Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 09:08
by zero-one
Just a place to talk about the wonderful world of SAMs

First up, Whats the deal with the S-400
https://fightersweep.com/3414/how-scary ... am-system/
Tyson Wetzel, a graduate of and former instructor at the U.S. Air Force Weapons School, has broken down the tactical and strategic implications for the Russian S-400 deployment in Syria. The bottom line? It’s a pretty scary prospect, considering the SA-21–from its current position around Hmeymim Air Base near Latakia, can cover all by the eastern-most points in Syria.


Its often referred to as the most advanced operational SAM system.
Russian fans say they are generations ahead of the US in SAM technology
Because Range right?

They keep comparing it to the Patriot? Why?
Compare it to it's direct American counterpart, the Aegis system. Aegis ashore if you're comparing land based systems.

But just like A-A missiles, Range isn't everything. We've had missiles that can reach 100+ Km ranges since the 70s but realistically engagements happen within the <50Km bubble. How does the S-400 compare against the Patriot, SPYDER, HQ-9, MEADS etc.

Your thoughts.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 10:04
by hornetfinn
Fully agree about range. Besides that there are things like target detection and tracking capabilities and qualities. How the whole system performs under heavy EW for example. Then there are things like missile maneuverability and seeker performance. Networking the system is also very important as nobody fights alone for long. Of course there are numerous things to consider and saying that S-400 or whatever is the most advanced system is likely impossible.

S-400 does have impressive range and impressive number of different types of missiles for different targets. Patriot is no slouch in that departmet though. I think Patriot will regain rather big advantage when the new GaN AESA radars become operational. They should provide very significant improvements in detection and tracking capabilities. Especially so against LO and VLO targets. Also EW resistance and LPD/LPI capabilities will likely be much better than before. Of course S-400 has large and powerful radar with likely pretty good qualities though.

Of course it's impossible to know the capabilties of each system from public information. I'm sure both are highly lethal systems if something gets inside their kill zone. I think S-400 has the range and altitude advantages but Patriot likely has advantages in detection and tracking performance especially after AESA upgrade.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 10:19
by hythelday
Russians compare S-400 to Patriot because AEGIS Ashore is not mobile. Plus it's missile defense, but it's completely useless against RUSSIAN HYPERSONIC WEAPONS comrade, so there's no point to even talk about it.

MEADS uses PAC-3 MSE interceptor and S-400 family of missiles outranges both that and the SAMP/T (Aster-30). Besides any euro system is not under much scrutiny by RUSSIA STRONK types because they don't care about Europe, as they will "reach La Manche by the second week".

SPYDER isn't even in the same class as S-400 comrade.

HQ-9 is an obvious Chinese ripoff of glorious S-300, so it's obviously a worse performer.

Korean SAMs? Nobody even heard of those.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 10:41
by zero-one
Does the S-400 have LPI capabilities? these large and powerful radars that are mostly static are very inviting targets for HARMs and even F-16CJ teams with JDAM-ERs not to mention the F-35.

Saw an interesting documentary about the Genesis of the Wild Weasel. The started out as modified F-100s before transitioning to the faster F-105s. But in such a short period both the Wild Weasels and SA-2 SAM operators developed complex tactics on how to "play chess" against each other.

Surely in the 50 years since then both SAMs and Wild Weasels have advanced so much more than simply turning radars on and off...

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 10:41
by zero-one
duplicate

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 11:24
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:Does the S-400 have LPI capabilities? these large and powerful radars that are mostly static are very inviting targets for HARMs and even F-16CJ teams with JDAM-ERs not to mention the F-35.
.


It most definitely does have some LPI capabilities as do pretty much all current military radars. It does have frequency hopping, low sidelobe antenna, irregular scan patterns, coded pulses and high processing gain for example. However it's not certain that those capabilties are good enough to protect it from SEAD/DEAD efforts. Like you said, the thing is very powerful emitter. Same things are true for Patriot MPQ-53 radars. I'm sure the new GaN AESA for Patriot is vastly superior in LPD/LPI compared to S-400 radars or current MPQ-53.

I'm also certain that S-400 radars are vastly superior to what F-16CJ teams have engaged in real wars (SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-8 etc). Of course they likely have had opportunities to train against such radars. I think a lot would depend on how good the S-400 operators are compared to F-16CJ teams. F-35 is a nightmare to any SAM operator due to being largely invisible and having huge advantages in SA.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 11:39
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote:
zero-one wrote:Does the S-400 have LPI capabilities? these large and powerful radars that are mostly static are very inviting targets for HARMs and even F-16CJ teams with JDAM-ERs not to mention the F-35.
.


It most definitely does have some LPI capabilities as do pretty much all current military radars.


Does that help though if it can be readily detected and mobility tracked and targeted from orbit?

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 11:49
by zero-one
hythelday wrote:Russians compare S-400 to Patriot because AEGIS Ashore is not mobile.


But Aegis on ships is mobile and can be used to influence most conflict zones around the world.

hythelday wrote:Plus it's missile defense, but it's completely useless against RUSSIAN HYPERSONIC WEAPONS comrade,

Why?
SM-3, Jamming, Are those all ineffective against the Zircon

hythelday wrote:
MEADS uses PAC-3 MSE interceptor and S-400 family of missiles outranges both that and the SAMP/T (Aster-30). Besides any euro system is not under much scrutiny by RUSSIA STRONK types because they don't care about Europe, as they will "reach La Manche by the second week".
SPYDER isn't even in the same class as S-400 comrade.


But like I said, range isn't everything, in war, most shots are taken within 50Km, How does the S-400 perform against the SPYDER in those circumstances

hythelday wrote:Korean SAMs? Nobody even heard of those.

Its being developed from the S-400 and Korea's electronic technology is nothing to sneeze at, it could be more advanced than Russia's in some aspects

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 11:53
by element1loop
The obvious point to make in general, is the declining effectiveness of SAMs over time at sustaining an effective air defense. If anything the ruthless SAM menace of the 1960s has turned into an intimidated SAM menace that's largely ineffective at preventing attacks, or of punishing them. Plus reports of F-35s at Red Flag escorting 4th gens through complex defended airspace with very challenging threat systems, and losing none of them in the process. It's enough to make one question their relevance.

