Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18107
    Points : 18667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:48 am

    Are Russian SAMs equipped with thermobaric warheads and if no would such a thing work?

    Not generally.

    Let me explain.

    A standard block of HE has by weight about 1/4th fuel, and 3/4ths of the HE by weight is material that rapidly generates oxygen.

    This means that a 150kg warhead of an S-300 might have 40kgs of HE, with the rest of the weight as metal fragments and fuses. Of that 40kg HE charge 10kgs will be the material that actually explodes, while 30kgs will generate oxygen for the 10kg to "burn".

    Because it provides its own oxygen it will explode underwater and also in space and if you detonate it at high altitude or low altitude it will explode.

    Thermobaric explosive is all fuel... think of a thermobaric warhead as being petrol. 40kgs of petrol is all fuel, but it needs to be distributed around as an aerosol before it can explode in a detonation, but if it did then it would explode more powerfully than the equivalent of HE... the main problem is that because a Thermobaric warhead relies on taking oxygen from the environment where it is set off it is not as effective in thin air at high altitudes and it wont work at all in space or in water.

    It also does not tend to detonate as fast as HE, though it often tends to burn longer and hotter, which is good for destroying chem and bio agents for instance.

    In SAMs it makes much more sense to use the less powerful HE warheads because they are more consistent in power and rate of detonation.

    Keep in mind when a SAM is intercepting a very fast target it may not hit the target directly so when the proximity fuse sets off the warhead the active fusing will set off the warhead to deliver the majority of fragments in the direction of where the target will be so knowing how fast the warhead explodes is critical in ensuring a good kill. If the target is a Scud for instance then the fuse will direct the fragments at the nose of the target because hitting the body of a falling object is largely useless, the only effective way to defeat an incoming Scud is to hit the warhead and detonate it... smashing up the engines is pointless as they are not operating when the missile is falling onto the target area.

    Speaking of the morphei , are there any pictures of how exactly the missiles should look or is it top secret like the S-500?

    Just models of vehicles so far.

    The Vityaz will have Active guidance system. In other words, the battery can engage as many targets as it has missiles ready for launch.

    Even ARH missiles require guidance to the target area... there are limits to how many R-77s a fighter plane can guide at once to different targets... for the Mig-29S it was 2 I believe. The targets need to be tracked and the outgoing missiles directed to intercept points where they can turn on their own radars and self guide. For targets 100km away that means significant periods where the missile is not using its ARH seeker and relies on the launch platforms radar to direct it. As the article above mentions 12 guidance channels it will certainly be able to engage a lot of targets and once the missiles get to ARH range and they get locks the battery can launch another missile, plus I suspect with an IADS and net centricity it is rather likely that other platforms could take over guidance like Su-35s or A-100s.

    The system is probably bulky or complex (spherical radar, superfast computing power, large number of vertically stowed rounds).

    Spherical radar is unlikely, the information I have is that it uses an IR spherical sensor array to find targets, much like the spherical IR sensor array used on RHAWs to detect incoming missiles by their thermal signature (ie speed heated noses and control surfaces and operating rocket motors).

    I would expect the time taken for its development suggests it likely has a FPA or QWIP seeker with a one or two way datalink and full thrust vectoring rocket motor. This means that a missile can be launched without seeing the target (so it can be launched vertically and turn based on data provided by the launch platform towards the target and then look for a signature of the target. It will have a signature library database and should be able to select its own target. A two way datalink should allow it to transmit target data back to the launch platform. Its wide angle array seeker might detect a range of targets of which it might select the highest threat target to engage itself.

    In terms of range it will be inferior to Igla-S, but in terms of performance and sophistication it will be a generation ahead of Igla-S.

    It will likely be used on its own for some roles but also likely used in a "standard" launcher (ie Vityaz) as a standard self defence missile.

