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.