Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

Would this be a valid tactic?

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles

Thinking about writing a short story so would it be a valid tactic for aircraft to essentially escort TLAMs?

 

the story is just one possibility of if a chemical attack in Syria occurs and the US launches would it make sense for US aircraft to use AAMs to try to intercept Russian  navy SAMs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
318
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
917 posts
2,119 battles
8 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Thinking about writing a short story so would it be a valid tactic for aircraft to essentially escort TLAMs?

 

the story is just one possibility of if a chemical attack in Syria occurs and the US launches would it make sense for US aircraft to use AAMs to try to intercept Russian  navy SAMs?

So have missiles to intercept the missiles intercepting the tomahawks? Seems a little sci-fi, but I know about nothing about missles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,019 posts
5,102 battles
35 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Thinking about writing a short story so would it be a valid tactic for aircraft to essentially escort TLAMs?

 

the story is just one possibility of if a chemical attack in Syria occurs and the US launches would it make sense for US aircraft to use AAMs to try to intercept Russian  navy SAMs?

To have a $29 million-$94.6 million aircraft escort $1 million dollar missiles?  I'm not sure it's cost effective to send such aircraft against Russian Navy SAMS to protect cheap missiles.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles
7 minutes ago, Sventex said:

To have a $29 million-$94.6 million aircraft escort $1 million dollar missiles?  I'm not sure it's cost effective to send such aircraft against Russian Navy SAMS to protect cheap missiles.

Some would be armed with Harpoons to strike the ships that launch as well.

 

i realize it may not make sense but I think it’s the sort of thing the president would push for, for ‘national pride’ purposes so would it be workable or would the time from SAM launch to interception be to short to realistically intercept the SAMs?

 

(not trying to get political it’s just my opinion of how our president might react. Pride/honor etc rarely allows for good sense to follow them)

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[BLHK]
Members
303 posts
3,331 battles
6 minutes ago, Sventex said:

To have a $29 million-$94.6 million aircraft escort $1 million dollar missiles?  I'm not sure it's cost effective to send such aircraft against Russian Navy SAMS to protect cheap missiles.

Yeah I think the better option, fire so many missiles you overwhelm the defensive capabilities on the ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
341 posts
6,569 battles

It would make more sense to have that Tomahawk (call it whatever ya want) carry its own small anti-missile missiles. Just a primary missile with smaller missiles attached around its exterior to intercept anything heading towards it. Go a bit more advanced, and those secondary missiles can be used along the way to intercept the platform that launched the projectiles at it.

Of course you're getting into the realm of highly advanced AI for that sort of thing.

Edited by Levits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles
2 minutes ago, MG1962 said:

Yeah I think the better option, fire so many missiles you overwhelm the defensive capabilities on the ground

I edited my reply to sventex.

ensuring all missiles make it to their targets would be more of national pride thing. Being able to say “Russia can’t rven stop us from striking where we please” type national pride/propaganda move

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles
Just now, Levits said:

It would make more sense to have that Tomahawk carry its own small anti-missile missiles. Just a primary missile with smaller missiles attached around its exterior to intercept anything heading towards it. Go a bit more advanced, and those secondary missiles can be used along the way to intercept the platform that launched the projectiles at it.

Of course you're getting into the realm of highly advanced AI for that sort of thing.

Trying to keep things to the immediate future and technology that actually exists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
341 posts
6,569 battles

 

1 minute ago, JohnPJones said:

Trying to keep things to the immediate future and technology that actually exists

Ok. Well, I think the biggest part that you'd have to throw in there is "how do those planes keep up with that missile?". There's a bit of a speed difference between them unless you are talking about the "tomahawks". They are a bit slower so could be kept up with, but would be flying very low to the ground. Not a good place for fighters for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
341 posts
6,569 battles

Intercepting the inbound missiles would need to be covered as well. How did the fighters detect the inbound missiles? What time-frame do they have to engage? What detected your tomahawks and is that thing that detected ground-based or airborne? You've probably got this covered, i'm just naming off a few things.

If it's a intercontinental ballistic missile, I can't think of a way for any aircraft to support intercepting anti-missile missiles. If they were to, they'd have to be in-place (in the immediate area) before the ballistic missile came down from space.

