Jump to content

Has anyone shot down an ARM... ever?


Recommended Posts

I'm sure I'm not the only Su-25T driver to be very surprised when I first saw the game's modern SAMs (Patriot and S-300) laugh in the face of SEAD, deftly intercepting all manners of anti-radiation missiles. And then you have the nigh-invulnerable naval vessels, with their RIM-whatevers that knock down absolutely everything.

 

I've also been playing CMANO, the average scenario of which involves multiple billions of dollars of missiles splashing multiple billions of dollars of other missiles, thwarting enormous saturation attacks. Even ancient SAMs from the '60s and '70s have a fighting chance at taking out incoming PGMs, jets happily plink ARMs and cruise missiles with heat-seekers and SARH.

 

It all seems a little too good to be true, and I can't help but suspect that the real technology is either unproven or operating at a tenth of that level of reliability.

 

I know that purpose-built Patriots have a mediocre wartime record of intercepting ballistics missiles (large RCS, high velocity), and AEGIS systems can easily deal with cruise missiles (small RCS, low velocity)...

 

...but has any land-based SAM currently in existence ever actually knocked down a small, fast target as an ARM? In a proven test? Or are these capabilities all just mathematically predicted?

 

I can't find any publicly available evidence, and can't see why countries wouldn't want to prove the anti-PGM abilities that they brag about. A video of one HARM exploding in mid-air doesn't give rivals any actionable intelligence, so why keep it classified?

 

 

Edit: And concerning Aegis, has it been tested against the supersonic P-series cruise missiles used by the Soviet/Russian navy? This article seems to suggest that US navy's missiles still don't tackle low-altitude supersonic targets.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/non-standard-navy-sm-6-kills-cruise-missiles-deep-inland/


Edited by maturin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure I'm not the only Su-25T driver to be very surprised when I first saw the game's modern SAMs (Patriot and S-300) laugh in the face of SEAD, deftly intercepting all manners of anti-radiation missiles. And then you have the nigh-invulnerable naval vessels, with their RIM-whatevers that knock down absolutely everything.

 

What you're doing isn't anything like RL SEAD anyway.

 

It all seems a little too good to be true, and I can't help but suspect that the real technology is either unproven or operating at a tenth of that level of reliability.
It's proven, but combat conditions may vary from tests.

 

I know that purpose-built Patriots have a mediocre wartime record of intercepting ballistics missiles (large RCS, high velocity), and AEGIS systems can easily deal with cruise missiles (small RCS, low velocity)...
That is incorrect. When PATRIOT was first used in the ABM role, it was neither built for that purpose nor was it operated in a way it was meant to, leading to problems.

 

After the ABM improvements were made, its record was very good.

 

...but has any land-based SAM currently in existence ever actually knocked down a small, fast target as an ARM? In a proven test? Or are these capabilities all just mathematically predicted?
They've done it in testing. The capability is also documented in the PATRIOT's operator's manual.

 

In practice you may have more important things to shoot at, and you may also have soft-kill methods available against ARMs.

 

I can't find any publicly available evidence, and can't see why countries wouldn't want to prove the anti-PGM abilities that they brag about. A video of one HARM exploding in mid-air doesn't give rivals any actionable intelligence, so why keep it classified?
The typical PATRIOT test target is another PATRIOT missile.

 

Edit: And concerning Aegis, has it been tested against the supersonic P-series cruise missiles used by the Soviet/Russian navy? This article seems to suggest that US navy's missiles still don't tackle low-altitude supersonic targets.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/non-standard-navy-sm-6-kills-cruise-missiles-deep-inland/

 

I believe it suggests that SARH missiles are a last ditch defense against missiles coming over the horizon - by doing this reaction time is very, very significantly reduced. That is the real problem.

 

ARH missiles can use a data-link to help attack targets that the ship cannot actually see, or it will only see as they come over the horizon. Available reaction time is thus more than doubled.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're doing isn't anything like RL SEAD anyway.
Well, right, it's winner-take-all DEAD.

