Μilitary Questions & Answers

First entry...
Why the conventional flat bullets are succeeded by Rebated Boattail Base??
Doesnt in the former case a uniform pressure be exerted across a flat base to effectively push the bullet out of muzzle with precise orientation??
Inferior

Superior

At the start of last century most rifle bullets had flat bases.
Bullets often also had rounded tips too.

As we learned more about aerodynamics however it was realised that a pointed tip bullet would reduce drag and improve flight range for supersonic bullets.
For low velocity bullets like the 9mm a pointed nose was of no use because the bullets only spent very short periods at supersonic speeds and at subsonic speeds it didn't effect drag at all.

During testing it was found that even a high velocity rifle bullet does not retain supersonic flight speed for all of its flight and for most calibres they are subsonic before they get to 800m.
Once they transition from supersonic to subsonic the tip of the projectile is no longer the main source of drag... the tail end is.

With a flat tailed bullet the entire width of the projectile is generating drag.
With what is called a boat tail or narrowed rear the airflow narrows behind the bullet and reduces the drag area and therefore extends range during the subsonic flight portion of the bullet.

This has nothing to do with accuracy, and everything to do with bullet drop and bullet velocity.
All bullets drop at the same rate due to gravity. A bullet that retains velocity will cover more ground as it drops than a high drag bullet.
Comparing a pointed boat tailed projectile with a lead ball of the same weight fired from a gun at the same velocity at the same (ideal for max range) trajectory angle the ball will hit the ground potentially thousands of metres short of the modern bullet.
A boat tail bullet in a 303 might travel 5km, whereas a flat based bullet in a 303 will travel half that distance.

The minne (spelling?) bullet was an elongated ball with a hollow base that was designed so that the gas pressure would spread the hollow base outward to better engage the rifling and improve accuracy. The better aerodynamic shape of the projectile over the standard round ball (that was easier to muzzle load) probably had more to do with its improved performance.

J-10 has been deployed in Xizang (Tibet)

The cover, according to Chinese BBS, was supposed to protect the planes from high levels of ultraviolet rays in Tibet. Excessive radiation could weaken the titanium and cause the rubber wheels to weaken.
Why dont they just build hangers??

[QUOTE=sorter;2982084]

Notice the folding rear fins and fact that they are at 45 degrees X relative to the intake.


But clearly the rear fins r "+"

Now provided that former missile is oldy with respect to the latter one; I am confused at this
A design progression where the "x" fins didn't work out so they changed to non-folding "+" fins which probably give more range (less drag?, less weight?) but take up more space?[/QUOTE]

They might simply have made the change to simplify manouvering with horizontal and vertical control surfaces climb an dive controls can be applied with just moving two surfaces instead of all four, while turning in the horizontal plane will likely require the two vertical surfaces plus a little bit adjustment as a horizontal turn often leads to the outer wing surface moving faster than the inner wing surface which causes some roll, but that can easily be corrected.

In very long range flights I would think that horizontal control surfaces would make trimming the tail slightly down much easier and simpler. The other alternative would be nose mounted canards lifting the nose so the main wings can generate lift and keep the missile airborne.

Here's a question, what's the difference between a semi-rigid gun and a swiveling one?

The Ka-50/52 have a semi rigid mounted 30mm cannon. So does the Ka-29 model fitted with a 30mm cannon too.
The Mi-28 and the last model Mi-24 have chin turret mounted cannon.
The model of Hind with a twin barrel 30mm GSh-30 as fitted to the Su-25 but with longer barrels is a case of a rigid mounted fixed gun.

Let me start by saying the 30mm cannon that is standard in use in the Russian Army, Navy, and Air Force is a very powerful round and it has rather significant recoil effect on the platform firing it.

The very first Hind had a manual 12.7 x 108mm calibre HMG that had a dedicated gunner to operate it.
This was rapidly replaced with a chin mounted 4 barrel gatling 12.7mm HMG with a rate of fire of about 4,500rpm. This new gun put a lot more rounds on target and was more accurate and effective and had an excellent field of fire. It was operated by the gunner/weapons operator. Its main problem was that the targets often were firing back with 50 cal weapons over which it had little or no range advantage over.
The next step was an attempt to fit a twin barrel 23mm cannon in a chin turret but that failed so they resorted to the twin barrel 30mm GSh-30 fixed to the side of the aircraft.
This solved the range issue and was accurate to 2km or more and was very powerful but because it was fixed it was aimed and fired by the pilot so the weapons officer only had ATGMs to operate in combat as the unguided rocket pods were aimed by the pilot too.

Finally in the last model Hind they managed to solve the problems with the twin 23mm gun mount in a chin turret and control of the guns was returned to the weapons officer.

In the Mi-28 they wanted more power than the twin 23mm gun offered and so they adopted the successful and reliable 2A42 cannon used on the Armys BMP-2. This is mounted in a chin turret that allows wide angles of fire, though firing sideways will effect the pilots control of the aircraft more than firing ahead.

