based tracking is severly degraded. And how did you come to the figure of 5:1 for the Raptor?

In the mean time, China replenishes it's AS fleet with more J-11s from their rapid production lines, while America's F22 production line is non-existent. They would either have to fill the gaps with the much inferior F-15s/F-18s or move the other F22s from home or other strategic bases. This will only weaken the American efforts immensely and will have a very negative effect on USAF's confidence.


Replenishes its fleet? They'd be doing a splendid job if they could produce 2 aircraft a week. Wouldn't make lick of difference to the war. That's without going into the time and effort involved in producing professional pilots for aircraft. This reasoning would have been applicable during WW2, but probably not today.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1442
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby Craig Alpert » 13 Aug 2010 23:50

India, US hold joint counter-terror training
by Dr. Manmohan Singh on Friday, August 13, 2010 at 8:21am
New Delhi: In the backdrop of terror warnings on the eve of India's Independence Day, Indian security officials are holding a counter-terror training exercise focusing on post-incident investigations and pre-empting blasts with US officials and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The six-day joint counter-terrorism training and exchange programme began Aug 9 in the Indian capital. Indian law enforcement officials are being trained to recognise and respond to improvised explosive devices.

The training, which also covers aspects of post-blast investigations, will continue in Bangalore till Saturday. "This exchange is a great example of how our countries are working together to combat the threat of terrorism in both policy and practice," said US Ambassador Timothy J. Roemer Friday at the end of the Delhi leg of the joint exercise.

"Sharing techniques, expertise and information are all critical to our joint efforts to fight terror, and would not be possible without our strong and healthy bilateral relationship," he said.

The joint counter-terror exercise is taking place at a time the US State Department has issued a fresh warning saying it has "credible evidence" that terrorists may be planning terror attacks at places frequented by its citizens in India, Pakistan and West Asia and asked them to be alert and take precautionary measures.

"In India there is a continuing threat of terrorism as attacks have randomly targeted public places frequented by Westerners, including luxury and other hotels, trains, train stations, markets, cinemas, mosques, and restaurants in large urban areas," the State Department said in a Worldwide Caution issued Thursday. IANS

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2010 13:55

Disclaimer: I am not writing the following as a criticism of the US.

Imagine a war in which the US sends stealth aircraft to take out enemy C&C and air defences. This is followed by devastating cruise missile strikes on enemy installation. Flights of aircraft guided by AWACS aircraft and protedced by Raptors make mincemeat of enemy air opposition while special forces land deep inside enemy territory to destroy bridges and internal communications. Ports are blocked and all enemy shipping is sunk or stopped as are oil supplies. All this is followed by a massive land attack from the beaches where waiting ships unload tanks and APCs - and the enemy country is overrun and defeated.

How many countries in the world have the capability of fighting the US at this level of technology and armed sophistication?

Russia? China? India? Pakistan? Iran? North Korea?

Let me just say that all the countries in the above list would put up a spirited fight at least for a while, even if the outcome were defeat. Would these countries actually get defeated? On BRF some might say that Russia and China would not get defeated. Maybe even Pakistan. But India would be defeated soon - shows the faith we have for our own. OK OK some may feel that maybe even India won't get defeated - I won't spend time arguing. It is beside the point.

So if the US cannot be guaranteed victory against these major powers with their level of armament and sophistication why do they have all that? Whom are the US planning to fight?

Let me take this question to another level. If, in theory, India arms itself like the US - to do all those things that I have claimed the US can do, whom would India have to fight?

USA? Russia? China? Pakistan? Iran?

But if the US itself cannot have guaranteed victory against powers like China, Russia or India, what is the exact point of having the type of armament that I have described in the hypothetical war described above?

Who is left in the world who needs to be defeated by such armament? Maldives? Botswana? Moldovia?

The point I am getting at is that major military victories combined with occupation of territory was possible for centuries until the mid 20th century - perhaps primarily because the world had not manufactured and supplied guns and explosives to most of the world's population. But once populations could be armed easily "victory" in wars by "aircraft, tanks and armies" could not be sustained easily because of asymmetric warfare fought by populations with guns, explosives, and handheld RPGs and MANPADs.

