SA-10

[SoaringEagle74]

The pilot should call the SEAD package.

 

Yeah...no kidding, but I think its safe to assume that even a sead attack force has its limitations as I mentioned in my previous post.

 

For example in the gulf war they said:

 

1)send in very low flying apache gunships to take out ewr during the night

2)long range cruise missiles and f-117 to attack high value targets such government buildings, communications, long range sam radars, etc.

3)now its time for conventional planes to do the rest:)

4)about a month later they send in the marines and army

 

Is it really a coincidence they discovered f-117s, f-22s, b-2s and god knows what else to do most of the dangerous work? Then we have the special ground forces which are begging to sabotage anything missed.

[GGTharos]

^^^^

It's all part of the system. And BTW, only air power can stop air power! SAM=Speed Bump!

[Force_Feedback]

^^^^

It's all part of the system. And BTW, only air power can stop air power! SAM=Speed Bump!

 

Why is that? I mean, satellites can track planes as well, so it's not like they can't hide from Big Brother's eyes forever. In the end it all comes down to disguise and misinformation, if you can hide SAMs or planes well, you're on the home stretch to victory or at least a good run for the invaders' money. Planes still need airstrips, those can be targeted. A mobile SAM will less likely be destroyed while sitting in a repair shop. The only disadvantage SAMs have is speed. There were plans in the Soviet Union for VTOL equipped S-300 sites, but it was too expensive, and I guess impractical considering the power requirements for a long loiter time. Probably they would need a nuclear engine, and then we all arrive at the radiation shielding piece of the puzzle, and possibly thrust requirements, crash resistance etc.

What is interesting is the shift in aircraft design from stealth to multirole ability and sensors, prabably due to some countries having long wavelangth radars ESM and other 'tricks'.

[SoaringEagle74]

^^^^

It's all part of the system. And BTW, only air power can stop air power! SAM=Speed Bump!

 

Generally speaking yes but that would mean the fight is fair. If the intrudring forces manage to cluster bomb all or most of the airfields before any planes manage to scramble then obviously there won't be many dogfights. The few that do manage to take-off will be eliminated by f-22s before the pilot says what the ..... is going on?!:D

 

It's called "blitzkrieg". The americans are experts at this and russians not too bad themselves.

[D-Scythe]

^^^^

It's all part of the system. And BTW, only air power can stop air power! SAM=Speed Bump!

 

Not necessarily. While I agree that SAMs cannot offer any realistic permanent defense against fighters, they can be employed in a way to make their lives hell. If the record of SAMs against modern airpower is worth anything, it teaches us that to tie a SAM to some stationary target is NOT the way to go.

 

A smart SA-10 skipper IMO should always be on the move from hiding place to hiding place, turn on the radar briefly to gut an entire package of strikers, then scoot. Rinse, wash and repeat.

[GGTharos]

Yes, necessarily, unless the attacking air force is weak sauce. But I'm not considering that scenario.

[AlexHunter]

^^^^

It's all part of the system. And BTW, only air power can stop air power! SAM=Speed Bump!

 

I do not agree, deeply echeloned system of air DEFENCE in a complex with an aviation, practically unsurmountable, the basic elements of the echeloned air DEFENCE work in the passive mode with CU from the different survey stations, plus mobility and obligatory changing of positions after work on aims, in the echeloned air DEFENCE every divisions work on the aims who on airplanes, who on a high-fidelity weapon and antiradio-location rockets, plus surface and air facilities of radio electronic fight on creation of false aims for an opponent. Does it in a complex do practically impossible overcoming of such system air DEFENCE, but any air DEFENCE can crush down it axiom, only how many facilities and victims on it it is necessary and ready to go on these victims attacking? On principle 100% crushing down air DEFENCE is impossible, especially those systems which are built on the basis of passive accompaniment and search of aims, as autonomously as with aiming from other sources of information!!! Above these questions in our country worked a long ago and thoroughly and the as a result carefully thought out and balanced system of air DEFENCE is steady and of great vitality. In those countries where not very much air DEFENCE was successfully utillized it is a not index, because there it was variegated, out-of-date and not having automated control the system all of complexes, plus not very much competent personnel and the most important frequent superiority of opponent in facilities attacks, the resources of sides are incommensurable in an armament and the most important in possibility by means of space and to own other facilities of secret service by operative information about an opponent.

 

To taking: in Russia for working off skills of firing for the antiaircrafters of Tunguski-M and Tor-m1 as targets (along with other) apply shells from the system of a volley fire "Grad".

 

If a translator translated sense of text wrong, here original on Russian:Не согласен, глубоко эшелонированная система ПВО в комплексе с авиацией, практически непреодолима, основные элементы эшелонированной ПВО работают в пассивном режиме с ЦУ от разных обзорных станций, плюс мобильность и обязательная смена позиций после работы по целям, в эшелонированной ПВО каждые дивизионы работают по своим целям кто по самолетам, кто по высокоточному оружию и противорадиолокационным ракетам, плюс наземные и воздушные средства радиоэлектронной борьбы по созданию ложных целей для противника. Это в комплексе делает практически невозможным преодоление такой системы ПВО, но любое ПВО можно подавить это аксиома, только сколько средств и жертв на это надо и готовы ли пойти на эти жертвы атакующие? Принципиально 100% подавить ПВО невозможно, особенно те системы которые построены на основе пассивного сопровождения и поиска целей, как автономно как с наведением от других источников информации!!! Над этими вопросами у нас в стране работали давно и основательно и как результат продуманная и сбалансированная система ПВО устойчивая и живучая. В тех странах где не очень успешно использовалась ПВО это не показатель, так как там она была разномастной, устаревшей и не имевшей автоматизированных систем управления всеми комплексами, плюс не очень грамотный персонал и самое главное многократное превосходство противника в средствах нападениях, несоизмеримы ресурсы сторон в вооружении и самое главное в возможности посредством космической и другими средствами разведки владеть оперативной информацией о противнике.

[RedTiger]

Not necessarily. While I agree that SAMs cannot offer any realistic permanent defense against fighters, they can be employed in a way to make their lives hell. If the record of SAMs against modern airpower is worth anything, it teaches us that to tie a SAM to some stationary target is NOT the way to go.

 

A smart SA-10 skipper IMO should always be on the move from hiding place to hiding place, turn on the radar briefly to gut an entire package of strikers, then scoot. Rinse, wash and repeat.

 

How long does the scoot take though? SA-10s aren't exactly made up of self-contained vehicles. There's a lot of kit to pack up and unpack. I'd still classify SAMs as static defenses for static targets. They can move, but not fast enough to keep up with advancing armor, for example.

[nscode]

Static target.. yes. The motherland isn't going anywhere :D

[D-Scythe]

How long does the scoot take though? SA-10s aren't exactly made up of self-contained vehicles. There's a lot of kit to pack up and unpack. I'd still classify SAMs as static defenses for static targets. They can move, but not fast enough to keep up with advancing armor, for example.

 

The Patriot umbrella kept up with U.S. armor during Iraqi Freedom.

[RedTiger]

@AlexHunter

 

What you say about it has some validity, but let me ask you this; if you don't have some planes to help those SAMs with air superiority, what are they going to do when they find an armored formation has broken through to harass the proverbial "rear areas"? There goes you're air superiority.

 

There's a lot more to it than that, to be sure. The same could happen to an air base thats being overrun. Its still good food for thought. :) SAMs are a relatively static defense. Static defenses went out sometime in the 1700s with a brief and disasterous return in the early 20th century. (tell that to the French in WW2 :D ). HINT: You don't have to destroy 100% of a defensive network to make it useless.

 

I'd say SAMs are still dead meat in waiting until they can pack up an entire site in about 5 or 10 minutes and then travel 30 or 40 mph cross country. Aren't SAMs still pretty much road bound?

[GGTharos]

Ahem. In short ...

 

SAMs are just a speed bump :D And only air power can deal with air power :D

[nscode]

An interesting video about S-75 in Vietnam:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4&feature=related

(also check out other parts)

 

 

lots of cool radar screen shots

At first they were operated by Soviet crews.. just like the first MiG-21s ;)

Teaching by the "do as I do" method.. "see, I just shot down a Phantom.. now you do it" :D

[RedTiger]

The Patriot umbrella kept up with U.S. armor during Iraqi Freedom.

 

Did it? That's something. How long does it take a Patriot unit to deploy or pack up? I'm going to go look into that. I know beans about that system, but I would guess that rapid ability to deploy was key.

[RedTiger]

An interesting video about S-75 in Vietnam:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4&feature=related

(also check out other parts)

 

 

lots of cool radar screen shots

At first they were operated by Soviet crews.. just like the first MiG-21s ;)

Teaching by the "do as I do" method.. "see, I just shot down a Phantom.. now you do it" :D

 

I know what video you're talking about. I was utterly amazed to find something with such candid discussion from the other side about the air war in Vietnam.

[GGTharos]

In Europe it was to redeploy every 8 hours, so I figure 1 hours to pack up, 1 to deploy.

 

Incidentally this is also why the timing bug that ended up allowing a SCUD through and into army barracks was not covered when those were deployed to Iraq (that particular SAM had been operating non-stop for some 100 hours by then).

 

Did it? That's something. How long does it take a Patriot unit to deploy or pack up? I'm going to go look into that. I know beans about that system, but I would guess that rapid ability to deploy was key.

[GGTharos]

And yet they were STILL nothing more than speed bumps ;)

 

An interesting video about S-75 in Vietnam:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4&feature=related

(also check out other parts)

 

 

lots of cool radar screen shots

At first they were operated by Soviet crews.. just like the first MiG-21s ;)

Teaching by the "do as I do" method.. "see, I just shot down a Phantom.. now you do it" :D

[nscode]

Yea, well what about women with guns... they did manage to shoot down 10 planes using just 20 bullets

:D

 

Now seriously: it all adds up. If speed is the edge that enemy has, than a "speed bump" is a damn important thing. And in my view, the most important single thing is communications. Neither SAMs, nor fighters alone are enough to stop an incoming air force. Coordinated action is needed. Disrupt coms, and order turns to chaos. Your nice little integrated defense system disintegrates.

[nscode]

Oh, and I consider my self tremendously lucky that we didn't poses a few of these (sa-10) back in 99. Just imagine the political consequences of a 10-15 planes lost the first day speed bump. Backing off? Don't think so... full scale go-all-the-way ground war would be the more likely, and allot bloodier solution :|

 

Another thing we could see there is how the speed bump remaining active throughout the conflict dictated the way air power was used

[GGTharos]

Actually, I disagree. Fighters alone are enough - but their task is much more difficult without SAMs. An incoming air force is likely at a disadvantage compared to the defender after all.

 

I agree that it's all part of a system and that speed bumps are important ... but in the end, if you want to fight air power, you better have some darned effective air power yourself.

 

That, or multi-megawatt laser turrets :D

 

As for your last comment; if you posessed a few SA-10, yeah. It would have been a mess. Although in general the IADS didn't seem to be terribly effective IIRC.

[SoaringEagle74]

An integrated air defense system is very important regardless if you have a good air force or not.

 

Patriots and S-300/400s give you at least 100 mile coverage at medium- low altitude(200+ at high altitude) and combined with an ewr are lethal. Buks and Kubs almost the same.

 

Shorter range mobile air defenses are also very important for many reasons. If the enemy manages to destroy your main ADS these mobile units can make for a reasonably good backup. Since a lot use ir guidance they can sneak a few missiles or shot aaa and probably score some hits on unsuspecting low flying targets.

 

Even if the invading power knows the position/configuration of the IADS through ground or satellite intelligence they will think twice of attacking or at least give the defending forces ample time to muster a counter air attack. The obvious exception would be getting invaded with stealth aircraft...not sure if any ADS is effective but thats a different story all together.

[GGTharos]

Uhm, no. Patriot and S300-400 give you, INDIVIDUALLY, 15-20nm low-altitude coverage against a tactical aircraft.

 

And again ... it don't matter how good your IADS is if you have no air power, and the other guy has good air power. Period.

 

No one is saying SAMs aren't important. But in the end, it's just a speed bump.

 

Note I'm not saying 'how good your IADS is' because air power is part of it ;)

And if you think low-alt units can hit low-flyers easily you've got another thing coming. Speed and low altitude means lower probability of detection, and a small footprint for your SAM. This is why flying low is a 'big thing'.

 

If the invading power knows your position/configuration, you're screwed, 'cause they can attrit it within a few hours since your IADS loses ANY semblance of a surprise factor it may have had. I doesn't matter /one whit/ what sort of SAMs you've got in it.

[AlexHunter]

@AlexHunter

 

What you say about it has some validity, but let me ask you this; if you don't have some planes to help those SAMs with air superiority, what are they going to do when they find an armored formation has broken through to harass the proverbial "rear areas"? There goes you're air superiority.

 

There's a lot more to it than that, to be sure. The same could happen to an air base thats being overrun. Its still good food for thought. :) SAMs are a relatively static defense. Static defenses went out sometime in the 1700s with a brief and disasterous return in the early 20th century. (tell that to the French in WW2 :D ). HINT: You don't have to destroy 100% of a defensive network to make it useless.

 

I'd say SAMs are still dead meat in waiting until they can pack up an entire site in about 5 or 10 minutes and then travel 30 or 40 mph cross country. Aren't SAMs still pretty much road bound?

Certainly!!! And for what the integrated air DEFENCE was yet created with aviapolkami in the system of PVO MIG-31 and SU-27 which work in incorporated through to ACE structure with surface Systems of air DEFENCE!!!! But also the simply surface developed echeloned Modern system of air DEFENCE will cause the Enormous problem at the piloted aviation (who it hunts to get a rocket, unknown from where undertaking unexpectedly) therefore apparently the USA and tries to translate a shock aviation on a bespilotnuyu aviation :) critical losses of the pilots at a possible hypothetical conflict with a country with more developed Air Force and systems of air DEFENCE what at those with whom clashed before.

 

 

original:Конечно!!! А для чего же еще создавалась интегрированная ПВО с авиаполками в системе ПВО МИГ-31 и СУ-27 которые работают в объединенной через АСУ структуру с наземными Системами ПВО. Но и просто наземная развитая эшелонированная Современная система ПВО вызовет Огромную проблему у пилотируемой авиации (кому охота получать неожиданно ракету, неизвестно откуда взявшуюся) поэтому видимо США и старается перевести ударную авиацию на беспилотную авиацию :)опасаясь критических потерь своих пилотов при возможном гипотетическом конфликте с страной с более развитыми ВВС и системами ПВО чем у тех с кем сталкивались раньше. Что не может не настораживать.

[Force_Feedback]

^ Yes, countries with developed air defence structures have an integrated air/ground assets, and it may very well be the reason the US is choosing to develop UCAVs to counter that without loss of life. However, they also assume the next threat will be inferior in terms of air/ground defence and that those will be scattered all over the country without communications between them. Oh well, IMHO the US and Russia should cut the crap concerning their show of power and the US and NATO should assume a DEFENSIVE stance, no need to start a world war 3.

Are there actually countries that the US-minded side sees as a 'threat' that have a decent air defense system along with space based assets?

[AlexHunter]

Uhm, no. Patriot and S300-400 give you, INDIVIDUALLY, 15-20nm low-altitude coverage against a tactical aircraft.

 

And again ... it don't matter how good your IADS is if you have no air power, and the other guy has good air power. Period.

 

No one is saying SAMs aren't important. But in the end, it's just a speed bump.

 

Note I'm not saying 'how good your IADS is' because air power is part of it ;)

And if you think low-alt units can hit low-flyers easily you've got another thing coming. Speed and low altitude means lower probability of detection, and a small footprint for your SAM. This is why flying low is a 'big thing'.

 

If the invading power knows your position/configuration, you're screwed, 'cause they can attrit it within a few hours since your IADS loses ANY semblance of a surprise factor it may have had. I doesn't matter /one whit/ what sort of SAMs you've got in it.

 

High speed and small height is a main problem for Systems of air DEFENCE, but above these questions in the former USSR and Russia worked and work now and appearances of such complexes as Tunguska-m1, TOR-m(1,2), PANCIR-S and am one of this job performances. Here the article about one of possible variants of decision of this problem, increase of area of finding out littleheight and speed aims.

 

Original:Высокая скорость и малая высота – это главная проблема для Систем ПВО, но над этими вопросами в бывшем СССР и России работали и работают сейчас и появления таких комплексов как Тунгуска-М1, ТОР-м(1,2), Панцир-С и есть один из результатов этой работы. Вот статья об одном из возможных вариантов решения данной проблемы, увеличения зоны обнаружения маловысотных и скоростных целей.

 

http://vko.ru/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=320&ItemID=46&mid=2891&wversion=Staging