A few Questions for CMBS

[Nerdwing]

The new one, the JASSM-ER does.  New as in "produced after 2007-ish" I think.  

[ikalugin]

Are you sure, anywhere I could read on this capability?

[Nerdwing]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/harris-corporation-selected-by-lockheed-martin-for-10-million-jassm-er-weapon-data-link-transceiver-contract-56246897.html

 

Was a while back.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/65m-to-give-jassms-dynamic-targeting-and-reporting-via-data-link-02077/

 

http://theaviationist.com/2014/12/18/jassm-mass-production/

 

Full production last year.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Nerdwing

[ikalugin]

The quick glance shows that the datalink is intended to send the information from the missile to the shooter (for post strike damage assessment), but not from the shooter to the missile (for re-targeting).

[Sgt Joch]

I doubt we will ever arrive at a definitive answer of what an air war between NATO and Russia would look like, too much information is classified, too many capabilities are guesstimate.

 

However for CMBS, you can use the editor to assume total NATO air superiority, total Russian air superiority or anything in between.

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

I doubt we will ever arrive at a definitive answer of what an air war between NATO and Russia would look like, too much information is classified, too many capabilities are guesstimate.

Indeed, and even if we did know them it could very well come down to the command decisions of the generals at the time of the conflict. So it is good that:

 

However for CMBS, you can use the editor to assume total NATO air superiority, total Russian air superiority or anything in between.

 

Exactly. Once the game is out a huge amount of variations on the out come can be made by anyone who wants to. It should be very interesting.

[ikalugin]

I think some people were talking about the scarcity of good targeting pods in Russian use. Here you could see one:

Edited January 19, 2015 by ikalugin

[nsKb]

ESM would be confused by the false emitters (Gazetchik and the like), ground mapping radar would be defeated via the use of ground based jammers, decoy sites and hard kill measures (such as direct attacks against those assets). IR is very dependent on weather conditions and is not a useful long range tool, otherwise the aircraft would have to enter SHORAD ranges. Dummy sites would still be valid even with IR/visual ID at most conditions, as they replicate the relevant IR signatures.

 

They would, because decoy sites would emulate the full spectrum of the real site signatures (IR, radar and radio emition wise), considering that the overall performance of the recon/intel assets would be degraded (by hard kill attacks, comm and radar jamming), it would operate under the fog of war, thus precluding the useful historic analasys and allowing the dummy sites to retain their usefullness.

 

F22A and F35A/B stealth is commonly defeated by the high power X-band and mobile long wavelength radars (and other means), thus they do not present the "magic silver bullet" solution. New weapons (such as the new HARM variants) while being potent, do not solve the under lying issues (such as the decoy sites, recon/intel asset disruption and changing positions after engaging). SDB type weapons are slow to arrive and are fairly simple for the CPGM systems to defeat.

 

So over all I do not see how the Blue force would be capable of getting the decisive air superiority over the battle field (in the short term scenario anyway). In general the issue here (I think) is that you project the current and future capabilities of the Blue force against the past experience with the Red force, which is not really relevant, as not only is the Red force modern/extensive (something that US or anyone for that matter did not meet in the recent experience) but competent (again, that is a rare quality to find in an enemy those days).

 

Gazetchik is a 1.5 kW system, this system will not work at stand off ranges. To put this in perspective the 9S32M is around a 10 kW with a 1 degree beamwidth, furthermore you need to either make your decoy a phased array or use very restrictive anti-simulation techniques that will severely gimp your real radar. The decoy will need to have a similar bandwidth as well. Safe to say that any system that can fool ESM at stand off ranges will be large, expensive, and a worth target in and of itself. I wouldn't be surprised if making a decoy HIMADS radar that can fool modern ESM at stand off ranges is completely pointless due to cost. Weapons with multimode seekers will counter low power decoys since the decoys won't have the same spatial coordiantes (ESM+GPS/INS) as the real radar nor will the physically appear to be a real radar (MMW radar/ IR imagers).

 

Jamming SAR can work but is only effective over a limited area (unless we are deal with SAR satellites which are easier to jam). Since many of the new weapons have MMW seekers you need to build jammers for those and hope they don't burn through too early. Also how will you deal with imaging IR seekers? All of this sounds very expensive, these jammers probably wont be cheap enough to be expendable vs a weapon with 150,000 USD flyaway cost. 

 

Hard kill can be countered by saturation attacks of cheap weapons like the GBU-53, one F-22A can carry 8 in addition to AAMs and one F-15E can carry 16 in addition to AAMs and bags. 

