Does the US have any air defence other than aircraft?

Factual Questions
21

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

As to the OP: My non-military WAGish impression is that using SAM’s or AA artillery as your primary air defense systems is rather, well, defensive. A country like the United States seeks “air superiority” and “air supremacy”; we rely on control of our skies–and everyone else’s skies–through a large, well-trained, well-equipped, and active Air Force (and naval aviation forces, Air National Guard, etc.) Although obviously they can be complementary, using ground based defenses to a certain extent may conflict with fighter intercepts: with a pure ground based defense, you can just declare a free-fire zone for your missile and gun crews and blow anything that flies out of the sky. But this is very much the defense posture of a nation which expects to be on the defensive in military aviation terms; you are basically conceding that the other side will attack you, not the other way around.

22

Padeye,

We used to fool around with multiple Maverick engagements at Edwards. Can an F-14 carry them?

Damn multiple use weapons!

M.H.
Sensor Troop till the day I die

23

Since no one has done it yet, I’ll give a quick run down on what systems currently are in inventory, although none are spread out in any permanent defensive network (at least in North America) at the present. These systems are all tactical in nature and are therefore mobile, unlike the various Nike-based systems that were generally fixed in place.

Land based systems:
Patriot - We all heard all about this one in 1991.
Hawk - Specifically iHawk, an improved medium altitude SAM good to about 20,000 feet.
Stinger - Man portable system with a rather limited range. Most useful against helicopters.
Chaparral - US Army variant of the Sidewinder AAM. This may already be completely withdrawn from service. They weren’t much more effective than the Stinger and not nearly as mobile.
Vulcan - 20 mm cannon system. Strictly short range and a hell of lot less mobile than Stinger. May also be completely withdrawn by now. Used similar chassis to Chaparral but also had a towed variant.

Sea based systems:
Standard - The long arm of the Aegis system. Four major variants exist. Maximum range of ER versions is over 100 miles.
SeaSparrow - Shipborne variant of Sparrow AAM. Range is probably 12-15 miles at most.
CIWS - Similar to Vulcan. Identical in capability.
5 inch gun - Modern fire control systems give these a decent anti-aircraft capability but with less range than SeaSparrow.

24

In the cold war the Nike Hercules (Two stage, solid fuel, conventional warhead, anti aircraft) missile was the main ground force deterrent against manned air attack. It was able to effectively defeat the manned bombers of its era, and fighters as well, but was already falling behind our own projected abilities by 1970. Nuclear armed Nike Hercules were a part of our arsenal as well, although they were intended for use against squadron, and battalion level air attacks in theater defenses.

The intervening years have made the venerable Nike Hercules obsolete in terms of high tech air attack by extreme high altitude low profile (stealth) bombers, although it is not entirely unusable against other planes. Certainly any Concorde jet attempting to pass through a Nike defended zone is toast, every time, no exceptions. Civilian jets are simply not able to make seven gravity turns in three axes of maneuver for sustained periods, nor can they sustain flights at sufficient altitude to be outside the Herc envelope.

By the way, Nike Hercules is mobile. It isn’t quick, but it is mobile, even those that presently reside in bunkers, and warehouses. I am not aware of any currently operational Nike Hercules sites in the Washington Metro area, although they might not tell me about it, if they are there. You could certainly drive by one without realizing it, unless you know what to look for.

Tris

Rule of Reason: “If nobody uses it, there’s a reason.”

25

I dunno about shootdown, but ‘to engage’ a target doesn’t guarantee success, just a good chance of it. I saw one video taken off radar (back in my ‘ET’ days) where an F-14 fired 4 shots in quick succession against manuevering drones, nailing three of them. AIR, the engagement commenced at about 180NM, with the first shot happening at about 115NM, and the last kill happening at about 60NM. Mind you, all the drones were high-subsonic, not supersonic, and none of them had a human at the controls fighting for dear life, so it’s not a “real world” exercise.

Early in the Phoenix program there was an excercise where an F-14 did engage six targets, killing five. Of course, while they were using manuevering drones for that one, too, only a couple of the drones were manuevering, and not radically. For all I know, it could have been one of those “most favorable conditions” exercises the defense industry’s become so well known for. Considering the expense of the AIM-54 and drones, I’m not surprised that multi-shot excercises have been rare. (the two I just discussed cost between them in excess of $10M just for the Phoenix missiles, never mind the drones!)

