RSAF F-15SG
-
Speaking of which, I just saw an F-15 roar overhead.
-
Ops desert storm required 65,000 sorties. 92% of which were unguided munitions (4-5 times less effective). Iraq is 4 times bigger than MY. Although populations are about the same, Iraq in 1991 had a bigger military (10,000+ tanks, apcs, arty etc vs ~2,000 for MY). Airforce was 500+ combat a/c vs less than 100 for MY. Factoring in pure PGMs missions only, USAF would have required 20,000 sorties. Factoring in size and area, only 4,000 sorties may be required for an aggressor the size of MY. USAF had 1,800 a/c but operated at ranges above 1k km or 500+nm which reduced sortie rate to less than 1 per a/c per day. Assuming that RSAF has 200 shooters (100% serviceability). Generating a sortie rate of 3 per day is easily achieved due to distance to target which would be 300km or less (assuming rand estimates), RSAF can achieve 4,000 sorties in 7 days (not counting impact of sniper pods, BRU-61, ESTER racks, improved fuel pump delivery rates etc). A good crew can achieve 8+ sorties per a/c a day.
-
duplicated.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Speaking of which, I just saw an F-15 roar overhead.
aussies are here...and are u sure you saw em today? the weather was real bad..
-
Originally posted by slim10:
Ops desert storm required 65,000 sorties. 92% of which were unguided munitions (4-5 times less effective).
Iraq is 4 times bigger than MY. Although populations are about the same, Iraq in 1991 had a bigger military (10,000+ tanks, apcs, arty etc vs ~2,000 for MY). Airforce was 500+ combat a/c vs
Factoring in pure PGMs missions only, USAF would have required 20,000 sorties. Factoring in size and area, only 4,000 sorties may be required for an aggressor the size of MY.
USAF had 1,800 a/c but operated at ranges above 1k km or 500+nm which reduced sortie rate to
Assuming that RSAF has 200 shooters (100% serviceability). Generating a sortie rate of 3 per day is easily achieved due to distance to target which would be
just for debate's sake. hehe. we don't have that many PGMs. though i think in times of tension they can easily be bought and stocked up. but we only have about 60+ F16s , 40+ F5s which can't carry much air/ground weapons anyway, and next time 24 F15s, but when the F5s retire, you're looking only at about 90+ at most slightly over a 100 fighters from open sources.... sigh. i mean before the F35 comes in lah, if we do get it.
and you can't have all aircraft for attacking. must have some set aside for counter-air ops mission leh?
-
ssshhh
-
oops
-
Oh purlease .... what's wrong with speculation based on open source info?
As long as you don't put up comments like...
"I was in XXX Sqn and we had NN number of platforms" or
"My <insert senior relation> was in <insert impressive location> and says we have <insert anecdotal claim>"
Oh BTW, those with access to restricted/classified info should also refrain on commenting on the accuracies of claims.
-
US sortie rates for GW1 included A2A. Open source suggest there's authorisation to purchase 858 LGBs with 100 JDAM tailkits, 60 JSOWs, 90+ AGM-65Gs, 216 AGM-114K-3s. Not to mention that dumb bombs are already produced in Singapore. The Israelis didn't have enough munitions as well in 67 and 73 but it didn't take long for US logistics to supply the requirements. Israel just bought 1,000 SDBs + 150 BRU-61s for US$77m. A thousand of these wouldn't hurt SG finances. 4,000 SDBs would cost ~US$300m from the reserves which is definitely within budget. I've so far only been counting sortie rates. SDBs and ESTERs are force multipliers that reduces sortie rates. Hitting targets reduce sortie rates (factor in sniper, 3G network, better laser targeting, etc). Higher turnaround times (eg better fuel pumps, efficient airfield management, hardened airbases etc) increases sortie rates.
-
Originally posted by stellazio:
aussies are here...and are u sure you saw em today? the weather was real bad..
Confirm saw it today. Heard a loud noise, looked up and lo - n behold an F-15. Looks to be in clean configuration.
Oddly, it wasn't like a whole flight, it was JUST ONE.