 

Shutting down and relocating isn't a great solution either. 5 teardown, 10 min transit, 5 min setup, 10 min radiate... what a terrible duty cycle, and that is under ideal conditions. Oh and no guarantees that the second you stop radiating the guy who had you picked up with his ESM doesn't switch to his radar, well unless you keep your jammer on constantly in which case everyone knows where you are all the time. 

 

The an S-300/400/whatever series systems are very very expensive even without all the fancy countermeasures and accompanying Pantsirs, we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars here. These systems also have low ammo capacity even with their smallest sized missiles, ammo isn't cheap either. We are talking a limited amount of systems vs a very large amount of aircraft. 

 

The USAF's metal marble figure implies that the F-22A is somewhere between -30 to -40 dBSM but frequency and aspect isn't specified so lets assume its the X-band and frontal aspect (worse case for the Raptor really). Good luck detecting this aircraft at a tactically useful range with a road mobile X-Band radar. You'll be dead long before it ever shows up on the scope, doubly so if Blue is using EW. To my knowledge all the newest Russian SAMs use X-band ARH seekers which makes the situation even worse for them. Going to lower frequencies is only a halfway solution if Blue deploys stand off jammers targeting those frequencies specifically, longwave radars are not without their idiosyncrasies . An F-22 is a small, highly mobile, signature reduced target, it is much easier for it to hide in noise than a barely mobile ground based radar. "Stealth" really is "all that", that is why everyone and their mother wants it nowadays. 

 

You can even sacrifice a relatively cheap drone (relative to the hundreds of millions a large SAM site costs) flying in at low altitude towards suspected emitters and reconnoitering them with it's IR imager at closeish range. 

 

In the past Red could hide it's SAMs by simply keeping them shut off and not coming out to play, but with all these new sensor technologies this is less and less of an option and since Red needs to keep Blue CAS away from it's forces it is not an option at all. 

 

Blue has a much greater technological, numerical, and training edge than ever before. Things are much less close than they were during the cold war. 

 

The quick glance shows that the datalink is intended to send the information from the missile to the shooter (for post strike damage assessment), but not from the shooter to the missile (for re-targeting).

 

 The company that builds it describes it as a "two-way data link transceiver" and sources specifically mention them being "re-tasked in-flight". 

[DreDay]

The whole "semi-mechanised" irregular force equipped with high lethality weapons which has become the norm in Syria and Ukraine was predicted some time ago. They are around, and will continue to be so.

 

If there are to be no partisans in modules then CMBS ignores an important factor of current conflict.

 

To be quite honest, I would be more interested in "semi-mechanized" forces equipped with a mix of relatively-modern systems (like AT4/5 or TOW/Milan) and older archaic stuff like WW2 AT Rifles and ZU-23-2s (which are very much in use in East Ukraine). I realize that I might be in minority here, but I find these kinds of scenarios to be more tactically challenging and forgiving than T-90AM vs M1A2 battles where anything that's spotted gets blown up ASAP with no room for maneuver or tactical planning…

[Nerdwing]

I always figured one of the big advantages of "stealth" aircraft is that while sure, you can find them if you're specifically looking, that in doing so you're hindering your ability to see the literal "big picture".    

[ikalugin]

Ok, on the important points:

 

- Gazetchik does not emulate the main lobe of the radar (as it is narrow and is not used by the ESM systems of ARM seekers for that matter). Gazetchik emulates the side lobes (which are used by ESM systems and ARM seekers) and for those it has adequate power output.

 

- SAR type sensors (from long range ISR assets such as JSTARS) would be jammed from stand of range, simply because ground based jammer has a power availability advantage. You don't need to jam the IR sensor systems, as those imply that you are already in range of terminal defences.

 

- Those saturation attack weapons have low speed, arriving after the vehicle has finished it's engagement and left, if shot from stand of ranges. Otherwise the shooters come into the IADS range themselves. Morever those weapons do not provide a valid saturation capability against the current (Panzir in variants) and future (Morphey) CPGM systems.

 

- the -40 decibel/m2 figure is an empty number, as it was given to us in one article without the conditions it applies for. The (reflective) canopy alone would give you a larger average RCS in x-band/front aspect, in my opinion the -40 decibel/m2 figure refers to some sort of local minimum, not average values. Normal RCS value S300V2 (outdated version from 1987) was guaranteed to intercept is 0.01m2 class, which should be around where the frontal averages for the F22A are, the side aspect would be even better ofcourse (massive vertical fins).

However, should we assume that the RCS of the F22A does have an average x-band value of -40 decibel/m2, then it would still be engaged from 150km or so due to the energy potential of available radars.

Edited January 20, 2015 by ikalugin

[Sgt Joch]

However, should we assume that the RCS of the F22A does have an average x-band value of -40 decibel/m2, then it would still be engaged from 150km or so due to the energy potential of available radars.

