Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Share

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:Serbia didn't have any digital AESA radars operating in VHF frequencies, and as far as I am aware even the stealth aircraft in that theatre and every theatre operated with escort jammers.

    The escort jammers would give away their own position, but help conceal the stealth aircraft. The old model SAMs the Serbs had could be jammed by the escort jammers and the SAMs they used could not reach the jamming aircraft.

    Works against old generation stuff developed before stealth aircraft were a reality... would not work now against Russia... as Russia rearms will be even less effective.

    There there no supersonic stealth crafts and AESA jammers as well.
    As for escorts, maybe there's some reason why they're called standoff jammers.


    Very few SARH missiles in the Russian inventory... most are TVM or ARH, or command guided.


    TVM is also SARH.

    Also, I see you have trouble realizing what 5th gen is really about.
    It's an evolutionary improvement over previous gens, basically.
    Here you say that 5th gen cannot under any circumstances be put in harm's way, must only use standoff weapons, etc.
    Well guess what, many people were saying exactly the same about 4th generation aircraft, calling them "gold plated hangar queens" and such. But that somehow didn't prevent them having jammers, being used for low altitude bombing runs, did it?
    And I suspect the same might have been the case for previous generation as well.
    So you really say nothing new here, but just repeat the process, comrade.  jocolor


    Faster than the US could launch a satellite on a collision course to hit all the satellites in orbit... other satellites would not be in close orbits to prevent accidental collision so it would require a new launch or a lot of manouvers to get a collision... both of which will be detected and seen as an act of war... and of course the US Navy was riddled with spies who would have tipped the Soviets off... use it before you lose it.

    RORSTATs would be mostly used over north atlantic, yes?
    And USA's space centers are in Florida, on atlantic coast, yes?

    So was it really that difficult to maneuver rocket into correct trajectory? I don't think so.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Aug 19, 2014 6:01 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:Standoff mainlobe jamming should be very difficult to deal with, even with advanced radars.

    etaepsilonk wrote:As far as I know, it's the other way around, jammers become more effective with increased range, because radar signal becomes weaker.

    etaepsilonk wrote:As for escorts, maybe there's some reason why they're called standoff jammers.



    I have just read some of your statements and "ideas" on signal jamming and ......i hope that what i say will not offend you.......i find even surprising that you have allowed a series of truly elementary reasoning mistakes (at this level it is not even a matter of specific knowledge) to fool you completely in your line of reasoning.

    1)  Wanting to simplify the thing at maximum it is possible to define the maximum detection range for a particular radar how the higher range at which the re-radiated power density at the receive antenna - for a target with a specified RCS in the transmitter band , at example 3m2 RCS in the X band - allow the related processing module to extract ,from the noise, a stable positional data of the illuminated object at the specified distance (more simply it is called : the minimum input signal power ).
    This overall figure ....obviously  Very Happy ....is a constant for a particular radar ,at the specified parameters and take already into account the two-way extinction coefficient in the date radar band  Wink


    2) In general (separating from this point the several kind of offensive and defensive techniques at disposition of both sides to slightly modify the brute "energetic balance" of this "signal-to-noise battle") all jamming platforms attempting to degrade that particular radar under its maximum detection range figure, for a target with the specified RCS, must reach a minimum threshold of jamming signal density (usually expressed in W/MHz for radar channel) at the source antenna and that discounting the overcoming of defensive frequence hopping and pseudo-random modulation of the radiating signal.


    3) In order to achieve a successful "stand-off" jamming of an enemy weapon system (such as a SAM battery), the jamming platforms need to achieve a stable and coherent degradation of the reradiating signal under the lower limit of input power for discriminating signal-to-noise performance of the radar from outside the engagement range of the enemy interceptor elements.
    That mean that if, at example, 5 E/A-18 Growlers are capable to obtain the required jamming density to degrade,( from outside SAM engagement range) all channels of a single TAR of an enemy SAM battery equipped with missiles with an engagement range of 50 km ,a simple increase of the engagement range of this SAM at 100 km (doubling) would require .....25 E/A-18 Growlers (square function) to obtain the same stand-off jamming signal density at the source antenna capable to jam that single TAR !!  
    Therefore each increase of SAM engagement range put disproportionate burden on the jamming platforms in terms of sheer radiating power output.

