Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Surviving The Modern Iads  
User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 231 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4814 times:


The United States and its Allies have relied since the end of the Cold War upon the ability to quickly overwhelm an opposing IADS, and the ability to then deliver massed precision firepower from the air, as the weapon of choice in resolving nation state conflicts.

The reality of evolving IADS technology and its global proliferation is that most of the US Air Force combat aircraft fleet, and all of the US Navy combat aircraft fleet, will be largely impotent against an IADS constructed from the technology available today from Russian and, increasingly so, Chinese manufacturers.

If flown against such an IADS, US legacy fighters from the F-15 through to the current production F/A-18E/F would suffer prohibitive combat losses attempting to penetrate, suppress or destroy such an IADS.

The IADS technology in question is currently being deployed by China, Iran, Venezuela, and other nations, most of which have poor relationships with the Western alliance.

Until the US Air Force deploys significant numbers of the intended New Generation Bomber post 2020, only aircraft types in the US arsenal will be capable of penetrating, suppressing and destroying such an IADS – the B-2A Spirit and the F-22A Raptor.

There are only twenty B-2As in existence and retooling to manufacture a B-2C is an expensive approach given the commitment to the New Generation Bomber.

The United States therefore has only one remaining strategic choice at this time. That strategic choice is to manufacture a sufficient number of F-22A Raptors to provide a credible capability to conduct a substantial air campaign using only the B-2A and F-22A fleets.

The expectation that the US can get by with a small “golden bullet” fleet of stealth aircraft to carve holes in IADS to permit legacy aircraft to attack is no longer credible. The difficulty in locating and killing the new generation of self propelled and highly survivable IADS radars and launchers presents the prospect of a replay of the 1999 OAF campaign, with highly lethal SAM systems waiting in ambush, and mostly evading SEAD/DEAD attacks.

The F-22A Raptor will therefore have to perform the full spectrum of penetrating roles, starting with counter-air, and encompassing SEAD/DEAD, penetrating ISR and precision strike against strategic and tactical targets. The B-2A fleet can robustly bolster capabilities, but the small number of these superb aircraft available will result inevitably in very selective use.

If we assume an aircraft configuration reflecting the planned F-22A Block 40 configuration, and a contingency of similar magnitude to Desert Storm in 1991, then the required number of F-22A aircraft to cover the spectrum of penetrating roles is of the order of 500 to 600 aircraft in total.

The United States no longer has any real choices in this matter, if it wishes to retain its secure global strategic position in the 2010 – 2020 time window. Any other force structure model will result in a nett loss of strategic potential, and produce strategic risks, which neither the US nor its Allies can afford.


What do you guys think?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4223 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4772 times:

I don't think international dental students pose much of a threat.

IADS Integrated Access Devices
IADS Integrated Air Defense System
IADS Integrated Air Defence System
IADS International Association of Dental Students
IADS International Agricultural Development Service (New York, USA)
IADS Interactive Authoring and Display System
IADS Icelandic Air Defense System
IADS Integrated Air Defense Simulation (US DoD)
IADS Interactive Analysis and Display System
IADS Integrated Audio Distribution System
IADS Integrated Active Drive System

This is a global forum... Try to overcome your local jargon.


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 15617 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4752 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
This is a global forum... Try to overcome your local jargon.

It is, so you should realize he was referring to the Icelandic Air Defense System, which uses steam generated deep inside the earth to pressure-charge cannons that fire volcanic rock projectiles at incoming hostile aircraft.

Lighten up, pal, we're all friends here, right?

Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePlayloud From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4704 times:

Perhaps with heavy jamming, the F-35 (which we should have in quantity) could penetrate newer IADS?

User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4223 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4679 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
Lighten up, pal

Sorry, good advice!

Peter Smile

The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3371 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4656 times:

Disagree a bit. High altitude supersonic release of masses of SDBs on IADS sites. Say, 2 bombs per target. A thousand or so ( if you pack a few B-2s to the gills too) targets would saturate the system, plus add jamming/spoofing/decoys/drones/cruise missiles). Let the system light up and try to destroy the incoming. The launch aircraft will already be on egress.

