Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 08:31
by gc
Interesting and detailed report on Russian A2/AD capabilities and why it is not as inpenetrable as claimed.

https://www.foi.se/rapportsammanfattnin ... --4651--SE

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 09:29
by weasel1962
It would be useful to discern what is the intent of the report?

The rationale for Russia agreeing to allow the baltic states to join nato was that the states are too small to provide a potential threat, having a combined population of ~6 million and GDP of US$120b. The western military district ground forces, even without air cover is sufficient to steam roll over the 3 states practically overnight even with the efp brigade (https://kariuomene.kam.lt/en/e_f_p.html). The moscow region will always be well-armed and the proximity to the region doesn't help. The states forces are small, will remain small with no air cover.

The geography makes it worse when Kaliningrad completes a de-facto surround of the states, making any static defence untenable.

Any defence can be penetrated but not sure how an A2/AD scenario will occur. With the current state of Russian forces, we are not going to see a repeat of the days of a potential Soviet invasion , not sure what is the driver for producing this report?

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 10:55
by gc
To educate the public who seem to increasingly believe that the world has no counter to Russian systems. Changing the erroneous public perception is key in reducing the aura of Russian power that Putin and his fake news army is trying to create. This aura is contributing to NATOs apprehension in countering Russian moves.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 11:07
by linkomart
weasel1962 wrote:It would be useful to discern what is the intent of the report?

...

Any defence can be penetrated but not sure how an A2/AD scenario will occur. With the current state of Russian forces, we are not going to see a repeat of the days of a potential Soviet invasion , not sure what is the driver for producing this report?


The reason is to evaluate the russian defences, FOI is a reseach institute that works on behalf of the swedish defence administration.
Since the report (this part of the report?) is unclassified it does not contain any revolutionary or secret data, the only calculations are of the radar horizon, wich is pretty easy to caclulate....
Even though some reasoning occur around the baltic states, the main focus for the report is on Sweden and Swedish defence. The claimed 400 km range on the defence boubble would easy cut of the south of Sweden from Kalliningrad, but as noted the S400 comes with a lot of limitations at those ranges. And even though the Swedish defence is hampered by the budget cuts, it will still have a few tricks up it's sleeve to counter the threat if needed.

my 5 cent

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 11:09
by linkomart
.. and what gc says is also true about the report, to educate the public.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 11:50
by weasel1962
gc wrote:To educate the public who seem to increasingly believe that the world has no counter to Russian systems.


Välkommen to the forum then, the consensus here is there is a simple counter to the Russian systems. Its called the F-35. Decades of research in various threads.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 15:32
by mixelflick
weasel1962 wrote:
gc wrote:To educate the public who seem to increasingly believe that the world has no counter to Russian systems.


Välkommen to the forum then, the consensus here is there is a simple counter to the Russian systems. Its called the F-35. Decades of research in various threads.


Yep. The only people that don't understand this are the Turks. Or more precisely, the Turkish PM who apparently believes the brochure stats for S-400. It's a great weapons system, but it's not invincible. Apparently, some people think so. How Turkey can't know about how vulnerable it is is beyond me. That precise matchup (F-35 and lesser aircraft vs S-400) is going on right next door in Syria.

Do the Turks not perform ISR, or realize what a wealth of information Syria really is?

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 15:49
by zaltys
You really believe Russia had some kind of veto for Baltic States to join NATO?

weasel1962 wrote:It would be useful to discern what is the intent of the report?

The rationale for Russia agreeing to allow the baltic states to join nato was that the states are too small to provide a potential threat, having a combined population of ~6 million and GDP of US$120b. The western military district ground forces, even without air cover is sufficient to steam roll over the 3 states practically overnight even with the efp brigade (https://kariuomene.kam.lt/en/e_f_p.html). The moscow region will always be well-armed and the proximity to the region doesn't help. The states forces are small, will remain small with no air cover.