    For aircraft it will likely perform the role of the little anti missile missiles as depicted in the movie Firefox. Certainly a ARH radar seeker model would be a useful weapon for light aircraft like Yak-130 and helos along with the IIR guided model... with air launched models the range is likely 15-20km.

    but not as mobile as an army SAM (like the SA-13. Potentially, I see the replacement of the SA-13 in a system based on the Sosna missile mounted on a tracked chassis.

    I don't disagree with your logic, but the purpose of SA-13 and SA-9 was a light mobile air defence missile that operates in the IR spectrum to compliment the SA-19 and now SA-22 that are radio command directed. A laser guided model like SOSNA-R is rather a lot like SA-19 and a platform that carried SOSNA-Rs would not be that different from one that carried SA-19/-22s.

    The Morfei on the other hand will be a small compact missile which in vertical launch tubes would likely fit into the MTLB chassis of the SA-13. I don't see it as being a huge system.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here.

    Post  mack8 on Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:01 pm

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here. Where exactly Pantsir fits into the new generation/ upgraded SAM defences for the russian military?

    Correct me if i'm wrong, the envisaged PVO layered defense looks like S-500/S-400/Vityaz/Morfey, with Morfey being apparently a short range missile system (maybe shorter range than Pantsir's missiles ) with near instantaneous reaction times in any direction. Would Morfey replace Pantsir or they will serve together complementary?

    The Army SAM situation is a bit more complicated to me, we have S-300V/V4 then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?), then Tor-M1/2 (replaced by/upgraded to Tor-M2U?) then Tunguska and finally MANPADS, is that right ? (i know there are things like Osa/ Strela-10 still around). Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility. Also where is Sosna/ Bagulnik fitting into all this, i'm reading it will replace Strela-10?

    Would this PVO - Army separation continue for the foreseeable future ? For instance it seems to be Buk-M3 and Vityaz might be similar systems in the same class and with probably similar performance.

    Thanks!
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5641
    Points : 6274
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  Viktor on Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:39 am

    mack8 wrote:Correct me if i'm wrong, the envisaged PVO layered defense looks like S-500/S-400/Vityaz/Morfey, with Morfey being apparently a short range missile system (maybe shorter range than Pantsir's missiles ) with near instantaneous reaction times in any direction. Would Morfey replace Pantsir or they will serve together complementary?
    There will be S-500 -> S-400 -> S-300Favorit (modernized S-300PM) - > Vityaz - > Pancir-S1 - > Tunguska -> Osa-AKM -> Strela-10 -> Morfei - > Igla-S/Verba

    They are complemntary air defense systems. Pancir-S1 with 25 km range in domestic version and Morfei with 5 km range.


    mack8 wrote:a short range missile system (maybe shorter range than Pantsir's missiles ) with near instantaneous reaction times in any direction.
    Because of integration with its radar forces all Russian air defense systems are able to react instantaneous.


    mack8 wrote:The Army SAM situation is a bit more complicated to me, we have S-300V/V4 then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?), then Tor-M1/2 (replaced by/upgraded to Tor-M2U?) then Tunguska and finally MANPADS, is that right ? (i know there are things like Osa/ Strela-10 still around). Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility. Also where is Sosna/ Bagulnik fitting into all this, i'm reading it will replace Strela-10?
    S-300V4 -> BUK-M3 / BUK-M2 / BUK-M1 - > TOR-M3 / TOR-M2 / TOR-M1U -> Pancir-S1 ->  Tunguska -> Osa-AKM -> Strela-10 -> Morfei - > Igla-S/Verba


    mack8 wrote:then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?)
    There is no need to replace BUK-M1 with BUK-M3 as upgrade raises its potential significantly for the money and BUK-M1-2 (with 300 of them in service) suddenly becomes significant

    threat.  BUK-M2 and latter BUK-M3 will supplement BUK-M1-2 up to a point when Russian V-PVO gets enough of them and only than will most modern versions of BUK-M3 start to

    replace the most oldest versions of BUK-M1.


    mack8 wrote:Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility.
    There are many Tunguskas around. Time will pass until Pancir-S1 manages to replace them. They where upgraded during mid 2000.


