Serbia Air Defence at Kosovo Air Battle

VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov I appreciate the info I have a follow up question you're quite experienced with AD especially since you guys faced off against NATO. Could they have enjoyed the same success they had in Serbia if they were to face against a more modern AD network?

Well i can only guess, but if we had same numbers of modern equipment at that moment we would probably manage alot more than we did with our even at that time fairly vintage machines, however i presume we would have alot more loses too...in terms of manpower at least. They would eventually via attrition disable our AD, probably losing quite a few aircraft more, but take in count they had resources of all major European NATO members and all the others were used as bases.

If we had lets say S-300PMU1 instead of Neva, Buk-M1s instead of Kub, Strela-M2s instead of Strela-1 and Igla instead of Strela-2M and all that hooked up on better IADS, then we would probably do alot more than we did. Also that would require new radars as mainstray were P-16, P-12, P-18 and P-40 which even then were ancient, something like Nebo SVU for a start.

Iraqis were better equiped than us in both quality and quantity in 2003., yet they managed very little themself too.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov I appreciate the info I have a follow up question you're quite experienced with AD especially since you guys faced off against NATO. Could they have enjoyed the same success they had in Serbia if they were to face against a more modern AD network?

Well i can only guess, but if we had same numbers of modern equipment at that moment we would probably manage alot more than we did with our even at that time fairly vintage machines, however i presume we would have alot more loses too...in terms of manpower at least. They would eventually via attrition disable our AD, probably losing quite a few aircraft more, but take in count they had resources of all major European NATO members and all the others were used as bases.

If we had lets say S-300PMU1 instead of Neva, Buk-M1s instead of Kub, Strela-M2s instead of Strela-1 and Igla instead of Strela-2M and all that hooked up on better IADS, then we would probably do alot more than we did. Also that would require new radars as mainstray were P-16, P-12, P-18 and P-40 which even then were ancient, something like Nebo SVU for a start.

Iraqis were better equiped than us in both quality and quantity in 2003., yet they managed very little themself too.

Yes, if i recall that had more to do with most of there AD systems being located around the Iran-Iraq area and there IAD network being French and compromised, also i doubt they followed Soviet AD doctrine.

Not only that, French system was made to track and process and deal with up to 50 targets, NATO had quite a few more, they literally stressed whole system with their numbers. And even more important, Serbs had forests, mountains, tunnels... we could run, hide, decoy, mask... Iraq on other hand is 90% flat land where you cant hide anything unless you dig a hole for it.

And here you can see reason why Nevas had... extremly short lifespan on examples, as this is "by the book" how SA-3 site looks like (basically same goes for SA-2 and SA-5):

Yes terrain did help Serbia out immensely. So Militarov based on Serbia's experiences with NATO operations, no AD network can hold against NATO's air-fleet?

VladimirSahin wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Слободан човек wrote:I don't discuss with shills.

Dude, B-2 most definitely was not shot down.

They fly at very high altitudes and if our AD had missiles capable of reaching targets that far up we would not be discussing this because there would have been no war to begin with.

Neva could reach them actually in ideal situation even during approach, however situation is never ideal and gap for detection and guidance is tiny, IF we got lucky and detected it. Furthermore after launch the site would get bombed, as they were anyways. Barely any Nevas survived the war, actually only those that did not engage survived.

What we could not reach was U2, which for we tried reintroducing one battery of S75, which was not completed as it was bombed half way though being prepared for service.

Major issue was that we could alot easier detect stealthy targets with recon radars P15, P12, P18.. but our guidance radars couldnt. So it was like "we know you are there, but we cant do anything about it".

So how did NATO identify positions so fast after launches?

From the moment of detecting our radar to the moment of actual bombing of the radar position, it took NATO at least 12 hours. So our army knew that they had to change positions every 12 hours (or ideally less).

VladimirSahin wrote:Yes terrain did help Serbia out immensely. So Militarov based on Serbia's experiences with NATO operations, no AD network can hold against NATO's air-fleet?

We hold up pretty well. VOJIN operated throughout the war.

VladimirSahin wrote:Yes terrain did help Serbia out immensely. So Militarov based on Serbia's experiences with NATO operations, no AD network can hold against NATO's air-fleet?

Any AD network will have loses, there is no question about it, however it greatly depends on many things. Are you forced into defending yourself only via means of air defence systems or you actually have air force that can perform air defence and interception missions. In my opinion, and that is sort of opinion i formed after the service, if you allow enemy to freely roam in your airspace and hope to shoot them down you already lost as you will sooner rather than later lose your airfrields, warload and equipment storages, bridges, fixed radar sites, command centers, fuel storages... industry...