The geography makes it worse when Kaliningrad completes a de-facto surround of the states, making any static defence untenable.

Any defence can be penetrated but not sure how an A2/AD scenario will occur. With the current state of Russian forces, we are not going to see a repeat of the days of a potential Soviet invasion , not sure what is the driver for producing this report?

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 20:19
by fidgetspinner
News reports today say Turkey has interest in purchasing the s-500 next. Will this be the final straw that will officially boot Turkey from NATO?

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 22:36
by hythelday
fidgetspinner wrote:News reports today say Turkey has interest in purchasing the s-500 next. Will this be the final straw that will officially boot Turkey from NATO?


They should buy S-600 instead, twice the performance at a fraction of the cost :wink: . If you listen to Russians then 3/4 of the world has expressed interest in their weapons. Algeria Navy is so excited about Russian weapons that they anxiously wait for the 8th year in a row to received Project 20852 corvettes they bought in 2011.

mixelflick wrote:the Turkish PM who apparently believes the brochure stats for S-400.


Turkey isn't buying S-400 for the specs, it's a bargaining chip in the bigger scheme of things, although I have to admit I am not entirely sure what the Father of Turks 2.0 has in mind as an end-game.

Turkey is also not easy to kick out of NATO because they sit on the Bosphorus. Ask CNO ADM Richardson what he thinks about losing care-free access to the Southern maritime flank of NATO and potentially hostile 12 SSKs in the Western Med. But we are getting off-topic, there's a Turkish thread for that discussion.

Back on topic.

Great report, I have only skimmed through the "anti-A2/AD" part, but the reasoning is solid and in line with my own thought about it. Here's what I consider the most important part:
Importantly, the geography of the Baltic Sea region favours the use of ground forces against A2/AD assets, as all of the Kaliningrad exclave is within range of rocket artillery or special forces based in Poland or Lithuania. While supposedly a Russian bastion and a thorn in NATO’s side, when viewed through this kind of lens, Kaliningrad and the high-value forces placed there look very vulnerable.


It's not only about rocket artillery. Historically, Russians have traded territory for time. Some people make fun of the French because Paris fell in four weeks, but forget that Paris is less than a hundred miles from the border. Meanwhile Operation Barbarossa saw Nazi troops approaching Kiev in the same time frame (look up the extent of the territory Soviets lost compared to a portion of France in June 1940 vs 1 month of Eastern Front ops) and had lost about a million troops as POWs alone - in Kiev cauldron only. That's probably the equivalent of the entire third republic's armed forces ORBAT, lost just in one operation. Unfortunately for the Russians, there usn't a whole lot of territory in Kaliningrad to trade time for.

Anyone who talks about "steamrolling" the Baltic states in a matter of days should also remember that a couple of NATO ABCTs could thrust into both Kaliningrad (and Belarus staging areas, optionally) threatening not only Russia's very expensive A2/AD missile systems, but also their major naval base (and Yantar shipyard, ever more important after the loss of Mykolaev), as well as other juicy assets in the Western Military District. There are, of course, many other courses of action and other considerations covered in the report.

I live in the Baltics, and I am not afraid of Kaliningrad A2/AD. The real threat is that NATO is too clumsy and slow to respond and Russians will have sufficient time to broker favorable deals. Germany will surely stall and sue for peace, because violence never solved anything, amirite. Being in NATO is a good safeguard, having allied troops is even better for many reasons, not least non-military.

