Posted on 10/18/2017 5:44:35 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
A day after Israel's counter attack on a Syrian SA-5 surface-to-air missile site we are learning more about the incident, and unfortunately, some questionable outlets and commentators are spreading rumors that imply one of Israel's F-35Is was the aircraft targeted by Syrian missiliers, and that the aircraft was damaged in the attack.
It appears that the first sortie put "more than one" aircraft “within the effective range” of the Syrian SA-5 missile that fired at the flight according to an Israeli Defense Forces spokesman. The engagement supposedly occurred at around 9AM local time. It remains unclear the exact mix of Israeli aircraft that were in the air at that time. Some reports state it was a flight of F-16s, others tell us it was a composite flight including an F-15C executing photo reconnaissance duties while operating closer to the border than its escorts. As mentioned in our first article on the incident, the F-15C is known to carry large tactical reconnaissance pods for the IAF.
IAF
Loaded up F-16I Soufa (Storm).
A follow-up sortie was launched by Israel roughly two hours after Syria fired at its jets, with this one is confirmed as being made up of F-16s. These aircraft prosecuted the attack on the offending SA-5 site east of Damascus. Four air-to-ground weapons, described officially as bombs, which can mean quite a few things considering the IAF's unique weapons inventory, were delivered on the SAM site. The attack was centered on the site's fire control radar/emitter and was not a wide area barrage on the SA-5 missiles arrayed around it. The emitter was destroyed or damaged to the point it was no longer operational according to IAF bomb damage assessments.
As we noted previously, Israel maintains that all its aircraft returned to base unscathed, while Syria claims they scored a hit on one of the fighters during the initial SAM attack. The Assad government usually claims false victories anytime something like this occurs. But some have taken an unrelated report about an F-35I, one of just seven in Israel's inventory at this time, being damaged by a bird strike as some sort of coverup for an F-35I being successfully targeted and hit by the Syrian SA-5 while over Lebanon. In other words, under this theory the reconnaissance aircraft was an F-35I.
Although we can't rule out the possibility that an F-35I was operating over foreign territory, it is unlikely. In fact, we have been down this same road before. Israel has not achieved initial operations capability (IOC) with its F-35 fleet as of yet, so sending it into harm's way on an operational sortie seems like a very odd and reckless choice. Even though the Israelis have rushed fighters into service in the past for unique operational needs, the F-35I is an especially delicate procurement topic for the Israeli government. Israel's lawmakers have publicly noted the high cost of the aircraft and have stated that they will "meticulously assess" the need for more F-35 purchases past the first 50 ordered. So risking the new jets before they are actually operational on a seemingly standard mission would be an odd if not reckless move by the IAF.
Also, even though the F-35 does have high-end electronic intelligence gathering capabilities, it doesn't have traditional tactical image intelligence gathering capabilities. So sending it on such a mission, if that was indeed the mission's objective, makes little sense.
Even assuming the F-35I was the aircraft targeted over Lebanon, the chances of it being hit by an SA-5 are very slim, and the bird strike now being reported by the IAF supposedly occurred two weeks ago with the aircraft being grounded since awaiting a Lockheed team's inspection and subsequent advice on how to best repair it.
You are probably asking yourself how there is any chance a stealthy F-35 could be targeted by Syrian SAM site in the first place? It is known that Russia and Syria have now integrated their air defense systems together, so data sharing by some of Russia's more advanced sensors could make spotting a stealthy aircraft easier. Also, the F-35, which is optimized for hiding from higher frequency radar systems, like prevalent X-band fire control radars, could possibly be spotted by operators using lower frequency tactics and systems. But even if the F-35I was detected, that still doesn't mean it could be reliably tracked and engaged. The aircraft also has an advanced electronic warfare suite to repel such attacks.
Considering the information at hand, conspiracy theory-like reports of an F-35I taking damage from a Syrian SA-5 seem to be a lame attempt at attacking the F-35's capabilities, American made air combat technology, and the IAF's claims of air superiority in the region.
And although we cannot rule the possibility out entirely, as Freud would say—sometimes a bird strike is just a bird strike.
“Turning off your anti-aircraft radar when it detects an aircraft doesn’t sound particularly effective.”
It’s great from the point of view of a strike force, which may require only a couple minutes (or a mere 30 seconds) to get in, put ordnance on target, and get clear.
If the radar-attack birds of the strike force can intimidate the fire control radar into shutting down just long enough to get the rest of the strike force through, they’ve done their job - more cheaply and with less risk than if they’d fired an ARM.
“I always thought the F-105 was an interesting choice to serve as a Wild Weasel plane...it seemed so big and ungainly...
Being a Wild Weasel pilot is a hell of a way to earn a living!”
Initially, USAF used the F-100 for the counter-radar mission, but it was too slow, too short-legged, and hauled too light a warload. Couldn’t keep up with F-105 strike packages.
Bigger and faster, the F-105 was more easily modified to add a second seat, and could hold more avionics, rendering it more capable against enemy fire-control radar systems. And it could haul a larger warload, not only in terms of weight but in variety of munitions.
Maneuverability was not a factor. The surface-to-air-missiles of those days were not difficult to out-turn - if the aircrew detected them in time.