With the Kamov Ka-50 and later Ka-52 one of the advantages of the coaxial rotor design is that the pedals to turn the nose of the aircraft are effective and fairly high speed. This is because the mass of the main rotors is rather high and the torque generated by differential power settings on the main rotors exerts much more force on the airframe than the tiny tail rotor of a conventional helo.
The end effect is that the Kamovs can all point their noses directly at targets while flying in all sorts of different directions so a chin mounted turret is not needed.
This means the gun can be mounted on a limited elevation mount near the centre of gravity which means the aircraft is rather less effected by the recoil of the weapon and is rather more accurate than most other helo mounted cannon while still being one of the most powerful helo mounted cannon in service.

The gun is able to elevate through about 90 degrees or something and can move sideways about 15 degrees or so to allow the gun to remain on target despite minor manouvers by the pilot during firing.

It should be noted that the Soviets and now Russians have a wide range of guns in gunpods that have limited mobility and can be fitted firing forward or backwards.
The Su-17 for example could carry pods carrying 23mm cannon that can depress down about 30 degrees so that the aircraft can start in a shallow dive towards the target and open fire and then pull up 20 degrees or so while still firing at the target... the guns depressed by computer to keep them aimed at the same angle as when firing began.
There are several other pods including one with a 6 barrel 30mm cannon that can be depressed 30 degrees and can be aimed 90 degrees, 45 degrees either side of straight ahead.

some sources said syria would get some iranian qassed bomb(copy from american GBU-15),,syria has russian aircrafts (mig 29 and su 24,,mig 21 ,,etc)

qassed is alaser guided bomb..
can syria use them on their russian aircrafts ?!!

I don't see why not.

The Indians use French and Russian LGBs on their French and Russian aircraft as far as I know. (perhaps check with Austin on that...)

I would think it would make more sense to buy Russian LGBs however as that weapon looks rather large.

Looks a bit on the old side... they could have probably used different type stabilizers on it...

but I think Russian planes can use it... as long as mounting system on a hardpoint is compatible... but then equipment on board of aircraft also has to be compatible with guidance system on a bomb itself...

Hoof wrote:Looks a bit on the old side... they could have probably used different type stabilizers on it...

but I think Russian planes can use it... as long as mounting system on a hardpoint is compatible... but then equipment on board of aircraft also has to be compatible with guidance system on a bomb itself...

you mean software ??

plz someone explain this phenomenon I am unable for now!!

Wiki is your friend... I must admit that the only engine injection I had read about before reading this was the injection of a spray of alcohol into the air intake of a Mig-25 to cool the air and add combustion potential when it hits the combustion chamber.

Water injection has been used in both reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines.
When used in a turbine engine, the effects are similar, except that
preventing detonation is not the primary goal. Water is normally
injected either at the compressor inlet or in the diffuser just before
the combustion chambers. Adding water increases the mass being
accelerated out of the engine, increasing thrust, but it also serves to
cool the turbines. Since temperature is normally the limiting factor in
turbine engine performance at low altitudes, the cooling effect allows
the engines to be run at a higher RPM with more fuel injected and more
thrust created without overheating.^[2]
The drawback of the system is that injecting water quenches the flame
in the combustion chambers somewhat, as there is no way to cool the
engine parts without cooling the flame accidentally. This leads to
unburned fuel out the exhaust and a characteristic trail of black smoke.

Which launching method you relatively prefer either Hot launch or a cold launch??Mine understanding is it is cold launch systems that are heavier, and in the case of mobile launching, more cumbersome. They have a gas-generator at the bottom of the pit, which is usually a solid rocket motor on its own, whose exhaust pops the missile out of the canister. The only advantage they have is shorter reload time since the same canister can be reused without having to be repaired. Western systems have classically preferred hot launches, changing the whole cell is easier if more expensive.Also which system is relatively preferable in naval versions; though many western missile pics suggest a major use of hot launch even onboard ships

Which launching method you relatively prefer either Hot launch or a cold
launch??Mine understanding is it is cold launch systems that are
heavier, and in the case of mobile launching, more cumbersome.

A cold launch system adds weight and cost to a system... but it also means the missile starts its motor well clear of the launch vehicle which means potential damage is minimised and with an added feature that the missile can use nose mounted rockets to point it in the direction of the target so time is not wasted turning an arm launcher in the direction of the target before launch.

Many Russian SAMs currently use vertical launch and those that do use vertical launch use cold launch systems to protect the launcher and sensors from rocket blast damage.

I would suggest those that do not do that simply haven't bothered to develop the technology to do so.

The Soviets/Russians have developed effective reliable catapult systems for missiles so a cold launch for them makes a lot of sense as reloading is simpler and cheaper without the blast damage.

Some of their larger older missiles still used hot launches like Moskit and Vulkan and Granit, but the current missiles like Brahmos/Oniks and Club seem to be cold launched too... and of course cold launch is a standard practise with SLBMs.