And yet they clearly do work in the Israeli point-defense context most of the time, and the Saudis claim to have shot down about 175 drones and other assorted incoming weapons, to date. Again, most of the time they get a kill. So it seems mission planning, EA, maneuver tactics, survivability optimizations and a human represents the significant differences in rendering older but much upgraded SAM systems ineffective.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 12:22
by hornetfinn
I think SAMs definitely have their place as they provide some capabilities aircraft really can't (like ballistic missile defence and 24/7 protection against surprise attacks). But it requires also effective air force to do things that SAMs are not good at. It's a bit like having either main battle tanks or anti-tank missiles. Both have their place on the battlefield and having both usually gives better results than having only one of them. Of course that also requires good coordination between them. F-35 guiding SM-6 missile to target is good example. We might well see similar capabilties developed for future land based SAM systems.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 12:52
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote:We might well see similar capabilties developed for future land based SAM systems.


As I understand it that's the rationale of integrating F-35 fused data from new and improved IRSTs to an integrated missile defense application. As you pointed out, it's already meaningless to say one SAM type is the best, but when you add F-35 to a fully integrated missile defense, the latest 'n greatest Russian S400 capability is ... meh.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 12:57
by element1loop
I'm more interested in if a combo of, "mission planning, EA, maneuver tactics, survivability optimizations and a human", will continue to be a significant difference in rendering an S400 SAM ineffective as well within the scope of its tactical options.

Tactical options of employment seem to be the S400's strongest hand here, i.e. how to fight humans in jets with an S400 and actually be effective.

I'm skeptical.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 13:21
by zero-one
Well the purpose of the thread isn't really to asses the effectiveness of SAMs which is historically still the deadliest threat to coalition aircraft. Rather its to compare SAMs and talk about SAM systems in general.

https://medium.com/@GetterWetzel/russia ... .kkyimssrw
Tyson Wetzel wrote:Quite simply, the SA-21 is the most dangerous operationally deployed modern long-range SAM (MLR SAM) in the world.....

only the F-22 Raptor has any ability to operate and survive inside the SA-21 MEZ.....

Operating inside an SA-21 MEZ is a nightmare that will keep many US and coalition aircrew up nights in the coming days, weeks, and months.


This guy is a graduate of the USAF Weapons School and he considers the S-400 a "nightmare"
On the other hand isn't operating the S-400 against E/A-18G, F-16CJ and F-35 teams a nightmare for those SAM operators as well?

I get the impression that 4th gens are helpless against the S-400? Are they? is the S-400 system invulnerable against Wild Weasel teams? How or Why?

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 14:08
by hornetfinn
S-400 would definitely be a really dangerous system against 4th gen aircraft. F-35 and F-22 are likely able to survive even deep inside S-400 MEZ and would very likely kill it. Especially F-35 due to having ability to use all kinds of air to ground munitions and AARGM-ER. 4th gen aircraft would need a lot of support and would likely suffer some serious losses in the process.

I think F-35 is true nightmare for S-400 operators due to VLO stealth, situational awareness, EW capabilities and wide selection of weapons along with being so numerous.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 14:31
by hythelday
zero-one wrote:
hythelday wrote:Russians compare S-400 to Patriot because AEGIS Ashore is not mobile.


But Aegis on ships is mobile and can be used to influence most conflict zones around the world.

hythelday wrote:Plus it's missile defense, but it's completely useless against RUSSIAN HYPERSONIC WEAPONS comrade,

Why?
SM-3, Jamming, Are those all ineffective against the Zircon

hythelday wrote:
MEADS uses PAC-3 MSE interceptor and S-400 family of missiles outranges both that and the SAMP/T (Aster-30). Besides any euro system is not under much scrutiny by RUSSIA STRONK types because they don't care about Europe, as they will "reach La Manche by the second week".
SPYDER isn't even in the same class as S-400 comrade.


But like I said, range isn't everything, in war, most shots are taken within 50Km, How does the S-400 perform against the SPYDER in those circumstances

hythelday wrote:Korean SAMs? Nobody even heard of those.

Its being developed from the S-400 and Korea's electronic technology is nothing to sneeze at, it could be more advanced than Russia's in some aspects


You started this thread with an opening line:

Russian fans say they are generations ahead of the US in SAM technology. Because Range right? They keep comparing it to the Patriot? Why?


I gave you the summary of why "Russian fans" (your own term) say that, so that you do not have to go through their boards, blogs and comments. The same sources also say that Su-35S is a Raptor-killer, Iraq only lost because US bribed the generals, Russian PESA radars outperform US AESA etc etc etc. I recently read someone post an opinion that "F-35 needs to have robust armor akin to Su-34 if it wants to operate inside IADS", an opinion which didn't immediately invoke laughter and ridicule but found a rather solid support base. The ones countering it were usually saying that no armor would save a plane... that has poor aerodynamic performance. I guess if you don't visit those places, you just don't get how different do they think about those matters.

And by the way, on a more serious note: Patriot IS the American counterpart to S-300 and 400, at least as close as US/Ru military can have comparable "counterparts". Russian counterpart to AEGIS would be "Fort" (naval S-300F) and "Poliment-Redut" (newer VLS with some commonality with S-400 missiles but different radar equipment set)

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 15:07
by zero-one
hythelday wrote:I gave you the summary of why "Russian fans" (your own term) say that, so that you do not have to go through their boards, blogs and comments.

But I want to know your take on the matter?
Wouldn't you say that Aegis can defend against the Zircon hypersonic missile at the very least to some degree?


hythelday wrote:And by the way, on a more serious note: Patriot IS the American counterpart to S-300 and 400, at least as close as US/Ru military can have comparable "counterparts".

I don't agree with that for the simple reason that I simply want to compare SAM system capabilities regardless of where they operate, Russia's most advanced SAM the S-400 should be compared to America's most advanced SAM the Aegis.

