PubFather

From some of your other posts, I expected more.. but then, the young are here to dissappoint us...

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

hello

Garry hasn't laid out an air defence system, he's described one.

F-22s and F-35s are probably the best and cheapest way to destroy such a network, if JASSMs themselves can get destroyed easily by SAMs. However, I don't think it's happened before that a cruise missile being used against an SAM system has been shot down by the SAM system, so that's another thing that can only be proven in a real engagement. One F-22 or F-35 can put 8 SDBs on a target, or one F-35 can drop 2 WCMDs, which break up into 20 bomblets(Which should be enough to overwhelm anti-munition SAMs). 20 WCMD submunitions should be powerful enough to knock out sensetive S-300/400 radars. F-35s can also use JSOWs, but they have a better chance of getting destroyed, if Tor-M1s work as described, since they spend more time flying.

An advantage that the F-22 and F-35 have, even if a B-2, B-52 or B-1 can do the job, is that they still have air to air missiles and can destroy enemy aircraft at will any time during the mission(provided their are enemy aircraft). F-22s still have 2 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders and F-35s still have two AMRAAMs, while carrying an air to ground load.

Garry

I would not be that brave comming to such a defense closer than 100km.... whatever stealth are you there are many angles and many radars. Don't forget about powerfull strategic radar which can detect Pershing warheads many times beyond horrizon. You better start from a distance and saturate the system with a good salvo. Once a long-range radars are out.... stealthy F-22/F-35 can do their business safe and knowing the zones of short-range islands of defense.... without long-range awareness these short-range defense islands are less effective.

If I would be solving such a problem I would be using a one or two B-2/B-52 and various CMs to saturate the system. At first you need to get intelligence how is the short range defense systems is configured. There must be a side from which it is less covered.... most probably from rear to the enemy. So my CM rain should attack on complicated route from behind..... and simmultaneously. This means that you would meet thin number of short range SAMs there and you are esier to saturate it..... and knock out S-300/400 radar. Once you knock it down you may send waves of F-22/35 to work.... later conventional aircraft like F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10.

I assume here that there are no enemy fighters which can attack my B-2/52 with any of long-range missiles.

Of cause these all are my fantasies and guesses. I never heard of what are actual plans for knocking layered air defense.

ps. Hi Tharos. The radars of the S-400/300 are modular and don't weight that much.... if you expect attack from enemy as strong as USA you may have few radars for replacement prepared near by... during recent far eastern manuevres a whole S-300 division was moved 400km by few Mi-26 helos (capable to carry 20 tons inside). There was a reason why they trained themselves moving those SAMs!!!

gunnut

Good point. Everyone here is focused on dollar values of SAM sites vs. the attacking planes. Yeah a single B-2 is worth more than a few SAM sites combined. However, what's the value of the stuff those SAM sites are protecting? Those assets could be INVALUABLE!!!

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Garry

Good argument about value of other protected assets (like power station, airfield, fuel storage, railroad bridge etc.) Cost of these may well be priceless.... especially in a strategic momentum... However, before attacking them the one need to take out SAMs covering them.

And here cost issue rulles. How about having another idle S-300/400, which can reactivate right after first is blown up? Remember that most value of the complex we immagined here was the cost of its own short-range defense, the S-300 battery itself (radar+command vehicle+6 launchers+reload machines) cost just $91mln (probably more today). $91mln vs B-2 which costs over $1bn... If it is so much cheaper you can have more of those reserved! You might need to spend more resources if destroyed radars get rebuild/replaced very fast (replaced at COST!!!). And again... with such a cost you may have very dense overlapping coverage among disclosed S-300 sites and some of them would be idle. Lets through in existance airforce covering those SAMs and sites... For expample short-range Fulcrum can take off and land from unprepared runways... and even from road... with pair of long-range missiles... and how about aircraft survialence aricraft (there are around 10 A-50).