Now to address the question "why was this report released"? First, Russian behavior required some sort of action, and rightfully so. So the the A2/AD bubble entered the narrative to justify forward troop presence in the Baltics, not safely in the mainland Europe. Then, at some point A2/AD bubble "grew" so powerful in the description, that some doubts were raised: "what's the point of eFP, if they are so few and can't be reinforced anyway?". So an amendment had to be made - "well, bubbles are great, but they burst easily when punctured with sharp objects". The Swedish angle would be - "Russians are not invincible, so investing into Defense is not pointless, because we, even alone, can and should counteract" (see sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2)

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 01:57
by weasel1962
hythelday wrote:Anyone who talks about "steamrolling" the Baltic states in a matter of days should also remember that a couple of NATO ABCTs could thrust into both Kaliningrad (and Belarus staging areas, optionally) threatening not only Russia's very expensive A2/AD missile systems, but also their major naval base (and Yantar shipyard, ever more important after the loss of Mykolaev), as well as other juicy assets in the Western Military District. There are, of course, many other courses of action and other considerations covered in the report.


Not so simple. The link below has a nice orbat.
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/d ... 0CTP_0.pdf

Since the FOI report in 2016 on Kaliningrad and research done by the Warsaw institute, Russia has been steadily reinforcing Kaliningrad's defences. It also discounts the likelihood that the already substantial defences can be reinforced at short notice. Russia has more than enough assets to steamroll the Baltic states.

However the occupation of the baltic states by itself would serve no strategic purpose. It would just trigger a bigger NATO response. Any invasion will need to go further west and for that, Russia does not have the capability.

Institutes like Carnegie have already done analysis (which would take too long to post) that it would require many times the current NATO deployment to be a tactical deterrence i.e. possibility of no steamroll. What NATO would want to avoid is to put too much forces east, risking a decapitation strike. Its also a fine balance of diplomacy to avoid triggering a new arms race that would drive higher defence expenditures etc. Something that Trump is pushing for. Even the US is facing funding difficulties for its 2 front war capability (and both fronts being China and Russia is not ideal).

Imho, I think the real reasons for this is really to drive higher NATO deployment into the region. That's not really a Swedish thing but it does offer a bit of cover. In the wider context, its really to lessen Russian pressure on Ukraine. I think its counter-productive because that's driving Russian defence recapitalisation on a greater scale. Some may argue its going to happen anyway. However, poking a sleeping bear is not usually a wise idea.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 08:11
by weasel1962
I remembered Rand did this analysis...
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... RR2402.pdf

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 10:35
by element1loop
gc wrote:To educate the public who seem to increasingly believe that the world has no counter to Russian systems. Changing the erroneous public perception is key in reducing the aura of Russian power that Putin and his fake news army is trying to create. This aura is contributing to NATOs apprehension in countering Russian moves.


Page 15 & 16 ...

" ... While the term is rather new [A2AD], and some of the instruments used are modern and hi-tech in nature, the idea of using long-range weapons to keep an adversary’s naval and air forces away from vital or vulnerable areas is far from new. ... // ... Nonetheless, after Crimea both the news media and professional journals soon overflowed with claims regarding the capabilities of new Russian systems, including maps of “A2/AD bubbles” creating no-go zones reaching 400 km from Kaliningrad or from islands in the Baltic Sea, and thus shutting off the region to Western aircraft and ships.16 If true – or just believed to be true – this could have major consequences not only militarily, but also politically, as NATO might be unable to protect its weakest and most exposed members from Russian provocations, meddling or aggression. Such a perception would have consequences even in peacetime, which would imply that Russia has an interest in portraying its capabilities in the most formidable light possible as an end in and of itself. ... // ... However, many of the sensationalist claims about Russia’s A2/AD capabilities – of bubbles as no-go zones, and on their ripple effects – are clearly overblown and do not stand up to closer or professional scrutiny.20 ...


They've been doing a little bit of that.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 11:00
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote: ... I think its counter-productive because that's driving Russian defence recapitalisation on a greater scale. Some may argue its going to happen anyway. However, poking a sleeping bear is not usually a wise idea.


You could say the same thing about poking NATO, except it's an even less wise thing to do.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 20:02
by weasel1962
NATO is not a sleeping bear. It is an alliance of countries where a majority is trying to save money on defence, with a trend towards less foreign deployments. Just see how many US MBTs and F-22/35s are based on the continent today...