Can any one explain what advantage or disadvantage does SARH have over command guidance missile ?

I was looking at Indian Akash missile which is a command guidance missile and comparing to BUK missile which is SARH , I think both guidance mode is limited to LOS of its main tracking and FC radar ?

Austin wrote:Can any one explain what advantage or disadvantage does SARH have over command guidance missile ?

I was looking at Indian Akash missile which is a command guidance missile and comparing to BUK missile which is SARH , I think both guidance mode is limited to LOS of its main tracking and FC radar ?

Austin are you referring to BUK 9М38 missile its semi-active radar homing & not SARH

I think in an intense jamming environment with liberal use of
Anti-Radiation Missiles these AESA radar would be eventually jammed with
different jamming options like DRFM Jamming to Brute force options.

The power of a jamming signal diminishes at an increasing rate with distance... this intense jamming environment you talk about will be difficult to achieve... for power you need big aircraft and to be effective you need them to be as close as you can possibly get to the radar being jammed. Remember also that all the AESA elements on any AESA radar both transmit and receive, so say an S-400 battery just arrives at a location and sets up... it has emitted nothing regarding electronic transmissions so far so the first thing the battery does is it will start listening with its radar and look at the radar picture and compare that with radar information from other platforms that could possibly see the threat situation above the S-400 site from a distance. The first things the batteries radars will detect is the jamming sources and with a clear powerful signal from them they can direct a chirp of radar energy at them to determine range or simply use the signals from widely spaced radars to triangulate range and fire an S-400 missile at the emitting threat. Once the Pantsir vehicles have set up a perimeter and started scanning for targets in IR and MMW and CM wave radar the other radars can start scanning too... the sudden rush of information on local threats will go through the command module and targets will be prioritised and rapidly engaged and destroyed.

The problem with jamming AESA is that by design AESA emits a lot less than non ESA radars. A conventional radar will continually scan to find and keep track of targets. An ESA radar... including PESA BTW, will electronically scan in a fraction of a second and then listen. Any targets that are detected will then intermittently get pulses to make sure they are where they were or where the radar expects them to be, or to find their new course/speed/height etc etc. Because of this jamming is much more difficult... and more often than not counter productive.

It would be wise move to invest in non-RF mode of such system like
Pantsir ,BUK ,S-300/400 and every other system out there , invest in
advanced EO, IIR Tracking and guidance , multichannel IR tracking and it
should be part of any system main Tracking and Guidance radar.

Nothing has the range or all weather capability of Radar, but as you point out EO, IIR, even just some guys with a radar and a pair of binoculars and their sense of hearing can give warning... and of course there are satellite sensors too. The point is that as you mention most Russian SAMs have the alternatives you mention and the Russians are certainly not putting all their eggs in one basket.

Of course having said that... the purpose of early warning radar is to give early warning so you can put your forces on alert and be prepared so there is less chance of a surprise attack... the sudden widespread jamming of your radars will likely put your forces on alert and make them prepare for something anyway...

As all the wars of past and libya operation shows all form of RF radar
are the first target of NATO/US forces and are taken out with precision ,
it would be wise to invest in capable and advanced passive mode of
tracking and guidance as with AESA system.

The nuclear capability of Russia would make that scenario (ie Libya type action) rather unlikely. Any NATO bases used to mount an attack from would come under serious attack... obviously an option for Russia but not Libya... or Serbia... or Iraq et al.

Not to say that NATO/US will fight Russia but more to improve Russian
Defence and export potential of AD system and give it a cutting edge.

Russian AD assets are the best in the world. They have the attributes of performance and mobility that make them effective in their role of deterring aggression. I am pretty sure that if Gaddafi had gone on a spending spree 5 or 10 years ago and bought Yakhont and Pantsir and S-300 that there would not be a no fly/drive/Gaddafi zone over Libya right now.

Can any one explain what advantage or disadvantage does SARH have over command guidance missile ?

SARH uses the radar system of the launch platform to illuminate the target so there is a problem of distance where the radar has to maintain illumination of the target despite the fact that both platforms will likely be manouvering. An advantage on paper is that at any stage the launch aircraft can break off the engagement by stopping from illuminating the target... perhaps if after launch the target is confirmed friendly or goes from confirmed bad guy to unknown. Another advantage is that the power and performance of the radar on the aircraft is generally better than that which can be fitted into a missile... for example the big PESA radar in the Mig-31 would be better able to track low flying cruise missile targets than the radars of AAMs because of the relatively small RCS of the target. Also the ECCM performance of a fighters radar will be better... a good example is the 2Kw of the radar in the Foxbat... which is actually comparable to the radars used by the US to detect Soviet missiles going over the north pole.
The disadvantage of SARH is that the target needs to be illuminated to impact which means the illuminating aircraft needs to keep closing with the target which might bring it within range of the enemies missiles.
One target can be engaged at a time with SARH.
The target can detect being illuminated with SARH and might try things to break the lock.

