The System is Down, Yo

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

MK 8/21/2010 5:45:05 AM

It's an ill perception that the platform doesn't matter, because the quality of the system is also the sum of the qualities of individual elements. Let alone that most countries don't pose a system comparable to that of the US and if two such countries are fighting a war the platforms qualities may have a much greater impact of the outcome. A war is in the end the result of many individual battles. If qualities of the platform wouldn't matter, one wonders why the west ever tried to develop platforms with an qualitative edge.

Quote Reply

pdb 8/21/2010 7:41:31 AM

It's not that the platform is totally irrelevant, but it's simply not possible to compare different platforms without context. Asking "What's better, F-35 or PAK-FA?" isn't a real question, because they don't fight in isolation, and I can't imagine any forces shopping the F-35 that would slot in PAK-FA in its place. A more interesting question is to compare platforms that may potentially share infrastructure, such as the various Super Hornet vs F-35 vs Eurofighter etc flyoffs. But then again, the real interesting data isn't going to be available to us mere mortals.

Getting back to your current question, "the system" redundantly consists of AWACS, JSTARS, satellites, allied fighters, ground radars, seaborne radars and other sensors. If the Chicoms knocked all those out, our F-35 driver would have bigger problems on his hands! My understanding is that otherwise degrading or penetrating the network would be extremely difficult under battlefield conditions.

Even then, I'd imagine that the F-35s would use their superior speed, LO, and sensors to either press the mission as best as they were able or withdraw to more favorable conditions.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 8/21/2010 7:41:57 AM

But China is emphasizing network warfare - knocking out "the system".

all of chinas purple development (ie joint) is towards a system of systems netcentric/supportable construct. their entire future force construct is system based. (and thats what they worked out in 91 and have steadfastly headed towards ever since)

Quote Reply

Schemer 8/21/2010 6:09:22 PM

The system in my opinion is a bit broarder then just the computers.

The way I see it:

As an Air Force you have set "goals" if you will.

Based on this you develop a strategy

Then you work out what is needed:

Tactics, which result in requirements, trainign ect.

Take the USAF a bit more simplified:

One of their main goals is to establish air superiority

Main strategy for this is based on fighters with a large flexibility to engage the enemy at the most opertune moment

For this they developed:

AWACS to enhance overview of the battle field and coordination

F-22

Datalinks for communication

Now to look at the F-22

It is meant to operate in the enemy's airspace, that is why it has stealth to survive under those conditions

To ensure flexibility and the ability to engage at will you need speed, this is where the supercruise comes is

Now this is highly simplified but just to give you an idea.

This strategy actually was develloped during WW2. The USAF experimented with unescorted bombers and learned that that doesn't work. Then they developped escorts for the bombers. The next step was to allow these escorts to engage more freely and have them attack enemy planes at their own airfields. In a way the F-22 is just the latest development to the same old strategy meaning they have a huge amount of experience of what works. This to adds to the system and helps to shape it.

For the F-35 the same is true, it for the USAF is more intended for Air to Ground but these tactics adn requirements are also based on their overall strategy.

You can't knock out the system. You cna maybe damage parts of it however training adn backups will kick in. The main thign is that there will be reduncies. GPS jammers for example can hamper some precicion guided ammunitions however there are other weapons that can take over. You cna destroy an AWACS but satelites, Ground Radar adn other AWACS take over.

As I stated the above is also largely based on my personal opinion/analysis I'll be gone for over a week but I sure would like to hear others opinions on this

Quote Reply

earlm Nothing New about "Network Centric" 8/21/2010 6:17:24 PM

Pick up Norman Friedman's book and you'll realize that network centric warfare should be called "picture based" warfare. Boths sides try to build a picture of the opponent and prevent them from doing the same. Boths sides will be going after each other's networks and there is no such thing as a system being up or down it's how close the system is to 100%. There's redundancy built in and both sides look at how to attack their own system. An F-35 without outside cueing still has big advantages, there's a reason it's manned and has it's own sensors.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 8/21/2010 11:58:22 PM

Pick up Norman Friedman's book and you'll realize that network centric warfare should be called "picture based" warfare.

Friedman gave a lecture to australian military last year - and just to throw some controversy into the air - he stated that the only organisation that properly understood and practiced NCW and Joint was the USN. You could audibly hear all the airforce people suck in the breath. :)

on another note, what is being mixed up with NCW is Situational Awareness - and that too has had some changes in definition in the last 12 months. The SA moniker still stands, but the definition has changed.

Quote Reply

warpig 8/22/2010 2:32:30 AM

Pick up Norman Friedman's book and you'll realize that network centric warfare should be called "picture based" warfare.

The NCW part seems possible (I don't have the knowledge to pass judgment on his opinion), but I have got to pause and wonder at the logic of a statement claiming that there is only one service that properly understands how to fight "joint." Sounds pretty much to me like saying it only takes one to tango.

Quote Reply

earlm 8/22/2010 12:14:04 PM

Pick up Norman Friedman's book and you'll realize that network centric warfare should be called "picture based" warfare.

The USN has been doing it the longest. Interestingly, Friedman says NCW is unsuitable for land. I wonder why the Army has ditched the effort to go to 20 ton vehicles relying upon SA rather than armor. Has the definition of SA been expanded to include not only who is where but what they're going to do next?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 8/23/2010 4:33:56 PM

Has the definition of SA been expanded to include not only who is where but what they're going to do next?

yes. our understanding has shifted from it being "situational awareness" to "situational appreciation"

there is a subtle but distinct difference.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 8/23/2010 4:38:18 PM

I think he was being controversial - the original intent being that the USN was demonstrating an earlier application and comprehension of NCW than the sister services - it certainly wasn't a quad/tri service statement - although he was of the belief that in his opinion the other services (apart from USN and USMC) don't play well with others generally.

none of the air force people "bit" so it was a one sided portrayal.... - and there were USAF and US Army people present

Quote Reply