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2019, 20:48
by citanon
By now Russia must realize that the SAM aspect of their AA/AD strategy is not effective against 5th gen NATO air power.


Furthermore, with planes like the F-35 operating overhead use of their EW assets are going to be very hazardous as well. At this point their best strategy would seem to be focusing on long range strike missiles and long range SAMs to up the ante on the AD piece by burning support infrastructure and holding tankers and AWACS at bay. The last ditch fall back is their nuclear arsenal, which they are trying go gain an edge on NATO via deception and delay.

I think that last aspect is the most worrying aspect. Otherwise a country with the GDP of Italy can hardly threaten the alliance.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2019, 03:04
by weasel1962
Its 4-1 advantage to NATO in terms of airpower. Again once basing is taken into account, the advantage is eroded. Airbase suppression is key for russki strategy. However if UK maintains its f-35b strategy, that complicates russian planning.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 04:32
by weasel1962
The thing about reports is how fast it can get outdated due to events.'

New S400 regiment to deploy at Kaliningrad with 40N6 missile
http://tass.com/defense/1047327

40N6 accepted into service in Oct 2018.
http://tass.com/defense/1026630

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 07:28
by fidgetspinner
citanon wrote:By now Russia must realize that the SAM aspect of their AA/AD strategy is not effective against 5th gen NATO air power.



Still did not stop them from deploying S-300s to Damascus, and on top of that training Syrians to use them making it seem like they have confidence to put their reputation on the line. Think about it no Russians will be using those s-300s but soon Syrians and there have been many Israeli air strikes around Damascus. Russians like to seek profit for their SAMs I do not see the purpose why they would want to tarnish their sales to make this system look bad if they were not that confident to deploy the systems there in the 1st place. They still get customers (rich enough) to be interested in the S-400(Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, China and India) and it makes me wonder what would happen if Russia was a part of NATO(heard they have tried 4 or 5 times in the past) and there were no counter sanctions would their sales increase?

Long range air defenses have missiles for shooting down aircrafts but they are usually integrated with short and medium range air defenses while providing cover for those systems and those systems provide cover for long range air defenses all providing cover for ground assets, among radars, passive sensors, and EW systems you can even fly below the radar horizon and still launch missiles at a safe distance without getting hit without the need for 5th gen aircrafts while attacking non-stop. Air defenses are just built for defense. Wiki says they have like 2000 s-300 launchers, 300+ S-400 launchers, now if anyone has sources as to how many short and medium range air defenses they have or plan to have we should add this as well. Include all the 4th and 5th gen aircrafts(deciding to have stealth profile with internal weapons or not using external weapons) decide on the missiles and the plan of action. NATO can launch as much sorties as they want. But the next issue that the US and I believe western allies are being anal about all over the news is the Russians violating the INF Treaty by making stand off missiles passed a 500km range. I guess without nukes involved you can use GPS to achieve SAR resolution(they have plans launching new military sats) and OTH radars(you can space these out or include more radars to cover the blind spot of the other radar) using doppler shifting for possible 80m resolution(no sources on the Container radar). Than use these as sources to lob missiles. Lots of talks about producing more iskander, zircon, kinzhal missiles which can be used to attack air defenses and even air bases. So if anyone has the time and energy as to what happens if their was a full aerial assault can a countries air defense fend off an aerial attack just once and after 4th, 5th or refuel aircrafts land to refuel that's when they are vulnerable to being attacked by missiles. So how many of these hypersonic missiles are being produced and what number would be sufficient to destroy airbases and air defenses in Europe?

The questions I have here are the ones you should seek yourself to get more into depth on this kind of stuff.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2019, 16:08
by mixelflick
I bet Turkey's experience with the S-400 will burst its bubble as to invincibility.

Even if it works as advertised, it's not going to work optimally (no integration into existing AD network). There will be gaps, and likely big ones at that. The real question is, what does their PM/gov't do when they realize they've bought a lemon?

