lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061 
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 17, 2019 19:39:38 GMT
I doubt it. That is a point-defence weapon... which leaves the question as to what happens with the downed wreckage of an aircraft hitting the ground. These cruise missiles have defeated US fighters with standard weaponry - not the best, which is elsewhere - by terrain-hugging and onboard jamming. There really isn't much that could have stopped them. Maybe the latest Patriots but I think that the Kh-101 wins that fight. Earlier in the war, Dutch F-16s - without the latest targeting upgrades - got Russian cruise missiles elsewhere overwater and there have been other successes against such weapons: that has been the combined efforts of AWACS support as well. When they are overland and flying low, the problem occurs. Well it was early in the war and also i think the United States in my eyes foolish believe they would not been hit directly, otherwise we would have seen Patriot missile batteries in and around Washington D.C. This will be a normal view from now on as long as the war last. There are SAM batteries positioned around DC, mostly around the beltway. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 17, 2019 19:43:50 GMT
I doubt it. That is a point-defence weapon... which leaves the question as to what happens with the downed wreckage of an aircraft hitting the ground. These cruise missiles have defeated US fighters with standard weaponry - not the best, which is elsewhere - by terrain-hugging and onboard jamming. There really isn't much that could have stopped them. Maybe the latest Patriots but I think that the Kh-101 wins that fight. Earlier in the war, Dutch F-16s - without the latest targeting upgrades - got Russian cruise missiles elsewhere overwater and there have been other successes against such weapons: that has been the combined efforts of AWACS support as well. When they are overland and flying low, the problem occurs. Well it was early in the war and also i think the United States in my eyes foolish believe they would not been hit directly, otherwise we would have seen Patriot missile batteries in and around Washington D.C. This will be a normal view from now on as long as the war last. There are SAM batteries positioned around DC, mostly around the beltway.That is an Avenger system but your point stands. Erm... let me edit the update to reflect what you argue here because I think you're right on the 'not being foolish' point. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 17, 2019 19:46:28 GMT
That is an Avenger system but your point stands. Erm... let me edit the update to reflect what you argue here because I think you're right on the 'not being foolish' point. But the second link shows a Norwegian NASAMS system, but i doubt it would be able to catch cruise missiles. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 17, 2019 20:26:30 GMT
That is an Avenger system but your point stands. Erm... let me edit the update to reflect what you argue here because I think you're right on the 'not being foolish' point. But the second link shows a Norwegian NASAMS system, but i doubt it would be able to catch cruise missiles. No, certainly not. I edited the update to include a Patriot unit. It is deployed close to the heart of Washington though whereas the strikes are outside and the missiles came in pretty damn low. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 17, 2019 20:31:45 GMT
But the second link shows a Norwegian NASAMS system, but i doubt it would be able to catch cruise missiles. No, certainly not. I edited the update to include a Patriot unit. It is deployed close to the heart of Washington though whereas the strikes are outside and the missiles came in pretty damn low. Think after this strike we will see them popping up everywhere, makes me wonder if they have enough to defend so many vital industrial and military locations. While als committing them overseas. |
|
oldbleep
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 34
Likes: 38
|
Post by oldbleep on Mar 17, 2019 21:09:43 GMT
These ANG fighters just didn’t have the most-modern onboard technology to make these kills: other F-15s which remained in frontline US Air Force service did, but those weren’t in Canadian skies this evening.
When they are overland and flying low, the problem occurs.
I would contest that they lack the technology to engage the cruise missiles flying over land.
The F-16 is equipped with the AN/APG-68 radar a long range (up to 296 km) Pulse-doppler radar designed by Westinghouse (now Northrop Grumman) to replace the AN/APG-66 radar in the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
The F-15 has the AN/APG-63 and AN/APG-70 which are a family of all-weather multimode radar systems designed by Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) for the F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter. These X band pulse-Doppler radar systems are designed for both air-air and air-ground missions; they are able to look up at high-flying targets and down at low-flying targets without being confused by ground clutter. The systems can detect and track aircraft and small high-speed targets at distances beyond visual range down to close range, and at altitudes down to treetop level.