Command guidance uses cheaper simpler missiles, and depending on the guidance method often needs to track both the target and the missile in some way.
Both can be automated with auto trackers for command guidance.
Command guidance can be interfered with depending on the method.

I was looking at Indian Akash missile which is a command guidance
missile and comparing to BUK missile which is SARH , I think both
guidance mode is limited to LOS of its main tracking and FC radar ?

BUK has backup command guidance using an optical auto tracking system in heavy ECM environments.

The BUK has its tracking radar on its TEL. It was one of the lessons learned with the KUB in combat where the search and tracking vehicle in a KUB battery could be taken out with ARMs leaving the missiles on the launchers unable to be guided to targets so the TELs carrying missiles could be mopped up as they were very vulnerable. A BUK battery would still be able to launch missiles at aerial and ground targets after the radar vehicles are knocked out. Of course BUK is able to engage ARMs which further increases its own defences from being attacked.

Austin are you referring to BUK 9М38 missile its Semi-Active Radar Homing & not SARH

GarryB wrote:The power of a jamming signal diminishes at an increasing rate with distance... this intense jamming environment you talk about will be difficult to achieve... for power you need big aircraft and to be effective you need them to be as close as you can possibly get to the radar being jammed..................
The problem with jamming AESA is that by design AESA emits a lot less than non ESA radars. A conventional radar will continually scan to find and keep track of targets. An ESA radar... including PESA BTW, will electronically scan in a fraction of a second and then listen. Any targets that are detected will then intermittently get pulses to make sure they are where they were or where the radar expects them to be, or to find their new course/speed/height etc etc. Because of this jamming is much more difficult... and more often than not counter productive

What you say apply to Brute for Jamming something that might need big platforms but even a fighter these days become smarter and are occupied with very capable jamming systems , case to point is F-18 Growler which the US says can jam both S-300 and 400 radar using sophisticated jamming methods , they even claim it can penetrate enemy network using AESA of Growler

AESA certainly has vey low side lobes compared to PESA or Conventional radar that can reduce the chance of jamming or ARM attack with smart energy management AESA would be a challange to Jam , even if they get jammed they do no just go down in one go but degrade gracefully.

Russia had complained to US that they used EMP weapon on Cruise Missle to take down radar sites of serbs during its nato campaign , so the use of EMP weapon to provide a stand off capability to destroy radar and sensitive electronic chips must be taken into account.

Nothing has the range or all weather capability of Radar, but as you point out EO, IIR, even just some guys with a radar and a pair of binoculars and their sense of hearing can give warning... and of course there are satellite sensors too. The point is that as you mention most Russian SAMs have the alternatives you mention and the Russians are certainly not putting all their eggs in one basket.

Yes Radar still remains the primary sensor for all thing and no non-active system has the same capability as Radar can deliver.

Having said that i was emphasizing on the point that they need to invest as heavily on passive methods as they do on new radar , an EO system is good but its quite limited to weather and channel of guidance.

In future any mobile system like Pantsir,BUG ,Tor etc must come with capable passive guidance system like IIR Search Track, EO multi sensor ball , I know this will make the system a bit more expensive but it would just make sure that system just do not go down in jamming or arm attack or just simply work in all passive mode without alerting the enemy.

The nuclear capability of Russia would make that scenario (ie Libya type action) rather unlikely. Any NATO bases used to mount an attack from would come under serious attack... obviously an option for Russia but not Libya... or Serbia... or Iraq et al.

Ofcourse i do agree but I think Russia should just excel in conventional fight and beat NATO in that game rather then hold nuclear card all the time.

Russian AD assets are the best in the world. They have the attributes of performance and mobility that make them effective in their role of deterring aggression. I am pretty sure that if Gaddafi had gone on a spending spree 5 or 10 years ago and bought Yakhont and Pantsir and S-300 that there would not be a no fly/drive/Gaddafi zone over Libya right now.

They had lot of plans to buy Russian and French system ( what an Irony here ) but nothing materalised , Gaddafi never foresaw a big strike against him from NATO/US.

SARH uses the radar system of the launch platform to illuminate the target so there is a problem of distance where the radar has to maintain illumination of the target despite the fact that both platforms will likely be manouvering.
The disadvantage of SARH is that the target needs to be illuminated to impact which means the illuminating aircraft needs to keep closing with the target which might bring it within range of the enemies missiles.One target can be engaged at a time with SARH.The target can detect being illuminated with SARH and might try things to break the lock.

Thanks for the explanation.

Command guidance uses cheaper simpler missiles, and depending on the guidance method often needs to track both the target and the missile in some way.
Both can be automated with auto trackers for command guidance.
Command guidance can be interfered with depending on the method.

I mean would a SARH system be more difficult to jam then a command guidance , is SARH more accurate when it come to atacking small target compared to CG ?