There will be no going back (unless they buy the S-500, lol). Once they realize they've ostracized themselves from NATO, it'll be too late. At that point, the odds they get the F-35 are about as good as seeing Louie Simmons at Planet Fitness = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D95GhF5iMk8

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 01:37
by weasel1962
Having served in an actual SAM battalion, I can safely say that integration is not as big a challenge as one thinks and a bridge can easily be built.

The real fear is that Turkey, who intends to co-produce the S400, will enhance it to target the F-35, which will effectively render an entire generation of US jets (with 25 years of production to go) less effective.

Its easy to say isolate Turkey from NATO. However Turkey already got delivery, operates and produces parts for the F-35 with access to software and has pilots undergoing training. They have an insiders idea of how the F-35 already works. If Turkey is barred from the F-35 program, one can be sure the tech will find its way out to the highest bidders. That's almost 2 decades worth of confidential partner info. Gungho folks will brush it off but it is now more a case of damage limitation.

Congress tend to use blunt instruments. The DoD thankfully is more subtle. As Steve Jobs used to say, if you're going to hire smart people, especially those smarter than you, don't instruct them what to do.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 01:44
by weasel1962
The title says its all...

New defense budget request: $9 billion in emergency funds, cuts for Europe
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal ... or-europe/

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 01:45
by Corsair1963
Honestly, I still think this is just theater and that Turkey will eventually get the F-35.... :wink:


"IMHO"

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 02:10
by citanon
mixelflick wrote:I bet Turkey's experience with the S-400 will burst its bubble as to invincibility.

Even if it works as advertised, it's not going to work optimally (no integration into existing AD network). There will be gaps, and likely big ones at that. The real question is, what does their PM/gov't do when they realize they've bought a lemon?

There will be no going back (unless they buy the S-500, lol). Once they realize they've ostracized themselves from NATO, it'll be too late. At that point, the odds they get the F-35 are about as good as seeing Louie Simmons at Planet Fitness = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D95GhF5iMk8


Effectiveness is irrelevant to the Turkish purchase. I'd wager it's purely political. Erdogan is afraid that the next time his generals think about putting him into retirement the US may not have his back. He wants a second teat to suck on.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 13:27
by hornetfinn
weasel1962 wrote:Having served in an actual SAM battalion, I can safely say that integration is not as big a challenge as one thinks and a bridge can easily be built.


I agree. Integration of such systems is very possible and has been done in Finland for example. We had 9K37M1 Buk-M1 (SA-11) and F/A-18 Hornets used at the same time (about 2 decades) and integrating the two was not much of a problem. It's just a matter of making some suitable hardware and software. I'm sure Western systems would be much easier to integrate as they have been designed for integration with Western systems. But integrating is still not that difficult, although it's also not a small task either especially with such powerful systems.

IFF will also need to be worked out as I'm sure that S-400 IFF system will not directly work well with Western systems. I think I read somewhere that Turkey intends to develop and install their own IFF system on S-400.

weasel1962 wrote:The real fear is that Turkey, who intends to co-produce the S400, will enhance it to target the F-35, which will effectively render an entire generation of US jets (with 25 years of production to go) less effective.

Its easy to say isolate Turkey from NATO. However Turkey already got delivery, operates and produces parts for the F-35 with access to software and has pilots undergoing training. They have an insiders idea of how the F-35 already works. If Turkey is barred from the F-35 program, one can be sure the tech will find its way out to the highest bidders. That's almost 2 decades worth of confidential partner info. Gungho folks will brush it off but it is now more a case of damage limitation.

Congress tend to use blunt instruments. The DoD thankfully is more subtle. As Steve Jobs used to say, if you're going to hire smart people, especially those smarter than you, don't instruct them what to do.