    In reality the platforms required for such a task would be significantly higher for simple sidelobe geometrical reasons and the situation would be exacerbated not only because the enemy IAD's ELS would ,at this point and very easily, provide positional data ....and several fire solutions..... of those jamming platforms for any TEL/TELAR waiting for the neutralization or for the intercepting air squadrons directly toward them but also because a modern IAD can place TEL/TELAR (often completely hidden) at dozen of km of distance from a battery TAR and ,even more share a fire solution in a matter of seconds with virtually any SAM system in position for the neutralization of the intruders and relocate in minutes.

    I believe that  ,at this point, would result even fruitlessly demeaning to cite the immense increase in jamming signal density resistance achieved by even only modernized versions of those same vastly outdated SAM systems against which US and Israeli AF has been force to divert in pasted conflict a so high amount of jamming platforms in order to achieve stand-off jamming .  Laughing  Laughing


    Last edited by Mindstorm on Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:27 pm

    OK, firstly, I'd like to ask you not to use bolded letters so excessively in the future, it makes your comments quite difficult to read.

    3) In order to achieve a successful "stand-off" jamming of an enemy weapon system (such as a SAM battery), the jamming platforms need to achieve a stable and coherent degradation of the reradiating signal under the lower limit of input power for discriminating signal-to-noise performance of the radar from outside the engagement range of the enemy interceptor elements.
    That mean that if, at example, 5 E/A-18 Growlers are capable to obtain the required jamming density to degrade,( from outside SAM engagement range) all channels of a single TAR of an enemy SAM battery equipped with missiles with an engagement range of 50 km ,a simple increase of the engagement range of this SAM at 100 km (doubling) would require .....25 E/A-18 Growlers (square function) to obtain the same stand-off jamming signal density at the source antenna capable to jam that single TAR !!
    Therefore each increase of SAM engagement range put disproportionate burden on the jamming platforms in terms of sheer radiating power output.

    Interesting. Could you provide me with the formula you used for these calculations?

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:47 pm


    etaepsilonk wrote:Interesting. Could you provide me with the formula you used for these calculations?

    Do you really are requesting a formula for this elementary example ?
    What i have represented in the example with the increase of the number of Growlers from 5 to 25 is the product of the square increase of the required jamming radiated power (i the selected band) for effect of the doubling of the propagation range, in order to maintain the same signal density at the receive antenna ; simple like that  Very Happy 
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:45 am

    There there no supersonic stealth crafts and AESA jammers as well.

    Supersonic doesn't make much difference... if anything a supersonic target is less able to out manouver a highly supersonic SAM.

    AESA radars have jamming capabilities... many radar guided missiles have home on jam capabilities too.

    As for escorts, maybe there's some reason why they're called standoff jammers.

    They are supposed to operate outside the range of the air defences to make noise so non stealthy aircraft can operate without being detected. Stealthy aircraft would be even harder to detect with such noise in the X band, but AFAIK there are no airborne VHF frequency jammers so VHF adar should be able to detect them at long range... and large SAMs should still be able to intercept both the jammers and the stealth aircraft...

    Also, I see you have trouble realizing what 5th gen is really about.
    It's an evolutionary improvement over previous gens, basically.

    Evolutionary means a 4th gen aircraft could be upgraded to 5th gen... just like the T-72 can be upgraded to near T-90 performance because they are both on the same evolutionary chain.

    The F-22 is a revolutionary design not directly related to the F-16 or F-15C.

    The same with the F-35, which didn't evolve from any one previous design.

    The role of the F-22 is pretty much similar to the F-15C, but it has changed as well.

    Here you say that 5th gen cannot under any circumstances be put in harm's way, must only use standoff weapons, etc.

    No I didn't.

    What I said is that for every measure there is a counter measure and the time when air defences weren't equipped to deal with stealthy aircraft is over in terms of Russia.