This could already be achieved with legacy systems such as F-15E, B-1 and B-2. Throw in B-52 and F-16/18 with standoff weapons and many countries (Iran/Venezuela) would have their IADS back broken in half a week.

The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13592 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4523 times:

Complex AD networks have been overcome before, without LO aircraft too.

1982, the Syrian one by the Israelis. (And they eventually managed to overcome the SAM network in 1973 too, though at a cost, the then new SA-6 SAM being a particular threat).
1991, the Iraqi one, yes F-117 was available, but only in limited numbers.
Most SEAD was with conventional aircraft.
(Arguably Iraq too in 1981, allowing those F-16's in to bomb that reactor).

The Libyans had a fairly decent set up in 1986 too, for all the use it was.

Going into the almost abstract, the massive Soviet IA-PVO network of SAM's, radars, interceptors-which has never been anywhere near matched, still allowed a Cessna flown by a young, rather unstable German man, to land in Red Square in 1987, FFS!
(At that year's Paris Airshow, a USAF officer produced a diagram comparing the radar signature of the Cessna with a B-1B, guess which was larger?)

The weakness in all of these was in command and control.
A future adversary might have improved here, but the attackers are not standing still either.

The flexibility of the attackers, to change tactics, adapt, is also a significant plus, by their nature, very sophisticated IADS are rather static entities.

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3371 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4519 times:

With all of the money going into the EA-18G, as well as organic jamming on certain platforms the US still feels that electronic warfare is a viable tactic. Especially moreso than the days of chaff corridors. LO aircraft aren't really required, however they can change the speed and way you do the deed.

One thing to remember is that a very sophisticated system means a much greater price tag, or conversely fewer units at the same price. You're not going to face thousands of SA-2s anymore, but hundreds to dozens of higher tech higher price ordinance, and fewer more capable control systems. Saturation is therefore easier an in my opinion the only way to go!

The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13592 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 4407 times:

Of the major IADS systems encountered so far (and I had missed out North Vietnam's circa 1972), they've been centralized networks usually requiring some sort of ground control - for the interceptor element.

Rather like missile age Maginot Lines, and we know what happened to that!

A bigger threat could come from more dispersed systems.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Surviving The Modern Iads
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cameras On The Shuttle posted Mon Dec 1 2008 20:21:18 by Bruce
Researching The Missile Industry posted Mon Dec 1 2008 10:47:14 by Flipdewaf
The President's Travel Budget posted Tue Nov 25 2008 12:36:06 by Decoder
Behind The Scenes On Air Force One posted Mon Nov 24 2008 18:05:49 by Wannabe
The Spitfire Outside Edinburgh International posted Sun Nov 16 2008 12:26:02 by Duke
Is The V22 Osprey Pressurized? posted Sun Nov 16 2008 02:41:36 by Max Q
Nat'l Museum Of The Usaf Partial Gallery Closing posted Thu Nov 13 2008 03:37:56 by Broke
What Is The Future Of The Mig Design Bureau posted Tue Nov 11 2008 17:59:11 by Alberchico
Canadian EH101 Issues--what's The Fix? posted Sat Nov 8 2008 04:34:33 by Lumberton
Eads Military : The Future Is Unmanned.. posted Sun Nov 2 2008 10:43:00 by Beaucaire
Brazil, Switzerland ... Want The Rafale? posted Mon Feb 13 2012 07:49:44 by sebolino
1946 C-53 Crash On The Gauli Glacier, Switzerland posted Sun Feb 12 2012 11:04:34 by flyingturtle
What Came Off Of The Left Wing After Takeoff? posted Thu Feb 2 2012 23:53:57 by potus
IAF And The Osprey posted Wed Jan 18 2012 05:39:01 by india1
F35C Unable To Catch The Wire? posted Sun Jan 15 2012 09:53:11 by chuchoteur
Iran Vs. The Super Tankers posted Tue Jan 3 2012 16:08:48 by cmb56
Did You Ever Miss Out On Something Cool In The Military? posted Tue Dec 20 2011 12:00:15 by 747400sp
How To Destroy The Captured RQ-170 Drone In Iran? posted Sun Dec 11 2011 01:37:10 by AA7295
Which Fighter Is The Most Automated? posted Wed Dec 7 2011 03:06:57 by Chamonix

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format