1990s Nimitz vs 2020s Cavour

[Vanessa1402]

The F-35B carrier is becoming an increasingly popular concept among navies with access to the American fighter. Naturally this brings up the question of can quality beat quantity? which is the superior carrier group; the new low cost F-35B carrier or the classic Cold War supercarrier?. The Cold War supercarrier is represented by the American Nimitz while F-35B CV is represented by the Italian Cavour. Will the advantages of 30 years of devlopment be enough for the lightweight Cavour to overcome a the massive disadvantage is size and numbers?

The Cavour is escorted by one Andrea Doria destroyer and one FREMM frigate. The escorts are in their 2021 configuration while Cavour is in its 2025 configuration, that is to say with a full load of operational F-35B and a worked up aircrew.

The Nimitz is escorted by two Ticonderoga class cruisers, two Spruance class destroyers, and two Oliver Hazard Perry frigates. All ships and aircraft on them are in their 1991 configurations.

Each side has a level of knowledge about its opponents capabilities equal to their understanding of contemporary Russian capabilities. Each is aware an enemy carrier fleet is operating in the vicinity but has no exact knowledge. Both have orders to sink the enemy carrier if possible but forcing the enemy carrier to withdrawal is enough for victory

 

[apparition13]

Nimitz. E-2C, S-3 and A-6 should detect Cavour first, a full strike would be 10xA-6 with 40 Harpoon, 24xF-18 with 48 Harpoon, and potentially 10xS-3 with 20 more Harpoon. So 88 to 108 Harpoons in a single strike. F-35s would have to break stealth to carry ASMs, which would make them vulnerable to the F-14 CAP. If they keep stealth, they don't have anything with much range, so they would have to get close enough that they would be detectable anyway, and again vulnerable to the F-14 CAP. ECM might make the difference in favor of Cavour if they can negate the Harpoons and older radar missiles, but I'll leave that to someone who knows more about that.

Here's a question though. George H. W. Bush cost around 6 billion, Cavour was around 1.5, and they were commissioned about the same time. Do an equal cost fight and you could have four Cavours with up to 80*? F-35Bs vs. a modern Nimitz wing. Now what?

How many F-35s would a max F-35 Cavour wing consist of? Given a normal wing of 20-24, my guess would be a max of 20 F-35s and 2 EH101 AEW, though I suspect the actual number of F-35s would be less.

 

[Ronny]

Cavour win i think, Nimitz obviously carry more aircraft but 30 years of technology on Cavour side is pretty massive.
These F-35B will render all these Harpoon useless by their jamming especially consider that these Harpoon didn't even have datalink, they will find fish pretty quickly.
Italy F-35B will get Meteor as well so they obliterate these E-2C and F-14D very quickly.

 

[Vanessa1402]

Nimitz. E-2C, S-3 and A-6 should detect Cavour first, a full strike would be 10xA-6 with 40 Harpoon, 24xF-18 with 48 Harpoon, and potentially 10xS-3 with 20 more Harpoon. So 88 to 108 Harpoons in a single strike. F-35s would have to break stealth to carry ASMs, which would make them vulnerable to the F-14 CAP. If they keep stealth, they don't have anything with much range, so they would have to get close enough that they would be detectable anyway, and again vulnerable to the F-14 CAP. ECM might make the difference in favor of Cavour if they can negate the Harpoons and older radar missiles, but I'll leave that to someone who knows more about that.

Can Nimitz gets that many aircraft on air at the same time?
I recall that Italian is paying for intergration of mbda spear iii which have the same range as old Harpoon so F-35 don't have to give up stealth to carry ASM

British, Italian F-35s to get new missile types

A cash injection will see MBDA’s SPEAR precision surface attack missile and Meteor air-to-air weapon integrated on the aircraft.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Dilandu]

. E-2C, S-3 and A-6 should detect Cavour first

Assuming that much more advanced electronic warning systems of Cavour would not detect them first, and it would not send stealth F-35 to knock them down without Nimitz CAP F-14's even noticing the threat.

 

[Vanessa1402]

Cavour win i think, Nimitz obviously carry more aircraft but 30 years of technology on Cavour side is pretty massive.
These F-35B will render all these Harpoon useless by their jamming especially consider that these Harpoon didn't even have datalink, they will find fish pretty quickly.
Italy F-35B will get Meteor as well so they obliterate these E-2C and F-14D very quickly.

How many Harpoon can F-35 jam at the sametime?