And mobility allows transport them from one part of country to another where they are particullarly needed. They were airlifted by helos recently.... there was a reason why this was trained!!! I remember what trouble was for Goring and the Luftwaffe to destroy radars which were rebuilt in just a day after!!! So I think you would need to stock LOTS OF JASSM, CALM, Tomohawks and etc to crack the system.... and

So. Is air defense complex destroyable? ABSOLUTELLY. I just have little idea how expensive/cheap this may really be.... what is sure - S-300 like animals make it more expensive to crack => GOAL IS DONE

Garry

Hi Tharos,

no it is not good intercepter... it is cheap and it can handle subsonic cruise missiles which fly low altitudes..... Not more than two at a time. It has very basic radar and very basic modification of Ilga missile which is modified for radar/IR guidance + AAA.

Its merit is that it IS VERY CHEAP!!! And you can put a LOT OF THEM around... if they have early warning from long-range radars they have good chance of reducing salvo which goes through them by 1-3 missiles.

Tor-M1 is much better... but it is more expensive and employs missiles which are more expensive. But its role is not interceptor as well. Its primary goal is point defense of tank columns... still it has everything to engage up to 4 cruise missiles simultaneously with its 8 missiles. And it is also cheap.... compared to the value of the salvo which it can hold.

For a billion dollars you can put so much of these that a very dense salvo would have problem....

highsea

So you have SAMs defending SAMs defending SAMs...

The short range stuff (Pantsir,Tor) is no threat to strike AC, which can just fly above them. The strike package is also accompanied by jammers, preceded by SEAD, etc. In this environment, the short range stuff will be pretty ineffective.

If the S-300 is searching, B-2, F-22, F-35 etc will see it and stay out of range. As an ambush weapon it's a threat, but as point defense it is less so. Just go around. To make a "wall" of S-300's that can't be flown around would be extraordinarily expensive, and once a hole is punched, it's open season.

And of course, the salvo won't be fired at the SAMs, it'll be fired at whatever the SAM is guarding.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

GGTharos

Gary, I'm going to throw out all your 'it's cheap so if you buy a bunch ... ' because it just doesn't work that way .. 'k?

You have to pay for fuel, maintenance, training, replacement crews, and it ain't cheap.

Nonwithstanding which, the Pantsyr is meant to defend tanks and other vehicles from helis and low, slow attack aircraft, /not/ for shooting down CM's. It would be piss-poor against those as the missile uses a fuze that leaves quite a bit to be desired when attacking a smaller target.
The missile itself is also a SACLOS or beam-rider, not radar/IR guided, IIRC - that is another strike against it due to the inherent inaccuracy of such a system.

Lastly, the missile itself is fairly slow.

Yes, the Tor-M1 will do much better, though IIRCit'll only attack two targets si,ultaneously, not 4 - it will track 10 happily though. You're also unlikely to get a situation where it will indeed get to attack two aircraft or missile simultaneously, but this really has no bearing on this discussion.

The 'layers upon layers' or SAM defense is correct. This is exactly how its done:

You put your big S300/400/MEADS/PATRIOT/whatever where you need it to be to do its job of smacking aircraft of ballistic missiles out of the sky.

A good deal away and forward/whatever other strategic location you have - you place SHORAD to catch 'leakers and sneakers' ... this is going to be your strelas, iglas, stingers, OSAs, Crotale's, TORs, HUMRAAMs, whatever.
You put a few of those near your big SAM as point defense, and you may even place a medium system like HAWK or BUK nearby to complete the set.

Then you'll have mobile SHORAD moving in with your tanks, and other mechanized elements, as well as protection of your non-mechanized troops.

If you think that in all this, you're going to get your S400 radar replaced in a short deal of time after the 'door' is kicked down, you're probably dreaming. After SEAD comes DEAD, potentnially done from high-altitude, negating TOR, and whatever else is nearby ... a few cluster munitions will likely convince you that once the radars are gone, the rest is cannon fodder.

In addition to this, again you'll get B2's or F-22's streaming in through that door to attack an installation which is likely defended by another S300/400 or BUK... once that one's kicked down, kiss your facility good bye because the follow up is going to be a bunch of 2000lbs JDAMs from by F-35's or B-2s.

