S-300 VS. TLAM

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 473
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post15 May 2017, 01:08

Although TLAM have no seekers, can the firing commander use the missile camera to home on missile defenses? For example if a TLAM formation is being fired upon, can the firing commander datalink the missile to change course to strike the enemy SAM?

A good solution against SAM is throw a lot MALD-J with TLAM formation.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 641
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post15 May 2017, 06:40

armedupdate wrote:Although TLAM have no seekers, can the firing commander use the missile camera to home on missile defenses? For example if a TLAM formation is being fired upon, can the firing commander datalink the missile to change course to strike the enemy SAM?


I'm not entirely up-to-date on cruise missiles, but I think Tactical Tomahawk can be re-tasked via datalink, but only to coordinates.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Online
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7674
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post15 May 2017, 07:23

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... le-4255074

Raytheon has successfully completed a passive-seeker test intended for the Tomahawk block IV cruise missile, marking a key milestone on the missile's modernisation path... An active-seeker test involving Raytheon's new processor integrated into a Tomahawk nose cone is planned for early 2015, which would assess the processor's ability to stream active radar while passively receiving target electromagnetic information. This would further enable the missile to destroy moving targets on land and at sea... Last month, Raytheon tested the missile's communications upgrades, which enabled it to fly a pre-programmed route while receiving updates from a simulated maritime operations centre and from advanced off-board sensors, which changed the target location.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2741
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post15 May 2017, 13:37

So Tomahawk could either avoid enemy radars to better ensure success or be used as very long ranged (although very slow) ARM? Now that sounds pretty cool capability to have...
Offline

zhangmdev

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post16 May 2017, 01:43

The flight routes are designed to avoid known SAM sites. Inflight re-targeting enables to switch between pre-selected targets. There is no situation awareness about being targeted by SAM (, other than being shot-down). The warhead tasked for intended targets may not be suitable to destroy radar sites. Stocking every missile with an anti-radiation seaker sounds unnecessary. If it survives flying over air defense zone, why not carry on to the its original target? So I don't think using Tomahawk as impromptu ARM is some capability needed.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2741
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post16 May 2017, 07:08

I was thinking about clearing path for follow on Tomahawks to attack actual targets. Like the 60 Tomahawk attack in Syria, say 2-6 are used to make a hole in the enemy radar coverage. There could be a situation where using those missiles as ARMs could be justified. Any Tomahawk warhead would suffice against radar systems if the guidance is accurate enough. This would be like Martel or ARMAT missiles which were rather large but slow (subsonic) ARM missiles. They were pretty successful against surveillance radars though.

I think this passive RF seeker is because AD systems are getting ever more mobile and more dispersed which makes flight route planning much more difficult as situation might change drastically during the mission. I agree that the system is likely more geared towards survivability than ARM functionality, but I don't know how it could not be used for that too if needed. To accurately detect and track RF emitting targets, it needs to be pretty accurate system which could double as ARM guidance if accuracy is high enough. It's not going to be AARGM or anything, but might well be good enough to knock down surveillance radars. Like USA used Apaches and F-117s to destroy surveillance radars in Desert Storm to create major holes in Iraqi radar network.
Online
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7674
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post16 May 2017, 09:30

I think the primary driver for the RF seeker development was to be able to track maritime targets. A secondary role against IADS would be a bonus and there was mention of an active RF seeker being developed as well. Raytheon likely felt the need to make it competitive with LRASM.
Last edited by popcorn on 16 May 2017, 10:56, edited 1 time in total.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

zhangmdev

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post16 May 2017, 10:37

Enabling a Tomahawk to perform Wild Weasel mission needs a whole set of targeting system to detect, identify, pin-point enemy emitter. How about false alarms? How about someone parked a working radar inside a school or hospital? Is the target valuable enough to put a Tomahawk onto it? Machine is not trusted to make the decision. So high speed SATCOM is needed to transmit real-time images back to the controllers. Let human to decide and send back the solution. There may be dozens missiles loitering the battle ground at the same time. Each of them may demand such attention. Sounds very complicated.

