Boagrius
Posts: 67
Joined: 7/21/2020 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Craigkn quote:
ORIGINAL: Boagrius quote:
ORIGINAL: Craigkn This is my very basic "Black Sea 2022" scenario. NATO can either deploy F-35A or F-22A for the CAP mission. Russia is set up to launch its Su-57's into the same zone. I tested this with a forward picket line of DARPA TERN UCAV, which have the BRITE Star II IR sensor, which did successfully detect the inbound bogies often. The TERN's fly slow, so you need to manually (edit mode) move them into position, but having a drone picket line (with IRST) helped detect the Su-57's early. You need to macro it a bit, and flag the un-identified targets as hostile, but then the F-35's engage and the battle generally plays in NATO's favor. The side that detects the opponent first generally comes out on top, which is obvious but really brings me back to the F-22A - its lack of IRST is "fraud, waste, abuse" in my opinion. Modern militaries need cheap, disposable, IRST sensor swarms that can act as a picket line to detect hostile 5th gen fighters. I am not aware of any projects leading to that outcome, but it seems needed when the real threat is VLO aircraft. Also, as an aside, in a contested battlespace - with area denial systems like the S-400 - anything not VLO is obsolete. (note this scenario has my monster Black Sea SAG that I proposed in an earlier thread, but for the purposes of this testing, its parked off Turkey and not involved. I did send the Su-57's after it once, the AEGIS systems detected the Su-57's early and downed all the bogies before they could get any ASM launched. AEGIS is a "area denial" system on par with S-400, it seems) Not sure if you missed my last post but, again, I would hold off on making sweeping conclusions until CMO actually simulates the ... future iterations[/link]. I did - and the links to that discussion were interesting, I hope its patched soon. I think that the IR model needs a comprehensive review, as the example of a small electric UAV having a relatively huge rearward IR signature might not be accurate. Modeling IR signature's accurately will give aircraft the opportunity to show differences in technology, which should benefit more advanced NATO equipment for the time being. However, in that case, we are racking and stacking capabilities between a small number of VLO aircraft which also have IRST - non VLO aircraft are still missing the bus, and are susceptible to area denial weapons (S-400, Aegis, etc). IRST systems are actually proliferating in the US 4/4.5 Gen fleet, with IRST-21 on the Super Hornet, and the Legion Pod on the F16/F15 (for example). It seems unlikely that IRST systems represent a panacea with respect to VLO opponents, since the signature reduction features of VLO jets also typically encompass the IR part of the EM spectrum, and these features are often just as elaborate as their RF-based ones. Agree that non-VLO aircraft are likely to be heavily impacted by the A2/AD effects of a modern IADS, especially one that features a modern HIMAD system (S-400 w/ 40N6, Aegis w/ SM-6). This effect is likely compounded when the IADS includes Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) with elevated sensors like the E-2D, since they reduce the effectiveness of low altitude penetration tactics that might otherwise use the earth's curvature to stay out of sight by flying below the radar horizon. I suspect VLO is already a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for fighter aircraft to operate within these contested environments.
< Message edited by Boagrius -- 2/22/2022 10:37:57 PM >
|