    mack8 wrote:Would this PVO - Army separation continue for the foreseeable future ?
    Being discussed.


    mack8 wrote: For instance it seems to be Buk-M3 and Vityaz might be similar systems in the same class and with probably similar performance
    V-PVO will NEVER trade unrivaled (in the world) cross crountry mobility of BUK-M1/2/3 with any other system. BUK-M1 can littarly appear anywhere, shoot its missiles and again disappear

    eventually tracked Vityaz might supplement it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18107
    Points : 18667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:33 am

    Where exactly Pantsir fits into the new generation/ upgraded SAM defences for the russian military?
    Pantsir-S1 is the gun/missile component of the air defence network and will serve that role for all branches of the military, so for defending airfields and S-400 batteries and S-500 batteries and HQs etc etc the Pantsir-S1 will be the system of choice. The Vityaz will have Morfei to protect it and likely wont require Pantsir-S1s.

    Correct me if i'm wrong, the envisaged PVO layered defense looks like S-500/S-400/Vityaz/Morfey, with Morfey being apparently a short range missile system (maybe shorter range than Pantsir's missiles ) with near instantaneous reaction times in any direction. Would Morfey replace Pantsir or they will serve together complementary?
    It will actually be S-500/S-400/S-350/Morfei/Pantsir-S1(domestic model), where the S-500 will defend strategic targets and Pantsir-S1 and S-350/Morfei might operate in support to protect it from air attack. The S-400 will be the standard long range SAM but will also likely have Pantsir and S-350/Morfei units supporting it so it can concentrate on long range targets and leave threats like incoming cruise missiles and JDAMs to the shorter lighter systems. Smaller mobile bases and HQs might rely on S-350 and Morfei alone but also use Pantsir-S1 to support it with its unique ground fire capacity too.

    The Army SAM situation is a bit more complicated to me, we have S-300V/V4 then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?), then Tor-M1/2 (replaced by/upgraded to Tor-M2U?) then Tunguska and finally MANPADS, is that right ? (i know there are things like Osa/ Strela-10 still around). Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility. Also where is Sosna/ Bagulnik fitting into all this, i'm reading it will replace Strela-10?
    I would say the Army SAM structure is very similar... S-500 to defend fixed strategic structures, S-300V4 to stop everything else at long range, with BUKM3 for medium range, TOR-M3 for short range CIWS type defence, and Pantsir-S1 at all levels to protect S-300V4 and S-500 batteries and also vehicle units on the ground.

    Sosna/Bagulnik is a cheap simple mobile system that will replace Strela-10 in lighter formations where TOR is too heavy.

    And lastly for the Army SAMs Verba should replace Igla-S as a MANPADs. The question is how will Morfei fit into the Army forces... if it is compatible with the Redut naval SAM system then it can be used as a CIWS missile much like Sea Ram.

    For the Navy it boils down to three known SAM systems really... Redut with S-400, S-350, and Morfei missiles and also probably the S-500, plus the Shtil-1 vertical launch system for the naval Buk-M3, and the naval Pantsir-S1... perhaps the latter will only be used as an upgrade for older ships as a replacement for Kashtan-M.
    The question remains about TOR-M3 or Klintok as the naval system is called... integrated into Redut or Shtil?

    The huge advantage of Klintok and Pantsir-S1 which keeps them in service is the very low cost of the radio command missiles.

    Morfei on the other hand with its sophisticated IIR seeker will begin life as a fairly expensive system till the seekers are in mass production and the price comes down to something more affordable.

    There are many Tunguskas around. Time will pass until Pancir-S1 manages to replace them. They where upgraded during mid 2000.
    Tunguska-M1 entered service in 2004 and is still an extremely capable system... rather more capable than any single foreign system available even today. There is no enormous reason to get them out of service any time soon.

