Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Gallia-]

What good is a fighter that cannot engage enemy fighters with a moderate chance of survival?

Flares.
Jamming.
Evasively flying straight down.

Cut out the middle man don't have an air force lol.

[Danternoust]

Cut out the middle man don't have an air force lol.

for high altitude radar coverage, just use aerostats, no planes

[Gallia-]

Cut out the middle man don't have an air force lol.

for high altitude radar coverage, just use aerostats, no planes

Why? If you can't fight the enemy air force, you've already lost the war. The Nazis learned this the hard way.

In a world where a single soldier in a fighter jet can inflict as much as damage as a hundred B-24s, or a thousand of them with nuclear bombs, it's not really possible to be able to win a major war without being to fight the enemy aircraft. Even a small country like Belgium today would be able to cripple the Nazi Empire if they had to fight it out. A handful of F-16 can deliver far more firepower than the entire 8th Air Force could, faster, cheaper, and far more accurately. Even modern Sweden would be able to destroy the Nazis from the air, at least until it ran out of ammunition, but by destroying dams and refineries with modern ammunition and C-130s with refueling, it would probably be able to crush the Nazi's ability to fight for a couple months.

Against a much smaller, modern country that can't even raise as much resistance as the Nazis or Iraqis could, it would be impossible to resist that type of firepower directed against an economy for more than a couple months, or weeks, at best.

[Danternoust]

http://ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html



Quite bluntly, if each town and city had their own airforce, incoming aircraft would have to deal with multiple interceptors with multiple air-to-air missiles, supported by ground launchers. If a city can launch into the air ten aircraft, each costing $10 million, each loaded with 2 air-to-air long-range missiles or 4 shorter range missiles, how can a $100 million F-22 not be knocked out, unless it replaces the internal payload with flares?

The problem of course is psychological, no one wants to plan for defeat, so it becomes a blindspot.

[Gallia-]

An F-22 isn't going to be detected by a P-51. It flies faster than the pilot can hear. Checkmate.

[Danternoust]

An F-22 isn't going to be detected by a P-51. It flies faster than the pilot can hear. Checkmate.

just mount some FLIR into the nose cone and you'll see the F-22.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Does Best Korea have an air force?

[Gallia-]

An F-22 isn't going to be detected by a P-51. It flies faster than the pilot can hear. Checkmate.

just mount some FLIR into the nose cone and you'll see the F-22.

Congratulations, your entire fighter force has been cut in half because your planes cost $20 million instead of $10 million.

FWIW, $10 million is how much a bare bones Super Tucano costs. $18-20 million is how much one costs with a FLIR and laser capable of guiding PGMs and fighting small wars.

So how will you win the fight now?

For small nations (Belgium, Singapore) the best air force is a small (about 50-150) number of mediocre single engine tactical fighter jets, like F-16 or Gripen (or F-35) distributed across a handful (3-5) airbases with 1-2 squadrons a piece. There is no getting around this and no "cheesing" your way with "Lanchesterian ratios". Fighter combat isn't Lanchesterian. It's techno-humanistic. Better pilots in better machines, equal pilots in better machines, or worse pilots in better machines will generally defeat the best pilots in bad machines. Of these, the best pilots will manage about 80% of air combat kills, and everyone else just tries to survive while piloting a hundred million dollars of titanium and rocketry without hitting the ground.

A practical combat fighter aircraft today [F-15K/SA/SG] cannot be had for less than ~$80 million a piece. A good combat fighter aircraft [F-35] is about $100 million a piece. There are exceptions, like the Eurofighter Typhoon which costs as much as an F-22 Raptor, but there are also non-recurring costs. However, the latter is only a factor in bulk purchases of thousands of aircraft, not dozens, so you're probably looking at spending about $100-150 million a piece on the F-15K/SA/SG/XX to Typhoon scale, depending on whether you're purchasing an aircraft that has been broadly subsidized for you, or one that you tried to make yourself.