-
oh boy my baby is home....pic please
-
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
oh boy my baby is home....pic please
I don't think they'll be home so soon leh. The only other people that have Eagles here is the USAF. Didn't know that an F-15C Sqn rotated in this year...
497th CTS now based in Guam also I think... Whose eagles are those?
-
http://www.13af.pacaf.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123121001
"Six U.S. Air Force F-15 C/D Eagles from the 44th Fighter Squadron, Kadena Air Base, Japan, are scheduled to participate in the first iteration of Commando Sling from Oct. 31 to Nov. 24. They will conduct dissimilar air combat training with the RSAF, where different types of aircraft fly air-to-air missions against each other"
they probably are here for the next series of Commando Sling again. this time its' the Eagles from Kadena. it's always the same few units that come anyway.
-
"During Desert Storm, the F-111F and the F-117 accounted for the majority of the guided bomb tonnage delivered against strategic targets. The Navy's A-6E capability to deliver LGBs was used only sparingly, despite the fact that the 115 A-6Es deployed constituted almost 51 percent of all US LGB-capable aircraft on the first day of Desert Storm. laser sensor systems demonstrated degradation from adverse weather, such as clouds, rain, fog, and even haze and humidity.
Videotapes of LGBs precisely traveling down ventilator shafts and destroying targets with one strike, like those televised during and after Desert Storm, can easily create impressions about the effect of a single LGB on a single target, which was summed up by an LGB manufacturer's claim for effectiveness: "one target, one bomb." The implicit assumption in this claim is that a target is sufficiently damaged or destroyed to avoid needing to hit it again with a second bomb, thus obviating the need to risk pilots or aircraft in restrikes. However, evidence does not support the claim for LGB effectiveness summarized by "one target, one bomb." In one sample of targets from Desert Storm, no fewer than two LGBs were dropped on each target; six or more were dropped on 20 percent of the targets; eight or more were dropped on 15 percent of the targets. The average dropped was four LGBs per target. "
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/lgb.htm
that's the LGB era which we are still in. :( , maybe with the new JDAMs and SDBs it is possible to reduce the number of bombs per target. but then again, you do need a certain amount of explosives for certain targets and the SDBs only have like, 50 pounds of explosives but with the penetration of a 2000lb BLU-109. i guess it's probably good for limiting collateral damage.
its always good to have less sorties over any target. puts all your pilots at less risk.
btw, does anyone know how many LGBs can be dropped by an aircraft on a target at anyone time by its own lasing? i think it is one at a time right?
-
LGBs use numerical digit coding to determine which beam/freq the LGB rides upon. Multiple coding allows simultaneous attacks by differing LGBs. Target designation can be made by ground laser designators, UAVs, aircraft pods such as the sniper, lantirn, litening (guessing RSAF has close to 1 pod for every F-16 and F-15). 20% of targets got 2 LGBs. 15% of targets got 8 or more. That's why avg was 4 which is US KSism (equ to 1 F-16 load w/o tanks). Actual combat accuracy was ~85%. JDAM/SDB accuracy is ~95% or more which req less bombs per target. GPS JDAMs allows multiple pre-computed strikes from single aircraft. These can be used for infrastructure, radars, fuel tanks and other non-movable targets. These can also prob be used for BMS designated targets. JSOW C-1 which SG bought has moving target capability (esp useful for ships). Once SDBs or ESTERs get integrated, a single F-16 could carry 8-16 SDBs or 8 LGBs. Bomb delivery goes up from 80 per 20 plane sqn to 160 LGBs or up to 320 SDBs. That's almost 1k targets per run. There won't be enough targets. Awesome.
-
if they all carry full load out of bombs. then must minus the air-to-air self defense armament also right. whats the new numbers? :P
"LGBs use numerical digit coding to determine which beam/freq the LGB rides upon. Multiple coding allows simultaneous attacks by differing LGBs."
we can encode the different bombs with different codes, but the laser coming out from the designator isn't it just single code? so only one bomb can home in at the laser at any one time with the same specific code. so if you want to drop other bombs at the same time you need other designators, right? correct me if i'm wrong... that's the limitation of the LGB i think.
but those new gps guided jdams + sdb can't program multiple computed strikes per target like you said.