Missile Air defence systems cannot work alone, you need air force that can be used as deterrance and then use air defence systems to protect important facilities and areas, depending on which systems you have on disposal. So no matter how good AD network you have, it will not be enough on its own without good and capable air force to match it.

On other side there is another aspect of your question "aganist NATO air fleet", if you gave all the best equipment that exists in this world in fields of air defence and airforce to lets say... North Korea, they would get overrun on a long run simply due to the fact 30 countries would use their resources and airforce to attack them (we are talking hypothetical here). One isolated country cannot defend itself endlessly either, at least not with great success and without suffering horrible loses.

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:Yes terrain did help Serbia out immensely. So Militarov based on Serbia's experiences with NATO operations, no AD network can hold against NATO's air-fleet?

Any AD network will have loses, there is no question about it, however it greatly depends on many things. Are you forced into defending yourself only via means of air defence systems or you actually have air force that can perform air defence and interception missions. In my opinion, and that is sort of opinion i formed after the service, if you allow enemy to freely roam in your airspace and hope to shoot them down you already lost as you will sooner rather than later lose your airfrields, warload and equipment storages, bridges, fixed radar sites, command centers, fuel storages... industry...

Missile Air defence systems cannot work alone, you need air force that can be used as deterrance and then use air defence systems to protect important facilities and areas, depending on which systems you have on disposal. So no matter how good AD network you have, it will not be enough on its own without good and capable air force to match it.

On other side there is another aspect of your question "aganist NATO air fleet", if you gave all the best equipment that exists in this world in fields of air defence and airforce to lets say... North Korea, they would get overrun on a long run simply due to the fact 30 countries would use their resources and airforce to attack them (we are talking hypothetical here). One isolated country cannot defend itself endlessly either, at least not with great success and without suffering horrible loses.

Quite true. That's NATO's distinct advantage of having so much resources, they can win based on total attrition figures alone.

Слободан човек wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:Yes terrain did help Serbia out immensely. So Militarov based on Serbia's experiences with NATO operations, no AD network can hold against NATO's air-fleet?

We hold up pretty well. VOJIN operated throughout the war.

Yeah you guys did do better than other countries facing such overwhelming numbers.

Слободан човек wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Слободан човек wrote:I don't discuss with shills.

Dude, B-2 most definitely was not shot down.

They fly at very high altitudes and if our AD had missiles capable of reaching targets that far up we would not be discussing this because there would have been no war to begin with.

Neva could reach them actually in ideal situation even during approach, however situation is never ideal and gap for detection and guidance is tiny, IF we got lucky and detected it. Furthermore after launch the site would get bombed, as they were anyways. Barely any Nevas survived the war, actually only those that did not engage survived.

What we could not reach was U2, which for we tried reintroducing one battery of S75, which was not completed as it was bombed half way though being prepared for service.

Major issue was that we could alot easier detect stealthy targets with recon radars P15, P12, P18.. but our guidance radars couldnt. So it was like "we know you are there, but we cant do anything about it".

So how did NATO identify positions so fast after launches?

From the moment of detecting our radar to the moment of actual bombing of the radar position, it took NATO at least 12 hours. So our army knew that they had to change positions every 12 hours (or ideally less).

12h is hell of time window, if they actually had 12h windows they would suffer minimal loses. And that is not how SEAD works i am afraid, tho i wish it did.

NATO force in 1999. above Yugoslavia used 48 AF Block 50 F-16CJs (Wild Weasel) and 30 Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B Prowlers, unknown number of Tornados from UK and Germany and Spanish F-18s to perform SEAD operations, mostly carrying HARMs. Now, window between detection of emitting radar and actual launch of HARM depends, but it was not even remotely close to hour, especially because crews never had radars on for prolonged period of time, they often turned on and off radars every 20ish seconds to evade HARM guidance aganist them which on maximum ranges required constant source of radiation to be guided.

Majority of strike groups were escorted by HARM equiped aircraft, to defend bombers from "guided" missiles, as our crews would often launch them on unguided balistic trajectories to break enemy formation in hope to force them to lower altitudes in reach of MANPADS and AAA. Many radars were hit just seconds after turning radar on, especially Giraffe and P12/P15 which were part of AAA batteries.

In total NATO spent 743 HARMs against various radiation sources, some of which were imitators, or old decomissioned radars but many radars were destroyed or damaged.

Downed NATO aircraft (official Yugoslav Army numbers):

- 61 planes
- 7 helicopters
- 30 UAVs
- 338 cruise missiles

Слободан човек wrote:Downed NATO aircraft (official Yugoslav Army numbers):

- 61 planes
- 7 helicopters
- 30 UAVs
- 338 cruise missiles

And 11 Star Destroyers

Militarov wrote:

Слободан човек wrote:Downed NATO aircraft (official Yugoslav Army numbers):

- 61 planes
- 7 helicopters
- 30 UAVs
- 338 cruise missiles

And 11 Star Destroyers

You forgot:

I think you are over estimating NATO... sure they can get lots of planes and bits of equipment on scene, but you start mauling them and they have no spine.