To be fair, I listen to some of the more intelligent comments of our Russian friends. Yes there are many laughable comments as you posted, but some are pretty well researched. The Ruskies aren't dumb, they have some pretty good technologies specially when you consider that their GDP is on Italy's level and their defense budget is 10% of what the US has.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 08:17
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote:4th gen aircraft would need a lot of support and would likely suffer some serious losses in the process.


I'm not sure even that much is true HF. If you have an S400 complex emitter(s) geo-located by say an E7-A's ESM, plus Growler support's ESM, and the separate components of the S400 complex are also located from space (in near real-time) I can't see why even a single terrain-masked classic RAAF Hornet with 2 JASSM and a terminal IR seeker can't kill the core bits of an S400 without a loss.

Use 4 Hornets supported by 2 Growler and you'll probably kill the whole complex. The Growlers could then close in to kill the supporting Pantsirs if desired.

If anything moves after launch the JASSMs have two-way datalinking for re-targeting and BDA. So even S400's mobility can't easily waste a missile, as some part of the complex (if not the original target) is still likely to get hit any way.

It all depends if a 4th-gen force-structure was specifically developed to kill S300 and S400 SAMs. I can't see why USAF 4th gens would have a problem doing similar, or USN for that matter (with a lofted JSOW and Growler support ... and now LRASM).

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 11:04
by hornetfinn
I think that is likely true when engaging one lonely S-400 battery. However, S-300/400 and Patriot have both been designed to be used as battalions which consist of 4-6 batteries. A lonely battery is pretty vulnerable to many kinds of attacks as it only has 1 radar with limited FoV. Several batteries having overlapping FoVs and engagement zones is a lot harder to tackle. It could also has lower frequency radars like Nebo-SVU or AN/TPS-77 available for surveillance and early warning. There would likely also be low altitude coverage offered by Tor-M1, Pantsir-S1 or Avengers (in US service) or some other systems. All this would make it pretty tough nut to crack compared to earlier SAM systems.

I could be wrong, but I really doubt that long range geolocation (outside S-400 effective range) would be so precise and quick enough to allow reliable successful engagement using cruise missiles like JASSM. I also doubt that space based systems would be that effective due to having either predictable flight paths in LEO and seeing the target area only for a short time during every pass.

Of course none of that makes it mission impossible for 4th gen force. They just have to equip and plan accordingly but also be prepared to take some losses in the process, IMO. Of course now USA and many other countries have F-35s, which would help immensely in SEAD/DEAD effort.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 11:40
by zero-one
element1loop wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:4th gen aircraft would need a lot of support and would likely suffer some serious losses in the process.


I'm not sure even that much is true HF. If you have an S400 complex emitter(s) geo-located by say an E7-A's ESM, plus Growler support's ESM, and the separate components of the S400 complex are also located from space (in near real-time) I can't see why even a single terrain-masked classic RAAF Hornet with 2 JASSM and a terminal IR seeker can't kill the core bits of an S400 without a loss.


I agree with this, I'm doing more research on the S-400 and counter SAM systems like AGM-88E, E/A-18G and of course the
F-22/35. Heres what I gathered so far

-the 40N6E's ultra long 400 km range may only be against low flying targets by using a ballistic flight profile

-the system is designed to work "effectively" in a high EW saturated environment

-Most sources claim that the S-400 uses a PESA system, but I did find one that says it has an AESA system available
(https://rg.ru/2014/05/05/zrk-site.html) it also compares the Patriot system against the S-400 where naturally the Patriot ended up looking like a child's toy.

-The S-400 can engage targets as far as 400km and as low as 5 meters. But somehow I think this translates to, it can only engage targets as far as 400km when flying extremely low, like 5m (due to the ballistic flight profile)

-During firing at the Kapustin Yar firing range, the Triumph hit a target moving at a speed of 2800 meters per second
https://rg.ru/2014/05/05/zrk-site.html

-The radar, controlled by the Elbrus-90 computer, monitors enemy interference and is able to change operating frequencies between two adjacent pulses. There are other mechanisms to counter the electronic warfare of the enemy.
(https://svpressa.ru/post/article/120265/)

-The 92N6E radar has the ability to simultaneously track support up to 100 targets and accurately track up to 6 targets in all combat conditions. (http://svpressa.ru/post/article/120265/)


With this in mind, I can see why 4th gen wild weasels may have a hard time hunting down these systems.
I'd imagine a the F-16 CJ to be in a particularly dangerous scenario, needing the support of numerous MALD and MALD-J decoys and hopefully armed with the latest AGM-88G AARGM-ER. And even then they may still loose a bird or 2 before killing the S-400's components enough to render it useless.

For the E/A-18G on the other hand, I'm not sure if it will be easier, they may reduce the effective range of the S-400 via high powered jamming and get close enough to launch AGM-88Es. MALD would still be appreciated but MALD-J wouldn't be necessary I think.

The F-35 and to a lesser extent the F-22 can operate quite comfortably inside S-400 protected zones. Even according to Russian sources the Nebo-M's "anti-stealth" range is 150km, I'm guessing its just a detection range, not tracking or targeting, With the F-35 capable of carrting the AGM-88E, it can get far closer to the S-400's vital radars and shoot them even with JDAM-ERs

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 15:49
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote:Several batteries having overlapping FoVs and engagement zones is a lot harder to tackle. It could also has lower frequency radars like Nebo-SVU or AN/TPS-77 available for surveillance and early warning. There would likely also be low altitude coverage offered by Tor-M1, Pantsir-S1 or Avengers (in US service) or some other systems. All this would make it pretty tough nut to crack compared to earlier SAM systems.


Points taken, though we're back to the LOS horizon problem and the likely roughly equidistant (or at least non-clustered) positioning for maximum coverage also, i.e. it's not just overlapping that's tactically desirable. The EW can certainly cue inconvenient popups, but those SHORADS don't have much of a bubble either, plus even a HOBS AIM-9 or AIM-120 can be look and snap-launched at those to make them shut down and fighter AESAs have proliferated. And then there's the Growlers with HARM-E.