BUK has backup command guidance using an optical auto tracking system in heavy ECM environments.

The BUK has its tracking radar on its TEL. It was one of the lessons learned with the KUB in combat where the search and tracking vehicle in a KUB battery could be taken out with ARMs leaving the missiles on the launchers unable to be guided to targets so the TELs carrying missiles could be mopped up as they were very vulnerable. A BUK battery would still be able to launch missiles at aerial and ground targets after the radar vehicles are knocked out. Of course BUK is able to engage ARMs which further increases its own defences from being attacked.

Yes thats one interesting aspect of BUK the TEL has its own radar and EO guidance , I think BUK-M3 will take this to the next level when they have their own ARH.

I would expect that only batteries operating on their own would use this sort of radar, though it might be included as part of an anti stealth addition for use with older S-300 systems.

I would think the very first Pantsir batteries were deployed with S-400 batteries but I would expect production of Pantsir will be rather faster than production of S-400 so I would think the extra batteries will be deployed to S-300 batteries to replace systems like the SA-3 that are widely used to help defend such systems.
I would think the radars supporting the S-400 would offer pretty good coverage and that these new radars might be more use in Pantsir batteries supporting older SAM systems and also for Pantsir batteries operating alone... say defending a small airfield or something.

[quote]

Every Pantsir battery must be equipped with battery radar and it doesn't meter if they work alone or with S-300/400. If they work integrated, radar is off, when anything happened, battery work with their own battery radar and Pantsirs could be still passive and moving.

What you say apply to Brute for Jamming something that might need big platforms but even a fighter these days become smarter and are occupied with very capable jamming systems , case to point is F-18 Growler which the US says can jam both S-300 and 400 radar using sophisticated jamming methods , they even claim it can penetrate enemy network using AESA of Growler

Up to now, we do not know a lot about F-18 Growler capabilities and also not about capabilities of S-300/400 radars against jamming. One thing is known, that late models of S-300 and S-400 could work passively with outside source of targets info and that radar like Nebo-SVU could give enough small cell to S-400, that it could launch ARH missile against target without using its own radars. Capable IADS connected with optical cables is very difficult to jam, specially if it use excellent visual observation posts network. In that case it is almost immune to jamming.

they even claim it can penetrate enemy network using AESA of Growler

They also talk about AESA radars using their raw power as a jammer... which do you think would win such a contest... a truck mounted radar slightly bigger than an AEGIS radar, or a radar fitted to a fighter aircraft?

BTW do you mean jam or fool?

Jam would mean the radar doesn't work at tracking aerial targets any more.

Fool means it can't see the aircraft that is carrying the ESM equipment.

AESA certainly has vey low side lobes compared to PESA or Conventional
radar that can reduce the chance of jamming or ARM attack with smart
energy management AESA would be a challange to Jam , even if they get
jammed they do no just go down in one go but degrade gracefully.

As I said before... any sort of jamming requires energy emission, so with one radar operating and lots of others listening... the jammer can be detected and dealt with.

Russia had complained to US that they used EMP weapon on Cruise Missle
to take down radar sites of serbs during its nato campaign , so the use
of EMP weapon to provide a stand off capability to destroy radar and
sensitive electronic chips must be taken into account.

And the Russians don't know how to EMP harden their equipment and don't have EMP weapons of their own...

Having said that i was emphasizing on the point that they need to invest
as heavily on passive methods as they do on new radar , an EO system is
good but its quite limited to weather and channel of guidance.

I would suggest that they are taking such things quite seriously and ground based EO plus space based EO just leaves the space inside the cloud band that can't be seen... and some IR frequencies can penetrate that band too.

In future any mobile system like Pantsir,BUG ,Tor etc must come with
capable passive guidance system like IIR Search Track, EO multi sensor
ball , I know this will make the system a bit more expensive but it
would just make sure that system just do not go down in jamming or arm
attack or just simply work in all passive mode without alerting the
enemy.

I would suggest they almost certainly will, though MMW radar is almost impossible to jam and ARMs have not been developed that can defeat it yet. AFAIK.

Ofcourse i do agree but I think Russia should just excel in conventional
fight and beat NATO in that game rather then hold nuclear card all the
time.

The thing is that Russia simply doesn't have the economy to match NATO and China on equal military terms except nuclear.
I am all for a small but efficient, mobile, professional, and effective military force... especially one that gets over petty rivalries and can work together well with unified missiles and guns and sensors et al for a unified goal of being an effective and capable force.

Just look at the changes to the Navy with standard sub hull design, and standard ship propulsion/sensors/weapons etc. The unification of land and sea based SAMs etc.
The use of nuclear and conventional long range cruise missiles in the navy USUK launchers means that pretty much all their ship launched land attack and anti ship missiles and anti sub ASROC type missiles will be fired from a unified launcher that can be fitted to all their surface vessels from patrol boats to cruisers.