    In 1990 an F-117 could not have bombed Moscow because it would be armed with two laser guided bombs and is subsonic so even an old model MiG-29 with IR guided missiles and IRST could run it down and kill it.

    the F-22 would be a different kettle of fish because it could shoot back well before the MiG pilot could get close... but it would only get 6 shots and then have to return to base.

    Today with modern VHF radar entering service and S-350 and S-400 and soon S-500 systems and of course all the upgraded IADS systems being introduced the F-22 can no longer fly around the place at high altitude shooting down enemy aircraft climbing up to get them why supercruising at moderate supersonic speeds.... it would be detected and gang raped.

    Now it has to fly at low level like planes of old, so all the advantages of flying high like much greater speed and much longer range and of course added range to missiles launched are all gone and the threat from ground based systems... even including small arms fire suddenly make that expensive stealth plane much more vulnerable.

    Stealth is not useless, but it isn't invincible either.

    The US invested everything in stealth... the Russians added jammers and ECM and ESM equipment to their stealth fighter as well as high manouver capability. the PAK FA will be a real dogfighter as well as sniper.

    the PAK FA wont be used to send into enemy territory to take over enemy airspace for an invasion. It will be used to defend Russian airspace.

    Well guess what, many people were saying exactly the same about 4th generation aircraft, calling them "gold plated hangar queens" and such. But that somehow didn't prevent them having jammers, being used for low altitude bombing runs, did it?

    4th gen fighters were never able to operate at medium to high altitudes over the battlefield in enemy airspace where the enemy had any decent air defence capabilities without jamming or heavy enemy air defence suppression operations being continually mounted. Even then flying low and fast made them safer.

    And I suspect the same might have been the case for previous generation as well.
    So you really say nothing new here, but just repeat the process, comrade.

    On paper the age of air power should be over... but few countries actually have the full chess set of pieces like the US does. It has inflight refuelling and transport and jammers and recon and UCAVs and a wide range of assets it can use as well as satellite and other sources of intel on an enemies air defences. Most of the countries the US has fought didn't even have a full set of pawns let alone the other pieces... there is a reason these other support pieces are called force multipliers... if you just have fighters then you are vulnerable to an enemy that has fighters and AEW or AWACS because he can manage his forces more efficiently and concentrate them so he always has superior forces on hand when needed.

    Only Russia really has a full set of defence pieces and even then they are increasing and adding to that stock as we speak. Could the US penetrate Russian defences right now with a small attack that might succeed... probably. In a full scale attack on Russia would the US win... I very much doubt it because the US has never fought such a war where the risk of loses are 1 to 1 or worse. they have never faced such a well equipped competent enemy before and for their sake I hope they never do.

    that is not to say russia is all powerful and can invade any country and win... take away their nukes and I don't think they could successfully invade Europe and get to Berlin.

    Of course you can't take away their nukes so they are pretty safe from external threats.

    So was it really that difficult to maneuver rocket into correct trajectory? I don't think so.

    they were in very specific highly eliptical orbits... I am sure NASA could manage to match orbits but I don't think they could do it quickly as there would be several stages needed to align the orbital paths and synchronise the orbit so a collision actually becomes possible... and I sure as heck don't think they could hide what they were doing... it would be pretty immediately clear what they were trying to do... resulting in the Soviets likely launching ICBMs and giving the attack order to their fleet... the old saying... use it before you lose it.

    Interesting. Could you provide me with the formula you used for these calculations?

    The problem of wave propagation is the same for sound as it is for radio waves.

    Imagine a man is shouting and you want to block his "signal". You obviously have to do this in the same range that he is broadcasting in but both signals... the original and the jamming signal degrade as a square function of distance... ie you can't just double the range and expect to be successful with double the volume and the further away you move the worse it gets.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  etaepsilonk on Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:Supersonic doesn't make much difference... if anything a supersonic target is less able to out manouver a highly supersonic SAM.


    Speed does help with missile evasion. A certain mig-25 sortie in Iraq clearly proves that.

    In 1990 an F-117 could not have bombed Moscow because it would be armed with two laser guided bombs and is subsonic so even an old model MiG-29 with IR guided missiles and IRST could run it down and kill it.