It's true that mass bulk buys are the best, obviously, but these are expensive, and only the most powerful and richest economies can afford them. If you aren't a powerful, rich economy, you will be friends of one, almost by default, because it's impossible for a country like Netherlands, Belgium, France, or Germany to develop a tactical fighter by themselves that is actually state-of-the-art and good. At best they can make outdated fighter aircraft that are expies of much older combat aircraft with some slightly newer superficial doodads. For all its bells and whistles about "sensor fusion" and "QWIP", Eurofighter Typhoon is not much better in realistic combat than an F-15C, and worse than the latest variants of F-15 like the -K "Slam Eagle" and -XX "Advanced Eagle", despite being 20 years newer. This is entirely because the British economy (which broadly developed the Typhoon, don't let anyone tell you it's a German or Italian fighter, it's entirely British aside from manufacturing) cannot compete with the United States in terms of scale of development, research, production, and general funding.

This is not surprising.

A large country with a powerful air force is impossible to defeat for a small country with a smaller, perhaps similar equipped, air force. A smaller, worse equipped air force, or an equal size and worse equipped air force, are approximately the worst and second worst combinations to fight against them. I'd much rather take on the USAF with 90 F-35s than 900 MiG-23 or F-16s. You'll still lose, but at least the F-35s will last longer and do more damage.

[The Manticoran Empire]

http://ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html
(Image)


Quite bluntly, if each town and city had their own airforce, incoming aircraft would have to deal with multiple interceptors with multiple air-to-air missiles, supported by ground launchers. If a city can launch into the air ten aircraft, each costing $10 million, each loaded with 2 air-to-air long-range missiles or 4 shorter range missiles, how can a $100 million F-22 not be knocked out, unless it replaces the internal payload with flares?

The problem of course is psychological, no one wants to plan for defeat, so it becomes a blindspot.

Air Forces are very expensive. You aren't just paying for planes and pilots but maintenance, administration, air bases, fuel, munitions, spare parts. A single squadron of 12-24 aircraft can have 200-300 men and more than half of those don't even touch the planes. All of those men have to be recruited, trained, uniformed, equipped, provided with space to live and work. The aircraft must have a runway to take off from, a taxiway, hangars for storage, there must be armored bunkers for the munitions, tanks for the fuel, fire suppression systems, guards to ensure that ammunition, fuel, aircraft, or other things are not sabotaged, ATC buildings and personnel, ATC radar, meteorology stations, storage for spare parts, carts to carry munitions to the planes. Per plane, you could be looking at between $6,000 to $33,600 per flight hour in operating expenses. Combine that with the costs of almost 1,000-4,000 paid personnel per squadron, plus the annual cost of maintaining the airfields and you will find that there are few cities that will able to afford housing even a single interceptor squadron, let alone operating it with any degree of efficiency. The cheapest US Air Force squadron is an MQ-1 Predator squadron, which costs $70,000,000 per year. A tactical fighter squadron, which is what you are going to issue to all of your cities and towns, will costs between $220 million and $570 million per year. The FY2019 budget for New York City, the largest city in the US, is $88.67 billion dollars. A single Predator squadron is .07% of the city budget. A proper fighter squadron, on the other hand, is closer to .24%-.64% of the city budget. And that is for a city with almost as many people as some small countries in the richest nation on Earth.

Further, you have to SEE the F-22 before you can kill it. The F-22 is estimated to have a Radar Cross Section of about .0001 square meters or about a steel marble or a bumblebee. Trying to track and target a target that small is almost impossible for modern radar systems. For someone who intentionally is using 70 year old equipment with no regard for advances, it will be impossible. Further complicating matters is the F-22s ability to carry long range munitions to target airfields. And they will see your airfield LONG before you see them. Estimates are that an Su-35 won't see an F-22 on radar until it is only 22 kilometers away. So good luck finding it before it can drop its bombs or launch its missiles.

[Danternoust]

For someone who intentionally is using 70 year old equipment

Avionics and software is easier to upgrade. It is only thirty years.