Maybe a JASSM-ER is preferable but expect JASSM can still get it done without loss using those options. Plus the guys who would actually do it will spend a lot more time nailing the tactics down and testing.

hornetfinn wrote:I could be wrong, but I really doubt that long range geolocation (outside S-400 effective range) would be so precise and quick enough to allow reliable successful engagement using cruise missiles like JASSM. I also doubt that space based systems would be that effective due to having either predictable flight paths in LEO and seeing the target area only for a short time during every pass.


The combo of the two can cross-check each other over a period of days or weeks prior and also geolocation currency for a useful attack window. It's a SAM that requires site preparation so where it moves to you probably already know about, and will likely detect new site-prep work. Given the IR seeker is designed to fix target location uncertainty I think it's reasonable to expect this will be sufficient to prosecute under the right lighting, WX and thermal condition.

hornetfinn wrote:Of course none of that makes it mission impossible for 4th gen force. They just have to equip and plan accordingly but also be prepared to take some losses in the process, IMO. Of course now USA and many other countries have F-35s, which would help immensely in SEAD/DEAD effort.


Yes a bit pointless considering purely 4th-gen verses, just wanted to emphasize these systems were already dubious before F-35A/B/C arrived.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 16:26
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:-The S-400 can engage targets as far as 400km and as low as 5 meters. But somehow I think this translates to, it can only engage targets as far as 400km when flying extremely low, like 5m (due to the ballistic flight profile)


Yeah, well, the 5 m is within LOS. And that disappears fast with radial distance rise, so why do they make such claims? it's relevant to the engagement radius of the obligatory SHORADS operating in support of the S400 perhaps. So maybe they include their performance in the complex's claimed spec, given they operate as one complex? It would not surprise me if that's what it refers to as once you get past the LOS or anywhere near the horizon line min 5m altitude becomes a meaningless claim.

As for the 400km range, I smirk for obvious maneuver reasons. Again, meaningless outside of LOS altitudes. Maybe it matters to keeping a HALE drone orbit further back.

zero-one wrote:-During firing at the Kapustin Yar firing range, the Triumph hit a target moving at a speed of 2800 meters per second
https://rg.ru/2014/05/05/zrk-site.html


5,400 kt, that's a bad-ass missile. And no doubt intercepting at mid-stratosphere altitude to get that much speed, so not too relevant to targeting a VLO jet within the mid to upper troposphere.

zero-one wrote:The F-35 and to a lesser extent the F-22 can operate quite comfortably inside S-400 protected zones. Even according to Russian sources the Nebo-M's "anti-stealth" range is 150km, I'm guessing its just a detection range, not tracking or targeting, With the F-35 capable of carrting the AGM-88E, it can get far closer to the S-400's vital radars and shoot them even with JDAM-ERs


Given Nebo-M is a VHF EW surveillance radar we can probably rule out targeting, but suspect the 150 km is a tracking range. Either way, it's going down in a few minutes so not much of a tracking radar either. :wink: Given its vulnerability and priority on the list I'd be surprised if it's not defended, so may need more than a JDAM-ER, but a fly-by with F-35 might clarify what's covering it.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 18:25
by falcon.16
-The S-400 can engage targets as far as 400km and as low as 5 meters. But somehow I think this translates to, it can only engage targets as far as 400km when flying extremely low, like 5m (due to the ballistic flight profile)



What?

At 400 kms, and due to curvature of the earth, enemy need fligh at very high heigh for to be detected,maybe around 30-40.000 ft.

A very low flight, will be impossible to detect for any radar from 400 kms, because can not see it.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2019, 13:44
by zero-one
falcon.16 wrote:
At 400 kms, and due to curvature of the earth, enemy need fligh at very high heigh for to be detected,maybe around 30-40.000 ft.


Yup, I think they're referring to the max range of the interceptor itself not the engagement range of the S-400 as a system.
It could be possible if they are receiving data link info from AEWACS or something.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2019, 15:35
by rmr_22
I think the ground based LPI radars works worse than the airborne.
My reasoning is that if they are on the ground they will be able to meet almost every requirements of randomness such as frequency, power, scanning direction,... but there is a repetitive pattern:

All these emissions come from the same specific point of the soil, and if the DRMF Jammers store that information sooner or later the computer will determine that this is a ground radar.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2019, 17:11
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:
falcon.16 wrote:
At 400 kms, and due to curvature of the earth, enemy need fligh at very high heigh for to be detected,maybe around 30-40.000 ft.


Yup, I think they're referring to the max range of the interceptor itself not the engagement range of the S-400 as a system.
It could be possible if they are receiving data link info from AEWACS or something.

The S-400 has never demonstrated (or claimed) a capability of engaging targets below the radar horizon, in an NIF CA-esque capacity. It certainly isn't engaging low altitude targets more than a few miles away. The 400km range is for high altitude non-maneuvering targets.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 01:49
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:
zero-one wrote:
falcon.16 wrote:
At 400 kms, and due to curvature of the earth, enemy need fligh at very high heigh for to be detected,maybe around 30-40.000 ft.


Yup, I think they're referring to the max range of the interceptor itself not the engagement range of the S-400 as a system.
It could be possible if they are receiving data link info from AEWACS or something.

The S-400 has never demonstrated (or claimed) a capability of engaging targets below the radar horizon, in an NIF CA-esque capacity. It certainly isn't engaging low altitude targets more than a few miles away. The 400km range is for high altitude non-maneuvering targets.


The S-400 40N6 missile has shot down a target at 200+ miles, OTH, with CEC from a forward targeting source.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 08:34
by zero-one
wrightwing wrote:The S-400 has never demonstrated (or claimed) a capability of engaging targets below the radar horizon, in an NIF CA-esque capacity. It certainly isn't engaging low altitude targets more than a few miles away. The 400km range is for high altitude non-maneuvering targets.


Its certainly perplexing.
Wikipedia says this about the 40N6E
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system
Range: 400 km
Effective against low-altitude targets at extremely long range (below the radio horizon)


Checking the source here is what it says:
http://s400.tass.ru/vzaimodeystviya-mas ... 1476018629
During the ascent, the rocket inclines toward the target using the gas-dynamic system. Ultrahigh (up to 400 km) 40N6E missiles are capable of destroying targets beyond the reach of guidance locators, for which they have unique homing heads.