....or the F22/35 might ingress, drop its ordnance and egress back to base before radars could obtain a useful lock. Only one "stealth" aircraft has been lost to enemy fire in 25 years.

[ikalugin]

....or the F22/35 might ingress, drop its ordnance and egress back to base before radars could obtain a useful lock. Only one "stealth" aircraft has been lost to enemy fire in 25 years.

F35 has poor rear stealth, thus if it turns back it would be easier to engage (considering know interceptions for the S300V4 occurring at 400km range I think there would be sufficient energy reserve for those shots to happen). F22A is not affected as much, but it still suffers from the stealth performance decrease.

 

And the "stealth" aircraft (or any aircraft) were not used against a modern air defence system for a long, long time.

[ikalugin]

And interesting plane to look into (not in 2017 time line probably, but in a longer haul) is the T50, it is better suited for SEAD than the JSF, if only because it could carry 4 ARM (Kh58UShK) rounds internally (plus 2 self defence AAMs internally).

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

To be quite honest, I would be more interested in "semi-mechanized" forces equipped with a mix of relatively-modern systems (like AT4/5 or TOW/Milan) and older archaic stuff like WW2 AT Rifles and ZU-23-2s (which are very much in use in East Ukraine). I realize that I might be in minority here, but I find these kinds of scenarios to be more tactically challenging and forgiving than T-90AM vs M1A2 battles where anything that's spotted gets blown up ASAP with no room for maneuver or tactical planning…

 

As much as I liked doing the big tank on tank battles in CMSF in which M1A2s killed everything (the mens, the tanks, the lizards), I had a special spot in my heart for doing red on red "cripple fights" in which I pitted uncon vs uncon, or T-62 on T-62 action.

 

There's just something more challenging and interesting when the results are less certain, and when the battle is more of of a slugfest than 10 minutes of getting in position, and 10 seconds of pure lethality and the AAR screen that happens sometimes.  

[Sgt Joch]

F35 has poor rear stealth, thus if it turns back it would be easier to engage (considering know interceptions for the S300V4 occurring at 400km range I think there would be sufficient energy reserve for those shots to happen).

That's what outside critics with no access to real info say, according to the Pentagon, it is as stealthy in all aspects as the F22. Again, none of this can be verified before they are used in combat.

[ikalugin]

That's what outside critics with no access to real info say, according to the Pentagon, it is as stealthy in all aspects as the F22. Again, none of this can be verified before they are used in combat.

That point (the rear aspect stealth) is obvious due to how the round nozle vs rectangular nozle works.

 

My point about the energy reserves (both for the radar and the missiles) of the S300V series systems that allows engagement of F22A/F35A targets on normal combat ranges even if impossibly good RCS reduction levels are assumed still stands.

[Stagler]

Their is an english expression, "That is why you play the game".  Because you can argue about who would win ad-infinitum. Of course this little discussion isn't killing anyone, so perhaps its not so bad.  We are also arguing about details with only slight reference to the game, but until it comes out... 

 

Just wait till it comes out. The place will be rife with balance threads and russia kit stronk.

[dan/california]

Just wait till it comes out. The place will be rife with balance threads and russia kit stronk.

Oh I know, everyone is trolling about vaguely related things that no one can change.  When the game comes out we can troll about point values and random micro problems that no one can change.  And the ever popular "I got slaughtered on the first campaign mission, the game must be BROKEN, OMG I have PTSD".

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think it's going to be worse than CMSF for griping.  People who played around with red in CMSF didn't expect an elite force capable of destroying anything they ran into.  Outside of the one or two Syrians who came onto the board to post what I recall were some very uh, interesting versions of reality they were a minority.  So most of the ventsplode raging was people who'd driven their Abrams into the middle of a city and had it get crushed.  A lesser ventsplode for each DLC as WHY ARE NOT MY CHALLENGERS IMMUNE TO BULLETS?

 

CMBS will have both people confused at why the M1A2 CAN be destroyed and what do you mean red has an airforce, and enraged that all of their T-90s are burning because is impossible strokest tank Ukraine cannot shoot into thing.

[White2Golf]

+1 to the whine-o-meter going off the charts. I already upped my stock of popcorn to get ready. I do not post often, but always am lurking. The things some people say......

Edited January 20, 2015 by White2Golf

[nsKb]

Ok, on the important points:

 

- Gazetchik does not emulate the main lobe of the radar (as it is narrow and is not used by the ESM systems of ARM seekers for that matter). Gazetchik emulates the side lobes (which are used by ESM systems and ARM seekers) and for those it has adequate power output.