Estimates are that an Su-35 won't see an F-22 on radar until it is only 22 kilometers away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_mirror
I will use noise rangefinders hooked up by fiber optic to the IADS, noises will be excluded based on distance and power.

This is only an eighty-year old concept, but it only works in unpopulated areas without sound reflection. Similar to passive sonar.

Coastal cities can be covered by tidal-powered buoys.

[The Manticoran Empire]

For someone who intentionally is using 70 year old equipment

Avionics and software is easier to upgrade. It is only thirty years.

Estimates are that an Su-35 won't see an F-22 on radar until it is only 22 kilometers away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_mirror
I will use noise rangefinders hooked up by fiber optic to the IADS, noises will be excluded based on distance and power.

This is only an eighty-year old concept, but it only works in unpopulated areas without sound reflection. Similar to passive sonar.

Coastal cities can be covered by tidal-powered buoys.

...as opposed to proper radars and fighters?

[Danternoust]

...as opposed to proper radars and fighters?

All Ministries of Defense plan for offensive war even though the defense is cheaper.
Don't you read or listen to any Mearsheimer?

[Austrasien]

Either I am taking bait or arguing with a wall. But for the sake of impressionable threadizens I make this sacrifice willingly, that they not be misdirected and fall into error.

Quite bluntly, if each town and city had their own airforce, incoming aircraft would have to deal with multiple interceptors with multiple air-to-air missiles, supported by ground launchers. If a city can launch into the air ten aircraft, each costing $10 million, each loaded with 2 air-to-air long-range missiles or 4 shorter range missiles, how can a $100 million F-22 not be knocked out, unless it replaces the internal payload with flares?

The problem of course is psychological, no one wants to plan for defeat, so it becomes a blindspot.

1. Acoustic detection sucks so most cities will not even detect incoming threats in time to scramble or at all. Or if they are too close together they will hear the interceptors from other towns, get confused, and try to intercept them instead. Shame IFF isn't sound based.
2. One cloudy boy > infrared so low visibility will neuter them completely. Depending on the weather this may mean the F-22s can operate freely over most or all of your airspace. Hope they forget how to forecast weather I suppose.
3. Stealth interferes with reliable proximity fuzing so a significant fraction of successful missile shots will still fail. Lasers only have a fraction of the range of radar proximity fuzes as well sadly.
4. The F-22 is a kinematically superior aircraft, the SR. 177 is a one-trick pony with a rocket booster (and we all recall the incredible success of rocket interceptors). An F-22, which will also have an enormous energy advantage versus an ascending interceptor, only has to run down its rocket engine before it reverts to being a double-inferior hunk of junk.
5. Since you are re-creating the cutting edge principles of the Kammhuber Line the counter-tactic is already so basic it has a wikipedia page. Namely, ram 100 F-22s or so through, then whenever those ten poor little fighters manage to get up in the air they are facing an enemy who is superior in every way and outnumbers them 10-to-1. By feeding your fighters in penny packets you artfully nullify your own numerical superiority.

This is only an eighty-year old concept,

It sucks.

You are legitimately better at off looking at the sky.

Also you can download plugins for google earth that can predict sound propagation and where sound will and will not be perceptible from - the same basic principle stealth aircraft use to evade radar controlled air defenses. A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.

[Danternoust]

try to intercept them instead. Shame IFF isn't sound based.

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.

Certainly simpler than the long-range signal flares I was considering.

A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.
Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._mili ... r_tracking

Namely, ram 100 F-22s or so through, then whenever those ten poor little fighters manage to get up in the air they are facing an enemy who is superior in every way and outnumbers them 10-to-1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 : "The basic tactic of the Syrian air force is to take to the air and to cross this imaginary line, which brings them outside the protective range of their home-based missiles."

The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.
If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/aircraft.htm
Regardless, there was only 2,600 aircraft defending the US at Cold War's end.

[The Manticoran Empire]

try to intercept them instead. Shame IFF isn't sound based.

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.

Certainly simpler than the long-range signal flares I was considering.