    Would this PVO - Army separation continue for the foreseeable future ? For instance it seems to be Buk-M3 and Vityaz might be similar systems in the same class and with probably similar performance.
    Both systems will be very effective so why replace one with the other?

    They are different enough to offer different capabilities that the different military branches seem to appreciate... in many ways the Vityaz is an offshoot of the S-400 system that is lighter and more mobile and carries more ready to launch missiles though they are shorter range weapons than the larger weapons the S-400 can use.

    It was said, that F-22 and F-35 have smaller RCS than 0,1 m2, so the range will be shorter, but still enough to deliver targets.
    In what state do they have smaller RCS than 0.1m2? They will need lots of hours of support and maintainence to keep them in the air and in a conflict to maintain operational tempos they might not get the attention they need... and lets face it radar is not like radar on computer games these aircraft are not perfect spheres so the radar return will change depending on their orientation to the emitter, but also in a net centric environment all the batteries not using radar that are just listening could also be used to plot locations... not to mention long wave systems all round the place...

    Jamming and electronic noise will also effect range, but then in a real conflict with Russia how long will those jamming sources survive?
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3349
    Points : 3433
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  medo on Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:07 pm

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here. Where exactly Pantsir fits into the new generation/ upgraded SAM defences for the russian military?
    In VKO units Pantsir have very specific role to defend S-300, S-400, S-500, S-350, etc. It's main advantage is, that it could fire on the move with guns and missiles, so it is supposed to defend other complexes, when they are most vulnerable, on the move from one position to another. Even on battle positions it could still work against targets, like missiles, bombs, planes, etc, which come close enough to defend its unit.


    The Army SAM situation is a bit more complicated to me, we have S-300V/V4 then BukM1-2/2 (to be replace by BuK-M3?), then Tor-M1/2 (replaced by/upgraded to Tor-M2U?) then Tunguska and finally MANPADS, is that right ? (i know there are things like Osa/ Strela-10 still around). Is Tunguska slated to be replaced anytime soon for instance by that tracked Pantsir, as it seems PVO SAMs are almost exclusively on wheeled chassis, while the Army's are on tracked chassis for better cross country mobility. Also where is Sosna/ Bagulnik fitting into all this, i'm reading it will replace Strela-10?
    In my opinion tracked version of Pantsir will sooner or later come in ground forces units to replace older Tunguska and Shilka. Tor is meant to replace Osa.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3349
    Points : 3433
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  medo on Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:17 pm

    Tunguska-M1 entered service in 2004 and is still an extremely capable system... rather more capable than any single foreign system available even today. There is no enormous reason to get them out of service any time soon.
    There are still many Shilkas to be replaced and as Tunguska is no more in production, tracked Pantsir should replace them.


    In what state do they have smaller RCS than 0.1m2? They will need lots of hours of support and maintainence to keep them in the air and in a conflict to maintain operational tempos they might not get the attention they need... and lets face it radar is not like radar on computer games these aircraft are not perfect spheres so the radar return will change depending on their orientation to the emitter, but also in a net centric environment all the batteries not using radar that are just listening could also be used to plot locations... not to mention long wave systems all round the place...

    Jamming and electronic noise will also effect range, but then in a real conflict with Russia how long will those jamming sources survive?
    True, but when you design and create a SAM complex, you have to design it for the worst scenario, like a battery have to work alone in the middle of nowhere against most advanced enemy. In that case battery is dependent on their battery radar and CP to deliver targets and lead the battle.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  mack8 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:45 am

    Thanks for your comprehensive replies, that's a lot  to digest! Any idea when the tracked Pantsir will be inducted in V-PVO (i know there were prototypes built)?

