Yet more petulant crap. Guess that's just the level of maturity you are capable of.
Its not handholding, as I have said before, I have not seen any evidence that you know the first thing about what you are talking about. And the more petulant and evasive the response when I ask you to demonstrate even the most basic concepts, the stronger the support for my belief.
"Petulance" is a term a superior uses to accuse an inferior. In our case, this is clearly a completely inappropriate term for someone like you to be using on me. Just because you continue to pathetically deny, deny, deny in the face of reality doesn't mean I haven't already explained to you multiple times what you asked for. That's okay, tough guy, other people can read even if the only response you have left is to refuse to acknowledge the facts. An ostrich sticking its head in the sand WILL still get eaten by the lion.
Again, this completely nonsensical insistence that stealth aircraft cannot perform SEAD/DEAD and not a work to explain why.
Perhaps your memory is inadequate to the task of remembering and balancing a complicated argument in your head, in which case you should gracefully exit this thread, with whatever grace you are capable of. No one will ask any questions. Just sayin
In any case, I believe I have already said the following in a prior post. Allow me to help you improve your memory:
I'll grant that the J-20 can perform SEAD under certain circumstances. In situations where a static target is being defended and the SAM batteries are immobile, SEAD can be performed without being lit up by enemy radars. In this case you just go over there and bomb a fixed location. This type of attack actually blurs the line between SEAD and Strike.
After which I said this:
Classic SEAD as performed by tag-teaming wild weasel and jammer aircraft is done versus mobile SAM units where you don't know their location and thus cannot fly under stealth to a specific location and take it out with a JDAM. The wild weasel serves as bait while trolling around in enemy airspace, when an enemy radar lights it up, the EA-6B trailing behind blasts noise, the weasel destroys the radar with a HARM or JSOW, next target.
As Scratch has already explained perfectly well, if you want to provoke SAM radars to go active with a stealth aircraft, all you need to do is turn on the jammer. Any SAMs doing passive scans will see that and go active. But unlike conventional fighters, a stealth plane will not show up on enemy radars unless its very close. That means there is less risk to the aircraft, and also a higher chance of achieving DEAD since a radar that turned on and is immediately blinded by jamming is more likely to turn off and scoot as the crew knows they can't do anything and is also likely to know that they just been tricked into lighting up by wild weasels.
Actually Scratch didn't explain anything "perfectly" well at all. It's BLATANTLY obvious the two of you didn't have the first clue about the actual relationship between SEAD and DEAD and I actually had to pull out the Department of Defense definition of SEAD on you guys multiple times to set you straight. But apparently even after posting the DOD definition THREE times you are STILL unable to understand SEAD. See the bottom of this post.
And, hmmm, the "jammer". WHAT JAMMER? The AN/APG-77 has a rumored ability to fry incoming missiles but this is just a rumor. It can also disrupt enemy radar lockons by sending an interfering countersignal. But to suggest that this radar is capable of actual standoff jamming of an enemy SAM radar is akin to the kind of fantastical claims that Roger makes about the J-20 (among other things). Clearly desperate times are calling for desperate measures. LOL. Also, the APG-77 is inherently designed to be LPI so it's not clear to me that even blasting this thing all over enemy airspace will attract any attention, or that the pilot of the F-22 has any actual ability to make his radar LESS LPI for the purposes of intentionally being detected. Double LOL
Oh, and here's some more education for you from ZTZ99's School of Hard Knocks:
"The AN/APG-77 is not intended to give the F-22 a "standoff jamming" capability, such as that provided by electronic warfare aircraft like the Grumman EA-6B Prowler, blinding enemy radars over wide areas on a continuous basis. The AN/APG-77's mission is mainly to allow the F-22 to fight effectively while remaining difficult to detect. A standoff jamming platform, in contrast, can't help but advertise its presence. Between dealing with active threats, the AESA collects information on the "electronic order of battle (EOB)" in the operational area, locating electronic systems, classifying them, and alerting the pilot to possible threats or high-priority targets."
From
All I am asking are very simple, basic questions, and so far, you have failed quite spectacularly are adequately answering ANY of them. The facts speak for themselves.
Every single question that you have asked, I have answered. At this point you are either 1) denying reality because there is nothing else you can respond with besides pretending I didn't just hammer you over the head with the facts, or 2) you are completely unable to understand what has been explained to you multiple times and thus cannot even follow along on the basics of the argument.
And I stand by my raising of that point with you, since by your very definition, we can see you do not know even the basics since aircraft, even stealth ones, do not 'fly under stealth' - ie evade enemy radar sites, when on SEAD/DEAD missions.
I am truly flabbergasted. Honestly I am. Based on this statement it is quite obvious to me you DEFINITELY cannot keep the nuances of an argument from becoming completely jumbled inside your head and subsequently degenerating into utter chaos, and I almost cannot help but wonder at how in the world you can even pretend to talk down to me the way you do. Where do I even begin to dissect this kolossal FUBAR of a statement.
First, my statement of "flying under stealth" is a general statement about any STEALTH aircraft that has to navigate through hostile terrain populated by enemy air surveillance radars. If it does not fly correctly it will risk exposing itself to detection in the manner in which I have already described. In addition, even if it does not expose certain parts of its airframe at a 90 degree angle to an enemy emitting radar, it can still be detected if it flies too close to the radar. Stealth decreases detection range vs enemy radars at certain angles at certain ranges at certain frequencies. It is not "stealthy no matter where you fly it". That's just totally wrong and betrays a complete lack of understanding of stealth. Let's face it, you tried to combine a snide remark with a derisive straw man attack on me which subsequently blew up in your face. Seriously, Star Trek? FFS. Drop this charade already. It does not help you in any way.
Second, stealth aircraft will CERTAINLY evade enemy radar sites during SEAD missions if the mission calls for the destruction of a higher value radar target that involves having to navigate around these radar sites. For example, the kind of low frequency air surveillance radars that China is deploying to detect stealth fighters could certainly be SEAD targets chosen before any other air surveillance or targeting radar. Targeting certain C&C nodes that control air defense would also be considered SEAD and would involve skirting past radar sites. You definitely didn't think of ANY of these possibilities or you would not have said what you just did: " since aircraft, even stealth ones, do not 'fly under stealth' - ie evade enemy radar sites, when on SEAD/DEAD missions". LOL
No, it's because you clearly cannot grasp how much of an advantage a 5th gen stealth platform would have over conventional aircraft in the SEAD, and especially, DEAD roles.
Long range radars may be able to easily track 4th gen SEAD/DEAD aircraft and feed that information to forward SAM sites, but by its very nature, you cannot track 5th gen fighters from long range.
If the enemy used long wave 'anti stealth' radars to detect that there are 5th gens coming in, that will only make DEAD easier as the forward SAM sites are ordered to light up to search for targets and so expose themselves.
If the enemy does not light up any SAM sites, but are emitting with long range ground based or land based radars, thats even better, as you just push through the forward SAM belts and take those out first.
These "forward" long range surveillance radars would certainly be the ones "lighting up" (not the "SAM sites"), and which actually is totally wrong because they are always lit up to begin with, being surveillance radars. There would actually be extensive overlap of coverage, some more towards the rear, interior areas, some more forward deployed. These would be the forward radars that would try to zero in on the incoming stealth fighter, NOT the FCR's directly associated with the SAM launcher, both of which would remain hidden until a target is acquired by the acquisition radar.
The problem for you is that these types of radars would be both static and mobile, some of them being designed to be easily replaceable if destroyed. The attacker must decide whether to go for these forward surveillance radars first or conclude that he can skirt these radars and make a dash into enemy territory and go straight for the higher value targets like the air defense C&C nodes and anti-stealth and OTH radars. The other problem is that even if you manage to take out the outer surveillance layer (besides those radars being quickly replaced) is that the further in you venture into enemy territory the more difficult it becomes for you to maintain an area clear of enemy radar activity because you probably don't control the ground and you may or may not have air superiority. In this environment it is likely that multiple types of SEAD missions will be happening at the same time, including the standard trolling wild weasel, the stealth attacks on known radar sites, and standoff jamming. It will be a game with an ebb and flow as planes are shot down and radar sites are destroyed, then replaced, and local air superiority may be achieved temporarily only to be lost later on. In this game the only SEAD mission the stealth fighter is capable of is destruction of known, emitting radars or an otherwise fixed high value location. Wild weasel and jamming are missions the stealth fighter will simply not be tasked with no matter how many times you claim that they can perform SEAD in its "entirety".
I know Sampan already warned you, but I wonder if he actually ready all of your post and picked up on all the pathetically childish insults you squeezed in there.
This is a truly despicable statement coming from you given that you have spewed far more than your fair share of petulant childish insults, starting with your very first response to me and continuing with this latest post of yours. Again, you SERIOUSLY need to stop acting out this Shakespearean melodrama of being the aggrieved party, because you are simply not.
BTW Sampan warned the both of us, but you have clearly decided to ignore his warning in your latest post. He simply thought I was new. I am not new. You know who I am, and we have tangoed before. I have simply been unable to log on to ZTZ99 because I lost my password after the website got changed and booted my perma-logged status.
And you letting your petulance and angry blind you. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this just proves you are willfully ignorant about the subject matter. DEAD might be achieved during SEAD, but there are completely different tactics and requirements depending on whether you set out to perform SEAD or DEAD.
If you achieved DEAD while on a SEAD mission, good for you. Bonus points, but if you only managed to achieve SEAD while on a DEAD mission, well, no cigar for you.
OMG. Even after I post the DOD quote three times you STILL try to uselessly dichotimize SEAD and DEAD. That's simply breathtaking. How many times does reality have to hit you in the head before you finally get it? DEAD might or might not be achieved during SEAD, this is true. But to state that sometimes "only" SEAD is achieved during a DEAD mission is a monumental FAIL statement of epic proportions. SEAD includes DEAD within its definition, so there is no such thing as "only achieving SEAD during DEAD". DEAD IS a SEAD mission, not some other mission. Every single DEAD mission is a SEAD mission, just like every single standoff jamming mission is also a SEAD mission. "Suppression" of enemy air defense does NOT include only jamming as a potential mission, but destruction as well. Just because you are completely unable to understand the definition of SEAD doesn't mean you get to co-opt this acronym and try to uselessly force your own Mickey Mouse definition on the rest of us. If you prefer that "suppression" refer only to non-destructive SEAD, nobody cares. Go live in your own world, make up your own terms, that's fine with me. Reality, however, is somewhere else. The Department of Defense certainly is. Calling me willfully ignorant on the matter is a sad joke on your part.