If the Serbs had knocked a few more aircraft down I really don't think NATO would have held together all that well.

A few dozen Pantsir systems... fully autonomous, capable, able to hit targets up to medium altitude, very mobile, and able to hit passively without warning... cheap missiles...

They could not afford to hit all their targets with cruise missiles... too expensive and not enough of them in theatre.

Of course a few Iskanders able to hit NATO airfields would also have made a serious difference to the conflict... actually being able to hit back is not something NATO is used to...

GarryB wrote:I think you are over estimating NATO... sure they can get lots of planes and bits of equipment on scene, but you start mauling them and they have no spine.

If the Serbs had knocked a few more aircraft down I really don't think NATO would have held together all that well.

A few dozen Pantsir systems... fully autonomous, capable, able to hit targets up to medium altitude, very mobile, and able to hit passively without warning... cheap missiles...

They could not afford to hit all their targets with cruise missiles... too expensive and not enough of them in theatre.

Of course a few Iskanders able to hit NATO airfields would also have made a serious difference to the conflict... actually being able to hit back is not something NATO is used to...

Well they flew majority of their missions above 6000m altitude with legacy mocels and B-2s actually performed almost 35% of the missions overall. Even if we had someting like Pancir in 1999. which did not exist back then, we probably wouldnt do much with it either, just would make them spend more ALARMs and HARMs.

Actually NATO expected higher loses than they recieved, they expected to lose 10 aircraft in first week, but that did not happen, they did not expect to lose F-117 tho. But they expected higher loses of their legacy fighters which never came except one F-16 and few due to accidents. As there was no fighter challenge they could fly in formations that had fighter escort, high amount of EW, multiple ready HARMs and naturally air to ground warload as intended, and its beyond hard to use Air Defence aganist such groups.

If we did by some means strike their airfields whole thing would end up with Coalition ground operation most likely and today this would have not been Serbia.

They had plenty of them in theatre actually, however as they had full air dominance they used them just for specific targets.

GarryB wrote:but you start mauling them and they have no spine.

If the Serbs had knocked a few more aircraft down I really don't think NATO would have held together all that well.

NATO is basically USA when it comes to air war. The Americans have a spine and loosing 10, 20 or 50 more planes wouldn't have had any effect whatsoever. They have/had thousands and they could CSAR many of their pilots quite easily. What made all the difference was the Yugoslavian leadership caving and agreeing to hand over their territory to the same foreigners that bombed them for so many weeks. From the moment that happened, Kosovo was lost for Serbia, forever. Russia refused to pull its weight too and offer partition of Kosovo, they had the means to implement that. They did not.

If we did by some means strike their airfields whole thing would end up with Coalition ground operation most likely and today this would have not been Serbia.

They could not defeat you with air power... why do you think they could have been more successful on the ground?

Well they flew majority of their missions above 6000m altitude with legacy mocels and B-2s actually performed almost 35% of the missions overall.

They flew at that altitude and resulted in quite a bit of collateral damage because they were afraid of air losses... Same reason they never sent in the Apaches...

Actually NATO expected higher loses than they recieved, they expected to lose 10 aircraft in first week, but that did not happen, they did not expect to lose F-117 tho. But they expected higher loses of their legacy fighters which never came except one F-16 and few due to accidents. As there was no fighter challenge they could fly in formations that had fighter escort, high amount of EW, multiple ready HARMs and naturally air to ground warload as intended, and its beyond hard to use Air Defence aganist such groups.

They were so effective that pretty soon they ran out of legitimate things to hit and started hitting civilian infrastructure like trains on bridges by "accident".

They could not hit anything of value in Kosovo and had to hit infrastructure things in Serbia... Sounds to me like they had already been defeated...

The Americans have a spine and loosing 10, 20 or 50 more planes wouldn't have had any effect whatsoever.

They would have been a lot more effective operating below 6km altitude but they weren't prepared to risk aircraft and pilots for some Albanians and to punish Serbia... because that is what it was all about.

What made all the difference was the Yugoslavian leadership caving and agreeing to hand over their territory to the same foreigners that bombed them for so many weeks.

Yugoslavian leadership didn't exist then.

Russia refused to pull its weight too and offer partition of Kosovo, they had the means to implement that. They did not.

Of course... damn putin to blame again...

The Successful Serbian Strategy of Withholding Military Force

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-04.html