-
Cheeze, LGBs from different delivery aircraft can home into the same code which means multiple strikes from different delivery vehicles on the same target, if necessary. For multiple targets, we've got a lot of laser designators (ground, hermes + searchers + pods as well). Also, LGBs doesn't take long to hit their targets from release. Terminal velocity is almost 1 klick per sec. We're talking about seconds to a couple of minutes for each pod to redirect. The JDAMs and SDBs can conduct multiple computed strikes. Take a look at the Boeing site to read multiple strike tests. One can program GPS strike co-ords before or inflight. That's only the A2G advantages. I haven't even gone into the superiority of A2A.
-
Just realised the data in the above relating to LGB are all in the fas link. Even without aircraft pods, with 6 hermes operating for 12 hours with 12 targets designated per hour for each UAV (1 target every 5 minute), that's already 864 targets in 1/2 day. It'll take 6 sqn (120 a/c) taking on 2 targets per sortie @ 4 sortie for 1/2 day just to prosecute that number of targets. In actual combat, there won't be that many targets nor probably that kind of sortie rate. Even 1/2 that sortie rate @85% success would cripple most potential adversaries in the peninsular. That's with existing inventory (not counting F-35s).
-
did you take into acount that in modern war 'target' are capable to detect and do shoot back at you ...or at least maintain camo dicipline to hide?
and please dont give me that Iraqi scenario thing...they cant even fart at the attacker because of the sanction they received for more than 10 years.
-
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
did you take into acount that in modern war 'target' are capable to detect and do shoot back at you ...or at least maintain camo dicipline to hide?
and please dont give me that Iraqi scenario thing...they cant even fart at the attacker because of the sanction they received for more than 10 years.
Not to mention the fact that all their Soviet equipment were 15-20 years out of date + no spare parts.Imagine the States going against Iran for example(more developed military infrastructure) or hell worse, Russia.
-
Uh, ops desert storm in 1991 took place before Iraqi sanctions and definitely not 15-20 years out of date as mentioned. A bit more fact rather than the ubiquitous one liner would be nice (or at least get that one liner factually correct would be a consolation). "In modern war 'target' are capable to detect and do shoot back at you"-tankfanatic. Actually that sentence refers to all wars. Shooting back requires the ability to shoot back. Being armed with 10k ft max altitude SAMs vs 20-30k ft LGB launches makes shooting back a little difficult. Sure, there could be fighters but this is an analysis of A2G and sortie generation capability. RSAF can afford a 1-1 exchange ratio with a 32 combat a/c and still maintain a decisive level of sortie generation. However, RSAF has significant A2A advantages vs suks. Suks rely significantly on ground control cos its rear and side detection ranges are still relatively weaker in the absence of AEW. Further the Aim-120C-5 already out-ranges the R77 export model and most of the older R-27s and export models in its firing envelope not to mention the impact of offensive ECM, ECCM capability far out-performs Russian tech (at least so far). Add in defensive ECM, ECCM. Plus the RSAF is getting the Aim-120C-7 which out-performs the C-5. Plus the R-27s being SAR need to maintain continuous lock. Not to mention that Rosoboronexport allocates a higher pk to the R-27 compared to the R-77. Not to mention that US aircraft serviceability is always significantly higher than the Russkis (RMAF Migs had less than 50% serviceability at various times). Things like the tyre shortage incident for the IAF su-30s is not exactly uncommon in killing off aircraft serviceability rates. With MY having ridiculous arms requirements for 10th MY plan (including condor/sibmas replacement, helo replacements, AEW, suk sqn, SAM, arty additions etc), somethings gotta give or a very very large coming defence budget is going to be needed. All in all, the F-15s will maintain a decisive edge in air combat for a while longer. When the F-35s enters service (and the difficulty of not only aircraft but missiles in getting lock is factored), air combat advantage will be pretty significant (barring new developments).
-
since we're progressing on the topic of A2A and the superb performance of the amraam. maybe read this australian article about BVR stuff, it may be slightly biased but then the sources it quotes from are quite reliable.
amraam not all that spectacular, might end up getting 1 for 1 exchanges. there goes your sortie generation rates.
some excerpts since it is a long article.