    Also, what about export of the new systems? At the moment, there is available for export S-300VM (wheeled chassis  based S-300PMU-2 is out of production if i'm not mistaken, correct), Buk-M2E/EK, Tor-M2E/KM, Pantsir-S1E, and Igla-S. When should we expect new and/or improved systems to take over? I know of S-400 being apparently made available for export in the second half of this decade (btw, will it have it's missile maximum range reduce to under 300km because of  MTCR?).
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5641
    Points : 6274
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  Viktor on Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:22 am

    mack8 wrote:(wheeled chassis based S-300PMU-2 is out of production if i'm not mistaken, correct)
    S-300PMU2 is out of production only for Russian Army which is getting S-400 anyway with S-300 upgrades to Favorit standard.

    For export S-300PMU2 is produced along with S-300VM.



    mack8 wrote:When should we expect new and/or improved systems to take over?
    2020 Very Happy 

    - 10 S-500 batteries
    - 56 S-400 batteries
    - 30 Vityaz batteries
    - 100 Pancir-S1 units
    - 5 new S-300V4 brigades
    - BUK-M2 and BUK-M3 =???
    - TOR-M2 and TOR-M3



    - 30 or so modernized S-300Favorit batteries
    - 4 brigades of S-300V modernized to V4 standard
    - BUK-M1-2

    etc etc


    mack8 wrote:I know of S-400 being apparently made available for export in the second half of this decade (btw, will it have it's missile maximum range reduce to under 300km because of MTCR?)
    250km range missiles most likely combined with 9M96 series


    mack8 wrote: Any idea when the tracked Pantsir will be inducted in V-PVO (i know there were prototypes built)?
    IF is perhaps a better question. Army has yet to decide does it want TOR-M2 / TOR-M3 or Pancir-S1 (or its version that will come) or perhaps its combination.

    You have two different producers aiming for the same market.
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1009
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  mack8 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:01 am

    S-300PMU2 is out of production only for Russian Army which is getting S-400 anyway with S-300 upgrades to Favorit standard.

    For export S-300PMU2 is produced along with S-300VM.
    Are you sure Viktor? I could swear that the news on the matter suggest that the system is not in production anymore to make room for S-400, and the recent yearly report from the manufacturer seems to indicate that the missile production for the system is dwindling down. It also, to my mind, explains why Venezuela got S-300VM, presumably S-300PMU2 would have been cheaper.

    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5641
    Points : 6274
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  Viktor on Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:10 am

    mack8 wrote:Are you sure Viktor? I could swear that the news on the matter suggest that the system is not in production anymore to make room for S-400
    Thats true Very Happy but that referes only to domestic orders. For export you have

    - S-300PMU2 (Syria, Iran (cancelled), Azerbaijan, Algeria, Serbia, Lybia(before the war))
    - S-300VM (Venezuela and offered to Iran, India, Turkey)

    S-300PMU2 and S-300VM are in production for export.


    mack8 wrote:and the recent yearly report from the manufacturer seems to indicate that the missile production for the system is dwindling down
    Just the opposite. Its increasing at rapid pace

    LINK

    At this pace (if we assume it will not go up even though its going up rapidly:D  ) Russia will in the next 15 years have 8000 new S-400 missiles not counting on the export part.

    Now add to that missiles 9M82M and 9M83M of the S-300V4 and all the others and you have massive SAM number buildup + export Very Happy 

    mack8 wrote:It also, to my mind, explains why Venezuela got S-300VM, presumably S-300PMU2 would have been cheaper.
    S-300VM is more expensive and more dangerous than the S-300PMU2.

    I guess Venecuealan Army also wanted high mobility and combined with BUK-M2 and TOR-M2 (mentioned as part of purchase) makes a damn good air defense.

    Venezuela also accuired China 3D YLC-2 EW mobile radar systems (5 of them I think) and Belarus will do the integration as I read with Poljana-S command posts.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18107
    Points : 18667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Just a general question to the more knowledgeable folks here. Where exactly Pantsir fits into the new generation/ upgraded SAM defences for the russian military?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:41 pm

    There are still many Shilkas to be replaced and as Tunguska is no more in production, tracked Pantsir should replace them.
    But Pantsir will replace the Shilkas first no doubt...
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5568
    Points : 5580
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  TR1 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:18 am

    Since this is in some ways the "general PVO questions" thread, I am goign to ask here:

    Prior to S-300/S-300V, what was realistic chance to intercept something like AGM-69 (assuming the bomber does not get hit and the missiles accuracy is not an issue) ? Or alternatively Kh-15 or its predecessors?