    A lot would depend on initial detection. A certain cessna in red square clearly proves that.


    --------------------------
    Mindstorm wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:Interesting. Could you provide me with the formula you used for these calculations?

    Do you really are requesting a formula for this elementary example ?
    What i have represented in the example with the increase of the number of Growlers from 5 to 25 is the product of the square increase of the required jamming radiated power (i the selected band) for effect of the doubling of the propagation range, in order to maintain the same signal density at the receive antenna ; simple like that Very Happy

    Oh, I somehow didn't notice that  Embarassed 

    But you see, that square function "punishes" both sides equally.
    So, we can say that growler number increase from 5 to 25.
    And SAM radar, if it has, for example 5 emitting elements, it need to have 25 to have a double range increase.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:46 pm

    The cessna was detected. They refrained from shooting it down.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:06 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:But you see, that square function "punishes" both sides equally.
    So, we can say that growler number increase from 5 to 25.


    Obviously not etaepsilonk.
    Probably i has been not clear enough : i will attempt to examplain the thing one more time.


    The first thing i want to repeat is that radar detection range do NOT degrade linearly at the presence of jamming interference. If you do not reach the need threshold of jamming signal density at the hostile radar receive antenna it will continue to successfully extract your precise positional return from the noise .

    Now image that three EA-18G Growlers aircraft are capable to reach the necesary density of the jamming signal , capable to cause the enemy radar detection range to suddenly "collapse" at not operative-significant figures (what you have repeatedly seen executed by those US EW aircraft in all the latest wars against export models of SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6) at 50 km from a SAM battery capable to engage an enemy tactical aircraft at a maximum limit of 40 km and that indipendetly from the fact that the radar operators was probably tracking you from 100 km away.
    Well, in that instance, you have just achieved  stand-off jamming over this SAM TAR radar  Very Happy

    Now try to image that a modernization of this SAM model would increase the surface to air missile effective maximum engagement range against aerodynamic targets at 80 km (any other parameter of the system remain "obsolete").
    Now those two same EA-18G will not be capable anymore to achieve a stand-off jamming against this same SAM site and, if in a mission them will attempt to reach the previous "threshold range" from the emitting radar, them will be very likely downed in the process.

    In order to compensate for this doubling of SAM engagement range (doubling the minimum effective stand-off range from the SAM site) you cannot rely on a mere doubling of the jamming platform you need its square.

    Therefdore if previously it was necessary 3 EA-6B or EA-18G to achieve the stand-off jamming you now need 9 of them and not 6 EA-6B or EA-18G ; if previously was necessary 5 EA-6B or EA-18G you now need 25 of them , not 10 ; if previously was necessary 8 EA-6B or EA-18G you now need 64 of them , not 16 ; and so on.

    Clear now ?

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:51 am

    Speed does help with missile evasion. A certain mig-25 sortie in Iraq clearly proves that.

    Firing at a supersonic receding target at near max range of a missile is always going to have a very low probability of a kill... in that case however it was a situation where making the iraqi aircraft run away was as good as killing it because it made it go away.

    A lot would depend on initial detection. A certain cessna in red square clearly proves that.

    That cessna was continuously tracked well before it entered Soviet airspace. Once MiG-23s had determined it was a civilian aircraft the intercept was handed to a nearby helicopter unit because the very low flight speed of the MiGs made communication difficult... if it had been an F-117 there would have been no problem as the MiGs could simply have blown it out of the sky with 23mm cannon shells, but shooting down a clearly civilian air craft would not have looked good... especially after shooting down the Korean airliner.

    the helicopters sent to force the cessna to land had trouble locating it because they didn't have radar and not trained for air interception.

    I believe in the 1990s the Bulgarian Hinds got a kill shooting down a balloon though so it can be done.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:11 am

    GarryB wrote:
    A lot would depend on initial detection. A certain cessna in red square clearly proves that.