Many forum members set great store by a warplane’s capability to execute tight turns, but their notions are out of date. “Dogfighting” has almost no importance in modern air combat, and it’s been that way since before the Second World War.
“The F-15 or 16 gets the SAM to light it up and the F-35 sneaks in and nails the site.” [AppyPappy, post 2]
“Um... given modern technology, that’s something the -16 can do for itself. ... In fact, we use F-16s to do that duty now ...” [Spktyr, post 4]
When it was announced that the F-16C would replace the F-4G in the SEAD mission, that portion of the community who knew what was going on objected strongly, but it was over-ruled by senior leadership, who thought they knew better (fighter pilots always believe that).
The F-16 doesn’t accomplish the mission well. It is also 40-year-old technology, and the airframe is out of production: logistically not supportable, in the near to mid term.
The F-35 will accomplish the mission better, as it survives combat better. And it will last longer.
EA-6B Prowlers and now EA-18G Growlers have used the HARM for years and have a better detection system than the F-16CJ’s. Just ask Saddam Hussein.
The Aircraft/HARM remembers where the signal came from, shutting it off doesn’t matter.
Ummm... the F-16 is still in production. LockMart just sold 19 more of them to Bahrain. http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article5089.html
LockMart is moving F-16 production from Texas to South Carolina to clear space for the F-35 and is opening up a new F-16 line in India.
The evolved SA-5 is the S200, I believe. The S300 is a totally different system.
But not so much with any recent generation anti-radar/radio missile, which remembers where it saw the radar last and heads there.
Lots of people are surprised by new technology.
Some, even by old technology.
“...LockMart is moving F-16 production from Texas to South Carolina to clear space for the F-35 and is opening up a new F-16 line in India.”
Overseas airframe builds and the line at Greenville brushing-up remnants of FMS contracts is not “production” that could satisfy US DoD needs. Assuming any thus produced could pass acceptance tests.
ACC PEM has been angling for SLEP to double F-16 service life: not something CAf would bother with, if new production were anticipated.
Even at the most dire moments in WWII, the War and Navy Depts accepted production runs from taken-over FMS contracts only with reluctance.
In any case, the F-16 embodies outmoded technology.
Worse, it was designed to the wrong standard - foisted on USAF by a borderline psychopath and his coterie of “acolytes.” Sad to say, its reputation is undimmed in public eyes. Not surprising, noting that citizen understanding of air combat still struggles to catch up to WWII.
Goes to show what happens, when responsibility is given over to the fighter pilotry.
I was actually just making a joke with my original post, but if you have to shut down your multi-million dollar aircraft defense system every time it detects an aircraft for fear that a HARM missile is going to go down its throat it would seem to reduce its effectiveness.
They have the F-15E, which is probably the best small bomber available. It would be too expensive for them to develop a new bomber, given that they would need to rely on the U.S. or Europe for engines and other major parts.
They already have 250lb version of the SPICE munition, but its significantly more expensive than U.S. weapons.
Four air-to-ground weapons, described officially as bombs, which can mean quite a few things considering the IAF's unique weapons inventory,LOL!
...were delivered on the SAM site. The attack was centered on the site's fire control radar/emitter and was not a wide area barrage on the SA-5 missiles arrayed around it. The emitter was destroyed or damaged to the point it was no longer operational according to IAF bomb damage assessments.It's a bit hairy living next to not one, but four failed states -- Lebanon, Syria, the PLA, and Hamas.
/bingo
The Russians would want to know how best to track the F-35, and would put some of their most sophisticated sensors in places where the Israelis would operate.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
“The F-35 will accomplish the mission better, as it survives combat better. “
The F-35’s combat survivablility has been proven in exactly how many live fire missions?
It would still be a very good idea to have some larger bombers on hand. There has been circumstances in recent years where they would have been very handy.
Which kind of makes me wonder why there doesn’t seem to be any rocket-assisted SDBs? Drop it from a bomber, then the rocket takes it up to a much higher elevation, then disengages, giving it a longer glide path to target. It is pretty well known technology.
“The F-35’s combat survivability has been proven in exactly how many live fire missions?”
One presumes that by “live fire missions,” Rebelbase means “in actual combat.”
Weapon systems are never tested that way.
Wars are terrible places to field-test systems.
Too many factors cannot be controlled, even when they can be identified. Many never can be.
And data collection is far more difficult.
Look up the terms “operational test and evaluation” or the acronym OT&E to learn how it’s done.
“...if you have to shut down your multi-million dollar aircraft defense system ... for fear that a HARM missile is going to go down its throat it would seem to reduce its effectiveness.”
Yes.
Suthener has neatly summed up a key element of what is termed electronic combat (EC).
It’s an incremental process of move/countermove in which sweeping advantage is rarely attainable. Some liken it to a chess game.
Planners and field operators face a constantly changing situation. When attacking a particular enemy force, they must:
1. Detect the enemy radars (or other electronic guiding systems)
2. Identify system frequency, type, and model
3. Determine system location
4. Select a course of action to counter the radar. Possible actions:
a. Ignore
b. Intimidate operator into shutting down
c. Transmit a signal that interferes with the radar’s ability to perform its mission (apply “jamming” in layman’s terms)
d. Fire anti-radiation missile at the enemy radar
The tactical situation can change in a fraction of a second. Very dynamic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.