The future of warfare may not actually be stealth aircraft fighting stealth aircraft and submarines hunting subs, but it may well be the "last mile" - that becomes the most difficult to win. Well armed guerillas hiding within populations, setting off bombs, communicating and moving via underground tunnels. It is this sort of warfare that will have to be defeated.

It is precisely this type of warfare that the US has failed to win time and again. In Vietnam and now in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will be the short to medium term future of warfare - even for us in India.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby K Mehta » 20 Aug 2010 20:45

Battle of Longewala-wikipedia
During the night of the 4th, Lt. Veer's platoon conducting a patrol detected noises across the border that suggested a large number of armoured vehicles approaching.[10] These were soon confirmed by reports from the Air Force observation aircraft in the area of a 20 km long armoured column on the track leading to the post advancing in the general direction of the Longewala post.[11] Directing Lt Veer's patrol to trail the advancing armoured column, Chandpuri got in touch with the battalion headquarters requesting urgent reinforcements and armour and artillery support. Battalion HQ gave him the choice of staying put, and containing the attack as much as possible, or carrying out a tactical retreat of the company to Ramgarh, as reinforcements would not be available for at least six hours. Considering that Chandpuri's command had no transportation, and was facing a mobile enemy, he decided to maintain the defensive position of the post where his troops at least had the benefit of prepared defensive works, rather than conducting a withdrawal at night that was a far more riskier option.

The Pakistani forces begun their attack at 12:30 am.[12] As the offensive approached the lone outpost, Pakistani artillery opened up across the border with medium artillery guns, killing five of the ten camels from the BSF detachment. As the column of 65 tanks neared the post, Indian defences, lacking the time to lay a prepared minefield, laid a hasty anti-tank minefield as the enemy advanced, one infantryman being killed in the process.[13] The Indian infantry held fire until the leading Pakistani tanks had approached to 15-30 metres before firing their PIATs.[13] They accounted for the first two tanks on the track with their Jeep-mounted 106 mm M40 recoilless rifle,[14] with one of its crew being killed during the combat. This weapon proved quite effective because it was able to engage the thinner top armour of the Pakistani tanks from its elevated position, firing at often stationary bogged down vehicles. In all the post defenders claimed 12 tanks destroyed or damaged. The initial Pakistani attack stalled almost immediately when the infantry discovered the barbed wire which was unseen in the night, and interpreted it to signify a minefield. Firing for the Indian RCL crews was made easier by the flames of fires when the spare fuel tanks on the Pakistani tanks, intended to supplement their internal capacity for the advance to Jaisalmer, exploded, at once providing ample light for Indians located on higher ground, and creating a dense acrid smoke screen at ground level for the Pakistani infantry, adding to the confusion. Two hours were lost as Pakistani sappers were brought up, only to discover there was no minefield. However, at this time Pakistani infantry were required to make another attack, from a different direction, but in the dawn light. The Pakistani advance then attempted to surround the post two hours later by vehicles getting off the road, but many vehicles, particularly armoured personnel carriers and tanks, in trying to soften up the Indian defenders before attacking, became bogged in the soft sand of the area surrounding the post. Throughout the engagement Major Chandpuri continued to direct the supporting artillery fire.[13]

Although massively outnumbering the Indian defenders, and having surrounded them, the Pakistani troops were unable to advance over open terrain on a full-moon night,[12] under small arms and mortar fire from the outpost. This encouraged the Indians not to give up their strong defensive position, frustrating the Pakistani commanders. As dawn arrived, the Pakistan forces had still not taken the post, and were now having to do so in full daylight.