Pulse-Doppler systems were first widely used on fighter aircraft starting in the 1960s. Earlier radars had used pulse-timing in order to determine range and the angle of the antenna (or similar means) to determine the bearing. However, this only worked when the radar antenna was not pointed down; in that case the reflection off the ground overwhelmed any returns from other objects. As the ground moves at the same speed but opposite direction of the aircraft, Doppler techniques allow the ground return to be filtered out, revealing aircraft and vehicles. This gives pulse-Doppler radars "look-down/shoot-down" capability. A secondary advantage in military radar is to reduce the transmitted power while achieving acceptable performance for improved safety of stealthy radar.
The first aircraft to rely completely on its own radar system was the F-4 Phantom. The F-4J had the Westinghouse AN/AWG-10 fire control system (making the F-4J the first fighter in the world with operational look-down/shoot-down capability).
So I would have thought some of the missiles would have been shot down as the technology has been in service since the 1970's.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 17, 2019 22:23:33 GMT
These ANG fighters just didn’t have the most-modern onboard technology to make these kills: other F-15s which remained in frontline US Air Force service did, but those weren’t in Canadian skies this evening. When they are overland and flying low, the problem occurs. I would contest that they lack the technology to engage the cruise missiles flying over land. The F-16 is equipped with the AN/APG-68 radar a long range (up to 296 km) Pulse-doppler radar designed by Westinghouse (now Northrop Grumman) to replace the AN/APG-66 radar in the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F-15 has the AN/APG-63 and AN/APG-70 which are a family of all-weather multimode radar systems designed by Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) for the F-15 Eagle air superiority fighter. These X band pulse-Doppler radar systems are designed for both air-air and air-ground missions; they are able to look up at high-flying targets and down at low-flying targets without being confused by ground clutter. The systems can detect and track aircraft and small high-speed targets at distances beyond visual range down to close range, and at altitudes down to treetop level. Pulse-Doppler systems were first widely used on fighter aircraft starting in the 1960s. Earlier radars had used pulse-timing in order to determine range and the angle of the antenna (or similar means) to determine the bearing. However, this only worked when the radar antenna was not pointed down; in that case the reflection off the ground overwhelmed any returns from other objects. As the ground moves at the same speed but opposite direction of the aircraft, Doppler techniques allow the ground return to be filtered out, revealing aircraft and vehicles. This gives pulse-Doppler radars "look-down/shoot-down" capability. A secondary advantage in military radar is to reduce the transmitted power while achieving acceptable performance for improved safety of stealthy radar. The first aircraft to rely completely on its own radar system was the F-4 Phantom. The F-4J had the Westinghouse AN/AWG-10 fire control system (making the F-4J the first fighter in the world with operational look-down/shoot-down capability). So I would have thought some of the missiles would have been shot down as the technology has been in service since the 1970's. I'm not going to contest that you're wrong. My wording might not have been the best in my descriptions. My thinking is that the very latest Russian ALCMs, whizzing about and jamming, had a good day. Not knowing the exact capabilities of such weapons and their ability to get past defences, because this is a state secret, I had them work as advertised and bypass defences to do their job. Could they do this? Would the US be able to stop them? Who really knows unless it was tested for real. That is my thinking on this matter. |
|
oldbleep
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 34
Likes: 38
|
Post by oldbleep on Mar 17, 2019 23:21:37 GMT
It was a very good post, a bit of out of the box thinking by the Russians (and yourself as the author).
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 17, 2019 23:29:00 GMT
It was a very good post, a bit of out of the box thinking by the Russians (and yourself as the author). As I always like to say, it is only fiction, and fiction needs these wham-bam moments. Forcon and I have discussed it and the US won't be taken by surprise in such a manner again nor will the Russians be able to have as much success. Thank you for your kind words and continuing reading! |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,061
Likes: 49,462
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 18, 2019 14:58:47 GMT
As I always like to say, it is only fiction, and fiction needs these wham-bam moments. [/quote] Well do not stop with delivering these wham-bam moments. |
|
sandyman
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 99
Likes: 94
|
Post by sandyman on Mar 18, 2019 17:01:50 GMT
Very good update I fear heads will roll once who did what or not reference air defences at home.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Mar 18, 2019 17:11:32 GMT
So, I've finally caught up and have to say, I'm really enjoying this. At the time the war broke out, I think I was in Korea and would probably have done my utmost to get out of there and to Japan or the like. But I don't know how hard that would be.