So you're right, they never really say that the range of engaging low flying targets is up to 400km, but they did say that it is capable of reaching targets at ultra long range "beyond the reach of guidance locators". Does this translate to "over the horizon" someone help me out.


Heres the thing The published max range of the S-400's radar is 600km, so the 400km of max range of the interceptor should be well within the max range of the radar. So what do they mean by " beyond the reach of guidance locators"? OTH is my best guess. Certainly it will need some sort of data link from a forward source.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 09:04
by zero-one
Range is pretty much the only thing that most people point to when asked why the S-400 is the best. Ironic, cause once you ask them what fighter is the best they would always point to fighters with the best WVR stats, you know because Vietnam has "proven" that BVR is just a pipe dream.

I digress, Anyway, unlike aircraft where most engagements happened within 20 NMi (according to what I have read and heard anyway) I don't know what is the typical range for most SAM engagements. But I would guess they would be at around the same range if not shorter.

If so, then in the typical SAM scenario, the S-400 doesn't seem so attractive at all.
It uses a PESA system with questionable LPI capabilities if any. Both the Patriot and SPYDER system may prove more effective in that type of scenario

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 09:46
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:If so, then in the typical SAM scenario, the S-400 doesn't seem so attractive at all.
It uses a PESA system with questionable LPI capabilities if any. Both the Patriot and SPYDER system may prove more effective in that type of scenario


Those S-400 radars definitely do have some LPI capabilities as do all even remotely modern military radars. However I agree that they might not matter that much against modern ESM/EW systems.

I think against modern fighters (and cruise missiles) smaller, lower cost/more numerous, geographically widely separated and more unpredictable systems are more dangerous. Systems like Spyder, IRIS-T SLM/SLS or NASAMS can be pretty nasty as they are all pretty capable systems with quick reaction times and more difficult to find and destroy. Of course they don't have similar range/altitude capability as larger systems. So they are kind of mine field type of systems which require enemy to come pretty close to be effective.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 11:25
by euromaster
zero-one wrote:Wouldn't you say that Aegis can defend against the Zircon hypersonic missile at the very least to some degree?


No the Aegis network is mostly built into the legacy Burke class destroyers which make up the most of the US fleet defense operation. Burke has a low to its hull, fairly old radar that struggles with skimming missiles with detection only in hundreds of meters.

Any supersonic missile (let alone hypersonic) will likely be able to overpower a Burke Destroyer net with just a few missiles. What makes it worse is that the US navy is only just been giving its Burke's active missiles like the ESSM, most of the standard designs are legacy missiles that are illumination based for termination and require baby sitting, of which only two-3 (3 on Tichondria cruisers) for each termination meaning a low number of controlled missiles.

A zircon would likely be able to fly through a US carrier strike group and destroy any projected target with ease. The only defence the US have would be to use an aircraft like the F-35 to control high end missiles like SM-6 (costly/heavy/small in number) to try and hit the Zircon through mass salvo from multiple Burkes.

The US should be less worried about hypersonic cruise missiles and more about their obsolescent Torpedo technology as most of the world has come along way. The old ADCAP has slower/shorter ranged than even Russian modern Torpedo weapons. For fans of the US stealth aircraft who thinks its invisible and can choose its engagements, its nothing compared to submarine warfare, you never want your adversary to be able to outshoot you with a Torpedo.

Especially when the US' relevance as a military relies on its carrier strike group strategy.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 11:51
by zero-one
I agree Hornetfinn, from what I know about radars (which is not much) the main advantages of AESA against PESA are:

-LPI, since each TRM is able to generate its own beam using its own unique frequency. a PESA system on the other hand can only use a single beam of radio waves at a single frequency at a time.
So to me, a PESA system's LPI capabilities will be far less effective than an AESA. Is that basically correct or is there more to it.

-AESA systems should also have a higher jamming resistance. If DRFM based jammers can replicate the frequency of the radar and re-transmit that, it will be much harder to do against an AESA system using different beams each with a changing frequency than a PESA system using 1 beam.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 11:53
by zero-one
Duplicate

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 12:01
by wrightwing
sferrin wrote:


The S-400 40N6 missile has shot down a target at 200+ miles, OTH, with CEC from a forward targeting source.

What altitude was the target?

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 12:02
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:
sferrin wrote:


The S-400 40N6 missile has shot down a target at 200+ miles, OTH, with CEC from a forward targeting source.

What altitude was the target?

From SOC (who also happens to be an analyst at Janes):

"From my S-300P article:

"Fakel MKB engineers began work on dealing with the issue of a 400 kilometer ranged missile immediately upon the initiation of S-400 development. Boris Bunkin and Petr Grushin analyzed the characteristics of the 48N6 series missiles and realized that there was still potential in the missile for increased range. The missiles of the S-300P series weapons initially fly a near-ballistic profile towards their target. Increasing the altitude at apogee of the trajectory results in an increase in range. In-service weapons had their apogee restricted to 38 kilometers. This was due to the fact that at a higher altitude the aerodynamic control surfaces would no longer function effectively. Thrust vectoring control used during the boost stage was no longer viable either as the motor had already burnt out prior to reaching apogee. It was discovered that operating the control surfaces at higher altitudes resulted in an instability in the flight path, potentially impacting the accuracy of the weapon. Bunkin and Grushin's solution to increase the range of the missile system was to modify the control surfaces to allow them to lock during the near-ballistic portion of the trajectory. This would eliminate any unwanted movement, with the control surfaces unlocking upon reaching lower altitude to provide maneuverability during endgame. The new missile was tested in 1985 and reached an apogee of 70 kilometers. The significant increase in altitude enabled the missile to fly out to a range of 400 kilometers. Upon descending to 20 kilometers, the missile's guidance system was recaptured by an experimental engagement radar complex and guided normally, validating the concept of a 400 kilometer missile for the S-400.