In the morning the Indian Air Force was finally able to direct some HF-24 Maruts and Hawker Hunter aircraft to assist the post; they were not outfitted with night vision equipment, and so were delayed from conducting combat missions until dawn.[15] With daylight, however, the IAF was able to operate effectively, with the strike aircraft being guided to the targets by the airborne Forward Air Controller (FAC) Major Atma Singh in a HAL Krishak.[16] The Indian aircraft attacked the Pakistani ground troops with the 16 Matra T-10 rockets and 30 mm cannon fire on each aircraft. Without support from the Pakistan Air Force, which was busy elsewhere, the tanks and other armoured vehicles were easy targets for the IAF's Hunters. The range of the 12.7 mm anti-aircraft heavy machine guns mounted on the tanks was limited and therefore ineffective against the Indian jets. Indian air attacks were made easier by the nature of the barren terrain. By noon the next day, the assault ended completely, having cost Pakistan 22 tanks claimed destroyed by aircraft fire, 12 by ground anti-tank fire, and some captured after being abandoned, with a total of 100 vehicles claimed to have been destroyed or damaged in the desert around the post. The Pakistani attack was first halted, and then Pakistani forces were forced to withdraw when AMX-13 Indian tanks from division's cavalry regiment, and the 17th Rajputana Rifles launched their counter-offensive to end the six-hour combat;[13] Longewala had proved to be one of the defining moments in the war.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2010 21:12

K Mehta wrote:
In the morning the Indian Air Force was finally able to direct some HF-24 Maruts and Hawker Hunter aircraft to assist the post;


This is totally wrong. No Maruts were used.

BR has accounts of Longewala from people who took part - but it is OT here

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewala.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... uresh.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 20 Aug 2010 21:15

K Mehta wrote:This thread would be incomplete without this
Zoltán Dani-Wikipedia



Mehtaji - this very article has been linked on this very page. Just scroll up or click below
viewtopic.php?p=917745#p917745

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby K Mehta » 22 Aug 2010 09:46

sorry Shivji, i thought i didnt see that link on this page! Thanks to the mod who did the needful!
the Longewala post is a copy paste of wiki!
The point I was trying to make here was that there are ways of achieving victory in the face of overwhelming odds and even when the enemy is technologically superior!
I think Battle of Asal Uttar, where the terrain (sugarcane fields ready for harvest) was used to advantage over a technologically superior enemy, can also be quoted.
Should we be discussing terrain and current enemy tactics like the use of DCBs and old tanks as pill box and how such tactics can be countered etc?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34915
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby shiv » 22 Aug 2010 16:18

K Mehta wrote:Should we be discussing terrain and current enemy tactics like the use of DCBs and old tanks as pill box and how such tactics can be countered etc?


Yes of course - but I think some prior "models" exist. Bangladesh was bad country for tanks, so men and material were carried over waterways by helicopters in the presence of air dominance.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby K Mehta » 23 Aug 2010 11:59

Ok, I wanted to make a couple of observations here regarding DCBs
1)They are not made up of concrete mostly, or atleast the canals, which serve as dcb are not made up of concrete. This issue is a major reason of loss of water that gets transported in canals. This issue has been discussed in Indus Water treaty thread. What we havent discussed is the motive behind keeping these canals breachable.

When the canals are breached, the water is released in the surrounding areas and the soil around the canals become slushy and difficult for movement of armored vehicles. This is especially true in sandy soils. We used this tactic during Khemkaran/ Asal uttar.

2) If bridges etc are used to overcome these, they would create choke points which can be targetted by aircrafts. If tanks try to use their snorkelling or fording capacity to pass through the canals, they would also breach the canals, though a certain amount of armor will be able to go through! Snorkelling however requires time for modifications, just as bridge laying. This could result in a loss of surprise!

Note the extensive use of canals by P-stan on their side and recent additions to these defences!
From Planeman bluffers guide blog-image of anti tank defenses increased by P-stan-1
From Planeman bluffers guide blog-image of anti tank defenses increased by P-stan-2
From Planeman bluffers guide blog-image of anti tank defenses at India Pak border
From Planeman bluffers guide blog-image of anti tank defenses


K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Anticipating & countering future military threats/challe

Postby K Mehta » 25 Aug 2010 21:41

shivji got flu now! will call you sometime!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hnair, Kakarat, Karthik S, naruto and 47 guests