F-15E/GR4 or F-111 the best?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-15E/GR4 or F-111 the best?
The latest Red Flag is about to commence at Nellis, presumably all three types of the above aircraft will be participating, but if not which one is considered the best aircraft regarding its low level mission?
The other evening on the Discovery channel a USAF jockey stated that the Strike Eagle was, but then again he would say that wouldnt he!
ps. The F-111s in RED FLAG belong to the Aussies as they are now the sole operaters of the Vaark.
The other evening on the Discovery channel a USAF jockey stated that the Strike Eagle was, but then again he would say that wouldnt he!
ps. The F-111s in RED FLAG belong to the Aussies as they are now the sole operaters of the Vaark.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Where they send me
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its no competition, the F-15E is the winner here. The F111 is had its day and the Aussies are looking for a replacement. The GR4 is a capable bomber but it cannot match the multi role ability of the F15E. The main advantage I would say that an F15E would not require an Escort/Sweep as its more than capable of protecting itself, any attacker piling in would have to think twice, F15E with bombs or F15E loaded with Amraams or mixed. Why Oh why did we not buy the F15............
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bullseye
The F15 doesn't have the legs that the "Pig" wallows in, or for that matter the pure fear factor....just ask the Indons when the Aussies purchased the last batch from the US, I am sure the political implications of an F15 purchase would not have stirred up the diplomatic fallout that occurred when this deal was done. Whilst the Pig is encountering a few structural issues,the latest upgrade with the digital kit and ongoing weapons fit makes them a formidable platform. I would like to see the stats on bomb loads, unrefueled range etc. between the two jets as I am sure the Pig will still be a serious player.
Having witnessed the recent Strike Eagle ops over here in the ME and the amount of refuels enroute to the "Ghan" I guess it would have been a distinct advantage to have the range and roomy cockpit of the Tripply and of course there is the coffee thermus to boot....no beer and hosties but!!!
Notice I didn't bother bringing the GR4 into the equation.....
The F15 doesn't have the legs that the "Pig" wallows in, or for that matter the pure fear factor....just ask the Indons when the Aussies purchased the last batch from the US, I am sure the political implications of an F15 purchase would not have stirred up the diplomatic fallout that occurred when this deal was done. Whilst the Pig is encountering a few structural issues,the latest upgrade with the digital kit and ongoing weapons fit makes them a formidable platform. I would like to see the stats on bomb loads, unrefueled range etc. between the two jets as I am sure the Pig will still be a serious player.
Having witnessed the recent Strike Eagle ops over here in the ME and the amount of refuels enroute to the "Ghan" I guess it would have been a distinct advantage to have the range and roomy cockpit of the Tripply and of course there is the coffee thermus to boot....no beer and hosties but!!!
Notice I didn't bother bringing the GR4 into the equation.....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canberra....
The mid 80's, its 2002...I think, the reason the Brits weren't invited back was because they took up all the hangar space during the "jits" down time and the USAF boys couldn't finish off their volleyball match !!!!
Anyway the type of bombing competetion the Pig's enjoy are places like.... Libya. Whilst there was no trophy for ticking a few noddy peacetime academic boxes, a true projection of force was demonstrated. (I think that was the mid eighties too!!!!????)
The mid 80's, its 2002...I think, the reason the Brits weren't invited back was because they took up all the hangar space during the "jits" down time and the USAF boys couldn't finish off their volleyball match !!!!
Anyway the type of bombing competetion the Pig's enjoy are places like.... Libya. Whilst there was no trophy for ticking a few noddy peacetime academic boxes, a true projection of force was demonstrated. (I think that was the mid eighties too!!!!????)
Last edited by Fox3snapshot; 1st Sep 2002 at 23:13.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elderado Canyon in '86.
21 F-111s and EF-111s from LN and UH and 30 tankers round the west coast of Spain and drop a few PGMs on nasty guys, could the Brits have done such a mission in 1986? (Genuine question).
21 F-111s and EF-111s from LN and UH and 30 tankers round the west coast of Spain and drop a few PGMs on nasty guys, could the Brits have done such a mission in 1986? (Genuine question).
If the emphasis is on LOW LEVEL surely Tornado still scores well. In the modern environment, without such restriction, the F-15E every time surely?
Re Eldorado Canyon the short answer is "Yes given sufficient tanker support".
Re Eldorado Canyon the short answer is "Yes given sufficient tanker support".
F15E vs GR4/F111 - two totally different generations. The F15E was built as a replacement for the F111.