After the 400 kilometer test firing, Almaz MKB set about redesigning the experimental engagement radar components to allow the system to be employed on a mobile chassis. The S-400 design was approved in 1988. Events surrounding the breakup of the Soviet Union would affect production of system components, so testing of the S-400 did not commence until 1993. By this time testing of strategic-level SAM systems had been relocated to Kapustin Yar in southwestern Russia as Sary Shagan now resided in the independent nation of Kazakhstan. System testing initially commenced with the existing 48N6D missile, with testing of the new 48N6DM designed for the S-400 being reported in 2004. The first S-400 battallion entered operational service near the town of Elektrostal in the Moscow region on 6 August 2007.

...skip down a bit...

The long-range weapon designed to give the S-400 its 400 kilometer engagement range is believed to be designated 40N6. As mentioned previously, the 48N6 has proved capable of operating effectively at this range, so 40N6 may in fact be a cover designation for an appropriately modified 400 kilometer ranged 48N6 series weapon destined for the S-400. Alternatively, it may be a wholly different missile designed for a different weapon system, such as the forthcoming S-500 strategic defense system. Ergo, despite rumors persisting of the continued development of what is referred to as the 40N6, it may well be that the S-400 is already capable of engaging targets at maximum range using the existing 48N6DM. This is reinforced by the fact that some sources claim that a 400 kilometer range missile has been in service with air defense units around Moscow since 2001. Were this to be the case, the 400 kilometer missile would almost certainly have to be a variant of the 48N6, as the only air defense units capable of operating such a system around Moscow would have been the various S-300PM batteries. This would also likely imply that off-board targeting of the missile for extreme-range engagements is possible, perhaps using the 64N6 battle management radar system. Endgame intercept without the standard SAGG guidance mode provided by the engagement radar would likely be performed using active radar homing were this to be the case. Active radar homing is another feature commonly attributed to the 40N6 missile, further reinforcing the fact that the missile may be the 48N6DM or another unknown variant. With active radar homing missiles could theoretically be fired using off-board targeting data, allowing them to engage targets outside the range of the engagement radar as SAGG guidance commands would not be required. It may even be possible that new-build 48N6 series weapons came with Bunkin and Grushin's locking control surfaces, allowing them to be operated at extreme range. Until Russia releases information regarding the 400 kilometer missile system employed by the S-400, the missile providing this capability will have to remain an enigma."

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/07/s-3 ... lysis.html The reference for the testing bit from Sary Shagan was Pervov's SAMs of the PVO, a thoroughly awesome Russian-language publication.

So as you can see, I am still skeptical of the "40N6", but not the 400km range."


This post was from a decade ago.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 12:08
by wrightwing
Below the horizon at 40k feet or below the horizon at 1k feet? I'm not trying to play semantics here.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 12:24
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:I agree Hornetfinn, from what I know about radars (which is not much) the main advantages of AESA against PESA are:

-LPI, since each TRM is able to generate its own beam using its own unique frequency. a PESA system on the other hand can only use a single beam of radio waves at a single frequency at a time.
So to me, a PESA system's LPI capabilities will be far less effective than an AESA. Is that basically correct or is there more to it.

-AESA systems should also have a higher jamming resistance. If DRFM based jammers can replicate the frequency of the radar and re-transmit that, it will be much harder to do against an AESA system using different beams each with a changing frequency than a PESA system using 1 beam.


For LPI AESA does have many advantages versus PESA.

- Wider operating bandwidth. With GaAs TRMs this can be 5-10 times wider than with PESA. With GaN TRMs, the difference can be even wider. This means that the frequency hopping and spread spectrum techniques can be done over much wider bandwidth.

- Quicker frequency change. PESA uses TWTs in fighter radars and they take longer time to change frequencies. TRMs can switch frequencies much faster.

- Much lower sidelobe levels making it much harder to detect the radar from the sidelobes.

- Higher duty cycles meaning lower peak power levels which make it more difficult to detect the signals

- Higher sensitivity which means that significantly lower power levels achieve similar performance making it more difficult to detect the radar signals.

- Ability to form many beams simultaneously and have different kinds of beams for different purposes.

There are others as well, but they are not as important. Cmbination of these make AESA much better when it comes to LPI than either PESA or MSA radars. These same things also make it much more difficult to jam the AESA.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 14:02
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:Below the horizon at 40k feet or below the horizon at 1k feet? I'm not trying to play semantics here.


Probably depends on the offboard targeting source.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 15:02
by zero-one
euromaster wrote:No the Aegis network is mostly built into the legacy Burke class destroyers which make up the most of the US fleet defense operation. Burke has a low to its hull, fairly old radar that struggles with skimming missiles with detection only in hundreds of meters.


Arleigh Burke class (Flight III) are equipped with the AN/SPY-6 AMDR (AESA)which can be used for detection, Tracking, illumination of targets and jamming.

Now because Aegis equipped units can share information seamlessly, Flight III ships can guide weapons launched from Flight I ships or even from the Carrier itself.

This is actually why I consider the Aegis system to be so superior as a SAM system to the S-400.
I'm not entirely sure if the S-400 can share targeting data to the the extent that the Aegis can and if it is as effective against the wide variety of targets the Aegis can engage. aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, ships and even satellites can be killed by the AEGIS system, the S-400 can't effectively engage half of those.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2019, 17:58
by fidgetspinner
@zero-one

"This is actually why I consider the Aegis system to be so superior as a SAM system to the S-400.
I'm not entirely sure if the S-400 can share targeting data to the the extent that the Aegis can and if it is as effective against the wide variety of targets the Aegis can engage. aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, ships and even satellites can be killed by the AEGIS system, the S-400 can't effectively engage half of those.

Got a few points. SAM systems can be slaved to the S-400. Polyana-D4m1 a control station is able to monitor 500 targets and track 255. So for example if a system is tracking 100 and a pantsir system is tracking 8 low altitude targets that this system cannot track for being below the radar horizon all the information is sent to the control station which sees 108 targets instead than decides what launchers to use against the targets. Does this count as sharing data?