The performance of the AIM-120A/B/C models in combat to date has not been spectacular. Test range trials have resulted in stated kill probabilities of 85 percent out of 214 launches for the AIM-120C variant. Combat statistics for all three variants are less stellar, amounting to, according to US sources, ten kills (including a friendly fire incident against a UH-60) of which six were genuine BVR shots, for the expenditure of just over a dozen AIM-120 rounds. The important parameter is that every single target was not equipped with a modern defensive electronic warfare package and therefore not representative of a state-of-the-art Flanker in a modern BVR engagement. Against such "soft" targets the AIM-120 has displayed a kill probability of less than 50 percent
It is an open question whether the AIM-120D when challenged with a modern DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based monopulse trackbreaking jammer will be able to significantly exceed the 50 percent order of magnitude kill probability of prior combat launches, let alone replicate the 85 percent performance achieved in ideal test range conditions
A competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the Flanker driver does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics
I still reckon Su30 class type of threats + their weapons capability with or without good servicability rates as long as they are airborne. they will still make it difficult for any strike package to hit their target.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
LGBs use numerical digit coding to determine which beam/freq the LGB rides upon. Multiple coding allows simultaneous attacks by differing LGBs.
Target designation can be made by ground laser designators, UAVs, aircraft pods such as the sniper, lantirn, litening (guessing RSAF has close to 1 pod for every F-16 and F-15).
20% of targets got 2 LGBs. 15% of targets got 8 or more. That’s why avg was 4 which is US KSism (equ to 1 F-16 load w/o tanks). Actual combat accuracy was ~85%. JDAM/SDB accuracy is ~95% or more which req less bombs per target.
GPS JDAMs allows multiple pre-computed strikes from single aircraft. These can be used for infrastructure, radars, fuel tanks and other non-movable targets. These can also prob be used for BMS designated targets. JSOW C-1 which SG bought has moving target capability (esp useful for ships).
Once SDBs or ESTERs get integrated, a single F-16 could carry 8-16 SDBs or 8 LGBs. Bomb delivery goes up from 80 per 20 plane sqn to 160 LGBs or up to 320 SDBs. That’s almost 1k targets per run. There won’t be enough targets. Awesome.
granted that all these new weapons bring about new capabilities, but defnitely it's too optimistic to assume 1 bomb per target right? or 100% hit. most manufacturers would overstate their capabilities of their weapons, actual combat effectiveness of these weapons in conflict is usually much poorer than in their test conditions. and most post-conflict reports would have such weapon evaluations. just read one on the fas.org site again.
i mean, even in Ops Desert Storm;they had air superiority and they still had trouble doing BDA to assess if the target was hit so order restrikes on the same target. yes, it is K-S but better to over-kill then to let the enemy live right. plus not all bombs will hit their targets.
i'm not so sure if in our region any airforce can gain total air superiority but more like local air superiority for a short period of time. it'll be harder to hit your targets and choose your targets. apart from the fixed targets, mobile targets don't usually stay in the same place and hence you might end up having problems finding new GPS coordinates to drop those new GPS bombs. then the bloody LGBs also dependant on weather conditions. so many factors.
i'm not going to link the report on desert storm weapon effectiveness, all this quoting and linking makes my post resemble lionoisy already...:S
-
I'm not so sure quoting Carlo Kopp and the conclusions of the alarmist auspower would be very applicable. Agreed however that until the USAF faces a better equipped opponent from Iraq 1991, one would be hard-pressed to validate Aim-120C actual performance. Neither can one validate R-77 or R-27 performance esp export models. USAF's missile record is so far a "little" better so forgive me if I'm a "little" more optimistic about US missile performance esp in the under-investment Russki environment over the past decade. I still remember pre-desert storm and all the doomsday predictions about the impact of Mig-29 on coalition air losses. I think the Suks are excellent aircraft but these are known variables. Even if Amraam actual pk ends up to be less than 50%. There's still more than sufficient AIM-120C-7s than 3G targets. Nevertheless, I repeat LGB's 85% performance strike rate is based on actual combat conditions. The performance of SDBs and JDAMs in OIF and Afghanistan is validated as well. The impact of weather on LGB performance is well documented. That's the rationale for the development of JDAMs. Since ODS, the development of UAVs and more accurate aircraft pods have been a key value adds. UAV role in BDA again is highlighted. Ultimately, employment of assets will be the key determinant. No matter how good the assets are, pilot and crew training/efficiency/tactics will make the diff. Did I mention pilot training differences? In any case, no one seriously believes a flare-up would happen in the next decade. Really looking forward to the F-35 (which attracts its fair share of arm chair critics) and SDBs.