 

But if an S-400 can really defeat a volley of upgraded HARMs with ease, than wouldn't it do so? Keep the radar emitting, knock down the HARMs and go after any in-range strike aircraft simultaneously?

 

 

They've done it in testing. The capability is also documented in the PATRIOT's operator's manual.

The typical PATRIOT test target is another PATRIOT missile.

Well that's interesting to know, and is exactly the sort of information I was looking for.

 

My Google-fu failed to turn up any details on anti-PGM tests from any country, so this topic is really fishing for links. What tests? When?

 

One article I forgot to link in the OP concerned a proposed live-fire anti-ARM test for the Patriot. But it was an article from last year, sort of suggesting that it hadn't been done before.


Edited by maturin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even. There's really nothing resembling SEAD here except that you have a missile that you can aim at a radar, but SAM behavior and thus behavior required on your part, as well as supporting assets are just not ... there. :)

 

As for a volley of HARMs ... sure. How many missiles does that SAM have?

How many aircraft does it have to track and target at the same time? Is it being jammed?

 

How many targets can it attack simultaneously? Will it have missile left after all the ARMs are downed? (This is why you use soft-kill methods, too)

 

Does it even need to turn its radar on before you're in some sort of no escape zone?

 

Well, right, it's winner-take-all DEAD.

 

But if an S-400 can really defeat a volley of upgraded HARMs with ease, than wouldn't it do so? Keep the radar emitting, knock down the HARMs and go after any in-range strike aircraft simultaneously?

 

 

Sorry, no links. Not everything is available out there - but as far as the very public stuff goes, you can see videos of PATRIOTs shooting down other PATRIOTs, lance missiles etc.

 

You might see something interesting come out of the GAO now and then, but you'll need to search a lot and possibly in less than obvious places.

 

Try dtic.mil though :)

 

Well that's interesting to know, and is exactly the sort of information I was looking for.

 

My Google-fu failed to turn up any details on anti-PGM tests from any country, so this topic is really fishing for links. What tests? When?

 

One article I forgot to link in the OP concerned a proposed live-fire anti-ARM test for the Patriot. But it was an article from last year, sort of suggesting that it hadn't been done before.

Do you need a live-fire anti-ARM test if you can shoot down an MLRS rocket? Testing is very expensive and the military may not be interested in testing all scenarios.

 

Most Anti-ARM tactics tend to depend on killing the carrier or using some soft-kill method.

 

Realize that if you ran into a SAM defense in RL, in particular with PATRIOT, you'd be facing a corridor of 6-8 systems with overlapping fire sectors, not a singleton.

 

(Of course, fact is that a PATRIOT has been stuck with a HARM in RL. We don't know if this is because the operator decided not to launch on the track - previously identified ARM tracks ended up being friendlies who were shot down by the system - or because PATRIOT just couldn't engage the HARM. Another fact is that the capability exists and is documented in the operator's manual and also in the investigations regarding these unfortunate incidents).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you need a live-fire anti-ARM test if you can shoot down an MLRS rocket?
Has the Patriot shot down an MLRS rocket? And was it a classified rumor or are there details?

 

 

(Of course, fact is that a PATRIOT has been stuck with a HARM in RL. We don't know if this is because the operator decided not to launch on the track - previously identified ARM tracks ended up being friendlies who were shot down by the system - or because PATRIOT just couldn't engage the HARM. Another fact is that the capability exists and is documented in the operator's manual and also in the investigations regarding these unfortunate incidents).
As I've heard it, the battery was operating in automated mode because the crew was taking cover in a bunker. I assume the designers weren't crazy enough to let the system launch autonomously, so neither the firing aircraft nor the HARM were ever in any danger.

 

And what about the S-300 and S-400, along with the Tor and Pantsir. Have the Russians done any tests that prove their systems' capability? I notice that the newer S-300 and S-400 SAMs have longer range than any ARM around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether it launches autonomously or not is a choice, IIRC. It's not about the designers, it's about procedure in this case, IMHO.