Fox 3 Snap-
What political fallout from the purchase of the latest batch?? There wasnt any.
Considering the latest batch were G models with NO PGM capability, that makes them a big, fast, long range DUMB BOMBER.
The structural issues that has led to the grounding of the fleet on a few occasions?? The digital 'upgrade' was a maintainability upgrade, there was minimal capability improvement (mainly the INS being able to get within a few miles without the NAV having to rein it in regularly, and a few more reference waypoints to use).
What weapons fit would that be?? LGB's being the longest range weapon available, I wouldnt fancy going to a target in a RAAF pig against a reasonably defended tgt with LGB's. I would be a bigger fan of employing AGM-130 from an F15E any day, with 2 AMRAAMs to keep me comfortable.
The issues:
Range - everyone likes to say the F111 is better because it goes further than the F15E. True at first look, but the F111 can only go in and out low (with an escort) if there is any defence about. The F15E will quite happily go in and out at medium and high level, on its own, where its AMRAAMs will reach out and touch. Its range disadvantage is therefore somewhat neutralised by reduced fuel burn. Regardless, for the RAAF it would still go further than the F18 escort!!!!!
By the way, the yanks dont really care about the fuel load, they will find enough tankers to make it work. (maybe not as many as they would really want but enough to get by).
Weapons load - The F11 may be able to carry a lot of weapons, but it will go nowhere with a full load. A realistic load may be 4 Mk84 type weapons, which the F15E can also carry, at the same carrying a total of 4 AAM's, either AMRAAM or AIM9. The F15E will also carry AGM130 and Maverick, neither of which are carried by the RAAF F111's. It was quite enjoyable rippling 12 MK82's or 4 MK84s from the F15E.
F15E A/G radar mapping capability is outstanding. Unless you are bombing a nuclear reactor or bombing a whole city block, you stand a much better chance of actually finding the target in an F15E. The F111 relying on real beam mapping is a little on the old technology side of things.
Whilst you will still see low level ops in training exercises (RED FLAG - because its fun and easier to coordinate), come a real war its the last place the guys will want to be, the first few days of Desert Storm saw low level strikes as a primary tactic consigned to history.
The F111 self defence capability is rather dubious - lets just say the F15E jammer is a nice piece of kit, along with good expendable decoys.
I havent commented on GR4, but the RAF GR4 NAV I was on exchange with (flying F15E's) was in no doubt as to which platform he preferred, and it doesnt have the number 4 in it.
Fox 3 Snap-
The F15 doesn't have the legs that the "Pig" wallows in, or for that matter the pure fear factor....just ask the Indons when the Aussies purchased the last batch from the US, I am sure the political implications of an F15 purchase would not have stirred up the diplomatic fallout that occurred when this deal was done.
Considering the latest batch were G models with NO PGM capability, that makes them a big, fast, long range DUMB BOMBER.
Whilst the Pig is encountering a few structural issues,the latest upgrade with the digital kit and ongoing weapons fit makes them a formidable platform.
What weapons fit would that be?? LGB's being the longest range weapon available, I wouldnt fancy going to a target in a RAAF pig against a reasonably defended tgt with LGB's. I would be a bigger fan of employing AGM-130 from an F15E any day, with 2 AMRAAMs to keep me comfortable.
The issues:
Range - everyone likes to say the F111 is better because it goes further than the F15E. True at first look, but the F111 can only go in and out low (with an escort) if there is any defence about. The F15E will quite happily go in and out at medium and high level, on its own, where its AMRAAMs will reach out and touch. Its range disadvantage is therefore somewhat neutralised by reduced fuel burn. Regardless, for the RAAF it would still go further than the F18 escort!!!!!
By the way, the yanks dont really care about the fuel load, they will find enough tankers to make it work. (maybe not as many as they would really want but enough to get by).
Weapons load - The F11 may be able to carry a lot of weapons, but it will go nowhere with a full load. A realistic load may be 4 Mk84 type weapons, which the F15E can also carry, at the same carrying a total of 4 AAM's, either AMRAAM or AIM9. The F15E will also carry AGM130 and Maverick, neither of which are carried by the RAAF F111's. It was quite enjoyable rippling 12 MK82's or 4 MK84s from the F15E.
F15E A/G radar mapping capability is outstanding. Unless you are bombing a nuclear reactor or bombing a whole city block, you stand a much better chance of actually finding the target in an F15E. The F111 relying on real beam mapping is a little on the old technology side of things.
Whilst you will still see low level ops in training exercises (RED FLAG - because its fun and easier to coordinate), come a real war its the last place the guys will want to be, the first few days of Desert Storm saw low level strikes as a primary tactic consigned to history.
The F111 self defence capability is rather dubious - lets just say the F15E jammer is a nice piece of kit, along with good expendable decoys.
I havent commented on GR4, but the RAF GR4 NAV I was on exchange with (flying F15E's) was in no doubt as to which platform he preferred, and it doesnt have the number 4 in it.
Oh No - Pig vs Mud Hen, I don't know who to barrack for!?!!
Shi'ite... I can't believe what I'm about to say but here goes:
1. With respect to "Navy Adversary's" original question
I have to say that the Pig can be the only winner. Surely the true measure of the low level striker is low level range versus payload. (Stick with me ftrplt, I'm going somewhere with this & I promise I am NOT turning into a complete Kopp!!) Whilst not familiar with Beagle SGRs at fighting weight, I would hazard a guess that they have the standard 'leaky turbojets' common to teen series fighters that are optimised to fight around the tropopause - Hence, a Pig with 24 Mk 82s would probably easily out range (by a few hundred miles) a bombed up Mud Hen on a LO-LO-LO mission. (As someone has previously mentioned, the Tornado has been 'omitted for clarity')
2. Notwithstanding all of the above, I don't pretend to say that the LO-LO-LO strike mission is the most tactically sound mission profile: As always "it depends...". Not much point here in arguing the various doctrinal and tactical merits of these profiles. As a very wise aviator once told me: The only way to REALLY know what tactics will work for you in your war is to ask the guys who returned safely from the previous mission, and then do what they do! (Of course, the follow up question would always be "but what if you're the first guy in the first mission??" The answer: Don't be!!)
3. I haven't been in any conflict (just fine with me) so this may be a bit rich coming from a "nugget", but I would caution against statements such as
The recent Rand Corporation report about the US Air Campaign in 'Storm' made a very interesting observation. Essentially, it stated that the Low Level Strike profiles create the most challenging and difficult mission profile that serves to dramatically improve overall strike skills. Many unsuccessful 'Storm' strikes (both low, medium & high) were attributed mainly to poor low-level skills. Simple really: Train for the hardest situation and by definition anything less will be easier.
Someone else (always) says it better:
- Brigadier General Robin Olds.
3. Finally, I would hazard a guess that many F111 aircrew would be very happy with the F15E as a replacement. Let's face it, it can perform 90% of the Pig Strike roles (MARSTK??) at maybe 80% of Pig low-level range. BUT (and it's a big but) it also has a vastly superior radar, excellent A/A capability, more modern systems and therefore provides far more bang for your buck than the venerable Piggy.
Of course, if the F111 'AMRAAM missileer' ever comes into service then look out Beagle!
1. With respect to "Navy Adversary's" original question
which one is considered the best aircraft regarding its low level mission?
2. Notwithstanding all of the above, I don't pretend to say that the LO-LO-LO strike mission is the most tactically sound mission profile: As always "it depends...". Not much point here in arguing the various doctrinal and tactical merits of these profiles. As a very wise aviator once told me: The only way to REALLY know what tactics will work for you in your war is to ask the guys who returned safely from the previous mission, and then do what they do! (Of course, the follow up question would always be "but what if you're the first guy in the first mission??" The answer: Don't be!!)
3. I haven't been in any conflict (just fine with me) so this may be a bit rich coming from a "nugget", but I would caution against statements such as
the first few days of Desert Storm saw low level strikes as a primary tactic consigned to history
Someone else (always) says it better:
The most important thing is to have a flexible approach. . . . The truth is no one knows exactly what air fighting will be like in the future. We can't say anything will stay as it is, but we also can't be certain the future will conform to particular theories, which so often, between the wars, have proved wrong.
3. Finally, I would hazard a guess that many F111 aircrew would be very happy with the F15E as a replacement. Let's face it, it can perform 90% of the Pig Strike roles (MARSTK??) at maybe 80% of Pig low-level range. BUT (and it's a big but) it also has a vastly superior radar, excellent A/A capability, more modern systems and therefore provides far more bang for your buck than the venerable Piggy.
Of course, if the F111 'AMRAAM missileer' ever comes into service then look out Beagle!
The F-111 does have a formidable payload range capability. This alone makes it the only choice for certain types of mission.
Moreover, Pave Tack is a good system, though the remaining RAAF F-111s have a modest 'portfolio' of weapon options.
But at Low Level, during 1980s Red Flags, the 'Lemon' was often out-performed by the Tornado which does not have the 'legs' but which is just as fast at low level, has an equal or better auto TF capability, and better EW. It isn't quite as poor when it comes to structural and reliability factors, either.
The Tornado has its problems, too, of course, though medium level PGM capability using TIALD 400 is now (finally?) not bad, and the type is on the verge of introducing some exciting new weapons.
The F-15E is perfectly OK at Low Level, though I would imagine that that great big wing must make it a mite uncomfortable.
In the post Cold War world, though, there is seldom much need for low level, though let's not fall into the trap of using Desert Storm to prove that the technique entails unacceptable losses. Remember that a high proportion of the Desert Storm Tornado losses were NOT of aircraft on low level JP233 attacks (contrary to media implications) nor even of aircraft toss-bombing from low level.
When I spoke to Chuck Horner (the Air Commander in Desert Storm - 'Name Drop, Name Drop.....GO!!!) after the war he was clear that the low level phase of Desert Storm ended when it ended not because of losses, but because that target set had been hit successfully, and the Tornado's next target set dictated medium level tactics. I got much the same message from Bill Wratten and from Buster Glossom.
Moreover, Pave Tack is a good system, though the remaining RAAF F-111s have a modest 'portfolio' of weapon options.
But at Low Level, during 1980s Red Flags, the 'Lemon' was often out-performed by the Tornado which does not have the 'legs' but which is just as fast at low level, has an equal or better auto TF capability, and better EW. It isn't quite as poor when it comes to structural and reliability factors, either.
The Tornado has its problems, too, of course, though medium level PGM capability using TIALD 400 is now (finally?) not bad, and the type is on the verge of introducing some exciting new weapons.
The F-15E is perfectly OK at Low Level, though I would imagine that that great big wing must make it a mite uncomfortable.
In the post Cold War world, though, there is seldom much need for low level, though let's not fall into the trap of using Desert Storm to prove that the technique entails unacceptable losses. Remember that a high proportion of the Desert Storm Tornado losses were NOT of aircraft on low level JP233 attacks (contrary to media implications) nor even of aircraft toss-bombing from low level.
When I spoke to Chuck Horner (the Air Commander in Desert Storm - 'Name Drop, Name Drop.....GO!!!) after the war he was clear that the low level phase of Desert Storm ended when it ended not because of losses, but because that target set had been hit successfully, and the Tornado's next target set dictated medium level tactics. I got much the same message from Bill Wratten and from Buster Glossom.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 3rd Sep 2002 at 11:21.
Booger,
I must admit I did glance over the opening statement about 'best at low level', however it still doesnt sway the advantage to the Pig. A 4th generation Pulse Doppler radar and / or a double digit SAM will still clean up an F111. You need an A/A radar and and a working EW suite to survive; score another win to the F15E.
I agree with Jacko, one thing the Poms have always done well is EW - again another win over the Pig.
You are correct however, the Pig with 24 MK82's will go further than the F15E, only because the F15E can only carry 12. Id like to see the footprint of those 24 however!!!
All the fuel advantage really means is that the F111 will have lots of fuel available when it jettisons its bombs to defend; assuming it knows it needs to defend! (hopefully the Hornet escort hasnt Bingo'ed out already!)
So Booger, what do you think will come first on the F111 - AMRAAM or AGM142??
As far as low level being a primary tactic, I will never the forget the quote from very good USAF F15E FWIC grad on RAAF F18 exchange - 'for every 1 A/A missile in the world there are 1000 SAMS'. I dont give a rats arse what RAND reckons, I know what the drivers are thinking and they wont come in low - if it can be avoided, i.e no other over-riding factors. (being made easier with continual A/S weapon improvements by the way - i.e tgt acquisition and accurate delivery)
Note - low level still exists in training because it is so hard, as you rightly indicated.
I must admit I did glance over the opening statement about 'best at low level', however it still doesnt sway the advantage to the Pig. A 4th generation Pulse Doppler radar and / or a double digit SAM will still clean up an F111. You need an A/A radar and and a working EW suite to survive; score another win to the F15E.
I agree with Jacko, one thing the Poms have always done well is EW - again another win over the Pig.
You are correct however, the Pig with 24 MK82's will go further than the F15E, only because the F15E can only carry 12. Id like to see the footprint of those 24 however!!!
All the fuel advantage really means is that the F111 will have lots of fuel available when it jettisons its bombs to defend; assuming it knows it needs to defend! (hopefully the Hornet escort hasnt Bingo'ed out already!)
So Booger, what do you think will come first on the F111 - AMRAAM or AGM142??
As far as low level being a primary tactic, I will never the forget the quote from very good USAF F15E FWIC grad on RAAF F18 exchange - 'for every 1 A/A missile in the world there are 1000 SAMS'. I dont give a rats arse what RAND reckons, I know what the drivers are thinking and they wont come in low - if it can be avoided, i.e no other over-riding factors. (being made easier with continual A/S weapon improvements by the way - i.e tgt acquisition and accurate delivery)
Note - low level still exists in training because it is so hard, as you rightly indicated.
Last edited by ftrplt; 3rd Sep 2002 at 14:45.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
ftrplt,
You seem to contradict yourself in your last paragraph. One of the main reasons for low level ingress is to ensure you are outside the engagement envelope of the maximum number of SAM systems, or exposed for the absolute minimum interval.
Medium level ingress works in a SAM rich environment only when you have sufficient SEAD to suppress/engage the SAW defences and AEW and fighters to achieve air superiority to protect against the fighter threat; both of which the USAF has. But you have to look at the threat and decide which is the greatest risk and what can you defend against.
If you always intend to work in cooperation with US forces then medium level is fine. If not, there is still a lot to be said for the option of 100ft, 540Kts on the darkest, cloudiest night you can find.
Notes.
1. The USAF dislike of low level stems from Vietnam and their losses from small arms fire - not SAM. The threat of small arms/manpad has to be considered, but may not be a major threat depending on the theatre.
2. SAW may a threat in the target area. But that is more an argument in favour of stand-off weaponry. (It should be noted that weapons such as Storm Shadow can be fired at low-level. As can ALARM. So SEAD and attack can be executed following a low-level ingress. Medium level is not a prerequisite).
(and p.s. I would select the F-15E overall, due to it's all round flexibility. Whatever it may lose at low-level is more than made up for by it's performance envelope and A-A capability.)
You seem to contradict yourself in your last paragraph. One of the main reasons for low level ingress is to ensure you are outside the engagement envelope of the maximum number of SAM systems, or exposed for the absolute minimum interval.
Medium level ingress works in a SAM rich environment only when you have sufficient SEAD to suppress/engage the SAW defences and AEW and fighters to achieve air superiority to protect against the fighter threat; both of which the USAF has. But you have to look at the threat and decide which is the greatest risk and what can you defend against.
If you always intend to work in cooperation with US forces then medium level is fine. If not, there is still a lot to be said for the option of 100ft, 540Kts on the darkest, cloudiest night you can find.
Notes.
1. The USAF dislike of low level stems from Vietnam and their losses from small arms fire - not SAM. The threat of small arms/manpad has to be considered, but may not be a major threat depending on the theatre.
2. SAW may a threat in the target area. But that is more an argument in favour of stand-off weaponry. (It should be noted that weapons such as Storm Shadow can be fired at low-level. As can ALARM. So SEAD and attack can be executed following a low-level ingress. Medium level is not a prerequisite).
(and p.s. I would select the F-15E overall, due to it's all round flexibility. Whatever it may lose at low-level is more than made up for by it's performance envelope and A-A capability.)
Last edited by ORAC; 3rd Sep 2002 at 20:06.
Horses for courses! If its a dark, dirty night, with a low level option available and plenty of AAR available, then the GR4 will do a job for you. Almost any other time, I'd go in the F15E. Give me a good EW suite, a couple of AMRAAMs and a great Air To Air radar. The GR4 has an antiquated cockpit, mandraulic software and short legs. What a shame the upgrade didn't improve a couple of those aspects.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko - N
The GR1 AND GR4 does not have a better TFR than the F111
The GR1 and GR 4 does not do the speed that the F111 does [nor for as long and as low] It is quite limited in speed and wingsweep compared to the more flexible F111
GR 4 TFR 250' AGL year 1980 to 2002 Lots of annoying more 'nibbles' than F111 [F111 = Two TFR 1966 systems at 200 AGL and more flexible and functional to use [ie engage disengage and re ingage or interrupt as a pilot]
Night FLIR flying - GR-4 a winner
Night NVG flying - GR-4 a winner
BUT TFR OPS F111 a winner. Much better in mountainous terrin to boot. - something about min TF speed that requires a complicated explaination of the TFR equasion that I will not go into at the moment [even the Brits don't touch that topic]
EW I will not comment
I am not saying anything is better YET but just [hopefully] correcting some mis conceptions.
