Formation to go against stealth fighters like F22, and F35..

akinkhoo said:

assuming they are not autopilot. i believe any future UCAV will be based around cruise missile technology. i say don't bother with manned fighter, just pump UCAV into the area in the 100s and overwhelm the F22....

Click to expand...

And a airplane on autopilot can't do much... it is virtually a cruise missile pointed at a position...

i have strong doubt the F22 will operate near naval planes because that would limit most of it advantages (speed, range and surprise) but if Growler were in the area, you would think radiation missiles wouldn't be launch in the dozen with UCAV following those missiles and engaging anything trying to counter the missiles. given the fact that UCAV and missile are naturally smaller, it would be possible to build them just as stealthy as the F22 and remove the first shoot advantage as well.

Click to expand...

F-22's work in concert with conventional fighters, such as the F-15 and F-16 while on exercise. What can happen is the F-22's remain hidden, and provide targeting and C&C for conventional fighters to engage from long ranges.

And remember, it is virtually impossible for most aircraft out there to place their weapons on a F-22... I believe the only time a F-22 was 'killed' in an exercise was because of a mulligan and the Super Bug pilot could not lock on with any of his missiles so he came in with his gun and aimed his gun manually with the gunsight. So we are back to World War II style dogfights against the Raptor, only this time, you are going to loose a lot more aircraft just to shoot down 1.

akinkhoo said:

assuming they are not autopilot. i believe any future UCAV will be based around cruise missile technology. i say don't bother with manned fighter, just pump UCAV into the area in the 100s and overwhelm the F22...

Click to expand...

Then the F-22 has already won. It has forced you to expend a vast amount of resources (100s of aircraft and the infrastructure required to run the whole thing) in order to down one. That's the problem the F-22 forces its opponents to face. There is no way to kill it efficently (in the air. Killing it on the ground or by denying it logistical support is most efficent).

Ok,

So you detect something you think is an F-22 speeding across your country side at 400mph. It looks like its target is only minutes to an hour away. How do you scramble all the ground controllers for the UCAV's to their stations, prep the birds themselves and get them airborne before the attack occurs, and how do you catch a jet that can super cruise, or simply fly so high your UCAV's based on older jets cannot reach them?

To address the core topic of this thread my take is that it is unlikely for China to field effective air opposition against F22, F35, or any other stealth formation within the next 10 years without some major technological breakthroughs.

In this case, China's air resources would be much more effective if put to the task of attacking the opposing force's home turf, logistics, naval and ground forces. China's UCAVs might be better used primarily as pre-programmed cruise missiles with a secondary opportunistic UCAV intercept/self-defence air-to-air capability. In this configuration they would still serve the tertiary purpose of being distraction targets for the opposing air force.

As for China's ground based air defense it has to be opportunistic. Therefore dispersed mobile medium (~50km) range air defense units stand the most chance of survival and successful counterstrikes. However I don't think China even has a significant force of up-to-date mobile medium range SAMs does it?

I don't even think this UCAV idea is going to work. For that amount of resources, you are better off with stealthy cruise missiles which you will use to hit at bases of fighters before they can even take off. That takes care of your problem once and for all, at least until they send the next batch around.

I like stealthy cruise missiles because that is your dreadnaught factor. They can be very difficult to intercept. RCS reduction design plus small physical cross section made it even more difficult to detect because they fly so close to the ground. Even if you made radar that can beat stealth, these radars will still have a problem dealing with low altitude flying objects because of terrain formations and the nape of the earth hiding your radar horizon.

When you have offense greatly overwhelming defense, you get into a "gunfighter" situation. The guy who shoots and scores first, wins. The result is one that overwhelming favors preemption as a strategy.

Now for this.

As for China's ground based air defense it has to be opportunistic. Therefore dispersed mobile medium (~50km) range air defense units stand the most chance of survival and successful counterstrikes. However I don't think China even has a significant force of up-to-date mobile medium range SAMs does it?

Click to expand...

Actually China has now designated the KS-1A as its main medium range AAM, giving it the official designation of HQ-12. As you know this missile is guided by a phase array. Well, even the updated HQ-2s (up to 60 ~ 75km) are now guided by phase arrays. Phase arrays or anything that uses electronic phase shifting for beam focusing and scanning, gives you better chances against low RCS technologies in the way they can quickly focus the beam, concentrating the emission power in a way mechanically scanning arrays cannot. Thats like the equivalent of using a laser to light up something compared to a flashlight.

Phase arrays are much more difficult against Wild Weasels and SEAD measures because they give off much less sidelob emissions. To understand this, you detect ground radars not from its main beam, but all that wasted radiation leaking from the sides of the beam, which we call sidelobs. The result is that the beam pattern looks like a scallop. With phase shifting, we can focus the radio waves into a much tighter beam, greatly reducing side lobs and increasing the emission strength at the same time. The result of this, such arrays are also much more difficult to detect, though still not impossible.

Ironically, the SAM system in China's arsenal that has the greatest chances against VLO targets is a short ranged SAM, which we familiarly called the HQ-7. This system is backed by electro-optical guidance, since it does not need radar to guide it but sheer optics (through an IRST). Another system is a land based Type 730 CIWS, which also has an IRST. The problem of both systems is that you can beat them by flying higher than their limits.

