radmanly

Thanks for the great overview of the utility of different types of radar. I imagine that the US military must have pointed a Patriot radar at a stealth fighter during some exercise or other. It would be interesting to know how that turned out though I'm sure it's classified. Every time the US has needed to acquire air supremacy, it seems to have been able to neutralize enemy air defenses pretty quickly and effectively. Is that because:

1. SAM systems are universally lousy?
2. modern SAM systems are excellent but US aircraft and tactics are even better?
3. modern SAM systems are excellent but US opponents to date have been poorly trained and used bad tactics?
4. a combination of options 3 and 4?

TBoneF15

None of the above. We have never faced an adversary with a modern SAM system.

USMCFLYR

Define "modern SAM system".

USMCFLYR

LivingInMEM

Perhaps he meant we have not faced double-digit SAM's operated by highly-qualified (proficient) crews who were willing to counter our SEAD capabilities. That does not mean they don't exist (they do), just that we have not fought them.

Radmanly, there are very capable SAM's out there - luckily, even our greatest potential enemies try to limit those best systems being exported (not because we may end up facing them, but because they may). SAM's are complex and require good equipment, good tactics, and good operators - our recent adversaries didn't really have all 3 going for them across the board. They also work best as a system when tied into a larger air defense system - like anything else, keeping it all running (the whole IADS) at 100% is difficult in real life.

With that being said, most nations in the Middle East realized that SAM's still gave them the best bang for the buck. With our long-established air superiority, buying expensive aircraft just so they could get shot down would not be cost-effective.

USMCFLYR

That statement I could more easily agree with

Integrated is the key here. We have done a real good job of distruption and preventing integration.

Double digit MANPADS don't take a lot of training to employ; luckily we haven't come up against many.

USMCFLYR

LivingInMEM

Officials Make Case For More F-22s | AVIATION WEEK

"In the Middle East, the sale of S-300s and other advanced missiles to Iran and Syria has set off alarms in the U.S. Current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen was asked recently if the sale of SA-20s to Iran had come up in talks with Russia.

As part of the summit in Moscow, there “was a document that I signed with my counterpart, General Makarov, and it focuses on military-to-military cooperation,” Mullen says. “One of the areas I discussed with him ... is that issue and recognizing that particular system is a game-changer. I focused on that. That’s a huge concern because of the potential [the S-300] has.”"

S-300 = SA-10 or SA-20 depending on S-300 variant.

NoBeta

I'm not MIL but I am curious about some of this information.
Any Help from you mil guys would be great.

1. Lets say several F-22's are engaged with several enemies and fire some BVR long range missles. Enemies have no knowledge of the 22's yet. But could'nt they figure it out really quickly by figuring out where the missles are coming from???
2. When Those big bay doors open does'nt stealth go out like yesterdays trash. I know you guys say it's where the radar is looking that helps you find the enemy but can't a ground based radar or SAM or even another aircraft like a MIG or something see that. Also when they manouver arent they going to have an increased RCS???
3. I gotta agree with what most have said here. 187 of these things are not enough. That said I'm thinking of Hitler attacking Russia in WW2. The Germans were so outnumbered that the Ruskies pushed em back. Relying on technology was a demise for Hitler. I would hate for that to happen for the USA. Being outnumbered is not a place for anyone trying to win a battle. (Oswald Boelcke) Boelcke Dicta.......Remember the teachers tactics. I believe attacking in greater numbers was one of em. On a side note I met an F-16 pilot a couple years ago and he told me when the 22's came out to Hill AFB in Utah to do some work on the Range. He said the 22's were swating down the 16's like they were flies and that they could'nt touch the 22's. Any input???
4. Hearing that bit of info about crossing the intl. dateline being an issue sounds like poor technology/planning to me ( just my opinion ) to date there have been hundreds of GA aircraft fly around the world and crossing an immaginary line never affected any of them. How could a sophisticated, expensive piece of military hardware just have a major problem like that???

Thanks to you MIL guys and gals for your service

Any input is appreciated.

UAL T38 Phlyer

I was a Wild Weasel, so I know a little on the subject.

1. SAMs, even older systems, are universally pretty good against a target that does nothing. They will launch, track, guide, and/or detonate.

Think "high-profile rescue of a bone-head in Yugoslavia" and you'll see what I mean.

2. Modern SAMs (theirs and ours) are very good. Our tactics are the best that can be devised to minimize/neutralize the threat.

3. In the Mideast, most of the populace---of potential adversary nations---is poorly educated. There are exceptions: Iran is probably the best; Iraq second. However, they would be distant to the standard we expect in the west. That being said, Iraqis showed poor tactics during the first Gulf War.

I'll disagree with TBone when he says we have never faced a modern SAM system. In Vietnam, SA-2s and -3s were state of the art...and we got our butts kicked, initially.

Finally, older systems---like SA-3s--can be used effectively against stealth with good tactics. Again, reference Yugoslavia (different shootdown).

4. I think you meant a combination of 2 & 3.

III Corps

Not Thuds I assume but F-4Gs?

UAL T38 Phlyer

III Corps:

Yup; HARMs and Shrikes (a little Maverick too). Practiced bombs but never used them in combat.

I have a throttle-grip from a Thud, though.