Mind you, I'm not taking into account fighters or anything like that here - that will just complicate things and we'll go around in circles. Point is, SAMs are speed bumps.

And through all of this, we've barely even needed to bother with TORs.

As for your long-range tracking radar ... well. It isn't that it is incosequential, it is that it isn't a threat. And if those stealth fighters come in out of sa stcreen of conventionals, good luck catching them.

avon1944

First of all the S-300 and S-400 are not a single missile system. There is a large and small missile component to each system. FAS -URL;
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm

F-22 Versus S-300 SAM site
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/ind...;topicseen#new
LM declared that with the help of stealth, Raptor will be able to approach the SAM system of S-300 class to the distance of around 23 km safely without being found.
That is a shorter distance than the F-22 has launching a JDAM from 50,000ft at Mach 1.5! The F-22 now has a ceiling of 60,000ft and will increase with upgrades. Higher altitude or greater speed will increase this distance.

ALSO;
Defense TODAY Magazine May 2005 By Dr. Carlo Kopp
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-FA-22A-May-05.pdf
By the mid 1990s the F-22A was firmly reoriented as a multirole fighter, intended to not only demolish the opposing fighter assets and supporting AWACS, but also hunt mobile and semimobile S-300 batteries, supporting command centers and other critical surface targets.

Without air support, SAM systems are vulnerable to decoy tactics as the Israeli AF used over the Bekaa Valley or the Coalition used in PGW#1 (Poohba's Party) . Otherwise, SAM systems will kill a lot of decoys, show where the real radar sights are and natural apsects of combat, mountains, clouds, fog, etc. will prevent optical identification of decoys versus real targets.

My final thought is this, while you hear about SAMs being able to kill cruise missiles, no one states is this when the missile crosses the missile complexes "3-9" line? I have heard no mention of the ability of SAMs to kill a HARM or ALARM missile! The radar cross section of an approaching missile is really small but, larger than an F-22 or B-2.

Adrian

gf0012-aust

geez adrian, you had me right up until the mention of Carlo. He's an excellent mobile phone engineer - he's also persona non grata as a credible resource due to his selectivity in promoting his own agenda.

his performance at the JSF briefing held in canberra recently was absolutely embarassing. he was comprehensively smacked down by RAAF across all fronts. Not exactly a resource I'd be using to cement a course of argument.

avon1944

Thanx gf0012-aust, I did not realize that he is what we in America refer to as an "educated fool!"

Adrian

gf0012-aust

there's nothing wrong with being educated - but there's something terribly wrong when you're arrogant, pompous and of the opinion that you know more about the F-22, JSF and Su-27's than RAAF Group Commanders, Squadron Leaders, Fighter school trainers, Weapons Scientists and the like - even more so when you don't have any clearances and still think that your expertise is golden. He was of the opinion that the Lockmart JSF report should have been made available to him for public comment (and he with no relevant security clearances). Go figure.

he's a smart boy - but he aint the ace in the pack. The problem is that the Su-27 and Su-30 fan club boys think he's an expert. Another PowerPoint king.

Garry

All this was interesting to read. I guess still there is a value in double digit SAMs as a part of the complex. The cost is not that prohibitivelly expensive - $91mln (probably already more) for a battery.

While it can not provide safety alone to a guarded point it can significantly increase defense level for its cost when being combined with other assets - early warning systems (both aerial and ground), Air cover, short-range SAMs and other long-range SAMs. At the cost of $91mln you get pretty mobile fortress... and yes any fortress can be defeated for A COST OF TIME AND RESOURCES.

Garry

We were both wrong about Pantsir-1C. IT IS GOOD ITERCEPTOR for cruise missiles. And its radar is much more advanced than I initially thought.

Attached Files

pantsir.pdf (121.0 KB, 4 views)

GGTharos

My mistake rests in confusing Tunguska with Pantsir. Kashtan, which is a naval derivative of the same IIRC is used to intercept ASMs.