Still, it’s an impressive feat, and the system ought to be able to handle one or two rouge aircraft.

26

I’m curious… how fast is an air-to-air missle? Can’t the yf-12 do like mac-5 or something like that? If it shoots a missle, will the missle lag behind since it’s going slower? Or is the missle faster? I hope these planes aren’t shooting themselves down on accident…

27

The YF-12 had basically all the characteristics of an A-12 … or SR-71. Mach 3+ and 80,000ft +. It was to be armed with 3 AIM-47 missles. I think these eventually grandfathered the Pheonix.

Anyhow, it successfully fired the missles at Mach3+ and 80000+ ft at some 30 miles range. It was very successful. Presumebly, the missle was faster than the aircraft. Don’t hold me to it, but I think the missles were around Mach 5 in speed.

28

Goddamn I love military talk!

[nitpick] There is no way that a B-2 bomber can “make seven gravity turns in three axes of maneuver for sustained periods”. I’d suspect that between 2 and 3 g is the best that it could do. The same goes for a B-1, B-52, F-117, F-18 or any other bomber or fighter heavily loaded for ground attack. B-2 relies on stealth, B-1 relies on speed, B-52 is old. They all rely on chaff, flares and electronic countermeasures, not extreme maneuverability to avoid being shot down. Anti-aircraft missiles will always be more maneuverable than manned aircraft because relatively tiny missiles can be built to sustain far higher g loads than huge aircraft carrying fragile humans. [/nitpick]
[sub][Lt. Ripley] I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure. [/Lt. Ripley]

29

To the best of my knowledge, the USA has no permanently-in- place AA defences like missile sites, guns, etc. With warning, an interceptor would or at least could be sent somewhere, but basically we rely on the threat of retaliation.

BTW, Concordes wouldn’t be necessary, nor would stolen nuclear bombs. A regular business jet, an autopilot with GPS, and chemical or biological weapons is the more credible threat for which we are currently preparing.

30

Me too!

Your observations on the g limits of manned aircraft are precisely the reasons for the design of the Hercules system. No one gets away from a Nike Herc that has locked on, and begun to intercept, because the process of getting away would achieve the same result: the destruction of the aircraft. Until the SR 71 no one could fly high enough, or fast enough to even think about escaping. And the point of a bomb run is to go toward the target, so going fast is less useful when you are headed straight for each other.

However chaff and flares are useless against a Herc. The guidance system, even in its prehistoric heyday was sophisticated enough to tell the difference, and it doesn’t heat seek at all. Jamming is only a theoretical possibility, given that ground-based radar is just about always going to win a contest with a plane based jammer, just on power. (Multiple megawatts of highly directional RF are tough to jam.)

Stealth was the big downfall for the Herc. It needs a hard target, and although its radar actually can track small birds, it can be fooled by stealth technology. When the cold war turned into a missile balance game, the Hercules system was examined as a possible candidate to be upgraded to anti-ballistic capability, but the mission was (and is) far beyond its capability.

But our putative chaff dropping, high flying, fast moving Concorde, with jammers is just another clay pigeon, for the system as it existed prior to 1970. Pull!

Of course, there are a lot more places where we don’t have systems in place, than places where we do, (if any) so the antique technology is not available, anyway. Fly in low with a Cessna, and the likelihood of anyone actually shooting you down in most places in the US is pretty low. You might get arrested, but you won’t get shot down. A stolen Concorde, with mysteriously added military defenses would be a lot more likely to get shot down. An F-15 could take it out easily. Fast means different things to civilian and military pilots. Oh, and did you know the Concorde has to have immediate clearance after a transatlantic flight? It can’t wait to land, it runs out of fuel. That’s a severe handicap when you are entering air combat.

Tris

“Saddam Hussein was the only one in the world dumb enough to get into a symmetrical force conflict with the US.” ~ Norman Schwartscoff ~

31

And how can I say this in the most friendly way possible :slight_smile:

Can’t some of you people read? I know my grammar and spelling sucks, but I thought the topic was pretty self explanitory.