 

[Dilandu]

Considering the situation - while Cavour and her escort did not have such aerial reconnaissance capabilities, they have the advantages of A - much more capable electronic warfare systems (in both detection and jamming), and B - stealthier design, which would seriously confuse 1980s radars. So, they could detect Nimitz planes on safe range, and send F-35B on intercept. I think, we could safely say, that 1980s USN CAP's have absolutely zero idea how to fight against stealth planes - essentially US only recently started to think about such situation - so F-35B would have little problem penetrating the defenses and knocking E-2 down with AMRAAM missiles.

So, in terms of recon, Nimitz better aerial recon capabilities are severely limited by better detection & interception capabilities of Cavour. Essentially no side have significant advantage.

Speaking about air combat... Well, F-14 clearly have speed and maneuvering advantages over F-35B. Problem is, that I could bet that neither AIM-54 nor AIM-7 would be able to get a lock on F-35B on anything like BVR's. Especially if countermeasures are used. F-35B, on the other hand, most likely would be able to reach F-14 with AIM-120s. Tactically, I suppose USN pilots on F-14 would be incredibly confused by sudden long-range attacks from nowhere, planes that could suddenly appear much closer, than they supposed to, and uselessness of nearly all radar-guided missiles against them.

So basically, if Cavour pilots would play smart, using hit-and-run tactics, they would decimate Nimitz airwing, just because it have no idea what they are facing. The only countermeasure the Nimitz pilots could try is to rush headlong in the direction of incoming missiles, trying to break the distance with speed, and use AIM-9 and autocannons against the opponents. Here, the chances would most likely be... even; F-14 have better speed and maneuvering, F-35 have better flares and could launch AIM-9 in any direction (with lock-after-launch function).

Talking about strike... Well, again, Cavour could combine the blinding attack of AAM's equipped F-35 on E-2 planes (to knock them out suddenly, and force CAP to defend themselves) with low-altitude approach of F-35 carrying anti-ship weapons. I'm not sure, what munition they could use, but at least HARM missiles are for sure.

 

[Archibald]

Now that's a rather amusing twist at "the final countdown" - "the final spaghetti" ?

 

[apparition13]

The place to really ask this question is Youtube. Grim Reapers have been doing what if simulations in DCS. I don't know if Cavour or F-35Bs are modeled in the game, but they might give you a better feel for the results.

******

At what range would F-35s become visible to E-2Cs and F-14s? Bear in mind the F-14D has an updated radar with a larger dish than an F-15E.

How capable would the EA-6Bs of that era be? Nimitz would have around 4 available.

Spear is half the size of a Maverick. It might do for taking out FACs, but it's not really designed with destroyers in mind. NSM has been modified to fit in a C, but I don't think B can carry them, which leaves 1000lb JDAMs if stealthy, which would put the F-35s in Perry range, let alone Aegis.

Cavour et al. might be able to detect the Nimitz's scout aircraft, but that isn't going to tell them where the battle group is, while Nimitz will know where Cavour and it's escorts are. They aren't that stealthy. That's the real advantage of the CVNs. Cavour's helicopters don't really compare with E-2s, S-3s, and ES-3s.

By the way, I'm assuming both sides know what they are up against, and neither has satellite access. That gives Nimitz the recon advantage. If they do have satellites, then Cavour can find Nimitz with them, but that goes both ways which means Nimitz can stay out of F-35 range but in A-6 + Harpoon + refuelling range. F-35Bs are good, but Nimitz can hit from about twice the range with A-6s. Can Cavour maintain a 24-hour CAP?

******
I thought it was later, but the Spruances got their 61 cell Mk41s in the mid to late 80s. If optimised for SUW that would add a significant number of missiles to a potential strike. It's too early for ESSM though, and I don't think they can hand SM-2s off to the Ticos, though the capability of one ship guiding anothers missiles (not the Spruances specifically) was being talked about at the time.

The Carrier Battle Groups also deployed with one or two LA SSNs and an AOE as well, but I can see why the sub would be left out of the picture. The AOE would allow the Nimitz group to run Cavour out of fuel. This is probably the safest option for Nimitz.

 

[Vanessa1402]

. I'm not sure, what munition they could use, but at least HARM missiles are for sure.

F-35 can't carry HARM, there are AARGM-ER but Italy doesn't purchase it

 

[archipeppe]

Now that's a rather amusing twist at "the final countdown" - "the final spaghetti" ?