They had lot of plans to buy Russian and French system ( what an Irony here ) but nothing materalised , Gaddafi never foresaw a big strike against him from NATO/US.

Neither did Saddam, and lets face it Saddam did more to provoke the US than Gaddafi did.

I mean would a SARH system be more difficult to jam then a command
guidance , is SARH more accurate when it come to atacking small target
compared to CG ?

SARH uses a pencil beam to mark the target... to protect yourself you need to present multiple targets to the tracking radar and confuse it as to which target you are... or you can use the extended warning of the attack (SARH means you get warning as soon as you are illuminated that an attack is on), to out manouver the missile.
Regarding accuracy about 30 years ago I would say there was a difference... now with auto tracking software it is no longer up to a human to keep the missile on target.

Imagine using an ATGM like Milan. You put the crosshair on the target and fire the trigger. With a moving target you adjust the crosshair to keep it on target to impact. Not to hard for a tank, though a pain if the target moves behind cover and stays there. With an aircraft however it can move in three dimensions but you only care about two. The Blowpipe is probably the most famous SAM that uses manual command guidance and while very difficult to jam, it was also very difficult to guide against a manouvering target.
TOR, Pantsir, Tunguska, BUK, and several other Russian/Soviet missiles have command guidance either as a primary guidance method or as a backup in case of heavy jamming.
(The fact that BUK has a backup command guidance using optical missile and target tracking suggests that SARH can be jammed though I think it might have been included to allow the interception of LO or even stealthy targets that are optically visible.)
The modern missiles however use an autotracker to keep the cross hair on target at all times.

SARH with backup command guidance is probably more capable, but I suspect not hugely more capable.
It all depends on how it is implimented. Command guidance in the form of the Blowpipe would not really be acceptable. Command guidance in the form of TOR or Pantsir would be fine.

Capable IADS connected with optical cables is very difficult to jam,
specially if it use excellent visual observation posts network. In that
case it is almost immune to jamming.

Not to mention an S-400 battery does not exist in a vacuum, any object getting near an S-400 battery would likely have to penetrate Russian air space, and the space defence forces unifying with air defence with enormous ground and also space based sensors are likely to track aircraft just fine.

A Growler aircraft can detect a radar and jam it, but its jamming signal will be detected by all other radars of the same type that are listening rather than emitting.

• multi-dimensional digital 3D-frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing;
• flexible adaptive control over power, hardware, and software resources, multi-level
troubleshooting and backup of general-purpose radars;
•
mutual synchronisation, reception, and processing of signals, emitted
by other radars, and multi-positioning within a group of space and
missile defence information assets.

Not sure about the first stuff, but the third means timing all your radars so that they all receive the radar emissions that each of them has sent out, so they can process the data as if they sent the pulse themselves.

If you could do that with a single Pantsir battery that means if you are defending a single airfield you can position your battery radar on any land high point within 5-10km of the airfield and place your 6 Pantsir vehicles around the airfield. With the radars synchronised one radar can do a complete 360 degree scan and then process all the targets it finds and catalogue them and share the data with the other vehicles in the unit. All the other vehicles with radars including the battery radar can also receive the radar blip sent out by the scanning radar and examine the returns themselves and process the data and transmit it to other vehicles in the unit.

Imagine a stealthy cruise missile is coming in and it is just too far away at the moment to be detectible in IR... suddenly the battery radar does a scan but the missile is heading directly at the battery radar so the battery radar gets the smallest radar return as the radar energy is absorbed and some is deflected.
If some of that radar energy is deflected in the direction of one of the vehicles in the battery then it can use that target data with the target data received and processed by the other radars in the unit and detect the stealth target at much longer range than if all the radars were scanning themselves. If they were all scanning themselves they would only receive and process radar energy they sent themselves and ignore any emissions from similar radars around them as noise.

Now scale this out to hundreds of radars and add IR and optical sources and the air defence becomes pretty strong.


BTW I should add that it was the ABM treaty that limited space looking radars to the borders of the country... US radars in the UK and Greenland of course violations of the ABM treaty that were simply ignored by the US at the time of course. But now they can put space and early warning radars all over Russian territory and use them as battle management centres.

GarryB wrote:They also talk about AESA radars using their raw power as a jammer... which do you think would win such a contest... a truck mounted radar slightly bigger than an AEGIS radar, or a radar fitted to a fighter aircraft?

BTW do you mean jam or fool?

Jam would mean the radar doesn't work at tracking aerial targets any more.

Fool means it can't see the aircraft that is carrying the ESM equipment.

Raw power jamming would be difficult but smart jamming is possible , one possible scenerio I could think of is cruise missile equipped with DRFM jammers , while the S-300/400 batteries gets confused and tracks a ghost target , these cruise missile with small warhead and go and attack the main radar or simply use LOJ incase it gets jammed.

I mean Jam and Fool both a combination of both tactics would wreck any AD.