I think it can be that or Turkish S-400 expertise can be used to make F-35 and other Western systems better dealing with AD systems. Of course that would need Turkish cooperation with other NATO countries and USA especially. That might be somewhat questionable at the moment. I think all parties want to be in good relations in the long run though. I'm sure Turkey/Erdogan wants to show strength and independence, but not get too strained relations. For USA and Europe Turkey is too valuable in many ways and there will be need to keep relations in good terms.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 16:09
by element1loop
fidgetspinner wrote:Lots of talks about producing more iskander, zircon, kinzhal missiles which can be used to attack air defenses and even air bases.


Iskander is just a theatre ballistic missile.
Kinzhal is just an Iskander with more range.

Both still have to re-enter the thicker parts of the atmosphere where they will ALWAYS slow down to <Mach 2.0 as they approach a ground target. Those can be shot down with existing SAMs right now, so that's no real solution. Hence 'new-baloney' about the super-duper 'Zircon', that's TASS/RT/Sputnik vaporware. Brace to be ZirCON spammed for the next 12 months or so.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 16:12
by element1loop
mixelflick wrote:The real question is, what does their PM/gov't do when they realize they've bought a lemon?


"if you want to live don't tell Erdogan."

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 17:20
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:Lots of talks about producing more iskander, zircon, kinzhal missiles which can be used to attack air defenses and even air bases.


Iskander is just a theatre ballistic missile.
Kinzhal is just an Iskander with more range.


PAC-3 can already deal with both of these.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 00:34
by weasel1962
which is exactly why poland got 4 Patriot FUs.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 07:45
by gc
element1loop wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:Lots of talks about producing more iskander, zircon, kinzhal missiles which can be used to attack air defenses and even air bases.


Iskander is just a theatre ballistic missile.
Kinzhal is just an Iskander with more range.

Both still have to re-enter the thicker parts of the atmosphere where they will ALWAYS slow down to <Mach 2.0 as they approach a ground target. Those can be shot down with existing SAMs right now, so that's no real solution. Hence 'new-baloney' about the super-duper 'Zircon', that's TASS/RT/Sputnik vaporware. Brace to be ZirCON spammed for the next 12 months or so.


Just in, US has started working on ground launched cruise missile systems. Doesn't take much i suppose. Both the TLAM and JASSM has demonstrate surface canister launch capability. The JASSM-ER is more survivable, has a warhead that can defeat hardened targets, has a decent range and therefore will be a better option than the TLAM. Just stick them on army Palletised Load Systems (PLS) and they are good to go. Eventually, the JASSM-XR will enter service and provide further improved range.


https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4335 ... eaty-trump

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 12:24
by mixelflick
The point about Turkey already having access to US/F-35 tech and sharing it with the Russians to make the S-400 an F-35 killer...

OK, maybe. But if someone at LM didn't see that coming and took steps to prevent that from happening - shame on them. It was known far and wide this aircraft would be exported, and everything from the Turkey situation to a defection should have been taken into consideration.

Frankly, I'd be shocked if either of those scenarios (and more) haven't been taken into account. There must be some way of protecting the F-35's secret sauce. US air superiority and indeed entire future air campaigns hinge on it.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 12:40
by sferrin
mixelflick wrote:The point about Turkey already having access to US/F-35 tech and sharing it with the Russians to make the S-400 an F-35 killer...

OK, maybe. But if someone at LM didn't see that coming and took steps to prevent that from happening - shame on them.


Can you say, "data breach"? I knew you could. When it comes to security and the F-35 the safest bet is to assume it's run by the Keystone Cops. That's about the only way one could account for the rampant theft of F-35 data.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2019, 10:31
by tomcooper
hornetfinn wrote:I agree. Integration of such systems is very possible and has been done in Finland for example. We had 9K37M1 Buk-M1 (SA-11) and F/A-18 Hornets used at the same time (about 2 decades) and integrating the two was not much of a problem. It's just a matter of making some suitable hardware and software.
Actually, it's much more complex.

