SOC wrote:Easy. 9M96: small. PAC-3 ERINT: small. Aster series: small. You won't want to waste a lot of space in a small weapon by fitting the guidance package for a SAGG or TVM system. There's a reason that the missiles using TVM, GAS/GAI, or SAGG are all rather large weapons. THAAD: ATBM, totally different criteria. S-400's 40N6: not expected to deal with non-cooperative targets (a U-2 or RC-135 is not a threat to maneuver outside the range of the seeker head, and it'll likely carry a home-on-jam package as well).
Well Small or Big has not been the key factor for choosing guidance for missile else 40N6 or Aster-30 would not have chosen ARH ( or for that matter IIR guidance you see in THAAD , Arrow or SM-2/3 )
Now if Russian have chosen SAGG i am fairly certain it has the least to do with size of the missile and S-400 has to deal with more than IRBM or U-2 , infact intercepting a MaRV type warhead will be far more challenging to its guidance compared to intercepting the best manouvering fighter. ( so your argument of non-cooperative targets does not hold much ground )
And Small Weapons with smaller radar aperture does not mean they are easy to jam,else you would have seen all small missile like PAC-3 or AMRAAM or 9M96 being ineffective against larger target or say a R-37M will never bring a AWACS or JSTARS down becuase they can any time support a higher capable jammer because of its sheer size.
The only reason why i think the Russians are opting for TVM or SAGG guidance is purely cost , Missile Radars and Electronics take around 60 % of the cost of missile and going for a SAGG or TVM guidance ( which by the way requires far less computing power or electronic capability in terms of ECCM etc when compared to ARH seeker ) , and SAGG is just a better TVM.
Now if you see the latest trend even the newer Russian SAM being developed will have ARH seeker e.g BUK-M3 , 40N6 , Vityaz etc most likely because they would have mass produced the electronics and seeker to make it cheaper compared to what they could do a decade back , S-300PMU2 btw is a baby whose design and electronics belongs to those last decade generation.
Except that if you jam the datalink, the missile may still be able to default to a SARH guidance mode. The seeker is still receiving returns, and the guidance system onboard the missile is still figuring things out. Cutting the engagement radar out of the loop just turns it into a SARH system, at least on paper.
Doesnt a SARH mode too needs some kind of radio or data link to provide course correction to the missile ? But if you say on paper then it may just not be the case you are probably thinking more on logical terms which might not necessarily be true.
And then you still may have home-on-jam capability anyway. Plus, as Garry correctly states, jamming missile data links is not a simple proposition, or it'd likely be the default method used against both BVR AAMs (denying them midcourse updates) and SAMs (denying them guidance signals).
I have so far heard of HOJ capability for only active seekers for SARH or TVM never came across HOJ feature.
Jamming datalink may not be easy but neither jamming ARH is an easy affair you might agree. Missiles have their own ECCM capability to deal with jamming environment and with J band or Ka band have burn through capability , in worst case it will just change to HOJ mode.
BTW i have recently came across publication where Russian have displayed some sort of airborne jammers which they claim is capable of Jamming link 16.
You need to keep the target within engagement radar LOS for ANY radar-guided SAM system, at least until endgame. Otherwise how in the world do you expect to receive midcourse corrections?
Partly True , once the missile seeker goes active and acquires the target its completely autonomous so it does not need midcourse corrections or inertial updates in case of BVR.
BTW the R-37M seeker is advertised as capable of working both in SARH and ARH mode so i would assure they would resort to ARH mode if the source radar like aircraft face intense jamming or vice verse ,which is to say just adding redundancy.
Who said BVR ARH AAMs aren't necessarily hard to jam? You try and jam the hostile air intercept radar to deny information for accurate midcourse guidance, and you try to maneuver outside the seeker's FOV when it reaches endgame.
Is there any evidence that in any recent conflict the AMRAAM seeker was effectively jammed , I am just equally curious to know.
Austin wrote:Now all the target has to do with TVM and SAGG missile is to fall below the LOS of these big radars and you can tame these but with ARH or IIR it would be difficult specially when the Seeker goes active.
Except how many targets are going to be defended by a single, say, S-300PM battery? Evade one site and you may find yourself right inside the heart of the engagement zone for another. Plus, cross-range engagement capability expands the farther you are from the launcher. You also have to know you've been fired at. If the radar can fool your ESM/RWR into not thinking it's being tracked, or deny a signal using various waveforms, etc., you may not know there is a missile incoming until too late. And since the seeker isn't active, you may not realize anything nefarious is going on until your wing falls off. Also consider that simply turning around and jetting out of there at Mach 2+ is rarely going to be an option in combat, given the warload on the aircraft. And if you do drop your ordnance and evacuate with all possible speed, guess what, the SAM still wins. That's a mission kill, just not a hard kill. The IADS has still done its job of defending the target by making you run off with your tail between your legs. For modern air defense planners this is a perfectly acceptable option.
Ok thats something nifty that your SARH/TVM/SAGG mode could try , which is to not alert your enemy , ifcourse you can try that trick with ARH seeker and let it go active at last moment or something like IIR seeker which wont alert you at all like what you describe.
Ofcourse if your fighter has something like DAS or MAWS or if Aircraft Radar detects something closing in at high speed you will find out you are under attack , I would also argue that big missile like S-300PMU will have much bigger IR signature hence a DAS would be able to see early and warn early.
But what you describe is something i know our Indian Mirage-2000 pilots do with SARH BVR R530 missile. Where the radar mode does not change till the end which gives the target under paint the impression that its just being tracked or scanned but is not aware is already under attack but I think MAWS will change all that.
Back to evading the LOS of the radar, yes, direct terrain masking can work. But a competent air defense network is arranged with an attempt to alleviate these concerns. A good example: Russia, around Moscow. The 40V6 masts were developed to allow the S-300P series engagement radars to see whatever they wanted without being obscured by the forests around the city. A bad example: China, north of Beijing. Many HQ-2 batteries were sited near smaller towns and resided inside of valleys between various hills and mountains. Far easier to try and fool around with that kind of setup.
Now a bad planning on placement of SAM can really be blamed for Missile performance. I hope the Chinese might be aware of this shortcoming when dealing with LOS missile.