S-400 is said to engage same based targets, although there is no confirmed tests of 40n6 hitting satellites. I am wondering where you got your sources or data that the s-400 cannot do half of AEGIS? I hope your not supposedly using data based off of Syria where attacks happen in Damascus which is very far away from where Latakia is in Syria and if they planned on using the systems to begin with?

I wont be too engaged in this forum but anyone is welcome to my topic created here https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/m ... inst-sams/

The only reason why I am not that responsive is here because my chances of getting banned are high. :mrgreen:

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2019, 04:14
by wrightwing
fidgetspinner wrote:@zero-one

"This is actually why I consider the Aegis system to be so superior as a SAM system to the S-400.
I'm not entirely sure if the S-400 can share targeting data to the the extent that the Aegis can and if it is as effective against the wide variety of targets the Aegis can engage. aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, ships and even satellites can be killed by the AEGIS system, the S-400 can't effectively engage half of those.

Got a few points. SAM systems can be slaved to the S-400. Polyana-D4m1 a control station is able to monitor 500 targets and track 255. So for example if a system is tracking 100 and a pantsir system is tracking 8 low altitude targets that this system cannot track for being below the radar horizon all the information is sent to the control station which sees 108 targets instead than decides what launchers to use against the targets. Does this count as sharing data?

S-400 is said to engage same based targets, although there is no confirmed tests of 40n6 hitting satellites. I am wondering where you got your sources or data that the s-400 cannot do half of AEGIS? I hope your not supposedly using data based off of Syria where attacks happen in Damascus which is very far away from where Latakia is in Syria and if they planned on using the systems to begin with?

I wont be too engaged in this forum but anyone is welcome to my topic created here https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/m ... inst-sams/

The only reason why I am not that responsive is here because my chances of getting banned are high. :mrgreen:


S-400 Is endo-atmospheric only. It has no exo-atmospheric capabilities (i.e. can't hit objects in space.)

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2019, 05:18
by fidgetspinner
"S-400 Is endo-atmospheric only. It has no exo-atmospheric capabilities (i.e. can't hit objects in space.)"

interesting but do you know why they are saying its exo-atmospheric?
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/12399 ... VOKsndFzIU

The systems are designed to engage hard targets such as nuclear warheads, rather than satellites.
The new 40N6 missile guarantees a direct hit on a target at a range of 400 kilometers and at heights of up to 185 kilometers – effectively near space. This missile’s specialization is not soft targets like low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites with easily intercepted predetermined orbits.
The 40N6 missile is capable of exo-atmospheric interception of IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missile) warheads in their terminal phase, leave alone any aircraft target within the missile range perimeter.

I am just reading sources here that's all.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2019, 08:20
by zero-one
fidgetspinner wrote:S-400 is said to engage same based targets, although there is no confirmed tests of 40n6 hitting satellites. I am wondering where you got your sources or data that the s-400 cannot do half of AEGIS? I hope your not supposedly using data based off of Syria where attacks happen in Damascus which is very far away from where Latakia is in Syria and if they planned on using the systems to begin with?


Thank you for the added info.
Well from what we know, the Aegis system is designed to engage
-Satellites
-Ballistic missiles
-Aircraft
-Cruise missiles
-Surface vessels

Is the hull mounted and towed Sonar array integrated to the Aegis combat system? We can probably add submarines

The S-400 on the other hand is claimed to engage only
-Aircraft
-cruise missiles

Perhaps ballistic missiles in terminal or boost phase.

So the Aegis is designed to engage 5 kinds of targets, maybe 6 while the S-400 is designed to engage only 2 types, maybe 3. This is what I mean by it cannot engage half the targets Aegis can.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2019, 17:11
by fidgetspinner
@zero-one

http://www.deagel.com/Artillery-Systems ... 71001.aspx

"The Triumf extended range air defense system has been designed to engage a wide spectrum of airborne threats at ranges of up to 250 kilometers including electronic warfare (EW) aircraft, strategic bombers, tactical fighter aircraft, strike aircraft, cruise missiles, airborne early warning aircraft such as NATO's E-3 Sentry, tactical ballistic missiles, intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and other hypersonic threats projected by at least 2030. To do so, it relies on the 48N6E2 missile introduced with the S-300PMU2 SAM system and the newest 48N6E3 missile featuring a range of 250 kilometers and enhanced capability against IRBM missiles. In its anti-ballistic missile (ABM) role, the 48N6E3 missile can engage ballistic missiles with a maximum range of 3,500 km flying at 4,800 meters per second at distances between 7 to 60 kilometers."

The only thing the system can't do is to be used to attack another surface target for example the SM-6 can attack another ship but the Navy does not prefer to use the missile that way because of its expense. Arrow-3 is said to engage satellites but its altitude seems no different from the 40n6 except that the 40n6 can only climb up to 185kms and the arrow 3 is said to go over 100kms.

The Russians do not even have a naval version of the S-400 let alone the s-500 naval version. The an/spy-6 is 100 times more sensitive with GaN AESA than its previous counterpart which I am sure would be fielded way before a s-500 based vessel comes out. To be honest I cannot see them catching up to us at all in terms naval missile defense. I do not even think they have intercepted any SRBMs, MRBMs or IRBMs from any of their ships while they have yet to make an s-400 based vessel to do so.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2019, 03:45
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote: ... I think against modern fighters (and cruise missiles) smaller, lower cost/more numerous, geographically widely separated and more unpredictable systems are more dangerous. Systems like Snyder, IRIS-T SLM/SLS or NASAMS can be pretty nasty as they are all pretty capable systems with quick reaction times and more difficult to find and destroy. Of course they don't have similar range/altitude capability as larger systems. So they are kind of mine field type of systems which require enemy to come pretty close to be effective.


I doubt this approach will work out so well tactically or practically HF, nor be quite so dangerous to an attacking air force.

(1) Such distributed systems are not cheap to field and unlikely to be acquired in high enough numbers by most countries to operate them effectively in that way.

(2) The most useful and immediate role for them would be as an outer point-defense layer to preserve high-value targets from massed strikes early in a conflict (else you've already lost). This would be the most pressing as well effective way to employ them, for a considerable period into the conflict and to better preserve the overall armed force's capabilities.