In this case, China's air resources would be much more effective if put to the task of attacking the opposing force's home turf, logistics, naval and ground forces. China's UCAVs might be better used primarily as pre-programmed cruise missiles with a secondary opportunistic UCAV intercept/self-defence air-to-air capability. In this configuration they would still serve the tertiary purpose of being distraction targets for the opposing air force.

End of quotation

US will recruit India, Indonesia, Australia, and even Pakistan untuk allow its F-22 to land. In that case, China cannot launch an attack on any of these countries without declaring war against them too (which will be self-defeating). So, destroying the base and logistics of US military will be also as hard if not impossible as attacking F-22 with UCAV.

The only logical solution for detterent is build your own stealth fighters, no matter how good or bad it is, and go on the offensive. This will send a stern warning to India, Indonesia, and Pakistan not to home US military aircraft, or Chinese stealth fighters will do to them what the US will be doing to China using stealth fighters F-22 and B-2. This serves as a preemptive psychological attack on the neighbors and by extension, a message to the coming force.

Just my humble opinion.

The F-22 is a maintenance picky plane. so it's not going to be landing anywhere else. Ditto with B-2s. So the plane is likely to be concentrated on a few spots (e.g. Kadena AFB in Okinawa or Anderson AFB in Guam). That's something already by common sense the PLA and the US knows. Frankly if any country allows their territory to be used as a base for hostilities, then that base can become a fair target. You should make announcement at the beginning of hostilities.

If I have UCAVs I would use them as target finders and bombers rather than being missiles.



I think future wars will be determined by who launches stealthy cruise missiles first. This is not as if the USN has its own cards to play with all those LA and Ohio SSGN class firing Tomahawks all that the same time.

As to the low flying CMs, might be the way to go here. Big and elevated modern arrays. Though stealthy objects in ground clutter are of course difficult targets. At least it's an interesting concept. Then again these may be rather easy targets for fighters. But a guess one could mount DEW missile defence systems like lasers or microwaves as now to be seen on first aircraft.

Stealthy UCAVs for SEAD, interdiction etc will do a good job in the not so distant future. But autonomously A-A fighting ones are still far away IMO, as well as hords of "dumber", controlled ones are impractical.

crobato said:

I don't even think this UCAV idea is going to work. For that amount of resources, you are better off with stealthy cruise missiles which you will use to hit at bases of fighters before they can even take off. That takes care of your problem once and for all, at least until they send the next batch around.

Click to expand...

or have protected airfeilds

I like stealthy cruise missiles because that is your dreadnaught factor. They can be very difficult to intercept. RCS reduction design plus small physical cross section made it even more difficult to detect because they fly so close to the ground. Even if you made radar that can beat stealth, these radars will still have a problem dealing with low altitude flying objects because of terrain formations and the nape of the earth hiding your radar horizon.

Click to expand...

Still the obvious threat of such missiles is to Taiwan, but also threatens Japan, India, and South Korea by giving China a possible first strike nuclear option. Right now both countries live under the US's early warning system. Stealthed cruise missiles give a whole lot more leverage to hawks in all three countries possibly sparking an arms race.

When you have offense greatly overwhelming defense, you get into a "gunfighter" situation. The guy who shoots and scores first, wins. The result is one that overwhelming favors preemption as a strategy.

Click to expand...

But the ability to pre-empt forces others to counter build. Of China's potentially hostile borders all but maybe India and Russia have money to burn on defense if needed.

Ironically, the SAM system in China's arsenal that has the greatest chances against VLO targets is a short ranged SAM, which we familiarly called the HQ-7. This system is backed by electro-optical guidance, since it does not need radar to guide it but sheer optics (through an IRST). Another system is a land based Type 730 CIWS, which also has an IRST. The problem of both systems is that you can beat them by flying higher than their limits.

Click to expand...

or using inclement weather, time of day, or nighttime to reduce thier effectiveness. IRST is useless vs an attack coming out of the sun or one backdropped by mountains heated all day in the heat of the sun. Its not fool proof.

or using inclement weather, time of day, or nighttime to reduce thier effectiveness. IRST is useless vs an attack coming out of the sun or one backdropped by mountains heated all day in the heat of the sun. Its not fool proof.

Click to expand...

False statements here. Heated background is certainly nowhere near as hot as heated air coming out of an airplane and/or certain parts of an airplane. While effectiveness certainly might be reduced (at long ranges) in practice any half decent IR sensor will pick out a plane out of any other kind of nature induced heat signature, save for the sun. (one might try attacking out of the sun, but that would seriously hinder their options and tactics, timing for attacks etc) Nighttime for one means very, very little to an IR sensor searching for a plane in the air. Various weather conditions do lower the detection range but its still a much better bet than a radar. If we count in various decoys, flares etc - then yeah, some older sensors could be fooled. But save for a real sized, real shaped b2/f22 drone, no decoy/flare will fool a good IIR sensor past a certain range.

IR certainly isnt fool proof, but right now it IS the best bet against LO planes. Even if its effectiveness is reduced by, say, 60% (im pulling this figure out of my hat) it is still better than nothing or next to nothing - like the effectiveness a radar would offer.