Mud Hen would be my choice as a pilot though, primarily for its self defence
By the way all, enjoy 'Flag.
The GR1 AND GR4 does not have a better TFR than the F111
The GR1 and GR 4 does not do the speed that the F111 does [nor for as long and as low] It is quite limited in speed and wingsweep compared to the more flexible F111
GR 4 TFR 250' AGL year 1980 to 2002 Lots of annoying more 'nibbles' than F111 [F111 = Two TFR 1966 systems at 200 AGL and more flexible and functional to use [ie engage disengage and re ingage or interrupt as a pilot]
Night FLIR flying - GR-4 a winner
Night NVG flying - GR-4 a winner
BUT TFR OPS F111 a winner. Much better in mountainous terrin to boot. - something about min TF speed that requires a complicated explaination of the TFR equasion that I will not go into at the moment [even the Brits don't touch that topic]
EW I will not comment
I am not saying anything is better YET but just [hopefully] correcting some mis conceptions.
Mud Hen would be my choice as a pilot though, primarily for its self defence
By the way all, enjoy 'Flag.
ORAC,
all fair points, after editing the second time realised I should have mentioned AAA but it all got too hard. AAA is still the biggest killer.
Agreed that Medium level requires suitable suppression, it also allows the acft EW and dectection systems to work and gives some defensive mnvre potential.
Your point about low level reducing the threat. It certainly worked against older IR and RDR SAM's, not so relevant these days. Most systems have got rid of (or significantly reduced)clutter and minimum launch depression angles which caused the main problems for the older generation RDR SAMS. Most systems now have an optical launch backup which again helps negate the effectiveness of low level. The option then is to at least go high (if you have SEAD, good EW) and limit the threat to the high order SAM's. You now have options to avoid (you tend to know where the high order ones are better than the portable stuff) and also mnvre / defence potential if targetted.
As has already been said, we are probably trying to condense tens of years of lessons learnt into a few paragraphs so there are bound to be holes in anything we write here.
The one thing that seems to be common is the preference for F15E. Its not just all about howe much fuel you can carry and how many bombs you can put on.
ORAC - by the way, what does SAW stand for? (not a term used in RAAF, Im sure I used to know it but have managed to destroy those memory cells)
all fair points, after editing the second time realised I should have mentioned AAA but it all got too hard. AAA is still the biggest killer.
Agreed that Medium level requires suitable suppression, it also allows the acft EW and dectection systems to work and gives some defensive mnvre potential.
Your point about low level reducing the threat. It certainly worked against older IR and RDR SAM's, not so relevant these days. Most systems have got rid of (or significantly reduced)clutter and minimum launch depression angles which caused the main problems for the older generation RDR SAMS. Most systems now have an optical launch backup which again helps negate the effectiveness of low level. The option then is to at least go high (if you have SEAD, good EW) and limit the threat to the high order SAM's. You now have options to avoid (you tend to know where the high order ones are better than the portable stuff) and also mnvre / defence potential if targetted.
As has already been said, we are probably trying to condense tens of years of lessons learnt into a few paragraphs so there are bound to be holes in anything we write here.
The one thing that seems to be common is the preference for F15E. Its not just all about howe much fuel you can carry and how many bombs you can put on.
ORAC - by the way, what does SAW stand for? (not a term used in RAAF, Im sure I used to know it but have managed to destroy those memory cells)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Surface to Air Weapons. More generic term to cover SAM, MANPAD, AAA, directed energy weapons etc.
re the improved SAM, the other answer is, of course, go even lower to maximise terrain and environmental coverage and use night and periods of low visibility. A tactic used widely by the helo force of course. Every little helps (and over plains, steppes and deserts a hole can generally be found).
re the improved SAM, the other answer is, of course, go even lower to maximise terrain and environmental coverage and use night and periods of low visibility. A tactic used widely by the helo force of course. Every little helps (and over plains, steppes and deserts a hole can generally be found).
Last edited by ORAC; 4th Sep 2002 at 01:36.
TSR2 with 30 years of development and upgrading would have ended your discussion, of course.
Unfortunately it was assassinated by Mountbottom and the loony Labour government of Wislon..........
Unfortunately it was assassinated by Mountbottom and the loony Labour government of Wislon..........
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I supose the equation changes with the AGM142 coming into service in 2004 on the Pig.
Mind you with a couple of "A" model F-16 on the Indon side you would think that dumb bombs are all thats necessary....(just kidding..)
Mind you with a couple of "A" model F-16 on the Indon side you would think that dumb bombs are all thats necessary....(just kidding..)