In the Italian "The final countdown" plot, the Cavour would be forced back (by an sudden electro-magnetic storm) in november 1940, facing the possiblity to stop the impending attack on Taranto (the Italian equivalent of Pearl Harbour), wiping out all the Stringbags and their carrier Illustrious.

Farey Fulmar's pilots would be shocked to see propellerless aircrafts able to stop while flying (the AV-8B+)....

 

[sferrin]

Nimitz, and I doubt it would be close. Those F-35Bs have no integral AWACS support, short legs, and few offensive weapons. Also, stealth doesn't make you invisible, it just makes you harder to detect. And each can only be in one place at a time. And lets not forget SM-2 also has antiship capability, and Nimitz would have HARMs and nukes available, not just Harpoons.

 

[Ronny]

At what range would F-35s become visible to E-2Cs and F-14s? Bear in mind the F-14D has an updated radar with a larger dish than an F-15E.

How capable would the EA-6Bs of that era be? Nimitz would have around 4 available.

After all, F-35 are around 24 years newer than F-14D, and it was designed from ground up to penetrate air space protected by state of the art ground based double digit SAM. Eventhough F-14D has big mechanical scanned radar, it very unlikely that it can even track F-35B at visual range when wwe consider that F-35 doesn't rely on VLO characteristic alone, it can also perform support screen jamming.
E-2C can probably detect F-35 from longer range as it has big low frequency radar, but it won't be able to detect F-35 before it got hit in the face with a Meteor or AIM-120.

Spear is half the size of a Maverick. It might do for taking out FACs, but it's not really designed with destroyers in mind. NSM has been modified to fit in a C, but I don't think B can carry them, which leaves 1000lb JDAMs if stealthy, which would put the F-35s in Perry range, let alone Aegis.

Cavour et al. might be able to detect the Nimitz's scout aircraft, but that isn't going to tell them where the battle group is, while Nimitz will know where Cavour and it's escorts are. They aren't that stealthy. That's the real advantage of the CVNs. Cavour's helicopters don't really compare with E-2s, S-3s, and ES-3s.

By the way, I'm assuming both sides know what they are up against, and neither has satellite access. That gives Nimitz the recon advantage. If they do have satellites, then Cavour can find Nimitz with them, but that goes both ways which means Nimitz can stay out of F-35 range but in A-6 + Harpoon + refuelling range. F-35Bs are good, but Nimitz can hit from about twice the range with A-6s. Can Cavour maintain a 24-hour CAP?

While I don't think Spear is enough to sink Nimitz and Ticonderoga, it should be more than enough to damage the deck to prevent take off/ landing or damage the fire control radar of these ship if it hit. Ticonderoga also can't engage too many targets at a time because SM-2 at that time need illuminator from launch till impact and that make Spear a perfect weapon for saturation attack due to small size/high load out

 

[Vanessa1402]

Cavour et al. might be able to detect the Nimitz's scout aircraft, but that isn't going to tell them where the battle group is, while Nimitz will know where Cavour and it's escorts are. They aren't that stealthy. That's the real advantage of the CVNs. Cavour's helicopters don't really compare with E-2s, S-3s, and ES-3s.

Can F-35 act as a mini AEW&C with its modern ESM and Radar?

 

[Vanessa1402]

Nimitz, and I doubt it would be close. Those F-35Bs have no integral AWACS support, short legs, and few offensive weapons. Also, stealth doesn't make you invisible, it just makes you harder to detect. And each can only be in one place at a time. And lets not forget SM-2 also has antiship capability, and Nimitz would have HARMs and nukes available, not just Harpoons.

Can HARMs attack moving target?. Can SM-2 be used against ship outside ship radar horizon?

 

[Vanessa1402]

At what range would F-35s become visible to E-2Cs and F-14s? Bear in mind the F-14D has an updated radar with a larger dish than an F-15E.

How capable would the EA-6Bs of that era be? Nimitz would have around 4 available.

After all, F-35 are around 24 years newer than F-14D, and it was designed from ground up to penetrate air space protected by state of the art ground based double digit SAM. Eventhough F-14D has big mechanical scanned radar, it very unlikely that it can even track F-35B at visual range when wwe consider that F-35 doesn't rely on VLO characteristic alone

But F-14d is a pure fighter, F-35B is a strike aircraft

 

[Volkodav]

Cavour win i think, Nimitz obviously carry more aircraft but 30 years of technology on Cavour side is pretty massive.
These F-35B will render all these Harpoon useless by their jamming especially consider that these Harpoon didn't even have datalink, they will find fish pretty quickly.
Italy F-35B will get Meteor as well so they obliterate these E-2C and F-14D very quickly.