    There were of course longer ranged (non cruise missile) weapons on both sides, but generally these were either slower/had a higher RCS.
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 579
    Points : 626
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 40
    Location : Indianapolis

    Since this is in some ways the "general PVO questions" thread, I am goign to ask here:

    Post  SOC on Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:26 am

    TR1 wrote:Prior to S-300/S-300V, what was realistic chance to intercept something like AGM-69 (assuming the bomber does not get hit and the missiles accuracy is not an issue) ? Or alternatively Kh-15 or its predecessors?
    Not very high. The problem wasn't so much the weapons, as most of the major strategic SAMs had nuclear variants easily capable of obliterating anything they got close to back then, but the performance of the radar systems. Lower RCS coupled with high speed was a problem for the older systems to deal with.

    From the US side, chances of killing a Kh-15 were only slightly better, and that's only because a naval ship with Phalanx might've had a small chance of killing one provided it was not yet ready to detonate. Phalanx wouldn't open up until very close in anyway, where any low RCS is largely irrelevant.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5641
    Points : 6274
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Zhukov Military Command Academy of Air Defense

    Post  Viktor on Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:18 pm

    For the past several years much has been said about closing of The Zhukov Military Command Academy of Air Defense in Tver that was in charge of training of PVO troops (and foreign)

    and research centre for studying problems of operational art and tactics as well as command, communications and control (C3) on air defense matters. 

    Well now that problem has beeen settled. Sergej Soigu decaded that Academy will remaine open and its funds greatly increased. 



    Academy troops EKR Tver receive dopfinansirovanie


    Last edited by Viktor on Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:09 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5641
    Points : 6274
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    NATO Air Force vs Russian Air Defence

    Post  Viktor on Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:38 pm

    I dont believe that we will se Pancir-SM batteries consisting of only 2 (TEL and TELAR) vehicles. 6 vehicles per battery as previously is more likely.

    Thing is that Russian answer to modern air threats is rapid increase of:

    - missile guidance channels
    - number of missiles per battery/regiment/brigade
    - missile range in distance and altitude and more complex trajectories
    - modern command post that can perform more calculations
    - etc ....

    When you see it for the same number of vehicles the difference (increase) in number of missiles per Pancir-S1/SM battery is 34% and the same (34%) goes for BUK-M2/3 but
    note that in both cases we are comparing brand new SAM system with the most newest. If we take a look comparison of an older SAM systems
    like we have in S-300PS/T and Vityaz case than we may see numbers like 300% Very Happy

    Vann7

    Posts : 3826
    Points : 3930
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    NATO Air Force vs Russian SAMs

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:14 am

    Viktor wrote:I dont believe that we will se Pancir-SM batteries consisting of only 2 (TEL and TELAR) vehicles. 6 vehicles per battery as previously is more likely.

    Thing is that Russian answer to modern air threats is rapid increase of:

    - missile guidance channels
    - number of missiles per battery/regiment/brigade
    - missile range in distance and altitude and more complex trajectories
    - modern command post that can perform more calculations
    - etc ....

    When you see it for the same number of vehicles the difference (increase) in number of missiles per Pancir-S1/SM battery is 34% and the same (34%) goes for BUK-M2/3 but
    note that in both cases we are comparing brand new SAM system with the most newest. If we take a look comparison of an older SAM systems
    like we have in S-300PS/T and Vityaz case than we may see numbers like 300% Very Happy


    The Buk-M3 are nice , have no doubt the west have nothing as effective/Mobile like them.
    Can't wait Russia to start being armed with many of them.. the more the better.
    The problem however will continue to be .. Offense > defense.
    Anyone that believe that in any conventional attack against Russia (or ally) will be just 10-15 planes and once you defeat them the conflict will be over are not really connected with reality. If anyone dare to Attack Russia conventionally it will be carefully planned. Not only how to attack..what to use ,but also carefully studied any possible retaliation scenarios of Russia fully explored. So if for example NATO arm Ukraine ,Georgia or Saudi Arabia ,it will be very limited the retaliation they can do.. either because they are close to Russia or because they are third world countries with nothing much to lose.