I recollect watching a Russian manufacture of DRFM pod jammers trying to jam a Patriot batteries while at the same time they fool the battery with ghost target and patriot fires at the ghost target , the DRFM pod based aircraft which was a Mig-29 fires HARM at the battery radar , see no reason why cant you try similar tactics at S-300/400 batteries.

As I said before... any sort of jamming requires energy emission, so with one radar operating and lots of others listening... the jammer can be detected and dealt with.

Yes the jammers would make their presense felt , but it would depend on the kind of jamming it is doing and making sure the listening radar are prone to HARM attack.

And the Russians don't know how to EMP harden their equipment and don't have EMP weapons of their own...

Ofcourse they can , I was just trying to point out alternatives way of hitting a target , something NATO tried in 99

I would suggest that they are taking such things quite seriously and ground based EO plus space based EO just leaves the space inside the cloud band that can't be seen... and some IR frequencies can penetrate that band too.

I think they need to further add IRST and Multiball sensor besides the radar and EO, they already the technology they need to just refine ,integrate and add those.

I would suggest they almost certainly will, though MMW radar is almost impossible to jam and ARMs have not been developed that can defeat it yet.

Which SAM missile carries MMW radar ? MMW is certainly the most difficult band to jam , but also have limited potential in the way you can use it.

The thing is that Russia simply doesn't have the economy to match NATO and China on equal military terms except nuclear.
I am all for a small but efficient, mobile, professional, and effective military force... especially one that gets over petty rivalries and can work together well with unified missiles and guns and sensors et al for a unified goal of being an effective and capable force.

I certainly think Russia economy is in a much better shape and certainly in the future it will be better then most NATO country.

Defense spending is a question of Budget Deficit , which is income vs expenditure and Russian economy is in a much better shape there then economy of many high growing developing countries.

Neither did Saddam, and lets face it Saddam did more to provoke the US than Gaddafi did.

I am certainly not a great supporter of NATO bombing not that I support what Gadhafi did to his own people , but two wrongs dont make one right.

SARH uses a pencil beam to mark the target... to protect yourself you need to present multiple targets to the tracking radar and confuse it as to which target you are... or you can use the extended warning of the attack

I think I am looking more that why SARH guidance is better or worse then Command Guidance , considering both system works on LOS principle.

TOR, Pantsir, Tunguska, BUK, and several other Russian/Soviet missiles have command guidance either as a primary guidance method or as a backup in case of heavy jamming.
(The fact that BUK has a backup command guidance using optical missile and target tracking suggests that SARH can be jammed though I think it might have been included to allow the interception of LO or even stealthy targets that are optically visible.)
The modern missiles however use an autotracker to keep the cross hair on target at all times.

What if the enemy jams the command guidance between Radar and Missile ?

Probably a combination of IIR seeker , IRST/EO guidance would be the best bet

If some of that radar energy is deflected in the direction of one of the vehicles in the battery then it can use that target data with the target data received and processed by the other radars in the unit and detect the stealth target at much longer range than if all the radars were scanning themselves. If they were all scanning themselves they would only receive and process radar energy they sent themselves and ignore any emissions from similar radars around them as noise.

Indeed very interesting concept , Thanks.

This is still a mystery and quite interesting , Do you know any Radar expert who can decipher it ?

multi-dimensional digital 3D-frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing;

Raw power jamming would be difficult but smart jamming is possible , one
possible scenerio I could think of is cruise missile equipped with DRFM
jammers , while the S-300/400 batteries gets confused and tracks a
ghost target , these cruise missile with small warhead and go and attack
the main radar or simply use LOJ incase it gets jammed.

A ghost target does not hide the fact that there is a threat. A Pantsir system located with the S-300/400 battery will look for targets using a range of sensors and its IIR channel will not detect the ghost targets.

The jamming sets used with large SAMs are designed to attract missiles away from the actual radars of the SAM battery. They operate on the same frequencies and give off many of the same signals so a Home on Jam weapon will most likely home in and hit them... but as they are small armoured little boxes with a few strongly built structures that act as antennas even a direct hit will mean it is doing its job of keeping the primary radars safe.

I mean Jam and Fool both a combination of both tactics would wreck any AD.

The source location of the aircraft with the jammers and the source of the cruise missiles can be determined and those assets targeted by all sorts of weapons the Russians have, so I think even if it is successful in defeating one or two SAM sites that the destruction of the air bases or naval platforms, not to mention retaliation against any aircraft that are caught in Russian airspace will likely render such an attack counter productive.

I recollect watching a Russian manufacture of DRFM pod jammers trying to
jam a Patriot batteries while at the same time they fool the battery
with ghost target and patriot fires at the ghost target , the DRFM pod
based aircraft which was a Mig-29 fires HARM at the battery radar , see
no reason why cant you try similar tactics at S-300/400 batteries.