 

As for the Russian systems, you probably know as much as I do - but since they do advertise those capabilities, I imagine they're able to demonstrate them also.

 

Let's put it this way: SAMs and AAMs have demonstrated the ability to directly hit fairly small targets, so none of this is a huge surprise for a modern system. Now it comes down to how busy you are, how much attention you're paying, and what that other guy with the huge radio is trying to do to your radar. :)

 

Not all versions of S300 can attack an ARM, as for range ... you can do a PB launch of HARM from 80nm these days.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of systems that were design with a Anti missile capability as either its primary or secondary purpose.

 

I know mostly about British naval systems, Sea wolf and Sea dart. Both were designed to cope with Russian systems, and have varying degrees of success in tests and combat.

 

Sea Dart was design to hit high flying bombers and missiles, it had known short coming with low level targets due to sidelode interference. These were displayed during the Falkland conflict.

 

It underwent a major upgrade after the war replacing the electronic systems with solid state electronics and a new digital autopilot. This effectively double the range and gave it a capability similar to the SM-2. It then went onto shoot down an Iraqi silkworm missile during the first Gulf war, the first time this had happened under actual combat. The upgrade also provided better performance from saturation attacks.

 

Sea wolf was design from the outset to hit low level targets, specifically Anti ship missiles. In tests it hit missiles and even a 114mm shell. In combat again a number of shortcommings were experienced. It was designed as a self defence system, and struggled with crossing targets. it also had a tendency to break lock when targets were close together.

It was also design to fire autonomously if a track met certain criteria, because to the short warning from most sea skimming attacks.

 

Again an update program rectified this after the war. The major problem with Sea wolf is it cannot cope with saturation attacks, something that Sea ceptor will resolve.

 

 

 

As GGTharos has said the technicalities of actually hits a small targets have largely been addressed (Iron Dome is probably the best example currently being used.), but its really the Combat information system sat behind the weapon that has the biggest part to play in successfully intercepting multiple targets.


Edited by whiteladder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even. There's really nothing resembling SEAD here except that you have a missile that you can aim at a radar, but SAM behavior and thus behavior required on your part, as well as supporting assets are just not ... there.

 

 

thank you

 

just....... thank you

i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is incorrect. When PATRIOT was first used in the ABM role, it was neither built for that purpose nor was it operated in a way it was meant to, leading to problems.

 

After the ABM improvements were made, its record was very good.

 

I'd add that Patriot wasn't as much of a lemon for anti-TBM over Israel as some claim it to be.

 

The anti-TBM capability was added to defend against TBM attacks on high value targets like airfields, C2, logistic centers, and so forth in the Central Front in Germany. So, the proximity-fuzed blast frag warhead sufficed for bumping the missile off-course from its intended target. The problem with that approach over Israel: Israel is one of the world's most densely populated countries, so some debris falling on someplace populated even if the intercept was successful was inevitable.


Edited by Agiel7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When PATRIOT was first used in the ABM role, it was neither built for that purpose nor was it operated in a way it was meant to, leading to problems.

 

After the ABM improvements were made, its record was very good.

 

Specifically, the radar set had a programming glitch with the computer clock that timed radar pulses. Against VERY high speed targets (IE, re-entering ballistic missiles), it would miss by just a tiny margin of meters. Even then, it often fuzed and damaged the missile.

 

The thing to remember is that even the OLD 1991-era PATRIOT got plenty of hits on SCUDs, the problem was that it was proximity fuzed, so it would break apart the SCUD (ruining what little accuracy it has), but the warhead would continue to fall and detonate on impact.

 

The key here is that the SCUDs were aimed at cities (HUGE area targets) and used as terror weapons, so even though the PATRIOT might deflect the missile several miles from its intended impact point, it would still fall somewhere in the city. Against a MILITARY target (IE, a point target or relatively small, dispersed area target), deflecting the missile several miles would mean a clean miss.

 

Of course, those are old, old PATRIOT. The PAC-3 is specifically tuned for ABM and uses hit-to-kill, which destroys the target warhead outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...