How many Harpoon can F-35 jam at the sametime?

All within the radius of the jamming signal, the jammer is either jamming or its not.

 

[sferrin]

Nimitz, and I doubt it would be close. Those F-35Bs have no integral AWACS support, short legs, and few offensive weapons. Also, stealth doesn't make you invisible, it just makes you harder to detect. And each can only be in one place at a time. And lets not forget SM-2 also has antiship capability, and Nimitz would have HARMs and nukes available, not just Harpoons.

Can HARMs attack moving target?. Can SM-2 be used against ship outside ship radar horizon?

HARM was originally developed by the USN specifically for knocking out radars on ships.

 

[Ironman]

HARM was originally developed by the USN specifically for knocking out radars on ships.

AGM-88 B/C can't hit non emitting target much less a non emitting ship. The hit rate of early version of HARM was so poor that most pilot rather carry Maverick and CBU-103 for SEAD

 

[sferrin]

HARM was originally developed by the USN specifically for knocking out radars on ships.

AGM-88 B/C can't hit non emitting target much less a non emitting ship. The hit rate of early version of HARM was so poor that most pilot rather carry Maverick and CBU-103 for SEAD

I didn't say WHAT it could or couldn't do. I said why it was developed (at least according to their marketing dept ). Early artwork had it homing in on a Kresta II. Also, if your ship isn't emitting it's effectively been mission-killed anyway.

Not sure where you're getting your information. HARM was very effective during Desert Storm.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7837.pdf

 

[GTX]

But F-14d is a pure fighter, F-35B is a strike aircraft

Rubbish on both accounts

 

[F-2]

Cavour should win fairly handily. The F-35 would be out numbered 7-8 to 1 but that’s not bad odds judging by similar exercises where the F-35 has gone up against 4th gen fighters and only about half the wing will be fighters. Furthermore in exercises against the F-15E with a very similar radar as the F-14D and a targeting pod derived from the F-14’s IRST the F-35 has never had any issue. The apg-81 has been able to jam the first version of the apg-77 a powerful AESA radar in the same size and class as the apg-71. We have also ignored the F-14 has a massive RCS, even if stealth doesn’t make an aircraft invisible the F-14 is as visible as any fighter gets, it’s a major target. The F-18 has a much smaller radar and would be at a major disadvantage against the F-35. At close range the F-35 inspite of persistent rumors otherwise is very capable at close range. The F-35a is described as having similar acceleration to a clean or nearly clean block 50 F-16 while having hornet level AoA nose pointing. The F-35b is a little slower to accelerate then the F-35a but the hornet even the late 90s lot 20 with the 402 engines is slower then a block 50, and mind you where talking clean aircraft. F-14b had better climb then any hornet based on antidotes but I don’t see any reason to rate it over the F-35, it will have high top speed to escape if needed. The F-18 was limited to 35 degrees AoA till the 2003 fly-by-wire update so it’s a rare instance it’s at a disadvantage in a knife fight. I also suspect the Nimitz will not be able to get its whole wing up into an alpha strike before the F-35’s start picking them off.

 

[Ironman]

HARM was originally developed by the USN specifically for knocking out radars on ships.AGM-88 B/C can't hit non emitting target much less a non emitting ship. The hit rate of early version of HARM was so poor that most pilot rather carry Maverick and CBU-103 for SEAD

I didn't say WHAT it could or couldn't do. I said why it was developed (at least according to their marketing dept ). Early artwork had it homing in on a Kresta II. Also, if your ship isn't emitting it's effectively been mission-killed anyway.

Not sure where you're getting your information. HARM was very effective during Desert Storm.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7837.pdf

I got my information from Rand, HARM was horrendously bad in Kosovo war. 742 HARM were launched for total of 3 confirmed kill. Without the MMW seeker of later version, HARM always miss if enemy turn off their radar in time. So the ship can turn off their radar when HARM about to hit then turn on later.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/RAND_MR1365.pdf

 

[Archibald]

HARM was originally developed by the USN specifically for knocking out radars on ships.AGM-88 B/C can't hit non emitting target much less a non emitting ship. The hit rate of early version of HARM was so poor that most pilot rather carry Maverick and CBU-103 for SEAD

I didn't say WHAT it could or couldn't do. I said why it was developed (at least according to their marketing dept ). Early artwork had it homing in on a Kresta II. Also, if your ship isn't emitting it's effectively been mission-killed anyway.