-
However, evidence does not support the claim for LGB effectiveness summarized by "one target, one bomb." In one sample of targets from Desert Storm, no fewer than two LGBs were dropped on each target; six or more were dropped on 20 percent of the targets; eight or more were dropped on 15 percent of the targets. The average dropped was four LGBs per target. "
It is not really uncommon to drop more than 1 LGB on a single target. It doesn't imply in any sense that the bomb is inaccurate (maybe for the earlier paveway series cos they were a bit flight deficient...). I think more importantly is not just the number of bombs, but the number of effective passes a Strike flight has to make. If I wanna blow up a bridge, I wanna make sure the bridge is levelled and not easily repaired... you know what I mean?
IIRC, its possible for multiple LGB to home in on the same code from 1 designator. The bomb just needs to be released in a position where there is sufficient energy to reach the target. Normally, this is done by a computer calculated release point when the GPS coordinate of the target is keyed into the aircraft's navigation system. The Laser when designating, will only blink the code 8 seconds before impact if I remember correctly as well.'
As for the SAM's shooting back, its already been accounted into most mission planning and briefed to pilots what kinda systems they expect.
On a usual suppression mission for a Strike, Wild Weasel will fly circuits near the target area with HARMs while the Strikers roll in hot. Generally, thats just an insurance as earlier Wild Weasel Strikes would have cleared the target area of any Hostile High altitude SAMs, creating a safe haven above 10k ft. However, the altitude which the Strikers deliver the payload varies according to cloud-decks as they tend to disrupt targeting pod's laser designation. If I have thick cumulus clouds at 7000ft, I don't think its a good idea to use LGBs on any strike.
Missile performance aren't absolute numbers. Airspeed / Altitude and aspect of the launching aircraft play a crucial role in improving those numbers.
I have doubts of that article's argument as I have trouble believing this statement : -
With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment.
I never truly believed how TVC can be used to avoid missiles. TVC when activated slows the aircraft down significantly. Slow targets are dead targets.
Also, if the current models of AIM-120s are in the air, his Jamming equipment will only serve as a bright beacon for the AIM-120 to home in on due to the "Home-On-Jam" capability.
The author is also biased the way he set up his scenario, allowing the Flanker to shoot at longer ranges with the R-27s, assuming that the defending aircraft has no self-protection jammers, while allowing the Flanker to have "modern DRFM monopulse" jammers. He might as well assume the target to be an unarmed Cessna 172.
If the target aircraft is an F-16C and above, its jammers would have denied the Flanker it's R27 shot opportunity, forcing the Flanker to fly closer to burn through the jamming signal.
The single biggest flaw of his whole argument against the effectiveness would be the issue of combat record. The AMRAAM has shot down Flankers, Fulcrums and Foxbats alike in Iraq and Serbia with good accuracy and effectivness. The reverse cannot be said about the R-27 (and all its SARH, IR, ARH and whatever fart-sniffing variant), and the R-77.
They cannot prove their effectivness by simply discrediting the AMRAAM's performance thus far. They can only prove it by matching or out-performing it, and they have yet to do so.
True enough, Russian BVR is largely mass and saturation of multiple seeker types. But thus far, none of their Missiles have proven to be effective in any measure. However, AMRAAM allows its equipped air force to handle such "mass" problems as well by Grinding larger formations away with just a few flights of aircraft supporting. And thats as far as I will go into tactical discussions of the AMRAAM.