Alone the modern-day Russian-made hardware and software isn't compatible with 20+ years old Soviet/Russian stuff any more (indeed: not even with ATMS' made to make multiple diverse systems compatible with each other!). Especially not when it comes to IFF. And the Russians aren't the least stupid to share their crypto with anybody at all (even less so with a country that's still a NATO-member).

But integrating is still not that difficult, although it's also not a small task either especially with such powerful systems.
It's not the least 'easy', that much is sure.

Sufficient to say: yes, Turkey might be an exception, but until today the majority of customers for Russian arms do not even have the capability to write/program their own IFF-codes. And that's just the start of the story. Even once the necessary software is written and proven to function, it still requires compatibility with all the elements of the system (i.e. all the software on diverse radars, SAM-systems, aircraft etc.). And that is an entirely different pair of shoes than enabling simultaneous operation of F/A-18Cs and SA-11s within the same piece of airspace.

...so much so, 'that' issue with the IFF was the principal reasons why the Assadists blasted that Russian Il-20M all the way to Mars, last autumn..

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 10:06
by milosh
element1loop wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:Lots of talks about producing more iskander, zircon, kinzhal missiles which can be used to attack air defenses and even air bases.


Iskander is just a theatre ballistic missile.
Kinzhal is just an Iskander with more range.

Both still have to re-enter the thicker parts of the atmosphere where they will ALWAYS slow down to <Mach 2.0 as they approach a ground target. Those can be shot down with existing SAMs right now, so that's no real solution. Hence 'new-baloney' about the super-duper 'Zircon', that's TASS/RT/Sputnik vaporware. Brace to be ZirCON spammed for the next 12 months or so.


I am not sure but I think Pershing-2 and Oka had much higher terminal speeds. And speed isn't everything modern SAM can engage very fast warheads what is more important is maneuvering. Iskander is similar size as Oka but have smaller range and speed because it doesn't have ideal ballistic path because it change its path during boost phase and some sources mentioned warhead is marv so warhead is heavier then Oka warhead.

Kinzal is air launched Iskander and as it look like it will not be for long operational it is stop gap until Zircon is ready, while Zircon is slower, Tu-22 could carry more Zircons and have decent range. Carrying four Kinzal will impacted Tu-22 range a lot it would be worse then with three Kh-22/32 which Tu-22 almost never carry (it carry only two).

Also there is possibility Tu-22 will carry shorter (small buster) Zircon in weapon bay so after launch external carried ones it could speed up and then launch six shorter owns. Something like that is impossible with Kindzal because it is classic balistic missile not ramjet/scramjet missile.

@all

Buying S-400 is logical. Turks doesn't need S-400 for AA role but for ABM role. Only country with which they have problems is Israel and Israel have medium range ballistic missiles agianst which Turkey doesn't have answer. Buying PAC-3 would be stupid, Israel we can say own US so Turks would find hard way they spent billions on system which Israel can turn with pressure of button. That is why Turkey wanted to be allow to check and modify PAC-3 and when US said no they decide to buy Chinese HQ-9 because they weren't good with Russia back then. But NATO (read USA) put pressure and Turkey canceled HQ-9, then potential CIA coupe failed (some say thanks to KGB info) and of course Erdo will buy S-400 after that.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 14:19
by hornetfinn
tomcooper wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I agree. Integration of such systems is very possible and has been done in Finland for example. We had 9K37M1 Buk-M1 (SA-11) and F/A-18 Hornets used at the same time (about 2 decades) and integrating the two was not much of a problem. It's just a matter of making some suitable hardware and software.
Actually, it's much more complex.

Alone the modern-day Russian-made hardware and software isn't compatible with 20+ years old Soviet/Russian stuff any more (indeed: not even with ATMS' made to make multiple diverse systems compatible with each other!). Especially not when it comes to IFF. And the Russians aren't the least stupid to share their crypto with anybody at all (even less so with a country that's still a NATO-member).