Not sure where you're getting your information. HARM was very effective during Desert Storm.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7837.pdf

I got my information from Rand, HARM was horrendously bad in Kosovo war. 742 HARM were launched for total of 3 confirmed kill. Without the MMW seeker of later version, HARM always miss if enemy turn off their radar in time. So the ship can turn off their radar when HARM about to hit then turn on later.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/RAND_MR1365.pdf

They should have called it HARM-less then (baduum, TSSS !)

 

[sferrin]

HARM was originally developed by the USN specifically for knocking out radars on ships.AGM-88 B/C can't hit non emitting target much less a non emitting ship. The hit rate of early version of HARM was so poor that most pilot rather carry Maverick and CBU-103 for SEAD

I didn't say WHAT it could or couldn't do. I said why it was developed (at least according to their marketing dept ). Early artwork had it homing in on a Kresta II. Also, if your ship isn't emitting it's effectively been mission-killed anyway.

Not sure where you're getting your information. HARM was very effective during Desert Storm.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7837.pdf

I got my information from Rand, HARM was horrendously bad in Kosovo war. 742 HARM were launched for total of 3 confirmed kill. Without the MMW seeker of later version, HARM always miss if enemy turn off their radar in time. So the ship can turn off their radar when HARM about to hit then turn on later.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/RAND_MR1365.pdf

All they have to do is coordinate HARM and Harpoon strikes. Radar isn't something you can flip off and on like a light switch.

 

[TomS]

I got my information from Rand, HARM was horrendously bad in Kosovo war. 742 HARM were launched for total of 3 confirmed kill. Without the MMW seeker of later version, HARM always miss if enemy turn off their radar in time. So the ship can turn off their radar when HARM about to hit then turn on later.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/RAND_MR1365.pdf

I scanned through that report and don't see a number for SAM "hard kills" though I may well have missed it. Page #, please? (And there is a persistent question of what constitutes a kill in SEAD terms -- a HARM might perforate an antenna and take it offline temporarily, but the damage could be repaired fairly quickly and the radar brought back into use. That's suppression but not destruction.)

What I did see was that more than half of all HARM shots were "preemptive engagements," meaning they were fired without having a specific target emitter. Basically, these are missiles lobbed out in front of a strike package to encourage the SAM radar operators to stay switched off. Which they seem to have done; the report talks about radars operating for 20 seconds at a time, then switching off to avoid "eating" a HARM. That's suppression at work -- 20 seconds isn't long enough to develop a really good situational picture. Which feeds into why there were so few successful SAM engagements (2 kills out of more than 800 SAMs fired).

OTOH, the report also shows the Serbian radar operators were adept at deception and rapid relocation, and worked well inside the Allied response cycle. It appears that the HARM shooters required clearance from the CAOC (combined air operations center) before launching a missile, which really makes it hard to have a timely engagement. Compared with Desert Storm, the operating environment in Bosnia was much more constrained, which meant almost everything worked less well than it had over Iraq.

 

[sferrin]

OTOH, the report also shows the Serbian radar operators were adept at deception and rapid relocation, and worked well inside the Allied response cycle. It appears that the HARM shooters required clearance from the CAOC (combined air operations center) before launching a missile, which really makes it hard to have a timely engagement. Compared with Desert Storm, the operating environment in Bosnia was much more constrained, which meant almost everything worked less well than it had over Iraq.

Against an enemy ship at sea that's probably not an issue.

 

[Ronny]

All they have to do is coordinate HARM and Harpoon strikes. Radar isn't something you can flip off and on like a light switch.

To be fair, modern ESA can be on and off in an instant

 

[sferrin]

All they have to do is coordinate HARM and Harpoon strikes. Radar isn't something you can flip off and on like a light switch.

To be fair, modern ESA can be on and off in an instant

Then pre-emptively launch HARM to keep them down. (I really like the option of hanging from a parachute, waiting, that ALARM has.)

"ALARM is a fire-and-forget system, with an added loiter capability. In loiter mode, ALARM will, when launched, climb to an altitude of 13 km. If the target radar shuts down, the missile will deploy a parachute and descend slowly until the radar lights up. The missile will then fire a secondary motor to attack the target.[12]"

ALARM - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anybody know why the UK got rid of it?

 

[Hood]

Anybody know why the UK got rid of it?