Because US air defence systems are a joke because they are in the control of the USAF and the USAF expects to have air control. The Russian air defence forces were a branch of the Russian AF, but didn't expect to have total air control. They therefore co-locate systems like Pantsir and also jammer and decoy units to help defend their SAM sites from direct attack.

Yes the jammers would make their presense felt , but it would depend on
the kind of jamming it is doing and making sure the listening radar are
prone to HARM attack.

Radars that are listening are by definition not prone to HARM attack. Radars that are emitting will detect HARMs at long range and will likely initiate a SAM launch to deal with said HARM.

Ofcourse they can , I was just trying to point out alternatives way of hitting a target , something NATO tried in 99

More like they had started a moral war and civilian casualties would be counter productive so they were using as many non lethal weapons as they could because bad publicity might stop the entire intervention.

I think they need to further add IRST and Multiball sensor besides the
radar and EO, they already the technology they need to just refine
,integrate and add those.

I think there are enough currently in service to act as a deterrent. I think that once they have perfected and started production of QWIP chips that IIR sensors will become cheap and easy to mass produce and every EO sensor can have the benefits of long, medium, and short wave IIR as well as digital TV and partial UV spectrum visibility in a mass producible form that is as cheap as a CCD chip for a camera.
In fact missiles with IIR seekers will become cheap enough to mass produce once QWIP chips are mass producible so missiles from Verba to 9m100 can be produced in large numbers cheaply.
Missiles that would benefit from this sort of tech include missiles like Kh-29, Kh-25, Kh-38, HERMES, Verba, 9M100, IR versions of R-27, R-77, even retro fitted to older missiles like R-60 and R-3.

Which SAM missile carries MMW radar ? MMW is certainly the most
difficult band to jam , but also have limited potential in the way you
can use it.

The tracking and command guidance channels for Tunguska and Pantsir are in the MMW range.
You don't think a CM wave radar can detect a target 8km away at 10m altitude do you?

I think I am looking more that why SARH guidance is better or worse then
Command Guidance , considering both system works on LOS principle.

The problem is command guidance covers a range of guidance principles.
From wire guided ATGMs like Milan and TOW, to laser beam riding missiles like Kornet, to radio command guided like ATAKA. Then you have a mix with Krisantema that can use SARH in MMW radar, or command guidance with laser beam riding... perhaps that is a hint. Krisantema is SARH against tanks and other metalic distinct targets, but for use against log bunkers or buildings or anything the radar can't get a clear lock on there is command guidance using laser beam riding.
Of course when the command guidance uses an auto tracker there doesn't need to be operator input in the guidance, and SARH generally doesn't have continuous operator input either.

Really it is two different ways of doing the same thing.

What if the enemy jams the command guidance between Radar and Missile ?

The use of coded beams would be normal so that several platforms can fire several missiles at once... imagine a flight of Havocs all armed with ATAKAs but only able to fire one missile at a time because the guidance signals from one helo was making all the other missiles launched crash into the ground.
Laser beam riding missiles also look back at the launch platform so I really don't know how the target could interfere with that.
The Tunguska uses a narrow beam signal directed at the outgoing missile with a coded beam to transmit flight commands... not sure the target could do much about that either.

Probably a combination of IIR seeker , IRST/EO guidance would be the best bet

You mean like on Javelin, or Kh-29T? DIRCMs seem only to be expanding in application, and a system designed to defeat an IR guided missile should defeat an IR SAM.

multi-dimensional digital 3D-frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing;

Well if we break it down... a multi dimensional digital 3D frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing... it is talking about processing data taking into account the fact that the space being scanned is 3 dimensions but also allowing for the different results the different signal frequencies should be producing and separating out the difference in performance to see if something is hiding in the airspace.

Sounds like they are looking for stealth objects, or objects in extreme jamming environments.

I think they need to further add IRST and Multiball sensor besides the radar and EO, they already the technology they need to just refine ,integrate and add those.

All Russian SAMs have EO system as back up, Tor-M2 ans Pantsir S1 have a kind of multi EO sensor with TI.

What if the enemy jams the command guidance between Radar and Missile ?

How? It is possible if target is between missile and SAM launcher which send radio signals, because missile looks back to SAM launcher and not to target. Also radio guidance signal have very thin angle like 1° and very high energy, so jammer must be extremly powerful to jam that signal.

I think I am looking more that why SARH guidance is better or worse then Command Guidance , considering both system works on LOS principle.

SARH homing heads could usually also work in passive mode in case of jamming, what mean they direct missile against the source of jamming. Combining with command guidance, it is very hard nut for enemy plane.

SARH homing heads could usually also work in passive mode in case of
jamming, what mean they direct missile against the source of jamming.

Another thing to keep in mind that a modern SARH with digital processors and improved electronics are not the same as the old SARH systems like SPARROW or old model R-27. A modern SARH missile can be a very capable missile, and a viable alternative to the much more expensive ARH missiles.