A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.
Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._mili ... r_tracking

Namely, ram 100 F-22s or so through, then whenever those ten poor little fighters manage to get up in the air they are facing an enemy who is superior in every way and outnumbers them 10-to-1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 : "The basic tactic of the Syrian air force is to take to the air and to cross this imaginary line, which brings them outside the protective range of their home-based missiles."

The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.
If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/aircraft.htm
Regardless, there was only 2,600 aircraft defending the US at Cold War's end.

All of your ideas are maximizing your enemy's advantage.

[Manokan Republic]

Anti-aircraft weaponry is substantially cheaper than ordinary aircraft, easier to maintain, can be mounted almost anywhere, and requires very little skill to use in comparison. A bunch of missiles and AA guns can do a lot, especially in a small country. A missile defense system at the border, mobile missile defense systems (on trucks or on your navy if you have one), and some sort of AA gun can really do a lot. Another often overlooked feature of AA guns is anti-missile or anti-bomb work, detonating them in mid-air before they even reach the city or area.

Permanent defensive positions have the advantage of allowing for massive radar and targeting systems, as well as weapons, which means that they can be much more likely to intercept fast or stealthy aircraft, and are more useful for detecting aircraft in general. A neat idea is a laser defense system which, as it travels at the speed of light and allows for a continuous beam of potentially many minutes, can intercept a larger number of aircraft very quickly, or their ordinance. In fractions of a second a laser can reach an aircraft, almost instantly, so there is no dodging or detecting it. The range also is potentially in to space, so altitude is sort of a non-issue.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Anti-aircraft weaponry is substantially cheaper than ordinary aircraft, easier to maintain, can be mounted almost anywhere, and requires very little skill to use in comparison. A bunch of missiles and AA guns can do a lot, especially in a small country. A missile defense system at the border, mobile missile defense systems (on trucks or on your navy if you have one), and some sort of AA gun can really do a lot. Another often overlooked feature of AA guns is anti-missile or anti-bomb work, detonating them in mid-air before they even reach the city or area.

Permanent defensive positions have the advantage of allowing for massive radar and targeting systems, as well as weapons, which means that they can be much more likely to intercept fast or stealthy aircraft, and are more useful for detecting aircraft in general. A neat idea is a laser defense system which, as it travels at the speed of light and allows for a continuous beam of potentially many minutes, can intercept a larger number of aircraft very quickly, or their weapons. The range also is potentially in to space, so altitude is sort of a non-issue.

He's basing his entire idea on the SR.177 and passive detection systems in the hope that he will be able to detect stealth fighters.

[Manokan Republic]

Anti-aircraft weaponry is substantially cheaper than ordinary aircraft, easier to maintain, can be mounted almost anywhere, and requires very little skill to use in comparison. A bunch of missiles and AA guns can do a lot, especially in a small country. A missile defense system at the border, mobile missile defense systems (on trucks or on your navy if you have one), and some sort of AA gun can really do a lot. Another often overlooked feature of AA guns is anti-missile or anti-bomb work, detonating them in mid-air before they even reach the city or area.

Permanent defensive positions have the advantage of allowing for massive radar and targeting systems, as well as weapons, which means that they can be much more likely to intercept fast or stealthy aircraft, and are more useful for detecting aircraft in general. A neat idea is a laser defense system which, as it travels at the speed of light and allows for a continuous beam of potentially many minutes, can intercept a larger number of aircraft very quickly, or their weapons. The range also is potentially in to space, so altitude is sort of a non-issue.

He's basing his entire idea on the SR.177 and passive detection systems in the hope that he will be able to detect stealth fighters.

A better idea might be magnetism, which is harder to hide from and already a somewhat developed technology as it's used on submarine to detect other submarines. To my knowledge aircraft are not well protected against it, and the static electricity they produce also a lot of times has an electromagnetic field, which would be harder to hide. If you had some sort of electromagnetic anomaly detector, it might be more useful than radar. There's also UV.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

it's used on submarine to detect other submarines.

A: It's not and
B: Good luck finding an F-22 at 50 km's distance with a detector that only sees tens of thousands of tons of metal at 400 meters range or less.