A "tomahawk-style" missile would potentially be possible to escort. But it would have to be flying much higher than traditional tomahawks normally would. This would make it a far bigger target. Better "dramatic" story element from the pilots perspective (with the amount of dakka that would be thrown their way), but ultimately make everyone in the audience wonder "why didn't they just fly closer to the ground?".

Which opens up the issues with that idea. Namely, the jets themselves would be so low to the ground that they'd be pretty bad off in terms of having enough time to engage inbound threats. They'd be just as blind as the enemy and with the potential for regular AA (cannons) to come into play. Another good "dramatic" story element potential, but result again in the question "Why are these jets that low to the ground and making themselves that vulnerable".

Edited by Levits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles
18 minutes ago, Levits said:

Intercepting the inbound missiles would need to be covered as well. How did the fighters detect the inbound missiles? What time-frame do they have to engage? What detected your tomahawks and is that thing that detected ground-based or airborne? You've probably got this covered, i'm just naming off a few things.

If it's a intercontinental ballistic missile, I can't think of a way for any aircraft to support intercepting anti-missile missiles. If they were to, they'd have to be in-place (in the immediate area) before the ballistic missile came down from space.

A "tomahawk-style" missile would potentially be possible to escort. But it would have to be flying much higher than traditional tomahawks normally would. This would make it a far bigger target. Better "dramatic" story element from the pilots perspective (with the amount of dakka that would be thrown their way), but ultimately make everyone in the audience wonder "why didn't they just fly closer to the ground?".

Which opens up the issues with that idea. Namely, the jets themselves would be so low to the ground that they'd be pretty bad off in terms of having enough time to engage inbound threats. They'd be just as blind as the enemy and with the potential for regular AA (cannons) to come into play. Another good "dramatic" story element potential, but result again in the question "Why are these jets that low to the ground and making themselves that vulnerable".

I figured the TLAMs would fly fairly low like normal(can their altitude of travel even be altered?)

and the jets would a fly a few hundred yards up above them.

the SAMs would be coming from Russian ships.

 

just don’t know if there’d be time from SAM launch and intercept for AAMs to be launched and intercept the SAMs

 

and ya I get in real life this would almost never happen as SECDEF would find a way out of it, but as has been said would make a more interesting story.

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
341 posts
6,569 battles

I don't have a problem reading over any of it.

As for the clarification, as long as the jets have time to intercept and don't become primary targets themselves, they should "technically" be able to intercept inbound missiles. Might need to do a bit of handwaving (or be overly optimistic) on their success rate of interception, but the concept of missiles crashing into missiles is proven. Assuming the SAM's don't overwhelm the jets, the jets own missiles shouldn't have a problem taking out the SAM's.

You might want to (if you want to stick with some form of "realism") say that the missiles the jets are using are just a bit more "advanced" or "specifically designed" to intercept missiles. I don't think we actually have any at present that are designed (or capable) or intercepting interceptor missiles. <not actually sure. I'm kinda thinking that interceptor missiles are much smaller targets; definitely faster for sure.

Edited by Levits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,019 posts
5,102 battles

From a narrative standpoint, it would be questionable for human life to be risked to protect inanimate objects that are cheap and disposable unless that was the theme of your story or if it was a criticism of hubris.

You defeat the purpose of a machine gun if every bullet HAS to hit its target, and it would be inhumane for a handful of bullets to be more valuable than human life.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
295
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,995 posts

Actually intercepting TLAMs, as much as people think they're funny making "slow missile jokes" has an extremely small interception window. There's nothing stopping you from having aircraft escort the missile in, but it would be more like a stand-off escort like the USN did back in the Gulf War where they lofted HARMs over the leading edge of the strike package that then wiped out any ground based defenses that turned their radars on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles
57 minutes ago, Sventex said:

From a narrative standpoint, it would be questionable for human life to be risked to protect inanimate objects that are cheap and disposable unless that was the theme of your story or if it was a criticism of hubris.

You defeat the purpose of a machine gun if every bullet HAS to hit its target, and it would be inhumane for a handful of bullets to be more valuable than human life.

The hubris would play a small part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles
11 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Actually intercepting TLAMs, as much as people think they're funny making "slow missile jokes" has an extremely small interception window. There's nothing stopping you from having aircraft escort the missile in, but it would be more like a stand-off escort like the USN did back in the Gulf War where they lofted HARMs over the leading edge of the strike package that then wiped out any ground based defenses that turned their radars on.

Not familiar with HARMs, but the escort is partially “they can’t shoot our missiles down if we shoot theirs down first ‘Merica” and one part trying to intimidate the Russians by having 10-20 strike aircraft ready to retaliate against ships that launch against the TLAMs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,050 posts
6 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

Thinking about writing a short story so would it be a valid tactic for aircraft to essentially escort TLAMs?

 

the story is just one possibility of if a chemical attack in Syria occurs and the US launches would it make sense for US aircraft to use AAMs to try to intercept Russian  navy SAMs?

 

 

Not really.  The aircraft would literally betray where the TLAM is to the air defenses, and negates the TLAM's main survival advantage which is its relative stealth.  It would be better if aircraft would go ahead to suppress the enemy radars and SAMs with ECM and ARMs prior to the TLAM wave.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[REVY]
Members
941 posts
7,312 battles

correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the whole point of creating TLAMs in the first place, was becuase they would not put US Pilots into harms way.

 

My understanding was that the TLAMs were a first strike, clear the way if you will, weapon that would then be followed up by manned aircraft.

 

 

Also I believe it unlikely that AAM would be able to target and hit a SAM successfully. That would require at the very least a major software upgrade. The SAMs are not SLBM, ICBM,  or TBMs that have a fairly basic trajectory. SAMs are designed to take out aircraft and to a point, cruise missiles, and can maneuver alot better then a ballistic missile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles
4 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the whole point of creating TLAMs in the first place, was becuase they would not put US Pilots into harms way.

 

My understanding was that the TLAMs were a first strike, clear the way if you will, weapon that would then be followed up by manned aircraft.

 

 

Also I believe it unlikely that AAM would be able to target and hit a SAM successfully. That would require at the very least a major software upgrade. The SAMs are not SLBM, ICBM,  or TBMs that have a fairly basic trajectory. SAMs are designed to take out aircraft and to a point, cruise missiles, and can maneuver alot better then a ballistic missile.

AAM are designed to take out fighters and strike aircraft...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
253
[REVY]
Members
941 posts
7,312 battles

 

19 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

...and the US launches would it make sense for US aircraft to use AAMs to try to intercept Russian  navy SAMs?

 

 

5 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

.... I believe it unlikely that AAM would be able to target and hit a SAM successfully. That would require at the very least a major software upgrade. The SAMs are not SLBM, ICBM,  or TBMs that have a fairly basic trajectory. SAMs are designed to take out aircraft and to a point, cruise missiles, and can maneuver alot better then a ballistic missile.

 

 

33 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

AAM are designed to take out fighters and strike aircraft...

exactly my point. Then why would US aircraft target SAMs with them?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles
1 minute ago, Lord_Slayer said:

 

 

 

 

 

exactly my point. Then why would US aircraft target SAMs with them?

 

The point has been stated. 

you claimed that AAMs couldn’t shoot down SAMs because they’re more maneuverable than other types of missiles, i was simply pointing out that if they can be expected shoot down a fighter they can be expected to shoot down a SAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,228 posts
6,722 battles

How does this alteration strike everyone’s fancy?

a smaller flight of TLAM’s is launched with aircraft loitering in position to retaliate if the Russian fleet interferes.

a second larger barrage is then launched while the jets are engaging the offending ships.

 

just like real life the US doesn’t want to engage in a 100% unprovoked attack, but it’s planned this way because the attack can be justified as protecting the success/integrity of a US military operation against Syria from being interfered with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,435
[REVY]
Members
6,019 posts
5,102 battles
4 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

a second larger barrage is then launched while the jets are engaging the offending ships.

Wouldn't it be more diplomatic to launch retaliatory TLAM's towards the Russian ships as a feint  to keep their SAMs preoccupied to create an opening for the fighters to attack to Syrian war-crime targets to minimize loss of life between the Russians and Americans?

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×