Yeah, i've been a little unclear.

 

In a recent engagement i has the Iowa Destroyer up against a small frigate. I dont have my books here but the numbers were something like this.

 

The Iowa radar could detect a small target out to 36nm. But Radar LOS to a small ship reduced range to 18nm.

Whereas the small chinese frigates less powerful radar could detect a large target at 22nm but radar LOS reduced this to 19nm.

 

End result being, the Iowa had a more powerful radar but the small frigate detected the Iowa at 19nm while the Iowa was unaware of the frigates position and was able to fire first. I was surprised by this.

... and i guess my bigger point was the value of helectopters and other means of detection - combined arms.

There are 4 inbound anti-ship missiles. A ships air defence guns fire ... if they hit, do they hit a single missile? Is there anyway to hit more than 1 incoming? Or is this thing only possible if there is a director and a weapon system capable of engaging incoming missiles per missile (ie 4 directors and anti air guns can engage 1 of the 4 incoming missiles each).

There are 4 inbound anti-ship missiles. A ships air defence guns fire ... if they hit, do they hit a single missile? Is there anyway to hit more than 1 incoming? Or is this thing only possible if there is a director and a weapon system capable of engaging incoming missiles per missile (ie 4 directors and anti air guns can engage 1 of the 4 incoming missiles each).

 

If there are four missiles incoming simultaneously, it will depend on whether your air defence guns have sufficient directors (as you have intimated) or can operate under local control. There is no reason otherwise why multiple AA guns cannot engage multiple incoming missiles, to my knowledge.

I'd roll randomly for each hit. In the heat of the moment single targets might be engaged my multiple shooters, particularly if manned AA vice an automated CIWS for example.

What would have been "the most likely" Russian fighter/interceptor that NATO would have encountered through the mid-80's? By most likely I was thinking "what plane had the most numbers" but I probably mean "what aircraft was most used in the air".

 

As an aside, its interesting that allot of Russian aircraft only carried 2 air to air missiles whereas NATO often carried 4 or more likely 6. Russian aircraft generally look to have been on the less manoeuvrable side, so maybe carrying less missiles helped them from having a worse AtA rating than they already have.

What would have been "the most likely" Russian fighter/interceptor that NATO would have encountered through the mid-80's? By most likely I was thinking "what plane had the most numbers" but I probably mean "what aircraft was most used in the air".

 

Depends on where you're talking about and in what circumstances. Most Soviet fighters/interceptors have short ranges; the best long-range stuff is the Tu-28P and the Su-27.

 

Most common type was the MiG-21 "Fishbed" family, but you wouldn't see that many of them over the sea.

As an aside, its interesting that allot of Russian aircraft only carried 2 air to air missiles whereas NATO often carried 4 or more likely 6. Russian aircraft generally look to have been on the less manoeuvrable side, so maybe carrying less missiles helped them from having a worse AtA rating than they already have.

 

Emphasis on the "generally". The MiG-23 and -25 are as agile as bricks (although very fast), but you've also got the MiG-21; which can out-turn a Phantom II and was capable of getting guns "kills" on F-14s in the Constant Peg programme. Also don't forget the MiG-29 and Su-27 families.

 

Remember also the Soviets had far more aircraft available to them.

As an aside, its interesting that allot of Russian aircraft only carried 2 air to air missiles whereas NATO often carried 4 or more likely 6. Russian aircraft generally look to have been on the less manoeuvrable side, so maybe carrying less missiles helped them from having a worse AtA rating than they already have.

 

A lot of those old Soviet birds were notoriously short on fuel. Early MiG-21s were even worse, since they required a certain amount of fuel to be in the tanks just to keep the centre of gravity within acceptable limits! They may have felt that there would only be time for one or two shots, anyway, and the scenarios they were facing were going to be either intercepting single bombers or a large number of Sovs vs a smaller number of NATO. In either case, a few missiles is enough.

Emphasis on the "generally". The MiG-23 and -25 are as agile as bricks (although very fast), but you've also got the MiG-21; which can out-turn a Phantom II and was capable of getting guns "kills" on F-14s in the Constant Peg programme. Also don't forget the MiG-29 and Su-27 families.

 

The last iteration of the MiG-23 - the MiG-23MLD Flogger K - was particularly impressive for an ageing design, with excellent acceleration, and superior sustained turn performance (better than the F-4 and F-16) and zoom climb (better than the F-15A) in some flight regimes.

Today, my F-15 was flying at 650kts when it fired a GBU-15 which flies at 515kts or so. Since my F-15 is going faster than the missile, does that mean the F-15 can fly over the target before the GBU arrives? The F-15 flies over and past the target (or can turn off course) and keeps LOS to the target so the GBU has a chance to hit. No debris damage to F-15. Is my logic OK?

Today, my F-15 was flying at 650kts when it fired a GBU-15 which flies at 515kts or so. Since my F-15 is going faster than the missile, does that mean the F-15 can fly over the target before the GBU arrives? The F-15 flies over and past the target (or can turn off course) and keeps LOS to the target so the GBU has a chance to hit. No debris damage to F-15. Is my logic OK?

 

I don't see any issues. I assume you're flying an F-15E. The earlier GBU-15(V)1 and (V)2 versions of the weapon require the (AXQ-14 or ZSW-1) datalink pod, but with the addition of terminal seeker and GPS/INS options (in the EGBU) in later versions, you don't need to rely on the datalink at all.

 

In the direct attack mode, where the WSO spots the target prior to launch, he can lock the weapon, launch it and leave. With indirect attack, the weapon is controlled remotely (via datalink, of course) and steered to the target. (This does tend to be more accurate).

 

In neither case would you need to overfly the target.

Today, my F-15 was flying at 650kts when it fired a GBU-15 which flies at 515kts or so. Since my F-15 is going faster than the missile, does that mean the F-15 can fly over the target before the GBU arrives? The F-15 flies over and past the target (or can turn off course) and keeps LOS to the target so the GBU has a chance to hit. No debris damage to F-15. Is my logic OK?

 

Yep, you'll fly over the target before the bomb arrives.

F-15 attack aircraft has APS-70 (from memory) radar. In the notes it has SAR/ISAR capability. What is SAR/ISAR and can you refer me to a page/rule? Cant seem to find it anywhere.

What is SAR/ISAR and can you refer me to a page/rule? Cant seem to find it anywhere.

 

Refers to Synthetic Aperture Radar/Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar.

 

I am not sure there is an applicable rule, but generally speaking, the advantage of SAR/ISAR is a very high resolution radar image typically used for ground mapping and targeting.

 

Update: Hat tip to Brains for pointing out Rule 4.2.2.3 - Radar Information:

 

With SAR/ISAR radars, "Detected aircraft and ships can be classified by type or class, and ground targets can be identified".