[Gallia-]

try to intercept them instead. Shame IFF isn't sound based.

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.

How so? Being able to adequately distinguish "me" and "them" is a cornerstone of any functional air defense network. The keystone of the air defense arch, though, is having aircraft that are better than the other guy's.

A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.
Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.

You've gone in a circle.

The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.

Get bombed and die?

The problem isn't that your """"OODA loop"""" is bad. It's quite sound because it's sufficiently generic and boring enough to work. Rather, it's because your radars, planes, and SAMs are all shit.

If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.

The point is your rocket interceptors would never engage an F-22 in the first place lol. Another war won by the guys with the best jets with zero air to air casualties.

One F-22 pilot accidentally crashes into a mountain, though. Another is shot down by his own air defenses when he returns to base because it thinks he is Bf 109.

[Austrasien]

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.

Certainly simpler than the long-range signal flares I was considering.

The interceptors will be vectored onto each other in all probability. You seem to imply the sound stations will know what they are listening to.

Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._mili ... r_tracking

And radar is the good method. Your method is the same, but even less reliable in all ways.

The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.
If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.

Since you are running on vacutrons by the time the data is plotted at the listening post, encoded, communicated up the chain of command, decoded and plotted on the big plotting table to confirm it actually is a bogie and not a lost airliner, they will already be bombing their target and on the way out.

One of the most consistent failings of ground-controlled intercept is the difficulty of getting tracking information from widely dispersed ground sensors up the chain of command in a timely manner, or if they operate independently, inability to coordinate with other ground stations to produce a complete air picture. They are half-blind because they are trying to interpret multiple, usually inconsistent and time-lagged reports from tracking stations they have no direct access to.The more tracking stations you employ and the more kinds of sensors they use the more inconsistent the information flowing to the HQ will be. Every extra sensor, every extra link in the network, is another opportunity for human and technical errors. With so many acoustic sensors many operators will simply read the meters wrong and send faulty reports back to the HQ which has no way to immediately prove which data is good and which is bad. When you introduce multiple classes of sensor with very different characteristics it becomes even worse because the reports will nearly never be completely consistent (and this will also be magnified by inevitable operator errors).

AWACs of course solve this problem by putting the controllers in front of a single high quality radar and ELINT picture which under their direct control.

[The Manticoran Empire]

He's basing his entire idea on the SR.177 and passive detection systems in the hope that he will be able to detect stealth fighters.

A better idea might be magnetism, which is harder to hide from and already a somewhat developed technology as it's used on submarine to detect other submarines. To my knowledge aircraft are not well protected against it, and the static electricity they produce also a lot of times has an electromagnetic field, which would be harder to hide. If you had some sort of electromagnetic anomaly detector, it might be more useful than radar. There's also UV.

To a nation that operates failed 1950s technology?
Magnetic Anomaly Detectors require large ferromagnetic objects in order to be effective. Most aircraft are built out of non-ferromagnetic materials and have far less mass than the submarines which MADs are used against. Creating an EMAD would require far different technologies and I cannot find evidence that they exist or have been tried.

try to intercept them instead. Shame IFF isn't sound based.

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.

Certainly simpler than the long-range signal flares I was considering.

Simpler doesn't mean better. Sonar is not very effective outside of the water, which is why RADAR has been used for over 70 years. Sonar works under water because it uses SOUND WAVES. Radar uses radio waves. Sonar has a very low effective range when compared to Radar, which can detect targets at hundreds of kilometers distance, while Sonar is effective only at several to tens of kilometers.

A competent attacker to program software that would plot routes of least exposure through a sound-controlled air defense network.

I'm tempted to say this is a benefit not a problem.
Although it isn't new I suppose, and even modern militaries aren't good at radar tracking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._mili ... r_tracking

That proves nothing other than it is easy for people who know what they are doing to evade detection. It in no way demonstrates that military forces are poor at Radar tracking. Rather, it states that the hijackers were knowledgeable enough to disable or alter the IFF transponders on the aircraft. Those transponders are used to make tracking easier, especially since US Air Space is quite full most of the time.