 

- SAR type sensors (from long range ISR assets such as JSTARS) would be jammed from stand of range, simply because ground based jammer has a power availability advantage. You don't need to jam the IR sensor systems, as those imply that you are already in range of terminal defences.

 

- Those saturation attack weapons have low speed, arriving after the vehicle has finished it's engagement and left, if shot from stand of ranges. Otherwise the shooters come into the IADS range themselves. Morever those weapons do not provide a valid saturation capability against the current (Panzir in variants) and future (Morphey) CPGM systems.

 

- the -40 decibel/m2 figure is an empty number, as it was given to us in one article without the conditions it applies for. The (reflective) canopy alone would give you a larger average RCS in x-band/front aspect, in my opinion the -40 decibel/m2 figure refers to some sort of local minimum, not average values. Normal RCS value S300V2 (outdated version from 1987) was guaranteed to intercept is 0.01m2 class, which should be around where the frontal averages for the F22A are, the side aspect would be even better ofcourse (massive vertical fins).

However, should we assume that the RCS of the F22A does have an average x-band value of -40 decibel/m2, then it would still be engaged from 150km or so due to the energy potential of available radars.

 

The point is that since Gazetchik doesn't provide accurate simulation of the radar the real and false signals can be geolocated. 

 

I already posted about duty cycles. Since the SAM will never know exactly when the aircraft launch their weapons and since set up and tear down times are 5 min under the most ideal conditions most of the time the SAM site will be stationary, even if they are engaging moving targets the SAM wont have gone far. 

 

The effectiveness of SAR and jammers depends on the specifics of the systems and how they are used when you think about it. Papers I have seen on SAR jamming show good effectiveness over a limited area. 

 

I don't know how you figured this. Radars the size of the ones used in the S-300 series can not detect a -40 dBsm target at 150 km, maybe 50 km is more realistic and that is before EW. 

 

F35 has poor rear stealth, thus if it turns back it would be easier to engage (considering know interceptions for the S300V4 occurring at 400km range I think there would be sufficient energy reserve for those shots to happen). F22A is not affected as much, but it still suffers from the stealth performance decrease.

 

And the "stealth" aircraft (or any aircraft) were not used against a modern air defence system for a long, long time.

 

If you don't have the F-35's RCS plots then you can't say it's stealth is poor. It probably has a fairly spiky plot as many aircraft do, the difference between decent RCS and bad RCS may be a few degrees or less, pilots would know about the most unflattering angles and try to avoid them. Since we don't have the plots we can't know for sure. 

 

I have not seen any SAM missiles meant to be used against aircraft that have a claimed range of 400 km though I have seen a 250 km claimed range. As always range against a target that will be running away is a fraction of the claimed range. 

 

Stealth aircraft have been training against modern air defense systems a very long time.

 

And interesting plane to look into (not in 2017 time line probably, but in a longer haul) is the T50, it is better suited for SEAD than the JSF, if only because it could carry 4 ARM (Kh58UShK) rounds internally (plus 2 self defence AAMs internally).

 

SEAD is more than just weapons load, though I'm interested in seeing more details on the T-50 and it's weapons stores. 

[ikalugin]

The point is that ELINT sensors (and ARM's passive seakers) detect side lobes, as the main love is very thin. Because modern radars have considerable sidelobe reduction measures installed the power emitted via those side lobes is far less than via the main lobe.

As Gazetchik emulates the side lobes of a given radar, it provides the active signature that is exactly the same as of the radar it is set to emulate from the point of view of an ELINT sensor or ARM seaker. Morever Gazetchik could be connected to the parent radar to have a synchronised cycle of emition.

The operating cycle of the SAM system (shoot-move-shoot) does reduce the amount of time a given system works, that is true. However considering the fire productivity of modern SAM designs (multichannel architecture) and amount of HIMADS likely to be employed in such a conflict the amount of engagement channels available (at any given time) would be sufficient to engage all hostile platforms in the air (at the same given time).

jammers just have access to more power.

Recent intercept for the S300V4 test against low RCS target occurred at ~400km range.

[ikalugin]

T50 has 4 hard points in the main bays and 2 on the quick bays.

Quick bays are assumed to carry the WVR rounds.

Hard points in the main bays could carry (identified payloads):

- R77 series (izd 180 and izd 180PD).

- Kh58UShK ARM.

- Kh38 series strike missiles.

- KAB250 series bombs.

- R37 class missiles (izd 810).

And some other payloads which were not linked definitively to specific weapons.

[ikalugin]

T50 carries advanced ELINT package as it is essentially tasked to deal with air superiority in the broad sense (ie including the attacks against airborne support assets and surface based AD system elements).

Edited January 21, 2015 by ikalugin