It was retired without replacement, I don't think the MoD ever considered replacing it with another radar-homing missile and instead Storm Shadow seems to have taken its place in the SEAD role. ALARM was never integrated with Typhoon.
With hindsight they might have eked out another 6 years before the GR.4 retired, although there might have been a looming shelf-life expiry date on the rocket motors.
Given all the fuss during its development (avoiding buying HARM) it's odd that it had a relatively short life and no real export success at all (other than fellow IDS user Saudi Arabia).

 

[Ronny]

Then pre-emptively launch HARM to keep them down. (I really like the option of hanging from a parachute, waiting, that ALARM has.)

Personally, I think Harpoon and HARM will get terrain bounce jammed by F-35B to the point they became useless.

Anybody know why the UK got rid of it?

It was retired without replacement, I don't think the MoD ever considered replacing it with another radar-homing missile and instead Storm Shadow seems to have taken its place in the SEAD role.

such an odd replacement, I don't see how Storm shadow could be effective surpression weapon at all. Firstly, it is stealthy so adversary can't even detect the missiles to turn off their radar. Secondly, it is too slow

 

[sferrin]

Then pre-emptively launch HARM to keep them down. (I really like the option of hanging from a parachute, waiting, that ALARM has.)

Personally, I think Harpoon and HARM will get terrain bounce jammed by F-35B to the point they became useless.

Anybody know why the UK got rid of it?

It was retired without replacement, I don't think the MoD ever considered replacing it with another radar-homing missile and instead Storm Shadow seems to have taken its place in the SEAD role.

such an odd replacement, I don't see how Storm shadow could be effective surpression weapon at all. Firstly, it is stealthy so adversary can't even detect the missiles to turn off their radar. Secondly, it is too slow

Uh, why would you want the other guy to turn off his radar if you're trying to kill it?

 

[Hood]

I don't see how Storm shadow could be effective surpression weapon at all. Firstly, it is stealthy so adversary can't even detect the missiles to turn off their radar. Secondly, it is too slow

I don't think its like-for-like replacement, it was Air Marshall speak for "yeah we haven't got a clue how to replace it but Storm Shadow goes BOOM so we'll throw a couple of these at an air defence site and they'll hit something...maybe"

 

[Ronny]

Uh, why would you want the other guy to turn off his radar if you're trying to kill it?

Because I'm doing SEAD and not DEAD, yes DEAD is overall better if you can do it in the same amount of time, but for SEAD you want to force enemy to turn off their radar so that your strike package can go through

 

[Vanessa1402]

How many Harpoon can F-35 jam at the sametime?

All within the radius of the jamming signal, the jammer is either jamming or its not.

What if different harpoons operate at different frequency

 

[sferrin]

Uh, why would you want the other guy to turn off his radar if you're trying to kill it?

Because I'm doing SEAD and not DEAD, yes DEAD is overall better if you can do it in the same amount of time, but for SEAD you want to force enemy to turn off their radar so that your strike package can go through

Pretty sure they're going to get through if you kill it as well.

 

[Ronny]

Uh, why would you want the other guy to turn off his radar if you're trying to kill it?

Because I'm doing SEAD and not DEAD, yes DEAD is overall better if you can do it in the same amount of time, but for SEAD you want to force enemy to turn off their radar so that your strike package can go through

Pretty sure they're going to get through if you kill it as well.

Yes, but Storm shadow is too slow compared to HARM, KH-31 so enemy likely able to shot down the strike package ways before the missile can arrive. It doesn't have the Suppression effect

 

[sferrin]

Uh, why would you want the other guy to turn off his radar if you're trying to kill it?

Because I'm doing SEAD and not DEAD, yes DEAD is overall better if you can do it in the same amount of time, but for SEAD you want to force enemy to turn off their radar so that your strike package can go through

Pretty sure they're going to get through if you kill it as well.

Yes, but Storm shadow is too slow compared to HARM, KH-31 so enemy likely able to shot down the strike package ways before the missile can arrive. It doesn't have the Suppression effect

So send it earlier.

 

[Ronny]

Yes, but Storm shadow is too slow compared to HARM, KH-31 so enemy likely able to shot down the strike package ways before the missile can arrive. It doesn't have the Suppression effect

So send it earlier.

Modern SAM are often target of oppotunity, you don't alway know their location before they emit

 

[Arjen]

Modern SAM are often target of oppotunity, you don't alway know their location before they emit

Sending in a strike package without knowing the location of your opponent's SAM sites speaks of an overly optimistic attitude towards warfare.