(3) Translating into not too many such systems being available to create much of a SAM 'mine-field', of random and mobile pop-ups. Such a SAM menace is going to be more effective against helicopters and low to mid-altitude drones (rather than fast jets at Mach 0.9 @ FL400 or higher with copious standoff weapons. The fast-jet approach path and standoff weapon use is virtually unconstrained by geography (no or little need to radar-mask at low altitudes).

4) Logistical support for these distributed SAMs is going to immediately come under stress as well as attacked early and often at the source. So systems deployed closer in to a high-value target will be far easier to support.

5) Such SAMs are likely to be effective only against a 4th-gen air force which can't easily break the kill chain.

6) Rising missile point-of-origins, from DAS and any "YATO" indication will much more easy deal with than previous, and also to discover and target launchers fast, which can be almost immediately attacked by a 5th-gen ubiquitous HOBS-LOAL multi-role fire-and-forget missiles with automated D/L support and autonomous-homing and classifying glide-weapons.


So distributed hunters quickly become the hunted and the aerial 'minefield' will be cleared away.

Combine that with SAR surveillance and EOTS ID target prioritizing and a SAM system shooting 'n scooting shouldn't last long. Thus a mutually supporting point-defense layers may be the best use of low to mid-range SAM systems (especially if they're supported by F-35 data within an allied context).

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2019, 04:08
by element1loop
euromaster wrote:No the Aegis network is mostly built into the legacy Burke class destroyers which make up the most of the US fleet defense operation. Burke has a low to its hull, fairly old radar that struggles with skimming missiles with detection only in hundreds of meters.


No, not even close. These are integrated systems-of-systems not some old stove-piped cold-war era Soviet cruiser.

Naval Optronics:

Surveillance and fire control systems
Naval operations require traditional and asymmetric military threats from air, land or sea to be taken into account. Safran Electronics & Defense has a full range of optronic systems (EOMS NG, Vampir NG, Vigy Observer, PASEO marine) that contribute to the operational efficiency of warships (helicopter-carriers, aircraft-carriers, frigates, corvettes, patrol boats) with new-generation sensors to detect and identify threats over very long ranges day and night, giving very early warning. These systems offer automatic panoramic surveillance for very low altitude detection.

Vampir NG
Vampir NG is a very long-range infrared search/track system. It provides naval ships with passive panoramic surveillance functions including automatic detection, tracking and reporting of symmetric or asymmetric threats, from sea-skimming anti-ship missiles to Fast Incoming Attack Craft. Vampir NG offers two operational modes: "ocean" mode allows very large range search at high sea while "littoral" mode allows long-range and large elevation search along the coast. The false alarm rate is very low, even in the littoral environment. It is the most sensitive system on the market as well as the first one using the ultra-rapid "step-and-stare" principle enabling 360° coverage with a single high-performance IR camera. With unsurpassed performance and reliability, VAMPIR NG is the best selling naval IRST worldwide.


https://www.safran-electronics-defense. ... ol-systems
https://www.safran-electronics-defense. ... pir_ng.pdf
http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/VA ... 07001.aspx


Combine such mast height EW sensors with Aegis and integrated missile/CIWS detection and targeting, the range can be 10 nm radius from a ship.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2019, 04:42
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:Well from what we know, the Aegis system is designed to engage
-Satellites
-Ballistic missiles
-Aircraft
-Cruise missiles
-Surface vessels


SM2 has a rapid-reaction capability to hit time-critical targets ashore.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2019, 10:18
by hornetfinn
element1loop wrote:
euromaster wrote:No the Aegis network is mostly built into the legacy Burke class destroyers which make up the most of the US fleet defense operation. Burke has a low to its hull, fairly old radar that struggles with skimming missiles with detection only in hundreds of meters.


No, not even close. These are integrated systems-of-systems not some old stove-piped cold-war era Soviet cruiser.


Very true. And I'd like to know where that "info" about detecing sea skimming missiles only in hundreds of meters comes from. First, the minimum range of SPY-1 is likely longer than that, so they would never detect those missile if that was true. But USN has tested Aegis and SPY-1 systems extensively and very successfully against all kinds of threat missiles, including sea skimmers.

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2019, 11:19
by shania
euromaster wrote:Any supersonic missile (let alone hypersonic) will likely be able to overpower a Burke Destroyer net with just a few missiles. What makes it worse is that the US navy is only just been giving its Burke's active missiles like the ESSM, most of the standard designs are legacy missiles that are illumination based for termination and require baby sitting, of which only two-3 (3 on Tichondria cruisers) for each termination meaning a low number of controlled missiles.

A zircon would likely be able to fly through a US carrier strike group and destroy any projected target with ease. The only defence the US have would be to use an aircraft like the F-35 to control high end missiles like SM-6 (costly/heavy/small in number) to try and hit the Zircon through mass salvo from multiple Burkes.



Even old SM-2 was designed do deal with swarms of supersonic ASM...
Tico have 4 and Burke 3 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators

What that mean each AN/SPG-62 Illuminator can guide one or more missile from entire AEGIS formation, if its have LOS to target.
OK thats look like problem against sea skimming missiles, where probably only one ship will have LOS on them at meaningful distances (Radar horizon for radar at only 10m to missile flying at 6m is still over 20km... ), but SM-2 or ESSM fly on mid course updates and needs illumination only at terminal phase. So AEGIS system can guide lots of missiles on lots of targets. Single ship can at last manage 10-20 ASM, they will probably run out of missiles due to current low missile loadouts.

Paper speed on hyper sonic/supersonic ASM are from high altitudes, when they fly low, they fly much slower... and range is limited... there is no hyper-sonic ASM with sea skimming capability...

So zircon is not sea skimming ant when this missile goes down to target, it will slow down.
Next thing, radar guided ASM can hit anything against soft kill countermeasures.

ESSM and SM-2 have ARH variants with AIM-120 guidance section (SM-6, ESSM blk 2)...

Re: Surface to Air missile systems

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2019, 11:46
by madrat
Why do you guys debate this numbnuts. It is pretty obvious it's the same troll as always, simply under a new nick. :doh: