OT: Archer&Aphid turning SAM

[nscode]

I spoke about this earlier and somebody asked if I could provide more info. Whell, here it is.

 

Since it was unable to operate a larger number of airforce missions (for vareious reasons: cost, shortage of spare parts, enemy with far grater number of aircraft), but had a large supply of air2air missiles it was decided to put them in use as SAMs.

 

First atempts were seen in early '90s, with truck mounted AA 2 Atoll (R-3) from MiG-21.

 

 

It had poor performance due to Atol being rear hemisphere only, and missieles were old aged and often detonated right after leaving launch rail, and sometimes not detonating at target.

 

In early '99. new version was developed with R-60 (model RL-2 and RL-3) and R-73 (with model RL-4) mounted on praga and brdm's. Control was done from the wehicles cabin and software was developed for automated searching for a target. These models undergone quick testing process that lasted only a few days and then put into active service. Since the rockets were desinged to be fired from an aircraft where thay had initial momentum, range was limited when used from standstill. So, a new model was developed, the RL-4M. It had unguided 240 mm rocket booster mounted to R-73.

 

 

No specific data is provided for actual war time performance, but it is sayed it had success against cruise missiles and UAVs. The seeker proved to be very good, sometimes detecting targets 25 km away at 15000m in ideal conditions, much further than even the boosted version kinematic range.

 

 

:joystick:

Sources: airserbia, aeromagazin

[Force_Feedback]

Give them some pics of the new thing, I have them, but forgot where I got them from.

 

EDIT: http://pvo.guns.ru/foto/yugo/yugo16.htm

http://pvo.guns.ru/foto/yugo/yugo17.htm

[GGTharos]

Hehe, kinda like Chapparal, though itallegedly worked somewhat better, it no doubt suffered from the same range limitations ... and now AMRAAM is being used as a SAM also (Well, not yet operationally, but IIRC HUMRAAM will be deployed in 2009)

[nscode]

Give them some pics of the new thing, I have them, but forgot where I got them from.

 

EDIT: http://pvo.guns.ru/foto/yugo/yugo16.htm

http://pvo.guns.ru/foto/yugo/yugo17.htm

 

Yes, that's a version with a Yugo windshield/tape combination instead of the electronical search system :D

[Force_Feedback]

I have hq pics of the S-8-R73 vehicle and armament, but I'll have to search for them.

[britgliderpilot]

Yes, that's a version with a Yugo windshield/tape combination instead of the electronical search system :D

 

Whoa. Goodbye eyebrows!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Now it is more then obvious why A-10’s deck over Yugoslavia was at 15 000 feet. Also, it is more then obvious that A-10 as well as Su-25 and Su-25T are outdated weapon systems. They can only be used against opponent that has no IR SAM missiles.

 

Soviet Union lost the war when Stinger arrived in Afghanistan.

[GGTharos]

Soviet union lost due to poor tactics and understanding.

The Su-25's were safe once they begun to fly higher - as for the A-10's deck over Yugoslavia, you can -bet- they'd be flying lower if it had actually been productive and necessary. They created in an era where shoulder-fired missiles were plentiful.

 

What would be a good replacement for either of these aircraft in your opinion?

Did strike aircraft do any better?

[nscode]

And in an era where it was normal to loose 40% of your aircraft.

[D-Scythe]

And in an era where it was normal to loose 40% of your aircraft.

 

Did you pull that 40% out of a rather large body crevice, or do you actually have something to substantiate that statement?

[tflash]

This unfortunate discussion sheds some light on the value of the A-10: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5371392.stm

 

The Harrier GR.7A is a very sophisticated and purposeful jet, but like all "faster" jets it is has sometimes a too short loiter time over the target.

 

The A-10's low-speed manoevrability makes it second to none in CAS.

 

Of course, once manpads spoil the game it's a very different story.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Soviet union lost due to poor tactics and understanding.

Not correct. Tactics can not overcome limitations of Su-25 and A-10. Tactics can make them less vulnerable therefore less effective.

The Su-25's were safe once they begun to fly higher…

Military combat airplanes are not made to just fly. Indeed, Su-25’s as well as A-10’s over Yugoslavia could (and did) fly high, however, they were not effective at those altitudes.

- as for the A-10's deck over Yugoslavia, you can -bet- they'd be flying lower if it had actually been productive and necessary.

”What if’s” and “you can bet” are speculations and I will not speculate here. The facts are, well documented facts BTW, that A-10’s flew high and were not able to hit ground targets over Yugoslavia.

Did strike aircraft do any better?

Strike aircraft were used to hit strategic and not well defended targets over Yugoslavia. So I don’t know if strike aircraft were involved in CAS and SEAD’s. Do you have any info on that?

[D-Scythe]

Not correct. Tactics can not overcome limitations of Su-25 and A-10. Tactics can make them less vulnerable therefore less effective.

 

Um, tactics *can* overcome *any* limitations. If the A-10 has some trouble in one area, get it to work with a fast-mover like a Viper. A B-1B can't defend itself against a Su-27 either - and the tactic to overcome this limitation has NOTHING to do with the B-1B, but rather to provide some F-15 escort.

 

Nobody works alone in the battlefield - you're thinking is highly one dimensional.

 

”What if’s” and “you can bet” are speculations and I will not speculate here. The facts are, well documented facts BTW, that A-10’s flew high and were not able to hit ground targets over Yugoslavia.

 

They flew low over Baghdad, and that's arguably a more dangerous environment than Kosovo.

 

Strike aircraft were used to hit strategic and not well defended targets over Yugoslavia. So I don’t know if strike aircraft were involved in CAS and SEAD’s. Do you have any info on that?

 

Um, NATO F-117s, F-15Es and Tornados hit basically every type of target imaginable in Serbia, highly defended or not. And technically, there was no CAS operations of ANY kind during the conflict, since there were no ground troops in Kosovo for Coalition jets to provide "close air support."

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

If the A-10 has some trouble in one area, get it to work with a fast-mover like a Viper.

We did not talk about tactics of adding additional-specialized aircraft to A-10 and Su-25, Su-25T.

Um, NATO F-117s, F-15Es and Tornados hit basically every type of target imaginable in Serbia, highly defended or not.

None of the strategic targets in Yugoslavia were heavily defended against strike aircraft. Yugoslavia did not have technology to heavily defend itself against high and fast flying strike aircraft.

And technically, there was no CAS operations of ANY kind during the conflict, since there were no ground troops in Kosovo for Coalition jets to provide "close air support."

Yes there were ground troops and ground operations in Kosovo. Albanian infantry as well as Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) soldiers were attacking Yugoslavian ground troops. This was happening when NATO CAS airplanes were in the air. With all evidence available today, it was obvious that these were coordinated attacks.

 

The ground war did not last long because Yugoslavian army was able to swiftly defeat KLA and push it out to Albania.

 

Also, tens of thousands of NATO ground troops were stationed in Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYRM) and in Albania. There was at least one highly publicized incident of NATO ground troops entering Yugoslavian soil. The evidence of that is in front of Serbian Military Museum, Kalemegdan, Belgrade.

 

All these facts are now publicly available.

[britgliderpilot]

It's probably about time this thread was shut down . . . . . .

 

 

Whenever Yugoslavia is mentioned things tend to get somewhat out of hand . . . .

[D-Scythe]

We did not talk about tactics of adding additional-specialized aircraft to A-10 and Su-25, Su-25T.

 

You do know that that's how tactics work right? To use multiple weapon platforms to mitigate the limitations of each?

 

None of the strategic targets in Yugoslavia were heavily defended against strike aircraft. Yugoslavia did not have technology to heavily defend itself against high and fast flying strike aircraft.

 

No technology? What about the 5 B-2 shootdowns that Serbia was 'claiming'? Was that all make-belief or what?

 

Yes there were ground troops and ground operations in Kosovo. Albanian infantry as well as Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) soldiers were attacking Yugoslavian ground troops. This was happening when NATO CAS airplanes were in the air. With all evidence available today, it was obvious that these were coordinated attacks.

 

Lemme get this straight - Serbia didn't have the equipment/technology to defend itself against NATO but the KLA, basically a under-equipped militia, was somehow inexplicable supplied with radios (and the training) that enabled them to link them to NATO pilots which in turn allowed the execution of co-ordinated ground and air attacks on Serbian troops?

 

Right...

 

The ground war did not last long because Yugoslavian army was able to swiftly defeat KLA and push it out to Albania.

 

Also, tens of thousands of NATO ground troops were stationed in Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYRM) and in Albania. There was at least one highly publicized incident of NATO ground troops entering Yugoslavian soil. The evidence of that is in front of Serbian Military Museum, Kalemegdan, Belgrade.

 

All these facts are now publicly available.

 

I'd hardly call them "facts," mainly because they're not, but further discussion of this is meaningless.

[tflash]

The seeker proved to be very good, sometimes detecting targets 25 km away at 15000m in ideal conditions, much further than even the boosted version kinematic range.

 

I think we haven't seen the end yet with IR/CCD seeker evolution. Manpads are still incredibly lethal weapons, and the idea to launch some heaters at even higher range sounds a good one. It is not interesting if you have your own fighters also in the air, but many countries start from the assumption that this won't be the case, even without reading the F-22 pooowns all messagery.

 

Flares are only part of the answer; I wonder how IR threat warning is evolving, more in particular the UV based systems now being developed. Expensive gear, but badly needed.

 

Are there any other examples of SAM's using IR technology seekers?

[nscode]

Lemme get this straight - Serbia didn't have the equipment/technology to defend itself against NATO but the KLA, basically a under-equipped militia, was somehow inexplicable supplied with radios (and the training) that enabled them to link them to NATO pilots which in turn allowed the execution of co-ordinated ground and air attacks on Serbian troops?

 

Not radios.. schedule. This poor method of coordination is also what resulted in KLA suffering from both serbian and nato attacks. And it isn't the CAS they needed so much. It was it's protection that came with 'em and prevented our light strike aviation from working in the area.

 

You have to distinguish the propaganda made for elderly people and children and gossip from actual stories from the battlefield. For instance, there was a story that one runway at Batajnica airfield was covered with dirth and a decoy aluminum runway was constructed just beside it and that NATO kept bombing that. That's as bull as 5 B-2s. For one, they missed so many times that it would make no difference :D the real runway would still get powned. The truth is that they actually didn't bomb it at all till a few deys before the end of the war, so that they could draw our aircraft from shelters.

 

 

As for the no defended targets... that was also a tactic. When defending a target, you are much more prone to become a target your self. Also, it was more or less pointless since for one, if you even managed to defend something, loosing everything you've got in that area, nato would just come again and get it anyway. Second, there weren't any stationary military targets to protect. Everything military was mobile and displaced or destroyed in the first few days. So, it was decited that it's more efficient to try and catch aircraft returning to base (neetly using the same airway every time).

[nscode]

Are there any other examples of SAM's using IR technology seekers?

 

Yup. Also, I've heard that there was an idea of S-300 using combined radar/IR/TV guidance during developent. But, it was dissmised since just radar was good enough ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You do know that that's how tactics work right? To use multiple weapon platforms to mitigate the limitations of each?

Neither I nor GGTharos were talking about adding “multiple weapon” platforms. This thread was about Infra Red Homing Surface to Air Missiles that almost eliminated possibility of using low flying aircraft such as Su-25, A-10 and Apache Helicopters from low (below 15 000 feet) flying missions. And the only change in tactics to use them was to fly high! Both Soviet Union did it in Afghanistan and NATO over Yugoslavia. Result was safe return of all pilots however, very little ground hits.

 

No technology? What about the 5 B-2 shootdowns that Serbia was 'claiming'? Was that all make-belief or what?

Neither Yugoslavia nor Serbia, neither did I ever claimed that five (5) B-2’s were shoot down. There was ONE article in Yugoslavian daily news „ПОЛИТИКА“ that I personally read and in there the ARTICLE WRITER claimed that one B-2 was shoot over Belgrade. Everybody knew that was not true and it was a regime (Slobodan Milosevic) desperate try to impress its followers. There was never any evidence nor did we ever heard from credible Yugoslavian sources that B-2 was shoot down over Yugoslavia.

 

Lemme get this straight - Serbia didn't have the equipment/technology to defend itself against NATO…

Yugoslavia and Serbia as part of Yugoslavia (the other part was Montenegro) did not have technology to defend itself. To defend Yugoslavia, technologically, we needed 50 or so MiG-31’s 1000 to 1200 of Su-27M’s and dozen’s of integrated S-300 SAM systems. We did not have that.

 

but the KLA, basically a under-equipped militia, was somehow inexplicable supplied with radios (and the training) that enabled them to link them to NATO pilots which in turn allowed the execution of co-ordinated ground and air attacks on Serbian troops?

 

Right...

Wrong.

 

I'd hardly call them "facts," mainly because they're not, but further discussion of this is meaningless.

Yes it is indeed. I am out of it as well.

[GGTharos]

Yup. Also, I've heard that there was an idea of S-300 using combined radar/IR/TV guidance during developent. But, it was dissmised since just radar was good enough ;)

 

 

The exact same thing was done with Patriot, and they settled on an ARH missile (the PAC 3) ... I think the closure must be quite significant when computing an intercept path against a high-closure target.

[D-Scythe]

The exact same thing was done with Patriot, and they settled on an ARH missile (the PAC 3) ... I think the closure must be quite significant when computing an intercept path against a high-closure target.

 

Don't forget the dual IR/RF seeker in the SM-2 Block IVs. Looks like that project is largely dead and they're moving on to the SM-6, which is equipped with an AMRAAM seeker.

 

Not radios.. schedule. This poor method of coordination is also what resulted in KLA suffering from both serbian and nato attacks. And it isn't the CAS they needed so much. It was it's protection that came with 'em and prevented our light strike aviation from working in the area.

 

You have to distinguish the propaganda made for elderly people and children and gossip from actual stories from the battlefield. For instance, there was a story that one runway at Batajnica airfield was covered with dirth and a decoy aluminum runway was constructed just beside it and that NATO kept bombing that. That's as bull as 5 B-2s. For one, they missed so many times that it would make no difference the real runway would still get powned. The truth is that they actually didn't bomb it at all till a few deys before the end of the war, so that they could draw our aircraft from shelters.

 

 

As for the no defended targets... that was also a tactic. When defending a target, you are much more prone to become a target your self. Also, it was more or less pointless since for one, if you even managed to defend something, loosing everything you've got in that area, nato would just come again and get it anyway. Second, there weren't any stationary military targets to protect. Everything military was mobile and displaced or destroyed in the first few days. So, it was decited that it's more efficient to try and catch aircraft returning to base (neetly using the same airway every time).

 

Interesting - definitely makes sense from a military viewpoint.

[Pilotasso]

These SAM projets are rather of limited use. My country has aquired 30 Chaparral bateries in original condition, and they are so "tacticaly interesting" that the army is letting half of them rott away.

 

When launched from the ground all AA IR short range missiles (chaparral uses Uprated Sidwinders) have their range basicaly halved. You cant do much with 3 miles range.

[nscode]

Yes.. there are problems. This is not some new miracle that solves all your problems. This is about getting the most results from what you have. Think we would have bothered with this if we could get a network of S-300 and a few hundreds of Tunguskas? ;)

 

Btw, there were some talks of export, but the system needed more work to get it into that state (eg. datalink would be requested) and that needed more funding... something we don't have. So, al of these systems are left to rott too :(

[Dudikoff]

and now AMRAAM is being used as a SAM also (Well, not yet operationally, but IIRC HUMRAAM will be deployed in 2009)

 

Actually, it's been used operationally for quite some time (NASAMS).