    When you take into account of the hundreds if not thousands of attack drones that NATO have. And that they can sell them to countries hostile to Russia.. ie Ukraine new gov,Poland ,Saudi Arabia or even Georgia. Russia then will need a system of defense that could counter X drones * y numbers of missiles.  So if Ukraine facist government is provided with 50 drones and each carry 5 missiles ,then Russia will need a defense that can counter 250 missiles +50 drones. That is a system of defense that could intercept at the same time at least 300 targets. In terms of Buks ,that could be 60 Buks defenses all active in crimea alone and 60 buks in Sochi against any attack of Georgia .
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18107
    Points : 18667
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:05 am

    The problem is that the effective drones that are not easy to shoot down simply don't exist yet... you can talk about thousands of programmed attack drones and giving them to third parties to use against Russia but honestly a fully armed Su-27 with 10 AAMs and a 30mm cannon could be assured of taking down at least 12 enemy drones on its own due to the fact that they don't defend themselves and can't really manouver.

    Once they have started their attack of course that is it because Russia can not only keep sending up fighters... even an Su-25 armed with R-60MKs would be capable of dealing with 10+ attack drones each... it would truly be a turkey shoot... and once the origin of the threat is determined the Russians can start live testing their Kh-555s and Kh-101s till the problem is dealt with.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:56 pm

    Hehe, attack drones are just that - drones. And the most effective attack drones cost even more than an equivalently sized piloted aircraft, while being less effective. Also, cruise missiles are still by far the most efficient of all 'drones'- 1 million bucks a pop and a small building sized problem is gone. I wonder if in the future you can have a cruise missile strike package delivery service by phone-  Twisted Evil 
    Not only those- SAMs being cheaper would allow as much as hundreds of missiles per target.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 809
    Points : 976
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:20 pm

    Vann7 wrote:The problem however will continue to be .. Offense > defense.

    Taking into account a large scale conventional scenario between highly advanced opponents all the results coming from the most advanced simulation's models suggest the exact opposite of this assumption  Smile  

    Highly advanced defense systems (and with that i don't refer exclusively to high-end SAMs) don't only allow to completely neutralize or apply hindering losses on the entire spectrum of the most crucial offensive/ISR elements of the enemy forces (such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles , aircraft, gliding bombs, helicopters, UAV/UCAV, AWACS, airborne jammers,  decoys and so on.......) but also to maintain integer the bulk of theirs own offensive means so to achieve a progressively faster degradation of opponent's offensive capabilities.

    Very advanced defense systems don't only allow to fend-off attacks or completely prevent them but also allow to the offensive elements to survive.

    That is even more true with Air Forces, representing effectively motionless targets for enemy offensive elements.
    All airfields…… and in particular NATO ones, lacking often the most elementary guise of passive hardening measures and of IAD coverage…. represent in facts for the enemy very easy targets, with well-known coordinates , characterized ,moreover, by high concentration of : delicate and very soft skin targets (aircraft) , exposed fuel stock and ammo depots in a forcibly compressed area;  all factors rendering them one of the most trivial targets in modern warfare , except when inserted in a very solid, high-end, dense and multilayered IAD.