There however are a few points that could be interesting. First of all, the Mutual Defense Clause was part of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2009 and it is formulated in stronger terms than Article 5. So, that would give Italy some pretty serious obligations and at the very least would lead to countries like Greece and Italy getting into a lot of trouble there because it obliges them to help with all means. Based on what I know, that's generally taken tl be anything short of actually joining the war, so at the very least logistics support and basing rights.
Of course, I guess that Finland and Sweden can be forgiven for not doing too much because of their exposed positions, but it should give some further aid to the Coalition and be a point where Greece and Italy can be put under a lot of pressure.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 18, 2019 17:40:43 GMT
Very good update I fear heads will roll once who did what or not reference air defences at home. Thank you. Yikes, I'm hiding! There's a big funeral in Washington the next day as well and the fear will be that it could have - even might be repeated - with that. The Americans were caught with their pants down and won't have this happen again. So, I've finally caught up and have to say, I'm really enjoying this. At the time the war broke out, I think I was in Korea and would probably have done my utmost to get out of there and to Japan or the like. But I don't know how hard that would be. There however are a few points that could be interesting. First of all, the Mutual Defense Clause was part of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2009 and it is formulated in stronger terms than Article 5. So, that would give Italy some pretty serious obligations and at the very least would lead to countries like Greece and Italy getting into a lot of trouble there because it obliges them to help with all means. Based on what I know, that's generally taken tl be anything short of actually joining the war, so at the very least logistics support and basing rights. Of course, I guess that Finland and Sweden can be forgiven for not doing too much because of their exposed positions, but it should give some further aid to the Coalition and be a point where Greece and Italy can be put under a lot of pressure. Thank you very much: we've been hard at work! Leaving S Korea might be best. Eyes from Pyongyang will be looking at the US getting beat up and wondering if there is an opportunity arising for the final liberation of the fatherland. I will be honest and admit that my dislike of the EU is a factor in the minor role I have given them in the story. I back-seated them because I didn't want my prejudices to show. You are correct of course though. The recent EU summit in the story will have seen many things discussed. Silvio - not long left in his position - offered much help and of course American jets on attack missions are flying from Italy while the country's airspace is open to allies. Greece has not turned against everyone else yet but is just staying out of this. Sweden would have helped with refugees from Norway & Denmark and given medical attention to evacuees; probably the same with Finland too. Ireland is in the EU too but not a Coalition member and I don't think they have yet to be mentioned. Continent-wide trade would have been heavily-disrupted as everything is so interlinked and certain national economies must be in the toilet by now. In short, the EU matter is a big gap in the story: they probably would have played far more of a role in trying to stop the fighting started because economic woes - the existing issues plus the sanctions on Russia - weren't a big enough reason to keep them out. I'll discuss this with Forcon and see where a future role for the EU might come in more than it has been. |
|
ricobirch
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 26
|
Post by ricobirch on Mar 18, 2019 17:51:53 GMT
Those manufacturing plant hits are going to hurt.
I see this escalating into competing conventional strategic bombing campaigns.
Something the Russians will not be able to keep up with once a carrier is placed in the Arctic.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 18, 2019 18:20:38 GMT
Those manufacturing plant hits are going to hurt. I see this escalating into competing conventional strategic bombing campaigns. Something the Russians will not be able to keep up with once a carrier is placed in the Arctic. You're right that they will hurt though it is hard to destroy such sites with a few missiles. Russia has made the opening move there on this score though. Major bombing, even missile attacks, has been focused on hitting military bases and some civilian sites which are being used for military purposes. Should things go that way, does either side have the air assets, pulled from pure military attacks, to do that? There are fewer sites and accurate weapons so this wouldn't be like WW2 but it would still be a major ask. Two carriers are on their way to the Barents Sea. The US Pacific Fleet owns that ocean too and has many more carriers there and there are plenty of targets for their aircraft within range of the North Pacific. |
|