    That cessna was continuously tracked well before it entered Soviet airspace. Once MiG-23s had determined it was a civilian aircraft the intercept was handed to a nearby helicopter unit because the very low flight speed of the MiGs made communication difficult... if it had been an F-117 there would have been no problem as the MiGs could simply have blown it out of the sky with 23mm cannon shells, but shooting down a clearly civilian air craft would not have looked good... especially after shooting down the Korean airliner.

    the helicopters sent to force the cessna to land had trouble locating it because they didn't have radar and not trained for air interception.

    I believe in the 1990s the Bulgarian Hinds got a kill shooting down a balloon though so it can be done.


    After that incident the MoD ruled out that all soviet helicopters which are deticated for combat shall have the ability to shoot down slow and low flying aircrafts like Cessnas. Since Any fighter jet was far to fast and would not be able to escort any illegal slow and low flying cessna type aircraft, but helicopters could do that.

    After 1988 all attack helicopters for all weapons have been added air to air engagement, even for cannon fire. The air to air engagement mode gives missiles precise direction to its target and laser range finds the exact distance for cannon and missile fire in real time, while most other helicopters like Apache for instance have two modes for laser range finding, manuell adjustment from 500-1000-1500-2000m and so on, or a sporadical update of the distance after several seconds, which can lead to wrong distance adjustment when the helicopters flies towards a target and the system takes 5 seconds to adjust the distance and cannon evelation.

    Even tho limited Air-to-Air capability existed on Mi-24 like which was seen in Afghanistan with R-60 missiles used during night time as IR seeking missiles of trucks and taliban convoys, which is somehow odd and funny to think about. The MoD still ruled out that this air to air engagemen is a standard requirement for all combat aircrafts,regardless of Mi-24 or Mi-8.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:24 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Clear now ?

    I understood very well what you're trying to say the first time, but doubling SAM range is not a universal solution.
    You see, the battlefield economy, in essence, is tying up as many enemy resources, while using as little resources of your own. Obviously, simply using longer range (and more expensive) SAMs is not perfect for this equation.

    ------------------------
    GarryB wrote:
    Speed does help with missile evasion. A certain mig-25 sortie in Iraq clearly proves that.

    Firing at a supersonic receding target at near max range of a missile is always going to have a very low probability of a kill... in that case however it was a situation where making the iraqi aircraft run away was as good as killing it because it made it go away.

    That mig wasn't receding then it shot down f-18.



    Regarding the cessna incident, I admit that I'm not completely familiar with all the details, so border violation may had been detected and intercept may had been attempted. However, that attempt failed miserably, there's no point in denying that. Being careful about civilians is one thing, risking the safety of strategic objects is quite another.

    moskit

    Posts : 28
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2016-05-19

    can the S 400 and S 500 be jammed? are these great machines jam proof?

    Post  moskit on Sun May 22, 2016 8:37 am

    Glory to Rusian armed forces,

    Dear admins,

    I have been following the air defence weapon systems being developed and deployed currently in the russian armed forces especially the S 400 for a while. India, where I belong, is about to aquire S 400 from Russia since it planned to firewall its skies by adding up these finest machines along with the systems it develops indegenously. Recently I came across a write up in a western blog claiming that the US and NATO have develped the means to jam and nuetraise the S 400 air defence systems comprehensively. Can S 400 and 500 be jammed and nuetralized? Are these machines are jam proof? Please help me to clear this doubt. thank you admins.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Viktor on Sun May 22, 2016 1:02 pm

    There is no wonder weapon that has no counter. Yes jamming of S-400 is possible but the cost of it would probably be so high that no state would dare think about it.

    Thing is that you need to have info about where the system is (as it is highly mobily) - producing such reliable info could cost you nice chunk of planes enemy state has Laughing

    Thing is that for successfully jamming you need to have strong enough ECM and to have it you need to be close which is har given passive guidance of the 400km range S-400 missiles Laughing

    To jamm the S-400 you need also to bypass all the cuntermeassures which Russia from the 1970ies implements within its airdefense ORBAT as ECM/ECCM/decoys/air componet of the

    air defense.

    etc ...

    Garry - transfer the theme to the S-400/500 theme to avoid having them to much
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 23, 2016 12:16 pm

    Recently I came across a write up in a western blog claiming that the US and NATO have develped the means to jam and nuetraise the S 400 air defence systems comprehensively. Can S 400 and 500 be jammed and nuetralized? Are these machines are jam proof? Please help me to clear this doubt. thank you admins.