Due to low flying altitude, the time window to engage (or be engaged by) enemy emitter may be very short. Climbing to certain higher altitude to take a better look? Those tiny engines and stubby wings look not very maneuverable or fast. Departing from terrain-hugging route makes the missile more vulnerable. Circling above air defense zone waiting for decision sounds very dangerous. I don't think it is worthwhile.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5229
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 May 2017, 12:59

hornetfinn wrote:I was thinking about clearing path for follow on Tomahawks to attack actual targets. Like the 60 Tomahawk attack in Syria, say 2-6 are used to make a hole in the enemy radar coverage.


Problem is there are all sorts of things in the vicinity of a Tombstone or Big Bird that can easily deal with Tomahawk. They'd never even get close. JASSM maybe, due to it's stealth, but ideally you'd want something like stealthy ASALM.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post23 Jun 2017, 01:00

It turns out the Russians do have an operational S-300 battery in Tartus, apparently by the port (either in the port, or a raised AD site located near the port). Apparently they launched off an S-300 sometime yesterday at something towards the sea, indicating that the battery is there and operational.

If so, and if it didn't detect anything during the cruise missile attack where the Tomahwaks would have flown within 15-30km from it, both from the sea (with no obstruction) and climbing over the mountainous terrain...then this doesn't bode well for S-300's capabilities against cruise missiles.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5229
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post23 Jun 2017, 13:48

arian wrote:It turns out the Russians do have an operational S-300 battery in Tartus, apparently by the port (either in the port, or a raised AD site located near the port). Apparently they launched off an S-300 sometime yesterday at something towards the sea, indicating that the battery is there and operational.

If so, and if it didn't detect anything during the cruise missile attack where the Tomahwaks would have flown within 15-30km from it, both from the sea (with no obstruction) and climbing over the mountainous terrain...then this doesn't bode well for S-300's capabilities against cruise missiles.


If it was operating. Kinda like the Stark, with SM-1 and Phalanx, that still got nailed by Exocet.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post24 Jun 2017, 02:51

sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:It turns out the Russians do have an operational S-300 battery in Tartus, apparently by the port (either in the port, or a raised AD site located near the port). Apparently they launched off an S-300 sometime yesterday at something towards the sea, indicating that the battery is there and operational.

If so, and if it didn't detect anything during the cruise missile attack where the Tomahwaks would have flown within 15-30km from it, both from the sea (with no obstruction) and climbing over the mountainous terrain...then this doesn't bode well for S-300's capabilities against cruise missiles.


If it was operating. Kinda like the Stark, with SM-1 and Phalanx, that still got nailed by Exocet.


I have no doubt that there are 100 variables to consider and 1 instance isn't enough to draw any conclusions from. But I think more than anything it speaks to the internet fan-boys who assume that simply because there's an S-300, S-400, S-62000 present, then automatically the area becomes impenetrable to US assets and all hope is lost.
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post24 Jun 2017, 09:15

I feel as if in order for those big Russian SAMs to be thoroughly layer protected, from long range to point defense, they need a perfect assembly and position for their short range interceptor systems. And this by virtue necessitates a pre prepared position, which implies a fixed location, which results in death because anything not moving and known is done in this day and age. I don't care how capable it is. The advantage is almost always with the initiator and attacker. Those Russian SAMs in Syria are monoliths, and very vulnerable. No wonder the Soviets feared our GLCM and IRBMS (Pershings) in central Europe back in the day.

With a future Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) in the works, and also a conventional/nuclear Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) under development, the edge should remain with offensive strike weapons in the decades ahead. Especially when coupled with dozens of payload module Virginia boats and the B-21 raider. Little is also known about what the true effect of MALD decoys would be on an IADS system and there's also apparently an EMP equipped JASSM-ER variant in production. Personally I would still prefer a Rods-from-God concept but I guess that's asking for too much.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Online
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7674
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 02:04

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5229
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Nov 2017, 04:05

popcorn wrote:


Except those Tomahawks will be like fish in a barrel compared to the stealthy LRASM.
"There I was. . ."
Previous

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests