[PK] Breaking the Kill Chain

[g4lly]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-270109-1.html

Breaking the Kill Chain

Air combat relies almost completely on the effectiveness of missiles.  Yet for a missile to down an aircraft there must be an unbroken ‘kill-chain’ of events terminating in the explosion of a warhead in close proximity to a vital part of the target aircraft.

Some people believe that missiles have near perfect chance of killing a target.  While modern missiles are technological marvels of modern warfare, they have faults and weaknesses, not the least being critical phases of the kill-chain.

The mathematics is quite simple.  Sort the kill-chain into a sequence of events, starting with the missile on its launch rail and ending with its warhead exploding.  Assign a ‘Likelihood of failure’ at each step.  Then take the previous link in the kill-chain’s Hit Probability, subtract the Likelihood of Failure from one, and multiply.

This analysis is perhaps best illustrated by the potentially lethal game of ‘Russian Roulette’ where one round is loaded into a six-shot revolver, the cylinder is spun to stop at a random chamber, the muzzle is placed against the forehead and the trigger pulled.  The following is the player’s chance of survival after a series of plays:

...

Lire la suite

Je met la conclusion quand meme ;)

If future air combat, those with the most BVR rounds, the ability to egress a fight before a merge, and flying tough, multi-engine aircraft that can take a WVR missile hit and still get home, will be the winners.

[Invité BPCs]

Mais aussi dans cet article :

PROBABILITY OF A BVR MISSILE KILL:

"So, putting all the steps together in the ‘Kill-Chain Analyst’ model, and providing reasonable estimates for the likelihood of disrupting each step in a modern engagement, this is the result – less than a 20% kill probability, or put another way, four out of five missiles fired will miss."

[leridan]

à remettre dans un contexte où le F-35 est présenté par LM comme l'avion qui "break the kill chain". Et que l'article vient d'APA. Comme le rapport http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html qui explique en quoi le F-35 n'est pas plus Stealth que ma grand-mère.

[g4lly]

Une autre analyse sur la défense sol-air

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-02.html

Surviving the Modern Integrated Air Defence System

The United States and its Allies have relied since the end of the Cold War upon the ability to quickly overwhelm an opposing IADS, and the ability to then deliver massed precision firepower from the air, as the weapon of choice in resolving nation state conflicts.

The reality of evolving IADS technology and its global proliferation is that most of the US Air Force combat aircraft fleet, and all of the US Navy combat aircraft fleet, will be largely impotent against an IADS constructed from the technology available today from Russian and, increasingly so, Chinese manufacturers.

If flown against such an IADS, US legacy fighters from the F-15 through to the current production F/A-18E/F would suffer prohibitive combat losses attempting to penetrate, suppress or destroy such an IADS.

The IADS technology in question is currently being deployed by China, Iran, Venezuela, and other nations, most of which have poor relationships with the Western alliance.

Until the US Air Force deploys significant numbers of the intended New Generation Bomber post 2020, only aircraft types in the US arsenal will be capable of penetrating, suppressing and destroying such an IADS – the B-2A Spirit and the F-22A Raptor.

There are only twenty B-2As in existence and retooling to manufacture a B-2C is an expensive approach given the commitment to the New Generation Bomber.

The United States therefore has only one remaining strategic choice at this time. That strategic choice is to manufacture a sufficient number of F-22A Raptors to provide a credible capability to conduct a substantial air campaign using only the B-2A and F-22A fleets.

The expectation that the US can get by with a small “golden bullet” fleet of stealth aircraft to carve holes in IADS to permit legacy aircraft to attack is no longer credible. The difficulty in locating and killing the new generation of self propelled and highly survivable IADS radars and launchers presents the prospect of a replay of the 1999 OEF campaign, with highly lethal SAM systems waiting in ambush, and mostly evading SEAD/DEAD attacks.

The F-22A Raptor will therefore have to perform the full spectrum of penetrating roles, starting with counter-air, and encompassing SEAD/DEAD, penetrating ISR and precision strike against strategic and tactical targets. The B-2A fleet can robustly bolster capabilities, but the small number of these superb aircraft available will result inevitably in very selective use.

If we assume an aircraft configuration reflecting the planned F-22A Block 40 configuration, and a contingency of similar magnitude to Desert Storm in 1991, then the required number of F-22A aircraft to cover the spectrum of penetrating roles is of the order of 500 to 600 aircraft in  total.

The United States no longer has any real choices in this matter, if it wishes to retain its secure global strategic position in the 2010 – 2020 time window. Any other force structure model will result in a nett loss of strategic potential, and produce strategic risks, which neither the US nor its Allies can afford.

...

La suite http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-02.html

[leridan]

Arrez-moi si je dis une connerie: Australian Air Power, ce sont bien les gens qui toucheraient des royalties sur des ventes de F-22 à la RAAF?

[xav]

Ce n'est pas pendant la campagne du Kosovo que bcp de missiles air air n'ont pas ateint leurs cibles a cause du brouillage?

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Non non non!! Non mais par pitié, arrêtez de citer Ausairpower!!

C'est encore moins crédible que Dedefensa, et beaucoup plus orienté!

Leurs analyses sont souvent intéressantes, mais leurs conclusions et surtout leurs méthodes pseudo-scientifique sont très discutables et complètement populistes!

Ils ont du avoir les mêmes prof de com' que nos hommes politiques, pour dire le niveau!! :lol: :lol:

Pour rappel, c'est les mecs qui pensaient que pour l'Australie, la meilleurs ligne de défense en 2020 c'était un mélange de Super Raptor F-22 de la mort qui tue et de F-111 modernisés avec avionique et moteurs du F-22. Quand ils ne parlaient pas de B-1B et autres B-2!

Bref, des gars qui excelleraient dans le milieu du what-if, mais qui font plutôt roquets/arrivistes dans le monde réel.

[Invité BPCs]

Pour rappel, c'est les mecs qui pensaient que pour l'Australie, la meilleurs ligne de défense en 2020 c'était un mélange de Super Raptor F-22 de la mort qui tue et de F-111 modernisés avec avionique et moteurs du F-22. Quand ils ne parlaient pas de B-1B et autres B-2!

Bref, des gars qui excelleraient dans le milieu du what-if, mais qui font plutôt roquets/arrivistes dans le monde réel.

Pourtant avec le choix de F/A 18 le rayon d'action des Aussies en projection de puissance est plus réduit.

Quant aux F-22 ils auraient bien aimé en acheter, de même que les japonais.

[leridan]

Remotoriser les F-111 australiens, mais c'est bien sûr! c'est bien connu que la cellule du F-111, elle est au moins aussi solide que celle du B-52. 60 ans de service, les F-111? pas de problème mon général! :D

Et en plus, ça ne coûterait pas cher. du tout.