I am not a total novice on military aircraft… but you folks here didn’t know that. I am quite aware of what modern and past fighters are capable of (at least with public knowledge). I am very aware that an F-15 can take out a satellite and is an extremely deadly adversery (although I highly doubt F-15s are placed on standby with Anti-Satellite missles). I am semi-knowledgable about the F-14/AIM54 interceptor platform. I am aware of early warning sites and such for hostile aircraft and/or missles. I am pretty knowledgable about the old YF-12A interceptor program (I actually have a 1/48th model of one in my office). I know that a “sneak attack” against the US of a high altitude high mach aircraft is virtually nil. Yes, I know a Concorde exhausts almost all of its fuel supply on a trans-atlantic flight. The Concorde scenario is just something I pulled out of my ass as a hypothitical… I know its not going to happen. Hell, it would probably be easier for someone to buy a surplus Blackjack from the Russians than to liberate a Concorde. That wasn’t my question. My question was **does the US have any other air defences other than aircraft? ** Please note the other than aircraft in the topic. I specifically chose those words since I already know how deadly the fighters are. It appears the answer is NO. I do appreciate the heads-up on the old Nike/Herc system that used to be though and that it appears DC might have some protection.

Know, please don’t take this as any personal knocks but I had to get that off my chest. If anyone wants to take over the thread and start posting about how great the fighters are that the us has/had go ahead.

Thanks!

32

Err… know=now

Told you my spelling and grammar sucks.

33

bernse, clearly, your reading skills could use some work, too. sewalk listed the surface-based anti-aircraft systems operated by the army (five) and navy (four). barton and I both discussed the navy’s Ageis system, probably the most capable surface-based anti-aircraft system currently available, and if a cruiser was parked on the Potomac, it could easily defend Washington against air attack.

We’ve answered your question. The answer is YES.
Your welcome. Now shut up and let us hijack your thread.

34

I think I understand your question a bit better now.

Some background first. From about 1945 until about 1970 the existence of large numbers of manned bombers capable of reaching the US was the primary concern of defense strategy for continental defense. Parallel to that were the detection of missile attack, and the protection of counter battery capability. That was the environment in which Nike Zeus, Nike Hercules, and Hawk antiaircraft missile systems were developed.

Over the decades of the cold war the threat of manned bomber attack on the US drastically declined. Logistics and cost made that a less attractive option for our primary adversaries, and the existence of massive infrastructure over the entire nation made it absurdly unlikely for anything but a division strength bomber mission or larger to have a chance of dropping munitions on targets in North America. Missile forces were becoming far more accurate, and more destructive, and were much more difficult to counter. At the same time, fighter craft gains by the US made any attack by manned aircraft even more difficult.

Since planes are more flexibly deployable, more adaptable to tactical considerations, and able to engage a much broader variety of threats, military advances overwhelmingly favored aircraft, and missile development moved into a different niche. Portable missile systems such as Aegis, Patriot, and the man carried low altitude rockets replaced the Hawk and Hercules for site defense, and planes overtook the regional defense roll. The change was gradual, and there may still be examples of Hercules and Hawk sites still operational. But the nature of the threat determines the nature of the defense. Without squadrons of enemy bombers expected, Battalions of Missile batteries are not needed. For single or small numbers of planes, planes are a better defense.

Tris

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” ~ Sun-tzu ~

35

Lest I be misunderstood about the Cold War air defense artillery in Europe, the only gun air defense I was aware of was the 20-mm Vulcan cannon. It was a gattling gun system and came in tow-behind and self propelled versions mounted on an armored personnel carrier. It was a short range device designed to take care of everything that got through the SAMs. It was the final defensive fire and all that was left after the Vulcan and the Chaparral was to throw shoes at attacking aircraft. While the gun may have been ineffective in a real world situation, it was a lot of fun to fire.

36

No, you’re right, I didn’t thank the people that did attempt to answer my question. I never really considered Naval as I was more interested in permenant land based systems but it was my own fault for not mentioning it. I would take for granted that any carrier group or destroyer near the coastline could effectively defend the airspace as well, but thanks for mentioning it. I wonder if any of those mobile land based systems are deployed and ready to go at any given time to defend the continental airspace though?

37

I admit, I could have phrased my OT a lot better, and I can appreciate you defending your statements. I was more interested in permenant land based systems and should have clarified my question as such. So, no, you didn’t answer my question. You can also take that attitude of yours and shove it back up your ass from where it came.

38

Folks with language like that do not get their questions answered in General Questions.

Try usenet. I hear they love stuff like that.