But integrating is still not that difficult, although it's also not a small task either especially with such powerful systems.
It's not the least 'easy', that much is sure.

Sufficient to say: yes, Turkey might be an exception, but until today the majority of customers for Russian arms do not even have the capability to write/program their own IFF-codes. And that's just the start of the story. Even once the necessary software is written and proven to function, it still requires compatibility with all the elements of the system (i.e. all the software on diverse radars, SAM-systems, aircraft etc.). And that is an entirely different pair of shoes than enabling simultaneous operation of F/A-18Cs and SA-11s within the same piece of airspace.

...so much so, 'that' issue with the IFF was the principal reasons why the Assadists blasted that Russian Il-20M all the way to Mars, last autumn..


I agree that good integration would require co-operation between Turkey and Russia. It would basically require NATO compatible IFF system (Aselsan makes those) and integrating it with S-400 system. This would need protocol conversion software and possibly hardware also depending on what kind of interfaces there are in S-400 systems. Russian systems would not work as they are incompatible with NATO IFF systems. Same with getting track and plot data from S-400 systems to Turkish air defence network and vice versa. It requires similar protocol conversion and filtering of data.

Another major thing is also making S-400 compatible with Link 16. This would be pretty important for having full performance capabilties. This would be the most difficult thing to do both technologically and from security PoV.

So technologically it can done, but I agree that it would not be easy (especially when it comes to security) nor cheap. This is why it seems that Turkey will use the S-400 as a standalone system with only Turkish NATO compatible IFF system installed. Not a perfect solution and it seems like their S-400 will be pretty much for ABM duties only.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 05:39
by gc
B-52H conducted simulated attacks on Kalinagrad. Russia confirms and claims its radar forced it to turn around. Seems like the truth is that the Stratofortress got close enough to release its payload of baseline A model JASSMs.

https://defence-blog.com/news/us-bomber ... -base.html

https://defence-blog.com/news/russian-d ... ngrad.html

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 11:43
by madrat
If Erdogan is bound to the deal then it's some agreement that he doesn't want to break for strategic reasons.

That alone should be reason to drop Turkey from NATO strategic planning information. They are turncoats.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2019, 20:26
by marsavian
milosh wrote:Buying S-400 is logical. Turks doesn't need S-400 for AA role but for ABM role. Only country with which they have problems is Israel and Israel have medium range ballistic missiles agianst which Turkey doesn't have answer. Buying PAC-3 would be stupid, Israel we can say own US so Turks would find hard way they spent billions on system which Israel can turn with pressure of button. That is why Turkey wanted to be allow to check and modify PAC-3 and when US said no they decide to buy Chinese HQ-9 because they weren't good with Russia back then. But NATO (read USA) put pressure and Turkey canceled HQ-9, then potential CIA coupe failed (some say thanks to KGB info) and of course Erdo will buy S-400 after that.


Fair enough, sounds logical. So if the Turks have a serious geopolitical problem with Israel another reason not to give them F-35s. Perhaps Greece should pick up some F-35 further down the line too as there are continual territorial disputes over Cyprus and the Aegean Islands going back to the last century. Erdogan has no filter, he's just a loud boorish undiplomatic Muslim Nationalist leader drunk on his power pretty much like the Iranian Ayotollahs. This divorce from the West has been long in coming especially as he has previously been busy violently arguing with the EU over so many matters and the Austrians are now openly calling for EU Accession talks for Turkey to be halted permanently.

Re: Russian A2/AD Bubble not as inpenetrable as thought

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2019, 09:44
by milosh
One more reason to get S-400 is tech transfer. Turks plan to make their own SAM so they are probable going for same deal as Koreans, Korean new SAM is developed in cooperation with russian Almaz, it have missile similar to small S-400 missile and Korean AESA radar. Turks would need more help because they are not just weak in missile r&d but also in radar r&d.