Namely, ram 100 F-22s or so through, then whenever those ten poor little fighters manage to get up in the air they are facing an enemy who is superior in every way and outnumbers them 10-to-1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 : "The basic tactic of the Syrian air force is to take to the air and to cross this imaginary line, which brings them outside the protective range of their home-based missiles."

You again try to defend your idea by pointing to an operation where the Israeli Air Force, a technologically superior force, attacked the Syrian Air Force, a technologically inferior force, with near parity in aircraft and achieved a 27:1 Kill to Loss rate. All this proves is that your strategy is even less viable, especially since the Syrians were using FAR more effective technologies than you have suggested.

The OODA loop is: detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar, compare to flightplans, scramble interceptors, mobilize tactical SAMs, turn on air-defence radars, etc.

First of all, Sonar sucks for detecting aircraft. Second, against a stealth aircraft assault, it will NOT be low flying aircraft. The F-22 operates at 20,000 meters. Low Flying Aircraft are flying under 5,000 feet. NOT the 65,000 feet that combat aircraft can operate at. So the VERY FIRST STEP in your OODA loop is utterly irrelevant. By the time you get through everything else, the F-22s have reached their targets and released their bombs, assuming you detected them to begin with.

If a 100 F-22s are going through, that just requires a proportion of fifty interceptors (first few to confirm, remaining to engage), several dozen long-range interceptors, and all in-sector SAMs firing. They would be forced to abort the mission or be damaged.

No. It requires that they be detected and, as demonstrated by myself and others, you have exactly 0 chance of accomplishing that. Your entire Air Defense strategy is predicated against low flying aircraft, as stated BY YOU. F-22s and other modern aircraft are not low flying aircraft. They operate at higher altitudes in excess of 60,000 feet and are more than capable of destroying their targets by the time you have done your OODA loop. Let's go through it, shall we?
1st: "detect unauthorized low flying aircraft via low frequency radar or passive sonar"
This is a flawed theory that I went over earlier. It requires that the attacking force be flying at less than 10,000 feet in altitude, while most combat aircraft will 5 to 6 times HIGHER. Low frequency radar CAN detect stealth aircraft and was used in Serbia to shoot down an F-117. HOWEVER, the Serbians did find that the radar was almost impossible to use as it generated so much clutter that it was difficult to determine what contacts were aircraft and what contacts were not. To hit an F-22 with LFR, you will have to differentiate between the 100 F-22s and the hundreds of thousands of bumblebees.

2nd: "compare to flight plans"
This will take hours simply because you will have to check every aspect of the flight plan and attempted to receive information about changes in the flight plan. During this time, the F-22s will move hundreds of miles away from the original point of detection, they will reach their target, they will release their munitions, they will confirm impact on target, and they will withdraw. By the time you get to step three, the F-22s are gone and their targets have been destroyed.

3rd: "scramble interceptors"
By the time you reach this step, the F-22s are gone, even if you did detect them. Further, the F-22s still have their AMRAAMs and IR missiles. Your aircraft lack the maneuverability or speed to evade and each F-22 can carry 2 AIM-120Ds and 2 AIM-9Xs in conjunction with 2 450kg JDAMs or 8 110kg SDBs. Across 100 F-22s, that is 200 to 800 bombs, all of which are precision guided and capable (in the case of the SDBs) of penetrating hardened bunkers from 110 kilometers away and the SDB 2 can hit a moving target at 72 kilometers. So 800 bombs, 800 targets destroyed. And enough munitions to kill your 50 interceptors. 400 air to air missiles and 100 cannons against 50 poor interceptors.

4th: "mobilize tactical SAMs"
By this time, the F-22s have killed your interceptors, killed their targets, and are RTB and well on their way out of range.

5th: "turn on air-defence radars"
This is where the F-35s with their AGM-88s come in, killing your SAMs as soon as those radars go hot. Once those radars are hot, the AGM-88s can lock on and then they will continue towards the site of the radar even if you turn it off. At maximum range of 150 kilometers, your SAMs have 3 minutes and 56 seconds to see the missile launch, shut down their radars, pick up their systems, and escape. Such a thing is unlikely and you will lose dozens, if not hundreds of SAMs, on top of everything the F-22s killed with their bombs and missiles.

I can completely dismantle your air defense system in the following way: MQ-9 Reapers with F-22 transponders at 10,000 feet, actively squawking F-22. At 65,000 feet are the ACTUAL F-22s and the F-35s. When your radars detect the "F-22s" and scramble interceptors, the F-22s will swoop down and engage, killing all 50 interceptors in less than 5 minutes with AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs. When your SAMs throw on their Radars, the F-35s can kill them with Anti Radiation Missiles. With the threats eliminated, the F-22s can now destroy the airbases, allowing follow on strikes by proper B-2 and B-1 bombers and other strike craft.

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/aircraft.htm
Regardless, there was only 2,600 aircraft defending the US at Cold War's end.

2,600 aircraft that were superior to the aircraft in service with the Soviet Air Force. I, once again, fail to see how this helps your case at all.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I will use noise rangefinders hooked up by fiber optic to the IADS, noises will be excluded based on distance and power.

This is only an eighty-year old concept, but it only works in unpopulated areas without sound reflection. Similar to passive sonar.

Oh dear it's raining. The sound of millions of droplets of water crashing onto them plus the howling wind in your receivers has rendered your whole air defence network deaf. What now? Wait for the storm to pass?

[Manokan Republic]

it's used on submarine to detect other submarines.

A: It's not and
B: Good luck finding an F-22 at 50 km's distance with a detector that only sees tens of thousands of tons of metal at 400 meters range or less.

1. Actually it is, which is why submarines are actually regularly deguassed along with various other ships. [1][2] These systems can be placed on aircraft, naval vessels and even, other submarines. Notably it was used on various ships in WWII.

2. You wouldn't use something that is identical to find submarines, but aircraft are already thousands of pounds and there is less clutter from the background when it's in the air. Exact details are hard to find, but some are used in submarines and their use for anti-aircraft purposes is being pursued but not widely used yet. "The hostile submarine using electro-magnetic sensors, however, can still detect ASW aircraft radar emissions at a much greater distance than the aircraft can detect the submarine by radar. Nevertheless, the threat of radar detection is sufficient to keep the submarine submerged. " [1]

Furthermore magnetic anomaly systems used by aircraft are inhibited by the electronic systems of them and the fact they are constantly moving. Fixed ground based systems or slower submarine based systems are usually more effective. There is also the addition of a power supply and no real problem with weight and size, as well as aerodynamics. "In order to detect an anomaly, the MAD head of the aircraft tries to align itself with the noise produced by the Earth's magnetic field. Through this alignment, the noise appears as a near-constant background noise value which enables the operator to recognize any contrasting submarine magnetic anomalies from the background noise. However, any rapid changes in aircraft direction or the operation of certain electronic equipment and electric motors can produce so much aircraft electro-magnetic noise that makes the detection of the submarine's magnetic signature virtually impossible. Special electronic circuitry is enabled to compensate and null out this aircraft magnetic noise. Additionally, the MAD head is placed the farthest distance away from all the interfering sources. That is why the P-3C Orion aircraft has its distinct tail stinger or "MAD boom". On the S-3B, a similar MAD boom is installed and is electrically extended away from the aircraft during MAD operations. Additionally, the SH-60B extends a towed device called a "MAD bird" to reduce aircraft magnetic noise. With continuing advances in both compensation and sensor technology, the detection ranges for MAD sensors may be enhanced for the search and localization phases of ASW missions." It would presumably be more effective when not on aircraft, although how much more is hard to determine. A notable example is magnetometers used in satellites which can detect objects thousands of miles away.

[The 1st Galactic Empire]

We got professional pilots on Tie Fighters. The best Tie Fighter is the TIE defender