    Even more ,we cannot stress enough how the more advanced, extensive and dense is a sector of enemy  IAD defending critical assets the more attacking Air Forces become exponentially vulnerable to “beheading” attacks; with offending Aviation forced effectively to bring and concentrate in the close-theater's airfields a very high number of Aircraft, ammunitions and corollary assets in order to even only prepare an attack against a particular IAD’s sector with some chance of success.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 713
    Points : 693
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:56 pm

    To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4471
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:06 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 713
    Points : 693
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:10 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile

    It's not like NATO is defenceless in AD field, in a war those tasks would be mostly performed by fighters.
    For example, I think that F-15 could be a very good anti-CM platform- good range, lots of ordnance, AESA radar.


    Last edited by etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4471
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:17 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile


    The exactly opposite for airforces? I strongly disagree, Russian fighter jets are as capable as any other country's jets in the world.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 713
    Points : 693
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:23 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile





    The exactly opposite for airforces? I strongly disagree, Russian fighter jets are as capable as any other country's jets in the world.  


    I meant numerically.
    Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35 Smile

    But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
    And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 809
    Points : 976
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:55 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:It's not like NATO is defenceless in AD field, in a war those tasks would be mostly performed by fighters.


    In this world that represent a complete fairy tale  Rolling Eyes

     

    I try to explain the absurdity of this apologetic concept with a very simple example :

    A NATO Command Center receive data from early warning radars /AWACS that four groups of enemy "intruders", still at several hundreds km of distance are in route at high subsonic speed toward several possible critical NATO targets in the theatre of operations (C4 center ,a main radar, some main military airfields) ,let put that the contacts in each group are 25, 20, 21 and 30.

    Any NATO general, well aware that its "IAD" (if would be even serious employ in that instance this term.....Laughing ) lack any dedicated and optimized interceptors such as MiG-31 ( designed to greatly dilute cruise missile PGM Attacks), any system like S-300 family, any system like BUK-M family, any system like TOR-M family, any system like Tunguska-M or Pantsyr-S, high power ECM vehicles, dedicated decoy and masking systems, for not say the entire structure of passive and active network of overlapping sensors and command posts, purposely conceived to allow the repulsion of air attack some order of magnitude bigger than this one and well knowing that allowing the enemy to coordinate a saturating attack on the not-hardened airfields would lead to a catastrophic outcome , order all the interceptors capable to scramble toward an useful and far intercepting point of those enemy squadrons to urgently take-off.

    Alarms in all possible airfields potentially targets of a possible cruise missile/PGM attack by part of those enemy squadrons is immediately risen, AWACS  in the area recede in a sure position and jamming aircraft take-off while all possible fighter in the theatre airfields take the air in the attempt to intercept the menace ; theirs failure would mean the entire NATO Air Force structure in the area to literally collapse, with the utter loss of all aircraft, weapons and material that those air bases contain; a true disaster.


    At 400-500 km from the potential target airfields ,each of those enemy squadrons change suddenly route , now two groups are directed at north-east and other two toward west/north-west for the possible cruise missile delivery toward other two main NATO airfields.

    NATO generals orders all the intercepting squadrons  (likely 100-150 fighter aircraft) ,obviously not more able to execute a successful engagement to return to theirs respective bases and order to the aircraft present in the possible targeted airfields to instead immediately take-off.  

    All the aircraft of the first NATO Air Force's squadrons land and begin the slow repair and re-fuelling operations , when ,suddenly, one of the AWACS detect an enormous number of small RCS contacts incoming at very low altitude and high subsonic/supersonic speed toward all NATO airfield in the sector , NATO General's blood literally freeze in the veins while dozen after dozen of Kalibr missiles ,shot from more than 2500 km of distance , proceed totally undisturbed at destroy all main air bases in the theatre.

    The four "attacking" squadrons can U-turn from their mission : it was  not necessary to shot even only a single missile neither put a single aircraft in danger of enemy interception in order to completely crumble the enemy ridiculous air defense concept of operation.  Razz 


           
    Fighter aircraft are totally incapable to provide any kind of real defense in a modern conflict against an advanced opponent, and without this critical "defensive screen" theirs same survival and that of the asset at the base of theirs operation result impossible .

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian SAMs: Views-Comparisons-Questions

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:56 pm