    They couldn't reliably jam S-300s in their own exercises let alone Russian versions of S-300.

    Jamming and decoying is a constant battle of tit for tat... can't really say for sure who is in the lead, but the fear the west seems to show of the Russians selling S-300 to Iran suggests they are not in a position to ignore it.

    Soviets used some accelerator on their aircraft, i've seen a video of a mig 21 taking off like a missile with that technology. So it's not realy a problem. Pretty bad that they don't put money on the development of the Yak-44.

    You mean rocket assisted takeoff?

    they have mentioned development of EM cats on their new carriers... the only practical purpose for such is to allow heavier aircraft to operate from the carrier like AWACS and tanker aircraft and light transports.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7

    Posts : 3452
    Points : 3570
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Vann7 on Mon May 23, 2016 10:12 pm

    moskit wrote:Glory to Rusian armed forces,

    Dear admins,

    I have been following the air defence weapon systems being developed and deployed currently in the russian armed forces especially the S 400 for a while. India, where I belong, is about to aquire S 400 from Russia since it planned to firewall its skies by adding up these finest machines along with the systems it develops indegenously.  Recently I came across a write up in a western blog claiming that the US and NATO have develped the means to jam and nuetraise the S 400 air defence systems comprehensively. Can S 400 and 500 be jammed and nuetralized? Are these machines are jam proof? Please help me to clear this doubt. thank you admins.


    The answer to that question nobody can know for sure , not even NATO unless they test
    it for real in an S-400 in a war. But even if they could Jam S-400 or S-500 or S-600 that doesn't exist yet.  It doesn't mean it will be easy for them either. Because Patriots defenses and Aegis
    launched missiles and tomahawks can be jammed too. this latest ones even more easily since are missiles from the 80s. Russia can also Jam GPS satellites , and contrary to NATO Russia have proof /evidence of jamming state of the art Best NATO military hardware.



    The jammed Stealth drone of Boeing , one of the very best technology Americans had ,
    was easily captured by IRAN  [u] using soviet era jamming systems [/b]  that Russia provided to them , this is according to Kret corporation ,that is ,the company who makes the electronic warfare for Russia.

    So any technology ,any missile or air defenses ,that Americans deploy to avoid Russia
    jamming will have to be superior than anything they have today in service ,at least.

    Kret is working in jamming space satellites too , according to their website , So in the worse
    case for Russia ,if NATO claims are true (which can only be possible if they tested it for real in a real war against S-400) ,Then None missile ,or air defenses or cruise missile  ,neither american ,neither Russian will hit anything across long distances because will be jammed. So both NATO and Russia will be forced to fight the old way like world war 2 with plain artillery and tanks , if both nations counter electronics are very effective if jamming long range weapons.

    This is why i believe the real deal in any high tech modern war should be focused in
    Combat stealth planes like Pak-fA or perhaps develop stealth versions of Su-25 for close air visual ground attack, that reduce significantly the range they detected on radars .that can be resistance to jam, very powerful long range artillery and modern Tanks. Ballistic missiles like Iskander can also be a pain if not impossible to jam ,because they operate most time away of enemy radar jamming range ,go to high altitude beyond jamming environments and can fly above enemy target and do a 90 degree turn on its target. So by the time the missile enters in an heavily electronic warfare zone ,it will not matter, the warhead will hit the place more or less it intended because will have autonomous guidance by optics and will not depend a lot of updated its fly path on its final phase. Bullets from pantsirs gatling gun defense also fire cannot be jammed. So if S-400 is jammed ,airforce and pantsirs will still be available.

    This is a reason i really think Russia should consider seriously develop mobile rail guns for army
    and on coastal warships backing it , that fire kinetic projectiles at hypersonic speeds from upto 100km distance or more. You cannot jam kinetic projectiles that are not guided by radio its flight path.

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 134
    Points : 134
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Singular_trafo on Tue May 24, 2016 7:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Recently I came across a write up in a western blog claiming that the US and NATO have develped the means to jam and nuetraise the S 400 air defence systems comprehensively. Can S 400 and 500 be jammed and nuetralized? Are these machines are jam proof? Please help me to clear this doubt. thank you admins.

    They couldn't reliably jam S-300s in their own exercises let alone Russian versions of S-300.


    It is possible to jam the phased array radars as well.
    I just went throught in mathcad the basic radar calculations, and the radar direction can be calculated from the sidelobes.
    If you know the direction of the main lobe then you can generate phase direction dependend jamming signal, with a wavelenght calculated based on the emitted frequency divided by the cosin of the angle between main lobe direction and jamming emitter direction.

    The radar is FM , so it require more than simple frequency generation , but of course the jammer is allwazs in power advantage.

    Only method to filter out this kind of jamming is if there are more radars interconnected, in that case the jammer has to generate direction dependent signal for all radar to jamm them.

    It is a quite interesting topics, however there is not so much information about it on the net.Actualy I found 0 , all information coming from mathcad calculations.

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 134
    Points : 134
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    phased array radar signal pattern

    Post  Singular_trafo on Wed May 25, 2016 9:11 pm








    100 emitter vs 40 emitter, and the signal strenght by radian , showing the sidelobes.
    The first two picture doesn't show the sidelobe magnitude, I tried to scale them up to be visible.

    It is easy to calculate the main lobe andle compared to the receiver for jamming ,but to define the exact direction you need two receiver .

    I hope that the picture will be visible : )
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  max steel on Wed May 25, 2016 9:26 pm

    But Israelis jammed or decoyed Syrian S-300 successfully. Wink
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Isos on Wed May 25, 2016 10:13 pm

    https://warisboring.com/four-israeli-f-15s-dodged-syrian-missile-fire-to-attack-urgent-targets-a28cff11323d#.pafhfs5o1

    Just found this. Don't know if it's true but they didn't even manage to jam succesfully soviet Buk ... so S-400/500 jamming ...


    Even if it was jammed the jammer would be detected and a fighter would be send to destroy it. That's what happened with a F-111 in Irak: when it was jamming SAMs a mig mannaged to shoot at it and it has to go away then a f-16 was shoot down by SAMs.


    Last edited by Isos on Wed May 25, 2016 10:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Singular_trafo

    Posts : 134
    Points : 134
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    ΕCM vs S-300/400

    Post  Singular_trafo on Wed May 25, 2016 10:22 pm

    max steel wrote:But Israelis jammed or decoyed Syrian S-300 successfully. Wink

    They don't need to do that, due to the curvature of earth the Israeli airplanes can stay under the radar in south syria.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    My bad it was SA-2 and SA-6 missile system they jammed or spoofed.

    Post  max steel on Thu May 26, 2016 4:48 pm

    My bad it was SA-2 and SA-6 missile system they jammed or spoofed. They recently practiced against greece S-300 system with their F-16I to counter Iranian SAMs. But again it was like Practicing against a household kitty and facing a wild tiger.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    most modern Russian radars employ jammer

    Post  max steel on Mon May 30, 2016 9:19 pm

    most modern Russian radars employ jammer angle tracking techniques, which combined with pervasive networking, will provide missile batteries with an organic capability to target SAMs against jamming aircraft. The potential for alternate SAM seeker types increases this risk.

    The integration of passive Emitter Locating Systems into SAM batteries provides at a minimum an ability to overcome jamming, and at worst an organic targeting capability exploiting emissions from the jammer.

    Support jamming aircraft have been a priority target since the Soviet era, and the S-300V/SA-12 system had specific angle tracking capabilities designed in for this very purpose during the 1980s. Current Russian thinking is to employ very long range SAMs to kill support jamming aircraft in their standoff orbits. By extending SAM kinematic range past 120 nautical miles, the Russians have driven aircraft using the extant ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System (EA-6B/EA-18G) outside of the power-aperture envelope where this system performs most effectively.


    Russia KRET and RnD on optics has all the capability to take such measures.

    Sponsored content

    Re: ΕCMs vs S-300 system

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:44 am